I have heard of a story of Henry Ford II taking Walter Reuther of a tour through an automated automobile factory, and asking, “How many of those machines would join your union?”
Reuther responded, “How many of them would buy your cars?”
The problem with Reuther’s reasoning is that automation benefits stock holders and business executives, that is to say high income people. It would be easy for the machines Reuther was shown to make Lincolns rather than Fords.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
We are talking about a recent historical trend, so 100 years ago is besides the point. And the majority of people in the West do appear to be less wealthy than they were ten, twenty years ago.
[/QUOTE]
Do they? Do you have any evidence that this is so? I think that Europeans, in general, are more affluent today than 20 years ago. And my guess is that Americans, in general, are also more affluent as a whole today than they were 20 years ago.
Why aren’t we speaking in historical terms btw? And why only in The West? It seems you are trying to cherry pick to make your statement work.
[QUOTE=Mosier]
Were you shaking your finger when you wrote this?
[/QUOTE]
Well, I always raise one pinky when I’m sipping rare Napoleon Brandy and smoking my fine Cuban cigars (rolled on the thighs of virgins and lit on the backs of the peasantry), so…yeah. I suppose I was.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Is the whole planet going to become like the US was 40 or 50 years ago, now, or like the US after corporations are done revaluing human labor down to whatever the lowest going rate is?
[/QUOTE]
I doubt it, but I’d say that the direction they are moving into is a more western style affluence. I certainly see no indications that the world, as a whole, is moving backwards in terms of affluence.
Then again, it was you who made the statement about 15 billion people (something also not supported in the data afaik) and how we won’t be able to find any place to outsource because the world will be one large 3rd world hell hole. I was simply responding to that.
Where do we want to be? Where are we trying to get too? I don’t think there is an overarching goal among humans, or any final goal we are all trying to achieve.
Since we aren’t moving towards becoming a 3rd world country (outside of the heads of some folks on the fringes of either the left or right wings), I don’t see the relevance. The US and Europe (and The West) is composed of vibrant and wealthy nations. The rest of the world is just trying to get in on the action.
But, ok…what do you suggest? Use our collective military to keep the rest of the world down so that our citizens can have over inflated and secure jobs? Perhaps we could start the colonial period again?
Do you have a cite handy that demonstrates that affluence doesn’t lead to lower population increases…or even negative increases? Because everything I’ve always read seems to indicate that this is the case. Most of Europe and Japan have either very slight population increases or negative population vectors. The US is positive, but not very much. But if you have data that shows differently I’m all ears.
-XT
I keep wondering when if ever this will lead to a political backlash. Right now those who feel economically frustrated generally direct their anger at the government. It seems obvious to me that if there is to be an economically healthy and growing middle class it will require a bigger government paid for by higher taxes on the rich. The law of supply and demand dictates more wealth at the top, and fewer good jobs for most Americans.
As one would suspect from my nickname, I revere the memory of Franklin Roosevelt. I like the government, and dislike the business community.
Since 1980 real after tax income for 80 percent of the United States has declined. The decline has accelerated during this century.
http://investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=971&mn=389436&pt=msg&mid=10153698
Nevertheless, the country seems to be moving to the right.
I think the world is generally headed towards more affluence too, or at least a higher average standard of living, even if that living is welfare checks. I was responding to the idea that Americans, for instance, have entitlement issues and need to learn to lower their expectations and adapt to the new reality that an average American laborer really isn’t worth 10 times a Chinese laborer.
No, and I don’t contest it. I said it’s a new thing and I wouldn’t bet this new phenomenon of career driven childless women is going to hold forever.
I’m not questioning whether certain countries are experiencing sub-replacement fertility, etc. What I question is whether it’s a permanent trend, or a social blip. This wiki article discussing the aging of Japan indicates Japan is facing real challenges, and all is not perfect in low birthrate land.
Trickle-down, Sam? That PROVEN failure? That’s just sad. It doesn’t matter if it’s the corporations or the people who own them, trickle down is a dog that just won’t hunt.
That’s a fairly recent development since blaming racial minorities went out of fashion in polite society.
Go to a 30 hour (or even 20) work week so we can share fewer jobs among more people?
If we could work out the benefits allocation (healthcare reform could help with that), I’m sure many would take it if offered the opportunity.
Really? Can you point to a country that has bigger government and higher taxes on the rich which has resulted in a higher standard of living for the middle class? Small Scandinavian countries not allowed.
Britain has much bigger government, public health care, high taxes on the rich… And riots.
In France, with its bigger government and higher taxes on the rich, it’s a good night if only handful of cars get burned to the ground by the displaced underclass.
DC has big government, and spends more on schools than any other state. How’s that working out?
Is the huge state government in California working out well for that state’s middle class?
Just where are you finding this big government that has raised the standard of living for everyone?
No, that is the result of the current combination of markets and government in the U.S. Do you think government action since 2007 has benefited the wealthy more, or the poor?
And yet, it’s the business community that creates all that wealth that government wants to redistribute, and it’s the business community who can’t take a nickel from you without offering you something in exchange that you value more. The government can just put a gun to your head.
No, the U.S. has been moving to the left under Bush and Obama. The size of government has grown dramatically. Regulations have increased. The rich are carrying more of the tax burden. The government has nationalized student loans, involved itself in the direct management of the auto and finance industries, injecting itself more and more in labor relations.
Now, MY country has been moving to the right. We privatized air traffic control. We sold off our nationalized gas company. We cut the size of government from 53% of GDP to 35%. We made our tax system less progressive by moving more to consumption and excise taxes. We spent the 1990’s and half the 2000’s cutting our debt from 70% of GDP to 30%. We’ve cut regulations, privatized more of our health care system, focused on free trade agreements, and reduced internal barriers to trade and government interventions into markets. We got our entitlements under control by raising payroll taxes for everyone and means-testing part of our public pension. We’re responding to the economic downturn through austerity - we laid off 67,000 government workers last month - and created 95,000 private sector jobs. Our budget will be balanced in two to six years. We’re creating jobs at 5X to 10X the rate of the U.S., despite rejecting the calls for more Keynesian stimulus.
The result is that you’re reeling in debt and partisanship is at an all-time high. Canada has the strongest economy in the G8 and our quality of life has increased.
If you want to see what a move to smaller government would actually do, as opposed to the scare stories here, just look north.
Why are the “small Scandinavian countries not allowed?” If smallness is an economic asset one would expect that most Americans would benefit economically if the United States would break up into smaller countries. Because most Americans would almost certainly not benefit from such a break up, I think the Scandinavian countries should be allowed as evidence of the good things that can be achieved through big government and high taxes on the rich.
I am not claiming that what works so well in Scandinavia would necessarily work in the United States. I am using those countries as a refutation of the right wing cliche that, “Socialism has failed in every country where it has been tried.” Scandinavian social democracy is the closest approximation to democratic socialism.
The United States is famed for riots, and for a murder rate that is significantly higher than the UK and France.
The political center in Canada remains to the left of what it is in the United States. Taxes are higher, especially on the rich.
The public health system in Canada is the ideal for liberals in the United States. There is no popular demand in Canada for a return to privately financed health care.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris-Interactive-Poll-Research-Canadian-HC-system-2009-08.pdf
BTW, President Clinton left office with budget surpluses. Bush ruined that by cutting taxes.
A few riots, for a very short period, by a very small minority of idiots, and following substantial government cuts (to benefits, public services, government and, ironically, the police). Not much support for your argument.
Well, duh; of course they’re not allowed, the lousy sugared-porridge eaters!
I’m trying to pin down the threshold that separates permitted from non-permitted examples. So far, I’ve figured out that the lower bound is the population of the second-most populous nation in Scandinavia (as you excluded “countries”, plural) and that the upper bound is the population of Washington DC…
George Bush is a plant. Your argument is invalid.
If the whole planet is third world, won’t that mean that everywhere would be a good place to oursource to?
The reason India would stop being a good place to outsource to is if wages in India rose to such a high level that it makes no sense to hire an Indian instead of an American. If wages in India are high, then it’s no longer a third world shithole. And that’s good.
Sam, it’s just nonsense to argue that Britain and France and Germany are dystopian hellholes. They just aren’t. And if riots indicate that a country isn’t worth living in, then you should be packing your bags and leaving Canada.
Those wacky Canadian rioters. I guess the constant news cycle has shortened our collective memories to under 2 months.
And that is what I pointed out in the last major list discussion of job economics, and the armchair economists on lists thoroughly poopooed me extensively.
I would actually love to combine all the idiot economists who claim that we are just going to be developing the next new buggy whip factory and everything will go back to normal and whack them in the back of their communal heads with a baseball bat to knock some sense into them. Industry is NOT going to magically change back to providing jobs for the population when they can outsource everything. We are shortly going to be the new third world nation begging for employment opportunities from the rich countries.
You mean when real estate finally picks up, we’ll outsource home construction? Great. Let me know where to invest. :dubious: