4 ms·

"So should we continue to just tell a good chunk of the country to go to hell? " Absolutely not, and no one is suggesting this. But it would be completely fool

"So should we continue to just tell a good chunk of the country to go to hell? " Absolutely not, and no one is suggesting this. But it would be completely foolhardy to say you're going to "bring back coal" when that's just not going to happen. And please, stop with this "Dems have no plan" narrative. It's entirely false, and it's quite dishonest to bring it up when even a cursory Google search will prove it wrong. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/workforce-and-skills/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/workforce-and-skills/ So Dems do have plans. But the problem is that many of the people in those areas don't want to hear that their previous jobs are gone. They don't want to retrain. So they latch on to the people who say things like, "We're gonna bring back coal jobs," regardless of how realistic it is.

Clubber 9y ago
>But it would be completely foolhardy to say you're going to "bring back coal" when that's just not going to happen. Coal is done (except in China where we send a lot of manufacturing), even the coal workers know that. Subsidizing solar and "solarizing" middle America would create quite a few jobs, including long term jobs maintaining the solar panels, etc. Haven't heard any proposals along those lines though. I believe Obama had mentioned it a few times, but nothing concrete. >stop with this "Dems have no plan" narrative. It's entirely false, and it's quite dishonest to bring it up when even a cursory Google search will prove it wrong. Look, I like the Dems, I vote for them quite a bit, but I'm not going to blindly say they are great and have a real solution to this problem, because they don't, at least none that I've heard anyway. Anyway, I Googled it like you said (I found it odd that no one could actually name any though) and here is Schumer's (and therefore the Democrat's) idea: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/opinion/chuck-schumer-employment-democrats.html?mcubz=0&_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/opinion/chuck-schumer-emp... First, we’re going to increase people’s pay. Second, we’re going to reduce their everyday expenses. And third, we’re going to provide workers with the tools they need for the 21st-century economy. None of these is going to solve the problem. I'll go one at a time. - "First, we’re going to increase people’s pay." Increasing pay is great in the larger cities with a good knowledge and industrial base, but closes a lot of small town stores and restaurants with not a large customer base. Cost of living varies greatly from region to region and even city to city. In summary, this will improve the minimum wage workers positions in already prosperous cities, but hurt them in small towns (which is the target of this discussion). - Lowering household costs by providing paid family and sick leave. This is nice, but it attacks a symptom rather than the problem of few to no jobs and even fewer ones that pay enough to live on. I assume it's an attempt to lower the cost of living, but I don't see how it does, unless you are sick and already have a job. - We’ve already proposed creating jobs with a $1 trillion infrastructure plan. I've always thought this was a good idea, but it's temporary, unless the US commits to building and maintaining a hell of an infrastructure forever. Based on how our elections work and the GOP not liking this sort of thing, I don't see how it could be a permanent solution. I mean it's something though. To solve the middle America problem will require something a lot more radical, I just don't know what it is. I'm hoping to hear it from the Democrats though. I haven't yet. I certainly haven't heard anything from the GOP either.

Clubber 9y ago

>But it would be completely foolhardy to say you're going to "bring back coal" when that's just not going to happen. Coal is done (except in China where we send a lot of manufacturing), even the coal workers know that. Subsidizing solar and "solarizing" middle America would create quite a few jobs, including long term jobs maintaining the solar panels, etc. Haven't heard any proposals along those lines though. I believe Obama had mentioned it a few times, but nothing concrete. >stop with this "Dems have no plan" narrative. It's entirely false, and it's quite dishonest to bring it up when even a cursory Google search will prove it wrong. Look, I like the Dems, I vote for them quite a bit, but I'm not going to blindly say they are great and have a real solution to this problem, because they don't, at least none that I've heard anyway. Anyway, I Googled it like you said (I found it odd that no one could actually name any though) and here is Schumer's (and therefore the Democrat's) idea: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/opinion/chuck-schumer-employment-democrats.html?mcubz=0&_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/opinion/chuck-schumer-emp... First, we’re going to increase people’s pay. Second, we’re going to reduce their everyday expenses. And third, we’re going to provide workers with the tools they need for the 21st-century economy. None of these is going to solve the problem. I'll go one at a time. - "First, we’re going to increase people’s pay." Increasing pay is great in the larger cities with a good knowledge and industrial base, but closes a lot of small town stores and restaurants with not a large customer base. Cost of living varies greatly from region to region and even city to city. In summary, this will improve the minimum wage workers positions in already prosperous cities, but hurt them in small towns (which is the target of this discussion). - Lowering household costs by providing paid family and sick leave. This is nice, but it attacks a symptom rather than the problem of few to no jobs and even fewer ones that pay enough to live on. I assume it's an attempt to lower the cost of living, but I don't see how it does, unless you are sick and already have a job. - We’ve already proposed creating jobs with a $1 trillion infrastructure plan. I've always thought this was a good idea, but it's temporary, unless the US commits to building and maintaining a hell of an infrastructure forever. Based on how our elections work and the GOP not liking this sort of thing, I don't see how it could be a permanent solution. I mean it's something though. To solve the middle America problem will require something a lot more radical, I just don't know what it is. I'm hoping to hear it from the Democrats though. I haven't yet. I certainly haven't heard anything from the GOP either.