Having marched in the 60s (and my Bernie-clone journalist-father sided early with MLK) and having mourned both King & Bobby, I know tense times can push radicalization that ranges from overdue ferocity (#MeToo and BLM and toppling confed statues) all the way to over-wrought and unhelpful shrieks, or even enemy agitprop. Time tells the difference, of course, and often I've needed to change where I drew those lines, for example when I revised my opinion of Malcolm X. (Let's have some fun and put him on Lee's pedestal!)
Alas, I will get dissed for even raising the fact that this spectrum -- ranging from long-overdue fury and fed-up activism to unhelpful radical preening*, to falling for KGB/KKK agitprop lures -- even exists. Those applying purity tests (that they conveniently get to rule-upon) won't accept me as an ally, however hard or long or effectively I have fought for the Great Experiment. (Far more effectively than most of those radical judges.)
As for Churchill, whose statue is now under attack? Was he a man of his times who said things cringeworthy by later standards? Absolutely. Though Gandhi also freely admitted that his guilt-tripping tactics could only sway the public conscience of a British public that HAD a conscience, and that most empires - especially those of Hitler or Stalin - would simply have rubbed him out, with a shrug.
Only fools ignore how crucial Churchill was - for all his faults - at unifying resistance to those vastly more-evil empires. Can you truly claim to be anti-nazi while howling at the one person who most-consistently and effectively thwarted Hitler's mad dreams?
Elsewhere I quote Fredrick Douglass's eulogy of Abraham Lincoln (look it up!) where he avows that he spent years frustrated with Lincoln's seemingly tepid abolitionism... till he realized that there could have been no ally better suited and positioned to steer a path through perilous times and bring the needed change.
When judging historical figures, one test stands above all others. Did he or she strive to move the needle forward? Were they substantially better than those they led and better than their times? By that standard, Jefferson and Washington led, even in the cautionary tale of their self-admitted hypocrisies, but especially in setting momentum to a ponderously too-slow but inexorable arc of history and justice that, for all its frustrating faults, shines brightly against all the rest of the last 10,000 wretched years. A momentum that today's activists replicate, reinforce and re-invigorate.
Gene Roddenberry put women crew in miniskirts and made Uhura a receptionist, and we had to wait a long time for Sisko. So was GR a sexist-racist pig? Or was he the fellow who lifted our gaze from a morass of sci fi dystopias to imagine a better future of justice and peace, when all of these issues will be viewed in retrospect as the weird reflexes of frightened caveman ancestors? See what MLK said about Star Trek, before you blurt a reflex answer.
We're now in the fight of our lifetimes to preserve that Experiment. To prove that government of, for and by the people shall not perish from the Earth. Some would split our coalition with obsessive symbolism attacks aimed not at redressing injustice, but preening a high virtue-classification for themselves, while offending the very public whose support we need, right now.
I draw that line between confederate statues (boo!) and taking Jackson off the $20 bill and painting BLM on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of Trump's stolen house (choice!), on the one hand - and Churchill and Washington on the other.
I draw that line between confederate statues (boo!) and taking Jackson off the $20 bill and painting BLM on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of Trump's stolen house (choice!), on the one hand - and Churchill and Washington on the other.
But I HAVE BEEN WRONG BEFORE. I'll even listen.
Will you?
== Beware of allies who would weaken us ==
* Again this is about splitterism. Shall we seek a broad Union Coalition to win this Phase Eight of the American Civil War? Or take pleasure in offending the very allies that we need?
Because if we don't win it crushingly at the ballot box in November, we may be forced into a much worse Phase Nine. Take a hint from the recent "Generals' Revolt." We need allies now, more than ever.
I arm you here with all you need, in order to quash those splitter mantras. Get to know these facts, so you can show the splitters they are factually wrong, in almost every respect! And yes, there's much more in Polemical Judo.
== It's the cop unions, stupid ==
I predicted in The Transparent Society (1997) that cop-cams and bystander video recordings would hold police accountable… though perhaps in grudging increments. Even earlier, in my novel Earth (1991) I talked about how there would be *fewer* police in a future when all citizens can record whatever they see with their eyes… when most kinds of violent street crime largely vanish because it is always caught. (The Seattle experiment could preview this result… at least during its zealous “co-op” phase.)
That - of course - is how to “defund the police”… by reducing our need for them, plus ensuring that only grownups get on the force, because cameras catch imbeciles like these Chicago fools lunging in a congressman’s office while their city was being looted.
Cop unions around the country must decide - right now - whether they are here to protect the assholes, or to protect good cops from the assholes. There is no longer any middle ground, and the "good majority" needs to say so.
== Late notes ==
Vote Veterans pushes candidates for office who have served. Yes, most are Democrats. That’s a trend based on a lot of things, including the devolution of the Republican Party into fact-hating virulence and madness. So these folks are stepping up to defend America again. Oh, I wouldn’t mind a bit if Joe chose Tammy Duckworth. Look her up.
Six former confederate states plus (you’d guess) Indiana use age as an excuse to limit use of absentee ballots, violating (as asserted by Equal Citizen) the 26th Amendment.
Finally... Borowitz is a national treasure!
116 comments:
"(The Seattle experiment could show this result… at least during its zealous “co-op” phase.)"
Today in the CHAZ, a man who claimed to be siding with the protesters broke a window. The other people in the area stopped him, took away the hammer he'd used, and calmly escorted him out of the CHAZ, while a rap producer quietly explained why what he'd done was wrong. (The gentleman involved didn't seem to comprehend what the message of the protest even was.)
So far, so good.
(Video is on Twitter - can't link it here as I usually use my phone and can't recall my password just now...)
In the UK I think the only ones that are even mentioning Churchill are those that are seeking to discredit the movement. They are trying to erode public support from those that seek to remove statues to slavers and more importantly achieve real change. Rather than address the very real issues of systemic racism, they deflect and distract by making it seem that they want to take down statues of Churchill. (There was one issue of graffiti but no movement to remove Churchill's statue.) It's the standard bait and switch. Amazing how fast it went from "what's next Churchill" to attacking what no-one suggested, to trying to discredit the whole movement as being anti Churchill. (Not suggesting you are doing that but that political leaders here in the UK definitely are.)
Jon S... they need to ease the police back in, making clear at each step... "You may assign a couple of detectives to ensure we aren't extorting businesses... plus a desk sergeant at the precinct house to formalize things, if we arrest someone doing really bad things. All else must be earned... by you... while we prove our new way works."
While I'm all for symbols and realise how powerful they are, sometimes they can be used to pretend to do something while avoiding real change. It's easy enough to edit or label old TV shows. It's also easy enough to hire black writers, show runners, ... and pay them the same as white ones. They're doing the first one, time will tell whether the second will follow.
The CHAZ amuses me. Hopefully, the thing doesn't end violently. Trump fumes, but gets yelled back at - from a mere mayor ("Make us all safe. Go back to your bunker.")
He has lost all presidential authority over Seattle. That must nag on him. Poor Boy.
A German Nurse:
He [Trump] has lost all presidential authority over Seattle.
And Illinois, and I'm guessing California as well.
Hi Guys
An interesting post about policing from an ex-Republican
https://www.politicalorphans.com/the-real-crisis-in-policing-collapsing-crime-rates/#comment-19141
Chris talks about the reduction in crime
IMHO it's actually almost a bit more subtle
The people in charge NOW - my generation - the Boomers - not only think of crime levels as being high but also as INCREASING - crime was increasing as we were growing up and that situation is our "normal"
Remember the Science fiction that we were brought up on - the lawless cities the huge criminal underclass
The world has changed - but too many of my generation have not
A German Nurse, (from last thread)
Any ideas on this?
Yah. Leave them be. As long as investors are involved in these projects, insurers will be too. And creditors. Especially creditors... who are the people who have little to gain (a percentage on a loan) and everything to lose (the principle) when things actually go well. These folks vote with their money and tend to create at least an extra-legal framework to enforce contracts and standards. We might not like the details of what they choose to enforce, but that's what pitchforks and torches are for.
We've done this before. Quite a few times. American memory of it is fading, but we did it on our western frontier long before federal and territorial officials were strong enough to enforce anything. In fact, here in California, the federal officials disagreed with the locals on who owned what. In the end, they were forced to accept the locals view of things... because the locals were voters. Guess who they voted into office over the years? Sure wasn't people opposed to their extra-legal framework... which got adopted and made legal... warts and all.
Kal Lallevig,
I'm with you regarding convicts as a form of slavery, but not so much with minimum wage. Early proponents of minimum wage were highly interested in keeping out the riff-raff. By modern standards, we'd probably judge them to be racist, classist, or some such thing. As for proponents today, I think they labor under a bad assumption. Those kinds of jobs are not things to cherish. Many are soul-crushingly boring. Want fries with that? Ugh.
I've worked at minimum wage jobs. By choice. It was useful at the time, but obviously no a long term solution for sustaining the way of life I intended to create. Oddly enough (heh) that phase of my life came to a crashing halt when I met the women I fell in love with and intended to marry. Amazing, huh? Poverty and marriage should not be mixed if one can help it since a huge divorce risk involves financial stress. I knew the theory, but that wasn't what moved me to change course. Biology did.
However, if I had been deprived of those minimum wage jobs because the employer could not make the business case work at a higher wage, I would have been harmed. I need supplemental income while I was looking for a teaching position. The credit cards don't pay themselves. I had rent covered another way, but not much else. Paycheck-to-paycheck was coupled with worry and hope. I did temp work when necessary and had no intention of staying at that level, but I could see that my employers didn't expect more than that from me either. They knew full well that all of us doing that kind of work would be there one day and gone another… and they were okay with that.
'Wage Slaves' are rarely coerced to stay, so I prefer not to call them slaves. What keeps them? Unfortunately, it is often learned hopelessness. That's damn hard to beat. No wage improvement will do it.
Larry,
how much North American colonial history took place between the Mayflower and the Revolution
Heh. Yah. My early education kinda skipped over a lot of that too. It skipped over a lot afterward as well. It wasn't until my HS junior year that I got history teachers that wanted to get at least some of it right. The Boy Scouts sure didn't.
The nicest way I know to put it to show just how much HAD to be happening during that period is to run down a list of what was happening to other colonial powers. In England alone, they went through a huge civil war, an invited Dutch invasion to displace a King inclined to Catholicism, the take-over of Scotland and eventual formation of the UK, the stealing of the Dutch commercial empire, and countless little wars with France. [Colonial profits alone would never have been sufficient to pay for those wars. It's quite a story to learn how exactly they financed it all.]
Since English colonies were expected to produce trade goods for their colonial masters, they had to deal with all this. And then there were the Natives, nearby Spaniards who thought they owned most of the New World, and the fact that this New World didn't have Old World domesticated animals and plants. There were multiple invasions of every sort to plan and accomplish.
Only barbarians need apply! 8)
There ARE some cringe-worthy moments in TOS, but I defer to the actors stories of the time to know whether the people involved were good or not.
Nichols is already on record for anyone wanting a first-hand account, so I'm inclined to be dismissive of anyone arguing against her view of it. They better have a damn good case that defeats her experience. Not very likely.
History shows that sometimes great leaders emerge from tepid prospects. Lincoln in 1860 was widely viewed in the north as a weak moderate whose election might be least objectionable to the slavers. FDR was seen in 1932 as an amiable lightweight whose only real redeeming feature was that he wasn't Hoover. Churchill was widely seen as a disastrous incompetent but was the only candidate Parliament could agree upon for a coalition government in a situation were there was really little to lose. LBJ was a compromise VP candidate, one meant to reassure the south that JFK's race-mixing ways might be curtailed.
Sometimes, of course, weak compromise candidates turn out to be useless or worse. History has lots of examples of those, too. But events, the national will, and the general zeitgeist can mould a great leader out of an unlikely prospect. Biden doesn't show signs of greatness, but he does have the elements that can result in greatness being thrust upon him. At part is up to the rest of us. To defeat the latest incarnation of confederates and nazis, we must create a leader.
Dr Brin in the main post:
Gene Roddenberry put women crew in miniskirts and made Uhura a receptionist, and we had to wait a long time for Sisko. So was GR a sexist-racist pig? Or was he the fellow who lifted our gaze from a morass of sci fi dystopias to imagine a better future of justice and peace,...
First of all, I wouldn't say Roddenberry put women in miniskirts, which sounds as if he forced them to dress that way against their will. The story I heard was that he originally had both sexes in unisex pants, much as they were dressed in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. It was the female actors, specifically the one who played Yeoman Rand, who complained that it made her look too much like the men. She wanted to show off her legs.
People in this modern age seem to forget that young baby boomers liked to show off their sexuality. Short skirts were the style at the time--I remember because I came of age just too late to appreciate it. :) Even "liberated" tv women like Mary Tyler Moore and That Girl wore revealing skirts, although admittedly maybe not quite that short.
Alfred Differ:
There ARE some cringe-worthy moments in TOS...
Well, not as bad as that contemporary episode of the Adam West Batman in which Barbara Rush plays a feminist who replaces Commissioner Gordon and then puts only women on the police force. She gets the job by enlisting the mayor's wife to insist. "She wouldn't cook or clean until I gave in. I've been wearing the same shirt for weeks!"
So then there are comic scenes of police women trading recipes and such while bank robbers run unnoticed right past them. "And if you think I'm going to chase him in my new Givenchy shoes..."
The reason for all this was so she can cash in on an insurance policy when she destroys Gotham City with thousands of exploding toy mice. Because, you know, police women would be too terrified of mice to do anything. That was cringe-worthy even the first time I saw it when I was seven. Funny, though.
Nichols has stated that the skirts on TOS uniforms were seen by the actors as empowering, as Starfleet dress codes permitted women to wear pants as well - they chose to wear those skirts. (And she also shortened hers as much as the censors would permit, but then again if I had legs like that I'd want to show them off too!)
TNG also had a skirt uniform worn by male personnel during the first season, but that was later ignored (although you can get it as a uniform option in Star Trek Online, both with the TNG and TOS uniforms and as an option with the 25th-century Cadet and Odyssey uniforms, and of course it can be used with almost any uniform top as well - seen plenty of Romulans and Klingons using it too).
Okay this political ad hits hard, quoting Sen. Lindsey Graham dissing Donald Trump and praising the kindness and decency of Joe Biden: ““If you can’t admire Joe Biden as a person, there’s probably, you got a problem. You need to do some self-evaluation, because what’s not to like?” Graham continues saying, “He is as good a man as God ever created. He said some of the most incredibly heartfelt things that anybody could ever say to me. He’s the nicest person I think I’ve ever met politics.”
Of course you know some of what Lindsey sad about ol. Two Scoops, like: “This is a defining moment in the future of the Republican Party. We have to reject this demagoguery. And if we don’t reject Donald Trump, we’ve lost the moral authority, in my view, to govern this great nation.”
But watch it yourself and ask: “What happened to this man?” Well, blatantly blackmail. But Graham could still find a way out of hell. By turning the tables on his blackmailers.
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/lindsey-graham-praises-joe-biden-trashes-trump-in-brutal-ad-featuring-past-comments/
If this hasn't been noted here before -
There is a youtube interview where Nichelle Nichols describes Martin Luther King telling her she could NOT leave ST:TOS after the first season (for better roles) because of what she stood for - a black female officer woman on the bridge of a starship. I recommend listening to it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSq_UIuxba8
Pappenheimer
@Alfred
Those kinds of jobs are not things to cherish. Many are soul-crushingly boring. Want fries with that? Ugh.
Agreed. Jobs that can be done by machines, should be done by machines.
'Wage Slaves' are rarely coerced to stay, so I prefer not to call them slaves. What keeps them? Unfortunately, it is often learned hopelessness. That's damn hard to beat. No wage improvement will do it.
I've been reading your comments long enough to know you must be in the upper maybe 1/2% intellectually, so for you minimum wage was a matter of choice. Wage slaves do not have that choice. Many do have some choice, just not a realistic option to change their world. Face it, your/our 'wealth' is only possible because all those less talented or trapped 'essential workers' do not receive a living wage.
Some of that wealth should be redistributed, probably in the form of Universal Basic Income. Given a realistic option for our 'essential workers', it would be interesting to see what happened to their wage scales.
In Australia the debatable statues are Cook, and various Governors (and Prime Ministers). Some deserve a paint job more than others, as do the people who positioned them.
Targetting Cook is patently ridiculous. He played the same role of inevitable contact as Colombus (and was a better character). Ditto Phillips. Although he headed the First Fleet that arrived in Botany Bay on 'Invasion Day', and was first Governor of a penal colony, he was actually a very enlightened man. Contemporary to Wilberforce, and having witnessed how plantations were run in the West Indies, he specifically stated in the founding articles that slavery (ie person ownership) was forbidden. Convict labour? Well, yes, but only until their sentence was up. Liberty was even permitted prior: as a 'ticket of leave' that couldn't return to UK.
Time for a qualification, though. Morrison has just got himself in hot water for overextending Phillips and stating that there was *never* any slavery in Australia. There was. It should be remembered that Australia was founded from several colonies, not all of whose leaders were as fair minded as Phillips (who only lasted four years, anyway).
Views of colonial heroes are understandably very different from the indigenous point of view. Hence the move to change the date of Australia Day from 'Invasion Day'. There are a number of possible alternative dates.
I agree the line is drawn between the Confederates on one side, and Churchill and Washington on the other. I am also starting to think this entire argument over the symbols of fort names, statues, and landmarks is becoming an ad hoc/informal "Truth and Reconciliation Commission," which I welcome.
Dr Brin:
“What happened to this man [Lindsey Graham] ?” Well, blatantly blackmail.
Is it possible that John McCain is really still alive and being held in a gulag somewhere? Like any good story, it explains a lot.
With Graham, the consensus seems to be that he is being blackmailed, but the nature of said blackmail remains a mystery. That he's gay? That's the worst-kept secret in Washington. It would be like me saying to the Doctor, "I want $100,000 in small, unmarked bills or I go to the press and tell them you write science fiction!" No, if Graham is hiding someting that Trump knows about, it's much worse. Perhaps Jeffrey Epstein worse.
Zepp there are many thresholds. LG might be safe from legal consequences for gayness... but for re-election? Even that, maybeas Carolinians may preen about how modern they have become. But orgies? Under-age prostitutes? One can easily envision Epstein level stuff. But the biggest is the fact OF the blackmail. That he let matters of public interest and good be swayed for his own political survival. That's the end.
THE THREE DEFINING RULES OF GROUPTHINK
1 That a group of people come to share a common view, opinion or belief that in some way is not based on objective reality. They may be convinced intellectually, morally, politically or even scientifically that it is right. They may be sure from all the evidence they have considered that it is so. But their belief cannot ultimately be tested in a way which could confirm it beyond doubt. It is based on a picture of the world as they imagine to be, or would like it to be. In essence, their collective view will always have in it an element of wishful thinking or make-believe.
2 That, precisely because their shared view is essentially subjective, they need to go out of their way to insist it is so self-evidently right that a ‘consensus’ of all right-minded people must agree with it. Their belief has made them an ‘in-group’, which accepts that any evidence which contradicts it, and the views of anyone who does not agree with it, can be disregarded.
3 The most revealing consequence of this. To reinforce their ‘in-group’ conviction that they are right, they need to treat the views of anyone who questions it as wholly unacceptable. They are incapable of engaging in any serious dialogue or debate with those who disagree with them. Those outside the bubble must be marginalized and ignored, although, if necessary, their views must be mercilessly caricatured to make them seem ridiculous. If this is not enough, they must be attacked in the most violently contemptuous terms, usually with the aid of some scornfully dismissive label, and somehow morally discredited. The thing which most characterizes any form of groupthink is that dissent cannot be tolerated.
From Groupthink, A study in Self-Delusion by Christopher Booker
In Germany, we don't have many statues related to colonialism, either because the attempts to participate in the triangle trade abysmally failed, or the time having actual colonies were short. Yet, throughout the last few weeks, a remarkable discussion has started about a various number of things:
- Replacing the word "Race" with "of ethnical or territorial origin" in the Basic Law (Constitutional Change!);
- Negotiations about the Herero massacre in Namibia (as far as I have understood it, the main issue is the question who should get the money - the Ovambo-dominated government or the actual Herero and Nami descendants.)
- The various state ministers of Interior running amok because of the new Berlin law that introduces Reverse Onus to cases of racism (they threaten to withhold police officers aiding out Berlin, which might prove a successful tactic)
- General discussions about police brutality, especially vs. minorities, and a factual qualified immunity (though not as an issue as in the US, it IS an issue I'd like to be addressed, in order to make our society more perfect)
I said this elsewhere: police unions are labor unions in the same sense that chewing gum is a food.
Confessions of a Former Bastard Cop, in which a former policeman explains why All Cops Are Bastards. In short, the entire structure of US policing trains, inculcates, even forces officers to act as thugs for oligarchy, and spits out those who don't. The institution itself is a bastard.
Money quote:
Police officers do not protect and serve people, they protect and serve the status quo, “polite society”, and private property. Using the incremental mechanisms of the status quo will never reform the police because the status quo relies on police violence to exist. Capitalism requires a permanent underclass to exploit for cheap labor and it requires the cops to bring that underclass to heel.
This is why the institution of policing needs radical reform, demilitarization, and massive defunding (the money should go to schools, healthcare, housing, social work, etc.) The oligarchs and monsters in high places Dr. Brins warns of: the Putins, the Xi Jinpings, the Kims, the Bolsonaros, the Saudi royalty and yes the Trumps of the world, NONE of them could do what they do without their police. The more free a country, the milder the policing is... and that's not mere coincidence.
@Epstein: I assume he was killed, and the way it was done so, I could only imagine it was either a) to protect Prince Andrew (which would imply the MI6 has done it) or b) Trump (which would imply that either the Russians themselves or a freelancer in one of either Barrs or Cohens little black book has/have done it).
If LG was tied to Epstein, and knows Trump is tied to him because he blackmailed him, he is a danger to Trump if version b) is correct - because, should he come forward, his remaining presence on Earth could be measured in hours. Perhaps LG nows this that even the FBI and Secret Service combined couldn't protect him from Trump.
Another thought is: If the assumption of Epstein having been killed is correct, then, may be, there might be other people who have disappeared or suicided. After all, if someone is that bold to kill someone in a prison in custody, then he will have almost no qualms to kill a sex worker (if paying off should not work).
Perhaps Trump has shown him what happens to traitors?
I suspect that part of the issue with Graham is that he let himself be blackmailed the first few times out of fear of what his constituents would think if they learned he was a transvestite bisexual - but now his blackmailers can also hold over him the things he did for them when he was blackmailed before. He might lose his office over his personal life, but he might go to prison for, say, a little light treason.
Perhaps Graham has done the minimal stuff that Epstein (astonishingly) did not, and that's to create cached, confessional revenge videos and evidence, to auto-deply if he is ever eliminated. Hence he gets to stay alive.
But he must calculate. If the GOP is torched in November, who and what will then protect him or fear the caches? His best move NOW is to start sub-rosa negotations with an influential democrat - say Eric Holder. Better yet Harry Reid. For a possible pardon in 2021 if he tells all in 2020.
A German Nurse,
Epstein was apolitical in relation to whom he frequented. His friends or whatever you want to call them are a list of important people from both sides of the aisle. You may want to mention only those whom you don't like but in a serious discussion you would also have to mention that Bill Clinton was one of his most frequent fliers to his island paradise in the Virgin Islands. The pilot flight logs during the trial revealed this. I am sure you have run across this bit of information before but it probably didn't register.
Deuxglass:
You are right, I have run across that information, but dismissed it (perhaps to quickly) out of two reasons: He had (probably) less to loose than Trump or Prince Andrew (or the British monarchy, as he perhaps don't have to know about it), as the election was over when Epstein was killed. And even as an Ex-President, he might not have the "right" connections in New York to pull this off anymore. So I ruled him out (perhaps prematurely). Perhaps someone else is guilty, someone nobody had on the screen. Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps ... I doubt anything will ever be proven. We will probably never know for sure. It cannot be discussed seriously unless additional evidence shows up beyond what we know (authopsy reports, the fact that the camera was offline, the mysterious prison guard no one knew, Barr's visit to him, the faked protocols... and cui bono).
Wait. Barr visited Epstein in jail?
Kal Kallevig,
Many do have some choice, just not a realistic option to change their world.
Others have pointed this out to me, but I still think they are mistaken. If I'm in the upper 1/2% intellectually, it isn't because I'm all that special. I DID have an advantage by having smart parents who managed to convince me to pursue my education, but those years of schooling taught stuff that is mostly unrelated to the point. You become what you imagine yourself to be (mostly) if you work at it hard enough. Smart parents help. Cheap access to education helps. Supportive friends help. It has to start with you at the core, though, and the first lesson is the same for all of us. Learned Helplessness is a tragedy to be avoided at all costs.
My siblings all had essentially the same opportunities, but we took different paths. All were smart, but we had differing degrees of self-confidence. None of us stayed with minimum wage jobs, though, because none of us imagined ourselves as trapped.
Face it, your/our 'wealth' is only possible because all those less talented or trapped 'essential workers' do not receive a living wage.
No. I flatly disagree.
I'd be MUCH better off if they didn't live a life of learned helplessness.
MUCH, MUCH better off.
(Assuming our civilization survives a few more centuries, historians will note this about us. There is a correlation that is very likely a causation.)
I'd be able to buy a ticket to the Moon by now, or something like that. I watch people cheering SpaceX launches and imagining themselves as part of successful teams, though, and I find optimism in the experience. We don't ALL have to shed the tragic lesson for our civilization to succeed, but we'd be better off if we did.
This is up to parents mostly.
Don't teach learned helplessness.
Don't protect them from being too hopeful.
They'll learn limits elsewhere, but probably not the ones parents think apply.
Quick checked it.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/08/baseless-claim-about-barr-visit-to-epstein-prison/
I admit that I might have been wrong on this one, so I beg your pardon.
Graham may be in Trump's pocket now, but a group called Republican Voters Against Trump has weaponized Graham's previous words against Trump rather nicely.
To answer your question from last thread, Dr. Brin, Kittenfish is growing like a weed and smart as a whip... when she's not asleep, as she is in my lap right this moment.
I recently re-viewed the TNG episode "Birthright", in which Data suddenly discovers the dormant dream circuits he's unwittingly had since his creation, opening a whole new realm of experiences and joys that he barely could describe before. Parenthood feels much like that to me.
Deuxglass: your excerpt on the nature of groupthink has caused me to appreciate much more how laypeople, and sometimes even scientists, can mistake scientific consensus for groupthink. It's all in Popper's distinction of falsifiable vs. non-falsifiable. If you don't understand how anyone could prove or disprove X, you're likely to take claims of high certainty for either X or not-X less seriously. And once you think it's a belief and not a detectable reality, it seems more reasonable to treat "science" as just another belief system, to be considered and compared in the same ways as philosophies and religions -- and measured against their benchmarks.
That's how people can rationally (but wrongly) match evolution up against a literal interpretation of Genesis, or think that climate change remains unproven, or declaim the danger of a pandemic. And it's why the idea of teaching science as a set of facts, rather than a process and thought pattern, has been such a massive misfire of American education.
On learned helplessness: policing is just one component of a massive machine of teaching helplessness; and America only removed the sharp blades of that machine in the civil rights movement, before the counterrevolution killed off plebian tribunes and established the network of putatively antisocialist, but actually antidemocratic, organizations that have built our current corrupt corporatocracy.
They've tried before. They overplayed their hand before. And despite their greater caution this time, they've done so again, with their hand forced this time by the idiocratic pseudotyrant imposed when their control over their lowest ranks slipped, who is showing clear signs of SOME sort of health problem. (There is insufficient data for a diagnosis, though innumerable people are trying anyway.) The gap between rhetoric and action is reaching critical. Confusion to the enemies of liberty!
Catfish...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9882TB9nLo0
Deuxglass
The Clinton and Epstein stories are just that "stories"
Clinton did use Epstein's aircraft - and that is thoroughly documented - to go to some meetings
The rest is just part of the GOP's most successful lie - that both parties are the same
Alfred
High minimum wages WORK and allow people to have reasonable lives
Kal Kallevig
I disagree entirely that "OUR wealth" is because of the screwing of workers on the minimum wage
I don't believe any of this group are in the 0.1% of society that has reaped the fruit of that repression
I do agree that a sensible UBI would be a very good idea
It along with a National Health Service of some kind would assist in balancing the power of the employee and employer in wage negotiations
Today the employee has his own health and his families health as well as their home and food on one side of the scale
The employer merely has part of his unallocated wealth on the scale
If people had a decent UBI and Health system behind them then they could hold out for a sensible wage and people doing nasty dirty hard jobs would get paid more
@Duncan
Every underpaid worker contributes to the excess that is then allocated somewhere. Reasonably paid workers probably are just getting their fair share, some of which they can save thus creating wealth, so yes, I think we are saying much the same thing. Although, maybe that fair share would be smaller if the underpaid were fairly paid.
But it is clear that the 0.1% get most of the gravy.
duncan,
High minimum wages WORK and allow people to have reasonable lives
Some.
Remember that I used to work some of these jobs. I KNOW the employers would not have paid more if they'd been told they had to. They would have eliminated the jobs and found some other way.
Higher minimum wages would have forced me to find some other way to pay my credit card back then. Not the end of the world, but I really was squeaking by for a couple years. We joke a bit about it now, but when I met the woman I finally married, she was working a student job for the state and earning twice what I made teaching in their local JC's. She understood what I was trying to do, but neither of us had a car for our first date. 8)
Alfred
I hear that
But effectively all wages under a minimum living wage mean that the general taxpayer is subsidising the business
If a business actually cannot pay a living wage then it is simply not solvent
In practise - and in other countries - we find that the business that CLAIMS not to be able to afford more is lying
People talk about fast foods - the McDonalds hamburger flipper is the epitome
County ----- Minimum wage ------------- Big Mac
France --------$12.75/hr-----------------$4.52
Australia -----$15.58 -------------------$4.65
America -------$7.25 --------------------$4.79
The businesses CAN pay more - and in countries with a sensible minimum wage they DO pay more
You do understand that the level of employment is determined by macro-economic policy? It is true that there are some levels of minimum wages that would cut rmpliyment opportunities for the very lowest skill levels. But historically higher minimum wages where not associated with liwer levels of employment but with more rapid rises in productivity. Personally, I'm a UBI guy (prefer to call it a national dividend) and with a UBI the issue would be moot).
What I'm absolutely confident about with a UBI (i.e. with money not neceassarily being tge key criteria in choosing a job) is that employers would make more effort to make jobs employer friendly rather than manager friendly.
reason:
...with a UBI...employers would make more effort to make jobs employer friendly...
Typo? Or are you asserting the opposite thing to what I think you're asserting?
Duncan,
He did fly on Epstein's plane to Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, China, Brunei, London, New York, the Azores, Belgium, Norway, Russia and Africa and I am sure they were for meetings since that is the main reason important people fly around. The Left claims it is an innocent relationship and it probably is however the same people say that Trump flying a couple of times on Epstein's plane from Newark to Palm Beach shows evil intent. Unless you have proof to the otherwise you would have to put both Clinton's and Trump's flights on the same level even though you despise one and admire the other however to do that would anger the side you have chosen and in normal times that wouldn't matter much. Today dissent even in small things risks serious sanctions.
Is there a sensible compromise wherein the worker class gets a ubi while businesses especially the smaller thin margins ones get a removal of minimum wage requirements? I have often wondered if an Andrew Yang type were to take one of the many crumbling small towns and found a good number of city dwellers willing to move and gave them all a ubi how it would turn out.
-Shane
It does not surprise me that David Brin would be an apologist for the evil actions of Churchill, but this ridiculous statement deserves a response “As for Churchill, whose statue is now under attack? Was he a man of his times who said things cringeworthy by later standards?”
He did a hell of a lot more than make cringeworthy statements. And who’s standards are you talking about?
When he helped organize the absolute disaster at Gallipoli, I am willing to be that the soldiers being fed to the machine gun nests did not think highly of him.
The coal miners who’s strikes he broke thought he was an a-hole.
The 1.5 million people in the Punjab who died of starvation because the British exported what little food that was produced for the war effort, knew that Churchill was an evil son of a bitch.
The people in the Middle east know that he was happy to use poison gas against civilian towns. And that the totally screwed up political geography of the middle east was done to facilitate British rule and condemned just about every state to minority rule and political unrest.
Then there is the brutal treatment of the Malaysian and Kenyan freedom fighters by the British when he was prime minister.
And of course, there were all the war crimes he ordered against the Germans. If he was judged by the same standard that we judged the Nazis he would have been imprisoned for the rest of his life.
Sure wealthy white people have tended to have a high opinion of Churchill, and many history writers love him, but many, many people knew him to be very evil. If there is a hell he is there with Hitler and Stalin.
Re Graham: "That's the end."
It should be. In normal times it would be.
To be honest, if we had both UBI and universal health insurance, companies would have to treat employees far far better than they currently do. Because if you had a minimum income coming in that you could in theory live off of, and didn't need to worry about health insurance... then if your workplace mistreated you? You can leave! And any workplace that keeps mistreating its employees? Will end up failing eventually.
And that's not a bad thing.
Acacia
duncan,
You can go for the general argument that the average minimum wage job results in X level of government subsidy. Wages below that require more subsidy. Above it less. If you go for that, I'd be inclined to agree, but I might not use 'subsidy' as the term. The more a person earns the less government services they consume. That's how I'd phrase it. Obviously, that IS subsidy of their employers, but it happens at all levels.
For example, I'm earning at my peak right now and contributing a lot to my unemployment insurance pot. That money is collected by the state, so I'm relying on a government service to effectively insure me against job loss. It happens occasionally, but I try to keep it to a minimum. I'm using that service NOW instead of requiring my employer to support insurance for me as a benefit, so they benefit from avoiding that overhead that the state aggregates for all of us.
The argument you won't win with me is the one that says my particular employers were subsidized directly when I took on minimum wage work. I know for a fact they weren't because they were not my only source of income.
I had a patchwork arrangement back then. When school was in session, I earned at union rates for the tiny number of hours I worked as a part-timer. That paid the rent and a very tiny surplus not sufficient for savings to cover rent in the summer. I did temp work every so often as my dissertation research/writing allowed. It came together most months as 'just enough to eat as well' and allowed me to finish my research.
The employers I tapped for temp work often would have gone without or overloaded someone else already on their staff if they had no easy access to cheap labor like me. What they needed done was useful to them, but not terribly useful. They weren't going to pay a lot for it. For example, if your admin is out for a week doing jury duty or a short vacation, you can probably get by without them. Some of the paperwork might not get done. Answering the phone won't be done as professionally. The cost of that loss isn't huge, so the price you might be willing to pay to prevent it won't be huge. Send in a temp, though, and it MIGHT be worth it. Maybe. Depends on whether the temp is lame and you won't have a lot of time to find out.
Yes. Businesses CAN pay more… but should they? What they should be doing is making ethical choices involving people they intend to keep on staff for long periods. What we should be doing is holding them to that. It's not just about the money, though. Focus too much on wages and you'll harm guys putting together a patchwork salary like I did.
reason,
What I'm absolutely confident about with a UBI...
I get it... even with the typo.
I'm not as certain as you. I'd say many employers would do it, but some would shift their operations to where those laws don't apply, and a few more would advocate for more work visas.
If our intent is (only) to create a more employee friendly work environment, I wouldn't support UBI. I'd rather support education efforts promoting entrepreneurism. That will deplete the labor pool a bit (if successful) and drive some of the same employer behaviors toward attracting employees.
Deuxglass:
Unless you have proof to the otherwise you would have to put both Clinton's and Trump's flights on the same level even though you despise one and admire the other ...
While I see your point, I don't think it is that simple. Another factor is your evaluation of the two mens' characters. While Bill Clinton is a known philanderer, he doesn't pride himself on forcibly imposing himself on others that way. Even if he is guilty of doing so, I would suspect that he (mistakenly) believes the sex to be consensual. Trump, by his own words, is about the domination.
So far, this speaks to what you think of the two men as far as their sexual escapades go. I think the original discussion was about it seeming plausible that Trump would be part of having the inconvenient witness (Epstein) killed. I find it incredibly implausible that Clinton would be so involved, or that there are enough agents to do the deed and remain silent about it. With Trump, that seems like his everyday business model. I realize there are those who think the Clintons have left a trail of murdered bodies behind them. I'm not one of those.
Alfred,
I know where you are coming from. I know many people who worked their way up from nothing. I also know many who started with all the advantages of wealth, whiteness and higher education yet still did nothing productive with their lives. A lot depends on the individual, and humans sure are a varied lot.
But your argument boils down to everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
And ignores the fact that many never had bootstraps to begin with.
Not being able to fly is not learned helplessness.
Deuxglass said . . .,
"You may want to mention only those whom you don't like but in a serious discussion you would also have to mention that Bill Clinton was one of his most frequent fliers to his island paradise in the Virgin Islands."
That is entirely false. There has been 1 uncorroborated claim that Clinton was seen once at Epstein's private island. There have been 0 claims, corroborated or not, of Clinton being involved in sex of any kind in any connection with Epstein.
The same can not be said for Trump. Though there is no clear evidence that Trump and Epstein had sex with under age young people at each other's parties, or even that Trump was well aware of Epstein's illegal sexual activities but didn't partake himself, there is lots of well corroborated evidence that they partied together for years. From the 80s through the early 2000s they were apparently party-pals and hosted each other frequently. So say lots of people that knew them, including Dershowitz, the lawyer that did lots of work for both of them. The pictures, articles and quotes that demonstrate their relationship certainly suggest that it is very plausible that Trump at a minimum knew of Epstein's illegal sexual activities. As Trump himself said in 2002 . . .
"“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”"
It's true that we likely will never know the whole story, but we do have enough reasonably well verified information to be able to have some confidence in claiming to know some things. For example, the actual verified information shows a distinctly different relationship between Trump & Epstein than between Clinton & Epstein, not at all like the equivalence that you seem to be attempting to characterize the two relationships as having.
Alfred's "bootstrap" argument is all about his privilege. He had the resources to bootstrap himself, so he argues that anyone can do the same. And argues against a mechanism to improve the odds in favor of the worker (raising minimum wage).
I've known a lot of poor people. Very few of them were poor by choice the way Alfred was once.
I've known a lot of poor people that tried to "bootstrap" themselves. Three jobs at $7.25/hr, lousy health, brutal encounters with police.
"Bootstrapping" is just a code word for "we need a permanent underclass so the oligarchy can be rich and idle."
Libertarians are full of such crap, which is why I hope the strain dies out over time. Many evils in our nation come from this "I struggled, so you should struggle too" mindset.
Competition is good. But we waste so much talent by not helping there be a minimum safety net. A minimum wage you could actually live on is part of that safety net. It encourages maximizing competition *and* knocks down inequality.
I perceive an argument whose essence is over the difference between the rights of a citizen and the responsibilities of an employer.
In the past several decades, we've kind of built our socio-economic system around the fact that employment was the means of participation in the economy for most people. There's no set rule that it has to be that way, but it has become the defacto standard. Thus, the implicit question "What is the minimum participation in the economy owed to a productive citizen?" gets twisted up with the minimum wage.
I see UBI as a method of untangling the two things. With a UBI in place, Wal-mart would be free to pay as little as they chose without having "How to apply for food stamps" seminars as part of their employee on-boarding process.
Smurphs:
everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
I'm not sure Alfred was actually arguing this, but I do want to add my own tangent about arguments of that type. I find them disingenuous in the same way that "Everyone should win the lottery" is. Or maybe more appropriately, "Everyone should outperform the average in the stock market." Neither of those is mathematically possible.
My comment to Alfred was directed to one of his earlier comments. So we might have crossed paths here, making my point unclear. Then he posted this:
"I had a patchwork arrangement back then. When school was in session, I earned at union rates for the tiny number of hours I worked as a part-timer. That paid the rent and a very tiny surplus not sufficient for savings to cover rent in the summer. I did temp work every so often as my dissertation research/writing allowed. It came together most months as 'just enough to eat as well' and allowed me to finish my research."
Union Rates for part-time work and temp work 'just enought to eat' are options that are not available to MILLIONS of people. This is not learned helplessness, it is something else.
Alfred is a smart guy and I am sure he is aware of this. But sometimes when he brings out this story, I just want to make sure the point is not forgotten.
Just a thought about bootstrapping in an entirely different context. Some people are beginning to think in real terms about rebuilding civilization after a Great Collapse, and not surprisingly, they're often non-doctrinal (contrarian?) Forth people like me. It will likely be a much more computational form of psychohistory than that of Asimov's "Plan" mathiness. More like Brin's competing agents AI I would expect.
https://collapseos.org
I've been ruminating over Asimov's "Foundation" and Hilton's "Lost Horizon" for many years. Bootstrapping is exactly the correct term, and FORTH is exactly the correct technology. Perhaps it's time for a "Why Johnny Can't Bootstrap".
Smurphs (and to some degree Matthew)
But your argument boils down to everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
No. It doesn't, but thank you for trying to paraphrase it. 8)
I don't mind if you want to help pick other people up.
I MIGHT mind how exactly you try to do it.
Best of Intentions (BOIs) motivations aren't enough to cover for damage done involving Particular Methods (PMs). I can respect one and revile another.
matthew (directly)
My father's father was an immigrant coal miner who arrived in the US just in time for the depression. His family knew hunger. The grandmother I never met eventually found war-time work. [They needed the elder daughter's domestic service income AND FDR's policies to get through that decade.]
My father followed his brother into the military, but never forgot the lessons of economic insecurity. My uncle died in service while my father did not. Both of them were bootstrapping to their final days.
My upbringing was in the lower-middle class. Airmen don't make much and my mother was not employed until her kids grew up. [I was heading for college by then.] I recall when I was young encountering upper-middle income earners (like a local college professor) and being amazed at what one could have with a bit more money. Turns out it was quite a bit more money than I realized, but not because upper-middle income earners were rich. Lower-middle income earners really AREN'T.
What my father (and mother) did was instill within me their attitudes. They trimmed their friends list to ensure there were no conflicting messages about that too. Contact with certain relatives was minimal as a result.
Bootstrapping isn't easy by any measure. Yes... it can take a generation or two. Don't piss on it, though, because the world is changed in immeasurable ways by people who pull themselves up. Help others as you can. I will too. Don't do harm to the one method that is known to work for at least some of us.
Smurphs,
This round of the debate really stems from my reaction to something Kal said.
I understand that magically removing all the learned helplessness from Americans wouldn't magically make employment opportunities appear. The absence of opportunity traps many in lower income environments.
However, I am quite certain that a lack of learned helplessness would do MORE for eliminating those traps than UBI and higher minimum wage would. 'Pity' income does not do the mind any good, so I argue that minimum wage regulations may actually contribute to learned helplessness. "I may be earning little, but at least I'm getting by" is a terrible attitude to keep year after year. It crushes the soul.
That's why a few weeks ago, when (I think it was matthew?) that UBI argument showed up here about giving people time to pursue a dream, I stood up and paid attention. Done that way, the UBI would not be pity income. It would require quite a good sales job to convince people it wasn't, but I can imagine how it would be done. THAT is worth considering as a solution attempt at the real cause for absence of opportunity.
@ Jim, Acacia H., Smurphs, Matthew- Damn straight!
@ Phaedrusnailfile- RE: "Is there a sensible compromise wherein the worker class gets a ubi while businesses especially the smaller thin margins ones get a removal of minimum wage requirements?"
This would lead to businesses being encouraged to show that they operate on thin margins to avoid paying minimum wage.
Also IMHO, EVERYBODY should get it (UBI), so there won't be rich people trying to get rid of it.
"Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps"?- Hard to do if you don't even have boots...
I'm not an economist, but I believe that there is enough necessary productive, living-wage, benefitted work for the American (and probably the entire First World) workforce to do for at least a generation:
1) Creating best-in-breed, world-class infrastructure
2) Creating a maximally-renewable, sustainable energy supply and retrofitting our buildings, indsutries, transportation for energy efficiency
3) Repairing centuries of environmental damage and making ourselves as resilient as possible to the "Slowpocalypse".
even if we decide to go full-throttle automation.
Alfred Differ:
That's why a few weeks ago, when (I think it was matthew?) that UBI argument showed up here about giving people time to pursue a dream, I stood up and paid attention. Done that way, the UBI would not be pity income. It would require quite a good sales job to convince people it wasn't, but I can imagine how it would be done.
I subscribe to Thomas Paine's version of a citizenship dividend, which is not "pity income". Almost the opposite thing. We The People have given most of the commons over as private property because of the huge economic benefits that derive from encouraging development and specialization. And the ones who develop and generate wealth deserve a good chunk of that wealth. But a portion of it belongs to the society which is the original "owner" of the commons.
We can argue percentages, but I'd say that as a minimum, no one should be poorer than they would have been without civilization and development taking place. I think that was Paine's argument as well.
Deuxglass
Clinton traveled with his Secret Service detachment - that was to MEETING not to parties and we KNOW where he went
You are just refusing to look at the information you don't like
Phaedrusnailfile
With an UBI the minimum wage and 90% of the benefits system simply go away as unnecessary! - not 100% as we still need to be able to help people who simply need more help for things like wheelchairs and other assistance
I suspect a lot of "jobs" would materialise that were well below any minimum wage but were fulfilling social needs rather than trying to make money
I agree with Larry Hart
Our "fair share" of our common heritage is actually quite large - much much larger than any UBI I have heard discussed
To Alfred's point about his father and grandfather - and himself
There WAS a ladder that could be climbed by most people
But that "ladder" was destroyed in the 80's and 90's - after Alfred (and I) had climbed it - instead of a ladder that most people can climb we now have a greased pole that CAN still be climbed - but only by the exceptions
Larry,
I subscribe to Thomas Paine's version
Heh. That's sensible. I probably wouldn't fit it that much. I pick the other name not because that's how I see it, but because many would... including the people receiving it.
There is an unfortunate side effect that occurs when we help people. The offer can be seen as 'taking pity on them'. Some truly deserve pity in the non-judgmental sense of the term. If you see someone literally beaten down, they need help. Pity is a reasonable response in that case. When you see someone who can't imagine a better world for themselves, it might make sense for them too. When applied broadly to larger groups, though, I think it dangerous. Learned Helplessness is a tragedy of epic proportion. Truly Epic.
Larry,
We can argue percentages, but I'd say that as a minimum, no one should be poorer than they would have been without civilization and development taking place. I think that was Paine's argument as well.
This one deserves special attention.
In Paine's day, most people were.
Nowadays, most people aren't.
Not just most Americans. Most people in the world.
Last I checked, the people who were amounted to about 15% of humanity and that number was plummeting.
Translation; Every one who works hard is very rich and the only possible reason people are poor is that they are lazy.
You guys are exaggerating your real differences for the fun and cussedness of it. That's FINE! Just remember that we're actually pretty much all enlightenment folks here. At least have been for some weeks.
One of the fundamental questions of out time; should untermenschen get to live the good life? Should those of us who can't or won't frantically compete get decent jobs, food, clothing, housing, and medical care? Should we be given the means and opportunity to be human, to create, to socialize,to play? The answer from most conservatives and libertarians is; we'll destroy civilization rather than let that happen.
Well, I'm not convinced that a UBI would have the grand effects some are hoping for. But I haven't studied it and am open to arguments. Either way, I don't see a UBI happening in the US for at least a generation.
Raising the Minimum Wage has been tried and it works. Spectacularly. Yes, there are some side effects and some business that are hurt. But the overall effect is overwhelmingly positive, for workers if not for owners. It would certainly help capitalism if all the capital was not held by the one percent, but that's another debate.I don't have time pull up some research, but you could start by looking at the data from Seattle in the past five(?) years.
Regarding bootstraps, i will just point out that options that were possible with a minimum wage job when I started out in 70's & early 80's are priced out of reach today. To pick two not-so-random examples, housing costs have far outstripped inflation, and affordable healh care is a fantasy.
Now, I'm off to spend my stimulus check on some new furniture. Thanks, Obama! ;>
Don Gisselbeck:
One of the fundamental questions of out time; should untermenschen get to live the good life? Should those of us who can't or won't frantically compete get decent jobs, food, clothing, housing, and medical care? Should we be given the means and opportunity to be human, to create, to socialize,to play? The answer from most conservatives and libertarians is; we'll destroy civilization rather than let that happen.
Those conservatives--sometimes willfully, sometimes sincerely--conflate the rules governing two very different types of civilization.
Harsh rules govern a society in which every person's effort is required to sustain his own consumption, where someone who refuses to carry his own weight is a burden on society which that society simply can't afford. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, requiring a "work or starve" ethic.
In our modern society, at least in this country, unemployment and poverty is not so much a case of individuals "refusing to work" as the fact that there isn't enough work available for them to do. The challenge in the coming decades is to find an equitable way of distributing wealth when human labor is no longer a requirement. In such a setting, it is needlessly cruel to apply "work or starve" when work is neither available nor necessary.
Duncan,
You don't get what I want to say probably because I didn't express myself well enough. I am not saying that Clinton or Trump are paedophiles because they both flew on Epstein's plane. What I am saying is that if one does something that the other does also you cannot accuse one as being evil and the other not based on them both doing exactly the same thing. If one desires one can construct a scenario that fits one's biases and even if to the originator it seems to be an airtight case to another person who does not share the originator's biases it seems to be a confabulation. Unless there is actual proof it comes off as being total bullshit and it is. Am I clear this time?
@Everyone:
As of now (10:55 PDT) the USA has now exceeded the number of Military deaths in WWI (116,516) by the number of documented COVID-19 deaths (116,526).
Some thoughts on the discussion about social safety nets.
I tend more to Matthew's view than with Alfred's. I think that to maximize the potential of our societies in such things as liberty, security, wealth, progress, fairness and all those other metrics that most of the people here, including me, think define the kind of society we would like to live in, that we have to find how best to empower as many individuals as possible to reach the highest potential they are capable of. In short the best way to progress towards these things is to invest in all of the individuals that make up society. That's the biggest bang for the buck in investment terms. It is also ethically sound.
Alfred, from what I've read of your thoughts over the years here I doubt you would disagree with the gist of that, though of course I can't be sure. It seems as if you agree on the general goals. Where you seem to disagree is in how best to go about achieving those general goals. If I understand you correctly your reason for being so cautious about the state helping people is that you think it is likely that this could lead to a moribund welfare state.
This concern, or belief, has certainly been a central element in a lot of science fiction. For example Pournelle's and Niven's & Pournelle's Co-Dominium and Empire of Man novels. This concern has also been a central feature of Conservative political and economic views, or at least claims, for decades. However, I don't think it is well supported by history.
The most common examples used to support the idea that welfare by the State leads to bad outcomes are communist-oligarchy-dictatorship states like the failed Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc. I think these examples are entirely off target, not applicable. In many cases I think comparing these states with western states that are largely regulated capitalist with social welfare policies is intentionally disingenuous (pardon the superfluous adverb). I don't mean you here, Alfred.
The philosophies, goals and policies of states like the Soviet Union are nothing like the philosophies, goals and policies of western states like Norway, Germany, or the UK. Or even the US, as much as we are outliers compared to the others and are particularly struggling right now. In other words, no, the experiment on how well social welfare policies work in democratic states with regulated capitalist economies and generally enlightenment values has not been run by states like the Soviet Union. Not even close.
thoughts continued . . .
On the flip side, we have lots of data from just such states. And it looks pretty good. Yes, there are examples, like Greece, that are relatively bad. But most are relatively good. Here in the US our prosperity and rise to world leadership in the mid 20th century was a direct result of the kind of social safety net and investment in individuals that we are talking about here. We have plenty of examples that policies like these can be very effective and not lead to moribund welfare state dystopias.
While many people often sound as if they are absolutely positive of the efficacy of their favored policy ideas, I'd bet that most of the regulars here, including Alfred, would agree that formulating policies should be based on valid research of real world data. As should routine assessment of whether or not the policy is working as intended, and if not changing or ending it. In other words testing against reality.
Or maybe I'm wrong about you agreeing with that Alfred. You've often expressed that these issues are too complex to warrant any confidence in our ability to affect the changes we intend to. And that therefore it is best to let the market evolve as it will. I understand the complexity and inherent unpredictability of markets. But I think your view that we can't or shouldn't try to regulate or mold markets is something akin to the naturalistic fallacy. I agree that it is difficult, dangerous and should not be done lightly, but I think you may be too cautious or too pessimistic about human capabilities. To my mind the big problem we have is not that markets are complex and unpredictable but that the ways in which policy decisions are made has very little to do with figuring out what seems to work best, trying it, observing effects, tweak based on observations, repeat, repeat . . . We have tools that allow us to have some confidence in some level of understanding of complex and unpredictable systems like markets. We don't need to be able to model them with near perfect fidelity to warrant some confidence in our ability to affect the changes we intend to, though that would certainly help. But we do need to use the right processes or methods. And that is something with which we have gained some experience and a pretty good track record. Effective regulation requires that policy decisions be based on testing against reality instead of what is most likely to get a politician re-elected.
Pardon the mess.
Catfish 'n Cod,
Being in a group does enhance survival of the individual which is why humans like being part of a group and being part of one entails obligations of supporting the group's mores, traditions and objectives. That is normal but it becomes a problem when dissent is quashed to such an extent that the group loses touch with reality which as we know ultimately prevails. Science is a method that if applied correctly should avoid much of the worst aspects of Groupthink. Unfortunately humans being human makes it very hard to stick to the methods sometimes especially when it becomes political and when large sums of money are involved. We humans are very good at gaming systems. That's why we developed big brains. Religions are groupthink of course and all major religions have had periods where extreme violence was used against dissenters and outsiders in general. Communism and Nazism are examples of groupthink that become so mired in a fantasy world divorced from reality which eventually caught up with them. It can happen to any ideology. The belief in Free Trade as something that is good for everybody is an example of an ideological groupthink that ran into reality and suddenly collapsed. In the early 2000's it was believed by just about all decision-makers as gospel. Eventually the evidence could no longer de ignored and the pandemic rubbed in everyone's faces the contradictions between the fantasy and the reality. Now hardly nobody says Free Trade is the key to prosperity. There are two areas that particularly susceptible to groupthink and they are Politics and Financial Markets.
Case studies on Groupthink show that groups that avoid it have an interesting characteristic. They take the time to study all options by listening to many different views. That sounds easy but as everyone who has worked in large organizations know that sometimes, actually often, going against your boss can be problematic to your future there so dissent does have a cost. A proposed solution is to appoint a member to be the one who questions every idea the group puts out and to do it vigorously. Essentially every group who wants to avoid groupthink needs at least one member that plays the pretentious asshole who keeps ruining my arguments and forces me to defend them. Unsurprisingly someone who is a natural asshole is perfect for the job so every group needs at least one. That was actually the official recommendation to my surprise.
@Dr. Brin: Can't believe I hadn't heard that before (or if I did, I didn't remember it). You could say it's next in the sequence after: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGytDsqkQY8
@Larry: I don't think the problem is so much "there's not enough work" as "our society does not pay for most of the work that needs doing". There are vast amounts of work to be done in mental health, community improvement, elder care, civic organization, social activism, political expression, etc. and our society considers nearly all of it to have a cash value of $0.00 per hour. The modernist Western concept of an economy is poorly equipped to handle goods and services with values that are difficult to quantify, provide returns indirectly, and have unpredictable future value -- even when the future values and returns are high and essential to the functioning of society and economy. If I can't float a market value for it, in the current paradigm, it might as well not exist... until it's no longer sufficiently present to allow market functionality, at which time its value becomes infinite.
The most readily appreciated such goods are "human resources", but there are lots of others. Environmental components: the trace contents of atmosphere, the level of runoff pesticide, the biodiversity available for everything from ecological stability to the discovery of new pharmaceuticals. The rule of law; freedoms and rights; a shared reality and commitment to fact and sanity -- all are necessary for anything to have secure value, and yet they are all treated as having no value at all. Something to volunteer for and donate to, but with nothing to show for it and nothing to draw upon to support it.
We should not have to have FU money to be able to support the stability of my civilization.
Keith,
Of the US military deaths in WW I around 61,000 of them were due to the Influenza epidemic. That's out of 4.7 million who served. In all 675,000 people died in the US from the 1918 Influenza Epidemic. Since the population at the time was 100 million that would be the equivalent of losing 2,2 Million people today. We are very far from that figure.
UBI will promote entreneurism(ship?) - but some of it will be social not commercial. Some people will be enabled to devote themselves to helping others. I still think you don't get what macro is about - individual firms decisions about jobs sre micro-economics. The total supply of jobs is macro-ecomics. Right wing polticians always mix up the two, much to the annoyance of say Paul Krugman. Everything is connected. If some individual jobs disappear you are able to run a more stimulative macro policy.
Smurphs,
I laughed out loud at your thanks to Obama for the stimulus check.
My check was signed by Donald Trump. The oh so saintly Obama and th3e democrats never were able to send out checks during the great recession, but the oh so evil Donald Trump did, hrmmmm.
I also just saw how the evil Donald Trump signed executive orders creating a database of bad cops, and greatly limiting the use of chokeholds. The oh so saintly Obama never go around to doing anything like that even though the Black Lives Matter movement was started when he was president. (executive order – no congress needed) hrmmm.
Deuxglass:
You don't get what I want to say probably because I didn't express myself well enough.
I realize you're not addressing me, but I'd say you've expressed yourself just fine. To the extent that I "don't get what you want to say", it's because I'm still not clear if we're talking about whether Clinton or Trump are both sexual predators, or about whether Clinton or Trump are equally likely to have had Jeffrey Epstein murdered to prevent his testimony,
The belief that Trump is capable of the latter is not based on the mere fact that he rode on Epstein's plane. The man will sacrifice anything and anybody in order to avoid embarrassment. That's almost the opposite thing from Clinton, who survived a tawdry impeachment hearing rather than resign quietly.
Eeep! Sorry guys! I was very late checking "pending comments." Carry on!
Re Covid: (1) death rates will go down even as cases go up, because the docs in hospitals now have a much better idea what they are doing AND because the elderly homes are severely locked-down. Hence my sci fi fear is not about massive death but the still unknown rates of side-effects damage to nervous systems, livers, kidneys, arteries etc.
Indeed THAT is reason #1 why Trump’s demand that the extremely valuable crop of West Point graduates return to salute him was a towering act of treason. It has enraged many officers.
(2) The excuse given for infection surges in FLA etc is “we’re testing more.” Agh.
(3) We’re watching the excellent Amazon Prime show COUNTERPART. Two parallel worlds divided in 1982. Remained similar til one of them lost half a billion people to a flu that they blamed on the other world. Some creepily prescient scenes re masks and distancing and paranoia.
“jim” Your sarcasm was so twisted that many of us likely thought you meant what you posted as actually believing Trump has done good things compared to Obama. I know you are not that insane/stoopid, offering up strawmen so easily disproved. So try to be clearer next time.
Deuxglass:
going against your boss can be problematic to your future there so dissent does have a cost. A proposed solution is to appoint a member to be the one who questions every idea the group puts out and to do it vigorously. Essentially every group who wants to avoid groupthink needs at least one member that plays the pretentious asshole who keeps ruining my arguments and forces me to defend them.
Hey, it's like you looked inside my life and wrote a book about it. :)
I've gotten in trouble at past jobs precisely for pointing out the pitfalls in proposals. I get dinged for ruining the excitement of the moment. What I've learned is not to state the negative myself, but to get someone else to come to my conclusions, preferably thinking that he came up with it on his own. Then we get results.
Unsurprisingly someone who is a natural asshole is perfect for the job so every group needs at least one.
With all due modestly, I consider myself anything but a natural asshole, and yet I do also seem perfect for the job. I'd counter that what is really needed is not a natural asshole, but someone who doesn't crave adulation at work. What may also be needed is someone who isn't paralyzed with fear at the loss of his job--another argument for UBI and a strong social safety net.
Catfish 'n Cod:
There are vast amounts of work to be done in mental health, community improvement, elder care, civic organization, social activism, political expression, etc. and our society considers nearly all of it to have a cash value of $0.00 per hour. The modernist Western concept of an economy is poorly equipped to handle goods and services with values that are difficult to quantify, provide returns indirectly, and have unpredictable future value -- even when the future values and returns are high and essential to the functioning of society and economy.
I think what you're describing is work which doesn't produce a monetary return on investment. Private investors are not willing to subsidize such work because there is no divided to be paid. Which is why society as a whole has to invest in areas which undergird the economy as a whole, despite not being a profit center.
Dr Brin:
“jim” Your sarcasm was so twisted that many of us likely thought you meant what you posted as actually believing Trump has done good things compared to Obama.
I honestly can't tell how sarcastic these particular comments were. But jim does believe Trump has done good things compared to Democrats. Caveat emptor.
I thought I had avoided the check signed by Trump thanks to the miracle of direct deposit. No such luck. We received a follow-up letter notifying us that we had received our payment, and that was signed by Donald Trump. At least I assume the completely illegible signature is his.
I don't believe jim meant his comments as sarcasm. I think he is just a delusional nut / active agent. There is nothing in his statement to lead one to believe that he is not serious.
jim, Obama DoJ had in place multiple consent agreements with police departments over the use of force, racial profiling, and hiring / whistleblower practices. Those consent decrees were thrown in the trash by the Trump DoJ under racist Jeff Sessions. Trump issuing an order that forbids chokeholds unless the officer feels that their own life is in danger is utter garbage. It is not what is called for. I also believe you know this and you are simply trolling.
I see you.
>>"Essentially every group who wants to avoid groupthink needs at least one member that plays the pretentious asshole who keeps ruining my arguments and forces me to defend them. "
"Hey, it's like you looked inside my life and wrote a book about it. :)"
And didn't you come to CONTRARY BRIN for advanced training in this art? ;-)
LH "With all due modestly, I consider myself anything but a natural asshole, and yet I do also seem perfect for the job.
Oh don't be modest about natural talent! ;-)_
But of course, jim thinks he is the archetype contrarian because HE can see what regular liberals CAN'T see!!! Never mind that he flees when confronted by the billion shildren who would have died under his plan and the billion more who would have never had rights or education. Or the fact that blacks and feminists cannot afford the luxury of his prissiness and voted for Biden and Obama en masse (the fools!!!)
Dunning-Kruger effect has a corollary - not only do folks who know little think they know a lot... those who are comfy and have little at stake think they know far better what's good for those with life and liberty and posterity in peril.
@Deuxglass:
Indeed. We're reviewing the same sources/figures.
The 675k 1919 Pandemic deaths were close to the Civil War fatalities.
I heard an estimate of ~2M USA COVID-19 deaths if we hadn't implemented any measures
Different topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stories_set_in_a_future_now_past
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiction_set_in_the_21st_century#Unknown_date
My daughter pointed out that Akira takes place in 2020, and the Olympics are scheduled to be in (Neo)Tokyo.
Which fictional piece (novel, short story, game, tv, movie, comic) best represents OUR 2020?
I thought that Gary Shteyngart's Super Sad True Love Story (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Sad_True_Love_Story) seemed most like Pre-Pandemic Trumpian America. What do YOU think?
Finally, do you think we're more likely (going forward a few decades) to have an America with UBI and UHC (Universal Health Care), or a "Marching Morons/Co-Dominium/Neo-Cyberpunk America" with a small percentage of well-to-do but heavily overworked people with money, benefits, power (not the 0.1% or the 1% but the 20-30%), 30-60% part of the "precariat" scrambling to get by with multiple PT side hustles/gisg, and the remainder not really getting by very much at all?
Regarding Covid and reducing deaths, here is one way:
Coronavirus breakthrough: dexamethasone is first drug shown to save lives.
The study shows that this particular steroid saves lives of those in critical condition. As a side note, it had no effect on those with mild symptoms, so no need to take prophylactically (or have a run on it, as happened with famitidine). It seems to work by calming an overactive immune response from one's own body.
duncan,
But that "ladder" was destroyed in the 80's and 90's - after Alfred (and I) had climbed it - instead of a ladder that most people can climb we now have a greased pole that CAN still be climbed - but only by the exceptions
Hmm… That's a decent example of an unprovable claim. Any recent success stories are set aside as exceptions, right? How many would it take before you began to question your position?
I DO appreciate you recognizing the existence of the ladder, though. I intend to use that concession later. In a nutshell, my argument will be that it is the ONLY ladder I know to exist and be available to at least some people. It's hard to climb, but it's also hard to knock down. Our fathers and mothers keep raising it.
Don Gisselbeck,
Should we be given the means and opportunity to be human, to create, to socialize, to play?
Given? Really?! Given?
Time to put your barbarian on. TAKE IT!
… but recognize that some of us aren't taking it from them in the first place.
In all seriousness, I'm not that inclined to GIVE the means and opportunity to anyone except my children and family to be human and etc. I AM inclined to help them take it, create it, and just about anything else except giving it as a gift that won't mean anything to them unless they know why it's worth taking in the first place.
I've tried the gift thing. If they don't understand the value, it gets tossed in the trash. If they DO understand the value, all I have to do is help them knock down hurdles.
Smurphs,
Regarding housing and health care, I hear you. What I'll point out (relying on my own story again) is that health care was already out of my reach in the early eighties. College was too
In '79, I got a Pell grant in the last year before Reagan killed that off. I took a college path that was the cheapest I could arrange that still involved a four year school and by my sophomore year I had my foot in the door enough to establish relationships and get paid work on campus.
Health care stayed way out of reach until the mid-90's when I was finally working full-time. I was young and rarely needed it, but I did crack my head hard in '88 resulting in several lost months of my life. If I had not been covered by being a student by their basic emergency plan, those bills would have landed on me. As it worked out, they didn't even try. I made all of $3K in '87 (my parents pitched in another $2K) so there was nothing to take.
Housing consumed around 75% of my income back then. One fiscal emergency would have sent me packing back to my parents place. Almost happened twice.
I hear you, but minimum wage laws got in the way of people like me. The people you mean to help DO outnumber the people harmed like me and I get how that judgement call can go against me. However, DO be aware that some are harmed. Some of the boot-strappers who do big things in the world. Be careful if you can not to damage solutions that are known to work for at least some people.
Keith Halperin:
As of now (10:55 PDT) the USA has now exceeded the number of Military deaths in WWI (116,516) by the number of documented COVID-19 deaths (116,526).
Deuxglass:
Of the US military deaths in WW I around 61,000 of them were due to the Influenza epidemic.
I don't know, I've seen that 116,526 figure over at www.electoral-vote.com , and I'm pretty sure they say that those are the deaths due to the war itself, not the pandemic. I might be wrong, but still...
That's out of 4.7 million who served. In all 675,000 people died in the US from the 1918 Influenza Epidemic. Since the population at the time was 100 million that would be the equivalent of losing 2,2 Million people today. We are very far from that figure.
I'm not sure what the value is in describing the 1919 pandemic in "2020 dollars adjusted for inflation." The point is simply that COVID-19 keeps passing milestones like the number of deaths caused by famous past disasters, until only WWII and the Civil War seem to be still in the front windshield. In the same way, we can talk about the Dow's "largest point drop since 1929" as well as "largest percentage drop since 1929". The figures tell us different things, but both are notable in their own way.
Darrell E,
It seems as if you agree on the general goals. Where you seem to disagree is in how best to go about achieving those general goals.
Yes. Exactly right.
If I understand you correctly your reason for being so cautious about the state helping people is that you think it is likely that this could lead to a moribund welfare state.
Not quite. There is a risk and some of my friends ARE worried, but I'm not that scared.
1) Our existing welfare state isn't an evil thing. We could do better, but we aren't doing great harm to the people we mean to help. Some harm… unintentional harm… but survivable.
2) We aren't likely to be moribund in this century. Barbarians Are We. I'm quite confident we will wade through quicksand to kill monsters who capture our attention. People who fear a passive, weak fizzle for our civilization aren't paying attention.
"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."
Okay. I'm exaggerating a bit. Not much, though.
What I fear is us unintentionally harming the few mechanisms that actually work. In our desire to help everyone, we dictate how it is to be done and squash the ways some of us used when the State was not looking in on us.
When powerful elites fail to notice paths of advancement, ambitious bourgeoisie advance themselves and displace the powerful. Not many and not always, but often enough that it acts as a form of guillotine. When ambitious social engineers imagine they can make the world a better place, what happens to the paths they know nothing about?
My duty is to inform you all these paths exist. I've walked one and seen others along the way. Many others.
My duty is to inform you all what is required of someone to find the courage to walk one of those paths. I've helped others do it. Not as many as I'd like, but I know how.
Beware the broad, ignorant solution.
The older term of this 'natural asshole' is 'Court Jester.'
Someone speaks unflattering truth to the King to dilute the poison others pour in his ears.
If your boss doesn't appreciate the need for this, consider finding one who does. At the same time, consider how frequently you pour rain down on someone else's parade. If you take too much joy in it, you aren't much of a jester. More of a jerk.
It's a fine line to walk. 8)
do you think we're more likely (going forward a few decades) to have…
Given those two choices, I'd bet on option two as being more likely.
(I'd prefer option one, but I'm not that optimistic.)
Alfred Differ:
The older term of this 'natural asshole' is 'Court Jester.'
Someone speaks unflattering truth to the King to dilute the poison others pour in his ears.
I've never seen one except in fiction, but it seems to me that a really successful court jester doesn't come off as an asshole to the king. Sure, he would have to make certain ideas evident to the king even if the king would rather not face them. But in order to do that, he has to be entertaining enough to make the king a willing participant in the process. He absolutely can't afford to make the king hate him enough to eliminate the problem by killing the messenger.
An exceptional court jester, I would expect would operate much as I described earlier, causing the king to consider alternatives he wouldn't have on his own, but having him think he came up with the ideas himself.
If your boss doesn't appreciate the need for this, consider finding one who does. At the same time, consider how frequently you pour rain down on someone else's parade. If you take too much joy in it, you aren't much of a jester. More of a jerk.
I don't take joy in raining on someone's parade. But that's not the situation as I perceive it when we're talking about workplace decisions. More like, we're all being induced to have a parade by pretending that it's not raining, and I'd prefer to at least bring my umbrella.
The "Court Jester"
One of the most successful tactics I used back when I was working was
"Hi Boss - remember that idea you had last Wednesday and I pooh hooed it? - well I have been thinking and it's better than I thought
If we just did xxxxxxx then it looks like it would work"
Worked like a treat! - the "idea" became his - and he worked to get it into operation - I did get caught occasionally
Alfred
The evidence is simple
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/08/american-dream-collapsing-for-young-americans-study-says-finding-plunging-odds-that-children-earn-more-than-their-parents/
Children don't earn as much as their parents
DESPITE the fact that their work is over twice as productive
People like me have been working to improve productivity - and we have succeeded - we produce twice as much per man hour as we used to 40 years ago
This should mean that a worker today earns twice as much
AND that 99% of people earn more than their parents
Instead only half of today's Americans earn as much as their parents did at this point in their lives
"Also IMHO, EVERYBODY should get it (UBI), so there won't be rich people trying to get rid of it."
That's why the U in UBI stands for "Universal". Everybody would get it. If your income is high enough for taxation, you might pay it back later.
On the other tentacle, it might make some other budgets lower. I, for example, am regarded by Social Security as "unemployable", due to my age and my physical and neurological shortcomings. However, as I'm not yet old enough to qualify for retirement, even the early sort, the most the government can give me in terms of Supplemental Security Income is $785 per month. (That isn't based on previous income; when I age enough to "retire", my income will increase by a bit.) Most of the UBI proposals I've been seeing, however, are between $1000 and $2000 per month; even the lower of these would obviate the need for that rather pitiful SSI payment, and eliminate the need for the budget to both pay that out and investigate me (and others like me) from time to time to ensure that we're still penurious and disabled enough to "deserve" the assistance. Of course, this would lead to an abrupt, albeit probably shortlived, burst of unemployment amongst federal bureaucrats...
Jon S
Universal Basic Income
I read an interesting article -
In Sweden the safety net is pretty good so when an unemployed person reaches pensionable age and starts getting a pension instead of a "benefit" there is no actual change in their situation
However they found that when people stop getting a "benefit" and get a pension instead their health improves markedly
No physical difference but rejoining their peer group - all now on a pension made them happier and healthier
duncan cairncross:
One of the most successful tactics I used back when I was working was
"Hi Boss - remember that idea you had last Wednesday and I pooh hooed it? - well I have been thinking and it's better than I thought
If we just did xxxxxxx then it looks like it would work"
One of the best examples I've ever seen is the WWII reminiscence of narrator Rabo Karabakian in Kurt Vonnegut's Bluebeard, recalling his flattering way with a general while painting the general's portrait:
In what must surely have been the manner of powerless Armenian advisors in Turkish courts, I congratulated him on having ideas he might never have had before. An example: "You must be thinking very hard about how important aerial photography will be if war should come." War, of course, had come to practically everybody but the United States by then.
...
So he did that as best he could, and he couldn't talk without ruining everything. But like a dentist, I was free to go on jabbering. "Good!" "Wonderful!" "Perfect!" "Don't move anything!" I said. And then I added almost absentmindedly as I laid the paint on, "Every branch of the service is claiming camouflage from the air as their specialty, even though it's obviously the business of the Engineers."
And I said a little later, "Artists are so naturally good at camouflage, I guess I'm just the first of many to be recruited by the Corps of Engineers."
Did such a sly and smarmy Levantine seduction work? You be the judge.
...
He lectured on aerial photography, and the clear mission of the Engineers to teach the other branches of the service about camouflage. He said that among the last orders he would ever give was one which called for all enlisted men with what he called "artistic experiences" to be assigned to a new camouflage unit under the command of, now get this: "Master Sergeant Rabo Karabekian. I hope I pronounced his name right."
He had, he had!
Jim Wright's latest is not a feel-good column, but it does serve as a warning that we may yet lose the election to White Grievance demagoguery if we're not vigilant and careful.
http://www.stonekettle.com/
...
If you don't live in a place like this, you don't really understand what it's like. The pervasive racism, the entrenched religious fanaticism, the lack of education, and the endless conspiracies pushed by preachers, politicians, and poltroons.
These people really do believe Hillary Clinton murdered four Americans in Benghazi and that she really was running a globe-spanning pedophile ring out of a pizza parlor basement in Washington D.C. They really do.
And they believe Trump is a good Christian man.
But, these people, these white Southern Conservatives here where I live, the pandemic showed them for the first time Trump's incompetence. This is one of the hardest hit states for the coronavirus. People they knew, people they cared about, those people died, some of them, are dying. It wasn't just black people, or Muslims, or "the gays," or liberals in some Northern city, for the first time, Trump's failure affected them personally. They lost their jobs. The stores they shopped at were closed. They couldn't get toilet paper or medications. Suddenly, conservative political pundits were turning against Trump and these people didn't know what to think.
Maybe Trump wasn't making America so great after all.
Does that mean they would have voted for Joe Biden?
No.
They'd never vote for a baby-murderin' demonrat in a million years.
But, they might not have voted for Donald Trump again either.
They might have stayed home.
Now? Now, they're firmly convinced that hordes of "Antifa" are on the way to pillage this shitty little backwater hick Southern town. COVID-19 might kill grandma, but Defund the Police means looters and rapists and rioters, you loot, we'll shoot, and God Bless Donald Trump! There are new Trump 2020 signs sprouting in yards across the Panhandle. The line outside the local gun store is twenty deep.
And they'll be at the polls come voting day, you better believe it.
...
Larry,
If we had historical data instead of stories, I'd expect it would show court jesters were a part-time role at best. Members of a King's Court were somewhere between aristocratic bastards and aristocratic toadies. Aristocrats being the common theme. They expect something in return for their service... like privilege. Many ways to get to that goal.
I don't think of you as a jester. No one here fits the role. And... no one is filling our host's ear with flattery. Appreciation for his stories now and then? Yes. That's different. 8)
While we are talking about natural @#$!, though, I have started following Ron Perlman on Twitter. He's kind of fun to watch bait politicians when I'm in a semi-foul mood. Not intellectually high humor, I'll admit. Dripping acid for people who think too much of themselves.
duncan,
Very interesting evidence in that article. Everyone is earning less than their parents according to those graphs. More so with the rich kids. And before Reagan's clade stepped in.
I get that a lot of inflation happened. World governments made a move to wipe out their WWII debts to creditors. Some literally defaulted. Others chose an inflation path. The article corrects for inflation, but covers that time period when the value of cash in our pockets was assaulted. That article covers for the period before I was earning, though, so I don't consider it applicable (much) to me. It says nothing about the usual culprits blamed for all this, namely Reagan/Thatcher and their people.
What gets me, though, is YOUR claim.
This should mean that a worker today earns twice as much
I know there are economists who argue this, but the models from which they propose it aren't reflective of reality. The doubling you expect from the WAPO article didn't happen, but the standard of living did improve. Did 'real' wages double instead of inflation correct wages? You have to look at what our wages buy. Inflation adjustment should do that, right? I argue it doesn't during that period because many new things became available that would not have been included in the purchase basket defined to detect inflation in the first place.
Besides… why should wages double if productivity doubles. That's simplistic. That practically assumes there are thieves stealing income from the workers. There are so many other forces in a real market that have to be considered including governments wiping out their debt loads. If I'm going to assume thieves, I'm going to assume many varieties of them too.
Employee friendly. Sorry posting from a mobile - easy to hit the wrong key when they are next to each other.
Yes - since the argument for a minimum wage is:
1. Stopping exploitation of the vulnerable;
2. Providing subsistance for low wage workers;
And UBI covers them both plus does more as well.
EITC does acchieve B for the employed, but leaves workers more vulnerable to ruthless employers than a UBI where tgey can just leave and still survive
There is a huge problem with claiming "I lifted myself up by my bootstraps in the 70s and 80s and kids these days should do the same!" and that is... times have changed.
For one? College is far far FAR more expensive now than it was back then. What is worse is that it is also far more essential. Because every company out there wants college graduates. An office assistant who goes around typing documents, filing, loading paper and ink in the photocopier, and the like is required to have an Associate's Degree. But... that's something that a person without a high school diploma but who can READ and knows basic computing skills can do. So why the need for an Associate's Degree?
People go to college and rack up a huge debt that they can't be excused from and get a wage that is barely enough to live off of, let alone pay off that college debt. In fact, a bunch of people that go to college end up working RETAIL... like the old joke about the person with an English Degree flipping burgers. It's a joke because IT IS REAL.
If you pulled yourself out of the pit without help, good for you. But that just means you had certain advantages due to race, where you were born, who your friends were, and so forth. Because NOT ALL MEN (or women) ARE BORN EQUAL. And this is why we have a minimum wage and why the concept of the UBI is VITAL. It's not important. It's a matter of life or death.
There are families in Trump's Economy who still never recovered from the Great Recession caused by the younger Bush's and Republican Party's dismantling of regulations meant to prevent or significantly moderate the problems that led to those huge bailouts that mostly helped billionaires. These families have been living in their automobiles ever since. And you know? A UBI would allow those families to have a HOME again. They would not be America's Romani, swept under a rug because if you're homeless you OBVIOUSLY are to blame, rather than the completely messed up economic system that glorifies the maximization of profits even as more and more economists admit that system doesn't work very well.
And if you hate the minimum wage and claim it lessens the number of jobs out there? Then you should be in favor of the UBI because with a UBI and with universal health insurance you would see people able to live where they want rather than sticking to one locale hoping to keep their job and insurance. And jobs would have to compete legitimately for its employees.
Finally, a UBI would mostly eliminate the need for Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, and on down the line. You might still need something akin to food stamps and welfare for immigrant labor who doesn't qualify for the UBI, but it would massively reduce bureaucracy. And the bureaucratic jobs lost won't matter because those bureaucrats would be on the UBI!
We may not be born equal. But what we can do is help support a basic level of income for everyone to live off of and let them then work to further improve it, but pay taxes on that working income so that eventually their UBI would be repaid... but if something happened? They'd still have that basic income to fall back on. Losing your job would not be the death knell it can be for some people.
Acacia
No it is the reduction in stress. To get an unemoloyment you have to regularly jumo through some hoops, almost certainly in enlightened Sweden, and there may be some circumstances where you coukd be penalused. Once you are retired, that stress disappears.
A UBI and Medicare for All would be effective policies that would help the vast majority of people in the US deal with the oncoming ecological disasters and the economic withering due to increasing energy cost of energy. But neither the party of the Oligarchs (republicans) nor the party of the professional managerial class (democrats) is in favor of empowering people especially if those policies require the redistribution of income and/or power away from them and towards ordinary people.
The thing that truly terrifies both the oligarchs and the professional managerial class is the idea of an economically progressive and socially conservative party. So now we have the trust fund kids working with the “Karens of the world” to make sure 90% are fighting amongst themselves. You got to have the working class blacks fighting with working class whites and Hispanics and Asians, got to keep the straits and the gays fighting, got to keep the atheist fighting the religious otherwise they 90% might realize that the 10% has been screwing them over and really fucking up the world.
The geriatric Karens that run the Democratic party are selling their wealthy patrons “Woke Insurance”.
The pitch goes like this:” You all are seeing massive unrest that could potentially result in the government becoming progressive and redistribute power, income and wealth away from you. You know the Republicans will not be able to stop it because they are likely going to lose in a landslide. Be smart like the banksters, they invested in Obama and he protected them from prosecution, made sure they kept their jobs, kept their enormous bonuses and gave them trillions in subsidies. Invest with the Democrats now and we will keep you safe from the crowds with pitchforks and torches.”
@Darrell: Pournelle's formative experiences were in Germantown, TN, outside Memphis, as he would readily tell you. He was of the last generation of Republicans to take ideas seriously, the generation that powered the Reagan era and which we mourned with the passing of John McCain. But he had blinders, and the Co-Dominium series is saturated by their effects. Its near-future setting is merely an extrapolation of his Reaganite political philosophy, and the future history off Earth posits 19th century imperialist Britain as the ideal form of government (he does admit that aspects of the setting, including the FTL mechanism, were chosen to facilitate this result). In other words, the Co-Dominium is a Kiplingesque "just-so story".
But at least Pournelle sincerely believed what he preached, which is more than the current power players can say.
@Deuxglass: They might have saved the Free Trade argument (or might not) by noting that it applied to nations, not individuals, and noting that this implied the need to redistribute the extra gains made thereby. But that would have violated the principle of individual pursuit of profit, and thereby hangs a tale.
@Larry: That's the answer that today's commonplace analysis gives. But it's wrong. Education, for instance, pays immense ROI. It's just not easily tracked, predicted, or extracted. It doesn't fit nicely in a ledger and it can't produce extractive rent every quarter on demand.
For example: MIT is a private, nonprofit business with an extremely profitable business model. To wit: educate a couple thousand brilliant minds in the presence of all the tools needed to invent and start technology-based companies. Encourage all personnel from faculty to undergrads to start said companies, and then to donate profits, stock, etc. back to the school. It doesn't just work, it works phenomenally well, with an endowment of over $17B at last check.
Obviously MIT is an outlier, but the principle remains elsewhere. The alumni association of the STEM high school I attended did a study recently that showed that each state budget dollar invested in the school produced about $10 in increased tax revenue 20 years later-- and that despite inefficiencies like half the graduates settling outside the state! Lesser but still major returns applied to the community college down the road and its public-private partnership for training in high-tech trade skills.
These things have real and large economic value. It's just that our system finds it tedious to tally -- and therefore ignores it, or shoves it on government or religion or volunteering or "do-gooding".
A lot of people contribute to an oversimplification around the hiring process and indirectly create situations where kids and their parents make stupid spending decisions regarding educations. This mess combined with the loans that enable it all will implode one day in something like a financial bubble/crash. It won't be pretty.
Part of that mess can be cleaned up by understanding how a lot of small employers actually hire people. It's not so much the degree that matters. It's the people skills. I a prospective employee happens to acquire them through socialization in college, it looks like the college degree is necessary. It isn't, though.
I've been involved in a number of hiring decisions for my small business employer. Yes. I do look at the candidate's education, but as a proxy for the skills they need on the job. For some of our jobs, you don't need a lot of technical skill, but you DO need to be able to relate to others on a professional level. My experience says the degree is only partially useful as a proxy for that. If I want someone with people skills, I'm usually better off hiring someone who sees their 25th birthday in the rear view mirror. Those skills appear to correlate more with age (thus forebrain integration) than education. However, someone young who slogs through to get a degree is likely a better option than someone who doesn't. Not always, though. I've been burned often enough. Still… it is a semi-useful proxy. Age is better.
If I do look at education, I DO look at the school involved. We all do and have to do it. If we know a candidate is up to their eyeballs in debt, we know a lot about what their salary demands will be. If we know they are from a region with below-average cost-of-living, we know a lot about how they'll react to prices in our higher-than-average region, thus the mistakes they might make while negotiating a salary and trying to make it here in their first year.
There are limits to what we will pay for the jobs we offer, though. Our customer isn't willing to pay just any old price for us. We work cost-plus contracts, but we can be dumped by the customer when they choose not to exercise contract options. EVERY YEAR this can happen. Small business is like that no matter the customer. Longevity is far from assured. That adjusts what we are willing to pay for labor. A lot. Much more than anything else.
Technical skills can be learned… often on the job. If you have them the day you walk in the door, you bring human capital with you and should be able to demand a better salary. If not, it behooves us to invest in you… at least in my IT field. Learn it from us and you should be more valuable to others too, so the investment sticks to the employee. Does a degree help? Sometimes. Depends on whether it convinces us you are a learner. If you have people skills, you probably are a learner. THAT's a better proxy for hiring success than degrees, age, and most everything else.
People skills. If you are going to spend ridiculous sums of money learning anything, learn those.
@ Jon S:
Yes, the "U" means "universal. I'd be concerned about someone gradually slipping in a means-testing requirement- that's where the attacks start. Likewise, the proposal for free public tertiary education- if you means test it "up to $100k family income" the folks who make too much are going to argue for its repeal...
@ Larry Hart:
I grew up in a place like that; hell, if they're talking about the Texas Panhandle, I didn't grow up far from that place. (Curiously, some of these bigots could be quite friendly on a personal level- just don't discuss politics or religion...) Also, unless these folks live in a swing state (and it doesn't sound like they do), they don't matter
@ Alfred Differ: Re: USA not likely to become moribund:
I believe that in many ways the US is ALREADY moribund-
Politically- we are becoming more repressive, even as a number of previously discriminated groups make advances
Economically- We are seeing a decrease in the gains in the living standards/wages of most segments of Americans, income inequality is increasing (along with greater concentration of wealth), social mobility is decreasing (or at least other countries surpass us)
Medically- we are living longer and are healthier, but we rank low in the developed world. Our healthcare system is the most expensive and (probably) least efficient in the developed world.
Technically- Compared to the early TwenCen, we do not have as many revolutionary inventions
Music- Rock is 65 years old, Hiphop is about 45- when will there be something new and not derivative? Many people today like popular music from 50 years ago- in 1970 it would be very strange to find many people who liked music from 1920.There's a tremendous diversity out there, but (IMSM) an increasing amount of money is concentrated in the superstar performers.
Art- ISTM that there is very little pictorial art and sculpture that would be considered radical or unusual to someone from 50 years ago. New digital technology is allowing for new techniques of presentation and representation, but I'm not seeing/hearing about any revolutionary new schools or styles.
Literature- I'm NOT going there. (Dunning-Kruger, don't ya know... I'm the one with little knowledge.)
Morale- I get a sense of anger and fear, but not (yet of) hope.
Catfish 'n Cod:
That's the answer that today's commonplace analysis gives. But it's wrong. Education, for instance, pays immense ROI. It's just not easily tracked, predicted, or extracted. It doesn't fit nicely in a ledger and it can't produce extractive rent every quarter on demand
I don't think we're really arguing with each other, but to clarify my point.
I didn't mean that intangibles like education or clean water don't result in a higher standard of living. I meant that there is no mechanism for an investor who contributes dollars to such endeavors to be paid a dividend on the resulting socio-economic profit. There are no shares of stock to hold and no dividends paid out. Which is why public dollars are best suited for such investments. Society as a whole invests in them and profits from them.
Education, for instance, pays immense ROI.
I'm not so sure it is the education that pays so huge.
I suspect it is what happens to the person as they work through the process.
For example, by the time I left grad school, my ego was damn near bullet-proof. I didn't know what the heck I could do to make a living, but no one on Earth could convince me I was worthless. No one. My physics and mathematics learning is only partially useful on the job, but my confidence moves people. Annoys some too, but I know how to lift a team. Pretty easy. Doesn't show up on my transcripts.
Highly pertinent to my longstanding assertion that our notions of tolerant diversity and expanding horizons of inclusion are historically anomalous is this TV show that aired some years back. Some of you might find it interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHfGuYiKlF4
Onward
I welcome comments on appearance and usefulness as we have switched to "the New Blogger."
onward
onward
Post a Comment