|
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 January 11 2018 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
So an overwhelming number of the less than needed jobs that have been created have been with things similar to uber. Where at the moment, there's not a cost effective alternative to employing humans.
Automating those jobs mean those people will be wholly dependent on a shrinking safety net. As more and more people are left further and further behind in the US economy they'll turn to attacking the people (or objects in this case) that took their livelihoods.
So middlings like the successful people here will have to make a choice. Are they going to side with the people protecting the cars or the people destroying them?
So long as you're not anticipating protecting cars from the people left behind sure, take the subsidized ride. But if they are going to convince you it's better those people die than your ride, we got beef.
Cars themselves being invented killed an insane number of jobs. Computers did the same. Being a "typist" used to be an entirely legitimate career. People would just type shit out. There are millions of similar examples where new technology kills an industry. We figure it out. Other stuff replaces it. Think about how many jobs "computers as a whole" created.
Because automation is 100% certain and nothing we do will ever slow it down (it will always at least be studied in academia), all we can do is do what we should have done for coal and focus on retraining. I am surprised to see you speaking out against something that is just a natural progression of humanity. As time goes on, we will use our brains more and more as automation replaces shit like picking berries and transport.
|
On January 11 2018 00:59 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
So an overwhelming number of the less than needed jobs that have been created have been with things similar to uber. Where at the moment, there's not a cost effective alternative to employing humans.
Automating those jobs mean those people will be wholly dependent on a shrinking safety net. As more and more people are left further and further behind in the US economy they'll turn to attacking the people (or objects in this case) that took their livelihoods.
So middlings like the successful people here will have to make a choice. Are they going to side with the people protecting the cars or the people destroying them?
So long as you're not anticipating protecting cars from the people left behind sure, take the subsidized ride. But if they are going to convince you it's better those people die than your ride, we got beef. Ah, you're saying a Luddite-like movement is inevitable.
No, we could distribute wealth in such a way that everyone is content enough to avoid that, but not if liberals like ticklish and Mohdoo side with the robots.
EDIT: seems people think I was arguing against automation, I'm not. I'm saying if those benefits continue to be distributed in the patterns seen under both parties for decades, then that's the reality we're facing.
|
On January 11 2018 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 00:59 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 11 2018 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
So an overwhelming number of the less than needed jobs that have been created have been with things similar to uber. Where at the moment, there's not a cost effective alternative to employing humans.
Automating those jobs mean those people will be wholly dependent on a shrinking safety net. As more and more people are left further and further behind in the US economy they'll turn to attacking the people (or objects in this case) that took their livelihoods.
So middlings like the successful people here will have to make a choice. Are they going to side with the people protecting the cars or the people destroying them?
So long as you're not anticipating protecting cars from the people left behind sure, take the subsidized ride. But if they are going to convince you it's better those people die than your ride, we got beef. Ah, you're saying a Luddite-like movement is inevitable. No, we could distribute wealth in such a way that everyone is content enough to avoid that, but not if liberals like ticklish and Mohdoo side with the robots. EDIT: seems people think I was arguing against automation, I'm not. I'm saying if those benefits continue to be distributed in the patterns seen under both parties for decades, then that's the reality we're facing.
How could automation better serve the lower class?
|
Mohdoo and I both support strong social safety nets. That point has been made any number of times.
On the other hand, busting someone's car windows is a crime, regardless of the reason. That I don't really support, even if I can understand or sympathize with the motive behind it.
It seems like most technological advances have benefited pretty much everyone, though the effects are sometimes lumpy. I definitely live better than Medieval royalty, and I bet most of America does as well.
|
On January 11 2018 01:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2018 00:59 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 11 2018 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
So an overwhelming number of the less than needed jobs that have been created have been with things similar to uber. Where at the moment, there's not a cost effective alternative to employing humans.
Automating those jobs mean those people will be wholly dependent on a shrinking safety net. As more and more people are left further and further behind in the US economy they'll turn to attacking the people (or objects in this case) that took their livelihoods.
So middlings like the successful people here will have to make a choice. Are they going to side with the people protecting the cars or the people destroying them?
So long as you're not anticipating protecting cars from the people left behind sure, take the subsidized ride. But if they are going to convince you it's better those people die than your ride, we got beef. Ah, you're saying a Luddite-like movement is inevitable. No, we could distribute wealth in such a way that everyone is content enough to avoid that, but not if liberals like ticklish and Mohdoo side with the robots. EDIT: seems people think I was arguing against automation, I'm not. I'm saying if those benefits continue to be distributed in the patterns seen under both parties for decades, then that's the reality we're facing. How could automation better serve the lower class?
By distributing the benefits more equitably. If humans are doing millions less hours of work, that shouldn't just be realized in profits for those at the top.
For instance, working at Uber could generate people a future ownership interest in the automated car that replaces them, instead of them doing all the legwork to set the stage for their replacement, only to have a few assholes on top reap overwhelmingly disproportionate compensation for the work thousands of other people did.
EDIT: The example isn't meant to be an end all solution but the types of ideas that should be being demanded across industries. Without which (and many better ideas) we end up where I referenced.
On January 11 2018 01:13 ticklishmusic wrote:
Mohdoo and I both support strong social safety nets. That point has been made any number of times.
On the other hand, busting someone's car windows is a crime, regardless of the reason. That I don't really support, even if I can understand or sympathize with the motive behind it.
It seems like most technological advances have benefited pretty much everyone, though the effects are sometimes lumpy. I definitely live better than Medieval royalty, and I bet most of America does as well.
Supporting them is nice, but when they don't materialize and fall short when they do, you'll have to make the choice and if you're siding with the machines and your owners then I think you're choosing the wrong side.
|
Some people think technology is better for jobs as it requires people with greater expertise to manage the system so the resulting jobs are better than the previously menial that is now automated. David Autor, the author of this paper, gives a lot of talks about such.
https://economics.mit.edu/files/11563
|
On January 11 2018 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
So an overwhelming number of the less than needed jobs that have been created have been with things similar to uber. Where at the moment, there's not a cost effective alternative to employing humans.
Automating those jobs mean those people will be wholly dependent on a shrinking safety net. As more and more people are left further and further behind in the US economy they'll turn to attacking the people (or objects in this case) that took their livelihoods.
So middlings like the successful people here will have to make a choice. Are they going to side with the people protecting the cars or the people destroying them?
So long as you're not anticipating protecting cars from the people left behind sure, take the subsidized ride. But if they are going to convince you it's better those people die than your ride, we got beef. Cars themselves being invented killed an insane number of jobs. Computers did the same. Being a "typist" used to be an entirely legitimate career. People would just type shit out. There are millions of similar examples where new technology kills an industry. We figure it out. Other stuff replaces it. Think about how many jobs "computers as a whole" created. Because automation is 100% certain and nothing we do will ever slow it down (it will always at least be studied in academia), all we can do is do what we should have done for coal and focus on retraining. I am surprised to see you speaking out against something that is just a natural progression of humanity. As time goes on, we will use our brains more and more as automation replaces shit like picking berries and transport.
I think GH sees the new tech and robot industry as different than a typist losing their job. And he is right that there is automation is not “open” to new workers and jobs being created. When the Iphone was first release, Apple filed a lawsuit against the first person who figured out how to jail break it. It was his phone, but they decided they had some right to control it beyond that sale. Of course they lost, but the entire thing would have been unheard of if someone developed an improvement for a standard type writer. Or simply laughed out of court. The first cars were easy for the average person to work on.
Extend that out to automated cars and automation. The companies building the robots not only want to eliminate the jobs, but will also design the automation so they control it. They own the controlling software. Or create service contracts that force the cities/industries to use their repair people. The tech industry not only wants to build the best automated car, but they also want to make sure they are the only automated car used by a city and control who repairs and updates that car. And control the data collected by the automated car. Maybe control the radio in the automated car. And the wifi access in the automated car.
Of course none of that would be a problem if we had a government that was willing to push back and make sure these new systems don’t just benefit one company, but everyone. But the government stopped doing that stuff in the late 1990s. They are still struggling to get everyone passable internet.
|
On January 11 2018 01:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 01:09 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2018 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2018 00:59 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 11 2018 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
So an overwhelming number of the less than needed jobs that have been created have been with things similar to uber. Where at the moment, there's not a cost effective alternative to employing humans.
Automating those jobs mean those people will be wholly dependent on a shrinking safety net. As more and more people are left further and further behind in the US economy they'll turn to attacking the people (or objects in this case) that took their livelihoods.
So middlings like the successful people here will have to make a choice. Are they going to side with the people protecting the cars or the people destroying them?
So long as you're not anticipating protecting cars from the people left behind sure, take the subsidized ride. But if they are going to convince you it's better those people die than your ride, we got beef. Ah, you're saying a Luddite-like movement is inevitable. No, we could distribute wealth in such a way that everyone is content enough to avoid that, but not if liberals like ticklish and Mohdoo side with the robots. EDIT: seems people think I was arguing against automation, I'm not. I'm saying if those benefits continue to be distributed in the patterns seen under both parties for decades, then that's the reality we're facing. How could automation better serve the lower class? By distributing the benefits more equitably. If humans are doing millions less hours of work, that shouldn't just be realized in profits for those at the top. For instance, working at Uber could generate people a future ownership interest in the automated car that replaces them, instead of them doing all the legwork to set the stage for their replacement, only to have a few assholes on top reap overwhelmingly disproportionate compensation for the work thousands of other people did. EDIT: The example isn't meant to be an end all solution but the types of ideas that should be being demanded across industries. Without which (and many better ideas) we end up where I referenced.
I think my confusion stemmed from the fact that these things feel unrelated to automation. These are related more to the core idea of "how much taxes should big businesses pay to help sustain a healthy lower and middle class?". The issues you described don't seem to be an issue so long as a proper, functional safety net is in place where people are kept above the poverty line. Or is there something specific to automation that I am missing?
|
On January 11 2018 01:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 01:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2018 01:09 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2018 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2018 00:59 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 11 2018 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
So an overwhelming number of the less than needed jobs that have been created have been with things similar to uber. Where at the moment, there's not a cost effective alternative to employing humans.
Automating those jobs mean those people will be wholly dependent on a shrinking safety net. As more and more people are left further and further behind in the US economy they'll turn to attacking the people (or objects in this case) that took their livelihoods.
So middlings like the successful people here will have to make a choice. Are they going to side with the people protecting the cars or the people destroying them?
So long as you're not anticipating protecting cars from the people left behind sure, take the subsidized ride. But if they are going to convince you it's better those people die than your ride, we got beef. Ah, you're saying a Luddite-like movement is inevitable. No, we could distribute wealth in such a way that everyone is content enough to avoid that, but not if liberals like ticklish and Mohdoo side with the robots. EDIT: seems people think I was arguing against automation, I'm not. I'm saying if those benefits continue to be distributed in the patterns seen under both parties for decades, then that's the reality we're facing. How could automation better serve the lower class? By distributing the benefits more equitably. If humans are doing millions less hours of work, that shouldn't just be realized in profits for those at the top. For instance, working at Uber could generate people a future ownership interest in the automated car that replaces them, instead of them doing all the legwork to set the stage for their replacement, only to have a few assholes on top reap overwhelmingly disproportionate compensation for the work thousands of other people did. EDIT: The example isn't meant to be an end all solution but the types of ideas that should be being demanded across industries. Without which (and many better ideas) we end up where I referenced. I think my confusion stemmed from the fact that these things feel unrelated to automation. These are related more to the core idea of "how much taxes should big businesses pay to help sustain a healthy lower and middle class?". The issues you described don't seem to be an issue so long as a proper, functional safety net is in place where people are kept above the poverty line. Or is there something specific to automation that I am missing?
Let me know when/how we're going to get one of those from these two parties?
The part you're missing is that the automation is inevitable, but the safety net isn't.
|
I recently move from a suburb right outside of the city to a suburb a little further out. Unless I'm taking a train to the city, there is no public transportation. I'd rather the people out here have the option of Uber/Lyft than driving when they shouldn't or be able to get to places that are too far or physically unfeasible by bike.
|
On January 11 2018 01:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 01:24 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2018 01:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2018 01:09 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2018 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2018 00:59 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 11 2018 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
So an overwhelming number of the less than needed jobs that have been created have been with things similar to uber. Where at the moment, there's not a cost effective alternative to employing humans.
Automating those jobs mean those people will be wholly dependent on a shrinking safety net. As more and more people are left further and further behind in the US economy they'll turn to attacking the people (or objects in this case) that took their livelihoods.
So middlings like the successful people here will have to make a choice. Are they going to side with the people protecting the cars or the people destroying them?
So long as you're not anticipating protecting cars from the people left behind sure, take the subsidized ride. But if they are going to convince you it's better those people die than your ride, we got beef. Ah, you're saying a Luddite-like movement is inevitable. No, we could distribute wealth in such a way that everyone is content enough to avoid that, but not if liberals like ticklish and Mohdoo side with the robots. EDIT: seems people think I was arguing against automation, I'm not. I'm saying if those benefits continue to be distributed in the patterns seen under both parties for decades, then that's the reality we're facing. How could automation better serve the lower class? By distributing the benefits more equitably. If humans are doing millions less hours of work, that shouldn't just be realized in profits for those at the top. For instance, working at Uber could generate people a future ownership interest in the automated car that replaces them, instead of them doing all the legwork to set the stage for their replacement, only to have a few assholes on top reap overwhelmingly disproportionate compensation for the work thousands of other people did. EDIT: The example isn't meant to be an end all solution but the types of ideas that should be being demanded across industries. Without which (and many better ideas) we end up where I referenced. I think my confusion stemmed from the fact that these things feel unrelated to automation. These are related more to the core idea of "how much taxes should big businesses pay to help sustain a healthy lower and middle class?". The issues you described don't seem to be an issue so long as a proper, functional safety net is in place where people are kept above the poverty line. Or is there something specific to automation that I am missing? Let me know when/how we're going to get one of those from these two parties? The part you're missing is that the automation is inevitable, but the safety net isn't.
So are you saying since we can't rely on the government to provide a safety net, we need to prevent automation? I'm not understanding what your suggested solution here is.
|
On January 11 2018 01:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 01:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2018 01:24 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2018 01:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2018 01:09 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2018 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2018 00:59 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 11 2018 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
So an overwhelming number of the less than needed jobs that have been created have been with things similar to uber. Where at the moment, there's not a cost effective alternative to employing humans.
Automating those jobs mean those people will be wholly dependent on a shrinking safety net. As more and more people are left further and further behind in the US economy they'll turn to attacking the people (or objects in this case) that took their livelihoods.
So middlings like the successful people here will have to make a choice. Are they going to side with the people protecting the cars or the people destroying them?
So long as you're not anticipating protecting cars from the people left behind sure, take the subsidized ride. But if they are going to convince you it's better those people die than your ride, we got beef. Ah, you're saying a Luddite-like movement is inevitable. No, we could distribute wealth in such a way that everyone is content enough to avoid that, but not if liberals like ticklish and Mohdoo side with the robots. EDIT: seems people think I was arguing against automation, I'm not. I'm saying if those benefits continue to be distributed in the patterns seen under both parties for decades, then that's the reality we're facing. How could automation better serve the lower class? By distributing the benefits more equitably. If humans are doing millions less hours of work, that shouldn't just be realized in profits for those at the top. For instance, working at Uber could generate people a future ownership interest in the automated car that replaces them, instead of them doing all the legwork to set the stage for their replacement, only to have a few assholes on top reap overwhelmingly disproportionate compensation for the work thousands of other people did. EDIT: The example isn't meant to be an end all solution but the types of ideas that should be being demanded across industries. Without which (and many better ideas) we end up where I referenced. I think my confusion stemmed from the fact that these things feel unrelated to automation. These are related more to the core idea of "how much taxes should big businesses pay to help sustain a healthy lower and middle class?". The issues you described don't seem to be an issue so long as a proper, functional safety net is in place where people are kept above the poverty line. Or is there something specific to automation that I am missing? Let me know when/how we're going to get one of those from these two parties? The part you're missing is that the automation is inevitable, but the safety net isn't. So are you saying since we can't rely on the government to provide a safety net, we need to prevent automation? I'm not understanding what your suggested solution here is.
No, people need to recognize the choices in front of them and start making them. If you still have hope/faith in congress as it exists and has for decades then we're not getting that safety net and it's the people or the robots, and ticklish seems to be leaning robots under the theme of "law and order".
If one is already siding with the robots in this future scenario then they are unlikely to be able to force the political system to provide the net (why would they, you're already on their side) and have seemingly already cast their lot in the inevitably following reality.
That isn't to say I relish the idea, I'd much prefer ticklish and others realize that scenario sucks for everyone and it's much better to fight harder to address this stuff preemptively. Unfortunately both parties have stood steadfastly firm on the concept of keeping the money rolling up until the gilded age looks equitable by comparison, and folks like ticklish are ready to fall in line with whatever the influencers decide.
That's to say nothing of how hopeless the other party is.
|
GH seems be belaboring the obvious - that technology makes some jobs obsolete, and those who can no longer find employment need help, which everyone seems to agree upon. However, he says that help is not coming from the government because both parties suck and that the 'solution' seems to be violent revolution of some sort where you're either for or against the 1% or whatever.
I don't really agree with the framework of that argument. It's reflective of the difference b/w his worldview and mine that he thinks such a scenario and the binary choice therein is something that need to be considered.
And remember, all of this stemmed from me saying that I like to take Uber. Because public transit and driving myself sucks.
|
Corruption. It's that simple.
|
On January 11 2018 02:03 ticklishmusic wrote:
GH seems be belaboring the obvious - that technology makes some jobs obsolete, and those who can no longer find employment need help, which everyone seems to agree upon. However, he says that help is not coming from the government because both parties suck and that the 'solution' seems to be violent revolution of some sort where you're either for or against the 1% or whatever.
I don't really agree with the framework of that argument. It's reflective of the difference b/w his worldview and mine that he thinks such a scenario and the binary choice therein is something that need to be considered.
And remember, all of this stemmed from me saying that I like to take Uber. Because public transit and driving myself sucks.
I don't think you could exemplify my point much more clearly. You think they are just going to give you a safety net you don't demand, and don't really care anyway, because you plan on living inside the gates.
|
On January 11 2018 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 02:03 ticklishmusic wrote:
GH seems be belaboring the obvious - that technology makes some jobs obsolete, and those who can no longer find employment need help, which everyone seems to agree upon. However, he says that help is not coming from the government because both parties suck and that the 'solution' seems to be violent revolution of some sort where you're either for or against the 1% or whatever.
I don't really agree with the framework of that argument. It's reflective of the difference b/w his worldview and mine that he thinks such a scenario and the binary choice therein is something that need to be considered.
And remember, all of this stemmed from me saying that I like to take Uber. Because public transit and driving myself sucks. I don't think you could exemplify my point much more clearly. You think they are just going to give you a safety net you don't demand, and don't really care anyway, because you plan on living inside the gates.
I've made it abundantly clear that I support a safety net. I'm not sure how my choice to take Uber really has much of anything to do with me telling the poor to eat cake.
|
Ticklish, when the revolution comes, you'll be the first against the wall >
|
On January 11 2018 02:07 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2018 02:03 ticklishmusic wrote:
GH seems be belaboring the obvious - that technology makes some jobs obsolete, and those who can no longer find employment need help, which everyone seems to agree upon. However, he says that help is not coming from the government because both parties suck and that the 'solution' seems to be violent revolution of some sort where you're either for or against the 1% or whatever.
I don't really agree with the framework of that argument. It's reflective of the difference b/w his worldview and mine that he thinks such a scenario and the binary choice therein is something that need to be considered.
And remember, all of this stemmed from me saying that I like to take Uber. Because public transit and driving myself sucks. I don't think you could exemplify my point much more clearly. You think they are just going to give you a safety net you don't demand, and don't really care anyway, because you plan on living inside the gates. I've made it abundantly clear that I support a safety net. I'm not sure how my choice to take Uber really has much of anything to do with me telling the poor to eat cake.
It's not the choice to take the uber, which was clear from the start.
|
On January 11 2018 02:08 Sbrubbles wrote:Ticklish, when the revolution comes, you'll be the first against the wall >
Are you the Ghost of Proletariat Revolution Future telling me that my dirty Ubering ways will lead to a bad fate?
|
I don’t think GH claims the unrest is the solution, only that is will be the results of automation ending jobs and government impotence. You just need to look at the growing opposition to free trade to see the writing on the wall for automation. Free trade is great for low cost durable goods and food prices. Both which benefit the less wealthy. But those same groups are turning against it because it is seen as destroying their jobs. And now there is growing protectionist political movement that wants to go back to trade wars, believing that trade wars are good and won’t lead to real wars(Narrator: they will).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
