Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights
The 1/2 dozen, or so, manufacturing plants that have been closed in the Omaha area. I don't need a bunch of economic mumbo-jumbo to support my claims. I see what I see. I see manufacturing plants closed, bulldozed, and Walmarts put up in their place. I suppose the economy's good...if you build Walmarts.
That's a highly adaptable factory worker. My hat's off to him. Most people, however, are not that adaptable. Some people are more suited to read a tapemeasure than a spreadsheet. Some people are more adept at selling a home than building one. People just aren't as adaptable as machines, that can be instantly retooled to produce a different run of parts.
|
My point is that people who adapt to changing labor conditions will be o.k. If a person does not have the skills for high paying jobs, there are opportunities for them to get those skills. I agree our economy is loosing manufacturing jobs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
ace, there's really no doubt about the situation in manufacturing. it is absurd to pretend otherwise.
|
I don't pretend otherwise. At one point the country lost a lot of good farm jobs. And you don't see to many black-smithing jobs either. Times change.
Quote:
|
i could present a mountain of data, but it seems to me so obvious that there's no point. such are the "efficiencies" produced by automation of supply chains for example. firms are inadvertently (and i mean that word because i am not trying to imply intent) good a not seeing the social consquences of exploiting such efficiencies. they dont figure in annual reports. they are not part of p&l.
|
Please present something. My theory is that the net affect has been a net gain of "high paying" jobs. But people have been making the opposite claim, it seems to me with no evidence.
Quote:
|
if you like capitalism, it makes no sense to duplicate this blindness when you think about such consequences--head in the sand does not good. they exist whether you, ace or i or anyone else prefers to look at them or not. and much in the way of official stats duplicate the problem: since the reagan period, the us has dealt with structural unemployment by not counting it.
|
Do you know anyone unemployed since the 80's? Why did they stay unemployed? whos fault is it?
Quote:
you know this as well as i do. let's stop pretending otherwise. so if you like capitalism--which you clearly do--it makes sense--it is in your self-interest--to think about unintended consequences. and to address them. nothing changes about the system itself, you can still cheerlead for it all you want--all that would change is that your view would become coherent. more coherent. no magic, no reason to expect any.
there are two basic options. either state planning of economic activity in certain sectors, or actions on the order of microcredit, base communities etc. --both are geared around generating economic activity (or social coherence, take your pick in this case--since the idea that economic relatinons are not also social relations is absurd, there's no point in seeing a separation. and dont argue this point. you cant do it.) but are simply different wasy of proceeding. each has advantages and disadvantages. but the point would be the same either way--there is a requirement---an absolute requirement--for capitalism to operate at all--AT ALL--that there be a minimal level of social cohesion, which can be manoevered ideologically (marxian terms--dont flip out) into support for the overall socio-economic and political order. if you ignore this requirement, you are screwed. and we will all go down burning sooner or later.
so it is a system requirement. no way around it. capitalism is not, in the end, one thing--but taken as a whole, it is not floating about the social order--it DEPENDS on that order. so it is in the interest of all sectors--public AND private--to pay attention to the social consequences of system transformations. the hallmark of neoliberal ideology--beyond all others--has been the enabling of the private sector to act as though it is not dependent on a minimal degree of social solidarity and political consent. and that--above all others--is why that ideology was, is and will be a disaster. you already see it in almost every country in the southern hemisphere that has been subjected to structural adjustment programs, which you can see as instruments the primary function of which has been to stave off internal debt crises by transferring them onto southern hemisphere countries. that period--the one in which this was workable--is almost over. even people like you will have to start thinking otherwise, or, like is said, we will all go down burning.
there is no argument about the requirement.
there is certainly room for debate about how best to address it.
but even you cannot pretend that the american system is still entirely functional. i dont see it as too late to change course--but it has to change course. if you dont like the state, for whatever reason, then think about other alternatives. look to non-state forms of economic growth generation at the local level in the southern hemisphere. the united states is not some beacon of progress such that it has nothing to learn from the south. it is hubris to imagine that it is.
there's alot to say on this--more to say than there is time.
i am not sure that i agree with the article bit in the op point for point, but in that it points to a FUNDAMENTAL series of problems, it is a fine thing.
but pretending there are no problems to be solved is simply putting your head in the sand.
|
There are problems in our economy. Our economy is dynamic and there are forces that lead to corrections and in some cases over-corrections causing other problems. The system is not perfect. What is the alternative and shy do you think it would work better?