Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On September 10 2018 05:43 Artisreal wrote: @bigj: 500 elderly are purely assumed for the sake of argument here or am I missing something?
I think the more tangible threat to western countries is automation, even in front of climate change (albeit the latter being strikingly more imminent!). And nobody seems to have any clue how to tackle the challenge of rethinking work life for the masse (at least as far as I am aware of). This should be a prime target for a coordinated policy approach on a European level. At least research or strategic thinking wise because national parliaments are way too preoccupied dealing with the matter of the moment, the latest viral outrage.
I think there have been demonstrations in Chemnitz with as few as 300 people that have been sold to me as a major point of political focus these days. 500 elderly means that they are few and they are mostly old, but want to dictate their ancient views of cultural pureness over the young.
The measures against automation "for the masses" are quite simple: Deregulation and lower wages. You just make human labor competitive with new technology. Automation is eating heavily into jobs already, but new work is created instead. It is just cheaper work. Now you are either a neoliberal and believe in the invisible hand, ergo capital is neutral and doesn't serve the capitalist, ergo everything is fine. Or you are critical and believe richness helps creating an income. For the second case everything has been said by original socialists, exactly for that scenario.
On September 10 2018 05:17 Plansix wrote: It is easier to fear monger about being invaded by refugees. The “climate” is to large of a problem for voters to feel they can change it.
Or to put it another way, “vote for me so we can change then weather” is a hard pitch.
Climate change demonstrations and enviromental actionism are far out-weighting anything the right does. There are thousands demonstrating every day but when 500 elderly take to the street in Chemnitz I should "understand that they are angry". Excuse me to go full Marxist on this one, but there is simply no interest from those who hold the capital to regulate themselves or shed light on the topic. The top 1% controls 50% of the capital, they have the sole individual responsibility for what they produce from their share of property, not the consumers or anybody else. That's what property means. I don't polute the enivroment when I eat cattle. The cattle has already lived. And it is completely delusional to believe that not buying stuff helps, when any crisis of demand leads to central banks making money easier available for the supply side.
I'm no tclear on your cattle point; while true that you don't directly pollute via the cattle you eat, sinc eit already lived; is it not the case that you contribute to the use of cattle (and the pollution they thereby generate) by buying it to create demand for it?
Not if any crisis in demand is met with measures such as: - increased exports (dropping trade barriers for those struggling) - cheaper money (so that instead earning money you get cheaper credits and your older credits dont have to be repaid at the former rate) - other political measures (e.g. subventions, cheaper labor measures, deregulation)
As long as any loss in production or employment is met with political action the property owner doesn't actually suffer the blow. The consumer structure may change - instead of me some Russian is eating the Austrian cattle, or someone else is just eating more due to cheap prices from political measures - but the production stays the same or increases.
it seems an unreasonable assumption that such measures would be of such size as to completely counter the effects of a demand loss. Removing much of it, perhaps; but entirely? While true that a single individual won't really have an effect; the aggregate effects of changes in demand due to mass changes in consumer preference should have a mildly beneficial effect (depending on what they spend that money on instead). Though come to think of it; I'm not sure we're arguing on the same point; I'm arguing on the environmental impact of cattle-raising; and how it would be affected by the extent to which people eat cowmeat. I'm not looking at the effects on the property owners' finances.
On September 10 2018 05:43 Artisreal wrote: @bigj: 500 elderly are purely assumed for the sake of argument here or am I missing something?
I think the more tangible threat to western countries is automation, even in front of climate change (albeit the latter being strikingly more imminent!). And nobody seems to have any clue how to tackle the challenge of rethinking work life for the masse (at least as far as I am aware of). This should be a prime target for a coordinated policy approach on a European level. At least research or strategic thinking wise because national parliaments are way too preoccupied dealing with the matter of the moment, the latest viral outrage.
I think there have been demonstrations in Chemnitz with as few as 300 people that have been sold to me as a major point of political focus these days. 500 elderly means that they are few and they are mostly old, but want to dictate their ancient views of cultural pureness over the young.
The measures against automation "for the masses" are quite simple: Deregulation and lower wages. You just make human labor competitive with new technology. Automation is eating heavily into jobs already, but new work is created instead. It is just cheaper work. Now you are either a neoliberal and believe in the invisible hand, ergo capital is neutral and doesn't serve the capitalist, ergo everything is fine. Or you are critical and believe richness helps creating an income. For the second case everything has been said by original socialists, exactly for that scenario.
Deregulation and lower wages? Automation is going to annihilate millions of jobs in the coming decades, what are lower wages going to help, when there is no work?
Universal basic income and a complete shift in how we look at the need to work as a society are going to be the real solution.
Still though in response to automation being a more pressing issue than climate change. Id argue automation is something we have all the time in the world to figure out, climate change is not.
On September 10 2018 05:43 Artisreal wrote: @bigj: 500 elderly are purely assumed for the sake of argument here or am I missing something?
I think the more tangible threat to western countries is automation, even in front of climate change (albeit the latter being strikingly more imminent!). And nobody seems to have any clue how to tackle the challenge of rethinking work life for the masse (at least as far as I am aware of). This should be a prime target for a coordinated policy approach on a European level. At least research or strategic thinking wise because national parliaments are way too preoccupied dealing with the matter of the moment, the latest viral outrage.
I think there have been demonstrations in Chemnitz with as few as 300 people that have been sold to me as a major point of political focus these days. 500 elderly means that they are few and they are mostly old, but want to dictate their ancient views of cultural pureness over the young.
The measures against automation "for the masses" are quite simple: Deregulation and lower wages. You just make human labor competitive with new technology. Automation is eating heavily into jobs already, but new work is created instead. It is just cheaper work. Now you are either a neoliberal and believe in the invisible hand, ergo capital is neutral and doesn't serve the capitalist, ergo everything is fine. Or you are critical and believe richness helps creating an income. For the second case everything has been said by original socialists, exactly for that scenario.
Deregulation and lower wages? Automation is going to annihilate millions of jobs in the coming decades, what are lower wages going to help, when there is no work?
Universal basic income and a complete shift in how we look at the need to work as a society are going to be the real solution.
Still though in response to automation being a more pressing issue than climate change. Id argue automation is something we have all the time in the world to figure out, climate change is not.
Automation is already annihilating millions of jobs. And yet there are more jobs than ever. Machines and programs cost money and upkeep. A slave is always going to be competitive and find work. Just don't call him a slave. Call him a millenial, born in the unfortunate situation to not inherit property and having to pay rent to one of the heirs, to be allowed to physically exist.
The threat of changing economies is always present. I don’t think automation is going to destroy jobs as much as shift the economy the same way the industrial revolution and computers did. Nations need to the painful highs and lows of those shifts, ie, the destruction of labor’s ability assert its value.
On September 10 2018 05:43 Artisreal wrote: @bigj: 500 elderly are purely assumed for the sake of argument here or am I missing something?
I think the more tangible threat to western countries is automation, even in front of climate change (albeit the latter being strikingly more imminent!). And nobody seems to have any clue how to tackle the challenge of rethinking work life for the masse (at least as far as I am aware of). This should be a prime target for a coordinated policy approach on a European level. At least research or strategic thinking wise because national parliaments are way too preoccupied dealing with the matter of the moment, the latest viral outrage.
I think there have been demonstrations in Chemnitz with as few as 300 people that have been sold to me as a major point of political focus these days. 500 elderly means that they are few and they are mostly old, but want to dictate their ancient views of cultural pureness over the young.
The measures against automation "for the masses" are quite simple: Deregulation and lower wages. You just make human labor competitive with new technology. Automation is eating heavily into jobs already, but new work is created instead. It is just cheaper work. Now you are either a neoliberal and believe in the invisible hand, ergo capital is neutral and doesn't serve the capitalist, ergo everything is fine. Or you are critical and believe richness helps creating an income. For the second case everything has been said by original socialists, exactly for that scenario.
Deregulation and lower wages? Automation is going to annihilate millions of jobs in the coming decades, what are lower wages going to help, when there is no work?
Universal basic income and a complete shift in how we look at the need to work as a society are going to be the real solution.
Still though in response to automation being a more pressing issue than climate change. Id argue automation is something we have all the time in the world to figure out, climate change is not.
Well yes,millions of jobs will disappear because of automation. But the good news is milions of jobs will also appear because of automation. On an abstract level,the number of jobs is kinda irrelevant in the very end. What matters is the economic production. As long as production/captiva is growing we can all be better off all the time,job or not. It just comes down to how the production is being devided amongst the population.
The biggest thread to western economics and the world economy as a whole is demographics I think. When the world population starts to stabilize there will be an enormous crisis the seize of which we have never seen before.
On September 10 2018 05:43 Artisreal wrote: @bigj: 500 elderly are purely assumed for the sake of argument here or am I missing something?
I think the more tangible threat to western countries is automation, even in front of climate change (albeit the latter being strikingly more imminent!). And nobody seems to have any clue how to tackle the challenge of rethinking work life for the masse (at least as far as I am aware of). This should be a prime target for a coordinated policy approach on a European level. At least research or strategic thinking wise because national parliaments are way too preoccupied dealing with the matter of the moment, the latest viral outrage.
I think there have been demonstrations in Chemnitz with as few as 300 people that have been sold to me as a major point of political focus these days. 500 elderly means that they are few and they are mostly old, but want to dictate their ancient views of cultural pureness over the young.
The measures against automation "for the masses" are quite simple: Deregulation and lower wages. You just make human labor competitive with new technology. Automation is eating heavily into jobs already, but new work is created instead. It is just cheaper work. Now you are either a neoliberal and believe in the invisible hand, ergo capital is neutral and doesn't serve the capitalist, ergo everything is fine. Or you are critical and believe richness helps creating an income. For the second case everything has been said by original socialists, exactly for that scenario.
Deregulation and lower wages? Automation is going to annihilate millions of jobs in the coming decades, what are lower wages going to help, when there is no work?
Universal basic income and a complete shift in how we look at the need to work as a society are going to be the real solution.
Still though in response to automation being a more pressing issue than climate change. Id argue automation is something we have all the time in the world to figure out, climate change is not.
Well yes,millions of jobs will disappear because of automation. But the good news is milions of jobs will also appear because of automation. On an abstract level,the number of jobs is kinda irrelevant in the very end. What matters is the economic production. As long as production/captiva is growing we can all be better off all the time,job or not. It just comes down to how the production is being devided amongst the population.
The biggest thread to western economics and the world economy as a whole is demographics I think. When the world population starts to stabilize there will be an enormous crisis the seize of which we have never seen before.
I don't see the world population stabilizing causin a crisis; the demographic shocks from being below replacement rate are already occurring in many places. so I don't see how world pop would have a particular effect, given that regional pop tends to be far more relevant to such. Nor do I see any reason in particular for a stable population to be a problem. though I agree that there are demographic issues; it seems like no matter which way they go there are considerable effects/problems.
I've been trying to follow UK politics more, and find comfort that the centrists seem even more vicious towards progressives than even here in the US. Maybe a sign of things to come for us? Big fan of Mark McGowan, at times it seems hardly different from the same issues as the Democrats and Clinton et al as Labour and Blarites lol. And no real difference between our "liberal" (neoliberal) media and Tory dominated headlines there.
On September 10 2018 05:43 Artisreal wrote: @bigj: 500 elderly are purely assumed for the sake of argument here or am I missing something?
I think the more tangible threat to western countries is automation, even in front of climate change (albeit the latter being strikingly more imminent!). And nobody seems to have any clue how to tackle the challenge of rethinking work life for the masse (at least as far as I am aware of). This should be a prime target for a coordinated policy approach on a European level. At least research or strategic thinking wise because national parliaments are way too preoccupied dealing with the matter of the moment, the latest viral outrage.
I think there have been demonstrations in Chemnitz with as few as 300 people that have been sold to me as a major point of political focus these days. 500 elderly means that they are few and they are mostly old, but want to dictate their ancient views of cultural pureness over the young.
The measures against automation "for the masses" are quite simple: Deregulation and lower wages. You just make human labor competitive with new technology. Automation is eating heavily into jobs already, but new work is created instead. It is just cheaper work. Now you are either a neoliberal and believe in the invisible hand, ergo capital is neutral and doesn't serve the capitalist, ergo everything is fine. Or you are critical and believe richness helps creating an income. For the second case everything has been said by original socialists, exactly for that scenario.
Deregulation and lower wages? Automation is going to annihilate millions of jobs in the coming decades, what are lower wages going to help, when there is no work?
Universal basic income and a complete shift in how we look at the need to work as a society are going to be the real solution.
Still though in response to automation being a more pressing issue than climate change. Id argue automation is something we have all the time in the world to figure out, climate change is not.
Well yes,millions of jobs will disappear because of automation. But the good news is milions of jobs will also appear because of automation. On an abstract level,the number of jobs is kinda irrelevant in the very end. What matters is the economic production. As long as production/captiva is growing we can all be better off all the time,job or not. It just comes down to how the production is being devided amongst the population.
The biggest thread to western economics and the world economy as a whole is demographics I think. When the world population starts to stabilize there will be an enormous crisis the seize of which we have never seen before.
That bolded part is only true when the gains from the productivity increase are spread among the population, which necessitates a more socialist political field. In a capitalistic system, the owner of the most robots will be the biggest winner and the resulting consumer prices don't really help people with no job. In my opinion it will lead to even bigger concentration of capital in a few hands.
On September 10 2018 05:43 Artisreal wrote: @bigj: 500 elderly are purely assumed for the sake of argument here or am I missing something?
I think the more tangible threat to western countries is automation, even in front of climate change (albeit the latter being strikingly more imminent!). And nobody seems to have any clue how to tackle the challenge of rethinking work life for the masse (at least as far as I am aware of). This should be a prime target for a coordinated policy approach on a European level. At least research or strategic thinking wise because national parliaments are way too preoccupied dealing with the matter of the moment, the latest viral outrage.
I think there have been demonstrations in Chemnitz with as few as 300 people that have been sold to me as a major point of political focus these days. 500 elderly means that they are few and they are mostly old, but want to dictate their ancient views of cultural pureness over the young.
The measures against automation "for the masses" are quite simple: Deregulation and lower wages. You just make human labor competitive with new technology. Automation is eating heavily into jobs already, but new work is created instead. It is just cheaper work. Now you are either a neoliberal and believe in the invisible hand, ergo capital is neutral and doesn't serve the capitalist, ergo everything is fine. Or you are critical and believe richness helps creating an income. For the second case everything has been said by original socialists, exactly for that scenario.
Deregulation and lower wages? Automation is going to annihilate millions of jobs in the coming decades, what are lower wages going to help, when there is no work?
Universal basic income and a complete shift in how we look at the need to work as a society are going to be the real solution.
Still though in response to automation being a more pressing issue than climate change. Id argue automation is something we have all the time in the world to figure out, climate change is not.
Well yes,millions of jobs will disappear because of automation. But the good news is milions of jobs will also appear because of automation. On an abstract level,the number of jobs is kinda irrelevant in the very end. What matters is the economic production. As long as production/captiva is growing we can all be better off all the time,job or not. It just comes down to how the production is being devided amongst the population.
The biggest thread to western economics and the world economy as a whole is demographics I think. When the world population starts to stabilize there will be an enormous crisis the seize of which we have never seen before.
That bolded part is only true when the gains from the productivity increase are spread among the population, which necessitates a more socialist political field. In a capitalistic system, the owner of the most robots will be the biggest winner and the resulting consumer prices don't really help people with no job. In my opinion it will lead to even bigger concentration of capital in a few hands.
I think he is saying the same thing and I believe you are both wrong. Your views, as well-meaning as they might be, are simply a bad abstraction of reality and the root of bad socialism. What is overall production? Surely, the Soviet Union had a great overall production. But it lacked mechanisms that made the economy produce what the people wanted and needed. It produced exactly what the central planners drew joy from, so mainly nukes, tanks and rockets.
Despite being extremely critical towards "capitalism" being a system that achieves that, I find this to be an insanely inspirational piece on the topic:
Don't forget about the "servant" jobs which will appear if the wages are low enoug and the middle class is rich enough: cleaners, babysitters, hairdressers, restuarant workers... You can probably make some weird argument that robots can take over those too, but not really in a long time.
The US has tonnes of people employed as truck drivers and in 24/7 supermarkets for shit wages and conditions. Unemployment should be the least of your worries! It is essentially republican spin at this point.
On September 10 2018 05:43 Artisreal wrote: @bigj: 500 elderly are purely assumed for the sake of argument here or am I missing something?
I think the more tangible threat to western countries is automation, even in front of climate change (albeit the latter being strikingly more imminent!). And nobody seems to have any clue how to tackle the challenge of rethinking work life for the masse (at least as far as I am aware of). This should be a prime target for a coordinated policy approach on a European level. At least research or strategic thinking wise because national parliaments are way too preoccupied dealing with the matter of the moment, the latest viral outrage.
I think there have been demonstrations in Chemnitz with as few as 300 people that have been sold to me as a major point of political focus these days. 500 elderly means that they are few and they are mostly old, but want to dictate their ancient views of cultural pureness over the young.
The measures against automation "for the masses" are quite simple: Deregulation and lower wages. You just make human labor competitive with new technology. Automation is eating heavily into jobs already, but new work is created instead. It is just cheaper work. Now you are either a neoliberal and believe in the invisible hand, ergo capital is neutral and doesn't serve the capitalist, ergo everything is fine. Or you are critical and believe richness helps creating an income. For the second case everything has been said by original socialists, exactly for that scenario.
Deregulation and lower wages? Automation is going to annihilate millions of jobs in the coming decades, what are lower wages going to help, when there is no work?
Universal basic income and a complete shift in how we look at the need to work as a society are going to be the real solution.
Still though in response to automation being a more pressing issue than climate change. Id argue automation is something we have all the time in the world to figure out, climate change is not.
Well yes,millions of jobs will disappear because of automation. But the good news is milions of jobs will also appear because of automation. On an abstract level,the number of jobs is kinda irrelevant in the very end. What matters is the economic production. As long as production/captiva is growing we can all be better off all the time,job or not. It just comes down to how the production is being devided amongst the population.
The biggest thread to western economics and the world economy as a whole is demographics I think. When the world population starts to stabilize there will be an enormous crisis the seize of which we have never seen before.
That bolded part is only true when the gains from the productivity increase are spread among the population, which necessitates a more socialist political field. In a capitalistic system, the owner of the most robots will be the biggest winner and the resulting consumer prices don't really help people with no job. In my opinion it will lead to even bigger concentration of capital in a few hands.
I think he is saying the same thing and I believe you are both wrong. Your views, as well-meaning as they might be, are simply a bad abstraction of reality and the root of bad socialism. What is overall production? Surely, the Soviet Union had a great overall production. But it lacked mechanisms that made the economy produce what the people wanted and needed. It produced exactly what the central planners drew joy from, so mainly nukes, tanks and rockets.
Despite being extremely critical towards "capitalism" being a system that achieves that, I find this to be an insanely inspirational piece on the topic: https://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A
lol Milton Friedman, really?
The point is that everyone here agrees that capitalism is the best system, and since we are not in the 1980’s, we don’t believe anymore that unregulated unrestricted free market is a good option unless you are insanely rich and don’t care for anyone. There is a balance between the morally bankrupt randian « greed is good, be an egoistical douchebag » crap and far left fantasies.
By the way, schaf is right. Artificial intelligence and automation will require us to think out of the box because what is coming to us with our current thinking is an insane explosion of inequalities, and an impoverishment of a very large chunk of the population.
On September 10 2018 05:43 Artisreal wrote: @bigj: 500 elderly are purely assumed for the sake of argument here or am I missing something?
I think the more tangible threat to western countries is automation, even in front of climate change (albeit the latter being strikingly more imminent!). And nobody seems to have any clue how to tackle the challenge of rethinking work life for the masse (at least as far as I am aware of). This should be a prime target for a coordinated policy approach on a European level. At least research or strategic thinking wise because national parliaments are way too preoccupied dealing with the matter of the moment, the latest viral outrage.
I think there have been demonstrations in Chemnitz with as few as 300 people that have been sold to me as a major point of political focus these days. 500 elderly means that they are few and they are mostly old, but want to dictate their ancient views of cultural pureness over the young.
The measures against automation "for the masses" are quite simple: Deregulation and lower wages. You just make human labor competitive with new technology. Automation is eating heavily into jobs already, but new work is created instead. It is just cheaper work. Now you are either a neoliberal and believe in the invisible hand, ergo capital is neutral and doesn't serve the capitalist, ergo everything is fine. Or you are critical and believe richness helps creating an income. For the second case everything has been said by original socialists, exactly for that scenario.
Deregulation and lower wages? Automation is going to annihilate millions of jobs in the coming decades, what are lower wages going to help, when there is no work?
Universal basic income and a complete shift in how we look at the need to work as a society are going to be the real solution.
Still though in response to automation being a more pressing issue than climate change. Id argue automation is something we have all the time in the world to figure out, climate change is not.
Well yes,millions of jobs will disappear because of automation. But the good news is milions of jobs will also appear because of automation. On an abstract level,the number of jobs is kinda irrelevant in the very end. What matters is the economic production. As long as production/captiva is growing we can all be better off all the time,job or not. It just comes down to how the production is being devided amongst the population.
The biggest thread to western economics and the world economy as a whole is demographics I think. When the world population starts to stabilize there will be an enormous crisis the seize of which we have never seen before.
That bolded part is only true when the gains from the productivity increase are spread among the population, which necessitates a more socialist political field. In a capitalistic system, the owner of the most robots will be the biggest winner and the resulting consumer prices don't really help people with no job. In my opinion it will lead to even bigger concentration of capital in a few hands.
I think he is saying the same thing and I believe you are both wrong. Your views, as well-meaning as they might be, are simply a bad abstraction of reality and the root of bad socialism. What is overall production? Surely, the Soviet Union had a great overall production. But it lacked mechanisms that made the economy produce what the people wanted and needed. It produced exactly what the central planners drew joy from, so mainly nukes, tanks and rockets.
Despite being extremely critical towards "capitalism" being a system that achieves that, I find this to be an insanely inspirational piece on the topic: https://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A
lol Milton Friedman, really?
The point is that everyone here agrees that capitalism is the best system, and since we are not in the 1980’s, we don’t believe anymore that unregulated unrestricted free market is a good option unless you are insanely rich and don’t care for anyone. There is a balance between the morally bankrupt randian « greed is good, be an egoistical douchebag » crap and far left fantasies.
By the way, schaf is right. Artificial intelligence and automation will require us to think out of the box because what is coming to us with our current thinking is an insane explosion of inequalities, and an impoverishment of a very large chunk of the population.
Not everyone
The big issue imo with automation is less about jobs and a lot more about the distribution of the gains in productivity. Capitalism doesn't have a way to address that widening gap, really it works to expand it until checked against it's will.
On September 10 2018 14:00 screamingpalm wrote: I've been trying to follow UK politics more, and find comfort that the centrists seem even more vicious towards progressives than even here in the US. Maybe a sign of things to come for us? Big fan of Mark McGowan, at times it seems hardly different from the same issues as the Democrats and Clinton et al as Labour and Blarites lol. And no real difference between our "liberal" (neoliberal) media and Tory dominated headlines there.
Maybe a sign of things to come, but unless the party membership of the Democrats skews very left, and is able to completely take over the party machinery at local and national levels, then there's little chance a leftist leader can get themselves as entrenched as Corbyn is currently (who, in spite of having control of literally every single mechanism for controlling Labour, still faces constant attacks). Corbyn's election to the leadership was also dependent on the change within the party a few years earlier to a one person, one vote system in internal leadership elections. That this change came before anyone perceived the rise of a radically left leader - rather than after, as it would have to do so now for the Democrats - also lessens the chances of similar success for those on the left within the Democratic Party.
On September 10 2018 17:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 10 2018 17:35 Big J wrote:
On September 10 2018 15:34 schaf wrote:
On September 10 2018 07:36 pmh wrote:
On September 10 2018 06:05 solidbebe wrote:
On September 10 2018 05:49 Big J wrote:
On September 10 2018 05:43 Artisreal wrote: @bigj: 500 elderly are purely assumed for the sake of argument here or am I missing something?
I think the more tangible threat to western countries is automation, even in front of climate change (albeit the latter being strikingly more imminent!). And nobody seems to have any clue how to tackle the challenge of rethinking work life for the masse (at least as far as I am aware of). This should be a prime target for a coordinated policy approach on a European level. At least research or strategic thinking wise because national parliaments are way too preoccupied dealing with the matter of the moment, the latest viral outrage.
I think there have been demonstrations in Chemnitz with as few as 300 people that have been sold to me as a major point of political focus these days. 500 elderly means that they are few and they are mostly old, but want to dictate their ancient views of cultural pureness over the young.
The measures against automation "for the masses" are quite simple: Deregulation and lower wages. You just make human labor competitive with new technology. Automation is eating heavily into jobs already, but new work is created instead. It is just cheaper work. Now you are either a neoliberal and believe in the invisible hand, ergo capital is neutral and doesn't serve the capitalist, ergo everything is fine. Or you are critical and believe richness helps creating an income. For the second case everything has been said by original socialists, exactly for that scenario.
Deregulation and lower wages? Automation is going to annihilate millions of jobs in the coming decades, what are lower wages going to help, when there is no work?
Universal basic income and a complete shift in how we look at the need to work as a society are going to be the real solution.
Still though in response to automation being a more pressing issue than climate change. Id argue automation is something we have all the time in the world to figure out, climate change is not.
Well yes,millions of jobs will disappear because of automation. But the good news is milions of jobs will also appear because of automation. On an abstract level,the number of jobs is kinda irrelevant in the very end. What matters is the economic production. As long as production/captiva is growing we can all be better off all the time,job or not. It just comes down to how the production is being devided amongst the population.
The biggest thread to western economics and the world economy as a whole is demographics I think. When the world population starts to stabilize there will be an enormous crisis the seize of which we have never seen before.
That bolded part is only true when the gains from the productivity increase are spread among the population, which necessitates a more socialist political field. In a capitalistic system, the owner of the most robots will be the biggest winner and the resulting consumer prices don't really help people with no job. In my opinion it will lead to even bigger concentration of capital in a few hands.
I think he is saying the same thing and I believe you are both wrong. Your views, as well-meaning as they might be, are simply a bad abstraction of reality and the root of bad socialism. What is overall production? Surely, the Soviet Union had a great overall production. But it lacked mechanisms that made the economy produce what the people wanted and needed. It produced exactly what the central planners drew joy from, so mainly nukes, tanks and rockets.
Despite being extremely critical towards "capitalism" being a system that achieves that, I find this to be an insanely inspirational piece on the topic: https://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A
lol Milton Friedman, really?
The point is that everyone here agrees that capitalism is the best system, and since we are not in the 1980’s, we don’t believe anymore that unregulated unrestricted free market is a good option unless you are insanely rich and don’t care for anyone. There is a balance between the morally bankrupt randian « greed is good, be an egoistical douchebag » crap and far left fantasies.
By the way, schaf is right. Artificial intelligence and automation will require us to think out of the box because what is coming to us with our current thinking is an insane explosion of inequalities, and an impoverishment of a very large chunk of the population.
Not everyone
The big issue imo with automation is less about jobs and a lot more about the distribution of the gains in productivity. Capitalism doesn't have a way to address that widening gap, really it works to expand it until checked against it's will.
Harder for me to parse sources for European news but it seems you are seeing a rise in homelessness in several European countries as well.
While I agree that widening wealth gap and unemployment are the real challenges our societies will face when it comes to the technological revolution to come, I disagree that there are no way to address those inequalities within a capitalist system. A strong welfare state, high taxation, emphasis on high quality, free education and so on and so forth are still the best tools we have.
We don’t know anything that remotely works outside capitalism. It’s just that between Norway and Texas, there is a lot of margin, within capitalist coordinates, to chose what kind of society one wants.
On September 10 2018 14:00 screamingpalm wrote: I've been trying to follow UK politics more, and find comfort that the centrists seem even more vicious towards progressives than even here in the US. Maybe a sign of things to come for us? Big fan of Mark McGowan, at times it seems hardly different from the same issues as the Democrats and Clinton et al as Labour and Blarites lol. And no real difference between our "liberal" (neoliberal) media and Tory dominated headlines there.
Maybe a sign of things to come, but unless the party membership of the Democrats skews very left, and is able to completely take over the party machinery at local and national levels, then there's little chance a leftist leader can get themselves as entrenched as Corbyn is currently (who, in spite of having control of literally every single mechanism for controlling Labour, still faces constant attacks). Corbyn's election to the leadership was also dependent on the change within the party a few years earlier to a one person, one vote system in internal leadership elections. That this change came before anyone perceived the rise of a radically left leader - rather than after, as it would have to do so now for the Democrats - also lessens the chances of similar success for those on the left within the Democratic Party.
I think people underestimate how much of a blundering idiot Corbyn is. I certainly did when the barrage of attacks started, and had great hopes in him. But I see the flack he is under less and less under an ideological « centre left vs left » angle and more and more as « party establishment vs a horrendous leader that makes one historical fuck up after another and is damning the party ».
On September 10 2018 14:00 screamingpalm wrote: I've been trying to follow UK politics more, and find comfort that the centrists seem even more vicious towards progressives than even here in the US. Maybe a sign of things to come for us? Big fan of Mark McGowan, at times it seems hardly different from the same issues as the Democrats and Clinton et al as Labour and Blarites lol. And no real difference between our "liberal" (neoliberal) media and Tory dominated headlines there.
I can't watch the video at work but one of the big differences between UK and US politics is the fluidity of the major parties. Its perfectly conceivable that all the moderates leave Labour (Corbyn has pretty much taken absolute power over the party for its members, instead of the 'establishment' that run it before) and form a new party. The way it looks at the moment is like the moderates are trying to poison the party on their way out of the door. There's resignations and accusations everywhere, and much of the Parliamentary Labour Party (the Blairite establishment) are actively working against their party wherever they can. I don't think you would see that kind of division in the US. Sure, people have their own agendas, but they will work together when they have to. Having the option to form a new party gives UK politicians more flexibility to rebel and cause problems for the leadership.
On September 10 2018 18:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 10 2018 14:00 screamingpalm wrote: I've been trying to follow UK politics more, and find comfort that the centrists seem even more vicious towards progressives than even here in the US. Maybe a sign of things to come for us? Big fan of Mark McGowan, at times it seems hardly different from the same issues as the Democrats and Clinton et al as Labour and Blarites lol. And no real difference between our "liberal" (neoliberal) media and Tory dominated headlines there.
Maybe a sign of things to come, but unless the party membership of the Democrats skews very left, and is able to completely take over the party machinery at local and national levels, then there's little chance a leftist leader can get themselves as entrenched as Corbyn is currently (who, in spite of having control of literally every single mechanism for controlling Labour, still faces constant attacks). Corbyn's election to the leadership was also dependent on the change within the party a few years earlier to a one person, one vote system in internal leadership elections. That this change came before anyone perceived the rise of a radically left leader - rather than after, as it would have to do so now for the Democrats - also lessens the chances of similar success for those on the left within the Democratic Party.
I think people underestimate how much of a blundering idiot Corbyn is. I certainly did when the barrage of attacks started, and had great hopes in him. But I see the flack he is under less and less under an ideological « centre left vs left » angle and more and more as « party establishment vs a horrendous leader that makes one historical fuck up after another and is damning the party ».
I don't see that he has made so many fuck ups. Compared to someone like Miliband or Theresa May he's practically a genius. It certainly looks like he fucks everything up, but that's a case of the aggregated media stories that, each taken on their own, is just a bunch of big nothings.
On September 10 2018 05:43 Artisreal wrote: @bigj: 500 elderly are purely assumed for the sake of argument here or am I missing something?
I think the more tangible threat to western countries is automation, even in front of climate change (albeit the latter being strikingly more imminent!). And nobody seems to have any clue how to tackle the challenge of rethinking work life for the masse (at least as far as I am aware of). This should be a prime target for a coordinated policy approach on a European level. At least research or strategic thinking wise because national parliaments are way too preoccupied dealing with the matter of the moment, the latest viral outrage.
I think there have been demonstrations in Chemnitz with as few as 300 people that have been sold to me as a major point of political focus these days. 500 elderly means that they are few and they are mostly old, but want to dictate their ancient views of cultural pureness over the young.
The measures against automation "for the masses" are quite simple: Deregulation and lower wages. You just make human labor competitive with new technology. Automation is eating heavily into jobs already, but new work is created instead. It is just cheaper work. Now you are either a neoliberal and believe in the invisible hand, ergo capital is neutral and doesn't serve the capitalist, ergo everything is fine. Or you are critical and believe richness helps creating an income. For the second case everything has been said by original socialists, exactly for that scenario.
Deregulation and lower wages? Automation is going to annihilate millions of jobs in the coming decades, what are lower wages going to help, when there is no work?
Universal basic income and a complete shift in how we look at the need to work as a society are going to be the real solution.
Still though in response to automation being a more pressing issue than climate change. Id argue automation is something we have all the time in the world to figure out, climate change is not.
Well yes,millions of jobs will disappear because of automation. But the good news is milions of jobs will also appear because of automation. On an abstract level,the number of jobs is kinda irrelevant in the very end. What matters is the economic production. As long as production/captiva is growing we can all be better off all the time,job or not. It just comes down to how the production is being devided amongst the population.
The biggest thread to western economics and the world economy as a whole is demographics I think. When the world population starts to stabilize there will be an enormous crisis the seize of which we have never seen before.
That bolded part is only true when the gains from the productivity increase are spread among the population, which necessitates a more socialist political field. In a capitalistic system, the owner of the most robots will be the biggest winner and the resulting consumer prices don't really help people with no job. In my opinion it will lead to even bigger concentration of capital in a few hands.
I think he is saying the same thing and I believe you are both wrong. Your views, as well-meaning as they might be, are simply a bad abstraction of reality and the root of bad socialism. What is overall production? Surely, the Soviet Union had a great overall production. But it lacked mechanisms that made the economy produce what the people wanted and needed. It produced exactly what the central planners drew joy from, so mainly nukes, tanks and rockets.
Despite being extremely critical towards "capitalism" being a system that achieves that, I find this to be an insanely inspirational piece on the topic: https://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A
I am not proposing socialism and I don't think what I said has much practical meaning right now,thats why I said "on an abstract level". And on an abstract level its true,only the production matters. The production is a "given fact" we can not activly chance it we can only try to steer it. Dividing the production is easy on the other hand,it can be done with a signature on a law. To include the soviet example I would like to clarify production a bit more. What is produced matters off course and we can take that into account by looking at the price of production at the world market for example. If lots of goods are produced that are worthless then they will have a low value. But that all goes way further into specifics then I intended.
On September 10 2018 05:43 Artisreal wrote: @bigj: 500 elderly are purely assumed for the sake of argument here or am I missing something?
I think the more tangible threat to western countries is automation, even in front of climate change (albeit the latter being strikingly more imminent!). And nobody seems to have any clue how to tackle the challenge of rethinking work life for the masse (at least as far as I am aware of). This should be a prime target for a coordinated policy approach on a European level. At least research or strategic thinking wise because national parliaments are way too preoccupied dealing with the matter of the moment, the latest viral outrage.
I think there have been demonstrations in Chemnitz with as few as 300 people that have been sold to me as a major point of political focus these days. 500 elderly means that they are few and they are mostly old, but want to dictate their ancient views of cultural pureness over the young.
The measures against automation "for the masses" are quite simple: Deregulation and lower wages. You just make human labor competitive with new technology. Automation is eating heavily into jobs already, but new work is created instead. It is just cheaper work. Now you are either a neoliberal and believe in the invisible hand, ergo capital is neutral and doesn't serve the capitalist, ergo everything is fine. Or you are critical and believe richness helps creating an income. For the second case everything has been said by original socialists, exactly for that scenario.
Deregulation and lower wages? Automation is going to annihilate millions of jobs in the coming decades, what are lower wages going to help, when there is no work?
Universal basic income and a complete shift in how we look at the need to work as a society are going to be the real solution.
Still though in response to automation being a more pressing issue than climate change. Id argue automation is something we have all the time in the world to figure out, climate change is not.
Well yes,millions of jobs will disappear because of automation. But the good news is milions of jobs will also appear because of automation. On an abstract level,the number of jobs is kinda irrelevant in the very end. What matters is the economic production. As long as production/captiva is growing we can all be better off all the time,job or not. It just comes down to how the production is being devided amongst the population.
The biggest thread to western economics and the world economy as a whole is demographics I think. When the world population starts to stabilize there will be an enormous crisis the seize of which we have never seen before.
That bolded part is only true when the gains from the productivity increase are spread among the population, which necessitates a more socialist political field. In a capitalistic system, the owner of the most robots will be the biggest winner and the resulting consumer prices don't really help people with no job. In my opinion it will lead to even bigger concentration of capital in a few hands.
I think he is saying the same thing and I believe you are both wrong. Your views, as well-meaning as they might be, are simply a bad abstraction of reality and the root of bad socialism. What is overall production? Surely, the Soviet Union had a great overall production. But it lacked mechanisms that made the economy produce what the people wanted and needed. It produced exactly what the central planners drew joy from, so mainly nukes, tanks and rockets.
Despite being extremely critical towards "capitalism" being a system that achieves that, I find this to be an insanely inspirational piece on the topic: https://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A
lol Milton Friedman, really?
The point is that everyone here agrees that capitalism is the best system, and since we are not in the 1980’s, we don’t believe anymore that unregulated unrestricted free market is a good option unless you are insanely rich and don’t care for anyone. There is a balance between the morally bankrupt randian « greed is good, be an egoistical douchebag » crap and far left fantasies.
By the way, schaf is right. Artificial intelligence and automation will require us to think out of the box because what is coming to us with our current thinking is an insane explosion of inequalities, and an impoverishment of a very large chunk of the population.
I have to inquire, what is "capitalism" and what is an "unregulated unrestricted free market"? And who are those angels that made those rules in such a way that I have to follow them?
The reason I like this argument of Friedman is that it is philosophically sound. But if you really think about it, it is easily useable against any common definition of "capitalism" itself as well. Or as I like to put it: The absence of rules is not equivalent to the presence of freedom.
And no, I don't see "a balance". That is your personal opinion, not mine. I believe that, as someone at the very bottom of the wealth distribution and regardless how much I work and how highly I educate myself, it is my personal self-interest to have as many people united to stand with me against the rich as possible. If I want freedom, there is no way around wanting it for everyone else as well and solidarizing with the weakest, given the extremist feudal-inheritance society we live in.
On September 10 2018 05:43 Artisreal wrote: @bigj: 500 elderly are purely assumed for the sake of argument here or am I missing something?
I think the more tangible threat to western countries is automation, even in front of climate change (albeit the latter being strikingly more imminent!). And nobody seems to have any clue how to tackle the challenge of rethinking work life for the masse (at least as far as I am aware of). This should be a prime target for a coordinated policy approach on a European level. At least research or strategic thinking wise because national parliaments are way too preoccupied dealing with the matter of the moment, the latest viral outrage.
I think there have been demonstrations in Chemnitz with as few as 300 people that have been sold to me as a major point of political focus these days. 500 elderly means that they are few and they are mostly old, but want to dictate their ancient views of cultural pureness over the young.
The measures against automation "for the masses" are quite simple: Deregulation and lower wages. You just make human labor competitive with new technology. Automation is eating heavily into jobs already, but new work is created instead. It is just cheaper work. Now you are either a neoliberal and believe in the invisible hand, ergo capital is neutral and doesn't serve the capitalist, ergo everything is fine. Or you are critical and believe richness helps creating an income. For the second case everything has been said by original socialists, exactly for that scenario.
Deregulation and lower wages? Automation is going to annihilate millions of jobs in the coming decades, what are lower wages going to help, when there is no work?
Universal basic income and a complete shift in how we look at the need to work as a society are going to be the real solution.
Still though in response to automation being a more pressing issue than climate change. Id argue automation is something we have all the time in the world to figure out, climate change is not.
Well yes,millions of jobs will disappear because of automation. But the good news is milions of jobs will also appear because of automation. On an abstract level,the number of jobs is kinda irrelevant in the very end. What matters is the economic production. As long as production/captiva is growing we can all be better off all the time,job or not. It just comes down to how the production is being devided amongst the population.
The biggest thread to western economics and the world economy as a whole is demographics I think. When the world population starts to stabilize there will be an enormous crisis the seize of which we have never seen before.
That bolded part is only true when the gains from the productivity increase are spread among the population, which necessitates a more socialist political field. In a capitalistic system, the owner of the most robots will be the biggest winner and the resulting consumer prices don't really help people with no job. In my opinion it will lead to even bigger concentration of capital in a few hands.
I think he is saying the same thing and I believe you are both wrong. Your views, as well-meaning as they might be, are simply a bad abstraction of reality and the root of bad socialism. What is overall production? Surely, the Soviet Union had a great overall production. But it lacked mechanisms that made the economy produce what the people wanted and needed. It produced exactly what the central planners drew joy from, so mainly nukes, tanks and rockets.
Despite being extremely critical towards "capitalism" being a system that achieves that, I find this to be an insanely inspirational piece on the topic: https://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A
I am not proposing socialism and I don't think what I said has much practical meaning right now,thats why I said "on an abstract level". And on an abstract level its true,only the production matters. The production is a "given fact" we can not activly chance it we can only try to steer it. Dividing the production is easy on the other hand,it can be done with a signature on a law. To include the soviet example I would like to clarify production a bit more. What is produced matters off course and we can take that into account by looking at the price of production at the world market for example. If lots of goods are produced that are worthless then they will have a low value. But that all goes way further into specifics then I intended. I am looking at this from a abstract level,simple math. We have the pie and we have to divide this pie. What in the end only matters is the seize of the pie. Its same as with debt,people worry about debt all the time but debt does not directly effect the seize of the pie,it only decides how the pie (and future economic pies) are being divided. It is important to realize this I think.
No, sorry that is just wrong. You can't just divide production by law. If you tax my production/consumption I will change my production/consumption behaviour. At worst your overall production goes out of the window.
That's what I mean that you are taking a bad socialist stance. You start off with the pie, as if everyone performs their work independent from what they will gain and as if to produce a common thing. The pie is a lie. The part of the baking process that every individual performs is related to the size of the cake pop or donut they end up with.
"We" (who subscried me to your collective?) don't "have" (having is a social status of being a socially accepted controller over something) the pie. Your abstraction works only in a Socialist Utopia in which everyone gives according to their ability to everyone according to their needs, indepedent of what they give or receive.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://anticap.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/productivity-wages-g20.jpg)
