View Full Version : Are the American people obsolete?
Are the American people obsolete?
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/07/27/american_people_obsolete/index.html?source=newsletter
Have the American people outlived their usefulness to the rich minority in the United States? A number of trends suggest that the answer may be yes.
In every industrial democracy since the end of World War II, there has been a social contract between the few and the many. In return for receiving a disproportionate amount of the gains from economic growth in a capitalist economy, the rich paid a disproportionate percentage of the taxes needed for public goods and a safety net for the majority.
In North America and Europe, the economic elite agreed to this bargain because they needed ordinary people as consumers and soldiers. Without mass consumption, the factories in which the rich invested would grind to a halt. Without universal conscription in the world wars, and selective conscription during the Cold War, the U.S. and its allies might have failed to defeat totalitarian empires that would have created a world order hostile to a market economy.
Globalization has eliminated the first reason for the rich to continue supporting this bargain at the nation-state level, while the privatization of the military threatens the other rationale.
The offshoring of industrial production means that many American investors and corporate managers no longer need an American workforce in order to prosper. They can enjoy their stream of profits from factories in China while shutting down factories in the U.S. And if Chinese workers have the impertinence to demand higher wages, American corporations can find low-wage labor in other countries.
This marks a historic change in the relationship between capital and labor in the U.S. The robber barons of the late 19th century generally lived near the American working class and could be threatened by strikes and frightened by the prospect of revolution. But rioting Chinese workers are not going to burn down New York City or march on the Hamptons.
What about markets? Many U.S. multinationals that have transferred production to other countries continue to depend on an American mass market. But that, too, may be changing. American consumers are tapped out, and as long as they are paying down their debts from the bubble years, private household demand for goods and services will grow slowly at best in the United States. In the long run, the fastest-growing consumer markets, like the fastest-growing labor markets, may be found in China, India and other developing countries.
This, too, marks a dramatic change. As bad as they were, the robber barons depended on the continental U.S. market for their incomes. The financier J.P. Morgan was not so much an international banker as a kind of industrial capitalist, organizing American industrial corporations that depended on predominantly domestic markets. He didn't make most of his money from investing in other countries.
In contrast, many of the highest-paid individuals on Wall Street have grown rich through activities that have little or no connection with the American economy. They can flourish even if the U.S. declines, as long as they can tap into growth in other regions of the world.
Thanks to deindustrialization, which is caused both by productivity growth and by corporate offshoring, the overwhelming majority of Americans now work in the non-traded domestic service sector. The jobs that have the greatest growth in numbers are concentrated in sectors like medical care and childcare.
Even here, the rich have options other than hiring American citizens. Wealthy liberals and wealthy conservatives agree on one thing: the need for more unskilled immigration to the U.S. This is hardly surprising, as the rich are far more dependent on immigrant servants than middle-class and working-class Americans are.
The late Patricia Buckley, the socialite wife of the late William F. Buckley Jr., once told me, "One simply can't live in Manhattan without at least three servants -- a cook and at least two maids." She had a British cook and Spanish-speaking maids. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently revealed the plutocratic perspective on immigration when he defended illegal immigration by asking, "Who takes care of the greens and the fairways in your golf course?"
The point is that, just as much of America's elite is willing to shut down every factory in the country if it is possible to open cheaper factories in countries like China, so much of the American ruling class would prefer not to hire their fellow Americans, even for jobs done on American soil, if less expensive and more deferential foreign nationals with fewer legal rights can be imported. Small wonder that proposals for "guest worker" programs are so popular in the U.S. establishment. Foreign "guest workers" laboring on American soil like H1Bs and H2Bs -- those with non-immigrant visas allowing technical or non-agriculture seasonal workers to be employed in the U.S. -- are latter-day coolies who do not have the right to vote.
If much of America's investor class no longer needs Americans either as workers or consumers, elite Americans might still depend on ordinary Americans to protect them, by serving in the military or police forces. Increasingly, however, America's professional army is being supplemented by contractors -- that is, mercenaries. And the elite press periodically publishes proposals to sell citizenship to foreigners who serve as soldiers in an American Foreign Legion. It is probably only a matter of time before some earnest pundit proposes to replace American police officers with foreign guest-worker mercenaries as well.
Offshoring and immigration, then, are severing the link between the fate of most Americans and the fate of the American rich. A member of the elite can make money from factories in China that sell to consumers in India, while relying entirely or almost entirely on immigrant servants at one of several homes around the country. With a foreign workforce for the corporations policed by brutal autocracies and non-voting immigrant servants in the U.S., the only thing missing is a non-voting immigrant mercenary army, whose legions can be deployed in foreign wars without creating grieving parents, widows and children who vote in American elections.
If the American rich increasingly do not depend for their wealth on American workers and American consumers or for their safety on American soldiers or police officers, then it is hardly surprising that so many of them should be so hostile to paying taxes to support the infrastructure and the social programs that help the majority of the American people. The rich don't need the rest anymore.
To be sure, wealthy humanitarians might take pity on their economically obsolescent fellow citizens. But they no longer have any personal economic incentive to do so. Besides, philanthropists may be inclined to devote most of their charity to the desperate and destitute of other countries rather than to their fellow Americans.
If most Americans are no longer needed by the American rich, then perhaps the United States should consider a policy adopted by the aristocracies and oligarchies of many countries with surplus populations in the past: the promotion of emigration. The rich might consent to a one-time tax to bribe middle-class and working-class Americans into departing the U.S. for other lands, and bribing foreign countries to accept them, in order to be alleviated from a high tax burden in the long run.
Where would a few hundred million ex-Americans go? The answer is obvious: to the emerging markets where the work and investment are found. That will show all those American union members who complain that their jobs have been outsourced to China. Let them move to China themselves and compete, instead of complaining!
Needless to say, the Chinese and Indians might resist the idea of an influx of vast numbers of downwardly mobile North American workers. But like American capitalists, Chinese and Indian capitalists might learn that ethnic diversity impedes unionization, while the mass immigration of North Americans to East and South Asia would keep wages in those regions competitively low for another few decades at least.
Once emptied of superfluous citizens, the U.S. could become a kind of giant Aspen for the small population of the super-rich and their non-voting immigrant retainers. Many environmentalists might approve of the depopulation of North America, because sprawling suburbs would soon be reclaimed by the wilderness. And deficit hawks would be pleased as well. The middle-class masses dependent on Social Security and Medicare would have departed the country, leaving only the self-sufficient rich and foreign guest workers without any benefits, other than the charity of their employers.
Of course there are alternative options, which would not require the departure of most Americans from America for new lives on distant shores. One would be a new social contract, in which the American people, through representatives whom they actually control, would ordain that American corporations are chartered to create jobs in the U.S. for American workers, and if that does not interest their shareholders and managers then they can do without legal privileges granted by the sovereign people, like limited liability.
The American people also could put a stop to any thought of an American Foreign Legion and declare, through their representatives, that a nation of citizen-workers will be protected by citizen-soldiers, whether professionals or, in emergencies, conscripts. The American people, in other words, could insist that the United States will be a democratic republican nation-state, not a post-national rentier oligarchy.
But restoring democratic nationalism in the U.S. would inconvenience America's affluent minority. So instead of making trouble, maybe most Americans should just find a new continent to call home.
Complication
07-28-10, 11:55
Jonathan Swift, 1729: A Modest Proposal (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html)
Littlelebowski
07-28-10, 12:02
Anybody else remember the days when American teenagers did work instead of foreign adults?
My dad used to tell me all the time about picking strawberries in the sun all summer long.
kaiservontexas
07-28-10, 12:11
Anybody else remember the days when American teenagers did work instead of foreign adults?
I used to mow lawns from early spring to late fall. Good money for a jr. high kid. We had our neighborhood down except for a few houses. We had no truck. We had to push that puppy and carry the weed eater/edger, blower, and fuel with us everywhere. In the summer work was from morning till dinner time. Good times, good times.
I did see a kid walking around the subdivision with business cards. I do not know if it is for himself or for a company because he has never stopped walking around with them. I see him once a week. I have not seen him mow a lawn. I hope he is trying, but yeah it is always a bunch of foreign adults doing teenager work.
I did see a kid walking around the subdivision with business cards. I do not know if it is for himself or for a company because he has never stopped walking around with them. I see him once a week. I have not seen him mow a lawn. I hope he is trying, but yeah it is always a bunch of foreign adults doing teenager work.
My front lawn needs to be mowed. Badly (if it would not rain on those days when I could do it it would probably get done -- it does not rain much in the summer but has rained on every day I had planned to do it).
A few days ago some guy (white guy English speaker) knocked on the door and asked if I needed my lawn mowed. I told him I have it covered but there is no doubt in my mind that if I had agreed with him, an old beat up truck with guys speaking Spanish would have come by and done the work. Except for people doing their own lawns, I have not seen a white English speaker, adult or kid, behind a lawn mower in a LONG time.
Instead of out working summers, I see the teenage kids hanging out on the street corners or in groups on skateboards and bikes just hanging in the streets. Sad.
GermanSynergy
07-28-10, 12:35
Anybody else remember the days when American teenagers did work instead of foreign adults?
Agreed. From the age of 14 I was mowing lawns, trimming weeds, and from ages 16-18 I worked digging/installing swimming pools (actually a pretty decent gig). There's zero reason kids today can't do some of the work that illegals are doing...
Littlelebowski
07-28-10, 12:38
Reminds me of the Roman Empire - importing immigrants to do our dirty work.
Agreed. From the age of 14 I was mowing lawns, trimming weeds, and from ages 16-18 I worked digging/installing swimming pools (actually a pretty decent gig). There's zero reason kids today can't do some of the work that illegals are doing...
This country is so messed up. Things like mowing lawns, working at wal-Mart or McDonalds, etc are supposed to be starter jobs for kids and entery level workers to get a start with and learn how to work. They are not supposed to be support-your-family sort of jobs. But "social activists" have pressed for laws and stuff that have basically made the Wal-Mart and McDonalds jobs too expensive for the companies to be able to offer in great numbers (minimum wages, benefits, etc).
And the schools do a good job of teaching kids that they are victims and the government should solve their problems. And parents go along with it and over-provide luxuries to their kids and protect them from life so that the kids don't have any desire to work.
parishioner
07-28-10, 12:51
Its a product of our prosperity. Some teens where I grew up got BMWs, Mercedes', and Land Rovers in High School from mommy and daddy. Obviously we are more well off nowadays then we were in the past and a lot of parents want to give their kids a better life than they had. Unfortunately, not making your kids work and giving them everything doesn't make life better for them in the long run. And here we are.
Smuckatelli
07-28-10, 13:00
It's difficult for the teens to get jobs. My 16 yr old tried for a job at the local library and Starbucks but you have to be 18 to work there. After checking around, there are a lot of stores that won't employ teens under 18 because of liability issues, usually from the things that they sell at the stores.
She is stuck babysitting which for her works out pretty well because she can do it around her matches. This really doesn't leave her with too much experience. I will be taking her down to the SOCOM Conference to work as an unpaid intern in August but that's about all she can do until she turns 18.
We do have a 17 yr old that cuts grass in the neighborhood but as soon as he graduates...he's off to the AF Academy and I only see the beatup truck with day workers taking his place.
There is a handful of teenagers around our house that go on base and pull targets for $100 for 8 hours or $60 for 4-5 hours.
montanadave
07-28-10, 13:21
This country is so messed up. Things like mowing lawns, working at wal-Mart or McDonalds, etc are supposed to be starter jobs for kids and entery level workers to get a start with and learn how to work. They are not supposed to be support-your-family sort of jobs. But "social activists" have pressed for laws and stuff that have basically made the Wal-Mart and McDonalds jobs too expensive for the companies to be able to offer in great numbers (minimum wages, benefits, etc).
And the schools do a good job of teaching kids that they are victims and the government should solve their problems. And parents go along with it and over-provide luxuries to their kids and protect them from life so that the kids don't have any desire to work.
Amazing! The wealthiest of Americans and the corporations they control have effectively defaulted on the social contract with the very people who created their wealth and, yet, rather than place any blame on them, you have chosen to vilify "social activists" (read "liberals"), teachers, big government, and parents.
And for those who would argue that no such social contract exists and that corporations have no other obligation than the appreciation of capital and the creation of wealth for their owners, I would counter that when a society permits the creation of legal entities such as corporations (with all of the associated privileges and liabilities) there exists a tacit quid-pro-quo in which those corporations are expected to act in a manner which accrues some benefit to that society, just as a citizen is expected to fulfill a societal role in exchange for the privileges afforded to them.
Laissez faire capitalism without any form of social constraint and shielded by corporate law is nothing more than a license to rape, pillage, and plunder and belies the capitalism envisioned by Adam Smith in which the pursuit of "rational self-interests" would accrue benefits to all.
Littlelebowski
07-28-10, 13:27
Amazing! The wealthiest of Americans and the corporations they control have effectively defaulted on the social contract with the very people who created their wealth and, yet, rather than place any blame on them, you have chosen to vilify "social activists" (read "liberals"), teachers, big government, and parents.
You've got to be kidding me. Big government is rapidly growing unsustainable. We are borrowing money from the Chinese to pay for additional IRS agents for god's sake! Teachers have effectively bankrupted the state of New Jersey. Proper parenting instead of "sperm donors" could effectively cure inner city violence.
Isn't "eeevil" corporation hate a thing of the 70's?
RogerinTPA
07-28-10, 13:51
Anybody else remember the days when American teenagers did work instead of foreign adults?
Agreed...or old retirees for that matter. In my AO, teenagers start at a fast food, but are fired in short order to hire retirees because of: showing up late for work, being made to work, too mouthy with the managers and customers, and inability to follow simple instruction.
Anybody else remember the days when American teenagers did work instead of foreign adults?
I was one of them.
Littlelebowski
07-28-10, 14:10
I'm sure we've all done the manual labor I speak of.
Amazing! The wealthiest of Americans and the corporations they control have effectively defaulted on the social contract with the very people who created their wealth and, yet, rather than place any blame on them, you have chosen to vilify "social activists" (read "liberals"), teachers, big government, and parents.
I never said such a thing! What is amazing is how you read things into what I say. I do place blame on the wealthy who do not give back and basically exploit people. I posted a few weeks ago the comments of Andy Grove, remember?
However, I was commenting about something else -- that basically, due to public schooling pushing statism, and parents who spoil their kids, that we as a society have set ourselves up to be exploited. I was commenting on previous comments about working and entry level work.
Laissez faire capitalism without any form of social constraint and shielded by corporate law is nothing more than a license to rape, pillage, and plunder and belies the capitalism envisioned by Adam Smith in which the pursuit of "rational self-interests" would accrue benefits to all.
Matter of fact, I mostly agree with you. However, the controls must come through the shareholders and those who are the customers of the corporation. And through a strong judiciary who can enforce liability.
I can only speak to what I see in my own community. It may or may not be representative of the whole country.
What I see are a bunch of lazy kids who have been taught by their parents that they can get just about anything they want without having to work for it.
When I was growing up about a hundred years ago I carried papers from about age 13 until I could get a work permit at age 16 so I could get a grocery store job. I carried 2 morning routes before school and 1 afternoon route after school.
I lied about my age and got the grocery store job at 15 and stalled them until I finally got my work permit at 16. I sacked and carried out groceries and it was company policy not to accept tips for what amounted to doing your job. They enforced this with mystery shoppers.
I worked most evenings and all weekend all through high school. When I graduated I had a car and a motorcycle, both bought 100% with my own money.
That whole experience - paper routes and carryout boy - taught me a serious work ethic and the value of a dollar, which has stayed with me my whole life. I am really glad my parents insisted that I earn my own money if I want to buy stuff. It has served me well.
Littlelebowski
07-28-10, 14:41
Laissez faire capitalism without any form of social constraint and shielded by corporate law is nothing more than a license to rape, pillage, and plunder and belies the capitalism envisioned by Adam Smith in which the pursuit of "rational self-interests" would accrue benefits to all.
You'd do well to read up on our public servants. They're getting away with more than big corporations and hurting us all.
PrivateCitizen
07-28-10, 14:43
You'd have a hard time convincing me at this point the "big business" (mostly Banks and financial entities) and .gov are not grotesquely coupling. Corpratism (fascism lite) is alive and well.
The article tries but it is not about labor, it is about control.
It is no longer possible to vilify the rich vs. the poor. It is a nice class warefare tactic but it isn't actual reality. Even saying "big business" is untidy lumping. Microsoft is big business. Walmart is big business. McDonalds, Lowes, Apple …
I see the predominant amount screwing coming out of places that are regulated by the government acronym.
montanadave
07-28-10, 15:59
I never said such a thing! What is amazing is how you read things into what I say. I do place blame on the wealthy who do not give back and basically exploit people. I posted a few weeks ago the comments of Andy Grove, remember?
However, I was commenting about something else -- that basically, due to public schooling pushing statism, and parents who spoil their kids, that we as a society have set ourselves up to be exploited. I was commenting on previous comments about working and entry level work.
I regret having misconstrued your earlier remarks. Please accept my apologies.
Anybody else remember the days when American teenagers did work instead of foreign adults?
I still remember when I was about 9, I worked on this asian ladies yard for about 12+ hours in the middle of the summer in the desert. She has a crap load of weeds, and being 9 the only tool I had for the task was pulling and digging them out with my hands.
The bitch gave me a quarter... :blink:
The bitch gave me a quarter... :blink:
You learned a valuable lesson that day - always negotiate the price up front!
variablebinary
07-28-10, 16:41
Anybody else remember the days when American teenagers did work instead of foreign adults?
It's much harder for American teens to get low skill jobs. They are competing against Mexican labor, and adult Americans that have been displaced by jobs being exported to 3rd world shit holes.
Utah is one of the whitest states in the Union, and even in the most rural, backwoods town, the workers at fast food places are almost always adult Mexicans. My "paper boy" is about 27 years old. Something is very wrong with the direction this nation has taken.
I find this whole idea of a "service based" economy to be laughable anyway. It will be our undoing.
It's much harder for American teens to get low skill jobs. They are competing against Mexican labor, and adult Americans that have been displaced by jobs being exported to 3rd world shit holes.
It's only harder when everyone wants pay outside of what it's worth to the industry, so naturally the most qualified lowest bidder wins. If the restaurant industry was booming and paying $20 / hour, then more qualified people would step up and store owners would pick the best qualified applicants. That is, unless they're hiring illegals.
If it IS a case of illegals, just call your local ICE office =)
It's only harder when everyone wants pay outside of what it's worth to the industry, so naturally the most qualified lowest bidder wins.
It doesn't help that the education business (and at the college level, it is all a business) insists on the idea that everyone needs to go to college and get a degree. People are graduating with useless degrees and a starting annual salary is less than their student loan bill. Everybody expects to graduate and get a cush job and be well paid, so we're creating a nation of all self-appointed chiefs and no Indians. These are the people who should be entering the workforce as workers, possibly learning skilled trades, not getting a 4 year degree in some one-off made-up major.
variablebinary
07-28-10, 17:44
Laissez faire capitalism without any form of social constraint and shielded by corporate law is nothing more than a license to rape, pillage, and plunder and belies the capitalism envisioned by Adam Smith in which the pursuit of "rational self-interests" would accrue benefits to all.
To this you'll get some junior college, economic theory 101 textbook retort .
Absolute Laissez faire capitalism is not a good thing. Giving anyone, anywhere, the power to operate with complete impunity is not a good thing by any measure. This is just common sense.
I'm sure we've all done the manual labor I speak of.
Yep, and that is why I wanted to smack Bush and everyone else who said "Work American's aren't willing to do." Because I remember detassling corn in high school. You won't find a shittier, dirtier job for the money. We actually had to sign a form agreeing to be paid LESS than minimum wage.
And I wasn't the only one. I hardly never met a kid who grew up in Iowa who didn't do the job at least one summer of their life. Picking oranges would have been a ****ing dream job in comparison.
Anybody else remember the days when American teenagers did work instead of foreign adults?
Its still like that in much of MT. You go to a Costco and its employees are all highschool & college girls. Makes check out more fun and they speak English;)
Reminds me of the Roman Empire - importing immigrants to do our dirty work.
You are correct Sir! And, if you study Roman history you will also find that this situation led to the downfall of the Empire. Ultimately, the Roman Army was filled with barbarians who had no 'skin in the game' and lacked the discipline and training of the traditional Roman soldier.
All of human history is filled with the rise and fall of great empires. Rome is still a city on the map, people still live there, but the Roman Empire is long gone. The USSR only lasted for 60 year but Moscow survived the Tzar and Stalin. Hitler's 1000 year Reich lasted about 6 years.
America is like a cancer patient dying from terminal bone cancer. We know she is going to die, when are just not sure how long she has. America has had a good run, she has done a lot in her time and has a lot to be proud of but I don't think she will make it past 300 years.
parishioner
07-28-10, 20:14
You are correct Sir! And, if you study Roman history you will also find that this situation led to the downfall of the Empire. Ultimately, the Roman Army was filled with barbarians who had no 'skin in the game' and lacked the discipline and training of the traditional Roman soldier.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=7142589&page=1
You won't find a shittier, dirtier job for the money.
How about debeaking live chickens?
Smuckatelli
07-28-10, 20:55
You won't find a shittier, dirtier job for the money.
I have one for you. I was working two jobs when I was 17, one answering telephones at the PGH Press Newspaper, the other at St Francis Hospital as a surgical prep boy.
Open heart surgery in 1979-80 required all body hair to be shaved.
External hemorroids.......patient had to get in the doggie position.
Anybody else remember the days when American teenagers did work instead of foreign adults?
I was going to start a post like that !!!
at 47 I came from a generation of kids that worked
I remember stacking firewood for neighbors ? and washing dishes when I was 16 by the time I was 17 I realized their are better ways to work though and started working smarter :) but as kid I worked my friends worked etc..
How about debeaking live chickens?
In Iowa the farm kids just chop the whole head off. Why would you debeak a chicken?
In Iowa the farm kids just chop the whole head off. Why would you debeak a chicken?
I had no idea either so I used Google
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debeaking
Matter of fact, I mostly agree with you. However, the controls must come through the shareholders and those who are the customers of the corporation. And through a strong judiciary who can enforce liability.
Agree ... capitalism doesn't have (nor should it be) "make money at all costs" ... companies and their shareholders need (should) recognize the importance of investing in America. They may make a little less NOW, but will provide a better economy (more money LATER) than sending everything to China. What good are your Chinese factories 30 years from now if all your potential customers are unemployed? But I guess they can just hold out for a government bailout, can't they?
Consumers are to blame as well. Do we REALLY need $25 DVD players? I'd gladly pay $200 for a DVD player made in the USA that would last more than 18 months. Why doesn't anyone make one?
I did manage to buy a Simplicity vacuum cleaner that was made in the USA after the POS Hoover's die every year. It was expensive, but it was Made in the USA and is fully repairable if it ever breaks.
The potus wants to import new American people to replace those who are already here, so I guess that means the current American people are obsolete.
Giving anyone, anywhere, the power to operate with complete impunity is not a good thing by any measure. This is just common sense.
Not to call you out, but this is the 3rd or 4th time you've referred to "laissez faire capitalism" as allowing people to operate with some sort of magical immunity. There's a logic disconnect here. It's the same mentality that states owning guns allows for the legalization of murder. It just simply isn't true.
Would you care to explain the "operate with complete impunity" argument a bit more in detail?
It's much harder for American teens to get low skill jobs. They are competing against Mexican labor, and adult Americans that have been displaced by jobs being exported to 3rd world shit holes.
How is a teenager stopped from applying for those same jobs? If you're talking about fast food and newspapers, they're paying minimum wage or maybe slightly more, and they have to operate legally. It's not like the immigrants come in and backdoor an illegal, sub-minimum wage deal that keeps the kids out.
Teenagers aren't in these jobs anymore because they are either lazy or they think the jobs are beneath them. People can crap on Mexicans and Guatemalans all they want for coming here, but most of them have a strong work ethic. Which is a polite way of saying that they do jobs that Americans turn their noses up at.
It's more our fault than the immigrants' fault.
How about debeaking live chickens?
Or a "gizzard puller" which is a real job at chicken plants. As far as I can tell, it's mostly felons and sex offenders that work at the nearest chicken plant to me.
Teenagers aren't in these jobs anymore because they are either lazy or they think the jobs are beneath them. People can crap on Mexicans and Guatemalans all they want for coming here, but most of them have a strong work ethic. Which is a polite way of saying that they do jobs that Americans turn their noses up at.
It's more our fault than the immigrants' fault.
Bingo. It's our own system working the way it should.
social contract
I got to that part in the first sentence of the article and new it was going to be some proletariat rant. And it was.
What is this author's point? That there are a few rich people and everyone else has less? Welcome to all of human existence. The author rambles all over the place, first acknowledging that rich people pay far more in taxes to support the institutions that supposedly make them rich. Then he seems to lambaste them, or the companies they own and run. Well, which is it? Are they a cash cow that helps the proles, or are they evil and to be done away with?
The only obligation that the government has in the end is to make the playing field level. If I train harder and play better - and yes, if I was born a better player than you - then I do better. You have the same field, the same rules, and the same opportunities. Equality of opportunity, not equal outcomes.
How is a teenager stopped from applying for those same jobs? If you're talking about fast food and newspapers, they're paying minimum wage or maybe slightly more, and they have to operate legally. It's not like the immigrants come in and backdoor an illegal, sub-minimum wage deal that keeps the kids out.
Teenagers aren't in these jobs anymore because they are either lazy or they think the jobs are beneath them. People can crap on Mexicans and Guatemalans all they want for coming here, but most of them have a strong work ethic. Which is a polite way of saying that they do jobs that Americans turn their noses up at.
It's more our fault than the immigrants' fault.
Well in many cases they have more experience. Pretty much the same way adult Americans now deny these jobs to teens. Grown ups really aren't supposed to be working fries at McDonalds.
Once upon a time Americans in their mid 20s had so many opportunities they didn't bother with these jobs and left them to the high school kids. Now in recent years adults (including illegals) accept these jobs.
RogerinTPA
07-29-10, 14:56
Well in many cases they have more experience. Pretty much the same way adult Americans now deny these jobs to teens. Grown ups really aren't supposed to be working fries at McDonalds.
Once upon a time Americans in their mid 20s had so many opportunities they didn't bother with these jobs and left them to the high school kids. Now in recent years adults (including illegals) accept these jobs.
Agreed. When I was in high school, damn near every kid had a fast food gig. Me, I helped my dad on the farm and at the farmer's market loading and lifting 10, 20 and 50lb bags of potatoes and onions in the summer. While at our home in the city and going to school, I cut grass, shoved snow...first real job, news paper boy at 10 years old.
It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
"We" achieve a certain level of combined lazy apathy and financial affluence, and then even our teens are "above" basic labor. Why bitch at your kid to mow the lawn when it's easier to give some Mexican a few bucks to it?
The flip side of that, though, is that if your neighborhood isn't overrun with (probable) illegals, it's a whole lot harder to take the easy way out and pay them to do your dirty work.
Somebody has to do those jobs -- without the readily available labor pool, it falls to kids, teens, young adults, whatever. Without the horrible work ethic being passed down, the jobs aren't left unfilled for the illegals to come take. It's a vicious cycle.
Heartland Hawk
07-29-10, 15:38
When I was in Jr. high and High school I mowed lawns too. A lot of them. Also did odd jobs. I was talking to my neighbors 19 year old son last month and he said to me "Manual labor sucks!" with his nose turned up. this is the laziest shit I have ever seen. I replied "And you're not above it." His dad, a buddy of mine just laughed. The kid shook his head and rolled his eyes at me. Pathetic.
Why bitch at your kid to mow the lawn when it's easier to give some Mexican a few bucks to it?
1. To teach them to be a reliable worker.
2. To teach them to be self sufficient.
3. To fulfill your job as a parent.
Nobody said raising kids correctly was easy.
1. To teach them to be a reliable worker.
2. To teach them to be self sufficient.
3. To fulfill your job as a parent.
Nobody said raising kids correctly was easy.
That was more of a rhetorical question on behalf of the slobs of the world, than it was anything remotely resembling my beliefs... I agree with all three of those points.
There are very few parents these days... too busy working for cash to go play on weekends to do any real parenting, so they let the gov't raise their kids in a public school system that rips them out of the house at 3 or 4 for Pre-K, and locks them into a weird, ****ed up artificial society to "educate" them until they're of an adult age.
My front lawn needs to be mowed. Badly (if it would not rain on those days when I could do it it would probably get done -- it does not rain much in the summer but has rained on every day I had planned to do it).
A few days ago some guy (white guy English speaker) knocked on the door and asked if I needed my lawn mowed. I told him I have it covered but there is no doubt in my mind that if I had agreed with him, an old beat up truck with guys speaking Spanish would have come by and done the work. Except for people doing their own lawns, I have not seen a white English speaker, adult or kid, behind a lawn mower in a LONG time.
Instead of out working summers, I see the teenage kids hanging out on the street corners or in groups on skateboards and bikes just hanging in the streets. Sad.
Cuz all the white guys have riding mower..........:secret:
Business_Casual
07-29-10, 21:27
Originally Posted by montanadave
Laissez faire capitalism without any form of social constraint and shielded by corporate law is nothing more than a license to rape, pillage, and plunder and belies the capitalism envisioned by Adam Smith in which the pursuit of "rational self-interests" would accrue benefits to all.
Man, it is clear as a bell that you have never been an executive and have never dealt with the issues involved in trying to accomplish anything in a modern corporation. Jeez.
B_C
variablebinary
07-29-10, 23:29
Man, it is clear as a bell that you have never been an executive and have never dealt with the issues involved in trying to accomplish anything in a modern corporation. Jeez.
B_C
I have been a VP twice and a director 3 times, and these corporations are bullshit from top to bottom.
After 18 years of corporate America, most of which was in the belly of the beast Wall Street, they can kiss my ass.
Montana is not far off from the truth at all.
Edit: I would rather be a dirt farmer in the backwoods of Idaho and make shit than go back to corporate America and make six figures.
That was more of a rhetorical question on behalf of the slobs of the world, than it was anything remotely resembling my beliefs... I agree with all three of those points.
There are very few parents these days... too busy working for cash to go play on weekends to do any real parenting, so they let the gov't raise their kids in a public school system that rips them out of the house at 3 or 4 for Pre-K, and locks them into a weird, ****ed up artificial society to "educate" them until they're of an adult age.
I assumed as much. It was more of a rhetorical answer to your rhetorical question.
:D
The only obligation that the government has in the end is to make the playing field level. If I train harder and play better - and yes, if I was born a better player than you - then I do better. You have the same field, the same rules, and the same opportunities. Equality of opportunity, not equal outcomes.
The problem is that with the rise of outsourcing to places like India the playing field is not level anymore. You can't compete with someone who makes 1/10 what you do. I don't care how good you are, 10 for the price of one is hard to beat.
Business_Casual
07-30-10, 05:33
I have been a VP twice and a director 3 times, and these corporations are bullshit from top to bottom.
After 18 years of corporate America, most of which was in the belly of the beast Wall Street, they can kiss my ass.
Montana is not far off from the truth at all.
Edit: I would rather be a dirt farmer in the backwoods of Idaho and make shit than go back to corporate America and make six figures.
I don't disagree that corporations are mostly a really stupid version of "Mean Girls" run by men, but I fail to see how you have shown that they are unchecked rapists of the planet by saying your worked at a few.
Between OSHA, DoL, Unions, HR departments, EU etc. I rarely see an "unfettered" capitalism here or abroad.
B_C
montanadave
07-30-10, 10:14
Man, it is clear as a bell that you have never been an executive and have never dealt with the issues involved in trying to accomplish anything in a modern corporation. Jeez.
Between OSHA, DoL, Unions, HR departments, EU etc. I rarely see an "unfettered" capitalism here or abroad.
B_C
Let me clarify my earlier remarks. My statement was in response to those who champion laissez faire capitalism (ala Ayn Rand, etc.), unfettered by even minimal government oversight, as the panacea for all our economic woes. I was not implying that corporations are currently allowed to operate with complete impunity.
My point is quite simple. For an economic system to function effectively and profitably, while still operating within the bounds of a civil society, a dynamic tension must exist between the public and the private sector. The individual and collective rights of the citizenry must be balanced against the profit motives of business and industry.
In describing that dynamic and oppositional tension, I like the Taoist analogy of the string on a musical instrument. Pull it too tight, the string breaks; too lax, no sound. There is a balance that must be maintained to produce the desired note.
And our economic system consists of this constantly shifting "tug-of-war" between the public and the private sector, with ideologues from both camps mistakenly arguing that they should be given the balance of power when, in fact, they are bound in a symbiotic relationship.
variablebinary
07-30-10, 10:43
I was not implying that corporations are currently allowed to operate with complete impunity.
Thank God they aren't.
thopkins22
07-30-10, 10:45
When you involve government, one thing is sure to happen. The largest corporations are usually the ones to lobby for the most stringent regulations because it strangles their competition as they are the only ones able to afford it. Then, without competition they rape, pillage, and whatever other words regulators are throwing out there.
All you have to do is prosecute fraud and enforce contracts. End of story, watch freedom work and make all of us wealthy.:)
I was talking to a friend the other day about a revolt and that this revolt will be something different. Generally speaking, revolts start/come from the bottom of society (poor). In our case (Americans) we will see a revolt from the top (upper middle class to wealthy). Reason? The majority of all the taxes paid are coming out of their pockets and they are about done with it.
For 2011, I will be (on purpose) slowing my business down so that I do not make as much money. I REFUSE to work just to pay taxes! From talking to other folks that make around the same level of income I do, they have come to the same conclusion.
Break Break
Americans all believe that they are "owed" something. From day one, they are supposed to have a good paying job, health care, a home, a car, etc. The Obama administration is helping perpetuate this thought pattern by TELLING folks that they ARE owed things.
Because the parents believe these things, the teenagers do as well. This is why you cannot get many of them to perform low paying, labor intensive jobs (as they believe that they should be paid more for less).
How to fix it? Start with your children. Make them appreciate every dollar they make. Establish three types of accounts for their money (savings, giving and spending). Teach them that the majority of the money goes into the savings block, 10% into the giving block and whatever is left goes into the spending block.
We have started the above plan with our 4 and 6 year olds and it works great. They see their money (what little they have) grow in their savings pile and feel rewarded when they can give 10% to GOD (or a charity). They also think long and hard before spending any of their free money.
C4
The problem is that with the rise of outsourcing to places like India the playing field is not level anymore. You can't compete with someone who makes 1/10 what you do. I don't care how good you are, 10 for the price of one is hard to beat.
Then that is the market, and the world, telling you that it's time to find something else to do.
It's amazing to me that so many so-called "conservatives" think that they have some right to work in a particular job and get paid whatever they (not the market) thinks is "fair," and blame "foreigners" or "outsourcing" or some other confabulated boogeyman for their own failure to adapt.
I was talking to a friend the other day about a revolt and that this revolt will be something different. Generally speaking, revolts start/come from the bottom of society (poor). In our case (Americans) we will see a revolt from the top (upper middle class to wealthy). Reason? The majority of all the taxes paid are coming out of their pockets and they are about done with it.
Yup.
For 2011, I will be (on purpose) slowing my business down so that I do not make as much money. I REFUSE to work just to pay taxes! From talking to other folks that make around the same level of income I do, they have come to the same conclusion.
Do you know how Ronald Reagan, as an actor, became a conservative and got into politics? He told a story one time about how, back in his day, the highest marginal tax rate was so high that he would just stop each year after he made 2 movies. He would have to pay upwards of 90% of his pay from a 3rd movie toward taxes and so, he reasoned, why bother?
As a result, he would often sit around for months and do nothing. In turn, all the other workers, vendors, and businesses that supported and worked in the movie industry would have less work and do less business. Ronnie was just fine, but those other folks suffered.
Americans all believe that they are "owed" something. From day one, they are supposed to have a good paying job, health care, a home, a car, etc. The Obama administration is helping perpetuate this thought pattern by TELLING folks that they ARE owed things.
And then when all that stuff disappears, they sit there with a "deer in the headlights" look, waiting for somebody else to "do something" about it.
You run a business that you started, so you understand all of this - that if your "job" disappears, that doesn't mean you stop working. You change industries, you start your own business, and you scrape up whatever work you can while you set that longer term process in motion. Nobody seems to have that mindset anymore. It's both sad and infuriating.
thopkins22
07-30-10, 13:20
Then that is the market, and the world, telling you that it's time to find something else to do.
It's amazing to me that so many so-called "conservatives" think that they have some right to work in a particular job and get paid whatever they (not the market) thinks is "fair," and blame "foreigners" or "outsourcing" or some other confabulated boogeyman for their own failure to adapt.
Thank you for saying that. It's incredibly basic economics.
Person A: "I will fulfill the contract for $10."
Person B: "I will fulfill the contract for $5."
The job is clearly worth $5, and our Person A either needs to find a job that Person B cannot or will not perform for less money, or he needs to realize that he's responsible for his own unemployment and offer his services at a comparable salary.
Minimum wage laws + Welfare for Americans(never mind illegal aliens) + a total sense of general entitlement from both sides of the political spectrum + nanny state + mind numbingly stupid regulations on business generally created to solve hypothetical problems = Failed United States
Then that is the market, and the world, telling you that it's time to find something else to do.
It's amazing to me that so many so-called "conservatives" think that they have some right to work in a particular job and get paid whatever they (not the market) thinks is "fair," and blame "foreigners" or "outsourcing" or some other confabulated boogeyman for their own failure to adapt.
Outsourcing isn't about one's failure to adapt. It's about greed, period.
If this countries workers were good enough to build a company up, they are good enough to sustain it. If somehow that isn't the case any longer, the only one's who have failed to adapt are management.
thopkins22
07-30-10, 13:32
Outsourcing isn't about one's failure to adapt. It's about greed, period.
Which of course makes the assumption that greed is bad. Greed that's harnessed with anti fraud laws and contract law is about the healthiest thing around.
Greed holds more responsibility for more jobs, more shared prosperity, longer lifespans, better pretty much everything, than any other motive in the history of mankind.
while Maui has horrid gun control and I hated that !!!
I must say they stick to their own usually when it comes to buying stuff
yes a walmart went in a few years back and was a good thing to get lower priced stuff but many things locals buy local
so pretty much all produce is grown and sold locally clothes you tend to buy Hawaiian or support the local based companies even if some is imported not all is ?
eat lots of local fish
even though Costco is being picked on now ? they supported that theory and brought in local caught fish and other local produce and local products
the coffee I got was Maui Roasters
even if some products cost a bit more most people would buy local over other just to support the locals and local economy
we also know what its like when the dock workers strike how bad things can get when products stop flowing in !!!!
when things go bad like after 9/11 times were tight but then lucky for us most Americans quit traveling abroad and only traveled within the US so it helped us out we noticed a large drop off in euros ? which is fine it balanced out
their is a pride of being from the islands that is lost on the mainland ? and I am not sure if its just that islanders are such a proud strong person in nature ? or if its something thats still valued to help your own ?
its hard to explain but a few people that are from the islands or even had the chance to live their a few years and got to know some local families will understand where I am coming from !
I know it can exist I lived it !!
but not sure if the mainland will ever get it ? sadly :(
Yup.
Do you know how Ronald Reagan, as an actor, became a conservative and got into politics? He told a story one time about how, back in his day, the highest marginal tax rate was so high that he would just stop each year after he made 2 movies. He would have to pay upwards of 90% of his pay from a 3rd movie toward taxes and so, he reasoned, why bother?
As a result, he would often sit around for months and do nothing. In turn, all the other workers, vendors, and businesses that supported and worked in the movie industry would have less work and do less business. Ronnie was just fine, but those other folks suffered.
And then when all that stuff disappears, they sit there with a "deer in the headlights" look, waiting for somebody else to "do something" about it.
You run a business that you started, so you understand all of this - that if your "job" disappears, that doesn't mean you stop working. You change industries, you start your own business, and you scrape up whatever work you can while you set that longer term process in motion. Nobody seems to have that mindset anymore. It's both sad and infuriating.
Good story on RR! I am just about there. I have the capacity to CREATE several $40K a year jobs in my area (which is a really good income where I live). My interest in doing so (because of the taxes and Health care programs that are coming) is less than ZERO.
The entrepreneur spirit runs strong in me (started two companies from the ground up with 100% profit/success rate) and am looking at a third option. The GOVT flat out kills my drive and interest in growing.
C4
Which of course makes the assumption that greed is bad. Greed that's harnessed with anti fraud laws and contract law is about the healthiest thing around.
Greed holds more responsibility for more jobs, more shared prosperity, longer lifespans, better pretty much everything, than any other motive in the history of mankind.
Yes, yes, here we go again. Down the road of "greed is good", which will eventually lead to "technically, there is no such thing as gluttony". :rolleyes:
I'd prefer to keep things in context. However, if you truly feel that greed has no downside then we can end the discussion on that note. Makes not a damn bit of difference to me, just telling you how I see it.
If this countries workers were good enough to build a company up, they are good enough to sustain it. If somehow that isn't the case any longer, the only one's who have failed to adapt are management.
The question isn't whether they're "good enough." The question is whether there is somebody else who is also "good enough" who will do a "good enough" job for a lot less. That sounds like good, basic management to me.
thopkins22
07-30-10, 13:54
Yes, yes, here we go again. Down the road of "greed is good", which will eventually lead to "technically, there is no such thing as gluttony". :rolleyes:
I'd prefer to keep things in context. However, if you truly feel that greed has no downside then we can end the discussion on that note. Makes not a damn bit of difference to me, just telling you how I see it.
In context, laws that punish greed are punishing the American people.
In a free society/market, gluttony in the sense that you are using it doesn't exist as a permanent state because someone will be greedy and decide to steal the market from you because they will do it for less money. I think it's safe to say that greed IS the regulating influence over the gluttony of a few.
Is unfettered greed bad? Sure, if someone is committing fraud or breaking contracts. Beyond that? Not so much.
The question isn't whether they're "good enough." The question is whether there is somebody else who is also "good enough" who will do a "good enough" job for a lot less. That sounds like good, basic management to me.
I see. Well, I suppose coming from an individual who essentially lives as a calculator such statements are to be expected. However remarks like this only reinforce my point about the absolutely corrupt mindset.
Also, reference "Loyalty" in the dictionary. Or perhaps that term has no meaning in your legal realm?
And please remember, we are not talking about struggling companies who may outsource out of financial necessity. I believe we are discussing companies that do so despite their success here in America, companies that literally "sell out" those that brought them to where they are today for an extra dollar just because now they can.
Yes, yes, here we go again. Down the road of "greed is good", which will eventually lead to "technically, there is no such thing as gluttony". :rolleyes:
But who are you to say what's gluttony? It's entirely subjective and therefore abstract, regardless of how it's measured. By going down the "greed should be regulated" path, you could extend that reasoning to every area of EVERYONE'S life.
"You don't need three cars, two is the max you can have."
"You can't make more than $100,000 a year because no one should be spending that much."
"You can't eat over 3,000 calories a day because we don't think it's healthy."
You're going down a VERY slippery slope and towards socialism with that argument. Greed is fine, provided no laws are broken or rights are infringed doing so.
The about greed is it's just that: greed. Greed alone won't make you rich or poor, it's simply the catalyst to such an end. The rest is all based on economics and business decisions. To punish a greedy person because they made smart business decisions is ludicrous. In addition, there's no guarantee of a payout for "greedy" businesses and corporations and they stand to lose just as much (or more) as they stand to gain.
I see. Well, I suppose coming from an individual who essentially lives as a calculator such statements are to be expected. However remarks like this only reinforce my point about the absolutely corrupt mindset.
Also, reference "Loyalty" in the dictionary. Or perhaps that term has no meaning in your legal realm?
Thank you for the thinly-veiled insults. Apparently because I think it's bad policy to employ people at wages above market rate, I am "corrupt" and "disloyal."
Tell me, when you go hire or contract with somebody, do you just agree to pay more than their services are worth, because you're "loyal?" Loyal to what, or to whom?
Also, please tell me who the hell you are to lecture me about loyalty. I've sworn an oath to uphold the constitutions of both this country and my state, and I have real duties of loyalty to clients and courts, violations of which carry rather severe, career-ending penalties. Just about everyone else can do whatever they want.
And please remember, we are not talking about struggling companies who may outsource out of financial necessity. I believe we are discussing companies that do so despite their success here in America, companies that literally "sell out" those that brought them to where they are today for an extra dollar just because now they can.
I don't think you understand how all of this works. Every business has competitors. If I own a widget company and I'm "loyal" or "not corrupt" according to your vague definitions, and my eeeeevil competitor sets up a factory in Malaysia and produces identical widgets for less - I don't have any choice in the matter. I have to do something or I am out of business, and I'm not going to wait until I'm struggling if I can see all of this and figure it out sooner.
But who are you to say what's gluttony? It's entirely subjective and therefore abstract, regardless of how it's measured. By going down the "greed should be regulated" path, you could extend that reasoning to every area of EVERYONE'S life.
"You don't need three cars, two is the max you can have."
"You can't make more than $100,000 a year because no one should be spending that much."
"You can't eat over 3,000 calories a day because we don't think it's healthy."
You're going down a VERY slippery slope and towards socialism with that argument. Greed is fine, provided no laws are broken or rights are infringed doing so.
The about greed is it's just that: greed. Greed alone won't make you rich or poor, it's simply the catalyst to such an end. The rest is all based on economics and business decisions. To punish a greedy person because they made smart business decisions is ludicrous. In addition, there's no guarantee of a payout for "greedy" businesses and corporations and they stand to lose just as much (or more) as they stand to gain.
Yep. Funny story. My wifes Uncle is from and lives in France. When he came to our home, he said to us, "You have three cars?" Yes we do. Then he found out that my wife and I both had jobs and also had a home based business (Early days of G&R Tactical). "The French Govt would never allow someone that has a job to then have another job (as there was someone else that needed one)." I explained to him that if my home business takes off, I would free up a job (as I just created one where there was nothing). Not only did G&R free up my high paying job with the GOVT, but also my wifes job! This was a hard concept for him to understand I think. Funny how socialism kills the drive to create wealth.
C4
It's funny people are up in arms because companies are heading overseas to cheaper labor. Fast food jobs paying minimum wage require much more skill than most factory jobs these days. Not sure why you'd pay someone $30+/hr plus lavish benefits to plug in 3 wires, repeat, when someone will do it for less and just as good or better.
It's funny people are up in arms because companies are heading overseas to cheaper labor. Fast food jobs paying minimum wage require much more skill than most factory jobs these days. Not sure why you'd pay someone $30+/hr plus lavish benefits to plug in 3 wires, repeat, when someone will do it for less and just as good or better.
You wouldn't do that if you're a business owner, which is exactly my point. Not to open another front here, but you're describing the American auto industry as well. There are UAW workers who make as much or more than I do in salary, have better benefits, and basically babysit a welding robot. The people moan and feign shock when GM goes bankrupt.
Complication
07-30-10, 14:53
And please remember, we are not talking about struggling companies who may outsource out of financial necessity. I believe we are discussing companies that do so despite their success here in America, companies that literally "sell out" those that brought them to where they are today for an extra dollar just because now they can.
I don't want to take away from the sentiment of your post. I believe I agree with you mostly. But what the struggling companies do has an effect on what the successful ones do and you can't always separate them.
(WARNING: rough analogy, please don't take word-for-word literally)
To put it a bit simplistically, roughly, and in M4C parlance, think of outsourcing (your ironsight skills) as a red dot. In a CQB competition (business) the weakest guy (the struggling company) is going to get an RDS to get the leg up on the 2nd weakest guy. Even if he still isn't as good as the pro (a successful American company) is with irons, he still doesn't want to come in last. So now the 2nd weakest guy will get an RDS, too. And so on and so on. Until the guy coming in 2nd place gets an RDS and can shoot faster at short ranges than the 1st place guy with irons.
So, just like outsourcing (which at least temporarily increases profitability), putting an RDS on in a CQB shooting competition will domino all the way up to the best and most successful guy, even if he worked really hard to be good with irons. So even if a once-successful company outsources, it doesn't mean they're selling out, necessarily. Since everybody competes with everybody and everyone's always trying to offer the lowest prices, even the big successful guys outsource. And usually they do it first--not because they're evil and unAmerican, but because they're smart, saw it coming, and decided to stay ahead of the (unfortunate) game.
Oh, there are definitely companies which just want to make obscene amounts of money regardless of how many corners they have to cut or ethically questionable business practices they have to implement. But I'm willing to be there are also plenty of companies that would have been happy doing it the good old "made in the USA" way but given that outsourcing, etc. is an option for their competitors, have to partake in it as well, just to keep their heads above the water.
So there are exceptions both ways. But sometimes the struggling guys force the successful guys to make changes they might otherwise not prefer.
Tell me, when you go hire or contract with somebody, do you just agree to pay more than their services are worth, because you're "loyal?" Loyal to what, or to whom?
This is a blatant generalization, completely dismissing an entire wide array of likely case specific circumstances as though they couldn't possibly exist. I know you know exactly what I mean and certainly will not oblige anything as ridiculous as a detailed response.
Again, in your instance visualize a human calculator experiencing the resulting tunnel vision of being such. No offense really, but you do come off rather machine-like sometimes.
And really, do you believe I don't know the difference between someone who wants to succeed for themselves, their family and yes, also their employees as opposed to someone (or a small group) who just seek maximum profit at any "cost"? What cost, you ask? How about an American employees once viable job, or many of them?
Couldn't there possibly be a difference? Or more importantly, shouldn't there?
Actually I see no merit in bickering with folks who seem to believe the words "greed" and "gluttony" should be stricken from the dictionary, and I guess the Bible while we're at it. A dead end road if I ever saw one.
This is a blatant generalization, completely dismissing an entire wide array of likely case specific circumstances as though they couldn't possibly exist. I know you know exactly what I mean and certainly will not oblige anything as ridiculous as a detailed response.
No, actually, I don't know what you mean. You seem to have a buggy whip, Mayberry mentality of how the world should work. That businesses and the people who created them should just pay more than what an employee is worth out of some vague notion of altruism.
Actually I see no merit in bickering with folks who seem to believe the words "greed" and "gluttony" should be stricken from the dictionary, and I guess the Bible while we're at it. A dead end road if I ever saw one.
More insults, and now you're throwing the Bible at me.
Typical response of sanctimonious people who have no actual argument.
thopkins22
07-30-10, 15:15
At what point does it become "Yes, you could ship a bunch of your jobs overseas maintaining a profit and the ability to remain a solvent business employing 50 Americans instead of 80, but we'd prefer that you continue to employ the full 80 and eventually go bankrupt so that there are 80 people out of work instead of thirty.
Of course to counter that, we'll artificially keep you in business by telling the American people that they are not free enough to decide what they will spend money on and leave them no choice but to purchase your product."
Let me clarify my earlier remarks. My statement was in response to those who champion laissez faire capitalism (ala Ayn Rand, etc.), unfettered by even minimal government oversight, as the panacea for all our economic woes. I was not implying that corporations are currently allowed to operate with complete impunity.
My point is quite simple. For an economic system to function effectively and profitably, while still operating within the bounds of a civil society, a dynamic tension must exist between the public and the private sector. The individual and collective rights of the citizenry must be balanced against the profit motives of business and industry.
Except that the tension cannot really be with a government regulatory regime. That is not a public sector.
You need to have a strong judiciary and enforcement so that the adage that "your freedom ends at the tip of my nose" can be enforced. That includes corporations. Their freedom ends at the tips of other peoples' noses.
Regulatory regimes exist to be gamed by large corporations or for ideologues to play with their theories.
Welfare states also encourage and enable bad corporate behavior. Things like dumping benefits and pushing people unto public assistance (healthcare etc). (And the whole healthcare thing lying with companies is a consequence of government pay curbs).
At what point does it become "Yes, you could ship a bunch of your jobs overseas maintaining a profit and the ability to remain a solvent business employing 50 Americans instead of 80, but we'd prefer that you continue to employ the full 80 and eventually go bankrupt so that there are 80 people out of work instead of thirty.
But this is exactly what I am not talking about.
For a specific, how about Dell Computers? Though a viable company after 26 years, they needlessly outsourced to the extent that I couldn't understand the reps I spoke to on the phone anymore. This on an absolute routine basis.
And this so much so that I replaced my last Dell with an outstanding LG back by local customer support I can actually interact with effectively. But this is nothing new, as I know from inquiring that I am not the only unhappy camper in that regard.
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Especially since Dell doesn't seem to be nearly the market powerhouse they were several years ago.
That businesses and the people who created them should just pay more than what an employee is worth out of some vague notion of altruism.
It is not that simple. How can you determine what an employee is worth? What the job he does is worth? Things are a lot more interconnected than you can believe.
What about if by shipping all your jobs overseas you have fewer customers to buy your product? That loss of business should be but is not credited to the overseas jobs cost.
What about value that a company "takes" from the community without paying for it? Infrastructure, for example. Or law enforcement. Or many other things, many intangible, which companies take without paying for them.
There is, I feel, an obligation for a business who wants to participate in a specific market, to participate FULLY in that market. To give as well as to take. I do not mean that this can be legislated and that you can enforce a law, but that society (the people itself) should enforce it. You want to sell your product in our society, you give back to the society by making the product here and employing local people to produce and transport and sell that product. Taking profits without giving back to the community is unethical and immoral.
The community who wants to be given back to cannot make unreasonable demands of the corporation either. Unreasonably high salaries and benefits, unreasonable regulations, etc. There has to be give and take, as we explained. But it has to come from the people, not faceless government entities who are powers unto themselves and really have no skin in the game.
As this is from someone who at heart is a laissez-faire capitalist. Just one who believes that you have to look at total costs when making decisions and have to enforce the "your freedom ends at the tip of my nose" sentiments.
Enough rambling for now.
It is not that simple. How can you determine what an employee is worth? What the job he does is worth? Things are a lot more interconnected than you can believe.
What about if by shipping all your jobs overseas you have fewer customers to buy your product? That loss of business should be but is not credited to the overseas jobs cost.
Yes, it is credited against the cost savings. And yes, people who actually make these decisions are well aware of everything you raise, and more, and it is all priced into the decision.
So you're right, it's not quite as simple as I say - but you are bringing up ancillary items that do not come close to outweighing the enormous savings in most cases.
What about value that a company "takes" from the community without paying for it? Infrastructure, for example. Or law enforcement. Or many other things, many intangible, which companies take without paying for them.
They pay taxes too, right?
There is, I feel, an obligation for a business who wants to participate in a specific market, to participate FULLY in that market. To give as well as to take.
So how does that work? I can only sell my product in a community where I employ people? That seems pretty absurd to me if I'm making something that can be sold anywhere. I'm supposed to limit my sales to what radius around my operations, under your theory?
Yes, it is credited against the cost savings. And yes, people who actually make these decisions are well aware of everything you raise, and more, and it is all priced into the decision.
forgive me if I don't fully believe that.
So you're right, it's not quite as simple as I say - but you are bringing up ancillary items that do not come close to outweighing the enormous savings in most cases.
that may be true due to the enormous costs imposed by regulation and union penalties. But again, I also don't think that they take it all into account.
They pay taxes too, right?
Sometimes. Lots of them negotiate tax breaks as bribes to come into an area. And I would bet many companies take more value out than they pay in taxes. I would rather that they did not pay taxes (I an in favor of a Corp income tax rate of 0 since all taxes are really paid by the employees and shareholders anyway) but paid the community back by being full members of the community.
So how does that work? I can only sell my product in a community where I employ people? That seems pretty absurd to me if I'm making something that can be sold anywhere. I'm supposed to limit my sales to what radius around my operations, under your theory?
National boundaries make a good boundary for these purposes.
And let me modify my comments. I think AMERICAN companies who manufacture in China and then sell here are wrong. I have no problem with Tseng Tung Dragon Heavy Industries LTD (obviously made up example) coming here and trying to sell their products here, under their own name. The same as an American company would go to China and sell American products in China under its own name.
American companies should be American in more than name only. And Chinese companies should be Chinese in more than name only.
I don't have all the answers (if I did I would not be sitting here talking about it on M4C). Lots of details on how things should work/would work would have to be worked out.
But the way it works now is not right. Companies take and do not give.
This "give back" stuff is one of the things wrong with us. If no one gave you anything, how can you give back? You're just giving, or having your stuff taken.
This "give back" stuff is one of the things wrong with us. If no one gave you anything, how can you give back? You're just giving, or having your stuff taken.
Can you expand this and explain? I am not sure what you are saying.
Typical response of sanctimonious people who have no actual argument.
Thanks for clearing that up, but why did you skip over this part of my post?
And really, do you believe I don't know the difference between someone who wants to succeed for themselves, their family and yes, also their employees as opposed to someone (or a small group) who just seek maximum profit at any "cost"? What cost, you ask? How about an American employees once viable job, or many of them?
Couldn't there possibly be a difference? Or more importantly, shouldn't there?
Did you deem none of this relevant to the overall discussion?
Can you expand this and explain? I am not sure what you are saying.
I do not know how to explain it if that wasn't enough.
Thanks for clearing that up, but why did you skip over this part of my post?
Did you deem none of this relevant to the overall discussion?
I deemed it not only irrelevant, but not worthy of a response.
I notice you've quoted and responded to only portions of my posts as well, but even I - the "evil robot calculator" - thought it was a bit much to call you out on that. If you don't want to respond, or can't respond, I'm not really bothered by that.
So once again, you are arguing about minutiae or why I didn't answer some rhetorical part of your post, but not actually presenting any rational argument.
I do not know how to explain it if that wasn't enough.
Who is doing the giving and taking etc in your statement?
I deemed it not only irrelevant, but not worthy of a response.
I notice you've quoted and responded to only portions of my posts as well, but even I - the "evil robot calculator" - thought it was a bit much to call you out on that. If you don't want to respond, or can't respond, I'm not really bothered by that.
So once again, you are arguing about minutiae or why I didn't answer some rhetorical part of your post, but not actually presenting any rational argument.
Great non-answer, as you could always ask me to address any specific portion of your postings and I will do my best to present a rational argument. This so long as it is relevant to our discussion. Fair is fair. :)
And you wonder why I call you a machine (Although I don't recall using the term "evil robot"...that seems a bit overstated).
Who is doing the giving and taking etc in your statement?
It doesn't matter the parties. "Giving back" implies someone received something in the first place. If you haven't been given something by someone, you can't give it back. The only time I hear "give back" is when some politician or special interest group is trying to get something out of someone.
Did you work for your success or did someone give it to you?
It doesn't matter the parties. "Giving back" implies someone received something in the first place. If you haven't been given something by someone, you can't give it back. The only time I hear "give back" is when some politician or special interest group is trying to get something out of someone.
Did you work for your success or did someone give it to you?
OK, I see where you are coming from. Not what I was talking about with "giving back" as the companies who should be "giving back" are definitely taking.
I agree with your sentiment. Too often the "give back" language is as you describe and not what I was talking about...
variablebinary
07-30-10, 16:51
It doesn't matter the parties. "Giving back" implies someone received something in the first place. If you haven't been given something by someone, you can't give it back. The only time I hear "give back" is when some politician or special interest group is trying to get something out of someone.
Did you work for your success or did someone give it to you?
Everyone living in this country was given something in the form of infrastructure that was built by tax dollars.
Unless you were born in a boat in international waters, you've benefited from the contributions of the collective society. That extends to companies that use our infrastructure and labor to make money, but then kick our American workers out and bring in Indians or Mexicans or export jobs, which in turn makes a much bigger burden on the collective which allowed the existence of the business to be possible to begin with.
Everyone living in this country was given something in the form of infrastructure that was built by tax dollars.
Unless you were born in a boat in international waters, you've benefited from the contributions of the collective society
There you go. If you're paying taxes you're not been given anything, you're paying for it. That's the "contract." Sure you're not paying when you a child, but it's a deferred loan and you're expected to pay up down the road.
And let me modify my comments. I think AMERICAN companies who manufacture in China and then sell here are wrong. I have no problem with Tseng Tung Dragon Heavy Industries LTD (obviously made up example) coming here and trying to sell their products here, under their own name. The same as an American company would go to China and sell American products in China under its own name.
I know you're not a manufacturer (or at least, I don't get the impression that you are), but I just took a quick look through your website - doesn't your company sell some things that are made in China, and other countries other than the U.S.? Things for which there are competing products made here in the U.S.?
Seems like you're throwing some things that are at least semi-solid inside your glass house.
I know you're not a manufacturer (or at least, I don't get the impression that you are), but I just took a quick look through your website - doesn't your company sell some things that are made in China, and other countries other than the U.S.? Things for which there are competing products made here in the U.S.?
Seems like you're throwing some things that are at least semi-solid inside your glass house.
There are no gun parts that I sell made in China.
The only items that I have identified that are made in China are some stuff that was USA made that, once Bushnell bought it out when they bought Michaels of Oregon out, they moved to China and which I am not getting more in of (specifically HOPPES Bore Snakes) though much of my stock left is not so popular calibers and are USA Made from when Michaels of Oregon was independent.
And CED products (and CED made products under other labels). I am just closing out my CED products that are left in stock and am not carrying CED any more (most of which there were not USA made equivalents to be had that I am aware of). CED made products that are under other names are the Dillon electronic scale and the Dillon hearing protector. Most of Dillon's product line is USA made and those items on the website are a consequence of carrying that brand and I will probably be dropping the hearing protector as the market has gone to crap with all the cheapo crapo hearing protectors on the market now.
I think that is it. I do have some one-off small lots of things I purchased to try out that I did not know where China made. Some cleaning kits that won't be reordered and some Ar15 carry handles that I did not know were China made (most of the company's other stuff is Israel or a few US made items).
I have refused to carry China made gun parts/accessories even though I have had lots of companies try and get me to carry them. In fact I posted a somewhat humorous email exchange I had with one such company -- posted it here on M4C a year or two or so ago.
I do carry items from Sweden (Aimpoint) and Israel (LULA loaders) and have some one off purchases of some other made in Israel stuff (not being reordered). As I previously mentioned, I am not against trading with other countries and if a product from another country is being sold in the name of the foreign company (ie, not outsourced jobs from an American company) then I have no problem with that. I am for truly free trade (which does not exist in reality, unfortunately).
(And note I am not calling for laws that would force people to not manufacture in China or to sell Chinese things etc -- I do not think the government is the solution. Personal choice should lead us to not buy these things and patronize the firms that move jobs offshore but still expect us to buy their products -- for example I don't buy Hershey candy or chocolate products any more after they closed several, most or all of the US factories, a few years ago and moved the work to Mexico)
I personally, when there are alternatives, try to avoid the China made items -- especially under the names of American companies. It is impossible to live China free due to all the crap made in China but if there is a choice I choose non China made items.
So no, I don't think I am throwing hard things in glass houses.
VooDoo6Actual
07-30-10, 20:02
Just took three aspirin.
Charge slave-labor importers for the labor and taxes they would have had to pay to build their product in America. Replace free trade with true trade parity. I'm fully willing to engage in free trade with a country that has an average GDP similar to ours like say finland, germany, or denmark, provided they aren't imposing tariffs and duties on our goods or their companies are receiving subsidization from their governments. Competition is a good thing.
Manufacturers instead of trying to work within our market went the opposite way and circumvented it. If capital goes on strike WE must face the consequences of it like in the great depression so that we might have the prosperity that comes after abandoning those idiotic policies.
All this will happen naturally here regardless. The west has spent their money. The east never had a henry ford to pay the serfs enough to buy their own products. But the money isn't gone, most of it never really existed in the first place. Capital is infinitely renewable because it is anything of value a person creates with their own two hands. That's what the socialists never understood and why "redistributionist" neofeudalist utopias only have enough wealth to keep some of the ruling class out of abject poverty.
America is much better at producing things than other country if for no other reason than the manufacturers that stayed here had to continually figure out how to keep competitive with hiring fewer and fewer humans. In the industrial revolution everybody wanted to come to America. I think we're solid until Americans are hiding in chinese conex boxes trying to make it over there. When you have to build a wall to keep people in, your country is jacked up.
We are only obsolete if we allow ourselves to be.
Reminds me of the Roman Empire - importing immigrants to do our dirty work.
Give this man a Gold Medal.
I have a document stating that the race of Rome changed due to the high number of slaves from Asia Minor (primarily what is now Syria) and the mandatory service of Roman male citizens who served until 42 (?) and many did not return home.
But I digress.
We will pay the penultimate price for allowing this shit to occur without so much as a good whimper when it could have been easily stopped. There are still persons who, for whatever reasons, support the Fed opposing AZ.
So, "yes", some Americans have outlived their usefulness TO ME. :no:
But the Elite have most certainly made their feelings loud and freaking clear. Can we "hear" it? That is the question.
thopkins22
07-31-10, 23:18
But this is exactly what I am not talking about.
For a specific, how about Dell Computers? Though a viable company after 26 years, they needlessly outsourced to the extent that I couldn't understand the reps I spoke to on the phone anymore. This on an absolute routine basis.
And this so much so that I replaced my last Dell with an outstanding LG back by local customer support I can actually interact with effectively. But this is nothing new, as I know from inquiring that I am not the only unhappy camper in that regard.
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Especially since Dell doesn't seem to be nearly the market powerhouse they were several years ago.
I don't have a problem with not supporting companies that ship jobs off that weren't having problems...for that matter I don't have a problem if you want to oppose companies that were having problems and shipped jobs away.
I just don't want there to be laws forcing that upon the American people. The problem lies with whom we would be asking to say when it's acceptable and when it's not, soon there will be bureaucrats in charge of yet more industries and playing God with our economy.
If it goes that route, I fear that it won't be long till these aren't American companies shipping jobs overseas, the companies themselves will move overseas or sprout there. At some point the magic of having a company mailbox in Delaware will disappear due to all the federal regulations that don't exist in China/India/Where Ever.
variablebinary
07-31-10, 23:35
I don't have a problem with not supporting companies that ship jobs off that weren't having problems...for that matter I don't have a problem if you want to oppose companies that were having problems and shipped jobs away.
I just don't want there to be laws forcing that upon the American people. The problem lies with whom we would be asking to say when it's acceptable and when it's not, soon there will be bureaucrats in charge of yet more industries and playing God with our economy.
If it goes that route, I fear that it won't be long till these aren't American companies shipping jobs overseas, the companies themselves will move overseas or sprout there. At some point the magic of having a company mailbox in Delaware will disappear due to all the federal regulations that don't exist in China/India/Where Ever.
There are a million in one reasons why there will never be a mass exodus of companies to glorified third world shit holes like China and India even if tomorrow you imposed a 20% tax on every outsourced job.
The majority of intellectual property worth a damn is born right here in the USA as well and could never take root in China or India, and they certainly arent going to Europe where the protectionism laws and taxes are brutal
thopkins22
07-31-10, 23:54
There are a million in one reasons why there will never be a mass exodus of companies to glorified third world shit holes like China and India even if tomorrow you imposed a 20% tax on every outsourced job.
The majority of intellectual property worth a damn is born right here in the USA as well and could never take root in China or India, and they certainly arent going to Europe where the protectionism laws and taxes are brutal
While it certainly hasn't reached "mass exodus" proportions, it's already happening. There is a whole world full of new and growing companies that are not overly concerned with the US marketplace, instead focusing on Asia and Europe, and many of them are springing up in Taiwan, China, and India.
China is still Communist...but they sure as hell understand capitalism. We can display hubris and pretend that we are the almighty consumer, but reality and the sheer debt we've accumulated says that cannot be the case for long. Many other countries/regions have been producing and saving. We need to not only encourage our profitable businesses remain so(though we should certainly let poorly run businesses fail,) but we need to do everything in our power to encourage new businesses(with worldwide markets,) to settle here.
Intellectual property will mean only slightly more than Jack if we aren't prepared to produce and are incapable of consuming. Thriftville vs. Squanderville folks.
I just don't want there to be laws forcing that upon the American people. The problem lies with whom we would be asking to say when it's acceptable and when it's not, soon there will be bureaucrats in charge of yet more industries and playing God with our economy.
yeah I would not want laws on who can and can't etc. Society needs to push back on it.
I could be convinced, maybe, to support special duties on products imported into the US manufactured elsewhere that are imported/sold by a US company under their own name.
I just don't want there to be laws forcing that upon the American people. The problem lies with whom we would be asking to say when it's acceptable and when it's not, soon there will be bureaucrats in charge of yet more industries and playing God with our economy.
As much as I deplore unnecessary outsourcing, I don't want laws against it and can't recall implying such.
I would just encourage people to primarily do business with American companies that employ Americans.
As much as I deplore unnecessary outsourcing, I don't want laws against it and can't recall implying such.
I would just encourage people to primarily do business with American companies that employ Americans.
I don't disagree with you. However, from a practical standpoint, that won't do anything. Too many people want low Wal-Mart prices and don't care.
And the politicians are not willing to create a better climate for doing manufacturing in the US and the unions screw it up too.
Again, I am not calling for laws against it. Just looking at the practical side of things. That is why I mentioned "duties" on such goods.
It is interesting to note that at the founding of the country, it was expected that the finances of the country would at least partially be met through duties and taxes on international trade. There was no income tax of any sort for a long time.
I would just encourage people to primarily do business with American companies that employ Americans.
I'm OK with foreign companies that set up operations (Honda, Toyota, Samsung, etc.) here and employ US citizens.
Littlelebowski
08-01-10, 11:45
I'm OK with foreign companies that set up operations (Honda, Toyota, Samsung, etc.) here and employ US citizens.
Particularly if they build quality stuff without unions that are hand in hand with the Democratic Party.
I'm OK with foreign companies that set up operations (Honda, Toyota, Samsung, etc.) here and employ US citizens.
First, what is the market share in America for such companies? There is relevance, as their interests in doing business here go far beyond saving a buck on labor costs.
Also, are they employing Americans to manufacture products that will be sold in Japan, or here in the US? Are they using American phone reps to service people in Japan?
Sorry, but an ineffective example when keeping things in the proper context of the discussion.
Also, are they employing Americans to manufacture products that will be sold in Japan, or here in the US?
I am not sure what you are saying. As long as they employ US citizens at a fair wage and benefit package I don't think I care where the product is sold.
I am not sure what you are saying. As long as they employ US citizens at a fair wage and benefit package I don't think I care where the product is sold.
I think you missed my point. The products they are having Americans build and service in America are sold here in America. The products they sell in Japan are largely produced and serviced by the Japanese divisions.
Therefore, there is a difference. For example: What practical function does having a person in India who speaks broken English taking American customer service/technical issue calls for Dell serve? This beyond saving money at the expense of American jobs as well as creating less effective customer service?
Particularly if they build quality stuff without unions that are hand in hand with the Democratic Party.
BINGO :) my exact thoughts also :) and the best argument is showing these companies can do it ! so others can also
sadly the Toyota recall was a GOV attack and most of them are turning out to be false claims ! hmmmmmm wondered what group started that
For example: What practical function does having a person in India who speaks broken English taking American customer service/technical issue calls for Dell serve?
heheeh OH man dont even get me started
it serves to PISS me off and never call back so they save money cause no one wants to call it in
was dealing with a CC ? forgot which one was a time ago and we canceled it
called in to do something and the guys accent made me ask where am I calling to took a bit to drag out of him but in India ! so all my personal info and account info is somewhere over there ?
it was a major CC company not a strange small one
CANCEL !!!!!
The products they are having Americans build and service in America are sold here in America. The products they sell in Japan are largely produced and serviced by the Japanese divisions.
That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
And if you don't like their call center don't buy their product - that's how the market is supposed to work.
This is probably going to piss off some folks, but I don't find US staffed call centers all that easy to deal with either. Have you ever tried calling Time Warner about a problem with your service. Unless you escalate the call to supervisor you just get some airhead that is reading from a script and usually blames whatever problem you are having on you or your home equipment. At least that is my experience.
That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
And if you don't like their call center don't buy their product - that's how the market is supposed to work.
This is probably going to piss off some folks, but I don't find US staffed call centers all that easy to deal with either. Have you ever tried calling Time Warner about a problem with your service. Unless you escalate the call to supervisor you just get some airhead that is reading from a script and usually blames whatever problem you are having on you or your home equipment. At least that is my experience.
True, We've had the same experience with Direct TV, and T.W....But at least when you call, and they give you the jerk around, you can understand what they're saying..I'd rather not get jerked around at all, but having delt with both of them at different times, I would'nt expect anything less, That said,I'll take a jerk around in english over one in broken english any day..
to back up what austin said about US call centers !!!
today ! I was going to upgrade our phones to the new Iphone 4 from our 3GS
mine was fine to get the lower price wifes was not ?
funny we bought them at the same time ?
so I call up ATT and ask whats up ? they say hers was bought at a later date ? I say NOPE I have the recipts to prove that ? then she said well its cause she does not use hers as much so she is not eligible ?
I ask what is it we did not buy them or she does not use it enough ? and who cares its a family plan
I say you have made a mistake about the dates then or the usage cause we bought them the same day and we are on a family plan !
she then looudly says LOOK WE ARE ATT WE DONT MAKE MISTAKES
I just laughed and thought WOW cant wait for Verizon to get Iphones
variablebinary
08-02-10, 04:33
to back up what austin said about US call centers !!!
today ! I was going to upgrade our phones to the new Iphone 4 from our 3GS
mine was fine to get the lower price wifes was not ?
funny we bought them at the same time ?
so I call up ATT and ask whats up ? they say hers was bought at a later date ? I say NOPE I have the recipts to prove that ? then she said well its cause she does not use hers as much so she is not eligible ?
I ask what is it we did not buy them or she does not use it enough ? and who cares its a family plan
I say you have made a mistake about the dates then or the usage cause we bought them the same day and we are on a family plan !
she then looudly says LOOK WE ARE ATT WE DONT MAKE MISTAKES
I just laughed and thought WOW cant wait for Verizon to get Iphones
Verizon sucks ass, so dont expect an improvement.
Verizon sucks ass, so dont expect an improvement.
bummer :( grass is greener I guess ?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.