4 ms·

I don't really see why the rate of productivity should matter as much as the absolute value of productivity in regards to distribution of wealth. I agree the A

by allenp 16y ago

I don't really see why the rate of productivity should matter as much as the absolute value of productivity in regards to distribution of wealth. I agree the American suburban lifestyle is and will continue to decline as it just simply is not sustainable. These will be the new ghettos as more and more poor are pushed out of the cities into the now decaying suburbs. As to why American productivity would rally, I can only imagine vast advances from nano and bio-tech and machines that build other machines.

jordan0day 16y ago
As long as it's the rich who have the money to pay for increasingly expensive resources like gas, what's their motivation for moving away from the suburbs?
- rbranson 16y ago
  There aren't enough rich people to sustain the suburbs. I think what these people are talking about is the suburban middle-class entitlement mentality. The vast majority of middle-class americans live in suburbs and subscribe to the philosophy that they are compelled to consume as many resources as allowed by their bank account and/or credit cards. Frugalness, philanthropy, and community are not mainstream American values.
  - orangecat 16y ago
    Frugalness, philanthropy, and community are not mainstream American values. US citizens give more in private charity than anyone else, both in absolute terms and GDP percentage: http://www.jonholato.com/2007/06/26/us-more-charitable-than-any-other-country/ http://www.jonholato.com/2007/06/26/us-more-charitable-than-...
    - rbranson 16y ago
      If you consider any donation to a non-profit as charity, then sure. The article you linked uses a very loose definition of charity: any discretionary income received by non-profit entities. This covers pretty much all donations given to religious institutions (which covers 32%, by far the largest slice of the pie) and a huge amount of money given to educational institutions (which came in second place with 14%). There's very little charitable about the vast majority of modern churches and educational institutions (specifically private colleges and grade schools). I view charity as giving money to an organization from which you receive no benefit. This pretty much wipes out the majority of US "charity."
    - cma 16y ago
      GDP in America is inflated with more useless things that net each other out (say, two competing marketing campaigns for different brands of bleach) than GDP anywhere else.
  - grav1tas 16y ago
    I think American values are an evolving thing across generations. The baby boomers grew up in a time where getting a home and all its effects were the thing to do because people were moving to a time of common homeownership. The boomlets grew up in a world where everybody already has homes, and it's hard (I think) to actualize yourself by doing exactly what your parents did. I think we're already experiencing somewhat of a shift to more abstract forms of actualization and values in younger generations. While I'm not trying to plug a politician here, I think the way President Obama's election campaign resonated with so many young people is some evidence to this effect. Some of these values may be what you consider not mainstream now, but give 20-30 years, they might be more prevalent again.
    - rbranson 16y ago
      I certainly hope so. The entitlement mentality of most boomers and their children is shocking to me sometimes.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
nickpinkston 16y ago
Well, to your first point, I'd say that productivity in relative terms is a more useful measure in this case because that's generally where the best investments are to made - if we're sticking with the "investors don't need america" part. The issue with using absolute productivity in a global world is that comparative advantage in production (i.e. higher productivity growth, and with it higher real incomes in the developing world) are the driver for lifestyle. Think of it this way: if others are wealthier, they'll put upward price pressure on supply side of goods that American's buy (look at copper for example) - while at the same time American productivity (vis-a-vis real income) decreases (or at least remains flat) make these goods less affordable from the demand side. This means lifestyle, even with a fixed absolute productiviy, will decrease.

by allenp 16y ago

jordan0day 16y ago

As long as it's the rich who have the money to pay for increasingly expensive resources like gas, what's their motivation for moving away from the suburbs?

rbranson 16y ago
There aren't enough rich people to sustain the suburbs. I think what these people are talking about is the suburban middle-class entitlement mentality. The vast majority of middle-class americans live in suburbs and subscribe to the philosophy that they are compelled to consume as many resources as allowed by their bank account and/or credit cards. Frugalness, philanthropy, and community are not mainstream American values.
- orangecat 16y ago
  Frugalness, philanthropy, and community are not mainstream American values. US citizens give more in private charity than anyone else, both in absolute terms and GDP percentage: http://www.jonholato.com/2007/06/26/us-more-charitable-than-any-other-country/ http://www.jonholato.com/2007/06/26/us-more-charitable-than-...
  - rbranson 16y ago
    If you consider any donation to a non-profit as charity, then sure. The article you linked uses a very loose definition of charity: any discretionary income received by non-profit entities. This covers pretty much all donations given to religious institutions (which covers 32%, by far the largest slice of the pie) and a huge amount of money given to educational institutions (which came in second place with 14%). There's very little charitable about the vast majority of modern churches and educational institutions (specifically private colleges and grade schools). I view charity as giving money to an organization from which you receive no benefit. This pretty much wipes out the majority of US "charity."
  - cma 16y ago
    GDP in America is inflated with more useless things that net each other out (say, two competing marketing campaigns for different brands of bleach) than GDP anywhere else.
- grav1tas 16y ago
  I think American values are an evolving thing across generations. The baby boomers grew up in a time where getting a home and all its effects were the thing to do because people were moving to a time of common homeownership. The boomlets grew up in a world where everybody already has homes, and it's hard (I think) to actualize yourself by doing exactly what your parents did. I think we're already experiencing somewhat of a shift to more abstract forms of actualization and values in younger generations. While I'm not trying to plug a politician here, I think the way President Obama's election campaign resonated with so many young people is some evidence to this effect. Some of these values may be what you consider not mainstream now, but give 20-30 years, they might be more prevalent again.
  - rbranson 16y ago
    I certainly hope so. The entitlement mentality of most boomers and their children is shocking to me sometimes.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]

nickpinkston 16y ago

Well, to your first point, I'd say that productivity in relative terms is a more useful measure in this case because that's generally where the best investments are to made - if we're sticking with the "investors don't need america" part. The issue with using absolute productivity in a global world is that comparative advantage in production (i.e. higher productivity growth, and with it higher real incomes in the developing world) are the driver for lifestyle. Think of it this way: if others are wealthier, they'll put upward price pressure on supply side of goods that American's buy (look at copper for example) - while at the same time American productivity (vis-a-vis real income) decreases (or at least remains flat) make these goods less affordable from the demand side. This means lifestyle, even with a fixed absolute productiviy, will decrease.