Rebane's Ruminations
June 2011
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

Archie&Meathead Apropos to the lively discussion at ‘True Value of Work and Caring Economics’, Harvard professor of government Harvey Mansfield contributed a telling piece about the “poor choices … students made in selecting their courses and majors.”  In ‘Sociology and Other Meathead Majors’ Dr Mansfield points out the distinction between education based on facts and that based on values.  And, of course, therein lays a root cause of rot in our workforce.  Majors in ‘values based’ subject areas are hard to sell on the labor markets.  And moreover, such majors are victims of the commercially useless leftwing ideologies that are rampant in the country’s schools.  That is a double burden that no employer, save the government, wants to bear.

Mansfield opines that “Archie Bunker was right to be skeptical of his son-in-law’s opinions.”, and goes on to say –

More fundamental, however, is the division within the university today, in America and everywhere, between science and the humanities. Science deals with facts but the humanities also have to deal with values. This is where the problem of bad choices arises. We think that one can have knowledge of fact but not of values—the famous “fact/value” distinction.

Science has knowledge of fact, and this makes it rigorous and hard. The humanities have their facts bent or biased by values, and this makes them lax and soft. This fact—or is it a value?—gives confidence and reputation to scientists within the university. Everyone respects them, and though science is modest because there is always more to learn, scientists sometimes strut and often make claims for extra resources. Some of the rest of us glumly concede their superiority and try to sell our dubious wares in the street, like gypsies. We are the humanists. 

Posted in , , ,

332 responses to “‘Meathead’ Majors”

  1. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    So, you want a big fat nanny state, or, granny will die in the street. Knock me over with a feather. If you’re looking to scare us, it’s not working. Yes Paul, conservatives want dirty air, dirty water, and dear granny dead or, better yet, suffering horribly!
    Please!!!
    You guys are like a broken record!
    Here!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XWfbT-BB9E

    Like

  2. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Todd
    Look at what we have now to fulfill these basic common needs for comparison. Look at the budgets and job descriptions for education, health care, law enforcement, environmental repair, etc. for a start.

    Like

  3. wmartin Avatar
    wmartin

    “It would be a shift in government support over a period of years using the savings in health, education and law enforcement that would result.”
    Let’s ignore the huge savings for a moment.
    So you are saying that the government would cut a check to everyone who spends a good part of their day taking care of a child/sick person/old person?
    How much are we going to pay them? Do they all get the same amount?

    Like

  4. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    wmartin
    Once we, as a nation, decide to embrace caring economics we would then create a process where a variety funding levels would be discussed and evaluated. Various options would then reveal themselves.
    D. King
    I am proposing ideas that embrace the real work that needs to be done with a reasonable argument that it is cost effective and will do a better job. As a Libertarian fundamentalist (not religious necessarily) you are offering harsh criticism of my ideas without offering any real alternative to what we have today which I contend is inefficient, unhealthy, not self sustaining and destructive to the earth and the well being of future generations. If you think things are fine the way they are state that stand by that position. If you want to make changes let me know what they are spend at least as much effort as I have to describe them to me.

    Like

  5. wmartin Avatar
    wmartin

    “you are offering harsh criticism of my ideas ”
    I’m trying to figure out what the ideas are.
    Let’s start at the beginning.
    Do you want to have the government give money to some people? Who are they?
    Here’s what I’m seeing thus far:
    . There’s a group of people.
    . They do good.
    . They should get some money.
    So far, that could define anybody from the President’s Council on Physical Fitness to Vladimir Putin’s singing coach.
    At least Vlodya’s coach has done some good in the world:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV4IjHz2yIo

    Like

  6. Russ Steele Avatar

    Paul,
    We used to have a system of paying for what a persons labor was worth, and then workers unionized and the union bosses determine what a persons labor was worth. Before long the auto companies had to pay worker not to work, with the same wage scale as if they were working. What was there worth to the company? You seem to be implying that we have a super labor union boss in the sky determine what our labor is worth, and pay us accordingly. But, who is that payroll person?
    As a freelance writer I like to set my own worth. I can decided to write for free, for $40.00 and article, $500 an article or $200 a page. I have even written for 5 cents a word. It gives me freedom I would not have under your super union boss concept of determining my labors worth. You just cannot value my freedom to work or not to work.

    Like

  7. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    Energy is the answer to all your worries.
    With energy L.A., S.F. and S.D., being on the coast, can all desalinate; there is your water problem solved.
    Clean energy is your pollution problem solved.
    It solves your problems with transportation, farming, increased prosperity which translates to a better standard of living for the entire planet, and that translates to lower populations without hammering people.
    If you want to put money into anything, put it into base level energy research.
    Because you don’t understand, you’re flailing around with out of control regulations. Oil has brought us to the STANDARD of living we enjoy today.
    Why do all your solutions involve suffering…and what are your contributions to base level energy research???
    BTW thanks for the poisonous mercury filled light bulbs and the low flow-no flush toilets…great job!

    Like

  8. George Rebane Avatar

    “There are many other examples of economic systems that do not employ the system of price that you advocate.”
    Paul, I’m not aware of any that have worked and not spread human misery across the countryside.
    Re putting personal childcare into the same funding category as, say, the police or military. I find it difficult to do that. One takes from the general fund to finance an agency that provides for the general good, the other takes the same monies and funds individuals perform the same function through the (better?) maintenance of their family members and functions.
    Both are laudable, but not equally fundable without a fundamental change in our economy and culture. But I guess that is what you and Eisler are promoting while the rest of us see simpler ways.

    Like

  9. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    All of you neglect the importance of the work I prescribe by changing the subject. Either you are satisfied with the way things are or you propose that some new invention will lead us to the promised land. This is not meant to be a substitute for base energy research. This has to do with taking care of the work that needs to be done right now.
    If you are satisfied with the warehousing of seniors for $6000/month ignore what I have to say. If you are satisfied with children being raised by government sponsored interrogation centers so be it. I’m trying to present realistic alternatives to what we have today and what I feel is our best hope for the future. I’m sick of the left-right pissing contests that this blog degenerates into. If you don’t want to at least consider my ideas and think outside your idealistic boxes you might consider what you have to offer a public dialogue.

    Like

  10. wmartin Avatar
    wmartin

    “I’m trying to present realistic alternatives to what we have today”…
    So what in the heck are they? Use your brains, man. Invent even the sketchiest alternative plan.

    Like

  11. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    wmartin
    That’s what I did. I have detailed as best I can the values of caring economics and why I believe it’s a reasonable path to the future.
    What I propose is entirely different than the mess we have today and it’s cost effective. You may not like it so propose something else at least as comprehensive as I have before you condemn what I have put on the table. You may ignore the problem but it won’t go away. We will continue to have spiraling unemployment, warehousing of seniors and government education programs unless we change something.

    Like

  12. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    George, please describe to me the simpler ways you wish to accomplish these tasks. I’m all ears.

    Like

  13. wmartin Avatar
    wmartin

    ” You may not like it so propose something else at least as comprehensive as I have before you condemn what I have put on the table. ”
    But, you’ve said absolutely nothing. I’m asking you to actually propose something, it’s the only way I’ll see what you’re getting at. The attempt I’ve seen thus far is merely a hugely broad brush stroke serving mostly to paint the capitalists as meanies.
    To merely say that we should somehow value some non-paid positions more highly is not a plan. By having no stated concept, all you’ve accomplished is having everyone else produce a strawman, it’s all you get when there’s no definition.
    Jeesh, I’ll give it a try.
    Let’s say that dealing with old people is better and more cheaply done by their relatives than it is in a rest home. Without payment, they simply won’t do it due to lack of resources or an aversion to wiping asses.
    So, we’ll declare at home care by relatives a form of state-paid job. They’ll need special training, it ain’t that easy to stuff needles into people or even pick them up plus some sort of certification. Somebody from the state needs to check up and make sure that granny is a)still alive and b)not stuffed out in the woodshed.
    As much as ‘rest homes’ cost, you can argue that it’s cheaper to pay people $50k/yr/old person to take care of their parents. To be fair, you should probably pauperize the parent first in order to pay the $50k. No doubt you’ll need a bundle more inspectors, etc. due to the huge number of tiny rest homes.
    Hey, I like this public policy thing.

    Like

  14. George Rebane Avatar

    Paul, for the employment problem I have spelled out the Non-profit Public Service Corporation. No one has shot it down.
    As for the children and the old, I strongly recommend that we retry the methods that worked for generations in America before Great Society’s social engineering project began destroying families (starting with the blacks). Gov Tim Pawlenty today released his straight ahead economic plan to put us back on the path to economic growth. Take a look at that.
    But there is no hope of achieving your goals Paul if your method first beggars the country. This is NOT changing the subject – to my knowledge no one here has – but another appeal that you put some meat on the naked Eisler bone that you tossed out there.
    BTW, I hope that in this forum your introduction of Eisler etc has received more polite attention and respect than you give credit. Your disappointment seems to be in that the ideas were not immediately embraced. But then again, this is not the Nevada City Council chambers.

    Like

  15. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Paul, please answer one simple question for me. Who will set the wage amounts for all the professions and determine their “compassion levels?

    Like

  16. wmartin Avatar
    wmartin

    “Paul, please answer one simple question for me. Who will set the wage amounts for all the professions and determine their “compassion levels?”
    I’m afraid that’s my job.
    First off, a 20% raise for good looking women.
    I was thinking about how to deal with kids in this brave new world.
    I have a funny feeling that I won’t be allowed to pay more for better/smarter kids and charge the parents a fine for those that end up in CYA (an ironic name, that), so we’ll stick to a basic payment per child.
    Since the government already subsidizes children via tax credits, I’ll just grow that number a bit.
    But, you may ask, how will we pay for this? This is the brilliant part, take notes.
    Since the kids will be better behaved and smarter, we can both pay the teachers less and increase their class sizes.
    This, my friends, is a win-win situation with synergistic elements.

    Like

  17. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Wage amounts will be set by the employing government agency. They should be a sustainable wage with health and medical benefits. This is very important work and should be compensated as such. Another option might be to revive Richard Nixon’s plan for a guaranteed annual income. That was oddly enough shot down by the Democrats
    I never expected these ideas to be embraced by this community. I did expect the idea that this kind of employment would be given a serious look as to it’s cost effectiveness and practical necessity.
    George
    Can you give me an idea how you’re Non-Profit Public Corporation concept might accomplish these tasks.
    FYI these concepts are starting to fall into place in segments of western Europe and so far they have proven to be cost effective and have not contributed to the misery index. I saw seniors dying on the streets of San Francisco this weekend something i never saw in my two years traveling and playing music in Europe.
    I appreciate the dialogue on this subject.

    Like

  18. George Rebane Avatar

    Paul, the NPSCs would hire the people to perform any such labors. And since the money does not go through the feds, it would suffer no government shrinkage. However, the wages paid would be something I cannot predict, and your method cannot afford. The following is abstracted from my 12sep09 Union column.
    If you accept that even more wealth redistribution will be mandatory from here on out, then the remaining question is – how do we redistribute wealth in such a way as not to kill the geese that lay the golden eggs, while providing its recipients fulfilling and meaningful jobs?
    The liberals’ answer to this is always a bigger government that increasingly robs Peter to pay Paul. But we all know that big government is the least efficient and effective institution for performing most functions in a society – by its very nature it cannot implement the needed corrective feedback mechanisms for almost anything it does. And the bigger government gets, the poorer the country grows.
    I suggest that a possible starting point for a solution is to consider the Non-Profit Service Corporation. Under a revised tax code – which everyone agrees needs fixing – such a new class of corporations would be established to supply most of the services now provided by governments at all levels. Here’s a quick overview.
    – Establish a new kind of wealth-consuming, non-profit service corporation (NPSC) under a revised tax code;
    – NPSCs can only be owned by for-profit private corporations paying US taxes;
    – For-profits will set up, (jointly) own, and fund the various NPSCs while get favorable tax treatment as a result. (Their overall tax-plus-funding costs will be lower than paying increasing taxes to an inefficient government.)
    – NPSCs will gradually take over government service functions – prisons, schools, universities, healthcare, eldercare, youth services, land and forest management, park services, …
    – NPSCs charter is to benefit both the servers (their employees) and service-receivers (‘customers’);
    – Government will charter NPSCs, and retain certain NPSC performance auditing and rating functions
    – NPSC customers would get tax credits and/or vouchers for the use of certain NPSC services. This would force certain NPSCs to compete.
    Many will ask, where would all the money come from to fund such NPSCs. It would come from the same place it comes from now – corporate and personal taxes. The key argument here is that, with a revised tax code, the same monies would go directly to pay for the operation of each NPSC. And since these NPSCs would be owned and operated as cost centers by for-profit corporations, they would be run more efficiently by organizations that are expert at getting the most productivity out of every dollar they spend.
    Finally, I don’t claim that the NPSC is the only or even the best answer to the uncompetitive American worker problem. This modest proposal is just an example of the kind of solutions that would address the coming crisis that no one wants to acknowledge.

    To conclude, let’s revisit Europe’s solutions to these and other problems after the eurozone collapses. They are just getting into ‘pay the piper’ phase of their economies.

    Like

  19. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    OKay
    – NPSCs can only be owned by for-profit private corporations paying US taxes;
    – NPSCs will gradually take over government service functions – prisons, schools, universities, healthcare, eldercare, youth services, land and forest management, park services, …
    So George a NSPC could be set up that would be owned by Halliburton that would run our County Sheriffs Department. MacDonalds could head up a NSPC to run our schools, Murdock’s News Corp could run our Libraries and Disney could run our parks,
    Is this what you have in mind?
    I don’t share the apocalyptic collapse of Europe that you vision. I only know that I saw people dying in the streets of San Francisco, something I never saw in Europe.

    Like

  20. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    Everything is fine in the E.U.
    Read down to the last sentence.
    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1414362/eu-budget-talks-for-2011-collapse

    Like

  21. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    D.King
    That report was from last November. Europe is still intact. Do you have any recent news?

    Like

  22. George Rebane Avatar

    NPSCs don’t have to be owned by only one for-profit corporation. Several corporations with something to offer from their own operations may go together to own a given NPSC.
    If one reads respected world commentaries on the current situation in Europe, the shoals toward which both the eurozone and the EU are heading are not only visible to me. However, I humbly accept the honor for being Nevada County’s seer and bearer of such such tidings.

    Like

  23. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Whats to keep a NPSC from acting in the interest of their host corporation? For example if Chrysler takes over the CHP how we insure they don’t give special preference to Chrysler cop cars? What kind of oversight vehicle do you see being established and who’s in charge of it?

    Like

  24. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    You’re a regular Zoltar George.
    Now put in more silver coins for more perdictions 😉
    Nigel Farage 2011: anti EU-anti Euro – pro Democracy
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFNd2hRbKf0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3ayxuE5dn0&NR=1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBA95tDZCQk&NR=1
    The Sovietisation of the EU Continues Environmental
    Data to Tax and Control – May 2011
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKI9jlLPKlg

    Like

  25. George Rebane Avatar

    As I mentioned in the article, the government is the procuring agency and provides compliance oversight. In your example, if Chrysler is among the winning consortium that operates the CHP, then you can bet your bippy that they will use Chrysler vehicles and that was part of their proposal. Such factors are intended to be part of the benefits of the competitive bidding to establish and operate NPSCs.

    Like

  26. wmartin Avatar
    wmartin

    “Whats to keep a NPSC from acting in the interest of their host corporation?”
    That strikes me as the point, it’s just that you want interests to converge. What company would not act in it’s own self interest?
    An NPSC sounds a heckuva lot like a utility company to me. I can’t say that I’m altogether sure that PG&E is more well run than a government body. In both cases you are bound to have massive infiltration by unions and a monopoly relationship with customers. In essence, they are sort of the same beast. I suppose the primary difference is that the government can legally shoot you for some reason or the other.
    It smells to me like privatization works when there’s real competition, and once a large company has it’s hooks in you, that competition may well go away.
    The no-brainer cases out there, like using private companies for food service in government, schools, or other companies, look to work since you can fire them and bring in someone else with relative ease.
    It’s a shame, since there’s plenty of cases where providing public services in some other way seem so obvious. Public libraries, rather than providing a jobs program, should be about providing books. Obviously, you could run one of the things along the model of a MacDonald’s, a manager plus relatively low skilled worker bees following a well thought out system. This is ignoring the politics of the matter of course, the last spate of library privatization fuss showed the ability of the librarians to get their friends with protest signs riled up.

    Like

  27. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    I followed the Library story quite closely. It aroused the most dissent of any proposal in recent years. The supes really stepped into something stinky on that one and couldn’t get out quick enough. People just didn’t like the idea of a corp from Delaware running our libraries.

    Like

  28. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    So what kind of NPSC is going to prevent people from dying on the streets of San Francisco and who’s going to pay for it?

    Like

  29. George Rebane Avatar

    Ultimately, if NPSCs are adopted in some form, it will be because of their bang for the buck, i.e. value. (In the case of libraries, the people will have to decide whether they like their government to run the library that is open two days a week at great cost, or have it open, say, five days for less cost. Similar trade-offs for other government functions that can efficiently sop up labor that cannot efficiently create wealth.)
    And I hope that no one thinks that I have worked out all the kinks in the NPSC concept – I have not. But I think there is enough in the outline to 1) point at a useful starting point for providing such services, and 2) invite serious and thoughtful discussions that refine the idea, or, in the process, even come up with a better one. This is just the best that I have been able to come up with for the necessary redistribution of wealth, employing the unemployable, and efficiently providing the collective services that government has assumed in our society.

    Like

  30. wmartin Avatar
    wmartin

    “People just didn’t like the idea of a corp from Delaware running our libraries. ”
    Pretty much all corporations of any size are from Delaware. It’s rather like Liberian registry. I think it was a red herring in any case.
    Obviously, the prime mechanism for saving money in a library is to pay the employees less. Those same employees excel in getting members of the public to write letters to the editor, Plus the whole thing is a cause celebre for people of the Leftish persuasion who are utterly convinced that the library will fill up with Nazi propaganda once Lockheed Martin takes over administrating the place. It’s a perfect storm of silliness.
    How do you keep people from ‘dying in on the streets of San Francisco’? Maybe you don’t encourage extremely poor people to move to an extremely expensive place with bad weather. Reinstitute the idea of a ‘poor farm’. Hand out government cheese. Maybe some people are just doomed to die cold and alone due to a series of events.
    In any case, whether a shared public service is best done by government, a public utility, a monopoly, or competitive bid, can be looked at on an individual basis. My guess is that the way it’s done, regardless of your choice, needs to change every few decades. The ability of people to game the system is nearly limitless and at this point the amount of gaming done by public unions is so high that I think the cycle needs to be turned back.

    Like

  31. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    In Denmark they do not have a street culture like we have here. Most of the people who die on the streets of our cities are either mentally ill or suffer from drug addiction or more recently desperate poverty. In Denmark these individuals are noticed early on and given the proper treatment and accommodations to avoid their further degeneration. When people come over here from Europe and Japan they are shocked by the conditions we allow people to exist in. Capitalism has no use for these people and provides no accommodation for their care. Caring economics creates jobs to help out the weak and helpless. Yes, this is paid for out of the general fund as it should be. It’s a national disgrace that we allow people to die on the streets. Billy Kelly froze to death 100 yards from the National Hotel last winter. It’s not just in big cities.

    Like

  32. George Rebane Avatar

    All social problems are so because of their numbers. Paul, you are bringing to this discussion a firmly established progressive alarum that has always implied that the country is going to hell through starvation, disease, crime, and “desperate poverty”. All problems that could and should be alleviated by a better redistribution of wealth through additional social programs.
    What are the related numbers here that make America such a “shocking” county, a country which immigrants continue to abhor and avoid, a country that is put to shame by the likes of Denmark whose frontiers are stacked with people fighting to get in? How often did I hear my father say during the fifties, ‘We should have gone to Denmark instead.’

    Like

  33. wmartin Avatar
    wmartin

    The problem of the poorest of the poor is different than the issue of paying parents to raise kids is different than the issue of a guaranteed income for everybody.
    I suspect they all have the same emotional core, but it’s sounding like a kind of intellectual whack-a-mole. It’s fun to muse about how to spend other peoples’ money on good works, but no single system is oriented towards all the different problems o’ the day that you keep bringing up.
    The poorest of the poor is an interesting issue and really is a thing that a person could present various solutions for. It’s tractable in size and probably wouldn’t distort the economy in any huge way.
    Of course, the truth is that scarcely anyone really gives a rip about the welfare of street people. Whether it’s a kind of ‘tough love’ from the Right, or endless weepy letters to the editor from the Left, the amount of work or money personally given to deal with that kind of thing is essentially nil. Practically any given individual could make a huge difference in the state of a small-town homeless community, but it’s incredibly rare to do so. It’s a kind of hypocrisy that I find absolutely hilarious.

    Like

  34. George Rebane Avatar

    Well said and agreed wmartin.

    Like

  35. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    “Billy Kelly froze to death 100 yards from the National Hotel last winter. It’s not just in big cities.”
    A sad story Paul.
    http://www.theunion.com/article/20110302/NEWS/110309962/1053
    I used to volunteer with the Sally Army (Salvation Army) and they are the only organization I donate to now. They are on the streets.
    http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf/vw-dynamic-arrays/ACEBE360E86E201A8525784C006FE670?openDocument&charset=utf-8

    Like

  36. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    wmartin
    We are fortunate here to have the folks at Hospitality House doing much good work to provide assistance to the homeless.
    In Denmark there are paid street watchers who spot people with drug and alcohol problems early on and guide them to proper facilities and help, hopefully before they become permanently damaged. This prevents crime, lowers the rates of alcoholism and drug addiction and helps treat mental illness early on while it’s still treatable. They also assist in reconnecting people with their families and provide job training and educational assistance. Yes, this is part of what caring economics does and it does involve investment from the public sector but it provides good jobs doing meaningful work and saves money by treating problems early on.
    George, sarcasm won’t rescue your apparent indifference to the conditions of the homeless and mentally disturbed. I am offering the ideas of Caring economics because I honestly feel that this is work we must do and now when we are at an economic crossroads is a good time to move in that direction.
    “Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Proverbs 31:9

    Like

  37. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    It’s sad that some progressives have problems with the Sally Army’s Red Kettle drive. Maybe they should clean up their own sanctimonious house before telling anyone else what to do!

    Like

  38. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    They do a great job of helping thousands of unfortunate folks find warmth and shelter. The Red Kettle drive is part of the Christmas season to me and I always contribute.
    I am intrigued of the possibilities that by adopting caring economics we can help prevent people being in those situations where they need emergency help.

    Like

  39. Mikey McD Avatar
    Mikey McD

    Paul, my wife is a homemaker. She is not respected by ‘working women.’ The womens lib revolution squashed the once-virtuous role of being a mom. Overcoming a value system where homemakers are disrespected by working women will take generations (and I don’t see the working women wishing to pay higher taxes to fund homemakers).
    Note: we have found the ‘older generation’ to be very appreciative and supportive of today’s homemaker.

    Like

  40. Ben Emery Avatar

    George,
    I have friends and family from all over the planet and people aren’t praising the US anymore. They can’t believe that we, the wealthiest nation on the planet even with all our republican debt, have people starving and freezing to death. I heard this very thing yesterday from my friend who just got back from India. We used to own a restaurant in CO and had many legal foreign employees from places like Ukraine, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Russia, Peru, and even a few from Alaska(ha ha). They were all horrified at our system and almost all returned to their countries of origin.
    The nation you are talking about no longer exist because we have gone down this destructive path called Supply Side Economics and Free Trade for two to three decades. Average workers no longer have the ability to afford basic necessities on their wages so have to turn to the government to fill in the holes that have been created by stagnant wages and decent paying manufacturing jobs leaving the country due to tax and trade policy changes. 50,000 factories and millions of jobs have left the country since 2000. The worst part about it is the US government actually pays these companies for abandoning the US (republican policy). The provision that would of ended this policy in the stimulus package was obstructed/ compromised out of it by the republicans in the 111th congress. The provision would of given tax breaks to companies that stayed in the US while removing the tax breaks from the companies that left the country, republicans and enough sell out democrats said no.

    Like

  41. Mikey McD Avatar
    Mikey McD

    I could not disagree more: “Average workers no longer have the ability to afford basic necessities on their wages”. By “basic necessities” are you referring to iphones, the four meals a day that contributes to our obesity epidemic, or the need for each family to have a third car?
    Why manufacture overseas? US Corps are over taxed, US employees have more rights than US employers, US regulations are obstructive and our labor is of lower value than overseas. To blame supply side economics shows ignorance.
    Manufacturing may be in luck! With the Keynesian path we are on the US dollar will continue to collapse making it more feasible to manufacture here.
    By “supply side economics” were you referring to the 1980s? Certainly you are not referring to the bailouts, QE1, QE2, Stimulus, TARP, etc as “supply side economics”?

    Like

  42. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Mikey
    In 1956 a much higher percentage of families could sustain themselves on one income than today. That was a year that also had a much higher percentage of union workers (around 30%) and a much steeper graduated income tax and corporate tax. Average incomes were around $1000 and a typical mortgage would be $200, around 20%. I don’t know you get your numbers pointing to today’s over pampered workers and demonic taxes.

    Like

  43. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    In 1956 my parents were raising four kids, two more came later, on a one income setup. We had a home, food and I walked down the road to the neighbors to get our fresh milk. We lived here and my dad had a construction business. Things were tough but we went to school, learned a few things, had bicycles and played in the woods around Sontag Road. I am sick of people claiming hardship when most everyone has two TV’s, food galore and shelter. There is a government program for just about every malady or need and I have seen these government programs advertising for customers! Ben Emery is so far out there I think we need to send a rescue squad. I suppose the 20 million illegals from all over the world come here for reasons other than we are the greatest place on the planet Ben? Amazing you would even say they leave disgusted. I worked with people from all over the planet when I lived in Palm Springs and they were immensely happy to be here. They were legal too! So, please stop the whining about how mean the country is, we are a magnet of goodness and light for the rest of the planet. Accept the success for goodness sakes.

    Like

  44. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    You make my point perfectly Todd. In 1956 families could make it with one income in an economy that had over 30% union membership and much higher income and corporate taxes than today. Whose doing the wining here?
    The rest of what you say is just standard Todd. Despite all this talk, people die on the streets of America and they don’t in Denmark.

    Like

  45. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    sp whining

    Like

  46. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    Yeah Todd, look at this!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjbL265nQf8

    Like

  47. George Rebane Avatar

    We have had supply side economics for essentially the entire history of the Republic, including the time of 30% union membership and a income tax rate. Upon closer inspection, as I have endlessly attempted to point out, those times were starkly different from today. The US was the world’s manufacturer, and half the world did not compete with us. The left acknowledges none of this economic history and primarily cherry picks stats that fit well on class warfare propaganda posters.
    PaulE and BenE, all your solutions require either collective altruistic behavior or the state with its hand in our pocket and gun to our head. Neither has worked well. And are you not a little tired of accusing the rest of us about not caring. Of course we care, and we believe our solutions that hearken to individual liberty, the assumption of risk, and entrepreneurship is the path back from the ills you describe. I venture that in the greater scheme of things, worrying about the small fraction that die in the cold here is not one of our top priorities now. In these pages I have given my opinion on how we should proceed to avoid Great Depression 2.
    This is not intended to convince any progressive, that is futile. But I am talking to those undecideds who are invited to confirm this for themselves. I assume you are doing so yourself. If not, we are engaged in a circle jerk.

    Like

  48. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    George
    I kept hearing from your side that we’re in deep economic do do because of over taxation and union strangulation. So I took a good look at 1956 and guess what? We had low employment, a high percentage of single wage earner families leaving a full time parent to raise children, average housing costs at around 20% of income. In addition we had high tax rates and near record union membership so I say “What’s up here?” It must not be taxes and unions that brought us to where we are? What’s left to blame?
    Allowing a “small fraction to die in the cold” is not acceptable or moral when it is preventable. The numbers that die are part of a sizable group that have fallen through the cracks of our grand dominion and need help desperately.
    Again, people dying on the streets in our country is not OK especially when it’s so easily dismissed as not being a high priority.

    Like

  49. Mikey McD Avatar

    Paul, my [highly employable] wife and I have CHOSEN to do it on one income as an investment in our children. It is easy to erroneously cite the 1950’s (before: rampant inflation thanks to Keynesians, devaluation of US dollar, tax anything that moves mentality, regulate everything, materialistic [I need another TV or Car or ], but don’t forget that households [more often rented not owned] only had 1 car (if they were well off), no ipods, big screen TVs, etc etc.
    THE CONTENTION THAT TAXES WERE LOWER IN THE 1950’S IS 100% BULLSHIT. Once you factor in THE MYRIAD OF TAXES WE HAVE TODAY: Self employed tax, gas tax, CRV tax, sales tax, inheritance tax, gift tax, bonding taxes, permit taxes, school taxes, property taxes, cigarette taxes, tip tax [ask any restaurant owner], utility tax, fishing license tax, state parks tax, car registration tax, ETC ETC. DON’T FORGET THAT SS TAX WAS ONLY 2.3% IN 1950- NOW IT IS 15.3%!!!!!!!! Today, if it moves it is taxed.

    Like

  50. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Tax rates in 1956 were 91% over 200,000
    Last year they were 35% over $800,000

    Like

Leave a comment