World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[marurun]

Be nice, Blu. Don't go all tanooki on us.

[Blu]

I interpreted your "pure speculation" comment as snide and willful ignorance of an existing problem. If that wasn't your intention, then that's fine, and I apologize. I'm sorry about that, Exhuminator.

But quite frankly, it's a naive viewpoint to think that this isn't a continuation of "business as usual" on behalf of "American" companies strongarming the government and taxpayers into getting what they want. Deficit spending that results from such policies will continue into the next administration and be put on the backs of normal people, without us seeing any benefit. And we'll have to smile and be thankful for what we're given, or otherwise called ungrateful.

To be quite honest, outsourcing of American manufacturing might have spelled our downfall long ago, because we allowed said corporations to overwhelmingly dictate everyone else's futures, and the future of this nation. Instead of the well-being of our nation and doing well as a business as a raison d'etre, profit has been the sole motive for many of these multibillion dollar conglomerates. Like Marurun said, such models are really the bane of small businesses, which provide some check to the capitalism model. It won't come back, and you're looking at the beginning of yet another Gilded Age.

[Sarge]

I'm actually kind of intrigued by this idea that folks are "whining". Let's face it, change is hard. And while some are equipped with the sort of mindset that allow for rapid adjustment to a changing economic landscape, others aren't. And I can have a bit of empathy for them, as opposed to just saying "suck it up". Perhaps a little ironic coming from one of this board's resident conservatives, but there ya go.

[Blu]

I honestly hope that this Carrier bit is Trump placing more pressure on United Technologies and their Billions in federal contracts, and that Trump can use those federal contracts as leverage, as to stick to the populism message that got him elected. I don't think he'll stick to it very long, meaning those jobs will eventually make their way to Mexico one way or another.

The IDEC in this circumstance, was not used for its intended purpose.

[Forlorn Drifter]

On the "move to where the jobs are subject"...

Since some of you aren't fans of the rhetoric used by the Republican party, doesn't it seem...odd to use their arguments? I've heard this same argument used when discussing people in neighborhoods/areas of cities that don't have good work options, and the same problems apply- you have to have the money to buy this new home/property, and you have to be able to sell what you currently have (or be making enough to buy a new place while holding onto the old property.)

Its a blatantly simple solution, but the barriers to using it cause a sticking point. If I moved out of manufacturing into the tech industry, I have to be making enough money to buy a place so that I can work in the tech industry. In my case, the most likely option would be Austin or Dallas, which is laughable. If I sold all my parents land, my grandfather's land, and the houses, I could do it, but for someone like my neighbors, who have one acre of rural land (they don't work in manufacturing- just as an example), that's not going to get them much. The other factor is the fact that as high as the land is worth in my area, nobody is buying...
-----
I think the key is figuring out a way to get companies to place jobs in these communities. How is the hard part. Incentives are one idea, but the pros and cons of that have discussed to death. For example, replacing coal based jobs with jobs focused on renewable energy would be ideal, but from what I've seen (if I'm wrong, please point it out!) they have been going to different communities. An advantage to these other communities, of course, but there has to be a way to balance this out somehow.

Pushing these people into the larger towns/cities has its own set of problems- many of these places struggle to handle the low-skilled workers they already have, and an influx of more won't help anything. I fear this will turn into a problem similar to that of homeless people, with everyone scratching their head trying to figure out what can be done without angering others in these areas.
------
As for Ag related stuff (somewhat touched on) I have my opinions, but I'll leave that alone unless asked.

[prfsnl_gmr]

I'm one of those weird free-market liberals.

Your arguments are well-placed, Forlorn. Relocating for work is incredibly difficult, and one of the best things that the government can do for the economy is to make it easier for people to relocate. In the absence of a centrally-planned economy, however, the factors that drive the relocation are outside of the government's control. Industries rise and fall, and the sad fact is that, to prosper, labor has to move to where it is needed. This is the way that it has been throughout history, and this is the way that it remains today. Getting to stay where you are is a privilege, and IMO, the government should rid people of an expectation that jobs will come to them. (They never have; they never will; and in light of how frequently our ancestors moved, this expectation seems to be a rather modern phenomenon.) Rather, and again, IMO, the government would better serve us by making it easier for people to relocate for work (and, thereby, encouraging the efficient allocation of labor) For whatever reason, however, it doesn't want to do that, and none of our leaders are talking about it (probably because having a sober conversation about how people are probably going to have to move is much less palatable than blowing smoke about delivering great jobs to their front door).

.....

Also, if you want to relocate to a city - or anywhere else for that matter - you don't start off by buying land there. You: (1) rent a place with some roommates while saving up enough to; (2) rent a place by yourself until you have enough money and spare income to; (3) make a down payment on a place of your own;; and (4) make payments on your mortgage until you own your property free and clear. This is a good way to build wealth, but some people are perfectly happy renting throughout their lives (and houses are so much work that I sometimes envy them!).

[Forlorn Drifter]

I completely understand- I just don't like it.

On the comments about how moving to the city works, I get it, but I think there's kinks from what I've seen. The large majority of people I know who live in the city don't make enough to save up to buy a place- they make enough to cover rent and necessities, with a little leftover for fun (that could be used for saving, ideally, but how many people are actually willing to do that?). I'd also point to the fact that for some people, covering rent won't even be an option when moving to the city. If someone's coming in with experience in only oil work or agriculture or something else that won't be useful in the city, the market is limited. Schooling to redefine yourself for a new job costs you, if you go that route, which is another kink in that idealism.

I've actually been interested in how long the move to urban areas will continue to last as living expenses get higher. I'm still blown away at how many people want to move to Austin- especially the ones that want to live in the "real Austin", considering the costs, traffic, etc.

[marurun]

If your only work experience is in oil or ag, and you lack a robust education, it will be very difficult to get good paying work in a city, or really anywhere. That's part of why some kind of minimum wage and salary reform is necessary, as well as robust support for job skills training. These days even a good education is only so much help.

[MrPopo]

Good mass transit allows for people to get out of the urban center while still making it feasible to work in the urban center; the Chicago metro area is a good example, as there's 5 or 6 commuter rail lines that move a very large number of people from the suburbs into the city for their jobs.

[J T]

I'm actually kind of intrigued by this idea that folks are "whining". Let's face it, change is hard. And while some are equipped with the sort of mindset that allow for rapid adjustment to a changing economic landscape, others aren't. And I can have a bit of empathy for them, as opposed to just saying "suck it up". Perhaps a little ironic coming from one of this board's resident conservatives, but there ya go.

I'm with you on this point Sarge. I think the loss of low entry jobs like manufacturing is a sad thing for the country. There are a lot of people without a college education and they need jobs just like everyone else. It's not whining, it's having a valid concern for survival. This becomes a scarier thing as more jobs become automated by machines. I know a lot of these people point to NAFTA and plants getting moved outside the country, which there is truth to, but many jobs are simply disappearing entirely to machines, and this is a problem I don't know how to solve because once Pandora's box is open, there is no obvious way to close it. Following the industrial revolution when the luddites expressed similar fears, society just adapted around new technologies and new kinds of jobs developed as a result. Our technology is getting so advanced now though, that I don't know if the newly evolving jobs will have a place for those without a college education and that is scary for them and society. I don't see it as whining.

On prfsnl_gmr's points about farm subsidies, I have mixed feelings on this issue. There are good reasons for farm subsidies under certain economic conditions.
1.) We need to keep food production within our own country as a matter of national security. I don't think we want to be in a position where we depend on imports for food because the threat of being cutoff from a food supply would put as at a severe disadvantage as a country.
2.) We need to keep food prices down because everyone needs to eat.
3.) Farming needs to be a desirable job so that we still have farmers in the US. They need a good wage, and they need to have some protection against crop destruction from uncontrollable natural events like droughts, floods, and freezes.

That being said, I don't know as any of these things are currently in so much danger as to necessitate government subsidies. The awful thing about subsidies is how slow they move to adapt to market changes, and they are often written and designed in a way that doesn't make sense for directly solving the problems I mentioned in 1,2,3 above. There was a time when farming was in danger and subsidies were necessary, but I don't know if that time is now. But if you pull out the subsidies now, then it will panic a lot of agricultural businesses accustomed to subsidies.

Currently, it seems that a lot of farm subsidies are helping big agricultural businesses that can consolidate and monopolize like Monsanto, which is actually worse for family farmers who can't break into the market. There are also outdated terms for what is subsidized. Sometimes it is subsidized by acre, rather than by yield, which promotes a wasteful use of land, and also preferentially rewards those who can already afford large amounts of land. It seems like subusidies are rewarding the wrong things. The market has also become so accustomed to cheap subsidized corn, that we now have high fructose corn syrup in everything because it has become such an inexpensive ingredient, which basically means we are paying taxes to fund our own national problem with diabetes.

So, I don't have all the solutions, but I just wanted to highlight some of the pros and cons of farm subsidies because it's such an important issue.