Political Roundtable - Part V

[noworriesinmd]

So long as the employees don't have a viable alternative, it's okay?

So -- purely hypothetically, obviously -- Walmart could come into a community (perhaps aided by their political lobbying efforts) and drive competitors without their buying power out of business. And lo and behold, once they are gone, WM's employees won't have any viable alternatives. Consumers may get lower prices, but how much has the community gained given the loss of other jobs and wages?

It would seem as if they have financial incentive to be bad corporate citizens.

Or another way of looking at it is that they have a financial incentive to run a retailing business more efficiently than the community's current retailers. You steadfastly ignore the societal good of providing great selection at low prices.

The only way I would characterize Walmart's practice as wrong or evil is if they artificially lowered their prices to drive out business, and then jacked them up once they had monopoly power. But they don't do that. All they do is provide great service at great prices.

I'm actually not ignoring it; I have acknowledged it repeatedly, while also wondering if the societal benefits of cheaper goods is being outweighed by the other costs. I don't know the answer. But I also believe in the relationship between smoke and fire and cannot help but notice that a lot of people with no relation to one another say that they have been badly hurt by WM's business practices. I don't think it's an accident that we hear about WM and not Target or Costco, for instance.

Walmart is not either all good or pure evil.
People should look at data vs biased opinions

Walmart generally
* helps low income people
* raises home prices
* lowered inflation
* brings higher skilled jobs to an area

At the expense of some low income earners and inefficient businesses.

I just included academic papers, gov agencies, or reputable econ think tanks.
For example, I ignored the paper by the current major of NYC

https://www.econ.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/publications/papers/p15202-2012-05-31.pdf
http://www.nber.org/papers/w11782.pdf
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3033&
http://www.be.wvu.edu/phd_economics/pdf/06-05.pdf
http://www3.nd.edu/~jwarlick/documents/Consequences_Walmart.pdf
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/devin.pope/research/pdf/Pope_Pope_walmart_aej_applied.pdf

[Zonkerbl]

We like to get our food from Relay Foods. You select the food you want online the night before and then pick up your groceries from a designated pickup spot on your way home from work.

I don't mind driving to a grocery store to buy groceries -- what I mind is waiting in line for half an hour. Which is what you have to do at the Safeway on Alabama. Just down the street on Pennsylvania you can go to Harris Teeter and wait hardly at all. I know it's more expensive but food doesn't cost all THAT much, compared to my mortgage, I can afford to pay a LITTLE more, and it's fun to get quirky stuff. They're building a new HT on Navy Yard that I'll be able to stop at on my bike ride home from work. I'm excited about that.

Basically find a way to cut out the investment of time required to shop and you're fine. HT deliberately locates near walkable, high income neighborhoods, where people are willing to pay more for food but not have to wait in line as long.

Relay cuts out the shopping investment, and you get to try weird stuff you wouldn't normally. They have these boxes of veggies ("shares") where they just throw stuff in there, and online they post recipes of what to do with it. You don't have to but they are cheap.

[Zonkerbl]

I think the U.S. is evolving into an "entertainment only" economy. We don't make things anymore, we just entertain each other. We make hamburgers, we provide locations to hang out and buy stuff made in other countries, we play professional sports, make music and video games and so on. That's our thing - we're pretty good at it.

If you have talent you will enjoy the next 100 years. If you don't life is going to pretty much suck for you. If you trained all your life for a manufacturing job life is going to pretty much suck for you.

The question is, how much of our national wealth are we willing to spend to make things easier for people pushed aside by progress? And how do we do it?

I think everybody agrees we should do something. At the very least we should give people the opportunity to retrain.

I find the idea of preventing Wal-Mart from entering a market kind of... well... not particularly useful. Because poor people actually benefit from Wal-Mart a LOT. So you save a few workers by hurting all the other poor people nearby. I don't think you come out ahead. That said I really would rather Wal-Mart not open a location in my neighborhood. Because blick.

I'm getting to the point that I'd pay an extra $1,000 a year in taxes for five years to invest in infrastructure and put people back to work. Included in the infrastructure plan would be my pet project, a national fresh water distribution and storage network. We need to ensure that plentiful fresh water is available in all 50 states and at all times. Farmers and municipalities would pay per thousand gallons used and the investment would be recouped over time. Also, the plan would require every able body person that now collects some form of means tested welfare to work 3 days a week plus one day of training per week. They can use day five for job interviews.

Yeah, with global warming fresh water availability is going to be more and more of an issue. Not that there will be less fresh water but with more extreme weather events we're going to start experiencing 20-year droughts every five years.

I imagine part of this problem will be solved by deregulating water prices, so the price goes up in a drought. That will encourage people to economize and create an incentive for businesses to increase supply.

[dckingsfan]

I think the U.S. is evolving into an "entertainment only" economy. We don't make things anymore, we just entertain each other. We make hamburgers, we provide locations to hang out and buy stuff made in other countries, we play professional sports, make music and video games and so on. That's our thing - we're pretty good at it.

If you have talent you will enjoy the next 100 years. If you don't life is going to pretty much suck for you. If you trained all your life for a manufacturing job life is going to pretty much suck for you.

The question is, how much of our national wealth are we willing to spend to make things easier for people pushed aside by progress? And how do we do it?

I think everybody agrees we should do something. At the very least we should give people the opportunity to retrain.

I find the idea of preventing Wal-Mart from entering a market kind of... well... not particularly useful. Because poor people actually benefit from Wal-Mart a LOT. So you save a few workers by hurting all the other poor people nearby. I don't think you come out ahead. That said I really would rather Wal-Mart not open a location in my neighborhood. Because blick.

He Zonker - what we do "still" make in the US is the framework for automation.

-- Computer Systems, AI enabled devices, Robotics infrastructure, etc.
-- Genetic Engineering, Drugs, Etc.

So, if you live in the US, there will be good jobs on the edges of technology. Very big and very small stuff.

Examples: building our cities and Nano technology for 3d printing, Planes and DNA mapping and technology, Farming and data mining.

Where we aren't going to see job growth is in straight manufacturing. That is the "stuff" in the middle.

The fix is near to impossible though - education. Our current education establishment is entrenched and very difficult to change. It starts at the top with the students/parents (what think they need), the school boards, administrators and teachers (what they teach and how), and the meddling by the federal government and the unintended consequences to those policies.

[Zonkerbl]

Well, I think our education problem comes from us being rich and soft. The incentive just isn't there to bust your ass six hours a day in middle school.

We also have a distorted view of the quality of education in other countries because all the people we meet from abroad have overcome enormous odds to make it here, so of course they're all ten times smarter than us.

What we really need to do is to continue to guarantee that this is the land of opportunity so we can keep poaching the smartest people from the rest of the world to move here.

More welcoming immigration policy would help.

[Induveca]

Well, I think our education problem comes from us being rich and soft. The incentive just isn't there to bust your ass six hours a day in middle school.

We also have a distorted view of the quality of education in other countries because all the people we meet from abroad have overcome enormous odds to make it here, so of course they're all ten times smarter than us.

What we really need to do is to continue to guarantee that this is the land of opportunity so we can keep poaching the smartest people from the rest of the world to move here.

More welcoming immigration policy would help.

The majority of international students who attend high ranking US universities attended private schools in their home country, typically accredited in the US and EU.

I attended some of those schools, as have many friends. They are exponentially superior to US public school institutions. A large reason why? The wealthy of the country send their kids there, as do all diplomats and foreigners working for corporations.

The parents have exceedingly high standards and are extremely involved. Typically this is due to only one parent working, and small class sizes. The mixture of cultures and languages is stunning.

There are no "tremendous odds" to overcome for most successful foreign EU and Asian immigrants who have become successful in US corporate jobs/climate. Sure many may not be "rich" by American standards but rest assured 95+% were considered rich in their own country.

I have hired at least 50 non-American born programmers over the past decade in the US. Every single one of them has come from this type of background. I did as well.

The other interesting aspect of these schools are US and EU teachers are rotated out every two years typically, the competition for those jobs is typically very very high.

[Zonkerbl]

Well, I think our education problem comes from us being rich and soft. The incentive just isn't there to bust your ass six hours a day in middle school.

We also have a distorted view of the quality of education in other countries because all the people we meet from abroad have overcome enormous odds to make it here, so of course they're all ten times smarter than us.

What we really need to do is to continue to guarantee that this is the land of opportunity so we can keep poaching the smartest people from the rest of the world to move here.

More welcoming immigration policy would help.

The majority of international students who attend high ranking US universities attended private schools in their home country, typically accredited in the US and EU.

I attended some of those schools, as have many friends. They are exponentially superior to US public school institutions. A large reason why? The wealthy of the country send their kids there, as do all diplomats and foreigners working for corporations.

The parents have exceedingly high standards and are extremely involved. Typically this is due to only one parent working, and small class sizes. The mixture of cultures and languages is stunning.

There are no "tremendous odds" to overcome for most successful foreign EU and Asian immigrants who have become successful in US corporate jobs/climate. Sure many may not be "rich" by American standards but rest assured 95+% were considered rich in their own country.

I have hired at least 50 non-American born programmers over the past decade in the US. Every single one of them has come from this type of background. I did as well.

The other interesting aspect of these schools are US and EU teachers are rotated out every two years typically, the competition for those jobs is typically very very high.

I would call that exceptionally long odds. We're seeing the cream of the crop and comparing that to our average IU student.

Precisely because you only have to be moderately successful here to earn enough income to support your family in style abroad. So all the smart people come here.

[Induveca]

Just stating successful non-US born, overseas educated foreign workers have almost never beaten "long odds". It has typically been their family's plan since birth.

The second and third generation children of uneducated immigrants/poor American families have the real battle. There is typically no plan laid out by these families sadly.

[Zonkerbl]

Just stating successful non-US born, overseas educated foreign workers have almost never beaten "long odds". It has typically been their family's plan since birth.

The second and third generation children of uneducated immigrants/poor American families have the real battle. There is typically no plan laid out by these families sadly.

Well, but my point is ... being the child of one of these families is itself long odds. These are children of exceptional families, either fabulously wealthy or fabulously dedicated to making their children's trip to the US successful.

I consider myself extraordinarily lucky -- to be a white male born in the U.S. to two college educated parents. That is FABULOUSLY lucky. Regardless of whatever else I do from that point on, the very fact of my birth gave me a tremendous advantage.

I think you're confusing "long odds" with "heroic struggle" which is not what I mean.

[Induveca]

They aren't incredibly wealthy. In Bangalore for instance there are 5-6 of these schools. The lowest price is $US 7k a year. I've hired 3 former students, they went on to scholarships at major schools or lived with family in Long Island and attended SUNY and the like.

The diplomat kids attending the schools are broke typically. Low end state department jobs, but the US government picks up the tab. The extremely wealthy stay at home, as they own the local conglomerates/businesses. Lower middle class foreigners end up in the US at major institutions typically, the rich ones go home.

It's just hard work.

[Zonkerbl]

Why do you think $US 7k a year is not preposterously expensive for someone in BANGALORE???? A quick google search of "bangalore income per capita" comes up with about $1,100 per year.

Avg income in U.S. is about $40k per year. So you're saying a school that costs 7*$40k = $280k PER YEAR isn't expensive?

Only the super wealthiest of the super wealthy are going to those schools, Indu.

That's why being a diplomat is such a nice job, because your kids rub shoulders with the super rich of whatever country you are assigned to. It's like sending your kids to Harvard.

[Induveca]

Why do you think $US 7k a year is not preposterously expensive for someone in BANGALORE???? A quick google search of "bangalore income per capita" comes up with about $1,100 per year.

Avg income in U.S. is about $40k per year. So you're saying a school that costs 7*$40k = $280k PER YEAR isn't expensive?

Only the super wealthiest of the super wealthy are going to those schools, Indu.

That's why being a diplomat is such a nice job, because your kids rub shoulders with the super rich of whatever country you are assigned to. It's like sending your kids to Harvard.

That's simply not true. I lived the life, I've hired from those schools specifically because I attended such a school for a few years. Families pool money and bribe officials to get their children into the schools. It's simply not true.

Also, you should go to Bangalore. If you're not used to the 3rd world other than resorts, you'd recognize it is a HUGE boom city for technology and telecom. 50+ US corporations have setup shop there creating tens of thousands of high paying jobs for the area. A 20,000 dollar wage for a middle tier manager is quite commonplace. Mothers are actively working in telecom. Bangalore is the future of India (along with Mumbai). The economy there is booming.

Do they have hundreds of thousands of rural peasants camping out on the outskirts of the city? Of course.......all 3rd world countries do. You should see the outskirts of Shanghai/Beijing/Shenzhen. You have no life experience that I know of in this area, but I went to school with many people in my same situation. You'd be surprised what grandmothers, aunts, brothers do for their kids to get them to a US or EU university.

[Zonkerbl]

What are you blathering about? Those are the wealthy people. Your refusal to admit it doesn't make it any less true.

[Induveca]

What are you blathering about? Those are the wealthy people. Your refusal to admit it doesn't make it any less true.

Zonk, you're difficult to have a discussion with. I'm 3rd world bred, had the exact experience I am describing with dozens of others in a 3rd world private school but suddenly my poor family was "rich" because family members pooled funds to help me attend a bilingual school?

The dozens of Central Americans and Indians I've hired, all from poor families yet who attended private prep schools by their families also pooling funds are also "rich"?

By that logic does a farmer in Oklahoma who makes 15k a year and takes out loans and second mortgages to send his kid to an out of state school suddenly "rich" while his neighbors having their kids avoid education remain "poor"?

Slander me all you like, in this area we just have completely different life experiences.

[Zonkerbl]

If your family's earnings are in the top 1% of your country's income distribution, yes you are wealthy and privileged. The fact that you rubbed elbows with dozens of rich people doesn't make them any less rich.

A farmer earning 15k/ year in the U.S. is earning less than the poverty level. Someone earning $15k per year in, say, Nicaragua is in the top 1%.

You're the one making things difficult on yourself. You define the truth according to your personal experience, which all your life has been through the lens of an extremely wealthy, privileged kid who has some sort of complex about growing up in a third world country - you mention it in every post. The only tools I have to communicate with you are facts, which you have trouble processing through your extremely distorted lens.

[Induveca]

Well, I think our education problem comes from us being rich and soft. The incentive just isn't there to bust your ass six hours a day in middle school.

We also have a distorted view of the quality of education in other countries because all the people we meet from abroad have overcome enormous odds to make it here, so of course they're all ten times smarter than us.

What we really need to do is to continue to guarantee that this is the land of opportunity so we can keep poaching the smartest people from the rest of the world to move here.

This was the basis for my entire response. Try to read everything I stated through that lens and maybe there is some wisdom to gain. Maybe not.

Your declared facts about international schooling, and skilled immigrant workers simply don't jive with my life experience. I've lived and worked in over ten countries, and in 6 major US metropolitan areas. I've hired in around 80 percent of them.

We have completely different life, schooling and work experiences. Impossible not to disagree here.

[dckingsfan]

Actually, the top 20% of achieving youth in the US do in fact bust their butts. I can tell you that from life experience and coaching those youth. They put in the 12 hour days x 7 days per week. The next 30% want to go to college and work reasonably hard - not bust your butt hard but reasonably so...

I think we have a problem reaching those other 50% in the US - they don't have the urgency they need to have, they don't get the schooling they need and we aren't directing them to where the jobs will be in the US marketplace which is going to lead to more of the same - more people out of the workplace and not looking.

I have also hired lots of folks in the US - and I find the percentages hold (roughly). The entrepreneurs, small business owners and some others in the US (and US government) put in lots of hours and get the job done.

Bringing in those from overseas with the same talents can only help our situation - violent agreement with Zonk's overall point on this one.

Caveat (I am sure I am off in my percentages - but you get the drift). This has nothing to do with how hungry folks are from other companies - I work with folks from many different companies - if you work with the owners they are hungry - the employees, not so much.

[W. Unseld]

A. I'm loving the discussion about the nature of the future. For one thing it prevents all but the most rabid of partisans from viewing it in purely political partisan means and I enjoy envisioning all of the possibilities even though almost no one is ever completely right.
B. I find the international discussion interesting as well and I don't hold it against anyone who uses their personal experience in the discussion. While it's certainly true that one person's experience does not come close to defining all that is out there internationally, but much can be learned from someone who has experienced what they are posting about.
C. Education--Do we all need to learn to code? My daughters are now learning math the "new way." My older daughter can do it the old way or the new way, my younger daughter can pretty much only do it the new way and can't solve even the simplest problem w/o graphing it out the new way.

[nate33]

When contemplating the future, one has to consider the inevitable increases between the "haves" and "have nots" in an information society. Robotics will continue to "steal jobs" from the unskilled worker. In a decade, there will be no more truck drivers, taxi drivers, forklift drivers, etc. We will also eliminate half the jobs in fast food restaurants with ordering kiosks and automated cookers. That's just a few examples. I'm sure there are others.

The natural response is that we need to educate everyone to become knowledge workers, but that's simply unrealistic. The problem here is that IQ matters, and IQ is about 70% inherited. There is very little that education can do to boost IQ, even at a young age. And if your IQ is south of a 100 or so, you won't be a knowledge worker. The average American IQ is 98, so about 50% of the population is going to be excluded from high paying work. Indeed, as technology improves, it will continue to be leveraged by the intellectual class - those a standard deviation or more above the average (figure an IQ of 115 or so, SAT scores around 1100). We will ultimately have a tyranny of the super-smart. They will have all the money and all the power.

[Induveca]

When contemplating the future, one has to consider the inevitable increases between the "haves" and "have nots" in an information society. Robotics will continue to "steal jobs" from the unskilled worker. In a decade, there will be no more truck drivers, taxi drivers, forklift drivers, etc. We will also eliminate half the jobs in fast food restaurants with ordering kiosks and automated cookers. That's just a few examples. I'm sure there are others.

The natural response is that we need to educate everyone to become knowledge workers, but that's simply unrealistic. The problem here is that IQ matters, and IQ is about 70% inherited. There is very little that education can do to boost IQ, even at a young age. And if your IQ is south of a 100 or so, you won't be a knowledge worker. The average American IQ is 98, so about 50% of the population is going to be excluded from high paying work. Indeed, as technology improves, it will continue to be leveraged by the intellectual class - those a standard deviation or more above the average (figure an IQ of 115 or so, SAT scores around 1100). We will ultimately have a tyranny of the super-smart. They will have all the money and all the power.

Agreed 100 percent. I don't see a way around it......that's why most of my investments and products are in automation. There is so much information to parse, so many variables created by information flow you can't "staff up" to handle it. One product I sell does the work of 5000 data focused employees in a 24 hour period, completely automated....and infinitely more accurate.

Even *employees* at corporations who preview some of my software delay introductions to management. After they see the application, they realize it could automate them out of a job. Needless to say I go directly to the top shareholders in companies now. The middle manager has no vested interest in improving efficiencies in most companies. Closest you get to an owner in a public company is at the C level.

M&A does C level bidding.....that's the only route. A common employee with a tiny amount of "vesting shares" (this includes non senior VPs) aren't motivated by anything but their paycheck typically. Show them a way to save 30 million dollars for their company, unless they own a significant amount of shares they'll do nothing. Don't particularly blame them. After all it is their department which would inevitably be decimated by my automation.