Skip to main content

...as long as our standard of living in this country is lowered as well. That means the mortgage companies need to adjust the purchase price of the homes we're currently in, in turn lowering the monthly mortgage payments; utility companies need to lower (not continue to raise) rates; daycare and the costs associated with buying and maintaining an automobile need to go waaaaay down, as does the cost of food, medical insurance, etc.

You get the picture.

I, for one, say if I've got to accept globalization and have to compete with people (in countries with lower standards of living) who make fifty cents a day, my cost of living must go down as well.

There's no way for Americans to continue to pay more for what it currently costs to live in this country on the pay provided by retail-type jobs - practically the only jobs left in this country, and definitely the only ones that are in our future.

So the greedy corporations win. Go ahead and send all the jobs overseas. As long as the cost of living in the good old U.S.A. is lowered, I'm good.

(I think it will be interesting to see who'll be able to buy - or continue to buy - the stuff that's made overseas.)

Link

quote:
Princeton, New Jersey (CNN) -- In an extraordinarily powerful moment last Monday, a middle class mother named Velma Hart confronted the president for whom she had enthusiastically voted.

During the town hall, Hart expressed to President Obama her deep frustration with the current state of affairs: "I've been told that I voted for a man who said he's going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class. I'm one of those people, and I'm waiting sir. I'm waiting. I just don't feel it yet . . . I need you to answer this honestly: Is this my new reality?"

With this simple question, Ms. Hart articulated a feeling that is shared by millions of Americans who are growing more desperate for our current economic situation to change.

There is good reason for people to be anxious. The economic recovery has been sluggish. Although the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that the recession ended in 2009, the reality of an unemployment rate that still hovers at 9.5 percent belies such optimism. Many of those who have been fortunate to obtain a job or to keep their existing positions feel as if they are barely hanging on to keep up with their financial obligations.

What makes the situation so troubling is that the basic problem is not the recession. The problem is that the economic insecurity of the middle class has been increasing for several decades.

Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, both in a study that he developed for the Rockefeller Foundation as well as in a book entitled "The Great Risk Shift," has documented the gradual erosion of economic security that has taken place.

Hacker defines the economically insecure as those Americans whose available household income has declined by at least 25 percent in one year as a result of falling wages and/or rising medical expenses, as well as those who lack a financial safety net.

Hacker's findings are shocking. Economic insecurity has steadily increased since the 1980s. The intensity of the swings in family income has doubled over the past forty years.

The possibility that Americans will suffer through a drop in their income of 50 percent or more over a two-year period has increased significantly (from 3-4 percent in the 1970s to almost 10 percent in 2004).

Parents are struggling to provide for their children and their parents, while the number of Americans declaring bankruptcy has grown. "The rising prevalence of two-earner couples," he writes, "does not appear to have provided a big income cushion to families."

The number of companies offering workers a defined benefit pension has dropped from 80 percent in 1980 to under a third. Worse yet, each economic recovery is weaker than the one that came before. With every downturn, Americans are forced to adjust to a "new normal" characterized by diminished expectations.

There is no single cause behind these changes. Rising medical and educational costs have squeezed families whose incomes have not risen accordingly. The amount of debt that Americans hold hampers their ability to achieve stable long-term financial conditions, while many emerging jobs don't offer good benefits or employment security.

Globalization has weakened many of our key industries and allowed businesses to produce goods in other countries with cheap, non-unionized workers. Many of the best jobs have gone abroad, while technology has rendered other positions obsolete. In Slate, James Ledbetter recently wrote about the end in growth of one of the nation's iconic jobs -- the salesman. No other occupation has experienced as sharp of a drop as sales has in recent years, a job that was the fastest-growing occupation in the period between the 1950s and 1980s.

Public policy is to blame as well. The value of cash benefits that the government provided to Americans who are in difficult conditions has shrunk. Many benefits have not been updated over the past few decades so their value has diminished as well. Although the overall wealth of the country has risen, regressive fiscal policies that started with the tax cut of 1981 have helped to skew wealth toward a narrower segment of the population.

Neither party has yet developed viable solutions to change this new reality. Last week, Republicans responded by unveiling an agenda that centers on tax cuts, a policy which will do little to alleviate economic insecurity.

Thus far, Democrats have taken a more aggressive stance. Most important, Congress passed a health care reform bill aimed at containing the cost of insurance premiums and preventing insurers from easily dropping beneficiaries. But huge questions remain about how effective the health care legislation will be at controlling costs -- a central concern for the middle class.

If the cost controls don't work and the regulatory structures prove to be feeble, the legislation will not achieve its prime objectives. Furthermore, on its own, health care reform is not enough to reverse the underlying challenge our nation faces.

If the nation is serious about responding to Velma Hart's complaint, and we should be, the government and private sector will need to generate much bolder ideas than anything currently on the table. This will require public-private partnerships that can stimulate investment and research in new economic areas that will allow us to compete in international markets.

The U.S. must look for the kinds of public investment that took place in the 1940s and 1950s, when government and private funds, combined with entrepreneurial genius, fueled the high technology sector and resulted in rapid development in areas such as the Silicon Valley in California and Route 128 in Massachusetts.

Improving economic security will also require smarter investments -- as well as reforms -- of our primary educational system so that we are training the best and brightest. Some of our nation's finest public universities are being badly damaged by the current cuts in state funds and will need to be revitalized.

The sad truth is that even when this recession officially ends, the economic pain felt by millions of middle class Americans won't go away. This is our new reality and one that has been building for decades. Restoring the security that middle class Americans enjoyed in the 1940s and 1950s -- fighting a war for economic security -- must be our central goal in years to come.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

So basically, your article is blaming technology advancements for the poor economy.

And not enough government welfare money.

The salesman isn't needed when I can shop online.

College is darned expensive, but I'm paying for it because it's necessary.

Blaming the 'Reagan Rich' is getting to be an old ploy.

Tell Obama to stop making 45 new government agencies a day, and we might can get the private sector going.


Who knows?
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
So basically, your article is blaming technology advancements for the poor economy.

And not enough government welfare money.

The salesman isn't needed when I can shop online.

College is darned expensive, but I'm paying for it because it's necessary.

Blaming the 'Reagan Rich' is getting to be an old ploy.

Tell Obama to stop making 45 new government agencies a day, and we might can get the private sector going.


Who knows?


I read the article not about government welfare but about the insecurity felt by most folks in this country and the expressed concern that unless we start moving on a positive incline, we will not be able to create a better society for our children and those that follow after us (i.e. the American Dream). I lived through the 80's and followed the Reagan pitch for nuclear missles on railcars, a 600 ship navy and trickle-down economics. The only thing that trickled-down from these polices was an increase in the national debt from $50 billion to $424 billion within two years, wasted military expentiture for products the Navy didn't want and didn't work, a lowering of real wages and open markets for Japan (Reagan was compensaed $1 million by Japan after his term).
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
So basically, your article is blaming technology advancements for the poor economy.

And not enough government welfare money.

The salesman isn't needed when I can shop online.

College is darned expensive, but I'm paying for it because it's necessary.

Blaming the 'Reagan Rich' is getting to be an old ploy.

Tell Obama to stop making 45 new government agencies a day, and we might can get the private sector going.


Who knows?


We've been losing jobs for decades in this country - under Reagan, Clinton and Bush I and II. You can't exactly blame all of it on government expansion taking away the private sector's ability to create jobs.

And I don't think blaming the 'Reagan Rich' is an old ploy. Obviously his tax cuts for the rich started the job loss trend.

The point is technology advancements and jobs outsourced to cheap labor markets have had the same impact on the American worker: There's been nothing to replace either.

Americans simply can't compete with the low wages and living standards of these countries that now have our old jobs, no more than we can compete with better software that makes jobs more efficient.

And it's getting incredibly difficult to justify the cost of college because of the outrageous expense and because there are no jobs to be had once a degree is obtained.
The US needs an education systems that works, from K to 12. The present system is a product of the left and the unions. We lack trained craftsmen and skilled labor. For, what its worth, so does China. Post high school, many students would be better served in trade schools and community colleges.

Our universities still produce a quality product, partially because they must compete -- private and state universities compete for students and must provide a quality education. However, they are horrendously expensive. I am very thankful I went to college before the massive government backed student loan program was instituted. By working full time in the summer at fast food places and three to four shifts during school I could afford to pay my tuition, fees, books and have enough left for gas, lunch and a little fun Saturday night. Now, I see relatives's children saddled with huge loans. As the loan program grew colleges increased tuition and grew their bureaucracies. Its a version of a government designed self-licking lollipop.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
The US needs an education systems that works, from K to 12. The present system is a product of the left and the unions. We lack trained craftsmen and skilled labor. For, what its worth, so does China. Post high school, many students would be better served in trade schools and community colleges.

Our universities still produce a quality product, partially because they must compete -- private and state universities compete for students and must provide a quality education. However, they are horrendously expensive. I am very thankful I went to college before the massive government backed student loan program was instituted. By working full time in the summer at fast food places and three to four shifts during school I could afford to pay my tuition, fees, books and have enough left for gas, lunch and a little fun Saturday night. Now, I see relatives's children saddled with huge loans. As the loan program grew colleges increased tuition and grew their bureaucracies. Its a version of a government designed self-licking lollipop.


On this point, el, I actually agree with you.

And now Obama is pushing a longer school day and longer school year:

Obama presses for longer school year

School systems are out of cash and teachers are being laid off, so how would this be paid for? And it's a bad idea anyway. It will just lead to burn out - at least in my child. Quality, not quantity, is the key.

Personally, I'm doing everything in my power to get my kid out of public school before he starts middle school (next year). I can do a much better job of educating him by homeschooling him. It means leaving a good-paying corporate job and tightening our family budget, but I know it will be worth it.

As far as college, it is my understanding that colleges now try to recruit homeschooled children because homeschooled children are better prepared and more mature than their public school educated counterparts.

Anyway, if the college fund we have for him won't cover all the expenses maybe he'll get a scholarship.
From Buttercup’s link...it’s a little more than longer school days and years...

“...Obama said teachers and their profession should be more highly honored — as in China and some other countries, he said — and he said he wanted to work with the teachers' unions. But he also said that unions should not defend a status quo in which one-third of children are dropping out. He challenged them not to be resistant to change.
And the president endorsed the firing of teachers who, once given the chance and the help to improve, are still falling short.
"We have got to identify teachers who are doing well. Teachers who are not doing well, we have got to give them the support and the training to do well. And if some teachers aren't doing a good job, they've got to go," Obama said....”

Evaluating teachers = getting rid of the bad ones = getting rid of tenure = going up against teacher unions = Obama losing a base of his support. That’s what he really means by “he wanted to work with teacher’s unions.”

Apparently in Alabama we pay teachers salaries while they are serving time.

See my thread on “Evaluating teachers” in News. Alabama teachers are evaluated by what church they attend or who they are connected to? Really? Nothing to do with the AEA at all, huh?
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
The US needs an education systems that works, from K to 12. The present system is a product of the left and the unions. We lack trained craftsmen and skilled labor. For, what its worth, so does China. Post high school, many students would be better served in trade schools and community colleges.

Our universities still produce a quality product, partially because they must compete -- private and state universities compete for students and must provide a quality education. However, they are horrendously expensive. I am very thankful I went to college before the massive government backed student loan program was instituted. By working full time in the summer at fast food places and three to four shifts during school I could afford to pay my tuition, fees, books and have enough left for gas, lunch and a little fun Saturday night. Now, I see relatives's children saddled with huge loans. As the loan program grew colleges increased tuition and grew their bureaucracies. Its a version of a government designed self-licking lollipop.


On this point, el, I actually agree with you.

And now Obama is pushing a longer school day and longer school year:

Obama presses for longer school year

School systems are out of cash and teachers are being laid off, so how would this be paid for? And it's a bad idea anyway. It will just lead to burn out - at least in my child. Quality, not quantity, is the key.

Personally, I'm doing everything in my power to get my kid out of public school before he starts middle school (next year). I can do a much better job of educating him by homeschooling him. It means leaving a good-paying corporate job and tightening our family budget, but I know it will be worth it.

As far as college, it is my understanding that colleges now try to recruit homeschooled children because homeschooled children are better prepared and more mature than their public school educated counterparts.

Anyway, if the college fund we have for him won't cover all the expenses maybe he'll get a scholarship.


Buttercup,
We do not agree on much but on this we do. My wife and I sacrifice and save to send our daughter to a good private school. If we could not afford that we would probably home school. Education or a skilled trade that requires an internship or license to practice is what will separate your child from the pack.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Butter,
Have you looked into homeschooling? It's not a piece of cake.

But you are right about the colleges liking homeschooled kids.

Be prepared to get a lot of flack.


I realize it won't be a piece of cake and I've been looking into it for nearly a year. I've talked to several parents who homeschool as well as a few church cover school directors.

I've finally decided on a cover school down here that I really like. I've spoken at length to the director and like him very much. He said that one reason he and his wife decided years ago to start a cover school is they found - when they were looking to homeschool (much like I have) - that some of these cover schools' curriculum and requirements are no different than public school (not to mention the unaffordable fees).

So he and his wife started this cover school years ago with a group of people they attend home church with. They're these back to basics kind of people who believe that church should not be focused on a building or ministries for this-and-that. They use the same approach with the cover school and I like that.

A statement of faith is not required, the fees are very affordable and beginning this year, they are offering a prepackaged curriculum (not a requirement) for parents who don't know where to start and need a little guidance. I could be wrong, but I think he said the fee would be about $35/year for the supplies.

Speaking of getting flack, the only other fee we will pay is for membership in the HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association).
quote:
Originally posted by RAN:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
So basically, your article is blaming technology advancements for the poor economy.

And not enough government welfare money.

The salesman isn't needed when I can shop online.

College is darned expensive, but I'm paying for it because it's necessary.

Blaming the 'Reagan Rich' is getting to be an old ploy.

Tell Obama to stop making 45 new government agencies a day, and we might can get the private sector going.


Who knows?


I read the article not about government welfare but about the insecurity felt by most folks in this country and the expressed concern that unless we start moving on a positive incline, we will not be able to create a better society for our children and those that follow after us (i.e. the American Dream). I lived through the 80's and followed the Reagan pitch for nuclear missles on railcars, a 600 ship navy and trickle-down economics. The only thing that trickled-down from these polices was an increase in the national debt from $50 billion to $424 billion within two years, wasted military expentiture for products the Navy didn't want and didn't work, a lowering of real wages and open markets for Japan (Reagan was compensaed $1 million by Japan after his term).

Actually just thought you might want to know that government jobs have shrunk... Just saying.
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by RAN:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
So basically, your article is blaming technology advancements for the poor economy.

And not enough government welfare money.

The salesman isn't needed when I can shop online.

College is darned expensive, but I'm paying for it because it's necessary.

Blaming the 'Reagan Rich' is getting to be an old ploy.

Tell Obama to stop making 45 new government agencies a day, and we might can get the private sector going.


Who knows?


I read the article not about government welfare but about the insecurity felt by most folks in this country and the expressed concern that unless we start moving on a positive incline, we will not be able to create a better society for our children and those that follow after us (i.e. the American Dream). I lived through the 80's and followed the Reagan pitch for nuclear missles on railcars, a 600 ship navy and trickle-down economics. The only thing that trickled-down from these polices was an increase in the national debt from $50 billion to $424 billion within two years, wasted military expentiture for products the Navy didn't want and didn't work, a lowering of real wages and open markets for Japan (Reagan was compensaed $1 million by Japan after his term).


Actually just thought you might want to know that government jobs have shrunk... Just saying.


You may wish to check your facts before posting.

"Federal employees also enjoy more job security. Since the recession began, federal employment has risen by 240,000, or 12 percent.'

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/...-you-need-uncle-sam/
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by RAN:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
So basically, your article is blaming technology advancements for the poor economy.

And not enough government welfare money.

The salesman isn't needed when I can shop online.

College is darned expensive, but I'm paying for it because it's necessary.

Blaming the 'Reagan Rich' is getting to be an old ploy.

Tell Obama to stop making 45 new government agencies a day, and we might can get the private sector going.


Who knows?


I read the article not about government welfare but about the insecurity felt by most folks in this country and the expressed concern that unless we start moving on a positive incline, we will not be able to create a better society for our children and those that follow after us (i.e. the American Dream). I lived through the 80's and followed the Reagan pitch for nuclear missles on railcars, a 600 ship navy and trickle-down economics. The only thing that trickled-down from these polices was an increase in the national debt from $50 billion to $424 billion within two years, wasted military expentiture for products the Navy didn't want and didn't work, a lowering of real wages and open markets for Japan (Reagan was compensaed $1 million by Japan after his term).


Actually just thought you might want to know that government jobs have shrunk... Just saying.


You may wish to check your facts before posting.

"Federal employees also enjoy more job security. Since the recession began, federal employment has risen by 240,000, or 12 percent.'

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/...-you-need-uncle-sam/


Or... Perhaps you should check yours?
http://factcheck.org/2010/09/factchecking-the-pledge/ Specifically the section on economy:
The BLS says that the number of government jobs this year has shrunk by 40,000, even with the massive hiring for the census. So there is actually a much larger number of reduction. While at the same time the private sector has gained a net total of 763,000 jobs. So, yeah.
I suggest you do more research.

"The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that "the era of big government is over" and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force.

Most of the increases are on the civilian side, which will grow by 153,000 workers, to 1.43 million people, in fiscal 2010."

http://www.washingtontimes.com...als-return-of-big-g/

Add the increase in military to reach the number I stated.

The DOL cited cuts included state and local government.
The Android smartphone segment keeps getting stronger, and the Samsung Galaxy S looks set to be a key player in 2010. Not only does it get the company’s coveted Super AMOLED display, but a 1GHz processor, 720p HD video recording and plenty of wireless connectivity. Now freshly announced as incoming to Verizon as the Fascinate, T-Mobile USA as the Vibrant and of course AT&T as the Captivate, the Galaxy S is certainly spreading itself around. So how does this Android 2.1 device compare with Apple's iPhone 4? We will take you through the key differences in features and performance between the two devices.

Screen
The first thing you notice about the Galaxy S Vibrant is how it lives up to its name. The Super AMOLED touch screen which measures 4” and has a 480×800 resolution is truly stunning. The blacks are deep; the colors are rich and jewel-like. I’ve always preferred OLED to LCD when it comes to HDTV displays (though sadly this use of the technology has yet to catch on at the manufacturing stage) and the same is true when it comes to the mobile arena. The iPhone 4 uses an LED-backlit IPS-LCD screen at 3.5” with an astounding 640×960 resolution which they refer to as a “Retina Display”. Though the specs are impressive, in comparing the iPhone 4 to the Galaxy S, I didn’t find that text was any easier to read on the iPhone or that images were any sharper. Both phones have excellent screens, but the Galaxy S’s larger and brighter display makes for a better viewing experience.
Operating System:
iPhone 4 comes pre-installed with Apple's new iOS 4.x.x that includes more than 100 new features.
Samsung Captivate is powered by Android 2.1 that offers a slew of customizations including the ability to add widgets and custom alerts. This is in addition to functionalities like free turn-by-turn GPS navigation, voice-to-text and the ability to add any app of choice.
However, the functional difference between a Samsung Galaxy S and iPhone 4 is one of personal choice and users who prefer simplicity and minimalism will find iPhone 4 appealing.
Compatibility:
Folks at TiPb point out that the Captivate may not be an ideal device for Mac users. Unlike the iPhone 4 which only requires the user to plug into iTunes to sync content, the Captivate will require several workarounds to achieve the same task. Also, MobileMe users may find it difficult to restore content while switching handsets.
Photos & Video Recording
Both devices have 5 megapixel cameras capable of capturing 720p high-def video at 30 frames per second. Both have software zoom capability. But the iPhone takes a slight lead in this category, based solely on improvements to the iOS. The iPhone 4 can capture HDR (High Dynamic Range) photos which significantly improve the look of images that would otherwise have washed-out areas or poor detail. In video mode, you can trim the video clips you just shot and immediately upload them to YouTube via Wi-Fi. Meanwhile, some of the company’s preloaded tools aren’t bad, however; there’s a full copy of Swype, the gesture-based keyboard (though it isn’t enabled by default) and Samsung’s multimedia player is far better than the standard Google offering. It supports MPEG4, H.264, H.263, DivX, Xvid, WMV, AVI, MKV and FLV video, among others, together with a healthy clutch of audio formats including OFF and FLAC. Paired with the 3.5mm headphones jack and onboard storage you’ve got an Android phone that could certainly give an iPod touch a run for its money.
But most of movies are DVD format. How could I watch them on Samsung smartphone? I search this question on Google and find good software named Nidesoft DVD to Samsung Converterwhich could help you convert DVD movie to many video formats to support the Samsung family devices, including DVD to Samsung MP4 and MP3 player YP series and Samsung mobile phone. And Nidesoft Video Convertercould convert video and audio files between all popular formats such as convert AVI to MP4, MP3 to WAV, WMV to MPEG, MOV to AAC, etc. I think these two software is good assistant for Samsung phone users. You may try it and be able to rent or purchase movies and TV shows wherever you want.
Battery Life
Apple says talk time is up to seven hours with 300 hours of standby time. Samsung claims 6.5 hours of talk time and 576 standby hours.
Conclusion
The Galaxy S Vibrant and the iPhone 4 are both incredibly sophisticated and powerful smartphones that are ideal companions for people who want complete control of their digital lives while on the go. But if I had to choose right now, I’d probably go with the iPhone. While I preferred the overall user experience of the Galaxy S, having an iPad at home has made me an App Store junky and I’m reluctant to give up on our collection of apps even if it means a few more typos.
It matters not that an individual worker or trade is union or not. The influence of artificiallly high wages caused by unions makes the cost of goods and services rise which in turn changes the wages and costs of non-union workers. So you think the $50-$70 dollar wage per hour, including benefits, paid to union car assembly line workers doesn't affect the economoy overall. That the annual wage increases to union labor does not fuel inflation, causinig non-union wages to go up to to keep up. It is a a never ending spiral as long as unions keep getting raises based solely no the fact that they can, not maket forces.

And I question as to whether the workers you cite are union. Just because they are not union in a right to work state like Alabama does not mean they are not union in the rust belt. Do you not understand why jobs are leaving Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illionis, etc and moving south?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×