Warning: file_get_contents(/home/www/settings/mirror_forum_db_enable_sql): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/html/content/Forum/functions.php on line 8
There might be a mismatch in what's needed vs. what's offered. In more than one way (skills, compensation, location).
About the 'Freedom Convoy,' I was glad I was watching in Toronto and not living in Ottawa. However, I think we have to consider the idea that some truckers were just pushed to the limits. Not only is our Cdn. dollar about 78% of a US dollar, but we also have a carbon tax that rises steadily. Canada only produces about 1.5% of the world's carbon emissions yet Canadians are faced with this huge carbon tax which, frankly, seems disproportional to the 'offense' of polluting. So take the lower-valued dollar, add on a carbon tax, and you have really high costs for truckers and trucking companies.
Sure, they could have left before things got out of hand. They did have ample warning and opportunity to leave. But I am wondering if part of the protest was about a general sense that something is very wrong in Canada today. Just because some people are 'uneducated,' it does not necessarily follow that they cannot discern real problems.
I don't know about up North, but down here we have about 11 million open jobs with about 8 million unemployed. I would say that a high percentage of the available jobs are meaningful.
That is what is totally misleading about the need to create more jobs. What do you need more jobs for if you can't fill the ones that are already available ?
There might be a mismatch in what's needed vs. what's offered. In more than one way (skills, compensation, location).
That is what is totally misleading about the need to create more jobs. What do you need more jobs for if you can't fill the ones that are already available ?
Agreed.
If you buy Thomas B. Edsall's argument in the NYT, the issue is human capital, the kind of know-how capital that is specific to an individual. That calls for different solutions.
The Fed creates stable financial and price conditions.
The private sector creates jobs.
The public sector seeks to improve education, health and skills outcomes.
The private sector provides job-specific training.
I don't know about up North, but down here we have about 11 million open jobs with about 8 million unemployed. I would say that a high percentage of the available jobs are meaningful.
That is what is totally misleading about the need to create more jobs. What do you need more jobs for if you can't fill the ones that are already available ?
precisely the long-term economic and demographic decline of the places that still rely on a relatively strong social capital that is behind the rise of populism in the U.S. Strong but declining communities in parts of the American Rust Belt, the Great Plains and elsewhere reacted at the ballot box to being ignored, neglected and being left behind.
———————————————-
I disagree.
The current available support from the US welfare state is perhaps incomplete and inadequate but certainly does not explain rural areas of Americas with predominantly white citizens who do not feel ignored, neglected or left behind. You know where. Where all the beautiful people hang out and politically dominate.
It is not at all clear that ramping up income transfers and other supports will fundamentally change this regional disaffection. Not when that disaffection is to a large extent socio-economic.
Exception: Can I hear drum roll for universal basic single-payer medical care?
The rise in votes for Trump was the result of long-term economic and
population decline in areas with strong social capital. This hypothesis
is confirmed by the econometric analysis conducted for U.S. counties.
Long-term declines in employment and population â rather than in
earnings, salaries, or wages â in places with relatively strong social
capital propelled Donald Trump to the presidency and almost secured his
re-election.
Nonetheless, some of the information and conclusions seem about right to me.
At no time did more than 45 percent of colonists support the war, and at least a third of colonists fought for the British. Unlike the Civil War, which pitted regions against each other, the war of independence pitted neighbor against neighbor. Americans were not only rebelling against the mother country, they were fighting each other.
However, the election of Donald Trump caused a shift in Three Percenter activity. In 2015-2016, members of the militia movement strongly supported Trumpâs candidacyâthe first major party nominee the movement had ever supported. When he won, people in the movement were elated. With Trump as president, however, it became more difficult for Trump-supporting militia and Three Percenters to sustain their hostility to the federal government.
——————————-
I knew it. Trump clearly did some good.
You see: Trump is really an agent of co-option of the radical, violent, looney tunes, revolutionary patriots. It was a mission he chose to take though it is not clear Trump fully understood his mission at the time.
The Three Percenter concept, created in 2008, is based on an inaccurate historical claim that only three percent of Americans fought in the Revolutionary War against the British.
k: Never found the number you posted. Kept on having to prove I was not a Robot. Could not access that page. Did not feel like shutting down the VPN connection if that was indeed the interest.
I do not share the perspective of History for Kids on what motivated the Civil War (USA) but I gotta think that some history is better than no history. I have spent many decades of my life unlearning this or that narrative so, it might be healthy for others to do that too.
In a similar vein, I despair at the grotesque revisionism on display in contemporary film and TV. Even the bloody Europeans. This will encourage large numbers to impatiently impose civilizing solutions on poor, traditional societies. Steady economic development is the best way to naturally accelerate the emancipation of women from a western perspective. Close economic and cultural relationships help too.
At no time did more than 45 percent of colonists support the war, and at least a third of colonists fought for the British. Unlike the Civil War, which pitted regions against each other, the war of independence pitted neighbor against neighbor. Americans were not only rebelling against the mother country, they were fighting each other.
Hard to have a populist revolution when the population don't support you. But you can sure fuck things up until someone decides to take the kid gloves off. OTOH, I think things are about to get really ugly in the US when convoys start converging on DC.
haven't had the time to watch the theatrics
but from what i can gather, canadians better hope these prole/peasant truckers don't keep this revolution going
they might eventually start a union and then they'll turn the screws on the elites/bourgeoisie
because political and social power dynamics
for it has been prophisized, no?
Hard to have a populist revolution when the population don't support you. But you can sure fuck things up until someone decides to take the kid gloves off.
OTOH, I think things are about to get really ugly in the US when convoys start converging on DC.
haven't had the time to watch the theatrics but from what i can gather, canadians better hope these prole/peasant truckers don't keep this revolution going they might eventually start a union and then they'll turn the screws on the elites/bourgeoisie because political and social power dynamics for it has been prophisized, no?
haven't had the time to watch the theatrics
but from what i can gather, canadians better hope these prole/peasant truckers don't keep this revolution going
they might eventually start a union and then they'll turn the screws on the elites/bourgeoisie
because political and social power dynamics
for it has been prophisized, no?
