Bringing jobs back to America does seem reasonable, right? But as far as I've seen, very few leaders in academia, business, government, or the media have spoken against globalization.

Of course, I might be wrong, so please feel free to show me the many leaders who've opposed globalization and the receptive responses of the institutions they work for.

There is a difference between “speaking against globalizarion” and increasing jobs in America. How do you propose we decrease globalization? Impose tariffs, cause a trade war, and increase prices for everyone?

There is a company called Softwear trying to brIng clothe manufacturing back to the US. But they plan to automate everything and hire a very few engineers. How does that help the “working class”?

The ship on globalization has sailed. Republicans use to believe in the free market that was back when manufacturing jobs were strong. But now that the “working class in middle America” is hurting, they like “big government” interfering with the free market. and more regulation because it helps them.

"RNC Republicans" still believe in globalization. Republican voters have been opposed to globalization for a long time but until Trump they had few voting choices that reflected that.

And the ship hasn't sailed on globalization. China is bringing protectionism back whatever we do.

Will protectionism raise prices? On manufactured goods, perhaps. But manufactured goods are a small portion of our expenses compared to rents, food, and energy, and if protectionism also raises wages it will mean more Americans can afford to live well.

So in other words we should all pay a subsidy to help the "working class"? That's exactly what a tariff is.

I thought conservatives were against forcing people to pay taxes and "big government" and we should let the free market decide - or do they just feel that way about health care?

All wages won't rise because of manufacturing jobs. Just those for manufacturing. It's basically "redistributing" money from those who aren't in the manufacturing industry to those who are. I also thought that conservatives were against "redistribution", or are they for it when it helps "working class Middle America"?

I'd love to continue this discussion but apparently I've been rate-limited for some reason, and suddenly I'm only allowed one post every 2 hours. I'll close with this:

We already pay subsidies for all kinds of things. Why not pay one to help the working class?

----

Response to below: I do think any injustice is immoral but subsidies aren't injustice. We pay lots of subsidies. I never said subsidies are immoral.

And don't confuse manufacturing with "rural America". There are lots of working class people in the cities who once found employment in manufacturing. Farm subsidies do nothing for them.

And if you only want to read a study (and will consider no other facts) here's a study showing men receive much longer prison sentences than women for the same crime:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002

----

> What should we "believe" other than studies?

Statistics?

Like the statistics on male victims of domestic violence vs the legal protections and shelters available to men.

Or the statistics on boys vs girls expelled from preschool, boys medicated, the number of male vs female teachers, etc.

And have you read that study yet? You seemed so insistent to read a study, I thought you might have some comments about it.

I'm not doubting your numbers - or your end results and I'm also not arguing about whether certain segments of the population get treated unfairly in the criminal justice system. I'm all for criminal justice reform as I've said repeatedly.

But you haven't just been talking about unfairness in the criminal justice system. You have also been arguing that the white male is being discriminated against in other parts of society - including the education system and the labor market.

But now you are claiming that there is discrimination against men because there are fewer male teachers? Most of the studies and surveys show women make less men partially because they choose professions that are more conducive to raising a family - like teachers. Most women I know who are teachers cite that as a reason that they became teachers - because their work schedules are aligned with their children's school schedules. Including having summers off.

Again, you are pointing to outcome without showing any links to a correlation between discrimination and the outcome. If you really want to change policy based on statistics and outcome, you would be arguing more in favor of wealth being redistributed to minorities and women - no I'm not arguing that.

I said there's a vocal segment of the population that is hostile to white men, not systematic discrimination. This segment includes people at powerful institutions, and they're actively seeking more power. If they take power then you'll see systematic discrimination against white men in employment. Right now, other groups experience discrimination more often, but that doesn't make discrimination against white people acceptable.

I'm also arguing that working class men of all races, not only white, are suffering because manufacturing jobs have left America. In fact, whole communities, men and women of all races suffering because of that. Meanwhile we see how much the presence of manufacturing jobs in China is fueling whole communities.

I think both of those factors contributed to Trump's success.

The conversation also strayed to systematic discrimination against men in education, the justice system, and social support, but I don't think this has much to do with Trump's success.

There is also a vocal segment of racists, homophobes, sexists and people who want to impose their religious beliefs on America that mostly lean Republican. But no one here is arguing about policy changes based on that.

Just to clarify: are you arguing that sexism against men and racism against whites is OK because these other people exist?

If not, what you just said is pure whataboutism.

It's also incorrect. People on this very page are arguing that conservative speech shouldn't be protected because of the existence of those extremists.

I'm not saying it's "okay". All speech should be protected from the government banning it. If conservatives don't like the policies on Internet forums, they are welcome to start their own.

If you can find studies showing - that controlling for all other variables - that white males are being discriminated against and that it is caused by discrimination, I'm all eyes.

Just like I said about the wage gap between men and women. Most of the studies I've seen reported even by places with a more liberal bent is that the wage gap can in large part be attributed to women choosing less demanding careers that allow them to spend more time taking care of kids. It's not being caused by disctimination.

Can you show from studies that the outcomes you described are being caused by discrimination?

You just argued the opposite side earlier basically implying any injustice is immoral. We pay subsidies to rural America in the form of farm subsidies already.

But all you have to do is post a study showing statistical evidence of discrimination against the White Male and I promise I'll read it with an open mind. I have somewhat of a background in statistics and economics and I enjoy reading about those subjects.

I am all for criminal justice reform - and I said as much in an earlier post.

But if "I only want to read a study and consider no other facts". What should we "believe" other than studies? A few anecdotes? If there are some systemic issues caused by government policies - and there are plenty with the criminal justice system - I'm all for reform. Reforming the criminal justice system is about less government not more.