|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Our Socioeconomic Position is at Risk | |||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The decline in middle class living standards in the West is considered inevitable by some:
Link Link writes:
Western Europeans and Americans are about to suffer a profound shock. For the past 30 years governments have explained that, while they can no longer protect jobs through traditional forms of state intervention such as subsidies and tariffs, they can expand and reform education to maximise opportunity. If enough people buckle down to acquiring higher-level skills and qualifications, Europeans and Americans will continue to enjoy rising living standards. If they work hard enough, each generation can still do better than its parents. All that is required is to bring schools up to scratch and persuade universities to teach "marketable" skills. That is the thinking behind Michael Gove's policies and those of all his recent predecessors as education secretary. But the financial meltdown of 2008 and the subsequent squeeze on incomes is slowly revealing an awful truth. As figures out last week from the Office for National Statistics show, real UK wages have not risen since 2005, the longest sustained freeze in living standards since the 1920s. While it has not hit the elite in banking, the freeze affects most of the middle class as much as the working class. This is not a blip, nor the result of educational shortcomings. In the US, which introduced mass higher education long before Britain, the average graduate's purchasing power has barely risen in 30 years. Just as education failed to deliver social democratic promises of social equality and mobility, so it will fail to deliver neoliberal promises of universal opportunity for betterment. "Knowledge work", supposedly the west's salvation, is now being exported like manual work. A global mass market in unskilled labour is being quickly succeeded by a market in middle-class work, particularly for industries, such as electronics, in which so much hope of employment opportunities and high wages was invested. As supply increases, employers inevitably go to the cheapest source. A chip designer in India costs 10 times less than a US one. The neoliberals forgot to read (or re-read) Marx. "As capital accumulates the situation of the worker, be his payment high or low, must grow worse."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: Phat writes: Does anyone else feel as if the middle class in the united States is essentially between a rock and a hard place? If so, only by choice. And if that is what they want, it is what they will get. What does this mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
But we don't all have equal power to create the world we want do we?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: We live in the world we create.
Straggler writes: But we don't all have equal power to create the world we want do we? Huh? The world, particularly the US is exactly how it is because the people voted to make it the way that it is. Are you seriously suggesting that "the world" is exactly as it is due to everyone having an equal say (in the form of voting) as to how they think the world should be? Are you seriously suggesting that the US is exactly as it is due to every US voter having an equal say as to how they think their country should be run? You don't think how people vote might be influenced by those who have power over information (e.g. the media)? You don't think who actually gets made available to vote for has anything to do with who has the most financial backing?
jar writes: We live in the world we create. How much influence some people have over that world they inhabit is limited. To say the least.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
This is (to put it mildly) a somewhat naive attitude.
But your innocence does hold a certain charm I suppose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Is the world as you would choose it to be?
jar writes: True until you change the system. Who is "you" in this somewhat simplistic assertion?
jar writes: We live in the world we create. Yet most don't feel that they had much say in it's creation at all. How much say did you have?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You seem to have shifted your position from making the silly assertion that every individual has equal influence over the world as per Message 15. To now making some sort of tautological statement that humanity as a whole shapes human society. Frankly you seem to be intent on being intentionally vague and cryptic which suggests you don't really have a position at all.
jar writes: Straggler writes: How much say did you have? The world is as it is. I thought "We live in the world we create".
jar writes: I had lots to say. Unfortunately what I had to say was ignored. Some are more easily ignored than others. Access to, and opportunity for, influence are not equal for all are they?
jar writes: It's pleasant to be able to say "wasn't MY fault", but that also changes very little. Well given that you say your voice counted for very little this seems to be exactly what you are saying.
jar writes: Reality don't much care what I think. It may not care what you think but socio-economic reality is shaped by some more than others. You, as is the case for many others, seem to feel that your particular influence is rather minimal.
jar writes: The world, particularly the US is exactly how it is because the people voted to make it the way that it is. The US isn't the world and democracy is a hard fought concession that many (but not all) have achieved in the world. But if you think even this gives everyone equal say or influence you are a fool.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: The world is still the world we created. Only in the tautological sense of human society being created by humanity.
jar writes: If it is not as you would like then it is up to you to try to create one that does meet your needs. I know several people who are practically professional campaigners. From nuclear disarmament to ant-globalisation. I have yet to see any of them have any significant success. The world certainly isn't as they would choose it and that isn't for lack of effort on their part.
jar writes: If you feel you do not have equal opportunity to voice your opinion, then guess what? That is because you created a world where the media could be controlled by a very small number of people. Did I personally create that world? If so I should be able to just as easily uncreate it shouldn't I? So how do you suggest I go about undoing this situation?
jar writes: If you feel that money talks, then that is because you voted for people that created the laws that allowed that. But if those available to be voted for are those with the financial backing of those who talk with their money then what choice was there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: It will take at least 25-50 years minimum to effect change unfortunately, and realistically, likely longer if we are to do it with minimum pain Then practically by definition the world is not as those under the age of 25 (or maybe even 50) would choose.
jar writes: Looking at history the more likely scenario is that we reach a point of a revolutionary change. Revolutionary change generally occurs when a mass of the population are so oppressed that they feel that they have little to lose by risking their individual lives to affect drastic change.
jar writes: But the world is still what we created, it is the world we built. So you keep saying. But nobody here, including yourself, seems to think that the world is as they would have shaped it. Only if you use the term we in such a generic fashion as to be entirely pointless does your little assertion make any sense. And then it becomes so all encompassing as to be simply tautological.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Why even bother responding if you are not going to explain yourself?
Do you acknowledge that some individuals have significantly more influence over the future shape of the world than others?
jar writes: You can say whatever you want. The people still vote. They do. So what is your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: The results were pretty obvious to anyone that thought about it even fifty plus years ago. Then why didn’t you do something about it?
jar writes: We means all members of a given society. For example, when speaking of the current state in the US, we would refer to all those living in the US including citizens and non-citizens, voters and non-voters. Then a large portion of this collective we seem to have little or no influence at all.
jar writes: We, as a people, decided to consolidate media control, to place "News" reporting under a capitalistic based system where "News" became what people would pay to see or hear as opposed to what people need to hear. Did you decide this? Are you not part of the grand collective we you keep referring to?
jar writes: We, as a people, decided to place education within a capitalistic based system where education would be what business and the students wanted, not what they needed to learn. Did you decide this? Are you not part of the grand collective we you keep referring to?
jar writes: We, as a people, decided to commit our resources to wars of aggression where the return on investment was almost nil. Did you decide this? Are you not part of the grand collective we you keep referring to?
jar writes: We, as a people, decided to deregulate utilities and transport and thereby move investment in infrastructure and maintenance from the asset side to the liability side. Did you decide this? Are you not part of the grand collective we you keep referring to?
jar writes: We, as a people, decided not to point out that the decades following WWII were an aberration. Did you decide this? Are you not part of the grand collective we you keep referring to?
jar writes: The results were pretty obvious to anyone that thought about it even fifty plus years ago. Then why didn’t you do something about it or do you think these things occurred at the behest of those with more influence than people such as yourself?
jar writes: But the world is still what we created, it is the world we built. And yet we cannot find anyone, including you, who claims to have wanted any of these things. So how did they occur? Someone must have wanted them mustn't they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: I did do something about it. I spoke out, I tried to explain what the results would be, I was not believed and so I made arrangements to make sure I'd likely live through the consequences with as little pain as I could. So your entire point in this thread is to make it clear to the rest of us that you are a wise old bird who saw the woes of the world coming where those less enlightened than your good self failed to do so. Well congratulations. You must be very pleased with yourself But this hardly detracts from the fact that those with power and wealth have a significantly greater influence than the average voter. Nor does it detract from the fact that those under a certain age have simply inherited a situation over which they haven't even had a chance to assert any influence.
jar writes: The world is still the world we created Except that this is not true for many included in that pointlessly all-encompassing "we" you keep referring to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Fine.
But do you acknowledge that some individuals have significantly more influence over the future shape of the world than others?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: It was our choice that that should be true. But was it? Or did any meaningful definition of "we" inherit that situation? Just how far are you backdating "we" to?
jar writes: Because we made decisions that allowed and in fact created that situation. No "we" didn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If you are going to post some trite nonsense everytime you are confronted with a question you don't like you will achieve nothing except self satisfaction. Is that your aim here?
jar writes: The world is still the world we created But by any meaningful definition of "we" you must acknowledge that "we" inherit a given situation where not all influence and power is equal? So just how far are you backdating "we" to?
jar writes: We live in the world we create. No "we" don't.
Straggler writes: Are you seriously suggesting that "the world" is exactly as it is due to everyone having an equal say (in the form of voting) as to how they think the world should be? Are you seriously suggesting that the US is exactly as it is due to every US voter having an equal say as to how they think their country should be run? jar writes: Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. Then you are a naive fool.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024