I think people are seeing the writing on the wall with regards to this presidency as of last week.[0]
[0] http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-app...
A problem with these is the presumption that it is a timelessly, inherently, and unquestionably good objective. Just like the pursuit of (re)creating coal jobs, as if that's prudent and admirable, no matter what.
> ...could be seen as complicit of Trump.
"Could"? I don't think anyone who's being intellectually honest would be able to claim otherwise. If you serve a leader in an advisory role, you are actively in support of their policies and actions. Even if you disagree and the leader chooses otherwise or acts contrary to your advice, your role by its nature demonstrates that you are deferring to their leadership, thus you support it.
(I acknowledge that you are explaining views that are not necessarily your own.)
What got us here, won't get us where we're going. It's all going to have to be reexamined.
The unemployment rate is at the lowest level since 2001, and excluding 2000-2001, the lowest level since 1969.
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_...
Automation is exploding at a dizzying rate for a decade now. Our ability to accommodate will be exceeded soon.
Further, that graph looks like what happens when people fall off the employment rolls - they quit looking for a job and no longer show up as 'unemployed'. How can we tell that's not responsible?
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_...
Automation may change that in the future, or people may insist on dealing with humans, or new jobs may emerge. Who can predict the future?
This quote: "Using this approach, we estimate large and robust negative effects of robots on employment and wages across commuting zones. We bolster this evidence by showing that the commuting zones most exposed to robots in the post-1990 era do not exhibit any differential trends before 1990. The impact of robots is distinct from the impact of imports from China and Mexico, the decline of routine jobs, offshoring, other types of IT capital, and the total capital stock (in fact, exposure to robots is only weakly correlated with these other variables). According to our estimates, one more robot per thousand workers reduces the employment to population ratio by about 0.18-0.34 percentage points and wages by 0.25-0.5 percent."
The more realistic measure of unemployment, the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate is at about 63%, back to where we were in 1977. And a lot of women have joined the workforce since then.
Population over 18: roughly 240M
In college: 20M
Collecting Social Security: 60M
Labor force: 160M
https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf
https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enroll...
Chip fabs are already overseas and there's zero practical approaches to bring them here. President "Job Creator" can't bring these jobs here, period. Intel's various management, engineering, marketing, etc jobs aren't going anywhere.
Intel announced in Feb this year that they are spending $7B in Arizona to build a chip fab:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-corp-announces-7-billion-...
>In fact, the factory, which was originally announced back in 2011 and largely completed by 2014 was put on hold not because of regulatory burden, but because of declining PC sales
Being on the manufacturing council doesn't affect this nor did it make it happen. The council as a "jobs creator" is laughable especially when we're talking about an Obama-era factory.
https://www.engadget.com/2017/02/08/intel-arizona-factory-7-...