Right Wing Discussion Thread IX: The Right Man's Burden

[Conserative Morality]

Bet some hipsters get off to seeing old factory buildings being reduced to rubble.

Rust Belt ghost towns are actually quite popular among the artsy hipster types.

[United Muscovite Nations]

1) Education doesn't necessarily make someone more skilled.

No, not necessarily. But it often does, and almost always makes one more employable.

2) Asking a huge sector of the population to just up and leave their entire world that most people throughout history have been involved with is a tall order.

I don't disagree. We should've been preparing for this for years now instead of waiting for everyone to realize that the well's run dry.

I think you'd be better off considering the possibility that recent economic developments are not good for a large section of the population, and that these people resent it for a good reason.

They resent it for what is personally a good reason, but collectively a fucking terrible one. Not unlike the change from primarily agricultural to industrial societies. And then from industrial to post-industrial, like the rest of the country's already done.

Even here in Appalachia people realize that coal has no future; though people do fight hard for their present jobs. People talking up the Rust Belt's future in low-level manufacturing are fooling no one but themselves.

You're basically taking the position that the Free Market is Lord, and everyone should be bound to what it decides, even if it hurts them.

I'm taking the position that you can't stop progress. Those who resist progress are always overwhelmed by those who embrace it. Good or bad, there is no real choice in the matter. You choose to keep going, or you choose to lose.

Progress for whom? Who is benefiting from this progress? If we are going to be slaves to progress, it should at least make our lives better.

[Conserative Morality]

Progress for whom? Who is benefiting from this progress? If we are going to be slaves to progress, it should at least make our lives better.

Like I said, good or bad, you can't stop it. Progress, simply, is efficiency, and those who embrace increasingly efficient means and methods will always overwhelm those who do not. This is why the gun spread so widely once it became efficient, why European countries got to play two centuries of 'colonize the natives', why tribes and chiefdoms evolved into states. Good or bad, those who refuse progress are always overwhelmed by those who do not.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Progress for whom? Who is benefiting from this progress? If we are going to be slaves to progress, it should at least make our lives better.

Like I said, good or bad, you can't stop it. Progress, simply, is efficiency, and those who embrace increasingly efficient means and methods will always overwhelm those who do not. This is why the gun spread so widely once it became efficient, why European countries got to play two centuries of 'colonize the natives', why tribes and chiefdoms evolved into states. Good or bad, those who refuse progress are always overwhelmed by those who do not.

See, I can't agree with that. We shouldn't be slaves to efficiency. Efficiency should serve us, and, if not, should be brought to heel and crushed by the forces of reaction.

[Conserative Morality]

See, I can't agree with that. We shouldn't be slaves to efficiency. Efficiency should serve us, and, if not, should be brought to heel and crushed by the forces of reaction.

We shouldn't be slaves to efficiency - but we should understand so long as we live that the efficient will always rule the inefficient. It's not a question of serving efficiency. It's a question of adapting to it. Your choice is slavery to others, or changing your own lifestyle and ruling yourself.

There's a reason reactionaries have never been successful on the grand scale of human history - maybe you can win a gun fight with a knife once, or twice, but not ten thousand times.

[United Muscovite Nations]

See, I can't agree with that. We shouldn't be slaves to efficiency. Efficiency should serve us, and, if not, should be brought to heel and crushed by the forces of reaction.

We shouldn't be slaves to efficiency - but we should understand so long as we live that the efficient will always rule the inefficient. It's not a question of serving efficiency. It's a question of adapting to it. Your choice is slavery to others, or changing your own lifestyle and ruling yourself.

There's a reason reactionaries have never been successful on the grand scale of human history - maybe you can win a gun fight with a knife once, or twice, but not ten thousand times.

What advantages, though, does a post-industrial society give us over an industrial society, though? Honestly, it seems to me that China and India are the future.

[Conserative Morality]

What advantages, though, does a post-industrial society give us over an industrial society, though?

Improved development of human resources, just like industrial societies gave improved development of material resources. We're entering an age (or arguably already in an age) where ability to produce far outstrips capacity to consume. Even now we're just burning time with rampant consumerism. Eventually we will have to face facts.

Honestly, it seems to me that China and India are the future.

Nyet tovarisch. India has a future, sure, but its future is both:

A. Rocky
AND
B. In its development of its human resources, which its been doing a pretty bang-up job on (kudos to them)

Whether they'll ever actually be united enough to be a world player remains to be seen.

China is dying. They're of no long term concern barring some really radical changes in the near future.

[United Muscovite Nations]

What advantages, though, does a post-industrial society give us over an industrial society, though?

Improved development of human resources, just like industrial societies gave improved development of material resources. We're entering an age (or arguably already in an age) where ability to produce far outstrips capacity to consume. Even now we're just burning time with rampant consumerism. Eventually we will have to face facts.

Honestly, it seems to me that China and India are the future.

Nyet tovarisch. India has a future, sure, but its future is both:

A. Rocky
AND
B. In its development of its human resources, which its been doing a pretty bang-up job on (kudos to them)

Whether they'll ever actually be united enough to be a world player remains to be seen.

China is dying. They're of no long term concern barring some really radical changes in the near future.

How the hell is China dying? They're the largest economy in the world and only growing. They seem to be able to afford the expansions to their military as well. Meanwhile, the Western world is spending money it doesn't have to subsidize people who it can't employ.

[Conserative Morality]

How the hell is China dying?

They're the largest economy in the world and only growing.

Making plastic toys for real countries isn't power.

They seem to be able to afford the expansions to their military as well.

This the same military with approximately zero force projection and knockoff military equipment passed as top-of-the-line?

Meanwhile, the Western world is spending money it doesn't have to subsidize people who it can't employ.

Who are these people we can't employ that're supposedly draining our coffers?

[United Muscovite Nations]

How the hell is China dying?

They're the largest economy in the world and only growing.

Making plastic toys for real countries isn't power.

They seem to be able to afford the expansions to their military as well.

This the same military with approximately zero force projection and knockoff military equipment passed as top-of-the-line?

Meanwhile, the Western world is spending money it doesn't have to subsidize people who it can't employ.

Who are these people we can't employ that're supposedly draining our coffers?

1) How is that population pyramid much different for Western countries? China plateauing is a good thing, because it means that they don't have to grow their economy at an absurd rate.
2) >le plastic is all china makes meme
Tell that to their military industry, their burgeoning space program, their steel industry, construction industry, automotive industry, etc.
3) Just look up the unemployment and underemployment rates in Western countries.

[Conserative Morality]

1) How is that population pyramid much different for Western countries?

We're not forecasted to go all hammer shaped.

China plateauing is a good thing, because it means that they don't have to grow their economy at an absurd rate.

First you complain about the unemployed draining the economy, then you say the unemployed are a good thing because it slows economic growth?

You need some consistency.

2) >le plastic is all china makes meme
Tell that to their military industry,

This the same military with approximately zero force projection and knockoff military equipment passed as top-of-the-line?

their burgeoning space program,

>> Over a billion people
>> still half a century behind

You go China you trailblazer

their steel industry,

The same steel industry that's been weakening as competitors step in and steel becomes less important? They haven't had growth in steel exports since what, the late 2000s?

construction industry,

This the same construction industry that's given them their housing bubble? Not what I would point to as pride and joy.

automotive industry, etc.

>> China
>> automotives

get out

3) Just look up the unemployment and underemployment rates in Western countries.

What about them? They're historically unremarkable.

[United Muscovite Nations]

1) How is that population pyramid much different for Western countries?

We're not forecasted to go all hammer shaped.

China plateauing is a good thing, because it means that they don't have to grow their economy at an absurd rate.

First you complain about the unemployed draining the economy, then you say the unemployed are a good thing because it slows economic growth?

You need some consistency.

2) >le plastic is all china makes meme
Tell that to their military industry,

This the same military with approximately zero force projection and knockoff military equipment passed as top-of-the-line?

their burgeoning space program,

>> Over a billion people
>> still half a century behind

You go China you trailblazer

their steel industry,

The same steel industry that's been weakening as competitors step in and steel becomes less important? They haven't had growth in steel exports since what, the late 2000s?

construction industry,

This the same construction industry that's given them their housing bubble? Not what I would point to as pride and joy.

automotive industry, etc.

>> China
>> automotives

get out

3) Just look up the unemployment and underemployment rates in Western countries.

What about them? They're historically unremarkable.

My point is that, unlike in China, most Westerners are not seeing the benefits, but are in-fact being harmed by post-industrialism. It's likely to bring civil strife. Moreover, China and India will catch up and eventually surpass us, as the West (including Russia) continues to stagnate.

Also, on the point of unemployment, I am not saying unemployment is good, and I don't know how you got that. I said that having a steady population, rather than enormous growth is good, because it gives you more leeway with economic growth.

[Conserative Morality]

My point is that, unlike in China, most Westerners are not seeing the benefits, but are in-fact being harmed by post-industrialism.

Source? Because last I checked, most of us benefit from post-industrialized societies. It's why the West and Northeast are doing fine while the Rust Belt, which is still transitioning and even then only from lack of choice, is struggling.

It's likely to bring civil strife. Moreover, China and India will catch up and eventually surpass us, as the West (including Russia) continues to stagnate.

Not really? India has more potential there than China, but people forget just how much of China's population is rural, inland, uneducated, and poor. Whether India ever surpasses us depends on its ability to unite different peoples with entirely different ethnicities and languages into a single cultural force. I'm not real worried, at least not in the short term. The West is dominated by the Anglosphere, and in turn dominates the world. India has no such power imbalance to rely on.

Also, on the point of unemployment, I am not saying unemployment is good, and I don't know how you got that. I said that having a steady population, rather than enormous growth is good, because it gives you more leeway with economic growth.

A hammer shape is not a steady population in a pop pyramid. That's the pillar, like what the West mostly has. A hammer-shape is a bad dependency ratio.

[United Muscovite Nations]

My point is that, unlike in China, most Westerners are not seeing the benefits, but are in-fact being harmed by post-industrialism.

Source? Because last I checked, most of us benefit from post-industrialized societies. It's why the West and Northeast are doing fine while the Rust Belt, which is still transitioning and even then only from lack of choice, is struggling.

It's likely to bring civil strife. Moreover, China and India will catch up and eventually surpass us, as the West (including Russia) continues to stagnate.

Not really? India has more potential there than China, but people forget just how much of China's population is rural, inland, uneducated, and poor. Whether India ever surpasses us depends on its ability to unite different peoples with entirely different ethnicities and languages into a single cultural force. I'm not real worried, at least not in the short term. The West is dominated by the Anglosphere, and in turn dominates the world. India has no such power imbalance to rely on.

Also, on the point of unemployment, I am not saying unemployment is good, and I don't know how you got that. I said that having a steady population, rather than enormous growth is good, because it gives you more leeway with economic growth.

A hammer shape is not a steady population in a pop pyramid. That's the pillar, like what the West mostly has. A hammer-shape is a bad dependency ratio.

If "most of us" means just the people living in areas that are easy to transition, then yeah, most people maybe are seeing benefits. Those of us who don't live in economically vibrant areas are being left behind without anything to support us. And it doesn't help when stuck-up city-dwellers tell us to just pick up, leave everything we've ever known behind, and just go live in the city, usually going into extreme debt to do so, for often minimal gain.

We're not mad because we're having trouble "adapting", we're having trouble because, even when we try to adapt, our livelihood is usually worse than it was before the transition. Wages have been stagnant now for 40 years; how long are you going to tell us our economy is growing while we continue to languish and experience lower living standards?

[Conserative Morality]

If "most of us" means just the people living in areas that are easy to transition, then yeah, most people maybe are seeing benefits.

Most of us means most people living in America. Most people living in America live in places that have ALREADY transitioned. We went through our growing pains years ago.

Those of us who don't live in economically vibrant areas are being left behind without anything to support us. And it doesn't help when stuck-up city-dwellers tell us to just pick up, leave everything we've ever known behind, and just go live in the city, usually going into extreme debt to do so, for often minimal gain.

Instead you complain about how your joblessness supports lazy, shiftless city dwellers whilst simultaneously clamoring for city dwellers to effectively subsidize you lot.

I live in an area that was, until very recently, economically dead. It's still not in great shape. But things are looking up because we didn't sit with our thumbs up our asses and say "This is the way we've always done things so neh!" We changed. We had to. No more tire factories, no more coal mines, no more rail industry.

You don't have to live in the city. But you can't live in the small town you were born in all your life and expect people to come to you and cater to you. There're plenty of job opportunities concentrated in rural areas - they just aren't the ones that've been historically dominant.

We're not mad because we're having trouble "adapting", we're having trouble because, even when we try to adapt, our livelihood is usually worse than it was before the transition. Wages have been stagnant now for 40 years; how long are you going to tell us our economy is growing while we continue to languish and experience lower living standards?

Wages have been stagnant in the US. In other developed countries? Not so much. Hint hint: it's not post-industrialism that's caused that bullshit.

[Republic of the Cristo]

I don't think the alt-right has any idea of what the West is, historically or presently. They're wannabe fascists pretending to be conservatives who would be liberals if they weren't so scared.

The alt-right are racist liberals who just want to keep the master race as the sole leechers of welfare. Cast aside the tired redpill memes and generic troll soundbites, and beneath the thin veneer lies social democracy the Red Menace.

well said.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If "most of us" means just the people living in areas that are easy to transition, then yeah, most people maybe are seeing benefits.

Most of us means most people living in America. Most people living in America live in places that have ALREADY transitioned. We went through our growing pains years ago.

Those of us who don't live in economically vibrant areas are being left behind without anything to support us. And it doesn't help when stuck-up city-dwellers tell us to just pick up, leave everything we've ever known behind, and just go live in the city, usually going into extreme debt to do so, for often minimal gain.

Instead you complain about how your joblessness supports lazy, shiftless city dwellers whilst simultaneously clamoring for city dwellers to effectively subsidize you lot.

I live in an area that was, until very recently, economically dead. It's still not in great shape. But things are looking up because we didn't sit with our thumbs up our asses and say "This is the way we've always done things so neh!" We changed. We had to. No more tire factories, no more coal mines, no more rail industry.

You don't have to live in the city. But you can't live in the small town you were born in all your life and expect people to come to you and cater to you. There're plenty of job opportunities concentrated in rural areas - they just aren't the ones that've been historically dominant.

We're not mad because we're having trouble "adapting", we're having trouble because, even when we try to adapt, our livelihood is usually worse than it was before the transition. Wages have been stagnant now for 40 years; how long are you going to tell us our economy is growing while we continue to languish and experience lower living standards?

Wages have been stagnant in the US. In other developed countries? Not so much. Hint hint: it's not post-industrialism that's caused that bullshit.

Name some job opportunities in rural areas. And I mean full-time jobs that would actually support a person. It's ridiculous having to move halfway across the country to work three minimum wage jobs, and barely make ends-meet after you already have a degree, and that's the situation a lot of people are in.

[Conserative Morality]

Name some job opportunities in rural areas. And I mean full-time jobs that would actually support a person.

Forestry/Park Service, medical personnel, specialist agriculture and distribution, any serious profession, really

There's no more demand for unskilled labor. Gotta get with the times.

It's ridiculous having to move halfway across the country to work three minimum wage jobs, and barely make ends-meet after you already have a degree, and that's the situation a lot of people are in.

That's more a design flaw of the American system of 'fuck everyone who isn't in the top tax bracket' rather than post-industrialism.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Name some job opportunities in rural areas. And I mean full-time jobs that would actually support a person.

Forestry/Park Service, medical personnel, specialist agriculture and distribution, any serious profession, really

There's no more demand for unskilled labor. Gotta get with the times.

It's ridiculous having to move halfway across the country to work three minimum wage jobs, and barely make ends-meet after you already have a degree, and that's the situation a lot of people are in.

That's more a design flaw of the American system of 'fuck everyone who isn't in the top tax bracket' rather than post-industrialism.

And not everyone is skilled. Do you have any idea how hard it is to be an agricultural specialist? Or how few people are employed in forestry and park service? There's not jobs for people.

[Conserative Morality]

And not everyone is skilled.

Which is why education and training are important. Just like how 'not everyone can read' was not an excuse during the early days of industrialization.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to be an agricultural specialist?

"Making a living is hard."

Yep, welcome to the real world.

Or how few people are employed in forestry and park service?

Do you know how understaffed forestry and park services are?

Maybe if some regions of the country didn't continuously elect people hell-bent on cutting funding for anything that looks even vaguely green... but that's silly, isn't it? Being responsible for your own future? Much better to screw yourself over and blame others, right?

There's not jobs for people.

There are. People just don't want to change.

Too bad for them.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And not everyone is skilled.

Which is why education and training are important. Just like how 'not everyone can read' was not an excuse during the early days of industrialization.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to be an agricultural specialist?

"Making a living is hard."

Yep, welcome to the real world.

Or how few people are employed in forestry and park service?

Do you know how understaffed forestry and park services are?

Maybe if some regions of the country didn't continuously elect people hell-bent on cutting funding for anything that looks even vaguely green... but that's silly, isn't it? Being responsible for your own future? Much better to screw yourself over and blame others, right?

There's not jobs for people.

There are. People just don't want to change.

Too bad for them.

Not everyone can afford the schooling, and, in many cases, they won't succeed in the schooling, and the jobs they get won't be well-paying at the end. It's high-input, low-output.

It's like saying anyone can be a doctor. Thinking that every single person is capable of being a high-skilled laborer is ridiculous.

[Republic of the Cristo]

And not everyone is skilled.

Which is why education and training are important. Just like how 'not everyone can read' was not an excuse during the early days of industrialization.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to be an agricultural specialist?

"Making a living is hard."

Yep, welcome to the real world.

Or how few people are employed in forestry and park service?

Do you know how understaffed forestry and park services are?

Maybe if some regions of the country didn't continuously elect people hell-bent on cutting funding for anything that looks even vaguely green... but that's silly, isn't it? Being responsible for your own future? Much better to screw yourself over and blame others, right?

There's not jobs for people.

There are. People just don't want to change.

Too bad for them.

To be fair, education really isn't as important as it once was. Lets look specifically at industrial jobs. Most of these jobs are being moved to third world countries were education is significantly less wide spread - this is even happening to certain service jobs as well, like communications.

Now, our current education system can help one get employed into many different professions, but that is certainly not the rule. I think we need to seriously reorganize our curriculum to fit a model more focused around vocational training and personal independence - it would help give people the tools and experience they need not only to get and maintain a profession, but even to strike out on their own.

[Sanctissima]

Which is why education and training are important. Just like how 'not everyone can read' was not an excuse during the early days of industrialization.

"Making a living is hard."

Yep, welcome to the real world.

Do you know how understaffed forestry and park services are?

Maybe if some regions of the country didn't continuously elect people hell-bent on cutting funding for anything that looks even vaguely green... but that's silly, isn't it? Being responsible for your own future? Much better to screw yourself over and blame others, right?

There are. People just don't want to change.

Too bad for them.

Not everyone can afford the schooling, and, in many cases, they won't succeed in the schooling, and the jobs they get won't be well-paying at the end. It's high-input, low-output.

It's like saying anyone can be a doctor. Thinking that every single person is capable of being a high-skilled laborer is ridiculous.

Eh, not entirely.

Depends whether or not you consider tradesmen to be high-skill labour. Realistically, pretty much anyone can pursue a trade, get their degree from a community college and have a reasonably successful career. So long as they get their shit together and work hard, this is a viable option for most people.

Then again, I agree that an economy cannot run on high-skill labour alone. You can't gut an entire sector of your economy and expect your country to do well in the long term.

[Conserative Morality]

Not everyone can afford the schooling,

Which is an argument for more affordable schooling, not reversing economic trends.

and, in many cases, they won't succeed in the schooling, and the jobs they get won't be well-paying at the end. It's high-input, low-output.

You're kidding, right?

Speaking as a humanities major with no future in my degree, if you go to college for an in-demand major, you will emerge with relatively well-paying job offers, even if you come out with just a bachelor's.

It's like saying anyone can be a doctor. Thinking that every single person is capable of being a high-skilled laborer is ridiculous.

No, it's really not. Only a rare few have no labor prospects in skilled work, and those that are are usually severely mentally handicapped. What we do day-to-day would've been considered high-skilled labor four, five hundred years ago. Between trade schools and colleges, there's room for everyone. But you can't coast by on a high school diploma anymore.

[Husseinarti]

The only stuff I've used since I've gotten out of school is the stuff I learned in business apps.