Foxes and Hedgehogs

It's obvious that much economic sentiment is simply political allegiance, although even that has some fact-based reasoning behind it. When Republicans harm Democratic-leaning states or focus on the industries of the Rust Belt, Democrats worry. Conversely, Republican worry when the newer industries common in Blue states are given prominence by Democrats. That said, little that Trump has done is good for the long-term welfare of the country, and much of the short-term benefits are really long-term losses, specifically, the reductions in taxes which will likely entail future belt-tightening, loosening of corporate regulation will lead to future costs for healthcare, environmental cleanup, and consumer debt. Rather than play the safe hand of trying to bring down an inflated market, Republicans instead chose to 'put out the fire with gasoline'. Eventually, there will be pain, suffering, and loss, but who will suffer, and by how much, is yet to be seen. As for outright ignorant...

With the loss of manufacturing and unions, so went wages, and as the economy became more service-oriented there was no collective action that could have forestalled the loss in income parity. Although this looks like it only pertains to low wage workers, it is likely also true for the higher end, but not for the top few percent. Wages at even the 90th percentile, while certainly better than everyone else's, don't grow at the same rate as the wealth in general, so that every level of workers' income is decreasing under are regressive economic structure. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/upshot/big-cities-low-skilled-workers-wages.html?comments#permid=30115791

Aerticle: https://www.propublica.org/article/older-workers-united-states-pushed-out-of-work-forced-retirement #1 I was job-hunting earlier this year, driven but a desire to quit, but then hastened by my then employer. Prompted by a NY Times article, decided to analyze my rejection rate, the proportion of resume submissions to the relative successes of my last job search. I had started looking in early 2017, but not seriously until the end of the year and the beginning of 2018: - 43 companies received my resume - 28 submissions from me - 15 for which I was recruited - 15 phone interviews, usually the roles from recruiters - 12 on-site interviews, or multiples of - 1 offer - 3 that I declined to continue - 8 roles for which I was grossly overqualified, but roles I could enjoy - 2 were a stretch - 5 roles in another domain, for which I was technically overqualified I could have done without the direct submissions as historically all of my roles have come from recruiters...

#1 Although I can understand the feelings behind some of this behavior, and I am as skeptical of the tech monopolies goals and effects, being a Luddite is probably not the best way to handle the problem. Working in technology for the past 25 years, there has always been a need to stay ahead of the crushing wave you ride, to usurp the wave, to become the thing about to crush you. Typically, that means staying ahead of technology, to use it to automate yourself out of one's current role, and into a new one. That is not an option for most people. How can we help? It seems obvious that driverless cars can be a major enhancement over humans driving cars themselves, and I don't doubt that automation will ultimately be safer than human drivers, but how can we position technology to enhance our lives, while still allowing people to have a decent life? Do we require that all automation has a human handler? Can we make that handler role worthwhile to a person asked to perform it? Wi...

My first thought is that Trump's supporters will ultimately think he made some bad policy decisions, but that he was right in tone, and that the Democrats undermined him. To us, he seems flawed in every conceivable way, malevolent in his ignorance. Yes, some people will be so burned that they will change attitudes and parties, but the party of ignorance and regressiveness will likely remain the party of ignorance and regressiveness. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/us/farmers-trump-administration.html?#commentsContainer&permid=30101269

#1 @Jim Cricket - I think there might have been a more direct or apropos moral to the story, at least as it relates to Trump, in that he goes around blaming everyone else, fires them, until his term ends -  the bottom of the bowl -  and there is only one person left, and everyone realizes that there is only one person to blame, Trump himself. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/22/us/politics/trump-two-years.html?comments#permid=29862349:29864948 #2 Some people have seen a method to the madness of Trump, but he has always been a blithering, destructive idiot, and artless, heartless, and ignorant man. The only real question is how can we stop him? Minor mention, many, myself included, have thought impeachment might be problematic, Trump replaced by Pence, but considering all the harm Trump has caused, Pence would never really be quite so bad. Bad, but not nearly so.

Consumers need to bear the brunt of a decent wage, mandated by law, a sufficient living one, and when enacted across the board, prices rise such that we are paying adequately. If left to individual restauranteurs it will always be a race to the bottom... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/21/nyregion/the-misadventures-of-an-idealistic-restaurant-in-a-cut-throat-city.html?comments#permid=29866833