US economy thread (4 Viewers)

[Jayrod]

And if your version of history goes back only 100 or even 200 years, you are fooling yourself thinking this is some permanent cycle of growth and wealth we are in.

The problem is that basically nobody agrees with you. I do, but nobody else does. Those people vote, and their vote counts the same as ours.

People living in the US generally operate under the theory that the US is immune from history, and we're immune from the problems that have caused other great powers to decline over time. That is very much not the case, and I would argue that the US is already in sharp and irreversible decline. The problem is that none of the metrics that I would use to defend that view are admissible in this forum, so I'll just leave that as a raw assertion. IYKYK.

More generally though, folks just don't understand history, and in particular they don't really understand US history. For example, it is 2024. The Battle of Little Big Horn, in which a US Army division was literally annihilated by a group of stone-age warriors, was less than 150 years ago. Our grandparents would have had direct access to people who were were there. Fast forward a bit to WWI. When the US entered WWI, we were an afterthought. Our military probably would have been routed by the likes of Poland. Horses were still being used in warfare back then, and we think of that as part of the "modern" era.

We've been a global superpower for about three or four generations. That's it. The UK fell from a much higher perch to also-ran status during that exact same period. It can happen to us, and it is happening to us. I recommend looking out for yourself.

Meh. What consequence of not being the world’s top superpower concerns you? How far do you think we’ll fall?

Who the next superpower is is what concerns me.

Not a fan of what a China/Russia/Iran centric world domination would be like.

Sure. Of those three, China is the most realistic to take our place. Not ideal, but I’m not concerned what that would mean for the US.

What consequence do you fear from China at the top?

A move to global communism. Less freedoms and more top down governmental control in all aspects of life. Basically the opposite of what the US was founded on. Maybe eventually their commitment to atheism and the lack of morality to the point that eugenics becomes the only logical conclusion. Ordered births and governmental control of who is fit to live or die or move or work job X or how much everyone can earn and what a good life is like.

Those consequences. Sure not in my lifetime, but in a couple of generations? Not too far fetched.

 

[Jayrod]

I don't know how some of you grumps get up in the morning.

Faith in God and a love of my family. I actually am very excited about my current life, but I also believe there is a real danger on the horizon for the US and the world.

What I'm expressing here isn't something that consumes my daily thoughts, but when I sit back and look at the direction of the world I'm not pleased or impressed. But I do what I can do with what I have influence over. I do my job well, I raise my 2 teenage kids well, I love my wife and I officiate my games well and I work out and eat OK (and drink too much beer) and do a lot with my church and try to help my friends and encourage others. Day to day life isn't really anything like this place. This is a place for distraction and some deep thinking and discussion. Things I won't talk much about in the real world. Maybe over some beers, my brother-in-law and I will rant a bit. Maybe when I'm talking to my wife or son or daughter about current events I'll give them some deeper, wide ranging implications about the wars in Israel or Ukraine or the risk of Taiwan vs China or my perceived implications on the coming election.

But 99% of my life is just doing the task in front of me, loving people and enjoying the journey. I believe it is called the "path of the Brohan" around these parts.

 

[Rich Conway]

Let's say for the sake of argument that one agrees (and I do, personally) with the statement "the US no longer stands alone as the world's socioeconomic leader". I'm not sure how that ties into the previous 2-3 pages. What's the conclusion? That the US's current socioeconomic standing is due to the current generation of workers (let's call that millennials and, to a much lesser extent, Gen Z) being lazy and entitled? I don't think that's fair at all. Boomers and, to a lesser extent, Gen X have been driving the bus for the past 50 years. Any decline is on their watch rather than the following generations.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't know how some of you grumps get up in the morning.

Faith in God and a love of my family. I actually am very excited about my current life, but I also believe there is a real danger on the horizon for the US and the world.

What I'm expressing here isn't something that consumes my daily thoughts, but when I sit back and look at the direction of the world I'm not pleased or impressed. But I do what I can do with what I have influence over. I do my job well, I raise my 2 teenage kids well, I love my wife and I officiate my games well and I work out and eat OK (and drink too much beer) and do a lot with my church and try to help my friends and encourage others. Day to day life isn't really anything like this place. This is a place for distraction and some deep thinking and discussion. Things I won't talk much about in the real world. Maybe over some beers, my brother-in-law and I will rant a bit. Maybe when I'm talking to my wife or son or daughter about current events I'll give them some deeper, wide ranging implications about the wars in Israel or Ukraine or the risk of Taiwan vs China or my perceived implications on the coming election.

But 99% of my life is just doing the task in front of me, loving people and enjoying the journey. I believe it is called the "path of the Brohan" around these parts.

You and I are looking at this in very similar ways. I'm not happy with the current trajectory that society is on, but I'm also fortunate to be in a position where that trajectory doesn't really affect me all that much. My career isn't over yet, but I can see the finish line from here. At that point, my wife and I and free to pick up and move wherever we'd like. I can simply choose to avoid a lot of the problems that are coming, and if I pick the wrong place to move to, I can always just move again. It's very nice to know that I can just check out from all of this.

 

[Stoneworker]

Let's say for the sake of argument that one agrees (and I do, personally) with the statement "the US no longer stands alone as the world's socioeconomic leader". I'm not sure how that ties into the previous 2-3 pages. What's the conclusion? That the US's current socioeconomic standing is due to the current generation of workers (let's call that millennials and, to a much lesser extent, Gen Z) being lazy and entitled? I don't think that's fair at all. Boomers and, to a lesser extent, Gen X have been driving the bus for the past 50 years. Any decline is on their watch rather than the following generations.

If you are looking for "causes" of the changing world order (i.e. US decline), billionaire Ray Dalio has written extensively on the topic. He lists five broad drivers that appear on a cyclical basis throughout history. All of these are happening now at their largest magnitude since 1945, when U.S. dominance began.

1) Central bank(s) creating enormous amounts of national debt via printing money and buying (i.e. monetizing) the debt, significantly eroding economic dominance

2) Large and widening wealth gaps that lead to populist movements and internal conflict (can't get anything done)

3) Increasing external conflicts due to countries increasing their standing enough to challenge the existing world power and weaken its previous dominance (e.g. China trade, efforts to weaken reserve currency)

4) Acts of nature (e.g. hurricanes, pandemics) that cause Big Swan events that erode economic resilience due to increasingly weakened responses caused primarily by 1) and 2)

5) Major technology shifts and changes (e.g. AI and previously industrial revolution that originally benefited U.S.) that enable emerging countries to "leapfrog" world powers

 

[Dr. Octopus]

A move to global communism.

Just because China could become the world's top economy why would that lead to every other Country (including the U.S.) changing their political philosophies?

Is China going to become a democratic republic since the U.S. is on top now (or was)?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

A move to global communism.

Just because China could become the world's top economy why would that lead to every other Country (including the U.S.) changing their political philosophies?

Is China going to become a democratic republic since the U.S. is on top now (or was)?

Social media. China is influencing the political philosophy of the US right now. This is not some weird hypothetical that might occur at some point in the future. It is happening literally as we speak.

Sometimes I honestly can't tell if people are just unaware of this, or if the situation is so bad that people want to ignore it.

 

[the moops]

And you all are admitting that entertainment is now considered part of a "living wage" in this country.

If people can't live without a smart phone and Netflix, that's weak, soft, lazy...whatever you want to call it but it isn't good.

A living wage has always included the most basic comforts in our lives. That would have been a landline and a television or radio years ago. Swapping out those for a cellphone and internet and a streaming service isn't any softer or lazier or weaker than before

 

[beer 30]

Just because China could become the world's top economy

They may want to be #1, they may try to be #1 but as Duck mentioned above, their economy is a complete house of cards right set to crumble in the next decade if not sooner. So bad that they would be relegated to the kids table at Thanksgiving except for their nukes which keeps them relevant into the future.

Social media. China is influencing the political philosophy of the US right now. This is not some weird hypothetical that might occur at some point in the future. It is happening literally as we speak.

Sometimes I honestly can't tell if people are just unaware of this, or if the situation is so bad that people want to ignore it.

Probably some of both. I think generally, FBG's are a little more in tune about these layered machinations but for the most part, people are oblivious to things that don't directly effect them or their loved ones. That's the brilliance of the slow play that China uses. It's pretty easy to manipulate people that are focused on 4 years or less into the future when you have a 50 year runway. They also just use piles and piles of cash. Listen to any spy on any of the million podcasts that have them on now, money is the #1 motivator. Everything else is a distant 2nd.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

A move to global communism.

Just because China could become the world's top economy why would that lead to every other Country (including the U.S.) changing their political philosophies?

Is China going to become a democratic republic since the U.S. is on top now (or was)?

Social media. China is influencing the political philosophy of the US right now. This is not some weird hypothetical that might occur at some point in the future. It is happening literally as we speak.

Sometimes I honestly can't tell if people are just unaware of this, or if the situation is so bad that people want to ignore it.

I think there's a lot of fear mongering going on in society as well - but thanks, I was looking at this as a economics thread but didn't realize the thread had taken a turn. That's a fair assessment in that light.

 

[Sleestak]

I don't know how some of you grumps get up in the morning.

I also believe there is a real danger on the horizon for the US and the world.

I agree. We are approaching a singularity. Resource and climate issues. Job loss due to Automation and AI. Truth for sale. We have willingly plugged our children's brains into the network. They have been surrendered to addictive algorithms and propoganda. We are so far gone that we allow foreign and domestic enemies to pervert this. We can't agree on who our enemies even are. We've elevated utter parasitic trash due to fears and grievances that are trivial bullspit in the grand scheme, or even illusory. We are not strong. We have cheapened ourselves.

Being a human, alive to nature's wonder, self-aware, with free will and limitless options is an incredible gift.

I'm going outside to throw the ball with my beautiful dog, look at the cobalt sky, sniff the crisp air, and live in the moment. You all have a GREAT Friday, and really enjoy it!

 

[dkp993]

I don't know how some of you grumps get up in the morning.

The Padres playing in game 5 against the Dodgers. Oh, and football.

 

[Snotbubbles]

You make great points, @SFBayDuck, but how can we do more for those "left behind"? That's 35% is a pretty big chunk of the population, and it seems like it's only going to grow as home ownership rates drop.

Stop spending like drunken sailors so that inflation cools and interest rates are allowed to drop. Also not importing 10M more people in in an uncontrolled manner to compete for housing. These two items will dramatically help.

so what, stop immigration? you realize the impacts to the economy if that happens, right?

Of course not. We have a robust legal immigration system.

Agree with Sand here. The best thing we can do for our kids is stop spending money we don't have. If the economy is doing so great there's no reason to run the government at such a large deficit.

I think most people agree with that but how we get there is a different story and where people just can't agree.

I've been getting bombarded with political junkmail and ads. Not one says, we should cut spending.

Not everyone thinks we should fix the deficit issue by cutting spending - like I said think people would like us not to run such huge deficits but solutions to getting there are much different.

There not too many ways to fix the deficit without cutting spending. If you don't cut spending, you'd have to tax everything into oblivion, but history has shown that raising taxes is bad for economic growth.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I think it's extremely likely and almost a given that 100 to 200 years from now (if not much sooner) the US will not be the dominant power it is today. Like @IvanKaramazov said, this is true through pretty much all of history. The unstoppable world power or world economic force becomes stoppable and fades back down the list a bit. It is inevitable. The things that spur that growth to the top are many of the same things that overextend and cause a fall once at the top, and once people have those things they are not going to give them up.

I agree that the general acceptance that the national debt is just going to expand forever is a major part of that. Every so often we get a quick rally in "we have to fix that" but each cycle that rally is quieter, shorter, and less popular. We're probably at a point of no return on that by now. We can't fix it without making life temporarily worse, and no one is going to get into power anymore with a platform of "we're going to make life temporarily worse to fix a future problem that you don't really care about anymore".

People have shown time and time and time and time again, whether it be the debt or climate change or a dozen other things, when people are given the choice of small sacrifice to fix a problem that may not manifest for 100 years, or enjoy temporary stimulated growth at the expense of major future problems, they will always (as a whole) choose the latter.

I mean, just look at this thread. We live in the most prosperous and advanced country and time in world history and live a lifestyle that is unimaginably luxurious to even the wealthy people of past generations and it's still nothing but complaints. People certainly aren't going to start giving up those luxuries to fix a magic number floating in the air. We're too far gone.

Unrelenting exponential growth whose foundation is that it has to continue exponentially growing for all eternity isn't sustainable for eternity. We realized that when we left the gold standard and ever since then it's just been money printing to keep that exponential growth going and eventually we will hit a limit and it will be bad, but society is not as a whole willing to volunteer to live a worse life now to prevent that happening for the future.

My more immediate concerns I can't possibly bring up without it being political. But let's just say they're essentially the opposite of the other concerns that were brought up here so as much as I agree with Ivan and Jayrod on the debt issue, we would very much be at odds on some of the other more societal and political (and less economic) stuff mentioned. But I have no ill will towards either on our disagreements there as it's just different ideas with the same positive end goal, which is probably moot anyway since the more long-term economic train of society accepting only "greed and expansion until collapse" seems pretty much unstoppable by now. There is almost zero chance of adopting a policy of longish term contraction/recession for the benefit of long-term future health.

But again, that's kind of the opposite of the point of this thread anyway. Because the very things that this thread was founded on are the kinds of things (along with many others) we'd have to intentionally head in the direction of for long term economic health.

 

[Sand]

You make great points, @SFBayDuck, but how can we do more for those "left behind"? That's 35% is a pretty big chunk of the population, and it seems like it's only going to grow as home ownership rates drop.

Stop spending like drunken sailors so that inflation cools and interest rates are allowed to drop. Also not importing 10M more people in in an uncontrolled manner to compete for housing. These two items will dramatically help.

so what, stop immigration? you realize the impacts to the economy if that happens, right?

Of course not. We have a robust legal immigration system.

Agree with Sand here. The best thing we can do for our kids is stop spending money we don't have. If the economy is doing so great there's no reason to run the government at such a large deficit.

I think most people agree with that but how we get there is a different story and where people just can't agree.

I've been getting bombarded with political junkmail and ads. Not one says, we should cut spending.

Not everyone thinks we should fix the deficit issue by cutting spending - like I said think people would like us not to run such huge deficits but solutions to getting there are much different.

There not too many ways to fix the deficit without cutting spending. If you don't cut spending, you'd have to tax everything into oblivion, but history has shown that raising taxes is bad for economic growth.

A bit of both. The penny plan (or whatever it was called) - just holding spending semi-constant while allowing GDP to catch up is probably the best way to go. But votes are easier to get when you can buy them, so it's hard to sell that. People are pretty myopic, therefore so are our spending issues.

 

[massraider]

"I've been teaching for 22 years, and every year these kids get more arrogant.... you wanna know the thought that keeps me up at night? That when I'm old, these kids will be taking care of me."

- YouTube

Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.

youtu.be

1985 was the year, by the way

 

[Redwes25]

You make great points, @SFBayDuck, but how can we do more for those "left behind"? That's 35% is a pretty big chunk of the population, and it seems like it's only going to grow as home ownership rates drop.

Stop spending like drunken sailors so that inflation cools and interest rates are allowed to drop. Also not importing 10M more people in in an uncontrolled manner to compete for housing. These two items will dramatically help.

so what, stop immigration? you realize the impacts to the economy if that happens, right?

Of course not. We have a robust legal immigration system.

Agree with Sand here. The best thing we can do for our kids is stop spending money we don't have. If the economy is doing so great there's no reason to run the government at such a large deficit.

I think most people agree with that but how we get there is a different story and where people just can't agree.

I've been getting bombarded with political junkmail and ads. Not one says, we should cut spending.

Not everyone thinks we should fix the deficit issue by cutting spending - like I said think people would like us not to run such huge deficits but solutions to getting there are much different.

There not too many ways to fix the deficit without cutting spending. If you don't cut spending, you'd have to tax everything into oblivion, but history has shown that raising taxes is bad for economic growth.

I am not debating the route we go as that is overtly political and don’t want this thread nuked.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

"I've been teaching for 22 years, and every year these kids get more arrogant.... you wanna know the thought that keeps me up at night? That when I'm old, these kids will be taking care of me."

- YouTube

Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.

youtu.be

1985 was the year, by the way

He was right. I've done a poor job of taking care of that guy.

 

[Snotbubbles]

You make great points, @SFBayDuck, but how can we do more for those "left behind"? That's 35% is a pretty big chunk of the population, and it seems like it's only going to grow as home ownership rates drop.

Stop spending like drunken sailors so that inflation cools and interest rates are allowed to drop. Also not importing 10M more people in in an uncontrolled manner to compete for housing. These two items will dramatically help.

so what, stop immigration? you realize the impacts to the economy if that happens, right?

Of course not. We have a robust legal immigration system.

Agree with Sand here. The best thing we can do for our kids is stop spending money we don't have. If the economy is doing so great there's no reason to run the government at such a large deficit.

I think most people agree with that but how we get there is a different story and where people just can't agree.

I've been getting bombarded with political junkmail and ads. Not one says, we should cut spending.

Not everyone thinks we should fix the deficit issue by cutting spending - like I said think people would like us not to run such huge deficits but solutions to getting there are much different.

There not too many ways to fix the deficit without cutting spending. If you don't cut spending, you'd have to tax everything into oblivion, but history has shown that raising taxes is bad for economic growth.

A bit of both. The penny plan (or whatever it was called) - just holding spending semi-constant while allowing GDP to catch up is probably the best way to go. But votes are easier to get when you can buy them, so it's hard to sell that. People are pretty myopic, therefore so are our spending issues.

When you say "holding spending semi-constant" do you mean we only make inflation adjustments but we don't spending for anything new without first cutting spending on something else? Like Budget is $X dollars. We are making an inflation adjustment of 3%. Now budget is ($X)0.03, total spending cannot go over that number?

 

[Navin Johnson]

"I've been teaching for 22 years, and every year these kids get more arrogant.... you wanna know the thought that keeps me up at night? That when I'm old, these kids will be taking care of me."

- YouTube

Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.

youtu.be

1985 was the year, by the way

Read Friday Night Lights a couple years ago and they were saying the same thing about the kids back then that they are saying now.

 

[Sand]

You make great points, @SFBayDuck, but how can we do more for those "left behind"? That's 35% is a pretty big chunk of the population, and it seems like it's only going to grow as home ownership rates drop.

Stop spending like drunken sailors so that inflation cools and interest rates are allowed to drop. Also not importing 10M more people in in an uncontrolled manner to compete for housing. These two items will dramatically help.

so what, stop immigration? you realize the impacts to the economy if that happens, right?

Of course not. We have a robust legal immigration system.

Agree with Sand here. The best thing we can do for our kids is stop spending money we don't have. If the economy is doing so great there's no reason to run the government at such a large deficit.

I think most people agree with that but how we get there is a different story and where people just can't agree.

I've been getting bombarded with political junkmail and ads. Not one says, we should cut spending.

Not everyone thinks we should fix the deficit issue by cutting spending - like I said think people would like us not to run such huge deficits but solutions to getting there are much different.

There not too many ways to fix the deficit without cutting spending. If you don't cut spending, you'd have to tax everything into oblivion, but history has shown that raising taxes is bad for economic growth.

A bit of both. The penny plan (or whatever it was called) - just holding spending semi-constant while allowing GDP to catch up is probably the best way to go. But votes are easier to get when you can buy them, so it's hard to sell that. People are pretty myopic, therefore so are our spending issues.

When you say "holding spending semi-constant" do you mean we only make inflation adjustments but we don't spending for anything new without first cutting spending on something else? Like Budget is $X dollars. We are making an inflation adjustment of 3%. Now budget is ($X)0.03, total spending cannot go over that number?

Something akin to that, yes. Essentially holding the budget at current levels and allowing GDP to catch up.

 

[Max Power]

There are problems with the younger generations. Sure, historically the older generations have said this before, but I think that sentiment is reaching a critical point these days.

Here is an employer survey about recent college graduates entering the workplace.

1 in 6 Companies Are Hesitant To Hire Recent College Graduates - Intelligent

Intelligent.com surveyed business leaders involved in hiring decisions to explore attitudes toward hiring recent college grads.

www.intelligent.com

What we found:

• 75% of companies report that some or all of the recent college graduates they hired this year were unsatisfactory
• 6 in 10 companies fired a recent college graduate they hired this year
• 1 in 6 hiring managers say they are hesitant to hire from this cohort
• Hiring managers say recent college grads are unprepared for the workforce, can’t handle the workload, and are unprofessional
• 1 in 7 companies may refrain from hiring recent college graduates next year
• 9 in 10 hiring managers say recent college graduates should undergo etiquette training

The most frequently cited reasons for why these hires didn’t work out were a lack of motivation or initiative (50%), poor communication skills (39%), and a lack of professionalism (46%). Other factors included poor communication skills (39%), struggles with feedback (38%), and inadequate problem-solving abilities (34%).

I'm part of the hiring and training pathway for my command and we are deeply concerned by what we are seeing from the under 25 generation. Mostly repeating the things cited above, they tend to struggle to adapt to a professional work environment. We know the ipad generation is coming up next and they will likely be a whole new set of challenges.

 

[massraider]

Sure, historically the older generations have said this before, but I think that sentiment is reaching a critical point these days

Tell you what, trying to get people our age to do things isn't really a picnic.

My company, we are finishing our extraction facility, and I am currently or recently have been dealing with the guys who install equipment, the guys who certify that installation, the local inspectors, the security company, and our construction company, and none of these people are young.

And if you don't follow up and nag each of them, no one keeps to their timeline.

 

[uwillbsoon]

There are problems with the younger generations. Sure, historically the older generations have said this before, but I think that sentiment is reaching a critical point these days.

Here is an employer survey about recent college graduates entering the workplace.

1 in 6 Companies Are Hesitant To Hire Recent College Graduates - Intelligent

Intelligent.com surveyed business leaders involved in hiring decisions to explore attitudes toward hiring recent college grads.

www.intelligent.com

What we found:

• 75% of companies report that some or all of the recent college graduates they hired this year were unsatisfactory
• 6 in 10 companies fired a recent college graduate they hired this year
• 1 in 6 hiring managers say they are hesitant to hire from this cohort
• Hiring managers say recent college grads are unprepared for the workforce, can’t handle the workload, and are unprofessional
• 1 in 7 companies may refrain from hiring recent college graduates next year
• 9 in 10 hiring managers say recent college graduates should undergo etiquette training

The most frequently cited reasons for why these hires didn’t work out were a lack of motivation or initiative (50%), poor communication skills (39%), and a lack of professionalism (46%). Other factors included poor communication skills (39%), struggles with feedback (38%), and inadequate problem-solving abilities (34%).

I'm part of the hiring and training pathway for my command and we are deeply concerned by what we are seeing from the under 25 generation. Mostly repeating the things cited above, they tend to struggle to adapt to a professional work environment. We know the ipad generation is coming up next and they will likely be a whole new set of challenges.

Has this changed over time? The data you've posted doesn't necessarily support the argument that it's worse now.

 

[Max Power]

Sure, historically the older generations have said this before, but I think that sentiment is reaching a critical point these days

Tell you what, trying to get people our age to do things isn't really a picnic.

My company, we are finishing our extraction facility, and I am currently or recently have been dealing with the guys who install equipment, the guys who certify that installation, the local inspectors, the security company, and our construction company, and none of these people are young.

And if you don't follow up and nag each of them, no one keeps to their timeline.

There are bad and lazy employees of all ages. I get the vibe that the people you're referencing are at least competent, but they are either lazy or unmotivated.

Some in the gen Z aren't even competent and I think a lot boils down to the fact that they don't know how to be an employee.

I feel as a supervisor, I know how to address lazy or unmotivated. I struggle to manage employees who basically shut down when they face an obstacle.

 

[uwillbsoon]

Sure, historically the older generations have said this before, but I think that sentiment is reaching a critical point these days

Tell you what, trying to get people our age to do things isn't really a picnic.

My company, we are finishing our extraction facility, and I am currently or recently have been dealing with the guys who install equipment, the guys who certify that installation, the local inspectors, the security company, and our construction company, and none of these people are young.

And if you don't follow up and nag each of them, no one keeps to their timeline.

There are bad and lazy employees of all ages. I get the vibe that the people you're referencing are at least competent, but they are either lazy or unmotivated.

Some in the gen Z aren't even competent and I think a lot boils down to the fact that they don't know how to be an employee.

I feel as a supervisor, I know how to address lazy or unmotivated. I struggle to manage employees who basically shut down when they face an obstacle.

Interesting. I've found the opposite. It's hard to motivate intrinsically unmotivated. It's easy to teach someone how to overcome an obstacle. Usually that's just a lack of knowledge.

At least in my line of work.

 

[dkp993]

I feel as a supervisor, I know how to address lazy or unmotivated. I struggle to manage employees who basically shut down when they face an obstacle.

100%. Spot on.

 

[Max Power]

There are problems with the younger generations. Sure, historically the older generations have said this before, but I think that sentiment is reaching a critical point these days.

Here is an employer survey about recent college graduates entering the workplace.

1 in 6 Companies Are Hesitant To Hire Recent College Graduates - Intelligent

Intelligent.com surveyed business leaders involved in hiring decisions to explore attitudes toward hiring recent college grads.

www.intelligent.com

What we found:

• 75% of companies report that some or all of the recent college graduates they hired this year were unsatisfactory
• 6 in 10 companies fired a recent college graduate they hired this year
• 1 in 6 hiring managers say they are hesitant to hire from this cohort
• Hiring managers say recent college grads are unprepared for the workforce, can’t handle the workload, and are unprofessional
• 1 in 7 companies may refrain from hiring recent college graduates next year
• 9 in 10 hiring managers say recent college graduates should undergo etiquette training

The most frequently cited reasons for why these hires didn’t work out were a lack of motivation or initiative (50%), poor communication skills (39%), and a lack of professionalism (46%). Other factors included poor communication skills (39%), struggles with feedback (38%), and inadequate problem-solving abilities (34%).

I'm part of the hiring and training pathway for my command and we are deeply concerned by what we are seeing from the under 25 generation. Mostly repeating the things cited above, they tend to struggle to adapt to a professional work environment. We know the ipad generation is coming up next and they will likely be a whole new set of challenges.

Has this changed over time? The data you've posted doesn't necessarily support the argument that it's worse now.

The numbers don't spell it out, but I know which direction this trending. I started at entry level, we probably all did. I worked my way up and have observed what is acceptable and what isn't at each rung of the ladder. Entry level work isn't complicated and its honestly a low bar in most situations. To read 75% of companies find some of their recent college grad hires to be unsatisfactory is pretty significant to me.

 

[dkp993]

Sure, historically the older generations have said this before, but I think that sentiment is reaching a critical point these days

Tell you what, trying to get people our age to do things isn't really a picnic.

My company, we are finishing our extraction facility, and I am currently or recently have been dealing with the guys who install equipment, the guys who certify that installation, the local inspectors, the security company, and our construction company, and none of these people are young.

And if you don't follow up and nag each of them, no one keeps to their timeline.

There are bad and lazy employees of all ages. I get the vibe that the people you're referencing are at least competent, but they are either lazy or unmotivated.

Some in the gen Z aren't even competent and I think a lot boils down to the fact that they don't know how to be an employee.

I feel as a supervisor, I know how to address lazy or unmotivated. I struggle to manage employees who basically shut down when they face an obstacle.

Interesting. I've found the opposite. It's hard to motivate intrinsically unmotivated. It's easy to teach someone how to overcome an obstacle. Usually that's just a lack of knowledge.

At least in my line of work.

The key words, imo, of Maxs post were “shut down when they face….”

If they are willing then I completely agree with you uwillbesoon, but what I’ve found is more common is them being unwilling. There’s an entitlement with this generation that was far less prevalent than before.

 

[the moops]

To read 75% of companies find some of their recent college grad hires to be unsatisfactory is pretty significant to me.

Perhaps but as someone alluded to above, maybe it has always been like that?

 

[uwillbsoon]

There are problems with the younger generations. Sure, historically the older generations have said this before, but I think that sentiment is reaching a critical point these days.

Here is an employer survey about recent college graduates entering the workplace.

1 in 6 Companies Are Hesitant To Hire Recent College Graduates - Intelligent

Intelligent.com surveyed business leaders involved in hiring decisions to explore attitudes toward hiring recent college grads.

www.intelligent.com

What we found:

• 75% of companies report that some or all of the recent college graduates they hired this year were unsatisfactory
• 6 in 10 companies fired a recent college graduate they hired this year
• 1 in 6 hiring managers say they are hesitant to hire from this cohort
• Hiring managers say recent college grads are unprepared for the workforce, can’t handle the workload, and are unprofessional
• 1 in 7 companies may refrain from hiring recent college graduates next year
• 9 in 10 hiring managers say recent college graduates should undergo etiquette training

The most frequently cited reasons for why these hires didn’t work out were a lack of motivation or initiative (50%), poor communication skills (39%), and a lack of professionalism (46%). Other factors included poor communication skills (39%), struggles with feedback (38%), and inadequate problem-solving abilities (34%).

I'm part of the hiring and training pathway for my command and we are deeply concerned by what we are seeing from the under 25 generation. Mostly repeating the things cited above, they tend to struggle to adapt to a professional work environment. We know the ipad generation is coming up next and they will likely be a whole new set of challenges.

Has this changed over time? The data you've posted doesn't necessarily support the argument that it's worse now.

The numbers don't spell it out, but I know which direction this trending. I started at entry level, we probably all did. I worked my way up and have observed what is acceptable and what isn't at each rung of the ladder. Entry level work isn't complicated and its honestly a low bar in most situations. To read 75% of companies find some of their recent college grad hires to be unsatisfactory is pretty significant to me.

I'm guessing that number isn't much different for experienced employees.

Finding "some" new hires unsatisfactory doesn't seem that uncommon to me.

I honestly can't think of a job I've hired for where I didn't find a new hire unsatisfactory. I'm more surprised 25% of employers are saying they've found none of their college graduate hires unsatisfactory.

But my entry level roles aren't those that people pine for. Think cold calling.

I've been hiring for fifteen years. Maybe I'm lucky or getting better at it, but my recent college hires have been better than those I hired fifteen years ago.

 

[Max Power]

Sure, historically the older generations have said this before, but I think that sentiment is reaching a critical point these days

Tell you what, trying to get people our age to do things isn't really a picnic.

My company, we are finishing our extraction facility, and I am currently or recently have been dealing with the guys who install equipment, the guys who certify that installation, the local inspectors, the security company, and our construction company, and none of these people are young.

And if you don't follow up and nag each of them, no one keeps to their timeline.

There are bad and lazy employees of all ages. I get the vibe that the people you're referencing are at least competent, but they are either lazy or unmotivated.

Some in the gen Z aren't even competent and I think a lot boils down to the fact that they don't know how to be an employee.

I feel as a supervisor, I know how to address lazy or unmotivated. I struggle to manage employees who basically shut down when they face an obstacle.

Interesting. I've found the opposite. It's hard to motivate intrinsically unmotivated. It's easy to teach someone how to overcome an obstacle. Usually that's just a lack of knowledge.

At least in my line of work.

Motivating the unmotivated isn't easy at all. I just know what it entails and how much I need to stay on top of it.

The obstacle angle is difficult for me because yes, it is a lack of knowledge, but its how often the lack of knowledge pops up and how simple of a situation can become an obstacle to some of this younger generation. It goes into the whole problem solving aspect. When situations elevate into obstacles due to lack of working through a problem, I don't think I can continue to employ that person. I'm fine if they can't figure something out and come talk to me about it. I find it unacceptable if they make that the first response to dealing with a problem and that's what I'm seeing more and more from younger employees.

 

[Max Power]

To read 75% of companies find some of their recent college grad hires to be unsatisfactory is pretty significant to me.

Perhaps but as someone alluded to above, maybe it has always been like that?

And it might be, but do you think the 22 year olds today are entering the workforce more prepared than they were 20 years ago?

 

[the moops]

To read 75% of companies find some of their recent college grad hires to be unsatisfactory is pretty significant to me.

Perhaps but as someone alluded to above, maybe it has always been like that?

And it might be, but do you think the 22 year olds today are entering the workforce more prepared than they were 20 years ago?

I don't know. 20 years ago, well, almost 30 years ago, I wasn't very prepared right out of college. Feel like that is kinda how it goes no?

I have recently hired 1/2 dozen 23-28 year olds and the majority of them have been fantastic

 

[MAC_32]

I struggle to manage employees who basically shut down when they face an obstacle.

Me too, most of those encounters I've had are with those older than me (I'm 41)

 

[uwillbsoon]

To read 75% of companies find some of their recent college grad hires to be unsatisfactory is pretty significant to me.

Perhaps but as someone alluded to above, maybe it has always been like that?

And it might be, but do you think the 22 year olds today are entering the workforce more prepared than they were 20 years ago?

My anecdotal experience is yes. But I know it's small and not representative.

 

[the moops]

To read 75% of companies find some of their recent college grad hires to be unsatisfactory is pretty significant to me.

Perhaps but as someone alluded to above, maybe it has always been like that?

And it might be, but do you think the 22 year olds today are entering the workforce more prepared than they were 20 years ago?

I don't know. 20 years ago, well, almost 30 years ago, I wasn't very prepared right out of college. Feel like that is kinda how it goes no?

I have recently hired 1/2 dozen 23-28 year olds and the majority of them have been fantastic

On queue though, just had an interview scheduled with a 23-25 year old, unsure exactly how old and they ghosted me

 

[Nugget]

S&P up 20%+ YTD. Inflation down to target levels setting the stage for more Fed cuts in 2025. Economy is looking pretty solid near term. Housing looks to be an ongoing issue and we are still 90 days out from the next port deadline.

 

[The Z Machine]

Housing looks to be an ongoing issue

Mostly due to poor investment in housing starts in the last 20 years. Simply put, we are waaaay behind in having enough housing stock to keep rents down to reasonable levels of income.

 

[opensourcebeer]

So for the 2-3 of you ever so subtly hinting that the US society and economy will devolve into a dystopian hellscape any day now, mostly thanks to these darn lazy kids, what countries will take the baton going forward? Because that’s what has happened throughout history. When we fall, someone steps into the vacuum, right? So who is up next?

China’s economy is a giant mess, even worse than they’ll ever let on, so that doesn’t seem likely. India? While we talk about pets and concerts, 60% of their population lives on $3.10 or less a day. A seceded People’s Republic of California? Borat leading the Republic of Kazakhstan to glory? Who is doing it so much better and will be in position to take advantage of our imminent implosion?

Asking for a friend looking for investment opportunities.

I'm not one of the 2-3 you mentioned hinting at dystopia, but imo the countries that will see economic success in the future will have a good plan on how to achieve the following:

1. Widespread adoption of AI and related automation to see significant productivity gains.

2. Implementation of effective immigration policies that offset potential lower birthrates of their current population.

Both of these would need to happen in a way that keeps their populace happy and/or controlled -and- adequately adapts to global climate change.

 

[Terminalxylem]

And if your version of history goes back only 100 or even 200 years, you are fooling yourself thinking this is some permanent cycle of growth and wealth we are in.

The problem is that basically nobody agrees with you. I do, but nobody else does. Those people vote, and their vote counts the same as ours.

People living in the US generally operate under the theory that the US is immune from history, and we're immune from the problems that have caused other great powers to decline over time. That is very much not the case, and I would argue that the US is already in sharp and irreversible decline. The problem is that none of the metrics that I would use to defend that view are admissible in this forum, so I'll just leave that as a raw assertion. IYKYK.

More generally though, folks just don't understand history, and in particular they don't really understand US history. For example, it is 2024. The Battle of Little Big Horn, in which a US Army division was literally annihilated by a group of stone-age warriors, was less than 150 years ago. Our grandparents would have had direct access to people who were were there. Fast forward a bit to WWI. When the US entered WWI, we were an afterthought. Our military probably would have been routed by the likes of Poland. Horses were still being used in warfare back then, and we think of that as part of the "modern" era.

We've been a global superpower for about three or four generations. That's it. The UK fell from a much higher perch to also-ran status during that exact same period. It can happen to us, and it is happening to us. I recommend looking out for yourself.

Meh. What consequence of not being the world’s top superpower concerns you? How far do you think we’ll fall?

Who the next superpower is is what concerns me.

Not a fan of what a China/Russia/Iran centric world domination would be like.

Sure. Of those three, China is the most realistic to take our place. Not ideal, but I’m not concerned what that would mean for the US.

What consequence do you fear from China at the top?

A move to global communism. Less freedoms and more top down governmental control in all aspects of life. Basically the opposite of what the US was founded on. Maybe eventually their commitment to atheism and the lack of morality to the point that eugenics becomes the only logical conclusion. Ordered births and governmental control of who is fit to live or die or move or work job X or how much everyone can earn and what a good life is like.

Those consequences. Sure not in my lifetime, but in a couple of generations? Not too far fetched.

Agree to disagree on the plausibility of most of your fears, and a little irritated by the atheism=immorality trope.

 

[Mitchie]

And if your version of history goes back only 100 or even 200 years, you are fooling yourself thinking this is some permanent cycle of growth and wealth we are in.

The problem is that basically nobody agrees with you. I do, but nobody else does. Those people vote, and their vote counts the same as ours.

People living in the US generally operate under the theory that the US is immune from history, and we're immune from the problems that have caused other great powers to decline over time. That is very much not the case, and I would argue that the US is already in sharp and irreversible decline. The problem is that none of the metrics that I would use to defend that view are admissible in this forum, so I'll just leave that as a raw assertion. IYKYK.

More generally though, folks just don't understand history, and in particular they don't really understand US history. For example, it is 2024. The Battle of Little Big Horn, in which a US Army division was literally annihilated by a group of stone-age warriors, was less than 150 years ago. Our grandparents would have had direct access to people who were were there. Fast forward a bit to WWI. When the US entered WWI, we were an afterthought. Our military probably would have been routed by the likes of Poland. Horses were still being used in warfare back then, and we think of that as part of the "modern" era.

We've been a global superpower for about three or four generations. That's it. The UK fell from a much higher perch to also-ran status during that exact same period. It can happen to us, and it is happening to us. I recommend looking out for yourself.

Meh. What consequence of not being the world’s top superpower concerns you? How far do you think we’ll fall?

Who the next superpower is is what concerns me.

Not a fan of what a China/Russia/Iran centric world domination would be like.

Sure. Of those three, China is the most realistic to take our place. Not ideal, but I’m not concerned what that would mean for the US.

What consequence do you fear from China at the top?

A move to global communism. Less freedoms and more top down governmental control in all aspects of life. Basically the opposite of what the US was founded on. Maybe eventually their commitment to atheism and the lack of morality to the point that eugenics becomes the only logical conclusion. Ordered births and governmental control of who is fit to live or die or move or work job X or how much everyone can earn and what a good life is like.

Those consequences. Sure not in my lifetime, but in a couple of generations? Not too far fetched.

Agree to disagree on the plausibility of most of your fears, and a little irritated by the atheism=immorality trope.

There's really a much stronger argument to made that religion = immorality.

 

[Stoneworker]

And if your version of history goes back only 100 or even 200 years, you are fooling yourself thinking this is some permanent cycle of growth and wealth we are in.

The problem is that basically nobody agrees with you. I do, but nobody else does. Those people vote, and their vote counts the same as ours.

People living in the US generally operate under the theory that the US is immune from history, and we're immune from the problems that have caused other great powers to decline over time. That is very much not the case, and I would argue that the US is already in sharp and irreversible decline. The problem is that none of the metrics that I would use to defend that view are admissible in this forum, so I'll just leave that as a raw assertion. IYKYK.

More generally though, folks just don't understand history, and in particular they don't really understand US history. For example, it is 2024. The Battle of Little Big Horn, in which a US Army division was literally annihilated by a group of stone-age warriors, was less than 150 years ago. Our grandparents would have had direct access to people who were were there. Fast forward a bit to WWI. When the US entered WWI, we were an afterthought. Our military probably would have been routed by the likes of Poland. Horses were still being used in warfare back then, and we think of that as part of the "modern" era.

We've been a global superpower for about three or four generations. That's it. The UK fell from a much higher perch to also-ran status during that exact same period. It can happen to us, and it is happening to us. I recommend looking out for yourself.

Meh. What consequence of not being the world’s top superpower concerns you? How far do you think we’ll fall?

Who the next superpower is is what concerns me.

Not a fan of what a China/Russia/Iran centric world domination would be like.

Sure. Of those three, China is the most realistic to take our place. Not ideal, but I’m not concerned what that would mean for the US.

What consequence do you fear from China at the top?

A move to global communism. Less freedoms and more top down governmental control in all aspects of life. Basically the opposite of what the US was founded on. Maybe eventually their commitment to atheism and the lack of morality to the point that eugenics becomes the only logical conclusion. Ordered births and governmental control of who is fit to live or die or move or work job X or how much everyone can earn and what a good life is like.

Those consequences. Sure not in my lifetime, but in a couple of generations? Not too far fetched.

Agree to disagree on the plausibility of most of your fears, and a little irritated by the atheism=immorality trope.

There's really a much stronger argument to made that religion = immorality.

Then go ahead. Let's hear you make the argument.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

And if your version of history goes back only 100 or even 200 years, you are fooling yourself thinking this is some permanent cycle of growth and wealth we are in.

The problem is that basically nobody agrees with you. I do, but nobody else does. Those people vote, and their vote counts the same as ours.

People living in the US generally operate under the theory that the US is immune from history, and we're immune from the problems that have caused other great powers to decline over time. That is very much not the case, and I would argue that the US is already in sharp and irreversible decline. The problem is that none of the metrics that I would use to defend that view are admissible in this forum, so I'll just leave that as a raw assertion. IYKYK.

More generally though, folks just don't understand history, and in particular they don't really understand US history. For example, it is 2024. The Battle of Little Big Horn, in which a US Army division was literally annihilated by a group of stone-age warriors, was less than 150 years ago. Our grandparents would have had direct access to people who were were there. Fast forward a bit to WWI. When the US entered WWI, we were an afterthought. Our military probably would have been routed by the likes of Poland. Horses were still being used in warfare back then, and we think of that as part of the "modern" era.

We've been a global superpower for about three or four generations. That's it. The UK fell from a much higher perch to also-ran status during that exact same period. It can happen to us, and it is happening to us. I recommend looking out for yourself.

Meh. What consequence of not being the world’s top superpower concerns you? How far do you think we’ll fall?

Who the next superpower is is what concerns me.

Not a fan of what a China/Russia/Iran centric world domination would be like.

Sure. Of those three, China is the most realistic to take our place. Not ideal, but I’m not concerned what that would mean for the US.

What consequence do you fear from China at the top?

A move to global communism. Less freedoms and more top down governmental control in all aspects of life. Basically the opposite of what the US was founded on. Maybe eventually their commitment to atheism and the lack of morality to the point that eugenics becomes the only logical conclusion. Ordered births and governmental control of who is fit to live or die or move or work job X or how much everyone can earn and what a good life is like.

Those consequences. Sure not in my lifetime, but in a couple of generations? Not too far fetched.

Agree to disagree on the plausibility of most of your fears, and a little irritated by the atheism=immorality trope.

There's really a much stronger argument to made that religion = immorality.

Then go ahead. Let's hear you make the argument.

Way off topic for this thread. There are I believe two separate religion threads already going on where people have debated that a few times. Let's keep this one on topic.

 

[Stoneworker]

And if your version of history goes back only 100 or even 200 years, you are fooling yourself thinking this is some permanent cycle of growth and wealth we are in.

The problem is that basically nobody agrees with you. I do, but nobody else does. Those people vote, and their vote counts the same as ours.

People living in the US generally operate under the theory that the US is immune from history, and we're immune from the problems that have caused other great powers to decline over time. That is very much not the case, and I would argue that the US is already in sharp and irreversible decline. The problem is that none of the metrics that I would use to defend that view are admissible in this forum, so I'll just leave that as a raw assertion. IYKYK.

More generally though, folks just don't understand history, and in particular they don't really understand US history. For example, it is 2024. The Battle of Little Big Horn, in which a US Army division was literally annihilated by a group of stone-age warriors, was less than 150 years ago. Our grandparents would have had direct access to people who were were there. Fast forward a bit to WWI. When the US entered WWI, we were an afterthought. Our military probably would have been routed by the likes of Poland. Horses were still being used in warfare back then, and we think of that as part of the "modern" era.

We've been a global superpower for about three or four generations. That's it. The UK fell from a much higher perch to also-ran status during that exact same period. It can happen to us, and it is happening to us. I recommend looking out for yourself.

Meh. What consequence of not being the world’s top superpower concerns you? How far do you think we’ll fall?

Who the next superpower is is what concerns me.

Not a fan of what a China/Russia/Iran centric world domination would be like.

Sure. Of those three, China is the most realistic to take our place. Not ideal, but I’m not concerned what that would mean for the US.

What consequence do you fear from China at the top?

A move to global communism. Less freedoms and more top down governmental control in all aspects of life. Basically the opposite of what the US was founded on. Maybe eventually their commitment to atheism and the lack of morality to the point that eugenics becomes the only logical conclusion. Ordered births and governmental control of who is fit to live or die or move or work job X or how much everyone can earn and what a good life is like.

Those consequences. Sure not in my lifetime, but in a couple of generations? Not too far fetched.

Agree to disagree on the plausibility of most of your fears, and a little irritated by the atheism=immorality trope.

There's really a much stronger argument to made that religion = immorality.

Then go ahead. Let's hear you make the argument.

Way off topic for this thread. There are I believe two separate religion threads already going on where people have debated that a few times. Let's keep this one on topic.

So you can encourage the topic by Liking his post, yet when I challenge the boast it somehow crosses the line? Buzz off.

 

[Mitchie]

And if your version of history goes back only 100 or even 200 years, you are fooling yourself thinking this is some permanent cycle of growth and wealth we are in.

The problem is that basically nobody agrees with you. I do, but nobody else does. Those people vote, and their vote counts the same as ours.

People living in the US generally operate under the theory that the US is immune from history, and we're immune from the problems that have caused other great powers to decline over time. That is very much not the case, and I would argue that the US is already in sharp and irreversible decline. The problem is that none of the metrics that I would use to defend that view are admissible in this forum, so I'll just leave that as a raw assertion. IYKYK.

More generally though, folks just don't understand history, and in particular they don't really understand US history. For example, it is 2024. The Battle of Little Big Horn, in which a US Army division was literally annihilated by a group of stone-age warriors, was less than 150 years ago. Our grandparents would have had direct access to people who were were there. Fast forward a bit to WWI. When the US entered WWI, we were an afterthought. Our military probably would have been routed by the likes of Poland. Horses were still being used in warfare back then, and we think of that as part of the "modern" era.

We've been a global superpower for about three or four generations. That's it. The UK fell from a much higher perch to also-ran status during that exact same period. It can happen to us, and it is happening to us. I recommend looking out for yourself.

Meh. What consequence of not being the world’s top superpower concerns you? How far do you think we’ll fall?

Who the next superpower is is what concerns me.

Not a fan of what a China/Russia/Iran centric world domination would be like.

Sure. Of those three, China is the most realistic to take our place. Not ideal, but I’m not concerned what that would mean for the US.

What consequence do you fear from China at the top?

A move to global communism. Less freedoms and more top down governmental control in all aspects of life. Basically the opposite of what the US was founded on. Maybe eventually their commitment to atheism and the lack of morality to the point that eugenics becomes the only logical conclusion. Ordered births and governmental control of who is fit to live or die or move or work job X or how much everyone can earn and what a good life is like.

Those consequences. Sure not in my lifetime, but in a couple of generations? Not too far fetched.

Agree to disagree on the plausibility of most of your fears, and a little irritated by the atheism=immorality trope.

There's really a much stronger argument to made that religion = immorality.

Then go ahead. Let's hear you make the argument.

Way off topic for this thread. There are I believe two separate religion threads already going on where people have debated that a few times. Let's keep this one on topic.

So you can encourage the topic by Liking his post, yet when I challenge the boast it somehow crosses the line? Buzz off.

lol at the word boast, but i regret the post I lost sight that this was the economy thread and don't want to derail the topic.

 

[Terminalxylem]

A move to global communism.

Just because China could become the world's top economy why would that lead to every other Country (including the U.S.) changing their political philosophies?

Is China going to become a democratic republic since the U.S. is on top now (or was)?

Social media. China is influencing the political philosophy of the US right now. This is not some weird hypothetical that might occur at some point in the future. It is happening literally as we speak.

Sometimes I honestly can't tell if people are just unaware of this, or if the situation is so bad that people want to ignore it.

I’m not aware of communism gaining much traction in the US. Outside of a few college campuses (where alternative philosophies have always been embraced, at least in our lifetimes), where is communism apparent? Chinese influence, sure, but hardly a move to global communism imo.

 

[The Z Machine]

And China isn't really that communist... more authoritarian than truly communist.

 

[Ridgeback]

And if your version of history goes back only 100 or even 200 years, you are fooling yourself thinking this is some permanent cycle of growth and wealth we are in.

The problem is that basically nobody agrees with you. I do, but nobody else does. Those people vote, and their vote counts the same as ours.

People living in the US generally operate under the theory that the US is immune from history, and we're immune from the problems that have caused other great powers to decline over time. That is very much not the case, and I would argue that the US is already in sharp and irreversible decline. The problem is that none of the metrics that I would use to defend that view are admissible in this forum, so I'll just leave that as a raw assertion. IYKYK.

More generally though, folks just don't understand history, and in particular they don't really understand US history. For example, it is 2024. The Battle of Little Big Horn, in which a US Army division was literally annihilated by a group of stone-age warriors, was less than 150 years ago. Our grandparents would have had direct access to people who were were there. Fast forward a bit to WWI. When the US entered WWI, we were an afterthought. Our military probably would have been routed by the likes of Poland. Horses were still being used in warfare back then, and we think of that as part of the "modern" era.

We've been a global superpower for about three or four generations. That's it. The UK fell from a much higher perch to also-ran status during that exact same period. It can happen to us, and it is happening to us. I recommend looking out for yourself.

Meh. What consequence of not being the world’s top superpower concerns you? How far do you think we’ll fall?

Who the next superpower is is what concerns me.

Not a fan of what a China/Russia/Iran centric world domination would be like.

Sure. Of those three, China is the most realistic to take our place. Not ideal, but I’m not concerned what that would mean for the US.

What consequence do you fear from China at the top?

A move to global communism. Less freedoms and more top down governmental control in all aspects of life. Basically the opposite of what the US was founded on. Maybe eventually their commitment to atheism and the lack of morality to the point that eugenics becomes the only logical conclusion. Ordered births and governmental control of who is fit to live or die or move or work job X or how much everyone can earn and what a good life is like.

Those consequences. Sure not in my lifetime, but in a couple of generations? Not too far fetched.

Agree to disagree on the plausibility of most of your fears, and a little irritated by the atheism=immorality trope.

There's really a much stronger argument to made that religion = immorality.

Then go ahead. Let's hear you make the argument.

Way off topic for this thread. There are I believe two separate religion threads already going on where people have debated that a few times. Let's keep this one on topic.

So you can encourage the topic by Liking his post, yet when I challenge the boast it somehow crosses the line? Buzz off.

It's not too hard to find examples or immorality amongst the religious. Let's be real.

 

[Sand]

I’m not aware of communism gaining much traction in the US. Outside of a few college campuses (where alternative philosophies have always been embraced, at least in our lifetimes), where is communism apparent? Chinese influence, sure, but hardly a move to global communism imo.

Yeah, we can't talk about that.