MAGA Coalition Falling Apart

[toastedbread]

I wish you would come around here more… one of the best posts ITT.

Connecting the dots with other statements and arguments that I’ve made in regards to manufacturing… we don’t want all of these jobs. If people are seeking cheap labor in India, Indonesia, etc. for offshoring, much of that is NOT high value work. Given the labor situation and demographic trends, America ought to be focused on the high value side of the economy, both in regards to manufacturing and services.

Compete on ingenuity, IP, design and development, etc. for high value applications there is plenty of margin (SaaS, medical devices, biotech, pharma, A&D).

100% agree with this. Though I don't know enough to agree that the alleged "shortages" are anything but a low pay ruse. On the medical front it does appear that there are shortages.

I think the reshoring strategy is stupidity at its finest. We are going to start competing with Vietnam and Bangladesh for manufacturing widgets and t-shirts? I want free trade and a low labor supply. And let's outcompete on the high tech side and raise wages. But our corporate overlords won't agree.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Maybe best trip of my life. Lima, Machu P, Cusco, la Paz, 3 day/2 night tour of salar d uyuni. Cross into Chile flight down to Santiago and direct flight back on American. Had never been South of US border before except Bahamas on cruise.

Btw we bailout these American airlines so they can turn around and serve us shit and treat us like shit. American doesn't sniff the middle east airlines rears. What an absolute horse caca experience. Thankfully I used Alaskan points. If you ever fly Qatar air. Jesus Christ what is the US econ experience. And bailouts...

Those Middle Eastern airlines are heavily subsidized by the governments. Qatar Airlines doesn’t even have to buy planes, the government buys them for them. I doubt this model for airlines will ever happen in the US, and it shouldn’t.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

They don't need to look anywhere. It's all in the IG reports. Implementation is lacking. Much to blame Congress for.

No pay for performance in govt. Top end is underpaid and low end overpaid.

If you want to squeeze more value out of govt you need more jews and asians in govt. Too many trackers and bean counters who are tracking everything but the correct things.

Your first paragraph isn’t congruent with the other two.

The two key ideas here are that businesses have to (a) be strongly influenced by meeting customer demands, and (b) do so in a way that returns a profit to their shareholders.

Well (b) doesn’t apply to government. It has no shareholders and, unlike businesses, its primary purpose isn’t profit.

However, it does have to make ends meet. Like businesses, government has money coming in and money going out. And woe to the society which decides that government can act irresponsibly in this endeavor, simply because it has the capacity to print money. Such a society is headed for ruination. This has happened numerous times in history, including recent history, and we are not exempt.

As for (a), government doesn’t have “customers” per se. In that sense, it is a monopoly. The people it (nominally) serves can’t choose some other provider - not without relocating entirely. The fact that a business’s customers can choose to use a competitor is a massive influence that government will never really have. The closest thing it has is voting. But that’s clearly not a great substitute.

Still, when I say that government can learn from business, I’m thinking primarily of these two attributes: financial prudence and responsiveness to those they exist to serve.

Business *has* to be attentive to and effective at these two things. Government should be - but is not.

 

[snarlcakes]

Where did yoiu get that idea? You can’t be talking about federal workers. Their pay scale is online.

I’m referring to Congress.

 

[toastedbread]

Those Middle Eastern airlines are heavily subsidized by the governments. Qatar Airlines doesn’t even have to buy planes, the government buys them for them. I doubt this model for airlines will ever happen in the US, and it shouldn’t.

Sure, but how is that any different from the multiple bailouts our carriers received and turned around and paid out to shareholders? Supposedly Qatar is now profitable.

 

[snarlcakes]

100% agree with this. Though I don't know enough to agree that the alleged "shortages" are anything but a low pay ruse. On the medical front it does appear that there are shortages.

I think the reshoring strategy is stupidity at its finest. We are going to start competing with Vietnam and Bangladesh for manufacturing widgets and t-shirts? I want free trade and a low labor supply. And let's outcompete on the high tech side and raise wages. But our corporate overlords won't agree.

We’re not reshoring at scale until the dollar dramatically weakens and/or the dollar stops being the reserve currency. I don’t think either is happening anytime soon.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I’m referring to Congress.

Their pay isn’t doing it either. There need to ensure processes are in place to prevent unethical and illegal profiteering. I have no doubt some of that is happening but I doubt as much as many think. Many, too many, are rich before they run for Congress and their wealth continues to climb while in office. One thing should be done immediately and that’s to force them to put investment assets in blind trusts. The hard problem is what about spouses? Can’t force private citizens to do that and they could profit from information Congress gets or from knowledge about probable new legislation which would effect economic sectors positively or negatively.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Sure, but how is that any different from the multiple bailouts our carriers received and turned around and paid out to shareholders? Supposedly Qatar is now profitable.

Far different business models and the ME model will never “fly” in the USA.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Your first paragraph isn’t congruent with the other two.

The two key ideas here are that businesses have to (a) be strongly influenced by meeting customer demands, and (b) have to do so in a way that returns a profit to their shareholders.

Well (b) doesn’t apply to government. It has no shareholders and, unlike businesses, its primary purpose isn’t profit.

However, it does have to make ends meet. Like businesses, government has money coming in and money going out. And woe to the society which decides that government can act irresponsibly in this endeavor, simply because it has the capacity to print money. Such a society is headed for ruination. This has happened numerous times in history, including recent history, and we are not exempt.

As for (a), government doesn’t have “customers” per se. In that sense, it is a monopoly. The people it (nominally) serves can’t choose some other provider - not without relocating entirely. The fact that a business’s customers can choose to use a competitor is a massive influence that government will never really have. The closest thing it has is voting. But that’s clearly not a great substitute.

Still, when I say that government can learn from business, I’m thinking primarily of these two attributes: financial prudence and responsiveness to those they exist to serve.

Business *has* to be attentive to and effective at these two things. Government should be - but is not.

The business thing works until you realize that a plurality of government's "customers" get to pick what they pay and what they receive for what they pay. To put it in business terms, the customer wants their Big Mac and Quarter Pounder at a huge loss for McDonald's but also expects them to provide French fries, soft drinks, McNuggets, etc. at a cut rate as well. And some customers will say, "Well just stop producing McNuggets" because they don't like them. Some people do though and they vote to keep that on the menu.

A business would say, "I have to raise the cost to my customer for Big Macs (Social Security) and Quarter Pounders (Medicare/Healthcare Costs)" and they would do that. In this case they need the customers' permission to do so. And nobody votes to raise the price of their favorite "meal".

Make things efficient, for sure, but I am coming around to the more liberal argument that the people who have accumulated a bigger piece of the economic pie than they used to have in the past are going to have to pay more for the functional society that made them wealthy. We aren't solely cutting our way to a balanced budget anymore and we aren't growing into it either. Not in the immediate future.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Where did yoiu get that idea? You can’t be talking about federal workers. Their pay scale is online.

I’d like some more clarification on what he meant, too.

I will say this much: the primary motivation of anybody who gets a job — whoever the employer is — is to make a living.

I’m sure that many people who work in the public sector are competent enough that they might be able to make more money in the private sector. So there’s some level of sacrifice in those instances - which naturally means (a) the word “maximum” should be left out of the above observation, and (b) there are secondary motivations at work.

But if making money wasn’t operative in the mind of a “civil servant” (no, I will not remove the scare quotes), there would be no such things as AFSCME, NEA, ATF, NALC, SEIU.

In fact, the public sector is significantly more unionized than the private sector. And the 3 largest unions in the US serve exclusively (2 of them) or largely (the 3rd) public sector employees.

 

[twenty02]

Their pay isn’t doing it either. There need to ensure processes are in place to prevent unethical and illegal profiteering. I have no doubt some of that is happening but I doubt as much as many think. Many, too many, are rich before they run for Congress and their wealth continues to climb while in office. One thing should be done immediately and that’s to force them to put investment assets in blind trusts. The hard problem is what about spouses? Can’t force private citizens to do that and they could profit from information Congress gets or from knowledge about probable new legislation which would effect economic sectors positively or negatively.

The bullshit about attacking Congress pay is also ridiculous. Making $175k while having to maintain two residences... Including one in expensive DC... Is absurd.

Makes Congressional life very unglamorous unless you are already independently wealthy. Which will continue to occur more and more often.... As only the very wealthy will ever run for office. Not raising pay for 15 years is ridiculous. Then people will complain about how rich people in Congress are. Stupid cycle for a stupid nation

 

[twenty02]

Your first paragraph isn’t congruent with the other two.

The two key ideas here are that businesses have to (a) be strongly influenced by meeting customer demands, and (b) have to do so in a way that returns a profit to their shareholders.

Well (b) doesn’t apply to government. It has no shareholders and, unlike businesses, its primary purpose isn’t profit.

However, it does have to make ends meet. Like businesses, government has money coming in and money going out. And woe to the society which decides that government can act irresponsibly in this endeavor, simply because it has the capacity to print money. Such a society is headed for ruination. This has happened numerous times in history, including recent history, and we are not exempt.

As for (a), government doesn’t have “customers” per se. In that sense, it is a monopoly. The people it (nominally) serves can’t choose some other provider - not without relocating entirely. The fact that a business’s customers can choose to use a competitor is a massive influence that government will never really have. The closest thing it has is voting. But that’s clearly not a great substitute.

Still, when I say that government can learn from business, I’m thinking primarily of these two attributes: financial prudence and responsiveness to those they exist to serve.

Business *has* to be attentive to and effective at these two things. Government should be - but is not.

The public aren't really customers. More like shareholders who keep voting in a board of directors that promises to keep looting the company coffers and sending out the proceeds via dividends and buybacks. Want to know the problem with govt... Look in the collective mirror.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Make things efficient, for sure, but I am coming around to the more liberal argument that the people who have accumulated a bigger piece of the economic pie than they used to have in the past are going to have to pay more for the functional society that made them wealthy. We aren't solely cutting our way to a balanced budget anymore and we aren't growing into it either. Not in the immediate future.

First, “solely” is a very important term here. We don’t just have one weapon in our arsenal to get our fiscal house in order. It would be stupid to only use one weapon.

I don’t disagree that higher taxes are going to be necessary to do this. I strongly disagree that the higher burden should fall on rich people.

You want to know why? Read your first few paragraphs again. We have to get ourselves away from the incredibly destructive idea that we can vote for more expensive government…with somebody else picking up the tab.

If voters want more government spending, they should be made to pay a rational share of that cost. Only then are they making a choice between alternatives that have both a cost (to them) and a benefit (for them).

If we give them the choice to have all benefit and no cost - even if it’s a lie (and it is) - they will take that option every time.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I’d like some more clarification on what he meant, too.

I will say this much: the primary motivation of anybody who gets a job — whoever the employer is — is to make a living.

I’m sure that many people who work in the public sector are competent enough that they might be able to make more money in the private sector. So there’s some level of sacrifice in those instances - which naturally means (a) the word “maximum” should be left out of the above observation, and (b) there are secondary motivations at work.

But if making money wasn’t operative in the mind of a “civil servant” (no, I will not remove the scare quotes), there would be no such things as AFSCME, NEA, ATF, NALC, SEIU.

In fact, the public sector is significantly more unionized than the private sector. And the 3 largest unions in the US serve exclusively (2 of them) or largely (the 3rd) public sector employees.

There are other money related things with fed employment that attract people. Time off. Security. Benefits. Pension. Etc. Perception of easier money and again security wherein there are protections from discharge that are more robust than the private sector where you can get fckd simply by the vagaries of landing a shitty boss. Safe money with fed general schedule shit

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The public aren't really customers. More like shareholders who keep voting in a board of directors that promises to keep looting the company coffers and sending out the proceeds via dividends and buybacks. Want to know the problem with govt... Look in the collective mirror.

Yeah, I’ll fight you on that one.

Lincoln was spot on when he used the term “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Are there differences between being a customer of Apple and being a citizen in a society with government? Yes, of course. Profound ones.

But there are similarities, too. And those are what we’d be wise to focus on — if, anyway, we’re truly interested in improving government. But I’m not sure we’re as devoted to that idea as some people assume.

 

[snarlcakes]

Their pay isn’t doing it either. There need to ensure processes are in place to prevent unethical and illegal profiteering. I have no doubt some of that is happening but I doubt as much as many think. Many, too many, are rich before they run for Congress and their wealth continues to climb while in office. One thing should be done immediately and that’s to force them to put investment assets in blind trusts. The hard problem is what about spouses? Can’t force private citizens to do that and they could profit from information Congress gets or from knowledge about probable new legislation which would affect economic sectors positively or negatively.

I wasn’t referencing individual pay. It’s the wealth/power that comes with being in Congress or government. Take Janet Yellen for example. She made 7 million dollars in speaking fees prior to being the Treasury Secretary and she will make a crap ton after being TS, as well.

Yellen Earned $7.2 Million In Speaking Fees Over Last Two Years

She gave speeches to dozens of companies including Citi, Credit Suisse and Salesforce.

www.forbes.com

@Aloha Hoosier I went back and read my post. I should have been more specific than government workers.

 

[twenty02]

I’d like some more clarification on what he meant, too.

I will say this much: the primary motivation of anybody who gets a job — whoever the employer is — is to make a living.

I’m sure that many people who work in the public sector are competent enough that they might be able to make more money in the private sector. So there’s some level of sacrifice in those instances - which naturally means (a) the word “maximum” should be left out of the above observation, and (b) there are secondary motivations at work.

But if making money wasn’t operative in the mind of a “civil servant” (no, I will not remove the scare quotes), there would be no such things as AFSCME, NEA, ATF, NALC, SEIU.

In fact, the public sector is significantly more unionized than the private sector. And the 3 largest unions in the US serve exclusively (2 of them) or largely (the 3rd) public sector employees.

There are federal employee unions, but they are basically toothless. Not sure why they even bother to exist.

Nothing like the public sector unions for more local govt tit suckers like @snarlcakes

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

There are other money related things with fed employment that attract people. Time off. Security. Benefits. Pension. Etc. Perception of easier money and again security wherein there are protections from discharge that are more robust than the private sector where you can get fckd simply by the vagaries of landing a shitty boss. Safe money with fed general schedule shit

Well, benefits (of which pension is one) are money. So there’s no actual distinction there. Just a matter of form.

But I think these considerations play into the decision matrix of anybody taking a job anywhere. Don’t they?

Because if they don’t, then I’ve been badly misguided and I’m slashing benefits, retirement, and PTO first thing Monday morning.

I’ll tell them to thank you for it. Can I have your home address?

 

[twenty02]

There are other money related things with fed employment that attract people. Time off. Security. Benefits. Pension. Etc. Perception of easier money and again security wherein there are protections from discharge that are more robust than the private sector where you can get fckd simply by the vagaries of landing a shitty boss. Safe money with fed general schedule shit

There are basically a lot of the same things in mega corps. Maybe not as robust, but still significant.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Well, benefits (of which pension is one) are money. So there’s no actual distinction there. Just a matter of form.

But I think these considerations play into the decision matrix of anybody taking a job anywhere. Don’t they?

Because if they don’t, then I’ve been badly misguided and I’m slashing benefits, retirement, and PTO first thing Monday morning.

I’ll tell them to thank you for it. Can I have your home address?

You wrote that there is some level of sacrifice presumably bc they make less in the public sector. I’m not sure if I’d couch it as sacrifice. I think it’s more of a trade off for security etc and insulation from at will

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Didn't even make it to the inauguration .

Vivek and Elon being relentlessly attacked for supporting H1B visas for Silicon Valley.

Laura Loomer 'demonetized' by X after criticizing Elon.

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/26/maga-civil-war-ramaswamy-musk-loomer-cernovich

Steve Bannon Joins War Against Elon Musk as MAGA Implodes

Donald Trump’s biggest fans are at each other’s throats over immigration, and H-1B visas in particular.

newrepublic.com

Trump advisers Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy expose rift with MAGA loyalists over immigrant tech workers

The backlash escalated Thursday, when Vivek Ramaswamy, in a post on X, criticized an American culture that he said “venerated mediocrity over excellence.”

www.nbcnews.com

You don’t know what MAGA. is.

It’s actually succeeding on all fronts.

 

[mcmurtry66]

There are basically a lot of the same things in mega corps. Maybe not as robust, but still significant.

Most employees at mega corps at cog levels are at will. They aren’t under K. Fed ees are essentially for cause. It’s a value to them

 

[snarlcakes]

First, “solely” is a very important term here. We don’t just have one weapon in our arsenal to get our fiscal house in order. It would be stupid to only use one weapon.

I don’t disagree that higher taxes are going to be necessary to do this. I strongly disagree that the higher burden should fall on rich people.

You want to know why? Read your first few paragraphs again. We have to get ourselves away from the incredibly destructive idea that we can vote for more expensive government…with somebody else picking up the tab.

If voters want more government spending, they should be made to pay a rational share of that cost. Only then are they making a choice between alternatives that have both a cost (to them) and a benefit (for them).

If we give them the choice to have all benefit and no cost - even if it’s a lie (and it is) - they will take that option every time.

That’s never happening crazed. Governments aren’t going to ever take away their power of being able to print endless money. Nixon proved this in 71.

 

[BradStevens]

Ok… I stand corrected. I was wrong.

I was looking at it in regards to hiring employees and awarding contracts. I consider those business practices. But I see where I’m wrong since the goal isn’t to make money.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

There are federal employee unions, but they are basically toothless. Not sure why they even bother to exist.

Nothing like the public sector unions for more local govt tit suckers like @snarlcakes

So…the NEA (the largest union in the US) doesn’t exist to lobby for higher teacher pay?

Of course it does. There are other objectives, of course. But this is the primary objective…

…which is why I tend to scoff at people who say that teachers lack the self-interest (and, by that, I’m largely referencing money) of people in less altruistic professions.

Could many teachers make more money elsewhere? Yes. Do people leave teaching to do this? Also yes. Do the ones who stick around in the classroom tend to seek getting more money? Also also yes.

Is all of that an unfair knock on teachers? No. Not at all. They’re as human as the rest of us. And we’re all primarily motivated by self-interest. But that idea makes many people uncomfortable.

 

[twenty02]

You wrote that there is some level of sacrifice presumably bc they make less in the public sector. I’m not sure if couch it as sacrifice. I tho k it’s more of a trade off for security etc and insulation from at will

The pay is shitty, particularly at the top end. I know SES level people I went to school with. They make like $180k for a job level and responsibility that would make 3x, 4x for comparable type position in the private sector.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

MAGA and DOGE (for lack of a better team term) were always obviously very odd bed fellows. Not sure what a white working class movement has in common with the billionaire tech bros and aggressively cutting govt spending.

You don’t know what MAGA is.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You wrote that there is some level of sacrifice presumably bc they make less in the public sector. I’m not sure if I’d couch it as sacrifice. I think it’s more of a trade off for security etc and insulation from at will

I don’t see these as two different ideas.

In other words, I agree with you. But I don’t think you’re refuting my use of the term sacrifice. It just means giving up one thing in order to get another thing.

 

[mcmurtry66]

The pay is shitty, particularly at the top end. I know SES level people I went to school with. They make like $180k for a job level and responsibility that would make 3x, 4x for comparable type position in the private sector.

This dirty waitress my buddy and I used to like opened a restaurant so we went over and checked it out. He told me he makes 180k as chief judge and his kid makes $210k base as a 25 yr old first year associate. Madness. Just yesterday. You’re probably right

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The pay is shitty, particularly at the top end. I know SES level people I went to school with. They make like $180k for a job level and responsibility that would make 3x, 4x for comparable type position in the private sector.

Must be those secondary considerations I mentioned.

As to the primary consideration, a question: why don’t they make minimum wage?

 

[snarlcakes]

There are federal employee unions, but they are basically toothless. Not sure why they even bother to exist.

Nothing like the public sector unions for more local govt tit suckers like @snarlcakes

You’re not ruffling my feathers. I think public unions should be illegal. And private unions suck as well. They end up protecting crappy workers at the expense of the profitable workers.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The wheels will really come off when Trump lashes out at Musk because he’s tired of hearing all the comments about Musk being the defacto president.

That is 100% coming.

Already happened. It was a yawner.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

This dirty waitress my buddy and I used to like opened a restaurant so we went over and checked it out. He told me he makes 180k as chief judge and his kid makes $210k base as a 25 yr old first year associate. Madness. Just yesterday. You’re probably right

I’m trying to understand how the dirty waitress factors into this anecdote.

Can we at least have a pic?

 

[BradStevens]

100% agree with this. Though I don't know enough to agree that the alleged "shortages" are anything but a low pay ruse. On the medical front it does appear that there are shortages.

I think the reshoring strategy is stupidity at its finest. We are going to start competing with Vietnam and Bangladesh for manufacturing widgets and t-shirts? I want free trade and a low labor supply. And let's outcompete on the high tech side and raise wages. But our corporate overlords won't agree.

Some general questions (not really directed at you, toastedbread, but to all):

Should the government be setting policies based on what "we" want to compete for and even worry about raising wages in any sector over another?

If we design policies to undercut lower class wages and jobs but increase higher skilled or higher class wages, how do we think a majority of people are going to react?

Many times, I think people assume that the majority of people can just become "more educated" or make different career/job choices, without realizing that the vast majority of people are operating with real constraints--IQ, family situations, valuing their home so don't want to move, etc.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

There are federal employee unions, but they are basically toothless. Not sure why they even bother to exist.

Nothing like the public sector unions for more local govt tit suckers like @snarlcakes

Wholeheartedly agree. Public sector unions are only money grabbing scheme for union big wigs. Public employees have rights and benefits that a private employer will never provide and which unions can never obtain.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

private unions suck as well. They end up protecting crappy workers at the expense of the profitable workers.

I took part in what will probably be my last union contract negotiation earlier this year. It is such a frustrating and wasteful exercise.

You should’ve seen the puzzled looks on their faces when I blurted out that at least 25% of their members are underpaid. It got some reaction from my side of the table, too.

One of their members later said “Crazed, even you said that we were underpaid.”

I don’t think he got the message. In fact, I know he didn’t. To them, everybody is equal. It has been hammered into their brains.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I’m trying to understand how the dirty waitress factors into this anecdote.

Can we at least have a pic?

It was our excuse to get together 🤣.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Some general questions (not really directed at you, toastedbread, but to all):

Should the government be setting policies based on what "we" want to compete for and even worry about raising wages in any sector over another?

If we design policies to undercut lower class wages and jobs but increase higher skilled or higher class wages, how do we think a majority of people are going to react?

Many times, I think people assume that the majority of people can just become "more educated" or make different career/job choices, without realizing that the vast majority of people are operating with real constraints--IQ, family situations, valuing their home so don't want to move, etc.

It’s sort of the minimum wage issue. I dealt with a factory in rural Missouri that did soft manufacturing. Little town. All the sew stations were women making $10 an hour. Hubbies worked at Walmart. Other manufacturing. Drove trucks. 3/2 1650 Sq ft house for $165k. Happy people. Doesn’t take much for costs to go up, City abatement pulled, whatever, and they decide to as toasted said go to Vietnam. Nike adidas. Everyone is in Vietnam. Those people can’t go learn to code. That job and life were perfect for them. There is no alternative

 

[twenty02]

So…the NEA (the largest union in the US) doesn’t exist to lobby for higher teacher pay?

Of course it does. There are other objectives, of course. But this is the primary objective…

…which is why I tend to scoff at people who say that teachers lack the self-interest (and, by that, I’m largely referencing money) of people in less altruistic professions.

Could many teachers make more money elsewhere? Yes. Do people leave teaching to do this? Also yes. Do the ones who stick around in the classroom tend to seek getting more money? Also also yes.

Is all of that an unfair knock on teachers? No. Not at all. They’re as human as the rest of us. And we’re all primarily motivated by self-interest. But that idea makes many people uncomfortable.

Yes. Isn't that what I said? Teachers aren't federal employees. I thought this discussion was about Feds. Fed employee unions don't have any power to lobby for much of anything. Definitely not pay.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Some general questions (not really directed at you, toastedbread, but to all):

Should the government be setting policies based on what "we" want to compete for and even worry about raising wages in any sector over another?

If we design policies to undercut lower class wages and jobs but increase higher skilled or higher class wages, how do we think a majority of people are going to react?

Many times, I think people assume that the majority of people can just become "more educated" or make different career/job choices, without realizing that the vast majority of people are operating with real constraints--IQ, family situations, valuing their home so don't want to move, etc.

These are good questions.

I may circle back to address them more directly later on. But they reminded me of a story involving one of my favorite US Presidents, Calvin Coolidge.

In 1926, Congress passed a farm subsidy bill that would’ve supported farmers by buying up surplus yields to either sell abroad or store for later domestic sale. Coolidge (who came from a farming family) hated this idea and presciently believed it would open the door for other industries to seek government subsidy to prop up their businesses during lean periods.

Coolidge wisely vetoed the bill. And when he did, he offered the following statement:

Well, farmers never have made money. I don't believe we can do much about it. But of course we will have to seem to be doing something; do the best we can and without much hope. The life of the farmer has its compensations but it has always been one of hardship.​

I wish more of our leaders had that kind of simple wisdom and chutzpah.