Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

The drunk driver is 13. And blind. And has narcolepsy.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

And keeps telling you what a great driver he is.

Re: But it's time you started living.
 

Nothing against Joan Jett, but c'mon: Husker Du!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks0to2QuJtM

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

Almost 3 years as the Law Offices of (LessinSF), in-house coverage counsel for AIG.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

This seems to be onto something.

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

How is my assertion there's not enough blue state work to absorb the labor glut in red states undone by the argument that blue states cannot find enough workers? I'll grant you it's a related point worth making, but... really? Really?

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

You'll get no defense of WV, or any other backward shithole employing that sort of idiocy, from me. That's depressing.

BTW, I think you might want to swap "believe" for "recognize." Not believing in global warming assumes it's a thing to be believed, perhaps in debate. It's not a theory. One can probably poke larger holes in Evolution, comparing Wallace's work with Darwin's, than one could trying to refute global warming.

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

There is a shit-ton of tech work out there and a handful of places capturing it. There is no reason Pittsburgh shouldn't be able to compete with Shanghai for some of that work, especially as labor costs for educated people in Shanghai approach Pittsburgh's over the coming few years. But it takes big investment in the universities and teaching hopsitals to kick it off (both of which Pittsburgh has and could work with).

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

First, because that isn't what you said:
And second, there probably is/could be enough blue state work to absorb red state labor capacity, because as usual your sense of magnitude is way off. Not that it matters due to skills mismatch, though.

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

I don't think its a skills mismatch. A lot of jobs that are hardest to fill are fairly generic, like lab techs and software sales positions. The ultra-highly skilled people who fill the CEO and CSO jobs around which the larger number of jobs are built have become increasingly mobile; many of them will commute almost anywhere in the country and are will move mainly places in the country. A lot of them come here from abroad, and aren't deeply tied to one place.

It's a values mismatch. The blue state jobs get built around places with universities and hospitals and they want employees who are eager to learn, willing to work hard, and comfortable interacting with people all over the world. The places that attract them, including places in red states like Atlanta, Austin, Nashville, the Triangle, etc., are outward facing places or have turned themselves into outward facing places. The places Sebbie is talking about are more inward facing places.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

Your inability to look past the very first level of this issue is fascinating. Although you seem to understand that technology has made whole industries outdated since the beginning of time, you simply cannot seem to comprehend that the fix in the current era is not protectionism, but evolution.

So you are absolutely wrong to say that we created this problem. Ty is absolutely right that Republicans have. If ditch digging with shovels is now obsolete because of earth movers, the correct approach isn't forcing industry to use workers with shovels. The correct approach is to teach those who used to dig with shovels to operate earth movers. This will necessarily mean there will be some shovelers who lose out. And here's the key (and you should unplug your ears now, so you can hear this): Those who lose out need to be trained in another field.

If you have a political party that feeds shovelers a bunch of bullshit about how they are going to protect their shoveling jobs while actively resisting investing in building the new industries as well as the training for modern options, that party is at fault.

Your solution of "placate them with some actual protectionism so you can capture their vote" is so fucking simplistic and short-sighted that I wouldn't understand how it was possible it could be made with a straight face if anyone else was proposing it.

TM

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

This is absolutely, positively not true. You are, once again, completely full of shit.

Banks hate regulations because of two reasons:

1. They want to do whatever the fuck they want because the people making the decisions make their money on bonus system which means they have no aversion to risk.

2. They are extremely lazy.

Regulation isn't the problem. It's the target of greedy, lazy bankers who want to make as much money as they can as quickly as they can. And since they are almost always Republicans, as a pavlovian response they shit all over the regulation that aims to keep them from creating the same problems for everyone that they created in the lead-up to 2007.

TM

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

So apparently we're next going to see an E/O cutting back on H1B visas, which are critical for tech companies.

Maybe instead we could suggest not using them to get in visa slaves to work cheap at Mar-a-Lago but focusing them on folks whose work will create more jobs and sometimes whole industries? Or doctors who can save lives?

Hey, guys
 

It's sure a good thing that we never took Trump literally, right? And boy, he's sure no different than Hillary.

Re: Hey, guys
 

Speaking of literally, what is "a regulation"? I missed the part of law school where you learn to count them.