From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:47:48 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 25676@midway.uchicago.edu, sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>In article <Bt8GIq.99E@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>  I'm not sure what Mr. Moore's point is.  That we should be grateful
>>  that the economy's not in even worse shape?   The fact is that jobs
>>  have NOT trickled down.   There was a time in the US when someone 
>>  without a college education or the brains of a rocket scientist 
>>  could get a job sufficient to support a family on.   The 80's were
>>  good at creating two kinds of jobs:
>>
>>  1.    High-end white collar jobs, and even these are in short supply
>>        now -- the computer industry, for instance, has seen a net decline
>>        in jobs in *each* of the last 4 years according to EE Times. 
>>
>>  2.    Dead-end diddly-squat jobs like flipping burgers at MacDonald's
>>        which are insufficient to support a family on.
>
>  Well, this is an over-stated, but for the purposes of argument, I'll
>let it slide because there is an element of truth.  That element of truth
>lies in the fact that we (and the rest of the world) are in a changing
>information economy.  This change emphasizes education and not just college,
>but decent high school levels that allow workers to work better with
>the new machines and robots that require some modicum of know how such as
>the ability to read well.  This is a real problem in a lot of states where 
>25% - 30% of the populace have problems reading.

Patrick seems to agree with Peter, but goes on to ignore Peter's statistics
about job losses.  If Patrick were right, then there should have been a net
*increase* in jobs in the computer industry.  The fact is that there are plenty
of unemployed people who are highly skilled and educated.  The illiteracy 
problem is real, but not the only cause of current economic woes in the US. 
The economic policies of Reagan and Bush had something to do with the deficit,
didn't they?  BTW, does anyone know how the illiteracy rate has fared over 
the past 4 years?  With George Bush's "thousand points of light" policy, and
Barbara Bush's leadership and influence, it should have been dropping, right?
What are the results of the Bush policy?

>  This has little to do with "policies of the 80s".  It has a lot to do
>with changing times.  The answer is to prepare for those times by emphasizing
>education, not to act like there exists some way to ignore it and curl
>up into the past.

Yes, we should emphasize education.  But why wasn't this done in the past 4
years?  What happened to the "education president"?

>...In fact, a good part of the reason
>for the slow growth in "average manufacturing wages" is because a large
>number of new entrants drag the figures down.

Well, I've gotten a completely distorted view of this from the media.  I was
under the impression that the numbers of manufacturing jobs had declined, not
that the supply of workers had increased.  Live and learn.  ;-)

>...
>  Please. _Fortune_ is a rag.  How anyone can take it seriously is
>beyond me.  They have been calling for protectionistic policies for
>some time now and preaching the typical "gloom and doom" rhetoric that
>one always sees during downturns.  

I make no judgments about Fortune, but don't you find it a little scary that
we are in a triple dip recession with a deficit that is touching the ozone
layer?  Or what's left of it?  The rhetoric may be typical, but the downturn
hasn't been.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush