• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 08:07
CEST 14:07
KST 21:07
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Team TLMC #5 - Finalists & Open Tournaments0[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt2: Turbulence10Classic Games #3: Rogue vs Serral at BlizzCon9[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt1: Ascent10Maestros of the Game: Week 1/Play-in Preview12
Community News
BSL 2025 Warsaw LAN + Legends Showmatch0Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups4WardiTV TL Team Map Contest #5 Tournaments1SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia8Weekly Cups (Sept 1-7): MaxPax rebounds & Clem saga continues29
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy SpeCial on The Tasteless Podcast Team TLMC #5 - Finalists & Open Tournaments
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series Maestros of The Game—$20k event w/ live finals in Paris Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia WardiTV TL Team Map Contest #5 Tournaments
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 491 Night Drive Mutation # 490 Masters of Midnight Mutation # 489 Bannable Offense Mutation # 488 What Goes Around
Brood War
General
ASL20 General Discussion ASL TICKET LIVE help! :D Soulkey on ASL S20 BW General Discussion NaDa's Body
Tourneys
[ASL20] Ro16 Group D [ASL20] Ro16 Group C [Megathread] Daily Proleagues BSL 2025 Warsaw LAN + Legends Showmatch
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile Borderlands 3 General RTS Discussion Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread High temperatures on bridge(s)
TL Community
BarCraft in Tokyo Japan for ASL Season5 Final The Automated Ban List
Blogs
I <=> 9
KrillinFromwales
The Personality of a Spender…
TrAiDoS
A very expensive lesson on ma…
Garnet
hello world
radishsoup
Lemme tell you a thing o…
JoinTheRain
RTS Design in Hypercoven
a11
Evil Gacha Games and the…
ffswowsucks
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1678 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6580

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 6578 6579 6580 6581 6582 10093 Next
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
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6287 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-01-17 18:59:29
January 17 2017 18:59 GMT
#131581
Redistribution within any given economy is not really related to globalisation though. It's purely a matter of domestic policy to create a balance here, you don't need to do away with globalisation and diminish overall net welfare.

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
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain18050 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-01-17 19:02:50
January 17 2017 18:59 GMT
#131582
On January 18 2017 03:14 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 03:04 Acrofales wrote:
I don't think the middle class in rich countries is disappearing. Certainly not due to globalization, the growth of which correlates well with the explosion of the middle class in USA/Europe. The middle class is getting squeezed now in southern Europe, but that's because of the economic crunch, which is not directly related to globalism at all (although the global financial market is often held up as the culprit, all the local banks were just as culpable. It's not like Santander or BBVA were not heavily invested in the subprime mortgage business in Spain).

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
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
January 17 2017 18:59 GMT
#131583
reading tmagpie talk about "capitalism" and the distinction between "service" industries and "office" jobs is making my brain hurt. you should go back to the beginning of this conversation magpie where you say that capitalism is just what emerges from human nature and reexamine everything you said after that. one good starting point is to ponder what property rights are and how certain categories are protected by state power. then you can start with why anyone ever invests capital in anything and what "capitalism" (ie the economic logic that operates under certain socio-juridical regimes) might look like when average ROI across all sectors is zero.
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
January 17 2017 19:01 GMT
#131584
On January 18 2017 03:43 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 03:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:07 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 02:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 18 2017 02:36 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 18 2017 01:26 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 01:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Service industries will be where the rich are.
...
Globalization helped my hometown in the Philippines for example. They have thrived the past decade as customer support centers for midnight calls in the US have grown. That's globalization, it helps the poorest of the poor move up in the world.

Curious how you reconcile these two statements.


Call centers on the other side of the globe are made so a company can provide 24 hour service. India was most popular because of the 12 hour time zone difference allowing a non-night shift crew to manage the night time calls of Americans.

The Philippines got a chance when it was found that the country's grasp of English meshed better with Americans than India's. The trend to foreign call centers came about mainly because Americans kept quitting call center jobs and were rude to the customers. The island of Cebu jumped at the opportunity and has been working hard to find night shift workers to fill the void left by American workers who don't want the job.


So you do agree that peasants from the other side of the world can take up service jobs as well?


Going to an office to make phone calls is not service industry. Service industry are baristas, cooks, performers, consierge. Service industries are the in-house masseuses that go to google 5 days a week, they are the valet parkers, the Uber's, the taxis.

If you go to an office, work 8 hours making phone calls in the middle of the biggest urban area in your island--I would not call that service industry.

Then what do you call people in industries such as financial services, accountants, consultants, software folk, and the like? They're certainly not manufacturing folk.


You mean people who currently are part of Obama's longest running economic and job growth streak since ever? You mean the people who's stock has been growing *because* of globalization? You mean people in the finance industry that actually are who allow our globalized system to work? You mean software engineers who need degrees and advanced training and who live in the Urban Sectors allowing the continual job growth? You mean the consultants who primarily work in the urban industries?

Obama's economic recovery is the biggest and longest running one in many decades; and his work helped these sectors the most.

You mean those people? What about them?



Do you call them "services people" or is your definition just so specific that there are "manufacturing people" who suffer and "service people" (that excludes those like "call centers" that are in fact being exported) that are doing great? Because without a definition of who these "service people" are that benefit, beyond entertainment and restaurant employees, a group which exists in literally any country and in which there is no particular reason that ours are better than theirs, I'm not sure what you're talking about with "services."


A call center is an office job. It is no different than being a corporate salesmen, or a lawyer. You have a cubicle, you have phone calls you need to manage, paperwork that need to be managed, and you deal with the same things every other office job has.

Service industries are industries that pop up to support the primary job market of a city.

As an example: Universities are primary economic centers for College Towns. Industries pop up to support the University, but the university itself is the primary job source of that town. The restaurants, car shops, cafes, shoe shiners, etc... they all exist solely to support that Job Center.

When the US was the shitty country who did not have a thousand years of history to its name, all the manufacturing went to sweat shop labor in the States in the name of globalization. These factories and mines became centers of job growth and service industries popped up to cater to those workers; bars, hard hats, etc...

No matter what the job center is, service industries will follow it. But when Americans started wanting to stop sweat shop labor and unionize--of course poorer countries took over just like the US did for the EU.

Call Centers are very much location based. You need call centers in your time zone, and call centers in opposite time zones in order to cater phone calls from all time zones. Call centers in the Philippines supports American Call centers because Filipinos have to sleep. The same for the opposite. American Call Centers are supported by Asian Call centers, because Americans have to sleep.

The economic downturn and job loss you are trying to paint is not happening. The economy has been on a continual rise since the second year of Obama's presidency and has not really stopped. The big problem with Obama's efforts is that it primarily helped Urban centers. Tech Jobs, Finance Jobs, service jobs. If you were a midwest town that relied on the one mine, the 1-3 factories, etc... then you were fucked. Because while Urban Centers could point to companies like Google, or Boeing, or Amazon as these job centers--middle of nowhere boreville USA was competing with slave labor in china.

Now, in fairness, Clothing companies in the US at least uses slave labor here in the US, but that's why we have the highest incarceration rate in the world.

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.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-01-17 19:08:55
January 17 2017 19:04 GMT
#131585
On January 18 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 03:14 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:04 Acrofales wrote:
I don't think the middle class in rich countries is disappearing. Certainly not due to globalization, the growth of which correlates well with the explosion of the middle class in USA/Europe. The middle class is getting squeezed now in southern Europe, but that's because of the economic crunch, which is not directly related to globalism at all (although the global financial market is often held up as the culprit, all the local banks were just as culpable. It's not like Santander or BBVA were not heavily invested in the subprime mortgage business in Spain).

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.

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).
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
January 17 2017 19:09 GMT
#131586
On January 18 2017 04:04 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:14 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:04 Acrofales wrote:
I don't think the middle class in rich countries is disappearing. Certainly not due to globalization, the growth of which correlates well with the explosion of the middle class in USA/Europe. The middle class is getting squeezed now in southern Europe, but that's because of the economic crunch, which is not directly related to globalism at all (although the global financial market is often held up as the culprit, all the local banks were just as culpable. It's not like Santander or BBVA were not heavily invested in the subprime mortgage business in Spain).

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.

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.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
January 17 2017 19:14 GMT
#131587
On January 18 2017 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 03:43 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:07 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 02:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 18 2017 02:36 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 18 2017 01:26 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 01:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Curious how you reconcile these two statements.


Call centers on the other side of the globe are made so a company can provide 24 hour service. India was most popular because of the 12 hour time zone difference allowing a non-night shift crew to manage the night time calls of Americans.

The Philippines got a chance when it was found that the country's grasp of English meshed better with Americans than India's. The trend to foreign call centers came about mainly because Americans kept quitting call center jobs and were rude to the customers. The island of Cebu jumped at the opportunity and has been working hard to find night shift workers to fill the void left by American workers who don't want the job.


So you do agree that peasants from the other side of the world can take up service jobs as well?


Going to an office to make phone calls is not service industry. Service industry are baristas, cooks, performers, consierge. Service industries are the in-house masseuses that go to google 5 days a week, they are the valet parkers, the Uber's, the taxis.

If you go to an office, work 8 hours making phone calls in the middle of the biggest urban area in your island--I would not call that service industry.

Then what do you call people in industries such as financial services, accountants, consultants, software folk, and the like? They're certainly not manufacturing folk.


You mean people who currently are part of Obama's longest running economic and job growth streak since ever? You mean the people who's stock has been growing *because* of globalization? You mean people in the finance industry that actually are who allow our globalized system to work? You mean software engineers who need degrees and advanced training and who live in the Urban Sectors allowing the continual job growth? You mean the consultants who primarily work in the urban industries?

Obama's economic recovery is the biggest and longest running one in many decades; and his work helped these sectors the most.

You mean those people? What about them?



Do you call them "services people" or is your definition just so specific that there are "manufacturing people" who suffer and "service people" (that excludes those like "call centers" that are in fact being exported) that are doing great? Because without a definition of who these "service people" are that benefit, beyond entertainment and restaurant employees, a group which exists in literally any country and in which there is no particular reason that ours are better than theirs, I'm not sure what you're talking about with "services."


A call center is an office job. It is no different than being a corporate salesmen, or a lawyer. You have a cubicle, you have phone calls you need to manage, paperwork that need to be managed, and you deal with the same things every other office job has.

Service industries are industries that pop up to support the primary job market of a city.

As an example: Universities are primary economic centers for College Towns. Industries pop up to support the University, but the university itself is the primary job source of that town. The restaurants, car shops, cafes, shoe shiners, etc... they all exist solely to support that Job Center.

When the US was the shitty country who did not have a thousand years of history to its name, all the manufacturing went to sweat shop labor in the States in the name of globalization. These factories and mines became centers of job growth and service industries popped up to cater to those workers; bars, hard hats, etc...

No matter what the job center is, service industries will follow it. But when Americans started wanting to stop sweat shop labor and unionize--of course poorer countries took over just like the US did for the EU.

Call Centers are very much location based. You need call centers in your time zone, and call centers in opposite time zones in order to cater phone calls from all time zones. Call centers in the Philippines supports American Call centers because Filipinos have to sleep. The same for the opposite. American Call Centers are supported by Asian Call centers, because Americans have to sleep.

The economic downturn and job loss you are trying to paint is not happening. The economy has been on a continual rise since the second year of Obama's presidency and has not really stopped. The big problem with Obama's efforts is that it primarily helped Urban centers. Tech Jobs, Finance Jobs, service jobs. If you were a midwest town that relied on the one mine, the 1-3 factories, etc... then you were fucked. Because while Urban Centers could point to companies like Google, or Boeing, or Amazon as these job centers--middle of nowhere boreville USA was competing with slave labor in china.

Now, in fairness, Clothing companies in the US at least uses slave labor here in the US, but that's why we have the highest incarceration rate in the world.

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.

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.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
January 17 2017 19:14 GMT
#131588
On January 18 2017 04:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 04:04 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:14 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:04 Acrofales wrote:
I don't think the middle class in rich countries is disappearing. Certainly not due to globalization, the growth of which correlates well with the explosion of the middle class in USA/Europe. The middle class is getting squeezed now in southern Europe, but that's because of the economic crunch, which is not directly related to globalism at all (although the global financial market is often held up as the culprit, all the local banks were just as culpable. It's not like Santander or BBVA were not heavily invested in the subprime mortgage business in Spain).

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.

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.

Elaborate, please. How is it different?
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12262 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-01-17 19:29:11
January 17 2017 19:27 GMT
#131589
On January 18 2017 03:14 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 03:04 Acrofales wrote:
I don't think the middle class in rich countries is disappearing. Certainly not due to globalization, the growth of which correlates well with the explosion of the middle class in USA/Europe. The middle class is getting squeezed now in southern Europe, but that's because of the economic crunch, which is not directly related to globalism at all (although the global financial market is often held up as the culprit, all the local banks were just as culpable. It's not like Santander or BBVA were not heavily invested in the subprime mortgage business in Spain).

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)
No will to live, no wish to die
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
January 17 2017 19:34 GMT
#131590
On January 18 2017 04:27 Nebuchad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 03:14 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:04 Acrofales wrote:
I don't think the middle class in rich countries is disappearing. Certainly not due to globalization, the growth of which correlates well with the explosion of the middle class in USA/Europe. The middle class is getting squeezed now in southern Europe, but that's because of the economic crunch, which is not directly related to globalism at all (although the global financial market is often held up as the culprit, all the local banks were just as culpable. It's not like Santander or BBVA were not heavily invested in the subprime mortgage business in Spain).

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 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
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
January 17 2017 19:35 GMT
#131591
On January 18 2017 04:14 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 04:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 18 2017 04:04 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:14 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:04 Acrofales wrote:
I don't think the middle class in rich countries is disappearing. Certainly not due to globalization, the growth of which correlates well with the explosion of the middle class in USA/Europe. The middle class is getting squeezed now in southern Europe, but that's because of the economic crunch, which is not directly related to globalism at all (although the global financial market is often held up as the culprit, all the local banks were just as culpable. It's not like Santander or BBVA were not heavily invested in the subprime mortgage business in Spain).

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.

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.

Elaborate, please. How is it different?


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.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-01-17 19:40:10
January 17 2017 19:39 GMT
#131592
On January 18 2017 04:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 04:14 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 04:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 18 2017 04:04 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:14 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:04 Acrofales wrote:
I don't think the middle class in rich countries is disappearing. Certainly not due to globalization, the growth of which correlates well with the explosion of the middle class in USA/Europe. The middle class is getting squeezed now in southern Europe, but that's because of the economic crunch, which is not directly related to globalism at all (although the global financial market is often held up as the culprit, all the local banks were just as culpable. It's not like Santander or BBVA were not heavily invested in the subprime mortgage business in Spain).

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.

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.

Elaborate, please. How is it different?


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?
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
January 17 2017 19:40 GMT
#131593
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
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Nevuk
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States16280 Posts
January 17 2017 20:07 GMT
#131594
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.

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.



http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/breaking-apprentice-contestant-summer-zervos-files-defamation-lawsuit-against-trump/
LightSpectra
Profile Blog Joined October 2011
United States1726 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-01-17 20:09:07
January 17 2017 20:08 GMT
#131595
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.
2006 Shinhan Bank OSL Season 3 was the greatest tournament of all time
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
January 17 2017 20:09 GMT
#131596
I wanted to list a few other factors that come to light if you note the trends in the Pew articles, especially the 75 page ones.
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.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
January 17 2017 20:15 GMT
#131597
On January 18 2017 04:39 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 04:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 18 2017 04:14 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 04:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 18 2017 04:04 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:14 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:04 Acrofales wrote:
I don't think the middle class in rich countries is disappearing. Certainly not due to globalization, the growth of which correlates well with the explosion of the middle class in USA/Europe. The middle class is getting squeezed now in southern Europe, but that's because of the economic crunch, which is not directly related to globalism at all (although the global financial market is often held up as the culprit, all the local banks were just as culpable. It's not like Santander or BBVA were not heavily invested in the subprime mortgage business in Spain).

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.

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.

Elaborate, please. How is it different?


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?


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.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
January 17 2017 20:24 GMT
#131598
On January 18 2017 05:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 04:39 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 04:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 18 2017 04:14 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 04:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 18 2017 04:04 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:14 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:04 Acrofales wrote:
I don't think the middle class in rich countries is disappearing. Certainly not due to globalization, the growth of which correlates well with the explosion of the middle class in USA/Europe. The middle class is getting squeezed now in southern Europe, but that's because of the economic crunch, which is not directly related to globalism at all (although the global financial market is often held up as the culprit, all the local banks were just as culpable. It's not like Santander or BBVA were not heavily invested in the subprime mortgage business in Spain).

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.

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.

Elaborate, please. How is it different?


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?


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.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
TheTenthDoc
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States9561 Posts
January 17 2017 20:28 GMT
#131599
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
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
January 17 2017 20:31 GMT
#131600
On January 18 2017 05:24 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 05:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 18 2017 04:39 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 04:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 18 2017 04:14 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 04:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 18 2017 04:04 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:14 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 03:04 Acrofales wrote:
I don't think the middle class in rich countries is disappearing. Certainly not due to globalization, the growth of which correlates well with the explosion of the middle class in USA/Europe. The middle class is getting squeezed now in southern Europe, but that's because of the economic crunch, which is not directly related to globalism at all (although the global financial market is often held up as the culprit, all the local banks were just as culpable. It's not like Santander or BBVA were not heavily invested in the subprime mortgage business in Spain).

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.

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.

Elaborate, please. How is it different?


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?


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.


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.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Prev 1 6578 6579 6580 6581 6582 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Map Test Tournament
11:00
$450 3v3 Open Cup
WardiTV274
IndyStarCraft 158
LiquipediaDiscussion
RSL Revival
10:00
Season 2: Playoffs Day 5
Cure vs TriGGeRLIVE!
Tasteless1089
Crank 870
Rex124
CranKy Ducklings119
3DClanTV 71
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Tasteless 1089
Crank 870
Lowko257
IndyStarCraft 158
Rex 124
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 35677
Calm 8640
Horang2 4084
Bisu 1798
Hyuk 866
actioN 367
Stork 349
EffOrt 274
ZerO 248
Pusan 242
[ Show more ]
Snow 226
Light 190
Last 187
Mini 182
Soma 170
Hyun 134
Soulkey 120
hero 91
ggaemo 68
Liquid`Ret 68
Mind 59
Rush 54
ToSsGirL 46
Sharp 33
HiyA 33
sorry 29
Sexy 28
sas.Sziky 24
Free 23
JYJ19
scan(afreeca) 19
SilentControl 17
Icarus 13
Terrorterran 13
Dota 2
singsing3024
qojqva776
Dendi556
XcaliburYe182
Counter-Strike
olofmeister1764
x6flipin674
markeloff54
edward38
zeus1
Other Games
B2W.Neo740
DeMusliM332
Fuzer 126
Pyrionflax126
XaKoH 124
NeuroSwarm43
Trikslyr11
Organizations
StarCraft: Brood War
Kim Chul Min (afreeca) 956
CasterMuse 20
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Jankos1567
• Nemesis957
Other Games
• WagamamaTV186
Upcoming Events
The PondCast
53m
RSL Revival
21h 53m
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
1d 14h
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
1d 19h
RSL Revival
1d 21h
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
Online Event
3 days
Wardi Open
3 days
Monday Night Weeklies
4 days
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
LiuLi Cup
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-09-10
Chzzk MurlocKing SC1 vs SC2 Cup #2
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1

Upcoming

2025 Chongqing Offline CUP
BSL World Championship of Poland 2025
IPSL Winter 2025-26
BSL Season 21
SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL 21 Team A
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
EC S1
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.