1.) In general, this is a reactionary movement from the elite class of society(straight, white, cis people) to keep a death grip on the social and systemic power they see being taken from them in the form of diversity, equality, feminism, etc. This has been happening for a long time now, but it got real, real bad after...
2.) ...Trump was elected. Him winning the election was a shot of weapons-grade steroids into the ass of these regressive movements. He validated and emboldened them. He made them feel not only okay about being bigoted, but morally good for it.
> Trump was elected. Him winning the election was a shot of weapons-grade steroids into the ass of these regressive movements.
It’s actually exactly the opposite. We lurched left in a very short time. As recently as 2007, a plurality even of Hispanics said there were “too many immigrants” in the US. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/19/latinos-hav.... Little more than a decade later, every mainstream Democratic candidate is running on providing universal healthcare to people who immigrate illegally.
I'm afraid you've been breaking the site guidelines by using HN for ideological flamewar, personal attacks, and the like. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of which ideology they're for or against, so please stop.
> In general, this is a reactionary movement from the elite class of society(straight, white, cis people) to keep a death grip on the social and systemic power they see being taken from them in the form of diversity, equality, feminism, etc. This has been happening for a long time now, but it got real, real bad after...
Trump's base is decidedly not elite. It's working class people who live outside cities.
The elites live in cities and have graduate degrees. Very few of them voted for Trump.
>Trump's base is decidedly not elite. It's working class people who live outside cities.
Define "city," "elite" and "working class."
Because if Trump's base primarily consisted of people who lived in areas with, let's just say, populations under 10,000 without access to municipal services and who primarily farm and live off the land, then he would never have had enough support to carry the primaries. Clearly a significant number of his supporters live in what most people would consider a "city."
According to these articles, at least[0,1], Trump's primary support was among relatively affluent Republicans. It shouldn't be a surprise, either. Trump is an elite, a billionaire businessman. Obviously, other elites were going to support him.
That said, I would agree with GP in a general sense, that we're seeing a hard right-wing, reactionary shift primarily driven (as right-wing shifts typically are in the West) by white cis Christian males fighting to maintain their cultural power in the face of demographic and progressive change. However, I don't think there's necessarily a strong correlation in this movement to urban/rural or high/middle/low income lines, although I could be convinced by data to the contrary.
His thesis statement is entirely misleading. He absolutely recommends it. The entire article reiterates several times how happy he was and continues to be that he passed up more secure opportunities again and again over the years.
I expected it to be about how you regret your choice and you would recommend this path to almost no one. This seemed to be what other readers expected too. But, instead, you talked about how happy you were with the choice. Also, you hedged your anti-recommendation quite a bit:
> "If you are looking for security or reassurance, I do not recommend this line of work."
I don't think people proudly believe they want "reassurance", in many cases.
> "However, if you are burning with curiosity — if your heart and intuition lead you to do things that don’t make sense—well, then you don’t really have a choice in the matter, do you?"
I think people would much rather think of themselves as "burning with curiosity".
(Isn't curiosity cooler than reassurance/security? At least in the HN audience?)
I interpreted your closing statements, very roughly, as ~"Careful, don't do what I did if you're normal. Only do what I did if you're cool." So it was actually a recommendation, in my mind.
Ah, thanks for the explanation. I found the "clickbait" bit to be a leap (though you weren't the only person to say so). This is how I really feel about it. I wish I felt like I had enough of a choice in the matter to say "oh well, that was a mistake." If I felt like I did have a choice, no, I wouldn't recommend it.
Allow me to save you thirty seconds: The author defines 'hard work' as any kind of work that is physically taxing and/or dangerous. Any other kind of work is simply challenging, not 'hard'.
Once, while on a road trip, the wife and I ended up walking around Roswell, New Mexico at 2:00AM on a Tuesday. The town was completely lifeless as you described. We didn't see a single person for hours. The dark, empty town coupled with the alien/UFO decor literally everywhere you looked is still one of the more surreal things I've experienced. I have sort of a warm nostalgia for it, though.
Interesting idea. It's been said that lack of alternatives to viewing sporting events is the biggest reason the remaining cable subscriber base hasn't cut the cord yet. Definitely an area sorely in need of disruption.
>Not to mention that history has shown that if you give people enough cash to just get by, they tend to lean towards a leisure lifestyle of drug abuse, gambling, non-education, non-productivity, etc. Why not? If no worries, then you might as well party.
Any sources to back up this statement?
"But it turns out that the effects of a UBI on labor participation weren’t nearly as bad as some had feared. Researchers[1] found that households as a whole reduced their workloads by about 13%, as economist Evelyn Forget explains in a 2011 paper published by Canadian Public Policy. But within each household, the (generally male) primary breadwinners cut back on work hours only slightly. Women who were secondary earners reduced their work hours more, devoting more time to household care and staying home with young children. Teenagers also put off getting part-time jobs to focus on school, leading to a noticeable decline in high school dropout rates in Dauphin, and to double-digit increases in high school completion among participating families in New Jersey, Seattle, and Denver."
Yes obviously because school is an investment: school>college>decent job.
What happens when decent job doesn't exist? Its unrealistic to pull data from an economy based on job seeking and say it applies to an economy where jobs are rare/non-existent. You can't eliminate the main incentive for education and then pretend things are going to be the same.
I picked the ghetto as an example because decent jobs aren't available, good schools are impossible to get into due to substandard schooling in those communities, and then when you try and beat the odds you have to contend with things like racial or cultural discrimination from employers. There's a reason so many people in those communities believe in hopelessness, because ultimately a lot of it is hopeless. So if 'decent job' doesn't exit, why would UBI kids bother with school? I suspect they'll just settle for a leisure lifestyle. Remove the goals, then you'll remove the effort to get there.
> I suspect they'll just settle for a leisure lifestyle.
This is basically the crux of the two sides of the UBI issue.
People against UBI believe others are no good and will waste their life if given the chance.
People for UBI believe others will use it as an opportunity to lift themselves up.
Why does the only worthwhile goal in your argument seem to be "get a good job"? People can find fulfillment with many other goals that don't need to be jobs.
I mean, call it what you will, but a lot of these people are getting offers, man. Good ones. Which is more than I can say for myself with my comp sci degree and two years experience. Although my location is likely to blame for that.
As I have had 7 different jobs for 12 different employers (due to mergers/acquisitions, by the most generous count), and have needed to run the entire interview gauntlet all 7 times, my primary career goal is no longer to earn more money. It is to never have to do another effing software-industry interview, ever again.
But damn. For $120k/year, in the region where I now live, I might just put Expo2 to whiteboard one more time.
I get tired of justifying my own existence to people who are only pretending to care that I am not actually a human-form automaton to crank out code. In short, the software-industry interview has always been stupid, but it has also become increasingly arrogant and rude. Is it really worth it to put up with the crap-on-you parade for a few more measly dollars in the paycheck?
>"my primary career goal is no longer to earn more money. It is to never have to do another effing software-industry interview, ever again.:
I feel exactly the same way, even though the existence of those interviews is probably the main reason I was able to get into kinds of companies I did.
1.) In general, this is a reactionary movement from the elite class of society(straight, white, cis people) to keep a death grip on the social and systemic power they see being taken from them in the form of diversity, equality, feminism, etc. This has been happening for a long time now, but it got real, real bad after...
2.) ...Trump was elected. Him winning the election was a shot of weapons-grade steroids into the ass of these regressive movements. He validated and emboldened them. He made them feel not only okay about being bigoted, but morally good for it.
That's my thoughts, at least.