Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well a friend of mine retired after many years as did my ex bro in law. Both liked it. To each their own.
things have changed. and if your brother tried to make a living doing yardwork in MY small oregon town, i can almost guarantee he'd starve. one "landscaper" i know, mid 50's, lives in a trailer in his parents driveway.
things have changed. and if your brother tried to make a living doing yardwork in MY small oregon town, i can almost guarantee he'd starve. one "landscaper" i know, mid 50's, lives in a trailer in his parents driveway.
My brother in law, who lives in a small city in OR, owns his own home, has a wife and daughter as does just fine.
The answer you are referring to was about trucking, but that is OK.
You are having a hard time reading aren't you. That was ONE example of unfilled jobs due to retiring Baby Boomers. How many more positions will open up this year and how many retiring baby Boomers, will need help with soooo many things and will have the money to pay others for them. It is NOT a static market. You are so fixated on the numbers you are ignoring how such numbers have always changed in a recession/depression as well as through normal attrition (retirement/death). Gov't plays a part, business plays a part, new babies play a part and people who make the effort play a part. Doesn't happen over night, but it happens, unless the Gov't really fowls things up big time by killing the growth.
You get sillier with every post it seems. Of course it is a static market. Every statistic and every economist in the world, regardless of their conflicting positions on solutions, agrees that the United States and Europe and many other places are essentially static right now ... barely keeping abreast of changing population. And the few places that aren't static -- most significantly China -- are sliding in that direction.
Of course I am "fixating" on the numbers ... that's the whole story here that you can't grasp.
Creating products and services does not create markets for products and service.
You need markets -- demand, willing demand, and available, discretionary income -- to sell products and services. This is what does not exist in any increasing measure right now. If simply creating products and services created markets and sales, why we wouldn't be in an economic crawl now would we? This isn't about effort. The world is full of unrewarded effort right now.
Your posts express ignorant arrogance. You demean 10's of millions of previously hard working people who are struggling to find work and solutions. If hard work, commitment, even talent was all that was required, 1.1 million high school football players would all win NCAA Tier 1 college scholarships and play in the NFL four years later. Oh, and they'd all win the Heisman Trophy en-route.
Good for you. But still not so good at basic arithmetic. Let's have another lesson:
A community has 300 homes with lawns.
Tom and Dick each have lawn care businesses.
They each cut 100 lawns.
100 residents cut their own because they can't afford the service or because they enjoy their own labor.
Harry, a resident, loses his $90K a year software job. He says to self: "Well, I'm not going to sit around waiting for minimum wage to rise to a $90K annual level! I'll do whatever it takes to get by even if it earns much less money. I'll start up a business!" Very enterprising. The old American spirit. So he notes he has a lawnmower (he was one of the 100 who cut his own). He takes the trunk-lid off his BMW and converts it to a lawn-care pick-up truck and puts the lawnmower in the back.
To win a share of the business, Harry drives around the neighborhood offering to cut lawns for $20 a week instead of Tom and Dick's rate of $30.
Tom and Dick slap their foreheads and drop their rate to stay competitive.
When things shake out, Tom, Dick, and Harry each have 66 lawns to cut @ $20 each.
(Well, Harry has 68 lawns because he has his own and he's such a hustler the neighbors admire him.) Q: - How much new business has Harry created in the community?
A: - uh, none?
Because of the loss of clients, Tom and Dick have to lay off their one employee each and just hustle harder themselves to earn a living. Q: - How much new employment has Harry created in the community?
A: - uh, none?Minus one?
All told, 200 lawns used to create $6000 in revenue ... Q: - With a drop of 33.33% in rate to compete, how much new revenue has Harry created?
A: - uh, minus 33.33%?
Q: - How much do Tom and Dick and Harry now make combined?
A: - uh, $4,000 weekly? A net loss?
Q: - How much did Tom and Dick used to make before Harry?
A: - uh, .................................
Q: - Is there a net gain or loss for both individuals and business in the community?
A: - uh ..................................
One can judge others or one can understand the realities of a static market.
You have ignore several other dynamics of your scenario. It is likely that the drop in price from $30 to $20 has enticed some non-customers to change their mind about mowing the lawn. So they now choose to pay to get their lawn mowed. The number of customers increased.
Tom and Dick's existing customers appreciate the price drop. They will do something with that $10 savings. I don't know for sure what they will do. But Tom and Dick might get some of that money by selling additional services. Or their customers might choose to get their grass cut more often.
Of course some will simply pocket the money. But like most Americans, they will spend that money on something - could be beer, drugs, or iTunes cards for their kids. Additional economic activity is the result - just not necessarily with Tom and Dick.
The only certainty in your scenario is that Tom and Dick are pressured to react in some way. Their margin might be reduced. But this event could also be the catalyst for them to achieve greater efficiency or to expand their offerings.
Harry will probably continue to try to find other work because he is really a soft hands guy. But until he does, he might pay some of his bills. The state of CA might pay less unemployment. And Harry keeps working.
You get sillier with every post it seems. Of course it is a static market. Every statistic and every economist in the world, regardless of their conflicting positions on solutions, agrees that the United States and Europe and many other places are essentially static right now ... barely keeping abreast of changing population. And the few places that aren't static -- most significantly China -- are sliding in that direction.
Of course I am "fixating" on the numbers ... that's the whole story here that you can't grasp.
Creating products and services does not create markets for products and service.
You need markets -- demand, willing demand, and available, discretionary income -- to sell products and services. This is what does not exist in any increasing measure right now. If simply creating products and services created markets and sales, why we wouldn't be in an economic crawl now would we? This isn't about effort. The world is full of unrewarded effort right now.
Your posts express ignorant arrogance. You demean 10's of millions of previously hard working people who are struggling to find work and solutions. If hard work, commitment, even talent was all that was required, 1.1 million high school football players would all win NCAA Tier 1 college scholarships and play in the NFL four years later. Oh, and they'd all win the Heisman Trophy en-route.
Um where did I say that was all that was needed, or even suggested we do not have a problem?
I am simply pointing out how we can cry about it or do something about it. Some will, some won't.
As to markets here you have complained about our being a "consumer society" which means buying unneeded things and then say we can't create a new market? I am doing so right now with a new product. Actually several. None are truly needed but I have a pretty good record of opening up new markets and have done so for about 26 years. Can everyone, no. But some can and should, and the opportunity is still there. For others we do need safety nets, but they are only nets, not lifetime shelters. Some we do need to shelter from a harsh world.
You have ignore several other dynamics of your scenario. It is likely that the drop in price from $30 to $20 has enticed some non-customers to change their mind about mowing the lawn. So they now choose to pay to get their lawn mowed. The number of customers increased.
Tom and Dick's existing customers appreciate the price drop. They will do something with that $10 savings. I don't know for sure what they will do. But Tom and Dick might get some of that money by selling additional services. Or their customers might choose to get their grass cut more often.
Of course some will simply pocket the money. But like most Americans, they will spend that money on something - could be beer, drugs, or iTunes cards for their kids. Additional economic activity is the result - just not necessarily with Tom and Dick.
The only certainty in your scenario is that Tom and Dick are pressured to react in some way. Their margin might be reduced. But this event could also be the catalyst for them to achieve greater efficiency or to expand their offerings.
Harry will probably continue to try to find other work because he is really a soft hands guy. But until he does, he might pay some of his bills. The state of CA might pay less unemployment. And Harry keeps working.
Hoffdano! Almost a neat post -- except, no, I didn't ignore any other dynamics ... you, however, ignore the primary dynamic which rules all of your postulations:
No. New. Business. Is. Created.
And thus we see, that all the possibilities amount to wealth redistribution -- not wealth creation.
Furthermore, all are working harder for less. Whether they expand their product offerings or increase services -- whatever ... the value of the work just went down. Any dollars spent elsewhere in the economy are simply transferred dollars.
Harry might pay some of his bills, yes -- at Tom and Dick's expense ... kinda like a welfare program, huh
Um where did I say that was all that was needed, or even suggested we do not have a problem?
I am simply pointing out how we can cry about it or do something about it. Some will, some won't.
As to markets here you have complained about our being a "consumer society" which means buying unneeded things and then say we can't create a new market? I am doing so right now with a new product. Actually several. None are truly needed but I have a pretty good record of opening up new markets and have done so for about 26 years. Can everyone, no. But some can and should, and the opportunity is still there. For others we do need safety nets, but they are only nets, not lifetime shelters. Some we do need to shelter from a harsh world.
Your series of posts in this and other threads hammer away with the message that the problem of unemployment is a lack of willingness to work -- or, frankly, lack of intelligence. This is nonsense. America has the highest level of worker productivity in the world. We work harder and more efficiently than any other nation. Most of the people struggling today were working productively. The American worker has absolutely ZERO fault in the economic collapse. The American workers now unemployed or under-employed have not lost any desire to work or willingness to work hard. Your inferences otherwise are offensive to Americans. Ours is not a nation crying about things we can easily do something about.
I do indeed criticize the very economic foundation of our society. Consumption has driven some commerce for thousands of years. But until the early 20th century, consumption was almost entirely related to mostly pretty basic necessities. Consumerism as an economic and social philosophy and system was proposed to conspicuously "use up and waste resources". A basic overview: Consumerism - . Consumerism is a dead-end -- emphasis on the word "dead". It is one of humanity's greatest absurdities -- along with religion. Unsustainable from the get-go.
That all said, however, there is no way to simply stop the wheels now turning given that we have 7 billion consumers on our planet -- which planet can naturally only support between 1/2 and one billion in the manner for which we are structured and evolved. In order to reposition our consumption and society back to sanity, we have to survive ... which, right now means getting the gyroscope of consumerism functioning first ... then, from a position of temporary balance, begin the long transition to simplicity under modern rules and advantageious use of the incredible body of knowledge that we have accumulated over thousands of years. We never get to return to the garden of Eden, hunting and gathering ... yet we have perfectly good prospects for survival under simple lifestyles and rules.
Now then, who / what are you referring to as needing "safety nets" and shelters?
Your series of posts in this and other threads hammer away with the message that the problem of unemployment is a lack of willingness to work -- or, frankly, lack of intelligence. This is nonsense. America has the highest level of worker productivity in the world. We work harder and more efficiently than any other nation. Most of the people struggling today were working productively. The American worker has absolutely ZERO fault in the economic collapse. The American workers now unemployed or under-employed have not lost any desire to work or willingness to work hard. Your inferences otherwise are offensive to Americans. Ours is not a nation crying about things we can easily do something about.
I do indeed criticize the very economic foundation of our society. Consumption has driven some commerce for thousands of years. But until the early 20th century, consumption was almost entirely related to mostly pretty basic necessities. Consumerism as an economic and social philosophy and system was proposed to conspicuously "use up and waste resources". A basic overview: Consumerism - . Consumerism is a dead-end -- emphasis on the word "dead". It is one of humanity's greatest absurdities -- along with religion. Unsustainable from the get-go.
That all said, however, there is no way to simply stop the wheels now turning given that we have 7 billion consumers on our planet -- which planet can naturally only support between 1/2 and one billion in the manner for which we are structured and evolved. In order to reposition our consumption and society back to sanity, we have to survive ... which, right now means getting the gyroscope of consumerism functioning first ... then, from a position of temporary balance, begin the long transition to simplicity under modern rules and advantageious use of the incredible body of knowledge that we have accumulated over thousands of years. We never get to return to the garden of Eden, hunting and gathering ... yet we have perfectly good prospects for survival under simple lifestyles and rules.
Now then, who / what are you referring to as needing "safety nets" and shelters?
Your series of posts in this and other threads hammer away with the message that the problem of unemployment is a lack of willingness to work -- or, frankly, lack of intelligence. This is nonsense. America has the highest level of worker productivity in the world. We work harder and more efficiently than any other nation. Most of the people struggling today were working productively. The American worker has absolutely ZERO fault in the economic collapse. The American workers now unemployed or under-employed have not lost any desire to work or willingness to work hard. Your inferences otherwise are offensive to Americans. Ours is not a nation crying about things we can easily do something about.
I do indeed criticize the very economic foundation of our society. Consumption has driven some commerce for thousands of years. But until the early 20th century, consumption was almost entirely related to mostly pretty basic necessities. Consumerism as an economic and social philosophy and system was proposed to conspicuously "use up and waste resources". A basic overview: Consumerism - . Consumerism is a dead-end -- emphasis on the word "dead". It is one of humanity's greatest absurdities -- along with religion. Unsustainable from the get-go.
That all said, however, there is no way to simply stop the wheels now turning given that we have 7 billion consumers on our planet -- which planet can naturally only support between 1/2 and one billion in the manner for which we are structured and evolved. In order to reposition our consumption and society back to sanity, we have to survive ... which, right now means getting the gyroscope of consumerism functioning first ... then, from a position of temporary balance, begin the long transition to simplicity under modern rules and advantageious use of the incredible body of knowledge that we have accumulated over thousands of years. We never get to return to the garden of Eden, hunting and gathering ... yet we have perfectly good prospects for survival under simple lifestyles and rules.
Now then, who / what are you referring to as needing "safety nets" and shelters?
Yes we are stuck with a consumer society, so we need to help it function, not stifle it.
The population is not really an issue, population distribution is. The earth can easily handle far more people than it does, they just need to spread out a LOT more. As to religion, well we will all find out one day.
I speak of those who do not make the effort they could to get a job, not those who cannot for a variety of legitimate reasons. Some need help to get through this situation, thus a safety net. Others who are disabled and cannot work, need help for the rest of their life. I have no problem with 2 and 3.
As to transitioning "back" to a simpler life style, good luck as the politicians LIKE their life style and won't rock the boat that much. They may degrade every one else' life style, but not theirs. Just look at the perks they give themselves and the general public does not get.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
