8 ms·

> Research suggests that in some parts of the United States, factory closures contribute to a rise in deaths from opioid overdoses. It’s so cute some people th

• vonneumannstan 20d ago
  I think he's literally conceding your point by writing this essay. That there will be massive upheaval and yes maybe pitchforks if we don't get ahead of the problems.
  • paulpauper 20d ago
    nothing will happen. the '20s and '30s were much worse compared to today and nothing happened. Americans are much more complacent now than even then. People aspire to get rich, like on TikTok and "hustle culture," not to hang the rich.
• rglover 20d ago
  "Everyone has a plan til' they get punched in the face." - Mike Tyson Sadly, I agree, that's where this is all headed.
• whatever1 20d ago
  China’s surveillance state seems very successful at managing population emotions.
  • DarmokTanagra 20d ago
    As opposed to the American surveillance state which is focused on enflaming emotions.
  • colordrops 20d ago
    Well they also at least give something back with infrastructure and general management of the country. None of that is happening in the US.
    • linkregister 20d ago
      It's undeniable that Chinese transportation infrastructure is amazing, especially high-speed rail. Compared with the United States, public health care is less available in China. Retirement pensions are an order of magnitude lower (even with PPP adjustment), hence their world-leading savings rate. Social mobility is lower: getting a permit to access social services such as schools in a new city is difficult. Youth unemployment was above 25% the last time it was published; it is no longer disclosed. Rule of law is much less strong. Injustices committed by government officials towards citizens are unlikely to be addressed. Housing costs to income ratios are an order of magnitude worse in cities with job opportunities. The Chinese government has chosen to allocate capital toward industrial output at the expense of its citizens' welfare. It has succeeded at its goal. Perhaps in the future more capital allocation will be made to consumption. That is not the case at the current time.
      • colordrops 20d ago
        I'm not suggesting that they are better in every way, and I don't think most people believe that anyway. What I mean is what they are doing now, and the direction of progress, which is mostly positive. In the US, things are at a standstill in many areas and regressing significantly in many others. I can't really think of anything positive, even moderately so, that has happened in the US in the last few years.
  • phainopepla2 20d ago
    China has both carrot and stick. Living standards there have improved dramatically over the past few decades. Over here they use a smaller stick, but no carrot at all.
    • taurath 20d ago
      The size of the stick here is in direct proportion to your proximity to power.
    • bunderbunder 20d ago
      My sense from talking to people who’ve lived in both countries is that there’s also a perception that there’s at least a semblance of fairness in China, which can make it relatively more palatable. Chinese acquaintances are rather horrified by how, in the US, cops can use state surveillance systems to stalk women and get away with it and people regularly end up homeless due to medical bills.
      • Karrot_Kream 20d ago
        I have a lot of Sinosphere friends and I strongly disagree with this. Much like the US I think there is a very nuanced view of Chinese authorities, but there's plenty of overreach there as well. The zero covid policy was not that long ago. I have friends who were stuck in hotels for weeks. Relatives who were stuck in the US for months.
      • Aunche 20d ago
        > Chinese acquaintances are rather horrified by how, in the US, cops can use state surveillance systems to stalk women and get away with it and people regularly end up homeless due to medical bills. This sounds more a product of censorship rather than China being particularly better in those aspects. Police in China are less likely to kill you because guns are uncommon, but they are just as shady if not more, especially in more remote areas. Healthcare access and affordability are also worse than what you'd expect from a communist country. Homelessness in China is definitely a lot worse than what state numbers suggest. They just drive out homeless people who they're less visible.
  • jampekka 20d ago
    Murdoch et al aren't that bad either.
  • geraneum 20d ago
    False equivalence. Maybe that’s what they fool themselves with. Salivating, looking at China, not understanding the massive upward social mobility in recent time there. Why stop at China, look at Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc.
  • linkregister 20d ago
    The social credit system is regional, disjoint, and composed of a handful of various trackers. It can hardly be compared with public opinion. Xinjiang is an exception; it is heavily publicly surveilled. Internet censorship is strong. The public still has sway over government policy. When search terms are blocked, the public continues with euphemisms. The government is responsive to public opinion. The government does promote influencers with opinions favorable with CCP goals. Chinese foreign policy is more dovish than public opinion, especially regarding Taiwan.
    • whatever1 20d ago
      `Chinese foreign policy is more dovish than public opinion, especially regarding Taiwan.` Dovish as in it will be annexed in the next decade and not next week?
      • linkregister 20d ago
        Dovish as in the majority of the Chinese population favors immediate violent reunification, while CCP leadership is open to diplomatic solutions.
• stickfigure 20d ago
  > imagine a few hundred million people getting angry within one election cycle This isn't hard to imagine? We'll elect someone, they will put in place new policies. Maybe they will help, maybe they won't. Nice thing about real democracies, you don't actually need pitchforks.
  • toofy 20d ago
    this is only true if people know their voices matter. if their voices are overrun by the powerful, the pitchforks come back out.
    • bonobo 20d ago
      We have also to consider what if their voices not only don't matter but are actively being suppressed. It's hard to start a revolution if who's in control can control communications and can preemptively identify people who are more likely to start dissent. Maybe this time we won't even have the slightest chance to revolt.
  • loup-vaillant 20d ago
    Said democracy does have to be real, though. If we're talking about that country between two oceans that waged armed conflicts almost constantly since its very inception, has supported or helped put in place straight-up dictatorships not that long ago, and sports one of the highest wealth inequality in the West, well... I'd think long and hard before I call that a real democracy.
    • nielsbot 20d ago
      Also: The US government is structured to put checks on democracy thereby ensuring wealth and power inequality. See: The Electoral College, The Senate, and even the Constitution itself among other examples.
      • rb666 19d ago
        This is sarcasm right? All those institutes are currently failing.
• inglor_cz 20d ago
  During the economic transformation in the former Soviet Bloc, entire industries disappeared, and pitchforks weren't grabbed. I saw it myself, growing up in a heavy industry city that quickly turned into a rust belt city. IDK why so many people romanticize pauper riots and try to wish them into existence. In practice, as long as people don't outright starve, they don't become violent just over losing their jobs. All the post-1989 wars east of the former Iron Curtain were triggered by nationalism. Not a single one by a class conflict.
  • geraneum 20d ago
    It’s so ironic to use Soviet Union as anecdote here considering what led to its birth.
    • inglor_cz 20d ago
      Massive military defeat in WWI which destabilized Russia. If the Whites were better organized, the result could easily have been a very bigoted nationalist dictatorship instead.
      • petre 20d ago
        It was still a very bigoted nationalist dictatorship. People were sent to the gulag or killed otherwise, for instance through man made famine. Both minorities and so called enemies of the state. The most violent won. That's how one gets leaders like Stalin.
      • geraneum 20d ago
        [dead]
      • UncleOxidant 20d ago
        If Kerensky had been successful maybe Russia would have ended up with a Nordic democratic socialism model. Not that he necessarily had the wherewithal to be successful ( Ordered an ill-fated military offensive against Austro-Hungarian forces in June/July 1917 that resulted in heavy losses damaged him politically), but there was a brief shining moment prior to the Germans injecting Lenin back into Russia. The German gambit that sending Lenin into Russia would take Russia out of the war paid off much more handsomely than they could've imagined.
• fasterik 20d ago
  Ironically, by predicting the most chaotic outcome you're falling for the narrative that AI will transform the economy overnight, which is exactly what AI companies' marketing divisions want you to believe. >More than 90 percent of executives report no effect of AI use on employment over the past three years, and 89 percent report no impact on labor productivity. Among the minority that do report effects, the results tilt slightly positive for productivity, with an estimated average boost of 0.29 percent. However, executives anticipate much larger effects going forward. They forecast that over the next three years, AI will increase labor productivity by 1.4 percent on average while reducing employment by 0.7 percent, implying a net output gain of roughly 0.8 percent. About two-thirds of the anticipated workforce reduction is expected to come from reduced hiring. https://www.nber.org/digest/202605/global-evidence-business-use-ai?page=1&perPage=50 https://www.nber.org/digest/202605/global-evidence-business-... A 1-2% increase in labor productivity year over year is typical for a mature economy in the absence of a new transformational technology. The 0.7% reduction in workforce is an optimistic prediction by a small minority of executives. Even if that happened across all industries (unlikely), an increase in unemployment from 4.1% to 4.8% over 3 years is hardly pitchfork territory. Given the current evidence, I find it hard to imagine a realistic scenario where "a few hundred million people get angry within one election cycle". That might change if we see economy-wide 10% productivity gains sustained over a decade, but I'm not holding my breath.
  • glhaynes 20d ago
    Ironically, by predicting the most chaotic outcome you're falling for the narrative that AI will transform the economy overnight, which is exactly what AI companies' marketing divisions want you to believe. You're using a rhetorical device to imply that they're "falling for" a narrative. "Falling for" only follows if that's why they are making the prediction; this construction doesn't allow that they may have come to this belief on their own.
    • emp17344 20d ago
      Based on what evidence? The unemployment rate is very low, and has been for a long time. Why should we take your word for it when it blatantly contradicts real economic data?
• emp17344 20d ago
  What unemployment?? The unemployment rate right now is by all reasonable standards very low. Do you have any reason to believe unemployment will suddenly skyrocket? As a result of what factors? I hate to say it, but your analysis here seems based on vibes and not much else.