|
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 04:12 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
The Great Depression started along lines not all that far from this. The plight of rural farmers was the beginning, but then that prevalent decline traveled its way up the socioeconomic ladder until everyone was in a painful position. People are rightly opposed to the idea of having their entire lives uprooted in the name of global economy (the benefits of which are perceived to be concentrated in the hands of the wealthy few) and while no one really knows how to properly integrate them into an inevitably more global world, the truth is that a lot of leaders just don't really want to try. The short-term costs of restructuring an economy for that purpose would be truly massive.
|
On November 11 2016 04:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I feel like there's an almost comedic tragedy in this plight. To me the easiest response to where these jobs will come from would be from the need for green energy but the anti-climate change sentiment among those populations probably make that a non-starter. A second pretty reasonable target would be improving the US' infrastructure, but that would probably require raising taxes on the rich.
|
On November 11 2016 04:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Education isn't a solution. They get CS or engineering degrees and they are going to go where those jobs are. Which means big cities, and so the small towns get smaller. And no one from outside the small towns wants to move there until there's infrastructure to make it justifiable.
|
The optimistic view is that as young people from these communities realize they don't have the same responsibilities that their parents do and have a lot more mobility available to them, they will be able to spearhead the movement away from these rural communities and into a more sustainable lifestyle.
The pessimistic view is that the continued astronomical rate of technological advancement will leave people behind faster than each generation can grow and adapt to a new way of life and more and more people will be left in the dust.
The even more pessimistic view is that the only way we can re-mobilize the economy in a way that gives these people jobs and livelihoods again is participation in another global-scale war that mobilizes sectors of the economy that don't operate fully during peacetime.
|
On November 11 2016 04:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Voting Trump gives them a chance to be heard. I don't know what he can or can't do for them, but now they have shown that they can't just be tossed aside and forgotten just because their issues are deeply rooted and hard to solve.
I'll probably be making my longer post on TPP/globalization next time I have the chance to write it. This election result seems to be a very good motivator for that post.
|
On November 11 2016 04:20 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +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.
To this point, do we even have evidence that the campaign matters ? AFAIK this election is yet another victory for the Abramowitz forecasting model, where only three variables ( June GDP growth, popularity of incumbent, and first run or not ) determine the outcome. All of these three are known by summer. The model's track record is 16 out of 17 I believe.
|
On November 11 2016 04:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
There is so much of a cultural component to how you choose to live in a small town that they rightfully perceive that rural blight will be the death of their culture. It's the issue of cultural preservation and it would take more time than I have to convince you of its importance. I'll get to that later.
|
On November 11 2016 03:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 03:30 Acrofales wrote:On November 11 2016 03:16 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 03:14 Acrofales wrote:On November 11 2016 02:39 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 02:26 Acrofales wrote:On November 11 2016 02:12 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 02:07 Logo wrote:On November 11 2016 02:04 LegalLord wrote:
Trump won by the rules of the current game. If there were different rules, there would be a different game. It wouldn't just be what we have now, but a flipped result. We don't know with any comfortable certainty what would happen. I don't think that's a good deflection of criticisms of the current system though. Like pissed off workers in Michigan have probably been wanting to complain with their vote for a few cycles already (or have been?) but no one bothered paying attention to them because the state was going to go blue anyways. It works both ways for both parties and I'm not really sure anyone is benefiting except the people who end up in office (regardless of party). The core of people's complaints really is just that "the wrong candidate won because the system is BS." And while the system may be BS, we really don't know how it would have gone with a different system. We only have educated guesses. Maybe Michigan workers would get ignored in favor of California liberals who are too lazy to get out and vote unless prodded. We really just don't know. The system we have led to the current results. A different system wouldn't just be "this same thing but different presidents." It would be completely different. And that's fine. My main question is whether a system that has led to a historic high of 57% of the eligible population voting is really a good democratic system. It doesn't seem so. And FPTP seems to be the main culprit, given that there are only really 10 or so states where voting can make a real difference. Lets face it, if I were a busy Californian, I wouldn't go and vote. There are clearly better ways of spending my time, because the blue candidate will win anyway (and the polls have been telling me so for months). Whereas with some form of proportional representation, the more votes my candidate gets, the bigger the slice of the pie for that blue candidate: suddenly Californians (or Dakotans if you prefer a red state example) have a fire lit under their ass to go and vote, the same as Floridians or Ohioans (Ohians?) And would you be worried that the rural voters wouldn't bother, because they would be concerned that they would never win because the big cities would just outvote them anyways. And removing FPTP leads to runoff elections, which are logistically much less pleasant in the US and could lead to something similar to France, where you can get a runoff election between a Le Pen and a candidate everyone but their core base hates. This is not an easy problem and no other system is so clearly better that switching is justified. You already had that exact vote the last election. Trump = Le Pen, and Hillary = candidate everyone but their core base hates. Could end up being Cruz vs Trump or something, which would scare me more than Hillary vs Trump. Imagine the field being Obama, Hillary, Billy, Biden, Trump, Bernie, and Cruz. Each part of their own party. Anyway, extra runoff elections are not necessary if you have some form of preference ranking (this would be miserably awful on paper, but could be pretty easy to do digitally), you can do instant run-off which is a great way of doing run-off elections in a single round (although the ballot is more complex, which is a serious argument against it). And then we open up a whole new can of worms along the lines of untested electoral systems. At some point inertia dominates in that things aren't quite so fucked that I'd be up for supporting a change like that which could be disastrous.
You know that you can do tests and figure the practicalities first. I'm sure there's a state somewhere willing to run their governor election like this (and before that, you can do usability tests). Of course you don't say "right, we have this untested method, lets change the constitution and pray that it works".
That said, social choice theory is a rather active field of economics, and the theoretical properties of instant runoff are pretty good. It really does work rather well if you can rank your choices, and leads to far better results than only taking your first choice into account. One particularly nice property is that strategic voting makes no sense. If your first choice were Gary Johnson, you'd put Gary Johnson at the top, and not vote for Hillary simply because you're a neverTrumper. You'd simply put Hillary second and Trump third (or maybe Stein and another 3 even more obscure candidates above Trump). There are other systems with preference ranking (Borda and Condorcet being the most famous), but instant runoff is easier to understand and has better properties for the type of election we're talking about.
But honestly, the status quo is pretty bad. It doesn't take a lot to come up with a better system than the current FPTP Electoral College system.
|
On November 11 2016 04:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 04:18 Stratos_speAr wrote: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? Education isn't a solution. They get CS or engineering degrees and they are going to go where those jobs are. Which means big cities, and so the small towns get smaller. And no one from outside the small towns wants to move there until there's infrastructure to make it justifiable.
To be fair you have a bunch of people in certain cities that are struggling to afford the area they are in because of how crowded they have gotten. It seems like a win all around if you expand out infrastructure, expand education efforts, and result in a system where more cities are competitive in certain industries (like CS or Biotech) and then allow those cities to help out the areas surrounding them.
|
On November 11 2016 04:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 04:18 Stratos_speAr wrote: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? Education isn't a solution. They get CS or engineering degrees and they are going to go where those jobs are. Which means big cities, and so the small towns get smaller. And no one from outside the small towns wants to move there until there's infrastructure to make it justifiable.
That's actually not entirely true. There's lots of incubators around that try to bring these jobs to struggling cities. Read a very interesting article about this last year:
https://backchannel.com/canary-in-the-code-mine-903884eca853#.9q0p57npe
|
On November 11 2016 04:26 TheYango wrote:
The optimistic view is that as young people from these communities realize they don't have the same responsibilities that their parents do and have a lot more mobility available to them, they will be able to spearhead the movement away from these rural communities and into a more sustainable lifestyle.
The pessimistic view is that the continued astronomical rate of technological advancement will leave people behind faster than each generation can grow and adapt to a new way of life and more and more people will be left in the dust.
The even more pessimistic view is that the only way we can re-mobilize the economy in a way that gives these people jobs and livelihoods again is participation in another global-scale war that mobilizes sectors of the economy that don't operate fully during peacetime.
I think this calls for a poll, no ?
1. Leo di Caprio
2. Kurzweil
3. Malthus / Schumpeter
User was warned for this post
I am being warned for referencing malthusianism and creative destruction versus Kurzweilian singularity ? Sic transit gloria mundi !
User was warned for this edit
|
On November 11 2016 04:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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. WaPoState 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.
I think that all of government has been paralized by the fear of bad press to the point that they can no longer just be honest. Every misstep gets blown out of proportion, on both sides, for the sake of ratings this news cycle that non issues become issues, and the important stuff gets drowned out in the background. When they fear giving straightforward answers that are clear and concise they generate an air of conspiracy that is counterproductive to their ultimate goal in reassuring the public.
|
Also, rural k-12 education can be improved in a manner that addresses the concerns of rural folk, and it most definitely is part of the solution.
|
On November 11 2016 04:31 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 04:25 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 04:18 Stratos_speAr wrote: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? Education isn't a solution. They get CS or engineering degrees and they are going to go where those jobs are. Which means big cities, and so the small towns get smaller. And no one from outside the small towns wants to move there until there's infrastructure to make it justifiable. To be fair you have a bunch of people in certain cities that are struggling to afford the area they are in because of how crowded they have gotten. It seems like a win all around if you expand out infrastructure, expand education efforts, and result in a system where more cities are competitive in certain industries (like CS or Biotech) and then allow those cities to help out the areas surrounding them.
Also, not everyone is wired to be a CS or biotech engineer, especially when the STEM field has now become so competitive and fast-moving that periodic retraining is imperative. The science of AI is being created before our eyes and the period I just mentioned is.... monthly.
|
On November 11 2016 04:20 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Anyone who isn't in denial realizes that the trade deals currently in progress will be passed under Hillary. They perceive, rightly or wrongly, that the last time that happened (NAFTA) ended badly for them. And here comes a guy who is brashly and consistently saying he's going to throw out those sources of their woes. If I were them I would vote Trump too. Hillary doesn't seem like she would be working for my benefit.
|
On November 11 2016 04:31 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 04:25 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 04:18 Stratos_speAr wrote: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? Education isn't a solution. They get CS or engineering degrees and they are going to go where those jobs are. Which means big cities, and so the small towns get smaller. And no one from outside the small towns wants to move there until there's infrastructure to make it justifiable. That's actually not entirely true. There's lots of incubators around that try to bring these jobs to struggling cities. Read a very interesting article about this last year: https://backchannel.com/canary-in-the-code-mine-903884eca853#.9q0p57npe
I'm sure they try. As a similar example, there were huge initiatives in Soviet Russia to counter the rural blight that came with a pretty effective standardized education system. It doesn't mean it will work - this is a really hard problem.
On November 11 2016 04:31 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 04:25 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 04:18 Stratos_speAr wrote: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? Education isn't a solution. They get CS or engineering degrees and they are going to go where those jobs are. Which means big cities, and so the small towns get smaller. And no one from outside the small towns wants to move there until there's infrastructure to make it justifiable. To be fair you have a bunch of people in certain cities that are struggling to afford the area they are in because of how crowded they have gotten. It seems like a win all around if you expand out infrastructure, expand education efforts, and result in a system where more cities are competitive in certain industries (like CS or Biotech) and then allow those cities to help out the areas surrounding them.
Mostly they are moving to adjacent medium sized cities and build secondary tech industries there. There is a fledgling tech industry in Arizona, Nevada, Texas, Colorado, and New Mexico for that reason. It doesn't solve the rural problem.
|
On November 11 2016 04:36 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 04:31 Nyxisto wrote:On November 11 2016 04:25 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 04:18 Stratos_speAr wrote: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? Education isn't a solution. They get CS or engineering degrees and they are going to go where those jobs are. Which means big cities, and so the small towns get smaller. And no one from outside the small towns wants to move there until there's infrastructure to make it justifiable. That's actually not entirely true. There's lots of incubators around that try to bring these jobs to struggling cities. Read a very interesting article about this last year: https://backchannel.com/canary-in-the-code-mine-903884eca853#.9q0p57npe I'm sure they try. As a similar example, there were huge initiatives in Soviet Russia to counter the rural blight that came with a pretty effective standardized education system. It doesn't mean it will work - this is a really hard problem.
For sure, though I would caution that as with any hard problem it's probably wise to avoid the nirvana fallacy. Like better education and incubator programs are probably not going to solve all the problems but they seem certainly like part of a solution.
|
Theoretically since the country is no where near as bad as Trump's campaign made it out to be he can do very little (just a few flashy things) then just change the narrative that things are good now because of him even if not much has changed.
|
On November 11 2016 04:39 Slaughter wrote:
Theoretically since the country is no where near as bad as Trump's campaign made it out to be he can do very little (just a few flashy things) then just change the narrative that things are good now because of him even if not much has changed.
Congress under Trump is going to change a ton of things I'm guessing.
|
On November 11 2016 04:38 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 04:36 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 04:31 Nyxisto wrote:On November 11 2016 04:25 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 04:18 Stratos_speAr wrote: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? Education isn't a solution. They get CS or engineering degrees and they are going to go where those jobs are. Which means big cities, and so the small towns get smaller. And no one from outside the small towns wants to move there until there's infrastructure to make it justifiable. That's actually not entirely true. There's lots of incubators around that try to bring these jobs to struggling cities. Read a very interesting article about this last year: https://backchannel.com/canary-in-the-code-mine-903884eca853#.9q0p57npe I'm sure they try. As a similar example, there were huge initiatives in Soviet Russia to counter the rural blight that came with a pretty effective standardized education system. It doesn't mean it will work - this is a really hard problem. For sure, though I would caution that as with any hard problem it's probably wise to avoid the nirvana fallacy. Like better education and incubator programs are probably not going to solve all the problems but they seem certainly like part of a solution.
Basically you have to give them a good reason to stay in their general area instead of crowding into overpopulated cities after getting the education. I know from experience that that is not easy to solve and I'll probably have to write a long post about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
