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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

One thing Hill missed completely was the need for a campaign focused on shallow unachievable principles rather than detailed ways of improving peoples lives. Because she had like 20 speeches and 30 position papers about how to achieve as much of the above as possible.

She wasn't going to improve the lives of any trump voters. They knew that.

And neither is he.

Reread the part of ferret's post where he agrees with me about future unemployment. The outlook is beyond bleak. Hillary offered nothing more than the status quo. Trump offered lies. Either way, the Trump voters were and are fucked.

"Improving peoples lives… " How naïve are you? The best any politician will be able to do for most of the people becoming unemployed is provide a guaranteed income. You think any candidate is going to be able to do that within the next decade?

There is no political fix. Drive that into your skull and we can have a sensible conversation. Persist with delusions like Hillary would have somehow "improved" the terminal situations of the current and future unemployed in an aggressively automating age, and all I can do is slap my forehead reading your bullshit.

Now tell me a bedtime story about re-training, education, and how this is just like the industrial revolution. Jesus Fucking Christ...

Forget about politicians. Their toolbox is effectively exhausted.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Reread the part of ferret's post where he agrees with me about future unemployment.

I would, but I think you've done it enough to have us all covered.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I would, but I think you've done it enough to have us all covered.

TM

It's a rare and glorious thing to get anybody here to admit anything contrary to the consensus. I'll happily wallow in the tiniest victory.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I would, but I think you've done it enough to have us all covered.

TM

He's already gotten a tattoo containing ferret's text.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

He's already gotten a tattoo containing ferret's text.

Best suggestion for a tattoo for the Trump years I've seen: "Marbury v. Madison, Motherfuckers."

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's a rare and glorious thing to get anybody here to admit anything contrary to the consensus. I'll happily wallow in the tiniest victory.

This is completely false. If you had paid even the slightest bit of attention to our back-and-forth on this very issue, I conceded the fact that jobs are quickly becoming obsolete all over the place.* Your only responses have been to say (i) actual policy proposals by Hillary and Democrats that have been obstructed that would grant some relief even in the face of an inevitable march to obsolescence (as opposed to the fantasy proposed by Trump) are meaningless because it's only a matter of time and (ii) actual policy doesn't win elections.

And apparently, on your pat-yourself-on-the-back tour, you have grown unaware of the fact that you are just repeating yourself on this issue ad nauseum.

TM

*I hope you realize that this reality is not something you discovered or even brought to our attention on this board.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is completely false. If you had paid even the slightest bit of attention to our back-and-forth on this very issue, I conceded the fact that jobs are quickly becoming obsolete all over the place.* Your only responses have been to say (i) actual policy proposals by Hillary and Democrats that have been obstructed that would grant some relief even in the face of an inevitable march to obsolescence (as opposed to the fantasy proposed by Trump) are meaningless because it's only a matter of time and (ii) actual policy doesn't win elections.

And apparently, on your pat-yourself-on-the-back tour, you have grown unaware of the fact that you are just repeating yourself on this issue ad nauseum.

TM

*I hope you realize that this reality is not something you discovered or even brought to our attention on this board.

Just to expand, assuming this is a place where we're not just screaming "Jobs!" and calling it done, but where people actually care about policy (Sebby, you can stop reading), there are actually a wide range of job-focused policy initiatives that have been high priorities on the Democratic side:

(1) higher minimum wages - something the Rs are dead set against that are a fundamental driver of quality of life for many working class Americans;

(2) ACA has turned into a phenomenal jobs program and fees one of the most significant growth industries we have now, and does it across the country; Again, the Rs are dead set against it;

(3) funding for "spark" programs - key initiatives at universities or industry research centers - has always been a democratic initiatives; this is another one where Ds push, Rs obstruct;

(4) Clean energy initiatives, including spark programs; Rs want oil based industry, and would argue that's the jobs expander;

(5) ongoing support for union rights under direct attack from Republicans, especially in places like Wisconsin;

(6) infrastructure programs; this is something traditionally opposed by Rs that Trump is actually pushing, but Ds have pushed for all along;

(7) trade deals that have included provisions requiring union protection and prohibitions on slave and child labor; this is a really key item that you only see under Dem Presidents.

Of course, we could also just look at how jobs have fared under the last Dem and last R presidents.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Just to expand, assuming this is a place where we're not just screaming "Jobs!" and calling it done, but where people actually care about policy (Sebby, you can stop reading), there are actually a wide range of job-focused policy initiatives that have been high priorities on the Democratic side:

(1) higher minimum wages - something the Rs are dead set against that are a fundamental driver of quality of life for many working class Americans;

(2) ACA has turned into a phenomenal jobs program and fees one of the most significant growth industries we have now, and does it across the country; Again, the Rs are dead set against it;

(3) funding for "spark" programs - key initiatives at universities or industry research centers - has always been a democratic initiatives; this is another one where Ds push, Rs obstruct;

(4) Clean energy initiatives, including spark programs; Rs want oil based industry, and would argue that's the jobs expander;

(5) ongoing support for union rights under direct attack from Republicans, especially in places like Wisconsin;

(6) infrastructure programs; this is something traditionally opposed by Rs that Trump is actually pushing, but Ds have pushed for all along;

(7) trade deals that have included provisions requiring union protection and prohibitions on slave and child labor; this is a really key item that you only see under Dem Presidents.

Of course, we could also just look at how jobs have fared under the last Dem and last R presidents.

Something like this??? http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/02/08/j...y-on-the-rise/

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is completely false. If you had paid even the slightest bit of attention to our back-and-forth on this very issue, I conceded the fact that jobs are quickly becoming obsolete all over the place.* Your only responses have been to say (i) actual policy proposals by Hillary and Democrats that have been obstructed that would grant some relief even in the face of an inevitable march to obsolescence (as opposed to the fantasy proposed by Trump) are meaningless because it's only a matter of time and (ii) actual policy doesn't win elections.

And apparently, on your pat-yourself-on-the-back tour, you have grown unaware of the fact that you are just repeating yourself on this issue ad nauseum.

TM

*I hope you realize that this reality is not something you discovered or even brought to our attention on this board.

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.

And perhaps not you, but a lot of this board (notably Adder) has bitterly refuted the suggestion that tech is destroying jobs and not going to bring anywhere near as many new ones in its wake. I've repeated that as nauseum for years because there remain a number of people here who still believe the "Buggywhip Paradigm" from Econ 101.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Just to expand, assuming this is a place where we're not just screaming "Jobs!" and calling it done, but where people actually care about policy (Sebby, you can stop reading), there are actually a wide range of job-focused policy initiatives that have been high priorities on the Democratic side:

(1) higher minimum wages - something the Rs are dead set against that are a fundamental driver of quality of life for many working class Americans;

(2) ACA has turned into a phenomenal jobs program and fees one of the most significant growth industries we have now, and does it across the country; Again, the Rs are dead set against it;

(3) funding for "spark" programs - key initiatives at universities or industry research centers - has always been a democratic initiatives; this is another one where Ds push, Rs obstruct;

(4) Clean energy initiatives, including spark programs; Rs want oil based industry, and would argue that's the jobs expander;

(5) ongoing support for union rights under direct attack from Republicans, especially in places like Wisconsin;

(6) infrastructure programs; this is something traditionally opposed by Rs that Trump is actually pushing, but Ds have pushed for all along;

(7) trade deals that have included provisions requiring union protection and prohibitions on slave and child labor; this is a really key item that you only see under Dem Presidents.

Of course, we could also just look at how jobs have fared under the last Dem and last R presidents.

Most of this will just accelerate automation.

This is such tired iron, I don't even know where to start. I love infrastructure, but even that is more a feel good/necessity program than actual serious employment fix.

Guaranteed income. Get ready to hear me repeat the shit out of that. Capitalism has hit a rut. And no -- we can't grow our way out of it either. That's the cause of the environmental crises!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Something like this??? http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/02/08/j...y-on-the-rise/

Something like 100x that.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Something like this??? http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/02/08/j...y-on-the-rise/

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).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

One thing Hill missed completely was the need for a campaign focused on shallow unachievable principles rather than detailed ways of improving peoples lives. Because she had like 20 speeches and 30 position papers about how to achieve as much of the above as possible.

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

???

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She wasn't going to improve the lives of any trump voters.

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

The outlook is beyond bleak.

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).

You think any candidate is going to be able to do that within the next decade?

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.

how this is just like the industrial revolution.

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

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And perhaps not you, but a lot of this board (notably Adder) has bitterly refuted the suggestion that tech is destroying jobs and not going to bring anywhere near as many new ones in its wake.

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?