On Dec 22, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Tom C wrote: >> From: Paul Stenquist <[email protected]> >>> I've been saying it for a long time (as I'm affected every day by >>> either outsourced or on-shored technical workers). When the majority >>> of the population is working at McDonald's or Walmart, who will be >>> making the money to buy the SUV's and flat-screen TV's? >>> >>> I'm not sure it's a matter of mindset, per se for those workers, but I >>> generally agree. It's more that their county's labor markets have been >>> handed hundreds of thousands of jobs that would have formerly been >>> held by native citizens because their labor can be had at a far >>> cheaper price. Hence thousands of qualified, but many more >>> under-qualified and nominally-qualified workers get the jobs because >>> all corporations can see is the immediate reduction in labor costs, >>> not the fact that they'll have to do the job three times to get it >>> done right, or that they've created a whole class of >>> un-/under-employed people in their own backyard. >> >> The root of the problem is that we now live in a world with international >> markets. American producers have to compete with those of other countries. >> If > labor costs are higher, there's no way to be price competitive. We >> could become isolationist with high tariff protections and a minimum of > >> international trade, but we would surely stagnate. >> > > I've heard that excuse for years.
It's not an excuse. It's a fact, and that's why you've been hearing it for many years. > It's basically a cop out, > never-ending, and ultimately self-defeating, because in the end the > players that are the most competitive, i.e. lowest priced, most > profitable are the ones that win and everyone else is left out in the > cold. When a society does not invest in it's people THAT'S when it > stagnates. We do invest in our people: small business loans, education loans and grants, and government subsidies for a variety of industries. > > The 'we must remain competitive' argument only works if those > displaced have suitable and equal alternatives to the lost > opportunity. There are lost opportunities as society transitions. It happened during the industrial revolution as well, but in the end things equal out. Of course, there are always winners and losers. It's the way of the world. > Guess what? That costs money so there's little interest > in doing that, as it again affects short term profitability. Those > involved in the manufacturing sector that have lost jobs could have > been trained and employed in the high tech sector, but to 'remain > competitive' those jobs were also outsourced. It's simply a lie. > > Capitalism is in the process of cannibalizing itself because it > ultimately relies on people, and when it discards people as not > needed, it's eating itself away from the inside out. It's dog eat dog. > What will big dog eat when little dogs are gone? Cats. > > >>> It's basically >>> business and political leaders pulling the rug out from under it's >>> citizens to increase stockholder wealth, plain and simple. >> >> It's not that simple. Unprofitable enterprises can't survive. Stockholder >> profit is a function of being profitable, and that's a plus, not a minus. >> >>> I won't >>> vouch for all the claims made on this website but I believe it's >>> basically correct: >>> >>> http://www.zazona.com/shameh1b/ >>> >>> Communism collapsed under the weight of it's own inefficiency and lack >>> of moral legitimacy. It's leaders acquired and maintained power and >>> wealth through fear, and control. >>> >>> Capitalism appears to be imploding because it's leaders (business and >>> political) are more interested in acquiring and maintaining power and >>> wealth for themselves than in seeing to it that the average person has >>> the means to make a decent living and provide for their families. It's >>> quickly losing it's moral legitimacy as well. When capitalism finally >>> devours the citizens it's built upon, it will be dead. >> >> What we need to survive is entrepreneurship and innovation. But government >> regulation and overtaxation make that difficult. However, we are making >> progress. GM now sells more cars in China than anyone else, because they've >> developed products that market wants. We've made good gains in some >> efficient energy fields, including batteries and thin-film solar. But we >> have to continue to encourage development. We can thrive as a service >> industry, innovation and management society, while leaving much of the >> production to countries with cheap labor. But we have to strive to remain >> competitive. > > If you don't educate and employ your citizens... innovation is hard to > come by when many people are simply struggling to survive, much less > innovate. > > In regard to thriving, when the majority of manufacturing and design > expertise, the heavy lifting, is on the other side of the fence, a > simple denial of goods will cripple any society in a relatively short > period. > >> >>> >>> Put another way, when inflated self-interest turns into blatant >>> disinterest in the welfare of others the system becomes strained, and >>> historically breaks. >>> >> We are a leading producer of whine:-). >> > > Capitalism will ultimately fail because it is, at it's roots based on > the principle of greed, and on the idea that 'I am better than you, > more important than you, therefore more deserving than you'. That > philosophy is a falsehood at it's core. Lies and dishonesty ultimately > result in failure and so will systems predicated upon it. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
