Surly Megathread of destruction and doom. [BEWARE VERY DOOMY]

[Brothahorn 10085]

We are 100% into "every time I'm mad a black person over something it's BLM" territory here in DT.

Not me. I blame it on them being associated with devils like you.

J/K..sorta

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

 

3 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

This is surreal. I've wandered into a policy discussion and it's not the Cloak Room.

 

Brisket is a brilliant guy and obviously has a passion for this stuff. But like me, he needs to grab a drink and calm the fuck down every now and then. 

[Celery Man 20886]

It wasn't the system that changed this. It was that we moved from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. We outsourced our labor to China/India/Japan and got cheap rubber dog shit in return. 
Then we created massive entitlement programs to cover our shitty bet. 

Service economy where “everyone” needs a college degree to get to the “???, success” step and it costs “your dad’s starter home” to get

[Brisketexan 104624]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

It wasn't the system that changed this. It was that we moved from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. We outsourced our labor to China/India/Japan and got cheap rubber dog shit in return. 

Then we created massive entitlement programs to cover our shitty bet. 

That's not off-target by much, it sure as hell is a big part of it.  But we managed to also simultaneously implement a shitload of short-sighted policies (including tax policy and education funding) that even further hampered our ability to have all classes move forward.

I have long asked, using purposefully callous language, of "what we going to do with our morons?"  Meaning....the modern economy rewards brains a lot more than it rewards brawn.  And 50% of the population is of below median intelligence: they aren't going to become investment bankers, software engineers, electronics inventors, etc.  50 years ago, they could get a good job at the auto plant, and make a good and honorable living.  Now what can they do?  Wal-Mart greeter and fry-o-later cook ain't gonna pay what a General Motors job did.

But through it all, our GDP is continuing to grow, at very healthy rates.  It's just not spreading the rewards among the population, for a variety of reasons -- the one you noted included.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

Just now, Celery Man said:

Service economy where “everyone” needs a college degree to get to the “???, success” step and it costs “your dad’s starter home” to get

 

 

That's the one! Add the entry level job where you need 5 years of experience and you've won Service Economy Bingo.

[BabaYaga 15212]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

but we are utterly unwilling to implement many of the measures that made it great for everyone:

Does that include American being the only developed nation with it's infrastructure and manufacturing capacity intact after a world war that ravaged across multiple continents?  It's not hard to be the best in a race of one.  War factories were repurposed with a massive influx of returning men proficient in mechanization and technology.  European production ramped up fairly quickly after the war, but imports/exports were scarce.  Many command/control countries had to completely revamp their economies to that or a free-market approach.  You had currency reforms, and entire countries split and fragmented.  

[52-80 19096]

6 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

This is surreal. I've wandered into a policy discussion and it's not the Cloak Room.

Sir, our lawyers are busy discussing what constitutes a breach of contract

[Celery Man 20886]

They can believe in some of it, to some degree, but if by and large their calling card is that everything is first and foremost a race issue, and excoriate everyone who doesn't believe the same, that alienation does nothing to help the cause.  The intolerant extremism has never worked before , why should it work now?  

I’m certainly guilty, as burnt pointed out several days back, of using excoriating language out of what felt to me like righteous anger. I think one would be right to point out the hypocrisy of bemoaning the state of domestic discourse while engaging in that type of behavior, so I will try to do better.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

I have long asked, using purposefully callous language, of "what we going to do with our morons?"  Meaning....the modern economy rewards brains a lot more than it rewards brawn.  And 50% of the population is of below median intelligence: they aren't going to become investment bankers, software engineers, electronics inventors, etc.  50 years ago, they could get a good job at the auto plant, and make a good and honorable living.  Now what can they do?  Wal-Mart greeter and fry-o-later cook ain't gonna pay what a General Motors job did.

This is the biggest problem facing our future, no question. I'm not sure UBI is the answer because it's a hard sell to Joe 6-Pack, but it's coming one way or the other. Either thru welfare or prisons.... 

[Brisketexan 104624]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

Does that include American being the only developed nation with it's infrastructure and manufacturing capacity intact after a world war that ravaged across multiple continents?  It's not hard to be the best in a race of one.  War factories were repurposed with a massive influx of returning men proficient in mechanization and technology.  European production ramped up fairly quickly after the war, but imports/exports were scarce.  Many command/control countries had to completely revamp their economies to that or a free-market approach.  You had currency reforms, and entire countries split and fragmented.  

Oh, no doubt.....the gift of geography had a great deal to do with it.  It was really easy to become the dominant manufacturing economy when we had most of the world's remaining intact manufacturing infrastructure.  But there's a lot more to it.

We could focus on just one issue -- higher education -- and see how we've totally broken it.

We had a sufficient GDP to generate ample tax revenue to subsidize good state universities to educate a whole generation of people, turning them loose in society ready to be high earners with little debt holding them back.  Our GDP has GROWN SIGNIFICANTLY since that era.....yet our public support for higher education has plummeted.  Meaning that the folks we educate now enter the market dragging sometimes 6-figures of debt behind them.  That's an anchor preventing prosperity and growth.

GDP, the source of the money that is taxed and then used to do things like fund education, has gone way up.  Funding of education has gone way down.  That's fucked up.

[Sawbonz 27434]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's not off-target by much, it sure as hell is a big part of it.  But we managed to also simultaneously implement a shitload of short-sighted policies (including tax policy and education funding) that even further hampered our ability to have all classes move forward.

I have long asked, using purposefully callous language, of "what we going to do with our morons?"  Meaning....the modern economy rewards brains a lot more than it rewards brawn.  And 50% of the population is of below median intelligence: they aren't going to become investment bankers, software engineers, electronics inventors, etc.  50 years ago, they could get a good job at the auto plant, and make a good and honorable living.  Now what can they do?  Wal-Mart greeter and fry-o-later cook ain't gonna pay what a General Motors job did.

But through it all, our GDP is continuing to grow, at very healthy rates.  It's just not spreading the rewards among the population, for a variety of reasons -- the one you noted included.

Universal basic income. Gotta have it. Even if we could bring the blue collar jobs back they are going to go away due to automation. Robots will be building and repairing the robots; it’s only a matter of when. 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

1 minute ago, Celery Man said:

I’m certainly guilty, as burnt pointed out several days back, of using excoriating language out of what felt to me like righteous anger.

Been there, done that. And I know it's not productive. I'll never block a guy like Brisket because even if we don't agree and even if he calls me a racist, I know he's posted enough good shit to earn the right to "throw one at the bull" every now and then. 

But fuck guys like bad teammate. He's a troll trying to get us to react to him.

[Brisketexan 104624]

6 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

This is the biggest problem facing our future, no question. I'm not sure UBI is the answer because it's a hard sell to Joe 6-Pack, but it's coming one way or the other. Either thru welfare or prisons.... 

I never thought I'd be someone who considered UBI to be a serious policy proposal, but crunching the numbers and looking at our trajectory.....yeah.  I'd rather send a direct cash benefit of $30k to a guy and his family than spend $40k a year to incarcerate him.  And I'd rather we spent some money educating him in the first place.

We are not investing in our only real capital resource -- our people -- any more.  And that's really, really stupid and shortsighted for a "capitalist" society.

Oh, and not to go CR, but I think that's a message that could sell for any candidate for major office (from either party, really -- if he was willing to actually back the policies) -- "I'm an investor -- I'm the investment candidate.  And I'm a good investor -- I see our greatest resource is you, the people.  I believe that we can invest in you, and your future, and yield amazing returns for everyone.  Let's stop blowing our great wealth, and start investing it."

Edited September 15, 2020 by Brisketexan

[Captainant 27463]

13 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

This is surreal. I've wandered into a policy discussion and it's not the Cloak Room.

No no no, none of this is political, its all just economic right??

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Universal basic income. Gotta have it. Even if we could bring the blue collar jobs back they are going to go away due to automation. Robots will be building and repairing the robots; it’s only a matter of when. 

Like I said, it's a hard sell. Joe Truck Driver ain't gonna let no stinkin snot nose kid sit on his porch making 50 grand while I gotta slog my ass to work yada yada yada.

The shit will have to hit the fan hard and I'm afraid it might be too late by then.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's not off-target by much, it sure as hell is a big part of it.  But we managed to also simultaneously implement a shitload of short-sighted policies (including tax policy and education funding) that even further hampered our ability to have all classes move forward.

I have long asked, using purposefully callous language, of "what we going to do with our morons?"  Meaning....the modern economy rewards brains a lot more than it rewards brawn.  And 50% of the population is of below median intelligence: they aren't going to become investment bankers, software engineers, electronics inventors, etc.  50 years ago, they could get a good job at the auto plant, and make a good and honorable living.  Now what can they do?  Wal-Mart greeter and fry-o-later cook ain't gonna pay what a General Motors job did.

But through it all, our GDP is continuing to grow, at very healthy rates.  It's just not spreading the rewards among the population, for a variety of reasons -- the one you noted included.

The shift in education funding was big. Not just K-12, but higher ed, too. I've talked before about being first generation college. I don't know if I could do it now, even with the scholarships. It lifted our family in three generations from being too poor to own a toothbrush and shoes (seriously not kidding here.) to owning a home, one of the benchmarks for the American Dream. But, higher education doesn't work for everyone. It just doesn't. But weakening the K-12 system was not the way to go as it exacerbated the problem and now we have misery for many when it comes to learning. Oh, sure, we are all responsible for learning on our own, but let's get very very real here: not a good recipe for national success and prosperity.

I've posted in the USPS thread before about how I really support that service. It is a service, not a company and when you stop to think about it, is a pretty damn useful jobs program when it isn't turned into a shell or turned over to UPS/FedEx/Amazon to loot and pillage at the expense of employees of both private and government sectors. Some would say I am wrong to support that (privatize it) but I disagree. When used properly, it has always had the potential to be of enormous benefit to citizens.

12 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Does that include American being the only developed nation with it's infrastructure and manufacturing capacity intact after a world war that ravaged across multiple continents?  It's not hard to be the best in a race of one.  War factories were repurposed with a massive influx of returning men proficient in mechanization and technology.  European production ramped up fairly quickly after the war, but imports/exports were scarce.  Many command/control countries had to completely revamp their economies to that or a free-market approach.  You had currency reforms, and entire countries split and fragmented.  

This is a good observation, IMO. I'm weak in this area, but we were assisted by the war going the way it did.

Edit: and sorry @Brisketexan you posted your higher ed followup while I was posting. Yes, that is spot on.

Edited September 15, 2020 by Mrs Whiggins

[Sawbonz 27434]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

No no no, none of this is political, its all just economic right??

It can be if you don’t fuck it up

[Brisketexan 104624]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Like I said, it's a hard sell. Joe Truck Driver ain't gonna let no stinkin snot nose kid sit on his porch making 50 grand while I gotta slog my ass to work yada yada yada.

The shit will have to hit the fan hard and I'm afraid it might be too late by then.

Joe Truck Driver is gonna get right with the Lord real quick, because his job is one of the main ones on the chopping block.  What used to be a good 6-figure gig, where you could own a nice house in Elgin and live a good life, is going away.  A robot will be driving his truck within 10 years.  And most Joe Truck Driver types aren't going to be able to pivot to another 6-figure job in banking or whatnot.

[Sawbonz 27434]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Like I said, it's a hard sell. Joe Truck Driver ain't gonna let no stinkin snot nose kid sit on his porch making 50 grand while I gotta slog my ass to work yada yada yada.

The shit will have to hit the fan hard and I'm afraid it might be too late by then.

Joe truck driver is going to know when he’s sitting in the self driving truck it’s only a matter of time until the actuaries get the liability policies right and he’s on the porch too. People know it’s coming

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I never thought I'd be someone who considered UBI to be a serious policy proposal, but crunching the numbers and looking at our trajectory.....yeah.  I'd rather send a direct cash benefit of $30k to a guy and his family than spend $40k a year to incarcerate him.  And I'd rather we spent some money educating him in the first place.

I think smarter people than me need to figure out how it works. The American people aren't going to swallow paying someone 30k for doing nothing no matter how much sense it makes fiscally. 

[Captainant 27463]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

It can be if you don’t fuck it up

Lee Atwater in 1981 disagrees with you:

"You start out in 1954 by saying, “N****r, n****r, n***"r.” By 1968 you can’t say “n****r”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N****r, n****r.” "

The entire point of the southern strategy was to abstract away racial bias and oppression and reframe them as economic issues. So yeah deffo keep things just """economic"""

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Joe Truck Driver is gonna get right with the Lord real quick, because his job is one of the main ones on the chopping block.  What used to be a good 6-figure gig, where you could own a nice house in Elgin and live a good life, is going away.  A robot will be driving his truck within 10 years.  And most Joe Truck Driver types aren't going to be able to pivot to another 6-figure job in banking or whatnot.

Joe Truck Driver is gonna kill that robot. They the Robot Wars will begin so we won't have to worry about UBI. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

A federal jobs guarantee where we pay each other to do necessary work that is currently being undone would be a good way to redistribute wealth while creating social cohesion.

Also, I think people underestimate Joe Truck Driver's savvy. The protestant work ethic pulpit-pounders are more likely to be Joe's boss than Joe himself.

After all, we spend an insane amount of money on the supremely wasteful jobs program called the US Military right now and we get very little out of it. We'd get a lot of social good out of training and hiring elder care workers coast to coast to play Jenga with grandma, more teachers to lower class sizes, more social workers to rehabilitate families/felons, and environmental mitigation guys to clean up our shared spaces.

The environmental needs we face alone are enough to create millions and millions of necessary and impactful jobs.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

7 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

It can be if you don’t fuck it up

Please don't quote morons. I'm enjoying this discussion.

[Brisketexan 104624]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

A federal jobs guarantee where we pay each other to do necessary work that is currently being undone would be a good way to redistribute wealth while creating social cohesion.

Also, I think people underestimate Joe Truck Driver's savvy. The protestant work ethic pulpit-pounders are more likely to be Joe's boss than Joe himself.

After all, we spend an insane amount of money on the supremely wasteful jobs program called the US Military right now and we get very little out of it. We'd get a lot of social good out of training and hiring elder care workers coast to coast to play Jenga with grandma, more teachers to lower class sizes, more social workers to rehabilitate families/felons, and environmental mitigation guys to clean up our shared spaces.

The environmental needs we face alone are enough to create millions and millions of necessary and impactful jobs.

I don't disagree with that.

If we put the "American twist" on a UBI -- turned it into a "jobs program" instead of just a straight cash grant, that might work.  We did something like it with the CCC.  The jobs we need are different now, but they can still happen.

Imagine if every classroom had a teacher and a certified teacher's aid?  And, by the way....both of those jobs paid a decent wage?  Embedded in our inequality issue is that almost all (seriously, almost all) of our poor are the "working poor."  They HAVE jobs.  They just pay jack shit.  We need people to work in elder care, but sweet Jesus, those jobs pay NOTHING.  So, let's subsidize them (I understand reluctance to turn those into full-on gov't jobs, maybe -- I don't understand it, but I know it exists).

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If we put the "American twist" on a UBI -- turned it into a "jobs program" instead of just a straight cash grant, that might work.  We did something like it with the CCC.  The jobs we need are different now, but they can still happen.

It's the only way to get people to buy into it. I like your idea for teacher's aid. That's solid.

[Sawbonz 27434]

MLKs last book was about ending poverty, and his conclusion was to fix poverty give poor people what they lack, which is money. I think for the most part he advocated it as jobs program for most unless work wasn’t feasible 

I’ve heard people make a case for him being more worrisome to Hoover not for uniting blacks but that he would be able to unite poor people of all races to strive for equality

 

nice short piece from the Atlantic (old)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/279147/

“the programs of the past all have another common failing—they are indirect. Each seeks to solve poverty by first solving something else."

 

Edited September 15, 2020 by Sawbonz

[alincoln 2364]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Joe Truck Driver is gonna get right with the Lord real quick, because his job is one of the main ones on the chopping block.  What used to be a good 6-figure gig, where you could own a nice house in Elgin and live a good life, is going away.  A robot will be driving his truck within 10 years.  And most Joe Truck Driver types aren't going to be able to pivot to another 6-figure job in banking or whatnot.

Yes.  High or even moderate achievement will increasingly depend on intellectual capability, which will necessarily exclude a significant percentage of the population.  The hopelessness and lack of purpose that is pervasive among Americans under-30 won't be cured by UBI.  We will need to identify ways to provide a meaningful existence to the mediocre masses or unrest and inequality will deepen. 

Unfortunately, the extensive reforms needed to effectively provide adequate educations to members of disadvantaged groups who also possess the requisite inherent capabilities won't be implemented in time to assist any members of those groups who are alive today.  For example, lawyers really don't meaningfully contribute to big law firms until they are 30.  Accordingly, the emerging 30 year old lawyers in 2040 are currently 10 years old.  It will be almost impossible for a disadvantaged 10 year old in 2020 to emerge as a 30 year old big law attorney in 2040.  The die is already cast for the legal talent for the next several generations.  The situation is no different in any other knowledge-based field.    

We need to begin implementing reforms so that equal opportunity may be a reality for our grandchildren, but it will never exist while we are in the workforce or while our children are (speaking as a 40-something).  That is a harsh reality that society probably won't accept.      

[bad_teammate 13132]

Modern American history is designed to eliminate and erase the importance of labor struggle to civil rights movements.

These men were not simply protesting the general concept of racism or even specific acts of government racism. They were labor strikers demanding more money and better working conditions.

"I AM A MAN" doesn't just mean "Even though I'm black, I want you to respect me as a man just like you in some social or emotional sense", it primarily means "I have a family to raise and it's my responsibility as a man to make money."

And I agree 100% that the conspiracy to murder MLK wasn't really about race, but was instead about the anti-Communist fear of a united and powerful working class. Hoover didn't try to get MLK to kill himself because Hoover was racist, but because MLK was, despite attempts to destroy his good name, making people speak up and question the relationship between capital wealth and government power.

8 minutes ago, alincoln said:

We will need to identify ways to provide a meaningful existence to the mediocre masses or unrest and inequality will deepen.

"Mediocre" is a loaded adjective here, because it presumes that a lawyer with a good education and high salary is not mediocre. In my eyes, he is the height of mediocrity; a man who creates and adds nothing, a mere functionary cog in a fictional realm of arguments and codes, and whose life path was the most mundane following of inputs possible. What could be more mediocre?

"Unspecialized masses" makes more sense logically, because all a lawyer is is someone who studied up on arcane knowledge for a long time in a world disconnected from the vast majority of humanity.

It's fine to be a lawyer. It's also fine to be a garbageman. But the lawyer is only an admirable path because it makes money. Beyond that... who cares?

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

 Wisconsin historically was a pretty progressive state (first Kindergarten in the nation) and maybe my memory is faulty, butt they had bipartisan support for their working program alongside welfare back in the 1990s because it was not incredibly onerous. That's usually the key.

(Thanks for indulging the one political example) It's the key because there is an element or history connected to our Puritan heritage that seems to require/desire punishment for people. The old deserving/undeserving poor. Which is weird because their lives are usually pretty difficult as it is. When the implementation becomes more of an opportunity than a punishment, you would be surprised at how many people really do want to have a purpose for getting up and getting out. It's why I brought up the USPS, and why the other suggestions of National Park Service and other projects are important. We all benefit from those. It's also why education is important. Even someone who is not super bright but has a solid education uses work as work and then uses free time for other pursuits without being consumed by the constant need just to survive. The main problem is watching out for fraud. Most people go, "Oh yeah fraud, those lazy people will try and cheat." That's a drop in the bucket. The real fraud usually occurs way up the food chain from that. Just ask those companies that got PPE loans. Sorry, that's getting political again. Will try not to do that.

Edited September 15, 2020 by Mrs Whiggins
Thanks for the suggestion. Toned down the politics.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just erase the political parts, they aren't necessary. Your point in P2 is fine on its own.

[alincoln 2364]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

"Mediocre" is a loaded adjective here, because it presumes that a lawyer with a good education and high salary is not mediocre. In my eyes, he is the height of mediocrity; a man who creates and adds nothing, a mere functionary cog in a fictional realm of arguments and codes, and whose life path was the most mundane following of inputs possible. What could be more mediocre?

"Unspecialized masses" makes more sense logically, because all a lawyer is is someone who studied up on arcane knowledge for a long time in a world disconnected from the vast majority of humanity.

It's fine to be a lawyer. It's also fine to be a garbageman. But the lawyer is only an admirable path because it makes money. Beyond that... who cares?

What do you call someone who is paid by a foreign government to spend their life posting on various American message boards?  Other than bad_teammate of course.

[BabaYaga 15212]

52 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Like I said, it's a hard sell. Joe Truck Driver ain't gonna let no stinkin snot nose kid sit on his porch making 50 grand while I gotta slog my ass to work yada yada yada.

The shit will have to hit the fan hard and I'm afraid it might be too late by then.

I think they misspelled universal basic inflation.... 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

21 minutes ago, alincoln said:

The die is already cast for the legal talent for the next several generations. 

Sounds like we need to kill a few lawyers along the way...

[Hate 20103]

This is surreal. I've wandered into a policy discussion and it's not the Cloak Room.

It’s amazing what can happen when you CR retards go more than a minute without a dotard statement or orange man sling....and then there is always captainant wanting so badly to put a turd in the punch bowl.

[BabaYaga 15212]

22 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Yes.  High or even moderate achievement will increasingly depend on intellectual capability, which will necessarily exclude a significant percentage of the population.  The hopelessness and lack of purpose that is pervasive among Americans under-30 won't be cured by UBI.  We will need to identify ways to provide a meaningful existence to the mediocre masses or unrest and inequality will deepen. 

Unfortunately, the extensive reforms needed to effectively provide adequate educations to members of disadvantaged groups who also possess the requisite inherent capabilities won't be implemented in time to assist any members of those groups who are alive today.  For example, lawyers really don't meaningfully contribute to big law firms until they are 30.  Accordingly, the emerging 30 year old lawyers in 2040 are currently 10 years old.  It will be almost impossible for a disadvantaged 10 year old in 2020 to emerge as a 30 year old big law attorney in 2040.  The die is already cast for the legal talent for the next several generations.  The situation is no different in any other knowledge-based field.    

We need to begin implementing reforms so that equal opportunity may be a reality for our grandchildren, but it will never exist while we are in the workforce or while our children are (speaking as a 40-something).  That is a harsh reality that society probably won't accept.      

Remember the dark days of the farrier?  The dock worker?  The inception of the loom?  That thing called "the internet" that was predicted to devastate tens of millions of jobs?  Paradigm shifts.  Market destruction.  These things happen.  The internet, the supposed destroyer of jobs and entire sectors of the economy ended up creating hundreds of millions of jobs worldwide.  Trillions in revenue.  That what market economies do better than any other system:  they adapt.  Specifically, adaptive behavior in shifting environments.  

[washparkhorn 9935]

13 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I think they misspelled universal basic inflation.... 

Phillips Curve doesn’t work anymore. The Fed should have told you up front. 
 

https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2020/january/what-is-phillips-curve-why-flattened

St. Louis Fed President James Bullard has previously discussed the flattening of the empirical Phillips curve, including during an NPR interview in October 2018. “If you put it in a murder mystery framework—‘Who Killed the Phillips Curve?’—it was the Fed that killed the Phillips curve,” Bullard said.

“The Fed has been much more mindful about targeting inflation in the last 20 years,” he explained. That has resulted in lower, more stable inflation in the U.S., he said, adding “so there isn’t much of a relationship anymore between labor market performance and inflation.”

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has been asked about the Phillips curve, including during his July 2019 testimony before Congress.2 He noted that the connection between economic slack and inflation was strong 50 years ago. However, he said that it has become “weaker and weaker and weaker to the point where it’s a faint heartbeat that you can hear now.”

In discussing why this weakening had occurred, he said, “One reason is just that inflation expectations are so settled, and that’s what we think drives inflation.”

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The Fed should have told you up front. 

Fed response to inflation is easy: BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT

[Brisketexan 104624]

7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Remember the dark days of the farrier?  The dock worker?  The inception of the loom?  That thing called "the internet" that was predicted to devastate tens of millions of jobs?  Paradigm shifts.  Market destruction.  These things happen.  The internet, the supposed destroyer of jobs and entire sectors of the economy ended up creating hundreds of millions of jobs worldwide.  Trillions in revenue.  That what market economies do better than any other system:  they adapt.  Specifically, adaptive behavior in shifting environments.  

"The internet, the supposed destroyer of jobs and entire sectors of the economy ended up creating hundreds of millions of jobs worldwide."  It has.  But at least in the US, not as many jobs (in the maunfacturing and similar sectors) as have been lost.

"Trillions in revenue."  Absolutely.  Which has not been distributed among the people in anything like the more equitable fashion when rising GDP benefited all workers.  Again, see the Rand Corporation study.  We have absolutely made more money and grown our GDP, but since 1975, the bottom 90% have seen relatively little of that increase.

Our unfettered market economy (and that's not accurate, by the way -- it's highly regulated.....in ways that create rent-seeking and allow regulatory capture to become an anti-competitive force, and that socialize costs and privatize profits) has NOT adapted, at least not in any materially favorable way.

We struck a healthy balance for a long time -- provided an environment that spurred growth and increasing GDP, while also ensuring that society as a whole reaped dividends from that growth.  Now, we've got USA, Inc. making record revenues.....which end up being stranded at the top with the equivalent of incredible pay scales for management.....resulting in stagnant pay to the workers, and stagnant dividends to the shareholders of USA, Inc. (we the people).  That is unsustainable.  Interestingly, many of the smart people at the top have observed that, and have come around to the fact that the current setup has us heading for disaster.  We'll see if enough of them figure it out.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

12 minutes ago, Hate said:

It’s amazing what can happen when you CR retards go more than a minute without a dotard statement or orange man sling....and then there is always captainant wanting so badly to put a turd in the punch bowl.

User name. It checks out.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"The internet, the supposed destroyer of jobs and entire sectors of the economy ended up creating hundreds of millions of jobs worldwide."  It has.  But at least in the US, not as many jobs (in the maunfacturing and similar sectors) as have been lost.

"Trillions in revenue."  Absolutely.  Which has not been distributed among the people in anything like the more equitable fashion when rising GDP benefited all workers.  Again, see the Rand Corporation study.  We have absolutely made more money and grown our GDP, but since 1975, the bottom 90% have seen relatively little of that increase.

Our unfettered market economy (and that's not accurate, by the way -- it's highly regulated.....in ways that create rent-seeking and allow regulatory capture to become an anti-competitive force, and that socialize costs and privatize profits) has NOT adapted, at least not in any materially favorable way.

We struck a healthy balance for a long time -- provided an environment that spurred growth and increasing GDP, while also ensuring that society as a whole reaped dividends from that growth.  Now, we've got USA, Inc. making record revenues.....which end up being stranded at the top with the equivalent of incredible pay scales for management.....resulting in stagnant pay to the workers, and stagnant dividends to the shareholders of USA, Inc. (we the people).  That is unsustainable.  Interestingly, many of the smart people at the top have observed that, and have come around to the fact that the current setup has us heading for disaster.  We'll see if enough of them figure it out.

Counterpoint: Free Porn.

[52-80 19096]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Counterpoint: Free Porn.

where do i sign up?

[Celery Man 20886]

27 minutes ago, Hate said:

It’s amazing what can happen when you CR retards go more than a minute without a dotard statement or orange man sling....and then there is always captainant wanting so badly to put a turd in the punch bowl.

 

[TwiceHorn 31281]

23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"The internet, the supposed destroyer of jobs and entire sectors of the economy ended up creating hundreds of millions of jobs worldwide."  It has.  But at least in the US, not as many jobs (in the maunfacturing and similar sectors) as have been lost.

"Trillions in revenue."  Absolutely.  Which has not been distributed among the people in anything like the more equitable fashion when rising GDP benefited all workers.  Again, see the Rand Corporation study.  We have absolutely made more money and grown our GDP, but since 1975, the bottom 90% have seen relatively little of that increase.

Our unfettered market economy (and that's not accurate, by the way -- it's highly regulated.....in ways that create rent-seeking and allow regulatory capture to become an anti-competitive force, and that socialize costs and privatize profits) has NOT adapted, at least not in any materially favorable way.

We struck a healthy balance for a long time -- provided an environment that spurred growth and increasing GDP, while also ensuring that society as a whole reaped dividends from that growth.  Now, we've got USA, Inc. making record revenues.....which end up being stranded at the top with the equivalent of incredible pay scales for management.....resulting in stagnant pay to the workers, and stagnant dividends to the shareholders of USA, Inc. (we the people).  That is unsustainable.  Interestingly, many of the smart people at the top have observed that, and have come around to the fact that the current setup has us heading for disaster.  We'll see if enough of them figure it out.

Some of it (the policies creating wealth and income inequality) is intentional, and much of it is simply the product of becoming first a "service economy" and increasingly a technocracy.  But it's a slightly different spin, rather than being governed by the technocrats, the technology has outstripped the government by a pretty large margin.  So we're effectively governed by the technocrats, while the actual government is as dumb as the lower class.

Wall Street is a microcosm of this.  Anyone familiar with the markets knows that Wall Street is so far ahead of the regulators (high-freq trading, dark pools, complex derivatives) that is isn't even funny. See, e.g. Flash Boys.

And the question remains, what do we do with the morons?

Edited September 15, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Is Joe  truck drivers middle name strawman by chance ??

[Brisketexan 104624]

6 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Counterpoint: Free Porn.

There is only so much potential boner time in a day.

On the inequality point, I dug up some data to give us some comparison and benchmarks -- to do apples to apples, I used data from 1980-2015.

1980 GDP (all amounts in real, adjusted dollars) was $6.759 trillion, 2015 GDP was $17.423 trillion.  25 year GDP increase: 292%

 So, in 25 years, we saw our GDP increase 292%.  Very solid.  How did that translate to income for the American people?

Income of top 1% increase: 226%.  Not bad.  Reasonably tracks GDP increase, at a rate of 77% of the total rate of GDP increase.  

Income of middle 60% increase: 47%.  That is only 20% of the rate of increase the top 1% saw, and it is only 16% of the total rate of GDP increase.

 The US GDP went up 292% in a generation.  The only people who saw anywhere near that level of increase in income was the top 1%.  Everyone else saw a VASTLY lower share of that hugely increased pie.

Compare that to the generation immediately before, like the Rand Corporation did, and you get a vastly different picture.  Our economy is NOT adapting - at least, it's not adapting for anyone but the top 1%.  And if it doesn't serve everyone with at least some relative equality, that's not an economy for the country -- it's an economy for 1% of the country, and then it's what the 1% will deign to let make its way down to the other 99%.

It's unsustainable.  It's the recipe for unrest, violence, despair, and ultimately, revolution/collapse.  I don't want that to happen.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

14 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

where do i sign up?

surlyhorns.com

[bad_teammate 13132]

MLK on the economic inequality built into our system.

 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Income of top 1% increase: 226%.  Not bad.  Reasonably tracks GDP increase, at a rate of 77% of the total rate of GDP increase.  

Income of middle 60% increase: 47%.  That is only 20% of the rate of increase the top 1% saw, and it is only 16% of the total rate of GDP increase.

I agree this isn't "equitable" but the fact that everyone is seeing an increase is a positive thing. Not sure how this translates into "unrest, violence, despair, and ultimately, revolution/collapse". If you gave me $10 bucks and gave my boss $100 bucks, I'd be happy for the 10 bucks. 

[Brisketexan 104624]

3 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I agree this isn't "equitable" but the fact that everyone is seeing an increase is a positive thing. Not sure how this translates into "unrest, violence, despair, and ultimately, revolution/collapse". If you gave me $10 bucks and gave my boss $100 bucks, I'd be happy for the 10 bucks. 

It's not equitable because costs increase, too.  Particularly for things like housing, healthcare, and education.  In fact, some of those big-ticket items increase at a rate even greater than the overall CPI increase.  For our same basic period, 1980-2014, see what higher ed costs did:

So, Joe Blow's pay went up 47%.....while the cost of living went up 130%, and the cost of college went up 260%.  THAT is what is completely unsustainable.  When you are getting more money, but your costs are going up at a significantly greater rate than your pay, you're taking it in the shorts.

Think of it as if you weren't being paid in dollars, but you were being paid in terms of "units of college tuition."  In 1980, a unit of college tuition (one year's cost) was around $9,500.  So, the worker who made $48,000 was paid "5 tuitions."  Since then (to 2014-15), his pay has gone up 47%, to $70,560....but tuition is $23,800 a year....so he is now paid only "3.39 tuitions."

In terms of what income can provide, particularly with respect to some of the most important things we spend our money on, WORKER PAY HAS GONE DOWN.