Poor white people

[another1]

The trinkets are how we know that we are not better off than before. Before the social media platforms existed, there was still some question as to how screwed up everyone is. We now don't have to wonder. Profiles look glamorous and happy but behind them are pathetic and desperate little people. Participate and see.

I don't know about poor foreigners but as for poor east coasters I can say that things are worse today and probably getting worser. An $800 television filled the void in the 80s like an $80 phone does today. Even poor people had nice televisions in the 80's - WITH HBO. Now it requires less money to fill the hole, so it appears as if things are not worse, but they are. But you already knew that. I think that is basically what you were saying with the IKEA reference.

Poor people have electronics and drugs. Take my community for example, which is all I can really speak truly about. 15% is on HEROIN. Tractors are shipping the stuff in. It is just crazy. Then you have 90% unhealthily dependent on electronics. Like... their social lives will just fall apart if they lose service for even a day. Not just their social lives actually. Yet it does not matter how wealthy you are when it comes to that sickness.

Oh and then you have the fact that education doesn't seem to mean much anymore. Most wealthy people I know are not college educated. They contract their own work and hustle on the side. If you do choose to indebt yourself to the system and learn the way they choose, you will have to move far away from here when it is finally time to get employment and pay the $200,000 back. There are no decent jobs in anything but social work and psychiatry here. Drug treatment is booming though. There is an 8% addiction recovery rate. Very fulfilling to treat the same people your entire career. Just watch them die like flies while the methods you paid to learn fail them. 8% is still better than none%, but what math would make a person WANT to go into that, if they already knew how very little they can actually help? Half way through learning that there is no helping anyone, you realize you're damned to fail forever. That is when rational people quit.

Oh and local business is gone, so business college is pointless. What other types of unfulfilling and ultimately pointless educations are there? Bear in mind that most people aren't smart enough to dive too deep into an education. Their breath will hold only so long, and when they emerge for employment - they are poor. Forever poor. There is an attitude in my community that you shouldn't go to college unless you are particularly smart. I kinda agree, because from what I've seen, that is pretty much true.

Advice for poor white people:
Stop smoking crack and buy a lawn mower.
Mow some lawns, save some money and buy some more lawn mowers.
Then pay crackheads to mow FOR you.

Problem solved in the most American way possible?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The trinkets are how we know that we are not better off than before. Before the social media platforms existed, there was still some question as to how screwed up everyone is. We now don't have to wonder. Profiles look glamorous and happy but behind them are pathetic and desperate little people. Participate and see.

I don't know about poor foreigners but as for poor east coasters I can say that things are worse today and probably getting worser. An $800 television filled the void in the 80s like an $80 phone does today. Even poor people had nice televisions in the 80's - WITH HBO. Now it requires less money to fill the hole, so it appears as if things are not worse, but they are. But you already knew that. I think that is basically what you were saying with the IKEA reference.

Poor people have electronics and drugs. Take my community for example, which is all I can really speak truly about. 15% is on HEROIN. Tractors are shipping the stuff in. It is just crazy. Then you have 90% unhealthily dependent on electronics. Like... their social lives will just fall apart if they lose service for even a day. Not just their social lives actually. Yet it does not matter how wealthy you are when it comes to that sickness.

Oh and then you have the fact that education doesn't seem to mean much anymore. Most wealthy people I know are not college educated. They contract their own work and hustle on the side. If you do choose to indebt yourself to the system and learn the way they choose, you will have to move far away from here when it is finally time to get employment and pay the $200,000 back. There are no decent jobs in anything but social work and psychiatry here. Drug treatment is booming though. There is an 8% addiction recovery rate. Very fulfilling to treat the same people your entire career. Just watch them die like flies while the methods you paid to learn fail them. 8% is still better than none%, but what math would make a person WANT to go into that, if they already knew how very little they can actually help? Half way through learning that there is no helping anyone, you realize you're damned to fail forever. That is when rational people quit.

Oh and local business is gone, so business college is pointless. What other types of unfulfilling and ultimately pointless educations are there? Bear in mind that most people aren't smart enough to dive too deep into an education. Their breath will hold only so long, and when they emerge for employment - they are poor. Forever poor. There is an attitude in my community that you shouldn't go to college unless you are particularly smart. I kinda agree, because from what I've seen, that is pretty much true.

Advice for poor white people:
Stop smoking crack and buy a lawn mower.
Mow some lawns, save some money and buy some more lawn mowers.
Then pay crackheads to mow FOR you.

Problem solved in the most American way possible?

So you're saying that poor 19'th century farmers wouldn't be into iPhones and Internet porn? Wut?

I honestly think you're babbling. I don't see a coherrent thread running through any of that.

A hundred years ago the heroin problem of the west was massive. Bigger than now. An estimated 1/3 of all Brits were hooked on heroin. So I'm not sure what your argument is?

Jobs and education doesn't make us fulfilled. You've got to do that work yourself. That's always been the case

Solution = buy a robotic lawn mower = win

 

[funinspace]

It's TCP packets my poorly educated friend!

I am not sure exactly how you determine which protocols a fictional system, invoked for humorous intent, might use; But insofar as it is possible, surely the originator of the fictional router would be the person with the best knowledge of which protocols it might hypothetically use, if it existed.

Uncorrected loss of packets makes it more likely to be UDP anyway...

And we have a winner <ACK>




There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don’t.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Where do you live another1?

There is also another explanation too. People 50+ years ago didn't come to rely on the federal government to solve every single problem out there where that is the trend today. So people back then didn't thnk it was a problem if the federal government supposedly wasn't listening to them.

But I also believe we now live in an era where people do have a chance to be heard even if they are a common person.

 

[Axulus]

The trinkets are how we know that we are not better off than before. Before the social media platforms existed, there was still some question as to how screwed up everyone is. We now don't have to wonder. Profiles look glamorous and happy but behind them are pathetic and desperate little people. Participate and see.

I don't know about poor foreigners but as for poor east coasters I can say that things are worse today and probably getting worser. An $800 television filled the void in the 80s like an $80 phone does today. Even poor people had nice televisions in the 80's - WITH HBO. Now it requires less money to fill the hole, so it appears as if things are not worse, but they are. But you already knew that. I think that is basically what you were saying with the IKEA reference.

Poor people have electronics and drugs. Take my community for example, which is all I can really speak truly about. 15% is on HEROIN. Tractors are shipping the stuff in. It is just crazy. Then you have 90% unhealthily dependent on electronics. Like... their social lives will just fall apart if they lose service for even a day. Not just their social lives actually. Yet it does not matter how wealthy you are when it comes to that sickness.

Oh and then you have the fact that education doesn't seem to mean much anymore. Most wealthy people I know are not college educated. They contract their own work and hustle on the side. If you do choose to indebt yourself to the system and learn the way they choose, you will have to move far away from here when it is finally time to get employment and pay the $200,000 back. There are no decent jobs in anything but social work and psychiatry here. Drug treatment is booming though. There is an 8% addiction recovery rate. Very fulfilling to treat the same people your entire career. Just watch them die like flies while the methods you paid to learn fail them. 8% is still better than none%, but what math would make a person WANT to go into that, if they already knew how very little they can actually help? Half way through learning that there is no helping anyone, you realize you're damned to fail forever. That is when rational people quit.

Oh and local business is gone, so business college is pointless. What other types of unfulfilling and ultimately pointless educations are there? Bear in mind that most people aren't smart enough to dive too deep into an education. Their breath will hold only so long, and when they emerge for employment - they are poor. Forever poor. There is an attitude in my community that you shouldn't go to college unless you are particularly smart. I kinda agree, because from what I've seen, that is pretty much true.

Advice for poor white people:
Stop smoking crack and buy a lawn mower.
Mow some lawns, save some money and buy some more lawn mowers.
Then pay crackheads to mow FOR you.

Problem solved in the most American way possible?

You are missing a key component: people need to move to opportunity, and that has declined massively in recent years:

“A state typically returns to normal after an adverse shock not because employment picks up, but because workers leave the state,” economists Olivier Blanchard and Lawrence Katz wrote in a 1992 paper.

This time might be different in some ways. Three economists wrote in a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper last year that compared with the prerecession years, mass layoffs after 2007 prompted a “muted” migration response and many workers instead dropped out of the labor force.

In a new paper, also cited by Leubsdorf, Danny Yagan at Berkeley suggests that reduced migration is only part of the problem. What has made the aftermath to the 2008-2009 recession so bad is that migration is low at the same time that it has become more necessary than ever. The 2008-2009 recession was especially localized, it hit some places harder than others and in a way that appears to be permanent. But migration has been too slow to solve the problem.

The usual story is that in-and-out migration equalizes wage, unemployment and employment rates across the nation. Some places may be harder hit than others but movement quickly makes the US into one labor market. In the aftermath of this recession, however, that isn’t happening for employment rates. Using a clever research design that looks at workers with similar education and skills doing the same jobs at the same large firms but in different locations, Yagan finds that location continues to matter years after the recession has ended. Workers who worked in the places hardest hit in the 2007-2009 recession have employment rates today that are 1% lower than similar workers in regions that were less hard hit. Convergence has been unusually slow:

I conclude that living in a hard-hit area has caused enduring joblessness and exacerbated inequality. If the latest convergence speed continues, employment differences across the United States are estimated to return to normal in the 2020s—more than a decade after the great recession.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/03/not-moving-to-opportunity.html

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have limited skills and am under-educated... damn Obama and Clinton!

Also, no one works in the cities, people only work in the economically bustling middle of no where.

I'm not saying there are no jobs for people like you.

Oh, there are jobs for people like me, I have a degree. I was mimicking the hypocritical under educated person with little skills demanding that the government create high paying jobs for them.

"Wah! All the high paying jobs for unskilled labor left the country! Wah! I don't have a college degree! Wah! Liberals are so lazy!"

If I sound bitter, it is because I am.

I'm just saying there aren't as many as their used to be. It should be, damn those robots and computers.

Efficiency and computers. Output has gone up tremendously, on the shoulders of fewer people. Look at the coal industry. The jobs dropped between the mid 80s and 2000, yet coal production went up during that period.

 

[another1]

So you're saying that poor 19'th century farmers wouldn't be into iPhones and Internet porn? Wut?

I don't know what that means.

I honestly think you're babbling. I don't see a coherrent thread running through any of that.

Maybe not clearly expressed but not incoherent. And your comparrisson with the Brits 100 years ago and WV today, that is a good example of what you're trying to say I'm doing. And I have no problem with people doing that.

Jobs and education doesn't make us fulfilled. You've got to do that work yourself. That's always been the case

Of course it is easy to become rich with well set goals. Too easy, which is why I say broke people are usually stupid.

People 50+ years ago didn't come to rely on the federal government to solve every single problem out there where that is the trend today

.

I'm thinking the Federal government is relying more on the people, but that is a whole other thing. But yeah it is culture people are born into, in West Virginia. Type of thing you'd have to witness to understand. The communities are really, really fucking dark around here. The actual city I live in is called Huntington. It has statistics like Gotham. Off the fucking charts ancient Indian curse type statistics. And it is at least 75% as bad 100 miles in any direction. Next year you may as well say a thousand miles, huh.

But I also believe we now live in an era where people do have a chance to be heard even if they are a common person.

More people speaking up with social media as it is making for good watchin. Youtube is a very interesting thing and I LOVE to see what people have to say for themselves. Know what I love? I'll tell you. I love it when a random, boring person from nowhere makes an emotional video explaining what they think is wrong with the world. I watch those endlessly and I'm always looking for more. You really get the full spectrum from that stuff and I recommend it to everyone. Mostly for comedy but yeah. You gotta appreciate the small things.

 

[funinspace]

Another good podcast. This time from London School of Economics. This talk is about a guy who went around interviewing poor white people (in the UK and USA) to ask them what they thought was wrong with the world and how the world has changed. The same researcher has done similar studies on poor Muslims (not immigrants). Interesting talk. Just some basic info on how Trump could win and how the fuck Brexit happened. The most interesting thing for me was when he talked about "authenticity". They felt that their country had lost authenticity. Of course bullshit, since it assumes there's some way a country should be, and that once upon a time it was. Like LARPers they're swooning about a past that never was. The interesting bit was the concrete formulations.

It's also interesting how these people really weren't privileged by life. If they were they were certainly low on evidence. In fact they felt unfairly treated. Of course they weren't. Dunning-Kruger paradox. Today you need a higher education to be successful in the jobs market, and these people didn't have that. When he interviewed poor Muslims they were saying the same thing. They thought they couldn't get jobs because of racism. When the truth was that they didn't have higher education, and that was why. But the perception pushed them towards radical Islam. I like how he tied it all up in a neat narrative.

To sum it up, poor white people don't feel represented by the political elites. Thirty years ago they did. Today they don't. Problem.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=3661

Thoughts?

I was finally able to listen to most of the lecture…. And my thoughts are based more on American perspectives, as I know the data better. One thing that stuck out to me, was the point of one speaker about how Clinton made it very clear she stood with XYZ minority grouping, but did she include those whites as well? I'm sure she said the right words sometimes, but I doubt it was heard much by those that needed to hear it. I don't think either US party has been honest with the voters at many levels. With automation, capital has increased its value over labor thru the decades, and the political system in the US has failed at many levels to try and balance the resulting issues for those in the bottom half. Anyway....overall, I thought the speakers made many good points.

Beyond some of the obvious, I think the ‘30 years back’ reference can cloud the issues, as I think imagery from the 1950s and 1960’s plays into it as well. Woman as part of the American workforce roughly doubled from 1950 by the 1990’s. This along with automation had to take a toll on the non-college education labor. I suspect that attitudes of the children of those who were parents in the 1950’s thru the 1970’s had gotten used to the idea that fair jobs were to be had, and life would continue to improve. People today, or 20 years ago, don’t want to live like their parents lived in the 1950’s & 1960’s. I grew up in a simple 1300 sq ft. house; and my parents didn’t even have a second car until I was about 5. Today’s equivalent would probably be a Kia. And to complain about cable prices…what cable, we had 5 channels we could watch.

My father went to college after WWII, and my mom stayed at home after I was born. My dad was always a saver, so he could pay for my college. However, back in the 1980's when I graduated, the annual tuition was only around $1200. Today the same state university charges around $25,000/year for tuition as the Republicans have stripped funding away. I could have easily handled dealing with graduating with a $5,000 loan (say $10k today), or survived working part time. So could most anyone with aptitude for college. Now it would be a $100,000 loan. This is now true in many states. I have nephews who, even if they wanted, would really struggle to go to college where they live, and I grew up. My in-law family side didn't stress education, nor saved, and now the not so young adults are part of this alt-right angry white men who are struggling to find a future.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I was finally able to listen to most of the lecture…. And my thoughts are based more on American perspectives, as I know the data better. One thing that stuck out to me, was the point of one speaker about how Clinton made it very clear she stood with XYZ minority grouping, but did she include those whites as well? I'm sure she said the right words sometimes, but I doubt it was heard much by those that needed to hear it. I don't think either US party has been honest with the voters at many levels. With automation, capital has increased its value over labor thru the decades, and the political system in the US has failed at many levels to try and balance the resulting issues for those in the bottom half. Anyway....overall, I thought the speakers made many good points.

The most common critique against Clinton that I've heard is that she engaged in what we call "identity politics". That which has poisoned the left so completely. In that world you don't deserve attention (or have value) unless you belong to some marginalized minority or another. I think that was the thing.

My in-law family side didn't stress education, nor saved, and now the not so young adults are part of this alt-right angry white men who are struggling to find a future.

Interesting.

I've recently moved to Denmark. And one of the people I made friends with down here is a straight-up right-wing racist. I don't have many friends down here so I can't really pick and chose. The stuff he talks about is so crazy that I just nod and pretend I agree.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The most common critique against Clinton that I've heard is that she engaged in what we call "identity politics".

But "Identity politics" is a bullshit thing the right-wing made up. She is white, she is wealthy.

That which has poisoned the left so completely. In that world you don't deserve attention (or have value) unless you belong to some marginalized minority or another. I think that was the thing.

That is certainly what they have let themselves be told to believe. The majority of spending by the government benefits white people. Tax laws benefits white families, rich white people, the majority of people receiving support from the Government are white. But you'd swear only illegal Mexicans collect social security and food stamp benefits.

Their worldview is utterly misinformed.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I don't think it was identity politics per se that was the problem; it was the Dems reliance on them when economic concerns were more pressing.

 

[funinspace]

The most common critique against Clinton that I've heard is that she engaged in what we call "identity politics". That which has poisoned the left so completely. In that world you don't deserve attention (or have value) unless you belong to some marginalized minority or another. I think that was the thing.

I think that was part of the problem, but I think it was also more complicated. I also didn't want to detour the thread into dissecting the failed Clinton campaign.

My in-law family side didn't stress education, nor saved, and now the not so young adults are part of this alt-right angry white men who are struggling to find a future.

Interesting.

I've recently moved to Denmark. And one of the people I made friends with down here is a straight-up right-wing racist. I don't have many friends down here so I can't really pick and chose. The stuff he talks about is so crazy that I just nod and pretend I agree.

Hopefully, you find some other and balanced friends. My wife gets a steady stream of alt-right, redneck, evangelical hate on her Facebook (or used to, until she forced the feeds to the side). Now she has to go and look up their stupidity...

A most recent one was another usual composition on critiquing a fake "How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky". See link for reference. Of course the "article" they cited went on about all these dangers our republic faces from libtards and all...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/alinsky.asp

 

[DrZoidberg]

But "Identity politics" is a bullshit thing the right-wing made up. She is white, she is wealthy.

That which has poisoned the left so completely. In that world you don't deserve attention (or have value) unless you belong to some marginalized minority or another. I think that was the thing.

That is certainly what they have let themselves be told to believe. The majority of spending by the government benefits white people. Tax laws benefits white families, rich white people, the majority of people receiving support from the Government are white. But you'd swear only illegal Mexicans collect social security and food stamp benefits.

Their worldview is utterly misinformed.

Sadly enough it's not made up. The melinials are eating this shit up. You've just not kept up with the youngsters of today. It's so painfully stupid. Young people today all too often think that government should protect us from having our feelings hurt. Liberal values are dying today.

I know leftists who regularly say the most ridiculous things. People who should know better. I had a young girl I was seeing a while back. When I told her that I think men should discuss feminism she coughed on her coffee and left my apartment never to return. She said our values were too different for us to keep seeing each other anymore. I shit you not. Her point is that only minorities should be allowed to discuss things at all. Because only people marginalized in society has any ability to judge that society. We had great sex. So it wasn't that. This is just one of many examples.

To me free speech and free expression is sacred. But it sure isn't to the new generation who soon will get to vote. I hope they grow out of it by then.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nice anecdotal retort.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LordKiran]

But "Identity politics" is a bullshit thing the right-wing made up. She is white, she is wealthy.

That is certainly what they have let themselves be told to believe. The majority of spending by the government benefits white people. Tax laws benefits white families, rich white people, the majority of people receiving support from the Government are white. But you'd swear only illegal Mexicans collect social security and food stamp benefits.

Their worldview is utterly misinformed.

Sadly enough it's not made up. The melinials are eating this shit up. You've just not kept up with the youngsters of today. It's so painfully stupid. Young people today all too often think that government should protect us from having our feelings hurt. Liberal values are dying today.

I know leftists who regularly say the most ridiculous things. People who should know better. I had a young girl I was seeing a while back. When I told her that I think men should discuss feminism she coughed on her coffee and left my apartment never to return. She said our values were too different for us to keep seeing each other anymore. I shit you not. Her point is that only minorities should be allowed to discuss things at all. Because only people marginalized in society has any ability to judge that society. We had great sex. So it wasn't that. This is just one of many examples.

To me free speech and free expression is sacred. But it sure isn't to the new generation who soon will get to vote. I hope they grow out of it by then.

I honestly wonder just how prevalent this is, because I'm willing to bet most millennials are like me and don't care about 'social justice' or 'safe spaces' in particular.

In regards to the notion that only a minority can discuss their issues, I think this stems in response to a perceived lack of empathy or understanding they feel they are due. A lot of the people you would see on TV are often very dismissive of say BLM, refusing to acknowledge that they might have any legitimate grievance whatsoever. This lends to the idea that the reason they don't "Get it" is because it's simply not possible.

 

[rousseau]

Another good podcast. This time from London School of Economics. This talk is about a guy who went around interviewing poor white people (in the UK and USA) to ask them what they thought was wrong with the world and how the world has changed. The same researcher has done similar studies on poor Muslims (not immigrants). Interesting talk. Just some basic info on how Trump could win and how the fuck Brexit happened. The most interesting thing for me was when he talked about "authenticity". They felt that their country had lost authenticity. Of course bullshit, since it assumes there's some way a country should be, and that once upon a time it was. Like LARPers they're swooning about a past that never was. The interesting bit was the concrete formulations.

It's also interesting how these people really weren't privileged by life. If they were they were certainly low on evidence. In fact they felt unfairly treated. Of course they weren't. Dunning-Kruger paradox. Today you need a higher education to be successful in the jobs market, and these people didn't have that. When he interviewed poor Muslims they were saying the same thing. They thought they couldn't get jobs because of racism. When the truth was that they didn't have higher education, and that was why. But the perception pushed them towards radical Islam. I like how he tied it all up in a neat narrative.

To sum it up, poor white people don't feel represented by the political elites. Thirty years ago they did. Today they don't. Problem.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=3661

Thoughts?

Depends on what you mean by 'unfairly treated', which is course for highly divergent social philosophies.

If by 'unfairly treated' you mean certain sections of the population can't get ahead because they genetically lack the capacity to do high paying work in the area in which they live, or don't have the capacity to enter or complete higher education, then many poor people in the world are most definitely treated unfairly, and these problems going untreated are definitely, to some extent, due to lack of representation, although the problem might not be political will.

You could call this many things. Lack of genetic privilege comes to mind. Lack of social privilege is another.

On the other hand, someone could argue that this is the nature of human societies, and that some people win and others lose. Right or wrong, this is what progessives are fighting against, so the tendency is going to be for a reduction in inequality as history unfolds.

To me, social evolution seems to be about overcoming our evolutionary tendencies and producing quality of life for people, regardless of their innate abilities, and not because of them. That's probably the very definition of justice. So if huge sections of our society are behind left behind and living in poverty, while Bill Gates has more money than 50% of his country's population, by at least one definition, these people are being treated unfairly.

 

[DBT]

Nah, just realistic when it comes to the current trend in the job market, based on evidence from numerous sources.

For example:


The Shrinking Ph.D. Job Market
''As number of new Ph.D.s rises, the percentage of people earning a doctorate without a job waiting for them is up. While all disciplines face the problem, some have particularly high debt levels.''

View attachment 8871

''To be fair, more than half of those part-timers are at least technically working as lawyers. But many are likely "contract lawyers," who are hired to sit in front of a computer and review vast document caches for as low as $25 an hour. These luckless young folks are supposed to spend less than a minute staring at each PDF before marking it "relevant" or "not relevant," and there's now software available that can do the work better than most humans. It's a pretty soul-sucking gig, and often a career dead end.''

When the sleeper wakes
'Yet some now fear that a new era of automation enabled by ever more powerful and capable computers could work out differently. They start from the observation that, across the rich world, all is far from well in the world of work. The essence of what they see as a work crisis is that in rich countries the wages of the typical worker, adjusted for cost of living, are stagnant. In America the real wage has hardly budged over the past four decades. Even in places like Britain and Germany, where employment is touching new highs, wages have been flat for a decade. Recent research suggests that this is because substituting capital for labour through automation is increasingly attractive; as a result owners of capital have captured ever more of the world’s income since the 1980s, while the share going to labour has fallen.''

So don't be a lawyer then = success

This is what I'm going on about. If your career path isn't working out for you, get another one. So it isn't the life you had hoped it would be? It never is for anyone.

Or to put it more simply, people who adapt to a changing environment are winners. Those who don't are losers. Aka ToE

btw, I've read that article before. While a real risk, won't be a problem within the next 10-20 years. Nobody has a clue what will happen beyond that.

My best bet down the line is communism. If things keep developing as they have in the last fifty years think that is a pretty inevitable outcome. At least if democracy keeps going strong. Also, not really a problem. People will just have to figure out what to do with all their free time and free money. Keep in mind that these people will all be wealthier than you or me. Because that world will be run by efficient robots.

The position with law graduates was only one example, which I chose on whim. The problem of a shrinking job market spans a broad field.

Your predictions may pan out the way you hope, but predictions don't have a good record. I hope it goes the way you predict but it seems too Utopian. There are too many vested interests. I can't see automation supporting a world population of 10 billion idle consumers, receiving their weekly social wage and doing as they please, their time being their own. A nice idea, and I'd like to sign up right now....but how exactly is it paid for in the long term?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I honestly wonder just how prevalent this is, because I'm willing to bet most millennials are like me and don't care about 'social justice' or 'safe spaces' in particular.

In regards to the notion that only a minority can discuss their issues, I think this stems in response to a perceived lack of empathy or understanding they feel they are due. A lot of the people you would see on TV are often very dismissive of say BLM, refusing to acknowledge that they might have any legitimate grievance whatsoever. This lends to the idea that the reason they don't "Get it" is because it's simply not possible.

It's only prevalent in the left. Millennial conservatives are just pointing and laughing, and should just laugh. It's a kind of seppuku by the left.

A friend of mine has the theory that the left has won all the battles already. The 20'th century, without a doubt, belongs to socialism. They swept in in every country in the west and created concrete and tangible benefits. In the 80'ies they were running out of battles to win. All the low hanging fruit had been picked. That's when the left went from justice to just wanting stuff. Since then the left has struggled to find injustices over which to fight. So it's desperately trying to find something to be angry about. Not going so well at the moment. Made even harder because all major political parties today are more or less socialist parties.

So according to my friend identity politics is just the latest in a string of idiotic leftist causes. Since they're fully in their leftist bubble they're not aware everybody else is laughing at them. I can't say I agree 100% but I think there may be a lot to it.

 

[SimpleDon]

It is true that the world is leaving increasing numbers of people behind. The poorly educated and the rural and the intercity populations.

It is also true that the modern industrial economy produces an ever increasing surplus of goods and services above the basic human needs for survival. This converts into an ever increasing surplus of money.

This means that there is room for a solution. More than there ever has been in history. But our policies are now set to do the opposite, to increase distance between the haves and the have nots.

There are more industrial economies than USA and the UK. The Scandinavian countries and Germany have state sponsored education. We funnel these people into new jobs, if they want.

The main problem is just that the world is changing. Change isn't necessarily just bad. We went through similar things when we industrialized. It'll be fine. But they do have to realize that we can't have the same jobs as our parents had. That world is dying.

You can't deny progress. The industrial economy will just become more efficient, more productive. There will be fewer and fewer jobs in manufacturing in the whole world. The transfer of much of the US and the EU's manufacturing to the Far East only delayed this by at most two decades. The good news is that manufacturing is actually returning to the US. The bad news is that it is highly automated and there are few jobs.

The solution is obvious. If people are no longer employed in high paying manufacturing jobs and have to take service jobs instead, we need to raise the wages of the service workers. It is that simple.

Where is this surplus going?

To the people who have accepted the new reality and changed their lives to fit.

No, it is going to the people that Adam Smith warned us about, the rentiers. All of the gains from innovation and the increases in productivity are going to profits and to the already rich and none to the workers. They didn't change their lives to fit, they are just being paid a lot more for what they have always done, clip coupons, deposit checks and little more.

A sizable portion of it is sitting in the accounts in off shore tax haven banks. Vastly more money than could ever be loaned out. More than could ever be invested. More than could even be spent by the wealthy incredibly small portion of humanity to whom it belongs.

It is estimated to be in region of 21 trillion dollars, more than the annual GDP of the United States.

This is just down to government policies. American voters, for some reason that I don't understand, think this is great.

Yes, you are right. I live here and I don't understand it. I spent a decade in the top 1% of earners in this country. I benefited hugely from these policies. My children and their spouses all earned advanced degrees and are professionals, lawyers, doctors and engineers. We all recognize that the policies that favor us are harmful to the economy and society as a whole. That the very wealthy won't be happy with just looting the incomes of the poor and the middle class. They will come after the upper middle class, then the nearly rich, then the barely rich, the moderately rich and so on.

A thoughtful society would be working hard to expand educational opportunities for the have nots. At least in the US we are doing the opposite. The schools in the areas that we should be concentrating our largest efforts on have the least amount of money. This is because of the way that we finance the schools.

Sweden is filling up with emigrating Americans now. There are options.

Neoliberalism is a disease. It is slowly spreading from the Anglo American countries into Europe. It will take longer to infect the more egalitarian countries like Sweden and Germany, but it will take hold eventually in those countries as well.

I lived and worked in Germany for four years, leaving in 2003. I already saw signs of creeping neoliberalism before I left. In the late 1990's the unions were convinced to moderate their wage demands and their job protection demands to lower prices and to increase profits to boost "investment," the siren song of neoliberalism.

Of course, prices didn't go down, profits grew mighty and investment dropped.

 

[Elixir]

The solution is obvious. If people are no longer employed in high paying manufacturing jobs and have to take service jobs instead, we need to raise the wages of the service workers. It is that simple.

No self-respecting billionaire wants to pay his gardener or maid $40,000 a year. Can you imagine having to cut half of your servant staff? Must be fucking hell. Some of them would have to wipe their own asses. We can't have THAT in a civilized society!