We have met the jobs future. . . .
Bookworm on Mar 18 2009 at 9:52 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
. . . and it is in England, where fewer and fewer people work, yet government workers have earnings that exceed the inflation rate. It’s a Ponzi scheme and it can’t last forever. Once all the taxpayers are destroyed, who is going to pay these government workers? And this is precisely what’s happening here, as Thomas Lifson explained, with our own burgeoning government industry, an industry Obama and the Dems are trying to make grow as fast as possible.
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
6 Responses to “We have met the jobs future. . . .”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Is it only me, or did you just define the thinking of a cancer cell?
Not just that, but I am amazed at all the college students today who are in fields that don’t produce or contribute any wealth to society. They are all wanting to be social workers, “communications” majors, dance, gender and womens studies, history, law (sorry, Book), graphics arts, sociology, teachers and music majors, etc.
Some of these might be very worthwhile (e.g., teachers), but they don’t contribute to the “wealth” of a nation or exportable value. Fundamentally, they are service jobs that feed off the wealth creation of others. All the hard sciences, engineering, and manufacturing slots (i.e., jobs that create things of value) are filled by the international students. I am already noticing that all the “brainy” positions in my industry are being filled by Asians.
Combine all this with the fact that the Obamanation is busy dismantling all industries that create things of value, and I am gloomily coming to the conclusion that the future really does belong to countries like India and China. Will Americans ever wake up and realize what they are losing? Do they care?
Dear heaven, did you scan the comments at the Times? Does no one understand the source of the funds that pay public wages?
>> Some of these might be very worthwhile (e.g., teachers), but they don’t contribute to the “wealth” of a nation or exportable value.
Some flavors of socialist control seem more immediately harmful than others, when compared to a market economy.
Take health care. As fubar’d as our current system is, we at least still have Americans making their own choices as best they can, and they show a very wide array of choices, including the fact that the young and healthy often don’t carry health insurance at all. When you put this under a one-size-fits-all socialist health care policy, with top-down control, the effects seem (to me) to be quick and disastrous.
Teachers and education, on the other hand, seem to me to evidence a far slower degradation under socialist policies. This is because all Americans seek to educate their children, and all teachers *must* be paid, one way or another. So the replacement of a market system with a socialist system evidences harm ONLY via the fact that under any socialist/union system, bad teachers stay in place far far longer.
I remember the Catholic system under which I was educated from 2nd-6th grades. Bad teachers disappeared very quickly under their private system, because parents were paying dear dollars and demanded results. When I taught public high school math for seven years, I saw quite a few “worksheet” teachers who preferred to simply sit behind their desks four out of five days per week. I am reasonably sure that not one of them was removed for performance.
But the catastrophic effects of socialized education are far slower than socialized health care. Socialized health care imposes an immediate extra financial burden that causes rapid decay. The extra financial burdens of socialized education aren’t nearly as steep, so you have to instead wait for the effects of institutional incompetence to take the toll instead.
>>I am reasonably sure that not one of them was removed for performance.>>
As a former school board member, I can tell you that getting rid of a teacher in the public school system can be tough. Assuming no major infractions like getting arrested for drunk driving or something similar, it takes about 2-3 years and a willing, able, and persistent principal who knows all the hoops and is willing to jump through them. Otherwise, the resulting lawsuit will make it cheaper to have simply assigned the teacher to an empty room until s/he tenders his/her resignation and/or retires. That’s what New York State does, apparently. Or maybe it was New York City. They actually do that – assign incompetent teachers to rooms where they serve by just sitting all day. No teaching. This is the result of union protection. Private schools and Charters don’t have unions – that’s why they usually do better, for less money – and why the NEA is so adamantly against them.
If that card-check bill gets passed, you can expect this to be the case everywhere. There will be no impetus for negotiations between workers unions – which will be everywhere – and management, because the bill also contains language that will result in Federal arbitrators settling _every_ labor dispute that isn’t resolved in 90 days.
See? Another whole layer of government employees!! If that NAIS bill gets passed(I posted a lousy link on another thread), that too will mean a couple of layers of government workers – inspectors and enforcers.
This is truly the Road to Serfdom and as a fan of historical novels, I can tell you that this is getting eerily similar to the feudalism which permeates much of historical fiction and non-fiction.