Susan Sarandon and the Stuff-People's Revolt
Louise - otherwise known as Susan Sarandon - might just drive off a cliff if forced to. But this is an unusual year, by any measure. You see, Louise hates Hillary. And Louise loves Bernie Sanders. Because more than anything else, Louise, or Susan Sarandon if you must, is furious with the status quo. A status quo that she insists is not working in America in 2016.
And in a shock declaration to MSNBC's Chris Hayes, she doubted whether she could bring herself to vote for Hillary in a Hillary/Trump election. She doesn't vote with her vagina - as she pointedly put it. That means that Susan Sarandon has more in common with an angry truck driver from South Carolina who's supporting Trump, than with her fellow Hollywood power brokers who help fill Hillary's coffers.
Should this shock? We keep hearing about the 60% of GOP voters who don't want Trump. But add Cruz's and Trump's AND Bernie's supporters together, and you have an overwhelming percentage of the voting public who are sick and tired of the status quo. They want real change, right away. Whether they consider themselves revolutionaries or not.
They are the No-Elites group: No Wall Street; No Hollywood; No Tech; No Trade. The kind of broad, divisively diverse coalition that has well-educated globalists scratching their heads in puzzled disdain. The losers in our current global economy. Not crazed street people. Not incarcerated criminals. Not mental health sufferers who slip through the cracks.
Just low-to-mid-level workers who are falling further behind with each election. People who help build stuff. Or serve stuff. Or fix stuff. Or move people and stuff around. People who don't write analytical reports explaining why your mutual fund is down 18% this year. Who don't write covered straddle options that lose a boutique investment house millions of dollars in a week. Who don't write encryption code - whether for Apple or for the DOJ or from an apartment in Siberia.
The stuff-people versus the ideas-people. Yes, this is an artificial divide in terms of getting things done. Your good old electrician uses his or her head way more than any muscle power. And any manufacturing job requires increasing amounts of tech understanding.
But the divide is real in terms of the rents each sector accrues. One rising, the other falling. It's a rent-seekers' world right now, more than ever before perhaps. The ideas people - whether news anchors or policy wonks or trade lawyers or high-value coders - are way ahead. And the stuff-people are raging mad.
And the solutions that Sanders and Trump are offering are not that far from each other. Socialism. Nationalism. National Socialism? No, we're not ever going back there. But the stuff people are revolting. And there's a lot of them.
Posted by Keeley at March 30, 2016 5:41 PM
It is not just the “stuff” people. Bernie’s people are young and educated.
We are in the midst of a technological revolution. Robots and smart computers that learn are taking more and more jobs. They are advancing up the skill levels as computer technology becomes more sophisticated and integrated. Who needs an investment analyst when a computer can analyze the market, trade smarter, faster and at a fraction of the cost? The same for a wide variety of advanced professions.
The winner has been and will increasingly be the capital investment class. The wealth and income gap will only increase. Labor, even skilled labor, is decreasing in need and value.
This should be a good thing. More leisure time. More time for the family, hobbies, sports, etc. Work weeks of 30 or 20 hours. Better and more available consumer goods. But, that is not seemingly the case. Just the opposite. Longer work weeks, more stress, more competition, less opportunity and financial uncertainty.
The key issue, in my opinion, is equitable distribution of the fruits of this advancement in technology. The capital investment class simply cannot take it all.
The only candidate, in my opinion, that recognizes the basic problem is Bernie Sanders. The others seem to make believe that it doesn’t exist or can be somehow reversed. Trump is not going to bring back the manufacturing base of the 60’s with the same number of jobs. Hillary is not going to get Wall Street to be nice to Main Street. Cruz is lost in some fantasy world of 1776.
I agree with you Rich. One could best sum it up as he result of globalism. I’ve blogged for years that the middle class is losing out and as more fall out of the middle we become more like many other counties with two classes, the haves and the have nots.
A good number of factors can be called out:
The digital age provided a means to put everything under a microscope, conduct fast data analysis, develop and implement policy based on the findings.
Corpocracy planned for a globalised world and was able to put it in place thru the high efficiency gained from turning it all into one’s and zero’s.
They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams but, they don’t know what to do with the excess people created by globalism. Which begs the question, why is the corpocracy so determined to continue herding immigrants into the country when jobs are so few? IT might have something to do with trying to replenish SS participants. More likely that an open borders agreement is included in the trade agreements as a way to get foreign countries to open up for US ownership and so on.
Also, we know that corporations are loving the cheap labor associated with immigration A real conundrum for me.
It’s clear Bernie and Trump tapped into the anxiety over the jobs issue and the economy in general. Each candidate has some good ideas but, both are outside the establishment and will remain so. A single individual or an ‘administration’ can do little to move the establishment from the status quo.
It seems we are being forced to adopt socialism as a way to cope with the current situation. So long as the gov’t can afford to put the unemployed and impoverished on the taxpayer payroll the train may still go down the track, for a while.
It’s been clear for years that the corpocracy is working hard to break the back of the US worker. Maybe the reason is to reach a level playing field with workers and wages around the world, more efficiency, etc.
If a level playing field is their objective we’ve a long way to go, although another serious recession/depression might do it.
But, it might be neat to have your morning paper delivered by a drone and so on …
Otherwise - - -
Robots and smart computers that learn are taking more and more jobs.
Robots are in development to pick crops that are now being picked by very low wage workers.
My morning paper is delivered to me by computer.
Is it globalism? Globalism is the easy thing to blame. After all, how can one resist the nature of the world? Truth is, it’s not so simple as that. We had a standard of living that we upheld by producing much of what we consumed here at home. Were there not sufficient profits here at home for that?
It’s a mask for the behavior of the American upper class, which has sacrificed the well-being of the lower classes for the sake of their own luxury, telling them, as they pushed their corporate lines, that they were too well paid, too well protected, too experienced, etc. to keep their jobs.
The reality is, the investor class deliberately decided to push policy in a certain direction to make more money, and used the threat of people losing their jobs and the economy tanking to do the things, like killing jobs and undermining the local economies that they said politically cooperative people would not see happen.
We need to realize that while trade can be in our interest, the terms of that trade need to work well for the average person, as do the terms of business. The alternative is a future of trying to support an economy on a consumer class that’s been rotted out from within.
As for the loss of jobs? It will, and it will not happen. If fossil fuels go out the window, you won’t make a living coal mining or drilling oil. If they figure out how to make a given system in an automated fashion, that will probably kill the jobs that were required to do it the less efficient way.
That said? A number of things tend to happen, as I observe them.
1) People don’t always settle for just what they could do before. If you can more productivity out of one person, you can get twice as much as that new number out of two. If there is demand enough, people will take advantage of multipliers of productivity with the staff they already got.
2) Hype aside, new technologies don’t always deliver perfect replacements for given predecessors. People tried making kayaks with Kevlar, and found the layers of the hulls were peeling off! Today’s most common 3-D printers have limits to their physical resolution (that is the fineness of detail in what they construct,) and they have trouble printing things that overhang something (The process basically melts filaments of plastic, then cools them into their new shape. Point is, every technology has it’s pros and cons, so not every advancement that could theoretically do something and replace and old method will do so as expected.
3)New Technologies bring with them new jobs, new careers for people. My particular field of work didn’t really exist in its plentiful numbers of today before computers took off as a technology. Even now, these new technologies are changing what is demanded of people. In the time I’ve been at my current job, we’ve gone from having just PCs to having a significant number of tablets and smartphones to support, and large displays have gone from being projectors that are bigger than a church bible to being 4K LED backlit LCD monitors. I’m writing this on a wireless keyboard that powers itself on the light in the office alone.
As far as robotics and artificial intelligence goes, I will say that both have a long way to go before they can replace all jobs, and I believe that the way things work won’t shift instantly. People will find something to do, and something to pay people for doing it. That is the way of all economies. Employment survived the shift away from agriculture to industry, and from industry towards computerization. It’ll survive robots and AI, too.
In genere hanno bisogno di prese alte di calcio. Questa è la biochimica della gioventù. Con l’avanzare dell’età e più pronunciato nei vecchi uomini e le donne in post-menopausa, diventiamo sempre più inflessibile. Le arterie si induriscono a causare arteriosclerosi, il sistema scheletrico calcifica a causare la rigidità con la fusione della colonna vertebrale e delle articolazioni, i reni e di altri organi e ghiandole sempre calcificare e indurire con formazione di calcoli, la calcificazione negli occhi provoca cataratta e anche la pelle si indurisce, diventa difficile e rugosa.
I crawler di Google indice sarebbe la rispettiva pagina, in quanto contiene le parole chiave, e l’articolo sarebbe accessibili solo da un numero limitato di visitatori. Questa è una pratica comune, in modo da non essere sorpreso se si trova un sito web solido con grandi articoli, ma anche con un cattivo sezione che contiene solo gli articoli dando mal di testa.
Il comitato di revisione ha messo in moto le misure per ridurre il numero di progetti di studenti hanno bisogno di fare e file di portafoglio delle valutazioni studente sono stati cartesiano. Inoltre, da gennaio 2010 CTAS per il grado 9 studenti sono stati fermati.
Mangiare frutta che sono ad alto contenuto di fibre, per esempio, l’uva passa e datteri secchi. Indica il livello di proteine nel corpo di un alto con mandorle, pistacchi e noci.