Blue-collar men in rich countries are in trouble. They must learn to adapt

The Economist = 100% DROPPED!
economist.com/news/leaders/21652323-blue-collar-men-rich-countries-are-trouble-they-must-learn-adapt-weaker-sex?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/theweakersex

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

ah my gad nuuu

Thanks for the bump

>The Economist = 100% DROPPED!
Why you ever took that shitty rag seriously is beyond me

I thought that The Economist was a quality publication. Until now that is. I guess I was wrong about that

How are they wrong? Manual labour is only going to become less and less valuable with rising automation and technology. Adapt or fail.

The economist is owned by the rothschilds.

literally. That is why there is so much pro-NWO shit in it.

You are only thinking of jobs like a McDonalds cashier here. Automation wont be replacing jobs like HVAC or electrician any time soon. Not in our lifetime.

The Economist has been a lefty echo chamber for years.

I was actually thinking of exactly what you described and that's why I included technology as well. Increased technology reduces required manpower.
And again, while they're not going away, they're going to become less valuable as low education people are gonna flock to these trades.

It is literally controlled by the Rothschild.

Do you seriously believe that electricians or plumbers are replaced by robots in the next 50 years? In Finland that will not happen in 100 years. In USA or China I could see that happening in a century, but not in Europe.

>make claims that there is a patriarchy that you have no proof of
>then point out how men aren't doing that well as a sign of GURL POWER

What do you think if the spectator? Any better or just as bad?

...where are they wrong though? An ever increasing slice of blue collar work will either be exported (because others can do it cheaper) or automated (particularly in service). It's simply cheaper to pay people almost nothing and no benefits to build shit and ship it here or have unpaid bots do all the repetitive steps to build stuff than to deal with uppity domestic workers.

This is the future we've been racing towards for decades, and you only just noticed because the economist said it in a way that hurt your fefes? Grow the fuck up.

the Economist has been dogshit for a while now, might unsub after this. Too much shitlib propaganda, not enough actual news.

>...where are they wrong though?

Why are they still harping on about the patriarchy if in their own article they admit men are clustered around both ends of the spectrum. That's just the nature of things.

My ex-GF had a subscription to it, I read it for a year or so.

I'm an economist, and it basically said nothing more detailed than a regular newspaper, except they had this formula for every problem "lower taxes, privatization etc.".
It was basically a worthless read.
Financial Times is godly in comparison, too bad it is too expensive.

It's not about fucking robots you idiot, it's about technologic advances replaced the need for extra people. Do you actually have any experience in the fields you're talking about?
I work as a glazier and as part of that meet many tradesmen, welders, painters, roofers, electiricians, you name it. And we all have the same experience, we're all downsizing because it's cheaper and you just don't need as many people as you used to. Stuff that used to required an extra pair of hands no longer does.

I only sub for Taki's column

Where did I say that it hurt my feelings you imbecile? Yes, I'm mad.

Automation is replacing everything, even journalists.

youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

WHY ARE BOYS 50% MORE LIKELY TO FAIL THEIR CLASSES?

Female teachers? No motivation?

Economics/ marketing major here myself. I like Financial Times quite a bit as well. TIME-magazine has also went to absolute dogshit tier in the last couple of years.

>Women at 49% representation in any given field
>SYSTEMIC MISOGYNY FUCKING WHITE MALES NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FIX THIS
>Men start sliding behind
>LOL you fucking losers need to adapt

>This is the future we've been racing towards for decades
>news
and there you go

Our family happens to run our own HVAC -business. So I do know quite a bit about the subject

>meanwhile women excel in the fields with the least amount of competition, going so far as to ban salary negotiations

They keep pushing....

>women doing poorly
We need affirmative action, handouts, government programs etc etc. to combat this

>men doing poorly
they need to learn to adapt!

> Increased technology reduces required manpower.

This is what people don't seem to realize.
We might not be replacing all workforce completely with machines, but if the job now requires 80% less people and can be completed 5x faster, that's going to practically cause the same effect as kicking humans out of the field.
Not to mention tons of jobs can almost completely be replaced with bots, like warehouse sector and I'd say in a decade, the transportation industry.

>But not in Europe.
Are you crazy?
Our infrastructure is light years ahead of those places and so is out technical knowledge.
Hell, the fucking Koreans and Japs are coming here, because our standards are often higher than theirs and there's capable workforce here.
We're going to see automation long before USA.
Finland is actually going to be one of the places that's practically the testbed for future tech and automation.
They mentioned this in the news some months ago when there was some conference in Switzerland and judging by the amount of automation getting implemented already, it seems like they're going ahead with this plan.
And while electricians and plumbers aren't going to be replaced, you're going to see a fuckhuge wave of people entering those fields in the future, due to other fields growing obsolete.

Haha no. Most in the econ profession or academia don't take anything they say seriously. The Economist is full of:
>Fun-to-think-about pet hypotheses
>Pop-Economics
>Unsubstantiated or long-debunked premises

It's the economics equivalent to Time For Kids.

>Our infrastructure is light years ahead of those places and so is out technical knowledge.
I think he means that Europe is the place where the day after the automatic plumbing machine is invented, 50,000 plumbers riot in the street and the government agrees to ban their use so that no jobs are lost.

>It's okay when we say it.

Also, as per the OP:
>Men cluster at the bottom as well as the top

I get what the author is trying to say- that the standard deviation for various traits and metrics
>IQ
>Income
>Hours of physical activity per week (gamers vs construction workers)
>What have you
is larger for males than it is for females. Females tend to aggregate around the mean to a greater degree. The distribution curve for males is longer, for females, shorter

However I can tell right away this fag doesn't have a sufficient background in economics or statistics. Males 'cluster' around the mean; females 'cluster' around the mean, but to a greater degree.

The statement:
>Men cluster at the bottom as well as the top
Implies a barbell distribution, now a bell curve distribution.
Yes, I autismad.

Also a Norwegian echonomist... What his guy said

In context, the number of men at the top and bottom is accelerating while more women coalesce around the center.

For instance
>income among men with no college education is down 21%
>income among women with no college education in the same time frame is up 3%

It still is the incorrect word usage, which typically implies an absolute, rather than a relative, designation.

I see where you're coming from though.

>Financial Times is godly in comparison, too bad it is too expensive.

>Not using someone's university login

Now they partially accept the narrative but the conclusion is still "tough luck, kid" or "man up", while women get costly and unsustainable support for non-issues because it supposedly needs to be done without any alternative.

>Workers get replaced by machines
>Fewer consumers
>Sales drop
>????
>Profit
Can someone explain this to me? Automation just seems like it will result in massive amounts overproduction, rather than an actually more efficient economy

>stand-up comedy

kekekekeke

Soon all these males are gonn abnd together and wash away all the cancer.

Tax the production of the robots and use it to give welfare to the people to buy goods the robots produce.

Alternatively: murder literally everyone on the surface of the Earth who isn't a billionaire and then give each of them an estate about the size of Austria and an army of robotic slaves to cater to even their most absurdly ostentatious whims.

>don't feel sorry for the majority of men that globalism has made poor
>be angry and disparaging agaisn't all men because they aren't trying hard enough or overqualified for fake STEM job postings that are used for H-1B visas.

>Can someone explain this to me?
the actual wealth is what matters and not the fiat currency - to obtain more wealth ppl at the top needed help from those below. Therefore they started to share - when the moment comes that your help is no longer required all that circulating wealth will be sucked up.

large population of poor concentered at a very small area with controlled food input will keep itself in check
and when no longer needed you can just gradually lower the food rations and let them starve and die off

hahaha, fuck blue collar people xD

You would be the first crying like a little bitch if they were not there.


Choke to fucking death on your next meal.

>We're going to see automation long before USA.
lolno
quality infrastructure =/= technological advancement

Memes though

Cool we can have a hedonistic NEETopia in the next century where bots do everything for us and since we're cyborgs we never get old or fat.