SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Revisiting the Dystopian L.A. of Sci-Fi Classic They Live, 30 Years Later:
In November of 1988, four days before George H.W. Bush was elected president of the United States, Universal Pictures released They Live, the story of covert alien suppression over the masses. The movie is, arguably, the most topical film of Carpenter’s four-decade career, which includes box-office hits and cult classics like Halloween (1978), Escape from New York (1981), The Thing (1982), and Big Trouble in Little China (1986). Thirty years later, They Live is particularly significant in America’s current social and political climates.
The sci-fi action film is based on Ray Nelson’s short story, “Eight O’Clock in the Morning” (1963), and Bill Wray’s subsequent comic adaption, “Nada” (1986). In Nelson’s story, George Nada awakes from being hypnotized and can suddenly see people transform into alien beings that are unsuspectingly controlling the human race.
In 1978, John Carpenter wrote and directed a movie about a mysterious, hulking loner who comes to town and slays innocent victims. Ten years later, he made another movie about a mysterious, hulking loner who comes to town, only this guy waited to kick ass until he was all out of bubblegum.
There are other obvious differences between Halloween and They Live,two of the most beloved films by one of the all-time great genre auteurs. But here’s the one that matters most: Halloween became a popular horror franchise that now includes 11 films released over the course of 40 years, including the forthcoming reboot due October 19.
They Live, meanwhile, sort of became reality.
Drones in the sky, conspiracies in our heads, militarized police in the streets, economic inequality in every corner of society, media that seeks to control our minds: The terror of They Live is more tangible and primal in 2018 than a slasher movie could ever be. Is that an overly grandiose way of describing a cheesy, semi-self-aware ’80s action flick? Am I projecting outsize cultural importance onto a cult classic starring a professional wrestler who utters awesome one-liners like, “Brother, life’s a bitch ... and she’s back in heat”? Have I been wearing these magical sunglasses for too long?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @04:21PM (2 children)
In an absolute sense, yes. When compared to inflation, no [pewresearch.org]. Wages haven't risen significantly for decades. Every economist will tell you that when unemployment goes down, wages should go up, but that hasn't been happening. The big corporate tax cuts were supposed to free up tons of money that would feed wage growth, but that didn't happen. Companies made capital expenditures with it, bought back stock, or just diverted it to the corporate board. Saying that the fact that a line cook gets paid more than a line cook did 30 years ago and claiming that is because of economic-induced wage growth is either being ignorant of basic economics (or rather, only being aware of the most simplistic economic ideas) or being deliberately disingenious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @10:56PM
Hasn't government revenue as a percentage of gdp remained relatively constant in relation to gdp regardless of the tax rate over the lat 70 years? ~17%+/-1%
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=government+revenue+as+a+percentage+of+gdp&t=ffcm&iax=images&ia=images [duckduckgo.com]
How does that work out mathematically?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 24 2018, @02:42AM
The wages for given jobs may not have risen (actually, this is industry-dependent, in areas where there are shortages they have) but in terms of median income, they most emphatically have. We quite simply have a smaller proportion of the US population in the low income brackets. You can't have that if:
a) Wages haven't risen
b) People are in the same jobs
So obviously, if the wages haven't risen, people are, on average, getting better-paying jobs.
Again, verifiable with publically available information, corrected for inflation.