Sanders starting to kick some HC... whatever

[Siro]

Care to find where I said what we're doing is working well? And even though it's not the best, I can guarantee its better than Sander's ideas. All it takes is a little common sense to see his economic policies are dangerously dumb.

What we're doing IS working well. Of course it isn't perfect, and plenty of things can be done to improve the living situation for many people. But we are living longer than ever and more comfortably than ever. Pointing out that wages have stagnated since the 70s is not very instructive. You couldn't buy a pocket device for $100 in the 70s that allows you to communicate with people world wide in a million different ways, and gives you access to humanity's combined knowledge on demand. You couldn't go to a clothing shop and buy a wardrobe full of designer clothes for a couple of hundred bucks. You couldn't do countless things that you can do now for very little money. Why can't people see this simple fact is beyond me.

Things aren't perfect, nor will they ever be. But things have gotten better, and hopefully, will continue to get better. Utopia is for children.

 

[RandyForRubio]

What we're doing IS working well. Of course it isn't perfect, and plenty of things can be done to improve the living situation for many people. But we are living longer than ever and more comfortably than ever. Pointing out that wages have stagnated since the 70s is not very instructive. You couldn't buy a pocket device for $100 in the 70s that allows you to communicate with people world wide in a million different ways, and gives you access to humanity's combined knowledge on demand. You couldn't go to a clothing shop and buy a wardrobe full of designer clothes for a couple of hundred bucks. You couldn't do countless things that you can do now for very little money. Why can't people see this simple fact is beyond me.

Things aren't perfect, nor will they ever be. But things have gotten better, and hopefully, will continue to get better. Utopia is for children.

You're right. Thanks for the voice of sanity, I often forget all of that stuff and instead focus on what we don't have. I think there are improvements we can/have to make, chief among them finding ways to encourage people with money to spend it rather than keep it, especially overseas. The more the rich soend, the better the poor do.

 

[Gameface]

What we're doing IS working well. Of course it isn't perfect, and plenty of things can be done to improve the living situation for many people. But we are living longer than ever and more comfortably than ever. Pointing out that wages have stagnated since the 70s is not very instructive. You couldn't buy a pocket device for $100 in the 70s that allows you to communicate with people world wide in a million different ways, and gives you access to humanity's combined knowledge on demand. You couldn't go to a clothing shop and buy a wardrobe full of designer clothes for a couple of hundred bucks. You couldn't do countless things that you can do now for very little money. Why can't people see this simple fact is beyond me.

Things aren't perfect, nor will they ever be. But things have gotten better, and hopefully, will continue to get better. Utopia is for children.

This is what baffles me when people focus so much on the wealth gap. Why does wealth gap matter? Maybe it matters, but not because regular folks are starving to death while ultra wealthy people are the only people with access to proper food, shelter and clothing.

 

[Harambe]

Care to find where I said what we're doing is working well? And even though it's not the best, I can guarantee its better than Sander's ideas. All it takes is a little common sense to see his economic policies are dangerously dumb.

Sure. I see other countries implementing the same policies across the world and succeeding whilst starting with less. So, as always, what you got?

 

[franklin]

Good suggestions. In the long term though, we need stronger wealth redistribution measures. I know the common wisdom is that technology creates more employment opportunities than it eliminates. But evidence suggests that this hasn't been the case for the last couple of decades, and will never be the case again. I'm sure you've heard of futurologists taking about the "end of work". This is a legitimate issue that we will face well before the end of the century. We will get to the point where only the most skilled will have a place in the job market.

I've read many books that try to tackle the problem, my favorite among them is The Second Machine Age. But I am growing convinced that some kind of guaranteed income, as propose by Nixon, will necessarily be part of the solution.

We'll have a class of normal intelligence people who we'll have to make work for like our current handicap class, who will be followed around by the genius class with clipboards making sure they're doing "basic" jobs correctly?



As long as people have wants there will be work to be done. Personally, I dream of the hand job and backrub based service economy. You know it's coming; train your daughters well.

 

[franklin]

Good suggestions. In the long term though, we need stronger wealth redistribution measures. I know the common wisdom is that technology creates more employment opportunities than it eliminates. But evidence suggests that this hasn't been the case for the last couple of decades, and will never be the case again. I'm sure you've heard of futurologists taking about the "end of work". This is a legitimate issue that we will face well before the end of the century. We will get to the point where only the most skilled will have a place in the job market.

I've read many books that try to tackle the problem, my favorite among them is The Second Machine Age. But I am growing convinced that some kind of guaranteed income, as propose by Nixon, will necessarily be part of the solution.

On a more serious note, we need more anti-poverty measures and not redistribution measures. People will always compete with each other. All you're going to gain from giving out more free money is engage the Red Queen's Race. This is just one of many fundamental flaws in the socialist's thinking.

If America actually targeted poverty then we would lead the world in many of the currently popular wealth measures. We don't. We talk a big game but at the end of the day we cater to the voting block (rich, white, middle to old aged Americans who want something for nothing) while leaving those who truly need something behind.

 

[Siro]

On a more serious note, we need more anti-poverty measures and not redistribution measures. People will always compete with each other. All you're going to gain from giving out more free money is engage the Red Queen's Race. This is just one of many fundamental flaws in the socialist's thinking.

If America actually targeted poverty then we would lead the world in many of the currently popular wealth measures. We don't. We talk a big game but at the end of the day we cater to the voting block (rich, white, middle to old aged Americans who want something for nothing) while leaving those who truly need something behind.

I'm talking about the next 50 years, when virtually all low skill labor disappears, and we're left with the scientists, engineers, and high skill laborers. Those fields cannot support an entire population, and I would not be surprised if a majority is left without work (barring government intervention). How do you address poverty then? You will have a few hundred trillionaires, a few percent well-to-do techies and skilled laborers, and a vast majority with little to no income. I don't see how the scenario can be avoided, and how it can be addressed without redistribution.

With guaranteed income, everyone gets a living wage, supported by a small tax on the trillionaires. Those people can then dedicate their time to whatever low/no income activities they desire. They can pursue artistic inclinations, travel, take the time to learn an in demand skill at their leisure, etc.

 

[Siro]

Sure. I see other countries implementing the same policies across the world and succeeding whilst starting with less. So, as always, what you got?

While the US continues to provide most of the advances in computing, communications, medicine, and every single area of innovation. Would you like me to provide you a list of the most successful companies on earth, or a list of innovations in the last century? Or are you only interested in Europe's longer maternity leave?

 

[Eminence]

While the US continues to provide most of the advances in computing, communications, medicine, and every single area of innovation. Would you like me to provide you a list of the most successful companies on earth, or a list of innovations in the last century? Or are you only interested in Europe's longer maternal leave?

Mostly because the US is huge(among 1st world countries only germany and japan are even a quarter of our size). Obviously this would present unique problems if we were more socialistic. But per capita countries like South Korea and Finland are beating us in innovation pretty soundly by most metrics.

Looking at: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-innovative-countries/ most recently, but other stuff I've looked at has agreed. If not for "High Tech Companies" not being population adjusted the US would fall comfortably outside of the top 10 worldwide.

And more worrisome to me is that everyone agrees that our education system sucks for a super-power. We are going to continue to fall in all of the other categories if we don't fix something there.

 

[Harambe]

While the US continues to provide most of the advances in computing, communications, medicine, and every single area of innovation. Would you like me to provide you a list of the most successful companies on earth, or a list of innovations in the last century? Or are you only interested in Europe's longer maternal leave?

What I'd like you to provide me, is a list of why some of the policies and practices that have been successfully implemented other places that we "just can't implement here".

Ok, I'll make it easier on you, and rerail back to Bernie. From his site, this is his agenda:


Rebuilding Our Crumbling Infrastructure
Reversing Climate Change
Creating Worker Co-ops
Growing the Trade Union Movement
Raising the Minimum Wage
Pay Equity for Women Workers
Trade Policies that Benefit American Workers
Making College Affordable for All
Taking on Wall Street
Health Care as a Right for All
Protecting the Most Vulnerable Americans
Real Tax Reform

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/agenda/

Tell me why we can't start working on these things in earnest... the things that the vast majority of people in this(albeit theoretical) democracy we have want, that different countries across the globe have gone after and had success.

 

[franklin]

I'm talking about the next 50 years, when virtually all low skill labor disappears, and we're left with the scientists, engineers, and high skill laborers. Those fields cannot support an entire population, and I would not be surprised if a majority is left without work (barring government intervention). How do you address poverty then? You will have a few hundred trillionaires, a few percent well-to-do techies and skilled laborers, and a vast majority with little to no income. I don't see how the scenario can be avoided, and how it can be addressed without redistribution.

With guaranteed income, everyone gets a living wage, supported by a small tax on the trillionaires. Those people can then dedicate their time to whatever low/no income activities they desire. They can pursue artistic inclinations, travel, take the time to learn an in demand skill at their leisure, etc.

I understood what you were getting at.

Your futuristic concern is an age old concern. Trade guilds, unions, co-ops, all of that assembled to protect what they had against what might be or might become. There were writings in the late 1800's worried what society would do when farm life only took 3.5 days to do what used to take 6 plus.

Redistribution is and always has been a vital part of capitalism and it always will be. As much so as drive/competition is. Guaranteed income isn't redistribution, and it kills drive altogether. It kicks both the legs of capitalism out from under itself.

If the time of no work comes then we will cross that bridge with redistribution and work generating programs that are appropriate for the time. Speculating on what that will be right now is something that belongs in 1984-type novels.

 

[franklin]

Mostly because the US is huge(among 1st world countries only germany and japan are even a quarter of our size). Obviously this would present unique problems if we were more socialistic. But per capita countries like South Korea and Finland are beating us in innovation pretty soundly by most metrics.

Looking at: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-innovative-countries/ most recently, but other stuff I've looked at has agreed. If not for "High Tech Companies" not being population adjusted the US would fall comfortably outside of the top 10 worldwide.

And more worrisome to me is that everyone agrees that our education system sucks for a super-power. We are going to continue to fall in all of the other categories if we don't fix something there.

We don't need a world beating education system because we import the world's best and that lifts the boats of those who don't care to learn as much. It's such a burden being rich and having these luxuries. But yeah, we suck because our greatness makes us lazy. Great argument Eminence.