Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...It's important to remember that not all educated or intelligent people desire to leave in a major metropolis.
My politics couldn't be more dissimilar from the prevailing belief patterns in most major cities. ...
You're of course right. I personally have aversion to many aspects of city-life, be they political or social or just mundane attributes of running errands. I love automobiles – working on them, driving them, collecting them – and that's hardly consistent with either urban logistics or the prevailing urban values.
The main appeal of larger cities for me isn't the urban amenities, but the people; and specifically the dating-opportunities. Given the New Economy's concentration of affluence in the larger cities, these are the places which are going to attract the people who are (by my estimation) worth dating. The professionals left in the secondary cities and towns – especially those who aren't of a religiously conservative bent – are going to feel socially stranded.
In sum, the New Economy offers many fine benefits to the studious and the enterprising, and for this I'm grateful. But beyond material-success or career-success, there's social-success. And this is just as unevenly distributed.
* Too many people with educations and debt, not enough good jobs for everyone to get the one they expected to get from their education
* The winners in the new economy all move to cities like San Francisco, where the good jobs are, while the rest of America turns into a 3rd world wasteland
* So-called emerging economies continue to manufacture cheap goods to America in exchange for our increasingly worthless dollars. They use these dollars to buy up America.
The idiots move to SF because they go into poverty trying to pay for 5 grand rents.
The idiots move to SF because they go into poverty trying to pay for 5 grand rents.
No, people move to SF and pay 5 grand rents because they want the lifestyle. If they can't afford it they're idiots. If they want the job, but decent rents, they commute on the train from Oakland.
What's being innovated in the Bay Area will spread. Tesla's new manufacturing space is in Nevada, not here. Granted, much of it has gone overseas and not to the United States. That will change.
* Too many people with educations and debt, not enough good jobs for everyone to get the one they expected to get from their education
* The winners in the new economy all move to cities like San Francisco, where the good jobs are, while the rest of America turns into a 3rd world wasteland
* So-called emerging economies continue to manufacture cheap goods to America in exchange for our increasingly worthless dollars. They use these dollars to buy up America.
Socialism, massive immigration from the 3rd world and American decline.
Its happening, we are losing and Hillary is going to be the nail in our coffin.
Eventually, due to automation and AI, there will be few to no jobs and humans will focus on enlightenment rather than the pursuit of material things, as most wants and needs will be readily available.
You're of course right. I personally have aversion to many aspects of city-life, be they political or social or just mundane attributes of running errands. I love automobiles – working on them, driving them, collecting them – and that's hardly consistent with either urban logistics or the prevailing urban values.
The main appeal of larger cities for me isn't the urban amenities, but the people; and specifically the dating-opportunities. Given the New Economy's concentration of affluence in the larger cities, these are the places which are going to attract the people who are (by my estimation) worth dating. The professionals left in the secondary cities and towns – especially those who aren't of a religiously conservative bent – are going to feel socially stranded.
In sum, the New Economy offers many fine benefits to the studious and the enterprising, and for this I'm grateful. But beyond material-success or career-success, there's social-success. And this is just as unevenly distributed.
No, people move to SF and pay 5 grand rents because they want the lifestyle. If they can't afford it they're idiots. If they want the job, but decent rents, they commute on the train from Oakland.
What's being innovated in the Bay Area will spread. Tesla's new manufacturing space is in Nevada, not here. Granted, much of it has gone overseas and not to the United States. That will change.
What lifestyle? Almost every city with a population over 200,000 has clubs, overpriced coffee, and obnoxious elitist people just like the Bay Area has.
...but ...but ...but... What about all those gold bars under my mattress? When the zombie apocalypse happens, I'm prepared!
I think some protectionist legislation will make a bunch of manufacturing come back to the US. The bill of materials on an iPhone 6s is about $245.00. It would cost Apple about $5 more to build it in the US than to have Foxconn do it in China. There would be an awful lot of automation on the production lines but a vote in Congress and those jobs could start flowing back tomorrow. I work for an Asian company that does business in Brazil. We have a plant there because Brazil has local content laws. It's the way of things. General Electric now has plants all over the world to deal with the whole local content problem. It's going to happen here, too.
Yep, "near-sourcing" will be the name of the game with automation, with smaller, fast-responding local factories able to bring products to the market in a fraction of the time of today's giant, lumbering, global supply chains.
nope, New economy demonstrates in the USA the jobs that many people here don't qualify for. when the US shifted from an agrarian farming economy to industry back when, you were told you had better learn those skills to keep up and stay competitive. we're at a shift here, with jobs moving to engineering, tech, biotech, you had better keep up with the times.. but for one reason or other, many people refuse to learn. my computer sci class in college was 50 foreigners with student visas and 1 female. there are millions of job openings in science and technology, MILLIONS.
this is like back in the late 1800's, you're a farmer, and industry the new driving force of the economy and you refuse to learn welding and machine operation and blaming other countries for stealing your cotton business. this is the same as people complaining about lost sweatshop and factory jobs today, the same mentality as those kids in school who were left back a year, and eventually dropped out.
i had no idea that your lack of understanding of the situation went so deep.
When a farm hand lost his job in the previous generations, he didn't have to personally pay for years of education and training for even the CHANCE of employment in industry. All he had to do was show up at the factory and he was in. Companies actually TRAINED NEW EMPLOYEES FROM SCRATCH in those days. Today's outsourced unemployed are not only expected to pay 10's of thousands of dollars for education and training on their own, they are held responsible for when the economy changes gears and the field that they studied for is eliminated or off-shored, and told to spend years and more $$$$ retraining yet again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
