The Internet Destroyed The Middle Class

[kbrickley]

Do you think there is a way to employ 90% of the country without maintaining some low skilled manufacturing?

The service industry certainly employs a good percentage but what about the rest?

I know it sounds like a great idea to ship off all the low end work, but I am not so sure there isn't a place here for some low end manufacturing that could remain profitable and provide jobs in large population centers for people who need a job, should have a job, but either don't have the aptitude for more demanding work or simply don't want it.

Maybe not having such an option to "entertain" those that fit this scenario provides more "distractions" then we should want.

For instance, if operating a factory in Detroit to make tires at no profit employs enough people to lower the crime rate by 20% and maybe decrease the dropout rate for high schoolers by 10%. Is this not a form of profit that we should see as beneficial? Would it not translate to the corporate bottom line elsewhere on the ledger?

Just food for thought.

Although I would agree that we haven't done enough to deal with displaced workers, there are two fallacies with your arguments:

1. No one is entitled to a job ... if you are a qualified for a job and there is one available then you should be able to work ... that said, I think the government should work in partnership with industry (rather than the antagonistic relationship they usually have) to find opportunities for employment (government grants for research, industry access to public universities, small business incentives, training credits and support, etc)

2. Private companies are not charities (they exist to make profit). They are also usually not nationalistic (they serve their stockholders and not the countries they operate in). Consumers already pay taxes so we don't need to pay more for our products simply to support domestic industries. Now again, I think the government could operate in partnership with industry to supplement their profits in low profit industries (we just have to tread carefully so we don't violate trade treaties as a trade war doesn't benefit anyone).

Our country has millions of unfilled jobs that we could train displaced workers for (plumbers, welders, electricians, etc) ... there are also lots of jobs that are difficult to outsource in the service sector (food, hotels, government, fire, police, etc) ... we need to do a better job helping to train displaced workers ... we need to encourage small business startups more or help the knowledge based economy develop ... we need a big initiative that helps employ people (city under the sea, moon base, cold war, etc) ... something that would pump lots of money into the economy and require lots of workers (foreign and domestic) to complete

 

[Red Squirrel]

I'd say outsourcing is a bigger problem than the internet. Servers and a website require people to run. but instead of creating jobs, those just get outsourced. The only secure jobs are jobs that you have to be physically there to do. Those plumbers and truckers we all made fun of before? Well they have some of the most secure jobs. Buildings will always have pipes, and those Newegg packages wont deliver themselves.

Stuff like programming and IT is all being outsourced more and more now and while people are sent to the streets the ones who sent them there are getting bonuses for it.

 

[rudy]

You can't open your own shop if there are like 100 hair cut places in an area. I have a supercuts, great clips, hair masters, garbos whatever you call it next to me and all are around the same 10-14 for a hair cut.

Yea there are places I could pay upwards of 25 to 30 for a hair cut, but why? Maybe if you are a teenager or some shit, but if you have ever been to a super cuts or great clips they are busy all the time and that is mainly do to the low prices they charge, but you wont see any of the stylists driving Lambos. They get paid shit.

Plumbers don't make what you think. Sure there is a demand for some plumbing but most plumbing jobs are probably only 1 to 2 hr jobs. And most are unionized so they are pretty much all charging the same rates. Without new construction it is hard for a lot of plumbers to make it just solely of trying to chase 1-2 hour jobs a day.

Most new homes don't have plumbing issues. It isn't related to pooping, most pooping goes down indestructible PVC piping, most copper piping has no issues, toilets are pretty much non issues, depending on shower valves and faucet valves they should go for years and years.

About the only thing you need a plumber for is toilet hardware.

Can almost say the same with electricians.

A carpenter is a far better trade.

You can open your own place and if they are all around 10-14 then you charge 10 and don't have to give part of your money to the joint. One thing a lot of Americans seem to have forgotten is that you can do a lot of jobs right in your house, that means no extra costs. A place like supercuts has to pay a giant organization above it to do everything, that pyramid costs money to run. You as an individual are doing something seriously wrong if you cannot undercut them. And now days more than ever you find an audience on the internet so you don't need a store front on a high traffic road.

The point is simple anyone paying you to do something is making money off of it, so strap on a pair do a little leg work and you can flip all their profit your way.

The problem is most americans long gone from the farm don't know how to manage their own life, they just want to do one simple job and leave all the rest up to someone else. well that's called low risk, and you know what that means, low reward.

 

[Redleader]

I thought it was ATMs that took all our jobs?

High five for the Obama quote.

 

[steal]

Oh, this argument again.

This is like complaining that cars destroyed the horse and buggy industry. No.

As technology changes, jobs change. People need to be able to adapt, and we need to focus on providing the education opportunity for that to be possible, but that isn't the fault of the internet. How many jobs were created managing and running Instagram, Facebook and other social media networks? A lot. The problem is time lag - jobs are there, it just takes people a while to be able to convert their skills, if that's even possible. But that doesn't mean we should just halt innovation.

Yeah, nah. This time it's obviously different. I'm really tired of people simply suggesting that every single disenfranchised worker, regardless of their age, skill, or ability, can somehow re-educate themselves into something useful to capital, usually in the form of a programmer or engineer.

Newsflash: not everyone is equipped to be a programmer or an engineer, but just about everyone is equipped to pull a lever on a machine.

How short-sighted can you be to not realize that these jobs lost to technology that are gone are not coming back, and are not going to be replaced?

During the industrial revolution, our work hours increased, we worked more, we worked for longer, and more of us were working for more of our lives. This time, like I said, is different, because it's the complete opposite of what happened so many times before.

The 40 hour work week is dead and the civilian labor force participation rate is still on a downward slide, with no hopes or no actual reason to go any other way.

Stop calling everyone luddites, stop suggesting all jobs are being replaced with new ones, just fucking stop--these stupid, baseless, short-sighted arguments are tiresome. No one hates technology, no one wants automation to stop, but there are a number of people, myself included, who worry for the future of our workforce when there is not any meaningful work for so many of us to do.

 

[rudy]

Trouble is that when you free up too many people you end up with nothing for them to do and invention isn't in every persons skillset.

They can go collect coconuts for themselves, there is always something to do, are you willing to do it? In a society where welfare runs lots of people just choose not to, but if you take that away they will find something to do, they must. And over a thousand years of civilizations have shown that to be true. We have had tons of efficiency gains and with each one more people have developed more jobs and new skill sets not less.

 

[rudy]

Yeah, nah. This time it's obviously different. I'm really tired of people simply suggesting that every single disenfranchised worker, regardless of their age, skill, or ability, can somehow re-educate themselves into something useful to capital, usually in the form of a programmer or engineer.

Newsflash: not everyone is equipped to be a programmer or an engineer, but just about everyone is equipped to pull a lever on a machine.

How short-sighted can you be to not realize that these jobs lost to technology that are gone are not coming back, and are not going to be replaced?

During the industrial revolution, our work hours increased, we worked more, we worked for longer, and more of us were working for more of our lives. This time, like I said, is different, because it's the complete opposite of what happened so many times before.

The 40 hour work week is dead and the civilian labor force participation rate is still on a downward slide, with no hopes or no actual reason to go any other way.

Stop calling everyone luddites, stop suggesting all jobs are being replaced with new ones, just fucking stop--these stupid, baseless, short-sighted arguments are tiresome. No one hates technology, no one wants automation to stop, but there are a number of people, myself included, who worry for the future of our workforce when there is not any meaningful work for so many of us to do.

You are wrong, because you are not accounting for the system as a whole. Ask the person working 100 hours a week in a foxxcon factory if work has gone up or down. Ask the people who are building entire cities in asia at astronomical rates.

The issue is we just shifted most of those jobs out of the country so we act like it was bad, but for the world as a whole its been real good. And sooner or later that middle class in China is going to long for Harleys.

 

[steal]

You are wrong, because you are not accounting for the system as a whole. Ask the person working 100 hours a week in a foxxcon factory if work has gone up or down. Ask the people who are building entire cities in asia at astronomical rates.

The issue is we just shifted most of those jobs out of the country so we act like it was bad, but for the world as a whole its been real good. And sooner or later that middle class in China is going to long for Harleys.

And when those "100 hour a week" (lol) jobs are automated, what's next? Where do those people find work?

Do they all become engineers and programmers too? Do they all have CS degrees to fall back on?

The numbers speak for themselves. China isn't immune, they're just not as far along the path to technological unemployment as we are.

http://i.imgur.com/edPlMUJ.png

There is so much horseshit in this thread I couldn't clean up the stench with a thousand dump trucks and a mountain sized pile of lye.

 

[rudy]

They find new jobs, don't you get it. there was a time in history when just about every person spent all of their day hunting and gathering. They did nothing else, they had no time. But every time things became more efficient new jobs popped up, entertainment, we improved our quality of life etc.... I mean honestly if machines did everything for us, I think a lot of people would be happy about that. Remember only a fraction of population actually even works. 1000 years of history why is it so hard for you to understand?

No one ever said the posh job you get doing hardly anything for the union would still exists, you might be one of the ones who gets screwed and goes from 70k / year doing hardly anything down to greeting at walmart but someone will progress, someone will move forward. Just might not be you. Even if machines replaced all the jobs then what would they sell to people with no money? The system would self correct and it would become cheaper to employ people, eventually if everything went horribly wrong everyone would just go back to farming. But the fact is people don't want to do that. And they probably wont.

 

[kbrickley]

And when those "100 hour a week" (lol) jobs are automated, what's next? Where do those people find work?

Do they all become engineers and programmers too? Do they all have CS degrees to fall back on?

The numbers speak for themselves. China isn't immune, they're just not as far along the path to technological unemployment as we are.

http://i.imgur.com/edPlMUJ.png

There is so much horseshit in this thread I couldn't clean up the stench with a thousand dump trucks and a mountain sized pile of lye.

There has to be a happy medium though ... how is holding onto non-competitive industries and products (which forces up prices) any different than paying taxes and giving the unemployed welfare (you're just paying for it in a different way)

I would agree that the government needs to do a little to help the displaced workers but you are right that we can't just force everyone into programming (which is already starting to get outsourced anyway) ... however, there are at least 3 million skilled jobs in the USA that can't be filled due to a lack of qualified applicants ... there are also lots of opportunities for small businesses ...

finally there are always new business opportunities presenting themselves ... I saw a presentation this morning on a small startup company from Canada who is growing organic produce in cities ... they retasked existing local structures (like abandoned factories) and used recycled water and other elements to make the enterprise environmentally friendly (the presentation was in an environment web conference I was attending) ... they were looking to expand to the USA with their highly profitable and popular business ... I am sure there are other opportunities where people could make a living wage and at least as much as they would get on unemployment or welfare ... hopefully industry will support these sorts of endeavors in the future by creating their own VC funds (or maybe the government could give them tax deductions for VC investments in new businesses) ... there are still lots of tools in the toolbox we haven't even tried yet

 

[NukeDukem]

Disagree. Anyone who actually cares about picture quality wouldn't be using thier phone as a camera, unless they have no other choice.

The low-end point & shoot market may have shrunk due to smart phones, however this has caused the quality of point & shoots to improve, while also lowering the prices.

My 4 year old point & shoot still takes better pictures, under most conditions, than almost any smart phone. That's mainly due to the much better lenses on point & shoot cameras vs phones.

My newest point & shoot blows away any smart phone camera with its 16x optical zoom, optical image stabalization, full 1080p 60fps video, etc.

Agreed, my Panasonic Lumix ZS20 blows away my iPhone 5 in terms of picture quality... 1080p video is rock solid... its a great little camera.

 

[Kueller]

We're all moving to an intellectual economy. Until someone writes an AI that puts programmers and engineers out of work...

 

[wonderfield]

programming jobs are going overseas. They must adapt and learn something else or be left behind.

The programming jobs no one cares about the quality of are going overseas. When craftsmanship matters, companies are spending considerable time trying to suck American or visa'ed programmers out of companies like Google, Apple, Amazon and Valve and laying out considerable coin for them.

I can say this with absolutely no equivocation whatsoever: the very best software development jobs and the very finest people filling those jobs are in America. If you're at the bottom rung in terms of ability, your job is perhaps likely to be outsourced, but that says nothing about software development as a skill itself.

 

[Catalan]

"I did my job on the assembly line pretty well, and that is about the same logically as putting together a computer program these days, how about I go to school and learn how to program?"

I stopped reading after this bit of cluelessness, as it screams of being out of touch with reality. If I could have replied with "lulz", I would have left it at that.

 

[mope54]

There is so much horseshit in this thread I couldn't clean up the stench with a thousand dump trucks and a mountain sized pile of lye.

This is how I feel about the thread. About the only thing attempting to clarify for people is that

1st world countries refer to capitalist societies
2nd world countries refer to communist societies
3rd world countries refer to the places the two fought one another

now that the cold war is over the terms have shifted a bit to be roughly analogous to the resulting conditions:

1st - wealthiest
2nd - developing
3rd - underdeveloped/impoverished

 

[madmat]

Yes I do, when you factor in all the overhead there is no way you are doing 100 hair cuts in 6 hours. Sorry unless you had 100 people lined up before you even opened your doors and you were ready to go no sorry not realistic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnc-AgC5u3U

Um, you were saying?

 

[roaf85]

You can open your own place and if they are all around 10-14 then you charge 10 and don't have to give part of your money to the joint. One thing a lot of Americans seem to have forgotten is that you can do a lot of jobs right in your house, that means no extra costs. A place like supercuts has to pay a giant organization above it to do everything, that pyramid costs money to run. You as an individual are doing something seriously wrong if you cannot undercut them. And now days more than ever you find an audience on the internet so you don't need a store front on a high traffic road.

The point is simple anyone paying you to do something is making money off of it, so strap on a pair do a little leg work and you can flip all their profit your way.

The problem is most americans long gone from the farm don't know how to manage their own life, they just want to do one simple job and leave all the rest up to someone else. well that's called low risk, and you know what that means, low reward.

This response proves that you have never ran a business out of your home. Its not like you can put a sign outside your house advertising your business and have cars come in and out of your neighborhood all times of the day.

Yes you can run a hair cut business out of your home, but advertising etc will probably be against city codes or HOA codes.

For instance I can't put a sign of a business in my front yard for more than 2 weeks, I also can't advertise in common areas.

I am not saying it can't be done, but not on the scale of supercuts.

Supercuts is so low price wise because they make it up on volume/products/services and pay their employees shit.

If you feel comfortable charging 8 dollars a haircut, but only cutting 5-6 people a day, then be my guest.

 

[roaf85]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnc-AgC5u3U

Um, you were saying?

Notice how there was 3 stylists, did you even read my full post where I said you had overhead from collecting payment, cleaning tools etc?

 

[Monkey God]

Industrialization took away all of the farming jobs that once kept 90% of the people employed. BECOME AMISH!!!

 

[roaf85]

I used to have people think that about checkouts at Target way back when I was a cashier sup. So, one day I spent the entire day, with management permission, on a register. 6 hours on the register total, 136 customers, and I was off by 2 cents on my cash count. (I probably dropped two pennies taking out change for customers.) When cashiers I was training start complaining about being over 60 customers in a shift, I'd whip out that report, almost a year old by the time I left cashiering there, and leave them staring. I told them that all it takes is focus and practice.

In that same store, working the floor in Housewares, I once rebuilt 28 endcaps in one 8 hour Saturday shift.

As I got into computer support, I got a task of building systems during off hours for the admins to use the next day to upgrade people. I got to the point where I could do 64 systems in a night, while still answering calls. (Over 5000 people worked in the building, and this project was upgrading systems for almost 1000 of them.) Installing Windows NT 4 on P3-550 machines that quickly takes practice and expertise.

My haircuts usually don't take longer than 20 minutes, and that is with pretty unexperienced stylists. I've had an experienced stylist doing it in less than five minutes. That's just #4 clippers on the side and evening it up on top, no sideburns. It's pretty basic and easy.

Focus and practice make all the difference. Experienced, practiced people can do things far faster than you think.

No it doesn't what you don't understand is to do the volume of 2 minute hair cuts you need an operation that most likely includes 1 person cutting hair, 1 cleaning tools and the floor, 1 taking payment etc

2 people added to pay roll making somewhere in the realm of 9-15 dollars, lets just say 15 because the employer has to pay payroll taxes at 6 hours times 30 is roughly 180 dollars. So... say a 850 dollar day gets lowered to something like a 680 day, then you have rent health costs for you etc and you really come out to something maybe in the realm of a 400-500 day in profit.

That is good and that is easily more than 50k a year, but that is just the weekends and this is a military base. Which if you take something like real estate or renting in a military town you will realize it is out of touch with a normal small town (ie higher fucking rent subsidized by the government).

That being said I am sure a stylist who is the only one on base cutting 50-100 haircuts a day is going to make around 50k a year, but if you are going to open your own shop in any normal city and compete with the 100 of other haircut places expect to make probably around 20-30k, hence why the median pay is 22k.

 

[kingius]

They find new jobs, don't you get it. there was a time in history when just about every person spent all of their day hunting and gathering. They did nothing else, they had no time

Beware of people who speak of things as fact that they cannot possibly know to be fact. We were not there, this is mere theory about prehistory. It is equally likely that it did not take very long to hunt an animal down, skin it, cook it compared to the number of hours in a day. These people are not just out of touch with reality but they may actually be delusional.

When technology replaces ten jobs with some software that requires only one person to occasionally check in on, those ten people lose their jobs, their livelihoods and possible even their homes. Some of those people may find other work, may retrain, some of them may not. Those advocating this as being 'inevitable' are forgetting the most important thing; there is nothing inevitable about any of it. It is inevitable unless we act to prevent it from happening. Just like every other thing in life that may - or may not - happen. It's inevitable in /retrospect/ only.

 

[CookieFactory]

We're all moving to an intellectual economy. Until someone writes an AI that puts programmers and engineers out of work...

I think that would qualify as a singularity event and thus all existing rules are thrown out the window.

 

[mope54]

Beware of people who speak of things as fact that they cannot possibly know to be fact. We were not there, this is mere theory about prehistory. It is equally likely that it did not take very long to hunt an animal down, skin it, cook it compared to the number of hours in a day. These people are not just out of touch with reality but they may actually be delusional.

The funny thing about that person's opinion is that the *actual* anthropological theory about prehistoric gathering workweeks is that people "worked" an average of 12-20 hours per week and had much more leisure time than we do today.

 

[roaf85]

The funny thing about that person's opinion is that the *actual* anthropological theory about prehistoric gathering workweeks is that people "worked" an average of 12-20 hours per week and had much more leisure time than we do today.

And they didn't have TV, day care costs, etc.

Spot on, not even sure they the topic of prehistory is even comparable.

 

[rudy]

This response proves that you have never ran a business out of your home. Its not like you can put a sign outside your house advertising your business and have cars come in and out of your neighborhood all times of the day.

Yes you can run a hair cut business out of your home, but advertising etc will probably be against city codes or HOA codes.

For instance I can't put a sign of a business in my front yard for more than 2 weeks, I also can't advertise in common areas.

I am not saying it can't be done, but not on the scale of supercuts.

Supercuts is so low price wise because they make it up on volume/products/services and pay their employees shit.

If you feel comfortable charging 8 dollars a haircut, but only cutting 5-6 people a day, then be my guest.

My wife runs a business out of our home, try again. What does the person at super cuts make? Hourly wages, you don't have to cut as many customers hair out of your home because you make more money. Second if all that is really such a big problem in your area then buy a business where you can have a store front and move yourself in and live upstairs or behind the joint. Many areas of this country have some tons of vacant businesses. Point is some people are always making excuses, others, and it seems now days mostly foreigners are coming up with solutions. Life's just to easy here now that's all, everyone has a reason why everything just wont work. Wait till the money runs out and you will finally see some motivation.

 

[rudy]

The funny thing about that person's opinion is that the *actual* anthropological theory about prehistoric gathering workweeks is that people "worked" an average of 12-20 hours per week and had much more leisure time than we do today.

The average person back then also had a much lower chance of survival. There were probably people who worked 40 hours / week, and made sure their family had a surplus of food, then there were probably your losers who worked 12 hours / week. And what was their quality of life like? If you think all that is true, then buy a track of land and try working it 12 hours / week and having enough to sustain a family and see how it works out for you. I have actually gone hunting, prepared animals etc... It takes time and leaves little time for anything else. I mean seriously people none of what you say adds up, if it was so easy back then why isn't everyone doing it? Why would anyone even bother going to the city and getting working in a shitty foxxconn factory?

 

[mope54]

Look, just drop the shady, under the table personal "businesses" as an argument.

When a plant sheds 80,000 jobs arguing that all 80,000 displaced workers should open independent businesses in the community is not the answer--for what should be obvious reasons.

In case it's not, that "solution" doesn't address where the money would come from. Your wives cutting hair on Army bases or in homes are serving people with *jobs* elsewhere. The Army wife makes her living because military personnel need their hair cuts. If she was not in a military town that opportunity simply wouldn't exist. Also, if she was dependent upon a free market without any government spending keeping our military afloat she wouldn't be cutting hundreds of haircuts per day.

I don't know the circumstances of the wife working out of the home, but I do find it interesting that the focus of the discussion has shifted away from men losing their jobs to women being able to work in what sounds like fairly menial labor, low paying tasks to pick up the slack.

 

[roaf85]

My wife runs a business out of our home, try again. What does the person at super cuts make? Hourly wages, you don't have to cut as many customers hair out of your home because you make more money. Second if all that is really such a big problem in your area then buy a business where you can have a store front and move yourself in and live upstairs or behind the joint. Many areas of this country have some tons of vacant businesses. Point is some people are always making excuses, others, and it seems now days mostly foreigners are coming up with solutions. Life's just to easy here now that's all, everyone has a reason why everything just wont work. Wait till the money runs out and you will finally see some motivation.

A hair cut business? I am sure she is making so much cutting hair out of her home. I am not being pessimistic just realistic.

I have a lady who watches kids next door, at 125 a week per kid, under state law she can watch a total of about 5 kids for about 600 a week before taxes, after her insurance costs, the costs etc she is bringing in about 2,000 a month..
That is shit money.

 

[roaf85]

The average person back then also had a much lower chance of survival. There were probably people who worked 40 hours / week, and made sure their family had a surplus of food, then there were probably your losers who worked 12 hours / week. And what was their quality of life like? If you think all that is true, then buy a track of land and try working it 12 hours / week and having enough to sustain a family and see how it works out for you. I have actually gone hunting, prepared animals etc... It takes time and leaves little time for anything else. I mean seriously people none of what you say adds up, if it was so easy back then why isn't everyone doing it? Why would anyone even bother going to the city and getting working in a shitty foxxconn factory?

what.......

 

[mope54]

I can somewhat understand how someone didn't take a basic anthropology class during undergrad, but it's strange to me that this would be the first time he's talked to someone else who did.

 

[kbrickley]

Look, just drop the shady, under the table personal "businesses" as an argument.

When a plant sheds 80,000 jobs arguing that all 80,000 displaced workers should open independent businesses in the community is not the answer--for what should be obvious reasons.

Except there is an inherent assumption that jobs must come to the worker and not vice versa ... if you are going to tie yourself to a specific career or geographic location you are going to have problems unless you open your own business

I am much luckier than most people ... in my 25 year working career (to date) I have had 3 employers ... but all have been in different states and I essentially changed fields for each one ... if you are unemployed in a state with high unemployment or you are trained in a field that has diminished then you will have few opportunities ... if you can move where the jobs are or change professions, then you will have more opportunities

The internet might ultimately help people as it allows remote working in some cases and the ability to self publish apps or books has opened doors for some people (a small percentage but it could grow as the internet continues to mature) ... getting laid off is tough ... I have been laid off twice in my career and my current employer has tried to do it twice (I dodged it at the last minute both times) ... when it happens you have to do some soul searching and decide what you want to do ... sometimes it involves a paradigm shift

 

[mope54]

So if I understand you correctly, you think a viable solution to plants shutting down is for the employees to disperse throughout the US?

When a lumber mill in Oregon shuts down the entire town of 25,000 should move somewhere else?
Or when a Pittsburg steel mill shuts down and wipes out a 40,000 person strong economy that they should all move...where? to do what?

to cut hair? whose?

to repair cars? whose?

to code? for whom?

it doesn't seem like you've thought your position through extensively. there are structural problems with our economy and a huge economic sector has dropped out forever. hundreds of thousands of jobs are not coming back...ever. And it's pointless to argue that all of those people should retool themselves after being in an industry for decades.

That's great that you were able to weather some of the changes. But it's incredibly short-sighted to conclude that if you did it everyone else can do it too. Our economy can't sustain all of our factory workers becoming app developers. It's bizarre that you actually believe that if you actually have 25 years work experience.

 

[kbrickley]

So if I understand you correctly, you think a viable solution to plants shutting down is for the employees to disperse throughout the US?

When a lumber mill in Oregon shuts down the entire town of 25,000 should move somewhere else?
Or when a Pittsburg steel mill shuts down and wipes out a 40,000 person strong economy that they should all move...where? to do what?

to cut hair? whose?

to repair cars? whose?

to code? for whom?

it doesn't seem like you've thought your position through extensively. there are structural problems with our economy and a huge economic sector has dropped out forever. hundreds of thousands of jobs are not coming back...ever. And it's pointless to argue that all of those people should retool themselves after being in an industry for decades.

That's great that you were able to weather some of the changes. But it's incredibly short-sighted to conclude that if you did it everyone else can do it too. Our economy can't sustain all of our factory workers becoming app developers. It's bizarre that you actually believe that if you actually have 25 years work experience.

You went to an extreme example ... if the industries that supported an entire town are shut down then the state government does have to decide what to do with that ... my understanding is that in the post recession Detroit area you actually did see towns unincorporating and the state government bulldozing houses to raise the property values

As an individual, when you lose your job YOU do have to make certain decisions ... one is whether you have a skill that is still viable (if not you need to find something else) ... you also have to decide whether you can change locations (if not you have to adjust your lifestyle and/or expectation to match the new restrictions of your location)

I didn't mean to imply that everyone can become an app developer but you cannot hang onto industry solely for the sake of providing busy work ... the government and industry can and should work "together" to try and identify new opportunities for displaced workers ... those opportunities may not pay as well (or they might pay more) ... they might involve more hours or fewer ... all I am saying is you can't force industry to stay through protectionism and if you allow non-competitive industries to survive you ultimately do more harm than good

 

[HardwareSearcher]

There is nothing wrong with wealth inequality. The word inequality here is being used as a pejorative not as a neutral descriptor. If everyone was wealthy, then no one would be rich.

If the price of people not starving, people not dying on the doorsteps of hospitals or living in sickness-induced misery, people not having to live under bridges or in ghettos, is that no one is rich and no one, including myself, has the chance to become rich, then any decent human being is ready to pay the price. That is assuming it is even true that there can be no rich if every single citizen had the resources to prevent the above, and I contest even that being true.

 

[roaf85]

You went to an extreme example ... if the industries that supported an entire town are shut down then the state government does have to decide what to do with that ... my understanding is that in the post recession Detroit area you actually did see towns unincorporating and the state government bulldozing houses to raise the property values

As an individual, when you lose your job YOU do have to make certain decisions ... one is whether you have a skill that is still viable (if not you need to find something else) ... you also have to decide whether you can change locations (if not you have to adjust your lifestyle and/or expectation to match the new restrictions of your location)

I didn't mean to imply that everyone can become an app developer but you cannot hang onto industry solely for the sake of providing busy work ... the government and industry can and should work "together" to try and identify new opportunities for displaced workers ... those opportunities may not pay as well (or they might pay more) ... they might involve more hours or fewer ... all I am saying is you can't force industry to stay through protectionism and if you allow non-competitive industries to survive you ultimately do more harm than good

So the government should work together to create more jobs at tax payers expense?

Mope is so fucking spot on it.

People can't just move. You are ignoring that almost half of America has tons of equity wrapped into housing, if a town is displaced values just tank.

And then what are they moving to? no one is going to approve them for housing in the next place.

Do you even know the concept of shadow inventory? It is homes that are in foreclosure, but the bank has not kicked out the tenants? Do you know why? Because the tenant squats, if the tenant abandons a home the bank instantly has to foreclose.

If I was in dire straights I wouldn't move until I had to. I would do everything in my power to find a new job in my current place vs moving.

 

[rudy]

A hair cut business? I am sure she is making so much cutting hair out of her home. I am not being pessimistic just realistic.

I have a lady who watches kids next door, at 125 a week per kid, under state law she can watch a total of about 5 kids for about 600 a week before taxes, after her insurance costs, the costs etc she is bringing in about 2,000 a month..
That is shit money.

The hair cut business is not her business... But she went through school and can do it which is why we know of the possibilities and options. Second even if she was in the hair cut business it would mean nothing, You seem to be part of the major problem with America, you think that you are entitled to high pay, you aren't. I never said that all these people could go make killer amounts of money working for themselves. But I can say that they should be able to make more money working for themselves than if they work for a large corporation, and at the very least they will have way more flexibility with their time and how and when they want to work. After costs she is making 24k / year and guess what she can reinvest some of that money in her home which will increase her equity and give her a larger line of credit if she ever needs it, and she can write it off as a business expense. How about the money she saves not commuting to some job every day? So there are various advantages you who doesn't appear to run a business out of your home are overlooking. Second nothing is stopping her from hiring someone else for minimum wage and increasing the kids she can watch over. Finally nothing stops her from also raising her rates and earning more money if her clients are willing to pay for it. Many home based businesses I know of don't even try to eat at the bottom end of the spectrum they go for premium and that matters too, hair cuts for woman easily triple the 10 - 14 suggested here if your clients are happy.


You also seem to completely miss the fact that the only reason americans have wealth and high pay is due to efficiency. Efficiency is what allows you to pay fewer workers more money it is what creates surges of wealth that drive a middle class. You cannot create an imaginary system were you arbitrarily pay people more then they are worth, you cannot survive if you purposely halt progress to try to save jobs. You have to let the system work itself out, better in smaller progressive increments then all at once when a government runs out of money and a system completely crashes.

 

[rudy]

So the government should work together to create more jobs at tax payers expense?

Mope is so fucking spot on it.

People can't just move. You are ignoring that almost half of America has tons of equity wrapped into housing, if a town is displaced values just tank.

And then what are they moving to? no one is going to approve them for housing in the next place.

Do you even know the concept of shadow inventory? It is homes that are in foreclosure, but the bank has not kicked out the tenants? Do you know why? Because the tenant squats, if the tenant abandons a home the bank instantly has to foreclose.

If I was in dire straights I wouldn't move until I had to. I would do everything in my power to find a new job in my current place vs moving.

What about the town somewhere else where a factory opens up and growth is booming?

 

[kbrickley]

So the government should work together to create more jobs at tax payers expense?

Mope is so fucking spot on it.

People can't just move. You are ignoring that almost half of America has tons of equity wrapped into housing, if a town is displaced values just tank.

And then what are they moving to? no one is going to approve them for housing in the next place.

Do you even know the concept of shadow inventory? It is homes that are in foreclosure, but the bank has not kicked out the tenants? Do you know why? Because the tenant squats, if the tenant abandons a home the bank instantly has to foreclose.

If I was in dire straights I wouldn't move until I had to. I would do everything in my power to find a new job in my current place vs moving.

I never said that the government should create the jobs ... I said that government and industry should work together to identify the "opportunities" ... the opportunity might involve some government skin in the game (like a tax incentive) or a change in local zoning or regulations ... but it might just be a new business the company wants to open with no government involvement

The modern American worker is a little spoiled ... during the Great Depression (the last time our economy was in much more dire straits than we are now) workers moved all over the country to get jobs ... they did some very difficult jobs to collect the unemployment or welfare benefits that the modern government hands out with few restrictions or requirements ... it is unfortunate when a business closes (especially a big one) but that is the nature of capitalism ... to try and restrict that in any way is just a recipe for disaster

 

[mope54]

No, people did not move all over the country to get jobs during the great depression.

I don't understand how you and Rudy are so disconnected from history and reality (move to a town where another factory opens up?).

During the Great Depression we had an unemployment rate hovering around 25%. People were literally starving in the streets. Our government ushered in a whole host of social nets to save our population--the things that many people bitch about now: unemployment benefits, food stamps, welfare, and public works.

What brought us out of the Depression wasn't people uprooting and retooling themselves. We sent half of our country off to war and moved the other half into factories that had been gathering dust to make lots of things for the war. When they came back from the war we paid for them to go to school via the GI bill and then subsidized their mortgages.

Everything that brought on our record prosperity in this country during that period was due to government spending and nothing to do with private capital. It certainly had zero, zilch, nada to do with workers reinventing themselves and going into private businesses in their homes or elsewhere.


Do you think that can happen in the current political climate?
That's been the argument for decades from those of us who have been studying and working toward solutions to the US deindustrialization. That's been the primary argument of the Obama administration: that we need a huge reinvestment in public works and government subsidy of alternate forms of tech in order to retool our workforce.

It hasn't happened yet and it's not likely to happen during the next presidency, either.

 

[roaf85]

I never said that the government should create the jobs ... I said that government and industry should work together to identify the "opportunities" ... the opportunity might involve some government skin in the game (like a tax incentive) or a change in local zoning or regulations ... but it might just be a new business the company wants to open with no government involvement

The modern American worker is a little spoiled ... during the Great Depression (the last time our economy was in much more dire straits than we are now) workers moved all over the country to get jobs ... they did some very difficult jobs to collect the unemployment or welfare benefits that the modern government hands out with few restrictions or requirements ... it is unfortunate when a business closes (especially a big one) but that is the nature of capitalism ... to try and restrict that in any way is just a recipe for disaster

What mope said, but tax incentives are still paid for. It not like tax incentives have no cost, sure they can print money, but incentives do come at the expense of the federal budget.