How technology is affecting the American Dream

We talked about most of this already but it's a good take on the issue: http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/01/after-your-job-is-gone/

Also another take on the elites vs. rest idea (even Jay-Z, Obama, and Oprah are not spared!) - the author Packer was on Real Time tonight: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/books/the-unwinding-by-george-packer.html?pagewanted=all

An aside: L is right that Maher is an idiot and a psycho when it comes to security issues and Islam-bashing. He rightly trashes the 2nd Amend. yet proudly owns guns because "the other crazies are armed". He claims to be a true Libertarian, but supports all sorts of liberty-reducing actions that ostensibly prevent terrorism. It's funny... self-respect and humility often make us better people. But self-preservation and self-love make us pricks. No one wants or needs to die, but the world doesn't need us either.

I guess America's Great Society of the '60s and '90s socialism in Europe were the exception and not the rule. As the author said, most of the modern world resembles the pre-French Revolution "nobles and serfs" model. But it's sad because our generation in the US was brought up to believe that the Great Society was our birthright and if anything, we would make it even better in our lifetimes. Of course things weren't all rosy in the past (bigotry, ignorance, Cold War, etc.), but it's amazing that America of that time period had low unemployment, low wealth inequality, ample gov't services, and low deficits.

Now the opposite is true, though our employment situation is much better than Europe's... and their society may be unraveling faster than ours.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578386-euro-zone-desperately-need-boost-no-news-bad-news-sleepwalkers

But that is a little deceiving, because while US unemployment is down to like 7.5% now (much higher for young people though), the quality and security of most American jobs are not great, the social safety net is about depleted, and many are not counted as unemployed because they have taken the disability route instead (as we've discussed), or have just become the "permanent, uncounted, unhirables".

The change coincides with the rise of Si Valley, hyper-finance, and globalization. We can't be sure what caused what, but similar things happened during the Guilded Age, fueled by the tech bubble of the time - railroad, electricity, telco, etc. that Wall St. ate up. I guess disruptive tech always creates new winners and losers, but usually doesn't rewrite the labor map. Our new tech industry seems more extreme: highly paid jobs with specialized skills that are not accessible to the mainstream, emphasis on quick ROI rather than long term sustainable growth, and "virtual" products that create a ton of wealth for some but not many new jobs (or in fact replace old jobs). That could be called "progress", but the effects appear to be socially unjust too.

 Also here is a great interview on the issue with Moyers and Richard Wolff:

http://billmoyers.com/segment/richard-wolff-on-fighting-for-economic-justice-and-fair-wages/

Moyers interviews Sanders on Obama

http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-challenging-power-changing-politics/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+moyers+%28Moyers+%26+Company%29&utm_content=FeedBurner

Sanders brought up a good point: with Romney-Ryan showing their hand and betting the farm on the Ryan budget that aims to severely cut popular entitlements (and many conservatives have acknowlegded this liability too), why hasn't Obama come out more vociferously on the issue and slammed them for it? Does that mean that Obama would also consider cutting SocSec or Medicare if needing to compromise with the GOP in his 2nd term? Obama could win the election right now with a statement along the lines of (and I hope he busts it out before it's too late):

My fellow Americans,

You have worked hard and played by the rules your whole life. Your parents and friends had a fair shot at the American Dream and many of them achieved it, but you're trying just as hard (if not harder), and haven't seen the same results. There are many reasons for this, and most are not my fault as some would allege. America means more than just markets and profit. We want a life, not just a paycheck. I love serving the American people in my job, but trust me I can think of better things to do that working late on national problems every night. That is what Social Security and Medicare are for, to reward you for your decades of hard work, for your decades of being good Americans, so you can have the most precious thing in your old age - health and peace of mind. And for those who aren't seniors yet, you also get the peace in mind that your loved ones will be supported, and you will too when the time comes. It's a promise, and some promises must be kept - even in Washington.

Social Security is not a pie-in-the-sky dream, but a basic right of civilized, free, democratic people. Some conservatives believed and supported this over the years, but the Republican Party has never acted on it at the highest levels. It was brought to you by Democrats, during some of the most challenging economic times - times not so different from today. Great Americans like LBJ, FDR, and many others were working for you, not the fat cats. I know the modern Democratic party has sadly chosen to pander to big money too (but remember that I and my party opposed Citizens United), but in my 2nd term I hope to remind us of our roots. Big businesses and the rich, who will want for nothing in their golden years, don't want to pay their fair share of taxes so that just-as-worthy other Americans can have a comfortable retirement too. I got mine, so forget the rest of you. Pensions are getting slashed, the retirement age is getting higher, and it will all get worse under a Romney-Ryan America. Yes there is some waste and abuse associated with retirement benefits, but I would rather have an imperfect system than no system at all, where everyone is on their own. That is the Romney-Ryan vision of America my friends.

So hear me now, every hard-working American concerned about his or her future and the country they love. Your labor not only goes to feeding your loved ones, but seniors all over America whom you've never met - and they are so thankful for it. Those old folks supported others in their younger days, and now they are getting taken care of by you. We honor our commitments, that is how a society works. That is how America should work, instead of every billionaire for himself. So this is my promise to you, my fellow Americans. If you give me the great honor and privilege of a 2nd term, I will improve - not gut - Social Security to make it viable for at least 75 years, so that you can be 100% assured to have it when the time comes. You did your part, now your leaders must do theirs. Make no mistake we should and will cut the deficit smartly, but not at your expense. I won't rob the Social Security trust to give tax breaks to the super-rich, as Romney-Ryan and many in the GOP Caucus plan to. That is a BETRAYAL. I do not, and Democrats do not, punish people for doing the right thing. So vote with your conscience, and let's do the right thing together. Thank you and God bless.

Hey Barack - I will write your speeches for $20/hour plus US gov't retirement (of course)!

--------

1 - Of course Obama will consider cutting Social Security and Medicare to compromise with the GOP. He's already proposed that as part of his "grand bargain" with Boehner and Cantor in summer 2011. This is the hilarity of all those asshat DC centrist column-writers who claim to want a centrist politician to come to a compromise to cut SS and Medicare in exchange for tax hikes: that politician exists, he's currently President, and they're still looking.

2 - Campaign finance realities prevent Obama from echoing FDR's "I'm hostile to the rich, they hate me, and I welcome their hatred." If you're mean to the rich they don't give your campaign money, and you don't get elected. Campaign finance really is the root of all our political evils.

--------

Agreed, thanks J. I was more suggesting that Obama hasn't fully capitalized on the SocSec issue, even if the data suggest he won't be the ideal protector of that program. So for the GOP to make their stand (for a campaign that is nearly devoid of substance, I'll give them credit for being this ballsy), and Obama not exploit it, is inexplicable to me. Maybe he's saving it for the debates, but I think it will work better on the trail or even in TV ads. Even if Obama may cut entitlements later, he probably will do less damage than Romney-Ryan. So for the binary choice (ignoring the possibility of voting boycott for now), Obama is the SocSec champion as far as many people are concerned. Plus the revenues gained from the grand bargain may go to some other social good. So I'm just saying he should run with that, and it will probably lead to a win for him considering the current campaign environment.

From FDR's famous "welcome their hatred" speech: about 3/4 of Republicans voted for the SocSec act in 1935. But in the 1936 campaign, the GOP leaders in Congress tried to use that issue (along with the passage of unemployment insurance, anti-monopoly reforms, Glass-Steagall, etc.) to show that FDR was an anti-business pinko. It didn't work then, and shouldn't work now even if Obama is clearly not FDR.

http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3307