5 ms·

It explicitly criticises the inability of the economy to create enough jobs. It says that Marx was correct about capitalism (btw, contrary to what people think,

It explicitly criticises the inability of the economy to create enough jobs. It says that Marx was correct about capitalism (btw, contrary to what people think, this is a fairly common view amongst conservatives who tend to be well-read enough to know that Marx's critiques of capitalism are quite distinct from Marxism). It is a fairly traditional conservative critique of capitalism that actually predates Marx by five decades (capitalism is dehumanizing, it breaks down traditional relations, capitalism is destructive socially/culturally).

pfkurtz 5y ago
The US jobless is at record lows. That is a bad criticism of our economic system, because it isn't true. It might be the case that some powerful economic actors work to undermine full employment some of the time (for instance). But the specifics matter. What matters is the kinds of jobs and how much of the pie is being distributed, a fact completely left out of their article. Do conservatives care about having an economy that's actually just and equitable? That's a pretty big part of what Marx was getting at; much bigger than the one point about how it undermines traditional religious belief (a good thing). That would probably solve their concerns about not enough young people starting families. I've heard a lot of rhetoric, and I've seen what literally every "conservative" politician actually does: enrich entrenched elites, undermine democracy, and make the violent parts of the state less accountable to the public.
- caconym_ 5y ago
  > But the specifics matter. What matters is the kinds of jobs From the article, emphasis mine: > Only by actually addressing problems at the point of production—for example, by ensuring decent jobs that allow workers to support a family—can one honestly hope to address these problems in a permanent way. Maybe not as specific as you'd like, but I don't think it's accurate to say the article doesn't go beyond employment numbers on their face. In fact, in the context of SK, it's explicitly critical of the sorts of "jobs" one might suspect these days of putting a pretty coat of lipstick on the pig that is our job market: > Though the official unemployment rate in South Korea is below 4 percent, an enviable number in any advanced economy, rosy figures such as these mask a growing structural and social malaise in the country. The rate of “self-employment” in South Korea was estimated to be over 25 percent before the pandemic, compared to 10 percent in the United States. This phenomenon of self-employment, much like the oft-hyped switch to “the gig economy” in America, has little to do with individual freedom and entrepreneurship and more to do with underemployment, a lack of job retraining, and worsening prospects especially for older members of the workforce. On top of this, the South Korean middle classes find themselves not only threatened by a potential shrinking of opportunity, but face constantly growing costs as well, including education and housing prices, especially in Seoul, where median apartment prices have nearly doubled since 2016.
- hogFeast 5y ago
  > What matters is the kinds of jobs and how much of the pie is being distributed, a fact completely left out of their article. Again, this is not left out. This point is explicitly mentioned. > Do conservatives care about have an economy that's actually just and equitable? Yes, that is what the article is arguing for. I am not actually sure that Marx did say this because the notion of justice and equity is inherently subjective. What he said is that capitalism changes the nature of social and cultural relations. Okay, that is what you have seen, it doesn't make it true because your point of view is: conservative people are bad. If you actually think more carefully about what you are saying, you would understand why this is wrong (conservative thought in the US was founded on the principle of challenging an accountable state, challenging entrenched elites, and creating democracy).

pfkurtz 5y ago

The US jobless is at record lows. That is a bad criticism of our economic system, because it isn't true. It might be the case that some powerful economic actors work to undermine full employment some of the time (for instance). But the specifics matter. What matters is the kinds of jobs and how much of the pie is being distributed, a fact completely left out of their article. Do conservatives care about having an economy that's actually just and equitable? That's a pretty big part of what Marx was getting at; much bigger than the one point about how it undermines traditional religious belief (a good thing). That would probably solve their concerns about not enough young people starting families. I've heard a lot of rhetoric, and I've seen what literally every "conservative" politician actually does: enrich entrenched elites, undermine democracy, and make the violent parts of the state less accountable to the public.

caconym_ 5y ago
> But the specifics matter. What matters is the kinds of jobs From the article, emphasis mine: > Only by actually addressing problems at the point of production—for example, by ensuring decent jobs that allow workers to support a family—can one honestly hope to address these problems in a permanent way. Maybe not as specific as you'd like, but I don't think it's accurate to say the article doesn't go beyond employment numbers on their face. In fact, in the context of SK, it's explicitly critical of the sorts of "jobs" one might suspect these days of putting a pretty coat of lipstick on the pig that is our job market: > Though the official unemployment rate in South Korea is below 4 percent, an enviable number in any advanced economy, rosy figures such as these mask a growing structural and social malaise in the country. The rate of “self-employment” in South Korea was estimated to be over 25 percent before the pandemic, compared to 10 percent in the United States. This phenomenon of self-employment, much like the oft-hyped switch to “the gig economy” in America, has little to do with individual freedom and entrepreneurship and more to do with underemployment, a lack of job retraining, and worsening prospects especially for older members of the workforce. On top of this, the South Korean middle classes find themselves not only threatened by a potential shrinking of opportunity, but face constantly growing costs as well, including education and housing prices, especially in Seoul, where median apartment prices have nearly doubled since 2016.
hogFeast 5y ago
> What matters is the kinds of jobs and how much of the pie is being distributed, a fact completely left out of their article. Again, this is not left out. This point is explicitly mentioned. > Do conservatives care about have an economy that's actually just and equitable? Yes, that is what the article is arguing for. I am not actually sure that Marx did say this because the notion of justice and equity is inherently subjective. What he said is that capitalism changes the nature of social and cultural relations. Okay, that is what you have seen, it doesn't make it true because your point of view is: conservative people are bad. If you actually think more carefully about what you are saying, you would understand why this is wrong (conservative thought in the US was founded on the principle of challenging an accountable state, challenging entrenched elites, and creating democracy).