What makes you think I don't have perspective, or can't put things into context? Or is this the part where you claim you could have rescued the US from the Dust Bowl, the Wall Street crash of 1929, and the Great Depression with.....wait, let me guess....private charity and church intervention? Just have enough soup lines, pencil and apple street sales, children begging for food, and suddenly everyone has boot straps?Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Hey Lewk,
didn't those 20 years really SUCK for a lot of the people who were crying in 1934? Didn't they really suck for large parts of your country? Just curious.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Maybe he's only read about people born in the late 1800's and has no clue what they considered hardship. All he can see is boom time through his rose-colored 21st century glasses.
Maybe he's fine with generations slipping backward, his children not being able to attain the same life-style they were raised in, and they definitely won't expect to do better than their father Lewk, will they.
After all, he's said the same thing about the working poor in America. How dare they complain about their lot in life, when they have electricity, septic sewers, running water from the faucet. Even poor people have a roof over their heads, a bed, clothes, food, microwave, fridge, maybe even a car too! If not, there's always a bus or train or something. Things they haven't worked for, or paid for. Damn ingrates.
Last edited by GGT; 06-06-2011 at 06:56 AM.
And just what are those unemployed people going to do to survive the next 20 years? And that might be an optimistic number, since so many companies seem to think sending jobs overseas or automating them is the best thing since sliced bread! Try to get some perspective! Your things will be fine in 20 years does not automatically equal people having jobs now.GGT isn't being panicky, IMO.
Oh yeah! The private charities and churches are in so much better shape than the rest of the country. They can keep feeding people indefinitely! Right!What makes you think I don't have perspective, or can't put things into context? Or is this the part where you claim you could have rescued the US from the Dust Bowl, the Wall Street crash of 1929, and the Great Depression with.....wait, let me guess....private charity and church intervention? Just have enough soup lines, pencil and apple street sales, children begging for food, and suddenly everyone has boot straps?
Too bad people are in such bad financial shape right now. Of course, it's all their fault for not saving enough to tide them over for 3 or 4 years! But if a company needs help, even if they fucked themselves up, the government should immediately help them...so they don't have to feel the hardship at the upper management levels! Company in the red? Lay off/fire a large amount of workers so the management doesn't have to take cuts in their bonuses!
Yeah, they really did. So many homeless and jobless. Looking back tho, it was a better time to be in that shape because the world was a simpler place. Those who could, helped out where they could. Even if it was only a hot meal that was given to someone! Shit, now people who can afford to help are scared to.
Yeah, those damned poor people who don't appreciate the dryer box they get to live in now! (Yes, I realize not all are in this position!) Of course, I am one of those damned ingrates! In the World According to Lewk, I should be shot at dawn, just because I am in a financial no-mans-land.Maybe he's only read about people born in the late 1800's and has no clue what they considered hardship. All he can see is boom time through his rose-colored 21st century glasses.
Maybe he's fine with generations slipping backward, his children not being able to attain the same life-style they were raised in, and they definitely won't expect to do better than their father Lewk, will they.
After all, he's said the same thing about the working poor in America. How dare they complain about their lot in life, when they have electricity, septic sewers, running water from the faucet. Even poor people have a roof over their heads, a bed, clothes, food, microwave, fridge, maybe even a car too! If not, there's always a bus or train or something. Things they haven't worked for, or paid for. Damn ingrates.
I don't have a problem with authority....I just don't like being told what to do!Remember, the toes you step on today may be attached to the ass you have to kiss tomorrow!RIP Fluffy! 01-07-09 I'm so sorry Fluffster! People who don't like cats were probably mice in an earlier life! My mind not only wanders, sometimes it leaves completely!The nice part about living in a small town: When you don't know what you're doing, someone else always does!
Atari bullshit refugee!!
The World According to Lewk has a scary sound to it, that's for sure.
I think perhaps this may be one of those cases where he misses the point someone tries to make (eg. "many people not having jobs for a long time is a bad thing" rather than "America will perish") and then later feels compelled to defend that mistake
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Perhaps. But you may also be too kind and forgiving because that's your nature.Lewk hasn't once admitted the Great Recession is anything more than a business cycle, a downturn, a regular old recession. Just another recession or downturn, no big deal really. Anyone who says so is panicking, crying wolf, or crying waaah. He uses that as criticism for stimulus spending, QE1, QE2, government panicking and doing things it shouldn't have. We should have just let things run its course, he says, and nothing bad would have happened.
That is completely not the point. My point is that GGT thinks jobs are permanently disappearing. That has *never* happened in the history of the world. Sure industries and certain job types disappear but new types of jobs always appear. Its the height of conceit to think that the era that we live in is fundamentally different then all the other eras before.
GGT is the jobs version of the rapture people.
Hope is the denial of reality
Perspective on 2011 compared to 1934, all other previous eras, or in The History of the World?I bet people in 1934 were thinking the same thing. And yet 20 years later it was boom time. Try to get some perspective. Three years recession/slow down in the economy should not = your panicky "where are the jobs... where are the jobs waaaah."
It's reality that more people than ever inhabit the planet, with ever-increasing life spans. We have better technology, productivity, quality of life and....expenses...in first world nations. It's a fact that developing nations are now the centers of "growth".
What's conceited is your American Exceptionalism ideology, that growth and jobs are just around the corner (would that be five, ten, or twenty years?), because it's always been that way. Good to know you're such an optimist about the US though, and you won't post future rants about our weak economy and unemployment being top priority in upcoming elections.
And longcat is long. Or what do you think the "developing" in developing means?
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
What do you think "center" means?And longcat is long. Or what do you think the "developing" in developing means?Maybe I should have said emerging economies have faster growth than developed nations.
Of course they have, it is totally natural that those that catch up have higher grow rates. And you should always consider the low base effect.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
I've never disputed that. Globalization is great for moving others into a better life, lifting all boats. That doesn't explain from where or when our next Sputnik moment will arrive, and how our jobs and employment issues will be resolved.
("Our" meaning the US, Canada and Europe.)
We (central Europe) currently don't have employment issues. And the Sputnik moment is actually to US specific that you can share it with us.
The main questions over here are more, how to get those countries on track that have structural problems already for decades. The question is maybe, do you want to be on top, or just well off. Because I think many here in Europe prefer to just live good lives, we had our times of Empires. /me waits for those who say that you can't have one without the other
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
You also pay higher taxes for national healthcare, better education, a degree of SSSocialism that means good lives for many. You're not spending billions on military/defense outside your own nations. You don't have millions of seniors living below poverty on SS, or problems with homlessness as we do. Our housing depression is worse than yours. The scale alone is part of our crises, 300 million people over huge land mass, 50 states to coordinate.
Yes, the US has big problems. It's frustrating when politicians and people (like Lewk) either wave it away as no big deal, or cite our historical Superpower status or American Exceptionalism as the reason good times will roll again soon.
(Sputnik moment....refers to the space race, innovation and competition.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_crisis Obama used the term in a speech.)
I know what the Sputnik moment is - thank you very much - but I believe most people here think it was something only between the US and the USSR.
I think our southern friends are currently working hard enough to make sure we aren't running out of problems over here.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Sorry, I thought you were asking what Sputnik meant, now I see you meant "too" US specific.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/a...articleid=2795
When Will Happy Days Be Here Again?
The most secure workers, Blume says, will be those with jobs that cannot be exported. That will include unskilled jobs like mowing lawns, as well as highly skilled jobs that must be done locally or for which foreign workers are not equipped. But any job that can be done just as well overseas will be threatened, according to Blume. Gradually, that will include jobs like editing, analyzing x-rays, preparing financial reports, even performing legal services -- anything that can be done remotely with a computer and Internet link. Offshore call centers are just the beginning. Many U.S. workers will simply not be prepared to compete in this environment, causing the unemployment rate to rise, Blume predicts.
"It's not just the lowest-paid people who will have these problems," he says. Currently, Blume notes, surgeons have to be in the operating room, but that may not always be the case. "Ultimately, there has to be an equalization of wage rates for occupations of the same skills across the globe."
Zandi agrees that the "normal" unemployment will probably rise. "Before the recession, it was 5%. Post-recession, it's probably going to be closer to 6%." Other economists think it could be higher.
*Three scenarios for the future:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/...s-most-likely/A new report from the McKinsey Global Institute estimates that the U.S. needs to add 21 million jobs to by 2020 to reach pre-recession unemployment of about 5%. The report sketches out one scenario for how the U.S. will get there — and two others for how it won’t.
The U.S. is still down about seven million jobs from December 2007, when the recession officially began. Adding that to projected work force growth is how McKinsey gets to 21 million. The three scenarios have the economy adding 9.3 million jobs, 17.4 million jobs and 22.5 million jobs.
Last edited by GGT; 06-10-2011 at 02:15 PM.
No big deal? The US has huge debt problems. It has huge deficit problems. It has huge over regulation problems. Those are a HUGE deal.
Yes, the US has big problems. It's frustrating when politicians and people (like Lewk) either wave it away as no big deal, or cite our historical Superpower status or American Exceptionalism as the reason good times will roll again soon.
Jobs will come when the government stops killing them. Jobs will come when innovators are allowed to innovate. Jobs will come when business in America doesn't have to worry about being sued for not putting "HOT" on coffee cups!
To be brutally honest, we're competing on a global scale thanks to modern innovations, and jobs worth having, as in, those jobs that pay a wage capable of living off of, not those that simply delay inevitable poverty, will only come when either reforms happen in other countries where we outsource our work to, or American companies decide to display a bit of altruism and use American laborers instead of outsourced workers. More jobs will also be created when fear of this recession also lightens more.
However I doubt, highly, that your reasons for why there aren't enough jobs are legitimate. I doubt the government is fully to blame for near 10% unemployment, I doubt that innovators are not allowed to innovate (whats stopping them, and what indication do you have, other than soundbites, that there innovation is being held back?), and I also doubt that 10% unemployment can be explained by businesses being afraid of being sued.
. . .
When they count 10% unemployment, is that above and beyond or including natural unemployment?
Secondly, I think outsourcing is natural and shouldn't be fought but rather adapted to.
I don't think the government is the cause of 10% unemployment. Maybe about 3-4 percentage points.To be brutally honest, we're competing on a global scale thanks to modern innovations, and jobs worth having, as in, those jobs that pay a wage capable of living off of, not those that simply delay inevitable poverty, will only come when either reforms happen in other countries where we outsource our work to, or American companies decide to display a bit of altruism and use American laborers instead of outsourced workers. More jobs will also be created when fear of this recession also lightens more.
However I doubt, highly, that your reasons for why there aren't enough jobs are legitimate. I doubt the government is fully to blame for near 10% unemployment, I doubt that innovators are not allowed to innovate (whats stopping them, and what indication do you have, other than soundbites, that there innovation is being held back?), and I also doubt that 10% unemployment can be explained by businesses being afraid of being sued.
I have to ask how you feel causation works simply because of the following scenarios you've presented us with in the past:
1) The Government enacts Law A, that punishes a Corporation if it fails to follow Law A. To avoid being punished by Law A, the Corporation cuts its workforce by half . You state its the fault of The Government's that those people were laid off.
2) The Government enacts Law B, that harshly punishes Criminals for theft. To avoid being punished by Law B, the criminals instead murder the people they steal from in hopes of not being caught. You state its the fault of The Criminals that those people were murdered.
So we have two scenarios where because of something The Government does, the affected party does what they feel is in their best interest to avoid punishment, which negatively affects other people. However you treat who is responsible for that harm differently depending on whom The Government is punishing for breaking its rules. So is it that corporations are simply more favorable to you than criminals that cause this difference of opinion?
. . .
Proving A is far easier than proving B. There's also the fact that there's absolutely no evidence for B.
Hope is the denial of reality
Perhaps the illegality helps.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No, more like the fact that most people, even criminals, are incapable of killing others except in very narrow circumstances.
Hope is the denial of reality
I meant perhaps it helps lewk
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
More broadly, is it really unreasonable to blame the government for the consequences of its policies that were foreseen before the policies were implemented?
Hope is the denial of reality
Dunno 'bout blame, but it's reasonable to expect them to take responsibility for the outcomes of their actions. If the Swedish govt sacrifices employment for ridiculously low inflation I'd like them to own up and take charge of managing the consequences. If they don't take responsibility then there's no way to negotiate with them or to work with them to manage negative outcomes.
I think that, very often, the responsibility should be shared. Or don't corporations have the ability to accept somewhat smaller profit margins or somewhat smaller bonuses or somewhat more complicated operations?
Wrt lewk's double standards... actually, who knows how he thinks
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
In a given country, there is ultimately one government and many corporations. If a government doesn't implement policy X1, there are no immediate consequences. Usually, there aren't even electoral consequences as the government could have chosen related policy X2. Corporations compete against one another. A failure to maximize profits means giving an artificial advantage to adversaries, whether local or foreign, which means downsizing or bankruptcy in the future. That ends up hurting the very people you want corporations to help. Furthermore, all the incentives for corporate executives are to maximize short-term (and occasionally medium-term) profit. You're basically asking them to forego their personal interest and the interest of their corporation for some vague social goal. Meanwhile, politicians rarely have to adopt stupid policies. A given constituency is perfectly happy with numerous different policy proposals, and politicians can frequently rely on different constituencies to push their policies through (this is especially true at the national level). With that in mind, there's nothing unreasonable with blaming politicians for enacting stupid policies, while it's equally unreasonably to expect corporate executives to ignore every incentive they face and act for the good of anyone but themselves and their shareholders.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
