Everyone can render opinions but that's not the same as having facts.  I don't know if there are any real studies addressing this, but it would be extremely complicated.  There are probably good things and bad things that result from this change, and a lot of it is tied to technology.  Are children spending far more time with their computers and devices than they are physically playing?  Maybe, but some children always had their noses in books and rarely played, and if that hurt them in some ways (not as coordinated or strong physically) it helped in others (very brainy, grew up to be scientists and engineers).

But it's something else to extend that lack of outdoor play to almost all children. Who knows the consequence?  As a collective, we are communicating with others and sharing information at insane rates compared to the past. Will this result in a positive change for mankind? Or negative? Probably both.

If you think in terms of the big picture, bubble wrapping kids today is preventing the weeding out of the genes that would tend to get you killed. That in turn will lead to mandatory bubble wrapping as we lose the ability to keep ourselves safe individually and come to depend on the existence of the bubble wrap.  I don't really think that's a good thing.

Take emotion out of it:  If only 11 kids were kidnapped and killed by strangers in one year, the benefit to the other what... millions of kids who were allowed to run free around town is more than worth it.  As a whole the group will be much stronger except those 11 won't be there anymore.  But no. We have to confine all our millions of children inside and let them become obese and lack superior development because we can't stomach the sacrifice of those 11.

But you can't make any parent accept that risk once it enters their head that their kid might be one of the 11.  I didn't.  I am sad to say I didn't let my kids run free the way I did.  From the age of 7 I had the run of the entire town, end to end.  Was it because my mom didn't care?  No, she just was not cognizant of the kidnappings, you didn't have it in the media they way you do today.

The explosion of information sharing is a good thing and a bad thing and closely tied to the concerns of this article. But there is no putting the Genie back in the bottle. We'll just have to see where the future takes us.

The government likes to keep you frightened.  The media likes it too, sells cars and breakfast cereals.  Fact of the matter is you are far more lily to die of a plethora of mundane causes than be harmed by a terrorist. I say this having had a terrorist attack at my home institution.  Freedom is more important than security.

The Mother Jones graph may be simplistic, but it clearly illustrates that wages for the bottom 80% of earners have remained flat for 40 some years.  Granted there are other factors involved but it is a fact.  Coupling that with inflation over time, the buying power of those in that bottom 80% have taken a big hurt. 

Glad that you recognize that upward mobility is far more difficult, particularly if a person doesn't own a specific skill. Personally think that has been going on for more than 25 years..  Agree that the stagnation isn't directly related to what the rich make.  So, why are there 90+ million discouraged workers? 

I'm "hoping" along with you.  We have a consumer society, without customers, that boom isn't going to happen.  With so many people living on the borderline, how is the President going to increase demand for products?  For the bottom 80%, there isn't a lot of disposable income available.  Without extra cash to spend, where are the customers?  Half of all tax filers pay little or no income tax, so a tax cut does nothing for them.  As previously mentioned, the top 20% of earners already pay most income tax.

Capital ALWAYS follows return. Companies will inevitably move to areas that allow them to produce goods at the lowest cost possible.  Our economy is global, whether we like it or not.  I'm all for making our businesses more competitive, and that competition is off-shore. Unlike the 1950's - 60's and maybe the 70's, we are not a self contained economy, capable of increasing growth without the rest of the world.

Can you point out the errors in the "foolish" graph?  How in the world is that being used to promote socialism??

Ok, a lot to discuss here,  I'll try to hit it all.  First of all, the graph is adjusted to 2012 dollars, wages have gone up in all the groups but inflation has taken a severe toll making the adjusted data more flat than rising.  So why hasn't purchase power increased with the wages?  Well, money policy for one, and the large  growth of government, which is taking new record amounts of capital out of the economy each year.   Money policy, especially over the last 8 years has resulted in the money supply expanding devaluing the money already out there.  If all your money is in the bank you are losing your shirt.   It baffles me how the government can claim that inflation is low when the price of everything is going through the roof.   Government has turned into a monster over the past 10 or so years.  Regulations make it impossible for companies to respond quickly to anything.  The tax code requires teams to analyze, manage and report.  Want to build a new building, it can take years to secure all the permits.   It goes on and on.  The companies just pass this cost along and the little guy is most affected.  It's ironic as the little guy tries to stick it to the corporations by voting for these things, or I should say voting for the  people who say they will go after the corporations ,  these little guys end up paying for it all.

The 90+ million workers?  They are out of work as a direct result of what I wrote about in the first paragraph.   Businesses are fleeing an oppressive business environment.  35+% corporate tax rates, double taxation on dividends, regulatory nightmares.... these all drive business out.  Plus disaster trade deals that allow other countries to essentially take over whole industries.  That was the mass appeal of Trump, he said he was going to level the playing field, I can't wait to see what he does, I hope he is successful.

Half the tax filers pay no tax, so why do they file?  Because pandering politicians use our tax money to buy their votes via credits.  That was an easy one, and is an example of part of the problem.  And I'm afraid the solution to that problem is going to be very painful.  The issue is by accepting this pandering, these people are enslaving themselves to a system that long term, can't take care of them.   What's the answer?  Get the economy rolling again and get these people back to work.  And we need to stop making not working so appealing, welfare is supposed to be a safety net, not a job.  I've read that 35% of the population lived in households that received subsidies (means tested supplements).  That's an awful lot of people.  Think about it, when you are in a room with 30 people, 10 of them are getting subsidies.  When was the last time, you were in a public place where 35% of the people were disabled?  Something is wrong.  Put the money that's going into these programs to pay free loaders, the able bodied, put it back in the hands of the taxpayers, who will spend it and boost the economy.

Capital always follows return....  were that really true we would probably be in better shape.   The other big part of our problem, and what probably accounts for the top 5% increased slope income on that graph is again created by government.   Some time ago, probably around 40 years ago, the fat cats, some of the people in that 5% group, via lobbying, wrested control of public companies from the shareholders and gave it to their boards by having corporate laws changed.   These boards are cross pollinated by other elites from other companies.  Capital that used to fund research and growth is now raided by these boards with their incestuous relationships.  They enrich each other with little fear of an uprising by shareholders who have had their power diminished.    So the capital follows the modern day robber barrons.    As far as outsourcing, I think that has been what has crushed many strong US manufacturers.  I can think of one example, Motorola, a powerful cell phone manufacturer in the 80's and 90's, decided that manufacturing was dragging them down, so they sold their manufacturing to a large contract manufacturer so they could focus on "marketing".  Long story short, Motorola isn't the powerhouse in phones they used to be.   Personally I don't think off shore manufacturing is the panacea the  MBAs thought is was going to be.  I think for certain products it works, but for most it doesn't.  I don't think manufacturing is dead in the US, far from it.  With a little support from government rather than the asskicking that has been going on for years I think we might see a renaissance in manufacturing unparalleled in history.  We'll see.

I don't think I said there were errors in the graph, just that it didn't support what he was saying.  We don't live in a caste system, millions if not tens or more millions of people have crossed those "boundaries"  or quintiles in that graph.  You can't look at that graph and conclude people aren't upwardly mobile.   Graphs like that graph, or different variations of it, are used as the main canard to promote civil unrest and class envy.  Listen to Bernie Sanders and his talks on "democratic socialism", talks like his always depict the unfairness of the differences in graphs like that.   And that is how socialism gets footing in society.

We have "trolling"

We have "punk'd"

Is there a word for the people who are victims of reacting to tweets like Pavlov's dogs?  Most recent examples are the reaction of liberals suffering from TDS whenever Donald Trump tweets, especially now that he is President Trump.

I'm not aware of a word for it, but I'm aware of a cure for it. It comes in pill form.

Don't know of a single  person that has said no voting fraud occurs.  Any system will have fraud, there just isn't a perfect system.  That being said, all the evidence that exists confirms that the rate of voting fraud is so low to be barely measurable.

The people claiming no voter fraud backpedal and tap dance, claiming they meant no signficant or widespread fraud.

but you are correct that there will be some fraud as no system is perfect.   However, given the profound failure to verifiy voter eligibity it's disingenuous to make claims about the rate of fraud (both people claiming no significant fraud and the people claiming millions of illegal votes).