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 think it's bad, and I can explain a variety of reasons.
A. The unemployment rate in the United States has soared astronomically.
B. Many Americans are now living in poverty.
C. Many cities in the Rust Belt such as Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Gary, and Allentown have suffered mass urban decay.
D. The US has had little or no benefit from the shift to a post-industrial economy.
E. It's now becoming more necessary to attend college.
The facts do not support your claims
A. Unemployment is extremely low at 5% overall and 3% for college grads. If you are one of those who believes all the data is a conspiracy, then just don't pay any attention and continue with your preconceived notions.
B. I would agree that the 14.5% poverty rate is high. Your notion of industrialization or more jobs in general is not likely to have an effect. Many of the households in poverty have no one working or able or willing to work. Drug abuse and children out of wedlock are big sources of poverty, along with recent unskilled immigrants.
C. Many cities in the rust belt are actually doing quite well. That would include Cleveland and Pittsburg for sure. Cleveland sucked back in the '70s and has revived in recent years. You can blame "deindustrialization" for the decline of Detroit. That was a cycle that had to end. The consumer could not handle the high costs and extremely low quality of American made cars. The rest of manufacturing could have survived but the US car industry was doomed. BTW, in case you haven't noticed, many "foreign" cars are assembled in the US with lots of US made parts.
D. Little or no benefit! I guess you would not include products like clothing that now sell for a very small fraction of the previous costs. And again let us not forget the high costs and abysmal quality of US cars before foreign competition.
E. It is a long way from "necessary." There are lots of very good paying jobs and careers that do not require college: plumbers, electricians, carpenters, auto mechanics, etc, etc. It is quite possible to become a licensed plumber, start your own business and live and retire wealthy. Personally I think it is a good thing that we are also seeing more and more high level jobs that require college.
Here, try this question and consider if you asked it during the 1920s.
Is the precipitous fall in farm employment good or bad for the country?
People left the farms for better paying opportunities in the cities.
People did not leave US manufacturing jobs for better paying opportunities. Most did not have a choice, as their jobs/livelihoods were pulled from underneath their feet.
People left the farms for better paying opportunities in the cities.
People did not leave US manufacturing jobs for better paying opportunities. Most did not have a choice, as their jobs/livelihoods were pulled from underneath their feet.
Some left for better jobs. Some farmers had their livelihoods pulled from underneath their feet. The small farmer cannot buy multimillion dollars worth of automated equipment and they cannot compete with the results of automated, large scale farming.
A lot of Americans left manufacturing for better jobs. We often think about the unionized, highly paid turn-a-bolt Bob who worked in the auto industry. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs were not anywhere near as well paid and many were beyond just being unpleasant.
De-industrialization is inevitable for a modern, advancing and successful country. The USA is long past its industrial age, and is now experiencing the general move towards services. China in a generation of time will be doing the same.
And the keys to much of this is based in globalization, communication and fiat money.
So many industrial based jobs in the USA have been transferred over seas, in pursuit of better profits. But also as a result, the consumers get so much stuff cheaper, and our internal environment is less polluted by industry. We also save our own resources. China sells us a bunch of our real goods, we buy it all with fiat. Fiat we can create out of thin air.
But in both nations there has to be periods of economic and employment misallocation and turmoil during the transition form industrial to service. In any modern and successful nation there will be relative changes here, not all or none. China is experiencing the shift from massive state run enterprises as they move more towards private sector ownership. And as they continue to turn their economy towards their people as consumers, they will very necessarily need to ramp up on the service industry side. More employment turmoil, then maybe even a similar problem as ours right now if they can no longer cheaply supply their people with goods. They might well have to off shore.
IMO it is the duty of society and/or central government to help alleviate these strains on employment and middle class wage malaise. NOT capitalism/business itself.
Massive infrastructure should be a major priority. Especially for projects that help grease the wheels of capitalism. Like an Interstate 11 from Phoenix to Vegas.
Central wage supports vs the employer paying some arbitrary minimal wage is something I would support.
Good, because there is less pollution in our environment. Industry doesn't have to be dirty, unless you are a bean counter. And business is run by bean counters, not environmentalists. So, a great deal of industry inevitably relocates to countries with the least restrictive regulations concerning pollution.
Bad, for many of the reasons you listed. I would add, deindustrialization is very bad for national security and our military. They need things made here, to insure our supply chain is secure. Our nation desperately needs an industrial policy of some sort, to insure our industrial infrastructure remains intact. That will never happen so long as Wallstreet and the banksters are running the country.
This is pretty much spot on. However, I would say we DO have an industrial policy of sorts. The global elite DO NOT WANT any country to be self sufficient. So the globalist policy is to make each country dependent on another. It actually goes deeper than mere money. It's more about power and control. When you have power, you automatically have money.
I always tell people that when they mention northern Europe/Scandinavia as models. I've been to those countries and the difference between them and us is that they are investedas a society in their own well-being and prosperity. They want their system to work.
In the U.S. we complain, Moderator cut: .and moan, fight about everything & get mad when one part of the country or region does well and another does less well. We have an adversarial relationship with our own society. That is why we can't have nice things like Sweden or Denmark have.
I have said similar things here on CD. I think it boils down to one word: Corruption. The U.S. citizenry and its politicians are much more corrupt. Put another way, Scandinavia has high levels of social trust. The U.S. doesn't. Therefore, you can't impose a Scandinavian style system from the top down and expect it to work. Corruption will ruin any system, no matter how good. But saying this never dissuades the true believers.
Last edited by yellowbelle; 05-08-2016 at 10:38 AM..
Reason: quoted post has been moderated
Some of us Americans don't want your big, overpriced, overreaching, creepy government run system shoved down our throats. That's what makes America unique and great. Our unyielding sense of independence. If independence is not in your DNA, America is going to always be a miserable place to call home. We expect everyone to forge their own path to "success", and if you do not, we will expect you to try again, and again, until you do succeed.
This used to be true, but unfortunately, it's become less and less true. Americans increasingly want someone else to do the hard and unpleasant parts of life for them. That is why we have turned into an oligarchy and are on the fast train to outright dictatorship.
Last edited by yellowbelle; 05-08-2016 at 10:38 AM..
Reason: orphaned - quoted portion of that post has been deleted
B. I would agree that the 14.5% poverty rate is high. Your notion of industrialization or more jobs in general is not likely to have an effect. Many of the households in poverty have no one working or able or willing to work. Drug abuse and children out of wedlock are big sources of poverty, along with recent unskilled immigrants.
I agree with this, especially the out of wedlock part. The U.S. has a 40% out of wedlock birth rate. Back in 1970 is was around 10%.
Even liberal researchers are admitting this is a serious problem:
....a wealth of research strongly suggests that marriage is good for children. Those who live with their biological parents do better in school and are less likely to get pregnant or arrested. They have lower rates of suicide, achieve higher levels of education and earn more as adults. Meanwhile, children who spend time in single-parent families are more likely to misbehave, get sick, drop out of high school and be unemployed.
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.
