A disturbing trend...

Your thoughts?

TMT


Future jobs won’t support decent living standard: Report
The Lookout - Fri Apr 1st, 2011 1:09 PM EDT


It's most welcome news that job growth seems to be picking up again --
even if we'll need a whole lot more of it to get back to where we were
before the Great Recession.

Still, as we've reported , there's growing evidence that the new jobs,
many of which are in sectors like retail, food services, and health
care, simply aren't as good--in terms of wages, hours, and seniority--
as the ones they're replacing. And a report released today only adds
to the concern.

The study , commissioned by the nonprofit group Wider Opportunities
for Women, looks at how much income it takes to support a basic
standard of living for an American family--and finds that many of the
jobs of the future won't pay enough to provide that.

To calculate this "economic security" income, the study's authors
certainly didn't assume a lavish lifestyle. They considered basic
needs--housing, food, utilities, health care, child-care, and
transportation--plus the cost of modest saving for retirement and a
small surplus for emergencies. (At at a time when economic "shocks"
are increasingly common , that's an essential part of financial
security.) They don't factor in some things many of us take for
granted, like entertainment or eating out.

The result? To achieve economic security, a single parent with two
children needs an income of just over $30,000 a year--nearly twice the
federal minimum wage--while a two-income household needs almost
$68,000.

The study then finds that, according to Labor Department projections,
fewer than 13 percent of jobs to be created by 2018 will meet the
economic security threshold for a single parent with two kids. Forty-
three percent of those jobs will meet the threshold for a two-income
household.

In other words, most of the jobs of the future aren't likely to pay
enough to offer the kind of stable, middle-class existence that for
much of the 20th century was seen as the American birthright.

"The American Dream of working hard to support your family is being re-
written by the growth of low-paying industries and rising expenses,"
said Joan Kuriansky, WOW's executive director.

Indeed, this seems to be the new reality of the American economic
landscape. Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution,
noted in a statement on the government's jobs numbers that real
earnings fell 1.1 percent between October and February--a development
he attributed to the still-high unemployment rate, which is eroding
workers' bargaining power.

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 18:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

A disturbing trend...

Your thoughts?

TMT


Future jobs won=92t support decent living standard: Report
The Lookout - Fri Apr 1st, 2011 1:09 PM EDT


It's most welcome news that job growth seems to be picking up again --
even if we'll need a whole lot more of it to get back to where we were
before the Great Recession.
snip
===========
A major portion of the problem is that a large fraction of
the new jobs are in government. While governmental jobs can
be important/vital, these do not actually "add value," as
many manufacturing and industrial jobs do. Many of the
remaining "new" private sector jobs are in the service
sectors with nominal/minimal "value added."

The management of the major transnational corporations are
not stupid, and realize that this is a death spiral in that
if the vast majority of people are making subsistence wages,
or have no jobs at all, they will have no one to sell their
crappy products to. This is true, but in the long-term. In
today's ultra short term business environment, where "take
the money and run" is the rule, the feeling is that it is in
management's self interest to cut *THEIR* employees'
wages/benefits as quickly and deeply as possible, maximize
the profits and stock price, get the big bonuses, and retire
young.

For more on this point see
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj
snip
If you want to understand better why so many states—from New
York to Wisconsin to California—are teetering on the brink
of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in
America there are nearly twice as many people working for
the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing
(11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the
situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in
manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the
government.

It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than
work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry,
manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved
decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers.
snip

While this article makes several good points, one major
lapse is the failure to examine the effects from a
macroeconomic or aggregate basis of their suggestions.
Specifically, if government shrinks or out sources, where
are the displaced workers going to find jobs? It can be
argued that in the case of outsourcing, they will find
employment with the new private contractors, but this is
simply wage cutting, with adverse impact on general economic
activity.
snip
Don't expect a reversal of this trend anytime soon. Surveys
of college graduates are finding that more and more of our
top minds want to work for the government. Why? Because in
recent years only government agencies have been hiring, and
because the offer of near lifetime security is highly valued
in these times of economic turbulence. When 23-year-olds
aren't willing to take career risks, we have a real problem
on our hands. Sadly, we could end up with a generation of
Americans who want to work at the Department of Motor
Vehicles.
snip

{so where should they [want to] work? Unpaid interns?--
Unka' George}

for more on this point see
http://www.marke****ch.com/video/ass...E-71EC8D594E98
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...h-by-2020.html
http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/ski...-economy-1132/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7303SE20110401


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 18:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

A disturbing trend...

Your thoughts?

TMT


Future jobs won=92t support decent living standard: Report
The Lookout - Fri Apr 1st, 2011 1:09 PM EDT


It's most welcome news that job growth seems to be picking up again --
even if we'll need a whole lot more of it to get back to where we were
before the Great Recession.
snip
===========
A major portion of the problem is that a large fraction of
the new jobs are in government. While governmental jobs can
be important/vital, these do not actually "add value," as
many manufacturing and industrial jobs do. Many of the
remaining "new" private sector jobs are in the service
sectors with nominal/minimal "value added."

The management of the major transnational corporations are
not stupid, and realize that this is a death spiral in that
if the vast majority of people are making subsistence wages,
or have no jobs at all, they will have no one to sell their
crappy products to. This is true, but in the long-term. In
today's ultra short term business environment, where "take
the money and run" is the rule, the feeling is that it is in
management's self interest to cut *THEIR* employees'
wages/benefits as quickly and deeply as possible, maximize
the profits and stock price, get the big bonuses, and retire
young.

For more on this point see
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj
snip
If you want to understand better why so many states-from New
York to Wisconsin to California-are teetering on the brink
of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in
America there are nearly twice as many people working for
the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing
(11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the
situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in
manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the
government.

But this leads to a misleading idea of what's going on. I'm going to skip
the occupational breakdowns, because BLS and Census have a different basis
for reporting categories and I'm too tired to sort it out now, but here's a
key point: The percentage of the population that works for the government --
federal, state, and local, including teachers and others in education --
keeps going down, since around 1990 or thereabouts.

1990: 7.378%
2000: 7.367%
2010: 7.323%

(from BLS "Historical B Tables,"
http://www.bls.gov/data/#historical-tables )

The current (April 1) employment report indicates that government employment
continues to fall (loss of over 400,000 local government jobs since 2008; a
drop in all government categories for the past three months).

So, when you look at manufacturing, and the fact that our value of
manufacturing shipments continues to grow (it's now about twice what it was
in 1986), what does the employment figure tell us? Primarily, that the
cumulative productivity improvements keep reducing the number of employees
per dollar of goods produced.

I've been doing reports on this since around 1980, and the story hasn't
changed much in all those years: Manufacturing continues to grow in terms of
output, while it declines as a PERCENTAGE of our economy. It's not that
manufacturing is declining but rather that the rest of the economy is
growing faster.

And employment in manufacturing continues to decline, in the long term,
because productivity has steadily improved (well, not so steadily -- it's
been fits and starts for decades, but the overall situation is compounded
improvements).

This is about what one would expect. It was predicted 40, even 50 years ago
that it would work out about like this. It shouldn't be depressing. It's the
inevitable result of productivity improvements and the maturation of
manufacturing in a sophisticated economy.

Which leads to the question of where the future jobs will come from. This
question always gives me agita, but the economy always surprises me by
coming through.


It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than
work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry,
manufacturing, mining and utilities combined.
We have moved
decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers.
snip

Mostly, we've just gotten a lot more efficient at making things. Look at the
trends in dollar values of manufacturing outputs from the BEA or your
favorite data source.


While this article makes several good points, one major
lapse is the failure to examine the effects from a
macroeconomic or aggregate basis of their suggestions.
Specifically, if government shrinks or out sources, where
are the displaced workers going to find jobs? It can be
argued that in the case of outsourcing, they will find
employment with the new private contractors, but this is
simply wage cutting, with adverse impact on general economic
activity.

What "new private contractors"? Take a look at a photo of an automotive
parts plant in 1952, with rows of operators manning engine lathes, turning
out gear shafts or whatever. Then take a look at the floor of a parts
producer in 2011. See that guy down there with the clipboard?...

snip
Don't expect a reversal of this trend anytime soon. Surveys
of college graduates are finding that more and more of our
top minds want to work for the government. Why? Because in
recent years only government agencies have been hiring, and
because the offer of near lifetime security is highly valued
in these times of economic turbulence. When 23-year-olds
aren't willing to take career risks, we have a real problem
on our hands.

As the father of a 23-year-old, I can assure you that the top minds want to
work for hedge funds. His best friend's brother, age 25, just made more in
his BONUS this past year than I ever made in four years of working. d8-)

Sadly, we could end up with a generation of
Americans who want to work at the Department of Motor
Vehicles.
snip

{so where should they [want to] work? Unpaid interns?--
Unka' George}

for more on this point see
http://www.marke****ch.com/video/ass...E-71EC8D594E98
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...h-by-2020.html
http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/ski...-economy-1132/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7303SE20110401


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Apr 1, 9:52*pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
A disturbing trend...

Your thoughts?

TMT

You first.

Dan

On 4/2/2011 6:01 AM, John R. Carroll wrote:
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 18:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

A disturbing trend...

Your thoughts?

TMT


Future jobs won=92t support decent living standard: Report
The Lookout - Fri Apr 1st, 2011 1:09 PM EDT


It's most welcome news that job growth seems to be picking up again
-- even if we'll need a whole lot more of it to get back to where we
were before the Great Recession.
snip
===========
A major portion of the problem is that a large fraction of
the new jobs are in government. While governmental jobs can
be important/vital, these do not actually "add value," as
many manufacturing and industrial jobs do. Many of the
remaining "new" private sector jobs are in the service
sectors with nominal/minimal "value added."

George, the private sector has created a million and a half non farm jobs in
the last year.
Four hundred thoudand of those have been in the last two months alone.

snip
If you want to understand better why so many states-from New
York to Wisconsin to California-are teetering on the brink
of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in
America there are nearly twice as many people working for
the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing
(11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the
situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in
manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the
government.

This is extremely deceptive George but I see Ed has addressed it in his post
so I won't bother with employment in manufacturing.
Look this over if you want to see actual data and trends for LAC-5. There is
other data for comparison to areas around the country.

Thinking that California is "teetering on the brink of bankruptcy" is just
nutty.
A deficit of twenty or thirty billion dollars in a 1.4 trillion dollar
economy is trivial.

snip


It's also important to understand how much conservative/right wing
propaganda is coming as us these days. It's gotten so it is really
difficult to really know what's true. But one clue has to do with the
basic philosophy of the conservatives. A fundamental tenet of
conservatism is that what's really important in the country is business.
Not people, but business, and it's been that way for over 100 years.
When they get control all benefits from the government go to business
and away from people. That's what is happening right now. All the
republican governors are giving aid to business, as in tax cuts, and are
cutting the bargaining rights, the benefits, and the jobs themselves for
ordinary Americans. But that is completely in line with conservative
thinking. Help the businesses, cut spending on the people.

The same philosophy comes through with jobs. Future jobs are not going
to provide a decent standard of living. Okay, but does that mean the
corporations that these jobs come from are also going to generate less
money? Because if they are making as much or more profits than before
then why are the workers getting jobs that pay such low wages?

It's really simple. The future jobs are not going to pay enough for
decent livings because the business is keeping the money for itself.
Business is not going to make less. In fact business is making more. At
the rate American business is making profits right now it's estimated it
will make more than a trillion and a half dollars this year. So the
money is coming in. It's just not going out to the workers.

In 2010 the pay of American CEOs increased 27%. The pay for average
workers was basically flat, around 2%. This is it in a nutshell. The
money is still being made. It's simply a question of who gets it. To
conservatives the workers deserve only the minimum they need to live and
management/ownership deserves everything else.

So it really is simple and not new in any way. Conservatives want all
the money and don't want to share any of it with the workers. With all
conservatives in positions of power in the country is it any wonder why
this is happening? The people put the conservatives in office. Now they
see how they do things I wonder if they see their mistake yet? I know
some of them have, like the police and firemen, who are abandoning the
republicans in droves.

Hawke

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

A disturbing trend...

Your thoughts?
We got used, in the 60's, to being the manufacturer for the entire world,
and it was great, while it lasted. But, there are 7 billion people in the
world, and many countries now have the infrastructure to also be
manufacturers. So, those days when you could be lazy and inefficient and
STILL get paid lots of money to make stuff are over. We are now competing
on a much more level field with the rest of the world. I think the trend
is that the field is going to get more level, and the people who are
cheating the system, like China, will be steadily pressured to stop doing
that. (We'd have already taken care of this except that they own the US
Treasury.) Now, we have to be better than anybody else, or we won't be
able to sell stuff. So, you have to stay ahead, and not expect that what
you sold last year will still have a market next year.

The problem is we got so used to the old scheme, where WE were the great
exporter, and could do no wrong, that now it is going to be a HUGE
adjustment. Capital flows kind of like the tide, and it CAN'T all keep
going the same way forever. We used to have a very disproportionate amount
of the world's capital, now China has that, but again, it won't last
indefinitely.

Jon

Too_Many_Tools wrote:


The result? To achieve economic security, a single parent with two
children needs an income of just over $30,000 a year--nearly twice the
federal minimum wage--while a two-income household needs almost
$68,000.
$30K will barely support a single person, no less a parent with 2 kids!

Jon

On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 14:28:40 -0500, Jon Elson
wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:


The result? To achieve economic security, a single parent with two
children needs an income of just over $30,000 a year--nearly twice the
federal minimum wage--while a two-income household needs almost
$68,000.
$30K will barely support a single person, no less a parent with 2 kids!

Jon

Try it on $19k a year.

Which is what I made last year.

Gunner, California


--

"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once."
Robert A. Heinlein

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 03:03:31 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
As the father of a 23-year-old, I can assure you that the top minds want
to
work for hedge funds. His best friend's brother, age 25, just made more in
his BONUS this past year than I ever made in four years of working. d8-)
snip
FYI
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3adcb3e6-5...44feab49a.html
snip
The "overpaid" fund management industry is destroying
$1,300bn of value annually, according to an unpublished
draft report conducted by IBM.

The document, seen by FTfm, claims the industry is "paid too
much for the value it delivers" and that "destroying value
for clients and shareholders is unsustainable".
snip

-- Unka George (George McDuffee)

Ha! The fund management industry doesn't "destroy" value. They just put it
in their own pockets instead of the clients'. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 14:28:40 -0500, Jon Elson

wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:


The result? To achieve economic security, a single parent with two
children needs an income of just over $30,000 a year--nearly twice
the
federal minimum wage--while a two-income household needs almost
$68,000.
$30K will barely support a single person, no less a parent with 2
kids!

Jon

Try it on $19k a year.

Which is what I made last year.

Gunner, California


A friend of mine that had a mfg. business in CA for over 40 years has
now moved out of the state. He said it was senseless not to move.
How many companies have came to the same conclusion? And, he's very
liberal, we spar all the time.

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 03:03:31 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
As the father of a 23-year-old, I can assure you that the top minds want to
work for hedge funds. His best friend's brother, age 25, just made more in
his BONUS this past year than I ever made in four years of working. d8-)
snip
FYI
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3adcb3e6-5...44feab49a.html
snip
The “overpaid” fund management industry is destroying
$1,300bn of value annually, according to an unpublished
draft report conducted by IBM.

The document, seen by FTfm, claims the industry is “paid too
much for the value it delivers” and that “destroying value
for clients and shareholders is unsustainable”.
snip

-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 14:27:31 -0400, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 14:28:40 -0500, Jon Elson

wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:


The result? To achieve economic security, a single parent with two
children needs an income of just over $30,000 a year--nearly twice
the
federal minimum wage--while a two-income household needs almost
$68,000.
$30K will barely support a single person, no less a parent with 2
kids!

Jon

Try it on $19k a year.

Which is what I made last year.

Gunner, California


A friend of mine that had a mfg. business in CA for over 40 years has
now moved out of the state. He said it was senseless not to move.
How many companies have came to the same conclusion? And, he's very
liberal, we spar all the time.


If I had any reserves in the bank..Id consider moving to Texas or one of
the other "busy" states.

Be free from Liberal PolyTicks, high taxes, etc etc etc...

But I dont. And the homestead isnt worth a cent to me if I sell it...if
it could be sold The housing market here locally..is not good. And
there is a lien on it from the surgery 2 yrs ago. So they will get all
the money.

the only way I could generate any money is to sell off all my machines,
guns etc etc..and no one around here has any spare cash.

So for all intents and purposes..Im trapped here.

Better to be here with my toys and a little work..then somewhere else
with no toys and looking for work. I think. maybe. Kinda sorta

Im getting too old and tired to run off like I used to. Hell..Ive lived
in 39 states and California twice.

Shrug...just keep plugging away until the Great Cull G

Gunner

--

"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once."
Robert A. Heinlein

Regarding the vision of the future from the subject field, I believe
this to be an unfortunate, but inevitable development, due to the
economic effects of computerization.

People below IQ of a certain level will see themselves replaced by
computers, and that IQ level will rise inexorably, pushing more and
more people to the sidelines.

While I try my best to be on the better side of this process, I am
highly disturbed by it and do not see it as a positive for the human
race.

i

"Ignoramus25197" wrote in message
news
Regarding the vision of the future from the subject field, I believe
this to be an unfortunate, but inevitable development, due to the
economic effects of computerization.

People below IQ of a certain level will see themselves replaced by
computers, and that IQ level will rise inexorably, pushing more and
more people to the sidelines.

While I try my best to be on the better side of this process, I am
highly disturbed by it and do not see it as a positive for the human
race.

i

Until roughly the mid-'70s, the solution was incorporated into
welfare-state/social-democracy ideas. The expectation was that the return on
capital, and interest rates, would decline; capital accumulation would
expand to keep building output; and the work week would keep getting
shorter. The output per worker actually would increase slightly faster than
the loss of hours of work. The underlying fact was that productive output
kept climbing as automation became more effective. Then the whole question
became one of distribution. The numbers, in a crude way, worked out to
support this conclusion.

Instead, capital kept the money and increased the divide between the haves
and the have-nots. And here we are.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2011-04-03, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus25197" wrote in message
news
Regarding the vision of the future from the subject field, I believe
this to be an unfortunate, but inevitable development, due to the
economic effects of computerization.

People below IQ of a certain level will see themselves replaced by
computers, and that IQ level will rise inexorably, pushing more and
more people to the sidelines.

While I try my best to be on the better side of this process, I am
highly disturbed by it and do not see it as a positive for the human
race.

i

Until roughly the mid-'70s, the solution was incorporated into
welfare-state/social-democracy ideas. The expectation was that the return on
capital, and interest rates, would decline; capital accumulation would
expand to keep building output; and the work week would keep getting
shorter. The output per worker actually would increase slightly faster than
the loss of hours of work. The underlying fact was that productive output
kept climbing as automation became more effective. Then the whole question
became one of distribution. The numbers, in a crude way, worked out to
support this conclusion.

Instead, capital kept the money and increased the divide between the haves
and the have-nots. And here we are.


It is not at all surprising that people who are pushed to the
sidelines, do not get much out of this situation.

i

"Ignoramus25197" wrote in message
...
On 2011-04-03, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus25197" wrote in message
news
Regarding the vision of the future from the subject field, I believe
this to be an unfortunate, but inevitable development, due to the
economic effects of computerization.

People below IQ of a certain level will see themselves replaced by
computers, and that IQ level will rise inexorably, pushing more and
more people to the sidelines.

While I try my best to be on the better side of this process, I am
highly disturbed by it and do not see it as a positive for the human
race.

i

Until roughly the mid-'70s, the solution was incorporated into
welfare-state/social-democracy ideas. The expectation was that the return
on
capital, and interest rates, would decline; capital accumulation would
expand to keep building output; and the work week would keep getting
shorter. The output per worker actually would increase slightly faster
than
the loss of hours of work. The underlying fact was that productive output
kept climbing as automation became more effective. Then the whole
question
became one of distribution. The numbers, in a crude way, worked out to
support this conclusion.

Instead, capital kept the money and increased the divide between the
haves
and the have-nots. And here we are.


It is not at all surprising that people who are pushed to the
sidelines, do not get much out of this situation.

i

For a little while, I was hoping that the Tea Partiers would wise up to the
fact that they're being had, and add some kind of equity in earnings
pressure to their small-government shtick. So far they haven't caught on,
but you never know how a populist movement is going to morph.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ignoramus25197" wrote in message
...
On 2011-04-03, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus25197" wrote in message
news
Regarding the vision of the future from the subject field, I believe
this to be an unfortunate, but inevitable development, due to the
economic effects of computerization.

People below IQ of a certain level will see themselves replaced by
computers, and that IQ level will rise inexorably, pushing more and
more people to the sidelines.

While I try my best to be on the better side of this process, I am
highly disturbed by it and do not see it as a positive for the human
race.

i

Until roughly the mid-'70s, the solution was incorporated into
welfare-state/social-democracy ideas. The expectation was that the return
on
capital, and interest rates, would decline; capital accumulation would
expand to keep building output; and the work week would keep getting
shorter. The output per worker actually would increase slightly faster
than
the loss of hours of work. The underlying fact was that productive output
kept climbing as automation became more effective. Then the whole
question
became one of distribution. The numbers, in a crude way, worked out to
support this conclusion.

Instead, capital kept the money and increased the divide between the
haves
and the have-nots. And here we are.


It is not at all surprising that people who are pushed to the
sidelines, do not get much out of this situation.

i

Here's something you ought to find interesting -- Unka' George and John will
appreciate it, too:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood

Scroll down through a few posts.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2011-04-03, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus25197" wrote in message
...
On 2011-04-03, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus25197" wrote in message
news Regarding the vision of the future from the subject field, I believe
this to be an unfortunate, but inevitable development, due to the
economic effects of computerization.

People below IQ of a certain level will see themselves replaced by
computers, and that IQ level will rise inexorably, pushing more and
more people to the sidelines.

While I try my best to be on the better side of this process, I am
highly disturbed by it and do not see it as a positive for the human
race.

i

Until roughly the mid-'70s, the solution was incorporated into
welfare-state/social-democracy ideas. The expectation was that the return
on
capital, and interest rates, would decline; capital accumulation would
expand to keep building output; and the work week would keep getting
shorter. The output per worker actually would increase slightly faster
than
the loss of hours of work. The underlying fact was that productive output
kept climbing as automation became more effective. Then the whole
question
became one of distribution. The numbers, in a crude way, worked out to
support this conclusion.

Instead, capital kept the money and increased the divide between the
haves
and the have-nots. And here we are.


It is not at all surprising that people who are pushed to the
sidelines, do not get much out of this situation.

i

For a little while, I was hoping that the Tea Partiers would wise up to the
fact that they're being had, and add some kind of equity in earnings
pressure to their small-government shtick. So far they haven't caught on,
but you never know how a populist movement is going to morph.


Tea Party is the Koch brothers' party, they sing the song in
accordance with who is financing them. I would not expect them to
change much.

i

On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 19:23:31 -0500, Ignoramus25197
wrote:

On 2011-04-03, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus25197" wrote in message
...
On 2011-04-03, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus25197" wrote in message
news Regarding the vision of the future from the subject field, I believe
this to be an unfortunate, but inevitable development, due to the
economic effects of computerization.

People below IQ of a certain level will see themselves replaced by
computers, and that IQ level will rise inexorably, pushing more and
more people to the sidelines.

While I try my best to be on the better side of this process, I am
highly disturbed by it and do not see it as a positive for the human
race.

i

Until roughly the mid-'70s, the solution was incorporated into
welfare-state/social-democracy ideas. The expectation was that the return
on
capital, and interest rates, would decline; capital accumulation would
expand to keep building output; and the work week would keep getting
shorter. The output per worker actually would increase slightly faster
than
the loss of hours of work. The underlying fact was that productive output
kept climbing as automation became more effective. Then the whole
question
became one of distribution. The numbers, in a crude way, worked out to
support this conclusion.

Instead, capital kept the money and increased the divide between the
haves
and the have-nots. And here we are.


It is not at all surprising that people who are pushed to the
sidelines, do not get much out of this situation.

i

For a little while, I was hoping that the Tea Partiers would wise up to the
fact that they're being had, and add some kind of equity in earnings
pressure to their small-government shtick. So far they haven't caught on,
but you never know how a populist movement is going to morph.


Tea Party is the Koch brothers' party, they sing the song in
accordance with who is financing them. I would not expect them to
change much.

i

So what song does the Leftwing sing? The Soros National Anthem?

Gunner

--

"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once."
Robert A. Heinlein

On 2011-04-04, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 19:23:31 -0500, Ignoramus25197
wrote:

On 2011-04-03, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus25197" wrote in message
...
On 2011-04-03, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus25197" wrote in message
news Regarding the vision of the future from the subject field, I believe
this to be an unfortunate, but inevitable development, due to the
economic effects of computerization.

People below IQ of a certain level will see themselves replaced by
computers, and that IQ level will rise inexorably, pushing more and
more people to the sidelines.

While I try my best to be on the better side of this process, I am
highly disturbed by it and do not see it as a positive for the human
race.

i

Until roughly the mid-'70s, the solution was incorporated into
welfare-state/social-democracy ideas. The expectation was that the return
on
capital, and interest rates, would decline; capital accumulation would
expand to keep building output; and the work week would keep getting
shorter. The output per worker actually would increase slightly faster
than
the loss of hours of work. The underlying fact was that productive output
kept climbing as automation became more effective. Then the whole
question
became one of distribution. The numbers, in a crude way, worked out to
support this conclusion.

Instead, capital kept the money and increased the divide between the
haves
and the have-nots. And here we are.


It is not at all surprising that people who are pushed to the
sidelines, do not get much out of this situation.

i

For a little while, I was hoping that the Tea Partiers would wise up to the
fact that they're being had, and add some kind of equity in earnings
pressure to their small-government shtick. So far they haven't caught on,
but you never know how a populist movement is going to morph.


Tea Party is the Koch brothers' party, they sing the song in
accordance with who is financing them. I would not expect them to
change much.

i

So what song does the Leftwing sing? The Soros National Anthem?


Gunner, I would be interested in a decent summary of how much is Soros
spending on politics (in USA) and who he is financing.

i

On 4/3/2011 2:08 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
id wrote in message
news
Regarding the vision of the future from the subject field, I believe
this to be an unfortunate, but inevitable development, due to the
economic effects of computerization.

People below IQ of a certain level will see themselves replaced by
computers, and that IQ level will rise inexorably, pushing more and
more people to the sidelines.

While I try my best to be on the better side of this process, I am
highly disturbed by it and do not see it as a positive for the human
race.

i

Until roughly the mid-'70s, the solution was incorporated into
welfare-state/social-democracy ideas. The expectation was that the return on
capital, and interest rates, would decline; capital accumulation would
expand to keep building output; and the work week would keep getting
shorter. The output per worker actually would increase slightly faster than
the loss of hours of work. The underlying fact was that productive output
kept climbing as automation became more effective. Then the whole question
became one of distribution. The numbers, in a crude way, worked out to
support this conclusion.

Instead, capital kept the money and increased the divide between the haves
and the have-nots. And here we are.



Yeah, it's called the failure of capitalism. Just like all the so-called
communist systems failed now it's time for the western model of
capitalism to go. All the flaws are there if you are willing to open
your eyes. The system is based on continuous growth, which in a finite
world doesn't really seem possible. It's also a winner take all system
and as you would expect in that kind of system a small group is winning,
and they are gaining control of all the money and leaving nothing but
the crumbs for the majority. It's clear that the majority is declining
in wealth and standard of living as the upper class consolidates the
bulk of the nation's wealth. If we keep doing what we've been doing
we'll be just like Mexico with the richest man in the world surrounded
by millions of broke peasants.

We better find a way to spread the wealth around pretty soon or it's
going to be a real disaster like we've never seen before. But when you
have an economic system that takes everything from the many and gives it
to the few it always turns out the same. One day the few wind up hanging
upside down like Mussolini. I see that as a real possibility unless
radical changes are made, and soon.

Hawke

On 4/3/2011 2:30 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
id wrote in message
...
On 2011-04-03, Ed wrote:

id wrote in message
news Regarding the vision of the future from the subject field, I believe
this to be an unfortunate, but inevitable development, due to the
economic effects of computerization.

People below IQ of a certain level will see themselves replaced by
computers, and that IQ level will rise inexorably, pushing more and
more people to the sidelines.

While I try my best to be on the better side of this process, I am
highly disturbed by it and do not see it as a positive for the human
race.

i

Until roughly the mid-'70s, the solution was incorporated into
welfare-state/social-democracy ideas. The expectation was that the return
on
capital, and interest rates, would decline; capital accumulation would
expand to keep building output; and the work week would keep getting
shorter. The output per worker actually would increase slightly faster
than
the loss of hours of work. The underlying fact was that productive output
kept climbing as automation became more effective. Then the whole
question
became one of distribution. The numbers, in a crude way, worked out to
support this conclusion.

Instead, capital kept the money and increased the divide between the
haves
and the have-nots. And here we are.


It is not at all surprising that people who are pushed to the
sidelines, do not get much out of this situation.

i

For a little while, I was hoping that the Tea Partiers would wise up to the
fact that they're being had, and add some kind of equity in earnings
pressure to their small-government shtick. So far they haven't caught on,
but you never know how a populist movement is going to morph.



Except that the Tea Party isn't really a grass roots movement. It's
astroturf. The Koch brothers and the Dick Armey's of the world have been
behind much of it, paying for it, organizing it, and playing the role of
the invisible hand. Without them you have no Tea Party. So that's why
you aren't seeing them out there fighting for higher wages and benefits
for working people. They're just stooges of the wealthy.

Hawke

On 4/3/2011 8:23 PM, Ignoramus25197 wrote:
On 2011-04-04, Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 19:23:31 -0500, Ignoramus25197
wrote:

On 2011-04-03, Ed wrote:

id wrote in message
...
On 2011-04-03, Ed wrote:

id wrote in message
news Regarding the vision of the future from the subject field, I believe
this to be an unfortunate, but inevitable development, due to the
economic effects of computerization.

People below IQ of a certain level will see themselves replaced by
computers, and that IQ level will rise inexorably, pushing more and
more people to the sidelines.

While I try my best to be on the better side of this process, I am
highly disturbed by it and do not see it as a positive for the human
race.

i

Until roughly the mid-'70s, the solution was incorporated into
welfare-state/social-democracy ideas. The expectation was that the return
on
capital, and interest rates, would decline; capital accumulation would
expand to keep building output; and the work week would keep getting
shorter. The output per worker actually would increase slightly faster
than
the loss of hours of work. The underlying fact was that productive output
kept climbing as automation became more effective. Then the whole
question
became one of distribution. The numbers, in a crude way, worked out to
support this conclusion.

Instead, capital kept the money and increased the divide between the
haves
and the have-nots. And here we are.


It is not at all surprising that people who are pushed to the
sidelines, do not get much out of this situation.

i

For a little while, I was hoping that the Tea Partiers would wise up to the
fact that they're being had, and add some kind of equity in earnings
pressure to their small-government shtick. So far they haven't caught on,
but you never know how a populist movement is going to morph.


Tea Party is the Koch brothers' party, they sing the song in
accordance with who is financing them. I would not expect them to
change much.

i

So what song does the Leftwing sing? The Soros National Anthem?


Gunner, I would be interested in a decent summary of how much is Soros
spending on politics (in USA) and who he is financing.

i
'


Why don't you ask him that as well as how much the Koch brothers are
spending and who spent more. I'm sure he has all the means necessary to
dig into that kind of information and bring it back to us. Ha, yeah. All
he knows is what he hears from right wing media. He never actually
questions anyone on the right about anything. He just follows.

Hawke

On Apr 4, 2:45*am, Hawke wrote:


We better find a way to spread the wealth around pretty soon or it's
going to be a real disaster like we've never seen before. But when you
have an economic system that takes everything from the many and gives it
to the few it always turns out the same. One day the few wind up hanging
upside down like Mussolini. I see that as a real possibility unless
radical changes are made, and soon.

Hawke

There is a way to spread the wealth around. It is called getting an
education and a better job. Then not spending all the money you make
on things which are the latest gadgets. And actually saving some
money and learning about investing so you get a return that is more
than inflation.

The problem is that this takes actual work. And you do not end up
with the gadgets as iphones. Or at least you do not end up with the
gadgets until they are no longer the latest thing.

Look at countries as South Korea. They put a lot of emphasis on
education and their standard of living has improved a lot.

We on the other hand have a lot of very poor public schools. And our
standard of living has been relatively stagnant.

The days of making good money from factory jobs requiring no education
are over. The world has replaced most of those jobs with machines.

Our economic system rewards those that work and are intelligent.

Dan

On 2011-04-04, wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:45?am, Hawke wrote:


We better find a way to spread the wealth around pretty soon or it's
going to be a real disaster like we've never seen before. But when you
have an economic system that takes everything from the many and gives it
to the few it always turns out the same. One day the few wind up hanging
upside down like Mussolini. I see that as a real possibility unless
radical changes are made, and soon.

Hawke

There is a way to spread the wealth around. It is called getting an
education and a better job. Then not spending all the money you make
on things which are the latest gadgets. And actually saving some
money and learning about investing so you get a return that is more
than inflation.

The problem is that this takes actual work. And you do not end up
with the gadgets as iphones. Or at least you do not end up with the
gadgets until they are no longer the latest thing.

Look at countries as South Korea. They put a lot of emphasis on
education and their standard of living has improved a lot.

We on the other hand have a lot of very poor public schools. And our
standard of living has been relatively stagnant.

The days of making good money from factory jobs requiring no education
are over. The world has replaced most of those jobs with machines.

Our economic system rewards those that work and are intelligent.


Dan, it is only a matter of time before the "somewhat more
intelligent" people will be replaced by computers, as well.

The bar will be raised constantly.

What you say, makes a lot of sense, except that 1) one cannot easily
become much more intelligent and 2) computers do become much more
intelligent as they evlolve and as computer programming becomes more
sophisticated.

i

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 04:36:29 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 4, 2:45*am, Hawke wrote:


We better find a way to spread the wealth around pretty soon or it's
going to be a real disaster like we've never seen before. But when you
have an economic system that takes everything from the many and gives it
to the few it always turns out the same. One day the few wind up hanging
upside down like Mussolini. I see that as a real possibility unless
radical changes are made, and soon.

Hawke

There is a way to spread the wealth around. It is called getting an
education and a better job. Then not spending all the money you make
on things which are the latest gadgets. And actually saving some
money and learning about investing so you get a return that is more
than inflation.

The problem is that this takes actual work. And you do not end up
with the gadgets as iphones. Or at least you do not end up with the
gadgets until they are no longer the latest thing.

Look at countries as South Korea. They put a lot of emphasis on
education and their standard of living has improved a lot.

We on the other hand have a lot of very poor public schools. And our
standard of living has been relatively stagnant.

The days of making good money from factory jobs requiring no education
are over. The world has replaced most of those jobs with machines.

Our economic system rewards those that work and are intelligent.

Dan
============
While this sounds good, it also has several tacit
requirements embedded that no one wants to talk about.

(1) No matter how much "education" you have, it is no
guarantee of making a living. Your expertise must be in a
field that is in demand and there are employers [or
customers] willing to pay an equitable wage, adequate to not
only make a living, but amortize the cost of the education
over a reasonable period of working life, i.e. student
loans. "Build it and they will come," is a line from a movie
and not viable economic advice.

(2) The vast majority of the American population does not
need any instruction in "investing" at this point, except to
avoid "wall street," with their scams, grifts, and cons.
What they need is simple instruction in basic personal
finance, for example just how much a credit card balance
costs, why you should steer clear of the "pay day" lenders
and what APR means. The difference between an "investment"
which pays you, and an expense, albeit necessary, such as a
house or car, for which you pay and pay and pay should be
stressed.

(3) While there are indeed many below average public schools
in the US [one-half of them in fact] this is far more an
excuse than anything else. To compare the results of South
Korean or other traditional societies, with highly
competitive school systems with the results of the US
schools is to compare apples and oranges. Not only are the
family dynamic totally different, the dullards, the lazy and
the mal-contents are weeded out early through a series of
toll-gate examinations in the competitive school systems,
while the US school systems mandate education for all until
the age of 16, or increasingly 18, regardless of mental
capacity/stability, suitability for intellectual
achievement, desire, and physical handicap, i.e. "main
streaming." Another factor is the relative uniformity of
the students and backgrounds in the traditional societies
[for example, in Korea, the students all speak Korean], and
the wide [wild?] divergence of student students/backgrounds
in the US.

This is by no means a new argument/discussion, and dates
back to at least the Victorian efforts to improve society.
This dichotomy was explored at some length by Tussing who
discusses and analyses the difference between the
individual/case and generic/class models of the causes of
poverty and/or low socio-economic achievement. As he points
out, it is far easier (and safer) to study and attempt to
"fix" the individual than it is to study and attempt to fix
the environment/culture in which the individual is embedded.
IMNSHO -- in any real world situation, there appears to be a
mix of both the individual/case and generic/class, with the
relative importance changing over time as the culture and
economy evolve, with the generic/class components currently
the most important.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2095569
http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedF..._CV.pdf?n=6060
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...482.x/abstract
http://socyberty.com/social-sciences...-consequences/
http://www.gdrc.org/icm/poverty-causes.htm

Note that under critical analysis, actions that should
logically reduce poverty under one model may increase [or
simply redistribute] poverty under the other model
[generic/class v individual/case].


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 22:23:24 -0500, Ignoramus25197
wrote:

On 2011-04-04, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 19:23:31 -0500, Ignoramus25197
wrote:

On 2011-04-03, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus25197" wrote in message
...
On 2011-04-03, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus25197" wrote in message
news Regarding the vision of the future from the subject field, I believe
this to be an unfortunate, but inevitable development, due to the
economic effects of computerization.

People below IQ of a certain level will see themselves replaced by
computers, and that IQ level will rise inexorably, pushing more and
more people to the sidelines.

While I try my best to be on the better side of this process, I am
highly disturbed by it and do not see it as a positive for the human
race.

i

Until roughly the mid-'70s, the solution was incorporated into
welfare-state/social-democracy ideas. The expectation was that the return
on
capital, and interest rates, would decline; capital accumulation would
expand to keep building output; and the work week would keep getting
shorter. The output per worker actually would increase slightly faster
than
the loss of hours of work. The underlying fact was that productive output
kept climbing as automation became more effective. Then the whole
question
became one of distribution. The numbers, in a crude way, worked out to
support this conclusion.

Instead, capital kept the money and increased the divide between the
haves
and the have-nots. And here we are.


It is not at all surprising that people who are pushed to the
sidelines, do not get much out of this situation.

i

For a little while, I was hoping that the Tea Partiers would wise up to the
fact that they're being had, and add some kind of equity in earnings
pressure to their small-government shtick. So far they haven't caught on,
but you never know how a populist movement is going to morph.


Tea Party is the Koch brothers' party, they sing the song in
accordance with who is financing them. I would not expect them to
change much.

i

So what song does the Leftwing sing? The Soros National Anthem?


Gunner, I would be interested in a decent summary of how much is Soros
spending on politics (in USA) and who he is financing.

i


Google is your friend.

And be sure to look his contributions for the 2008 election....

VBG

There are lots of articles out there about Soros and American politics
and how the Leftwing hides his influence..and his money

http://bigjournalism.com/wthuston/20...rters-for-npr/
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/09/09...cas-judiciary/

In those two articles alone..$200 Million dollars went to the Left.....

And some of the actions he is believed to be responsible for...

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2010/10...tler-to-soros/


Although to be fair..during the 2010 election..he didnt spent anywhere
near $200 million. In fact..far less. Maybe only a $100 million. Shrug

http://scaredmonkeys.com/2010/10/12/...can-avalanche/

Interesting video there...G

Gunner


Gunner

--

"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once."
Robert A. Heinlein

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Ha! The fund management industry doesn't "destroy" value. They just put it
in their own pockets instead of the clients'. d8-)


The truest words you ever uttered Ed.

Wes

On Apr 4, 8:56*am, Ignoramus24811

Dan, it is only a matter of time before the "somewhat more
intelligent" people will be replaced by computers, as well.

The bar will be raised constantly.

What you say, makes a lot of sense, except that 1) one cannot easily
become much more intelligent and 2) computers do become much more
intelligent as they evlolve and as computer programming becomes more
sophisticated.

i

You are right. But one can become more educated. Not as good as
becoming more intelligent, but a better educated work force could
compete with S. Korea.

Dan

On Apr 4, 10:19*am, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
While this sounds good, it also has several tacit
requirements embedded that no one wants to talk about.

(1) No matter how much "education" you have, it is no
guarantee of making a living. *Your expertise must be in a
field that is in demand and there are employers [or
customers] willing to pay an equitable wage, adequate to not
only make a living, but amortize the cost of the education
over a reasonable period of working life, i.e. student
loans. "Build it and they will come," is a line from a movie
and not viable economic advice. *

There are no guarantee's in life. But regardless of what one studies
one will be better off than not studying. If you get a degree in Art
History you will learn to write well. And that is something that is
in demand.


(2) The vast majority of the American population does not
need any instruction in "investing" at this point, except to
avoid "wall street," with their scams, grifts, and cons.
What they need is simple instruction in basic personal
finance, for example just how much a credit card balance
costs, why you should steer clear of the "pay day" lenders
and what APR means. *The difference between an "investment"
which pays you, and an expense, albeit necessary, such as a
house or car, for which you pay and pay and pay should be
stressed.

Well I think you are wrong there. Iggy and I both believe in
investing. You need to know when to buy and when not to buy. The
stuff you are talking about as credic card balance costs should be
obvious.



(3) While there are indeed many below average public schools
in the US [one-half of them in fact] this is far more an
excuse than anything else. *To compare the results of South
Korean or other traditional societies, with highly
competitive school systems with the results of the US
schools is to compare apples and oranges. *Not only are the
family dynamic totally different, the dullards, the lazy and
the mal-contents are weeded out early through a series of
toll-gate examinations in the competitive school systems,
while the US school systems mandate education for all until
the age of 16, or increasingly 18, regardless of mental
capacity/stability, suitability for intellectual
achievement, desire, and physical handicap, i.e. "main
streaming." *Another factor is the relative uniformity of
the students and backgrounds in the traditional societies
[for example, in Korea, the students all speak Korean], and
the wide [wild?] divergence of student students/backgrounds
in the US. *


It is Apples and Oranges. It should not be. The U.S. school systems
ought to be competitive but they are not.

Dan


This is by no means a new argument/discussion, and dates
back to at least the Victorian efforts to improve society.
This dichotomy was explored at some length by Tussing who
discusses and analyses the difference between the
individual/case and generic/class models of the causes of
poverty and/or low socio-economic achievement. *As he points
out, it is far easier (and safer) to study and attempt to
"fix" the individual than it is to study and attempt to fix
the environment/culture in which the individual is embedded.
IMNSHO -- in any real world situation, there appears to be a
mix of both the individual/case and generic/class, with the
relative importance changing over time as the culture and
economy evolve, with the generic/class components currently
the most important.http://www.jstor.org/pss/2095569http...rty-causes.htm

Note that under critical analysis, actions that should
logically reduce poverty under one model may increase [or
simply redistribute] poverty under the other model
[generic/class v individual/case].

-- Unka George *(George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Apr 4, 6:07*pm, " wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:56*am, Ignoramus24811



Dan, it is only a matter of time before the "somewhat more
intelligent" people will be replaced by computers, as well.

The bar will be raised constantly.

What you say, makes a lot of sense, except that 1) one cannot easily
become much more intelligent and 2) computers do become much more
intelligent as they evlolve and as computer programming becomes more
sophisticated.

i

You are right. *But one can become more educated. *Not as good as
becoming more intelligent, but a better educated work force could
compete with S. Korea.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

But will they be paid for their additional effort and risk taken?

The answer currently is "No".

If you haven't noticed, technical jobs are being outsourced offshore
by the millions.

An example...do you know that most of Microsoft's source code is
written in India?

TMT

On Apr 4, 6:25*pm, " wrote:
On Apr 4, 10:19*am, F. George McDuffee wrote:
While this sounds good, it also has several tacit
requirements embedded that no one wants to talk about.

(1) No matter how much "education" you have, it is no
guarantee of making a living. *Your expertise must be in a
field that is in demand and there are employers [or
customers] willing to pay an equitable wage, adequate to not
only make a living, but amortize the cost of the education
over a reasonable period of working life, i.e. student
loans. "Build it and they will come," is a line from a movie
and not viable economic advice. *

There are no guarantee's in life. *But regardless of what one studies
one will *be better off than not studying. *If you get a degree in Art
History you will *learn to write well. *And that is something that is
in demand.

(2) The vast majority of the American population does not
need any instruction in "investing" at this point, except to
avoid "wall street," with their scams, grifts, and cons.
What they need is simple instruction in basic personal
finance, for example just how much a credit card balance
costs, why you should steer clear of the "pay day" lenders
and what APR means. *The difference between an "investment"
which pays you, and an expense, albeit necessary, such as a
house or car, for which you pay and pay and pay should be
stressed.

Well I think you are wrong there. *Iggy and I both believe in
investing. *You need to know when to buy and when not to buy. *The
stuff you are talking about as credic card balance costs should be
obvious.







(3) While there are indeed many below average public schools
in the US [one-half of them in fact] this is far more an
excuse than anything else. *To compare the results of South
Korean or other traditional societies, with highly
competitive school systems with the results of the US
schools is to compare apples and oranges. *Not only are the
family dynamic totally different, the dullards, the lazy and
the mal-contents are weeded out early through a series of
toll-gate examinations in the competitive school systems,
while the US school systems mandate education for all until
the age of 16, or increasingly 18, regardless of mental
capacity/stability, suitability for intellectual
achievement, desire, and physical handicap, i.e. "main
streaming." *Another factor is the relative uniformity of
the students and backgrounds in the traditional societies
[for example, in Korea, the students all speak Korean], and
the wide [wild?] divergence of student students/backgrounds
in the US. *

It is Apples and Oranges. *It should not be. *The U.S. school systems
ought to be competitive but they are not.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan



This is by no means a new argument/discussion, and dates
back to at least the Victorian efforts to improve society.
This dichotomy was explored at some length by Tussing who
discusses and analyses the difference between the
individual/case and generic/class models of the causes of
poverty and/or low socio-economic achievement. *As he points
out, it is far easier (and safer) to study and attempt to
"fix" the individual than it is to study and attempt to fix
the environment/culture in which the individual is embedded.
IMNSHO -- in any real world situation, there appears to be a
mix of both the individual/case and generic/class, with the
relative importance changing over time as the culture and
economy evolve, with the generic/class components currently
the most important.http://www.jstor.org/pss/2095569http...edu/uploadedFi...

Note that under critical analysis, actions that should
logically reduce poverty under one model may increase [or
simply redistribute] poverty under the other model
[generic/class v individual/case].

-- Unka George *(George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ever read the instructions that come with Harbor Freight tools?

That is how highly "valued" good writing is.

Sad but true.

TMT

On Apr 4, 6:25*pm, " wrote:
On Apr 4, 10:19*am, F. George McDuffee wrote:
While this sounds good, it also has several tacit
requirements embedded that no one wants to talk about.

(1) No matter how much "education" you have, it is no
guarantee of making a living. *Your expertise must be in a
field that is in demand and there are employers [or
customers] willing to pay an equitable wage, adequate to not
only make a living, but amortize the cost of the education
over a reasonable period of working life, i.e. student
loans. "Build it and they will come," is a line from a movie
and not viable economic advice. *

There are no guarantee's in life. *But regardless of what one studies
one will *be better off than not studying. *If you get a degree in Art
History you will *learn to write well. *And that is something that is
in demand.

(2) The vast majority of the American population does not
need any instruction in "investing" at this point, except to
avoid "wall street," with their scams, grifts, and cons.
What they need is simple instruction in basic personal
finance, for example just how much a credit card balance
costs, why you should steer clear of the "pay day" lenders
and what APR means. *The difference between an "investment"
which pays you, and an expense, albeit necessary, such as a
house or car, for which you pay and pay and pay should be
stressed.

Well I think you are wrong there. *Iggy and I both believe in
investing. *You need to know when to buy and when not to buy. *The
stuff you are talking about as credic card balance costs should be
obvious.







(3) While there are indeed many below average public schools
in the US [one-half of them in fact] this is far more an
excuse than anything else. *To compare the results of South
Korean or other traditional societies, with highly
competitive school systems with the results of the US
schools is to compare apples and oranges. *Not only are the
family dynamic totally different, the dullards, the lazy and
the mal-contents are weeded out early through a series of
toll-gate examinations in the competitive school systems,
while the US school systems mandate education for all until
the age of 16, or increasingly 18, regardless of mental
capacity/stability, suitability for intellectual
achievement, desire, and physical handicap, i.e. "main
streaming." *Another factor is the relative uniformity of
the students and backgrounds in the traditional societies
[for example, in Korea, the students all speak Korean], and
the wide [wild?] divergence of student students/backgrounds
in the US. *

It is Apples and Oranges. *It should not be. *The U.S. school systems
ought to be competitive but they are not.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan



This is by no means a new argument/discussion, and dates
back to at least the Victorian efforts to improve society.
This dichotomy was explored at some length by Tussing who
discusses and analyses the difference between the
individual/case and generic/class models of the causes of
poverty and/or low socio-economic achievement. *As he points
out, it is far easier (and safer) to study and attempt to
"fix" the individual than it is to study and attempt to fix
the environment/culture in which the individual is embedded.
IMNSHO -- in any real world situation, there appears to be a
mix of both the individual/case and generic/class, with the
relative importance changing over time as the culture and
economy evolve, with the generic/class components currently
the most important.http://www.jstor.org/pss/2095569http...edu/uploadedFi...

Note that under critical analysis, actions that should
logically reduce poverty under one model may increase [or
simply redistribute] poverty under the other model
[generic/class v individual/case].

-- Unka George *(George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I argue education starts at home...and it obviously is not happening
there.

It has been proposed...and I agree...that if Johnny won't learn then
the parents should be held to task for his lack of interest. Fining
the parents will get them focused on motivating Johnny to read.

TMT

On 4/4/2011 4:36 AM, wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:45 am, wrote:


We better find a way to spread the wealth around pretty soon or it's
going to be a real disaster like we've never seen before. But when you
have an economic system that takes everything from the many and gives it
to the few it always turns out the same. One day the few wind up hanging
upside down like Mussolini. I see that as a real possibility unless
radical changes are made, and soon.

Hawke

There is a way to spread the wealth around. It is called getting an
education and a better job. Then not spending all the money you make
on things which are the latest gadgets. And actually saving some
money and learning about investing so you get a return that is more
than inflation.

The problem is that this takes actual work. And you do not end up
with the gadgets as iphones. Or at least you do not end up with the
gadgets until they are no longer the latest thing.

Look at countries as South Korea. They put a lot of emphasis on
education and their standard of living has improved a lot.

We on the other hand have a lot of very poor public schools. And our
standard of living has been relatively stagnant.

The days of making good money from factory jobs requiring no education
are over. The world has replaced most of those jobs with machines.

Our economic system rewards those that work and are intelligent.

Dan


Sounds good in theory. But what about all the people who did what you
say for the last decade and have gone broke, can't find jobs, and are
far worse off than when they started, even though it was no fault of
their own? The problem is what you are saying is a fairy tale not
reality. If you knew how many folks did what you say it the way to
prosperity and never reach it you would think differently. The fact is
in America the odds of moving up are less than in Europe. The fact is in
America people are declining economically. It can't all be blamed on
people being dumb and lazy. Too many who tried their best are not
getting ahead anymore. The path is blocked for most people. A small
percent are getting huge rewards, that's true. But most are living lives
that are not as good as their parents were.



Hawke

On 4/4/2011 11:48 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I argue education starts at home...and it obviously is not happening
there.

It has been proposed...and I agree...that if Johnny won't learn then
the parents should be held to task for his lack of interest. Fining
the parents will get them focused on motivating Johnny to read.

TMT


Before we all go running off and believing things that are not true,
let's remember where all this criticism of our schools is coming from.
That's right, the anti intellectual, anti reason, very religious,
conservative folk. To hear them you'd think our educational system is
garbage. That's coming from people who all got educated by that system.
It was good enough for them to show their brilliance but now the school
system is worthless. I disagree.

I was still going to college in 2003, so it wasn't all that long ago
that I had a front row seat to what it was like, at least in a
California state university. While it may be true that you find a lot of
dummies and people way behind where they should be in the freshman
class, half of them are weeded out in the first few months of the year.
By the time you finish your chosen degree I'd say our students are
pretty damn good. At least as good as what you find from graduates from
other countries.

Every full professor at my school had a PH.d in their subject. All of
them were super smart and super qualified to teach the subject they were
responsible for. Once past the first year or two and the students were
pretty good too. Then you have graduate school, which nobody gets
accepted into unless they are really excellent students.

So before you believe our system is so ****ty keep in mind who is
telling you it is. Is it a dumb **** right winger spouting Foxnews and
AM radio propaganda? Or is it a conservative businessman who has another
selfish motive for putting down our system? Either way, if you actually
went to our colleges and saw what kind of people are coming out of them
I don't think you would have such a negative view of their abilities.
But then since most conservatives/right wingers don't spend a lot of
time in college, or if they do all they know about is business, I
wouldn't pay much attention to their opinion on the subject of education.

Hawke

On Apr 5, 2:43*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

But will they be paid for their additional effort and risk taken?

The answer currently is "No".

If you haven't noticed, technical jobs are being outsourced offshore
by the millions.

An example...do you know that most of Microsoft's source code is
written in India?

TMT

There are no guarantees. But in general the answer is " Yes ". The
statistics of earnings for college graduates vs high school graduates
makes it clear that having a college degree pays off.

And those millions of technical jobs being outsourced are going to
people that have degrees. Just more proof of what I say.

Dan

On Apr 5, 2:48*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:


I argue education starts at home...and it obviously is not happening
there.

It has been proposed...and I agree...that if Johnny won't learn then
the parents should be held to task for his lack of interest. Fining
the parents will get them focused on motivating Johnny to read.

TMT

Tell that to the parents in the Washington D.C. area that try to get
their kids in a decent school.

Dan

On Apr 5, 3:34*am, Hawke wrote:

Sounds good in theory. But what about all the people who did what you
say for the last decade and have gone broke, can't find jobs, and are
far worse off than when they started, even though it was no fault of
their own? The problem is what you are saying is a fairy tale not
reality. If you knew how many folks did what you say it the way to
prosperity and never reach it you would think differently. The fact is
in America the odds of moving up are less than in Europe. The fact is in
America people are declining economically. It can't all be blamed on
people being dumb and lazy. Too many who tried their best are not
getting ahead anymore. The path is blocked for most people. A small
percent are getting huge rewards, that's true. But most are living lives
that are not as good as their parents were.

Hawke

As I said no guarantees. But you need to look at those that did not
graduate from high school and compare them to the average college
graduate. Now tell me how the high school dropouts are doing better
than the college graduates. While you are at it, give us a few cites
of studies that show people that did not go to college are doing
better that those that did.

Now how about showing countries that have high illiterate rates doing
better that countries that have a high percentage of college
graduates.

Your arguments are not very good.

Dan

On Apr 5, 3:54*am, Hawke wrote:
On 4/4/2011 11:48 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Before we all go running off and believing things that are not true,
let's remember where all this criticism of our schools is coming from.
That's right, the anti intellectual, anti reason, very religious,
conservative folk. To hear them you'd think our educational system is
garbage. That's coming from people who all got educated by that system.
It was good enough for them to show their brilliance but now the school
system is worthless. I disagree.

So how do you explain the test scores of American kids that are lower
than other countries? How about using some facts in your agruments.



Every full professor at my school had a PH.d in their subject. All of
them were super smart and super qualified to teach the subject they were
responsible for.

You obviously went to a better college than I did. One of my
professors had not graduated from college.


So before you believe our system is so ****ty keep in mind who is
telling you it is. Is it a dumb **** right winger spouting Foxnews and
AM radio propaganda? Or is it a conservative businessman who has another
selfish motive for putting down our system? Either way, if you actually
went to our colleges and saw what kind of people are coming out of them
I don't think you would have such a negative view of their abilities.
But then since most conservatives/right wingers don't spend a lot of
time in college, or if they do all they know about is business, I
wouldn't pay much attention to their opinion on the subject of education.

Hawke

I actually went to my 50th class reunion and met some of the students.

Dan

On 2011-04-05, wrote:
On Apr 5, 2:43?am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

But will they be paid for their additional effort and risk taken?

The answer currently is "No".

If you haven't noticed, technical jobs are being outsourced offshore
by the millions.

An example...do you know that most of Microsoft's source code is
written in India?

TMT

There are no guarantees. But in general the answer is " Yes ". The
statistics of earnings for college graduates vs high school graduates
makes it clear that having a college degree pays off.

And those millions of technical jobs being outsourced are going to
people that have degrees. Just more proof of what I say.

The best outcome for all of us would be that workers in China and
India finally see their incomes increase greatly.

i