4 ms·

Sure, it's nice to have a job like that if you get paid a living wage, have a social safety net, secure housing, and no dependents. I have news for you: that j

by danans 2y ago

Sure, it's nice to have a job like that if you get paid a living wage, have a social safety net, secure housing, and no dependents. I have news for you: that job (and situation) didn't exist then, and doesn't exist now. It briefly existed in the few decades following WW2, but we have torn down much of the ideology and social infrastructure that made that possible.

cjbgkagh 2y ago
Even if such promises were made and indeed kept for some people at no point that I am aware of was the situation ever long term stable. AFAIK Soviet Union guaranteed dignity in retirement and planned to not have to pay for it through achieving a post-monetary society. The US made similar guarantees and planed to out-grow the costs (i.e. ponzi scheme).
- danans 2y ago
  > The US made similar guarantees and planed to out-grow the costs (i.e. ponzi scheme). If you're referring to Social Security in the US, it's no more a Ponzi scheme than your home mortgage payment is a Ponzi scheme. In reality it's a progressive tax scheme to prevent senior citizen poverty. To make Social Security solvent, lift the cap on Social Security taxes. Will the working and middle classes benefit more than the wealthy who will pay more in those taxes? Yes, and progressive taxation to prevent abject impoverishment of working and middle class seniors is a good thing.
  - cjbgkagh 2y ago
    The US would still need to outgrow its other problems if the US in general is to remain solvent. I am pretty doubtful that it can.
    - alabastervlog 2y ago
      Yeah, the two rounds of huge tax cuts since our last semi-balanced budget really screwed us. As they were predicted to.
      - cjbgkagh 2y ago
        That and danans 'one thing' seems rather simplistic / reductive. My view is the degradation of the US has been many things over a long time and we're lucky things lasted as long as they have been.
        danans 2y ago
        > That and danans 'one thing' seems rather simplistic / reductive OK. Let's add some things. Free public schools, subsidized public universities, subsidized public vocational colleges, Medicare. All can be funded if we reverse the tens of trillions of wealth that we have channeled upwards with tax cuts for the wealthy and cut taxes for the working class.
        cjbgkagh 2y ago
        ‘We’? Good luck with that. At least Tankies are honest about the degree of coercion required to get a population to agree on things.
        PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        It is clear from your comments here that you're a very cynical person when it comes to national government. Perhaps that is blinding you to the fairly well-known fact that during the period most extolled by conservatives as the golden age of American history (*), upper marginal rates were in the 70-92% range, without much disagreement except for a few people who leveraged their wealth into (Reagan's) political power. Most people didn't see anything wrong with those rates back then, and most surveys even today show Americans in very large numbers in favor of a much more egalitarian distribution of wealth than exists (they also think it is much more egalitarian than it actually is). (*) yes, ok, so in reality some of them want to go back to 1890 or even earlier, but I'm trying to focus on a more mainstream conservative attitude.
        cjbgkagh 2y ago
        There are governments I do like, it is possible to govern well. I just think it's facile to work under the assumption that the answer is simple. That one simple change will take the US from point A to B. The US has radically changed from the 1950s and the idea that one simple change of a 92% top marginal tax rate will make it economically the 1950s again is completely preposterous.
    - throwaway2037 2y ago
      The US is essentially the fastest growing rich non-microstate country in the world. If US cannot do it, then I guess that you also believe all other highly developed nations with large social safety nets will become insolvent?
echelon 2y ago
> It briefly existed in the few decades following WW2, but we have torn down much of the ideology and social infrastructure that made that possible. No. Post-WWII America experienced a period of economic tailwinds that will likely never exist again. Europe and Asia were in shambles after the war - bombed out, destroyed, male populations decimated - just as America was growing to peak industrial strength. America had a population boom, everything was cheap, and everyone was buying American goods. America had everything it needed - cheap resources, cheap land, abundant labor, and a totally captive worldwide market. No country has ever had every single variable flipped in their favor to such an outsized degree. As we reached the 70's - 90's, we started to outsource. Our labor had become more expensive, but we offset this with cheap imported goods. We were still extremely and unilaterally wealthy. Post China WTO, the wealth of America has been spent and "averaged out" over dozens of post-industrial economies. The market is so much larger than it was back then, and America doesn't possess hegemonic, unilateral economic power. Moreover, American industrial power has waned. The thing we had going for us - the American knowledge worker and the almighty power of the American consumer - was being met with increasing competition from everywhere. The industrialization "algorithm" continues on: India, Vietnam, Mexico. Every country that industrializes and leverages cheap labor can grow into a powerhouse in just a single generation. There are a lot of countries within spitting distance of America, especially if you group them together into blocs. The American consumer economy isn't so unique anymore, and we certainly haven't been producing our own goods for a long time. So the wealth of the Baby Boomers and their incredible economic tailwinds will not be felt again unless there's some wildly new disruption to the economic order. (AGI and automated manufacturing, maybe?) The reality is that the American middle class will shrink and people will have to work harder. The American market doesn't have magical superiority anymore.
- danans 2y ago
  > No. Post-WWII America experienced a period of economic tailwinds that will likely never exist again. The UK didn't get bombed nearly to the extent of continental Europe, and it was a mature industrialized society - the first one in fact - yet it also experienced the post WW2 growth. Same for the the bombed-out countries like Germany and France. > As we reached the 70's - 90's, we started to outsource. Our labor had become more expensive, but we offset this with cheap imported goods. We were still extremely and unilaterally wealthy. The US GDP didn't stop growing then, but wealth inequality vastly increased up to the present. The growth in inequality is the change, not the growing GDP. > Post China WTO, the wealth of America has been spent and "averaged out" over dozens of post-industrial economies Again, US GDP has effectively increased super-linearly since the 90s, even with China in the WTO. The problem is the benefits - even after the cheap consumer goods - have largely been realized by the wealthiest while the working class have been left out to dry. If the US hadn't gutted the working/middle class's jobs, assets and the public infrastructure they depend on during this period, perhaps we wouldn't have the instability we face now. > So the wealth of the Baby Boomers and their incredible economic tailwinds will not be felt again unless there's some wildly new disruption to the economic order. (AGI and automated manufacturing, maybe?) Wealth will continue to explode as technology allows ever greater efficiency and exploitation of resources. > The reality is that the American middle class will shrink and people will have to work harder. The American market doesn't have magical superiority anymore. Not if they stop fighting each other and instead fight for their piece of the productivity growth.

by danans 2y ago

cjbgkagh 2y ago

Even if such promises were made and indeed kept for some people at no point that I am aware of was the situation ever long term stable. AFAIK Soviet Union guaranteed dignity in retirement and planned to not have to pay for it through achieving a post-monetary society. The US made similar guarantees and planed to out-grow the costs (i.e. ponzi scheme).

danans 2y ago
> The US made similar guarantees and planed to out-grow the costs (i.e. ponzi scheme). If you're referring to Social Security in the US, it's no more a Ponzi scheme than your home mortgage payment is a Ponzi scheme. In reality it's a progressive tax scheme to prevent senior citizen poverty. To make Social Security solvent, lift the cap on Social Security taxes. Will the working and middle classes benefit more than the wealthy who will pay more in those taxes? Yes, and progressive taxation to prevent abject impoverishment of working and middle class seniors is a good thing.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  The US would still need to outgrow its other problems if the US in general is to remain solvent. I am pretty doubtful that it can.
  - alabastervlog 2y ago
    Yeah, the two rounds of huge tax cuts since our last semi-balanced budget really screwed us. As they were predicted to.
    - cjbgkagh 2y ago
      That and danans 'one thing' seems rather simplistic / reductive. My view is the degradation of the US has been many things over a long time and we're lucky things lasted as long as they have been.
      - danans 2y ago
        > That and danans 'one thing' seems rather simplistic / reductive OK. Let's add some things. Free public schools, subsidized public universities, subsidized public vocational colleges, Medicare. All can be funded if we reverse the tens of trillions of wealth that we have channeled upwards with tax cuts for the wealthy and cut taxes for the working class.
        cjbgkagh 2y ago
        ‘We’? Good luck with that. At least Tankies are honest about the degree of coercion required to get a population to agree on things.
        PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        It is clear from your comments here that you're a very cynical person when it comes to national government. Perhaps that is blinding you to the fairly well-known fact that during the period most extolled by conservatives as the golden age of American history (*), upper marginal rates were in the 70-92% range, without much disagreement except for a few people who leveraged their wealth into (Reagan's) political power. Most people didn't see anything wrong with those rates back then, and most surveys even today show Americans in very large numbers in favor of a much more egalitarian distribution of wealth than exists (they also think it is much more egalitarian than it actually is). (*) yes, ok, so in reality some of them want to go back to 1890 or even earlier, but I'm trying to focus on a more mainstream conservative attitude.
        cjbgkagh 2y ago
        There are governments I do like, it is possible to govern well. I just think it's facile to work under the assumption that the answer is simple. That one simple change will take the US from point A to B. The US has radically changed from the 1950s and the idea that one simple change of a 92% top marginal tax rate will make it economically the 1950s again is completely preposterous.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    The US is essentially the fastest growing rich non-microstate country in the world. If US cannot do it, then I guess that you also believe all other highly developed nations with large social safety nets will become insolvent?

echelon 2y ago

> It briefly existed in the few decades following WW2, but we have torn down much of the ideology and social infrastructure that made that possible. No. Post-WWII America experienced a period of economic tailwinds that will likely never exist again. Europe and Asia were in shambles after the war - bombed out, destroyed, male populations decimated - just as America was growing to peak industrial strength. America had a population boom, everything was cheap, and everyone was buying American goods. America had everything it needed - cheap resources, cheap land, abundant labor, and a totally captive worldwide market. No country has ever had every single variable flipped in their favor to such an outsized degree. As we reached the 70's - 90's, we started to outsource. Our labor had become more expensive, but we offset this with cheap imported goods. We were still extremely and unilaterally wealthy. Post China WTO, the wealth of America has been spent and "averaged out" over dozens of post-industrial economies. The market is so much larger than it was back then, and America doesn't possess hegemonic, unilateral economic power. Moreover, American industrial power has waned. The thing we had going for us - the American knowledge worker and the almighty power of the American consumer - was being met with increasing competition from everywhere. The industrialization "algorithm" continues on: India, Vietnam, Mexico. Every country that industrializes and leverages cheap labor can grow into a powerhouse in just a single generation. There are a lot of countries within spitting distance of America, especially if you group them together into blocs. The American consumer economy isn't so unique anymore, and we certainly haven't been producing our own goods for a long time. So the wealth of the Baby Boomers and their incredible economic tailwinds will not be felt again unless there's some wildly new disruption to the economic order. (AGI and automated manufacturing, maybe?) The reality is that the American middle class will shrink and people will have to work harder. The American market doesn't have magical superiority anymore.

danans 2y ago
> No. Post-WWII America experienced a period of economic tailwinds that will likely never exist again. The UK didn't get bombed nearly to the extent of continental Europe, and it was a mature industrialized society - the first one in fact - yet it also experienced the post WW2 growth. Same for the the bombed-out countries like Germany and France. > As we reached the 70's - 90's, we started to outsource. Our labor had become more expensive, but we offset this with cheap imported goods. We were still extremely and unilaterally wealthy. The US GDP didn't stop growing then, but wealth inequality vastly increased up to the present. The growth in inequality is the change, not the growing GDP. > Post China WTO, the wealth of America has been spent and "averaged out" over dozens of post-industrial economies Again, US GDP has effectively increased super-linearly since the 90s, even with China in the WTO. The problem is the benefits - even after the cheap consumer goods - have largely been realized by the wealthiest while the working class have been left out to dry. If the US hadn't gutted the working/middle class's jobs, assets and the public infrastructure they depend on during this period, perhaps we wouldn't have the instability we face now. > So the wealth of the Baby Boomers and their incredible economic tailwinds will not be felt again unless there's some wildly new disruption to the economic order. (AGI and automated manufacturing, maybe?) Wealth will continue to explode as technology allows ever greater efficiency and exploitation of resources. > The reality is that the American middle class will shrink and people will have to work harder. The American market doesn't have magical superiority anymore. Not if they stop fighting each other and instead fight for their piece of the productivity growth.