Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,256
|
Post by Ava on May 4, 2014 16:25:58 GMT -5
After reading the threads about income inequality and luxuries being cheap while necessities are expensive, I wonder where the U.S. is heading. What do you think is in the future for the U.S.? Are you happy with things are they are now, and how they are shaping up to be in 10, 15, 20 years? If not, what, if anything, can regular people do to prevent it? If you could change something, what would you change?
Just curious how others see the present and the future for our country.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 9, 2024 12:19:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 17:24:38 GMT -5
I'm not an economist, but I think the ship has sailed. We could have done more to support our country's industries through tariffs, etc. years ago, but everyone likes cheap goods. We not only killed "Made in America," but Walmart came in with the cheap imports and killed the local mom-and-pop stores.
Case in points. When I was in college, there were two clothing stores in that small town. They had sales (50% off) twice a year. I think they had a 25% off one midway through the season. That was it. People bought without coupons, etc. These were clothes for the middle class, not luxury items and not Walmart-grade.
Manufacturing jobs that produced these items (think of items like Vanity Fair) provided good jobs for Americans. But those jobs are gone or are going. They have been replaced with service jobs. Even more importantly, these service jobs are largely without benefits. So taxpayers support low prices and high profits at places like Walmart by picking up the differential.
I don't think you can go backwards. I truly believe there will become a bigger and bigger gap between the rich and the poor. The middle class will dissipate.
That is the stuff revolutions are born from. But I won't live that long. We are talking a long way from now.
Remember my disclaimer that I'm not an economist when you comment. However, I probably do represent a lot of "middle class" people's opinion.
|
|
achelois
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 9:55:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by achelois on May 4, 2014 18:43:53 GMT -5
I think the "War on Poverty" that started in the mid1960s did a terrible disservice to the country by uncoupling the receiving of money from the need to work for it.
I am not opposed to having a safety net, but I do not think we have done a good job implementing it. As a result, we have large numbers of people who feel society needs to take care of them simply because they take up time and space. We have large numbers of children born to single mothers by multiple fathers, few of whom are involved in the children's lives.
Gangs and violence are huge problems. The way things are going, I would not be surprised to find riots going on in the cities. In the 1960s, they were race riots--who knows whether they will be about race or socioeconomic problems the next time around.
I am not optimistic for this country. I am glad I am living now. I doubt I would want to have been born recently.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 9, 2024 12:19:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 18:46:17 GMT -5
I doubt I'd want to have been born previously...
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on May 4, 2014 18:48:40 GMT -5
Some of the decline in local manufacturing was inevitable with greater globalization. As it becomes easier to communicate with and ship to/from other countries, it's inevitable that routine tasks are sent to areas with lower labor costs. As those countries industrialize, their costs increase and the cycle moves on. Which we're already seeing with rising wages in places like India and China. It will take a long time, but some manufacturing will return as the cost of manufacturing in other countries and shipping increases.
Meantime, if our country no longer supports a large, minimally educated population, we should be having some hard talks about how to slow down the growth of that population for which there are few jobs. Since there are a limited number of low skilled jobs available, we need to do what we can that is ethical yet limits the growth in the population needing those low skilled jobs. Note that I'm not referring to killing anybody off. I'm referring to discouraging the growth in the population needing low skilled jobs, not reducing the existing numbers of people. One way could be to change our immigration policies. Right now, immigration is largely random. The net result is that the pool of immigrants skews heavily towards people with little education who are only qualified to perform low skilled work. At the same time, we turn away thousands of college educated would-be immigrants that could contribute to the tax base and increase our competitive advantage in many areas. So without changing the number of immigrants allowed, if the requirements for immigration were changed to encourage educated and healthy people, we could focus on a more educated immigrant population, increasing the tax base, decreasing their need for social services and leaving the unskilled jobs for US citizens that are unsuited to skilled jobs, because no matter what changes are made, there's always going to be a population of US citizens who will need work but are not going to be able to perform the highly skilled work.
And it's the third rail of politics, but we need to start having conversations about tying government aid to birth control. Yes, people sometimes need help and should get that help. But if you do need help to survive, it's not unreasonable to ask that while you're receiving that help you stop having children.
|
|
achelois
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 9:55:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by achelois on May 4, 2014 18:51:01 GMT -5
I doubt I'd want to have been born previously... Me, either. Women had so few choices. The sixties, if you weren't in Nam or in one of the riot-prone cities like Detroit, were actually a good time. Women and minorities were seeing new opportunities open up. Being born any sooner, I would not have been able to do the things I have done, but those born in the past few years will have to deal with the accumulating problems now building.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on May 4, 2014 18:52:03 GMT -5
Energy is the key to our future. We need fossil fuels and not windmills. We need fracking, drilling, shale, coal, natural gas , oil. If we don't take hold of our energy future then we are simply a pawn of those who hold those cards.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 9, 2024 12:19:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 18:54:12 GMT -5
But then you get into the distinction between needing assistance to SURVIVE and needing assistance to continue participating in the consumer society.
Like or not, large swatches of the population dropping out of continued participation in the consumer society has vast impact on us all... And is much more likely to result in the type of divide that fuels revolution.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 9, 2024 12:19:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 18:55:28 GMT -5
Every generation deals with its own problems. It's a pretty good time to live in America though... For all the doom and gloom...
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on May 4, 2014 18:59:06 GMT -5
The type of divide that fuels revolution is often based on a large percent of the population feeling that it does not have the necessities to live, not envy over lack of designer sneakers.
By continuing to increase the expectations of every single citizen - healthcare is a right, certain items that were formerly considered luxuries such as AC and cable TV are a right - we are actually increasing the chance of revolution as people begin to perceive some very expensive items as basic rights and necessities. As we continue to raise expectations, it may get to the point that people believe designer sneakers are a basic human right worth rioting over...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 9, 2024 12:19:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 19:05:14 GMT -5
There is a chance that envy of those that have it better/easier is not influential in a world that is isolated, but not in one that runs on constant information. Unless you plan on cutting people off from access to information, it will most certainly be a factor.
And yes, I do think that the definitions of 'basic' rights evolve as a society evolves... In the richest country in the world, the minimum should be above that of India and Africa...
You really think India and African poverty could exist in America, with outpr educational nd communication systems, in large numbers, without riots?
And nd what happens to the economy when those people stop buying stuff?
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on May 4, 2014 19:12:19 GMT -5
You really think India and African poverty could exist in America, with outpr educational nd communication systems, in large numbers, without riots? I wouldn't have thought so, but large pockets of Appalachia appear to offer evidence that we may be wrong about this.
Not sure why you're asking me to confirm my thoughts on India/African poverty in America, though, since that's not remotely close to anything I've brought up here. This is part of why people don't talk about some of these issues. If they bring up ideas for change, people immediately leap to accusations that racism is involved or the person with the suggestion wants old people and children to starve in the streets.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on May 4, 2014 19:14:24 GMT -5
And nd what happens to the economy when those people stop buying stuff? Will definitely cause shifts. But again, using taxation and government redistribution is just about the least effective and most wasteful way you could possibly conceive of to increase overall spending. If you want to increase consumer demand and spending, our current system is a really awful way to do that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 9, 2024 12:19:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 19:31:21 GMT -5
After reading the threads about income inequality and luxuries being cheap while necessities are expensive, I wonder where the U.S. is heading. What do you think is in the future for the U.S.? Are you happy with things are they are now, and how they are shaping up to be in 10, 15, 20 years? If not, what, if anything, can regular people do to prevent it? If you could change something, what would you change? Just curious how others see the present and the future for our country. Sometimes I'm optimistic because this is America and we have that fighting spirit. Other times I worry because this is America and we seem to have lost sight of or twisted some of the things that made this such a great country. We are so divided on so many things that I don't know how regular people can help other than to contribute their time/energy/money to the things they believe will keep our country strong for our descendants. I think if more of us concerned ourselves with what's good for the whole sometimes instead of always being the ME! ME! ME! society we've become, we might have a chance. But as simple as that sounds, even that can get complicated. I think we're still great at uniting against a common enemy but sometimes we're our own worst enemy and we can't get over ourselves long enough to work together to figure the important things out. As far as the economy, I realize it doesn't really make a difference in the grand scheme of things, but a lot of times I "voice" my opinion with how and where I spend my money. If I have a real choice, I try to choose the "little guy" (small business) and Made in America. I know that large corporations have their place, pay lots of salaries and investors make money off their stocks, but I like the idea of helping the little guy stay in business and possibly grow if he's good at what he does. I also know it's a global economy and people in other parts of the world need jobs, but right or wrong, I believe in taking care of my own first. Me, my family, my neighbors, my community, my country. Not too long ago, I realized a product I'm familiar with is made near my city. I made a mental note to buy that particular brand the next time I need that product, just because it's made close to home and it's good quality. I've made the conscious choice many times to spend a little more for something that was made in America instead of the equivalent that was made in China. I don't engage in debates about politics, fiscal policies and things like that, but it amazes me that so many people are completely ignorant about anything beyond their day to day lives. That's what regular people need to do, educate themselves so they'll know at least a little about what we're facing and what we might be leaving for our children and grandchildren to deal with.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on May 5, 2014 10:49:38 GMT -5
Hmmm, broad topics much Ava? I'm not an economist or a political scientist or other "expert." There are a lot smarter people than me doing analysis on stuff like this. To me, income inequality is meaningless when compared with the problem of the national debt, so much so I'd compare it to fiddeling while Rome burns. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but even if you outright confiscated all of the wealth of the %1 or even the %5, it wouldn't even run the government for six months of one year. To me, it's pointless to talk about taxing the rich more when the government spends like drunken sailors. Why people think the government will be better stewards of even more money than the people who currently have it is beyond me. We have to get the government spending under control, and I believe it's probably already too late. As I said, I'm no expert, but I think some sort of reckoning is coming regarding the debt. I think at least a partial default is inevitable at some point. How that will affect things I"m not clear on. I think eventually we'll be unable to borrow the amounts we currently are (or maybe nothing at all) and be forced to make drastic and sudden reductions in things that are currently being paid for. No more of this talk about "historic" 3% cuts to future FY's, I'm talking about serious contraction of the government budget. I think the economic and political fallout will be extreme and there will likely be civil unrest, and likely a significant degradation in American's quality of life. Will it be the end of the country? Probably not. I don't think it will all be doom and gloom, but I do think the standard of living for most will degrade and we'll cease to be a world superpower. We'll likely limp along far into the future as just another struggeling socialist country, like most of Europe.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on May 5, 2014 11:00:11 GMT -5
I'm not an economist, but I think the ship has sailed. We could have done more to support our country's industries through tariffs, etc. years ago, but everyone likes cheap goods. We not only killed "Made in America," but Walmart came in with the cheap imports and killed the local mom-and-pop stores.
Case in points. When I was in college, there were two clothing stores in that small town. They had sales (50% off) twice a year. I think they had a 25% off one midway through the season. That was it. People bought without coupons, etc. These were clothes for the middle class, not luxury items and not Walmart-grade.
Manufacturing jobs that produced these items (think of items like Vanity Fair) provided good jobs for Americans. But those jobs are gone or are going. They have been replaced with service jobs. Even more importantly, these service jobs are largely without benefits. So taxpayers support low prices and high profits at places like Walmart by picking up the differential.
I don't think you can go backwards. I truly believe there will become a bigger and bigger gap between the rich and the poor. The middle class will dissipate.
That is the stuff revolutions are born from. But I won't live that long. We are talking a long way from now.
Remember my disclaimer that I'm not an economist when you comment. However, I probably do represent a lot of "middle class" people's opinion. I do think the service industry will continue to grow and the "gap" will probably grow as a result, but I don't see the middle class dissapating entirely. The only way I see that happening is if we develop true artificial intelligence and virtually every job is automated. I don't see the need for accountants or medical professionals or teachers or middle managers disappearing any time soon.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,756
|
Post by souldoubt on May 5, 2014 11:05:43 GMT -5
As mentioned a lot of the changes are due to globalization which was inevitable. That's not to say that as a country we didn't help speed that process up but it's just the way of the world now especially when you consider technology and how fast information changes hands. It was pointed out in a book I read that people in emerging economies are willing to work 6 days a week for 10+ hours a day while people in some of the developed countries just want to work their 40 hours and go home. I understand not wanting to work yourself into the ground but ultimately it just means the rest of the world will continue to catch up.
I agree that the biggest issue is our national debt which constantly gets ignored. Even when it gets publicity both sides come together with some last minute plan where ultimately they just agree to spend more money. The type of choices and cuts we'll ultimately have to make are only getting worse and worse as we delay the inevitable. Most poor people here don't really know what poor is but when the government teet dries up they'll get a better understanding when they aren't subsidized by taxpayers like they currently are. As usual the middle class will get hit the hardest which is pretty much what happens any time something does or doesn't get accomplished by our elected officials. It's going to be ugly but ultimately it has to happen and people will come out of it stronger because quite frankly they'll have to.
|
|
tloonya
Junior Associate
What status?
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 16:22:13 GMT -5
Posts: 8,452
|
Post by tloonya on May 5, 2014 11:16:14 GMT -5
Turn on TV and watch what is going on in Ukraine. As long as it is peaceful - that is all that matters to me. We are fed, clothesed (?) and having roof above. God Bless USA!
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,571
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on May 5, 2014 11:25:58 GMT -5
The authors of Freakonomics has suggested the sudden drop in the crime rate in the 1990's was driven by the increasingly widespread use of abortions in the 70's. They suggest a child whose mother loves it and wanted it is much less likely to become a criminal. abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=1843646 I think we could do a lot more radical things to make sure every child born is a wanted child, born into a family that can support it, send it to college and help it be successful. Like free college/vocational scholarships for poor teenage girls who agree to the implant form of birth control until they've graduated and are self-supporting. Restructuring benefits so that poor people attempting to work harder and earn more money aren't punished by having benefits immediately withdrawn. Bowls of free condoms in every high school, health clinic and library in the country. How can we pay for these programs? Eliminate the tax loopholes that wealthy people and big businesses use to high money in off shore accounts.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,756
|
Post by souldoubt on May 5, 2014 11:35:24 GMT -5
I've got no problem with eliminating tax loopholes but before the government is given any more money they need to be responsible with what they're currently bringing in, i.e. not using deficit spending as a way of life. It started 3+ decades ago and it's just snowballed and gotten us into the position we're in today as we go broke as politicians buy votes. There's talks about how the federal gas tax is coming up short because those funds like damn near everything else are mismanaged. We've got federal agencies that duplicate services and waste money, IRS employees who do sub par work yet they're given bonuses and the list goes on. The government is it's own worst enemy at this point.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on May 5, 2014 11:38:33 GMT -5
Energy is the key to our future. We need fossil fuels and not windmills. We need fracking, drilling, shale, coal, natural gas , oil. If we don't take hold of our energy future then we are simply a pawn of those who hold those cards. The only way to solve the energy crisis is with nuclear power.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 9, 2024 12:19:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2014 12:19:54 GMT -5
I'll speak only to one of those "middle-class" professions that you note. Teaching is on the path to disappear. Online education allows students to be educated with only a facilitator to monitor behavior. That is a minimum wage worker. That can be eliminated by eliminating brick-and-mortar buildings. At present, teachers grade and handle pacing, but that can also be eliminated at some point.
Drs. can be replaced by nurses who can eventually be replaced as well. Pharmacists can be replaced by pharmacy techs with access to computers. Then the pharmacy techs can be replaced. Lawyers can be replaced by DIY programs.
I'm not saying that any of this is going to happen within our lifetimes, but do not believe that any of our middle class jobs are "safe."
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on May 5, 2014 13:00:25 GMT -5
Some of the decline in local manufacturing was inevitable with greater globalization. As it becomes easier to communicate with and ship to/from other countries, it's inevitable that routine tasks are sent to areas with lower labor costs. As those countries industrialize, their costs increase and the cycle moves on. Which we're already seeing with rising wages in places like India and China. It will take a long time, but some manufacturing will return as the cost of manufacturing in other countries and shipping increases.
Meantime, if our country no longer supports a large, minimally educated population, we should be having some hard talks about how to slow down the growth of that population for which there are few jobs. Since there are a limited number of low skilled jobs available, we need to do what we can that is ethical yet limits the growth in the population needing those low skilled jobs. Note that I'm not referring to killing anybody off. I'm referring to discouraging the growth in the population needing low skilled jobs, not reducing the existing numbers of people. One way could be to change our immigration policies. Right now, immigration is largely random. The net result is that the pool of immigrants skews heavily towards people with little education who are only qualified to perform low skilled work. At the same time, we turn away thousands of college educated would-be immigrants that could contribute to the tax base and increase our competitive advantage in many areas. So without changing the number of immigrants allowed, if the requirements for immigration were changed to encourage educated and healthy people, we could focus on a more educated immigrant population, increasing the tax base, decreasing their need for social services and leaving the unskilled jobs for US citizens that are unsuited to skilled jobs, because no matter what changes are made, there's always going to be a population of US citizens who will need work but are not going to be able to perform the highly skilled work.
And it's the third rail of politics, but we need to start having conversations about tying government aid to birth control. Yes, people sometimes need help and should get that help. But if you do need help to survive, it's not unreasonable to ask that while you're receiving that help you stop having children. I don't think you need to resort to mandatory birth control to limit the birth rate in low skilled, poorly educated families. I think it is as simple as limiting public assistance to a certain family size. Say Mom, Dad, and first child. If we removed the economic incentive to having large families, and remove the economic safety net for families that choose to raise large families they can't provide for, I believe that people will make different choices. Give people the opportunity to make whatever choices they want. But, limit the use of taxpayer funds to support the choices they are making.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,086
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 5, 2014 13:02:44 GMT -5
middle managers disappearing any time soon.
I'm a people person G*d dammit!
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on May 5, 2014 13:13:00 GMT -5
I'll speak only to one of those "middle-class" professions that you note. Teaching is on the path to disappear. Online education allows students to be educated with only a facilitator to monitor behavior. That is a minimum wage worker. That can be eliminated by eliminating brick-and-mortar buildings. At present, teachers grade and handle pacing, but that can also be eliminated at some point. Drs. can be replaced by nurses who can eventually be replaced as well. Pharmacists can be replaced by pharmacy techs with access to computers. Then the pharmacy techs can be replaced. Lawyers can be replaced by DIY programs. I'm not saying that any of this is going to happen within our lifetimes, but do not believe that any of our middle class jobs are "safe." Well, you're the teacher, so maybe you know better than I do, but I don't think online only education is viable. Taking classes online requires discipline that most kids don't have. You really think your average 8 year old can sit at a computer and watch lectures and take tests for 6 or 7 hours a day? Plus, while I don't think it's without merits, there are serious drawbacks to online only eductation, like the inability to ask questions and get immediate feedback. Not to mention that a secondary function of the public school system is to serve as free daycare so the parents can work. I do think there's a shift in the medical field as you describe somewhat. I think there will be fewer and fewer general practice doctors and that will shift more to nurse practictioners. Though Dr's will always be needed as specialists. I don't think you'll ever be able to totally replace nurses unless you develop the aformentioned artificial intelligence, in which ase all bets are off.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on May 5, 2014 13:19:26 GMT -5
I don't think you need to resort to mandatory birth control to limit the birth rate in low skilled, poorly educated families. I think it is as simple as limiting public assistance to a certain family size. Say Mom, Dad, and first child. If we removed the economic incentive to having large families, and remove the economic safety net for families that choose to raise large families they can't provide for, I believe that people will make different choices. Give people the opportunity to make whatever choices they want. But, limit the use of taxpayer funds to support the choices they are making. While I agree with the approach, most people aren't willing to let children suffer the consequences of their parent's poor choices. If we did that we'd have people on the evening news complaining how they can't feed their family of 7 on the meager amount they get from the government, complete with pictures of starving, naked children.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on May 5, 2014 13:37:35 GMT -5
After reading the threads about income inequality and luxuries being cheap while necessities are expensive, I wonder where the U.S. is heading. What do you think is in the future for the U.S.? Are you happy with things are they are now, and how they are shaping up to be in 10, 15, 20 years? If not, what, if anything, can regular people do to prevent it? If you could change something, what would you change? Just curious how others see the present and the future for our country. I believe that the US will become increasingly socialistic, until the country suffers an economic collapse such as the one suffered by Greece. The collapse will be the direct result of politicians taking the output of the producers and using it to buy the votes and support of the consumers. Since consumers will soon outnumber producers, and since each consumer has the same political influence as a producer, consumers will be calling the shots. As consumers demand more and more from the producers, an increasing proportion of the producers will decide that life is better as a consumer, or producers will reduce the amount they are willing to produce because rewards no longer justify the effort. Eventually, the output of the remaining producers will not be able to support the demands of the consumers, and economic collapse will occur. And, it is likely that an economic collapse will result in civil unrest, as consumers strive to fulfill their needs and as they seek an outlet for their frustration. And that frustration will probably be directed against any remaining producers, who will have what the consumers will want and what the consumers will believe they are entitled to. So, how do you prevent this from happening? Shrink the income gap. The first step is to stop allowing, and even encouraging, the importation of the poverty and illiteracy that contributes to low incomes. Do not allow low skilled, poorly educated people to immigrate, legally, or illegally, to the US in large number we have been experiencing. This will allow wages to increase as larbor is in shorter supply, and narrow the gap between the haves and the have nots. Note that I'm not suggesting that you only allow millionaires to immigrate to the US. What I'm suggesting is the we limit immigration to a level we comfortably accomodate while supporting the national economic and social agenda. The second step is to implement social programs that encourage people to get out of poverty and to become producers, rather than consumers. Life as a consumer should not be as comfortable as life as a producer. When life becomes sufficiently uncomfortable, consumers will decide that life as a producer is more desirable. With the appropriate balance, we can adequately care for those who aren't capable of caring for themselves. Rather than doing things such as putting people in need of on-going mental health care on the streets to fend for themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 9, 2024 12:19:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2014 14:04:34 GMT -5
I'll speak only to one of those "middle-class" professions that you note. Teaching is on the path to disappear. Online education allows students to be educated with only a facilitator to monitor behavior. That is a minimum wage worker. That can be eliminated by eliminating brick-and-mortar buildings. At present, teachers grade and handle pacing, but that can also be eliminated at some point. Drs. can be replaced by nurses who can eventually be replaced as well. Pharmacists can be replaced by pharmacy techs with access to computers. Then the pharmacy techs can be replaced. Lawyers can be replaced by DIY programs. I'm not saying that any of this is going to happen within our lifetimes, but do not believe that any of our middle class jobs are "safe." Well, you're the teacher, so maybe you know better than I do, but I don't think online only education is viable. Taking classes online requires discipline that most kids don't have. You really think your average 8 year old can sit at a computer and watch lectures and take tests for 6 or 7 hours a day? Plus, while I don't think it's without merits, there are serious drawbacks to online only eductation, like the inability to ask questions and get immediate feedback. Not to mention that a secondary function of the public school system is to serve as free daycare so the parents can work. I do think there's a shift in the medical field as you describe somewhat. I think there will be fewer and fewer general practice doctors and that will shift more to nurse practictioners. Though Dr's will always be needed as specialists. I don't think you'll ever be able to totally replace nurses unless you develop the aformentioned artificial intelligence, in which ase all bets are off. I'm just talking about the direction that education is taking. It's evolving, but it won't happen any time soon. My real point is that many of the middle-class professions will disappear. Here's a couple of more examples. Being an accountant is usually a middle class profession, but they are slowly being replaced more and more by sophisticated computer programs. You will always need some "specialists," but a large proportion of these jobs, too, will just disappear. To me, the middle class is your buffer between your haves and have-nots. The have-nots find it difficult to imagine being as rich as Bill Gates, but they can aspire to the 3-bedroom house with the late-model cars. Think of how many people claim to be middle-class when they really aren't. I worry about what's going to happen when the boomers without pensions start retiring. The poorer ones will be all right because SS will replace a larger proportion of their income than for the middle class boomers and the poorer ones will have access to social services as they always are.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 9, 2024 12:19:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2014 14:20:47 GMT -5
southernsusanna... I don't have a lot of time today, but i think that would make an interesting thread. I was trying to tell someone the other day that i think my kids will be a pivotal generation in that for them college might actually still matter, but that with the proliferation of self education, i see us going back/forward, at least in some ways more to apprentice/portfolio/skill set demonstrations and training that won't require a diploma/etc... I mean, you didn't used to have to go to college to be a lawyer. You just had to sit the exams. I see PA currently looking at moving to passing content level exams for graduation... so, i can easily see when, if you can just go pass the content level test, why would you need to actually go to school... you can just do what you want/need on your own and then go pass the certification, maybe put in some internship hours on some things, etc.
If anything though this will again widen the gap between those who have the access/ability/role models, and those who do not though....
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on May 5, 2014 15:10:53 GMT -5
I can see your point about the direction of things like education are going. I can certainly see how online and self directed learning will take up a larger portion of class time, and while maybe not totally eliminate, at least reduce the number of teachers. With online suppliments you might be able to have much larger teacher to student ratios. K-12 might become more like college in that you can have 200 students for one teacher and the teacher just manages the online programs and provides office hours and answers questions.
|
|