Too true.

Not the least of the changes is that we have something like a tenth the number of farmers as we did then. Nowadays, we have more people on some form of housing subsidy who are of working age and not disabled than we have farmers in this country.

Learned that at work last week. Kinda blew my mind.

The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era
Jeremy Rifkin, 1995

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work

Hmm, I think most of Rifkin's theories have already been dispelled. In my line of work, the blue collar side makes buck. Even amongst the office ranks, the manpower need is still exceeding supply.

What I do see changing a lot is the corporate model of permanent full time staff. The overhead rates are going up every year, and it is hard to justify hiring someone into the company, training them, then watching them take their newly acquired skillset to the nearest competitor for a 10% pay increase. More and more we are looking for competent temp staff who we can bring on for 6 month assignments, with the option to roll them over ever 6 months until the project begins demobilizing. The overhead costs are much lower than permanent full time staff, we don't worry about paying to train temps, and as more and more technical staff hit the unemployment line, the temp resource increases. Add to this the notion that many temp staff actually are making a higher rate of pay than their permanent full time equivalents, and I would say if anything the market is moving more and more towards contract labor, and folks like me become consultants or independents, while people like my admin assistant will next be applying for work via a temp pool agency. There is no shortage of work, just antiquated and obsolete jobs. You can't keep paying someone $70+ an hour to paint the undercarriage of a new car on an assemblyline, or deliver the mail for $60k+ a year and expect to stay competitive. Not when so many others are willing to do the same for less than half that.

I hear that Washington State's minimum wage is now $8.50 or more an hour. How can you justify paying someone to flip burgers or wash dishes for that kind of money? No wonder we are raising a generation of spoiled, unmotivated workers who feel they are entitled to a way of life they refuse to work for. If the wage rate keeps climbing, where do you suppose Burger King is going to make cost cuts to keep their cheeseburgers below a dollar a piece? There are still plenty of Kangaroo in Australia last time I looked. Maybe pretty soon not so much I reckon.

And a farmer today produces up to 10 times more food per acre than in 1933.

As far as "housing subsidy" - do you have a mortgage? Then you have a "housing subsidy" in the form of deductible mortgage interest. That IS a subsidy - it's a government program that is specifically intended to subsidize the cost of home ownership.

You're pushing an agenda here with a specious argument that attempts to make a moral judgment about people getting subsidies as compared to people farming.

If you want to go that route, OK, I'll bite, and you won't like it.

American agriculture is one of the most government subsidized sectors of industry. From 2001 to 2006, the U.S. government has handed out more than $95 billion in agricultural subsidies. That's more than the auto industry got and that's a DIRECT PAYMENT - not a loan.

In addition to direct subsidy, sectors of the agricultural industry - for example the Dairy industry - have entire marketing organizations funded by tax money (Got Milk? advertising - that's your tax dollars at work folks)

Further, many farmers enjoy price controls that set pricing of commodities so they can't be sold below a certain price, and the government will buy crops if the free market won't (how very European).

In fact, there's a handy site to show you just where the money is going:

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/index.php?key=nosign

So I think this vision of farming as this noble "go it alone" idea is wholly flawed, and further, to connect farmers to those in need of help in paying for housing is an extraordinarily arbitrary link.

I could also suggest that in America today there are more people watching TV than were farming in 1933, there are more people living in RV's than in 1933, there are more people using the internet to discuss survival topics than in 1933, there are more people eating take-out food than in 1933...

The economic mess we're in now is NOT 1933, and looking back over our shoulders at it means we're going to slam hard into what's ahead.

Social spending in America is a trivial - trivial - part of the overall budget and hardly warrants much thought. There's far bigger fish to fry.

Growing up in rural Northern Oklahoma we used to say the farmers planted wheat for three reasons:

1 It can be planted and almost forgotten about until harvest, allowing more time for the bingo/dominoes halls.

2 It can be profitable if all the weather / market conditions are perfect.

3 If aforementioned conditions are or aren't perfect (no wheat or too much wheat), the US government will pay the farmer to plow it under instead of harvesting it. Thereby removing all risk in being a wheat farmer.

In the mean time all the farmers did was complain while playing dominoes...

Yes, read "The Disposable American" - a book that covers this concept in detail.

We are in the midst of many of our technical staff converting from office staff to teleworkers from home. They do all their work at a company computer they keep at home, and once every couple weeks come to the office to download, take care of in-person business they can't do via email or teleconferencing, and maybe pick up another assignment if things are slowing down on the one they are currently on. Even the work agreement is different for them.

Hey Ben,

Could you possibly clear some PM's. I have some ideas / questions that are off topic. Or PM me your email please.

I work from home 1-2 days a week and thanks to the miracle of 3g, on the bus. Still work 60-70 hours a week tho

2009:
"I hear that Washington State's minimum wage is now $8.50 or more an hour. How can you justify paying someone to flip burgers or wash dishes for that kind of money? No wonder we are raising a generation of spoiled, unmotivated workers who feel they are entitled to a way of life they refuse to work for. If the wage rate keeps climbing, where do you suppose Burger King is going to make cost cuts to keep their cheeseburgers below a dollar a piece?"

In 1974, people (those that were making more than minimum wage) said the same thing when California raised the minimum wage from $1.65 to $2.00. California survived the calamity.

7-24-07
"Today, and every summer through 2009, the federal minimum wage will increase $0.70 an hour. For those working full time at the federal minim wage, the increase to $5.85 an hour will mean an extra $1,400 over the previous rate. This 14% raise is pretty significant, but it still keeps the minimum wage earner who provides for a family of three in poverty. If minimum wage increases kept pace with inflation since 1970, the minimum wage today would be $8.77. If it tracked inflation since 1956, the wage would be $7.27. Interestingly, the minimum wage would be $3.39 if 1938’s rate of $0.25 was adjusted for inflation." http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2007/07/24/federal-minimum-wage-will-increase-today/

The trickle-down effect of poor decisions by people in power (not just government) affects the low-wage-earner more than the higher wage-earner.

Sue