SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
President-elect Donald Trump realized early in his campaign that U.S. IT workers were angry over training foreign visa-holding replacements. He knew this anger was volcanic.
Trump is the first major U.S. presidential candidate in this race -- or any previous presidential race -- to focus on the use of the H-1B visa to displace IT workers. He asked former Disney IT employees, upset over having to train foreign replacements, to speak at his rallies.
"The fact is that Americans are losing their jobs to foreigners," said Dena Moore, a former Disney IT worker at a Trump rally in Alabama in February. "I believe Mr. Trump is for Americans first."
Yes, US nerds were angry about training H-1B replacements, but how much could they have helped put him over the top?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday November 11 2016, @01:04AM
For example, men need the right to a "financial abortion" where all parental rights can be waived...
Reality check time. There is a reason for all of that traditional morality related to families. Bottom line, it ain't a decision for the male nor the female alone for a very basic reason, the reason humans pair bond long term. A single female can't successfully bear and raise a child. Period. Full stop. Spare me your anecdotal counter factuals, viewed from the civilizational level they are statistical noise. Modern society allows the illusion that it is possible and stupid people mistake it for the reality. So there is a third actor involved, The State. If the male is permitted to 'abort' his responsibility the Welfare State will be required to make up the difference. It isn't for the benefit of women or children that we have been on a jihad against "deadbeat dads" since the beginning of the easy divorce and hookup culture period, it is the budgetary impact on the government that drives it.
A single mother has three options,attempt to raise the kid alone as a welfare client or try to earn enough to replace a male income plus pay somebody else to raise her kid(s), something only possible for the couple of % of earners; or they can raise semi feral monsters. Or some combination of the options, all various flavors of bad when compared to a normal two parent household. Feminism insists this reality is just propaganda from "the patriarchy" but history and logic refutes them. Child rearing is simply a very labor intensive process and works best when the biological mother is the primary caregiver. This implies someone else is supplying the resources required to make this investment of labor possible. Fathers or Big Brother. Pick.
If you want to end poverty in America, every study has come to the same politically unacceptable conclusion. So of course the study is rubbished and a new one commissioned to find an acceptable policy recommendation. End single motherhood and you end poverty in a generation. Any remainder is a small enough problem the impact on government is a burden nobody will object to and could probably be discarded from the list of things government even needs to do, it returns to being a problem small enough that private charity can handle it.
Complete high school, get married, get a steady job and THEN have children and the odds of you or your children being in poverty are pretty much limited to tragic situations like sudden death or disability. The problem is that the previous sentence is a hatefact and it is a career ending offense for a government school to tell their students such a horrible thing.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @08:58AM
A single mother has three options,attempt to raise the kid alone as a welfare client or try to earn enough to replace a male income plus pay somebody else to raise her kid(s), something only possible for the couple of % of earners; or they can raise semi feral monsters.
You're missing an option: they can get help from the community. Most people I know with children have some sort of rotation plan with other parents of similarly aged children and they share the child rearing duties. It's a way to get child care without being prohibitively expensive. Due to my economic class, I only know a few single mothers, but the couples I know mostly have both parents working, so child care is still a problem.
Complete high school, get married, get a steady job and THEN have children and the odds of you or your children being in poverty are pretty much limited to tragic situations like sudden death or disability.
I worry that there's some correlation not meaning causation here, but ignoring that, the most effective fixes are (1) free effective birth control like Colorado [cnn.com] and (2) actually having a path to education and careers for women so they don't have to date men for economic support and get pressured into having children.
Given the wording you've used, I'm guessing that you think this is not the answer and some conservative policies would be more effective in reducing the prevalence of single mothers?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:33PM
Complete high school
Since high schools are about rote memorization and instilling obedience and almost nothing else, I fail to see the benefit here. I refused to complete high school out of principle, and refused to get a GED for the same reason. I'm revolted by our paper-worshiping society which values job training and rote memorization over intelligence and education. It's still possible to find a job without a high school diploma, especially if you own your own business like I do. In the 21st century, it's easily possible to take your education into your own hands and do a much better job than any high school could ever do.
If you had said "get an education" instead, I might have agreed.
get married
Marriage seems to cause magical thinking in people, but it's not the marriage that's important. What's important is that you have a good relationship, which can be done with or without marriage. But I'm not thinking like a puritan theist nutjob who selectively relies on nonsensical social science (i.e. not science) studies to 'prove' how beneficial marriage is.
If you had said "get into a stable, loving relationship" instead, that would have been more agreeable.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday November 11 2016, @03:45PM
Marriage adds a financial, legal disincentive to leave.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday November 12 2016, @03:46AM
Unless you're a woman, then it can be quite profitable.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday November 14 2016, @02:53PM
Well, unless you're a woman with less money than your husband, yes. Sugar daddy woman marrying a financially lesser man would lose in a divorce as well, obviously.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @09:26PM
I agree with you about the magical thinking surrounding marriage. If one is not interested in child-rearing, shacking up is fine for couples, but marriage should be correctly understood as a contract between two persons for the benefit of children subsequently produced. The marriage contract implies a pooling of resources for the purpose of child-rearing. All the laws relating to inheritance also support this view: once one produces offspring, everything the parents have is dedicated to the benefit of the children.
(Score: 2) by julian on Friday November 11 2016, @09:50PM
Complete high school, get married, get a steady job and THEN have children
I'm very liberal, and I agree with this. It's sound advice, and not a "hatefact". It's true, and more people should be told it.
Where we probably part ways is how to bring it about. My preferred solution includes teaching sex-ed, providing free contraception to teenagers including BC pills to girls under 18 without parental notice or approval required, and--yes--safe and legal and free abortions if it comes to that. This should all be paid for by the state. Yes, I want tax payer funded abortions, as many as necessary.
As you said, it saves money overall because single-parent (usually mother) households are not ideal and the state ends up paying the difference.