CIO Fox guest: "Great blessing" that old Americans can't afford to retire

[cinyc]

As usual with Atlas U.S. General Discussion posts, this lacks context.

Here’s the start of the gentleman’s full quote - and you can see from the video on the page that he’s not exactly young:

“I guess I’m one of those people who plans never to retire. I mean, is bowling that interesting? Is fishing that interesting? I happen to love my work. Why do I want to stop it? It’s not like it hurts. Why would I stop it?”

Why is it objectionable for people who want to work in their senior years to be able to do so? And it is a blessing that many of us are not working in the type of manual labor, like years ago, where not retiring wasn’t an option.

People today are living longer and are generally healthier in old age. Whether to continue to work should be a personal decision. It’s a “great blessing” that some people can make that choice.

[parochial boy]

Horrible. This is why I fully understand why some Americans are attracted to the ideas of AOC and Bernie. But their blind spot is multiculturalism. Their open borders fantasy will always enable capitalism to foster.

The combination of capitalism and multiculturalism really leads to the worst possible outcome for the general populace, especially those in worse socio-economic positions.

Are you legitimately trying to claim that multiculturalism has an actual tangible negative effect on national economics and the lower class?

I've seen arguments like this regarding illegal immigration, but multiculturalisn? This is a massive crock of sh__.

Multiculturalism causes social cohesion to decline and individualism to increase. The result: less willingness to pay into a system that upholds a welfare state. Moreover, mass immigration of working-class people drives down wages (and slows down automation and innovation). The main losers of such policies are the native working classes (of whichever color). Middle-class people lose too, as they benefit from a welfare state and good public facilities (also thinking of education here) too as well as being affected by the decrease of public safety. The only ones who benefit are the literal 1%.

Somewhat interestingly, off topic or not, but I have been reading a book ("l'archipel français" to be precise), by Jerôme Fourquet - which included a load of analyis about the experience of North African migrants in France. And what stood out is that they were following a broadly "normal" pattern of integration (increasingly likely to marry out of their community, increasingly likely to choose "french" rather than "muslim" names for their children, increasingly likely to benefit from social mobility and move out of the banlieues...) until this process actually started going backwards around about the year 2000. Ie, more or less the time that neo-liberal "there is no alternative" capitalism was becoming hegemonic across the globe.

In fact, in many societies, you actually have this ultra-liberalism coming into place before they became multicultural (eg Thatcher was elected at a time when the UK was still 98% white); which I think undermines the argument that Multiculturalism is something that undermines social cohesion.

So I would tend to think that the cause of social fracturing and individualism was not multiculturalism - but instead, it was purely down to neoliberalism, which drove both everything you described about social cohesion, but as a consequence, drove the failure of integration of recent migrants (and that includes the rise of the Islamist identatarian movement, which was also clearly fuelled by neoliberal globalisation as much as anything else). I mean, I wouldn't dispute that "neoliberlism" has been a driver of increased migration to Europe, but I think you have the causality the wrong way round.

[Slander and/or Libel]

As usual with Atlas U.S. General Discussion posts, this lacks context.

Here’s the start of the gentleman’s full quote - and you can see from the video on the page that he’s not exactly young:

“I guess I’m one of those people who plans never to retire. I mean, is bowling that interesting? Is fishing that interesting? I happen to love my work. Why do I want to stop it? It’s not like it hurts. Why would I stop it?”

Why is it objectionable for people who want to work in their senior years to be able to do so? And it is a blessing that many of us are not working in the type of manual labor, like years ago, where not retiring wasn’t an option.

People today are living longer and are generally healthier in old age. Whether to continue to work should be a personal decision. It’s a “great blessing” that some people can make that choice.

Do you honestly believe that this is why most people who aren't stopping working are doing so?

[cinyc]

As usual with Atlas U.S. General Discussion posts, this lacks context.

Here’s the start of the gentleman’s full quote - and you can see from the video on the page that he’s not exactly young:

“I guess I’m one of those people who plans never to retire. I mean, is bowling that interesting? Is fishing that interesting? I happen to love my work. Why do I want to stop it? It’s not like it hurts. Why would I stop it?”

Why is it objectionable for people who want to work in their senior years to be able to do so? And it is a blessing that many of us are not working in the type of manual labor, like years ago, where not retiring wasn’t an option.

People today are living longer and are generally healthier in old age. Whether to continue to work should be a personal decision. It’s a “great blessing” that some people can make that choice.

Do you honestly believe that this is why most people who aren't stopping working are doing so?

There are a fair number of seniors who work past 65 because they like their job, yes. Most? I don’t know.

But my main point is that Atlas (as usual) is taking the quote out of context to gin up unjustified outrage. The CIO was largely talking about himself.

[DavidB.]

Horrible. This is why I fully understand why some Americans are attracted to the ideas of AOC and Bernie. But their blind spot is multiculturalism. Their open borders fantasy will always enable capitalism to foster.

The combination of capitalism and multiculturalism really leads to the worst possible outcome for the general populace, especially those in worse socio-economic positions.

Are you legitimately trying to claim that multiculturalism has an actual tangible negative effect on national economics and the lower class?

I've seen arguments like this regarding illegal immigration, but multiculturalisn? This is a massive crock of sh__.

Multiculturalism causes social cohesion to decline and individualism to increase. The result: less willingness to pay into a system that upholds a welfare state. Moreover, mass immigration of working-class people drives down wages (and slows down automation and innovation). The main losers of such policies are the native working classes (of whichever color). Middle-class people lose too, as they benefit from a welfare state and good public facilities (also thinking of education here) too as well as being affected by the decrease of public safety. The only ones who benefit are the literal 1%.

Somewhat interestingly, off topic or not, but I have been reading a book ("l'archipel français" to be precise), by Jerôme Fourquet - which included a load of analyis about the experience of North African migrants in France. And what stood out is that they were following a broadly "normal" pattern of integration (increasingly likely to marry out of their community, increasingly likely to choose "french" rather than "muslim" names for their children, increasingly likely to benefit from social mobility and move out of the banlieues...) until this process actually started going backwards around about the year 2000. Ie, more or less the time that neo-liberal "there is no alternative" capitalism was becoming hegemonic across the globe.

In fact, in many societies, you actually have this ultra-liberalism coming into place before they became multicultural (eg Thatcher was elected at a time when the UK was still 98% white); which I think undermines the argument that Multiculturalism is something that undermines social cohesion.

So I would tend to think that the cause of social fracturing and individualism was not multiculturalism - but instead, it was purely down to neoliberalism, which drove both everything you described about social cohesion, but as a consequence, drove the failure of integration of recent migrants (and that includes the rise of the Islamist identatarian movement, which was also clearly fuelled by neoliberal globalisation as much as anything else). I mean, I wouldn't dispute that "neoliberlism" has been a driver of increased migration to Europe, but I think you have the causality the wrong way round.

I was focusing on America in my post. When it comes to Europe we thankfully haven't become like America yet, both in terms of the weakening of our national identity and social cohesion and in terms of the (lack of a) welfare state. But with mass immigration in Europe continuing, the effect will sooner or later be exactly as I described it and exactly as it has been in America, which is why it is my number one priority to end it.

I definitely think that integration takes place much better in an environment with relatively high social mobility (i.e. a country in which income inequality is low and education opportunities are relatively equal) and that the wave of neoliberalization of the 80s and 90s has negatively affected integration (while not really changing the fact that many immigrants rely on welfare). I also think neoliberalization has further damaged the social fabric of our societies in Europe, which were already negatively affected by all sorts of developments that probably fall under 'modernization': secularization, urbanization and suburbanization, individualization, you name it... So I don't disagree with your analysis for the European situation at all.

[pbrower2a]

Multi-culturalism doesn't necessarily go hand-in-hand with ongoing mass immigration. If Trump completely shut the borders and closed the airports today and stopped allowing foreigners to even vacation here, it would still be a multi-cultural nation going forward.

I like Ike.

We have had a multi-cultural America from  the moment that the first Spaniard erected a cross in Florida. People are going to identify with cultures that they were not born into.

[T'Chenka]

"People are racist therefore they hate welfare that isn't only for whites. However, the LONG-TERM solution is to appease the racists!"

You sound like a clown. I'm sorry.

A strawman, a personal attack and no argument. Pretty weak.

Not a strawnan at all. Please explain what part of my summary of your ideas about welfare and race and the solution to that problem is inaccurate, wording aside. I'll wait.

[We Live in Black and White]

The future that conservative sociopaths - and make no mistakes, they're all sociopaths - want.

[DavidB.]

"People are racist therefore they hate welfare that isn't only for whites. However, the LONG-TERM solution is to appease the racists!"

You sound like a clown. I'm sorry.

A strawman, a personal attack and no argument. Pretty weak.

Not a strawnan at all. Please explain what part of my summary of your ideas about welfare and race and the solution to that problem is inaccurate, wording aside. I'll wait.

Nah. I'm not going to waste my time responding to your trolling explaining why your simplified and distorted version of my argument is wrong. You can simply respond to my argument.

[T'Chenka]

"People are racist therefore they hate welfare that isn't only for whites. However, the LONG-TERM solution is to appease the racists!"

You sound like a clown. I'm sorry.

A strawman, a personal attack and no argument. Pretty weak.

Not a strawnan at all. Please explain what part of my summary of your ideas about welfare and race and the solution to that problem is inaccurate, wording aside. I'll wait.

Nah. I'm not going to waste my time responding to your trolling explaining why your simplified and distorted version of my argument is wrong. You can simply respond to my argument.

I want to respond, but I don't understand it fully according to you. Can you clarify?

[darklordoftech]

Horrible. This is why I fully understand why some Americans are attracted to the ideas of AOC and Bernie. But their blind spot is multiculturalism. Their open borders fantasy will always enable capitalism to foster.

The combination of capitalism and multiculturalism really leads to the worst possible outcome for the general populace, especially those in worse socio-economic positions.

Are you legitimately trying to claim that multiculturalism has an actual tangible negative effect on national economics and the lower class?

I've seen arguments like this regarding illegal immigration, but multiculturalisn? This is a massive crock of sh__.

Multiculturalism causes social cohesion to decline and individualism to increase. The result: less willingness to pay into a system that upholds a welfare state. Moreover, mass immigration of working-class people drives down wages (and slows down automation and innovation). The main losers of such policies are the native working classes (of whichever color). Middle-class people lose too, as they benefit from a welfare state and good public facilities (also thinking of education here) too as well as being affected by the decrease of public safety. The only ones who benefit are the literal 1%.

Somewhat interestingly, off topic or not, but I have been reading a book ("l'archipel français" to be precise), by Jerôme Fourquet - which included a load of analyis about the experience of North African migrants in France. And what stood out is that they were following a broadly "normal" pattern of integration (increasingly likely to marry out of their community, increasingly likely to choose "french" rather than "muslim" names for their children, increasingly likely to benefit from social mobility and move out of the banlieues...) until this process actually started going backwards around about the year 2000. Ie, more or less the time that neo-liberal "there is no alternative" capitalism was becoming hegemonic across the globe.

In fact, in many societies, you actually have this ultra-liberalism coming into place before they became multicultural (eg Thatcher was elected at a time when the UK was still 98% white); which I think undermines the argument that Multiculturalism is something that undermines social cohesion.

So I would tend to think that the cause of social fracturing and individualism was not multiculturalism - but instead, it was purely down to neoliberalism, which drove both everything you described about social cohesion, but as a consequence, drove the failure of integration of recent migrants (and that includes the rise of the Islamist identatarian movement, which was also clearly fuelled by neoliberal globalisation as much as anything else). I mean, I wouldn't dispute that "neoliberlism" has been a driver of increased migration to Europe, but I think you have the causality the wrong way round.

You say something changed “around the year 2000”. Didn’t 9/11 happen around the year 2000? 9/11 resulted in governments harassing people who looked middle-eastern and wars that displaced people from the Middle East.

[Mopsus]

Horrible. This is why I fully understand why some Americans are attracted to the ideas of AOC and Bernie. But their blind spot is multiculturalism. Their open borders fantasy will always enable capitalism to foster.

The combination of capitalism and multiculturalism really leads to the worst possible outcome for the general populace, especially those in worse socio-economic positions.

Are you legitimately trying to claim that multiculturalism has an actual tangible negative effect on national economics and the lower class?

I've seen arguments like this regarding illegal immigration, but multiculturalisn? This is a massive crock of sh__.

Multiculturalism causes social cohesion to decline and individualism to increase. The result: less willingness to pay into a system that upholds a welfare state. Moreover, mass immigration of working-class people drives down wages (and slows down automation and innovation). The main losers of such policies are the native working classes (of whichever color). Middle-class people lose too, as they benefit from a welfare state and good public facilities (also thinking of education here) too as well as being affected by the decrease of public safety. The only ones who benefit are the literal 1%.

Somewhat interestingly, off topic or not, but I have been reading a book ("l'archipel français" to be precise), by Jerôme Fourquet - which included a load of analyis about the experience of North African migrants in France. And what stood out is that they were following a broadly "normal" pattern of integration (increasingly likely to marry out of their community, increasingly likely to choose "french" rather than "muslim" names for their children, increasingly likely to benefit from social mobility and move out of the banlieues...) until this process actually started going backwards around about the year 2000. Ie, more or less the time that neo-liberal "there is no alternative" capitalism was becoming hegemonic across the globe.

In fact, in many societies, you actually have this ultra-liberalism coming into place before they became multicultural (eg Thatcher was elected at a time when the UK was still 98% white); which I think undermines the argument that Multiculturalism is something that undermines social cohesion.

So I would tend to think that the cause of social fracturing and individualism was not multiculturalism - but instead, it was purely down to neoliberalism, which drove both everything you described about social cohesion, but as a consequence, drove the failure of integration of recent migrants (and that includes the rise of the Islamist identatarian movement, which was also clearly fuelled by neoliberal globalisation as much as anything else). I mean, I wouldn't dispute that "neoliberlism" has been a driver of increased migration to Europe, but I think you have the causality the wrong way round.

According to the chart on this page, 2000 is also the year in which immigration to France started to steadily tick up, after remaining stagnant for a quarter of a century. So it seems just as likely to me that as long as the Maghrebi population in France was cut off from the Maghreb, assimilation occurred at a steady rate, but the constant flow of new arrivals to France since then has changed that equation.

[parochial boy]

Horrible. This is why I fully understand why some Americans are attracted to the ideas of AOC and Bernie. But their blind spot is multiculturalism. Their open borders fantasy will always enable capitalism to foster.

The combination of capitalism and multiculturalism really leads to the worst possible outcome for the general populace, especially those in worse socio-economic positions.

Are you legitimately trying to claim that multiculturalism has an actual tangible negative effect on national economics and the lower class?

I've seen arguments like this regarding illegal immigration, but multiculturalisn? This is a massive crock of sh__.

Multiculturalism causes social cohesion to decline and individualism to increase. The result: less willingness to pay into a system that upholds a welfare state. Moreover, mass immigration of working-class people drives down wages (and slows down automation and innovation). The main losers of such policies are the native working classes (of whichever color). Middle-class people lose too, as they benefit from a welfare state and good public facilities (also thinking of education here) too as well as being affected by the decrease of public safety. The only ones who benefit are the literal 1%.

Somewhat interestingly, off topic or not, but I have been reading a book ("l'archipel français" to be precise), by Jerôme Fourquet - which included a load of analyis about the experience of North African migrants in France. And what stood out is that they were following a broadly "normal" pattern of integration (increasingly likely to marry out of their community, increasingly likely to choose "french" rather than "muslim" names for their children, increasingly likely to benefit from social mobility and move out of the banlieues...) until this process actually started going backwards around about the year 2000. Ie, more or less the time that neo-liberal "there is no alternative" capitalism was becoming hegemonic across the globe.

In fact, in many societies, you actually have this ultra-liberalism coming into place before they became multicultural (eg Thatcher was elected at a time when the UK was still 98% white); which I think undermines the argument that Multiculturalism is something that undermines social cohesion.

So I would tend to think that the cause of social fracturing and individualism was not multiculturalism - but instead, it was purely down to neoliberalism, which drove both everything you described about social cohesion, but as a consequence, drove the failure of integration of recent migrants (and that includes the rise of the Islamist identatarian movement, which was also clearly fuelled by neoliberal globalisation as much as anything else). I mean, I wouldn't dispute that "neoliberlism" has been a driver of increased migration to Europe, but I think you have the causality the wrong way round.

According to the chart on this page, 2000 is also the year in which immigration to France started to steadily tick up, after remaining stagnant for a quarter of a century. So it seems just as likely to me that as long as the Maghrebi population in France was cut off from the Maghreb, assimilation occurred at a steady rate, but the constant flow of new arrivals to France since then has changed that equation.

Maybe, there are always going to be so many moving parts that you could never know for sure - but recent years have seen an increasing tendancy towards segregation amongst other groups (practising Catholics, Jews, the wealthy and upper middle classes...); whereas at the time of the original wave of North African immigration those trends weren't happening. So a big difference is neoliberalism in this case. (and anecdotally, it would be hard to deny the rise of things like satellite TV (ie al jazeera), or of Salafism as a globally present ideology, in particularly as spread through the internet, as things that would have been factors increased immigration levels or not).