CDZ Is it good for America when manufacturers opt to produce their wares abroad?

[320 Years of History]

Time an time again, I encounter folks who assert that manufacturing jobs being "shipped" abroad is bad for the U.S., at least to the extent that the manufacturers are American companies. I would rather that American manufacturers produce their goods domestically, but I don't really have a problem with them opting instead to do so abroad. What do you think?

 

[Nosmo King]

The direct and indisputable effect of losing manufacturing here in the United States is the loss of the middle class. How on earth can that be seen as a good thing?

 

[ABikerSailor]

I think that shipping our jobs overseas is bad for the country. That's why I'm against the TPP, because it would allow countries with no minimum wage to compete for manufacturing jobs with American companies.

Ovation guitars (the kind that REO Speedwagon plays), used to be made in America as an iconic American guitar, but due to business decisions they decided to relocate overseas. One of the workers at the factory refused to give up, and eventually found investors that were willing to re open the factory here in America so that Ovation could remain an American made guitar.

Production of Ovation guitars resuming in Connecticut

 

[320 Years of History]

The direct and indisputable effect of losing manufacturing here in the United States is the loss of the middle class. How on earth can that be seen as a good thing?

The last time I looked, the U.S. yet has a middle class and has for the entirely of the past 50 years which is about how long the matter of "shipping jobs abroad" has been one of concern to some people and groups in the U.S.

According to the New York Times, "The middle class, if defined as households making between $35,000 and $100,000 a year, shrank in the final decades of the 20th century. For a welcome reason, though: More Americans moved up into what might be considered the upper middle class or the affluent." In light of that, are you suggesting that the risk is that the U.S. is headed toward a fate similar to and caused by similar structural failings observed in the Mogul Empire?

 

[Nosmo King]

The direct and indisputable effect of losing manufacturing here in the United States is the loss of the middle class. How on earth can that be seen as a good thing?

The last time I looked, the U.S. yet has a middle class and has for the entirely of the past 50 years which is about how long the matter of "shipping jobs abroad" has been one of concern to some people and groups in the U.S.

According to the New York Times, "The middle class, if defined as households making between $35,000 and $100,000 a year, shrank in the final decades of the 20th century. For a welcome reason, though: More Americans moved up into what might be considered the upper middle class or the affluent." In light of that, are you suggesting that the risk is that the U.S. is headed toward a fate similar to and caused by similar structural failings observed in the Mogul Empire?

I can speak from personal experience. I live in the upper Ohio River valley, just 30 miles from Pittsburgh. When the steel industry packed up and was literally shipped to Asia and Latin America, the jobs of all those steel workers went with the physical apparatuses of steel making. And beyond that, the merchants, shop keepers and ancillary services melted away. Neighborhoods were abandoned and blighted, whole towns were ruined and families were dispersed around the south and west. Do you wonder why the Pitsburgh Steelers seem to have fans everywhere? Because the residents of my valley were scattered around the country.

And that's just one industry. In Wooster, Ohio Rubbermaid had a manufacturing plant. But when they wanted to market their wares in WalMart, those folks in Bentonville told the manufacturer to price their goods below a level that could be profitable. WalMart said that manufacturing in China would reduce costs because the Chinese would make the ware and pay slave wages. So Rubbermaid took the low road and closed the Wooster plant. That eliminated jobs and lead to further unemployment, blight and ruin.

Tell me where in America the loss of jobs has been a boon to local economies.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The middle class is everything. It is constantly threatened by greed, and unfortunately our government is entirely owned by the forces of greed. Greed has its uses. Greed is an important motivator, but the modern economic system we have created is exactly that, a system, and it requires that money circulates. Wage stagnation and income inequality are the consequences of greed being over represented in our political system. Of course manufacturers like to pay their workers pennies on the dollar. They circumvent our petty little minimum wage laws and take advantage of the huge labor pool of more exploitable people overseas.

A rational balance needs to be maintained. Politicians that can be bought and sold cannot maintain that balance.

Here's the rest of your NY Times quote: "Since 2000, the middle class has been shrinking for a decidedly more alarming reason: Incomes have fallen."

 

[TheOldSchool]

The middle class is everything. It is constantly threatened by greed, and unfortunately our government is entirely owned by the forces of greed. Greed has its uses. Greed is an important motivator, but the modern economic system we have created is exactly that, a system, and it requires that money circulates. Wage stagnation and income inequality are the consequences of greed being over represented in our political system. Of course manufacturers like to pay their workers pennies on the dollar. They circumvent our petty little minimum wage laws and take advantage of the huge labor pool of more exploitable people overseas.

A rational balance needs to be maintained. Politicians that can be bought and sold cannot maintain that balance.

Here's the rest of your NY Times quote: "Since 2000, the middle class has been shrinking for a decidedly more alarming reason: Incomes have fallen."

Hilarious name and avatar

 

[william the wie]

Time an time again, I encounter folks who assert that manufacturing jobs being "shipped" abroad is bad for the U.S., at least to the extent that the manufacturers are American companies. I would rather that American manufacturers produce their goods domestically, but I don't really have a problem with them opting instead to do so abroad. What do you think?

I think the headcount per million dollars manufactured keeps on dropping. So, anyone who thinks insourcing will produce net jobs is not thinking.

 

[Spare_change]

The direct and indisputable effect of losing manufacturing here in the United States is the loss of the middle class. How on earth can that be seen as a good thing?

Because, if you investigate the 'loss of the middle class', you will see that the greatest migration is from middle to upper class. On the flip side, the entitlement subculture that we have created has hindered migration from low to middle class.

 

[Nosmo King]

The direct and indisputable effect of losing manufacturing here in the United States is the loss of the middle class. How on earth can that be seen as a good thing?

Because, if you investigate the 'loss of the middle class', you will see that the greatest migration is from middle to upper class. On the flip side, the entitlement subculture that we have created has hindered migration from low to middle class.

That is counter intuitive at best, total obfuscation at least. Given the facts of wage stagnation, loss of jobs, and rising costs how many people have enjoyed the fairy tale you proffer?

 

[320 Years of History]

The middle class is everything. It is constantly threatened by greed, and unfortunately our government is entirely owned by the forces of greed. Greed has its uses. Greed is an important motivator, but the modern economic system we have created is exactly that, a system, and it requires that money circulates. Wage stagnation and income inequality are the consequences of greed being over represented in our political system. Of course manufacturers like to pay their workers pennies on the dollar. They circumvent our petty little minimum wage laws and take advantage of the huge labor pool of more exploitable people overseas.

A rational balance needs to be maintained. Politicians that can be bought and sold cannot maintain that balance.

Here's the rest of your NY Times quote: "Since 2000, the middle class has been shrinking for a decidedly more alarming reason: Incomes have fallen."

Yes, that is the next sentence in that paragraph. The thing is that taking the two statements together -- the quantity of middle class individuals has been decreasing + the reason for the decrease is that middle class folks have moved into the upper middle class -- one has to wonder:

• Just how terrible a thing is the decrease in the size of the "strictly" middle-middle class?
• Is there any meaningful reason to be concerned about the phenomenon whereby folks who once were middle class (economically -- IMO, very few people who are socially middle class ever stop being just that, whereas movement among classes economically is very possible and happens given sufficient effort) and who are now upper middle class (economically) perform the work that used to be done by middle-middle class folks?
• Given the productivity impact of ever advancing technology, what rational basis exists for thinking that simple labor tasks should continue to be done by people rather than machines? Wouldn't any sage business manager choose to use capital rather than labor if the former is the more cost efficient means of producing "whatever?" If the answer to that question is yes, what makes one think that even if the manufacturing processes were to return to the U.S., that a score of jobs, jobs that persist in the long run, would accompany that move?
• In spite of it being so that in the past, "production was king," it's clear that we've moved to the information and technology age. The consequence being that we move ever closer to services being the thing that are most needed, particularly with automation's ever increasing capability and promise. Isn't it largely the anachronists who are still griping about the loss of manufacturing in America?

 

[william the wie]

The direct and indisputable effect of losing manufacturing here in the United States is the loss of the middle class. How on earth can that be seen as a good thing?

Because, if you investigate the 'loss of the middle class', you will see that the greatest migration is from middle to upper class. On the flip side, the entitlement subculture that we have created has hindered migration from low to middle class.

That is counter intuitive at best, total obfuscation at least. Given the facts of wage stagnation, loss of jobs, and rising costs how many people have enjoyed the fairy tale you proffer?

Given the run up in housing prices since the meltdown quite a few. The upperclasses are defined by net worth the poor by net cashflow. For example, the only reason Jeff Bezos is ineligible for Ocare subsidies is the medical plan he voted himself as head of Amazon.

 

[320 Years of History]

Often I see folks remark about the "loss of the middle class" as though the loss of that class, in and of itself, is such a big deal. IMO, the relevance of the middle class is that it is the economic class of citizens who historically have performed the "front line" work that must be accomplished to achieve productive outcomes. I happen to think that if the very same work gets done by folks who are now declared as being upper middle class, so be it. What is important is that the work get done, not what be the economic class of the people who perform it.

 

[HenryBHough]

It depends.

There are those products which are really helpful to Americans but, if they were forced to be made in America they would be priced beyond the reach of those same Americans. Perhaps, in the interest of equality, people sensitive to that ought not buy any of those things. They could use candles instead of LED light bulbs as just one small example.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The middle class is everything. It is constantly threatened by greed, and unfortunately our government is entirely owned by the forces of greed. Greed has its uses. Greed is an important motivator, but the modern economic system we have created is exactly that, a system, and it requires that money circulates. Wage stagnation and income inequality are the consequences of greed being over represented in our political system. Of course manufacturers like to pay their workers pennies on the dollar. They circumvent our petty little minimum wage laws and take advantage of the huge labor pool of more exploitable people overseas.

A rational balance needs to be maintained. Politicians that can be bought and sold cannot maintain that balance.

Here's the rest of your NY Times quote: "Since 2000, the middle class has been shrinking for a decidedly more alarming reason: Incomes have fallen."

Yes, that is the next sentence in that paragraph. The thing is that taking the two statements together -- the quantity of middle class individuals has been decreasing + the reason for the decrease is that middle class folks have moved into the upper middle class -- one has to wonder:

• Just how terrible a thing is the decrease in the size of the "strictly" middle-middle class?
• Is there any meaningful reason to be concerned about the phenomenon whereby folks who once were middle class (economically -- IMO, very few people who are socially middle class ever stop being just that, whereas movement among classes economically is very possible and happens given sufficient effort) and who are now upper middle class (economically) perform the work that used to be done by middle-middle class folks?
• Given the productivity impact of ever advancing technology, what rational basis exists for thinking that simple labor tasks should continue to be done by people rather than machines? Wouldn't any sage business manager choose to use capital rather than labor if the former is the more cost efficient means of producing "whatever?" If the answer to that question is yes, what makes one think that even if the manufacturing processes were to return to the U.S., that a score of jobs, jobs that persist in the long run, would accompany that move?
• In spite of it being so that in the past, "production was king," it's clear that we've moved to the information and technology age. The consequence being that we move ever closer to services being the thing that are most needed, particularly with automation's ever increasing capability and promise. Isn't it largely the anachronists who are still griping about the loss of manufacturing in America?

I don't think the importance of the middle class can be overstated. I don't see how the rise of poverty can be regarded as anything other than a disaster. Automation and the transition to a service based economy offer some real challenges, but they have no bearing on the importance of the middle class. The middle class are the army of the Enlightenment. They are the recipients of the benefits of a society based on the concept of a social contract. The men who built this country, with Enlightenment principles in mind, did not do so to serve and protect profit, but to serve and protect the people.

The poor have no social contract. As a result, they are alienated, disruptive and very expensive. When the middle class shrinks and the ranks of the poor grows it's dangerous. The past forty years, since that enemy of humanity Ronald Reagan gave us supply side/trickle down economics, the wealth has been flowing upwards. Brilliant. The source of all social instability is economic. Let's destabilize ourselves to the greatest degree possible because that's what rich people want. After all, they must know best. They're rich!

I repeat, a rational economic balance cannot be achieved when the government is for sale.

 

[320 Years of History]

The middle class is everything. It is constantly threatened by greed, and unfortunately our government is entirely owned by the forces of greed. Greed has its uses. Greed is an important motivator, but the modern economic system we have created is exactly that, a system, and it requires that money circulates. Wage stagnation and income inequality are the consequences of greed being over represented in our political system. Of course manufacturers like to pay their workers pennies on the dollar. They circumvent our petty little minimum wage laws and take advantage of the huge labor pool of more exploitable people overseas.

A rational balance needs to be maintained. Politicians that can be bought and sold cannot maintain that balance.

Here's the rest of your NY Times quote: "Since 2000, the middle class has been shrinking for a decidedly more alarming reason: Incomes have fallen."

Yes, that is the next sentence in that paragraph. The thing is that taking the two statements together -- the quantity of middle class individuals has been decreasing + the reason for the decrease is that middle class folks have moved into the upper middle class -- one has to wonder:

• Just how terrible a thing is the decrease in the size of the "strictly" middle-middle class?
• Is there any meaningful reason to be concerned about the phenomenon whereby folks who once were middle class (economically -- IMO, very few people who are socially middle class ever stop being just that, whereas movement among classes economically is very possible and happens given sufficient effort) and who are now upper middle class (economically) perform the work that used to be done by middle-middle class folks?
• Given the productivity impact of ever advancing technology, what rational basis exists for thinking that simple labor tasks should continue to be done by people rather than machines? Wouldn't any sage business manager choose to use capital rather than labor if the former is the more cost efficient means of producing "whatever?" If the answer to that question is yes, what makes one think that even if the manufacturing processes were to return to the U.S., that a score of jobs, jobs that persist in the long run, would accompany that move?
• In spite of it being so that in the past, "production was king," it's clear that we've moved to the information and technology age. The consequence being that we move ever closer to services being the thing that are most needed, particularly with automation's ever increasing capability and promise. Isn't it largely the anachronists who are still griping about the loss of manufacturing in America?

I don't think the importance of the middle class can be overstated. I don't see how the rise of poverty can be regarded as anything other than a disaster. Automation and the transition to a service based economy offer some real challenges, but they have no bearing on the importance of the middle class. The middle class are the army of the Enlightenment. They are the recipients of the benefits of a society based on the concept of a social contract. The men who built this country, with Enlightenment principles in mind, did not do so to serve and protect profit, but to serve and protect the people.

The poor have no social contract. As a result, they are alienated, disruptive and very expensive. When the middle class shrinks and the ranks of the poor grows it's dangerous. The past forty years, since that enemy of humanity Ronald Reagan gave us supply side/trickle down economics, the wealth has been flowing upwards. Brilliant. The source of all social instability is economic. Let's destabilize ourselves to the greatest degree possible because that's what rich people want. After all, they must know best. They're rich!

I repeat, a rational economic balance cannot be achieved when the government is for sale.

Bold:
That much I agree with. The rest of you most recent post, I need to ponder a bit, but be assured I will respond to some of your other remarks.

 

[320 Years of History]

The middle class is everything. It is constantly threatened by greed, and unfortunately our government is entirely owned by the forces of greed. Greed has its uses. Greed is an important motivator, but the modern economic system we have created is exactly that, a system, and it requires that money circulates. Wage stagnation and income inequality are the consequences of greed being over represented in our political system. Of course manufacturers like to pay their workers pennies on the dollar. They circumvent our petty little minimum wage laws and take advantage of the huge labor pool of more exploitable people overseas.

A rational balance needs to be maintained. Politicians that can be bought and sold cannot maintain that balance.

Here's the rest of your NY Times quote: "Since 2000, the middle class has been shrinking for a decidedly more alarming reason: Incomes have fallen."

Yes, that is the next sentence in that paragraph. The thing is that taking the two statements together -- the quantity of middle class individuals has been decreasing + the reason for the decrease is that middle class folks have moved into the upper middle class -- one has to wonder:

• Just how terrible a thing is the decrease in the size of the "strictly" middle-middle class?
• Is there any meaningful reason to be concerned about the phenomenon whereby folks who once were middle class (economically -- IMO, very few people who are socially middle class ever stop being just that, whereas movement among classes economically is very possible and happens given sufficient effort) and who are now upper middle class (economically) perform the work that used to be done by middle-middle class folks?
• Given the productivity impact of ever advancing technology, what rational basis exists for thinking that simple labor tasks should continue to be done by people rather than machines? Wouldn't any sage business manager choose to use capital rather than labor if the former is the more cost efficient means of producing "whatever?" If the answer to that question is yes, what makes one think that even if the manufacturing processes were to return to the U.S., that a score of jobs, jobs that persist in the long run, would accompany that move?
• In spite of it being so that in the past, "production was king," it's clear that we've moved to the information and technology age. The consequence being that we move ever closer to services being the thing that are most needed, particularly with automation's ever increasing capability and promise. Isn't it largely the anachronists who are still griping about the loss of manufacturing in America?

I don't think the importance of the middle class can be overstated. I don't see how the rise of poverty can be regarded as anything other than a disaster. Automation and the transition to a service based economy offer some real challenges, but they have no bearing on the importance of the middle class. The middle class are the army of the Enlightenment. They are the recipients of the benefits of a society based on the concept of a social contract. The men who built this country, with Enlightenment principles in mind, did not do so to serve and protect profit, but to serve and protect the people.

The poor have no social contract. As a result, they are alienated, disruptive and very expensive. When the middle class shrinks and the ranks of the poor grows it's dangerous. The past forty years, since that enemy of humanity Ronald Reagan gave us supply side/trickle down economics, the wealth has been flowing upwards. Brilliant. The source of all social instability is economic. Let's destabilize ourselves to the greatest degree possible because that's what rich people want. After all, they must know best. They're rich!

I repeat, a rational economic balance cannot be achieved when the government is for sale.

Red:
I am still trying to make sense of these comments. Specifically, I don't see how it indicates that there is something wrong with the middle class population being smaller as a result of formerly middle class folks moving into the upper middle class (as stated in the NYT article cited earlier). Were it a matter of the middle class population being smaller because they were moving from being middle class to being lower class, I'd think there's something going wrong, really wrong.

Have the rich gotten richer? Yes, they have, and more so than anyone else, but so too has the middle class, so much so that they aren't "plain old middle class" any more. Additionally, it





I'm not disagreeing about the inequity of the rate of the increases among the various population segments. I'm merely saying that the size of the "strictly" middle class segment of it isn't in itself a problem, which I think is what you are saying. Is it?

Other/Unrelated:
On a related but "odd" note, it's become less "expensive" to make it into the 1%. I'm not sure that "pearl" of information is good for anything other than a Trivial Pursuit game or to give folks something talk (bitch and moan, really) about? I mentioned it (1) because CNN just published the info, and (2) because the article in which it's found suggests that taxes, highers ones on the rich, may have something to do with it. Maybe they do, but even if they do, their doing so still strike me as just "something to talk about;" there is almost certainly nobody in the 1% whose life is notably different because of the incremental increase in their tax bill.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The middle class is everything. It is constantly threatened by greed, and unfortunately our government is entirely owned by the forces of greed. Greed has its uses. Greed is an important motivator, but the modern economic system we have created is exactly that, a system, and it requires that money circulates. Wage stagnation and income inequality are the consequences of greed being over represented in our political system. Of course manufacturers like to pay their workers pennies on the dollar. They circumvent our petty little minimum wage laws and take advantage of the huge labor pool of more exploitable people overseas.

A rational balance needs to be maintained. Politicians that can be bought and sold cannot maintain that balance.

Here's the rest of your NY Times quote: "Since 2000, the middle class has been shrinking for a decidedly more alarming reason: Incomes have fallen."

Yes, that is the next sentence in that paragraph. The thing is that taking the two statements together -- the quantity of middle class individuals has been decreasing + the reason for the decrease is that middle class folks have moved into the upper middle class -- one has to wonder:

• Just how terrible a thing is the decrease in the size of the "strictly" middle-middle class?
• Is there any meaningful reason to be concerned about the phenomenon whereby folks who once were middle class (economically -- IMO, very few people who are socially middle class ever stop being just that, whereas movement among classes economically is very possible and happens given sufficient effort) and who are now upper middle class (economically) perform the work that used to be done by middle-middle class folks?
• Given the productivity impact of ever advancing technology, what rational basis exists for thinking that simple labor tasks should continue to be done by people rather than machines? Wouldn't any sage business manager choose to use capital rather than labor if the former is the more cost efficient means of producing "whatever?" If the answer to that question is yes, what makes one think that even if the manufacturing processes were to return to the U.S., that a score of jobs, jobs that persist in the long run, would accompany that move?
• In spite of it being so that in the past, "production was king," it's clear that we've moved to the information and technology age. The consequence being that we move ever closer to services being the thing that are most needed, particularly with automation's ever increasing capability and promise. Isn't it largely the anachronists who are still griping about the loss of manufacturing in America?

I don't think the importance of the middle class can be overstated. I don't see how the rise of poverty can be regarded as anything other than a disaster. Automation and the transition to a service based economy offer some real challenges, but they have no bearing on the importance of the middle class. The middle class are the army of the Enlightenment. They are the recipients of the benefits of a society based on the concept of a social contract. The men who built this country, with Enlightenment principles in mind, did not do so to serve and protect profit, but to serve and protect the people.

The poor have no social contract. As a result, they are alienated, disruptive and very expensive. When the middle class shrinks and the ranks of the poor grows it's dangerous. The past forty years, since that enemy of humanity Ronald Reagan gave us supply side/trickle down economics, the wealth has been flowing upwards. Brilliant. The source of all social instability is economic. Let's destabilize ourselves to the greatest degree possible because that's what rich people want. After all, they must know best. They're rich!

I repeat, a rational economic balance cannot be achieved when the government is for sale.

Red:
I am still trying to make sense of these comments. Specifically, I don't see how it indicates that there is something wrong with the middle class population being smaller as a result of formerly middle class folks moving into the upper middle class (as stated in the NYT article cited earlier). Were it a matter of the middle class population being smaller because they were moving from being middle class to being lower class, I'd think there's something going wrong, really wrong.

Have the rich gotten richer? Yes, they have, and more so than anyone else, but so too has the middle class, so much so that they aren't "plain old middle class" any more. Additionally, it





I'm not disagreeing about the inequity of the rate of the increases among the various population segments. I'm merely saying that the size of the "strictly" middle class segment of it isn't in itself a problem, which I think is what you are saying. Is it?

Other/Unrelated:
On a related but "odd" note, it's become less "expensive" to make it into the 1%. I'm not sure that "pearl" of information is good for anything other than a Trivial Pursuit game or to give folks something talk (bitch and moan, really) about? I mentioned it (1) because CNN just published the info, and (2) because the article in which it's found suggests that taxes, highers ones on the rich, may have something to do with it. Maybe they do, but even if they do, their doing so still strike me as just "something to talk about;" there is almost certainly nobody in the 1% whose life is notably different because of the incremental increase in their tax bill.

I have struggled to understand your POV as well. Let's try to break this down, shall we?

1- I have always taken these truths to be self-evident, as regards the importance of the middle class. Frankly I thought you were kidding. Just providing food for thought and fodder for debate.

Aristotle
The link between American values and the middle class
The economic importance of the middle class.

2- I don't think that precise percentages of poor, rich and middle class are that important to maintain. I certainly don't think that the middle class shrinking because people were moving from middle class to upper class is a bad thing. According to the NYT's analysis that period was brief and it's over. For the past 15 years they attribute it to shrinking incomes, and they rightly regard that as alarming.

Economy is morality. So sayeth the Pope, and I'm with Papa Francis. Trickle down is the anti-Christ. Budgets are moral documents.

So, am I misinterpreting what you have written, or are you saying that poverty is not that bad?

 

[william the wie]

The middle class is everything. It is constantly threatened by greed, and unfortunately our government is entirely owned by the forces of greed. Greed has its uses. Greed is an important motivator, but the modern economic system we have created is exactly that, a system, and it requires that money circulates. Wage stagnation and income inequality are the consequences of greed being over represented in our political system. Of course manufacturers like to pay their workers pennies on the dollar. They circumvent our petty little minimum wage laws and take advantage of the huge labor pool of more exploitable people overseas.

A rational balance needs to be maintained. Politicians that can be bought and sold cannot maintain that balance.

Here's the rest of your NY Times quote: "Since 2000, the middle class has been shrinking for a decidedly more alarming reason: Incomes have fallen."

Yes, that is the next sentence in that paragraph. The thing is that taking the two statements together -- the quantity of middle class individuals has been decreasing + the reason for the decrease is that middle class folks have moved into the upper middle class -- one has to wonder:

• Just how terrible a thing is the decrease in the size of the "strictly" middle-middle class?
• Is there any meaningful reason to be concerned about the phenomenon whereby folks who once were middle class (economically -- IMO, very few people who are socially middle class ever stop being just that, whereas movement among classes economically is very possible and happens given sufficient effort) and who are now upper middle class (economically) perform the work that used to be done by middle-middle class folks?
• Given the productivity impact of ever advancing technology, what rational basis exists for thinking that simple labor tasks should continue to be done by people rather than machines? Wouldn't any sage business manager choose to use capital rather than labor if the former is the more cost efficient means of producing "whatever?" If the answer to that question is yes, what makes one think that even if the manufacturing processes were to return to the U.S., that a score of jobs, jobs that persist in the long run, would accompany that move?
• In spite of it being so that in the past, "production was king," it's clear that we've moved to the information and technology age. The consequence being that we move ever closer to services being the thing that are most needed, particularly with automation's ever increasing capability and promise. Isn't it largely the anachronists who are still griping about the loss of manufacturing in America?

I don't think the importance of the middle class can be overstated. I don't see how the rise of poverty can be regarded as anything other than a disaster. Automation and the transition to a service based economy offer some real challenges, but they have no bearing on the importance of the middle class. The middle class are the army of the Enlightenment. They are the recipients of the benefits of a society based on the concept of a social contract. The men who built this country, with Enlightenment principles in mind, did not do so to serve and protect profit, but to serve and protect the people.

The poor have no social contract. As a result, they are alienated, disruptive and very expensive. When the middle class shrinks and the ranks of the poor grows it's dangerous. The past forty years, since that enemy of humanity Ronald Reagan gave us supply side/trickle down economics, the wealth has been flowing upwards. Brilliant. The source of all social instability is economic. Let's destabilize ourselves to the greatest degree possible because that's what rich people want. After all, they must know best. They're rich!

I repeat, a rational economic balance cannot be achieved when the government is for sale.

Red:
I am still trying to make sense of these comments. Specifically, I don't see how it indicates that there is something wrong with the middle class population being smaller as a result of formerly middle class folks moving into the upper middle class (as stated in the NYT article cited earlier). Were it a matter of the middle class population being smaller because they were moving from being middle class to being lower class, I'd think there's something going wrong, really wrong.

Have the rich gotten richer? Yes, they have, and more so than anyone else, but so too has the middle class, so much so that they aren't "plain old middle class" any more. Additionally, it





I'm not disagreeing about the inequity of the rate of the increases among the various population segments. I'm merely saying that the size of the "strictly" middle class segment of it isn't in itself a problem, which I think is what you are saying. Is it?

Other/Unrelated:
On a related but "odd" note, it's become less "expensive" to make it into the 1%. I'm not sure that "pearl" of information is good for anything other than a Trivial Pursuit game or to give folks something talk (bitch and moan, really) about? I mentioned it (1) because CNN just published the info, and (2) because the article in which it's found suggests that taxes, highers ones on the rich, may have something to do with it. Maybe they do, but even if they do, their doing so still strike me as just "something to talk about;" there is almost certainly nobody in the 1% whose life is notably different because of the incremental increase in their tax bill.

I have struggled to understand your POV as well. Let's try to break this down, shall we?

1- I have always taken these truths to be self-evident, as regards the importance of the middle class. Frankly I thought you were kidding. Just providing food for thought and fodder for debate.

Aristotle
The link between American values and the middle class
The economic importance of the middle class.

2- I don't think that precise percentages of poor, rich and middle class are that important to maintain. I certainly don't think that the middle class shrinking because people were moving from middle class to upper class is a bad thing. According to the NYT's analysis that period was brief and it's over. For the past 15 years they attribute it to shrinking incomes, and they rightly regard that as alarming.

Economy is morality. So sayeth the Pope, and I'm with Papa Francis. Trickle down is the anti-Christ. Budgets are moral documents.

So, am I misinterpreting what you have written, or are you saying that poverty is not that bad?

The middle class is everything. It is constantly threatened by greed, and unfortunately our government is entirely owned by the forces of greed. Greed has its uses. Greed is an important motivator, but the modern economic system we have created is exactly that, a system, and it requires that money circulates. Wage stagnation and income inequality are the consequences of greed being over represented in our political system. Of course manufacturers like to pay their workers pennies on the dollar. They circumvent our petty little minimum wage laws and take advantage of the huge labor pool of more exploitable people overseas.

A rational balance needs to be maintained. Politicians that can be bought and sold cannot maintain that balance.

Here's the rest of your NY Times quote: "Since 2000, the middle class has been shrinking for a decidedly more alarming reason: Incomes have fallen."

Yes, that is the next sentence in that paragraph. The thing is that taking the two statements together -- the quantity of middle class individuals has been decreasing + the reason for the decrease is that middle class folks have moved into the upper middle class -- one has to wonder:

• Just how terrible a thing is the decrease in the size of the "strictly" middle-middle class?
• Is there any meaningful reason to be concerned about the phenomenon whereby folks who once were middle class (economically -- IMO, very few people who are socially middle class ever stop being just that, whereas movement among classes economically is very possible and happens given sufficient effort) and who are now upper middle class (economically) perform the work that used to be done by middle-middle class folks?
• Given the productivity impact of ever advancing technology, what rational basis exists for thinking that simple labor tasks should continue to be done by people rather than machines? Wouldn't any sage business manager choose to use capital rather than labor if the former is the more cost efficient means of producing "whatever?" If the answer to that question is yes, what makes one think that even if the manufacturing processes were to return to the U.S., that a score of jobs, jobs that persist in the long run, would accompany that move?
• In spite of it being so that in the past, "production was king," it's clear that we've moved to the information and technology age. The consequence being that we move ever closer to services being the thing that are most needed, particularly with automation's ever increasing capability and promise. Isn't it largely the anachronists who are still griping about the loss of manufacturing in America?

I don't think the importance of the middle class can be overstated. I don't see how the rise of poverty can be regarded as anything other than a disaster. Automation and the transition to a service based economy offer some real challenges, but they have no bearing on the importance of the middle class. The middle class are the army of the Enlightenment. They are the recipients of the benefits of a society based on the concept of a social contract. The men who built this country, with Enlightenment principles in mind, did not do so to serve and protect profit, but to serve and protect the people.

The poor have no social contract. As a result, they are alienated, disruptive and very expensive. When the middle class shrinks and the ranks of the poor grows it's dangerous. The past forty years, since that enemy of humanity Ronald Reagan gave us supply side/trickle down economics, the wealth has been flowing upwards. Brilliant. The source of all social instability is economic. Let's destabilize ourselves to the greatest degree possible because that's what rich people want. After all, they must know best. They're rich!

I repeat, a rational economic balance cannot be achieved when the government is for sale.

Red:
I am still trying to make sense of these comments. Specifically, I don't see how it indicates that there is something wrong with the middle class population being smaller as a result of formerly middle class folks moving into the upper middle class (as stated in the NYT article cited earlier). Were it a matter of the middle class population being smaller because they were moving from being middle class to being lower class, I'd think there's something going wrong, really wrong.

Have the rich gotten richer? Yes, they have, and more so than anyone else, but so too has the middle class, so much so that they aren't "plain old middle class" any more. Additionally, it





I'm not disagreeing about the inequity of the rate of the increases among the various population segments. I'm merely saying that the size of the "strictly" middle class segment of it isn't in itself a problem, which I think is what you are saying. Is it?

Other/Unrelated:
On a related but "odd" note, it's become less "expensive" to make it into the 1%. I'm not sure that "pearl" of information is good for anything other than a Trivial Pursuit game or to give folks something talk (bitch and moan, really) about? I mentioned it (1) because CNN just published the info, and (2) because the article in which it's found suggests that taxes, highers ones on the rich, may have something to do with it. Maybe they do, but even if they do, their doing so still strike me as just "something to talk about;" there is almost certainly nobody in the 1% whose life is notably different because of the incremental increase in their tax bill.

I have struggled to understand your POV as well. Let's try to break this down, shall we?

1- I have always taken these truths to be self-evident, as regards the importance of the middle class. Frankly I thought you were kidding. Just providing food for thought and fodder for debate.

Aristotle
The link between American values and the middle class
The economic importance of the middle class.

2- I don't think that precise percentages of poor, rich and middle class are that important to maintain. I certainly don't think that the middle class shrinking because people were moving from middle class to upper class is a bad thing. According to the NYT's analysis that period was brief and it's over. For the past 15 years they attribute it to shrinking incomes, and they rightly regard that as alarming.

Economy is morality. So sayeth the Pope, and I'm with Papa Francis. Trickle down is the anti-Christ. Budgets are moral documents.

So, am I misinterpreting what you have written, or are you saying that poverty is not that bad?

I think that both of you are ignoring some salient points:

The lower 1/3 of any population considers itself poor.

The link between gross income and wealth is tenuous at best. ("High Wire" by Peter Gosselin is a huge help for the rest of my arguments.)

The problem is that income stability and with it wealth creation has been going south since the 1970s.

This will self correct as Deflation spreads due to slower growth in China having huge knock on effects.

 

[Abishai100]

ToyCo: Capital Constructivism

American consumerism brands indicate a design preference for 'user-friendly' and 'mass-marketing' efficiency.

These brands draw in global investor interest.

Businesses create governing modern world 'spheres of influence' that affect tax-payer decision-making.