The decline of America

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

We implement all these labor laws that hike the cost of producing goods in this country, yet we do not extend those laws to products made overseas!

 

Not just labor laws. Tax laws, zoning laws, noise laws, pollution laws, on and on. There is a lot of regulation that can be skirted by moving your manufacturing operation overseas; the savings must be absolutely humungous in order to overcome the cost of moving your goods 6000-12,000 miles to the point of sale. I'm not suggesting that these regulations are a bad thing - I happen to like clean air and a quiet neighborhood - but it does seem to result in an uneven playing field for domestic-versus foreign production.

[Bud]

Listening to this mornings news, it seems that Congress has the solution. Continue to spend more with no plan on how to pay for it.

 

I'm feeling better already.

[Ohio48]

We implement all these labor laws that hike the cost of producing goods in this country, yet we do not extend those laws to products made overseas!

 

Not just labor laws. Tax laws, zoning laws, noise laws, pollution laws, on and on. There is a lot of regulation that can be skirted by moving your manufacturing operation overseas; the savings must be absolutely humungous in order to overcome the cost of moving your goods 6000-12,000 miles to the point of sale. I'm not suggesting that these regulations are a bad thing - I happen to like clean air and a quiet neighborhood - but it does seem to result in an uneven playing field for domestic-versus foreign production.

 

That field has been uneven for a long long time. Time to straighten it up once again, but good luck in that ever happening!!!

[SteveHebert]

Sitting back an stating how bad the country is may be an easy thing to do given the filth that is reported constantly by opposing political figures and news agencies, but I can tell you this:

 

Speaking with men and women from various nations while working over here has and continues to be an eye opener to me. Every one of them whether civilian or military always tell me how great America is and how they wish they had the opportunity to live in America.

 

I suggest we all take a step back and look in from the outside.

 

We are a spoiled society that has come to expect everything and for some reason have a feeling of entitlement. In my book, if you don't earn it, you don't deserve it.

 

Believe me folks, it ain't that bad. Take care of yourselves, your family and your friends and all will be okay.

[Ken H.]

Well if I had stated this thread I’d be accused of boorish, bad-taste, USA bashing. So Bud can take the heat this time!

 

 

This situation causes a national malaise, and people naturally look for a cure. There is no cure, anymore than there is a cure for getting old and slow. It requires a different mindset to keep a positive attitude in a society that is no longer ascendant.

Everyone has their pet reason as to how the USA (and to a lesser extent Canada) got to the sad state that it is. Mine is the educational system. Somewhere along the way we veered off track from teaching our young people how to be the smartest people in the world to teaching them how to be the richest people. Which is not necessarily the same thing.

 

 

But reason aside, I think Dave touches on a key point. The USA’s position of dominance (innovation, financially, militarily, education, health, whatever) in the world is over. That ship has sailed. Yet all the efforts (of all political bents) to date have been focused on trying to magically turn the clock back 3, 5, 30 years.

 

Give it up. Ain’t goin-a happen. So far you’re/we’re just digging the hole deeper.

 

Instead, IMHO, it’s time for a conversation about what our values are. What human ‘success’ means. Does our success as a society, as groups of humans, as individuals, need to continue revolve around the things we acquire, the wealth we build, the people we beat? Or can we refocus on relationships, human social interaction, giving instead of wanting, helping instead of beating, the joy of a sunrise instead of the joy of a sale on a BlueRay player?

 

By the definition of success of the 1950s, ‘60s, even to some extent further, the capitalistic / democratic republic model, as championed by the USA, was the most successful in the world. But all things go in cycles. We have an opportunity not to return to that success, but to re-define what success means. To learn from what did work and from what didn’t.

 

Do I think that’s going to happen? Well given that the conversation hasn’t even started about what ‘Then New America’ should be like, we’re still trying to figure out how to bring back the old one; colour me less than optimistic.

 

[beemerman2k]

Ken, not to ignore your good points, but I don't believe it really is necessarily "over" for the USA.

 

Imagine the impact on the American economy if every American firm produced it's good and service right here in the USA. Think that would make a difference to our local economies? Think that would have an impact on the middle class here? Think this thread would even exist? I think the difference would be HUGE!

 

It's not like American firms are no longer relavant, or that they have been eclipsed by foreign firms. That's not the case at all! American firms still lead the world in the production of innovative products, with the exception of Japanese and Korean designed consumer electronic goods (Sony, Nintendo, Samsung, Canon, Nikon, Honda, Toyota, Mitsubishi, etc).

 

The sun has not set on American innovation and manufacturing, it has only set on American labor, and that's something that we can turn around if we actually wanted to. In this sense, I do hope the Fed effort with this "quantitative easing" plan works, because if it does then that would encourage production to return to these shores...I think.

[Ohio48]

We need to make manufacturing a place were young folks would like to work, not a law or financial office. It's not dark and dirty in manufacturing, but pretty cool if I may say myself. Ever watch a 4/5 axis cnc machining center operate? Or be the guy who is behind in the programming of that machining center. Math usded to make product, not just the bottom line!!!

[Dave McReynolds]

Nope, there has to be something else at work here. What could it be? Maybe we should be thinking along the lines of what made the US great to begin with.

 

Depends on what you mean by "great."

 

If you mean a free country where ideas can flourish, I can think of Washington, Lincoln, King, and thousands of unknown people who suffered because they believed that the freedom to express their ideas and to live as a free American was more important than their own personal comfort or even their own lives.

 

If you mean an educated country, I think of those who promoted the public school system, with required attendance through high school, and affordable advanced education through the university level.

 

If you mean a powerful country, I think of our military tradition extending back to the revolution and up until recent years where we held a general belief that it was every citizen's duty to serve in the armed forces, if called.

 

If you mean a wealthy country, the person who exemplifies that to me is Henry Ford. Henry Ford had a vision that extended beyond merely exploiting the resources of the country for his own personal benefit, as most of the entrepreneurs to that point had done. He realized that to sell cars, you needed people who could afford to buy them, and the best way to accomplish that was to employ them in your own factories, and pay them wages that reflected their contribution to the product, which in many cases exceeded the prevailing wage for similar work.

[Ken H.]

Ken, not to ignore your good points, but I don't believe it really is necessarily "over" for the USA.

Well James we’ll just have to agree to disagree as to whether the USA could ever regain its competitive edge in Education, R&D, and Manufacturing. (Listed in that order intentionally.) Your, “Imagine the impact on the American economy if every American firm produced it's good and service right here in the USA” sounds absolutely wonderful! And I agree! But the pragmatic in me continues to ask, “How?” Unless there is a plan, a plan to start over, beginning with kindergartens and ending with the best production abilities on the planet; it’s little more than a day dream.

 

And personally I keep coming back to, ‘Why would we want to?” So history can repeat itself? Let’s do everything we did for a century to get us in this mess, all over again?

 

Nope. I say it’s time to figure out how to lead the world in a different way. In a way that doesn’t revolve around the Almighty Dollar. (“Dollar” in the any denomination sense.)

 

Instead of the dollar-richest nation on the planet, how about figuring out how to be the happiest? Or the healthiest. Or peace-fullest, or most crime free, or the nation with the most personal and family time. Or the most spiritual. (Not to be confuse with most religious, but put that on the list too if you wish.) Societies/nations lead because they have done things that others admire/envy and others elsewhere want to do them/it too. Succeed at some of these things and the world will (once again) beat a path to your/our door.

 

[beemerman2k]

Ken, what part of "history repeats itself" should be considered bad news to our country? To me, the whole point is to allow "history to repeat itself"! Yes, we want to have the historically strong middle class that we used to have, we want to be able to provide families with a solid income so they can function relatively peacefully without the myriad of stresses they are dealing with now, and we want to provide opporunities for those who have college degrees and for those who do not. Yes, we absolutely want history to repeat iself.

 

As far as leading the world on other fronts, forgive me but I feel like this country has changed marvelously in terms of its openess to non-white males over the past 100 or so years. I cannot relate to what my ancestors had to endure as American citizens. I think we are serving as an example to many other developed country's out there.

 

Are we obsessing with being the kind of country they want us to be? I pray not! We were not founded under the same conditions they were, with the same priorities and values, and the same assumptions about individual worth and human dignity.

 

I suppose we do disagree as we see the problem through fundamentally different lens.

[Francois_Dumas]

 

Nope. I say it’s time to figure out how to lead the world in a different way. In a way that doesn’t revolve around the Almighty Dollar. (“Dollar” in the any denomination sense.)

 

 

Why would you need to 'lead' the world anyway? Can't you just take care of your own and be satisfied and happy with what you have and where you are ??

 

In fact, with so many billions people on this globe now, nobody is going to lead anything anymore.

[steve.foote]

Depends on what you mean by "great."

 

If you mean a free country where ideas can flourish, I can think of Washington, Lincoln, King, and thousands of unknown people who suffered because they believed that the freedom to express their ideas and to live as a free American was more important than their own personal comfort or even their own lives.

 

If you mean an educated country, I think of those who promoted the public school system, with required attendance through high school, and affordable advanced education through the university level.

 

If you mean a powerful country, I think of our military tradition extending back to the revolution and up until recent years where we held a general belief that it was every citizen's duty to serve in the armed forces, if called.

 

If you mean a wealthy country, the person who exemplifies that to me is Henry Ford. Henry Ford had a vision that extended beyond merely exploiting the resources of the country for his own personal benefit, as most of the entrepreneurs to that point had done. He realized that to sell cars, you needed people who could afford to buy them, and the best way to accomplish that was to employ them in your own factories, and pay them wages that reflected their contribution to the product, which in many cases exceeded the prevailing wage for similar work.

 

Dave, I'm not going to tell you exactly where, yet, but you are very close in one of your paragraphs above. Not quite there, but very close. I want to see some more stabs at this before I drop my cards.

 

James, I think you are looking too close to the issue. How the US became great isn't an economic question. Nor is it a political one. It's a societal one. It's blatently obvious, but everyone is looking right past it in a forest-for-the-trees manner. Step back and think about it from a mile away. It'll become very clear.

 

Steve Hebert is the closest here so far. I'd recommend a second reading of his post.

[steve.foote]

Ken, what part of "history repeats itself" should be considered bad news to our country? To me, the whole point is to allow "history to repeat itself"! Yes, we want to have the historically strong middle class that we used to have, we want to be able to provide families with a solid income so they can function relatively peacefully without the myriad of stresses they are dealing with now, and we want to provide opporunities for those who have college degrees and for those who do not. Yes, we absolutely want history to repeat iself.

 

As far as leading the world on other fronts, forgive me but I feel like this country has changed marvelously in terms of its openess to non-white males over the past 100 or so years. I cannot relate to what my ancestors had to endure as American citizens. I think we are serving as an example to many other developed country's out there.

 

Are we obsessing with being the kind of country they want us to be? I pray not! We were not founded under the same conditions they were, with the same priorities and values, and the same assumptions about individual worth and human dignity.

 

I suppose we do disagree as we see the problem through fundamentally different lens.

 

Ok, now you're getting right on top of it. Almost there.

[Selden]

What would have happened to our country if Henry Ford decided early on to locate his auto plants in China? Would have had a huge impact on our history and the quality of American life.

If it had made economic sense in 1903, Henry would have moved his production to China. It didn't, because China, India, Mexico, etc., didn't have the industrial base to make automobiles, and because the transportation costs and relative lack of fast communications made off-shoring uneconomic. However, Canada did have the infrastructure to manufacture automobiles, and U.S. automobile production (including Ford) was already being outsourced in the early 20th century.

 

The early 21st century is a very different world; it's not so much that the USA (as well as western Europe) has slipped, or even stopped growing, as that other parts of the world (especially China and India) have been growing faster. Their manufacturing infrastructures have improved, and high speed communications and cheap fuel have made it possible to manufacture many things outside the USA cheaper than inside -- even when transportation costs are figured in. A few months ago, I picked up an electric toothbrush at Walmart for $5 -- and got to thinking, this thing has an electric motor, switch, 2 batteries, brush head and handle, plus packaging, and was manufactured in China at such little cost that it could be shipped all the way to Georgia, and everybody in the supply chain made some profit off it.

 

There are exceptions, of course, such as Mag Instrument and Leatherman Tools, but they rely on quality, not price -- you can find cheaper, Chinese knockoffs of Maglites and multi-tools at any hardware store.

 

To some degree, things will equalize as 3rd world wages increase, populations start to realize the enormous environmental cost of being the the workshops of the world, and especially if fuel costs go up. Americans not only have to work smarter, we have to work cheaper, and be willing to control a smaller portion of the world's economic pie. American prosperity was artificially high after WW II due to the temporary economic effects of having more than half of the world's money supply, and most people thought this was a normal situation. Then, after Europe rebuilt itself (with a huge amount of American assistance through the Marshall Plan), China, India, and other places that were formerly exporters of raw materials and consumers of externally manufactured goods started to get organized.

 

 

[Selden]

I suggest we all take a step back and look in from the outside.

 

We are a spoiled society that has come to expect everything and for some reason have a feeling of entitlement. In my book, if you don't earn it, you don't deserve it.

 

Believe me folks, it ain't that bad. Take care of yourselves, your family and your friends and all will be okay.

Well said!

[RonStewart]

RightSpin Steve, are you referring to individual self-reliance?

[beemerman2k]

OK Steve, this is my final answer. I will borrow the words of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr to make my point. This from his "American Dream" speech of 1965 (somebody try and tell me King wasn't a huge admirer of this country and its founders!):

 

I would like to use as a subject from which to speak tonight, the American Dream. And I use this subject because America is essentially a dream, a dream yet unfulfilled. The substance of the dream is expressed in some very familiar words found in the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This is a dream.

 

Now one of the first things we notice about this dream is an amazing universalism. It does not say some men, it says all men. It does not say all white men, but it says all men which includes black men. It doesn’t say all Protestants, but it says all men which includes Catholics. It doesn’t say all Gentiles, it says all men which includes Jews. And that is something else at the center of the American Dream which is one of the distinguishing points, one of the things that distinguishes it from other forms of government, particularly totalitarian systems. It says that each individual has certain basic rights that are neither derived from nor conferred by the state. They are gifts from the hands of the Almighty God. Very seldom if ever in the history of the world has a socio-political document expressed in such profound eloquent and unequivocal language the dignity and the worth of human personality.

 

It's King's last point concerning our inalienable rights that I am posting as my "final answer"

 

BTW, full text of the speech can be found here.

 

Oh, one last point: in this speech King argues that it is the calling of every American to work to ensure that the dream, as dreamed by our founders, actually comes true That's what he saw himself doing, and that's what he challenges us to do.

[steve.foote]

RightSpin Steve, are you referring to individual self-reliance?

 

No. But, that is a characteristic.

[steve.foote]

OK Steve, this is my final answer. I will borrow the words of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr to make my point. This from his "American Dream" speech of 1965 (somebody try and tell me King wasn't a huge admirer of this country and its founders!):

 

I would like to use as a subject from which to speak tonight, the American Dream. And I use this subject because America is essentially a dream, a dream yet unfulfilled. The substance of the dream is expressed in some very familiar words found in the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This is a dream.

 

Now one of the first things we notice about this dream is an amazing universalism. It does not say some men, it says all men. It does not say all white men, but it says all men which includes black men. It doesn’t say all Protestants, but it says all men which includes Catholics. It doesn’t say all Gentiles, it says all men which includes Jews. And that is something else at the center of the American Dream which is one of the distinguishing points, one of the things that distinguishes it from other forms of government, particularly totalitarian systems. It says that each individual has certain basic rights that are neither derived from nor conferred by the state. They are gifts from the hands of the Almighty God. Very seldom if ever in the history of the world has a socio-political document expressed in such profound eloquent and unequivocal language the dignity and the worth of human personality.

 

It's King's last point concerning our inalienable rights that I am posting as my "final answer"

 

BTW, full text of the speech can be found here.

 

Oh, one last point: in this speech King argues that it is the calling of every American to work to ensure that the dream, as dreamed by our founders, actually comes true That's what he saw himself doing, and that's what he challenges us to do.

 

Bingo. America became great because it believed it could. It wasn't opportunity. It wasn't genetics. It wasn't superior intellect. It wasn't race, economics, politics or any of that stuff. The founding fathers of our country planted a silly notion in the minds of the citizenry that they could be better, do better - and they took that idea and ran like hell with it creating the greatest society ever to walk the earth.

 

We don't need to reinvent our society. It's not necessary. All that is required is to understand how we succeeded in the first place and reaquire that belief.

[beemerman2k]

You ever have one of those mornings where you think it's time to get out of bed and start your day, only to realize it's 2:30AM and not 6:30AM like you thought it was?...

 

Sorry Dr. King and founding fathers alike, but I'm goin' back to beddy bye...

 

 

The New England Patriots understand what you're talkin' about Steve

[Whip]

Ken, what part of "history repeats itself" should be considered bad news to our country? To me, the whole point is to allow "history to repeat itself"! Yes, we want to have the historically strong middle class that we used to have, we want to be able to provide families with a solid income so they can function relatively peacefully without the myriad of stresses they are dealing with now, and we want to provide opporunities for those who have college degrees and for those who do not. Yes, we absolutely want history to repeat iself.

 

As far as leading the world on other fronts, forgive me but I feel like this country has changed marvelously in terms of its openess to non-white males over the past 100 or so years. I cannot relate to what my ancestors had to endure as American citizens. I think we are serving as an example to many other developed country's out there.

 

Are we obsessing with being the kind of country they want us to be? I pray not! We were not founded under the same conditions they were, with the same priorities and values, and the same assumptions about individual worth and human dignity.

 

I suppose we do disagree as we see the problem through fundamentally different lens.

 

Ok, now you're getting right on top of it. Almost there.

 

 

Detroit public schools didn't teach that, musta been home schooled.

 

I like it!

[tallman]

OK Steve, this is my final answer. I will borrow the words of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr to make my point. This from his "American Dream" speech of 1965 (somebody try and tell me King wasn't a huge admirer of this country and its founders!):

 

I would like to use as a subject from which to speak tonight, the American Dream. And I use this subject because America is essentially a dream, a dream yet unfulfilled. The substance of the dream is expressed in some very familiar words found in the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This is a dream.

 

Now one of the first things we notice about this dream is an amazing universalism. It does not say some men, it says all men. It does not say all white men, but it says all men which includes black men. It doesn’t say all Protestants, but it says all men which includes Catholics. It doesn’t say all Gentiles, it says all men which includes Jews. And that is something else at the center of the American Dream which is one of the distinguishing points, one of the things that distinguishes it from other forms of government, particularly totalitarian systems. It says that each individual has certain basic rights that are neither derived from nor conferred by the state. They are gifts from the hands of the Almighty God. Very seldom if ever in the history of the world has a socio-political document expressed in such profound eloquent and unequivocal language the dignity and the worth of human personality.

 

It's King's last point concerning our inalienable rights that I am posting as my "final answer"

 

BTW, full text of the speech can be found here.

 

Oh, one last point: in this speech King argues that it is the calling of every American to work to ensure that the dream, as dreamed by our founders, actually comes true That's what he saw himself doing, and that's what he challenges us to do.

 

Bingo. America became great because it believed it could. It wasn't opportunity. It wasn't genetics. It wasn't superior intellect. It wasn't race, economics, politics or any of that stuff. The founding fathers of our country planted a silly notion in the minds of the citizenry that they could be better, do better - and they took that idea and ran like hell with it creating the greatest society ever to walk the earth.

 

We don't need to reinvent our society. It's not necessary. All that is required is to understand how we succeeded in the first place and reaquire that belief.

 

Steve,

I agree that was part of the story.

Unfortunately that silly notion has morphed into the codification of they are entitled to "better".

That in and of itself isn't necessarily bad, but the definition of "better" has changed so much that many settle for

minimumocrity.

As our Society has grown in numbers our allocation of resources need to be "better" than it is now.

Some of that reallocation would involve bitter disputes and changes that would require statutory/judicial input.

An example, public education is required to spend money on everyone regardless of interest or ability.

At some point, those resources are wasted on certain individuals and Society would greatly benefit if the resources were reallocated to others who have the motivation, interest, and aptitude.

Teachers shouldn't have to motivate teenaged students.

Teachers try to but in some cases it isn't going to happen.

By statute and judicial fiat the resources must continue to pour down the rabbit hole when "off with their heads" might be a better solution.

 

[steve.foote]

Tim, I'm not saying anything about where we are at this point, only that in order to better understand where we are, we need to know where we came from. As is apparant in this thread, not many seem to remember how it came to be. The next step would be to understand why we stopped believing which would lead us to understanding why we are where we are. And, then we might have a chance at figuring out a way to get back.

 

It's a long shot, I know. But, the United States has made a good living out of winning on long shots.

[steve.foote]

You ever have one of those mornings where you think it's time to get out of bed and start your day, only to realize it's 2:30AM and not 6:30AM like you thought it was?...

 

James, if you look at most of my posts, you will see a similar pattern. Insomniac's of America - Unite!

[Bud]

Sitting back an stating how bad the country is may be an easy thing to do given the filth that is reported constantly by opposing political figures and news agencies, but I can tell you this:

 

Speaking with men and women from various nations while working over here has and continues to be an eye opener to me. Every one of them whether civilian or military always tell me how great America is and how they wish they had the opportunity to live in America.

 

I suggest we all take a step back and look in from the outside.

 

We are a spoiled society that has come to expect everything and for some reason have a feeling of entitlement. In my book, if you don't earn it, you don't deserve it.

 

Believe me folks, it ain't that bad. Take care of yourselves, your family and your friends and all will be okay.

 

You make a good point Steve, when you compare the US to other countries.

 

While we may still be the best there is, are we less than what we once were?

[tallman]

Where we came from, post WWII and where we are.

http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Sel-Str/Service-Industries.html

 

"The employment transition has been more dramatic. The narrowly defined service sector (Standard Industrial Classification codes 7011-8999) provided only 5.4 million U.S. jobs in 1950, compared to 15.2 million in manufacturing. By 1970, service employment had more than doubled to 11.5 million, while manufacturing had edged up only to 19.3 million. Services nearly doubled again by 1985, reaching 22 million workers, whereas manufacturing had stalled at 19.2 million, after having peaked briefly in the late 1970s at 21 million. Since the mid-1980s the manufacturing workforce has hovered around 17-19 million, while services continued to climb toward the 40 million mark, crossing 35 million by the late 1990s.

 

A perennial concern about the growth of service industries is that they tend to create lower-paying, lower-skilled jobs than those in manufacturing.

 

Read more: Service Industries http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Sel-Str/Service-Industries.html#ixzz17RP6nzOx

 

A variety of theories exist to explain service industry dominance. Michael V. Maciosek provided a helpful overview of the competing ideas in his 1995 paper "Behind the Growth of Service Industries," published in the Illinois Business Review. The conventional explanation centers around three notions. First, the rising efficiency of manufacturing means that it takes fewer workers and less capital to produce the equivalent amount of goods as before. Second, countries with lower labor costs can produce manufactured goods more cheaply than the United States, so U.S. imports rise and domestic production doesn't rise as quickly or may even decline. And third, some believe that as a society becomes more affluent and urban, an increasing share of income is spent on services rather than on goods. In the case of affluence this increase is fueled by convenience or indulgence, and in the case of urbanization it is brought about by specialization of labor, working outside the home, and related lifestyle changes. On the surface, there is some statistical evidence to support each of these claims.

 

 

 

Read more: Service Industries http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Sel-Str/Service-Industries.html#ixzz17RPiO81d

 

Read more: Service Industries http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Sel-Str/Service-Industries.html#ixzz17RORvTye"

[Dave McReynolds]

I think it's fine that we've switched over to a service economy, but the bottom line is, we can't sustain an economy by shining each other's shoes (or by doing tax returns for each other either, for that matter).

 

If we can't produce some combination of goods and services that the world wants bad enough to buy from us for as much as we pay the rest of the world for the goods and services we import, then we are in deep $hit, and we need to make whatever changes are necessary to bring that into balance. The same can be said about outflows of government payments and inflows of tax dollars.

[tallman]

Partly my point.

What got us here isn't what will get us there, IMO.

 

The transition from manufacturing/producing goods to service dominated job force was predicted 40 years ago.

 

Neith the government nor education system prepared for that.

 

The myth of college is still foisted upon us along with the commensurate debt involved.

 

Instead of the mantra that everyone should go to college, I think we should be preaching everyone should be prepared to work.

Work.

Show up, do a good job, try to be a needed part of the company.

Do what you can to make it a better place and secure a future for yourself.

 

Today's workforce is more likely to miss work, change jobs, take stuff home from "their" office, than previous generations.

 

The "work" from home concept is like "dining out" at home.

An oxymoron.

People do it but it isn't the same.

 

Seen the ads with the girl in her pajamas "going to school"?

 

Self discipline, when did it become a bad thing?

 

Maybe it all started when IBM allowed employees to wear blue shirts.

 

[Quinn]

So what do we produce for export? I can think of agriculture and entertainment; Wheat and movies. Guess I could also include defense services but we don't charge for those. In the recent past, I would have added investment dollars and technology.

 

----

 

 

[AviP]

As soon as the Chinese allow their currency to float freely, some of the imbalance will be restored. Their currency will appreciate, their export will be costlier and we fewer jobs will be exported. Heck, we might even see a return of some jobs back here.

 

And of course, medical costs need to be regulated. They are out of control.

[russell_bynum]

The "work" from home concept is like "dining out" at home.

An oxymoron.

People do it but it isn't the same.

 

That's right...it isn't the same. It is sometimes better.

 

Telecommuting isn't right for all jobs, or all employees, but there's certainly value there. As an engineer...I was sitting in an expensive desk in an expensive building in Newport Beach, California...working on servers in Newport Beach, Omaha, and London among other places. I wasn't even physically allowed in the data center where my servers were, so everything I did was remote. If I can do that sitting in Newport Beach, why couldn't I do it from home and save the commute time/expense? Companies that really embrace telecommuting (even if it is just a day or two per week) have been able to make better use of their facilities since a sizable portion of the workforce isn't there on any given day. So...you get rid of the concept of "My desk" and let people rotate and use whatever space is available. It also means less congestion on the roads, and less fuel used/less pollution, etc.

 

As a manager...it's harder to manage people who are remote, but it can be done. I've got one guy on my team who is a good fit for it and he's worked remote several times when he had contractors at the house or something similar. He and I are in constant communication via email and phone and I don't feel that he's losing any productivity by being remote.

 

So...I don't see the problem with working from home at all.

 

 

Maybe it all started when IBM allowed employees to wear blue shirts.

 

Personally, I'm happy to see the trends away from idiotic "business" dress towards business casual and even casual. There's absolutely no correlation between whether or not I'm wearing a tie and how professional or productive I'm going to be. It isn't a sign of competence, honesty, character, or anything else that is important.

[Selden]

You ever have one of those mornings where you think it's time to get out of bed and start your day, only to realize it's 2:30AM and not 6:30AM like you thought it was?...

James, if you look at most of my posts, you will see a similar pattern. Insomniac's of America - Unite!

I try to go offline before 10:00; otherwise, I may be too juiced to sleep, as I was last night after reading this: Facebook's Grand Plan for the Future.

[Dave McReynolds]

So what do we produce for export? I can think of agriculture and entertainment; Wheat and movies. Guess I could also include defense services but we don't charge for those. In the recent past, I would have added investment dollars and technology.

 

----

 

 

As soon as the Chinese allow their currency to float freely, some of the imbalance will be restored. Their currency will appreciate, their export will be costlier and we fewer jobs will be exported. Heck, we might even see a return of some jobs back here.

 

The problem with both of these posts is that they reflect things we would like to see happen, export more and have the Chinese float their currency, but they are things we can't make happen.

 

The house is on fire, and we can't worry about the water damage that might occur in putting it out.

 

Going back to James earlier posts, the reason we are in this predicament is that manufacturing jobs moved to locations where labor costs were lower and environmental and other regulatory concerns were less burdensome. We were hypocritical in allowing this to happen, because we shouldn't be consuming products in the US made abroad under conditions that would be illegal here. Not only hypocritical, but dangerous, as we are finding out that ignoring environmental hazards in China is having an adverse affect on our health in the US. Certainly ignoring labor standards in China has had an adverse affect on our economic health in the US for years, but we have been willing to ignore that, because we get cheap TV's and other items if we ignore that problem.

 

We cannot afford to ignore these problems any longer. We must take whatever actions we can unilaterally take to address them, including tariffs and other laws to ensure that products consumed here either were produced under conditions that would have been legal in the US, or the appropriate cost of not producing them under those conditions has been tacked on to the price. Or, we could repeal some of our labor and the environmental laws to bring us more in line with world standards. Either approach would make sense economically.

 

Interestingly, the world would have no problem with our reducing our environmental and labor laws to the lowest common denominator, but if we tacked on charges to goods we imported, there would no doubt be retaliation. But the end result would be the same, economically, as far as the rest of the world was concerned, if not for us.

 

I personally am not concerned with retaliation if we were to impose tariffs. Tariffs and retaliation would have a dampening effect on world trade in general, but because it would reduce or eliminate our trade deficit, I think it would help us more than it would hurt us.

 

But if anyone can figure out a way to solve this problem by exporting more goods/services or convince China to float their currency instead, I'm all for it.

[Selden]

I was thinking of this thread for 2 reasons yesterday afternoon:

 

1) NPR "All Things Considered" piece on a Guarneri del Gesù violin that is on the market for an estimated $18 million. At one point they interviewed a luthier in NYC, who said that when he showed a contemporary Chinese violin to his workshop, everybody was depresssed, because they couldn't even buy the wood for the asking price for the Chinese violin;

 

2) WSJ piece, "China Clones, Sells Russian Fighters". Partial quote:

 

After decades of importing and reverse-engineering Russian arms, China has reached a tipping point: It now can produce many of its own advanced weapons—including high-tech fighter jets like the Su-27—and is on the verge of building an aircraft carrier.

 

Not only have Chinese engineers cloned the prized Su-27's avionics and radar but they are fitting it with the last piece in the technological puzzle, a Chinese jet engine.

 

In the past two years, Beijing hasn't placed a major order from Moscow.

 

Now, China is starting to export much of this weaponry, undercutting Russia in the developing world, and potentially altering the military balance in several of the world's flash points.

It's not just the USA; we are in the middle of a massive re-distribution of global wealth/influence.

[russell_bynum]

We must take whatever actions we can unilaterally take to address them, including tariffs and other laws to ensure that products consumed here either were produced under conditions that would have been legal in the US, or the appropriate cost of not producing them under those conditions has been tacked on to the price.

 

How do we do that without getting into a situation like we had with American car companies where the Japanese cars were kept artificially expensive through tariffs so the American companies just made crap...because they could get away with it?

 

And what do we do to deal with the people who will no longer be able to afford goods/services because we've made them artificially expensive?

[tallman]

Russell,

Gotcha.

Thought that might wake you up.

 

I agree, some people shouldn't work around others and they are quite productive when physicall isolated.

 

But, in response to Steve's POV, or how I saw that, I'm not sure that telecommuting is the answer from a national/global perspective to reverse the decline of America.

In fact, it may be possible that this personal isolationism restricts or limits the potential of that employee as much as it might improve the creativity of another one.

 

Getting up and going to work, making yourself look presentable, this may not have a correlation with making America "great", but those who did that didn't hurt the cause.

 

In the past, "working" from home may have meant sewing, smithing, producing something of a tangible nature.

So much of what we "do" these days results in an intangible product, something called service.

That brings me back to my links above.

Once we reduce contact to telecontact, the employee can be anywhere.

Are 4 Indian engineers @$25k/yr equal to 1 American engineer @$110k ? Or, better/worse?

 

Part of getting up and putting on the corporate logo was buying into the system.

Many authors and political science/economists can show where the system failed.

I submit that as a Society we miss that part of the equation.

The affiliation, camraderie, shared goals and purpose.

Seems like too many workers today are "all about me".

IMO, until "we" buy into a shared system of goals and values, we will continue to drift.

 

Too many focus on the "decline" when I think we should be looking at "America" and how we can suystain the rights of indivduals/while still championing our values around the world and providing for our citizenry.

I think we may need to look at "not what our country can do for us, but rather, what we can do for our country."

[Dave McReynolds]

We must take whatever actions we can unilaterally take to address them, including tariffs and other laws to ensure that products consumed here either were produced under conditions that would have been legal in the US, or the appropriate cost of not producing them under those conditions has been tacked on to the price.

 

How do we do that without getting into a situation like we had with American car companies where the Japanese cars were kept artificially expensive through tariffs so the American companies just made crap...because they could get away with it?

 

And what do we do to deal with the people who will no longer be able to afford goods/services because we've made them artificially expensive?

 

Goods can be made more cheaply by ignoring labor and environmental laws than they can under the environmental and labor laws we have enacted. If you make goods that are more expensive, whatever the reason, there are some people who could afford them before that will no longer be able to afford them. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

 

If it were possible to exactly tack on the cost of ignoring labor and environmental laws, then the playing field would be level, and American companies wouldn't be awarded for producing crap. You would still buy the foreign goods at the increased price. Your next question is, how do we know exactly how much to tack on to level the playing field? Good question! (that I don't have an answer for)

[russell_bynum]

Goods can be made more cheaply by ignoring labor and environmental laws than they can under the environmental and labor laws we have enacted. If you make goods that are more expensive, whatever the reason, there are some people who could afford them before that will no longer be able to afford them. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

 

I agree, but how do you explain that to the person who can't afford clothes anymore because the govt just caused it to triple in price?

 

[russell_bynum]

I agree, some people shouldn't work around others and they are quite productive when physicall isolated.

 

LOL. There are certainly peeps like that.

 

Mostly I was talking about people working from home a few days a week. It isn't that they shouldn't work around others...it is that there's no reason that they should have to come to the office every day in order to be productive.

 

But, in response to Steve's POV, or how I saw that, I'm not sure that telecommuting is the answer from a national/global perspective to reverse the decline of America.

In fact, it may be possible that this personal isolationism restricts or limits the potential of that employee as much as it might improve the creativity of another one.

 

Absolutely. Which is why I said it wasn't right for all jobs or all employees. And I don't see any one thing as a fix for the problem that we're in.

 

Getting up and going to work, making yourself look presentable, this may not have a correlation with making America "great", but those who did that didn't hurt the cause.

 

Most politicians are very well dressed.

 

 

Once we reduce contact to telecontact, the employee can be anywhere.

Are 4 Indian engineers @$25k/yr equal to 1 American engineer @$110k ? Or, better/worse?

 

Great question. In my experience in IT...no. I've seen several big development projects that were taken offshore go horribly wrong, way over budget/time, and eventually get brought back in-house to be finished. I know of a few organizations who employed an offshore engineer or two to handle after-hours maintenance and patching...which did not go well and the programs were terminated.

 

The problem, from what I can see anyway, is that the time, language, and culture gap makes communication between the various groups (end users, analysts, developers, etc) very difficult.

 

There's were I think a 100% remote workforce doesn't make sense. In other cases, it works fine. But...I think a part-time remote workforce (working from home a few days a week) makes a bunch of sense in lots of cases.

[Dave McReynolds]

Goods can be made more cheaply by ignoring labor and environmental laws than they can under the environmental and labor laws we have enacted. If you make goods that are more expensive, whatever the reason, there are some people who could afford them before that will no longer be able to afford them. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

 

I agree, but how do you explain that to the person who can't afford clothes anymore because the govt just caused it to triple in price?

 

That's indeed one of the problems with facing reality. My grandchildren throw away more clothes every year than I had the whole time I was growing up, and my family wasn't poor. I basically got by on two pairs of bluejeans, plus one nicer set of clothes to wear for whatever things might come up that required nicer clothes (all made in the USA). I didn't feel deprived because everybody else was more or less in the same boat.

 

If I now had to move back to that, I'm sure I'd feel deprived. I wouldn't be, really, but I'm sure I'd feel that way.

[g_frey]

Teachers shouldn't have to motivate teenaged students.

Teachers try to but in some cases it isn't going to happen.

By statute and judicial fiat the resources must continue to pour down the rabbit hole when "off with their heads" might be a better solution.

 

As a teacher I would add "off with the heads of incompetent teachers" too.

[Selden]

I don't know what the Chinese are doing to motivate their students, but it seems to be working. OECD Program for International Student Assessment scores for 15-year olds in 33 countries:

 

Shanghai

Reading #1

Science #1

Math #1

 

USA

Reading #17 (slightly above average)

Science #23 (significantly below average)

Math #32 (out of 33)

 

This was the first year that Shanghai students took the tests.

[tallman]

Perhaps the difference is they don't have to motivate their students.

Intrinsic versus extrinsic data has been around a long time.

 

Self discipline may be a reflection of the society the student is raised in and success in education isn't usually impeded by having self discipline.

 

I'd hate to even look under the nature versus nurture rock and interject the data showing success for certain groups on academic testing.

[FlyingFinn]

USA

Math #32 (out of 33)

 

Astonishing. But hey, we are all winners here.

Do you happen to have a link to the full results?

 

--

Mikko

[pbharvey]

I don't know what the Chinese are doing to motivate their students, but it seems to be working. OECD Program for International Student Assessment scores for 15-year olds in 33 countries:

 

Shanghai

Reading #1

Science #1

Math #1

 

USA

Reading #17 (slightly above average)

Science #23 (significantly below average)

Math #32 (out of 33)

 

This was the first year that Shanghai students took the tests.

 

I wonder what percentage of Chinese children of school age attend school? I assume there's a fair portion of them working in factories making our iPads and such.

[Selden]

Do you happen to have a link to the full results?

 

--

Mikko

It's all over the news today, but here is one source: "2009 Program for International Student Assessment Scores" The original data come from the OECD PISA site: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/ but it looks like their servers are overwhelmed tonight.

 

To me, the really interesting part is not the mediocre U.S. results, but the fact that Shanghai was first in all three areas, and by a substantial margin in each. Finland did pretty well, too.

[yabadabapal]

In the book "outliers" by Gladwell is a great chapter on the differences in education around the world and why and what makes those differences so significant and sizable.

[FlyingFinn]

Finland did pretty well, too.

 

Damn those public schools

 

Apropos, it's been a while since I moved from Finland and my income bracket has changed since then. That has made me little uneasy when comparing factual income tax rates between US and Finland.

During a recent ski trip I had a chance to compare notes with another fellow who is likely in similar income bracket as I am and who lived and worked in Finland just couple of years ago.

 

Our notes agreed. The total income tax rate for "typical engineer" is now higher in most of the US than in Finland.

This is crazy to me.

That country is a western democracy but clearly more socialistic that United States (universal health care, practically free education, quite good government pension, etc.)

And yet, even for people with good income the tax rate there is lower.

 

This was a tangent and I apologize for that, but I believe it was a relevant data point. In the globalized world United States is not doing all that well, I want us to do much better.

 

--

Mikko

[Dave McReynolds]

That country is a western democracy but clearly more socialistic that United States (universal health care, practically free education, quite good government pension, etc.)

And yet, even for people with good income the tax rate there is lower.

 

 

Finland spends about 1.6% of GDP on defense; the US spends about 4.7% of GDP on defense. Finland also has a lower debt as a percentage of GDP than the US. Those differentials leave more on the table for Finland to spend on social programs.

[steve.foote]

It takes hundreds, maybe thousands, of little individual decisions to fly an airplane. And, while each of those choices are important, they are insignificant if the pilot and passengers don't have faith that they will arrive at their destination successfully. Until we reaquire that faith in ourselves and each other, the details don't matter. In fact, it's pointless to even consider them. Focus on that which matters most and the details will take care of themselves. Do you believe that we can be better, do better?