3 ms·

Not if they stubbornly refuse to move from their rural communities.

by atomi 9y ago

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
If people continue to ignore the wellbeing of rural midwest states, those states will continue to vote for antiglobalist candidates. If globalization is as important as most here makes it sound, we need to implement it in a manner that doesn't hurt nearly half of the population.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- nostrademons 9y ago
  On a social justice level, I agree with you, but I want to point out that for the folks who are actually globalists, the "population" is 7 billion humans, and the 150 million rural & small town Americans are a rounding error (just over 2%, or roughly half the population of Internet Explorer users). That's why it's important to secure the rights of minorities in any system of government.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    The issue here is that we don't live in a global government, but a national one. The government is elected by American citizens, and if a huge chunk of American citizens are experiencing a declining quality of life, they will vote for a change candidate.
    - atomi 9y ago
      I don't see why Silicon Valley has any obligation to subsidize rural America. Those farm subsidies are only going to go so far but beyond that there has to be some self-sufficiency.
    - nostrademons 9y ago
      Sure. I'm just saying that the current situation - where ~5% of the world's population has gotten used to a standard of living far in excess of their productive capacity because they were the only developed country left standing after WW2 - is a very unstable equilibrium. Either we're eclipsed as a nation by China (pop 1.379B) or India (pop 1.324B), each 20% of the world; or the whole concept of nationhood falls apart, and we get city-states in a global trade confederation; or we end up lobbing nukes at every major population center and suddenly the world population is 100M instead of 7B. All of these I'd consider to be bad outcomes, but if I had to choose between them, I'd prefer the second. The idea that America's going to continue to be on top of the world for the next 20-30 years is unrealistic, though, barring some major technological development that makes each American 5 times as effective as the corresponding foreigner. That's part of the point of this visa program, I guess, to ensure that that technological breakthrough happens here rather than elsewhere.
      - sheepmullet 9y ago
        > where ~5% of the world's population has gotten used to a standard of living far in excess of their productive capacity I'm not quite sure what you mean. We have an incredible excess of production capability. Housing is cheaper and faster to build than ever. So is most infrastructure. American factories are so labor efficient these days that if there was demand they could easily double or triple output over the next 5-10 years. The real loss would be long term as there would be fewer great minds and innovators.

Not if they stubbornly refuse to move from their rural communities.

by atomi 9y ago

Not if they stubbornly refuse to move from their rural communities.

If people continue to ignore the wellbeing of rural midwest states, those states will continue to vote for antiglobalist candidates. If globalization is as important as most here makes it sound, we need to implement it in a manner that doesn't hurt nearly half of the population.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
nostrademons 9y ago
On a social justice level, I agree with you, but I want to point out that for the folks who are actually globalists, the "population" is 7 billion humans, and the 150 million rural & small town Americans are a rounding error (just over 2%, or roughly half the population of Internet Explorer users). That's why it's important to secure the rights of minorities in any system of government.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  The issue here is that we don't live in a global government, but a national one. The government is elected by American citizens, and if a huge chunk of American citizens are experiencing a declining quality of life, they will vote for a change candidate.
  - atomi 9y ago
    I don't see why Silicon Valley has any obligation to subsidize rural America. Those farm subsidies are only going to go so far but beyond that there has to be some self-sufficiency.
  - nostrademons 9y ago
    Sure. I'm just saying that the current situation - where ~5% of the world's population has gotten used to a standard of living far in excess of their productive capacity because they were the only developed country left standing after WW2 - is a very unstable equilibrium. Either we're eclipsed as a nation by China (pop 1.379B) or India (pop 1.324B), each 20% of the world; or the whole concept of nationhood falls apart, and we get city-states in a global trade confederation; or we end up lobbing nukes at every major population center and suddenly the world population is 100M instead of 7B. All of these I'd consider to be bad outcomes, but if I had to choose between them, I'd prefer the second. The idea that America's going to continue to be on top of the world for the next 20-30 years is unrealistic, though, barring some major technological development that makes each American 5 times as effective as the corresponding foreigner. That's part of the point of this visa program, I guess, to ensure that that technological breakthrough happens here rather than elsewhere.
    - sheepmullet 9y ago
      > where ~5% of the world's population has gotten used to a standard of living far in excess of their productive capacity I'm not quite sure what you mean. We have an incredible excess of production capability. Housing is cheaper and faster to build than ever. So is most infrastructure. American factories are so labor efficient these days that if there was demand they could easily double or triple output over the next 5-10 years. The real loss would be long term as there would be fewer great minds and innovators.