We lost the last Class War..

[flacaltenn]

The industrialization of the Far East has led to unprecedented gains in per capita income, reductions of poverty, massive infrastructure investment, and general increases in the standard of living..

So after 49 threads about "class warfare" and "wealth gaps" -- I've got to ask our leftists --

HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?

Did they STEAL money from their "wealthy" thru tax policy? Did they villify business people and blame them for trampling on the poor? NO..

There was an INTERNATION class war -- and WE LOST. The Social Justice folks for YEARS were on a crusade to redistribute the MACROECONOMIC World wealth and resources. You remember stuff like ::

Consumption by the United States: Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the world's energy.

Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24%
of the world's energy.

On average, one American consumes as much energy as
2 Japanese
6 Mexicans
13 Chinese
31 Indians
128 Bangladeshis
307 Tanzanians
370 Ethiopians

Or

http://theendofpoverty.com/pdf/teoppressnotes.pdf

2. The gap between the richest and the poorest country was:
3 to 1 in 1820 35 to 1 in 1950 74 to 1 in 1997.
(Source: United Nations Development Program. 1999 Human Development Report.)

6. The richest 1% of the world’s population owns 32% of the wealth.
(Source: UNU-WIDER, Estimating the Level and Distribution ofGlobal Household Wealth.

11. Cutting global poverty in half would cost $20 billion, less that 4% of the U.S. military budget.

SOUND FAMILIAR???

Should be -- that was the LAST GREAT Socialist Class War.. And the result was that OUR COUNTRY -- shed jobs, shed capital, and shed prestige to help equalize the world..

VOLUNTARILLY -- I might add. The WEALTHY nations INVESTED in the 3rd world. That social progress DID NOT trickle up. It did not come from FORCED redistribution. It came from the "1%-ers" of their fellow nations..

You like the outcome lefty buds?? You WON that class war... You just don't know it...

 

[Dragon]

What horseshit.

Show me that America's rich people and not just her poor and middle class have lost out over the last few decades and your argument that it's all gone to developing countries to enrich them at our expense might have a shred of credibility.

But since that's not true, it's clear where our wealth has gone, and it was NOT to the third world.

 

[flacaltenn]

Where do think the INVESTMENT in Chinese manufacturing came from? I have at least 10 clients that have spent BILLIONS in building factories and infrastructure in China.. Not only did JOBS get redistributed -- but CAPITAL did as well. All OVER Asia and the world.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/20/news/international/us_business_chinese_investment_boom/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- While U.S. businesses are still reluctant to invest in new plants and jobs in the United States, many are pouring money into China. But not for the reasons you'd think.

Rather than "outsourcing" their operations to China's low-cost environment to produce cheap goods for U.S. consumers, multinational corporations are pouring billions into China to meet demand from the rapidly growing Chinese middle class.

Total investments in China by U.S. multinationals were worth $49 billion as of 2009 -- up 66% from two years earlier, according to U.S. Commerce Department figures. And 2010 is shaping up to be another banner year for the Chinese -- U.S. companies poured an additional $6 billion into China in the first three quarters alone.

"American investment in China is still growing," said Nicholas Lardy, a China expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "It's one of their most profitable markets, if not their most profitable market. No one is pulling back."

Find me an Apple product MADE in the US. WHO PAID for the factory expansion in China?

It got redistributed... You should be proud..

 

[flacaltenn]

Same old Socialist "Social Justice" redistribution on the GLOBAL scale. And we are seeing the results of that class warfare..

Was it ever "fair" that ----->

Social & Economic Injustice

Socially and economically, we have created great disparities of wealth. A minority of the world's population (17%) consume most of the world's resources (80%), leaving almost 5 billion people to live on the remaining 20%. As a result, billions of people are living without the very basic necessities of life - food, water, housing and sanitation.

Those gains in China didn't come from trickle up, tax the wealthy policies did they? OUR RICHES funded their development...

 

[Utilitarian]

Um... this is an interesting argument, but I doubt you'll get much support from either party on it.

Personally, I view it as America not having properly adapted its workforce to globalization.

Outsourcing is inevitable. No amount of protectionism could have prevented losing cheap industry to the Third World. By the same token, no amount of deregulation would have done this either, although eventually, we might become cheap labor again.

 

[flacaltenn]

Um... this is an interesting argument, but I doubt you'll get much support from either party on it.

Personally, I view it as America not having properly adapted its workforce to globalization.

Outsourcing is inevitable. No amount of protectionism could have prevented losing cheap industry to the Third World. By the same token, no amount of deregulation would have done this either, although eventually, we might become cheap labor again.

Yup.. There's no support for "adopting our workforce to globalization" because that's politically much harder than just stirring up a class war.. You get the point...

But the good news is -- "cheap labor" is a temporary fad. The factories of the 21st century WON'T be run with cheap labor. The Chinese know that and are investing heavily in automation, artificial intelligience and materials sciences.

 

[Dragon]

The idea that outsourcing has been responsible for the loss of high-paying jobs in the U.S. is a myth.

Outsourcing, along with automation (the latter actually being the bigger factor) is responsible for the loss of many manufacturing jobs. Those manufacturing jobs were, for a while, high-paying jobs, higher-paying than the service jobs that have replaced them. But why is this? Was it because there is something intrinsic about factory work that demands it be better paid than service jobs?

Nonsense. Lawyers are service workers. Doctors are service workers. Movie actors are service workers. Rock stars and sports stars are service workers. Service workers pull down the highest salaries in the entire world of employment.

Also, in the past, before the 1930s, factory work tended to pay shit wages, too. And for long hours at that, with no overtime pay. What changed that picture? Why do we now have the image of the highly-paid blue-collar worker who can buy his own home and send his kids to college?

One word: union.

In the 1930s, after decades of struggle, manufacturing workers in this country were organized. Pay and benefits went up along with productivity for some time thereafter, as workers had the bargaining power to insist on a fair share of increased revenues.

There is no reason at all why most service occupations couldn't have been unionized just as manufacturing was, as more people moved from factory work into services, except that the government turned more hostile to unions in the mid to late 1970s, and became even worse in this regard in the 1980s. But because of that, they haven't been, and because that's so, real wages have declined, resulting in increased corporate profits and a bigger and bigger share of the nation's wealth going to the top of the ladder.

We have not lost wealth to third world countries. We have lost it to our own gouging rich.

 

[Si modo]

The idea that outsourcing has been responsible for the loss of high-paying jobs in the U.S. is a myth. ....

Denial of facts does not make facts a myth.

 

[MiddleClass]

From: CBO study shows growing income disparity - Oct. 26, 2011

"Household income for top 1% more than triples, while middle-class incomes grow by less than 40%.

From 1979 to 2007, average household income for the nation's top 1% more than tripled, while middle-class incomes grew by less than 40%, according to a new report from a research arm of Congress.

While those at the top have seen their incomes soar over the past three decades, middle-class and lower incomes have stagnated, the report by the Congressional Budget Office found.

"Over the past three decades, the distribution of income in the United States has become increasingly dispersed -- in particular, the share of income accruing to high-income households has increased, whereas the share accruing to other households has declined," the CBO said."

 

[Dragon]

Denial of facts does not make facts a myth.

It isn't a fact. It's a myth.

 

[Si modo]

Denial of facts does not make facts a myth.

It isn't a fact. It's a myth.

So you say. But there is plenty of data to support that 'myth'.

 

[Dragon]

So you say. But there is plenty of data to support that 'myth'.

Did you even read my post above?

People lost jobs in manufacturing due to outsourcing. The same people found new jobs in the service sector.

The service sector jobs were poorer-paying than the manufacturing jobs, because the manufacturing jobs were union and the service jobs were not. Lessened government support for the right to form unions made it harder to organize the service sector, so those jobs have remained poorer-paying.

The real cause of loss of real wages is the failure to organize the service sector, not outsourcing.

There are no data arguing against the above AFAIK. If you know of any, please present it.

 

[Si modo]

So you say. But there is plenty of data to support that 'myth'.

Did you even read my post above?

People lost jobs in manufacturing due to outsourcing. The same people found new jobs in the service sector.

The service sector jobs were poorer-paying than the manufacturing jobs, because the manufacturing jobs were union and the service jobs were not. Lessened government support for the right to form unions made it harder to organize the service sector, so those jobs have remained poorer-paying.

The real cause of loss of real wages is the failure to organize the service sector, not outsourcing.

There are no data arguing against the above AFAIK. If you know of any, please present it.

Of course I read your post. "Know thy enemies" and all that.

You claim that those who lost manufacturing jobs are now employed in service jobs. You describe those service jobs as attorneys, physicians, rock stars, sports stars, and I laugh at that. Those service position require brains and/or exceptional talent. Those qualities aren't possessed by a large percentage of the population.

So, your claim is nonsense.

However, while it IS true that many laborers have gotten service positions, those service positions are not skilled, either. Service positions requiring common skills get outsourced just as much. Just call HP for customer service. Or call "Peggy".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZXZAlfykpo&feature=related]Peggy -- Transfer - Discover Card Commercial - YouTube[/ame]


And, your solution is to organize service positions? Yeah, THAT really worked well for labor.

You contradict your own argument.

 

[Utilitarian]

So you say. But there is plenty of data to support that 'myth'.

Did you even read my post above?

People lost jobs in manufacturing due to outsourcing. The same people found new jobs in the service sector.

The service sector jobs were poorer-paying than the manufacturing jobs, because the manufacturing jobs were union and the service jobs were not. Lessened government support for the right to form unions made it harder to organize the service sector, so those jobs have remained poorer-paying.

The real cause of loss of real wages is the failure to organize the service sector, not outsourcing.

There are no data arguing against the above AFAIK. If you know of any, please present it.

Of course I read your post. "Know thy enemies" and all that.

You claim that those who lost manufacturing jobs are now employed in service jobs. You describe those service jobs as attorneys, physicians, rock stars, sports stars, and I laugh at that. Those service position require brains and/or exceptional talent. Those qualities aren't possessed by a large percentage of the population.

So, your claim is nonsense.

However, while it IS true that many laborers have gotten service positions, those service positions are not skilled, either. Service positions requiring common skills get outsourced just as much. Just call HP for customer service. Or call "Peggy".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZXZAlfykpo&feature=related]Peggy -- Transfer - Discover Card Commercial - YouTube[/ame]


And, your solution is to organize service positions? Yeah, THAT really worked well for labor.

You contradict your own argument.

So, you're arguing against globalization?

 

[flacaltenn]

The idea that outsourcing has been responsible for the loss of high-paying jobs in the U.S. is a myth.

Outsourcing, along with automation (the latter actually being the bigger factor) is responsible for the loss of many manufacturing jobs. Those manufacturing jobs were, for a while, high-paying jobs, higher-paying than the service jobs that have replaced them. But why is this? Was it because there is something intrinsic about factory work that demands it be better paid than service jobs?

Nonsense. Lawyers are service workers. Doctors are service workers. Movie actors are service workers. Rock stars and sports stars are service workers. Service workers pull down the highest salaries in the entire world of employment.

Also, in the past, before the 1930s, factory work tended to pay shit wages, too. And for long hours at that, with no overtime pay. What changed that picture? Why do we now have the image of the highly-paid blue-collar worker who can buy his own home and send his kids to college?

One word: union.

In the 1930s, after decades of struggle, manufacturing workers in this country were organized. Pay and benefits went up along with productivity for some time thereafter, as workers had the bargaining power to insist on a fair share of increased revenues.

There is no reason at all why most service occupations couldn't have been unionized just as manufacturing was, as more people moved from factory work into services, except that the government turned more hostile to unions in the mid to late 1970s, and became even worse in this regard in the 1980s. But because of that, they haven't been, and because that's so, real wages have declined, resulting in increased corporate profits and a bigger and bigger share of the nation's wealth going to the top of the ladder.

We have not lost wealth to third world countries. We have lost it to our own gouging rich.

We are not talking about 30's.. We are not talking about unions who treat workers as a stable of "limited skill" robots that demand wages that inflate the job -- not the career of the person.. None of that "flys" in a 21st Century Global economy. The unions have to get their asses out of the 30s and look at some NEW realities...

And I'm not talking about "high paying jobs".. I'm talking about the lost job opportunities for America's lower skilled and working poor..

Although we did find out in the 70s that while we ridiculed the Japanese for their "cheap electronics" manufacturing techniques, that we lost THAT war too. We thought we could get them to just BUILD the crap for us. What we found was that "he who controls manufacturing -- also controls the entire industry".. In other words, within 10 years of sending MOST of our electronic assembly to Japan -- THEY developed the skill sets and industrial infrastructure to DOMINATE ALL LEVELS of consumer electronics.. Didn't need our lower skilled workers -- and they didn't need our HIGHER skilled workers either.

See how that works??????????? Will we learn anything? Will our "leadership" quit the warfare and start fixing things? If not -- welcome to the continuing decline..

 

[Si modo]

Did you even read my post above?

People lost jobs in manufacturing due to outsourcing. The same people found new jobs in the service sector.

The service sector jobs were poorer-paying than the manufacturing jobs, because the manufacturing jobs were union and the service jobs were not. Lessened government support for the right to form unions made it harder to organize the service sector, so those jobs have remained poorer-paying.

The real cause of loss of real wages is the failure to organize the service sector, not outsourcing.

There are no data arguing against the above AFAIK. If you know of any, please present it.

Of course I read your post. "Know thy enemies" and all that.

You claim that those who lost manufacturing jobs are now employed in service jobs. You describe those service jobs as attorneys, physicians, rock stars, sports stars, and I laugh at that. Those service position require brains and/or exceptional talent. Those qualities aren't possessed by a large percentage of the population.

So, your claim is nonsense.

However, while it IS true that many laborers have gotten service positions, those service positions are not skilled, either. Service positions requiring common skills get outsourced just as much. Just call HP for customer service. Or call "Peggy".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZXZAlfykpo&feature=related]Peggy -- Transfer - Discover Card Commercial - YouTube[/ame]


And, your solution is to organize service positions? Yeah, THAT really worked well for labor.

You contradict your own argument.

So, you're arguing against globalization?

I'm not arguing against or for it. It would be like arguing against or for water that flows to lower ground.

It just is.

 

[Dragon]

You claim that those who lost manufacturing jobs are now employed in service jobs. You describe those service jobs as attorneys, physicians, rock stars, sports stars

No. I merely presented those examples to show that there is nothing about service work that requires it to be lower paid than manufacturing work.

Those service position require brains and/or exceptional talent. Those qualities aren't possessed by a large percentage of the population.

On the average, service work requires every bit as much skill as manufacturing work. The very highest and most demanding service professions require much MORE skill and ability than even the most demanding work in manufacturing. The lowest level of service jobs (e.g. burger-flipping) requires about the same skill level as the lowest level of manufacturing work (e.g. assembly-line drudgery). Most service jobs fall in between those extremes.

Service positions requiring common skills get outsourced just as much.

No, they get outsourced occasionally but not just as much, and then only in certain restricted areas of work. Also, there are problems doing it; customer service suffers when the call goes to India, while manufacturing does not when the employees doing the assembly are foreigners who don't speak English and don't understand American culture. They don't have to in order to make stuff. But a service worker does have to in order to deliver good service.

Automation is actually a higher threat to service work than outsourcing.

And, your solution is to organize service positions? Yeah, THAT really worked well for labor.

It did, in fact. It turned manufacturing from a dead-end dirt-pay job that only immigrants and the lower class did, into a middle-class occupation, for decades.

If you're trying to say that unionization was the cause of outsourcing itself, you're ignoring the fact that third-world workers are paid roughly one-tenth what NON-union American workers get, or less. In the face of that fact, the difference between union and non-union wages becomes trivial.

 

[Dragon]

The idea that America has lost manufacturing capacity and no longer makes things, as opposed to losing manufacturing jobs, is another myth.

U.S. Manufacturing: Output vs. Jobs Since 1975 | Mercatus

U.S. manufacturing output has doubled since 1975. All anecdotal evidence concerning the Japanese stealing our electronics dominance etc. shouldn't obscure that fact. We are making more things than ever, we're just doing it with fewer people. Just as we grow more food than ever, but with fewer farm workers. It's called increased productivity, increased efficiency. There's nothing wrong with that per se.

 

[Utilitarian]

I'm not arguing against or for it. It would be like arguing against or for water that flows to lower ground.

It just is.

If you understand comparative advantage, then it makes sense to improve the education of your workforce.

We can't really blame China for taking our jobs. That naturally occurs because of the market.

What an industrialized society is supposed to do is educate its workforce to fill better jobs that can't be as easily outsourced. Most of our peers have done a better job of this, which is why we struggle more with outsourcing than most of them.

 

[Dragon]

If you understand comparative advantage, then it makes sense to improve the education of your workforce.

We can't really blame China for taking our jobs. That naturally occurs because of the market.

What an industrialized society is supposed to do is educate its workforce to fill better jobs that can't be as easily outsourced. Most of our peers have done a better job of this, which is why we struggle more with outsourcing than most of them.

That's part of it, yes, but our failure to do so is part of the bigger picture in which we have acted to further the narrow interests of the very rich rather than the general interests of the American people.

"Educating the work force" mainly means at the higher-education level nowadays. If we were serious about doing this, we would provide a college education at fully public expense, the way France does for example. There would be no such thing as a student loan, and no one who could not go to college for financial reasons. No one would have to work in order to pay college tuition, only for spending money etc., and so could devote more time to study.

But to do this would require higher taxes on rich people, and would detract from what the purpose of the economy has been since the Reagan era: to help the rich become as rich as possible, screw everyone else.