Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan fkurucz, what do you see as the solution to our economic woes? What do you think it would take to right the ship again?
Originally Posted By fkurucz First of all, ditch "free trade" and globalization. We are pretty much the only chumps that play that game anyway. Everyone one else jealously protects their labor and markets. We actually give companies tax breaks for offshoring. We can be self sufficient, sure things will cost a little more, but incomes will be higher. We used to be self sufficient. We can do it again.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Because the University could not pay what it took to attract top people.<< So your problem was that you couldn't pay market wages. That's a very different issue than "there was no one available". It's like I have said before, there no shortage of skilled labor, there's only a shortage of "cheap skilled labor" which is the justification used for importing H1-Bs when Americans are unemployed. " But it makes no sense to bemoan the loss of manufacturing jobs because NOTHING is going to bring them back." Funny how the Germans were able to hang on to their manufacturing base. Saying that we can't do manufacturing in the USA is canard spread by Corporate America in its never ending quest to increase profits at Americans' expense.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<First of all, ditch "free trade" and globalization.>> Is that even politically possible anymore? The large corporations that basically own our politicians aren't "American" companies anymore - they're global companies with interests in many, many nations around the world. The last thing they would ever want would be an end to out-sourcing - so how would any legislation to end it ever make it through Congress? I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Funny how the Germans were able to hang on to their manufacturing base.>> Yes, because the German people have the pride to buy German-made things even though they cost more. We buy crap made in China because it is cheap. I think it has more to do with the American "I want it all, I want it now, and I want it CHEAP" mentality than any plot by Corporate America.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<That may be true, but how are the current unemployed going to pay for all that re-training?>> My wife works as an admissions advisor... virtually anyone can get a government backed student loan to cover most if not all the cost of their education. In fact at times that is a problem... students can easily borrow so much that they have absolutley no reasonable chance of being able to pay it back. And like taxes, student loans cannot be discharged through bankruptcy. But that is a different issue. Paying for an education is absolutely not a problem.
Originally Posted By queenbee If the money for an education is borrowed and cannot even be discharged through bankruptcy how exactly is "paying" "not a problem."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>students can easily borrow so much that they have absolutley no reasonable chance of being able to pay it back<< If that's true for someone in their 20s, what the heck does it mean for someone who, at age 55, decides to go back to school on college loans? You know I'm a glass-half-full kinda guy, but I am having some real trouble following the logic here. And realistically, is a company going to hire a 59 year old recent grad over a 24 year old recent grad?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>And realistically, is a company going to hire a 59 year old recent grad over a 24 year old recent grad?<< No. Ph.D be damned.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<If the money for an education is borrowed and cannot even be discharged through bankruptcy how exactly is "paying" "not a problem." >> I didn't say paying the loan would not be a problem. I said paying for school would not be a problem. There's a difference.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<If that's true for someone in their 20s, what the heck does it mean for someone who, at age 55, decides to go back to school on college loans? You know I'm a glass-half-full kinda guy, but I am having some real trouble following the logic here.>> They probably don't pay it all back. Especially if they get an option to repay it as a percentage of income, you will undoubtedly go to your grave without having paid it in full. If you've done very well and have created quite an estate, they will get their money then. Otherwise they never will.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<No. Ph.D be damned.>> I would NEVER get a Ph.D. above the age of early 30's. The only people who really hire Ph.D.s are Universities, and they aren't looking for inexperienced 59-year-old faculty. I was speaking of former manufacturing people looking for a second career who could pick up an associates degree in relatively little time at relatively little cost.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>They probably don't pay it all back.<< But they live the rest of their lives with this debt hanging over their heads. Obviously, people have to do something in the way of retraining for a new career. But age is a factor. And in a generation when corporations have zero qualms about shutting down plants and offshoring even highly skilled jobs, what careers are the best bet going forward? It feels like no sector is "safe". Undertakers, maybe. There doesn't seem to be much appetite, certainly not among Republicans, to really do much of anything about protecting jobs in this country. And teh Democrats seem befuddled as well, or too weak-kneed to go up against the GOP on this stuff, so what is the average guy to do? Hopefully some surprising innovation, some new economic idea will spring up as it has seemed to do throughout our history, to present hope and opportunities. Who knows? But without some kind of incentives and even well-placed draconian government interference for companies to keep jobs at all levels HERE, the old "well, you just gotta work harder and get retrained" thing doesn't solve much.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan fkurucz is right that it is insane to give tax breaks to companies for offshoring and outsourcing labor to other countries. Fixing that ridiculous practice, and replacing it with a VERY aggressive incentive package for hiring folks here would do wonders.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>> We buy crap made in China because it is cheap. I think it has more to do with the American "I want it all, I want it now, and I want it CHEAP" mentality than any plot by Corporate America.<<< Absolutely agree. I would much rather pay more and buy things that last less often, but I seem to be in the minority. Sarah is wearing my EuroDisney shirt I bought in 1992. It looks about a year old. Yesterday, after I got in off the road, I put on a shirt I bought at DLP this summer (6 months old) it looks older that the 18.5 year old shirt. This I think typifies what has happened to the economy globally. People want it cheap. I try to buy organic fair trade or locally sourced food too, but I know that I am in a minority. We (the UK is nearly as bad as the US) are the ones to blame - businesses, politicians, and people for this situation (and bad bankers). But one way to turn things around is to stop going to Walmart and think about ethical buying. The problem is, when people are hurting financially, they will buy the cheapest crap, so it becomes a cycle of deprivation that is hard to break.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<First of all, ditch "free trade" and globalization. We are pretty much the only chumps that play that game anyway. Everyone one else jealously protects their labor and markets. We actually give companies tax breaks for offshoring. We can be self sufficient, sure things will cost a little more, but incomes will be higher. We used to be self sufficient. We can do it again.>> I doubt it. We were self-sufficient when countries like China could barely supply their own needs and exported very little. For most of the 20th Century the US trade balance was favorable and I doubt anyone here complained too much about international trade. We may have been more self-sufficient on what we consumed, but we relied on sales to other countries to provide the great increase in the U.S. standard of living between 1940 and 1970. Now the shoe is on the other foot and we piss and moan about it... not very sporting of us, eh? I think it is crazy to give tax breaks for exporting jobs overseas, but the fact is that the savings in doing so is so great that companies would more than likely do it anyway. Yes, they would pay more taxes, which would be a plus, but it wouldn't do much for U.S. employment. Even if you could legally keep U.S. companies from directly hiring people in other countries (and good luck with THAT!) they could still buy parts and assemblies from other countries to minimize U.S. labor. About the only way you could turn the situation around would be through very restrictive import tariffs, which I doubt the American people would stand for. Americans have voted with their dollars and made Wal-Mart the number one retailer in the country and they have done it KNOWING that it was pushing production overseas. When push comes to shove most Americans are pretty damned selfish and if they can save 20% on something, they don't really care if it puts someone they don't know out of work. I guarantee you... if you put it to a national vote and gave Americans the option of reducing unemployment to 5% by agreeing to pay 20% more for everything they purchased there is no way in hell they would vote for it. Yes, other countries are much more protectionist than the U.S. And even though many European countries have higher standards of living than the U.S. when it comes to education or health care, none of them TOUCH the U.S. when it comes to the amount of consumer goods owned by the average person. So protectionism is not the answer. We have to concentrate our efforts on keeping people employed in areas where the U.S. maintains competitive advantage. This may take much more government support for unemployment benefits and retraining. But those manufacturing jobs? Face it... they aren't coming back. Throughout American history some professions have become obsolete. We have survived before; we will survive again. And we can survive best by trying to find REALISTIC solutions... not by trying to recreate a past that could never occur in the future. That is kind of like thinking the WDW of today could ever be the same as the WDW of 1982. Oops... bad example. Strangely enough there are many people at this site who think that might actually be possible also. I sure wish I had some of what they were smoking... ;-)
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>Yes, other countries are much more protectionist than the U.S. And even though many European countries have higher standards of living than the U.S. when it comes to education or health care, none of them TOUCH the U.S. when it comes to the amount of consumer goods owned by the average person.<<< Agreed, which is why after taking a long trip to the Us a few years ago to decide where to raise my kids, I prefer putting people before landfill junk, hence why we stayed over here. Also an amusing observation (to me anyway). At DLP, some people think about their table service dining as being a key attraction. Others, of course the attractions. Yet in my experience of going with various American friends, they have complained about the length of time dining and talking (maybe my company has been wanting), but wanted to prioritise shopping!!! And this is on many occassions. FWIW, I buy myself very little (most products are crap these days). I like to spend my money on experiences and travel.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<We have to concentrate our efforts on keeping people employed in areas where the U.S. maintains competitive advantage. This may take much more government support for unemployment benefits and retraining.>> I agree with this, but good luck getting that support from the Federal Government. The Republican majority is never going to vote to spend more government funds on the poor - and certainly not for education. And local governments are still reeling from the Recession, so no help there either.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>We have survived before; we will survive again.<< The only statement in your post that I have a problem with. Assumes facts not in evidence. And it's thinking like this that keeps us from taking the problems seriously enough to actually solve them. We survived before by not being a nation of idiots. Nuff said.
Originally Posted By fkurucz "But that is a different issue. Paying for an education is absolutely not a problem." You mean financing an education. Big difference. Getting student loans is easy, paying them back is hard (and they are not dischargeable in a Bankruptcy).
