We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
...what’s likely to happen in the information age is that services once reserved for a privileged few will increasingly be available for larger numbers of people. There will be more and less expensive personal chefs, for example, but more people than ever will be able to eat high class meals. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing, especially when you consider the appalling dullness and deadening conformity of those industrial jobs and social conditions that people are apparently so nostalgic for.
... the signature achievement of Obama’s “hope and change” combines 1940s British public health theories with 1970s Soviet supermarket delivery systems. But don’t worry: Maybe one day soon, your needle-exchange clinic will be able to deliver by drone. Look out below.
It reminds me of Kudlow discussing moral, spiritual, and cultural inequality.
I’m personally tired of stories about people who follow their dream, ignore the naysayers, struggle mightily, eschew every other viable opportunity, suffer for decades, go into debt, and finally achieve some monumental breakthrough that leads people to marvel at their fortitude and perseverance. Tales of inspiration are important, but do they all have to revolve around the same narrative of never giving up on your “true calling.” I think we need more stories about people who do whatever it takes to thrive, and somehow manage to find happiness and passion in whatever they choose to do. Isn’t that more empowering than identifying one specific “passion,” and making every happiness contingent upon attaining it?
The "income inequality" debate is a scam that doesn't propose raising the earning potential of lower income workers but instead intends to lower the income of higher income more productive workers. It is classic socialism in new clothing. Probably half or more of those on welfare or working at or near minimum wage could do better if demanded it and took away the safety net/hammock. Most of the rest would struggle and some would fail and need assistance best delivered by a church or private charity. That is the best any society can hope for. Socialism doesn't work and welfare only exacerbates the problem.
The common assertion that "service industry jobs" are inherently more creative than manufacturing jobs needs to be challenged. There are a lot of different kinds of jobs in a manufacturing company, as there are in the services sector. Is a private chef really more creative than a toolmaker? Is an interior designer more creative than an industrial engineer? Is a computer programmer in a bank inherently more creative than a computer programmer in a manufacturing company? Indeed, is even the least-skilled assembly-line worker less creative than a checkout clerk at a chain store?
It was observed many decades ago that some of the most Taylorized, dehumanizing, and unsatisfying jobs in the entire economy were the accounting clerks in large insurance companies. This was before computerization...today, instead of the clerks, we have customer service agents who have equally Taylorized and unsatisfying jobs. Insurance is a service industry.
Also, manufacturing jobs have high leverage--a relatively small number of people can make cars or appliances for everyone in the United States. This is much less true of, say, personal chefs. It is not possible for everyone in the country to have his own personal chef, and the lack of leverage means it is not possible to have very large numbers of personal chefs and nannies who have high incomes.