• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,463
3,967
126
Past... 2012: Victory Tastes Sour

To recap some background info. I grew up in a non religious Republican household in CA. In 90s the President was the "bad guy" for "reasons". Later it was a running joke that Clinton's legacy would be marred as sex between two Bushes. Fun and games, not a great deal of attention paid. That changed on September 11, 2001. Youthful zeal, patriotism, war fervor, call it what you will, my initial positions were formed at that point. Yay to Afghanistan, getting "stuff" done with the Patriot Act, and regime change in Iraq. Smashing the "bad guys". Should young men know better with a country at war?

Enter P&N, 2004. Questions on the patriot act immediately seemed reasonable. The Iraq war, no so much. I would be constrained by ego and party identification. Neocon, you're attacking me right? Two years passed and it took a person considered on "my side" to speak out against it. Without a partisan barrier, and some potent truths of the mess we'll leave behind, the tide was turned. Moreover, you guys were constantly knocking Bush the spender, Bush's deficits. Seemed reasonable. To side with civil liberties, smarter (less) wars, and small government I found myself comfortable with Libertarians. Neocons were the Republicans like Bush, attacking our liberties, killing our men in pointless war, and spending money like crazy. Big gov Republicans, not my ideals. Democrats, Libertarians, everyone combined made a very compelling case for the damnation of Bush and men like him.

Such was the influence early arguments had. Bush really had wronged us. In 2008 and 2012 I saw Republicans nominate men like Bush. With moderate traits that signaled further Neoconservatism. Not my cup of tea. GOP won House and Senate, and I told you the victory was sour. Libertarian was all that remained of my political identity. I would argue that it shouldn't be anarchy, but thought of as Constitutionalism. Of keeping to a limited government of enumerated powers that protects our civil liberties and yields as much management to state and local governments as possible. Smallest Democracy is Best Democracy.


Present...

That's where you think it ends, right? No. I was wrong on stimulus. I mean, we're still in a heck of a mess from 2008, but economic liquidity is a proven factor. People need money to keep the flow of goods moving, and each other employed. I cannot deny the role government has in helping people. It is up to us to ensure it is restrained, respectful, and not corrupt. But there are economic tasks suited for our currency.

I'll next explain the part you can relate to, and hopefully understand. My parents always told me when they were young you could pump gas and support a family. That they lived better with $20/yr in the early 1970s than a low 6 figure income today. Fanciful tale, or has America lost its mojo? Enter Robert Reich. Someone here linked a Youtube video for Inequality For All before it was taken down (pay wall), and I won't argue its case here, but suffice it to say I was stunned. He proved with facts what my parents knew to be true. Robert Reich could explain modern American hardships in a way I never understood, and he had the reasons behind it. Long story short, our labor has lost significant value over the past ~40 years.

Now, prior to Mr. Reich's transformative message, I had begun my own musings. Where is technology headed? You have to think it through to the end. What does a future full of automation look like? I calculated out the cost of a basic income for our nation. $1,000 /mo can be done for $2.6 trillion. Within our current budget, and replacing many programs that already cost as much. This is such a leap, that I was uncomfortable with it. Then I grasped the need for liquidity to maintain demand, I saw the effects of income inequality, and I recognize the obvious trend we already face today. Americans are getting poorer, welfare is steadily rising, and automation is about to leapfrog mankind. You may not see this as I do, but economics will force us to rethink everything.


Future...

So I start off with a set of values that I thought the Republicans spoke for. Then I witnessed that they acted against. I found Libertarians had sound policy for civil liberties, adopted their economic theory... but it fell short. Now, "do nothing" feels entirely unsuited to meet the challenges we face. Bill Clinton was not wrong when, in 2012, he said: we believe that “we’re all in this together” is a far better philosophy than “you’re on your own.” That's quite a statement. Plus its a fact. Today is not the founding of America, there's no open land, no wild frontier. There's no water to drink or food to gather that does not already belong to someone else. How can each man be an island when there are no more free islands remaining?

I have always appreciated that there's a safety net, but now I realize the challenges it faces. It needs to be economically sound and robust enough to ensure a full, healthy market. I fully endorse efforts to, as Mr. Reich put it, restore American labor. Then looking to the future, I do not have an alternative to basic income. I encourage Republicans and Libertarians to try but I've heard of no compelling theory. If "trickle down" has given us the economics of the past ~40 years... then they have harmed us. I cannot in good conscience support the status quo. Americans are hurting and need an economic revolution.


Which brings me to election 2016.

About two weeks prior to the election I made my choice. Believe me, the establishment's hatred of Trump was a temptation, as was my soft spot for Libertarians. With each candidate I found policy I liked and policy that I opposed, but two candidates I personally despised, one was a fool, and the remaining seemed reasonable on a personal level. I told you I was voting Green.

I checked yesterday, it turns out my vote went to the candidate who I most likely identify with now. I wasn't certain of that on Tuesday, there's a great deal of uncertainty and internal conflict following a mea culpa, of admitting that my positions were wrong. My values remain the same, but how I will honor them through policy has been redefined through learning, through arguing, through having an open mind. Maybe that is the value you can find in P&N.

Is my political compass result a fluke? Throughout this election cycle I have voiced support for Bernie Sanders. Maybe tepidly, but the idea that I did not oppose him was growing on me. Senator Sanders largely shares my values, and the more think about it, the more economics has forced my hand. Immediately following the election I decided that we need people like Bernie Sanders, we need people who endorsed Bernie Sanders. The next day I changed my signature to endorse my beliefs.

The election results? The American people fought back against Republicans in 2006, and 2008. Obama gave them a youthful, charismatic, and positive campaign, he delivered the IDEA of hope and change. His nomination speech that summer was genuinely moving, even for an ardent opponent. If he could hold a third term, I'd give it to him. Trump won because you hate him. He won because you tapped into a regressive, cold, negativity from a 1990s era. You stooped down into the mud and challenged a pig at his own game. Trump was given an opening to represent the hope for change that President Obama offered voters in 2008.

The DNC can do better. Sanders surprised you in the primaries because the American people want more hope, more change, more campaign 2008. The old guard failed to deliver that in 2016. The American people will turn out to vote for a strong, positive message that "we" have a plan of action to help them. That we will fight for them. It's time for young progressives to make their stand, to let Senator Sanders retire knowing that he moved us, and that we will finish what he started.

This has been my quadrennial address.

tl;dr: It's the economy, stupid!
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
30,036
10,528
136
Trump has normalized stupid. Getting people motivated to come out and vote (which has been the most consistent issue the dems have faced for decades) requires people to be educated on the process and what's at stake

Good luck with that. I'm glad you are able to do some introspection.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,632
21,717
146
Excellent post, OP. I hope people on all sides can read it with an open mind. Unlike even the very few that have managed to flip their perspective of the world and political philosophies, you seem to have done so with years of observation and careful consideration.

At this point where we are in the world right now, I can't help but agree that we are headed towards the need for something like a basic income for everyone. The technological "Utopia" that is more or less inevitable is going to see a labor contraction across more sectors and in such greater numbers, most likely, than humanity has seen before. At least, in the developed world.

We really do need some very tangible solutions now that also require open public conversations and a bit of education for people in various classes on how to make something like a basic income work for them and for everyone.

replacing standard welfare and social programs with a basic income *probably* results in a neutral hit to expenses, but that remains to be seen. Assuming status quo of employment/healthcare/savings models, this is one of those programs that, if used appropriately be everyone, generally incentivizes people from all classes towards a positive direction.

But who knows. THere are already some projects out there to test this in certain markets, across a few classes
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/silicon-valley-universal-basic-income-y-combinator

I'm curious about data like this. IT has been tried in the past in Switzerland and, iirc, it kinda "worked," the problem being, though, Switzerland is one of the most homogeneous populations in the world with a very high minimum floor for standard of living for all citizens, compared to other first world nations.

I'm generally cynical when it comes to the mostly self-serving, bubble-mind ideas that come out of Silicon Valley, but in many cases they do have the balls to try these grand social experiments that pre-figure the realities of the future world that far too man people out there are just too stubborn to accept.
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
2/3rds of the federal budget is already going out as payments and benefits to its citizens. How much should we be spending of our budget in this way?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,081
5,186
126
I fear that the center has folded with Hillary's loss, and are going to bounce between Socialist populist demagogues from the left and Fascist populists demagogues from the right for a while. Both are failed policies of 20th century that gave the world nothing but suffering, whereas much maligned globalism and establishment pragmatism has given the world 70 years of peace and prosperity. It's sad that much of the US now begrudges successful areas their success as opposed to modeling it. States are supposed to be laboratories of democracy, with successful ideas replicated nationally and failed ones discarded. Instead we are seeing the opposite. We got states on the bottom rung of success driving national politics. Instead of replicating successful policies of Silicon Valley which is out-competing the rest of the world by educating and attracting the best and the brightest , we are taking low value add political economics of the rust belt national, trying to drive down costs and put up barriers in vain hope of bringing back crappy manufacturing jobs from China. We are going into the populist wilderness, and it may take a crisis like the Great Depression followed by lost decades of populism to get out of it.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,463
3,967
126
2/3rds of the federal budget is already going out as payments and benefits to its citizens. How much should we be spending of our budget in this way?
That is viewed from the wrong perspective.
Wages were tracking GDP until the 1970s. Look at the gap. First order of business is to restore wages.
If that cannot be done, then you don't even have bootstraps to pull yourself up with. Then you'd need a new economic driver.



Second source:

 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,081
5,186
126
If increased automation and not workers are responsible for higher productivity, then it stands to reason that wages won't keep up with productivity.
For example if there were two people needed to make a product, each doing a step, and I replaced one of them with a robot while the other is still doing exactly same thing as before, then technically the remaining worker's productivity has doubled, since you are producing same thing with half as many workers. But in reality, the value that he adds hasn't increased at all.
So the days of wages keeping up with productivity are long gone, and in the not too distant future, wages may not even be the way most people get income since robots will make most jobs completely human free. Which is not really a bad thing if you think about, as long as we figure out some way to distribute wealth that is not based on doing a job. I mean there is nothing inherently wrong with the future where robots produce everything for us, and we are free to pursue things we are actually passionate about. But we need to get a way for people to make a living in that environment.
 

greatnoob

Senior member
Jan 6, 2014
968
395
136
If increased automation and not workers are responsible for higher productivity, then it stands to reason that wages won't keep up with productivity.
For example if there were two people needed to make a product, each doing a step, and I replaced one of them with a robot while the other is still doing exactly same thing as before, then technically the remaining worker's productivity has doubled, since you are producing same thing with half as many workers. But in reality, the value that he adds hasn't increased at all.
So the days of wages keeping up with productivity are long gone, and in the not too distant future, wages may not even be the way most people get income since robots will make most jobs completely human free. Which is not really a bad thing if you think about, as long as we figure out some way to distribute wealth that is not based on doing a job. I mean there is nothing inherently wrong with the future where robots produce everything for us, and we are free to pursue things we are actually passionate about. But we need to get a way for people to make a living in that environment.
You're correct but you've forgotten that labour and capital are complements and not perfect substitutes in most production businesses (sweatshops, laptop factories w/ human workers etc.). You've also glossed over labour-augmenting technology which is meant to increase the productivity hours of labour through the use of capital..

Your idea about robots doing our jobs for us would mean a restructure of how we look at our economy and peoples' well-being because then, fiat money would be worthless...
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
30,036
10,528
136
2/3rds of the federal budget is already going out as payments and benefits to its citizens. How much should we be spending of our budget in this way?
Considering citizens pay a majority of the taxes I'd argue that the citizens should be the ones who benefit the most. I guess you disagree.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
30,036
10,528
136
That is viewed from the wrong perspective.
Wages were tracking GDP until the 1970s. Look at the gap. First order of business is to restore wages.
If that cannot be done, then you don't even have bootstraps to pull yourself up with. Then you'd need a new economic driver.



Second source:

Let me offer a different perspective and solution.

Had wages kept pace (like the top line on the first chart in your first pic), one could probably argue that the cost of goods and services might also have risen by a similar pace. What good would that have done us?

But what if... our wages went up (like the top line in the first chart) and everything else remained the same but to keep the price of goods and services from also rising people just worked less hours?

I don't know about you guys but I'd be totally fine with my current level of living but having more free time.

I think there may be some countries that already do this but I can't think of them off of the top of my head.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,254
1,673
136
Putting people on the dole, providing them with weed, alcohol and other drugs is not a recipe for advancement and success. Capitalism with all it's ugly problems and all it's nasty baggage is still a better long term solution.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,306
517
126
The 1% sure got you all fooled with this whole automation bogey man distraction,

Ford isn't building plants in Mexico instead of the USA because of robots unionizing, the millions of jobs that went overseas weren't because of future non existent robots, Apple doesn't have their products made in Asian factories with suicide nets because of robots, Walmart's shelves aren't stocked of products made exclusively by Chinese robots.

https://robotenomics.com/2016/05/18/robots-and-job-fears-new-oecd-study-says-automation-and-digitalisation-are-unlikely-to-destroy-large-numbers-of-jobs/

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/foxconn-robots-replace-workers
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
Past... 2012: Victory Tastes Sour

To recap some background info. I grew up in a non religious Republican household in CA. In 90s the President was the "bad guy" for "reasons". Later it was a running joke that Clinton's legacy would be marred as sex between two Bushes. Fun and games, not a great deal of attention paid. That changed on September 11, 2001. Youthful zeal, patriotism, war fervor, call it what you will, my initial positions were formed at that point. Yay to Afghanistan, getting "stuff" done with the Patriot Act, and regime change in Iraq. Smashing the "bad guys". Should young men know better with a country at war?

Enter P&N, 2004. Questions on the patriot act immediately seemed reasonable. The Iraq war, no so much. I would be constrained by ego and party identification. Neocon, you're attacking me right? Two years passed and it took a person considered on "my side" to speak out against it. Without a partisan barrier, and some potent truths of the mess we'll leave behind, the tide was turned. Moreover, you guys were constantly knocking Bush the spender, Bush's deficits. Seemed reasonable. To side with civil liberties, smarter (less) wars, and small government I found myself comfortable with Libertarians. Neocons were the Republicans like Bush, attacking our liberties, killing our men in pointless war, and spending money like crazy. Big gov Republicans, not my ideals. Democrats, Libertarians, everyone combined made a very compelling case for the damnation of Bush and men like him.

Such was the influence early arguments had. Bush really had wronged us. In 2008 and 2012 I saw Republicans nominate men like Bush. With moderate traits that signaled further Neoconservatism. Not my cup of tea. GOP won House and Senate, and I told you the victory was sour. Libertarian was all that remained of my political identity. I would argue that it shouldn't be anarchy, but thought of as Constitutionalism. Of keeping to a limited government of enumerated powers that protects our civil liberties and yields as much management to state and local governments as possible. Smallest Democracy is Best Democracy.


Present...

That's where you think it ends, right? No. I was wrong on stimulus. I mean, we're still in a heck of a mess from 2008, but economic liquidity is a proven factor. People need money to keep the flow of goods moving, and each other employed. I cannot deny the role government has in helping people. It is up to us to ensure it is restrained, respectful, and not corrupt. But there are economic tasks suited for our currency.

I'll next explain the part you can relate to, and hopefully understand. My parents always told me when they were young you could pump gas and support a family. That they lived better with $20/yr in the early 1970s than a low 6 figure income today. Fanciful tale, or has America lost its mojo? Enter Robert Reich. Someone here linked a Youtube video for Inequality For All before it was taken down (pay wall), and I won't argue its case here, but suffice it to say I was stunned. He proved with facts what my parents knew to be true. Robert Reich could explain modern American hardships in a way I never understood, and he had the reasons behind it. Long story short, our labor has lost significant value over the past ~40 years.

Now, prior to Mr. Reich's transformative message, I had begun my own musings. Where is technology headed? You have to think it through to the end. What does a future full of automation look like? I calculated out the cost of a basic income for our nation. $1,000 /mo can be done for $2.6 trillion. Within our current budget, and replacing many programs that already cost as much. This is such a leap, that I was uncomfortable with it. Then I grasped the need for liquidity to maintain demand, I saw the effects of income inequality, and I recognize the obvious trend we already face today. Americans are getting poorer, welfare is steadily rising, and automation is about to leapfrog mankind. You may not see this as I do, but economics will force us to rethink everything.


Future...

So I start off with a set of values that I thought the Republicans spoke for. Then I witnessed that they acted against. I found Libertarians had sound policy for civil liberties, adopted their economic theory... but it fell short. Now, "do nothing" feels entirely unsuited to meet the challenges we face. Bill Clinton was not wrong when, in 2012, he said: we believe that “we’re all in this together” is a far better philosophy than “you’re on your own.” That's quite a statement. Plus its a fact. Today is not the founding of America, there's no open land, no wild frontier. There's no water to drink or food to gather that does not already belong to someone else. How can each man be an island when there are no more free islands remaining?

I have always appreciated that there's a safety net, but now I realize the challenges it faces. It needs to be economically sound and robust enough to ensure a full, healthy market. I fully endorse efforts to, as Mr. Reich put it, restore American labor. Then looking to the future, I do not have an alternative to basic income. I encourage Republicans and Libertarians to try but I've heard of no compelling theory. If "trickle down" has given us the economics of the past ~40 years... then they have harmed us. I cannot in good conscience support the status quo. Americans are hurting and need an economic revolution.


Which brings me to election 2016.

About two weeks prior to the election I made my choice. Believe me, the establishment's hatred of Trump was a temptation, as was my soft spot for Libertarians. With each candidate I found policy I liked and policy that I opposed, but two candidates I personally despised, one was a fool, and the remaining seemed reasonable on a personal level. I told you I was voting Green.

I checked yesterday, it turns out my vote went to the candidate who I most likely identify with now. I wasn't certain of that on Tuesday, there's a great deal of uncertainty and internal conflict following a mea culpa, of admitting that my positions were wrong. My values remain the same, but how I will honor them through policy has been redefined through learning, through arguing, through having an open mind. Maybe that is the value you can find in P&N.

Is my political compass result a fluke? Throughout this election cycle I have voiced support for Bernie Sanders. Maybe tepidly, but the idea that I did not oppose him was growing on me. Senator Sanders largely shares my values, and the more think about it, the more economics has forced my hand. Immediately following the election I decided that we need people like Bernie Sanders, we need people who endorsed Bernie Sanders. The next day I changed my signature to endorse my beliefs.

The election results? The American people fought back against Republicans in 2006, and 2008. Obama gave them a youthful, charismatic, and positive campaign, he delivered the IDEA of hope and change. His nomination speech that summer was genuinely moving, even for an ardent opponent. If he could hold a third term, I'd give it to him. Trump won because you hate him. He won because you tapped into a regressive, cold, negativity from a 1990s era. You stooped down into the mud and challenged a pig at his own game. Trump was given an opening to represent the hope for change that President Obama offered voters in 2008.

The DNC can do better. Sanders surprised you in the primaries because the American people want more hope, more change, more campaign 2008. The old guard failed to deliver that in 2016. The American people will turn out to vote for a strong, positive message that "we" have a plan of action to help them. That we will fight for them. It's time for young progressives to make their stand, to let Senator Sanders retire knowing that he moved us, and that we will finish what he started.

This has been my quadrennial address.

tl;dr: It's the economy, stupid!
Worth mentioning that site is just ideological drivel, given Sanders caucuses with the democrats (ie Clintonian centrism). Obama is the prototypical clintonian centrist with the political charisma to have people see themselves in him. Consider what that implies for the authors of that site in question.

That is viewed from the wrong perspective.
Wages were tracking GDP until the 1970s. Look at the gap. First order of business is to restore wages.
If that cannot be done, then you don't even have bootstraps to pull yourself up with. Then you'd need a new economic driver.



Second source:

This is simply an inherent feature of capitalism, as you might've seen written about in the past, eg Dickens.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
86,718
10,192
126
First order of business is taxing business income where the income is generated. No more make money in USA and hide it in Ireland.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,215
126
It's nice that a few are starting to question dogma. The mind is apparently designed to resist change or introspection, perhaps as an aid to forming cohesive tribes or resistance to being overwhelmed by complex thought when hunting and gathering were priorities.

In any case a few are thinking, and that's always a good thing in a society as complex as ours.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,508
4,380
136
Excellent post, OP. I hope people on all sides can read it with an open mind. ompared to other first world nations.
Ditto. I may not agree with every detail of your post, OP, but yours was a high quality post and a great sharing of your political soul.
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
That is viewed from the wrong perspective.
Wages were tracking GDP until the 1970s. Look at the gap. First order of business is to restore wages.
If that cannot be done, then you don't even have bootstraps to pull yourself up with. Then you'd need a new economic driver.



Second source:

I was hoping you had an answer to my question, we already spend most of our budget on redistributing wealth, not sure how much higher we can go.

We have fewer jobs and more workers which is going to depress wages. Bernie's 15 an hour min wage isn't going to solve our problems.
 
Feb 16, 2005
13,915
5,021
136
Ditto. I may not agree with every detail of your post, OP, but yours was a high quality post and a great sharing of your political soul.
Well said, and since I battling a nasty head cold, and in no way can come up with anything equal to or better, I will just reiterate Perk's sentiment. Very well said OP. Very well said.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,686
1,896
126
I fear that the center has folded with Hillary's loss, and are going to bounce between Socialist populist demagogues from the left and Fascist populists demagogues from the right for a while. Both are failed policies of 20th century that gave the world nothing but suffering, whereas much maligned globalism and establishment pragmatism has given the world 70 years of peace and prosperity. It's sad that much of the US now begrudges successful areas their success as opposed to modeling it. States are supposed to be laboratories of democracy, with successful ideas replicated nationally and failed ones discarded. Instead we are seeing the opposite. We got states on the bottom rung of success driving national politics. Instead of replicating successful policies of Silicon Valley which is out-competing the rest of the world by educating and attracting the best and the brightest , we are taking low value add political economics of the rust belt national, trying to drive down costs and put up barriers in vain hope of bringing back crappy manufacturing jobs from China. We are going into the populist wilderness, and it may take a crisis like the Great Depression followed by lost decades of populism to get out of it.
You had me until the Silicon Valley part. Silicon Valley has some of the worse wealth disparity in the country, much of it fueled by low interest rate gold rush speculation. It came crashing down once before and it will again. Yes it attracts the best and the brightest, but we will hit peak app.

Also, manufacturing jobs are not crappy. We will never go back to producing commodity plastic crap, but we definitely need a strong trade based middle class. Not everyone can or even wants to be a coder or consultant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: poofyhairguy

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,632
21,717
146
I was hoping you had an answer to my question, we already spend most of our budget on redistributing wealth, not sure how much higher we can go.
maybe you should concern yourself with actually reading his proposal rather than respond with strawmen or answers that clearly display your lack of preparation (actually reading what he said).

This isn't about expanding the budget with new policies, it's about replacing a large number of social policies with a different model. The goal is to end up with a relatively neutral hit on direct cost.

Now that you know this, how do you respond?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,081
5,186
126
You had me until the Silicon Valley part. Silicon Valley has some of the worse wealth disparity in the country, much of it fueled by low interest rate gold rush speculation. It came crashing down once before and it will again. Yes it attracts the best and the brightest, but we will hit peak app.
There is inequality here because a lot of people made a lot of money creating a lot of value, not because a handful screw the workers by busting unions and driving down wages.
Yeah, it's a boom-bust place, which is a feature, not a bug. Creative destruction that frees up human capital and real estate for the next big thing. Compared to rust belt and coal country where it's just destruction with no next big thing, I think I'll stick with Silicon Valley.
Also, manufacturing jobs are not crappy. We will never go back to producing commodity plastic crap, but we definitely need a strong trade based middle class. Not everyone can or even wants to be a coder or consultant.
Well, that's too bad, because manufacturing is not coming back, regardless of what you think we "need," "can," or "want." It's not apps you should worry about, it's AI. Maybe you can get a job building Trump's wall or something.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,686
1,896
126
There is inequality here because a lot of people made a lot of money creating a lot of value, not because a handful screw the workers by busting unions and driving down wages.
Yeah, it's a boom-bust place, which is a feature, not a bug. Creative destruction that frees up human capital and real estate for the next big thing. Compared to rust belt and coal country where it's just destruction with no next big thing, I think I'll stick with Silicon Valley.

Well, that's too bad, because manufacturing is not coming back, regardless of what you think we "need," "can," or "want." It's not apps you should worry about, it's AI. Maybe you can get a job building Trump's wall or something.
I am sure the working class families being gentrified out of the Bay Area appreciate the value.

The hours that Silicon Valley workers put in are starting to approximate the factory conditions that led to the rise of unions, not to mention the abusive nature of the whole H1B visa program. Free Mountain Dew and fancy cafeterias can only placate the white collar workforce for so long.

Construction is one of the few industries somewhat isolated from outsourcing, although it similarly goes through boom and bust cycles. I don't know about building a wall, but I would be glad to take on ambitious New Deal infrastructure projects.

Boom-bust is not a healthy economic cycle, and is very much a get rich quick mindset bug, not a feature.

As for the rust belt, manufacturing can and should come back once we let go of this foolish notion of open trade agreements. An economic realignment is in order.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,081
5,186
126
I am sure the working class families being gentrified out of the Bay Area appreciate the value.
Yes, low value add working class is being displaced by high value add working class. It's happening, but that's a nice problem to have.
The hours that Silicon Valley workers put in are starting to approximate the factory conditions that led to the rise of unions, not to mention the abusive nature of the whole H1B visa program. Free Mountain Dew and fancy cafeterias can only placate the white collar workforce for so long.
Dude, what are you talking about? Seriously, you know nothing about SV. It's a fantastic time to be an engineer here. Pay and benefits are phenomenal, and working hours are reasonable.
Construction is one of the few industries somewhat isolated from outsourcing, although it similarly goes through boom and bust cycles. I don't know about building a wall, but I would be glad to take on ambitious New Deal infrastructure projects.
Boom-bust is not a healthy economic cycle, and is very much a get rich quick mindset bug, not a feature.
As for the rust belt, manufacturing can and should come back once we let go of this foolish notion of open trade agreements. An economic realignment is in order.
Boom bust is a great thing for the Valley, it's creative destruction at its finest, plus it results in a lot more money for engineers who lock in dirt cheap stock during the bust and can sell it for many times more during the boom.
All you are gonna get by abandoning free trade are higher prices on imported goods and more automation, which would be a subsidy for Silicon Valley, manufacturing jobs are never coming back unless government basically gives businesses free money to hire people with.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY