If manufacturing jobs can leave the US, they can also leave China. This is not a one-way street. Business is like a pendulum. One year it swings one way. Ten years later, it swings the other way.The biggest problems we have in our economy is the pessimism of people who can't envision the future, and the new wisdom being disseminated by our politicians that everyone needs to be college educated. We need a balanced economy that includes blue collar job opportunities for people who aren't necessarily cut out for the college track. That correction is starting to happen.Automation is also not a bad thing. That's going to save our butts as the population gets older and there are less people working to support a much larger population of retired folks.
I doubt that the "deeply personal" Cuban-American issues keep the US from reaching out to Cuba. We repaired our relations with Vietnam ,with whom we had a long drawn war. Why not Cuba? After all, Cuban Americans are not representative of Hispanics in the US; Mexican and Central Americans are. Why doesn't the federal government address their "deep personal" issues first? I resent having Cuban-Americans calling the shots. Let's move forward and do what we need to do. Reach out to Cuba and establish more business and cultural opportunities for ALL.
There's already a huge variety of international pro sports tournamentsconstantly running, literally around the clock.By seeking to be BOTH a mega pro tournamentAND an amateur showcase,the bloated and hyper expensive Olympicsserves neither mission well...Pros already have myriad opportunities for fame/fortune.Haven't we seen Kobe, Tiger, Federer, X Games, etc. enough times already?Let amateurs also have their moment of glory,a compelling enough sports drama to attract millions of fans, thus an excellent business as well, if costs are properly managed.Wrestling, for example, has to be the LEAST expensive ofall sports to host...Clearly the IOC is clueless.
Janeh has it right. I am a late middle-aged transwoman, active in the LGBTQ community and a researcher on gender identity. The opportunities available today (though not everywhere by any means--have a look at the Transgender Day of Remembrance website) for children's exploration of gender roles are a great blessing. (Recent London newspaper articles describe the same circumstances and opportunities.) Children experiment, that's what childhood is about; it's the parents who need to see beyond rigid binaries. I just wish I had had the same opportunity in the early 1950s, it might have saved me decades of pain and confusion. Willa
The more balanced view, combining what Mr Douthat would say along with what Mr Kristof has said, is the most correct.Yes, it is true that empathy for the poor and willingness to help them get a leg up has decreased among the well off. It is also true that the poor have changed in a way that makes them less likely to generate empathy and less likely for them to take advantage of the few opportunities that might come their way.The first thing the poor need to do is to stop smoking cigarettes, stop doing alcohol and drugs. Then, they need to stay together and to get themselves to church, synagogue mosque or temple.The thing that the well off need to realize is that if we keep creating a permanent underclass with no opportunities for advancement, we are wasting talent and creating an unstable society.
You automatically assume that the rich are productive, motivated, and skilled and that the poor are the opposite of those things. Spoken like a man who has been given opportunities.Deprive enough people of those opportunities, demonize them as "unmotivated" while kissing the rings of the super-rich and you will have a dysfunctional society. It is how empires become decadent.Give a self-satisfied rich person the following choice:1. All men make $1002. Rich men make $2000, the rest make $100 except for 10% who starve to death.Is there any doubt what they would choose?
The question you should be asking is whether the benefits of the network effect will become a monopoly where the cost benefits will all go to a few billionaire stockholders (including the company founders) or will it result in employment opportunities for drivers that make a decent living and yet still allow for lower transportation costs in America's densest urban zones.The tendency to treat the venture capital and business world as a "game" seems to miss the larger perspective of all stakeholders in the outcome. One result will end in a world no one but a few billionaires want while the other is a stable, economically and politically stable society.Which one would you want to live in?
There are millions of Americans who do "go to school, work hard, have personal responsibility, and plan for the future" who don't have as much to show for it as they should. At the same time, there are some who work no harder than they do who control huge amounts of wealth. Most often, this is simply because of opportunities granted to them by a wealthy family and connections.The myth that the very rich are smarter and work harder than the rest of society seems hard to break: the fact is most of them have simply taken advantage of very exclusive opportunities that the majority of Americans, through no fault of their own, do not have.
Over there on the editorial page, NYTimes editors describe the ongoing and unconstitutional practices of the FBI. The Washington Post, Times, and independent journalists have chronicled NSA's abuses. Joe Nocera tackles the abuses at Guantanamo. And there's always more, plenty more, to worry any rational American. We lost the "moral high ground" long ago. What we have now is a decaying society and a huge, powerful, and costly military -- along with plenty of politicians who are willing to take us to war using "moral high ground" as their banner.Periodically, we have opportunities to end the vicious cycle. Next Tuesday offers one of those opportunities. I don't think we're going to do the right thing this time either. Do you?
The author of this article didn't really do very deep research of what sorority life really is. A few facts:1.The percentage of students in a sorority whom have graduated in college (70%) is higher than for non-Greeks.2.The percentage of students in a sorority or fraternity who later work for a Fortune 500 companies is 85 percent.3. Women receive the following benefits when joining a sorority:academic support, scholarship opportunities, leadership development, community service opportunities and supporting a National philanthropy to instill a cause greater then themselves.Where was that in the article?