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.
I’m voting for the 80% leisure-based economy. The other 20% will be made up of politicians who compete for my vote by loading more money on my digital wallet.
It'll be viable as long as comparative advantage makes it worthwhile to import manufactured goods instead of making them ourselves. The U.S. excels in the service sector because there are high value, high expertise services we can export, and consume domestically, that no one else does or not as well.
Combination of this and efficiencies in production have allowed developed countries to continuously expand the services sector of their economy.
I’m voting for the 80% leisure-based economy. The other 20% will be made up of politicians who compete for my vote by loading more money on my digital wallet.
And sadly there would still be theft, drugs, and violence. People will invent social problems (that's kind of already implied, right?) where were none to begin with.
I we become mostly services, then depend on other countries for agriculture, and industry. That puts us at disadvantage.
This isn't true.
If automation has increased efficiency while reducing manpower and prices in agriculture to the point where a smaller sector of the economy can feed all the people, then that is where you're at... you don't have a glaring weakness in ability to self-sustain just because that cheap food production doesn't take up a bigger portion of GDP.
If a country can't produce enough to self-sustain then it depends on other countries, but that's an entirely different thing than it not being the largest portion of an economy.
It's not viable and never has been.
And no, coming back to industrial economy is no longer possible here.
^ This.
It's never been viable. Service economies don't last long. We need to actually manufacture things here en masse, but I don't really see that happening again any time soon. IMO, the U.S. is no longer a "shining city on a hill" and won't be again for a very long time. Another country is going to take our place.
They pay crap because of how many others can easily jump into a position.
The same basic dynamic that exists in the lowest MW levels: Too Many People.
And therein lies the problem with the argument that we need a more educated workforce. It's not that we don't, we actually do - the problem is that when we do turn all those low end workers into PhD-holding engineers, the value of those high-paying engineering jobs will implode because... too many people, too few jobs. We exported too many jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyers Girl
^ This.
It's never been viable. Service economies don't last long. We need to actually manufacture things here en masse, but I don't really see that happening again any time soon. IMO, the U.S. is no longer a "shining city on a hill" and won't be again for a very long time. Another country is going to take our place.
Nope, no country is taking our place. Machines are taking our place.
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.
