The Pursuit of Jobs

I don't have the full answer to how to solve the jobs crisis but have made a few observations from my own experiences; namely technology is moving so fast that workers have to study after work hours to keep up.  Community Colleges are inadequate to meet the demand for up to date technological education.  It reminds me of what happened to ancient Rome.  Farmers were bought out by wealthy entrepreneurs who used slaves to till and work the land.  The former farmers moved to the cities.  Some took on crafts but most went on a dole and watched the gladiator games paid for by the wealthy elite, to buy favor from the mob.  In a way that is what has happened to our society--small farmers are out, large corporations have bought the land and made collectives, which are tilled and worked by mechanical "slaves" overseen by a few overseers.
Manufacturing corporations have gone outside of the U.S. in order to find cheap laborers; they are little better than slaves.  However, when you had slaves you had to feed them adequately enough to work; you had to provide them with lodging; you had to call in a doctor to take care of illnesses or injuries;  and you took care of them if they reached old age.  Corporations overseas gives foreign workers a pittance, hardly enough to provide for themselves.  The corporations are doing to them what they want for everyone in the U.S.; no representation, no healthcare, no pensions, and a lack of protective regulations regarding financial institutions.  Corporations' idea of a free market is one where corporations only are heard and considered.  The corporations want low taxes, subsidies, low wages for workers (competitiveness), no benefits such as pensions, no company sponsored health care, no worker's representation (labor unions), no government interceding on labor's behalf.  In other words a corporation utopia. 
The trend towards joblessness will continue to grow;  technology taking more jobs, education becoming more expensive as well as inadequate to meet the nation's technological needs.  More workers will find themselves homeless (if the corporation elite have their way), unable to meet industry's technological needs.  There are a percentage of people who do not have mathematical abilities, scientific or mechanical ability.  Some people learn more slowly than others.  Society must consider that a portion of the population are less suitable for highly technological jobs.  A niche should be provided for them.  Consider maybe slowing down our mad pursuit of technology for a time; to let society catch its breath.

Newt's Run For President

Newt Gingrich is an excellent example of a propagandist; right up there with Rush Limbaugh.  His list of words to use, such as pathetic, are excellent examples of "glittering generalities" and "name calling".  A good example of name calling is "Food Stamp Obama".  Demonizing, sloganizing, finger pointing, Big Lies, labeling, are all ploys which he uses constantly.  Nothing comes out of his mouth which is not propaganda.

His main strategy is immediately to counter attack any attack on him.  Usually attacking, demonizing, the messenger, who questions or otherwise would discredit his words, actions, or positions.  He is very good at stirring up emotions in his audience.  Emotions that would favor him.  He keeps his message simple and short; unlike Obama who goes to some length to "explain".  The audience tends to "tune out" when someone goes on and on about their ideas.  Gingrich uses many "virtue" words, such as "freedom", "liberty", "American people", etc.  Everyone has their own "interpretation" of such words.  "Patriotism" has a general meaning to everyone, but is acted out in different ways by different "patriots".  One mans "patriot" may mean another mans criminal for instance. 

Who would you trust--someone who makes an effort to fully inform constituents, or someone who uses ploys, misinformation, distorting facts to mislead constituents?  Both Obama and Gingrich have backgrounds known to the public.  Which one of the two has previously had ethical and moral issues?  Which one continually lies?  Which one is a hypocrite? 

National Geographic's After Oil Video

I viewed with interest National Geographic's film about oil depletion and thought it was partly correct, but had some glaring wrong assumptions in it.

First, oil depletion is not a sudden happening--it is taking place right now.  The higher prices for crude oil is verification of that.  A hundred plus dollars for a barrel of oil is testament that supply is barely keeping up with demand.  What is the correct scenario?

The answer to that is like trying to describe chaos theory, but it will happen gradually over a period of years, with oil becoming more in demand and with oil gradually not satisfying those demands.  A point will be reached when countries, like the United States, major European countries such as England, Germany, France, Spain, all become fierce bidders for a dwindling supply of oil to keep their economies going.  China and Russia will also become important players in the pursuit for oil.  How politics, military excursions, and public sentiment figure in the depletion equation is anyone's guess; but it wont be pretty.  A point will be reached when oil becomes so scarce that oil itself becomes too precious to use to deliver it to gas stations and other public users.  The military may confiscate what is left, leaving the public to fend for itself.  The national oil reserve is useless for oil has to be refined before it can be used and refineries may be inoperable by the time they are needed for handling oil from the reserve.

Another point; distribution of gasoline will be extremely iffy, large cities may have first priority for distribution of a dwindling resource, farming communities may not get any at all, thus restricting food deliveries to food manufacturers and warehouses. 

Electric cars were mentioned in the piece.  Without gasoline or diesel people will not be able to get around, go to work, obtain food, supply water.  Without transportation to work there will be no utilities or public services.  No electricity or manufacturing.  Building and operating electric cars is not possible under these conditions.  At the moment coal is supplying nearly half of our electricity and guess what?  Diesel fuel is used to mine and transport coal.

Without utilities cities become extremely inhospitable places.  Growing crops on top of buildings, though possible, is very unlikely.  Ever carry pots and dirt up stairs for 5, 10, 15, 20 or more stories?  Then there is a water supply for the crops--cisterns, rain?  Then where is the seed to come from?  Most seeds found in stores today are hybrids, meaning they grow one crop only.  Heirloom seeds or non-hybrid seeds are needed--where will people find them?  Central Park made into a farm to feed New York City folk?  Cutting trees, plowing, planting, irrigating, harvesting' all activities were glossed over.

Without oil humans today are faced with starvation.  Crops can't be grown, harvested, processed, transported, bought.  Farm animals wont starve, they will be eaten.  The search for food will be chaotic.  What would a husband or wife do to feed themselves and their children?  Panic and desperation will be the primary motivators when oil stops flowing.  Growing food will not be an option for most families.  It takes months to cultivate crops; if seed is available.  People are more likely to let someone else do all the work, then steal the crop.  Even if crops were an option, fertilizer and insecticides will not be available.

The population numbers will drop drastically; from starvation, disease, and conflict.  Oil depletion, in a short span of time, will not allow for social adjustments. No, National Geographic didn't get it right.  They assume that humans will prevail in any situation.  We are no better than other species who have over populated a finite space and resource. growing to such an extant that a die off is inevitable.  One difference is our capacity to see into the future, based on past history.  Unfortunately few use this capacity to avoid problems, preferring to ignore obvious signs and view the future with optimism.