real economic problem

teasdays  asked:

Hi please PLEASE talk to me abt the socioeconomic state of japan in bnh verse I am SO interested to hear ur thoughts? I'm a poli theory major and let me tell u im a SLUT for fic that deal w the political/social repercussions of fictional happenings

sure thing! 

disclaimer: i only just graduated high school so i’m pulling all of this out of my ass one semester of macroeconomics i took in senior year. feel free to add onto or correct any of this 

edit: if anyone wants to use this for reference when writing boku no hero japan, feel free! i’d appreciate any credit, but it’s not necessary. 

what really got me thinking about the socioeconomic state of boku no hero japan was probably the difference between orudera junior high (bakugou and izuku’s school) vs. yuuei, both of which are in the same city, musutafu. orudera junior high gives off the feeling of a school that’s a bit run down; not terrible enough that it obstructs the kids’ education, but enough that you think the school probably can’t afford to keep it in good repair. 

here’s a screenshot of bakugou and izuku’s classroom:

and then here’s izuku’s desk, which has details indicating that it’s in slight disrepair: 

if you go back through the chapters and look at the setting at yuuei, it’s spic-n-span. just super clean and well-kept. it’s an entire world of difference… so already there is this huge disparity between the junior high school in izuku’s neighborhood, and yuuei, which is a 40 minute subway ride away (chapter 3).

makes sense that yuuei would be so nice and expensive if it’s the most prestigious hero academy in the country, right? but there’s more details too, like this brief exchange between bakugou & iida right at the very beginning: 

bakugou’s resentful comment about iida being an “elite” really only makes sense to me in the context of economic disparity. let’s infer that soumei junior high is better funded, better equipped, better everything in general. of course bakugou will resent iida for that, especially coming from the more ill-maintained orudera junior high. the difference in their economic status is already apparent. 

this isn’t even going into the difference between yaoyorozu’s incredibly rich status vs the rest of the class vs uraraka, who has decided to become a hero because she wants the financial security, and who also lives in an apartment by herself and skips meals to save on money. so even within the class itself there’s a huuuge difference in economic status. 

you could just think of it as the individual circumstances of the characters, but i think it’s more of a systematic problem – see, again, the difference in infrastructure quality between the different schools (the public school is not doing so great but yuuei is doing fantastic). maybe the city is poor, or maybe all of its funds go towards repairing the constant property damage from villain attacks, or maybe there’s just some areas they don’t care to maintain. either way: just by traversing different parts of the city you’ll probably see big differences in how well the neighborhoods are kept. 

and now, for a different question: if this is the golden age of peace, why are there still so many villain fights? 

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Wow scrutinize on my choice of vocabulary why don't you. I'm not saying to not let refugees in im just saying think of the economy, infrastructure, housing ect.. How is our already fragile economy going to support hundreds of thousands of refugees?

Heyyy, look who’s back?  The Anon from a couple of weeks ago that tried to claim that refugees=terrorists.  You remember, the one that we schooled?

Well, apparently when he sent us a message that said absolutely fuck-all about the economy, infastructure, housing, etc. we should have known he was referring to concerns he had about how refugees would impact the economy, infastructure, housing, etc.!  How rude of us to not understand this!  SO! SORRY!

OK then, let’s get down to it: “how is our already fragile economy going to support hundreds of thousands of refugees?”  Your exact words, Anon.

Well, we don’t know what country you’re in, Anon, but we’re going to take a wild guess that it’s one of the largest, strongest economies in the world.  You know - the U.S., Germany, the U.K., France, Canada, Australia, etc. Obviously, the strongest, largest, economies in the world = the ones best-equipped to absorb the costs of taking in refugees.  Which is only fair, given the extent that their economies & their companies have profited from colonialism and resource extraction that destabilized most of the countries refugees are fleeing from in the first place.  

Still, there are limits to everything and how many refugees can these countries take in before the “economic burden” is simply too much?  The problem with this question is the a priori assumption that refugees = economic burden.

A study of the economic impact of 270,000 Somali refugees in just one province in Kenya (which = about 10% of the total population in that province) found that 25% of that province’s per-capita income came as a direct result of these refugees, who bought $3 million worth of livestock & milk alone & whose money created jobs for 1200 local people.  Overall, that one province benefited to the tune of $14 million by hosting those refugees.  10% of the population generating 25% of the per-capita income.  That`s what refugees did to the economy there. 

Or look at Miami - a city that suddenly had to take in 80,000 Cuban refugees in 1980.  Practically overnight, that city’s population jumped 5%.  80,000 Cubans arrived with only as much as they could carry.  Economic disaster?  Actually, economists who looked at this found that there was no negative impact on the economy @ all!  Unemployment stayed the same, wages didn’t go down - nothing that you’d think might happen.  Because those 80,000 needed goods & services to start their lives.  Refugees & immigrants buy more than other people, because they need to set up their homes, etc.  That = a bump for the economy!

Australia has discovered that refugees create a economic net benefit as soon as a year after arrival, depending on their human capital.
 
Sweden is happily discovering that 37% of the Syrian refugees it is taking in already have university degrees.  What does it mean to a country to wake up and suddenly have 11,000 university-educated people with global connections and serious motivations to start working or developing businesses?  Economically, it means very, very good things, Anon.

If you are right and the wealthiest countries in the world would be devastated economically by taking in refugees then Germany - which took in more refugees than any EU country and certainly more than Australia, Canada, or the U.S. combined - should be doing really poorly economically right now.  Yet here it is in 2016, still the strongest economy in the EU and the 4th-strongest in the world.  It`s almost as if Germany is counting on refugees to save them from a real economic problem - workers retiring/aging out of the workforce faster than they can be replaced.

Maybe these facts and words are difficult for you to understand, Anon. Try watching this, then.








The Contest Over the Real Economic Problem

“Our biggest problems over the next ten years are not deficits,” the President told House Republicans Wednesday, according to those who attended the meeting.

The President needs to deliver the same message to the public, loudly and clearly. The biggest problems we face are unemployment, stagnant wages, slow growth, and widening inequality – not deficits. The major goal must be to get jobs and wages back, not balance the budget. 

Paul Ryan’s budget plan – essentially, the House Republican plan – is designed to lure the White House and Democrats, and the American public, into a debate over how to balance the federal budget in ten years, not over whether it’s worth doing.

“This is an invitation,” Ryan explained when he unveiled the plan Tuesday. “Show us how to balance the budget. If you don’t like the way we’re proposing to balance our budget, how do you propose to balance the budget?" 

Until now the President has seemed all too willing to engage in that debate. His ongoing talk of a "grand bargain” to reduce the budget deficit has played directly into Republican hands. 

As has his repeated use of the Republican analogy comparing the government’s finances to a household’s. “Just as families and businesses must tighten their belts to live within their means,“ he said of his 2013 budget, "so must the Federal Government.”

Hopefully, he’s now shifting the debate. 

The government’s finances are not at all like a household’s. In fact, it’s when American families can’t spend enough to keep the economy going, because too many of them are unemployed or underemployed and have run out of money, that government has to step in as spender of last resort – even if that means taking on more debt. If government doesn’t fill the spending gap, an economy can collapse into deeper recession or depression, pushing unemployment far higher. Look at what austerity economics has done to Europe. 

In addition, it’s perfectly fine for government to borrow and continue to borrow in order to invest in new roads or other infrastructure, or education, or basic research – when those investments pay off in higher rates of economic growth. The notion that government spending "crowds out” private investment, keeping interest rates higher than otherwise, is obsolete in a global economy where capital sloshes across national borders, seeking the highest returns from anywhere.  Societies that invest in the productivity of their people attract global capital and create high-paying jobs. And since most big corporations are no longer dependent on the productivity of any one nation, the responsibility for making such  investments increasingly falls to government. Not that we should disregard the debt altogether, but the best way to deal with it is to do so gradually, through economic growth. That’s how we reduced the giant debt Franklin D. Roosevelt bequeathed America, and it’s how the Clinton Administration (of which I am proud to have been a member) achieved a balanced budget in 1996.  Republicans want Americans to believe government budgets are like family budgets that must be balanced because the analogy helps their ideological aim to “drown the government in a bathtub,” in the memorable words of their guru, Grover Norquist. As long as there’s a debt and balance is the goal, shrinkage is the only option – if tax increases are ruled out. 

At last the President wants to change the debate and focus on the real economic problem. In a Tuesday interview with George Stephanopoulos that got less attention than it deserved, he said “my goal is not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance. My goal is how do we grow the economy, put people back to work, and if we do that we are going to be bringing in more revenue.”

Let the real contest begin.