.
Roughly half of world comprises four by 1 billion: girls, young women. mothers, grandmoms- HYPOTHESIS 2020s economistamerica.com needs now to celebrate freedom of young metoo lives matter. Try to stay out of the way of Men's supreme triad Donald , Vladamir, Yong. Maths at Codesmeta.com.Dad, The Economist's Norman Macrae would have been 100 in 2023 (see below Glasgow celebration MES). Da'ds first trip to USA: 1951 year secondemnt by The Economist. He met Von Neumann: they agreed greatest sccopp journalists would ever mediate - what GOOD will peoples do with 100 times more tech every decade : 1930s to 2020s. GOD measnt a lot to both men- Von Neumann had less than 6 years left to deliver good tech legacy from the Goats of maths (including Einstein, Turing); these immigramnts had aminly been forced to work on the bad of nucleasr weapons; my dad had spent his last dayas as a teen in bomber command naviagting airplanes our of Burma; as well as survival his good fortune mapsd of the old woirld's tri-contiment in his head; notably the indo pacific whose coastline three quarters of humans depended on for world trade but which particularly britain had enginee4rd to enrich the west and trap asians in poverty- still with 100 times more good tech to go round - could everyone win-win; for example webbing life critical knowhow locally multiplies value in use unlike consuming up things. HOW DID DAD FOLLOW UP Neuman's Gift. He chered on twin AI Labs facing pacific out of stanford (eg see 10th birthday celebration of place branded silicon valley) and facing atlantic out of MIT. His bio of V neuman has been published in American and japanese. He wrote over 2000 anonymous leaders for The Economist and aged 39 was permitted one signed survey a year. You can see ost of tehse at tecahforsdgs.com- what did he write about? In the 1960s countries whose peoples had worried him most -starting with the Jpanese he had bomber consider Jpana 1962 (Russia 1963, latin Am 1964 , Algeria & S SAfrica; he concluded 1960s interviwing how dismally different Nixon's economit admin had been from jfk - the least national leader to celebartae with youyth 100 times more (moon race, mapping worldwide interdependence).Ironically Neumann's computational gift was sperading a macroeconomic numbers man whose systems compounded opposite of sustainability. Rather than argue with american academai- dad rebranded his purpose as future historian and entrepreneurial revolutionary. Still the main question search through 70s and up to 83 wgat good 100 times more. Then to offere a diferent end game to orewell's big brother we co-austhored from 18=984 2025 reports- -webs we expected to be designed from 1990; opportumities and threats of milennials first quarter centiry - the first sustainability generation or the first extintion generation. Join in the final tipping points now- support UN2.0 ,educatirs on web3 and metaverse, indsutrial revolution 4, society 5.0 depending which culture you come from and whether you traingularise valuation of 8 billion beings by corpoiarte ESG , civil society emwpoermemnt or what gov2.0 does gov

Tuesday, December 4, 2018

For the last several years, some of the world's leading thinkers have fretted over robots and artificial intelligence, with one particular worry — whether jobs across the U.S. and the rest of the advanced economies are going to be wiped out.
The big picture: As of now, no one truly knows what will happen, but everyone agrees on one point — that something is substantially broken when it comes to work. Most Americans have not received a real wage increase in decades, one-third of working-age people are not part of the labor force at all, and the education system seems divorced from the future economy.
So fraught has the subject become that radical solutions are now getting mainstream attention.
Oren Cass, Mitt Romney's former domestic policy adviser and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, argues that the problem is so profound that it will only be solved by essentially throwing out the long-standing economic policies of both parties.
His new book, "The Once and Future Worker," rejects the usual explanations — that the problem is robots and automation. Rather, he says, public policy has pushed many workers away from physical labor, to which most are suited, and meanwhile taken whacks at the industrial economy, including extraction industries, that might employ these workers.
Cass told me that the entire economic system should be reordered away from a worship of greater GDP and toward wage growth, higher participation of workers in the labor force and a higher savings rate. The focus of policy should not be on supporting college for everyone, but on skills education. "What we want for society is more than just a larger economic pie," he says.
  • Evidence that the system has failed, he argues, is that, although GDP has tripled since 1975 and spending on lower-income families has quadrupled, poverty has risen and wages have been flat.
  • As a remedy, Cass, like Trump, takes a gigantic step away from decades of orthodoxy, urging an abandonment of both Great Society anti-poverty programs and supply-side tax cuts, arguing that both have resulted in the swath of Americans left behind.
  • Public policy ought to attend primarily not to the health of companies nor the support of poor people, but specifically to workers — building a system in which people of all abilities can obtain a productive job. He calls this "productive pluralism."
The bottom line: The problems and the solutions that Cass proposes are neither Republican nor Democratic. The strength of the book is in striking a much-needed challenge to business as usual. But Cass is conspicuously attempting to give an intellectual foundation to Trump's off-the-cuff policymaking and to influence White House policy and 2020 candidates. In that sense, his book is a political screed. But he is asking the right questions and proposing what is probably needed — an upside-down change to economic policy.

No comments:

Post a Comment