I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Guaranteed income.

You realize that you're going to have to vote for the candidates of the left to get this, right?

ETA: Also, that this is completely incompatable with a top marginal tax rate of 25%?

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Adder

You realize that you're going to have to vote for the candidates of the left to get this, right?

Guaranteed income, free college, free medical. The person who says that WILL win next time.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

"Yes we can"
"Hope and change"
"Make America Great Again"

???

Hill's was "Better Together"

point made.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

No, you moron, I've disputed that tech is going to leave us with masses of people that won't be able to find work. You do see how that's different, right?

Bullshit. You've repeatedly offered the Econ 101 argument, "Tech and automation will create more jobs over time, just like all new technologies of the past."

And you had to be dragged to the proposition you offered above, after arguing "Everything is great! Unemployment is low and it's all going to work out just as it always does!" for years.

You're revising your position now, for obvious reasons.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You realize that you're going to have to vote for the candidates of the left to get this, right?

ETA: Also, that this is completely incompatable with a top marginal tax rate of 25%?

Yes.

Scrap all the agencies and people who administer programs (the bureaucratic middlemen) and just give money - and nothing else - to people directly and a shift to guaranteed income pays for itself.

Cost of middleman govt administrator (salary + benefits) is way greater than cost of just giving the person a decent guaranteed income.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

She was, but not as much as Trump falsely promised. YOU know that.



And again, you're literally saying a thing that people have been saying about technology for millenia. Even specifically as to robotics, you're saying what people have been saying for half a century.

Which isn't to say that automation isn't going to continue to cause big changes. It is, but it's just not going to be the hellscape you're envisioning (by changing one thing while holding everythign else constant).



They sure as shit aren't going to be able to as long as stupid people keep equating trying to make incremental improvements with actively doing harm to working people.



This is just like the industrial revolution, you fricking dolt.

She was not. That's ludicrous.

Tech and automation and the demographics of today render your historical comparisons meaningless. It is different this time. Compare the numbers adversely impacted by the industrial revolution, and the labor removing capacity of the tech of that day to the capacity of today's tech. Apples and watermelons. Giant, 600 lb watermelons.

Are you even capable of creative thinking?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Exactly. Pretty good for a state that has put very little effort in to it. Mass is up to 100K jobs in the sector and we're just getting started: http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/ne...t-time-in.html

There are tech sectors that don't just automate but create new jobs - back when there was a ton of activity digging cables was an example, and solar is another one because of the need for manufacture, installation and upkeep of devices. Solar is probably a more labor-intensive industry than most other energy production methods, so as you see a transition from coal and oil to solar you may well see a net increase in jobs, though they'll be spread out differently.

Also, a real odd counter on employment in some of the red states: we are moving in agriculture toward more labor intensive ag instead of fully automated ag. I was getting a run down on this from a red-state Dem. Senator who also runs an organic farm. He employs significantly more people than his non-organic neighbor. He thinks this will be important to rural employment. (He also noted there will be areas, not including his state, where the pot industry may lead to intensive cultivation rural jobs that are now outsourced to Mexico).

You know anyone at a fund covering energy? Sing him the song of solar. Ask him how that sector's treated him... how many jobs he thinks that'll create, and how much of the grid it can power at full capacity.

Nuclear. That's the clean energy we need to embrace.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Actual policy save guaranteed income will not work. (Well, war would as well, but that's a total reset situation.)

You're all navel gazing.

This is why it's pointless discussing anything with you. I imagine at every leap in technology throughout history you would have held the same position. You can run screaming like some dim-witted chicken little if you want. The rest of us will try to evolve and create as many jobs in new industries as possible.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Bullshit. You've repeatedly offered the Econ 101 argument, "Tech and automation will create more jobs over time, just like all new technologies of the past."

You also know you've stated the Econ 101 argument wrong, right?

And you had to be dragged to the proposition you offered above, after arguing "Everything is great! Unemployment is low and it's all going to work out just as it always does!" for years.

I've repeatedly pointed out how there's still slack in labor markets but things have returned to historical norms and thus far appear heading back toward the levels of the recent past.

Meanwhile, you think a couple of million people out of the labor force is the be all and end all of all politics.

You're revising your position now, for obvious reasons.

Uh huh.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Scrap all the agencies and people who administer programs (the bureaucratic middlemen) and just give money - and nothing else - to people directly and a shift to guaranteed income pays for itself.

You know this is not true, right? Like, you've looked at some numbers??

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She was not. That's ludicrous.

You could not be a better example of motivated reasoning.

Tech and automation and the demographics of today render your historical comparisons meaningless. It is different this time.

That's what they said every other time.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

how much of the grid it can power at full capacity.

Man, is there anything you're not wrong about? Solar has already won. It's only a matter of time.

Nuclear. That's the clean energy we need to embrace.

Now I get it. Like Trump, your view of the world is based on "facts" that are a decade out of date.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is why it's pointless discussing anything with you. I imagine at every leap in technology throughout history you would have held the same position. You can run screaming like some dim-witted chicken little if you want. The rest of us will try to evolve and create as many jobs in new industries as possible.

TM

You're missing the point. The aim right now is to totally eliminate labor costs. Robert Reich calls it the "Vicious Cycle."

There. Is. No. One. Trying. To. As. You. Say, "create as many new jobs in as many new industries as possible."

The aim in new industries is to create as much profit as possible by utilizing the cost savings provided by tech. The aim in old industries is to mine out profits by replacing labor with tech.

Labor is a cost to businesses. From a corporate profit perspective, we have stumbled into the Holy Grail. The current tech and automation removes the biggest cost in the way of profits to management and shareholders. Unlike prior labor eliminating advancements, this one rids the balance sheet of white collar management and administrative position costs. It also eliminates professional services costs.

Your statement above aligns you with Trump -- trying to recapture that which no one in corporate America desires.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

You also know you've stated the Econ 101 argument wrong, right?

I've repeated what you've stated.

I've repeatedly pointed out how there's still slack in labor markets but things have returned to historical norms and thus far appear heading back toward the levels of the recent past.

Yes. It's all normal. Hence, we just elected Trump.

Do we need to have the discussion about the quality of the jobs created right now, wage stagnation, etc. again?

Meanwhile, you think a couple of million people out of the labor force is the be all and end all of all politics.

No. I think unemployment is a completely useless metric. Completely and utterly fucking useless. Just like GDP (particularly as recently revised). I think the quality of the jobs being created versus those lost, wage stagnation, and automation are the measures worth examining. And I've a lot of company there. It's only dinosaurs who are even still paying attention to U3 unemployment.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You're missing the point.

You need to retire these words, set forth in this order, from your vocabulary. You've yet to make a point that isn't embarrassingly obvious.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The aim right now is to totally eliminate labor costs.

This has always been the goal.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There. Is. No. One. Trying. To. As. You. Say, "create as many new jobs in as many new industries as possible."

Bullshit. There are entire industries which we should be leading, which we aren't because Republicans refuse to make the necessary investment.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The aim in new industries is to create as many profits as possible by utilizing the cost savings provided by tech. The aim in old industries is to mine out profits by replacing labor with tech.

You realize that this is the exact same thought, don't you? And, again, this has always been the goal.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Labor is a cost to businesses.

You sound dumber when you say simplistic shit like it's some sort of revelation.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yous statement above aligns you with Trump -- trying to recapture that which no one in corporate America desires.

Your ability to say stupid shit is without equal. I'm tired of it, so go play with Adder.

TM