Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Actually, I didn't intend to say any of what you wrote. My point was limited and it was this: The concept of a "Corporate Progressive" is an oxymoron.

I was responding to Adder's post, not yours.

The rest of what you've written here is an ornate strawman.

Thank you for the "ornate" part. But why is it a straw man?

But oddly, it proves my point. I think you hold yourself out as a progressive. This would mean you care about people. But actually, you don't really care about people. You're a closeted libertarian. Like me, you don't see any solution for lower skilled workers with which you can live. As you said, "What can you do?" But like me, you don't want to see any policies implemented that possibly harm your revenue stream. So you are vehemently anti-protectionist. Like me. And like me, you don't mind paying a few extra dollars at tax time to protect the status quo that delivers money to you far in excess of what you're worth, at cost to lower level workers who are being paid far less than they should be paid.

I'm not sure where you get your ideas about what I think. I am OK with policies that could possibly harm my revenue stream. For example, I think consumer protection laws in my industry are a great idea. I'm for them. And I don't mind paying in taxes, but I want to pay them to make things better for people who aren't fortunate and to create opportunity. I'm not paying taxes to protect the status quo.

I don't get why you think the status quo delivers money to me far in excess of what I'm worth, or why you think "lower level workers are being paid far less than they should be paid." Are you a Marxist? What magickal device are you using to determine what people are really worth?

We are both enjoying an upward skewing of wages to those in upper middle and top tier management, and the types of professionals that service them.

???

Where we differ, but not much, is I'd also like to avoid taxes. I'm trying to skin it from the revenue angle (keeping more of the revenue for myself) and the tax angle.

You are more selfish and cynical than I am. I am much more willing to vote against my economic self-interest.

I can't be called a "progressive" economically because, well, I'm not. But neither can you. We're a pair of confused sorta-libertarians who differ on amount of taxes they're willing to pay.

I take great offense to being called a sorta-libertarian, sir. In another day, I would challenge you to a duel, or some such thing, but sadly our modern mores and the great distance between us leave me no such option. I must take solace in telling you that you're wrong.

A progressive, OTOH, would demand that we find a way to share the revenue with lower end workers. A progressive would never use the argument that keeping goods cheap for underpaid workers is more important than sharing the revenue with them to allow them to buy goods.

But that's not all that I said. I agree that it's foolish to eschew tariffs to keep things cheap for workers who don't have good jobs. But I also think that tariffs are extraordinarily disruptive because they shelter inefficient industries and harm good jobs. They limit possibilities.

But we don't care. As you said, and I agree, "What are you going to do?"

My plan is to find something better to do that what you've suggested. One obstacle is people like you, who complain about how bad things are but find convenient reasons to shit on any suggestion to do things better. Another obstacle is people like Adder, who are content to point out that you're wrong.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

My offering: tariffs are the wrong tool here, the right tool is increased advocacy for unionization abroad, the development of higher pay structures in other countries, and a general increase in the integration of the world economy. We do this through trade agreements, though I'll be the first to admit we also do other things through trade agreements of which I am less fond.

There are also ways to spread the wealth from the Boston/SF markets into other parts of the country, and we can talk about that, too, but one big problem is it often involves things other parts of the country are resistant to, like investing in infrastructure and education to a greater degree and changing your state spending and taxing pattern to one that looks more like California and Massachusetts.

In days gone by, people would move from other places to places like California and Massachusetts, but the crazy zoning policies in coastal metropolises makes that more and more expensive. I blame Atticus, for never coming around any more.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

My offering: tariffs are the wrong tool here, the right tool is increased advocacy for unionization abroad, the development of higher pay structures in other countries, and a general increase in the integration of the world economy. We do this through trade agreements, though I'll be the first to admit we also do other things through trade agreements of which I am less fond.

2. But this doesn't address automation's impact. This is what drives me nuts about tariffs. They accelerate domestic automation.

There are also ways to spread the wealth from the Boston/SF markets into other parts of the country, and we can talk about that, too, but one big problem is it often involves things other parts of the country are resistant to, like investing in infrastructure and education to a greater degree and changing your state spending and taxing pattern to one that looks more like California and Massachusetts.

My state cannot have nice things. Period. I've tried to do infrastructure here and it's fucking painful. The people are just fucking stupid. For every smart person in a govt agency, there are 20 absolutely useless "human loaves" (often patronage hires). Dumb as fuck, concerned only with CYA and getting that pension, or getting re-elected. And the unions are possibly even dumber. They'll fight any and every delivery method that seems more efficient than traditional procurement. They'd rather no work than delivery of multiple projects at once that might mine efficiencies. Any threat to their ability to maximize every dollar for extras and change orders on a single project is viewed as an act of war.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In days gone by, people would move from other places to places like California and Massachusetts, but the crazy zoning policies in coastal metropolises makes that more and more expensive. I blame Atticus, for never coming around any more.

Dude, a low skilled worker in Arkansas displaced from his gig by a robot is not going to re-emerge in Palo Alto as a tech entrepreneur. This is a silly argument.

The problem we have is a glut of bodies and increasingly less for them to do.

There is no solution to this except for more open borders. Americans need to start moving abroad, the way Europeans moved here in the early 20th century. And we need to let immigrants move here more easily.

The problem with that is nobody wants to let outsiders in, including us. You think Norway is eager to share the oil riches with goofy American economic refugees? Does Australia want an influx of rust belt factory workers looking for a fresh start?

The Forgotten of Flyoverland are, I believe the term is, "legacy liabilities."

ETA: And we've not even gotten to the soon-to-be economic refugees. Shall Dubai open its arms for all the STEM degree holders when that glut hits? Maybe put them all on the country's man made archipelago. Call it Asperger's Island. And the big daddy of them all will be the financial workers displaced by algorithms in the coming years. Does any nation want America's newly-unemployed and most entitled asshats soiling its cafes, demanding bottle service and molesting the locals' daughters?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

My plan is to find something better to do that what you've suggested. One obstacle is people like you, who complain about how bad things are but find convenient reasons to shit on any suggestion to do things better. Another obstacle is people like Adder, who are content to point out that you're wrong.

I haven't suggested anything. I'm serious when I say I See No Fix.

I just wanted to say, "Hey, none of us have any business calling ourselves progressives." A true progressive would be doing things none of us would like economically.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Dude, a low skilled worker in Arkansas displaced from his gig by a robot is not going to re-emerge in Palo Alto as a tech entrepreneur. This is a silly argument.

Dude, a low-skilled worker in Arkansas displaced from her gig could move to Palo Alto to be a low-skilled worker there for higher wages, if only she could afford to find a place to live here. Stanford Hospital hires lots of traveling nurses (not a low-skilled job) from poorer parts of the country. They talk about moving here, until they figure out that they'd have to live in Stockton or Gilroy to dream of owning a home. The lack of housing is a tax on everyone, one that pays off for people who currently own real estate.

The problem we have is a glut of bodies and increasingly less for them to do.

There is no solution to this except for more open borders. Americans need to start moving abroad, the way Europeans moved here in the early 20th century.

That helps why?

And we need to let immigrants move here more easily.

That helps why?

The problem with that is nobody wants to let outsiders in, including us.

You just said that the problem is a glut of bodies, but you want more? Attention span much?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I haven't suggested anything. I'm serious when I say I See No Fix.

I believe you are. You can be cynical and serious and self-interested all at the same time.

I just wanted to say, "Hey, none of us have any business calling ourselves progressives." A true progressive would be doing things none of us would like economically.

And I wanted to say, get bent. So you're not a progressive. If you want to pretend that you have company, maybe you can fool yourself, but not the rest of us.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In days gone by, people would move from other places to places like California and Massachusetts, but the crazy zoning policies in coastal metropolises makes that more and more expensive. I blame Atticus, for never coming around any more.

It's true, though in part I blame myself, too, for the Atticus S&M posts.

Massachusetts actually has more net immigration today than it did 20 years ago, but I think we have more small urban communities with less onerous zoning than the bay area, for example.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Dude, a low-skilled worker in Arkansas displaced from her gig could move to Palo Alto to be a low-skilled worker there for higher wages, if only she could afford to find a place to live here. Stanford Hospital hires lots of traveling nurses (not a low-skilled job) from poorer parts of the country. They talk about moving here, until they figure out that they'd have to live in Stockton or Gilroy to dream of owning a home. The lack of housing is a tax on everyone, one that pays off for people who currently own real estate.



That helps why?



That helps why?



You just said that the problem is a glut of bodies, but you want more? Attention span much?

The immigrants who'd come here would create communities and help the economy.

The people who are being displaced here are, it is proven from their track record, not so good at doing that here. They just get angry and vote for tariffs.

It's an iffy trade, but I think a guy willing to come here from far abroad is going to be a hell of a lot more ambitious than what's here now.

ETA: And I'm assuming as people emigrate from here, others will immigrate here, and the numbers will stay somewhat the same. The idea is we'd just shed the dead weight.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I believe you are. You can be cynical and serious and self-interested all at the same time.



And I wanted to say, get bent. So you're not a progressive. If you want to pretend that you have company, maybe you can fool yourself, but not the rest of us.

You believe I'm suggesting what? Please, for God's sake, if you know I've got The Answer to This Mess, but only you can explain what it is, my mind is yours. Read it and tell me what I'm suggesting.

You're not a progressive. Not at all.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The immigrants who'd come here would create communities and help the economy.

The people who are being displaced here are, it is proven from their track record, not so good at doing that here. They just get angry and vote for tariffs.

It's an iffy trade, but I think a guy willing to come here from far abroad is going to be a hell of a lot more ambitious than what's here now.

ETA: And I'm assuming as people emigrate from here, others will immigrate here, and the numbers will stay somewhat the same. The idea is we'd just shed the dead weight.

So the problem is not really robots, but the anger and lack of ambition of many Americans? Immigrants can grow the economy in the age of robots, but Americans can't? That's an interesting thesis, and puts your robot fears in a new light.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The problem we have is a glut of bodies and increasingly less for them to do.

There is so much that could be done, from just old fashioned infrastructure (fixing roads and bridges, building trains) to tech infrastructure (broadband) to a Green New Deal (massive investment in green energy and technology). A lot of those jobs are accessible to low skill workers.

We don't do those things because one party either actively campaigns against them as bad (trains) or refuses to pay the taxes needed to do them.

Americans need to start moving abroad, the way Europeans moved here in the early 20th century.

That a negligible number of people leave American, and none who are poor, leave American is kinda a big thing that undermines your vision of vasts suffering. People move the other direction for pretty solid reasons.

The problem with that is nobody wants to let outsiders in, including us.

Who's nobody? I'd like to let more outsiders in to America.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The immigrants who'd come here would create communities and help the economy.

The people who are being displaced here are, it is proven from their track record, not so good at doing that here. They just get angry and vote for tariffs.

It's an iffy trade, but I think a guy willing to come here from far abroad is going to be a hell of a lot more ambitious than what's here now.

ETA: And I'm assuming as people emigrate from here, others will immigrate here, and the numbers will stay somewhat the same. The idea is we'd just shed the dead weight.

Why would the dead weight volunteer to move? Why would they not be dead weight after having done so?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The immigrants who'd come here would create communities and help the economy.

I suspect the best thing any community can do to help their economy is help build mosques, temples, synagogues and Christian churches that have services in Spanish, Chinese, and other languages.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So the problem is not really robots, but the anger and lack of ambition of many Americans? Immigrants can grow the economy in the age of robots, but Americans can't? That's an interesting thesis, and puts your robot fears in a new light.

Like I said, I do not have a fix. But one thing we could do which would assuage some of the problems would be to globally relax immigration.

Low skill workers replaced by robots are done. Moderate to higher skilled workers replaced by robots can learn new skills.