this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2025
332 points (97.4% liked)

politics

24890 readers
3071 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I don't think I agree with this premise at all, unfortunately.

The article describes extraction or manufacturing as the sole ways to increase "actual wealth" (apart from government works) but it's just sophistry to embed the author's biases against the value of information and services. That's because services and white collar jobs both (a) can represent intrinsic value, and (b) can both directly and indirectly be subject to international trade.

To explain, the author would define manufacturing a refrigerator as "actual wealth," but the knowledge of how to do so as not "actual wealth," even though the knowledge is equally a prerequisite for the refrigerator, and is a more valuable unit for trade with other nations or economic growth.

The conclusion about focusing on long term "wealth" creation is fine, but that premise isn't necessary to get there and detracts from the credibility of the argument.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yeah, you're right. I think the author tried to contrast jobs that add real value to the economy against financial trickery, which he accused of only serving the rich.

But indeed, white-collar jobs have played a tremendous role in the economy in the last 50 years or so.