Will the "great reset" cause the masses to embrace FI(RE)?

[haha]

This is an emotional topic for many people. They seem to either latch on to the emotions of:

"How dare you kick the poor,needy, and down-trodden unfortunates of society"

Or

"Bums at best, criminals at worst"

Since most have us have spent our entiure lives in a welfare society of one degree or another, our baseline assumption is that we should provide for others, that they are somehow the responsibility of those who are doing OK. This is really a very new idea in societies, and I believe it is an idea on the way out. I believe the first state sponsored or mandated welfare provisions were relatively small, and mostly directed at industrial workers in Germany, maybe 120-130 years ago. The real kick-off came after WW2 when Britain's voters kicked out Churchill and the Tories and elected a Labor government. Perhaps coincidentally their economy trended down until the dark bottom in the early 70s. What finally financed the UK welfare system was North Sea oil and gas. With that beginning to wind down, it remains to be seen what will happen. One way or another, the UK standard of living will decrease, as will ours here in the US for similar reasons.

Victorian England was a very prosperous country, a prosperous empire really, yet people starved. Starving people in western countries today would be hard to find, unless a 240 pound food stamp recipient might be considered to be starving.

I certainly do not know, and I may be too far along in life to see the playout, but my guess is that attitudes are hardening about a hard working productive class being forced to support a permanent underclass. I would say that at present, an unspoken motivation to continue current measures is to avoid violence against people and property. In other words, a protection racket.

The same pressures will affect those of us who are retired. As various economists have pointed out, once you are retired, no matter how much money you might have saved, your consumption of goods and services necessarily comes from the current production of goods and services in the economy. Since the most able sectors of the US and most other western economies have gone on a baby strike, I think things are certainly not looking max rosy.

This doesn't necessarily have to work out well, does it?

Ha

 

[Martha]

Yes Ha, it doesn't necessarily work well. And I think we have a culture of wishful thinking. If only so and so is elected all will be ok. If only we return to our xyz values all will be ok. If only people would apply themselves they will get work. I'll play the lottery but I won't wear sunscreen. And our worries are often worries that have no real utility. Gay marriage. Content of the pledge of allegiance. School prayer. Flag burning. Location of Mosques. Instead of saving your money, taking care of your health, and keeping your own skills up to date so you can be agile, mobile and hostile, as Uncle Mick would say.

Anyone read Amazon.com: Bright-sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America eBook: Barbara Ehrenreich: Kindle Store I just got the book but haven't read it yet. She claims we have as a society a reckless penchant for self delusion.

Nevertheless, I engage in self delusion. It helps me sleep at night.

 

[haha]

Martha, thanks for mentioning this book. I reserved it at the library. It will take a while, but I think it will be worth it.
I hope you will report on it after you have had a chance to read it over.

I have been reading Victorian fiction. The heavy reality of moral choice, and also of chance, seems to have been part of everyday Victorian. consciousness. They seem to understand that tragedies and injustices will happen, and they will likely not be made right.


I agree with you that we Americans tend to be deluded. And if our delusions ever do get challenged, the media will help us restore them quickly enough.

Ha

 

[Milton]

I haven't read Bright-sided, but I usually find Barbara Ehrenreich to be worthwhile.

This is really a very new idea in societies ... I believe the first state sponsored or mandated welfare provisions were relatively small, and mostly directed at industrial workers in Germany, maybe 120-130 years ago. The real kick-off came after WW2 when Britain's voters kicked out Churchill and the Tories and elected a Labor government.

Certainly the modern welfare state is a recent creation, but the idea of tax revenue being spent to provide (very) basic necessities for the sick and needy is not new. For example, the English poor law system dates back to Elizabethan times.

Victorian England was a very prosperous country, a prosperous empire really, yet people starved.

Quite correct, on both accounts.

I would say that at present, an unspoken motivation to continue current measures is to avoid violence against people and property. In other words, a protection racket.

Perhaps. But a bigger motivation for wealth transfers is simple vote-buying.

Personally, I don't worry or think about this topic very much. I'm sure that most (all?) welfare systems are imperfect, but of course that's true of every human creation. And it is good to know that support is there for people who genuinely need it (which I hope will never include any of us, but one never knows).

Victorian. consciousness ... seem(s) to understand that tragedies and injustices will happen, and they will likely not be made right.

Cf. Mrs. Jellyby!