Economists Forecast Four Years Before Sacramento Recovers

[ElectroPlumber]

Originally Posted by Ludachris

I just don't see how low-skilled factory jobs could be seen as a viable option for a "good" standard of living for the masses anymore. We can't overpay people to do these jobs just so they can live better lives while our competitors are paying pennies. If people want to live a higher standard, it seems to me they need to focus more on education for skills that will result in a decent standard of living. Yes, skilled trades are being sent overseas too, but that's why you have to be versatile in your education.

The article I linked to talks about the idea of mini-manufacturing, where U.S. companies are not just developing the ideas and designing the product, but building them here. Of course, it's not to the scale of mass manufacturing, but there are also more companies. That's the type of innovation I've been talking about in this thread. I think education, innovation, and flexibility of the people is what will save us - that and a little more help with tariffs to help encourage our competitors to allow us equal opportunities in their markets.

I think I'm saying the same thing over and over now though, as are others. Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree. I feel I've made some very good points, but the replies I'm seeing tell me that people are either ignoring them or just don't want to consider a different perspective from their own.

Ok, yeah, I agree that we will agree to disagree, but I have one direct question that I do not think you have responded to: Do you really think that your approach will generate enough jobs to sustain a middle-class in this country? No hedging now--yes or no.

[Ludachris]

Originally Posted by ElectroPlumber

Ok, yeah, I agree that we will agree to disagree, but I have one direct question that I do not think you have responded to: Do you really think that your approach will generate enough jobs to sustain a middle-class in this country? No hedging now--yes or no.

Yes, I truly do. Mainly because my approach incorporates some of your approach, only with more of an emphasis on education to improve skills for future changes, as opposed to simply trying to bring back an industry that might be impossible to bring back at this point. I think there are enough smaller industries available to take the place of one big industry that has been shrinking. I don't think we can do without manufacturing, but we don't have to be reliant upon it. And I think tariffs will help level the playing field for our exports, but tariffs and protectionism shouldn't be the primary focus of the overall plan in my opinion.

The big question mark I see is how the middle class will adapt. As part of the middle class I feel I've done well myself at being versatile to adapt to the changes. Can everyone make it through? Maybe not, but they can if they really try. That's just part of life. I think the majority of the middle class has the ability to adapt. And I think their willingness (or unwillingness) to do so is the key to our nation's future. I hope my belief in the American people turns out to be right. We're resilient and we can make it if we have to.

Industries will come and go, and we can't become too reliant on any one of them. We need to always prepare ourselves for the idea that the one we work in now might not be here 5 years from now. At the same time, there are certain industries that will always be viable - auto/transportation repair, home repair and maintenance, accounting, health care, emergency services, etc. If people want fairly stable work that doesn't necessarily require a large amount of education (though some of those I mentioned might), those are the industries to get into.

Maybe I'm just an optimist. I always have been. And I've seen people reinvent themselves when they've had to. I think we all have that ability. And the ones who don't, well, that will always be the case. The people who want to survive will survive. We have plenty of opportunities in this country, some of them just don't pay as well as they used to and/or aren't as plentiful.

[ElectroPlumber]

Originally Posted by Ludachris

Yes, I truly do. Mainly because my approach incorporates some of your approach, only with more of an emphasis on education to improve skills for future changes, as opposed to simply trying to bring back an industry that might be impossible to bring back at this point. I think there are enough smaller industries available to take the place of one big industry that has been shrinking. I don't think we can do without manufacturing, but we don't have to be reliant upon it. And I think tariffs will help level the playing field for our exports, but tariffs and protectionism shouldn't be the primary focus of the overall plan in my opinion.

The big question mark I see is how the middle class will adapt. As part of the middle class I feel I've done well myself at being versatile to adapt to the changes. Can everyone make it through? Maybe not, but they can if they really try. That's just part of life. I think the majority of the middle class has the ability to adapt. And I think their willingness (or unwillingness) to do so is the key to our nation's future. I hope my belief in the American people turns out to be right. We're resilient and we can make it if we have to.

Industries will come and go, and we can't become too reliant on any one of them. We need to always prepare ourselves for the idea that the one we work in now might not be here 5 years from now. At the same time, there are certain industries that will always be viable - auto/transportation repair, home repair and maintenance, accounting, health care, emergency services, etc. If people want fairly stable work that doesn't necessarily require a large amount of education (though some of those I mentioned might), those are the industries to get into.

Maybe I'm just an optimist. I always have been. And I've seen people reinvent themselves when they've had to. I think we all have that ability. And the ones who don't, well, that will always be the case. The people who want to survive will survive. We have plenty of opportunities in this country, some of them just don't pay as well as they used to and/or aren't as plentiful.

I do agree about education. I'd like to see everyone get the education that will give them the opportunity to compete. Even in a manufacturing environment, there will always be a tremendous need for the highly educated engineers and scientists.

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by ElectroPlumber

I do agree about education. I'd like to see everyone get the education that will give them the opportunity to compete. Even in a manufacturing environment, there will always be a tremendous need for the highly educated engineers and scientists.

Higher education will have to move up in priority and reformed before that will happen.

Additional funding for higher education doesn't persuade many voters and current CSU and UC administration is in the way of the type of reform needed.

Real reform means majors like History of [ethnic group], and many others will have to go.

[Ludachris]

See, we agree on the basics

[mattinsac]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

Higher education will have to move up in priority and reformed before that will happen.

Additional funding for higher education doesn't persuade many voters and current CSU and UC administration is in the way of the type of reform needed.

Real reform means majors like History of [ethnic group], and many others will have to go.

Don't forget the economics of higher education. Universities tend to charge tuition based upon the level of degree (bachelors vs masters vs phd) not upon the actual cost of providing a certain degree. But certain types of degrees require a lot more resources. Most liberal arts degrees don't require labs or lab equipment. The lectures can be done with a lot of students. Most history classes need a teacher and a library not much else. If the program emphasize original texts which a lot do, once you get copies of those, the program doesn't require much additional funds to keep going.

Now compare that with most engineering classes. Often there is a lab. The labs require more one on one supervision. Often they use expensive equipment that needs to be replaced fairly often.

As far as the university is concerned, the liberal arts classes are revenue centers, they get as much in tuition money from the liberal arts students as the engineering students, but it costs a lot less to educate them.

When universities tend to add graduate programs they tend to add law, business or psychology programs and not as many engineering or medical schools because the programs without the labs are cheaper yet bring in the same tuition revenue as the more expensive engineering and medical programs.

While some of the push to have well rounded students versed in the liberal arts may be sincere, a lot of it may also be financial.

[Ludachris]

Originally Posted by mattinsac

Don't forget the economics of higher education. Universities tend to charge tuition based upon the level of degree (bachelors vs masters vs phd) not upon the actual cost of providing a certain degree. But certain types of degrees require a lot more resources. Most liberal arts degrees don't require labs or lab equipment. The lectures can be done with a lot of students. Most history classes need a teacher and a library not much else. If the program emphasize original texts which a lot do, once you get copies of those, the program doesn't require much additional funds to keep going.

Now compare that with most engineering classes. Often there is a lab. The labs require more one on one supervision. Often they use expensive equipment that needs to be replaced fairly often.

As far as the university is concerned, the liberal arts classes are revenue centers, they get as much in tuition money from the liberal arts students as the engineering students, but it costs a lot less to educate them.

When universities tend to add graduate programs they tend to add law, business or psychology programs and not as many engineering or medical schools because the programs without the labs are cheaper yet bring in the same tuition revenue as the more expensive engineering and medical programs.

While some of the push to have well rounded students versed in the liberal arts may be sincere, a lot of it may also be financial.

This tells me we'll need government help... great. What do you do when it's less profitable to offer the education programs we need to produce the skills necessary to compete? Sounds a little like the health care system - it doesn't make financial sense for insurance companies to cover high risk people (sick people). A little conflict of interest there.