6 ms·

I'd venture to say that the downvotes are coming from the very broad brush with which you're painting tens of thousands of people, few of which you personally k

I'd venture to say that the downvotes are coming from the very broad brush with which you're painting tens of thousands of people, few of which you personally know. I'd argue that the unprecedented unemployment rate represents a clear systemic dysfunction. These aren't temporary job losses due to the natural boom-bust cycle, a very large portion of these jobs are simply never coming back. Whose fault that is is hard to say, but I don't think it's at all cynical to doubt that the unemployment rates will abate on their own. It's also no secret that wages have been stagnant (if not outright dropping) for the past two decades. None of the trends indicate a cyclical nature, so it's not hard to suggest that these are systemic issues that won't correct themselves. The quality of life of the average American is dropping precipitously. In a singular case we can point to any number of causes - lack of education, lack of self-discipline, substance abuse, etc etc. When multiplied a couple hundred million times over, it suggests systemic failure. In other words, "broken", though of course we can argue about the meaning of "brokenness" till the cows come home. FWIW, I'm the "4%". I'm definitely not doing badly at all for myself, even in this economy. In fact, my quality of life has never been higher. Despite this, it would be a mistake for me to dismiss the problems this country faces, or to jump to conclusions about those affected. It is perpetually disappointing to me how judgmental the wealthy and successful can be, using their singular case of triumph over the system as a wide brush with which to paint all those who have failed to beat it.

davidw 15y ago
I think taking issue with 'fundamentally broken' is fair though. The current recession is not as bad as the great depression, and I'm very, very glad that in the US, we pursued incremental, evolutionary fixes to the breakage then, than much of the radical transformation that happened elsewhere, and turned out to be far, far worse than the 'broken' in the US. I mean, if something is genuinely fundamentally broken, you should throw it out and completely remake it, no? Terrible idea, as far as I'm concerned, with regards to the US economy. Other than that, I think your original comment was as good, although I still think the whole thing ought to be flagged as a political discussion that doesn't belong here.
JoshTriplett 15y ago
Funny, I'd actually intended my comment as a complaint about the very broad brush with which the protesters paint all the world's problems, or at least the ones they personally see. I'd argue that we don't have a "fundamentally broken" system which we could simply fix and solve all the problems at once. A large number of people have a large number of individual problems, and some of those problems look superficially similar. I'm pointedly trying to not paint a huge number of people with a broad brush. :)
philwelch 15y ago
Something can't be a "systemic dysfunction" while being the sole fault of 1% of the population, either.
- euccastro 15y ago
  It can, if that 1% effectively control the system.
- Jgrubb 15y ago
  Maybe I'm getting crazier and more radical in my old age, but I'd say that if the 1% can afford to buy/bend the system to their ends, then it most certainly can be systemic. The fact that I hear Obama's "$1B war chest" being trumpeted and that Tim Pawlenty drops out of the Republican race solely for lack of funding reinforces what I've felt for a very long time - that campaign finance is the elephant in the room in terms of the issues that are bringing this country down.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    In this particular case, the housing and higher education bubbles required significant proportions of the population to buy into them. Bubbles that do little but draw poor investment from the already wealthy aren't as problematic.
    - Jgrubb 15y ago
      I see what you're saying, and I agree. Those bubbles were not the systemic issue I'm specifically fired up about, though. Those are more like branches of the tree rather than the root. The root, to me, is corporate money and influence in Washington to such a degree that it effectively shuts out democracy. I lay fault for that systemic problem at the door of "the 1%" and the politicians they influence.
      - philwelch 15y ago
        The only reason campaign finance is an issue is because voters vote based on television advertising. So the real root cause is a lazy and easily manipulated electorate, which can further be pinned on things like useless public schools. I don't think this is a good idea, but I think if you actually restricted the vote to the so-called "1%" you might even get better government. There's no conspiracy by rich people to ruin the country for everyone else.

davidw 15y ago

I think taking issue with 'fundamentally broken' is fair though. The current recession is not as bad as the great depression, and I'm very, very glad that in the US, we pursued incremental, evolutionary fixes to the breakage then, than much of the radical transformation that happened elsewhere, and turned out to be far, far worse than the 'broken' in the US. I mean, if something is genuinely fundamentally broken, you should throw it out and completely remake it, no? Terrible idea, as far as I'm concerned, with regards to the US economy. Other than that, I think your original comment was as good, although I still think the whole thing ought to be flagged as a political discussion that doesn't belong here.

JoshTriplett 15y ago

Funny, I'd actually intended my comment as a complaint about the very broad brush with which the protesters paint all the world's problems, or at least the ones they personally see. I'd argue that we don't have a "fundamentally broken" system which we could simply fix and solve all the problems at once. A large number of people have a large number of individual problems, and some of those problems look superficially similar. I'm pointedly trying to not paint a huge number of people with a broad brush. :)

philwelch 15y ago

Something can't be a "systemic dysfunction" while being the sole fault of 1% of the population, either.

euccastro 15y ago
It can, if that 1% effectively control the system.
Jgrubb 15y ago
Maybe I'm getting crazier and more radical in my old age, but I'd say that if the 1% can afford to buy/bend the system to their ends, then it most certainly can be systemic. The fact that I hear Obama's "$1B war chest" being trumpeted and that Tim Pawlenty drops out of the Republican race solely for lack of funding reinforces what I've felt for a very long time - that campaign finance is the elephant in the room in terms of the issues that are bringing this country down.
- philwelch 15y ago
  In this particular case, the housing and higher education bubbles required significant proportions of the population to buy into them. Bubbles that do little but draw poor investment from the already wealthy aren't as problematic.
  - Jgrubb 15y ago
    I see what you're saying, and I agree. Those bubbles were not the systemic issue I'm specifically fired up about, though. Those are more like branches of the tree rather than the root. The root, to me, is corporate money and influence in Washington to such a degree that it effectively shuts out democracy. I lay fault for that systemic problem at the door of "the 1%" and the politicians they influence.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      The only reason campaign finance is an issue is because voters vote based on television advertising. So the real root cause is a lazy and easily manipulated electorate, which can further be pinned on things like useless public schools. I don't think this is a good idea, but I think if you actually restricted the vote to the so-called "1%" you might even get better government. There's no conspiracy by rich people to ruin the country for everyone else.