This is a good discussion, but it raises the question, what is going to happen with these communities if and when gas gets much more expensive? Those houses aren't going to disappear. People are still going to want to live in them if possible. They represent an enormous investment, almost like a natural resource. Imagine that we came upon a new land and found thousands and thousands of houses stretching as far as the eye could see. Would we scorn it and turn away? No, we would find a way to use them.
In the same way, we have to understand and appreciate the native ingenuity and creativity which will be spawned from a change in economic conditions. People are not going to be locked into today's way of life. If and when that way of life becomes impossible, they will create something new.
An obvious possibility is to move jobs nearer to these exurban communities. You mentioned Phoenix being structured more like a bunch of satellite cities rather than a single megalopolis. That is an ideal arrangement to reduce driving distances and allow people to live closer to where they work. I imagine that we will see similar developments happening throughout metropolitan areas. Suburban communities will become the preferred places for companies to locate. People will move to be closer to their jobs. We may see greater mobility, flexibility and dynamism in how people integrate their working and leisure lives.
Another possibility is to see greater use of telecommuting. Yes, this has been predicted for years without much success. But the truth is that for many of those jobs there is really no pressing need to bring everyone physically together. Most people today do service jobs and many of them can be handled remotely. What we need is improved communications beyond what we have today, so that two way view screens are a standard and ordinary part of the home office. You need to be able to chat with a co-worker as easily as at work, and managers likewise need to do the equivalent of walking past desks to see that everyone is being productive. This technology is nearly here and if the economic need arises, it can be efficiently implemented.
The point is that when things change, people change to adapt to them. I agree that it is unfortunate for people to be making fixed investments in real estate and housing if the basic economic circumstances are about to undergo radical change. As you know I am not as certain as most people here that this kind of radical change is truly just around the corner. But if it does, and most investments today turn out to be far from optimal, nevertheless I am confident that an entire population of motivated, intelligent and creative individuals will come up with much better solutions to their problems than a few people today can envision.
"Most people today do service jobs and many of them can be handled remotely."
Which means the can be handled in India for half the cost.
Furthermore, most of those jobs invovle managing/accounting/distributing the hallucinated wealth created from buidling homes, cars, consumer goods, etc. You really think these jobs are even going to exist in the future when there is a lot less wealth to be managed and accounted for?
I tend to agree. I believe the jobs will be going away along with the valuation of the financial assets that these homes represent. And as Leanan points out below, once enough of the homes default, there will be a snowball effect (even in Phoenix!) of devaluation. In some places it should in theory be possible to break these oversized structures up and use them for multiple families, etc., but somehow I don't see it really happening. In places like Phoenix they will need to be abandoned, as they are not environmentally viable.
~20% of the Phoenix labor force is in construction. They have been growing steadily for several decades now.
But let us suppose that growth slows by half and half of the construction workers are laid off. Soon, they will move on to greener pastures, vacating 10% of the housing, as well as many small offices. With a large influx of "new" hosuing (recently vacated) the demand for new construction will nearly evaporate, laying off 19% of the labor force (1% will always find some construction). They leave town after a period of unemployment. 19% housing vacancy. Housing prices drop, service industries from medical to car dealers (and especially banks) suffer. More layoffs, more move outs. More empty houses EVEN IF NEW CORPORATE TRANSFERS CONTINUE AT A MODEST PACE (perhaps 1/2 current rates).
Taxes rise, services and schools decline.
Add $6 gas and Phoenix suddenly seems less attractive. Corporations begin to move out ...
I can see Phoenix reforming around it's light rail line (s) with higher density. And retirees selecting parts of the Valley to move into cheap housing (leaving in summer.
The US abandoned much of it's preWW II housing after WW II, and the standard of construction and materials was FAR higher then. I am currently in Phoenix very close to Scottsdale, and the standard of construction here will not hold up well for most homes. 50 years and many will need lots of TLC & repairs. Boarding up and abandonment seem quite plausible to me.
That is a very good point. I was reading one article about the new McMansions, where a contractor argued that there's no point in building to last. He said the clientele they are aiming for normally buy a new house every 5-7 years. Ten at the most. Simply because fashions change, and no wants a house that's out of style. Why build to last for decades, when the customer is only going to be there a few years?
They do not even ask for quality to get a high second hand value on their house? Building after the fashion, I would rather build in a way that reflects who I am. I am toying with the idea to build a house if I get the career I hope for. Something practical and reasonably sized that can be usefull for generations and I dont even have kids. (Yet, who knows? )
Whith a gable suitable for building an extension if there is need for more rooms in the future.
You don't have to deport them. When the dollar stops being overvalued, the remittances they send home will become almost worthless and they will go home by themselves.
This is a picture, my friend Dave took when he was stuck out in Phoenix for a year working at an auto repair shop and training to be an auto mechanic. He's now a video editor in NYC. Some of his stories of Phoenix are quite ridiculous, but true.
Wall St. Journal Reports had a special peak oil episode last year. Their financial talking heads predicted that exurban real estate would tank. People would not be able to pay their mortages and their gas bills. Once a neighborhood reaches the point where 30%-50% of the homes are in default, the bottom drops out of the market. There are so many properties offered at fire sale rates by the banks that the entire neighborhood's property values plumment.
One of the financial gurus worried that the government would be pressured into offering another big social program: mortgage bailouts.
No one actually came out and said it, but implied in their analysis was that Kunstler is right: the suburbs will be the new slums.
The inner suburbs are developing trendlines that point that way already. Property values going down, child populations going up, it's in progress already.
These exurbs can be mined for scrap and building materials. Once the building boom is over, these same illegals who helped construct them will be back, digging up copper, hauling away utility poles, dismantling the houses themselves. Such huge areas, once even partially abandoned, will be impossible to patrol. I see ghost-towns, not slums.
I agree, this kind of mining for scrap occurred extensively in Lithuania after the Soviet Union fell apart, and it wouldn't be much of a stretch to see this happening in the exurbs. Occupied houses weren't disturbed too much, but a construction site that was only half-completed, and then abandoned, was fair game. In my wife's village (okay, former collective-farm settlement, to be precise), a building that was set to become a cafe/store was abandoned prior to completion. Within several years, it was looted for its metal fixtures, and its remains were privatized. The buyers broke down the walls, and used the bricks for other structures. The site is now basically a hole in the ground.
Same fate awaited the Soviet military structures that were not immediately put to use by the Lithuanian military.
The really adventurous thieves went after electrical transmission infrastructure.
They are made from flakeboard, cPVC and PVC pipes, vinyl siding. There may not be as much worth salvaging from these developments as it might appear. Copper wire in the houses, scrap wood, and street infrastructure.
I'd say the strandboard, dimensional lumber, wood flooring would be worth scavenging. Water piping if it is copper, too. Brick veneer should be easy to chip apart into bricks again.
I don't share your optimism at all, not in the short term at least. When this thing starts to crash, all that exurban and suburban property turns to kaka. Huge mortages, asset values dropping below the mortage, incomes threatened, the most fearful and isolated segment of the population, the least inclined to cooperation, goes under water: this is a formula for hell on earth.
Just the economics is frightening enough: this will be the largest asset devaluation in the history of the planet. I don't see how it can turn out any other way -- I am really trying to see it, but I don't. Even the warrior state cannot fend this off very long.
It is a mistake to just think of the physical side of things, alternate uses of the McMansions -- not that I think that there is any hope there either: what can they really be used for? No, these are financial assets, and their devaluation will have catastrophic consequences for the economy as a whole, the world economy I might add.
"this will be the largest asset devaluation in the history of the planet."
I think that would be a very good thing, after the initial pain. Lets face it, one of the reasons that Americans have a higher cost of living, and cannot compete with the cost of labor in other countries is the amount of debt we carry. This requires high salaries to sustain. If all mortgages and personal debt was wiped out, and easy credit was eliminated, the cost of everything would go down, and salaries could drop substaintially.
>Lets face it, one of the reasons that Americans have a higher cost of living, and cannot compete with the cost of labor in other countries is the amount of debt we carry.
The real issue is that Americans don't want factory or any labor intensive jobs. Everyone wants a nine-to-five office job. Who wants to dig ditches and be exposed to freezing and sweltering temperatures when you can work in a enviromentaly controlled office?
I don't believe that. That's the usual excuse offered for hiring illegal immigrants: Americans don't want to do the work. Folderol. Americans don't want to do the work for minimum wage and no benefits. If you pay a living wage, Americans will do the work.
Why have so many blue collar jobs moved overseas over the past 30 years? Not because "Americans didn't want that kind of job." It was because people would do it cheaper overseas.
Why have so many blue collar jobs moved overseas over the past 30 years? Not because "Americans didn't want that kind of job." It was because people would do it cheaper overseas.
No.
It was because one group of Americans could capture more welth if they laid off this group of Americans and hired that group of non-Americans to provide goods and services to those Americans who still had employment.
Where did China's capital come from? American investment. Who gets hurt if China revalues as demanded by the US government? American firms exporting fromm China.
I think you're both saying the same thing. The issue of motivation is what we seem to be disputing.
Sure, overseas labour work's cheaper. Not because their labour is actually worth less, but simply because the environment from which they hail can sustain lower wages.
And any "right thinking" suit (this must be an oxymoron) would see this as a boon and make a dash to locate labour expensive activities to labour cheap locations.
As for Americans and "undesirable" jobs, if wages and benefits reflected the "nut" that needed cracking, then I cannot think of any group more willing to work than Americans.
I think it's more than that. As Heinberg points out, at its root, globalization is about taking other countries' resources because we've used up our own. Manufacturing got a big push when we hit the U.S. oil peak. Labor costs were part of it, but only part. Part of it was going where energy was cheap.
> Americans don't want to do the work for minimum wage and no benefits. If you pay a living wage, Americans will do the work.
Try this. Go to the nearest office building and ask people entering or leaving if they would consider a farm or factory job if they earned the same pay as they currently do. I guarentee not a soul over 30 would consider it, unless they don't understand how hard it is. Working in a factory, or a farm is very hard work, boring and dirty.
On the other side, go to a working farm or a factory and ask the workers if they would trade their current job for an office job at the same pay. I bet the majority would consider switching.
The reason for choosing a profession career isn't just about financial benefits. Most educated people want careers, not a repetitive, back breaking job.
What is it that you do for a living? Do you work in a factory or on a farm? Have you ever tried a labor intensive job for more than a month? (No need to reply, just think about it.)
>Why have so many blue collar jobs moved overseas over the past 30 years? Not because "Americans didn't want that kind of job." It was because people would do it cheaper overseas.
Labor costs are certainly a strong reason for manufacturing jobs leaving the US. However, the trend started in the early 1950s as more an more Americans seeked out professional jobs. This was way before jobs began moving overseas. You can research the facts on the Labor department web site and see that the since the 1950s people seeking employment in farming and manufacturing has been in a steady decline.
The middle class was built with good paying factory jobs, not lots of professionals. If you can make a good living without the effort of an advanced education, most people will take that route.
BTW, I'm 42 and would gladly move to a farming job if I could make anywhere near the pay I do now as an engineering manager. And yes, I do know what is involved.
Back in 95, when I was 39, I was working at Norfolk Naval Shipyard as an electronics tech. Govt funding for our facility being what it was at the time and place, we ran out of money and I got offered the choice of an indefinite lay-off or the chance to work as a sandblaster/painter's helper at my current pay. I had no choice but to take the transfer to the other shop. The first day of training I was so terrified I had a panic attack in class and would have walked out, but was physically incapable.
Somehow, I made it through and within two weeks was having the time of my life, working with some of the best people I've ever met and doing the most immediately gratifying, and perhaps more challenging work that I have ever done. This included sandblasting, painting, cleaning drydocks, removing sludge out of empty fuel tanks, etc. Dangerous and incredibly dirty, hard work.
It was really one of the most liberating experiences of my life after the petty politics of the electronics shop I had worked in for years. I worked (by choice) in this job for almost three years, only going back to the shop to work on equipment for which I was the sole qualified tech. Lest anyone think that I was just a malcontent who couldn't handle a technical job, I have been an electronics tech/test engineer for over 25 years at this point and have received nothing but accolades for my performance every one of those years.
No, I'm not really representative, I guess. When I go to my mom's on vacation, the first thing I do is rake manure from the barn. Therapy...
You may not be representative, but I don't think you're odd, either. One thing about physical jobs: they really give you a sense of accomplishment. Engineers tend to need this more than most, but it's often lacking in a modern engineering job, where you can work on projects for five, ten, twenty years or more, without seeing anything actually built.
In any case, for most people, it's not a choice between a professional job and a factory job. The people who used to work at factory jobs are now working at jobs in the service sector. They are often just as boring as the dullest factory job, if not quite as dangerous. The pay is also lower.
I used to live in a small city that was known for its manufacturing. The last manufacturing company closed a couple of decades ago (a paper company). With the loss of the $20/hour jobs at the paper company, the area really went into a tailspin. The only other jobs people could get with their level of education were fast food or retail jobs. McDonald's, the mall, etc. A lot of people started dealing drugs, since that paid very well and didn't require a degree.
I had a similar experience rebuilding that house. I loved installing all the stuff I had been just drawing and specifying for so many years. Not terribly dangerous, although a ricochet from a nail gun got me in the hand, but fairly dirty. I'd love another job where I could design and build something. I guess that's why I like doing stage sets.
I love working with my hands. Many people do not realize how much thought goes into a well-done plumbing or wiring job, etc. I have done extensive restoration work on a couple of old houses - I can sweat pipes, run wires, do framings and make trim with hand planes, do plastering and masonry, glaze windows, lots of fun stuff. I am no expert in those areas by any means, but I'm competent enough to understand the level of skill required to be a master in these fields, and I greatly respect those that are. I find the process very similar to the design work I do - all these things require planning and design if they are to work. From there, one applies the specific implementation for whatever media you are working in.
I find such work to be very rewarding and enjoyable, and have long tried to accumulate as much of such skills and knowledge as I can. I would not hesitate even a moment to trade my present career for one of these. I suspect I would be much happier. Next on my list are gardening and ironworking/blacksmithing (if I can find the time).
I agree with you. I was involved in a paper mill strike, where we (management) had to run the mill. I was a grinderman helper, which is probably the most physically demanding job in a paper mill. Within 2 weeks, our crew (mostly engineers) was setting production records while spending 80% of the time kicking back and drinking coffee. Overall, it was a good time.
Most physical work isn't that hard, it is the boring that gets you. I got so bored while a grinderman that I took a power washer and cleaned 80 years worth of wood pulp off the machinery.
Hum...upon further thought, I could definitely handle hauling hay while listening to audio books on my MP3 player. That would pretty much eliminate the boredom of the job. Very nice indeed!
Try this. Go to the nearest office building and ask people entering or leaving if they would consider a farm or factory job if they earned the same pay as they currently do.
I don't have to. At my office, we are about half deskbound and half out in the field (construction, maintenance, survey, etc.). And those who are out in the field doing physical work are there because they want to be. Some just hate deskjobs on principle. Some like the overtime available to people who are out in the field.
As for farming...I live in an area that was all farms not too long ago. Many of my coworkers own working farms. They plan to farm full time in retirement. They mourn the changes that mean their children who want to be full time family farmers will have a tough time of it.
The reason for choosing a profession career isn't just about financial benefits. Most educated people want careers, not a repetitive, back breaking job.
Perhaps so...but a lot of people don't really want to be educated. If they could get a job that paid well without having to get an expensive degree, they would take that route.
I recently had to deal with someone who took a job as a "CADD operator" in our engineering dept. He was a good kid, but didn't want to work at a computer all day. Turns out, he thought "CADD operator" was some kind of heavy equipment operator. (Such people are often referred to as "operating engineers," so the mistake is understandable.) He eventually quit and took a job running an excavating machine for a construction company, and was much, much happier.
What is it that you do for a living? Do you work in a factory or on a farm? Have you ever tried a labor intensive job for more than a month? (No need to reply, just think about it.)
I am currently working as a civil engineer. I have worked at labor intensive jobs in the past, including farmwork. (It was my first job, and yes, it was grueling, but I wouldn't mind doing it again.)
I've worked out in the field before, and would do it again. Indeed, I asked for a field position when I was first hired; my previous job was as a bridge inspector. I was put in the office because that was where they needed people. I've stayed there because the office is only 2 miles from my apartment. If I went out in the field, I could be assigned to job sites who knows where. I don't want to spend four hours a day driving.
However, the trend started in the early 1950s as more an more Americans seeked out professional jobs. This was way before jobs began moving overseas. You can research the facts on the Labor department web site and see that the since the 1950s people seeking employment in farming and manufacturing has been in a steady decline.
Or maybe the jobs available in farming and manufacturing began to decline? That was when machinery and automation really began taking off. Remember IBM's constant propaganda about how computers could never replace human workers? Hah!
>As for farming...I live in an area that was all farms not too long ago. Many of my coworkers own working farms. They plan to farm full time in retirement. They mourn the changes that mean their children who want to be full time family farmers will have a tough time of it.
Unfortunately these people aren't the norm. The majority of the American population lives in urban areas, and have no experience in agraculture. You're cherry picking a few people that you associate with and assume this applies to the entire country. Are there people that enjoy farming and manual labor jobs? Absolutely, but that doesn't imply the majority does.
>I am currently working as a civil engineer. I have worked at labor intensive jobs in the past, including farmwork. (It was my first job, and yes, it was grueling, but I wouldn't mind doing it again.)
Thats fine. I have as well, but it does mean the majority of the population has done it or would want to work on a farm, or would be willing to work as many hours as foriegner workers are willing to commit. Given the choice of long hours intensive labor jobs or easy 9-5 jobs the majority would choose the latter.
Here in the North East, many homeowners use landscapers to maintain their property. If they aren't willing to spend thiry-odd minutes a week cutting the lawn or trimming the strubs, they most certainly are not going to consider farm work.
Most Americans (that can afford it) have air conditioned homes. Why purchase, maintain and operate an air conditioner at home if you don't mind hot weather or working in a less than office like environment? The majority of Americans also eat out more than once a week rather than spend time preparing a heathly, lower cost, homecooked meal. Why do americans buy luxary cars and SUVs that they cannot afford? Why does the average american carry nearly $9,000 in unsecured debt? Does this group even remotely seem likely they would be interested in working harder? I think not!
>I recently had to deal with someone who took a job as a "CADD operator" in our engineering dept. He was a good kid, but didn't want to work at a computer all day. Turns out, he thought "CADD operator" was some kind of heavy equipment operator
Thats odd that your company hired someone who didn't understand what the job was. Usually that issue disappears during the interview.
>He eventually quit and took a job running an excavating machine for a construction company, and was much, much happier.
A heavy machine operator, is really a professional job. Most likely his work week is 40 hours or less and his job is more or less similar to a computer operator, that is operating equipment while sitting in a chair. The manufacturing jobs overseas are usually 60 to 80 hours a week, and farming jobs usually fair no better. The bottom line is that Americans are not going to put in the same long and hard hours as foreigners will commit.
To give you some perpective, from the mid nineteenth century up until the late 1940's the average American factory job was Ten hours a day Monday through Friday and Five hours on Saturday and had about half-hour lunch break. Prior to the 1920s they use to work the full day on Saturday. By the 1950's Unions began to win concessions and the work week eventully fell to about 40 hours. If Americans didn't mind the work, why did they demand fewer working hours, despite that they would have made more money since they were paid by the hour? Why not just demand more money per hour instead? The bottom line is that the majority of Americans don't want long, labor intensive jobs.
Thats odd that your company hired someone who didn't understand what the job was. Usually that issue disappears during the interview.
It was an entry-level position. We were willing to train a capable candidate. He was capable, but just not interested in sitting in front of a computer all day. That is many Americans' idea of hell.
A heavy machine operator, is really a professional job. Most likely his work week is 40 hours or less and his job is more or less similar to a computer operator, that is operating equipment while sitting in a chair.
Nope. You work a lot longer than 40 hours a week. Which is good, because there may not be any work available at all in the winter. You're also exposed to the elements, which you are not in an air-conditioned office.
The manufacturing jobs overseas are usually 60 to 80 hours a week, and farming jobs usually fair no better. The bottom line is that Americans are not going to put in the same long and hard hours as foreigners will commit.
Sure they will - if you pay them enough. Many American "professionals" put in those kinds of hours. It's worth it to them, because they are paid well.
If Americans didn't mind the work, why did they demand fewer working hours, despite that they would have made more money since they were paid by the hour?
Perhaps because they were rightly concerned about others who might want to work?
Americans have been working longer and longer hours for that past 20 years or so. The reason? It's cheaper for companies to force people to work longer hours than to hire more people. Especially since many "professionals" don't get any overtime for the extra work.
The offshoring of manufacturing was a tragedy for many Americans. (Billy Joel even wrote a popular song about it - "Allentown.") The factories didn't close because of a lack of workers. Far from it. People wanted to work. Desperately.
These are not people who could easily get professional jobs, even if they wanted them. They ended up in the service industry instead, flipping burgers for much less money.
Look at all those miners now who are defending their companies, despite safety violations and on-the-job injuries and even deaths. They are terrified that the mine will close and they will lose their jobs. Despite the long hours, hard work, and danger.
bah humbug :P While I don't mind working 9-5 (usually it's around 9-7) I can't stand working in an air-conditioned office. I'd much rather get my hands dirty doing something physically productive. It may also explain why despite having two college degrees I still make less than the average income, but I'm content with things as they are.
What kills me more than anything is seeing Labor unions declining year after year. They're keeping the blue-collar jobs equipped with a decent living wage, and the 11% or so of us who can live a middle class life outside of staring at a computer monitor all day. Once the Unions go, office jobs will be all that's left :P
"I think that would be a very good thing, after the initial pain."
I think you are underestimating the "initial pain". One could argue that the Depression was a good thing "after the initial pain" (which included WW2) -- after all, it was followed by the 50s! The only difference is that I don't see the segue into something comparable to the 50s. And truth is, WW2 was not devastating for the US even though soldiers lost their lives. But there's every likelihood that we will NOT go unscathed in upcoming wars and turbulence.
I am unable to envisage an optimistic short or medium term scenario - except that very great hardship will remold us into creatures more focused on building a sustainable and cooperative future.
If all mortgages and personal debt was wiped out, and easy credit was eliminated, the cost of everything would go down, and salaries could drop substaintially.
You know, credit is not easy, but costs of everything are very low, and salaries have dropped substantially, in Sudan. Perhaps you'd like to go live there? You might think it's a very good thing, after the initial pain ...
Why is it that so many smart people are so willing to discredit themsleves and the group to which they belong with such asinine statements?
Are you saying the pain is avoidable?
Are you saying the American "way of life" can continue, unabatted? Are you saying it should?
What, exactly, is you point?
Given the role the US has played globally since the Monroe Doctrine, maybe they deserve a little bit of Sudan right at home. Maybe not the "American People," but since they're the ones who rule the roost at the ballot box, maybe they ought to endure a bit of pain about now. They could have voted for a sane America. They chose to vote for their comfort and gadgets. Guess may get to feel a little of the harshness life can dish out. Maybe, God forbid, a little pain.
I was reponding to enviro attny, whom I quoted with a regrettable lack of attribution, apologies.
As for the insanity, America didn't vote for it. The last 2 elections were rigged, remember? And as we all know the system is broke, no one has the guts to fix it, and gassing about it here changes nothing. Let's move on.
There is a way to avoid the pain of a second great depression. And we're doing it right now. Let the developing world continue to manufacture goods. Let America continue to manufacture debt. Let the foreign exchange rates be fixed by strongarming foreign central banks into inflating their own currency.
And let's all continue breeding like yeast in the barrel. Invent ways to turn all biomass into oil. Shovel what's left into the oceans along with all our other toxins. This way to the supercriticality ...
Mortality is a small price to pay for existence -- Bob Geldof.
So you're saying the fate of the past two presidential elections resided in only two states, Florida and Ohio? Surely you cannot be suggesting that the American system can be controlled by the outcomes in two states and two states alone?
Why would you idiots have not made Florida and Ohio irrelevant by controlling the ballot boxes in the rest of the bloody Union?
I rest my case. Comforts and gadgets. That sums up the "state" of the Union.
I think it's a technology problem. That is, the people in charge don't understand the technology. There are two Republican-controlled companies who make almost all the electronic voting machines in the nation (one of which is now in trouble for securities fraud/insider trading). And they took no real security measures. Many of the machines were connected to the Internet with no firewall. They were not protected from physical tampering. Political partisans were allowed to take the memory cards from them. There were instructions posted on the net on how to hack them. Anyone who was reasonably computer literate would not trust touchscreen voting machines...but the people who made the decision to buy them, and the monitors responsible for overseeing their use often know nothing about computers.
A lot of the election reform groups are pushing for optical scan ballots instead. It's supposedly the most reliable. Tell that to the thousands of students whose SAT scores were incorrect. The reason? The optical scanners used to score the tests don't work correctly when it's humid, and the week the test was given saw wet weather in many parts of the U.S.
This is a classic example of Tainter's diminishing returns. All this expensive technology...that's too complex for the average Joe to use. Makes you wonder if we shouldn't have just stuck with placing a check mark on a paper ballot.
Leanan, a lot of the rigging was not technology-based at all, just good old fashioned fraud. Don't supply machines to poor areas likely to vote Democrat. Purge the voter roles. Fake voter registration drives.
It was systemic, pervasive, and coordinated - and it did not need to be in all states at all, just the ones in play.
Good gosh, man, who said they only rigged two states? Here's just some of the ways it was rigged:
TV is a mind control device. Whoever controls the TV, controls the election.
Lobbying is graft. The US government is a business and everyone is for sale.
The two party machines destroy any credible alternative the same way Detroit destroys any credible alternative. But they likewise provide no significant differences in policy except on quibbles.
Voting machines. Not just the electronic ones - any ones that don't use indelible ink on pieces of paper counted by human examiners. Remember Cooper's Law - "All Machines Are Amplifiers"
But like I said, gassing on here will do nothing to change any of that. The system is screwed, and the only meaningful vote is with your feet. America, love it and leave it.
I'm afraid Americans DID vote for Bush the last 2 elections. He should have lost by a wide margin if we had been paying attention. I have long since stopped worrying about what Bush is going to do; I worry about what Americans are going to do. Carter's reward for warning us about energy was defeat by Reagan.
More importantly, why, when the evidence and scope of manipulation was apparent, did the electorate sit on its fat arse and let the result go to Bush without a single mass uprising of any significance?
It's not whether you win, it's how loud you protest an invalid result. If it worked in Ukraine, in the bloody freezing winter, what would stop it from working for you and yours?
Read the construction again. It was set up to be inclusive of ALL Americans, many who can not vote, and the ones who opted to not vote at all. In addition to the green/Libertarian/Nader et la votes.
why, when the evidence and scope of manipulation was apparent, did the electorate sit on its fat arse and let the result go to Bush without a single mass uprising of any significance
If you have a job, are making enough to pay the bills, have a family - WHY woudl you stand up and complain and run the risk of not having a job, be unable to pay your bills, et la?
For your premis to be correct, you'd have to have Americans to be an idealisc lot who'd be willing to stand up to people in power.
When the mass of citizens are cold and hungry - have nothing left to loose, THEN you'll see many throw themselves into trying to effect change.
An obvious possibility is to move jobs nearer to these exurban communities. You mentioned Phoenix being structured more like a bunch of satellite cities rather than a single megalopolis. That is an ideal arrangement to reduce driving distances and allow people to live closer to where they work.
It's certainly possible to move jobs to the exurbs, but in absence of the kind of large-scale telecommuting that has failed to occur, it's far from ideal. If you have a company, you want a labor pool that is drawn from as many people as possible. You don't want to be forced to hire only from within your immediate neighborhood. If you move your firm from the central business district, which can draw employees from all parts of the region, to an exurb on the south side of the region, your office becomes too far from all the talented people on the north, east and west sides. Lacking access to these talented people, your firm fails to compete vigorously, and in time, it withers and dies. The model of jobs-in-the-exurbs would have been better suited to "company towns," where everyone works down at the plant and stays there for life. But in an age where many people change jobs every two years, companies need access to a large labor pool, and individuals need access to many companies. Hence, the city.
Not only that, but the companies will face the same problems individuals do. They need supplies, support, etc. Right now, the energy cost of those is still pretty negligible. In the future, there will be financial incentive to relocate to the city. Where the ports are. Where the other companies you deal with are.
I am not convinced that there would (will) be a steep drop-off in personal mobility, but if there is, the first step will be to throw out the old ideas of zoning. And then convert 1 McMansion in 10 into a McOffice. Concentrated support for high bandwidth and video conferencing, distance from distractions at home (really just 3 houses down), etc.
There is actually a town next door to mine with "messy" mixed business and residential. Why did they do it that way? Because it worked.
That is one of the beauties of the New Orleans urban fabric, the number of "non-compliant" businesses surrounded by homes (grandfathered in). Hubig Pies Bakery was just down the street from where I used to live (air pollution :-), until 3 years ago, a sheet metal fabrication factory (since 1880s) took up most of a square block in the French Qtr, Commander's Palace is in a residential neighborhood, Magazine Street is 5 miles of small shops, many in former residential homes (hell for cars, 2 narrow lanes, but great for walking).
In the same way, we have to understand and appreciate the native ingenuity and creativity which will be spawned from a change in economic conditions. People are not going to be locked into today's way of life. If and when that way of life becomes impossible, they will create something new.
An obvious possibility is to move jobs nearer to these exurban communities. You mentioned Phoenix being structured more like a bunch of satellite cities rather than a single megalopolis. That is an ideal arrangement to reduce driving distances and allow people to live closer to where they work. I imagine that we will see similar developments happening throughout metropolitan areas. Suburban communities will become the preferred places for companies to locate. People will move to be closer to their jobs. We may see greater mobility, flexibility and dynamism in how people integrate their working and leisure lives.
Another possibility is to see greater use of telecommuting. Yes, this has been predicted for years without much success. But the truth is that for many of those jobs there is really no pressing need to bring everyone physically together. Most people today do service jobs and many of them can be handled remotely. What we need is improved communications beyond what we have today, so that two way view screens are a standard and ordinary part of the home office. You need to be able to chat with a co-worker as easily as at work, and managers likewise need to do the equivalent of walking past desks to see that everyone is being productive. This technology is nearly here and if the economic need arises, it can be efficiently implemented.
The point is that when things change, people change to adapt to them. I agree that it is unfortunate for people to be making fixed investments in real estate and housing if the basic economic circumstances are about to undergo radical change. As you know I am not as certain as most people here that this kind of radical change is truly just around the corner. But if it does, and most investments today turn out to be far from optimal, nevertheless I am confident that an entire population of motivated, intelligent and creative individuals will come up with much better solutions to their problems than a few people today can envision.
Which means the can be handled in India for half the cost.
Furthermore, most of those jobs invovle managing/accounting/distributing the hallucinated wealth created from buidling homes, cars, consumer goods, etc. You really think these jobs are even going to exist in the future when there is a lot less wealth to be managed and accounted for?
Best,
Matt
But let us suppose that growth slows by half and half of the construction workers are laid off. Soon, they will move on to greener pastures, vacating 10% of the housing, as well as many small offices. With a large influx of "new" hosuing (recently vacated) the demand for new construction will nearly evaporate, laying off 19% of the labor force (1% will always find some construction). They leave town after a period of unemployment. 19% housing vacancy. Housing prices drop, service industries from medical to car dealers (and especially banks) suffer. More layoffs, more move outs. More empty houses EVEN IF NEW CORPORATE TRANSFERS CONTINUE AT A MODEST PACE (perhaps 1/2 current rates).
Taxes rise, services and schools decline.
Add $6 gas and Phoenix suddenly seems less attractive. Corporations begin to move out ...
I can see Phoenix reforming around it's light rail line (s) with higher density. And retirees selecting parts of the Valley to move into cheap housing (leaving in summer.
The US abandoned much of it's preWW II housing after WW II, and the standard of construction and materials was FAR higher then. I am currently in Phoenix very close to Scottsdale, and the standard of construction here will not hold up well for most homes. 50 years and many will need lots of TLC & repairs. Boarding up and abandonment seem quite plausible to me.
Whith a gable suitable for building an extension if there is need for more rooms in the future.
And a large fraction of the construction labor is illegal aliens, who are:
- Much cheaper than US labor, thus driving the construction boom.
- Culturally alien and more prone to crime, thus increasing the attractiveness of "safe, distant" communities.
- Directly driving the explosion of population which is served by the construction.
If you fenced off the border and deported illegals even half-heartedly, this problem would end.This is a picture, my friend Dave took when he was stuck out in Phoenix for a year working at an auto repair shop and training to be an auto mechanic. He's now a video editor in NYC. Some of his stories of Phoenix are quite ridiculous, but true.
One of the financial gurus worried that the government would be pressured into offering another big social program: mortgage bailouts.
No one actually came out and said it, but implied in their analysis was that Kunstler is right: the suburbs will be the new slums.
I agree, this kind of mining for scrap occurred extensively in Lithuania after the Soviet Union fell apart, and it wouldn't be much of a stretch to see this happening in the exurbs. Occupied houses weren't disturbed too much, but a construction site that was only half-completed, and then abandoned, was fair game. In my wife's village (okay, former collective-farm settlement, to be precise), a building that was set to become a cafe/store was abandoned prior to completion. Within several years, it was looted for its metal fixtures, and its remains were privatized. The buyers broke down the walls, and used the bricks for other structures. The site is now basically a hole in the ground.
Same fate awaited the Soviet military structures that were not immediately put to use by the Lithuanian military.
The really adventurous thieves went after electrical transmission infrastructure.
I shudder to think of the chemicals released when you burn PVC pipe and treated lumber, but people are not going to be too picky when TSHTF.
I don't share your optimism at all, not in the short term at least. When this thing starts to crash, all that exurban and suburban property turns to kaka. Huge mortages, asset values dropping below the mortage, incomes threatened, the most fearful and isolated segment of the population, the least inclined to cooperation, goes under water: this is a formula for hell on earth.
Just the economics is frightening enough: this will be the largest asset devaluation in the history of the planet. I don't see how it can turn out any other way -- I am really trying to see it, but I don't. Even the warrior state cannot fend this off very long.
It is a mistake to just think of the physical side of things, alternate uses of the McMansions -- not that I think that there is any hope there either: what can they really be used for? No, these are financial assets, and their devaluation will have catastrophic consequences for the economy as a whole, the world economy I might add.
I think that would be a very good thing, after the initial pain. Lets face it, one of the reasons that Americans have a higher cost of living, and cannot compete with the cost of labor in other countries is the amount of debt we carry. This requires high salaries to sustain. If all mortgages and personal debt was wiped out, and easy credit was eliminated, the cost of everything would go down, and salaries could drop substaintially.
The real issue is that Americans don't want factory or any labor intensive jobs. Everyone wants a nine-to-five office job. Who wants to dig ditches and be exposed to freezing and sweltering temperatures when you can work in a enviromentaly controlled office?
Why have so many blue collar jobs moved overseas over the past 30 years? Not because "Americans didn't want that kind of job." It was because people would do it cheaper overseas.
No.
It was because one group of Americans could capture more welth if they laid off this group of Americans and hired that group of non-Americans to provide goods and services to those Americans who still had employment.
Where did China's capital come from? American investment. Who gets hurt if China revalues as demanded by the US government? American firms exporting fromm China.
Sure, overseas labour work's cheaper. Not because their labour is actually worth less, but simply because the environment from which they hail can sustain lower wages.
And any "right thinking" suit (this must be an oxymoron) would see this as a boon and make a dash to locate labour expensive activities to labour cheap locations.
As for Americans and "undesirable" jobs, if wages and benefits reflected the "nut" that needed cracking, then I cannot think of any group more willing to work than Americans.
jimbo
;-)
Try this. Go to the nearest office building and ask people entering or leaving if they would consider a farm or factory job if they earned the same pay as they currently do. I guarentee not a soul over 30 would consider it, unless they don't understand how hard it is. Working in a factory, or a farm is very hard work, boring and dirty.
On the other side, go to a working farm or a factory and ask the workers if they would trade their current job for an office job at the same pay. I bet the majority would consider switching.
The reason for choosing a profession career isn't just about financial benefits. Most educated people want careers, not a repetitive, back breaking job.
What is it that you do for a living? Do you work in a factory or on a farm? Have you ever tried a labor intensive job for more than a month? (No need to reply, just think about it.)
>Why have so many blue collar jobs moved overseas over the past 30 years? Not because "Americans didn't want that kind of job." It was because people would do it cheaper overseas.
Labor costs are certainly a strong reason for manufacturing jobs leaving the US. However, the trend started in the early 1950s as more an more Americans seeked out professional jobs. This was way before jobs began moving overseas. You can research the facts on the Labor department web site and see that the since the 1950s people seeking employment in farming and manufacturing has been in a steady decline.
BTW, I'm 42 and would gladly move to a farming job if I could make anywhere near the pay I do now as an engineering manager. And yes, I do know what is involved.
Somehow, I made it through and within two weeks was having the time of my life, working with some of the best people I've ever met and doing the most immediately gratifying, and perhaps more challenging work that I have ever done. This included sandblasting, painting, cleaning drydocks, removing sludge out of empty fuel tanks, etc. Dangerous and incredibly dirty, hard work.
It was really one of the most liberating experiences of my life after the petty politics of the electronics shop I had worked in for years. I worked (by choice) in this job for almost three years, only going back to the shop to work on equipment for which I was the sole qualified tech. Lest anyone think that I was just a malcontent who couldn't handle a technical job, I have been an electronics tech/test engineer for over 25 years at this point and have received nothing but accolades for my performance every one of those years.
No, I'm not really representative, I guess. When I go to my mom's on vacation, the first thing I do is rake manure from the barn. Therapy...
In any case, for most people, it's not a choice between a professional job and a factory job. The people who used to work at factory jobs are now working at jobs in the service sector. They are often just as boring as the dullest factory job, if not quite as dangerous. The pay is also lower.
I used to live in a small city that was known for its manufacturing. The last manufacturing company closed a couple of decades ago (a paper company). With the loss of the $20/hour jobs at the paper company, the area really went into a tailspin. The only other jobs people could get with their level of education were fast food or retail jobs. McDonald's, the mall, etc. A lot of people started dealing drugs, since that paid very well and didn't require a degree.
I find such work to be very rewarding and enjoyable, and have long tried to accumulate as much of such skills and knowledge as I can. I would not hesitate even a moment to trade my present career for one of these. I suspect I would be much happier. Next on my list are gardening and ironworking/blacksmithing (if I can find the time).
Most physical work isn't that hard, it is the boring that gets you. I got so bored while a grinderman that I took a power washer and cleaned 80 years worth of wood pulp off the machinery.
Farming is hard, physical work but it is also good exercise and low stress (I mostly did hay/straw baling and hauling).
My current job is much more draining from the mental exertion and stress.
I don't have to. At my office, we are about half deskbound and half out in the field (construction, maintenance, survey, etc.). And those who are out in the field doing physical work are there because they want to be. Some just hate deskjobs on principle. Some like the overtime available to people who are out in the field.
As for farming...I live in an area that was all farms not too long ago. Many of my coworkers own working farms. They plan to farm full time in retirement. They mourn the changes that mean their children who want to be full time family farmers will have a tough time of it.
Perhaps so...but a lot of people don't really want to be educated. If they could get a job that paid well without having to get an expensive degree, they would take that route.
I recently had to deal with someone who took a job as a "CADD operator" in our engineering dept. He was a good kid, but didn't want to work at a computer all day. Turns out, he thought "CADD operator" was some kind of heavy equipment operator. (Such people are often referred to as "operating engineers," so the mistake is understandable.) He eventually quit and took a job running an excavating machine for a construction company, and was much, much happier.
I am currently working as a civil engineer. I have worked at labor intensive jobs in the past, including farmwork. (It was my first job, and yes, it was grueling, but I wouldn't mind doing it again.)
I've worked out in the field before, and would do it again. Indeed, I asked for a field position when I was first hired; my previous job was as a bridge inspector. I was put in the office because that was where they needed people. I've stayed there because the office is only 2 miles from my apartment. If I went out in the field, I could be assigned to job sites who knows where. I don't want to spend four hours a day driving.
Or maybe the jobs available in farming and manufacturing began to decline? That was when machinery and automation really began taking off. Remember IBM's constant propaganda about how computers could never replace human workers? Hah!
Unfortunately these people aren't the norm. The majority of the American population lives in urban areas, and have no experience in agraculture. You're cherry picking a few people that you associate with and assume this applies to the entire country. Are there people that enjoy farming and manual labor jobs? Absolutely, but that doesn't imply the majority does.
>I am currently working as a civil engineer. I have worked at labor intensive jobs in the past, including farmwork. (It was my first job, and yes, it was grueling, but I wouldn't mind doing it again.)
Thats fine. I have as well, but it does mean the majority of the population has done it or would want to work on a farm, or would be willing to work as many hours as foriegner workers are willing to commit. Given the choice of long hours intensive labor jobs or easy 9-5 jobs the majority would choose the latter.
Here in the North East, many homeowners use landscapers to maintain their property. If they aren't willing to spend thiry-odd minutes a week cutting the lawn or trimming the strubs, they most certainly are not going to consider farm work.
Most Americans (that can afford it) have air conditioned homes. Why purchase, maintain and operate an air conditioner at home if you don't mind hot weather or working in a less than office like environment? The majority of Americans also eat out more than once a week rather than spend time preparing a heathly, lower cost, homecooked meal. Why do americans buy luxary cars and SUVs that they cannot afford? Why does the average american carry nearly $9,000 in unsecured debt? Does this group even remotely seem likely they would be interested in working harder? I think not!
>I recently had to deal with someone who took a job as a "CADD operator" in our engineering dept. He was a good kid, but didn't want to work at a computer all day. Turns out, he thought "CADD operator" was some kind of heavy equipment operator
Thats odd that your company hired someone who didn't understand what the job was. Usually that issue disappears during the interview.
>He eventually quit and took a job running an excavating machine for a construction company, and was much, much happier.
A heavy machine operator, is really a professional job. Most likely his work week is 40 hours or less and his job is more or less similar to a computer operator, that is operating equipment while sitting in a chair. The manufacturing jobs overseas are usually 60 to 80 hours a week, and farming jobs usually fair no better. The bottom line is that Americans are not going to put in the same long and hard hours as foreigners will commit.
To give you some perpective, from the mid nineteenth century up until the late 1940's the average American factory job was Ten hours a day Monday through Friday and Five hours on Saturday and had about half-hour lunch break. Prior to the 1920s they use to work the full day on Saturday. By the 1950's Unions began to win concessions and the work week eventully fell to about 40 hours. If Americans didn't mind the work, why did they demand fewer working hours, despite that they would have made more money since they were paid by the hour? Why not just demand more money per hour instead? The bottom line is that the majority of Americans don't want long, labor intensive jobs.
It was an entry-level position. We were willing to train a capable candidate. He was capable, but just not interested in sitting in front of a computer all day. That is many Americans' idea of hell.
Nope. You work a lot longer than 40 hours a week. Which is good, because there may not be any work available at all in the winter. You're also exposed to the elements, which you are not in an air-conditioned office.
Sure they will - if you pay them enough. Many American "professionals" put in those kinds of hours. It's worth it to them, because they are paid well.
Perhaps because they were rightly concerned about others who might want to work?
Americans have been working longer and longer hours for that past 20 years or so. The reason? It's cheaper for companies to force people to work longer hours than to hire more people. Especially since many "professionals" don't get any overtime for the extra work.
The offshoring of manufacturing was a tragedy for many Americans. (Billy Joel even wrote a popular song about it - "Allentown.") The factories didn't close because of a lack of workers. Far from it. People wanted to work. Desperately.
These are not people who could easily get professional jobs, even if they wanted them. They ended up in the service industry instead, flipping burgers for much less money.
Look at all those miners now who are defending their companies, despite safety violations and on-the-job injuries and even deaths. They are terrified that the mine will close and they will lose their jobs. Despite the long hours, hard work, and danger.
What kills me more than anything is seeing Labor unions declining year after year. They're keeping the blue-collar jobs equipped with a decent living wage, and the 11% or so of us who can live a middle class life outside of staring at a computer monitor all day. Once the Unions go, office jobs will be all that's left :P
I think you are underestimating the "initial pain". One could argue that the Depression was a good thing "after the initial pain" (which included WW2) -- after all, it was followed by the 50s! The only difference is that I don't see the segue into something comparable to the 50s. And truth is, WW2 was not devastating for the US even though soldiers lost their lives. But there's every likelihood that we will NOT go unscathed in upcoming wars and turbulence.
I am unable to envisage an optimistic short or medium term scenario - except that very great hardship will remold us into creatures more focused on building a sustainable and cooperative future.
You know, credit is not easy, but costs of everything are very low, and salaries have dropped substantially, in Sudan. Perhaps you'd like to go live there? You might think it's a very good thing, after the initial pain ...
Are you saying the pain is avoidable?
Are you saying the American "way of life" can continue, unabatted? Are you saying it should?
What, exactly, is you point?
Given the role the US has played globally since the Monroe Doctrine, maybe they deserve a little bit of Sudan right at home. Maybe not the "American People," but since they're the ones who rule the roost at the ballot box, maybe they ought to endure a bit of pain about now. They could have voted for a sane America. They chose to vote for their comfort and gadgets. Guess may get to feel a little of the harshness life can dish out. Maybe, God forbid, a little pain.
jimbo
;-)
As for the insanity, America didn't vote for it. The last 2 elections were rigged, remember? And as we all know the system is broke, no one has the guts to fix it, and gassing about it here changes nothing. Let's move on.
There is a way to avoid the pain of a second great depression. And we're doing it right now. Let the developing world continue to manufacture goods. Let America continue to manufacture debt. Let the foreign exchange rates be fixed by strongarming foreign central banks into inflating their own currency.
And let's all continue breeding like yeast in the barrel. Invent ways to turn all biomass into oil. Shovel what's left into the oceans along with all our other toxins. This way to the supercriticality ...
Mortality is a small price to pay for existence -- Bob Geldof.
Why would you idiots have not made Florida and Ohio irrelevant by controlling the ballot boxes in the rest of the bloody Union?
I rest my case. Comforts and gadgets. That sums up the "state" of the Union.
jimbo
;-)
A lot of the election reform groups are pushing for optical scan ballots instead. It's supposedly the most reliable. Tell that to the thousands of students whose SAT scores were incorrect. The reason? The optical scanners used to score the tests don't work correctly when it's humid, and the week the test was given saw wet weather in many parts of the U.S.
This is a classic example of Tainter's diminishing returns. All this expensive technology...that's too complex for the average Joe to use. Makes you wonder if we shouldn't have just stuck with placing a check mark on a paper ballot.
It was systemic, pervasive, and coordinated - and it did not need to be in all states at all, just the ones in play.
But like I said, gassing on here will do nothing to change any of that. The system is screwed, and the only meaningful vote is with your feet. America, love it and leave it.
MOST Americans did not cast a ballot FOR Bush.
The last 2 elections were rigged, remember?
Every election has some degree of rigging. This one has sets of data that make it obvious.
Oh, and welcome to TOD. Were you sick of The Blue?
Fine. Who the hell did they vote for?
More importantly, why, when the evidence and scope of manipulation was apparent, did the electorate sit on its fat arse and let the result go to Bush without a single mass uprising of any significance?
It's not whether you win, it's how loud you protest an invalid result. If it worked in Ukraine, in the bloody freezing winter, what would stop it from working for you and yours?
jimbo
;-)
Most of them didn't vote at all.
The rest voted for Kerry, Nader, other obscure candidates, or screwed up their ballots accidentally.
Read the construction again. It was set up to be inclusive of ALL Americans, many who can not vote, and the ones who opted to not vote at all. In addition to the green/Libertarian/Nader et la votes.
why, when the evidence and scope of manipulation was apparent, did the electorate sit on its fat arse and let the result go to Bush without a single mass uprising of any significance
If you have a job, are making enough to pay the bills, have a family - WHY woudl you stand up and complain and run the risk of not having a job, be unable to pay your bills, et la?
For your premis to be correct, you'd have to have Americans to be an idealisc lot who'd be willing to stand up to people in power.
When the mass of citizens are cold and hungry - have nothing left to loose, THEN you'll see many throw themselves into trying to effect change.
There is actually a town next door to mine with "messy" mixed business and residential. Why did they do it that way? Because it worked.
There are other cities built on swampland that have the same feature. Milwaukee comes to mind.
But what do you care, if it is not New York City, San Fancisco or New Orleans it is not worth saving.
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/3/18/194843/888#39