|
Typo posted:The quote says life expectancy has fallen since the 1990s, this is different than saying it has fallen since the 1950s. True. Think how well we'd be doing with all our modern technology and industry if we returned to the policies of the 1950s that gave us the lowest inequality ever instead of readopting the policies of the 1920s that gave us misery and death.
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:What do you mean by transportation? Just car and oil prices? Those have gone down pretty substantially over the last 100 years. Until like the 1970's when oil went crazy anyways. Cars are cheaper now than they were, at least for what you get like miles per gallon and what not. A used car is a pretty low cost expenditure these days. Not sure you could have purchased one in the 1950's as easily as you can now. lol there is not a single thing in this post that is correct
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
Since the most recent data available from the CDC shows a record high my guess would be from up his own rear end http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus13.pdf#016 edit: my bad, I misread, 2012 was a record high at 78.8, we were only at 78.7 in 2013 Jarmak fucked around with this message at 17:51 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The US currently has several GMI programs (SSI, SSD), as well as a couple BI programs. (Social Security and the Alaskan Permanent Fund) those benefits are not what people are referring to when they say gmi no i will not participate in a ten page derail to define what a gmi is
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Since the most recent data available from the CDC shows a record high my guess would be from up his own rear end That's not broken down by income level, and Krugman was only talking about life expectancy for the poor so it doesn't disprove what he's saying.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The US currently has several GMI programs (SSI, SSD), as well as a couple BI programs. (Social Security and the Alaskan Permanent Fund) If anything if you want three easy steps to make the US a lot less terrible: a living wage, a federal public option open to subsidies and a mincome at least at the FPL to fill in the cracks from everything else. All of it is probably possible. Although a mincome likely will probably cost $300-400 billion a year, but it is in the realm of possibility especially with additional revenue.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
RBC posted:lol there is not a single thing in this post that is correct Source? You "forgot" to link one.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The US currently has several GMI programs (SSI, SSD), as well as a couple BI programs. (Social Security and the Alaskan Permanent Fund) You must be disabled or retired to get ssi and ssdi.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
RBC posted:You're wrong and no I won't say why Thank you for this amazing contribution to this thread. euphronius posted:You must be disabled or retired to get ssi and ssdi. That people only support welfare when it avoids aiding "those who don't deserve it" is a huge part of America's problem, yes. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 17:59 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:True. The thing is the economic context of the 1950s was a lot different and the very technology we are talking about is one of the reasons why returning to that era isn't really possible. The 1950s both in the US and Europe represented the last great wave of urbanization and industrialization. You had rapid and sustained economic growth it was pretty easy to put farmers into factories and increase productivity. On the back of that the main governmental function was redistribution of wealth and macroeconomic management. But even before the end of the decade cracks started to show, I personally think the closing of the packard automobile factory in 1958 was a signpost for this. After a while the urbanization and essentially completed and growth sputtered. Stagflation of the 1970s showed the failure of the old Keynesian consensus to manage the economy. Automation eventually ate away at the old manufacturing labor market and the golden age of capitalism ended. That is not to say you shouldn't redistribute wealth, but it is saying that you are unlikely to get the sort of society everyone is nostalgic for even if you do. I think Japan today might be what America (at least the urbanized, wealthier portion of it) would have looked like if a different set of political consensus emerged out of the 1970s.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's not broken down by income level, and Krugman was only talking about life expectancy for the poor so it doesn't disprove what he's saying. It is broken down by race though and blacks had the most gains since the 90's which would make Krugman's unsourced statements pretty dubious edit: Actually if you dig further into that CDC report there's a bunch of specific reporting about access to care and an entire special report on access to prescription drugs which shows both have starkly improved since the 90s. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 18:07 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:It is broken down by race though and blacks had the most gains since the 90's which would make Krugman's unsourced statements pretty dubious Krugman only made claims about the fall of life expectancy among poor whites and the increase in mortality among poor white women. Since black life expectancy was already significantly below whites, it's not incompatible that poor whites could be regressing while blacks still make gains from their much lower starting point. But I don't have any other proof, if I find some later I will post it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Krugman only made claims about the fall of life expectancy among poor whites and the increase in mortality among poor white women. Since black life expectancy was already significantly below whites, it's not incompatible that poor whites could be regressing while blacks still make gains from their much lower starting point. Since you posted after my edit: Actually if you dig further into that CDC report there's a bunch of specific reporting about access to care and an entire special report on access to prescription drugs which shows both have starkly improved since the 90s. edit: I finally found it in the report, Krugman is technically correct but his conclusions are misleading as gently caress because it looks like the drop is because the numbers poo poo the bed in the 2005-2007 sample and haven't reached the old high again yet. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 18:41 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I lived in the U.S. for many years and traveled a lot for work. There are rural towns in New England, the South, and the Mid West that might as well be in the third world and a few that are as bad as anything I've seen in Chile. A lot of them are slowly dying. The poverty is heart breaking. $12/hour is a huge amount of money for those places. You think you are the only one to visit rural America and that simply by visiting you have divined the answers to America's woes? You have this narcissistic tendency to believe you have gained some magical life experience that no one can match, and that you need nothing more to support your analysis. It is fascinating because this is the exact process behind the conservative Republican and Libertarian mindsets that plague these regions.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:You think you are the only one to visit rural America and that simply by visiting you have divined the answers to America's woes? You have this narcissistic tendency to believe you have gained some magical life experience that no one can match, and that you need nothing more to support your analysis. It is fascinating because this is the exact process behind the conservative Republican and Libertarian mindsets that plague these regions. I'm being real with you and you're being kind of a prick in return. IDK if you're aware of that but it's an approach you might consider changing.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Since you posted after my edit: "Don't worry about your reduced life expectancy, it was a little bit higher than that about 20 years ago so it's not something to worry about"
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:"Don't worry about your reduced life expectancy, it was a little bit higher than that about 20 years ago so it's not something to worry about" Yes, for white people only, the group that already had a significantly higher life expectancy, and only when you narrow the stat down for not only a specific race but a specific income bracket, and only if you focus in on a dip comparable to a rounding error on a graph that has been trending upward for the entirety of recorded history. Also literally every other group tracked increased
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes, for white people only, the group that already had a significantly higher life expectancy, and only when you narrow the stat down for not only a specific race but a specific income bracket, and only if you focus in on a dip comparable to a rounding error on a graph that has been trending upward for the entirety of recorded history. I'm sure all of that is very comforting to the group with lower life expectancy
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I'm sure all of that is very comforting to the group with lower life expectancy They would probably be better off in the 50's when everyone's life expectancy was lower, including their own. It's not fair for one races life expectancy to go up faster than the other races. Better to just have everyone permanently stay at the lower level.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I'm sure all of that is very comforting to the group with lower life expectancy It wasn't something that required comforting to begin with
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I'm being real with you and you're being kind of a prick in return. IDK if you're aware of that but it's an approach you might consider changing. Yeah, I appreciate your attempts at being real quote:Spoken like someone barely smart enough to be angry but not nearly smart enough to be successful. quote:In the like past 5 minutes of posting I made maybe $200.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:True. Being the only industrialized country in the world that isn't digging itself out of rubble? With barely any automation to talk of? Yeah, let's get right onto that.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
killer_robot posted:Being the only industrialized country in the world that isn't digging itself out of rubble? With barely any automation to talk of? Yeah, let's get right onto that. Back in the 1950s workers had more bargaining power because manpower was the only way to manufacture things. Now with manufacturing automation and outsourcing most components are created with robots and in many cases even final assembly is handled by a machine. Hell, even distribution is mechanized/heavily automated up until it gets to the drivers nowadays. And with self driving cars (and possibly drone delivery) on the horizon we're even seeing those jobs being automated away. We can't go back to a pre-automation society, human workers aren't as valuable as they were 50 years ago. Also I think someone mentioned that service jobs would never go away, if they could McDonalds would have automated tellers... well, I've got bad news for you. In Seattle there are at least a handful of Jack In the Box fast food restaurants where you literally place your order on an automated machine... and it works great!
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
killer_robot posted:Being the only industrialized country in the world that isn't digging itself out of rubble? With barely any automation to talk of? Yeah, let's get right onto that. Wealth inequality is a policy decision.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wealth inequality is a policy decision. That's true, but true wealth equality means janitors would have the same quality of life as a brain surgeon. Wealth inequality is necessary right now in our society because people think janitors deserve less than a brain surgeon. The day automation forces everyone to clean toilets for a living we'll see real equality.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:That's true, but true wealth equality means janitors would have the same quality of life as a brain surgeon. Wealth inequality is necessary right now in our society because people think janitors deserve less than a brain surgeon. The day automation forces everyone to clean toilets for a living we'll see real equality. Yes clearly that is what I meant and there is no middle ground between hilarious gilded age levels of inequality and full communism. Certainly don't look at the context of the conversation to notice that we were talking about inequality in the 1950s compared to today, or anything. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:26 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes clearly that is what I meant and there is no middle ground between hilarious gilded age levels of inequality and full communism. I'm having a really hard time picking up on the sarcasm or whatever it is you're trying to say... or maybe you think I'm saying something else?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
IDK guys, the inequalities produced by the market seem pretty reasonable to me. Art is valuable, but artists are not. Books shouldn't exist. Unskilled labor is both the least valuable and some of the most valuable labor in the economy.
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes, for white people only, the group that already had a significantly higher life expectancy, and only when you narrow the stat down for not only a specific race but a specific income bracket, and only if you focus in on a dip comparable to a rounding error on a graph that has been trending upward for the entirety of recorded history. Our "get hosed poors" policy is straight-up killing people, they are dying unnecessary deaths, but eh they are poor...
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I'm having a really hard time picking up on the sarcasm or whatever it is you're trying to say... or maybe you think I'm saying something else? The level of wealth inequality in our country is a policy decision. It is possible to have wealth inequality that doesn't kill the poor without having to pay brain surgeons the same as janitors or whatever your ridiculous strawman was, but i think you know that and were being deliberately thick. And brain surgeon is not the most highly paid job in the economy, not even close. The highest paid jobs don't require anything like that level of skill, dedication, or social benefit but I think you already know that too.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Our "get hosed poors" policy is straight-up killing people, they are dying unnecessary deaths, but eh they are poor... That sure is a logical conclusion to draw from the fact poor white people stopped setting records in life expectancy for a few years. Of course by this reasoning our "get hosed poors" policy also lowered the annual mortality rate of black men by about 30%, but I guess that's not as important as the statistically negligible dip in white people's sky rocketing life expectancy stats.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
 The poorer life expectancy of black people means they are already dying unnecessary deaths
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The level of wealth inequality in our country is a policy decision. It is possible to have wealth inequality that doesn't kill the poor without having to pay brain surgeons the same as janitors or whatever your ridiculous strawman was, but i think you know that and were being deliberately thick. Ok, so you really didn't understand what I was saying. I was just agreeing that wealth inequality is part of society and that it won't change unless people see both jobs as equally necessary. I'm not implying that we can't do anything about it at all, for now I think increasing wages for the lowest class will do the most good until that point (if it ever comes). Way to be super defensive and a dick though, I bet you're a real hoot to hang out with.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
People don't have to see those jobs as equally necessary. And if you survey people, not only do they believe America is much less unequal than it currently is, the majority believe it should be closer to equal than it has ever been. Our level of inequality today is not desired by most Americans. E: There it is 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:02 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Back in the 1950s workers had more bargaining power because manpower was the only way to manufacture things. Again, and because 1950s America was the only place to manufacture things.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:People don't have to see those jobs as equally necessary. If we want a society where the poor aren't demonized for being poor I think we do. In the future automation will make most menial tasks/unskilled labor obsolete. The toilets will clean themselves. Right now our society looks down on people who can't find work or who work menial jobs, they truly think they deserve to make more than the "moochers" on the bottom. I think that's why the right wing is so concerned about welfare, they think the poor don't deserve food and housing. It's only slightly changing now because people with 4 year degrees are working fast food and other menial jobs. A societal change needs to happen, people need to realize "I did not work harder than the janitor today, I do not deserve to make 20x what they make". VitalSigns posted:And if you survey people, not only do they believe America is much less unequal than it currently is, the majority believe it should be closer to equal than it has ever been. I think people say that, but when $15/h minimum wage was proposed in Seattle a lot of my friends making close to minimum wage were angry. Not because they weren't already making $15, but because now everyone else is going to be making as much as they are. They feel like they worked harder for their $12/h than people only making $9/h, when the reality is that they both worked probably the same amount, wage is no indicator of effort.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
"Menial" tasks are generally the hardest ones to automate because they require lots of individually simple but completely separate steps that you can't all plug into a machine (or at least it'd be cheaper to just hire someone to do it). Consider what you'd need in order to build a robot that empties out every little wastebasket next to a desk. You can design a system that doesn't have to do those little steps, but again that's usually harder than just hiring someone.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Consider what you'd need in order to build a robot that empties out every little wastebasket next to a desk. Maybe right now, but automation is gutting menial jobs left and right. When was the last time you had to talk to a teller at the grocery store? When was the last time you called your cable company to troubleshoot your service? When was the last time you met anyone who works on a line in a factory? Many mid to low level jobs are being automated away and I really don't see that trend reversing. For now it's cheaper to hire a janitor, but when self cleaning toilets come around that industry will also see diminishing positions. In the end unless you're an expert in your field it will be more cost effective to hire the robo-butler.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Maybe right now, but automation is gutting menial jobs left and right. When was the last time you had to talk to a teller at the grocery store? Do you mean "had to" as in "there's no other option" or "what I usually do"? Because I usually do talk to a teller at the grocery store, even though there is an automated option. quote:When was the last time you called your cable company to troubleshoot your service? Again, when I do have trouble I do end up talking to a real life person here. Usually it's not preference either. quote:When was the last time you met anyone who works on a line in a factory? This I haven't known but that's more because I'm not living in a (formerly or currently) highly industrial area. I'm sure my extended family (especially the ones in Michigan) know plenty though.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Back in the 1950s workers had more bargaining power because manpower was the only way to manufacture things. Now with manufacturing automation and outsourcing most components are created with robots and in many cases even final assembly is handled by a machine. Hell, even distribution is mechanized/heavily automated up until it gets to the drivers nowadays. And with self driving cars (and possibly drone delivery) on the horizon we're even seeing those jobs being automated away. We can't go back to a pre-automation society, human workers aren't as valuable as they were 50 years ago. Is what you are describing a bad thing? It sounds like you are describing economic growth.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:27
|
|