4 ms·

Absolutely agreed. I think the GP's viewpoint was widely shared by "The Elite" for the past 10 years and is what created the backlash that got Trump elected. We

by sskates 10y ago

Absolutely agreed. I think the GP's viewpoint was widely shared by "The Elite" for the past 10 years and is what created the backlash that got Trump elected. We (and I use that loosely) have to care because the people who get displaced all care about their jobs. In fact, because this displacement is accelerating, we have to care even more than we would in the past.

hwillis 10y ago
>I think the GP's viewpoint was widely shared by "The Elite" for the past 10 years and is what created the backlash that got Trump elected. Why do you think that? If by backlash you mean people (Trump voters) wanting social support to deal with those problems, I see zero evidence of that. The extreme anti-immigration views indicate that the opposite is true and Trump voters think people are taking advantage of social programs. When Trump talks about bringing back jobs, its purely out of xenophobia and is completely divorced from actually employing people. It's not about hiring Americans and it never was; its about not employing foreigners. It seems to me that now more than ever the only people who care about automation affecting jobs are the ones less likely to be affected.
- rat87 10y ago
  I think there is evidence that it put Trump barely over the top in critical midwestern states.
- WillPostForFood 10y ago
  What was huge, was the perception that trade, specifically NAFTA, China, and TPP cause people to lose their jobs. The perception that the elite, and Hilary Clinton, supported those things, even when sometimes they said they didn't is what caused the backlash.
edblarney 10y ago
"was widely shared by "The Elite" for the past 10" You mean for the last 200 years. Mass automation has been going on since the dawn of the industrial revolution. As long as there is value to be created, and the surpluses are distributed enough so that consumers 'want something and can pay for it' - there will be jobs. Obviously, it's more painful for those put out of work than 'the elite' ... but employment levels have been decent for a very long time. [1] The historical unemployment rate seems to defy the notion that 'machines are putting everyone out of work'. That can't be ignored; in fact, it demands kind of another way of looking at it. [1] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-r...
- jjoonathan 10y ago
  The long history of scarcity amid plenty does deserve examination. Critical examination. How messed up is it that people not only have to beg for the privilege of work, but that they are seen as selfish, thankless, and incompetent for doing so? Once humanity gets this sorted out -- and it will, eventually -- the present state of affairs will be looked at with the same contempt that people in today's world have for feudalism. It will deserve every bit of it.
  - Fantastic_T 10y ago
    Could you explain a little more explicitly what you are referring to, and what you think the solution will be?
jdoliner 10y ago
I think you might be projecting your own beliefs onto Trump's election here. If what you're saying is true then we would expect income to be a good predictor of voting for Trump right? It wasn't [0]. Trump's election was backlash, but not to loss of jobs. It was a backlash against much more than that? Did you feel that loss of jobs to technology was a problem before Trump? If so it seems very convenient to believe that the election of a candidate that I'm assuming you hate, was due to a situation which you already hated. I'd encourage you to look a little more deeply at what caused people to vote for Trump. [0] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-pre...
- rahimnathwani 10y ago
  "we would expect income to be a good predictor of voting for Trump right? It wasn't [0]" The figures in that article are all aggregates (at county level) and say nothing about whether an individual's income level correlates with voting for Trump. Imagine a scenario in which there are two types of county: - Type A: High median income; high income inequality (as measured by Gini coefficient) - Type B: Low median income; low income inequality If there are more Trump supporters in A than B, does that suggest that low income doesn't encourage voting for Trump? Not necessarily: perhaps low income relative to neighbours or living costs encourages voting for Trump. I'm not saying income isn't a good predictor for voting for Trump. However, I'm not sure the post you cited demonstrates that either way.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> I think the GP's viewpoint was widely shared by "The Elite" for the past 10 years and is what created the backlash that got Trump elected. The Democrats essentially abandoning labor with the neoliberal "Third Way" politics of Bill Clinton certainly was a factor in setting the stage for a right-wing authoritarian populist like Trump, but ascribing Trump's election to any one factor is overly simplistic.

by sskates 10y ago

hwillis 10y ago

>I think the GP's viewpoint was widely shared by "The Elite" for the past 10 years and is what created the backlash that got Trump elected. Why do you think that? If by backlash you mean people (Trump voters) wanting social support to deal with those problems, I see zero evidence of that. The extreme anti-immigration views indicate that the opposite is true and Trump voters think people are taking advantage of social programs. When Trump talks about bringing back jobs, its purely out of xenophobia and is completely divorced from actually employing people. It's not about hiring Americans and it never was; its about not employing foreigners. It seems to me that now more than ever the only people who care about automation affecting jobs are the ones less likely to be affected.

rat87 10y ago
I think there is evidence that it put Trump barely over the top in critical midwestern states.
WillPostForFood 10y ago
What was huge, was the perception that trade, specifically NAFTA, China, and TPP cause people to lose their jobs. The perception that the elite, and Hilary Clinton, supported those things, even when sometimes they said they didn't is what caused the backlash.

edblarney 10y ago

"was widely shared by "The Elite" for the past 10" You mean for the last 200 years. Mass automation has been going on since the dawn of the industrial revolution. As long as there is value to be created, and the surpluses are distributed enough so that consumers 'want something and can pay for it' - there will be jobs. Obviously, it's more painful for those put out of work than 'the elite' ... but employment levels have been decent for a very long time. [1] The historical unemployment rate seems to defy the notion that 'machines are putting everyone out of work'. That can't be ignored; in fact, it demands kind of another way of looking at it. [1] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-r...

jjoonathan 10y ago
The long history of scarcity amid plenty does deserve examination. Critical examination. How messed up is it that people not only have to beg for the privilege of work, but that they are seen as selfish, thankless, and incompetent for doing so? Once humanity gets this sorted out -- and it will, eventually -- the present state of affairs will be looked at with the same contempt that people in today's world have for feudalism. It will deserve every bit of it.
- Fantastic_T 10y ago
  Could you explain a little more explicitly what you are referring to, and what you think the solution will be?

jdoliner 10y ago

I think you might be projecting your own beliefs onto Trump's election here. If what you're saying is true then we would expect income to be a good predictor of voting for Trump right? It wasn't [0]. Trump's election was backlash, but not to loss of jobs. It was a backlash against much more than that? Did you feel that loss of jobs to technology was a problem before Trump? If so it seems very convenient to believe that the election of a candidate that I'm assuming you hate, was due to a situation which you already hated. I'd encourage you to look a little more deeply at what caused people to vote for Trump. [0] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-pre...

rahimnathwani 10y ago
"we would expect income to be a good predictor of voting for Trump right? It wasn't [0]" The figures in that article are all aggregates (at county level) and say nothing about whether an individual's income level correlates with voting for Trump. Imagine a scenario in which there are two types of county: - Type A: High median income; high income inequality (as measured by Gini coefficient) - Type B: Low median income; low income inequality If there are more Trump supporters in A than B, does that suggest that low income doesn't encourage voting for Trump? Not necessarily: perhaps low income relative to neighbours or living costs encourages voting for Trump. I'm not saying income isn't a good predictor for voting for Trump. However, I'm not sure the post you cited demonstrates that either way.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> I think the GP's viewpoint was widely shared by "The Elite" for the past 10 years and is what created the backlash that got Trump elected. The Democrats essentially abandoning labor with the neoliberal "Third Way" politics of Bill Clinton certainly was a factor in setting the stage for a right-wing authoritarian populist like Trump, but ascribing Trump's election to any one factor is overly simplistic.