Detroit-Armed and not quite as dangerous

Love this story about my hometown of Detroit.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140716/METRO01/307160034/Detroit-po...

No votes yet

Maybe Chi-town will notice this. Since urban police chiefs serve at the discretion of their' mayor, one can assume Detroit now has a decent mayor.

Duggan, although hampered by the stand in state appointed exec, seems to have a handle on what to do. Just this week Detroit dailies gave him high marks for his work in the first six months.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

I've stated this before. Detroit has a lot of opportunities now. Think about this-between the auto companies, there is a huge amount of unused floor space, as a result of prior plant closings. And, most of the shuttered plants are being taken care of, instead of being demolished. These plants could be started back up, at a tiny fraction of what a new plant would cost. Sadly, some folks here will point that out, as proof positive that this is all part of some GRAND CONSPIRACY to directly destroy all unions, and bring the original workers back, not as workers, but as virtual slaves! But the City Fathers/Mothers, will have to work WITH business, instead of working against it.

Unions didn't begin with a bunch of lazy people, who one day decided to form a union. Basically, it wasn't a group who decided: "Let's organize, so we can sit on our asses ALL day, instead of only HALF a day". Unions came to be, as the result workers being treated like dogs, and having terrible working conditions, few if any safety regulations, no recognition of seniority rights regarding layoffs and recalls or changing shifts, and of course, very, very few hiring of minorities/women.

By continually rehashing this stuff all the time, nothing much will change. Look, this Country needs F-word-ing J-O-B-S!!!!!

I've paid dues, from 1967 to the present, although I pay at the retirees' rate now, and these dues are VOLUNTARY. I but I can't now, or ever did go along with being FORCED to pay union dues in order to keep my job! IMO, that's nothing other than THEFT.

"Look, this Country needs F-word-ing J-O-B-S!!!!!"

We're not going to get those jobs until we repeal the minimum wage.

The global mean wage is about $2/hr. Our federal min wage is about 4 times higher, and there are far too many calls to increase it substantially. The American mean wage is about 8 times higher than the GMW. We can't remain employed that way. It's economically impossible.

This is what globalism really means. We fooled ourselves into believing that everyone in the USA and Europe could just get a college degree and then take an office job, while the rest of the world does the manual labor. It just doesn't pencil out that way. It's not like most people in the United States are suited for obtaining degrees and shuffling papers and computers.

And it gets 'worse': Sanjay and Nianzu can do your office job perfectly well from India and China, and for less money; therefore that's where economics will shift those jobs. That leaves Americans out of the jobs picture almost entirely... except for the jobs that are parasitical or mandated, like pretty much any government position.

Once, we were being undermined by Japan. Then Japanese workers obtained increased pay and benefits.
Then, we were undermined by South Korea. Then, South Korean workers obtained better pay and benefits.

I could go on. GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass's scenario is that we MUST be pulled down to the lower levels of compensation available in the developing world. But, history suggests that they WILL RISE to a higher level.

Ronald Reagan believed that America's best years lay ahead of us. I still share Reagan's optimism for the future, both for our country and the world!

Thank you, Dale, for showing you just don't understand weighted averaging.

There are about 300 million people in the United States. Counting the "West" as a First World (US, Canada, selected nations in Europe, incl. Japan), it's about 900 million. Compare those to about 2500 million people in just China and India.

So it's not like those masses of Chinese and Indians will see much of an increase when compared to the American minimum wage, especially to what the so-called Progressives are pushing for a new minimum wage. And it's shit, compared to the wages of you union thugs. That's why I ignored it. As world wages rise to accommodate the Western fall:

(900/3400)x$16 + (2500/3400)x$2 = $5.70

So it's totally rational to conclude that the end result will require the American minimum wage to be slashed at least 1/3rd, probably 1/2. And it's totally irrational to conclude that you can keep being paid big domestic wages when most of the jobs flee overseas where they are economically destined to go.

One economic author summed it up this way, to paraphrase: You can't have an economic system survive if you task one party to produce food and another party to eat it. That's what dumb Americans effectively believe can happen: Billions of people work at low wages while a few hundred million buy up that production using their high wages. There's no economic basis for paying those high wages.

Your overall conclusion, shows you to be, unlike Ronald Reagan, an extreme pessimist.
About your last paragraph...the world cannot function well and peacefully with too great a disparity between how the masses live and how those with extreme wealth live. That is true. I still state the difference between the way YOU look at the future and the way Ronald Reagan saw the future, a vision I share with that late POTUS, remains unchanged. You have the Karl Marx view of catastrophe for the masses. Marx saw this as leading to worldwide revolution. Ronald Reagan believed, and I believe, that the masses will (mostly) peacefully improve their lot. This is the history of the United States, Japan, and South Korea, among many others.
I have more faith in my vision of the future, as did Ronald Reagan. You may continue to be one of those who is a, as Spiro Agnew described it, "nattering nabob of negativity." Aka Mr. Empty Glass!

My conclusions are based on math, not ideology. Get it? MATH, not pessimism.

The system runs on cheap energy and cheap labor. You're only proposing that everyone get paid well. The system can't run on that; paying laborers well, means expensive products. That's not what consumers want.

You Silent Generation and Boomer Generation had it the best. That is over now, forever. For a time you enjoyed ever rising wages, with which you funded expansion into exploiting cheap labor. But that undermined your own labor contribution. It was totally insane to expect domestic labor to be expensive while foreign labor remained cheap. Economics dictated that the work get transferred to the cheap labor force.

Dale, talking to you about economics is like talking to a wall.

Natter away, nabob of negativity!

And keep flattering Pat Buchanan! Comrade Apparatchik

The quote, "nattering nabobs of negativity," was from a speech given by Spiro Agnew, and the words were written by William Safire. Agnew was referring directly to the news media and what he perceived was their bias against moves done by the Nixon Administration.
To me, GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass, has taken negativity about the future of our nation and of the world to an entirely new and deeper level (hence the aka). And I do see a strong contrast between his view of the future, and that espoused by Ronald Reagan. Just because I didn't agree with most of what Ronald Reagan did as POTUS, does not mean I don't appreciate the optimism he brought to our nation as our elected leader.

Buchanan said in an interview last month he collaborated with Safire on many of Agnews' speeches, but HE was the one who wrote the words in question. SO THERE. How's the "sauce" holding out?

And you believe Buchanan? He is a self-serving blowhard.
But go ahead. Believe whomever you want.

Glass...
When poorer workers make more money, they can afford to pay more for commodities. For example, in the ten year span between 2003 and 2013, China's per capita GDP has risen dramatically from $1274.00 to $6767.00! In case you ignore business media reports, innumerable multi-national corporations are initiating or expanding operations in China, and to some extent, India, because of the growing consumer power of the masses of these two most populous, by far, nations in the world.
See, GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass, Ronald Reagan had faith, and I have faith, that the people of the world will ultimately improve their lot, if nations eschew ideology, and embrace the power contained within capitalism. Once China adapted capitalistic elements into their economy, their economy started to boom. That's not blind optimism. There are statistical reasons for it.

BTW, genius, what are your economic credentials? My degree is in Political Science, but I minored in Economics. I was also the treasurer of a statewide organization, and led that organization out of a deficit, and into 6 straight annual balanced budgets before I retired. I did that as a part-time job, all while teaching full-time. I am curious about your level of expertise in economics, both educationally and in practical terms. Or do you just natter on with negativity on this topic, acting as though you know something -- ANYTHING -- about it?

As certain economists and geologists like to say, to have the world start consuming like the United States, even Europe, we'd need 5 more planets. The USA alone (4.5% of world pop.) consumes about 20% of the world's energy supplies across the board. There just isn't room for your mythical "lifting of all boats". To be more precise with the metaphor, there just isn't enough economic water.

So it hardly matters what the world's billions of poor are going to have in wages (not that my math was wrong in any way, which is why you never addressed it). There just isn't enough there to buy. And services aren't the heart of capital formation; manufacturing is. And manufacturing is entirely dependent on inputs of energy and materials (and skills and regulations, among other things).

It must really get your goat that you can't shut me up using your teacher-esque authority. Maybe once your blood pressure gets high enough, you can start another website and put in all those lovely censorship features that your generation relied on in the pre-Internet era. Of course, that just drives posters away, and eventually readers. The Internet interprets censorship as 'damage' and just routes around it.

You have no credentials. You have no experience. All you have are vacuous opinions! I love your reference to "certain economists and geologists[?]." No wonder you have no credentials!

As for my blood pressure levels, thank you for your concern. (Although, I do find your concern for me to be somewhat surprising.) I LOVE this type of debate! I thrive on this type of debate! Keep it up, please! I don't want you to stop, ever! And the last thing I want to do is administer my own website! THAT would make me nuts!

Citizens make decisions every day, and necessarily so, while without the credentials you crave. That must really affect your blood chemistry in a negative fashion.

want. Just don't act as though you are some kind of expert in the field of economics, and that I am some kind of ignoramus in that field. I have both educational and practical experience in economics and finance. I could add that before I was a teacher, I worked with my father in this very small "mom and pop" business, for 15 years! So, I have that practical financial experience, too.

It is interesting that you are so concerned with my blood chemistry. (I continue to be surprised that you care about me so much. Thank you!) I assure you that my blood chemistry is far better than it was 20 years ago! As I stated above, I LOVE these types of debates! I LOVE the opportunity to vent. I LOVE the give and take of it all. Chris knows that I LOVE doing research. It all energizes me.

As far as the decisions citizens, "make every day...without the credentials you crave," those "citizens" are not posting here as if they are experts. You are! I do NOT question the credentials of those who do NOT purport to be "experts" when they are clearly not. I simply want people who read here to assess your negativity in the full light of your lack of credentials, both educationally, and in practice. I want others to understand fully why I add the aka to your handle, and why I have so little respect for your extremely negative view of the future for us all.
Like Ronald Reagan, I am optimistic that America's best days lay ahead of us, not behind us!

"Just don't act as though you are some kind of expert in the field of economics, and that I am some kind of ignoramus in that field."

You don't need to be an expert in any field to remain suitably educated about said field, and to make decisions as a citizen about those fields and to make your citizen contribution to public policy.

That's where you continually fail. Everyone can see that. Raise even one iota of different opinion about a public topic, and you trot out the old horse of "you're not an expert".

Hang a flag to make it more obvious. But it hardly matters. You're on the wrong side of history, Liberal. I deride you not for your education but for your ideology, and your constant reliance on propaganda. And that other thing... where you haven't joined the Internet Revolution, where one can't just shut other people up using position and media. Your propaganda has no power here. In fact, it does nothing but harm your position. So I encourage you to continue your blather. More and more people are waking up to the horrors that your selfish generation and your ridiculous unions represent. You're old news. Your socio-economic systems are dead and buried in the 20th Century, the Petroleum Century. But the STINK remains, the rancid stench of payoffs and exhaust fumes.

Blah, blah, blah; same old, same old.
All you have are vacuous opinions.

So the American People are now "The Masses"? Obama uses that term too. You should call us "Proletarians", or do you prefer "rabble"?

I was referring directly to the "masses" of people in China and India. And, if GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass is right, the average American may find her/himself among those masses as well.
As I clearly stated, I have a similar view as did Ronald Reagan about a better future for America and the world. With whom do you align, G-MAN? Ronnie and me, or Mr. Empty Glass?

in America. According to the latest statistics from calendar year 2012, it's murder/manslaughter rate was 5.1 per 100,000 people. That is about half the rate of gun-friendly Houston, Texas, which had a rate of 10.0 per 100,000. It is also better than Texas cities: Fort Worth (5.7), San Antonio (6.4), and Dallas (12.4). Even Corpus Christie was at the same rate as New York City (5.1), and it's population is nearly 8,000,000 LESS than that of New York City!

So what's my point? I favor the 2nd Amendment right of Americans to own guns. Many conservatives have been touting the low murder rates in cities and states with weak guns laws. Whenever violence occurs in New York City, there is a hue and cry from the far-right purporting that such killings happen when gun ownership is severely restricted. My point is that the there is no easy solution to violent crime. If we all go back to the "Old West" model of carrying guns on our hips, violent crime will NOT disappear. What is needed is strict enforcement of the laws which exist, and judges who will sentence those convicted of violent crimes to maximum prison sentences MOST of the time. While crime will never disappear, assurance of capture, conviction, and punishment, will deter some violent crimes.
Here's an anecdote. I was speaking with one of my friends who is a retired judge, a few years ago, when he was still on the bench. I stated that it would be hard for me to sentence anyone to death for a violent crime. His answer was, "By the time the trial has come to the point of sentencing, there is so much evidence of the crime committed and the circumstances of that particular crime, that it really isn't hard to give a sentence of capital punishment to that individual." I think that to be a thoughtful, reasonable explanation. Basically, the perpetrator deserves whatever punishment he or she gets!

BTW -- Unlike popular opinion, most cities have experienced plummeting violent crime rates for the last decade or so. For example, in New York City from 2000 to 2012, the murder rate is down from 8.7 to 5.1, per 100,000. Rapes are down from 21.0 to 14.0. Robberies from 420.3 to 243.7. And assaults are down from 527.7 to 376.5. Are these statistics ideal? Of course not!! And, not every category of violent crime has fallen every year since 2000. But, unlike popular belief, generally speaking, violent crime rates are going in the right direction.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.