Kinser79 Wrote:Mike did you even bother reading the article? He is trying to compare newly forming parties that are composed of primarily Xers and Millies with those composed of mostly Silents and Boomers. Nomad and Civic generations have different expressions than Artist and Prophet generations. That is of course if you even buy into the theory that archetypes matter.Lind didn't say anything about S&H generations. I have read a bit of Lind's stuff over the years. He is a keen political analyst. The idea that American has seen three different republics that roughly correspond to the saecula is his. Considering he has written on the country's economic development and has been concerned about economics and how working people have not had an economy that works for them his piece was remarkably short on economics. He basically says that the realignment around the culture wars is what matters and economics is irrelevant.
Quote:As for Trump's policy, we have to consider that the alternatives are "Cheap imported shit" from Establishment RepublicansI already said the Republicans offer nothing, Trump is the best of a bad bunch.
Quote:Democrats are offering the opposite of help--literally massive increases of welfare if you're SandersIf you dislike what Sanders has to offer so much, why did you bother to vote for him?
Quote:The former the country cannot afford without debasing the currency and losing reserve status (at which point the empire is over)This is of a great concern for the capitalists, the financial elite, and the 1% in general, or to use Sander's shorthand "the billionaire class". So now you are on their side?
Quote:Indeed, so-called free trade hasn't worked.No argument here
Quote:Importation of cheap labor has resulted in stagnant wage growth (see law of supply and demand). As such the obvious choice for any improvement is to limit labor importation (restrict supply), and institute protectionist measures (increase demand for labor). As a result wages will rise far higher and far faster than a statutory increase in the minimum wage which would just drive what jobs that remain to be automated.If higher wages from a higher minimum wage will just drive what jobs that remain to be automated, then higher wages from labor supply restrictions will do the same thing. Ditto for trade restrictions.
In actuality a higher minimum wage will increase wages at the bottom. And trade/immigration restriction will also have impacts in the direction you argument, but of a much smaller magnitude that what you are imagining (this is the thin gruel). The reason is you are assuming a fixed demand for labor, and only looking at the effect of supply changes. For an industrial economy the demand for workers is set by the demand for goods and services. The demand for goods and services is related to aggregate worker income (who buy stuff as part of their lives) Workers are not just producers, they are consumers too. So when immigrants increase the supply of labor they also increase economic demand and hence the demand for labor. The two effects operate in opposite directions and serve to dilute the adverse impact of immigration restriction. For example for my current paper I looked at what was done last time for inequality trend reversal. One of those things was immigration restriction in 1924. I would expect this to have some positive effect on wage growth, but I could not find it. Real wages rose at a 1.2% rate over 1924-1929 compared to 1.3% over 1896-1924. So any effect was small.
Trade restriction should have a more directly beneficial effect, which I why I have been calling for a tariff for years. The impact is also a lot smaller that you think and will probably have zero impact on 90% of workers other than slightly lower living standards from higher prices. It will help the minority of workers in industries affected by outsourcing. There is good data on that.
I am not sure a tariff is really such a good policy, but I think talking about a tariff is a very good idea, because it scares the pants off the economic elite. And THAT is an unalloyed good thing. And Trump sure has been talking about it.
Quote:In the US during the gilded age workers were some of the most highly paid in the worldAmerica had higher wages than elsewhere in the world in colonial times, and ever since. They still are higher here than in Europe.
Quote:the US was running a more or less constant labor shortage through the 19th centuryAre you really unaware of the massive amount of immigration in late 19th century and the working class native-born Americans had opposed mass immigration since the 1850's for the same reasons as today? Westward expansion had been a relief value in the early part of the 19th century before immigration became much of an issue. In the later parts of the 19th century, the incoming immigrants stayed in the Eastern cities:
Quote:But the law did not provide the new beginning for urban slum dwellers that some had hoped; few such families had the resources to start farming, even on free land.
Kinser Wrote:However, in order to have unions, and have them be effective a state must also protect the production of the country from foreign competition in the form of dumping and similar practices.How does foreign competition affect Walmart, our largest employer? Or restaurant, hospitality or healthcare workers? The vast majority of US workers do not work in fields susceptible to foreign competition. You work in one of these fields. Are you so happy with your compensation that a union is unnecessary?
Quote:I would argue that Unions destroyed themselves by being largely successful.So you have no complaints about you pay or working conditions?
Quote:Trump's ideology can be best phrased as Nationalist with Classical LiberalismYou could just use libertarian, which is the modern word for classical liberal.
So you feel the Kochs represent the right direction for America?
