6 ms·

With the industrial revolution, there was a massive shift among the lower/lower-middle classes from farming to manufacturing. Where will this large group of pe

• tomjen3 16y ago
  The only reason the checks and balances were added was because the Founders knew what the Gracchus brothers, Sulla, Marius and Cesar did to the Roman Republic. Look there is no way to say this nicely, but if those people can't get over their issues of the lost paradise thats just too bad. There are plenty of hands-on jobs left: snow needs to be removed, toilets cleaned, windows polished, etc. And no these jobs may not allow you to live a middle class lifestyle in 2010-2020, but they will allow you to live better than in the sixties. Half of the houses then didn't indoor bathrooms and medical care for something like cancer would be a joke compared to what we can do today. But hey lets all go and complain.
  • knowtheory 16y ago
    You are not going to make a wage above the poverty line doing those jobs though. Together the manufacturing sector and unions managed to drive wages and benefits into a local maximum, and were unable to find a way out. Also i further disagree with the notion that it'll let you live better than in the 60s, for a variety of reasons including poorer access to nutrition, lack of public transport, and that society has shifted away from outdoor activities.
    • tomjen3 16y ago
      Whats the poverty line though? Because as a student I live below the one for my country but I live better than my parents did a generation ago and vastly better than my grandparents. As for your second argument you might be slightly right about nutrition (but only on average, its easy enough to live healthy for cheap as several members of this board have done) but the two other things? How does outdoor activities even fit into that?
      • doki_pen 16y ago
        The problem is, losing the middle class cascades to so many other problems. Most importantly, it shrinks the market and reduces business opportunity. It also has a devastating effect on tax revenue and public services. What made the US the powerhouse that it is is an enormous middle class. We seem to be losing that now.
        • yummyfajitas 16y ago
          Could you explain your thesis in more detail? You seem to agree with tomjen's claim that everyone, poor or middle class, seems to be consuming more now than historically. And this is certainly well supported by the data - modern day poor people consume more than 1960's middle class people. So isn't the purchasing behavior, rather than the label attached to the consumer, what grows the market and increases business opportunity? I.e., isn't it better for a modern day poor person to consume a house, a car, an AC and an X-Box than for a 1970's middle class person to walk to work, live in a smaller house, and suffer in the summer with no AC and entertain themselves with only a legacy mechanical music players? [edit: better for the purpose of creating "business opportunity"]
          • chopsueyar 16y ago
            Better for who?
      • knowtheory 16y ago
        The poverty line is actually a defined number. Students do appear as a statistical aberration in most of these counts since they have no income, but they tend to have access to credit and fewer costs than those that are older than them (health care) or those with families. So yes, you're right, but i don't think it matters all that much. Studenthood is a transient state which is designed to eject students after a period of time (and you have to fight really hard to stay a student). Poverty and destitution are the opposite.
  • sgift 16y ago
    Following your argumentation one should never "complain" that some trend may be a problem (for a group of people), because compared with people living 50/100/300/1000 years ago we all have a great life. Theoretically correct, practically I'll side with the complaining people in this case.
    • sokoloff 16y ago
      Do you think that a lot of the gains over the last 50/100/300/1000 years came about because societies didn't stand in the way of progress in the name of full employment, exactly as that full employment was practiced the day before? I do. It happens that I'm on a pretty favorable part of the curve (in terms of ability and inclination to "work with computers"), so take my thoughts with as much salt as you think is appropriate, but I'm glad past societies didn't turn their noses up at farming, beer and bread making, writing, indoor plumbing, domesticating animals, stonework, bronze, iron, steel, water wheels, coal/oil/nat gas, electricity, the steam and internal combustion engines, telephony, interchangeable parts and the moving assembly line, automobiles, modern medicine, transistors, integrated circuits, etc. I'm sure that all of those innovations caused some significant amount of displacement amongst the established practioners of the "old way" of doing things. Had societies past decided that that displacement was too costly, the life of today's 99th percentile priveleged person would almost certainly be significantly worse than the life of today's actual 1st percentile (un) priveleged person.
      • sgift 16y ago
        Stopping progress to support the old ways is (IMO - and there we agree) no solution. But ignoring the short-term problems of said progress with the argument "in the long run we will all be better off this way" sounds a bit cynical to me.
    • yummyfajitas 16y ago
      Could you clearly state what the problem is? Is the problem simply this? "Standard of living has dramatically increased for everyone (some more than others), but some people who only received large increases are jealous of the others who received huge increases."
  • Nick_C 16y ago
    > Half of the houses then didn't indoor bathrooms Just in case anyone gets a wrong impression of life in the 60s, this is not true.
• bryanlarsen 16y ago
  The jobs have gone into the service industry, which has caused a drastic decrease in wages because the government has let it. If Walmart and McDonald's jobs were unionized like they should be, then decent wages would be paid, putting upward wage pressure on all similar non-unionized competitors. It would also make it much easier for the Mom & Pop stores to compete with the big boys.
  • matthavener 16y ago
    Is it easier for mom and pop to compete because they already pay a higher wage? That is, mom and pop pay a higher cost of labor compared to the big boys?
    • Vivtek 16y ago
      No, they pay higher purchase prices due to lack of economies of scale and lack of access to Chinese labor (see post above about China not wanting a billion rioting Chinese laborers). They probably also pay somewhat more because Walmart doesn't care if they lose people to turnover, while a small store does. But that's not what's putting the small stores out of business.
      • ams6110 16y ago
        Walmart doesn't care if they lose people to turnover Source? Turnover is a high cost to any business, and if there's one thing Walmart is good at it's watching expenses.
        • Vivtek 16y ago
          Well, obviously they do - but the cost to Walmart of a single employee leaving is negligible, while that to a small store is a serious loss of investment. Walmart "cares" only in the very large aggregate.
    • mynameishere 16y ago
      Small stores almost always pay less, and sometimes pay nothing (with family working). This is why walmart actually lobbied for an increase in the minimum wage--to increase costs for smaller stores.
• w1ntermute 16y ago
  > Sometimes inefficiencies are good (see the U.S. political system of checks and balances, redundant systems in engineering). Those aren't good analogies. The "inefficiencies" in the US political system aren't actually inefficiencies in the long run. They remove the need for revolutions/coups to depose autocratic rulers. Same thing with redundant systems in engineering - in the long run, they are the most efficient approach to the problem, as they reduce rates of catastrophic failure. However, indefinitely preventing technology from advancing civilization is the exact opposite. For the short term "efficiency" of allowing those workers to keep their jobs, we are tolerating the permanent inefficiency of clinging to old technology. I don't believe that there needs to be "a viable option for 'hands-on' people to earn a livable wage." Our ancestors all used to be hunter-gatherers, but we have somehow managed to survive in a world where hunting/gathering is nonexistent. It is the remarkable adaptability of the human race that has brought it so much success, and I believe we can continue to adapt to whatever new technology we discover.
  • pasbesoin 16y ago
    One thing that is seldom introduced into such discussions is human life span, or "generations". In the long run, we may balance out to a world economy. (Or not.) But in the short term, we may disenfranchise entire generations of our population. If it were truly a "free market", workers could follow the work. (Work -- the oft neglected other half of "the market".) That is not the case, now. (And even if it were, income disparity would make it a one-way trip of separation from family and friends -- not that that's anything new.) I agree, society presents -- and depends upon -- a diversity of mental and physical types, and excising an entire sector's means of gainful employment is a distortion to that balance. You can have a country of gated communities and slums, or a country where you can walk down the street in safety and comfort. Which would you prefer? I'm not sure there's a viable alternative to the way we're proceeding. But one should be ready for the consequences. The "free market" doesn't care about deaths. (Some would argue they are an efficiency.) That's left to human morals and values. The hook being, again, what kind of community you wish to live in. One where you can enjoy the company of other people, or one where you fear it. -- Addendum: I meant to include the comment that "white collar" work is moving overseas (as compared to e.g. the U.S. and other "first nation" countries) more rapidly that many realize. Even the (non-ownership) bankers, lawyers, and other "management professionals" that were supposed to be this country's future, are soon -- already -- going to find themselves priced out of the market. The need overseas to educate a generation in this work, and to have sufficient legal and regulatory stability, delayed this occurring. But those prerequisites are now falling into place. And why is someone going to pay 3 - 5 or more times as much for a U.S. resource, when they can get as good somewhere else? True professionals -- the truly creative and proficient -- may always have a job, even if they have to move. But a lot of "value added" people are going to find that, well, they don't (add sufficient value, or have a job). At least, not abroad. There will always be some domestic work. But, their fortunes will fall with those of those of the disenfranchised around them. No one's going to pay them outsize incomes to "manage the world".
• matwood 16y ago
  I disagree with the notion of holding back innovation around productivity in order to just keep a particular type of job (we shouldn't eradicate disease because then what would all the nurses and doctors do?). It might look like the right thing to do in the short term, but will hamper further innovation in the long term. I don't think everyone enjoys or is cut out for computer based or intellectual work and there should be a viable option for 'hands-on' people to earn a livable wage. There were probably lots of people not cut out for factory work when the shift happened from farming to manufacturing. The big difference here that I think most people miss is that it isn't the change from factory to knowledge that's the problem, but the speed at which the change has happened. This speed of change has caught many older workers off guard, whereas in the past the change happened over a generation or two.
  • matthavener 16y ago
    I agree. Long term, a society that values 100% employment over technological progress will be stomped by the society that allows its industries to automate themselves. There's probably some good stuff to be repeated from "End of Work" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work). Has anyone read it?
    • _delirium 16y ago
      I think that's probably usually the case, but I'm not sure it always must be even in the long run, since short-term unrest can have significant long-term consequences. For example, if a society that purely values technological progress ends up with periods of significant disturbances/violence/unrest from masses of disgruntled people, enough damage might be done that it becomes eclipsed by a more stable society that grows more slowly, but with fewer disturbances. Admittedly, that requires a fairly high level of unrest, but it's not inconceivable that a few tens of million poor unemployed people in China could lead to quite some trouble.
    • paganel 16y ago
      > Long term, a society that values 100% employment over technological progress will be stomped by the society that allows its industries to automate themselves. Yeap, but assuming you're a country with 20% unemployment that has a very high level of competitiveness, how do you deal with those young, unemployed people (they're mostly young) roaming the streets with nothing else better to do and with their pockets empty? What if they decide to topple the government, or to steal, or to do anything anti-social? They don't have anything to lose anyway.