Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,270
Reaction score
2,493
How? Mass unemployment isn't a bug, but a feature of capitalism in this case. No self-respecting capitalist would ever employ 10 people where 5 would suffice; nor employ even 1 person where a robot can do the job more efficiently. During the Industrial Revolution, it was obvious that displaced farm workers would be needed in factories. But the whole point of automation is to remove the human element as much as possible; the technology itself isn't going to create a new industry that all of these displaced bank tellers, fast food workers, and shelf stockers can move into.

I'm not sure that is a fair analogy. But using that same example, I'm sure workers were concerned then too. What will happen to wagon/carriage manufacturers? What about the blacksmiths? The stable services industry?

They had no idea that auto would lead to an industrial revolution, lead to the essembly line which revolutionized what working in America meant, spawned completely new industries.

We don't know what automation will create, but the upcoming technological revolution will undoubtedly create new jobs. Just like every revolution has since that crazy dude decided to spurn the sled industry when he chiseled out a wheel.

I agree with Wooly, that something will come of this. What? I don't know. I don't have a crystal ball that will project what sector will create the next human job boom. But that doesn't mean I completely disagree that something will need to be done during a transition period. See coal country at the moment. Those people aren't retraining or transitioning. They're simply getting left behind. And we need a plan to help them. Idk if that's the UBI or a form of it, or what, but something will need to be done.

Not exactly a knowledge-drop for a post, but I guess it's just a gut feeling that some other sector will provide jobs for humans when automation takes all the others.
 

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,825
Reaction score
16,090
I'm not sure that is a fair analogy. But using that same example, I'm sure workers were concerned then too. What will happen to wagon/carriage manufacturers? What about the blacksmiths? The stable services industry?

They had no idea that auto would lead to an industrial revolution, lead to the essembly line which revolutionized what working in America meant, spawned completely new industries.

We don't know what automation will create, but the upcoming technological revolution will undoubtedly create new jobs. Just like every revolution has since that crazy dude decided to spurn the sled industry when he chiseled out a wheel.

(1) I'm curious what's unfair about it? I think it's a pretty apt analogy and I'd genuinely like to know why it's bad before I make an idiot of myself repeating it in the future.

(2) Your example of the carriage being replaced by the automobile is, however, an unfair example imo. The situation you described is manufacturers merely altering what they are manufacturing. In this, the manufacturers themselves are the thing being replaced. I don't understand what jobs could be created when the machines are more physically skilled, smarter in their field, cheaper, and more consistent.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
(1) I'm curious what's unfair about it? I think it's a pretty apt analogy and I'd genuinely like to know why it's bad before I make an idiot of myself repeating it in the future.

The reason I said it was unfair was because, in this conversation, we are talking about the labor force. The horses weren't the labor force, they were the tool. Horses were replaced by a better tool, the automobile. That clearly wasn't "good" for the horses, but they are the tool, not the worker. So I'm not sure it's an apt comparison to the disenfranchised worker, who used the tool.

(2) Your example of the carriage being replaced by the automobile is, however, an unfair example imo. The situation you described is manufacturers merely altering what they are manufacturing. In this, the manufacturers themselves are the thing being replaced. I don't understand what jobs could be created when the machines are more physically skilled, smarter in their field, cheaper, and more consistent.

Isn't that what the technological revolution would be doing? Altering how the work is being done? Doctors would be replaced for robots, sure. But those doctors can now focus on other aspects of medicine. Or programming the robots. Or directing people on how to use the various tools. The robot is replacing the job, not the person.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Like that video says: If a person says "all this new technology replacing horses will create more jobs for horses" they sound crazy; but if a person says "all this new technology replacing humans will create more jobs for humans" it's generally accepted as true.

It's kind of ironic, capitalism may be too successful at the creation of wealth for its own good.

That's how conventional wisdom works. There's plenty of reasons to doubt that's going to be the case this time, though. Touching on your second sentence, I think it's important to remember that capitalism is designed to maximize efficiency, not to create jobs. So the outworking of capitalism's own internal logic pretty much refutes the idea that each successive wave of technological disruption will always create as many jobs as it destroys.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
That's how conventional wisdom works. There's plenty of reasons to doubt that's going to be the case this time, though. Touching on your second sentence, I think it's important to remember that capitalism is designed to maximize efficiency, not to create jobs. So the outworking of capitalism's own internal logic pretty much refutes the idea that each successive wave of technological disruption will always create as many jobs as it destroys.

I think Steve Pearlstien said it best:

The winners from job-destroying technology hire more gardeners, housekeepers and day-care workers. They take more vacations and eat at more restaurants. They buy more cars and boats and bigger houses. They engage the services of more auto mechanics and personal trainers, psychologists and orthopedic surgeons.

Many economists DO believe that capitalism does inherently take care of the problem. Just like the Invisible Hand moderates supply and demand of goods and services, it also guides the supply and demand of jobs. Where one job is lost, the opportunity for another is created by the increased demand for the other professions available in the market.
 

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,825
Reaction score
16,090
The reason I said it was unfair was because, in this conversation, we are talking about the labor force. The horses weren't the labor force, they were the tool. Horses were replaced by a better tool, the automobile. That clearly wasn't "good" for the horses, but they are the tool, not the worker. So I'm not sure it's an apt comparison to the disenfranchised worker, who used the tool.

Not sure I agree because I fail to see what makes a horse a "tool" but a human employee not a "tool" in a capitalistic sense. They are both tools for the employer as a means of generating wealth. Something was more efficient than horses for all the things horses were good at. I don't see why something being more efficient than humans leads to a different conclusion.

Isn't that what the technological revolution would be doing? Altering how the work is being done? Doctors would be replaced for robots, sure. But those doctors can now focus on other aspects of medicine. Or programming the robots. Or directing people on how to use the various tools. The robot is replacing the job, not the person.

Even assuming that jobs like research or programming can't possibly be given to machines, which I can't understand why they wouldn't be: How many possible programmers and researchers can society justify? The future you're describing would require every person to be a top tier expert in their field.

I feel like I won't convince you and at this point we're just talking in circles and I have inadvertently gotten rooted in discussing the "will or won't it happen" so I'll try to rephrase my question: Even if it's only remotely possible that robots take all or very nearly all the jobs, what is the best system going forward to deal with all these people? Is a redistribution of wealth necessary to avoid a dystopia?
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
That's how conventional wisdom works. There's plenty of reasons to doubt that's going to be the case this time, though. Touching on your second sentence, I think it's important to remember that capitalism is designed to maximize efficiency, not to create jobs. So the outworking of capitalism's own internal logic pretty much refutes the idea that each successive wave of technological disruption will always create as many jobs as it destroys.
False. You're ignoring the macro consideration that employees and consumers are the same people. You could get marginal cost of production down to zero and it doesn't do you a damn bit of good if nobody has any wages to buy your product.

I think Steve Pearlstien said it best:

Many economists DO believe that capitalism does inherently take care of the problem. Just like the Invisible Hand moderates supply and demand of goods and services, it also guides the supply and demand of jobs. Where one job is lost, the opportunity for another is created by the increased demand for the other professions available in the market.
word.gif
 

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,825
Reaction score
16,090
False. You're ignoring the macro consideration that employees and consumers are the same people. You could get marginal cost of production down to zero and it doesn't do you a damn bit of good if nobody has any wages to buy your

On paper that makes some sense, but has that macro consideration ever been used in the real world free market by wealth creators to curb their own efficiency? Sounds pretty fantastical.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
Not sure I agree because I fail to see what makes a horse a "tool" but a human employee not a "tool" in a capitalistic sense. They are both tools for the employer as a means of generating wealth. Something was more efficient than horses for all the things horses were good at. I don't see why something being more efficient than humans leads to a different conclusion.

I would say the reason is because no one cares if a horse loses its "job". I regard them as a tool because they are serving the purpose of a tool. They are not a worker in the same way a CNC machine is not a worker. They are both tools being operated by a worker (man). If you are talking about job loss, you wouldn't compare it to how many tractors are being lost by industrial farming, but rather how many farmers lost their jobs.

Even assuming that jobs like research or programming can't possibly be given to machines, which I can't understand why they wouldn't be: How many possible programmers and researchers can society justify? The future you're describing would require every person to be a top tier expert in their field.

I feel like I won't convince you and at this point we're just talking in circles and I have inadvertently gotten rooted in discussing the "will or won't it happen" so I'll try to rephrase my question: Even if it's only remotely possible that robots take all or very nearly all the jobs, what is the best system going forward to deal with all these people? Is a redistribution of wealth necessary to avoid a dystopia?

I don't believe a world can exist without workers. People would have to market the robots to companies. Those companies have to have executives. There are industries that people simply wouldn't want done by a robot. We would have the arts, music and entertainment. Then there is the invisible hand that would create new industries that we don't know about yet, because if we did, we would be doing them. At least that's my thoughts.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Many economists DO believe that capitalism does inherently take care of the problem. Just like the Invisible Hand moderates supply and demand of goods and services, it also guides the supply and demand of jobs. Where one job is lost, the opportunity for another is created by the increased demand for the other professions available in the market.

With respect, wooly, it's hard for me to think of a less convincing opening clause than the bolded above. Any "science" with such a pathetic record of prediction isn't worthy of the name. Economics is great at creating the impression that the unexamined first principles of capitalism are something like a law of nature, but the science behind it is as compelling as phrenology. Efficiency is only a virtue if you're headed in a good direction.

False. You're ignoring the macro consideration that employees and consumers are the same people. You could get marginal cost of production down to zero and it doesn't do you a damn bit of good if nobody has any wages to buy your product.

Revolution would overthrow the system long before it got to the point where no one had wages. Our capitalist overlords would likely push UBI rather than risk losing everything. The question is whether we want to live in that sort of world-- mass unemployment, means of production owned by a tiny elite, with the unwashed masses being anesthetized through drugs, Netflix and VR porn.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
With respect, wooly, it's hard for me to think of a less convincing opening clause than the bolded above. Any "science" with such a pathetic record of prediction isn't worthy of the name. Economics is great at creating the impression that the unexamined first principles of capitalism are something like a law of nature, but the science behind it is as compelling as phrenology. Efficiency is only a virtue if you're headed in a good direction.

Can you elaborate here? It seems like you're saying that economists haven't been able to clearly determine market functions and create laws that can be tested, neh... have been tested throughout time and through a variety of different countries. Which they have. I will certainly agree that there are rogue opinions that certainly are not tested and true, but that is the same for any science or philosophy. But you would be hard pressed to find many people in any economic circle that doesn't see the "invisible hand" as a fact of science.

I think pointing the finger at economists as ideological quacks is as about as fair as doing the same for the fields of science or theology.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Can you elaborate here? It seems like you're saying that economists haven't been able to clearly determine market functions and create laws that can be tested, neh... have been tested throughout time and through a variety of different countries. Which they have. I will certainly agree that there are rogue opinions that certainly are not tested and true, but that is the same for any science or philosophy. But you would be hard pressed to find many people in any economic circle that doesn't see the "invisible hand" as a fact of science.

I think pointing the finger at economists as ideological quacks is as about as fair as doing the same for the fields of science or theology.

We discussed in the Economic thread how capitalism is the outworking of Protestant theology. And economists are great at describing how and why that system works. But that system isn't a law of nature; it works as it does because we made it that way. So I take issue when economists stop simply explaining the way a particular politico-economic arrangement works, and start asserting The Way Things Are™ like they're f*cking physicists or something.

I haven't been shy in asserting my belief that liberalism is unsustainable. Economically, it encourages selfish, short-term thinking which leads to growing inequality, environmental degradation, etc. Socially, it also encourages selfish, short-term thinking which leads to broken families and decreasing political stability.

I suppose one can assert a sort of techno-optimism that the Capitalist Demi-urge, deus ex machina, will somehow save us from the alarming trends that herald disaster; but it strikes me as willful blindness. Bank tellers, FedEx drivers and Wal-Mart shelf stockers are not going to be able to retrain into robotic technicians. And even if the increasing efficiency brought about by automation allows them to fall back into another service sector job, it'll almost assuredly be less secure than the job they lost. Which means we're still on a trajectory toward mass unemployment. Productivity and employment haven't been properly aligned for decades, which--according to standard economic doctrine--shouldn't be the case.
 

irishroo

The CNN of Irish Envy
Messages
572
Reaction score
44
Just got my 2016 bonus and saw the taxes being withheld from it. Any politician who wants people like me to vote for him/her, just slash that number and half and I'll be your biggest fan.
 

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,046
Reaction score
1,924
Taking a budding conversation point from the Trump thread because this isn't about Trump:

For those of you who believe in the superiority of the free market/capitalism economic theory going forward, how does that system work in the (increasing likely) situation that most labor gets taken on by robotics in the next twenty-five years? I'm not educated enough in economic theory to argue either way, but I find it suspicious that basic income is the only thing that generally comes up as an answer. There have to be other alternatives right?

IDK I think UBI is pretty much the only viable choice outside of full blown communism. UBI would look radically different though in a world where there was essentially no shortages.

I think the worst thing about Trump is that he's focused the country on economic issues that were settled 30 years ago at a time when we desperately need to be planning for the much greater changes coming over the next 30 years.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
IDK I think UBI is pretty much the only viable choice outside of full blown communism. UBI would look radically different though in a world where there was essentially no shortages.

I think the worst thing about Trump is that he's focused the country on economic issues that were settled 30 years ago at a time when we desperately need to be planning for the much greater changes coming over the next 30 years.

UBI is a unicorn right now to me since I do not envision Congress having the balls to actually do it. The link below details out a nice framework to which people can start to get their head around how to pay for it. And while the end result may be a net benefit to most people, I simply fail to see how anyone in Congress would vote for the repeal of all of those programs and tax deductions before it is too late.

EconoMonitor : Ed Dolan's Econ Blog » Could We Afford a Universal Basic Income? (Part 2 of a Series)
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
IDK I think UBI is pretty much the only viable choice outside of full blown communism. UBI would look radically different though in a world where there was essentially no shortages.

I think the worst thing about Trump is that he's focused the country on economic issues that were settled 30 years ago at a time when we desperately need to be planning for the much greater changes coming over the next 30 years.

To expand, I dropped this link in the Trump thread but it's worth posting here. TBF, there's some reason to think this is over the top but there's also a lot of reason to think that the world we live in 30 years from now will hardly be recognizable.

The Artificial Intelligence Revolution: Part 1 - Wait But Why

The Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions brought on paradigm-shifting leaps in efficiency, but they were also hugely disruptive to the established social order, and it allowed for the concentration of massive wealth in the hands of a very small slice of elites (because efficiency gains primarily benefit those who own capital). Epochal social disruption with increasing wealth inequality is a recipe for disaster, and that's what the Automation Revolution is promising to deliver unless we're able to get in front of it with political and economic innovation.

On that subject, here's an article describing various capital taxes that can be used to gradually build up a social wealth fund, which could greatly reduce the social disruption/ inequality that automation will bring about. It's not a coincidence that prominent billionaire technocrats like Musk and Gates have been worried about this for years. The latter recently suggested that a tax on robots will be necessary to protect those left unemployed by the upcoming revolution.
 

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,046
Reaction score
1,924
UBI is a unicorn right now to me since I do not envision Congress having the balls to actually do it. The link below details out a nice framework to which people can start to get their head around how to pay for it. And while the end result may be a net benefit to most people, I simply fail to see how anyone in Congress would vote for the repeal of all of those programs and tax deductions before it is too late.

EconoMonitor : Ed Dolan's Econ Blog » Could We Afford a Universal Basic Income? (Part 2 of a Series)

I don't think we'll find the political will for it or anything like it until we reach a crisis.

@whiskey, speaking of Musk the wait but why guy did a four part series on him and then spun it off into a two part series about colonizing mars. It's all super cool stuff and if you get carried away with it you'll find yourself thinking all the issues we're dealing with today just won't matter soon.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Just got my 2016 bonus and saw the taxes being withheld from it. Any politician who wants people like me to vote for him/her, just slash that number and half and I'll be your biggest fan.

now do that for 30 years...pick your head up and see if you like how your money was spent.

Now thats being bent over right there....
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Is Wasserman Schultz in hot water again? I heard about this yesterday and now it is getting picked up by a lot of news orgs including Politico.

House Dem Staffers Took Iraqi Politician's Cash | The Daily Caller

I'll make a prediction...If they were paid by the Federal government for Time billed, then the fraud issue will eat them alive...

"Abid had “100% control” of the dealership, a one-time business partner said in court documents, in addition to his $165,000-a-year job working full-time for multiple representatives, including Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan and California Democrat Jim Costa.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/20/exclusive-house-dem-it-guys-in-security-probe-secretly-took-100k-in-iraqi-money/#ixzz4aVCqWzIa"


If the Federal government thinks you cheated on time/billing...Buh Bye.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433

Oh good hell...

Russians really kicking our asses that badly on the Cyber front? Makes me wonder what the Chinese file looks like on each one of us. How did we become the definition of "SUCK" when it comes to Cyber...This is go away in shame embarrassing.

Maybe we need less intel leadership folks who seem to have enough time to play political games, and way more Cyber Analysts taking the fight to our foes. This is/was/and will be a mess because we are too stupid to play the right game...SMH.
 

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,046
Reaction score
1,924
Oh good hell...

Russians really kicking our asses that badly on the Cyber front? Makes me wonder what the Chinese file looks like on each one of us. How did we become the definition of "SUCK" when it comes to Cyber...This is go away in shame embarrassing.

Maybe we need less intel leadership folks who seem to have enough time to play political games, and way more Cyber Analysts taking the fight to our foes. This is/was/and will be a mess because we are too stupid to play the right game...SMH.


Eh, I'm sure we can do the same thing- most of these attacks exploit user end stupidity/laziness/lack of awareness. Don't think there's much the gov can do to stop phishing attacks or private organizations using bad network security.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Eh, I'm sure we can do the same thing- most of these attacks exploit user end stupidity/laziness/lack of awareness. Don't think there's much the gov can do to stop phishing attacks or private organizations using bad network security.

...we know these organizations are going to be targeted...and as much as I'd like to laugh at them...It is clearly being done with intent beyond just $$$$. Because they are being targeted primarily by a hostile foreign entity...I think that opens the door for Federal involvement. Not that hard to help them. We can at least get them to do the easy stuff...
 

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,046
Reaction score
1,924
...we know these organizations are going to be targeted...and as much as I'd like to laugh at them...It is clearly being done with intent beyond just $$$$. Because they are being targeted primarily by a hostile foreign entity...I think that opens the door for Federal involvement. Not that hard to help them. We can at least get them to do the easy stuff...

Yeah I agree with this.
 

NDFAN420

Well-known member
Messages
789
Reaction score
356
This is an excerpt from a Russian GRU defector on what was Soviet, now Russian, policy:

"The opposition is the reserve brain"

Spetsnaz has to make every effort to find and destroy the enemy's nuclear armament. Nuclear strength represents the teeth of the state and it has to be knocked out with the first blow, possibly even before the fighting begins. But if it proves impossible to knock out all the teeth with the first blow, then a blow has to be struck not just at the teeth but at the brain and nervous system of the state. When we speak of the `brain' we mean the country's most important statesmen and politicians. In this context the leaders of the opposition parties are regarded as equally important candidates for destruction as the leaders of the party in power. The opposition is simply the state's reserve brain, and it would be silly to destroy the main decision-making system without putting the reserve system out of action. By the same token we mean, for example, the principal military leaders and police chiefs, the heads of the Church and trade unions and in general all the people who might at a critical moment appeal to the nation and who are well known to the nation.

By the `nervous system' of the state we mean the principal centres and lines of government and military communications, and the commercial communications companies, including the main radio stations and television studios.

It would hardly be possible, of course, to destroy the brain, the nervous system and the teeth at once, but a simultaneous blow at all three of the most important organs could, in the opinion of the Soviet leaders, substantially reduce a nation's capacity for action in the event of war, especially at its initial and most critical stage. Some missiles will be destroyed and others will not be fired because there will be nobody to give the appropriate command or because the command will not be passed on in time due to the breakdown of communications.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Who benefited most from birth control and abortion access? Not who you might think <a href="https://t.co/U8pud9ZGcr">https://t.co/U8pud9ZGcr</a> <a href="https://t.co/1SaU880xCH">pic.twitter.com/1SaU880xCH</a></p>— Nick Saffran (@nicksaffran) <a href="https://twitter.com/nicksaffran/status/839217955409965062">March 7, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
6,003
This is an excerpt from a Russian GRU defector on what was Soviet, now Russian, policy:

"The opposition is the reserve brain"

Spetsnaz has to make every effort to find and destroy the enemy's nuclear armament. Nuclear strength represents the teeth of the state and it has to be knocked out with the first blow, possibly even before the fighting begins. But if it proves impossible to knock out all the teeth with the first blow, then a blow has to be struck not just at the teeth but at the brain and nervous system of the state. When we speak of the `brain' we mean the country's most important statesmen and politicians. In this context the leaders of the opposition parties are regarded as equally important candidates for destruction as the leaders of the party in power. The opposition is simply the state's reserve brain, and it would be silly to destroy the main decision-making system without putting the reserve system out of action. By the same token we mean, for example, the principal military leaders and police chiefs, the heads of the Church and trade unions and in general all the people who might at a critical moment appeal to the nation and who are well known to the nation.

By the `nervous system' of the state we mean the principal centres and lines of government and military communications, and the commercial communications companies, including the main radio stations and television studios.

It would hardly be possible, of course, to destroy the brain, the nervous system and the teeth at once, but a simultaneous blow at all three of the most important organs could, in the opinion of the Soviet leaders, substantially reduce a nation's capacity for action in the event of war, especially at its initial and most critical stage. Some missiles will be destroyed and others will not be fired because there will be nobody to give the appropriate command or because the command will not be passed on in time due to the breakdown of communications.

This supposed to be significant? I think a high school kid could figure that out.
 
Top