I am willing to say something that most scientists will never say, let alone admit to themselves:

Scientists are losers.

They are losers, not only in the more conventional sense of the word, but in a much more generic way. Here are my reasons why:

1. Scientists are losers first and foremost because most of them are functionally autistic.

I realized this fact when it became apparent to me that befriending and interacting with people who were not in STEM fields was much easier than those who were in such fields. Who wants to be surrounded with autistic people engaged in a constant and pathetic game of one-upmanship or incessant discussion about their obsessions? No sane person will, or should care, about such losers.

2. There is a huge gap between their achievements (or lack thereof) and their bloated and fragile egos.

The vast majority of scientists have not made any significant discovery or come up with an earth-shattering insight, yet they act as if they have made a major contribution towards the advancement of humankind. Ironically, those who have actually done that are often very down-to-earth people. Who cares about a pompous moron with a Ph.D, regardless of the institution from where it was obtained or their “pedigree? Let their work speak for itself.

3. They spend inordinate amounts of time and effort in zero-sum behaviors.

Most scientists spend too much time engaged in petty schoolgirl-type rivalries and politics amongst themselves. Why would any intelligent person expend so much effort and energy for such meager rewards? I can see people fighting over jobs and opportunities which pay much significantly more, but the vast majority of scientists make less than twice the median wage in developed countries.

4. They preach SWPL ideals and fairness, but do not practice them in their own lives.

Scientists talk a lot about fairness, decent behavior, giving opportunity, objectivity etc. But their personal behavior is in direct opposition to such lofty ideals. They will try to exploit and abuse students, postdocs, other researchers… well pretty much everyone they interact with on a professional level. Scientists make politicians and banksters look less hypocritical in comparison.

5. They suffer from the delusion of knowledge.

Scientists throughout the ages have been mostly wrong about pretty much everything, but few have the ability to even admit that they may not know enough- let alone be wrong. The willingness to admit that current knowledge is incomplete drives science forward — otherwise, science are no better than religion. Furthermore, many scientists derive their livelihood from being paid or unpaid shills for various causes and worldviews. Nobody likes a shill, especially one who is autistic, petty, pompous, hypocritical and delusional.

What do you think? Comments?

Cross-posted at Playing the Devil’s Advocate.

I have previously written about the uselessness of real-life friendships. For those of you who might disagree with me, ask yourself:

Why are Instant Messaging, smartphones, Facebook, Twitter, gaming etc. so popular in spite of the fact that they take away time from face-to-face communication of any kind? Why are digital facsimiles of interaction able to compete with real life interactions?

In my opinion, the ability of a facsimile to compete with the real thing indicates that the latter has serious deficiencies. When is the last time you chose vegan burgers over the real thing? Would you prefer reconstituted chicken nuggets with soy fillers over authentic and fresh fried chicken?

There are only two reasons why a facsimile would be preferred over the real thing.

1. The real thing is hard to get, unavailable or very expensive.
2. The real thing is contaminated, poisoned or tainted beyond usability.

Since we do in fact interact with many people in the course of a normal day, there is obviously no scarcity of human beings who are not overtly adversarial. Therefore, we have to consider the possibility that real-life interpersonal relationships are contaminated, poisoned or tainted to an extent that they are useless or worse than useless. Some of you might believe that this general lack of sincerity is part of a conspiracy to control humans, or something along those lines. Others might see this as an effect of materialism, wealth or urbanization.

Here is my explanation:

It has a lot to do with fake friendliness and politeness that permeate contemporary Western culture.

A signal can be ‘seen’ only if it rises above the background noise. A large ratio between the signal and noise allow us to see it clearly. Conversely a low ratio between the signal and noise hinder its detection, and often ultimately discourage the observer from searching for a real signal.

So when, and why, did fake friendliness and politeness enter the Western world?

If you have observed and interacted with people from all over the world, one thing becomes obvious. The extent of cultural feminization and ritualized behavior has a very high correlation with fakeness and disingenuity. The fakest people can be found in countries such as Canada, the U.S., New Zealand, Scandinavian countries and Australia. Even in these countries, the effeminate SWPL types exhibit much more of this behavior than their blue-collar counterparts.

What do you think? Comments?

Cross-posted at Playing the Devil’s Advocate.

One of the more popular responses to younger people complaining about the lack of decent job opportunities goes something like this:

“You should have gone into some trade or taken some vocational training. There are lots of well-paying blue-collar jobs that kids like you don’t want to do because you think they are beneath you.. yadda yadda yadda.”

Another related one goes something like this:

“You should have done a major in some STEM discipline rather than some liberal pinko commie artsy subject. Look at those hard-working Asians.. yadda yadda yadda.”

These points, or some variation therefof are the staple responses of old farts, Baby Boomers and, disturbingly enough, some of the older Gen-Xers (born before 1970). In my opinion, both types of responses are based in some combination of cognitive dissonance, lies, bullshit and wishful thinking. Here is why..

Let us look at the viability of entering vocational training, trades and similar blue-collar jobs. While some jobs in those areas still pay well, there are some serious issues with recommending them to everybody.

1a. More entrants into any of these vocations will depress wages. You must be aware that jobs related to building houses, meat-packing and even agriculture once paid OK wages. But is that still true? Could it be that an influx of Mexicans and immigrants in these occupations have depressed wages? Would more people entering these vocations not have a similar effect on wages?

1b. Technological changes can quickly render entire vocations utterly worthless. Even simple technological changes and innovations can reduce the demand for occupations or make them redundant. How often do you have to fix newer cars as compared to those built in the 1970s? Do we still set newspaper type by playing around with hot lead and molds? How many people want to repair their computers nowadays as compared to even 10 years ago?

1c. Then there is the tricky question of how people and businesses can pay for more well-paid tradesmen when the amount of money in general circulation is shrinking. It is kinda hard to pay more people better wages when your own incomes are going down and the economy is shrinking.

1d. What about pensions, disability and money after retirement? As many of you know, tradesmen-type jobs become much harder to do after a certain age as they are physical, unlike desk jobs. Given that the income stream for most tradesmen is not constant, how do you intend to provide for these people after they can no longer work in their occupations?

Now let us talk about STEM jobs..

2a. Most STEM jobs require aptitude and a significant investment in university education, typically five years or more. However the majority of them pay less than $70-80k/year (typically $50-70k/year). Today many of the people entering these fields have large student loans. Combine that with poor job security and difficulty in getting another job in the same general area. Is this still a good deal?

2b. Outsourcing, and H1B-type “insourcing,” is huge in STEM areas. What are you going to do if the Harvard-educated sociopaths who run your company decide to replace you with someone in (or from) China and India? Face it, they don’t care about the long-term or even the medium-term. It is all about the next four quarters and they don’t care about the quality of your replacement as long as he or she does not cause a large problem within one year (four quarters).

2c. An even worse situation occurs if they simply outsource the entire facility to China or India, as is increasingly the case. Remember, they don’t care about anything that won’t hurt their gerrymandered figures for the next 4 quarters. What are you gonna do with your investment in STEM education and a huge student debt?

2d. Have you noticed that employers want exact skill fits but are unwilling to even help with basic employee training? Let us say your STEM degree was in an area in demand five years ago. Is that still the case? Would you be hired to do something that was similar, but not a perfect match for the advertised job? What would occur if the business focus of your employer changed?

2e. Then there is the issue of age discrimination. By the time you have put in five or more years in University and a few years in the area, you are already in your 30′s. Even if you are very competent and productive, few STEM-heavy companies now want to hire employees past their mid 40′s or early 50′s. What are you going to do? It is unlikely that you will have tons of money saved aside after paying off your student loans and white picket fence lifestyle, never mind kids. Can you really retrain? And more importantly, would you do that after knowing how businesses operate in neoliberal economies?

Do you NOW see the fallacy in promoting vocational training and careers in STEM?

What do you think? Comments?

Cross-posted at Playing the Devil’s Advocate.

The vast majority of people cannot see obvious problems because they seldom think through any given situation. The following is one of them:

A society which monetizes every human interaction and exchange is on a path of decay, collapse and death.

Now, this insight might come as a shock to many people living in so-called “developed” countries because they know of no other way to organize society. Indeed, many of those morons believe that even further monetization of human interactions and exchange will ensure more stability because of the ‘profit’ motive. But is that really the case? and what are the points of failure for a social system based on the idea of homo economicus?

The points of failure in societies which monetize every human interaction and exchange arise from two sets of interlinked problems:

1. Who sets the price for any item, service, interaction etc. and how?
2. Can you avoid future retaliation from those who cannot afford something they desire?

Let us be clear about one thing — precise prices for things and services are seldom meant to facilitate social cohesion. Instead, they are usually set by one party such that the needy party is disadvantaged. The party that rips offs the other also makes an implicit assumption that its actions won’t come back to haunt or kill it in the future.

Most people will play nice in the face of mild to moderate ripoffs in a percentage of total transactions. However, they will stop acting in good faith once the ripoffs are severe, widespread or start compromising the availability of fundamental needs. The pathways for satisfying fundamental needs such as water, food, shelter, medical care and sex have to be reasonably stable, and any effort to change rules governing their access will always have negative repercussions, especially if one party in the transaction is seen as disingenuous. While we have no shortage of, or difficulty producing, any of the fundamental needs and most luxuries of life, we have many problems with distributing them.

Here are two examples:

A. Consider a person who is well-educated, had a well-paying occupation and a decent lifestyle for years. What would happen to this previously content person if he was repeatedly laid off for reasons beyond his control or had a serious illness that affected his ability to work or get rehired for an equivalent pay? How would that affect his or her worldview? As many of you now, this is precisely what is now happening to a rapidly increasing number of people who used to be comfortably middle-class.

The reality is that in our heavily monetized era, a steady income from an unreliable external source is so highly linked to the necessities of life that even small disruptions in that flow of money can have all sorts of synergistic negative effects, from divorce, loss of house, child custody battles, outlook for future employment etc.

Have you ever asked yourself this: why should a person endure an inferior lifestyle for no personal fault? Some of you might say that ‘life is not fair’ — but does a person who feels mistreated or wronged care about your CONservative or LIEbertarian point of view?

B. Now consider the fate of a guy born after 1970. He faces a similar set of problems whether he is in countries as diverse as Japan, Spain, Italy, Canada or the USA. Apart from the problems due to feminism jumping the shark, he also faces socio-economic deprivation due to circumstances beyond his control.

He has heard all the talk about waiting for the Baby Boomers to retire, becoming more “responsible,” “educated” etc. But guess what — he is not getting any younger, his situation is not visibly improving nor is there any realistic chance it ever will. However unlike previous eras, he also lives in a culture where the family and extended family do not support and help each other like they used to. Moreover, the social safety net, which was supposed to replace the security of familial ties, is being sucked dry by both older scumbags and bankster-types.

Which brings me to another rarely mentioned aspect of such societies:

Heavily monetized societies are also heavily atomized and not subject to the previously known patterns of individual behavior and system feedback.

That is a fancy way of saying that the atomized people in such societies are highly mistrustful, mercenary, paranoid and can only act ‘civilized’ as long they feel they are somewhat secure. The USA and the West appear to be stable despite the obvious long-term issues because we have been able to paper over the larger cracks through demography (Baby Boomers), technology (cheap food, entertainment etc.) and the pretense of an extensive social safety net. The social safety net, as it exists, has never been tested with anything beyond a small number of retirees and some poor people. The real test is coming up very soon and may have already started.

See, their morals, their code… it’s a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They’re only as good as the world allows them to be. I’ll show you, when the chips are down, these… these civilized people will eat each other. See, I’m not a monster, I’m just ahead of the curve.

Joker in The Dark Knight (2008)

And this is where developments in communication technology over the last decade feed into the problem. By allowing people to find out more about the world around them from multiple independent sources and communicate with each other, it creates an environment where the worldview of people evolves into something very different from any previous era. The result is a world with a lot of well-informed but passive-aggresive types whose behavior and responses to situations cannot be modeled or extrapolated from previous data sets, thereby breaking down the ability of social control systems based on older assumptions and models of human behavior and responses.

What do you think? Comments?

Cross-posted at Playing the Devil’s Advocate.

The concept that “hard work makes you rich or at least middle-class” is one of those completely dishonest propaganda pieces that only a WASP or wannabe-WASP could mouth without the slightest hint of irony. Let us, for a minute, ignore the experience of people in other countries and concentrate on North America. If working hard improved your life, wouldn’t black slaves and Mexican agriculture workers have reached the middle-class or wanted to work harder?

In case some of you still believe that black slaves in a previous era or Mexican farm laborers today are not hard workers, I would strongly encourage you to switch jobs with them and show slackers like me how hard work leads to a better life.

Some of the more disingenuous amongst you might say- “oops.. we meant studying and working hard in some profession or trade.” But is it true, even if you don’t care about it?

Most of you will agree that people who have successfully studied some branch of engineering at a state university or better in a developed country are both competent and knowledgeable in that area. So how come they keep getting laid off once they reach their 50s or now even earlier? Does their competence really go down, or is it something else? Maybe their bosses cannot exploit and abuse them with the same impunity as before, or could it be that they are now due for benefits which their employers have no intention of paying out?

What about younger scientists in universities who do the bulk of work their superiors take credit for? How come they never seem to get a decent and stable job, in spite of their hard work and dedication? Compare them to teachers who get significantly better compensation and benefits in the face of declining competence. Even scientists in industry who once enjoyed a good lifestyle and decent job security now find themselves cast off in their mid-50s with minimal severance pay and benefits.

In contrast, we see many people in functionally useless or actively harmful occupations such as bureaucrats, administrators, administrative assistants, management, human resources etc. enjoy stable and decent income regardless of the amount of “work” they do, its real impact or even its relevance.

We are therefore left with a tasteless choice. We have to either admit that the hard work ethic is, and always was, a lie to exploit the gullible — something that is much harder in the information age. The alternative is that those who promote this idea are retarded.

So which is it — are you lying or just retarded?

Comments?

Cross-posted at Playing the Devil’s Advocate.

There has been much breast-beating (pun intended) by feminists and their CONservative allies about the effect of high quality and ubiquitous porn on men. Some of my views on that subject have been expressed in a few previous posts, such as “Women Can No Longer Burn, Ban or Destroy Porn,” “Why Online Porn is a Game Changer” and “Porn Replaces Relationship Sex.” One of the issues about ubiquitous online porn which is acknowledged but quickly glossed over by feminists, CONservatives and whipped men is that it permanently alters male expectations from a sexual relationship. Let me explain..

Take your average guy with an average looking girlfriend, wife or whatever. Let us say that his current “partner” refuses to blow him as frequently as he wants. Prior to the last decade, he could either accept his ‘fate’ or jerk off to professional porn. The digital camera and the intertubes have thrown a hitherto improbable kink in that process via high quality amateur porn.

Have a look at the two NSFW links.

• Link 1- BJs
• Link 2- Self Shots

Prior to this recent innovation, the women in erotica and porn were either very beautiful, highly airbrushed or streetwalker trashy. Therefore, the mind of a guy could at some level put a barrier between the porn and his pathetic life such that he did not expect what he saw on the screen to cum true for somebody like him.

But high quality amateur porn is unlike anything before it in content and sheer volume. The average guy can now see tons of prettier than average, but still accessible girls deep-throating their boyfriend, licking his balls, taking it up their ass and that is just for starters. These girls are not carefully airbrushed models nor are they skanky looking harlots with bad plastic surgery. You can see the laugh lines on their faces, the life and joy in their eyes, cum drooling from their lipstick-smeared lips, the few hairs near their assholes which they forgot to shave and the asymmetry and slight droop of their tits. You can see the effects of an obvious hangover in their eyes and faces, the ecstasy and pain of being fucked senseless, the lines on their foreheads, the faded and now regret-worthy tattoos on their ankles and the plain underclothes around them. Even the ambiance in the photos is so average, from The Simpsons on TV, to the color and patterns on the comforter, average futons, sometimes dusty half-empty liquor bottles, an empty pizza box from Dominos, open laptop with porn or iTunes, the color and type of door on the closet and the same jumble of clothes on the floor.

They are people just like you and me at every level from their level of wealth, education and brand preferences who just happen to be having much more fun than you. The guy who looks at such porn is seeing much more than nekkid people having sex. He is seeing what his life could be at that very moment if he was with somebody who cared about him. Furthermore, the women in amateur porn, are neither inaccessible nor particularly skanky.

It is therefore likely that a guy who watches such porn would experience a far deeper dissatisfaction with his shitty life than fapping to airbrushed models or implant-heavy porn stars. I cannot help but point out that this revolution in porn is occurring alongside the continued demonization and marginalization of men by feminism and CONservatism. Add in social atomization, the anti-male nature of the socio-legal system and the generally poor attitude/behavior of women towards men and you have the makings of a situation that has no precedent in history. We do live in interesting times, don’t we?

Comments?

Cross-posted at Playing the Devil’s Advocate.

In some of my earliest posts on my blog (such as this one and this one), I had suggested that anybody who works for a promise which is functionally unenforceable is a sucker. As some of you might know, many white “high IQ” morons constantly drone about something called “future time orientation” being a mark of intelligence. This concept is linked to the idea of delayed gratification being linked to success in your life, or something along those lines.

Here is what I have to say to those who believe in either “future time orientation” or “delayed gratification” — SUCKERS! To understand why I see them as gullible rubes, it is necessary to first list, and then analyze the validity of their beliefs. These morons believe that:

1. The amount of sacrifice and delayed gratification has a worthwhile correlation with the quality of life.
2. Their sacrifices for the sake of society and “civilization” will be recognized, respected and compensated.
3. The very act of delaying gratification marks them as magically superior to those who chose otherwise.
4. Their act of sacrifice will have some positive impact on the future of society or their offspring, directly or indirectly.

I will now ask a few unpleasant questions to the morons who believe in “future time orientation” and “delayed gratification.”

Does working your ass off to become a doctor or lawyer give you the time to enjoy the money you are making? Was the amount of time spent (and years of your youth wasted) becoming a high-income professional really worth it? The same is true for scientists, engineers and many other professionals who spend years of their youth slaving away so that they might be able to have a somewhat better car and house. Who gets laid more, the median drummer in a mediocre band or a neurosurgeon? Who has a better life when they can enjoy it, a guy who spends his youth surfing or some frail pale-faced moron who slaves in academia? I could give you more examples and rub it in harder – but that is not my intention (at this moment).

Then there is the issue about whether your hard work and sacrifices are recognized, respected or rewarded. Do you believe that the guys who wrote and optimized iOS and Android are making a fraction of the money their MBA bosses are making? Why not? What about those Chinese workers who assemble iPhones for a buck or two an hour? What about those graduate students who slaved to get something done, only to find out that their Herculean efforts are worth a 41k/year postdoc — IF they are lucky. What about programmers, engineers and scientists who get laid off once they hit their early 50s? And how does being a willing slave make you morally superior to someone who is not that stupid?

Finally, be honest and ask yourself — does slaving under the delusion of superiority make your life any better? Does it substantially lower your risks of ending up divorced, in a sexless marriage or other conflict-ridden relationships with women? Does it ensure that your kids will give a fuck about you when they grow up? Does it make bankers any less likely to steal your retirement money? Would the people who approve of you because of your current status abandon you if you fell on hard times due to no fault of yours?

So why would any intelligent and rational person willingly slave for somebody else under functionally unenforceable contract conditions? What is in it for you.. really?

Comments?

Cross-posted at Playing the Devil’s Advocate.

As many of you know, I like to mock CONservatives, LIEbertarians and a lot of people who hold “alt-right” views. Today, I am going to target one of their more cherished beliefs.

You might have noticed that many of the above mentioned morons talk a lot about race, IQ, and meritocracy with the pretty obvious agenda of suggesting that non-whites are not deserving of a middle-class lifestyle based on their “low IQ.”

So let us begin the process by using the USA as a test case for their beliefs. According to government statistics, the median per-capita income of people in the wage earning age range as reported by employers was $26,363.55 in 2010. That is right! Half of wage earners make less than $27k/year.

But here is the problem:

While about 72-73 % of the overall US population is white (hint: add all the “white” categories), the white representation in the working age population (over 18 yrs old) is closer to 80 %. This would imply that at least 1/3rd of working age whites make less than $ 27k/year. Do you really think that this level of income is sufficient for a middle-class existence?

Moving on.. did you know that only 25% of wage earners make more than $ 50k/year? In my opinion, a traditional middle-class existence in the USA requires a per-worker income around, or above, that level. If you disagree with the above assertion, please tell me how to live a traditional middle-class lifestyle for less than $50k/year in the USA- before taxes. Remember to factor in often forgotten items such as adequate health insurance, house taxes, utilities, a little leisure money and some cash for unexpected minor emergencies.

Today, a solid middle-class existence in the USA requires a pre-tax income of at least $70k/year before taxes. I am talking about a modest house, modest new car, a few months of savings, good health insurance and enough spare money to take 2-3 weeks of vacations and eat and drink in decent establishments. However, only 14% of wage-earners make more than $70k/year.

There are those who will say, “But don’t families today have two breadwinners?”

My answer is- have you looked around you lately? What does the ‘average’ family look like? The majority of marriages end in divorce and a rapidly increasing number of people are not getting married at all. Many of these newer forms of partnerships (living together without ever getting married) are even more unstable. Now factor in big student loans and the effect of job insecurity and frequent layoffs. To make a long story short.. you are more likely to see the stable two breadwinner, solidly middle-class family in a sitcom than in your real life.

Contrast this picture to a generation, or two, ago when most white families were middle-class and a significant percentage of them were solidly so.

So what changed?

While the percentage of whites in both the general and working age population has decreased over the years, they are still the majority. Though their incomes have stagnated and shrunk as much as other racial groups, they were also at a higher point to start with. The cost of big-item necessities such as healthcare, housing, and education have, however, kept on increasing faster than their income. Furthermore, they are constantly nickled and dimed by everybody from the HOA and local municipalities to corporations and the federal government. To make a long story short:

Most whites have fallen out of the middle-class, especially the large “solidly middle-class” group which was once envied by the rest of the industrialized world.

But how did that happen? If you apply the CONservative, LIEbertarian-esque and “alt-right” beliefs to this situation, one has to conclude that most whites (like over 70%) are not worthy of a middle-class lifestyle based on their IQ, work ethic, and moral fiber. Which begs the question.. why did it work for them from the 1940s to the 1980s and even part of 1990s? Why then and not now? Did white people in the USA suddenly become dumb and immoral slackers? And why didn’t other Western countries such as Germany, France and some Eastern ones such as Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan suffer a similar shrinkage of their middle-class? Did (or do) they work harder, cheaper or better than Americans?

The other unpleasant possibility is that most white middle-class morons gleefully cooperated with the “elites” to kill the golden egg-laying goose so that they would not to share it with non-whites. It is too bad that their beloved “elites” saw pauperizing and abusing non-whites as the first, rather than the last, step.

What do you think? Comments?

Cross-posted at Playing the Devil’s Advocate.

Recent events such as the popular uprisings in the Middle East and #OccupyWallStreet movement have created renewed interest in the whole concept of non-violent protests. Here are my thoughts on the set of conditions which make non-violent protests a viable option.

Let us consider the movement for Indian independence (from Britain) and the Civil Rights Movement (in the USA), the two most widely studied and successful non-violent protest movements in the last century. While there are those who see non-violence as the key to the success of both movements- I think otherwise.

In both cases, it was the unspoken but very obvious threat of unprecedented violence which made the opposing parties (Britain and white USA) relent.

In India, the British had two options: deal with Oxbridge educated Indians (including Gandhi) who led the non-violent movement OR take their chances with hardcore nationalists who would actively use violence and accept help from other countries. Given that the British administration in India was mostly run by Indians, the second possibility would have created a situation which would rapidly degenerate into a nasty and expensive civil war. The British government simply chose the much less expensive path of negotiating with the Oxbridge educated set.

Any use of large-scale violence by the British in post-WW1 India would have almost certainly resulted in something that no party in the conflict could have controlled.

The civil rights movement in the USA was also similar in that the choice was between MLK-types and Malcolm X-types. Would you take your chances with a charismatic preacher or an equally charismatic guy who believed that whites were devils? Let us also not forget that the treatment of blacks in 1950-era USA was a God-sent opportunity for propaganda by the USSR. Any serious attempt to suppress the civil rights movement would have radicalized blacks to a level where the cost of denying equality would be much higher than just giving them legal equality.

In the end, the US government chose to deal with MLK-types over Malcolm X-types because it was less expensive. However, MLK’s non-violent movement would not have succeeded if Malcolm X-types did not preach a radical and violent path.

Non-violence succeeds only if there is an obvious risk of a much more nastier and violent struggle.

So there is unlikely to be any real change until those in power and their henchmen (and their kids) have to start worrying about getting killed or maimed without warning. Sometimes even that is not enough, otherwise violent revolutions would not have occurred in human history.

Comments?

Cross-posted at Playing the Devil’s Advocate.

For the last few months, political and other public figures in the USA have been making a lot of noise about “creating middle-class jobs,” ”creating new jobs” and “bringing jobs back.” While the upcoming 2012 election cycle is the temporal cause of this sudden increase in expressed concern for the jobs and livelihoods of Americans, I am going to use these fake expressions of concern to ask a real question:

Where are these new and well-paying jobs going to come from?

I mean, don’t all jobs exist to create a product or deliver a service- regardless of whether it is useful, useless or harmful? You might have noticed that better machines, faster and more versatile computers, very high levels of automation, overseas slave labor and a host of other factors have made it very easy to increase productivity without employing more people. Employment in the US private sector has either stagnated or decreased since the late 1990s, even though the gross and working-age population has increased by more than a few million in that period. Then there is the issue about quality and stability of newly created jobs.

You might also have realized that inflation-adjusted wages for the vast majority of people have either stagnated or decreased since 1973. This has, however, not affected the still rapidly rising cost of medical “care” or “education” or a host of other big-ticket items. While the relative cost of certain items like laptop computers and clothes has decreased, one cannot live in a laptop or in a house made of cheap clothes or subsist on Hamburger Helper and pink slime beef.

So let me repeat the main question posed in this post:

Where are these new and well-paying jobs going to come from?

Remember that our system is largely based on jobs = money = existence, so having no jobs or only poorly-paying jobs is equivalent to killing people. People who have nothing to lose will likely take those who put them in that situation with them- actively or passively. Moreover, the demographic profile and distribution of power and technology in the world today makes it extremely unlikely that were will be any marginal victors, let lone clear ones, in a meltdown.

I hope that you realize that this problem cannot be solved based on previous experiences and beliefs, because human beings have never lived in a world that was as populated, interlinked, interdependent, complex and peculiar as the one we have today.

What do you think? Comments?

Cross-posted at Playing the Devil’s Advocate.