The per capita GDP in America is great. We don't have a trade problem (except for some national security concerns) we have an economic inequality problem. If we had more collective bargaining people would have higher pay and there wouldn't be all this clamor.
The national security problem revolve around semiconductors, sensors, and advanced manufacturing. Those are precisely what the CHIPS act was addressing. TSM had already committed to building facilities here (mostly in Arizona) long before 47 took credit.
Honestly, if they need the manly feels of a factory job we would be better off building pretend factories for them or having them dig holes to refill than scrambling the global economy for them
I think ubi also wouldn't solve what the right is after because it wouldn't bring women down a peg. These men need to be women's only option for survival in order to get said women to devote the resources to make these men functional.
Which basically is a bunch of links to a bunch of studies that say "These men need to be women's only option for survival in order to get said women to devote the resources to make these men functional."
It's kind of obvious and also kind of harrowing at the same time.
I am a reader of Ross Douthat and all three podcasts he has helmed over the NYT years.
I think an optimistic reading of Oren Cass is that factory jobs are one easy way, among several, to meet voting unmployed people where they are, because a job earns a person more dignity and engagement, and because they vote based on their local experience, not based on gdp.
I agree with Darrell that socialization happens for many people in college, and these non college people would benefit from experiencing different people. Teach For America and City Year come to mind, as well as Conservation Corps.
I am listening to Abundance, and I like the idea from the Josh Shapiro section that government would do better to recruit good people and then empower them to take calculated risks and responsibility for getting a job done according to various balanced conflicting goals.
Oren Cass mentions Chips act towns and schools reaching out to meet these unemployed people where they are. I hope those efforts succeed. Those would be worth some journalism, Cathy !
"and because they vote based on their local experience, not based on gdp." That is a very good point, well-put.
I'd never thought of Teach For America, City Year, or Conservation Corps as non-college ways to cosmopolitanize young people.
I'm trying to sell the idea of professionalizing electeds to help recruit and retain less corrupt, more competent people into these roles here locally. It's slow-going.
I'm highly skeptical of Opportunity Zones and their ilk. But there's a lot I don't know and I do believe in some kind of industrial policy and that it sometimes makes sense to build outside major cities. I agree it would be great to have someone measure the success of these efforts. I'm more of a commentator than a reporter. But someone should do it, haha.
What? "Stupid man welfare"? Care to elaborate, it should be easy enough for you... unless you're, in fact, and contrary to your pretenses, one of us allegedly "stupid" men.
What do you mean, 'care to elaborate'? Stupid Man Welfare is the premise of the piece of writing that you're currently occupying/polluting the comments of
I know 🤣. That’s the point. This chick is calling men stupid for a welfare dependency that her own gender is disproportionately reliant upon… the irony is hilarious. 😂
Uuuwe, you touch a nerve. Not worth a response. But I will say I agree with most of what you said. Support for tariffs (in this case open corpution) are stupid knee jerk reactions for those to lazy to think things through. If the goal is re-idustrialization then invest in building factories which by definition cant not be "self sufficient", if the goals are better pay then invest in the workers, I e. education a d training supported with stipends and wages. To be supporting tariffs is to be undermining both of those stated goals.
I’m genuinely sorry that I hurt your feelings. I’m joking when I write what you read as me thinking I’m superior. I realize this is self-serving, but I think you read my posts and pay money to comment on them because you know in your heart of hearts that I love you. The opposite of love is not hate. Nor is it gentle mockery. It’s apathy. Everyone I write about is a target of my concern. I write about stupid men and bottom-half men because I love them and want the best for them. I think you know that. I hope you do.
You know. I’ve been thinking… I think you’re definitely wrong, and completely deluded in many of your beliefs. But I’m sorry for calling you a whore, maybe it was even called for, but I don’t want that kind of negativity on my continence. Comment deleted, I can make my point without being a dick.
My feelings aren’t hurt, it’s my rational brain that obliges me to respond to your insipid comments. I appreciate your predictable attempt to belittle a male criticism of your “arguments” by attempting to insult my masculinity… your hypocrisy in this respect is as typical of a feminist as entitlement is among women of your generation.
Men throughout history have been known for our arrogance, but honey, we ain’t got nothing on the likes of you. For you to feign compassion for men whom you explicitly characterize as “stupid” (despite the fact that those men would surely demonstrate themselves to be of quantitatively greater intelligence than you) is hilarious… and, yes, hysterical.
I thought men were supposed to be rational and logical, not emotional, whether they are "stupid" or not.
Name-calling writers on the Internet doesn't typically further the cause of "national security and self-sufficiency."
So, logically, why would you post a comment that shows deep strong emotion regarding the author, and doesn't provide any counter-factuals about the topics you care about?
Why wouldn't you just share what you want her readers to know instead?
Being "rational" would preclude stupidity, by definition. So not sure where you're going with that one. But, sure, I'll take the lame feminist bait: I am making a rational case in defense of economic policy that will result in the restoration of domestic American labor... contrary to whatever "emotionality" your female brain is projecting upon me for making it, you are a woman, so I won't hold it against you that I have to explain the simple concept that being dependent upon a foreign nation (not least an imperialistic and authoritarian one, like China) is a BAD THING.
Naming-calling? Are you suggesting that I have engaged in an ad-hominem attack against the author, because here's the definition of the noun "whore":
" a person who engages in sex acts for money; prostitute."
Should I apologize for using words appropriately?
Sorry, your makeup is going to become a little more expensive until Maybelline decides to reinvest in American manufacturing.
Rational and stupid are not mutually exclusive. I know many stupid people who can think rationally and choose not to. I also know many non-stupid people who can think rationally and choose not to. Stupid choices are an equal opportunity phenomenon.
I do not use Maybelline products, I will defer to your expertise that the cost of those products will rise in the US.
I also value the restoration of domestic American labor! What are your thoughts on an international minimum wage in lieu of tariffs, to make American labor more competitive cost-wise globally?
I also value reducing American dependence on foreign nations! I do think the value of re-shoring manufacturing operations and labor varies by industry though. In which specific industry do you think the American economy most disproportionately relies on foreign nationals?
What are my thoughts on an “international minimum wage”, my thoughts are that you should stop believing in fairy tales and comport your opinions in a manner consistent with material reality. I’d recommend anything by Thomas Sowell, or Milton Friedman, or, if you’re feeling particularly intelligent: Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. I find it laughable that you think a centrally imposed, ultimately arbitrary, labor tax (minimum wage) would solve a fundamentally material issue relating to labor and material scarcity. There are NO SUCH THINGS as top down solutions to economic problems, Trump is imposing Tariffs on a globalist economic model that has been reducing the American economy to one of futile consumption for decades from a position of reciprocity. If the rest of the world won’t deal fairly with America, through their own innate mercantile systems of tariffs and price-controls, then America has no obligation to continue pretending as though we are engaging in a truly FREE market on the global stage. It’s really that simple.
And before you respond, I should ask: why are you defending a woman who is calling the down-trodden labor base of China, that produces ALL of her luxury goods, “stupid”? Do you not recognize the elitism, arrogance, and entitlement in her characterization of global economic affairs?
The per capita GDP in America is great. We don't have a trade problem (except for some national security concerns) we have an economic inequality problem. If we had more collective bargaining people would have higher pay and there wouldn't be all this clamor.
The national security problem revolve around semiconductors, sensors, and advanced manufacturing. Those are precisely what the CHIPS act was addressing. TSM had already committed to building facilities here (mostly in Arizona) long before 47 took credit.
Honestly, if they need the manly feels of a factory job we would be better off building pretend factories for them or having them dig holes to refill than scrambling the global economy for them
I think ubi also wouldn't solve what the right is after because it wouldn't bring women down a peg. These men need to be women's only option for survival in order to get said women to devote the resources to make these men functional.
I cannot stop thinking about this comment: https://open.substack.com/pub/zawn/p/i-infiltrated-household-equity-support?r=5q7u&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=108599906
Which basically is a bunch of links to a bunch of studies that say "These men need to be women's only option for survival in order to get said women to devote the resources to make these men functional."
It's kind of obvious and also kind of harrowing at the same time.
It sounds so crazy to say out loud, but it's what they actually think!
I am a reader of Ross Douthat and all three podcasts he has helmed over the NYT years.
I think an optimistic reading of Oren Cass is that factory jobs are one easy way, among several, to meet voting unmployed people where they are, because a job earns a person more dignity and engagement, and because they vote based on their local experience, not based on gdp.
I agree with Darrell that socialization happens for many people in college, and these non college people would benefit from experiencing different people. Teach For America and City Year come to mind, as well as Conservation Corps.
I am listening to Abundance, and I like the idea from the Josh Shapiro section that government would do better to recruit good people and then empower them to take calculated risks and responsibility for getting a job done according to various balanced conflicting goals.
Oren Cass mentions Chips act towns and schools reaching out to meet these unemployed people where they are. I hope those efforts succeed. Those would be worth some journalism, Cathy !
"and because they vote based on their local experience, not based on gdp." That is a very good point, well-put.
I'd never thought of Teach For America, City Year, or Conservation Corps as non-college ways to cosmopolitanize young people.
I'm trying to sell the idea of professionalizing electeds to help recruit and retain less corrupt, more competent people into these roles here locally. It's slow-going.
I'm highly skeptical of Opportunity Zones and their ilk. But there's a lot I don't know and I do believe in some kind of industrial policy and that it sometimes makes sense to build outside major cities. I agree it would be great to have someone measure the success of these efforts. I'm more of a commentator than a reporter. But someone should do it, haha.
Any man can receive Stupid Man Welfare, but the Stupid Man Welfare rolls should be public.
What? "Stupid man welfare"? Care to elaborate, it should be easy enough for you... unless you're, in fact, and contrary to your pretenses, one of us allegedly "stupid" men.
What do you mean, 'care to elaborate'? Stupid Man Welfare is the premise of the piece of writing that you're currently occupying/polluting the comments of
What percentage of welfare recipients are female? “Stupid woman welfare” is a funny name for it… I think I’ll start using that.
Stupid Man Welfare isn't real. It can't hurt you.
I know 🤣. That’s the point. This chick is calling men stupid for a welfare dependency that her own gender is disproportionately reliant upon… the irony is hilarious. 😂
“ This chick is calling men stupid for a welfare dependency”
This 180 degrees off from the point of this piece. You ought to improve your reading comprehension before taking part in public discourse
Uuuwe, you touch a nerve. Not worth a response. But I will say I agree with most of what you said. Support for tariffs (in this case open corpution) are stupid knee jerk reactions for those to lazy to think things through. If the goal is re-idustrialization then invest in building factories which by definition cant not be "self sufficient", if the goals are better pay then invest in the workers, I e. education a d training supported with stipends and wages. To be supporting tariffs is to be undermining both of those stated goals.
I’m genuinely sorry that I hurt your feelings. I’m joking when I write what you read as me thinking I’m superior. I realize this is self-serving, but I think you read my posts and pay money to comment on them because you know in your heart of hearts that I love you. The opposite of love is not hate. Nor is it gentle mockery. It’s apathy. Everyone I write about is a target of my concern. I write about stupid men and bottom-half men because I love them and want the best for them. I think you know that. I hope you do.
You know. I’ve been thinking… I think you’re definitely wrong, and completely deluded in many of your beliefs. But I’m sorry for calling you a whore, maybe it was even called for, but I don’t want that kind of negativity on my continence. Comment deleted, I can make my point without being a dick.
My feelings aren’t hurt, it’s my rational brain that obliges me to respond to your insipid comments. I appreciate your predictable attempt to belittle a male criticism of your “arguments” by attempting to insult my masculinity… your hypocrisy in this respect is as typical of a feminist as entitlement is among women of your generation.
Men throughout history have been known for our arrogance, but honey, we ain’t got nothing on the likes of you. For you to feign compassion for men whom you explicitly characterize as “stupid” (despite the fact that those men would surely demonstrate themselves to be of quantitatively greater intelligence than you) is hilarious… and, yes, hysterical.
You seem really emotional about this.
Well, what do you expect? I'm one of those "stupid" men who cares about the future of my nation.
I thought men were supposed to be rational and logical, not emotional, whether they are "stupid" or not.
Name-calling writers on the Internet doesn't typically further the cause of "national security and self-sufficiency."
So, logically, why would you post a comment that shows deep strong emotion regarding the author, and doesn't provide any counter-factuals about the topics you care about?
Why wouldn't you just share what you want her readers to know instead?
Being "rational" would preclude stupidity, by definition. So not sure where you're going with that one. But, sure, I'll take the lame feminist bait: I am making a rational case in defense of economic policy that will result in the restoration of domestic American labor... contrary to whatever "emotionality" your female brain is projecting upon me for making it, you are a woman, so I won't hold it against you that I have to explain the simple concept that being dependent upon a foreign nation (not least an imperialistic and authoritarian one, like China) is a BAD THING.
Naming-calling? Are you suggesting that I have engaged in an ad-hominem attack against the author, because here's the definition of the noun "whore":
" a person who engages in sex acts for money; prostitute."
Should I apologize for using words appropriately?
Sorry, your makeup is going to become a little more expensive until Maybelline decides to reinvest in American manufacturing.
Thank you for clarifying your positions!
Rational and stupid are not mutually exclusive. I know many stupid people who can think rationally and choose not to. I also know many non-stupid people who can think rationally and choose not to. Stupid choices are an equal opportunity phenomenon.
I do not use Maybelline products, I will defer to your expertise that the cost of those products will rise in the US.
I also value the restoration of domestic American labor! What are your thoughts on an international minimum wage in lieu of tariffs, to make American labor more competitive cost-wise globally?
I also value reducing American dependence on foreign nations! I do think the value of re-shoring manufacturing operations and labor varies by industry though. In which specific industry do you think the American economy most disproportionately relies on foreign nationals?
What are my thoughts on an “international minimum wage”, my thoughts are that you should stop believing in fairy tales and comport your opinions in a manner consistent with material reality. I’d recommend anything by Thomas Sowell, or Milton Friedman, or, if you’re feeling particularly intelligent: Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. I find it laughable that you think a centrally imposed, ultimately arbitrary, labor tax (minimum wage) would solve a fundamentally material issue relating to labor and material scarcity. There are NO SUCH THINGS as top down solutions to economic problems, Trump is imposing Tariffs on a globalist economic model that has been reducing the American economy to one of futile consumption for decades from a position of reciprocity. If the rest of the world won’t deal fairly with America, through their own innate mercantile systems of tariffs and price-controls, then America has no obligation to continue pretending as though we are engaging in a truly FREE market on the global stage. It’s really that simple.
And before you respond, I should ask: why are you defending a woman who is calling the down-trodden labor base of China, that produces ALL of her luxury goods, “stupid”? Do you not recognize the elitism, arrogance, and entitlement in her characterization of global economic affairs?