You mean the U.S. Curriculum? There are, what I know, also state Curriculum. No, I´m not American and never lived in the country. I doubt American Curriculum are any better compared to the Swedish one. Of course few blue collar workers have college degrees. They hold trade diplomas. What happens with American college graduates is that they end up in non-skilled professions. The same is true here in Europe.
American Economics Thread
- Thread starter Bernard
- Start date
The corporations control the government (America) as opposed to when the government controls corporations like in China and Russia.
So, the production was taken abroad where there would be the same production quality but for much cheaper, like in China, resulting in more profits.
And then of course there would be fewer STEM graduates when fewer engineering jobs are available in the US in the next decades due to the lack of demand.
Imagine something like this happening in China in the future, the government would simply end those businesses that tried to take the production capacity abroad with a few strokes of a pen.
But that can't happen in the US because the corporations are the ones financing elections (every 2-4 years basically, donors needed).
But, the population is also partly to blame here. Due to complacency, pampering, and their empire being so long on the top,
They simply started disdaining those hard factory jobs more and more, so the corporations managed to take out industries even easier.
Meanwhile, the government politicians also saw the hard switch toward easier service-based jobs, making populations happier.
This was all part of the imperial hubris mindset, exceptionalism, when they thought they didn't need industry, only money printing,
And they thought that a country like China would never manage to create its own industries and climb up in value chains, get stronger threaten their global hegemony,
But oh so they did. That was all happening massively during the last decades of the past century, "the end of history" mindset, etc...
STEM population pool becomes a problem only now if they want to restart the industry, but that's not the only problem they will encounter,
Other problems are lack of infrastructure (industrial, labor transportation, exports), lack of the industrial ecosystems from basic to more advanced (from materials to parts, to everything else), Lack of government unity, capability, and speed to accomplish something like this...
So, the production was taken abroad where there would be the same production quality but for much cheaper, like in China, resulting in more profits.
And then of course there would be fewer STEM graduates when fewer engineering jobs are available in the US in the next decades due to the lack of demand.
Imagine something like this happening in China in the future, the government would simply end those businesses that tried to take the production capacity abroad with a few strokes of a pen.
But that can't happen in the US because the corporations are the ones financing elections (every 2-4 years basically, donors needed).
But, the population is also partly to blame here. Due to complacency, pampering, and their empire being so long on the top,
They simply started disdaining those hard factory jobs more and more, so the corporations managed to take out industries even easier.
Meanwhile, the government politicians also saw the hard switch toward easier service-based jobs, making populations happier.
This was all part of the imperial hubris mindset, exceptionalism, when they thought they didn't need industry, only money printing,
And they thought that a country like China would never manage to create its own industries and climb up in value chains, get stronger threaten their global hegemony,
But oh so they did. That was all happening massively during the last decades of the past century, "the end of history" mindset, etc...
STEM population pool becomes a problem only now if they want to restart the industry, but that's not the only problem they will encounter,
Other problems are lack of infrastructure (industrial, labor transportation, exports), lack of the industrial ecosystems from basic to more advanced (from materials to parts, to everything else), Lack of government unity, capability, and speed to accomplish something like this...
I don't see this as a minus. Even a 2.5 GPA average STEM graduate has more useful skills than another barista-major. I don't actually have a problem with humanities majors, I like talking to Art History experts myself, but there is a shortage of necessary skills, and a surplus of unnecessary ones.
The US K-12 education is awful and probably getting worse.
My point was that the "diploma" percentage is misleading. A ton of US adult population is basically illiterate. Which is funny, because you'd think that Rap music, a music genre that focuses heavily on the lyrical content, would encourage people to get educated. Whereas college degrees, even liberal arts majors, are in fact a useful indicator. Around 35% of adults have degrees, and that's probably a rough figure of how many adults in United States are competent enough to meaningfully contribute to society.
But anyway, the gloom and doom about United States in this thread gets a little old after a while so it's hard to stay engaged in this thread. The problem isn't that United States is so horribly mismanaged.
The "problem" is that United States is coping over the seemingly inevitable Chinese rise that will surpass United States in most meaningful metrics. Which, considering the more competent political leadership and a much larger population, is probably how things should be. I'm not upset by that, but that doesn't mean United States is on the verge of collapse or absolute decline.
Seriously, how many listeners want to hear GZA rap about astrophysics? Especially after how much shit Andre 3000 got for making a flute album.
I agree, if we look at the root cause for the rise in homelessness over say the past 50 years my assessment is it can mainly be attributed to wealth inequality due to policies that favor the wealthy, corporations, investors, etc at the expense of workers by suppressing working incomes at a time when productivity soared. Combined with the erosion of portions of the social safety net and dismantling of the previous social contract, it created additional expenses such as tuition while removing fallback options, however imperfect helped smooth out the rough edges of a capitalist society.
Europe has still managed to retain most elements of their social infrastructure despite attempts otherwise, so a McDonald's worker is better off on the continent then their counterpart in the USA. And the prices are similar, which is telling imho. Your point about the policy changes to prevent student debt from being dischargeable in bankruptcy is a great example of how politicians have been putting the screws to average working people making them even more subject to the changing whims of the economy, while allowing shareholders and management to reap oversized rewards. What we really need is a fundamental reworking of the social contract where workers receive a greater proportion of the wealth they create, whether through government policies, or through political upheaval (i.e., unions).
I am on the industry advisory committee for the Alma Ater I graduated from and for some god forsaken reason (allegedly to comply with policies on equality or some other BS) the Dean decided to remove the academic skills qualification criteria for the co-operative education portion so its now first come first serve. Stuff like this is why companies and hiring managers have blacklists for not hiring from certain schools/programs or they add so many onerous layers to the hiring process to gatekeep since higher education seems to have forgotten their old mission of educating students for the future workforce. This whole positive reinforcement and everyone's a winner coddling is going to hurt these students.
EV demand was never there.
Wall Street Journal
Self driving is done alongside it as well:
GM has a been , having lost $1.9 billion on Cruise expenses between January and September this year, in addition to a $732 million loss in the third quarter.
The unstoppable trend of private equity acquisition in medicine is a catastrophe:
New York Times
Meta-rationality
Wall Street Journal
Self driving is done alongside it as well:
GM has a been , having lost $1.9 billion on Cruise expenses between January and September this year, in addition to a $732 million loss in the third quarter.
The unstoppable trend of private equity acquisition in medicine is a catastrophe:
New York Times
Meta-rationality
Last edited:
The issue isn't that Americans don't like Electric Vehicles or self-driving.
The issue is that Americans, and indeed, most people, don't like shitty, overpriced cars.
Just look at Electric Trucks. Ford F-150 Lighting starts at $80,500. Rivian R1 starts at $75,000. This prices out 80% of consumers out there.
Look at "affordable" EVs. Nissan Leaf is the cheapest EV with 150 miles of range and starting at $27,500 with quite possible the cheapest feeling interior I've ever sat in. Its charging speeds are slow, especially in cold weather.
Chevy Bolt starts at $28,000, but you will not find a dealer configuration below $30,000 unless you specifically look for it. Let's not forget that it's not really a "car". It's a borderline sub-compact. Know what I can buy for 30-35 thousand dollars? A decent car with lots of interior space and 40-45 miles per gallon. It's called Honda Civic EX or above.
And this is brand new. You're also effectively competing with the used market. I mean this is why Tesla Model 3 dominates the market. It's under $50,000. It's viewed as a premium product that actually works. The only other real competitor is a Hyundai Ioniq 6 and Ioniq 5 which you also cannot buy below $40,000.
So no, these articles are honestly stupid. The problem isn't that Americans "hate" electric cars. The problem is that there are no affordable electric cars to buy. The only people who can afford it are the upper-middle class like myself, and even then, there are credible alternatives to EVs like hybrids or luxury vehicles. Fact is, people who are buying vehicles in the 40-50 thousand dollar prices range or above aren't only doing it to save money on gas. Electric cars in America are too expensive and their only real niche is being electric.
Manufacturers need to bring the price down and fix their marketing, focus on EV strengths like driving comfort, gasoline savings, safety, and upkeep savings.
So basically, until US manufacturers un-fuck their supply chains, they won't sell many EVs, and it really is a tale of supply chain management. Look at Tesla vs everybody else in United States. Especially at how Tesla has managed their supply chain, their production, and their roadmap. It really does tell the whole story.
The issue is that Americans, and indeed, most people, don't like shitty, overpriced cars.
Just look at Electric Trucks. Ford F-150 Lighting starts at $80,500. Rivian R1 starts at $75,000. This prices out 80% of consumers out there.
Look at "affordable" EVs. Nissan Leaf is the cheapest EV with 150 miles of range and starting at $27,500 with quite possible the cheapest feeling interior I've ever sat in. Its charging speeds are slow, especially in cold weather.
Chevy Bolt starts at $28,000, but you will not find a dealer configuration below $30,000 unless you specifically look for it. Let's not forget that it's not really a "car". It's a borderline sub-compact. Know what I can buy for 30-35 thousand dollars? A decent car with lots of interior space and 40-45 miles per gallon. It's called Honda Civic EX or above.
And this is brand new. You're also effectively competing with the used market. I mean this is why Tesla Model 3 dominates the market. It's under $50,000. It's viewed as a premium product that actually works. The only other real competitor is a Hyundai Ioniq 6 and Ioniq 5 which you also cannot buy below $40,000.
So no, these articles are honestly stupid. The problem isn't that Americans "hate" electric cars. The problem is that there are no affordable electric cars to buy. The only people who can afford it are the upper-middle class like myself, and even then, there are credible alternatives to EVs like hybrids or luxury vehicles. Fact is, people who are buying vehicles in the 40-50 thousand dollar prices range or above aren't only doing it to save money on gas. Electric cars in America are too expensive and their only real niche is being electric.
Manufacturers need to bring the price down and fix their marketing, focus on EV strengths like driving comfort, gasoline savings, safety, and upkeep savings.
So basically, until US manufacturers un-fuck their supply chains, they won't sell many EVs, and it really is a tale of supply chain management. Look at Tesla vs everybody else in United States. Especially at how Tesla has managed their supply chain, their production, and their roadmap. It really does tell the whole story.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Well, that's the logical side of it but Americans are also not logical. Just like how it somehow became a symbol of being tough and manly to NOT wear a mask during COVID, Americans see EVs as being feminine and driving an incredibly inefficient pickup as being masculine. And most Americans are not educated enough to know that China leads in EV production and development but I have a feeling that once they know, EVs will represent being communist or un-American. This is the state of the American mentality right now.
There are two sides of American. The other side is the woke type that is totally compatible with EV. I think the whole American hate EV stuff is nonesense. It is 50/50 split between really like and really hate, and 50% of American market is big.
Tesla sells in US the most, as the biggest(or 2nd now) EV maker by revenue.
This whole economy is objectively a giant poof of smoke. 100% reliant on dollar internalization - money printing - debt - government spending - that's the whole funnel.