|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 08 2020 00:51 IgnE wrote:https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/Show nested quote +[...]
The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.
[...] Harper's published an open letter calling for responses. A lot of people on Twitter are responding derisively. Harper's Letter is described as "self-pitying," signed by a TERF, etc. Also signed by Noam Chomsky. Also signed by Salman Rushdie and Malcolm Gladwell.
The liberal left is slow as usual, but better late than never I suppose. It is their historical cultural institutions under fire.
Trans issue conformity of thought brought JK Rowling on board. I'm sure many academics got pissed off at researchers getting fired for quoting accurate statistics in context. It's good to see writers standing against a modern trend that says you can't write black main characters if you're not black, or other minorities of race and ethnicity and life experience.
It's good to see a grouping that will be hard for the younger journalist class and activists to call racist and transphobic. Also, the letter does not dissemble about the trend, even though it manifests in various ways and people want to divide them up to deny the trend. Whatever the details of each incident, the results line up with each other, and the threats are real and damaging to institutions.
+ Show Spoiler +and when you've lost Matthew Yglesias ... roflmao
|
On July 08 2020 01:42 Erasme wrote:
Trump is still pushing hcq, but won't wear a mask. Maybe someone should suggest him to invest in the mask industry, pretty sure he'd wear a mask then.
I think Trump might be the new poster boy for confirmation bias and problems with selective choice of studies. He isn't looking for science to tell him the truth, he already knows the truth and is looking for science to tell him that he is right, and ignores any studies which say otherwise.
|
Excerpt's from Mary Trump's book are out in the NYT and Wapo, which both got an advance copy.
It's embarassing stuff but nothing surprising or terribly damaging, tbh. (He complimented his niece's breasts, paid someone to take his SATs, left his brother's deathbed to watch a movie, his sister called him a narcissistic clown). Should note these are all "allegedly" at this point. The only illuminating thing is where she describes his relationship to his brother and father, which helps identify why he turned out the way he did. But it's interesting in a psychological rather than political sense.
www.washingtonpost.com
www.nytimes.com
|
Dunno what level cheating on an SAT is equivalent to, but cheating on his doctorate totally killed a pretty popular ministers career here in Germany in 2011.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg
Apparently he is mostly involved in doing shady business in the US since then. Apparently even faking your doctorate can't keep you down if you are born rich and connected.
|
The SAT is one of the undergraduate college admissions tests. Cheating on it is pretty bad... if they find out before you get your degree. Then they'll probably kick you out of the college. After they've given the degree, they won't revoke your degree or anything, though, I don't think. It's easy to defend in the sense of "if he wasn't really qualified then he would've been failed anyways".
Cheating in Doctorates/Plagiarism are a considerably higher scale of scandal (one of which Biden has been accused of).
|
On July 08 2020 01:48 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2020 00:51 IgnE wrote:https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/[...]
The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.
[...] Harper's published an open letter calling for responses. A lot of people on Twitter are responding derisively. Harper's Letter is described as "self-pitying," signed by a TERF, etc. Also signed by Noam Chomsky. Also signed by Salman Rushdie and Malcolm Gladwell. I think that "letter" is mostly correct while also being a perfect illustration of the problems that "cancel culture" seeks to address. As a disclaimer, I'm going to lengthen and formalize the following and submit it to Harpers as a response. I recognize that you likely included those signatories in the interest of showing that ostensibly diverse viewpoints agree on the letter's point, but all I see are a group of people who all share in power structures that enable ongoing injustice of the sort that motivates what appear to be acts of mob justice. Public intellectuals and other individuals who are given stature, space, and attention when they speak are naturally disinclined to admit that those discursive privileges are zero-sum in the sense that they necessarily exclude others from engaging in the discourse in the first place. That unwillingness to address the implications of being given the stage is a core component of cultures of silence and the tolerance of injustice that Black people and LGTBQ folks are only now feeling empowered to point out. Look at that list of supposed inequities and notice that literally every aggrieved party or object there occupies a position of power, even if of the subordinate kind. By referring exclusively to journalists, professors, heads of organizations, and the like, without any mention of the trace of those excluded from ever attaining such positions, the letter partakes in precisely the kind of status quo maintenance that "cancel culture" is reacting to. So yeah, theres no doubt that ideas and people are unfairly canceled, perhaps enough to warrant a strong correction, but to stop there when ostensibly making a plea for some kind of productive medium is to be a part of the problem rather than the solution. For every professor chased off campus because they say racist/homophobic/transphobic/plain old hateful things, there are numerous people, groups, and entities that were never allowed on campus in the first place for reasons directly related to the subject matter criticism.
First, I should say that I have ambivalent feelings concerning this conversation, and that is one of the reasons I find it interesting. I don't necessarily 100% endorse anything I say, nor do I necessarily "believe" everything I say in an uncomplicated way, and that is especially true here. Because I can't really argue directly with the people who signed the Harper's letter or with people who have taken a fairly rigorous stand against it, like Nwanevu in this essay (apparently avant la lettre), I am trying out and testing ideas here to see where they lead.
So, to your bolded part, I don't see the relevance of your point that the signatories are all in positions of power. Of course they are, how could it be otherwise? Would opening the letter up to be signed by some large number (how large?) of commoners change anything about your argument? Do you doubt that the signatories are expressing a widely-held view?
The problem of representation is an ethical, material, political problem touching nearly every aspect of our social being—the relationship we have to our political representatives, the intersubjective predicament we have of being trapped in the prison house of language, the phenomenology of our internal life. Let's assume, as you say, that representation within national discursive channels is zero-sum. I don't read the letter as saying "we are opposed to hearing the excluded." But I do read the letter as implicitly prioritizing the airing of viewpoints and positions held by a significant plurality of the population/readership. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.
If we take a look at Nwavevu's essay linked above, he makes a strong case for the right of association. People should be able to exclude views they don't want to hear from, and that right is just as enshrined in our constitution as the much mythologized "freedom of speech." I think a lot of the uproar about "free speech," particularly as it relates to institutions like papers of record is not so much a commitment to the discredited notion of "free speech absolutism," as it is committed to preserving something like a national conversation, a national culture. We should think seriously before cutting off conversation with people that we are bound to by geography, trade, cultural production, and law. If the NYT, for example, wanted to become fully committed to critical race theory or Marxism or whatever it would be perfectly within their rights to do so. But there would be a loss. I would prefer to frame the loss as something like a conversational loss. In its best moments the NYT is a forum for conversation between people who disagree about topics relevant to our "national" interest. And no matter what you think about the nation, or the idea of nationhood, there is no denying that we are materially bound together by that imagined community. Noam Chomsky, critic of the NYT for over 50 years for its liberal, anti-communist, anti-anarchist views, for its participation in the "manufacturing of consent," signed the letter. We can be critical of institutions that don't air leftist views without condemning them for airing rightist views, notwithstanding your point about the zero-sum game of allotting space, and not to mention the zero-sum fight over our attention spans.
Whatever my criticisms of (neo)liberalism, I value its commitment to "the free exchange of information and ideas" even if that formulation is already too ideological for me. It is a mistake to subsume the material effects of speech to speech generally. It is even more of a mistake to think that the violence of rhetoric can be avoided, that we can sanitize rhetoric, broadly conceived. We can and should recognize that a liberal commitment to "reason" is not as rational as it pretends to be. We should remain committed, however, to continuing conversation that always takes place in a "logical space of reasons" (to use Sellars's terminology) which is already reflexively normative, which already is subject to the irrational force of rhetoric, but is nonetheless the best way we have of working out our differences in a way that allows us to co-create the discursive world we inhabit.
|
On July 07 2020 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:
Trump sending international students back to their home countries if their classes are remote kind of makes sense TBH. If there is literally zero benefit to them being here, do they really need to stay?
I still think our economy and workforce benefits from having college-enrolled and eventually college educated people continue living here, but if we already decided their only reason for admission was to take classes, it kind of feels like it makes sense. But I think it is missing a lot of the benefits. We benefit from having these students here. Its a clear net-negative sending them back, but I can somewhat understand the logic.
The logic is stupid because it assumes no cost to just bringing them back when classes aren't online anymore.
The "benefit" of keeping them is that the cost of displacing them and then bringing them back later is higher than the cost of just keeping them until things are back to normal (or the waste from spending money educating people that won't come back after you kick them out).
|
On July 08 2020 05:21 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2020 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:
Trump sending international students back to their home countries if their classes are remote kind of makes sense TBH. If there is literally zero benefit to them being here, do they really need to stay?
I still think our economy and workforce benefits from having college-enrolled and eventually college educated people continue living here, but if we already decided their only reason for admission was to take classes, it kind of feels like it makes sense. But I think it is missing a lot of the benefits. We benefit from having these students here. Its a clear net-negative sending them back, but I can somewhat understand the logic. The logic is stupid because it assumes no cost to just bringing them back when classes aren't online anymore. The "benefit" of keeping them is that the cost of displacing them and then bringing them back later is higher than the cost of just keeping them until things are back to normal (or the waste from spending money educating people that won't come back after you kick them out).
Almost all of Trumps logic is stupid if you think about it for more than 3 seconds. His target demographic is people who don't think about it for more than 3 seconds, or simply don't care.
My guess would be that the real main reason for sending them back is that they are foreigners, some of whom might even be non-white. They are also trying to become college educated, which Cletus doesn't like because it makes him feel stupid. And if they ever gain citizenship, they would not vote for Trump, so better nip that in the bud as soon as possible.
Anything else someone might throw out as a reason is just smokes and mirrors.
|
The real reason for sending them back would be for them not to return, of course. It does seem to make for a good companion to the H1-B ban made recently.
|
Not really sure what the point of it all is. If you look at the demographics of H1B it's mostly highly educated Indian or Chinese tech workers. Take a look at who runs America's most profitable companies nowadays and then think again what keeping those people out does. Everyone else would be glad to attract those workers, Trump is doing to the US what her enemies couldn't, it's fascinating.
|
On July 08 2020 06:59 Nyxisto wrote:
Not really sure what the point of it all is. If you look at the demographics of H1B it's mostly highly educated Indian or Chinese tech workers. Take a look at who runs America's most profitable companies nowadays and then think again what keeping those people out does. Everyone else would be glad to attract those workers, Trump is doing to the US what her enemies couldn't, it's fascinating.
I always wonder if the agents in Russia that helped get him elected were lavishly rewarded for what they did. Trump is like the golden goose for anyone wishing to see the US weakened and destabilized. The investment and effort must have been so small for them compared to the benefits reaped.
|
On July 08 2020 05:55 LegalLord wrote:
The real reason for sending them back would be for them not to return, of course. It does seem to make for a good companion to the H1-B ban made recently.
Sure, and for many trivially obvious reasons, it makes much more sense to reduce those numbers from future visas rather than kicking out people who are already here.
It plays to his brainless "fuck immigrants" base I guess, but otherwise kicking out students who are 1-3 years into a 4-year degree wastes resources at those educational institutions, and leaves holes in those graduating classes that aren't going to get filled by transfers. A change to future immigration policy otherwise means they can adjust admissions to get more American students, but kicking out a bunch of students in the middle of their degree doesn't serve anybody. It fucks over the students and schools while not really helping any American students that would take their place.
|
On July 08 2020 08:25 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2020 05:55 LegalLord wrote:
The real reason for sending them back would be for them not to return, of course. It does seem to make for a good companion to the H1-B ban made recently. Sure, and for many trivially obvious reasons, it makes much more sense to reduce those numbers from future visas rather than kicking out people who are already here. It plays to his brainless "fuck immigrants" base I guess, but otherwise kicking out students who are 1-3 years into a 4-year degree wastes resources at those educational institutions, and leaves holes in those graduating classes that aren't going to get filled by transfers. A change to future immigration policy otherwise means they can adjust admissions to get more American students, but kicking out a bunch of students in the middle of their degree doesn't serve anybody. It fucks over the students and schools while not really helping any American students that would take their place.
Yeah, I'm not really a fan of this. Dropping H1-B visas is one thing - the H1-B is very often (and accurately enough) referred to as a lottery, and they were never guaranteed nor entitled to placement within that program. This student visa thing seems more spiteful than anything else.
I see some very strong indications that universities intend to open up for the fall semester, almost regardless of how bad it is. I have little doubt that its visa students play no small part in their intent to do so.
|
On July 07 2020 06:39 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2020 03:18 IgnE wrote:
I understand why people think Europe is a better place to raise kids right now but looking 10-20 years down the road it is not at all clear to me that Europe will be a great place to live with job prospects. There are already (ie before covid) a lot of European countries with high unemployment, specifically youth unemployment. The demographics don’t look good. The debt burdens in a federated Euro system don’t look good. I am not saying the whole thing will definitely crumble but if you are thinking about emigrating in order to bet on the next generation’s prospects the situation is far more complicated than some of you are making it out to be. The US in comparison has the capacity for food independence, energy independence, market independence, and a younger demographic profile.
None of that speaks to aesthetic and lifestyle concerns that are only loosely related to material prosperity of course. That Europe 10-20 years in the future is pretty much Japan today and living there is relatively pleasant. The continent basically just needs some Abenomics to get everyone a job and the ageing isn't that big of a deal. I've talked to people in the US who blow tens of thousands of dollars on private schools just to get their kids a middle-class education. In the Netherlands, they'll give you an education for free, public transport and you're set basically. The situation is more complicated if you're a single guy with a STEM degree, then going to the US is a pretty good choice. As a family, hell no the US working hours and safety net looks bad.
Look, if you think workplace culture is bad in the US, multiply that by 20 for Japan. In addition, they're still in an economic malaise from the 90s, have pretty suffocating and unhealthy sub-cultures (you thought incels were awful?), high suicide rates, a declining demographic placing extreme burdens on the young, etc. There's of course lots of good to be found in Japan, but as a model...I don't think Europeans will be happy if the EU in 2 decades becomes what Japan is today.
|
On July 08 2020 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
The Harper's letter seems like people using free speech absolutism as a cover to whine about getting criticized from their left on a public platform.
As we all know D-day stands for "Debate Day"...
The fact you think "cancel culture" is just criticism is funny to me. Is this a common belief amongst that in-crowd? Give it another few years and you'll see these same people decry the thing they used to so dearly hold up. You saw it with that girl who lost out on a job interview because she talked about killing folks who disagreed with her (it was just a joke...where have I heard that before).
I'm surprised GH that you're well-read enough, but not apparently, well-versed in what happens to adherents of your belief system when it comes about. Who do you think the Bolsheviks killed first? (This is a parallel to be careful what you wish for)
|
On July 08 2020 08:21 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2020 06:59 Nyxisto wrote:
Not really sure what the point of it all is. If you look at the demographics of H1B it's mostly highly educated Indian or Chinese tech workers. Take a look at who runs America's most profitable companies nowadays and then think again what keeping those people out does. Everyone else would be glad to attract those workers, Trump is doing to the US what her enemies couldn't, it's fascinating. I always wonder if the agents in Russia that helped get him elected were lavishly rewarded for what they did. Trump is like the golden goose for anyone wishing to see the US weakened and destabilized. The investment and effort must have been so small for them compared to the benefits reaped.
Russians have nothing to do with US destabilization/balkanization. The erosion of federalist principles has caused this as this is primarily the only bulwark against becoming Yugoslavia/Bosnia or Yemen, or point to whatever sectarian cesspool. The idea of US unity is a myth. We are unified so as much as we have state-level autonomy; as more and more power becomes concentrated in DC and with the SCOTUS the fractious nature of US polity is more evident. You want to force CA to be like MS and MS to be like NY? You're going to get destabilization. I have no idea when or how, but continue to erode federalism and its assured the US will split like the USSR did. It's inevitable.
|
On July 08 2020 12:07 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2020 06:39 Nyxisto wrote:On July 07 2020 03:18 IgnE wrote:
I understand why people think Europe is a better place to raise kids right now but looking 10-20 years down the road it is not at all clear to me that Europe will be a great place to live with job prospects. There are already (ie before covid) a lot of European countries with high unemployment, specifically youth unemployment. The demographics don’t look good. The debt burdens in a federated Euro system don’t look good. I am not saying the whole thing will definitely crumble but if you are thinking about emigrating in order to bet on the next generation’s prospects the situation is far more complicated than some of you are making it out to be. The US in comparison has the capacity for food independence, energy independence, market independence, and a younger demographic profile.
None of that speaks to aesthetic and lifestyle concerns that are only loosely related to material prosperity of course. That Europe 10-20 years in the future is pretty much Japan today and living there is relatively pleasant. The continent basically just needs some Abenomics to get everyone a job and the ageing isn't that big of a deal. I've talked to people in the US who blow tens of thousands of dollars on private schools just to get their kids a middle-class education. In the Netherlands, they'll give you an education for free, public transport and you're set basically. The situation is more complicated if you're a single guy with a STEM degree, then going to the US is a pretty good choice. As a family, hell no the US working hours and safety net looks bad. Look, if you think workplace culture is bad in the US, multiply that by 20 for Japan. In addition, they're still in an economic malaise from the 90s, have pretty suffocating and unhealthy sub-cultures (you thought incels were awful?), high suicide rates, a declining demographic placing extreme burdens on the young, etc. There's of course lots of good to be found in Japan, but as a model...I don't think Europeans will be happy if the EU in 2 decades becomes what Japan is today.
I’m not sure why you’re bringing up half of these things because 99% of problems in Japanese society are untransferable to anywhere else in the world. There’s no culture of 頑張ります in Europe (or anywhere else really) and will never be.
The only real comparison is a large government, stagnant economy and ageing demographics which is why people use Japan as a model since that’s a problem most Western countries are going to face. Unlike Japan, most European nations have some degree of noteworthy amounts of immigration so the issue of labour shortages is less of an issue than it currently is in Japan. As far as the economy goes, life in Japan is still pretty comfortable especially if you’re not working in Tokyo or Osaka where it’s basically hell on earth. If Europe becomes like Japan minus the 頑張ります and refusal to accept any immigration, I don’t think most Europeans would really mind.
|
On July 08 2020 12:51 StalkerTL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2020 12:07 Wegandi wrote:On July 07 2020 06:39 Nyxisto wrote:On July 07 2020 03:18 IgnE wrote:
I understand why people think Europe is a better place to raise kids right now but looking 10-20 years down the road it is not at all clear to me that Europe will be a great place to live with job prospects. There are already (ie before covid) a lot of European countries with high unemployment, specifically youth unemployment. The demographics don’t look good. The debt burdens in a federated Euro system don’t look good. I am not saying the whole thing will definitely crumble but if you are thinking about emigrating in order to bet on the next generation’s prospects the situation is far more complicated than some of you are making it out to be. The US in comparison has the capacity for food independence, energy independence, market independence, and a younger demographic profile.
None of that speaks to aesthetic and lifestyle concerns that are only loosely related to material prosperity of course. That Europe 10-20 years in the future is pretty much Japan today and living there is relatively pleasant. The continent basically just needs some Abenomics to get everyone a job and the ageing isn't that big of a deal. I've talked to people in the US who blow tens of thousands of dollars on private schools just to get their kids a middle-class education. In the Netherlands, they'll give you an education for free, public transport and you're set basically. The situation is more complicated if you're a single guy with a STEM degree, then going to the US is a pretty good choice. As a family, hell no the US working hours and safety net looks bad. Look, if you think workplace culture is bad in the US, multiply that by 20 for Japan. In addition, they're still in an economic malaise from the 90s, have pretty suffocating and unhealthy sub-cultures (you thought incels were awful?), high suicide rates, a declining demographic placing extreme burdens on the young, etc. There's of course lots of good to be found in Japan, but as a model...I don't think Europeans will be happy if the EU in 2 decades becomes what Japan is today. I’m not sure why you’re bringing up half of these things because 99% of problems in Japanese society are untransferable to anywhere else in the world. There’s no culture of 頑張ります in Europe (or anywhere else really) and will never be. The only real comparison is a large government, stagnant economy and ageing demographics which is why people use Japan as a model since that’s a problem most Western countries are going to face. Unlike Japan, most European nations have some degree of noteworthy amounts of immigration so the issue of labour shortages is less of an issue than it currently is in Japan. As far as the economy goes, life in Japan is still pretty comfortable especially if you’re not working in Tokyo or Osaka where it’s basically hell on earth. If Europe becomes like Japan minus the 頑張ります and refusal to accept any immigration, I don’t think most Europeans would really mind.
I bring it up because the poster talked about Japan being relatively pleasant and the implication of how good it'll be for EU to be like Japan in 10-20 years. There are a lot of problems in Japan. Handwaving them away and only looking at the positives seems pretty biased. Something tells me that young folks living in the EU don't want Japanese suicide rates, don't want cultural burdens and expectations placed by an aging and majority demographic, etc. If you thought Baby Boomers in the US dictating policy and what politicians get elected sucks you're not going to like the future if you want Japan. It's so weird for me to see people celebrate low native birth rates while advocating for immigration to solve their labor issues, then in the same breath decrying labor exploitation like what you're advocating for isn't labor exploitation from third world countries? Iono man, if the future of the EU is Japan today that's not good.
|
On July 08 2020 13:09 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2020 12:51 StalkerTL wrote:On July 08 2020 12:07 Wegandi wrote:On July 07 2020 06:39 Nyxisto wrote:On July 07 2020 03:18 IgnE wrote:
I understand why people think Europe is a better place to raise kids right now but looking 10-20 years down the road it is not at all clear to me that Europe will be a great place to live with job prospects. There are already (ie before covid) a lot of European countries with high unemployment, specifically youth unemployment. The demographics don’t look good. The debt burdens in a federated Euro system don’t look good. I am not saying the whole thing will definitely crumble but if you are thinking about emigrating in order to bet on the next generation’s prospects the situation is far more complicated than some of you are making it out to be. The US in comparison has the capacity for food independence, energy independence, market independence, and a younger demographic profile.
None of that speaks to aesthetic and lifestyle concerns that are only loosely related to material prosperity of course. That Europe 10-20 years in the future is pretty much Japan today and living there is relatively pleasant. The continent basically just needs some Abenomics to get everyone a job and the ageing isn't that big of a deal. I've talked to people in the US who blow tens of thousands of dollars on private schools just to get their kids a middle-class education. In the Netherlands, they'll give you an education for free, public transport and you're set basically. The situation is more complicated if you're a single guy with a STEM degree, then going to the US is a pretty good choice. As a family, hell no the US working hours and safety net looks bad. Look, if you think workplace culture is bad in the US, multiply that by 20 for Japan. In addition, they're still in an economic malaise from the 90s, have pretty suffocating and unhealthy sub-cultures (you thought incels were awful?), high suicide rates, a declining demographic placing extreme burdens on the young, etc. There's of course lots of good to be found in Japan, but as a model...I don't think Europeans will be happy if the EU in 2 decades becomes what Japan is today. I’m not sure why you’re bringing up half of these things because 99% of problems in Japanese society are untransferable to anywhere else in the world. There’s no culture of 頑張ります in Europe (or anywhere else really) and will never be. The only real comparison is a large government, stagnant economy and ageing demographics which is why people use Japan as a model since that’s a problem most Western countries are going to face. Unlike Japan, most European nations have some degree of noteworthy amounts of immigration so the issue of labour shortages is less of an issue than it currently is in Japan. As far as the economy goes, life in Japan is still pretty comfortable especially if you’re not working in Tokyo or Osaka where it’s basically hell on earth. If Europe becomes like Japan minus the 頑張ります and refusal to accept any immigration, I don’t think most Europeans would really mind. I bring it up because the poster talked about Japan being relatively pleasant and the implication of how good it'll be for EU to be like Japan in 10-20 years. There are a lot of problems in Japan. Handwaving them away and only looking at the positives seems pretty biased. Something tells me that young folks living in the EU don't want Japanese suicide rates, don't want cultural burdens and expectations placed by an aging and majority demographic, etc. If you thought Baby Boomers in the US dictating policy and what politicians get elected sucks you're not going to like the future if you want Japan. It's so weird for me to see people celebrate low native birth rates while advocating for immigration to solve their labor issues, then in the same breath decrying labor exploitation like what you're advocating for isn't labor exploitation from third world countries? Iono man, if the future of the EU is Japan today that's not good.
Maybe you saw IgnE's post:
On July 07 2020 03:18 IgnE wrote:
I understand why people think Europe is a better place to raise kids right now but looking 10-20 years down the road it is not at all clear to me that Europe will be a great place to live with job prospects. There are already (ie before covid) a lot of European countries with high unemployment, specifically youth unemployment. The demographics don’t look good. The debt burdens in a federated Euro system don’t look good. I am not saying the whole thing will definitely crumble but if you are thinking about emigrating in order to bet on the next generation’s prospects the situation is far more complicated than some of you are making it out to be. The US in comparison has the capacity for food independence, energy independence, market independence, and a younger demographic profile.
None of that speaks to aesthetic and lifestyle concerns that are only loosely related to material prosperity of course.
I put even odds on whether or not in a decade or two, EU citizens want the EU to be more like the US. Monetary union and closer country integration have severe long-term risks. The right and far-right parties have had unheard-of results, if you zoom back to year 2000. This isn't so much to the credit of these parties, so poorly led and organized, but as a measure of the protest vote of unheard EU citizens.
|
On July 08 2020 15:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2020 13:09 Wegandi wrote:On July 08 2020 12:51 StalkerTL wrote:On July 08 2020 12:07 Wegandi wrote:On July 07 2020 06:39 Nyxisto wrote:On July 07 2020 03:18 IgnE wrote:
I understand why people think Europe is a better place to raise kids right now but looking 10-20 years down the road it is not at all clear to me that Europe will be a great place to live with job prospects. There are already (ie before covid) a lot of European countries with high unemployment, specifically youth unemployment. The demographics don’t look good. The debt burdens in a federated Euro system don’t look good. I am not saying the whole thing will definitely crumble but if you are thinking about emigrating in order to bet on the next generation’s prospects the situation is far more complicated than some of you are making it out to be. The US in comparison has the capacity for food independence, energy independence, market independence, and a younger demographic profile.
None of that speaks to aesthetic and lifestyle concerns that are only loosely related to material prosperity of course. That Europe 10-20 years in the future is pretty much Japan today and living there is relatively pleasant. The continent basically just needs some Abenomics to get everyone a job and the ageing isn't that big of a deal. I've talked to people in the US who blow tens of thousands of dollars on private schools just to get their kids a middle-class education. In the Netherlands, they'll give you an education for free, public transport and you're set basically. The situation is more complicated if you're a single guy with a STEM degree, then going to the US is a pretty good choice. As a family, hell no the US working hours and safety net looks bad. Look, if you think workplace culture is bad in the US, multiply that by 20 for Japan. In addition, they're still in an economic malaise from the 90s, have pretty suffocating and unhealthy sub-cultures (you thought incels were awful?), high suicide rates, a declining demographic placing extreme burdens on the young, etc. There's of course lots of good to be found in Japan, but as a model...I don't think Europeans will be happy if the EU in 2 decades becomes what Japan is today. I’m not sure why you’re bringing up half of these things because 99% of problems in Japanese society are untransferable to anywhere else in the world. There’s no culture of 頑張ります in Europe (or anywhere else really) and will never be. The only real comparison is a large government, stagnant economy and ageing demographics which is why people use Japan as a model since that’s a problem most Western countries are going to face. Unlike Japan, most European nations have some degree of noteworthy amounts of immigration so the issue of labour shortages is less of an issue than it currently is in Japan. As far as the economy goes, life in Japan is still pretty comfortable especially if you’re not working in Tokyo or Osaka where it’s basically hell on earth. If Europe becomes like Japan minus the 頑張ります and refusal to accept any immigration, I don’t think most Europeans would really mind. I bring it up because the poster talked about Japan being relatively pleasant and the implication of how good it'll be for EU to be like Japan in 10-20 years. There are a lot of problems in Japan. Handwaving them away and only looking at the positives seems pretty biased. Something tells me that young folks living in the EU don't want Japanese suicide rates, don't want cultural burdens and expectations placed by an aging and majority demographic, etc. If you thought Baby Boomers in the US dictating policy and what politicians get elected sucks you're not going to like the future if you want Japan. It's so weird for me to see people celebrate low native birth rates while advocating for immigration to solve their labor issues, then in the same breath decrying labor exploitation like what you're advocating for isn't labor exploitation from third world countries? Iono man, if the future of the EU is Japan today that's not good. Maybe you saw IgnE's post: Show nested quote +On July 07 2020 03:18 IgnE wrote:
I understand why people think Europe is a better place to raise kids right now but looking 10-20 years down the road it is not at all clear to me that Europe will be a great place to live with job prospects. There are already (ie before covid) a lot of European countries with high unemployment, specifically youth unemployment. The demographics don’t look good. The debt burdens in a federated Euro system don’t look good. I am not saying the whole thing will definitely crumble but if you are thinking about emigrating in order to bet on the next generation’s prospects the situation is far more complicated than some of you are making it out to be. The US in comparison has the capacity for food independence, energy independence, market independence, and a younger demographic profile.
None of that speaks to aesthetic and lifestyle concerns that are only loosely related to material prosperity of course. I put even odds on whether or not in a decade or two, EU citizens want the EU to be more like the US. Monetary union and closer country integration have severe long-term risks. The right and far-right parties have had unheard-of results, if you zoom back to year 2000. This isn't so much to the credit of these parties, so poorly led and organized, but as a measure of the protest vote of unheard EU citizens.
We'll see, I also don't have good prospects for EU a decade or two out. The PIIGS stuff is still unresolved and their demographics look awful. Immigration is still a hot button issue. Just wait. Anyways, maybe the "left" posters here who are thinking about moving would ya know instead embrace federalism/secession? Remember the 60s lefties when small was beautiful. Local was in vogue. Of course, they'll switch to this view while the "right" continues its nationalist trajectory. Bleh. Come on folks this should be common ground for us Americans. Either lets part ways or you gotta live with folks in different parts of the country live according to their values, not yours. Just so frustrating. Maybe NH libertarians will be the first to lead there (eventually) :p.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
