[akwoo]

garfinkle, on 2023-August-29, 18:10, said:

I have seen T shirts advertised emblazoned with "I Miss The America I Grew Up In". That matches my sentiments, and I've been tempted to buy one and wear it. But sadly I think we've passed the point of no return.

Here's the thing that lots of people don't seem to realize. A lot of the change isn't something that's particularly subject to the political process. We're going through a period of profound technological change that makes most of the labor people used to do redundant and that will rearrange our entire society. We can't have a society with lots of people employed putting papers in the proper files. We can't have a society where lots of people are employed putting screws to put together cars - the robot on the assembly line does most (but not all) of that.

[Winstonm]

akwoo, on 2023-September-03, 12:52, said:

Here's the thing that lots of people don't seem to realize. A lot of the change isn't something that's particularly subject to the political process. We're going through a period of profound technological change that makes most of the labor people used to do redundant and that will rearrange our entire society. We can't have a society with lots of people employed putting papers in the proper files. We can't have a society where lots of people are employed putting screws to put together cars - the robot on the assembly line does most (but not all) of that.

Which helps explain the popularity and persuasiveness of the slogan, Make America Great Again as it is expressed, meaning to turn back time by riding a bicylcle backwards in order to turn the world backards until somewhere in the fifties, or even earlier, is reached. Kind of like Superman saving Lois Lane, only in slow motion.

MAGA is the "I Have a Dream" speech for white Christian nationalists.

[shyams]

How about Michelle Obama as the Dem candidate for President, 2024? She is far superior to other "fake contenders" faced by Biden

Her slogan may well be "Elect one, get one free".

[pilowsky]

shyams, on 2023-September-03, 18:06, said:

How about Michelle Obama as the Dem candidate for President, 2024? She is far superior to other "fake contenders" faced by Biden

Her slogan may well be "Elect one, get one free".

That was Bill Clinton's tagline:

WAPO said:

In his first presidential campaign in 1992, Bill Clinton famously asserted that he and his wife, Hillary, came as a package deal.
"Buy one, get one free," he said.

I'll bet it came from Jim Carville.

[shyams]

akwoo, on 2023-September-03, 12:52, said:

Here's the thing that lots of people don't seem to realize. A lot of the change isn't something that's particularly subject to the political process. We're going through a period of profound technological change that makes most of the labor people used to do redundant and that will rearrange our entire society. We can't have a society with lots of people employed putting papers in the proper files. We can't have a society where lots of people are employed putting screws to put together cars - the robot on the assembly line does most (but not all) of that.

I broadly agree with this. Yes, as things evolve, people have to adapt and learn. The question (which probably is anathema in the USA, not in most other countries) is "Okay, what is your federal and/or state govt. doing to address it?".

Many Americans may hold the opinion that the govt. has no business in such matters. It is indeed a fair position to take when things move incrementally, but I wonder if it is tenable to keep the govt. out during times of massive upheaval. After all, when the citizens elects a Govt., they expect something from the Govt. Why should the expectations not include some action or direction at such times?

[akwoo]

garfinkle, on 2023-September-03, 18:22, said:

I understand all that but the question remains, “How many PH’Ds do we need with doctorates in Computer Science,Philosophy or Gender Studies?”. Somebody still needs to raise cattle, hogs, poultry, and vegetables. Those are the people whom I favor.

Yes, we need people to raise animals and crops, but we need fewer of them.

I've lived in both Minnesota and Idaho. If you drive through the rural landscapes of each state and pay attention, you will notice that farming technology advanced a lot between 1840 and 1890. Minnesota was built with 4 farmhouses to a square mile (the original Homestead Act allotment). Idaho was built with 1 farmhouse to a square mile.

We're a decade at most from Nebraska having 1 farm family per 10 square miles, or maybe 20. It's flat, so perfect for mostly automated farming. Not completely automated, but mostly. One farmer will be watching 20 tractors remotely from the comfort of their office, often needing to remotely control one of them if there is some minor trouble, and occasionally driving out in their pickup if one of them gets stuck.

Raising animals is generally a lot less work, and less of that can be easily automated, but the dairy farmers not using a sophisticated milking machine to milk a large herd of cows have already been driven out of business.

I think Americans are broadly receptive to having the government try to do something about this (though some Americans only care when the people being put out of work are white), but it's hard to figure out what the government can do without also reducing the benefits that innovation brings to everyone.

I'm not optimistic about the future. I don't see how a society where unemployment is 40% - which is where technology is sending us - avoids nuclear war. (It's much easier to deal with 95% unemployment.)

[kenberg]

akwoo, on 2023-September-03, 21:56, said:

Yes, we need people to raise animals and crops, but we need fewer of them.

I've lived in both Minnesota and Idaho. If you drive through the rural landscapes of each state and pay attention, you will notice that farming technology advanced a lot between 1840 and 1890. Minnesota was built with 4 farmhouses to a square mile (the original Homestead Act allotment). Idaho was built with 1 farmhouse to a square mile.

We're a decade at most from Nebraska having 1 farm family per 10 square miles, or maybe 20. It's flat, so perfect for mostly automated farming. Not completely automated, but mostly. One farmer will be watching 20 tractors remotely from the comfort of their office, often needing to remotely control one of them if there is some minor trouble, and occasionally driving out in their pickup if one of them gets stuck.

Raising animals is generally a lot less work, and less of that can be easily automated, but the dairy farmers not using a sophisticated milking machine to milk a large herd of cows have already been driven out of business.

I think Americans are broadly receptive to having the government try to do something about this (though some Americans only care when the people being put out of work are white), but it's hard to figure out what the government can do without also reducing the benefits that innovation brings to everyone.

I'm not optimistic about the future. I don't see how a society where unemployment is 40% - which is where technology is sending us - avoids nuclear war. (It's much easier to deal with 95% unemployment.)

I'm old, but not so old that when I drive around Minnesota I notice the changes that took place between 1840 and 1890. I'll take your word for it.

Some things that I do recall, at least vaguely.

In the 1940s and 50s when I was growing up 9in St. Paul) farmers were very supportive of the University of Minnesota. I believe the U of M had a substantial interaction with the farm community supplying information, soil testing and so on. Perhaps it still does, but it seems that the idea "we are all in this together" has slipped away.

And then there is the cost of college. I started at the U of M in 1956. Tuition was $72 a quarter so $216 per academic year. Minimum wage was $1 per hour. So 216 hours of minimum wage work took care of a year's tuition. And it was pretty easy to get a job that paid better. I delivered furniture for $1.25 an hour and later loaded farm machinery onto box cars for $2 an hour. I don't think either of these jobs has yet been taken over by robots, at least not entirely, but I doubt very much that a college student can earn a year's tuition by loading box cars for 108 hours.


The world has changed and will change more. Like you I am pessimistic as to our ability, or willingness, to address it. Corny as it might be, I think we need to get back to the idea that by helping others we are also helping ourselves.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2023-September-04, 08:05, said:

I'm old, but not so old that when I drive around Minnesota I notice the changes that took place between 1840 and 1890. I'll take your word for it.

Some things that I do recall, at least vaguely.

In the 1940s and 50s when I was growing up 9in St. Paul) farmers were very supportive of the University of Minnesota. I believe the U of M had a substantial interaction with the farm community supplying information, soil testing and so on. Perhaps it still does, but it seems that the idea "we are all in this together" has slipped away.

And then there is the cost of college. I started at the U of M in 1956. Tuition was $72 a quarter so $216 per academic year. Minimum wage was $1 per hour. So 216 hours of minimum wage work took care of a year's tuition. And it was pretty easy to get a job that paid better. I delivered furniture for $1.25 an hour and later loaded farm machinery onto box cars for $2 an hour. I don't think either of these jobs has yet been taken over by robots, at least not entirely, but I doubt very much that a college student can earn a year's tuition by loading box cars for 108 hours.


The world has changed and will change more. Like you I am pessimistic as to our ability, or willingness, to address it. Corny as it might be, I think we need to get back to the idea that by helping others we are also helping ourselves.

Oh, my, you sound like a Democrat. Lock him up.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2023-September-04, 12:02, said:

Oh, my, you sound like a Democrat. Lock him up.

Yes, I suppose that I do. I like to think that I sound like a normal person. Not exactly the same thing. Whatever we call it, I think it's on the right track and I gather you agree. Let's hope it's contagious.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2023-September-05, 15:12, said:

Yes, I suppose that I do. I like to think that I sound like a normal person. Not exactly the same thing. Whatever we call it, I think it's on the right track and I gather you agree. Let's hope it's contagious.

A lady named Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a supposed authority on autocracy says the GOP is now an autocratic party.
Maybe normal means Democrat, or should.

[barmar]

akwoo, on 2023-September-03, 12:52, said:

Here's the thing that lots of people don't seem to realize. A lot of the change isn't something that's particularly subject to the political process. We're going through a period of profound technological change that makes most of the labor people used to do redundant and that will rearrange our entire society. We can't have a society with lots of people employed putting papers in the proper files. We can't have a society where lots of people are employed putting screws to put together cars - the robot on the assembly line does most (but not all) of that.

We also don't have as many blacksmiths as we did in the 19th century, but they managed to deal with their jobs going away.

But the MAGA crowd doesn't just want their traditional jobs back, they want their traditional social order. They want to go back to the day when women and blacks "knew their place". Back when they could lynch a black man (or teenage boy in the case of Emmett Till) for looking at a white woman the wrong way without a race riot breaking out. They long for the world of "Leave It To Beaver", even though that world was a fantasy even at the time.

[pilowsky]

If you're really bored here's 5 hours of Roger Stone being deposed.

[akwoo]

barmar, on 2023-September-08, 17:32, said:

We also don't have as many blacksmiths as we did in the 19th century, but they managed to deal with their jobs going away.

A lot of blacksmiths lost their jobs and drank themselves to death. Many of them didn't deal with their jobs going away; rather they died and were replaced by people who could deal with not being a blacksmith.

Quote

But the MAGA crowd doesn't just want their traditional jobs back, they want their traditional social order. They want to go back to the day when women and blacks "knew their place". Back when they could lynch a black man (or teenage boy in the case of Emmett Till) for looking at a white woman the wrong way without a race riot breaking out. They long for the world of "Leave It To Beaver", even though that world was a fantasy even at the time.

I want to point out something I remember learning many years ago in my European history class. In 1830s France, the popular support for the ultra-monarchist political parties - the folks who advocated for the divine right of kings and the reinstitution of serfdom - in short a return to the political and social order of 1750s France - came mostly from the peasants. They were the people whose way of life was threatened by early farm mechanization, the spread of the potato (which took less labor to provide the same calories) as a crop, and the demand for labor from the newly industrializing cities. Keep in mind of course, that the people who remained peasants were the least adaptable of them - the more adaptable peasants had already picked up and moved to the city to work a better (as horrible as it was by even early 20th century standards) job in a factory.

In short - I think people want a return to an older, more familiar (partly imaginary) social order because they *feel* that this is required to bring back the more familiar jobs that were part of that social order. They want security in a world changing faster than they can cope with, and the only way they can imagine having security is a return to an entire lifestyle that they find familiar. Of course they also want today's survival rates for cancer and heart disease and widespread availability of knee replacements.

[kenberg]

akwoo, on 2023-September-09, 17:59, said:

A lot of blacksmiths lost their jobs and drank themselves to death. Many of them didn't deal with their jobs going away; rather they died and were replaced by people who could deal with not being a blacksmith.



I want to point out something I remember learning many years ago in my European history class. In 1830s France, the popular support for the ultra-monarchist political parties - the folks who advocated for the divine right of kings and the reinstitution of serfdom - in short a return to the political and social order of 1750s France - came mostly from the peasants. They were the people whose way of life was threatened by early farm mechanization, the spread of the potato (which took less labor to provide the same calories) as a crop, and the demand for labor from the newly industrializing cities. Keep in mind of course, that the people who remained peasants were the least adaptable of them - the more adaptable peasants had already picked up and moved to the city to work a better (as horrible as it was by even early 20th century standards) job in a factory.

In short - I think people want a return to an older, more familiar (partly imaginary) social order because they *feel* that this is required to bring back the more familiar jobs that were part of that social order. They want security in a world changing faster than they can cope with, and the only way they can imagine having security is a return to an entire lifestyle that they find familiar. Of course they also want today's survival rates for cancer and heart disease and widespread availability of knee replacements.

Regarding "an older partly imaginary social order": The idea interests me. From time to time I think about it and it would be good to see an analysis by someone with no axe to grind. Things just keep popping up.

Example: A granddaughter is turning five and Becky was shopping online.Loads and loads of tiaras, princess costumes and such. My younger daughter's got a dog for her fifth birthday, that was her favorite present of course, but a dinosaur set was he second favorite. Either of these presents ould have been suitable for a boy just as well as for a girl. My older daughter recently told me her favorite bedtime story was The Three Billy Goats Gruff. Again, equally suitable for a boy. Here is my point: Today women often do things that were once thought of as a man's thing. We accept that men and women can have common interests and abilities. But we seem to be creating a large divide with boys and girls. Certainly at age five, and pretty much at age ten, kids were kids when I was young. We biked together, skated together, played board games together and so on. Now there is boy's soccer and girl's soccer. Princess costumes. When I was fifteen, I and my fifteen-year-old male friends worked on cars and our interaction with fifteen-year-old girls was dating. But when I was six or eight, kids were kids. That has changed.

Example: When I was finishing high school in 1956 I had to decide whether to go to college or join the Navy. I expected, as all seventeen-year-old boys did, that sooner or later I would be in the service for a couple of years. Well, I never was. I went to college, then to grad school then got married and so on and got exemptions. In 1966 this ended, and I was classified 1-A, but I was 27 and apparently they were not drafting 27-year-olds in St. Paul. But I was the exception, guys expected to serve and most did. Again, this has changed.

And, of course, as I was growing up few adult women that I knew worked. A divorced woman and her two kids lived in the (very minimal) upstairs of our house (minimal because we had slanted roofs so the area where an adult could stand up was pretty small). The mother of one of my friends worked part-time. But mostly the men worked, the women stayed home. Financially, this worked. My father had an eighth-grade education but that was enough, we lived in a small but nice house in a friendly and safe neighborhood with a good elementary school within easy walking distance (just a block for me, but easy distance for all).


So yes "an older partly imaginary social order": is partly imaginary but a lot of it is not imaginary at all. I would be interested in an open-minded study. Something where the object is to look at the changes and only later, if at all, attempt to say what is good, and what is bad about the changes. We can all agree that there have been many changes.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2023-September-11, 08:02, said:

Regarding "an older partly imaginary social order": The idea interests me. From time to time I think about it and it would be good to see an analysis by someone with no axe to grind. Things just keep popping up.

Example: A granddaughter is turning five and Becky was shopping online.Loads and loads of tiaras, princess costumes and such. My younger daughter's got a dog for her fifth birthday, that was her favorite present of course, but a dinosaur set was he second favorite. Either of these presents ould have been suitable for a boy just as well as for a girl. My older daughter recently told me her favorite bedtime story was The Three Billy Goats Gruff. Again, equally suitable for a boy. Here is my point: Today women often do things that were once thought of as a man's thing. We accept that men and women can have common interests and abilities. But we seem to be creating a large divide with boys and girls. Certainly at age five, and pretty much at age ten, kids were kids when I was young. We biked together, skated together, played board games together and so on. Now there is boy's soccer and girl's soccer. Princess costumes. When I was fifteen, I and my fifteen-year-old male friends worked on cars and our interaction with fifteen-year-old girls was dating. But when I was six or eight, kids were kids. That has changed.

Example: When I was finishing high school in 1956 I had to decide whether to go to college or join the Navy. I expected, as all seventeen-year-old boys did, that sooner or later I would be in the service for a couple of years. Well, I never was. I went to college, then to grad school then got married and so on and got exemptions. In 1966 this ended, and I was classified 1-A, but I was 27 and apparently they were not drafting 27-year-olds in St. Paul. But I was the exception, guys expected to serve and most did. Again, this has changed.

And, of course, as I was growing up few adult women that I knew worked. A divorced woman and her two kids lived in the (very minimal) upstairs of our house (minimal because we had slanted roofs so the area where an adult could stand up was pretty small). The mother of one of my friends worked part-time. But mostly the men worked, the women stayed home. Financially, this worked. My father had an eighth-grade education but that was enough, we lived in a small but nice house in a friendly and safe neighborhood with a good elementary school within easy walking distance (just a block for me, but easy distance for all).


So yes "an older partly imaginary social order": is partly imaginary but a lot of it is not imaginary at all. I would be interested in an open-minded study. Something where the object is to look at the changes and only later, if at all, attempt to say what is good, and what is bad about the changes. We can all agree that there have been many changes.

I believe you have left out the most critical change: when you were a child a mother with a job outside the home was rare.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2023-September-11, 11:20, said:

I believe you have left out the most critical change: when you were a child a mother with a job outside the home was rare.

The next to the last paragraph was meant to address that, at least partially. Most women in my neighborhood did not work.

Anyway, there were just so many things that were different from now.

The world was more local. I grew up in St. Paul. We barely concerned ourselves at all with what was going on in Minneapolis. As to, for example, Oklahoma? As 8-year-old Jonah says in Sleepless in Seattle, "Somewhere in the middle". Oh yeah, and it's a musical. I probably knew as much about Oklahoma as people in Oklahoma knew about Minnesota, which is probably about zero. Maybe I am overstating a bit. We did pay some attention to what was going on in the world. I did know about the Suez Canal crisis in 1956 but to say my knowledge was superficial overstates what I knew.

The neighborhood I grew up in was much friendlier than where I live now. When I bought my 47 Plymouth a neighbor explained to me how to figure out how many miles per gallon the car got, and I was mature enough to thank him rather than tell him I knew how to do that when I was ten. Another neighbor, maybe 60 or older, would come by the garage when my friends and I were working on cars and he would chat with us. Another neighbor asked me to do something about the language the guys were using when we were in the garage working on cars. He said other neighbors with small kids did not like hearing the way we talked. I did as he asked.

It is, I suppose, easy to look back at the good things and forget the bad things. I think it could be useful to see just how much and in what ways the world has changed, trying for accuracy, and then later trying to see if and how some of it might be useful today.

Midnight in Paris is perhaps the only Woody Allen movie I really like. It deals with the fallacy of Golden Age thinking. Not everything was great back then whenever then was. Still. I have fond memories.
Ah, and now that I think about it I guess I like Midnight in Paris because of the music.

[pilowsky]

A recent study in PNAS reports a net positive (small but more than 50%) attitude towards immigration in the USA in the post-WWII period.

I suspect this is because the demographic was that many were "people like us" from Europe.
This starts to fall away in the post Vietnam period 1970's.

The big shift in attitude now is that Republicans have circled the wagons, raised the drawbridge, and filled the moat with alligators.
Here's a link to the paper.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2023-September-11, 13:37, said:

The next to the last paragraph was meant to address that, at least partially. Most women in my neighborhood did not work.

Anyway, there were just so many things that were different from now.

The world was more local. I grew up in St. Paul. We barely concerned ourselves at all with what was going on in Minneapolis. As to, for example, Oklahoma? As 8-year-old Jonah says in Sleepless in Seattle, "Somewhere in the middle". Oh yeah, and it's a musical. I probably knew as much about Oklahoma as people in Oklahoma knew about Minnesota, which is probably about zero. Maybe I am overstating a bit. We did pay some attention to what was going on in the world. I did know about the Suez Canal crisis in 1956 but to say my knowledge was superficial overstates what I knew.

The neighborhood I grew up in was much friendlier than where I live now. When I bought my 47 Plymouth a neighbor explained to me how to figure out how many miles per gallon the car got, and I was mature enough to thank him rather than tell him I knew how to do that when I was ten. Another neighbor, maybe 60 or older, would come by the garage when my friends and I were working on cars and he would chat with us. Another neighbor asked me to do something about the language the guys were using when we were in the garage working on cars. He said other neighbors with small kids did not like hearing the way we talked. I did as he asked.

It is, I suppose, easy to look back at the good things and forget the bad things. I think it could be useful to see just how much and in what ways the world has changed, trying for accuracy, and then later trying to see if and how some of it might be useful today.

Midnight in Paris is perhaps the only Woody Allen movie I really like. It deals with the fallacy of Golden Age thinking. Not everything was great back then whenever then was. Still. I have fond memories.
Ah, and now that I think about it I guess I like Midnight in Paris because of the music.

Two quick points: 1. My comment about working women was meant as an economics commentary 2. All in all I think the 1971 documentary The Hellstrom Chronicles was probably right: mankind is doomed and insects will reign supreme.

[shyams]

shyams, on 2023-September-03, 18:06, said:

How about Michelle Obama as the Dem candidate for President, 2024? She is far superior to other "fake contenders" faced by Biden

Her slogan may well be "Elect one, get one free".

If people thought this was a frivolous comment, please note that the betting odds today indicate that Michelle Obama has an implied chance of 5.0% of being elected President in the 2024 elections. In other words, you get a 5% return on investment if you choose to disbelieve this and bet that Michelle's not making it to President in the upcoming cycle.

So we have a situation where the highest risk "financial" markets thinks there is a very good chance that a person, who hasn't yet declared to run, who is not on the radar as alternates to Biden (contrast to Newsom, who made it clear he is), has approx. the same money odds as Newsom (implied chance of 5.5%) of being your next President.

If the DNC were not into rigging their primaries, this would be free money. But then one would have to trust the DNC!!


Edit: 5th in descending odds right now: 1: Biden (35%), 2: Trump (28%), 3: Newsom (5.5%), 4: DeSantis (5.3%), 5: M. Obama (5.0%)

[pilowsky]

shyams, on 2023-September-11, 20:49, said:

If people thought this was a frivolous comment, please note that the betting odds today indicate that Michelle Obama has an implied chance of 5.0% of being elected President in the 2024 elections. In other words, you get a 5% return on investment if you choose to disbelieve this and bet that Michelle's not making it to President in the upcoming cycle.

One of the critical factors in a person becoming President is willingness to do the job.
M. Obama isn't.

When asked if she would run she always says "No".
There's never any prevarication.