The sentiment seems to be: “Globalization enriches us all. If it’s not enriching you, well, you aren’t really one of us.”
What My Latest Research on Christianophobia Means, by George Yancey
“The truth is that along with real economic progress there has been a parallel big degradation in the lived experience of life in much of America, a part of America largely invisible to and certainly not relatable to on a visceral level by most of those in booming sections of global cities. I’m all in favor of understanding the very real way that technology and other innovations have made our lives better, and fully capturing that in statistics. But we need to be equally as diligent in capturing and measuring the downsides of those trends, an effort I’ve read much less about in the papers.” — How Much Value Do Economists Assign to Having Married Parents Who Aren’t on Drugs?
A pre-1965 silver dollar might be worth roughly ten dollars today, so you could say our money has lost ninety percent of its value. On the other hand, what would a modest 2017 Dell computer have cost in 1965? Six hundred dollars today doubling every eighteen months back to 1965 comes to some figure in scientific notation. On yet another hand, in 1965 my father was married to my mother and lived in the house with us – a common arrangement in those days, somewhat less so today.
I saw a train load of coal the other day – can’t remember the last time, but it must have been around 1990. On the parallel track was another identical train of coal cars, going the other way empty.
- “The Vintage Patterns Wiki boasts more than 83,500 patterns that are at least 25 years old.” Seen here: I can’t believe it’s not Butterick.
- “I worry there’s a general undersupply of meta-contrarianism. You have an obvious point (exciting technologies are exciting). You have a counternarrative that offers a subtle but useful correction (there are also some occasional exceptions where the supposedly-unexciting technologies can be more exciting than the supposedly-exciting ones). Sophisticated people jump onto the counternarrative to show their sophistication and prove that they understand the subtle points it makes. Then everyone gets so obsessed with the counternarrative that anyone who makes the obvious point gets shouted down (“What? Exciting technologies are exciting? Do you even read Financial Times? It’s the unexciting technologies that are truly exciting!”). And only rarely does anyone take a step back and remind everyone that the obviously-true thing is still true and the exceptions are still just exceptions.” — Two Kinds of Caution, by Scott Alexander
“The Left’s Breaking Point? We might have found it with the transgender movement.”
Maybe; maybe not. It seems like there have been several of these things over the last thirty years. “Surely this will be it,” the non-lefty things. “This is so obviously irrational that it will be the bridge too far.” Yet here we are.
“I am beginning to think we need the Federal Government to step in and set up a Customer Bill of Rights (link goes to existing rules, which don’t do much more than prohibit the intentional killing of passengers). I don’t like more pointless government regulations, but I am starting to think that airlines can’t be relied on to maintain any kind of standards. They will keep compressing coach seats until passengers start suffocating, and then they will blame the passengers for buying tickets.”
How about standing-room-only on short flights? If it were $30 cheaper, someone would buy it.
Why are people unemployed? Those business plans are illegal that would make hiring them profitable. In some cases there are solid laws against particular business plans; in others the accumulation of goofy regulation has made nominally legal business plans unprofitable. But the people are still here.
In the absence of welfare, it wouldn’t be possible (in the long run) to pay a worker less than a living wage. He wouldn’t live, and then there would be no worker. Before he even starved, he wouldn’t be able to buy gas to get to work. Before that, the lender would repossess his car. Welfare makes viable some business plans that rely on paying workers less than a living wage.
Similarly, it’s not so much that immigrants take jobs. For some time now there haven’t been “jobs” as fixed things. There are business plans (and they aren’t fixed.)
The workers available are one limitation on what business plans are viable. Maybe industrial-scale poultry production is only possible if a large number of recent immigrants are available to cut up chickens in the factory. Maybe some business plans only make sense if you can have a bunch of special visa holders living in a dorm and being bused in to their cubicles every morning.
So it’s not that immigrants take jobs. It’s that constant unrestricted immigration, and the assumption that it will continue forever, affect what business plans are viable.
We should talk more about remittances sent from the U.S. to other countries, like when Pierre sends money back to his family in Quebec. When I buy stuff in a neighboring state, I am obliged to pay a tax to the state in which I live, to offset the loss of sales tax revenue. Maybe something like that is in order for remittances. Should people be able to shield their income from state sales tax by sending it across the border?