Well, Trump has actually made these problem worse. His obsession with China is completely missing the point. I mean trade is an important issue, but the time to stop trade from hurting our workers was back in 1992. If we would have listened to Ross Perot then, maybe we could have avoided some of this. But that train has left the station. Those types of jobs are never ever coming back. Even if a factory comes back to America, they'll employ a fraction of the people to get the same productivity they got decades ago. Another factor with labor displacement is geographic. The decline looks slow and steady when you look at national stats. But when you look at regional stats, like the battleground states of Ohio and Michigan, the numbers are a lot more alarming. These laid off 50 year olds in the Midwest are not going to move to Seattle for those new coding jobs that are being created there.
Hope it was worth it, Mr. Steyer! As another tweet noted, that's 100,000 dollars per second, which is... certainly a way to burn money in a furnace. Steyer spent $6,595,524 of his own money per minute of speaking time tonight. https://t.co/Aq4StIdJbN— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) October 16, 2019
I've been posting about this for years. In the so called "2nd machine age" the relationship between capital and labour is broken. So long as we keep licking the balls of shareholder value to the exclusion of wider ESG considerations this will keep getting worse. Key redistributive mechanisms like organised labour, pensions, healthcare, welfare, education have been significantly eroded. At the heart of it all is that "the job" has been key to building a middle class since the early 20th century. But that isn't working so well anymore. So do we force companies to redistribute more? Or do we find new redistributive modes?
I'm open to all of the above. Corporate taxation needs to be fixed. Some of those gains need to be reinvested in infrastructure, healthcare and the environment which could push back against job displacement for another generation. And of course the reason I initially found the VAT/UBI transfer so intriguing is because it creates a massive trickle up stimulus. More liquidity in our economy means more money circulating in communities. Could be a lifeline for struggling small businesses. Also could spark new business creation. The biggest obstacle to starting a business is going a period of time without resources and healthcare. If you can give people a basic floor to stand on, it increases the chances of their businesses succeeding. This could also spark a big uptick in the arts. People scoff at the arts as frivolous, but it's America's #2 export right now - music, movies, writers etc. Art is not the sort of thing that has automation incentives, so we should be making that a much bigger part of our concept of work. I also think non profits need to be a big part of our future. Things like activism and volunteerism are very humanistic types of work and we should do everything we can to put resources into that.
If you combine all the money Steyer wasted in 2016 and since then, he could have already replaced all the lead pipes in and around Flint. Or he could have donated to hundreds of bright young up and coming progressive candidates across the country at local and state levels. Or hell, if impeachment is his only issue, at least offer $100 million ransom for the pee tapes, or something similarly incriminating. Just sayin' If this man is so wasteful with his own money, imagine what he'll do with America's money.
IMO the most interesting idea is that we need multiple market places The pure free market works best for business, but less well for other things We need other models for social and environmental endeavour, with different measures
Scabbard goes on fox/tucker to slam dems plus CNN Lol How does anyone fall for this nonsense. She might as well campaign for trump at this stage 1184626274607796224 is not a valid tweet id
Her campaign is pure grievance-mongering drivel at this point. She's not worth taking seriously. Bernie in his worst moments was above this.
Good article, but it makes the same mistake that everybody else does with the subject, by using the word "jobs" to mean "manufacturing jobs." Every time the article talks about jobs that are lost, what it really means is the one specific category of manufacturing jobs. So what we have are three topics, confusingly rolled into one - 1) The unquestioned loss of manufacturing jobs, and the reasons why. 2) The very-much-in-question issue of whether the U.S. has suffered job losses overall, or if those manufacturing jobs have been replaced by other flavors of jobs. 3) To the extent that the answer to #2 is yes, is this a good thing? How do the new jobs stack up compared to the manufacturing jobs? What does that shift mean for U.S. social and economic policies?
Credit to Pete for being open about being an interventionist. The left appear to be avoiding any conversation about the subject being that deep down inside they’re as hawkish as anyone. I’ve got news for you, exit strategies don’t work. The only strategy that seems to be effective or at least in use is cut and run. Actually staying out altogether would be the best strategy. Who was the last candidate you supported that was openly against intervening in other countries matters militarily? Good to know you’re okay with sending Americans to face danger in foreign lands.
Iraq War Authorization Vote - House of Representatives GOP 215 Yes, 6 Opposed Democrats 81 Yes, 126 Opposed
I think you are phrasing this incorrectly. 1. Some of us in the left assume that the status quo is the US being an interventionist and severely involved all over the world, and that this fact is very difficult to modify, maybe not even possible to change. We don't pretend that there will be a perfect non-interventionist world once we elect a Democrat to the WH, that's another party's fantasy. 2. We don't like the Republican-style full-fledged "nation-building" invasions, and we prefer that if we deploy our military, we do it as part of a multilateral force, like the NATO or the UN, or at least we do it in a planned way, putting experienced people in charge of the decisions, and using our resources cautiously. We certainly distrust "coalitions of the willing" and we prefer that if we have to be in a place, we do it with the support of our allies. 3. We understand the complexities of withdrawal and we have learned what happens when there are power vacuums. We understand that, in regions like MENA, you have to play the long game, and that while we can reduce our footprint, it is very likely that we will be stuck in the area for a generation or two.
So Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama never deployed troops to foreign lands nor bombed and droned foreigners and foreign lands. Got it! Refresh my memory but which administrator first sent in SF to train Syrians to fight back against Assad? $500 million to develop a dozen fighters lol.
The problem is that there’s a significant chuck of women on the left that absolutely support Sanders after 2016. There’s lots of baggage there and the Bernie Bro narrative still works for them. I’m less passionate this term. Whoever the D-nom is is getting my vote. What concerns me is the “reall” influence on Wall Street. They hate Sanders AND Warren, either of those nominations get active opposition from them.
This is a pure Timon argument. Ignore the elephant in room, talk about some side stuff, wave hands, and say both are the same. Nope, I won't bite on that.
No John. Your response is pure bullshit. I’m not sure you have a clue what the elephant in the room is. The diaper soiling in this forum about the Kurds while indeed tragic is an end game of Obama’s policies. He first put troops in Syria. He armed and trained the resistance. What was his end game? What about an exit strategy? Side stuff? Ignore everything and default to Iraq. I guess when you’ve never been in harms way in a foreign land or had/have anyone close to you in that position it’s easy to be a self righteous partisan prick. How about you work with and attend group meetings with combat veterans and then get back to me. That “side stuff” counts.
It's not "partisan" to point out that Republicans have been the party of the military for more than half a century now. It is partisan to claim otherwise.
I supported Gary Johnson in 2016 and Ron Paul in 2012. Hard to get more non-interventionist than that.
I'd at least respect Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria more if he didn't then immediately deploy even more troops in Saudi Arabia. Whatever your view on intervention, if we are going to intervene, preventing ethnic cleansing is a better reason than protecting oil.