CDZ Have we literally lost the ability to solve our own problems?

[task0778]

I think the government needs to start a program to force people to be more self-sufficient.

This isn't about government, it's about culture.
.

Government is an extension of culture. Maybe that's why we have so much gridlock in D.C.? I hope you also realize that these trends tend to preempt revolutions.

I think Trump's election was a political revolution, and not enough people on both sides of the aisle seem to notice. I don't see people taking their guns into the streets, but one way or another things will eventually come to a head. My guess is either a war (big one), a terrorist attack (big one), or a 1930s style depression (big one). After WWII the Europeans had enough of war and so they turned to social democracy as the preferred form of gov't; maybe we'll end up with something like that.

 

[Mac1958]

I think the government needs to start a program to force people to be more self-sufficient.

This isn't about government, it's about culture.
.

Government is an extension of culture. Maybe that's why we have so much gridlock in D.C.? I hope you also realize that these trends tend to preempt revolutions.

Yes, it's an extension - those we choose to "lead" us, those we choose to entertain us, are a reflection of our society.
.

 

[Mac1958]

I think the government needs to start a program to force people to be more self-sufficient.

This isn't about government, it's about culture.
.

Government is an extension of culture. Maybe that's why we have so much gridlock in D.C.? I hope you also realize that these trends tend to preempt revolutions.

I think Trump's election was a political revolution, and not enough people on both sides of the aisle seem to notice. I don't see people taking their guns into the streets, but one way or another things will eventually come to a head. My guess is either a war (big one), a terrorist attack (big one), or a 1930s style depression (big one). After WWII the Europeans had enough of war and so they turned to social democracy as the preferred form of gov't; maybe we'll end up with something like that.

Trump's win was either a revolution or a last gasp, and my guess is the latter. Demographics are the 800 pound gorilla that his supporters are completely ignoring, and they do so at their own peril. They're not just ignoring demographics, they're taunting them. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Another thing they're completely ignoring is the popular vote, which in a normal world would have, at least, given them pause.
.

 

[dblack]

I think the government needs to start a program to force people to be more self-sufficient.

This isn't about government, it's about culture.
.

Government is an extension of culture. Maybe that's why we have so much gridlock in D.C.? I hope you also realize that these trends tend to preempt revolutions.

Yes, it's an extension - those we choose to "lead" us, those we choose to entertain us, are a reflection of our society.
.

Absolutely. Partisan politics aside, it make sense that we have a vulgar, reality-show "star" as president. People seem to have some kind of sick fascination with that sort of thing.

 

[task0778]

I think the government needs to start a program to force people to be more self-sufficient.

This isn't about government, it's about culture.
.

Government is an extension of culture. Maybe that's why we have so much gridlock in D.C.? I hope you also realize that these trends tend to preempt revolutions.

I think Trump's election was a political revolution, and not enough people on both sides of the aisle seem to notice. I don't see people taking their guns into the streets, but one way or another things will eventually come to a head. My guess is either a war (big one), a terrorist attack (big one), or a 1930s style depression (big one). After WWII the Europeans had enough of war and so they turned to social democracy as the preferred form of gov't; maybe we'll end up with something like that.

Trump's win was either a revolution or a last gasp, and my guess is the latter. Demographics are the 800 pound gorilla that his supporters are completely ignoring, and they do so at their own peril. They're not just ignoring demographics, they're taunting them. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Another thing they're completely ignoring is the popular vote, which in a normal world would have, at least, given them pause.
.

IMHO Trump was such an awful candidate that he lost a lot of votes that a better anti-establishment candidate would have received. And of course there's California with all those illegal voters. The popular vote gets a whole lot closer if you exclude the fruits and nuts state. Got your point on the demographics though, but I'm not seeing Trump's win as a last gasp, there's a large number of citizens in this country who really don't like what's going on in DC.

 

[oldsoul]

there's a large number of citizens in this country who really don't like what's going on in DC.

I think you are far more correct here than most people realise. Take for example Pelosi's comments on what a $1,000 bonus means to the average wage earner. Last I checked that is a pretty nice amount of money for most people, so nice an amount that California, in its infinite "wisdom", considered it to be a fair fine for a server giving an patron an unsolicited straw. It may not be a significant amount to Pelosi, but she is not the one who is receiving it. Even for someone earning $50,000/year it's nearly an extra week's worth of pay. What could you do with an extra week's pay? New washer and dryer? Back to school clothes? Next Christmas' gift budget? Down payment on a "new" car?

 

[usmbguest5318]

there's a large number of citizens in this country who really don't like what's going on in DC.

I think you are far more correct here than most people realise. Take for example Pelosi's comments on what a $1,000 bonus means to the average wage earner. Last I checked that is a pretty nice amount of money for most people, so nice an amount that California, in its infinite "wisdom", considered it to be a fair fine for a server giving an patron an unsolicited straw. It may not be a significant amount to Pelosi, but she is not the one who is receiving it. Even for someone earning $50,000/year it's nearly an extra week's worth of pay. What could you do with an extra week's pay? New washer and dryer? Back to school clothes? Next Christmas' gift budget? Down payment on a "new" car?

What could you do with an extra week's pay? New washer and dryer? Back to school clothes? Next Christmas' gift budget? Down payment on a "new" car?

Really? You actually went there?

There is no question that there are things people can do with $1000; inflation in the U.S. isn't so bad that one can't find all sorts of ways, even practical ways to spend $1000. The thing about wage increases is that their merit is aptly evaluated not in absolute terms, but in relative terms, and generally, the point of comparison is whether the pay increase materially improves one's lifestyle, which in economic terms is called satisfaction.

While nobody puts a specific dollar sum on what wage increase is enough to create/maintain workers in a state of overall satisfaction with regard to their wages, it doesn't take much to tell that when wages maintain parity with productivity increases, workers are, for the most part, content. Indeed, it's plausible even to surmise that that workers would be content even if wages lagged 10% to 20% behind productivity.

(Source)​

Now one can, and economists do, argue about what caused the nearly 75% lag/gap between productivity growth and wage growth (from the early 1970s, when the split commenced, to the present). The most common and probably causes are (I've merely listed them. Read the linked documents for the details.):

• College Degree Gap
• Globalization
• Decline in purchasing power of the minimum wage
• Decline of labor unions (This decline was partly spurred by globalization and partly by political policy decisions to leave "broken" and thus now obsolete 1935 laws that at one time facilitated workers efforts to unionize.)

For the most part, among economists, the debate is over the weight assigned to each of those factors more so than whether they each have or have not contributed to the increasing gap between productivity increases and wage increases. [1]


Recognizing that the gap derives from multiple causes informs one that there was a time when it was considered the "norm" that pay and productivity be aligned. That norm emerged out of negotiations from 1947 to 1950 between General Motors and the United Auto Workers. It then spread through collective bargaining with other auto companies by unions and companies that adapted it to their specific circumstances in other industries and by nonunion firms that wanted to minimize the incentive for their employees to unionize. But something changed around 1980, as the chart shows. Since the late 1940s, however, real wages have increased only about ~15% compared with a ~242% increase in productivity.

Be that as it is, the multiplicity of causes means too that there is "silver bullet" fix. But what if we focused instead on reestablishing a simple norm that wages and incomes should rise in tandem with worker productivity? How might we retrofit the old policies and institutions that supported this norm to work in today’s innovation-based economy?

Such an effort has to start with education. Continual technological changes require both higher levels of skill and the ability to learn throughout one’s career. This calls for strategies that expand apprenticeship programs and technical schools that engender the skills companies will need as Millennials mature into the workforce, as well as expanding the number of college graduates with the advanced science, technical, math and problem-solving skills [2] in high demand.

If global competition makes it difficult to sustain high wages in manufacturing or other industries under outsourcing pressure, then wage increases in these sectors will need to be tied more directly to profits, customer service or other indicators of enterprise performance. This is the approach the United Auto Workers and domestic automakers took to better align incentives of owners and workers in ways that both help drive productivity and reinstall a sense of fairness at the workplace.

While this kind of norm should emerge from the private sector, ultimately it will take a comprehensive update of labor law to provide workers the ability to bargain at the highest levels where the key decisions affecting wages are made.

Minimum wages could also be tied to other economic indicators such as the cost of living or the ratio of the minimum to median wages and raised gradually to allow employers to make adjustments in strategy to avoid or minimize negative employment effects. That’s the strategy Seattle employed to pass its $15 minimum while easing the impact on business.

What might replace collective bargaining as the means for diffusing this norm across the economy? Here government can learn from its historic role in spreading equal employment practices across industry when it started in 1965 requiring government contractors to take affirmative actions to eliminate discrimination in employment. The purchasing power of government can be brought to bear by requiring employers to disclose their wage and hour compliance records. It can also give priority in awarding contracts to firms that pay above-average wages and have in place supportive productivity-enhancing work practices. The federal government was on a course to do the first part. President Obama signed an executive order requiring companies to disclose their compliance records, but I don't know if Trump undid that one too.

Nonetheless, what's clear is that wages need to get back into alignment with productivity for whatever increase workers obtain to be "enough." In aligning the wage and productivity increases, we need also to be careful also not to compromise the free hand of the market.



Notes:

1. To be sure, while economists acknowledge that it's all those factors combining to cause the gap, one will surely have no trouble finding "wingnuts" -- partisans, ideologues, whatever one cares to call them -- who will insist that it's "this" one that is "the" root of all evil, so to speak.
   
2. As someone who from the mid-to-late 1980s to the mid-2000s taught, interacted with, delivered career development lectures, and interviewed literally thousands of young adults (twenty-somethings to early 30s) seeking high paying jobs in consulting, far and away the most rarely encountered skill was that of structured, sound/cogent analysis and problem solving. I never ceased to be amazed at that being so, but so it was and apparently remains. And I really don't know why because while there are some very specific career paths that require one to "onboard" having deep and strong technical skills in math, accounting/finance, engineering computer programming, the law, or science (social or natural), for many, many more financially rewarding careers strong analytical skills is enough because most jobs have very narrowly defined technical elements, and strong problem solvers/analysts can be taught them in a day or two. Indeed, in most instances, one'll have to teach such techniques to recent grads regardless of what they leave school having learned.
   
   Make no mistake, I daily read posts on this site and wonder to myself how the hell someone let that person out of school with a diploma/degree. I can understand why they let them leave the school, it's just that I don't "get" how or why the school did so and gave the person a "sheepskin." It's for that reason I think the incidence of poor analytical and problem solving skills is no less now than it was when I routinely participated in development and recruitment of junior staff. That is likely the single biggest "WTF" for which I have no good credible answer. And the only reason I care is because such people do have a "sheepskin;" if they didn't, it wouldn't be a problem because the expectations incumbent with having one wouldn't exist.

 

[Circe]

Trump's win was either a revolution or a last gasp, and my guess is the latter. Demographics are the 800 pound gorilla that his supporters are completely ignoring, and they do so at their own peril. They're not just ignoring demographics, they're taunting them. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Another thing they're completely ignoring is the popular vote, which in a normal world would have, at least, given them pause.

You're scaring me, Mac. I too suspect Trump is a last gasp, before the demographic tide of Haitian-style anarchism overwhelms us. I actually expect a breakup rather than a coherent revolution of the whole polity, as happened in France starting 1789. France almost broke up but didn't. We're a lot bigger in territory and political geography matters: look at the fast breakup of the large Soviet Union in 1991.

Sure, the popular vote is a problem, IF it increases on the socialist side. And the Dems are moving illegals and such into this country as fast as they can to increase their power and win. The flood of immigration is changing the world all over radically, and for the worse. We are not exempt, it's happening here too.

I have hope that we still have a few years left before a Venezuela-style collapse. The takers trying to enslave the makers, and nothing working anymore.

 

[dblack]

Trump's win was either a revolution or a last gasp, and my guess is the latter. Demographics are the 800 pound gorilla that his supporters are completely ignoring, and they do so at their own peril. They're not just ignoring demographics, they're taunting them. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Another thing they're completely ignoring is the popular vote, which in a normal world would have, at least, given them pause.

You're scaring me, Mac. I too suspect Trump is a last gasp, before the demographic tide of Haitian-style anarchism overwhelms us. I actually expect a breakup rather than a coherent revolution of the whole polity, as happened in France starting 1789. France almost broke up but didn't. We're a lot bigger in territory and political geography matters: look at the fast breakup of the large Soviet Union in 1991.

Sure, the popular vote is a problem, IF it increases on the socialist side. And the Dems are moving illegals and such into this country as fast as they can to increase their power and win. The flood of immigration is changing the world all over radically, and for the worse. We are not exempt, it's happening here too.

I have hope that we still have a few years left before a Venezuela-style collapse. The takers trying to enslave the makers, and nothing working anymore.

You're romanticizing it. There will be no 'collapse', no breakup, no civil war. The bigots will go out with a whimper, not a bang. And the country will be better for it.

 

[skews13]

Fail to exercise a muscle and it will wither. Fail to exercise a skill and it will do the same.

Is that what has happened to our ability to communicate with those who dare to disagree with us? And if so, precisely how are we supposed to solve ANY problem, improve ANY situation?

How often do you see two people who disagree have a normal, civil, intelligent conversation any more, in the media, online, or in real life? I think we have literally lost the skill to have normal disagreements.

Has Society Lost Its Ability to Debate?

I think, as a society, we have abandoned our ability to do our research and debate. We allow our own allegiances (both in politics, religion, and other issues) to cloud our skills. I see it on my own newsfeed. People arguing, but no one is really saying anything. This lack of conversation divides people. It makes people puff out their chest and scream the loudest or say the nastiest of words in order to assert dominance in an argument. What does that accomplish? Nothing. It just burns more relationships.

We are so convinced that our side is right and the other side is evil that we fail to investigate a situation, understand both sides, and talk with someone whose opinions differ than your own. This type of behavior has highlighted a much more irrational side of our society. A side that causes more problems than solutions. Isn't that the point of conversation? To discuss an issue completely in order to fix it?

Thoughts?
.

Two things:

1/ The end of the fairness doctrine that has brought you this problem.

2/ Rush Limbaugh: "You don't negotiate with Liberals, you defeat them"

First, you need to recognize what and who the problem is.

Then you eradicate it.

 

[Mac1958]

Fail to exercise a muscle and it will wither. Fail to exercise a skill and it will do the same.

Is that what has happened to our ability to communicate with those who dare to disagree with us? And if so, precisely how are we supposed to solve ANY problem, improve ANY situation?

How often do you see two people who disagree have a normal, civil, intelligent conversation any more, in the media, online, or in real life? I think we have literally lost the skill to have normal disagreements.

Has Society Lost Its Ability to Debate?

I think, as a society, we have abandoned our ability to do our research and debate. We allow our own allegiances (both in politics, religion, and other issues) to cloud our skills. I see it on my own newsfeed. People arguing, but no one is really saying anything. This lack of conversation divides people. It makes people puff out their chest and scream the loudest or say the nastiest of words in order to assert dominance in an argument. What does that accomplish? Nothing. It just burns more relationships.

We are so convinced that our side is right and the other side is evil that we fail to investigate a situation, understand both sides, and talk with someone whose opinions differ than your own. This type of behavior has highlighted a much more irrational side of our society. A side that causes more problems than solutions. Isn't that the point of conversation? To discuss an issue completely in order to fix it?

Thoughts?
.

Two things:

1/ The end of the fairness doctrine that has brought you this problem.

2/ Rush Limbaugh: "You don't negotiate with Liberals, you defeat them"

First, you need to recognize what and who the problem is.

Then you eradicate it.

To me, the problem exists on both ends of the spectrum.

The rest of us are willing to be decent, honest, and collaborative.

The tribes need to be eradicated. But I'm not holding my breath.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Trump's win was either a revolution or a last gasp, and my guess is the latter. Demographics are the 800 pound gorilla that his supporters are completely ignoring, and they do so at their own peril. They're not just ignoring demographics, they're taunting them. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Another thing they're completely ignoring is the popular vote, which in a normal world would have, at least, given them pause.

You're scaring me, Mac. I too suspect Trump is a last gasp, before the demographic tide of Haitian-style anarchism overwhelms us. I actually expect a breakup rather than a coherent revolution of the whole polity, as happened in France starting 1789. France almost broke up but didn't. We're a lot bigger in territory and political geography matters: look at the fast breakup of the large Soviet Union in 1991.

Sure, the popular vote is a problem, IF it increases on the socialist side. And the Dems are moving illegals and such into this country as fast as they can to increase their power and win. The flood of immigration is changing the world all over radically, and for the worse. We are not exempt, it's happening here too.

I have hope that we still have a few years left before a Venezuela-style collapse. The takers trying to enslave the makers, and nothing working anymore.

It may be too late for the GOP at this point, but if the party continues to ignore (and even mock!) the coming demographic wave, this will be more difficult for it than it needs to be.

I can certainly understand an unwillingness to reach out to the various "identity" groups, since I'm so against Identity Politics for its divisive nature. And it's clear that most Republicans simply will not do it, no matter what. But if the party doesn't find a way - something more than an obviously half-hearted come-hither look - to deal with demographics, what you're afraid of is almost a certainty.
.

 

[impuretrash]

You're scaring me, Mac. I too suspect Trump is a last gasp, before the demographic tide of Haitian-style anarchism overwhelms us. I actually expect a breakup rather than a coherent revolution of the whole polity, as happened in France starting 1789. France almost broke up but didn't. We're a lot bigger in territory and political geography matters: look at the fast breakup of the large Soviet Union in 1991.

Sure, the popular vote is a problem, IF it increases on the socialist side. And the Dems are moving illegals and such into this country as fast as they can to increase their power and win. The flood of immigration is changing the world all over radically, and for the worse. We are not exempt, it's happening here too.

I have hope that we still have a few years left before a Venezuela-style collapse. The takers trying to enslave the makers, and nothing working anymore.

Immigration isnt changing "the world". It's changing white majority countries and no others.

 

[Circe]

You're romanticizing it. There will be no 'collapse', no breakup, no civil war. The bigots will go out with a whimper, not a bang. And the country will be better for it.

It can't possibly happen here, right? We couldn't possibly have a civil war, we couldn't possibly have a revolution, we couldn't possibly break up the country, that never happens anywhere, and certainly not in America!! I love it when people say things like that.

 

[Circe]

The tribes need to be eradicated. But I'm not holding my breath.

You want it to go back to when we were all Americans. No, that ship has sailed, don't hold your breath. That was when we were homogeneous. And in fact, we recovered from "tribes" to a homogeneous polity in the last part of the 1800s after the Civil War. But again, most of the "we" were homogeneous, so that was possible.

It won't happen again. Heterogeneous polities as we now are are grossly unstable politically --- look at the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it flew apart like an explosion in the stress of WWI.

 

[Circe]

Immigration isnt changing "the world". It's changing white majority countries and no others.

Of course. White countries is where illegals want to move to. Nobody wants to move to Haiti or Chad or Mali or Kenya or Vietnam! They want to move here and take over, and they have the numbers and they can because we let them rather than treating it as the invasion it is.

This is what happened to the North American Indians. Now it's happening to us and Europe. Overwhelming invasion by different cultures that will take over.

 

[dblack]

You're romanticizing it. There will be no 'collapse', no breakup, no civil war. The bigots will go out with a whimper, not a bang. And the country will be better for it.

It can't possibly happen here, right? We couldn't possibly have a civil war, we couldn't possibly have a revolution, we couldn't possibly break up the country, that never happens anywhere, and certainly not in America!! I love it when people say things like that.

It's definitely possible, just unlikely. The bigots are mostly whiners, not fighters.

 

[hazlnut]

Fail to exercise a muscle and it will wither. Fail to exercise a skill and it will do the same.

Is that what has happened to our ability to communicate with those who dare to disagree with us? And if so, precisely how are we supposed to solve ANY problem, improve ANY situation?

How often do you see two people who disagree have a normal, civil, intelligent conversation any more, in the media, online, or in real life? I think we have literally lost the skill to have normal disagreements.

Has Society Lost Its Ability to Debate?

I think, as a society, we have abandoned our ability to do our research and debate. We allow our own allegiances (both in politics, religion, and other issues) to cloud our skills. I see it on my own newsfeed. People arguing, but no one is really saying anything. This lack of conversation divides people. It makes people puff out their chest and scream the loudest or say the nastiest of words in order to assert dominance in an argument. What does that accomplish? Nothing. It just burns more relationships.

We are so convinced that our side is right and the other side is evil that we fail to investigate a situation, understand both sides, and talk with someone whose opinions differ than your own. This type of behavior has highlighted a much more irrational side of our society. A side that causes more problems than solutions. Isn't that the point of conversation? To discuss an issue completely in order to fix it?

Thoughts?
.

I think when a product or service becomes a huge profit center for a particular industry, then it becomes almost impossible to regulate effectively. The industry has too much power and influence and can kill and/or make sure regulation is toothless.

It's impossible to address systemic problems if the biggest one is money in politics-- policy agendas, committee hearings are influenced by K street not the voters in the district. If money is free speech -- then the speech that ultimately sways policy is no longer well-reasoned supported by data and facts -- it's a number on a checkbook that wins the argument.

Also once science, rigorous peer review, academia are given a negative connotation, then society effectively is saying "we really don't want to know."

I'm still on the fence whether we get the government we deserve-- complacency and mindless distractions not withstanding... still seems an overly harsh punishment for binge watching and facebooking.