On Aug 7, 10:12*am, Ron Ruff wrote:
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

"Manufacturing today is as strong as ever there simply aren't as many
people needed to produce the increased amount of manufactured goods."

Now you are talking some sense. IMO this is the cornerstone of
prosperity... continual improvement in efficiency. I don't lament the
loss of "jobs" at all. But the problem is when the vast bulk of the
population has no share in that prosperity... instead they merely find
themselves out of work with only low-paying "service" options with no
benefits or security. Do you have a solution to that problem?

No, because I don't see the entitlement nor view it as "a problem."
Moreover, I blame guvmint, not industry.

Or do you believe that it is no big deal
that most in society become poorer
while a few get rich?

I believe you are wrong in your framing. The poorest do get richer by
capitalistic advance. You just don't like the distribution.


BTW, there is a solution, but I'd be interested to hear what you
think.

"In the May/June 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs, Daniel W. Drezner
cites data that shows global employment in manufacturing decreasing by
11% between 1995 and 2002, all the while global manufacturing output
increased by 30% during the same period.

Of course *employment* in manufacturing will tend to decline as it
becomes more automated and efficient. The problem is that instead of
become more efficient, the US has simply shifted manufacturing to
places with low wages (like China), which operate less efficiently in
terms of man-hours.

Only if they are less capitalized and over-regulated. You know what
"capitalize" means, right? It is what capitalism is, not the standard
marxist claptrap myths that have bounced around for the last 100y.

"Which is preferred a healthy, productive manufacturing sector (that
is, one that has shed excess labor) or a bloated, inefficient industry
that can't and doesn't compete in the global marketplace?"

Unfortunately, the US has neither.

"In the year 1900, roughly half of the American work force was
employed in agriculture. One hundred years later that percentage had
dropped ... down to 2%. Free trade, innovation and capital creation
had obviated the need for 98% of the total work force. Farms today are
big and highly technical. Imagine the tragedy if government had
'saved' the farmers from losing their jobs 100 years ago."

I'm all for the government never ever "saving" someone's job.

"The threats of protection emanating from Washington are very real and
have the potential to upset an already fragile global economy."

The only "protection" we need to employ is to improve our own living
standard via improved efficiency instead of outsourcing to slave
labor.

Downsize guvmint then. In fact, outsource it. lol.

It ain't about capitalism vs socialism... they both lead to
destruction if they aren't intelligently managed and controlled.

Total nonsense. *Capitalism does not need "managing." *It is organic,
not designed. *It just happened and it is *orderly* as a force of
nature and life, like a robin building its nest without a blueprint.

Only if you believe that society should be comprised of a large number
of poor workers and a few wealthy. This is what capitalism naturally
becomes.

Marxist Klaptrap.

http://mises.org/story/2317

As production of everything becomes more efficient, less work
is needed, and you have excess people... and excess people will
*naturally* be paid at subsistence level... if they can find work at
all. This is the situation we've been sliding into for a few decades.
Our manufacturing sector was highly unionized, which was the only way
they managed to secure a decent middle-class life.

I don't have any thing against workers colluding into unions. I do
have something against coerced bargaining.

Unions aid and abet outsourcing.

Those days are
gone. Most service jobs cannot add the sort of value that
manufacturing can, which is why wages tend to be low and they can't be
raised.

The bottom line is that improved efficiency certainly does increase
collective wealth... but in capitalism this *naturally* becomes
concentrated towards a few people, and society as a whole does not
benefit.


"Collective wealth" is Marxist Klaptrap.

It isn't clear why you believe in entitlements. I don't believe in
them.