>From Jed,
> >Insofar as developing new forms of employment to counter dwindling > >jobs within the manufacturing sector it seems to me that a more > >down-to-earth as well as economical approach would be to create jobs > >in the service, entertainment, and particularly within a growing > >number of higher skilled labor fields. > > This is what many experts recommend. I cannot judge the wisdom of it, > since I do not know enough about economics. I would only note that we > seem to be approaching the limits of entertainment what with TIVOs, > the Internet and the Amazon.com Kindle. A person can only watch so > many movies per day. Neither am I qualified to speak more than a couple of random thoughts on the subject of macroeconomics. Like CF much of it really is a witch's brew. However in terms of future entertainment, I would like to believe that an untapped bonanza of employment belongs in the form of numerous localized public engagements. I hope we begin to partake more often that what we do now of local talent, of local communities in order to enjoy "subsidized" local talent - be it art, music, plays, or whatever. Instead of there being one mega Michael Jackson that everyone has to see in a football stadium, I'd like to see the continued growth of small localized talent, a plethora of "Michael Jacksons" that have tailored their message to the local community & environment, where they perform at the favorite local coffee shop. Much more personal that way too. In a way, it's kind of like harkening back to the old story teller tradition. Of course it's happening now. I just hope it increases. . > >. . .I doubt capitalism alone has either the kahunas or vision to > >finance the educational resources necessary in order to grow a > >higher skilled labor force our nation desperately needs. > > You cannot expect corporations to do this. They are in business to > make money, not to provide employment. They employ the smallest > number of people they can, and they invest the least amount in > education and training they can. There is nothing immoral or untoward > about this. Investing more than you need to in employees would be > like paying more than you need to for factory equipment. > > Periodically you see public relations campaigns in the mass media in > which large corporations say "we are here to serve the public" and > "we invest in our employees" and so on. If I were a stockholder I > would be upset by that. They are here to make money. If they change > their mission to "serving the public" or educating employees, the > competition will soon drive them out of business. We do not want > corporations making public policy or setting education standards. > They are supposed to be amoral. Which implies that the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the government to do all the necessary (and all-too-often unpopular) planning. We can only hope our government doesn't become completely bought out by corporate self-interest groups. I'm reminded of the film: "RollerBall", starring James Caan. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073631/ Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
