CDZ And people have the gall to talk about how they've been "left behind," about what they can't do...

[320 Years of History]

People can't do "whatever" -- find a good job, transform themselves into something positive and different, etc. -- for one and only one reason: they just haven't the will to do it. Far too many folks gripe about the jobs that are gone and now they can't get work. Invariably they blame the President, regardless of which party's "guy" holds office.

I and others have consistently stated the old saw, "if life gives you lemons, make lemonade." In response, the lame sh*ts on here and in the "real world" have some sort of pathetic retort about "this or that" policy, or about "the establishment," or they resort to levying a multitude of emotionally onanistic (for them) epithets.

Well, enough. Last night I watched Penn and Teller: Fool Us. For those not familiar with the show, it's essentially a "contest" whereby magicians perform a trick. If the trick is beyond Penn and Teller's ability to discern how it's done, the performer gets a paid appearance in Penn and Teller's Las Vegas show.

The episode I watched featured a magician named Mahdi Gilbert. Mr. Gilbert is unassailable proof that that the only reason one cannot do whatever one wants to do has everything to do with one's lacking the will to make that thing happen and little to nothing to do with any government policies. Watch his act and you'll very soon see what I mean.

​

Now, how can one look at that performance and sit there and tell me that the government has anything to do with what one cannot achieve. That man wanted to do something -- something that was never imagined by anyone as thing he might even be able to do -- so much that he found a way to do it. He built upon the existing field of theory and practice as goes card magic and innovated new ways to do things that others were doing and there there simply is no way he can do them as others do them. He did that entirely on his own. To boot, his results are outstanding.

After having seen his act, you know as well as I that Mr. Gilbert could very easily and literally have just sat on his ass and made nothing of himself. But that's not what he did. So tell me why it is that man can harness his passion and intellect to do what he did, why folks who have a far fewer disadvantages cannot for their own sakes innovate their own way(s) to overcome the obstacles they face? Economically and entrepreneurially speaking, Mr. Gilbert looked at what life gave him and found a way to capitalize on it. From an engineering standpoint, he "built a better mousetrap." In short, he created opportunity for himself rather than just sitting on his ass waiting for one to fall into his lap.

 

[OldLady]

He built upon the existing field of theory and practice as goes card magic and innovated new ways to do things that others were doing and there there simply is no way he can do them as others do them. He did that entirely on his own.
You have a surprisingly optimistic view of all humans if you think each and every one of us is gifted with that kind of creativity and critical thinking. Or even the passion to try. Yes, those are the exceptions to the rule that we hold up as examples of what can be done, and it is fair to commend them. But the fact that Mr. Gilbert can do it and did do it does not mean that all people can do it.
Isn't that what is called a Hasty Generalization?

 

[320 Years of History]

He built upon the existing field of theory and practice as goes card magic and innovated new ways to do things that others were doing and [that] there simply is no way he can do them as others do them. He did that entirely on his own.
You have a surprisingly optimistic view of all humans if you think each and every one of us is gifted with that kind of creativity and critical thinking. Or even the passion to try. Yes, those are the exceptions to the rule that we hold up as examples of what can be done, and it is fair to commend them. But the fact that Mr. Gilbert can do it and did do it does not mean that all people can do it. Isn't that what is called a Hasty Generalization?

Red:
Perhaps I do. I am certain, however, that my optimism about humanity is something I hold in a general sense, not on a person by person basis. What I think about any given individual depends on what strengths and weaknesses the person manifests.

I've seen a wide variety of folks who, by common measures, aren't "supposed" to "make it" in American society defy that "common understanding." From folks like Mr. Gilger to destitute immigrants who arrive with nary a nickel to their name, to the greatly impoverished kids whom I mentor and so on. If those individuals can "make it" in the very same society that folks like you and I do, it stands to reason that either (1) the society itself enables success or (2) the society itself is a contributing but not controlling factor in facilitating success, or (2) the society itself has little to do with catalyzing success. If disadvantaged folks who by all indications are not "supposed to make it" in our country indeed do so to the same extent other middle and upper middle class folks do, it stands to reason that folks not hampered by those disadvantages have nothing to blame but themselves for their failure to "make it" to a similar degree.

Of course, the "passion to try"** is a critical factor. The thing is that few are folks who are devoid of passion for everything; everyone is "into" something. You know as well as I do that in the U.S. there is very little of which there is simply no way to parly one's passion into an economically successful endeavor. Moreover, to do so, one need not have been the first person to have thought of doing "whatever." The reality is that people who are passionate about what they do for a living are also good at doing it, and their aptitude and passion allows those individuals to rise to the top of the field. Everyone at the top -- and there's definitely room for more than one person at the top -- of a field of remunerative endeavor "makes it."

For example, there's no way anyone in their right mind would fund or encourage any lofty ambition and will I might have for being a ball player (doesn't matter what kind of ball). In contrast, I have the skills and abilities to be very effective as a school provost, dean of studies, headmaster or teacher, but not a school president/key fundraiser, and given the opportunity, I could acquire the requisite experience/training to perform well in those roles. I don't particularly want to pursue a career/job in those roles in spite of the fact that I'm able to perform in them. Similarly, I'll never be the general managing partner in a firm like mine; I have no desire to do the work they do and nor to do it as they must.

As another example, I offer my father. The man just loves to build and assemble things...big things, small things, it doesn't matter. Even at 97 he's still building things by hand. Even now he's in the process of building a small end table and chair to give to my daughter as a housewarming gift. He chose to follow that passion by forming a company that builds, maintains and develops real estate structures and properties. (I, on the other hand, have zero ongoing desire to build things, yet I view knowing how to do so as a useful skill and I get a kick out of doing it from time to time.) My oldest son shares Daddy's passion for building things; he'll surely carry on the family business whereas the only way I would have done so is if I just had to.

My kids, my parents, and myself would have no excuse or basis for complaining about the ills of society being causal in our not having made it were that to be what happens to us. We are white, we are all "to the manor born," and none of us has any physical or intellectual inabilities. Of those three factors, it's clear that the economic one is the one that is irrelevant for there are literally millions of folks who have "made it" and who didn't come from similarly advantaged backgrounds. I could have followed in Daddy's footsteps, but I didn't want to, so I had to "make it" on my own. Heck, I didn't even choose a career wherein my family's position could "open doors" for me.

As a result, it's clear to me that society is not the driving cause of our or anyone's success; we, each of us individually, are. Now one can either take ownership of that responsibility or one can opt not to. If one opts not to, one has no business complaining that one hasn't "made it." And that's the point I'm making in this post and the OP.


Blue:
I think, yes, those individuals are exceptions to the "rule" that applies to them and others like them who are born into incredibly challenging situations. It's not at all, IMO, the "rule" that applies to the majority of individuals in our society.

 

[OldLady]

Lots to unpack here. Maybe we should clarify what we're talking about. Are you talking about the "angry white men" we keep hearing about whose decent jobs have been sent overseas, who lost their retirements in 2008 and lost their homes shortly thereafter, who are blaming either the Democrats or Republicans for their economic unhappiness?

 

[320 Years of History]

Maybe we should clarify what we're talking about.

I'm talking about any individual or group that is complaining about their inability to obtain a "good paying" job as a result of the domestic and trade policies that have been implemented in the U.S.

 

[OldLady]

It's clear to me that society is not the driving cause of our or anyone's success; we, each of us individually, are. Now one can either take ownership of that responsibility or one can opt not to. If one opts not to, one has no business complaining that one hasn't "made it."

With all respect, I'm not sure you understand what's really going on off "the manor." People who had decent, steady jobs in any number of industries have seen those jobs flow to other countries. Each time a major business in an area leaves, it causes a ripple effect in the community--the mom and pop diners, the retail stores, tax rates and school programs--everything. Multiply that by thousands of times in thousands of towns over the past decade. People are hurting; they are working in lower paying jobs without security or benefits if they're lucky and most will never have the luxury of retiring. If that is the inevitable future, so be it. But this generation did not grow up expecting it and they are bitterly disappointed.

To me, your original argument is flawed in believing that everyone has the wherewithal to "make it to the top." The fact that some can and do build a better mousetrap and become a success does not mean that everyone can or that everyone should be expected to.

 

[Picaro]

Didn't read the entire OP, for the usual reasons, but I gather that now the solution of the day to Unemployment N Stuff is for everybody to become stage magicians and make a TV appearance once, and of course being on some UHF show once means you made millions and can retire, cuz everybody knows if you're on TV you just get rich overnight n stuff.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Didn't read the entire OP, for the usual reasons, but I gather that now the solution of the day to Unemployment N Stuff is for everybody to become stage magicians and make a TV appearance once, and of course being on some UHF show once means you made millions and can retire, cuz everybody knows if you're on TV you just get rich overnight n stuff.

I didn't read it either just the same old boring message..." if you are going to be a port a John cleaner be the best damn one possible "

Sounds reasonable to me.

Unless your attitude is " if I have to clean poop, be the laziest as one possible, they pretend to pay me, well..I will just sit here and play pokemon go and the government will help me"

 

[Picaro]

Didn't read the entire OP, for the usual reasons, but I gather that now the solution of the day to Unemployment N Stuff is for everybody to become stage magicians and make a TV appearance once, and of course being on some UHF show once means you made millions and can retire, cuz everybody knows if you're on TV you just get rich overnight n stuff.

I didn't read it either just the same old boring message..." if you are going to be a port a John cleaner be the best damn one possible "

Sounds reasonable to me.

Unless your attitude is " if I have to clean poop, be the laziest as one possible, they pretend to pay me, well..I will just sit here and play pokemon go and the government will help me"

Well, can't blame them, since that's the attitude that has worked so well for Wall Street and hedge fund managers for many many decades, since the Lincoln years. It's only natural that everybody else would want to emulate the top 1%'ers and a bunch of screw off nutjobs in academia. Why not copy those who are 'successful' by modern materialist standards?

 

[OldLady]

Maybe we should clarify what we're talking about.

I'm talking about any individual or group that is complaining about their inability to obtain a "good paying" job as a result of the domestic and trade policies that have been implemented in the U.S.

So, Let them eat cake?
I've read your reply, but it doesn't address my underlying question. Please explain how, in another of your threads yesterday, you argued that being very good at one thing doesn't generalize to whatever field of study you wish, yet here you argue that if someone was a skilled machinist in a paper mill for twenty years and knew it inside out, but the mill closed, somehow he is expected to become a talented musician or arborist and make it to the top?

 

[Hiryuu]

Well, can't blame them, since that's the attitude that has worked so well for Wall Street and hedge fund managers for many many decades, since the Lincoln years. It's only natural that everybody else would want to emulate the top 1%'ers and a bunch of screw off nutjobs in academia. Why not copy those who are 'successful' by modern materialist standards?

Such is the nature of their unfortunate misnomer in assuming "emulate" has any connection to their actual state of being in reference to reality.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Maybe we should clarify what we're talking about.

I'm talking about any individual or group that is complaining about their inability to obtain a "good paying" job as a result of the domestic and trade policies that have been implemented in the U.S.

Sort of correct. of course government policy can't give someone the ability and drive to succeed and life, but what it can do is give those who have the drive and ability an opportunity.

Right now a lot of opportunities aren't there simply because businesses are nervous about the future and are hanging on to what capital they DO have, instead of opening up opportunities for employees and potential employees. THAT is because of government policy.

 

[320 Years of History]

Maybe we should clarify what we're talking about.

I'm talking about any individual or group that is complaining about their inability to obtain a "good paying" job as a result of the domestic and trade policies that have been implemented in the U.S.

So, Let them eat cake?
I've read your reply, but it doesn't address my underlying question. Please explain how, in another of your threads yesterday, you argued that being very good at one thing doesn't generalize to whatever field of study you wish, yet here you argue that if someone was a skilled machinist in a paper mill for twenty years and knew it inside out, but the mill closed, somehow he is expected to become a talented musician or arborist and make it to the top?

Acquiring new skills and abilities is what makes that transformation happen.

If, for example, one has a "good job" as a paper mill worker, it's incumbent on one to "read the writing on the wall" and notice that the paper milling industry will contract within the short term (~5 years to 10 years), the thing to do is, while one still has one's "good paper milling job," begin the process of "retooling" one's skills and abilities. That is the burden of responsibility each and every person has, no matter what type of job one has.

One can

1. ignore that responsibility,
2. play the odds and hope that one will have amassed enough money from one's labor to afford one's retirement, or
3. heed the harbingers of one's industry and act to be prepared when the anvil falls.

Which of those course of action one follows is one's choice, but if one doesn't choose "door #3," one's plight cannot rightly be the fault of others, government, politicians, "the establishment," big business, etc.

Two examples:

• Back in the 1980s and 1990s, the impact of computerization and automation was widely discussed and their high level impacts were well understood and communicated not only in the news, economic and technology press, and scholarly journals, but also in popular fiction -- movies, books and television. Some big manufacturing industries had by then already implemented robots. We often heard about how the military and other large organizations were using computers to optimize and improve performance. We had Simon, cell phones, and ABS in our cars. Voicemail and automated communication switchboards were phasing out the human operators who answered our "411" an "0" calls. Calculators had replaced slide rules, computers were displacing typewriters, and so on. There were video games, programmable ovens, video recorders and digital watches. Those things were just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The clues were there for everyone to see, albeit not laid out on individual "silver platters" tailored to each and every worker's specific situation.
  
  Figuring out what the specific impact of computerization and automation (technology) would be on one's own life is left to each of us individually in a capitalist economy. In a command economy, the citizens don't have much choice in the matter; the government determines what labors, goods and services are needed and who will perform the needed labors, who will supply the needed goods and services. The government does so by noting that, say, I am really good at math and making available only those opportunities that, for example, lead to my becoming a physicist, math teacher or statistician. In a capitalist economy, I can become either of those things or an actuary, or something else entirely as befits my interests and compensation requirements.
  
  Now folks may wish to have "everything" spelled out "in black and white" specifically for them, "laid out on a silver platter," if you will, but that's an unrealistic expectation under capitalism and democracy. With great freedom comes great responsibility. Taking responsibility for one's outcome and future is just part of that responsibility. One need not like having to assume that aspect of personal responsibility, but assume it one must, or failing to do so, one will suffer the consequences of not having assumed it. The choice is one's own.
• In the 1990s, NAFTA was proposed and accepted and the agreement was widely described as a "free trade" agreement. The impact of NAFTA was easily predictable. One need only have read any basic explanation of the economic impacts -- pro and con -- of free trade to know what to have expected. I don't care if one used a computer to find the information on the WWW or went to one's local library, or any of a host of other means to find out about the economics of free trade. From there, one needed only to have cursorily compared labor rates abroad with those in the U.S. to have the information needed to infer that manufacturers would move their production facilities out of the U.S. and to less pricy labor markets.
  
  Furthermore, notwithstanding whatever our political leaders said, it hadn't been all that long before that we all heard President Reagan's sage words, "Trust, but verify." Doing exactly that, and doing it dispassionately and disinterestedly, is just another part of the personal responsibility one has to oneself. Nobody's waving a stick at one saying, "You will trust and verify." It's not a commandment; it's not a law. It's a duty one has to no one other than oneself. There again, one may do it or not, but in not doing it, one has nobody other than oneself to rightly blame when one inexorably suffers the consequence(s) of not having done it.
  
  One last thing as goes NAFTA specifically. It's not as though that agreement came about overnight. Ronald Reagan first proposed a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Mexico in his 1980 presidential campaign. The leaders of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. didn't sign such an agreement until 1992. Twelve years is more than enough time to "read the writing on the wall" and make sense of what it means. One will not be forced by others to do so, but one fails to do so at one's peril. Again, it's not anyone's fault but one's own that one didn't.

So, as I wrote at the outset of this post, upon seeing the clues, one should act to prepare for what's coming. Everyone saw the clues, but not everyone responded by preparing for what was to come. Now what was coming has arrived and some folks are benefitting from it and others are not.

 

[OldLady]

I agree with Fair & Balanced on this one--opportunities are not to be found for many people right now and no, 320, not everyone has the education or interest in economic and global affairs to proactively see the writing on the wall and figure out a way to jump back into however many years of college. Even if they are capable, which many aren't.

I've heard you express your belief before that everyone is as capable as you at analyzing the facts of the day and having the wherewithal to learn whatever is necessary to perform the job at hand. It just ain't so.

I think we have ill prepared a great deal of people for a quasi-academic experience in college because politicians discovered that college improves people's financial situation so let's push EVERYONE to go to college. The colleges are now teaching full remedial classes for high school "graduates" who can't read, write or cipher at college entry level. Many take a swing at it for a semester or a year and quit.

They haven't been trained in anything sensible, so they are left with no skills and no post secondary education and low paying jobs. I believe the whole K-12 system needs to be revamped according to our REAL goals in the twenty first century. We educate kids too long with too little result.

But anyway, I don't think your expectations are realistic. If you believe it is our own tough toenails if we fail, so be it. That is a fair stance. No one asked for your pity.

 

[320 Years of History]

not everyone has the education or interest in economic and global affairs to proactively see the writing on the wall and figure out a way to jump back into however many years of college.

Red:
I agree that not everyone has that interest to the extent I do. I think everyone is interested enough in how economic matters affect their lives. That "it's the economy, stupid" (or something akin to it) has been a recurring theme of most recent elections is proof of that.

Sidebar:

If folks haven't enough interest in economics to learn about it for their own benefit, by what right do they have any business griping or opining about "this or that" economic policy's merit?

For example, I don't care much, if at all, about how airplanes work. I just get on the plane and go for a ride. I'm certainly not going to refute or opine about the merit of what a pilot, aircraft engineer or aircraft maintenance person says about how the plane works or why it (or its design) works as it does or as they say it does.

In contrast, folks who are quick to complain about their economic situation are often the very same folks who have never bothered to discover what makes it so. Moreover, they are equally quick to ascribe their situation, if they don't like it, to someone/something else, yet if they like their circumstances, it's all because of themselves. These are the very same folks who want you, me, and everyone else to permit them to enter a voting booth and cast a ballot. Frankly, that that is actually permitted to occur is more disconcerting than is for whom they'll vote.​

End of sidebar.

Blue:
Let me be clear. College is one means of retooling one's skills. It happens to be the one I'd choose or advocate for a number of folks, but I'm well aware that it's not the only viable option. I don't as much care what retooling strategy folks choose; I care that they proactively bother to do so before it's too late for doing so to be of any value.

Even if they are capable, which many aren't.

I've heard you express your belief before that everyone is as capable as you at analyzing the facts of the day and having the wherewithal to learn whatever is necessary to perform the job at hand.

Many folks certainly haven't the disabilities Mr. Gilbert does. Relatively few people are intellectually disabled.

Red:
I don't think that everyone or most folks are as capable as I. Indeed, I'm well aware that research and the results of my own personal skills and inventory evaluations tell me that is not the case. (That's not an arrogant statement; it's simply a statement that reflects the fact that I'm aware of what the stats show and I know what my own performance ratings have been over the course of my life. It's neither a source of pride nor shame for me; it is what it is.)

The thing is, one doesn't need to be "more capable/smarter than the average bear" to find success and certainly not the kind that equates to a pleasant middle-class existence; moreover, it's not necessarily the case that folks who do find economic success are "more capable/smarter than the average bear." Mr. Gilbert and others like him are one class of folks who illustrate that axiom. Here's more. George W. Bush is about average as goes intellectually acuity, yet he became President, and I never will. He wanted to be President and he made it happen on his average intellect, and he made other successful choices. I don't want to President, but I've made plenty of other successful choices.

We educate kids too long with too little result.

You realize the other side of that saw is that kids go to school for too long and waste their potential and the opportunity they would have had coming to them were they to have studied more effectively and diligently.

No one asked for your pity.

Well thank God for that, for I'm rather penurious about offering it. <winks>

 

[Picaro]

Ah ... the old 'retooling' argument, as if it is incumbent on people to spend all of their free time and resources 'retraining' for the next imaginary 'job shortage' claims of private industry every two years. Never mind it's well documented that the vast majority of those claims of 'skill shortages' are mythical nonsense and such shortages never actually existed, and as soon as the media dutifully advertises some fake shortage or other in a field it almost immediately becomes glutted with 'retraining workers' chasing those imaginary jobs. It is a great cash cow for Jr. colleges and colleges, though, no doubt about it, so of course these schools also jump on the bandwagon and perpetuate these myths in pursuit of their own interests as well.

'Skilled' labor is no longer in demand, and it's time to face up to that reality; just stop tolerating illegal immigration and handing out green cards like leaflets and allow at least some real citizens to make a little more chump change in the Part Time economy the 'globalists' are so enthusiastic about. Education is too expensive and the actual returns on all this 'retooling' nonsense is far less than the effort and expense is worth for most. If employers need 'skilled labor' they should go about acquiring it the old fashioned way, by doing their own employee training, instead of sniveling for the government and others to do it for them. Most of the time their 'shortages' are self-inflicted, and a result of their own bad short sighted policies and sense of entitlement.

 

[yiostheoy]

Since the crash of 2008 the business recovery has been quite anemic and a lot of job seekers have not been able to find work.

Hence the recovery has been dampened by the lack of full employment.

Actual unemployment counting everyone is still quite high.

It is blind myopia that thinks there is any easy magical solution.

We are in the 8th year since the crash, and it looks like we will need another 2 or more years, like some said early on -- 5 to 10 years to fully recover from Wall Street speculation in junk mortgages which crashed the entire capital markets.

 

[OldLady]

not everyone has the education or interest in economic and global affairs to proactively see the writing on the wall and figure out a way to jump back into however many years of college.

Red:
I agree that not everyone has that interest to the extent I do. I think everyone is interested enough in how economic matters affect their lives. That "it's the economy, stupid" (or something akin to it) has been a recurring theme of most recent elections is proof of that.

Sidebar:

If folks haven't enough interest in economics to learn about it for their own benefit, by what right do they have any business griping or opining about "this or that" economic policy's merit?

For example, I don't care much, if at all, about how airplanes work. I just get on the plane and go for a ride. I'm certainly not going to refute or opine about the merit of what a pilot, aircraft engineer or aircraft maintenance person says about how the plane works or why it (or its design) works as it does or as they say it does.

In contrast, folks who are quick to complain about their economic situation are often the very same folks who have never bothered to discover what makes it so. Moreover, they are equally quick to ascribe their situation, if they don't like it, to someone/something else, yet if they like their circumstances, it's all because of themselves. These are the very same folks who want you, me, and everyone else to permit them to enter a voting booth and cast a ballot. Frankly, that that is actually permitted to occur is more disconcerting than is for whom they'll vote.​

End of sidebar.

Blue:
Let me be clear. College is one means of retooling one's skills. It happens to be the one I'd choose or advocate for a number of folks, but I'm well aware that it's not the only viable option. I don't as much care what retooling strategy folks choose; I care that they proactively bother to do so before it's too late for doing so to be of any value.

Even if they are capable, which many aren't.

I've heard you express your belief before that everyone is as capable as you at analyzing the facts of the day and having the wherewithal to learn whatever is necessary to perform the job at hand.

Many folks certainly haven't the disabilities Mr. Gilbert does. Relatively few people are intellectually disabled.

Red:
I don't think that everyone or most folks are as capable as I. Indeed, I'm well aware that research and the results of my own personal skills and inventory evaluations tell me that is not the case. (That's not an arrogant statement; it's simply a statement that reflects the fact that I'm aware of what the stats show and I know what my own performance ratings have been over the course of my life. It's neither a source of pride nor shame for me; it is what it is.)

The thing is, one doesn't need to be "more capable/smarter than the average bear" to find success and certainly not the kind that equates to a pleasant middle-class existence; moreover, it's not necessarily the case that folks who do find economic success are "more capable/smarter than the average bear." Mr. Gilbert and others like him are one class of folks who illustrate that axiom. Here's more. George W. Bush is about average as goes intellectually acuity, yet he became President, and I never will. He wanted to be President and he made it happen on his average intellect, and he made other successful choices. I don't want to President, but I've made plenty of other successful choices.

We educate kids too long with too little result.

You realize the other side of that saw is that kids go to school for too long and waste their potential and the opportunity they would have had coming to them were they to have studied more effectively and diligently.

No one asked for your pity.

Well thank God for that, for I'm rather penurious about offering it. <winks>

The thing is, one doesn't need to be "more capable/smarter than the average bear" to find success and certainly not the kind that equates to a pleasant middle-class existence;
We're trying to tell you, it's not true out there for a whole lot of people right now. It's not that they're lazy or disinterested; the jobs aren't there and the people are being told the jobs aren't there because the businesses that used to fuel our economy have moved overseas. That appears to be fact, regardless of what treaty or party is being "blamed."

Many folks certainly haven't the disabilities Mr. Gilbert does. Relatively few people are intellectually disabled.
What makes you think having no hands and feet is an intellectual disability? He researched existing magic tricks by reading the published works. Doesn't sound like any of the intellectually disabled students I've worked with.

I don't believe any amount of discussion here will convince you that your argument is not completely and totally reasonable, so I give up trying to explain reality on "the other side of the tracks." Just don't be surprised when the population does not meet your expectations. You will blame them. I will not.

 

[GaryDog]

Ah ... the old 'retooling' argument, as if it is incumbent on people to spend all of their free time and resources 'retraining' for the next imaginary 'job shortage' claims of private industry every two years. Never mind it's well documented that the vast majority of those claims of 'skill shortages' are mythical nonsense and such shortages never actually existed, and as soon as the media dutifully advertises some fake shortage or other in a field it almost immediately becomes glutted with 'retraining workers' chasing those imaginary jobs. It is a great cash cow for Jr. colleges and colleges, though, no doubt about it, so of course these schools also jump on the bandwagon and perpetuate these myths in pursuit of their own interests as well.

'Skilled' labor is no longer in demand, and it's time to face up to that reality; just stop tolerating illegal immigration and handing out green cards like leaflets and allow at least some real citizens to make a little more chump change in the Part Time economy the 'globalists' are so enthusiastic about. Education is too expensive and the actual returns on all this 'retooling' nonsense is far less than the effort and expense is worth for most. If employers need 'skilled labor' they should go about acquiring it the old fashioned way, by doing their own employee training, instead of sniveling for the government and others to do it for them. Most of the time their 'shortages' are self-inflicted, and a result of their own bad short sighted policies and sense of entitlement.

Sorry, but this is a retread of a debunked nativist argument. Net immigration from Mexico (because I assume you're not bitching about Danish immigrants) is actually negative.

 

[Picaro]

]

Sorry, but this is a retread of a debunked nativist argument. Net immigration from Mexico (because I assume you're not bitching about Danish immigrants) is actually negative.

llol sure it is, and a giant flock of pigs just flew over your house, too, right? xxxxx I didn't mention Mexico, but apparently you xxxxx rely on the standard knee-jerk memes xxxxxxx.

In other news, latest studies show some 49% of Americans say they barely make ends meet, while another 14% say they've fallen behind, and no, these aren't 'The Lazy Unemployed', but I guess they just aren't going to Magic School either, so they must be 'losers' ....