In an era marked by complex geopolitical tensions and shifting economic landscapes, Rob Urie examines the current war in Ukraine, the declining welfare of American workers, and the seeming failure of generative technologies to produce high-quality, widely applicable outputs. He argues that these trends highlight the US’s commitment to outdated and ineffective policies. While Urie asserts that capitalism perpetually diminishes labor conditions, it’s essential to consider the historical context: during the 1950s and 1960s in the US, high tax rates and low unemployment provided workers with significant bargaining power. Economists like Mikhail Kalecki have pointed out that business leaders often seek to maintain stark hierarchies, believing that low unemployment undermines their status. If you haven’t explored Kalecki’s seminal 1943 article on the political obstacles to achieving full employment, I highly recommend doing so after reading Urie’s insights.
By Rob Urie, author of Zen Economics, artist, and musician who publishes The Journal of Belligerent Pontification on Substack
Russia – Ukraine Update
In recent weeks, commentary on the situation in Ukraine has been complicated by conflicting statements from American political figures. Donald Trump’s election in 2024 took place under the banner of ending America’s involvement in Ukraine. His strategy appears to involve vague proclamations of ‘peace through strength’ intended to rally his base while naively believing that his personal rapport might persuade Vladimir Putin to abandon Russia’s national interests.
Public sentiment in Russia suggests that Trump’s objectives diverge significantly from what Putin and the Russian populace desire. Contrary to perceptions of Russian stubbornness as the cause of ongoing stalemate, an agreement between Russia and Ukraine was nearly reached in April 2022, only for the Biden administration to intervene, effectively thwarting peace negotiations.
With ongoing communications between Trump and Russian officials, it seems there’s an implicit strategy at play. Trump’s approach may involve delaying US support for Ukraine until after Russia concludes its ground operations, after which Russia could reshape Ukraine according to its interests, leading the West to quietly move on from the conflict.
Graph: The decline of US leaders with military backgrounds is stark; in the 70s, over 70% of Congress had served in the military, compared to just 18.4% in 2023. The US has become the Chicken-Hawk capital of the world. Source: pewresearch.org.
However, this strategy has a significant flaw; as long as intelligence agencies like the CIA and MI6 remain operational, any American President’s actions will be influenced or undercut by their agendas. The current UK government exemplifies the dangerous trajectory from liberalism to authoritarianism, illustrated by the recent oppressive legal measures taken by the Starmer administration regarding opposition to ethnic violence.
In the United States, the CIA’s influence has recently been restrained following threats of legal action against former director John Brennan for his role in the Russiagate scandal. Despite the politically charged nature of the leaks surrounding this issue, it remains clear that those endorsing the Russiagate narrative see Brennan as a whistleblower rather than a manipulative insider, revealing much about the state of political discourse.
An ongoing complication for Russia is the unreliability of American counterparts, as evident in Trump’s proposals. However, it’s worthwhile to explore the implications of Russia’s territorial claims—namely, that further expansion only exacerbates tensions in the West. These outcomes stem from the policies fostered by the West, not the Russians.
Americans may have noticed a troubling trend towards militaristic foreign policies among US lawmakers. With just 18.4% of Congress having military experience, a steep decline from decades past, the question arises: why not have Congress members experience firsthand the conflicts they endorse? Instead of guided tours in Ukraine, why not equip them with military uniforms and require their presence on the front lines?
The political reality for the US is one of failed foreign interventions, exemplified by the ongoing situation in Ukraine, which many now argue has reached a lost cause. The claims that Ukraine can still succeed mirror the naive optimism from the very beginning of the conflict, suggesting that these ideas are more about military-industrial complex propagandizing than about any real strategic assessment.
In the US, the tendency to dodge accountability for the Ukraine debacle is prevalent, with no effort to locate the responsible parties—namely, Biden, Blinken, Sullivan, Nuland, and military and intelligence leaders—who should face consequences. Instead, politicians find it expedient to extend the conflict as long as public sentiment seems to support it. Trump’s reluctance to own any war-related liability serves only to illustrate the broader failure of the political establishment.
The ongoing refusal to resolve the war in Ukraine carries grave moral implications, leaving the world in a precarious position regarding nuclear warfare. The US has threatened to send dual-purpose Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine while Russia reveals its new nuclear capabilities, all amid a backdrop of missed opportunities, such as maintaining existing arms reduction treaties like the New START.
(Here are experts Ted Postol and Danny Davis discussing Russia’s new Burevestnik nuclear-powered missile, which poses significant challenges to US defenses.)
Researchers have highlighted that when the Pentagon claims the US can ‘win’ a nuclear conflict, they imply that only a handful of top officials will survive, while the rest of us face devastating consequences. The fortunate few will perish quickly, while the rest will emerge into a world stripped of resources and infrastructure—essentially a post-apocalyptic scenario.
The Biden administration’s initial rationale for the conflict was to diminish Russia’s strength, aiming to restrict its military capacity. Alas, Trump’s indecision on how to end the war reflects a larger issue: no President can act independently while federal agencies retain their influence. Even initiatives like the National Endowment for Democracy weren’t dismantled by Trump.
As previously noted, the Trump administration has engaged in secret talks with Russia regarding conflict resolution—efforts unreleased in mainstream media but reported in outlets like RT. While some progress is evident compared to the Biden administration’s lack of communication with Russia, the secrecy suggests significant opposition to peace remains entrenched within US institutions.
Why Capitalist Employment Is So Miserable
One unspoken truth of capitalism is its inherent inability to provide employment for everyone who seeks it. The narrative surrounding job availability in the US oversimplifies the issue, laying the blame for unemployment squarely on those without work. This individualist perspective fosters the belief that joblessness equates to personal failure, a damaging ideology that many have internalized throughout their lives.
Furthermore, the myth of plentiful job opportunities often masks the reality that employment is not solely determined by an individual’s worth or skill set. A mismatch in available jobs and an individual’s qualifications renders their talent an underutilized resource. For example, in the early to mid-1970s, layoffs in the auto industry stripped many skilled workers of stable, well-paying employment, as the outsourcing trend took hold in the 1990s, leading experienced workers to compete for low-wage jobs.
The pressing question, then, is whether the dominant economic narrative embraced by Americans is fundamentally flawed. From the era of NAFTA in 1994 to today, the story spun about the US economy has been one of unyielding prosperity. Yet, this portrayal often positions the experiences of the wealthiest 10% as the standard, obscuring a harsh reality for the majority.
Liberal economic theories assume an absence of class struggle, proposing an illusory economic unity between the masses and the elites. The notion that the wealthy can elevate their status by diminishing the conditions of the working class is a fallacy. Basic arithmetic shows that this theory fails to reflect the social realities faced by most individuals.
Graph: In the early to mid-1990s, President Bill Clinton managed to persuade Congressional Democrats to support NAFTA, a feat Republican President George H.W. Bush struggled with. This resulted in only incremental changes in manufacturing employment until China joined the WTO in 2001, flooding the US market with low-cost goods. Trading such a fundamental economic base for Wall Street’s capitalist ambitions has proven detrimental. Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve.
Strikingly, the historical imperial labor model, once directed outward by the US, has begun to emerge within its own borders over the past few decades. For centuries, slave labor was central to the American economy, and the historical master-slave dynamic offers a poignant metaphor for contemporary employment practices. As noted in a thought-provoking Harvard Business Review article, present-day HR practices trace their lineage to strategies employed on plantations.
In contrast to liberal economic theory, Marxist perspectives center class conflict as a core element. Capitalists inherently seek to minimize wages, while workers strive for equitable pay. Even early economic thinkers like Adam Smith understood the inherent imbalance of power in capital-labor relations in his seminal work, The Wealth of Nations. The liberal model often serves as an apologetic narrative, constructed to benefit the wealthy.
It’s important to approach the following report on labor conditions with an awareness that effective arguments can come from diverse perspectives. According to recent findings by Gallup, only 40% of employed Americans hold ‘quality’ jobs, implying that a staggering 60% work in roles that fail to provide adequate income or fulfillment. Gallup’s criteria focus on wages while incorporating elements of career development and dignity in the workplace.
However, Gallup’s analysis omits critical aspects such as benefits that contribute significantly to the overall value of employment—adding 30% to 40% to employee costs. The absence of benefits in Gallup’s criteria raises questions about the legitimacy of its ‘good job’ classification. Considering that even minor health issues can jeopardize a family’s financial stability, it becomes evident that jobs without benefits cannot be deemed ‘good.’ The exclusion of this factor likely arises from a desire to maintain a façade of job quality that is misleading.
Going below 40% for the quality job percentage poses a political dilemma. A figure as low as 5% to 10% would suggest that many people pursuing advancement may never have opportunities to rise due to insufficient availability of ‘good’ jobs. This discrepancy likely explains the widespread dissatisfaction among the American middle class, who find themselves chasing unattainable career aspirations.
For now, let’s adhere to Gallup’s 40% estimate. This statistic underscores that 60% of the workforce—the vast majority—are employed in unsatisfactory positions that lack adequate pay, dignity, and advancement prospects. Historically, these ‘crap jobs’ were said to serve as stepping stones toward better opportunities. However, a more realistic view reveals that many individuals are caught in cyclical employment patterns alongside their family members across generations.
This stark divide between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ jobs illustrates the class stratification inherent in the American economic landscape. Those who occupy ‘good jobs’ tend to be from families and educational backgrounds that prepare them for such positions, while those stuck in ‘bad jobs’ often find socio-economic barriers insurmountable.
This disparity is further confirmed by America’s declining rate of economic mobility (and here). Your economic prospects are often tied to your parental circumstances, rendering parental choice the most consequential economic decision for many Americans. Winners of the ‘parent lottery’ often access ‘good’ jobs while others find themselves relegated to minimum wage positions with little upward potential.
Recent analyses consistent with Gallup findings show the bare minimum required for two adults to live comfortably nearly aligns with their threshold for ‘good jobs.’ It’s a harsh reality that a single parent with one child earning a ‘good’ wage struggles to meet basic living costs due to the exclusion of benefits such as healthcare and retirement savings from these estimates.
Circumstances grow even more dire for the 60% categorized as having ‘crap jobs.’ Despite attempts by the business press to depict the US as affluent, the reality is that many Americans exist in significant poverty, barely scraping by under the governance of a small elite. The narrative seldom covers this stark and troubling America.
Given that Gallup’s number for ‘good’ jobs doesn’t account for benefits, the actual percentage is substantially lower than reported. Moreover, the increasing costs of healthcare and benefit programs often negate the perceived value of these compensations.
Furthermore, reports indicate that 30% of America’s wealthiest individuals inherited their fortunes, while many of the remaining super-wealthy still benefit from family connections and elite educational backgrounds, diminishing the likelihood of actual meritocracy for job seekers. The Marxist concept of ‘class reproduction’ emphasizes that children of the privileged tend to inherit their socio-economic status, perpetuating existing inequalities.
Researchers affirm that the low economic mobility seen in the US results from the tendency of wealth holders to restrict access to opportunities. The rationale behind this behavior is compelling: if wealth is distributed more equitably, the definition of ‘rich’ becomes diluted, threatening the elite’s perceived status. The public’s outrage over Obama’s bailouts of financial giants illustrates this sentiment: the feeling that public resources are funneled into the accounts of those who would otherwise have faced dire financial consequences was deeply offensive to many Americans.
In the late 1980s, surveys showed a striking 90% of Americans feared homelessness above all other economic stresses, painting a stark picture of the modern capitalist reality. This fear resonates with the belief that a desperate, impoverished workforce is necessary for capitalism’s functionality, highlighting a glaring indictment of the system itself.
The perception that an underprivileged workforce increases productivity finds traction mostly among industrialists and elite defenders, who remain insulated from poverty’s harsh realities. Their careers are more often shaped in exclusive social settings rather than through conventional employment channels—raising critical questions about their ability to understand and empathize with the struggles of the workforce.
As America’s political landscape spirals into disarray, evidenced by rash decisions regarding global conflicts, we must reflect on the potential for creating meaningful employment opportunities. The Federal government possesses the capacity to generate good jobs that provide fair wages and benefits for all who seek work, countering narratives arguing about financial feasibility. If government employees can provide more value than their compensation, they create net economic benefits. Historic programs from the 1930s serve as examples of how public initiatives positively transformed urban landscapes.
If the current parties manipulate public opinion to uphold the notion that 40% of jobs are ‘good,’ we must confront the truth behind the remaining 60%. What society can justify condemning such a substantial proportion of its citizens to a life of poverty while still considering itself successful? The answer lies with the privileged few who dictate this narrative from positions far removed from the working class.
The proposal for a Federal Job Guarantee aims to redistribute power and restore a sense of democracy, providing desperately needed work and addressing essential societal needs, steering focus away from selfish geopolitical pursuits. Despite claims to the contrary, Trump’s record has exacerbated many existing issues rather than solving them.
Finally, it’s critical to understand that the Democrats had the historical context of effective employment programs available to them during Biden’s tenure. Yet, the administration prioritized corporate welfare through tax incentives, effectively choosing to enrich executives rather than foster a robust economy for workers. Their proposed plan, which included compensating workers in the electric vehicle sector, primarily served to bolster corporations at the cost of working-class welfare. The notion that Democrats can rectify these systemic issues must be scrutinized.
What Does AI’s Low Adoption Rate by Industry Mean?
A recent paper from MIT highlights a troubling trend: 95% of corporations that experimented with ‘Generative AI’ products have opted not to proceed with them. My perspective suggests that terminology around these technologies may be part of the problem. The notion of ‘Generative AI’ often associates the technology with industrial efficiency, while in reality, the industries have been integrating algorithms long before this latest wave. Historical examples from as far back as the 1970s demonstrate that algorithmic innovations have existed in various sectors for decades—not necessarily branded as Generative AI.
The core challenge appears to stem from generative AI’s training datasets, which often lack relevance to the contexts where they are applied. This mismatch reflects underlying probabilistic methodologies that mask failures. Effective error-correction models can mitigate this gap, yet a fixation on conventional output biases in AI may stifle true innovation.
The reluctance to shift attention away from established thorities could hinder AI’s credibility and effectiveness. Generative AI’s utility in industry needs to be derived from unbiased datasets. Currently, many US companies risk replicating the flaws evident in widely discussed AI mistakes that plague major applications like Google AI and ChatGPT. This raises urgent concerns about whether organizations are adequately addressing the core issues surrounding data representation.
Some interpretations of the MIT report reinforce the idea that the finance, insurance, and real estate sectors are viewed as ‘industries,’ despite the reality that actual manufacturing in the US has been on the decline for decades. Comparatively, the applications in China seem focused on enhancing manufacturing processes, suggesting a divergent approach toward integrating AI into industry.
As such, while industries like China leverage AI for tangible outcomes in production, the generative approach adopted in the US fails to demonstrate similar potential. A critical analysis of these limitations reinforces the belief that US companies struggle with effective data application. The question remains: why aren’t industrial applications being trained on appropriate industrial datasets?
In conclusion, the prevailing belief that the mere addition of data to training sets will rectify challenges in Generative AI grossly oversimplifies the complexities of statistical methods. The biases ingrained in both the existing datasets and the algorithms themselves will not dissipate simply with more data. My experiences using various AI platforms highlight a troubling trend: every output mirrors state-sanctioned narratives, leading to an unsettling sense of uniformity in the discourse. This situation is compounded by the realization that current AI platforms are fundamentally rooted in the inherent biases of their training data.
