Can I ask where this idea that manufacturing jobs are the answer comes from? Yeah, I work in that area and in all honesty America still pretty much kicks ass at it, but nobody wants to do the work. If that's what success looks like, as you keep saying VI, can I ask why not enough people are interested? I was interviewing very recently, and the one question I got asked that they very much wanted a thoughtful answer to was, without fail, 'how are you going to keep people around?' I have no idea why people want to work for $5 less an hour less at an entry level fast food job, but people consistently choose service over manufacturing, for whatever reason, even when it has no advancement potential. If I was going to go back to entry level I would much rather work a line for better pay and benefits or operate a machine, but hardly anybody wants to do that shit. I have to ask, how is it the answer when we already have those jobs (union ones too if that is what you want) and people aren't taking it? It's the same thing with welding, being a plummer or whatever else. I have to ask, did the politicians really fuck us or is that a cultural problem?
I firmly believe that people should be able to earn a living if they work. What I mean, and toytoy covered it mostly, is that service industry jobs typically don't require a whole lot of training or skill. As such, pretty much everyone can do them (and no, I'm not making fun, I've been a waiter, bartender, dogwalker, landscaper). These type of jobs, historically speaking, have never been about earning a living. They have always been the purview of the very young and very old whom were seeking some augmentation of their lifestyle. Of course certain positions will require non high school workers. I have never said that ONLY high school students should work service industry. My whole point is, and remains, that upping the minimum wage isn't going to solve the fundamental problem in this country. And that fundamental problem is.... In a word, yes, manufacturing jobs are the answer. Why? Look around where you are right now. You'll see lamps, computers, books, bookshelves, cooking utensils, a phone, in other words...things. The problem with basing an economy on service is that you don't produce 'things' - and the problem becomes really prevalent during tough times. Why? Because people can walk their own dog, cook their own food, and pour their own drinks. Hence, the low skill nature of those jobs. But at the end of the day, you will need to purchase certain 'things' - and someone somewhere made that thing. But it wasn't us. Manufacturing jobs tend to require a skill, and you used to be taught that skill on the job. Also, unions tended to be prevalent in those areas, which brings me to the neoconservative policy we've been living under for 40 years: Globalization and free trade is good for America. It isn't. Why? Because there's no way we can compete with labor costs. Why? Because it's more expensive to live here. Why? Because we have things like clean water (usually) and air (mostly). And we have a system that requires employers provide a safe work place. And that they pay a decent wage. What neoconservatives will tell you is 'just get rid of environmental regulations, taxes, and OSHA and we'll be just as competitive.' Not true. Do you like having clean water? Ask the folks in Flint, or West Virginia how lovely that can be. You want to run around wearing a mask to breath? Ask the Chinese how much pollution kicks ass. You want to live in a society with no safety net? That sounds great. But here's the thing, we've done all that. And as a society, we found there was a better way for everyone. Yes, that way tends to be more expensive, but in the end, we chose to provide a better environment not only to workers, but to everyone in general. That's what a successful society does. This 'every man for himself' bullshit was great when Hobbes outlined it, but if you weren't already rich and powerful, then it got really hairy really quick. The education solution is no solution. As I posted earlier, you need to decide if we're educating people for the sake of education (and providing a better democracy) or whether it's job training. Requiring that people go into debt on average of 30K just to get a degree and then go get a service job (which they didn't need a degree in the first place) is insane and does not work. There is evidence all around you showing that to be the case. As to 'Americans don't want to work.' Bullshit. I posted a link earlier that shows Americans are among the most, if not THE most, productive workers in the first world. This is one of the many lies you are being fed by the neoconservative movement that seeks to avoid blame for the condition of the country resulting from policies that patently rewarded the rich while hurting lower and middle class folks. It's divide and conquer. The more time we spend looking at mexicans as the problem, the less time we look at the ultra wealthy and the politicians who service their every desire.
If anyone's interested, here's a live stream of Democracy Spring, billed as the largest civil disobedience action in decades, they plan on marching from Philly to DC. They seem to have fallen a bit short of their goal. I've seen larger turnouts for dog catcher elections. http://www.democracyspring.org/
In all seriousness a lot of them just quit because they want to go on welfare or unemployment. You kind of dodged my question. I agree that American businesses are among the most productive, but again, if manufacturing jobs are the answer why is it we can't fill the manufacturing jobs we already have? Most Americans want to work. Some of them do not. As I've said before in this thread, if all these 'so discouraged' assholes just wanted work they would already have it. And about half of the manufacturing jobs require little to no skill. Of course the idea should be to move up to a skilled position, but there's plenty available that anybody off the street could easily just walk in and do within a week of training.
I'm not sure what you think I'm dodging. Manufacturing goods is better than providing services because people need things and don't necessarily need services if they can do it themselves. This isn't really that debatable a concept, as pretty much every first world country tries to compete for and protect their manufacturing base jobs. The reason they do this is historically and economically speaking, they are better jobs not only for the country in general, but for the population. Service jobs fulfill an important role, but typically, they augment manufacturing bases, not replace them.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-minimum-wage/ This is a bit outdated, but only 24% of minimum wage employees are teenagers....which means, the vast majority of these people are adults, and adults need a living wage. Also, the majority of them are women...funny how the minimum wage job models like McDonald's started popping up around the time women entered the workforce en masse, isn't it? Your stereotypical minimum wage employee might be a high school student, but that's largely bullshit nowadays. The most common minimum wage employee is a young, single mother. Now, what group consumes more public services than any other? Young, single mothers. What group would society most benefit from paying a Goddamned living wage? Young, single mothers. I do think it's interesting that men either enter the workforce at a higher wage (in jobs like construction, for example) or sit it out in army, college or unemployment. I would interpret that to suggest that your average minimum wage female employee is more or less forced to work (can't afford to sit it out in college or military, etc) or doesn't particularly give a shit about making minimum wage. This makes sense because in the South (where you are more likely to earn minimum wage), there's not a real cultural value of independence in women the way there is with men. So, a woman can accept support from Mom and Dad longer and the minimum wage job is a stipend whereas the guys have higher aspirations of independence and must either earn more or find a way to enter the workforce with higher skills. You could also argue that in a service economy, women are more acceptable hires than men, because it's been established we'd rather buy shit and deal with women than men. This is why Siri's voice is a woman, for example, or why women have a wage advantage in jobs that rely on tips. I have to say, fuck the thinking that these jobs were never meant to sustain an adult. They are full time jobs, often by billion-dollar enterprises. They got by with what they were allowed to, and the market never corrected. You will note the anti-union theme running in Wal-Mart, for example. They KNOW they are exploiting people, and the moment that that practice is not allowed their model changes. Look at fast food employee wages in Europe or Australia, for example. VI you're missing a major point about manufacturing in this country: most if it is no longer done by hand, it's done by machine. The idea that organized labor in manufacturing is coming back is somewhat unrealistic, because there are more options for manufacturing now: local labor, outsourced (read: foreign) labor, and automated labor. Local labor is by far the most expensive option most of the time.
It might be, but I know they have the same problems in Missouri, North Carolina, and Wisconsin that they do in Minnesota. I don't know what Honda pays, but at the jobs I'm aware of it is generally very hard to get fired (unless you're me apparently) and it certainly isn't too demanding most of the time, in my opinion. I completely agree with you regards to what you are saying on the service vs manufacturing sector. My point was just that I'm not sure we can be very certain that people will take those manufacturing jobs based on what I've seen, although as Clutch just mentioned he has different experience in that area than I do. I do think some people don't want to take them because it's not glamorous work for the most part and they might feel they are above doing manual labor. Young single mothers would be the one area I would be in favor of giving more 'entitlements'. There is a surprising number of shit heads who knock a girl up and then promptly head for the hills.
http://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/articles/56febff0a1bb8d3c3495adf4/ http://interactive.fusion.net/dirty-little-secrets/index.html http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/panama-papers-money-hidden-offshore This is bigger than Wikileaks. Utterly breathtaking.
The massive dragnet that follows and the massive banking reforms and arrests that also come down with the leak will be something to............ Oh wait, jack-shit will happen other than a few underlings going to jail and then it'll be back to business as usual. The scope of the leak is massive and the above articles are great to read but ultimately I am not holding my breath for any real change.
I will believe it when I see it. In the meantime, the ride never stops: they throw the occasional fraudulent rich fuck in jail to keep the wolves at bay, rinse and repeat.
It IS exploding all over the place. They're calling for Iceland's PM to resign immediately. Why, it's almost three quarters as popular as the buzz over Wrestlemania. I'm not making that up. You think an insanely huge international scam would be front row centre but instead steel chairs connecting with skulls reigns supreme.
This is why: http://www.theguardian.com/world/vi...ut-of-interview-over-tax-haven-question-video To put this in perspective, it seems that over 100 journalistic entities have been working on this for over a year. They're releasing this en masse, I'm assuming, to prevent any single person from being whacked, or to have the source be squashed. Part of me wonders if one of these global billionaires isn't going to hire some fucking serious hit men to go after some retribution.
A couple of things to think about: it's only ONE company that has been exposed with the leak, and I have yet to see it really hit any of the mainstream media in the West yet, despite it having been all over the UK for the last 8 hours.
Is this not also nuts that this is a SINGLE law firm apparently? I mean, what the hell else could be out there? Tip of the iceberg? What a display of journalism. At a time where so many were losing faith in it.
Sure, but how the fuck are the American media outlets not reporting on this? In all seriousness, are they waiting for the political establishments to tell them what to do?
There's too much documentation for an individual to sort through, and I've only begun to read articles on this. Pakistan's Information Minister (their Prime Minister is implicated, having named his son and daughter as trustees in an offshore account), gave this quote to the press: And there's validity to that. I'm asking this from ignorance: what is inherently wrong with setting up an off-shore account? Aside from the appearance of seeming skeevy or suspicious. Is there proof that these accounts are in violation of any laws? Some articles have alluded to drugs and money laundering...is that because they can actually connect the dots, or because "that's what happens in offshore accounts"? Personally, if I had several hundred million dollars, I would do everything in my power to locate it where it benefitted me the most. If I'm not violating my country's law or the offshore laws, have I done anything wrong?
The problem is that it looks like a lot of the money was in the form of bribes and to do political favors. I mean, it's not like it's a secret that that happens, but taking it under the table makes it even worse and is very much illegal. I'm just starting to catch up on all of this stuff as well though.
This. When you see how many political leaders and people like FIFA officials are wrapped up in it, thats where the issue is. I have no problem with wealthy individuals parking funds in tax havens, thats just a personal feeling of mine. But when you see people like Putin or the politicians in Argentina controlling billions of dollars, then you know there is something up. Also, as for the US media not covering it, as far as I can tell, there have been no American's linked as of yet. Not an excuse, but likely a lesser priority.