What Will Come of This 4T?

[namentstone]

The U.S. is now at least halfway through the 4T (going by Howe's start date of 2008) and it's not at all clear which side's ideas will triumph, or how those ideas could form the basis for a new 1T consensus. While COVID-19 has rapidly strengthened popular support for drastic, immediate public action and perhaps for "big government" of a kind, we are still heading into a tossup election with the potential to leave our federal government yet more gridlocked and public confidence in it less sturdy than ever.

I was a member of the old Fourth Turning forums about 12 to 14 years ago, when I was a teenager. At the time, the major debate among us was whether the 4T had yet begun. In fall 2008, it became eminently clear to me we had entered the 4T. Liberal Millennial idealist that I was, I hoped to see Obama usher in a new era of progressive government. While he had meaningful legislative successes, the 2010 midterm elections upended those hopes and brought the federal government to new heights of dysfunction. Then came the 2016 election and (with it) the legitimation of isolationism, strongman politics, and blatant up-is-down falsehood in American politics. All of this was very 4T, of course, but with Trump losing the popular vote by 3 million and the Democrats regaining the House of Representatives in 2018, any hopes that Trumpism could form the basis for a new public consensus were thankfully dashed as well.

Nevertheless, a 4T is supposed to launch new public institutions and hopefully more effective government. There seems to be a powerful streak of anti-elitism and anti-plutocracy in U.S. politics that was a bit dormant before 2008, but with Republicans continuing to back fiscal policies that favor the wealthy, I don't see a 2020s New Deal around the corner. Expanding health care access, taxing the rich, and promoting renewable energy are all causes with majority support, but which are fiercely opposed by a party that wins half the votes and half the seats in Congress (and Democrats are unlikely to go full Bernie Sanders if they win a bare Senate majority on the backs of anti-Trump suburbanites in key states). At the moment, a critical mass of the American public cannot agree on basic facts, let alone solutions to complex policy questions like health care and climate change. How does government get anything done in this environment? How does either side remain in power long enough to enact an ambitious 4T agenda around which the 1T is organized? How does a 4T resolve in an age of hyper-polarization?

I note that Millennials at the moment remain lopsidedly Democratic-leaning, and that even Republican Millennials tend toward a more internationalist and socially progressive orientation than their elders. (This is also true in the UK and a number of other democracies.) Is generational replacement the simple answer to my question?

[Warren Dew]

(04-15-2020, 08:49 AM)namentstone Wrote: Republican Millennials tend toward a more internationalist and socially progressive orientation than their elders.

You could hardly be more wrong on this.  The only way in which they are more liberal is with respect to gay marriage and the like, and that doesn't even apply to abortion.  I suppose you could count the lean toward acceptance of national socialism as "more progressive" in that they are more accepting of socialism, but most would not consider that further to the left.

[sbarrera]

(04-15-2020, 09:35 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-15-2020, 08:49 AM)namentstone Wrote: Republican Millennials tend toward a more internationalist and socially progressive orientation than their elders.

You could hardly be more wrong on this.  The only way in which they are more liberal is with respect to gay marriage and the like, and that doesn't even apply to abortion.  I suppose you could count the lean toward acceptance of national socialism as "more progressive" in that they are more accepting of socialism, but most would not consider that further to the left.

I agree that internationalism is a casualty both of this 4T and COVID-19. It's too bad because cooperation among nations is what is needed for a pandemic. Maybe we will come out of this with lessons learned and a strong international organization in the 1T for the new saeculum. Once we see who "wins" the pandemic.

[sbarrera]

(04-15-2020, 08:49 AM)namentstone Wrote: At the moment, a critical mass of the American public cannot agree on basic facts, let alone solutions to complex policy questions like health care and climate change. How does government get anything done in this environment? How does either side remain in power long enough to enact an ambitious 4T agenda around which the 1T is organized? How does a 4T resolve in an age of hyper-polarization?

My thought here is that if we really are in Cold Civil War II then the resolution comes when one side is completely defeated. Such is the nature of war, right?

[Warren Dew]

(04-15-2020, 11:22 AM)sbarrera Wrote: I agree that internationalism is a casualty both of this 4T and COVID-19. It's too bad because cooperation among nations is what is needed for a pandemic. Maybe we will come out of this with lessons learned and a strong international organization in the 1T for the new saeculum. Once we see who "wins" the pandemic.

Internationalism is a casualty of all fourth turnings.  The same thing happened between the 1920s and the 1930s.  Likewise, the Mexican American war demarcated an inward turn in US relationships.

[David Horn]

namentstone raises many good questions, but only one really counts: does the US move solidly in one direction, allowing real change?  I don't claim to know for sure, but here are my thoughts:

• After 40+ years of Reaganomics, the social cost of handing the economy to the rich and powerful is at breaking-point levels.  Adding COVID-19 to that volatile stew merely guarantees that change will occur or society will start coming apart at the seams. It's impossible to solve communal problems using libertarian tools, as the last Gilded Age demonstrated vividly, so some variant of progressivism will prevail or the 4T will fail.
  
• We have never been more bifurcated than we are now.  Here we are in the middle of a pandemic with the economy in an induced coma, and the stock market is rising. That tells me that there are people out there who see a totally different reality than I do.  It's hard to ignore a pandemic though, and the less engaged are now finally paying attention. If trends continue, this next election might bring a true sea change at the Federal level, making real policy change possible as well.
  
• The pandemic will not just go away.  I suspect we're in this for many months or even a year before normalcy begins to reemerge.  When it does, the economy will be on life support, and worse in other countries than here.  Displacement will be common.  So building something new will be possible, since reestablishing the old will be just as hard and much less beneficial to the majority.
  
• One caveat: if the plutocrats are able to seize the initiative too early, a return to Gilded Age 2.0 is very possible. That they will seize the day at some point is inevitable. Let's hope it doesn't happen too soon.
  

[namentstone]

(04-15-2020, 01:19 PM)David Horn Wrote: So building something new will be possible, since reestablishing the old will be just as hard and much less beneficial to the majority.
One caveat: if the plutocrats are able to seize the initiative too early, a return to Gilded Age 2.0 is very possible. That they will seize the day at some point is inevitable. Let's hope it doesn't happen too soon.

This is a very insightful point, I think, and backed up by the apparent desperation of big business to restart the economy sooner than public health authorities consider wise. At the moment, public opinion is strongly in favor of social distancing and both parties are willing to back direct cash transfers to prevent utter calamity. How long will that last, and if the recession is as severe as many now expect, how will the welfare state look different at the end of the decade?

[pbrower2a]

(04-15-2020, 08:49 AM)namentstone Wrote: The U.S. is now at least halfway through the 4T (going by Howe's start date of 2008) and it's not at all clear which side's ideas will triumph, or how those ideas could form the basis for a new 1T consensus. While COVID-19 has rapidly strengthened popular support for drastic, immediate public action and perhaps for "big government" of a kind, we are still heading into a tossup election with the potential to leave our federal government yet more gridlocked and public confidence in it less sturdy than ever.

The public mood has changed, but the attitudes of the rich-and-powerful haven't ... and they have been able to protect their economic and bureaucratic power effectively with few concessions. They have waxed fat with practices that treat workers badly for maximal profit. They have pressed people to work while sick, and that has made possible the spread of a viral disease that is both dangerous and extremely contagious. As usual the common man pays a high price for the callow greed of elites, and the elites reply that they were the most wonderful of benefactors. Innocent people such as flight crews, traveling salespeople, health professionals, operators of public transit, grocery workers, nursing-home staff, and of course people who already have existing conditions die. 

Profit becomes more precious than life in a 3T, and if the 4T fails to shake that it only intensifies the reality as bosses become more demanding, real pay shrinks, workplace safety deteriorates, and economic security vanishes. 

Guess what happens: if the death toll becomes comparable as a share to the losses of the American Civil War, then much of the gravy train of high rents and long fuel-consuming commutes comes to an end.  It could be worse -- our elites could have given us a war for profits that devours cannon fodder while workers become serfs as in Nazi Germany. (Mistreatment of industrial and farm workers is not what the Third Reich was most infamous for, in view of genocide and the plunder of occupied countries -- but Nazi Germany was a workers' Hell, and much of the concentration camp system existed for punished those who did not work up to the standards that their brutal bosses established. Now, as the late Paul Harvey said, you know the r-r-r-r-rest of the story).  

Quote:I was a member of the old Fourth Turning forums about 12 to 14 years ago, when I was a teenager. At the time, the major debate among us was whether the 4T had yet begun. In fall 2008, it became eminently clear to me we had  entered the 4T. Liberal Millennial idealist that I was, I hoped to see Obama usher in a new era of progressive government. While he had meaningful legislative successes, the 2010 midterm elections upended those hopes and brought the federal government to new heights of dysfunction. Then came the 2016 election and (with it) the legitimation of isolationism, strongman politics, and blatant up-is-down falsehood in American politics. All of this was very 4T, of course, but with Trump losing the popular vote by 3 million and the Democrats regaining the House of Representatives in 2018, any hopes that Trumpism could form the basis for a new public consensus were thankfully dashed as well.

Civic generations rarely get to act idealistically. Early in life, life for those not brought up with silver spoons in their mouths often live hardscrabble lives in childhood. Educational costs have never been so high, and wages as a share of income have not been so low since the 1920's. Because young adults rarely have income other than wages, such is horrible. Add to this, real rents of property are not only nominally high but also high by the standard of any time in American history. 

The difference between the 1930's and the 2010's in political reality results from the difference between the economic collapses that led to hard times. The 1929-1932 meltdown destroyed about 87% of the valuation of share prices. The super-rich lost about 7/8 of their assets if those were shares of stock, and incomes plummeted to the point that Big Business was operating in survival mode for a few years. The super-rich were unable to prevent tax increases on unearned income and to fund right-wing front groups to sponsor reactionary politicians. Hoover failed to back the banks, and with that failure he destroyed much of the political power of the Lords of Wealth.

Contrast the aftermath of the 2008 Crash (really, the meltdown began in 2007); it was over in a year and a half. The consensus that government must back the banks to prevent the destructive runs that ruined so many people ensured that a crash that looked much like the meltdown of 1929-1932 ended after a year and a half. But only about 57% of market valuation was lost, and America went on a recovery. The rich got the benefits first, which may have been good for a quick and vibrant recovery. What also recovered? The political power of the economic elites, and those were already a merger of the heritage of Gilded-era plutocrats and racist agrarians (in the 1920's those were on opposite sides of the partisan divide) in one right-wing Party that serves the elites of ownership (industrialists, financiers, executives, and big landowners) and management (a bureaucratic elite that resembles a Soviet-style nomenklatura in self-selection, aristocratic practice, rapacious exploitation of power, and contempt for the welfare of the common man). Their optimum in politics is people who believe as they do that no human suffering can ever be in excess (so long as it is not their suffering) so long as it creates, indulges, or enforces a profit. The only good thing to say about them is that they are chary of war because war might destroy their precious assets. By 2017 the United States had become as pure a plutocracy as anything short of those kingdoms in which the economy is basically oil extraction and the royal family owns the oil with a President and majorities in both Houses of Congress that believe that ethos. 

But something resembling the classic Greek tragedy ensues. People with a little luck or advantage over-reach and bring ruin to themselves for taking on powers that they do not fully understand. A virus perfectly suited to ravaging overworked, underpaid people condemned by high real costs of living to overcrowding demonstrates how much people need rest, space, and recreation... and the decency to not have to work while sick.  Epidemics, whether the Black Death, cholera, HIV/AIDS, or COVID-19, spread most effectively where and when people have bad habits, whether living in the overcrowded and fetid cities of late-medieval Europe, drawing water from water sources that also function as sewers, IV drug use or reckless sexuality, or working too hard just to survive because the economic elites grab everything.  Unlike the classic Greek tragedy an epidemic leads to the calamity of people who did not themselves overreach but are instead mostly innocent bystanders. 

Quote:Nevertheless, a 4T is supposed to launch new public institutions and hopefully more effective government. There seems to be a powerful streak of anti-elitism and anti-plutocracy in U.S. politics that was a bit dormant before 2008, but with Republicans continuing to back fiscal policies that favor the wealthy, I don't see a 2020s New Deal around the corner. Expanding health care access, taxing the rich, and promoting renewable energy are all causes with majority support, but which are fiercely opposed by a party that wins half the votes and half the seats in Congress (and Democrats are unlikely to go full Bernie Sanders if they win a bare Senate majority on the backs of anti-Trump suburbanites in key states). At the moment, a critical mass of the American public cannot agree on basic facts, let alone solutions to complex policy questions like health care and climate change. How does government get anything done in this environment? How does either side remain in power long enough to enact an ambitious 4T agenda around which the 1T is organized? How does a 4T resolve in an age of hyper-polarization?

I follow the polls, and I see support for Donald Trump and Republican enablers cratering suddenly. If sordid behavior could not stop his election ("I grab 'em by the [kitty-cat]", stating that "he loves low-information voters", mocking the disabled and even a former POW, and vilifying one of the largest religions in the world), doing the impeachable act of attempting to blackmail the President of Ukraine for political advantage, and riding a speculative boom as evidence of his economic stewardship until that boom comes to an abrupt end, then about 2000 American deaths a day at what is so far the peak from COVID-19 as the result of his inept leadership may bring about the end of his Presidency after one term. (I will have to show some polls).  

Quote:I note that Millennials at the moment remain lopsidedly Democratic-leaning, and that even Republican Millennials tend toward a more internationalist and socially progressive orientation than their elders. (This is also true in the UK and a number of other democracies.) Is generational replacement the simple answer to my question?

Short paragraph with multiple questions. 

1. The Republican Party has practically nothing to offer young adults (the Millennial generation) except high levels of personal debt, low pay, insecure employment, harsh management, and an inordinately-high cost of living. Other generations have seen better. 

2. As Millennial adults start reaching the age at which major political careers manifest themselves (Congressional Representatives, state governors, cabinet positions, and the US Senate) in significant numbers, expect Millennial adults to start supplanting older politicians. This will get younger voters out to vote.  

3. The Millennial Generation is about 20% more D than R, and consists (at least in politics) about everyone under 40. People over 55, who consist (with the demise of the very old GI Generation) the Silent, Boomers, and first-wave X) seem to be about 5% more R than D, which has been good for Republican political victories from about 2000 to 2016. But note well that about 1.5% of the electorate, almost all over 55, dies off or goes terribly senile (don't double count) every year, and vanishes from the electoral process. People under 40 supplant them. Over four years that is an overall shift from R to D of about 1.5%. With nothing but demographics to force change, the Millennial generation can shift the vote enough to make an electoral loser out of Trump.  Note well that Trump got only 45.92% of the popular vote in the 2016 Presidential election and won only because he got the 'right votes' while the Democrats ran up 65-35 margins in fifteen states. As an example of how low 45.92% is... 

John McCain got 45.60% of the popular vote in 2008 and lost by a landslide margin in the electoral college.
Mike Dukakis got 45.65% of the popular vote in 1988 and won only 111 electoral votes.
The giant headline on the Chicago Tribune DEWEY WINS notwithstanding, Tom Dewey got 45.07% of the popular vote and only 189 electoral votes.
That is actually down as a percentage from what Dewey did against FDR in 1944 at 45.89% of the popular vote, although Dewey got only 99 electoral votes against FDR.  

Trump stands to get due to a likely shift of 1.5% of the popular vote alone (and 2018 midterm races suggest such) only about the percentage of vote that Adlai Stevenson got in 1952 (44.33%) of the popular vote.

[David Horn]

(04-15-2020, 05:10 PM)namentstone Wrote:

(04-15-2020, 01:19 PM)David Horn Wrote: So building something new will be possible, since reestablishing the old will be just as hard and much less beneficial to the majority.
One caveat: if the plutocrats are able to seize the initiative too early, a return to Gilded Age 2.0 is very possible. That they will seize the day at some point is inevitable. Let's hope it doesn't happen too soon.

This is a very insightful point, I think, and backed up by the apparent desperation of big business to restart the economy sooner than public health authorities consider wise. At the moment, public opinion is strongly in favor of social distancing and both parties are willing to back direct cash transfers to prevent utter calamity. How long will that last, and if the recession is as severe as many now expect, how will the welfare state look different at the end of the decade?

Let's agree that this is not just indeterminant but fully unknowable at this point.  The largest unknown factor is the human one.  4Ts create their own momentum, and Millennials will determine that.  I'm a fossil.  I'll be ready to help, but will certainly never again set the agenda.  Xers are a wild card. They've been mostly unhelpful up to this point, preferring wagon-circling to communal sharing.  And the next, as yet unnamed generation (temporarily called Homelanders for our purposes), may be a reactive conservative counterweight that will slow or outright inhibit change.  That stew will become the new normal.

So over to you guys.  Do well. Do good.

[pbrower2a]

People are now obliged to confront not so much how much they have been spending money as how they have been spending it. Some habits will be missed, and some won't. Some people will discover new interests and talents that they never thought that they had. Some people will find that much that they have been doing is a joyless waste.

I see it as an extended Lent, so to speak. No casual dining. No bar-hopping. No night clubs. No sporting events. No golf. No late-season skiing. No bowling.

Also no trips to casinos, galleries, movie houses, concert halls, museums... What was fading will likely die. What is necessary to a fulfilling life will return, quite possibly bigger and better. People will surely want to expand their social lives. People will be changing their dietary habits.

On the other hand much that was dying will die. People will have bills in arrears to pay off, so that should slow any economic recovery. But do we need a swift recovery or do we need as a people to set new priorities in life?

[sbarrera]

(04-16-2020, 04:07 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: People are now obliged to confront not so much how much they have been spending money as how they have been spending it. Some habits will be missed, and some won't. Some people will discover new interests and talents that they never thought that they had.  Some people will find that much that they have been doing is a joyless waste.  

I see it as an extended Lent, so to speak. No casual dining. No bar-hopping. No night clubs. No sporting events. No golf. No late-season skiing. No bowling.

Also no trips to casinos, galleries, movie houses, concert halls, museums... What was fading will likely die.  What is necessary to a fulfilling life will return, quite possibly bigger and better. People will surely want to expand their social lives. People will be changing their dietary habits.

On the other hand much that was dying will die. People will have bills in arrears to pay off, so that should slow any economic recovery. But do we need a swift recovery or do we need as a people to set new priorities in life?

But what about the millions of people who make a living off all those activities??

[beechnut79]

(04-16-2020, 06:27 PM)One of the high spots in all of this is the vast decline in sbarrera Wrote:

(04-16-2020, 04:07 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: People are now obliged to confront not so much how much they have been spending money as how they have been spending it. Some habits will be missed, and some won't. Some people will discover new interests and talents that they never thought that they had.  Some people will find that much that they have been doing is a joyless waste.  

I see it as an extended Lent, so to speak. No casual dining. No bar-hopping. No night clubs. No sporting events. No golf. No late-season skiing. No bowling.

Also no trips to casinos, galleries, movie houses, concert halls, museums... What was fading will likely die.  What is necessary to a fulfilling life will return, quite possibly bigger and better. People will surely want to expand their social lives. People will be changing their dietary habits.

On the other hand much that was dying will die. People will have bills in arrears to pay off, so that should slow any economic recovery. But do we need a swift recovery or do we need as a people to set new priorities in life?

But what about the millions of people who make a living off all those activities??

One of the bright spots is the vast decline in road traffic. I am in the Chicago area, which is one of the worst for said congestion. Is it even possible to return to even a small semblance of the previous normal without choking traffic up to 16 hours a day?

[Warren Dew]

(04-16-2020, 09:42 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: One of the bright spots is the vast decline in road traffic. I am in the Chicago area, which is one of the worst for said congestion. Is it even possible to return to even a small semblance of the previous normal without choking traffic up to 16 hours a day?

I'm thinking that some of the businesses that switched to telecommuting won't be switching back.

[pbrower2a]

(04-16-2020, 06:27 PM)sbarrera Wrote:

(04-16-2020, 04:07 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: People are now obliged to confront not so much how much they have been spending money as how they have been spending it. Some habits will be missed, and some won't. Some people will discover new interests and talents that they never thought that they had.  Some people will find that much that they have been doing is a joyless waste.  

I see it as an extended Lent, so to speak. No casual dining. No bar-hopping. No night clubs. No sporting events. No golf. No late-season skiing. No bowling.

Also no trips to casinos, galleries, movie houses, concert halls, museums... What was fading will likely die.  What is necessary to a fulfilling life will return, quite possibly bigger and better. People will surely want to expand their social lives. People will be changing their dietary habits.

On the other hand much that was dying will die. People will have bills in arrears to pay off, so that should slow any economic recovery. But do we need a swift recovery or do we need as a people to set new priorities in life?

But what about the millions of people who make a living off all those activities??

I'm not trying to be excessively specific. People have lost jobs in dislocations, and they have typically gone on to something else -- a surviving former competitor, a new growth business... I am not going to say what is a joyless waste, as such says more about my values than about economic reality. For example, I have never found a casino gambling an attractive experience. Some people love it. What people most miss they will go back to with relish, and if that is pumping coins or their equivalents into slot machines in expectation of a big payout that solves all their problems, then such they will do again when they get the chance. 

This is a nasty time -- boring, lonely, depressing, scary, and regimented. It requires people to tolerate much of what they dislike so that they do not end up dead. The death toll is characteristic of a war going badly, and if one is a soldier (we are all in barracks, so to speak, and we all are at risk of pointless death) one puts up with dreary accommodations, bad food, mobility restrictions but having to uproot frequently with little warning, danger, and regimentation. I look at the veterans of World War II, and they seem to have sought once out of war a world very different from the war. Many may have become unimaginative, unreflective conformists (or were they like that before the war as well)... but the suburban ranch house with a picket fence, a television with three channels of commercial broadcasting, well-stocked supermarkets and department stores that offer much choice suggest that GI's were able to break the patterns that military life demanded. 

By now most of us know what we miss and what we don't miss. I would like to be involved with women other than my brother's demanding and oppressive girlfriend. The dog that I lost last summer is irreplaceable due to the individuality of all dogs -- they are all as individual as we are -- and guess what I am getting with my stimulus check! I live in a rural area in which nature is nothing more than weather (a farming area is just as unnatural as a big city)... and rural America is a cultural desert. Country music is the norm, and few expressions of pop culture are lower in intellectual and philosophical content. 

What used to be permitted will be permitted again after the COVID-19 Crisis is over... the question is of what will be left. I expect people to want real experiences instead of virtual experiences. People will be on the go again. On the other hand, I suspect that telecommuting will be more the norm than it once was. To be sure there are people who need the rigid structure of the boss breathing down his neck -- but there are plenty of people who can work under minimal supervision. The more protracted the crisis, the more things will fail after it. 

There will be changes. Working while sick, once a demonstration of loyalty to the only people who matter in a plutocratic society in which everyone else is expendable, has proved in itself a disaster waiting to happen. COVID-19 made that habit about as dangerous as reckless sexuality as AIDS  became an unwelcome guest in habitual fornication.  This said, human nature has changed little enough that such people as Moses, Confucius, Plato, and Gautama Buddha remain relevant, and Greek dramas remain presentable. I'll take medieval vocal counterpoint any day (it at least gives me the illusion that I believe something) to 'modern' country music.

Children will be back in school. People will be back to work. Religious people will be attending religious services again. People will be dating again.  Maybe the biggest difference is that some recent assumptions (like trickle-down economics and in-your-face materialism) will be shown as failures.

[David Horn]

(04-17-2020, 12:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-16-2020, 09:42 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: One of the bright spots is the vast decline in road traffic. I am in the Chicago area, which is one of the worst for said congestion. Is it even possible to return to even a small semblance of the previous normal without choking traffic up to 16 hours a day?

I'm thinking that some of the businesses that switched to telecommuting won't be switching back.

I couldn't agree more, though that will only apply to people with white collar jobs that require no direct human interface.  I'm not sure how that plays long-term.

[sbarrera]

(04-17-2020, 09:41 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-17-2020, 12:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-16-2020, 09:42 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: One of the bright spots is the vast decline in road traffic. I am in the Chicago area, which is one of the worst for said congestion. Is it even possible to return to even a small semblance of the previous normal without choking traffic up to 16 hours a day?

I'm thinking that some of the businesses that switched to telecommuting won't be switching back.

I couldn't agree more, though that will only apply to people with white collar jobs that require no direct human interface.  I'm not sure how that plays long-term.

I am lucky enough to be one of those people. But many others are not.

[David Horn]

(04-17-2020, 11:40 AM)sbarrera Wrote:

(04-17-2020, 09:41 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-17-2020, 12:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-16-2020, 09:42 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: One of the bright spots is the vast decline in road traffic. I am in the Chicago area, which is one of the worst for said congestion. Is it even possible to return to even a small semblance of the previous normal without choking traffic up to 16 hours a day?

I'm thinking that some of the businesses that switched to telecommuting won't be switching back.

I couldn't agree more, though that will only apply to people with white collar jobs that require no direct human interface.  I'm not sure how that plays long-term.

I am lucky enough to be one of those people. But many others are not.

I'm retired, so I qualify as well.  My 60-year old wife, on the other hand, works in the most at-risk profession there is: dental hygiene.  We've already decided.  If they force her back to work, she'll take vacation and sick leave until they're gone, then she'll retire as well.  We'll just have to take the hit.

[Warren Dew]

(04-17-2020, 11:40 AM)sbarrera Wrote:

(04-17-2020, 09:41 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-17-2020, 12:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-16-2020, 09:42 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: One of the bright spots is the vast decline in road traffic. I am in the Chicago area, which is one of the worst for said congestion. Is it even possible to return to even a small semblance of the previous normal without choking traffic up to 16 hours a day?

I'm thinking that some of the businesses that switched to telecommuting won't be switching back.

I couldn't agree more, though that will only apply to people with white collar jobs that require no direct human interface.  I'm not sure how that plays long-term.

I am lucky enough to be one of those people. But many others are not.

I think it might be enough to relieve severe traffic jams for quite a few years, until population builds up or road repair falls behind.

[pbrower2a]

(04-17-2020, 11:40 AM)sbarrera Wrote:

(04-17-2020, 09:41 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-17-2020, 12:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-16-2020, 09:42 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: One of the bright spots is the vast decline in road traffic. I am in the Chicago area, which is one of the worst for said congestion. Is it even possible to return to even a small semblance of the previous normal without choking traffic up to 16 hours a day?

I'm thinking that some of the businesses that switched to telecommuting won't be switching back.

I couldn't agree more, though that will only apply to people with white collar jobs that require no direct human interface.  I'm not sure how that plays long-term.

I am lucky enough to be one of those people. But many others are not.

Such work as editing, writing, and proofreading can be done remotely. People could live in a Prescott, Arizona and do scriptwriting for Hollywood movie studios. People could examine claims in Fort Wayne for an insurance company in Fort Worth. OK, people who do such work remotely might be expected to rent office space or even a motel room separate from living quarters to avoid distractions (I would do so for well-paid writing work). Besides, one might make a 'paycation' out of such work especially if the work is at or near a beach scenic area, or cultural attraction.

I expect the reality of higher productivity and the near-satiation of basic needs to put an end to the 40-hour workweek. I also expect the bureaucratic cruelty associated with the loudest proponents of trickle-down economics to go out of vogue. Working while sick will be seen more as a risk to fellow workers than as a sign of personal loyalty.

[Blazkovitz]

I find the following scenario most likely:
The nationalist-populists will win the 4T in America, the UK and most of the continent. They will be backed by poorer, less educated people, while the more educated will retreat into their ivory towers after the Left fails to win elections. I think politics will calm down in the late 2020s because the Left loses its motivation. There might be islands of Inclusivism, like the Scandinavian countries, and possibly Scotland or California if they manage to become independent. Anyway, this will be a failed 1T because it won't be supported by the best hearts and minds of societies. Thus the 2T will be a "civic awakening". It will focus on political freedom and global citizenship, rather than on religion, art or free love.