I should have clarified. I was more so talking about just annual income from pay wages. Now if we're talking net worth, I'd say drblank that those numbers are probably pretty stink'n close. But the question arises, what's the spread against the population w/ those numbers? I'd say in the USA it's clearly lopsided to Upper Lower Class and Low Middle class. And that's across all ages in the US. I know many people how are nearing or are in "retirement" age and hardly have much, if anything saved. I know I'm negative, but hey, I'm only a few years out of college and hammering away at student loans. I know that when retirement comes (which I personally don't believe in), I'm not going to be caught w/ my pants down.
In terms of yearly salary, people in Silicon Valley, if your family income is $250K you are probably considered middle class. But if you made that much money and lived in the mid-west, you would be lower upper class. The cost of a DECENT 4 bedroom house in Silicon Valley costs $750K or more, but in other areas, that same house in a similar neighborhood might only be $250 to 350K and in some areas, that same house is only $175K. It sucks, but them's the truth. Or close to it.
A person making about $70K to $90K a year is kind of lower middle class by themselves. But it USED to be $50K a year.
To put things in perspective, back in the late 60's, a lot of people in upper management for a growing high tech company only made around $20K a year, but they were making more money from stock/ stock options.
Dig these numbers.
What's a top of the line fully loaded 4 door Mercedes Benz cost? An S Class AMG is around $200K (I'm guessing, but I think that's about how much that costs). Back in '69, Mercedes most expensive 4 door sedan 300SEL 6.3, it cost about $14K. Similar sized engine 8 cylinder (only the 69 only put out 400HP instead of 600+HP), and everything about the car is far better than it was, but people back in '69 thought their feces were gift wrapped if they were able to buy a car for $14K. High end Ferraris were like $20K back in '69, but now, they are hundreds of thousands even over $1 Mil.
To put things in perspective, back in the late 60's, a lot of people in upper management for a growing high tech company only made around $20K a year, but they were making more money from stock/ stock options.
That is exactly where most of the "wealthy" get wealthy. I forgot where I saw it, but there was an article that showed that most of the wealthy in america gain only something I think around 20-30% of their yearly income from salary. The rest is from the stock market and other investments.
I ran across an interesting tool from WSJ that calculates your "percentage" based on your income. Now in regards to Silicon Valley, that is one of a few exceptions to average in where it is excessively high. But point still taken.
Overall thing I've learned by the age of 28 is that it's not about how much you make, although it does help, it's about what you do with what you make. Some like instant gratification where as others prefer delayed. It's those that delay that tend to show other characteristics to make wiser financial decisions.
That is exactly where most of the "wealthy" get wealthy. I forgot where I saw it, but there was an article that showed that most of the wealthy in america gain only something I think around 20-30% of their yearly income from salary. The rest is from the stock market and other investments.
I ran across an interesting tool from WSJ that calculates your "percentage" based on your income. Now in regards to Silicon Valley, that is one of a few exceptions to average in where it is excessively high. But point still taken.
Overall thing I've learned by the age of 28 is that it's not about how much you make, although it does help, it's about what you do with what you make. Some like instant gratification where as others prefer delayed. It's those that delay that tend to show other characteristics to make wiser financial decisions.
Yeah, I know. I made investments when I could when I was in my 20's, some turned out to be big money makers, but unfortunately, I didn't have more to invest and unfortunately I was forced to not work by some of the sleaziest scumbags in the s/w industry that don't understand the concept of making the product work so the account exec can sell more product and purposely having s/w installed improperly so it doesn't work and trying to cover it up preventing future business and then blaming the account exec. Freaking alcoholic CEO's and other members of upper management. It's too bad we can't get rid of these types of scum sucking losers.. That's why I won't work for alcohol drinkers. They are two faced. It's their nature, they can't be honest with their employees or themselves.
Anyway, enough of my rant.
I think that Apple is at least doing what they can to bring jobs back to the US, and they have to start with the products that make the most sense until they can figure out how to do more of the other products that are more difficult. But robotics aren't going away, that's a fact.
Maybe 50 years from now, many products will be made in our own homes with a device that is more advanced than a 3D printer, but 3D printers are more for prototyping right now. In order to do metal based products, they aren't quite there to replace traditional production fabrication methods. But that will change over time.
I don't know if you noticed, but in the MacPro mfg plant, each robotic system was "manned" by a human being. And who makes these robotic systems? Other robots? They still need people, it's just that robots lessen the number of people required to do menial jobs. Apple's not the only one that's been using robots, nor will they be the last. They STILL have human beings doing final assembly. It's just that they want precision and consistency in the mfg of their products. Robots rarely make mistakes, plus they can better manage their flow of components because they know precisely how much product they go through on a daily basis. It's actually quite interesting to see the entire process and have someone explain what/how they manage each step of the process from start to finish.
This basically tells people that if you want to work, the minimum wage assembly jobs are still there, but it's better if you got a college education to man a robot rather than whining about it. I don't know what the job requirements are for being a robot operator, but I'm sure it's not a minimum wage job. I think you would have to have maybe a mechanical engineering degree or some sort of related degree so when something happens or needs to be done with the robot, you aren't totally clueless.
Actually, the internet alone changed the landscape of the job market probably more than companies like Apple mfg electronic components.
People don't go to local retail stores as much as they did prior to the internet, which is why a lot of retail stores shut down.
Nothing to be scared of go to school and learn to fix those robots or make them or program them or just maintain them. Where there is electronics there will always be a human controlling it (foreseeable future)
Nothing to be scared of go to school and learn to fix those robots or make them or program them or just maintain them. Where there is electronics there will always be a human controlling it (foreseeable future)
Yeah, 3D technology is the future for production, but it's still going to need people to monitor, fix, maintain the equipment, plus programming them/designing the actual product. It's just going to make it faster and ultimately cheaper to bring things to market. But it's going to be a while at the rate they are going. 3D printing is more for prototyping right now.
They still need to bring the raw materials (metal, plastics) from somewhere and process it to go into 3D printers since they use powered metal, plastics.
You can not easily copy hardware as you can software, which is why I love this and believes Apple's efforts to further itself from competition is the key to the future.
Automation does equal lower cost per unit over time, but more so for Apple, this will enable them to do things others can't. Apple continually shows off their manufacturing process, and that is why Apple is considered one of the best in build quality.
I would like to also see Apple spend money on battery and screen technology, as well as continued efforts on processors.
A lot of talk about political systems in this thread, so I'm going to make one comment and then go back to tech stuff.
In my opinion, there are certain axioms that we should remember, the most important one being: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When any one system has "all the money/power" .... then that system is on the way to self destruction. Can anyone take a good look at the present day US capitalistic society and claim it's the best one for it's citizens? The stock market is broken and corrupt, the banking system is broken and corrupt .... these two "power groups" only exist to line their own pockets off of the back of the general population. When a system encourages "personal greed" to replace "motivation" .... it's only a matter of time before it implodes. (hint: It's already started)
Personally, I think that until we, as a group, start to give equalweight to people, environment and profits ...( let's call it the PEP party) with just token regard to the other two groups, we will always be stuck in the mess we are now in ... just going blindly from one financial calamity after another, aways willing to leave it up to others to "fix" the system . Guess what .... it's already "fixed" .. and not in a good way.
We can either learn to respect the ideas of others, using the best to strengthen our own beliefs .... or we can, mistakenly, try to build by tearing down all those who would dare to disagree. Please choose wisely !
A lot of talk about political systems in this thread, so I'm going to make one comment and then go back to tech stuff.
In my opinion, there are certain axioms that we should remember, the most important one being: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When any one system has "all the money/power" .... then that system is on the way to self destruction. Can anyone take a good look at the present day US capitalistic society and claim it's the best one for it's citizens? The stock market is broken and corrupt, the banking system is broken and corrupt .... these two "power groups" only exist to line their own pockets off of the back of the general population. When a system encourages "personal greed" to replace "motivation" .... it's only a matter of time before it implodes. (hint: It's already started)
Personally, I think that until we, as a group, start to give equalweight to people, environment and profits ...( let's call it the PEP party) with just token regard to the other two groups, we will always be stuck in the mess we are now in ... just going blindly from one financial calamity after another, aways willing to leave it up to others to "fix" the system . Guess what .... it's already "fixed" .. and not in a good way.
We can either learn to respect the ideas of others, using the best to strengthen our own beliefs .... or we can, mistakenly, try to build by tearing down all those who would dare to disagree. Please choose wisely !
I agree with your outcome, but not the source, that being capitalism, but crony capitalism.
Big business that are tied heavily into Big government is the problem. Wall Street being prompted up by the Fed is the problem. Capitalism without Socialism works great. We in the U.S. have our government too involved with business and processes. No, that is not to say deregulate, but government has great opportunities to have oversight, but they rather exercise the power of embedding itself into the process.
Example: Banks went under due to sub-prime loans which our government forced them to do. Yes, they found a way to profit from it, but that is what businesses do, they make profit. Then our government bailed them out, why? If you dive into the facts, you will notice billions of dollars going every which way, many having nothing to do with home loans, which, wait for it.... are still in trouble. In a pure capitalist society, those loans would never have been made, and banks would never have been bailed out.
So the power corrupts applies to the relationship government has with business and Wall Street.
Example: Agriculture [see http://farmageddonmovie.com]. The government, in relationship with big agriculture forces regulations that keep small farms from competing. To the extent of government entering small farms, at gun point, for selling.... wait for it... raw milk! Raw milk is only legal to sell in 3 States I believe, California is one of them. Also the meat processing is so overblown, small companies can't compete. Read this tragic story about a family farm that closed after 380 years http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/05/after-380-plus-years-new-hampshire-family-sells-farm/ ;Then you have thepharmaceutical industry which is also corrupt.
Crony capitalism does not work. Unfortunately the socialist in this country are tying to pass their crony capitalism off as pure capitalism and then suggest capitalism does not work so we need more government. So yes Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
A lot of talk about political systems in this thread, so I'm going to make one comment and then go back to tech stuff.
In my opinion, there are certain axioms that we should remember, the most important one being: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When any one system has "all the money/power" .... then that system is on the way to self destruction. Can anyone take a good look at the present day US capitalistic society and claim it's the best one for it's citizens? The stock market is broken and corrupt, the banking system is broken and corrupt .... these two "power groups" only exist to line their own pockets off of the back of the general population. When a system encourages "personal greed" to replace "motivation" .... it's only a matter of time before it implodes. (hint: It's already started)
Personally, I think that until we, as a group, start to give equalweight to people, environment and profits ...( let's call it the PEP party) with just token regard to the other two groups, we will always be stuck in the mess we are now in ... just going blindly from one financial calamity after another, aways willing to leave it up to others to "fix" the system . Guess what .... it's already "fixed" .. and not in a good way.
We can either learn to respect the ideas of others, using the best to strengthen our own beliefs .... or we can, mistakenly, try to build by tearing down all those who would dare to disagree. Please choose wisely !
Our system today is not "real" capitalism. It is corporatist, aka "crony" capitalism. Therefore, arguments against laissez faire capitalism, or pro-socialism ignore the fact that THINGS DONT WORK TODAY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A FREE MARKET. We have an over regulated system that favors the politically connected. In a free market, competition lowers costs and squeezes out inefficiencies. Regulations and restrictions on competition (including the minimum wage, incidentally) create corruption, inefficiencies and monopolistic behavior.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head as to what the legacy of Tim Cook is going to be.
That is an interesting point, where is that investment going to be made. Will Apple invest billions in Foxconn or Pentagron? Or wil they try to remove labor and build antomated plants in the US?
I agree with your outcome, but not the source, that being capitalism, but crony capitalism. ....
So yes Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Money = power .... therefore capitalism begat "crony capitalism" .... that is, unless you truly believe that the government actually "makes the rules." In the beginning, perhaps capitalism in it's purest form, was a "good idea"...... and maybe Communism, in it's purest form, (from each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need.) ...was a "good idea". My point is that, greed, which has been, and always will be a part of human nature, (albeit by varying degrees) cannot be ignored when considering a "system" .... and both of these systems have ignored that fact at their peril. Communism may have died first, but there can be little doubt, that without massive change in our collective thinking, capitalism is on the same pathway, and that change has to include everyone, not just the "elite". They will not be ignored much longer. There are a lot more "have nots" than "haves" and someday, if we don't find a way to share, they'll find a way to take it, just like we have seen in other parts of the world where we have watched people fighting for freedom, sometimes by standing in front of a tank.
Not trying to rag on you, but the fact is that you seem to be blaming others (Capitalism without Socialism works great.) is a perfect example of what I'm saying.
An interesting fact is that Canada's "socialistic" government was responsible for not allowing the Canadian banks to follow the lead of the, mainly US banks,( in spite of the powerful lobbying effort on the banks behalf) to relaxing the rules, making it easier for banks to lend more than they previously could .... and by curtailing that power we were spared the mess that the US banking system created.
One last thing, you say that the government "forced" the banks behaviour .... then why was it that not all banks acted in that destructive manner? I say that greed forced that behaviour and "Capitalism without Socialism" only serves the power group. Can that truly be what we want for society at large?
Money = power .... therefore capitalism begat "crony capitalism" .... that is, unless you truly believe that the government actually "makes the rules." In the beginning perhaps, capitalism, in it's purest form, was a "good idea"...... and maybe Communism, in it's purest form, (from each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need.) ...was a "good idea". My point is that, greed, which has been, and always will be a part of human nature, (albeit by varying degrees) cannot be ignored when considering a "system" .... and both of these systems have ignored that fact at their peril. Communism may have died first, but there can be little doubt, that without massive change in our collective thinking, capitalism is on the same pathway, and that change has to include everyone, not just the "elite". They will not be ignored much longer. There are a lot more "have nots" than "haves" and someday, if we don't find a way to share, they'll find a way to take it, just like we have seen in other parts of the world where we have watched people fighting for freedom, sometimes by standing in front of a tank.
Not trying to rag on you, but the fact is that you seem to be blaming others (Capitalism without Socialism works great.) is a perfect example of what I'm saying.
An interesting fact is that Canada's "socialistic" government was responsible for not allowing the Canadian banks to follow the lead of the, mainly US banks,( in spite of the powerful lobbying effort on the banks behalf) to relaxing the rules, making it easier for banks to lend more than they previously could .... and by curtailing that power we were spared the mess that the US banking system created.
One last thing, you say that the government "forced" the banks behaviour .... then why was it that not all banks acted in that destructive manner? I say that greed forced that behaviour and "Capitalism without Socialism" only serves the power group. Can that truly be what we want for society at large?
I don't think you understand capitalism, as it does not begat crony capitalism, but corrupt people do. Most companies in the U.S. are small business, but even the larger ones, say Apple, don't force regulations that keep competition out. Bad people + government = crony capitalism.
Let's get some terms correct.
Capitalism is business owned by private parties.
Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials.
Socialism a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (read government)
Government is [should be] there for oversight to make sure the people don't get abused (with regards to business). Government is great at oversight. However, when that oversight leads to weighing outcomes based off relationships with big business (read lobbies) then you have Crony Capitalism. CC has greed, corruption, and not focus on the 'people'. Socialism exacerbates crony capitalism by its very nature.
?In a town, you can also have small business in relationship with local government and thereby creating crony capitalism on the local level. Happens very often.
Banks were not the ones who initiated the relaxed rules unless you think any business wants to do business with much riskier clients? Why would a bank want to loan people mortgages knowing they can't afford them? Some might have planned on selling these portfolios to banks without knowledge of the true value of the loan.
But then would it not be the government's 'oversight' that would make this known and protect the people? Why didn't it? Crony Capitalism allowed bankers and government to work deals. Deals not beneficial to the 'people' in which the government should serve. Not all banks acted the same way as not all are corrupt.
Big Agriculture + Government = regulations that limit small agricultures while allowing big agricultures to thrive. Its lobbying to remove competition. Replace agriculture with pharmaceuticals or banks, or healthcare, or any number of big business that is a crony of the government. Check out the links I posted above, which are just 2 of many.
Apple is a big business that does not lobby the government to eliminate competition. The do for social reasons and for protection from patent theft, but I don't know of any to remove or reduce competition. They probably find it easier to buy the competition, which is a capitalist way of doing business.
Again, capitalism is not bad as it is only the ownership of companies by individuals. However, when you get big enough to have influence with government, that is where the corruptions flourishes. Big is relative to market so in a small town, big could be what you would consider very small.
What we need in this country is the right regulations that opens up free markets to compete fairly, not regulations that limits competition.
Example. In the U.S. it is not legal for health insurance companies to sell policies across State lines, as it is with auto, life, etc. If a company in one State can offer health insurance in another State cheaper, it does not matter. Why? Big Healthcare lobbies government for protections so they can keep their rates high. That is not free market capitalism. That is crony capitalism and now socialism.
Are there bad people that own businesses that steal from people that are not tied to government? Sure, and this is where government should be regulating, having oversight, so that these people are caught as quickly as possible.
Big corporations and environment is another aspect of where government should have oversight, make regulations, but not based off reducing competition, but reducing environmental impact. I'm not a global warming alarmist, but I do believe we should be stewards of what God gave us. Government can help in this protection, but not allowing lobbyist to fund campaigns and create regulations that only benefit them.
I hope you are seeing the difference. Yes, money does equal power, but that does not equal abusive power. Evil people will abuse, where good people won't no matter the money.
Money = power .... therefore capitalism begat "crony capitalism"
I liken this to people's misreading of the Biblical quote 'the lust of money is the root of all evil'. It is not money, but the lust of it. The lust of anything, rather it be money or power, leads to evil.
The government should be keeping this evil in check. Unfortunately, government lust for power, which quals evil only because they do evil to obtain the power. Not everyone in government is like this, but not everyone in Sodom was evil either.
There are a lot more "have nots" than "haves" and someday, if we don't find a way to share, they'll find a way to take it, just like we have seen in other parts of the world where we have watched people fighting for freedom, sometimes by standing in front of a tank.
I agree there are more now in poverty than 10 years ago, I don't see the correlation to capitalism. I often argue that in my Dad's day, a single bread winner could support a family well, where today, it takes two, and that is even failing. But is that due to companies being owned by individuals?
Also, although I donate money, what is your definition of sharing? A socialist would force the sharing, that is wealth distribution, which is not freedom. Don't confuse freedom with the concept that I have to do anything. If I wan't to share and exercise to do so, that is freedom. However, if the guy next to me wishes not to share, and you force him to do so, that is not freedom.
I am yet to hear a good argument as to why my hard work should be distributed to those who don't.
If society wanted real sharing, they would force the government to remove the cronies, lobbyist, the excessive spending, which would reduce the burden on individuals, thus more would share more abundantly.
So please don't conjoin freedom and government control and redistribution of wealth.
Middle class america as we have known in this country for the last half decade is dead. The sooner people realize that the better. I know that and knew I had to make sure I got on the upswing to be in the new "middle class". They say the median income in america is 45-50k. I don't know a single person that makes that. I know plenty of people making 30k, I was one of them, and I know plenty of people making 70-85k. So there is the gap everyone talks about.
As far manufacturing, coding is the new manufacturing of the 21st century. Coding jobs are becoming a dime a dozen. You can be on the "assembly line" all the way to being the "foreman" for coding. It's what the world drives on (no pun intended). That's why you see this huge push to teach kids coding at a young age.. it's the mass job market of the future.. well actually now. Demand for business, finance, engineers, will be consistent but for comp. sci, it's blowing up in demand.
So to recap, middle class of ole is dead. Manufacturing is not what needs to be focused on, that battle is lost to robots. Focus on the new "manufacturing" which is coding. India & Europe are winning that one as far as I can see.
Now THIS is a person who is reading the tea leaves and not re-iterating clueless nonsense they heard from "experts" on TV News.
Yeah, I think we may have lost the next job battleground -- but not the war. The big future is in nano-tech, green tech and "personal care" -- of course, these are robots for elderly people. But really -- economies should not be our concern, I look at Europe where a lot of PEOPLE are doing fine, but their economies might be hurting. I'm not a "pure socialist" -- but Capitalists taught me we need a lot more of it. The big truth, that we don't hear when people debate issues with carefully drawn left and right sides without any actual conclusive result -- is that we can JUST DECIDE what is fair.
All we as a society have to decide is; we won't let anyone drop off the map. Instead of exploiting third-world countries with the backing of our armed forces, we can surround a few offshore banks and repatriate funds for anyone not laying claim to them -- like all those banks who went bankrupt after years of incredible profits.
The FUTURE, will require that we have a national allowance to all people, and if you manage to do something productive -- hooray you get to make MORE than the allowance.
But really, unless people understand that THEY are likely the next "person not well trained enough and who is too lazy" to make a living -- they aren't going to understand the future at all.
I'm not a "pure socialist" -- but Capitalists taught me we need a lot more of it. The big truth, that we don't hear when people debate issues with carefully drawn left and right sides without any actual conclusive result -- is that we can JUST DECIDE what is fair.
What exactly has capitalism taught you about the need for socialism?
What is fair is to let people work for what they earn, keep what they earn, and spend what they earn on what they want to purchase.
Quote:
All we as a society have to decide is; we won't let anyone drop off the map. Instead of exploiting third-world countries with the backing of our armed forces, we can surround a few offshore banks and repatriate funds for anyone not laying claim to them -- like all those banks who went bankrupt after years of incredible profits.
The socialist idea of freedom = take from others. Nice!
Quote:
The FUTURE, will require that we have a national allowance to all people, and if you manage to do something productive -- hooray you get to make MORE than the allowance
Allowance, as in financial? You want to send EVERYONE a check? For what reason? Who pays for this? How is this freedom or fair? Don't we already have welfare? You want to pay more for people doing less? Where has that worked in the world?
Comments
I should have clarified. I was more so talking about just annual income from pay wages. Now if we're talking net worth, I'd say drblank that those numbers are probably pretty stink'n close. But the question arises, what's the spread against the population w/ those numbers? I'd say in the USA it's clearly lopsided to Upper Lower Class and Low Middle class. And that's across all ages in the US. I know many people how are nearing or are in "retirement" age and hardly have much, if anything saved. I know I'm negative, but hey, I'm only a few years out of college and hammering away at student loans. I know that when retirement comes (which I personally don't believe in), I'm not going to be caught w/ my pants down.
In terms of yearly salary, people in Silicon Valley, if your family income is $250K you are probably considered middle class. But if you made that much money and lived in the mid-west, you would be lower upper class. The cost of a DECENT 4 bedroom house in Silicon Valley costs $750K or more, but in other areas, that same house in a similar neighborhood might only be $250 to 350K and in some areas, that same house is only $175K. It sucks, but them's the truth. Or close to it.
A person making about $70K to $90K a year is kind of lower middle class by themselves. But it USED to be $50K a year.
To put things in perspective, back in the late 60's, a lot of people in upper management for a growing high tech company only made around $20K a year, but they were making more money from stock/ stock options.
Dig these numbers.
What's a top of the line fully loaded 4 door Mercedes Benz cost? An S Class AMG is around $200K (I'm guessing, but I think that's about how much that costs). Back in '69, Mercedes most expensive 4 door sedan 300SEL 6.3, it cost about $14K. Similar sized engine 8 cylinder (only the 69 only put out 400HP instead of 600+HP), and everything about the car is far better than it was, but people back in '69 thought their feces were gift wrapped if they were able to buy a car for $14K. High end Ferraris were like $20K back in '69, but now, they are hundreds of thousands even over $1 Mil.
.... Capitalism manages creates corruption ....
There, I fixed it for you.
An improved Capitalism is not Socialism. This kind of knee-jerk reaction to any thoughtful critique of the status quo serves no useful purpose.
This !
To put things in perspective, back in the late 60's, a lot of people in upper management for a growing high tech company only made around $20K a year, but they were making more money from stock/ stock options.
That is exactly where most of the "wealthy" get wealthy. I forgot where I saw it, but there was an article that showed that most of the wealthy in america gain only something I think around 20-30% of their yearly income from salary. The rest is from the stock market and other investments.
I ran across an interesting tool from WSJ that calculates your "percentage" based on your income. Now in regards to Silicon Valley, that is one of a few exceptions to average in where it is excessively high. But point still taken.
Overall thing I've learned by the age of 28 is that it's not about how much you make, although it does help, it's about what you do with what you make. Some like instant gratification where as others prefer delayed. It's those that delay that tend to show other characteristics to make wiser financial decisions.
That is exactly where most of the "wealthy" get wealthy. I forgot where I saw it, but there was an article that showed that most of the wealthy in america gain only something I think around 20-30% of their yearly income from salary. The rest is from the stock market and other investments.
I ran across an interesting tool from WSJ that calculates your "percentage" based on your income. Now in regards to Silicon Valley, that is one of a few exceptions to average in where it is excessively high. But point still taken.
Overall thing I've learned by the age of 28 is that it's not about how much you make, although it does help, it's about what you do with what you make. Some like instant gratification where as others prefer delayed. It's those that delay that tend to show other characteristics to make wiser financial decisions.
Yeah, I know. I made investments when I could when I was in my 20's, some turned out to be big money makers, but unfortunately, I didn't have more to invest and unfortunately I was forced to not work by some of the sleaziest scumbags in the s/w industry that don't understand the concept of making the product work so the account exec can sell more product and purposely having s/w installed improperly so it doesn't work and trying to cover it up preventing future business and then blaming the account exec. Freaking alcoholic CEO's and other members of upper management. It's too bad we can't get rid of these types of scum sucking losers.. That's why I won't work for alcohol drinkers. They are two faced. It's their nature, they can't be honest with their employees or themselves.
Anyway, enough of my rant.
I think that Apple is at least doing what they can to bring jobs back to the US, and they have to start with the products that make the most sense until they can figure out how to do more of the other products that are more difficult. But robotics aren't going away, that's a fact.
Maybe 50 years from now, many products will be made in our own homes with a device that is more advanced than a 3D printer, but 3D printers are more for prototyping right now. In order to do metal based products, they aren't quite there to replace traditional production fabrication methods. But that will change over time.
Nothing to be scared of go to school and learn to fix those robots or make them or program them or just maintain them. Where there is electronics there will always be a human controlling it (foreseeable future)
Yeah, 3D technology is the future for production, but it's still going to need people to monitor, fix, maintain the equipment, plus programming them/designing the actual product. It's just going to make it faster and ultimately cheaper to bring things to market. But it's going to be a while at the rate they are going. 3D printing is more for prototyping right now.
They still need to bring the raw materials (metal, plastics) from somewhere and process it to go into 3D printers since they use powered metal, plastics.
You can not easily copy hardware as you can software, which is why I love this and believes Apple's efforts to further itself from competition is the key to the future.
Automation does equal lower cost per unit over time, but more so for Apple, this will enable them to do things others can't. Apple continually shows off their manufacturing process, and that is why Apple is considered one of the best in build quality.
I would like to also see Apple spend money on battery and screen technology, as well as continued efforts on processors.
Excited to see the fruits of Apple's labor!
A lot of talk about political systems in this thread, so I'm going to make one comment and then go back to tech stuff.
In my opinion, there are certain axioms that we should remember, the most important one being: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When any one system has "all the money/power" .... then that system is on the way to self destruction. Can anyone take a good look at the present day US capitalistic society and claim it's the best one for it's citizens? The stock market is broken and corrupt, the banking system is broken and corrupt .... these two "power groups" only exist to line their own pockets off of the back of the general population. When a system encourages "personal greed" to replace "motivation" .... it's only a matter of time before it implodes. (hint: It's already started)
Personally, I think that until we, as a group, start to give equal weight to people, environment and profits ...( let's call it the PEP party) with just token regard to the other two groups, we will always be stuck in the mess we are now in ... just going blindly from one financial calamity after another, aways willing to leave it up to others to "fix" the system . Guess what .... it's already "fixed" .. and not in a good way.
We can either learn to respect the ideas of others, using the best to strengthen our own beliefs .... or we can, mistakenly, try to build by tearing down all those who would dare to disagree. Please choose wisely !
A lot of talk about political systems in this thread, so I'm going to make one comment and then go back to tech stuff.
In my opinion, there are certain axioms that we should remember, the most important one being: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When any one system has "all the money/power" .... then that system is on the way to self destruction. Can anyone take a good look at the present day US capitalistic society and claim it's the best one for it's citizens? The stock market is broken and corrupt, the banking system is broken and corrupt .... these two "power groups" only exist to line their own pockets off of the back of the general population. When a system encourages "personal greed" to replace "motivation" .... it's only a matter of time before it implodes. (hint: It's already started)
Personally, I think that until we, as a group, start to give equal weight to people, environment and profits ...( let's call it the PEP party) with just token regard to the other two groups, we will always be stuck in the mess we are now in ... just going blindly from one financial calamity after another, aways willing to leave it up to others to "fix" the system . Guess what .... it's already "fixed" .. and not in a good way.
We can either learn to respect the ideas of others, using the best to strengthen our own beliefs .... or we can, mistakenly, try to build by tearing down all those who would dare to disagree. Please choose wisely !
I agree with your outcome, but not the source, that being capitalism, but crony capitalism.
Big business that are tied heavily into Big government is the problem. Wall Street being prompted up by the Fed is the problem. Capitalism without Socialism works great. We in the U.S. have our government too involved with business and processes. No, that is not to say deregulate, but government has great opportunities to have oversight, but they rather exercise the power of embedding itself into the process.
Example: Banks went under due to sub-prime loans which our government forced them to do. Yes, they found a way to profit from it, but that is what businesses do, they make profit. Then our government bailed them out, why? If you dive into the facts, you will notice billions of dollars going every which way, many having nothing to do with home loans, which, wait for it.... are still in trouble. In a pure capitalist society, those loans would never have been made, and banks would never have been bailed out.
So the power corrupts applies to the relationship government has with business and Wall Street.
Example: Agriculture [see http://farmageddonmovie.com]. The government, in relationship with big agriculture forces regulations that keep small farms from competing. To the extent of government entering small farms, at gun point, for selling.... wait for it... raw milk! Raw milk is only legal to sell in 3 States I believe, California is one of them. Also the meat processing is so overblown, small companies can't compete. Read this tragic story about a family farm that closed after 380 years http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/05/after-380-plus-years-new-hampshire-family-sells-farm/ ;Then you have the pharmaceutical industry which is also corrupt.
Crony capitalism does not work. Unfortunately the socialist in this country are tying to pass their crony capitalism off as pure capitalism and then suggest capitalism does not work so we need more government. So yes Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Our system today is not "real" capitalism. It is corporatist, aka "crony" capitalism. Therefore, arguments against laissez faire capitalism, or pro-socialism ignore the fact that THINGS DONT WORK TODAY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A FREE MARKET. We have an over regulated system that favors the politically connected. In a free market, competition lowers costs and squeezes out inefficiencies. Regulations and restrictions on competition (including the minimum wage, incidentally) create corruption, inefficiencies and monopolistic behavior.
Please learn the difference and get real.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head as to what the legacy of Tim Cook is going to be.
That is an interesting point, where is that investment going to be made. Will Apple invest billions in Foxconn or Pentagron? Or wil they try to remove labor and build antomated plants in the US?
They say Tim Cook is a genius at manufacture and logistics. And geniuses change things. Could he be The Man who brings Manufacturing back to the US?
iPhoneDesigned by Apple in California
Assembled by Apple Robots in Texas
I agree with your outcome, but not the source, that being capitalism, but crony capitalism. ....
So yes Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Money = power .... therefore capitalism begat "crony capitalism" .... that is, unless you truly believe that the government actually "makes the rules." In the beginning, perhaps capitalism in it's purest form, was a "good idea"...... and maybe Communism, in it's purest form, (from each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need.) ...was a "good idea". My point is that, greed, which has been, and always will be a part of human nature, (albeit by varying degrees) cannot be ignored when considering a "system" .... and both of these systems have ignored that fact at their peril. Communism may have died first, but there can be little doubt, that without massive change in our collective thinking, capitalism is on the same pathway, and that change has to include everyone, not just the "elite". They will not be ignored much longer. There are a lot more "have nots" than "haves" and someday, if we don't find a way to share, they'll find a way to take it, just like we have seen in other parts of the world where we have watched people fighting for freedom, sometimes by standing in front of a tank.
Not trying to rag on you, but the fact is that you seem to be blaming others (Capitalism without Socialism works great.) is a perfect example of what I'm saying.
An interesting fact is that Canada's "socialistic" government was responsible for not allowing the Canadian banks to follow the lead of the, mainly US banks,( in spite of the powerful lobbying effort on the banks behalf) to relaxing the rules, making it easier for banks to lend more than they previously could .... and by curtailing that power we were spared the mess that the US banking system created.
One last thing, you say that the government "forced" the banks behaviour .... then why was it that not all banks acted in that destructive manner? I say that greed forced that behaviour and "Capitalism without Socialism" only serves the power group. Can that truly be what we want for society at large?
Money = power .... therefore capitalism begat "crony capitalism" .... that is, unless you truly believe that the government actually "makes the rules." In the beginning perhaps, capitalism, in it's purest form, was a "good idea"...... and maybe Communism, in it's purest form, (from each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need.) ...was a "good idea". My point is that, greed, which has been, and always will be a part of human nature, (albeit by varying degrees) cannot be ignored when considering a "system" .... and both of these systems have ignored that fact at their peril. Communism may have died first, but there can be little doubt, that without massive change in our collective thinking, capitalism is on the same pathway, and that change has to include everyone, not just the "elite". They will not be ignored much longer. There are a lot more "have nots" than "haves" and someday, if we don't find a way to share, they'll find a way to take it, just like we have seen in other parts of the world where we have watched people fighting for freedom, sometimes by standing in front of a tank.
Not trying to rag on you, but the fact is that you seem to be blaming others (Capitalism without Socialism works great.) is a perfect example of what I'm saying.
An interesting fact is that Canada's "socialistic" government was responsible for not allowing the Canadian banks to follow the lead of the, mainly US banks,( in spite of the powerful lobbying effort on the banks behalf) to relaxing the rules, making it easier for banks to lend more than they previously could .... and by curtailing that power we were spared the mess that the US banking system created.
One last thing, you say that the government "forced" the banks behaviour .... then why was it that not all banks acted in that destructive manner? I say that greed forced that behaviour and "Capitalism without Socialism" only serves the power group. Can that truly be what we want for society at large?
I don't think you understand capitalism, as it does not begat crony capitalism, but corrupt people do. Most companies in the U.S. are small business, but even the larger ones, say Apple, don't force regulations that keep competition out. Bad people + government = crony capitalism.
Let's get some terms correct.
Capitalism is business owned by private parties.
Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials.
Socialism a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (read government)
Government is [should be] there for oversight to make sure the people don't get abused (with regards to business). Government is great at oversight. However, when that oversight leads to weighing outcomes based off relationships with big business (read lobbies) then you have Crony Capitalism. CC has greed, corruption, and not focus on the 'people'. Socialism exacerbates crony capitalism by its very nature.
?In a town, you can also have small business in relationship with local government and thereby creating crony capitalism on the local level. Happens very often.
Banks were not the ones who initiated the relaxed rules unless you think any business wants to do business with much riskier clients? Why would a bank want to loan people mortgages knowing they can't afford them? Some might have planned on selling these portfolios to banks without knowledge of the true value of the loan.
But then would it not be the government's 'oversight' that would make this known and protect the people? Why didn't it? Crony Capitalism allowed bankers and government to work deals. Deals not beneficial to the 'people' in which the government should serve. Not all banks acted the same way as not all are corrupt.
Big Agriculture + Government = regulations that limit small agricultures while allowing big agricultures to thrive. Its lobbying to remove competition. Replace agriculture with pharmaceuticals or banks, or healthcare, or any number of big business that is a crony of the government. Check out the links I posted above, which are just 2 of many.
Apple is a big business that does not lobby the government to eliminate competition. The do for social reasons and for protection from patent theft, but I don't know of any to remove or reduce competition. They probably find it easier to buy the competition, which is a capitalist way of doing business.
Again, capitalism is not bad as it is only the ownership of companies by individuals. However, when you get big enough to have influence with government, that is where the corruptions flourishes. Big is relative to market so in a small town, big could be what you would consider very small.
What we need in this country is the right regulations that opens up free markets to compete fairly, not regulations that limits competition.
Example. In the U.S. it is not legal for health insurance companies to sell policies across State lines, as it is with auto, life, etc. If a company in one State can offer health insurance in another State cheaper, it does not matter. Why? Big Healthcare lobbies government for protections so they can keep their rates high. That is not free market capitalism. That is crony capitalism and now socialism.
Are there bad people that own businesses that steal from people that are not tied to government? Sure, and this is where government should be regulating, having oversight, so that these people are caught as quickly as possible.
Big corporations and environment is another aspect of where government should have oversight, make regulations, but not based off reducing competition, but reducing environmental impact. I'm not a global warming alarmist, but I do believe we should be stewards of what God gave us. Government can help in this protection, but not allowing lobbyist to fund campaigns and create regulations that only benefit them.
I hope you are seeing the difference. Yes, money does equal power, but that does not equal abusive power. Evil people will abuse, where good people won't no matter the money.
Money = power .... therefore capitalism begat "crony capitalism"
I liken this to people's misreading of the Biblical quote 'the lust of money is the root of all evil'. It is not money, but the lust of it. The lust of anything, rather it be money or power, leads to evil.
The government should be keeping this evil in check. Unfortunately, government lust for power, which quals evil only because they do evil to obtain the power. Not everyone in government is like this, but not everyone in Sodom was evil either.
There are a lot more "have nots" than "haves" and someday, if we don't find a way to share, they'll find a way to take it, just like we have seen in other parts of the world where we have watched people fighting for freedom, sometimes by standing in front of a tank.
I agree there are more now in poverty than 10 years ago, I don't see the correlation to capitalism. I often argue that in my Dad's day, a single bread winner could support a family well, where today, it takes two, and that is even failing. But is that due to companies being owned by individuals?
Also, although I donate money, what is your definition of sharing? A socialist would force the sharing, that is wealth distribution, which is not freedom. Don't confuse freedom with the concept that I have to do anything. If I wan't to share and exercise to do so, that is freedom. However, if the guy next to me wishes not to share, and you force him to do so, that is not freedom.
I am yet to hear a good argument as to why my hard work should be distributed to those who don't.
If society wanted real sharing, they would force the government to remove the cronies, lobbyist, the excessive spending, which would reduce the burden on individuals, thus more would share more abundantly.
So please don't conjoin freedom and government control and redistribution of wealth.
Middle class america as we have known in this country for the last half decade is dead. The sooner people realize that the better. I know that and knew I had to make sure I got on the upswing to be in the new "middle class". They say the median income in america is 45-50k. I don't know a single person that makes that. I know plenty of people making 30k, I was one of them, and I know plenty of people making 70-85k. So there is the gap everyone talks about.
As far manufacturing, coding is the new manufacturing of the 21st century. Coding jobs are becoming a dime a dozen. You can be on the "assembly line" all the way to being the "foreman" for coding. It's what the world drives on (no pun intended). That's why you see this huge push to teach kids coding at a young age.. it's the mass job market of the future.. well actually now. Demand for business, finance, engineers, will be consistent but for comp. sci, it's blowing up in demand.
So to recap, middle class of ole is dead. Manufacturing is not what needs to be focused on, that battle is lost to robots. Focus on the new "manufacturing" which is coding. India & Europe are winning that one as far as I can see.
Now THIS is a person who is reading the tea leaves and not re-iterating clueless nonsense they heard from "experts" on TV News.
Yeah, I think we may have lost the next job battleground -- but not the war. The big future is in nano-tech, green tech and "personal care" -- of course, these are robots for elderly people. But really -- economies should not be our concern, I look at Europe where a lot of PEOPLE are doing fine, but their economies might be hurting. I'm not a "pure socialist" -- but Capitalists taught me we need a lot more of it. The big truth, that we don't hear when people debate issues with carefully drawn left and right sides without any actual conclusive result -- is that we can JUST DECIDE what is fair.
All we as a society have to decide is; we won't let anyone drop off the map. Instead of exploiting third-world countries with the backing of our armed forces, we can surround a few offshore banks and repatriate funds for anyone not laying claim to them -- like all those banks who went bankrupt after years of incredible profits.
The FUTURE, will require that we have a national allowance to all people, and if you manage to do something productive -- hooray you get to make MORE than the allowance.
But really, unless people understand that THEY are likely the next "person not well trained enough and who is too lazy" to make a living -- they aren't going to understand the future at all.
I'm not a "pure socialist" -- but Capitalists taught me we need a lot more of it. The big truth, that we don't hear when people debate issues with carefully drawn left and right sides without any actual conclusive result -- is that we can JUST DECIDE what is fair.
What exactly has capitalism taught you about the need for socialism?
What is fair is to let people work for what they earn, keep what they earn, and spend what they earn on what they want to purchase.
Quote:
The socialist idea of freedom = take from others. Nice!
Quote:
Allowance, as in financial? You want to send EVERYONE a check? For what reason? Who pays for this? How is this freedom or fair? Don't we already have welfare? You want to pay more for people doing less? Where has that worked in the world?
Where in the hell did personal responsibility go?