Ideas to solve unemployment

[code1211]

Then we better look forward to cutting our wages and living standards in half.

And that is what was being said in the 70's. We can never play a game to win if we hate the game. In this case, the game is work. It's that simple. Are we a nation of workers and doers or a nation of defeated has beens?

Are we the sons and daughters of the winners who just don't have the guts and ambition to keep up? I felt the way you feel once and read this, quoted below from memory and heavily edited for the parts I liked best, and it helped:

"You have been told that all work is a curse and labor a misfortune and in your weariness, you echo the words of the weary.

But it is through work that you become intimate with Life's greatest secret.

And what is it to work with love?

It is to build the house with tenderness and affection even as if your beloved were to dwell in that house.

It is to weave the cloth with threads drawn from your own heart even as if your beloved were to wear that cloth.

It is to charge all things you fashion with the breath of your own existance and to know that all the blessed dead are standing about you and watching.

Work is love made visible.

And if you cannot work with love, but only with distaste, it is better that you should leave your work and sit on the steps on the temple begging alms of those who can work

With joy."

With apologise to Kahlil Gibran whose work has improved me, but, sadly, left my memory still spotty.

 

[bag]

Then we better look forward to cutting our wages and living standards in half.

loose... please restate your position

 

[Middleman]

My idea is to get government out of the way and make life much less complicated for small business.

 

[loosecannon]

Then we better look forward to cutting our wages and living standards in half.

And that is what was being said in the 70's. We can never play a game to win if we hate the game. In this case, the game is work. It's that simple. Are we a nation of workers and doers or a nation of defeated has beens?

Are we the sons and daughters of the winners who just don't have the guts and ambition to keep up? I felt the way you feel once and read this, quoted below from memory and heavily edited for the parts I liked best, and it helped:

"You have been told that all work is a curse and labor a misfortune and in your weariness, you echo the words of the weary.

But it is through work that you become intimate with Life's greatest secret.

And what is it to work with love?

It is to build the house with tenderness and affection even as if your beloved were to dwell in that house.

It is to weave the cloth with threads drawn from your own heart even as if your beloved were to wear that cloth.

It is to charge all things you fashion with the breath of your own existance and to know that all the blessed dead are standing about you and watching.

Work is love made visible.

And if you cannot work with love, but only with distaste, it is better that you should leave your work and sit on the steps on the temple begging alms of those who can work

With joy."

With apologise to Kahlil Gibran whose work has improved me, but, sadly, left my memory still spotty.

yeah, whatever. If we can't produce a product as cheaply as our Chinese competitors who make only 1/10th as much as we do now, then we simply aren't strident enough.

Just wait 5 more years until China begins the "productivity" phase of their evolution. Right now poor productivity serves China because it spreads employment, but the next phase is that they increase/reinvent productivity.

If we aren't strident enough to compete now, what chance do we have then?

 

[loosecannon]

Then we better look forward to cutting our wages and living standards in half.

loose... please restate your position

No matter how productive we become we can't compete with a labor force that eeks out a living standard we consider deplorable poverty. Unless we become a sweat shop nation ourselves.

 

[loosecannon]

My idea is to get government out of the way and make life much less complicated for small business.

as if that would matter.

 

[code1211]

.

yeah, whatever. If we can't produce a product as cheaply as our Chinese competitors who make only 1/10th as much as we do now, then we simply aren't strident enough.

Just wait 5 more years until China begins the "productivity" phase of their evolution. Right now poor productivity serves China because it spreads employment, but the next phase is that they increase/reinvent productivity.

If we aren't strident enough to compete now, what chance do we have then?

We are not just a nation of laborers. Products are costed out based on many more factors than simply labor. In the manufacture of heavy equipment, the materials are a huge portion of the overall cast. In intellectual properties, the labor force is inconsequential.

I don't know what the next step in our industrial evolution will be. I'm not one of the smart guys. I do know for certain that it will come, though. There are visionaries and creators and risk takers just waiting to find out what the Big 0 has planned for their money in the near and far terms and then they can start making plans to re-invent our industry.

One thing I would like to see is vast subsidies on the mining of coal, Oil Shale and Natural Gas to cut back the import of oil. We've got those other things. Turn the coal liquid and convert fleets to CNG. If the oil crosses our border to get here, tax it and if the fuel starts out here and stays here, subsidize it.

That step alone would stop the export of dollars, help to balance our trade, add jobs to the economy and increase the flow of dollars through our economy without feeding the Arabs or the Chinese. Oh, yeah, and use corn to feed people.

As long as the Big 0's fiscal plan is to wait to see where there is profitability and then swoop in and take it, the movers and the shakers are just waiting on the side lines for a more fair referee.

They like playing a game in which they at least are allowed the chance to be a winner.

 

[antagon]

My idea is to get government out of the way and make life much less complicated for small business.

the election's behind us now; we can move on from the ideological bullshit.

 

[antagon]

many american-made products dont have a cost-benefit to wield over chinese-made products. that is a fact that people need to deal with in considering actual solutions. lots of americans like myself have a thing for american cars and trucks, but new ones are less and less american-made. less and less dewalts are american. a wish and a prayer that folks would be patriotic at the store is a non-solution. there are real reasons consumers and manufacturers make the decisions they do and without addressing them there's not going to be any real change.

It isn't about patriotism.
I am not saying everyone should go out and buy American only.
What I am saying is the American consumer, largely due to "the Wal-Mart effect" no longer understand what "value" is.
Value in the mind of an average consumer is price. And that is pretty much it.
And anyone who has ever ran a business knows the fastest and easiest way to cut expenses is through reducing labor costs. And when you have a consumer base that is hellbent on buying what is the lowest price far and above any other factor?
You get what you pay for: A product that is made with the cheapest/fewest employees possible.

consumers determine what is valuable to them and businesses earn their keep by providing that. it is a fantasy that american-made products are necessarily high quality goods. all of my vehicles are american; i can assure you that they classify as cheaply repairable goods, not high quality. consumer trends toward cheaper goods reflect wisdom on the part of the consumer and a future trend which is absurd to buck against while claiming to do so with a bright american future in mind.

changing hearts and minds with policy is not a real solution. these characteristics are external to real policies and economic environments, and cannot effect the results of these policies and environments in reverse. laughing will not make a joke funny.

 

[loosecannon]

yeah, whatever. If we can't produce a product as cheaply as our Chinese competitors who make only 1/10th as much as we do now, then we simply aren't strident enough.

Just wait 5 more years until China begins the "productivity" phase of their evolution. Right now poor productivity serves China because it spreads employment, but the next phase is that they increase/reinvent productivity.

If we aren't strident enough to compete now, what chance do we have then?

We are not just a nation of laborers. Products are costed out based on many more factors than simply labor. In the manufacture of heavy equipment, the materials are a huge portion of the overall cast. In intellectual properties, the labor force is inconsequential.

I don't know what the next step in our industrial evolution will be. I'm not one of the smart guys. I do know for certain that it will come, though. There are visionaries and creators and risk takers just waiting to find out what the Big 0 has planned for their money in the near and far terms and then they can start making plans to re-invent our industry.

One thing I would like to see is vast subsidies on the mining of coal, Oil Shale and Natural Gas to cut back the import of oil. We've got those other things. Turn the coal liquid and convert fleets to CNG. If the oil crosses our border to get here, tax it and if the fuel starts out here and stays here, subsidize it.

That step alone would stop the export of dollars, help to balance our trade, add jobs to the economy and increase the flow of dollars through our economy without feeding the Arabs or the Chinese. Oh, yeah, and use corn to feed people.

As long as the Big 0's fiscal plan is to wait to see where there is profitability and then swoop in and take it, the movers and the shakers are just waiting on the side lines for a more fair referee.

They like playing a game in which they at least are allowed the chance to be a winner.

well you did make a coupla good points, the next new frontier may be products that are primarily intellectual property.

We pay essentially the same costs as anybody else for materials, but overhead, labor and even intellect cost more here than elsewhere. Until we get beyond an economy based on resource consumption we don't have many global niches we can own.

But you are right, energy is a huge chunk of our trade deficit, but not with China.

The plus side of reducing our consumption of Chinese goods to buy american is that in doing so we encourage and even subsidize American industry. We are allowed to subsidize our own.

 

[loosecannon]

consumers determine what is valuable to them and businesses earn their keep by providing that. it is a fantasy that american-made products are necessarily high quality goods. all of my vehicles are american; i can assure you that they classify as cheaply repairable goods, not high quality. consumer trends toward cheaper goods reflect wisdom on the part of the consumer and a future trend which is absurd to buck against while claiming to do so with a bright american future in mind.

changing hearts and minds with policy is not a real solution. these characteristics are external to real policies and economic environments, and cannot effect the results of these policies and environments in reverse. laughing will not make a joke funny.

I am pretty sure that Ford owned the small truck market for almost a century based on brand loyalty.

Globalization is an engineered event, not a market driven event. And economies actually are driven in large part in reverse. That's what monopolies do is dictate choices. Like WallMart dictates trends and styles and product lines not by testing customer product preferences but by using price point as the determining factor in selecting their product lines.

It's like the electorate. We only get two choices and both of those are selected for us. Our choice is limited to pushing button #1, #2 or opting out.

To whatever degree capitalism was intended to be economic democracy monopoly strips it of that quality.

 

[MikeK]

So the economy was perfect until Reagan cut taxes in 1982? Perfect during the Malaise years, the Oil Embargo, the Whip Inflation Now and the Stagflation days?

Perfect when the American Auto Makers discovered that additional Chrome did not mean additional sales? Perfect when Zenith and RCA discovered that Panasonic could make TV's, too? Perfect when the remnants of the Arsenal of Democracy was re-named as the Rust Belt?

In 1976, I graduated from college with 3 degrees and had to take a job as an assistant manager at a hamburger stand because the economy was perfect?

Is that your thesis?

No. I didn't say the Economy was perfect. You did.

Even the most expertly guided economy experiences bad times as well as good times. These are normal cycles. The important factor is the economic infrastructure. If it is healthy it will survive even the most punishing decline and will quickly rebound. What "Reaganomics" did is take a blowtorch to the support beams of what was the strongest economic structure in history.

It wasn't "perfect." It was healthy -- and the neo-Conservatives, beginning with Ronald Reagan, infected it with the possibly fatal diseases of exploitive greed and devious market maneuverings.

PS: You didn't specify the field of your three degrees.

 

[code1211]

So the economy was perfect until Reagan cut taxes in 1982? Perfect during the Malaise years, the Oil Embargo, the Whip Inflation Now and the Stagflation days?

Perfect when the American Auto Makers discovered that additional Chrome did not mean additional sales? Perfect when Zenith and RCA discovered that Panasonic could make TV's, too? Perfect when the remnants of the Arsenal of Democracy was re-named as the Rust Belt?

In 1976, I graduated from college with 3 degrees and had to take a job as an assistant manager at a hamburger stand because the economy was perfect?

Is that your thesis?

No. I didn't say the Economy was perfect. You did.
Even the most expertly guided economy experiences bad times as well as good times. These are normal cycles. The important factor is the economic infrastructure. If it is healthy it will survive even the most punishing decline and will quickly rebound. What "Reaganomics" did is take a blowtorch to the support beams of what was the strongest economic structure in history.

It wasn't "perfect." It was healthy -- and the neo-Conservatives, beginning with Ronald Reagan, infected it with the possibly fatal diseases of exploitive greed and devious market maneuverings.

PS: You didn't specify the field of your three degrees.

Here is what you said:

The 91% progressive tax rate was in effect throughout the most prosperous and productive years in our history. The decline began when Ronald Reagan commenced his corporatist policies of deregulation and tax reduction.

That may mean perfect to you. Shall we restate that to excellent?

All Liberal Arts. I lived in Northern Minnesota which was a bad place to live if one was seeking work.

I don't see how you can say that the economy in 1980 and leading up to 1980 was healthy. It sucked in about every way. The common knowledge consensus was that the time of American Superiority was over.

The economy was stagnant, inflation was out of control. These were two things that the experts of the day said could not occur at the same time. Unemployment was rising in 1979 and kept on rising into 1983 to a level pretty much where we are right now.

1978 was the oil embargo and long lines at the gas stations. When Carter cancelled the American participation in the Summer Olympics and we were still witnessing the Iran Hostage Crisis, the failure of the American Auto Industry, the ridiculously high inflation rate, and finally the rising unemployment rate, it looked like it was over.

The only person in the USA who was talking about American Greatness and the hope of a brighter tomorrow was Ronald Reagan. If optimism is what dismantles an economy, then I suppose you have it figured right.

 

[antagon]

consumers determine what is valuable to them and businesses earn their keep by providing that. it is a fantasy that american-made products are necessarily high quality goods. all of my vehicles are american; i can assure you that they classify as cheaply repairable goods, not high quality. consumer trends toward cheaper goods reflect wisdom on the part of the consumer and a future trend which is absurd to buck against while claiming to do so with a bright american future in mind.

changing hearts and minds with policy is not a real solution. these characteristics are external to real policies and economic environments, and cannot effect the results of these policies and environments in reverse. laughing will not make a joke funny.

I am pretty sure that Ford owned the small truck market for almost a century based on brand loyalty.

Globalization is an engineered event, not a market driven event. And economies actually are driven in large part in reverse. That's what monopolies do is dictate choices. Like WallMart dictates trends and styles and product lines not by testing customer product preferences but by using price point as the determining factor in selecting their product lines.

It's like the electorate. We only get two choices and both of those are selected for us. Our choice is limited to pushing button #1, #2 or opting out.

To whatever degree capitalism was intended to be economic democracy monopoly strips it of that quality.

i dont think any of what you've said is true. whether ford, monopolies, walmart or event the elections, our choices are based on what we want and value. if offerings dont pass a test, then they are altered. assessing consumer demand and offering a fitting solution is what drives brand loyalties, monopolies and walmart. even the democrats and republicans work on that model. there is a cause and an effect; brand and national loyalties are the effect for which underlying causes are responsible.

 

[loosecannon]

You didn't convince me, Antagon.

Ford made crappy trucks since the teens but owned the small truck market until at least 1990 because of fierce brand loyalty. I remember one ad in which an actor actually said "trucks are a spiritual thing to me". And I know lots of guys who worked on crews who couldn't show up in a foreign truck unless they wanted to lose their jobs.

And I do not in the slightest believe that the parties make any more effort to deliver us quality candidates or that wal mart makes it a mission to deliver quality products. Why would they? Marketing has been pushing products and brands for 40 years even when the product served no purpose whatsoever to the customer. Walmart offers the best prices, not the best products. And they use monopoly to limit your options both within and without their realm. Once they establish a monopoly they only have to compete with other retailers selling the exact same crap. Only Walmart sells it cheaper, and dominates the cheaper end of the price spectrum.

Just like the two party system denies you 299,999,998 choices every election cycle and then provides you with just two, Walmart eliminates virtually all of your free market choices and then delivers you only the choice of where to buy the same shit.

 

[antagon]

price has to be cross-referenced with quality. the less this is done, the more exclusive a market you are dealing with. at that point, you are not talking about general consumer trends.

dealing with these broader trends, you'll find that walmart is giving consumers what they want, not your quality goods idea.

similarly, parties do put forward candidates which represent what people want along these broader trends. you feel that should be a candidate that rates high with your idea of quality, but from what i remember, the broad electorate prefers simpler, packaged, predictable choices like ford and chevy dem or GOP. if quality requires a huge investment of time or money to appreciate, that is not going to work for the vast majority of people/ your good ideas or quality candidates and products aren't truly good until they appreciate that.

 

[loosecannon]

The electorate settles for whatever Ford or GM are offering because they have no choice.

The electorate also settles for what the dems and the GOP offer because they have no choice.

Monopolies reduce your choices to button #1 or button #2 while they kill competition that might actually represent a free market or a market driven offering.

Advertising brainwashes people to buy products uncritically. It begins working over your psyche before you can speak. Marketing owns most of the lost psyches in the electorate and in the marketplace.

Candidates are sold like toothpaste or laundry detergent. Commodities under a brand name.

 

[antagon]

do you aim to argue that marketing or monopoly excludes demand for products in the marketplace, or do they aim to simply corner that demand?

 

[loosecannon]

They manufacture demand for their brand, then they eliminate competition, then they can offer anything and it still sells. Esp when they offer prices that can't be touched by anybody who isn't operating on their scale.

 

[antagon]

things people dont want dont sell. look at the merc pacer.

i think you've blown nuance items out to dominant proportion. if a product developer fails to offer something for which there is demand, than things will not work out. your belief that fords have been so awful doesn't line up with everyone else's opinions. when they have, like many, many mercury products, they have not garnered marketshare through your mechanism. when they did get their act together with acceptable products, the strength of their brand, their marketing efforts and their production/distribution capability facilitate sales. these are each liabilities without first (successfully) targeting demand.