I go any further, let me address the issue I seem to have caused with the word 'civilian' (I realise I dug this hole for myself). The word was meant only as a distinction between the nontechnically minded who see computers and cellphones as black boxes they know how to use but have no concept or interest in the workings of, and those who dare to 'look inside the box'. Essentially I was drawing a line between the people I interact with every day - my friends, family and coworkers - and the few folk I know, some of whom are those I interact with here in TR, who understand technology.
It was meant in no way as a pejorative. I am perfectly aware that everyone has their own area of skill in which they excel above many of their contemporaries. It just so happens that on this site, most of the readers and posters are those who have a skill or interest in technological products and issues. That is the audience to whom I was speaking. At least so I presumed. Forgive my bluntness but I meant no offence to anyone.
I myself don't make a king's ransom, in fact I clear less than five thousand a year more right now than I did working in the supermarket after college before I went to university. Also, due to the nature of the industry I work in and the small size of the company, I have a 'rolling contract' - three months only but renewed indefinitely. I have been here for four years but the contract I hold still does not allow me to qualify for a bank loan. As a result all my borrowing (which has been necessary given what I earn) has been on credit card. A 0% card is a good way to postpone debt but the transfer fee means it can take you a few payments just to cover the cost of having transferred your debt. Suffice it to say I know what the cost of living is: I don't own a car and would be ineligible for buying property of any kind.
I take all your points about the behaviour of governments and big business - I also gather from your references that you are speaking from the US - and share your concerns. There is something fundamentally wrong with a political process that sees people running for president reliant on a tenth of a billion dollars in their 'war chest' - the implicit result being that they are indebted to the businesses that backed their campaign either publicly or clandestinely. The same conditions appear to apply to people running for senate or other offices, the inherent potential for corruption trickling right down the administrative hierarchy. I don't know how much of the recent expenses scandals made it over in the news there but here in the UK we have similar problems with our ministers. The cliche about absolute power is as eternally true as all cliches tend to be.
As you imply, it's a fantastically complex issue and one that I suspect everyone has their own take on. I'd be tempted to suspect that changes such as really cheap, if nutritionally poor, food are some of the factors that have allowed big business to rake back their wages while gouging their prices. The workforce can afford to pay more for your products if they are spending less on food.
The trouble with this is that, as with all shell games, you don't get something for nothing. The food hasn't just gotten cheaper. It's gotten poorer. Just because you can eat for a dollar a day doesn't imply that your nutritional needs are being met. Witness the rise of obesity in the US and here in the UK. One of the many factors in this is quite simply the poor diet of a large part of the workforce. This has many consequences for society, not least of which is the increase in the cost of healthcare. Here in the UK where public healthcare is deeply entrenched this has a highly negative impact on public spending.
[edit: typo]
This is the first episode of “The Big Question,” a joint production from ZDNet and TechRepublic. I co-host this weekly podcast with ZDNet Editor in Chief Larry Dignan. This week’s guest expert is Bill Detwiler, Head Technology Editor of TechRepublic.
