I feel like this is a wild mis-characterisation. American isn't in danger of becoming a victim; America is trying to suppress academic pursuits and intellectualism. It is politically inconvenient, which means it needs to be eradicated.
America is currently a victim of Trump's batshit insane policies. A plurality of Americans voted for Trump, but not all of even that percentage actually support or desire what is happening now.
Most Americans are not in favor of this, so saying that "America is doing this to itself" rather than "this is happening to America" feels like it ignores all those people who very much do not want this.
Most Americans could ask their elected representatives to represent them. And those elected representatives in the Senate and House could do something about most Americans not being represented on this issue.
But they're not, so they are doing it to themselves.
>Most Americans are not in favor of this, so saying that "America is doing this to itself" rather than "this is happening to America" feels like it ignores all those people who very much do not want this.
And saying "this is happening to America" ignores all those people who very much do. Trump's election wasn't an act of God nor an unavoidable consequence of physical laws. People voted for him.
Between the two, it's more correct to say "America is doing this to itself." If I stab myself in the leg, it's still a conscious and willful act on my part even though my leg wasn't holding the knife. It didn't just "happen."
>America is currently a victim of Trump's batshit insane policies.
You're not a victim over your voters' democratic choice. If I choose to cut my nose to spite my face, I'm not a victim. Why are people so bad about taking accountability over their actions? It's always someone else's fault.
>Most Americans are not in favor of this
Most American voters voted for this, this is how democracy works: sometimes your candidate wins, sometimes the other candidate wins, and you have to just suck it up and live with it till the next elections, this isn't being a victim. Rinse and repeat.
a) I am currently a victim of other people's choices. This isn't me cutting my nose off to spite my face: this is a group of people deciding "we will now all cut off our noses", and the ones who don't want to being held down and cut against our will.
b) Again, it was a plurality of Americans, not a majority, who voted for Trump. And, again, polls increasingly show a majority of Americans disapproving of what Trump is doing.
Acting like this is just "politics as usual" is a big part of what got us into this absolute mess.
Acting like this is just "politics as usual" now, after all the stuff he's already done that is blatantly unconstitutional, illegal, and treasonous, is pretty clearly based on some motivated reasoning.
So, which is it? Do you support his rise to dictator, or do you just enjoy shitting on people who are experiencing a horrifying disaster that will destroy their country and their entire lives as they know them?
>a) I am currently a victim of other people's choices.
You're not a victim in a democracy when your candidate looses and have to put up with the policies you don't like but which are popular with the majority of the voting population. It's the feature of democracy, not a bug. Grow up.
>Acting like this is just "politics as usual"
IT IS politics as usual. Always has been when you look at history. The difference is now you have Twitter and social media to rile you up for the sake of monetizing engagement. Lay off social media and your TDS will heal itself naturally.
> Do you support his rise to dictator
As someone born in a dictatorship, you have no idea what a dictatorship actually is. If you were in a dictatorship, a black Volga would show up at your door and arrest you for your previous comment. You don't have the right to complain in a dictatorship, let alone to vote.
> >a) I am currently a victim of other people's choices.
>
> You're not a victim in a democracy when your candidate looses and have to put up with the policies you don't like but which are popular with the majority of the voting population. It's the feature of democracy, not a bug. Grow up.
>
> >Acting like this is just "politics as usual"
>
> IT IS politics as usual. Always has been when you look at history. The difference is now you have Twitter and social media to rile you up for the sake of monetizing engagement. Lay off social media and your TDS will heal itself naturally.
>
> > Do you support his rise to dictator
>
> As someone born in a dictatorship, you have no idea what a dictatorship actually is. If you were in a dictatorship, a black Volga would show up at your door and arrest you for your previous comment. You don't have the right to complain in a dictatorship, let alone to vote.
Funny that you mention it, this is exactly what's is happening.
Left wing propaganda if such an event makes a dictatorship. Deporting foreign political agitators and aggressors who break the terms of their visa is just proper law enforcement, not dictatorship. Hope to see more of this.
> You're not a victim in a democracy when your candidate looses and have to put up with the policies you don't like but which are popular with the majority of the voting population. It's the feature of democracy, not a bug. Grow up.
What an utterly absurd statement.
Hitler was elected democratically, so I guess none of the non-Nazi Germans are allowed to complain about the murder of millions of innocent people and start WW2.
I can't even believe you would say something so ridiculous.
> a black Volga would show up at your door and arrest you for your previous comment.
So, surely, you are even more paranoid about an executive accumulating power and acting extrajudicially and against the constitutional bounds of their office? You, of course, recognize the similarities when plain-clothes ICE agents who refuse to identify themselves throw innocent VISA students into unmarked vehicles and detain them in unknown places under the threat to deport them to foreign prisons without a trial, becaude they spoke against the executive's policy?
And comparing the election of Trump to the election of Hitler is not absurd? I'll end this conversation here due to you not being willing to argue in good faith. Please have a read on the history of WW1, Weimar Republic and the circumstances that led to Hitler getting elected, including the election process, then maybe you can stop bringing up the Hitler every time someone mentions Trump.
I didn't compare the election of Trump to Hitler, you've done that just now. The comedy isn't lost on me.
No, I was pointing out how ridiculous it is to say that a leader chosen Democratically cannot be criticized as being dictatorial, as the parent so boldly claimed. History is full of such occurrences.
I don't see why you don't apply some good faith reasoning for the other side to see the poster's point. Looking at it from a broader perspective, it's perfectly possible to be a victim of a Biden admin and a Trump admin. If you went back in time and voted for the other guy but end up getting screwed in some other or same way by the other candidate -- which is very likely -- you could easily claim that you're a victim no matter who you vote for. Cause at the end of the day you're essentially voting for the lesser of two evils. And if they both are "evil" in some form then it wouldn't be out of place for you to suffer in one context or another no matter who the president is.
That's why voting against the incumbent is a thing. You're not voting for Trump, you're voting against Biden hoping (not knowing) Trump will be better, because if things are shitty already, voting for Biden seems like doing the same thing and expecting different results.
And viewing Americans as victims also has a pragmatic benefit because you allow people who have buyer's remorse to speak up about the things they regret about the guy they voted for.
>as someone who was born in a dictatorship
Since you were born in one, it stands to reason you didn't see a country drift towards one in realtime. It can very much be a boiling the frog sort of thing depending on how the pieces on the board are arranged.
> Again, it was a plurality of Americans, not a majority, who voted for Trump. And, again, polls increasingly show a majority of Americans disapproving of what Trump is doing.
People who are eligible to vote but do not are giving an implicit vote in favor of whoever wins. There is no sense in thinking of it an any other way. (As an aside, you can also think of them as cowards who are unwilling to take a stand and choose the least bad option. Something all adults do on a regular basis).
So sure, if you count children and felons it may not be an absolute majority. On the other hand, you’re assuming that they would have voted for the person you voted for had they had that chance.
> You're not a victim over your democratic choice. If I choose to cut my nose to spite my face, I'm not a victim. Why are people so bad about taking accountability over their actions? It's always someone else's fault.
Americans are a victim of being given shitty choices.
Democrats like to pretend they were so much better than Trump that the choice was obvious, but they basically spent four years doing dishonest things like attempting to gaslight the American public on things like Biden's age. They need to take responsibility for their loss, instead putting their energy into blaming others (including scapegoats). But it's so much easier to try to climb back into a bubble.
>Americans are a victim of being given shitty choices.
Choices aren't being "given". You're making it sound like Americans are being forced to choose some sort of alien invaders and not peers cut from the cloth of their own citizens.
In a democracy the politicians are a direct reflection of society. If Trump says "drill baby drill" and everyone applauds, you can't claim otherwise
>> Americans are a victim of being given shitty choices.
> Your making it sound like Americans are being forced to choose some sort of alien invaders and not peers of their own citizens. In democracy the politicians are a direct reflection of society.
Come on. Do you remember 2024? Biden was anointed, then Harris. In 2016 it was Clinton (so something had to be done about Sanders). Those choices weren't made by democracy, they were made by the Democratic party.
> A plurality of Americans voted for Trump, but not all of even that percentage actually support or desire what is happening now.
> Most Americans are not in favor of this, so saying that "America is doing this to itself" rather than "this is happening to America" feels like it ignores all those people who very much do not want this.
But it's cathartic for Trump's political opponents to blame Americans, so they do so. IIRC, they're still less popular than Trump.
They felt entitled to win since they think he is bad. Instead of blaming others they really need to spend their time figuring out why they lost to someone so flawed, and make the difficult (including ideological) changes to fix their electoral issues. Especially since last time they seemed to genuinely believe he was dangerous, but refused to pull their heads out of their asses to respond to that danger.
Left for Berlin in 2021 and do not regret it one bit.
Edit: I had a choice between a masters program in the US for about $30,000/year or in Berlin for €700/year. It was obvious which choice was not only cheaper, but also more interesting in terms of life experience.
You will be paying for the education in the form of very high taxes for all your life, regardless of if you studied or if the quality was good or even useful (something extremely debatable, outside of some key selective universities).
I am always amazed at the quickness of some Americans with socialist sensibilities view EUs governments/systems as some panacea when they are doing pretty bad in many relevant metrics.
The EUs benefit is being able to rely on centuries old infrastructure/history/culture but the modern governance is completely fucked up and largely the complete inverse of what allowed it to get there.
At least in the US if you think your chances are better without a degree or that they are overpriced you can try your luck without having to pay for it your whole life. You decide. In the EU, you have no choice and chances are the money will be used inefficiently for useless studies. And this is exactly what is happening.
Germany’s overall tax burden (38%) isn’t much higher than the USA (25%), and it includes healthcare and better education opportunities. Germany is also the best about getting people into the trades if they don’t go to university. You can easily leave your job because your health insurance isn’t married to your employment. At any rate, most Germans aren’t envious of the American system and hardly any of them think it’s generally better.
Trump is lying to you about the EU, you actually have many more choices there than you do in the USA. I really don’t get who falls for that kind of propaganda at this point, but I guess someone does.
Germany is definitely one of the least bad in the EU for sure.
There are, however, many reasons they can get away with that and a lot of it has to do with the economic manipulations they make at the EU level.
Germany does not play fair and has imposed many things to benefits itself at the expense of its (supposed) "partners".
It's a bit convenient, when talking about the EU, to choose the one country that has favorable statistics because it's using its power to force laws that benefit itself.
If you make an evaluation around the average, the conclusion is much worse and it wasn't even that good to begin with.
With energy price probably never recovering and its industry failing I wouldn't count on Germany being able to outperform its neighbors for much longer. They'll have to create all kinds of bureaucratic bullshit jobs and raise the tax rate just like their neighbors.
I never listen to Trump; I can't even stand listening to him talk because he is such a carricature.
You just have a bias because of media propaganda, you seem to believe that if someone believes in freedom and personal choices, he has to be some sort of Trump supporter.
So, I don't know what he is supposed to be lying about but if you believe that people have more choices in the heavily regulated bureaucratic EU you have a serious problem with reality distortion.
I don't know where you pulled your numbers from but even if we accept them as is, there is a 13% difference. Which means you have influence via choices on 13% more of the value you create.
And that's if we accept the very low figure for Germany which is completely wrong (it's around 50%).
I don't even want to go into the psychology of your condescending remark, but you are the one failing for the propaganda of politicians. They have created more problems than anything else in the last 30-40 years but you argue that we should give them even more.
Also, for your information having the "right" to "free" healthcare is not at all the same as having access to healthcare. In France, with its insane taxation regimen, there are now what they call "medical desert", places/regions where it's extremely complicated to find doctors (especially specialists) because they are not very attractive and healtcare professional don't want to come live here (no point when the price is regulated, they make same amount anywhere else). So the (often) poor people living there have "free" heathcare in theory but cannot really access it ever, so they usually don't get to fix their problems. The more fortunate (richer) can use their purchasing power to travel far and get care in some big city. There was a doctor who explained that some of his patient even take a plane to make it viable.
It was an example around dentistry; meanwhile in my medium sized town, you cannot get an appointment under 6 months and that is if you find one dentist willing to take you at all. I never had any issues with my tooths but when my widsom tooths started hurting and needed an extraction, I had to call a special urgency number on sunday just to get a prescription for a spot at an hospital 50km away from where I live. I had to wait 4 month between the time tooth started hurting the operation could take place.
But I guess it's fine, it was "free". Curiously this is not what I observe when I need to pay the minimum for self-employment, which conveniently you have to pay regardless of if you made any money but will also increase proportionally if you make more money.
I'll stop there because it's is infinite. If there is someone falling for propaganda, it's rather you. And let's be clear, I'm not some hardcore libertarian, I believe government is important and many of it's service are essentials (especially around infrastructure). But there are many things that are preferable to let indivuals choose. This is what create a virtous loop, allowing the best behaviors to thrive and perdure. The EU has gone in the other direction and just like the soviet union it will implode one day or another and that's that.
Not if you're from outside the EU/EEA and don't qualify for scholarships or other waivers. I just checked TU Munich as an example and they charge 6000 euros/semester for non EU/EEA CS Masters students.
In 1920 they might have said “expatriate” or “emigrant” instead. “Expat” is a recent shortening. I haven’t seen it used with “going” much, but the meaning is clear.
Oh, I understand the history and nomenclature. I'm referring specifically to how blueflow quoted "going expat" as if that were a common phrase, albeit which I didn't recognize.
It doesn't seem to be one people actually use, so IMO shouldn't be quoted.
Care to elaborate in detail? I think the term "expats" and "brain drain" are two distinct groups that even though are often used interchangeably, can have little overlap. All brain drains are expats, but not all expats are valuable brains who's draining is worth anything.
For example, it's one thing to import a math/physics Olympiad winner from India/China/Romania prioritizing to move to the hottest place in tech funding and cutting edge R&D, and another to import an unemployed standup comedian seeking to move to the most hipster city for raves and parties where he can tweet form his MacBook how happy he is he left Trump's "fascist" America.
In my case, I also see a lot more American expats where I live here in my European college town, but when I talk to them about their jobs/careers, most seem to be net drain on our system (au pairs, dog walkers, under the table English teachers, etc) who moved here for the chill life and free healthcare, rather than some highly ambitious well paid engineers or scientists who are gonna boost our economy to overtake the US. Most valuable brains are met here still seem to come from Balkans, Eastern Europe, India, Iran and Asia in general. Do you see my point?
Edit: please see my grandchild comment below for detailing on my thoughts on this
I wonder about this also. Spain has great retirement packages for Americans with a certain amount of income, they can even buy into social healthcare, but is that really in Spain’s interest? It seems like something to be exploited until it’s cut off. Germany’s education makes a bit more sense, given how Unitarian it is, it might be cost effective to charge foreign students low tuition, but even then I’m not really sure.
As a former software engineering expat/migrant worker in China, it all makes more sense for us Americans to work there, we aren’t really gaming the system at that point.
I agree a whole lot.
I find it particularly revolting when Americans comes to EU for "free" education, free healthcare, etc.
Only to end up going back to the US at some for the better quality of life and pay (and I believe, avoiding paying too much taxes on amassed net worth).
A friend who heads a well-funded research group here in Denmark says the recent change is not so much in the number of Americans applying, but the quality/prestige. He's now receiving serious enquiries from graduates of Stanford, MIT etc, who previously were unlikely to leave the USA.
I don't doubt that, but researchers and post-docs always tend to move around he world, especially in niche fields, where you can't usually find an opportunity in your area of expertise right in your back yard in a timely manner(some PhD friends had to move from the EU to Korea because of that), but my main point is whether that will dethrone the US economically and boost the EU in the same way, or if the end result will be negligeable in practice.
I suspect as long as the US pays the highest wages in the world by a long shot, and hosts the world's top companies, both civilian and military, it will not run out of brains willing to move there. Because for every American leaving to Copenhagen because of Trump, the US might get 10 new brains in return from China, India, Vietnam, Korea, Turkey, Serbia, etc. for the wages.
Plus, Trump is a passing event that will be replaced in 3,5 years with someone else who could turn things around. You'd probably need 10-20 Trumps in a row to cause any lasting damage to the US. And also, no matter how moronic Trump or a US president can be, corporations like Apple, Nvidia, AMD, SpaceX, etc are not, and will always lobby Trump or whoever will be president to maintain policies that will keep the US attractive to brains for them so they can get the best talent in the world. Do you see where I'm coming from when I say I doubt the US will suffer much or at all?
> I suspect as long as the US pays the highest wages in the world by a long shot, and hosts the world's top companies, both civilian and military, it will not run out of brains willing to move there.
If fewer of the world's smartest people are willing or able to move to the US, then competition for labor will shrink and so will wages.
> You'd probably need 10-20 Trumps in a row to cause any lasting damage to the US.
That is way too optimistic. One Trump can do plenty of long lasting damage to the USA. Will the world ever trust us again? We are basically quickly burning away goodwill that took a century to build up, and even if Trump is gone, the Trump voters remain, the USA is will no longer be seen as a reliable international partner anymore.
to do... what? WFH on some "sharing platform" with 16Mbps DSL in aparthotel and keep applying for long term rental for 12 months? Tremble from anxiousness on seeing a letter in their postbox?
People don't move to Berlin to WFH, since apartments are almst impossible to get for outsiders. They move to Berlin to party and cosplay hip start-up founder.
Trump won the popular vote. America is trying very hard to become one big red state.
Red states have had the worst outcomes for generations but they keep going back to republicans. The reasons escape me. The Civil War was basically southerners strongly preferring to use slaves instead of modernizing.
Maybe China will motivate them to get their act together.
Conservatives and a lot of moderates are single issue voters.
As long as trump protects babies or props up the right religious ideology, they're fine with everything else.
I recently read "Strangers in their own Land". The author interviewed hundreds of conservatives in the south. The jist was that as Christians they should protect the environment, but the oil refinery will bring jobs. The jobs are more important. So they'll vote for the jobs.
It's really that simple. Republicans have mastered single issue stances. They don't need to be honest or trustworthy.
Going by that analysis (specifically differences in age, education, immigration) it looks kinda like massive brain drain from red into blue areas. Single issue voting is a low-nuance likely low-iq thing. Also keep in mind 54% of Americans read at or below a 6th grade level, so I’d guess brain drain can be devastating.
This is exactly what conservatives say. That colleges are cesspools of woke liberal ideology.
What that really means is colleges give people experiences that aren't possible in conservative areas. Then those people don't return because living in conservative areas sucks.
Maybe you lack perspective because you have been confortable your whole life?
What use does "the environment" have if you cannot afford to live? The jobs necessarily come before the environment because they are the requirement for survival that makes any of it matter.
Only rich self-righteous people can afford to care about the environment and the irony is that those people are rich and can do a lot of posturing around these issues, precisely because those poor people exist to take those jobs.
I grew up rural, poor, and conservative. Ranching, hunting, farming. That was me until I traveled and experienced people who aren't selfish conquerers who believe all their actions are justified if you just say sorry to god.
> What use does "the environment" have if you cannot afford to live?
There are plenty of extremely poor people in the world who don’t use that as an excuse to try destroy others - and often themselves. Plenty. Travel and you’ll meet a few. Selling your soul to the devil is always a choice.
You are misrepresenting exploitation of local ressources as "selling your soul to the devil". This is such a bad faith way to present the situation.
There is absolutely no plan to "destroy others" the fact that you try to argue that this is one of their goals is just bonkers.
The externalities around oil are not just local but also global, so if they accept to deal with the consequences locally because they think the benefits are superior, who are you to judge in their place.
It's not like if they refuse to drill and get the oil, someone else won't provide it to the market from somewhere else. They would be subjected to the global externalities just as well but zero benefits and just avoidance of local externalities (which they could at least control somewhat).
You are speaking as if they are simple-minded and this is an easy problem. The only one over-simplifying things there, is you.
Are you supposed to be a "well-traveled" person? If that is the case, one could argue that it comes with the side effect of dishonesty and bad faith arguments.
You should get dumped with no money/ressource somewhere in Africa (let's say Congo) to see how long it takes you to start working on a cobalt mine or something similar to survive.
Pretending to have the moral high-ground is extremely easy when you lack nothing and don't have to fight for your survival.
It could be the quality of the opposition. The frame of "trying to be a red state" seems a bit unfair, the message seemed to be more that voters were really, really disappointed with the Biden's performance as opposed to any specific draw the Republicans had. Kamala making it a close race was miraculous given where the election looked to be going in early June 2024 up to the infamous debate.
It seems very fair given how the Democrats follow Clinton's triangulation strategy to try to appeal to Republican voters through "red state"-lite legislation, on the assumption that Democrats would hold their nose and vote Democrat no matter how disappointed they are.
That line of reasoning is actually a classic right-wing gaslighting strategy: "the radical left forced us to act this way, we had no choice". No, voters made an explicit and clear vote of conscience. The democratic campaign may have been a strategic disaster, but the difference in proposed policies - for which the candidate was completely irrelevant - couldn't have been any more stark. The people have spoken. Everybody knew what they were voting for. Pretending they didn't is to disrespect the voice of the people. The majority voted for lower taxes and severely cutting government spending at the cost of higher import expenses, the majority voted for increased US manufacturing at the cost of high-tech jobs and immigration, for more presidential authority and less accountability, for more magical thinking and less science and research. Own your choices.
Right but Biden's performance was perfectly adequate, and even quite good in many areas. It's mostly just propaganda against him and the left in general.
The left is bad with money, ooo. Conservative fiscal policy works, ooo! But if you compare the US on the global stage during Biden's presidency, we did quite good. There was a pandemic, people. Expecting nothing at all to happen economically is a delusion.
It’s not a black or white thing. You can be disappointed with Biden, but by itself that’s not a reason to just switch parties ignoring the Republican performance, especially after Jan6. At the end of the day, Trump’s “burn everything down” racist position was not a dealbreaker to the majority of voters, and that’s on them.
It’s much easier to complain and destroy than to create. It takes 30 seconds to cut down a tree, but years, decades or sometimes centuries to grow a big one.
No, a majority either wanted him, or didn’t care. Only a minority didn’t want him. In the US, you don’t vote FOR a candidate. You only vote against a candidate. If you cast your vote for the Republican, or don’t cast a vote (or cast your vote for a third party), and live in a red state, then you voted against the Democrat. And vice versa. So the only people that you can fairly say didn’t want him were the democratic voters.
It’s not a good system, it’s utter garbage, but it’s the current reality in the US, and the longer people fail to acknowledge this, the longer it will remain like this.
1. Many voters do not know about strategic voting. They vote for the candidate they think is best for the job.
2. A voter who knows their vote won't make a difference in the outcome due to the electoral college might vote third party to increase the chances of there being viable third parties in later elections.
Red states block anything and everything that could help anyone but themselves. To "compromise" Dems put investments into bills that help Red states in the hopes that something will get passed(Sometimes it still fails). Examples include all these battery factories being located in purple states so that those senators will be forced to vote for the package. Dems help out the red states just to try and move the needle forward.
Red politicians then get elected and further cut things that help Blue states. See all the medicaid cuts, soon social security, last trump admin cut the homeowner tax exemptions that mainly helped blue states, cutting tax benefits that encouraged companies to hire software engineers and timing it so that it takes place after trump left office.
The blue states are held hostage by the Red states because of the structure of the system(a mess left over from the post Civil War).
You can argue that Blue states drag the rest of the country kicking and screaming into the future: Ex: The California CARB mandates setting emission standards forcing manufacturers to adopt their standard for emissions, The East and West coast define culture in the arts that the rest of the world see and knows as American, top universities are where the future ways of thinking are challenged and explored.
Every time the Red side gets into power they try to claw back even this stuff so that the Blue states are essentially nothing more than vassals contributing more but getting little back in return. Blue states need a Democratic party that will play extremely dirty just like the Republicans.
Battery factories are being placed in red states because they're still largely functional governments with fast go-to-market permitting and are pro-growth in general. Tesla built their new HQ (which is the largest building in the country) in Texas in 14 months, which would be impossible to do in California. It would take 5 years if they allowed them to do it at all.
Blue states have ineffective, slow, dysfunctional governments that tax heavily and regulate heavily. They also do indescribably stupid things, like Prop 47 in CA.
Red state / blue state categories have nothing to do with the civil war. CA wasn't even in the civil war, obviously, and for the longest time, they were a red state (until the early 90s). All of California's foundational industries (tech, entertainment, agriculture, aerospace, etc) were brought there when it was red.
The state was red but all those foundational industries come from traditionally "Blue Cities" that have expanded to fill the state as those industries have grown.
A faster time to market is beneficial for companies, but it's also an excuse to avoid quality, safety, and ethics.
Sure there are groups and legislation that slow things down to the point it becomes a problem, but with most things, it's about balance and context, but I guess it's easier to speak in extremes and act partisan.
> those foundational industries come from traditionally "Blue Cities" that have expanded to fill the state as those industries have grown.
In the 50s and 60s, when Silicon Valley was founded, it was heavily Republican. David Packard was a conservative. Nixon and Reagan were CA Republicans. In the early 90s it flipped blue, partially due to demographics and partly because Gore and Clinton (both Southern Democrats) courted them and pursued pro-tech policies, in particular Gore played a role in opening up the internet to commercial markets, enabling the dot com boom of the 90s.
CA flipped blue largely because of migration into the state from Asia and Mexico, and a shift in industries and focus post-Cold War, as well as some trends towards environmentalism and social progressivism while the GOP became more socially conservative in the 90s.
> A faster time to market is beneficial for companies, but it's also an excuse to avoid quality, safety, and ethics.
A faster time to market is beneficial to human progress. By slowing everything down by a factor of 5 humanity shrinks in its potential, dramatically so, and it hurts the trajectory of our whole country in the face of rivals that move at lightning speed with no such pretenses. In large part, its just bureaucratic rot that holds back everything in the name of safety or ethics while we conveniently import things from nations which have no such ethics. You simply export the problem at the cost of long term financial, industrial, and logistical security. The Tesla HQ was built in Texas in 14 months perfectly safely and soundly.
>In the 50s and 60s, when Silicon Valley was founded, it was heavily Republican. David Packard was a conservative. Nixon and Reagan were CA Republicans. In the early 90s it flipped blue, partially due to demographics and partly because Gore and Clinton (both Southern Democrats) courted them and pursued pro-tech policies, in particular Gore played a role in opening up the internet to commercial markets, enabling the dot com boom of the 90s.
David Packard is one person versus literally 99.9% of technical workers and innovators that held more progressive views of the future and technology.
>CA flipped blue largely because of migration into the state from Asia and Mexico, and a shift in industries and focus post-Cold War, as well as some trends towards environmentalism and social progressivism while the GOP became more socially conservative in the 90s.
This is just not true. Most large cities in America shifted blue due to population density in general and the wants that arise through dense population alone. I'm not going to argue with you but I can tell you that is very obviously not the whole picture and politicians position have little to do with how innovators and technologists identified politically.
>A faster time to market is beneficial to human progress. By slowing everything down by a factor of 5 humanity shrinks in its potential, dramatically so, and it hurts the trajectory of our whole country in the face of rivals that move at lightning speed with no such pretenses. In large part, its just bureaucratic rot that holds back everything in the name of safety or ethics while we conveniently import things from nations which have no such ethics. You simply export the problem at the cost of long term financial, industrial, and logistical security. The Tesla HQ was built in Texas in 14 months perfectly safely and soundly.
Texas also loves to cover up any problems they have, and had one of the worst power crises due to traditional conservative business practices recently. So if you want to compare examples we can, I have hundreds more about how ignoring ethical and environmental concerns is net negative for America and the world.
What do we gain by having an Tesla HQ in Texas? They literally moved there for the exact reason we're talking about. They wanted to avoid dotting their i's and crossing their t's and they can do that in Texas. Building a new Tesla HQ is not "Progress"
Most red states are economically defunct, essentially relegated to be welfare states with those with successful economies support them. They let their infrastructure crumble and they barely resemble a developed nation. Ever just driven through Louisiana or South Carolina? These are poor, poor states. The people who live there know it - it's just dummies online who like to pretend red states matter.
The only exception is Texas. I live in Texas. We're actively self-sabotaging and have for a long time. I give it like 10 years before we reach California levels of COL and then companies flee to whatever desperate backwater state they can find and the cycle repeats.
But don't worry, it's okay! We have 1 trillion dollars of oil damage in the state so we'll have something economically productive to do for a while.
Criminals should be punished, actually. Legalizing crime or treating it as an unserious problem leads to situations like you have in SF and LA today, with window smashings and retail theft etc. highly common despite recent improvements in law enforcement.
As the other poster pointed out, California, in fact, has one of the lowest felony theft thresholds out of any of the states. In fact, it has the 12th lowest felony threshold in the union. [1]
Of the top 15 states with the highest felony thresholds, only 4 of them are Democratic states. Two states are purple (but have voted red in the last election). So, it would seem Republicans states actually tend to have the highest felony threshold amounts across the US.
It was actually Oklahoma who started the trend to increase the felony threshold in the early 2000s.
Do you want to know which states have the highest felony theft thresholds? It’s Texas and Wisconsin at $2500. In 2014, California went from a threshold of $400 to $950. In 2015, Texas went from a threshold of $1500 to $2500, so California’s threshold has always been much lower even in the recent past. [2]
On top of that, California actually repealed parts of prop 47 in 2024.
The biggest change I recall it making is raising the boundary between misdemeanor and felony from $400 to $950, but raising that is something that most states were doing in the first couple of decades of this century, with most going to $1000 or $1500. $950 is the 12th lowest.
It's hard to blame increased crime on that since so many other states (big and small, red and blue) have a higher limit.
> Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased in 48 states and the District of Columbia
> Personal income, in current dollars, increased in all 50 states and the District of Columbia in the fourth quarter of 2024
These are from your link. Where did you get the idea that red states are the only ones that grow?
GDP growth is higher in red states in that link, but red states also received something like 80–90% of the funding from the trillion dollars or so passed by the Democratic Congress and President.
Also to see how this actually plays out, compare CA to TX. gdp Growth in TX is much higher. But personal income growth in CA is much higher than in TX.
I think you’ll need a better analysis (longer timescale, more fine-grained, more explanations - education, age, productivity, investment, r&d, immigration etc)
> The Civil War was basically southerners strongly preferring to use slaves instead of modernizing.
I thought that was all northern propaganda. The real reason being that the south refused to be in a confederation where there was more and more power given to the presidency and the senate while the states had fewer.
The north of course couldn't say they fought to force these states to remain in the confederation, negating their right to self determination, and instead pushed the slave narrative which was really secondary.
If the slave issue was secondary is seems weird that so many of the states explicitly mentioned it:
>"Following the election of Abraham Lincoln in November 1860, the seven states that would constitute the future Confederate States of America before Fort Sumter was bombarded began the process of seceding from the Union. Those states were South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. All of them formed "conventions of the people" to adopt ordinances severing the tie with the Union. (2) Five of them--South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, and Texas--commissioned delegates to their respective conventions to draft public documents detailing the reasons behind the secession. (3) Historians call these documents "declarations of causes," a phrase used in the titles of several of these documents. Although, for reasons unknown, Florida never officially completed its declaration, a draft of it exists in the Florida state archives. All of the declarations are explicit: maintaining slavery was the reason for secession. For example, the Mississippi declaration begins, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--the greatest material interest of the world."
And even if you didn't have a huge archive to support the claim that slavery was the primary reason for the secession and had to guess, i would buy the economics explanation over the political one almost each time.
I had watched Ken Burns' "The Civil War" documentary and came to this conclusion, it seemed balanced and thorough but I guess I would need more digging.
The Civil War was 100% about the Confederacy's desire to preserve slavery. The "State's Rights" argument is revisionist to downplay things, especially given the fact that southern states would be hypocritical and demand that the northern states enforce laws like the Fugitive Slave act, which directly went against the rights of the states that had declared themselves as free states.
You're talking about "Lost Cause Theory" [1], a negationist re-narrativization of the Civil War. Any serious Historian will tell you the Civil War was 100% about slavery if you ask them.
For the several decades I've been alive and reading multiple takes on history slavery has always featured as one of the major three causes of the US Civil War for the majority of historians of note.
banning Harvard from enrolling international students is a pretty clear signal to elite intellectual capital that the US is no longer the obvious place to study. Trump 2.0 is fascinating social experiment - can reducing aggregate brainpower lead to better outcomes for the country? Not a rhetorical question, being smart is not the only way to win
That's obvious: the brain is the most energy-intensive organ in the body, so shutting down the brain leads to significant energy savings. The energy saved this way can then be spent on drilling for more oil, and the oil can be burned to power AI datacenters where the real thinking is done.
being smarter doesn't always lead to better decision making - many people overly intellectualise a problem and fail to move to action. Trump is definitely action oriented, a lot of it really dumb, but it does alter the external conditions which may produce better outcomes.
China doesn't have a leadership problem atm, though certainly has had its fair share of anti-intellectual leaders. Trump's actions are very familiar to Chinese people, especially ones who have been educated on the excesses of Maoism.
That said, point of post is - will Trump anti-intellectualism 'work', where work = benefiting America. Ostensibly, the answer looks like 'of course not' but in my view, it is too early to say
Putting aside the negatives, I see zero upsides of reducing brain power. The people being more equal perhaps? Maybe the path to the fabled middle class is to bring down the upper class.
These days, a lot of brainpower is spent on scamming people (case in point: Vivek Ramaswamy). One can really make quite a good living off of scamming people these days. If you could reduce the brainpower of that demographic, I think this would be good for everyone else.
To where will these scientists go? Europe, only those willing to accept much lower wages and more bureaucracy. China, unlikely to even accept them. Rest of the world, far fewer resources and often far more doubtful regimes.
"Most doctoral positions and some postdoc positions will be categorized as TV-L 13, which can range from about €4630 to €6580 (gross monthly salary). The exact salary is determined by your years of experience."
-> €6000*12 -> 72K Euro, ~US$ 80K
And that is without including the various social benefits.
> The highest possible salary anyone in the university gets is 96k Euros.
Why don't you look at the document I linked which tells you exactly what people working in that university are earning. That is not a guess, not an estimate and it is not out of date it is literally exactly what they are getting paid next month.
Instead of talking about hypotheticals and ranges, why do you refuse to look at the document which talks about the exact salaries? This is very bizarre behavior.
>That is wrong, too. But not the topic of my post.
I literally linked you the literal document where it is literally written what the literal highest paid person will literally get paid in the literal next month. What evidence against this could you possibly have? Unless you have the bank statements of that person your evidence cannot possibly be better.
The link your parent posted is current. The Entgelttabelle there was last updated in 2022.
Also the PDF's (Tarifvertrag, Entgelttabelle) linked there are the authoritative source for this information - they are the legal document defining it.
>We have 2025, not 2022. So it is certainly not current. Inflation is a thing! ;-)
Do you not understand that the document I linked is the up to date contract? If you think what I linked is getting "inflation adjusted" you are totally clueless about how you get paid under a Tarifvertrag in Germany.
The document contains the exact amount of the employee is going to get paid next month.
"it is the exact contract in force for May 2025." - No, it is not. That is your mistaken thinking.
In 2025, TV-L 13 starts with 4629€ a month and goes up to 6580€ (= 78K€+), depending on experience.
Indded, the raw tax difference is substantial. But the social benefits, health insurance, vacation days,... need to be considered for a complete comparison. But that was never the topic of discussion.
You are completely delusional.
As you have been told, even when evaluating favorably the EU job, the difference will be so substantial that it's hardly comparable.
You may think there are many advantages of the social system, but the thing is with the US you get to choose exactly how the surplus will be spent. If you want coverage similar to EU you can, it will cost you lots of money but you will still come out on top.
And that is before even considering that purchasing power/quality of life is better in the US at a given salary level.
It is weird that this is downvoted. No one else is close to making up the funding. And Harvard is just ignoring requests from DHS? They were warned for a month? If the Secretary of Homeland Security sends a letter requesting information, do you not have to comply?
If the demands are illegal, then yeah, by any means, you shouldn't comply. Do resist a criminal state that's using intimidation instead of laws, isn't this the American spirit?
Is there a good analysis of which demands are illegal? Is Harvard suing?
I sort of agree with you, but also don't buy into the victim narrative from Harvard, which has been happy to comply with illegal requests before and has clearly violated Civil Rights laws for years.
The Harvard Crimson seems to have done a decent job in a couple articles. It seems some of the request is legal, and some is broad so they don't know what to do. They were probably waiting for this action to file a lawsuit, since now they can argue they complied.
And the US does have the first amendment which a whole bunch of right wing free speech warriors start whining about immediately the moment someone criticizes them in public, but in reality the first amendment exists primarily to protect private speech (defined broadly, including things like making your own hiring decisions, etc) from government censorship.
