Best Democratic candidate for president?

[Old_Trapper70]

I agree... everyone is worth more than nine bucks an hour, but that doesn’t mean that everyone is worth more than nine bucks an hour while performing a task that a 15-16 year old could just as easily perform.

Albert Einstein was a moderately gifted dude, but if he rose from the grave, knocked on my door, and asked for a job washing my windows, I’d still only pay him the going rate for residential window washers. Einstein was valuable when he was doing that thing which only Einstein could do (unlocking secrets of the universe, styling his hair to give it that ‘just electrocuted’ look, etc.) but he’d be equally as cheap and expendable as the next guy when doing things that anyone could do.

Yes, but here is another POV on the problem:

http://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/Documents/growth-and-shared-prosperity.pdf

WHAT IS COMPETITIVENESS?

To generate growth and shared prosperity, the American economy must be competitive. Many people misunderstand the relationship among growth, shared prosperity, and competitiveness, especially because they often use the term “competitiveness” without being clear about what they mean. We find great power in this definition: A location such as the United States is competitive to the extent that firms operating in the United States are able to compete successfully in the global economy while supporting high and rising wages and living standards for the average American.

The definition has two important parts: In a competitive economy, firms win and citizens thrive. If firms in America succeed but the average American struggles, the country is not competitive. Likewise (though this is hard to imagine today), if U.S. citizens were to prosper while American firms languished, the country would not be competitive. To put it differently, competitiveness requires not just prosperity, but also shared prosperity.

Too often, pundits argue that the United States would be more competitive if only wages here were lower. That is simply incorrect by our definition. While lower wages would make it easier for firms in the United States to win in global markets, they would not lift the living standards of the average American. Prosperity would not be shared. If we have to take a national pay cut in order to sell our goods and services abroad, that is not a sign that our nation is competitive. In fact, it’s a sign that we aren’t competitive.

Similarly, some commentators suggest that a cheap dollar would make America more competitive. Again, not as we define the term. A cheap dollar makes U.S. goods and services relatively inexpensive to foreign buyers and therefore boosts U.S.-based firms. But, a cheap dollar makes foreign goods expensive for American citizens and thereby lowers living standards.

The definition of competitiveness focuses attention on a particular national economic goal: high and rising productivity. Only by being highly productive—that is, superior at turning inputs into valuable outputs—can U.S.-based companies simultaneously satisfy customers around the world, pay employees well, and earn a profit.This perspective runs contrary to the view of the many politicians who identify “jobs for jobs’ sake” as the nation’s top economic goal. We agree that America desperately needs more good jobs. But, we argue that good jobs are the results, not the roots, of a competitive economy. If we mistakenly focus on generating jobs for their own sake, we are likely to produce positions that support low living standards or jobs that won’t withstand the pressure of global competition.

In sum, we seek a competitive America in which productive companies enjoy growth and the resulting prosperity
is shared widely

 

[PLC1]

It seems that the American Dream of going to school is a bit overrated.

When that productivity line keeps going up, but the compensation line keeps going down, just who is going to buy all of the goods produced?

Just wondering.

 

[dogtowner]

Who buys ? Whoever is competitive.
You boys know that America used to be the China once upon a time, right ?

 

[PLC1]

Who buys ? Whoever is competitive.
You boys know that America used to be the China once upon a time, right ?

Yes, and the American worker could afford to buy what the factories in the US produced. Now, we're competing with the rest of the world, at least half of whom subsist on less than two bucks a day.

Two dollar a day people tend not to buy a lot of manufactured goods.

 

[dogtowner]

You guys are forgetting a significant factor. Really THE most significant one. Think back to when the US was flush with jobs, money and "the Good Life" and ask yourself what was different.

We were innovating how things were done (Ford's assembly line) or making things no one else could.

But we haven't done that recently. So the world caught up and as it always does, commodity manufacture goes to the low bidder.

So why don't we rekindle that ?

Tax code makes R&D risky by n shortening the depreciation forcing a shorter window to hit ROI.

Dumb kids. There's a serious social ill for you PLC.

Leadership vacuum. Kennedy got it but nobody since. I blame political correctness. We got sidetracked by fruitless endeavors and remain there to this day.

Want to change the paradigm ? Loose companes to make the next power source.

Don't tell them how. Just encourage and get out of the way.

This could be the new "plastics" to steal an idea from "The Graduate".

Whoever finds this will rule the world at least for a while till the next big thing turns up.

 

[cashmcall]

You guys are forgetting a significant factor. Really THE most significant one. Think back to when the US was flush with jobs, money and "the Good Life" and ask yourself what was different.

We were innovating how things were done (Ford's assembly line) or making things no one else could.

But we haven't done that recently. So the world caught up and as it always does, commodity manufacture goes to the low bidder.

So why don't we rekindle that ?

Tax code makes R&D risky by n shortening the depreciation forcing a shorter window to hit ROI.

Dumb kids. There's a serious social ill for you PLC.

Leadership vacuum. Kennedy got it but nobody since. I blame political correctness. We got sidetracked by fruitless endeavors and remain there to this day.

Want to change the paradigm ? Loose companes to make the next power source.

Don't tell them how. Just encourage and get out of the way.

This could be the new "plastics" to steal an idea from "The Graduate".

Whoever finds this will rule the world at least for a while till the next big thing turns up.

Well said my friend.. But I haven't forgotten those day's, It's just been awhile..

 

[dogtowner]

Well said my friend.. But I haven't forgotten those day's, It's just been awhile..

Yes, quite a while.

 

[PLC1]

You guys are forgetting a significant factor. Really THE most significant one. Think back to when the US was flush with jobs, money and "the Good Life" and ask yourself what was different.

We were innovating how things were done (Ford's assembly line) or making things no one else could.

But we haven't done that recently. So the world caught up and as it always does, commodity manufacture goes to the low bidder.

So why don't we rekindle that ?

Tax code makes R&D risky by n shortening the depreciation forcing a shorter window to hit ROI.

Dumb kids. There's a serious social ill for you PLC.

Leadership vacuum. Kennedy got it but nobody since. I blame political correctness. We got sidetracked by fruitless endeavors and remain there to this day.

Want to change the paradigm ? Loose companes to make the next power source.

Don't tell them how. Just encourage and get out of the way.

This could be the new "plastics" to steal an idea from "The Graduate".

Whoever finds this will rule the world at least for a while till the next big thing turns up.

I don't think kids are any dumber now than they were years ago.

As for the next big thing, I'm betting on 3D printing to be the next paradigm shift in manufacturing. Who will develop it, though? Will it be the USA, or perhaps China? Wait and see.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

You guys are forgetting a significant factor. Really THE most significant one. Think back to when the US was flush with jobs, money and "the Good Life" and ask yourself what was different.

You mean the 50's- 70's before Carter, and Reagan, right?

We were innovating how things were done (Ford's assembly line) or making things no one else could.

But we haven't done that recently. So the world caught up and as it always does, commodity manufacture goes to the low bidder.

The only reason they "caught up" is we gave it to them, or they stole it. Matters not how they got it, we lost.

So why don't we rekindle that ?

We never lost it. Problem is that our innovators are now required to be given it to others (WTO). Well, that and the reality that our industrial base is gone.

Want to change the paradigm ? Loose companes to make the next power source.

Won't work since companies are free now to build what they may. The method to end this cycle of descent is to eliminate the corporate structure that destroys small businesses, and end trade realtions that require us to share our technology with others. Believe it, or not, there is nothing we cannot make in this country without the assistance of the rest of the world.

 

[dogtowner]

I don't think kids are any dumber now than they were years ago.

As for the next big thing, I'm betting on 3D printing to be the next paradigm shift in manufacturing. Who will develop it, though? Will it be the USA, or perhaps China? Wait and see.

The rest of the world demonstrates otherwise.
Not sure how 3D printing is a game changer. What's the benefit ?

 

[dogtowner]

You mean the 50's- 70's before Carter, and Reagan, right?

Post war yes

The only reason they "caught up" is we gave it to them, or they stole it. Matters not how they got it, we lost.

Gave what ?
That's the problem

We never lost it. Problem is that our innovators are now required to be given it to others (WTO). Well, that and the reality that our industrial base is gone.

Our industrial base became commodity products which get made by the lowest cost maker.
We came up with nothing which only we could make. WTO is not good but hardly what you claim of it.

Won't work since companies are free now to build what they may. The method to end this cycle of descent is to eliminate the corporate structure that destroys small businesses, and end trade realtions that require us to share our technology with others. Believe it, or not, there is nothing we cannot make in this country without the assistance of the rest of the world.

Yeah comrade.
You seem to ignore reality in favor of politics.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Gave what ?
That's the problem

Thanks for your "intellectual insight".

In order to set up business in China, and other countries, the US company is required to take on a Chinese citizen as a "partner". Under this agreement it is also required that any technology developed within the realm of the company is then the property of the Chinese government.

Our industrial base became commodity products which get made by the lowest cost maker.
We came up with nothing which only we could make. WTO is not good but hardly what you claim of it.

Actually we did quite good until NAFTA, WTO, etc. We had our own minerals, Rare Earth Elements, etc. Then we began shipping them out of country, or, as in the case of REM's, we allowed the Chinese to flood our market with cheap goods, and that then drove our industrial base out of business. This not only happened with REM's, it happen with steel, computers, etc.

Yeah comrade.
You seem to ignore reality in favor of politics.

OK, so you support a dependent form of America rather then an independent form. We can continue to supply China with refined fuel, timber, scrap metals, animal feed, etc., which will drive up our prices for the sake of lowering the costs elsewhere.

You sound like a globalist/corporatist.

 

[dogtowner]

Thanks for your "intellectual insight".

In order to set up business in China, and other countries, the US company is required to take on a Chinese citizen as a "partner". Under this agreement it is also required that any technology developed within the realm of the company is then the property of the Chinese government.



Actually we did quite good until NAFTA, WTO, etc. We had our own minerals, Rare Earth Elements, etc. Then we began shipping them out of country, or, as in the case of REM's, we allowed the Chinese to flood our market with cheap goods, and that then drove our industrial base out of business. This not only happened with REM's, it happen with steel, computers, etc.



OK, so you support a dependent form of America rather then an independent form. We can continue to supply China with refined fuel, timber, scrap metals, animal feed, etc., which will drive up our prices for the sake of lowering the costs elsewhere.

You sound like a globalist/corporatist.

If we were to manufacture something that the rest of the world could not as we once did, we would not do it in China.
Then you go on about commodity manufacture (steel) and bring up REM juxtaposed with "cheap goods". None of which addresses INNOVATION.
You want to pay people more to do a thing than what the skill set requires but somehow stay in business. I get that you are hardly alone. There was a reason people back in the day got paid what they did, but that reason has not existed for a couple generations.
Isolationist policies seem like an answer but as the brits found if you overpay and force them to eschew imports it only drives up costs so they don't buy at all.
My neices' English husband told his family to pack nothing to come for the wedding. Why ? He said buy here as costs were dramatically lower.
They were skeptical aND packed some. They discovered he was right and ended up shipping stuff home that wouldn't fit in the luggage.
The world is getting smaller and there is no putting the genie back in that bottle. We have to be smarter and leverage our imaginations.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

If we were to manufacture something that the rest of the world could not as we once did, we would not do it in China.

If not for the exodus of American companies to China for the cheap labor, we would still be doing so here.

Then you go on about commodity manufacture (steel) and bring up REM juxtaposed with "cheap goods". None of which addresses INNOVATION.

Because it had nothing to do with innovation. It had to do with China flooding our markets with cheap good thereby forcing American companies to close their doors. It had to do with a lack of protection for American companies from such practices, and today there are still not protections.

You want to pay people more to do a thing than what the skill set requires but somehow stay in business. I get that you are hardly alone. There was a reason people back in the day got paid what they did, but that reason has not existed for a couple generations.

And yet corporate profits seem to expand as the wages of the working class decline. Back in the 50-70's CEO pay was 52 times that of the average worker. Now it is 500 times that of the worker. Have you ever read anything by John Locke, Ayn Rand, Adam Smith?

Isolationist policies seem like an answer but as the brits found if you overpay and force them to eschew imports it only drives up costs so they don't buy at all.

Who was talking about isolationism? If you had a clue as to what the Founders established you would have noted that the idea was to provide for America first, and then sell the surplus. In todays corporatist economy we sell everything with no regards for the needs of the people. We sell any raw material that countries like China want without extracting anything in return. China wants more pork? Sell it to them, and the American consumer pays more. Of course, his wages won't go up, just his living expenses.

[/quote]My neices' English husband told his family to pack nothing to come for the wedding. Why ? He said buy here as costs were dramatically lower.
They were skeptical aND packed some. They discovered he was right and ended up shipping stuff home that wouldn't fit in the luggage.
The world is getting smaller and there is no putting the genie back in that bottle. We have to be smarter and leverage our imaginations.[/QUOTE]

No, we simply have to put America, and Americans, first. Let Britain do as they please. This idea that we have to protect corporations from the devices of foreign countries is pure BS. If an American corporation wants to trade with China, then let them do so at their own risk, not under the safety net of the American taxpayer.

 

[dogtowner]

If not for the exodus of American companies to China for the cheap labor, we would still be doing so here.



Because it had nothing to do with innovation. It had to do with China flooding our markets with cheap good thereby forcing American companies to close their doors. It had to do with a lack of protection for American companies from such practices, and today there are still not protections.



And yet corporate profits seem to expand as the wages of the working class decline. Back in the 50-70's CEO pay was 52 times that of the average worker. Now it is 500 times that of the worker. Have you ever read anything by John Locke, Ayn Rand, Adam Smith?



Who was talking about isolationism? If you had a clue as to what the Founders established you would have noted that the idea was to provide for America first, and then sell the surplus. In todays corporatist economy we sell everything with no regards for the needs of the people. We sell any raw material that countries like China want without extracting anything in return. China wants more pork? Sell it to them, and the American consumer pays more. Of course, his wages won't go up, just his living expenses.

My neices' English husband told his family to pack nothing to come for the wedding. Why ? He said buy here as costs were dramatically lower.
They were skeptical aND packed some. They discovered he was right and ended up shipping stuff home that wouldn't fit in the luggage.
The world is getting smaller and there is no putting the genie back in that bottle. We have to be smarter and leverage our imaginations.[/QUOTE]

No, we simply have to put America, and Americans, first. Let Britain do as they please. This idea that we have to protect corporations from the devices of foreign countries is pure BS. If an American corporation wants to trade with China, then let them do so at their own risk, not under the safety net of the American taxpayer.[/QUOTE]
You are calling for isolationist practices.

And you can't seem to understand the concept of commodity manufacture. Here's an example from a plant I used to work for. We made plastic film. You may know it as Mylar, the stuff the silvery balloons are made of. It came in many varieties. Some were quite easy to make (like the balloon kind) others were not. They had special qualities demanding special manufacturing. Korea started making the common film as it was easy to make and therefore commodity in nature.
This film was developed jointly by DuPont and ICI (the DuPont of Europe huge company but little known in the US). ICI knew the cheap stuff would become commodity and focused on the high tech (high margin) film. DuPont tried to compete with Korea and,.of course, lost.
This is the nature of tech. Always has been always will be.
So that is why you need to be imagining new things to continue to make the high margin things that allow a better wage.
You have to understand why manufacture moves, why it has to move. Why it's always done so.
But I know you have your agenda and that doesn't tolerate inconvenient facts