Seriously, that blog is a bunch of crap

collapsenet.com

how'd i do?

great story, dude. really. especially the part that went: "unions will do anything to ruin our economy."

this.

today's 'internet man' is intensely allergic to bad news, so it all works itself out. from advertisers to the news media corporations to the consumer back to the advertisers... messy topics we're all responsible for? doesn't sell. ... the government doesn't talk about it because the government can't do a thing about it. it's too late.

19 facts, huh?

it's one. Olduvai.

I don't know if that graph is wrong or not, but I'd be willing to bet at least 25 cents that its more scientific than the "look at everything in your vision right now" test.

I didn't know they had internet in the eighties.


Also, try to find the USA and China on this list and this list..


To the people talking about the laziness of americans. Look for my country on your OECD chart and then look at our exports. Lazy guys ftw!

How does the unemployment rate have anything to do with whether this blogger is a tard or not?

Its not just shoe companies, Wal-Mart inventory, and the linens in your closet that are being manufactured overseas. It's cars, high-end computers, and things that require specialization to manufacture, not something Paco can put together for 5 dollars an hour. Along with the actual manufacturing jobs lost, the jobs of managers and directors of these factories are lost.

OK, there aren't as many manufacturing jobs as before. Want to know why? Because there are things called MACHINES AND TECHNOLOGY AND ADVANCEMENT that are leading to something else called INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY which is a good thing. I'd rather have 1 guy produce 10 widgets a year then 2 guys each producing 4 widgets a year. My initial point remains that an economy is showing maturity when it moves towards services and away from manufacturing. Back in the 19th century farming was the dominant industry. Then, the economy matured. Manufacturing became dominant. Then, the economy matured again. Now, services are dominant. Learn some relatively elementary economics.

Sure the economy will pick up, and they'll be an ass-ton more salesman to fill the void left by those manufacturing jobs, which will thereby dilute the current pool and drive everybodies salaries down.

I can tell you are trying to sound intelligent with this part, but writing "everybodies" pretty much proves that you aren't.

so you actually believe the above bullet points are accurate and reasonable?

for all the **** people give you, i actually do agree with you that it looks like it will be a tough ride for the U.S. to stop using petroleum. but the points above are mostly nonsense. and the union comment was out of line, though to some extent many reasonable people believe that pushing China over this will cause more bad than good

Now, I'm pretty decent at math, and by my count, 42,400 * 500 * 0.75 is equal to 15,900,000. Now that's the absolute minimum figure from point one, and assumes that all 75% of the plants with 500 or more employees had exactly 500 employees, and the other 25% had exactly zero. Somehow, this is almost three times as large as the number given only a few bullet points later. Please explain.

AngerPush said tard again, quick busto, call him a ******!

and the GOP blocked a bill the other day that would have ended tax breaks for businesses expanding overseas and taking jobs with them?

everyone has been incredibly vague about what portion of the tax code they're talking about wrt this issue. i'm pretty sure there isn't a portion of the tax code that gives subsidies to business specifically for taking jobs overseas.

i seem to remember it having to do something with re-investing profit into capital gains rather than realizing it

The myth of the ascension of China, perhaps apocryphal, told by an economist who visits China under Mao Zedong. He sees hundreds of workers building a dam with shovels. He asks: “Why don't they use a mechanical digger?” “That would put people out of work,” replies the foreman. “Oh,” says the economist, “I thought you were making a dam. If it's jobs you want, take away their shovels and give them spoons.”

Edit: plagiarized.

Sounds like an extremely objective, black-and-white measure that would have been easy to implement. Just have businesses fill out the "Number of jobs you took overseas this year" tax form and if they give a number greater than zero take away their tax break!

Certainly there can't be any more nuance to it than this...

that's not going to do anything other then reduce the buying power of the vast majority of consumers in America...

I was listening to this former treasury guy/economist on NPR last night who was looking historically at economic trends. He stated that there was one other time when the accumulation of wealth by the top 1% happened... that was when industrialization started. What happened with industrialization was that output was increased, profits went up while paying less people lower wages. The top 1% was collecting 20 something percent of all income. This lead to the lower and middle class borrowing more, going into debt. Meanwhile, the wealthy weren't buying stuff, they were investing so there money wasn't circulating through the economy. Apparently this peaked in 1928.

According to this author, the economy was turned around by a combination of the war, which pushed everyone into work and by the new deal which allowed things like unions to organize... the end result was reversing the trend of the top 1% collecting such a high percent of earned income. This reversed until the richest were collecting something like 7-9%. This contributed to 3 decades of sustained growth.

According to this author, as of 2007, this inequality exists again. The superwealthy are collecting the vast majority (20-something percent) of all new income generated. Contrary to the beliefs of some, most of this wealth is not creating new jobs, it is not being invested in companies creating new jobs in America... after all, they can make more profit by doing their business overseas. Meanwhile, the middleclass has lost something like 5% of their real income over the last decade, debt has ballooned.

I won't pretend that I can reproduce the level of detail presented in the interview but it made a very convincing argument that the inequality between income between the vast majority of workers and the top 1% is ultimately a huge crippling problem for the country.

the notion that lowering the minimum wage is going to solve these problems sounds backwards to me.

LINK TO STORY (text and radio) (and the author is Robert Reich)

Did somebody get their panties in a bunch?

Do you always completely avoid responding to points when they directly fly in the face of your ideas? Like I said before, these are SPECIALIZED manufacturing jobs going overseas, not something Han-Choi is making for 2 dollars an hour in a sweatshop. Manufacturing jobs requiring ADVANCED DEGREES. WELL-PAYING JOBS. Thank you for explaining how moving from an agrarian culture to modernization means a more "service oriented" economy. DUMB-ASS ITS CALLED AN INFORMATION ECONOMY. YOU SOUND LIKE AN UNEDUCATED GOOD-WILL HUNTING.

I'm glad your harping on a typo in the second part of your post, to again completely not address the issue. It's a well-known fact in Information economies, salesjobs replace manufacturing jobs as the unskilled labor of the workforce. Unemployment is at 18% (factoring part-time employment), and I don't know that salesjobs are a long-term solution looking towards the future.

lolwutpear.jpg

I'd be willing to bet you have 0 clue how that graph was put together and probably have no idea about the tidal wave of data that is the complete opposite.

Love the knee-jerk reaction!

I have no problem with someone mocking my attempt to summarize what I heard while listening to the radio. I think the gist is correct. That is, the money is not returned to the economy as it is when the money goes to the middle class.

I refer to the linked interview at the bottom of my last post since I no doubt didn't do justice to the author with my post.

I've figured out politics on 2+2. A quart of responding to the author's tone, a pint of one's personal beliefs regardless of the information presented, 3 gallons of name-calling, a dash of addressing the issue, baked with absolutely no sense of future when currently dealing with a 20% unemployment rate when part-time and temp workers are factored in.

They measure these things, you know...


http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Econ...spx?Symbol=USD

awaiting tidal wave of conflicting data...

You do realize that one of the world's largest per capita manufacturers and exporters, Germany, was facing double-digit unemployment during the boom years of the mid-2000s, right?

So, maybe just looking at the unemployment rate isn't extremely relevant to the whole question of the manufacturing sector and its importance and strength.

You forgot to add in your dollop of homophobic insults!

If it's invested it doesn't just disappear into a black hole where trolls hoard their gold.