Bernie Sanders takes Greenspan to school

[2GunTommy]

if these same manufacturing jobs can be made by people making 10% or less the amount of money it would take to pay an american, then why would any company want to have americans perform these jobs?

americans need to realize that they need to move beyond these, "simple" occupations, and strive to educate themselves in occupations where there is little-to-no competition in being hired for jobs. these are engineering jobs, technology jobs, and other, "higher education" jobs, that many americans are losing to other countries, such as india, china, and japan, where they are educating themselves in these types of jobs, and where americans are falling behind.

it's called capitalism. the only color that matters is green. until americans figure this out, they will continue to lose out to others.

You couldnt be more wrong. Go tell all the people in places like Detrioit and Baltimore that they dont need those labor jobs. Which by the way manufacturing jobs were good paying jobs with benefits and all. Not "simple" occupations as you so arrogantly named them. Those jobs will always be needed by Americans. Just ask the millions of unemployed. Yeah go tell all the laborers that lost jobs to become engineers Heres an idea..The US govt should create an environment where there are incentives given to manufacturers to stay in the US and also dont allow foreign companies to undercut Americans in their own country, how about that ? The price of doing business with the American people is not completely cutting them out of the manufacturing process. So what they can pay foreign workers 10% what they pay Americans, it doesnt mean we should allow it. Tariffs on imports so we can manufacture here would also help. And i dont care if some things cost a little more. Complaining about that is short sided. No one will care when they all have good jobs.

But this only makes sense if you are trying to do whats best for the American people. If you care more about Big corporations making more money or the foreign countries that benefit like uumm i dont know uh Mexico? Then yeah what you said makes sense then.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Now those would be workers are burning shit down and producing nothing.

No, they're working in the nation's Walmart's and Subway's.

I think it's safe to say that none of the violent protesters in cities like Ferguson ever held jobs as highly paid factory workers back in the day.

 

[IIIIIIII]

You couldnt be more wrong. Go tell all the people in places like Detrioit and Baltimore that they dont need those labor jobs. Which by the way manufacturing jobs were good paying jobs with benefits and all. Not "simple" occupations as you so arrogantly named them. Those jobs will always be needed by Americans. Just ask the millions of unemployed. Yeah go tell all the laborers that lost jobs to become engineers Heres an idea..The US govt should create an environment where there are incentives given to manufacturers to stay in the US and also dont allow foreign companies to undercut Americans in their own country, how about that ? The price of doing business with the American people is not completely cutting them out of the manufacturing process. So what they can pay foreign workers 10% what they pay Americans, it doesnt mean we should allow it. Tariffs on imports so we can manufacture here would also help. And i dont care if some things cost a little more. Complaining about that is short sided. No one will care when they all have good jobs.

But this only makes sense if you are trying to do whats best for the American people. If you care more about Big corporations making more money or the foreign countries that benefit like uumm i dont know uh Mexico? Then yeah what you said makes sense then.

i don't know how you completely missed my point, but you unfortunately did. i'll try explaining it again.

we live in a capitalistic society. what this means, is that it does not matter where jobs, "should" be. it's about where something can be made the cheapest. just because an american company is pressured to keep jobs in america, does not mean that they would want to. again, the only thing they care about is making the most money possible. and remember, that every company on earth does this.

but fine, let's just say that these american companies make it a point to keep these jobs in america. and let's say that they pay these american workers, "very-high" wages, like i would imagine you would advocate. are you going to get ready to pay 10x the amount for basic supplies? are you good with paying $10 for a bar of soap, for example? the reason why a lot of our basic products are so cheap, is because they're being made by people who are making 10x less the amount that it would take to pay an american. and what american is going to work at these jobs making the amount of money that the chinese and indians are being paid?

not all jobs are equal. some jobs pay more than others, and more importantly, only a certain amount of jobs pay enough money in order to sustain oneself. hell, even minimum-wage jobs here in america isn't enough to support oneself, let alone an entire family. that's why i say that americans need to, "smell the roses" so to speak, and move beyond occupations where someone from across the globe can do the same thing for pennies.

 

[Jack V Savage]

well, couldn't you call both issues, "policies"? advising someone is still advising someone. you don't purchase something, you remove the market. you educate yourself, you find employment. you're still instructing people on how to reach their means.

Well, OK, "gov't policy." Sanders wants (wanted? that was a long time ago) the gov't to do something to increase manufacturing employment. I don't agree with him, but that's the issue--not what individuals should do.

yes, creating institutions which gives folks the education to compete for these jobs, which i take it is your point (?), makes sense. i agree with that. if that isn't what you meant, then please correct me.

I was just letting you know about the disconnect there. But my point above was that the gov't should target full employment and strong unions and such (sure, education should be more accessible), but not worry about what industry people are working in.

 

[7437]

Yup Im not so sure what side of the aisle he is on with all issues yet though.
Might be closer to the center on some issues than we might expect.




Is there a chance that because he has been in the business world participating in those practices for so long thats how he knows things need to change. Can we blame him for being a capitalist and playing by the rules laid out for him ? ie not being given any incentives to manufacture in the US. Maybe he wants to create a better system that actually benefits the people? I know im wishful thinking here but hey, who knows

We certainly can blame him for being a greedy capitalist, when he is running for public office. A person who is primarily concerned with increasing their personal wealth ahove all else should be judged on that. Especially when he is saying he will prevent a practice he is actively engaged in.

 

[2GunTommy]

No, they're working in the nation's Walmart's and Subway's.

I think it's safe to say that none of the violent protesters in cities like Ferguson ever held jobs as highly paid factory workers back in the day.

Not them, but maybe their parents,aunts,uncles,grandparents etc? Maybe without the downfall of manufacturing in the US some of those places wouldnt be so bad off right now. Maybe.

i don't know how you completely missed my point, but you unfortunately did. i'll try explaining it again.

we live in a capitalistic society. what this means, is that it does not matter where jobs, "should" be. it's about where something can be made the cheapest. just because an American company is pressured to keep jobs in America, does not mean that they would want to. again, the only thing they care about is making the most money possible. and remember, that every company on earth does this.

but fine, let's just say that these american companies make it a point to keep these jobs in america. and let's say that they pay these american workers, "very-high" wages, like i would imagine you would advocate. are you going to get ready to pay 10x the amount for basic supplies? are you good with paying $10 for a bar of soap, for example? the reason why a lot of our basic products are so cheap, is because they're being made by people who are making 10x less the amount that it would take to pay an american. and what american is going to work at these jobs making the amount of money that the chinese and indians are being paid?

not all jobs are equal. some jobs pay more than others, and more importantly, only a certain amount of jobs pay enough money in order to sustain oneself. hell, even minimum-wage jobs here in america isn't enough to support oneself, let alone an entire family. that's why i say that americans need to, "smell the roses" so to speak, and move beyond occupations where someone from across the globe can do the same thing for pennies.

I understood your point the first time. I just disagree. You sound like a far right politician trying to convince the people that sending jobs to another country will benefit them because they will get jobs and cheap products from Walmart. And i dont take you for a conservative so im confused.
Yes corps try to do whatever they can to make the most profits. Does that make it acceptable to the country they do business with ? Well they could make more money if they pay everyone nothing more than minimum wage and force 75hr weeks with no overtime too. Is that ok?

Were not talking about $10 bars of soap, cmon. Lets at least keep the MAJOR manufacturing in the US. Cars,construction equipment etc. Things that created many skilled labor jobs that allowed people to support their family and enjoy a somewhat prosperous life. I never said "very high" wages did I ? How about we start at fair wages ? The reason everyone has those winimum wage jobs you speak of is directly because the manufacturing jobs are gone. But hey we can buy cheap stuff from Walmart now and thats what matters right ?

In the end i absolutely agree that we should be encouraging Americans to receive higher education and strive for higher achievements. Engineers,doctors etc. Fields where we are not doing nearly as well as we should be. However this does not mean we are going to get to a place where no one needs manufacturing or labor jobs and its ok to send those jobs away. That will never be the case and its naive to think so. It would be awesome if everyone was an engineer but you know.... reality and stuff.

 

[2GunTommy]

We certainly can blame him for being a greedy capitalist, when he is running for public office. A person who is primarily concerned with increasing their personal wealth ahove all else should be judged on that. Especially when he is saying he will prevent a practice he is actively engaged in.

Well he is a capitalist and he is going to play by the rules given to him while he is one. cant fault him for that WHILE he is a capitalist. But what if he has seen for many years how this works and he is at a place where making money isnt the most important thing to him anymore and he actually wants to make the country a better place for the American people. So now yeah he is going to speak out against the system that he was able to take advantage of and try to implement a change because of that. Again I know im REALLY wishful thinking here, but a mans gotta have a dream right ? :icon_lol:

 

[VulgarSnaps]

I keep hearing the "strive to educate" argument.

The majority of our populace is not even capable of a four year degree of any applicable substance.

I know IQ isn't everything, but it's at least relative. You need an IQ of 110 to reliably handle a four year degree's level of difficulty.

Now look at average IQ.

Another oddball argument:

We need to produce our own products for more than just economic purposes.

1. When you produce your own products you're involved, and can see opportunities for improvement or efficiency.
2. When you produce your own products it keeps you at the forefront of the technology you are producing. China had no automation until we GAVE IT TO THEM FOR CHEAP LABOR. Now they are beginning to produce designs superior to our own.
3. It provides the mechanism for an economic ladder. Your immigrant father works at the plant an some form of janitorial role. You go to some level of vocational schooling work on the product itself earning more. Your daughter goes to college and winds up in a managerial/technical/analytical/marketing role and earns more. This is of course at the thirty thousand foot level.

People/families and sometimes even cultures can't immediate jump to step 3, or 5, or whatever, and people aren't equal in regards to their capabilities.

Edit : 1 and two are basically the same argument but I'm too lazy to fix it.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

That was embarrassing grandstanding. Greenspan could have been roasted on so much, but he was right here.

The narration was also very misleading.

Agreed. I was disappointed to say at the least.

Of all things one could attack Greenspan on. Id say Krugman (an actual economist not a populist politician like Bernie Sanders) is more accurate

Yeah... When Bernie publicly decries the attitudes and actions of the mega-rich it's "grandstanding". When Hillary steps to the mic and sucks CFR dick it's being "anti-establishment". :icon_lol:

Well the title is misleading and Bernie didn't 'own' anyone.

 

[Awesomesauce]

I find it truly odd how few people seem to look past even the most simplistic levels of analysis for these kinds of social structures, particularly for something as important as individuals place in the economy.

For example, all the talk of manufacturing jobs is based simply on the traditional political relationship between unions and manufacturing jobs. Everyone ignores the sociology of the types of people who tend to take part in that industry which is actually relevant.

Unions aren't coming back in the traditional sense. Unions like all other power structures derived their effectiveness and ability to influence society from their leverage. That leverage doesn't exist because the demand for labor has steadily fallen over the last 50 years.

Since the demand for that labor won't be returning unions won't be returning and trying to use them as some kind focal point for shifting power and wealth back to the middle class isn't practical.

This isn't really complex stuff, its power dynamics 101, its a very basic and obvious truth about the modern world.

If you wanted to improve middle class jobs in the US you have to stop competition from foreign countries who pay their citizens subsistence wages. So either through treaty or simply by excluding those nations who don't maintain US standards for the treatment of workers would be a beginning.

However its really all just temporary measures. There is an ever dwindling supply of functional jobs. The reality is that a larger and larger percentage of current employment is either of largely marginal value, or utterly parasitic. Consider the dramatic increase in industries such as prison, the drug trade, advertising, finance, etc...

These types of jobs provide little to society realistically, but they server as a pretty good signpost to the realities of the day. Just wait until the huge part of the current work force employed with driving gets replaced by self driving cars. Manufacturing already employees a minuscule percentage of what it used to by production value.

Arguing over a return to old methodologies which have been invalidated by technology and social circumstance is pointless. The real need is to drop the ridiculous social devotions to capitalism. The notion that everyone working towards there own interest can function in the modern world should have died out as a practical way of thinking decades ago. Market systems have there place and I suspect they will for a very long time, but in the world that exists they are not practically applicable to the labor market, at least not without major modifications and limitations.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I find it truly odd how few people seem to look past even the most simplistic levels of analysis for these kinds of social structures, particularly for something as important as individuals place in the economy.

For example, all the talk of manufacturing jobs is based simply on the traditional political relationship between unions and manufacturing jobs. Everyone ignores the sociology of the types of people who tend to take part in that industry which is actually relevant.

Unions aren't coming back in the traditional sense. Unions like all other power structures derived their effectiveness and ability to influence society from their leverage. That leverage doesn't exist because the demand for labor has steadily fallen over the last 50 years.

Since the demand for that labor won't be returning unions won't be returning and trying to use them as some kind focal point for shifting power and wealth back to the middle class isn't practical.

This isn't really complex stuff, its power dynamics 101, its a very basic and obvious truth about the modern world.

If you wanted to improve middle class jobs in the US you have to stop competition from foreign countries who pay their citizens subsistence wages. So either through treaty or simply by excluding those nations who don't maintain US standards for the treatment of workers would be a beginning.

However its really all just temporary measures. There is an ever dwindling supply of functional jobs. The reality is that a larger and larger percentage of current employment is either of largely marginal value, or utterly parasitic. Consider the dramatic increase in industries such as prison, the drug trade, advertising, finance, etc...

These types of jobs provide little to society realistically, but they server as a pretty good signpost to the realities of the day. Just wait until the huge part of the current work force employed with driving gets replaced by self driving cars. Manufacturing already employees a minuscule percentage of what it used to by production value.

Arguing over a return to old methodologies which have been invalidated by technology and social circumstance is pointless. The real need is to drop the ridiculous social devotions to capitalism. The notion that everyone working towards there own interest can function in the modern world should have died out as a practical way of thinking decades ago. Market systems have there place and I suspect they will for a very long time, but in the world that exists they are not practically applicable to the labor market, at least not without major modifications and limitations.

I like this post.

I don't think it's odd that we discuss returning or lament the exodus of manufacturing jobs. There is so much uncertainty and it's easier to point at what went wrong than to discuss future alternatives.


Where do you see viable, productive jobs coming in a post-manufacturing based America? And whT do you think about unions and infrastructure jobs?

 

[Rod1]

Capitalism is the most efficient way (as it caters to human nature) to produce and allocate resources, thats certain and tariffs only distort the market, it doesnt helps anyone.

The problem is not that corporations are outsourcing jobs, the problem is that corporations are not being taxed properly.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Unions aren't coming back in the traditional sense. Unions like all other power structures derived their effectiveness and ability to influence society from their leverage. That leverage doesn't exist because the demand for labor has steadily fallen over the last 50 years.

It's good to see people putting in some work in their arguments, but the post was kind of a waste because of this factual error that you base most of it on. Demand for labor hasn't fallen over the last 50 years. That's absurd. If you said over the last *15* years, that would still be wrong but you'd be on stronger ground, as you wouldn't be ignoring 35 years of strong increases in labor demand. We had a mild recession in 2001, but the labor market really didn't recover well building up to the Great Recession, though labor demand has grown pretty strongly (not what we want to make up for the preceding years, though unusually persistently) since then.

Last week, Robert Solow made the point that labor has become "casualized" (more of them are working on a fixed-contract basis, are considered independent contractors, are part-time, etc. so they have less cultural investment in their firms), which is the underlying reason they get a smaller share of rents collected. If workers are not expecting to be at their firms for a long time, they're less likely to unionize and their firms are going to invest less in them, etc. He concludes, basically, with pessimism. And, indeed, it's a thorny problem, but there are things that can be done. But trying to do it by bringing back manufacturing employment (note that the U.S. still manufactures a lot--it just takes a lot fewer people to do it) is basically taking a cargo cult approach.

Capitalism is the most efficient way (as it caters to human nature) to produce and allocate resources, thats certain and tariffs only distort the market, it doesnt helps anyone.

The problem is not that corporations are outsourcing jobs, the problem is that corporations are not being taxed properly.

I think problems in taxes are more related to capital vs. labor and to general progressivity than corporate taxes. But the bigger problem in recent years is slack in the labor markets and a lack of a really strong response to that. I think the big lessons policymakers should have learned is that we need a higher inflation target and more automatic fiscal responses to a downturn in the economy.

 

[IIIIIIII]

Not them, but maybe their parents,aunts,uncles,grandparents etc? Maybe without the downfall of manufacturing in the US some of those places wouldnt be so bad off right now. Maybe.



I understood your point the first time. I just disagree. You sound like a far right politician trying to convince the people that sending jobs to another country will benefit them because they will get jobs and cheap products from Walmart. And i dont take you for a conservative so im confused.
Yes corps try to do whatever they can to make the most profits. Does that make it acceptable to the country they do business with ? Well they could make more money if they pay everyone nothing more than minimum wage and force 75hr weeks with no overtime too. Is that ok?

Were not talking about $10 bars of soap, cmon. Lets at least keep the MAJOR manufacturing in the US. Cars,construction equipment etc. Things that created many skilled labor jobs that allowed people to support their family and enjoy a somewhat prosperous life. I never said "very high" wages did I ? How about we start at fair wages ? The reason everyone has those winimum wage jobs you speak of is directly because the manufacturing jobs are gone. But hey we can buy cheap stuff from Walmart now and thats what matters right ?

In the end i absolutely agree that we should be encouraging Americans to receive higher education and strive for higher achievements. Engineers,doctors etc. Fields where we are not doing nearly as well as we should be. However this does not mean we are going to get to a place where no one needs manufacturing or labor jobs and its ok to send those jobs away. That will never be the case and its naive to think so. It would be awesome if everyone was an engineer but you know.... reality and stuff.

my entire point is this: we are all in a capitalistic society, and in a globalized society. this means, that business has no borders. and businesses shouldn't be forced to lose out on profits because citizens of a certain country feel like they should have those jobs. on top of that, why in the world would anyone advocate paying someone else a higher wage when they can pay a lower wage to someone else?

capitalism is the best system, because it doesn't cater to anyone. it doesn't have allegiances to a certain country. what exactly is a, "fair wage" to you, anyway? i suspect that a fair-wage for you, would still be a lot more than what someone across the globe is being paid to perform the same job.

so yes, $10 for a bar of soap is exactly what you're endorsing, if you want to talk about a, "fair-wage", when it comes to what americans consider a fair-wage to be. again, the reality of the situation is that capitalism is not going to favor a certain group, and will always ally itself with where it makes a better profit. that's why i say that if americans want jobs that pay, "fair", create a business where a product is produced that needs high-skilled work, and the, "high-paying, or fair-paying" jobs will come.

being on the, "left" or, "right", are just ways to pigeonhole people. capitalism isn't on either side. it stands on it's own.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Not them, but maybe their parents,aunts,uncles,grandparents etc? Maybe without the downfall of manufacturing in the US some of those places wouldnt be so bad off right now. Maybe.

Probably no doubt of this being true in Detroit.

 

[Der Eisbär]

That was embarrassing grandstanding. Greenspan could have been roasted on so much, but he was right here.

The narration was also very misleading.

I will never figure out what is wrong with you.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I will never figure out what is wrong with you.

The bigger question is why independent thought terrifies you guys.

 

[ultramanhyata]

The bigger question is why unquestioning allegiance to the DNC terrifies you guys.

Fixed.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Fixed.

Nope, and you're still being super creepy.

I like how three months ago, idiots here were calling me a left-wing extremist. Now that I dare disagree with actual left-wing extremists, suddenly I'm a partisan. Why not just try to discuss things honestly? Because of what I said, I guess. "Independent thought terrifies you guys."

 

[ultramanhyata]

Nope, and you're still being super creepy.

I like how three months ago, idiots here were calling me a left-wing extremist. Now that I dare disagree with actual left-wing extremists, suddenly I'm a partisan. Why not just try to discuss things honestly? Because of what I said, I guess. "Independent thought terrifies you guys."

Sure, bud. I joined Sherdog at the end of 2010 and within a few months of being in the WR I saw older members calling you out as a "partisan hack". You just make shit up.