Only in America can an ambitious young man, born under apartheid to (in his own words) a "terrible human being" of a father, go from illegal immigrant to world's most despicable political powerbroker!
Using the words "born under apartheid" to describe someone from rich white familly that benefitted from apartheid and who became white nationalist ... is something.
America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, 'It ain’t no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be.' It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: 'if you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?' There will also be an American flag no larger than a child’s hand – glued to a lollipop stick and flying from the cash register.
Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say Napoleonic times. Many novelties have come from America. The most startling of these, a thing without precedent, is a mass of undignified poor. They do not love one another because they do not love themselves.
To put it in context, the poor elsewhere were poor by class. No attempt to become rich was permissible by law so it was key that this supermajority of the population did not believe they were downtrodden, and unfairly opposed.
Claiming the poor have more virtue, but only in their class status, is one way to do it.
Consider how many caste systems claim the farmer is the highest status, the wisest, the most virtuously hard working … but well still needs a good noble king to lead them.
Things have changed a lot since Kurt Vonnegut wrote Slaughterhouse Five in 1969. Now even people in the poorest US state have higher incomes than the UK. America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, and its people are mainly rich (relative to global standards).
We should do more to help the underclass and remaining desperately poor citizens to lift themselves up. But it's amazing what we've accomplished since 1969. Let's celebrate that.
> Now even people in the poorest US state have higher incomes than the UK.
Higher income does not mean higher quality of life.
I'm an American who has spent the majority of my adult life living abroad, and much of that time has been in developing countries.
I have no illusions about poverty and am not going to pretend that the US isn't a "rich" country. But I've also noticed a very stark trend in the past decade: fewer and fewer people express interest in emigrating to the developed world.
I currently live in one of the fastest-growing countries in the world. Its per capita GDP PPP is about a fifth of the America's and...the number of people I meet who say they'd want to live in the US is tiny.
People around the world are increasingly hip to the reality: the US is still the land of opportunity. But opportunity is more and more difficult to come by. The country is expensive, has massive social problems and lacks attributes (such as safety nets provided by family) that make life in poorer countries feel better to many people.
Even your idea that the "underclass and remaining desperately poor citizens" need to "lift themselves up" is a distinctly American idea. There are tons of working poor in the US. They are trying to "lift themselves up" but can't afford a $1,500/month apartment, $30,000 starter car, $5+/gallon gas, $5,000 health insurance deductibles, etc.
Hear, hear. It would be good for more people to travel abroad and experience firsthand how much better we have it in the US than most other places. The concern is that we actually have it better than most yet too many actually want to replace our current system with something else that has a horrible track record.
If many of our welfare programs actually helped their intended recipients we would be able to help those in need get to being self sufficient instead of the fraudsters stealing all that money.
I can't speak to the two products you gave as examples, but Made in America (or the West) is not always as clear-cut as people think it is.
Origin is complicated and what gets printed on a label rarely tells the full story. You can have products that are assembled somewhere using components that are made somewhere else, products that contain raw materials from somewhere else, etc.
The assumption that "Made in America" results in higher wages for American workers is not always well-founded.
There's also the issue of fraud. Not every label is legitimate. Lying about one or two components in particular products can result in significantly higher margins, so there are a lot of incentives for dishonesty at multiple levels of many supply chains, and even the most well-meaning manufacturers can fall victim to it.
> The assumption that "Made in America" results in higher wages for American workers is not always well-founded.
Sure, but a product made entirely overseas results in 0 wages (for the manufacturing of the product) for American workers. Any company, to varying degrees of just how raw/local the product is made, which builds, assembles, manufacturers, grows, whatever a product here in the US has to hire and pay Americans an American wage. Naturally that may not be a "livable" wage (which is a loaded term but w/e) but it's still a wage that goes to Americans more than it goes to non-Americans.
We should avoid scumbag companies, American or otherwise, and we should do research into just how much a product is made in the US, but as a general rule there's no way around (until automation or something) paying more for American products and that's what you'll have to do to support American workers and American jobs.
Worker Unions have been telling us this for decades.
In the case of supply chain issues, yea, shit happens. But the supply chain issues also occur in the downstream foreign market you're buying the product from. So you can buy an American product and if it has parts that come from, say, China and you see a supply chain concern you'd have to be more concerned about the Chinese-made/assembled product because you have even less supply chain oversight.
This is a complicated subject, but I'll make a comment about:
> Sure, but a product made entirely overseas results in 0 wages (for the manufacturing of the product) for American workers.
American brands like Apple capture the vast majority of the value of their products even when the manufacturing is done elsewhere. Final assembly, which is the type of work that is done in countries like China, Vietnam and India, makes up less than 5% of the retail price of most electronics products.
I've lived in the developing world for many years and currently live in a developing country in Asia that's experiencing one of the biggest manufacturing booms in the world. You can probably guess the country.
The problem with wanting to do all the manufacturing at home is that not all manufacturing wages are the type of wages you'd want in a developed, high-income economy. Low-skilled, labor-intensive assembly work is not a foundation for continued prosperity in a developed, high-income economy. And Westerners (Americans) don't want all the bad stuff that typically comes with it, including the pollution.
> American brands like Apple capture the vast majority of the value of their products even when the manufacturing is done elsewhere. Final assembly, which is the type of work that is done in countries like China, Vietnam and India, makes up less than 5% of the retail price of most electronics products.
True, but in that case the important part is still buying from an American company, even if the product is wholly assembled elsewhere. I didn't mean to imply you can and will only buy American made products from start to finish. Even in the case of Apple you're supporting very high American wages and the products cost more. Some manufacturing/assembly has been moved to the US.
> The problem with wanting to do all the manufacturing at home is that not all manufacturing wages are the type of wages you'd want in a developed, high-income economy. Low-skilled, labor-intensive assembly work is not a foundation for continued prosperity in a developed, high-income economy. And Westerners (Americans) don't want all the bad stuff that typically comes with it, including the pollution.
I agree with you, though I think items like clothing can be made much more costly but higher quality and with local manufacturing (like in Europe for some companies) but if we go back to the original point it was about supporting "living wages".
My point was just that where American (or western depending on your own beliefs) companies exist and make a given products (a skillet/frying pan was just an example where I knew there were a few American manufacturers), and let's assume it's not fraud or rebranding or something, you should pay more for those products if you want to support "living wages". Otherwise you can buy "the thing from China [1]" but you can't do that and also support "living wages" because from an assembly/manufacturing worker perspective there is no wage to be had because they aren't doing the job. To your point also of course you can argue that the company that's HQ'd in the US, doing the design work, with manufacturing in China also receives a lot of the profits or can capture the majority of the value of the product, but those folks are already paid corporate wages which are higher than a "living wage".
I'd also mention I suppose that not everyone can just work in an office and have people in other countries work in assembly lines.
[1] China makes incredible stuff, I don't mean to imply everything made there is cheap or something along those lines, though of course many products that Americans are exposed to are of that nature, there's nothing necessarily wrong or immoral about it.
> Some manufacturing/assembly has been moved to the US.
The amount of assembly work done in the US is absolutely miniscule. This type of work is never coming back to the US in any meaningful volume unless it can be done by robots.
> ...you should pay more for those products if you want to support "living wages".
The problem is that the average American earner cannot afford to pay what it would cost to produce consumer goods end-to-end in the US in a manner that would allow people engaged in low-skill labor to earn an American "living wage".
Americans cannot have it both ways: you cannot consume more material goods than any other group in the world and produce those goods domestically using workers earning an American living wage.
Most Americans truly don't understand the scale of their consumption. Countries in Western Europe are developed, high-income nations and many Americans couldn't fathom living a Western European lifestyle because even most Western Europeans don't consume like Americans.
> This type of work is never coming back to the US in any meaningful volume unless it can be done by robots.
Well yea that's what will happen most likely. Obviously not all will come back and in what form it does will probably be different. But we don't have to focus only on Apple assembling computers since that's not the only company or industry at hand.
> The problem is that the average American earner cannot afford to pay what it would cost to produce consumer goods end-to-end in the US in a manner that would allow people engaged in low-skill labor to earn an American "living wage".
Well I think we can, we'd just have to buy fewer things but probably higher quality/more handmade/local, and then we'd have more people making more money. Personally I'm in favor of it just because I think it's a better way of life for many people (owning your own business, doing work yourself, &c.) But to your broad point, I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying this idea of a "living wage" is a farce unless Americans are willing to do what I believe you and I are both generally suggesting here. :)
> we'd just have to buy fewer things but probably higher quality/more handmade/local
That's the antithesis of American consumer culture. Like I said, for a huge swath of Americans, even those who are lower middle class, a European lifestyle (which is still a developed, high-income lifestyle) would be seen as a step down.
So yes, you're right. The idea of a "living wage" is a farce because the American system is not really concerned with this even if politicians have to pretend to be. In reality, the US has maximized the economic ceiling at all costs. As long as people think they have a chance at becoming unfathomably wealthy, even huge numbers of the poor will vote for policies that perpetuate their own poverty.
You guys must not have a lot of years of experience? My friends groups have a few hundred million dollars each (the junior developers are in the lower hundreds)
We're older. We missed out on the AI boom and the really juicy stock grants. Throw in toys that depreciate in value, tuition for the kids, a couple divorces/trophy wives, etc. and the money goes fast. It's amazing we have anything left at all!
Taiwan is a very wealthy country with very high housing prices. $2m NTD is not a "bad" wage for a factory worker but it isn't anywhere near "high pay", especially when you see the nature of the work and demands.
A combination of economic conditions and work pressures, in part, have led Taiwan to have the lowest fertility rate in the world. There is a cultural component as well, I've cited the most relevant parts from the below citation, the whole piece is worth a read on the topic imho.
- Earlier this month, the Ministry of the Interior announced that Taiwan’s total fertility rate last year dropped from 0.885 to 0.695, marking the fastest decline in recorded history. For a population to stay roughly the same size, the fertility rate, which measures the average number of children each woman is expected to have over her lifetime, must be around 2.1. The National Development Council projects that by 2070, Taiwan’s population will decline 35% to 15 million. At this point, more than half of the people in Taiwan will be over the age of 65.
- Despite the 600 billion New Taiwan dollars (roughly $19 billion) that the government has poured into fixing the problem over the past eight or so years, Taiwan’s population has continued to decline.
- Chen cited housing prices as a main deterrent to having children, which outstrip what people can generally afford. President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) promised during his campaign to build 130,000 new social housing units, but the target has since dropped to 40,000 to 60,000 units, with Lai’s government shifting its focus to rental subsidies. Chen thinks subsidies are a subpar solution, as renters are still subject to the whims of the landlord. “I don’t think it’s very practical for a young couple or a young family. There’s no long term stability,” said Chen.
- Work pressure is another deterrent to having children in Taiwan, where average working hours are the second longest in Asia and the fifth longest in the world. Chen cited a possible solution in a recent initiative by Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安), which has the government subsidizing flexible working hours for parents with children younger than 12.
reply