|
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 March 11 2021 02:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2021 02:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2021 01:55 farvacola wrote:On March 11 2021 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2021 01:14 farvacola wrote:On March 11 2021 01:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2021 00:57 KwarK wrote:
Patching the hole in a sinking boat is better than pumping out water, especially if water is pouring in more quickly than the pumps can remove it, but if all we can do right now is pump then a bigger pump is a win. At some point people will do the math and figure out that with either pump we're still all going to drown (including the poor people at the bottom of the boat drowning already) long before we reach the shore. That makes neither pump a win in my book. A win would be a plan to get to the shore, anything less is pretty literally a loss. Reducing suffering, even in the face of systemic, cataclysmic failure, is not an empty venture. Of course not. I don't think the food pantries I donate to are going to end world hunger either. You and kwark know that's not my argument. My point is that a viable plan to address the cataclysmic failures is being intentionally supplanted by "reducing (relocating) suffering" and intelligent/capable people like kwark and you especially are obligated imo to be honest about that and the future it portends. On March 11 2021 01:09 mierin wrote:On March 11 2021 01:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2021 00:57 KwarK wrote:
Patching the hole in a sinking boat is better than pumping out water, especially if water is pouring in more quickly than the pumps can remove it, but if all we can do right now is pump then a bigger pump is a win. At some point people will do the math and figure out that with either pump we're still all going to drown (including the poor people at the bottom of the boat drowning already) long before we reach the shore. That makes neither pump a win in my book. The problem is, making a pump 1% more efficient in your scenario causes people to make themselves feel like they're morally superior. Virtue signaling in a nutshell. I guess I could wear 1% of a mask going places and still be "going in the right direction". I'm all for getting a placebo instead of nothing as a last resort at the individual level, but I'd never accept a palliative placebo in exchange for dooming a generation at the society level. "Intentionally supplanted" is where there's a world of disagreement, there's plenty of room to believe that these measures are not placeholders for what would otherwise be monumental changes to how our government and society work. Depends on who we're talking about and what level of consciousness we attribute to the maliciousness of capitalism. I don't think your typical Democrat voter is intentionally supplanting the political will to avert impending doom, I think politicians and their corporate donors are so addicted to wealth and power that they intentionally supplant that will with gratification by placebo and ostensibly palliative 'care'. They have such influence/control and supplant that will to such a degree that we (according to the best science available) are ensuring global catastrophic ecological collapse (along with setting up the conditions for a civil war and attempted violent economic redistribution). EDIT: Part of what influences my perspective is that ~60 years ago Black people took to the streets for economic justice that reduced the racial wealth gap. 60 years and a whole lotta placebo/palliative (and assassinations of people like Fred Hampton) bullshit later, not only does the gap remain, it's likely worse. That sucks for me, but not nearly as much as it will for kids today if I spend 60 years accepting (let alone celebrating) the same placebo/palliative bs on climate (and the racial wealth gap for that matter). I’m curious about this wealth gap thing. What was the median wealth of a white household and a black household in 1960 and 2020? I ask because my feeling is that the system doesn’t especially care who it exploits as long as they’re exploited. An overdraft fee on the checking account of a white family in poverty tastes no less sweet.
The data is imperfect and a bit sparse on both ends of that range for a variety of reasons:
+ Show Spoiler +
In a vacuum capital/the system doesn't 'care', but in a society built on colonialism/genocide/slavery/etc there are social and systemic modifiers that have real world consequences. In the US's case this is the persistent exploitation, terrorizing, and killing of "non-white" people domestically and around the entire globe. We've gone over the amorphous nature of white club generally too.
|
United States42778 Posts
On March 11 2021 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2021 02:45 KwarK wrote:On March 11 2021 02:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2021 01:55 farvacola wrote:On March 11 2021 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2021 01:14 farvacola wrote:On March 11 2021 01:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2021 00:57 KwarK wrote:
Patching the hole in a sinking boat is better than pumping out water, especially if water is pouring in more quickly than the pumps can remove it, but if all we can do right now is pump then a bigger pump is a win. At some point people will do the math and figure out that with either pump we're still all going to drown (including the poor people at the bottom of the boat drowning already) long before we reach the shore. That makes neither pump a win in my book. A win would be a plan to get to the shore, anything less is pretty literally a loss. Reducing suffering, even in the face of systemic, cataclysmic failure, is not an empty venture. Of course not. I don't think the food pantries I donate to are going to end world hunger either. You and kwark know that's not my argument. My point is that a viable plan to address the cataclysmic failures is being intentionally supplanted by "reducing (relocating) suffering" and intelligent/capable people like kwark and you especially are obligated imo to be honest about that and the future it portends. On March 11 2021 01:09 mierin wrote:On March 11 2021 01:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2021 00:57 KwarK wrote:
Patching the hole in a sinking boat is better than pumping out water, especially if water is pouring in more quickly than the pumps can remove it, but if all we can do right now is pump then a bigger pump is a win. At some point people will do the math and figure out that with either pump we're still all going to drown (including the poor people at the bottom of the boat drowning already) long before we reach the shore. That makes neither pump a win in my book. The problem is, making a pump 1% more efficient in your scenario causes people to make themselves feel like they're morally superior. Virtue signaling in a nutshell. I guess I could wear 1% of a mask going places and still be "going in the right direction". I'm all for getting a placebo instead of nothing as a last resort at the individual level, but I'd never accept a palliative placebo in exchange for dooming a generation at the society level. "Intentionally supplanted" is where there's a world of disagreement, there's plenty of room to believe that these measures are not placeholders for what would otherwise be monumental changes to how our government and society work. Depends on who we're talking about and what level of consciousness we attribute to the maliciousness of capitalism. I don't think your typical Democrat voter is intentionally supplanting the political will to avert impending doom, I think politicians and their corporate donors are so addicted to wealth and power that they intentionally supplant that will with gratification by placebo and ostensibly palliative 'care'. They have such influence/control and supplant that will to such a degree that we (according to the best science available) are ensuring global catastrophic ecological collapse (along with setting up the conditions for a civil war and attempted violent economic redistribution). EDIT: Part of what influences my perspective is that ~60 years ago Black people took to the streets for economic justice that reduced the racial wealth gap. 60 years and a whole lotta placebo/palliative (and assassinations of people like Fred Hampton) bullshit later, not only does the gap remain, it's likely worse. That sucks for me, but not nearly as much as it will for kids today if I spend 60 years accepting (let alone celebrating) the same placebo/palliative bs on climate (and the racial wealth gap for that matter). I’m curious about this wealth gap thing. What was the median wealth of a white household and a black household in 1960 and 2020? I ask because my feeling is that the system doesn’t especially care who it exploits as long as they’re exploited. An overdraft fee on the checking account of a white family in poverty tastes no less sweet. The data is imperfect and a bit sparse on both ends of that range for a variety of reasons: + Show Spoiler +In a vacuum capital/the system doesn't 'care', but in a society built on colonialism/genocide/slavery/etc there are social and systemic modifiers that have real world consequences. In the US's case this is the persistent exploitation, terrorizing, and killing of "non-white" people domestically and around the entire globe. We've gone over the amorphous nature of white club generally too.
Thank you for the data. My hypothesis, in a vacuum, would be that the death of the middle class would result in a convergence of the median as the median in each case would largely represent the working poor who make up the largest part of the US population. I do not believe that the white working poor in the US have been doing well in the last 60 years, or at least not disproportionately so. Their position in society has degraded with the death of the union movement and labour intensive domestic industry.
The data implies otherwise. My first guess at the disparity would be the cumulative effect of property ownership. A greater rate of home ownership in the working white community than the working black would result in a steadily increasing difference in household worth, even if all other factors were equal. A legacy of red lining and historical real estate ownership.
|
On March 11 2021 04:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2021 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2021 02:45 KwarK wrote:On March 11 2021 02:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2021 01:55 farvacola wrote:On March 11 2021 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2021 01:14 farvacola wrote:On March 11 2021 01:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2021 00:57 KwarK wrote:
Patching the hole in a sinking boat is better than pumping out water, especially if water is pouring in more quickly than the pumps can remove it, but if all we can do right now is pump then a bigger pump is a win. At some point people will do the math and figure out that with either pump we're still all going to drown (including the poor people at the bottom of the boat drowning already) long before we reach the shore. That makes neither pump a win in my book. A win would be a plan to get to the shore, anything less is pretty literally a loss. Reducing suffering, even in the face of systemic, cataclysmic failure, is not an empty venture. Of course not. I don't think the food pantries I donate to are going to end world hunger either. You and kwark know that's not my argument. My point is that a viable plan to address the cataclysmic failures is being intentionally supplanted by "reducing (relocating) suffering" and intelligent/capable people like kwark and you especially are obligated imo to be honest about that and the future it portends. On March 11 2021 01:09 mierin wrote:On March 11 2021 01:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2021 00:57 KwarK wrote:
Patching the hole in a sinking boat is better than pumping out water, especially if water is pouring in more quickly than the pumps can remove it, but if all we can do right now is pump then a bigger pump is a win. At some point people will do the math and figure out that with either pump we're still all going to drown (including the poor people at the bottom of the boat drowning already) long before we reach the shore. That makes neither pump a win in my book. The problem is, making a pump 1% more efficient in your scenario causes people to make themselves feel like they're morally superior. Virtue signaling in a nutshell. I guess I could wear 1% of a mask going places and still be "going in the right direction". I'm all for getting a placebo instead of nothing as a last resort at the individual level, but I'd never accept a palliative placebo in exchange for dooming a generation at the society level. "Intentionally supplanted" is where there's a world of disagreement, there's plenty of room to believe that these measures are not placeholders for what would otherwise be monumental changes to how our government and society work. Depends on who we're talking about and what level of consciousness we attribute to the maliciousness of capitalism. I don't think your typical Democrat voter is intentionally supplanting the political will to avert impending doom, I think politicians and their corporate donors are so addicted to wealth and power that they intentionally supplant that will with gratification by placebo and ostensibly palliative 'care'. They have such influence/control and supplant that will to such a degree that we (according to the best science available) are ensuring global catastrophic ecological collapse (along with setting up the conditions for a civil war and attempted violent economic redistribution). EDIT: Part of what influences my perspective is that ~60 years ago Black people took to the streets for economic justice that reduced the racial wealth gap. 60 years and a whole lotta placebo/palliative (and assassinations of people like Fred Hampton) bullshit later, not only does the gap remain, it's likely worse. That sucks for me, but not nearly as much as it will for kids today if I spend 60 years accepting (let alone celebrating) the same placebo/palliative bs on climate (and the racial wealth gap for that matter). I’m curious about this wealth gap thing. What was the median wealth of a white household and a black household in 1960 and 2020? I ask because my feeling is that the system doesn’t especially care who it exploits as long as they’re exploited. An overdraft fee on the checking account of a white family in poverty tastes no less sweet. The data is imperfect and a bit sparse on both ends of that range for a variety of reasons: + Show Spoiler +In a vacuum capital/the system doesn't 'care', but in a society built on colonialism/genocide/slavery/etc there are social and systemic modifiers that have real world consequences. In the US's case this is the persistent exploitation, terrorizing, and killing of "non-white" people domestically and around the entire globe. We've gone over the amorphous nature of white club generally too. Thank you for the data. My hypothesis, in a vacuum, would be that the death of the middle class would result in a convergence of the median as the median in each case would largely represent the working poor who make up the largest part of the US population. I do not believe that the white working poor in the US have been doing well in the last 60 years, or at least not disproportionately so. Their position in society has degraded with the death of the union movement and labour intensive domestic industry. The data implies otherwise. My first guess at the disparity would be the cumulative effect of property ownership. A greater rate of home ownership in the working white community than the working black would result in a steadily increasing difference in household worth, even if all other factors were equal. A legacy of red lining and historical real estate ownership.
Indeed. This is one reason why I frequently point out the lasting consequences of the concessions (it's always throwing BIPoC under the bus) made by the left for FDR's New Deal and accepting/celebrating superficial/palliative "progress". Some highlights on this stuff from an old NPR story for people unfamiliar:
Richard Rothstein says the housing programs begun under the New Deal were tantamount to a "state-sponsored system of segregation."
The government's efforts were "primarily designed to provide housing to white, middle-class, lower-middle-class families," he says. African-Americans and other people of color were left out of the new suburban communities — and pushed instead into urban housing projects.
the Federal Housing Administration, which was established in 1934, furthered the segregation efforts by refusing to insure mortgages in and near African-American neighborhoods — a policy known as "redlining." At the same time, the FHA was subsidizing builders who were mass-producing entire subdivisions for whites — with the requirement that none of the homes be sold to African-Americans.
African-American wealth is about 5 percent of white wealth. Most middle-class families in this country gain their wealth from the equity they have in their homes. So this enormous difference between a 60 percent income ratio and a 5 percent wealth ratio is almost entirely attributable to federal housing policy implemented through the 20th century.
African-American families that were prohibited from buying homes in the suburbs in the 1940s and '50s and even into the '60s, by the Federal Housing Administration, gained none of the equity appreciation that whites gained.
www.npr.org
As we I think we all know at this point, the informal discrimination lasted much longer than just the 60's
|
Finally Garland got appointed. Sucks the Rs screwed him out of a SC seat. But as AG I think he can make swifter and more immediate impact on a wide range of things than he would have if he had held the seat.
A new chapter of Merrick Garland's long career in the law has opened after the Senate voted to pave the way for him to serve as attorney general.
The 70-30 vote for his confirmation comes five years after then-President Barack Obama nominated Garland to serve on the Supreme Court — a goal frustrated by Senate Republicans who refused to even consider a hearing for that post.
Garland, a moderate judge with deep prosecutorial experience, soon will lead a Justice Department reeling from political scandals and racing to confront the threat from violent home-grown extremists.
He has pledged that his first formal briefing and his highest priority will be bringing to justice the rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6, as well as the people who may have funded and organized that deadly attack in Washington as lawmakers met to certify the 2020 election.
Source
|
|
|
Soon enough working at McDonald's will "require" a college degree. Forgiveness is nice but it's not even approaching a solution to the student debt problem.
|
Soon enough McDonalds locations won't need to employ even a single living person, so that's a weird future problem to worry about.
|
Predictions of future societal doom and gloom usually rely on the assumption that whatever change precedes the doomsaying will continue in a linear fashion.
This is rarely proven correct.
|
On March 11 2021 06:30 farvacola wrote:
Soon enough McDonalds locations won't need to employ even a single living person, so that's a weird future problem to worry about.
Hopefully sooner than later. As was the case with every single job that became irrelevant and unnecessary throughout history (typists, people who connect phone calls...the list is enormous), humanity benefitted.
|
|
|
On March 11 2021 07:12 JimmiC wrote:
Do places that have free post secondary require university to work at mcdonalds? I was under the impression they do not.
High school is free, is that even a requirement?
Lots of people in high school work in fast food. It is one of the reasons people are like "Well why would I increase the minimum wage for people who are in high school?"
|
Funnily enough, the friends of mine who worked fast food in high school tend to say things like, "fuck that job, no one should have to work there" :D
|
|
|
On March 11 2021 07:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2021 07:40 Mohdoo wrote:On March 11 2021 07:12 JimmiC wrote:
Do places that have free post secondary require university to work at mcdonalds? I was under the impression they do not.
High school is free, is that even a requirement? Lots of people in high school work in fast food. It is one of the reasons people are like "Well why would I increase the minimum wage for people who are in high school?" Maybe he meant like Farva was saying and because it will be all automated they will all need compsci degree's and so on. Because otherwise it is just wrong on like 10 different levels.
If it requires an engineering degree it will be because that person is monitoring hundreds of stores at once.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 11 2021 07:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2021 06:30 farvacola wrote:
Soon enough McDonalds locations won't need to employ even a single living person, so that's a weird future problem to worry about. Hopefully sooner than later. As was the case with every single job that became irrelevant and unnecessary throughout history (typists, people who connect phone calls...the list is enormous), humanity benefitted.
The sooner everyone just learns to code, the better.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland25468 Posts
On March 11 2021 07:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2021 06:30 farvacola wrote:
Soon enough McDonalds locations won't need to employ even a single living person, so that's a weird future problem to worry about. Hopefully sooner than later. As was the case with every single job that became irrelevant and unnecessary throughout history (typists, people who connect phone calls...the list is enormous), humanity benefitted.
I’m not sure that trend continues in perpetuity without serious societal restructuring, at some stage. I’d like to be optimistic on adaptation but hm
|
On March 11 2021 08:09 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2021 07:12 Mohdoo wrote:On March 11 2021 06:30 farvacola wrote:
Soon enough McDonalds locations won't need to employ even a single living person, so that's a weird future problem to worry about. Hopefully sooner than later. As was the case with every single job that became irrelevant and unnecessary throughout history (typists, people who connect phone calls...the list is enormous), humanity benefitted. I’m not sure that trend continues in perpetuity without serious societal restructuring, at some stage. I’d like to be optimistic on adaptation but hm
Until we've colonized the entire universe there will always be work to do. We've restructured our culture and society numerous times since humanity was living in caves. We'll do it hundreds of times after automation.
|
On March 11 2021 09:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2021 08:09 WombaT wrote:On March 11 2021 07:12 Mohdoo wrote:On March 11 2021 06:30 farvacola wrote:
Soon enough McDonalds locations won't need to employ even a single living person, so that's a weird future problem to worry about. Hopefully sooner than later. As was the case with every single job that became irrelevant and unnecessary throughout history (typists, people who connect phone calls...the list is enormous), humanity benefitted. I’m not sure that trend continues in perpetuity without serious societal restructuring, at some stage. I’d like to be optimistic on adaptation but hm Until we've colonized the entire universe there will always be work to do. We've restructured our culture and society numerous times since humanity was living in caves. We'll do it hundreds of times after automation.
I do hope we meet the basic material needs of all the people on this planet before we start creating poor people on other planets.
|
On March 11 2021 11:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2021 09:37 Mohdoo wrote:On March 11 2021 08:09 WombaT wrote:On March 11 2021 07:12 Mohdoo wrote:On March 11 2021 06:30 farvacola wrote:
Soon enough McDonalds locations won't need to employ even a single living person, so that's a weird future problem to worry about. Hopefully sooner than later. As was the case with every single job that became irrelevant and unnecessary throughout history (typists, people who connect phone calls...the list is enormous), humanity benefitted. I’m not sure that trend continues in perpetuity without serious societal restructuring, at some stage. I’d like to be optimistic on adaptation but hm Until we've colonized the entire universe there will always be work to do. We've restructured our culture and society numerous times since humanity was living in caves. We'll do it hundreds of times after automation. I do hope we meet the basic material needs of all the people on this planet before we start creating poor people on other planets.
There will always be poor people. Always.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/06/ST_2016.06.27_race-inequality-ch1-05.png?w=310)
![[image loading]](https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/newshour/app/uploads/2015/02/Urban.WealthByRace-avg3-1024x564.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/newshour/app/uploads/2015/02/Urban.WealthRaceOverLifetime-avg4-1024x585.jpg)
