For a long time, if manufacturing returned to the U.S. most americans wouldn't be able to afford most of what we buy.

Unless Industry and highly paid Union Jobs come back.

As I was taught, many decades ago: Every dollar spent. Goes around seven times.

No need for unions, if manufacturing returns to the US, because it will require very little manpower as it will all be automated. The workers will be highly paid in the most part because they will have degrees. Which presumably will mean they are not blue collar workers.

The route for the blue collar workers, if they want jobs is to either retrain or go back to school. Not whinge and cause trouble complaining that all the manual jobs have moved abroad.

So true. Blue collar jobs will not be allowed to exist in the USA because of workers compensation insurance companies and the litigious nature of the USA. A worker in a blue collar job might be injured, this must be prevented, BY LAW. That requires the worker to be removed from the hazard (er the work) and be replaced by a machine. Wow, the machine doesn't go on strike, it shows up to work every day, doesn't complain about overtime, doesn't want a raise ....

---

How wonderful. The people acting as one to prevent speech that would incite a riot. How wonderful. America still is great!

---

So true. Blue collar jobs will not be allowed to exist in the USA because of workers compensation insurance companies and the litigious nature of the USA. A worker in a blue collar job might be injured, this must be prevented, BY LAW. That requires the worker to be removed from the hazard (er the work) and be replaced by a machine. Wow, the machine doesn't go on strike, it shows up to work every day, doesn't complain about overtime, doesn't want a raise ....

Yep...

Fast-food CEO says he's investing in machines because the government is making it difficult to afford employees
...
"This is the problem with Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton, and progressives who push very hard to raise the minimum wage," says Puzder. "Does it really help if Sally makes $3 more an hour if Suzie has no job?"

As a result, he and others in the fast-food business are investing big in automation.

"If you're making labor more expensive, and automation less expensive — this is not rocket science," says Puzder.

Despite the financial benefits, automating employee duties isn't an easy process.

First and foremost, the technology has to work every time. For the time being, Puzder doesn't think that it's likely that any machine could take over the more nuanced kitchen work of Carl's Jr. and Hardee's.

But for more rote tasks like grilling a burger or taking an order, technology may be even more precise than human employees.

"They're always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there's never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case," says Puzder of swapping employees for machines.

http://www.businessinsider.com/carls-jr-wants-open-automated-location-2016-3

I also remember a report from the Obama White House that... iirc... 87% of those jobs making $20/hour or less now were gonna go away in just a couple of decades or so.

Even *IF* we are able to educate and retrain everyone whose job gets eliminated, there wouldn't be enough remaining jobs for them. Yes, of course there would be some level of job gain at the higher end, it wouldn't be enough. We are talking about about half of the currently employed workforce.

It just really doesn't matter, in the grand scheme of things, who wins the 2016 election. None of them have the stones to do what must be done to even give us a light at the end of the tunnel.

KWSN - MajorKong wrote:

It just really doesn't matter, in the grand scheme of things, who wins the 2016 election. None of them have the stones to do what must be done to even give us a light at the end of the tunnel.

Yes and no (grin).

I'm 65. So if what I'm about to say doesn't register, it's probably "before your time" (and/or not covered well in the history books). During the Cold War period between the U.S.S.R. & U.S.A., Soviet Premier, Nikita Khrushchev was famous for saying "We will bury you." It was a loose translation of something deeper - but many in the U.S. took it as a nuclear threat. It was actually a statement of his belief that Communism would outlast Capitalism as an economic model.

When the Soviet Union dissolved during the Reagan/Gorbachev years, a lot of people in the U.S. took it as a "Gotcha" - that Capitalism had outlasted Communism (without consideration of the biggest Communist state in the world, China).

Ever since those years, the "power" countries in the world have mixed both "isms" to a point where there's no pure Capitalist or pure Communist country. Still, wherever you go in the world, you'll find whiners and complainers ... people sure that it's the fault of their "leaders" that a "utopia" hasn't been given to them.

The truth? For all it's glory, the human race will never be satisfied with their lot. "Utopia" for one person might be "Hell" for another. And wherever you have dissatisfaction, you'll have unrest.

Brief aside on that. I was once visited by a couple of door-to-door evangelists who asked me, "Sir, will you go to Heaven when you die?" I replied, "Oh, I hope not. In Heaven, everything is done for you. You'd have no wants, no needs, no pain, and nothing to strive for throughout eternity. To find happiness in my existence, I'd need adversity, challenge, and obstacles to overcome. Heaven would be Hell to me."

Their visit was short-lived (grin). In any case, no "ism" in the world will make everyone happy. And no leader can provide a utopia that will make everyone happy. So the fact that no Presidential candidate captures the unanimous support and respect of the electorate is not a big surprise.

The good news (if any) is that this situation is universal. Terrorist groups like ISIS or al Qaeda, even if they conquered the world, would eventually find themselves at odds with the people - who would eventually revolt.

Dare I invoke a little "Star Wars" wisdom, hehehe? Remember what Princess Leia said to the Death Star commander (Grand Moff Tarkin, played by Peter Cushing) in Episode 4 ... "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

So, "leaders" aren't necessary to promote dissatisfaction. The human race is quite capable of finding it on their own - whether it be during the 2016 Presidential election - or in a galaxy far far away.

(whomever you are) wrote:

So, you're actually making a good case for the U.S.A.

Not really. To a Democrat, Republicanism is Hell. To a Republican, the Democrat vision is Hell. The truth is that no political party can achieve Heaven or Hell for everybody. It will always be a mix of both, in varying degrees - regardless of who's in charge.

BTW, I don't think that Democrats have a "lock" on criminality. It's universal, too. Our founding fathers weren't perfect, either - which is why it took so long to end slavery.

KWSN - MajorKong wrote:

It just really doesn't matter, in the grand scheme of things, who wins the 2016 election. None of them have the stones to do what must be done to even give us a light at the end of the tunnel.

Yes and no (grin).

I'm 65. So if what I'm about to say doesn't register, it's probably "before your time" (and/or not covered well in the history books). During the Cold War period between the U.S.S.R. & U.S.A., Soviet Premier, Nikita Khrushchev was famous for saying "We will bury you." It was a loose translation of something deeper - but many in the U.S. took it as a nuclear threat. It was actually a statement of his belief that Communism would outlast Capitalism as an economic model.

When the Soviet Union dissolved during the Reagan/Gorbachev years, a lot of people in the U.S. took it as a "Gotcha" - that Capitalism had outlasted Communism (without consideration of the biggest Communist state in the world, China).

Ever since those years, the "power" countries in the world have mixed both "isms" to a point where there's no pure Capitalist or pure Communist country. Still, wherever you go in the world, you'll find whiners and complainers ... people sure that it's the fault of their "leaders" that a "utopia" hasn't been given to them.

The truth? For all it's glory, the human race will never be satisfied with their lot. "Utopia" for one person might be "Hell" for another. And wherever you have dissatisfaction, you'll have unrest.

Brief aside on that. I was once visited by a couple of door-to-door evangelists who asked me, "Sir, will you go to Heaven when you die?" I replied, "Oh, I hope not. In Heaven, everything is done for you. You'd have no wants, no needs, no pain, and nothing to strive for throughout eternity. To find happiness in my existence, I'd need adversity, challenge, and obstacles to overcome. Heaven would be Hell to me."

Their visit was short-lived (grin). In any case, no "ism" in the world will make everyone happy. And no leader can provide a utopia that will make everyone happy. So the fact that no Presidential candidate captures the unanimous support and respect of the electorate is not a big surprise.

The good news (if any) is that this situation is universal. Terrorist groups like ISIS or al Qaeda, even if they conquered the world, would eventually find themselves at odds with the people - who would eventually revolt.

Dare I invoke a little "Star Wars" wisdom, hehehe? Remember what Princess Leia said to the Death Star commander (Grand Moff Tarkin, played by Peter Cushing) in Episode 4 ... "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

So, "leaders" aren't necessary to promote dissatisfaction. The human race is quite capable of finding it on their own - whether it be during the 2016 Presidential election - or in a galaxy far far away.

Before my time? Hardly.

I remember Khrushchev. Another famous thing he said (upon being shown a freeway interchange in Los Angeles, California during a tour of the USA) was "What a waste!"

I agree with much of the rest of what you said. But a 'utopia' is not possible, ever, for much the reason you said.

But, by 'light at the end of the tunnel', I was not meaning 'a lack of dissatisfaction'... I was meaning 'a continuation of the economy'.

The measures needed for that will be EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR.

In other words, we are boned.

The democrats (most of whom are felons)

And Guy tells lies. It's already been pointed out that you do not have evidence to support this statement, why persist in repeating it? Perhaps you should change your nick to "GuyTheLiar" so posters are given fair waning.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

And I've cited the source which proves most democrats are now felons

Guy I follow your posts with great interest and I missed that one, could you please re-cite.
Thanx in advance

---

No need for unions,

Incorrect.

In the past: Need for National Unions. To fight Evil National Capitalists.

In the future: Need for International Unions. To fight Evil International Capitalists. Same Union, for ALL Workers, in whatever Country.

Yes... It will take time and violence. As in the past.

Truism: Corrupt Unions, fighting Corrupt Capitalists = The True Workers Paradise.

Workers of The World UNITE!!!

How far to the Left are you. Slogans like that make the Democrats very right wing.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch04.htm

Slogans like that make the Democrats very right wing.

They are, Democrats are right wing, Republicans are extremist.

---

Slogans like that make the Democrats very right wing.

They are, Democrats are right wing, Republicans are extremist.

You and a few others know that, but how many on that side of the pond know that.

KWSN - MajorKong wrote:

But, by 'light at the end of the tunnel', I was not meaning 'a lack of dissatisfaction'... I was meaning 'a continuation of the economy'.

The measures needed for that will be EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR.

In other words, we are boned.

We think alike (grin).

No need for unions,

Incorrect.

In the past: Need for National Unions. To fight Evil National Capitalists.

In the future: Need for International Unions. To fight Evil International Capitalists. Same Union, for ALL Workers, in whatever Country.

Yes... It will take time and violence. As in the past.

Truism: Corrupt Unions, fighting Corrupt Capitalists = The True Workers Paradise.

Workers of The World UNITE!!!

How far to the Left are you. Slogans like that make the Democrats very right wing.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch04.htm

WinterKnight...

As I have said -

Secular Ideologues are very Intellectually Shallow. As are their cousins, the Religious Fanatics.

Believing in 'Workers Of The World Unite' (Unions), as a solution to Capitalism. Does not make one a Marxist. Nor a belief that Marxism is a lesser evil to Capitalism.

In Brief: Das Kapital, is an excellent description of 19th century Capitalism, and Present Day International Capitalism.

The proposed 'Solution' - The Communist Manifesto. Is definitively insane, and has led to over 1 billion murdered and enslaved people.

I was just commenting on the Slogan and reminding you to be aware of the reaction of people who only read the headlines.

You, by putting it in bold made it a headline. Headline readers could be excused for thinking you are a Marxist.

And I've cited the source which proves most democrats are now felons these days which gives me the right to repeat that ad nauseam in accordance with the new rules of politics these days. (bobby)

And each time you mention your source I've pointed out it does not say what you claim it says. e.g.

bobby wrote:

Your earlier source was http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jail-survey-nearly-34-felons-register-as-democrats/article/2541412 and said most felons registered as Democrats.

Guy, please stop lying. You've already admitted that you do it to troll, and whatever you may feel about the "rules of politics", trolling is against the rules of these fora (as you should know as a former moderator).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Guy, please stop lying.

I'm not lying.

Well, according to the democrat's (most of whom are felons) definition of lying, I'm not lying.

If the democrats raise their standard for civil discourse, I'll raise mine.

FTFY

You know you are lying and now you're also abdicating personal responsibility for your actions.

Is it an ambition of yours to be known as a liar and a troll?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Guy, please stop lying.

I'm not lying.

Well, according to the democrat's (most of whom are felons) definition of lying, I'm not lying.

If the democrats raise their standard for civil discourse, I'll raise mine.

FTFY

You know you are lying and now you're also abdicating personal responsibility for your actions.

Is it an ambition of yours to be known as a liar and a troll?

Bobby,

Hasn't it been said by mods here to not go around calling other posters by that term 'troll'?

Besides, he is not exactly lying... He is using a technique of rhetoric that can be termed 'demonstrating absurdity by being absurd'. Your constant demand for 'sources' can be trying at times, since you can come up with a source that can be construed to support any statement that you might want to make.

He is just doing that trying to convince you to stop being so... silly...

Guy, please stop lying.

I'm not lying.

Well, according to the democrat's (most of whom are felons) definition of lying, I'm not lying.

If the democrats raise their standard for civil discourse, I'll raise mine.

FTFY

You know you are lying and now you're also abdicating personal responsibility for your actions.

Is it an ambition of yours to be known as a liar and a troll?

Bobby,

Hasn't it been said by mods here to not go around calling other posters by that term 'troll'?

Besides, he is not exactly lying... He is using a technique of rhetoric that can be termed 'demonstrating absurdity by being absurd'. Your constant demand for 'sources' can be trying at times, since you can come up with a source that can be construed to support any statement that you might want to make.

He is just doing that trying to convince you to stop being so... silly...

A "demand for sources" is made in response to statements of fact, it's a very old technique employed by skeptics for millenia, and I like to believe that I have a skeptical mind. It seems to me that some posters here are content to let "statements of opinion" in the form of "statements of fact" go unchallenged. I am generally not among their number. Is it trying to prefix statements of opinion with "IMHO" (or similar)?

The politics board does not have to be a fact free zone, nor am I suggesting it should be an opinion free zone. It might be your view that evidence can be found to support virtually anything, I don't believe this to be true. Though by all means show me I'm wrong (suitably sourced, obviously). Calling my requests for evidence "silly" won't do anything to stop me making such requests in response to "statements of fact". I suspect that if posters took more care to delineate between personal belief (aka opinion) and objective reality (aka facts), attitudes may be less confrontational.

For the record, I did not call Guy a liar or a troll, I asked if he wanted to be known by these terms, there is a difference.

Is Guy a liar, afterall his source does not support his statement, as was pointed out when he first posted it?

Is Guy a troll, afterall he did say that he would "repeat [that most democrats are felons] ad nauseam until it turns into a shouting match and turns worse from there", which appears to me to be the essence of trollish behavior, and not the motive you attribute, unless he was lying there too?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...