We Need Factories for Making Products and Not for Making Jobs

Life is not created equal! Each person must chart their own course. We have plenty of examples in life of people climbing their way out of poverty, or drugs, or alcohol, or crime, etc. and placing themselves on a path in which they can achieve their potential. And every person has a different potential. What can society do other than provide equal opportunities in public education? One thing that truly does alarm and embarrass me is how we can across the nation allow ghettoes and lawlessness and gangs...IMO this is a priority issue for the nation!

When I was a kid, it was rare to see a homeless person and they were just referred to as bums or hobos. It was illegal to not go to school! Very few kids failed public education. We were safe in our neighborhoods. Today we have tens of millions of Americans functioning in the bottom rungs of society and the economy, with myriad reasons why they can't achieve more, and obviously this larger population has placed a burden on society and government...

 

One of my questions about jobs and people is this; In the US for example, once you locate outside of the 20-30 high-density population areas where most of the higher paying jobs exist, and I'm talking about our rural areas where millions of Americans live today, how can society/government ever force corporate growth in these areas?

 

It's a moot point to focus on post-secondary education when perhaps 50% of our kids either fail high school or learned basically nothing...

 

Typical leftist dodge try again to address the issue I raised

The average college graduate makes what a million more in lifetime earnings than someone without a degree? And you think the ones without should pay for the degrees of those who will make hugely more in lifetime earnings. They can pay for their degree out of their higher earnings else justify why a plumber should pay for the doctor's degree when the doctor will make millions more than he with the degree.

 

There's LOTS of good paying jobs in rural areas and lots of low paying jobs in urban areas.

 

why a plumber should pay for the doctor's degree?

Two students; one becomes a plumber, the other becomes a doctor.
Both required education, paid for by - whom?
Not themselves, because they both started out with nothing (disregarding parental wealth, which should not be a factor in educational attainment).

Therefore most appropriately paid by the taxpayer, subject to a system of progressive taxation (including inheritance and land taxes).

 

Good post.

It's no accident that this happened while 300 million Chinese (about the same population of the US) have moved out of absolute poverty. And before that Tokyo (and Stuttgart) displaced Detroit as the world's leading car manufacturing centre.

And huge corporations have commanded an ever greater share of the nation's wealth, displacing small operators.

And it seems the modern economy requires more children to compete to become masters in computer programming, etc, an impossible expectation.

And despite all the technological 'progress', retirement ages are being raised instead of lowered, and family sustenence requires both parents to earn an income, in contrast to the two decades immediately after WW2.

In short, in a global economy, capitalism and freemarkets alone are insufficient to manage equitable and sustainable development.

That's why global oversight through a Keynesian-style IMF is required, to enable co-operation among nations, alongside competition between individuals, companies etc) as a driving force in economic activity.

 

INCOME DISPARITY

Making a million-dollars over a lifetime is the sort of addle-headed nonsense that Replicants believe is a proper national economic goal. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The first and foremost objective of a market-economy is not that of a racetrack where the fastest car "wins". Neither is it of an economy that maintains Income Parity (equality of all incomes). It is that of an economy that demonstrates Income Fairness.

And since you evidently need a definition of those two words, from here:

Which is why the Gini Coefficient indicates the patent unfairness of Income Distribution in the US:


In the infographic above, the US is at the same level as China! (Wow! What an achievement!!!)

And since Income (after unfair higher-income taxation) becomes accumulate Wealth, we have what economic research has shown to be the case in the US - Grossly Unfair Distribution of Wealth:


There is a "lot" wrong with income distribution in the US, and it all started (as shown above) by Reckless Ronnie Reagan in the 1980s when he changed the upper-income taxation. As seen here when they dropped from 70% to 30%:


Those are the "facts" of the matter of Income Disparity in America today ...

 

GOOD POST!

This above is from a good post regarding the matter of Global Disparity of Incomes.

Obtaining a "fair and equitable" distribution of income on a country level is very difficult and to do so on a global level is Mission Impossible. To accomplish such would require a Global Law that institutes a super-IMF that is able to control the Global Money-Supply and even national taxation rates. The first to assure that each country has enough to maintain Demand and avoid Recession, the second to assure that all market-participants are rigorously taxed according to progressive tax-programme (installing even a maximum level of income taxed at 100%).

That just aint gonna happin' in reality.

MY POINT

At best, in the US we can introduce a Progressive Tax Rate that confiscates incomes above, as an example, one megabuck a year. That will go a long-way towards curbing the exaggerated market willingness to perpetrate national fraud by means of market-finagling (like the Toxic-Waste Mess) - which brought about the 2010 Great Recession from which we are yet to fully recover in terms of employment ...

 

Agreed, but that is not what I was referring to ...

 

Absolutely, and I'm glad someone is saying it.

The value of human flesh is deteriorating fast. That is the real underlying problem.

The idea that simply bulking up the population with workers through un-checked immigration will somehow strengthen the economy is just as bunk.

What we need to do is sit down and work out how we can ensure the profits generated by business are circulated back to the people so that consumption can keep driving production demand.

This might need a tax-and-spend welfare state, or maybe just pumping out bond issues to support ever-increasing government spending (consumption), but we must avoid profits getting "stuck" in asset prices or the economy will tank again like in 2008.

 

I was an IT-worker transferred to Europe from stateside because the right talent at the time did not exist in European operations. My American company asked for and obtained a work-permit, which was accorded and upon which I was able to start working - but not before.

I don't see why we in the US cannot do the same, based upon Demand for specialized-services (either farming or BigTech) when local companies have demand for personnel NOT OTHERWISE AVAILABLE in the US. Candidates from anywhere else in the world make their request for a Work Visa at any Embassy in their country - then wait to be selected and obtain an Entry Visa stipulating its duration. (But it could be renewable.)

For that to happen, profits first have to be declared - and under present tax-laws "profits" are net of wages plus "emoluments", meaning any "salary, fee, or profit from employment". Which is defined as:

.

And the most remunerative are the shares that can be resold on stock-markets. If all such "emoluments" were included in the calculation of taxation, and the tax-rate approached quickly 100% above some predetermined maximum (like $1M or $10M) I suggest that such a level is SUFFICIENT REMUNERATION to incentivize the best talent available.

There is no reason on earth that anyone NEEDS to earn more than $10M a year. None. They just want to do it so Forbes shows that they are one of the "In Crowd" making more than all the others. (The money ends up as inheritance, and studies supposedly show that such inheritance is quickly dissipated by the American inheritors. Though some notable families have learned to preserve it.)

If the above is your definition, then "all states" are welfare states - its just a question of to whom the "welfare" is going. In America, it is most certainly NOT those incarcerated in poverty, but to the super-rich.

And no, increasing national debt is not a good way to offset government spending. Let's face the real question. Is the US responsible for policing the world? Must it spend 54% of its Federal Discretionary Budget to do so? (You betcha! says Lockheed!)

Because, given other important priorities/challenges, that questionable spending is what is happening today:

 

In this context, that is not relevant provided that it is being circulated for consumption.

However, the problem with feeding the super-rich more money is that, as you say, they don't need it.

When you don't need it, you don't spend it on consumption, and instead invest it in assets. But where there is insufficient consumption, the assets are not producing economic benefit. So what you end up with is just spiralling asset prices, with stagnant or deteriorating asset values. The inevitable correction is a "crash".

That is certainly the prevailing view.

But think about it: the super rich need to put their money somewhere, so ultimately they invest in bonds. This allows the government to spend. What is the difference between that and a voluntary tax?

Well, the obligation to repay. But do they ever actually repay? No, they just roll over. Provided there is continuing faith that the government can repay, then its not a problem.
So if the government can apply the money raised to expand GDP and therefore the tax base, whilst inflation diminishes historic obligations in real terms. the system will sustain.

 

So try to focus now and explain why those at the lower ends of the income spectrum should pay for the college education of others who will make millions more than they during their lives.

 

"Circulated back" to which "people"? Surely you mean the people who took the risk and invested in the company. Or the retained profits that are spend expanding the company.

 

I don't care to who, provided they consume. The moral hazard is a secondary consideration.

It would be nice to enrich the poor.

 

The student goes to work for a plumbing company and they train him. Why should he then pay for the college education of someone who is going to make millions more than he going to make? People go to college to make more money. Well then they can pay for it themslves.

 

Wishful thinking, it would appear.

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...2/the-underuse-of-apprenticeships-in-america/

The insufficiency of our nation’s education and training system is clear. While policymakers and educators have often encouraged young Americans to obtain a bachelor’s degree, too many young people now believe that a four-year degree is the only way to achieve economic mobility. However, less than half of those who aim to earn a bachelor’s degree end up completing one. Those who do complete a four-year degree often do so only after taking out crushing levels of student debt. Worse yet, those who fail to earn a bachelor’s are too often left with the burden of student debt without the benefit of a degree.

and

if the United States had as many apprenticeship starts per capita as Germany, there would have been more than 2 million new American apprentices in 2012—about 14 times as many as actually started programs that year. With a projected shortage of 5 million skilled workers by 2020, an expanded apprenticeship system would clearly go a long way toward filling the gap.

Spoken like a true conservative - they can pay for it themselves, provided they have rich parents!

 

Nothing wishful at all, learning trades by hiring in as an unexperienced worker and learning the job is quite the norm in the private markets. That's how I learned carpentry and then how to manage a crew and then a shop and then department. The taxpayers didn't pay for it.

Spoken like a true liberal, distortion. They can pay for it themselves out of the millions that college degree will get them over their lifetime.

 

Most every employer must provide some training of new employees, and new technology would be useless if the employees were not trained to put it to use.
I couldn't afford college until after I began working , and I can't really say that it was money well spent as I learned nothing new that was useful in my work, and nothing I couldn't have learned on my own at a library. It did help me acquire a management position which I later resigned from as I could make much more money being paid an hourly wage instead of a fixed salary.
NINO

 

Your point being what?

 

http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/20752

War has indeed become perpetual and peace no longer even a fleeting wish nor a distant memory. We have become habituated to the rumblings of war and the steady drum beat of propaganda about war’s necessity and the noble motives (!) that inspire it. We will close hospitals. We will close schools. We will close libraries and museums. We will sell off our parklands and water supply. [1] People will sleep on the streets and go hungry. The war machine will go on

The solution is obvious, but I suppose you regard it as 'unrealistic' (as with Keynes' vision of a supra-national IMF), despite the fact that in 1945 statesmen of goodwill fought vigorously for just that solution, namely, UNSC decision by majority vote (not subject to SC member veto). But perhaps it's not so 'unrealistic' in everyone's eyes.

More from the same article

in the words of Heinrich von Treitshke, “The concept of the state implies the concept of war, for the essence of the state is power, not civic government”.........
This belief in the State (indoctinated) is no different from belief in God. And you would no more doubt or question the State than you would doubt or question God. To do so is blasphemy.
and
It is estimated that since WWII, US-led and instigated wars and conflicts around the globe have killed 35 to 40 million people; 10 to 12 million alone since 9/11. (Koenig, Global Research, November 3, 2015).
(BTW, 9/11 was simply a blowback from a century of British and American self-interested adventurism in the ME)

and
The Pentagon with 6,000,000 employees is the largest single employer in the world. The arsenal needs to be restocked, arms need to be invented and procured, strategic decisions need to be made. Much of this takes place in the Pentagon, which, in essence, is the government. The Pentagon sucks up money at an astounding rate and spends it with reckless abandon. It is accountable to no one. There is very little in our social, political, economic, agricultural, cultural—even personal—life that the Pentagon doesn’t impinge upon.

Just about every resource we think we can count on for honest information is being controlled by the State for the sole purpose of advancing its agenda, i.e. War

Obviously, free, independent, critical thinking is anathema to the State. It must control the word and will crush anyone who reveals the truth. Chelsea (Bradley) Manning received a thirty-five year sentence for releasing documents claimed to be detrimental to the war effort as well as a video showing a helicopter gunship gunning down two Reuters reporters and two men helping to evacuate the wounded.

So there you have it.

Ofcourse the idea that any one nation (in this case the US) - with all it's self interest - can successfully adopt the roll of world policeman is ridiculous (and disastrous for many other nations, apart from the drain on the US govt budget); but we are stuck with it for the time being, as long as 'power', paranoia, lies, and disinformation are deemed more important than life itself.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they are the children of God".

Spoken by a remarkable man 2000 years ago.

It remains to be seen.

 

Essentially I was agreeing with your post, and pointing out that the most relevant training/schooling for a job is more likely to be provided by the employer.

 

No problem then...

 

But my post #168 outlined the insufficiency of the private sector in meeting actual need, in the US.

Those who do complete a four-year degree often do so only after taking out crushing levels of student debt. Worse yet, those who fail to earn a bachelor’s are too often left with the burden of student debt without the benefit of a degree.

Distortion?