[reeftool]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Jobs are created by demand in the marketplace. Demand is filled by people and companies who make, service and sell the products that are in demand. It's simple really. Since the many company owners and executives have a pretty good stash of money, it is assumed that the "rich" are the ones behind job creation. I know many business owners who have several employees and they aren't rich by any standards. While a lot of money may pass through their hands in the course of a year, at the end of the year when it's all tallied up, they may not make any more than the help they are paying. This is especially true in the automotive repair business, HVAC, and home repair and construction business. While large real estate developers are behind construction projects (rich guys) the work is done by small sub contractors in the majority of construction. However, the rich guys aren't building new housing developments if nobody is buying. In the end, the consumer drives everything.

[GeneV]

Perhaps I should have said that jobs are how we (in America) distribute most of the money to the vast majority of the population. Given the wealth imbalances, I'm not sure whether it accounts for the majority of the money supply.

[falconeye]

Perhaps I should have said that jobs are how we (in America) distribute most of the money to the vast majority of the population. Given the wealth imbalances, I'm not sure whether it accounts for the majority of the money supply.

I see what you want to say and I agree. But even then, it is worthwhile to note that only 58.7 % of the US population have jobs. I visited a communist country (East Germany) often enough to see the signs when people are employed only to stay part of the "system" rather than to do something useful. Interestingly, those IN the system could never see those signs, they all felt needed... And now I do see those signs emerging in our system since about 1990. Jobs and distribution of wealth should be separate concerns in any useful economic discussion. Or we end like planned economy... IMHO

[fisheye freak]

What economists and politicians have not yet got through their thick heads is that you can only consume what you produce. In the short term, you can borrow the produce, but eventually it has to be paid back, usually under unfavorable conditions. If the rich use their capital to invest in making "stuff" to be consumed, then they can be deemed as having created jobs. Job creation is also a measure of how much "stuff"(goods and services) you are PRODUCING. A lot of people think that CONSUMING creates jobs. It only creates jobs if this is a stimulus to MAKE more, rather than importing(borrowing) that produce. Sure, there are entrepreneurs who have started some scratch, but probably more often than not, there has been some "old money" backing them up. We are seeing a lot of "politics of envy" these days, which really is just plain old jealousy. Making the rich poor will NOT make the poor rich. If the rich are "punished" for past hard work,skill or ingenuity , there will be no incentive to take those risks. Come on, would you take a risk for NO reward? If no body took those risks to produce new goods and services, the economy long term MUST go backwards, making everyone POORER.
For those jealous types out there who resent that some people have managed to get ahead- you too can get there by hard work, skill and risk . Most businesses fail in the first 2 years, but some do make the grade. Some (looks like a high proportion) of the "occupy" movement look like dropouts who are not working particularly hard. These ferals somehow think it is their birthright to have the trappings of wealth that the wealthy have generally worked for (or inherited) at some stage, but without having to do the hard yards or taking risk. If we all produced as much as those in the "occupy" movement, our standard of living would be very poor indeed.
There are other forces at play behind the scenes around the world. We all owe it to ourselves to check out the origins of the United Nations and their precursor, the League of Nations. It was the Fabians who were instrumental in the establishment of the League of Nations. We ALL owe it to ourselves and for humanity to check out aspects of UN thinking, in particular Agenda 21 and the Lima Declaration. Just burying your head and blindly trusting that politicians (really, do you actually believe the crap that politicians come out with?) and the UN are doing the right thing is going to result in DISASTER. Perhaps the prophesy from Nostradamus of "End of Days" for 2012 will come true when enough people see the treachery behind the scenes.

[jeffkrol]

The rich person would trigger above-average creation of jobs if:
- he consumes more innovative products than the average / makes more informed buying decisions.
- he directly sponsors innovation.

E.g., it is strongly believed that in Germany, rich and very demanding buyers of Mercedes, BMW and Audi make the innovations happen which then trickle down to more affordable products. I would say the same for Apple in the USA.
.

Actually it seems more the opposite.. Mass production and selling to the "masses" allows the R&D to create the niche products w/ the higher rate of return but smaller volume. There are things that eventually trickle down to the common products that are developed by the high end but this dos not mean it would have eventually been done without the high end product.
Apple catered to the "different" or "artistic" not the mega buck person.. Apples wrapped in wodd aside, which followed the mass production not lead.
Macintosh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"average joe" products from high end manufacturer dilute the prestige and are done out of the economic fact that it easier to survive high volume than low..

The rich person would trigger below-average creation of jobs if:
- he consumes fancy products no one would otherwise need or sends lots of money to foreign countries.

more the norm......haven't seen a cheap jet or yacht yet......and cruise jewelry is still popular and not a "bargain".....

I actually made an economic computing model before coming up with my model. The majority of money is NOT distributed by jobs and wages. Not anymore. That's part of the problem we are facing because only very few people have an idea how to properly deal with that situation. If we aren't careful, then we are reaching a point where more work means less wealth (for an individual, because of missed windfall profits). And if we reach this point, the economy must collapse. That's part of the reasoning behind my model: it more or less ensures that more work leads to more wealth (for an individual).

And I don't discount jobs. I only said jobs aren't the primary goal. I say jobs are a secondary means to distribute money but not the only one.

And my model allows for a smooth transition at whatever pace. It can easily be applied to an ultra-capitalist economy and then let parameters evolve as the country prospers and its people wish. It would even push towards more and lower-value jobs and less well-fare etc. if a country falls behind in international competition. I know most of the counter arguments and took them into account. But it is far too complex for a few posts here ...

What I only wanted to say is that IMHO the two articles miss the point.

Employment guarantees are better than income guarantees | Bill Mitchell – billy blog

[falconeye]

Mass production and selling to the "masses" allows the R&D to create the niche products w/ the higher rate of return but smaller volume.

It's probably dependent on how rich we mean by rich.

Mass production is typically not where product innovation comes from, ignoring process innovation. Mass products are made cheap, not good.

I made an interesting observation: In Switzerland, you'll find price comparison portals which list high end audio speakers for above 10,000.- USD. I didn't find in other countries. That's the kind of rich I am talking about. Rich enough to pay for innovations but not too rich to be out of this world or to totally ignore money.

I agree that extremely rich people tend to just block the flow of money between useful parties

[jeffkrol]

It's probably dependent on how rich we mean by rich.

Mass production is typically not where product innovation comes from, ignoring process innovation. Mass products are made cheap, not good.

I made an interesting observation: In Switzerland, you'll find price comparison portals which list high end audio speakers for above 10,000.- USD. I didn't find in other countries. That's the kind of rich I am talking about. Rich enough to pay for innovations but not too rich to be out of this world or to totally ignore money.

I agree that extremely rich people tend to just block the flow of money between useful parties

Using audio speakers as an example there is little if any "real" difference between a $500/pr and $10,000 pr speakers.. except to pay an engineer for a year tweaking micro improvements
out of a "box"..........AFAIKT..

[ptaylor]

I agree that being rich does not always translate to making job opportunities for people, and in fact, those who have a lot are more close fisted when it comes to giving money or even sharing them. It is just one irony of the world, that will really make for poverty to stay the same or even worsen. There are just people who still hope that everything will turn for the better when we all know that it would not.

[falconeye]

there is little if any "real" difference between a $500/pr and $10,000 pr speakers..

While I would agree on cables, I disagree here. Assuming you defeated enemy #1 (your bad room acoustics) and enemy #2 (your untrained ear due to always listening to $500 speakers ), listening to the right music on some $10,000 speakers can be an unforgettable experience.

However, most fail at #1.

[jeffkrol]

While I would agree on cables, I disagree here. Assuming you defeated enemy #1 (your bad room acoustics) and enemy #2 (your untrained ear due to always listening to $500 speakers ), listening to the right music on some $10,000 speakers can be an unforgettable experience.

However, most fail at #1.

Well I agree w/ #1 and in a completely anechoic room #2 may be not as relevant either. After all who builds a great sound stage and puts a pair of Bose in them..... chicken and egg.

Interesting thread.............
High End of the Cheap Stuff vs Low End of the Good Stuff - AVS Forum

I wouldn't. Infinity has lots of engineering in their inexpensive speakers. Frankly, their top diffusion-line (Primus) speakers are better than most $10,000 speakers. Look at this 3d party measured response for their "360" model:



And while there are some midrange "horns" due to the change in directivity from mid to tweet, they're not as bad as in many "high end speakers."



Quote:
Originally Posted by tsaville View Post
Years ago I got to listen to some high-end KEF speakers at Ultimate (20K for the pair I believe), and they sounded incredible. My question is, would low-end KEF speakers such as the iQ90 sound noticeably better than my Polks?
Yes, because the KEFs' Uni-Q driver does not suffer the nasty midrange power response errors that make speakers with separate tweeters (and no waveguide) basically unlistenable. At least to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post
I think the OP should completely ignore "High end" and "Low end" subjectivity, audiophile rags seem to push this branding concept. There are several speaker building experts that build better speakers then a company like B&W which many think is high end.

Instead the focus should be on ANY speaker that meets his requirements (Listening requirements and budget).
Listen to this gentleman.

a "simple" alignment of the transducers can do wonders for a speaker.........
as well as high order crossovers ....

Sorry for the diversion but I've hacked away at speaker building and have mostly failed.....
Though my paper mache/fiberglass sphere dampened w/ cat litter glued to the inside made a cheap sub woofer so low in frequency response as to be subsonic.. From the complaints downstairs apparently it shook the apt. below while I barely could hear a sound.. it was quite amazing..

Never did manage to make a pair since I has soo much fiberglass dust that blowing up the second balloon in order to coat it w/ paper then fiberglass was impossible...

wrapping my own large coils for air chocks was also fun...........
took an entire shoe box to hold the parts for one 4th order 3 way crossover.. and I was sad that the main chokes had to be ferrite cored due to the impossible large size of air wound coils........

this was a long time ago and the realization that some "overstock" Wharfdales did just fine w/ a heck of a lot less stress.. though I do miss my phase invertable 4 speaker surround units built using 2 ohm full range cheap drivers in a multi-angled MDF cabinets.. Never did get them to sound "equal"...

sorry just rambling and I realize it is actually not that impressive.. but it was fun............

Of course one needs very little to hear (or feel) the thundering footsteps of a t-rex.. or to clearly hear hushed whispers in the Addams Family DVD........
going back to my roots of destroying my "taste" I did thoroughly enjoy my first pair of speakers.. Marantz Imperial 7's..
good description of them here.........
Loudspeakers: When is Good Enough, Enough? Part 1 — Reviews and News from Audioholics

And putting it in the same size box as the Imperial 6's 10" meant that the Imperial 7's 12" would roll off starting at 80 Hz. Fortunately for us, a ported 12" pumping out lots of 80Hz air sounded to most consumers at the time like a whole truckload of bass!

The answer to making the midrange and tweeter drivers "jump" was even easier. Don't use any crossover component to roll off the midrange. That way both the mid and tweeter would be working in the same 3KHz - 10KHz region and we'd get a huge bump. (Never mind the cancellation effects which would limit the Imperial 7's ultimate high frequency response to a pathetic 12KHz before it headed straight down.)

Marantz Imperial 7 speakers In the end Marantz' marketing ploy was very successful. The Imperial 7 sold in huge numbers and the Imperial 6 sort of faded back in the model line-up. For a short time, my Locanthi-Hadley basic precepts of technically correct speaker design were a bit tarnished. Here I was at the beginning of what I had hoped would be a wonderfully challenging and enjoyable engineering career. And I had to look forward to speakers pre-designed by marketing?

Dr. Robert Dean then brings the thread back in the proper perspective when, before describing his (apparently incredible sounding) custom designed home system, he states, "Get your listening room acoustically correct first, otherwise, you're whistling dixie."

Bravo to all participants of this thread! You are all correct in surmising that, when talking about wringing the maximum sound quality out of a system, that it is the speaker-room interface above all else that will determine your degree of audio satisfaction. So, the bad news is that if you don't have an acoustically neutral, and therefore complementary, "flat room" to begin with, upgrading your speakers or any other component will only make the system sound "different". Never better.

Loudspeakers: When is Good Enough, Enough? Part 1 — Reviews and News from Audioholics


funny.............

The Marantz Imperial 6 was the first speaker Dawson had designed after Bart Locanthi had completed the lab/listening room set-up along with teaching his speaker design methodology to Dawson. We speaker novices would listen to the Imperial 6 all day long in between setting up other tests. It was a paper-cone 10" two-way with a phenolic ring (edge) cone tweeter. The woofer had a doped cloth surround and all cabinet parts where of ¾" veneered particleboard. In the lab the Imperial 6 measured ± 1.5 dB, 60Hz to 17,000Hz. It had a real walnut cabinet and retailed for $129.00 each. Guess what? It didn't sell worth beans.

of course my world is "simple"
Audio High End - kolumny g?o?nikowe, g?o?niki, audio high end audio, kolumny g?o?nikowe hi-end


Top-10 ultimate high-end speakers | The Audiophiliac - CNET News

OR...................

When size matters, go for the gusto and consider the Transmission Audio Ultimate ($2 million). It's a rather large speaker--each one consists of six 7-foot-tall panels. Each Ultimate houses a total of 40 15-inch subwoofers, 24 8-inch woofers, and massive arrays of 2-inch-wide and 1-inch-wide ribbon tweeters. I've just described a single channel/speaker; double those numbers for stereo! A pair of Ultimates are nearly 40 feet wide!

A total of 31000 Watts, equaling 146dB SPL. The system comes complete with its own power amplifiers to match.

http://www.transmissionaudio.com/



Actually this company and concept has me thinking of re-dabbling in speaker construction.........
http://essspeakersusa.com/Products.html


Certainly wouldn't break the bank............
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ESS-Labs-AMT-4-Full-Range-Floor-Speakers-Oskar-Heil-...263#vi-content
http://audio-intl.com/en/man/man_ess2.html

[GeneV]

I see what you want to say and I agree. But even then, it is worthwhile to note that only 58.7 % of the US population have jobs.

I'm not sure how useful that statistic really is in evaluating the extent to which jobs are the mechanism by which wealth is distributed, since it does not reflect the percentage of the population which depends upon a job in the household for its income, or depended upon a job to accumulate its retirement income. I do agree that technology will come to a point where a job can no longer be the primary method of allocation. I always wondered in years past on seeing episodes of Star Trek--where food and items are generated by machines almost instantly--what kind of economic system would fit that fantasy.

I'm not sure whether technology is really the most significant force now or whether the issue is an endless supply of cheap labor in developing countries. As long as humans will perform the functions performed in China under the conditions required, there may be less pressure to take the technology to the next level. Capitalist investors are in the enviable position of playing worker against worker as well as worker against machine in the race to the bottom wage.

[Nesster]

Ah, a fellow tinkerer... or two, naturally and of course, as photography and audio have a lot in common.

I haven't built speakers, though I did build a Raven tweeter with series crossover that I used with my vintage JBL Lancers - both 77 and 44. Sounded good too, but then the 77's sounded very much similar with their own tweets.

I have built some tube kit amps in my time, (got up at 3AM to solder), which effectively cured my high-enditis.

But bringing this back to the original topic - and thanks for the Swiss swerve - looking at the hi-fi market is illustrative of how social economics affects industry and therefore employment and the diffusion of wealth.

The golden age of American hi-fi coincides with the golden age of American middle class wealth. Stuff like AR, JBL, Dynaco, Fisher, McIntosh, and a whole host of others made well-designed, decent performing and affordable gear.

When we compare prices to incomes, we tend to apply current reality to past conditions... the evidence is, it was easier to generate disposable income back then as compared to now. Or, another way to say this, the annual nut tended to be a smaller portion of income.

What happened? I'm thinking especially the upper middle class started to separate out - and grow in numbers - from the rest of the mass market. Products started to chase this segment as it is very profitable... and politics also started to chase this segment. Trickle down Reaganomics?

Meanwhile the annual nut kept growing, to where the mass market's disposable money was squeezed, while the upper professional yuppie class maintained a cushion.

The audio press saw an opening - not only Stereophile, but especially The Absolute Sound developed a very critical and snobbish outlook: either something was among the worthy (and cost a lot of money) or was inevitably disappointing and not true High End (and therefore unworthy). I recall reading TAS and coming away depressed...

So the industry chases the near-wealthy and wealthy, and abandons the middle class to the box stores. And then complains about the lack of new blood etc. In societies that manage a greater degree of permeation of the fruits of productivity, there is less of a divide between the haves and have-not-quite-enoughs... the market for the near-wealthy remains in contact with the 'regular' market, rather than exclusively chasing the ever more wealthy.

This in a nutshell is what's going on in general in the USA.

[GeneV]

I've also tinkered with tubes a great deal as well. My favorites were old McIntosh amps.

[falconeye]

I'm not sure how useful that statistic really is in evaluating the extent to which jobs are the mechanism by which wealth is distributed

You're right. I didn't mean it to be useful. I just found the figure interesting. Of course, one job once fed 4 people in the average 2 parents 2 kids family.

I always wondered in years past on seeing episodes of Star Trek--where food and items are generated by machines almost instantly--what kind of economic system would fit that fantasy.

I'm not sure whether technology is really the most significant force now or whether the issue is an endless supply of cheap labor in developing countries.

This is where my observation how people worked in East Germany fits in: We too, now have an awful amount of redundant or useless work in our current economy. I.e., many people don't work because their work is needed or even useful. They work because otherwise, they wouldn't earn any money. And this is due to the high productivity we have reached.

It actually doesn't matter if it's a machine or a Chinese (sorry if this sounds odd). If it's not a Chinese, then it is a machine. E.g., after the suicides at Foxconn, Apple considered to produce in the US using a fully automated factory. The cost of labour in China is such that it can compete against machines here. Not the other way round because China can set the price of their labour.

And because machines get cheaper and smarter while Chinese workers get more expensive, China got a problem. If they don't innovate like hell, they'll have to start a war ...

Economic models for societies' which live on automated production exist. The simpler ones use forms of an unconditioned base income. The more advanced ones even replace money by reputation. Money would still be required as long as there are finite resources such as ground.

[jeffkrol]

Advocates
The idea of guaranteed minimum income is not new, as witnessed in this vintage cartoon.

American revolutionary Thomas Paine advocated a basic income guarantee to all US citizens as compensation for "loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property" (Agrarian Justice, 1795).

French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte echoed Paine's sentiments and commented that 'man is entitled by birthright to a share of the Earth's produce sufficient to fill the needs of his existence' (Herold, 1955).

In 1963, Robert Theobald published the book Free Men and Free Markets, in which he advocated a guaranteed minimum income (the origin of the modern version of the phrase).

In his final book Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (1967) Martin Luther King Jr. wrote[2]

I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective — the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.
—from the chapter entitled "Where We Are Going"

In 1968, James Tobin, Paul Samuelson, John Kenneth Galbraith and another 1,200 economists signed a document calling for the US Congress to introduce in that year a system of income guarantees and supplements.[3]

In 1973, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote The Politics of a Guaranteed Income in which he advocated for the Guaranteed Minimum Income and discussed Richard Nixon's GAI proposal.
This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (February 2010)

In 1987, New Zealand's Labour Finance Minister Roger Douglas announced a Guaranteed Minimum Family Income Scheme to accompany a new flat tax. Both were quashed by then Prime Minister David Lange, who sacked Douglas.[4]

Modern advocates include Hans-Werner Sinn (Germany) and Ayşe Buğra (Turkey).[citation needed]

Guaranteed minimum income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

About Basic Income

A basic income is an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement. It is a form of minimum income guarantee that differs from those that now exist in various European countries in three important ways:

it is being paid to individuals rather than households;
it is paid irrespective of any income from other sources;
it is paid without requiring the performance of any work or the willingness to accept a job if offered.

Liberty and equality, efficiency and community, common ownership of the Earth and equal sharing in the benefits of technical progress, the flexibility of the labour market and the dignity of the poor, the fight against inhumane working conditions, against the desertification of the countryside and against interregional inequalities, the viability of cooperatives and the promotion of adult education, autonomy from bosses, husbands and bureaucrats, have all been invoked in its favour.
But it is the inability to tackle unemployment with conventional means that has led in the last decade or so to the idea being taken seriously throughout Europe by a growing number of scholars and organizations. Social policy and economic policy can no longer be conceived separately, and basic income is increasingly viewed as the only viable way of reconciling two of their respective central objectives: poverty relief and full employment.
There is a wide variety of proposals around. They differ according to the amounts involved, the source of funding, the nature and size of the reductions in other transfers, and along many other dimensions. As far as short-term proposals are concerned, however, the current discussion is focusing increasingly on so-called partial basic income schemes which would not be full substitutes for present guaranteed income schemes but would provide a low - and slowly increasing - basis to which other incomes, including the remaining social security benefits and means-tested guaranteed income supplements, could be added.
Many prominent European social scientists have now come out in favour of basic income - among them two Nobel laureates in economics. In a few countries some major politicians, including from parties in government, are also beginning to stick their necks out in support of it. At the same time, the relevant literature - on the economic, ethical, political and legal aspects - is gradually expanding and those promoting the idea, or just interested in it, in various European countries and across the world have started organizing into an active network.

http://www.basicincome.org/bien/pdf/2000VanParijs.pdf

A basic income is an income paid by a political community to all its members on
an individual basis, without means test or work requirement. This is the definition I shall
adopt. It does not fit all actual uses of the English expression “basic income”, or of its
most common translations in other European languages, such as “Bürgergeld”,
“allocation universelle”, “renda basica”, “reddito di cittadinanza”, “basisinkomen”, or
“borgerlon”. Some of these actual uses are broader : they also cover, for example,
benefits whose level is affected by one’s household situation or which are administered in
the form of tax credits. Other uses are narrower: they also require, for example, that the
level of the basic income should coincide with what is required to satisfy basic needs or
that it should replace all other transfers. The aim of the above definition is not to police
usage but to clarify arguments. Let us briefly focus on each of its components in turn.

http://www.uclouvain.be/en-11688.html


Unfortunately it goes against the Judeo-Christian ethic of suffering in the world to achieve "salvation".. and against the "you can't have anything free" capitalistic mindset...

welcome to another example of flat earth thinking.......