The Factory-run Economy

On the brink of the fiscal cliff, the economy and employment have been a big issue.  In the new era of technology, employment is not improving.  Machines are taking jobs away from Americans at a record pace and these machines "can do the work of 10, or in some cases, 100 workers."  This article illustrates the issue that faces employment because of technology.

Today, people are being trained to fix machines as opposed to being trained in the field to machine is used for.  Since 2000, "Nearly six million factory jobs, almost a third of the entire manufacturing industry, have disappeared"

Are we converting to a technological era that is outpacing the job industry?  Is efficiency more important than employing people?  Our generation is becoming more and more dependent on technology and everyone is willing to save a little money by converting to machines, even if it may cost millions of people their jobs.  Unfortunately, many Americans with adequate skills cannot get jobs in industries that rely on technology.  These capable workers have to work at locations where their skills are not utilized.

The picture below emphasizes the fact that no one can get jobs at factories anymore, forcing people to revert to McDonalds and other low paying, service jobs.  Ironically, the "help wanted" on the McDonalds store is asking for help because there are too many people that need jobs.

Although machines can drastically improve efficiency, at what point do we have to start worrying about losing jobs as a country?  Will people start being trained as machine fixers?  Feel free to comment below.

"Light Footprint"

With the conflict going on in the Middle East between Israel and Iran, I was wondering in what ways the US was involved.  I read this article that focused on Obama's strategy on approaching he Middle East.  His plan was referred to as a "Light Footprint".

Light Footprint is a strategy that involves "a mix of remote-control technology and at-a-distance diplomacy to contain the most explosive problems in the Middle East, South Asia and Africa."  This seems like a very good plan because troops do not have to go to the Middle East and fight.

There were also "Strikes by unmanned drone aircraft increased sixfold, secret cyberweapons were aimed at Iran, and special forces killed the world’s most-wanted terrorist and made night raids the currency of American force."  This strategy worked for a while; however, with the recent events in Syria and Iran, it seems like Obama is going to have to change his strategy.

I started thinking about how difficult it must be as the President to decide when troops' services are necessary.  Although the president is making a strong push to take troops out of many countries, at what point does this become unfeasible?

Obviously no one wants US troops to die, but what if pulling out troops or being reluctant to import troops leads to even more deaths for native citizens of that country, especially if it is our ally.  Obama faces a tough decision on how to handle the crisis in the Middle East, but he has to think about the ramifications of importing troops.  The president has the job of deciding what to do, but he is going to have to eventually change his strategy if he cannot negotiate with the leaders of Iran.

Do you think that it is better to pull out troops according to plan, even if it may jeopardize the lives of that country's citizens?  And at this time, what do you think would be the best approach to the Middle Eastern crisis?  Leave comments below.

An American Hurricane

I didn't realize how devastating Hurricane Sandy was until I watched the Hurricane Sandy concert.  8 million without power, many without homes, and the New Jersey boardwalk completely ruined.  Here is the comparison between before and after the hurricane.  Hurricane Sandy was clearly a catastrophe that no one could have predicted, just like Hurricane Katrina and 9/11.

I was watching the Bears game today and right before they started the game, there was a moment of silence, a giant flag in the shape of the US on the field, and the announcer said, "Only in this country does everyone join together and give up their houses to help everyone that has suffered.  We live in the greatest country in the world."

That really got me thinking, what stats does this announcer have to prove that the US is the only country that helps people in need.  We have learned to analyze media critically and this is a great example.  The announcer had good intentions by trying to demonstrate patriotism and show his support for the survivors of Hurricane Sandy.

However, this statement seems very farfetched.  He may believe that America is the greatest country in the world and he is entitled to his opinion.  Contrarily, he is saying no country in any circumstance helps out its citizens when a disaster strikes.

Do you think the announcer had reason to say this statement?  Why?  And why do you think people accept this bold kind of speech without questioning it?  Leave comments below