Politics

[chicago51]

Your then paying a Walmart employee more than hes worth, great for him, but walmart gonna cut jobs. So while trying to help the poor you end up ****ing alot of them over. MacroEcon 101, one of the basic ideas why there is unemplyment is minimum wage

Walmart already cuts as many jobs as they can they hire just enough to get the work the need done. However you make a good point as it would hurt small business. Hence you got have more to go with it.

You got change the corporate tax rates to go with it. Make the corporate tax a regressive tax that starts out low and get higher.

The minimum wage is a cause of unemployment more because of China wages. Tariffs or VAT taxes can fix that. China will still want to sell here even with a tariff that drives up their prices. Why? Because our population has purchasing power.

 

[chicago51]

What do you consider a bit too much?

Whatever $1 above 4x the poverty rate is. You can get government subsidies up to that which will dramatically lower the cost. After that you don't get any government subsidies. So you be better actually making less money if you are right on that edge. It is a flawed system.

 

[Bluto]

I mostly agree. I was simply saying that that has less to do with Walmart per se than with the natural occurrences within the parameters of capitalism.

Capitalism over time will move every industry into an oligopoly, or even an monopoly. We have laws designed to stop monopolies, but almost none to stop oligopolies. Walmart is just one member (the biggest) in the retail oligopoly.

This happens in almost every industry: I'm doing food systems research right now: there are something like 2.5 million farms, and 320 million eaters (not a technical term haha), do you know how many corporations control the market from the soil to your mouth? Five.

Watch things like Beer Wars to see how corporations grew and grew and grew to dominate that market.

Read about the thousand or so car companies in 1910 and the dozenish left by 1960. It happens everywhere.

And all of them undercut their competition by "Economies of Scale." They all outsource and they all are amazingly efficient. And, they've taken the "low-skill" factor out as much as possible.

Think about where it's going though. Back to the food, what happens when migrant workers are replaced by a robot rover that can pull weeds, scan leaves for infection/infestation, vacuum harmful bugs, etc etc. They're useless, literally. And also unemployed.

We've always been able to say "well efficiency in this industry has freed up people to do other jobs," and that has absolutely been true--even if they aren't as well paying. But robotics technology is about to boom and what happens when entire industries don't need people? That Walmart warehouse mentioned earlier will have a Google self-driving truck that will unload itself like an automated trash-truck does, so only 1/10 of the people are there, making sure it doesn't screw up.

Interesting. My mom wrote her masters thesis looking at automation in the tomato industry (I believe). I'm pretty sure she referred to the theories of a Sociologist named Jay Weistein. Apparently it was a pretty good paper in that she got offered a fellowship to USC, which she turned down.

Anyhow, the conclusion was that as automation increased in the tomato industry not only did it devistate the labor force but it produced a crappier tomato in terms of taste.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Anyhow, the conclusion was that as automation increased in the tomato industry not only did it devistate the labor force but it produced a crappier tomato in terms of taste.

Definitely true on the first part. The second part just means they need to make a better machine, which they will if the market demands it. Advances in robotics can/will eventually take care of that, don't you think? I do.

Good for her for declining USC. **** those guys haha

 

[Bluto]

Definitely true on the first part. The second part just means they need to make a better machine, which they will if the market demands it. Advances in robotics can/will eventually take care of that, don't you think? I do.

Good for her for declining USC. **** those guys haha

What's interesting is that the industry focused on developing a "tougher" tomato that could stand up to the rigors of mechanization instead of vice-versa. Hence the flavorless tomatoes so common today.

Robotics might take over more segments of AG, but given the availability of cheap labor from Mexico and the finesse and skill involved in say harvesting lettuce and or grapes I don't see the cost benifit being there.

Yeah, SC sucks. Lol.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I agree, for now.

Who would have thought that an expensive tractor would replace such cheap horses back in the day?

Who would have thought that labor would be replaced by this?

It will all happen eventually.

 

[Black Irish]

All right, let's say for the sake of argument that economics of scale and automation are a big problem. What do we do about it? We can't exactly un-ring that bell. How do we stop the forward march? And what are the consequences if we do? We may stop, but the rest of the world will not.

I'll just say that this forward march of technological progress may not be the nightmare that so many are making out. A few posters pointed out how the industrial revolution severely cut down the numbers of certain manuel laborers. I'm sure that most of them found a way to adapt and move into other fields of labor. It's not all sunshine and roses out there, but I think it gives too little credit to people and our country to think that we won't find a way to deal with this in a (mostly) positive way. It doesn't do anyone any good to have a disenfranchised, unemployable labor force. We may not have the revolution that Buster envisions, but it is a problem nonetheless. I think we can find a way to deal with this without just ragging on Wal-Mart and the uber-wealthy.

 

[Ndaccountant]

All right, let's say for the sake of argument that economics of scale and automation are a big problem. What do we do about it? We can't exactly un-ring that bell. How do we stop the forward march? And what are the consequences if we do? We may stop, but the rest of the world will not.

I'll just say that this forward march of technological progress may not be the nightmare that so many are making out. A few posters pointed out how the industrial revolution severely cut down the numbers of certain manuel laborers. I'm sure that most of them found a way to adapt and move into other fields of labor. It's not all sunshine and roses out there, but I think it gives too little credit to people and our country to think that we won't find a way to deal with this in a (mostly) positive way. It doesn't do anyone any good to have a disenfranchised, unemployable labor force. We may not have the revolution that Buster envisions, but it is a problem nonetheless. I think we can find a way to deal with this without just ragging on Wal-Mart and the uber-wealthy.

The key is to have programs that are both job friendly and learning friendly. Continous learning is so important for every worker. Employees must take it upon themselves to ensure their skills are not antiquated.

At a much bigger level, I think we need to change the way we look at schooling, especially high schools and community colleges.

 

[Bluto]

All right, let's say for the sake of argument that economics of scale and automation are a big problem. What do we do about it? We can't exactly un-ring that bell. How do we stop the forward march? And what are the consequences if we do? We may stop, but the rest of the world will not.

I'll just say that this forward march of technological progress may not be the nightmare that so many are making out. A few posters pointed out how the industrial revolution severely cut down the numbers of certain manuel laborers. I'm sure that most of them found a way to adapt and move into other fields of labor. It's not all sunshine and roses out there, but I think it gives too little credit to people and our country to think that we won't find a way to deal with this in a (mostly) positive way. It doesn't do anyone any good to have a disenfranchised, unemployable labor force. We may not have the revolution that Buster envisions, but it is a problem nonetheless. I think we can find a way to deal with this without just ragging on Wal-Mart and the uber-wealthy.

We can choose to do whatever we want actually. Maybe we should spend a bit more time and energy attempting to understand the consequences of various technologies that we seem to apply and or use pretty haphazardly in my opinion to push a cycle of hyper consumption that given its current trajectory is going to end badly sooner or later and one way or another.

 

[Bluto]

So, will the NFL one day be all cyborgs? College? MIT might win the Natty if that's the case and Alabama will be a cellar dweller.

 

[phgreek]

So, will the NFL one day be all cyborgs? College? MIT might win the Natty if that's the case and Alabama will be a cellar dweller.

For a year...then $$$ comes into play...

 

[Buster Bluth]

All right, let's say for the sake of argument that economics of scale and automation are a big problem.

Well "are a big problem" and "have problems" are two different things. I am not implying that those things are bad, just recognizing that they do have some negatives in addition to all of the positives.

What do we do about it? We can't exactly un-ring that bell. How do we stop the forward march? And what are the consequences if we do? We may stop, but the rest of the world will not.

I don't claim to know that. Recognizing issues is not the same as knowing the answer.

I'll just say that this forward march of technological progress may not be the nightmare that so many are making out.

I've never called it a nightmare.

A few posters pointed out how the industrial revolution severely cut down the numbers of certain manuel laborers. I'm sure that most of them found a way to adapt and move into other fields of labor.

That's not the discussion. The discussion is whether that world is merely a phase. From 1000BC to 1750AD, everyone lived in poverty and your work was done on a small scale, quantitatively speaking. From 1750-2013, we've used machinery to replace people and move people into other jobs.

The question is what will happen when the people aren't needed. It's a a totally different world much like 1900 was from 1500. We cannot assume that our reality will remain forever, can we? Every single government, economist, religious official, etc believed that universal poverty was inescapable, and that humans could only do X amount of work so they just needed to enslave people. They were all wrong, we can be too.

It's not all sunshine and roses out there, but I think it gives too little credit to people and our country to think that we won't find a way to deal with this in a (mostly) positive way. It doesn't do anyone any good to have a disenfranchised, unemployable labor force.

Perhaps. Yet we see the billionaires of the world say our "entitlement society" is killing us. We have a whole party insinuating that everyone who is poor is lazy. Evidence tends to say that they aren't really caring.

We may not have the revolution that Buster envisions, but it is a problem nonetheless. I think we can find a way to deal with this without just ragging on Wal-Mart and the uber-wealthy.

Revolutionary and an actual revolution are two different things, and I didn't not say that I "envision" a revolution. There are a myriad of reasons to rip on Walmart and the uber-wealthy though, and I won't stop.

 

[Downinthebend]

Well "are a big problem" and "have problems" are two different things. I am not implying that those things are bad, just recognizing that they do have some negatives in addition to all of the positives.



I don't claim to know that. Recognizing issues is not the same as knowing the answer.



I've never called it a nightmare.



That's not the discussion. The discussion is whether that world is merely a phase. From 1000BC to 1750AD, everyone lived in poverty and your work was done on a small scale, quantitatively speaking. From 1750-2013, we've used machinery to replace people and move people into other jobs.

The question is what will happen when the people aren't needed. It's a a totally different world much like 1900 was from 1500. We cannot assume that our reality will remain forever, can we? Every single government, economist, religious official, etc believed that universal poverty was inescapable, and that humans could only do X amount of work so they just needed to enslave people. They were all wrong, we can be too.



Perhaps. Yet we see the billionaires of the world say our "entitlement society" is killing us. We have a whole party insinuating that everyone who is poor is lazy. Evidence tends to say that they aren't really caring.



Revolutionary and an actual revolution are two different things, and I didn't not say that I "envision" a revolution. There are a myriad of reasons to rip on Walmart and the uber-wealthy though, and I won't stop.

From looking at the trend of our entire history, I'd say we are heading toward a pretty good spot. Wealth per person has been increasing exponentially. That capitalism can create so much wealth in a comparatively small amount of time is almost a miracle.

Also I want to talk about immigration. Should I post my thoughts in this thread "Just out of curiosity? (President)" or make a different thread?

 

[Buster Bluth]

From looking at the trend of our entire history, I'd say we are heading toward a pretty good spot. Wealth per person has been increasing exponentially. That capitalism can create so much wealth in a comparatively small amount of time is almost a miracle.

I think you may have missed the point. And yeah I do consider it a miracle.

Also I want to talk about immigration. Should I post my thoughts in this thread "Just out of curiosity? (President)" or make a different thread?

This is the "everything political thread," so have at it.

 

[Downinthebend]

It is my opinion that there are largely three reasons why people want to come into this country. I will be disregarding political refugees (and disaster/turmoil refugees) as reasons, because I have little opinion on them, and am fairly ignorant about them.

The 3 reasons are

1. Productivity
2. Education
3. Welfare

I believe that welfare should be changed as we know it so that (among other reasons) it would no longer be a cause for immigration.

I believe that any immigrant holding a job should be allowed to stay in the US as long as they are desire. After a set amount of time (five years?) (and possibly a test) they will be given full citizenship status (namely voting rights).

I believe that any immigrant that seeks education in this country should be allowed to pursue it. The interaction of culture is a positive thing in almost any setting, so even if they leave to go help their own country the people they interacted with still benefit. They shouldn't be allowed to pay government subsidized rates (but then again, I don't think the government should subsidized education).


I'm not sure what kind of border security would be needed under these plans (as people that can come into the US and be productive would be allowed to stay, and there would be not be much incentive to illegally come into the US as long as the application for whatever paperwork is rather small).

Opinions, criticisms, comments, questions on anything I said?

 

[chicago51]

Yes this is happening I Chicago 51 have something bad to say about President Obama.

Drone strikes.

The Obama administration is out of control with these drone strikes going on all around the world. It is wrong that our administration can kill American citizens that may be working against the US without due process. Not the mention the innocent people being killed accidently.

Say Mexico used a drone to kill a drug lord I
n say Arizona and in process killed some Americans including a couple of kids. Would the US stand for it? No

If this was say the Bush administration doing this Democrats would be screaming.

I am saying this ain't right I don't care who is in charge and rather or not I agree with them on policy.

 

[GoIrish41]

Yes this is happening I Chicago 51 have something bad to say about President Obama.

Drone strikes.

The Obama administration is out of control with these drone strikes going on all around the world. It is wrong that our administration can kill American citizens that may be working against the US without due process. Not the mention the innocent people being killed accidently.

Say Mexico used a drone to kill a drug lord I
n say Arizona and in process killed some Americans including a couple of kids. Would the US stand for it? No

If this was say the Bush administration doing this Democrats would be screaming.

I am saying this ain't right I don't care who is in charge and rather or not I agree on policy.

could not agree more and they are being pretty secretive about their legal justification for using drones in these situations. not good.

 

[Downinthebend]

Yes this is happening I Chicago 51 have something bad to say about President Obama.

Drone strikes.

The Obama administration is out of control with these drone strikes going on all around the world. It is wrong that our administration can kill American citizens that may be working against the US without due process. Not the mention the innocent people being killed accidently.

Say Mexico used a drone to kill a drug lord I
n say Arizona and in process killed some Americans including a couple of kids. Would the US stand for it? No

If this was say the Bush administration doing this Democrats would be screaming.

I am saying this ain't right I don't care who is in charge and rather or not I agree with them on policy.

I could not agree more. And keep in mind that Obama just precedented this: Any republican president will have the same powers that he is doing. Would you trust Bush with this kind of abuse?

 

[Black Irish]

It is my opinion that there are largely three reasons why people want to come into this country. I will be disregarding political refugees (and disaster/turmoil refugees) as reasons, because I have little opinion on them, and am fairly ignorant about them.

The 3 reasons are

1. Productivity
2. Education
3. Welfare

I believe that welfare should be changed as we know it so that (among other reasons) it would no longer be a cause for immigration.

I believe that any immigrant holding a job should be allowed to stay in the US as long as they are desire. After a set amount of time (five years?) (and possibly a test) they will be given full citizenship status (namely voting rights).

I believe that any immigrant that seeks education in this country should be allowed to pursue it. The interaction of culture is a positive thing in almost any setting, so even if they leave to go help their own country the people they interacted with still benefit. They shouldn't be allowed to pay government subsidized rates (but then again, I don't think the government should subsidized education).


I'm not sure what kind of border security would be needed under these plans (as people that can come into the US and be productive would be allowed to stay, and there would be not be much incentive to illegally come into the US as long as the application for whatever paperwork is rather small).

Opinions, criticisms, comments, questions on anything I said?

I believe it would be a good idea to streamline and simplify the immigration process for work visas. If immigrants demonstrate that they have a job to come to, then give them a short to medium term work visa. But I wouldn't be in a big rush to grant them full citizenship. That process should still be fairly rigorous. And I think that we need to abolish the concept of "anchor babies." If two American citizens have a child abroad, that country has no responsibility to call that child one of theirs. If two foreign nationals have a child here, why isn't that child considered a foreign national? It's asinine.

 

[Bluto]

I believe it would be a good idea to streamline and simplify the immigration process for work visas. If immigrants demonstrate that they have a job to come to, then give them a short to medium term work visa. But I wouldn't be in a big rush to grant them full citizenship. That process should still be fairly rigorous. And I think that we need to abolish the concept of "anchor babies." If two American citizens have a child abroad, that country has no responsibility to call that child one of theirs. If two foreign nationals have a child here, why isn't that child considered a foreign national? It's asinine.

Or we could just repeal NAFTA and encourage Mexico to enforce its own labor and environmental laws and maybe put back in place the law that fordbade foreign entities from owning majority stakes in Mexican based companies...you know all the things that screwed that country up in the first place and caused the immigration tidal wave.

 

[Black Irish]

Or we could just repeal NAFTA and encourage Mexico to enforce its own labor and environmental laws and maybe put back in place the law that fordbade foreign entities from owning majority stakes in Mexican based companies...you know all the things that screwed that country up in the first place and caused the immigration tidal wave.

I don't entirely disagree, but as for doing all of that, it would probably be easier to deport all illegal immigrants and achieve 100% border security.

 

[Downinthebend]

I believe it would be a good idea to streamline and simplify the immigration process for work visas. If immigrants demonstrate that they have a job to come to, then give them a short to medium term work visa. But I wouldn't be in a big rush to grant them full citizenship. That process should still be fairly rigorous. And I think that we need to abolish the concept of "anchor babies." If two American citizens have a child abroad, that country has no responsibility to call that child one of theirs. If two foreign nationals have a child here, why isn't that child considered a foreign national? It's asinine.

Why should they have to demonstrate a waiting job? Why should the process be rigorous? Why shouldn't we allow anyone that wants to work here to work here, and anyone that wants to stay here to stay here, and eventually, why shouldn't we allow the people that come here that want to improve this place we all love... to impact its policies (voting)

 

[Buster Bluth]

This talks about how freakin' advanced manufacturing robots are right now. There is already a teachable robot that only costs $22,000 and lasts three years (i.e., ~$3.40/hr), which is the same cost as the average Chinese manufacturing employee. And as the years have shown, the cost of this robot will PLUMMET and the abilities of it will SKYROCKET.

The Robotics Revolution is upon us. Seriously.

<embed src="http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" background="#333333" width="425" height="279" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" FlashVars="si=254&contentValue=50138922&shareUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50138922n" />

 

[Black Irish]

Why should they have to demonstrate a waiting job? Why should the process be rigorous? Why shouldn't we allow anyone that wants to work here to work here, and anyone that wants to stay here to stay here, and eventually, why shouldn't we allow the people that come here that want to improve this place we all love... to impact its policies (voting)

Why should they demonstrate that they have a job waiting? Because we have enough sub-literate, unemployed people here already. Why should the citizenship process be rigorous? Because they are becoming United States citizens. We should still have some standards.

 

[jason_h537]

Don't feel like reading everything. What's the cliff notes? What I miss?

 

[DSully1995]

Don't feel like reading everything. What's the cliff notes? What I miss?

Buster is writing the script for I,Robot 2: We ****ing taking your jobs America, and people dont like/ adore Obama

 

[jason_h537]

Buster is writing the script for I,Robot 2: We ****ing taking your jobs America, and people dont like/ adore Obama

1. Robots are not taking American manufacturing jobs, China and India are. The robots are taking jobs from them.

2. Of course they hate Obama, he is a socialist Kenyan Muslim who hates America. At least the Obama they created in their mind is. The actual Obama is actually very centrist but they are too busy yelling to realize it.

 

[chicago51]

The post office is going to be cutting back on Saturday service.

Back in 2006 the post office had a budget surplus.

Then the Postal Reform Act of 2006 forced the US Post Office to prefund its pension fund for 75 years. No other business in America has to prefund 75 years.

The post office does not operate on tax dollars despite being government ran. They are great for small businesses particularly in rural areas. They are also the 2nd biggest employer in US with evil Walmart being the first.

The government needs to repeal or replace the Postal Reform Act of 2006. The post office provides a ton of jobs. They don't need a tax payer bailout they just need the government take the handcuffs off with this stupid law that Bush put in.

 

[jason_h537]

The post office is going to be cutting back on Saturday service.

Back in 2006 the post office had a budget surplus.

Then the Postal Reform Act of 2006 forced the US Post Office to prefund its pension fund for 75 years. No other business in America has to prefund 75 years.

The post office does not operate on tax dollars despite being government ran. They are great for small businesses particularly in rural areas. They are also the 2nd biggest employer in US with evil Walmart being the first.

The government needs to repeal or replace the Postal Reform Act of 2006. The post office provides a ton of jobs. They don't need a tax payer bailout they just need the government take the handcuffs off with this stupid law that Bush put in.

I agree with this. They are run by the government but must operate as a private company? That is not fair. Also Wal-Mart is evil.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The post office is going to be cutting back on Saturday service.

Back in 2006 the post office had a budget surplus.

Then the Postal Reform Act of 2006 forced the US Post Office to prefund its pension fund for 75 years. No other business in America has to prefund 75 years.

The post office does not operate on tax dollars despite being government ran. They are great for small businesses particularly in rural areas. They are also the 2nd biggest employer in US with evil Walmart being the first.

The government needs to repeal or replace the Postal Reform Act of 2006. The post office provides a ton of jobs. They don't need a tax payer bailout they just need the government take the handcuffs off with this stupid law that Bush put in.

You know that they could just scrap the USPS and privatize it for a fraction of the cost to the tax payers right?

...and then the private companies would use robots to replace most of the jobs, and unemployment would go through the roof. Annnnnnd were back to square one in terms of adding to the deficit.