Here's the real problem with the economy. Government employees outnumber those in manufacturing 1.8 to 1.

  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Sep 09, 2015 9:40 PM GMT


    It's real simple.
    People who produce goods and services that can be sold and traded are the backbone of an economy. Those who don't must depend on the ones who do for their incomes. The more people producing anything that can be sold or traded the better the economy. The fewer producing anything that can be sold or traded, the worse the economy will be.

    Want more and bigger government? Prepare for things to get worse.


    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/21955000-12329000-government-employees-outnumber-manufacturing
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Sep 10, 2015 6:12 AM GMT
    The growth in public sector jobs has all been at the state and local level. Federal jobs have remained steady since 2008, which is as far back as I chose to look, and which is unusual as you expect the number of government workers to grow along with the population. This flies in the face of the conservative meme of a federal bureaucracy that is growing out of control. That is just another conservative boogie-man.

    And certainly nobody is really trying to suggest here that the growing number of state and local workers is the cause of lost manufacturing jobs.

    The fact is that this is bad news for the conservative agenda. If it's true that government workers out number manufacturing workers that is only further evidence of the failure of trickle down economics.

    It's time to put the final nails in the coffin of Reagan-era economic theory.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Sep 10, 2015 6:46 AM GMT

    At your convenience please do your best to quote the article or the OP where either singled out the federal government... if you can. I'll save you the trouble... Neither of us did.

    In fact your comment is irrelevant to the subject of there being 1.8 government employees for every 1 in manufacturing, isn't it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2015 7:07 AM GMT
    bobbobbob said

    It's real simple.
    People who produce goods and services that can be sold and traded are the backbone of an economy. Those who don't must depend on the ones who do for their incomes. The more people producing anything that can be sold or traded the better the economy. The fewer producing anything that can be sold or traded, the worse the economy will be.

    Want more and bigger government? Prepare for things to get worse.


    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/21955000-12329000-government-employees-outnumber-manufacturing
    I've been wondering about that for a while, but never did the research to find the numbers. After all, I did work at quite a few manufacturing companies in my early-mid 20's until finally going to college and getting the white-collar job I have now...and every single manufacturing company I used to work for is no longer in existence.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Sep 10, 2015 8:36 AM GMT
    paulflexes said
    I've been wondering about that for a while, but never did the research to find the numbers. After all, I did work at quite a few manufacturing companies in my early-mid 20's until finally going to college and getting the white-collar job I have now...and every single manufacturing company I used to work for is no longer in existence.


    I know exactly what you mean. They are g-o-n-e. Some can be blamed on how technology has changed. I have a friend my age here who was a legendary graphic artist/designer/medical textbook illustrator from the 70's into the early 90's when the first high quality graphics programs really came around for producing magazines and the like. Now a 3rd grader in a school library can produce the same graphic effects in only seconds.

    But the bulk of the manufacturing jobs started evaporating with NAFTA. I remember the first wave of that very well. I had a brother and a cousin who went from solid incomes and years of service to unemployed literally overnight when a business owner decided to close down her operations in the US and moved them to Mexico where she could pay pennies per hour... and the US government helped pay her moving expenses. Close to 5,000 people lost jobs in 24 hours while the machinery was going out the back door on flatbeds.

    And it's not most, it's nearly all of the big manufacturers who've either completely closed down or moved out of the US.


  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14395

    Sep 10, 2015 1:08 PM GMT
    bobbobbob said
    At your convenience please do your best to quote the article or the OP where either singled out the federal government... if you can. I'll save you the trouble... Neither of us did.

    In fact your comment is irrelevant to the subject of there being 1.8 government employees for every 1 in manufacturing, isn't it?
    That is thanks to all the outsourcing of good paying manufacturing jobs to third world shitholes because these greedy, ungrateful corporate executives and their shareholder lackies cannot get their fill of money when they are already filthy rich. These free trade agreements have been disastrous for our country and the scary thing is that Obama wanted that disastrous Trans Pacific partnership which would have bankrupted the U.S. and turned it into a third world country. Yes the Reagan era policies also need to be discarded since the U.S. started pitching downhill as a result of supply side trickle down economics along with the horribly flawed concept of a service sector based economy which does not work. We also need to bring back the Bretton Woods Gold Standard which was discarded in August 1971 by the Richard "tricky dick" Nixon administration. It is time to end the rampant money printing just to finance more deficit spending. Both democrats and republicans are equally to blame for this country's economic and financial mess. We also need to force the wealthiest 1 to 2 percent to pay their fair share of all taxes and seal up all tax loopholes once and for all. Enough of this bullshit.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Sep 10, 2015 1:37 PM GMT
    bobbobbob said
    At your convenience please do your best to quote the article or the OP where either singled out the federal government... if you can. I'll save you the trouble... Neither of us did.

    In fact your comment is irrelevant to the subject of there being 1.8 government employees for every 1 in manufacturing, isn't it?


    The fact is that the ratio of government employees to manufacturing workers is also irrelevant. The article in the OP is a red herring.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2015 2:52 PM GMT
    The article in the OP certainly is valid because it indicates a significant portion of the economy is not producing goods and is financed by sucking taxes out of the population. The ratio would be different if service related jobs in the private sector were included with the manufacturing jobs, but the point would still be valid regarding the bloated size of government.

    The above discussion of local versus federal jobs is irrelevant to the point.

    Also, the comment that the ratio somehow invalidates a fiscal conservative agenda is a non-sequititur, as is the comment about so-called "trickle-down economics".
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Sep 10, 2015 3:21 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidThe article in the OP certainly is valid because it indicates a significant portion of the economy is not producing goods and is financed by sucking taxes out of the population. The ratio would be different if service related jobs in the private sector were included with the manufacturing jobs, but the point would still be valid regarding the bloated size of government.

    The above discussion of local versus federal jobs is irrelevant to the point.

    Also, the comment that the ratio somehow invalidates a fiscal conservative agenda is a non-sequititur, as is the comment about so-called "trickle-down economics".


    It is not valid because the growth of state and local government has nothing to do with why we're losing manufacturing jobs. And, it is not the ratio of private to public sector workers that invalidates Reagan's failed economic policies. It is the fact that we are losing manufacturing jobs due to those policies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2015 3:41 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    socalfitness saidThe article in the OP certainly is valid because it indicates a significant portion of the economy is not producing goods and is financed by sucking taxes out of the population. The ratio would be different if service related jobs in the private sector were included with the manufacturing jobs, but the point would still be valid regarding the bloated size of government.

    The above discussion of local versus federal jobs is irrelevant to the point.

    Also, the comment that the ratio somehow invalidates a fiscal conservative agenda is a non-sequititur, as is the comment about so-called "trickle-down economics".


    It is not valid because the growth of state and local government has nothing to do with why we're losing manufacturing jobs. And, it is not the ratio of private to public sector workers that invalidates Reagan's failed economic policies. It is the fact that we are losing manufacturing jobs due to those policies.

    1. Strawman. The article and OP did not state that state and local government size caused a loss of manufacturing jobs.

    2. Your case that Reagan's policies led to the loss of manufacturing jobs is not substantiated, and empirically false.

    3. While not stated in the article, the evidence is the opposite of what you allege. While the growth of state and local government may not have led to loss of manufacturing jobs, their policies, the policies of the Democrats, certainly has. Look at the taxes and union influence in states such as Michigan that have led to manufacturing jobs moved to Mexico. Look at South Carolina and other southeastern states with right-to-work laws, opposed by Democrats and unions, that have led to job growth.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Sep 10, 2015 5:10 PM GMT
    wow, there's so many issues with every economy world-wide, where do you start?

    -global over-capacity of every means of production (and most services)
    - automation
    - lack of smart or educated enough people to take on the jobs that are available (even if college graduated)
    - trade agreements, price fixing and currency manipulation
    - over-population

    just to name a few
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2015 5:14 PM GMT
    It's very tempting to dismiss the service sector while romantically evoking Henry Ford, but this is 2015 not 1915. Surely the strength of the US economy is that - to put it simplistically - it can take a toothbrush that costs 2 cents to produce in China and market it for $2 in the US. Of course manufacturing is important but it hasn't been the mainstay of the US economy for a long time.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Sep 10, 2015 8:44 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Physiqueflex said
    socalfitness saidThe article in the OP certainly is valid because it indicates a significant portion of the economy is not producing goods and is financed by sucking taxes out of the population. The ratio would be different if service related jobs in the private sector were included with the manufacturing jobs, but the point would still be valid regarding the bloated size of government.

    The above discussion of local versus federal jobs is irrelevant to the point.

    Also, the comment that the ratio somehow invalidates a fiscal conservative agenda is a non-sequititur, as is the comment about so-called "trickle-down economics".


    It is not valid because the growth of state and local government has nothing to do with why we're losing manufacturing jobs. And, it is not the ratio of private to public sector workers that invalidates Reagan's failed economic policies. It is the fact that we are losing manufacturing jobs due to those policies.

    1. Strawman. The article and OP did not state that state and local government size caused a loss of manufacturing jobs.

    2. Your case that Reagan's policies led to the loss of manufacturing jobs is not substantiated, and empirically false.

    3. While not stated in the article, the evidence is the opposite of what you allege. While the growth of state and local government may not have led to loss of manufacturing jobs, their policies, the policies of the Democrats, certainly has. Look at the taxes and union influence in states such as Michigan that have led to manufacturing jobs moved to Mexico. Look at South Carolina and other southeastern states with right-to-work laws, opposed by Democrats and unions, that have led to job growth.


    1. The article didn't make such a statement, to be sure, but apart from the mental exercise of making the comparison, there is no other reason to make it other than to imply a correlation/causation which I believe, knowing the source, is the author's intent. The comments by the OP also suggests that he for one took the bait.

    2. While Reagan's policies did not cause this much damage to our economy alone, they certainly lit the fuse. The tax cuts and deregulation started under Reagan and expanded under Clinton and Bush 43 on the highest income earners have led to the wealth disparity that has been growing ever since. The extreme loss of US manufacturing jobs shows that trickle down was nothing more than false promises, exacerbated by free trade agreements.

    3. Re: Michigan, see #2 above. Re: South Carolina, compare their job growth with that of California. Both states have seen about a 2.5% growth in jobs in the last year.

    I agree that we need to rely more on manufacturing jobs than we have been. There won't be enough service jobs opening up to replace the lost factory jobs, and service jobs, which can't be exported, don't create the economic growth we need that exporting goods will. Further, financial sector jobs don't create wealth much at all but rather transfer wealth, mostly from the bottom to the top. It would be foolhardy to make this the biggest part of our economic system.

    What's more, not every job in the country has to contribute to the GDP, though they all do to some degree. Government jobs are not all about pushing paper, and represent an investment in the nation by the people, and as I stated up thread, will by necessity increase proportionately with the growth of the population. That the number of federal employees hasn't increased in the last ten years or so in part explains some of the failures we've seen. Further attacks on public sector jobs will lead to even bigger problems, particularly if we don't address our troubled infrastructure.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2015 9:37 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said1. The article didn't make such a statement, to be sure, but apart from the mental exercise of making the comparison, there is no other reason to make it other than to imply a correlation/causation which I believe, knowing the source, is the author's intent. The comments by the OP also suggests that he for one took the bait.

    2. While Reagan's policies did not cause this much damage to our economy alone, they certainly lit the fuse. The tax cuts and deregulation started under Reagan and expanded under Clinton and Bush 43 on the highest income earners have led to the wealth disparity that has been growing ever since. The extreme loss of US manufacturing jobs shows that trickle down was nothing more than false promises, exacerbated by free trade agreements.

    1. The article didn't make such a statement, and your attempt to suggest that was the intent is not supported by facts or common sense. Your strawman is asserting the article and OP mean the size of government results in a loss of jobs. A more logical inference is that policies (asserting Democratic policies) result in both bloated government and a loss of jobs. Correlation does not imply causation. A statement of causation is the Democratic policies led to both bloated government and a loss of jobs.

    2. You're also stating a popular theme of the left that wealth disparity is the basis for the economic situation and for the status of the poor. It is part of the leftist ideology to worry about the wealthy instead of focusing on the middle class and poor. The implication, never proven because it's false, states 1) the poor are poor because wealth has increased among the upper class, and 2) reducing the disparity will improve the lot of the poor as well as middle class. Both assertions are false because they assume the total amount of wealth is fixed. In fact, if the leftists could choose between a) Improving the poor and middle class but not being concerned about the disparity of the wealthy, and b) reducing the disparity even if it meant everyone is worse off, they would choose option b every time.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Sep 10, 2015 11:09 PM GMT
    ^2. Now who's building a straw man?
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14395

    Sep 11, 2015 12:29 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Physiqueflex said1. The article didn't make such a statement, to be sure, but apart from the mental exercise of making the comparison, there is no other reason to make it other than to imply a correlation/causation which I believe, knowing the source, is the author's intent. The comments by the OP also suggests that he for one took the bait.

    2. While Reagan's policies did not cause this much damage to our economy alone, they certainly lit the fuse. The tax cuts and deregulation started under Reagan and expanded under Clinton and Bush 43 on the highest income earners have led to the wealth disparity that has been growing ever since. The extreme loss of US manufacturing jobs shows that trickle down was nothing more than false promises, exacerbated by free trade agreements.

    1. The article didn't make such a statement, and your attempt to suggest that was the intent is not supported by facts or common sense. Your strawman is asserting the article and OP mean the size of government results in a loss of jobs. A more logical inference is that policies (asserting Democratic policies) result in both bloated government and a loss of jobs. Correlation does not imply causation. A statement of causation is the Democratic policies led to both bloated government and a loss of jobs.

    2. You're also stating a popular theme of the left that wealth disparity is the basis for the economic situation and for the status of the poor. It is part of the leftist ideology to worry about the wealthy instead of focusing on the middle class and poor. The implication, never proven because it's false, states 1) the poor are poor because wealth has increased among the upper class, and 2) reducing the disparity will improve the lot of the poor as well as middle class. Both assertions are false because they assume the total amount of wealth is fixed. In fact, if the leftists could choose between a) Improving the poor and middle class but not being concerned about the disparity of the wealthy, and b) reducing the disparity even if it meant everyone is worse off, they would choose option b every time.
    It is supply side trickle down economics that triggered the heavy job losses in the U.S. not the government social programs although they didn't help matters. Why can't you conservatives face the proven fact that supply side trickle down economics does not work. Reaganomics is an abject failure and we are living through the results of these job destroying economic policies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2015 12:39 AM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    socalfitness said
    Physiqueflex said1. The article didn't make such a statement, to be sure, but apart from the mental exercise of making the comparison, there is no other reason to make it other than to imply a correlation/causation which I believe, knowing the source, is the author's intent. The comments by the OP also suggests that he for one took the bait.

    2. While Reagan's policies did not cause this much damage to our economy alone, they certainly lit the fuse. The tax cuts and deregulation started under Reagan and expanded under Clinton and Bush 43 on the highest income earners have led to the wealth disparity that has been growing ever since. The extreme loss of US manufacturing jobs shows that trickle down was nothing more than false promises, exacerbated by free trade agreements.

    1. The article didn't make such a statement, and your attempt to suggest that was the intent is not supported by facts or common sense. Your strawman is asserting the article and OP mean the size of government results in a loss of jobs. A more logical inference is that policies (asserting Democratic policies) result in both bloated government and a loss of jobs. Correlation does not imply causation. A statement of causation is the Democratic policies led to both bloated government and a loss of jobs.

    2. You're also stating a popular theme of the left that wealth disparity is the basis for the economic situation and for the status of the poor. It is part of the leftist ideology to worry about the wealthy instead of focusing on the middle class and poor. The implication, never proven because it's false, states 1) the poor are poor because wealth has increased among the upper class, and 2) reducing the disparity will improve the lot of the poor as well as middle class. Both assertions are false because they assume the total amount of wealth is fixed. In fact, if the leftists could choose between a) Improving the poor and middle class but not being concerned about the disparity of the wealthy, and b) reducing the disparity even if it meant everyone is worse off, they would choose option b every time.
    It is supply side trickle down economics that triggered the heavy job losses in the U.S. not the government social programs although they didn't help matters. Why can't you conservatives face the proven fact that supply side trickle down economics does not work. Reaganomics is an abject failure and we are living through the results of these job destroying economic policies.

    You are buying into semantics that leads you to some very false conclusions. Read this article for some enlightenment:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2013/12/06/trickle-down-economics-the-most-destructive-phrase-of-all-time/
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14395

    Sep 11, 2015 1:21 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    roadbikeRob said
    socalfitness said
    Physiqueflex said1. The article didn't make such a statement, to be sure, but apart from the mental exercise of making the comparison, there is no other reason to make it other than to imply a correlation/causation which I believe, knowing the source, is the author's intent. The comments by the OP also suggests that he for one took the bait.

    2. While Reagan's policies did not cause this much damage to our economy alone, they certainly lit the fuse. The tax cuts and deregulation started under Reagan and expanded under Clinton and Bush 43 on the highest income earners have led to the wealth disparity that has been growing ever since. The extreme loss of US manufacturing jobs shows that trickle down was nothing more than false promises, exacerbated by free trade agreements.

    1. The article didn't make such a statement, and your attempt to suggest that was the intent is not supported by facts or common sense. Your strawman is asserting the article and OP mean the size of government results in a loss of jobs. A more logical inference is that policies (asserting Democratic policies) result in both bloated government and a loss of jobs. Correlation does not imply causation. A statement of causation is the Democratic policies led to both bloated government and a loss of jobs.

    2. You're also stating a popular theme of the left that wealth disparity is the basis for the economic situation and for the status of the poor. It is part of the leftist ideology to worry about the wealthy instead of focusing on the middle class and poor. The implication, never proven because it's false, states 1) the poor are poor because wealth has increased among the upper class, and 2) reducing the disparity will improve the lot of the poor as well as middle class. Both assertions are false because they assume the total amount of wealth is fixed. In fact, if the leftists could choose between a) Improving the poor and middle class but not being concerned about the disparity of the wealthy, and b) reducing the disparity even if it meant everyone is worse off, they would choose option b every time.
    It is supply side trickle down economics that triggered the heavy job losses in the U.S. not the government social programs although they didn't help matters. Why can't you conservatives face the proven fact that supply side trickle down economics does not work. Reaganomics is an abject failure and we are living through the results of these job destroying economic policies.

    You are buying into semantics that leads you to some very false conclusions. Read this article for some enlightenment:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2013/12/06/trickle-down-economics-the-most-destructive-phrase-of-all-time/
    It is not false conclusions, it is the absolute truth. Ever since this horrendous supply side trickle down economics became public policy, the U.S. has been in an economic free fall with no end in sight. It is time to permanently discard the Reagan era economic policies. We also need to reinstate the Bretton Woods Gold Standard which was discarded in August 1971 by tricky dick Nixon.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2015 1:45 AM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    roadbikeRob said
    socalfitness saidIt is supply side trickle down economics that triggered the heavy job losses in the U.S. not the government social programs although they didn't help matters. Why can't you conservatives face the proven fact that supply side trickle down economics does not work. Reaganomics is an abject failure and we are living through the results of these job destroying economic policies.
    You are buying into semantics that leads you to some very false conclusions. Read this article for some enlightenment:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2013/12/06/trickle-down-economics-the-most-destructive-phrase-of-all-time/

    It is not false conclusions, it is the absolute truth. Ever since this horrendous supply side trickle down economics became public policy, the U.S. has been in an economic free fall with no end in sight. It is time to permanently discard the Reagan era economic policies. We also need to reinstate the Bretton Woods Gold Standard which was discarded in August 1971 by tricky dick Nixon.

    I don't want to go after you, but you are just repeating the same mantra over and over again and not challenging that which is counter to what you say. The Forbes article that I posted presents, in a very clear way, reasons your points are incorrect. If you want to challenge that, point-by-point, in a logical way, then fine. Otherwise, you really don't have anything meaningful to add.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14395

    Sep 11, 2015 12:37 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    roadbikeRob said
    roadbikeRob said
    socalfitness saidIt is supply side trickle down economics that triggered the heavy job losses in the U.S. not the government social programs although they didn't help matters. Why can't you conservatives face the proven fact that supply side trickle down economics does not work. Reaganomics is an abject failure and we are living through the results of these job destroying economic policies.
    You are buying into semantics that leads you to some very false conclusions. Read this article for some enlightenment:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2013/12/06/trickle-down-economics-the-most-destructive-phrase-of-all-time/

    It is not false conclusions, it is the absolute truth. Ever since this horrendous supply side trickle down economics became public policy, the U.S. has been in an economic free fall with no end in sight. It is time to permanently discard the Reagan era economic policies. We also need to reinstate the Bretton Woods Gold Standard which was discarded in August 1971 by tricky dick Nixon.

    I don't want to go after you, but you are just repeating the same mantra over and over again and not challenging that which is counter to what you say. The Forbes article that I posted presents, in a very clear way, reasons your points are incorrect. If you want to challenge that, point-by-point, in a logical way, then fine. Otherwise, you really don't have anything meaningful to add.
    The Forbes article is really nothing more than embellishments combined with propaganda defending the horribly failed Reagan era economic policies. My viewpoints are based on what I have seen and what I have witnessed other people going through tough economic times thanks to supply side trickle down economics. Forbes is a rich person's publication so obviously they are going to lie and defend these horrendous economic policies and try to cover up the severe damage by deflecting attention from the true root cause of our country's problems by focusing on a fall guy which in this case is government social programs. Reagan made a horrible mess of our economy and it was greatly prolonged by the policies of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush, and our beloved turncoat Barack Obama who wanted that horrible Trans Pacific partnership. Sorry but I am not buying the nonsensical bullshit from Forbes. If you want to believe that crap, that is on you. But this moderate centrist isn't buying it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2015 2:53 PM GMT
    Again, you have nothing specific to say against the Forbes article.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Sep 11, 2015 3:52 PM GMT


    Official Notice
    9/11/2015

    I've accepted that roadbikeRob is beyond hope.

    These two sentences of his, dovetailed together present such a huge contradiction it's almost embarrassing.

    roadbikeRobThe socialism that liberals and democrats alike want for the U.S. is to benefit all the American people, not just the wealthy few like under our current corrupt system and Russia's oligarchy and China's current communist system. I am all for redistributing the wealth using free market methods rather than only political laws.


    He's stepped into the same mentality of fundamentalists of any creeds, and begun repeating his mantras in order to convince himself and maybe others that they are true with total disregard for facts.
    roadbikeRobSupply side, trickle down economics are a disastrous failure along with the even worse abomination,

    roadbikeRob.... as a result of supply side trickle down economics along with the horribly flawed concept of a service sector based economy which does not work.... [/quote]
    roadbikeRobGet rid of the failed supply side trickle down economic policies....


    roadbikeRob It is time to bring back the Bretton Woods gold standard....

    roadbikeRobWe also need to bring back the Bretton Woods Gold Standard which was discarded in August 1971....


    And he doesn't even respond to reason.......
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4097262
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4109612

    Nothing personal.




  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Sep 11, 2015 4:14 PM GMT
    It is only going to become more so over time as technology eliminates millions of more jobs. Even in China, technology is increasingly taking away jobs.




    "America’s growing force of fast-food workers may soon have a challenge on their hands greater than the inability to earn a living wage from full-time work in the industry: Much of the work they are currently doing could be taken over by machines within the coming decade or so."


    http://www.buzzfeed.com/venessawong/robots-are-coming-for-some-fast-food-worker-jobs
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14395

    Sep 12, 2015 12:03 AM GMT
    bobbobbob said

    Official Notice
    9/11/2015

    I've accepted that roadbikeRob is beyond hope.

    These two sentences of his, dovetailed together present such a huge contradiction it's almost embarrassing.

    roadbikeRobThe socialism that liberals and democrats alike want for the U.S. is to benefit all the American people, not just the wealthy few like under our current corrupt system and Russia's oligarchy and China's current communist system. I am all for redistributing the wealth using free market methods rather than only political laws.


    He's stepped into the same mentality of fundamentalists of any creeds, and begun repeating his mantras in order to convince himself and maybe others that they are true with total disregard for facts.
    roadbikeRobSupply side, trickle down economics are a disastrous failure along with the even worse abomination,

    roadbikeRob.... as a result of supply side trickle down economics along with the horribly flawed concept of a service sector based economy which does not work....

    roadbikeRobGet rid of the failed supply side trickle down economic policies....


    roadbikeRob It is time to bring back the Bretton Woods gold standard....

    roadbikeRobWe also need to bring back the Bretton Woods Gold Standard which was discarded in August 1971....


    And he doesn't even respond to reason.......
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4097262
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4109612

    Nothing personal.




    [/quote]What I am saying is the truth. It is you conservatives that being unreasonable when you keep defending the failed economic policies from the Resgan era. You find fault with the democrats and the liberals but what you guys want is more currency manipulation along with more money printing and the continuation of these deep deficits. You guys are obviously blind to reality because it was supply side trickle down economics that has ruined this great country. Both of you must have had paper bags over your heads during the Reagan years to come up with such drivel by defending supply side trickle down economics. Whoever wrote that fictitious nonsense in Forbes is full of shit up to their eyeballs. They have zero credibility.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Sep 12, 2015 12:46 AM GMT

    roadbikeRob said
    What I am saying is the truth. It is you conservatives that being unreasonable when you keep defending the failed economic policies from the Resgan era. You find fault with the democrats and the liberals but what you guys want is more currency manipulation along with more money printing and the continuation of these deep deficits. You guys are obviously blind to reality because it was supply side trickle down economics that has ruined this great country. Both of you must have had paper bags over your heads during the Reagan years to come up with such drivel by defending supply side trickle down economics. (Change the subject to evolution in these 2 next sentences and you'll sound like a psycho fundamentalist) Whoever wrote that fictitious nonsense in Forbes is full of shit up to their eyeballs. They have zero credibility.[/quote]

    I wish you'd show me where I've expressed support for currency manipulation, more money printed, and continuation of deficits. But I'm 100000% sure you can't because I've never said any such things in my life.

    All you've done with what you've written this time is show how right I was with what I said earlier about you falling into a fundamentalist mindset... If we change the nouns from economics to evolution, religion you'd sound like Pat Robertson.

    Try to go back and find anywhere that I've used totally unsubstantiated projections about you that are similar to the ones you composed above that I bolded. I'm not even going to attempt to explain how wrong it is to do that or what it says about people who feel compelled to do it.

    best of luck to you with what you're doing.