The Internet Destroyed The Middle Class

mope54 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've lost track of what we are even arguing about and I don't want to send this thread to the soapbox ... I am not opposed to government spending but I would like it to be smarter and more forward looking ... I am not opposed to assistance programs but I would like them to be targeted at fixing the problems not put a bandage on them (or worse creating a whole dependent class) ... I think business needs to be fiscally responsible (as does government) ... I think workers need to realize that not every manufacturing job rises to the level of national security (requiring it to be saved)

I would not do well working in my own business ... I am an technical type and I work best within the corporate structures (especially those of a global multinational) ... one of my former co workers quit the corporate world because he couldn't stomach that world and he went and opened a sandwich shop and is happy as a clam ... there is no one size fits all solution and everyone (industry, government, society, and workers) has a role in the ultimate solution :cool:
 
rudy said:
What about the town somewhere else where a factory opens up and growth is booming?
Click to expand...

I don't think you have ever moved in your life. Moving is expensive and nearly 2 in 5 American's live paycheck to paycheck.

Not to mention you just assume that getting a job at a new "factory" is so easy. Can you list the reasons why a company would want to hire someone that is laid off in another state to do a factory job......I am all ears.
 
roaf85 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was speaking at the state level, not federal ... I don't think job creation is a function of the federal government except in defense ... it is the states responsibility to manage their own affairs ... but I do believe in absolutely free and unrestricted trade (since that is best for the consumer)

I have lost track on whether we are in agreement or disagreement at this point ... from my standpoint I believe in a motto they had when I worked for Intel ... they said, "the employee owns his employability" ... it is the worker's job to make sure they have a skill that is needed ... not the employer's job to provide jobs matching the skills the workers have ... the government can sometimes assist in the retraining or reskilling but the government should not restrict a businesses ability to do business ;)
 
Because you are always trying to manipulate reality to support your case. I like how you did not mention that the great depression coincided with a large drought and massive poor farming techniques created a food shortage. You also never mentioned that many economist believed we were coming out of the great depression anyway. regardless of war and social programs. You also completely and utterly failed to mention that the great depression was not caused by the internet or efficiency gains it was caused by over spending and borrowing setting us on an unsustainable growth trajectory that went way over board and needed a correction. What does that have to do with a plant closing because someone discovered it was cheaper to build a new one somewhere else?

Our prosperity after the world wars was efficiency, a scientific boom, did the government contribute, sure, but a decimated Europe was unable to compete and Asia as well they were crushed in debt much of it to us. The USA experienced almost no infrastructure loss this made us more efficient than most of the other main economies. In addition we reaped the benefit of stealing almost all the scientific talent from Europe.

Those other countries, especially in Asia, saw how we progressed and are now using it as a weapon against us. I have no problem with government investment, that's not the point, the point is I don't want people sitting around trying to hold back progress and efficiency just to try to save jobs, sooner or later it always burns you.
 
roaf85 said:
I don't think you have ever moved in your life. Moving is expensive and nearly 2 in 5 American's live paycheck to paycheck.

Not to mention you just assume that getting a job at a new "factory" is so easy. Can you list the reasons why a company would want to hire someone that is laid off in another state to do a factory job......I am all ears.
Click to expand...

That's the fault of those American, I have moved plenty of times in my life you move when a job pays you well enough to do that. Honestly you think the world can operate if no one has any flexibility? People sure as hell move half way across the world to come to the united states for jobs Americans are apparently in no hurry to fill.
 
kbrickley said:
I've lost track of what we are even arguing about and I don't want to send this thread to the soapbox ...
Click to expand...
I certainly don't intend to be putting words in your mouth.

My point, and what I thought the thread was about, was that the current problems of deindustrialization in the US are not simply about the normal ebb and flow of economic segments becoming outmoded and replaced.

What we are experiencing, and have been for a few decades now, is a structural change in our economy. In large part due to the increased mobility of capital to expand into multi-national conglomerates that exist in a space where it's less expensive to import raw goods and export commodities than it is to manufacture them locally.

We are experiencing a dramatic shift, that has not previously been experienced in post-WW2 economies, from a production based society to a service based one. And with that shift comes the types of low skilled, low wage jobs that will increasingly become the norm in US society.

That's not a good thing for most people, not even those who aren't losing their jobs. The ones able to keep their jobs will have to subsidize the health care and income disparity of the low income earners while the large corporations profit--an indirect public subsidy to big businesses.


the point I was responding to you about is that this isn't going to be solved by those displaced workers going back to school and retooling themselves, nor will it be resolved by them moving anywhere, and especially won't be addressed by opening up a slew of independent businesses.

It's a structural problem and needs to be addressed at the structural level.
(To that point, even things like subsidizing public works and education are only stop-gap measures not resolutions)
 
rudy said:
Because you are always trying to manipulate reality to support your case. I like how you did not mention that the great depression coincided with a large drought and massive poor farming techniques created a food shortage. You also never mentioned that many economist believed we were coming out of the great depression anyway. regardless of war and social programs. You also completely and utterly failed to mention that the great depression was not caused by the internet or efficiency gains it was caused by over spending and borrowing setting us on an unsustainable growth trajectory that went way over board and needed a correction. What does that have to do with a plant closing because someone discovered it was cheaper to build a new one somewhere else?

Our prosperity after the world wars was efficiency, a scientific boom, did the government contribute, sure, but a decimated Europe was unable to compete and Asia as well they were crushed in debt much of it to us. The USA experienced almost no infrastructure loss this made us more efficient than most of the other main economies. In addition we reaped the benefit of stealing almost all the scientific talent from Europe.

Those other countries, especially in Asia, saw how we progressed and are now using it as a weapon against us. I have no problem with government investment, that's not the point, the point is I don't want people sitting around trying to hold back progress and efficiency just to try to save jobs, sooner or later it always burns you.
Click to expand...

The government after world war 2 was forcing people to fuck? pretty sure the baby boom was a huge increase to housing/consumer goods after the war.

There wasn't much science involved.

Borrowing....the fuck....national debt was almost 3 times that during WW2 held by the public than it was during the great depression.

You need to fact check dude.
 
mope54 said:
I certainly don't intend to be putting words in your mouth.

My point, and what I thought the thread was about, was that the current problems of deindustrialization in the US are not simply about the normal ebb and flow of economic segments becoming outmoded and replaced.

What we are experiencing, and have been for a few decades now, is a structural change in our economy. In large part due to the increased mobility of capital to expand into multi-national conglomerates that exist in a space where it's less expensive to import raw goods and export commodities than it is to manufacture them locally.

We are experiencing a dramatic shift, that has not previously been experienced in post-WW2 economies, from a production based society to a service based one. And with that shift comes the types of low skilled, low wage jobs that will increasingly become the norm in US society.

That's not a good thing for most people, not even those who aren't losing their jobs. The ones able to keep their jobs will have to subsidize the health care and income disparity of the low income earners while the large corporations profit--an indirect public subsidy to big businesses.


the point I was responding to you about is that this isn't going to be solved by those displaced workers going back to school and retooling themselves, nor will it be resolved by them moving anywhere, and especially won't be addressed by opening up a slew of independent businesses.

It's a structural problem and needs to be addressed at the structural level.
(To that point, even things like subsidizing public works and education are only stop-gap measures not resolutions)
Click to expand...

Win, case closed.

To add to this we have an issues with the cost of education, the fact that people are absorbing debt so early in life puts of things like housing and kids, which lowers the demand for jobs since quite a few jobs are tied to housing.

And since roughly it takes 4 people today just support the health costs of one senior citizen our medicare system is going to burst 20 years from now.

The problem with people that are 40-50 making the top of their income structure is that when they are laid off that money is never ever ever coming back and no one is going to hire people that old, it raises their cost of benefits to provide health care against all the employees since most businesses charge everyone one monthly prenimum.

Then you factor in the fact that a person retiring today at 65-70 has the potential to live to about 85-90 and you can see why working for the first 30 years to save something like 20k a year and putting off kids etc is about the only way to make it.
 
mope54 said:
the point I was responding to you about is that this isn't going to be solved by those displaced workers going back to school and retooling themselves, nor will it be resolved by them moving anywhere, and especially won't be addressed by opening up a slew of independent businesses.

It's a structural problem and needs to be addressed at the structural level.
(To that point, even things like subsidizing public works and education are only stop-gap measures not resolutions)
Click to expand...

I guess I am just unclear what the structural change you are proposing is ... you can't restrict the businesses ability to outsource (that would create even worse problems) ... if you can't retrain the workers or do government projects I am not sure what is left other than REALLY big government projects (like move a million people to the moon or to an undersea facility ... or a global war or pandemic :eek:) ... what is the solution?
 
kbrickley said:
I guess I am just unclear what the structural change you are proposing is ... you can't restrict the businesses ability to outsource (that would create even worse problems) ... if you can't retrain the workers or do government projects I am not sure what is left other than REALLY big government projects (like move a million people to the moon or to an undersea facility ... or a global war or pandemic :eek:) ... what is the solution?
Click to expand...

You can easily restrict a companies ability to outsource through tax penalties, but it will never happen and not to mention it would be hard to regulate.

Companies aren't outsourcing because they want to, they are doing it because Dell realizes that you aren't going to spend 5000 on a laptop regardless if Dell white gloves it to your house.

Its the same way walmart works. We live in an economy where instead of consumers expecting more money to pay a fair price for goods and services we are comfortable looking for the cheapest alternative.

Which is why I am getting my pubes shaved at Supercuts in 2 hours. :)
 
mope54 said:
So if I understand you correctly, you think a viable solution to plants shutting down is for the employees to disperse throughout the US?

[...]

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.
Click to expand...

Wow, I actually agree with mope...WHAT IS HAPPENING TO MY LIFE. :D
 
In 50 years Detroit has lost nearly half its population and no matter how you slice it eventually it comes down to the painfully obvious fact that people don't have jobs so they are moving out.

http://historydetroit.com/statistics/

We all know various cities in CA and so on have grown quickly in this same time frame and places like silicone valley have been the benefactor. But not everyone has to move half way across the country.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/03/metro_grand_rapids_tops_1_mill.html

Grand rapids has basically passed Detroit.

What is the point in holding on to a home with constantly declining equity? Some people are smarter than to do that. Sell or foreclose and move on. You will need to repair your credit and might even have to rent for a few years but you can do it. But you will only do it if you are forced to and you wont be forced to if a government is willing to try to come in and throw you enough money to live off of so you can just sit there like the 40% of Detroit living on food stamps.

If you are unwilling to move that is a choice you make and you will have to deal with. You may just have to learn to be a little inventive and figure out what you can do, if you cant get a job then do something free lance. Mow lawns, I don't care. I just find it silly that plenty of foreigners are willing to come to our country and do these jobs and people are saying their are no jobs or its all not possible. Seems pretty possible for them to jump through even greater barriers to do it.

Progress eventually results in a higher quality of life for us, that is why Americans sit in some of the largest average house sizes in the world despite have small family sizes. Remember it was the USA who first popularized outsourcing when our new more efficient industries wrecked havoc on European production. And we have gone through wave after wave of outsources to Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and China and each time the doomsday preachers say that Japan is going to overtake us, but where are they now? Losing their way to Korea, soon to be supplanted by China. And the unemployment rate in the USA after over 50 million jobs lost to efficiency gains where does it sit? its really not that bad compared to the more social Europe.
 
rudy said:
In 50 years Detroit has lost nearly half its population and no matter how you slice it eventually it comes down to the painfully obvious fact that people don't have jobs so they are moving out.

http://historydetroit.com/statistics/

We all know various cities in CA and so on have grown quickly in this same time frame and places like silicone valley have been the benefactor. But not everyone has to move half way across the country. .
Click to expand...
Automotive employment was at its pinnacle in the 70's in Detroit. What is misleading in your stats from 1950 to the 70's/80's is that the people moved ot the immediate suburbs. Job loss didn't actually occur until the late 70's or early 80's. May not change your immediate point.
 
mope54 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is historical revisionism that won't go away. What would have happened if the US entered the war and lost? Hyperinflation and default like Japan.

Winning World War II and being left without industrial competition is what allowed the US to pay off (actually inflate away) the debt. Nothing else.

All government intervention did was prolong the mess just like it's doing today. Millions on foodstamps, part-time jobs, zero percent interest rates, financial bubbles re-emerging, etc etc etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top