First of all, is Snowden the runaway favorite for person of the year 2013? I can't think of anyone else who affected US society more (and likely for the better). A Federal judge ruled that the arbitrary, blanket collection of Americans' phone metadata is likely unconstitutional (unreasonable search, violation of reasonable expectations of privacy) and ineffective (no clear evidence it was critical to preventing attacks). Of course the WH and NSA disagree.
----
http://www.npr.org/blogs/
Now car services like Uber are getting rave reviews from customers, media, and generating decent financials. But what if they render thousands of low-skilled immigrant cab drivers out of a job? What if the Google self-driving car renders the Uber drivers out of a job? In some cases it is a zero-sum game, even if the metrics suggest that society overall is "better off". Does one new billionaire created compensate for 1,000 families who just got the American Dream taken from them? Everyone seems to celebrate the "winners" without considering the collateral damage. Yes, we need innovation to succeed and even survive in the world. And those who succeed should be rewarded. But what about the everyday folks who, through no fault of their own, get suddenly shifted from middle class to destitution? Do the disruptors (and the traditional companies being replaced) have a social responsibility to help those workers transition to the new reality? Does the government? If so, then I think they should fund such programs from the disruptors' stock gains.
-----
Sort of related (in that it perpetuates the massive inequalities of the Bay Area) is education. M Night Shyamalan just wrote a major book on education (hopefully he doesn't write more and his natural follow-up suck strikes!), and it makes a lot of good points.
Basically, he suggests that our education system is actually great - if
you're a a white kid. Our white kids do just as well as the Nordic white
kids or other European white kids. But if you're a minority (and,
typically, poor), the education system sucks and really drags down our
averages. There are a number of ways to address this, but:
1) They take money $$
2) And they mean de-emphasizing putting resources into already highly performing white schools
I've
come increasingly to the conclusion that American politics is all about
race. I'm sure many of you have seen the research that support for
redistribution increases if it is perceived by the voter as going to
"someone like them" - i.e. someone of the same race.
Most people in the Bay Area don't consider
themselves racist and it's probably true - in fact, the Bay Area is one
of the most diverse areas of the country. But poors in the Bay Area are
still "the other" - they didn't go to good schools, they struggle to get
by on bad salaries, their unemployment rate is x3 higher than
well-educated whites. Basically, their experience is completely alien to
most of the tech gods in the Bay Area and their presence is invisible.
No surprise then that the tech gods (which have actual power) use little
of their capacity to help the poors.
You can imagine the national consternation and
outrage by the well-educated press and electorate if the unemployment
rate was 20% and transportation and housing ate up 60-70% of the budget
of native-born, well educated Americans, yet this is exactly the
situation facing a plurality of Bay Area residents - the poors and the
immigrants. I guess it's only a crisis for those that are rich. If
you're poor and face such circumstances, given the media and elite
orientation, it's a statistic and at best regrettable. And the rich
wonder why resentment is on the increase...
-----
Thx, J. I agree, but why are non-whites disproportionately poor? Mostly racism. The 1% vs. 99% has also been a pervasive, ubiquitous problem for centuries, but of course the power balance has varied due to historical conditions. As you said, now more than ever gov't is serving the interests of the 1% at the expense of the 99% - and that is a big effing problem that we have to tackle if we care about democracy. But even if we returned to the economic conditions of 1960 when wealth and political power were more evenly distributed, there is the underlying racial problem that Andrew mentioned. Say we repeal Citizens United, reformed the justice system, and made a bunch of other needed changes - it will still be harder for minorities to get ahead. Addressing one problem is not a distraction from the other. Both are critical, somewhat independent, and deserve to be called out separately. There are some solutions that can mitigate both issues (namely taxation and campaign/election reforms), so we could try to prioritize those.
According to this moron, the poor and middle class are doing better than ever, because we are enjoying a "golden age of TV!" So what if I lose my job and get evicted... I can still watch the latest episode of "Duck Dynasty" at the local library's PC lab. Forget the macro indicators, our amazing selection of digital entertainment options makes life more fun!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-02/who-needs-a-raise-when-you-have-tv-.html
------
Thx, J. I agree, but why are non-whites disproportionately poor? Mostly racism. The 1% vs. 99% has also been a pervasive, ubiquitous problem for centuries, but of course the power balance has varied due to historical conditions. As you said, now more than ever gov't is serving the interests of the 1% at the expense of the 99% - and that is a big effing problem that we have to tackle if we care about democracy. But even if we returned to the economic conditions of 1960 when wealth and political power were more evenly distributed, there is the underlying racial problem that Andrew mentioned. Say we repeal Citizens United, reformed the justice system, and made a bunch of other needed changes - it will still be harder for minorities to get ahead. Addressing one problem is not a distraction from the other. Both are critical, somewhat independent, and deserve to be called out separately. There are some solutions that can mitigate both issues (namely taxation and campaign/election reforms), so we could try to prioritize those.
According to this moron, the poor and middle class are doing better than ever, because we are enjoying a "golden age of TV!" So what if I lose my job and get evicted... I can still watch the latest episode of "Duck Dynasty" at the local library's PC lab. Forget the macro indicators, our amazing selection of digital entertainment options makes life more fun!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/
------
Oh the drama of "bus-gate": http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/12/09/google-bus-protest-most-entertaining-moment-was-staged/
Thanks, A. Good to see M. Night making a comeback of sorts, with more social value than "The Happening". Yeah it seems the path to inequality starts from grade school, and maybe even in the womb, as lower income (often minorities) generally don't have access to comparable health, nutrition, and child care as affluent whites. This could set back their development, so that even if they were lucky enough to attend America's best schools, maybe they wouldn't be fully able to take advantage of the opportunity.
I am not sure if it is a generational issue either. After the Baby Boomers exit the labor force, and the younger folks take the helm of the big companies, I really hope for a sea change. Douchebags aside, I think that many Bay Area yuppies would prefer a more diverse workforce and society. CA is great because it's not a stuck up East Coast cocktail party where your alma mater and family name come first. It's boring when you only work with clones of yourself who think the same way (also it's bad for business). The Valley has been successful in recruiting and naturalizing so much foreign talent, but many of them were elites from their native lands (and they tend to self-segregate in the US too). I just don't see black and Latino native residents get recruited in sufficient numbers any time soon.
------
Part of the solutions that M. Night and other education scholars have recommended is longer school days, year round schooling, and early intervention programs like head start, universal Kindergarten, etc. Basically spending a lot of money to get poor/racial minorities with bad home environments and poor nutritional habits into a much healthier system. Of course, doing this takes a lot of money. However, school inequality is still a major issue so there are some resources that could be recaptured from rich white schools.
As you may remember from the George Packer/New Yorker article, even in the Bay Area, public schools such as Woodside and Paly have foundations that parents started to "adequately" fund their school - i.e. they have way more money than they need and marginal dollars there are not doing much good, while schools like East Paly are hurting pretty bad. And of course thanks to restrictive zoning regulations meaning no new housing ever (into which the poors/middle class might move), public schools in Woodside/Los Gatos/Atherton/Paly are only public in name only: effectively they are privatized for the rich white residents. But beyond that, it would take a massive infusion of resources into places like the LAUSD, New York Public Schools, etc. that voters haven't shown the will to spend.
I know you're fairly hopeful about the promise of the younger generation, but I'm more pessimistic. It's true that race will be less of an issue for our generation and some of the issues that the oldsters have with things like gay marriage will dissipate. However, I feel like our generation, while still well-intentioned, is even more clueless about the life and struggles of poor people than any previous generation. While J is right that the gap between the 1%ers and the rest has grown astronomically, I feel like the life experiences of the top 10% is becoming increasingly disconnected from the lives of the rest. Worldly, plugged in, well educated, financially comfortable kids on the Google buses have basically nothing at all in common with day laborers in the Mission. I don't mean that they actively seek to screw them but I think it's easy for many to not even people like that exist. The problems and life experiences of the bottom 90% have basically just don't show up on the radar of your average techie or higher.
And while the top 1% have arrogated for themselves increased power, the top 10% still can drive the political conversation in the media and online. If people don't see the problems of the rest of society or only are dimly aware of them in an abstract way, I'm not optimistic that much progress can be made.
I see where J is coming from on this - I think on matters of economic policy the 1% have the resources to really get whatever they want.
But
I think one of the under-appreciated developments in American politics
is that, in previous historical periods, when you had this unbalanced of
an income, populists would rally the poorer classes to demand change.
That's how they broke up the robber barons (see Teddy Roosevelt), and
that's how the back was broken of European nobility.
What's happened this time is that many of the people
that might have been expected to join this populist coalition against
the rich and powerful are instead diverted by issues of "other" (i.e.
race). How else do you explain the fact that West Virginia, one of the
poorest states in the nation, voted overwhelmingly for Romney? Or
Kentucky? They're afraid that moochers (of course, moochers from out
groups; in group moochers are fine) and immigrants and gays are wrecking
America. These are precisely the people that Democrats ought to find
common cause with (and previously did, against the Robber Barons and
again during the Depression), yet our politics that are focused on race
and religion and culture have them voting against their economic
interests.
------
Thanks, A. It's ludicrous that there is any opposition to these
youth programs, as the research indisputably shows that the ROI is huge.
So the expenditures are actually cost saving measures in the long run.
There should be no conservative opposition, but of course there is.
Is it just a philosophical/political impasse (block ANY new gov't
programs, even helpful ones), or is it the elites lashing out because
they don't want poor, colored folks to succeed and compete on a more
level playing field with their privileged kids? Sure the rich would
rather have tax breaks now than more education spending, but as I said
these programs save $ in the long run and make a stronger society, which
will reduce the rich people's future tax burden and probably result in
more capital gains for them, as these kids grow up on a better
trajectory and become valuable consumers/workers.
The data suggests that Millennials are more tech savvy,
more socially aware, and more into volunteerism than previous
generations. As you said, they are worldly, and with the internet at
their fingertips, they are on average much more cognizant of global
social issues than their parents and grandparents at that age. So really
there is no excuse for them to turn their back on social problems, even
if they can't fully "relate" to the needy. But residential and
workplace segregation is a terrible problem, because if you don't see
diversity and the struggles of others each day, you are less likely to
do anything about them. I believe that most young adults (and most of us
on this email) would vote for policies and leaders who want to make our
society fairer. The problem is no one is putting such debates up for a
vote (probably because most of the political system is co-opted by the
elites as J said). I think the youth are in the right place morally, but
they just need a spark or a dynamic figure to lead them, like a modern
day "Ask not what your country can do for you..." or "We hold these
truths to be self evident..." We don't have that unfortunately. All our
brightest young people are going into the private sector, where they
can't "do good" because they are beholden to shareholders, and fighting
for their lives against cutthroat competition. Only when they're super
rich and semi-retired like Gates will they hopefully give back. Look at
us; we have money and are well aware of the problems out there, but we
don't have the time or courage to advocate for the causes (many
self-imposed or social barriers stand in our way). We will vote the
"right way" if the occasion arises, and maybe even give some money, but
we aren't able to put in the hours (not to mention blood, sweat, and
tears) to lead the populist charge as you said. I admire the few folks
who do.
But maybe all is not lost and there are some leaders with potential. Here's a Fresh Air interview about Pope Francis, and of course the main theme of his papacy so far is social justice and critique of global wealth inequality (and the institutions that perpetuate it). Europe is a powder keg of discontent regarding gov't corruption, voiding the social contract, and widespread unemployment. I will give Obama credit too that he has raised the issues of race and inequality (maybe not by choice) more than any other president since LBJ. Maybe he hasn't moved the needle on the debate in America, but he isn't letting us sweep it under the rug. So we are seeing some top-down emphasis of the race and wealth issues, but unfortunately that hasn't manifested itself into new laws and reforms (the plutocrats can control lawmaking bodies a lot more than individual executives).
--------
As A pointed out, "But I think one of the under-appreciated developments in American politics is that, in previous historical periods, when you had this unbalanced of an income, populists would rally the poorer classes to demand change. ", I find it interesting that at that time, communication between groups was limited by lack of technology. Now we have instant communication with anyone in the world. You would think that it would be easy to put all of the pieces together for the oppressed to rise up. But, these same lines of instant communication are also used to manipulate us in ways we'd never seen before, essentially keeping us divided, blaming one another for our lot in life instead of seeing the real picture.
-----------
http://www.insidepolitics.org/
http://gnovisjournal.org/2010/
Thanks, L. Yeah media fragmentation in the US can be a big problem. Families don't tune into the same 3 info sources around the radio or TV set anymore. So of course FNC says that everything MSNBC says are lies, and vice versa (and CNN just talks about the Kardashians) - adding to distrust, misinformation, and most harmful... polarization. Plus we are blitzed with too much info now on our multiple devices (especially entertainment/time-wasting content), which distracts us from thinking, collaborating, and rising up together.
Twitter and Facebook helped the Arab Spring gain momentum, but sadly it can't really do the same for us (even though we invented those services). Well, when commercial crap like Bieber and Coke are the most liked/followed entities on social media, you know we have a problem. It seems US social media is (deliberately or not) functioning to prevent us from mass political debate and assembly, whereas it has the opposite effect in repressive/dysfunctional foreign countries (which is why their state security services try to block/monitor it)?
No comments:
Post a Comment