|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 11 2016 03:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Big problem with these rural white communities is that their expectations are unreasonable. The days of raising a family off a single factory wage, and then also buying a house, is straight up madness at this point. It's not even easy for a chemical engineer. WW2 gave people wildly unrealistic expectations.
Does anyone believe there is a path for a factory worker raising a family and buying a house? I really, really don't. This can't be said enough. A huge problem is that the working class needs significant help in fundamentally reshaping the way they interact with the economy. The problem is that they don't want that (at least based on their voting patterns). They just want us to magically return to the way things were, which will never work.
I remember reading a rather interesting article on 538 quite a while ago. It argued that americans miss unions, not necessarily manufacturing jobs. Until unions stop being so heavily demonized (by basically both parties at this point) there's not really going to be any positive change for working class people. The insane anti-union messages people are forced to watch at most service sector jobs show that the corporations are well aware that they're a threat.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-dont-miss-manufacturing-they-miss-unions/
|
On November 11 2016 03:46 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 03:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 11 2016 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Big problem with these rural white communities is that their expectations are unreasonable. The days of raising a family off a single factory wage, and then also buying a house, is straight up madness at this point. It's not even easy for a chemical engineer. WW2 gave people wildly unrealistic expectations.
Does anyone believe there is a path for a factory worker raising a family and buying a house? I really, really don't. This can't be said enough. A huge problem is that the working class needs significant help in fundamentally reshaping the way they interact with the economy. The problem is that they don't want that (at least based on their voting patterns). They just want us to magically return to the way things were, which will never work. I remember reading a rather interesting article on 538 quite a while ago. It argued that americans miss unions, not necessarily manufacturing jobs. Until unions stop being so heavily demonized (by basically both parties at this point) there's not really going to be any positive change for working class people. The insane anti-union messages people are forced to watch at most service sector jobs show that the corporations are well aware that they're a threat. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-dont-miss-manufacturing-they-miss-unions/
That doesnt make sense.
No unions means that production is cheaper so it would cause more jobs, not less which is what is actually happening.
The article even says so itself
Liberal economists note that overall wages tend to be higher in union-friendly states; conservative economists counter that unemployment tends to be higher in those states, too.
yes those with jobs are better off if there are unions but higher wages makes it easier for companies to move elsewhere.
(note I am pro union)
|
On November 11 2016 03:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Big problem with these rural white communities is that their expectations are unreasonable. The days of raising a family off a single factory wage, and then also buying a house, is straight up madness at this point. It's not even easy for a chemical engineer. WW2 gave people wildly unrealistic expectations.
Does anyone believe there is a path for a factory worker raising a family and buying a house? I really, really don't. This can't be said enough. A huge problem is that the working class needs significant help in fundamentally reshaping the way they interact with the economy. The problem is that they don't want that (at least based on their voting patterns). They just want us to magically return to the way things were, which will never work.
Exactly. The days of 5,6% GDP growth are gone forever. And it's about to get worse.
The most common occupation in America ? Truck driver.
Truck freaking driver. When self-driving vehicles are already on the road.
Expect many more 'globalisation' ( that tech is made in the Valley, but whatever ) losers, and much more snake oil peddling in the years ahead.
|
This sick burn by President Obama did not age like fine wine. Rather a symptom of the cause that nobody knew was the cause of anything back then.
+ Show Spoiler +
User was warned for this post
|
Well the Democrats are going to have to change soon anyway with the younger generation being more liberal and aligned a lot more towards bernie than Clinton. Hell just looking at the 18-25 vote they crushed it for Clinton but that seemed to be more anti trump.
I am not sure where young Republicans lean though. Anyone know what their ideas are and their vision of conservatism is?
|
On November 11 2016 03:54 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 03:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 11 2016 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Big problem with these rural white communities is that their expectations are unreasonable. The days of raising a family off a single factory wage, and then also buying a house, is straight up madness at this point. It's not even easy for a chemical engineer. WW2 gave people wildly unrealistic expectations.
Does anyone believe there is a path for a factory worker raising a family and buying a house? I really, really don't. This can't be said enough. A huge problem is that the working class needs significant help in fundamentally reshaping the way they interact with the economy. The problem is that they don't want that (at least based on their voting patterns). They just want us to magically return to the way things were, which will never work. Exactly. The days of 5,6% GDP growth are gone forever. And it's about to get worse. The most common occupation in America ? Truck driver. Truck freaking driver. When self-driving vehicles are already on the road. Expect many more 'globalisation' ( that tech is made in the Valley, but whatever ) losers, and much more snake oil peddling in the years ahead.
There are 2 forces at work. Globalization and Automation.
The self driving trucks is Automation, factory jobs leaving for Asia is Globalization.
|
On November 11 2016 03:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Big problem with these rural white communities is that their expectations are unreasonable. The days of raising a family off a single factory wage, and then also buying a house, is straight up madness at this point. It's not even easy for a chemical engineer. WW2 gave people wildly unrealistic expectations.
Does anyone believe there is a path for a factory worker raising a family and buying a house? I really, really don't. This can't be said enough. A huge problem is that the working class needs significant help in fundamentally reshaping the way they interact with the economy. The problem is that they don't want that (at least based on their voting patterns). They just want us to magically return to the way things were, which will never work.
Another problem is that these rural communities want to remain rural, yet somehow relevant. When people are resistant to moving to places with more jobs, and their entire area is devoid of jobs, it is hard to have sympathy when the reasoning is because their family has been there for generations or some shit.
The map that Danglars posted only highlights how bad the situation is. Rural communities occupy an enormous amount of land, but that means nothing for representation. The idea that land should somehow correlate to representation is ridiculous. People can not be as spread out as that while still having lots of money flowing in. A town of 5000 is not going to be booming with commerce, ever.
On November 11 2016 03:57 Slaughter wrote:
Well the Democrats are going to have to change soon anyway with the younger generation being more liberal and aligned a lot more towards bernie than Clinton. Hell just looking at the 18-25 vote they crushed it for Clinton but that seemed to be more anti trump.
I am not sure where young Republicans lean though. Anyone know what their ideas are and their vision of conservatism is?
My Oregon republican friends are essentially: "Look, let the gays do whatever they want. Make cops wear body cameras. I understand god probably isn't real, but don't you dare tell me that. But stay the fuck away from my money. I will oppose every single tax no matter what."
|
On November 11 2016 03:30 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 03:27 Doodsmack wrote:Russian government officials had contacts with members of Donald Trump’s campaign team, a senior Russian diplomat said Thursday, in a disclosure that could reopen scrutiny over the Kremlin’s role in the president-elect’s bitter race against Hillary Clinton.
Facing questions about his ties to Moscow because of statements interpreted as lauding Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump repeatedly denied having any contact with the Russian government.
After the latest statement by the Russian diplomat, Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks denied that there were interactions between Russia and the Trump team before Tuesday’s election.
“The campaign had no contact with Russian officials,” she said in an email.
But Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, said in an interview with the state-run Interfax news agency that “there were contacts” with the Trump team.
“Obviously, we know most of the people from his entourage,” Ryabkov said. “Those people have always been in the limelight in the United States and have occupied high-ranking positions. I cannot say that all of them but quite a few have been staying in touch with Russian representatives.” WashPo I saw that earlier. Seems more like general "we keep in touch with some people in the US policy sector, among whom there are Trump campaign staffers."
I think it was a specific request to the campaign, and the Clinton camp rejected a similar request. It's interesting that Trump's spokeswoman denies it.
|
On November 11 2016 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 03:54 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 11 2016 03:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 11 2016 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Big problem with these rural white communities is that their expectations are unreasonable. The days of raising a family off a single factory wage, and then also buying a house, is straight up madness at this point. It's not even easy for a chemical engineer. WW2 gave people wildly unrealistic expectations.
Does anyone believe there is a path for a factory worker raising a family and buying a house? I really, really don't. This can't be said enough. A huge problem is that the working class needs significant help in fundamentally reshaping the way they interact with the economy. The problem is that they don't want that (at least based on their voting patterns). They just want us to magically return to the way things were, which will never work. Exactly. The days of 5,6% GDP growth are gone forever. And it's about to get worse. The most common occupation in America ? Truck driver. Truck freaking driver. When self-driving vehicles are already on the road. Expect many more 'globalisation' ( that tech is made in the Valley, but whatever ) losers, and much more snake oil peddling in the years ahead. There are 2 forces at work. Globalization and Automation. The self driving trucks is Automation, factory jobs leaving for Asia is Globalization.
Of course. I think we've seen the most of offshoring by now. China in particular is slowly moving to a high-value production system ( look at how much new math comes out of it ). What I'm saying is automation as a second wave is going to be even more devastating. It will cause more unemployment, and put huge pressure on wages, limiting the potential for reflating the debt away ( ergo new stimulus spending ). It's the biggest economic issue coming up in the next 10 years, and has not even been mentioned once in the presidential debates.
|
On November 11 2016 04:01 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On November 11 2016 03:54 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 11 2016 03:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 11 2016 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Big problem with these rural white communities is that their expectations are unreasonable. The days of raising a family off a single factory wage, and then also buying a house, is straight up madness at this point. It's not even easy for a chemical engineer. WW2 gave people wildly unrealistic expectations.
Does anyone believe there is a path for a factory worker raising a family and buying a house? I really, really don't. This can't be said enough. A huge problem is that the working class needs significant help in fundamentally reshaping the way they interact with the economy. The problem is that they don't want that (at least based on their voting patterns). They just want us to magically return to the way things were, which will never work. Exactly. The days of 5,6% GDP growth are gone forever. And it's about to get worse. The most common occupation in America ? Truck driver. Truck freaking driver. When self-driving vehicles are already on the road. Expect many more 'globalisation' ( that tech is made in the Valley, but whatever ) losers, and much more snake oil peddling in the years ahead. There are 2 forces at work. Globalization and Automation. The self driving trucks is Automation, factory jobs leaving for Asia is Globalization. Of course. I think we've seen the most of offshoring by now. China in particular is slowly moving to a high-value production system ( look at how much new math comes out of it ). What I'm saying is automation as a second wave is going to be even more devastating. It will cause more unemployment, and put huge pressure on wages, limiting the potential for reflating the debt away ( ergo new stimulus spending ). It's the biggest economic issue coming up in the next 10 years, and has not even been mentioned once in the presidential debates.
Because no one wants to hear "no there is no job for you and no I cant fix it'. Thats why Trump never went beyond "I will make the best deals".
As for for the rest of your post, that's why there is more talk about Basic Income because it's a response to the realization that 100% employment rates are a complete fantasy going forward and the economy needs people to be employed so they can spend on goods.
|
If the old jobs aren't coming back, what is meant to happen to the people left behind by "inevitable globalization?" Is "no one really knows what to do about your plight" a justification for essentially abandoning them in the name of concerns that mostly affect dense population centers?
They rightly perceive that their way of life is crumbling. They move to the big cities, or they end up not having any work. And the fact that we're talking about them now just says how much they intend to make their voices heard on the matter.
|
VIENNA — The United Nations agency monitoring the nuclear pact between Iran and six world powers said Wednesday that Iran is in violation of the deal meant to curb its ability to make atomic arms by storing marginally more heavy water than the agreement allows.
Heavy water is a concern because it is used to cool reactors that can produce substantial amounts of plutonium. That, in turn, can be applied to making the fissile core of nuclear warheads.
The U.N’s International Atomic Energy Agency said in a confidential report obtained by The Associated Press that Iran had exceeded the heavy water allotment of 130 metric tons (143.3 tons) only slightly — by 100 kilograms (220 pounds.) The report also noted that Iran had served notice it would resolve the issue by exporting 5 metric tons, substantially over the excess amount.
Wednesday’s report said the agency verified the overhang on Tuesday, just days after IAEA chief Yukiya Amano “expressed concerns” to top Iranian officials.
A senior diplomat familiar with the issue said the Iranians had told the IAEA that the shipment would be leaving their country within the next few days. The diplomat requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record about Iran’s nuclear program.
Still, with both sides closely watching for violations, the breach was sensitive even beyond the technical uses of heavy water, especially since it was the second such breach since implementation of the deal curbing Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
In February, a month after the deal went into effect, the agency noted for the first time that Iran had exceeded its allotted limit of heavy water. The amount was greater in that case and some of the excess was exported to the United States under an arrangement criticized by U.S. congressional opponents as facilitating Iranian violations of the deal.
WaPo
State Department when quizzed on the news:
They could've handled this one better. Prove to the American people the deal is good and the violations are small by acting like adults when they happen. Anything otherwise is foolhardy.
|
On November 11 2016 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Another problem is that these rural communities want to remain rural, yet somehow relevant. When people are resistant to moving to places with more jobs, and their entire area is devoid of jobs, it is hard to have sympathy when the reasoning is because their family has been there for generations or some shit.
As far as the election goes this is also somewhat related to which demographics participate most in the system. Young people are the ones that have the most mobility, but young people don't vote. Even in the deep red states, younger voters trend less toward Trump than their older counterparts.
For older people, it's not that easy to say "move somewhere with more jobs". When you have a family, just enough income to get by, and can't realign your employable skills to an entirely new career the way someone 20 years younger than you can, you really just don't have that option.
On November 11 2016 04:10 LegalLord wrote:
If the old jobs aren't coming back, what is meant to happen to the people left behind by "inevitable globalization?" Is "no one really knows what to do about your plight" a justification for essentially abandoning them in the name of concerns that mostly affect dense population centers?
I don't think there's an easy answer to that question. As far as I'm concerned, Trump hasn't provided one either--and his "I'm going to bring jobs back" schtick is just setting people up for disappointment. It's going to be one of the major struggles of our time, and it's not something that a single president can solve.
|
On November 11 2016 03:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 03:05 Logo wrote:On November 11 2016 02:47 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2016 02:27 Logo wrote:The stuff Trump talks about immigrants is one thing, how MSNBC treats midwesterners is quite another. If you like some densely packed coasts and cities ruling over a sea of red--because votes--I salute your unironic endorsement of colonialism because that's a hard thing to do. Everybody knows where your overlords and moral betters live. You can't just pretend everything is absolute. Rural areas deserving solid representation and the will of the people/cities being undercut are not mutually exclusive ideals. Let me ask you this, what part of the federal government represents the will of the people based on popular vote? The house doesn't, the senate doesn't, and the presidency doesn't. Shouldn't it be an issue that no part of the federal government is representing the country wide popular vote? I'm very comfortable with this country being several United States. Save the will of the people based on popular vote for very homogeneous societies with smaller populations. In fact, let's call them the governors of states. That's about as much as I'll allow to be a healthy translation of the "will of the people." So do you support states relying on federal funding in excess of the money they contribute? It seems inconsistent to be ok with that but treat states as highly independent. I want many reforms on areas like the medicare and the public university system, but I'm afraid the net flow of money from the fed into states involves all three branches and constitutional amendments. It's too convoluted a topic to tie into the structural limits on power in a federalist republic. It would require kwizarch-like treatises to go down the line, and this is a leisure activity not my job.
It's a pretty big dodge, but it sounds at least in part like you understand there's a disconnect there if you were to argue state autonomy as a reason for representation states over representing the population while still being in favor of a federal government that works to benefit the people of each state rather than the states themselves. So I appreciate the response either way and do see more of what you are thinking.
|
At least Clinton had some kind of answer in increased investment in new and emerging industries and retraining for those leaving the old ones like coal. Trump's plan is to halt progress by trying to save the old and dying way of producing jobs and it's just not going to work.
|
On November 11 2016 04:10 LegalLord wrote:
If the old jobs aren't coming back, what is meant to happen to the people left behind by "inevitable globalization?" Is "no one really knows what to do about your plight" a justification for essentially abandoning them in the name of concerns that mostly affect dense population centers?
They rightly perceive that their way of life is crumbling. They move to the big cities, or they end up not having any work. And the fact that we're talking about them now just says how much they intend to make their voices heard on the matter.
The short-term answer is new education opportunities and new jobs in emerging fields. This is obviously problematic because people (particularly conservatives, duh) don't like change. This approach requires them to accept that their previous skills or way of life are obsolete and that they need to adapt.
The long-term answer is that there might not be a a simple solution to just magically replace these jobs. This is one of the biggest debates of an increasingly globalized and technological world. More and more jobs are becoming automated or outsourced, so what do you do with unskilled or uneducated workers?
|
On November 11 2016 04:10 LegalLord wrote:
If the old jobs aren't coming back, what is meant to happen to the people left behind by "inevitable globalization?" Is "no one really knows what to do about your plight" a justification for essentially abandoning them in the name of concerns that mostly affect dense population centers?
They rightly perceive that their way of life is crumbling. They move to the big cities, or they end up not having any work. And the fact that we're talking about them now just says how much they intend to make their voices heard on the matter.
That's why I asked it earlier because I don't know.
I don't know how the Democrats are going to appeal to them because I don't think any realistic answer is going to do it for them.
Voting Trump isn't going to help them either because he clearly doesn't have a plan, so all this will do is make them feel more angry next election.
|
On November 11 2016 04:10 LegalLord wrote:
If the old jobs aren't coming back, what is meant to happen to the people left behind by "inevitable globalization?" Is "no one really knows what to do about your plight" a justification for essentially abandoning them in the name of concerns that mostly affect dense population centers?
They rightly perceive that their way of life is crumbling. They move to the big cities, or they end up not having any work. And the fact that we're talking about them now just says how much they intend to make their voices heard on the matter.
No one is denying that. But I mean, look at how societies have already changed over the years. This is not the first time in history that a massive societal shift has changed civilization. It won't be the last. These rural voters have a ridiculous view of time suddenly freezing in the mid 50s. What happened to communities when boats became a thing? Obviously a shitty example, but my point remains. Sometimes, the world changes. It isn't always reversible and it shouldn't always be reversible.
I have zero sympathy for people saying "My dad lived a life like ____ and I feel like I should be able to have the same life". That is so beyond ridiculous. We weren't amazingly ahead because we were just that amazing. The world had a lot of catching up to do. But then they caught up. With the spread of information, technology and education, one country being incredibly distinct and glorious among the others was never going to last. Extreme American exceptionalism let rural communities feel more sustainable and realistic than they ever were.
|
On November 11 2016 04:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 04:01 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 11 2016 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On November 11 2016 03:54 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 11 2016 03:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 11 2016 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Big problem with these rural white communities is that their expectations are unreasonable. The days of raising a family off a single factory wage, and then also buying a house, is straight up madness at this point. It's not even easy for a chemical engineer. WW2 gave people wildly unrealistic expectations.
Does anyone believe there is a path for a factory worker raising a family and buying a house? I really, really don't. This can't be said enough. A huge problem is that the working class needs significant help in fundamentally reshaping the way they interact with the economy. The problem is that they don't want that (at least based on their voting patterns). They just want us to magically return to the way things were, which will never work. Exactly. The days of 5,6% GDP growth are gone forever. And it's about to get worse. The most common occupation in America ? Truck driver. Truck freaking driver. When self-driving vehicles are already on the road. Expect many more 'globalisation' ( that tech is made in the Valley, but whatever ) losers, and much more snake oil peddling in the years ahead. There are 2 forces at work. Globalization and Automation. The self driving trucks is Automation, factory jobs leaving for Asia is Globalization. Of course. I think we've seen the most of offshoring by now. China in particular is slowly moving to a high-value production system ( look at how much new math comes out of it ). What I'm saying is automation as a second wave is going to be even more devastating. It will cause more unemployment, and put huge pressure on wages, limiting the potential for reflating the debt away ( ergo new stimulus spending ). It's the biggest economic issue coming up in the next 10 years, and has not even been mentioned once in the presidential debates. Because no one wants to hear "no there is no job for you and no I cant fix it'. Thats why Trump never went beyond "I will make the best deals". As for for the rest of your post, that's why there is more talk about Basic Income because it's a response to the realization that 100% employment rates are a complete fantasy going forward and the economy needs people to be employed so they can spend on goods.
I agree with your first point. That's why I'm saying snake oil has a bright future, especially when combined to specific targetting of rural communities who maybe don't have the world view to dissect economic fallacies immediately.
Universal Basic Income I'd love to believe in, but I know enough physics to know that in a closed system, what goes in must come out. And state finances certainly are such a system. Unless you assume a. debt is irrelevant ( go on and Japanize then ), or b. 'some' other country is going to willingly finance the US ad aeternam, which has been true for Treasuries so far but only with support of the Fed and ultimately led to a credit downgrade. So my view is that the math of UBI doesn't work, sadly.
|
On November 11 2016 04:17 Slaughter wrote:
At least Clinton had some kind of answer in increased investment in new and emerging industries and retraining for those leaving the old ones like coal. Trump's plan is to halt progress by trying to save the old and dying way of producing jobs and it's just not going to work.
This is the part that I'm trying to understand. From my perspective, it seemed to me that once you remove all the bias and fanciful rhetoric, Clinton had a legitimately more logical and well-thought-out plan to solve these issues (whether they would be successful is a different matter). They're far from enough but they seemed like more of a step in the right direction. But logic and policy didn't matter, since she was fundamentally untrustworthy and represented everything people consider to be the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
