Not in evidence.
Not in evidence.
I don't think the 3.5mm jack is actually a panacea. It's limited to a single stereo output, and numerous incompatible hacks have been grafted on to allow it be used for microphone input and for phone or music controls.
But you can't just get rid of it without an adequate replacement at the ready, with cheap adapters available that you can easily just slot onto the end of a 3.5mm jack.
But it didn't put a time-frame on it. Perhaps by the time we actually come up with universal constructors or replicator technology, that will be true.
It's also possible that by then when it's just not that impressive anymore, we'll be more utilitarian.
Nobody said Mao was a nice guy. Even the USSR didn't like him.
But the whole communism thing did catch them up fast. It can't take them into the future. That's why they've introduced markets and entrepreneurship.
Many of the scientists you read about in text books are examples of well off people looking for something to do.
So? Many WWI veterans addicted to heroine lead productive lives.
Even many stoners back their way into the workforce. It starts with constructing ever more entertaining and artistic ways to smoke and eventually ends up in a small informal business doing the same for others. From there it's a slippery slope down to general woodworking and non smoking related decorations.
It's not just Carlin, I've seen it happen.
Why haven't you done it already?
On the contrary.
If you properly impose a tariff, which includes yearly limits on quotas of imported goods, you put the imported good artificially at the same or very similar market price as the locally produced product.
EG, in your example of 4$ per pound cotton textiles, the government artificially raises the price of that import via the tariff, making it say-- 19$ per pound once it gets to the market.
People don't stop wearing clothes just because the price goes up. Instead, they start looking more strongly at quality. They don't have the disposable income (everything costs more) to waste on crap clothing that they have to replace every year. Instead, they see the value in purchasing the clothing made with the higher production quality that lasts longer, This increases the demand for the higher quality product, and with increased demand, go increased opportunities for investment--- aka, JOBS.
When you demand impossible education requirements for basic employment, you impose a significant cost on your potential applicants.
Specifically, the cost of the education level you are demanding. It can easily enter triple digits, and take a third or more of a worker's lifetime to pay off, and is non-dischargeable.
That cost is real. It does not go away when you hire H1B laborers. The local economy is still saddled with the debt created by this wasted educational burden. (Wasted, because you never had any intention of hiring those applicants anyway.)
When you put a want ad out in the local job market, then purposefully ignore all applications that are local, so that you can hire a cheaper H1B, you are saddling the local economy with the difference in the cost of education, since the people that you caused to be trained by putting out your fake demand, now are unemployable, AND IN DEBT.
So, let me get this straight AC--
A country that imports more than it exports is "Great!" in your estimation, and pointing out that the actual quote from ricardo concerning his theory is as follows, with a little added emphasis of my own:
"If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them [b]with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage.[/b] The general industry of the country, being always in proportion to the capital which employs it, will not thereby be diminished
Note, his thesis does not work at all when the bolded part is not met.
While the US does have the second largest export market, A significant proportion of the US's labor force is not tied to manufacturing or exports, most of it is service industry. Further, the manufacturing capacity of the US is currently struggling.
Reuters attributes the low manufacturing performance to a high valued dollar, and low oil costs (globally)-- resulting in labor for manufacturing being too expensive in the USA-- THE EXACT THING WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, and that tariffs are intended to help avert.
Their opinion is not alone-- The economic policy institute has a rather lengthly report about it.
To which they credit " nearly two decades of policy failures that have damaged its international competitiveness" as the primary causal factor behind the massive reduction in US manufacturing. What policy decisions have been enacted in the past 20 years? Various free trade agreements that removed trade tariffs.
It further states that manufacturing accounts for only 8.8% of the US's labor force. Meaning that most americans are not employed doing manufacturing, but in some other industry.
Yet somehow, despite the massively disproportionate segment of the US labor force that is allocated to service providing, industries seeking service workers (No, software is NOT a manufacturing job. it is a service job.) "Simply cannot find qualified applicants!" Perhaps we aren't training enough people to meet those needs? No-- the NYT seems to feel otherwise.
The costs of attaining a college degree are spiraling out of control, while the benefits of getting one diminish, due to labor force saturation. This is because there is out of control demand for college education, coupled with lackluster pay once it is attained. Basically, the service industry in the US does not want to pay for the education requirements it is demanding, and is leaving hopeful applicants holding the bag.
Instead, the service industry leadership wants only the cream of the crop, so to speak, of the potential applicant pool. It demands only the very finest caviar, and wants to pay cheesewiz prices. (Why not, it can get caviar for the price of cheezewiz elsewhere!)
This comparative difference in labor rates is ALSO controlled innately by tariffs, and prevents this kind of labor shopping-- at least as far as outsourced labor is concerned.
Now that I have buried you under a pretty substantively sized wall of text with some citations and opinion pieces by bonafide economists, perhaps you can be a little more forthcoming in how my interpretation of your rhetorical question is so clearly "Wrong", yes?
All marching around with guns forcing people to do things. Fuck off.
Then I clearly need to step up my game and have them call one another for no reason that anyone reading my code will ever be able to understand.
Time-sharing is the junk-mail part of the computer business. -- H.R.J. Grosch (attributed)