Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Econ Fallacy

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 9:18:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm having a brain fart. You know how people say that technology is going to take away all the jobs, but that's not true because it will just shift the demands of the job market to other professions? What's the name of that fallacy again? I can describe it in detail, yet can't remember the name of it lol fail...
President of DDO
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 9:21:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 9:18:19 AM, Danielle wrote:
I'm having a brain fart. You know how people say that technology is going to take away all the jobs, but that's not true because it will just shift the demands of the job market to other professions? What's the name of that fallacy again? I can describe it in detail, yet can't remember the name of it lol fail...

Zero-sum fallacy?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 9:49:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 9:18:19 AM, Danielle wrote:
I'm having a brain fart. You know how people say that technology is going to take away all the jobs, but that's not true because it will just shift the demands of the job market to other professions? What's the name of that fallacy again? I can describe it in detail, yet can't remember the name of it lol fail...

Luddite fallacy, but it is only a fallacy until automation can be created new automation and maintains existing automation.

One can argue that auto driving cars will eliminate drivers, truckers, # cars produced, but all the displaced workers will be replaced with high tech workers that have to design and support the technology, but as the higher level roles become automated and productivity increases to a point where it is self sustaining.......well that is when it a silly little fallacy.

Now debate on whether technology can really get that far to replace 99% of human productivity?
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 10:09:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 9:18:19 AM, Danielle wrote:
I'm having a brain fart. You know how people say that technology is going to take away all the jobs, but that's not true because it will just shift the demands of the job market to other professions? What's the name of that fallacy again? I can describe it in detail, yet can't remember the name of it lol fail...

thing is it takes far less people to do maintenance on wind turbines and solar panels than all the jobs involved in coal production and coal plants.

that's not really a good example though I guess sense wind turbines solar panels are replacing coal altogether, just the first I thought about cause I've tried to get into the alternate energy job field before. a better example would be say the handful of people it takes to operate and maintain a few robotic arms that are painting and assembling trucks to a faster workload than it took more men doing before without the robotic arm.

also the shift is from non-skilled job to a more skilled job often too, you don't need a physicist degree to work in a coal plant, but a nuclear plant I'm guessing its preferred.

anyway I'm all for progress with new tech though, even if it can reduce and alter labor needs in the job market. doing things the hard and inefficient way just so you can hire more people does not make sense for any company to follow
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 10:11:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 10:09:11 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 10/18/2012 9:18:19 AM, Danielle wrote:
I'm having a brain fart. You know how people say that technology is going to take away all the jobs, but that's not true because it will just shift the demands of the job market to other professions? What's the name of that fallacy again? I can describe it in detail, yet can't remember the name of it lol fail...

thing is it takes far less people to do maintenance on wind turbines and solar panels than all the jobs involved in coal production and coal plants.

that's not really a good example though I guess sense wind turbines solar panels are* replacing coal altogether, just the first I thought about cause I've tried to get into the alternate energy job field before. a better example would be say the handful of people it takes to operate and maintain a few robotic arms that are painting and assembling trucks to a faster workload than it took more men doing before without the robotic arm.

also the shift is from non-skilled job to a more skilled job often too, you don't need a physicist degree to work in a coal plant, but a nuclear plant I'm guessing its preferred.

anyway I'm all for progress with new tech though, even if it can reduce and alter labor needs in the job market. doing things the hard and inefficient way just so you can hire more people does not make sense for any company to follow

ment to say are not*
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Jake-migkillertwo
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 11:45:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 9:18:19 AM, Danielle wrote:
I'm having a brain fart. You know how people say that technology is going to take away all the jobs, but that's not true because it will just shift the demands of the job market to other professions? What's the name of that fallacy again? I can describe it in detail, yet can't remember the name of it lol fail...

Luddite Fallacy probably.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 11:55:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 9:18:19 AM, Danielle wrote:
I'm having a brain fart. You know how people say that technology is going to take away all the jobs, but that's not true because it will just shift the demands of the job market to other professions? What's the name of that fallacy again? I can describe it in detail, yet can't remember the name of it lol fail...

broken window fallacy is what its usually called.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 12:01:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 10:09:11 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 10/18/2012 9:18:19 AM, Danielle wrote:
I'm having a brain fart. You know how people say that technology is going to take away all the jobs, but that's not true because it will just shift the demands of the job market to other professions? What's the name of that fallacy again? I can describe it in detail, yet can't remember the name of it lol fail...

thing is it takes far less people to do maintenance on wind turbines and solar panels than all the jobs involved in coal production and coal plants.

that's not really a good example though I guess sense wind turbines solar panels are replacing coal altogether, just the first I thought about cause I've tried to get into the alternate energy job field before. a better example would be say the handful of people it takes to operate and maintain a few robotic arms that are painting and assembling trucks to a faster workload than it took more men doing before without the robotic arm.

also the shift is from non-skilled job to a more skilled job often too, you don't need a physicist degree to work in a coal plant, but a nuclear plant I'm guessing its preferred.

anyway I'm all for progress with new tech though, even if it can reduce and alter labor needs in the job market. doing things the hard and inefficient way just so you can hire more people does not make sense for any company to follow

nuclear reactors really aren't more complex than coal reactors. In some ways, I'd say nuclear reactors are less complex. Also, nuclear operators only need about a year or two of training.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 12:08:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If society can get to that point, we won't need an economy.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 12:25:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 12:08:01 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
If society can get to that point, we won't need an economy.

An economy isn't something that can disappear. It just is. Its like saying "we wont need a weather" or "we won't need a climate".
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 12:59:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 11:55:10 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 9:18:19 AM, Danielle wrote:
I'm having a brain fart. You know how people say that technology is going to take away all the jobs, but that's not true because it will just shift the demands of the job market to other professions? What's the name of that fallacy again? I can describe it in detail, yet can't remember the name of it lol fail...

broken window fallacy is what its usually called.

Nah, that's not it. It might be the Luddite fallacy (that sounds familiar) but I'm at work-- I'll check later!
President of DDO
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 1:01:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 12:25:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 12:08:01 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
If society can get to that point, we won't need an economy.

An economy isn't something that can disappear. It just is. Its like saying "we wont need a weather" or "we won't need a climate".

Why not? An economy was established, I.E it had a start and a time before the start.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 1:59:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 1:01:39 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/18/2012 12:25:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 12:08:01 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
If society can get to that point, we won't need an economy.

An economy isn't something that can disappear. It just is. Its like saying "we wont need a weather" or "we won't need a climate".

Why not? An economy was established, I.E it had a start and a time before the start.

No there wasn't. Even animals have economies. An economy is just the distribution, production and allocation of scarce resources.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 10:43:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 1:01:39 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/18/2012 12:25:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 12:08:01 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
If society can get to that point, we won't need an economy.

An economy isn't something that can disappear. It just is. Its like saying "we wont need a weather" or "we won't need a climate".

Why not? An economy was established, I.E it had a start and a time before the start.

A lack of economy requires everybody to completely isolationist, not talk to anybody, not trade with anybody, and not share anything with anybody.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 10:46:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 10:43:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/18/2012 1:01:39 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/18/2012 12:25:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 12:08:01 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
If society can get to that point, we won't need an economy.

An economy isn't something that can disappear. It just is. Its like saying "we wont need a weather" or "we won't need a climate".

Why not? An economy was established, I.E it had a start and a time before the start.

A lack of economy requires everybody to completely isolationist, not talk to anybody, not trade with anybody, and not share anything with anybody.

Even a 1 person economy is still an economy. In Robert Murphy's "A guide to the young economist" he uses a single person economy to demonstrate economic principles.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 10:49:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 10:46:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 10:43:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/18/2012 1:01:39 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/18/2012 12:25:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 12:08:01 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
If society can get to that point, we won't need an economy.

An economy isn't something that can disappear. It just is. Its like saying "we wont need a weather" or "we won't need a climate".

Why not? An economy was established, I.E it had a start and a time before the start.

A lack of economy requires everybody to completely isolationist, not talk to anybody, not trade with anybody, and not share anything with anybody.

Even a 1 person economy is still an economy. In Robert Murphy's "A guide to the young economist" he uses a single person economy to demonstrate economic principles.

"Lessons for the Young Economist," you mean. What did you think of the book?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 10:53:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 10:49:31 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 10/18/2012 10:46:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 10:43:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/18/2012 1:01:39 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/18/2012 12:25:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 12:08:01 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
If society can get to that point, we won't need an economy.

An economy isn't something that can disappear. It just is. Its like saying "we wont need a weather" or "we won't need a climate".

Why not? An economy was established, I.E it had a start and a time before the start.

A lack of economy requires everybody to completely isolationist, not talk to anybody, not trade with anybody, and not share anything with anybody.

Even a 1 person economy is still an economy. In Robert Murphy's "A guide to the young economist" he uses a single person economy to demonstrate economic principles.

"Lessons for the Young Economist," you mean. What did you think of the book?

Eh, it was alright. It was very light reading and I've come to dislike the Austrian school of thought.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 11:03:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 10:53:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 10:49:31 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 10/18/2012 10:46:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 10:43:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/18/2012 1:01:39 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/18/2012 12:25:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 12:08:01 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
If society can get to that point, we won't need an economy.

An economy isn't something that can disappear. It just is. Its like saying "we wont need a weather" or "we won't need a climate".

Why not? An economy was established, I.E it had a start and a time before the start.

A lack of economy requires everybody to completely isolationist, not talk to anybody, not trade with anybody, and not share anything with anybody.

Even a 1 person economy is still an economy. In Robert Murphy's "A guide to the young economist" he uses a single person economy to demonstrate economic principles.

"Lessons for the Young Economist," you mean. What did you think of the book?

Eh, it was alright. It was very light reading and I've come to dislike the Austrian school of thought.

I thought that the first part was brilliant; the history of socialism and critiques of regulation less so.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 11:08:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 11:03:22 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 10/18/2012 10:53:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 10:49:31 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 10/18/2012 10:46:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 10:43:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/18/2012 1:01:39 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/18/2012 12:25:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 12:08:01 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
If society can get to that point, we won't need an economy.

An economy isn't something that can disappear. It just is. Its like saying "we wont need a weather" or "we won't need a climate".

Why not? An economy was established, I.E it had a start and a time before the start.

A lack of economy requires everybody to completely isolationist, not talk to anybody, not trade with anybody, and not share anything with anybody.

Even a 1 person economy is still an economy. In Robert Murphy's "A guide to the young economist" he uses a single person economy to demonstrate economic principles.

"Lessons for the Young Economist," you mean. What did you think of the book?

Eh, it was alright. It was very light reading and I've come to dislike the Austrian school of thought.

I thought that the first part was brilliant; the history of socialism and critiques of regulation less so.

Its good as a beginners guide to economics. I forget or either didn't read his critiques on regulations. I thought he handled the argument against socialism pretty well.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 11:36:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 11:08:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 11:03:22 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 10/18/2012 10:53:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 10:49:31 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 10/18/2012 10:46:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 10:43:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/18/2012 1:01:39 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/18/2012 12:25:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 12:08:01 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
If society can get to that point, we won't need an economy.

An economy isn't something that can disappear. It just is. Its like saying "we wont need a weather" or "we won't need a climate".

Why not? An economy was established, I.E it had a start and a time before the start.

A lack of economy requires everybody to completely isolationist, not talk to anybody, not trade with anybody, and not share anything with anybody.

Even a 1 person economy is still an economy. In Robert Murphy's "A guide to the young economist" he uses a single person economy to demonstrate economic principles.

"Lessons for the Young Economist," you mean. What did you think of the book?

Eh, it was alright. It was very light reading and I've come to dislike the Austrian school of thought.

I thought that the first part was brilliant; the history of socialism and critiques of regulation less so.

Its good as a beginners guide to economics. I forget or either didn't read his critiques on regulations. I thought he handled the argument against socialism pretty well.

It was divided into two parts- socialist theory and history. Theory was pretty good but he royally screwed up on the history part. He just pointed out how evil and barbaric the communist countries were instead of explaining where the theory was demonstrated, which is ridiculous because there were some perfect examples (farmland getting ruined because of the inability to calculate, the devastation of East Germany's economy, the massive boom that happened as soon as ALL price controls were removed from Poland and East Germany, etc). Alan Greenspan explained those much more effectively.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 11:48:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 1:59:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 1:01:39 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/18/2012 12:25:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 12:08:01 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
If society can get to that point, we won't need an economy.

An economy isn't something that can disappear. It just is. Its like saying "we wont need a weather" or "we won't need a climate".

Why not? An economy was established, I.E it had a start and a time before the start.

No there wasn't. Even animals have economies. An economy is just the distribution, production and allocation of scarce resources.

Oh, ok. I was using a different definition.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush