What are other countries doing that the U.S. should be doing?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter GRB 080319B
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
137 replies · 21K views
@OP:

Trying to be more like the US.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ryumast3r said:
Here's one thing I liked that being in China temporarily reminded me of:

Using people who were on basically social security/welfare checks for hard labor. Give them a choice of jobs - such as cleaning a street, or building a dam (think Franklin Roosevelt work projects), or whatever, and if they do the job, give them the check. If they are disabled to where they can't walk around, give them a desk job organizing files or whatever (there's plenty of those in government), etc.

Of course, the benefits wouldn't be that great, but you know, with thousands - if not millions - of people who are on unemployment and welfare, it would be nice to give them something to do in their spare time, it would stop the argument of "they're just lazy and looking for a handout" and it would be a way to either create wealth, or aid businesses in creating wealth by providing better roads, or better traffic lights or more parking lots, whatever.

Just a thought. (Of course, this wouldn't really help or hurt our debt situation since it would use the money they're already getting)

Shall I mention we need illegal immigrants to harvest fruit an veggies - even though 15+Million people are unemployed?
 
Ryumast3r said:
Here's one thing I liked that being in China temporarily reminded me of:

Using people who were on basically social security/welfare checks for hard labor. Give them a choice of jobs - such as cleaning a street, or building a dam (think Franklin Roosevelt work projects), or whatever, and if they do the job, give them the check. If they are disabled to where they can't walk around, give them a desk job organizing files or whatever (there's plenty of those in government), etc.

Of course, the benefits wouldn't be that great, but you know, with thousands - if not millions - of people who are on unemployment and welfare, it would be nice to give them something to do in their spare time, it would stop the argument of "they're just lazy and looking for a handout" and it would be a way to either create wealth, or aid businesses in creating wealth by providing better roads, or better traffic lights or more parking lots, whatever.

Just a thought. (Of course, this wouldn't really help or hurt our debt situation since it would use the money they're already getting)

One reply: AFGE

That's why that system won't work in the US.
 
mege said:
One reply: AFGE

That's why that system won't work in the US.

It's already worked at one time in the United States' relatively recent history. If there's something we did that screwed it up, then I think the thing that screwed it up needs to be looked at, as opposed to just saying it won't work.
 
AFGE - a Union of workers.. A socialist union ? Not like any of the others.
 
Nor do they understand what satire is...while I love Colbert, his satire is humorous satire, unlike Swift's (which was never meant to be funny).
 
Interesting article in http://online.wsj.com/home-page" . Perhaps history is the best teacher?:

In 1939, before the U.S. Entered the war, about 15% of the work force was unemployed. The war eliminated unemployment by moving 11% of workers into the military, where they were indentured at low pay with little ability to purchase consumer goods. Another 5% were directly employed by the government as military support personnel.

As the military swelled, the civilian work force declined to 53.9 million in 1945 from 55.2 million in 1939. A shrinking civilian work force and surge in government demand created wage inflation of about 5% per year. Higher wages, plus about 20% more hours worked, generated a 65% increase in real (inflation adjusted) national disposable income between 1939 and 1945. But, remarkably, total consumer spending did not rise to match these higher incomes. During the 1941-45 war years, over 22% of disposable income was saved.

During World War II, there was no investment in civilian infrastructure and the government placed severe restrictions on consumption. That meant significant portions of the massive government spending went toward saving and private debt repayment. Thrift restored personal balance sheets, ultimately setting the stage for the postwar boom.

Americans' wartime savings over 1941-45 were $142 billion, about $1.3 trillion in 2005 dollars. These funds went to pay down consumer credit, buy War Bonds, and bulk up savings accounts. During the war, outstanding consumer credit fell to $5.7 billion from $7.2 billion, a 44% reduction in constant dollars.

Consider the ratio of household debt to disposable income over the decades from 1919 to 2010. Data (from the Federal Reserve Flow of Funds, the Bureau of Economic Analysis and other historical records) show that the debt ratio started a sharp upswing in 1920-22 with the 1920s housing boom and the introduction of consumer financing by auto makers and producers of home appliances, rising to 41% in 1929 from 16% in 1919.

Today, households carry a much greater relative debt burden than they did in 1929, largely due to a 25-year mortgage binge. Between 1980 and 2007, disposable income grew at 5.9% per year while household indebtedness grew at 8.7% per year – a clearly unsustainable situation. As in 1939, this hangover of debt blocks new rounds of consumption and dulls the impact of fiscal and monetary stimuli.


- Rumelt, Richard P., World War II Stimulus and the Postwar Boom, The Wall Street Journal, Volume No. 25, July 30-31, 2011.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Economic growth? USA and other advanced capitalist countries need de-growth! The environment can't sustain the present use of resources and the emission of poluent gases, and counting on new technology to resolve the problem is wishful thinking.
 
Tosh5457 said:
Economic growth? USA and other advanced capitalist countries need de-growth! The environment can't sustain the present use of resources and the emission of poluent gases, and counting on new technology to resolve the problem is wishful thinking.

What exactly is de-growth? Should we give up on research - please clarify?
 
WhoWee said:
What exactly is de-growth? Should we give up on research - please clarify?

I think he means less consumption... at least that's what I feel the US should be doing.
 
falc39 said:
I think he means less consumption... at least that's what I feel the US should be doing.

I believe the US should be energy independent - this will require a clear and focused domestic energy policy.
 
Tosh5457 said:
Economic growth? USA and other advanced capitalist countries need de-growth! The environment can't sustain the present use of resources and the emission of poluent gases, and counting on new technology to resolve the problem is wishful thinking.

Are you suggesting "de-growth" of developed nations solely for environmental purposes? Or moving away from consumption-based economies which many of these developed nations have become reliant on? I don't think the developing world will constrict their growth in the near future, so are you suggesting economic sacrifice on the part of the developed nations while the developing nations catch up, leveling the global economic playing field?
 
Tosh5457 said:
Economic growth? USA and other advanced capitalist countries need de-growth! The environment can't sustain the present use of resources and the emission of poluent gases,
In the USA yes it can.
and counting on new technology to resolve the problem is wishful thinking.
No its not. Happy?
 
I think "de-growth" is a misstatement. Organizations, beginning with our government, must cut the fat. That's not "de-growth." That's improving efficiency, which can be done while growing.

If by growth you mean increasing net profits, then trimming the fat and growth can co-exist. If by growth you mean getting fatter at the top, then I think that's not a good use of the "growth."
 
DoggerDan said:
I think "de-growth" is a misstatement. Organizations, beginning with our government, must cut the fat. That's not "de-growth." That's improving efficiency, which can be done while growing.

If by growth you mean increasing net profits, then trimming the fat and growth can co-exist. If by growth you mean getting fatter at the top, then I think that's not a good use of the "growth."

I think Tosh5457 would like to shut down all industry - perhaps we'll receive a clarification?
 
Mech_Engineer said:
I like Germany's utilization of tax exemptions to promote manufacturing and international exportation. Germany is a manufacturing and export powerhouse specifically because of their tax benefits for exporters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Germany#Exemptions_2

I agree that employing those measures in the US may be beneficial to its economy, and recently heard an interesting program on the German economy. I believe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karsten_Voigt" , former Coordinator of German-American Cooperation in the German Foreign Office, speaks on Germany's industry and incentives that have made the German economy more robust and resilient to the economic problems that are plaguing most other developed nations (not de-industrializing seemed to help).

http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp110817the_age_of_outrage"

The interview with Karsten Voigt begins around minute 16:45.
 
Last edited by a moderator: