If the price goes up a bit (even if their wages more than match it) the price increase just feels like a random, unfair, morale-reducing loss. I conjecture this is a big contributor to the American Vibecession.
I think the stronger contributor is that society feels less worthwhile now. To use a specific example, even teachers are almost unanimously declaring that the K-12 public education system is awful now, despite vastly higher inflation-adjusted spending than when American education topped the charts worldwide.
If you’re a taxpayer, you put in, say 20 percent of your income every year. When you see schools full of bright-eyed, inspired young people brimming with greatness, this feels like being part of a wonderful effort to build a greater future, and your morale goes up. When you see schools such that even the people whose salaries depend on believing in public education consider them a zoo, things are different When tax day comes around, you see your money—your year’s worth of effort—completely squandered, and you don’t feel like that part of your effort was worthwhile at all. You aren’t immediately worse off, but it’s a massive, immediate drop in morale.
Looking at footage of my city 60 years ago, I can see this in microcosm all around me. My work would feel a lot more worthwhile if the bridges it funded weren’t crumbling, and if there weren’t trash on the sides of the roads.
Wars are a particularly hard thing because of course they might sometimes be necessary, but here is the other kicker—feelings of disenfranchisement, of lacking control over the political process (as in meaningful control; if voting one side or the other feels like it always results in the same policies anyway that’s enough), mean that any successes are not also your successes, and you can’t trust any promise that this particular effort is important and worthwhile for you too.
GP didn’t mean wars in general (though they’re very often bad!), they were clearly referring to the Trump administration starting a massively costly war with unclear objectives and no realistic way to achieve the stated ones, tanking the global economy and triggering a likely famine a year down the line, right after cutting funding for many life-saving programs at USAID with the stated purpose of cutting spending.
In that context, “they might sometimes be necessary” and “any successes are not also your successes” are not going to ever be relevant.
Fair, but in general the US have been waging random wars for a long time now and this argument is one I’ve seen used often (and to be clear I think most of the wars I’ve been alive to see were also bad). It’s just that now, specifically, it’s especially egregious. Even if we conceded that taking Iran’s nuclear ambitions down a peg was absolutely critical and that acting with force right now was the only way to achieve that (debatable), obviously the means of acting are ridiculously ineffectual, messy and incompetent.
, they were clearly referring to the Trump administration starting a massively costly war with unclear objectives and no realistic way to achieve the stated ones
I think it applies cleanly to every U.S. intervention and proxy war in the past four decades—not singling out one issue. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and the list goes on. The proxy conflict in Eastern Europe seems popular on LW, but it is very unpopular with the core fighting-age male demographic that is meant to be most invested in a nation’s military success or failure.
Of course, the Iran war is terrible as well, but it’s one on a long list. None of the wars that Americans bleed and pay for are in the interest of America, and most are to its outright detriment. This isn’t an isolated or partisan issue.
The proxy conflict in Eastern Europe seems popular on LW, but it is very unpopular with the core fighting-age male demographic that is meant to be most invested in a nation’s military success or failure.
I would maybe not lump together “propping up a country defending itself from an aggression by a different superpower” with all the shit that the US started on its own, often based on questionable if not outright false assumptions.
I think the stronger contributor is that society feels less worthwhile now. To use a specific example, even teachers are almost unanimously declaring that the K-12 public education system is awful now, despite vastly higher inflation-adjusted spending than when American education topped the charts worldwide.
If you’re a taxpayer, you put in, say 20 percent of your income every year. When you see schools full of bright-eyed, inspired young people brimming with greatness, this feels like being part of a wonderful effort to build a greater future, and your morale goes up. When you see schools such that even the people whose salaries depend on believing in public education consider them a zoo, things are different When tax day comes around, you see your money—your year’s worth of effort—completely squandered, and you don’t feel like that part of your effort was worthwhile at all. You aren’t immediately worse off, but it’s a massive, immediate drop in morale.
Looking at footage of my city 60 years ago, I can see this in microcosm all around me. My work would feel a lot more worthwhile if the bridges it funded weren’t crumbling, and if there weren’t trash on the sides of the roads.
Not to mention, increasing spending on wars I don’t want and cutting funding for some of the worthwhile things the US gov does
Wars are a particularly hard thing because of course they might sometimes be necessary, but here is the other kicker—feelings of disenfranchisement, of lacking control over the political process (as in meaningful control; if voting one side or the other feels like it always results in the same policies anyway that’s enough), mean that any successes are not also your successes, and you can’t trust any promise that this particular effort is important and worthwhile for you too.
Let’s not use polite euphemisms here.
GP didn’t mean wars in general (though they’re very often bad!), they were clearly referring to the Trump administration starting a massively costly war with unclear objectives and no realistic way to achieve the stated ones, tanking the global economy and triggering a likely famine a year down the line, right after cutting funding for many life-saving programs at USAID with the stated purpose of cutting spending.
In that context, “they might sometimes be necessary” and “any successes are not also your successes” are not going to ever be relevant.
Fair, but in general the US have been waging random wars for a long time now and this argument is one I’ve seen used often (and to be clear I think most of the wars I’ve been alive to see were also bad). It’s just that now, specifically, it’s especially egregious. Even if we conceded that taking Iran’s nuclear ambitions down a peg was absolutely critical and that acting with force right now was the only way to achieve that (debatable), obviously the means of acting are ridiculously ineffectual, messy and incompetent.
Exactly.
I think it applies cleanly to every U.S. intervention and proxy war in the past four decades—not singling out one issue. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and the list goes on. The proxy conflict in Eastern Europe seems popular on LW, but it is very unpopular with the core fighting-age male demographic that is meant to be most invested in a nation’s military success or failure.
Of course, the Iran war is terrible as well, but it’s one on a long list. None of the wars that Americans bleed and pay for are in the interest of America, and most are to its outright detriment. This isn’t an isolated or partisan issue.
I would maybe not lump together “propping up a country defending itself from an aggression by a different superpower” with all the shit that the US started on its own, often based on questionable if not outright false assumptions.