So just because one person from MIT says its so, than that makes it true?
No of course not. But if an reputable economic expert who was reviewed by the MIT is saying, look guys we have a serious issue here maybe we should do something about it! Then it might be a good idea to at least take it in to consideration. After all, neither you nor me are experts here or have the right tools to even address any issue outside of
anecdotal evidence.
You could see it that way. Who would you trust more in case some asteroid is heading towards earth? If I told you about it or a known astrophysicists from NASA?
Look. I am not saying it has to be exactly that way or that it can't be discussed or criticised. I am just saying there is a certain development taking place right now and we have to keep an eye on it as there is a real risk that it will spiral out of control. As far as I remember the growing issues created from wealth and income inequality was even a discussed topic at Davos and Oxfam (a very reputable source!) recently published worrying studies on that subject. And their goal definitively isn't meant to be a "criticism" on capitalism but to simply prevent political and social instability that inevitably come with growing inequality. When you have a large decline or disparity here while the economy is growing then you can not simply explain it away as, ah those 40-50% that see a decline in their income are just to lazy to work! Even some prominent investors are now saying companies have to look out more for stake holders than share holders. In other words, they neglected their consumers and their purchasing power for way to long compared to the interests of share holders and the maximising of profits.
One-quarter of American workers make less than $10 per hour which puts them bellow the federal poverty level. With a population of roughly 330 Million people that's a damn lot. And that is an issue which can not be simply solved trough education or telling everyone to get better jobs. You can not simply make 100 Million people in to engineers, bank accountants or what ever other profession comes with a very high salary. We have to recognize that there are roles in this society which have to be filled but we're not paying them actual living wages.
Economies, from what we know today work best when they are circular. Debts for example are at the same time someone's liquidity. Money received is usually also money spend and so on. This is very simplified but that's the gist of it. Many issues today though stem from the fact that more and more money is concentrated within a smaller number of people and places (corporations). If wages don't grow as how they should, or if more people lose their jobs, or have to spend more on the costs of living this means they have also less purchasing power. And in our global economy one metric for generating wealth is consumerism. - The Stake Holder vs. the Share Holder argument. In the end to actually see economic growth you also need people that can actually purchase the products you manufacture. 80% of the population has more and more trouble to actually afford the gods companies like Amazon and others throw out. And there is no way that 20% of the population will buy all that stuff and there is only so much that can be compensated by exporting goods.
Education. I know the guy is clueless as getting a degree doesn't mean shit. One has to get a degree in a marketable field to get value back. Nobody gives a shit about someone with a bachelor of arts degree or one in womens studies. It is the same old Bernie bullshit lie about how free education works in Europe while neglecting to explain how different college is over there than here in the states.
If we always go with what's valuable on the market we might never see any kind of progress. It's not the market that drives progress. It's the state. Governments to be precise. There would be no Space X today if the government didn't invest billions in to the space program trough out the 50s and 60s which pretty much gave birth to a lot of industries we see today. Space has become really profitable only in the recent decades. No company would have ever invested in space exploration trough out the 50s or 60s.
While I am not uncritical to all social degrees one can get out there, when I say that education has become increasingly more expensive then I am talking about ALL(!) kinds of education here, even the one that are marketable. Be it in medicine, natural sciences (STEM) or any other. That's a lot of wasted potential when you think about it. Because a lot of research simply happens to take place at universities. Research where you can not say if it ever will be profitable or not. Like fundamental research. Right now a lot of foreign students come to the United States for getting their education because you still have, compared to 70% of the world out there some of the best universities which still speaks volume for the decisions that have been made in favour of educating people some 50 years ago. But this is going to change if it becomes increasingly more difficult to get an education because we put economic considerations and profitability always as the deciding factor. And then you might actually see a situation where your brightest minds leave the nation to study and work in China or India in the future draining your economies from actual inventors and creative minds and the value will be created simply somewhere else. Who knows what the situation might look like in 10 or 20 years. Particularly if there isn't enough done actually to improve the situation. When it comes to such abstract thinking and social changes the so called free markets are terrible in regulating such things. Capital and investments know no nations, patriotism or even borders. Which was something FDR even criticised when some of the largest Oil companies in the United States like Standard Oil conducted business with the Nazis even in 1939 when Germany attacked Poland and this practise really stopped only after 1941 really when Nazi Germany issued a declaration of war against the United States.
This is a much broader issue then just, oh hey there are also a lot of useless social lulz degrees they can work always at Star Bucks managers hurr durr!
I am not saying education is a save card to wealth or a good income by the way. And yes not everyone is meant to end up on a college. And no not every degree on it should warrant you a great income. But I see no reason why we have to throw economic road blocks at people here just because some might decide to go with a profession that you see as useless. Besides, who's actually the kind of group that demands high wages simply because they have college degrees in some liberal arts? I have my serious doubts that we're talking about the ghetto kid here which has lived in poverty since birth which is now demanding 5000 dollars pay because he or she chose feminist classes or what ever. This is actually a great example of privilege you know. People that grew up in poverty, knowing poor neighbourhoods struggling for most of their live and the like usually do not exhibit this kind of entitlement and are actually quite realistic in their expectations. We're really talking about a very small minority here. Often people that actually come out of relatively wealthy households. The majority of people that have spend a good part of their live in jobs that pay less than the minimum wage don't have this kind of expectation really. They usually just want affordable health care and a wage that's high enough to allow for having some savings and support their families so a broken car or unexpected medical bill doesn't mean they have to go broke.
Look, push the idea all you want but stuff has LIMITS. Not to mention, with no limits, demand continues to grow exponentially while funding eventually stagnates. Using Europe as an example, you guys don't even field a realistic military, have a MUCH SMALLER population, are much more homogenous and are still running into budget issues. Remember austerity and the changes in France causing all the striking?
Europe has roughly a population of 512 Million people. Hardly "small" by any standards. And the United States is constantly pushing European States to spend more on military investments which is in my opinion lunacy. Particularly when you have to ask your self, for what? France has nuclear weapons. The United States has nuclear weapons. Who in their right mind is going to start a traditional military conflict here? Russia? China?
And yes, we are in Europe a lot more critical when it comes to military spending. Because many European States are Social Democracies. Any million that's spend on tanks, attack planes and weapons is simply put, empty economic value. This was already an issue with the German Reich which has grown it's economy tremendously from 1936 to 1939. But most of it had no real economic value as it was in terms of military contractors and useless infrastructure projects.
Many states are fine with drinking water. Many states have little infrastructure issues. Not every town and state is Flint, Michigan. America is inundated with cars, planes, trains, bicycles, etc.
For now. But the EPA has issued some of the largest roll back in water treatment and regulation for the last 50 years. Basically small rivers and ponds are not protected anymore. Against the advice of actuall scientists who say, that only protecting the larger ones even though we know all the smaller ones eventually end up in the big ones, isn't going to cut it. The consequence of this will be that you will see more places like Flynt Michigan popping up. Just give it some time. While Trump is keeping the population busy with one scandal after another the people he put in to office are removing one regulation after another. Particularly regarding the environment. Regulations that have been actually put in place not just by Obama but also by people like Nixon and Reagan.
Look, push the idea all you want but stuff has LIMITS. Not to mention, with no limits, demand continues to grow exponentially while funding eventually stagnates. Using Europe as an example, you guys don't even field a realistic military, have a MUCH SMALLER population, are much more homogenous and are still running into budget issues. Remember austerity and the changes in France causing all the striking?
Maybe if the United States wouldn't have spend Trillions(!) on dollars since 2001 in all of those conflicts there would be the money necessary for those social programs.
But I understand. I always get this criticism thrown at me. I am the idiot here. For demanding social improvements. Let us send more poor kidz in to the middle east. That will fix the issues in the US. I know you didn't make that argument. But there are enough people out there that have no issue with spending more and more on the military while saying, there is no money for social programs!
Let us be honest for a moment. If it came to a war with Iran, for what ever reason, do you think someone would come up and say, Look, push the idea all you want but stuff has LIMITS. Do you really believe that would happen? No it wouldn't. Congress would pass another bill and there would be another trillion dollar drain created for 20+ years. Just like the last 2 times with Afghanistan and Iraq.
Like I said. We have only limits when it comes to helping people. Never when it comes to destroying people.
Crni, come on man. You are the loudest critic and simply cannot shut up about how we humans CONSUME or otherwise waste tons of money on stupid shit. Here is a fact that isn't rocket science. It is easy to save money when one spends LESS. Does one need the newest fucking IPHONE or SHOES, or bags, or rims, designer brands, etc? See this is your problem. You claim not to say everyone is a victim when your posts prove otherwise. You completely ignore self control issues and jump straight into LIVING WAGE blame, no matter how vague or silly the words living wage is.
Yes I am. And this endless consumerism is a serious problem that we will have to tackle in the not so distant future. But for now, we have an increasingly number of people that can not even afford decent housing or the basic necessities of living. And this is even true for roughly 20-30% of Americans. They do not worry about the next I phone. But from where they can get the rent for next month. Or the money for the next school excursion.
For someone who I think is intelligent I am actually surprised that you're so quick in judgement and don't recognize what I mean. I also said several times by now that no, I am not saying everyone is a victim ...
