There's lots of examples of people losing jobs. That's sad for the individual, but long term it's generally good for the country. It'd be easy to say no to those forms of progress that hurt workers, but it'd be the wrong decision in the long run.
No-one said making the right choice has to be victimless, or that the wrong one has to be hard.
What you need to tell the worker is not that they need to give up their livelihood, but that they need to retrain. Still painful, but much less. Also, there are ways to reduce and relieve the pain of retraining. And who knows for many people acquiring new skills and contacts may even turn out to be exciting and fun.
We need a politician with the guts to openly explain to the public that retraining is a necessity instead of fostering delusions that the old jobs can be kept. In fact, the progress in the development of self-driving cars combined with the fact that the most common job in most states is a truck driver [1] make this something of an emergency.
[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-t...
The number of niches in the economy are not expanding.
When the average worker gets laid off, he or she stays laid off.
We could sprinkle the market with PhDs and it would solve nothing. The underlying issue is much more structural than the NYT wants to admit.
Or at least he'll say that.
Whether he'll a) change his mind the next day, b) have any feasible plan to implement this, c) whether it's actually a net-positive for his demographic, d) whether he supports a bunch of other things that will hurt this demographic are all less clear.
I mean this is a man who manufactures stuff in China himself (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-admits-gear-made...).
Why not just increase sales tax and then give it to American union members if buying votes by subsidising them is a good strategy? It's basically the same thing, but it seems a lot less "American" to be honest about it.
Given a choice between someone who promises to fight for the thing you care about, but might be lying, and someone who promises to not fight for the thing you care about, the choice seems easy.
If you reply within seven days you get exclusive access to my fat burning natural rose petal extract pills!
Don't listen to those people who claim it isn't this easy to be rich and thin, they're just haters. I'm the only one looking out for you!
Someone promising you unreasonable things is much more likely to be fucking you over. Some would say that promising you unreasonable things and then fucking you over is the basic thread of all politics, Trump is just taking it several steps further because apparently people have become unmoored from the reality of government and so cannot judge what is unrealistic anymore.
Doesn't want too, but he'll muddle through and do it anyway. Just google "trump clothing china". In his world profit trumps all.
Such as a highly educated media worker, has no fear of the factory closing because the company has found somewhere with lower taxes and relaxed pollution laws?
This is the appeal of Trump: he is the only candidate who doesn't want to send his demographics jobs offshore. It absolutely makes perfect sense for a significant number of voters to prefer him. I am really astonished at how many "liberals" despite their "high intellect" don't seem to get that there is a whole world outside their little bubble.