Posted on 12/29/2012 7:49:19 PM PST by neverdem
It began as a housing marvel. Built in 1956, Pruitt-Igoe was heralded as the model public housing project of the future, "the poor man's penthouse."SOURCE: Amazon.comTwo decades later, it ended in rubble - its razing an iconic event that the architectural theorist Charles Jencks famously called "the death of modernism." The footage and images of its implosion have helped to perpetuate a myth of failure, a failure that has been used to critique Modernist architecture, attack public assistance programs, and stigmatize public housing residents.
The Pruitt-Igoe Myth seeks to set the historical record straight. To examine the interests involved in Pruitt-Igoe's creation. To re-evaluate the rumors and the stigma. To implode the myth.
Your CW prof was seriously off-base.
PS It worked then too.
It appears conservative anger with the MSM has hit home... You're forgiven for being a member of a liberal elite team...you're repented your ways and are forgiven.
It appears conservative anger with the MSM has hit home... You're forgiven for being a past member of a liberal elite team...you've repented your ways and are forgiven.
We need to lower the cost of government and lower the cost of doing business in this country. Shutting down dollar stores and raising prices to lower the standard of living isn't the answer. If you think we're ever going to produce low-priced widgets in this country just by raising the price, you are insane.
Which PROVES we do not need government involved to do that
On the other hand, if you can't read more than 1000 words at a sitting, you may have ADD.
>> On the other hand, if you can’t read more than 1000 words at a sitting, you may have ADD.
If I do, as an engineer with an M.S. (with a straight “A” average in grad school, BTW), things were just fine in the schoolhouse. The point here is at a greater than 3200 word count, posted on a staunchly conservative website, how much of it do you need to read to say “Yup, this guy’s got a point here - you’ve convinced me”?
Also, notice that he uses the “I” word 46 times. There’s a saying that goes “Everyone has at least one good book in them”, So - get an editor who will clean up the droning on and on, and publish it as a book.
Exactly. And this guy is running a PRIVATE business of his own. He is trying to privatize job placement services and take it out of the hands of government, which in my own experience does it very badly.
Excellent piece. The tens of millions of able-bodied adults not working is a lot of what lies at the heart of what ails our country at this time. A change in policy to push them into the labor force would go a lng ways towards improving the situation.
bttt
You can eliminate all taxes and regulations and you won't be able to compete with Communist China's $2/day wages.
By the way China has a 90% Tax rate, and they are doing just fine. Why? Because they have cheap labor and they can sell to us without buying hardly anything back except our debt and manufacturing know how.
If you block access to our markets, or raise the price of imports, things will get produced in our country. And our people will go back to work. Our founding fathers put import tariffs in place, and they worked well for most of our country's history. Now they are practically gone and our unemployment is through the roof.
You can eliminate all regulations and taxes and you still can't compete against Communist Chinese labor at $2/day.
"we have the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world."
China has tax rates of 90%. Yet everything in Wal-mart is still made in China? Why? It is the wage differential. China's high tax rate actually helps keep their labor costs down.
We have a choice. We can employ Americans or we can employee Chinese. If we employ Americans, our neighbors will be richer and buy more from us. U.S. government revenues will be higher, and U.S. government outlays for unemployed will be lower.
If we buy Chinese, we get cheap prices, but don't expect that money to come back and buy other U.S. goods. The Chinese government keeps the profits and uses it only to buy U.S. debt or more manufacturing know how.
You clearly do not understand the cost structure of goods. In addition, the typical wage for manufacturing in China is in line with Mexico, which is quite a bit lower than in the US but is not the $2 you reference. Plus, there is no 90% tax rate in the products that I am currently negotiating to be produced in China, so I don’t have any idea where you are getting that information.
Yes, in labor intensive products it would be most effected by labor, but once that product gets to be too difficult to ship (weight, size, lack of packing density, etc.) it is quickly no longer a benefit to outsource to cheap labor markets. In addiiton, in high capital low labor products, there is no general benefit to any particular region in the globe, hence you see them localize to the markets that they serve.
The other areas of costs are relatively equalized globally, unless there is some abundance of raw materials or if a government unfairly subsidizes an industry. So, yes a ZERO corporate tax rate and a very large reduction in regulations would go a long way to benefiting Americans by bringing manufacturing of high capital requirements and high skill labor back to the US. I’m OK with the Chinese making my tennis shoes, while we trade in more intellectual persuits and manufacture the next world changing innovation.
The difference between our positions can be explained in a macro way. I prefer supply side economics and you prefer demand side economics.
Well at least we've established that you stand to gain by maintaining the status quo.
"but once that product gets to be too difficult to ship (weight, size, lack of packing density, etc.) it is quickly no longer a benefit to outsource to cheap labor markets."
A quick trip to Walmart, shows that's shipping costs are not prohibitive for most products. This might prevent extremely durable goods like white bread from being produced in China, but not much else.
"I’m OK with the Chinese making my tennis shoes, while we trade in more intellectual persuits and manufacture the next world changing innovation."
You and Obama both. During the debates Obama said he didn't want just any jobs, he only wanted high paying jobs. I'm sure that's a comfort to the 24% unemployed (shadowstats.com) in this country that Obama is going to hold out for only high paying jobs and let them starve and let government deficits soar in the mean time.
“Well at least we’ve established that you stand to gain by maintaining the status quo.”
As anticipated, you bit. The product I am negotiating for production in China will be produced in China and used in China, India, Thailand and Vietnam. It is also going to be produced in Europe, Brazil and North America for use in their respective regions. Hence, my current negotiation will actually positively impact employment in the US.
This particular product has a production cost of $45 in Germany, $41 in the US and $45 in China. Yet, the labor rate in the US is a little over 3x the cost as in China. If I equalized the cost by using China’s labor rate, the US price would be reduced by about $0.80 or just under 2%.
“A quick trip to Walmart, shows that’s shipping costs are not prohibitive for most products. This might prevent extremely durable goods like white bread from being produced in China, but not much else.”
The fact that you think that products in Walmart stores constitutes “most products” is indicative that you are purposefuly limiting your thinking in order to emote.
“You and Obama both. During the debates Obama said he didn’t want just any jobs, he only wanted high paying jobs. I’m sure that’s a comfort to the 24% unemployed (shadowstats.com) in this country that Obama is going to hold out for only high paying jobs and let them starve and let government deficits soar in the mean time.”
Baseless attacking me, especially considering that I have offered solutions that are in direct opposition to the current presidential policies. I have not seen a specific solution offered by you, but your posts seem to indicate that you are of the protectionist preference. We’ve seen the results of protectionism several times, so I’ll offer only one example of the difference to you; would you prefer a 57 Trabant P50 or a 57 Corvette?
If you truly want the US to become a manufacturing mecca again, you would support the elimination of corporate taxes and a very large reduction in reglations. If you prefer protectionism, then be prepared for life to become stagnent in a hurry.
There has to be another answer to the trade imbalance where we exchange our manufacturing and labor capability for expendable products. We need to protect America both militarily and economically. Lose in either case will hasten our destruction.
Prior to WW II if we had offshored our production capability to Japan, Germany and China we would have lost the war. It was our manufacturing capability that facilitated our triumph.
So it's not at all a typical product. Why did you even bring it up then? If US labor = 3x Chinese labor and US labor - Chinese Labor = $0.80, then the Chinese labor cost is $0.40 and the U.S. labor cost is $1.20.
Given that, we can calculate that in China the labor cost is < than 1% ($0.40/$45) of the total product costs. And in the U.S. labor is < 3% ($1.20/$41) of total product costs. That's not a typical product at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.