Why there are less blue collar jobs

This is a result of neo political world business movements. It effects liberals and conservatives and is a result of changes from national to international economics.

1. Private banks loaning money. This has switched governments from borrowing from their own banks to borrowing from private bank elites. The Trillionaires.

2. Debt, moving to private banks means interest payments. 20 Trillion in interest payments even at 2% is a crap load of money. 400 billion dollars a year.

3. Unbalanced Budgets. A Budget as our illustrious Canadian Neo Liberal leader has said balances itself. The neo's love to spend for benefit but hate to pay for it.

4. The neo down turn see's the worker fired and the company saved. Great for wall street bad for the blue collar workers.

The solution is at hand, Trump might implement it. Switch debt from private banks to national treasuries, Pay not interest to the elites, but interest free loans with interest being paid to the treasury as a way to pay off the debt.

Balance a budget, interest payments pay off the debt without paying off the debt directly.

The next step is to go back to the worker first boom and bust cycle. Companies that fail, fail. Interest rates go up and house prices go down. Property values drop and people can get back until good times, things fail and the process repeats. The blue collar work is fine. Good wages, good employees and good benefits. A house you can afford and a happy life.

With robotics and such one can implememt a BLS or UBI (Basic living stipend or Universal Basic Income. A completely different system but it may work better. You still need to do the above and make a few changes. A UBI of $1000 every two weeks provided for every citizen 18+. Make a requirement for legal residence for 3 continuous years and it should work out okay. UBI is tax free, all other income is taxed at a flat 30%. Income, investment income, etc... Second business income is taxed at a decreasing rate, 30% for the first million, 20% for the next four million, 10% for the money over that. Businesses would be setup as income trusts. Money being paid to the individual investors. Cancel welfare and food stamps, and various other income supports, federal pension plans and old age security, None of this is needed with a UBI plan. Also cancel charity tax measures. Everyone should not be paying so that you can feel good about donating to charity. You still can donate it just won't give you a tax deduction. Finally make unions an option to join. Robot takes your job, no problem. The BLS UBI system would require some cost checks and 'rent' controls or the like to prevent people taking advantage. In the end the robots will be paying for the BLS UBI system.

Lord Skimper wrote:This is a result of neo political world business movements. It effects liberals and conservatives and is a result of changes from national to international economics.

1. Private banks loaning money. This has switched governments from borrowing from their own banks to borrowing from private bank elites. The Trillionaires.

2. Debt, moving to private banks means interest payments. 20 Trillion in interest payments even at 2% is a crap load of money. 400 billion dollars a year.

3. Unbalanced Budgets. A Budget as our illustrious Canadian Neo Liberal leader has said balances itself. The neo's love to spend for benefit but hate to pay for it.

4. The neo down turn see's the worker fired and the company saved. Great for wall street bad for the blue collar workers.

The solution is at hand, Trump might implement it. Switch debt from private banks to national treasuries, Pay not interest to the elites, but interest free loans with interest being paid to the treasury as a way to pay off the debt.

Balance a budget, interest payments pay off the debt without paying off the debt directly.

The next step is to go back to the worker first boom and bust cycle. Companies that fail, fail. Interest rates go up and house prices go down. Property values drop and people can get back until good times, things fail and the process repeats. The blue collar work is fine. Good wages, good employees and good benefits. A house you can afford and a happy life.

With robotics and such one can implememt a BLS or UBI (Basic living stipend or Universal Basic Income. A completely different system but it may work better. You still need to do the above and make a few changes. A UBI of $1000 every two weeks provided for every citizen 18+. Make a requirement for legal residence for 3 continuous years and it should work out okay. UBI is tax free, all other income is taxed at a flat 30%. Income, investment income, etc... Second business income is taxed at a decreasing rate, 30% for the first million, 20% for the next four million, 10% for the money over that. Businesses would be setup as income trusts. Money being paid to the individual investors. Cancel welfare and food stamps, and various other income supports, federal pension plans and old age security, None of this is needed with a UBI plan. Also cancel charity tax measures. Everyone should not be paying so that you can feel good about donating to charity. You still can donate it just won't give you a tax deduction. Finally make unions an option to join. Robot takes your job, no problem. The BLS UBI system would require some cost checks and 'rent' controls or the like to prevent people taking advantage. In the end the robots will be paying for the BLS UBI system.

1) Never, ever happened in the real world. Kings of England and France borrowed from their buddies, Jefferson borrowed the money for the Louisiana Purchase from the Jewish money lenders in Amsterdam because the Bank of America did not have that kind of money sitting around in its vault.

2) AKA opportunity cost in Economics 101. Someone delays gratification and gets rewarded by the person not delaying gratification. Not sure what your point is.

3) American experience is both parties love to spend. Conservatives believe spending under conservative administration is good, spending under liberal administration is bad

4) I just don't understand.

Rest of it is pretty much nonsense. Trump is draining the swamp with those who benefit most with the swamp, or will drain the swamp in such a way as to benefit themselves 90% and everyone else not at all.

I don't know whats in your fruity oaty bars, but you'd best quit smoking them.

In response to Lords' post and filtered though...

<snip>


1) Never, ever happened in the real world. Kings of England and France borrowed from their buddies, Jefferson borrowed the money for the Louisiana Purchase from the Jewish money lenders in Amsterdam because the Bank of America did not have that kind of money sitting around in its vault.

2) AKA opportunity cost in Economics 101. Someone delays gratification and gets rewarded by the person not delaying gratification. Not sure what your point is.

3) American experience is both parties love to spend. Conservatives believe spending under conservative administration is good, spending under liberal administration is bad

4) I just don't understand.

Rest of it is pretty much nonsense. Trump is draining the swamp with those who benefit most with the swamp, or will drain the swamp in such a way as to benefit themselves 90% and everyone else not at all.

I don't know whats in your fruity oaty bars, but you'd best quit smoking them.

<snip>


I do not understand how this "if I can't have it no one will"... "what's in it for me" and "let someone else pay for it" has any place in government but there it is.

Government is not and never should be a "for profit" business model. Our tax dollars should be spent wisely on programs that train people how to fix the robots or otherwise to be educated and productive members of the society.
Bi-parasitism gridlock and "letting someone else pay for it" resulting in factories being closed and blue collar jobs shipped off shore rather than improved to be more productive and/or to operate free of toxic by-products.

C. O. Thompson wrote:
Bi-parasitism gridlock and "letting someone else pay for it" resulting in factories being closed and blue collar jobs shipped off shore rather than improved to be more productive and/or to operate free of toxic by-products.

That's an incredibly simplistic view that isn't even remotely accurate.

If you want to simplify things down, you have to start with general accounting practices. If a company's success is measured in terms of total revenue minus total overhead, any measure to reduce overhead is welcome. There's little else that you need to consider; after all, in an environment as enamoured with capitalism and capitalists as the US is, the social benefits of being a successful capitalist rather outweigh the negative consequences you get for being a total ruthless bastard.

The only way to get corporations back to a modus operandi that is benefitial to the public is by using concepts and recipes that are, at least according to republicans and libertarians, the worst thing to ever happen (namely, strong and punitive regulatory measures).

The open market cannot be relied upon to do good for the people.

The E wrote:
snip

If you want to simplify things down, you have to start with general accounting practices. If a company's success is measured in terms of total revenue minus total overhead, any measure to reduce overhead is welcome.

snip

The only way to get corporations back to a modus operandi that is benefitial to the public is by using concepts and recipes that are, at least according to republicans and libertarians, the worst thing to ever happen (namely, strong and punitive regulatory measures).

The open market cannot be relied upon to do good for the people.

The open market, provided that there are costs which are not expenses to the company, such as pollution, the support of fired workers, etc. cannot . . .. With the modification I agree with the E. There are too many places where a dishonest management shuffles costs off onto someone else. Someone who follows the "Mother Earth News" paradigm avoids this in part. There is a reason why some religious groups don't like getting tied up into other systems.

A really good rule, whichever type, should require social costs to be paid by the entity producing them. The rule where water intake must be downstream from water outtake, or one requiring an entity under whose organization an accident causes damage to property or personnel to cover all expense . . .. If all insurance policies had to adjust the premiums according to the past history of a given entity, if there were a tax on environmental damage, or a penalty for poor fiduciary performance by managements. . .. In most cases, the big shots get a slap on the wrist fine or tax. There are many possibilities, the problem is getting them past the big shots who do the favoritism. Requiring all government officials obedience to all laws would at least give them a taste of the pain, if they would obey it.

I prefer good laws to good regulations because if legislators debate, more unintended consequences are discovered before reality bites us. At present lazy legislators are passing laws without even reading them


Does anyone know how many places the US federal government exempts government officials from obeying laws they pass

DDHv wrote:A really good rule, whichever type, should require social costs to be paid by the entity producing them.

In principle I completely agree - however in practice you can quickly run into problems.

What happens if an entity runs up social costs in excess of its total value before they are discovered? (Either because they were hiding the risks, or just because the science was wrong about the risks of some of the materials they were using)
Sure the entity can go bankrupt - but that doesn't pay the health care (for example) of the people damaged by it.

You also can have problems collecting - how does a single person prove which entities incurred the social costs born by that person? And what happens when the entity running up the social costs can use their lawyers to make it cost ineffective to recover the damages?

Still, allowing companies or people to externalize costs onto the general public is a crappy way to run a country -- so something needs to be done to mitigate, discourage, or prevent that.

Jonathan_S wrote:

DDHv wrote:A really good rule, whichever type, should require social costs to be paid by the entity producing them.

In principle I completely agree - however in practice you can quickly run into problems.

What happens if an entity runs up social costs in excess of its total value before they are discovered? (Either because they were hiding the risks, or just because the science was wrong about the risks of some of the materials they were using)
Sure the entity can go bankrupt - but that doesn't pay the health care (for example) of the people damaged by it.

You also can have problems collecting - how does a single person prove which entities incurred the social costs born by that person? And what happens when the entity running up the social costs can use their lawyers to make it cost ineffective to recover the damages?

Still, allowing companies or people to externalize costs onto the general public is a crappy way to run a country -- so something needs to be done to mitigate, discourage, or prevent that.

Problems, problems, always there are problems
[quote="Job 5:7]Yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward[/quote]
As long as men commit the sin of preferring themselves and making themselves the center of life, this will continue. IIRC, the Italian economist, Vilfredo Pareto, stated that the only reason for government was to restrain the wicked. He also stated that those people, since they are attracted to unrestrained power, try to take control. He called them foxes. Do you think he remembered the saying about foxes and hen houses


BTW, again IIRC, experiments with welfare in which anyone on it who finds honest work has his welfare payments reduced by about only half of what he earns instead of all of it have worked out well. I wonder why


Black markets show many have a willingness to engage in economic activities, provided they can profit from it. You might look up the Laffer curve to see what can happen