when does the United States crumble? will it happen in our lifetimes?

[52-80 19066]

4 hours ago, Hermanator said:

Not sure that's correct. Poverty and starvation in America is growing in percentage rate. It's getting worse every year. 

Overall: Over 38 million Americans (11.8 percent) lived in households that struggled against food insecurity, or lack of access to an affordable, nutritious diet. This represents a 9 percent increase from 2019.

 

2 years does not a trend make. People living in the rural area is less and less. The poverty rate for the highest-poverty demographic has seen the sharpest improvement. The avenues for getting out of poverty is highest than ever. And food insecurity is better than ever.
 

Dorothea Lange is no more. despite the social net not being where it should (IMO), it was the responses to that period that prevents us from reaching it again

[South Austin 52037]

9 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

We live in the city of dreams
We drive on the highway of fire
Should we awake
And find it gone
Remember this, our favorite town

We built this city

We built this city on rock and roll

[MissingInAction 24765]

12 hours ago, 52-80 said:

You know a country has got it good when kids coming from actual war-ravaged places hear that the most pressing issue in their new school is that the mathematics curriculum is deemed too racist 

And they may be a victim of mass shooting at said school

[956 Worldwide 34314]

16 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Nations erode, they don’t crumble. It only looks like they crumble after a couple hundred years go by and historians look back and say this nation fell in 1644. In reality, hundreds of things attack the foundation over a long period of time until the crumble is complete. Things like…the poor are treated like shit. There’s not enough food, housing, or protection. The nation stretched itself too thin. They spent too much. Minorities are treated like shit. The military is power hungry. There is a dictator. There is a crazy dictator. Rules are not followed or enforced. Information is restricted. Education is restricted. Propaganda is allowed. Disease. No jobs. Famine. Natural Events. (A nation can crumble if conquered by force)
 

 

 

It depends on how you look at things and what you consider a “nation.” We tend see a nations as distinct political-territorial entities that exist so long as some form of political continuity exists. Others view a nation as a group of people with a shared cultural identity that may or may not always be in the same territory, with political continuity far less important. That definition is unlikely to work for us, because we have consciously created a minimalistic definition of “American.” There are other, more ancient ways of looking at a nation or a polis (the early Caliphates spring to mind) and in years to come more will emerge.

It is not hard at all to see a scenario where the United States as we conceive it crumbles, like the Soviet Union in 1989-1991. There are things we can do and things we can happen externally to speed it along or delay it or halt it. But it can happen. With the way we conceive of the United States, all it takes is for most of its people to start believing that a different form of political arrangement and organization would be better, and for a different type of identity to replace “American” as most important for most people, like the Soviets did. There are many forces at work today dedicated to exactly that aim. There will be some political entities to replace it, there could even be one called the “United States” with some similar features. But that doesn’t mean it would be the same thing. 

 

[Neonmoon 38127]

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Media has betrayed us in many ways.  It's not just Fox News vs. MSNBC.

I heard this history of the Turner empire on NPR.  At some point, I think related to national cable broadcasting, Turner was required to add news to the sports and syndicated shows that played on his network/channels.  He loathed having to do it, so he initially hired some cranky type hosts and kind of made a mild mockery out of it, which then turned into news as "infotainment" and then CNN as it's known today.

In addition to the civil unrest in the 60s, I think the political climate in the 30s was pretty polarized too, and, of course, accompanied by the Depression.

I read a great book in college that I completely forgot the name of, about how the medium influences the message. It wasn’t McLuhan’s book, but it talked about his theories. I’m old so I read this before or at the same time of the invention of opinion news and 24/7 news. These mediums have fundamentally changed our world view. The same, even more so in my opinion, can be said for Twitter. The 24/7 news channel brought accessibility to news. Although, I don’t think “news” is the right word choice. Information is better. The 24/7 news channel provides accessibility to information. It could be good info, bad info, useless info etc. The opinion “news” shows changed the dynamic. It made news a show, infotainment indeed. Just a human expressing an opinion about a topic. 15 years later, Twitter introduces instant connection and speed. Now opinions regarding information  could be shared instantly with the world. The barriers of entry to have your opinions shared with the world were eradicated. Anyone could be magnified. Any opinion could become popular. Any information could be shared. 

Now, what do these mediums say about us as a society? Do these inventions strengthen our society? Do they hurt it? Will they be one more crack in the foundation or will they lead to advancements? Or both? I have no idea. And I don’t think anyone would truly know without a couple hundred years of hindsight. 

 

[Brew 3044]

9 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

For all of the anger that we may see in our society right now, it's not being acted upon like it was in the past. . I have relatives and acquaintances (co-workers, a couple of Army buddies, a group of high school friends) that believe in some of the conspiracy theories arising from the events of 2020.  But out of that dozen or so people I know who I have seen posting that stuff or heard talking about it, none of them are in the streets, shooting up people or places that have differing views than they do.  You can argue that they don't believe that stuff and are just upset, or that they are too comfortable to want to rock the boat, and you can argue that because they can vent online, that lets the pressure off.

Regardless, they aren't acting upon it, and it's nothing like the 1860s when 600,000 Americans died in a war fought between Americans.  

Nor is it as bad as the 1960s, particularly from that period of 1963 when JFK was killed, up through the civil rights violence, up through MLK's and RFK's assassinations in '68, and even on into 1970 and the Kent State shootings, and all of that was against a backdrop of an unpopular war that raged on with no end in sight.  That's a sitting President, the leading civil rights leader, and another potential President killed in less than 5 years, with an unpopular war sucking in young people.

The things that happened in America in the 1860s and 1960s would have ended many, many lesser countries.

I think we have enough good people still here and I don't think the US crumbles in our lifetimes, but then again, I'll be lucky if I'm around 30 years from now.

Looking 40 years down the road, here's my concerns though:

• COVID put a notice on a lot of businesses/business types that they aren't as vital, at least not in-person, as they'd like to think.  Take your pick, whether that's in-person shopping (stores being replaced by Amazon Prime shipping) or in-person entertainment (movie theaters vs 60-inch+ TVs at home) or whatever.
• Amazon and others will get the whole robot worker thing down for a lot of jobs, and a lot of those jobs are currently filled by young and/or unskilled people.  Unskilled is not the best of words, but you know what I mean - lots of manual labor jobs, eventually delivery jobs.  What do we do with those people?
• Tying into #2, we will see the march of technology.  My grandfathers were farmers, and in their lifetimes, it went from their youth where 10 people could do X amount of farm work, to 30-40 years down the road when they were doing several times the amount of work those 10 people were doing.

And finally, what happens when the social media generation is in their 40s and 50s?  The kids who are growing up now, who are getting into their early 20s, who are always online in some manner.  Are they going to be able to handle shifts in society?  Or are they all going to be selling NFTs to one another?

Ready Player One (or any movie from that genre really) here we come. People are spending less and less time living and more and more time trying to find happiness/community in an online environment which leads down an interesting road.

America is in a great place compared to a lot of countries out there, but I’m not sure that’s saying a whole lot for our long-term viability. There are plenty of people trying to get here from the 3rd world country they live in, but does that really prove we are great or are we just in a better position than everyone else on the bow of the sinking ship with everyone scrambling to stay above the water line? 

We are well on our way of a track for greater civil unrest, more dissension amongst the populace, more and more violence taking place, both sides treating the other side as a combatant rather than a neighbor, etc which all leads to a bad ending. The fact that people can’t sit at a table together and have civil discussions on much of anything doesn’t bode well for the future of working through the large scale problems that lie in front of us like our massive debt, global warming, economic disparity, etc which then exacerbates the track we are on.

[idigTexas 2258]

15 hours ago, F250 said:

The proliferation of posts being Roethlisbergered is a key indicator that the end is near.  We are doomed.     

[Neonmoon 38127]

51 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It depends on how you look at things and what you consider a “nation.” We tend see a nations as distinct political-territorial entities that exist so long as some form of political continuity exists. Others view a nation as a group of people with a shared cultural identity that may or may not always be in the same territory, with political continuity far less important. That definition is unlikely to work for us, because we have consciously created a minimalistic definition of “American.” There are other, more ancient ways of looking at a nation or a polis (the early Caliphates spring to mind) and in years to come more will emerge.

It is not hard at all to see a scenario where the United States as we conceive it crumbles, like the Soviet Union in 1989-1991. There are things we can do and things we can happen externally to speed it along or delay it or halt it. But it can happen. With the way we conceive of the United States, all it takes is for most of its people to start believing that a different form of political arrangement and organization would be better, and for a different type of identity to replace “American” as most important for most people, like the Soviets did. There are many forces at work today dedicated to exactly that aim. There will be some political entities to replace it, there could even be one called the “United States” with some similar features. But that doesn’t mean it would be the same thing. 

 

I absolutely agree. The US will not crumble. That’s why I asked if the OP meant geographically, but to your point, politically was probably a better question. The US will always be around. If the majority believes a different political arrangement is needed or desired, then while our constitutional republic might “crumble”, the US will still be here. Politically and geographically could happen simultaneously, although it’s hard to imagine a splitting without war. But like I said, nations erode. There are many events. You mention forces at work today. Some periods of unrest lead to strength. One could argue the civil rights unrest lead to strength in the civil rights act. It all depends of perspective and how much hindsight 20/20 is afforded. 

[EuroHorn 3204]

When aggy wins the National championship.  The last time they did, WWII started 

[Biff Tannen 45477]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

I read a great book in college that I completely forgot the name of, about how the medium influences the message. It wasn’t McLuhan’s book, but it talked about his theories. I’m old so I read this before or at the same time of the invention of opinion news and 24/7 news. These mediums have fundamentally changed our world view. The same, even more so in my opinion, can be said for Twitter. The 24/7 news channel brought accessibility to news. Although, I don’t think “news” is the right word choice. Information is better. The 24/7 news channel provides accessibility to information. It could be good info, bad info, useless info etc. The opinion “news” shows changed the dynamic. It made news a show, infotainment indeed. Just a human expressing an opinion about a topic. 15 years later, Twitter introduces instant connection and speed. Now opinions regarding information  could be shared instantly with the world. The barriers of entry to have your opinions shared with the world were eradicated. Anyone could be magnified. Any opinion could become popular. Any information could be shared. 

Now, what do these mediums say about us as a society? Do these inventions strengthen our society? Do they hurt it? Will they be one more crack in the foundation or will they lead to advancements? Or both? I have no idea. And I don’t think anyone would truly know without a couple hundred years of hindsight. 

 

The biggest issue with that information is how blatantly false information has been weaponized. 

[Celery Man 20874]

Mild pseudo apology for last night. I intended to be a dick, I stand by being a dick, I could have been less of a dick. I'll blame not getting a lot of sleep or downtime.

I made a throwaway comment on what's his face's millionaire reply to AHB's mostly jokey comment about billionaires going to space. It was mostly a throwaway comment and so it's weird to go back and defend it, but there is an important problem when it comes to discussions of wealth inequality - people are extremely bad at understanding how much 1 billion is and how much it differs from 1 million.

you can go check the veracity of this representation if you want to but the source is fairly credible and that image seems about right with $1mm being 0.1% as much as $1 billion dollars. $1mm is not a small amount of money, but people who have a million dollars or a few million dollars are not in scope when the discussion is the issue of wealth inequality. Most of those people are fairly normal slightly older people who have done a good job with an income that is on the medium to higher end of normal. If the conversation is about the gap between the haves and the have nots (and again I recognize AHB was mostly making a joke) and you talk about millionaires, you are changing the topic and obfuscating the conversation.

2horn highlighted another point that is related but different - $1mm puts you in the top 10% of wealth accumulation (I haven't verified that stat but it seems right) but is an amount where you're just beginning to have a conversation about it being enough for a safe retirement with a middle/upper middle class lifestyle.

I want to note that thus far I have made no normative statements about wealth inequality or rich versus poor. I've said it lots of places over this forum over the years and I'll say it again here - the only person who is suited to solve your problems is yourself. That said, I do think it is an incredibly stupid mindset to go from that to "we should make no attempt to address the economic problems that face Americans on a macro level" and typically people who take that mindset are being hypocritical and are vastly overestimating both their current station and their ability to succeed in a true cutthroat environment.

Historically, massive wealth inequality has been a destabilizing force. It is relevant to the health of the country and worthy of consideration.

On a slightly different note, the fact that there are two separate realities that Americans live in is a huge problem, as is the erosion of norms/values/etc in our government. I think that the Constitution is undergoing a thorough stress test, and the fact that Americans can't agree about basic facts even as they are fucking sitting in the middle of them is a huge alarm bell about our ability to get our shit together before the ship starts seriously taking on water. More than economics, the division about what constitutes reality and the connection of that division to our politics scares me. Our collective experience of dealing with a pandemic that has killed 800,000 Americans in under 2 years makes me pessimistic about the next 50 years of America, especially given what else we have in the catastrophic global development pipeline.

 

On the talk of dystopian fiction - my favorite in that category that explores an increasingly digital (and nano!) future and the devolution of the nation state is the Diamond Age. It is a bit of a sequel to Snow Crash, which is probably more of a classic in the genre, but I prefer The Diamond Age and it isn't necessary to read one before the other.

[Bevo 13493]

1 hour ago, Celery Man said:

Mild pseudo apology for last night. I intended to be a dick, I stand by being a dick, I could have been less of a dick. I'll blame not getting a lot of sleep or downtime.

I made a throwaway comment on what's his face's millionaire reply to AHB's mostly jokey comment about billionaires going to space. It was mostly a throwaway comment and so it's weird to go back and defend it, but there is an important problem when it comes to discussions of wealth inequality - people are extremely bad at understanding how much 1 billion is and how much it differs from 1 million.

you can go check the veracity of this representation if you want to but the source is fairly credible and that image seems about right with $1mm being 0.1% as much as $1 billion dollars. $1mm is not a small amount of money, but people who have a million dollars or a few million dollars are not in scope when the discussion is the issue of wealth inequality. Most of those people are fairly normal slightly older people who have done a good job with an income that is on the medium to higher end of normal. If the conversation is about the gap between the haves and the have nots (and again I recognize AHB was mostly making a joke) and you talk about millionaires, you are changing the topic and obfuscating the conversation.

2horn highlighted another point that is related but different - $1mm puts you in the top 10% of wealth accumulation (I haven't verified that stat but it seems right) but is an amount where you're just beginning to have a conversation about it being enough for a safe retirement with a middle/upper middle class lifestyle.

I want to note that thus far I have made no normative statements about wealth inequality or rich versus poor. I've said it lots of places over this forum over the years and I'll say it again here - the only person who is suited to solve your problems is yourself. That said, I do think it is an incredibly stupid mindset to go from that to "we should make no attempt to address the economic problems that face Americans on a macro level" and typically people who take that mindset are being hypocritical and are vastly overestimating both their current station and their ability to succeed in a true cutthroat environment.

Historically, massive wealth inequality has been a destabilizing force. It is relevant to the health of the country and worthy of consideration.

On a slightly different note, the fact that there are two separate realities that Americans live in is a huge problem, as is the erosion of norms/values/etc in our government. I think that the Constitution is undergoing a thorough stress test, and the fact that Americans can't agree about basic facts even as they are fucking sitting in the middle of them is a huge alarm bell about our ability to get our shit together before the ship starts seriously taking on water. More than economics, the division about what constitutes reality and the connection of that division to our politics scares me. Our collective experience of dealing with a pandemic that has killed 800,000 Americans in under 2 years makes me pessimistic about the next 50 years of America, especially given what else we have in the catastrophic global development pipeline.

 

On the talk of dystopian fiction - my favorite in that category that explores an increasingly digital (and nano!) future and the devolution of the nation state is the Diamond Age. It is a bit of a sequel to Snow Crash, which is probably more of a classic in the genre, but I prefer The Diamond Age and it isn't necessary to read one before the other.

By people, do you mean everybody? The government treats millionaires like billionaires as does the news media as do the billionaires as do the poor. The resulting policies stifle upper mobility. Just some food for thought, what if government raised income tax on those making over $750K per year and lowered it on people between $100K and $750K? It would never happen because it doesn't suit either party's interests.

[52-80 19066]

No arguments that America has high and growing inequality.  (Im a proponent of wealth tax and consumption tax). 

No arguments that extreme inequality is undesirable.. and it's historically destablizing .. but only to the extent one end of that pole is eating hand to mouth.  This is not America's inequality in the 21st century.  If you were to start from literal 0 today, how many islands of Hawaii Larry Ellison owns is not getting in your way.  But a class war is a much easier narrative to sell.

[52-80 19066]

The size of 1M vs 1B is mostly a red herring. 

I work for a F500 company.  And Elon Musk's *personal* equity in 1 company, fluctuates on a daily basis, more than the entire market cap of our company.  We understand the extreme distortion in capital structure and wealth ownership.  But this reality has the faintest impact on the ability for you, me, our neighbors, to feed ourselves and carve out a healthy life. 

 

[40acredropout 2901]

22 hours ago, shadow_operative said:

leaving the US vulnerable to all types of hellish events, from foot shortages

[Ag with kids 581]

2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

No arguments that America has high and growing inequality.  (Im a proponent of wealth tax and consumption tax). 

No arguments that extreme inequality is undesirable.. and it's historically destablizing .. but only to the extent one end of that pole is eating hand to mouth.  This is not America's inequality in the 21st century.  If you were to start from literal 0 today, how many islands of Hawaii Larry Ellison owns is not getting in your way.  But a class war is a much easier narrative to sell.

I was listening to an Intelligence Squared debate on the issue.  One of the people arguing against the wealth tax leaned left, but pointed out that implementing a wealth tax has been done numerous times with the results never achieving the stated goals and ultimately those countries repealed those taxes.  She said it was a very inefficient way to redistribute wealth...

I think it was this one:  https://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/its-time-redistribute-wealth

Also, income/wealth inequality isn't necessarily bad all by itself although it CAN be bad.  But, just remember that the easiest way to eliminate income/wealth inequality is to have a bad recession/depression.

[Ag with kids 581]

13 hours ago, Hermanator said:

Not sure that's correct. Poverty and starvation in America is growing in percentage rate. It's getting worse every year. 

Overall: Over 38 million Americans (11.8 percent) lived in households that struggled against food insecurity, or lack of access to an affordable, nutritious diet. This represents a 9 percent increase from 2019.

One in 25 (3.9 percent) of households in the U.S. experienced very low food security, a more severe form of food insecurity, where households report regularly skipping meals or reducing intake because they could not afford more food.

Children: 1 in 7 (14.8 percent) households with children could not buy enough food for their families, considerably higher than the rate for households without children (8.8 percent).

Rural: Households in rural areas experienced deeper struggles with hunger compared to those in metro areas, with higher rates of food insecurity overall (11.6 percent in rural areas compared to 10.4 percent in metro areas).

Race and ethnicity: Black (21.7 percent) and Latinx (17.2 percent) households are disproportionately impacted by food insecurity, with food insecurity rates in 2020 triple and double the rate of White households (7.1 percent), respectively.

https://frac.org/hunger-poverty-america

Part of the issue in the US is that we often have misplaced priorities.  For instance, approximately 97% of Americans have a cell phone (https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/).  Which means that the majority of those families suffering from food insecurity were making sure that they had their cell phone bill paid.  So, a non-necessity was more important to them than a necessity.  NOTE:  I'm not saying there aren't poor people in the US and that there aren't problems.  Just pointing out one of the issues that we have here.

Edited December 12, 2021 by Ag with kids

[Celery Man 20874]

A cell phone is a necessity in the exact same way that transportation is. People love to use iPhones as an example of luxury spending by the poor because they are old and remember when cell phones were a luxury item. Try earning enough to feed your family as a person without specialized skills or a phone.

[hobbes2702 12771]

11 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

Part of the issue in the US is that we often have misplaced priorities.  For instance, approximately 97% of Americans have a cell phone (https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/).  Which means that the majority of those families suffering from food insecurity were making sure that they had their cell phone bill paid.  So, a non-necessity was more important to them than a necessity.  NOTE:  I'm not saying there aren't poor people in the US and that there aren't problems.  Just pointing out one of the issues that we have here.

It’s 2021. A cell phone is an absolute necessity in the modern world.

[Hermanator 6916]

Not just a cell phone but the smart phone has become a necessity even for low paid workers. Almost every retail/fast food company uses an app to handle scheduling and other things with WhenIWork probably being the most well known. Without that it's almost impossible to work these low level jobs. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

29 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

Part of the issue in the US is that we often have misplaced priorities.  For instance, approximately 97% of Americans have a cell phone (https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/).  Which means that the majority of those families suffering from food insecurity were making sure that they had their cell phone bill paid.  So, a non-necessity was more important to them than a necessity.  NOTE:  I'm not saying there aren't poor people in the US and that there aren't problems.  Just pointing out one of the issues that we have here.

You can’t refute a gap in the US by comparing the bottom rung of our gap to the bottom rung in another country. The gap exists in the US. The gap will still exist with or without gaps in other countries. Inequality is about distribution of resources. 

[52-80 19066]

28 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

I was listening to an Intelligence Squared debate on the issue.  One of the people arguing against the wealth tax leaned left, but pointed out that implementing a wealth tax has been done numerous times with the results never achieving the stated goals and ultimately those countries repealed those taxes.  She said it was a very inefficient way to redistribute wealth...

Just my personal opinion, a wealth tax, is less about *redistributing* the wealth, than it is about fairly *recognizing* the wealth. 

E.g. you have unrealized capital gains, which you borrow against for your spending, where the interest actually reduces your tax obligation! You control the distribution of the capital (by deferring into lower regimes or rolling into other advantageous compounding vehicles). 
 

Youre compliant with the letters of the law, but not the spirit. 

In the end you still have access to capital that I argue is undertaxed.  You earned it, you enjoy it, you should just be taxed fairly on it. 
 

This is a more approachable framing of the issue than the war-on-billionaire polemics that typically sounds like “elon has too much money he doesnt deserve it”

[atomheartbevo 89362]

4 hours ago, Celery Man said:

Mild pseudo apology for last night. I intended to be a dick, I stand by being a dick, I could have been less of a dick. I'll blame not getting a lot of sleep or downtime.

I made a throwaway comment on what's his face's millionaire reply to AHB's mostly jokey comment about billionaires going to space.

I've played too many city builder/Civilization/RTS games where the games end (or are going to) when somebody gets off planet.

I've wondered if that was a subconscious thing on the part of the game designers, that they felt like getting off planet was the safest thing to do (and at some point nukes were probably flying as well, probably from Gandhi).

Edited December 12, 2021 by atomheartbevo

[atomheartbevo 89362]

6 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It depends on how you look at things and what you consider a “nation.” We tend see a nations as distinct political-territorial entities that exist so long as some form of political continuity exists. Others view a nation as a group of people with a shared cultural identity that may or may not always be in the same territory, with political continuity far less important. That definition is unlikely to work for us, because we have consciously created a minimalistic definition of “American.” There are other, more ancient ways of looking at a nation or a polis (the early Caliphates spring to mind) and in years to come more will emerge.

I'm reminded of an anti-Irish cartoon showing that the Irish were being asses about assimilating with the rest of the country/citizens, while "American" was being defined.

And by the way, that says "Puck" (Puck Magazine), but "Fuck" seems funnier.  And yes, the Irishman is meant to be a screaming chimpanzee.

6 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It is not hard at all to see a scenario where the United States as we conceive it crumbles, like the Soviet Union in 1989-1991. 

I get why some might think that, but the Soviet Union was a forced collection (collective?) of nations with their own identities.

Our identities are wrapped up in the US for the most part.

Well, except for Texans and maybe Californians.  We tend to identify as our own thing.  But most other states don't have the same kind of identity we do (or rather have the level of identity that we've cultivated).

[Celery Man 20874]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I've played too many city builder/Civilization/RTS games where the games end (or are going to) when somebody gets off planet.

I've wondered if that was a subconscious thing on the part of the game designers, that they felt like getting off planet was the safest thing to do (and at some point nukes were probably flying as well, probably from Gandhi).

you also lose if you let some asshole take over your church. that sid meier was on to something

[tchookem 3900]

I'm going to pass on feeding the cloakroom trolls anymore today

You're going to get awfully hungry.

[Ag with kids 581]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

You can’t refute a gap in the US by comparing the bottom rung of our gap to the bottom rung in another country. The gap exists in the US. The gap will still exist with or without gaps in other countries. Inequality is about distribution of resources. 

I didn't try to refute a gap.  I pointed out that we in the US have different priorities.  (and I was referring to that specific example, not all examples)

As a couple posters above commented, it's viewed in the US that having a cellphone is a necessity.  I don't think that it really is, even if its utility is very helpful like in the examples they gave.

Especially when that utility is valued over food for the family.

[Bookman 4610]

I think the United States will eventually split up. Hell, I'm in favor of it.

[hobbes2702 12771]

12 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

I didn't try to refute a gap.  I pointed out that we in the US have different priorities.  (and I was referring to that specific example, not all examples)

As a couple posters above commented, it's viewed in the US that having a cellphone is a necessity.  I don't think that it really is, even if its utility is very helpful like in the examples they gave.

Especially when that utility is valued over food for the family.

How is it not a necessity? What job can you get without a cell phone? What job can you work without a cell phone? Unless your argument is they should pay for a house phone instead.

[Ag with kids 581]

3 hours ago, Celery Man said:

A cell phone is a necessity in the exact same way that transportation is. People love to use iPhones as an example of luxury spending by the poor because they are old and remember when cell phones were a luxury item. Try earning enough to feed your family as a person without specialized skills or a phone.

I disagree it's a necessity.

I have one.  And yes, I have my work email and Teams/Slack loaded on it for communication with work.  But, I do that for convenience, nothing more.  If I didn't have my cell phone it would not hamper work in any way shape or form.

And 90% of my phone use (and probably most people's) is just fucking off - surfing the net, games, memes, etc.

People have just gotten so used to the ubiquitousness of cell phones that they confuse convenience with necessity.

Now, I'm sure that there ARE numerous jobs that the cell phone is a requirement.  But, I'm doubting that those ~12% of households with food insecurity are in the majority of those.

BTW, the cell phone is just one example of the misplaced priorities of many Americans.

[Ag with kids 581]

5 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

How is it not a necessity? What job can you get without a cell phone? What job can you work without a cell phone? Unless your argument is they should pay for a house phone instead.

I pointed out that I don't even NEED a cell phone for work.  Most people really don't NEED it for work.  It's an AWESOME convenience, though.

House phone bills tend to be cheaper.

But, tying this to the topic of the thread, I don't think that the poverty situation in the US will be a driver.  Compared to POOR countries, as someone above pointed out, our poor people are the 1%.  The poor have a LOT more to lose by our country collapsing than the rich do.

But, then, I've seen dumber things happen in the US...we had the TV show Tiger King for god's sake...

[staboner 4955]

27 minutes ago, Bookman said:

I think the United States will eventually split up. Hell, I'm in favor of it.

it will certainly do something in the coming few decades. i don't think it dissolves in any territorial way myself, and i say that mainly because of the natural advantages North America gives for food, climate and security. 

it will however burst in terms of the current form of government, the de-industrialising food/commerce a bit, and i could go on and on. lots of this is global no doubt and will have its own flavor in the US.  I think once done, with lots of violence sadly, the US will come back quite strong. but i am seeing that as being after our lifetimes.

the US to me is the "free-ist" place on earth over the last era (oil/internet). that is great and all but just comes with a massive "social coherency" tax. you motherfuckers are way artificially angry at each other. deep, deep division exists, along with some pretty big holes in EQ. my 2 cents. 

best thing you can do is try to be positive and live every moment best you can. ya'll homies be good now. 

Edited December 12, 2021 by staboner

[Celery Man 20874]

Yeah I don’t need a cell phone for work either (although they did give me one). But I don’t clock in, I don’t work shifts, I’m not on call, my boss calling me at home would be a pretty severe breach of what the fuck, etc. Because I’m a salaried white collar office worker. There are a lot of jobs across the payscale that require you to have a cell phone. Often it is not provided.

 Never mind trying to get a job if you don’t have reliable access to email or have a phone number where you can be reached.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

12 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

But, then, I've seen dumber things happen in the US...we had the TV show Tiger King for god's sake...

What exactly did you think a documentary about people living in Oklahoma and Florida was going to be like?

[Neonmoon 38127]

12 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

I pointed out that I don't even NEED a cell phone for work.  Most people really don't NEED it for work.  It's an AWESOME convenience, though.

House phone bills tend to be cheaper.

But, tying this to the topic of the thread, I don't think that the poverty situation in the US will be a driver.  Compared to POOR countries, as someone above pointed out, our poor people are the 1%.  The poor have a LOT more to lose by our country collapsing than the rich do.

But, then, I've seen dumber things happen in the US...we had the TV show Tiger King for god's sake...

Poverty isn’t an major issue in the US, income inequality is an issue. 

[52-80 19066]

35 minutes ago, Bookman said:

I think the United States will eventually split up. Hell, I'm in favor of it.

UT just seceded from the Big 12, so thats a start

[hobbes2702 12771]

14 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

I pointed out that I don't even NEED a cell phone for work.  Most people really don't NEED it for work.  It's an AWESOME convenience, though.

House phone bills tend to be cheaper.

But, tying this to the topic of the thread, I don't think that the poverty situation in the US will be a driver.  Compared to POOR countries, as someone above pointed out, our poor people are the 1%.  The poor have a LOT more to lose by our country collapsing than the rich do.

But, then, I've seen dumber things happen in the US...we had the TV show Tiger King for god's sake...

I don’t need my cell phone for work either but employees at my company that work hourly jobs clock in and out on their cell phone through an app. They view their schedule through an app. They change shifts through an app. They conduct a health screening through an app. They sell to customers through an app.

You keep doing this thing where you think everyone is as fortunate as you. That’s not how it works.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

14 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

I pointed out that I don't even NEED a cell phone for work.  Most people really don't NEED it for work.  It's an AWESOME convenience, though.

Very few people don't need a phone for work.  Even if it's something as simple as the boss getting in touch with you or you calling to say you'd be late or whatever, you need to be accessible.  Doesn't matter if you are a CEO or the janitor.

Now whether that phone is mobile or a landline, that's the question, but I had to help an older relative who moved to Bastrop a few months ago, and it was more expensive to get a landline than a cheap cell phone/plan (which they already had through a family plan).  Wife and I haven't had a landline in over 16 years now, and I don't understand why people still get them, but to each their own.

 

[Celery Man 20874]

I think in a lot of shift work communicating through text is standard

[atomheartbevo 89362]

23 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

But, tying this to the topic of the thread, I don't think that the poverty situation in the US will be a driver.  Compared to POOR countries, as someone above pointed out, our poor people are the 1%.  The poor have a LOT more to lose by our country collapsing than the rich do.

We are all focused on the here and now of 2021.

What happens when a Walmart that may have 40+ employees working at any one time right now is down to 5 or 6 or less because of automation in the future?  Turn it into a Service Merchandise (and if you don't know what a Service Merchandise is, you kids get off my lawn!) where you have one of everything on display, you tap your phone to the items you want, and by the time you get to the other side of the store, you order is paid for and waiting on a robotic cart that follows you to your car.  That's assuming they aren't completely online.  What happens when construction, home building, road construction, etc. are heavily automated and all of those people doing that labor are out of work?

Those are just a few examples.  These companies are working on solving the worker "problem" right now, whether it's Walmart/Amazon, construction, food, whatever.

 

[TKthunder2 4975]

15 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

How is it not a necessity? What job can you get without a cell phone? What job can you work without a cell phone? Unless your argument is they should pay for a house phone instead.

This is dumb.  Half the retail businesses I see around town have help wanted signs and some even offer on the spot interviews because they need people desperately. You don’t need a smart phone to get a job.

The point being made is people in this country know they can spend their money on a smart phone/plan because charities/community orgs and the government/schools won’t allow them to actually starve like many do in less developed countries.  In places where poor people regularly starve, the poor don’t typically have phones.  People here think their phones are more important than being able to secure food they need to live, because they know they have access to dependable safety net.  These programs are not inherently bad and their existence is a net positive (which is why I donate to them) but we shouldn’t ignore that they have unintended consequences which enable people to spend money on non essentials (bad if they’re subsidizing drugs/booze/gambling and good if funding things people can use to get jobs and stay healthy).

[hobbes2702 12771]

1 minute ago, TKthunder2 said:

This is dumb.  Half the retail businesses I see around town have help wanted signs and some even offer on the spot interviews because they need people desperately. You don’t need a smart phone to get a job.

The point being made is people in this country know they can spend their money on a smart phone/plan because charities/community orgs and the government/schools won’t allow them to actually starve like many do in less developed countries.  In places where poor people regularly starve, the poor don’t typically have phones.  People here think their phones are more important than being able to secure food they need to live, because they know they have access to dependable safety net.  These programs are not inherently bad and their existence is a net positive (which is why I donate to them) but we shouldn’t ignore that they have unintended consequences which enable people to spend money on non essentials (bad if they’re subsidizing drugs/booze/gambling and good if funding things people can use to get jobs and stay healthy).

Cool. I just explained how hourly employees at my company need a phone in order to do their job. We certainly aren’t the only ones. That’s a real world example of the necessity of cell phones. 
Our company also no longer does in person interviews for hourly employees. We do video calls. I guess they could try going to a public library and hoping they can install software they need in order to do the call.

It’s 2021 the IPhone is no longer the boogeyman for how poor people spend their money improperly. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

11 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

This is dumb.  Half the retail businesses I see around town have help wanted signs and some even offer on the spot interviews because they need people desperately. You don’t need a smart phone to get a job.

The point being made is people in this country know they can spend their money on a smart phone/plan because charities/community orgs and the government/schools won’t allow them to actually starve like many do in less developed countries.  In places where poor people regularly starve, the poor don’t typically have phones.  People here think their phones are more important than being able to secure food they need to live, because they know they have access to dependable safety net.  These programs are not inherently bad and their existence is a net positive (which is why I donate to them) but we shouldn’t ignore that they have unintended consequences which enable people to spend money on non essentials (bad if they’re subsidizing drugs/booze/gambling and good if funding things people can use to get jobs and stay healthy).

Are you serious? Is this a serious post?

[TKthunder2 4975]

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Cool. I just explained how hourly employees at my company need a phone in order to do their job. We certainly aren’t the only ones. That’s a real world example of the necessity of cell phones. 
Our company also no longer does in person interviews for hourly employees. We do video calls. I guess they could try going to a public library and hoping they can install software they need in order to do the call.

It’s 2021 the IPhone is no longer the boogeyman for how poor people spend their money improperly. 

That’s great, and hourly employees at my company have to verify a soft token at each logon on their phone as well.  But for those without smart phones we are able to provide hard tokens.  It’s doesn’t happen often but we have a few hard tokens for when people lose their phones and once when an older guy shared a phone with his wife.  Most businesses have an option for those without.  It’s not impossible to find a job without a smart phone.  Inconvenient, absolutely.  But if the choice is straight up feeding your child or paying for your phone most of us would give up the phone in a heartbeat; but since we have multiple layers of safety nets here in the US, that is not a choice many people have to truly make.  Instead it’s pay my phone bill and feel a little shame when I go to the church pantry/food bank, or cancel my phone plan and buy groceries.

[52-80 19066]

7 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

We are all focused on the here and now of 2021.

What happens when a Walmart that may have 40+ employees working at any one time right now is down to 5 or 6 or less because of automation in the future?  Turn it into a Service Merchandise (and if you don't know what a Service Merchandise is, you kids get off my lawn!) where you have one of everything on display, you tap your phone to the items you want, and by the time you get to the other side of the store, you order is paid for and waiting on a robotic cart that follows you to your car.  That's assuming they aren't completely online.  What happens when construction, home building, road construction, etc. are heavily automated and all of those people doing that labor are out of work?

Those are just a few examples.  These companies are working on solving the worker "problem" right now, whether it's Walmart/Amazon, construction, food, whatever.

 

There will need to be people to build and service those robots. The automation will bring increased efficiency, lowering costs for everyone…and/or reward the innovators with capital that hopefully gets spent back in the economy.  Fewer jobs bagging groceries -> more jobs building pleasure boats. 
 

In general we shouldn’t harbor technophobia. It brings widespread QOL improvements across all classes of people. Imagine people back in the days worrying that their 11 year olds would no longer have a job at the textile factory…

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

11 hours ago, South Austin said:

We built this city

We built this city on rock and roll

And the end is nigh.....

[Ag with kids 581]

34 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Poverty isn’t an major issue in the US, income inequality is an issue. 

Explain exactly why? And please don't CR your answer...I self banned myself from that shithole and I'd like to know your answer.

 

BTW, when you get to the truly rich in the country, income equality is not really the term you should use with them.

[Neonmoon 38127]

A cell phone is kind of important to poor people. 

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/11/08/in-much-of-sub-saharan-africa-mobile-phones-are-more-common-than-access-to-electricity

https://unctad.org/press-material/make-better-use-mobile-phones-fight-against-poverty-unctad-report-urges-governments

Saying poor Americans are spoiled with safety net programs and choose cells phones over food is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read. A phone is a way to connect to family, friends, employers, emergency information, doctors, schools, weather information, job prospects. It is a bank. It is a camera. It is a flashlight. Skipping a few meals to not abandon that tool doesn’t make you spoiled, or rely on safety nets for food. To even suggest as much is just laughably out of touch of how the poor, here AND all the countries without safety nets rely on phones. 

[TKthunder2 4975]

25 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Are you serious? Is this a serious post?

Yes this is 100% serious and factual.  We don’t really record starvation rates in the US because they are so low and most have to do with mental illness or other medical issues rather than poverty.

This is why we talk about malnutrition and food insecurity and not children starving like you see in those late night infomercials for children in Haiti. Feel free to look it up, but this is an area I am passionate about and donate and volunteer my personal and professional time towards.

Edited December 13, 2021 by TKthunder2

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

50 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Poverty isn’t an major issue in the US, income inequality is an issue. 

This.  Wealth has grown, but the middle class has stagnated.