SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me dept.
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
In an age of political animus, increasing hostility toward "others," and 24/7 media coverage that seems to focus on the negative, a recent article in Frontiers in Psychology provides a glimmer of hope, particularly for those who live in the United States.
Written by Yale University academic Gabriel Grant, "Exploring the Possibility of Peak Individualism, Humanity's Existential Crisis, and an Emerging Age of Purpose" aims to clear up two competing views of today's cultural narrative in the United States. First is the traditional view of the next generation—millennials—whom many view as individualistic, materialistic, and narcissistic. Some even refer to millennials as "Gen Me" in response to those who develop their "personal brand" with selfies and social media posts.
In stark contrast there is a view of millennials as rejecting selfish values and leading America into a "great age of purpose." Unlike previous generations, simply earning money is not enough for them—significant data shows that younger people are searching for purpose in their lives and their work. Consider the fact that the non-profit group 80,000 Hours (whose name represents the amount of time spent at work in the average lifespan) even exists. 80,000 Hours provides career advice to help young people build careers with social impact. Universities and businesses are increasingly following this path to help millennial workers achieve their goal of finding purpose in their lives.
Both sides can provide reams of anecdotal evidence that supports their view of millennials, and until recently, there have been few studies on the issue. In his article, however, Grant theorized that Google's digitization of millions of books and the Ngram Viewer, a tool that shows how phrases have appeared in books, could allow a quantified analysis of culture over the past two centuries, and he used this approach to quantitatively test the popular notion that a drive for purpose is increasing. What he found is encouraging.
Yeah, because people with a healthy ego would never possibly do volunteer work...
Source: https://opensource.com/article/17/10/rise-open-source
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday October 10 2017, @01:11PM (37 children)
Headline seems misleading by opening about something about “open source” then diving straight into the same old tired horseshit about millennials.
Here I was hoping for something to springboard into a rant about feminism's insane worship of proprietary software despite the clear advantages of free software in emancipating and empowering people who otherwise may find themselves slaves to the closed-source software created by the kyriarchy. However, I believe I will need to be disappointed for today.
To address TFS, let me make sure I have this correctly. It's not about what you know but who you know. And various other platitudes one may duckspeak as the accepted excuses for the rising inequity and its impact on a generation that, literally, has not been alive during any other economic circumstance than wage stagnation going on 40 years running now and skyrocketing disparity between the extremely wealthy and the rest of us schmucks that are barely making ends meet.
But those economic problems that precede societal collapse are unimportant, because we can just blame the millennials. It's all their fault for trying to be social and getting to know the right people, whoever they may be, to ensure their survival in a system that rewards those on the top for abject incompetence with golden parachutes. I guess the
lizard peoplenew aristocracy frown on using Facebook when the proper venue for this kind of social brand-building is Harvard.Good grief, people! Corporations stand to supplant governments as the nominal form of violent imposition in the world! Governments that claim to be democracies are, in fact, demonstrably oligarchies! And everyone keeps on with this horseshit bullshit (chickenshit? at any rate, it's a pile of shit) excuse-making! Everybody in the USA keeps voting R and D teams! The political process by which we, the people, implement our will is nothing more than a glorified sportsball event!
Oh well. It's all the damned kids' fault. You're supposed to do the social networking part before you're born so that you pick the right parents from the free market!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 10 2017, @01:26PM (36 children)
Look, as much as anyone, I wish for the good old days of the US economic growth of the 1950s and 60s. But to recapture that, you would have to have another World War II.
Everbody's economies and infrastructure except for America's were destroyed. The US also had a baby boom due to people delaying having children during WW II, plus the Depression before that. Huge pent up domestic demand plus international demand from a destroyed world.
It's an economic moment in time that can't be repeated.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 10 2017, @02:12PM (27 children)
My view is that it will start repeating by 2050. The Second World War had little to do with the economic well-being of the 1950s and 1960s. Keep in mind that the US had shown considerable improvement for about a century and a half prior to the Second World War. Demand for labor, not a couple of destructive wars is what propelled the US public to prosperity.
The last few decades have been moderately rough for people in the developed world because of labor competition from places like China or India. My view however is that China will achieve developed world status with India a little behind. At that point, there won't be enough cheap labor left in the world to keep the pricing power of developed world labor down. We'll see the same circumstances that culminated in the prosperous situation a century before, a growing global economy and strong demand for human labor.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Tuesday October 10 2017, @02:40PM (20 children)
We must not forget the massive numbers of WW2 veterans that came home and got huge subsidies to start middle class lives. The GI Bill manufactured a middle class out of basically nothing, boosting every industry from home construction to appliance sale and manufacture. It is perhaps the largest government intervention in the American economy, ever, and it was a large part of the relative prosperity (most of) the country experienced.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 10 2017, @06:58PM (19 children)
Look at the top few items in the US budget, including "off-line" stuff like Social Security. They're all bigger interventions than the GI Bill.
Currently, the US is sending a lot more people to college than the almost 8 million people from the Second World War. Where's the economic boost?
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday October 10 2017, @09:07PM (15 children)
The economic boost is being sucked up by the financial industry who own the student loans. You may not have been paying attention to the stock market, but Wall Street is doing spectacularly right now.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 11 2017, @12:23AM (14 children)
Always an excuse, eh? The finance industry didn't force anyone to borrow that much. Students valuing education greatly chose to do that. And we still have the problem that all those educated people didn't result in the expected economic boom. The legendary effectiveness of the GI Bill is just another myth of the power of education. Well, we see now that we need more than that to have a good economy. Scapegoating the nebulous finance industry distracts from the fact that your model isn't working.
Does that one good run (since 2011) justifies your opinion about the past 40 years or so? Let's keep in mind that the Bush and Obama administrations did a lot to hold down the value of stocks. For example, NASDAQ Composite index finally regained its dotcom peak (in March, 2000) midway through last year. That's not a stock market that is doing spectacularly over a relevant time frame. Sure, last year was great for the stock market, but most of the last two decades was terrible.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Wednesday October 11 2017, @02:49PM (13 children)
The GI Bill did more than college. It paid for houses too. And the fundamental difference between then and now is that it did not leave an entire generation saddled with debt. Instead of paying off lenders, middle class families were buying cars, appliances, furniture, and contributing to their local community through memberships, clubs, and churches. That is the money that drives local prosperity. And that is the money that my generation is instead paying back to student loan brokers for the "privilege" of having learned to be a productive, tax-paying contributor to society.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 12 2017, @02:09PM (12 children)
Houses were cheap back then.
Nobody is forced to saddle themselves with debt.
By choice, let us note once again. Again, I don't buy that this is responsible for the economic decline of the past 50 years. Let us note that the level of debt is not that great. For example, of all people owing student loan debt, 42 million [forbes.com] in 2015, over half (29 million) owed $25,000 or less. Sure, that means the rest owe more (with a fair number, 415 thousand, owing more than $200k apiece) and probably will be a drain on the economy, but most of the near past college population appears to have gotten through college owing no more than a loan on a new car.
Also, let us note that such high levels of expenses and debt are a relatively recent thing. It doesn't explain fully the last 40 years. Glancing at household debt [slate.com] over that period, we do see that from 1962 to 1986, household debt plateaued at around 45% of US GDP, then climbed to around 65% of GDP in 2001 at the end of the dotcom bubble. Then the irresponsible G. W. Bush era policies pushed that to almost 100% of GDP in 2007. It has since declined to under 80% of GDP in 2015.
If such rising debt were correlating to economic declines, then we would have seen something in the 1960s (which instead saw good economic growth) and 1990s. If the rising debt were the cause of apparently economic improvement, we would have seen more improvement through 2007 than what actually happened and less in the 1980s.
It's a cool story, bro, but I think we see better correlation between the pressure on US wages with US exposure to the Japanese and Chinese labor markets, including a roughly 10 year gap between the decline in Japanese labor competition (following their 1990-1991 recession) and the establishment of China's labor competition around 2000.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday October 12 2017, @03:44PM (11 children)
Lots of things are technically "choices". For example, we all have the "choice" to shower daily. We can "choose" not to spend the money on hot water and soaps and reclaim that time in our day. But we will be judged for doing so, and may find ourselves with fewer economic opportunities due to our...odor.
We also have the "choice" as a society as to how well educated we want to be. In the 21st century American economy so far, having less than a college education severely limits a person's economic opportunities, and such people are much more likely to become dependent on public welfare services. They are certainly less likely to be the next great innovator (excepting people who went to college and "chose" to drop out to follow their dreams - an option not available to people with student loan debt).
I would not argue for a no single cause of the slow economic decline of the last 50 years. But I would caution against making any claims based on immediate correlations. Debt would have an immediate effect of boosting the economy because it was taken out to pay for something. It's only on the tail end that peoples' spending power and economic mobility is diminished. And between these two opposite effects, generational cycles, and outside factors, I would find it highly unlikely to see any strong simple correlations.
P.S. I know I'm being a bad citizen in comparison, but I commend you on your use of actual data to back up your position.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 12 2017, @04:21PM (10 children)
Well, yes, that is the myth that causes people to make stupid decisions like accumulating $200k or more in debt just to have an education that could be acquired for far less. Needless to say, I don't agree.
I already mentioned the "outside factor" I think applies here. Thing is 23 years isn't that far away. I think we'll see the employment situation in the US improve significantly (though it isn't bad right now) once China peaks. In the long run, the advantage remains with the economies that allow for business creation, rule of law, and people retaining what they earn. The US still does relatively well at those things.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday October 12 2017, @04:44PM (9 children)
All good responses. But there's one thing you just said I can't leave unaddressed:
That's pretty clearly a proxy for neo-conservative trickle-down economics and I don't like where you're going. We could have a spirited debate about any one of those three objectives but I'd rather not get into it right now.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 12 2017, @08:43PM (8 children)
So what? The Nazis and Communists had a few good talking points too. Should we approve of smoking and disapprove of exercise because that was something that the Nazis advocated? Are labor unions bad because Communists favored them?
Can you find something actually wrong with any of those ideas I listed? Is it bad to create new businesses? Is it bad to actually follow laws that have been written in a defined process down rather than having the powers-that-be make shit up on the fly? Is it bad to keep money from what your wages and investments? The neo-cons don't have a bad reputation today because of these ideas. They have a bad reputation because they lied and schemed to get the US into a bunch of wars in the Middle East just to help out Israel and partly succeeded at creating that mess.Where do those wars fit in the above list? Business creation maybe?
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday October 12 2017, @09:48PM (7 children)
Business Creation
Nothing wrong with this in principle. However, targeting policy towards business creation (or as politicians are more likely to say, helping small businesses) favors the ambitious at the expense of everyone else. It ignores the needs of the labor force and asserts the needs of "job creators" as most important to the economy, when in fact jobs are created by market forces far more than the actual businesses taking advantage of them.
Rule of Law
The concept of laws is certainly vital to civilized society. But this talking point must be taken in the current political context, where the "law" that must be followed (immigration) is outdated and can't be changed due to political gridlock. The law does not exist in a vacuum; it requires enforcement (with its own often too-malleable rules), it requires adjudication, and above all it requires the ability to be changed to better suit the objectives of the ruling body. These aspects of the law have structural problems right now. In this context, those advocating for "rule of law" are really advocating for keeping everything about government exactly as broken as it is now. Especially the broken parts.
People Retaining What They Earn
Wasn't it Romney who said the bottom 47% don't even pay taxes? I think you'll find that the majority of the population is living mostly month-to-month. The concept of saving money is now old-fashioned; debt has taken over. So the fact is that people with earnings left over are in the minority. When you advocate for retaining what you have "earned", you are necessarily advocating for the wealthier minority of society. And these people have a massive problem finding good things to spend their money on. It's why the super-wealthy quit their jobs and go full-time into managing charitable foundations. Or just, you know, retire to a life of luxury. And while that may be an adequate "reward" for their ambition and/or pseudo-aristocratic family, it's not good for the economy. We want these most ambitious of people to continue working as long as they are able, not getting out of the game.
The overall problem with all three of these talking points is that while they are good in the abstract, in reality they are currently being used for nefarious purposes. "Business Creation" is used to gloss over environmental protection, like making sure nobody dumps hazardous waste into the water supply; it is also invoked to justify selling out public resources for the benefit of a few ambitious profiteers with political connections. "Rule of Law" is used to justify maintaining a second-class society of illegal immigrants, including their children who definitely were too young to be complicit in breaking any laws; it also leans pretty heavily in favor of heavy-handed copyright protections that benefit the legacy of a few prominent creators at the expense of the public good. And "People Retaining What They Earn" is a straight up justification for lowering taxes on the richest people in society, which always ends up perversely raising effective tax rates on everyone else as the government scrambles to find ways to pay for the services they are still legally required to provide (or did you think anybody ever bothers to reduce spending when they lower taxes? budget deficits come pretty consistently from Republicans).
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 13 2017, @12:32AM (6 children)
Doesn't matter how much the labor force "needs", if they don't have a way to achieve those needs. And I can't help but notice that the current economic situation would fare better with more employers than present.
Gridlock exists precisely because there is no consensus on how to improve immigration law. And this is not the first time rhetorically that the people who want to fix a problem are blamed for the problem. I guess we shouldn't have worn that dress?
Restricting our attention to income taxes, that was a correct statement at the time.
I'm not feeling the reason to care. If neo-cons truly were a bunch of savers, they wouldn't be in the doghouse now. Further, people who are perpetually in debt are perpetually making bad decisions. Yet another reason for apathy. Given that this was originally about myths about the supposed virtue of borrowing sick amounts of money for a so-so education, I have to wonder if you're really thinking here.
For some reason, we shouldn't advocate for the wealthier minority of society who employ people and save money because that's somehow detrimental to people who can't figure out how to do either. Sorry, but I think we have enough people who are deep in debt. I don't think we have enough employers or savers in comparison.
I guess we'll just have to rely on some magic social program like universal basic income to fix all our problems, or at least hammer some more nails into the economic coffin, whichever comes first.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday October 13 2017, @01:29AM (5 children)
If you really believe that the needs of the wealthy few should be prioritized over the needs of the less ambitious many, I can’t help you. At some point it doesn’t matter how virtuous you think their success is. They are still the few, and you almost certainly aren’t one of them, now or at any point in the future.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 13 2017, @02:36PM (4 children)
We don't need more workers. We do need more employers. Think about it.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday October 13 2017, @04:28PM (3 children)
Why do we need employers? Is there work to do that isn't getting done? Maybe the real problem is that there is more labor available than we need. Adding bullshit jobs may count as a solution to that problem, but it creates problems of its own.
Instead, we should focus on increasing individual liberty and capability. Give people the knowledge and tools to identify and provide for their own basic needs. Focus more on volunteer-driven community organizations and ad hoc friendships.
And above all, eliminate whenever possible our durable connections to established power structures. Reduce debts, make tech open to local repair shops, decentralize the internet, decentralize the power grid, decentralize our financial system.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 13 2017, @05:15PM (2 children)
Yes.
I do that. A voluntary job is the number one way to improve individual liberty and capability.
Or we could solve problems that people actually have?
And much of the centralization (for example, "make tech open to local repair shops") is due to centralized government intervention and regulation. At some point, we'll need to address that elephant in the room. I particularly liked what you wrote here: [soylentnews.org]
I'll note here that new business creation helps decentralize employment and reduce the power of governments in our lives. So it does fix some of the problems you purport to be concerned about.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday October 13 2017, @07:44PM (1 child)
About the only work that isn't getting done...is the government's responsibility. Crumbling infrastructure and the like. Or telecommunications rollouts that the government already paid for but which the telecoms are refusing to do because they didn't want to use that money for its intended purpose.
But look at the basics: American food production is so efficient that crop prices are too low for smaller farms to be profitable right now; labor costs for distribution of goods are going down; new home construction is tracking the market carefully with its existing labor force; utilities continue to operate just fine; there are no shortages of the products people want (except Nintendo hardware).
And when there are problems in any of these areas, including infrastructure, the problem lies in the decision makers. The labor is ready and waiting. But the financiers and leaders sometimes have financial incentives to keep the assembly line idle.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 13 2017, @11:22PM
Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.
That's for the minute slice you happened to look at. The economy is a lot bigger than that. For example, let's consider food production. The most common staple crops are, as you say, best grown at large economies of scale, things like corn, alfalfa, wheat, soybeans, rice, etc. But not everyone wants to eat basic staples all the time. Thus, we have a huge demand for meat, for exotic varieties of vegetables and fruit, for spices and seasonings, for unusual ways to prepare food and drink products, such as puffing wheat or rice, smoking meats and some vegetables, curdling milk into cheeses, fermented beverages of a bewildering variety, etc. Every niche so developed means someone employs people to get their products to a market. It also means markets for small farms to thrive in.
Similarly, we don't always have the time or desire to cook things at home. So there are a variety of restaurant options out there. That creates more jobs. Anyway, that's how the US has gone from around 1% employment in staple food farming to 11% in the food industry [usda.gov]. There are plenty of other sectors like this that go from a few core businesses to a huge bunch of secondary businesses. End result is that as long as there is demand and available labor and resources at the appropriate price, this sort of thing will continue to expand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 10 2017, @09:43PM (2 children)
Why would there be an economic boost when people get pieces of paper and an awful-quality education to go along with those pieces of paper? It seems no one knows or cares what real education is, and just looks at schooling as a way to make more money; as a consequence, education quality suffers.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 11 2017, @12:39AM (1 child)
When was that different? I doubt a bunch of GIs in the 1940s and 1950s thought differently. Education doesn't depend on your students believing the right myths. You can still teach hard working students even if they came for the wrong reasons. And if you look at a lot of what's being taught in colleges, there's no way it would be justifiable from the point of view of making more money. There's too much indoctrination for that.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 11 2017, @05:47AM
Oh, look! It's another khallow argument! Who's he arguing with this time? Same old groundless theories and fantastical beliefs? Check, and check. Hardly even entertaining, anymore, really. What's on the other Soylent Channel?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lentilla on Tuesday October 10 2017, @02:48PM (5 children)
I disagree. Those wars cleaned out the economic powerhouse of the day (Europe), leaving the United States in a comparatively excellent position.
Case in point - whilst Americans were enjoying a period of economic well-being in the early 1950s, the British were still rationing [wikipedia.org] (ended in 1954).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 10 2017, @07:02PM (4 children)
And how does that help the US? I'm sorry, but I don't buy that one will do better merely because someone else does worse. Sure, there are various parasite games (particularly, rent seeking) where one does better by making another worse, but that's not true in general.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 11 2017, @01:44AM (3 children)
I see you don’t understand basic economic competition and comparitive advantage.
Europe was fucking LEVELLED. American industry was in HIGH GEAR. They had no competition.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 11 2017, @02:21AM (2 children)
Neither which is relevant here. Compete for what market? There wasn't much European competition in internal US markets prior to the Second World War. And the US maintained [tradingeconomics.com] a near negligible trade surplus or deficit until the mid 1970s (when it started running deficits). So not much in the way of global trade advantage for the US either.
And comparative advantage means merely that one can still produce stuff to mutual advantage even when another party is superior at the activity. A crippled Europe would have much less comparative advantage to offer to the US and hence, would contribute less to the wealth and economy of the US.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 11 2017, @05:52AM (1 child)
khallow, seriously, such displays of ignorance do not serve you well. If you are going to attempt to assert such insane things, at least have the decency to fabricate some citations, or something. And, I am beginning to have an even lower opinion of your grasp of economics, if this is indeed possible.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 11 2017, @10:05AM
In comparison, during the 1970s, the Japanese automobile industry started outcompeting US automakers (measured as growing share of US and global auto markets which US share declined) with autos being a huge market. That resulted in the first significant trade deficits in the US, with Japan having corresponding large trade surpluses. So during a known period of superior competition, we see it reflected in the measure of trade deficits/surpluses.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 10 2017, @03:23PM (6 children)
Alternately, we could just try doing what they did:
1. Tax upper-range incomes around 90%. Also heavily tax corporate profits.
2. Have about 1/3 of all workers with union representation, with the rest of them able to organize if they want to.
3. Have generous government funding for scientific research.
4. Make it really cheap for people capable of going to college to go to college.
5. Provide a way for blue-collar workers to get into a business and train so that not going to college is a viable career path.
6. Use tariffs to push companies who want to sell to Americans to hire Americans to make the things they're selling.
In this modern age, we'd probably want to add in something about health care, since right now that's where about 15% of the economy goes to, which is much more than any other country and much more than the US spent in the 1950's and 1960's. Also note that the taxes I just mentioned would put a big crimp in the roughly 25% of the economy currently going to the financial sector, compared to the roughly 5% that went to banking back in the 1950's and 1960's.
The main reason we don't do any of that is that the rich people that would become less rich as a result of these policies have been bribing the politicians for decades to not do that.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Funny) by crafoo on Tuesday October 10 2017, @04:49PM (3 children)
How about instead, we do the following:
1. Tax breaks for top 10%
2. Bust the unions. Start with the public sector. Continue through automotive. Outsource to break the rest.
3. Cut scientific research. Maybe a bit for DARPA. Politically fund the rest to rationalize politically-desired actions.
4. Make it "cheap" for everyone, qualified or not, to go to college. Select for race & gender instead of aptitude. Shackle these people with 20+ years of debt that cannot be forgiven.
5. Outsource all blue collar jobs possible. Automate the rest.
6. TPP-like initiatives to sell out the US economy in favor of destructive, corpratist globalist agenda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 10 2017, @05:29PM
Don't forget, deny the science if it conflicts with your policies.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 10 2017, @05:43PM
We've been on that road since about 1980, so we're bound to find out, like it or not.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday October 10 2017, @05:57PM
6. TPP-like initiatives to sell out the US economy in favor of destructive, corpratist globalist agenda.
Honestly, I think TPP was a bit demonized. It was a bad deal to be sure, mainly because it had so much MAFIAA-friendly crap in it, but the initial idea wasn't bad. You already *have* a "destructive, corporatist globalist agenda" now with trade with China, and they're dominating the world economy now. The idea behind TPP, and the reason so many other countries were pissed at the US for dropping it, was because it was a way for them to unite against China's economic dominance.
1. Tax breaks for top 10%
Instead, we should have big tax *increases* for the lower and working classes. Anyone making less than 6 figures should be getting 3x as many taxes, while those making over $100k get the same or a cut. Republicans should push this plan by pointing out that "God loves rich people more and blesses them with abundance, so poorer people should pay more for all the problems they cause, instead of expecting God's chosen people to subsidize them, which is Socialism". About half the voters will happily agree to this and vote GOP, even when they're poor and working class themselves. Make sure to throw in something anti-abortion, stuff about how all gun control is evil and wrong, and homosexuality should be suppressed, and Americans will **happily** vote for a giant tax increase for themselves.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tomtomtom on Tuesday October 10 2017, @06:42PM
I think you forgot...
7. Pay women and minorities significantly less and give them significantly fewer protections and lower levels out of work benefits
8. Be the one industrialised country which didn't see significant damage to its own infrastructure during a major war, thus giving you a competitive advantage
9. Force those other industrialised nations to take loans from you and use them to buy American exports (the Marshall Plan, Lend-Lease, etc)
The global set of circumstances America found itself in at the end of the war were quite unique and played a large part in its economic success of the post-war era. Much of Europe had to wait until the 60s to catch up, Japan the 70s and the communist world took into the 90s and 00s.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 11 2017, @02:46AM
Let us note, once again, that rich people rarely paid that marginal rate due to tax loopholes and fraud. For example, despite that "90%" tax bracket, income tax revenue has stayed nearly constant [mises.org] (see second and third figures) as a fraction of GDP.
While you might pine for the days of widespread tax fraud, this sort of punitive tax rate merely means that any rich will either move their wealth out of the country, or just not earn it in the first place. I think it is also ridiculous to suppose that rich people are going to work to invest in businesses when they get so little personal gain out of them.
Needless to say that is probably the worst idea you have on that list. But there's more.
This is typical cargo cult economics. Let's duplicate a few things that we conveniently remember about the 1950s and 1960s, and somehow the planes will come back. But I guess if you're in the organized crime business, a resurgence of labor unions will work out nicely.
We already have that. When you're calling for stuff that is already happening and has been happening for the past 70 years, you have to wonder what rock you've been hiding under.
I propose we return student loans to a normal loan status. No abusive bankruptcy discharge conditions and no government subsidies. Then anyone capable of going to college can afford to.
Already done.
That worked ok in the past, but it results in considerably higher prices for Americans who buy that stuff.
Sure, let's dump more money into it and up the regulations so that we have an even greater fraction of our economy sliding into that.
I think that nails this whole thing. It's not about improving peoples' lives. It's envy - about sticking it to the rich.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday October 11 2017, @03:00AM
I have a "productivity"-based view. The global growth since WWII was driven by (note not just USian)
* Electrification and invention of domestic appliances
* Internal combustion engine; cars, trucks and stuff
These technologies enabled significant increase in productivity. Those technologies have now matured. Note computers have not apparently improved productivity.
We may have a little more productivity to reap from internet/computers, but we need some novel technology to push productivity any further. One might be able to automate some manual labour jobs, but I don't know if that will improve productivity much. Even in China only 10 % of people work in manufacturing (cite wikipedia). I rather suspect automation of service industry jobs is harder.