Niels

General Mattis does seem to be a well-qualified, and well-chosen pick. I found the quotes collected in this Scientific American article to be particularly interesting and illuminating.

Hey Canik, I wanted to see if I could find some additional evidence in support of my position, and I found the following data that might be of interest. First, here is absolute manufacturing employment from 1994-2016 (and because it is absolute numbers, and not as a percentage of the overall workforce, there are some periods of increase that were negative in the first graph I posted on the previous page of this thread). Interestingly, there was a modest increase in manufacturing employment from 1994-1998, which were exactly the years immediately after the passage of NAFTA. When mass job losses occurred in 2001, it was not associated with the passage of a new trade act, but rather with an overall economic recession. So if NAFTA was so bad, why did it take more than 8 years for supposed effects to take place, and why can the effects not be deconvoluted from a broader economic downturn that affected the rest of the economy? Second, here is the change in manufacturing output and manufacturing employment since the end of the Great Recession. Once again, we have an increase in absolute number of manufacturing jobs (by about 6% from mid-2009 to mid-2015), but of course, overall employment grew by >6% during that timeframe, so the manufacturing share of all jobs still declined. However, at the same time as manufacturing employment grew 6%, manufacturing output grew 21%. That is automation in action. It is data like these that lead to my conclusions that (1) manufacturing jobs should not be expected to grow as a share of employment, and trying to make them do so by any means is a fool's errand,* and (2) the main reason** for (1) is that automation has made many manufacturing positions obsolete. I welcome any further comments you have! * - Some would say we have elected a fool though. ** - Though not the only reason.

My list wasn't meant to be inclusive of all possibilities, and I don't know if overall there is demand for everyone who has stopped working in manufacturing. I will still stand by my statement that praying for the government to save one's particular factory and one's particular job in it is a losing strategy. I did find the figure below (Lysistrata will probably yell about the color scheme, but I can't do anything about that), which details the percentages of the economy in each of a variety of job categories, and how they changed from 1947 to 2009. For instance finance, insurance, and real estate grew from 10.5% to 21.4%, government grew from 12.5% to 13.6%, manufacturing fell from 25.6% to 11.0%, and agriculture essentially disappeared (8.2% to 1.0%).[Hey, why is no one focused on the displaced farmer? Probably because he actually moved and made a new life for himself.] Things that gained over the last 60 years probably will continue to gain, things that lost will probably continue to lose. Persons at risk of displacement should give attention to the blue wedges. A very astute question. You are right that if automation was the only component to the changes in the job market, we would not see factories move overseas, but there are issues of labor costs, availability of capital, etc. What is happening is that companies are faced with a choice: (1) Move the job overseas, manufacture without automation, but taking advantage of cheaper labor. (Think $3 pack of shirts from Vietnam) (2) Keep the job in the US, manufacture with automation, because Americans demand higher pay. (Think highly-automated BMW factory in South Carolina) I've bolded the parts that bring about job losses to the US, and you can see that either option has that result. If "free trade" was ended, companies would choose #2 exclusively. Since they are allowed a choice, the one that lowers labor+capital costs the most at this given time wins. In the long run, we can expect other countries to get richer, and for more factories to return to the US in order to lower their transportation costs, but that these factories will be automated.

Thank you ccabal - I appreciate the support from another member of the community that values evidence-based reasoning and analysis. 1: The graph was not directed at the multitudes of people, it was directed at you and your points. I have taken the time to address your comments specifically, and wish you would extend the same courtesy. 2: They would not have been in this bind had they occasionally checked the world around them, and planned to make adjustments accordingly. There are many different types of jobs requiring no, or minimal, higher-education that are relatively offshoring- and automation-proof. For example, nurses, electricians, and plumbers. There may come a day when these can be automated, but the fact that they are so dispersed and require access to "odd" locations (it is hard to imagine a plumber robot entering a crawl space to reach a corner behind a water heater) makes them more resilient. Small equipment operators (e.g. little backhoes used at construction sites) are also possible, since the constantly changing terrain of construction sites and the finesse needed for their operation are hard to program. Praying that the government will help your particular factory (again, Carrier, but not other factories in the same town) to save your particular job (again, many of the Carrier jobs are still going to Mexico), is not a viable strategy. And Trump's "plan" to "make deals" is bad precedent: today the Wall Street Journal and even Sarah Palin came out against it as "crony capitalism," a "hallmark of corruption," and "socialism." Maybe a systemic lowering of corporate taxes, which Trump does also support, will make a difference. However, I am skeptical of this too. Reagan lowered corporate and personal income taxes significantly in the 1980s, and threw a lot of defense contracts out to be handled by US manufacturers. Yet, the blue line in the graph I posted still went down in the 1980s at the same rate it did in the 1970s and would in the 1990s. That speaks to the fact that regulations and taxes are not the primary problem with maintaining manufacturing employment. Since we've eliminated them, and free trade deals, we really are back to having to assign the blame to automation. I'll quote myself now:

Don't be a dullard. The graph presents economic and employment trends in the period of 1947-2007. The color choice was based on complimentary color theory. It has no political meaning, and no relation to any political party specifically, unless a political party chooses to engage in wishful thinking that it can reverse long-standing and consistent trends that have existed for 70 years. Someone probably should tell them to examine possibilities for employment that cannot be outsourced or easily automated. Don't get into trucking though, that's another dead-end: "Self-driving truck makes first trip — a 120-mile beer run" - USA Today, 10/26/2016

No - why should I be? Manufacturing never actually left, it has retained the same proportion of the national economy for 60+ years (orange line below). What has changed is worker productivity, which has meant that manufacturing employment as a percentage of jobs has been in continuous decline since WWII (blue line below). Seriously, look at 1993 with the passage of NAFTA. Do the slopes of either line change in the 10 years before and 10 years after this date? No. Trade deals didn't cause this; we didn't have "free trade" in the 1950s and 1960s. Increasing automation did this. And I don't see anyone lining up to smash computers and robots like the Luddites of old did with early industrial weaving technologies.

A "shot across the bow" means you demonstrate willingness to punish, not willingness to throw goodies. Any CEO can (and for the sake of their bottom line, should) threaten to move production out of the country, and extort specific tax incentives and/or federal contracts from the government. Trump-land is going to be a bunch of Soviet tractor factories, with the government propping up uneconomical production at the expense of the country.

That, and apparently trying to win favor with the new administration in order to keep getting juicy federal contracts. Quote from the Indianapolis Business Journal: Anyone out there remember when Republicans got all pissy about the federal government bailing out General Motors (to stop bankruptcy and layoff of their US workforce), or Obama's use of subsidies/tax incentives to generate "high-paying renewable energy jobs"? You do? Well, this is different because ... reasons ... From on high, use of tax money to pick preferred industries (why Carrier, and not the Rexnord factory literally on the other side of the same town?), and making companies feel the need to make economically-inadvised decisions to cozy up to the government is pretty indefensible: It is in fact a perfect example of the dumb type of crony capitalism, corruption, inefficiency, and politically-motivated investments that you see in third world countries run by tin pot leaders.

Considering that the US Constitution notes an explicit right to counsel in legal matters (6th Amendment), and over time, SCOTUS cases have expanded the instances where free legal representation must be provided, Cuomo's action is in line with the path of legal inertia. It is also odd that we carve out an exemption of not providing legal assistance for some persons for some crimes: Legal immigrants have a right to representation in deportation hearings, per Article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified by the US in 1992)Illegal immigrants have a right to representation when facing a non-deportation hearing, per the legal tradition aboveBut illegal immigrants have no right to representation in deportation hearings, per ... reasons?(And if we are okay with not granting legal counsel for some people for deportation hearings, maybe someday we'll decide that we shouldn't for other "undesirable" people for a broader range of crimes, though admittedly this is a slippery-slope argument) The result of not providing legal assistance are some strange consequences: Example: "Can a 3-year old represent herself in immigration court? This judge thinks so." (Washington Post, March 5, 2016) (Fortunately, this bizarreness has been recognized, and a case has been made against the Federal Government to force legal representation for at least children facing deportation: J.E.F.M. v. Lynch)

Unlike some of the above, I'm predicting that there is just enough life left in the minor party candidates to deny anyone a majority of the popular vote: Prediction: 49% - Hillary Clinton / Tim Kaine [D] 45% - Donald Trump / Mike Pence [R] 04% - Gary Johnson / Bill Weld [L] 01% - Jill Stein / Ajamu Baraka [G] 01% - Various others, including Evan McMullin

Just in case anyone was interested in betting in the real world with real money: https://www.predictit.org/Market/1234/Who-will-win-the-2016-US-presidential-election

Viewership is probably likely to drop further for this third one, which is bad news for Mr. Trump since it reduces his ability to try to redeem himself with a good performance. For Mr. Trump, the concrete is already setting, and it is setting with him at about 40% of the vote (RCP Average, 538 National Vote Average)

Regardless of whether he withdraws or loses, we'll all have to see him again for his upcoming hearings: Trump University case - November 28 1990s rape case - December 16 After this new sh*tstorm hit the fan, it feels funny even mentioning these older controversies. We know that a write-in campaign would be a mess. Consider the 2010 Senate election in Alaska: Joe Miller ® fought every write-in vote for Lisa Murkowski ® that had a minor misspelling (Liza Murkowski, Lisa Murcowski). If a Republican would do that to a Republican, you can imagine the Democrats would not be any more sympathetic. Faced with a toxic nominee, the better solution would be to transfer allegiance to someone else already on the ballot (as was tried in the 2010 Colorado governor election). In the current election, Gary Johnson (Libertarian), Darrell Castle (Constitution), and Evan McMullin (Independent) represent theoretically-acceptable nominees with sufficient ballot access to win. Of course, somehow need to decide on one, and exactly one, for everyone to support, lest vote-splitting occur. However, these machinations are all moot, since it seems that there are a large number of true-believer Trump supporters that would not follow. For example, a guy from your neck of the woods, Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV), was booed by his own supporters for announcing he was no on Trump and no on Clinton.

Replacing a candidate is basically impossible at this point. To quote from Ballotpedia on "Deadlines for parties to certify their candidates for the general election": Ballots have been printed, many have been mailed out, and over 500,000 people have already voted. Saying that half of one's opponents supporters are deplorable is expressing an unkind opinion. Saying that you can get away with sexually assualting women (kiss without consent, "just grab them by the p----") is an admission of performing (or at least thinking of performing) activity which is absolutely illegal. They are not close to being the same, and the obviousness of that is apparent to not just Democrats. The following Republicans have now not just condemned Trump's remarks, they've un-endorsed him over them: Gov. Gary Herbert (R-UT)Fmr. Gov. John Huntsman (R-UT)Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID)Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-VA)Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO)Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL)Probably others, but references for those on that list are here: NBC News, Mediaite, TPM

Yes, but now I feel old since I'm reminded that the film came out in November 2003.

I assume if you are going to the UK, but still need to apply for ESTA with the United States, you're coming from somewhere else and just transiting America? Is that correct, or do I (as an American who doesn't need to worry about such things) not understand all the situtations in which someone would need to deal with ESTA?

If they had been serious with regards to this lawsuit, they would have chosen a serious counsel. Instead, they chose a guy (Larry Klayman) who is (in)famous for trying to get Pres. Obama deported as an illegal alien in 2014. Lack of seriousness suggests the goal is pretty much only to get headlines (rather than actual compensation, like wrongful death cases normally seek), and then maybe complain about a "rigged system" when the case gets thrown out.

Time Zones! How do they work? Right now, with 21M votes counted, and "Leave" ahead by 600k, seems likely that "Leave" will win. Certainly the international investment and currency markets think so: the British Pound has lost 8% of its value relative to the US Dollar in a matter of hours.

Indeed, polling before the Scottish independence referendum showed it competitive, but with a 2-5% advantage for "No." Then the vote came and "No" won by 10 percentage points. Should the same dynamic unfold in this referendum, we might expect people to vote cautiously for the status quo (i.e. "Remain").

Here's some March numbers from Gallup on this question. The table labelled "Donald Trump's Image, by Gender and Party" has the numbers you seek, which I've reproduced below (but do check the original link for related questions and commentary on the results):

This made me curious, and to the extent we have records, the longest-lived spider made it to 28 years old. It was apparently a tarantula from Mexico. That record, and longevity records for other animals (dogs, rabbits, goldfish, etc.) from here: http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2010/07/13/grand-paws-10-of-the-worlds-longest-lived-animals/ (The most interesting one on their list was a koi that made it to 226 years old!)

Of this particular species, the males live 2-3 years and the females live 10-15. Other tarantula species* have different ranges, but females greatly outliving males is the norm. I won't be setting Valentina free, but as someone who is targeted by mosquitoes every summer, I am glad that in the wild spiders eat about 80 lbs/acre/year of insects. As much as spiders might cause people fear, their existence out in nature seems preferable to tons of flies, mosquitoes, and other insect pests. Like bats, another classically feared type of animal, spiders have an important ecological role. * Some examples of fun other tarantula types (linked for the sake of arachnophobes) include: Poecilotheria metallica (really bright blue coloration, native of India, critically endangered)Brachypelma smithi ("Mexican red-knee tarantula")

This is Valentina, she is a Chilean rose tarantula (Grammostola rosea). She's quite friendly and generally has no problem with being held by people. Her main past-times are digging holes (and sometimes filling them in) and climbing on her log or the walls of her terrarium. She does not like water, and makes a point to avoid stepping in her water bowl while drinking (as opposed to my previous tarantula, who was happy to walk right in). Her food consists of 2-4 live crickets every 1.5-2 weeks. Makes for an interesting, easy, cheap, and hardy pet. Crickets are 10-15 cents each, so food is easy on the wallet. The long periods between feeding mean that being called upon to travel on short notice is not a problem as there is no need to arrange a sitter or put her in a kennel. Apologies to the arachnophobes ... http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp358/nzussbla/006.jpg

You are absolutely correct that it has been a privilege (except during periods of draft, when it was a compulsory activity). However, even things that are privileges cannot be simply curtailed for certain types of people without reasonable justification: Example: Driving is a privilege - yet, the DMV cannot simply deny licenses to African Americans who meet all stated and neutral criteria Ehh, kind of. Driving on public roads is a privilege. If you don't leave your own property, there is no Government permission card required. I grew up on a farm that was 3/4 of a section (if you don't know, a section is a square mile). Started driving farm machinery and pickup trucks at about 11 years of age. Never on the public roads. Now, you are absolutely correct that the Government cannot discriminate. Since the Government uses our tax money to create the roads, and there is a specifically defined process to obtain permission to drive on it, you are correct. However, a personal business has the right to refuse service to anyone they don't want to. If a person running a business decides they no longer want to provide services to a specific group of people (take your pick how they are defined), then they have that right. They also have to deal with the repercussions of their choices of who to do business with. Sure, I'll accept the clarification of non-discrimination regarding the privilege to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. And yes, very familiar with the concept of a section - my uncle has one-and-a-half in Montana, and I too learned to drive (cars, tractors, and a combine harvester) on it prior to getting a road license. Here's another example (mostly for the perusal of MWilson): Perhaps you recall the IRS targeting controversy, when the IRS supposedly discriminated against certain groups' applications for tax exempt status due to their political beliefs? Of course, establishing a tax exempt organization is not a right, but a privilege. Yet, here were all these people upset that they were discriminated against by the government in pursuit of that privilege. It's almost as if they admitted that the government shouldn't have the right to do that. And if it shouldn't there, and it shouldn't with regards to driver's licenses as we discussed, it also shouldn't have with regards to non-closeted gays and the privilege to serve in their country's armed forces. On your final point regarding the right of business owners to not serve a specific group of people, sure, they can do that. The two examples you provided resulted in losses in the court of public opinion.* For certain other choices though (race, religion, other protected categories) there may also be in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and subjection to large fines (ex: $54M fine of Denny's in 1994). Here, both court of law & court of public opinion losses would be the result. * - I will also state emphatically that any hacking or death threats were unacceptable. They're pretty much unacceptable regardless of the rationale employed or the person(s) targeted.

Reasonable people would probably express concern that their government might injure or kill innocent people. They may argue that this is a necessary evil and inevitable given that we cannot have perfect information, but they would acknowledge it (as Rafay does) as a problem that ideally should be minimized. I'm not completely against the death penalty in theory, but so long as we have people being sent to death row only to later be exonerated (hopefully before their executions) I am not OK with it in practice. (And this is why we need statistics on the matter, your apathy aside.) Ideally we would have perfect information, but unfortunately, that would require an onerous and intrusive surveillance system (e.g. cameras everywhere, implanted GPS chips in people, etc.) that would be terrible to actually have.