Would you give up a significant amount of your first world comfort to elevate the rest of the world?

[Surrealistik]

Looks like we have some common ground. My wife worked for a big national union for over 30 years, as a health and pension plan manager. Aside from the health and pension plan, the union had little to offer it's members. OSHA has taken over the fight for safe working conditions, and other federal agencies have authority over labor practices. So it's not much of what unions do anymore. And they are trying to shift training programs over to community colleges to have taxpayers pay for apprenticeship training instead of the companies. (Right now, usually, a company sponsors an apprentice). That's why most unions oppose universal health care. My wife said to me many times the unions needed the health plans to retain members. Having said that, shortly after she retired the union turned over the entire health and welfare (pension) operation to a contracted non-union company and let go over 150 union (OPEIU) office workers, who made an average of about $50K per year to an operation paying non-union workers just over minimum wage. They said it was a "cost saving" move. I'm sure it was. Keep in mind this was a UNION doing this. To other union people.

Anecdotes aside, at the end of the day, a union is far more persuasive than the individual, and is far more capable of arguing for wages and concessions than any one person.

Consider the retail sector; why is it that our retail workers get paid garbage, often beneath a living wage and are treated even worse versus a place like Norway that has universal unions where they make better than sustenance levels? The answer is in the question.

In general, if you're arguing that unions have no function or value in the modern era, whether on the basis of your wife's anecdote or otherwise, I couldn't disagree more. They have power and the ability to achieve superior outcomes for their members than if those members were left to fend for themselves despite the broader trends of globalism.

I do agree that trade agreements need to be more balanced and fair to American based companies. But that ship has sailed. As illegal immigration resumes under Biden-Harris, and China resumes business as usual, you will see much more downward pressure on wages; except the highly skilled technicians that can keep the technology up and running. They will do fine.

All my grown kids have highly technical jobs that really can't be eliminated. My youngest son manages several dozen highly skilled IT people and it's database. He doesn't even look at college degrees anymore when he interviews. He looks at what the person can actually do. And the right person gets paid very well. My son says he pays so well because if he doesn't, somebody will steal them away....like he did.
The world....the entire globe...is becoming haves and have nots. Divided into two unequal camps by skill sets. Those with the right skill sets will do very, very well. Those who lack the skills, or who are just average, are a dime a dozen.
There is no government program that will change that.

Even that isn't necessarily true in light of work Visas, which were conceived and ordained to allow corporations to import cheaper, more exploitable IT and skilled talent from abroad which they can more easily bully and coerce, though I would agree that overall yes, skilled workers have more job security and superior wages, and that there is a bisecting trend in the labour market which is unfortunately aided and abetted by governments that are willing to spend and print ungodly sums to bailout the incomes of the top 1%, but decide they have no money for just about anything and anyone else, including educating and retraining their populaces to address this divide.

Keep in mind that even for the top 20% of earners, when we disinclude the top 1%, and especially the top 0.1%, have real wage growth on average that's decent, but not particularly great; that 20% is the new middle class, and everyone else (barring the uber wealthy) is becoming the underclass.

I'd add one more thing. The way marriage has changed has a lot to do with income inequality...

First off, it's completely incorrect to unequivocally equate wealth with talent and intelligence; it's just not true, despite there being a correlation. Just want to make sure you're not veering into the whole disingenuous 'just world' fallacy.

Second, this is more about the entrenchment of wealth than the eugenic creation of an 'ubermensch'; yes, wealth and power without external influences acting upon it (like say a government looking to actually solve problems) tends to consolidate. Wealth begets wealth, power begets power; it always has and always will.

 

[Waddy]

I am fully aware of how executive level jobs are compensated. Every statistic shows that these salaries are detrimental to society and wage workers.

A large, well educated middle class that understands the controls that keep government and business honest is essential in order to maintain the fairness and freedoms of a democracy. An economy where corporate power is allowed to drive down wages, hold government hostage and confiscate wealth is not OK just because your kids are so far doing well. When executive pay is measured in millions while worker's pay doesn't cover living expenses for even one person democracy is being destroyed. The trappings of democracy may linger but essentially what you have is a oligarchy usually referred to as a Banana Republic.

You dismiss the labor of the "have nots' as work anyone can do and worthy of less than subsistance pay. If you look at statistics you will find that the 'have nots' are working, at jobs that are essential: garbage collection, bed making, dish washing, ditch digging, baby sitting, day care, LPN, receptionist, waiter, stock-boy, teacher aid, lawn-mowing, night watchman, etc. The list is long. And the pay is demonstrably unfair.

A democracy is a fragile thing. To survive and thrive people must be treated fairly (not equally but fairly) at the same time it gives everyone the freedom to work up to their ability.

democracy isn't fragile; it's extremely robust. That's why Capitalism and democracy work so well together. Both are rough and tumble. Neither is a thing of beauty. But both match up well with human nature. That's why a successdful democracy has checks and balances and Capitalism has a social safety net. However, when you put everyone into that safety net neither democracy nor capitalism survives for long. Eventually you run out of other people's money.
Because of the internet and modern communication, you are no longer restricted to hiring people only in the local vicinity. And you are no longer restricted to getting hired only locally. This is giving rise to more merit based hiring than ever in world history. Real skills are now more important than ever. You can now comb the globe for just the right people. And you can market yourself and your skills globally. The work of work is changing, and the people who learn how to function in this new world will do very well.
People with skills and/or talents make much more than ordinary people. They always will. Skills matter. Why does Tom Hanks make $30 million per movie? And he could make 4 or 5 a year if he wanted to. He makes that much because his name on the marquee means a sure profit. Do you think he should make less because the lady who makes sandwiches on the movie set only makes minimum wage? If she would learn to run a camera she would make more. If she became a makeup artist she could make lots more. And if she could write successful movie scripts she could be rich.
The future is all about skills. The right skills. Wishing the world paid everyone the same is a losers wet dream.

 

[Surrealistik]

democracy isn't fragile; it's extremely robust. That's why Capitalism and democracy work so well together. Both are rough and tumble. Neither is a thing of beauty. But both match up well with human nature. That's why a successdful democracy has checks and balances and Capitalism has a social safety net. However, when you put everyone into that safety net neither democracy nor capitalism survives for long. Eventually you run out of other people's money.
Because of the internet and modern communication, you are no longer restricted to hiring people only in the local vicinity. And you are no longer restricted to getting hired only locally. This is giving rise to more merit based hiring than ever in world history. Real skills are now more important than ever. You can now comb the globe for just the right people. And you can market yourself and your skills globally. The work of work is changing, and the people who learn how to function in this new world will do very well.
People with skills and/or talents make much more than ordinary people. They always will. Skills matter. Why does Tom Hanks make $30 million per movie? And he could make 4 or 5 a year if he wanted to. He makes that much because his name on the marquee means a sure profit. Do you think he should make less because the lady who makes sandwiches on the movie set only makes minimum wage? If she would learn to run a camera she would make more. If she became a makeup artist she could make lots more. And if she could write successful movie scripts she could be rich.
The future is all about skills. The right skills. Wishing the world paid everyone the same is a losers wet dream.

Again, it's not that simple.

Eventually, even skilled labour is going to start seeing their wages and income erode, and in some ways it is already beginning to through the mechanisms of things like the H1B Visa. Moreover, imagine if you do have a government that both actually tries to retrain people so they can start occupying all these presently higher paying jobs; I'm sure you can guess what that does to their wages and benefits. Currently, most people in these skilled jobs aren't even really doing incredibly well, nevermind after their own labour markets get flooded by a government seeking to tackle structural unemployment and underemployment. In the end, it's only the ultrarich that benefit greatly from this existing paradigm, as they pocket the difference when the plebs fight among themselves for their job openings, whether it's IT, engineering or retail, especially as the democracies they've compromised with their campaign finance bribery bend over backwards to guarantee their bets when they do go wrong.

I think you might find this illuminating on the subject of the intersection between capitalism and democracy:

 

[Waddy]

Again, it's not that simple.

Eventually, even skilled labour is going to start seeing their wages and income erode, and in some ways it is already beginning to through the mechanisms of things like the H1B Visa. Moreover, imagine if you do have a government that both actually tries to retrain people so they can start occupying all these presently higher paying jobs; I'm sure you can guess what that does to their wages and benefits. Currently, most people in these skilled jobs aren't even really doing incredibly well, nevermind after their own labour markets get flooded by a government seeking to tackle structural unemployment and underemployment. In the end, it's only the ultrarich that benefit greatly from this existing paradigm, as they pocket the difference when the plebs fight among themselves for their job openings, whether it's IT, engineering or retail, especially as the democracies they've compromised with their campaign finance bribery bend over backwards to guarantee their bets when they do go wrong.

I think you might find this illuminating on the subject of the intersection between capitalism and democracy:

Markets, even labor markets, are now global. And people with the right skills are doing very well. That's why we have so many upper crust neighborhoods in this country. They buy the MacMansions. The skilled are doing better, the semi skilled and unskilled worse. Look around; you will see this is the case. And those skilled people are marrying other skilled people, and their children will be very well educated, have skills, and they will generally do very well.
You can pretend it's all a horrible mess for everyone, even the skilled workers, but you'd be wrong. Just look at what Mike Rowe said not long ago; there are over six million good paying unfilled jobs in the trades right now. Caterpillar Corp will pay for the training (diesel mechanic) and place every trainee in a job but they have a shortage of people signing up. Almost all the trades are suffering a shortage of new workers. And those are good paying jobs. The medical school near us has a record enrollment for doctors and nurses and can place every one of them.
You paint a dismal future. I'm glad you never had the chance to teach any of my kids. Kids need a positive outlook to succeed.

 

[weaver2]

Again, it's not that simple.

Thank you!!! I am beyond fed up with explanations that chirpily insist that all is well we don't need government regulation corporations are all benevolent, people just need to up grade their skills a little and all the poor deserve their plight.

For every complex problem there is someone with a simple, easy solution that is wrong. H.L. Mencken

 

[jaeger19]

I said yes because ultimately... the investments the US makes in other countries in freedom and equality.. pretty much invariably come back to the US in multiples.

Its how investment works. Many a businessman.. or women.. gave up early comforts.. significant comforts.. and instead invested it... and now.. they reap the benefits of such.

 

[Surrealistik]

Markets, even labor markets, are now global. And people with the right skills are doing very well. That's why we have so many upper crust neighborhoods in this country. They buy the MacMansions. The skilled are doing better, the semi skilled and unskilled worse. Look around; you will see this is the case. And those skilled people are marrying other skilled people, and their children will be very well educated, have skills, and they will generally do very well.
You can pretend it's all a horrible mess for everyone, even the skilled workers, but you'd be wrong. Just look at what Mike Rowe said not long ago; there are over six million good paying unfilled jobs in the trades right now. Caterpillar Corp will pay for the training (diesel mechanic) and place every trainee in a job but they have a shortage of people signing up. Almost all the trades are suffering a shortage of new workers. And those are good paying jobs. The medical school near us has a record enrollment for doctors and nurses and can place every one of them.
You paint a dismal future. I'm glad you never had the chance to teach any of my kids. Kids need a positive outlook to succeed.

Unfortunately anecdotes aren't statistical trends, and the current trajectory of compensation for skilled labour markets is not a particularly good one; they're in many cases ultimately subject to the same pressures for the same reasons you mentioned: that labour markets are now global. Indeed they are, and between Visa programs and governments working to reeducate their populaces and transition them into knowledge based economies, the downward pressures on wages in skilled labour will begin to filter through and become abundantly clear.

Again, I'm not talking about the present where yes, they are and will continue to be the new middle to upper middle class for the immediate future, I'm talking about a decade or two from now if things continue as they are.

 

[Waddy]

Unfortunately anecdotes aren't statistical trends, and the current trajectory of compensation for skilled markets is not a particularly good one; they're in many cases ultimately subject to the same pressures for the same reasons you mentioned: that labour markets are now global. Indeed they are, and between Visa programs and governments working to reeducate their populaces and transition them into knowledge based economies, the downward pressures on wages in skilled labour will begin to filter through and become abundantly clear.

Again, I'm not talking about the present where yes, they are and will continue to be the new middle to upper middle class for the immediate future, I'm talking about a decade or two from now if things continue as they are.

Predictions about the future vary greatly. But based on history, being highly skilled in the right technology will probably pay you very well. And continue to do so into the future.

 

[Waddy]

Thank you!!! I am beyond fed up with explanations that chirpily insist that all is well we don't need government regulation corporations are all benevolent, people just need to up grade their skills a little and all the poor deserve their plight.

For every complex problem there is someone with a simple, easy solution that is wrong. H.L. Mencken

Occam's Razor would apply very well here. Life isn't complicated. Get some marketable skills and you will do very well.

 

[VanceMack]

So it's impossible for us to contribute to the growth of the world to the extent that it hinders our own comfort?

Are you looking for a true communal model where all governments are tied to one economy, one system of taxation, and one system of government handouts to ensure everyone has all the 'human rights' they are 'owed'?

 

[jaeger19]

Occam's Razor would apply very well here. Life isn't complicated. Get some marketable skills and you will do very well.

If that was the case. Then why do we have laws preventing companies from paying in script like companies used to?
Why were laws preventing paying people in script necessary if all people needed was marketable skills?

 

[Surrealistik]

Predictions about the future vary greatly. But based on history, being highly skilled in the right technology will probably pay you very well. And continue to do so into the future.

I don't disagree that the truly exceptional will continue to do well in tech in the future, whether in the present or 20-30 years from now, it's the rank and file tech worker/skilled labour that I think has to worry as more and more people enter the same labour pool over time, thus pushing down wages and benefits.

 

[lurchadams]

Some people seem like they will never be satisfied with the world because things are unequal. How many of us here on this forum are benefiting unequally from the first world? I know I am.

It would depend on the plan and who's managing the aid. If it's any current elected republican or their delegate? Not a ****ing chance! Those guys have abdicated their public responsibilities.

 

[Waddy]

If that was the case. Then why do we have laws preventing companies from paying in script like companies used to?
Why were laws preventing paying people in script necessary if all people needed was marketable skills?

That was then, this is now. Don't live in the past. Global poverty today is lower than it has ever been, and they have been lifted out of poverty by Capitalism. The problem isn't that the rich have gotten richer, it's that labor has to compete now on a global scale. And what's happening is that poor laborers in foreign countries are being lifted out of poverty, while labor in advanced countries is stagnant. And they are stagnant because they are high priced. The other threat to labor is automation. At some point every business owner makes a decision to stick with human labor or find a way to automate. And the higher the cost of labor the easier that decision becomes. It's automation that is quickly making many types of human labor obsolete. Except for the technicians who can run the machines. They are very valuable human labor.

 

[Surrealistik]

That was then, this is now. Don't live in the past. Global poverty today is lower than it has ever been, and they have been lifted out of poverty by Capitalism. The problem isn't that the rich have gotten richer, it's that labor has to compete now on a global scale. And what's happening is that poor laborers in foreign countries are being lifted out of poverty, while labor in advanced countries is stagnant. And they are stagnant because they are high priced. The other threat to labor is automation. At some point every business owner makes a decision to stick with human labor or find a way to automate. And the higher the cost of labor the easier that decision becomes. It's automation that is quickly making many types of human labor obsolete. Except for the technicians who can run the machines. They are very valuable human labor.

Mark Blyth highlights that the vast, vast preponderance of the wealth from globalization has gone into the pockets of the elite at the expense of everyone who is not in the upper echelons of income distribution in the developed world; globalization in effect favours capital and the investor class per its current formation well beyond anyone else, including the Chinese and the global poor; hopefully the time stamp works:



The problem is indeed that the rich have gotten richer; far, far, far richer than anyone else as they take an ever and increasingly outsized portion of the gains and growth while their taxes are lower than ever because of political capture through campaign finance and lobbying.

And yes, that's all well and good for the technician up until the point where the market becomes flooded with technicians as people seek a way out of poverty through education, whether through their own investment or government retraining. Outside of redistributive schemes like a minimum basic income, negative tax, sovereign wealth fund dividends, etc... ultimately the only way to earn a decent living under this arrangement when taken to its ultimate conclusion is to either be the among best of the best in skilled labour, or be a capital owner.

 

[Waddy]

I don't disagree that the truly exceptional will continue to do well in tech in the future, whether in the present or 20-30 years from now, it's the rank and file tech worker/skilled labour that I think has to worry as more and more people enter the same labour pool over time, thus pushing down wages and benefits.

I don't see the problem. Demand for technically skilled people is endless. It can never be filled.
A new apartment complex goes up. You will need carpenters, plumbers, electricians and cement finishers, etc. Each apartment has an AC unit that will need service every year, and lots of appliances that will eventually need repair. The apartments will need to be repainted, and new carpets. The need for what you call "rank and file' skilled technicians is endless. How much do you think techs who can work on these new electric cars will make? (My excellent auto tech clears over $100K each year). Wind turbine techs? Solar plant techs? These jobs will always pay well, because most people refuse to do them, and they do require real skills, and demand is in-elastic (when the AC goes off, you will pay anything to get it going again). Having been involved in education my entire life I never saw any problems placing skilled workers in good paying jobs. The only problem in our society is those types of workers are becoming more of a rarity. You know; always on time, shows up every day, gets along with other workers, follows the supervisors instructions, and has the skills necessary to do the job.
The problem ain't rich people; it's snowflakes.

 

[Surrealistik]

I don't see the problem. Demand for technically skilled people is endless. It can never be filled.
A new apartment complex goes up. You will need carpenters, plumbers, electricians and cement finishers, etc. Each apartment has an AC unit that will need service every year, and lots of appliances that will eventually need repair. The apartments will need to be repainted, and new carpets. The need for what you call "rank and file' skilled technicians is endless. How much do you think techs who can work on these new electric cars will make? (My excellent auto tech clears over $100K each year). Wind turbine techs? Solar plant techs? These jobs will always pay well, because most people refuse to do them, and they do require real skills, and demand is in-elastic (when the AC goes off, you will pay anything to get it going again). Having been involved in education my entire life I never saw any problems placing skilled workers in good paying jobs. The only problem in our society is those types of workers are becoming more of a rarity. You know; always on time, shows up every day, gets along with other workers, follows the supervisors instructions, and has the skills necessary to do the job.
The problem ain't rich people; it's snowflakes.

No, it's the fact that eventually the economy and workforce restructures and people get trained and start competing for those jobs en masse; that there are educational obstacles doesn't mean that it has a perpetually insurmountable moat. Think of what happened with college degrees for example: once they were a gateway to truly superior employment (and it basically didn't matter what your degree was for), and later they became a minimal requirement for any reasonably paying job. The same will ultimately be true for these technical fields.

 

[Waddy]

No, it's the fact that eventually the economy and workforce restructures and people get trained and start competing for those jobs en masse; that there are educational obstacles doesn't mean that it has a perpetually insurmountable moat. Think of what happened with college degrees for example: once they were a gateway to truly superior employment (and it basically didn't matter what your degree was for), and later they became a minimal requirement for any reasonably paying job. The same will ultimately be true for these technical fields.

Note; at least this discussion is staying sane. Have you ever heard of grade inflation? That's when everybody gets A's on their report cards. That devalues A's. At some point A's no longer mean what they used to mean. After WWll college became much more accessible. Bachelors degrees eventually became common as dirt. The quality of bachelors degrees suffered from grade inflation and diploma mills. And since there were many more graduates than jobs actually requiring degrees, a bachelor's degree became almost worth less. So everybody started requiring bachelor degrees at entry level.
The same never happened to tech skills. Primarily because economic growth, and scientific progress, constantly expand the need for tech skills. That market never gets saturated. Another thing that happens is that tech skills are ever changing, because tech changes so fast. And unlike liberal arts bachelor degrees, you can't fake tech skills. The job will show you can do it or you can't. Why do older techs often have trouble getting work? Because they were trained two decades ago and didn't keep their skill set current. The changing nature of tech and the expanding market means everyone who can master STEM education will do well. And that is the real crux of the problem; relatively few American students are capable of mastering technology. I had students who thought they wanted to be construction managers who couldn't read a tape measure. I steered them toward the liberal arts. In general, US students are really bad at even basic math. Many can't read a technical manual.
I'll tell you one thing; until American public education gets a lot, lot better there will always be serious wealth inequality.
When we ever get a first class K-12 education system will be when I'll worry about too many people becoming techs. We're in no danger of an over abundance of smart people at this time or in the near future.

 

[Surrealistik]

Note; at least this discussion is staying sane. Have you ever heard of grade inflation? That's when everybody gets A's on their report cards. That devalues A's. At some point A's no longer mean what they used to mean. After WWll college became much more accessible. Bachelors degrees eventually became common as dirt. The quality of bachelors degrees suffered from grade inflation and diploma mills. And since there were many more graduates than jobs actually requiring degrees, a bachelor's degree became almost worth less. So everybody started requiring bachelor degrees at entry level.
The same never happened to tech skills. Primarily because economic growth, and scientific progress, constantly expand the need for tech skills. That market never gets saturated. Another thing that happens is that tech skills are ever changing, because tech changes so fast. And unlike liberal arts bachelor degrees, you can't fake tech skills. The job will show you can do it or you can't. Why do older techs often have trouble getting work? Because they were trained two decades ago and didn't keep their skill set current. The changing nature of tech and the expanding market means everyone who can master STEM education will do well. And that is the real crux of the problem; relatively few American students are capable of mastering technology. I had students who thought they wanted to be construction managers who couldn't read a tape measure. I steered them toward the liberal arts. In general, US students are really bad at even basic math. Many can't read a technical manual.
I'll tell you one thing; until American public education gets a lot, lot better there will always be serious wealth inequality.
When we ever get a first class K-12 education system will be when I'll worry about too many people becoming techs. We're in no danger of an over abundance of smart people at this time or in the near future.

Tech isn't some special field apart or exception; it's just the logical next step. Originally basic schooling was exceptional, then it became the norm, then high school, then post-secondary, and soon, it will be technical post-secondary as technology becomes ever more integral to an increasingly complex economy. It's quite an extraordinary assertion indeed to argue that the only reason so many people got college degrees is because of 'grade inflation' and 'diploma mills' and such an assertion requires extraordinary evidence which I have seen exactly none of whatsoever, nor have I seen evidence that most skilled trades and STEM positions are beyond the mental capacity of most people. In general it's not for lack of talent so much as lack of educational access: college is more expensive (and necessary) than ever, and the American government, unlike those of many other developed countries, has done an absolutely piss poor job of both preparing its citizens for college, and allowing them to access it in the first place without prohibitive debt; as stated previously, it has limitless money to the tune of trillions to conduct costly wars and bailout the rich and powerful both in 2008 and during the COVID market collapse in March, and rather conveniently little to nothing to support the rest of its citizenry. This is one of many reasons economic disparity and economic mobility are particularly bad in the States versus other developed countries. In spite of this failure though, willful or otherwise, the skilled labour market will inevitably become more competitive as people seek the requisite training and education, and thus downward wage and benefit pressures will ultimately apply to technical jobs.

 

[uptower]

So it's impossible for us to contribute to the growth of the world to the extent that it hinders our own comfort?

It's highly unlikely. A more productive world creates more opportunity for everyone. Taxes properly collected and responsibly spent (both subjective I know) can be part of that productivity. I for one would not have to give up a 'significant portion' if a trillionaire gave up a tiny fraction he wouldn't even notice. Even that may not be necessary if that trillionaire invested that fraction rather than hoarded it, in something that stimulates growth.

 

[Waddy]

Tech isn't some special field apart or exception; it's just the logical next step. Originally basic schooling was exceptional, then it became the norm, then high school, then post-secondary, and soon, it will be technical post-secondary as technology becomes ever more integral to an increasingly complex economy. It's quite an extraordinary assertion indeed to argue that the only reason so many people got college degrees is because of 'grade inflation' and 'diploma mills' and such an assertion requires extraordinary evidence which I have seen exactly none of whatsoever, nor have I seen evidence that most skilled trades and STEM positions are beyond the mental capacity of most people. In general it's not for lack of talent so much as lack of educational access: college is more expensive (and necessary) than ever, and the American government, unlike those of many other developed countries, has done an absolutely piss poor job of both preparing its citizens for college, and allowing them to access it in the first place without prohibitive debt; as stated previously, it has limitless money to the tune of trillions to conduct costly wars and bailout the rich and powerful both in 2008 and during the COVID market collapse in March, and rather conveniently little to nothing to support the rest of its citizenry. This is one of many reasons economic disparity and economic mobility are particularly bad in the States versus other developed countries. In spite of this failure though, willful or otherwise, the skilled labour market will inevitably become more competitive as people seek the requisite training and education, and thus downward wage and benefit pressures will ultimately apply to technical jobs.

STEM and technology isn't just "another step". It is different than anything that came before, because it requires a very highly educated technical workforce, which we have never attained. Get back to me when we do attain that level of education. And yes, there should theoretically be lots of Americans capable of tech skills, but that hasn't been shown to be true in practice. Americans just don't gravitate toward tech like some other countries, like India or China. They'd rather get a grade inflated diploma mill worthless liberal arts degree with no job future in it. So it has nothing to do with government. It has a lot more to do with pop culture, and the disregard with which it holds those geeky techs. If you haven't seen grade inflation and diploma mills you must be living under a rock. American society has no one to blame for it's lack of tech participation but itself. Kids in India and China face far greater obstacles than any American kid ever faced but they turn out tech skilled people en masse. You have presented no cogent defense of your "blame the government" position. It is untenable. What you need to do is look in the mirror. And in the immortal words of Pogo; " we have met the enemy and they are us."

 

[jaeger19]

That was then, this is now. Don't live in the past. Global poverty today is lower than it has ever been, and they have been lifted out of poverty by Capitalism. The problem isn't that the rich have gotten richer, it's that labor has to compete now on a global scale. And what's happening is that poor laborers in foreign countries are being lifted out of poverty, while labor in advanced countries is stagnant. And they are stagnant because they are high priced. The other threat to labor is automation. At some point every business owner makes a decision to stick with human labor or find a way to automate. And the higher the cost of labor the easier that decision becomes. It's automation that is quickly making many types of human labor obsolete. Except for the technicians who can run the machines. They are very valuable human labor.

Pooh. The past gives incite in how things happen...
We know what has happened to people that had marketable skills. They were exploited and laws had to be made to prevent it. Thats just one of many examples
By the way ..capitalism led to child labor and slavery..
So dont ascribe a mythos to capitalism that doesn't exist

 

[Surrealistik]

STEM and technology isn't just "another step". It is different than anything that came before, because it requires a very highly educated technical workforce, which we have never attained...

For starters, while I don't doubt that 'diploma mills' exist, they are the exception rather than the rule; I am asking you for evidence of your incredible assertion that the proliferation of higher education in the United States is due primarily to them, which you still have failed to provide.

Second, India and China also have far more affordable and cheaper higher education, and in the latter case it's fully paid for by the government, while higher education is paid for poorer students in India. Meanwhile, other developed western countries with free or heavily subsidized tuition don't struggle nearly as much with university enrollment whether STEM or otherwise, and consequently these countries have, unsurprisingly, better-educated populaces with superior economic equality and fluidity as a direct result, and in many cases they have very similar pop-culture elements. So yes, in conclusion, a country's STEM educated populace is in fact very much a function of government policy, above and beyond any cultural predisposition; it is in many ways a failure of our governance and policy that we aren't as competitive as we could otherwise be in terms of providing technical and post-secondary STEM education that enables our citizenry to participate in technical, better-paying jobs. You can bet your ass that if the United States turned around the next day and paid for apprenticeships/STEM degree tuition for all students who had passable grades, we would produce many more graduates with technical skills (on top of our considerable albeit internationally subpar turn out), and that people would respond to these generous incentives; we know this because successful instances exist across the western world; hell Germany, a country that offers free tuition at public colleges, outperforms India in terms of STEM graduate percentiles.

However, I will agree that Americans are largely to blame for this situation, because corporate bribery or not, we don't demand of our politicos that we modernize our post-secondary education model to answer the economic challenges of the modern world as other countries have so successfully done (and because we don't demand an end to the offshoring and Visa abuse that depresses STEM wages).

Having said that, my fundamental point is that as technical graduates become more common, and they will as labour inevitably migrates from unskilled labour to where the money is, the expansion of the labour pool for technical jobs will put downward pressure on their wages and benefits; it's not a question of if, it's a question of when, and how quickly. Here's a paper as of 2015 breaking down the negative impact of offshoring and H1B Visas on programmer salaries and computer science grads: https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-STEM-related-Graduates-and-IT_fig4_274070236 It's a fascinating piece, but the graph tells the overall essence of the story and what anyone with even a basic understanding of economics should be able to predict: that when brought into conflict with a large influx of lower cost labour as they were, the wages of these groups declined and stagnated considerably; even I was shocked at the extent of its findings. The conclusion of this paper (which completely undermines your basic assertion that we don't have enough STEM grads, etc):

Currently, U.S. colleges graduate far more scientists and engineers than find employment in those fields every year—about 200,000 more—while the IT industry fills as much as two-thirds of its entry-level and early-career positions with guestworkers. At the same time, IT wages have stagnated for over a decade. We cannot expect to build a strong STEM workforce and encourage domestic innovation by developing policies that undermine the quality of STEM jobs. Before asking government to intervene in labor markets by handing out more guestworker visas and green cards to STEM graduates, we should ask for audits of shortage claims and workforce impacts as a first step toward developing evidence-based policy on this issue, an issue critical to the nation’s future.

In sum, current immigration policies and the proposed changes that increase the supply of STEM guestworkers are likely to accelerate the already deteriorating career prospects for STEM graduates and workers. Considering the evidence, it would be wise for us to be concerned about the state of technology careers when making government policies that will fundamentally distort the market. We cannot expect to build a strong STEM workforce and encourage American innovation by developing policies that undermine the quality of STEM jobs

 

[btthegreat]

The premise of the question is wrong. It is not a zero-sum game. For example, since 1978, 850 million Chinese have been lifted out of poverty. Has your standard of living declined as a result?

If we are talking nearly half a century of economic global pressures, I honestly don't know what effect increased Chinese cheap exports may have had on our real stagnant wage figures, declining real value in our employer benefits, enhanced worker insecurity, the pressure it may have built on union membership or negotiation positions, or pension plans or efforts to stabilize health insurance rate increases, or how those pressures - when multiplied by similar Indian, Pakistani, Korean, indo-chinese, African and central south American narratives - might have impacted on countless other issues including environmental laws, consumerism movements that may have impacted my life or that of my children.

It's a global economy over forty years of time, and that represents a hell of a lot of butterfly wings flapping around. To presume it did not affect my standard of living would be silly. the only question is how we balance that against the positives of having them join our consumer markets as a counterbalance for the negative pressures.

its above my paygrade how it all measures, but I have no doubt those 850 million Chinese risen out of poverty since 1978, drove a global economic impact that hit our shore and me..

 

[SomeCents]

@Surrealistik @Waddy

Thank you both for your thoughtful replies here. It is what I was hoping to read more of when I joined DP.

And just to answer the poll: no....I'm not willing to give up my 1st World Comforts. Some of it is selfish but I keep going back to the instructions on an airline flight: in case of an emergency (and the air masks drop down), put your own on first....then help (your child, others). If you're not stable/able, you can't help others.

I realize we have so much here in the US. It's part of why so many risk so much to come here.

But again, I very much appreciate the civil conversation between you two.