Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

How the information age ruined America...Follow

#1 Mar 03 2005 at 3:39 PM Rating: Good
***
1,847 posts
I've been working on a research paper for the past 2 weeks on the early-mid 1990's for my Human Services class. Its been interesting, because its brought up a lot of things that I never realized before.

for the paper we could choose any time period, and then any important piece of legislation from that time period, to write about. So, I chose the 1990's and FMLA, because I thought it would be neat to see what I was too stupid to see was going on around me while I was growing up, and the FMLA just because I was a little familiar with it.

But, yeah, so the internet. In the 1990's, after craploads of money had been invested into communications and computer technologies, the internet as we know it really came into existance. With it came a huge opportunity for increased development rates for companies because computers could help out with so much of the work. The downside? Where hundreds of people were needed to perform a task, you now would only need a handful with computers. We made a transition from an industrialized society into an information based society. With the transition, companies realized that less workers were needed, and most of those that were could be "flexible labor," that is to say, short term employees. This was wonderful for them. They could get more work done, with fewer employees who got paid less, and they didn't have the fringe benefits of long term employees.

Another problem with an information based society is that the jobs dealing with intangibles, such as data, are easily moved anywhere around the globe. Tangible goods are much harder. This is why (I believe) a major rush for IT outsourcing didn't occur until midway through the 90's.

On top of that, the internet, and the increased rates of data transmission allowed for incredibly fast development times all across the board in the USA. One of the sectors which reaped the most was medical technologies. Incredible leaps forward were made in the 90s. However, there was a problem. They were expensive, and very few people could afford them. The number who could afford them was cut even smaller due to the "flexible labor" policy that many corporations found themselves in favor of, with an ever rising number of citizens finding themselves without insurance. So we had incredible preventative and corrective medical procedures, but they were prohibitively expensive, and the insurance companies weren't going to help anyone out.

So, would you guys say its fair to reason that the internet, while it brought with it incredible developments, also really helped to ***** over America? Just curious on all of your opinions.

Edited, Thu Mar 3 15:47:49 2005 by scubamage
#2 Mar 03 2005 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Blame Gore.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#3 Mar 03 2005 at 3:45 PM Rating: Good
****
6,730 posts
Gore only invented one of the internets, ask Bush.
#4 Mar 03 2005 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,453 posts
Actually I think foreign industrial compeition and cheap labor had a lot more to do with the collapse of America's industrial base. The US had a virtual monopoly on mass industry for many years after World War 2 because so much of the industries of former competitors had been destroyed. Once they got themselves up and running on a national scale, and finished rebuilding their own countries, they were well equipped to begin exporting an a scale to threaten American dominance.

The transition away from an industrial nation began long before the internet arrived on the scene.
#5 Mar 03 2005 at 4:04 PM Rating: Decent
Admiral Deathwysh wrote:
Actually I think foreign industrial compeition and cheap labor had a lot more to do with the collapse of America's industrial base. The US had a virtual monopoly on mass industry for many years after World War 2 because so much of the industries of former competitors had been destroyed. Once they got themselves up and running on a national scale, and finished rebuilding their own countries, they were well equipped to begin exporting an a scale to threaten American dominance.

The transition away from an industrial nation began long before the internet arrived on the scene.


True, but not quite. Actually, so many former soldiers used the GI bill to get an education that there wasn't a shortage of white collar or blue collar wrokers for jobs. The reason why a factory job isn't as lucrative as it used to be is because there is increased foreign competition as well as **** poor immigration policy. On top of that, there is a shrinking percentage of the populace who have college degrees. This trasnlates into economic stratification and the diminishment of the purchasing power on average per American citizen.. You learn these things when you actually listen to Greenspan, who kinda knows what he's talking about.
#6 Mar 03 2005 at 4:14 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,453 posts
Quote:
On top of that, there is a shrinking percentage of the populace who have college degrees



I'd have to see statistics on that before I believed it.

#7 Mar 03 2005 at 4:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I'm not so sure about ruination, but there are definitely ongoing consequences.

Two that I can think of off the top:

1. Information gap between the wired and the wired-not. I don't know what the ultimate consequences will be, but further social division is probably not a good thing on the whole; and

2. Increasing physical isolation of the wired from the rest of the world. Sure, you can get information about anything, chat with people from everywhere... but you have less and less reason to leave your house, less reason to socialize, less impetus to get out and about and see and be seen. Again, I don't know what effect this will have in the long term, but humans are social critters. The extreme form of wiresolation has to have some deleterious effects, eventually.

Edited to add:
Of course there are other down sides as well...

Edited, Thu Mar 3 16:46:23 2005 by SamiraX
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#8 Mar 03 2005 at 5:25 PM Rating: Decent
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_6/1_2/7_1.asp

The statistics only portray their percentages vs. amount of citizens. What it leaves out of account are the number of illegal immigrants and total workforce.


Edited, Thu Mar 3 17:27:30 2005 by Lefein
#9 Mar 03 2005 at 5:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
It all comes down to this really:
"Video killed the radio star"

I rest my case.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#10 Mar 03 2005 at 5:47 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Scuba, you also have to put that into perspective though. Every major technological change has that effect. The labor has to adjust to it.

100 years ago, something like 75% of the US population farmed in some way. Today, something like 4% do. That was the direct result of mechanization and automation. What used to require 50 people with hand tools could be done by 2 or 3 with large farm machines.

Did the economy collapse? Nope. We freed up that labor to do other things and moved just a bit farther from an agrarian society to an industrial one.


You can argue that across all history, civilizations develop new technologies and new methodologies to reduce the percentage of their population required simply to allow the society to subsist. In every case, the extra people are now free to generate new industries (which usually result in greater technological growth down the line).

Changes like Computerization are only negative if you have a labor force that is unwilling or unable to change what they are doing. There are two ways of looking at the equation. You can either see that only 30% of the people are required to do the same work as before, so the other 70% is out of work, or you can see that you can do 70% more work by training all the affected people to use the new methodology.


It's not actually a bad thing, and it by no means indicates a collapse at all. Those leaps usually trigger huge growth within a civilization, not the other way around.

Of course, I'd argue that institutions like labor unions (which use political power to keep workers jobs "safe" even if those jobs are no longer effective) can cause exactly the problems you are talking about. They attempt to prevent those workers from moving from what they are doing to something else. So instead of having 100% of our workforce doing something in a more efficient manner, we deliberatly block that process and attempt to force the market to continue to allow some percentage of the workfoce to continue doing things the "old way", or to block introduction of new methodologies in our workplaces. The result of that is a problem, since you now will have increased unemployement as those who aren't protected by the unions are still hurt by their efforts to block the retraining and restructuring process.

But that's just my take on it. I think that every change will bring about a degree of chaos and some instability. But in the long run, things are better afterwards then they were before.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Mar 03 2005 at 5:50 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Bob Damn the interwebs!!
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#12 Mar 03 2005 at 5:51 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Dread Lord Kaolian wrote:
It all comes down to this really:
"Video killed the radio star"

I rest my case.

You co[b][/b]ckmunch. Guess what I have stuck in my head now. Smiley: mad
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#13 Mar 03 2005 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,453 posts

Quote:
The statistics only portray their percentages vs. amount of citizens. What it leaves out of account are the number of illegal immigrants and total workforce.



I'm not seeing anything in there that backs your casemn(admittendly I skimmed it rather quickly), but it looks to me like more people than ever are getting higher than ever educations. What I did see was...

"the proportion of 10th-graders expecting to complete a bachelor's as their highest degree has nearly doubled since 1980 and the proportion expecting to earn a graduate degree has more than doubled, with the potential of higher educational attainment in the years ahead."


There may have been a spike in college graduates after WW2 as a result of the GI Bill, but that represent an aberration, and not any sort of trend. Even if you take illegal immigrants into the equation I still can't see there being a decrease in the percentage of the population that has graduated college.


As for the stratification of wealth, that's easy to see. Since the 1970's wages for corporate executives have risen 40 times faster than those of top level labor jobs. Not surprising.

#14 Mar 03 2005 at 6:00 PM Rating: Decent
Admiral Deathwysh wrote:

Quote:
The statistics only portray their percentages vs. amount of citizens. What it leaves out of account are the number of illegal immigrants and total workforce.

As for the stratification of wealth, that's easy to see. Since the 1970's wages for corporate executives have risen 40 times faster than those of top level labor jobs. Not surprising.



Because there is a glut of labor, international competition, and poor immigration policy.
#16 Mar 04 2005 at 8:09 AM Rating: Decent
There are several theories on how to handle an automation society. If you are truly interested in the subject i recommend

http://www.checs.net/checs_00/presentations/nanotech.htm

Among other reads. The subject is a pet fascination of mine.
#17 Mar 04 2005 at 8:38 AM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
gbaji wrote:


100 years ago, something like 75% of the US population farmed in some way. Today, something like 4% do. That was the direct result of mechanization and automation. What used to require 50 people with hand tools could be done by 2 or 3 with large farm machines.

Did the economy collapse? Nope.


Actually it sucked for awhile but then had some positive effects to deal with the new problems.

The surplus in available labour meant that the people that owned the means of production could pay whatever they wanted as wage. More people than actual jobs tends to that, you also had an increase of child labour. ( read any ******* novel for an idea, people who were no longer needed to farm moved to city and tried to find jobs usually got paid **** poor, lived in slums and had more diseases than al'Katie after a the local miltary base hands out free time to the boys)

Minimum wage, unions and mandatory schooling until a certain age were ways in which the problems were tackled. You even had the writings of marx and engle on the subject (course that is more of a industrial revolution time frame not 100yrs ago time).

Americas problem is that they have pushed for decades for a global economy and free trade looking to open up new markets for export. However this has also made it open to the world market. When a company can pay a US citizen min wage or goto indonesia or india and have people who work ten times harder for a fraction of the cost with no worries of worker safety or pensions or such they are going to go where the profit is. Unforturnately that money doesnt trickle down from the corporations to the average joe american (no reaganomics aint working). Neither are the prices for products going down, an example is a shipping company whose name I currently forget, one of the largest trans oceanic bulk shipping out there. They paid there employees premium with benefits and pension and all and payed the US taxes. However they found that if they moved to a flag of convenience country such as Trinidad Tobago and payed marginally less taxes that they could hire outside people for lower wages with no benefits or pension. The company saved some coin but the price they charged customers remained the same.

Its not the end but its not due to stinky immigrants and china isnt gonna be ruling the world in 20 years, and its not due to computers, however the days of a man being able to support his family are gone and there is an ever increasing decline of the middle class.

Dunno economics aint my field of study but I really hope that america stays a viable economic power because the majority of canadian export goes to them despite recent moves by canada to become trade friendly with China.



Edited, Fri Mar 4 08:48:59 2005 by bhodisattva
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 207 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (207)