Take a look at the Nasdaq Composite. Of the 2700 companies in it, six tech companies make up 41% of its entire market cap [0].
[0] https://www.statista.com/chart/22343/nasdaq-100-top-tech-com...
Take a look at the Nasdaq Composite. Of the 2700 companies in it, six tech companies make up 41% of its entire market cap [0].
[0] https://www.statista.com/chart/22343/nasdaq-100-top-tech-com...
Well, the author did compare the current rate of innovation to the dawn of the 20th century, when (according to him) we had plenty of new ideas. But wealth inequality in 1900-1920 was comparable to, if not higher, than today. The raise of the middle class in the US didn't happen until after the WW2.
However, business has focused on short-term gain for investors and concentrating wealth into the hands of its upper Executives.
Government, at least in the US, has worked itself into a position of partisanship such that deadlock and preventing the other side from doing anything seems to be more important.
These are both short-sighted views and approaches. Scientific discovery takes time, requires consistent investment and a longer-term vision. Quite honestly, I don't think it's a radical view to take to blame the current climate of business and Government in the US for many of the issues we see elucidated here. That being said, the solution is as complex as the problem and would require a major restructuring of both the economy and our Government, IMO.
Arguably this is better for humanity than building another museum that's going to decay 50 years from now.
I think it’s not about what anyone cares about. It’s about what’s competitive. Even those at the top of the wealth pyramid are subject to these forces.
I think (extreme) wealth inequality is partly a consequence, rather than a cause her.
Creating a global competition through literal economic globalization and the collapse of distance brought about by the internet means we have the entire world competing in a small number of linked domains, rather the than many independent competitive realms that existed before.
Intervening to alleviate inequality directly won’t change the other dynamics.
What happened to the middle class and the American dream? There it is.
The US has the 5th highest median income in the world, so I don't think mass exodus is likely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
This is a common trope but only kinda-sorta true.
It's definitely true that there is no sign of mass exodus. Net immigration number remain positive (3% ish) but they are well below historic highs, and currently declining YoY. See e.g. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/net-...
It's interesting I think that per capita Canada (e.g. another "new world" immigration target) has fairly consistently been much higher, and is currently near 2x. The approx 10x population size dwarfs this in total numbers though (https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CAN/canada/net-migrati...)
It seems that until you get a green card, the state barely tolerates your presence.
So nothing to do with the fundamentals, for me anyway.
I've actually heard good things about the AU system too - apparently Canada considers AU&NZ their biggest competition in attracting immigrants.
That seems to be pretty variable; I've met people on both sides of that border that decided against the other one for "societal issues" of various types.
It's not all about income, and it's really as simple as that. IIRC marginal tax rates in some parts of US are higher than some parts of Canada. So, as usual, it depends.
On average I don't think you are wrong, btw - but it's hardly cut and dried.
Probably obvious, but : and it's really not as simple as that.
And good luck even getting to that point. If you have a family, you'll have to live without them for upwards of 10 years while you work alone in the US waiting for your number to come up in the lottery.
It's got to be a mix of both, no?
> that my original claim isn't just "kinda sorta true" but rather, "strictly true".
I don't think we are really disagreeing. My point was that the common trope about US being the only place everyone wants to go has never really been true, but that especially by net amounts, it has been and remains a popular immigration target, albeit not as much as it has in the past.
Not as far as I can tell. The rate of immigration is the lesser of “how many people are willing to migrates the host country” and “how many migrants the host country will accept” and I would be shocked if the latter number was not many multiples of the former number.
> My point was that the common trope about US being the only place everyone wants to go has never really been true
I’ve heard some outlandish things under the rubric of American exceptionalism, but I’ve never once heard anyone—not even my most nationalistic acquaintances nor Fox News/etc—say that the US was the only place anyone wants to go. Who are the people who believe/espouse this?
It depends a bit if you have absolute quotas, or thresholds/scoring.
> some outlandish things under the rubric of American exceptionalism,
I was unclear, apologies. The idea isn't that nobody goes anywhere else, obviously. The idea, which I have heard many times in the US, is that once someone has decided to immigrate, all else being equal they would obviously choose the US. Clearly most times all else isn't equal; but it also doesn't seem to be true...
Fair enough, but even still I’ve never heard that even among “Fuck yeah, ‘merica” types.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/top...
America still has more to offer than a lot of the world, but it's not some shining peak in a valley of despair - it's more "middle of the table, some good, some bad". If you're here already, it's easy to look out, see, and decide to move where it's better, if you can.
Me ? I'm a Brit, been living here for the last almost two decades. I came here for the money and the weather, nothing more. Recently, the weather is a bit crap; the money's still good, but once I get to where I can FIRE, I'm out of this country. There's plenty of places better.
Arguably the American Dream is very much intact, it's just that it's mostly brown & yellow people achieving it. I have a lot of friends who left their home country because there were no opportunities for them there, and now have the suburban house with a yard, 2 kids, white picket fence, neighborhood Trick'or'Treaters, good savings, and vacations whenever they need a break. They work very hard for what they have, which has always been part of the American Dream, but they get a good life in exchange for it.
1. People leave worse places (by some metric, usually poverty or opportunity) to come to US since its big and rich and full of potential. That is why immigrants come here. Its the richest big nation with lots of jobs. You can try to move to china or brazil or india which have massive populations, but the jobs pay better here. You can move to Switzerland or some EU nations that have higher avg salary, but the COL is high and immigration is even harder with less lucrative job openings available.
2. People leaving aren't the immigrants who arrived (not including returning to old country). People who "have the american dream of leaving" are the middle class white kids who don't see their own growth into top 10% of society (because they perceive their social mobility decreasing or gone), and see the exploding debt and health costs across america (often they haven't experienced directly), so they want to move to a socialized nation and "free healthcare". This is almost always a white euro nation, not eg. china or inida. Do they move? Not always.
TLDR. People still want to move to america, but some americans are basically chasing some ideal/privilege they think they can get better elsewhere.
Economic opportunities in america are great if you're willing to work your ass off and smartly. Smartly is the keyword to avoiding exploitation. That said, the wages here are way higher than in other countries. Here in Colombia, the minimum wage comes out to around $250/month. People here don't have much choice given the language barrier and lack of skills for the international market. Their skillset and ability to endure absolute crap gives them an edge when they immigrate to the US and get paid relatively descent wages for their work.
Now I'm on the other end. I have skills as a software engineer, fluency in english and connections. Those are all things I can take with me to maintain the smae wage I'd be making in america in a country where the average wage is a fraction of what I make. Thus I get to live like a king.
TLDR: both sides are moving to maximize their living potential and they increase for different reasons.
You are gonna have to cite some sources for this because my understanding is that total federal taxes is the majority of total taxes, if only by a slim margin.
The government is very involved in restricting the supply side of healthcare.
The money that pushes this regulatory capture comes largely from health insurance companies, which might be the most vile industry I'm obligated to interact with on a regular basis. This is an industry that for a long period of time would refuse to cover health conditions simply because you were born with them.
Go all public and expand Medicare and move to a single-payer system like Canada and the UK. Or go all private by killing Medicare altogether, fixing Medicaid as a public backstop, and heavily regulating pricing and doctors' salaries and insurance premiums like Germany and Switzerland. But anything is more humane than the weird mix the US has come up with.
Citation needed.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/06/the-america...
Putting it that way is very misleading, though. The "total compensation" has increased only because health care costs have increased massively, and health insurance has increased to cover it. (Or vice versa; causality's tricky in a system like this, and there are definitely feedback loops.)
One could also argue that those drugs should be cheaper, but without the profit motive they likely wouldn't have been developed in the first place. And socialized funding of drug development hasn't worked out well either.
Ghouls have managed to privatize the profits, but every drug, technique and device ever developed is standing on the shoulders of giant public funding.
0.1% of the population is getting richer and 95% of the population is getting poorer.
The middle class is quickly disappearing, the low-income class is growing fast.
Do you have any data to support this? Fed data shows household wealth doubling for the bottom 50%, just since 2008. Households in the 50-90th percentiles also nearly doubled.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...
I went years post Obama care passing where I would be working 75 hours a week but with no healthcare because each job would cut me off at 38.5 hours on the dot. Managers would walk out and escort you to the time clock if you were coming up on full time hours
The problem is that now many workers are paying more and actually getting less. They're essentially subsidizing healthcare for the indigent and patients with expensive chronic conditions. Personally I think those subsidies ought to be funded by progressive income taxes, but that's a matter of debate.
TL;DR: many of these economic problems are tied to disconnecting the currency from gold, which screws up interest rates and incentives throughout the economy.
By tied, you really mean correlated. There is at minimum no consensus on the idea that this was causal.
https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/deciphering-the-fall... https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2015a_r...
[0] https://www.yahoo.com/now/top-heavy-stock-indexes-nothing-09...
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/2526/sp-500-historical-annual-re...
All those guard rails were eliminated. So current monopolies do stock buybacks.
All that excess idle wealth, too much capital chasing too few investments, has to go somewhere. Causing asset bubbles. Stocks, real estate, cryptocurrencies, artwork.
If we want more investment, we have to address idle wealth. Disincentivize hoarding wealth. Keep the money moving. Reduce the impedance mismatch between funds (too big) and investment opportunities (too small); like apply the YC strategy far and wide.
Ideas don’t build sky scrapers energy does. If you don’t believe me you can look up the per capita energy consumption per American and observe that it is basically stagnant since 1970. Which is also curiously the date since when the American dream started to fade.
We got around this by outsourcing some activities to economies with a low energy intensity, loading up on debt and improving the energy efficiency of our devices. But these cannot result in the kind of step change improvements that we got used to over the last century.
Why have we seen such amazing progress in computing and the internet ? Moores law allows us to extract twice as much compute for the same energy every 18 months. The energy burned by a transistor scales with its area. This is nothing short of miraculous. It’s as if your car doubled its mileage every 2 years. This has allowed computing to cheat the stagnation in energy we have been seeing elsewhere. When compute gets cheaper transporting information gets cheaper as well as it is computers that transport the information. Hence the biggest growth industry continues to be technology and the internet. Batteries or solar panels do not double every 18 months. Batteries have barely moved in comparison. The newer iPhones feel heavier after they made the battery bigger.
There was a fear for a time that “Peak Oil” would lead to some kind of a total collapse. The reality is more of a slow burn stagnation as we wring the oil out of ever deeper deposits.
The much heralded green transition got a dose of reality this year in Europe as they realized how reliant they are on natural gas to not freeze to death.
Building tens of thousands of Nuclear plants is far from trivial although it is in theory possible.
We will in general struggle to maintain the standards of living we currently have especially as we expand it to the broader population. This is a harsh truth many don’t want to confront. Perhaps the elites realize this and have decided to squeeze every last drop out of the orange so they can experience the growth that was once the norm for all first worlders. The elites being the top 2-5 %.
The entire third world that was looted and colonized is also now stepping up to claim its fair share of global resources. The more they develop the higher energy prices will go. And yet it is inevitable.
Hence I struggle to see how first world living standards will not stagnate even in the presence of interesting new technologies and breakthroughs. The meta verse might be the answer as a simulation of prosperity may be cheaper than actual prosperity. It might also explain why everything is moving into the virtual world. Energy constraints apply a lot less here.
And don’t get me started on Climate Change.
Nuclear - fission and then fusion are the only way out.
Otherwise you are right the really big problem right now is that we don't have a suitable replacement for oil that wont also change society in ways nobody is willing to deal with yet.
Fission is not going to be small and safe enough to really replace oil, fusion does not yet exists in the real world, so were probably stuck with renewable untransportable energy infrastructure for any future growth.
Electric mountain is pumped hydro electric storage. It can store 9 gigwatt hours of electricity.
The UKs total energy consumption is 1650 Terawatt hours. Let’s say you need to store 4 days worth of energy to account for any shocks. That’s 22 terawatt hours of energy.
You’d need to build 2500 electric mountains to store just 4 days of UK energy consumption. And 4 days is a dangerously low buffer for when things go wrong.
None of those things are "rare earth minerals" by almost any definition and are relatively plentiful. Definitely none of them are in the zone on the Periodic table specifically named the "rare earth metals" either (though those are often important in magnetic machines like MRI scanners, so maybe you are confused about what part of the electromagnetic field batteries are typically working with?).
https://youtu.be/DU6gWZav2T8 (46 minutes into this video. Whole video is an eye opener)
I think the more likely explanation for that is optimization. Look at cars as an example. In the first half of the century, we built cars without much of a focus on fuel economy. As we scaled up the amount of cars we produced and in turn, the oil resources we consumed, we began to optimize the efficiency of these cars. Compare a car from 1970 and 2020, and you see a much more reliable, efficient, safe, comfortable car. So the per capita consumption has been reduced by using less gas and also having to replace the cars less often while providing a better quality of life.
There are similar stories across every industry.
So I don't see how looking at our per-capita energy-use as a major contributor in this discussion. That's not to say energy prices have had no effect, but I could make the opposite argument that energy prices have forced us to innovate past burning things we find in the ground.
As far as renewables go, I'm not an expert in this space, but it seems like we have the technology and resources to implement a reliable green energy grid. We just don't have the political will to do so.
If we had the political cohesion to muster up an equivalent to the Interstate Highway System project, but for energy generation/transmission, it would propel us into a new era.
As the transition to electric cars accelerates, our energy use will see a significant decline. Transportation makes up 35% of our total energy use in the US. Going from an average of 25 MPG to a conservative 50 MPG will have major impacts on our energy sector.
I’m also talking about the cost of the car itself. Sure there are improvements but they are not improving at the rates they used to.
An electric car is still too expensive for a lot of people around the world.
Had the west actually supported building things instead of supporting NIMBY-isms, we would be even faster on our way to TWhr installations.
That is not saying much. NASDAQ Composite includes everyone and their grandma.
The rest is just Pareto's principle in action.
For many people, there is no comfort. For many people there is no hope for a future.
99% of Americans may be running on fumes, but the 1% are running on plutonium.
What is the object of that hope? I.e., what are people hoping for in the future?
(Yes, this is a bit of a vague question that requires a lot of speculation. If you're willing, humor me?)
I want my kids to increasingly face more insecurity and unsafety. This way they become more and more resilient and able to deal with the future without me.
I want you to reach out to someone who has experienced violence in their community and ask them how it made them a stronger more capable person. There are plenty. They probably will not be the "real man" you are envisioning.
The worst people to meet on the battlefield in the past? It wasn't the "resilient" professional soldiers who lived through tough times. It was the kings and princes training in comfort, decked out in their armor worth a fortune surrounded by their expensive personal guard. Everyone else suffered.
"hard times make hard men" is not a coherent worldview. It is propaganda to cast "other" people as effete in order to convince you some other group of people are "real men". You know. The ones who do all the exact same shit as the "girly men" but are also willing to sell you overpriced supplements and coffee.
"I want my kids to increasingly face more insecurity and unsafety." What a joke. I hope your children are never unsafe and you never have to learn what a foolish thing this is to say.
It's like this: I'm originally from Ontario. Every year, a few drunk teenagers drown while boating. It's a big tragedy, and I'd hate it if it happened to my kids.
Now, Ontario's politicians respond predictably to this, every year: A call for more safety. This comes in the form of stricter regulations and more enforcement. Now what it means is that whenever my family and I take the boat out for a spin, more than half the time we're stopped by police boats who have to check yes, we have our safety gear, no we haven't been drinking, no that's not pot you smell.
And yet, a few teenagers die drinking while boating that same year.
We'll never live in a zero-risk world, and what I desire is an acceptance of that.
My kids ride dirtbikes and hang out with livestock and shoot guns. They do all manner of dangerous things. More kids and more people should all do this and stop living in some dreamworld where the government makes them safe.
Top level: reliable access to a home, food and clean water, education, medical care, employment. Doesn't cover everyone's want list, but to many of us, a future without those feels a lot different from one with them.
E.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hope_(virtue)#Overview covers a religious view, but I would also be interested if there were writings by secular folks in the current context of complete nihilism (which seems to have the ‘don’t ask that question’ approach to life).
Wealth is agency
Those who have it have diverse opportunities for agency at their disposal
Those that don’t have paycheck to paycheck and inflation concerns
When are the science minded going to look beyond cultural ephemera and realize the emotional depths at which relativity impacts life
Ignorant people can’t know to fight for healthcare if they’re never allowed to experience good healthcare
It’s such a joke this culture would call itself science minded while clearly building a traditional wealth caste