21st Century Business Management: Attn. Kalm

[travelinman67]

Posted this for you, Kalm. Re: Recovery Solutions.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedennin ... -is-dying/

Personally believe the writer is mistakenly ignoring regulatory involvement, otherwise, his premise is legit...

...take note of the comments...some good reader discussion.

[kalm]

Posted this for you, Kalm. Re: Recovery Solutions.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedennin ... -is-dying/

Personally believe the writer is mistakenly ignoring regulatory involvement, otherwise, his premise is legit...

...take note of the comments...some good reader discussion.

You know that's the kind of big picture article I gravitate towards and you also knew that I would have trouble disagreeing with most of it. The only thing I would question initially is that wealth like our diminishing resources is somewhat finite and therefore simply suggesting growth through greater attention of customers and without rising demand is also somewhat limited.

Great article.

[bluehenbillk]

Eh, the guy has some good points, but then he ruins it at the end with his solution of radical management and the shameless plug for his book with the same title...

[GannonFan]

Nothing earth shattering here - basically, when it gets down to it, the key to survival is to innovate. Make products that the customer wants and make it better (cheaper, more features, etc) than anyone else can make it. Probably would help if we graduated more engineers and scientists than we do today.

[89Hen]

Make products that the customer wants and make it better (cheaper, more features, etc) than anyone else can make it.

Damn, why didn't I think of that?

[D1B]

The hippies were right. Massive consumption can only last so long.

[travelinman67]

Make products that the customer wants and make it better (cheaper, more features, etc) than anyone else can make it.

Damn, why didn't I think of that?

...the author's point was that corporate America has gravitated away from fundamental market mechanisms and moved wholly toward marketing to drive demand...i.e., selling the sizzle rather than the steak.

He's correct...and the American consumer is to blame for allowing contemporary marketers to pull off this snake-oil bullshit. It's endemic philosophically in American culture: Less is more. Conservation is good. Consumption and consumerism is bad.

If I can sell you bottled water for $1.00/pint rather than soda, fruit juice or another flavored beverage, I make that much more profit.

If I convince you to conserve, while simultaneously raising my sale price 30%, it's a double whammy for my bottomline: I provide 50% less product for 30% more.

Every other year we run out and buy software updates to remain "current" and opportunistically receive "new improved features". Not surprisingly, the majority of those "new features" rarely improve the software's operation, and most often are designed to facilitate gathering marketing data the manufacturer utilizes to increase sales/profits.

We spend tens of thousands for a sardine tin with 4 wheels that gets 50mpg...so now we only have to buy 4 gallons per week instead of 20. But we're still paying the same each week now that gas goes for 3 times the price of 10 years ago.

But we're saving the planet...right?

And the American consumer apathetically particpates.

Here's a tip to consumers: Tighten your belts; force companies to provide product with value. Not for the benefit of decrepit investors, but for the long-term benefit of the economy.

Robust industry creates jobs. Jobs create prosperity.

Boycott any company that has chosen to sell the sizzle rather than the steak. Companies selling brand with no value should (not politely) be given the boot.
Knowing that the same company or their competitors is selling a product for a minor fraction of what you're paying should be a red flag. Don't allow monopolistic industries to regionally control pricing: Competitively shop and don't be afraid to change supplier/providers.

What this author covers is only a small part of our economic ailment. Moreso, he's looking to cure the ailment rather than address the cause. While I'd rather see the cause remedied, his observations are nonetheless valid and necessary.

[travelinman67]

The hippies were right. Massive consumption can only last so long.

You're so fucking clueless.

[kalm]

Damn, why didn't I think of that?

...the author's point was that corporate America has gravitated away from fundamental market mechanisms and moved wholly toward marketing to drive demand...i.e., selling the sizzle rather than the steak.

He's correct...and the American consumer is to blame for allowing contemporary marketers to pull off this snake-oil bullshit. It's endemic philosophically in American culture: Less is more. Conservation is good. Consumption and consumerism is bad.

If I can sell you bottled water for $1.00/pint rather than soda, fruit juice or another flavored beverage, I make that much more profit.

If I convince you to conserve, while simultaneously raising my sale price 30%, it's a double whammy for my bottomline: I provide 50% less product for 30% more.

Every other year we run out and buy software updates to remain "current" and opportunistically receive "new improved features". Not surprisingly, the majority of those "new features" rarely improve the software's operation, and most often are designed to facilitate gathering marketing data the manufacturer utilizes to increase sales/profits.

We spend tens of thousands for a sardine tin with 4 wheels that gets 50mpg...so now we only have to buy 4 gallons per week instead of 20. But we're still paying the same each week now that gas goes for 3 times the price of 10 years ago.

But we're saving the planet...right?

And the American consumer apathetically particpates.

Here's a tip to consumers: Tighten your belts; force companies to provide product with value. Not for the benefit of decrepit investors, but for the long-term benefit of the economy.

Robust industry creates jobs. Jobs create prosperity.

Boycott any company that has chosen to sell the sizzle rather than the steak. Companies selling brand with no value should (not politely) be given the boot.
Knowing that the same company or their competitors is selling a product for a minor fraction of what you're paying should be a red flag. Don't allow monopolistic industries to regionally control pricing: Competitively shop and don't be afraid to change supplier/providers.

What this author covers is only a small part of our economic ailment. Moreso, he's looking to cure the ailment rather than address the cause. While I'd rather see the cause remedied, his observations are nonetheless valid and necessary.

This is very true. Make cosmetic changes to a product then spend as much in marketing as you do in in overhead to convince consumers of how they need the latest and greatest. Reinventing the wheel. What's worse is that now nearly every industry is in a race to the bottom. Rather than offer something of greater value or innovation it's simply discounting.

[GannonFan]

This is very true. Make cosmetic changes to a product then spend as much in marketing as you do in in overhead to convince consumers of how they need the latest and greatest. Reinventing the wheel. What's worse is that now nearly every industry is in a race to the bottom. Rather than offer something of greater value or innovation it's simply discounting.

Is the world you guys live in hard to get to from the real world where the rest of us live? Seriously, manufacturers and industry no longer "offer something of greater value or innovation"? Look where we were 25 years ago in almost any market and tell me we aren't more productive and more innovative than what we are making today than what we made 25 years ago. You have a lot of great slogans and talking points, but they don't mesh with the real world where people are coming up with new technologies and new innovations and new ideas. Maybe not enough of them, and especially not enough of them in the US, but to think people are just discounting today to make profits is dangerously naive.

[travelinman67]

This is very true. Make cosmetic changes to a product then spend as much in marketing as you do in in overhead to convince consumers of how they need the latest and greatest. Reinventing the wheel. What's worse is that now nearly every industry is in a race to the bottom. Rather than offer something of greater value or innovation it's simply discounting.

Is the world you guys live in hard to get to from the real world where the rest of us live? Seriously, manufacturers and industry no longer "offer something of greater value or innovation"? Look where we were 25 years ago in almost any market and tell me we aren't more productive and more innovative than what we are making today than what we made 25 years ago. You have a lot of great slogans and talking points, but they don't mesh with the real world where people are coming up with new technologies and new innovations and new ideas. Maybe not enough of them, and especially not enough of them in the US, but to think people are just discounting today to make profits is dangerously naive.

Look in the mirror GF. Go through my examples of reduced value and disprove them.

You're either in marketing, media, insurance, an investor, or remarkably delusional.

[kalm]

Is the world you guys live in hard to get to from the real world where the rest of us live? Seriously, manufacturers and industry no longer "offer something of greater value or innovation"? Look where we were 25 years ago in almost any market and tell me we aren't more productive and more innovative than what we are making today than what we made 25 years ago. You have a lot of great slogans and talking points, but they don't mesh with the real world where people are coming up with new technologies and new innovations and new ideas. Maybe not enough of them, and especially not enough of them in the US, but to think people are just discounting today to make profits is dangerously naive.

Look in the mirror GF. Go through my examples of reduced value and disprove them.

You're either in marketing, media, insurance, an investor, or remarkably delusional.

And/or very young...

Of course there have been many advancements made in technology but outside of medicine very few of these advancements have really improved or changed peoples lives all that much and that's where real wealth exists and where the core spending needs to be taking place. I think T-man used the example of cars. My Tundra is far more advanced than my parent's 1979 Subaru Brat that I drove in high school. But the real purpose, to reliably get me from point a to point b at a reasonable rate of speed isn't any different. The fact that the Brat got 35 mile/gallon almost made it better.

[travelinman67]

Look in the mirror GF. Go through my examples of reduced value and disprove them.

You're either in marketing, media, insurance, an investor, or remarkably delusional.

And/or very young...

Of course there have been many advancements made in technology but outside of medicine very few of these advancements have really improved or changed peoples lives all that much and that's where real wealth exists and where the core spending needs to be taking place. I think T-man used the example of cars. My Tundra is far more advanced than my parent's 1979 Subaru Brat that I drove in high school. But the real purpose, to reliably get me from point a to point b at a reasonable rate of speed isn't any different. The fact that the Brat got 35 mile/gallon almost made it better.

Moreso, go have it repaired. While maintenance intervals have increased, major repair costs have skyrocketed, principally because manufacturing is outsourced and inventory is hubbed closer to shipping centers. Car dealerships (distribution centers) no longer stock 500-1000 units...demand be damned, new unit inventories are 30% what they were 20-25 years ago. Were the cost savings passed on to the consumer, these logistical changes wouldn't matter, but the cost savings have gone directly back to the owners/shareholders. The consumer always receives the short end of the stick.

And speaking of healthcare advancements...

...Since 1988 California user healthcare costs have risen over 200%, and some studies have it around 258%. Obviously, when you math it out, there's been double digit percentage cost increase EACH YEAR since passage. If advancements equate to increased value, where's the output? It's clearly not been passed on to the consumer (unless, of course, the recepient is on government assistance).

Oh, and BTW...in 1988, California passed a cigarette tax which was estimated to funnel approx. $450 million/yr directly into CA hospitals (another $600+ million into public eduction and tobacco reduction programs) with the intent of mitigating the unreimbursed expenses of tobacco user healthcare. The advertisements for the proposition assured voters the tax would result in healthcare costs savings for all Californians.

I hear a shitload of sizzle for a miniscule steak.

[GannonFan]

Look in the mirror GF. Go through my examples of reduced value and disprove them.

You're either in marketing, media, insurance, an investor, or remarkably delusional.

And/or very young...

Of course there have been many advancements made in technology but outside of medicine very few of these advancements have really improved or changed peoples lives all that much and that's where real wealth exists and where the core spending needs to be taking place. I think T-man used the example of cars. My Tundra is far more advanced than my parent's 1979 Subaru Brat that I drove in high school. But the real purpose, to reliably get me from point a to point b at a reasonable rate of speed isn't any different. The fact that the Brat got 35 mile/gallon almost made it better.

I'm a middle-aged chemical engineer who's worked in manufacturing for 20 years. Unlike you guys, I actually am involved in making things rather than just talking about it. But by all means, pontificate on.

You know why cars cost so much money today? People like sound systems, they like lumbar supports, they like heated seats, they like 2-3 cup holders for each person, they like doors that open at the touch of a button, they like windows that have an auto up and auto down so that you don't even need to hold the button down anymore let alone have to turn a crank, they like having a rear view camera display in the rear view mirror, they like air bags, they like air bags that know if a little person is sitting in the front passenger seat, they like cars that don't emit VOC's, they like cars that have tires that stay inflated when they get punctured, they like cars that tell you when the tires are under or over inflated, they like cars with built in navigation systems so that they don't need to read a map, they like navigation systems that tell them when to turn, they like cars that you can turn on with an iPhone from halfway across the world, they like cars that can have 3 or more zones of temperature, they like cars with video screens, they like cars that have 110V outlets so they can run a laptop while in the car, and so on and so on and so on.

There are plenty of cars out there that don't have these features - thing is, nobody buys them. So you can rant about your Tundra not being any better about getting from point A to point B and it costing so much more than the crap car you drove in the 70's, but it was still you that bought the car with all the bells and whistles when there were plenty of cheaper alternatives out there. But I'm sure you were caught up in the marketing and couldn't help yourself.

And really, outside of medicine we haven't had advancements in 20 years? Forgive me as I laugh about that comment while typing on a laptop that is wirelessly connected to my company's server two time zones away and posting on a message board that can be accessed from anywhere in the world and have my comments instantly appear. I mean, I'm sure I saw Willis do the same thing on an episode of "Different Strokes" so I'm sure there have been no advances in computing or information systems in the past 20 years. I'll check wiki on my Droid just to make sure though.

[kalm]

And/or very young...

Of course there have been many advancements made in technology but outside of medicine very few of these advancements have really improved or changed peoples lives all that much and that's where real wealth exists and where the core spending needs to be taking place. I think T-man used the example of cars. My Tundra is far more advanced than my parent's 1979 Subaru Brat that I drove in high school. But the real purpose, to reliably get me from point a to point b at a reasonable rate of speed isn't any different. The fact that the Brat got 35 mile/gallon almost made it better.

I'm a middle-aged chemical engineer who's worked in manufacturing for 20 years. Unlike you guys, I actually am involved in making things rather than just talking about it. But by all means, pontificate on.

You know why cars cost so much money today? People like sound systems, they like lumbar supports, they like heated seats, they like 2-3 cup holders for each person, they like doors that open at the touch of a button, they like windows that have an auto up and auto down so that you don't even need to hold the button down anymore let alone have to turn a crank, they like having a rear view camera display in the rear view mirror, they like air bags, they like air bags that know if a little person is sitting in the front passenger seat, they like cars that don't emit VOC's, they like cars that have tires that stay inflated when they get punctured, they like cars that tell you when the tires are under or over inflated, they like cars with built in navigation systems so that they don't need to read a map, they like navigation systems that tell them when to turn, they like cars that you can turn on with an iPhone from halfway across the world, they like cars that can have 3 or more zones of temperature, they like cars with video screens, they like cars that have 110V outlets so they can run a laptop while in the car, and so on and so on and so on.

There are plenty of cars out there that don't have these features - thing is, nobody buys them. So you can rant about your Tundra not being any better about getting from point A to point B and it costing so much more than the crap car you drove in the 70's, but it was still you that bought the car with all the bells and whistles when there were plenty of cheaper alternatives out there. But I'm sure you were caught up in the marketing and couldn't help yourself.

And really, outside of medicine we haven't had advancements in 20 years? Forgive me as I laugh about that comment while typing on a laptop that is wirelessly connected to my company's server two time zones away and posting on a message board that can be accessed from anywhere in the world and have my comments instantly appear. I mean, I'm sure I saw Willis do the same thing on an episode of "Different Strokes" so I'm sure there have been no advances in computing or information systems in the past 20 years. I'll check wiki on my Droid just to make sure though.

GF, you remind me of one of my better friends who also happens to be an engineer. You're both exceedingly smart but really struggle with broad views and generalizations. I must have told you at least a million times that I'm prone to hyperbole, exagerration and over-generalizing.

Of course thousands of advancements have been made but from an economic standpoint that is not neccessarily a good or bad thing as the actual worth or need of the advancement is relatively low compared to the cost. As Tman suggests (and I think John Kenneth Galbraith also did back in the 1950's) often times the marketing of these advancements preceeds the demand. A company produces a shiny gadget or advancement that everyone "needs" and folks sacrifice their savings and kid's education to be able to afford it. We end up placing too great a value in the bells and whistles and have less for things of true quality. You might call that economic progress but I'm not so sure. We all seemed to have somehow survived the 1970's when life was so dull.

We can both come up with countless examples to support our points but don't ever refer to my Subaru as crap again.

[GannonFan]

I'm a middle-aged chemical engineer who's worked in manufacturing for 20 years. Unlike you guys, I actually am involved in making things rather than just talking about it. But by all means, pontificate on.

You know why cars cost so much money today? People like sound systems, they like lumbar supports, they like heated seats, they like 2-3 cup holders for each person, they like doors that open at the touch of a button, they like windows that have an auto up and auto down so that you don't even need to hold the button down anymore let alone have to turn a crank, they like having a rear view camera display in the rear view mirror, they like air bags, they like air bags that know if a little person is sitting in the front passenger seat, they like cars that don't emit VOC's, they like cars that have tires that stay inflated when they get punctured, they like cars that tell you when the tires are under or over inflated, they like cars with built in navigation systems so that they don't need to read a map, they like navigation systems that tell them when to turn, they like cars that you can turn on with an iPhone from halfway across the world, they like cars that can have 3 or more zones of temperature, they like cars with video screens, they like cars that have 110V outlets so they can run a laptop while in the car, and so on and so on and so on.

There are plenty of cars out there that don't have these features - thing is, nobody buys them. So you can rant about your Tundra not being any better about getting from point A to point B and it costing so much more than the crap car you drove in the 70's, but it was still you that bought the car with all the bells and whistles when there were plenty of cheaper alternatives out there. But I'm sure you were caught up in the marketing and couldn't help yourself.

And really, outside of medicine we haven't had advancements in 20 years? Forgive me as I laugh about that comment while typing on a laptop that is wirelessly connected to my company's server two time zones away and posting on a message board that can be accessed from anywhere in the world and have my comments instantly appear. I mean, I'm sure I saw Willis do the same thing on an episode of "Different Strokes" so I'm sure there have been no advances in computing or information systems in the past 20 years. I'll check wiki on my Droid just to make sure though.

GF, you remind me of one of my better friends who also happens to be an engineer. You're both exceedingly smart but really struggle with broad views and generalizations. I must have told you at least a million times that I'm prone to hyperbole, exagerration and over-generalizing.

Of course thousands of advancements have been made but from an economic standpoint that is not neccessarily a good or bad thing as the actual worth or need of the advancement is relatively low compared to the cost. As Tman suggests (and I think John Kenneth Galbraith also did back in the 1950's) often times the marketing of these advancements preceeds the demand. A company produces a shiny gadget or advancement that everyone "needs" and folks sacrifice their savings and kid's education to be able to afford it. We end up placing too great a value in the bells and whistles and have less for things of true quality. You might call that economic progress but I'm not so sure. We all seemed to have somehow survived the 1970's when life was so dull.

We can both come up with countless examples to support our points but don't ever refer to my Subaru as crap again.

By all means, there were plenty of decent cars that weren't crap then.

As for the advancements that aren't actual worths or needs, that's the nature of the beast. We all want luxuries, and that's what things like smart phones and the Internet and social networking and knee replacement surgeries and fancy cars and HEPA filters and numerous other things that we spend loads of money on are. If we are just concerned about producing things that are truly necessary for life, you'll kill manufacturing faster than anything. We don't "need" most of anything we use or make in a day. We do "want" them because they do make life easier or more enjoyable. So yeah, by that measure, we haven't really "progressed" terribly far since the 1970's (are you sure you're not some closet conservative - you seem to keep harking back to the '70's and even further to the '50's like they were the halcyon times and that we need to get back to that age - very conservative of you), but we have a lot more toys to make life more entertaining and easier today.

[kalm]

GF, you remind me of one of my better friends who also happens to be an engineer. You're both exceedingly smart but really struggle with broad views and generalizations. I must have told you at least a million times that I'm prone to hyperbole, exagerration and over-generalizing.

Of course thousands of advancements have been made but from an economic standpoint that is not neccessarily a good or bad thing as the actual worth or need of the advancement is relatively low compared to the cost. As Tman suggests (and I think John Kenneth Galbraith also did back in the 1950's) often times the marketing of these advancements preceeds the demand. A company produces a shiny gadget or advancement that everyone "needs" and folks sacrifice their savings and kid's education to be able to afford it. We end up placing too great a value in the bells and whistles and have less for things of true quality. You might call that economic progress but I'm not so sure. We all seemed to have somehow survived the 1970's when life was so dull.

We can both come up with countless examples to support our points but don't ever refer to my Subaru as crap again.

By all means, there were plenty of decent cars that weren't crap then.

As for the advancements that aren't actual worths or needs, that's the nature of the beast. We all want luxuries, and that's what things like smart phones and the Internet and social networking and knee replacement surgeries and fancy cars and HEPA filters and numerous other things that we spend loads of money on are. If we are just concerned about producing things that are truly necessary for life, you'll kill manufacturing faster than anything. We don't "need" most of anything we use or make in a day. We do "want" them because they do make life easier or more enjoyable. So yeah, by that measure, we haven't really "progressed" terribly far since the 1970's (are you sure you're not some closet conservative - you seem to keep harking back to the '70's and even further to the '50's like they were the halcyon times and that we need to get back to that age - very conservative of you), but we have a lot more toys to make life more entertaining and easier today.

I would seriously question whether life is more entertaining or easier today and of course I'm a closet conservative.

Here's a wiki summary of Galbraiths ideas pertaining to the power that advertising has on markets. And he was recognizing it a half century ago - what would he think today? I'm not saying that the manufacturing of trinkets is wrong but it's a matter of degrees and right now our economy is based too heavily on the sales of things we don't need. It of course would be helpful if we at least manufactured those things but you and I have already beat around that bush.

In The Affluent Society Galbraith asserts that classical economic theory was true for the eras before the present, which were times of "poverty"; now, however, we have moved from an age of poverty to an age of "affluence", and for such an age, a completely new economic theory is needed. Galbraith's main argument is that as society becomes relatively more affluent, so private business must "create" consumer demand through advertising, and while this generates artificial affluence through the production of commercial goods and services, the public sector becomes neglected. He points out that while many Americans were able to purchase luxury items, their parks were polluted and their children attended poorly maintained schools. He argues that markets alone will underprovide (or fail to provide at all) for many public goods, whereas private goods are typically "overprovided" due to the process of advertising creating an artificial demand above the individual's basic needs. This emphasis on the power of advertising and consequent overconsumption may have anticipated the drop in savings rates in the USA and elsewhere in the developing world.[2]
Galbraith proposed curbing the consumption of certain products through greater use of consumption taxes, arguing that this could be more efficient than other forms of taxation, such as labour or land taxes. Galbraith's major proposal was a program he called "investment in men" – a large-scale publicly-funded education program aimed at empowering ordinary citizens

.

[CAA Flagship]

[GannonFan]

I would seriously question whether life is more entertaining or easier today and of course I'm a closet conservative.

Here's a wiki summary of Galbraiths ideas pertaining to the power that advertising has on markets. And he was recognizing it a half century ago - what would he think today? I'm not saying that the manufacturing of trinkets is wrong but it's a matter of degrees and right now our economy is based too heavily on the sales of things we don't need. It of course would be helpful if we at least manufactured those things but you and I have already beat around that bush.

In The Affluent Society Galbraith asserts that classical economic theory was true for the eras before the present, which were times of "poverty"; now, however, we have moved from an age of poverty to an age of "affluence", and for such an age, a completely new economic theory is needed. Galbraith's main argument is that as society becomes relatively more affluent, so private business must "create" consumer demand through advertising, and while this generates artificial affluence through the production of commercial goods and services, the public sector becomes neglected. He points out that while many Americans were able to purchase luxury items, their parks were polluted and their children attended poorly maintained schools. He argues that markets alone will underprovide (or fail to provide at all) for many public goods, whereas private goods are typically "overprovided" due to the process of advertising creating an artificial demand above the individual's basic needs. This emphasis on the power of advertising and consequent overconsumption may have anticipated the drop in savings rates in the USA and elsewhere in the developing world.[2]
Galbraith proposed curbing the consumption of certain products through greater use of consumption taxes, arguing that this could be more efficient than other forms of taxation, such as labour or land taxes. Galbraith's major proposal was a program he called "investment in men" – a large-scale publicly-funded education program aimed at empowering ordinary citizens

.

So what are you getting at? That we should tax "luxuries" out of existence, or just enough that only rich people can afford them? So no more 50" LCD tv's for the middle class? Forget automatic windows, only Bill Gates can afford to have power windows in his car? How are we going to define a "luxury"? Who gets to decide what is a "luxury" and what is a "need"? Sounds very central planning-like, are you going in that direction? Does this mean the cost for my Xbox is going to shoot up as well just because I don't really "need" it? My kids tell me they "need" to play Wii - so I've been correct in telling them they just can't afford it?

And what is this "investment in men" education program? We have a pretty good history of increasing education funding (i.e. more dollars) without seeing an increase in educational output (I agree, tough to measure, but it's still real). Granted, we tend to spend the money frivilously and that's probably the cause, but I'm not sure how doing it on a larger scale and with more money will somehow be more efficient than we've already done. Going to need more details on this.

[kalm]

I would seriously question whether life is more entertaining or easier today and of course I'm a closet conservative.

Here's a wiki summary of Galbraiths ideas pertaining to the power that advertising has on markets. And he was recognizing it a half century ago - what would he think today? I'm not saying that the manufacturing of trinkets is wrong but it's a matter of degrees and right now our economy is based too heavily on the sales of things we don't need. It of course would be helpful if we at least manufactured those things but you and I have already beat around that bush.

.

So what are you getting at? That we should tax "luxuries" out of existence, or just enough that only rich people can afford them? So no more 50" LCD tv's for the middle class? Forget automatic windows, only Bill Gates can afford to have power windows in his car? How are we going to define a "luxury"? Who gets to decide what is a "luxury" and what is a "need"? Sounds very central planning-like, are you going in that direction? Does this mean the cost for my Xbox is going to shoot up as well just because I don't really "need" it? My kids tell me they "need" to play Wii - so I've been correct in telling them they just can't afford it?

And what is this "investment in men" education program? We have a pretty good history of increasing education funding (i.e. more dollars) without seeing an increase in educational output (I agree, tough to measure, but it's still real). Granted, we tend to spend the money frivilously and that's probably the cause, but I'm not sure how doing it on a larger scale and with more money will somehow be more efficient than we've already done. Going to need more details on this.

Just making observations GF, not neccessarily providing a solution and I agree that central planning has it's dangers. But the status quo isn't leading us in a sustainable direction either.

[GannonFan]

So what are you getting at? That we should tax "luxuries" out of existence, or just enough that only rich people can afford them? So no more 50" LCD tv's for the middle class? Forget automatic windows, only Bill Gates can afford to have power windows in his car? How are we going to define a "luxury"? Who gets to decide what is a "luxury" and what is a "need"? Sounds very central planning-like, are you going in that direction? Does this mean the cost for my Xbox is going to shoot up as well just because I don't really "need" it? My kids tell me they "need" to play Wii - so I've been correct in telling them they just can't afford it?

And what is this "investment in men" education program? We have a pretty good history of increasing education funding (i.e. more dollars) without seeing an increase in educational output (I agree, tough to measure, but it's still real). Granted, we tend to spend the money frivilously and that's probably the cause, but I'm not sure how doing it on a larger scale and with more money will somehow be more efficient than we've already done. Going to need more details on this.

Just making observations GF, not neccessarily providing a solution and I agree that central planning has it's dangers. But the status quo isn't leading us in a sustainable direction either.

That's cool. In the end, though, I think the idea that the political arena is a place where we can solve the woes of our culture or society is a misplaced and naive one. If the status quo is leading into an unsustainable direction (and I'll just leave that up to debate) then it's going to take a heckuva lot more to change that just public policy. I threw out education and it's a good example. We have great systems and great teachers and we pump a lot of money into it, yet in too many cases it's not working (it does work well in many cases). So if we're doing everything right that we can do publicly, then the unsettling answer is that things outside the public sphere are the cause. Certainly much harder to change society as a whole.

[kalm]

Just making observations GF, not neccessarily providing a solution and I agree that central planning has it's dangers. But the status quo isn't leading us in a sustainable direction either.

That's cool. In the end, though, I think the idea that the political arena is a place where we can solve the woes of our culture or society is a misplaced and naive one. If the status quo is leading into an unsustainable direction (and I'll just leave that up to debate) then it's going to take a heckuva lot more to change that just public policy. I threw out education and it's a good example. We have great systems and great teachers and we pump a lot of money into it, yet in too many cases it's not working (it does work well in many cases). So if we're doing everything right that we can do publicly, then the unsettling answer is that things outside the public sphere are the cause. Certainly much harder to change society as a whole.

Totally agree. We're talking cultural changes here that you can't legislate. But two quick thoughts on education:

1) If you're in an inner city school district then yes, you can't spend enough money to improve the outcomes. But if you're in a school district like mine, it's amazingly successful and innovative. K-12 problems are socio-economic and parenting related.

2) Civics and personal finance classes should be major area of emphasis at all levels of our eduction system. This would help with some of the problems you and I are trying to solve.

[travelinman67]

You know why cars cost so much money today? People like sound systems, they like lumbar supports, they like heated seats, they like 2-3 cup holders for each person, they like doors that open at the touch of a button, they like windows that have an auto up and auto down so that you don't even need to hold the button down anymore let alone have to turn a crank, they like having a rear view camera display in the rear view mirror, they like air bags, they like air bags that know if a little person is sitting in the front passenger seat, they like cars that don't emit VOC's, they like cars that have tires that stay inflated when they get punctured, they like cars that tell you when the tires are under or over inflated, they like cars with built in navigation systems so that they don't need to read a map, they like navigation systems that tell them when to turn, they like cars that you can turn on with an iPhone from halfway across the world, they like cars that can have 3 or more zones of temperature, they like cars with video screens, they like cars that have 110V outlets so they can run a laptop while in the car, and so on and so on and so on.

There are plenty of cars out there that don't have these features - thing is, nobody buys them...

Couple of things.

First, the "value added" features you refer to obviously are a double-edged sword re: increased maintenance. There's another facet that rarely is discussed: Government social engineering. Most of these "features" are integrated with the vehicle's computer which logs malfunctioning equipment. States that require periodic "safety" or "emissions" inspections generally "fail" a vehicle with malfunctioning equipment: Failed test = retesting = increased fees/taxes. In California, these vehicle systems are being designed to transmit vehicle equipment status to "telemetry" receivers stationed along the highway. The initial justification was for pollution monitoring, but the white paper expands it to "safety" monitoring. California Air Resources Board (CARB), has a 2016 roll out for a "rolling telemetry" enforcement program which eventually includes fines and, ultimately, the ability to disable the electronics on vehicles (prevent it's operation) after a "grace period", forcing the vehicle owner to complete the "malfunction" repair. A malfuntioning heater, broken running light, any number of items which insignificantly impact a vehicle's efficiency can directly result in the owner's loss of the vehicle's use.

Now, before you answer that this is for the "public good"...answer what percentage of the voting population (consumers) would support these "nanny" engineer schemes were they be put to a vote?

Universal mass transit for the U.S. is a "failed" design. Geographically, the work centers and housing are not centralized. Add to this the lower socioeconomic classes are the hardest hit due to varying shifts/shift duration. Cynically, I'll even argue mass transit is yet another step by the limousine liberal bourgeosie to subjugate middle class freedoms (F***ing bet me!). Added up, any non-essential restrictions to the American motorist is a direct threat to our nation's working class and economy. Re: vehicular design; engineered obsolescence ("features by committee") are thus, a social threat.

And how many of these "new features" are merely "value added" to support elevating price for a product which has reached it's market peak (...i.e., $15 heating coils added to seat, solely to justify charging $24k for what is otherwise a $12k compact.)?

Secondly, as an engineer, I KNOW you've given much of your life discussing and contemplating KISS. Adding "features" rarely (if ever) comes without drawbacks. Worse, if the "features" are "design by committee" (which is all too often the case with lawyers and government regulators having equal weight as marketing), the "feature's" value becomes secondary to some other non-functional agenda.

Again, less sizzle, more steak.

[native]

Nice post and article, T-man!