Again, not having money and budgeting is a conscious choice.

You are kidding, right? People moved here from Europe with nothing a few generations ago. During Jim Crow in the South hundreds of thousands of families move North with nothing. During the depression people moved. Today millions cross our southern boarders with nothing, but a hope and a dream. You say Joe Blue Collar can't move from the "rust-belt" or some other dying town to where jobs are plentiful??? Please tell me you are kidding. If you are not kidding, are people really that lazy and short-sighted?

Pehaps your attitude could be called a classic conservative misunderstaning of reality. Despite whatever connotations you may apply, it is still reality. You can't have a job just because you want it. That's a ridiculous notion. The idea that single employees have much of any say in how they are compensated is ridiculous too. That's like saying that anyone can pay whatever price they want for something regardless of what's actually going on in the market.

You didn't really answer my question. How would you stop someone from screwing you if that someone is pretty much the only game in town in terms of employment opportunities and you have more at stake than your pride?

I agree there is shared responsiblity. Workers should do whatever is within their means to provide for their families...if that requires moving, advancing their skills or education, etc. And, in the meantime, taking whatever job is available, even if the working conditions are not the best.

BUT, companies have a responsiblity to abide by labor laws.

From Walmar's SEC filing last year:
Ace...you continue to suggest again and again that "most major employers have or have had these kinds of violations, even your employer" (as I said before, that is wrong). Yet you never identify any company that continues to violate state and federal labor laws with anywhere near the frequency that approaches Walmart's offenses. Your rationalization of Walmart's labor practices just doesnt pass the facts test.

And the notion that employees are filing these law suits to get rich? Divide $78 milllion by 180,000 workers in the class action suit in PA.

No, actually I wasnt kidding. Life happens.

I am glad life hasnt happened to you in that respect but life does happen to some people and you cant rent a moving van without money, you cant put a down payment or a deposit without money. You cant pay rent or a mortgage without money. You cant heat your home without money. If you dont have it you dont have it and you will do what you can with what you have.

I sincerely hope you guys never have to learn that the hard way.

For some people its eat or pay bills.

I worked for Mcdonalds in highschool and in college. There were wage and hour violation occuring everyday. I thought you work for the federal government - enough said if true. How many examples do you need? Do your own research, talk to someone at the department of labor since you are in Washington. Talk to people who work in the HR field. Do you really believe Walmart has a bigger proportional problem than others?

Perhaps, it the lawyers getting rich. I said employees filing lawsuits to get rich was an extreme view, just like I think employees are affraid of getting fired line is. I think Walmart is a target because of the Unions. If you have not notice Walmart has been at war against unionization for about 30 years. Isn't there a possibility that Unions are in part responsible for some of the activity against Walmart.

on the other hand, walmart practices are a very strong argument for the need for unions--perhaps not the types of unions that have been particular to the american model of capitalism--but there we are.

this thread seems to address my inner marxist and so let's indulge him:
a worker sells his labor power to capital in return for a wage.
because the worker sells his labor power--not his skill, but his ability to perform a repetitive task--and walmart (like macdo) is a very highly deskilled type of service sector work---because the worker is selling his labor power, it follows any worker who possesses labor power is interchangeable with any other. from the viewpoint of capital, this is a basic feature of labor markets in deskilled sectors.
now ace, you might not like the language, but you cannot get around the basic claim.

this means that there is a fundamental assymetry of power within wage relations--and in general terms, so long as workers remain isolated, that is so long as they interact with capital as individuals, they will always always loose. this was a primary motivation for the formation of unions in the first place: while it is the case that individual workers acting as individuals will always loose in conflicts with capital, the same situation does not obtain is workers organize themselves. acting collectively, workers can develop weapons that to some extent counters the advantage in power capital enjoys: in particular they can shut down the workplace--they can strike. by shutting down the workplace, they can endanger the existence of the enterprise--they threaten profits.

walmart's practices are only possible in a reactionary political context that views all worker organization as a threat. because, frankly, it IS a threat--but it is a threat that i think in general a good thing because it is the ONLY way in which the power relations that obtain between capital and workers can be meaningfully altered. walmart knows this. you, ace, know this: that is why (at one level or another) you act as though worker organization is anathema.

i think working people should develop new forms of collective organization.
i think they need to develop new forms of organization--because if they dont, they are well and truly fucked and will always be well and truly fucked. this is one of the structuring features of the game of capitalism, one of the few things that is as true about that game in 2006 as it was in 1848.

caveat: i am not endorsing the american trade union model--the sector-monopoly model--i dont know how anyone in their right mind can endorse that model, which has was developed because it reduced the political threat of union organization by depoliticizing them, but which resulted in the worst types of unions that capitalism has yet seen: organizations that reproduced internally most of the forms of domination that they were set up to counter.

there is a complex history behind this that i could run out but i am ot sure that it is worth the space at this point...this not meant as any disrespect to a reader, but rather it just take alot of time to write and probably even more to read. besides, there are tons of books about this. and books are better than messageboards for complex historical information.

so walmart and its ilk are among the strongest arguments i know of for unionization of some kind. they are running demonstrations of what happens to working people when they pretend to themselves that capital's interests and their interests are the same--they aren't. they never have been, and they never will be so long as the game of capitalism is in effect.

How many examples will do?

I would settle for just one.

I've asked you repeatedly to provide any evidence or facts (with sources) that support your contention that "most companies" violate labor laws in a similar manner and frequency as Walmart and you still havent.

You respond with anecdotes about McDonalds and the federal government (no, I dont work for the fed) but nothing to show that Walmart's labor practices are common.

Post something credible....like an annual report or a corporate SEC filing (similar to Walmart’s that identifies more than 50 court cases of FLSA violations), DOL rulings....ANYTHING!

I dont doubt that you believe Walmart's labor practices are not out of the ordinary, but it takes more to prove it than your assertion that "they occur every day".

I don't know about labor practices, nor am I informed about any local lawsuits against Walmart. But I have seen this - in Walmart, the elderly are employed, and I haven't seen that in Target, K-Mart, Sears, Home Depot, or any other localized outlets. And in suburban America, that is vitally important.

So in the desire to kick Wal-Mart, let's deal with their "hire the elderly" policy as well. They give jobs to those who need it, and in their later years. The elderly don't care about unions and the like, they just need a job that will provide for their financial needs. You can argue about labor and market practices, but at least, Wal-Mart hires the elderly.

Walmart has also been found guily of taking out "dead peasant" life insurance policies on their elderly employees in order to get a tax break in addition to naming the company as beneficiary instead of the relatives. The law has since been changed to prevent companies from getting tax breaks for these policies. Walmart now stands to lose $millions which it could have avoided if it had been ethical in the first place.
Its just another example of how Walmart exploits those who are most in need of a job - low skilled workers (many single mothers), elderly, illegal immigrants......

In '05 the DOL collected more than $166 million in back wages for 241 million employees. there were over 30,000 complaints registered.

In '05 the DOL collected more than $134 million for 219 million employees in minimum wage and overtime violations.

The industry with the largest amount of violations was not retail but resaurants.

One can safely assume that like most government enforcement agencies they can only catch a small percent of the violations in any given year. So the data represent just the tip of the iceburg.

Here is a link:

http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/statistics/200531.htm

Do you want your crow baked or fried?

Ace....your numbers are impressive, but you still havent respond to the issue I raised. Your stats provide a total picture, but do not identify employers.

I've no doubt and never did that labor violations exist well beyond Walmart. What I asked you to provide is any example of MULTIPLE REPEAT OFFENDERS among other retailers or large businesses comparable to Walmart.

Put the crow on a slow burner for now.

Please don't misunderstand my position. I have nothing against unions and I recognize the purpose they serve in centralizing power for low skilled workers. I simply support the workers right to make a choice. The worker should be free to work in a union shop and belong to the union, work in a union shop and not belong to the union, or work for a non-union shop. I think employers should have the right to deal with unions or not. If unions truely provide a benefit, the union would not have to force itself on unwilling employees. And people belonging to unions have the right to support union shops and not support non-union shops. If there is an economic cost of a shop being non-union, that shop would welcome unions. The real question comes down to - where is value being added?




I think Walmart is over-reacting to the union issue. But I do understand their concern. Unions have ultimately hurt the US automotive industry.

The power relations between capital and workers can be altered in many ways that do not include Unions. One is when the workers buy into the capital. When employees have a vested interest in the long-term success of an organization - it forms a win-win situation (ther have been some exceptions but the exceptions are rare and mostly due to criminal behavior)

They can get f*cked by their unions too. When to much power is given to too few, you have the receipe for problems. I think the answer is that each individual take personal ownership of what they offer the market place. They should not rely on "big brother", "big business", or "big unions".

Walmart has another issue to deal with:

The American Family Association is up in arms that Walmart is "in an alliance with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce" ...and "has called on Christian consumers to spend their dollars elsewhere as a sign of their displeasure with Wal-Mart's pro-homosexual leanings..."

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/242006c.asp

I gave anecdotal evidence. I gave evidence of labor law violations from one of your employers, the federal government. I gave general statisical evidence. And it still not good enough. The reason I said do your own reasearch is because no matter what I present to you, it will be "wrong, wrong, wrong...".

You want me to prove that it is raining when that fact is obvious. How about we move on and spend time discussing more intelectually interesting concepts...please...please with sugar...please

Ace....my point is that your stats are in the aggregate.....for all you or I know, those thousands of labor violations identified in the retail sector could be mostly from Walmart employees.

But lets move on :)

Ah but the difference between all your examples of the past and today is that people today carry their credit ratings with them wherever they go.

I know people who worked at Hoover and Timken. They were/are hard workers and good people. They bought houses, carried mortgages they were never late on, bought cars, saved for their kids' college, paid good taxes to the communities, state and feds, kept alive little mom and pop shops, etc.

Now, you take away their jobs, leave them with jobs that pay less than half of what they were making, they still have those loans, they still have to pay those same property taxes, they still have to find ways to pay for their kids' college..... and it's all their fault??????

The housing market prices are taking a dump, so they can't even get what they owe on the house to pay the mortgage down, they can't pay their mortgage and live on what they now make..... but it's their fault?

How the Hell can they move when no matter where they go their credit rating follows them, doesn't show how great a worker they were, just shows they were deliquent on loans, couldn't pay their mortgages, etc..... their credit basically shows these hard workers to be deadbeats, and if they do move to a place where there are jobs, who is going to hire a 40 year old who has bad credit, when they can hire a 20 year old for less?

So you are out of touch with reality. You want to come and see for yourself what is going on here, tell these hard working, proud people that they can just up and move to a better area and things will be ok?

Every week the Akron Beacon Journal has in it's classifieds the legal notices of foreclosure auctions..... last week there were 7 full pages.

Who in turn pays for these foreclosures, the bad loans from these "deadbeats"?

We all do in higher interest rates, taxes, etc.

Who pays for these mom and pop shops closing because there are not enough good paying jobbed customers to shop there? We all do in the long run because it leaves cheap box stores that import 75% of their goods, but then when they can't make profits they leave also.

Who pays the taxes these people no longer can pay? We all do, those of us who have jobs pay more, because the burden is more. Those of us who own property, pay more because we have to make up for the losses.

I can't believe the only answer coming from intelligent people who buy into the bullshit the neo-cons feed them is to tell people to move.

Move where?

Didn't think so

People don't always have to move. Another option is to learn new marketable skills. There are other options. It seems that the main point is missed - people don't have to be victims of circumstance.

Is this from the same guy who said this (how quickly he changes his tune and redefines "the point" of the debate :thumbsup: )??????



Ok, we'll take that you truly meant the top and the first was just an emotional response given way back when......

So the people I described from Hoover, Timken and so on... that have mortgages they cannot afford, houses that they can't sell and tax liens on their houses are supposed to find a way to get money to go to school to learn a new trade that will still pay them what? And exactly when are they going to find the time to go to classes when they have to work 2 jobs to try to keep food on the table?

Victims of circumstances????? :lol: what are they supposed to do?

What are the communities that lose that tax base supposed to do for the schools, police, safety departments?

Like I said, why don't you come here and tell these hard workers who have had their lives destroyed that they are wimps?

Tell them that losing their jobs, not being able to honor their debts thus watching their credit ratings plummet, making 1/3 of what they used to because that's all the jobs around here pay, that they are crybabies and being victims, that it's easy to get a job that will pay you enough to have some pride, stand tall, be able to pay that debt and keep your family fed....

Tell those people here that...... see how well they buy into your side.

Props on making it all the laid off workers fault and not addressing anything I said. :thumbsup:

My father is a retired machine operator, he worke at Caterpillar for 35 years. My uncle worked at US steel before his job was eleminated. My first job out of college was with Caterpillar, I got laid off and never received an offer to return. At one time I had a union card while I had a summer job with them (I had to pay dues eventhough I knew I was going back to school and I could have used the extra money for school) I grew up in the "rust belt". I saw first hand what happens to a community when good jobs with good wages and benefits leave.

In my experience there were two ways people responded. The way you describe their plight were people sit around feeling sorry for themselves, and the way I describe opportunity and they way I have seen people respond to a bad situation.

I don't get your point.

What oppurtunity are you describing man, besides blaming the workers for losing their jobs and benefits and having to work 2 p/t jobs with no benefits trying to make ends meet.

Tell the people that are working those 2 jobs and doing all they can to try to make it that they are feeling sorry for themselves and should move to where the jobs are, or go to school.

Seriously Ace, your not showing anything except to blame the worker for everything.

I am not sure what the problem is. Either I am not communicating clearly or you are not able to objectively understand what I write.

I have never blamed any worker for the loss of jobs. However, the loss of jobs happens.
I agree that the loss of good jobs is devistating to people and communities.
I also have the view that "big business" doesn't care and has no responsiblity to take care of me and my family if my job is eleminated. I do support short-term legal obligations like COBRA, unemployment compensation, etc.
Given my view - if an employee gets complacent and starts to believe the corporate propaganda ("we are a family" "we care about our employees", "our employees are our #1 asset", etc, etc.) it is a mistake. A big mistake.
Given that I believe it is the responsibility of every working person to take a proactive role in their future and the security of their family.

How do we do that???

Savings
Education
Training
Owning assets
Living below our means
Networking
"Realize it is never too late to take control" - Zig Ziggler
Reading company financials
and
being prepared to move if needed.


You seem to disagree with me. I don't understand why.

I am going to ask my wife (much more liberal and compasionate than I) to read what we have written on this subject to see if I have not been clear. Perhaps you can have someone do the same - and we can come back compare notes.

Ace...do you know anyone living on the edge of poverty on the proceeds of a low paying job and perhaps AFDC support?

Savings - in place of putting food on the table or paying rent?
Education/training - either give up their low paying job or maybe night school (but then they would have to use their "savings" for additional child care)
Owning assets - the basic necessities come first
Living below our means - the only thing lower is homelessness

We can debate how they got to this point, but the fact is that there are millions of Americans facing this every day.

Just jumping in for a bit here...

I agree. NCB, I study migration for a living, and I can tell you right now that it's not the poorest of the poor who immigrate... not from Europe 80 years ago, and not from Mexico right now. The poorest of the poor CANNOT AFFORD to move, period. They simply lack the financial capital to pick up and go that far.

The only other option for the poorest of the poor to move is if they have some kind of social capital... networks, basically, that will enable them somehow to move to other places where they might know someone, and who can give them a loan for a while until they get on their feet. Even social capital, though, is worth something... and a lot of people don't even have that. And for them, their options ARE limited.

Choice is not equally accessible for all humans on this earth; it is very unequally distributed, and persists over generations. Structural conditions impose limits on EVERYone, especially so on those who lack access to financial and social capital.

I was raised in a community surrounded by people in poverty. I have relatives who are currently in poverty. I was the first in my family to attend college. Before my mother died her only source of income was social security (and me). My sister had her first baby before getting out of highschool. I know a lady with 5 children, not married, working and going to school.

What is your point?

I know what can be done. I have seen it done.

Perhaps a better question is - do you know anyone on the edge of poverty?

If you do - what have they done to secure a better future? I want to know. Have you ever helped them? Have you ever talked to them? Why are they on the edge of poverty?

I am begining to think you guys are just being disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable.

People in the USA are not the "poorest of the poor" are they?

True. However, the refuges of Darfur have figured out a way to move without much help from the rest of the world. They are the poorest of the poor. Please elaborate on your position given the above

I applaud you and your family for what you have achieved, but I would like to hear what your wife says first about your "solutions" to see if she is just as "disagreeable" :)

I am not going to get into what I have done personally to help those in need. That is between me and them.

I think we need to parse this out more because I am in agreement with Ace here. I too share a similar "pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps-mentality" and experience. I lived in poverty and it sounds like Ace has too. Maybe we (all of us here) are oversimplifying the poverty aspect or something. The response above seems to indicate extreme poverty. I also accept that having children changes the dynamic as well.

I don't have alot of sources or references to go by, mostly my own experience, anecdotal, and observational.

But, we all have choices and make choices. Sound financial planning and budgeting is the first step. Smart consumer choices is another example. There are plenty of resources available to assist those that need it. Financial aid for education is quite generous. I knew alot of people on welfare growing up who lived better than me.

I worked 3 jobs to pay my way through community college before I discovered the joys of financial aid. Nothing glamorous: the video store, a pizza place, Starbucks...

I sacrificed and deferred gratification for years (still am). I budgeted accordingly, clipped coupons, made all my meals at home, found cheap housing and took public transportation. I never bought a PS2, had cable TV or even nice clothes. I had my friend cut my hair and I read books at the library for my entertainment. I used the schools computers for homework etc. I lived below my means.

Slowly but surely, I made it. I bought a computer with my first financial aid check. I continued good financial planning and saved every quarter. I quit smoking too. I only spent what I could afford. I am from the east coast, a high school drop out. I eventually got my GED and ended up on the West coast looking for better opportunities.

First you stated this:


I find that rather accusatory of the workers that have suffered layoffs and job losses. Maybe you don't, but I see a lot wrong in that statement and I pointed it out.


Instead of debating anything I said in reply to that, you then posted this more self-righteous bs:

When I rebutted to that again you didn't offer true solutions you replied this way:



Now then, somewhere along the line you must have missed where I stated these people that have lost their jobs cannot afford their mortgages, nor can they sell their houses to just pay off the mortgage. You seem to miss the point where I stated that the ABJ has had 7 pages of foreclosures in their legals.

Yet you still believe that these workers should save, save what? Get education, how are they going to afford that, Ohio has the 4th highest state college tuitions, if you have a tax lien on your house or owe taxes in any form you cannot get financial aid for college, and yet these people are supposed to get educated somehow.

Owning assets.... :lol: they've had to sell what they could to pay the mortgages. All of these people lost their medical too, some of them need meds, you have to pay out of your own pocket for COBRA, since they can barely afford to live they can't do that, nor can they get the meds they need...... guess who pays? The taxpayers.... guess who that is the rich because noone else can. (Hence more burden on the rich.)

Live below their means? what do you think they were doing when the past 3 contracts came up and each time they took pay cuts and lower insurance benefits. They were struggling trying to make it when they had jobs. How much lower did they need to live?

Networking.... with who?

Take control of what? They have shit for credit, they have lost everything and you tell them it is their fault and they need to just buck up? How? You need decent credit to do anything and these people's credits are about toast.

Company financials? Again, for Hoover and especially Timken the financials were not bad and did not demonstrate the need to close these plants.

Prepared to move again is your answer...... how? Again, they have houses they cannot sell just to break even on the mortgages.... where are they going to move have money for an apartment, have money to move at all, for that matter, have money to live on while they find a job and again, what kind of job are they going to get when they are in their 30's, 40's and 50's have families to support and have shitty credit?

And how do you tell a man that he can no longer make enough to take care of his family?


Big business doesn't care...it's a cold world, every man for himself... blah blah blah ..... meanwhile the CEO's make more in 1 day than the average worker does in a year, and that's ok.... if anyone like myself has issues with it, then it's class envy. :thumbsup: Great excuse for not having to face societial demands and responsibilities.


That's a good idea and I would appreciate any TFP'ers opinions on this. Perhaps I am missing something, but truly all I see coming from you is it is the worker's responsibility and tough shit if they weren't prepared.

You were young, didn't have a mortgage or family to feed, try doing it in your 30's or 40's when you have a family, mortgage and you can't pay for them and your credit turns to shit.

Ace.....This is where you really lost me. Surely you are aware that "poor" is relative to one's living and working environment.

A comparison to the poor of Darfur? Sure some "refugees in Dafur figured out a way to move." Packed in refugee camps in near starvation conditions beats being slaughtered.

The part that is accusatory is when a person fails to respond to a bad circumstance. Being in a bad situations is one thing, failure to do something about it when able is something else. We make mistakes, we "fall off the horse" occasitionally - I say dust yourself off and get back on, live and learn, move forward, make the most of what you have, have a positive outlook. What are you saying?


A home forclosure is a terrible thing. After my parents divorced when I was a kid the house we lived in was forclosed. We moved into a less expensive home and rented. I know other people who had to move. They did it too. I guess that is more BS., but I am sorry. Like I said - I know what can be done and I have seen it done.

I have seen people on welfare save during the year, so they could have something special for their kids during the holidays. I have seen people "game" the system so they could get on their feet. I have seen parents send their kids to relatives until they could find a place to live, a job and save some money. Again all BS, right? Your BS doesn't fly with me because I am not a conservative who was born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I been there and it is still a part of me, and I still see it when I go home to visit friends and relatives.

Think about this. My mother smoked until she died. If she had purchased shares of Phillip Morris rather than their cigaretts over the years she would have died with several million dollars worth of Phillip Morris stock and would have had a couple of hundred dollars in dividend income every year. Don't take my word for it - go to their website - they have historical quotes and you can calculate the current value of hypatheical investments in the stock - MO.
I remenber when I was 10, I suggested that she stop and save the money. she didn't like my tone (suprise), slapped me in the face and I never made the suggestion again, but I should have. The point is that people can save if they want.

I agree in having short-term safety nets for people in need.

I can't answer that questions. All I can say is what I was told. Pay yourself first. When you make your first dollar, put $.10 in the bank and then do the same for each additional dollar earned. If you get a raise save a portion. Use cash for all purchases, unless it is real-estate.

If a person has not been doing the above, it is never too late to start, in my opinion.

Relatives
Friends
Church Groups
Motorcycle Club groups
Sewing circle
TFP
Hell - anyone, everyone...

Your destiny. I am starting to sound like a motivational speaker. I do recommend Dale Carnigie (sp?) and Zig Ziggler.

Perhaps all is lost, and they should just give up...not!!! What can I say at this point, you will always have a reason not to do. They Can't...They Can't ... They Can't... I like Yoda's quote "there is no try, there is do or not do.

Perhaps that is true, but not in all cases. Again the point is missed. All I suggest is that employees take in active role in those things that may impact their lives.

"There is no try, there is do or not do."

Packed in refugee camps in near starvation conditions beats being slaughtered.

Moving from Detroit to get a job in the southwest beats being jobless and in poverty.

Thank you Ace. You explained your position better, I may not agree with it, but you made good counterpoints to mine and from there people can see the differences. Trust me as hard as some of it is to swallow, you do have some truth in there.

That was a debate, something we lack here on TFP. I stated my case, you countered and now the people decide at the ballot box by finding people who represent what we just said.

(Personally, I would hope to think given what you have said and what I have said, there could be a middle ground for compromise in there.)

FYI - CBS Evening News on Friday did a segment on people moving to WY due to the boom in the coal industry in the state. In the segment they focused on two families who made the move. Not only did they find well paying stedy work, the move brought the families closer together.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2146818.shtml

Ace, I agree with much of what you say in post #131. I can relate to several of your experiences. I am however concerned that in the not too distant future there will just not be enough jobs to go around and the wealth will become more and more concentrated in this country. I wonder what society's answer will be to this problem. Perhaps another WPA progam?

In another thread Walmart (Sams) was compared to Cosco where they have the same overall business income but Cosco does it with 30,000 less (higher paid) workers. Productivity increases will require less workers. Eventually just moving to a new area may not help but I guess we can take a world view and look to other countries for work as many who immigrate here do.

The industrial age is past its peak, just like the agricultural age has past its peak in terms of employment in this country. We are now an the information age. Instead of moving, perhaps people will make money in cyberspace, using something like EBAY, Blogs, Youtube, I don't know what because I am not up to date on all the newest opportunities. Or instead of producing comodities the new economy will focus more on providing services. I remember 25 years ago, there was no such thing as a personal trainer at the gym. Now you can't go without tripping all over them. At my gym they charge $50/hour (I know they have to split it with the gym) and most are booked solid.

People will adapt as they always have. I am not worried.

I'd like to believe they will. I recall my father's and grandfather's stories about how they made it through the great depression by making and selling beer among other things.

I am not so sure about this new service oriented economy, we can't all deliver each other pizzas. I realize that most of the growth is in the service sector but with everyone becoming lawyers, stockbrockers, teachers, insurance salesmen, etc... where is the wealth going to come from?