Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I would argue that Trump didn't rise because racists were being given credence, but rather, largely because certain groups of people were tired of being marginalized by the "political elite" such that Trump seems like A Lighter Shade of Black to those with a critical lack of self-awareness.
edited 30th Jun '16 11:24:18 AM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34There is a complex interplay between politics, culture, and economics that is perpetually ongoing, especially in any system with democratic elements. (Looooooong post incoming, as we're going back through history.)
In the case of the U.S., racism against those against African descent dates back to the original colonies' need for cheap labor, something that was in short supply. Since it was too hard to get that many people to move across the ocean at the time (remember, it's CHEAP labor, they couldn't offer many financial incentives), they chose to take advantage of the slave trade. From there, the cotton gin basically ensured that slave-harvested cotton and the clothes made from it were a foundation of the early U.S. economy, so they started coming up with cultural and political justifications for ensuring slavery would continue.
This got to the point where many people were convinced that economic growth of the U.S. could only come about through expansion of slavery, but early industrialization had began to take hold in the northern states, putting this theory to bed. But because by this point (the late 1830s) the culture of slavery had become entrenched, the result was the back-and-forth struggle over the new Western states joining the nation. This culminated with the Civil War, and we all know how that went.
The already fragile economy of the "South" was shattered by the Civil War, which is part of the reason Reconstruction and the efforts for equality ground to a halt. Between the fact that blacks faced death threats from the KKK and that the majority of "whites" were just as bad off economically as their "black" counterparts, there wasn't a lot to fight for outside of civil rights like voting. And that's just not as appealing as financial equality is, as you'll see.
Meanwhile, while the Industrial Revolution kicked in, it turned into a misnomer. While inner cities became more dependent on factories, the majority of the country did not see any new jobs, remaining largely agricultural in nature. This led to three rough tiers of socioeconomic status - the business owners, who were all very rich (Carnagie. Rockfeller. And so on.), the poor industrial workers, many of whom immigrated during this time period, and the farmers, most of whom were descended from prior generations of immigrants. A very small middle class sat in all of this, but was never quite that big or influential...at this point, at least. Cheap labor was still the order of the day, and businesses continued to seek it. The efficiency movement of the early 20th century fed this attitude nicely.
Fast forward to when the Great Depression hit, but the main event here was the Dust Bowl. While industry could be rebuilt, and would, so many people abandoned their farms in the Midwest for the cities that it completely altered the demographics of the country. Those that remained in the Midwest were those that could not afford to move, the poorest of the lot; these people were also the least affected by the New Deal, and the result was a generation of conservative leaning voters that colored those states up to the modern day.
The wave of labor in the cities was perfect for the industrial boom that came about during and after WWII. With so many jobs, and so many people there to fill them, the U.S. economy was transformed into a true industrial economy, which sparked the rise of a new middle-class, and a new term for where and how they lived. This is suburbia, and the easy availability of blue-collar jobs along with the lifestyle is what people mean when they want to go back to the "good ol' days". However...there was a catch - the new middle class was mostly white.
People of African descent took note, and wanted a piece of that pie. This final straw kick started the civil rights movement, with most of them realizing that they might as well try for equal rights in all areas (or recognizing the link between the two). Others lashed out with violent rage, which promoted a minor backlash. But this paled in comparison to the televison broadcasts of what happened in Birmingham, which made it clear that racism was horrible, even if it was a byproduct of a failed economic system.
The problem comes in when the boom caused by the rapid post-WWII industrialization began to fade right at the tail end of the civil rights movement. This left middle class whites bitter, since their economic opportunity wasn't where it once was. The passage of affirmative action gave them a perfect scapegoat, something the Republicans latched onto as part of their attempt to win the "Southern" vote. And yet, the real danger lay on the horizon.
As the Cold War began to fade to irrelevance during the Eighties, a lot of businesses began to move their manufacturing overseas. Lower taxes, lower wages, and less political uncertainty made it far easier to do business that way. Of course, those jobs were no longer in the U.S., so the seeds of slow economic decline were sown. At the same time, Reagan made his famous "the government is the problem" speech, which caught on with a lot of these people, even as more and more so as more jobs left the country in the new age of globalization. The only thing that prevented this from being too big a setback was a number of bubbles, the biggest of which was housing...and well, 2007 rolled around, and pop.
Since the 80s, the Republicans have kept trotting out a number of narratives to blame for the situation, usually aimed at specific groups or countries. "Our jobs are going to China!" "Our jobs have been taken by the Hispanic immigrants!" "Our jobs have fallen to government corruption!" The real reason being is that they are funded by many big businesses, who benefit so much for the cheap labor that comes with globalization - the cheap labor that businesses and people have sought since the birth of the country - that they refuse to back anyone who won't allow such things to continue. And culturally - a lot of factors have added up to make these people support the Republicans, even though they didn't really have the answers.
Enter Donald Trump, who has a different answer, one more in line with the actual problem, even if it's functionally backwards and somewhat misleading. And the people have responded, making it very clear - the combination of factors has come to a head. And the nationalistic movements in other countries, the Brexit vote - this isn't just an American issue, but a similar pattern can be found. So...how many European countries copied the U.S. in terms of economic development after WWII? How many countries on other continents? I think the answer to those questions is rather telling.
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)The cheap labor problem is one I've been thinking about for a while because of one big thing: automation. Short of a catastrophe that sets our technological progress back, the ability to automate most production is a very real possibility and i think it might even be desirable - if you're a human stuck doing a job a machine could be doing (probably better and faster) your quality of life probably sucks.
The problem, of course, is that we've built our whole society on the premise of people being employed to make money.
It is the main reason I would consider something like minimum basic income to be something to look into.
It is the main reason I would consider something like minimum basic income to be something to look into.
This is exactly the issue: we need to shift the culture so people will accept being paid not to work as acceptable and even beneficial. It's made a bit tricky by the Trump-kin, though. Apparently we're still working on getting people to stop attacking their neighbors for having the wrong skin color, so I despair about teaching more advanced social mores. It's like teaching calculus to a Neanderthal.
edited 30th Jun '16 1:06:07 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
In this context, it supposes technological progress that would result in a massive contraction of the job market but result in a rise in quality of life...but only with the societal systems in place to avert the historical outcome of what happens when you replace people with machines.
To put it in slightly personal terms: my mom's a medical transcriptionist. She's nearing retirement age. Her job keeps coming under threat because many places are moving to text to speech or outsourcing to where the cheap labor is and she hasn't been able to get a new job in her field because no one will pay her what she's making with her years of accumulated seniority at her current job.
edited 30th Jun '16 1:31:14 PM by Elle
Sooner or later, if technology progresses, there will not be enough potential jobs, even at maximum demand saturation, to let everyone who wants to work do so. Accordingly, we will face a tremendous cultural crisis — an existential one, even — if we don't shift our values away from "If you don't work, you're a useless parasite", with all its related baggage.
Of course, "maximum demand saturation" is something of a chimera — it is hard to imagine all people, provided unlimited income, not finding ever newer and more creative ways to contribute to society and/or consume things that society produces. The problem we face is much closer to home: if we don't supplement consumer incomes in some way that is divorced from the nominal value of labor they provide, we won't have enough demand to buy what our nation is capable of producing now, never mind what it will make in a hypothetical post-scarcity future.
edited 30th Jun '16 1:42:51 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I would argue that automation creates bigger problems than something that can be solved by giving people free stuff. In particular, I'd argue that'd require some of the automations to basically be sentient beings. Putting everyone on a Universal Basic Income where they get free stuff made by robots (who don't get paid at all) would basically turn us into the Institute from Fallout 4. More over, the machines we create would likely realize they don't benefit from giving us free stuff-best case scenario they hop on the nearest space ship to Mars.
Leviticus 19:34The implications of machine intelligence are really off topic for this thread. We have the tech to automate a very high percentage of manual labor already, however - it's long since taken over the automotive industry.
The flip side of that, of course, is look at the current state of Detroit. What the robots didn't take, the outsourcing did.
edited 30th Jun '16 2:13:08 PM by Elle
You guys are putting too much faith that technology will outstrip humanity in the foreseeable future.
So far A.I.s are good at making simple and focused tasks or data mine for patterns, which is useful to build stuff and gather relevant information for research data but making decisions? Not even close, administrative A.I.s would have to deal with too many unknown variables and above all else A.I.s are no match for stupid.
Menial and repetitive labor are strongly threatened by automation but anything involving human interaction, problem solving and administrative functions are still pretty much sheltered against it since they require a lot of abstract thinking, deal with a lot changing factors and interact with people who won't be reasonable, rational or predictable.
Hold your horses over how computers and machines will take over all fields of labor, you will probably die of old age and your kids too before it happens.
Only when someone makes a computer and a programing language capable of abstract thought and dealing with unknown parameters outside the program's scope you should be worried. Until then chill and start focusing on the problems at hand.
Just let me add something: specialists AI and the machines needed to support them are expensive, sometimes it is much easier to give a week training to someone who graduated high school than it is to purchase and configure an entire decision making system tailored for your needs.
And I speak for experience, there is no such thing as one size fits all system for automation. If there was I wouldn't have spent an entire year trying to adapt and migrate a new academic information system along all the IT department of my college, even though all of the new system was taken from another college. The same thing will happen to AI and it won't be cheap.
edited 30th Jun '16 2:23:54 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent legeshttp://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/tim-kaine-virginia-veep-mcdonnell-clinton-224888
If any of you were on the Kaine VP train, now might be the time to hop right off.
edited 30th Jun '16 2:31:02 PM by TacticalFox88
New Survey coming this weekend!Becerra, actually. Congressman from California (-, no home state advantage seeing as CA is almost certainly blue anyway), the 34th congressional district (+, heavily Democratic), Hispanic (+, good contrast to Trump if nothing else), member of the House Democratic leadership (also leaning +) and if memory serves hardcore leftwing (also voted in favour of restricting surveillance powers, if memory serves, unlike most of the leadership).
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

...and whatever is happening in South America (although that appears to be due to mistakes from the Left).
Keep Rolling On