http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/10/06/leaked-email-reveals-hillary-faked-surprise-tv-interview-whole-thing-scripted-campaign-397838?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

DrAlphaeus wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/magazine/why-are-politicians-so-obsessed-with-manufacturing.html

Why Are Politicians So Obsessed With Manufacturing?

When Donald J. Trump landed in Pittsburgh a few weeks ago, the city was buzzing about Uber’s deployment of the world’s first fleet of driverless taxicabs. Political leaders were thrilled that Silicon Valley was hiring highly paid workers and investing hundreds of millions of dollars in western Pennsylvania. Local taxi drivers were understandably less excited that robots were coming for their jobs.

Pittsburgh’s football team may still be called the Steelers, but the city has, like the rest of the country, become predominantly a service economy. More than 80 percent of local jobs are in the service sector, roughly on par with the national average. The largest private-sector employer is not U.S. Steel but the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. The city’s jobs, however, increasingly are divided between a prospering college-educated elite of lawyers and doctors and bankers and a struggling mass of fast-food workers and security guards and nannies.

Uber’s arrival suggests those disparities are likely to intensify. The com­pany says it plans to create a total of 1,000 high-paying jobs at a Pittsburgh research center, presumably with the goal of eliminating the region’s 1,360 taxi-driving jobs. That may be a good deal, in the end, for the regional economy: Workers earning higher wages are also consumers who spend more money. But the trade-off would be little comfort to drivers, who are unlikely to move from that job to programming robots. And cabbies aren’t the only ones with cause for alarm. Self-driving vehicles presumably will also begin to replace the region’s 19,490 truck drivers and 9,390 bus drivers.

The Republican presidential nominee had not come to western Pennsylvania to talk about any of that. He looked out over his audience and promised, as he does at most of his rallies, that he would revive the American steel industry.

There’s nothing new about nostalgia in politics. American presidential candidates spent the better part of the 20th century promising to help family farmers in the face of urbanization. Now they promise to help factory workers in the face of globalization. Trump has made the revival of American manufacturing a signature issue, presenting his economic plan in an August speech in Detroit, the nation’s official postindustrial wasteland. Hillary Clinton has campaigned on a broader economic agenda, but when it came time to describe those plans, she chose a fac­tory outside Detroit as her backdrop.

The manufacturing boom of the postwar years was an oddity, and it isn’t coming back. But some of what made it vibrant could be reproduced for the service sector. Credit Illustration by Tim Enthoven
Manufacturing retains its powerful hold on the American imagination for good reason. In the years after World War II, factory work created a broadly shared prosperity that helped make the American middle class. People without college degrees could buy a home, raise a family, buy a station wagon, take some nice vacations. It makes perfect sense that voters would want to return to those times.

From an economic perspective, however, there can be no revival of American manufacturing, because there has been no collapse. Because of automation, there are far fewer jobs in factories. But the value of stuff made in America reached a record high in the first quarter of 2016, even after adjusting for inflation. The present moment, in other words, is the most productive in the nation’s history.

Politicians of all persuasions have tried to turn back time through a wide range of programs best summarized as “throwing money at factory owners.” They offer tax credits and other incentives; some towns even build whole industrial parks, at taxpayer expense, so they can offer free space for manufacturers. By and large, those strategies haven’t helped. One of Trump’s keynote proposals is to encourage domestic production by taxing imports — an idea more likely to cause a recession than a manufacturing revival. Clinton is promising to basically extend the efforts of the Obama administration, which said it would create a million factory jobs. With just a few months left, the president is still more than 600,000 jobs short.

This myopic focus on factory jobs distracts from another, simpler way to help working Americans: Improve the conditions of the work they actually do. Fast-food servers scrape by on minimum wage; contract workers are denied benefits; child-care providers have no paid leave to spend with their own children.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 64,000 steelworkers in America last year, and 820,000 home health aides — more than double the population of Pittsburgh. Next year, there will be fewer steelworkers and still more home health aides, as baby boomers fade into old age. Soon, we will be living in the United States of Home Health Aides, yet the candidates keep talking about steelworkers. Many home health aides live close to the poverty line: Average annual wages were just $22,870 last year. If both parties are willing to meddle with the marketplace in order to help one sector, why not do the same for jobs that currently exist?

Each candidate has walked down this road, Clinton significantly farther than Trump. He has suggested he might support a $10 federal minimum wage, and he has proposed new tax benefits to reduce the cost of child care. She has backed a $12 minimum wage and more generous tax benefits for child care. She has also promised to support paid leave and increased protection for unions. In August 2015, she met with a group of home health care workers in Los Angeles, and returned to the issue in her Detroit speech. “The people taking care of our children and our parents, they deserve a good wage, good benefits, and a secure retirement,” she said. But no one is basing an entire presi­dential campaign around ideas like this.

Service work is different from factory work, and unions have struggled to organize its laborers.
The manufacturing boom of the postwar years was an oddity, and there will be no repeat of the concatenation that made it happen: The backlog of innovations stored up during the Great Depression and World War II; the devastation of other industrial powers, Germany in particular, which gave the United States a competitive edge. Yet some parts of the formula that created the middle class may be possible to replicate. Unions played a large role in negotiating favorable work rules, many of which have since entered into law. Stronger unions — or federal regulators, who have increasingly replaced unions as the primary advocates for workers — could improve conditions in the service sector, too.

The enduring political focus on factory workers partly reflects the low profile of the new working class. Instead of white men who make stuff, the group is increasingly made up of minority women who serve people. “That transformation really has rendered the working class invisible,” says Tamara Draut, the author of “Sleeping Giant,” a recent book about this demographic transformation and its political consequences.

The old working class still controls the megaphone of the labor movement, in part because unions have struggled to organize service workers. Manufacturing was, logistically speaking, easier to organize. There were lots of workers at each factory, and most knew one another. Service work is more dispersed and done in smaller crews. Workers living in the same city and employed by the same retail chain, for example, would likely know only a handful of their compatriots. Fostering a sense of trust and shared purpose under these conditions is difficult.

At the same time, more and more men are plopping down on the sidelines of the economy. The Harvard economist Lawrence H. Summers estimates that by midcentury, one-third of men in their prime working years, between the ages of 25 and 54, will not be working. Politicians are paying attention to them perhaps because they’ve demonstrated a willingness to switch parties. David Autor, an economist at M.I.T., says in a recent paper he helped write that voting patterns have been disrupted in the parts of the country that lost the most jobs to trade with China. The study, which focused on congressional elections, found that voters in those areas have tended toward ideological extremes. In predominantly non-Hispanic white districts, voters have tended to install conservatives in place of moderates.

This is a dynamic that Trump, in particular, has capitalized on. “People are tired of lies, they’re tired of losing their jobs, they’re tired of seeing their companies being ripped out and going to other places,” he said at a rally in Erie, Pa. “That’s why the steelworkers are with me, that’s why the miners are with me, that’s why the working people, electricians, the plumbers, the Sheetrockers, the concrete guys and gals, they’re all — they’re with us.”

In all likelihood, many more of Mr. Trump’s supporters are people who once worked in those kinds of jobs, or whose parents did. They are now caregivers, retail workers and customer-service representatives. When will they start to demand that candidates address the lives they actually lead?

Binyamin Appelbaum is an economics reporter for The Times.

It's a dire outlook...I was discussing this very thing with another poster..Those jobs aren't coming back and politicians aren't really trying to come up with solutions..Economists at Bank of America estimates that 40% of the jobs today won't exist in 10 years...If true, this is far reaching..This will effect a huge swat of households and will certainly effect the economy and the stock market..They have to do something drastic like make all community colleges free to train people in a technical field in the new industries of tomorrow..Obama was saying this 8 years ago..Maybe Silicon Valley can pitch in and draw up a curriculum and finance it as needed for certain industries, they need workers as well..The thing is, politician won't win elections preaching about this on the stump...How many of them just want to get into office versus really wanting to enact change to face the challenges of tomorrow...

I mean someone will need to fix and update the hardware/software of self driving cars of tomorrow...The delivery drones, etc..Imagine, we could be living in the golden age...

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Well if you look at the war in Iraq does it answer your question? Trillions of dollars handed over to the military industrial complex because of the war started by the president of the United States perpetrating the greatest fraud this side of Watergate.

Well, no, it actually doesn't.

If you're going to go through the trouble of committing multiple homegrown secret terrorist attacks when one would likely have sufficed, why wouldn't you stage it as an act of the country you plan to invade, as opposed to a non-related terrorist group?

Was the assumption ignorant, uninformed people wouldn't understand the distinction part of the master plan?

How on earth would I know the friggin master plan? If you stage it as an act of a single country you are grossly limiting your options and the country can deny it forcefully. But a terrorist group isn't equipped with the same level of counter propaganda machinery. Didn't the bat**** douchebag give some speech about the Axis of evil right after 9/11? One would suffice? No - It needed to be spectacular, mind numbing and something that would grip people's imagination for years to come.

Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq.

What the hell does Al-Qaeda committing a terrorist attack have to do with Iraq?

Nothing, except it was suddenly declared a "terrorist state" by the said douchebag. Are you suggesting the broad brush characterization of all things Islamic as a terrorists didn't play into the psyche of people approving the decision to go to war?

Why would the 'military-industrial' complex require the approval of the people? Declaring war is an act of Congress and as I understand the theory, Congress was in on it.

I'm sorry, these theories are just a never-ending labyrinth of rabbit holes, one leading into another.

The/your theory, according to current rabbit hole it's in, is that in order to make an entirely unnecessary public sale of a war that didn't require it, the U.S. murdered thousands of its own citizens, burned billions of its own money, in order to falsely blame a terrorist organization that had no affiliation with the country it intended to invade under the premise it was developing nuclear capability, solely as a means of backhanded, indirect public relations psychological conditioning.

And no one on the planet has actually been motivated to confess, turn over real evidence or even pursue all the evidence apparently freely available to anyone with editing software on a laptop?

And if that doesn't raise about a dozen logical bright red flags to me, I'm not open-minded?

The astounding part is people who claim to believe this stuff continue to choose to live in the nation that committed this atrocity.

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Its all just a show intended to manipulate we the sheeple.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/10/06/leaked-email-reveals-hillary-faked-surprise-tv-interview-whole-thing-scripted-campaign-397838?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

This dynamic will only change when one thing occurs, and we're nowhere close to it happening.

It'll be when the "sheeple" stop blaming the interests trying to manipulate them and start accepting responsibility for that fact that they can be manipulated.

The problem with politics is people. History tells us in every culture in every society people who allow themselves to be exploited will be.

So long we expect our politicians to be benevolent caretakers who protect us despite our chosen apathy and ignorance we'll just become more cynical and resentful.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Its all just a show intended to manipulate we the sheeple.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/10/06/leaked-email-reveals-hillary-faked-surprise-tv-interview-whole-thing-scripted-campaign-397838?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

This dynamic will only change when one thing occurs, and we're nowhere close to it happening.

It'll be when the "sheeple" stop blaming the interests trying to manipulate them and start accepting responsibility for that fact that they can be manipulated.

The problem with politics is people. History tells us in every culture in every society people who allow themselves to be exploited will be.

So long we expect our politicians to be benevolent caretakers who protect us despite our chosen apathy and ignorance we'll just become more cynical and resentful.

I am in agreement. Hard to do when they do a masterful job of making sure the people are not aware of the truth. So what, in your opinion, is the best way to counter it? Education is controlled, entertainment and news is controlled.

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Well if you look at the war in Iraq does it answer your question? Trillions of dollars handed over to the military industrial complex because of the war started by the president of the United States perpetrating the greatest fraud this side of Watergate.

Well, no, it actually doesn't.

If you're going to go through the trouble of committing multiple homegrown secret terrorist attacks when one would likely have sufficed, why wouldn't you stage it as an act of the country you plan to invade, as opposed to a non-related terrorist group?

Was the assumption ignorant, uninformed people wouldn't understand the distinction part of the master plan?

How on earth would I know the friggin master plan? If you stage it as an act of a single country you are grossly limiting your options and the country can deny it forcefully. But a terrorist group isn't equipped with the same level of counter propaganda machinery. Didn't the bat**** douchebag give some speech about the Axis of evil right after 9/11? One would suffice? No - It needed to be spectacular, mind numbing and something that would grip people's imagination for years to come.

Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq.

What the hell does Al-Qaeda committing a terrorist attack have to do with Iraq?

Nothing, except it was suddenly declared a "terrorist state" by the said douchebag. Are you suggesting the broad brush characterization of all things Islamic as a terrorists didn't play into the psyche of people approving the decision to go to war?

Why would the 'military-industrial' complex require the approval of the people? Declaring war is an act of Congress and as I understand the theory, Congress was in on it.

I'm sorry, these theories are just a never-ending labyrinth of rabbit holes, one leading into another.

The/your theory, according to current rabbit hole it's in, is that in order to make an entirely unnecessary public sale of a war that didn't require it, the U.S. murdered thousands of its own citizens, burned billions of its own money, in order to falsely blame a terrorist organization that had no affiliation with the country it intended to invade under the premise it was developing nuclear capability, solely as a means of backhanded, indirect public relations psychological conditioning.

And no one on the planet has actually been motivated to confess, turn over real evidence or even pursue all the evidence apparently freely available to anyone with editing software on a laptop?

And if that doesn't raise about a dozen logical bright red flags to me, I'm not open-minded?

The astounding part is people who claim to believe this stuff continue to choose to live in the nation that committed this atrocity.

Couldn't ask for a more inside the box stock response. :)

For your information, I neither believe nor disbelieve conspiracy theories. I think people who rely on the media and the government to tell us the truth are every bit as intellectually lazy as those on the other side. I don't have a theory so try not to paint one on me. I am asking questions largely rhetorical and I msaying I have no faith in government provided propaganda.

As for selling war to the public being unnecessary, that's the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a while. These politicians rely on their approval ratings to make a living. They need public approval as much as I need food.

meloshouldgo wrote:Couldn't ask for a more inside the box stock response. :)

You're aware of your own circular, self-defining logic, correct?

For your information, I neither believe nor disbelieve conspiracy theories.

You endorsed the notion 9/11 could be a homegrown motive to justify invading Iraq, despite the logical fallacy of it.

If the tin foil hat fits...

I think people who rely on the media and the government to tell us the truth are every bit as intellectually lazy as those on the other side.

Indeed, and I haven't once cited a government or media-sourced piece of information or "truth." I've merely cited simple logic.

I don't believe 9/11 wasn't an inside job because someone told me so. I believe it wasn't because it doesn't make any sense that it was.

As for selling war to the public being unnecessary, that's the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a while. These politicians rely on their approval ratings to make a living. They need public approval as much as I need food.

No, not according to the worldview that 9/11 was an inside job, they do not. The underlying premise of that view is everything is manipulated ... a facade. There is no such thing as a real free election in that scenario. There can't be.

If politicians are indeed self-interested and unfettered by some grand centralized control apparatus to competitively seek office without guarantee, then logic dictates these free, self-motivated, ambitious people wouldn't be helping hide and deny "truths" so obvious that anyone with smartphone has easy access to them as we speak.

The conflicting logic cancels itself out.

You either have a world where Bush, both Clintons, and Obama are in on the ruse, despite their conflicting self-interests, or the simple logic of it oollapses upon itself.

'Merica.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/SpeakerRyan/status/784469076718616576

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/buzzfeednews/status/784525329297727492

October surprises abound!