Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Prosperity of future generations depends on the economic pie growing at a rate to keep up with the population growth. Clearly, the pie has stopped growing a sufficiently fast rate. Every year it gets harder to enter every occupation. As no new types of jobs are appearing, all we have is a competion over existing job types. At the same time the cost of living is increasing. Decreased home ownership, fewer people getting married, more barriers of entry into professions ... This is all indicative of the fact that we've ceased to be a nation that can provide a decent standard of living for the average person. All we're doing at this point is divying up the pie. It's an unpleasant atmosphere that I sense.
I think your premise is flawed. You completely ignore efficiency, while picking metrics that have nothing to do with prosperity. Our whole society is ridiculously profligate, squandering its future by throwing money after meaningless glitter. Economists don't even refer to people as people, but prefer to call them consumers, and go into withdrawal symptoms every time people start to make reasonable economic choices instead of selling themselves more deeply into debt.
The well being of future generations depends on shrinking the economy to a stable level while improving efficiency to avoid a falling lifestyle.
I think your premise is flawed. You completely ignore efficiency, while picking metrics that have nothing to do with prosperity. Our whole society is ridiculously profligate, squandering its future by throwing money after meaningless glitter. Economists don't even refer to people as people, but prefer to call them consumers, and go into withdrawal symptoms every time people start to make reasonable economic choices instead of selling themselves more deeply into debt.
The well being of future generations depends on shrinking the economy to a stable level while improving efficiency to avoid a falling lifestyle.
Respectfully, we need to rebalance debt to income. With personal debt at 100% of GDP we are simply not in a position to take on more debt. The economic pain of paying down that debt or defaulting on that debt is substantial. Inflating away the value of the debt at the same time starting a savings plan in bank something like what Japan has so that we get investment inside of the US will get us long term economic health.
In the end the pie is bigger than ever its just that since WWII that destroyed much production the baker isn't just the US of most the pie. Just as the great depression made huge changes to economy; this one will as well. One of those changes is the consumer themselves.
I don't think efficiency is the problem. To the contrary, if the system were more efficient, there would be even fewer jobs because a lot of current jobs in the service sector are based on a lack of efficiency. Even in some production jobs could be reduced via automation.
Anyway, I guess every country experiences stagnation once it has achieved a certain level. Things just don't keep growing forever, just like a tree ceases to grow once it has reached a certain height. So instead of trying to create artificial growth based on crappy products with short life expectancy, consumerism, debt, etc. we should start to think of ways to provide a decent, sustainable standard of living in a post-growth world. This is a tough task because it involves philosophical and ideological debates and changes.
The notion that it takes 3x the national average and two people working is ridiculous. That comes to about $300,000/year. When I was a kid my father had a very well paying job. Even so we could not afford two cars or even two vacations per year. We got most of our clothes for the year at Christmas. I cannot remember about "entertainment". We had a record player and did get a TV eventually. Phone calls to relatives waited until major holidays. Eating out even for fast food was a rarity.
Actually 300k wouldn't be enough money to live the lifestyle you just described in the neighborhood I grew up in.
Because property, as in physical landmass, is a zero-sum game now that everything that isn't a national park is owned and used by a person or business. I would say it's an objectively worse standard of living if half the people can only afford to be cooped up in an apartment with ever-increasing rent. All my acquaintances who are Asian immigrants love it here because there's so much more space --- for the time being.
I don't buy this argument. The US government owns tons of land. Actually, over 50% of the land. They are playing the supply/demand game by choking the supply. But this government is supposed to be 'for the people and by the people'.
See my point?
You are certainly correct. Many people have the opportunity to try for a CS degree, or to succeed as a high paid athlete or to become a corporate executive or a lawyer or whatever....
Unfortunately, as the saying goes, the world is full of losers. The winners figure out how to achieve their goals. The losers find excuses and complain. Neither of which will help them succeed at anything. In fact both of those will like lead to more future failures. If you understood for sure that every time you complain about something, you will fail in the future, then you might stop complaining.
What an incredibly short sighted post.
If the percentage of 'losers' as you say, continues to expand, it will tear apart the fabric of our society and everyone will become a loser.
The economy cannot function in the longterm with wages this low.
I don't think efficiency is the problem. To the contrary, if the system were more efficient, there would be even fewer jobs because a lot of current jobs in the service sector are based on a lack of efficiency. Even in some production jobs could be reduced via automation.
Anyway, I guess every country experiences stagnation once it has achieved a certain level. Things just don't keep growing forever, just like a tree ceases to grow once it has reached a certain height. So instead of trying to create artificial growth based on crappy products with short life expectancy, consumerism, debt, etc. we should start to think of ways to provide a decent, sustainable standard of living in a post-growth world. This is a tough task because it involves philosophical and ideological debates and changes.
Only problem is, what makes you think this is a 'post-growth' world?
I've seen no evidence of it, whatsoever.
The peak oil theory has been proven wrong.
Just like the communist USSR of the 80's, the US has devolved into a period of malinvestment and spiritual decay.
Only problem is, what makes you think this is a 'post-growth' world?
I've seen no evidence of it, whatsoever.
The peak oil theory has been proven wrong.
Just like the communist USSR of the 80's, the US has devolved into a period of malinvestment and spiritual decay.
I am not saying it already is. It is not like a switch, but a gradual development. There is only so much demand, and too much supply. If it weren't for the Brics, even Germany would already be in trouble. But the Brics have caught up quite a bit and are increasingly turning into suppliers themselves.
The only huge potential left is Africa, but I am not so sure that will ever happen.
I don't think that the peak oil theory is wrong, it simply has not happened as early as they thought it would. But sooner or later it will happen, it is logical because we are using oil and gas at incredible rates while their natural production takes like eternity.
I am not saying it already is. It is not like a switch, but a gradual development. There is only so much demand, and too much supply. If it weren't for the Brics, even Germany would already be in trouble. But the Brics have caught up quite a bit and are increasingly turning into suppliers themselves.
The only huge potential left is Africa, but I am not so sure that will ever happen.
I don't think that the peak oil theory is wrong, it simply has not happened as early as they thought it would. But sooner or later it will happen, it is logical because we are using oil and gas at incredible rates while their natural production takes like eternity.
Assuming that oil and gas are non renewable energy sources. The jury is still out on that one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
