EPTIt's better to expand public services, social security and so on than to do away with the machine that generated all that prosperity to begin with.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6580
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
It's better to expand public services, social security and so on than to do away with the machine that generated all that prosperity to begin with. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17952 Posts
On January 18 2017 03:14 LegalLord wrote: Going to link three Pew pieces that talk about it: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/14/americas-middle-class-is-shrinking-so-whos-leaving-it/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/05/11/americas-shrinking-middle-class-a-close-look-at-changes-within-metropolitan-areas/ Some people are getting richer, others are getting poorer. But I might question whether "getting richer" is COL-adjusted. Like earning $60k in Silicon Valley is living like a peasant anywhere else, while in most of the country that would be fantastic money. That the study seems to be on "median income relative to others in the field" makes me suspect it really isn't. Okay, so the middle class is disappearing in the US. But there seem to be a lot more causes than a simple "jobs moved to China". In fact, it seems to indicate segregation, and education and healthcare costs ballooning as equal if not greater causes than manufacturing jobs moving to China. In fact, the problem with the lack of upward mobility in the US has been recognized as a problem since at least the 90s, whereas Europe does not have that problem, precisely because of their comprehensive social security programs. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 18 2017 03:43 LegalLord wrote: So if the manufacturers move, now why the fuck would the company need services from back home? Who cares about legal and financial services from back home if you can just use the locals? Sure, their schools might be less reliable, but at least the entire thing is cheaper so it all works out. And engineers? Well you need a few to preserve quality, so you can import a few expatlings and pay them well, but otherwise subsist on local folk (and possibly those that went to school in your own country on a visa). Filipinos need to sleep? Well I'm sure that paying a nickel or so more would convince them to take the night shift. They need to eat, after all. And if they aren't so inclined, then maybe we can hire some other night owl that complains less. It's not like they're so indispensable that they can't be replaced at a moment's notice. And the locals back home that have a minimum wage and labor laws that make it annoying to employ them? Forget about it. Such is the "race to the bottom." See above. Some people benefit, others get poorer. The trend is clear: more and more money is going into the hands of the wealthiest, and overall the economy increases in size while many people get poorer. If it used to be that one person had $500, the other $1000, then we get that one has $10, the other $2000, then yes, the economy increased overall. But is that better? I don't think you understand what's happening. The call centers in the Philippines actually lifts them up to a different social class. They now have service industries helping THEM. They now have a higher level of expectation from what they want in life. The call center turns the area they are in into the metropolis that all the locals flock to. These are not slave centers filled with desperate people. These call centers are staffed by people with Bachelors and Masters degrees and expand the local economies now that they are the primary Job Centers. I don't think you actually know what's happening in the real world when it comes to globalization. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 18 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote: Okay, so the middle class is disappearing in the US. But there seem to be a lot more causes than a simple "jobs moved to China". In fact, it seems to indicate segregation, and education and healthcare costs ballooning as equal if not greater causes than manufacturing jobs moving to China. That much is true, yes. Nevertheless, the trend seems to be that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the incentives are such that it's very hard to do something about it. Make labor in the homeland more expensive and they will either move or automate your job away. Make them pay more taxes and there are plenty of willing tax havens that will be glad to take up some rich folk. And so on. The "jobs to China" is a very key part of this problem because where it doesn't happen, the threat of its occurrence has an indirect influence. Edit: and yes, social programs absolutely help out. They probably cause an economic hit overall, but to ensure the poor are better off it might be for the best. The issue seems to be when they become strained by further issues such as demographic problems (less income, in fact partially the result of the megacity-ward migration) and/or an influx of people who are net takers from that system in general (immigration, longer retirement lifespans, and so on). | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 18 2017 04:04 LegalLord wrote: That much is true, yes. Nevertheless, the trend seems to be that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the incentives are such that it's very hard to do something about it. Make labor in the homeland more expensive and they will either move or automate your job away. Make them pay more taxes and there are plenty of willing tax havens that will be glad to take up some rich folk. And so on. The "jobs to China" is a very key part of this problem because where it doesn't happen, the threat of its occurrence has an indirect influence. For context: This is only true in rich countries. Poor countries experience something very different. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 18 2017 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote: I don't think you understand what's happening. The call centers in the Philippines actually lifts them up to a different social class. They now have service industries helping THEM. They now have a higher level of expectation from what they want in life. The call center turns the area they are in into the metropolis that all the locals flock to. These are not slave centers filled with desperate people. These call centers are staffed by people with Bachelors and Masters degrees and expand the local economies now that they are the primary Job Centers. I don't think you actually know what's happening in the real world when it comes to globalization. Cool, their jobs bring in more people. Now aren't those greedy American call folk a bit of a pain in the ass? Those Filipinos would be glad to get American minimum wage; it's a hell of a lot more money than they could get working even their own professions on salaries they get from their own employers. We should lower their salaries and if they complain, we can get someone else from some other part of the world to replace them. I'm sure there are plenty of willing workers who don't mind "US federal minimum wage, no benefits, night shifts with no overtime" back where they would be grateful for half that. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 18 2017 04:09 Thieving Magpie wrote: For context: This is only true in rich countries. Poor countries experience something very different. Elaborate, please. How is it different? | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12081 Posts
On January 18 2017 03:14 LegalLord wrote: Going to link three Pew pieces that talk about it: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/14/americas-middle-class-is-shrinking-so-whos-leaving-it/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/05/11/americas-shrinking-middle-class-a-close-look-at-changes-within-metropolitan-areas/ Some people are getting richer, others are getting poorer. But I might question whether "getting richer" is COL-adjusted. Like earning $60k in Silicon Valley is living like a peasant anywhere else, while in most of the country that would be fantastic money. That the study seems to be on "median income relative to others in the field" makes me suspect it really isn't. This is not necessarily a feature of globalization though, it could be a feature of having a rightwing party and a far right party instead of having a leftwing party and a rightwing party. Actually it seems unlikely that it would be caused by globalization since this would have to happen in all/most developped countries if that was the case, and it seems to happen pretty much only in the US (correct me if I'm wrong) | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 18 2017 04:27 Nebuchad wrote: This is not necessarily a feature of globalization though, it could be a feature of having a rightwing party and a far right party instead of having a leftwing party and a rightwing party. Actually it seems unlikely that it would be caused by globalization since this would have to happen in all/most developped countries if that was the case, and it seems to happen mostly in the US (correct me if I'm wrong) Nope, it's a trend all across the Western world. But it's a wee bit harder to quantify because states in the US are not exactly analogous to nations in the EU, and some of the decline is definitely nation-based. If PIIGS is the Rust Belt and Germany is New York it starts to be a little more comparable but that is far from a perfect analogy. My quick Google result from looking at Europe and the same issue: https://origin-www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-05-10/germany-s-middle-class-is-endangered-too http://oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/3660/A_hollowing_middle_class.html http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_535607/lang--ja/index.htm | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
As someone who grew up in a poor country and who has seen multiple islands from blossom into unseen prosperity; I really don't think you know what Globalization is actually doing to 3rd world countries. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 18 2017 04:35 Thieving Magpie wrote: As someone who grew up in a poor country and who has seen multiple islands from blossom into unseen prosperity; I really don't think you know what Globalization is actually doing to 3rd world countries. The benefit to them is not in doubt. I didn't imply as much - but you can absolutely get more out of them for less than you could from Americans. Would an American engineer work in Shitfuckistan for $20k/year, no benefits? Would a person from a nation with a median income of $500/year do the same? Would Americans who want to live a decent life lose out from that reality? Would the third worlders benefit? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Repealing portions of ObamaCare without enacting a replacement could leave 18 million people without health insurance the following year, according to a report released Tuesday by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO also estimated that premiums for policies purchased through the marketplaces or directly from insurers would increase by 20 to 25 percent that year. The report, which was requested by Democrats,could complicate Republican efforts to repeal the health law and is likely to reignite a long fight between GOP lawmakers and the CBO over ObamaCare. The CBO examined a 2015 repeal bill authored by Republicans that would have eliminated ObamaCare's penalties and subsidies while leaving the insurance market reforms in place. President Obama vetoed that legislation when it reached his desk. President-elect Donald Trump and the GOP have made repealing ObamaCare their first priority for 2017, but have not said what parts of the law they will leave in place or what a replacement plan will look like. It's also unclear what parts of the 2015 bill they will use. However, if they were to pass the 2015 legislation again, 18 million people would become uninsured in the first new plan year following the enactment of the bill, the CBO estimates. Most of the reductions in coverage would stem from repealing the penalty for not having health insurance, the CBO estimates, because people would just drop their insurance plans. Other people would become uninsured because of insurance companies leaving the ObamaCare market in anticipation of enrollment reductions and higher costs. After the elimination of ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion and insurance subsidies, 27 million people would lose insurance, and then 32 million in 2026, the CBO found. Source | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
Los Angeles based attorney Gloria Allred held a press conference on Tuesday during which she announced that former Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos filed a defamation lawsuit against President-elect Donald Trump, accusing him of lying about touching her in a sexually inappropriate way. http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/breaking-apprentice-contestant-summer-zervos-files-defamation-lawsuit-against-trump/Allred announced the press conference with a cryptic press release issued earlier in the day that provided very little detail on what was about to come. During the press conference, Allred described the alleged actions she says Trump did to Zervos several years ago. She further accused Trump of defamation for knowingly lying in October when he was asked about what allegedly happened with Zervos. The Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that sitting presidents can face civil lawsuits during their tenure in office for conduct that allegedly occurred before they took office or for conduct unrelated to official duties as president. However, that does not mean Trump will necessarily face a lawsuit. As LawNewz.com’s Ronn Blitzer previously wrote: Professor Edward Foley, director of Election Law @ Mortiz at The Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, said that situations like this could be decided by courts on a case by case basis. On the one hand, “the judiciary will want to look to the principle that no one is above the law,” Foley said. On the other hand, there is “the risk of a civil lawsuit being a genuine distraction such that it outweighs the interests of the litigants in the civil suit.” The judiciary would exercise their discretion, he said, given that “the President is the chief executive of the nation,” and shouldn’t have to face the distractions of litigation unless it’s truly necessary. Allred claims Zervos volunteered to take a polygraph test and passed the exam, according to her expert polygraph examiner. This is a breaking news story and LawNewz.com will provide updates as they become available. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1190 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
1. People without four year degrees are the biggest losers - and debt creep is a big problem here. While the wealth of bachelors plus has increased slightly and this group is getting bigger, everyone else is a big loser. And of course we have a problem with absurdly high student debts. More on this later. 2. The biggest "gainers" are two-working-parent households. So a large part of the gain is simply that women work now. And IME it's almost impossible for two working parents to raise more than two children effectively. Wealthier people aren't the type to just give birth and abandon, so they are likely to raise fewer children as a result. 3. Old people do better than young people. Young folk have a lot of trouble getting started, and this has been a very consistent trend here. Debt doesn't help. 4. The trends tend to push people cityward. Debt (can't take low-COL jobs since the number itself is high), going to where the money is, many other things. Also pushes towards fewer children. 5. If you don't adjust for the decrease in household size, the median income growth starts to look quite pitiful. A lot of the "higher quality of life" is because people don't have as many kids. 6. Since 1970, only the upper class has seen any appreciable net growth. Since 2000, everyone has seen a net loss in real income - but the wealth gap gets only bigger and the wealthy lost the least. And it all looks so much worse when you look at it in terms of net worth rather than income. 7. It seems to be that more people are moving up than down - but that's mostly in the high COL megacities, while in many other places the people leaving the middle class are going down. Hell, even in most urban areas the people are leaving the middle class, much less in the rural ones. 8. The last vestiges of the large middle class are in the Midwest in the manufacturing base, like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. They seem to perceive decline and these are the people that ultimately came out for Trump. There really is a large group that is seeing their lives get worse - and is that the recipe for a good long-term result? We're in for a rather troubled next few years as the disenfranchised folk start to want better. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 18 2017 04:39 LegalLord wrote: The benefit to them is not in doubt. I didn't imply as much - but you can absolutely get more out of them for less than you could from Americans. Would an American engineer work in Shitfuckistan for $20k/year, no benefits? Would a person from a nation with a median income of $500/year do the same? Would Americans who want to live a decent life lose out from that reality? Would the third worlders benefit? All depends on cost of living ratios vs social status importance. Lots of people would rather have worse cost of living ratios but live in SF or NY, while others would rather have higher cost of living ratios but live in shitfuckistan. The lower cost of workers in the Philippines and India has allowed call centers in those locations to actually ask more from its staff than the US. Higher education, better training, etc... Could they get cheaper? Sure they could--but why would they when they can get people with a masters in engineering as the customer support staff helping people with their laptop problems? Netflix is starting to move its centers to the Philippines--primarily because every time they start a center here in the states the americans keep calling the job shit and start yelling at customers. Because Americans look down at any job without prestige to it. Just because you have certain worries about globalization does not mean those worries are true, nor does it mean those worries are universal. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 18 2017 05:15 Thieving Magpie wrote: All depends on cost of living ratios vs social status importance. Lots of people would rather have worse cost of living ratios but live in SF or NY, while others would rather have higher cost of living ratios but live in shitfuckistan. The lower cost of workers in the Philippines and India has allowed call centers in those locations to actually ask more from its staff than the US. Higher education, better training, etc... Could they get cheaper? Sure they could--but why would they when they can get people with a masters in engineering as the customer support staff helping people with their laptop problems? Netflix is starting to move its centers to the Philippines--primarily because every time they start a center here in the states the americans keep calling the job shit and start yelling at customers. Because Americans look down at any job without prestige to it. Just because you have certain worries about globalization does not mean those worries are true, nor does it mean those worries are universal. $20k in Shitfuckistan is a lot better than $500 in India but worse than even $20k in Bumfuckville, Ohio, much less $60k in SF (still pretty shitty). Guess who is more inclined to take those jobs? Maybe we can require a PhD for our $20k/year workers in Shitfuckistan because there are so many willing Indians. But those prissy Americans just aren't up for it. It's clear who benefits - and who loses - from that arrangement. And the loser is the American middle class, easily. Incidentally, I myself am thankfully in a position that I would say would be called a "winner" in globalization. I can't say it feels like victory - I'd be better off overall if the conditions were as they were 40+ years ago - but I definitely make more money this way. But if you don't see the people who lose bigly from this arrangement then you would be delusional. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On January 18 2017 05:08 LightSpectra wrote: I don't know what's so hard about this health care business. Pass legislation that allows anybody without insurance to enroll in Medicaid at no cost. Fund it with a payroll tax on incomes more than $150,000 and capital gains more than $100,000. Not as cost-effective or clean as single-payer, but that gets the job done. It shouldn't take years and years of negotiations, unless of course you're in the pockets of the private insurance industry. It'd take years to convince the Republican governors of various states that it wasn't a Democratic idea. They wouldn't even up the Medicaid FPL amount when they didn't have to pay for it, and now that there's precedent from the SCOTUS decision on the ACA there's pretty much no way to coerce states into accepting an increase like that. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 18 2017 05:24 LegalLord wrote: $20k in Shitfuckistan is a lot better than $500 in India but worse than even $20k in Bumfuckville, Ohio, much less $60k in SF (still pretty shitty). Guess who is more inclined to take those jobs? Maybe we can require a PhD for our $20k/year workers in Shitfuckistan because there are so many willing Indians. But those prissy Americans just aren't up for it. It's clear who benefits - and who loses - from that arrangement. And the loser is the American middle class, easily. Incidentally, I myself am thankfully in a position that I would say would be called a "winner" in globalization. I can't say it feels like victory - I'd be better off overall if the conditions were as they were 40+ years ago - but I definitely make more money this way. But if you don't see the people who lose bigly from this arrangement then you would be delusional. Which is why, as I said, the only people who lose are the people who don't want to move to urban areas and who want to stay in towns without industry while not actively joining industries that better matches their social class. Just because the middle class are now people who live in the suburbs of the new economic centers of cities does not mean "the middle class" is dead. The middle class is simply different. | ||
| ||
