06-14-2011, 11:54 AM
This is long, I apologize, but I had to post with comments.
http://www.salon.com/books/history/index...technology
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.
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.
That's a convenient omission...
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...
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.
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.