We’re in a bubble now, and like all bubbles unless you’re thinking about it the “right” way, you don’t see it. That’s how bubbles are. It wouldn’t be a bubble if it were easy to see.  

To find it, you have to look at your assumptions and challenge them.  

And you have to look at the things you’ve chosen to overlook. The things, which if you think about them, make you feel funny, so you don’t think about them.  

Compelling. Depressing.

German auto manufacturers like BMW and Volkswagen have, in other words, shown that they can be profitable while their workers make extremely good wages and benefits and have a voice in decisions that affect them. But they’ve also shown that they won’t do it if someone doesn’t make them. That’s why we need laws that level the playing field for American workers—and how we know, despite what Republicans tell us, that those laws won’t tank our economy.

Worth studying.

But there might still be another possibility — something we couldn’t really imagine for ourselves until the digital era. As a pioneer of virtual reality, Jaron Lanier, recently pointed out, we no longer need to make stuff in order to make money. We can instead exchange information-based products.

We start by accepting that food and shelter are basic human rights. The work we do — the value we create — is for the rest of what we want: the stuff that makes life fun, meaningful, and purposeful.

This sort of work isn’t so much employment as it is creative activity. Unlike Industrial Age employment, digital production can be done from the home, independently, and even in a peer-to-peer fashion without going through big corporations. We can make games for each other, write books, solve problems, educate and inspire one another — all through bits instead of stuff. And we can pay one another using the same money we use to buy real stuff.

Strange. Compelling. Strangpelling.

The question we have to begin to ask ourselves is not how do we employ all the people who are rendered obsolete by technology, but how can we organize a society around something other than employment? Might the spirit of enterprise we currently associate with “career” be shifted to something entirely more collaborative, purposeful, and even meaningful?

Instead, we are attempting to use the logic of a scarce marketplace to negotiate things that are actually in abundance. What we lack is not employment, but a way of fairly distributing the bounty we have generated through our technologies, and a way of creating meaning in a world that has already produced far too much stuff.

The communist answer to this question was just to distribute everything evenly. But that sapped motivation and never quite worked as advertised. The opposite, libertarian answer (and the way we seem to be going right now) would be to let those who can’t capitalize on the bounty simply suffer. Cut social services along with their jobs, and hope they fade into the distance.

But there might still be another possibility — something we couldn’t really imagine for ourselves until the digital era. As a pioneer of virtual reality, Jaron Lanier, recently pointed out, we no longer need to make stuff in order to make money. We can instead exchange information-based products.

HT @sgharms.

It seems there are two kinds of people—those who regard America as something like a family and those who regard it as a collection of individuals unrelated to each other and even in competition with each other.

Of course, a single person might be a mixture of both—sometimes leaning one way and sometimes leaning the other way.  But many people seem locked into one mindset or the other and whichever it is determines their attitudes toward the disadvantaged and less fortunate among us.

People who look at everyone around them, anywhere they go in America, as a family member tend to have compassion on the socially disadvantaged and wish a better life for them.  They think it’s right for our American family to help them get up on their feet; “pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps” isn’t a family way of thinking about the less fortunate.

“Family-oriented” people tend to think most of the poor are deserving of special help, even through spreading the family’s wealth around.  These people look to the common good of the whole family and seek ways to move toward true equality of all.

Then there are people who look at everyone around them, anywhere they go in America, as individuals not related to themselves (except, of course, their own blood or maybe shirttail relatives).  They view America as a whole not as a family but as an aggregate of individuals competing with each other.  Of course, many of these people believe viewing America that way benefits all as everyone, hopefully, strives to better themselves.

The problem is that people in this second category tend to be blind to oppression–social causes of disadvantage and poverty.  To them, all or most of the poor choose poverty and are therefore undeserving of anything.

This is excellent.

Pure comedy.

But to understand just how non-capitalistic Christianity is supposed to be we turn to the first chapter after the gospels, Acts, which describes the events of the early church. Chapters 2 and 4 state that all “the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need… No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had…. There were no needy persons among them. From time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.”

Now folks, that’s outright socialism of the type described millennia later by Marx – who likely got the general idea from the gospels.

The pro-capitalist Christians who are aware of these passages wave them away even though it is the only explicit description of Christian economics in the Bible.

This is the saddest infographic I’ve seen in a long time.

Look at the tar roofs covering millions of American buildings. They absorb huge amounts of heat when it’s hot. And they require more air conditioning to cool the rooms. Mayor Bloomberg started a program to hire and train young people to paint New York’s roofs white. A big percentage of the kids have been able to parlay this simple work into higher-skilled training programs or energy-related retrofit jobs. (And, believe it or not, painting the roof white can lower the electricity use by 20 percent on a hot day!)

Interesting?

Not surprisingly, Wall Street and the top of corporate America are doing extremely well as of June 2011. For example, in Q1 of 2011, America’s top corporations reported 31% profit growth and a 31% reduction in taxes, the latter due to profit outsourcing to low tax rate countries. Somewhere around 40% of the profits in the S&P 500 come from overseas and stay overseas, with about half of these 500 top corporations having their headquarters in tax havens. If the corporations don’t repatriate their profits, they pay no U.S. taxes. The year 2010 was a record year for compensation on Wall Street, while corporate CEO compensation rose by over 30%, most Americans struggled. In 2010 a dozen major companies, including GE, Verizon, Boeing, Wells Fargo, and Fed Ex paid US tax rates between -0.7% and -9.2%. Production, employment, profits, and taxes have all been outsourced. Major U.S. corporations are currently lobbying to have another “tax-repatriation” window like that in 2004 where they can bring back corporate profits at a 5.25% tax rate versus the usual 35% US corporate tax rate. Ordinary working citizens with the lowest incomes are taxed at 10%.

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is this: A highly complex and largely discrete set of laws and exemptions from laws has been put in place by those in the uppermost reaches of the U.S. financial system. It allows them to protect and increase their wealth and significantly affect the U.S. political and legislative processes. They have real power and real wealth. Ordinary citizens in the bottom 99.9% are largely not aware of these systems, do not understand how they work, are unlikely to participate in them, and have little likelihood of entering the top 0.5%, much less the top 0.1%. Moreover, those at the very top have no incentive whatsoever for revealing or changing the rules. I am not optimistic.

Chilling.