Didn't adapt to it? Our college graduation rates have been going higher and higher: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/phct41/table2.csv
(or see http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/education/phct41.html for cleaner view)
Yet median wage has been *stagnant* for the past 30+ years (columns 3 and 6 are pertinent: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p53ar.html).
Furthermore, I would not call a machinist "unskilled labor". There were many many skilled blue collar workers in the manufacturing sector - the sector that has suffered the most under the recent revisions in the world order.
Now I'd agree with that the middle class is partly to blame, in that the middle class is the majority of this country, still, and has shown a pathetic lack of class consciousness. But much of the blame has to be shouldered by the rich - we are seeing income disparity like its 1920. Indeed, your thesis collapses when you look at the first column of the income table; *mean* income has steadily grown, because GDP has grown. Unfortunately, only the tail end of the distribution (i.e., the rich) has benefited, hence the stagnant median.
The fix is quite easy - tax the wealthy more, and use the money to build infrastucture and manufacturing. That is a proven recipe for economic success, and the one country that is following it religiously - China - is fast on its way to eating our lunch.
Health care for all is a good step in alleviating our problems, and certainly keeping those "dirty poor masses" free of third world diseases that are cheap to treat is a good idea.
But I just don't understand your antipathy to the middle class working people -- do you really think they are "lazy people" who don't have the will to go and get educated? Seriously? Do you know how hard it is for the American working class to, on top of working an underpaying job, go get additional education? I am constantly shocked at how this nation - the nation with the greatest scientific system in the world - has a national political discourse that is completely devoid of basic empirical facts. Like, you know how long it took me to get those census numbers? 30 seconds. You're a slashdot reader with advanced interweb skillz. Go use teh google.
Hahahaha... you're joking, right? I can't believe there are people out there still dumb enough to believe in free markets. There are very few goods for which unregulated markets will work - because of inelasticities in demand, supply, etc., almost every market out there is regulated, to various degrees.
Remember the times when markets were free and things were great? When kids worked as soon as they could, when there was no product liability, when monopolies eventually came to dominate many industries?
And what about advertising? That is REALLY so free market. Let's manipulate the psychology of consumers to get them to purchase things they don't even need. Because even if its artificially generated demand, hell, its still demand.
I wish medicine and health care in US was even MORE free market. Then we could forfeit our entire life savings at the moment we contracted any kind of disease.
And those poor Europeans, with their long vacations, free education, paternity/materinity leave, affordable medicine, and reasonable income distributions would envy us even more...
Why do they get to charge anyone twice?? As a consumer, I pay money to have a subscription. That guarantees, to some extent, up and down speed. Same for anyone. There is, in a nutshell, no real distinction from providers and consumers - that is the beauty of the internet. Google, etc., pay huge fees on their end to some server farm(s) who then pay it to network owners. From the perspective of the network owners, they are consumers with very large accounts. But nothing more. Presumably indirectly, since they (probably) pay indirectly through server farms. So to me this is total BS because basically they are just adding another layer of payment. It seems like a total ripoff!!
I guess I can see that being as there are several separate networks, they have to talk to eachother, and so you could, to some extent, say that google is getting a free ride. But even there, it is total lies because the consumer who requests google is paying - and should that not be enough? Do the various large networks not charge fees already to carry eachother's traffic (e.g., in case "3" where they are acting purely as a transmission line because neither the content provider or the content receiver is directly their subscriber)?
Could someone please explain to me what this new "non-neutrality fee" would pay for??? I see no way around this being a way that they are basically making up a way to charge more money for something they ALREADY get paid directly or indirectly to do.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/phct41/table2.csv
(or see http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/education/phct41.html for cleaner view)
Yet median wage has been *stagnant* for the past 30+ years (columns 3 and 6 are pertinent: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p53ar.html).
Furthermore, I would not call a machinist "unskilled labor". There were many many skilled blue collar workers in the manufacturing sector - the sector that has suffered the most under the recent revisions in the world order.
Now I'd agree with that the middle class is partly to blame, in that the middle class is the majority of this country, still, and has shown a pathetic lack of class consciousness. But much of the blame has to be shouldered by the rich - we are seeing income disparity like its 1920. Indeed, your thesis collapses when you look at the first column of the income table; *mean* income has steadily grown, because GDP has grown. Unfortunately, only the tail end of the distribution (i.e., the rich) has benefited, hence the stagnant median.
The fix is quite easy - tax the wealthy more, and use the money to build infrastucture and manufacturing. That is a proven recipe for economic success, and the one country that is following it religiously - China - is fast on its way to eating our lunch.
Health care for all is a good step in alleviating our problems, and certainly keeping those "dirty poor masses" free of third world diseases that are cheap to treat is a good idea.
But I just don't understand your antipathy to the middle class working people -- do you really think they are "lazy people" who don't have the will to go and get educated? Seriously? Do you know how hard it is for the American working class to, on top of working an underpaying job, go get additional education? I am constantly shocked at how this nation - the nation with the greatest scientific system in the world - has a national political discourse that is completely devoid of basic empirical facts. Like, you know how long it took me to get those census numbers? 30 seconds. You're a slashdot reader with advanced interweb skillz. Go use teh google.
Hahahaha ... you're joking, right? I can't believe there are people out there still dumb enough to believe in free markets. There are very few goods for which unregulated markets will work - because of inelasticities in demand, supply, etc., almost every market out there is regulated, to various degrees.
...
... okay fantasy man ...
Remember the times when markets were free and things were great? When kids worked as soon as they could, when there was no product liability, when monopolies eventually came to dominate many industries?
And what about advertising? That is REALLY so free market. Let's manipulate the psychology of consumers to get them to purchase things they don't even need. Because even if its artificially generated demand, hell, its still demand.
I wish medicine and health care in US was even MORE free market. Then we could forfeit our entire life savings at the moment we contracted any kind of disease.
And those poor Europeans, with their long vacations, free education, paternity/materinity leave, affordable medicine, and reasonable income distributions would envy us even more
yea
Why do they get to charge anyone twice?? As a consumer, I pay money to have a subscription. That guarantees, to some extent, up and down speed. Same for anyone. There is, in a nutshell, no real distinction from providers and consumers - that is the beauty of the internet. Google, etc., pay huge fees on their end to some server farm(s) who then pay it to network owners. From the perspective of the network owners, they are consumers with very large accounts. But nothing more. Presumably indirectly, since they (probably) pay indirectly through server farms. So to me this is total BS because basically they are just adding another layer of payment. It seems like a total ripoff!!
I guess I can see that being as there are several separate networks, they have to talk to eachother, and so you could, to some extent, say that google is getting a free ride. But even there, it is total lies because the consumer who requests google is paying - and should that not be enough? Do the various large networks not charge fees already to carry eachother's traffic (e.g., in case "3" where they are acting purely as a transmission line because neither the content provider or the content receiver is directly their subscriber)?
Could someone please explain to me what this new "non-neutrality fee" would pay for??? I see no way around this being a way that they are basically making up a way to charge more money for something they ALREADY get paid directly or indirectly to do.