OT: Why there are no new jobs

[Robert Baer]

Joerg wrote:

On 2015-09-24 10:00 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/24/2015 8:23 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-09-24 1:37 PM, rickman wrote:

[...]


You can whine and moan all you want, it doesn't change the fact that
this is one of the very best countries in the world for starting a
business. If you don't like it, why don't you take your business
somewhere else?


That is what my former employer did, shedding tons of well-paying US
jobs in the wake.

Engineering jobs?


Most businesses do not consist of engineering jobs alone.


... Seems like plenty of folks are trying to get into the
US to have those. H-1B visas ring a bell? Obviously we still have a
very competitive market for Engineering.


Sure. Engineering jobs are plentiful here. I want to partially retire
and my clients don't let me.

H-1B is abused. People often come in because making $35k/year is still
better than making $15k where they came from. This abuse is trivially
easy to stop and I have explained numerous times how. Sad to say but it
seems the only other person that seems to understand how or is willing
to even say it is ... Donald Trump :-(


... Have you had any better offers?


Yes. From Costa Rica.

So why are you still here? Is that a better place to do your job?


a. Engineering work is plentiful in the US.

b. Especially in view of the failed policies of the current
administration I'd be more than willing to emigrate to a nice place in
the Caribbean. But I have a family and not everyone has an easy time to
learn yet anotehr language. Which you have to or will remain a foreigner
forever.

* Which alludes to a VERY sore point.
Is there any other country in the world that does not require
immigrants to learn the local language?

c. I absolutely do not like moving. Else I'd be out of socialist
California since a long time because in my line of work it no longer
matters where one lives. As long as there is >1Mbit/sec Internet and
Fedex goes there.

Wasn't it you who farmed out production to Mexiko? Care to elaborate?

 

[krw]

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 08:17:08 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

On 2015-09-24 10:00 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/24/2015 8:23 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-09-24 1:37 PM, rickman wrote:

[...]


You can whine and moan all you want, it doesn't change the fact that
this is one of the very best countries in the world for starting a
business. If you don't like it, why don't you take your business
somewhere else?


That is what my former employer did, shedding tons of well-paying US
jobs in the wake.

Engineering jobs?


Most businesses do not consist of engineering jobs alone.


... Seems like plenty of folks are trying to get into the
US to have those. H-1B visas ring a bell? Obviously we still have a
very competitive market for Engineering.


Sure. Engineering jobs are plentiful here. I want to partially retire
and my clients don't let me.

H-1B is abused. People often come in because making $35k/year is still
better than making $15k where they came from. This abuse is trivially
easy to stop and I have explained numerous times how. Sad to say but it
seems the only other person that seems to understand how or is willing
to even say it is ... Donald Trump :-(

My employer hires boatloads of H1B[*] programmers. I don't think
they're underpaid. The salaries range from $75K to somewhere around
$125K. Without H1Bs, all of the jobs would likely be somewhere else,
though they've started moving some of that work off-shore anyway (for
tax reasons, I'm sure).


[*] All H1B job postings have to be displayed on company boards, along
with descriptions and salaries. These listings have from one to over
a hundred positions each, so there are a *lot* of jobs involved. The
number is sorta amazing since there are only 65K H1Bs allowed.

... Have you had any better offers?


Yes. From Costa Rica.

So why are you still here? Is that a better place to do your job?


a. Engineering work is plentiful in the US.

b. Especially in view of the failed policies of the current
administration I'd be more than willing to emigrate to a nice place in
the Caribbean. But I have a family and not everyone has an easy time to
learn yet anotehr language. Which you have to or will remain a foreigner
forever.

c. I absolutely do not like moving. Else I'd be out of socialist
California since a long time because in my line of work it no longer
matters where one lives. As long as there is >1Mbit/sec Internet and
Fedex goes there.

Wasn't it you who farmed out production to Mexiko? Care to elaborate?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 01:05:57 UTC+10, Joerg wrote:

On 2015-09-24 9:34 PM, P E Schoen wrote:
"Joerg" wrote in message news:d6jig8Fa1dpU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2015-09-24 1:37 PM, rickman wrote:

<snip>

Here is where we disagree. It is not the government's job to create
jobs. How wrong that usually goes has been extensively demonstrated in
socialist systems.

Centrally planned socialists systems. The modern socialist systems in Germany and Scandinavia don't try to run the economy from the centre - they are happy to let the free market direct resources where they are needed.

They do provide some central planning to get the workers trained and educated - which is too long-term and investment for the free market - and they provide enough social welfare to keep the unemployed fed, housed and healthy while thye are being retrained for the next job, and to keep their kids well-fed and health enough to take full advantage of the education on offer.

That mind-set does also persuade them that the free market does require some regulation - left to it's own devices it goes into boom and bust, with the weaker players being bankrupted in the process until you end up with monopolies, which have to be regulated to prevent them rippin g off their customers.

If there aren't enough jobs each person has to become creative and yes,
sometimes like during a recession that requires taking a job "below
one's pay grade".

Not always that easy. When I've tried it, I've been knocked back as "over-qualified" - "you'd just resign and go to a better job as soon as the economy revives -"

... Fundamentally, jobs are created by need for the
products and services they provide. But we already have plenty of food,
and there are lots of vacant houses, and plenty of doctors and hospitals
to provide health services. However, people need money for these
necessities, and no new jobs are needed unless the demand skyrockets.


Then we must either increase our level of value creation in the various
jobs or lower our standard of living. I prefer the first. I also
strongly believe in living within ones means. We must be willing to
accept no-growth situations and concentrate on what we already have, not
what we want. Be thankful for it, which at least in my prayers I am
every day.

It is a normal course of events in human history that man invents ever
better method to achieve his goals with less and less labor. Highly
developed countries such as ours will be at the top and, therefore,
create the highest value additions. xxxxx hours of work does not only
result in a train with hundred of cars full of tomatoes but instead it
can result in a shiny new aircraft. Which can then be exported for much
more money than canned tomatoes.

This naturally forces people to have to step up in their skill sets.
Here many groups lament that they are oh so disadvantaged. Not buying
it. We have to ask ourselves why it is that Asians who often came with
barely more that the clothes on their bodies excel in making it and also
score hightes in SAT and other goals, by far. I know why that is.

Sure. Those Asians who have the enterprise to move to a new continent are enterprising enough to do well when they get there, and their kids shared their parent's enterprising attitude

When I was a graduate student, and a part time demonstrator in practical chemistry classes - which in Australia, at the time, included some 30% "Columbo Plan" student from South East Asia, I rapidly found that the Chinese from Taiwan and the Indians from India could be a bit culture-bound and difficult to persuade that practical skills mattered. India from anywhere but India and Chinese from anywhere but China and Taiwan were no trouble at all - less trouble than the local students, who could tend to treat University as one more institution to be gamed.

<snip>

Then there are only three option for the worker:

a. Increase their skill level.

b. Accept lower wages.

or

c. Emigrate.


... And what sort of
goods are to be produced? Demand must be created by convincing affluent
people that they need new cars and new cell phones and TVs and bigger
houses and the latest fashions, so there are intensive advertising
campaigns to convince people they need these things and can pay by
credit. But we've seen how well that has worked, and it is worse now
that home values and real wages have stagnated.


Real value in a society is only created by export. Trying as a society
to survive just by creating increased inland demand is as stupid as
trying to live off of a "service society". It does not work in the long run.

There just isn't enough demand to support the plethora of new, "good"
jobs that conservatives are always promising by shrinking government and
reducing taxes and regulations on businesses. Government *does* create
jobs, despite right-wing dogmatic belief.

It does not. Only as a sort of Ponzi scheme.

Not really. It's not government that creates the jobs, but rather the increased complication of society as we can do more things for more people (and make money on the deal). Turning autistic kids into ace programmers takes an investment in training, but it does pay off as long as you need ace programmers.

... And the government would
literally have to remove all regulations and give investors money to
make the prospect of running a business (especially manufacturing) in
the US.

The government only has to make things competitive and this does not
require tossing all regulation. Some of the more stupid ones, yes.
Mandating a corporate tax rate that exceeds even that in left-leaning
countries is not the way to do that. Jacking up the price of electrity
to more than 2x of other places is not the way to do that. Allowing a
predatory tort law isn't either. And so on. It's simple, really.

There is plenty of wealth to go around, but most of it is stagnating in
the hands of the top 1%. Reagan's corporate tax cuts and trickle down
economics proved disastrous, but the economy turned around when he later
provided tax cuts to benefit the middle class, and then by the effects
of the collapse of the USSR, the IBM PC revolution in 1982, the stock
market/day trader phenomenon, and then the dot-com and housing bubbles.
But these mostly produced many millionaires and billionaires, and
short-term rich people who trickled back down to the lower end of the
middle class when their excesses got the better of them.

The current administration is destroying the middle class piece by
piece.

It's not the current administration. The US has become progressively more unequal since Reagan came to power, and much as Obama would like to reverse the trend (as Clinton did, to some extent) the Republican majority blocks pretty much every move.

Example: They tout that Obamacare "works" yet all it does is
flush people into yet another welfare system. Government essentially
pays most of the premiums and many other costs. They started taxing the
middle class health plans, the folks that still pay their own way, which
made their health insurance even more expensive. Great wealth
redistribution, ain't it?

Granting that the money sink in the whole deal - the health insurance industry - had to be bribed to get the legislation through Congress - it's not surprising that that it hasn't helped health costs much. Since the primary aim was to extend health cover, this isn't a strong criticism of Obamacare.. Atul Gawande thinks that Obamacare is having positive effects in practice, and writes about it (well) in the New Yorker, so I'm inclined to trust his opinion more than yours.

> I personally met people who, in consequence, hung it up.

Every population includes special cases, who make fine anecdotal evidence, but lack statistical effect.

They quit working so much and plopped themselves into
Obamacare. As a result of this and other failed policies our labor
participation rate fell by several percentage points. That is really
dangerous because even if we get a better administration next time
around, which I seriously hope, the labor participation rate typically
never bounces back.

Where? When?

The middle class and the lower class need money so they can spend it and
stimulate the economy, rather than hoard it like the top 1%. Like it or
not, redistribution of wealth is absolutely necessary for our nation's
stability and survival. It can still be done equitably (and not equally,
as right-wing-nuts seem to fear), but continued and growing disparity
will inevitably lead to collapse and violent revolution. If every one of
the 1% would lose 90%, or even 50%, of their present wealth, they would
still be at least multi-millionaires and would hardly have their
lifestyles diminished. But the 99% would see their wealth doubled and
tripled, yet only to levels equivalent to what was normal during the 50s
and 60s when we were truly prosperous and everyone had a fair chance.


Most of the 99% would just fritter it away and then complain again.

They aren't doing that in Australia. The savings rate has gone up, and the administration is worried that this is causing the economy to grow more slowly than they'd like.

Why is it that the "poor" I meet have trouble making rent yet they drive
Cadillac Escalades and the like, "need" 60" TV sets, buy a $5 coffee
every workday, have $200+/month family cell plans, $100 gym membership,
cannot live without a $80/most cable TV, and so on? That's where the key
problems are.

People who get their priorities wrong end up poor in most cultures.

Or ask yourself this: Why is it that I comfortably live with a $7/mo
cell plan that suffices even for business use? Same for my wife. For
about a decade now, and before that we didn't even have a cell phone.
Our car are 18 and 19 years old and are simple basic models, our antenna
delivers TV for free, we make our own coffee, my gym is in nature and
also free.

Protestant work ethic, and a positively Calvinistic attitude to minor indulgences - except those involving mountain biking.

Yeah, that's a lot to read, and the conservatives probably ignored it
all, holding onto their own smug beliefs in their superiority and
absolute knowledge. I don't claim all of my statements and beliefs are
perfect - it is very complex, after all. But I think they hold much more
validity than than those who believe we can return to BAU based on their
hazy recollections of yesteryear and the era of unlimited growth and
infinite resources.

What is BAU?

Business As Usual was Googles most plausible suggestion.

Those days are gone, "comrades", and like those jobs, they "aint coming
back"!

Jobs that the unions, government or predatory lawyers have driven out of
the country will usually not come back.

In a modern economy, new technology and new products mean that jobs are vanishing all the time, and being replaced by difference jobs in different industries. Unions actually do serve as useful social purpose - until greedy employers bribe them into criminal uselessness. The employers then complain that the bribe-taking union officials - that the employers have encouraged and supported in their pursuit of profitable power within the unions - are corrupt criminals.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 09:05:37 UTC+10, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, 26 September 2015 16:05:57 UTC+1, Joerg wrote:

Then there are only three option for the worker:

a. Increase their skill level.

b. Accept lower wages.

or

c. Emigrate.

d. start a business




... And the government would
literally have to remove all regulations and give investors money to
make the prospect of running a business (especially manufacturing) in
the US.


The government only has to make things competitive and this does not
require tossing all regulation. Some of the more stupid ones, yes.

The world already is competitive. Wherever you go there are successful businesses. In the developed world the government needs to get out the way a lot more. Only in the 3rd world does government have a real job to do changing things.

Not the philosophy in Germany and Scandinavia. There the governments think that educating and training future workers (and retraining workers whose skills have become obsolete) is definitely one of their responsibilities.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 01:47:45 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 12:34:58 AM UTC-4, P E Schoen wrote:
"Joerg" wrote in message news:d6jig8Fa1dpU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2015-09-24 1:37 PM, rickman wrote:

<snipped sensible stuff>

Those days are gone, "comrades", and like those jobs, they "aint coming
back"!

I did read it, you've made a lot of assumptions, and not all of them are
right.

The way we create jobs: someone has an idea--sees a need, or a better
way--risks their money, and starts or expands a business to address it.

Let's tax that! Let's make 'em file loads of paperwork no one understands!
Let's tax capital! Let's impede the productive employment of labor! And let's
make sure that no one who tries and succeeds makes a profit!

None of these restrictions on starting a business are put in place to stop businesses starting up. About 80% of new start-ups fail, so a certain threshold to discourage the more impetuous may be serving a useful social purpose, quite a[part from the useful social purposes served by all those regulation that James Arthur dislikes on Bastiat-derived principle.

If you want to know in great detail why the U.S. isn't making jobs, here's
top-notch economist summarizing the U.S. situation to some European ministers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YP8OAmH_4k

Youtube is where one puts emotional appeals. James Arthur claims to engage in rational argument, but his rhetoric has a way of skating over inconvenient detail.

You can learn a lot about the U.S.' status in the first ten minutes, or
hang in longer and learn in documented detail why all of the welfare
states--ours, & Europe's--are absolutely unsustainable, and all headed
to fiscal collapse.

Scandinavia and Germany don't seem headed for financial collapse anytime in the foreseeable future. Germany even seems to have a permanent positive balance of payments which strikes me as a whole lot more sustainable than the negative trade balance that the US has been running since Reagan was in power.

But James Arthur has a way of explaining that away that keeps him happy.

The reality is that the deficit essentially pays for the oil that the US has to import to keep on driving around in big cars, and continuing to make it's 25% contribution to the rising CO2 level in the atmosphere - which is also unsustainable, unless you think like James Arthur, and write off anthropogenic global warming as a scientific fraud driven by climatologists hungry for more research grants (which they'd get anyway - it isn't as if climatology is a uniquely, or even particularly well-funded field of research).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 03:43:20 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 12:01:20 PM UTC-4, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 08:47:36 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 12:34:58 AM UTC-4, P E Schoen wrote:
[snip].

Those days are gone, "comrades", and like those jobs, they "aint coming
back"!

I did read it, you've made a lot of assumptions, and not all of them are
right.

The way we create jobs: someone has an idea--sees a need, or a better
way--risks their money, and starts or expands a business to address it.

Let's tax that! Let's make 'em file loads of paperwork no one understands!
Let's tax capital! Let's impede the productive employment of labor! And let's
make sure that no one who tries and succeeds makes a profit!


If you want to know in great detail why the U.S. isn't making jobs, here's
top-notch economist summarizing the U.S. situation to some European ministers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YP8OAmH_4k

You can learn a lot about the U.S.' status in the first ten minutes, or
hang in longer and learn in documented detail why all of the welfare
states--ours, & Europe's--are absolutely unsustainable, and all headed
to fiscal collapse.


Don't feed the socialist troll P E Schoen, from Baltimore of all
"perfect" socialist places >:-}


Gee Jim, I didn't take Paul's post as a troll at all. He poured his heart out
in a lengthy, detailed post. And he's frustrated with the way things are
going, which is easy to understand.

The only problems I saw were a few assumptions early in the logic chain, so
I tried to offer some info.

Not exactly correct. There are assumptions there that James Arthur doesn't agree with, but the "extra information" he offered was a rant on YouTube, which isn't going to information but rather a point of view.

He tells us that the rant "proves" that "all of the welfare
states--ours, & Europe's--are absolutely unsustainable, and all headed
to fiscal collapse" which will come as a surprise to the Scandinavians and Germany.

James Arthur has a soft spot for monetarist economists and will believe the most arrant rubbish as long as it based on the nonsensical concept of the perfect free market (which can do no wrong, until some rotten Keynesian tries to correct it).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[P E Schoen]

wrote in message
news:e114a5c5-972a-4dae-89c5-966a866ac581@googlegroups.com...

On Friday, 25 September 2015 05:34:58 UTC+1, P E Schoen wrote:

And then some wise guy says they can create more jobs by opening yet
another shopping center...

the advantage of more shopping centres is that there are more attempts
made at successful business, out of which the most capable survive.

By more successful, that generally is filled by the Walmart, Target, and
other big box and deep discount stores, that sell mostly cheap consumer
goods made elsewhere, and pay employees poverty wages.

Meanwhile, the top management and owners siphon off the profits and make
other investments.

profits from shopping centres that go bust? self contradiction there.

More like the "five year plans" that modern hot-shot MBA's implement, where
they pay themselves and their cronies exorbitant salaries and bonuses while
they milk the lifeblood from the employees and resources, then sell out
while they can make the most of it before it crashes and burns.

They don't really need to start new retail businesses, but some may do so
because of subsidies and incentives and sweetheart deals that leave them
fat and happy if and when their business goes tits up.

wish I could find such deals

You need to buy a politician to work out a mutually beneficial deal

You may say we need more high-tech jobs, and factories to produce goods
locally instead of China and India and Mexico. But those who have the
skills
to take such jobs demand high salaries, so it is not profitable for
investors to start and build such local businesses. And what sort of
goods
are to be produced? Demand must be created by convincing affluent people
that they need new cars and new cell phones and TVs and bigger houses and
the latest fashions, so there are intensive advertising campaigns to
convince people they need these things and can pay by credit. But we've
seen
how well that has worked, and it is worse now that home values and real
wages have stagnated.

that's not the only way to stimulate demand. Another approach is to
recognise the existing demand and serve it. Medical technology is a good
example of that.

Medical technology is only accessible by people who still have a lot of
money or good jobs with top notch health insurance. But there are lots of
disadvantaged people who can't afford good health care. It's better now with
the ACA and Medicare but if the privileged affluent 1% destroy those
programs, demand will drop (since it requires ability to pay).

There just isn't enough demand to support the plethora of new, "good"
jobs

demand is endless. You don't need to create it. For example we always need
new medical technology to address a long list of killers and lesser ills.

See above. Whether it's goods and services people really need, or just want,
it must be accompanied by the ability to pay.

If you serve existing demand, it has much higher chance of providing
something that's actually of value to society. Artifically created demand
is more likely to not be.

As I said, it makes scant difference unless people can pay for what they
want or need.

that conservatives are always promising by shrinking government and
reducing taxes and regulations on businesses. Government *does* create
jobs, despite right-wing dogmatic belief.

it does both of course, stifle jobs and create jobs

Most conservatives believe the former but deny the latter.

And the government would literally have to remove all regulations and
give investors money to make the prospect of running a business
(especially manufacturing) in the US.

that's rubbish

Actually, it's just hyperbole

There is plenty of wealth to go around, but most of it is stagnating in
the
hands of the top 1%. Reagan's corporate tax cuts and trickle down
economics
proved disastrous, but the economy turned around when he later provided
tax
cuts to benefit the middle class, and then by the effects of the collapse
of
the USSR, the IBM PC revolution in 1982, the stock market/day trader
phenomenon, and then the dot-com and housing bubbles. But these mostly
produced many millionaires and billionaires, and short-term rich people
who
trickled back down to the lower end of the middle class when their
excesses
got the better of them.

The middle class and the lower class need money so they can spend it and
stimulate the economy, rather than hoard it like the top 1%. Like it or
not,
redistribution of wealth is absolutely necessary for our nation's
stability
and survival.

According to you, the wealthy stagnate it and the unwealthy spend it.
Reality is anyone with significant money doesn't put it under the
mattress. It gets invested in shares, which fund businesses. It goes into
rental property, which provides needed accomodation. Even if it just goes
in the bank, the bank lend it to businesses and house buyers.

If anything the difference is that the wealthier use it more wisely on
average.

The consumer economy and many retail businesses depend on what might be
termed "unwise" spending on frivolous and short-lived items. That is why
planned obsolescence has been a major part of business models in the
consumer manufacturing and retail sector. Have a gander at this:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/light-bulb-conspiracy/

It can still be done equitably (and not equally, as right-wing-nuts seem
to fear), but continued and growing disparity will inevitably lead to
collapse and violent revolution. If every one of the 1% would lose 90%,
or even 50%, of their present wealth, they would still be at least
multi-millionaires and would hardly have their lifestyles diminished.

But the 99% would see their wealth doubled and tripled, yet only to
levels equivalent to what was normal during the 50s and 60s when we were
truly prosperous and everyone had a fair chance.

then a lot of the wealthy would say sod this, I'm moving abroad. Hint: its
largely the wealthy that start businesses, and its businesses that pay
everyone an income.

Many of them already are, and good riddance. It is no longer the best way to
make money by investing in domestic businesses that pay high salaries and
offer good jobs to "ordinary" people like those that operated machines and
assembly lines in the 50s and 60s.

The logical result of dramatically increased individual productivity and the
use of automation and robotics, is that the present level of consumption
will be satisfied by only a few workers, or the same number of people
working only maybe 6 hours a day and 3 or 4 days a week. But unless their
wages are greatly increased, they will be unable to pay for the products and
services, and consumption will drop. There is also no realistic expectation
of much greater exports to compensate.

These principles, which seem logical and obvious to me, may be hard to
accept by those who cling to BAU (Business As Usual).

Paul

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2015-09-26, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Joerg wrote:

* Which alludes to a VERY sore point.
Is there any other country in the world that does not require
immigrants to learn the local language?

most of them I expect. Is there any country where it is a legal
requirement?

--
\_(ツ)_

 

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 04:24:51 UTC+1, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 01:47:45 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 12:34:58 AM UTC-4, P E Schoen wrote:
"Joerg" wrote in message news:d6jig8Fa1dpU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2015-09-24 1:37 PM, rickman wrote:

The way we create jobs: someone has an idea--sees a need, or a better
way--risks their money, and starts or expands a business to address it.

Let's tax that! Let's make 'em file loads of paperwork no one understands!
Let's tax capital! Let's impede the productive employment of labor! And let's
make sure that no one who tries and succeeds makes a profit!


None of these restrictions on starting a business are put in place to stop businesses starting up.

that really is funny

> About 80% of new start-ups fail, so a certain threshold to discourage the more impetuous may be serving a useful social purpose, quite a[part from the useful social purposes served by all those regulation that James Arthur dislikes on Bastiat-derived principle.

with less obstacles & taxes in the way more businesses would survive. Its basic stuff.


NT

 

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 05:13:50 UTC+1, P E Schoen wrote:

wrote in message
news:e114a5c5-972a-4dae-89c5-966a866ac581@googlegroups.com...
On Friday, 25 September 2015 05:34:58 UTC+1, P E Schoen wrote:

And then some wise guy says they can create more jobs by opening yet
another shopping center...

the advantage of more shopping centres is that there are more attempts
made at successful business, out of which the most capable survive.

By more successful, that generally is filled by the Walmart, Target, and
other big box and deep discount stores, that sell mostly cheap consumer
goods made elsewhere, and pay employees poverty wages.

minimum wage is not poverty, far from.
And there are loads of smaller businesses
And the big ones do contribute money, goods & services too

Meanwhile, the top management and owners siphon off the profits and make
other investments.

profits from shopping centres that go bust? self contradiction there.

More like the "five year plans" that modern hot-shot MBA's implement, where
they pay themselves and their cronies exorbitant salaries and bonuses while
they milk the lifeblood from the employees and resources, then sell out
while they can make the most of it before it crashes and burns.

ie they create a successful business, then sell to realise the profit, to people that know they couldn't create it and thus lack the skill to keep it going successfully. That well worn pattern is an inherent feature of capitalism. In those cases other businesses move into the mall later. Goods & services have been provided, jobs created for 5 years, and the mall built. So even such failures are a win for society.

You may say we need more high-tech jobs, and factories to produce goods
locally instead of China and India and Mexico. But those who have the
skills
to take such jobs demand high salaries, so it is not profitable for
investors to start and build such local businesses. And what sort of
goods
are to be produced? Demand must be created by convincing affluent people
that they need new cars and new cell phones and TVs and bigger houses and
the latest fashions, so there are intensive advertising campaigns to
convince people they need these things and can pay by credit. But we've
seen
how well that has worked, and it is worse now that home values and real
wages have stagnated.

that's not the only way to stimulate demand. Another approach is to
recognise the existing demand and serve it. Medical technology is a good
example of that.

Medical technology is only accessible by people who still have a lot of
money or good jobs with top notch health insurance.

some is, some isn't.

But there are lots of
disadvantaged people who can't afford good health care. It's better now with
the ACA and Medicare but if the privileged affluent 1% destroy those
programs, demand will drop (since it requires ability to pay).

Reality is the medical sector is both profitable and in a useful percentage of cases serving a genuine need.

There just isn't enough demand to support the plethora of new, "good"
jobs

demand is endless. You don't need to create it. For example we always need
new medical technology to address a long list of killers and lesser ills.

See above. Whether it's goods and services people really need, or just want,
it must be accompanied by the ability to pay.

It is. Developed societies are awash with disposable income - even people on welfare have it.

If you serve existing demand, it has much higher chance of providing
something that's actually of value to society. Artifically created demand
is more likely to not be.

As I said, it makes scant difference unless people can pay for what they
want or need.

they can. The amount of pointless spending is enormous in the developed world

There is plenty of wealth to go around, but most of it is stagnating in
the
hands of the top 1%. Reagan's corporate tax cuts and trickle down
economics
proved disastrous, but the economy turned around when he later provided
tax
cuts to benefit the middle class, and then by the effects of the collapse
of
the USSR, the IBM PC revolution in 1982, the stock market/day trader
phenomenon, and then the dot-com and housing bubbles. But these mostly
produced many millionaires and billionaires, and short-term rich people
who
trickled back down to the lower end of the middle class when their
excesses
got the better of them.

The middle class and the lower class need money so they can spend it and
stimulate the economy, rather than hoard it like the top 1%. Like it or
not,
redistribution of wealth is absolutely necessary for our nation's
stability
and survival.

According to you, the wealthy stagnate it and the unwealthy spend it.
Reality is anyone with significant money doesn't put it under the
mattress. It gets invested in shares, which fund businesses. It goes into
rental property, which provides needed accomodation. Even if it just goes
in the bank, the bank lend it to businesses and house buyers.

If anything the difference is that the wealthier use it more wisely on
average.

The consumer economy and many retail businesses depend on what might be
termed "unwise" spending on frivolous and short-lived items.

Yup. There's no shortage of potential to turn that spend toward more useful things

That is why
planned obsolescence has been a major part of business models in the
consumer manufacturing and retail sector.

I've always understood it to be for simple profit motive

Have a gander at this:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/light-bulb-conspiracy/

'The Light Bulb Conspiracy combines investigative research and rare archive footage to trace the untold story of Planned Obsolescence, from its beginnings in the 1920s with a secret cartel, set up expressly to limit the life span of light bulbs,'

I've heard that before, but it's a twisted take on it. Shorter lived filament lamps are better for the customer & the economy because they use less energy to do their job, and their energy use greatly outcosts their production. The 1920s standardisation deal ended all the marketing bs and fighting between producers, and gave consumers a good lamp life outcome. Today it would have been done openly through legislation.

' to present-day stories involving cutting edge electronics (such as the iPod) and the growing spirit of resistance amongst ordinary consumers.'

That's the one area where the Soviet central planning approach did work. Russki goods were not wasteful in the wasy the western stuff was at that time.. Because their designs had to appeal to efficiency rather than just to ignorant customers & marketing bs. Which also meant the goods were not seen as so desirable by the customers.

I'm not going to defend that dysfunctional system, but like any system it did have its plusses too.

It can still be done equitably (and not equally, as right-wing-nuts seem
to fear), but continued and growing disparity will inevitably lead to
collapse and violent revolution. If every one of the 1% would lose 90%,
or even 50%, of their present wealth, they would still be at least
multi-millionaires and would hardly have their lifestyles diminished.

But the 99% would see their wealth doubled and tripled, yet only to
levels equivalent to what was normal during the 50s and 60s when we were
truly prosperous and everyone had a fair chance.

then a lot of the wealthy would say sod this, I'm moving abroad. Hint: its
largely the wealthy that start businesses, and its businesses that pay
everyone an income.

Many of them already are, and good riddance.

So you're glad for the wealth creating percentage of society to go abroad. Something very wrong there.

It is no longer the best way to
make money by investing in domestic businesses that pay high salaries and
offer good jobs to "ordinary" people like those that operated machines and
assembly lines in the 50s and 60s.

Pay today is far higher in real terms. The technological development of society does mean there are less grunt level jobs, that's a downside of tech development, but well worth it.

The logical result of dramatically increased individual productivity and the
use of automation and robotics, is that the present level of consumption
will be satisfied by only a few workers, or the same number of people
working only maybe 6 hours a day and 3 or 4 days a week. But unless their
wages are greatly increased, they will be unable to pay for the products and
services, and consumption will drop.

or unless products become cheaper, which they will and are doing, and have been doing for a long long time. Look at what the monitor top fridge cost in the 1920s for example. IIRC it works out to somewhere around Ł10,000 (15k usd) today, just for a little fridge.

There is also no realistic expectation
of much greater exports to compensate.

These principles, which seem logical and obvious to me, may be hard to
accept by those who cling to BAU (Business As Usual).

like all of us there are flaws in your argument as well as good points

Paul

NT

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 19:58:05 UTC+10, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 04:24:51 UTC+1, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, 27 September 2015 01:47:45 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 12:34:58 AM UTC-4, P E Schoen wrote:
"Joerg" wrote in message news:d6jig8Fa1dpU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2015-09-24 1:37 PM, rickman wrote:

The way we create jobs: someone has an idea--sees a need, or a better
way--risks their money, and starts or expands a business to address it.

Let's tax that! Let's make 'em file loads of paperwork no one
understands! Let's tax capital! Let's impede the productive employment
of labor! And let's make sure that no one who tries and succeeds makes a > > > profit!


None of these restrictions on starting a business are put in place to stop businesses starting up.

that really is funny

About as funny as James Arthur's attempt at irony (signalled by the ), which it was intended to reflect.

About 80% of new start-ups fail, so a certain threshold to discourage the more impetuous may be serving a useful social purpose, quite apart from the useful social purposes served by all those regulation that James Arthur dislikes on Bastiat-derived principle.

With less obstacles & taxes in the way more businesses would survive. It's
basic stuff.

Without regulations and taxes society doesn't survive either, which is equally basic stuff. Talk about the balance between taxation, regulation and innovation, and I'll believe that you aren't a right-wing nitwit, but you've posted often enough here to make it clear that you aren't into subtle detail.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 7:05:37 PM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, 26 September 2015 16:05:57 UTC+1, Joerg wrote:

Then there are only three option for the worker:

a. Increase their skill level.

b. Accept lower wages.

or

c. Emigrate.

d. start a business

+1.


Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 20:31:38 UTC+10, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 05:13:50 UTC+1, P E Schoen wrote:
wrote in message
news:e114a5c5-972a-4dae-89c5-966a866ac581@googlegroups.com...
On Friday, 25 September 2015 05:34:58 UTC+1, P E Schoen wrote:

And then some wise guy says they can create more jobs by opening yet
another shopping center...

the advantage of more shopping centres is that there are more attempts
made at successful business, out of which the most capable survive.

By more successful, that generally is filled by the Walmart, Target, and
other big box and deep discount stores, that sell mostly cheap consumer
goods made elsewhere, and pay employees poverty wages.

minimum wage is not poverty, far from.

It may not be poverty, but it's not that far from it, and long way short of prosperity.

And there are loads of smaller businesses
And the big ones do contribute money, goods & services too

Meanwhile, the top management and owners siphon off the profits and make
other investments.

profits from shopping centres that go bust? self contradiction there.

More like the "five year plans" that modern hot-shot MBA's implement, where
they pay themselves and their cronies exorbitant salaries and bonuses while
they milk the lifeblood from the employees and resources, then sell out
while they can make the most of it before it crashes and burns.

ie they create a successful business, then sell to realise the profit, to people that know they couldn't create it and thus lack the skill to keep it going successfully.

That doesn't follow,. Creating a business requires different skills and talents from keeping one running. The people that can do the creating get bored when stuck with maintenance.

Creating a business that looks good for a couple of years, but is ultimately going to crash and burn is a slightly different skill, and quite a few seem to have mastered it. Mitt Romney is reputed to have specialised in "rescuing" duff business by making them look good enough to sell without actually fixing the fundamental problems, and selling them on before the problems became obvious (again).

That well worn pattern is an inherent feature of capitalism. In those cases other businesses move into the mall later. Goods & services have been provided, jobs created for 5 years, and the mall built. So even such failures are a win for society.

You may say we need more high-tech jobs, and factories to produce goods
locally instead of China and India and Mexico. But those who have the
skills to take such jobs demand high salaries, so it is not profitable
for investors to start and build such local businesses.

That doesn't follow either. A high-tech business in a high-wage society doesn't slice up the work the same way that the same business would in a low-wage environment. Apple makes it's phone in China, but it makes it's money - and pays its engineers - in the US. Of course, it accountants arrange that it makes it's profits in the Netherlands and Ireland, but that's a legal fiction.

And what sort of goods are to be produced? Demand must be created by
convincing affluent people that they need new cars and new cell phones
and TVs and bigger houses and the latest fashions, so there are
intensive advertising campaigns to convince people they need these
things and can pay by credit.

Steve Jobs wouldn't have been quite as famous - and as rich - if advertising could create demand for me-too cell phones, and the US auto industry would be in better shape if advertising alone could persuade people to buy particular cars.

But we've seen how well that has worked,
and it is worse now that home values and real
wages have stagnated.

that's not the only way to stimulate demand. Another approach is to
recognise the existing demand and serve it. Medical technology is a good
example of that.

Medical technology is only accessible by people who still have a lot of
money or good jobs with top notch health insurance.

some is, some isn't.

But there are lots of
disadvantaged people who can't afford good health care. It's better now
with the ACA and Medicare but if the privileged affluent 1% destroy those
programs, demand will drop (since it requires ability to pay).

Reality is the medical sector is both profitable and in a useful percentage of cases serving a genuine need.

There just isn't enough demand to support the plethora of new, "good"
jobs

demand is endless. You don't need to create it. For example we always
need new medical technology to address a long list of killers and lesser > > > ills.

See above. Whether it's goods and services people really need, or just
want, it must be accompanied by the ability to pay.

It is. Developed societies are awash with disposable income - even people on welfare have it.

If you serve existing demand, it has much higher chance of providing
something that's actually of value to society. Artifically created demand
is more likely to not be.

As I said, it makes scant difference unless people can pay for what they
want or need.

They can. The amount of pointless spending is enormous in the developed world

There is plenty of wealth to go around, but most of it is stagnating in
the hands of the top 1%. Reagan's corporate tax cuts and trickle down
economics proved disastrous,

<snipped economic nonsense>

The middle class and the lower class need money so they can spend it and
stimulate the economy, rather than hoard it like the top 1%. Like it or
not, redistribution of wealth is absolutely necessary for our nation's
stability and survival.

According to you, the wealthy stagnate it and the unwealthy spend it.
Reality is anyone with significant money doesn't put it under the
mattress. It gets invested in shares, which fund businesses. It goes into
rental property, which provides needed accomodation. Even if it just goes
in the bank, the bank lend it to businesses and house buyers.

Nice theory, and pretty much what happens when the economy is running normally. As Keynes pointed out, once the people with money to invest decide that there's a recession going on, they sit on it in the hope that their competitors will go bankrupt and they can pick up some bargains. Banks get careful about who they lend to, too.

If anything the difference is that the wealthier use it more wisely on
average.

The consumer economy and many retail businesses depend on what might be
termed "unwise" spending on frivolous and short-lived items.

Yup. There's no shortage of potential to turn that spend toward more useful
things.

No obvious mechanism though - apart from collecting it in taxes and having the government spend it, as the Scandinavians and Germans seem to do. Those governments do seem to concentrate on spending their - fairly high - tax take on keeping the work-force well-fed, well-educated and well-trained, and leave business to work out where that work force can most profitably be deployed.

That is why
planned obsolescence has been a major part of business models in the
consumer manufacturing and retail sector.

I've always understood it to be for simple profit motive

Have a gander at this:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/light-bulb-conspiracy/

'The Light Bulb Conspiracy combines investigative research and rare archive footage to trace the untold story of Planned Obsolescence, from its beginnings in the 1920s with a secret cartel, set up expressly to limit the life span of light bulbs,'

I've heard that before, but it's a twisted take on it. Shorter lived filament lamps are better for the customer & the economy because they use less energy to do their job, and their energy use greatly outcosts their production. The 1920s standardisation deal ended all the marketing bs and fighting between producers, and gave consumers a good lamp life outcome. Today it would have been done openly through legislation.

' to present-day stories involving cutting edge electronics (such as the iPod) and the growing spirit of resistance amongst ordinary consumers.'

That's the one area where the Soviet central planning approach did work. Russki goods were not wasteful in the way the western stuff was at that time. Because their designs had to appeal to efficiency rather than just to ignorant customers & marketing bs. Which also meant the goods were not seen as so desirable by the customers.

I'm not going to defend that dysfunctional system, but like any system it did have its plusses too.

It can still be done equitably (and not equally, as right-wing-nuts seem
to fear), but continued and growing disparity will inevitably lead to
collapse and violent revolution. If every one of the 1% would lose 90%,
or even 50%, of their present wealth, they would still be at least
multi-millionaires and would hardly have their lifestyles diminished..

But the 99% would see their wealth doubled and tripled, yet only to
levels equivalent to what was normal during the 50s and 60s when we were
truly prosperous and everyone had a fair chance.

Equality was higher in the US in the 1960's, but not all that high. Scandinavia probably does better now than the US did then, and while Scandinavia's measures of social mobility are now much better than the US measures are now, it still helps - even there - to have well-off parents. Some people will always have fairer chances than others.

then a lot of the wealthy would say sod this, I'm moving abroad. Hint:
its largely the wealthy that start businesses, and its businesses that
pay everyone an income.

Many of them already are, and good riddance.

So you're glad for the wealth creating percentage of society to go abroad.. Something very wrong there.

They don't move in significant numbers. It's easier to start a profitable business in a rich country, and the size of your domestic market makes a difference to the amount of money you can make out of your new business.

It is no longer the best way to
make money by investing in domestic businesses that pay high salaries and
offer good jobs to "ordinary" people like those that operated machines and
assembly lines in the 50s and 60s.

The technology of the 1950's and 1960's generated different kinds of jobs from today's technology. We have to train people for different sort of jobs these days.

Pay today is far higher in real terms. The technological development of society does mean there are less grunt level jobs, that's a downside of tech development, but well worth it.

The logical result of dramatically increased individual productivity and
the use of automation and robotics, is that the present level of
consumption will be satisfied by only a few workers, or the same number of
people working only maybe 6 hours a day and 3 or 4 days a week. But unless
their wages are greatly increased, they will be unable to pay for the
products and services, and consumption will drop.

Happily, people consume more as technology offers them more things to consume, so the workers are kept busy producing a wider variety of consumables.

Australia's rural population peaked in the 1890's - thereafter progressively fewer people were needed to keep the country fed, and the cities got a lot bigger a people concentrated there to provide other goods and services.

or unless products become cheaper, which they will and are doing, and have been doing for a long long time. Look at what the monitor top fridge cost in the 1920s for example. IIRC it works out to somewhere around Ł10,000 (15k usd) today, just for a little fridge.

There is also no realistic expectation
of much greater exports to compensate.

These principles, which seem logical and obvious to me, may be hard to
accept by those who cling to BAU (Business As Usual).

like all of us there are flaws in your argument as well as good points

Quite a few flaws.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 11:04:41 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 01:05:57 UTC+10, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-09-24 9:34 PM, P E Schoen wrote:
"Joerg" wrote in message news:d6jig8Fa1dpU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2015-09-24 1:37 PM, rickman wrote:

snip

Here is where we disagree. It is not the government's job to create
jobs. How wrong that usually goes has been extensively demonstrated in
socialist systems.

Centrally planned socialists systems. The modern socialist systems in Germany and Scandinavia don't try to run the economy from the centre - they are happy to let the free market direct resources where they are needed.

That's local planning. Those are barely the size of U.S. states, homogeneous
cultures with a fraction of US' diversity. And even then, their welfare states
are long-term tanking.

[...]

The current administration is destroying the middle class piece by
piece.

It's not the current administration. The US has become progressively more unequal since Reagan came to power, and much as Obama would like to reverse the trend (as Clinton did, to some extent) the Republican majority blocks pretty much every move.

The financing needed to fund Obama's spending benefits the wealthy, at
the expense of the poor. It *is* his fault. You're right about "progressively"
though.;-)

[...]

I personally met people who, in consequence, hung it up.

Every population includes special cases, who make fine anecdotal evidence, but lack statistical effect.

Your own case provides a nice anecdote.

Here's the statistical evidence, United States.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1LEI

Joerg's right.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 11:56:54 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:

On 9/27/2015 11:49 AM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 7:05:37 PM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 26 September 2015 16:05:57 UTC+1, Joerg wrote:

Then there are only three option for the worker:

a. Increase their skill level.

b. Accept lower wages.

or

c. Emigrate.

d. start a business

+1.

Ignorance is showing.

Yep.

What does it take to start a business? It is
beyond the financial reach of many.

Exactly the point. It shouldn't be--businesses themselves don't take much.
Why, you could baby-sit, wash clothes, or bake things, mow lawns, fix things,
once upon a time. Not now. Not without your Obamacramp and SS, IRS, OSHA,
worker's comp, unemployment, EPA, FDA, blah blah blah, that's a CRIME!

It's the State that makes it so. (But we're soooo much safer, it's double-plus
fabulous!)

It is also a poor way to try to
make a living as most businesses don't become profitable and go under.

Tying your laces is a poor way to secure your shoes too. The first attempts
rarely succeed.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 1:12:47 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:

On 9/27/2015 12:51 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 11:56:54 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
On 9/27/2015 11:49 AM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 7:05:37 PM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 26 September 2015 16:05:57 UTC+1, Joerg wrote:

Then there are only three option for the worker:

a. Increase their skill level.

b. Accept lower wages.

or

c. Emigrate.

d. start a business

+1.

Ignorance is showing.

Yep.

What does it take to start a business? It is
beyond the financial reach of many.

Exactly the point. It shouldn't be--businesses themselves don't take much.
Why, you could baby-sit, wash clothes, or bake things, mow lawns, fix things,
once upon a time. Not now. Not without your Obamacramp and SS, IRS, OSHA,
worker's comp, unemployment, EPA, FDA, blah blah blah, that's a CRIME!

I usually don't converse with a deranged person. I have a friend who
babysits and cleans houses and pet sits. No one is stopping her. Where
is this nanny state you seem to be talking about?

California. Baby-sitting a few kids in your house is considered "starting
a day-care center." Try it. Without a license. And inspection. Background
check. Fire Marshall. Etc.

What states make it hard to fix things or to mow lawns? My lawn is
mowed by someone who runs a farm. He has less than full time employment
there, so he branches out.

You are off in raving loony land on this.

None of these things put you above the poverty level. My friend who
babysits is on medicaid and sometimes qualifies for food stamps. She
works as much as she can, but there is a lot of competition. She is
very proactive about finding work and would like to have enough
customers that she can raise her rates, but there is a lot of competition.

Another friend who does adult day care has lots of trouble finding work.
There is just too much competition at $10 an hour so she works less
than 12 hours a week in that field. She fills in as part time help in a
pawn shop for $90 a day. She is also on Medicaid.

Yes, starting a business is a *great* way to deal with poverty.

It is. Your alternative is that some existing business should hire someone,
which is the same thing, one level deferred. You keep wanting other people
to solve your problems for you, and then you're angry at them for it.

It's the State that makes it so. (But we're soooo much safer, it's double-plus
fabulous!)

Yes, the state has created all the poverty by keeping the minimum wage
so low and creating a huge pool of workers that will work for poverty
wages.

Public assistance for workers promotes poverty by driving down wages. And
once wages are low, the worker's trapped (unless they work extra hard, but
most don't). So yes, the State did that.

It is also a poor way to try to
make a living as most businesses don't become profitable and go under.

Tying your laces is a poor way to secure your shoes too. The first attempts
rarely succeed.

Lol. So that's your philosophy?

Yours.

Cheers,
James Arthur.

 

[rickman]

On 9/27/2015 6:31 AM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 05:13:50 UTC+1, P E Schoen wrote:
wrote in message
news:e114a5c5-972a-4dae-89c5-966a866ac581@googlegroups.com...
On Friday, 25 September 2015 05:34:58 UTC+1, P E Schoen wrote:

And then some wise guy says they can create more jobs by opening yet
another shopping center...

the advantage of more shopping centres is that there are more attempts
made at successful business, out of which the most capable survive.

By more successful, that generally is filled by the Walmart, Target, and
other big box and deep discount stores, that sell mostly cheap consumer
goods made elsewhere, and pay employees poverty wages.

minimum wage is not poverty, far from.

Minimum wage is under $15,000 per year. That is below the poverty level
for households of two or more. I guess you can have children and put
them to work.

--

Rick

 

[rickman]

On 9/27/2015 11:49 AM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 7:05:37 PM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 26 September 2015 16:05:57 UTC+1, Joerg wrote:

Then there are only three option for the worker:

a. Increase their skill level.

b. Accept lower wages.

or

c. Emigrate.

d. start a business

+1.

Ignorance is showing. What does it take to start a business? It is
beyond the financial reach of many. It is also a poor way to try to
make a living as most businesses don't become profitable and go under.

--

Rick

 

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 1:12:54 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:04:40 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 11:04:41 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, 27 September 2015 01:05:57 UTC+10, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-09-24 9:34 PM, P E Schoen wrote:
"Joerg" wrote in message news:d6jig8Fa1dpU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2015-09-24 1:37 PM, rickman wrote:

snip

Here is where we disagree. It is not the government's job to create
jobs. How wrong that usually goes has been extensively demonstrated in
socialist systems.

Centrally planned socialists systems. The modern socialist systems in Germany and Scandinavia don't try to run the economy from the centre - they are happy to let the free market direct resources where they are needed.

That's local planning. Those are barely the size of U.S. states, homogeneous
cultures with a fraction of US' diversity. And even then, their welfare states
are long-term tanking.

Yes. Lots of Europe is in trouble.

One advantage they have is their bureaucrats. They're pretty powerful,
their peoples compliant, so if things need chopping, they eventually
get chopped.

But for Pete's sake, Germany's barely big as Arizona, and everyone's elbow-
to-elbow next to each other. Sweden's a model for, maybe, Los Angeles, or
another big U.S. city (except our federal gov't wouldn't allow a city the
needed latitude).

If someone wants to tout Europe as proving centralized socialism's success,
they need to show how wonderfully well Greece has been managed from Brussels,
not cherry-pick happy, homogeneous countries with DIFFERENT systems, each
and every one.

Sloman, who hasn't worked in decades, and didn't seem to be very
productive ever, thinks he's competant to plan entire economies.
That's absured.

Yup. No one can, not efficiently. Especially a place as big, and with such
diverse people, resources, and terrain as the U.S.

The current administration is destroying the middle class piece by
piece.

It's not the current administration. The US has become progressively more unequal since Reagan came to power, and much as Obama would like to reverse the trend (as Clinton did, to some extent) the Republican majority blocks pretty much every move.

The USA, and California in particular, have been described as
"fine-tuned job killing machines." The policies that pretend to reduce
income inequality have the opposite effect.

Like Detroit, California's coasting on the generations that deposited all
those entrepreneurs. Outside of those oases, watch out.

Cheers,
James

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 08:49:09 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 7:05:37 PM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 26 September 2015 16:05:57 UTC+1, Joerg wrote:

Then there are only three option for the worker:

a. Increase their skill level.

b. Accept lower wages.

or

c. Emigrate.

d. start a business

+1.


Cheers,
James Arthur

The thing about starting or runing a biz in the USA is that foreign
competition drives prices down, and the tax and regulation burden in
the USA drives costs way up.

One type of biz would do something that doesn't compete with imports
(like a restaurant or a roofing or painting company) but uses cheap,
off-the-books, immigrant labor. That biz model here is common. The
owner can make a lot of money and the workers don't. It's an income
inequality machine. Here, painting used to be done by Irish guys. Now
a few Irish still own the painting companies, but all the painting is
done by people who speak Spanish.

Another biz model, more relevant to s.e.d., is to make really
high-tech stuff and charge a lot for it, enough to run a smallish,
fully legit business in the USA, with good pay and benefits.
Fortunately, there isn't much foreign competition yet for niche-type
precision instrumentation; not sure why.

It is possible to start and grow an electronics business with
basically zero capital. The internet helps a lot.