5 ms·

I remember when we signed NAFTA and it was said we didn't need those jobs. Something about becoming a service economy. The 'never coming back' mantra was mostr

I remember when we signed NAFTA and it was said we didn't need those jobs. Something about becoming a service economy. The 'never coming back' mantra was mostrecently the unfortunate cry of the democrats during the 2016 election cycle. A shame because it cemented in the minds of the rural working class that they are unwanted. We value diversity but then make these claims that our economy doesn't need this.

rayiner 4y ago
[flagged]
- digitaltrees 4y ago
  Said no one ever.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    That’s the underlying premise of their politics. The immigrants Hilary Clinton wants to bring to the country aren’t any less “deplorable” (from her viewpoint) than rural white Americans. They are just don’t feel the same ownership over the society, and are willing to support people like Clinton in return for being allowed to come here.
    - digitaltrees 4y ago
      What speech or policy has any democrat made that supports any of what you are saying?
    - roundandround 4y ago
      Immigrants can't vote so this logic is bizarre. The people who make the most money off illegal immigrants in the US are rural land owners, meat packing plant owners, etc. They don't want illegal immigration to stop they just want to keep those laborers cheap which wouldn't happen with a reform that makes them comfortable seeking a new employer.
      - rayiner 4y ago
        [flagged]
        roundandround 4y ago
        It sounds to me like you've got some kind of self loathing thing going on. Political arguments are mostly about whether illegal immigrants should get at best a gradual path to citizenship which doesn't mean they will be a tool to win the electoral college.
        rayiner 4y ago
        Quite the opposite: as I have become more established in this country, I’m less inclined to reject my parents’ values. E.g. JD Vance and my dad are kind of on the same page about childless people. That was never politically motivating for my parents, because they could just tell me “you can’t do what your white friends do.” I can’t realistically tell my own kids that. I have to care about the direction of American culture in a way my parents didn’t. Almost 10% of the potential electorate is foreign born naturalized citizens like me and my parents. Most of these folks aren’t liberal. They are in a political alliance which is based on white liberals supporting immigration and certain welfare systems, and non-white immigrants looking the other way on cultural issues.
        sudosysgen 4y ago
        As a foreign born naturalized citizen I have the default position that you are extremely wrong on the cultural front. I've attempted to find evidence, and found this study, which indicates that first generation immigrants are actually very close to 4th+ in terms of welfare and taxation : https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/political-assimilation-immigrants-their-descendants# https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulle... At the same time, I found other studies showing that second generation immigrants support many left wing social policies, such as gay marriage and multiculturalism, but that recent first generation were slightly less inclined to support gay marriage. It would seem that on the balance, naturalized immigrants (many of which are considered second generation in that study) are on the left socially but not necessarily economically.
    - brvsft 4y ago
      To be fair, I don't think those people think about any concept of "ownership" of society or culture, except perhaps that they 'own' society and you will do as you are told. They presumably look at everyone else as cattle to be herded, and as long as the prevailing culture does not involve anything about guillotining the elites, we can do whatever we want, especially if it's something from which these 'elites' can profit.
    - hotpotamus 4y ago
      The proles by definition don't own capital, social or otherwise. I find the focus on Clinton a bit short-sighted. She certainly bought into the Reaganite neoliberalism (her husband cemented it into American zeitgeist for a generation by embracing it), but I'd hardly call her the source of it. And I'd take more offense at being called a "dumb, cousin-fucking terrorist"[0] than a "deplorable", but either way these people will not be served by either side. [0]https://twitter.com/Eric_Alterman/status/1634971075334508544 https://twitter.com/Eric_Alterman/status/1634971075334508544
      - rayiner 4y ago
        [flagged]
        hotpotamus 4y ago
        I find it odd that you perceive this as a new thing. I'd call it an American trope that long predates me. For instance, "The Beverly Hillbillies" was a 1962 sitcom that played off of it. > The Clampetts bring a moral, unsophisticated, and minimalistic lifestyle to the swanky, sometimes self-obsessed and superficial community. Double entendres and cultural misconceptions are the core of the sitcom's humor. Plots often involve Drysdale's outlandish efforts to keep the Clampetts' money in his bank, and his wife's efforts to rid the neighborhood of "those hillbillies". The family's periodic attempts to return to the mountains are often prompted by Granny's perceiving a slight from one of the "city folk". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beverly_Hillbillies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beverly_Hillbillies
        rayiner 4y ago
        That’s an illustration of my point. It’s a Hollywood criticism of Beverly Hills’ departure from the “moral, unsophisticated, and minimalistic lifestyle.” When Mrs. Drysdale calls the Clampett’s “deplorables” the audience is expected to see her as the villain.
        hotpotamus 4y ago
steve76 4y ago
[dead]
Gibbon1 4y ago
> Something about becoming a service economy. Stupidest thing economists got people to believe. That it's a good idea to export industries like manufacturing that benefit highly from technological progress. While keeping those most subject to Baumol's Cost disease. Bonus: Prioritizing overhead industries like adshit, finance and insurance.

rayiner 4y ago

[flagged]

digitaltrees 4y ago
Said no one ever.
- rayiner 4y ago
  That’s the underlying premise of their politics. The immigrants Hilary Clinton wants to bring to the country aren’t any less “deplorable” (from her viewpoint) than rural white Americans. They are just don’t feel the same ownership over the society, and are willing to support people like Clinton in return for being allowed to come here.
  - digitaltrees 4y ago
    What speech or policy has any democrat made that supports any of what you are saying?
  - roundandround 4y ago
    Immigrants can't vote so this logic is bizarre. The people who make the most money off illegal immigrants in the US are rural land owners, meat packing plant owners, etc. They don't want illegal immigration to stop they just want to keep those laborers cheap which wouldn't happen with a reform that makes them comfortable seeking a new employer.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - roundandround 4y ago
        It sounds to me like you've got some kind of self loathing thing going on. Political arguments are mostly about whether illegal immigrants should get at best a gradual path to citizenship which doesn't mean they will be a tool to win the electoral college.
        rayiner 4y ago
        Quite the opposite: as I have become more established in this country, I’m less inclined to reject my parents’ values. E.g. JD Vance and my dad are kind of on the same page about childless people. That was never politically motivating for my parents, because they could just tell me “you can’t do what your white friends do.” I can’t realistically tell my own kids that. I have to care about the direction of American culture in a way my parents didn’t. Almost 10% of the potential electorate is foreign born naturalized citizens like me and my parents. Most of these folks aren’t liberal. They are in a political alliance which is based on white liberals supporting immigration and certain welfare systems, and non-white immigrants looking the other way on cultural issues.
        sudosysgen 4y ago
        As a foreign born naturalized citizen I have the default position that you are extremely wrong on the cultural front. I've attempted to find evidence, and found this study, which indicates that first generation immigrants are actually very close to 4th+ in terms of welfare and taxation : https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/political-assimilation-immigrants-their-descendants# https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulle... At the same time, I found other studies showing that second generation immigrants support many left wing social policies, such as gay marriage and multiculturalism, but that recent first generation were slightly less inclined to support gay marriage. It would seem that on the balance, naturalized immigrants (many of which are considered second generation in that study) are on the left socially but not necessarily economically.
  - brvsft 4y ago
    To be fair, I don't think those people think about any concept of "ownership" of society or culture, except perhaps that they 'own' society and you will do as you are told. They presumably look at everyone else as cattle to be herded, and as long as the prevailing culture does not involve anything about guillotining the elites, we can do whatever we want, especially if it's something from which these 'elites' can profit.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    The proles by definition don't own capital, social or otherwise. I find the focus on Clinton a bit short-sighted. She certainly bought into the Reaganite neoliberalism (her husband cemented it into American zeitgeist for a generation by embracing it), but I'd hardly call her the source of it. And I'd take more offense at being called a "dumb, cousin-fucking terrorist"[0] than a "deplorable", but either way these people will not be served by either side. [0]https://twitter.com/Eric_Alterman/status/1634971075334508544 https://twitter.com/Eric_Alterman/status/1634971075334508544
    - rayiner 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - hotpotamus 4y ago
        I find it odd that you perceive this as a new thing. I'd call it an American trope that long predates me. For instance, "The Beverly Hillbillies" was a 1962 sitcom that played off of it. > The Clampetts bring a moral, unsophisticated, and minimalistic lifestyle to the swanky, sometimes self-obsessed and superficial community. Double entendres and cultural misconceptions are the core of the sitcom's humor. Plots often involve Drysdale's outlandish efforts to keep the Clampetts' money in his bank, and his wife's efforts to rid the neighborhood of "those hillbillies". The family's periodic attempts to return to the mountains are often prompted by Granny's perceiving a slight from one of the "city folk". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beverly_Hillbillies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beverly_Hillbillies
        rayiner 4y ago
        That’s an illustration of my point. It’s a Hollywood criticism of Beverly Hills’ departure from the “moral, unsophisticated, and minimalistic lifestyle.” When Mrs. Drysdale calls the Clampett’s “deplorables” the audience is expected to see her as the villain.
        hotpotamus 4y ago

steve76 4y ago

[dead]

Gibbon1 4y ago

> Something about becoming a service economy. Stupidest thing economists got people to believe. That it's a good idea to export industries like manufacturing that benefit highly from technological progress. While keeping those most subject to Baumol's Cost disease. Bonus: Prioritizing overhead industries like adshit, finance and insurance.