|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 27 2016 00:19 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 00:13 Incognoto wrote:On April 27 2016 00:06 farvacola wrote:
Required specialization/increased education requirements, while certainly relevant to the discussion, bring about some very intriguing and difficult to solve dilemmas on their own though. For example, are we confident that the labor pool is, generally speaking, amenable to specialization/education in any sort of uniform manner? In other words, let's say that there is around 20% of the labor supply that is, by virtue of its members' own limitations, simply unable to learn more or specialize beyond basic tasks like those available in the dwindling manufacturing industry; what exactly happens to them without something like a basic income? I'm sure that there will always be a place for such people, especially in the service sector for example. It could be as simple as maintenance for machinery, which itself is never going to stop requiring maintenance. Same for the building industry. Do you seriously believe that? I mean, that might still have been a valid point of view in the 90s, but to hold on to this fairytale today is absurd to me.
I respectfully don't see why it's a fairy tale. Could you elaborate?
Do you really think that we're going to maintain complex machinery such as aircraft engines without a human going over it, checking out multiple things and diagnosing things that a machine could not?
Though to be fair, an aircraft mechanic is obviously going to be more qualified than a McDonalds employee. Point stands, there will always be some grunt work to do, it'll be possibly more complex but people are going to learn and develop themselves on the job. I don't think that anyone is legitimately too limited to pick up some specialization at some point, that to me is the fairy tale.
^^
I'm curious as to what you have to say though, and more than willing to listen.
|
On April 27 2016 00:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 00:27 farvacola wrote:Basic income could also be theoretically incorporated into a non-capitalist system too  Certainly but is there even a viable theoretical alternative at the moment?
Barring an extraordinary series of events, I don't think so 
|
On April 27 2016 00:19 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 00:13 Incognoto wrote:On April 27 2016 00:06 farvacola wrote:
Required specialization/increased education requirements, while certainly relevant to the discussion, bring about some very intriguing and difficult to solve dilemmas on their own though. For example, are we confident that the labor pool is, generally speaking, amenable to specialization/education in any sort of uniform manner? In other words, let's say that there is around 20% of the labor supply that is, by virtue of its members' own limitations, simply unable to learn more or specialize beyond basic tasks like those available in the dwindling manufacturing industry; what exactly happens to them without something like a basic income? I'm sure that there will always be a place for such people, especially in the service sector for example. It could be as simple as maintenance for machinery, which itself is never going to stop requiring maintenance. Same for the building industry. Do you seriously believe that? I mean, that might still have been a valid point of view in the 90s, but to hold on to this fairytale today is absurd to me.
I work in semiconductor manufacturing, perhaps one of the most automated industries out there. We have a huge need for technicians. Whether it is just keeping things running or repairing equipment, there is a huge need for people who never went to college. There is only so much you can automate. When something is cutting edge, there are often needs for supervision or some amount of accountability. Old technologies can run like clockwork forever, but a lot of the newer stuff we are doing takes a lot more supervision.
Even just running experiments, engineers don't have time to be collecting our own data and fabricating our own devices. That is done with specific orders to technicians who do it for us. There will always be a need for less technical people to do the easy tasks of highly technical people.
|
On April 27 2016 00:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 23:06 Mercy13 wrote:On April 26 2016 22:05 LegalLord wrote:On April 26 2016 18:02 Kickboxer wrote:
Basic income is the logical next step in human evolution and the only measure that can "fix" capitalism. This is pretty self-evident but unfortunately many people don't see it because they are fundamentally either Marxists or Libertarians. While these two ideologies might be excellent critiques of capitalism and statism respectively, they are also severely outdated, poorly thought out hermetic dogmas that never accounted for the most important variable (real-life human psychology) in the first place, perpetually focus on the wrong issue (either the abolition or "sanctity" of private property, both of which are retarded concepts) and whose proposed solutions to the very problems they were able to identify are downright inane (hello Communism / Anarcho-Capitalism).
Let's just say that abolishing private property (i.e. killing personal responsibility & individual freedom) and abolishing the state / taxes (i.e. killing society & turning humanity into a PvP server) are both some of the dumbest ideas ever.
If you want capitalism to work long-term, though, you need to constantly redistribute resources, because the nature of the system itself results in the constant redistribution of resources towards those who already possess them (the efficiency of "passive" vs. "active" income a.k.a. capital vs. labor). Since resources are finite, "unregulated" capitalism invariably results class warfare and, finally, violent revolution.
The state on the other hand is, of course, absolutely terrible at redistributing resources due to corruption, nepotism, politics, lobbying etc, which can all be neatly summed up as the human factor (incidentally, the human factor is also what prevents any kind of Marxist or Libertarian utopia from ever functioning. Humans need freedom and personal responsibility, but they also need boundaries, checks and balances, and to generate "meaning", they especially need the supportive community of a PvE server).
Basic income, surprisingly, offers an automated way of doing all the above with minimum human intervention, does away with the gluttonous and corrupt state redistribution, and allows people to take a breather from the rat race and actually do creative, meaningful work they enjoy. Which is exactly what we need right now since we're about to automate everything else.
It should be noted that humans are not intrinsically lazy. This is absolutely a scientific fact of psychology, so asserting that they are is basically just bullshit right-wing propaganda. Doing something creative is basically the meaning of life, and in addition to genuine human relations the single thing that fills every human being with real content and satisfaction. Nobody wants to be bored, except for people with issues, and flogging those into "productivity" hasn't been working anyway. Of course, humans also don't want to be packing chicken nuggets for 9 hours a day at subsistence wages that do not allow for any kind of social mobility, but that's not because they are lazy. It just doesn't make fucking sense. Under zero-social-mobility conditions you then get things like "criminal culture" where those who are capable simply turn to crime (which, let's be honest, is merely another way of doing "business"), and the rest conduct living suicide in the form of drug dependency or wasting out on the "dole".
Also, the difference between "working" and "contributing to society" is enormous. A person hanging out with the elderly or taking care that kids can safely cross the street does more for society than a person grinding an 80 hr workweek peddling bullshit, "marketing", or engaging in speculative finance. We should really stop obsessing about "work", or at least stop using it as something that describes the generation of capital and rather use it as a notion describing the generation of "happiness".
As for the "free loading" platitude, I don't even want to get started. One glance at hard numbers, and anyone can see for themselves that the only freeloaders in post-modern industrial societies are corporations and the 1%. There's not enough food stamps on this planet to pay for a single corporate subsidy / bank bailout.
Tl, dr, the free market can't work unless people "start off" with minimal existential safety, so they can invest in themselves and perform activities that make them fulfilled, in turn turning them into happy, productive members of society. So your basic point is that the other systems implemented so far are stupid because they don't agree with your understanding of human psychology? I'd counter your specific points, but just by virtue of the fact that you are dismissive of other economic policies that were much better thought out than yours (and both effective in a lot of important ways) I'd say your argument is pretty speculative and baseless. Not to mention that this is a strawman, because real economies don't work in a purely laissez faire or communist way either (neither has ever existed). If you can prove by example that people "invest in themselves" in a real economy that doesn't require them to work, perhaps you'd have a point. Otherwise, you're just using pseudoscience (overly simplistic feel-good pop psychology) to push a poorly thought out economic system that will fail worse than the caricatures of economies that you denounce. Here's some of the "hard data" he was referring to: Targeted transfer programs for poor citizens have become increasingly common in the developing world. Yet, a common concern among policy makers – both in developing as well as developed countries – is that such programs tend to discourage work. We re-analyze the data from 7 randomized controlled trials of government-run cash transfer programs in six developing countries throughout the world, and find no systematic evidence that cash transfer programs discourage work. economics.mit.eduAs automation takes over the economy I really don't see another option besides providing a basic income. If most of the production in the economy is created by capital rather than labor, many people will not be able to find productive work no matter how hard they try. Automation isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we are going to need a much more robust wealth transfer program than we have today to compensate for it. I think you're using a study to conclude something much different from what it is talking about. That program specifically does mention that these programs are social programs, for the very poor, that have specific eligibility requirements (mostly pregnancy support and education support programs). Further, it doesn't show that it incentivizes people to work when that program gives them enough income so that they don't have to. All it shows is that well-targeted social programs with incentives for positive behaviors (such as having children) can be helpful for improving welfare without damaging the economy. Not really support for a basic income. Show me an economy with an unconditional, or close to unconditional, no-strings-attached livable first world income (something that is perhaps a substantial fraction of minimum wage) given to people for free, and perhaps that would work differently. And as someone previously mentioned, automation is gradual and there are means to improve the ability of people to work (e.g. further education). We've been developing automation for centuries.
The study provides evidence that cash transfers don't lead to a statistically significant reduction in labor supply, including the Mexican program which involved an unconditional cash transfer (i.e., not tied to any specific behaviors).
A basic income doesn't necessarily have to provide a "livable first world income." I would support a program that gave every American Household [x] dollars per month/per year, which could be scaled up based upon increases in automation. Alaska has something like this, and I believe it has a higher labor force participation than the country as a whole.
|
I find people who believe in some anime dystopia of only uber elites or fully automated systems have never actually worked in the tech or manufacturing world.
|
On April 27 2016 00:11 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 22:05 LegalLord wrote:
If you can prove by example that people "invest in themselves" in a real economy that doesn't require them to work, perhaps you'd have a point. Otherwise, you're just using pseudoscience (overly simplistic feel-good pop psychology) to push a poorly thought out economic system that will fail worse than the caricatures of economies that you denounce. Just look into psychology 101 and try to understand what drives human beings. I cba to write an essay on such a contingent topic but you can always wait for the results of pilot BI experiments being conducted in Europe and be absolutely astonished. "People are lazy" is one of the biggest lies of right-wing socioeconomic propaganda and should immediately be sacked from any serious debate. Humans are naturally creative, growth-driven and self motivated creatures that strive for social recognition. Conflating their refusal to perform menial labor in return for crumbs offering no room for existential growth or basic dignity with laziness is not only silly but also dishonest. If you force humans into the above position, the best among them will simply revolt or become criminals, because that is the reasonable way to go. The rest will go into "resignation" mode and develop a range of mental issues from depression to psychopathy, which then perpetuates the "culture of poverty" fat people in ugly suits like to mention so frequently. Take a look at any ghetto or project for proof. Furthermore, the "freeloading" argument is built on the nonsense of offering people on the social bottom the following options: 1) be a lazy fuck in exchange for food stamps and some weed. you're also not allowed to work (!!!) 2) 50+ hrs workweek doing menial labor that pays nothing, offers no fulfillment and no dignity / perspective, ever 3) criminal activity with outstanding potential for material gains and social mobility Out of the above any sane person will naturally choose either 1 or 3 which certainly isn't surprising. Does that make people lazy? Most conservatives believe so, and they're being idiots because faced with the same options Lord Whatsitsface would make exactly the same choices any juvenile gangbanger has made, every time. If you want the meritocracy righties cherish so much, the first thing you need is a level playing field. Same goes for free markets. When people are forced at gunpoint (=threat of existential failure) to perform meaningless work, while also having no realistic way of ever amassing enough capital to play the "real game", the market is in no way a representation of the "willing exchange" libertarians keep on babbling about but merely slavery in disguise. Also, who says a person on Basic Income doesn't want a Ferrari? The "motivation gap" between homeless and rich, and between comfortably poor and rich stays exactly the same, it's just that people have the time and resources to actually work towards success.
So your argument is that it's so obvious that you don't need to prove it, that you don't need to write a long essay about it, and that instead you need to write a long essay about some other topic? Perhaps if a "psychology 101" understanding of human nature (and psychology is much more nuanced than your position on this, BTW) is all you have then that line of argument might make sense. And while perhaps a well-implemented basic income could work (if it gets the incentives right), you've shown no reason to believe it would. Perhaps some evidence would do you good?
By the way, I'm about as far from a right-winger as you could get (pro-socialism ex-Soviet, with a reasonable degree of support for markets where they do well). But if towing the "republikenz r stoopid" line makes you feel better, then go ahead I guess.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On April 27 2016 00:32 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 00:19 zatic wrote:On April 27 2016 00:13 Incognoto wrote:On April 27 2016 00:06 farvacola wrote:
Required specialization/increased education requirements, while certainly relevant to the discussion, bring about some very intriguing and difficult to solve dilemmas on their own though. For example, are we confident that the labor pool is, generally speaking, amenable to specialization/education in any sort of uniform manner? In other words, let's say that there is around 20% of the labor supply that is, by virtue of its members' own limitations, simply unable to learn more or specialize beyond basic tasks like those available in the dwindling manufacturing industry; what exactly happens to them without something like a basic income? I'm sure that there will always be a place for such people, especially in the service sector for example. It could be as simple as maintenance for machinery, which itself is never going to stop requiring maintenance. Same for the building industry. Do you seriously believe that? I mean, that might still have been a valid point of view in the 90s, but to hold on to this fairytale today is absurd to me. I respectfully don't see why it's a fairy tale. Could you elaborate? Do you really think that we're going to maintain complex machinery such as aircraft engines without a human going over it, checking out multiple things and diagnosing things that a machine could not? Though to be fair, an aircraft mechanic is obviously going to be more qualified than a McDonalds employee. Point stands, there will always be some grunt work to do, it'll be possibly more complex but people are going to learn and develop themselves on the job. I don't think that anyone is legitimately too limited to pick up some specialization at some point, that to me is the fairy tale. ^^ I'm curious as to what you have to say though, and more than willing to listen.
You are talking about the automation of the 20th century, when simple machinery replaced simple manual labor. Indeed you can make a case that the loss of those jobs was largely offset by emerging service sector jobs.
However, that is literally news from the past century, and there is simply no reason to assume this will continue in the future, or in the present for that matter.
Automation we see today is largely driven by software. The people being replaced today are exactly those service sector jobs (in addition to continuing automation of manual labor of course). Today it's not the man pulling a level in a factory, but the woman copying budget postings from one excel sheet to another who will see their job dissapear.
Now, software of course has to be created by someone, and it's reasonable to assume that we will need more programmers in the future. However, a few hundred of those can offset millions of jobs, and require a few dozends in addition for maintenance. So for this multiplication effect alone the jobs that make automation possible can't replace the jobs lost to automation.
Toward new service sector jobs that might make up for the loss: Where should they come from? We actually are consuming more and more services, often without being aware - but these services are already automated. How many jobs did Google Maps create? Or Tripadvisor? Or spotify?
What is left are those jobs that simple can't be automated. The problem here is that while they might continue to exist, and will probably increase in numbers and variety, they pay no money. A minimum wage Barrista or Massage Therapist opening cannot replace the loss of the middle class office job that dissapears.
|
On April 27 2016 00:38 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 00:13 LegalLord wrote:On April 26 2016 23:06 Mercy13 wrote:On April 26 2016 22:05 LegalLord wrote:On April 26 2016 18:02 Kickboxer wrote:
Basic income is the logical next step in human evolution and the only measure that can "fix" capitalism. This is pretty self-evident but unfortunately many people don't see it because they are fundamentally either Marxists or Libertarians. While these two ideologies might be excellent critiques of capitalism and statism respectively, they are also severely outdated, poorly thought out hermetic dogmas that never accounted for the most important variable (real-life human psychology) in the first place, perpetually focus on the wrong issue (either the abolition or "sanctity" of private property, both of which are retarded concepts) and whose proposed solutions to the very problems they were able to identify are downright inane (hello Communism / Anarcho-Capitalism).
Let's just say that abolishing private property (i.e. killing personal responsibility & individual freedom) and abolishing the state / taxes (i.e. killing society & turning humanity into a PvP server) are both some of the dumbest ideas ever.
If you want capitalism to work long-term, though, you need to constantly redistribute resources, because the nature of the system itself results in the constant redistribution of resources towards those who already possess them (the efficiency of "passive" vs. "active" income a.k.a. capital vs. labor). Since resources are finite, "unregulated" capitalism invariably results class warfare and, finally, violent revolution.
The state on the other hand is, of course, absolutely terrible at redistributing resources due to corruption, nepotism, politics, lobbying etc, which can all be neatly summed up as the human factor (incidentally, the human factor is also what prevents any kind of Marxist or Libertarian utopia from ever functioning. Humans need freedom and personal responsibility, but they also need boundaries, checks and balances, and to generate "meaning", they especially need the supportive community of a PvE server).
Basic income, surprisingly, offers an automated way of doing all the above with minimum human intervention, does away with the gluttonous and corrupt state redistribution, and allows people to take a breather from the rat race and actually do creative, meaningful work they enjoy. Which is exactly what we need right now since we're about to automate everything else.
It should be noted that humans are not intrinsically lazy. This is absolutely a scientific fact of psychology, so asserting that they are is basically just bullshit right-wing propaganda. Doing something creative is basically the meaning of life, and in addition to genuine human relations the single thing that fills every human being with real content and satisfaction. Nobody wants to be bored, except for people with issues, and flogging those into "productivity" hasn't been working anyway. Of course, humans also don't want to be packing chicken nuggets for 9 hours a day at subsistence wages that do not allow for any kind of social mobility, but that's not because they are lazy. It just doesn't make fucking sense. Under zero-social-mobility conditions you then get things like "criminal culture" where those who are capable simply turn to crime (which, let's be honest, is merely another way of doing "business"), and the rest conduct living suicide in the form of drug dependency or wasting out on the "dole".
Also, the difference between "working" and "contributing to society" is enormous. A person hanging out with the elderly or taking care that kids can safely cross the street does more for society than a person grinding an 80 hr workweek peddling bullshit, "marketing", or engaging in speculative finance. We should really stop obsessing about "work", or at least stop using it as something that describes the generation of capital and rather use it as a notion describing the generation of "happiness".
As for the "free loading" platitude, I don't even want to get started. One glance at hard numbers, and anyone can see for themselves that the only freeloaders in post-modern industrial societies are corporations and the 1%. There's not enough food stamps on this planet to pay for a single corporate subsidy / bank bailout.
Tl, dr, the free market can't work unless people "start off" with minimal existential safety, so they can invest in themselves and perform activities that make them fulfilled, in turn turning them into happy, productive members of society. So your basic point is that the other systems implemented so far are stupid because they don't agree with your understanding of human psychology? I'd counter your specific points, but just by virtue of the fact that you are dismissive of other economic policies that were much better thought out than yours (and both effective in a lot of important ways) I'd say your argument is pretty speculative and baseless. Not to mention that this is a strawman, because real economies don't work in a purely laissez faire or communist way either (neither has ever existed). If you can prove by example that people "invest in themselves" in a real economy that doesn't require them to work, perhaps you'd have a point. Otherwise, you're just using pseudoscience (overly simplistic feel-good pop psychology) to push a poorly thought out economic system that will fail worse than the caricatures of economies that you denounce. Here's some of the "hard data" he was referring to: Targeted transfer programs for poor citizens have become increasingly common in the developing world. Yet, a common concern among policy makers – both in developing as well as developed countries – is that such programs tend to discourage work. We re-analyze the data from 7 randomized controlled trials of government-run cash transfer programs in six developing countries throughout the world, and find no systematic evidence that cash transfer programs discourage work. economics.mit.eduAs automation takes over the economy I really don't see another option besides providing a basic income. If most of the production in the economy is created by capital rather than labor, many people will not be able to find productive work no matter how hard they try. Automation isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we are going to need a much more robust wealth transfer program than we have today to compensate for it. I think you're using a study to conclude something much different from what it is talking about. That program specifically does mention that these programs are social programs, for the very poor, that have specific eligibility requirements (mostly pregnancy support and education support programs). Further, it doesn't show that it incentivizes people to work when that program gives them enough income so that they don't have to. All it shows is that well-targeted social programs with incentives for positive behaviors (such as having children) can be helpful for improving welfare without damaging the economy. Not really support for a basic income. Show me an economy with an unconditional, or close to unconditional, no-strings-attached livable first world income (something that is perhaps a substantial fraction of minimum wage) given to people for free, and perhaps that would work differently. And as someone previously mentioned, automation is gradual and there are means to improve the ability of people to work (e.g. further education). We've been developing automation for centuries. The study provides evidence that cash transfers don't lead to a statistically significant reduction in labor supply, including the Mexican program which involved an unconditional cash transfer (i.e., not tied to any specific behaviors). A basic income doesn't necessarily have to provide a "livable first world income." I would support a program that gave every American Household [x] dollars per month/per year, which could be scaled up based upon increases in automation. Alaska has something like this, and I believe it has a higher labor force participation than the country as a whole.
Yeah, the Mexican program is an interesting one. I'd wonder however, to what extent that program is predictive of basic income as a whole, given that it is one data point, subjectively unconditional (I would question in the absence of evidence that the authors' assertion that they are unselective is valid), and in a much poorer economy than the first world. I'm not saying it couldn't work, but perhaps that kind of benefit would be best implemented as a broad safety net that helps mitigate the effects of poverty and unemployment cycles while not discouraging people from working. If basic income is the best solution then you would have to provide proof that it is so.
Based on my own experience, I would suppose that a broad safety net and employment support (education support, minimum wage, guarantee for minimum wage jobs and reasonable healthcare and living arrangements) would be a better solution, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. At risk of being called out for pointing out the merits of "economic Hitler" I would say that the USSR was broadly correct about employment support, though its tendency towards anticompetitive economies and immobility in jobs (people are supposed to work in one place for life) were factors that need to be addressed.
Also, another study to consider.
|
On April 27 2016 00:55 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 00:32 Incognoto wrote:On April 27 2016 00:19 zatic wrote:On April 27 2016 00:13 Incognoto wrote:On April 27 2016 00:06 farvacola wrote:
Required specialization/increased education requirements, while certainly relevant to the discussion, bring about some very intriguing and difficult to solve dilemmas on their own though. For example, are we confident that the labor pool is, generally speaking, amenable to specialization/education in any sort of uniform manner? In other words, let's say that there is around 20% of the labor supply that is, by virtue of its members' own limitations, simply unable to learn more or specialize beyond basic tasks like those available in the dwindling manufacturing industry; what exactly happens to them without something like a basic income? I'm sure that there will always be a place for such people, especially in the service sector for example. It could be as simple as maintenance for machinery, which itself is never going to stop requiring maintenance. Same for the building industry. Do you seriously believe that? I mean, that might still have been a valid point of view in the 90s, but to hold on to this fairytale today is absurd to me. I respectfully don't see why it's a fairy tale. Could you elaborate? Do you really think that we're going to maintain complex machinery such as aircraft engines without a human going over it, checking out multiple things and diagnosing things that a machine could not? Though to be fair, an aircraft mechanic is obviously going to be more qualified than a McDonalds employee. Point stands, there will always be some grunt work to do, it'll be possibly more complex but people are going to learn and develop themselves on the job. I don't think that anyone is legitimately too limited to pick up some specialization at some point, that to me is the fairy tale. ^^ I'm curious as to what you have to say though, and more than willing to listen. You are talking about the automation of the 20th century, when simple machinery replaced simple manual labor. Indeed you can make a case that the loss of those jobs was largely offset by emerging service sector jobs. However, that is literally news from the past century, and there is simply no reason to assume this will continue in the future, or in the present for that matter. Automation we see today is largely driven by software. The people being replaced today are exactly those service sector jobs (in addition to continuing automation of manual labor of course). Today it's not the man pulling a level in a factory, but the woman copying budget postings from one excel sheet to another who will see their job dissapear. Now, software of course has to be created by someone, and it's reasonable to assume that we will need more programmers in the future. However, a few hundred of those can offset millions of jobs, and require a few dozends in addition for maintenance. So for this multiplication effect alone the jobs that make automation possible can't replace the jobs lost to automation. Toward new service sector jobs that might make up for the loss: Where should they come from? We actually are consuming more and more services, often without being aware - but these services are already automated. How many jobs did Google Maps create? Or Tripadvisor? Or spotify? What is left are those jobs that simple can't be automated. The problem here is that while they might continue to exist, and will probably increase in numbers and variety, they pay no money. A minimum wage Barrista or Massage Therapist opening cannot replace the loss of the middle class office job that dissapears.
I think this is largely alarmist. What exactly is it that you think needs to change?
|
On April 27 2016 00:55 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 00:32 Incognoto wrote:On April 27 2016 00:19 zatic wrote:On April 27 2016 00:13 Incognoto wrote:On April 27 2016 00:06 farvacola wrote:
Required specialization/increased education requirements, while certainly relevant to the discussion, bring about some very intriguing and difficult to solve dilemmas on their own though. For example, are we confident that the labor pool is, generally speaking, amenable to specialization/education in any sort of uniform manner? In other words, let's say that there is around 20% of the labor supply that is, by virtue of its members' own limitations, simply unable to learn more or specialize beyond basic tasks like those available in the dwindling manufacturing industry; what exactly happens to them without something like a basic income? I'm sure that there will always be a place for such people, especially in the service sector for example. It could be as simple as maintenance for machinery, which itself is never going to stop requiring maintenance. Same for the building industry. Do you seriously believe that? I mean, that might still have been a valid point of view in the 90s, but to hold on to this fairytale today is absurd to me. I respectfully don't see why it's a fairy tale. Could you elaborate? Do you really think that we're going to maintain complex machinery such as aircraft engines without a human going over it, checking out multiple things and diagnosing things that a machine could not? Though to be fair, an aircraft mechanic is obviously going to be more qualified than a McDonalds employee. Point stands, there will always be some grunt work to do, it'll be possibly more complex but people are going to learn and develop themselves on the job. I don't think that anyone is legitimately too limited to pick up some specialization at some point, that to me is the fairy tale. ^^ I'm curious as to what you have to say though, and more than willing to listen. You are talking about the automation of the 20th century, when simple machinery replaced simple manual labor. Indeed you can make a case that the loss of those jobs was largely offset by emerging service sector jobs. However, that is literally news from the past century, and there is simply no reason to assume this will continue in the future, or in the present for that matter. Automation we see today is largely driven by software. The people being replaced today are exactly those service sector jobs (in addition to continuing automation of manual labor of course). Today it's not the man pulling a level in a factory, but the woman copying budget postings from one excel sheet to another who will see their job dissapear. Now, software of course has to be created by someone, and it's reasonable to assume that we will need more programmers in the future. However, a few hundred of those can offset millions of jobs, and require a few dozends in addition for maintenance. So for this multiplication effect alone the jobs that make automation possible can't replace the jobs lost to automation. Toward new service sector jobs that might make up for the loss: Where should they come from? We actually are consuming more and more services, often without being aware - but these services are already automated. How many jobs did Google Maps create? Or Tripadvisor? Or spotify? What is left are those jobs that simple can't be automated. The problem here is that while they might continue to exist, and will probably increase in numbers and variety, they pay no money. A minimum wage Barrista or Massage Therapist opening cannot replace the loss of the middle class office job that dissapears.
Yes, that makes sense; though I was keeping in mind industrial applications more than stuff like tripadvisor or spotify.
I was thinking of services such as cooking (the good kind) in a restaurant, plumbing, renovation for buildings, painting, etc.
I was thinking of industrial machinery as well, all that good stuff.
Those aren't exactly cutting edge jobs, but someone's gotta do it and automation doesn't make much sense in those sectors.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YAgh1Rg.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iyZEI7z.png)
Coincidence fairy strikes again. This has never been an issue before, ever.
So given we don't know Hillary&co has been involved with this, what's the alternative explanation for these unprecedented events? We know for a fact that it's happened in Arizona and New York, so the whole "It's just redditers making stuff up" doesn't hold any water any more.
|
On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 18:06 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 17:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 17:11 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 06:51 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I also don't think "we can't trust young people to vote" is a good rallying cry for the Democratic party. Particularly when they intentionally exclude them (with millions of others) from participating in picking who is on the ballot in November. Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. False, again. Anyone can register as a Democrat to get a voice in who's going to be in on the Democratic ticket for November. Registering as a Democrat is free. Also, Independent voters/those with no party are free to create their own party if they'd like, just like everyone else. You're acting like states like New York don't have exclusionary rules that go beyond reasonable. That's fine. You are suggesting folks start their own party. That's fine. Democrats don't want to change the party. That's fine. Just don't expect us to vote for Hillary. I think it's a terrible plan for the party, but people are free to disagree. Just don't be surprised if the 70-80% of voters under 30 don't want to support that kind of party. I'm not "acting like" anything. You made the claim that Democrats "support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov". That is a false statement. In the sense that "the Constitution protects the rights of every American" is a true statement. You might of missed it, but I was wondering if you would agree that we have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans? That our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee? No, in the sense that it is free for independents to register as Democrats if they want to be sure to be able to voice their support for the person they think should be on the Democratic ticket in November. I didn't miss it. It's a ridiculous question that you're asking as a springboard for a follow-up post. I've already answered it several times in my posts in these last few pages and over the years on these boards. Let's make it clear then, you don't think that by requiring people to declare they want to vote in the democratic primary months ahead of time, before the first debate, that the democratic party of New York is making it excessively difficult to participate for millions of people who don't think either party represents them at the time? You don't think that it is excluding people who might have been reconsidering coming into the party if Bernie was at it's head or into the Republican party with Trump? That no one believed the talking heads that said the parties were both going to nominate the status quo back then, and would have joined to support either of the candidates mentioned had they thought they would even get a chance?
I'm fine with allowing same-day registration as a Democrat, but I don't have any particular objection to putting the deadline to register quite a bit of time before the primary voting deadline (and possibly closer to the deadline for new voters than for independents), as long as it's free, and the required information is public and easily accessible. If you'd like to contribute to choosing the Democratic nominee for the general election, I don't think it's too much to ask to decide that you want to do so some time before the day of the Democratic primary.
On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
As for the question, I also want to make clear that you either agree or disagree or what parts you disagree with. I've payed attention to your last conversation and I don't intend to ask you to repeat yourself, I just want to be clear about what exactly you're saying.
Please, this is the equivalent of asking "are you against world hunger/poverty", to then get a foot in the door and talk to me about my lord and savior jesus christ. If you're not sure about my obvious answer to your questions, go read my posts again, and if you have a point, make it.
|
On April 27 2016 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Coincidence fairy strikes again. This has never been an issue before, ever. So given we don't know Hillary&co has been involved with this, what's the alternative explanation for these unprecedented events? We know for a fact that it's happened in Arizona and New York, so the whole "It's just redditers making stuff up" doesn't hold any water any more.
Where are you seeing this other than Reddit? Look at SandersForPresident right now. Tell me, is this a group of reasonable people?
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On April 27 2016 01:38 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 00:55 zatic wrote:On April 27 2016 00:32 Incognoto wrote:On April 27 2016 00:19 zatic wrote:On April 27 2016 00:13 Incognoto wrote:On April 27 2016 00:06 farvacola wrote:
Required specialization/increased education requirements, while certainly relevant to the discussion, bring about some very intriguing and difficult to solve dilemmas on their own though. For example, are we confident that the labor pool is, generally speaking, amenable to specialization/education in any sort of uniform manner? In other words, let's say that there is around 20% of the labor supply that is, by virtue of its members' own limitations, simply unable to learn more or specialize beyond basic tasks like those available in the dwindling manufacturing industry; what exactly happens to them without something like a basic income? I'm sure that there will always be a place for such people, especially in the service sector for example. It could be as simple as maintenance for machinery, which itself is never going to stop requiring maintenance. Same for the building industry. Do you seriously believe that? I mean, that might still have been a valid point of view in the 90s, but to hold on to this fairytale today is absurd to me. I respectfully don't see why it's a fairy tale. Could you elaborate? Do you really think that we're going to maintain complex machinery such as aircraft engines without a human going over it, checking out multiple things and diagnosing things that a machine could not? Though to be fair, an aircraft mechanic is obviously going to be more qualified than a McDonalds employee. Point stands, there will always be some grunt work to do, it'll be possibly more complex but people are going to learn and develop themselves on the job. I don't think that anyone is legitimately too limited to pick up some specialization at some point, that to me is the fairy tale. ^^ I'm curious as to what you have to say though, and more than willing to listen. You are talking about the automation of the 20th century, when simple machinery replaced simple manual labor. Indeed you can make a case that the loss of those jobs was largely offset by emerging service sector jobs. However, that is literally news from the past century, and there is simply no reason to assume this will continue in the future, or in the present for that matter. Automation we see today is largely driven by software. The people being replaced today are exactly those service sector jobs (in addition to continuing automation of manual labor of course). Today it's not the man pulling a level in a factory, but the woman copying budget postings from one excel sheet to another who will see their job dissapear. Now, software of course has to be created by someone, and it's reasonable to assume that we will need more programmers in the future. However, a few hundred of those can offset millions of jobs, and require a few dozends in addition for maintenance. So for this multiplication effect alone the jobs that make automation possible can't replace the jobs lost to automation. Toward new service sector jobs that might make up for the loss: Where should they come from? We actually are consuming more and more services, often without being aware - but these services are already automated. How many jobs did Google Maps create? Or Tripadvisor? Or spotify? What is left are those jobs that simple can't be automated. The problem here is that while they might continue to exist, and will probably increase in numbers and variety, they pay no money. A minimum wage Barrista or Massage Therapist opening cannot replace the loss of the middle class office job that dissapears. Yes, that makes sense; though I was keeping in mind industrial applications more than stuff like tripadvisor or spotify. I was thinking of services such as cooking (the good kind) in a restaurant, plumbing, renovation for buildings, painting, etc. I was thinking of industrial machinery as well, all that good stuff. Those aren't exactly cutting edge jobs, but someone's gotta do it and automation doesn't make much sense in those sectors.
Of course. But that is exactly my point: We either already have these jobs, and/or they pay shitty. Where are the "new" service sector jobs that could replace jobs offset by automation?
|
On April 27 2016 01:47 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 01:38 Incognoto wrote:On April 27 2016 00:55 zatic wrote:On April 27 2016 00:32 Incognoto wrote:On April 27 2016 00:19 zatic wrote:On April 27 2016 00:13 Incognoto wrote:On April 27 2016 00:06 farvacola wrote:
Required specialization/increased education requirements, while certainly relevant to the discussion, bring about some very intriguing and difficult to solve dilemmas on their own though. For example, are we confident that the labor pool is, generally speaking, amenable to specialization/education in any sort of uniform manner? In other words, let's say that there is around 20% of the labor supply that is, by virtue of its members' own limitations, simply unable to learn more or specialize beyond basic tasks like those available in the dwindling manufacturing industry; what exactly happens to them without something like a basic income? I'm sure that there will always be a place for such people, especially in the service sector for example. It could be as simple as maintenance for machinery, which itself is never going to stop requiring maintenance. Same for the building industry. Do you seriously believe that? I mean, that might still have been a valid point of view in the 90s, but to hold on to this fairytale today is absurd to me. I respectfully don't see why it's a fairy tale. Could you elaborate? Do you really think that we're going to maintain complex machinery such as aircraft engines without a human going over it, checking out multiple things and diagnosing things that a machine could not? Though to be fair, an aircraft mechanic is obviously going to be more qualified than a McDonalds employee. Point stands, there will always be some grunt work to do, it'll be possibly more complex but people are going to learn and develop themselves on the job. I don't think that anyone is legitimately too limited to pick up some specialization at some point, that to me is the fairy tale. ^^ I'm curious as to what you have to say though, and more than willing to listen. You are talking about the automation of the 20th century, when simple machinery replaced simple manual labor. Indeed you can make a case that the loss of those jobs was largely offset by emerging service sector jobs. However, that is literally news from the past century, and there is simply no reason to assume this will continue in the future, or in the present for that matter. Automation we see today is largely driven by software. The people being replaced today are exactly those service sector jobs (in addition to continuing automation of manual labor of course). Today it's not the man pulling a level in a factory, but the woman copying budget postings from one excel sheet to another who will see their job dissapear. Now, software of course has to be created by someone, and it's reasonable to assume that we will need more programmers in the future. However, a few hundred of those can offset millions of jobs, and require a few dozends in addition for maintenance. So for this multiplication effect alone the jobs that make automation possible can't replace the jobs lost to automation. Toward new service sector jobs that might make up for the loss: Where should they come from? We actually are consuming more and more services, often without being aware - but these services are already automated. How many jobs did Google Maps create? Or Tripadvisor? Or spotify? What is left are those jobs that simple can't be automated. The problem here is that while they might continue to exist, and will probably increase in numbers and variety, they pay no money. A minimum wage Barrista or Massage Therapist opening cannot replace the loss of the middle class office job that dissapears. Yes, that makes sense; though I was keeping in mind industrial applications more than stuff like tripadvisor or spotify. I was thinking of services such as cooking (the good kind) in a restaurant, plumbing, renovation for buildings, painting, etc. I was thinking of industrial machinery as well, all that good stuff. Those aren't exactly cutting edge jobs, but someone's gotta do it and automation doesn't make much sense in those sectors. Of course. But that is exactly my point: We either already have these jobs, and/or they pay shitty. Where are the "new" service sector jobs that could replace jobs offset by automation?
Oh, "new". Well there aren't any, as far as I know. I doubt there will be. I also don't think that such services are going to pay well in the future either. I'm guessing that low qualified labor will have to stick to jobs which don't pay well and which is also going to somehow diminish in terms of sheer volume.
I hope that at very least those jobs are gateways into jobs where more qualifications are required and those qualifications can be learned through work. Will have to see. ;/
Interesting (read, scary) times ahead. Will have to see how it plays out, getting an education is going to be more and more important for youngsters.
The only way I could see jobs being replaced by automation is simply outright more demand. Though that's like full employment - easier said than done!
|
On April 27 2016 01:50 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 01:47 zatic wrote:On April 27 2016 01:38 Incognoto wrote:On April 27 2016 00:55 zatic wrote:On April 27 2016 00:32 Incognoto wrote:On April 27 2016 00:19 zatic wrote:On April 27 2016 00:13 Incognoto wrote:On April 27 2016 00:06 farvacola wrote:
Required specialization/increased education requirements, while certainly relevant to the discussion, bring about some very intriguing and difficult to solve dilemmas on their own though. For example, are we confident that the labor pool is, generally speaking, amenable to specialization/education in any sort of uniform manner? In other words, let's say that there is around 20% of the labor supply that is, by virtue of its members' own limitations, simply unable to learn more or specialize beyond basic tasks like those available in the dwindling manufacturing industry; what exactly happens to them without something like a basic income? I'm sure that there will always be a place for such people, especially in the service sector for example. It could be as simple as maintenance for machinery, which itself is never going to stop requiring maintenance. Same for the building industry. Do you seriously believe that? I mean, that might still have been a valid point of view in the 90s, but to hold on to this fairytale today is absurd to me. I respectfully don't see why it's a fairy tale. Could you elaborate? Do you really think that we're going to maintain complex machinery such as aircraft engines without a human going over it, checking out multiple things and diagnosing things that a machine could not? Though to be fair, an aircraft mechanic is obviously going to be more qualified than a McDonalds employee. Point stands, there will always be some grunt work to do, it'll be possibly more complex but people are going to learn and develop themselves on the job. I don't think that anyone is legitimately too limited to pick up some specialization at some point, that to me is the fairy tale. ^^ I'm curious as to what you have to say though, and more than willing to listen. You are talking about the automation of the 20th century, when simple machinery replaced simple manual labor. Indeed you can make a case that the loss of those jobs was largely offset by emerging service sector jobs. However, that is literally news from the past century, and there is simply no reason to assume this will continue in the future, or in the present for that matter. Automation we see today is largely driven by software. The people being replaced today are exactly those service sector jobs (in addition to continuing automation of manual labor of course). Today it's not the man pulling a level in a factory, but the woman copying budget postings from one excel sheet to another who will see their job dissapear. Now, software of course has to be created by someone, and it's reasonable to assume that we will need more programmers in the future. However, a few hundred of those can offset millions of jobs, and require a few dozends in addition for maintenance. So for this multiplication effect alone the jobs that make automation possible can't replace the jobs lost to automation. Toward new service sector jobs that might make up for the loss: Where should they come from? We actually are consuming more and more services, often without being aware - but these services are already automated. How many jobs did Google Maps create? Or Tripadvisor? Or spotify? What is left are those jobs that simple can't be automated. The problem here is that while they might continue to exist, and will probably increase in numbers and variety, they pay no money. A minimum wage Barrista or Massage Therapist opening cannot replace the loss of the middle class office job that dissapears. Yes, that makes sense; though I was keeping in mind industrial applications more than stuff like tripadvisor or spotify. I was thinking of services such as cooking (the good kind) in a restaurant, plumbing, renovation for buildings, painting, etc. I was thinking of industrial machinery as well, all that good stuff. Those aren't exactly cutting edge jobs, but someone's gotta do it and automation doesn't make much sense in those sectors. Of course. But that is exactly my point: We either already have these jobs, and/or they pay shitty. Where are the "new" service sector jobs that could replace jobs offset by automation? Oh, "new". Well there aren't any, as far as I know. I doubt there will be. I also don't think that such services are going to pay well in the future either. I'm guessing that low qualified labor will have to stick to jobs which don't pay well and which is also going to somehow diminish in terms of sheer volume. I hope that at very least those jobs are gateways into jobs where more qualifications are required and those qualifications can be learned through work. Will have to see. ;/ Interesting (read, scary) times ahead. Will have to see how it plays out, getting an education is going to be more and more important for youngsters.
To be fair even something like the payroll guy at a large firm gets paid way less now because half his job is done by software so why would I hire somoene with 20 years experience managing it when I can get a kid off the street with an English degree send him to the software wiki and pay him like 10 times less. So automation can also cripple certain roles even if they continue to exist.
|
Meanwhile, in Arizona, update on the lawsuit addressing alleged voter suppression and election fraud. Source
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On April 27 2016 01:53 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 01:50 Incognoto wrote:On April 27 2016 01:47 zatic wrote:On April 27 2016 01:38 Incognoto wrote:On April 27 2016 00:55 zatic wrote:On April 27 2016 00:32 Incognoto wrote:On April 27 2016 00:19 zatic wrote:On April 27 2016 00:13 Incognoto wrote:On April 27 2016 00:06 farvacola wrote:
Required specialization/increased education requirements, while certainly relevant to the discussion, bring about some very intriguing and difficult to solve dilemmas on their own though. For example, are we confident that the labor pool is, generally speaking, amenable to specialization/education in any sort of uniform manner? In other words, let's say that there is around 20% of the labor supply that is, by virtue of its members' own limitations, simply unable to learn more or specialize beyond basic tasks like those available in the dwindling manufacturing industry; what exactly happens to them without something like a basic income? I'm sure that there will always be a place for such people, especially in the service sector for example. It could be as simple as maintenance for machinery, which itself is never going to stop requiring maintenance. Same for the building industry. Do you seriously believe that? I mean, that might still have been a valid point of view in the 90s, but to hold on to this fairytale today is absurd to me. I respectfully don't see why it's a fairy tale. Could you elaborate? Do you really think that we're going to maintain complex machinery such as aircraft engines without a human going over it, checking out multiple things and diagnosing things that a machine could not? Though to be fair, an aircraft mechanic is obviously going to be more qualified than a McDonalds employee. Point stands, there will always be some grunt work to do, it'll be possibly more complex but people are going to learn and develop themselves on the job. I don't think that anyone is legitimately too limited to pick up some specialization at some point, that to me is the fairy tale. ^^ I'm curious as to what you have to say though, and more than willing to listen. You are talking about the automation of the 20th century, when simple machinery replaced simple manual labor. Indeed you can make a case that the loss of those jobs was largely offset by emerging service sector jobs. However, that is literally news from the past century, and there is simply no reason to assume this will continue in the future, or in the present for that matter. Automation we see today is largely driven by software. The people being replaced today are exactly those service sector jobs (in addition to continuing automation of manual labor of course). Today it's not the man pulling a level in a factory, but the woman copying budget postings from one excel sheet to another who will see their job dissapear. Now, software of course has to be created by someone, and it's reasonable to assume that we will need more programmers in the future. However, a few hundred of those can offset millions of jobs, and require a few dozends in addition for maintenance. So for this multiplication effect alone the jobs that make automation possible can't replace the jobs lost to automation. Toward new service sector jobs that might make up for the loss: Where should they come from? We actually are consuming more and more services, often without being aware - but these services are already automated. How many jobs did Google Maps create? Or Tripadvisor? Or spotify? What is left are those jobs that simple can't be automated. The problem here is that while they might continue to exist, and will probably increase in numbers and variety, they pay no money. A minimum wage Barrista or Massage Therapist opening cannot replace the loss of the middle class office job that dissapears. Yes, that makes sense; though I was keeping in mind industrial applications more than stuff like tripadvisor or spotify. I was thinking of services such as cooking (the good kind) in a restaurant, plumbing, renovation for buildings, painting, etc. I was thinking of industrial machinery as well, all that good stuff. Those aren't exactly cutting edge jobs, but someone's gotta do it and automation doesn't make much sense in those sectors. Of course. But that is exactly my point: We either already have these jobs, and/or they pay shitty. Where are the "new" service sector jobs that could replace jobs offset by automation? Oh, "new". Well there aren't any, as far as I know. I doubt there will be. I also don't think that such services are going to pay well in the future either. I'm guessing that low qualified labor will have to stick to jobs which don't pay well and which is also going to somehow diminish in terms of sheer volume. I hope that at very least those jobs are gateways into jobs where more qualifications are required and those qualifications can be learned through work. Will have to see. ;/ Interesting (read, scary) times ahead. Will have to see how it plays out, getting an education is going to be more and more important for youngsters. To be fair even something like the payroll guy at a large firm gets paid way less now because half his job is done by software so why would I hire somoene with 20 years experience managing it when I can get a kid off the street with an English degree send him to the software wiki and pay him like 10 times less. So automation can also cripple certain roles even if they continue to exist.
Absolutely, and that is one of the key differences to industrial automation. Former well paying jobs are either replaced by software, or are replaced by software plus shitty paying jobs.
|
On April 27 2016 01:43 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 18:06 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 17:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 17:11 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 06:51 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I also don't think "we can't trust young people to vote" is a good rallying cry for the Democratic party. Particularly when they intentionally exclude them (with millions of others) from participating in picking who is on the ballot in November. Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. False, again. Anyone can register as a Democrat to get a voice in who's going to be in on the Democratic ticket for November. Registering as a Democrat is free. Also, Independent voters/those with no party are free to create their own party if they'd like, just like everyone else. You're acting like states like New York don't have exclusionary rules that go beyond reasonable. That's fine. You are suggesting folks start their own party. That's fine. Democrats don't want to change the party. That's fine. Just don't expect us to vote for Hillary. I think it's a terrible plan for the party, but people are free to disagree. Just don't be surprised if the 70-80% of voters under 30 don't want to support that kind of party. I'm not "acting like" anything. You made the claim that Democrats "support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov". That is a false statement. In the sense that "the Constitution protects the rights of every American" is a true statement. You might of missed it, but I was wondering if you would agree that we have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans? That our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee? No, in the sense that it is free for independents to register as Democrats if they want to be sure to be able to voice their support for the person they think should be on the Democratic ticket in November. I didn't miss it. It's a ridiculous question that you're asking as a springboard for a follow-up post. I've already answered it several times in my posts in these last few pages and over the years on these boards. Let's make it clear then, you don't think that by requiring people to declare they want to vote in the democratic primary months ahead of time, before the first debate, that the democratic party of New York is making it excessively difficult to participate for millions of people who don't think either party represents them at the time? You don't think that it is excluding people who might have been reconsidering coming into the party if Bernie was at it's head or into the Republican party with Trump? That no one believed the talking heads that said the parties were both going to nominate the status quo back then, and would have joined to support either of the candidates mentioned had they thought they would even get a chance? I'm fine with allowing same-day registration as a Democrat, but I don't have any particular objection to putting the deadline to register quite a bit of time before the primary voting deadline (and possibly closer to the deadline for new voters than for independents), as long as it's free, and the required information is public and easily accessible. If you'd like to contribute to choosing the Democratic nominee for the general election, I don't think it's too much to ask to decide that you want to do so some time before the day of the Democratic primary. Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
As for the question, I also want to make clear that you either agree or disagree or what parts you disagree with. I've payed attention to your last conversation and I don't intend to ask you to repeat yourself, I just want to be clear about what exactly you're saying. Please, this is the equivalent of asking "are you against world hunger/poverty", to then get a foot in the door and talk to me about my lord and savior jesus christ. If you're not sure about my obvious answer to your questions, go read my posts again, and if you have a point, make it.
Does "some time before" include before the first time they see the candidates at a debate? Do you have a problem with some states getting to see a debate from both parties and all the candidates before picking a party to support through the primary, and other states don't get to see any of the candidates in at least 1 debate before picking which side they would like to have their voice heard on?
I'm asking, used the way it is, is that an acceptable way to talk about the corrupting influence citizens united/big dark money has on our political process in your opinion (reading your posts it sounded like there was some wiggle room)?
|
On April 27 2016 01:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Coincidence fairy strikes again. This has never been an issue before, ever. So given we don't know Hillary&co has been involved with this, what's the alternative explanation for these unprecedented events? We know for a fact that it's happened in Arizona and New York, so the whole "It's just redditers making stuff up" doesn't hold any water any more. Where are you seeing this other than Reddit? Look at SandersForPresident right now. Tell me, is this a group of reasonable people?
Have you been reading the news out of New York and Arizona? Because there are ongoing court cases in both States to address the alleged voter suppression and election fraud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/a/ZsgT6)
