US Economy

[candrew]

What do you mean?

First of all I think we all need to be honest - the economy had been going downhill since way before 2008. We've basically been in a 13 year funk of recession followed by underwhealming recovery. Starting at the end of Clinton/Gore in 2000 and all through Bush II and Obama the economy has sucked. The government doesn't even pretend to represent the people anymore, the disparity between rich and poor is reaching Gilded Age proportions and The Baby Boom Generation is just now starting to suck us dry

Don't get me wrong it probably won't happen in my life time and we'll probably not go out in a bang - more like a whimper and we'll end up a second rate mess like England. But I'm more than convinced this country has already seen it's best days.

 

[leftyjace]

First of all I think we all need to be honest - the economy had been going downhill since way before 2008. We've basically been in a 13 year funk of recession followed by underwhealming recovery. Starting at the end of Clinton/Gore in 2000 and all through Bush II and Obama the economy has sucked. The government doesn't even pretend to represent the people anymore, the disparity between rich and poor is reaching Gilded Age proportions and The Baby Boom Generation is just now starting to suck us dry

Don't get me wrong it probably won't happen in my life time and we'll probably not go out in a bang - more like a whimper and we'll end up a second rate mess like England. But I'm more than convinced this country has already seen it's best days.

You know, I can't help but wonder... how much of this is due to 9/11? Not just the economic impact, but also the impact on consumer confidence?

Point to ponder.

 

[franklin]

LOL - this coming from the resident Tyrone Corbin supporter.

I feel better already.

If you look at the psychology behind why average joe commoner has a special way of losing money you'll find chicken little syndrome as the overwhelming driver. It's human nature, even moreso in a Christian dominated society with an Armageddon mindset. People have been calling for the end of the world since the beginning of time.

Also, most fans hate their coaches -- no surprise I'm on the right side of both these worldviews.

 

[Harambe]

You can't be serious.

I can. And it's completely cool if you don't agree with me.

And I had this big long wall of text, linking back to NY times articles, german wikipedia articles, and scholorly studies that prove my point, and probably better illustrate my way of thinking. But the goal of any communication is to get someone else to understand what you're saying, not hate it. I can't imagine Jason being a guy that put this site together for mathletes and sociology majors to have battles of study.

But I will say this; once one reaches the point of healthy sustainment, money will not buy you happiness. I firmly believe this philosophy, and think it needs more buy in from everyone.

 

[leftyjace]

And I had this big long wall of text, linking back to NY times articles, german wikipedia articles, and scholorly studies that prove my point, and probably better illustrate my way of thinking. But the goal of any communication is to get someone else to understand what you're saying, not hate it. I can't imagine Jason being a guy that put this site together for mathletes and sociology majors to have battles of study.

I call BS. And Chicken. Both.

 

[Harambe]

I call BS. And Chicken. Both.

I'm not going to post the wall of text, but here's the new york times article. And this scholar study which was written by a famous economist Mathias Binswang, who's father was also a famous and influential economist Hans Christoph Binswanger. Those wiki sites are in German, so get out google translate.

Your move, southpaw.

 

[leftyjace]

Your move, southpaw.

I will read and respond on the morrow.

 

[leftyjace]

OK, after reading your article and your study, here are my thoughts:

1. You're relating a "problem" that is experienced by the upper echelon of earners in this country to the population as a whole. Those that experience these "treadmill issues", if you will, are those that have the ability to take advantage of technological advances, that have jobs where working harder and for longer hours will actually get them somewhere. I hate to say it, but in a lot of blue-collar (read: middle class) jobs, that's just simply not the case as much as in white-collar occupations.
2. The study raises a good point in that a person's perception of what will make them happy could be mis-aligned if they're only going after greater income and advancement.
3. This does not apply to the unemployed... which is significant, because part of the reason the economy is stagnant is because unemployment is relatively high, and it's hard to get a nation to fire on all cylinders when some of those cylinders are not being fed any fuel.
4. This also does not apply to those in lower income ranks.

Regardless, I stand by my initial point - you're talking about a social phenomena. Both of those items you had me read were coming from the perspective of happiness...but only the Times article takes into account productivity, and even then its results are fairly inconclusive, and have more to do with corporate culture than with an over-arching social phenomena. Again - you're dealing with a limited pool of subjects to study.

Would shiny, happy people working in their jobs being optimally productive help the economy? Sure, it would. But that assumes everyone's working (which they're not) and working in positions where they're able to be optimal (which won't be the case as long as we've got significant undermployment in some sectors, like right now).

I just feel like you're really stretching here, trying to tie unhappiness as a primary reason for our sputtering economy. We've got to get the engine running first before we can fine tune it.

 

[Harambe]

OK, after reading your article and your study, here are my thoughts:

1. You're relating a "problem" that is experienced by the upper echelon of earners in this country to the population as a whole. Those that experience these "treadmill issues", if you will, are those that have the ability to take advantage of technological advances, that have jobs where working harder and for longer hours will actually get them somewhere. I hate to say it, but in a lot of blue-collar (read: middle class) jobs, that's just simply not the case as much as in white-collar occupations.
2. The study raises a good point in that a person's perception of what will make them happy could be mis-aligned if they're only going after greater income and advancement.
3. This does not apply to the unemployed... which is significant, because part of the reason the economy is stagnant is because unemployment is relatively high, and it's hard to get a nation to fire on all cylinders when some of those cylinders are not being fed any fuel.
4. This also does not apply to those in lower income ranks.

Regardless, I stand by my initial point - you're talking about a social phenomena. Both of those items you had me read were coming from the perspective of happiness...but only the Times article takes into account productivity, and even then its results are fairly inconclusive, and have more to do with corporate culture than with an over-arching social phenomena. Again - you're dealing with a limited pool of subjects to study.

Would shiny, happy people working in their jobs being optimally productive help the economy? Sure, it would. But that assumes everyone's working (which they're not) and working in positions where they're able to be optimal (which won't be the case as long as we've got significant undermployment in some sectors, like right now).

I just feel like you're really stretching here, trying to tie unhappiness as a primary reason for our sputtering economy. We've got to get the engine running first before we can fine tune it.

You raise fair points. In fact, I dare say you're accurate on every point you just made. At times it seems I can confuse issues. And sometimes I go so far off topic, I forget where I was going with it.

This is not that case here.

What do you want to be in life? No, really, in the current economy, not adding in the treadmill theory, what do you want to be, and why?

 

[Harambe]

You know, it really doesn't matter what you say. You should want to be happy. Everything else is an add on.

I'm going way too into this. I'll stop dragging this out.

The point: We are a society of consumers. In order to consume, we need to make money. So instead of doing something we dream of doing(like what we wanted when we were a kid), we do something that will "make us the most money". The smart ones end up do making the most money. But at a point they just make money to make money; not because it betters themselves or their surroundings.

You don't see that as a problem?

If we just stopped at a certain point, and focused on making a better society for our childrens, childrens, grand children, we could be start with using our money to creat new jobs for new employees to fill. But instead of creating new jobs, it's keeping the most money.

Also, this:


Oh. And to better tie it all together, there's this

Optimism is a key part of overall happiness. If job makers were more optimistic about creating jobs, we'd have more.

 

[leftyjace]

You don't see that as a problem?

If we just stopped at a certain point, and focused on making a better society for our childrens, childrens, grand children, we could be start with using our money to creat new jobs for new employees to fill. But instead of creating new jobs, it's keeping the most money.

Roach, I think your approach is idealistic and noble. I applaud you for wanting a better world.

I just think it's a little less about "everyone should be able to do what they want and make good money doing it" and a little more to do with supply and demand.

If everyone were to all of a sudden drop everything and try to fulfill their dreams, there'd be a lot more rock stars, fitness competitors, authors, etc. in this world. If you think it's hard to make it in those professions now, wait until everyone ditches the backbone occupations in this world and tries to pursue their dreams.

In fact, the reason it is so hard to make it in those "dream" occupations is because there are already many more people out there trying to make it than there is demand for. People, recognizing this, weigh their propensity for risk against their need for sustenance. But I don't think that society should be considered inferior or lacking if a system is put in place for them to be able to sustain themselves in some way other than their dreams.

Even if we lived in a Utopian society, where all hunger was eradicated and all needs could easily be met, supply and demand would mean that we'd have 1 artist for every two audience members. Part of being an artist - or anything else - and producing something is gaining happiness when that thing which you've produced is consumed and is seen as being meritable. If there's not enough consumers for everyone's art (or whatever else dream occupation they go for), there will be a lot of unfulfilled artists that would be depressed because not enough people like their stuff. And what affect would that have on productivity?

The key to happiness is to find a way to be happy with the world as it is, and not as you want it to be. Again, this is a social paradigm, and not an economic issue.

 

[Harambe]

If everyone were to all of a sudden drop everything and try to fulfill their dreams, there'd be a lot more rock stars, fitness competitors, authors, etc. in this world. If you think it's hard to make it in those professions now, wait until everyone ditches the backbone occupations in this world and tries to pursue their dreams.

But isn't competition ok? Wouldn't we, at that point, have only the absolute best and brightest at the top, and they're only at the top because they love what they do AND are the best at it. Remember; At this point no matter what the "others" are doing, they still realize that no matter what they're doing, they can still be happy. Which in turn, raises production and fresh ideas.

In fact, the reason it is so hard to make it in those "dream" occupations is because there are already many more people out there trying to make it than there is demand for. People, recognizing this, weigh their propensity for risk against their need for sustenance. But I don't think that society should be considered inferior or lacking if a system is put in place for them to be able to sustain themselves in some way other than their dreams.

Even if we lived in a Utopian society, where all hunger was eradicated and all needs could easily be met, supply and demand would mean that we'd have 1 artist for every two audience members.

You're forgetting the part that once you become an artist, it doesn't make you any less of an audience member.

Part of being an artist - or anything else - and producing something is gaining happiness when that thing which you've produced is consumed and is seen as being meritable. If there's not enough consumers for everyone's art (or whatever else dream occupation they go for), there will be a lot of unfulfilled artists that would be depressed because not enough people like their stuff. And what affect would that have on productivity?

Don't change these artists from real people. They're just the same as everyone else. Everyone else, at this stage, has learned they'll be happy no matter what they do. So what if what they're good at, they're not the absolute best at. You're still you, and you're still happy.

The key to happiness is to find a way to be happy with the world as it is, and not as you want it to be. Again, this is a social paradigm, and not an economic issue.

The key to happiness is to be happy with yourself, and who you are. Even if who you are changes from time to time. From there, your light brightens the world.

 

[franklin]

The point: We are a society of consumers. In order to consume, we need to make money. So instead of doing something we dream of doing(like what we wanted when we were a kid), we do something that will "make us the most money". The smart ones end up do making the most money. But at a point they just make money to make money; not because it betters themselves or their surroundings.

Consumption is the reward of fruitful production, not the other way around. As with most common myths, "We are a society of consumers" is a loaded buzzphrase backed by baseless rhetoric.

If you don't want to earn rewards from producing, then by all means go on doing whatever it is that makes you happy. It makes me happy to do something I don't enjoy to earn the reward. Who is anyone to tell me I should do something they think will make me happy instead of what I know makes me happy?

 

[leftyjace]

But isn't competition ok? Wouldn't we, at that point, have only the absolute best and brightest at the top, and they're only at the top because they love what they do AND are the best at it. Remember; At this point no matter what the "others" are doing, they still realize that no matter what they're doing, they can still be happy. Which in turn, raises production and fresh ideas.

OK, great. Everyone goes after their dreams. So who does the work that nobody wants to do, yet is still necessary to keep the economy going? In my opinion this scenario would do more harm than good.

You're forgetting the part that once you become an artist, it doesn't make you any less of an audience member.

Good point - but I took that into account.

Don't change these artists from real people. They're just the same as everyone else. Everyone else, at this stage, has learned they'll be happy no matter what they do. So what if what they're good at, they're not the absolute best at. You're still you, and you're still happy.

Roach, have you ever performed before? I do. All the time.
There's a definite difference in my happiness and fulfillment when I'm playing before a packed house versus when I'm playing to tables and chairs.
I'll just say I disagree with you on this point and leave it at that.

The key to happiness is to be happy with yourself, and who you are. Even if who you are changes from time to time. From there, your light brightens the world.

OK, great. STILL a social paradigm, and not an economics issue.

 

[Harambe]

OK, great. Everyone goes after their dreams. So who does the work that nobody wants to do, yet is still necessary to keep the economy going? In my opinion this scenario would do more harm than good.

I don't know.. yet. That doesn't mean we should close the book on it.

Good point - but I took that into account.

Roach, have you ever performed before? I do. All the time.
There's a definite difference in my happiness and fulfillment when I'm playing before a packed house versus when I'm playing to tables and chairs.
I'll just say I disagree with you on this point and leave it at that.

Yes. I was a Tuba player in High School. Laughable, I know. But a well preformed solo of "In the Hall of the Mountain King" is something to behold.

OK, great. STILL a social paradigm, and not an economics issue.

And you don't think starting with something small, inexpensive, and low cost like putting happiness over the need for excess, can have an effect on the economy long term?

 

[leftyjace]

And you don't think starting with something small, inexpensive, and low cost like putting happiness over the need for excess, can have an effect on the economy long term?

Forgive me, but isn't it quite common for those, with excess, to devote much of that excess to pursuing dreams?
How many rich people buy jet planes because they've always wanted to fly?
How many rich people put a recording studio in their basement and generate quality music because they finally can afford the tools to do so?
How many rich people retire early to open wineries, write books, go on service trips or missions, travel, etc.?

I would argue that part of the reason people WANT excess is so they can use it to pursue their dreams. It's much easier to try and fail if you have a solid foundation of income than it is to try and fail when all your eggs are in that single basket.

Regardless, I wouldn't say people are working so hard for excess without a purpose. They have something in mind for that money, obviously. You make it sound like "excess" is a bad thing. I don't agree.

 

[leftyjace]

Let me add a thought or two...

I think you are absolutely right that people aren't as productive when they don't like what they're doing. But I think it's more than that. I think they have to not like what they're doing, AND they don't have a purpose for which they're doing it.

People that just work a job because it's a job and providing a steady paycheck have exactly that - a job. They don't have a career.
The difference between developing a career and having a job is that someone working towards establishing a career recognizes the opportunities it provides.
Some select few throw caution to the wind, and they choose to make their dream their career.
The rest develop their careers, knowing that it will eventually allow them to pursue their dreams.
Those that can't or won't do either of those things have a job, and a bad attitude.

Attitude is key - but not in the way I think you're thinking. (That sounded like something from Princess Bride.)

EDIT: And then there are those, like me, who along the way find a career that is immensely satisfying, and highly enjoyable. Is what I'm doing now my idealistic dream? No. But it sure makes it possible for me to still participate in dream activities.

 

[sahlensguy]

This. We, in our current state, are what we get for coddling the rich when the mentality of the population is built on simple, human concept: Greed.

I'm no economist, but I will say that until we move away from personal Greed as the driver to get people to work, and work harder, we are doomed to end up in the same position we're in now, possibly worse. We need to happy with ourselves, and where we're at. That will naturally get people to be more productive.

Everyone asks why is the Economy stagnant when any talking head worth their salt says it's going to kick off any second now? If you made your fortune sucking the teet of Reaganomics your entire life, and someone finally said "Yeah, this isn't getting us anywhere. Lets change tactics!", how quick would you be to adopt change?

Well they do say that money is the root of all evil, so you have a point. But greed is an unavoidible capitalistic evil.

The American Dream is a sham and as much of a pyramid scheme as any of the Utah County MLM companies.

The rich get richer off the backs of those who chase the dream.

Unfortunately automation is killing the middle class which makes the seperation of the classes an ever growing chasm. The economy will never be as healthy as it was.

Finding happiness in this life is not the key to a recovering economy anyhow, and imo is not the key to life itself. The Bible teaches to NOT love your life. John 12:25 - "Anyone who loves thier life will lose it, while anyone who hates thier life in this world will keep it for eternal life."

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Question: Why do you think the republicans spent four years obstructing every jobs plan and highway bill Obama pushed forward, and went on that nonsense tax cut mantra followed by cut the tax cuts mantra?

Because that's about as far as Republican thinking on economic policy goes these days. Or so it seems. I really wish the Republican party would articulate an actual vision for the country that goes beyond the superficial banality of dog whistle appeals to its base.

 

[leftyjace]

Unfortunately automation is killing the middle class which makes the seperation of the classes an ever growing chasm. The economy will never be as healthy as it was.

THIS.

Hence why it is SO IMPORTANT to get an education... but that's a whole different topic.