So now the calculus will be, which party will sign on to protecting the human worker vs the robot, in a variation of the H-1B program. The really dangerous jobs will go to the robots, ostensibly to protect the worker, so that there's still this differentiation of class preservation.
Naturally, anyone who disagrees with this is a traitor to their class, because everyone should want to be preserve the class caste system. Know your proper place. Some people are in fact better than others. Equality is P.C. bullcrap.
Why don't Republicans champion the innovation of the renewables industry? If they truly cared about innovation they would, but it's clear that they hide behind this rhetoric only to protect their powerful lobbyist friends.
Except for that time they freed the slaves.
Yeah, yeah, I know that's 19th century, but I hope to show your generalizations are absurdly broad.
Hell, even 21st century, we have a populist Republican president appealing to blue-collar workers. Characterizing the Republican party as elitists oppressing the masses is woefully incomplete.
This gets my goat more on the grounds of using sweeping absolute statements, than any care for the reputation of Republicans, current or pre-1960.
Well sourced: https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/Debunking-the-Myth-GOP-and...
Dinesh D'Souza The Switch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJCVVbDlYhQ
You shouldn't downvote just because it doesn't fit your narrative.
https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-inf...
Education institution that fires people based on their personal life choices that don't affect their work? And I thought we were done with this crap in the 21st century.
(2) When you teach at a religious institution, "personal life choices that don't affect their work?" is less of a thing, because you've deliberately related work and religion (i.e. personal choices).
It might not be your cup of tea, but some students want to attend an institution of high moral standards, as well as high academic standards.
I don't find cheating to be especially immoral, at least not more than lying or withholding information for any other purpose.
56 Broadway, New York, NY 10004
But I'm not sure why extramarital relations are being brought up as a way to discredit someone, when it's of zero relevance.
I am however, impeaching D'Souza's credibility as a source.
Well, I didn't know that a felony conviction or cheating on your wife were political views. However, given the current President, perhaps you're right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Non-fallacious_reas...
Specifically, pointing out the obviously biased nature of a source calls to question the credibility of said source, even before we get to addressing the argument itself.
I think its safe to say that one the guiding principles of the modern Republican party is that less government regulation is better for everyone.
So why is the party that always advocates for less regulation and more competition REGULATING the energy market and RESTRICTING competition? Maybe because they aren't really for less regulation and more competition. Maybe they are about protecting the status quo?
Squaring the less regulation/more competition principles against this Wyoming law, or the anti-Tesla legislation in conservative states seems to indicate that these "principles" are an idealogical front to justify at least what some people want - Protecting their interests.
Wikipedia is far from non partisan.
Get used to it. Folks on HN often downvote anything that's counter-liberal. I post my Austrian views a lot and I get downvoted a lot.
Voted you up BTW.
And in the 21st century, as you mention, the "populist Republican president" is pretty blatantly playing an inside game and an outside game, cursing the industry and political establishment to the public, then going inside and shaking hands and sitting down with the same people, going so far as to put them on his cabinet and deep inside his government.
Claptrap. It's not the same party, and I don't mean that in the sense of stepping in a river.
https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-inf...
http://s3.amazonaws.com/thenation/audio/mp3/Full_Audio/LeeAt...
... because only Northern Republicans signed up to the Union army?
Not to mention that only the superficial accounts of the civil war say it was about slavery. Even Lincoln basically said the free slaves thing was basically just an add-on.
If you're going to be literalist in how you read others' comments, then be correct when you do so.
Taking a counterpoint from over 150 years ago and using a hard literalist interpretation... is a pretty pissweak way to counter the point that the GP was getting at. Extracting 'have always been' from everything that was said and then zeroing in on that like it's the core of the argument? It's an adolescent debating style.
The real reason the US "freed" the slaves was because there was a cotton crisis in egypt, making the united States the primary supplier of cotton to Europe. Now, the civil war was a resources game of who could fund their armies the longest, and Lincoln was smart enough to know that Europe would most likely support the south in the war in order to ensure steady flow of suddenly more valuable cotton. So, he made the war about slavery and issued the emancipation proclamation. The language in the EP is very clearly aimed at European interests and it put a moral high ground underneath the north to stand on, to sort of guilt Europe from funding the south in the civil war. It wasn't about civil rights, it was about securing the war effort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_and_the_America...
http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abraham-lincoln-in-d...
The emancipation proclamation was issued in 1863, same year as the Lancanshire Cotton Famine. The language of the document is clearly pointed outwards as much inwards.
Is this not true? Humans aren't equal. Some people are tall and others short, some are smart and others aren't, some are talented in certain ways and others in different ways. We can't all swim like Phelps and assuming you're a coder, Phelps probably can't code like you. There's nothing wrong with that. I think majority of human beings have something distinct that they can offer and what differentiates how successful one becomes is the graft one puts in. There's never been a greater time to showcase one's talents if sufficient effort is applied.
>They are, have always been, classist
Going back to my earlier point; we aren't equal. Some people will have the will to put in more time, money and effort. This naturally leads to class distinctions and a natural order. You want to entrust a company's leadership, for instance, on the most qualified individuals, not just anyone for the purposes of egalitarian sentiments. If this is the case, you MUST admit that people are different and that some are more qualified than others. This is not to say that one class should act in ways that would harm any other class.
As for the OPs submission, I don't agree with and sort of state or federal intervention. To me, it is wrong. Market forces should indeed determine what gets adopted as an energy source, be it coal or renewable.
EDIT: formatting
I think this is a very important point, in the past illiteracy used to be defined as people who couldn't read, in the future I think it's going to come to mean the people who can't or are unwilling to adapt and learn, we'll look down on them with pity like we used to all the people who couldn't read back in the 70s.
If you've worked in a factory all your life, and suddenly all the factories around where you — and your well-established, extended family — live are closed down, or moved overseas, or whatever, you're probably going to be a bit less sanguine about the situation.
The myopia of tech people will probably never not astound me.
I can't help but think that spending at least one summer picking oranges or unloading 18-wheelers would give tech people a little more perspective and some compassion for what most of the rest of the country has to deal with.
That's a bit weird. I'm only 27, and I painted some basements and did some yard-work back in high school to earn spending money. I thought that was normal.
Isn't it equally myopic to assume that factory workers as a class are unable to learn or adapt?
If you also can't move out of the place where there are no jobs left, that's an extra layer of fucked.
I made zero assumptions about anyone else's situation. I merely point out that the assumptions tech people make about job mobility are, on the whole, a lot less applicable if you aren't a tech person.
What tech people call "changing careers" tends to mean something like "Well, I do React now, but I used to do Rails." Trajectories like mine — I started my career writing C++, now I get paid for keeping people's PostgreSQL instances happy — are "uncommon", and mine happened gradually, over a few years.
What much of the rest of the US means by that is often more like, "Well I used to be a salesman, but now I'm a tool-and-die machinist." And those jobs are disappearing, too. (And all that leaves aside pursuing things that might require a certification or degree.)
Riding that level of cultural and social change is not something people know how to do, and might well look dauntingly impossible when you also have a family to feed. So to see people making six figures on the coasts talk down their noses about mobility and "intestinal fortitude" (from one of your comment's siblings) is, honestly, pretty galling.
If us tech folk looked at it truly thoughtfully, we'd understand exactly how hard the world is for most people, and how easily it could turn that way for us.
Every industry is all about competition, consolidation, and maximizing profit. The older this one gets, the lower the wages are going to be for your run of the mill programmer. The societal message that "everyone should learn how to program!" is ultimately all about lowering wages.
As regular ol' programming tasks become cheaper and cheaper, we'll keep adapting and doing more specialized work, right? So what there's no one wanting to pay you 6 figs for making CRUD apps anymore. Just learn some machine learning and away you go! A year goes by and uh oh, Microsoft just added auto-ML to excel at the price of 20$ a month. How long can your job last? Better change specializations again!
Maybe it wont happen in our life times, but the wealth we're all capturing in this industry WILL dry up and get captured. And eventually there will be a new technological revolution that fills a new pond somewhere else. There will be a whole lot of callousness until a vast sum of us have to finally make that long horizontal migration. People who change from actionscript to rust are making tiny vertical migrations in career. It's not at all the same thing.
I'm going to avoid the whole blue-collar vs. the economy argument on HN, for once, but I do want to refresh people's memories here: this has happened, in 2000. I lived through it; purely coincidentally I decided to leave the software industry almost exactly the night before the house of cards came down, and the funny thing was that having "programmer" on my resume got me turned down for retail jobs. They assumed I was overqualified and would leave as soon as a software opportunity presented itself. More than one potential employer said as much.
It really sucked and there was a lot of noise made about it on places like Slashdot. If you were an unemployed programmer then, you pretty much gave up after a couple of months and transferred to something entirely different. (Many seemed to move to law.)
Unfortunately the folks that experienced that don't speak up in these threads and everyone else on HN is too young to remember it.
But I had some savings, collected unemployment, and had the help and support of friends (who also worked in tech, and weathered the .com bubble's popping more fortunately than I did) and family.
Not all — if even many — of those things are true for most of the rest of this country.
I mean, seriously: the fact that such a large chunk of the tech workforce couldn't find work in ~2001-3, or whenever, ended up going to law school it became A Thing people noticed doesn't seem to me a particularly valid counter-argument to the economic wreckage that is the Rust Belt.
Yes, it's a wonderful prima facie demonstration of career mobility being a thing that actually exists in the world, but it, specifically, is also largely only available to people who already have the knowledge and skills (to say nothing of connections) such that they're almost necessarily going to be better positioned for these kinds of situations.
Usually I'm the one in these threads arguing the position you're arguing, but I've decided that it's a pretty big waste of time to do so on HN.
It's funny you mentioned that a lot of people moved to law. That industry should make it painfully clear that no one is immune to this. When I was a kid the societal message was "want to make money? Become a lawyer!". Enough kids listened to that message that the industry is in shambles today.
I wonder what's next?
It may take a couple more decades but it really does feel like today's Programmer will become yesteryear's factory worker.
A large chunk of what we're building is rebuilds, or maintenance, or minor upgrades. Every market is saturated. We keep ourselves busy building the same things, solving the same problems over and over, with the latest and greatest "stacks".
Post secondary education is churning out more and more programmers, and the available programming tasks continue to move towards mundane repetition.
I wonder if the new technological revolution you mention will simply be more globalization?
Manufacturing in China will eventually move to "cheaper" countries. Factory workers in today's established manufacturing centers around the world will want a better life for their children, and push them into STEM. We'll lose our jobs overseas. It happened here. It could happen there.
Perhaps it's already happening?
It's morally galling, yes. However, if we're talking politics, "Obey the free market or die!" is exactly what these very factory workers have been screaming at the entire rest of the country, in every single federal election year. This is what voting for unfettered capitalism means, and there's a level of moral gall in saying, "Capitalism for thee, social democracy for me".
One would hope that the public would demand reasonable severance, assistance for relocation and retraining, et cetera, so that change becomes less dauntless. To reiterate the second point in this thread, history has shown that "digging in" is usually the exact opposite of what should be done.
It's not the solution, but it definitely is a solution.
Imagine you're a coal miner in Wyoming. You have two choices:
1. Get your local elected officials (who have tons of other constituents in the same boat as you) to put together some anti-competitive legislation that lets you keep your job.
2. You move to a new place, possibly with gov't assistance, uprooting your nuclear family, likely leaving your extended family behind (who you've lived near all your life), to do the same job, but probably for less because the supply of such jobs is shrinking but the demand is still high.
3. You spend several years retraining for a new job, living off gov't handouts while you're unable to work. After you're done, you still have trouble because everyone else is retraining for a pool of jobs that hasn't gotten any larger. (Remember, a lot of these places are one-industry towns and counties. If one industry goes away, you don't have much else to do.)
If I were in that situation, I would love to say that I would automatically jump at the chance for #3, or at least #2, but #1 is so so so much better for me and my family.
You do the math, and you don't have a lot of savings, and #2 and #3, if they even occur to you, sound really really scary: "I might lose my house and be unable to feed my family" kind of scary. So you do the only rational thing you can in that position: #1.
> One would hope that the public would demand reasonable severance, assistance for relocation and retraining, et cetera
Unlikely. Public sentiment -- especially of the kinds of people who live in rural areas that are most hit with problems like this -- are very much against gov't assistance for retraining (or, even "worse", gov't-mandated assistance from the former employer). Remember, these are people who believe in the American Dream so much: you work hard, and you succeed. Getting a gov't handout is dirty to a lot of these people. Allowing other people to benefit from such handouts is even worse.
> To reiterate the second point in this thread, history has shown that "digging in" is usually the exact opposite of what should be done.
You seem to be under the misconception that people tend to do what is best for the community (and even themselves) over the long term, when the short term looks scary. That... just usually isn't the case.
I'm not saying any of this is right, or ideal, or efficient, or long-term sustainable... but it's how it is. Some people don't have the time or resources to see or plan long enough into the future to make the right call in situations like this.
While in the beginning many jobs will be available, once the fields are established go away. Then those same people who retrained to be solar panel installers are either too old or to emotionally devastated to soldier on to another replacable skill set.
Your home that a lot of your wealth is tied up in? Worthless.
It's not just like getting laid off by a company and looking for a job. It's about having a skilled career that suddenly is worthless.
Plenty of examples in tech. Ask your average >45+ year old getting purged from tech companies about "adapting". There are still DEC alumni floating around in their 60s in shitty contract gigs who cannot retire, but haven't had a "good job" since getting nuked by HP/Compaq.
The myopia of blue collar workers will never not astound me.
A lot of blue collar people can't imagine what they'd do if they could no longer get a job in their current industry. Severance is meager, pensions are drying up, and retraining assistance (if they'd even accept it) is virtually nonexistent. When faced with "progress" making your way of life and standard of living untenable, that gets really really really scary. I'd challenge you to remain entirely rational if your job -- no, your entire industry -- went away, the bank decided to foreclose on your house (which is now worthless anyway, because there are no jobs where you live), you were unable to feed your family, and you didn't even have the money to move somewhere else where prospects were better.
On the other hand, we have a ton of tech people around here who, because of their privilege, are unable to put themselves into anyone else's shoes, even for a minute. It's basic empathy, and seems to be in short supply sometimes.
I work in tech. I can't imagine what I would do if I could no longer get a job in our industry. My wife left biotech and has struggled to find work.
Weirdly enough, we live in a city in Massachusetts, so the entire local, state, and federal government apparatus doesn't get mobilized to help us, because we're second-class citizens nowadays.
On the one hand I agree that bad policy is still bad even if it does end up saving some jobs, but it seems the economy is already so tilted in favor of white coastal urban voters that I find it somewhat hard to sympathize.
>we get insulted for our efforts.
While this is certainly disappointing, it is so prevalent on both sides I can't take it seriously unless you're willing to call out similar denigration of the rural poor by coastal urbanites.
The economy is tilted in favor of white coastal urban voters. The government is tilted in favor of white rural landlocked voters. All voters skew more relatively wealthy than non-voters, and indeed neither of our political parties tilt in favor of non-wealthy non-white people.
>While this is certainly disappointing, it is so prevalent on both sides I can't take it seriously unless you're willing to call out similar denigration of the rural poor by coastal urbanites.
While I do call that out, I think there's a difference: one kind of denigration comes from the permanent minority party, and the other comes from the permanently dominant party. I cannot name one time in my life when the Republican Party and its base of rural white landlocked relatively wealthy people did not set the national agenda, and I'm 27 years old.
Even when they "lost" elections, in the theoretical sense of no longer holding majorities, they used various procedural tactics to maintain their chokehold over the actual mechanisms of policymaking.
So as much as the economy has inflicted horrible suffering on that base, those rural white landlocked voters still maintain the actual power. They've been supporting policies that hurt people like them, but as they tell it, those are their moral values and their notion of dignity -- if people suffer, so be it.
On the whole, people whose job perks include the fully-staffed, all-day gourmet cafeterias, paid gym memberships (if not on-site gyms and massage therapists!), and six figure salaries for sitting in meetings, thinking kinda hard, and then tapping away at a keyboard for a bit (yes, I'm being reductive; so are you) have exactly fuck-all grounds to call out anyone else about "hard work".
I worked my way into IT and it was hard work.
How is this privileged ?
Exactly. It isn't. That you think your efforts are what was being described when the post up-thread mentioned "privilege" shows how poorly you understand the concept.
It isn't easy but it is possible. Pretending it isn't is for lazy people.
And yes... ask me what ghetto I climbed out of ;)
The things that you, personally, don't have to contend with on that climb are what's meant by your "privilege." Not how hard you worked. Not what you've earned, and managed to leverage that into subsequently, but the things that you have no control over, and about which other people have stories and judgements and whatever, which can — and do — materially alter the set of opportunities you'll experience your life — or, rather, they would, if you were subject to them. But you aren't, so you have that "privilege".
(Yes, I think it's a shitty name for the concept. But if you can just detach yourself from feeling like it's somehow "your fault" that you have these privileges, and look with more open eyes, you'll see that there's actually a real, demonstrable, even measurable phenomenon there, however strongly you might want to disagree with the verbiage.)
No-one's pretending these things aren't possible, so that's a nice straw-man you're building there. But apparently plenty of people are pretending that these things are exactly as hard for someone else with a different life and circumstances as it was for themselves — and that's not only demonstrably false, it's (IMO) disturbingly ignorant.
I can't find it now, but there was a recent article about how, on the short term at least, a move to renewable energy will likely create more jobs than it eliminates.
electrical engine maintenance and solar panel construction.
It may be just me, but I am missing the vast overlap of similar skill sets between the two industries.
What you describe is similar to the transition between being in construction to being an electrician, a transition which I know a lot of working class people have done. I particularly once knew a man who had been, professionally: a construction worker, a truck driver, a security guard, a plumber, an electrician, a factory worker, a caretaker for the elderly and a private corporate driver. Yes, it is harder than going from C# enterprise developer to JS front end developer. It is more on the scale of going from electrical engineering into software. But it is viable. "Just learn to code", for example, isn't.
We should be, as a society, providing lots of help for people to accomplish similar transitions, rather than saying "oh, sucks to be you, anyone without masters level education is useless to our modern economy" or "oh well, we will prop your failing industry, even though it is killing us all, because otherwise you won't ever be able to get a job". There are blue collar jobs that will be around for a decade or two at least. Also, I am in favor of safety nets and UBI and free college education, but that doesn't preclude offering people structured paths back into useful work they can realistically take.
No, I am not.
It took out the factory jobs, the service jobs that supported all of the people that worked there, and sent more than one county into such a downturn that it has still not recovered fully. Everywhere you look are empty buildings and homes as large sections of the community was forced to pick up and leave to find work.
Expecting the government to patch the syptoms of the problem doesn't fix anything, myopic we are or not.
> "Expecting the government to patch the syptoms of the problem doesn't fix anything"
So care to explain that a bit better? I think you just contradicted yourself.
The government has no business anywhere near the job market. Go read about the subsidized corn market if you want to see their brand of job creation in action. For too long we've expected the government to take care of the needs of society when we should have been doing it as citizens.
Or drive through the Lincoln Tunnel or use electricity from the Hoover Dam.
Or fly from LaGuardia to LAX.
>For too long we've expected the government to take care of the needs of society
Maybe corporate welfare should be cut to the bone first.
The question is about whether or not someone has the intestinal fortitude to make it happen and see it through. Unlike tech where a complete career change could happen in a short time, not necessarily degrade your pay too badly, and not necessarily require relocation- this could easily be just too overwhelming for people, especially with families. The key is, there is nothing preventing an able minded individual from finding a means to support themselves if they're willing to go through lean times to see it through.
We literally packed up and moved back to the US (we're all citizens) because where we lived was bombed by US forces. We came back to the states with 3 kids, no jobs, and a lot of what we had was actually blown up.
Don't tell me you can't retrain. It's a matter of deciding to do it and figuring out a way to make it work. It's not EASY, you don't want to do it if you don't have to. There's simply nothing keeping you from doing it other than the fear and anguish associated with upheaving your life.
All of these will require you to seek out the opportunity, probably pick up some different skills along the way, deal with some BS trying to get a foot in the door, and likely a length of time where you've got to do something else to keep the lights on.
Back to my n=1 anecdotes, I worked more than full time at a local dairy farm and as a motorcycle tech to pay for university. My degree was in Computer Engineering, seemingly completely unrelated. I worked my ass off and admitted when I didn't know how to do something and sought help from those around me, but I also just tried. I just kept trying, that was it.
I had the luxury of not having to keep anyone but myself fed and the stamina that being 18 gives you. But all I did was drive to the farm down the road and ask if they needed help. Then I popped in to the motorcycle shop when I saw a help wanted sign.
My entire point is that people can try to change their path. They may not succeed, and it will very likely be incredibly hard and stressful- there will be obstacles and set backs, but you don't have to be special or smart or anything other than someone who's willing to try. To suggest that the vast majority of people can't do this is condescending and belittling to all of them.
I would agree that a lot won't even try, probably too afraid- which is totally different than being lazy or dumb. I would also posit that a number would come up 'short' in that they don't really get ahead of where they were, but maybe they're into a new area of work that will be more stable or safe. Then there's a lucky few who make it through the shitshow stronger, better off financially/socially, and with the self assurance that through their honest effort, all things are possible- if not always probable.
"Unwilling."
Going back into your comment history it appears you have had some struggles along these lines, so maybe ixnay the condescending illiteracy angle.
Did you used to have any previous HN accounts, maybe from the period where you were being "upended?" Probably some gold in there, too.
If you're a coal miner and coal mining has been in your family for generations it's going to be a bit sad when that comes to an end, but you know what?
Good. The last thing we need to do is send people down deep into the earth to dig up coal so we can burn it in power plants and fuck up the air so badly that some people actually die from it. China's learning this lesson, and it's about time that America committed to the same. Shut them all down. Stop blowing up mountains to chase after chunks of coal.
Lots of ways of life are about to go away, but this is not new. Think of how many people were involved in the horse business. How many people had to deal with lepers. How many people were put out of work by steam shovels. How many were displaced by factories.
Things change. This is good, because if we don't change everyone's way of life is about to go away when the climate change gets so bad that most of the continental US is uninhabitable, under water, or both.
The fact that it may be globally optimal to switch generation technologies doesn't mean it's locally optimal for Wyoming (within a political system that doesn't let Wyoming recoup local losses from national gains).
The most galling thing about this is that there is a reasonable compromise here, which is that you let the market decide things properly then you fairly pay off the people who were negatively affected, by intensive job training, relocation, early retirements + pensions, etc. For example compared to Germany, the job training in the US is a complete joke.
But American (and especially Republican) ideology of the rugged frontier individualist would never allow the blow to the psyche that would come from officially being on the 'government dole' or admitting needing help from anyone else.
Hence we have all these disguised welfare schemes (defense contractor jobs are another example) that are economically inefficient and environmentally damaging, mostly for reasons of personal and regional pride.
Market failures or inefficiencies, the impact of taxes and subsidies, positive/negative externalities are things. Job training may have enough positive externalities such that it would be efficient to subsidize it, but not because of a concept of fairness to someone. Economic actors should be rational enough to seek it out themselves if it maximizes their net benefit.
Indeed, however economics does allow you to input your own definition of what 'fair' is, and it makes suggestions on how to fulfill that definition in the most efficient way.
In terms of % of GDP spent on public spending on the labor market, US ranks near the bottom. When you look at spending on job training directly, US spends 0.03% of GDP, while Germany spends seven times as much as a fraction of GDP [1].
A better comparison would dollars per unemployed person.
The unemployment rate in the US and Germany are very similar (4-5%), so Germany spends 7 times as much training per unemployed person.
[1] http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/1133...
Currently it's not a 'free' market. Fossil fuels dump massive costs on everyone else via greenhouse gas emissions and climate change; it's an incredible subsidy. Nuclear, wind and solar, for example, generally have to pay to clean up their own messes.
Absolutely agree. A classical "free market" approach would be to internalize the external costs (like pollution) and then let the market figure it out. Instead of the debate in the US of whether CO2 is causing climate change, we should be arguing what the cost is (in $/ton) and then apply that as a revenue-neutral carbon tax. And then let the market do its work.
For other pollution, for coal specifically, look at the costs borne by society (not reflected in the cost of generation) to deal with coal ash containment.
I cycled across the state from Yellowstone down to Colorado and the wind (plus awesomely paved roads, amazing scenery and friendly motorists) made the ride practically effortless. I set off at 11 in the morning on the Western side of the continental divide, went over a 10K or so pass, stopped off in a cafe for a couple of hours with some cyclists I met on the way (they had eloped from an organised tour and I had met their former partners earlier on the road). At that stage it was 5 p.m. and I had done 75 miles but it was too early to call it a day. I got going again and, by 8 p.m., I managed to put in 150 miles for the day. I was pleased with this, particularly considering that I had tent + stove + other camping gear with me. Only my heroes on the Tour de France managed such speeds for so long and they could slipstream each other plus they had a team car and 'PED's...
From my anecdotal experience of Wyoming (the locals told me it was always windy although the wind allegedly is 'always against you'), it would be a shame if this was not (wind) farmed. This failure to encourage wind power is kind of expected though for us observers from outside the U.S. - 'crazy Americans'!!!
On a personal note, I've always been troubled by the over-representation of unnecessary services and useless gadgets in the US economy. Luxury ski resorts and $400 cookie baking devices (with connected smartphone app) are not noble products, and they demoralize the workers who provide/build them.
I know this might not be a popular sentiment to those on HN who Uber home from their San Francisco office to pick up their Blue Apron delivery and pre-order their new iDevice, but there it is.
The value of their time is determined by the market, whether and how in demand their skills are. They can make themselves amenable to whatever other career options are available, or else make themselves amenable to starve waiting for the resurgence of a dying industry.
The days of lifetime employment in a single career are rapidly coming to an end - globalism and automation are constantly reducing the value of employment in many professions, or making human employment obsolete. Those industries which haven't been gutted by these trends yet will be, inevitably. Nearly everyone is going to have to learn to take what little they can get when they can get it, in time.
And instead of pandering to blue collar workers, Republicans should actually be trying to help them prepare for the future, rather than yearn for the past. But they can't, because what would help would be subsidizing education and healthcare to reduce the crippling burdens of debt on the lower and middle class and make it easier for people to find other jobs, and possibly institute some sort of basic income so that a lack of employment won't be devastating, as lack of employment becomes the norm for more and more people.
mining coal on the other hand -- a truly noble pursuit. "A lump of coal placed in a cart embiggens the smallest man ..."
That said, coal and fracking seem like a bad idea for Wyoming's future. It has plenty of wind and empty land.
Mining is a horrible business and worse job. If people are fighting for that, they have no options.
Disclaimer: I propose making up the difference with social benefits. "Basic income lite" if you will until society can catch up with the fact that your job and income does not define you.
Most of the state is flat and dry.
They don't actually think this; they just pretend to
There seems to be a new strain of conservatism being lead by Trump which seems to be a marriage of formerly liberal populism (protect workers, rebuild middle class, bring back factory jobs, socialized healthcare) and conservative economics.
Trump is essentially a European right-wing populist, something that hasn't really existed in America before.
No. Unless you think that defense spending is not part of the government. This is per capita spending by year:
https://www.mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Chart1-Spending...
Actually, George W Bush signed the spending bills for 2009. But the central point remains that conservatives (Republicans) hold no claim to fiscal conservatism.
You can say they act inconsistently with their claims but it's another thing to say they never even claim it. I think they do often claim this.
Bluntly, according to their record, conservatives are not fiscal conservatives. They just dress that way.
You're not paying attention. They're talking about access to insurance. Sure, I have access to a private Gulfstream jet, but that doesn't mean I can afford it.
As is everyone, to some extent. We're just not all so hypocritical about it.
"You can't buy this, because we say so." How much more un-free-market can you get?
P.S. This said, without even getting into all the various subsidies, externalized costs, etc. Just keeping it at the level of "free market" rhetoric that gets expounded to the public ad infinitum and ad nauseum.
The Republicans and the Democrats are both basically the exact same, except they each have their own set of "winners".
The only good thing to come of Trump's election is that it shows that an independent such as Trump has the ability to win the election. He is a Republican only in name, just like Sanders was a Democrat only in name. Hopefully this gives inspiration to real leaders out there that are willing to take a chance, come next election, and then we can smash this two-party oligarchy.
The Federal Government's tolerance is a work of fiction to maintain compliance. States have a false sense of autonomy under the 10th amendment ever since interstate commerce became the only form of commerce.
And as a result, the national policy is that voter discrimination is to be left up to the states. If Texas' own citizens decide to discriminate, it's their right, and not for the federal government to question it.
Systematic voter discrimination being left up to the states fairly clearly shows anti-competition will be left up to the states as well. I'd hardly call this a work of fiction, it's an emerging fact of the political landscape.
Did you link to the right document? This is a motion for a continuance, not a withdrawal.
Thats strange, I hadn't actually attributed this reality to any particular administration.
> On day 1 it withdrew from a federal lawsuit to enforce voting rights on Texas
This has nothing to do with enforcing federal will through the interstate commerce clause, which is what my post was about.
All expansion of the federal government's power domestically, through the interstate commerce clause, is through case law, which is largely exempt from administrations.
That's strange, considering this administration is openly hostile to the environment, and ran on the traditional Republican platform of state's rights.
Voting rights, commerce, environment - these things being relegates to the states vs being reviewable by the federal government are related by how and whether the executive branch decides to act. That they have the legal power through case law doesn't mean they'll actually use it.
Is it so impossible that my opinion was formed sometime else throughout my life and would be accelerated and equally constitutional if I happened to get in power some day?
Administration F has no recollection of why Administration A passed the law, and simply sees it as a convenient "thing on the books" to use when someone is technically violating it. The person challenges it in court, and the court establishes the limitations or lack thereof of that. The people in the court and appeals court were most likely appointed during administrations B, C, D, and E.
Administration Z simply reacts to these tools available.
Even the notion of federalism is a misnomer in this country, the National government has completely subjugated all of its constituent states.
Individual united states are bankrupt entities, with toothless nominal agencies. What possible autonomy do you imagine they could muster?
They may (keyword may- this may not pass) be able to manipulate their own market but doing so is going to be terrible for them in 10 years.
Population of Wyoming: 500,000
Their decision to use coal is irrelevant. I can't believe this is a top 10 story.
Anyway, it is possible that solar will phase it out anyway, except in a more distributed manner. Rooftop solar is not banned after all.
Are you referring to something other than net metering of consumer renewables when you say "feed in"? I thought that net metering was a policy that's fairly friendly to residential solar.
(Of course, coal gets its share of subsidies too, but a supporter of this measure might prefer to forget that).