I agree with your points generally, but here are some places I differ and some additional thoughts: (In some places I'm going to copy and paste parts of other

I agree with your points generally, but here are some places I differ and some additional thoughts: (In some places I'm going to copy and paste parts of other comments of mine, so I can get off of HN and back to work!) ... > you now have to be this tall/smart/educated You always needed some ability; it's just that the abilities needed have changed. You used to need to be physically durable, strong, handy, and usually male. The nerdy, clumsy kid with the glasses, not to mention women, had no future in the coal mine or steel mill. It's not a lot different than a developer growing older, not learning the new technologies, and finding their skills are obsolete. I generally believe almost anyone is smart enough, if given education and opportunity, to do knowledge work. Many people just don't get the education and opportunity. ... > tell that to an unemployed steel worker in the Rust Belt This points to the fundamental problem, IMHO: Capital can move much faster than individuals; a factory can move to another country much faster than the workers can find new, equivalent jobs - for most, moving to another country is practically impossible - especially if half the town is now unemployed. Therefore, trade provides a net benefit, but the impact on individuals is disparate to a great degree. We need to protect those individuals, by giving them time to adjust (require a warning or continuing salary for X time, perhaps based on the impact on the local job market), by compensating them for the change (taxing the benefits of moving capital and giving some back to the people making the biggest sacrifice), and by means of the latter taxes, also raise the cost of such changes to the point where it's economically viable not just for the company and future employees, but for those left behind. > This is how you got Trump. I don't agree: Think of all the ways the theory doesn't apply: Most voters making less than $50K chose Clinton[0]; minority voters, who also lost jobs and who have higher unemployment than white voters, overwhelming chose Clinton; Trump's and the GOP's policies overwhelmingly favor the wealthy and big business, including cutting health care and other government services to the working class, and shifting relatively more of the tax burden onto them. To the extent working class white voters supported Trump, they did so against economic self-interest. But that's long been true of many such voters; remember the book 'What's the matter with Kansas?' (or whatever it was called - a f*ng obnoxious, ignorant, arrogant title that reveals the problem with Dems: 'customers aren't buying our product, what's the matter with them?'). The question is, why? [0] Based on a HN comment that cited some stats; I didn't check them myself, so take with salt. But I remember reading similar research after the election.