-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
We're a nation of takers, not makers...
- Thread starter rbell
- Start date
- Status
The fact is that manufacturing, fishing, farming, and mining have all become more efficient. The sheer number of people are no longer needed to produce the same number of goods, grow the same number of crops, or catch the same amount of fish. Technological advances have increased productivity immensely.
I'm failing to see how an increase in efficiency in these industries is making it harder for states to pay their bills?
Perhaps if the article homed-in on the idea that we have too many government workers earning wages regulating out lives and left the non sequitur jab at manufacturing out of it, I'd more readily receive its message.
ITL, thanks for the angle I haven't thought of. You may be right...I think the premise of the article is correct...but I had not thought of it from your angle.
Those of us who are "limited government" types should do our best to present the best arguments we can for our position.
Farming has become much more efficient for "commodity" crops. Most government subsidies go to international corporerations. Most row crops (veggies) take much hand labor and those jobs are going off shore as well as the manufacturing.
In Washington State several veggie processors have qone out of business since the crack down on migrant labor. Illegal Mexicans are not taking farm jobs from Citizens because citizens don't want to do hard work. The farmers I have talked to pay at least minimum wage. One pays his foreman gets $20/hour.
Most of the new production all over the west coast is wine grapes and are machine harvested.
In Washington State several veggie processors have qone out of business since the crack down on migrant labor. Illegal Mexicans are not taking farm jobs from Citizens because citizens don't want to do hard work. The farmers I have talked to pay at least minimum wage. One pays his foreman gets $20/hour.
Most of the new production all over the west coast is wine grapes and are machine harvested.
It's not about a class of people called "takers". Even the article says:
The article tries to argue "When 23-year-olds aren't willing to take career risks, we have a real problem on our hands", but what "risks" do they expect people to take under these conditions?
The article mentions transportation, but transportation agencies all over have been doing nothing but cutting back, and for some time. (including workers). If they're spending more, it could be things such as management and, the costs of whatever procurements they have to make. Here in NYC, it is known that the transit agency is very "top heavy", even as they cut, cut, cut, and the union has lost most if its power. But whether private, or even in the much criticized govt. sector, it's never the top end, always the bottom that is culpable.
People are claiming "the rich" are always being made into "bad guys", but the advocates of the rich (who are above many of these conditions) do plenty of the same thing in reverse. Slugs, thugs, goons, prunes, and now "takers instead of makers"!:BangHead:
It's not the people's fault. It's a whole bunch of other factors, including all of these industries being sent elsewhere. So govt. unfortunately ends up providing the most stability. Is it some character flaw now for people to gravitate towards that in such situations? Wanting less government and more industry makes sense, but not blaming those who find govt. the only industry left.
The article tries to argue "When 23-year-olds aren't willing to take career risks, we have a real problem on our hands", but what "risks" do they expect people to take under these conditions?
The article mentions transportation, but transportation agencies all over have been doing nothing but cutting back, and for some time. (including workers). If they're spending more, it could be things such as management and, the costs of whatever procurements they have to make. Here in NYC, it is known that the transit agency is very "top heavy", even as they cut, cut, cut, and the union has lost most if its power. But whether private, or even in the much criticized govt. sector, it's never the top end, always the bottom that is culpable.
People are claiming "the rich" are always being made into "bad guys", but the advocates of the rich (who are above many of these conditions) do plenty of the same thing in reverse. Slugs, thugs, goons, prunes, and now "takers instead of makers"!:BangHead:
Last edited by a moderator:
North Carolina Tentmaker
New Member
It is more than just the fact that those jobs are more efficient. Very few jobs actualy generate or create wealth. Those jobs do.
If you are mining, farming, or manufacturing you are generating and creating wealth, if you're not then you are simply passing around wealth generated by others. Giving each other haircuts and shoe shines is not an economy, somebody somewhere has to create something. Government jobs by definition can't create wealth, but they can encourage and support jobs that do.
Robert Snow
New Member
I work in manufacturing; I am a machinist. Too many of our production jobs have been sent to other countries because of cheaper labor. I don't know of any machinist here who has had a significant pay increase in the past five or six years. Most jobs here in the Houston area pay less than $20 per hour today, yet in 1980 $10 to $15 per hour was pretty standard.
To put it in perspective, from 1972, when I started, till 1980, my pay increased over 300%. From 1980 till the present my pay has increased less than 100%. In 1972 my wife didn't work outside the home yet we were able to have a place to stay, have a decent automobile and pay our bills without using every penny we brought home. Now, both me and my wife have to work to just make ends meet.
I understand that businesses have to make a profit, but it seems like the CEO's and stock-holders expect to get everything without compensating the workers with a decent living wage.
To put it in perspective, from 1972, when I started, till 1980, my pay increased over 300%. From 1980 till the present my pay has increased less than 100%. In 1972 my wife didn't work outside the home yet we were able to have a place to stay, have a decent automobile and pay our bills without using every penny we brought home. Now, both me and my wife have to work to just make ends meet.
I understand that businesses have to make a profit, but it seems like the CEO's and stock-holders expect to get everything without compensating the workers with a decent living wage.
Are you union labor? And is the company publically held?
Robert Snow
New Member
No, we are not a union shop. I believe the company is privately owned, but I could be wrong. They pay me to operate metal cutting machines, lathes, mills and drill presses, they don't confide in me much about the corporate structure.
Then your very fortunate these days. I pray it stays that way for because a company like that is rare these days.
I take issue with your point:
Government isn't an "industry." It is necessary...but must be limited, because it derives its power by taking wages from working people, by threat of force.
Thus, we must keep tabs on such an entity--or else it will consume everything we have.
(hmmmm....Sound like a familiar scenario?)
Robert Snow
New Member
I miss the union shops of years gone by. Thanks to Reagan and the republicans the working man is on the decline.
I see what you're saying, but was speaking from the perspective of the job seeker. When those are the only stable jobs left, it is as if govt. has become "the industry". I'm not saying it should be that way, just that it is not the fault of the job seekers themselves.
If we are so effecient, it shouldn't matter that manufacturing jobs are moving offshore at such a breakneck pace while government jobs, and other non productive jobs, grow exponentially.
Carrying ITL's point to it's logical conclusion, it simply means your industry is not efficient enough.
Could it be because many in your industry are overpaid for what they do?
Last edited by a moderator:
There are many reasons why manufacturing jobs are moving off shore. I'd say labor costs are number one, then taxes, then regulations.
No where did I say that it "didn't matter" that government jobs were growing. I did object to the article's attempted linkage of the decrease in manufacturing jobs with state being unable to pay their bills. I don't see the cause and effect. The apparent implication is that people are leaving manufacturing jobs in droves and entering government employment. It's simply a poorly written article.
- Status