81–90 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you trying to create a false dichotomy?
It's a fair question. In China most people were peasant farmers with no opportunities. Now if we had fair trade between the countries, that might be better...
It is too easy to forget that when a person is employed at $100k-$200k per year in the Bay Area, you want things like stopping climate change, more parks, more air, fair treatment, and above all, peace and prosperity. When making $30k with absolutely zero hope of real increases in Atlanta being a warehouse worker for an industry that's disappearing, the same person would burn all those things down, I would have said…
Globalization does disproportionately affects the poor the most, but the poor still end up voting for globalist neoliberal Democrats because they offer social services that solve much of the economic disparity problem that globalization creates, such as food stamps, universal health care, college loans, subsidized housing, and public transportation. Meanwhile, the middle-class that actually votes against globalization completely ignores the fact that government offers these social services.
Ultimately globalization is a must, as it just increases efficiency and cuts prices. Ain't no one going to pay $100 for a commodity shirt you buy at Wal-Mart.
And I'm OK with society where a 1% exists. The 1% is what causes skyscrapers and high art to happen. You don't want a society where everyone is equal. It's the differences that makes us great, and in fact may be the central meaning of life. Why would anyone want to be the same as everyone else? You become unnecessary if you're the same bland chunk of ordinary matter as everyone else.
just a minor gripe: was predictable is lame. you either predict the future or you dont. you dont say that you could have predicted it. i get the point of the article, but its lame when people try to act like the "could have predicted" something, because they are using the fact that it happened.
Book description: "Globalization is exposing social fissures between those with the education, skills, and mobility to flourish in an unfettered world market—the apparent "winners"—and those without. These apparent "losers" are increasingly anxious about their standards of living and their precarious place in an integrated world economy. The result is severe tension between the market and broad sectors of society, with governments caught in the middle. Compounding the very real problems that need to be addressed..."
The trouble with economic globalization is that we assumed that markets work and work well all over the world. That there would be an inevitable stable middle class built from the sheer power of market forces. It turns out that those in power around the world have every incentive to keep the gains to themselves and keep their population desperate -- desperate people have to weigh their economic decisions against thei…
> I don't agree with Trump on much but I do agree that relying upon the market to fix all ills hasn't worked. We need to flex the economic muscle we have and tie trade to political reforms or find a way to bypass the powers that be and pull up the people directly. Otherwise, we are stuck in a race to the bottom. Yes, you have to have some common standards which undercut a race to the bottom, otherwise countries will…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree 100% No matter how many ways to justify, the wealth and power enjoyed by a few are simply irrational. Edit: the wording is difficult, but all replies below have the same idea. Or I should rephrase it to: the absurdity of the wealth and power enjoyed by people grows exponentially with their rank in the social ladder. The ideal probably should quadratically.
You do realize that while the 1% doesn't include all IT workers in the bay area, the 2% does (I believe 1.6% is 100k per year before tax). It's easy to complain about the 1%, but most people on this site ... are the 1%. Median household income in the US is $55,775. That means, about half of all US households have less than that. [1] By and large, it's not the wealth enjoyed by the few. It's the comfortable, but proba…
The page you linked says 100k/year (household income) puts you in the top 25% in the United States.
Globally, 32k/year puts you in the top 1%. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615...
Top 1% of the United States is a bit harder to find consistent numbers for, but it looks like around 450k/year individual or 1,200k/year household. http://www.investopedia.com/news/how-much-income-puts-you-to...
Even if you were saying a household of two 100k/year incomes, that only puts you in the top 5-6%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. If we address poverty it will remove most racism. Most racism is classism in disguise. Heck, most people confuse the two when they are being discussed. //edited to remove an extra 'in'.
Asian Americans have a higher per capita income than whites. Does that mean Asians are no longer discriminated against?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. If we address poverty it will remove most racism. Most racism is classism in disguise. Heck, most people confuse the two when they are being discussed. //edited to remove an extra 'in'.
Asian Americans have a higher per capita income than whites. Does that mean Asians are no longer discriminated against?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree 100% No matter how many ways to justify, the wealth and power enjoyed by a few are simply irrational. Edit: the wording is difficult, but all replies below have the same idea. Or I should rephrase it to: the absurdity of the wealth and power enjoyed by people grows exponentially with their rank in the social ladder. The ideal probably should quadratically.
You do realize that while the 1% doesn't include all IT workers in the bay area, the 2% does (I believe 1.6% is 100k per year before tax). It's easy to complain about the 1%, but most people on this site ... are the 1%. Median household income in the US is $55,775. That means, about half of all US households have less than that. [1] By and large, it's not the wealth enjoyed by the few. It's the comfortable, but proba…
Even $250k is only 97th percentile.
It is too easy to forget that when a person is employed at $100k-$200k per year in the Bay Area, you want things like stopping climate change, more parks, more air, fair treatment, and above all, peace and prosperity. When making $30k with absolutely zero hope of real increases in Atlanta being a warehouse worker for an industry that's disappearing, the same person would burn all those things down, I would have said…
Japan and the other Asian Tigers will be better off with a declining population, which they're well aware of, despite the fears about supporting a large centennial population. We should be doing the same rather than gouging ourselves, racing to the bottom.
Now, this isn't an assertion I find 100% confidence in, but I'm leaning that way. I'm not sure it's realistically possible to mitigate immigration given the political will it would entail. But if I'm entirely wrong about the promised effects of immigration (as in, in the West TODAY), then I'd like to hear a good retort.
People need to realize there is not enough for everyone. Apple just hit 1 billion iphones. Facebook is close to 2 billion. There are 7.5 billion people on earth. They all want iphones, facebook, AC, food, clean water. You can see where this is going and it's not good. I personally think its almost made worse by the internet and people being connected, they see and feel what they are missing. Most Africans, for exampl…
> Most Africans, for example, would kill to be in Europe / USA. I hope you meant this figuratively, because it is fair to say that it is a completely ridiculous statement otherwise.