I believe the idea is to support the “real” economy vs a “paper” economy. The “real” economy manufactures stuff in meat space instead of making value through abstractions like financial derivatives. The real economies are tied to a stronger middle class and national security. That’s the thesis as I understand it.
The fundamental problem is the asymmetry of value creation. Software is perhaps the pinnacle of this, and why tech companies are so unfathomably wealthy.
A team of 10 SWEs can create a product worth $1B with the cost of 10 laptops. You get ten people worth $100M each.
To create $1B in value with any kind of manufacturing business, is going to take hundreds of people utilizing millions in various costs. You end up with something like 10,000 people worth $100k each once you wind your way through all those supply lines.
You said it better. I think the idea is that certain "paper" economies are disproportionately valued in the economy when the dollar is strong. A strong dollar leads to offshoring manufacturing, which leads to an over weighted "paper" economy, which leads to an eroding middle class.
I agree, depending on what services you’re speaking of. Although I don’t know that it meets the explicit aims of the heritage foundation (which was the OPs question).
I didn't realize that such causes like 90+% income taxes, lower income inequality, single earner households, and high unionization rates are "conservative" too.
Of course because that’s how marginal tax rates work.
As to how much actual money was taxed at 91%, we don’t really have records for that but certainly the top 0.01% paid significantly more in taxes as a rate than they do today.
"That reality" was one in which the wealthy had countless deductions, loopholes, and shelters that were unavailable or inapplicable to everyone else, which (almost) everybody agreed was an undesirable state of affairs.
Actually, a past that never existed. It's pretty typically for authoritarian regimes to create idealized versions of the past as they attempt to rewrite history to better fit with their talking points and agendas.
The United States is current getting the base material for its entire economy from a country that is openly at war with it: China. If the US attacked East Tiawan because East Tiawan attacked Taiwan, East Tiawan would simply stop exporting rare earths, silver, steel, and electronics to the US. As a result the US needs to manufacture at home. So too does the EU.
The endemic anti-intellectualism among white communities (especially rural and southern) has resulted in a steady decline of white people in well-paying professions in America. If you count the Jewish as a separate group, white people are likely a minority in corporate America. Combined with social upliftment of other groups ("wokism") and the opioid crisis (that has disproportionately affected hinterland communities but immigrant groups seem immune to), white people are sliding down the American totem pole. Trumpism, alt-right, anti-woke, and the general resurgence of racist rhetoric are basically just reactions to all this.
These people want manufacturing because manufacturing is largely considered a "white people sport". If America becomes a manufacturing-first society, the hope is that it puts white people at the front and center of American society again.
The data you linked shows that Native Americans, Blacks and Whites have the highest per capita rates of overdose (in that order), which validates my claim.
White American overdose deaths per capita are 6x that of Asian-Americans.
Even if not quite true, it doesn't change my argument since it was more about the rate of change.
You can construct the definition of white collar in a way that makes it seem like it's mostly white people, but among high paying job titles within a company, absolutely I would say there are fewer than 50% non-Jewish whites.
> Even if not quite true, it doesn't change my argument
This is one of the main points of bigotry. The facts don't matter. So when a person says something obviously ridiculous like
> among high paying job titles within a company, absolutely I would say there are fewer than 50% non-Jewish whites
the proper way to interpret is "I feel like there are too many unworthy people working there," where "too many" is entirely subjective and could be as few as one.
Honestly didn't mean to say you were being a bigot there. But I would strongly suggest you spend some time in Google/census data/etc. to recalibrate your feelings. The TL;DR; is most high-paid corporate jobs in the US are held by a single demographic. Said demographic is a distinct minority of college graduates in the US.
One's information environment can mislead, but perhaps the process of finding information sources you consider objective, then studying them, will lead you to reevaluate the information diet that is creating a false picture of reality.
Right, when people are talking about white people being disproportionately represented (or under-represented) in high paying corporate jobs, they're definitely looking into the cultural background of those people and determining which ones fit "non-Jewish white" rather than looking at the black guy and putting him in the "not white" category based on appearance....
In my experience, you wouldn't know most Jews are Jews unless you start quizzing them about their religious practices.
How so? That's explicitly not considered to be "race," but a separate qualifier on top of it. In any case, nothing here is going to make any sense, because the entire social construct of "race" inherently makes no sense.
Are we really going to pretend like jewish white and non-jewish white doesn't make sense in a context where white is considered a race? I don't really see the sense in this pretense.
At my FAANG in Sunnyvale, I often feel like the last white guy on earth.
But I don't resent the people who stepped up to fill the jobs.
Rather, I am disappointed that these amazing jobs were basically gifted to US residents, but my fellow white people "Opted Out" of these high paying jobs.
