NAFTA was a huge sting here in NC that lead to the decline of the textile industry being way accelerated.

I can tell you there were a lot of people who were pretty solid D voters, be it NCs brand of Old South Democrats, who worked in those mills and all the industry and business around them and live in the towns that still have the remains of them who have never forgiven that.

How much they tied that to her, I can’t say.

But the hate for NAFTA is very real here.

NAFTA opened up massive markets to them.

For example: eggs. About 5 years ago, every egg raised on a farm in TN came from an inspected farm. If you bought any eggs from a TN farmer, they had paid $200 a year for classes and inspection of the farm's egg washing facilities.

But less than 1% of eggs coming from outside the state were ever inspected or came from an inspected facility. The result was small local egg farmers went out of business and big factory farms went out of state (to avoid the $200 a year.).

There are numerous examples like that. But the biggest problem with NAFTA and all the other free trade deals, is that very cheap foreign produce (with little or no inspections for quality) fills the shelves at the grocery store, feeds our kids in schools, pushes out local produce from hospitals, colleges and other institutions. NAFTA and other free trade deals really only helped grain manufacturers, wheat, soy and corn with huge amounts of insecticides, GMOs, Round Up and fake fertilizers. Everywhere else, it wiped out markets for local farm products.

And you really don't know what you are getting. A good friend of mine use to buy Chinese produce, mostly fruit, to market here mostly to Wal Mart. He said the Chinese farmers would brag about the fact that there are NO bugs around their fruit trees and there haven't been any insects alive on their trees for over 10 years. Ten years, how poisonous must their insecticides be?

Some Local farmers have been able to make a comeback thanks to the organic and local movement. But it is an uphill battle trying to win a market for your local products. Thank god the TPP never got passed.

Bill Clinton "supported" it and signed it into law. It wasn't his initiative that gave it life.

My repug brother in law, who worked st one of them blames Clinton 100%

and did. He owns it, and so do 3rd wayers*, past and present.

*whatever they choose to call themselves.

of course, there was not a veto-proof majority voting in favor, so he could have stopped it. Senate was in Democratic hands and D votes were almost evenly split; House D votes were 60% against. iow he signed it against the wishes of his own party.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/1/1/1255736/-NAFTA-at-20-An-Unhappy-Birthday-and-a-Look-at-the-Roll-Call-Votes-on-Free-Trade-Deals

People who cited real economic issues voted for Hillary. They wanted the wall, they wanted to stop immigration. NAFTA was much lower on the list. Others tried to use it as a wedge- to divide Dems- as you are now.

We see you.

set out to destroy the Democratic candidate, something they would have done to any Democrat.

This election was lost the moment Barack Obama appointed James Comey as FBI director.

Voters said the improving economic conditions and terrorism were the top two issues. In both cases Trump was favored 48% to 43%.

Trump holds a narrow advantage over Clinton when it comes to improving economic conditions and defending the country from future terrorist attacks – two issues voters place near the top of their importance list.





http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/

Trump did not ultimately impress people on the economy.

It backed me up.

who would better handle the economy?

Clinton 46%

Trump 48%

Issue is where the party goes from here.

get bigots and xenophobia voting for us just because we trash trade.

and xenophobes...in case you are looking for a false narrative.

repeat it often enough people will believe it? Next you’ll tell me that the Trump win means people hate capitalism. HA

Or do you think if you repeat your false narrative often enough that it will become true?

and btw, whatever tRump's win means, chew on this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/26/a-majority-of-millennials-now-reject-capitalism-poll-shows/?utm_term=.192c38c76805

buh-bye

you got there, LOL. Enough of the anti-Dem bullshit/ Russian propaganda.

I responded to a different poster, who wanted to leave all "old news" behind--apparently-- and asked, " not a fan of truth and reconciliation in general?"

Reading comprehension is key.

That’s plain to see. Changed your mind I guess.

and going back on offense? that's all I need to know.

but now you’re all about looking back for “truth and reconciliation.” You should take your own advice about reading comprehension.

But you know, the stench is real.

All of a sudden trade is the boogeyman man again instead of the Russians and everything else. Only a false narrative about trade is pushed. It does indeed stink.

HTH does that help us get rid of repug control in the 2018 election, and ultimately trump?

Or is this just another attempt to divide Democrats?

also too, this is suspiciously like a call-out : "...just another attempt to divide Democrats?"

The resentment over these trade agreements is mighty powerful!

Of course, the resentment is not rational. And it may be old news to some.

What we need to tell voters is how the Trumps and their friends make their money using these international trade agreements and cheap labor in other countries.

or grandchildren of immigrants themselves.

I think economic fear motivates voters far more than polls show.

And sexism motivates a lot of voters in the US.

it’s the truth- but that was disproven by many polls after the election. Very few people understood there was a lot of good there for farmers and other job sectors. They had no idea about the role automation was playing. I’d say they were more pissed at Dems for environmental and safety regulations hurting manufacturing- such short memories people have.

placed in Dem precincts, thousands of ballots alleged to have not check the presidential choice in Detroit, a majority AA city and other repug dirty tricks.

Haven't you heard?

I participated in that in some of the elections for Obama. If you have lawyers on site, the glitches seem to get repaired fairly quickly. Why wasn't this done in 2016? Or was it?

Not our first rodeo.

There wasn't any here in Los Angeles in my precinct at the Democratic Primary. I can assure you of that.

Our right to vote is under attack. We need to defend it.

We're not that easily fooled.

responded to cited instances of irregularities in the counting and casting of votes. The one does not exclude the other.

I agree with the OP that Democrats allied themselves with very unpopular trade agreements. That turned off a lot of voters -- on top of other factors including sexism, racism, the Russian interference and old-fashioned denial of voting rights and other voting irregularities.

Hillary lost in 2008 to Obama and again in 2016 to Trump.

I want to see a woman become president, but she has to have a warmth and personality that overcomes the sexism and other hurdles she will face in the election.

a person who does not state a party preference and has to know the magic words to get a Democratic ballot.

Unfortunately, a lot of people (especially young people) who are really Democrats register as "decline to state" and then cannot vote in the Democratic or Republican primaries. They don't realize when they register that the rules prohibit them from voting in the primary of a party they haven't signed up for unless they know the magic words.

Of course, a Republican can register as a Democrat and vote in the Democratic primary. And in California where, today, Republicans have little chance of every winning a statewide office, there is lots of incentive for Republicans to register as Democrats.

I can understand why young people register as decline to state. I've had my party affiliation brought up to me in the workplace when I worked at jobs in which my opinions were believed to be important. How my boss knew about my affiliation is a mystery to me. But . . . . .

So it's a very difficult issue -- voter registration for a specific party. If we want primaries to give us an idea about which candidate will attract the most votes in the general election, a closed primary is not necessarily the best idea.

I don't know what is.

But California voted by a wide margin in favor of Hillary in the general election. Because of the electoral college, our votes did not make much difference. You could vote for Mickey Mouse in California and not make a wave in the outcome of the election. We need to end the electoral college. It is an anachronism that makes no sense. It is not a democratic institution. It needs to go.

It's a shame when so many who really are Democrats are excluded from voting in primaries, but you are right. I don't know what the answer is other than re-registering as many decline to state voters as possible as Democrats.

We need committed Democrats deciding in Democratic Party primaries who Democratic candidates are — no interlopers, no undecideds, no undesirables with agendas trying to influence who our candidates are.

Not rocket science. Registering is easy.

What matters is what people believe and feel.

Including activities that led to a huge rat-fucking by James Comey.

And Strickland and many others.

... in polling vs voter and 2. the issues

Something was seriously wrong

I wonder how you think that would have worked out? You think we'd still have all those manufacturing jobs here? You're dreaming.

We need to transform our workforce instead of pretending we can freeze time.

Service economy ain't working too well.

We'll just manage the world money. Yeah, that'll work.

Maybe you can the jobs of horse whip manufacturers while you're at it.

Adapt or die.

The fundamental problem that all the free trade agreements had and will have is that there was a thought process that somehow we could outsource all of the "icky" jobs (manufacturing) that pollute to nations that had cheaper labor and didn't care so much about clean air and water... and that we would all become "information workers".

The only problem was... it was actually EASIER to outsource the information jobs ( India has more honors students, all of whom speak English, than we have students ) with the advent of high speed internet.

You can now be almost anywhere on the planet and write software or phone apps or answer tech support questions.

So much for the information economy with $100K+ jobs.

As for manufacturing, the next age will be driven by robotics.

As for decision making (so-called executive jobs).. AI is about to take over that too.

That doesn't leave much... Doctors (at least for now), lawyers, some teachers, sales clerks, burger flippers, farmers (although I've seen some visions of the future that completely automate farming).

There isn't much left. Welcome to the gig economy... minimum wage UBER drivers and so on.

The real problem is that the wealthy want ALL the money... but their greed makes them short-sighted as the economy isn't driven by capital or by labor... but by demand. And demand for goods is going to decrease rapidly as downward mobility increases. Eventually, demand will dry up and even the rich will wonder what happened to their wealth ( which, conversely, will make them greedier to take even a larger share of the shrinking pie... a phenomenon that I believe was the root cause of the recent tax bill ) .

I don't see a solution....

Green energy jobs... that's a massive transformation that has to happen, and it can't be outsourced.

Infrastructure... our country is crumbling, and we need to rebuild. Can;t do it with robots for the foreseeable future.

Those are just a couple of ideas.

But if you think we can save factory jobs by isolating yourself, you're nuts.

We also have enough money for guaranteed incomes like the Nordic countries.

because they couldn't be imported, you're nuts

...I don't know why Dems aren't more vocal about these areas of opportunity. The problem is that those are perceived as "government jobs", and as far as that goes, it just strikes me as another area where we have accepted the Republican framing and terms of debate with regard to this stuff.

If it's not the private sector, and it's not making the rich richer, then it doesn't seem to count as "jobs" or "opportunities".

be the service economy. Translation = working shit jobs for shit wages while the big dogs cart off the loot!.

Germany has done quite well in the global markets, and protected unions and manufacturing.

They participate in the EU markets and manage to compete. But not by avoiding international trade deals. They do it by good policy.

Which NAFTA was not.

workforce to produce products that are excellent in as low a cost way as possible.

That means that employees and owners work together, cooperate in producing excellent products that cannot be matched by cheap labor imitations. That means establishing brands that really mean something to consumers. That means a top quality, free education system at all levels and for all jobs.

I've lived in Germany. They are also focused on alternative energy. And they did not use nuclear energy. They are not entirely green ---- yet.

For a couple of decades, our manufacturing sector has been overly focused on financial performance, often ignoring actual production performance. They invest in financial assets, not production assets. That leads to a situation where you get beat by low wages. There is nothing wrong with being smart financially, but if production isn't growing, and/or efficiency isn't increasing, ultimately you're losing.

By the way, one of those assets are trained employees in the manufacturing arts. aka Craftsmen.

I voted for her mostly because I knew Trump would be a disaster, but she didn't excite me after Bill's neoliberalism and acquiescence to the GOP.

I cheered for Trump in the Republican primaries only because I knew that Hillary would win the Democratic nomination and I was sure that she would beat him (in the electoral college and otherwise). Nope.

I cheered for W because I thought he would be the easiest to beat. There were other more serious GOP contenders that seemed to have a better chance in the general.

I found out the hard way that it is a high stakes gamble. If it doesn't work out then we are left with the worst possible GOP contender.

I no longer have any faith that the US electorate will make the obvious choice. It has only gotten worse in an environment where people get their news from social media and even the more traditional news sources are unreliable (or outright false)

I thought he had a chance to win the general election back then, so I didn't giggle so much over his Republican primary success.

I first became depressed over Trump when I saw polls of hypothetical general elections between him and others. Later polls showing a tight race between him and Hillary was like the slow drip of Chinese water torture... until full madness on election night.

I was a Sanders person, but I would have supported her more if I thought Trump had any chance. An uncle in central PA warned me. Certainly Russia and collusion and the media were big factors in her loss - also it was not a good year for establishment candidates.

That said, it really annoys me that the President who said "the era of big government is over" is a Democrat. NAFTA and later the TPP were worked out with the support of big corporations and not labor. It may have hurt Hillary with the working class, though racism was also a factor. It's not that trade is bad, but we need it to be fair to all involved and be willing to help people when there are consequences.

Without the fake email scandal Hillary would have destroyed Trump.

Of course, that isn't saying very much.

I don't have to agree they were the only factors.

And without Comey and Russian interference, I believe she would have had PA, WI, and MI. Those would make her President, and what a different world it would be. Things like NAFTA more affected margin of victory.

In general, I think the impact of NAFTA has been overstated in that it really only affected jobs going to Mexico. The biggest loss of jobs has been to China under the much broader move to globalization.

Nevertheless, NAFTA is an identifiable boogeyman that could be tied to the Clinton name. It was used as a bludgeon to beat her up in the blue collar white communities. It had the bonus effects of blaming Mexicans and being linked to illegal immigrants so it all became one convoluted story line that sold well in Trump Country.

So while I don't think it represents a real picture of history, it was definitely used against her. It certainly wasn't the biggest factor but I think it certainly moved the needle in some very important parts of the midwest.

I remember thinking at that the time that NAFTA sounded like a bad idea. However, I was willing to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt. I remember the sales pitch being something along the lines of losing the manufacturing jobs in return for gaining higher paying high tech and white collar jobs.

This was a fundamentally flawed and even somewhat racist idea. People in China, India, Mexico etc. are perfectly capable of doing high tech and white collar jobs too. Even more so when you factor in robotics and other technology.

In the end, I think Americans also underestimated how craven American companies would be in the chase for profits. In the process, the GOP has become a protectorate of these business interests. It is somewhat a defining characteristic of what the GOP has become. Even down to the fact that they now think even a bad business man is better than a good politician for President. Which makes it particularly galling that he outflanked the Democrats and appealed to those voters as a populist.

There are other fact posts, but this is the only one that refutes the notion that this was anything but racism and xenophobia raising it's ugly two heads.

Yes, racism and economic illiteracy were major problems in the '16 general...
Yes, the racism of rural Americans is bone deep and something that they are loathe to admit to because they honestly believe they are not racists as long as they are not wearing hoods and lynching people...

But more than either of those points, there was a MASSIVE vote of white men who simply could not abide the IDEA of a woman president at all, let alone on the heels of the first "n-word" president. It was a blow to the fragile white male ego that was inconceivable in the collective mindset. I know. I AM a white male and I heard the talk..."ANYONE but HER..."..."Yeah, Trump that bitch...hehehehe"..."No goddamn way am I voting for a hysterical woman"....and so on and so forth ad nausea.

The hindsight on 2016 has been well trod, but too often I see what I believe was the driving force behind it all - sexism and patriarchal views - get swept aside.

They don't have babies. They no longer are the primary or sole breadwinners in families. And then a woman dares to challenge their being in charge.

They felt superfluous and wanted to stop Hillary, and here came this huge lug of orange is-it-a-man-or-an-animal, and what could they do but vote for it?

Re-establishing male dominance with one big, orange swoop.

Economic anxiety grows out of the primordial fear arising from our most basic needs for shelter, food, community (group identity and belonging), etc.

calling for deportations and bans of people.

Globally when there is an economic downturn, nativist far right parties gain power.

Democrats blame NAFTA for everything, but that's just going along with a Republican talking point. In a global economy, manufacturers are going to move jobs where labor is cheap. We're competing with slave labor in China and impossibly low wages elsewhere in the world.

"Fly-over country" loves their cheap Chinese made products at Wal-Mart. When was the last time the Republicans said "buy American."

If we paid our workers more, they could afford to pay more, but would they? Would they go to a locally owned hardware store instead of Wal-Mart?

If it wasn't Mexico it would be China or Vietnam or India or Brazil or Indonesia. Keeping some of those jobs in the same hemisphere was better than the alternative. Helping Mexico's economy helps us in the long term anyway.

Presidents don’t make laws in this country. Congress does. A Republican Congress passed the bill known as NAFTA.

It’s why cars ain’t made in Detroit any more. Why pay a worker in Michigan $20 an hour when you can pay a worker in Mexico $20 a day to do the same thing.

NAFTA comes from the same Chicago School of economics that continues to espout Trickle Down.

You know....Republicans.

Because I remember it passing in 93 when Congress was controlled by the Democratic Party.

An billions spent attacking the Clintons has worked on more people than we would like to admit. This is proof.

"Festering Resentment Sunk Hillary In The End." Wow.

There were a few co-workers (primarily Vietnam/Korea era Vet types), who had bought into the "Draft Card Burning Red Hippie Slick Willie" lies that Atwater/Rove and the RWM had been pushing since the primaries - and these guys were originally Democrats. They were talking out loud about the equivalent of a 2nd Amendment solution once he took office. And once he began talking about Hillary and him being a "team", she became as much a pariah to the right as he was - especially since she was a traitor to her upbringing, as she was once a "Goldwater Girl".

Clinton Derangement Syndrome was manufactured a long time ago.

Haele

show. Clinton’s are a huge target. Now he’s attacking Democrats for not embracing Chelsea Manning. Formulaic pot stirring.

The UK is gradually finding out what a big mistake "Brexit" is.

Trump is intent on repeating that blunder here.

NAFTA was a net gain of jobs for American Workers and it helped the economy overall.

The fact he and they haven't is revealing. We live in an interconnected world whether we like it or not.

Free trade is good for all sides. NAFTA was good for America and the TPP would have been too.

It's just that it's more difficult to explain international trade theory in a sound byte than it is to scream, "They took our jerbs!"

NAFTA gutted many manufacturing jobs and opened up cheap labor that did not benefit the Mexican government either. At the time the wage in Mexica was $3 a day and it did not go up much after that. We did not protect our manufacturing sector. I will take my 24 years of DOL experience over what you know any day of the week.

But NAFTA increased trade by more than 2/3s of a $Trillion a year. 5 million new US jobs rely on this new trade. The jobs that were created in the US by NAFTA were more than were lost, and they paid 15-20% more.

Trade increases jobs and the quality of life for both sides. Low skilled factory jobs were replaced by higher skilled professional jobs. Automation had a much bigger effect than free trade agreements.

Near the top of the list for horrifying things Trump is pushing, is his idea of America First economic nationalism. This idea is bad for the world, China has already taken advantage of Trump and positioned themselves to reap the economic windfall of thier trade agreements and investments in a future unified Africa.

We manufacture more goods than every today. But that manufacturing is done via automation. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs lost were replaced by automation.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/30/news/economy/jobs-china-mexico-automation/index.html

Since 2009, U.S. manufacturing output is up over 20%, but manufacturing jobs are only up 5%.

I'll take the actual evidence. Sorry but it doesn't support your claims.

and load up on the cheap, low-quality shit made outside of the United States. I maintain that protectionism will work great until we can't afford our cell phones. Then we will hear what the Americans really like.

when NAFTA was passed. We fought it tooth and nail. After 12 years of GOP presidents, I looked at Clinton as our chance to return to sanity. NAFTA and the crime bill were a real disappointment. I won’t even mention “welfare reform.”

it is just antidotal but several times on c span's open phones I have heard black men talking crime bill and for profit prisons as the reason they just didn't vote in '16

train their replacements before equipment was shipped to Mexico to be installed in a maquiladora over the border. No matter what statistics are quoted or spun, the resentment over NAFTA in blue collar areas in the rust belt is real. The loss of unions membership in the US is also a huge loss of infrastructure to Democrats. Many Dem meetings are and have been held in Union halls, Union members used to knock doors with us, donate to candidates and vote for Dems on a much larger basis than they do now.

I'm pretty sure that an unemployed, narco-addicted meth-head in East Slagheap, West Virginia doesn't give a shit about NAFTA. This voting demographic just hates anyone with ovaries and political power.

Bottom line.

Specifically the views stated Re trade deals and job impacts and contempt for women in political power. Is this the case for poor, drug addicted people in suburbs, cities and rural areas in other states- beyond WV, total 1.5 mill. population?

'Slagheap', as in 'Toxic Township, NJ', "White Nation, OR', 'Contamination City, MI', 'Fracktown, OK'?

If they voted for Trump, they get no kid-glove treatment from me. As if I gave a damn about their precious feelings...

a state or region by unemployed, degenerate meth heads and drug addicts, and ignorant people oblivious to economic policy, is offensive and distorted. Naturlich. With the distress and dysfunction you exaggerate (also possible records, homelessness) how do people even vote, anywhere.

Trump won in a state turning redder and declining over years for many reasons. 100+ years of corruption in the dominant coal industry (primary employer) and in the political system that was checked in earlier, better times of union power and economic growth.
-There was nothing in my post suggesting Coddling Trump-R supporters, nicht. Wrong voter & ridiculous.

Many voters chose Clinton, Bernie got the primary God knows. Since the election, thousands have protested and challenged Trump and policies of the administration. I'm in contact and see some rally reports and images.



In the Civil War, WV joined the Union after seceding from Va. when conflict began in 1861. It became the 35th US state in 1863. A loyal Democratic bulwark for decades, Mountaineers were stable BLUE voters when many Americans during the 1960s-1980s supported conservative GOP Repubs. Goldwater (AZ), Nixon (CA) and Reagan (CA).

WV has strong ties to the Democratic Party for generations even in diaspora families that spread over the US. The Dem. allegiance began firmly with FDR, then Truman, JFK who won the Dem. Party Primary nomination in 1960 thanks to WV (maj. protestant state); LBJ, Carter, Clinton.
--
Re ovaries, women in politics, sexism: Central Appalachia is well known for close kinships, large families- until more recently, also very strong, hardy and independent women who faced & survived harsh pioneer wilderness, remoteness and frequent struggles, particularly in the era of early expansion and conflict.

Notable American women well regarded by West Virginian women and men include: WV-born Nancy Hanks, mother of Pres. Lincoln; Carrie Williams, state educator; Mother Jones; Pearl Buck; Eleanor Roosevelt; Hillary Clinton; Maria Gunnoe, awarded WV environmental activist; and Elizabeth Warren, to name a few.

> Truth is critical. Ignorance and bias fuel negativity which fosters division and conditions detrimental to progress. Duh.
Yeah, I do care about perceptions and maligning, and foremost what happens to this democracy and country, all of it.



I would not be where I now am, I would not have some of the responsibilities I now bear, if it had not been for the people of West Virginia. - President John F. Kennedy



Maria Gunnoe, WV environmental activist opposed to MTR- Mt. Top Coal Removal; Goldman Award Winner,
with Bill McKibben, environmental/climate change advocate 350.org, in Wash. DC.

It doesn't seem to be doing us much good right now.

I'm glad to see there are West Virginians who recoil in horror at mountaintop removal coal mining. And are protesting against a once beautiful state being turned into a blasted moonscape.

If red-voting West Virginians won't listen to an elitist, West Coast, tree-hugging liberal, I wish they would at least listen to their fellow Mountaineers.

including Pres. Obama who did his damnedest to pass TPP. In fact Roosevelt supported free trade. So maybe we should stop attacking a very successful President (Clinton) and move on to the future which is at grave risk from the right. Hell I wish we had Clinton now.

Clinton sided with Gingrich and bullied the Democrats to vote for it . He made deals and lobbied endlessly.

102 signed on in the house...and regardless, Pres. Obama favored open trade...you have to face that and quit bashing Clinton who saved us from God knows how many GOP presidents...you do get that Clinton never had a majority and the only reason we won was Perot? No 'normal' Dems were even willing to run...Gore and Clinton were it. Clinton has said he regrets NAFAT that at the time he truly believed it would mean good jobs for Americans. I don't doubt he believed it...and it has helped some...GM couldn't survive without selling cars in China, Farmers benefit and so do others. I personally hate NAFTA and trade agreements...and there is the fact that Bush II did not enforce it. I remember when hubs auto plant made cars for Germany and Germany simple refused to take them..there were trade agreements, but Bush II let them get away with it. They had to scrap a millions cars as they could not be sold here...different specs.

when he talked about NAFTA. I was cringing in the debates when NAFTA came up.

.....I'm thinking that's why so many call centers are in other countries (I don't know for sure but that's how it seems)..

film about its decline was released in 1989-before NAFTA, before Clinton.

Moore had no answers then, and I don't think he does now.

The decline of American manufacturing has a long history. It was being written about in 1960s--the great change from a manufacturing economy to a service economy.

Most industries first made the move toward cheap factory labor in the 1960s as they followed the sun from the northern states to the southern states. Some northern states like Massachusetts built a new economy; some states did not.

In the 1970s in Atlanta the Hartsfield airport was dotted with posters addressing business execs. They said in bold lettering-come to GA and we will give you Hard Labor for Life. (Cute double meaning, don't you think- juxtaposing cheap labor with a tough on crime message- at the time cities like NY were facing bankruptcy and massive drug problems, high crime, high taxes).

Ronald Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers in the 1980s and what did the Reagan Democrats (workers) do? they accepted it. The rust belt was already rusty in the 1980s.

If we don't plan our future, others do it for us. Automation is upon us-not too many people talking about it in a meaningful away-but I bet it is a chief top of conversations in board room of the rich and famous corporations.