4 ms·

You of course are correct, but the posters on this board are likely some of the winners of globalization/neoliberalism so they are downvoting you. I remember O

You of course are correct, but the posters on this board are likely some of the winners of globalization/neoliberalism so they are downvoting you. I remember Obama and Clinton railing against NAFTA when they were competing for rust belt votes in the primary and it was insincere nonsense. Of course Obama's policies after getting elected revealed he thought as much and that was why so many democrats (now a globalist/neoliberal party) like him. https://www.npr.org/2008/02/26/38185288/clinton-obama-and-nafta-a-non-issue https://www.npr.org/2008/02/26/38185288/clinton-obama-and-na... Trump is the reckoning that comes when you tell the exurbs / blue collar work force you ultimately don't care about them and they should all just learn to code.

senordevnyc 1y ago
No, Trump is the reckoning that comes for the blue collar voters who listened to right wing propaganda and decided they just want to burn it all down. Unfortunately, they'll be hurt more than anyone with what's to come.
- fullshark 1y ago
  They are going to learn a tough lesson about the modern economy and how things can get worse them for sure. The desire to burn it all down came from despair over a loss of status and economic anxiety, which was/is justified because the R/D party before Trump legitimately did not care about them at all and had fantastical notions about globalization turning everyone into winners, and ignored all evidence to the contrary. They felt ignored and powerless and latched onto Trump and here we are. A populist movement in America was overdue, democrats could have taken control of it with Bernie but they put their thumb on the scale to get Hillary the presidency. Republican establishment looked on with despair and saw several of their favored candidates get their career ended but adapted.
  - nobody9999 1y ago
    >They are going to learn a tough lesson about the modern economy and how things can get worse them for sure. The desire to burn it all down came from despair over a loss of status and economic anxiety, which was/is justified because the R/D party before Trump legitimately did not care about them at all and had fantastical notions about globalization turning everyone into winners, and ignored all evidence to the contrary. To be fair, much of the hollowing out of the rust belt/rural areas is/was as you mention (although, I'd say that Trump doesn't give a rat's ass about those folks either, they were just a means to an end), but what's unsaid is the lack of infrastructure investment by the states themselves. Had the state governments paid attention to the lack of decent educational opportunities, broadband, transportation and opportunities for the "new economy" (as compared with the withering/now withered manufacturing economy), there would be significant investment/start ups in/of tech companies in those areas, as the cost of living and capital/real estate costs are much lower in the "rust belt" and similar areas. But no such investment was made by those state governments, so those areas left damaged by the loss of manufacturing jobs were left to rot. Not just by the Federal government, but even more so by the state and local governments in those areas. There were/are other factors in play too, but you rarely (if ever) hear anyone calling state/local governments to task over this stuff -- it's always the "Feds" who, in point of fact, can certainly help, but remaking areas with sagging economies is much more a state/local thing, IMNSHO.
    - fullshark 1y ago
      I think part of the issue there is there's free movement in America of capital/labor so it's hard to justify investments. Eg. why have the state pay to give each member or your state elite college educations if they are going to move to another state anyway? Your global businesses are going to move as well the second it makes financial sense to?
      - nobody9999 1y ago
        >I think part of the issue there is there's free movement in America of capital/labor so it's hard to justify investments. Eg. why have the state pay to give each member or your state elite college educations if they are going to move to another state anyway? Your global businesses are going to move as well the second it makes financial sense to? You misunderstand my point. Which is probably my fault. My apologies. I'll attempt to clarify: I don't advocate for states to "pay to give each member or your state elite college educations." Rather, I was commenting on the disinvestment[0] in higher education by the states, resulting in poorer educational outcomes as well as fewer educated professionals to serve as innovators, knowledge workers and entrepreneurs in those states. I'd posit that if many states in the rust belt invested in quality education, rather than forcing big tuition increases/student debt, more folks would stay in those states, with the positive economic benefits across those state economies improving the lots of everyone. As for "global" businesses, they're mostly an outlier[1], at least in the US with ~15,000,000 businesses with less than 100 employees and ~170,000 businesses with more than 100 employees (of which only 45,000 or so have more than 500 employees). And why, exactly, do folks leave such places? Why, for the better economics of states that invest in infrastructure and education. Folks wouldn't leave if they could do just as well or better in their hometowns. But (for a whole bunch of reasons, the ones I cite included), those places don't have the same economic opportunity because they don't have the infrastructure or skilled workforce to do so. If they did, companies would flock to those places as the cost of living and cost of doing business are significantly lower. Why is Silicon Valley a hub for business?[2] Strong educational institutions, good infrastructure and a skilled workforce? Why are prisons the highlight of six of the seven poorest counties in the US?[3] Poor or no educational institutions and a lack of skilled workers. I hope I've clarified my point. My apologies for not doing so initially. [0] https://www.cbpp.org/blog/by-disinvesting-in-higher-education-states-contributing-to-affordability-crisis https://www.cbpp.org/blog/by-disinvesting-in-higher-educatio... [1] https://www.naics.com/business-lists/counts-by-company-size/ https://www.naics.com/business-lists/counts-by-company-size/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_countie... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lowest-income_counties_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lowest-income_counties...
boston_clone 1y ago
Could you share how the left wing politicians fighting for a higher minimum wage, medicare for all, CHIP / WIC, capping prices on insulin, and executing actual programs that create local jobs vis-a-vis the Infrastructure Investment Act is indicative of "not caring about people and telling them they should just learn to code"?
- fullshark 1y ago
  Seems like a loaded question. I think they'll figure it out, messaging is part of the problem, especially cause a lot of culture war stuff and secular/urban elitism that drives messaging is truly detested by the working class, but not the entire problem. "We have hand outs for them, why don't they love us?" maybe is the place to start but maybe people want more than that from the people driving policy? They want a seat the table in building the country and not just a life free from unbearable poverty? Just some ideas, it's not my problem. https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/trackers/the-democratic-party-favorability https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/trackers/the-democr...
  - magicalist 1y ago
    It sounds a lot like you're suggesting politicians should engage in more populist messaging to make people feel heard...like railing against NAFTA even when they just have a few quibbles with its specifics?
- palmotea 1y ago
  > Could you share how the left wing politicians fighting for a higher minimum wage, medicare for all, CHIP / WIC, capping prices on insulin, and executing actual programs that create local jobs vis-a-vis the Infrastructure Investment Act is indicative of "not caring about people and telling them they should just learn to code"? It's pretty simple: collectively, they didn't care enough. Not enough to counter 30 years of neoliberalism, and stuff like "just learn to code" are convenient fantasies to avoid dealing with the problems they were too timid to address. IMHO, we have Trump because the Democrats are terrible. They had eight f*cking years to change to actually defeat him, once the problem became evident, but they decided to sit on their hands except to fearmonger.

senordevnyc 1y ago

No, Trump is the reckoning that comes for the blue collar voters who listened to right wing propaganda and decided they just want to burn it all down. Unfortunately, they'll be hurt more than anyone with what's to come.

fullshark 1y ago
They are going to learn a tough lesson about the modern economy and how things can get worse them for sure. The desire to burn it all down came from despair over a loss of status and economic anxiety, which was/is justified because the R/D party before Trump legitimately did not care about them at all and had fantastical notions about globalization turning everyone into winners, and ignored all evidence to the contrary. They felt ignored and powerless and latched onto Trump and here we are. A populist movement in America was overdue, democrats could have taken control of it with Bernie but they put their thumb on the scale to get Hillary the presidency. Republican establishment looked on with despair and saw several of their favored candidates get their career ended but adapted.
- nobody9999 1y ago
  >They are going to learn a tough lesson about the modern economy and how things can get worse them for sure. The desire to burn it all down came from despair over a loss of status and economic anxiety, which was/is justified because the R/D party before Trump legitimately did not care about them at all and had fantastical notions about globalization turning everyone into winners, and ignored all evidence to the contrary. To be fair, much of the hollowing out of the rust belt/rural areas is/was as you mention (although, I'd say that Trump doesn't give a rat's ass about those folks either, they were just a means to an end), but what's unsaid is the lack of infrastructure investment by the states themselves. Had the state governments paid attention to the lack of decent educational opportunities, broadband, transportation and opportunities for the "new economy" (as compared with the withering/now withered manufacturing economy), there would be significant investment/start ups in/of tech companies in those areas, as the cost of living and capital/real estate costs are much lower in the "rust belt" and similar areas. But no such investment was made by those state governments, so those areas left damaged by the loss of manufacturing jobs were left to rot. Not just by the Federal government, but even more so by the state and local governments in those areas. There were/are other factors in play too, but you rarely (if ever) hear anyone calling state/local governments to task over this stuff -- it's always the "Feds" who, in point of fact, can certainly help, but remaking areas with sagging economies is much more a state/local thing, IMNSHO.
  - fullshark 1y ago
    I think part of the issue there is there's free movement in America of capital/labor so it's hard to justify investments. Eg. why have the state pay to give each member or your state elite college educations if they are going to move to another state anyway? Your global businesses are going to move as well the second it makes financial sense to?
    - nobody9999 1y ago
      >I think part of the issue there is there's free movement in America of capital/labor so it's hard to justify investments. Eg. why have the state pay to give each member or your state elite college educations if they are going to move to another state anyway? Your global businesses are going to move as well the second it makes financial sense to? You misunderstand my point. Which is probably my fault. My apologies. I'll attempt to clarify: I don't advocate for states to "pay to give each member or your state elite college educations." Rather, I was commenting on the disinvestment[0] in higher education by the states, resulting in poorer educational outcomes as well as fewer educated professionals to serve as innovators, knowledge workers and entrepreneurs in those states. I'd posit that if many states in the rust belt invested in quality education, rather than forcing big tuition increases/student debt, more folks would stay in those states, with the positive economic benefits across those state economies improving the lots of everyone. As for "global" businesses, they're mostly an outlier[1], at least in the US with ~15,000,000 businesses with less than 100 employees and ~170,000 businesses with more than 100 employees (of which only 45,000 or so have more than 500 employees). And why, exactly, do folks leave such places? Why, for the better economics of states that invest in infrastructure and education. Folks wouldn't leave if they could do just as well or better in their hometowns. But (for a whole bunch of reasons, the ones I cite included), those places don't have the same economic opportunity because they don't have the infrastructure or skilled workforce to do so. If they did, companies would flock to those places as the cost of living and cost of doing business are significantly lower. Why is Silicon Valley a hub for business?[2] Strong educational institutions, good infrastructure and a skilled workforce? Why are prisons the highlight of six of the seven poorest counties in the US?[3] Poor or no educational institutions and a lack of skilled workers. I hope I've clarified my point. My apologies for not doing so initially. [0] https://www.cbpp.org/blog/by-disinvesting-in-higher-education-states-contributing-to-affordability-crisis https://www.cbpp.org/blog/by-disinvesting-in-higher-educatio... [1] https://www.naics.com/business-lists/counts-by-company-size/ https://www.naics.com/business-lists/counts-by-company-size/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_countie... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lowest-income_counties_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lowest-income_counties...

boston_clone 1y ago

Could you share how the left wing politicians fighting for a higher minimum wage, medicare for all, CHIP / WIC, capping prices on insulin, and executing actual programs that create local jobs vis-a-vis the Infrastructure Investment Act is indicative of "not caring about people and telling them they should just learn to code"?

fullshark 1y ago
Seems like a loaded question. I think they'll figure it out, messaging is part of the problem, especially cause a lot of culture war stuff and secular/urban elitism that drives messaging is truly detested by the working class, but not the entire problem. "We have hand outs for them, why don't they love us?" maybe is the place to start but maybe people want more than that from the people driving policy? They want a seat the table in building the country and not just a life free from unbearable poverty? Just some ideas, it's not my problem. https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/trackers/the-democratic-party-favorability https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/trackers/the-democr...
- magicalist 1y ago
  It sounds a lot like you're suggesting politicians should engage in more populist messaging to make people feel heard...like railing against NAFTA even when they just have a few quibbles with its specifics?
palmotea 1y ago
> Could you share how the left wing politicians fighting for a higher minimum wage, medicare for all, CHIP / WIC, capping prices on insulin, and executing actual programs that create local jobs vis-a-vis the Infrastructure Investment Act is indicative of "not caring about people and telling them they should just learn to code"? It's pretty simple: collectively, they didn't care enough. Not enough to counter 30 years of neoliberalism, and stuff like "just learn to code" are convenient fantasies to avoid dealing with the problems they were too timid to address. IMHO, we have Trump because the Democrats are terrible. They had eight f*cking years to change to actually defeat him, once the problem became evident, but they decided to sit on their hands except to fearmonger.