![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jonathan Cook" wrote in message m... ojunk (George Adams) wrote in message ... a lot of sensible stuff snipped It _will_ fail eventually, the only question is when. And I for one am starting to think sooner rather than later... Jon. I couldn't agree more.. When Teva sandles moved to Indonesia, Teva's averaged around 60 bucks a pair, and production costs at their Portland facility were something like $13,000 per hour**, a few years after the move, production costs had dropped to a couple of thousand an hour, and a pair of sandle put you back $79.95. ** its been a while since i actually looked at these numbers, so if I got it wrong somewhere, mea culpa. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Peter Charles
wrote: On 26 Feb 2004 15:29:27 -0800, (Jonathan Cook) wrote: (George Adams) wrote in message ... I agree. The horse is out of the barn, and we can't, (and maybe shouldn't), stop it, but we do need some way to buy time and develop a strategy for the Outsourcing is inherently an unsustainable mechanism. It only benefits those who use it first. A good question to ask oneself when deciding whether to do something or not is "what would happen if everyone did it?". [snip] Jon. snipped But is that always true? Is this something unique? Well, no it isn't. Ever since the Industrial Revolution started in England, social institutions have never kept pace with technological advancement. Structural unemployment is an artifact of this reality. Capital is extrermely mobile, production is very mobile, but labour is not. Capital changes very rapidly, production capability changes rapidly, but labour does not. Since those first few factories started up in England, labour has never kept pace with technology. More Petah's pertinent stuff snipped It's true, I understand the buggy whip and barrel stave making trades are expecting large layoffs. ![]() Since we evolved into a mfg society it's been a case of continual education and awareness of the viabiiity of ones trade to earn a living and to ensure you have a job in the mid and long term. Not saying it's the best way and not saying that formal or OJT education alone will save you but it seems to be reality. The other thing I note is folks seem to not want to move to find jobs. I was out hiking in the Patapsco forest with the dog last fall and ran into an older guy sitting on the bank tying a new leader. I stopped and exchanged pleasantries and he mined me for a bit of information about my home river (FF'ing content noted). He had just moved from Dallas and was in the large building construction industry business. He said the DC-Baltimore corridor was experiencing the highest rate of commercial building construction in the country yet he couldn't get workers to move here. I asked if it was a pay issue since this is a high cost of living area and he said they were paying union wages plus a 30% cost of living allowance and even still they were about 50% manned on the three sites he was a foreman for. Maybe since I grew up in Chicago, moved to Indianpolis in HS, Lived in Pensacola for flight school, then Washington state and then Marlyland I've learned that each part of this country (and our friends to the north Peter!) have something to offer that's worth seeing so if the jobs worth doing or it's what has to be done to earn a living I'd be willing to relocate. Allen Catonsville, MD (for now) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Peter Charles" wrote: But is that always true? Is this something unique? Well, no it isn't. Ever since the Industrial Revolution started in England, social institutions have never kept pace with technological advancement. Structural unemployment is an artifact of this reality. Capital is extremely mobile, production is very mobile, but labor is not. Capital changes very rapidly, production capability changes rapidly, but labour does not. Since those first few factories started up in England, labour has never kept pace with technology. RDL's comments in a previous thread are symptomatic of the arrogant blindness that prevents many Americans from understanding just how dependent the maintenance of their well being depends on other nations. Protectionism in the US has always been bolstered by the notion that America can go it alone. Britannia" in gratitude. Globalization is probably the grandest experiment in human history. So please do remember to fasten your seat belts as the ride will be a little rough. Peter IJ offers----good stuff peter - I'm currently enjoying a course at our local college on global economic history and have been amazed to learn more about Britannia's end of empire in U.S., Africa, and India. I think empire U.S. will more likely follow the example of the Ottoman Empire--it just went bankrupt. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Peter Charles wrote in message . ..
Is it all bad? Of course not, for the top 10% or so (of which I am one, I guess). We still need the 90% to serve us meals, fix our car, do our yardwork, and be our ghillie on the river (OBROFF). Structural unemployment is an artifact of this reality. That's nice and sanitized, but _people_ are having to live it. Modern economies are very resilient and Ontario turned around so much so that, by the end of the decade, it was roaring along For the top 10% or for everyone? ... Consequently, much of our public infrastructure is eroding. But, we're doing OK. We do have a growing disparity in wages as the working poor contiue to decline Sounds like you're heading towards feudalization as fast as we are... laugh when I hear the righties wail about the need for protectionism because it's such a lefty thing to do. IMO it's populist, not right or left. that were developed in American, by America, for the benefit of America. This game is being played out according to your rules so it still works out in your favour more often than not. Oh, I know. It makes it easier to delude the 90% (of Americans) that they're not heading towards serfdom because the effects aren't seen by them as quickly. Jon. PS: Actually, I don't begrudge other countries wanting to provide more and better jobs for their people -- 90% of the gradute students who have worked with me are foreign, and are great people. But as you say, the global trade rules don't really help them either -- just treats them as more serfs. I understand the world that technology, communication, transportation, and all that makes, and no, I don't have any answers. I just think it's plain as day that the ROFFians my age (quickly heading towards 40) and under better start thinking about how they might plan for some _serious_ societal upheaval. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 27 Feb 2004 05:44:35 -0800, (Jonathan Cook)
wrote: Peter Charles wrote in message . .. Is it all bad? Of course not, for the top 10% or so (of which I am one, I guess). We still need the 90% to serve us meals, fix our car, do our yardwork, and be our ghillie on the river (OBROFF). Structural unemployment is an artifact of this reality. That's nice and sanitized, but _people_ are having to live it. Modern economies are very resilient and Ontario turned around so much so that, by the end of the decade, it was roaring along For the top 10% or for everyone? ... Consequently, much of our public infrastructure is eroding. But, we're doing OK. We do have a growing disparity in wages as the working poor contiue to decline Sounds like you're heading towards feudalization as fast as we are... laugh when I hear the righties wail about the need for protectionism because it's such a lefty thing to do. IMO it's populist, not right or left. that were developed in American, by America, for the benefit of America. This game is being played out according to your rules so it still works out in your favour more often than not. Oh, I know. It makes it easier to delude the 90% (of Americans) that they're not heading towards serfdom because the effects aren't seen by them as quickly. Jon. PS: Actually, I don't begrudge other countries wanting to provide more and better jobs for their people -- 90% of the gradute students who have worked with me are foreign, and are great people. But as you say, the global trade rules don't really help them either -- just treats them as more serfs. I understand the world that technology, communication, transportation, and all that makes, and no, I don't have any answers. I just think it's plain as day that the ROFFians my age (quickly heading towards 40) and under better start thinking about how they might plan for some _serious_ societal upheaval. You mistake me for someone who believes the neo-con rational. I don't. I believe in the power of the neo-con approach to globalize the US economy and to produce enormous amounts of wealth. I have absolutely no confidence that the neo-con approach is capoable of distributing it in any sort of equitable fashion. When I use the word "equitable", it will likely strike one of two chords. The neo-con (BTW, can we use the proper term here -- "Neo-liberal"? The neo-con ideology is actually a return to classic Liberalism.) considers "equitable" to be the accumulation of wealth by anyone who "earns" it. The Socialist postion would consider "equitable" to mean that the government redistributes the wealth to the poor. The Neo-liberal approach results in three classes, a super wealthy class, a professional cadre who provide essential knowlege and skill serives to the super wealthy, and a vast under class of desparately poor. The Socialist approach, if talken to the extreme, results in everyone being poor, but not to extent of the desparate state of the Neo-liberal under-class. The sucess of the liberal-deomcratic state, has been to balance these two extremes into a reasonable third way. However, with the decline of the relative power of the nation state vs. the corporate sector, the balance has been shifted. To illustrate this point, 50 of the top 100 economies in the world are trans-national corporations. 350 corporations control 50% of the world's trade. As the US leads the world in this regard, what passes for US policy influences the rest. Canada, for example, cannot forge an independent economic policy as the immense economic power of the US overwhelms any attempt at independence. This is the primary reason why the Canadian health care system is under such pressure. Unless we can restore some balance, expect the drift toward the Neo-liberal ideal to continue. And with that drift, expect more wars and more Osama bin Ladens to emerge, for the under-class never wants to go away quietly. Unfortunately, the redress of this balance can only be achieved through serious US electoral finance reform and that doesn't appear to be anywhere on the horizon anytime soon. Peter turn mailhot into hotmail to reply Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Canada, for example, cannot forge an independent economic policy as
the immense economic power of the US overwhelms any attempt at independence. This is the primary reason why the Canadian health care system is under such pressure. BRBR Peter Charles BRBR Missed the connection on how that occurs. Not arguing, just trying to understand the specific connection. Thanks. GKT |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ArnSaga wrote:
Canada, for example, cannot forge an independent economic policy as the immense economic power of the US overwhelms any attempt at independence. This is the primary reason why the Canadian health care system is under such pressure. BRBR Peter Charles BRBR Missed the connection on how that occurs. Not arguing, just trying to understand the specific connection. Thanks. Canadians have a tendency to blame all their problems on the US. This is the first time, however, I've heard a Canadian blaming the looming failure of their health care system on the US. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:39:28 -0700, rw
wrote: ArnSaga wrote: Canada, for example, cannot forge an independent economic policy as the immense economic power of the US overwhelms any attempt at independence. This is the primary reason why the Canadian health care system is under such pressure. BRBR Peter Charles BRBR Missed the connection on how that occurs. Not arguing, just trying to understand the specific connection. Thanks. Canadians have a tendency to blame all their problems on the US. This is the first time, however, I've heard a Canadian blaming the looming failure of their health care system on the US. Not true, we blame almost everything on ourselves. The Canadian pysche tends to be neurotic and lacking in self-confidence. The US example is usually trotted out as the saviour, not the cause. You should read the Toronto Sun newspaper -- it loves everything US and can't wait to replicate it in Canada. Peter turn mailhot into hotmail to reply Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Shiners, 23 inch bass, gator and bird off dock | Dale Coleman | Bass Fishing | 6 | May 24th, 2004 08:34 PM |
Food for long hikes (Lapland clave) | Roger Ohlund | Fly Fishing | 13 | December 24th, 2003 02:42 PM |
Fish much smarter than we imagined | John | General Discussion | 14 | October 8th, 2003 10:39 PM |