Keep Them Poor?

[me203]

And a government that demands that new houses have all the best tech so that an "affordable" house costs five teams the median income, and that in an economy where full-time jobs are too often a fantasy.

That's one thing that really gets me. I read every so often of some new mandate, and often it gets pushed as "it will add only $___ to the price!" Sometimes there is osmething about how much it will save over 20 years. People pushing these mandates and the propaganda writers, er, "news" seem oblivious to the fact that all these "it will only cost ___ extra" items will add up for more than "jsut a few dollars." And while long term savings (when they exist) are nice, the upfront extra cost will make the house unaffordable for many people.

 

[me203]

Comments about the jobs lost through modern technology (like new meters) reminds me of when one local library system got self checkout. At the time, the system said: "Don't worry about people losing jobs! Everyone will stay. They have plenty of other stuff to do!"

Then, later on, during a budget crunch, they eliminated a lot of jobs. A lot of the former checkout clerks were gone overnight. Their work was just dumped on the remaining staff. It was, form what i heard, overwhelming for a while.

 

[Kahaih]

I'm curious as to how the States being brought up stand on annual property taxes.

And, isn't all land in the US owned by the Federal government --- where people are buying only a bundle of rights to the property?

 

[Kulindahr]

That's one thing that really gets me. I read every so often of some new mandate, and often it gets pushed as "it will add only $___ to the price!" Sometimes there is osmething about how much it will save over 20 years. People pushing these mandates and the propaganda writers, er, "news" seem oblivious to the fact that all these "it will only cost ___ extra" items will add up for more than "jsut a few dollars." And while long term savings (when they exist) are nice, the upfront extra cost will make the house unaffordable for many people.

In 1990 a university town here established new rules for housing and called the result "affordable". It pushed the price of a new house up over $160,00 -- a figure that less than a quarter of the people in that town could have afforded back then -- from where it had been, which was around $120,000. So their plan to make sure housing was high quality raised the price by a third over what it had been.
It's not much help trying to guarantee quality housing when the result is housing that people can't afford.

 

[Kulindahr]

Comments about the jobs lost through modern technology (like new meters) reminds me of when one local library system got self checkout. At the time, the system said: "Don't worry about people losing jobs! Everyone will stay. They have plenty of other stuff to do!"

Then, later on, during a budget crunch, they eliminated a lot of jobs. A lot of the former checkout clerks were gone overnight. Their work was just dumped on the remaining staff. It was, form what i heard, overwhelming for a while.

At least the library here did its reduction by attrition, just dropping a job slot when someone retired or took another job!

 

[Kulindahr]

And, isn't all land in the US owned by the Federal government --- where people are buying only a bundle of rights to the property?

In essence, yes, the U.S. doesn't actually have private property. That's one reason I advocate for what's called "land rent", where the citizens would own the whole country and each adult citizen would get two non-transferable shares while those not old enough to vote would get one. Instead of property taxes it would be rent of the land at market rates, and the government would have to pay for the land they used, including military bases. At the start of each financial quarter dividend checks would be sent out to all citizens. Costs for fire departments and such could be taken out of the fund, but other than a few exceptions like that the land rent would be divided equally among the shares.

The system would also somewhat counter the present effect where owning land makes you richer since the rent for all land would be shared among all the citizens.

 

[Dargelos]

In a God fearing country it ought to be impossible for anyone to make a profit from the buying and selling of land. For God still owns the land, he has granted free use of it to man so that man may work to provide himself with food , clothing and shelter. He did not grant the use of the land so that property speculators can get rich selling something that does not belong to them.
But I'm not a Christian so what right have I to say what God wants.

 

[NotHardUp1]

In essence, yes, the U.S. doesn't actually have private property.

Please explain what you mean, aside from the obvious answer that the land that the federal government owns is "public" in the sense that it is owned by the government, not a private individual. It is still fully owned property, not merely controlled. Some 60% of Alaska is federally owned land, for example.

To Kahaih's question, federal control, or sovereignty is not the same concept in law as ownership.

The federal government can exercise military control, enforce health codes and standards and take action by force to control anthrax on private property, but it doesn't do so by authority of private ownership. It conducts its actions by right of the imputed and explicit authority of being the recognized government of this nation. Let some WACO group or anti-vaxxers refuse to recognize the government, and it changes nothing, as they are merely political dissenters, still subject to the laws of this country.

When the government makes a determination that private land can be seized by imminent domain, the action is yet subject to court appeal and adjudication.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Thinking of remote technology: in my university days there were hundreds of jobs that could be had out in the countryside around the college town, moving irrigation pipe. Those jobs no longer exist because the irrigation equipment has become automated. On a big enough spread a farmer might hire one guy where he used to hire twenty; that one guy's job is to sit and monitor the irrigation systems on a computer screen.
It's not quite that bad for logging, but since I was in high school a good third of the logging jobs are gone because of computer-controlled equipment -- there are even loaders (the rig that picks up logs and stacks them on a truck) that are computer-controlled.
And the cheese factory here underwent an expansion a decade back that nearly doubled its production -- and when the construction was done and the new facilities ready, they switched production over so they could upgrade the existing facilities. When it was all nice and new, there were fewer jobs than before the expansion.
Here's another one that I noticed today: twenty-five years ago the water meters got read by guys lifting the cover, wiping the dirt away, and copying down the reading. The guy doing the meter reading today was just walking along the sidewalk and waving something that looked like a metal detector over the meters. Instead of a dozen guys to read all the meters in town it now takes one, and he never even has to bend over. The electric meter are even simpler: a guy drives a truck along the street at about 15mph and the meters are read via electronic signal. Oh, and his job is in danger; they're talking about switching to a system where somehow the meters just report to the office all by themselves!!

Except, as my earlier post indicated, that's not true in the middle of the country. Water companies in the vast majority of small towns are still read manually. Even that presents a work opportunity. If more people move back to the smaller areas, the utilities would have the business revenue and the incentive to convert the meters, a task that would take years in most towns, and is not skilled labor, or not highly skilled.

There is always a way to see what is no longer possible, but determination will help the ambitious to exploit the newly possible, or just plain old hard work, instead of being fixated on doing the least.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Except for one thing: people continue leaving the countryside because the jobs are in the cities, and white young people leave the countryside at an inordinate rate because immigrants work harder for less money. There are farm jobs here that pay $20 an hour and Mexicans grab them -- while white kids won't do the same work for $24 an hour.

No. The professional college educated may flock to urban jobs, but there are still lots of the young that merely go to the cities for the vice, the hype, the cool, the perception that they are modern vs. traditional, etc.

Wherever people DO live today, there are jobs. That is the whole point about not being manufacturing based and being serviced based.

And PLENTY of the young go to the cities to subsist, not to try to work their way into the middle class. It's a thing.

 

[NotHardUp1]

What is the point if this video? If working hard is all it takes to succeed, coal miners and ditch diggers would rule the world.

I'm sorry, the world has changed. Stop trying to live in the past.

Except you create the absurd instead of addressing the real issue.

Manual labor, unskilled labor, has long been low-paid and will continue to be.

But, learn a basic skill in a vo-tech, to be a carpenter, a plumber, a surveyor, a painter, or open a day care center, and your prospects are quite good.

$20 an hour jobs exist with skilled labor. Expecting to make that without doing a hazardous job like mining or such is simply evading the basic rules of employment and compensation.

And if one industry is turning robotic or whatnot, redirect. Learn robotics. No one owes anyone a path to the middle class. Work in a subsistence manner, and get subsistence lifestyle.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I am hardly contending that it should be "easy" to make a living in America. I am saying that it shouldn't be impossible for a family to own a home, drive a decent car, have health care and eat healthy food. Nor do I imply that it is the fault of one administration or party, not at all. It was the concerted efforts of of multiple administrations from both parties that have attacked the blue collar middle class. When Clinton went with NAFTA, GATT, WTO and MFNTS for China (long before Trump came along) I knew that the good old days had come and gone. I fully believe in working my way up, thankfully I did it before the rungs were cut out of the ladder.

Except that what you are describing may be a local problem.

I live in ghetto Alabama. Smart people are not in oversupply here. Yet, I am telling you that we have an insane building boom. We have unskilled boys with families, in their 20's, working for this or that, an HVAC company, etc., and they are not living in squalor. They drive trucks. The live in nice enough homes, not slums or 30-year-old trailers. The spend money, have bass boats, and eat what they want.

Just up the block from me is an illegal Mexican. He has a wife from the area. She works in a clerical job in a nursing home. He works installing insulation in buildings. They have a nice SUV, he has a big truck, they own a modern home, and have nice furniture and pets, yet neither has family money, neither has a degree, and they are making it fine.

I'm not buying that the ladder has been cut. The easy street has been closed to many, but you have to go a block over, or take a road around.

And I apologize if you thought I was implying you were aiming at any party or purporting easy was the way. I was addressing multiple members' comments in my posts.

 

[metta]

In essence, yes, the U.S. doesn't actually have private property.

How do you define private property. Most of Orange County, CA is owned by the Irvine Company and the properties sold have land leases. It has not made the properties any cheaper.

 

[peeonme]

Except that what you are describing may be a local problem.

I live in ghetto Alabama. Smart people are not in oversupply here. Yet, I am telling you that we have an insane building boom. We have unskilled boys with families, in their 20's, working for this or that, an HVAC company, etc., and they are not living in squalor. They drive trucks. The live in nice enough homes, not slums or 30-year-old trailers. The spend money, have bass boats, and eat what they want.

Just up the block from me is an illegal Mexican. He has a wife from the area. She works in a clerical job in a nursing home. He works installing insulation in buildings. They have a nice SUV, he has a big truck, they own a modern home, and have nice furniture and pets, yet neither has family money, neither has a degree, and they are making it fine.

I'm not buying that the ladder has been cut. The easy street has been closed to many, but you have to go a block over, or take a road around.

And I apologize if you thought I was implying you were aiming at any party or purporting easy was the way. I was addressing multiple members' comments in my posts.

It is a problem in the "rust belt" more so than in areas such as Alabama. Some people have gone from what you call "easy street" jobs in to other types of work, this is easier for young guys that are just starting out. When a man is in his mid 40's and has invested thousands in tools, many hours in learning math such as trigonometry, has developed skills in reading prints, understanding various types of metal and finds that he is no longer wanted because the greedy corporations found cheap labor in China it is not so easy for him to move on to hvac, these companies want young men that will start at a low wage and be with the company for a long time. Understand also that when a city such as Flint Michigan loses an auto plant this impacts all businesses in that city. Food stores, restaurants, clothing shops and nearly every other type of business is affected.

I will concede that in what I have described in the above paragraph it wasn't the rungs cut from a ladder but rather a rug being pulled off from under the feet of hard working people so the rich can get even richer while they pay less in taxes. Speaking of taxes, most cities in Michigan have loss their tax base(s). Along with this the pool of workers receiving health care through their employers has shrunk drastically driving up the premiums so much that most of the cost has been shifted to the employee who has had to go to work for far less pay.

As for housing, there are a lot of 4000 sq. ft. McMansions being built about 15 miles north of where I live, Starter home, not so much. If they (who ever they are) were to build more 1000 sq. ft. homes it would rive down the cost of small homes for workers. Most homes where I now live are rentals. The home next door to me is only 750 sq. ft. and rents at $1250 per month. It has no drive way or garage. Many of these homes are being bought as soon as they go on the market buy large corporations that do little to make them habitable and charge exorbitant rent.

Now, I want to make it clear that I am not saying "poor me, life sucks", I am doing fine, I sock away about $1500. in savings each moth and drive a 2021 truck and easily make my mortgage payment. However, life is not so easy for the people that are 20 years younger than me. I see men and women on street corners holding signs asking for hand outs. Many people are just one small emergency (maybe a flat tire or dead battery) away from living on the streets.

 

[Kulindahr]

4000 sq. ft. McMansions

There were a bunch of those built here about twenty years ago, some of them replacing older , smaller houses. Many of them are now divided into four apartments.

 

[LoveMyPeppermill]

Then, later on, during a budget crunch, they eliminated a lot of jobs. A lot of the former checkout clerks were gone overnight. Their work was just dumped on the remaining staff. It was, form what i heard, overwhelming for a while.

That would have happened with or without the new equipment.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I see men and women on street corners holding signs asking for hand outs. Many people are just one small emergency (maybe a flat tire or dead battery) away from living on the streets.

I've seen them in all economies, but not in all areas. Some populations assume the worst and support panhandlers directly instead of the shelters and rehab and food banks. There have been many threads on JUB revealing the diversity of views about panhandlers though.

For those wanting to work, we have been in an economy for years where employers cannot get enough workers. Even with Twitter and a few other laying off workers, that didn't mean they had no work, only that they were forced to moved to find work, possibly.

And if high-paying jobs are taken out of the economy, then re-dos, hardships, training, and redirects are indeed the order of the day. The auto industry had lots of warning that labor was moving abroad. Not making a long-term plan, as an employee base, was a contributing cause if people did not prepare.

That's not all of it. Any job or person can be knocked off the perch given the right bad events, but we have no guarantees in life. Assuming we do would be a mistake. My great grandfather was a lifelong railroad employee. He was a telegraph operator, but got laid off by a depression that hit before WWI. He worked all sorts of side gigs to keep income and went back to work for the railroad when things picked back up. He kept all his side gigs and worked for 50 years for Cotton Belt. His world changed all around him, and sometimes he changed with it, sometimes not.

There was a long boom economy for manufacturing here after the ramp up for WWII and following it. That stable pattern appears not to be the way the economy will be for the foreseeable future, whether we're talking the digital revolution, entertainment, or even the services industry. Long term stability for individuals will continue to be a problem.

My new co-worker fled Boeing when they began outsourcing accounting work to India. He thought he had a tater. At 33, he is a pleasant person, but not a hard worker. He shaves hours off his timecard, works from home when he's actually doing personal tasks, and is working hard to avoid work than he is to contribute. At the same time, he's moving from one newish house to another, even in this bad interest market. I suspect his future is a lot more in danger than he realizes. The aerospace industry will continue to move jobs overseas and suppress American salaries in related fields. If I were in this scenario, I'd be making a new plan, right now.

 

[peeonme]

I've seen them in all economies, but not in all areas. Some populations assume the worst and support panhandlers directly instead of the shelters and rehab and food banks. There have been many threads on JUB revealing the diversity of views about panhandlers though.

For those wanting to work, we have been in an economy for years where employers cannot get enough workers. Even with Twitter and a few other laying off workers, that didn't mean they had no work, only that they were forced to moved to find work, possibly.

And if high-paying jobs are taken out of the economy, then re-dos, hardships, training, and redirects are indeed the order of the day. The auto industry had lots of warning that labor was moving abroad. Not making a long-term plan, as an employee base, was a contributing cause if people did not prepare.

That's not all of it. Any job or person can be knocked off the perch given the right bad events, but we have no guarantees in life. Assuming we do would be a mistake. My great grandfather was a lifelong railroad employee. He was a telegraph operator, but got laid off by a depression that hit before WWI. He worked all sorts of side gigs to keep income and went back to work for the railroad when things picked back up. He kept all his side gigs and worked for 50 years for Cotton Belt. His world changed all around him, and sometimes he changed with it, sometimes not.

There was a long boom economy for manufacturing here after the ramp up for WWII and following it. That stable pattern appears not to be the way the economy will be for the foreseeable future, whether we're talking the digital revolution, entertainment, or even the services industry. Long term stability for individuals will continue to be a problem.

My new co-worker fled Boeing when they began outsourcing accounting work to India. He thought he had a tater. At 33, he is a pleasant person, but not a hard worker. He shaves hours off his timecard, works from home when he's actually doing personal tasks, and is working hard to avoid work than he is to contribute. At the same time, he's moving from one newish house to another, even in this bad interest market. I suspect his future is a lot more in danger than he realizes. The aerospace industry will continue to move jobs overseas and suppress American salaries in related fields. If I were in this scenario, I'd be making a new plan, right now.

I would like to point out that where you live in Alabama it is part of the "Bible belt". I am pretty sure that most of the beer drinking bass fishermen down there were drug off to church and Sunday school in their youth and were drilled on verses such as "if a man doesn't work, than neither should he eat" Thes. 3:10 or "if any provide not for his own he is worse than an infidel denying the faith" 1 Tim. 5:8. Just as a disclaimer I am not proposing that we teach these verses in schools, but teach a responsibility and work ethic to children,

Before my dad's death we were not "church folks" but my dad taught me that we should "pull our own weight", mind you he was an old farm boy and was born very early in the 1900's. To him it would have been a shame to have not worked, paid his bills, kept up his residence and been polite towards other people. Now having said this, workers must have hope in a system. Getting kicked in the teeth time and time again buy employers that are determined to find a new way to screw them in any way possible does little to encourage a person to put in a good days work (note: good days work, not hard days work... with the proper mind set work is good... not a curse).

I once took a job in a "job shop" mind you not a production shop. We made details of all sorts of tooling. Upon receiving my first pay check something seemed "off". I made the same gross pay, had the same deductions paid $40. more to my health care that was "pre tax" (as was my health care on my prior job) and yet percentage wise I was paying more in federal with holding tax. The answer was simple... there were not deducting our health care before our with holding tax. It was easier and cheaper to go this route, until I caught them. Then I saw that on a 5 payday month they deducted health care on all 5 paydays, even though they paid the insurance company a monthly premium based om 4 weeks in a month. Why rip off an employee? Because you can.

The problem with conniving employers is that they lend credence to pro socialist / communist claims.. or are they claims, if proven true they are no longer claims. workers need to believe in a system, one that works for all levels of people... not just the greedy.

 

[Dargelos]

There is much interesting reading in the bible. Matthew 6 speaks to me;
“So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?"
Consider the jobless, how they grow, they neither toil nor spin and yet I say to you that in a paternalistic society no one goes without clothing or food. Nowhere is that perfect but a good society at least tries. Cigarettes and cars may be very expensive in Iceland and Sweden but you do not see people dressed in rags, pleading with the passerby for change so they can eat. Countries like these are successful economies which are miles away from being communist and only half socialist. The difference is that they do give a damn about their fellow human beings, all of them.

 

[me203]

That would have happened with or without the new equipment.

Maybe, maybe not. I can only guess here, but I'd guess if self checkout hadn't existed that they'd have done less of a drastic layoff. I'd kind of guess the approach would have been significant cuts, but some staff left so checkout times would be at least "sometime today." And so that other jobs could be done. And they'd have balanced the budget with cuts in other areas.

Although, alternatively, it's also possible that if self checkout didn't exist that they'd have bought into really fast and then eliminated that checkout staff. This would, of course, mean spending money to save money--which probably would have been painful, then, although it might also have been oddly more easily doable (both from a view of long term savings, as well as potentially tapping into/getting funds they could use for technology but not staff.)

And to be a bit cranky for a moment, one might also wonder if the way staffing was handled should have been thought out before self checkout was even possible, let alone the budget crisis.