Random Politics & Religion #17

Can we got 3 posts without bashing Trump I don't think it is possible ! One.

Two.

Three.

Now back to bashing Trump.

British singer agrees to perform at Trump inauguration on one condition
Seattle PI


Nice British Singer Lady Will Do Trump’s Inauguration, On One Hilarious Condition
Wonkette, much funnier.

And I'm sure that a business-friendly president had nothing to do with it. You know, somebody who promised to not raise taxes on businesses to help pay for their pet projects and/or bribery schemes for votes.

Lack of demand means much more than would-be trickle down economics. It's not that hard.

And in other business news

God Announces Plans To Shift Majority Of Resources Tied Up In Humanity Project To Birds, Rocks

Economic denier!

Seriously, trickle-down government doesn't work. Obama proved that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Only his die-hard fans and clergymen would say otherwise.

Your made-up term has nothing to do with what I said.

Been trickled on lately?

Was it at least still warm?

So, are you saying that Ford would have still went on with it's move even if Clinton was elected?

Are you stupid, or just denying any influence made by this decision by the election of Trump?

I'm betting on the former myself.

If domestic policy wasn't the major motivation, why would the result have been different?

Is there really a debate going on that if Clinton was elected Ford still would have done this?

Then why was this decision made after the election? And more importantly, after a pro-business president was elected?

If this is what you say it is, then why did they:

A) Plan on building a plant in Mexico while Clinton was "expected" to win, and

B) Attribute the move to Trump's election, as such:


I know you are still in mourning, but damn, take off your blinders. Or at least, admit that Obama has failed America when it comes to creating jobs and boosting the economy, which is one of the reasons why he was elected in the first place.

If your best argument is Clinton isn't any better then you have no argument...

If someone can't be blamed for something bad because they're not in office yet then how can you attribute something good to that same person if they're still not in office?

Dude, there's still debate over whether we landed on the moon (we did) and if Sandy Hook was an "inside job" with actors instead of actual victims (it absolutely was not).

OF COURSE there's debate over petty ***like this.

Welcome to the internet, check your sanity at the *** door.

When the decision is made in regards to that person who is about to be in office.

I mean, geeze, keep up with the argument for crying out loud.

I know you want to argue just because, but ignoring certain facts just to make your argument will do you no good.

Point being the same goes the other way too... you can't say his actions and words leading up to him taking office can't lead to anything bad now because he's not in office yet then turn around and give him credit for things he does and says now while he's still not in office... you can't have it both ways...

Let's put this in another way:

Ford already attributed the move towards Trump's pro-business policies.

Again, ignoring the facts to make an argument isn't going to help your argument at all.

Did they?
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3a
Source 4

From source 1:


From source 2:


(The other 2 sources are just analysis of the media's take on it all)

I never said that Trump himself kept Ford from investing in Mexico or brought those jobs back. I said that Ford attributed the move because of the business-friendly environment that Trump's policies are creating.

I just worry about the "make America a manufacturing giant" again stuff.

I mean, I'm on board with it in theory.

But paying unskilled workers a living wage to perform menial tasks is something businesses already balk at. By making more of those jobs you're not really going to fix anything? You're just going to have more people barely scraping by in a slightly different way or you're going to have the cost of goods spiraling higher and higher to keep profit margins in the black.

Let me correct that. Automobile manufacturing jobs and similar assembly jobs are frequently slightly more than unskilled, but they aren't skilled trades, either.

I think I know where you're going with this, but I keep seeing this sentiment that somehow the availability of low-wage jobs is worse than having no job options at all.

Besides increase productivity?

How about having one person able to do more than one job? Instead of having a person who knows only how to weld a specific joint to a specific assembly, how about that same person also know how to build that assembly to the specifications prior to it being welded, or something further up or down the line?

Hate to tell you this, but unions are the ones demanding that the one person only knows how to do that one, very specific job, and nothing else. And if that job gets automatized, well, too bad for that union worker, cause now he has no skills at doing something else.

Being able to work multiple jobs on one line, or the same type of job on multiple lines, would probably help the worker a lot more than being a very specific job. If production isn't needed as much on that one line, at least that worker can go somewhere else where production is needed elsewhere. Or if there's a big order on one line, then more workers can work on that line if everyone has multiple skillsets.

Remember, this isn't just for automakers either. The auto industry does not make the entire US economy.

The future of unskilled jobs will be automated to the point where no human will do them. We are already heading in that direction. You don't think McDonald's would love to fire all their employees and have robot burger flippers.

There will be jobs in robotics and artificial intelligence though on the flip side of all this automation.

I think they would rather have the customer make their own burgers.

That way, if anything is wrong with it, it's the customer's fault, not McD's.

We had to deal with this in the 1800's during the industrial revolution. How to find employment for people that spent all their time in manual labor. I think we are better equipped now than in the 1800s.

Yeah, except...that's not apples to apples.

Yes, there might be some overlap, but the people attaching bumpers to chassis aren't necessarily people who are going to be able to get into robotics maintenance.

We've got a lot of not-stupid-but-not-bright people in this country that are going to be *** all useless in an era of automation.