This is actually a very good piece of advice. Now that I'm in my late thirties and an established professional, I am shocked at how many of my peers don't know how to cook, clean, handle money, or their domestic affairs in general. These are invaluable skills to have, and form the basis for many good jobs.

Particularly west of the Mississippi and excluding Californians (Californians: like Floridans except less crazy)?

But there's a lot of people, especially on /., who refuse to acknowledge that, because it threatens their beliefs.

I get what you're saying, Curunir, but I have to agree with OP because the men and women making these decisions are looking at the business like a game. And in that perspective, American workers do cost too much. To illustrate this, I'm going to give anecdotal evidence based on experience.

I work with/for men and women who are VPs and product/program managers. Every single one of them has an MBA, and every single one of them knows the business aspect of our given technology field. They are all upper class white American Anglo-Saxon protestants who came from upper class/upper middle class families. They view our business as one big game--a very intricate, intriguing, and never-ending game. They take this game very seriously, and they pay attention to the technology and quality issues insofar as it advances the business. And business is all about profit, loss, and sustainability. Because they're all MBAs, they're all aware that every company and every business venture has a life cycle. If they happen to be employed for a company that's in the beginning half of its life-cycle, then they will make decisions that 1) grab maximum market share, 2) produce profit, and 3) reduce losses. Everything they do falls in those three criteria. If they determine that the company they are employed in has reached maturity and will start sliding towards dissolution, then they adjust their priorities to 1) Maximize profits, 2) cut costs, 3) Extend profitability. This turns their business into a cash cow that gets milked, taken over, disassembled, and outsourced. As such, they'll pay for American talent during the start-up phase, but once the business has reached maturity and maximum market share, that is when they lay off the American talent and get H1B's/talented college grads to come in for a third of the operating cost in terms of salary cap, to operate the business for as long as they can before the profits give out. It is how business works, and short of going very protectionist and starting trade wars, that will always be how it works. The worst is, if YOU were to be a business owner, you would have to fight against being seduced into that mindset.

Rachel? Battle Mountain? Ely? Or waaaaaaaaaaay out in the boonies?

If one has a strong currency, then one commands the privilege of the market. That means one would get first pick of new opportunities, new investments, and everyone wants to do business because of that strong currency. What you pointed out is the adverse consequence of having a strong currency--lots of buying power, but limited ability to actually generate new income. Strong currencies benefit the investor class and continues to give them privilege in the market--and to a degree, at the expense of everyone else.

This is the clearest, most coherent argument in favor of Swartz's side I've ever read. Now I better understand the context of why his suicide matters. The whole "blame the USDoJ" thing didn't quite make sense to me. Adding in the extreme difficulty of trying to get access to research journals due to paywalls and other "closed-shop" barrier tactics of the academic journal world plus MIT's reluctance to challenge that culture and stand up for Swartz--now that make sense and gives me context. I wish someone had phrased this point in such a succinct manner when it all first erupted.

That's what happens in a nation that believes in the prosperity gospel.

Come on, there's a better place for the MW--mounted in the mattress. Just drill a hole through the mattress and place the MW head up there, then run the power cord down beneath to a power strip. That way the cord from the watch doesn't interfere with sleeping or other bed-related activities. It's a win-win! No old-fashioned "removing of one's watch before bedtime"! No more "tangling up cords" or getting accidentally stink-shafted in the middle of the night by a used MW falling onto one's face. Practicality, my man, practicality! With a little forethought, one can be at the forefront of technology, get a good night's sleep, AND be sexually satisfied!

Nuclear Sharknados???? If that's the face of the Apocalypse, I'm in!

Yup, that one! People sure are complicated, aren't they?

What will you do when she gets assaulted in a place or situation she didn't expect to, from a person she never expected it of? Here's the thing with personal responsibility--while it's good to have and practice, everyone's got to let their guard down sometime. We all try to do so in safe environments and places--and the predators know that. It's the problem with blaming the victim--many times the victim is blameless precisely because the victim honestly thought he/she was SAFE, and with SAFE people. It's what predators count on. It's one thing for your wife to avoid the streets with the reported rapes, which is wise. But committed rapists (to use your example) don't sit on the same street corner in the same neighborhoods--they're always looking for prey in NEW environments. Prey that isn't expecting to be assaulted. Blaming the victim in that instance is like adding insult to injury--and that's what generally happens. It's also why women don't generally report rape or sexual assault--the amount of second-guessing by people who are unfamiliar with the situation, let alone the context and circumstances is staggering and destroys one's self esteem.

Your analogy works to a point. The predators who are lurking around said metaphorical park at 2 AM waiting for said irresponsible hot chicks in mini-dresses will quickly realize that their prey has gone to somewhere safer, like a nightclub or bar where it is both appropriate and safe for metaphorical hot chicks in mini-dresses to be safely irresponsible (e.g. having fun). Then they will evolve their tactics to take advantage, like roofies or excessive plying of alcohol or flat-out assault. Your analogy ultimately fails because while there is something to be said for taking personal responsibility, the fact is that predators -adapt-, or they die. And since they don't want to die, they will adapt, they will continue to hunt, and they will infiltrate the "safe" places. It is ultimately not someone's fault that they are a victim if they honestly thought they were both safe and in a place/situation/enacting a policy that is supposed to be safe (and verified by independent experts to be safe).

Historically, that was only true in the 20th century. The only reason Japan survived as long as it did was due to two factors: 1) remarkably lucky bad weather drowning Kublai Khan's invasion fleet, and 2) A shogunate that decided to isolate itself from the world to avoid drawing further Chinese invasions plus focus on eliminating all foreign influences. China historically has had the manpower and the naval power to take on and defeat Japan. The 20th century was when that changed. Now Japan's got an aging society, a much smaller population, and they've got to compensate with nuclear weapons.

Which Chinese government? The KMT under Chiang Kai-Shek, or the CCP under Mao? The KMT was arguably far more corrupt than the CCP and deserved to be exiled to Taiwan. The KMT also did not control China, it only controlled a third-to-half of China. And if you argue that the KMT was the recognized government of China at the time, then you have to acknowledge that the KMT under CKS committed atrocities against the Communists (see the Long March) when it could have devoted those resources instead to driving the Japanese out of Manchuria. The CCP emerged from the Long March an ideologically pure, people-driven movement that did away with the crony-ridden corruption of the KMT and also countered the bellicose tyranny of Stalin. It wasn't until Mao succumbed to his own fear of becoming irrelevant and ordered the Great Leap Forward plus the Cultural Revolution that the CCP became as bad as the KMT.

TDLR: All sides committed atrocities in that period--the argument is over which flavor of nationalism can shout the loudest