Republicans and others who wish to impugn President Barack Obama and blame him for everything claim that he is responsible for loss of American jobs, especially manufacturing jobs. We see pictures of shuttered factories and impoverished areas in "Rust Belt" cities, and hear much about the rate of unemployment.
The peak year for employment in American manufacturing was 1979. Jobs declined continually since then—up until 2009, when they actually began to increase--and this turnaround point was, of course, during Obama's presidency.
Not that Obama gets all the credit for any increase, any more than he deserves the blame for 30 years of decline.
But let's look at some facts. The current number manufacturing jobs is quite a bit below its all-time peak; but, on the other hand, the value of American manufacturing has increased.
It's not simply a story of outsourcing of American jobs to China, Mexico, and other countries where labor is cheaper (although I have tended to feel that the American worker has priced himself out of the world labor market). Greater efficiency—automation, use of industrial robots, and so forth—has meant that the production of American factories can be achieved with fewer workers. So, if you want to, blame the robots for declining unemployment in American manufacturing.
But this means that American ingenuity has permitted goods to be produced with less labor—and thus lower labor cost, which of course is important in world competitiveness.
So, the situation of American manufacturing is much more salubrious than some people would have us believe.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Too Many Children!
Last night ABC (TV) News NightLine profiled the Bates family, presumably on the occasion of this family--all 21 of them!!--visiting New York City (evidently at someone else's expense).
This family has gotten publicity before, for their 19 children--and the mother says she hopes she doesn't have to stop there! She is 45 and has had a couple of miscarriages. You'd think her baby-making machinery would be pretty worn out by now.
I think it's wrong for people to have large families, even quite a few fewer than 19 (see my August 5, 2012 posting, "Even the US Must Control Birth Rates"); so it truly upsets me when someone has that many children and thinks it's a good thing.
Mr. Bates says, "We're going to have as many children as the good Lord gives us." I have news for you, Mr. Bates: It's not "the good Lord" who gives you the children, it's you boinking your wife.
Well, these people--who live in "the hills of East Tennessee"--are, as the TV segment described them, "ultra-conservative Baptists." It wouldn't do any good for me to argue with them or tell them what I think. From my point of view they're a different species. And if they knew I was gay, they'd run the other way, sure that I was the Devil incarnate.
Maybe ironically, for people who evidently are pretty fond of procreation, they're puritanical regarding sex. They swim dressed in jeans. One of the older boys, upon seeing people sunbathing in Central Park, said "They forgot most of their clothes."
The mother home-schools her kids, too. (To keep them, I'm sure, from being exposed to ideas that they don't agree with.) I haven't got facts on this, but I'd bet a lot of home-schooled children have some difficulty getting into college.
If I had a time machine and could send this family somewhere in an instant, with the push of a button, I'd send them where they belong--back in Old Testament times.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
This family has gotten publicity before, for their 19 children--and the mother says she hopes she doesn't have to stop there! She is 45 and has had a couple of miscarriages. You'd think her baby-making machinery would be pretty worn out by now.
I think it's wrong for people to have large families, even quite a few fewer than 19 (see my August 5, 2012 posting, "Even the US Must Control Birth Rates"); so it truly upsets me when someone has that many children and thinks it's a good thing.
Mr. Bates says, "We're going to have as many children as the good Lord gives us." I have news for you, Mr. Bates: It's not "the good Lord" who gives you the children, it's you boinking your wife.
Well, these people--who live in "the hills of East Tennessee"--are, as the TV segment described them, "ultra-conservative Baptists." It wouldn't do any good for me to argue with them or tell them what I think. From my point of view they're a different species. And if they knew I was gay, they'd run the other way, sure that I was the Devil incarnate.
Maybe ironically, for people who evidently are pretty fond of procreation, they're puritanical regarding sex. They swim dressed in jeans. One of the older boys, upon seeing people sunbathing in Central Park, said "They forgot most of their clothes."
The mother home-schools her kids, too. (To keep them, I'm sure, from being exposed to ideas that they don't agree with.) I haven't got facts on this, but I'd bet a lot of home-schooled children have some difficulty getting into college.
If I had a time machine and could send this family somewhere in an instant, with the push of a button, I'd send them where they belong--back in Old Testament times.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Why You May Not Need an SUV
Many people are switching to more economical vehicles, giving up their SUV for a car, or perhaps a large car for a smaller car.
Besides high gasoline prices prompting some buyers to think about the fuel economy of the vehicle they're going to buy, two things are going on here.
First, people who feel they need a four-wheel drive vehicle--probably for driving in snow and ice more than through mud or other off-the-road conditions, since studies have shown that few SUV buyers actually ever take their vehicles off-road--realize that they have options other than an SUV, such as four-wheel drive car models from Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Volvo, BMW, VW, Porsche, Acura, Infiniti, Lexus, Mitsubishi, Mazda, Toyota, Honda, Ford, Cadillac, Lincoln, and Subaru (these are not all expensive makes/models!).
Second, small cars have become more appealing. At one time small cars were cheap and were perceived as cheap. Now, small cars can be had with nice appointments like comfortable seats and attractive styling in and out, and as great a choice of options as more expensive makes and models. And, after many unfortunate attempts by the American car manufacturers to produce small cars—"unfortunate" for a variety of reasons, including not taking small cars seriously or the mistaken idea that they could take a larger car and just shrink it--small cars from American manufacturers have gotten much better, and are now decent or even quite good in many of the real "car" qualities like ride, performance, and handling (steering, braking, cornering).
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Besides high gasoline prices prompting some buyers to think about the fuel economy of the vehicle they're going to buy, two things are going on here.
First, people who feel they need a four-wheel drive vehicle--probably for driving in snow and ice more than through mud or other off-the-road conditions, since studies have shown that few SUV buyers actually ever take their vehicles off-road--realize that they have options other than an SUV, such as four-wheel drive car models from Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Volvo, BMW, VW, Porsche, Acura, Infiniti, Lexus, Mitsubishi, Mazda, Toyota, Honda, Ford, Cadillac, Lincoln, and Subaru (these are not all expensive makes/models!).
Second, small cars have become more appealing. At one time small cars were cheap and were perceived as cheap. Now, small cars can be had with nice appointments like comfortable seats and attractive styling in and out, and as great a choice of options as more expensive makes and models. And, after many unfortunate attempts by the American car manufacturers to produce small cars—"unfortunate" for a variety of reasons, including not taking small cars seriously or the mistaken idea that they could take a larger car and just shrink it--small cars from American manufacturers have gotten much better, and are now decent or even quite good in many of the real "car" qualities like ride, performance, and handling (steering, braking, cornering).
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Monday, August 6, 2012
African-Americans and Gay People: Have They Got a Lot in Common?
Recently I posted a comment on Huffington Post in which I said that African-American people should be more sympathetic or empathetic with gay people than they are since they are both minorities who have been discriminated against.
There was a reply to my comment in which the writer denied that the two groups should be compared. I have thought of a few reasons why maybe that person is right.
1. It was never illegal to be African-American.
2. It is not illegal for two African-Americans to marry one another nor for African-American couples to adopt children.
3. African-Americans are not told, from the pulpit, that they are sinners, simply because of who they are, or that they are going to hell because they are African-American.
4. No one has claimed that natural disasters such as floods and tornadoes are the result of God punishing America for tolerating African-Americans.
5. African-Americans may have their own bars and so forth, but those bars don't get raided by the police.
Yes, all those things have applied to gay people. And where discrimination in hiring and housing on the basis of race is illegal everywhere, gay people don't have that protection under federal law, so they may be legally discriminated against in some areas.
On the other hand, African-Americans do get called names (as gay people get called faggot) and sometimes are beaten up or even killed for who they are.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
There was a reply to my comment in which the writer denied that the two groups should be compared. I have thought of a few reasons why maybe that person is right.
1. It was never illegal to be African-American.
2. It is not illegal for two African-Americans to marry one another nor for African-American couples to adopt children.
3. African-Americans are not told, from the pulpit, that they are sinners, simply because of who they are, or that they are going to hell because they are African-American.
4. No one has claimed that natural disasters such as floods and tornadoes are the result of God punishing America for tolerating African-Americans.
5. African-Americans may have their own bars and so forth, but those bars don't get raided by the police.
Yes, all those things have applied to gay people. And where discrimination in hiring and housing on the basis of race is illegal everywhere, gay people don't have that protection under federal law, so they may be legally discriminated against in some areas.
On the other hand, African-Americans do get called names (as gay people get called faggot) and sometimes are beaten up or even killed for who they are.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Even the US Must Control Birth Rates
A fair number of people may be aware that the world is becoming overpopulated; but probably a majority of Americans believe that overpopulation is not a problem in our country. After all, the US, particularly in the West, has vast tracts of empty land.
But it is not true. Many of the consequences of population growth affect America, and additional people added to the US population affect world population problems. And even in the Southwest of the US, where there's been "desert" that seems available for development, a shortage of water is going to be a problem. (Los Angeles, basically a desert climate, has been raping the water supply from even hundreds of miles away, for decades now.)
But to discuss all this more methodically:
First, more people means less farmland to feed the world's people. Farmland has been being sold off for "development" for decades now. Some of the best farm land in the world continues to be turned into housing subdivisions and shopping malls. This means problems with runoff and disappearing habitat for wildlife. (Some people surely don't care about this latter but I feel we share this planet with many other species, both plant and animal. It's not only a matter of sentiment to feel that they deserve to survive but we all need a healthy planet that maintains its biodiversity.)
Second, more people means more demand for energy (and one American consumes more energy than a citizen of any other country). This means more mining for coal, more drilling for oil and building pipelines, more fracking to produce natural gas—all of which tends to be harmful to the environment.
Third, more people means more garbage. Plain and simple. The Pacific Ocean has a huge floating island of waste, mainly plastics, contributed largely by America and imperiling ocean wildlife.
Fourth, more people means more demand for the ocean's resources, such as fish. Many species of fish are already overfished and are headed for extinction.
Fifth, as mentioned, more people means more demand for water. In some areas this is already becoming a serious problem. Yet we have our lawns and our golf courses which consume vast quantities of water.
All of the planet's resources are finite: land, water, fish, fossil fuels. Every American added to the world's population puts a greater strain on the world's resources than a new citizen added in any other country.
We need to stop showing approval for large families. We need to stop encouraging large families as we are currently doing by eliminating tax deductions for children beyond the first or second child. We need to stop congratulating parents for having children, especially if it's a fourth or fifth. People need to start voluntarily limiting the number of their children to three.
There are many factors which militate against family planning and population-size control, especially in third-world countries. There is the attitude of husbands who believe that if their wives visit a family-planning clinic it diminishes their prerogatives. The US government, under the influence of political conservatives, has ended much support for family planning in other countries. There is, of course, the opposition of the Catholic Church which is a big factor in some countries such as in Latin America.
This is another sphere where I fear foolishness and incorrect, outdated ideas and attitudes are threatening to prevail and may doom the fate of the human species.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
But it is not true. Many of the consequences of population growth affect America, and additional people added to the US population affect world population problems. And even in the Southwest of the US, where there's been "desert" that seems available for development, a shortage of water is going to be a problem. (Los Angeles, basically a desert climate, has been raping the water supply from even hundreds of miles away, for decades now.)
But to discuss all this more methodically:
First, more people means less farmland to feed the world's people. Farmland has been being sold off for "development" for decades now. Some of the best farm land in the world continues to be turned into housing subdivisions and shopping malls. This means problems with runoff and disappearing habitat for wildlife. (Some people surely don't care about this latter but I feel we share this planet with many other species, both plant and animal. It's not only a matter of sentiment to feel that they deserve to survive but we all need a healthy planet that maintains its biodiversity.)
Second, more people means more demand for energy (and one American consumes more energy than a citizen of any other country). This means more mining for coal, more drilling for oil and building pipelines, more fracking to produce natural gas—all of which tends to be harmful to the environment.
Third, more people means more garbage. Plain and simple. The Pacific Ocean has a huge floating island of waste, mainly plastics, contributed largely by America and imperiling ocean wildlife.
Fourth, more people means more demand for the ocean's resources, such as fish. Many species of fish are already overfished and are headed for extinction.
Fifth, as mentioned, more people means more demand for water. In some areas this is already becoming a serious problem. Yet we have our lawns and our golf courses which consume vast quantities of water.
All of the planet's resources are finite: land, water, fish, fossil fuels. Every American added to the world's population puts a greater strain on the world's resources than a new citizen added in any other country.
We need to stop showing approval for large families. We need to stop encouraging large families as we are currently doing by eliminating tax deductions for children beyond the first or second child. We need to stop congratulating parents for having children, especially if it's a fourth or fifth. People need to start voluntarily limiting the number of their children to three.
There are many factors which militate against family planning and population-size control, especially in third-world countries. There is the attitude of husbands who believe that if their wives visit a family-planning clinic it diminishes their prerogatives. The US government, under the influence of political conservatives, has ended much support for family planning in other countries. There is, of course, the opposition of the Catholic Church which is a big factor in some countries such as in Latin America.
This is another sphere where I fear foolishness and incorrect, outdated ideas and attitudes are threatening to prevail and may doom the fate of the human species.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Sunday, July 29, 2012
The "Buy American" Campaign and the Age of Global Trade
I was recently having a little dialog, via email, with a friend about Americans' buying products made in other countries. The ultimate inspiration behind this was a series on ABC TV news called "Made in America," which aims to make us Americans aware of how much imported merchandise we are buying and, presumably, stimulate us to look for domestically produced alternatives; that is, "buy American" and help the American economy.
There are a lot of reasons why so much of what Americans are buying and consuming is not domestically produced. Much of it comes from China these days, so we talk about the value of China's currency, which the government of China keeps artificially low, and low wages in China—both of which result in China being able to produce and sell its goods very cheaply.
But there is one reason that's possibly overlooked. At least I do not hear it mentioned. But I have occasion to see evidence of it.
If you look at freight trains, freight yards, or those yards where shipping containers are transferred from trains to trucks, you see just how wide-spread containerized shipping is these days. And the names on many of the containers show they're involved in the China trade.
Here is a quote from a Wikipedia article on "containerization":
So a revolution in shipping has caused much more globalization and internationalization. No doubt it's not only Americans who are buying a lot of imported stuff of all kinds. In Europe, there is now more international trade: trade moves more freely within the "Eurozone" because of the removal of tariffs and other trade barriers, plus improved highways, tunnels, and bridges.
But to get back to the "Made in America" campaign: Actually, the whole idea that consumers need to go out of their way to support domestic manufacturing because American manufacturing has declined or is threatened is false. In fact, American manufacturing is thriving.* The value of American manufactures currently is greater than it ever has been, and is greater than that of any other country.
______________
*This information and the statements in the following sentence are based on assertions in an installment of the PBS television series "America Revealed."
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
There are a lot of reasons why so much of what Americans are buying and consuming is not domestically produced. Much of it comes from China these days, so we talk about the value of China's currency, which the government of China keeps artificially low, and low wages in China—both of which result in China being able to produce and sell its goods very cheaply.
But there is one reason that's possibly overlooked. At least I do not hear it mentioned. But I have occasion to see evidence of it.
If you look at freight trains, freight yards, or those yards where shipping containers are transferred from trains to trucks, you see just how wide-spread containerized shipping is these days. And the names on many of the containers show they're involved in the China trade.
Here is a quote from a Wikipedia article on "containerization":
The system, developed after World War II, led to greatly reduced transport costs, and supported a vast increase in international trade.Therefore, items made in China (or in many other countries) can be shipped cheaply. Thus, starting with the items' original low cost and adding (as businesses must do) the cost of shipping and any tariffs, the items can still be sold cheaply because per-item shipping costs are low. Without this cheap means of shipping, it might not be profitable to sell much of the imported merchandise that we buy.
So a revolution in shipping has caused much more globalization and internationalization. No doubt it's not only Americans who are buying a lot of imported stuff of all kinds. In Europe, there is now more international trade: trade moves more freely within the "Eurozone" because of the removal of tariffs and other trade barriers, plus improved highways, tunnels, and bridges.
But to get back to the "Made in America" campaign: Actually, the whole idea that consumers need to go out of their way to support domestic manufacturing because American manufacturing has declined or is threatened is false. In fact, American manufacturing is thriving.* The value of American manufactures currently is greater than it ever has been, and is greater than that of any other country.
______________
*This information and the statements in the following sentence are based on assertions in an installment of the PBS television series "America Revealed."
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Saturday, July 28, 2012
How You Can Help Reduce Insurance Premiums
A lot of the United States has been experiencing successive bouts of violent thunderstorms. These storms have included so-called microbursts and derechos; but, bottom-line, they've been severe storms, with high winds and often hail.
The hail no doubt has damaged a lot of cars. The high winds have uprooted trees, which in turn have often damaged cars as well as houses by falling on them.
This damage to cars and houses must have resulted in a large number of claims to insurance companies—which in turn will raise insurance premiums for all of us.
Many of these cars were located in suburban and small-town locations. They belong to people who live in houses, not apartments. Therefore, the car owners have garages. I'll bet the insurance companies wish that the cars had been safely parked in their owners' garages.
Of course the original purpose of garages was to house cars (and carriages, before people started owning cars). But cars today often do not spend most of their time in garages. Why?
I can only judge from what I observe in my own area. (I live in an area technically suburban, but I like to describe it as edge-of-city.) Nearly everyone here has a two-car garage. Yet, their vehicles sit in front of their garages or on the street. Again—why?
There are several answers. One is that families actually own too many vehicles to keep all of them in their garage. There might be a sedan, an SUV, maybe a pickup used for business.
And nowadays the garage has myriad uses aside from parking your car. A garage may be holding a boat or a lot of family "junk." A garage might be used to hold merchandise used in a business (I believe some of my neighbors do this). Garages even may be used as exercise rooms, or for entertaining. (A neighbor of mine apparently used their garage, not long ago, for a wedding reception—presumably theirs!)
So, folks, protect your car and other vehicles from hail and storm damage. Make room for your car. Get the garage cleared out and park your car where it belongs.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
The hail no doubt has damaged a lot of cars. The high winds have uprooted trees, which in turn have often damaged cars as well as houses by falling on them.
This damage to cars and houses must have resulted in a large number of claims to insurance companies—which in turn will raise insurance premiums for all of us.
Many of these cars were located in suburban and small-town locations. They belong to people who live in houses, not apartments. Therefore, the car owners have garages. I'll bet the insurance companies wish that the cars had been safely parked in their owners' garages.
Of course the original purpose of garages was to house cars (and carriages, before people started owning cars). But cars today often do not spend most of their time in garages. Why?
I can only judge from what I observe in my own area. (I live in an area technically suburban, but I like to describe it as edge-of-city.) Nearly everyone here has a two-car garage. Yet, their vehicles sit in front of their garages or on the street. Again—why?
There are several answers. One is that families actually own too many vehicles to keep all of them in their garage. There might be a sedan, an SUV, maybe a pickup used for business.
And nowadays the garage has myriad uses aside from parking your car. A garage may be holding a boat or a lot of family "junk." A garage might be used to hold merchandise used in a business (I believe some of my neighbors do this). Garages even may be used as exercise rooms, or for entertaining. (A neighbor of mine apparently used their garage, not long ago, for a wedding reception—presumably theirs!)
So, folks, protect your car and other vehicles from hail and storm damage. Make room for your car. Get the garage cleared out and park your car where it belongs.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
