|
Post by jq on Nov 19, 2007 2:34:37 GMT -5
Actually, Ford REALLY DOES employ a whole lot of Union employees. I don't know the numebrs off hand, but I think its like 17,000 Union employees under Ford. It is a HUGE amount of people getting paid a good wage! (And then keep in mind that a lot of the European cars are also being manufactured by Unions. BMW, VW) EDIT: Actually it must be a lot more than that, because after googling it I am seeing a report of Ford offering a buyout to 75,000 employees! Man, I wish my job offered me that kind of buyout- $140,000 per employee! Those must be DAMN GOOD jobs! Link
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 19, 2007 2:38:27 GMT -5
Wow! I didn't know that. I figured there were far fewer employees than that. Wow.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 19, 2007 2:40:10 GMT -5
Wow! I didn't know that. I figured there were far fewer employees than that. Wow. Yeah, its a huge amount of people they employ. If cars got eliminated, it would be a huge loss of Union jobs to our market. Not to mention all the low paid employees who work at gas stations who are just trying to get by on what they make. (Not saying working at a gas station is a good job, but it beats having no job at all.)
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 19, 2007 2:41:17 GMT -5
Then there are all the mechanics who work on cars. Thousands spreadout throughout the country, some which are small business owners, and some which are employed by someone else. That would be another trade completely wiped out.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 19, 2007 2:42:53 GMT -5
Just like 40% of the planes boeing makes is for the military. So, cut the military budget, and expect boeing layoffs too.....
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 19, 2007 2:45:44 GMT -5
People do need some spaces, yes. I agree. I always get irritated at the massive McMansions and their unnecessarily huge acreage. Imagine how much water and fuel is required to maintain that nonsense? One reason for the lawns is that it looks pretty and it helps to keep the soil down, but that they have so much land and want it pretty helps feed into the cycle of requiring that place holder.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 19, 2007 2:47:47 GMT -5
There might certainly be job problems in the short term, but there would be influx into newer fields, alternatives. The same argument was made when we switched to trains and cars in the first place. It displaced a lot of jobs, but those jobs moved elsewhere. Even if it does create problems for jobs, the environmental costs are a serious concern that might necessitate it. Another problem is there are simply too many people, too much breeding.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 19, 2007 2:49:15 GMT -5
People do need some spaces, yes. I agree. I always get irritated at the massive McMansions and their unnecessarily huge acreage. Imagine how much water and fuel is required to maintain that nonsense? One reason for the lawns is that it looks pretty and it helps to keep the soil down, but that they have so much land and want it pretty helps feed into the cycle of requiring that place holder. I mow lawns for a living. I'd appreciate if people keep having them, thanks. There might certainly be job problems in the short term, but there would be influx into newer fields, alternatives. The same argument was made when we switched to trains and cars in the first place. It displaced a lot of jobs, but those jobs moved elsewhere. Even if it does create problems for jobs, the environmental costs are a serious concern that might necessitate it. Another problem is there are simply too many people, too much breeding. The problem with technology is it eliminates jobs. Permanently. There was a time when parking lot attendants were people. Now it is a machine. STick your credit card in, get a ticket. Stick that ticket in another machine on your way out of the airport, and pay the price. No longer a person employed. Going to fred meyers? Hey, why pay a cashier? Why not self-checkout? Library, self-checkout. No need to hire customer service. We have robots to answer calls......... As far as there being too many people, do you have a suggestion for how we can change that?
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 19, 2007 2:53:08 GMT -5
I know you might, but that doesn't make them a good thing as a whole. They are incredibly wasteful and harmful to the environment. Some people benefit from selling cigarettes. Does that make them good too? Something that should continue, despite the suffering they cause? One could make an economic investment argument for almost anything.
To an extent it can, yes, but historically, it often is temporary and they go into different fields. New tech often displaces some jobs, but makes new ones elsewhere. Cars are a good example of this. The same fear argument was made by early luddites against most new technologies. "If we use cars, then where will the buggy makers work? The horse trainers? The whip and spur makers? Etc."
I agree it does eliminate some job positions. You are right.
No family should have more than one child. There ought to be economic and social status incentives for maintaining small nuclear families, perhaps disincentive punishments for exceeding child quota.
Education is also necessary, encouraging contraceptive use and abortion, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 19, 2007 2:56:22 GMT -5
I know you might, but that doesn't make them a good thing as a whole. They are incredibly wasteful and harmful to the environment. Some people benefit from selling cigarettes. Does that make them good too? Something that should continue, despite the suffering they cause? One could make an economic investment argument for almost anything. Well okay, I realize I am going a bit far now. Just havin' a little fun. But my major point, and the one on cars still remains-- getting rid of cars woudl displace thousands, maybe even millions, of jobs. Do you want to live in a society where there are millions of unemployed people? I sure don't! Talk about scary! My main point is simply that there is more to any solution than meets the eye. Every decision you make effects people. And it should be considered in your approaches for a solutoin.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 19, 2007 3:00:14 GMT -5
I agree. There is no magic bullet solution, and something is going to impact someone. Eventually, someone needs to take the hit or we all will take it. It's just not physically possible to carry on with the car culture and mass consumption model. Humans already exceed the ecological footprint. It's going to be a nightmare as China tries to play catch up.
I used to support humanitarian efforts in Africa, but I worry now that it's just contributing to the problem, so I am less enthusiastic. The more you save, the more they breed, the more babies they make who need welfare. By helping them, you are averting temporary suffering, but that relief often translates into increased populations, more mouths, which then cannot be sustained unless you sustain it. Then you have more suffering people who will suffer like the original people if you don't save them. The problem is the lack of self-sustaining infrastructure and education that coincides the help.
It's all a big pile of shit that doesn't go away.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 19, 2007 3:02:50 GMT -5
I agree. There is no magic bullet solution, and something is going to impact someone. Eventually, someone needs to take the hit or we all will take it. It's just not physically possible to carry on with the car culture and mass consumption model. Humans already exceed the ecological footprint. It's going to be a nightmare as China tries to play catch up. The problem is that consumption is what fuels our economy. In capitalism and the free market, we need people to consistently buy for our economy to grow and succeed. When people stop buying, we go into a recession, jobs get cut, and unemployement increases. Or, it could be even worse-- we could go into a depression. We need people to keep buying and selling-- we need people to keep consuming-- in order for our free market to succeed.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 19, 2007 3:08:33 GMT -5
You're completely right. We have built a system that is circular and dependent on its different components. Growth and consumption are intertwined. We have a completely unsustainable, circular system of interrelated growth and consumption. We consume to grow, when we grow, we need to consume more to maintain it and grow larger. The problem is that the capitalist model is flawed insofar as it assumes this growth potential is endless and that resources are unlimited. We are going to hit a point where it will peak and we will collapse because we cannot support the populations, consumption patterns.
Peak Oil is one such problem. A lot of people assume that the black stuff will simply always pump out at increasing rates, but it's already Peaked and the effects are soon to come as demand rises by supply tells it to go fuck itself. Most other resources are going to peak too. But we keep building Capitalist Temples of Shopping(TM) and ever larger, more ridiculous consumption vehicles. It's gotten to so absurd that we must frivolously waste resources on planned obsolescence and shitty products just so we can get people to consume more; good products and conservation are undesirable because we must ever race forward to meet demand, which makes more people, which makes more demand, ad infinitum.
Your point is true, and yet, it's what's killing us. We are like lemmings running toward a precipice. We can't stop, only keep going on blissfully unaware of the danger because "growth must be maintained." We consume to live, and live to consume. It reminds me of brave new world, where saving and mending are taboo because the capitalist system mandates wasteful consumption to increase growth and maintain the economic system. It pisses away vital resources that are limited, but the consumption must go on! It's both ultimately self-defeating and necessary in our system so it can be sustained and grow.
Combine this with the fact that most Americans are anti-nuclear--the one thing that could have averted many problems, and we're pretty screwed. Capitalism will fail and destroy itself. Marx was right; he was just terribly wrong about when and why.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 19, 2007 3:11:26 GMT -5
Well, what would your solution be to this problem? What economic principle do you feel is superior to capitalism?
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 19, 2007 3:19:27 GMT -5
In response to reply #43, I think a system that crosses the best elements from both libertarian-style-capitalism and socialism would be the best.
|
|