21st century central problem

[haymarket]

The main problem of the next few decades of the 21 century is not the various things we all argue about here.

Consider this: For most of the 20th century, and even parts of the 19th century, a person could be of average of even below average intelligence and still be a productive, functioning and even valuable member of American society. Somebody could have an IQ of 80 or so, get a job in a factory, make a very decent wage, buy a house, get married and have a family and be a regular citizen. Because of union wages, they could get a new car every five years or so, go on an annual vacation even if only driving locally, even put their kids in the local catholic or private school if that was their wish.

In the neighborhood I grew up in - Dearborn, Michigan in the Fifties and Sixties, there were lots of families like this and they all were productive people and responsible citizens who raised their families, paid their taxes and did what they were suppose to do to get the American Dream. This was a time of Ozzie & Harriet and Leave It to Beaver, of Eisenhower and JFK and America was prosperous and lots and lots of people - even the lower educated - shared in that prosperity and America was strong, healthy and the envy of the world.

Lets face it folks, if you know anything about the standard IQ tests, half the population is at 100 or lower. Its great to say we all need to get more education and computer skills and be part of the 21st century technological revolution, but for many, its just not in the cards.

Yeah - I can hear it right now - Haymarket is just another liberal who has no faith in people to succeed. Keep your cliches please. This is a discussion about reality.

When we had an agrarian economy in the 18th and 19th century, there was a place and a job for almost everyone. Heck, when the Industrial Revolution took over in the mid to late 1800's we had to go elsewhere to import tens of millions of people to fuel the machines. The transition from a agricultural economy to an industrial economy increased the need for labor and increased the middle class.

But we are now in an era where technology no longer needs as many people, particularly the below 100 IQ folks. How many peoople do we really need to be able to say "welcome to Walmart" or "you want fries with that?" And what do those jobs pay compared to the hi-low driver of the neighborhood I grew up in?

Some economists are predicting a "jobless recovery". We see major corporations doing very well. We see the stock market making a big comeback and investors doing very well. We see those at the top doing very well. But we see lots of problems for lots of other people at the middle or lower who are not getting hired back and companies are very happy to buy machines instead of employing workers.

As part of my job with the Michigan Legislature, I recently toured a engine plant where today they have one-fifth of the workers they had some twenty years ago and produce more than they did at that time. The workers at that plant - UAW members - took no wage increases for over a decade so the plant could retool and modernize to save jobs. The union accepted a two tier wage system and it now takes a full 13 years for a worker to get from starting wage to full wage. The name of the plant is Detroit Diesel.

I do not think they are rare or the exception to the national trend. In fact, I suspect they are part of the national trend.

We live in a democratic republic where people can vote and pick their representatives in government. They in turn determine public policy including tax policy and entitlement programs and the like.

So here is my question: what are we doing about this problem that seems to run contrary to building a prosperous and sustainable America for nearly all of us?

And why is this something that nobody really seems to want to talk about or do anything about?

What does it bode for America when more and more have to get by and less and less but those same people can become angry and bitter at not getting their piece of the American Dream?

And what is a societal wide solution that we can apply to nearly everyone to get back the sort of prosperity that existed in decades past for nearly everyone?

 

[washunut]

The main problem of the next few decades of the 21 century is not the various things we all argue about here.

Consider this: For most of the 20th century, and even parts of the 19th century, a person could be of average of even below average intelligence and still be a productive, functioning and even valuable member of American society. Somebody could have an IQ of 80 or so, get a job in a factory, make a very decent wage, buy a house, get married and have a family and be a regular citizen. Because of union wages, they could get a new car every five years or so, go on an annual vacation even if only driving locally, even put their kids in the local catholic or private school if that was their wish.

In the neighborhood I grew up in - Dearborn, Michigan in the Fifties and Sixties, there were lots of families like this and they all were productive people and responsible citizens who raised their families, paid their taxes and did what they were suppose to do to get the American Dream. This was a time of Ozzie & Harriet and Leave It to Beaver, of Eisenhower and JFK and America was prosperous and lots and lots of people - even the lower educated - shared in that prosperity and America was strong, healthy and the envy of the world.

Lets face it folks, if you know anything about the standard IQ tests, half the population is at 100 or lower. Its great to say we all need to get more education and computer skills and be part of the 21st century technological revolution, but for many, its just not in the cards.

Yeah - I can hear it right now - Haymarket is just another liberal who has no faith in people to succeed. Keep your cliches please. This is a discussion about reality.

When we had an agrarian economy in the 18th and 19th century, there was a place and a job for almost everyone. Heck, when the Industrial Revolution took over in the mid to late 1800's we had to go elsewhere to import tens of millions of people to fuel the machines. The transition from a agricultural economy to an industrial economy increased the need for labor and increased the middle class.

But we are now in an era where technology no longer needs as many people, particularly the below 100 IQ folks. How many peoople do we really need to be able to say "welcome to Walmart" or "you want fries with that?" And what do those jobs pay compared to the hi-low driver of the neighborhood I grew up in?

Some economists are predicting a "jobless recovery". We see major corporations doing very well. We see the stock market making a big comeback and investors doing very well. We see those at the top doing very well. But we see lots of problems for lots of other people at the middle or lower who are not getting hired back and companies are very happy to buy machines instead of employing workers.

As part of my job with the Michigan Legislature, I recently toured a engine plant where today they have one-fifth of the workers they had some twenty years ago and produce more than they did at that time. The workers at that plant - UAW members - took no wage increases for over a decade so the plant could retool and modernize to save jobs. The union accepted a two tier wage system and it now takes a full 13 years for a worker to get from starting wage to full wage. The name of the plant is Detroit Diesel.

I do not think they are rare or the exception to the national trend. In fact, I suspect they are part of the national trend.

We live in a democratic republic where people can vote and pick their representatives in government. They in turn determine public policy including tax policy and entitlement programs and the like.

So here is my question: what are we doing about this problem that seems to run contrary to building a prosperous and sustainable America for nearly all of us?

And why is this something that nobody really seems to want to talk about or do anything about?

What does it bode for America when more and more have to get by and less and less but those same people can become angry and bitter at not getting their piece of the American Dream?

And what is a societal wide solution that we can apply to nearly everyone to get back the sort of prosperity that existed in decades past for nearly everyone?

This is a topic of great promise, so thanks for putting it out there.

My sense of the great and growing wealth disparity has much to do with globalization and how we as a nation have reacted to it.

A great primer for this discussion is Thomas Freidman's "The World is Flat". What we have now that we did not have in the 50s and 60s is worldwide competition for jobs. The opening of the economies of India and China added about 2.5 billion potential workers/ competitors for low skilled jobs. This has been aided by "Free Trade" agreements. These agreements means that with barriers down, a worker in India or China now competes with the worker in Michigan. Put into this mix an American public that for the most part does not allow corporations to exact a premium for the "made in America" tag. Actually we are willing to pay a premium for certain foreign products, see Mercedes as an example.

Some Potential solutions:

- If you remember, when Obama was winning primaries against Clinton, one of his winning points was to fix our Free Trade agreements. The talk was about Fair Trade versus Free Trade. Not sure why this has not been followed through. Perhaps the recession, where we needed a united global front. But it should be a topic for the 2012 elections, if there is talk about jobs ( which we know there will be).

- Less animosity towards the corporations we need to invest here versus elsewhere. That does not mean tax breaks, but it does mean an environment where a corporation can make an investment decision and have a reasonable sense that policies will not suddenly change. An example being the case against Boeing's expanding a facility in Alabama only to have a government agency attempt to shut it down.

- Health care. We currently have a system that is employer based. So if you build a plant in the U.S. let's say the worker makes $40K, family health care is about $10K so essentially a 25% additional cost. This cost would go away with a comprehensive health care system that is government based versus employer based.

- Corporate taxes. I know, we don't want to make it easier for wealthy corporations to make even more money. We also do not want to, as my mother would say, "cut off our noses to spite our faces".

- More technical training schools. Those people you mentioned above can fill slots of value in our society. We need all sorts of nurses and health care providers. There are other skills that do not call for higher education. Plumbers, carpenters, car mechanics. These are all needed skills which we should help teach our young who for whatever reason college is not for them.

- Social thinking. My sense of the everyone needs college crowd is that there is a sense of a bunch of elites that starting at the bottom rung of the ladder is somehow demeaning. Why is it that people from Mexico and other nations risk their lives to come to America to clean homes or do gardening, while our high school dropouts find that work beneath them. This is a big problem in my view. Some feel that the bottom rung is not where they deserve to be. My sense is that you are at where you are at. You can either wallow in that or find a way to move up the ladder and make sure yor children start where you end and move further up the ladder. Not this one is controversial, but if we neglect it, we damn a whole group of Americans to not only a lousy existence for themselves but also for their future generations.

Hope this is some of what you were looking for.

 

[deltabtry]

Yeah - I can hear it right now - Haymarket is just another liberal who has no faith in people to succeed. Keep your cliches please. This is a discussion about reality.

Nope I don't think that, you being a product of the fifties and sixties I just think your a freeze dried hippie and Washnut is a relative of Hazlnut. Now all kidding aside you bring up a very valid point here, considering most layman jobs have been shipped over seas. Although I thought that the IQ test were proven not accurate, I believe that most people have the intelligence to move along with societies advancement in technology, I just notice that those who don't do so voluntarily.

 

[haymarket]

Washnut - thanks for participating and offering some great points.

I too wonder about those Fair Trade efforts. What happened to them? It is as if when a person gets the address of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue a whole group of people come with it and quickly take aside whoever is the President and fill them in on the realties of just what can and what cannot be done. I hope that is not the case but I sometimes wonder.

We must find a way to provide Americans with decent jobs that contribute to a just and sustainable society even with the reality of a global economy and international competition. The Founding Fathers gave the Congress the power to lay a tariff on imports and while I know that is a dirty word in conservative circles, we must take a good look at it as a weapon that can be selectively employed to protect valuable American jobs.

Your idea of more technical training is an excellent one. It may well be a solution. Sadly, school systems are on a kick where everybody must take algebra and calculus and such skill based programs are often expensive to run and are being cut all over the nation. Again, short sightedness born out of obsession with todays political imperative and not caring to look to our future.



I agree with you on a government health care program. I only wish everyone did. You are right about that.

from Deltabtry

Nope I don't think that, you being a product of the fifties and sixties I just think your a freeze dried hippie and Washnut is a relative of Hazlnut.

Sure wish I could say I was. For good or for ill I was a working class kid who graduated from high school in 67 and started working full time a week later. Kept that full time job working midnights for the next four years in college. Lived at home, commuted to school in a series of junker cars, slept four hours on most days and never attended one party or athletic or social event in four years of college since I was putting myself through and paying the bill. My own indulgence was a member of the debate team for two years but had to give that up in my final two years with lots of student teaching classes and hours. Being a hippie was something I could not afford to do. So you have be dead wrong.

Although I thought that the IQ test were proven not accurate, I believe that most people have the intelligence to move along with societies advancement in technology, I just notice that those who don't do so voluntarily.

I know of no such info - but this is not Lake Woebogone where all children can be above average. I suspect you are repeating a conservative meme that has at its basis the idea that everybody has what it takes and if you don't its your own damn fault. Sorry, but not buying into the idea that everybody does have what it takes to live the good middle class life at a time of revolutionary technological change where the former factory or farm worker is becoming obsolete with no viable function in our society.

That is the question: what is the role for such people in the next fifty years. How de we have a thriving and productive middle class as the backbone of American citizenship if we have a system that is shrinking our middle class and does not have a place for far too many?

In a democratic republic, that has the potential for disaster.

 

[Missed AB]

As part of my job with the Michigan Legislature,

For the sake of full disclosure, who is it you work for?

Also are you paid (or is it part of your job) to be supporting his or her ideas and propagandize them on boards like this?

The workers at that plant - UAW members - took no wage increases for over a decade so the plant could retool and modernize to save jobs. The union accepted a two tier wage system and it now takes a full 13 years for a worker to get from starting wage to full wage.

Sounds like a great time to print more money and further destroy what they already have and inflate prices even further decreasing their purchase power and ability to repay debts...

We live in a democratic republic where people can vote and pick their representatives in government. They in turn determine public policy including tax policy and entitlement programs and the like.... what are we doing about this problem that seems to run contrary to building a prosperous and sustainable America for nearly all of us?

First, what is the problem?

Second, it seems from reading what you wrote, that it your belief that we need more entitlements? That we need to further shift the tax burden to the right and in turn get more votes... something I believe Turtle has accused you of doing for a long time, and something you have denied...

What does it bode for America when more and more have to get by and less and less but those same people can become angry and bitter at not getting their piece of the American Dream?

The last time everyone was given the chance to have a piece of the "American Dream", that was HOME OWNERSHIP, and we see how that worked out.

You note that half the people have an IQ under 100. Yet you are still persistantly opposed to individual exceptionalism. (read above for some evidence when you suggest that we should all have a part of the American Dream).

The main problem of the next few decades of the 21 century is not the various things we all argue about here.

And it all boils down to DEBT. If you think it has to do with anything else, you are wrong. Debt is the root of all the problems.

 

[Goshin]

The main problem of the next few decades of the 21 century is not the various things we all argue about here.

Consider this: For most of the 20th century, and even parts of the 19th century, a person could be of average of even below average intelligence and still be a productive, functioning and even valuable member of American society. Somebody could have an IQ of 80 or so, get a job in a factory, make a very decent wage, buy a house, get married and have a family and be a regular citizen. Because of union wages, they could get a new car every five years or so, go on an annual vacation even if only driving locally, even put their kids in the local catholic or private school if that was their wish.

In the neighborhood I grew up in - Dearborn, Michigan in the Fifties and Sixties, there were lots of families like this and they all were productive people and responsible citizens who raised their families, paid their taxes and did what they were suppose to do to get the American Dream. This was a time of Ozzie & Harriet and Leave It to Beaver, of Eisenhower and JFK and America was prosperous and lots and lots of people - even the lower educated - shared in that prosperity and America was strong, healthy and the envy of the world.

Lets face it folks, if you know anything about the standard IQ tests, half the population is at 100 or lower. Its great to say we all need to get more education and computer skills and be part of the 21st century technological revolution, but for many, its just not in the cards.

Yeah - I can hear it right now - Haymarket is just another liberal who has no faith in people to succeed. Keep your cliches please. This is a discussion about reality.

When we had an agrarian economy in the 18th and 19th century, there was a place and a job for almost everyone. Heck, when the Industrial Revolution took over in the mid to late 1800's we had to go elsewhere to import tens of millions of people to fuel the machines. The transition from a agricultural economy to an industrial economy increased the need for labor and increased the middle class.

But we are now in an era where technology no longer needs as many people, particularly the below 100 IQ folks. How many peoople do we really need to be able to say "welcome to Walmart" or "you want fries with that?" And what do those jobs pay compared to the hi-low driver of the neighborhood I grew up in?

Some economists are predicting a "jobless recovery". We see major corporations doing very well. We see the stock market making a big comeback and investors doing very well. We see those at the top doing very well. But we see lots of problems for lots of other people at the middle or lower who are not getting hired back and companies are very happy to buy machines instead of employing workers.

As part of my job with the Michigan Legislature, I recently toured a engine plant where today they have one-fifth of the workers they had some twenty years ago and produce more than they did at that time. The workers at that plant - UAW members - took no wage increases for over a decade so the plant could retool and modernize to save jobs. The union accepted a two tier wage system and it now takes a full 13 years for a worker to get from starting wage to full wage. The name of the plant is Detroit Diesel.

I do not think they are rare or the exception to the national trend. In fact, I suspect they are part of the national trend.

We live in a democratic republic where people can vote and pick their representatives in government. They in turn determine public policy including tax policy and entitlement programs and the like.

So here is my question: what are we doing about this problem that seems to run contrary to building a prosperous and sustainable America for nearly all of us?

And why is this something that nobody really seems to want to talk about or do anything about?

What does it bode for America when more and more have to get by and less and less but those same people can become angry and bitter at not getting their piece of the American Dream?

And what is a societal wide solution that we can apply to nearly everyone to get back the sort of prosperity that existed in decades past for nearly everyone?

Well, I have to hand it to you, this is an intresting post and an intriguing question, with long-term implications.

A few points:

Besides processing power and suchlike, one of the greatest innovations of the late 80's/early 90's was making computers so that Joe Average could use one without having to go back to college. User-friendly interface was the term, and we've certainly come a long way. Now, we are beginning to use systems that operate off of voice control and understand ordinary spoken English (Dragon Naturally for one), and efforts will no doubt continue to make computers more operator-friendly to Joe Average. More and more jobs are being performed with computer aid.... and if someone who is moderately below average can operate a computer effectively, he can probably still find a job of some sort.

Another point: Lots of people work with technology every day while having only the most vague notion how it works. People drive cars who couldn't tell you what goes on inside the engine in any but the most nebulous terms. I work with people who spend lots of time driving a company vehicle, and I had to show them how to check the oil and coolant... some of them I had to show how to open the hood.

I think this at least suggests that the sub-par mind will still be able to find some kind of work in the future. There are many other options... plumbing is still a good bet for a profitable career for another 50 years, for instance.

Now, as to whether they'll be able to make what most would consider "decent wages", that might be a bit more of a question... the terms are more subjective.

I will grant you that the difference between the earning power of the upper quarter of the population, and the bottom quarter, has gotten pretty steep in this country. People making 200,000 a year and thinking they have it rough between taxes and saving for the kid's college fund, don't seem to have much idea how hard it is for someone trying to raise a family on 20,000 a year, and literally trying to decide whether they dare drop their health care coverage this year for the sake of catching up on their bills and debts.

The hard-working poor, with household incomes ranging from 15k to 40k, really have a rough time of it already. They often make too much money to qualify for much of anything as far as government assistance, which also tends to frown on helping if you have assets (like owning a home, be it ever so humble), unlike the Welfare-class does... yet they don't really make enough to accumulate the capital to really better themselves substantially.

You might be right that this problem will be exacerbated as time goes by and society becomes more complex and high-tech.

Lots of people are inclined to think that society 50 years from now will be just "more of the same, but with better gadgets". I think this is a naive view. More than just our gadgets have changed dramatically since 1960, wouldn't you say? In 1960, the idea of being put out of work because a company bought a robot or a computer to do your job would have been a sci-fi story.... today it really happens. Chatting in real-time with people from China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and London was sci-fi in 1960; reality today. In 1960 most factory workers made enough money off a single income stream to own a house and two cars... not so much anymore, where there are still even factories to work in. Attitudes and morals and norms have changed dramatically; it is hard to predict what might be "Everyday normality" in 2061.

Possibly fusion power and nanoassembler devices will make us rich, by providing huge amounts of cheap power and an extraordinary ability to recycle materials on a molecular level, into new cheap goods. Possibly "the poor" in 2061 will be better off than the "middle class" of 2011. Perhaps not. I don't claim to have the answers but it is an intresting subject to think upon.

 

[haymarket]

Thank you Goshin for making a serious and thought provoking response.

Both you and Washnut both mentioned the same thing - careers in skilled fields such as plumbing. And I agree with both of you. We are always - at least for foreseeable future - need good plumbers, carpenters and people with those sorts of skills. The problem as I see it is that that there are simply not enough of those jobs to go around to replace all the factory jobs lost over the last twenty years.

When I visited Detroit Diesel, I was struck by the numbers - one-fifth the number of workers there today to turn out more product than they were making years ago. They took us on the line and showed us each work station and i was struck by the technology and the speed. No single work station took more than two minutes and six seconds to do a job. The guide we had told us that some of these jobs took 15 minutes to do in the old days two decades ago. I just keep coming back to the 10,000 workers who are no longer there. Where are they now? Where did they go? Are they working? Are they making the same money?

And then you multiply this one plant times thousands of plants in America that are still open, and even more that have closed.

That is the tragedy on the individual worker. But what about the tragedy on the larger community?

You said this in your post

Now, as to whether they'll be able to make what most would consider "decent wages", that might be a bit more of a question... the terms are more subjective.

I will grant you that the difference between the earning power of the upper quarter of the population, and the bottom quarter, has gotten pretty steep in this country. People making 200,000 a year and thinking they have it rough between taxes and saving for the kid's college fund, don't seem to have much idea how hard it is for someone trying to raise a family on 20,000 a year, and literally trying to decide whether they dare drop their health care coverage this year for the sake of catching up on their bills and debts.

And that is a key component here. If a worker cannot work full time and make enough to support a family, what prospect does that bode for the large community of thousands and tens of thousands of such persons? Your excellent point about the people making 200K compared to those who make 20K is a great one.

A few years ago, NPR radio had an interview with a very educated woman who was a professor at a university. For one year she took a sabbatical and worked at a diner as a waitress. Her income was cut by over 2/3 and her hours increased. She said she never worked so hard in her entire life nor did she ever feel so hopeless and trapped. She kept telling herself this was only for research and to write a book and that is what kept her going back day after day after day. We have a whole nation of people like that and all they hear is how they are pampered and overpaid and don't need the health care that you talked about. They keep hearing that we need to cut taxes on the rich and some folks here even want folks like them to pay more themselves.

We live in a democratic republic where people like that can vote. As the middle class gets more eroded and opportunity for the greater masses diminishes - it spells trouble if not disaster for our nation.

in my state recently, we saw the State Legislature give the Governor just what he demanded - a $1.8 billion dollar tax raise on average people which chopping business taxes by the same amount for corporations. It was all done with the vague hope that it would create jobs.

What happens if it does not?

 

[Lakryte]

So let me get this straight: You argument is that
1. Technological advances are increasing unemployment and making workers less valuable.
2. Free trade is increasing unemployment and making workers less valuable.

Is that correct?

 

[cpwill]

well firstly, it's no surprise that jobs in unionized industries are drying up. for every job that has been lost in the auto factories up north, i wouldn't be surprised to find out it has a match in the jobs that have opened up in the exact same industry down south where we are generally right-to-work states. My brother works at a Toyota Plant, makes darn good money, and likes his job.

secondly, as we shift from an industrial economy to a "post-industrial" economy, I don't really see how it's going to be any worse for jobs than it was when we shifted from an agricultural economy to an industrial one. who do you go to when you're computer goes down? well, if you're me, you go to your younger brother. if you're in my fathers generation, you go to your kids. Americans are growing up with far more Net and Computer savvy these days than those who came before them - and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the economy develops in that direction to take advantage of their skill set.

remember that labor is a resource, and resources are valuable for those who purchase them. that formula isn't changing any time soon.

 

[cpwill]

So let me get this straight: You argument is that
1. Technological advances are increasing unemployment and making workers less valuable.
2. Free trade is increasing unemployment and making workers less valuable.

Is that correct?

luddites are luddites :shrug: historical experience need not apply.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

.......

I too long for a future, where the rest of the world is rebuilding from a world war and America is the only economic super power. :doh

Post WW2 American economy was just that.
The rest of the world had to buy from us.

Now that they don't, we have to compete.

Edit:
Just to add, protectionist countries tend to be war like.
Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it.

 

[Lakryte]

I too long for a future, where the rest of the world is rebuilding from a world war and America is the only economic super power. :doh

Post WW2 American economy was just that.
The rest of the world had to buy from us.

Now that they don't, we have to compete.

Edit:
Just to add, protectionist countries tend to be war like.
Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it.

Exactly. To beg government to make everyone else artificially less competitive via protectionism rather than better ourselves seems like a bad solution.

 

[haymarket]

So let me get this straight: You argument is that
1. Technological advances are increasing unemployment and making workers less valuable.
2. Free trade is increasing unemployment and making workers less valuable.

Is that correct?

those are two factors

there are others like a refusal of American government to use the powers given to them under the Constitution.

 

[washunut]

Washnut - thanks for participating and offering some great points.

I too wonder about those Fair Trade efforts. What happened to them? It is as if when a person gets the address of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue a whole group of people come with it and quickly take aside whoever is the President and fill them in on the realties of just what can and what cannot be done. I hope that is not the case but I sometimes wonder.

We must find a way to provide Americans with decent jobs that contribute to a just and sustainable society even with the reality of a global economy and international competition. The Founding Fathers gave the Congress the power to lay a tariff on imports and while I know that is a dirty word in conservative circles, we must take a good look at it as a weapon that can be selectively employed to protect valuable American jobs.

Your idea of more technical training is an excellent one. It may well be a solution. Sadly, school systems are on a kick where everybody must take algebra and calculus and such skill based programs are often expensive to run and are being cut all over the nation. Again, short sightedness born out of obsession with todays political imperative and not caring to look to our future.



I agree with you on a government health care program. I only wish everyone did. You are right about that.

from Deltabtry



Sure wish I could say I was. For good or for ill I was a working class kid who graduated from high school in 67 and started working full time a week later. Kept that full time job working midnights for the next four years in college. Lived at home, commuted to school in a series of junker cars, slept four hours on most days and never attended one party or athletic or social event in four years of college since I was putting myself through and paying the bill. My own indulgence was a member of the debate team for two years but had to give that up in my final two years with lots of student teaching classes and hours. Being a hippie was something I could not afford to do. So you have be dead wrong.



I know of no such info - but this is not Lake Woebogone where all children can be above average. I suspect you are repeating a conservative meme that has at its basis the idea that everybody has what it takes and if you don't its your own damn fault. Sorry, but not buying into the idea that everybody does have what it takes to live the good middle class life at a time of revolutionary technological change where the former factory or farm worker is becoming obsolete with no viable function in our society.

That is the question: what is the role for such people in the next fifty years. How de we have a thriving and productive middle class as the backbone of American citizenship if we have a system that is shrinking our middle class and does not have a place for far too many?

In a democratic republic, that has the potential for disaster.

So we graduated from high school the same year, I also went to a commuter school. It was also free, the city university of New York.

Something we also have in common is that while in school we took jobs with heavy hours and was not high paying. That leads me back to something else I mentioned above. The seemingly unwillingness of people to take on very low paying bottom of the rung jobs. I tie this in with a hot button issue, immigration. How is it possible that millions of people can come here to do largely unskilled work and yet we have such a large unemployment rate of folks who dropped out of high school. That is something we need to be honest about. Also if I am not mistaken in countries with a more rational immigrant worker program, people are asked/told to leave when the labor market weakens. It would seem rational that we would favor our own citizens versus folks who came to work here when unemployment was very low.

 

[Canell]

Hi, haymarket.

I had similar thoughts in this thread.
Greetings.

 

[Missed AB]

Originally Posted by haymarket
As part of my job with the Michigan Legislature,

For the sake of full disclosure, who is it you work for?

Also are you paid (or is it part of your job) to be supporting his or her ideas and propagandize them on boards like this?

Originally Posted by haymarket
The workers at that plant - UAW members - took no wage increases for over a decade so the plant could retool and modernize to save jobs. The union accepted a two tier wage system and it now takes a full 13 years for a worker to get from starting wage to full wage.

Sounds like a great time to print more money and further destroy what they already have and inflate prices even further decreasing their purchase power and ability to repay debts...

Originally Posted by haymarket
We live in a democratic republic where people can vote and pick their representatives in government. They in turn determine public policy including tax policy and entitlement programs and the like.... what are we doing about this problem that seems to run contrary to building a prosperous and sustainable America for nearly all of us?

First, what is the problem?

Second, it seems from reading what you wrote, that it your belief that we need more entitlements? That we need to further shift the tax burden to the right and in turn get more votes... something I believe Turtle has accused you of doing for a long time, and something you have denied...

Originally Posted by haymarket
What does it bode for America when more and more have to get by and less and less but those same people can become angry and bitter at not getting their piece of the American Dream?

The last time everyone was given the chance to have a piece of the "American Dream", that was HOME OWNERSHIP, and we see how that worked out.

You note that half the people have an IQ under 100. Yet you are still persistantly opposed to individual exceptionalism. (read above for some evidence when you suggest that we should all have a part of the American Dream).

Originally Posted by haymarket
The main problem of the next few decades of the 21 century is not the various things we all argue about here.

And it all boils down to DEBT. If you think it has to do with anything else, you are wrong. Debt is the root of all the problems.

 

[Misterveritis]

Although I thought that the IQ test were proven not accurate,

The problem was the opposite. Tests for general IQ are accurate enough. We are not allowed to use them to select the person who is best able to do the work. SCOTUS took that tool away. We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings directly.

 

[Missed AB]

The problem was the opposite. Tests for general IQ are accurate enough. We are not allowed to use them to select the person who is best able to do the work. SCOTUS took that tool away. We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings directly.

I believe the point hay is trying to make is that there are people who have natural abilities in different areas. Some are more intelligent - which bodes well for future jobs that require thinking. Some are stronger which bodes well for jobs that require strength. Some have skills that lead them to be creative with writing, artistic... other's have the ability to start to start businesses or see opportunities to make money... And there are those who are unable to make it on their own.

It is called individual exceptionalism... a large part of conservative ideaology.

Yes I am quite confused about his positions as well... I imagine there is a reason he avoided my original post...


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/254742/liberal-exceptionalism-editors

 

[haymarket]

from Washnut

first, thank you for your positive contribution to the topic. It is appreciated. Second, its always neat to see you have life experience in common with others.

you said this

How is it possible that millions of people can come here to do largely unskilled work and yet we have such a large unemployment rate of folks who dropped out of high school. That is something we need to be honest about. Also if I am not mistaken in countries with a more rational immigrant worker program, people are asked/told to leave when the labor market weakens. It would seem rational that we would favor our own citizens versus folks who came to work here when unemployment was very low.

Part of that problem - a BIG part of that problem is the employers themselves who use and abuse immigrant labor paying them sub standard wages and taking advantage of their status. That needs to be targeted and some are doing so. I cannot blame somebody coming hereto get a better life - my grandparents did that themselves. I can blame companies who take advantage of that.

 

[Missed AB]

from Washnut

first, thank you for your positive contribution to the topic. It is appreciated. Second, its always neat to see you have life experience in common with others.

you said this



Part of that problem - a BIG part of that problem is the employers themselves who use and abuse immigrant labor paying them sub standard wages and taking advantage of their status. That needs to be targeted and some are doing so. I cannot blame somebody coming hereto get a better life - my grandparents did that themselves. I can blame companies who take advantage of that.

Originally Posted by haymarket
As part of my job with the Michigan Legislature,

For the sake of full disclosure, who is it you work for?

Also are you paid (or is it part of your job) to be supporting his or her ideas and propagandize them on boards like this?

Originally Posted by haymarket
The workers at that plant - UAW members - took no wage increases for over a decade so the plant could retool and modernize to save jobs. The union accepted a two tier wage system and it now takes a full 13 years for a worker to get from starting wage to full wage.

Sounds like a great time to print more money and further destroy what they already have and inflate prices even further decreasing their purchase power and ability to repay debts...

Originally Posted by haymarket
We live in a democratic republic where people can vote and pick their representatives in government. They in turn determine public policy including tax policy and entitlement programs and the like.... what are we doing about this problem that seems to run contrary to building a prosperous and sustainable America for nearly all of us?

First, what is the problem?

Second, it seems from reading what you wrote, that it your belief that we need more entitlements? That we need to further shift the tax burden to the right and in turn get more votes... something I believe Turtle has accused you of doing for a long time, and something you have denied...

Originally Posted by haymarket
What does it bode for America when more and more have to get by and less and less but those same people can become angry and bitter at not getting their piece of the American Dream?

The last time everyone was given the chance to have a piece of the "American Dream", that was HOME OWNERSHIP, and we see how that worked out.

You note that half the people have an IQ under 100. Yet you are still persistantly opposed to individual exceptionalism. (read above for some evidence when you suggest that we should all have a part of the American Dream).

Originally Posted by haymarket
The main problem of the next few decades of the 21 century is not the various things we all argue about here.

And it all boils down to DEBT. If you think it has to do with anything else, you are wrong. Debt is the root of all the problems.

 

[Missed AB]

first, thank you for your positive contribution to the topic. It is appreciated. Second, its always neat to see you have life experience in common with others.

Political pandering... Who do you work for? What is his/her name?

I cannot blame somebody coming here to get a better life - my grandparents did that themselves. I can blame companies who take advantage of that.... a BIG part of that problem is the employers themselves who use and abuse immigrant labor paying them sub standard wages and taking advantage of their [illegal?] status.

You see nothing wrong with people ILLEGALLY BEING IN THIS COUNTRY?

What is your position (or the position of your handler), on people in this country illegally?

What do you desire to happen to those people who are here illegally when they no longer have the opportunity to seek a better life because they are no longer employed?

What do you imagine the effect on consumer prices will be from increased wages? It has a name, what is it?

 

[haymarket]

Canell,
thank you for the link to the thread you began. I will read it. Its always reassuring to see different people looking forward and sharing the same concerns about the same problems.

 

[washunut]

from Washnut

first, thank you for your positive contribution to the topic. It is appreciated. Second, its always neat to see you have life experience in common with others.

you said this



Part of that problem - a BIG part of that problem is the employers themselves who use and abuse immigrant labor paying them sub standard wages and taking advantage of their status. That needs to be targeted and some are doing so. I cannot blame somebody coming hereto get a better life - my grandparents did that themselves. I can blame companies who take advantage of that.

My grandparents were also immigrants so please understand I am not anti-immigrant. In addition, I do not take companies off the hook for hiring and abusing these folks.

Companies that use illegal immigrants in order to pay sub standard wages deserve the most harsh penalties. If you are going down this road however then you also need to have a policy in place for the people who came here to work and now have less opportunity.

The issues are harder when you look at the intermingled pieces. What happens to the workers if you get tougher on the employers. Do you then send home the workers, if so how? If not do you force them to take even less pay and employers willing to take the chance pay less to adjust for risk. My sense is that there will be no choice but to give the folks here some chance to become citizens, or some way for them to come out of the shadows, not being criminals for just being here. The political trade will have to be real control of the border so we don't through this debate every 10-20 years when the numbers get to high

I am trying to respond to the OP with another area that cannot be escaped. As a country we have an excess ( high unemployment) of unskilled workers. This has to be balanced with the above.

 

[Missed AB]

The issues are harder when you look at the intermingled pieces. What happens to the workers if you get tougher on the employers. Do you then send home the workers, if so how? If not do you force them to take even less pay and employers willing to take the chance pay less to adjust for risk. My sense is that there will be no choice but to give the folks here some chance to become citizens, or some way for them to come out of the shadows, not being criminals for just being here...

I am trying to respond to the OP with another area that cannot be escaped. As a country we have an excess ( high unemployment) of unskilled workers. This has to be balanced with the above.

You must note the irony here, that the Hay and his handlers supports the ILLEGAL workers rights to be here and work for a better life, while at the same time pointing to the diminishing low skilled jobs for Americans - which are the exact jobs the ILLEGAL workers apply for and hold and compete Vs LEGAL workers for.... and further raises the unemployment rate and reduces taxable income at every level... and in many cases sends money to other countries to support families and is used to support the local FOREIGN economy.

Seriously WHO IS YOUR HANDLER? WHO DO YOU WORK FOR?

 

[washunut]

Seriously WHO IS YOUR HANDLER? WHO DO YOU WORK FOR?

Are you asking me these questions?