SWPL-Down Economics refers to the idea that, thanks to material abundance (at the expense of vassals both foreign and domestic), high-brow SWPL preferences become affordable and accessible to the mass.
The libertarians are wont to view the result of SDE as a desirable “fruition” of man’s efforts. They do this because they champion an ideology that reduces man to a walking alimentary canal. That is to say, libertarians are liberals with a more pedantic vocabulary. This of course echoes the intellectual efforts of a previous generation.
It totally happened then, too.
At TRS we assert that the result of SWPL-Down will be an inevitable vulgarization, that the well will be poisoned. This is because the reason for a man’s swinish or masterly character involves more than wardrobe and income, more than material wealth. There is a reason the vast majority of lottery winners squander their winnings, just as there is a reason welfare and athletic scholarships haven’t whitewashed the negro.
Not that liberals can understand this, narcissism/perpetual childhood and whatnot. I digress.
Of course we shouldn’t forget that SWPL preferences are vulgarized and stupid to begin with.
…So what we need to ask but don’t want to is: what happens when SWPL tastes become affordable for the demographic Jon Stewart makes fun of? What results when vagina knitting and butter dancing, cuckoldry and non-GMO granola begin to share shelves with Duck Dynasty? What happens when the preferences of the weak and coddled collide with that of the ignorant and ignored? What happens when Dildocracy is raised to the second power?
One result is projection. As SWPL frivolities become affordable for the People of Wal-Mart they are eventually seen by the upper classes as social necessities. This is because everything not connected with the decadent, detached lifestyle of white people and their disposable income must be oppression and misery. The proles have to be more miserable, they just have to be.
This leads to the emergence of cries for the “living wage,” an ideal that reflects a vapid, benighted, and alienated people.
The gist is that government should somehow mandate a minimum wage for supporting a “basic quality of life.” Which totally sounds like a good thing, except it doesn’t. Not at all.
How can a “welfare+” standard of comfort ever be found and agreed-upon among a population of varying wants and needs? How could a government mandate and regulate such a fluid wage level across a country of innumerable populations and environments for any extended period of time?
As Ayn Rand would say in-between her cuckolding of sub-par NYC intellectuals: blank-out.
Worse still is when you account for the current state of Western civilization.
In the Western world, poverty is not marked by starvation and bathing in lakes beside dead bodies, like what you find in India. No, Western “poverty” is marked by stuff like “malnutrition” and “reliance on imperfect government assistance or overwhelmed private charity.”
That is to say, poverty in the West is marked by irresponsibility so obstinate, a Will to Impotence so stubborn that even a government resembling a vending machine cannot accommodate. To be homeless in the United States truly requires an effort to express one’s self-loathing, despite a world that wants to smother you in meaningless, pornographized feels.
TFW the homeless are our best physical representations of the modern western soul.
Let’s get psycho-spiritual now. Every moment that passes is another moment closer to our death and ultimate obliteration. You may not be interested in existentialism, but existentialism is interested in you.
If there is something most armchair social engineers miss, it’s the recognition that man can never be truly content or comfortable with anything. This is what church should be teaching, but instead they construct nativity scenes for Trayvon Martin.
Fact is, even in our society, where every measure possible and impossible is taken to prevent an undesirable from dying like the offensive animal he is, man is miserable. In the absence of crisis, we invent them. In the absence of poverty, we change definitions. Our society killed God, and we were left with an absurdist play.
All that said, let us now apply the TRS argumentation style.
The “living wage” types speak of “motivation,” that there exists a large swathe of humanity that cannot self-motivate out of entry level and that it is the job of the employer to provide these people with the material and morality, to give them direction both at work and at home. We agree that such an underclass exists in the world, but we point out that such an underclass has always existed.
The Living Wagers are also correct in pointing out that the modern capitalist-esque society does not integrate the lumpenprole; at best it accommodates them. However, the Living Wagers seem to forget that once upon a time we had a system that integrated and utilized the untermenschen. Now that I think about it, we fought our civil war over it.
The demand for a Living Wage is a demand that American businesses better resemble the plantations of old. It is not a cry for comfort, but for a master. Ayn Rand spoke of going Galt; Elizabeth Warren speaks of going to pick cotton.
Apparently the CEO and manager have been found less agreeable than the master and overseer. Not that such a thing wasn’t predicted.
Generations after the death of slavery, liberalism has finally come full-circle.