We Need Factories for Making Products and Not for Making Jobs

19th century Anarchist fantasy, with no relationship to the real world. Probably no more than a cover to justify purely self-interested distribution, and access to the necessities of above poverty level living.

Agreed! Government that promotes the common welfare......the minimum requirement for good government is the elimination of entrenched poverty in a world of plenty

 

Multi-syllable words (whether "cool" or not) you don't want to address, because they expose the inadequacy of your Anarchist world view.

Interestingly I can agree with your tag line:

What the two parties fight over is not alternative political visions and different legislative agendas, but which party gets to be the whore for Wall Street, the military-security complex, Israel Lobby, agribusiness, and energy, mining, and timber interests

but your solution to all this is a retreat into a world of Anarchist fantasy ("small government", and "voluntary co-operation").

And no mention of my point re raising taxes on the ultra-rich while lowering taxes on the middle class, as proposed by Obama but rejected by the Repub apologists for the rich?

Or the 'high roller' casino, beloved by Bluesguy and his ilk, that is part of the present dysfunctional financial system, with derivatives dubbed "financial instruments of mass destruction", by no less an investor than Warren Buffett ?

 

IT'S ALL ABOUT "CIVICS"

We are very astute when it comes to the functioning of a market-economy, but less competent about "how governments function". Which is why politics is soooo manipulative nowadays - and immense funding is necessary to influence voters by means of the BoobTube with its brainless commercials. (It works!)

The fundamental reason Why is that the American voter of a certain age (beyond 40/50) very likely had little if any instruction in Civics. We are only getting around, as a nation, to assuring that Civics is an integral course the passing of which is a sine qua non for obtaining a high-school diploma.

It might also help to offer a basic course in "How the economy functions".

We must certainly, as a nation, do a lot better on educating our people regarding the political and economic functioning of the nation (and states).

MY POINT

I have learned a LOT about Social Democracy since arriving in France a great many years ago. First of all, I have learned that "social" is not a dirty-word. Neither does it necessarily mean socialism, which is a political belief long since found lacking because the ownership of production by a government is seriously dysfunctional. A competitive market-economy is the better mechanism.

But, having said that, the free-market economy "mechanism" must be watched closely. Otherwise it will generate immense Income that becomes Wealth if not taxed correctly at upper-levels. Moreover, the SubPrime Mess and its resulting Great Recession (that debilitated the American economy for six long years) were the handiwork of a class of individuals motivated purely by the incentive of Upper-income Taxation resulting in wildly excessive Wealth owned by a very minor percentage of the population.

 

Let's work together building upon our shared values. This thread started with how people create factories so they can make things, and how others then insist that the factories are for giving them money. As you point out, the question leads us to consider which gov't econ policy is best for all.

First let's agree on what we know for sure:

• Virtually all econ activity requires both labor and capital and either w/o the other is useless.
• While it's easy to believe that more people work in labor than in capital, most people do both.
• Gov't must serve both and facilitate gains by both labor and capital.

Let me know if we're still together. If we are, then in order to decide which policies do best we could look at what's worked well in the past.

 

I'm sticking by my comment so no need to talk about income equality being everyone else's problem. Every person OWN's their decisions and if someone does not like what's going on...then change! But to blame others, or make demands on others, or repeat 1981 ad nauseam, will never solve anything!

 

Well...in my public education long ago, in high school, it was required to learn and pass both economics and civics. If I remember both were one semester.

Today education and information will only be accepted when it reinforces existing beliefs. Very few people today possess open minds that can consume information which might challenge their positions...

 

You wish to reverse trickle down...it would be great if you could experience your wish! How about asking all Americans with 'wealth', like those with more than $1 million, perhaps this is your evil 10%, to stop spending for one year. I doubt you can imagine this, or begin to comprehend how the economy will change, but if you could, you will see that trickle down, as well as trickle up and left and right, ALL of them energize the economy.

You are correct I do not agree with you! Why cut FICA taxes unless you wish to cut SS payouts? It is impossible to arbitrarily raise income. We cannot force people to invest. Estate taxes apply to everyone so if you wish to raise them for the wealthy then raise them for everyone. Unions must empower themselves. Everyone gets overtime. Please explain some unfair labor laws?? Increasing the MW will never solve a single problem. You are correct...I will never agree with you on these items...

 

This ignores the reality that the social and economic environment in which SOME individuals find themselves (whether by birth or other circumstance of life) severely curtails their ability to make constructive (wise) choices. When the additional reality of widely varying natural individual abilities is also recognised, then we can see your proposition is insufficient as a basis for promoting the best economic actions and choices that ought to be pursued by individuals,
within society.

 

A couple of points before we can get started:

You wrote:

.
1. Economic activity involves much more than factories making products, eg, education and infrastructure. (Note: China has a highspeed rail network, the US does not).

2. What has worked well in the past has worked well for some people and entities only, never for all. The economic destruction of Detroit is a striking example of macro-economic dysfunction in an otherwise highly productive local and global environment.

Over to you.

 

No, I don't think so - not in an economy where manufacturing accounts for barely 8% of all "jobs". Read here from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: Employment by major industry sector

What we need in the US is free tertiary-education - not kids graduating with a postsecondary degree and an average $35K debt.

Barely 45% of all of American high-school students (including those who do not obtain their high-school diploma) have no tertiary education that gives them the sort of qualifications that better jobs in the Services Sector Industry are demanding ...

 

And the Federal government having pretty much eliminated that in the name of Social equality we are becoming less capable of competing with other nations.

 

The answer to how that will be done is simple, inflation, devaluing our currency which allows perpetual deficit spending to appear sustainable.

Another way to view you graph is:
In 1928 the population was 120.5m.
There were 4,070,851 tax returns filed, and the total income share (including capital gains) of the top 10% (407,085) was 49.3%, an average of 0.000121105% each.
In 2012 the population was 314.1m.
There were 144,900,000 tax returns filed, and the total income share (including capital gains) of the top 10% (14,490,000) was 50.4%, an average of 0.000003478% each.
While the income share of the top 10% increased by 1.1%, the number comprising the top 10% increased exponentially while the population increased only about 2.6 times.

 

Funny, but your graph seems to indicate the skyrocketing began around 1993 after Reagan had dealt with the inevitable occurrence brought on by the Carter administration.

 

After leaving the military I gained employment in a unionized company, and another new hire and I started work as the only workers on the 9am-6pm shift, leaving us to work 1 hour after all the other workers left. A couple of days later we were taken aside by the union rep who reprimanded us because the early shift workers complained that they had no work for them to appear busy as we had completed all the work. We were told to slack off or the company might downsize the workforce. As we ignored him, a few days later we found little work to do our last hour of the day, and the next day we found that an employee had been fired for destroying work orders to keep us from doing them. I avoided joining the Union for several years as my invitation to join came as a threat of what could happen should I not join and perhaps the one who made the threat decided the consequences assured were unacceptable. I did eventually join the Union a few years later when a new job steward approached me in a kinder and more civilized way, and I became active in the Union as the photographer for the Union newsletter. That was how I discovered how corrupt the Union leaders were, as I attended the pre-meeting meetings where it was determined what would be allowed to be done at the meeting depending on who came and what was brought up for a vote. At that time the Union owned the building we met in, and rented out part of the building. An offer was made to buy the building at a price which would allow the purchase of a large piece of property, construction of a new and larger meeting hall with parking, and money left over to purchase a large camper van. As there were a large number who opposed the sale, it was not allowed to be brought up for discussion or a vote unless it was certain to be passed, which eventually happened. My work location moved and I moved my home so I quit attending meetings, and later found our Union dues increased to a percentage of our pay rather than a fixed amount. The reason given in the Union newsletter was the loan payment for the property, building and camper van which was supposed to have been fully funded by the sales of the building originally owned by the union. In addition the union sent out new forms to be signed by all members, which would allow only a brief window to drop out of the union each contract period. None in my work force signed and returned them. Then the next contract, we found that our location remained the only one not upgraded to the next higher pay scale. We called and complained to the Union who responded, "We put the effort to helping the locations with the largest number of employees." Our location had 6 employees, and the next town only had 3 but were upgraded. All 6 of us belonged to the union, and all 6 of us dropped out which upgraded our pay greater than the $3.50 increase the nearby 3 employees got.
The job I did at the time was a maintenance type, and we took the floor plan divided the equipment equally among us for responsibility, and were held individually responsible for any problems of what was assigned to us.
And that's but one story by which my views on unions has been formed.

 

From the OP "Jobs are a means, not an end. "
The way I read and accept that is, jobs are the means or source of income by which we acquire the ends or needs and/or wants.
In my opinion the ONLY solution to our problems would be a gradual reduction of the worlds population towards a number more equal to the labour needs relative to the consumption of those who participate in the labour. Obviously our capacity to produce goods, services, and waste is unlimited and while the labour needs do not grow relative to population growth consumption needs/wants do.

What is economic activity?
For me, the simplest definition is 'the exchange or trade of something of value for something else of value.'
I find it quite difficult, if not absolutely impossible to have a reasonable and rational conversation without first achieving agreement on an initial starting point.

 

1. On the question of population: population gowth rates decrease automatically as living standards rise, and indeed some first world countries are experiencing decreases in absolute numbers.
So how can we maximise rising living standards as well as eliminating poverty, nationally and globally? I presume you are not proposing enforced birth control, poverty, or war as methods of population control.
(currently over 20,000 children die daily of poverty related factors).

2. Your definition of economic activity asigns 'value' in a too-limited manner.
Eg, what is the assigned 'value' of a teacher transferring knowledge to a student, given that this critical transfer of knowledge will have widely differing results depending on many factors including the student's potential?

Can we start a rational conversation with these observations in mind?

 

Agreed.

One thing to consider though: not all students are suited to the 'better jobs in the services sector". In a global economy, how do these students compete in the job market? Presumably that's why Trump wants to get some of those lower-skilled manufacturing jobs back.to the US (obviously the wrong policy prescription, as automation moves around the world).

 

1. I posed no question on population, only provided an observation.

2. I ONLY defined economic activity, assigning no value at all as that is/should be left for the parties involved in making a transaction to determine.

Hopefully, that clarifies what was stated in my post in which the ONLY question I asked was "What is economic activity?" providing as clearly and concisely my own definition.

Your observations, as well as a great many others might be worth examining in more detail once, or IF when can agree on a common definition of economic activity.

 

Namely:
'the exchange or trade of something of value for something else of value.'

My definition:

Activity necessary to support life.

Are these definitions compatible?

 

HIGHER EDUCATION

Interesting question!

We know, for instance, what education means to overall income levels of those who have one versus those who don't:


The National Center for Education Statistics tells us that only 38.5% of high-school graduates are in the labor-force. (What are the rest doing?)

We even know that nearly half of America's high-school graduates (and non-graduates) do not have a Tertiary Education (that gives them qualifications/competencies/skills) to obtain the better paying jobs. So, they roam the country looking for best they can get. They become work nomads.

We have to do better as a nation and that will not happen until we make postsecondary schooling free, gratis and for nothing - as Europe has done. And the fact that Europe has presently a higher incidence of unemployment than the US is NOT an issue.

Higher learning is a national resource, not just a "nice thing to have" or one that leads to "higher work-life income levels" (both of which are generally true) ...

 

In a very broad sense perhaps.

 

GERMANY'S APPRENTICE TRAINING PROGRAM

Yes, dunderheads exist and refuse all attempts at education. That is a mistake occurring for multiple reasons, most sociological. I have no answer to them here - except that stupid parents should be supplied prophylactics for free. (Joke! ;^)

These young adults don't compete, so they drift to the wayside. All a country can do, in terms of pragmatic social programs, is help them as much as they want to be helped towards learning the skills our Information Age is requiring of them.

Historically, in the 19th century, not all the rural folk came off the farms and found far better paying jobs in factories. That same phenomenon is happening today. Not all will be coming off manufacturing production lines seeking training. (And yet, good examples exist. One need only look at Germany's success with Apprenticeship Training programs whereby over 90% of all students are hired permanently by German companies! Read here.)

Let's just try to minimize the number who "fall by the wayside", and not expect miracles either.

We need subsidized Tertiary Education to make the effort as lo-cost as possible. (Of course, with the Donald Dork administration, this just aint-gonna-happin ...)

 

The average college graduate makes what a million more in lieftime earnings than someone without a degree? Amd you think the ones without should pay for the ones with ti get it. Theg can pay for their degree out of their higher earnings.

 

Promote not provide and the knky welfare conxern authorized in the Constitution is that of the federal government in the tax and spend clause.

 

Typical Replicant reply - we can invest billions in new armaments, but not in postsecondary education of our children.

Generally, in terms of economic development, the higher the educational talent the better off people are.

It is not a difficult notion to understand. Try harder ...