CDZ Will Jobs or People be Faster to Flee?

[anotherlife]

Will Jobs or People be Faster to Flee?

Insofar as most people are economically irrational and don't have the sense to exit an unprofitable labor market and enter a different profitable one, I must answer by saying that jobs will depart first.

Need evidence of that irrationality?

• Look at all the folks who think the coal industry is going to somehow resurrect -- either resurrect itself or, worse, have the rest of us subsidize it -- and again pay as it did 40 years ago.
• Look at the the folks who some 20+ years ago, in spite of seeing the coming of the "age of high tech" used none of their resources to prepare themselves or their kids to obtain decent-paying jobs ($120K - $200K per year) in that age.
• Look at the folks who want to work in a "put the square peg in the square hole" manufacturing jobs, and who yet remain in the U.S. where such jobs are few and far between enough that there will not ever again be as many of them as there are people hoping against all hope want there to be. Quite simply, for such folks, if that's how they aim to make a good living, their "oyster" will not be found in the U.S. They need to go elsewhere, yet they won't/don't.

Yes, jobs will flee faster, but no, people can't make the provisions that you are listing, to bring themselves from irrationality to rationality. This is because people are not programmable computers but rather like geographic entities. So, like geographic entities, some of them is suitable for doing one thing, some others another thing, but never all things.

Automation has greatly reduced the options of what people have an opportunity to do. If you need to develop a genius IQ before even searching for a job, then the high tech on your list did not replace the coal miner and the Charlie Chaplin factory laborer.

But why not, that is why crime rises and we open construction job opportunities in prison construction and prison services and court services and police and all these jobs.

If you need to develop a genius IQ before even searching for a job, then the high tech on your list did not replace the coal miner and the Charlie Chaplin factory laborer.

If one needed to do, then I wouldn't have written what I did. Having hired, worked with and myself being a non-genius [1], I can assure you that very few high tech jobs require tacitly that one be a genius in order to ably perform them. [2] Moreover, there are few (maybe no) jobs that explicitly stipulate among their qualifications that one be a genius. What one does need to do is comprehend a particular set of information and become adept at performing certain very-learnable skills and techniques.

Doing so requires will and only an average to slightly above average sum of wit. One need not even know about any specific individual's innate acumen to see that is so. Simply look at the distribution of IQs across a population.

​

It'd preposterous to think that only something fewer than 2% of the people in the U.S. population are able to perform the types of good-paying jobs ($120K+) available in the U.S., be those jobs in the tech industry or some other industry.

Remember, the tacit/contextual crux of my assertions is that one needs to either obtain the skills to do the jobs that are on offer or move to where the skills one has are sought. While these days few and far between are jobs that do not call for one to be able to use "this or that" form of technology, many are the available jobs whereby merely using technology is the limit of tech skill one must possess. Put another way, in the U.S., one does not need a degree in computer science or engineering to get a good job; however, having no facility for at least using technology, one is unlikely to get a good job in the U.S.


Notes:

1. For simplicity's sake, I'm using an IQ test score of 140+ as the dividing line between genius and non-genius. I realize that Mensa grants admission to individuals who in certain years scored above 1250 on the SAT. I and scads of others "pass muster" in that regard; however, for myself and among my classmates for whom I know that to be the case, it's only because we "busted ass" to do well in school and learn (not memorize) the content we were taught.
   
   I may have a mistaken understanding of what genius is, but in my mind, it's what my classmate Chris was and remains. Countless were the days and nights when I and my roommate in high school poured over our assignments trying to make sense of "this and that" and find the relationships among ideas, matters and techniques, and Chris would come knocking to see if we'd finished studying and wanted to play a game or get into some sort of mischief.
   
   With utter amazement on our faces, we could only respond with something like, "Man, we're still trying to prove Euler's formula. When we get done or give up, yeah, sure we'll join you in doing something worthy of a demerit or two." Chris, ever the gentleman, simply said, "Okay," and offered to help us. We weren't as gifted as Chris, but we weren't so dimwitted that we declined his offer. To this day, I owe a material share of what I learned in high school to his generosity and the good fortune I had in having a roommate who, like me recognized and appreciated Chris' intellect rather than, as was so among most of the rest of our class, despising him for being thus blessed.
   
   Chris just "gets it," so to speak. The guy has a seemingly eidetic memory and regardless of the nature of the topic -- arts, sciences, math, history, whatever -- everything just seems to "click" for him the instant he encounters it. Of course, as does everyone else, he has to invest time gathering information, but he requires markedly less time than does damn near everyone else to comprehend it. I, in contrast, have to gather information, take notes, formulate questions to ask myself based on the information, review the information to find the answers, and so on. (Obviously, as one learns more and more over the years, it takes less and less time to comprehend both completely new content and content related to information/ideas one previously mastered or encountered. Such is the impact of frames of reference.) Thus in my mind, genius and non-genius are distinguished not by what one can and cannot master, but by how long it takes to do so.
   
2. While my firm (global management consulting) doesn't explicitly test applicants' IQ, it's a safe bet that most people we hire will score somewhere in the 120 to 140 range. That, of course, should not surprise anyone for our starting salaries for newly minted undergraduates having no management-consulting-related prior work experience ranges from ~$65K to ~$80K. That said, most of our positions and career paths are not specifically technology roles, but rather business/information analysis and sales jobs.

If I understand correctly what you are writing here, the competition is in dynamic structures that people individually develop in order to process information. This still supports my point though. In addition, this may not even be a finite system, because information explicit and implied are different in different languages.

I live in an area where 3 languages are regularly spoken everywhere, French, German, and even English in offices. The more various implied structures and inferences you need to go through, the slower you progress with it. Even more challenging is when incoming material is by people who never learnt in school how to structure paragraphs and information in general.

This can be even harder than being a maths student with the wildest analytical problem.

So, the problem remains, natural selection and time makes it harder to survive even in your business. Time itself can reduce your ability to adapt to information. So a strategy of moving becomes self depleting too.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point. Looking at your bell curve diagram, the survival zone seems shifting graduall to the right.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Will Jobs or People be Faster to Flee?

Insofar as most people are economically irrational and don't have the sense to exit an unprofitable labor market and enter a different profitable one, I must answer by saying that jobs will depart first.

Need evidence of that irrationality?

• Look at all the folks who think the coal industry is going to somehow resurrect -- either resurrect itself or, worse, have the rest of us subsidize it -- and again pay as it did 40 years ago.
• Look at the the folks who some 20+ years ago, in spite of seeing the coming of the "age of high tech" used none of their resources to prepare themselves or their kids to obtain decent-paying jobs ($120K - $200K per year) in that age.
• Look at the folks who want to work in a "put the square peg in the square hole" manufacturing jobs, and who yet remain in the U.S. where such jobs are few and far between enough that there will not ever again be as many of them as there are people hoping against all hope want there to be. Quite simply, for such folks, if that's how they aim to make a good living, their "oyster" will not be found in the U.S. They need to go elsewhere, yet they won't/don't.

Yes, jobs will flee faster, but no, people can't make the provisions that you are listing, to bring themselves from irrationality to rationality. This is because people are not programmable computers but rather like geographic entities. So, like geographic entities, some of them is suitable for doing one thing, some others another thing, but never all things.

Automation has greatly reduced the options of what people have an opportunity to do. If you need to develop a genius IQ before even searching for a job, then the high tech on your list did not replace the coal miner and the Charlie Chaplin factory laborer.

But why not, that is why crime rises and we open construction job opportunities in prison construction and prison services and court services and police and all these jobs.

If you need to develop a genius IQ before even searching for a job, then the high tech on your list did not replace the coal miner and the Charlie Chaplin factory laborer.

If one needed to do, then I wouldn't have written what I did. Having hired, worked with and myself being a non-genius [1], I can assure you that very few high tech jobs require tacitly that one be a genius in order to ably perform them. [2] Moreover, there are few (maybe no) jobs that explicitly stipulate among their qualifications that one be a genius. What one does need to do is comprehend a particular set of information and become adept at performing certain very-learnable skills and techniques.

Doing so requires will and only an average to slightly above average sum of wit. One need not even know about any specific individual's innate acumen to see that is so. Simply look at the distribution of IQs across a population.

​

It'd preposterous to think that only something fewer than 2% of the people in the U.S. population are able to perform the types of good-paying jobs ($120K+) available in the U.S., be those jobs in the tech industry or some other industry.

Remember, the tacit/contextual crux of my assertions is that one needs to either obtain the skills to do the jobs that are on offer or move to where the skills one has are sought. While these days few and far between are jobs that do not call for one to be able to use "this or that" form of technology, many are the available jobs whereby merely using technology is the limit of tech skill one must possess. Put another way, in the U.S., one does not need a degree in computer science or engineering to get a good job; however, having no facility for at least using technology, one is unlikely to get a good job in the U.S.


Notes:

1. For simplicity's sake, I'm using an IQ test score of 140+ as the dividing line between genius and non-genius. I realize that Mensa grants admission to individuals who in certain years scored above 1250 on the SAT. I and scads of others "pass muster" in that regard; however, for myself and among my classmates for whom I know that to be the case, it's only because we "busted ass" to do well in school and learn (not memorize) the content we were taught.
   
   I may have a mistaken understanding of what genius is, but in my mind, it's what my classmate Chris was and remains. Countless were the days and nights when I and my roommate in high school poured over our assignments trying to make sense of "this and that" and find the relationships among ideas, matters and techniques, and Chris would come knocking to see if we'd finished studying and wanted to play a game or get into some sort of mischief.
   
   With utter amazement on our faces, we could only respond with something like, "Man, we're still trying to prove Euler's formula. When we get done or give up, yeah, sure we'll join you in doing something worthy of a demerit or two." Chris, ever the gentleman, simply said, "Okay," and offered to help us. We weren't as gifted as Chris, but we weren't so dimwitted that we declined his offer. To this day, I owe a material share of what I learned in high school to his generosity and the good fortune I had in having a roommate who, like me recognized and appreciated Chris' intellect rather than, as was so among most of the rest of our class, despising him for being thus blessed.
   
   Chris just "gets it," so to speak. The guy has a seemingly eidetic memory and regardless of the nature of the topic -- arts, sciences, math, history, whatever -- everything just seems to "click" for him the instant he encounters it. Of course, as does everyone else, he has to invest time gathering information, but he requires markedly less time than does damn near everyone else to comprehend it. I, in contrast, have to gather information, take notes, formulate questions to ask myself based on the information, review the information to find the answers, and so on. (Obviously, as one learns more and more over the years, it takes less and less time to comprehend both completely new content and content related to information/ideas one previously mastered or encountered. Such is the impact of frames of reference.) Thus in my mind, genius and non-genius are distinguished not by what one can and cannot master, but by how long it takes to do so.
   
2. While my firm (global management consulting) doesn't explicitly test applicants' IQ, it's a safe bet that most people we hire will score somewhere in the 120 to 140 range. That, of course, should not surprise anyone for our starting salaries for newly minted undergraduates having no management-consulting-related prior work experience ranges from ~$65K to ~$80K. That said, most of our positions and career paths are not specifically technology roles, but rather business/information analysis and sales jobs.

If I understand correctly what you are writing here, the competition is in dynamic structures that people individually develop in order to process information. This still supports my point though. In addition, this may not even be a finite system, because information explicit and implied are different in different languages.

I live in an area where 3 languages are regularly spoken everywhere, French, German, and even English in offices. The more various implied structures and inferences you need to go through, the slower you progress with it. Even more challenging is when incoming material is by people who never learnt in school how to structure paragraphs and information in general.

This can be even harder than being a maths student with the vildest analytical problem.

So, the problem remains, natural selection and time makes it harder to survive even in your business. Time itself can reduce your ability to adapt to information. So a strategy of moving becomes self depleting too.

Maybe I am misunderstanding our point. Looking at your bell curve diagram, the survival zone seems shifting graduall to the right.

If I understand correctly what you are writing here, the competition is in dynamic structures that people individually develop in order to process information.

You didn't. I wasn't at all writing about competition.

 

[anotherlife]

Will Jobs or People be Faster to Flee?

Insofar as most people are economically irrational and don't have the sense to exit an unprofitable labor market and enter a different profitable one, I must answer by saying that jobs will depart first.

Need evidence of that irrationality?

• Look at all the folks who think the coal industry is going to somehow resurrect -- either resurrect itself or, worse, have the rest of us subsidize it -- and again pay as it did 40 years ago.
• Look at the the folks who some 20+ years ago, in spite of seeing the coming of the "age of high tech" used none of their resources to prepare themselves or their kids to obtain decent-paying jobs ($120K - $200K per year) in that age.
• Look at the folks who want to work in a "put the square peg in the square hole" manufacturing jobs, and who yet remain in the U.S. where such jobs are few and far between enough that there will not ever again be as many of them as there are people hoping against all hope want there to be. Quite simply, for such folks, if that's how they aim to make a good living, their "oyster" will not be found in the U.S. They need to go elsewhere, yet they won't/don't.

Yes, jobs will flee faster, but no, people can't make the provisions that you are listing, to bring themselves from irrationality to rationality. This is because people are not programmable computers but rather like geographic entities. So, like geographic entities, some of them is suitable for doing one thing, some others another thing, but never all things.

Automation has greatly reduced the options of what people have an opportunity to do. If you need to develop a genius IQ before even searching for a job, then the high tech on your list did not replace the coal miner and the Charlie Chaplin factory laborer.

But why not, that is why crime rises and we open construction job opportunities in prison construction and prison services and court services and police and all these jobs.

This is because people are not programmable computers but rather like geographic entities. So, like geographic entities, some of them is suitable for doing one thing, some others another thing, but never all things.

What do you think a "geographic entity" is?

As I understand the term it's a place. People are not like places. People, unlike places, can move to new places. Indeed, people are so much unlike places that when as children we are taught the parts of speech, we are told that a noun is a word that represents a person, place or thing. Trust me, that was not "fake news." LOL

I am gradually arriving at a solid observation, that people are part of the land that they are born at. Not only this, but also even more importantly, the capabilities of human individuals are set at birth, in addition to the effect of their early living environment. This makes humans geographic entities.

Based on his birth capabilities and early environment, a never educated Chinese peasant can perform better than a Harward graduate in a global management consultancy in Luxemburg, if he gets an access. But the Harward graduate can never transform himself to become that Chinese peasant, and that peasant can never transform itself to become a Harward graduate either.

 

[anotherlife]

Will Jobs or People be Faster to Flee?

Insofar as most people are economically irrational and don't have the sense to exit an unprofitable labor market and enter a different profitable one, I must answer by saying that jobs will depart first.

Need evidence of that irrationality?

• Look at all the folks who think the coal industry is going to somehow resurrect -- either resurrect itself or, worse, have the rest of us subsidize it -- and again pay as it did 40 years ago.
• Look at the the folks who some 20+ years ago, in spite of seeing the coming of the "age of high tech" used none of their resources to prepare themselves or their kids to obtain decent-paying jobs ($120K - $200K per year) in that age.
• Look at the folks who want to work in a "put the square peg in the square hole" manufacturing jobs, and who yet remain in the U.S. where such jobs are few and far between enough that there will not ever again be as many of them as there are people hoping against all hope want there to be. Quite simply, for such folks, if that's how they aim to make a good living, their "oyster" will not be found in the U.S. They need to go elsewhere, yet they won't/don't.

Yes, jobs will flee faster, but no, people can't make the provisions that you are listing, to bring themselves from irrationality to rationality. This is because people are not programmable computers but rather like geographic entities. So, like geographic entities, some of them is suitable for doing one thing, some others another thing, but never all things.

Automation has greatly reduced the options of what people have an opportunity to do. If you need to develop a genius IQ before even searching for a job, then the high tech on your list did not replace the coal miner and the Charlie Chaplin factory laborer.

But why not, that is why crime rises and we open construction job opportunities in prison construction and prison services and court services and police and all these jobs.

If you need to develop a genius IQ before even searching for a job, then the high tech on your list did not replace the coal miner and the Charlie Chaplin factory laborer.

If one needed to do, then I wouldn't have written what I did. Having hired, worked with and myself being a non-genius [1], I can assure you that very few high tech jobs require tacitly that one be a genius in order to ably perform them. [2] Moreover, there are few (maybe no) jobs that explicitly stipulate among their qualifications that one be a genius. What one does need to do is comprehend a particular set of information and become adept at performing certain very-learnable skills and techniques.

Doing so requires will and only an average to slightly above average sum of wit. One need not even know about any specific individual's innate acumen to see that is so. Simply look at the distribution of IQs across a population.

​

It'd preposterous to think that only something fewer than 2% of the people in the U.S. population are able to perform the types of good-paying jobs ($120K+) available in the U.S., be those jobs in the tech industry or some other industry.

Remember, the tacit/contextual crux of my assertions is that one needs to either obtain the skills to do the jobs that are on offer or move to where the skills one has are sought. While these days few and far between are jobs that do not call for one to be able to use "this or that" form of technology, many are the available jobs whereby merely using technology is the limit of tech skill one must possess. Put another way, in the U.S., one does not need a degree in computer science or engineering to get a good job; however, having no facility for at least using technology, one is unlikely to get a good job in the U.S.


Notes:

1. For simplicity's sake, I'm using an IQ test score of 140+ as the dividing line between genius and non-genius. I realize that Mensa grants admission to individuals who in certain years scored above 1250 on the SAT. I and scads of others "pass muster" in that regard; however, for myself and among my classmates for whom I know that to be the case, it's only because we "busted ass" to do well in school and learn (not memorize) the content we were taught.
   
   I may have a mistaken understanding of what genius is, but in my mind, it's what my classmate Chris was and remains. Countless were the days and nights when I and my roommate in high school poured over our assignments trying to make sense of "this and that" and find the relationships among ideas, matters and techniques, and Chris would come knocking to see if we'd finished studying and wanted to play a game or get into some sort of mischief.
   
   With utter amazement on our faces, we could only respond with something like, "Man, we're still trying to prove Euler's formula. When we get done or give up, yeah, sure we'll join you in doing something worthy of a demerit or two." Chris, ever the gentleman, simply said, "Okay," and offered to help us. We weren't as gifted as Chris, but we weren't so dimwitted that we declined his offer. To this day, I owe a material share of what I learned in high school to his generosity and the good fortune I had in having a roommate who, like me recognized and appreciated Chris' intellect rather than, as was so among most of the rest of our class, despising him for being thus blessed.
   
   Chris just "gets it," so to speak. The guy has a seemingly eidetic memory and regardless of the nature of the topic -- arts, sciences, math, history, whatever -- everything just seems to "click" for him the instant he encounters it. Of course, as does everyone else, he has to invest time gathering information, but he requires markedly less time than does damn near everyone else to comprehend it. I, in contrast, have to gather information, take notes, formulate questions to ask myself based on the information, review the information to find the answers, and so on. (Obviously, as one learns more and more over the years, it takes less and less time to comprehend both completely new content and content related to information/ideas one previously mastered or encountered. Such is the impact of frames of reference.) Thus in my mind, genius and non-genius are distinguished not by what one can and cannot master, but by how long it takes to do so.
   
2. While my firm (global management consulting) doesn't explicitly test applicants' IQ, it's a safe bet that most people we hire will score somewhere in the 120 to 140 range. That, of course, should not surprise anyone for our starting salaries for newly minted undergraduates having no management-consulting-related prior work experience ranges from ~$65K to ~$80K. That said, most of our positions and career paths are not specifically technology roles, but rather business/information analysis and sales jobs.

If I understand correctly what you are writing here, the competition is in dynamic structures that people individually develop in order to process information. This still supports my point though. In addition, this may not even be a finite system, because information explicit and implied are different in different languages.

I live in an area where 3 languages are regularly spoken everywhere, French, German, and even English in offices. The more various implied structures and inferences you need to go through, the slower you progress with it. Even more challenging is when incoming material is by people who never learnt in school how to structure paragraphs and information in general.

This can be even harder than being a maths student with the vildest analytical problem.

So, the problem remains, natural selection and time makes it harder to survive even in your business. Time itself can reduce your ability to adapt to information. So a strategy of moving becomes self depleting too.

Maybe I am misunderstanding our point. Looking at your bell curve diagram, the survival zone seems shifting graduall to the right.

If I understand correctly what you are writing here, the competition is in dynamic structures that people individually develop in order to process information.

You didn't. I wasn't at all writing about competition.

When people are called to move or study, that is for competition.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Will Jobs or People be Faster to Flee?

Insofar as most people are economically irrational and don't have the sense to exit an unprofitable labor market and enter a different profitable one, I must answer by saying that jobs will depart first.

Need evidence of that irrationality?

• Look at all the folks who think the coal industry is going to somehow resurrect -- either resurrect itself or, worse, have the rest of us subsidize it -- and again pay as it did 40 years ago.
• Look at the the folks who some 20+ years ago, in spite of seeing the coming of the "age of high tech" used none of their resources to prepare themselves or their kids to obtain decent-paying jobs ($120K - $200K per year) in that age.
• Look at the folks who want to work in a "put the square peg in the square hole" manufacturing jobs, and who yet remain in the U.S. where such jobs are few and far between enough that there will not ever again be as many of them as there are people hoping against all hope want there to be. Quite simply, for such folks, if that's how they aim to make a good living, their "oyster" will not be found in the U.S. They need to go elsewhere, yet they won't/don't.

Yes, jobs will flee faster, but no, people can't make the provisions that you are listing, to bring themselves from irrationality to rationality. This is because people are not programmable computers but rather like geographic entities. So, like geographic entities, some of them is suitable for doing one thing, some others another thing, but never all things.

Automation has greatly reduced the options of what people have an opportunity to do. If you need to develop a genius IQ before even searching for a job, then the high tech on your list did not replace the coal miner and the Charlie Chaplin factory laborer.

But why not, that is why crime rises and we open construction job opportunities in prison construction and prison services and court services and police and all these jobs.

This is because people are not programmable computers but rather like geographic entities. So, like geographic entities, some of them is suitable for doing one thing, some others another thing, but never all things.

What do you think a "geographic entity" is?

As I understand the term it's a place. People are not like places. People, unlike places, can move to new places. Indeed, people are so much unlike places that when as children we are taught the parts of speech, we are told that a noun is a word that represents a person, place or thing. Trust me, that was not "fake news." LOL

I am gradually arriving at a solid observation, that people are part of the land that they are born at. Not only this, but also even more importantly, the capabilities of human individuals are set at birth, in addition to the effect of their early living environment. This makes humans geographic entities.

A never educated Chinese peasant can perform better than a Harward graduate in a global management consultancy in Luxemburg, if he gets an access. But the Harward graduate can never transform himself to become that Chinese peasant, and that peasant can never transform itself to become a Harward graduate either.

I am gradually arriving at a solid observation, that people are part of the land that they are born at.

You should move with all deliberate haste to disabuse yourself of that notion. While one might be able to figuratively say that the land is part of the people who occupy it, the reverse simply is not so. People, unlike trees (which actually are part of the land) can move among places. They can take a quantity of the dirt with them, but they cannot take the land with them when the move to a new land. The only attachment people have with the land is emotional, and emotional bonds need not be discarded when one moves to a new land.

A never educated Chinese peasant can perform better than a Harward graduate in a global management consultancy in Luxemburg, if he gets an access. But the Harward graduate can never transform himself to become that Chinese peasant, and that peasant can never transform itself to become a Harward graduate either.

What? What on earth makes you think that a Harvard graduate cannot be taught whatever one must know and do to be a peasant in China and, in turn, farm a parcel of land? I doubt any Harvard graduate would do so, but whether they can do so is not in question.

Going the other way -- from peasant to graduating from a good U.S. college -- is also not impossible from the standpoint of the peasant's having or not having the mental acuity to do so. To be sure, it's not at all easy either, but that appears to be largely a function of rural schools peasants attend having a dearth of resources for educating students, not because the students have the brains and/or will to do so.

A never educated Chinese peasant can perform better than a Harward graduate in a global management consultancy in Luxemburg, if he gets an access.

WTF are you thinking!?! Did you write that while under the influence of a mind-altering substance? "Never educated" people -- be they Chinese or any other nationality, peasant or wealthy -- absolutely cannot "perform better than a Harvard graduate in a global management consultancy in Luxemburg." They cannot because among the many things an education provides is literacy, which is an absolute requirement for working in any capacity at any global management consultancy.

 

[anotherlife]

Will Jobs or People be Faster to Flee?

Insofar as most people are economically irrational and don't have the sense to exit an unprofitable labor market and enter a different profitable one, I must answer by saying that jobs will depart first.

Need evidence of that irrationality?

• Look at all the folks who think the coal industry is going to somehow resurrect -- either resurrect itself or, worse, have the rest of us subsidize it -- and again pay as it did 40 years ago.
• Look at the the folks who some 20+ years ago, in spite of seeing the coming of the "age of high tech" used none of their resources to prepare themselves or their kids to obtain decent-paying jobs ($120K - $200K per year) in that age.
• Look at the folks who want to work in a "put the square peg in the square hole" manufacturing jobs, and who yet remain in the U.S. where such jobs are few and far between enough that there will not ever again be as many of them as there are people hoping against all hope want there to be. Quite simply, for such folks, if that's how they aim to make a good living, their "oyster" will not be found in the U.S. They need to go elsewhere, yet they won't/don't.

Yes, jobs will flee faster, but no, people can't make the provisions that you are listing, to bring themselves from irrationality to rationality. This is because people are not programmable computers but rather like geographic entities. So, like geographic entities, some of them is suitable for doing one thing, some others another thing, but never all things.

Automation has greatly reduced the options of what people have an opportunity to do. If you need to develop a genius IQ before even searching for a job, then the high tech on your list did not replace the coal miner and the Charlie Chaplin factory laborer.

But why not, that is why crime rises and we open construction job opportunities in prison construction and prison services and court services and police and all these jobs.

This is because people are not programmable computers but rather like geographic entities. So, like geographic entities, some of them is suitable for doing one thing, some others another thing, but never all things.

What do you think a "geographic entity" is?

As I understand the term it's a place. People are not like places. People, unlike places, can move to new places. Indeed, people are so much unlike places that when as children we are taught the parts of speech, we are told that a noun is a word that represents a person, place or thing. Trust me, that was not "fake news." LOL

I am gradually arriving at a solid observation, that people are part of the land that they are born at. Not only this, but also even more importantly, the capabilities of human individuals are set at birth, in addition to the effect of their early living environment. This makes humans geographic entities.

A never educated Chinese peasant can perform better than a Harward graduate in a global management consultancy in Luxemburg, if he gets an access. But the Harward graduate can never transform himself to become that Chinese peasant, and that peasant can never transform itself to become a Harward graduate either.

I am gradually arriving at a solid observation, that people are part of the land that they are born at.

You should move with all deliberate haste to disabuse yourself of that notion. While one might be able to figuratively say that the land is part of the people who occupy it, the reverse simply is not so. People, unlike trees (which actually are part of the land) can move among places. They can take a quantity of the dirt with them, but they cannot take the land with them when the move to a new land. The only attachment people have with the land is emotional, and emotional bonds need not be discarded when one moves to a new land.

A never educated Chinese peasant can perform better than a Harward graduate in a global management consultancy in Luxemburg, if he gets an access. But the Harward graduate can never transform himself to become that Chinese peasant, and that peasant can never transform itself to become a Harward graduate either.

What? What on earth makes you think that a Harvard graduate cannot be taught whatever one must know and do to be a peasant in China and, in turn, farm a parcel of land? I doubt any Harvard graduate would do so, but whether they can do so is not in question.

Going the other way -- from peasant to graduating from a good U.S. college -- is also not impossible from the standpoint of the peasant's having or not having the mental acuity to do so. To be sure, it's not at all easy either, but that appears to be largely a function of rural schools peasants attend having a dearth of resources for educating students, not because the students have the brains and/or will to do so.

A never educated Chinese peasant can perform better than a Harward graduate in a global management consultancy in Luxemburg, if he gets an access.

WTF are you thinking!?! Did you write that while under the influence of a mind-altering substance? "Never educated" people -- be they Chinese or any other nationality, peasant or wealthy -- absolutely cannot "perform better than a Harvard graduate in a global management consultancy in Luxemburg." They cannot because among the many things an education provides is literacy, which is an absolute requirement for working in any capacity at any global management consultancy.

Okay, we can go item by item to address your points.

1. Strange it may sound, but no, people can't move, they are very much like trees. Deport them like the socialist always do, and observe that they stop thriving forever, eventually they disband and decompose into the national majority bio mass.

2. It supports my point, that the peasant that can finish Harward cannot be swapped with the other peasant that can't, the peasants are geographic entities, not inter changeable. The same way, a Harward graduate can learn how to be a peasant, and another Harward graduate can never learn how to be a peasant. Geographic entities.

3. No, because he will fail in his education, whilst the other one will go a good length learning on the job even before he begins his education.

 

[deanrd]

There will be a great gnashing of Teeth in the Blue Wall as the tax base shrinks and companies head for the state line. There will be some replacement as felonious illegal immigrants run to the sanctuaries. In businesses where being rich is fairly common:

Banking;

Securities;

Commodities;

High Tech;

Living inside the Blue Wall will become suicidal quickly. But with wages, pensions and home values going down people who think of themselves as middle class in Blue states will be hit hard, particularly among those who work in state and local government. In low tax states the exact opposite will happen but with lower amplitude. Vegas, Nashville, Austin, New Orleans and similar party towns outside the Blue Wall will do especially well. So pensioners who have already moved out of the blue wall will be the only major loser in the Red Edge.

What did I miss?

87% of lost manufacturing jobs were automated. Republicans are terrified their base will find out.

 

[Tax Man]

One thing for sure, it will be hard to keep property taxes high in blue states. Gee guys, what you going to cut?

Conservative freeloaders, AKA welfare cheats.

 

[Tax Man]

9 U.S. states with the highest income inequality

While I am an admirer William, I think you are jumping the gun. In all these examples the average of the bottom 99 is less than 60,000. So a lot of people are getting tax cuts. All big business is repatriating trillions and the corporate tax rate is going down. I mean online shopping is more of a,threat than this tax bill.

You are mistaking my point. In NY where my wife is from, near the Canadian border the poverty is much worse than in MS and AL because prices are so high, particularly for heating in the 6-9 months with snow on the ground and a massive hypothermia threat. This is not a joke, high four/low five figure heating bills are common even in relatively warm years. My in-laws had multiple heating systems so they would not freeze to death in case one broke down. RI and MA are both considerably better and still shockingly bad, Camp Hill AL and Biloxi MS looked and felt better than either of them.

Those shithole southern states suck. I was there and could not find a single person with common sense or an ability to figure logically. Then there is the weather and the language that isn't real english but some bastardised form.

 

[Shrimpbox]

We’ll be tickled to death if you will just stay up north with all the smart people.

 

[Wyatt earp]

As in attempting socialism destroyed the first English colony in North America and nearly destroyed the next three or four?

No, in 1800 were there more or fewer "socialist" provisions or regulations or taxes than in 1900 and why?

Change the goal.post much ?.he answered your question socialism came first in America it didn't work.

 

[william the wie]

We’ll be tickled to death if you will just stay up north with all the smart people.

You mean the people who didn't realize that the cheapest build and highest return location for a high speed rail is from TX to MN?

 

[Shrimpbox]

Why is that true will?

I would have thought the I 10 corridor from coast to coast or an Atlanta to Miami with a spur to Tampa and fort Myers.

 

[william the wie]

Why is that true will?

I would have thought the I 10 corridor from coast to coast or an Atlanta to Miami with a spur to Tampa and fort Myers.

Houston and Chicago are the third and fourth largest cities in the country with other large cities along the way and land costs/mile are a lot cheaper if you avoid the redneck Riviera. The I 10 corridor is also better than the other high-speed rail routes tried so far but saying that it makes more sense than Boston-Washington or the idiocy in CA would be damning the idea with extremely faint praise.

The throughput from water ports is what is critical with the expansion of the Panama canal bringing more westPac goods and materials to and from the east and Gulf coasts. The Appalachins and Rockies create a lot of extra shipping costs. The Houston/Galvaston ports are huge as are NOLA and Baton Rouge. That counts a lot in knocking off shipping costs. The I 10 and I95 corridors also need high speed rail but the costs are higher and revenues lower even if only at the margin