Why Millennials are So Stressed Out (a libertarian's take)

[Feelwell]

2 minutes ago, Conker said:

Very few writers, even ones that get published, actually make a living off of their books. You know about the exceptions because that's what hits the news.

So it's probably not going to happen unless you land the next Harry Potter or something.

Write next Harry Potter.... Got it.

[Conker]

Just now, Feelwell the Rabbit said:

Write next Harry Potter.... Got it.

Just don't do what Patrick Rothfus did and make it shitty. Though he got a three book deal and sold a bunch of copies, so I guess you can make it shitty if you want.

[Feelwell]

1 minute ago, Conker said:

Just don't do what Patrick Rothfus did and make it shitty. Though he got a three book deal and sold a bunch of copies, so I guess you can make it shitty if you want.

I'll be the biggest sellout there ever was, I'll make you proud! Or disappointed, probably disappointed. And resentful.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Feelwell the Rabbit

[WileyWarWeasel]

5 hours ago, Rassah said:

Well, those are the facts and reality, but that's not how various departments within government see it. Seriously, when I was working as a Senior Financial Analyst for the Department of Housing, we had target budgets for each program, based on what the people in charge felt "the people" need, and we just drew up the budget with those numbers in mind, with my job being only to estimate how much of that budget can be covered by actual income, and how much will have to be borrowed. Borrowing was a totally different part of the government that didn't have anything to do with us, or that we even cared about. Senators could obviously say "No" to our budget request, and deny us the money, thus not having to borrow, but that never happened.

Nevertheless reality eventually prevails, the system keeps working until it doesn't ^^

5 hours ago, Rassah said:

And then, there's the whole branch of economics (Keynesian) that was created to be able to explain away how governments can keep borrowing indefinitely, where I guess the idea is that as government keeps borrowing and spending, it will keep stimulating and growing the economy, and thus the economy will get bigger, create more tax revenues, and government can borrow more. It's what has been driving American, European, and Asian governments' economies for the last century. Unfortunately more and more examples are popping up that prove that the idea is false. Eventually the lenders decide that you're just not worth the risk, or they simply run out of money, and then the country gets fucked.

Actually, there will never be a shortage of currency in circulation. The problem more so stems from the lack of real return on the money lent/printed and the subsequent decreasing money velocity.

Our modern system was always reliant on continuous growth. We ended up overrunning those that attempted to live in a somewhat more sustainable way (eg Australia and North/South America). The idea of continuous growth lasted until we had no where else left to grow on a finite planet.

Yet we must continue to grow to offset diminishing returns and entropy created by our system (eg pollution, debt, resource depletion) or our modern system and all the bitcoins in it perish.

5 hours ago, Rassah said:

Quote

Taxes do not go directly into paying for programs, but they do go into paying back government debt (eg bonds, treasuries, etc) which gives them more wiggle room to borrow for future programs without even more excessive money printing. Keep in mind also that every new dollar being printed is being printed on credit.

Yeah, I know all that and am on your side with regards to this.

Yay! ;3

6 hours ago, Rassah said:

It really depends on the job though. Basic, simple, manual labor or manufacturing type jobs are better to outsource (even basic software production). More complex jobs, especially for projects that will require long term upkeep (such as a financial app you expect to need updates and support for at least 5 years), are best done with a dedicated team that can be very creative, and can work well together, instead of just some outsource types you give a task to and never hear from again. So, it's nice that we can reduce costs for jobs that just need basic instructions, and there's still opportunities if you're willing to "think outside of the box" so to speak.

People outside USA are capable of thinking outside the box too

I'll agree that some stuff is harder to outsource, however nowadays it's possible to form longer-lasting employment relationships over long distances. I've known people who have utilized the same worker/s from the Philippines for jobs lasting months if not longer at a time.

Evolving long-range communication has meant that business and other connections can be formed and maintained over long periods of time if need be.

6 hours ago, Rassah said:

I think the solution is just outsource as much as possible until there's no places left to outsource to. When we outsource, we bring up the economic level of those countries up to our own level, where they start to develop a strong middle class, also start buying various luxuries (like TVs and refrigerators), and become too expensive to outsource to, but self sufficient like us. As we raise their economic level, production and creativity in the world as a whole goes up too. Next up is Africa. Once that's done with, there's no one to outsource to, and everyone will finally be on level playing field, where no one can lose their job to outsourcing, simply because there's no cheap labor left. Though by then a lot of our jobs may be done by cheap robots, but that's a different issue entirely, which I believe will make the world even easier to live in.

I'm surprised you've fallen for that globalist myth.

The biggest reason to outsource anything is economic: lower wages and worse/cheaper conditions (safety/environmental/etc). That means when we outsource, we bring up the level of other countries a tiny bit but nowhere near to our previous level (which is significantly lowered by eliminating a job / forcing the worker to compete with 3rd world wages/conditions).

What we end up doing is sightly raising the standard of living elsewhere while significantly decreasing income/conditions for local workers. We've managed to ignore this problem for a while and sort of maintain our standard of living thanks to an unprecedented increase in debt.

 

You're right that the playing field will be leveled eventually, however it would mean the vast majority competing for 3rd world wages and conditions while capital owners try to extract everything they can from environment and workers.

Poorer workers surprisingly enough means less money being spent on companies products and services over the long run (we're starting to see the effects now with companies reporting decreasing Earnings Per Share).

Automation means less taxable jobs. If you try to increase taxes on businesses utilizing automation they will simply relocate elsewhere.

[AshleyAshes]

Large lump sum payment to student loans made today, worth 8 months of payments, with interest it gets me 11 months closer to paying it off, with the increased monthly payments I'll start next month because of my raise, student loans will be repaid at that rate in 50 months, woo. :V (And it'll probably be paid off well sooner with additional lump sum payments)

Sucks to be a millennial, if only a rich, white, libertarian who looks on the poor with disdain would save me.

[Rassah]

21 hours ago, Feelwell the Rabbit said:

Write next Harry Potter.... Got it.

Sex sells. Keep that in mind as you write that Harry Potter thing.

@WileyWarWeasel Yeah, I should havebeen more clear. You can always make more currency as long as you have paper and ink, but it's the wealth that you can't simply print into existence. All governments can do with a printer is confiscate wealth from one group of people by devaluing their currency, and give it to another group (bankers) in the form of free money. Demand side economics has been really shitty...

Regarding the globalist stuff, yeah, we raise their standard of living (actually considerably, even if not to the same level as ours), and decrease our level, but overall we make the two more equal. After that, it's up to the companies to continue to compete for workers by increasing pay and improving work environments. Basically, I look at it as us being isolationist and privileged at the expense of the rest of the world, and now the entire world being allowed to participate and become more equal. Even third world wages aren't what they used to be. $1 a day used to be common, now it's closer to $3 to $5 an hour, which combined with lower cost of living isn't too bad.

 

@AshleyAshes Only liberals look at the poor with disdain, thinking they're useless, worthless, incapable of taking care of themselves, and in need of someone else's money (taken by force of course) to survive. Libertarians think everyone, including the poor, have potential to succeed, as long as they have a fair chance, instead of patronizing them like charity cases.

[AshleyAshes]

1 minute ago, Rassah said:

@AshleyAshes Only liberals look at the poor with disdain, thinking they're useless, worthless, incapable of taking care of themselves, and in need of someone else's money (taken by force of course) to survive. Libertarians think everyone, including the poor, have potential to succeed, as long as they have a fair chance, instead of patronizing them like charity cases.

If it wasn't for all the awful things you have historically said about the poor (And children, you seem to have some disdain against CHILDREN for some reason too) these words might have some value.  But, ya know, you invested a great deal of time and effort into forming a specific reputation and you can't just say it ain't true.

[Feelwell]

@Rassah Hahaha, I dont think I'd be able to respect myself as a writer if I tried to publish Harry Potter Erotica.

[Troj]

22 minutes ago, Rassah said:

@AshleyAshes Only liberals look at the poor with disdain, thinking they're useless, worthless, incapable of taking care of themselves, and in need of someone else's money (taken by force of course) to survive. Libertarians think everyone, including the poor, have potential to succeed, as long as they have a fair chance, instead of patronizing them like charity cases.

Way to paint with a broad brush.

Saying liberals regard the poor with "disdain" and see them as "useless" and "worthless" is gross and disingenuous distortion of how liberals think and operate. In reality, some liberals put so much emphasis on the external forces that shape people's lives with the best intentions that the ultimate message ends up sounding insulting and condescending to everyone involved, because it denies everyone's agency and autonomy.

Some conservatives end up going too far the other direction. That can actually result in certain people being treated with actual disdain, because the assumption is that their misfortune in life is due to their personal shortcomings.

There are principled libertarians and other conservatives who sincerely believe everyone has the power to succeed, as long as the government stays out of their way, and/or who sincerely believe that freedom is the greatest good, even if it results in suffering or failure. There are principled liberals who sincerely believe that everyone has the power to succeed, as long as corporate greed and systemic injustice can be kept in check.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of libertarians and other conservatives who strike me as giving two shits in a hat about other people besides them and theirs, based on what they espouse and how they act. "Oh, I wouldn't want to treat you like a charity case," argument can unfortunately be used to rationalize not extending any kind of meaningful or constructive help or support at all, because to do so would just be inconvenient.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Troj

[AshleyAshes]

3 minutes ago, Troj said:

Way to paint with a broad brush.

Saying liberals regard the poor with "disdain" and see them as "useless" and "worthless" is gross and disingenuous distortion of how liberals think and operate. In reality, some liberals put so much emphasis on the external forces that shape people's lives with the best intentions that the ultimate message ends up sounding insulting and condescending to everyone involved, because it denies everyone's agency and autonomy.

Some conservatives end up going too far the other direction. That can actually result in certain people being treated with actual disdain, because the assumption is that their misfortune in life is due to their personal shortcomings.

No doubt there are principled libertarians who sincerely believe everyone has the power to succeed, as long as the government stays out of their way.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of libertarians and other conservatives who strike me as giving two shits in a hat about other people besides them and theirs, based on what they espouse and how they act. "Oh, I wouldn't want to treat you like a charity case" argument can unfortunately be used to rationalize not extending any kind of meaningful or constructive help or support at all, because to do so would just be inconvenient.

Do...Do you think that 'Liberals' and 'Libertarians' are the same thing...?  Or did you just make a lot of autocorrect typos...?

[Troj]

No?

I don't see what's unclear about my post, and I don't see any typos.

I assuming Rassah is referring to how liberals use government programs and social change to tip the scales and give a leg up to the disadvantaged and underpowered. I'm agreeing that this philosophy or approach can become condescending and insulting if you take it too far, but I think Rassah's describing liberals in a deliberately deceptive and misleading way.

I'm conceding that there are libertarians who want people to be free so that water can seek its own level, but I'm also saying that there are libertarians who just want to do what they want to do, and don't really care about anyone else.

TL;DR, "Liberals all want to give you handouts because they really don't respect you, but we libertarians all love and respect you, which is why we won't give you handouts," is a lot of self-serving of malarkey.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Troj

[AshleyAshes]

4 minutes ago, Troj said:

No?

I don't see what's unclear about my post, and I don't see any typos.

I assuming Rassah is referring to how liberals use government programs and social change to tip the scales and give a leg up to the disadvantaged and underpowered. I'm agreeing that this philosophy or approach can become condescending and insulting if you take it too far, but I think Rassah's describing liberals in a deliberately deceptive and misleading way.

I'm conceding that there are libertarians who want people to be free so that water can seek its own level, but I'm also saying that there are libertarians who just want to do what they want to do, and don't really care about anyone else.

TL;DR, "Liberals all want to give you handouts because they really don't respect you, but we libertarians all love and respect you, which is why we won't give you handouts," line is a lot of self-serving malarkey.

You're right, mah bad.

[Troj]

...and my rationale is that most of the conversations I've had lately with self-described conservatives and libertarians have been about how Bernie Sanders wants to give "lazy" and "worthless" people and/or whiny Millennials "free stuff" that rightfully belongs to people like them who earned their stuff through dedication and hard work.

The core argument often seems to boil down to "My stuff is mine! Mine! Mine! Mine!"

Wanting other people to have dignity or autonomy often seems to occur as a distant afterthought, if at all.

I've even had several people either flat-out deny the existence of the working poor, or suggest that the working poor just aren't working hard enough.

[Rassah]

1 hour ago, Troj said:

Way to paint with a broad brush.

Yeah, @AshleyAshes, thinking all libertarians look at the poor with disdain. What's wrong with you?

 

And, just reminder... While this is coming at communism, same applies to liberals:

And for the record, I was only describing Ashley "in a deliberately deceptive and misleading way," because, honestly, fuck Ashley.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Rassah

[Rassah]

1 hour ago, Troj said:

TL;DR, "Liberals all want to give you handouts because they really don't respect you, but we libertarians all love and respect you, which is why we won't give you handouts," is a lot of self-serving of malarkey.

And that's not exactly how that plays out either. Liberals try to give out handouts, because they don't believe people can make it on their own, but libertarians aren't just sitting on their hands "respecting" those people by not giving them handouts. We give a lot of our time and money too, but we spend it mostly on dismantling the barriers that were set up to keep those people down. It's still a difficult and costly job, even if you don't see the results of it as easily as some person getting a certain amount of money. Basically, we're not taking the easy way out, and we're not just trying to patch symptoms, while liberals are and are.

[AshleyAshes]

12 minutes ago, Rassah said:

fuck Ashley.

Dude, you look like a high school guidance councilor, I wouldn't fuck you.

[Rassah]

47 minutes ago, Troj said:

...and my rationale is that most of the conversations I've had lately with self-described conservatives and libertarians have been about how Bernie Sanders wants to give "lazy" and "worthless" people and/or whiny Millennials "free stuff" that rightfully belongs to people like them who earned their stuff through dedication and hard work.

That sounds like Republicans, honestly. (Btw, libertarians are the opposite of conservatives). Myself and all my libertarian acquaintances have been protesting Bernie's free stuff not because we have a problem with government giving things to "lazy" and "worthless" people, but because, knowing economics and history, we fear that all that free stuff, instead of helping, will end up fucking those people up WAAAAAAAY worse than they are now. Hell, most of us aren't even concerned about our hard earned money being taken by Bernie, since most of us know enough tax loopholes to not be affected by it anyway. Which, actually, is another reason we fear those people will get fucked: everyone with wealth knows those loopholes, so none of us will be paying for it, and if we're not paying for it, then those same people will be. As I said, they'll be fucked.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Rassah

[AshleyAshes]

Wow, Rassah is in full speed 'Argue with furries on the internet, because for some reason he deeply values their opinions of his ideas' mode again.   Ya'll have fun with that guys cause I'm off to bed.

Keep at it Rassah, maybe one day you'll feel the respect of the members of this forum that you seek for incomprehensible reasons!

[Feelwell]

On 3/22/2016 at 10:46 PM, AshleyAshes said:

Dude, you look like a high school guidance councilor, I wouldn't fuck you.

 

[Rassah]

1 hour ago, AshleyAshes said:

Dude, you look like a high school guidance councilor, I wouldn't fuck you.

And you look like a girl, so I wouldn't fuck you either. Guess that's settled.

(Thanks Feel well for quoting/pointing this out)

[DevilBear]

There's so much condescension and pompousness in here it's absolutely amazing.

[PastryOfApathy]

3 hours ago, DevilBear said:

There's so much condescension and pompousness in here it's absolutely amazing.

That's a Rassah thread for ya. At least Dmitry "Rassah " Murashchik isn't preaching to us how about he supports child rape this time.

Edited March 23, 2016 by PastryOfApathy

[WileyWarWeasel]

6 hours ago, Rassah said:

Yeah, I should havebeen more clear. You can always make more currency as long as you have paper and ink, but it's the wealth that you can't simply print into existence. All governments can do with a printer is confiscate wealth from one group of people by devaluing their currency, and give it to another group (bankers) in the form of free money. Demand side economics has been really shitty...

You can say that again, although it's actually the privately owned central banks (sans China) that print the money and decide monetary policies among other things NOT the elected government. I wouldn't blame democratic governments directly on this as they're mostly taking direction from a few private interests (at least on bigger picture stuff).

 

6 hours ago, Rassah said:

Regarding the globalist stuff, yeah, we raise their standard of living (actually considerably, even if not to the same level as ours), and decrease our level, but overall we make the two more equal. After that, it's up to the companies to continue to compete for workers by increasing pay and improving work environments. Basically, I look at it as us being isolationist and privileged at the expense of the rest of the world, and now the entire world being allowed to participate and become more equal. Even third world wages aren't what they used to be. $1 a day used to be common, now it's closer to $3 to $5 an hour, which combined with lower cost of living isn't too bad.

Inflation also crept up along with that 1-5 dollars a day wage too though.

It's an odd argument to use that after most people's wages/standards have been lowered to slightly above 3rd world conditions that then companies will compete for workers. If anything individual countries will compete for companies because companies can move around, blocks of land/territory cannot.

 

4 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

Wow, Rassah is in full speed 'Argue with furries on the internet, because for some reason he deeply values their opinions of his ideas' mode again.   Ya'll have fun with that guys cause I'm off to bed.

Keep at it Rassah, maybe one day you'll feel the respect of the members of this forum that you seek for incomprehensible reasons!

Furries are the elite of the elite after all.

[AshleyAshes]

6 hours ago, Rassah said:

And you look like a girl

I'm tickled that you think this could possibly be an insult.

[Rassah]

8 hours ago, DevilBear said:

There's so much condescension and pompousness in here it's absolutely amazing.

Comes with the territory.

2 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

I'm tickled that you think this could possibly be an insult.

I'm facepalming that you actually took that as an implied insult.

5 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Inflation also crept up along with that 1-5 dollars a day wage too though.

 

 

Hmm, that's true. I forgot about that. That does mean that what they are earning is comparable to half from 20 years ago. But the income growth has been substantial. It's not from $1 a day to $3 a day, it's to $3 an hour.

5 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

It's an odd argument to use that after most people's wages/standards have been lowered to slightly above 3rd world conditions that then companies will compete for workers. If anything individual countries will compete for companies because companies can move around, blocks of land/territory cannot.

Most people's who are in 1st world countries, which, globally, is a tiny minority of people. And they're still way above in lifestyle quality than 3rd world. And competition will be among businesses and markets, since countries can't really do anything to compete in this besides raise or lower minimum wage, which in the worst case scenario would just force them to sit and wait, with high unemployment, until other countries catch up.

The reason I believe that is from India and China, the two go-to outsourcing countries. They started out with extremely low incomes (the $1 a day or less), and at the beginning used to have lines and lines of people in front of every new factory, with people willing to take whatever they get paid, no matter how low. But over time, as more and more businesses came in to take advantage of the low wages and the economy improved, the lines in front of new factories dried up, and unemployment plummeted. Companies were forced to offer higher and higher wages to attract employees, oftentimes their only source of whom is other companies, which they had to entice and steal employees from. This v actually became a major problem in India, where workers got used to 7% or higher raises every year as they switched from company to company, over a decade. Now China and India wages are so high, that they're not profitable to outsource to from the low wages point of view (China still manufacturers stuff because they have a well established manufacturing infrastructure), so new business investment in those countries dropped a lot. But, the problem mentioned in India, means that employees in India are a bit spoiled, expecting major raises and increases in future income, but the new businesses are not willing to give them that, because they don't have other outsourcing businesses to compete with.

I expect the same scenario will happen to every other country that gets targeted for outsourcing. Eventually I hope we run out of such countries and level off, though there could be issues such as a fairly well developed country having a failed socialist government and economy (Russia, Venezuela), and collapsing to a third world level, becoming an outsourcing target again (and again).

Another thing to consider is that outsourcing, while lowering wages for 1st world people, also drastically lowers their cost of living, which is even further improved by technological advancement, letting them live in higher luxury despite earning less. Plus more and more businesses are moving to online remote collaboration, making "outsourcing" an irrelevant term (e.g. we hire our employees from around the world, and don't "outsource" as much as simply don't care about geographical areas), and tech innovation in general will continue to replace jobs around the world and change that whole landscape...

[Xaende]

14 hours ago, Troj said:

...and my rationale is that most of the conversations I've had lately with self-described conservatives and libertarians have been about how Bernie Sanders wants to give "lazy" and "worthless" people and/or whiny Millennials "free stuff" that rightfully belongs to people like them who earned their stuff through dedication and hard work.

The core argument often seems to boil down to "My stuff is mine! Mine! Mine! Mine!"

Wanting other people to have dignity or autonomy often seems to occur as a distant afterthought, if at all.

I've even had several people either flat-out deny the existence of the working poor, or suggest that the working poor just aren't working hard enough.

Conversely, the socialist argument seems to boil down to "Your stuff is mine! Mine! Mine! Mine!" I'd be tempted to say "Your stuff is theirs! Theirs! Theirs! Theirs!" if they weren't so keen on lining their own pockets with the spoils.

I may not be rich, but I know the value of a dollar, and I don't like the idea of coercively taking somebody's stuff.

As a neoclassical liberal, the Libertarian Party best mirrors my outlook. Not perfectly, but better than the other big parties. Autonomy is the point, as far as I'm concerned. Although it may not always be feasible for everyone, and stop-gap measures may be necessary in unfortunate circumstances, I think it's better for society to move forward, toward self-sufficiency, rather than backward into debt and subservience to governmental fat cats.

 

Edited March 23, 2016 by Xaende

[Troj]

There are people who believe in "share and share alike" very literally, and there are people who are basically entitled moochers, sure. "My friend the Communist/Holds meetings in his RV/I can't afford his gas/So I'm stuck here watching TV..."

However, the standard argument is that it's good to pay taxes and create infrastructures to maintain a common set of goods and services that we all enjoy and benefit from.

If the system is working, the reasoning goes, when I pay into the pot, I'm not giving up "my stuff" to some other guy; rather, both that other guy and I are each contributing to the pool to maintain common goods and services we both benefit from and enjoy.

I've met precious few people in my life who've felt so strongly about individualism and autonomy that they were willing to go totally "off the grid."

 

Quote

That sounds like Republicans, honestly. (Btw, libertarians are the opposite of conservatives). Myself and all my libertarian acquaintances have been protesting Bernie's free stuff not because we have a problem with government giving things to "lazy" and "worthless" people, but because, knowing economics and history, we fear that all that free stuff, instead of helping, will end up fucking those people up WAAAAAAAY worse than they are now. Hell, most of us aren't even concerned about our hard earned money being taken by Bernie, since most of us know enough tax loopholes to not be affected by it anyway. Which, actually, is another reason we fear those people will get fucked: everyone with wealth knows those loopholes, so none of us will be paying for it, and if we're not paying for it, then those same people will be. As I said, they'll be fucked.

 

American libertarians can go either way, in my experience. I know plenty of libertarians who self-define as "conservatives" and who prefer to vote Republican, because they prefer Republican economic policies over Democratic ones, see Dems as "Big Government" advocates, and believe strongly in the 2nd Amendment. (I also know a few libertarians who are pro-life as well, and prefer to vote Republican for that reason as well.) Then, there are libertarians who vote Democratic, because their social and ethical values with regards to gay marriage, abortion, drugs, and sex line up more with the Democratic platform than the Republican one.

Well, and worrying that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions is a pretty valid concern, I'd say, as is worrying that the rich and powerful will manipulate the system such that nothing will get done, or things will get worse. That is at least a concern that can be addressed and debated meaningfully.

That liberals are too quick at times to throw money and government at problems is a valid concern.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Troj

[Xaende]

It might be interesting to see how much the US government spends on infrastructure vs. the military and various handouts. I don't have the stats (maybe somebody else here does?), but I'd imagine it's relatively small.

I do think having things like roads, access to fresh water, equal protection under the law etc. are important, so I'm not against all taxes. It just seems to me that federal spending gets out of hand all too easily, Democrats and Republicans alike. They're both for big government. They just disagree over what parts should be bigger. And the costs get passed along to future generations. Guess who will be saddled with all this student loan debt if it gets "forgiven"? The private sector, which will then have a harder time paying for other things. It'll just be passed along to the rest of us. We've got to dig ourselves out of this hole somehow. That being said, education can be seen as an investment in the future. As it stands, those individual debts can still be paid off more readily than the goodness-knows how many trillions our country owes.

 

[Terminal7]

36 minutes ago, Xaende said:

It might be interesting to see how much the US government spends on infrastructure vs. the military and various handouts. I don't have the stats (maybe somebody else here does?), but I'd imagine it's relatively small.

The US government only spends ~16% on Military.  

[Rassah]

Take away Social Security and Medicare, which are paid by their own separate tax and are managed like insurance, as opposed to a tax/spend program, and military spending actually takes up 40% of our federal expenditures. So, almost half of our government spending goes to the military.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Rassah

[Strongbob]

23 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Take away Social Security and Medicare, which are paid by their own separate tax and are managed like insurance, as opposed to a tax/spend program, and military spending actually takes up 40% of our federal expenditures. So, almost half of our government spending goes to the military.

Which is why every time I hear a candidate say we need to 'rebuild' the Military I throw up a little bit.  How about we rebuild our infrastructure instead and stop bombing brown people.  

[WileyWarWeasel]

19 hours ago, Rassah said:

Hmm, that's true. I forgot about that. That does mean that what they are earning is comparable to half from 20 years ago. But the income growth has been substantial. It's not from $1 a day to $3 a day, it's to $3 an hour.

Ah yes I misread what you wrote. It's still not much though but better than nothing.

19 hours ago, Rassah said:

Most people's who are in 1st world countries, which, globally, is a tiny minority of people. And they're still way above in lifestyle quality than 3rd world. And competition will be among businesses and markets, since countries can't really do anything to compete in this besides raise or lower minimum wage, which in the worst case scenario would just force them to sit and wait, with high unemployment, until other countries catch up.

The reason I believe that is from India and China, the two go-to outsourcing countries. They started out with extremely low incomes (the $1 a day or less), and at the beginning used to have lines and lines of people in front of every new factory, with people willing to take whatever they get paid, no matter how low. But over time, as more and more businesses came in to take advantage of the low wages and the economy improved, the lines in front of new factories dried up, and unemployment plummeted. Companies were forced to offer higher and higher wages to attract employees, oftentimes their only source of whom is other companies, which they had to entice and steal employees from. This v actually became a major problem in India, where workers got used to 7% or higher raises every year as they switched from company to company, over a decade. Now China and India wages are so high, that they're not profitable to outsource to from the low wages point of view (China still manufacturers stuff because they have a well established manufacturing infrastructure), so new business investment in those countries dropped a lot. But, the problem mentioned in India, means that employees in India are a bit spoiled, expecting major raises and increases in future income, but the new businesses are not willing to give them that, because they don't have other outsourcing businesses to compete with.

I expect the same scenario will happen to every other country that gets targeted for outsourcing. Eventually I hope we run out of such countries and level off, though there could be issues such as a fairly well developed country having a failed socialist government and economy (Russia, Venezuela), and collapsing to a third world level, becoming an outsourcing target again (and again).

Another thing to consider is that outsourcing, while lowering wages for 1st world people, also drastically lowers their cost of living, which is even further improved by technological advancement, letting them live in higher luxury despite earning less. Plus more and more businesses are moving to online remote collaboration, making "outsourcing" an irrelevant term (e.g. we hire our employees from around the world, and don't "outsource" as much as simply don't care about geographical areas), and tech innovation in general will continue to replace jobs around the world and change that whole landscape...

The cost of resource extraction doesn't go down (apart from wages), the cost of managing pollution doesn't go down, the cost of medical bills doesn't go down (see USA for an example), etc...

Lowered wages don't often mean lowered costs of living; here in Australia for example median wages have been going down relative to actual inflation and cost of living keeps going up. An apple produced on a farm for example doesn't cost less to produce if you try to sell it to a 3rd world country or a minimum wage 1st world laborer compared to selling to someone with a decent wage.

As you can see we're far from "running out" of countries to outsource to yet we've already seen drastic reductions in income/job stability in developed countries and cost of living steadily rising.

As for luxury, people nowadays may have fancier electronic devices (mostly bought on debt) however wealth inequality is going up as I mentioned in a previous reply and home ownership is going down in countries like USA:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/RHORUSQ156N

The peak of home ownership in USA was in 2004, since then it has been steadily decreasing. That doesn't sound like higher luxury to me.

I just noticed that peak home ownership in USA also seems to coincide with the end of GDP growth shown in shadow stats before it permanently turns negative in 2005:

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/gross-domestic-product-charts

 

Call it online collaboration or outsourcing or whatever you want, you're still looking for employees willing to work for minimum perks and wages who can still get the job done. This is perfectly understandable from a business standpoint but when you claim this is somehow for "the greater good" that is when you start to sound ridiculous.

 

16 hours ago, Xaende said:

As a neoclassical liberal, the Libertarian Party best mirrors my outlook. Not perfectly, but better than the other big parties. Autonomy is the point, as far as I'm concerned. Although it may not always be feasible for everyone, and stop-gap measures may be necessary in unfortunate circumstances, I think it's better for society to move forward, toward self-sufficiency, rather than backward into debt and subservience to governmental fat cats.

Actually most governments are subservient to central banks and other private interests.

As for autonomy:

Figure 1. Ratio of Imported Goods and Services to GDP. Based in FRED data for IMPGS.

https://ourfiniteworld.com/2016/03/01/why-globalization-reaches-limits/

 

Looks pretty autonomous and self-sufficient to me. (Yes I noticed that since 2010 it's gone down a bit but that's due to US blowing out their trade deficit NOT bringing all the manufacturing back home).

 

11 hours ago, Strongbob said:

Which is why every time I hear a candidate say we need to 'rebuild' the Military I throw up a little bit.  How about we rebuild our infrastructure instead and stop bombing brown people.

As much as I hate to say this, USA needs their powerful military now. They've pissed off too many groups of people and countries to simply expect to deescalate and have everything forgiven. There are also too many "fingers in the pie" when it comes to arms manufacturers and other defense companies (not to mention financiers) participating in the MIC with a stranglehold on government who will not go quietly.

You're stuck with the current military situation until they can no longer maintain it (or maybe a revolution).

Dear god I'm getting into walls of text again

[Rassah]

@WileyWarWeasel Regarding home ownership, which is directly involved in cost of living, there are a few studies out there (which I've read but can't find a link to the original) which show that housing, and specifically restrictions on construction, regulatory requirements, and rent controls, are largely responsible for increased cost of living and poverty in US. Most blatant examples of this are New York City, San Francisco, and Detroit. You can search for and check out some if the articles that talk about it, but the gist is that housing has taken a bigger and bigger percentage of our income due to new housing not being able to be built, and due to some financial finagling that caused prices to go up more than they should have (you'd think with modern construction technology and materials, new houses should have gone down in price). I don't know if same applies to Australia.

Also, I would add that home ownership shouldn't coincide with luxury. Renting is fine, and ownership should really be left to those who know how to invest in real estate, and are able to take the risk.

Regarding outsourcing being "for the greater good," let's check the results:

* People who really need the job, way more than anyone in the country it was outsourced from, get a job - GOOD

* Severely neglected economy gets an  influx of capital and can start to develop, making things better for everyone, not just the people with jobs - GOOD

* People all over the world, including those who's jobs were outsourced, can get cheaper goods, reducing their cost of living - GOOD

* Employees who were doing something not as efficient or necessary in one country are free to be used for more needed and more efficient jobs - GOOD

* Employees who were outsourced may not have a job or nay get one for lower pay - BAD

* Employees who lost their job may not be able to contribute to their local economy as much - BAD

 

More good than bad, and the good influences the whole world, while bad only a few people's lives and maybe their local economy.

It's also a little weird that we have a concept of telling someone "no, you can't hire someone from that part of the world, you can only hire from this part" regardless of where they do business and sell to. I wonder what furries world think of if a law was passed restricting them to getting commissions only from US artists. Animu fanboys would be pissed.

[WileyWarWeasel]

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

Regarding home ownership, which is directly involved in cost of living, there are a few studies out there (which I've read but can't find a link to the original) which show that housing, and specifically restrictions on construction, regulatory requirements, and rent controls, are largely responsible for increased cost of living and poverty in US. Most blatant examples of this are New York City, San Francisco, and Detroit. You can search for and check out some if the articles that talk about it, but the gist is that housing has taken a bigger and bigger percentage of our income due to new housing not being able to be built, and due to some financial finagling that caused prices to go up more than they should have (you'd think with modern construction technology and materials, new houses should have gone down in price). I don't know if same applies to Australia.

That's odd as the research that I've read points to speculation and looser lending standards as the major contributors to the housing bubble.

I can't remember the most recent articles I've read on the subject but I found an article by Bundesbank from 2014 that is most telling:

https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/EN/Downloads/Bundesbank/Research_Centre/Conferences/2014/2014_06_04_eltville_03_speculations_and_the_us_housing_boom_paper.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

Their conclusion is that about 33% of the housing boom was ascribed to speculation and another 33% to the mortgage rate ("mortgage rate shocks").

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

Also, I would add that home ownership shouldn't coincide with luxury. Renting is fine, and ownership should really be left to those who know how to invest in real estate, and are able to take the risk.

Renting does not contribute to owning your own home, it is fine for the landed gentry though (provided the rent is high enough).

 

On 23/03/2016 at 3:18 PM, DevilBear said:

There's so much condescension and pompousness in here it's absolutely amazing.

I believe the above quote is a good example of what you're talking about. Here Rassah says that ownership of shelter (a basic human need) should only be left to those who know how to invest (speculate or already have the enormous funds necessary) in real estate. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that Rassah supports commodification of a basic human need.

 

4 hours ago, Rassah said:

Regarding outsourcing being "for the greater good," let's check the results:

* People who really need the job, way more than anyone in the country it was outsourced from, get a job - GOOD

* Severely neglected economy gets an  influx of capital and can start to develop, making things better for everyone, not just the people with jobs - GOOD

* People all over the world, including those who's jobs were outsourced, can get cheaper goods, reducing their cost of living - GOOD

* Employees who were doing something not as efficient or necessary in one country are free to be used for more needed and more efficient jobs - GOOD

* Employees who were outsourced may not have a job or nay get one for lower pay - BAD

* Employees who lost their job may not be able to contribute to their local economy as much - BAD

Outsourcing and offshoring decreases the income and conditions of the prior worker more than it increases the income and conditions of the new worker on the average.

Only the labor/conditions components of goods/services costs goes down, the goods/services are otherwise not cheaper and need to get bought by workers who on the whole are poorer.

Here are the "more efficient jobs" that workers are being freed up to do:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-04/over-80-jobs-added-january-were-minimum-wage-earners

 

4 hours ago, Rassah said:

More good than bad, and the good influences the whole world, while bad only a few people's lives and maybe their local economy.

It's also a little weird that we have a concept of telling someone "no, you can't hire someone from that part of the world, you can only hire from this part" regardless of where they do business and sell to. I wonder what furries world think of if a law was passed restricting them to getting commissions only from US artists. Animu fanboys would be pissed.

On the surface you list more good than bad items however further analysis shows that the picture is not as rosy as you paint it.

At present it certainly does feel a bit weird to say "you can hire from here but not there. Part of that stems from the fact that we've all grown up in a globalized world.

 

There have been some benefits from globalization (Japanese anime is better than most Western animation ;P ). It also would've been impossible to build up our complex economies without increasing specialization and relocating production to all corners of the Earth. It's a shame that is has come with significant pitfalls and is utterly unsustainable but all fairy tales must come to an end eventually ^^

[Rassah]

@WileyWarWeasel This wasn't in regards to the 2008 housing bubble, but a contributor to poverty over many decades.

I'm not sure why owning your own home is so important. It's not an actual asset, since you're living in it and it's costing you money, and if you want to invest something, there are far better more liquid options. What matters is that you have a place to live, not whether you own it. Either way it will require you to pay every month to remain there. Plus, as I mentioned in a different thread, there's a bit of evidence that home ownership culture in US has caused quite a lot of economic strife, compared to rental cultures of other countries like Canada and some in Europe. Purchasing a house without knowledge of property management, asset management, or finance can get people into trouble, as opposed to leaving that to professionals and just paying rent. You also don't take on risk by renting, since if the property value goes bust, that doesn't affect you. Most importantly, economy fluctuates and moves around the country, dying down in some areas and booming in others. Buying a home severely limits you where you can search for work, and if the economy dies in your town, you get stuck living there, unable to move, or taking a big hit on your net worth by selling your house in a depressed market. Ideally people should be able to move to where they are needed by the economy as easily as possible.

[WileyWarWeasel]

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

@WileyWarWeasel This wasn't in regards to the 2008 housing bubble, but a contributor to poverty over many decades.

I'm not sure why owning your own home is so important. It's not an actual asset, since you're living in it and it's costing you money, and if you want to invest something, there are far better more liquid options. What matters is that you have a place to live, not whether you own it. Either way it will require you to pay every month to remain there. Plus, as I mentioned in a different thread, there's a bit of evidence that home ownership culture in US has caused quite a lot of economic strife, compared to rental cultures of other countries like Canada and some in Europe. Purchasing a house without knowledge of property management, asset management, or finance can get people into trouble, as opposed to leaving that to professionals and just paying rent. You also don't take on risk by renting, since if the property value goes bust, that doesn't affect you. Most importantly, economy fluctuates and moves around the country, dying down in some areas and booming in others. Buying a home severely limits you where you can search for work, and if the economy dies in your town, you get stuck living there, unable to move, or taking a big hit on your net worth by selling your house in a depressed market. Ideally people should be able to move to where they are needed by the economy as easily as possible.

I think we're running into the same "talking past each other" issues we've had before.

I'm talking about shelter as a human need, you're talking about it as an asset/commodity. You also assume that owners that are sitting on their asses while a real estate agency actually manages the property/tenants/etc are the professionals (and that speculators using borrowed money are also all professionals).

I'm not sure about typical lease agreements in the USA, but here in Australia leases are typically for 6-12 months, so no you can't just move to where you're needed by the economy quickly without severe penalties.

You do take on substantial risk by renting: if property values rise (ie gentrification) / supply diminishes / demand increases then you can easily find yourself priced out of your home or even an entire area the next time the lease is due for renewal while the owner simply enjoys more rental money for nothing. Also if the property is sold then the new owner can legally kick you out regardless of previous agreements (at least here in Oz) or jack up the rent straight away if they want.

Ultimately as a renter you're sacrificing a lot of control over your own shelter for not much gain in flexibility, and you're stuck subsidizing other people's home purchases for the rest of your (renting) life. As for your "net worth", it won't increase by paying another person's mortgage.

Do you own your own property by any chance?

Edited March 30, 2016 by WileyWarWeasel
Addition to risk

[AshleyAshes]

On ‎3‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 4:10 AM, WileyWarWeasel said:

You do take on substantial risk by renting: if property values rise (ie gentrification) / supply diminishes / demand increases then you can easily find yourself priced out of your home or even an entire area the next time the lease is due for renewal while the owner simply enjoys more rental money for nothing. Also if the property is sold then the new owner can legally kick you out regardless of previous agreements (at least here in Oz) or jack up the rent straight away if they want.

You don't have any protections against that in Australia?  Here in Canada there's a minimum that a landlord can raise the rent on a tenant every year, the percentage floats, this year it's 2%.  While I've lived here past 12 months this law applies to all tenants so long as they continue the lease.  Basically my rent can't go up beyond 1.5-2.5% or so on any given year, regardless of the landlords intentions.  That said, they can TOTALLY jack up the prices on new tenants compared to previous tenants.  So it's to my benefit to stay put.  (I also just like my location)

[WileyWarWeasel]

4 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

You don't have any protections against that in Australia?  Here in Canada there's a minimum that a landlord can raise the rent on a tenant every year, the percentage floats, this year it's 2%.  While I've lived here past 12 months this law applies to all tenants so long as they continue the lease.  Basically my rent can't go up beyond 1.5-2.5% or so on any given year, regardless of the landlords intentions.  That said, they can TOTALLY jack up the prices on new tenants compared to previous tenants.  So it's to my benefit to stay put.  (I also just like my location)

In South Australia at least there doesn't seem to be a limit on how much it can be increased by but there is a limit on frequency of increase and it can't be done sooner than 12 months from when the lease was originally signed.