Maybe it says something about where I went to high school (well-to-do suburb) and undergrad (small elite liberal arts college) but I hear about these stories more than I know about them actually happening. Almost everyone I know went to a four-year college or university right after high school and almost all of them graduated with in the requisite four years. For my Master and J.D. programs, we all graduated on time except those that failed or dropped out.
This is my take as well. He probably wants Biden (and all Democratic people really) to literally throw in the towel and go home because clearly Republicans are just awesome.
Do you think your 10 percent, 10 percent, 80 percent rule is a moral imperative? Is this something that people should feel bad about for not meeting?
There seem to be too many factors involved including the random chaos of everyday life. A single person making 80K a year is going to have a much easier time saving than someone raising a family on 80k. What if someone enjoys living alone but this means that they only give 5 percent of their income to charity? Is someone morally required to put up with roommates if it means reaching that 10 percent number? What if someone volunteers a lot does this free them of an obligation towards giving 10 percent of their income to charity?
10-15 percent is probably a good amount for people to save. I started working in March and have managed to save a few grand this year (about a thousand is 401(k) though). Not ten percent but not bad either.
I would probably be able to save more if I did not pay for my own health insurance every month.
What is an economy that is not built on consumerism? What is the alternative?
This is a serious question. I am not saying that being a consumer all the time is good but critics of consumerism have yet to come up with an alternative model that I consider to be sustainable and/or pleasant.
Most critics of consumerism seem to be filled with Freshman 101 sort of rebellion. As I once joked about on facebook but got a lot of likes, one day these people "will want nice things to". In other words, most of them will end up just as middle class as the backgrounds they came from and are currently rebelling against.
The modern notion of a vast middle class is more or less based on consumerism and is a continuation of the Victorian Industrial Revolution's ability to take former luxury items and make them affordable for the masses. Now we do it with clothing, electronics and vacations and restaurants instead of chocolate, candles, and soap though.
I was listening to NPR's Planet Money once and they were interviewing a very thrifty woman who basically urged everyone to stop buying anything new (furniture, books, clothing, electronics, etc) and also to stop going to restaurants. If everyone took her advice, the economy would collapse and we would all be more miserable. Plus life would be really boring without restaurants.
That being said, I agree we should think more in terms of sustainability over growth, growth, growth that creates boom and bust cycles. But I will still take post-consumerist talk more seriously when I hear a serious proposal about how to do so in a nation of 300 plus million people. It is not sustainable to imagine every American becoming a hippie on a commune and that is what many anti-Consumerists want.
Probably not because of how America is structured but I do see a lot more people using services like zip car instead of buying their own. Derek Thompson at the Atlantic had a good piece a few weeks ago about how car ownership is down among 20 and early 30-somethings and it is no longer considered a necessary first purchase.
A more urban future:
I think this is wait and see issue. Lots of 20 and 30 somethings like to live in large cities especially when they are child free. Here are some questions that will help determine the issue:
1. Are 20 and 30 somethings of today more urbanly inclined than 20 and 30 somethings of past generations? For the sake of convenience, we can start with the Boomers who were the first mass-educated class.
2. As people in their 20s and 30s starting having kids, we will need to see if these people start moving to the suburbs in droves once their kids hit school age.
Basically I think we are either seeing a trend towards more urbanization or American culture holds that cities are places for the super-rich, bohemians, the childless, minorities, the poor, and educated 20 or 30 somethings who will make up the middle and upper-middle classes. If the last group decides to stay in cities once their children reach school age we will see a more urban United States. Only time will tell.
There are a lot of people who sincerely believe in all that stuff put out by Focus on the Family and do think that constantly voting Republican is the only way to stop America from becoming Sodom and Gammorah. The number of people who believed in Knustler's predictions and vote Democratic because of them are much fewer in number.
Knustler's predictions are absolutely nuts especially the post-consumerists economy but he reaches a much smaller audience than James Dobson.
I am not even sure what a post-consumerist economy would look like except as one big commune and that is a mortifying thought.
What is interesting about this article is that it shows the differences between how engineer/science types might view a situation and how lawyers might view a situation.
So some observations based on law and my old employment discrimination class:
1. Intelligence is not a protected class according to section of the Civil Rights Act that covers employment.
2. In American law, things or people that are not protected with heightened scrutiny receive what is called rational basis review. That means that the government just needs to come up with a rational basis for the practice. My constitutional law professor called this the "say anything that makes sense and with a straight face" test. It is a very low bar.
3. Employment attrition passes the rational basis test. It does cost a lot of money to train police officers and the government does have a valid interest in receiving a good return on investment and not having too much turnover. IIRC police officers often have a high-turn over rate. If the government feels like he will be bored by his job (and a lot of police work seems rather repetitive) than it made a case on attrition.
Now it strikes me that a lot of engineer types generally find legal logic and arguments to be super-frustrating because it seems to go against everything they learned as engineers. However, I like the gray of law. Law is more philosophy than science. It is not black and white and most cases are complicated with both sides being partially in the right and partially in the wrong to varying degrees.
Though this seems like when private companies don't hire people because they are "over-qualified". This could be completely inaccurate but companies seem to like high attrition rates and don't want to spend a lot of money on someone who will jump ship once a better opportunity comes along.
What is interesting about Fredric Wertham was that he was also a crusader against Jim Crow and segregation. He seemed to be sincerely concerned about violence and how it worked on child psychiatry and development. He was almost certainly wrong but I think his heart was in the right place.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Challenge of Avoiding Student Debt”
Is this really true?
Maybe it says something about where I went to high school (well-to-do suburb) and undergrad (small elite liberal arts college) but I hear about these stories more than I know about them actually happening. Almost everyone I know went to a four-year college or university right after high school and almost all of them graduated with in the requisite four years. For my Master and J.D. programs, we all graduated on time except those that failed or dropped out.
On “Bubbly Joe Biden vs. Attila the Republican”
I am Loquacious of the Oafs. Resistance is futile. Prepare to take umbrage.
"
Well I suppose we all need to read some concern trolling every now and then.
"
Oh well played.
"
This is my take as well. He probably wants Biden (and all Democratic people really) to literally throw in the towel and go home because clearly Republicans are just awesome.
"
Probably not:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/hack-gap-rears-its-ugly-head-yet-again
"
I think the exact number of undecided voters is 362
"
There probably isn't even a secret decorder ring that you can save box tops for.
On “The “Long Emergency” Has Been Rescheduled for Obama’s Second Term”
It is good to know I inspired something!
"
I am going to go a bit further.
Do you think your 10 percent, 10 percent, 80 percent rule is a moral imperative? Is this something that people should feel bad about for not meeting?
There seem to be too many factors involved including the random chaos of everyday life. A single person making 80K a year is going to have a much easier time saving than someone raising a family on 80k. What if someone enjoys living alone but this means that they only give 5 percent of their income to charity? Is someone morally required to put up with roommates if it means reaching that 10 percent number? What if someone volunteers a lot does this free them of an obligation towards giving 10 percent of their income to charity?
"
Rolling brown-outs as the new normal?
"
That depends on how successful the zombies are....
"
The below was meant to be a reply to you.
"
In America, first you get the post-consumerism, then you get the Zombies, then you get the power, then the women....
"
True more people are having children later and this means they stay in cities longer.
"
I agree that overconsumption is bad.
10-15 percent is probably a good amount for people to save. I started working in March and have managed to save a few grand this year (about a thousand is 401(k) though). Not ten percent but not bad either.
I would probably be able to save more if I did not pay for my own health insurance every month.
"
Seem to want rather
"
What is an economy that is not built on consumerism? What is the alternative?
This is a serious question. I am not saying that being a consumer all the time is good but critics of consumerism have yet to come up with an alternative model that I consider to be sustainable and/or pleasant.
Most critics of consumerism seem to be filled with Freshman 101 sort of rebellion. As I once joked about on facebook but got a lot of likes, one day these people "will want nice things to". In other words, most of them will end up just as middle class as the backgrounds they came from and are currently rebelling against.
The modern notion of a vast middle class is more or less based on consumerism and is a continuation of the Victorian Industrial Revolution's ability to take former luxury items and make them affordable for the masses. Now we do it with clothing, electronics and vacations and restaurants instead of chocolate, candles, and soap though.
I was listening to NPR's Planet Money once and they were interviewing a very thrifty woman who basically urged everyone to stop buying anything new (furniture, books, clothing, electronics, etc) and also to stop going to restaurants. If everyone took her advice, the economy would collapse and we would all be more miserable. Plus life would be really boring without restaurants.
That being said, I agree we should think more in terms of sustainability over growth, growth, growth that creates boom and bust cycles. But I will still take post-consumerist talk more seriously when I hear a serious proposal about how to do so in a nation of 300 plus million people. It is not sustainable to imagine every American becoming a hippie on a commune and that is what many anti-Consumerists want.
"
Some thoughts:
Post-Automobile:
Probably not because of how America is structured but I do see a lot more people using services like zip car instead of buying their own. Derek Thompson at the Atlantic had a good piece a few weeks ago about how car ownership is down among 20 and early 30-somethings and it is no longer considered a necessary first purchase.
A more urban future:
I think this is wait and see issue. Lots of 20 and 30 somethings like to live in large cities especially when they are child free. Here are some questions that will help determine the issue:
1. Are 20 and 30 somethings of today more urbanly inclined than 20 and 30 somethings of past generations? For the sake of convenience, we can start with the Boomers who were the first mass-educated class.
2. As people in their 20s and 30s starting having kids, we will need to see if these people start moving to the suburbs in droves once their kids hit school age.
Basically I think we are either seeing a trend towards more urbanization or American culture holds that cities are places for the super-rich, bohemians, the childless, minorities, the poor, and educated 20 or 30 somethings who will make up the middle and upper-middle classes. If the last group decides to stay in cities once their children reach school age we will see a more urban United States. Only time will tell.
"
Again, this is a bit of a false equivalence.
There are a lot of people who sincerely believe in all that stuff put out by Focus on the Family and do think that constantly voting Republican is the only way to stop America from becoming Sodom and Gammorah. The number of people who believed in Knustler's predictions and vote Democratic because of them are much fewer in number.
Knustler's predictions are absolutely nuts especially the post-consumerists economy but he reaches a much smaller audience than James Dobson.
I am not even sure what a post-consumerist economy would look like except as one big commune and that is a mortifying thought.
On “Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it.”
What is interesting about this article is that it shows the differences between how engineer/science types might view a situation and how lawyers might view a situation.
So some observations based on law and my old employment discrimination class:
1. Intelligence is not a protected class according to section of the Civil Rights Act that covers employment.
2. In American law, things or people that are not protected with heightened scrutiny receive what is called rational basis review. That means that the government just needs to come up with a rational basis for the practice. My constitutional law professor called this the "say anything that makes sense and with a straight face" test. It is a very low bar.
3. Employment attrition passes the rational basis test. It does cost a lot of money to train police officers and the government does have a valid interest in receiving a good return on investment and not having too much turnover. IIRC police officers often have a high-turn over rate. If the government feels like he will be bored by his job (and a lot of police work seems rather repetitive) than it made a case on attrition.
Now it strikes me that a lot of engineer types generally find legal logic and arguments to be super-frustrating because it seems to go against everything they learned as engineers. However, I like the gray of law. Law is more philosophy than science. It is not black and white and most cases are complicated with both sides being partially in the right and partially in the wrong to varying degrees.
Though this seems like when private companies don't hire people because they are "over-qualified". This could be completely inaccurate but companies seem to like high attrition rates and don't want to spend a lot of money on someone who will jump ship once a better opportunity comes along.
"
Harrison Bergeron is also a complete work of fiction. It has never happened and will never happen.
I don't understand why these stories become useful rhetorical devices or sincere gospel to people. They are extreme.
On “Is Jack Chick doing oppo research on Colleen Lachowicz?”
Also, there are plenty of right-wingers in Japan who want to revive the old martial and pre-WWII spirit. A prime example is the governor of Tokyo.
"
Japan is a peacenik country because the United States pretty much forced them to be one after WWII.
"
What is interesting about Fredric Wertham was that he was also a crusader against Jim Crow and segregation. He seemed to be sincerely concerned about violence and how it worked on child psychiatry and development. He was almost certainly wrong but I think his heart was in the right place.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.