This is long, I apologize, but I had to post with comments.

http://www.salon.com/books/history/index...technology

Quote:Meanwhile, the social roadblock of low wages that blocked the full development of electricity-based industries and automobile-based development was removed by the reforms of the New Deal and Civil Rights eras. The minimum wage, limits to work hours, and a high level of unionization, combined with the abolition of racial segregation and several decades of low immigration, raised purchasing power by raising wages. The socialization of risk by programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance helped to promote mass consumption by reducing the need for precautionary savings.

I can buy the idea that wages were held artificially low and that workers at the turn of the century were exploited by the coal and steel industries ("I owe my soul to the company store"), but I cannot accept the premise in bold. To state that transferring your personal responsibilities for your own well being after retirement to the gov't, or more specifically onto future generations, in order to consume more today is precisely why we are on the precipice of default on our debt today. Exchanging freedom (you being responsible for your future) for security (having gov't being responsible for your security) is a losing proposition.

Quote:The situation of information technology today may be comparable to that of the electrical and automobile industries during the Great Depression. The old economy has already crumbled and the next economy is struggling to be born. Information technology has revolutionized some sectors, like communications and business services. But other important sectors, like health and higher education, have yet to be transformed by IT.

The author believes that gov't should get involved in order to make the IT revolution more universal across the economy. But look at which sectors are resisting technological breakthroughs the most: Education and healthcare. Both are more heavily union jobs. Also, I'm calling this education, not higher education, because the author is skirting the issue by not talking about K - 12 education, which in reality is the biggest cost of education, not higher education.

Quote:If we set aside the contested question of energy sources, the major infrastructure roadblocks to the full maturation of IT are found in communications and transportation. In communications, we need universal broadband service at cutting-edge levels of access and quality. In transportation, there is no need to replace the interstate highway system by a subsidy-addicted interstate passenger rail system. A more sensible investment would be a smart interstate highway system, populated by smart cars and smart trucks that talk to each other and the road, reducing traffic congestion and travel times for passengers and freight alike.

That's a convenient omission...

Quote:We can lower taxes on middle- and lower-income workers. Because about half of workers already pay no income tax, this might mean lowering payroll taxes, which would require other sources of income to fund Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance if they are not to be cut. We can increase after-tax redistribution -- whether in the form of cash transfers, like Social Security checks, or public services, like K-12 education.

This is very revealing...over half of the people in the work force pay no income taxes, and the author wants to take even more tax receipts out of the entitlements and replace this lost "revenue" with....what??? Gee, this stuff is easy when you can make suggestions without providing concrete alternatives...

Quote:Finally, we can promote "universal capitalism" by increasing ownership of income-generating assets, like shares in growing corporations, although the disastrous experience with 401K’s shows that any such programs must limit risk. Some combination of these reforms will probably be necessary to remove low wages as a social roadblock to the maturation of the information economy.

Most naive paragraph in the entire article. How do you increase ownership in private enterprise and reduce the risk of ownership at the same time??? What kind of fantasy is this? Bottom line, just like there are scientific laws in the natural world, there are "financial laws" in the economic world. If you are going to have an ownership stake in a business venture, you have to be willing to accept the gains or the losses. There are no perpetual motion machines in science/engineering and there are no free lunches in business/economics.

When I read that article this morning, I was surprised to see a number of commenters lambasting the author for his naivete. He conveniently left out the How-to on so many items - probably because the solutions only fly with those in the tank for far left ideas.

(06-14-2011 01:19 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  When I read that article this morning, I was surprised to see a number of commenters lambasting the author for his naivete. He conveniently left out the How-to on so many items - probably because the solutions only fly with those in the tank for far left ideas.

I didn't even read the comments. Since it was from Salon, I assumed the koolaid drinkers were praising it for being "brilliant". I'll have to check out the comments, because it would be refreshing to see a substantial change in thinking for the better.

(06-14-2011 11:54 AM)miko33 Wrote:  This is long, I apologize, but I had to post with comments.

http://www.salon.com/books/history/index...technology

Quote:Meanwhile, the social roadblock of low wages that blocked the full development of electricity-based industries and automobile-based development was removed by the reforms of the New Deal and Civil Rights eras. The minimum wage, limits to work hours, and a high level of unionization, combined with the abolition of racial segregation and several decades of low immigration, raised purchasing power by raising wages. The socialization of risk by programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance helped to promote mass consumption by reducing the need for precautionary savings.

I can buy the idea that wages were held artificially low and that workers at the turn of the century were exploited by the coal and steel industries ("I owe my soul to the company store"),

I can't even go that far. Check out this bit by Mark Steyn commenting on the song you reference

Mark Steyn Wrote:When something’s that big a hit, it’s easy to be dismissive, but, in fact, it’s very deftly done. There’s a whole world captured in that line about owing your soul to the company store. In many mining communities, workers lived in company-owned housing, the cost of which was docked from their wages, and what was left was paid in “scrip” – that’s to say, company-issued tokens or vouchers that could only be redeemed for goods at the company store. To the unions who fought and eventually defeated the system, it was a form of bondage in which it was impossible for workers to amass any cash savings: there was no future except the next paycheck to be spent on next week’s over-priced necessities at the company store. On the other hand, a couple of years back, The West Virginia Historical Society Quarterly took a more balanced view:

Pricing in the company stores was often higher than in surrounding non- company establishments. It is true that in the mining families, coal operators had captive purchasers for their goods. However, the availability of rail transportation, mail order products, and the proximity of other local merchants gave miners more choice than has been portrayed. The quality of company store goods was equal to that which could be bought in town. When the miner weighed the price of shipping his purchases from a mail order catalog or local merchant against the price of what could be purchased at the company store, very often, the store ended up being the better bargain… For the companies, scrip provided an easy way to pay the miners without the necessity of keeping large amounts of cash available. However, according to Crandall Shifflett in his study of coal towns in Southern Appalachia, there is no evidence that miners were ‘forced to draw their pay in scrip.’ On payday a miner could draw scrip or cash or both, the choice was his…

Miners drew scrip advances for many purposes. Should he run short and need food before the next payday, scrip credit was available. If a miner needed a piece of furniture and did not have the cash, scrip credit would take care of it. if a miner was sick or injured, companies would advance scrip pending receipt of his Workman’s Compensation checks. For the operators, this was a no lose situation. Companies had the ability to ‘virtually garnishee a worker's wages to collect on a debt.’ It would appear that with the availability of such easy credit, most miners would in fact ‘owe their souls’ to the company stores. However, studies cited by Shifflett seem to indicate that miners used this option judiciously.

Which sounds less like bondage and more like a primitive prototype of MasterCard. Whatever the reality, the line is a brilliant evocative distillation of what, in mid-20th century, was still an instantly recognizable way of life.

But worse, is the total misinformation in the original article. THis is the problem w/ leftists who "teach" history. They include a couple of facts, but ignore many more so they can draw a completely ficticious conclusion.

(06-14-2011 01:19 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  When I read that article this morning, I was surprised to see a number of commenters lambasting the author for his naivete. He conveniently left out the How-to on so many items - probably because the solutions only fly with those in the tank for far left ideas.

EXACTLY!

Take the bit about the automobile. First, it's debateable whether it was invented in the 1860s.
http://www.theautochannel.com/mania/indu...chap1.html

What was invented in the 1860s is arguable the worst one to call the invention of the automobile, but not coincidentally, it most supports the author's thesis.

Second, the author ignores so many other things that were required for the true auto industry to come to be, and then its adoption by the general populace..."low wages" were NOT the issue!

There were developments and other inventions for the auto (Goodrich anyone!)
Competition existed (no sympathy for buggy whip makers?)
Where would you drive the automobile? You need ROADS!
How would you build the automobile? You need what in today's parlance is called a supply chain!

At any rate, miko's criticisms are definitly valid, but there are so many other problems w/ this article that it begs the question why anyone still gives credence to Marxists when it was completely based on lies, and continues to be completely promoted with lies.

(06-15-2011 07:46 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 11:54 AM)miko33 Wrote:  This is long, I apologize, but I had to post with comments.

http://www.salon.com/books/history/index...technology

Quote:Meanwhile, the social roadblock of low wages that blocked the full development of electricity-based industries and automobile-based development was removed by the reforms of the New Deal and Civil Rights eras. The minimum wage, limits to work hours, and a high level of unionization, combined with the abolition of racial segregation and several decades of low immigration, raised purchasing power by raising wages. The socialization of risk by programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance helped to promote mass consumption by reducing the need for precautionary savings.

I can buy the idea that wages were held artificially low and that workers at the turn of the century were exploited by the coal and steel industries ("I owe my soul to the company store"),

I can't even go that far. Check out this bit by Mark Steyn commenting on the song you reference

Mark Steyn Wrote:When something’s that big a hit, it’s easy to be dismissive, but, in fact, it’s very deftly done. There’s a whole world captured in that line about owing your soul to the company store. In many mining communities, workers lived in company-owned housing, the cost of which was docked from their wages, and what was left was paid in “scrip” – that’s to say, company-issued tokens or vouchers that could only be redeemed for goods at the company store. To the unions who fought and eventually defeated the system, it was a form of bondage in which it was impossible for workers to amass any cash savings: there was no future except the next paycheck to be spent on next week’s over-priced necessities at the company store. On the other hand, a couple of years back, The West Virginia Historical Society Quarterly took a more balanced view:

Pricing in the company stores was often higher than in surrounding non- company establishments. It is true that in the mining families, coal operators had captive purchasers for their goods. However, the availability of rail transportation, mail order products, and the proximity of other local merchants gave miners more choice than has been portrayed. The quality of company store goods was equal to that which could be bought in town. When the miner weighed the price of shipping his purchases from a mail order catalog or local merchant against the price of what could be purchased at the company store, very often, the store ended up being the better bargain… For the companies, scrip provided an easy way to pay the miners without the necessity of keeping large amounts of cash available. However, according to Crandall Shifflett in his study of coal towns in Southern Appalachia, there is no evidence that miners were ‘forced to draw their pay in scrip.’ On payday a miner could draw scrip or cash or both, the choice was his…

Miners drew scrip advances for many purposes. Should he run short and need food before the next payday, scrip credit was available. If a miner needed a piece of furniture and did not have the cash, scrip credit would take care of it. if a miner was sick or injured, companies would advance scrip pending receipt of his Workman’s Compensation checks. For the operators, this was a no lose situation. Companies had the ability to ‘virtually garnishee a worker's wages to collect on a debt.’ It would appear that with the availability of such easy credit, most miners would in fact ‘owe their souls’ to the company stores. However, studies cited by Shifflett seem to indicate that miners used this option judiciously.

Which sounds less like bondage and more like a primitive prototype of MasterCard. Whatever the reality, the line is a brilliant evocative distillation of what, in mid-20th century, was still an instantly recognizable way of life.

But worse, is the total misinformation in the original article. THis is the problem w/ leftists who "teach" history. They include a couple of facts, but ignore many more so they can draw a completely ficticious conclusion.

(06-14-2011 01:19 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  When I read that article this morning, I was surprised to see a number of commenters lambasting the author for his naivete. He conveniently left out the How-to on so many items - probably because the solutions only fly with those in the tank for far left ideas.

EXACTLY!

Take the bit about the automobile. First, it's debateable whether it was invented in the 1860s.
http://www.theautochannel.com/mania/indu...chap1.html

What was invented in the 1860s is arguable the worst one to call the invention of the automobile, but not coincidentally, it most supports the author's thesis.

Second, the author ignores so many other things that were required for the true auto industry to come to be, and then its adoption by the general populace..."low wages" were NOT the issue!

There were developments and other inventions for the auto (Goodrich anyone!)
Competition existed (no sympathy for buggy whip makers?)
Where would you drive the automobile? You need ROADS!
How would you build the automobile? You need what in today's parlance is called a supply chain!

At any rate, miko's criticisms are definitly valid, but there are so many other problems w/ this article that it begs the question why anyone still gives credence to Marxists when it was completely based on lies, and continues to be completely promoted with lies.

My fingers got tired...

The article was factually inaccurate on many levels. I tried to focus more on the financial aspect, but in hindsight, this article was DOA to begin with.