4 ms·

I agree labour is undervalued. Particularly in developing parts of the world, compared to equivalent labour in developed parts of the world. I think with remote

by dharma1 12y ago

I agree labour is undervalued. Particularly in developing parts of the world, compared to equivalent labour in developed parts of the world. I think with remote work and access to education online, globalisation is only getting started in many industries. At the moment it can be arbitraged but I guess the opportunities will disappear as differences even out over the next 10 years. Some labour is also overvalued - where a small group can basically push the price of their labour upwards by manipulating the system. For instance, executive pay with share buybacks. As far as revolutions, pressure will definitely mount but it won't spark, not within the middle class, unless things get really bad. By bad I mean bad enough not to being able to afford things like food. That's how the arab spring started - food prices spiked beyond affordability. If you have responsibilities like family, people value their (relative) comfort, even if it's dwindling, over the risk of physical injury and chance of losing everything.

VLM 12y ago
Can interpret revolution in two ways. Rifles and molotovs, or as the opposite of evolutionary. In the first sense you have to balance it is historically unlikely on any given date although historically highly likely over time. Like dying of old age, my odds of doing that this year are quite low, but I'm under no illusion of immortality. Also its a funny stereotype that all riots / revolutions happen when someone is claiming they'll never risk it. I'm sure someone was saying the same thing in minority neighborhoods in the 60s right before they started burning. In the second sense it seems highly likely. Lets build all our infrastructure and culture around everyone being middle class, and then destroy the middle class. By infrastructure I don't just mean streets, but employment, corporation, "consumer culture", middle class values, all that. 2000 to 2010 was very evolutionary, take the middle class in 2000 and make them a little smaller and a littler poorer and a little lower disposable income and you pretty much have 2010, and similar in previous decades. Take my grannie in 1980 and air drop her in 2010 if she were alive and she would pretty much recognize society, our peaks would look worse than her deepest recessions but it would at least be recognizable. The pace of change will be faster in in the future and more dramatic, 2010 to 2040 is going to look a lot more like 1860-1890 or 1920-1950 than the relatively stable and evolutionary 1980 to 2010.
michaelochurch 12y ago
By bad I mean bad enough not to being able to afford things like food. That's how the arab spring started - food prices spiked beyond affordability. If you have responsibilities like family, people value their (relative) comfort, even if it's dwindling, over the risk of physical injury and chance of losing everything. Healthcare. 45,000 people die per year of health insurance (or lack thereof) in the U.S. This number may improve under the PPACA ("Obamacare") but insurers will fight and struggle against it, and as soon as Republicans regain control (which is inevitable) we'll see new laws that allow health insurance companies to kill even more people. The one thing that makes it not revolution-provoking is that it's mostly old, sick people who are affected. Also, people think they're better off than they actually are, that because they "have insurance" they're not going to get fucked over. "Obamacare" improved the situation, but he had to fight hard to get very little progress, and I think that his work will be undone in the next 5 years since it didn't change the underlying problems. This situation requires a complete overhaul (single-payer system, or public-option at the least). What I'm saying, however, is that things legitimately are that bad. Dying of health insurance is the 21st century's version of dying of starvation. It is, nonetheless, completely unpredictable when and how these things will come to a head, and there's still a possibility that society will reverse its own decline in another way.

by dharma1 12y ago

VLM 12y ago

Can interpret revolution in two ways. Rifles and molotovs, or as the opposite of evolutionary. In the first sense you have to balance it is historically unlikely on any given date although historically highly likely over time. Like dying of old age, my odds of doing that this year are quite low, but I'm under no illusion of immortality. Also its a funny stereotype that all riots / revolutions happen when someone is claiming they'll never risk it. I'm sure someone was saying the same thing in minority neighborhoods in the 60s right before they started burning. In the second sense it seems highly likely. Lets build all our infrastructure and culture around everyone being middle class, and then destroy the middle class. By infrastructure I don't just mean streets, but employment, corporation, "consumer culture", middle class values, all that. 2000 to 2010 was very evolutionary, take the middle class in 2000 and make them a little smaller and a littler poorer and a little lower disposable income and you pretty much have 2010, and similar in previous decades. Take my grannie in 1980 and air drop her in 2010 if she were alive and she would pretty much recognize society, our peaks would look worse than her deepest recessions but it would at least be recognizable. The pace of change will be faster in in the future and more dramatic, 2010 to 2040 is going to look a lot more like 1860-1890 or 1920-1950 than the relatively stable and evolutionary 1980 to 2010.

michaelochurch 12y ago

By bad I mean bad enough not to being able to afford things like food. That's how the arab spring started - food prices spiked beyond affordability. If you have responsibilities like family, people value their (relative) comfort, even if it's dwindling, over the risk of physical injury and chance of losing everything. Healthcare. 45,000 people die per year of health insurance (or lack thereof) in the U.S. This number may improve under the PPACA ("Obamacare") but insurers will fight and struggle against it, and as soon as Republicans regain control (which is inevitable) we'll see new laws that allow health insurance companies to kill even more people. The one thing that makes it not revolution-provoking is that it's mostly old, sick people who are affected. Also, people think they're better off than they actually are, that because they "have insurance" they're not going to get fucked over. "Obamacare" improved the situation, but he had to fight hard to get very little progress, and I think that his work will be undone in the next 5 years since it didn't change the underlying problems. This situation requires a complete overhaul (single-payer system, or public-option at the least). What I'm saying, however, is that things legitimately are that bad. Dying of health insurance is the 21st century's version of dying of starvation. It is, nonetheless, completely unpredictable when and how these things will come to a head, and there's still a possibility that society will reverse its own decline in another way.