Columbus and its attractiveness
Mark Carroll
to come and tell us that American CEOs are fairly unaware of Columbus despite
the fact that we offer a lot of what they're looking for when deciding where
to locate their company's facilities.
Separately, I've recently noticed that Columbus is bidding to host the 2008
World Science Fiction Convention, along with (so far) Chicago and Denver, and
I got to thinking that Columbus is actually quite a good place to hold such a
thing. There's plenty of convention and accommodation space, it's easy to get
to and around, there are plenty of places to eat, etc. but (frankly) Columbus
doesn't have a bustling tourism trade or a whole lot of unique stuff so you
don't pay a lot or wish you were doing something else. (Of course, for
Worldcon, maybe a bigger question is that of who has the best organising
committee.) If I were going somewhere like Chicago for a few days instead then
I think I'd end up paying more and I'd want to spend that few days doing
something other than attending a science fiction convention because Chicago
has a few interesting things that I can't see in Columbus, like a decent
aquarium (though we do have the manatees here!) and a whole Great Lake on the
doorstep.
So, I wondered, what do people think of this convention bid? Does it make any
sense? Will outsiders think it makes sense? Do people disagree with me about
Columbus? In general, I think it fairly good and underrated, but also quite
unremarkable.
-- Mark
Matt Curtin
> So, I wondered, what do people think of this convention bid? Does it
> make any sense? Will outsiders think it makes sense? Do people
> disagree with me about Columbus? In general, I think it fairly good
> and underrated, but also quite unremarkable.
The convention bid makes sense. Getting the story out about why it
makes sense in Columbus is going to be important.
I went to the CTC lunchtime presentation and heard from Ty Marsh, the
president of the Columbus Chamber of Commerce. In a nutshell, CEOs
across country by and large have no idea what to think about Columbus;
their images are neither positive nor negative. Many don't know where
it is. Someone even thought Ohio State was in Cleveland.
The "solution" is to "get the message out" but got no good answer to
my questions about just what that message is, just what I as the head
of a Columbus-based company who lectures all over the country can do
to that end.
That the results of this survey show that there has been no progress
at all in CEOs' perceptions about Columbus in eight years is telling.
There were very few questions from the audience and for the most part
they dealt with things like taxation, working with suburban chambers,
and other crap that really doesn't much help anyone "do the deal."
Ohio has plenty of issues on its own, as Cato's recent ranking of
Governor Taft as dead last on fiscal policy shows.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa537/governorsreportcardtable.html. But
that's not an issue for the Columbus Chamber of Commerce to deal with.
We're all worried about everything that the Chamber can't really do
much about and not doing anything that paints a picture of where we're
headed.
I await this marketing plan that we heard about but I am not presently
optimistic about the Chamber's ability to do any more than scratch its
head and ask the same questions that Paul Gauguin asked a long time
ago.
--
Matt Curtin, author of Brute Force: Cracking the Data Encryption Standard
Founder of Interhack Corporation +1 614 545 4225 http://web.interhack.com/
Forensic Computing | Information Assurance | Managed Information Technology
Mark Carroll
Matt Curtin <cmcu...@interhack.net> wrote:
>The convention bid makes sense. Getting the story out about why it
>makes sense in Columbus is going to be important.
Ah, good, it's not just me then. (-:
>I went to the CTC lunchtime presentation and heard from Ty Marsh, the
>president of the Columbus Chamber of Commerce. In a nutshell, CEOs
>across country by and large have no idea what to think about Columbus;
>their images are neither positive nor negative. Many don't know where
>it is. Someone even thought Ohio State was in Cleveland.
Similarly, before I moved to Ohio, I had heard of Cleveland and even
Cincinnati but not of Columbus.
From the point of view of recruitment, some of our employees relocate
from out of state, and one thing I have to try to make a point of
saying is that Columbus really isn't so bad a place to live: it's not
like, say, asking people to move to Decatur or Scranton or whatever.
(Apologies for having probably just insulted a few readers!) At the
end of 2003 http://www.columbus.org/ was a good site to point them at,
but now it's rather more about the Chamber of Commerce.
(snip)
>That the results of this survey show that there has been no progress
>at all in CEOs' perceptions about Columbus in eight years is telling.
Absolutely. One thing that amazes me about Columbus is how fast it has
changed, both in the past decade and the one before. Then again, being
British, I get to put up with a lot of stereotypes here of Britain
where, as far as I can tell, a number of them describe 1940s Britain!
Columbus seems to have a similar problem of image lagging behind
reality. One would hope that business location decisions are based on
things like comprehensive national rankings calculated from various
recent statistics, but that may be expecting too much.
>There were very few questions from the audience and for the most part
>they dealt with things like taxation, working with suburban chambers,
>and other crap that really doesn't much help anyone "do the deal."
Right, yes.
(snip)
>I await this marketing plan that we heard about but I am not presently
>optimistic about the Chamber's ability to do any more than scratch its
>head and ask the same questions that Paul Gauguin asked a long time
>ago.
One answer seems to be that they want a healthier, more vibrant
economy. There are interesting political aspects, perhaps: AFAICT
various moral stances seem correlated with various economic things.
ISTR that the State was focusing on some particular industries:
manufacturing, biotech, whatever, which might be part of where they
think they are going. But, I'm not sure if trying to decide in advance
what industries you want to be strong in is putting the cart before
the horse or not. My guess is: somewhat, but not completely.
Frankly, for me part of the problem with Columbus is that, although it
scores fairly well in various respects, it's remarkable in rather few,
so I wonder if it's consistently rated fairly well but not well
enough. When I look at the more successful areas I see things like,
for instance, liberal technology transfer from universities to
businesses, liberal social climates, etc., but I've not studied things
carefully enough to really draw conclusions.
By the way, inspired by your bus-taking, I'm trying to work out if a
commute-by-bus might sometimes be practical for me. (-: It's a pity
that COTA's website isn't a lot better, though: I'm researching routes
and schedules despite it rather than with its help. (I am generally
impressed with intra-city public transport, and with libraries, in
Columbus.)
-- Mark
Matt Curtin
> It's a pity that COTA's website isn't a lot better, though: I'm
> researching routes and schedules despite it rather than with its
> help. (I am generally impressed with intra-city public transport,
> and with libraries, in Columbus.)
Their Web site is an abomination. I have a whole collection paper
schedules of routes I commonly take in order to figure out how to get
around. It's actually not difficult, especially once you figure out
where routes overlap and if you miss one, know that you can grab a
different bus (e.g., #5 will run down high street between downtown and
Fifth Avenue just as #2 will) and all will be well.
Do let us know how your public transport travails go.
Steven Huwig
> Ohio has plenty of issues on its own, as Cato's recent ranking of
> Governor Taft as dead last on fiscal policy shows.
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa537/governorsreportcardtable.html.
Hardly a balanced viewpoint there...some might consider scoring last on
that particular list to be a badge of honor. Not that I am defending
Governor Taft or anything. :-)
"Governors who have cut taxes and spending the most receive the highest
grades. Those who have increased spending and taxes the most receive the
lowest grades." -- http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3691
"Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence
and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our
gross national product ... if we should judge America by that - counts
air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our
highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails
for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and
the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and
the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight
riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and
the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to
our children. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the
health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of
their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength
of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity
of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage;
neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our
devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that
which makes life worthwhile." -- Robert F. Kennedy
Mark Carroll
Matt Curtin <cmcu...@interhack.net> wrote:
(snip)
>Their Web site is an abomination. I have a whole collection paper
>schedules of routes I commonly take in order to figure out how to get
That makes sense. Just now I was working with various route printouts
and a Gnumeric spreadsheet.
(snip)
>Do let us know how your public transport travails go.
At first blush, it looks like, if it really is practical to get off
one bus that stops at some time and get on another that stops at that
same minute, that I can switch from car to bus and, with monthly
passes, pay around the same as I would for commuting by car, and take
over twice as long doing it, even covering some of the ground with an
express service. I could probably get it down to just under twice as
long if I used a bicycle to cover the two ends of the trip, which I
could perhaps do agreeably in some months of the year. (All DATA and
COTA buses make bicycle storage easy, I hope?) Not that I actually
/have/ a bicycle at the moment ...
It'd probably be more enticing if the time in the car was downtime and
the time in the bus would be useful work time, but even if I could be
sure of being able to sit down and tap away on my (not-light) computer
on each bus, my time in the car is the main time I use for catching up
on the news.
It's annoying to see all this freight running through the area by
rail, but to not have any decent high-speed rail service for
passengers. Still, in good weather, the bicycle+bus option could work
if I don't have much to carry those days, and if I can pay less than
it seems I have to (I've made enquiries to find out if that might be
so).
-- Mark
Neb Okla
"Steven Huwig" <Steven...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Steven.Huwig-05A4...@news-server-fe-02.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <86k6nmk...@rowlf.interhack.net>,
> Matt Curtin <cmcu...@interhack.net> wrote:
>
>> Ohio has plenty of issues on its own, as Cato's recent ranking of
>> Governor Taft as dead last on fiscal policy shows.
>> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa537/governorsreportcardtable.html.
>
> Hardly a balanced viewpoint there...some might consider scoring last on
> that particular list to be a badge of honor. Not that I am defending
> Governor Taft or anything. :-)
>
> "Governors who have cut taxes and spending the most receive the highest
> grades. Those who have increased spending and taxes the most receive the
> lowest grades." -- http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3691
I've encountered a surprising number of people who claim to simply *love*
their amount of taxation and are gleeful about the services they recieve.
They even go far as to call it a bargain.
Amusingly, the same people complain about the road conditions (a lot of
potholes lately), and when projects like the Gravina Bridge are mentioned,
they simply state that such abuses are "a bad example" (for their views,
yes - but it underscores the reasoning behind my view perfectly).
The proposed bridge would be built with federal highway dollars and connect
Ketchikan, Alaska (pop. 8,000) with Gravina Island (pop. 50) with a bridge
that is nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and taller than the
Brooklyn Bridge. SOURCE:
http://www.taxpayer.net/Transportation/gravinabridge.htm
The Cato Institute's ranking does focus on taxation, the idea behind that
focus is that we should get a better value for our tax dollars as opposed to
eliminating taxation ourtright. Giving the government less money (by
cutting taxes) is a way to express concern about drunken-sailor spending
practices and force frugality on the system.
Of course, what the tax rate should be depends greatly on what you think the
government's job is. Unfortunately, many Americans see the government as
some kind of nanny that should be there to kiss every boo-boo. I'd rather
take care of my own boo-boos and leave it to the feds to defend the nation,
ensure the public safety against criminals, and to settle property disputes.
I don't think anyone should consider Taft's behavior as any kind of badge of
honor. He's broken his promises and managed to irritate pretty much
everyone in the state. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/16/132751/872
I've seen an astounding number of people supporting Ken Blackwell - after
hearing him speak, he seems to be most closely aligned with the views of
2004 Constitution Party presidental candidate Michael Peroutka.
I think one of the biggest problems is that we don't track our spending very
well. The more libertarian among us fret about the unseen government waste
while the statists fret about evil corporations running key services.
Personally I see room for some overlap. With more transparency and
accountability on the part of government agencies I'm fine with that if
they're doing a good job. I think people should be more accepting of
private solutions as well (FedEx and UPS outperform the USPS on a daily
basis for example).
Steven Huwig
"Neb Okla" <n_o...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Steven Huwig" <Steven...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Steven.Huwig-05A4...@news-server-fe-02.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <86k6nmk...@rowlf.interhack.net>,
> > Matt Curtin <cmcu...@interhack.net> wrote:
> Amusingly, the same people complain about the road conditions (a lot of
> potholes lately),
It is every Ohioan's God-given rate to complain about potholes. And
unless some enterprising company has figured out how to change the
weather, I am going to say that the private sector has nothing new to
contribute in this particular regard.
> and when projects like the Gravina Bridge are mentioned,
> they simply state that such abuses are "a bad example" (for their views,
> yes - but it underscores the reasoning behind my view perfectly).
>
> The proposed bridge would be built with federal highway dollars and connect
> Ketchikan, Alaska (pop. 8,000) with Gravina Island (pop. 50) with a bridge
> that is nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and taller than the
> Brooklyn Bridge. SOURCE:
> http://www.taxpayer.net/Transportation/gravinabridge.htm
I am not really sure what the length and the height of a proposed bridge
have to do with government spending. At least choose the proper metric:
$315 million. In inflation-adjusted dollars, that's cheaper than both
the Golden Gate and the Brooklyn Bridge. It is also chump change
compared to other misguided government spending.
Let's talk about rural electrification, the transcontinental railroad,
interstate highways, the Internet, or the postal service as "good
examples," rather than picking on a pork timber-industry project in a
state with disproportionate representation in the federal legislature.
>
> The Cato Institute's ranking does focus on taxation, the idea behind that
> focus is that we should get a better value for our tax dollars as opposed to
> eliminating taxation ourtright. Giving the government less money (by
> cutting taxes) is a way to express concern about drunken-sailor spending
> practices and force frugality on the system.
"Value" is not what they are measuring. They write, "Governors who have
cut taxes and spending the most receive the highest grades. Those who
have increased spending and taxes the most receive the lowest grades."
Nowhere does "value" enter into that equation, which is precisely what
the RFK quote I posted was intended to communicate.
As far as I can tell, the CATO Institute does not take into account any
other factors for their rankings. Any tax cut is good and any spending
increase is bad, regardless of anything else. The "policy analysis" at
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa537.pdf is particularly long on opinion
and short on fact, at least when compared to any given paper from
Brookings or the Ford Foundation.
>
> Of course, what the tax rate should be depends greatly on what you think the
> government's job is. Unfortunately, many Americans see the government as
> some kind of nanny that should be there to kiss every boo-boo.
I don't think that this is true at all. Unless you think Taft wants to
kiss your boo-boos...
The tax rate depends on representatives' perceptions of the political
cost of cutting current and future expenditures vs. the political cost
of tax hikes. There is no ideological component outside of pleasing the
ideologues in a constituency.
> I'd rather take care of my own boo-boos and leave it to the feds to
> defend the nation, ensure the public safety against criminals, and
> to settle property disputes.
You don't think that what you call a "nanny" might ensure the public
safety against criminals? The best defense is a good offense?
> I don't think anyone should consider Taft's behavior as any kind of badge of
> honor. He's broken his promises and managed to irritate pretty much
> everyone in the state. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/16/132751/872
What does he care? He's term-limited. The "check/balance" of popular
opinion for re-election has no effect on him. Term limits and balanced
budgets -- such double-edged swords they are. At least without term
limits, we can rely on the political greed of a person to ensure that at
least *some* significant portion of the citizenry is kept happy.
> I've seen an astounding number of people supporting Ken Blackwell - after
> hearing him speak, he seems to be most closely aligned with the views of
> 2004 Constitution Party presidental candidate Michael Peroutka.
A Blackwell-Coleman race for governor would indeed be a fascinating
thing in which to participate. :-)
> I think one of the biggest problems is that we don't track our spending very
> well. The more libertarian among us fret about the unseen government waste
> while the statists fret about evil corporations running key services.
Maybe the libertarians among us should be fretting about the obvious
government waste instead of the unseen waste? I am bemused when I see
people harping about proposed $315,000,000 bridges, that can't hurt
anybody while still on paper, while not mentioning the $162,000,000,000
elephant that is already stampeding in the room.
> I think people should be more accepting of private solutions as well
> (FedEx and UPS outperform the USPS on a daily basis for example).
I can't seem to find FedEx's first-class letter rates on the website...
Seriously, I am a pragmatist. I am glad we do not have government cell
phones or government broadcast television stations. However, there are a
lot of areas where the potential for public good is greater than the
potential for profitmaking, and it is precisely in these areas that I am
glad for a country not run according to CATO's standards.
To go slightly back on-topic... what are some cities that were in
similar situations to Columbus's, and what did they do to succeed in PR?
How does Columbus compare to e.g. Austin, Texas?
Matt Curtin
> However, there are a lot of areas where the potential for public
> good is greater than the potential for profitmaking, and it is
> precisely in these areas that I am glad for a country not run
> according to CATO's standards.
If you accept that poverty is a public ill, then "profitmaking" is a
public good.
> To go slightly back on-topic... what are some cities that were in
> similar situations to Columbus's, and what did they do to succeed in
> PR? How does Columbus compare to e.g. Austin, Texas?
A very good question, that. The big problem with making comparisons
to Austin is that they had several industries tanking at once and they
knew they were going to be in for a world of hurting if they didn't do
something about it. Due in large part to the great diversity in the
Columbus economy, we just don't have the same threat here. There
isn't nearly enough pain to get up and do something about it for a lot
of people ... it's just kind of a minor discomfort that they complain
to their neighbors about.
Steven Huwig
Matt Curtin <cmcu...@interhack.net> wrote:
> Steven Huwig <Steven...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > However, there are a lot of areas where the potential for public
> > good is greater than the potential for profitmaking, and it is
> > precisely in these areas that I am glad for a country not run
> > according to CATO's standards.
>
> If you accept that poverty is a public ill, then "profitmaking" is a
> public good.
>
If you accept that malnutrition is unhealthy, then "donuts" are healthy.
Neb Okla
If you accept that dying of starvation is unhealthy, then eating donuts is a
healthy activity.
Chock full o' glucose. Glucose is brain food!
Matt Curtin
> If you accept that malnutrition is unhealthy, then "donuts" are
> healthy.
Because donuts will give you all of the nutrition that you need?
Sorry, you'll need to take your non sequitur elsewhere.
Steven Huwig
Matt Curtin <cmcu...@interhack.net> wrote:
> Steven Huwig <Steven...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > > If you accept that poverty is a public ill, then "profitmaking" is a
> > > public good.
>
> > If you accept that malnutrition is unhealthy, then "donuts" are
> > healthy.
>
> Because donuts will give you all of the nutrition that you need?
>
> Sorry, you'll need to take your non sequitur elsewhere.
Because "profitmaking" will solve all poverty?
Sorry, you'll need to take your selective quoting elsewhere.
-- Steve
Matt Curtin
> Because "profitmaking" will solve all poverty?
Profit is requisite for solving poverty. If each of us profits
sufficiently then each of us will be free from poverty.
Steven Huwig
In article <868y351...@rowlf.interhack.net>,
Steven Huwig <Steven...@gmail.com> wrote:
> However, there are a lot of areas where the potential for public
> good is greater than the potential for profitmaking, and it is
> precisely in these areas that I am glad for a country not run
> according to CATO's standards.
Matt Curtin <cmcu...@interhack.net> wrote:
> If you accept that poverty is a public ill, then "profitmaking" is a
> public good.
Steven Huwig <Steven...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you accept that malnutrition is unhealthy, then "donuts" are healthy.
Matt Curtin <cmcu...@interhack.net> wrote:
> Because donuts will give you all of the nutrition that you need?
Steven Huwig <Steven...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Because "profitmaking" will solve all poverty?
Matt Curtin <cmcu...@interhack.net> wrote:
> Profit is requisite for solving poverty. If each of us profits
> sufficiently then each of us will be free from poverty.
Donuts are requisite for solving malnutrition. If each of us eats
sufficient quantities of donuts then each of us will be free from
malnutrition.
The analogy is entirely apt. You have dogmatically reduced a problem
with many potential causes and remedies (poverty) to a single solution
which has been suboptimal throughout history. I can't find the
capitalist societies that have no poverty, and I can't find a donut-only
diet without nutritional deficiencies.
It is amusing that this was all in response to my statement to the
effect that sometimes the immediate social benefits of publicly funded
initiatives outweigh the possible economic benefits of using a market
consisting of only private enterprises. Somehow the non-sequitur of
poverty came up, and away we went.
-- Steve
Matt Curtin
> Donuts are requisite for solving malnutrition. If each of us eats
> sufficient quantities of donuts then each of us will be free from
> malnutrition.
This is simply not true. Donuts will not have the needed nutritional
content in them in any consumable quantity.
Poverty is the absence of money. Money is created with profit.
The reason why even pure capitalist societies are not free from
poverty is simply because not everyone will succeed in making profit.
Taking some risks will lead to some losses and those who do it badly
will fail to profit over time. Even so, an open capitalist market is
not a zero-sum game.
Look at poverty in economies where other (no doubt "higher")
priorities drive the system. On one hand, you've got an inhuman
existence (e.g., North Korea, Saddam-era Iraq). On the other, you've
got a system "without poverty" that's unsustainable and will collapse
in on itself (e.g., the Soviet Union) which then tends to move a large
number of people toward an inhuman existence. Contrast that with what
we consider poverty in the United States. Not everyone makes good
decisions when left on their own but a rising tide certainly lifts all
ships.
Whether it was your point or not, the sentiment you expressed seems to
support into a certain school of thought that, as an article of faith,
accepts that money is somehow the root of all evil and that it must be
balanced with benevolent public(ly funded) institutions. Piffle.
Neb Okla
"Matt Curtin" <cmcu...@interhack.net> wrote in message
news:86mzrkx...@rowlf.interhack.net...
>
> will fail to profit over time. Even so, an open capitalist market is
> not a zero-sum game.
Agreed. Most capitalists seem to believe (based on observing their actions)
that it is beneficial to contribute to charity.
In the persuit of profit, companies seek to drive expenses as low as
possible by increasing efficiency. Technology allows for these increases in
efficiency and as a result, we see astounding scenarios - for example stores
such as Steve & Barry's where down-filled winter coats are sold for $7.98
new - and with a 1 year warranty.
In turn, this means that charity groups can purchase new clothing (a luxury
much of the world cannot afford) for our nations poor. Wal-Mart and Aldi
are other examples of chains that through capitalism raise the standard of
living for all.
As a pleasant side effect, funds are channeled to people who are in such
desparate situations that they are willing to work for very low wages. In
time, this arrangement can lead away from dependence on farming to diverse
fields that support various aspects of industrialization.
If only the system were not burdened by (often socialist) union backed
trade-barriers and other such meddlesome interference. It's amazing how
wonderfully capitalism redistributes wealth based on those who truly need it
most on a global scale. The only thing more amazing to me is the amount of
resistance the advocates of "redistribution of wealth" have to the
capitalist system that serves their ultimate purpose more justly than their
own.
Thanks to capitalism, a hungry person could spend a few hours collecting
aluminum cans laying up and down Chittenden, dump them in a Golden Goat, and
buy a nutritious and filling meal at Wendy's or McDonalds.
Barring a chemical dependency problem or debilitating medical or psychiatric
problems I think the present system allows for motivated indivuduals to
achieve great things with effort and patience.
I'd really enjoy a reality show where a left, right, libertarian, and
statist are all stripped of their belongings and are prohibited from using
their identities or contacting any friends for assistance. Simultaneously,
they must arrange for all of the necessities for survival - but the secret
goal is to find out who can most quickly re-join society (keep food on the
table, maintain a residence, land a job, etc.).
Kind of a self-improvement version of "Survivor".
I'd watch it.
Steven Huwig
"Neb Okla" <n_o...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If only the system were not burdened by (often socialist) union backed
> trade-barriers and other such meddlesome interference. It's amazing how
> wonderfully capitalism redistributes wealth based on those who truly need it
> most on a global scale. The only thing more amazing to me is the amount of
> resistance the advocates of "redistribution of wealth" have to the
> capitalist system that serves their ultimate purpose more justly than their
> own.
The data does not support your conclusions.
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/wealth_charts.html
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/indexinq.htm
> Thanks to capitalism, a hungry person could spend a few hours collecting
> aluminum cans laying up and down Chittenden, dump them in a Golden Goat, and
> buy a nutritious and filling meal at Wendy's or McDonalds.
So what you are saying is, "Thanks to capitalism, I can work steadily
for $25/hr while someone who lives a mile away can work inconsistently
for $0.50/hr."
Never mind that their kid is still hungry and goes to a terrible school,
they've got a debilitating disease, they live next to a drug dealer,
they have no steady work, no means of transportation. They've got six
Chicken McNuggets and some french fries.
Heck, thanks to slavery, people could spend a day working in the cotton
fields and then come sleep in a shack whose owner probably wouldn't
shoot them.
>
> Barring a chemical dependency problem or debilitating medical or psychiatric
> problems I think the present system allows for motivated indivuduals to
> achieve great things with effort and patience.
http://www.nrchmi.samhsa.gov/facts/facts_question_2.asp
> I'd really enjoy a reality show where a left, right, libertarian, and
> statist are all stripped of their belongings and are prohibited from using
> their identities or contacting any friends for assistance. Simultaneously,
> they must arrange for all of the necessities for survival - but the secret
> goal is to find out who can most quickly re-join society (keep food on the
> table, maintain a residence, land a job, etc.).
>
> Kind of a self-improvement version of "Survivor".
>
> I'd watch it.
Reality shows aren't real, just unscripted. I'm not sure how one would
reconcile being followed around by a camera crew and picking one's self
up by one's bootstraps.
-- Steve
Matt Curtin
>> If only the system were not burdened by (often socialist) union
>> backed trade-barriers and other such meddlesome interference. It's
>> amazing how wonderfully capitalism redistributes wealth based on
>> those who truly need it most on a global scale.
>
> The data does not support your conclusions.
The obvious issue here is that he's talking about "those who truly
need it most on a global scale" and the data you cite refer only to
the U.S.
I also cannot find the study itself online. Nor can I find any of
Wolff's data since 1998. The U.S. Census Bureau has released data on
household wealth that show all-time highs of median household wealth.
Unfortunately, like the Wolff study you cite, I cannot find detailed
breakdowns of data.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/000393.html
Steven Huwig
Matt Curtin <cmcu...@interhack.net> wrote:
> Steven Huwig <Steven...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> If only the system were not burdened by (often socialist) union
> >> backed trade-barriers and other such meddlesome interference. It's
> >> amazing how wonderfully capitalism redistributes wealth based on
> >> those who truly need it most on a global scale.
> >
> > The data does not support your conclusions.
> >
> > http://www.faireconomy.org/research/wealth_charts.html
> >
> > http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/indexinq.htm
>
> The obvious issue here is that he's talking about "those who truly
> need it most on a global scale" and the data you cite refer only to
> the U.S.
>
The obvious issue here is that you characterize the data cited without
looking at it.
Read the second link, particularly the two "Key Documents" displayed
prominently at the top of the page, entitled "The Least Developed
Countries Report 2002" and "Globalization and Development." A choice
quote from the first document (p. 61):
"It is significant that only three LDCs managed to reduce the incidence
of poverty with respect to the $1 [a day] poverty line by more than 20
per cent during the 1980s and 1990s... In the majority of the LDCs,
therefore, poverty is not only generalized, it is persistent."
Also the direct response to the claim of effective redistribution (p.
115-117):
"The chart shows that poverty is increasing unambiguously in those
economies that have adopted the most open trade regime and in those that
have continued with the most closed trade regime. But in between those
extremes, there is a tendency for poverty to be declining in those
countries that have liberalized their trade regime to a lesser extent,
and for poverty to be increasing in those countries that have
liberalized their trade regime more.
It would not be correct to conclude from this evidence that trade
liberalization is causing increased poverty in least developed
countries... [explanation of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy] ... But
the chart does not support the equally stark alternative view that trade
liberalization reduces poverty. Indeed, what it shows is that rapid and
deep trade liberalization has been associated, at least in the short
run, with a rising incidence of poverty."
The problems with ideologically motivated claims are that they rarely
have a surfeit of supporting evidence, and that they often have a few
inconvenient, nagging facts sitting around to contradict them.
> The U.S. Census Bureau has released data on
> household wealth that show all-time highs of median household wealth.
Let's deconstruct this factoid with a simple abstract example.
The median of { 1,1,1,1,3,4,5,6,9,10,12,127,312,1023,2012 } is 6.
Forgive me if I am underwhelmed when the state of affairs becomes
{ 1,1,1,1,1,2,6,7,9,13,60,131,781,2123,48120 } and the median is at an
all-time high of 7.
-- Steve
Matt Curtin
> the chart does not support the equally stark alternative view that
> trade liberalization reduces poverty. Indeed, what it shows is that
> rapid and deep trade liberalization has been associated, at least in
> the short run, with a rising incidence of poverty."
As with any multivariable problem, it's really hard to identify some
specific issue. It's also true that the places where there is such
persistent poverty (even in the face of trade liberalization), there
is not a complementary system for private property rights, nor is
there openness in administration.
Trade increases wealth, and a dictatorship that trades internationally
will not be as rich as a society where there is not only open trade
between the state and other entities abroad but trade among
individuals and private organizations domestically.
> Let's deconstruct this factoid with a simple abstract example.
You'll observe that I asked for more data specifically to deal with
this issue. What exactly you were attempting to show, I know not.
Is anyone seriously arguing that "even distribution of wealth" is an
objective? The standard of living for the poorest people today is
better than it was 100 years ago, which was better than 100 years
before that, I daresay. You're never going to increase the standard
of living "above the poverty line" for people who refuse to
participate in society (and who says that society can tell them that
they must participate?) unless society refuses to build wealth. Kiss
your dreams of healthcare, scientific exploration, education, etc.,
goodbye if society is to quit trading among its members.
Neb Okla
> In article <d58mtv$nd$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> "Neb Okla" <n_o...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If only the system were not burdened by (often socialist) union backed
>> trade-barriers and other such meddlesome interference. It's amazing how
>> wonderfully capitalism redistributes wealth based on those who truly need
>> it
>> most on a global scale. The only thing more amazing to me is the amount
>> of
>> resistance the advocates of "redistribution of wealth" have to the
>> capitalist system that serves their ultimate purpose more justly than
>> their
>> own.
>
> The data does not support your conclusions.
>
> http://www.faireconomy.org/research/wealth_charts.html
>
> http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/indexinq.htm
The data in those links does not refute my "conclusions" either, so I'm
guessing your intention was do demonstrate that your information comes
solely from leftist websites?
I think the most erronious part of the average leftists world view is that
the wealthy (factory owners, CEO's, etc.) have big "Money Bins" containing
all of their money which periodically swim in (See Photo:
http://www.lambdapsiphi.com/daft/daft/images/dtopen5.jpg).
The reality is that the wealthy people tend to hemmorage money. Someone
built that lavish house - and it wasn't other millionaires. Factories need
infrastructure and have population concentrations that give rise to other
small businesses that serve the factory workers (kind of how my brother owes
his pizza shop job to the nearby Wal-Mart that draws in customers).
Short of corruption (which nobody supports) and high taxation and other
legal interference (which in the US mostly the political left support -
though the right has been showing an affinity for interference in this realm
as well) most of this money trickles down to workers in the community.
I'm not sure what you think the outcome would be - but when you tow the line
of American labor organizers and demand that we stop outsourcing, buy
American, and impose US labor standards on empoverished nations the
alternative tends to be to move the jobs to people who are better off in the
grand scheme of things.
>> Thanks to capitalism, a hungry person could spend a few hours collecting
>> aluminum cans laying up and down Chittenden, dump them in a Golden Goat,
>> and
>> buy a nutritious and filling meal at Wendy's or McDonalds.
>
> So what you are saying is, "Thanks to capitalism, I can work steadily
> for $25/hr while someone who lives a mile away can work inconsistently
> for $0.50/hr."
I think you're suggesting that you should both be making a steady $12.75 an
hour. You with your existing job, and some guy living on the street
spending all of that money on liquor.
The fact is that in American compensation is generally based on a
meritocracy - if you show you are dependable and have a valuable skill set -
you get paid more.
My assertion was that people with a little ambition can keep their bellies
full by picking up a little garbage here and there - something that isn't
true in much of the world. And yeah, we owe it to the efficiencies promoted
by capitalism.
> Never mind that their kid is still hungry and goes to a terrible school,
> they've got a debilitating disease, they live next to a drug dealer,
> they have no steady work, no means of transportation. They've got six
> Chicken McNuggets and some french fries.
Hey, I support vouchers. Let the parents spend the money allocated to their
kid on whatever school they want. No reason everyone shouldn't have the
same luxury our congresspeople and representatives have (they can't yank
funding, but they find ways to afford private schools).
Another amusing fact is that there are a lot of people in this city who have
hungry kids who go to terrible schools, have debilitating diseases, live
next to a drug dealer, have no means of transportation, and no steady work,
but they're still way better off than most of the people in the world simply
because they were lucky enough to be born here.
As for the Chicken Nuggets and Fries, when I walk out of McDonalds $2 ligher
I end up with a double cheeseburger and a salad. And who's to say that the
kids can't pick up cans too. My grandfather's family of 10 lived off of the
money from his paper route when he was twelve.
> Heck, thanks to slavery, people could spend a day working in the cotton
> fields and then come sleep in a shack whose owner probably wouldn't
> shoot them.
You say that like slavery has been relagated to the history books. It still
happens, just not here. And the fact is, it wouldn't have happened here if
the Europeans weren't willing to be middle men to the Africans that rounded
up their POW's and sold them. But that sort of thing happens when a market
springs up.
Supply tends to find a way of satisfying demand. Cases in point, the
current US drug war and Alcohol Prohibition in the 30's.
And keep in mind, the demand for slave cotton was fueled by the European
textile industry.
>> Barring a chemical dependency problem or debilitating medical or
>> psychiatric
>> problems I think the present system allows for motivated indivuduals to
>> achieve great things with effort and patience.
>
> http://www.nrchmi.samhsa.gov/facts/facts_question_2.asp
So is that link supposed to refute something I said? If so, it shouldn't
contain these lines (as it does):
"66% report either substance use and/or mental health problems"
"46% report chronic health conditions such as high blood pressure,
diabetes, or cancer"
I mentioned "chemical dependency", "debilitating medical", and "psychiatric
problems" because I already know what the leading causes of homelessness
are. One reason for this is that many of my friends work closely with the
Columbus and Cincinnati homeless populations. In fact, the officiant for my
upcoming wedding is heavily involved in helping Columbus's homeless, so
naturally this is an issue I've discussed at great length with experts.
I've also talked to my fair share of homeless people about it. One guy in
my neighborhood makes enough (as you put it) "work inconsistently" to rent a
locker at the public storage and pay for bus fare around town. Considering
that they guy is a raging alcoholic, it's not a bad set-up. He seems to be
happy with it, and the business owners get their odd jobs done on the cheap.
Undoubtedly the janitorial unions would be livid if they ever found out.
Personally, I think there's plenty of garbage in this city to go around.
>> I'd really enjoy a reality show where a left, right, libertarian, and
>> statist are all stripped of their belongings and are prohibited from
>> using
>> their identities or contacting any friends for assistance.
>> Simultaneously,
>> they must arrange for all of the necessities for survival - but the
>> secret
>> goal is to find out who can most quickly re-join society (keep food on
>> the
>> table, maintain a residence, land a job, etc.).
>>
>> Kind of a self-improvement version of "Survivor".
>>
>> I'd watch it.
>
> Reality shows aren't real, just unscripted. I'm not sure how one would
> reconcile being followed around by a camera crew and picking one's self
> up by one's bootstraps.
Well, many of them are scripted - and you can really control the story line
with clever editing.
Who says you have to follow the guy around with a camera crew? Put a hidden
camera and a wire on each contestant and use UAV's for other video.
My favorite reality show is COPS (real, unscripted, though edited). I think
that having the cameras there probably has a side effect of making the
criminals more rowdy but the cops more civil in their enforcement efforts.
Steven Huwig
"Neb Okla" <n_o...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Steven Huwig" <Steven...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Steven.Huwig-11CF...@news-rdr-02.ohiordc.rr.com...
> > The data does not support your conclusions.
> >
> > http://www.faireconomy.org/research/wealth_charts.html
> >
> > http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/indexinq.htm
>
> The data in those links does not refute my "conclusions" either
>
Yes it does. Global poverty is on the rise, despite twenty-five years of
Thatcherism. This is a direct refutation of your claim that free trade
effectively distributes wealth to "those who need it most."
> I think the most erronious part of the average leftists world view is that
> the wealthy (factory owners, CEO's, etc.) have big "Money Bins" containing
> all of their money which periodically swim in
I think the most erroneous part of the average Randroid's world view is
that the poor are poor because they are lazy. See? This ideological
baiting is stupid.
> Short of corruption (which nobody supports) and high taxation and other
> legal interference (which in the US mostly the political left support -
> though the right has been showing an affinity for interference in this realm
> as well) most of this money trickles down to workers in the community.
If the distribution of wealth were static, you would have a point.
Unfortunately the distribution of wealth is not static; the poor are
getting poorer in the U.S. and in most of the world. Therefore most of
the money is not "trickling down," however appropriately evocative that
phrase is.
And you are right, this is due to government interference -- on behalf
of capital. In the U.S., capital is generally permitted to accumulate
while labor is prohibited from collective bargaining.
> I'm not sure what you think the outcome would be - but when you tow the line
> of American labor organizers and demand that we stop outsourcing, buy
> American, and impose US labor standards on empoverished nations the
> alternative tends to be to move the jobs to people who are better off in the
> grand scheme of things.
I don't see a way out of the impending squeeze of the American lower and
middle classes. I do know that it is going to be painful for just about
everyone, and the last time it happened we barely averted revolution.
> I think you're suggesting that you should both be making a steady $12.75 an
> hour.
I think you can tilt at straw men all you like. The issue is not
inequitable distribution of wealth, skills, etc. The issue is the
current *transfer* and incremental *concentration* of wealth in fewer
and fewer hands. It's not the overall situation, but the historic trend,
which is troublesome.
> The fact is that in American compensation is generally based on a
> meritocracy - if you show you are dependable and have a valuable skill set -
> you get paid more.
I won't even dignify this with a response besides :-D and a perfunctory
request for some sort of proof of this assertion.
I know plenty of well-paid people who are undependable and have no
valuable skills, and plenty of underemployed skilled people. Exactly how
loose is the word "generally" in your claim?
> My assertion was that people with a little ambition can keep their bellies
> full by picking up a little garbage here and there - something that isn't
> true in much of the world. And yeah, we owe it to the efficiencies promoted
> by capitalism.
If more than a few people actually took your "collect discarded
recyclables for food money" plan to heart, it would no longer be
effective.
> No reason everyone shouldn't have the
> same luxury our congresspeople and representatives have.
Does that go for publicly funded health insurance as well?
> Another amusing fact is that there are a lot of people in this city who have
> hungry kids who go to terrible schools, have debilitating diseases, live
> next to a drug dealer, have no means of transportation, and no steady work,
> but they're still way better off than most of the people in the world simply
> because they were lucky enough to be born here.
I'm not sure why you consider that amusing. Perhaps it's some kind of
Libertarian Party humor which is inaccessible to others?
> As for the Chicken Nuggets and Fries, when I walk out of McDonalds $2 ligher
> I end up with a double cheeseburger and a salad. And who's to say that the
> kids can't pick up cans too. My grandfather's family of 10 lived off of the
> money from his paper route when he was twelve.
My grandfather's family lived off whatever the guards gave the prisoners
in the work camps. That must mean it's an OK way to live.
> > Heck, thanks to slavery, people could spend a day working in the cotton
> > fields and then come sleep in a shack whose owner probably wouldn't
> > shoot them.
>
> You say that like slavery has been relagated to the history books. It still
> happens, just not here.
Sure it happens "here." How do you think we get all those low, low
prices?
> And keep in mind, the demand for slave cotton was fueled by the European
> textile industry.
It's amazing that you can go from a globalist "free trade" perspective
to these kinds of points without some measure of cognitive dissonance.
If we do not link human rights and labor conditions to trade
negotiations, we are just purchasing more slave cotton.
> I've also talked to my fair share of homeless people about it. One guy in
> my neighborhood makes enough (as you put it) "work inconsistently" to rent a
> locker at the public storage and pay for bus fare around town. Considering
> that they guy is a raging alcoholic, it's not a bad set-up. He seems to be
> happy with it, and the business owners get their odd jobs done on the cheap.
> Undoubtedly the janitorial unions would be livid if they ever found out.
>
Sure, if one homeless guy is happy that must mean that all of the
homeless and working poor are happy. Who needs collective bargaining?
-- Steve
Neb Okla
> In article <d5jl50$od$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> "Neb Okla" <n_o...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steven Huwig" <Steven...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Steven.Huwig-11CF...@news-rdr-02.ohiordc.rr.com...
>
>> > The data does not support your conclusions.
>> >
>> > http://www.faireconomy.org/research/wealth_charts.html
>> >
>> > http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/indexinq.htm
>>
>> The data in those links does not refute my "conclusions" either
>>
>
> Yes it does. Global poverty is on the rise, despite twenty-five years of
> Thatcherism. This is a direct refutation of your claim that free trade
> effectively distributes wealth to "those who need it most."
Do you think it is a coincidence that Singapore and Taiwan (nations that
tend toward free trade) have some of the lowest poverty rates in the world?
For the record, I don't consider arrangements like NAFTA free trade - and
you shouldn't either. There are still tariffs and government subsidies
screwing things up.
I tend to subscribe to the notion that "the parties in the market should be
free to sell and buy at any price at which they can find a partner to the
transaction and that anybody should be free to produce, sell, and buy
anything that may be produced or sold at all." (Hayek) When governments
become middle men, they screw up relative value assessments.
There may be people who need money from logging work more than US and
Canadian citizens, but as long as our loggers are fighting over it, the
people who need those jobs most are losing out.
>> I think the most erronious part of the average leftists world view is
>> that
>> the wealthy (factory owners, CEO's, etc.) have big "Money Bins"
>> containing
>> all of their money which periodically swim in
>
> I think the most erroneous part of the average Randroid's world view is
> that the poor are poor because they are lazy. See? This ideological
> baiting is stupid.
Actually, I'm not a Randroid. My assertion was that the poor are poor
because they have substance abuse, mental, and health problems - and when
you tried to assert that I was wrong in this regard I used your own evidence
to prove my point. Rather than admit this fact, you snip that part and go
back to setting up the straw man that I just don't understand why people are
poor.
I'm amused that none of your solutions to the scourge of free trade involve
addressing any of these issues. Instead (I see from reading ahead) you seem
to think that organized labor will solve these problems?
>> Short of corruption (which nobody supports) and high taxation and other
>> legal interference (which in the US mostly the political left support -
>> though the right has been showing an affinity for interference in this
>> realm
>> as well) most of this money trickles down to workers in the community.
>
> If the distribution of wealth were static, you would have a point.
> Unfortunately the distribution of wealth is not static; the poor are
> getting poorer in the U.S. and in most of the world. Therefore most of
> the money is not "trickling down," however appropriately evocative that
> phrase is.
If this is true, then where do you think the money is going? The US is
generating more wealth than ever before - but you say it's not going to "the
poor" - so clearly I should be able to see Bill Gates' pile of money from
here.
I'd expect to see "the poor getting poorer" in a situation where people were
transcending the barrier between poor and middle class. As the standard of
living has increased for lower classes fewer people are considered poor and
since the "cream" of the poorer classes has moved up, the average income of
those remaining is obviously lower.
So not only are the benefits trickling down, but the increases in efficiency
(you know, what this thread is all about) have afforded people a much higher
standard of living - just check out these stats:
http://techcentralstation.com/071504B.html
> And you are right, this is due to government interference -- on behalf
> of capital. In the U.S., capital is generally permitted to accumulate
> while labor is prohibited from collective bargaining.
I'm against corporate welfare and industry subsidies. Still, I don't see
where you think capital is accumulating. All of the wealthy people I know
invest their funds - so all of that accumulated wealth is actually making
new companies, products, technologies, and jobs possible.
If a business man loans a million dollars to a company so they can improve
their organization, I think that benefits society more than if the same
businessman simply handed a dollar to the million poorest Americans. The
latter is simply a dead-end for the process of growing wealth, so in my view
the former approach is preferable.
> I don't see a way out of the impending squeeze of the American lower and
> middle classes. I do know that it is going to be painful for just about
> everyone, and the last time it happened we barely averted revolution.
Well, I guess at some point they're going to have to stop buying spinner
wheels for their Lexus' and big screen TV's.
I've heard chicken littles talking about bloody revolution to quell the
massive inequeties in the US class system before. The only problem is that
the ones who are threatening to rise up don't like guns, and they ones they
want to overthrow do - so I think it'd be a pretty short revolution.
>> I think you're suggesting that you should both be making a steady $12.75
>> an
>> hour.
>
> I think you can tilt at straw men all you like. The issue is not
> inequitable distribution of wealth, skills, etc. The issue is the
> current *transfer* and incremental *concentration* of wealth in fewer
> and fewer hands. It's not the overall situation, but the historic trend,
> which is troublesome.
I think you've lost me here. How is the historic trend troublesome. Every
generation of my family (and the families of all I know) are better off than
the generation before them.
This "concentration" of wealth you keep talking about sure sounds like a
money bin to me - so where are the piles of money?
>> The fact is that in American compensation is generally based on a
>> meritocracy - if you show you are dependable and have a valuable skill
>> set -
>> you get paid more.
>
> I won't even dignify this with a response besides :-D and a perfunctory
> request for some sort of proof of this assertion.
Ok, how's this. Garbage men are very important - yet they tend to be paid
very little. People like you might think that corporate CEO's are
unimportant - yet they tend to be generously compensated. This is because
any CEO can get rid of garbage - heck, we're all garbage men in our own
homes. But very few people are good CEO's in their own homes - let alone in
the workforce at large. So CEO's must know how to do something that garbage
men don't (otherwise the garbage men would become CEO's) and it is this
skill that is deemed more valuable than hauling garbage to the landfill.
> I know plenty of well-paid people who are undependable and have no
> valuable skills, and plenty of underemployed skilled people. Exactly how
> loose is the word "generally" in your claim?
Obviously there is insufficient demand for the skills your underemployed
people have. And obviously you must be overlooking some skill that the
undependable "unskilled" people have such that their incompetence is worth
it to the company.
It's not impossible that these people you know are truly inept, but
companies that retain inept people don't tend to last very long, so this
injustice will tend to correct itself.
>> My assertion was that people with a little ambition can keep their
>> bellies
>> full by picking up a little garbage here and there - something that isn't
>> true in much of the world. And yeah, we owe it to the efficiencies
>> promoted
>> by capitalism.
>
> If more than a few people actually took your "collect discarded
> recyclables for food money" plan to heart, it would no longer be
> effective.
That is merely one example of a service that a hard working individual could
provide. There are other things, such as odd jobs, landscaping, and
cleaning. All can be bartered for food, rent, etc.
Last I checked we weren't about to run out of work for people to do. I
wouldn't mind if the landlord traded apartment space for some decent
concrete work from the homeless guys who live over by the RR tracks - my
sidewalks are falling apart.
>> No reason everyone shouldn't have the
>> same luxury our congresspeople and representatives have.
>
> Does that go for publicly funded health insurance as well?
A preferable way to achieve equality on that front is to take the perk away
from our legislators.
Since you asked, I think we should find a way to give people adequate
preventative medicine. I think Medicaid was supposed to help the poor
afford basic healthcare and clearly it isn't working too well.
One big problem with healthcare in America is that people think their
insurance should pay for everything. The fact is, catastrophic health
insurance coverage is very affordable. But people want it to pay for every
possible medical need.
Auto insurance would be astoundingly high as well if we expected it to pay
for oil changes and other routine vehicle maintenance. It seems that health
insurance shouldn't cover stuff that you know you're going to need.
>> Another amusing fact is that there are a lot of people in this city who
>> have
>> hungry kids who go to terrible schools, have debilitating diseases, live
>> next to a drug dealer, have no means of transportation, and no steady
>> work,
>> but they're still way better off than most of the people in the world
>> simply
>> because they were lucky enough to be born here.
>
> I'm not sure why you consider that amusing. Perhaps it's some kind of
> Libertarian Party humor which is inaccessible to others?
It's amusing in the sense that you seem to overlook that even the poorest
Americans have it really good compared to the middle classes in other
countries.
A friend of mine from Tanzania grew up in a UN refugee camp. He was
absolutly delighted to be living in a poor neighborhood in Columbus because
it was so much better than what he had known his whole life.
Most of the people I know who gripe about this stuff are spoiled little rich
kids. The art-student kids of professionals who feel guilty for their
trappings and insist on pretending to be in solidarity with the workers of
the world.
Here's an example (Video 2min 48sec):
http://bureaucrash.com/uploads/crash-o-vision/crashcancun/maya.wmv
>> As for the Chicken Nuggets and Fries, when I walk out of McDonalds $2
>> ligher
>> I end up with a double cheeseburger and a salad. And who's to say that
>> the
>> kids can't pick up cans too. My grandfather's family of 10 lived off of
>> the
>> money from his paper route when he was twelve.
>
> My grandfather's family lived off whatever the guards gave the prisoners
> in the work camps. That must mean it's an OK way to live.
Which work camps were those? I don't see how having a paper route and an
unemployed father is tantamount to a work camp. Either way, it looks like
your family found some way to survive and you've managed to do pretty well
for yourself to be educated and economically fortunate enough to find your
way here.
I'll go out on a limb here, but betting it wasn't socialism that made it
possible for someone with relatives in a prison camp to be able to engage in
idle chatter in a newsgroup just a few short decades later.
>> > Heck, thanks to slavery, people could spend a day working in the cotton
>> > fields and then come sleep in a shack whose owner probably wouldn't
>> > shoot them.
>>
>> You say that like slavery has been relagated to the history books. It
>> still
>> happens, just not here.
>
> Sure it happens "here." How do you think we get all those low, low
> prices?
Efficiency. Aldi doesn't sell cheaper food by paying it's employees less or
treating them worse - in fact, Aldi pays their help more than Kroger or
Giant Eagle.
>> And keep in mind, the demand for slave cotton was fueled by the European
>> textile industry.
>
> It's amazing that you can go from a globalist "free trade" perspective
> to these kinds of points without some measure of cognitive dissonance.
> If we do not link human rights and labor conditions to trade
> negotiations, we are just purchasing more slave cotton.
People who willingly work in factories aren't slaves. If working on a farm
or being a prostitute (the alternatives) were more fun and just as reliable,
then I'm sure they'd do that instead. Not only are people making that
choice overseas, but they made the same choice in Europe, and later in the
US.
People were complaining about P-Diddy's clothing line that used sweatshop
labor. Upon further investigation it was found that his factories were
paying 90 cents an hour when others in the area were paying just 50 cents an
hour. Sounds to me that the locals were looking at their options and opting
for higher pay.
>> I've also talked to my fair share of homeless people about it. One guy
>> in
>> my neighborhood makes enough (as you put it) "work inconsistently" to
>> rent a
>> locker at the public storage and pay for bus fare around town.
>> Considering
>> that they guy is a raging alcoholic, it's not a bad set-up. He seems to
>> be
>> happy with it, and the business owners get their odd jobs done on the
>> cheap.
>> Undoubtedly the janitorial unions would be livid if they ever found out.
>
> Sure, if one homeless guy is happy that must mean that all of the
> homeless and working poor are happy. Who needs collective bargaining?
Most of the homeless guys I've talked to are only happy when they're drunk.
Collective bargaining isn't going to get them where they want to be.
Steven Huwig
"Neb Okla" <n_o...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'll go out on a limb here, but betting it wasn't socialism that made it
> possible for someone with relatives in a prison camp to be able to engage in
> idle chatter in a newsgroup just a few short decades later.
>
It was government-funded public education, government-sponsored college
scholarship and grants, and a steelworker's union that helped make that
possible.
That looks like a form of "socialism" to me.
-- Steve
Neb Okla
The public education was largely funded with local property taxes which were
paid via some form of capitalist endeavor. The college grants were funded
by taxing a lot of people who had never been to college so that you could.
And as for the steelworker's union, they've managed to destroy their
industry by putting "jobs" ahead of "efficiency" and as a result, pricing
themselves out of the global market for steel.
Steven Huwig
"Neb Okla" <n_o...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Steven Huwig" <Steven...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Steven.Huwig-2950...@news-rdr-01.ohiordc.rr.com...
> > In article <d5kb0l$c7r$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> > "Neb Okla" <n_o...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'll go out on a limb here, but betting it wasn't socialism that made it
> >> possible for someone with relatives in a prison camp to be able to engage
> >> in
> >> idle chatter in a newsgroup just a few short decades later.
> >>
> >
> > It was government-funded public education, government-sponsored college
> > scholarship and grants, and a steelworker's union that helped make that
> > possible.
> >
> > That looks like a form of "socialism" to me.
>
>
> The public education was largely funded with local property taxes which were
> paid via some form of capitalist endeavor.
Irrelevant. It's still a redistribution of wealth to society's (and my)
advantage.
> The college grants were funded
> by taxing a lot of people who had never been to college so that you could.
It wasn't my education, it was my parents' that was critical to my
privileged status. Still a redistribution of wealth to society's (and
my) advantage.
> And as for the steelworker's union, they've managed to destroy their
> industry by putting "jobs" ahead of "efficiency" and as a result, pricing
> themselves out of the global market for steel.
Red herring. Has nothing to do with their positive historic role in my
current idle chatter.
I'm not even a socialist, but your ideologically based assertion that
"socialism" didn't help make our current conversation possible is
asinine.
-- Steve