Discussing or Being - Talk Radio

[boombox4]

But nothing has changed with regards to free trade or incentives. The people complaining the loudest are those who want to eliminate the safety net. But once again, they're mainly baby boomers who remember LBJ's Great Society. Ask anyone who grew up in the last 30 years, and they're not counting on the government for anything. A lot of them live at home with their parents. For Gen Y, parents are the new government.

The effects of those trade policies and tax policies are amplified by the poor economy. An example: Thanks to the NAFTA law passed back in 1992, now 20% of American branded vehicles are built in Mexico. Shipped back over the border tariff free. How many American jobs do you think that 20% represents? How much of a difference would it make in the employment figures, and the rest of the economy, if perhaps those 20% were assembled here in the US? And it's due to Government policy.

As far as those young people, if perhaps Government policy wasn't so in favor of outsourcing and offshoring of jobs, don't you think that just maybe a lesser percentage of those young people would be living at home with their parents?

It's true that if they are living at home, they're not 'counting on the government' for anything.

But who do they usually vote for, the party that says Government is the solution, or the party that says Government is the problem? I would think the majority of them vote for the former.

 

[JeffM]

If people are angry about being unemployed, they need to start their own companies, and build their own empire. That's what we hear every day. That's what Dave Ramsey says.

Oh yeah, Dave Ramsey. JAYYY-zus not only saves, he buys gold bullion...

 

[TheBigA]

As far as those young people, if perhaps Government policy wasn't so in favor of outsourcing and offshoring of jobs, don't you think that just maybe a lesser percentage of those young people would be living at home with their parents?

What we've learned from the last few years is that increased profits don't translate to more hiring. So no. Unless Americans want to work for the same wages as Mexicans, changes in trade laws wouldn't automatically mean more American jobs. And don't assume that they're living at home because they're unemployed.

The reality is it takes fewer workers to do the same job. For the past 20 years, the productivity numbers have gone through the roof. Those who have jobs are willing to work more hours, including salaried workers who don't get paid overtime. Automation and technology has eliminated lots of jobs. We see it in radio. Most of the job losses in radio have come from improvements in technology. The job is still being done, with less people involved. This is partly why one of the most popular courses of study in college today is entrepreneurship. Young people prefer to start their own small businesses, rather than work for a large company.

 

[boombox4]

What we've learned from the last few years is that increased profits don't translate to more hiring. So no. Unless Americans want to work for the same wages as Mexicans, changes in trade laws wouldn't automatically mean more American jobs. And don't assume that they're living at home because they're unemployed.

The reality is it takes fewer workers to do the same job. For the past 20 years, the productivity numbers have gone through the roof. Those who have jobs are willing to work more hours, including salaried workers who don't get paid overtime. Automation and technology has eliminated lots of jobs. We see it in radio. Most of the job losses in radio have come from improvements in technology. The job is still being done, with less people involved. This is partly why one of the most popular courses of study in college today is entrepreneurship. Young people prefer to start their own small businesses, rather than work for a large company.

Those increased profits are partly due to cheap offshore labor costs. And decreased regulations costs. Which involve US Government policy, as well as the more corporate and business friendly government policies of foreign governments.

Sure, automation is part of the unemployment picture.

But there are probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people employed in offshore factories owned by US companies, shipping American branded products back to the U.S. I'm certain that there is a lot of automation in those factories (especially in the Mexican ones -- I've seen photos of the operations in the newspapers) -- but it still amounts to a lot of lost American jobs. There are a lot of people employed in those factories.

The only reason Americans would have to work for the same wages as Mexicans to get those jobs back is due to Government trade policy. Sixty years ago labor in Mexico was even cheaper than it is today. But you didn't see American companies moving entire factories to Mexico the way they did after NAFTA (and even before NAFTA, due to previous trade agreements). There is a reason for that. Government trade and tax policy.

Eliminating or restructuring American job killing Government trade agreements would not be a panacea for workers. But there would be millions less unemployed in the US, automation or not.

As for your statement that "young people prefer to start their own small businesses", I doubt that. A small percentage probably do, especially those who are involved in the software business, but if you look at statistics, the majority of younger people in the US who are employed work for someone else. And if you also look at statistics, unemployment among the youngest working-age demos is very, very high.

Either way, Government trade, tax and labor policy either helps or hinders working Americans. It can help or hinder American employment. It can help or hinder US businesses.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Part of our problem is that we as Americans need to come to terms with a concept: Jobs don't belong to any country. What makes a job an "American Job"? If you and I took a world tour starting tomorrow and visiting various countries, and our tour was a chamber of commerce type thing where we visited a lot of "facilities" (more than factories) and we watched people at work, how would we recognize the jobs that are OURS, the jobs that are AMERICAN jobs.

Are some of those jobs in Mexican factories actually German jobs... maybe some of them are Japanese jobs, some are maybe Kenyan jobs.... but there they are... in Mexico.

What makes an American job different than a Swiss job, or an Israeli job, or an Indonesian job?

Maybe part of our problem is that as a culture, we assume we OWN certain jobs. They belong to US. How dare some poacher think he can do a job that only we can do!!!

 

[TheBigA]

Those increased profits are partly due to cheap offshore labor costs. And decreased regulations costs. Which involve US Government policy, as well as the more corporate and business friendly government policies of foreign governments.

But once again, consider radio, which doesn't use offshore labor.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

But once again, consider radio, which doesn't use offshore labor.

Tee, hee. Are you sure. I sometimes hear some Talk Radio talent that seems not offshore, but off the planet!

Maybe that observation gives new depth and color to he term "illegal aliens".

 

[boombox4]

But once again, consider radio, which doesn't use offshore labor.

True, automation killed jobs in radio, and may continue to do so as technology advances, including eliminating the need for airstaff.

But radio may also be an example of my original point: Government policy influencing the economy.

The Deregulation Act of 1996. Did it promote job growth in the radio industry, or did it bring about an atmosphere that created a net loss of radio jobs -- automation notwithstanding? Was the shedding of jobs in the radio industry only due to automation, or did the Deregulation Act play a part in it?

 

[TheBigA]

The Deregulation Act of 1996. Did it promote job growth in the radio industry, or did it bring about an atmosphere that created a net loss of radio jobs --

There's nothing in the 96 Act that says anything about jobs. It wasn't intended to create job growth. The automation that people identify with the 96 Act, voicetracking, came about in 1993. Truthfully, automation goes back to the 50s. So the technology came first. Did deregulation lead to growth in radio? That's what it was intended to do. Same with airlines and the phone company.

Profit-making companies do what they do for one reason: To make more money. They will always find a way to do that, regardless of regulation. But there have been no new regulations in four years, companies are posting record profits, the stock market is at an all time high, interest rates at historic lows, and for some reason talk radio blames the government for a "terrible economy." The government hasn't done anything, and the economy isn't that terrible. Those complaining about the economy aren't calling for any government action, and in fact they're promoting non-action. So it really makes no sense.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

But radio may also be an example of my original point: Government policy influencing the economy.

The Deregulation Act of 1996. Did it promote job growth in the radio industry, or did it bring about an atmosphere that created a net loss of radio jobs -- automation notwithstanding? Was the shedding of jobs in the radio industry only due to automation, or did the Deregulation Act play a part in it?

There is one way government policy has been influencing the economy.

Two and three years back it was in the new every time we turned around. When the job market turned around, the private sector was adding lots of jobs every month, but governments... particularly state and local... were not calling back former employees who had been laid off when the economy went back the tax revenue went down. I Googled for the latest info and numbers on that, and for the last two years there have apparently been no stories on this topic.

The economy is doing quite well today. The governors and legislatures in RED states sliced and diced state employees. "Oh, we have a constitutional mandate. As a state we can't have a deficit." So they laid off state employees right and left. They wanted to make the national administration look bad. They wanted their ex employees to know that they lost their jobs because the Federal government was all screwed up and caused the problems.

If states were to bring their state employee rolls back up to normal, it might be amazing how well our national economy would be doing right now. People have been posting about people who no longer get unemployment benefits, and are not currently looking fore work so they are NOT counted among the unemployed..... if you are waiting for your state or county or school district job to come back this Fall, you are probably not looking for a job right now. You are just waiting for your existing job to come out of hibernation.

Yes, some of our posters complain because people not looking for work are not counted in the unemployed numbers.... but the other side of that story is that even though this past week we saw that EMPLOYMENT levels are back up there.... where would they be if state and local government quit holding furloughed and terminated employees hostage just to make the political headlines seem bad.

And of course... we can't put those people back to work. Then Talk Radio wouldn't have much left to talk about when the good employment numbers got good enough they cannot be ignored.

 

[boombox4]

There's nothing in the 96 Act that says anything about jobs. It wasn't intended to create job growth. The automation that people identify with the 96 Act, voicetracking, came about in 1993. Truthfully, automation goes back to the 50s. So the technology came first. Did deregulation lead to growth in radio? That's what it was intended to do. Same with airlines and the phone company.

Profit-making companies do what they do for one reason: To make more money. They will always find a way to do that, regardless of regulation. But there have been no new regulations in four years, companies are posting record profits, the stock market is at an all time high, interest rates at historic lows, and for some reason talk radio blames the government for a "terrible economy." The government hasn't done anything, and the economy isn't that terrible. Those complaining about the economy aren't calling for any government action, and in fact they're promoting non-action. So it really makes no sense.

Regardless of the intentions of the writers of the 96 law, it had the effect of eliminating probably thousands of radio jobs. Automation just helped them go away. Consolidation of companies usually causes layoffs. Automation just helps further the process. But when Government policy allows more companies to consolidate in an industry where it previously disallowed it, layoffs are going to happen. Cause and effect.

In 2013 Congress increased Social Security payroll taxes by 2% (the reinstatement of the SS tax rate); flat retail sales at stores like Walmart may reflect that. Even Amazon sales are down in some states. In 2013 Congress increased income tax rates by 4.6% on employers of a significant portion of the private sector workforce. If you increase taxes on employers during a recession, are you giving them the incentive to hire people, or cut costs even more?

We're also still seeing the effects of Government inaction when it comes to a crumbling infrastructure. And as Mr. Cowboy mentions, Federal and other governments laying off workers has also contributed to unemployment.

A lot of people are calling for Government action, on both sides of the political spectrum.

Progressives want the Government to pass the President's jobs bill and hire those 100,000 teachers and 100,000 or more construction workers to rebuild the infrastructure. Conservatives want the Government to take a different sort of action and lower tax rates, increase tax incentives, and decrease some regulations to help businesses.

Your statement that the Republicans are promoting 'non-action' through gridlock, I agree with you there.

 

[boombox4]

There is one way government policy has been influencing the economy.

Two and three years back it was in the new every time we turned around. When the job market turned around, the private sector was adding lots of jobs every month, but governments... particularly state and local... were not calling back former employees who had been laid off when the economy went back the tax revenue went down. I Googled for the latest info and numbers on that, and for the last two years there have apparently been no stories on this topic.

The economy is doing quite well today. The governors and legislatures in RED states sliced and diced state employees. "Oh, we have a constitutional mandate. As a state we can't have a deficit." So they laid off state employees right and left. They wanted to make the national administration look bad. They wanted their ex employees to know that they lost their jobs because the Federal government was all screwed up and caused the problems.

If states were to bring their state employee rolls back up to normal, it might be amazing how well our national economy would be doing right now. People have been posting about people who no longer get unemployment benefits, and are not currently looking fore work so they are NOT counted among the unemployed..... if you are waiting for your state or county or school district job to come back this Fall, you are probably not looking for a job right now. You are just waiting for your existing job to come out of hibernation.

Yes, some of our posters complain because people not looking for work are not counted in the unemployed numbers.... but the other side of that story is that even though this past week we saw that EMPLOYMENT levels are back up there.... where would they be if state and local government quit holding furloughed and terminated employees hostage just to make the political headlines seem bad.

And of course... we can't put those people back to work. Then Talk Radio wouldn't have much left to talk about when the good employment numbers got good enough they cannot be ignored.

I agree with you on most of your points -- and the shrinkage in public sector employment is something you never hear conservative talk radio mention.

In blue states like my own, there were layoffs in the public sector as well as the private sector. But there also were other measures taken, like wage freezes and unpaid days off. On the state level here there seems to be more give and take between the two political parties than on the national level.

 

[flybynight]

I agree with you on most of your points -- and the shrinkage in public sector employment is something you never hear conservative talk radio mention.

In blue states like my own, there were layoffs in the public sector as well as the private sector. But there also were other measures taken, like wage freezes and unpaid days off. On the state level here there seems to be more give and take between the two political parties than on the national level.

Of course you don't hear this stuff on conservative talkradio. Their tendency to lie and mislead is instinctive. It never ceases to amaze me, the degree to which these type hosts will be dishonest. It's like a mental illness. I don't know how they can even look at themselves in the mirror each day without being disgusted.

 

[TheBigA]

Regardless of the intentions of the writers of the 96 law, it had the effect of eliminating probably thousands of radio jobs.

Only because those jobs were going to go away regardless. Call it coincidence. But anyone who was working in the industry before 1996 knows that jobs were going away because of automation. Consolidation made the automation more widespread quicker. But you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube, and profit making companies are always looking for ways to do the same work cheaper. Once options are available, employers will take them. The law played no significant part.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Let me set the stage for a new view of Talk Radio. Look at the Middle-East. Look at Africa. Look at nations further east than The Middle-East. We see battles, wars, ethnic-cleansing over and over and over. What is going on in Iraq today? A good example of my point: We don't see wars over political issues.... we see wars over which religion is going to be in charge of the geography. Ethnic Cleansing evens tend to follow this pattern: Which religion is going to be in charge?

So much for stage setting. What has taken an ugly, ugly turn in the U.S. since about 1980? Much of our political debate has changed, is changing to a war... not over what our politics will be as much as: what will our civic religion be!

I'm talking about the scorched earth efforts to establish U.S. policy on abortion, gay issues, and birth control. And the talk radio folks are the "Special Forces" raiders in all of this.

We long discussed the ETHICS of abortion, but now we are lectured on what God commands that we do. We can thank what was apparently an alliance between the friends of Jerry Falwell and the Friends of Ronald Reagan for that. Mr. President, you give us the outlawing of abortion and we will give you the ballot boxes of the Bible Belt.

We long discussed the ETHICS and the PSYCHOLOGICAL possibilities in the area of "being gay" but now, thanks to Talk Radio we discuss only the fact that "God didn't create Steve and Eve.... He creatred ADAM and Eve." No thank you, we are no longer interested in psychology, civil rights or ethics. We are establishing a new religion of social values for America.

We have long discussed the ETHICS of family planning, part of the church long discussed the "stewardship" of managing female health issues, but now Talk Radio tells us that in this "war" only the religion of the owners of Hobby Lobby must be our guide. We don't care what YOUR religious choices are, but those of Hobby Lobby are sacred.

So, like nations in the middle east that go to war over whether they will be Shiite or Sunni, Like the Irish who for a couple of generations threw fists and bombs over whether they would be Catholic or Protestant, or like Myanmar (previously known as Burma) we have even seen Buddhists get into something of a religious battle over who will run the country! And now we see Talk Radio as the carrier of the flag for installing a new religion in America.

The most visible part (or is it most AUDIBLE ) of this trend on radio would be the Republicans/Conservatives who seem to be creating a new Civic Religion for our nation, but the Democrats/Liberals instead of fighting back with a "Enough of your new unwanted religion!" theme, spend too much time trying to create a religious explanation of their own in rebuttal, rather than steering us back to the ETHICS and PRAGMATIC CIVIC values that have been present in our nation since it's founding.

Is Talk Radio serving the long term interests of our nation by "stirring the pot" in this direction?

 

[TheBigA]

Is Talk Radio serving the long term interests of our nation by "stirring the pot" in this direction?

There's a difference between stirring the pot and actually taking sides, and I think that's the problem. It's one thing to provide the platform for discussion, it's another to eliminate discussion completely and only promote an agenda.

I was watching the Stossel show on Fox over the weekend. He's an admitted Libertarian, and his topic was the differences between Libertarians and Conservatives. To do that, he had several reps of Conservative groups to talk about things like drug legalization and gambling. Libertarians don't believe in government regulation of either, but Conservatives do. So he was using his show to present both sides of the discussion. Great use of the medium. Not necessarily very dynamic or passionate. But he's not that kind of guy. He's more of a newsman with a perspective. That approach isn't going to attract the kind of numbers a more passionate host will get. Still, it's one way to do it.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Tee, hee. Are you sure. I sometimes hear some Talk Radio talent that seems not offshore, but off the planet!

Maybe that observation gives new depth and color to he term "illegal aliens".

I don't know. This is about adult standards radio, but the same rule applies.

Jeff Rollins has never once told us where he is.

 

[vchimpanzee]

We long discussed the ETHICS and the PSYCHOLOGICAL possibilities in the area of "being gay" but now, thanks to Talk Radio we discuss only the fact that "God didn't create Steve and Eve.... He creatred ADAM and Eve." No thank you, we are no longer interested in psychology, civil rights or ethics. We are establishing a new religion of social values for America.

Off topic, but Father Dowling's partner in solving mysteries was Sister Steve.

A woman who used to go to my church but now lives in a distant retirement community was called "Steve" when she was in nursing school. Her last name was Stephens.

Other than those two examples I think you've got it backwards.

It's ADAM and Steve. And those two would never have raised Cain, so that's the reason for that.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Off topic, but Father Dowling's partner in solving mysteries was Sister Steve.

A woman who used to go to my church but now lives in a distant retirement community was called "Steve" when she was in nursing school. Her last name was Stephens.

Thanks for the chuckle.

I understand this is a very volatile topic in today's world. I understand that it is a topic where the discussion and what can be discussed is changing rapidly. And when two people sit down to discuss the topic, or two groups sit down to discuss the topic, it requires some mutual caring and respect back and forth, or the "wheels fall off the wagon" and the discussion fails.

My perception is (and I could be wrong and welcome evidence that I am mistaken) that Talk Radio has done its share to poison-the-water so that caring and respectful talk does not become the norm. And I understand that some people will respond: "And it SHOULDN'T be the norm."

 

[JeffM]

Anyone else notice how much more civil it's been around here since you-know-who went on vacation? VIVA LAS VEGAS!!