Right, and the whole issue here, missed by the discussion above, is that these "revolutions" were nothing more than increases in productivity. Meaning real output per human hour worked. To start with, I'm not even sure how recent technology supports that at all- a better mobile device would appear to merely expand your hours rather than help you work faster or better than at a desktop. And that's to say nothing of the fact that most of the world has less than 12% unit labor costs. Meaning you could replace every employed human with a free-to-operate robot or computer, and you've just shaved a whole 12% off the cost of a widget.
Point being, the article is spot on. Barring free energy or free raw materials, we will not see the same productivity gains in the future as the identified revolutions.
Actual productivity gains trail the revolution by a great deal, technological revolutions tend to lead in making labor more fungible first: this allows concentration of labor and capital. There is a period of emmiseration as capital concentration takes hold, and then there are a series of reactions against it. This pattern is true of both the Agricultural and Industrial revolutions. The tech revolution, which many – my self included – see as separate from the purely industrial waves, allowed globalization, which made labor far more fungible on the global level, Old labor pools fell in their ability to charge a local rent. Now having reached a peak of that, the reaction is setting in. Not that it will be pretty, but this is normal for human development. For comparison, the ag revolution took about 11,000 years to return to the lifespan and standard of health of the middle mesolithic.
I use Google Docs for collaboration, and LibreOffice for my own work. Clients sometimes have MS specific Visio needs, and so I pull out that and integrate with Word.
1) What he labels as "the first industrial revolution" wasn't the first, and it only occurred for much its length in the UK, he drags down earlier eras by not adjusting for geography in the same way he does for eras he focuses on. The first European technological revolution begins in the 1500's, a period of time where wages double in real terms in urban centers and then double again. It would take another 130 years to double a third time.
2) The second industrial revolution does not produce increased GDP in the form of steam engines until the 1840's by which time the telegraph is a major part of the information infrastructure to run railroads, so his IR#1, first, is really IR#2 and for most of the world is 1830-1860.
3) Much of the period of so-called IR#2 is during the long depression. As with previous waves of industrialization or technological revolution, city centers grow rapidly, as it is much cheaper per person to extend infrastructure, and there are higher profits. The electrical economy does not penetrate much of even developed countries, as measured by penetration of electrical devices and their costs, until 1930-1950.
4) In developed countries the rebound from WWII was the period of fastest GDP growth.
In productivity terms, the information revolution was not visible until the mid-1990s, and there are still large productivity wins.
Krugman is late to the party, and falls into the "lump of work" fallacy. The real problem here is that if there is a roughly constant standard of living as a target, the amount of work to be done will drop, and it will be less well paying. The only way to produce more work is to increase the demands on society. This will be opposed by those for whom the present standard is enough, and who enjoy its higher levels of benefit, but this is largely a political problem, for which political will is required. Economics can help ease transition forward, but it cannot generate political will from nothing.
Fluidity is important. The OP made progress on their career by breaking technical ground, now the challenge is to become a valuable member of the team, communicating the key principles of the design work to date. "No question of technical skills" is code for "we don't want you managing."
Your job is to promote your career, find a niche to do that in the new order. The exec is now working on getting his cred, and that means having more people to manage.
Then there is just the classic lying about what credibility is. Slashdotters are going to realize at some point that being a disease reservoir for thermocidal mania is going to undermine their credibility.
Death Bet. Already been used by a previous thermocidal troll, please rotate among lies so that people think there is actual substance to denialism, as opposed to a rewarmed version of creationism.
It is interesting how the three tier attack is still possible on forums: first over run with screams, smash with spammers, and then have the suit come in and concern troll, saying that nothing needs to be done. Thermocidal mania lives.
Or it could be that you are a full of shit denialist. Sorry the time for engagement is over. You have a first amendment right to be a lying sack of shit. I have a first amendment right to tell the truth, and call you a lying sack of shit. And I don't care how many asshole moderates push my karma down.
hsthompson69 is clearly one of the full of crap denialist trolls, hiding behind internet anonymity to get his rocks off. In another age he would have put on a sheet and burned crosses.
True anti-evolution and anti-AGW apologists have uses: they show where current theory, data, or explanation, is not air tight.
Mobs of denialist trolls, on the other hand, have only the utility of showing that some percentage of the human race is irreducible insane. A fact we already knew.
The upshot is that the present got to spend its effort and resources on its own comfort, and externalized the cost forward, this is called "the future discount."
However, much of the disruption comes from economic and political arrangements, there are was to wipe the slate clean, some pretty, some less so, at the point in time when it is clear that past claims on future income, or control of resources, cannot be honored. In the mean time however, the wrong things will be done because the vested interest - no just of the elites, but of large swathes of the public, is in the current system. This has happened before, it is called "a dark age."
"People are entitled to their own opinions, they aren't entitled to their own facts."
The two facts here that the denialists are hiding from are 1. AGW is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence, 2. They ran and a running a large well funded smear operation to lie about AGW, and continue to do so, for their own self-interest.
The tolerance for thermocidal mania is reaching zero, because AGW is an existential threat. Within a finite, and increasingly short period of time, denialism will be as acceptable as creationism and overt bigotry: some people will still feel it, but people will voice it only to be transgressive.
The climate data isn't mere the preponderance of the evidence, it is overwhelming. A team that loses 5-4 can say the need a couple of breaks, a team that loses 11,000 to 24 – got hosed.
You are confusing damages with punishment. And your assertion that because we have a prison industrial complex now, that we should extend it, does not stand up to scrutiny. Fundamentally your position that society exists to enrich the rich and impoverish the poor, at threat of gun point, shows that the use to which the law is being put is no longer beneficial to society as a whole.
IP is a concept, like prohibition, which has run its course as public policy. Both accomplished the same result: to turn ordinary people into criminals, and to make criminals into enterprises.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, and the whole issue here, missed by the discussion above, is that these "revolutions" were nothing more than increases in productivity. Meaning real output per human hour worked. To start with, I'm not even sure how recent technology supports that at all- a better mobile device would appear to merely expand your hours rather than help you work faster or better than at a desktop. And that's to say nothing of the fact that most of the world has less than 12% unit labor costs. Meaning you could replace every employed human with a free-to-operate robot or computer, and you've just shaved a whole 12% off the cost of a widget.
Point being, the article is spot on. Barring free energy or free raw materials, we will not see the same productivity gains in the future as the identified revolutions.
Actual productivity gains trail the revolution by a great deal, technological revolutions tend to lead in making labor more fungible first: this allows concentration of labor and capital. There is a period of emmiseration as capital concentration takes hold, and then there are a series of reactions against it. This pattern is true of both the Agricultural and Industrial revolutions. The tech revolution, which many – my self included – see as separate from the purely industrial waves, allowed globalization, which made labor far more fungible on the global level, Old labor pools fell in their ability to charge a local rent. Now having reached a peak of that, the reaction is setting in. Not that it will be pretty, but this is normal for human development. For comparison, the ag revolution took about 11,000 years to return to the lifespan and standard of health of the middle mesolithic.
I use Google Docs for collaboration, and LibreOffice for my own work. Clients sometimes have MS specific Visio needs, and so I pull out that and integrate with Word.
1) What he labels as "the first industrial revolution" wasn't the first, and it only occurred for much its length in the UK, he drags down earlier eras by not adjusting for geography in the same way he does for eras he focuses on. The first European technological revolution begins in the 1500's, a period of time where wages double in real terms in urban centers and then double again. It would take another 130 years to double a third time.
2) The second industrial revolution does not produce increased GDP in the form of steam engines until the 1840's by which time the telegraph is a major part of the information infrastructure to run railroads, so his IR#1, first, is really IR#2 and for most of the world is 1830-1860.
3) Much of the period of so-called IR#2 is during the long depression. As with previous waves of industrialization or technological revolution, city centers grow rapidly, as it is much cheaper per person to extend infrastructure, and there are higher profits. The electrical economy does not penetrate much of even developed countries, as measured by penetration of electrical devices and their costs, until 1930-1950.
4) In developed countries the rebound from WWII was the period of fastest GDP growth.
In productivity terms, the information revolution was not visible until the mid-1990s, and there are still large productivity wins.
Krugman is late to the party, and falls into the "lump of work" fallacy. The real problem here is that if there is a roughly constant standard of living as a target, the amount of work to be done will drop, and it will be less well paying. The only way to produce more work is to increase the demands on society. This will be opposed by those for whom the present standard is enough, and who enjoy its higher levels of benefit, but this is largely a political problem, for which political will is required. Economics can help ease transition forward, but it cannot generate political will from nothing.
Fluidity is important. The OP made progress on their career by breaking technical ground, now the challenge is to become a valuable member of the team, communicating the key principles of the design work to date. "No question of technical skills" is code for "we don't want you managing."
Your job is to promote your career, find a niche to do that in the new order. The exec is now working on getting his cred, and that means having more people to manage.
Then there is just the classic lying about what credibility is. Slashdotters are going to realize at some point that being a disease reservoir for thermocidal mania is going to undermine their credibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulation That's right, when it doubt, just use a word you don't know, and hope no one knows how to google.
Death Bet. Already been used by a previous thermocidal troll, please rotate among lies so that people think there is actual substance to denialism, as opposed to a rewarmed version of creationism.
Cherry Picking. Next thermocidal argument? We've already had the death bet, have to keep it fresh genocidal trolls.
It is interesting how the three tier attack is still possible on forums: first over run with screams, smash with spammers, and then have the suit come in and concern troll, saying that nothing needs to be done. Thermocidal mania lives.
Or it could be that you are a full of shit denialist. Sorry the time for engagement is over. You have a first amendment right to be a lying sack of shit. I have a first amendment right to tell the truth, and call you a lying sack of shit. And I don't care how many asshole moderates push my karma down.
hsthompson69 is clearly one of the full of crap denialist trolls, hiding behind internet anonymity to get his rocks off. In another age he would have put on a sheet and burned crosses.
Mobs of denialist trolls, on the other hand, have only the utility of showing that some percentage of the human race is irreducible insane. A fact we already knew.
However, much of the disruption comes from economic and political arrangements, there are was to wipe the slate clean, some pretty, some less so, at the point in time when it is clear that past claims on future income, or control of resources, cannot be honored. In the mean time however, the wrong things will be done because the vested interest - no just of the elites, but of large swathes of the public, is in the current system. This has happened before, it is called "a dark age."
The real issue you have is that you are full of crap.
Yeah, compared to oil, where there is no money at all.
Yes, despite enormous amounts of denialist propaganda, the public is unconvinced that spewing more carbon into the air is harmless or advantageous.
The two facts here that the denialists are hiding from are 1. AGW is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence, 2. They ran and a running a large well funded smear operation to lie about AGW, and continue to do so, for their own self-interest.
The tolerance for thermocidal mania is reaching zero, because AGW is an existential threat. Within a finite, and increasingly short period of time, denialism will be as acceptable as creationism and overt bigotry: some people will still feel it, but people will voice it only to be transgressive.
I always love it when a poster violates his sig.
Motivated reasoning is the threshold for confusing anecdotes and data for a particular individual.
The Carbon Cliff, not the Fiscal Cliff, should be the focus of discussion.
The climate data isn't mere the preponderance of the evidence, it is overwhelming. A team that loses 5-4 can say the need a couple of breaks, a team that loses 11,000 to 24 – got hosed.
IP is a concept, like prohibition, which has run its course as public policy. Both accomplished the same result: to turn ordinary people into criminals, and to make criminals into enterprises.
Just because we pay for the common defense, does not mean that the military was created to enrich defense contractors.
100x damages is obscene.