Opinion What will it take to bring both sides of the country together?

[brothir]

Wealth/income inequality is a massively important macro-economic indicator that has far reaching impacts on the overall health of an economy. No, it isn't everything. But it goes to demonstrate how absurd your claim is that things are good right now, while economic inequality has literally surpassed that of the Gilded age.

I don't think that demonstrates anything. You're restating your point without adding justification. Within your admission that inequality isn't everything lies the hole in your assertion.

Do you know how many people die in the rest of the developed world because they're too poor to afford healthcare? Zero or near zero. If you only want to compare America against itself on this issue, then you're reducing the argument to a point where you win. But that's not what I do - I compare America against its peers. No one should be dying because they can't afford healthcare in the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind.

I could turn that around and say that by comparing the US to the rest of the developed world you're expanding the argument to a point where you win. You being unhappy with the progress the US has made doesn't justify asserting that the US is sliding backwards. You want more, and that's fine. You can still acknowledge that the average life in the US is better now than before.

Actually, it's an anecdote that perfectly demonstrates the plight of the American middle class in 2023, and its an anecdote that is supported in the economic data - wages in this country have been flat for 50 years, while the relative costs of the most important things in life (healthcare, housing, childcare, education) have exploded out of control.

Another non-response, reasserting your claim without taking into account what I'm saying.

GDP being up does not matter. It's about how that wealth is being distributed. If tomorrow, Elon Musk makes 5 trillion dollars and stores it in the Cayman islands, what does it matter? OMG GDP is up 5 trillion dollars?! Why aren't you happy? Oh, because that 5 trillion dollars didn't do anything for anyone. All it is is a big number. That's an extreme theoretical but it demonstrates what is happening in this economy. Virtually all of the GDP gains are concentrated into the hands of a tiny few, who horde that wealth.

Liberal gaslighting is insane man. The economic indicators are overwhelming - childcare costs, housing costs, wealth inequality surpassing the gilded age, average savings, and you're like completely unable to understand what I'm even saying.

I posted economic data earlier in this thread showing that the number of adults in the US earning a middle income, dropped from 60% in 1971 to just under 50% in 2015. Are you going to again come back and say "but when were things better???"

Bullshit GDP doesn't matter. It's the baseline tool for measuring the wealthiness of a nation, and substantial increases in it are generally very meaningful. The fantasy you're describing with Musk making 5 trillion out of thin air isn't how it works: if he were to make that kind of money it would be through employing an extreme number of people and creating an unfathomable amount of goods that people would buy, putting both money in peoples' hands through salaries and useful things for others to purchase. That's why low unemployment is a key thing to keep in mind, and is what would sink your hypothetical here.

Finally, the middle income thing. A middle income 50 years ago was not the same as it is today. $40k yearly is a reasonable figure today, but would be a fantastic salary 50 years ago. Not to mention we have goods and services available today that weren't 5 decades ago: they can sure be expensive, but things that simply didn't exist before would be infinitely expensive in virtual terms. I'm going to take a guess that you aren't 70 years old (I'm not). My suspicion is that relative rate of suffering 50 years ago would be much higher than today, and I'd be very impressed with meaningful stats that could prove otherwise.

Tagging @Jack V Savage for feedback in case I got something wrong.

 

[blackheart]

I don't think that demonstrates anything. You're restating your point without adding justification. Within your admission that inequality isn't everything lies the hole in your assertion.

I could turn that around and say that by comparing the US to the rest of the developed world you're expanding the argument to a point where you win. You being unhappy with the progress the US has made doesn't justify asserting that the US is sliding backwards. You want more, and that's fine. You can still acknowledge that the average life in the US is better now than before.

Another non-response, reasserting your claim without taking into account what I'm saying.

Bullshit GDP doesn't matter. It's the baseline tool for measuring the wealthiness of a nation, and substantial increases in it are generally very meaningful. The fantasy you're describing with Musk making 5 trillion out of thin air isn't how it works: if he were to make that kind of money it would be through employing an extreme number of people and creating an unfathomable amount of goods that people would buy, putting both money in peoples' hands through salaries and useful things for others to purchase. That's why low unemployment is a key thing to keep in mind, and is what would sink your hypothetical here.

Finally, the middle income thing. A middle income 50 years ago was not the same as it is today. $40k yearly is a reasonable figure today, but would be a fantastic salary 50 years ago. Not to mention we have goods and services available today that weren't 5 decades ago: they can sure be expensive, but things that simply didn't exist before would be infinitely expensive in virtual terms. I'm going to take a guess that you aren't 70 years old (I'm not). My suspicion is that relative rate of suffering 50 years ago would be much higher than today, and I'd be very impressed with meaningful stats that could prove otherwise.

Tagging @Jack V Savage for feedback in case I got something wrong.

I love how I keep posting and citing specific economic data where you can clearly see backsliding, and you just keep ignoring it and going "but gdp. But full employment"

"Uh OK look at housing affordability "

"Gdp full employment"

"Uh ok look at childcare costs, education, Healthcare costs"

"Gdp. Full employment"

"Uh ok look at this chart you can clearly see when things were better"

"Gdp. Full employment. When were things better tho?"

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't think that demonstrates anything. You're restating your point without adding justification. Within your admission that inequality isn't everything lies the hole in your assertion.

I could turn that around and say that by comparing the US to the rest of the developed world you're expanding the argument to a point where you win. You being unhappy with the progress the US has made doesn't justify asserting that the US is sliding backwards. You want more, and that's fine. You can still acknowledge that the average life in the US is better now than before.

Another non-response, reasserting your claim without taking into account what I'm saying.

Bullshit GDP doesn't matter. It's the baseline tool for measuring the wealthiness of a nation, and substantial increases in it are generally very meaningful. The fantasy you're describing with Musk making 5 trillion out of thin air isn't how it works: if he were to make that kind of money it would be through employing an extreme number of people and creating an unfathomable amount of goods that people would buy, putting both money in peoples' hands through salaries and useful things for others to purchase. That's why low unemployment is a key thing to keep in mind, and is what would sink your hypothetical here.

Finally, the middle income thing. A middle income 50 years ago was not the same as it is today. $40k yearly is a reasonable figure today, but would be a fantastic salary 50 years ago. Not to mention we have goods and services available today that weren't 5 decades ago: they can sure be expensive, but things that simply didn't exist before would be infinitely expensive in virtual terms. I'm going to take a guess that you aren't 70 years old (I'm not). My suspicion is that relative rate of suffering 50 years ago would be much higher than today, and I'd be very impressed with meaningful stats that could prove otherwise.

Tagging @Jack V Savage for feedback in case I got something wrong.

Good post. I would add that GDP is a measure of flow rather than stock. So if the value of Musk's shares goes up (which could happen based on bullshit), that doesn't necessarily affect it. I wouldn't solely look at GDP, but basically everything is good now. For example, he was talking about 2015, but adjusted for inflation, median household income was up over 9% from 2015 to 2022 (up since 2022 too, but we don't have exact numbers yet). That's huge, and it was near an all-time high in 2015 (and it's almost a third higher than it was in '84, when the Morning in America campaign began). The level of prosperity that people take for granted today would have been impossible to imagine a short time ago.

I'd also add that GDP fails to take into account a lot of improvements.

 

[Via Heeto]

The only way everyone will come together is if one side gives up all their beliefs and goes to the other side. Literally, that is the only way. We are so far past having friendly disagreements. Now if you disagree you are literally hitler and a bunch of different phobes. there is not a leader alive who can bring everyone together. and if a leader from either party reached out to the other side, his own party would turn on him.

 

[brothir]

I love how I keep posting and citing specific economic data where you can clearly see backsliding, and you just keep ignoring it and going "but gdp. But full employment"

"Uh OK look at housing affordability "

"Gdp full employment"

"Uh ok look at childcare costs, education, Healthcare costs"

"Gdp. Full employment"

"Uh ok look at this chart you can clearly see when things were better"

"Gdp. Full employment. When were things better tho?"

More non-responses. In terms of housing: what's the data on homelessness? If homelessness is substantially up, that's a good argument that suffering has increased. Next, all the costs associated with life obviously has to be balanced against what people are earning, and in order for people to earn they have to be employed. Low unemployment at the very least would mitigate against rising costs, so it has to be considered. And finally I'm assuming you're referring to the middle income thing, and what I'm saying is that I doubt it represents what you claim it does. It does not meaningfully demonstrate that suffering has increased in the last 50 years, is my opinion.

The reason I'm leaning so heavily on GDP and employment is that they're really important. People being employed is the driving force behind the economy, so obviously low unemployment and GDP going up go hand in hand. When that's the case, I think it's unfathomable to assume that real suffering is increasing. I'm wondering what the argument against that is supposed to be.

 

[Jack V Savage]

More non-responses. In terms of housing: what's the data on homelessness? If homelessness is substantially up, that's a good argument that suffering has increased.

There was a thread that linked something saying it was up 12% YOY. But that's 0.2% of the population, and I don't think it's really tied to the national economy. It's mostly a local housing issue.

 

[brothir]

Good post. I would add that GDP is a measure of flow rather than stock. So if the value of Musk's shares goes up (which could happen based on bullshit), that doesn't necessarily affect it. I wouldn't solely look at GDP, but basically everything is good now. For example, he was talking about 2015, but adjusted for inflation, median household income was up over 9% from 2015 to 2022 (up since 2022 too, but we don't have exact numbers yet). That's huge, and it was near an all-time high in 2015 (and it's almost a third higher than it was in '84, when the Morning in America campaign began). The level of prosperity that people take for granted today would have been impossible to imagine a short time ago.

I'd also add that GDP fails to take into account a lot of improvements.

I agree that GDP on its own is not sufficient. Ireland is a well-known instance of GDP not being representative of actual improvements due to numbers being fudged. That's why I made sure to center on employment: I'm not educated in economics, but from what I've gleaned the combination of good increases in GDP and strong employment settles most questions of how things really are going. I'm trying to phrase the issue in terms of real suffering, because I feel like there's a lot of what I'm going to term the "Perfection Required Fallacy", where the possibility of things being even better somehow leads to outlooks being "bleak".

 

[blackheart]

I don't think that demonstrates anything. You're restating your point without adding justification. Within your admission that inequality isn't everything lies the hole in your assertion.

I could turn that around and say that by comparing the US to the rest of the developed world you're expanding the argument to a point where you win. You being unhappy with the progress the US has made doesn't justify asserting that the US is sliding backwards. You want more, and that's fine. You can still acknowledge that the average life in the US is better now than before.

Another non-response, reasserting your claim without taking into account what I'm saying.

Bullshit GDP doesn't matter. It's the baseline tool for measuring the wealthiness of a nation, and substantial increases in it are generally very meaningful. The fantasy you're describing with Musk making 5 trillion out of thin air isn't how it works: if he were to make that kind of money it would be through employing an extreme number of people and creating an unfathomable amount of goods that people would buy, putting both money in peoples' hands through salaries and useful things for others to purchase. That's why low unemployment is a key thing to keep in mind, and is what would sink your hypothetical here.

Finally, the middle income thing. A middle income 50 years ago was not the same as it is today. $40k yearly is a reasonable figure today, but would be a fantastic salary 50 years ago. Not to mention we have goods and services available today that weren't 5 decades ago: they can sure be expensive, but things that simply didn't exist before would be infinitely expensive in virtual terms. I'm going to take a guess that you aren't 70 years old (I'm not). My suspicion is that relative rate of suffering 50 years ago would be much higher than today, and I'd be very impressed with meaningful stats that could prove otherwise.

Tagging @Jack V Savage for feedback in case I got something wrong.

Looking forward to you ignoring everything that I say and returning to broad statistics you can hide behind and repeating the same questions I've answered 5 times.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@blackheart, the cost of labor-intensive services rising out of proportion with the overall economy is a consequence of strong wage growth. Similarly, housing prices rising is driven by a combination of limited supply and rising incomes/wealth levels. I think that in a lot of areas, housing supply is at crisis levels, but that's not a national economy issue. Those places need to build more housing units.

 

[brothir]

Looking forward to you ignoring everything that I say and returning to broad statistics you can hide behind and repeating the same questions I've answer 5 times.

I'm not ignoring everything that you say. I don't even think I've ignored anything you've said. What I'm trying to do is communicate that you are directly wrong in what you're saying, and to argue that case I'm involving other stats that I think are stronger in terms of giving the facts of what's really going on. You're also being childish in trying to involve a meme into this discussion to make fun of what I'm saying, when I'm taking this seriously.

So, the stats. The fact that house prices have quadrupled over 30 years represents some sort of issue, but I'd note that the prospect of being able to buy a house is basically a matter of luxury. Cities prove that people can have perfectly good lives in apartments, so to balance the picture out it'd be good to have apartment price increase as well. Undoubtedly there are a number of things that can be done to reduce the price of housing, and those should be done as far as I'm concerned, but I don't see that as a strong indicator that the future is bleak for the average person. Also interesting that growth has spiked especially recently.

The next graph with child care seems to counteract the worry with housing from the previous graph, as housing is only a bit above CPI. I'd argue that child care being so much up in cost doesn't demonstrate a bleak future, rather that parents put way more money into their children. That probably means that it's better to be a child now than before. So I think it doesn't demonstrate a systemic failure with the economy.

Finally, education costs. I suspect that a major contributor to the increase is that education is more desirable than before. It seems hard to increase supply dramatically, so I think government subsidies to students would have to be part of the solution. Again sort of a luxury problem, and doesn't demonstrate that the future is bleak somehow.

 

[Iconoclast]

The answer I don't have. A respectful dialogue is mandatory.

 

[Wrath of Foamy]

Political parties don't like unification.

They need a boogeyman to get a devoted fan base.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

America has been in worse situations. Depression. Civil War. The News is designed to convince you the sky is falling (only NOT because of the climate). The original White House was f*ckin burned down. Our insurrection was arguably the most limp-wristed attempt at a coup ever. Not that it shouldnt have been taken seriously, but it sucked.

To be fair, I asked when the last time “you saw” the country more divided. I wasn’t asking you for a history lesson.

 

[CatchnShoot]

Donald Trump is the only answer.




Specifically, him re-enacting the Thch Quang Duc sacrifice in the middle of Times Square.

 

[DiddlyDoodly]

I'll never agree with someone who thinks that violent criminals don't deserve to be punished.

 

[Source]

The only way everyone will come together is if one side gives up all their beliefs and goes to the other side. Literally, that is the only way. We are so far past having friendly disagreements. Now if you disagree you are literally hitler and a bunch of different phobes. there is not a leader alive who can bring everyone together. and if a leader from either party reached out to the other side, his own party would turn on him.

I think this is part of the overall problem. We have been instilled with this all or nothing political fallacy. It is meant to divide people. We can have a civil discourse without the attacks that have become all too prevalent. I think some of it has been caused by extremists being given mainstream voices.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

9/11 briefly brought everyone together. I think because of social media though, if it happened today, the blue hairs would be cheering it on and saying we deserved it.

I don’t think there is anything short of an alien invasion that would unite us. Everyone is tribal now and social media amplifies it.

 

[Limeade]

Citizen redistricting of congressional districts. Make the districts less gerrymandered and thus more competitive in elections which will discourage extreme views from our politicians.

 

[Richmma80]

Split the country in half

 

[RockyLockridge]

I know that the War Room by definition is the place where people of different political opinions get to argue with each other, so my i know this isn't the best place to talk about strategies for bringing the country together but I don't know where else to go.

Anyhow, I've been hearing so many different reactions throughout the day to the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to remove Trump from the ballot. Just about every reaction I've heard has been apocalyptic in tone: the left thinks it's a good decision because Trump must be defeated at all costs lest a civil war ensues and democracy dies, while the right thinks it's a bad decision and another reason why there needs to be a civil war to regain real democracy. Both sides are hysterical and irrational.

Yeah my views are generally Conservative, but I think it's wild to just dismiss 50% of the country just because they don't think like you.

At some point we have to put our differences aside and come together in order to make the most progress possible. We are better together than apart, a house divided can't stand, the strongest rope is that in which the strands are tightly bonded.

I'm not gonna sit here and pretend like I know the answers , but I feel confident in saying that something needs to change, we can't keep going on like this.

We need a leader who truly sees the potential in all people and who will do everything in their power to get Americans to see that they share common interests. Everything we need as a country we have, there's no reason why people need to fight each other or why people feel like they can't get what they need.

America was always about the "pursuit of happiness", and the founders understood that that pursuit must be a collective effort, hence declaring "we the people". It seems like modern politics is determined to destroy the "we" aspects of the American experience. The average politician will emphasize all the perceived differences Americans have (class, race, gender, sexuality, etc.) just to get a leg up on the competition. This has been going on for so long that we just accept it as normal, and take part in the game which makes it stronger and more entrenched.

But enough is enough. Conservatives and Liberals HAVE to come together in this country. We have to do whatever we can to find a common battle. We don't agree on everything, but there's way more that we agree than disagree on. We just lack the trust and respect for one another to do something about it.

But I suggest we start by clarifying the obvious. Most Conservatives are good people, and so are most Liberals. In order to win the battle for freedom, liberty, and prosperity, we have to stop looking at each other with suspicion and bad intent. Conservatives and Liberals have to start seeing themselves in one another: we are all decent people, and we just want to live good lives and love our families and be productive members of society.

So maybe let's start to make a.chamge by refusing to vote for anyone who has a divisive message. We should only vote for people who expressly intend to bring the country together.

Let's also stop giving oxygen to partisan news outlets whose only goal is to profit off of polarization. These people sow the seeds of discontent for a fast buck and then we pay the price for it in the end.

Let's also rebel against indoctrination on college campuses. College is supposed to be for education, not an echo chamber for the future elites of America to learn how to look down on the south and midwest.

There's so much more that can be done. But the point is it's way past time we stopped fighting each other and become the strong force America was always meant to be

beautiful post, not an american but I understand where you're coming from. Governments all over the western world lean into division.