Generational Dynamics World View News

[John]

** 17-Dec-2020 World View: China does not honor its agreement

> "US slams China for no-show at meeting on maritime security Top US
> admiral says China’s failure to appear at meetings this week shows
> Beijing ‘does not honour its agreements’."
> https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/12/ ... e-security
>

This refers to a meeting about the South China Sea. The Chinese
Communists see America as being increasingly weak, especially after
they've successfully inflicted the Wuhan Coronavirus on America, and
so they don't feel they even need to bother with these meetings. The
Chinese Communists are feeling increasingly confident of their
delusional worldview, which makes them increasingly unstable and
dangerous.

** 16-Dec-20 World View -- China escalates hostility with Australia through threatened coal ban
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e201216

[John]

** 17-Dec-2020 World View: Working from home

> This is the black swan I expect. I haven't been in the office
> since March. I was told the soonest I might be back is July
> 2021... if they even want me back in the office at all. I'm a
> programmer/cloud guy/engineer. So, my job is safe. But, why on
> earth would you pay a secretary $50K a year (with benefits) or an
> HR person $75K a year (with benefits) or whatever when you could
> hire a Ukrainian (or Indian or whatever) for $10K a year (with out
> benefits)... it's all the same if it's 100% virtual.

> If work stays 100% virtual like it probably will for most people,
> everyone who is not super skilled in a very specialized area is
> going to have their job very much at risk. You don't need an H1B
> visa to bring the person into America so they can work virtually
> from the same time zone. I know a lot of very smart/competent
> Ukrainians that wouldn't mind working Graveyard shift to get a
> "high paying" job working for a US Tech company. All it takes is a
> decision by the employer to hire someone over seas. There are no
> restrictions on that for 99% of jobs.

> Americans have really screwed themselves with this
> Plandemic.

This isn't new with the pandemic. It really exploded in the late
1990s, when Indian consulting firms hired thousands of programmers to
work the "graveyard shift" in remediating Cobol software on IBM
mainframes in the United States for the Y2K problem. I was Technology
Editor for CFO Magazine at the time, and I was following that
situation very closely. It was an amazing success story.

The two examples you gave -- secretarial and human resources -- once
again were being displaced long before the pandemic -- not by
Ukrainians, but by technology. Prior to the 1980s, if you wanted to
write a memo, you would ask your secretary to come into your office
and take dictation. The ability to take fast dictation was an
important skill for secretaries, along with fast touch typing. Almost
all those secretarial jobs have been gone for decades. Similarly, HR
functions have been replaced by software. PeopleSoft led the way in
the 1990s (since acquired by Oracle) as a major HR management system.
Even Lotus 1-2-3 and other spreadsheet programs displaced a lot of HR
functions, just as WordPerfect displaced a lot of secretarial
functions.

People working at home is also a long-term trend, as I'm sure you
know. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, it began to be common for
programmers to work at home and log on to their timesharing systems
with a modem over a phone line.

So these are all long-term trends, and the pandemic has sped up the
trends. However, there's an economic law that applies to these
situations -- the Law of Reversion of the Mean. When a trend value
speeds up temporarily, then it will compensate by slowing down later.

So for example, when there's a new crop of college graduates in June
2021 then, unlike you, they will be completely unfamiliar with
corporate cultures. They will have to work in the office for at least
a year or two to get to know everyone and to know how things get done.
So it would not surprise me in the least if, next summer, the trend to
working at home suffers a reversion.

[DaKardii]

So, here are the regions of the world ranked from what I believe will be the least safe to the most safe during the war:

Extreme Risk
-Anywhere in Asia
-Eastern Europe
-Southern Europe

High Risk
-East Africa
-Micronesia
-North Africa
-Northern Europe
-The United States and Canada

Medium Risk
-Anywhere in South America
-Australia and New Zealand
-Caribbean
-Central Africa
-Central America
-Polynesia
-West Africa
-Western Europe

Low Risk
-Melanesia
-Southern Africa

[Guest]

-Southern Africa

Absolutely disagree. South Africa and Zimbabwe are bad places to be now (especially Zimbabwe); after a nuclear war would be even worse. Zimbabwe is already starving, SA is next on the list. Also, water shortages, especially in Zim. If you are white, you are already a target. After WW3 begins, it will be even worse.

I don't fear dying in a nuclear blast; I prefer that. I worry about surving WW3. In London, you will probably disappear in the explosion. In Zibabwe, you'll probably be hacked to death by the locals (and eaten).

I have lived in several 3rd world countries, and order is just barely kept on the best of days. I have also been present during civil unrest, and it gets nasty very quickly. I would rather be in the whiter parts of South America like Uruguay or Chile. The heavier the Indio population, the more instability. Avoid Venezuela.

[Guest]

-Central America

No. This region is a string a hyper violent failed narco drug states. Latin America is an extremely dangerous place right now; after WW3 begins, the urban panic will be epic. I would rather be in Europe.

[DaKardii]

-Southern Africa

Absolutely disagree. South Africa and Zimbabwe are bad places to be now (especially Zimbabwe); after a nuclear war would be even worse. Zimbabwe is already starving, SA is next on the list. Also, water shortages, especially in Zim. If you are white, you are already a target. After WW3 begins, it will be even worse.

I don't fear dying in a nuclear blast; I prefer that. I worry about surving WW3. In London, you will probably disappear in the explosion. In Zibabwe, you'll probably be hacked to death by the locals (and eaten).

I have lived in several 3rd world countries, and order is just barely kept on the best of days. I have also been present during civil unrest, and it gets nasty very quickly. I would rather be in the whiter parts of South America like Uruguay or Chile. The heavier the Indio population, the more instability. Avoid Venezuela.

-Central America

No. This region is a string a hyper violent failed narco drug states. Latin America is an extremely dangerous place right now; after WW3 begins, the urban panic will be epic. I would rather be in Europe.

The countries/regions you mention are going to be quite peaceful compared to the epicenter of the war, which will consist of the "Extreme Risk" regions (Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, and virtually all of Asia). In those regions, it's going to be total destruction, and genocide on a scale not seen since WWII. The deadliest battles in history will take place in those regions during those five years of pure hell.

Meanwhile, if the fighting spreads and/or the war zone emits any refugee waves, the "High Risk" regions (East Africa, Micronesia, North Africa, Northern Europe, and the United States plus Canada) will be the ones hit the hardest.

If you want to stay away from the conflict, your best bet is to live anywhere but those regions. Even if the alternative is a shithole, living in a shithole is way better than living in Hell.

[Silenced S]

SCOTUS is thoroughly compromised just like almost all of the rest of our institutions. Chief Justice John Roberts is a fucking traitor and needs to be hung along with the rest of the Deep State.

Kinetic action (martial law if military is no longer compromised, revolution otherwise) is the only recourse we have to restore the Republic.

[Guest]

If you want to stay away from the conflict, your best bet is to live anywhere but those regions. Even if the alternative is a shithole, living in a shithole is way better than living in Hell.

No, it isn't. It's better to stay in your own country and die fighting. Being a refugee is a living hell, especially if you are white in southern Africa. Plenty of genocide to go around in Africa. Plenty.

[Gold bug]

Are you and Navigator still negative on Gold?

[John]

** 18-Dec-2020 World View: Wartime safety

> So, here are the regions of the world ranked from what I believe
> will be the least safe to the most safe during the war:

> Extreme Risk
> -Anywhere in Asia
> -Eastern Europe
> -Southern Europe

> High Risk
> -East Africa
> -Micronesia
> -North Africa
> -Northern Europe
> -The United States and Canada

> Medium Risk
> -Anywhere in South America
> -Australia and New Zealand
> -Caribbean
> -Central Africa
> -Central America
> -Polynesia
> -West Africa
> -Western Europe

> Low Risk
> -Melanesia
> -Southern Africa
>

That's an interesting list. How did you come up with it? Is it based
on general experience and research, or do you have some kind of point
system where you give each country points for each thing, and then add
up the points?

Also, do you have a way of distinguishing between different regions of
a country? For example, I would guess that western Australia might be
safer than eastern Australia.

This is a good time to repeat the advice that Higgenbotham has
posted in the past:

- If you have farming skills, then move to a farm in a remote
location.

- If you're a young and single male, then meet a well-to-do woman in a
country like Chile or Namibia and settle down with her.

Seasteading is another possibility that has been offered by VinceCate
in the past. You build or purchase a big floating structure (a
seastead) and then you and your family live on it for as many months
or years as necessary out in the middle of the ocean somewhere. To
keep it self-sustaining, you need to live on fish and seaweed. You
can generate electricity by capturing the power of the waves.

• Seasteading floating home project