SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
America divided – this concept increasingly graces political discourse in the U.S., pitting left against right, conservative thought against the liberal agenda. But for decades, Americans have been rearranging along another divide, one just as stark if not far more significant – a chasm once bridged by a flourishing middle class.
Peter Temin, Professor Emeritus of Economics at MIT, believes the ongoing death of “middle America” has sparked the emergence of two countries within one, the hallmark of developing nations. In his new book, The Vanishing Middle Class: Prejudice and Power in a Dual Economy, Temin paints a bleak picture where one country has a bounty of resources and power, and the other toils day after day with minimal access to the long-coveted American dream.
In his view, the United States is shifting toward an economic and political makeup more similar to developing nations than the wealthy, economically stable nation it has long been. Temin applied W. Arthur Lewis’s economic model – designed to understand the workings of developing countries – to the United States in an effort to document how inequality has grown in America.
The 2017 World Economic Forum had the answer: "The people who have not benefited from globalization need to try harder to emulate those who have succeeded," and, "'People have to take more ownership of upgrading themselves on a continuous basis.'"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday May 23 2017, @12:41PM (15 children)
They're talking about trying the melting pot meme again.
If your immigrants try to live here EXACTLY like they lived back home, then you're going to end up with "over there" appearing "over here" and "over there" being what both they and the rest of the civilized world have been trying to escape from, things aren't going to turn out well.
Its interesting that black folks that try culture that works get dragged down as Uncle Toms. The black engineers I've met and worked with are great individuals, but their people hate them as uncle toms. And hows that workin out for ya, looking at almost any measure of success comparing the uncle toms to the genuine real black people experience?
The hispanics have a rough time of it, the ones who melting pot it and learn english tend to do pretty well as individuals, but their people hate them for abandoning their heritage and all that. Well, their heritage is being subsistence farmer peasants getting beheaded by narcoterrorists, hows that workin out for you?
As for the white folks working 3 jobs and all that, some folks live solely as an example for others of what not to do. Looks like smoking pot, getting drunk, skipping school, and fucking anything that moves as a strategy for success in high school didn't work out so well, ha ha ha. A lot has to do with time preference, you pretty much decide when you want to live the high life, and if you try it at age 15 you'll have an epic crash and burn for the next 60 or so years, but if you wait till you're 30 or so to "live the high life", life is pretty darn good. I'm sure some shitty pop star rapper is not happy with that lifestyle choice at age 15, but F them, I'm living for myself not to make some shitty pop star rapper happy and life is pretty awesome right now.
To some extent its an intelligence filter, if you see some BS being peddled in the mass media and pop culture, if you fall for it like a sucker your life is going to be hell on earth, the intelligence filter is knowing to ignore that, then life is pretty good. We live in a bizarrely self destructive culture, and once you recognize that, you can navigate it to staggeringly high profit and quality of life, but first you have to recognize that.
I guess it boils down to we have a lot of government programs and pop culture setting up the minorities to intentionally fail, and you have to really tip toe around the topic to suggest that if "back home" sucked so bad you physically moved to a better place, unless you want to ruin this place too, you gotta mentally move away from "back home". So you end up with what wikipedia calls "weasel words" along the lines of the quotes from the article.
There's a whole religious belief in magic dirt which progressives are caught up in, and it runs pretty deep in their theocracy, so they react poorly to any challenge to their religious belief and you can't rationalize someone out of a religious belief they never rationalized themselves into. Its a fundamental religious belief on the left that people who immigrate physically should not, absolutely not, never ever under any circumstances immigrate mentally; they should just "do Syria" or "do Somalia" over here rather than over there, and all change required should be on the part of the locals who should accept anything from rape to female genital mutilation to endless terrorism attacks. And being a non-rational religious belief there's almost no point discussing it beyond identifying it as a religious belief, or form of insanity maybe.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:36PM (6 children)
Nobody has ever said they shouldn't have to adapt at all. Most everyone would agree they should begin learning english, and absolutely everyone agrees they have to follow the local laws and obey the constitution. Those are pretty much all they need, unless you're just one of those butthurt people who wonders "why can't they just be more like meeeeee" while forgetting how this country literally came into being.
The US is not a white christian country, that is just the myth propagated by the old school elites that has helped prop up their power for generations. The general population is finally becoming a true melting pot, with many ethnicities now making up every social strata. Which social strata are still holding out? The extremely wealthy, though that is shifting slightly, and the political figure heads. Those are still stuck around the turn of the century, but they're in process of changing.
Since you're such a proponent of mental adaptation then you should be doing some sweat lodge vision quests and honoring mother earth. Oh wait, you'll have some "weasel words" to get out of that logic.
Damn dude, you are one ignorant little shit. Beheadings by narcoterrorists is a direct result of the USA's war on drugs. Your superiority complex is showing, and it is fucking ugly. "Intelligence filter"??? Lawl, stoopid is as stoopid admits to. You're not actually stupid, but you're definitely stoopid. I don't think the IQ test is capable of ranking narrow mindedness... hmmm, maybe they'll fix that so you "get it".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:24PM
you'll have some "weasel words"
Uphold the dominant paradigm.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:37PM (4 children)
Uh, no? I mean that would be a nice story if it were true. Also see below
We're getting into German WWII era "big lie" area now. So humor me, the signers of the constitution were what, secret crypto-japanese? Or BSG Cylons?
You may not like it. You may be working as hard as you can to change it. But it is, what it is.
Its hard to take you seriously AC, but there's a tiny pearl of wisdom in there and you're right about that. Being an impoverished subsistence peasant farmer is not that much fun even without the narco's running (ruining) the country. I agree AC the narcos are caused by the US federal government misguided drug policy. The peasant farmer thing, however, is entirely their fault. Unless you're going to invent some crazy narrative.
No, we conquered them and wiped the natives out. Just like whats happening today in Europe or the southern united states. Although most of my ancestors arrived at a time where mental adaptation meant learning English and becoming American, which ... we did, but apparently that's not allowed anymore.
(Score: 1) by i286NiNJA on Tuesday May 23 2017, @04:57PM
No most of the founding fathers were not really christians. Just as today we have to sort of play along or face the wrath of the stone age zealots. Many of them mock christianity in their private writing and many of them who are true believers are yet still a different breed than the sort of people who call themselves christians in modern america.
Being a peasant farmer is not anyone's fault when they're spending 19 hours a day farming and they know little else in their lives.
Also most americans do want immigrants to have a reasonable baseline level of adaptation. Maybe there are a few insane dreadlocked unbathed liberals somewhere that you've used to convince yourself that there is some large group of americans who want people coming here shitting in the streets and having cow menstruation slushies but the only place such people exist in great numbers is in your imagination alongside the pink convertible cadillac welfare queen with 20 kids.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @03:34AM (2 children)
Wow, so rather than concede a point you promote genocide. QED motherfucker, you need help.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday May 24 2017, @11:46AM (1 child)
Stating a fact does not imply endorsement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @12:40PM
You're correct there, he did not outright endorse genocide but it was tacit endorsement of such a solution followed by proof of his xenophobic instability:
There is no genocide occurring in either of those places, and every single immigrant family has adapted to US lifestyles by the 2nd or 3rd generation. Thus the melting pot. But that doesn't fit the crazy narrative he has chosen to believe.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:19PM (7 children)
You'd rather laugh at people who made bad decisions in high school and are now suffering than, as part of a society, help them.
Fuck you.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:45PM (6 children)
That's an interesting point although off topic.
Lets say as a SN automobile analogy "we" had a ridiculous cultural tradition of giving every 16 year old boy a motorcycle and a motorcycle license. The accident rate would be utterly horrific. Criticism of that cultural tradition as being really stupid decision is entirely orthogonal to discussing how we're going to dispatch enough ambulances to scrape up all the bodies, or if we should, or whatever. Regardless of treatment of the effects, the point remains that was a really dumb cultural decision to implement.
If someone convinces you to do something stupid, its gonna hurt. If I tell you to hit your thumb with a hammer and you're dumb enough to do it, darn right I'm gonna laugh, but its really weird to assume I'm going to prevent you from obtaining medical treatment later. A lot of people are going to be walking around with crooked thumbs or wearing casts for a couple weeks and explaining to curious little kids that's a living example of why hitting your thumb with a hammer is a bad idea, regardless if someone tells you to do it, is good.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday May 23 2017, @05:09PM (5 children)
Then you're an asshole, but we've already established that. Back to the original topic, about some people making poor decisions in high school.
There's no fundamental reason wasting a few years in high school should ruin someone's life. It's a flaw of our society that it occasionally does. If someone screws around between the ages of 15 and 18 and flunks a lot of classes, all that really should happen is that person should have to repeat a few classes, graduate a few years later, graduate college a few years later, and then enter the work force a few years after the student who didn't screw around. Screwing around 2 years should really only put you back two years, not your whole life. If we had basic income and cheap or free college for students who could prove they're qualified, that's all that would happen.
If it would also result in more screwing around in high school, that would be a good thing. The message many high school students receive at the moment is "do your absolute best academically, ignore every other aspect of your life, and sacrifice all your happiness for the future". This is a hideous thing to demand. 15-year-olds should be working on academics about 6-8 hours a day and socializing and having a lot of protected sex in their free time. Flunking out of high school isn't the only way to waste your youth; not having any fun is another way. You don't get those years back.
(Score: 2) by qzm on Wednesday May 24 2017, @08:15AM (4 children)
Interesting thought.
Could you please explain why I should be paying for someone else to piss around for a few years, while away valuable educational opportunities that someone else who actually wanted them could have had?
There is no natural right to fuck around on someone else's done you know.
Then again, I suspect you don't know..
One day you will probably learn.. And then complain that it's all someone else's fault.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Wednesday May 24 2017, @03:44PM (3 children)
Your first question seems to be based on the false premise that I want to exclude qualified people from educational opportunities. I don't want to do that, and I'm not sure why you thought I did, since my post sort of says the exact opposite..
Regarding your question about why the government should sponsor such a program even though (you assert) the beneficiaries have no fundamental right to it, that question seems to be based on the premise that I'm a libertarian. I'm not. My ethical philosophy is premised on utilitarianism. If you're unaware of it, you should look it up on Wikipedia. It may expose you to some new ideas, and I believe that humanity's shared ethics is slowly converging toward a philosophy of utilitarianism, so it would be beneficial to you as well as everyone else if you at least make an effort to get with the program. Most modern ethical arguments are implicitly based on it, unless the person making the argument has been externally brainwashed by libertarianism or Christianity, and it meshes about as nicely with Enlightenment ideals as libertarianism does without being absurd and horrible like libertarianism is. Many ancient ethical concepts, made long before utilitarianism was even explicitly a thing, also have implicit premises drawing from utilitarianism. As an example, the biblical Golden Rule is seemingly based on a proto-utilitarian conception of ethics, and certainly not a proto-libertarian one.
HAND.
(Score: 2) by jcross on Thursday May 25 2017, @09:45PM (2 children)
Can you say more about why you think utilitarianism and libertarianism are opposed? For starters it seems to me like one is a system of ethics and the other is a political philosophy. I imagine implementing utilitarianism as a political system would involve somehow accurately measuring the costs and benefits of a particular policy to a lot of people, and what libertarianism tends to do is assume that each citizen is the best equipped to do that for themselves. To relate this to the prior discussion, I don't see a high-school education as having benefits anywhere approaching the personal and economic cost, but some people evidently do. So if I'm going to be redistributing my income to young people, I'd really prefer that they get to make that call themselves. If they want to spend that money on pot and art supplies for two years, or save it for two years and then get the schooling, I could see that being a net benefit to society, but I don't think anyone but the student is really fit to judge better what would maximize pleasure and minimize suffering. So I guess I'm not seeing how (non-extreme*) libertarianism and utilitarianism are incompatible in this case.
* I'm pretty sure there are plenty of libertarians who're okay with taxation, but want more individual control over how it's spent. It's unfair to characterize a movement by its most extreme positions.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Saturday May 27 2017, @06:59PM (1 child)
You're right; some people tend to use libertarianism as an ethical philosophy, but it's really more of a political philosophy.
The main way I think libertarianism is incompatible with a utilitarian concept of ethics is that it actively opposes giving people a hand when they make mistakes. I definitely think people should have the freedom to do what they want with their own lives, but, sometimes, people will do something short-sighted, like not buy health insurance, and it's definitely not very utilitarian to then let them suffer the full consequences of that short-sightedness, like die of cancer. So, it makes sense to have a safety net to take care of that. Sometimes, like with health insurance, the best way to take care of that is to just have the state either tax everyone and use the revenue to provide health care to everyone at no additional cost, or force everyone to buy health insurance or pay an additional excise tax on their entire income. Most libertarians would say to the person who didn't buy health insurance and got cancer, "Well, you had the freedom to do that stupid thing, and you did it, and now you have the freedom to beg your family and friends to pay for your cancer treatment, and, if they don't, you also have the freedom to fuck off and die. Maybe other people will learn from your death not to make the same mistake you did. Have fun with you freedom."
If what you're suggesting is basic income -- where everyone or at the very least everyone with a low enough income gets a stipend each year, and can use it on whatever they want -- I can get behind that. It's always best to be teaching people who want to learn, so if some young people are too immature to want to learn and would rather smoke pot for a few years first, and then get bored of that and _THEN_ finish school, you have a good idea there.
If your idea is "give young people a one-time windfall, and if they choose not to use it to pay for tuition, let them flip burgers the rest of their lives", I would argue that's not such a good idea.
(Score: 2) by jcross on Saturday May 27 2017, @10:43PM
Interesting food for thought. Thanks!