Quote :

"The problem is that not everyone can become an engineer, scientist or doctor."

Why not? We have more of them now than we have ever had before.

Quote :

"The number of engineering and scientific jobs required just can't match the millions previously employed on the line, and that assumes that enough people are "retrainable" to do these sorts of highly specialized engineering, scientific, and "creative" jobs."

Well then that sucks, but it's something we're going to have to learn how to deal with. You can't wish the world back to the way it was, things change and you simply have to change with them. The good news is that the economy is not zero sum, the economy is what we make of it. The rest of the world getting a middle class doesn't have to take ours away.

6/22/2011 8:11:36 PM

This is an old picture, but it demonstrates the point.

Cars are lasting longer on the road, so is housing, and so are our refrigerators and washing machines. We as a post-industrial society simply do not need as many more durable goods every year as we used to. As such, while industrial productivity has increased, demand has not grown enough to avoid job losses.

Quote :

"In all honesty, sometimes I think that the supposed middle class model was simply a short aberration in human history, driven by the West's technology advantage and the aftermath of World War II. Now that the rest of the world is finally catching up and larger, cheaper pools of labor are accessible on a global scale, things are going to get ugly."

I don't think so. I think this stage is the aberration. After China is industrialized and everyone has restored sanity to their public sectors, the lost decade(s) will come to an end.

[Edited on June 22, 2011 at 11:07 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/22/2011 11:00:31 PM

Quote :

"I don't think so. I think this stage is the aberration. After China is industrialized and everyone has restored sanity to their public sectors, the lost decade(s) will come to an end."

This is starting to get weird, you and I have been agreeing on way too many things lately.

6/22/2011 11:19:52 PM

Quote :

"The mind boggles. The housing crisis/sub-prime debacle was caused by government complicity in enabling fake mortgage originators to write loans and then turn around and sell them immediately to dupes (i.e., da Fanny and da Fred). The Dems voted down an amendment that would have required a 5% down payment to meet the "qualifying restriction." So, yes, the Chris Dodd quote, "this is biased! it would restrict home ownership only to those who can afford it!" is fake (this is the satirical source of that fake quote). But the Dems acted as if that was exactly what they believed, and voted down even a 5% down payment as being racist and biased. Seriously, they did that. Really. Okay, but surely we learned something, right? No, to the contrary. The Justice Department is trying to hunt down banks that resist making loans to people who have zero chance of paying them back. It doesn't seem possible, but it's true. So now we know why the Dems voted down the Corker Amendment. They actually want to force banks to make zero down payment loans to people whose only income is public assistance. We are NOT DOING ANY FAVORS to poor people if we saddle them with loans they cannot pay back. Taking another step and blaming the banks for enforcing some down payment rule (the norm used to be 20%! But now 5% is too high! Yikes! YIKES!) The Obama administration seems genuinely surprised at employment declines and the lack of growth. If you constantly abuse financial instituions, they are not going to loan that money. And if you try to force them to loan it, the money will disappear. The Roosevelt administration tried several of the same tactics in 1935-6, and the result was a second dip, with employment crashing. As we say a lot here at KPC: Business needs certainty. But politicians like uncertainty, and fear, creating dependency. Okay, but if you make that play, Mr. Obama, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Holder, you can't seriously expect to see economic growth. If you pursue Peronista policies, you will get Peronista results. Go ahead and cry for us. The U.S. is becoming Argentina. I wish this were the Onion, but it's real."

http://mungowitzend.blogspot.com/2011/07/not-onion.html

7/11/2011 9:47:07 AM

^nice read

7/11/2011 10:20:38 AM

Quote :

"Historically, economic growth has lead to job creation. With the way our population is currently distributed, I no longer feel that this correlation is valid. Since all of the manual supply line type jobs have shifted into markets overseas, we are now in a time where we are close to the maximum amount of workers in our economy. Even if the economy grows, you will still see diminishing job creation. There is no way around having 10 million unemployed at all times going forward. For every population, there is always a total number and a maximum amount of jobs. Sure, any given person can get those jobs, but every given person CAN'T get a job. In a market economy, theres no way to have 100% employment unless the government makes fake jobs for the rest of the people. Unemployment benefits, healthcare and welfare are a much more efficient way to take care of those people than making fake jobs. Lowering taxes will allow the private sector to create jobs thus taking some of the burden of unemployment away. I am not denying that fact. I am saying that government programs giving money directly to the unemployed is more efficient than giving the money to the private sector and allowing them to give SOME of that extra money to job creation. A great example of this abuse is WAL-MART. They are doing very well right now in profits but I was in their store very late the other night and there was a huge problem. There was NOBODY working in any department and they only had two cashiers open. There were probably hundreds of shoppers in the store and a good 10 workers 8 of whom were stocking. WALMART could easily hire and adequate staff in each store and put a dent in national unemployment but thats not going to help them make more money since customers only shop at walmart late night because its the only thing open. Prime example of why giving the private sector more money won't equate to efficient job creation. Do you think life America should simply be a game of musical chairs? Keep in mind several well educated, hard workers are part of this unemployment."

Get rid of our unfair to America trade policies and stop giving tax incentives to companies that move overseas.

Problem fixed.

7/15/2011 2:19:19 PM

Which trade policies and tax incentives would you be referring to?

7/15/2011 4:11:13 PM

Here are 2.

1. Stop allowing corporations to defer taxes on overseas income

2. Eliminate the tax deductions that are associated with the costs of moving offshore

7/15/2011 6:41:24 PM

I think you should have a brutally simple tax structure that encourages growth. Why do GE and The treasury secretary get the luxury of paying no taxes. Don't forget news Corp who got a net gain through accounting tricks. This is all fostered by our super sweet government. This thing is bloated and inefficient. But the middle class pays 100% of the time but multinationals net zero . Corporations don't need to be milked and they should not have to support massive government. Dollars are spent by either government or privately. I want as many dollars spent by the private sector as possible. At some point the government size and debt hampers growth then it is an endless string of accounting tricks till the end. There is no will in Washington to be the guy who says no more bread and circius. That's why this thing is gonna fail. Classic feedback loop. It's not the debt ceiling, why does this number matter when our real obligations are multiples of it. They will kick the can or miss a few payments but a band aid is in the works. Untill they loose total controll, eventually there will be some sort of default. I think drastic changes could save us after the default but I have no reason to think the government will shrink itself. So how will we pay for an ever growing government , print money till the end. Japan zombie state is prob the best outcome, Argentina the worst.

7/15/2011 9:25:31 PM

Quote :

"1. Stop allowing corporations to defer taxes on overseas income"

Really, would the world really be a better place if our corporations went through the fiction of breaking themselves up into regional divisions? (Nintendo of America anyone?)

I say no. The change in the law would not raise any money, it would cause inefficiency and increased overhead for our corporations, and would further water down whatever control shareholders currently have over their companies. Lots of costs and no benefits.

Quote :

"2. Eliminate the tax deductions that are associated with the costs of moving offshore"

Odd rule. All costs are tax deductible, since we only tax corporate profits. We let corporations write off the cost of wrecking the environment, why is offshoring so different?

7/15/2011 11:19:56 PM