I mean, look at this shit: "Re-examining the cause of the Great Depression—the revolution in agriculture that threw millions out of work" Look at that! Who but a person looking to provide excuses for the shitscum finance bankers who caused both the Great Depression and the shit we're wading through now would say such a thing?
As of April 1, 2011, we employed more than 18,600 people worldwide, approximately 46 percent of whom reside in the U.S.
And where the fuck does the wealth actually come from, if everybody's doing service-sector job? Who harvests the crops? Who builds the goods?
We have got to make things. We have got to produce wealth. Our efforts to pretend that this is not so are fucking killing us. -- Pope Guilty
We make plenty of stuff. We require less and less people to do it. A guy that was running a milling machine 20 years ago can now program a CNC machine to crank them out by the hundreds.
Even if humans in the US are needed for manufacturing less and less, there are still plenty of things to create. The design for the part, the program for the CNC machine, the expertise to make everything run smoothly. -- Ad hominem
The manufacturing industry always likes to trot out these examples of highly-automated factories as examples of modern manufacturing for American public consumption. What they don't want you to see are videos like these: Behind Apple: A Tribute to the Workers at Foxconn
Yes, it's possible to make things by machine. But the vast majority of consumer goods are not made by machine, because it is cheaper per unit to outsource to poor countries with authoritarian regimes and repressive labor laws.--saulgoodman
It's never going to be cheaper, as long as we allow political interests to suppress labor rights to the point that labor has no wage negotiating power. -- saulgoodman
We make plenty of stuff.All you have to do is look at our gigantic trade deficit to know this isn't true. -- Malor
We make plenty of stuff.
Here are some of the issues that are making some politicians and political thinkers uneasy:
Are large segments of the American workforce — millions of people — at a structural disadvantage in the face of global competition, technological advance and ever more sophisticated forms of automation? Is this situation permanent?
Will the share of profits from improving corporate productivity flowing to capital and to high-earning C.E.O.s continue to grow, while the income of wage earners stagnates and their share of profits declines?
Has the surging wealth and income of the top one percent and of the top 0.1 percent reached a tipping point at which the political leverage of the very affluent decisively outweighs the influence of the electorate at large?
Is it possible that in the United States and Europe, democratic free market capitalism is no longer capable of providing broadly shared benefits to a solid majority of workers?
« Older Marian McPartland's Piano Jazz is the longest-runn... | Rupert Murdoch to replace the ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt