Metro Jacksonville

Strawman alert!

QuoteLet me also ask this, what is the difference between someone robbing you at the ATM for a few hundred dollars or someone investing the pension plans of millions, worth billions in instruments they know are risky, while they bet against said instruments by purchasing insurance on them? 

Nah, BT.  Not even close enough to be a featherman.

Fraud may be theft, BUT IT IS NOT VIOLENCE!  Phew!  Hate to have to shout to get a point across.

Quote from: Dog Walker on April 17, 2010, 11:39:48 AM

QuoteLet me also ask this, what is the difference between someone robbing you at the ATM for a few hundred dollars or someone investing the pension plans of millions, worth billions in instruments they know are risky, while they bet against said instruments by purchasing insurance on them? 

Nah, BT.  Not even close enough to be a featherman.

Fraud may be theft, BUT IT IS NOT VIOLENCE!  Phew!  Hate to have to shout to get a point across.

And what are the consequences of that fraud?

What are the consequences of Americans buying cheap consumer goods made in sweatshops?  Sounds like violence to me? 

My point is that you are making a selfish argument when you argue that its ok to kill someone over a few hundred dollars yet the consequences of all of our actions are the reason such violence exists in the first place.  Capitalism=violence!

QuoteCapitalism=violence!

:D

Let's see; I grow fruit, you bake bread.  I offer you some fruit for a loaf of your bread and you accept.  That's capitalism, I own the trees and you own the oven, but it ain't violence.

BT, where does one begin? ::)

Quote from: Dog Walker on April 17, 2010, 02:07:19 PM
Let's see; I grow fruit, you bake bread.  I offer you some fruit for a loaf of your bread and you accept.  That's capitalism, I own the trees and you own the oven, but it ain't violence.

BT, where does one begin? ::)

So you are blind to the concentration of wealth that has occurred in this country as a result of capitalism?

You mean that all of those rich people got their riches by putting guns to people's heads or tearing money from their pockets?  If capitalism=violence you would have thought we would have heard about all of the robberies.

(Now watch JC redefine violence!)

Good grief!  Last had this argument as a college sophomore fifty years ago.

Quote from: JC on April 17, 2010, 02:22:37 PM
So you are blind to the concentration of wealth that has occurred in this country as a result of capitalism?

Without capitalism, there would be no wealth to concentrate.

Stephen, Ownership of the trees and ovens is capital.  That's why I included them.  Trade goods are capital.  Capital ain't just money.  I get paid money for the use of my intellectual capital (patents).  Love me some capitalism!

QuoteWithout capitalism, there would be no wealth to concentrate.

Truth, Traveler.

The anguished cry of all collectivists is, "But it's just not FAIR!"   They also think that trade and capitalism are zero-sum games; that someone has to lose in order for someone else to profit.

And thievery is violence!!!  Yes, we have just squared JC's circle!  ;)

Let's see; when the patriarchs traded some of their sheep and cattle for the daughter of a neighboring tribe, was that capitalism?  Accumulated wealth transferred for a more desirable good and an investment in the future.

Maybe we shouldn't go there.  To easy to make jokes about the greater desirability of the daughters of others compared to sheep.   ;D

QuoteBT, where does one begin?

Forget it... it is best to NOT begin... ::) :)

(http://jmn.fadainc.com/funnypics/derailment.jpg)

I dont have to redefine violence...

Main Entry: vi·o·lence
Pronunciation: \ˈvī-lən(t)s, ˈvī-ə-\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage
3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm> b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance
4 : undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)

Mesothelioma
(http://www.mesotheliomas.ca/images/mesothelioma-cancer-lungs.jpg)

Gowanus super fund site
(http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/gowanus-pollution-0409.jpg)

Exxon Valdez
(http://naturescrusaders.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/exxon-valdez2.jpg)

Triangle Shirtwaist Fire
(http://www2.lhric.org/wh/whgif/whdemo2.jpg)

I can go on and on like this...  Maybe I should.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 17, 2010, 05:17:02 PM

QuoteBT, where does one begin?

Forget it... it is best to NOT begin... ::) :)

You are right, BT! 

Back on thread:  If you go to an ATM at night best to have a friend with a gun to watch your back!

I will say that I am of the opinion that government involvement in areas involving working people does hinder their progress, such as a minimum wage, making it illegal for certain unions to strike and so forth.  If the gloves were off and the employing class exploited the working class to the extent that they are inclined, the working class would form unions that would fight back and would win, because the working class is ultimately in control, they just don't know it.  I know "we should all just be lucky to have what we have" is the popular mentality but its wrong.

This document speaks about my beliefs more eloquently than I can. 

QuotePreamble to the IWW Constitution

Direct Action Gets the GoodsThe working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.

Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.

We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.

These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.

Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."

It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.

Huh?

QuoteIt is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.

Gee... this sounds like...um...uh...you know... the guy... uh...one of the Marx brothers??  Chico?  Harpo?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 18, 2010, 11:49:55 AM

QuoteIt is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.

Gee... this sounds like...um...uh...you know... the guy... uh...one of the Marx brothers??  Chico?  Harpo?

do you see a mention of a the state in this text?

International Workers of the World ....IWW....good grief, are the Wobblies still around?  JC must be one of the last of the pure Marxists left in the world.  I KNEW I last had this discussion about fifty years ago.

Wage slaves, worker exploitation.....nobody has seriously talked like this since 1991!

Marxism is a quasi-religious belief system and it as futile to argue with a believer as it is to try to argue with a fundamentalist Baptist about the rationality of those beliefs.


Stephen, in my mind you are conflating finance and capitalism.  Academically you may be correct, but my gut's definition of capitalism isn't so narrow.  Accumulation of surplus of any kind for the purpose of exchange or loan has to be at least a primitive form of capitalism.  "I'll give you three bushels of seed corn now if you pledge to give me ten bushels of corn when you crop comes in."

Stephen, could it not be argued that we have just "outsourced" the exploitation to China, India, etc.?

I am certainly up for a discussion on the topic, maybe not a debate, but certainly a discussion.  Unfortunately the only education I have regarding economics comes from years of arguing on message boards and my self ascribed reading list.

It may be better to start another thread, although I feel the split from the original topic is dead so probably not. 

I will read your posts thoroughly and give you a good response a little later, I am watching "Life" on NG with my kids at the moment. 

Oh, and just so you know where I am coming from, I am a huge fan of PJ Proudhon aside from his antisemitic and racist ideas. 

Quote from: stephendare on April 18, 2010, 02:10:06 PM
Labor theory regards the capitalist system as evil because of its exploitation of labor in order to create mercantile value.  It ponders the gradual withering away of the capitalist system as inequities are reduced through organized labor action.  And we certainly saw a good bit of that in what many people are referring (prematurely I think) as the American Golden Age.  (Post WW2 to the Nixon Administration)

But I think what we are seeing in the industrialized nations (at least geographically) is the withering away of Labor.  In a mechanized society, one in which robotic and mechanical work has largely replaced the human element, where is the exploitative nature of capitalism expressed in the market place?

Well you will, at least for the foreseeable future need skilled trades people and artisans to build.  However there is a threat to the wages and benefits of skilled union workers and its undocumented workers.  I should preclude my next statement by saying, I aint mad at em.  My beef is with organized labor for not doing its part to prevent contractors who use undocumented workers from working, both through direct action and legislatively, we have failed.  The courthouse is a perfect example of such a failure.  The moment undocs were found on the job the contract should have been ripped up, although, if the city gave a shit about its residents it would have stipulated that local labor was used with a % of it being organized.  Mayoral Candidate Warren Lee conceded this point, he said if the rail system were to come to fruition he would ensure that the local labor force would be used, call me protectionist but whatever!

QuoteCan we legitimately describe the value derived from the mechanical labor as a property belonging to the machines that produce them?  And can we logically describe such profits as 'stolen'?  Of course, the default argument falls back on the labor and skill of the operators of the machinery, but we are rapidly approaching the era when even those kinds of task workers will be few and largely unskilled.

I have long had problems with who gets residuals.  For example, I worked for a large mechanical contractor in Jacksonville, we were responsible for doing maintenance work and new construction in places like Jefferson Smurfit in Fernandina.  The way I see it is that the workers "contract" with the employer unfairly ends at the end of the day.  Contrast that with the residuals those who invent and take capital "risk" receive.  Yet its the worker who actually takes the real risk.  Risking life and limb, as well as possible chronic illness we do what we MUST to provide for our families.   

QuoteSo then where is the labor value derived?  Would it be in the work of the engineers and programmers and foundry workers that made the mechanized labor force?  And if so, are we supposed to regard all profits from future products of the mechanized factories as partially the property of the collective design workers?

Unfortunately, I think the way things are going in the US will require the government to redistribute wealth to a greater extent, particularly because the increasing wealth gap. 

QuoteAnd in an age where even industrial design is becoming a programmable task for technology, do we then count derivative value another step back?

I personally think that Technology has doomed the psuedo proletariat of the Industrialized nations.  If there are no actual workers producing goods, then whose derivative labor was acually robbed?

What becomes of a Manifesto whose underpinnings are based on a crime which no longer happens?

I will get to this later...

Workers unite, overthrow government and recover the wealth of the people. Then....

Quote from: buckethead on April 18, 2010, 08:13:43 PM
Workers unite, overthrow government and recover the wealth of the people. Then....

Where has this been proposed?

Everybody talks about the "Wealth Gap" as if were a bad thing.  Why?  Short answer is that people think that "wealth" was a zero-sum game, i.e. if somebody is getting wealthy, then someone else must be getting poorer.  Wrong!

Am I worse off because Bill Gates is the richest man in the world?  (Old joke:  When Bill Gates walks into a crowded auditorium, everybody there, on average, becomes a millionaire.)

No I am not, I'm richer.  His company, his software has vastly increased my productivity, allowed me to collaborate with colleagues around the world and get richer myself. Not to mention improving the quality of my life by allowing me access to information instantly.  I would willingly kiss the hands of the young billionaires who founded Google.  And I bet so would the "exploited" millionaires who are their employees.

Creative people in a capitalist system create additional wealth for everybody.  They make the pie bigger, not smaller. 

"Labor", muscle power, is the least important and least valuable part of productivity.

Quote from: Dog Walker on April 19, 2010, 08:50:36 AM
Everybody talks about the "Wealth Gap" as if were a bad thing.  Why?  Short answer is that people think that "wealth" was a zero-sum game, i.e. if somebody is getting wealthy, then someone else must be getting poorer.  Wrong!

I can see your point and agree that in the US everyone is wealthier than say, during the depression.  Poverty means something completely different now.

Quote
Am I worse off because Bill Gates is the richest man in the world?  (Old joke:  When Bill Gates walks into a crowded auditorium, everybody there, on average, becomes a millionaire.)

For every positive example you can come up with I can come up with at least one negative example.  I realize thee impacts are hard to quantify, which cuts both ways.  I am sure you would agree that the people of Vietnam could have done without Monsanto, as could the farmers in the US who are being sued because the genetics of the seeds they are growing are now owned, genetics are owned, I hope I dont have to explain the negative impact of that up decision.

QuoteNo I am not, I'm richer.  His company, his software has vastly increased my productivity, allowed me to collaborate with colleagues around the world and get richer myself. Not to mention improving the quality of my life by allowing me access to information instantly.  I would willingly kiss the hands of the young billionaires who founded Google.  And I bet so would the "exploited" millionaires who are their employees.

What if you do not have access to these tools?

QuoteCreative people in a capitalist system create additional wealth for everybody.  They make the pie bigger, not smaller.

As much as I love my ipod, I would trade it in a heart beat if it meant that the children being exploited in sweat shops to create it, were no longer exploited!  The point is that there is always a cost for this creativity, and those who have the least access to information are the ones who pay the highest price.  

Quote"Labor", muscle power, is the least important and least valuable part of productivity.

This is just fucking insulting....

When someone spends their time working in a factory, lets say packaging cookies, they are selling their LIFE.  Do you understand what that means?  They are selling their health, their time with friends and family, for what?  So they can survive, that's all.  The model of slavery never went away, it just costs a little more than it did.  Why bring Africans to the US factories when you can bring the US factories to Africa, Mexico, India, The Philippines and so on?  

Here is a piece about a labor struggle I worked on.

http://www.indypendent.org/2009/03/20/bronx-bakery-battle/

Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2010, 09:09:14 AM
Im not sure Im following you there, dogwalker.  I know that this is a common criticism, but I think its deflection.  I dont think that people (at least the ones who actually think about it) actually believe that wealth is derived by depriving someone else of the chance to make their own.  Where do you see evidence of this?

Separately, I agree with you on the productive and creative powers of wealth creation however.  But youve been involved in industrial fabrication yourself.  It has historically taken good labor to produce anything according to the design of the creator.

Yes, without labor, thinkers would be just that and they would starve...

Since I took the time to post this please take the http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,8251.msg145115.html#msg145115 time to respond.

I can agree with the point that without labor, the thinker becomes obsolete. In theory. Of course the thinker is smart enough to become a doer, in that case.

The thinker (or visionary) is simply more valuable than the mover of dirt. The capital to impliment the thinking, which organizes the moving of dirt, is the most valuable of all.

All of this makes money the ultimate goal, which some find unfair. Often, it is unfair. Absolute solutions have been attempted, and oddly, the result is an absolute failure.

We simply need to strive to maintian a balance between socialism and capitalism which allows for change.There will never be a perfect system, and ours is always in need of reform. Still I view the American Economic model to be the most productive and commonly beneficial system so far. ( Please educate me if I am wrong)

Quote from: buckethead on April 19, 2010, 11:45:37 AM
I can agree with the point that without labor, the thinker becomes obsolete. In theory. Of course the thinker is smart enough to become a doer, in that case.

The thinker (or visionary) is simply more valuable than the mover of dirt. The capital to impliment the thinking, which organizes the moving of dirt, is the most valuable of all.

All of this makes money the ultimate goal, which some find unfair. Often, it is unfair. Absolute solutions have been attempted, and oddly, the result is an absolute failure.

We simply need to strive to maintian a balance between socialism and capitalism which allows for change.There will never be a perfect system, and ours is always in need of reform. Still I view the American Economic model to be the most productive and commonly beneficial system so far. ( Please educate me if I am wrong)

I think we mostly agree here, however, I don't think the visionary is more valuable because her/his time spent away from the things they love is mitigated by doing, in many cases, the thing they love.

Contrast that with the uneducated person who is stuck in a mine, getting some fatal disease.  Whose life and time are worth more?  

Oh and this is worth a loo... http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/language/en-US/ENG.aspx

An employer does not purchase a person's life.

The laborers capital is labor. It is worth less than the architects vision. This will not be the case when the supply of intelllectuals and visionaries has surpassed that of the available supply of laborers proportional to the demand of each. I don't forsee that happening.

I am not suggesting that a laborer does not spend his time (life) providing labor any more than the manager, architect, visionary or investor spends his/her time providing their services.

At the same time, we do need regulations in place that allow for a safe workplace. What I don't see as appropriate is a governing body dictating salaries and wages.

When people speak of free markets, one hopes they realize that the term is relative, just as any socio-economic system should never be sought as an absolute.

BTW, I clicked the link after I responded and the group's site you link to is a perfect example of a workers solution to investors using them as capital. The participants do so volutarilty. I wish them the highest level of prosperity and success.

I did not say that labor has no value.  I said that it has the lesser value because it is more available and common than creativity.  I've been paid for my sweat and muscles too and would never say that it has no value.  Marxists say that it is the only or greatest value in production.

BT, When people complain about the "wage gap" or "income disparity" or "concentration of wealth", there are several possible motivations.  Thinking that the pie is of a fixed size is a mistake, but morally defensible.  The other motives are not.

"It's not FAIR!" is the cry of a moral child who didn't get as much as they wanted and saw someone else get more.

"Somewhere someone has suffered for me and you to have what we have" (children in sweatshops making IPODS?) is the morally indefensible casting of unearned guilt to try to gain an end of some kind.  "We are all sinners, brothers and sisters and to make amends put money in this pot."  or "Eating meat is murdering animals so contribute to PETA."  (Got to love their naked lady ads, though.)  Wallow in guilt all you want if it makes you feel better, but don't try to drag me down too.  I didn't kill that whale in the picture and condemn those who did.

Perhaps the most disgusting motive of all are the people who have NOT earned what they have and have the guilty fear that if the wealth distribution gets TOO unequal that the poorer people will come and take away what they have.  There was an absolutely great cartoon in the New Yorker a few years ago that showed a plump, well dressed man pulling away from a panhandler saying, "Why don't you go and inherit your own money."

Quote from: Dog Walker on April 19, 2010, 12:58:01 PM
I did not say that labor has no value.  I said that it has the lesser value because it is more available and common than creativity.  I've been paid for my sweat and muscles too and would never say that it has no value.  Marxists say that it is the only or greatest value in production.

BT, When people complain about the "wage gap" or "income disparity" or "concentration of wealth", there are several possible motivations.  Thinking that the pie is of a fixed size is a mistake, but morally defensible.  The other motives are not.

"It's not FAIR!" is the cry of a moral child who didn't get as much as they wanted and saw someone else get more.

"Somewhere someone has suffered for me and you to have what we have" (children in sweatshops making IPODS?) is the morally indefensible casting of unearned guilt to try to gain an end of some kind.  "We are all sinners, brothers and sisters and to make amends put money in this pot."  or "Eating meat is murdering animals so contribute to PETA."  (Got to love their naked lady ads, though.)  Wallow in guilt all you want if it makes you feel better, but don't try to drag me down too.  I didn't kill that whale in the picture and condemn those who did.

Perhaps the most disgusting motive of all are the people who have NOT earned what they have and have the guilty fear that if the wealth distribution gets TOO unequal that the poorer people will come and take away what they have.  There was an absolutely great cartoon in the New Yorker a few years ago that showed a plump, well dressed man pulling away from a panhandler saying, "Why don't you go and inherit your own money."

You said "least important" which is the insulting part.  

Quote from: buckethead on April 19, 2010, 12:31:15 PM
An employer does not purchase a person's life.

The laborers capital is labor. It is worth less than the architects vision. This will not be the case when the supply of intelllectuals and visionaries has surpassed that of the available supply of laborers proportional to the demand of each. I don't forsee that happening.

I am not suggesting that a laborer does not spend his time (life) providing labor any more than the manager, architect, visionary or investor spends his/her time providing their services.

At the same time, we do need regulations in place that allow for a safe workplace. What I don't see as appropriate is a governing body dictating salaries and wages.

When people speak of free markets, one hopes they realize that the term is relative, just as any socio-economic system should never be sought as an absolute.

BTW, I clicked the link after I responded and the group's site you link to is a perfect example of a workers solution to investors using them as capital. The participants do so volutarilty. I wish them the highest level of prosperity and success.

As I have said in a previous post, take the gloves off and we will see who wins that fight.  Minimum wage is nothing but a bs "standard" that makes poor people complacent.  Granted, it would suck at first and there would be a race to the bottom but without government protection and subsidies I can guarantee Walmart would not exist.  And yes, you are purchasing a human being for the agreed upon time and agreed upon value  but what choice does a working person have when there is a line of more desperate people willing to do the same work for less?

Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2010, 01:01:13 PM
Well, maybe.

Charity and sharing isnt based on shrill demands, you know.

Its a species thing, and our nature.  We cooperate.  We share.  Or most of us do.

When we dont, every culture of our species has an unflattering word for it.

Not wanting to buy goods produced in a sweatshop is based on the fact that sweatshops are pretty evil.

We are hard wired this way.  When we see another creature in pain, our actual brain chemistry shows no difference in the reaction to when it is happening to ourselves except for the pain signals.  

We have empathy as a gift of our biology, or if you prefer, our creator(s).   And we share because teamworking is more productive than trying to build a space ship all by yourself.

Humans operate within the framework of the system they are in.  You can see this with children, an example would be Geoffrey Canada's Harlem Children Zones.  Those kids are in an environment that is safe and fosters cooperation as opposed to the "survival of the fittest" public schools in the same neighborhood.  Capitalism is nasty and plays to the basest of human characteristics, it allows the greediest turds to float to the top of the bowl!

Another example are these doctors in New Orleans, Propublica just won a Pulitzer for their piece on the subject.  These docs were very desperate and they did things they would never have been capable in "normal" circumstances.  

I just want to add that there are creative and visionary types in Jax that have to labor now to make ends meet. :(

Quoteit allows the greediest turds to float to the top of the bowl!

You mean self made billionaires like Oprah?  Gates?  Allen?  Jobs?  Zuckerberg?  These are but a few of the billionaire turds who have risen to the top... How about the self made millionaires?  Turds also?  How about working stiffs like my father and mother who came from the poorest of the poor and are now pretty well off?  Turds??

Floating to the top?  Or scratching and clawing your way to the top?  The top is the aspiration... few actually make it. 

Stephen,  Charity, compassion and sharing are absolutely built in to our species, thank heavens!

Ipods aren't built in sweatshops either.

Pure lassez-fair capitalism doesn't work any more than pure Communism or Socialism or Merchantilism works.  Our system of regulated capitalism, encouragement of charity, and government support for social infrastructure has worked pretty well.  We have been, still are, and will remain the most flexible and powerful economy in the world as long as we keep the balance right.

Maybe it's a little like raising children.  You have to set limits to and check on their behavior, but you can't stifle their activity, creativity and growth either.

We are in an economic mess right now because part of our financial system was not regulated enough and there was unchecked criminal activity, too.  Got some BAD children out there.

BT,  There are some sore losers out there.

The people I listed are also philanthropists of the highest degree.  They give back quite a bit...

QuoteIf they didnt hold the money in trust for charitable funds they would go directly to the highest taxable column.  When the money is donated to charity, both the interests rates raised for charitable donations and the principal are tax free.

Really?  Just a big ol tax break to them eh?  Oprah?  OPRAH? :-[

If I've got my dates right, Andrew Carnegie gave away most of his money before there was any charitable contribution on income tax.  He basically established the free library system in this country.  And Stephen is right.  We need to encourage charity with our tax system especially in view of our ridiculous inheritance (death) taxes.

If you look catty cornered from the old Hayden Burns library you will see a neo-Classical building that was the first public library in Jacksonville and was built and stocked with Carnegie money.

There was a mezzanine with glass floors.  In the winter time we used to shuffle our feet on those floors and could generate a static spark that would jump six inches.  Young boys are easily amused by that sort of thing (and still am!)

I wish someone could tell me how to look into the hearts of others.  Would have made life much easier.  How is that done?

NN, there is one way to get some idea of what's there.  Look at the actions.  "What you do speaks so loudly I cannot hear what you say."  - Maslow.

"Have you ever known the long considered opinion of a village about a villager to be wrong?" - Patrick O'Brien.

Unfortunately, there is no quick test.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 19, 2010, 02:53:17 PM

Quoteit allows the greediest turds to float to the top of the bowl!

You mean self made billionaires like Oprah?  Gates?  Allen?  Jobs?  Zuckerberg?  These are but a few of the billionaire turds who have risen to the top... How about the self made millionaires?  Turds also?  How about working stiffs like my father and mother who came from the poorest of the poor and are now pretty well off?  Turds??

Floating to the top?  Or scratching and clawing your way to the top?  The top is the aspiration... few actually make it.  

You are reverse engineering my statement to suit your outrage.  Are all people who manage to make it work turds, no, of course not but many are.  Eric Prince, Dick Cheney, Bernie Madoff, Rupert Murdoch, the list is endless.  The point is that, and it is the last time I will make it, that capitalism fosters the worst in humans, it is a framework where within you can destroy whatever you need to just so you can have a bigger house and a fancy hand made car, its stupid and more often than not far more destructive than productive.  The entire industrial revolution has lead to the destruction of our environment, it has caused countless wars, terrorism, you name it all for global market dominance.  I can list a shit load of examples where American companies have gone into foreign countries and exploited the people and the resources, this all happens because such incredible greed is sanctioned by government and, worst of all, public schools.

Quote from: Dog Walker on April 19, 2010, 02:53:43 PM
Stephen,  Charity, compassion and sharing are absolutely built in to our species, thank heavens!

Ipods aren't built in sweatshops either.

Pure lassez-fair capitalism doesn't work any more than pure Communism or Socialism or Merchantilism works.  Our system of regulated capitalism, encouragement of charity, and government support for social infrastructure has worked pretty well.  We have been, still are, and will remain the most flexible and powerful economy in the world as long as we keep the balance right.

Maybe it's a little like raising children.  You have to set limits to and check on their behavior, but you can't stifle their activity, creativity and growth either.

We are in an economic mess right now because part of our financial system was not regulated enough and there was unchecked criminal activity, too.  Got some BAD children out there.

QuoteSweatshop Conditions at IPod Factory Reported
   
By Mike Musgrove
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 16, 2006

Apple Computer Inc. is having an iPod-related public relations headache this week, following a report by a British newspaper on working conditions at Chinese factories where the popular music player is built.

The Mail on Sunday reported that a Chinese factory that manufactures iPods employs 200,000 workers who live in dormitories where visitors are not permitted. Workers toil for 15-hour days for as little as $50 per month, according to the article.

As Mac fan sites buzzed with debate over the report, Apple issued a statement saying it is investigating the matter.

"Apple is committed to ensuring that working conditions in our supply chain are safe, workers are treated with respect and dignity, and manufacturing processes are environmentally responsible," the company statement said.

Apple said it is "investigating the allegations regarding working conditions in the iPod manufacturing plant in China." It added, "We do not tolerate any violations of our supplier code of conduct."
ad_icon

IPod factory workers are employed by Taiwanese contract manufacturer Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., also known by the brand Foxconn Electronics Inc. The relationship between Apple and Hon Hai is typical in the electronics industry, where manufacturing is frequently handled by contract builders.

The working conditions, as described in the British newspaper article, aren't unusual, said Karin Mak, a project coordinator at a nonprofit watchdog organization called Sweatshop Watch.

"It's very common," she said. "These types of conditions are very typical, unfortunately."

Apple's six-page "Supplier Code of Conduct" -- posted at http://www.apple.com/environment -- would seem to prohibit the sort of treatment described in the article.

"Apple suppliers must uphold the human rights of workers, to treat them with dignity and respect as understood by the international community," reads a passage near the beginning of the document. The guidelines dictate that workers should be restricted to 60-hour workweeks except in unusual circumstances.

Apple has often celebrated its anti-corporate image, with its "Think different" marketing slogan and its use of figures such as John Lennon and Gandhi for ad campaigns.

That Northern California sensibility makes it all the more noticeable when activists accuse Apple of having bad karma.

Over the past year, environmentalists went after Apple for not having a full-fledged computer recycling program, unlike its competitors. In May, Apple beefed up its recycling program, in which customers can recycle old machines for free with the purchase of a new one.

More recently, some activists are going after the company for imposing digital-rights-management software on iTunes and the iPod, which some are portraying as a way to prevent consumers from using other software or hardware to enjoy their music collections in the future. Last weekend, activists turned up at Apple stores in seven cities across the country to protest the company's tactics.

On Mac user Web sites, the debate over the Chinese iPod factory article has some customers accusing the British newspaper of picking on their favorite company's hot product. "I think this is a piece of sensationalist journalism which uses the ipod popularity to make a catchy headline and make a story," wrote one reader at the Web site for Macworld magazine.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 19, 2010, 03:10:22 PM
The people I listed are also philanthropists of the highest degree.  They give back quite a bit...

Agreed, the Bill and Malinda Gates foundation is doing really great work.  But again, for every one philanthropist their are many many people who are hording valuable resources while others starve!

There are some great examples of participatory economics, such as Mondragon, Black Spot and so forth.

Then there is of course "true" cost economics, where by the actual cost of a good or service from inception to elimination is attached to the retail price.

There are other models, but this one is not the best.  Also, I am not necessarily anti capitalist, I am more anti corporatist and against top down decision making, I am sure there is a word for that but I don't necessarily like to use it because all the other connotations that come along with it.

Quoteare you serious, Bridge?

Not entirely...  Most give for the right reasons.  They structure the trusts and donations as they do because of our tax laws... and they are smart... or smart enough to hire more smart people to structure them properly.

Stephen-

Maybe I am just totally uninformed, as tax law and I have always avoided each other like the plague.. but it seems to me that attributing the donations to charity of any person to tax benefits is total folly.  Let me see if I get this right:

Let's say I am taxed at 30%.  I have $1,000 that I made.  I should have to pay $300 in taxes on that.  That would leave me with $700.

If I donate $900 of that $1000 to charity, I get to write that off my taxes, which means I do not pay 30% tax on that money.  Now I am left with $100, on which I pay 30% leaving me with $70.

I am $630 behind.  Why did I donate that money to charity solely for tax benefits?

 :D

QuoteYou are reverse engineering my statement to suit your outrage.

Not outraged at all JC... though you appear to be...

QuoteThe point is that, and it is the last time I will make it, that capitalism fosters the worst in humans, it is a framework where within you can destroy whatever you need to just so you can have a bigger house and a fancy hand made car, its stupid and more often than not far more destructive than productive.

No it doesnt... It fosters the best in human beings.  You must be blind to the wonders all around you... built and acheived the best humans not the worst...  Without them... and the capital required to make it happen...

Ah forget it...  Not gonna convince you am I?  You see the worst humans have to offer while others see the best.  The gains made by our system...

FAR OUTWEIGH ANY ALTERNATE... and I wont say it for the last time...

I know how they work.  I don't know how disparaging these people helps your argument.  A charitable trust makes no money for the philanthropist. That interest earned on the principle can only be applied to charity. IN addition, I personally know of individuals who give well beyond their tax credits. IT is sometimes hard to remember, but the world is inhabited by many good people as well.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 19, 2010, 03:59:35 PM
:D

QuoteYou are reverse engineering my statement to suit your outrage.

Not outraged at all JC... though you appear to be...

Whatever!

Quote

QuoteThe point is that, and it is the last time I will make it, that capitalism fosters the worst in humans, it is a framework where within you can destroy whatever you need to just so you can have a bigger house and a fancy hand made car, its stupid and more often than not far more destructive than productive.

No it doesnt... It fosters the best in human beings.  You must be blind to the wonders all around you... built and acheived the best humans not the worst...  Without them... and the capital required to make it happen...

Ah forget it...  Not gonna convince you am I?  You see the worst humans have to offer while others see the best.  The gains made by our system...

FAR OUTWEIGH ANY ALTERNATE... and I wont say it for the last time...

Please tell me how you account for all the horrible things I have mentioned in this post then.  


Oh, and about those Stella Doro workers, the company sold the name to Lance, moved the operation to Ohio I believe and closed the doors to the Bronx plant, gone, no more, those workers lost.  

Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2010, 03:52:42 PM
The point is not to get too over awed by the charity of the megawealthy.  It helps keep their fortunes intact.

In what way?

Quote from: NotNow on April 19, 2010, 04:02:05 PM
I know how they work.  I don't know how disparaging these people helps your argument.  A charitable trust makes no money for the philanthropist. That interest earned on the principle can only be applied to charity. IN addition, I personally know of individuals who give well beyond their tax credits. IT is sometimes hard to remember, but the world is inhabited by many good people as well.

The world is also inhabited by people who feel guilty about what they have and what others dont have.  And those people donate to ease their own consciences.

How dare I question someone offering charity?  I question them because what they are getting is far better than what they are giving!

I agree with you 100% Troll.  Capitalism brings out the absolute best in human beings.  I also struggle constantly with whether to even post my thoughts when it is abundantly clear there is no way of ever convincing the other party of my viewpoint.  I still don't quite know where I stand.  I think overall its best to post it, because some who may be interested in silently reading the discussion will not be as steadfast in their position as the person with whom you are debating.

There are few guarantees in life IMO.  One of them is that there are good people and bad people.  Any system you could envision would allow for the bad people to exploit and take advantage of the good.  Overall the capitalist system adds another guarantee to our life, I believe, that is the guarantee of an opportunity to make something of yourself.  It is not a guarantee of a result but of a chance.  I think it affords the best chance of any system, and the greatest incentive to take your best chance of any system, and for generations industrious men and women making the most of their chance has done more good for the human condition than any other system anywhere at any time.

OK.  That makes more sense.  If you ever choose to distribute the corpus to yourself or your heirs as opposed to the charity, are you not then taxed upon the amount of the corpus of the trust?

Capitalism fits the nature of human beings better than any other ecomomic system and the experiments of history have proved it.  Sentimental wishes won't change human nature.

Curse the industrial revolution all you want, but the world is a far better place for human beings now than it was in 1800.

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on April 19, 2010, 04:09:26 PM
I agree with you 100% Troll.  Capitalism brings out the absolute best in human beings.  I also struggle constantly with whether to even post my thoughts when it is abundantly clear there is no way of ever convincing the other party of my viewpoint.  I still don't quite know where I stand.  I think overall its best to post it, because some who may be interested in silently reading the discussion will not be as steadfast in their position as the person with whom you are debating.

There are few guarantees in life IMO.  One of them is that there are good people and bad people.  Any system you could envision would allow for the bad people to exploit and take advantage of the good.  Overall the capitalist system adds another guarantee to our life, I believe, that is the guarantee of an opportunity to make something of yourself.  It is not a guarantee of a result but of a chance.  I think it affords the best chance of any system, and the greatest incentive to take your best chance of any system, and for generations industrious men and women making the most of their chance has done more good for the human condition than any other system anywhere at any time.

Maybe you can account for all the horrible occurrences through out the history of American Capitalism?  If you need me to name a few just let me know and I will. 

Quote from: Dog Walker on April 19, 2010, 04:11:03 PM
Capitalism fits the nature of human beings better than any other ecomomic system and the experiments of history have proved it.  Sentimental wishes won't change human nature.

Curse the industrial revolution all you want, but the world is a far better place for human beings now than it was in 1800.

I would argue that humans dont have a nature and are mainly responding to their surroundings... If their surroundings require them to stick someone up at an ATM to feed their family or drug habit, you can damn well bet that most will do it.

Come now, Stephen, you know that without capitalism those technological advances would still be sitting in some laboratory somewhere.  There were a lot of scientific discoveries in the 18th Century, but they didn't change the world until they were turned into businesses during the industrial revolution.  Lasers were a laboratory curiosity for a long time and magnetic resonance machines were first used to analyze the elements on a microscope slide.

It wasn't until someone thought, "Hey, I could make money with that." did any of those things impact our lives.

Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2010, 04:09:09 PM
Foundation accounts work like this:

If you have a million dollars.  Normally you would be taxed 34% of that million.  This leaves you with 660,000.

But if you take that million and agree to form a foundation endowment fund it moves from being taxed to tax free, so long as you donate the interest paid on the account to charity.

So if your foundation account pays 6% interest, at the end of the year, you would have 1 million plus 60,000.
By the rules, you would then contribute a portion of the interest (NOT the principal) to the charity of your choice.

Say you decide to contribute 30,000 of that interest rate, and pay someone 30,000 to administer it (your wife perhaps)

At the end of the year, after the donation, you have 1 million dollars.

Now say you had the same million dollars, and you decided to donate 60,000 to charity.

You would be taxed on 940,000 dollars or 319,000.  Your donation would be tax free of course, but you would end the year with 621,000.  That's a damn site less than if you had established the charity fund in the first place.

True enough, StephenDare!  But you left out the part that at the end of the term, the principle, that cool $1M, goes to the charity, not back to the donor or hiers.  It DOES save income and estate taxes, but is VERY good for the charity.

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on April 19, 2010, 04:09:26 PM
I agree with you 100% Troll.  Capitalism brings out the absolute best in human beings.  I also struggle constantly with whether to even post my thoughts when it is abundantly clear there is no way of ever convincing the other party of my viewpoint.  I still don't quite know where I stand.  I think overall its best to post it, because some who may be interested in silently reading the discussion will not be as steadfast in their position as the person with whom you are debating.

There are few guarantees in life IMO.  One of them is that there are good people and bad people.  Any system you could envision would allow for the bad people to exploit and take advantage of the good.  Overall the capitalist system adds another guarantee to our life, I believe, that is the guarantee of an opportunity to make something of yourself.  It is not a guarantee of a result but of a chance.  I think it affords the best chance of any system, and the greatest incentive to take your best chance of any system, and for generations industrious men and women making the most of their chance has done more good for the human condition than any other system anywhere at any time.

Well said.

QuoteI would argue that humans dont have a nature and are mainly responding to their surroundings

There is the root statement of Marxism.  Human beings as mechanisms.  That we are "tabula rasa", blank slates that are solely operated on by our environment.

It also flies in the face of the last hundred years of increasingly sophisticated neuroscience discoveries, but then most religious beliefs do.

"The entire industrial revolution has lead to the destruction of our environment, it has caused countless wars, terrorism, you name it all for global market dominance."

JC:  From my shallow knowledge of human history, this has been the case for all times.  The longer we go into the past, the smaller the "globe" to dominate was for the group of people, or tribe.. but the result was none the less the same.  Human beings have always committed these ills in the search of some sort of dominance.  I don't see where capitalism invented these problems or served to exacerbate them.

Quote from: NotNow on April 19, 2010, 04:21:43 PM

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on April 19, 2010, 04:09:26 PM
I agree with you 100% Troll.  Capitalism brings out the absolute best in human beings.  I also struggle constantly with whether to even post my thoughts when it is abundantly clear there is no way of ever convincing the other party of my viewpoint.  I still don't quite know where I stand.  I think overall its best to post it, because some who may be interested in silently reading the discussion will not be as steadfast in their position as the person with whom you are debating.

There are few guarantees in life IMO.  One of them is that there are good people and bad people.  Any system you could envision would allow for the bad people to exploit and take advantage of the good.  Overall the capitalist system adds another guarantee to our life, I believe, that is the guarantee of an opportunity to make something of yourself.  It is not a guarantee of a result but of a chance.  I think it affords the best chance of any system, and the greatest incentive to take your best chance of any system, and for generations industrious men and women making the most of their chance has done more good for the human condition than any other system anywhere at any time.

Well said.

Clearly none of you have been on the receiving end of a Love Canal or had your natural resources pillaged in exchange for a little bit of money and a pile of pollution.  This system works for most people in the US, or it at least appears to, but it is hell on the most others!

Quote from: Dog Walker on April 19, 2010, 04:23:47 PM

QuoteI would argue that humans dont have a nature and are mainly responding to their surroundings

There is the root statement of Marxism.  Human beings as mechanisms.  That we are "tabula rasa", blank slates that are solely operated on by our environment.

It also flies in the face of the last hundred years of increasingly sophisticated neuroscience discoveries, but then most religious beliefs do.

Uh yeah, thank goodness you extrapolated that from my argument so you could make yours!

Do you not respond to your environment?  Wear shorts when its hot, sunglasses when its sunny, swerve when a car drives at you, maybe run, hide, or fight depending on other factors when threatened? 

Oh and I can also find physicists that say there is no such thing as free will at all... So the jury is still out on the science.

Quote from: JC on April 19, 2010, 04:14:49 PM

Quote from: Dog Walker on April 19, 2010, 04:11:03 PM
Capitalism fits the nature of human beings better than any other economic system and the experiments of history have proved it.  Sentimental wishes won't change human nature.

Curse the industrial revolution all you want, but the world is a far better place for human beings now than it was in 1800.

I would argue that humans don't have a nature and are mainly responding to their surroundings... If their surroundings require them to stick someone up at an ATM to feed their family or drug habit, you can damn well bet that most will do it.

JC, I don't agree with this statement.  I think people would find a means to survive without taking advantage of others.  A quick review of history, as you have asked for, will reveal many "crashes" and the uncanny ability of people to fare through tough conditions.  

As for the horrors of American capitalism, compared to what?  The United States has been the most benevolent empire in the history of the planet, both in money and human investment.  Have some less than honorable things been done in our name?  Yes, but compared to the USSR or the Chinese I'll take our imperfect system every time.  And as I have pointed out before, the world has agreed for many decades and to this day you will see lines at many American embassies of individuals and families seeking entry into this country and a better life.  

I'm not claiming absolutes here.  Nothing is absolute.  As has been pointed out by others, our systems are imperfect and require constant updating and tweeking.  We are not always right or honorable.  But our system has always encouraged and mostly rewarded honorable and straightforward ethics in our business and governmental affairs.

Code 664 of the Tax Reform Act of 1969:

Transfer remainder interest when termination of payments
Once the annuity period is over (i.e., at the death of the non-charitable beneficiary, or at the expiration of the term of years), the remainder of the CRUT principal is distributed to charity.[7] The charity must be an organization described in Section 170(c).


Perhaps we are speaking of different vehicles?

I find it hard to believe that 100% pure altruism exists anywhere.

JC if I follow your logic correctly are you saying that as a product of being in a capitalist environment, men have responded by exploiting and committing untold evils on other men?  I just don't see it.  There have always been kings, warlords and fat cats that have done bad things to other people to make themselves richer.  I don't see how it indicts our system.

Trip, it's all part of the "nature" that human beings don't have.

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on April 19, 2010, 04:36:47 PM
I find it hard to believe that 100% pure altruism exists anywhere.

JC if I follow your logic correctly are you saying that as a product of being in a capitalist environment, men have responded by exploiting and committing untold evils on other men?  I just don't see it.  There have always been kings, warlords and fat cats that have done bad things to other people to make themselves richer.  I don't see how it indicts our system.

So the environment that fostered slavery had nothing to do with the occurrence of slavery? Seriously?

The same as the system that encourages greed, has nothing to do with the occurrence of greed?  

I get it, this system works for you as it does for many others and you are resistant to change because well... thats for you to decide.  

Quote from: NotNow on April 19, 2010, 04:32:06 PM

Quote from: JC on April 19, 2010, 04:14:49 PM

Quote from: Dog Walker on April 19, 2010, 04:11:03 PM
Capitalism fits the nature of human beings better than any other economic system and the experiments of history have proved it.  Sentimental wishes won't change human nature.

Curse the industrial revolution all you want, but the world is a far better place for human beings now than it was in 1800.

I would argue that humans don't have a nature and are mainly responding to their surroundings... If their surroundings require them to stick someone up at an ATM to feed their family or drug habit, you can damn well bet that most will do it.

JC, I don't agree with this statement.  I think people would find a means to survive without taking advantage of others.  A quick review of history, as you have asked for, will reveal many "crashes" and the uncanny ability of people to fare through tough conditions.  

As for the horrors of American capitalism, compared to what?  The United States has been the most benevolent empire in the history of the planet, both in money and human investment.  Have some less than honorable things been done in our name?  Yes, but compared to the USSR or the Chinese I'll take our imperfect system every time.  And as I have pointed out before, the world has agreed for many decades and to this day you will see lines at many American embassies of individuals and families seeking entry into this country and a better life.  

I'm not claiming absolutes here.  Nothing is absolute.  As has been pointed out by others, our systems are imperfect and require constant updating and tweeking.  We are not always right or honorable.  But our system has always encouraged and mostly rewarded honorable and straightforward ethics in our business and governmental affairs.

You've been in a desperate situation, and chosen to follow the rules over providing for your family?

QuoteIts nice of you to want the charity to be purely altruistic, but it generally just isnt.

Im betting the charity you give is altruistic Stephen.  Im also betting every single one of us gives what we can when we can in the same manner.  Now if you or I get a tax deduction or benefit from doing so does it lessen the gift?  Or the motive?

QuoteThere are other models, but this one is not the best.  Also, I am not necessarily anti capitalist, I am more anti corporatist and against top down decision making, I am sure there is a word for that but I don't necessarily like to use it because all the other connotations that come along with it.

Please elaborate JC.  Please find the word you are looking for.  No need to be embarrased by the "connotations".

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 19, 2010, 04:52:53 PM

QuoteThere are other models, but this one is not the best.  Also, I am not necessarily anti capitalist, I am more anti corporatist and against top down decision making, I am sure there is a word for that but I don't necessarily like to use it because all the other connotations that come along with it.

Please elaborate JC.  Please find the word you are looking for.  No need to be embarrased by the "connotations".

Just what you need, more ammunition, if you aint smart enough to figure it out from certain words or references than you dont need to know :)

OK... ::)

How about the "other models"?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 19, 2010, 04:56:37 PM
OK... ::)

How about the "other models"?

True cost, triple bottom line or whatever you want to call it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_cost_accounting

and... my current favorite!

parecon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics

Quote from: JC on April 19, 2010, 04:49:17 PM

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on April 19, 2010, 04:36:47 PM
I find it hard to believe that 100% pure altruism exists anywhere.

JC if I follow your logic correctly are you saying that as a product of being in a capitalist environment, men have responded by exploiting and committing untold evils on other men?  I just don't see it.  There have always been kings, warlords and fat cats that have done bad things to other people to make themselves richer.  I don't see how it indicts our system.

So the environment that fostered slavery had nothing to do with the occurrence of slavery? Seriously?

The same as the system that encourages greed, has nothing to do with the occurrence of greed?  

I get it, this system works for you as it does for many others and you are resistant to change because well... thats for you to decide.  

Quote from: NotNow on April 19, 2010, 04:32:06 PM

Quote from: JC on April 19, 2010, 04:14:49 PM

Quote from: Dog Walker on April 19, 2010, 04:11:03 PM
Capitalism fits the nature of human beings better than any other economic system and the experiments of history have proved it.  Sentimental wishes won't change human nature.

Curse the industrial revolution all you want, but the world is a far better place for human beings now than it was in 1800.

I would argue that humans don't have a nature and are mainly responding to their surroundings... If their surroundings require them to stick someone up at an ATM to feed their family or drug habit, you can damn well bet that most will do it.

JC, I don't agree with this statement.  I think people would find a means to survive without taking advantage of others.  A quick review of history, as you have asked for, will reveal many "crashes" and the uncanny ability of people to fare through tough conditions.  

As for the horrors of American capitalism, compared to what?  The United States has been the most benevolent empire in the history of the planet, both in money and human investment.  Have some less than honorable things been done in our name?  Yes, but compared to the USSR or the Chinese I'll take our imperfect system every time.  And as I have pointed out before, the world has agreed for many decades and to this day you will see lines at many American embassies of individuals and families seeking entry into this country and a better life.  

I'm not claiming absolutes here.  Nothing is absolute.  As has been pointed out by others, our systems are imperfect and require constant updating and tweeking.  We are not always right or honorable.  But our system has always encouraged and mostly rewarded honorable and straightforward ethics in our business and governmental affairs.

You've been in a desperate situation, and chosen to follow the rules over providing for your family?

I suppose that would depend on your definition of "desperate".  Have I gone to sleep hungry without a dime in my pocket?  Yes.  Have I had the "opportunity" to take what was not mine, with no chance of getting caught?  Yes, and I have not done so.  I know many who have suffered worse poverty than I, and have behaved in a civil and honorable manner.  I know of such a couple right now.  I know many persons who have eschewed taking property that was not theirs for one reason...their character would not allow it.  

Perhaps you need to change your circle of friends.

What does that mean StephenDare!?  "Not equipped with the basics necessary for informed discussion"?  How do you know if my opinion is "informed" or not?  You get to decide?  What determines an "open mind"?  One that agrees with you? 

It is my opinion that I answered the man's question.  I can't see where your opinion of me or my posts has any bearing here or is useful to our discussion. 

Do you have any real factual critiques of my posts?  Or is the personal attack all that there is?

QuoteTrue cost, triple bottom line or whatever you want to call it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_cost_accounting

and... my current favorite!

parecon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics

Interesting read... I am sure many companies use the first example and the other... well... is a theory.  Perhaps a small country like Belize should try it out before one of the biggest economic engines in the world does...

QuoteI can vouch for Dogwalker, Buckethead, and tripoli.

Jeez Stephen... I cannot believe you left me off your list.  Im kinda bummed... :-[

Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2010, 05:00:45 PM
JC.  Ive found it less frustrating to keep in mind whether or not people are actually equipped with the basics necessary for informed discussion----open mind, informed opinion, basic fair play, not too much of a heavy reliance on semantics.

I can vouch for Dogwalker, Buckethead, and tripoli.

Well, in all honesty, I replied to your invitation for debate back on page 2 or 3 and you ignored it completely so at least with them my words are not literally falling on deaf ears!

But yeah, I am used to arguing from the mat and doing so with people who are formulating their argument to make themselves right when they have not really questioned their own arguments.

Quote from: JC on April 19, 2010, 05:13:53 PM
But yeah, I am used to arguing from the mat and doing so with people who are formulating their argument to make themselves right when they have not really questioned their own arguments.

QuoteFaced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. John Kenneth Galbraith

True words. Also words that are very difficult to shake.

Questioning my own opinions is usually the most difficult task in any debate.

I do like to be right... even if I'm wrong.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 19, 2010, 05:12:19 PM

QuoteTrue cost, triple bottom line or whatever you want to call it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_cost_accounting

and... my current favorite!

parecon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics

Interesting read... I am sure many companies use the first example and the other... well... is a theory.  Perhaps a small country like Belize should try it out before one of the biggest economic engines in the world does...

QuoteI can vouch for Dogwalker, Buckethead, and tripoli.

Jeez Stephen... I cannot believe you left me off your list.  Im kinda bummed... :-[

Glad you enjoyed it, but there are companies who are participating in American capitalism using the parecon model as well as triple bottom line.  Waste Management comes to mind as well as a few others I heard on a panel discussion about this topic.  

A great read, if you are the bookish type is "the value of nothing" by Raj Patel.  Then of course, if you want your brain to hurt and eyes to bleed read Proudhon although Chomsky and Zinn might be better choices.  

Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2010, 05:14:27 PM

Quote from: JC on April 19, 2010, 04:59:41 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 19, 2010, 04:56:37 PM
OK... ::)

How about the "other models"?

True cost, triple bottom line or whatever you want to call it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_cost_accounting

and... my current favorite!

parecon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics

I wonder what it is that makes you like participatory economics?  decisions by participatory councils sounds like the final punishment of an angry and finely powdered sumerian death god.

After all the committee work ive done over the past 25 years, both productive and non productive, this seems like a surer path to mass murder and tyranny than Ive ever heard.

Think Homeowner's associations, but with your money.

ps.  I thought we'd been discussing all along!

also Midway is a stout intellect when he isnt amusing himself by picking on the right wingers.  He derives entirely too much fun out of that though. 

I am not saying its right all the time but having employees decide the direction of a company by voicing their opinion with a ballot, can work in everyone's best interest.  There are plenty of examples of companies (especially financial firms) making decisions that benefit a few at the top while destroying the lives of those at the bottom.  I am all for decentralization... of pretty much everything...

Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2010, 05:22:30 PM
Love both Zinn and Chomsky.  I believe I posted an old video of Chomsky and William F. Buckley debating a while back.

Brilliant stuff.

I actually got to meet Howard Zinn in NY at Cooper Union, he was speaking at a memorial service for Studs Terkel.  He was a brilliant guy...

Unfortunately I forgot my copy of A Peoples History, but I shook his hand and took some photos.

http://homepages.luc.edu/~dschwei/parecon.htm

Nonsense on Stilts: Michael Albert's Parecon

David Schweickart

Loyola University Chicago

January 16, 2006

Your economic model (parecon) is absolutely welcome within our current economic system. Should it prove to be the panacea you seem to hope for, I'm certain it will spread like wildfire.

I do not support any action that takes privately owned shares and redistributes them to a group of workers to iniate this model, however.

Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2010, 05:30:39 PM

Quote from: JC on April 19, 2010, 05:26:36 PM

Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2010, 05:22:30 PM
Love both Zinn and Chomsky.  I believe I posted an old video of Chomsky and William F. Buckley debating a while back.

Brilliant stuff.

I actually got to meet Howard Zinn in NY at Cooper Union, he was speaking at a memorial service for Studs Terkel.  He was a brilliant guy...

Unfortunately I forgot my copy of A Peoples History, but I shook his hand and took some photos.

I had the privilege of hearing him speak at the University of Washington in Seattle.  Very brilliant fellow. 

I am sure I dont need to tell you that Chomsky is an Anarcho Syndicalist...

I smoked crack with William F Buckley Jr.

We did an erudite version of "Boats -n- Ho's" that was, tragically, never released for public consumption.

Quote from: buckethead on April 19, 2010, 05:31:12 PM
Your economic model (parecon) is absolutely welcome within our current economic system. Should it prove to be the panacea you seem to hope for, I'm certain it will spread like wildfire.

I do not support any action that takes privately owned shares and redistributes them to a group of workers to iniate this model, however.

Maybe there is some confusion here, I am not delusional, I understand that I dont understand enough about how this big economic machine works.  But I do understand is that nothing is EVER perfect and that there is ALWAYS something better.  I also understand that every second someone dies of hunger, a treatable disease or a man made catastrophe.  Because I understand those things and internalize them, feel empathy toward those victims, I choose to look at things critically and to explore other possibilities.  If you dont like my arguments than dont read them but I am not for a moment going to stop questioning or learning!

Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2010, 05:35:01 PM
no of course not.  That doesnt take away from his brilliance though.

Im not very sure about the future of this "Worker" class, as you know.

Well, you will always have skilled trades people who build... Clearly US manufacturing is dead!

QuoteClearly US manufacturing is dead!

Why do you say that?

International Labor Comparisons from the Bureau of Labor statistics...

Fun with numbers... :)


http://www.bls.gov/fls/#productivity

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 19, 2010, 05:43:20 PM

QuoteClearly US manufacturing is dead!

Why do you say that?

Detroit is sort of the embodiment...

Detroit would be an extreme example... of an old manufacturing model that was never updated and failed.  What and how we manufacture changes.

Blacksmith shops manufacturing horseshoes would be another example... It was replaced with something else.  Japanese and European auto manufacturers still set up shop here.

My great grandfather was a cooper... for a brewery... skilled labor then... out of a job now...

Silicon valley was covered in orchards prior to the manufacturing of PC components and microchips...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 19, 2010, 06:19:01 PM
Detroit would be an extreme example... of an old manufacturing model that was never updated and failed.  What and how we manufacture changes.

Blacksmith shops manufacturing horseshoes would be another example... It was replaced with something else.  Japanese and European auto manufacturers still set up shop here.

My great grandfather was a cooper... for a brewery... skilled labor then... out of a job now...

Silicon valley was covered in orchards prior to the manufacturing of PC components and microchips...

You really believe thats why Detroit is in the shape it is?  It has nothing to do with cheap overseas labor?  Seriously, your whole world view is a little whacked.

QuoteIt has nothing to do with cheap overseas labor?

Nope.  What labor or industry from detroit has moved overseas?  If you look at the link I posted from the department of labor our labor rates are cheaper than Europes... stands to reason then that we would gain manufacturing from there eh?

QuoteSeriously, your whole world view is a little whacked.

:D  Right back atcha there shipmate... :)

QuoteClearly US manufacturing is dead!

http://www.industryweek.com/articles/the_face_of_american_manufacturing_14159.aspx

QuoteThe Face Of American Manufacturing
The United States is the world's most productive country, but the global landscape has changed dramatically in recent years and even more changes are on the way.

By David Blanchard

June 1, 2007

It should surprise nobody to learn that the number of U.S. workers employed in manufacturing has been on the decline over the past decade, with annual employment dropping from 17 million in 1997 to just over 14 million in 2006. Those are the hard, fast numbers that the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) compiles, and for some industry observers, those are the only numbers that are relevant to a discussion of the future of manufacturing in the United States. But what exactly is manufacturing? Are the people who make products for U.S. companies being paid more, or less, than they used to be? Are they better educated, or less so? What about their productivity -- is there any evidence that today's manufacturing workforce is doing a better job at making stuff than previous generations of workers? And what happened to those 3 million jobs, anyway? Let's find out.

First of all, "manufacturing" as defined by the BLS refers to "establishments engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products." That includes all the industries typically thought of as manufacturers based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, including food, beverage and tobacco; textiles; apparel; leather and wood products; paper and printing; petroleum and coal; chemicals; plastics and rubber products; metals and fabricated metal products; nonmetallic mineral products; machinery; computers and electronic products; electrical equipment and components; transportation equipment; and furniture.


Manufacturing Jobs Are Down
Employees (in millions)
(http://www.industryweek.com/media/NewsItems/14158mfgjobs.jpg)

Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

The dramatic decline in manufacturing jobs is a relatively recent development. Over a 20-year period from 1982-2001, according to BLS statistics, the number of people employed in manufacturing in the U.S. fluctuated modestly between 16 million and 18 million. It wasn't until the recession at the beginning of this century that employment dipped into the 15 millions and then into the 14 millions. Thanks to a steady dip throughout this decade, it's quite likely that manufacturing employment could drop into the high 13 millions by the end of 2007; preliminary numbers for March 2007 put the total at 14.03 million, the lowest employment level since 1950, more than a half-century ago.

Total employment figures only tell part of the story, though. The percentage of U.S. workers employed in manufacturing has dropped from 16.5% in 1987 to 10.8% today. Even so, as the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) points out, when you consider that manufacturing accounts for $1.5 trillion in gross domestic product (GDP), if U.S. manufacturing was a country, it would be the eighth largest economy in the world. In fact, three manufacturing sectors -- food and beverage, computers and high-tech, and transportation/motor vehicles -- account for roughly 30% of the total manufacturing GDP.


Productivity Is Up
Percent change from previous year
(http://www.industryweek.com/media/NewsItems/14158productivity.jpg)

Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

The most significant counterbalance to the drop in total employment has been the dramatic rise in productivity. Indeed, during the recession years, productivity (as measured by output per hour) rose by 7.0% in 2002 and 6.2% in 2003. According to NAM, over the past two decades, manufacturing productivity has grown by 94%, considerably faster than the rest of the U.S. business sector, where productivity grew by 38% over the same period.
Although the total number of people employed in the manufacturing industry continues to shrink, their compensation has been on a steady rise, evidence that productivity pays off in terms of higher salaries. As of 2005, the average full-time manufacturing employee earned $50,180, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). That represents an 11.8% gain since 2002. The typical manufacturing manager earns $106,588, according to the IndustryWeek 2007 Salary Survey.

Production workers tend to be much better educated than their counterparts of years past. The NAM cites statistics that indicate the number of high school graduates working at manufacturing facilities has steadily risen by 10% over the past three decades. Today, nearly 50% of production workers finished high school, and roughly 25% have attended college, though less than 10% have degrees.


Salaries Are On The Rise
Average hourly earnings of production workers

(http://www.industryweek.com/media/NewsItems/14158salaries.jpg)

Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

However, as production becomes more specialized and more reliant on precision machining, there is concern of a widening skills gap between what young people are learning in school and the specific needs of manufacturers. According to a NAM/Deloitte Consulting study, 80% of manufacturers anticipate a shortage of skilled production workers over the next couple years, while 35% believe there will also be shortage of scientists and engineers.

In terms of demographics, more than 10% (1.5 million) of the country's manufacturing employees work in California. Texas comes in second place with just under 900,000 employees, followed by the traditional Rust Belt states: Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Nearly every state lost manufacturing jobs during the recession earlier this decade, with the exception of Alaska (percentage-wise, the fastest growing state for manufacturing, though total numbers still have Alaska in 49th place), Nevada and North Dakota.

During the recession years 2001-2004, 34 states saw a double-digit drop in total manufacturing employment, but since then, according to the BLS, employment has stabilized in most parts of the country. In the past couple years, 23 states have seen employment gains, and only 12 states saw their employment drop by more than 1%. Percentage-wise, the two hardest hit have been Michigan (3.1%) and Rhode Island (3.0%)

Over the past decade, again according to the BLS, although the total number of women employed in manufacturing has fallen, the total percentage of women in manufacturing has actually risen by 2%, from 29% to 31% of the workforce. When it comes to running their own companies, while women have at least 51% ownership of roughly 30% of all companies in the United States, their interest in owning manufacturing companies is extremely small. According to the Center for Women's Business Research, of the 7.7 million companies owned by women, only 0.1% of those are manufacturing firms, or fewer than 8,000 firms.

Perhaps the single-most controversial question facing the U.S. manufacturing sector is: Are the 3 million manufacturing jobs lost since the recession due to increases in productivity, or due to foreign trade imbalance? As you might expect, there is no clear answer to that question. According to the BEA, foreign investment in U.S. manufacturing is roughly $100 billion more than U.S. investment in foreign manufacturing. NAM estimates that one in 12 U.S. production workers is employed by a foreign-owned company. Thanks to its open-market policies, the United States also attracts more foreign investment overall than any other country, including China. Seen in that light, the United States seems to be doing just fine by global trade.

On the other hand, there's the trade deficit -- $765 billion in 2006 -- and contained within that amount is another number -- $232 billion -- which represents the United States' trade deficit with China alone, an all-time high for U.S. trade imbalance. What's more, based on current trends, China is poised to overtake the U.S. by the end of 2007 to become the world's second-leading exporter of goods, behind Germany (and pundits likewise predict China could overtake Germany by 2008).

Many of the millions of laid-off production workers in recent years ended up shifting into lower-salaried service jobs, while U.S. manufacturers relocated production facilities to low-cost countries. That strategy helped shorten the recession in the short term, but there's a real fear that in the long term, U.S. manufacturing may be mortgaging its future by permanently offshoring production. Many are hopeful that the Bush Administration, prodded by the new Democrat-led Congress, will respond to U.S. manufacturing's plight by getting tougher on China's trading practices.

In any event, the United States remains the largest manufacturer in the world in terms of total output, and while the country faces numerous challenges both domestic and abroad, that No. 1 status is not likely to change any time soon.

Interesting, BT. Thanks for doing the footwork!

Is new home construction considered manufacturing? Additionally, I am dying to know what type of construction, and what function specifically does JC perform?

If the Bronx (and greater NYC) was JC's former primary arena of operation, it seems unlikely that single family residential would have been the type of work being done.

My guess is no...

QuoteFirst of all, "manufacturing" as defined by the BLS refers to "establishments engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products." That includes all the industries typically thought of as manufacturers based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, including food, beverage and tobacco; textiles; apparel; leather and wood products; paper and printing; petroleum and coal; chemicals; plastics and rubber products; metals and fabricated metal products; nonmetallic mineral products; machinery; computers and electronic products; electrical equipment and components; transportation equipment; and furniture.

QuoteIt makes JC's point.

I dont think it does... unless of course you mean forcing companies to keep unproductive factories in production in order to overpay unionized workers demanding pay and benefits that cannot be met.

In that case... It does make JC's point.

I believe Stephen is suggesting that the decline in manufacturing positions, coupled with the increase in productivity and production is primarily due to technological advances. (Not so much exporting manufacturing to China et al)

As manufacturing becomes more automated, fewer, and more highly skilled/educated "workers" will be required.

It seems he is asking JC what is to become of the "worker" as defined by marxist theory, when technology virtually eliminates manufacturing (as we knew it throughout the industrial revolution) ?

This is why it is so difficult to have a discussion with you also Stephen.  The article makes many points... That you and JC tend to focus on the pessimistic rather than the positive is hardly surprising.

You left these points out...

QuoteThe most significant counterbalance to the drop in total employment has been the dramatic rise in productivity. Indeed, during the recession years, productivity (as measured by output per hour) rose by 7.0% in 2002 and 6.2% in 2003. According to NAM, over the past two decades, manufacturing productivity has grown by 94%, considerably faster than the rest of the U.S. business sector, where productivity grew by 38% over the same period.

QuoteAlthough the total number of people employed in the manufacturing industry continues to shrink, their compensation has been on a steady rise, evidence that productivity pays off in terms of higher salaries. As of 2005, the average full-time manufacturing employee earned $50,180, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). That represents an 11.8% gain since 2002. The typical manufacturing manager earns $106,588, according to the IndustryWeek 2007 Salary Survey.

QuoteProduction workers tend to be much better educated than their counterparts of years past. The NAM cites statistics that indicate the number of high school graduates working at manufacturing facilities has steadily risen by 10% over the past three decades. Today, nearly 50% of production workers finished high school, and roughly 25% have attended college, though less than 10% have degrees.

QuoteIn any event, the United States remains the largest manufacturer in the world in terms of total output, and while the country faces numerous challenges both domestic and abroad, that No. 1 status is not likely to change any time soon.

QuoteI believe Stephen is suggesting that the decline in manufacturing positions, coupled with the increase in productivity and production is primarily due to technological advances. (Not so much exporting manufacturing to China et al)

As manufacturing becomes more automated, fewer, and more highly skilled/educated "workers" will be required.

It seems he is asking JC what is to become of the "worker" as defined by marxist theory, when technology virtually eliminates manufacturing (as we knew it throughout the industrial revolution) ?

And as I have been trying to say... the worker must evolve along with manufacturing.  Detroit is an example of old style brick and mortar assembly line manual labor intensive manufacturing.  It is a model that is being replaced.

JC contends... "manufacturing is clearly dead".  I contend the the opposite.  Manufacturing is retooling... reinventing and becoming more efficient.  It is not dead or dying... it is alive and evolving.

JC contends that "all our jobs are being shipped overseas"... with global trade being the culprit.  According to the article while some jobs are exported others are imported...

QuoteAccording to the BEA, foreign investment in U.S. manufacturing is roughly $100 billion more than U.S. investment in foreign manufacturing. NAM estimates that one in 12 U.S. production workers is employed by a foreign-owned company. Thanks to its open-market policies, the United States also attracts more foreign investment overall than any other country, including China. Seen in that light, the United States seems to be doing just fine by global trade.

Quote from: buckethead on April 20, 2010, 07:11:15 AM
Interesting, BT. Thanks for doing the footwork!

Is new home construction considered manufacturing? Additionally, I am dying to know what type of construction, and what function specifically does JC perform?

If the Bronx (and greater NYC) was JC's former primary arena of operation, it seems unlikely that single family residential would have been the type of work being done.

JC is a commercial/industrial carpenter, he mostly installs metal framing, drywall and acoustical ceilings, basically an interior systems specialist.  However JC is also a talented drywall taper as well a concrete from fabricator and mediocre concrete finisher.  JC has worked in a range of work places, from hospital ORs to paper mills as well as some of the sidewalks you walk along in downtown Jacksonville, most notably at the foot of the Acosta Bridge.  JC has also performed the function of foreman, general foreman and superintendent, and project manager in the audio video integration field.  In spite of his management experience, JC just wants to be a working person, he enjoys the comradery built from getting a difficult task done with team work and gets great satisfaction from building things.

When JC was in NY he mostly worked in Manhattan, at the Fed, Columbia Presbyterian, Lincoln Center and Columbia University.  As a pm JC worked at Conde Naste Publications, The Bank Of America Tower to name a few. 

I thought I had seen an indication that you were female in a previous post/thread. My apologies. I intended no disrespect.

I have been doing sinlge family and to some degree multifamily residential carpentry (new construction and remodeling) for the past twenty years. For 15 of those, I have been self employed.

In the small world of construction in which I operate, one rarely encounters Marxist theory (or any variation). I know there are carpenters unions around town, but have never met a union carpenter, to my knowledge.

I do hope you find enough work that pays well to contintue to support your family. It seems to me, there have been more opportunities lately than in recent memory. Things might be inching up.

Have you never considered becoming self employed? You could certainly build the very workers model you seem to think would serve carpenters better. In order to work, it would require only productive and responsible workers, which due to prolific alcohol and drug usage among construction workers, can be a tall order.

I tried such an endeavor (an employee as partner business model) circa 1998. It failed and I was left to clean the mess which elevated me into the role of a business owner.

Quote from: buckethead on April 21, 2010, 05:52:24 AM
I thought I had seen an indication that you were female in a previous post/thread. My apologies. I intended no disrespect.

I love women so its ok if you confused me for one.

QuoteI have been doing sinlge family and to some degree multifamily residential carpentry (new construction and remodeling) for the past twenty years. For 15 of those, I have been self employed.

In the small world of construction in which I operate, one rarely encounters Marxist theory (or any variation). I know there are carpenters unions around town, but have never met a union carpenter, to my knowledge.

Carpenters unions stupidly gave up the residential market long before I came around so I am not surprised you haven't seen any but there are about 600 members of carpenters local 627, they work for WW Gay, MJ Woods, JC Stanford, Center Brothers and a few other small contractors.

QuoteI do hope you find enough work that pays well to contintue to support your family. It seems to me, there have been more opportunities lately than in recent memory. Things might be inching up.

There are some good signs in NY, this is a project that just broke ground in Brooklyn, I would live in a cardboard box to work on this one.

(http://nyrealestateinfo.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/atlantic-yards1.jpg)
(http://nymag.com/daily/intel/20070606yards.jpg)

an outline of the scope of the project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Yards

and there is the Coney Island renovation which will also be huge.

(http://www.curbed.com/uploads/2007_1_coneylatest.jpg)

Everything in those images would be new construction, barring a few Coney rides.

Quote
Have you never considered becoming self employed? You could certainly build the very workers model you seem to think would serve carpenters better. In order to work, it would require only productive and responsible workers, which due to prolific alcohol and drug usage among construction workers, can be a tall order.

I have considered it and have been self employed before, only as a retailer (miserable failure LOL)  not a construction worker.  I have also hustled my own jobs in the past and I enjoyed it I just dont know how good the market is to start anything right now.  Because I have so much at stake I cant risk losing what I have now over something so unstable.  But I am going to school anyway, I say that but its online school for web design so I need to mainly focus on that at the moment.  If I did own my own business I would want to specialize in something like decorative ceilings or concrete counter tops, something artistic where every installation is unique.

QuoteI tried such an endeavor (an employee as partner business model) circa 1998. It failed and I was left to clean the mess which elevated me into the role of a business owner.

Thanks for the encouraging words!

p.s. Marxist Theory relies too much on a centralized power structure, too much hierarchy for my taste.  It also relies on the state to educate, and it attacks the traditional family structure.  Again, I refuse at this point to use the label associated with this political/economic theory because there is so much crap attached to it and every discussion will be about said crap along with a myriad of lies.  I am no Marxist...

Quote from: stephendare on April 20, 2010, 07:48:55 AM
You see the difficulty, JC. ;)  Thanks buckethead for summing up the question again.

Anyways, Im intrigued to hear your thoughts on the possibility of a Post Labor world.  It something that has never been seriously considered in its socio economic ramifications outside the rare air of technocracy.

Ok, so I must be honest and admit I have never really considered this either but I have been mulling it over for a day+ now.  I did not do any research because you asked for my thoughts and you will get them, more accurately, more questions.

To start, as I pointed out earlier there will be jobs for trades people for the foreseeable future, you questioned whether there would be enough to be a "class" my answer is that I dont know.  But what I hope for is that the concept of "classes" are eliminated long before the people in those classes are eliminated, Utopian, I know.

I do think we are starting to see signs of what things will look like in the future if there are less and less good paying manufacturing jobs and it is a further concentration of wealth, the growing reliance of government to tax that wealth and then of course redistribute it in the form of welfare, food stamps, medicaid/medicare.  I guess what it boils down to is that I think this current path is unsustainable...

Manufacturing jobs might be automated out of existence; agricultural jobs were mechanized away in the first third of the last century, but service and technical jobs are not going to be.  Robot going to cut your hair, change your tires, build your deck?  Don't think so.

Henry Ford and others turned manufacturing into something that required no education, no knowledge, just muscle and the willingness to put up with hour after hour of mind-numbing, repetitious actions.  They HAD to pay high wages to get people to do it.  It's robot work.

Low end service jobs are about the same (burger-flipper at the arches), but most service and technical jobs require a lot of skill and knowledge that requires training and education.  If you think waiting tables is an unskilled job, you've never done it.

Cut your hair, install your computer network, groom your pet, fix your air-conditioner, build your house, tune your car are all skilled TRADES, not just labor.  Brains added to physical action.  Can't be outsourced either like a lot of pure brain work is being.  My electrician and my plumber make a comfortable living, work for themselves and have huge job satisfaction.

We adjusted when field hands were no longer required to hoe the fields and swing the scythes.  We can adjust when robots build our cars and TV's and have to be serviced by skilled trades people.

Human's should not have to do robot work. Is there anything more dehumanizing than an assembly line?

Quote from: Dog Walker on April 21, 2010, 05:34:59 PM
Human's should not have to do robot work. Is there anything more dehumanizing than an assembly line?

McDonalds, Burgerking, Tacobell, Arbys...

Sport, those ARE assembly lines.  Each task is broken down into many small parts, each of which is repeated again and again.  No thought needed, no skill needed.  Nobody there makes a complete sandwich much less a complete meal.  It could all be done by robots (the french fries already are) but unskilled labor is cheaper.

Nasty workplaces, nasty food.

Quote from: Dog Walker on April 22, 2010, 09:49:30 AM
Sport, those ARE assembly lines.  Each task is broken down into many small parts, each of which is repeated again and again.  No thought needed, no skill needed.  Nobody there makes a complete sandwich much less a complete meal.  It could all be done by robots (the french fries already are) but unskilled labor is cheaper.

Nasty workplaces, nasty food.

And then what jobs do those individuals do when they get their layoff check?

Quote from: JC on April 22, 2010, 09:53:55 AM

And then what jobs do those individuals do when they get their layoff check?

Sell drugs!

Quote from: Sportmotor on April 22, 2010, 10:01:43 AM

Quote from: JC on April 22, 2010, 09:53:55 AM

And then what jobs do those individuals do when they get their layoff check?

Sell drugs!

I love when people make dumb comments to cover for their lack of follow through.  If you dont have an answer just say so, I know I dont but I can promise you that these people would receive some welfare subsidy and medicaid.

Maybe they could go back to school and learn to do a better, more rewarding and higher paying job?  Start a lawn service, learn to really cook and work in a real restaurant.  Get certified as a day care worker, teacher's aide, truck driver..........

The world is not static.  Jobs become obsolete and people move on to other things.

Quote from: Dog Walker on April 22, 2010, 11:19:58 AM
Maybe they could go back to school and learn to do a better, more rewarding and higher paying job?  Start a lawn service, learn to really cook and work in a real restaurant.  Get certified as a day care worker, teacher's aide, truck driver..........

The world is not static.  Jobs become obsolete and people move on to other things.

I agree with this, however are you willing to pay for this retraining?  Should the employer of the displaced worker pay?  What if we are talking about a single mom, who should support her children while she goes to school?

Quote from: JC on April 22, 2010, 10:39:11 AM

Quote from: Sportmotor on April 22, 2010, 10:01:43 AM

Quote from: JC on April 22, 2010, 09:53:55 AM

And then what jobs do those individuals do when they get their layoff check?

Sell drugs!

I love when people make dumb comments to cover for their lack of follow through.  If you dont have an answer just say so, I know I dont but I can promise you that these people would receive some welfare subsidy and medicaid.

Sarcasm, even tho I know a well off former employ who I fired when I did my tour of duty at McDonalds who started his living that way, way way back when  :P

Quote from: JC on April 22, 2010, 11:40:40 AM

Quote from: Dog Walker on April 22, 2010, 11:19:58 AM
Maybe they could go back to school and learn to do a better, more rewarding and higher paying job?  Start a lawn service, learn to really cook and work in a real restaurant.  Get certified as a day care worker, teacher's aide, truck driver..........

The world is not static.  Jobs become obsolete and people move on to other things.

I agree with this, however are you willing to pay for this retraining?  Should the employer of the displaced worker pay?  What if we are talking about a single mom, who should support her children while she goes to school?

No, No, Her family or boyfriend or babies daddy or her church or other charity. 

There are many many many good scholarship out to be had. A majority the requirements are enrollment in school and a paper to be turned in and you have the money.
Student loans are also for a reason should you need them.

JSO's Community Service Officers, pay for full collage if your intrest is criminal justice which can lead into many fields in itself. With a decent pay in its own right to have your collage fully paid for.

And, as I can testify, the GI Bill will pay you back in spades for service to your country!

Yes that it will.

I am convinced that the huge growth in prosperity and wealth in this country in the 50's and 60's is directly a result of the GI bill giving millions of WWII vets the chance to go to college.  The GI bill has to be the best return on investment that this country has ever made.

A lot of us worked full time at numbskull jobs while going to school too.

Quote from: Dog Walker on April 22, 2010, 04:28:28 PM
I am convinced that the huge growth in prosperity and wealth in this country in the 50's and 60's is directly a result of the GI bill giving millions of WWII vets the chance to go to college.  The GI bill has to be the best return on investment that this country has ever made.

A lot of us worked full time at numbskull jobs while going to school too.

During the 50's and 60's the lions share of products sold in the US were still manufactured in the US and a great number of those jobs were union.  Are you saying that had no impact on the economic prosperity of the period, or just less impact?

What branch of the military did you serve in?

Also, are you proposing that poor people should have to serve in the military (whose motives are legitimately questioned, most famously by Smedley Butler) in order to go to college?

Quote from: JC on April 22, 2010, 05:35:48 PM

Quote from: Dog Walker on April 22, 2010, 04:28:28 PM
I am convinced that the huge growth in prosperity and wealth in this country in the 50's and 60's is directly a result of the GI bill giving millions of WWII vets the chance to go to college.  The GI bill has to be the best return on investment that this country has ever made.

A lot of us worked full time at numbskull jobs while going to school too.

During the 50's and 60's the lions share of products sold in the US were still manufactured in the US and a great number of those jobs were union.  Are you saying that had no impact on the economic prosperity of the period, or just less impact?

What branch of the military did you serve in?

Also, are you proposing that poor people should have to serve in the military (whose motives are legitimately questioned, most famously by Smedley Butler) in order to go to college?

how did you get poor people go to the military for collage?

I am saying that while my family situation did not allow for me to afford college, my (proud) service in the military (where I personally witnessed countless acts of quiet heroism by young Americans, and served in many HONORABLE missions) included the benefit of the G. I. Bill, which paid for most of my degree.  I am saying that it is one of MANY opportunities (as Sportmotor laid out) that exist in this nation for your example of a poor single mother to get an education and a good job.  And I count military service as a good job.

QuoteAlso, are you proposing that poor people should have to serve in the military

Not "should have to"... but should decide to.  It is a great way to serve your country, earn a living, and earn a higher education.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 23, 2010, 08:32:57 AM

QuoteAlso, are you proposing that poor people should have to serve in the military

Not "should have to"... but should decide to.  It is a great way to serve your country, earn a living, and earn a higher education.

Quote
Sojourners / By Jorge Mariscal
The Making of an American Soldier: Why Young People Join the Military

George Bush likes to say it's because they're patriots, but the truth may have more to do with financial need and recruiters targeting those with limited economic options.

In today's political climate, with two wars being fought with no end in sight, it can be difficult for some people to understand why young folks enlist in our military.

The conservative claim that most youth enlist due to patriotism and the desire to "serve one's country" is misleading. The Pentagon's own surveys show that something vague and abstract called "duty to country" motivates only a portion of enlistees.

The vast majority of young people wind up in the military for different reasons, ranging from economic pressure to the desire to escape a dead-end situation at home to the promise of citizenship.

Over all, disenfranchisement may be one of the most accurate words for why some youth enlist.

***

When mandatory military service ended in 1973, the volunteer military was born. By the early 1980s, the term "poverty draft" had gained currency to connote the belief that the enlisted ranks of the military were made up of young people with limited economic opportunities.

Today, military recruiters react angrily to the term "poverty draft." They parse terms in order to argue that "the poor" are not good recruiting material because they lack the necessary education. Any inference that those currently serving do so because they have few other options is met with a sharp rebuke, as Sen. John Kerry learned last November when he seemed to tell a group of college students they could either work hard in school or "get stuck in Iraq."

President Bush led the bipartisan charge against Kerry: "The men and women who serve in our all-volunteer armed forces are plenty smart and are serving because they are patriots -- and Sen. Kerry owes them an apology."

In reality, Kerry's "botched joke" -- Kerry said he was talking about President Bush and not the troops -- contained a kernel of truth. It is not so much that one either studies hard or winds up in Iraq but rather that many U.S. troops enlist because access to higher education is closed off to them. Although they may be "plenty smart," financial hardship drives many to view the military's promise of money for college as their only hope to study beyond high school.

Recruiters may not explicitly target "the poor," but there is mounting evidence that they target those whose career options are severely limited. According to a 2007 Associated Press analysis, "nearly three-fourths of [U.S. troops] killed in Iraq came from towns where the per capita income was below the national average. More than half came from towns where the percentage of people living in poverty topped the national average."

It perhaps should come as no surprise that the Army GED Plus Enlistment Program, in which applicants without high school diplomas are allowed to enlist while they complete a high school equivalency certificate, is focused on inner-city areas.

When working-class youth make it to their local community college, they often encounter military recruiters working hard to discourage them. "You're not going anywhere here," recruiters say. "This place is a dead end. I can offer you more." Pentagon-sponsored studies -- such as the RAND Corporation's "Recruiting Youth in the College Market: Current Practices and Future Policy Options" -- speak openly about college as the recruiter's number one competitor for the youth market.

Add in race as a supplemental factor for how class determines the propensity to enlist and you begin to understand why communities of color believe military recruiters disproportionately target their children. Recruiters swear they don't target by race. But the millions of Pentagon dollars spent on special recruiting campaigns for Latino and African-American youth contradicts their claim.

According to an Army Web site, the goal of the "Hispanic H2 Tour" was to "Build confidence, trust, and preference of the Army within the Hispanic community." The "Takin' it to the Streets Tour" was designed to accelerate recruitment in the African-American community where recruiters are particularly hard-pressed and faced with declining interest in the military as a career. In short, the nexus between class, race, and the "volunteer armed forces" is an unavoidable fact.

***

Not all recruits, of course, are driven by financial need. In working-class communities of every color, there are often long-standing traditions of military service and links between service and privileged forms of masculinity. For communities often marked as "foreign," such as Latinos and Asians, there is pressure to serve in order to prove that one is "American." For recent immigrants, there is the lure of gaining legal resident status or citizenship.

Economic pressure, however, is an undeniable motivation -- yet to assert that fact in public often leads to confrontations with conservatives who ask, "How dare you question our troops' patriotism?"

But any simplistic understanding of "patriotism" does not begin to capture the myriad of subjective motivations that often coexist alongside economic motives. Altruism -- or as youth often put it, "I want to make a difference" -- is also a major reason a significant number of people enlist.

It is a terrible irony that contemporary American society provides working-class youth with few other outlets besides the military for their desire for agency, personal empowerment, and social commitment. It is especially tragic whenever U.S. foreign policy turns away from national defense and back toward the imperial tradition of military adventurism, as it did in Vietnam and Iraq.

Within a worldview of pre-emptive war and wars of choice, the altruism and good intentions of young people become one more sentiment to be manipulated and exploited in order to further the aims of a small group of policymakers.

In this scenario, the desire to "make a difference," once inserted into the military apparatus, means young Americans may have to kill innocent people or become brutalized by the realities of combat.

Take the tragic example of Sgt. Paul Cortez, who graduated in 2000 from Central High School in the working-class town of Barstow, Calif., joined the Army, and was sent to Iraq. On March 12, 2006, he participated in the gang rape of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the murder of her and her entire family.

When asked about Cortez, a classmate said: "He would never do something like that. He would never hurt a female. He would never hit one or even raise his hand to one. Fighting for his country is one thing, but not when it comes to raping and murdering. That's not him."

Let us accept the claim that "that's not him." Nevertheless, because of a series of unspeakable and unpardonable events within the context of an illegal and immoral war, "that" is what he became. On February 21, 2007, Cortez pled guilty to the rape and four counts of felony murder. He was convicted a few days later, sentenced to life in prison and a lifetime in his own personal hell.

As ex-Marine Martin Smith wrote recently in Counterpunch: "It speaks volumes that in order for young working-class men and women to gain self-confidence or self-worth, they seek to join an institution that trains them how to destroy, maim, and kill. The desire to become a Marine -- as a journey to one's manhood or as a path to self-improvement -- is a stinging indictment of the pathology of our class-ridden world."

Like a large mammal insensitive to its offspring's needs and whereabouts, America is rolling over on the aspirations of its children and crushing them in the process.

Many U.S. troops crack under the pressure of combat and its aftershocks. At least one in eight of all Iraq veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress, according to a 2004 Pentagon study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Matthew J. Friedman, executive director of the Department of Veterans Affairs' National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, stated that the study's results were far too conservative. As the war in Iraq drags on, many more young veterans will experience some debilitating form of PTSD.

Others are opting for conscientious objector (CO) status. Hundreds of troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have either begun or completed the CO process. According to Bill Galvin of the Center on Conscience and War: "For some people, the training gets to them. From stabbing dummies, to shouting 'Kill!' or 'Blood makes the grass grow!' But in the last year or two, we've been hearing people talking about their experiences in the war, or talking about the children they've witnessed being killed, or the civilians that were murdered. Some of them are wrestling with the guilt about people they may have killed or families they may have ruined."

Most people are not predisposed to kill, and so it should concern us that our children are being increasingly militarized in their schools and the culture as a whole. To take only one example: What does it mean for a society to put young people from ages 8 to 18 in military uniforms and call it "leadership training"? This is precisely what each of the more than 300 units of the Young Marines program is doing at a neighborhood school near you.

From rural America to the urban cores of deindustrialized cities, a military caste system is slowly taking shape. If recent history is any indication, our politicians will use our military less for national defense than for adventures premised on control of resources, strategic advantage, and ideological fantasies. As in the final decades of every declining empire, it's likely that many wars loom in our future.

Exactly who will have to fight and die in those wars will be determined by economic class. In order to accomplish their goals, the recruiters and politicians will exploit the hopes and dreams of mostly well-intentioned youth from humble origins who are looking for a way to contribute to a society that has lost its moral compass. As they did in Vietnam and again in Iraq, young women and men will serve their country. But how well will their country have served them?





x
Jorge Mariscal is the grandson of Mexican immigrants and the son of a U.S. Marine who fought in World War II. He served in the U.S. Army in Vietnam and currently teaches at the University of California, San Diego.

On a personal note, I joined the Marine Corps due to lack of opportunity, then I reverse engineered my need into patriotism. 

The original point, that the example of a single mother who needs education and skills in order to obtain a good paying position, stands since multiple paths to education and skills exist in this country.  Service in the military is only one of those options.

With that said, the military is much more than just an option for education.  There is nowhere else where a young person can obtain the kind of leadership training and opportunity for obtaining skills that is available in the armed services.  Of course, one must remember that it is ARMED service and ultimately it is a warrior service, which is not for everyone (see above).  Whether one sees the military as "evil" is immaterial.  The old trick of selecting a criminal act and tying the entire military to it or declaring it part of an "illegal and unjust" war is just disingenuous.  If one does not want to serve simply state an honest reason and if one wants to criticise then provide an honest argument.  It should also be a different thread.

Quotehowever are you willing to pay for this retraining?

It all goes back to this for me at least.  The idea that someone is "owed" retraining or a "higher education" from the public or employer is a less than optimal solution.  By joining the military you serve the country and in return get training and a higher education.  I have always thought there should be a civil option that gives those not suited to the military an opportunity to serve the country and receive the same benefits.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 23, 2010, 10:49:18 AM

Quotehowever are you willing to pay for this retraining?

It all goes back to this for me at least.  The idea that someone is "owed" retraining or a "higher education" from the public or employer is a less than optimal solution.  By joining the military you serve the country and in return get training and a higher education.  I have always thought there should be a civil option that gives those not suited to the military an opportunity to serve the country and receive the same benefits.

I agree with that last point... I remember Dennis Kucinich had proposed something like that when he was running for president.

Something like the old Civilian Conservation Corps as a way of serving the country to gain credits for a college education would be a welcome addition as would any reasonable and beneficial method for allowing people to continue their education beyond high school.  I know a number of medical school graduates who paid for their medical school by agreeing to serve X number of years as military doctors after graduation, too.

We should also not overlook the tremendous amount of education and training that goes on inside the military services.  Not everybody carries a rifle (the Marine Corps being a proud exception to this; every Marine a rifleman!).  Most of the electronic technical specialists that I have met got most of their technical education in the military.

There is more to post-secondary education than college.

Sometimes just a job, an apprenticeship, is what is valuable as training or education.  From 1970 to 1975 I administered the Public Service Employment program for a major metropolitan county in Florida.  This was during our last big recession, before this one, when unemployment went over 10%.

The PSE program used Federal dollars to pay the salaries of people who were placed for work in city and country governments.  Sounds like a boondoggle and there was the usual waste and political interference.  But in 1975, when the Federal money ended, we went back and looked at the 6000+ people who had been placed in these jobs.  A lot of government services had been expanded at a time of need for these services.  There was a lot of remedial education and "how-to-find-a-job" classes offered by those employed by the school system.  A lot of shelved projects got done with this manpower.

At the end of the program most participants had left government jobs, a few stayed.  Those who left, on average, took jobs that paid significantly more than they were making in subsidized employment and in follow-up interviews, most of participants credited skills they had learned and experience gained as factors in getting better jobs. "I couldn't get a job without experience and I couldn't get experience without a job" was a comment we heard a lot.  Many commented on the "life skills" mentoring they had gotten from their supervisors.  "She chewed my ass out and told me what was what and to straighten up or get fired"  was another memory we heard in various forms.

Not a perfect or universal model, but just an example that there a number of models that can work to get people the habits, training, skills, education and experience they need.

In 1975 we converted the program to deal with the influx of Vietnamese refugees flooding into this country, but that is another, and even more successful story.