As much as I appreciate the spirit of your comment I don't think you're being entirely fair here. Professional journalists had the ground disappear beneath their feet with no obvious exit strategy. It was even worse for photographers. Sure some managed to tread water for a while by switching to digital workflows but demand for the trade evaporated. I mean, just in our local area something like 200 small businesses went bankrupt over the course of a decade and a half. Before digital you couldn't drive 5 miles in any direction from any point without passing a photography studio, film processing joint, or both. Now to the extend folks even get prints made there are self-serve kiosks in Walgreens. When the music stopped there weren't a whole lot of chairs left and being good with $50,000 worth of photography equipment doesn't really prepare one for any other career track.
Tech never had these kinds of issues because you could simply cross-train on the next related tech stack and keep working.
We understand that change can be hard. But the article strikes me as a bit self serving and myopic. I seem to remember a distinct lack of compassion from the media when the steel workers and miners were all losing their jobs. The "learn to code" meme started as a flip remark dismissing their plight. Now we have the rust belt.
The rust belt started long before that. So much so that the term itself was coined in '84 by Mondale. And I also think you are fairly incorrect about the media, it's just that the destruction of American manufacturing started happening in the late 60s and 70s and waves after wave of layoffs and downsizing. The transition from an industrial to a service/information economy was handled by the zeitgeist before Gen X's time. There's a reason the linked article isn't talking about people who dedicated their lives to corporations. Gen X has never trusted corporations nor has it ever trusted government institutions.
> The transition from an industrial to a service/information economy was handled by the zeitgeist before Gen X's time.
That's not entirely accurate. Sure textile mills and foundries were on a downward trend in the 70s and 80s but it wasn't until NAFTA came along that the bulk of manufacturing industries offshored. North Carolina retained it's command of furniture manufacturing and the timber industry was thriving up the eastern seaboard until then.
North Carolina isn't part of the rust belt and NAFTA (94) is ten years after the term "rust belt" was coined (84) so it seems pretty inaccurate to think that NAFTA had anything to do with the emergence of the rust belt. It certainly contributed and accelerated the decline, but if it's already so bad that politicians are calling it the "rust belt" ten years prior to what you claim is the clause, there's an accuracy problem with the narrative.
The concept of industrial decline and loss of manufacturing isn't limited to the rust belt. You dragged that in with you in your haste to well actually someone and if you actually -read- my comment you'll see I advanced no claims at all about it. Parenthetically what's your level of exposure to manufacturing in the US? Ever had a job making stuff?
I’m not Gen X but every time I read these types of stories I feel the same way. You have to adapt and grow or you die, simple as that. People that think learning ends when school ends annoy the hell out of me as do people who think it’s reasonable to expect a job to always exist, be the same, and pay the same.
Times change, you can change with it or be broken by it. It’s a choice and people who make the choice to not grow, and then complain about it, frustrate me.
Same. I still remember almost getting suspended in high school for "hacking" the school computers in the mid 90's. Now I get paid as a security researcher.
Also have genX friends who do more tangible stuff like auto mechanic, architect, trucker, dentist and chiropractor. All are doing just fine in their respective niches.
That’s why you make public schools better instead of drain more money from them to give a limited number of people lifeboats. It doesn’t matter if individuals acting in their own interest would choose to use them. Of course they’d use the vouchers for their own kids even if that meant a little less money available for public schools.
The fact that people would use the vouchers is not proof that the vouchers are a good idea or that public schools are not. It is simply the very predictable outcome of pretty much any time you give individuals the choice to act in their own self-interest over the needs of the population as a whole.
Many/most people if given the choice would also opt to skip jury duty, or to not pay taxes, or to cut to the front of busy lines. This is not evidence that those things are bad. It is evidence that you can’t give them the choice
Private schools already exist, why does private enterprise need the government’s help ?
Besides people already pay for public schools all the time by moving to an area with “good schools”. So the answer is to adequately fund public schools.
It’s a distributive effect of the social safety net
Currently, your property tax (well, the property tax of everyone in your administrative district) pays for your local public schools. Consider this as school tuition.
But this disincentives people from sending their kids to private schools since they would then be paying tuition twice, once via property tax to the local public school and second to the private school.
One solution is school vouchers where you use the property tax money for the private school tuition. Makes the public schools compete fairly with the private schools and allows not so well off folks to send their kids to private schools if they want.
Should I as a parent be forced to send my kids to a shitty school because of where I am residing and my lack of wealth?
> But this disincentives people from sending their kids to private schools since they would then be paying tuition twice, once via property tax to the local public school and second to the private school.
Why does the funding-type of the schools matter?
Does a public police force disincentivize people from hiring private security body-guards?
I’m not a criminal I don’t need police to be following me around, checking my speed on the highway
> Does a public police force disincentivize people from hiring private security body-guards?
Yes of course, but you are asking if you need private security for everyone using vouchers. We as a society have decided that having police is better for society instead of private security vouchers due to various reasons.
However, this question for schools remain open.
(Also, did I say the funding type of the schools matter? That’s a different discussion.)
The question remains open because different schools provide different types and quality of education (good schools, bad schools, religious schools, schools focused on science or arts, schools with different teaching methods, schools with gang violence, etc). Therefore, parents should be able to choose the schools they send their kids to despite their circumstances, and we as a society should enable them that choice.
My statement was about incentives for parents. If you want to enable parents the choices, one way to improve the incentives is school vouchers.
> Therefore, parents should be able to choose the schools they send their kids to despite their circumstances, and we as a society should enable them that choice.
I don't think you clearly explained why they can't already choose.
People vote with their wallets and their feet all the time.
At what price should "we as a society" enable parents to send their kids to any school they want ?
They can, if they have the money, which not everyone does. More people can, if they are given school vouchers. The price is less corresponding funding for public schools per student that chooses the school voucher.
So we are looking at more parents being able to choose schools vs less corresponding funding for public schools. I think it’s worth it to go for vouchers, two advantages being it gives parents choice, and it makes schools compete in a market.
Most people dislike Trump, Musk, and Vance. Musk is by far the least liked of the three.
People in the country very much dislike the status-quo, hence the dislike of the Democratic Party and voters going for ape-shit change over Biden.
I sincerely doubt working people will see their lives improves this term and change their mind on Trump; there wasn't a liberal shift to the right and we'll likely see a major reaction of everyone going to the left when they realize dismantling everything hurt everyone.
yea, all right is working on is fixing this shit for ya. feel safe already, just like I did in 2016-2020. those were the times… now I am already starting to feel safer too, it is unbelievable :)
Nonsense. And his nazi salute was not autism either. He was signaling to his base he is on the fascist side.
It is ridiculous to play the autistic card with a guy whose whole thing are charisma, social skills and ability to convince people of impossible. His stock is marketed the way it is due to Musks ability to be convincing.
