Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Artificial Intelligence May Cost US Millions Of Jobs, Increase Inequality, If Social Safety Nets Aren’t Strengthened, White House Report Warns; Maybe time to get that college degree after all, you free marketers
Topic Started: Dec 22 2016, 02:33 AM (2,391 Views)
peewee

George Aligator
Dec 26 2016, 12:15 PM
Artificial Intelligence May Cost US Millions Of Jobs, But of course these are human jobs. being taken by smart machines. If these jobs were being taken by Mexicans, the right wing would be out there taking drastic action, but of course smart machines are not considered a race of foreigners. If you lose you job because the boss has hired an illegal immigrant willing to work longer hours for less money, you are ready to storm out and vote for Trump. If the boss buys a machine able to work longer hours for less money, you clap you little paws and chant USA! Number One! while god damning the unions for trying to destroy America. This is reaganomics for working people in the new era.
Hindi would be more effected when driverless taxis gain popularity. There may come a day when our commercial and cargo airliners will be drones. Drones are now replacing the Air Force need for two pilot fighter planes. All commercial and cargo jets are flown by two pilots. AI could replace one of the two in the xxxxpit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
In the late 50's and 60's they promised us flying hover cars. I'm still waiting. I don't see the adoption of driverless cars to be as broad as you predict. At the very least your time line is more science fiction than reality. It's pretty unrealistic to think that all those drivers will be out of work within 10 years if at all. I think your expectations far outreach the current state of the technology and social acceptance. Asking me what fields they would be retrained for is like asking how many is blue. Was it rhetorical? How am I, or you supposed to know what choices someone else is going to make in the future?


They're field testing autonomous cars already. Perhaps the time line I laid out is too ambitious, but it's coming. Unlike the promise of flying hover cars, autonomous driverless cars are already in the works. Refusing to see and accept the change that is happening before our eyes doesn't change anything.

Quote:
 
I've already addressed your 'work for the sake of work' theory. It's as unsustainable and unrealistic as a pay check for doing nothing. Your friends argument is not mine, and is as regressive as it is to create and feed a permanent nonproductive class of citizen. But he does have a point in that our national infrastructure is in dire need of attention, all the while we have huge potential labor resources sitting idle. Don't you think it would benefit society as a whole to put those resources into play as opposed to paying them unconditionally to do nothing?
We can indeed predict which jobs are at greater risk. Generally speaking it's as you say, the low skilled positions that are most easily replaced. More specifically, all you have to do is look at the current technologies under development to predict where the deficit will occur.
A great number of individuals are currently receiving a 'base income' through the various government assistance programs. Do you know what percentage or how many of those are using their time to make their chosen contribution to society? All you have to do is look at the present reality to predict how things will go in the future. The whole 'Slave Labor' thing is silly melodramatic meme. If you really have to ask the difference, I suggest you educate yourself on both slavery and labor. It's as meaningless as the kid who claims daddy's a slave driver because he has to mow the lawn.
"Who decides what's beneficial to society?" I'm sure opinions vary on that question. I think a more relevant question is "What is beneficial to society?" On a personal level, I believe that our first responsibility to society is to not become a burden on that society. Think about that and let me know if you agree because your 'pay for nothing' theory is quite counterproductive to that end.


I think that our first responsibility is to contribute to society to the extent we are capable of contributing. Most paraplegics don't contribute much to society, that doesn't mean I believe they should be allowed to suffer and die because of their lack of contribution.

And we're building a society where fewer and fewer people are going to be able to make meaningful contributions when it comes to producing goods and services that can easily be created by machines.

I also think that the work that needs to be done in this nation, should be done. But building infrastructure is not a long term solution to structural unemployment.

And if that daddy makes his kid mow the lawn, or face starvation, I can't imagine how you can characterize that as anything but slave labor. Asking people to contribute, even expecting them to contribute, is one thing. Forcing them to under penalty of death is something else altogether.


Quote:
 
I understand that anecdotes don't stand up to statistics, however it's a valid counterpoint to your claim that "no man can create prosperity from nothing". The rarity of his story may be true, however you shouldn't look at it through a keyhole. You've overlooked the broader point, which is that his innovation and drive benefits far more people than himself. He created good paying jobs for skilled and unskilled people. He's put money into the economy, which benefits not only his employees, but the businesses and employees of the businesses he deals with, not to mention the federal government by way of taxable income.


And all that's great. I'm not taking anything away from his accomplishments. However, you cannot build a system around exceptional people. It simply does not work. Most people are not exceptional.

Quote:
 
LOL. No seriously...LMAO. Let's not muddy the waters here with unanswerable questions. The question invites gross speculation, and neither of us can give an educated answer. It's simply too silly to address aside from saying it's fallacious to assume, as the question does, that productivity is measured by manual labor.


My point is that most of the richest men in our society aren't actually "contributing" to society. Many are rent seekers, which means that they drain resources from others without returning anything to society through wealth creation. You don't seem to have any problem with their not contributing to society. Why is that?

Quote:
 
Who said anything about NOT 'planning or preparing'? Does the fact that I didn't elaborate give you cause to assume my theory does not include planning? Once again you're projecting a silly straw man. Like I said before, a positive attitude is no guarantee of success but a negative attitude almost certainly guarantees failure. Not sure how you managed to overlook that. The first thing I ask my guys when considering changes is "what could go wrong?". We identify the potential problems and address them then address any unforeseen problems as they arise.


I think your "positive attitude" is actually more "refusing to accept the coming reality".

Quote:
 
...and they all lived happily ever after. I understand the sentiment. "Oh how wonderful life would be if only someone ELSE would take care of my basic necessities". It's not like I "see it as paid to do nothing" It's that it IS "paid to do nothing". There's no other definition for receiving a stipend with no expectations for anything in return.
And where will the money come from Opie? Do you honestly think that the well is infinitely deep and will never run dry? And which wells would you tap? How far down the economic food chain must we go to finance your nanny state? A utopian fantasy such as yours would require a great number of individuals like my friend Juan the electrician to support a growing economic subclass pursuing self indulgency? For every individual on the dole, how many working/taxpaying individuals are necessary to support the handouts? Have you planned that out? The numbers would simply never add up.


Where will the money come from? From where the money always comes from, those who have the money. Money is a circulatory system. The guys at the bottom get it, they purchase things, the guys at the middle get their cut, they also purchase things, the guys at the top get their piece of the action, they also purchase things. And everyone along the way pays taxes. The thing is, as the guys at the top manage to horde more and more of the money, it circulates less and less. This hurts the guys at the bottom first. And then slowly it starts hurting the guys in the middle. Taxes are one of the ways that money is taken out of the hands of the guys at the top and is recirculated back into the system.

If this doesn't happen, eventually your economy stumbles and falls.
Edited by Opinionated, Dec 26 2016, 03:00 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
peewee

It was not given much press but President Obama has a concern and is well versed in AI with regard to, specifically drone technology, litigation and constitutional laws. There are no laws at this time regarding AI related vehicles, or drones. As a result our courts shy away from drone related cases. Obama is pushing for AI legal research and I hope that Trump will continue Obama's quest. Drone related laws will all be new laws, we have not had a new law established in our nation in over 90 years. Hence laws will be the first.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George Aligator
Member Avatar

peewee
Dec 26 2016, 01:58 PM
George Aligator
Dec 26 2016, 12:15 PM
Artificial Intelligence May Cost US Millions Of Jobs, But of course these are human jobs. being taken by smart machines. If these jobs were being taken by Mexicans, the right wing would be out there taking drastic action, but of course smart machines are not considered a race of foreigners. If you lose you job because the boss has hired an illegal immigrant willing to work longer hours for less money, you are ready to storm out and vote for Trump. If the boss buys a machine able to work longer hours for less money, you clap you little paws and chant USA! Number One! while god damning the unions for trying to destroy America. This is reaganomics for working people in the new era.
Hindi would be more effected when driverless taxis gain popularity. There may come a day when our commercial and cargo airliners will be drones. Drones are now replacing the Air Force need for two pilot fighter planes. All commercial and cargo jets are flown by two pilots. AI could replace one of the two in the xxxxpit.
Nice examples from the transportation and defense sectors. The phenomenon is everywhere outside the services sector and to some degree in there too. The question is: what are we going to do about it?

The answer, in broad terms, is to devise a mechanism for equitably distributing the total wealth generated. This is socialism no matter how you slice the pie. At the moment, the salary paid to the robots is taxed (capital gains) at a rate less than half of the rate that humans pay (income tax). For starters, a single, unified tax system would go a long way to easing the transition period. At the same time, we need to find a way to put wealth production in manufacturing and services on the same scale as human services. A school teacher doesn't produce wealth directly but the value to students and society is real enough, just hard to put in a dollar scale. Evaluating social contribution as well as wealth production in structuring the economy is increasingly important because the labor economics of the two sectors is growing further apart while both remain vital.
Conservatism is a social disease
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eddo26
Member Avatar

estonianman
Dec 26 2016, 12:52 PM
Eddo36
Dec 25 2016, 09:43 PM
estonianman
Dec 25 2016, 01:06 PM
Eddo36
Dec 23 2016, 04:16 AM
estonianman
Dec 22 2016, 07:52 PM
automation brings prices down eliminating the need to work long hours.

Thank you capitalism.
Still waiting on your response. When has prices of goods ever gone down voluntarily and not due to regulation?
Dude. Had stuff going on, explaining the economics of price deflation to you isn't on the top of my list.

Automation (technological improvement) increases both efficiency and productivity, thereby lowering the cost of manufacturing a good. People are expensive, slow and inefficient. They can't work 24/7 and require lots of maintenance. People are better off using their brains to create new ways of making lives easier - in the marketplace of ideas.

The only hurdle is the initial cost of capital investment, which is overcome by the same economical effects. Within decades people will laugh at us who cooked, cleaned - did laundry etc. Cars will be built locally in completely automated factories while automated vertical aero-ponic farms will produce food in the most arid of deserts. Purchasing construction materials to build that end-table will be buried in the past, where 3D printing will make what you need, probably from waste carbon or silica.

These are all good things that will come in this century - thanks to capitalism.
Fair point, been a long time since I took economics in high school but it was only theory. In practice, if I owned a business I wouldn't lower prices instead conspire with my "competitors" to agree to a set minimum price for the consumers since it seems everyone else is doing the same thing hence inflation and costs of things always going up without regulations especially after minimum wage increase in 21 states that is about to happen.
That's what happens with big government. That cartel creates a regulatory structure that limits competition from entering the market place and taking a piece of that profit. I understand why regulations exist so no need to go down the "LMAO you want poisoned food" road. Just pointing out that regulations have been abused to limit competition.

Look at the way UBER circumvented laws and entered the transportation sector despite colluding government officials trying to stop them. They automated the logistics of hired transport and implemented an ad hoc network of contractors deflating cost.. Consider the legacy taxi driver cartel that is now bitching that jobs are lost etc etc. In reality society is better off with UBER.
Good example, we both agree that a completely lawless free market won't work, there must be rules to moderate the competition rates and monopolies. It is how much regulation that is the disagreement. Remember the example I posted earlier in another thread about money being distributed from the blue States to the red States by the federal government. Comparing the economies of those States is a major thing to consider when making a judgement on which economy system works better. Especially after the debt default free market may not survive the loss of trust of the government.
We believe only what we want to believe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

With an auto industry that builds simple air bags that kill, I will buy an autonomous car after seeing if my neighbors survive the innovation....I don't want Russians hacking control of my car............. :)
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

They're field testing autonomous cars already. Perhaps the time line I laid out is too ambitious, but it's coming. Unlike the promise of flying hover cars, autonomous driverless cars are already in the works. Refusing to see and accept the change that is happening before our eyes doesn't change anything.

I'm quite aware of that, but it's a long way from a few prototype trials on the street to millions of driverless rigs on the hiway. Your expectations exceed reality. The average age of truck drivers is 55 and rising, with fewer and fewer young people going into the profession. The number of truckers may decline over the years but it's due more to retirement attrition than automation. Furthermore there are about 350,000 independent owner operator rigs on the road, and a greater number of small fleet business employed drivers who are not going to go driverless. The idea that suddenly (over 10) years the country will go driverless is preposterous.

I think that our first responsibility is to contribute to society to the extent we are capable of contributing. Most paraplegics don't contribute much to society, that doesn't mean I believe they should be allowed to suffer and die because of their lack of contribution.

Oh ferfuksake! :oyvey ...again with the sensational straw man and hyperbole. It's really disingenuous to suggest that suffering and starving is a consequences of social responsibility. No one is suggesting these people be left to suffer and die. And if you truly believe everyone should contribute according to our means, how do you rationalize this dream of someone else taking care of your basic necessities?

And we're building a society where fewer and fewer people are going to be able to make meaningful contributions when it comes to producing goods and services that can easily be created by machines.
I also think that the work that needs to be done in this nation, should be done. But building infrastructure is not a long term solution to structural unemployment.


Infrastructure: hiways, bridges, airports, pipelines and the like require constant maintenance and repair, So yes infrastructure does supply long term employment.

And if that daddy makes his kid mow the lawn, or face starvation, I can't imagine how you can characterize that as anything but slave labor. Asking people to contribute, even expecting them to contribute, is one thing. Forcing them to under penalty of deathis something else altogether.

LOL. Hyperbole...rinse and repeat. It is something else all togeher...It's all together another pointless straw man. Seriously Opie, your argument is in the sh!tter when you resort to fabricating then nitpicking false assumptions. Really Opie, please....refrain from that kind of disingenuous nonsense and address what I actually say rather than what you need me to say to build your straw man.
Asking and expecting is EXACTLY what I'm suggesting.

And all that's great. I'm not taking anything away from his accomplishments. However, you cannot build a system around exceptional people. It simply does not work. Most people are not exceptional.

Never said you were "taking from his accomplishment". I stated correctly that you missed the point. Again that being, his accomplishments have benefits that go well beyond his own net worth. Those unexceptional people (employees, vendors & suppliers, their employees,) gain their livelyhood from his exceptional accomplishments. All generating taxable income which in turn further spreads the benefit. Do you disagree?

My point is that most of the richest men in our society aren't actually "contributing" to society. Many are rent seekers, which means that they drain resources from others without returning anything to society through wealth creation. You don't seem to have any problem with their not contributing to society. Why is that?

Your question makes two false assumptions, first that the wealthy do not contribute and secondly that I'm ok with that. How do you come to assume that the wealthy do not contribute? How many people do you estimate Trump employs through his various personal holdings? Do you think his equity investments, unlike ours DO NOT create jobs?

I think your "positive attitude" is actually more "refusing to accept the coming reality".

You're entitled to your opinion, but it's a false characterization. My positive attitude and the ideas derived actually recognize the pending problem and address it, where as yours simply surrender to those problems.

Where will the money come from? From where the money always comes from, those who have the money. Money is a circulatory system. The guys at the bottom get it, they purchase things, the guys at the middle get their cut, they also purchase things, the guys at the top get their piece of the action, they also purchase things. And everyone along the way pays taxes. The thing is, as the guys at the top manage to horde more and more of the money, it circulates less and less. This hurts the guys at the bottom first. And then slowly it starts hurting the guys in the middle. Taxes are one of the ways that money is taken out of the hands of the guys at the top and is recirculated back into the system.
If this doesn't happen, eventually your economy stumbles and falls.


It's foolish to rely on such generalizations. "Take it from the rich guys" is not a plan my friend. Is there enough tax revenue at the top to support a base income strategy for the rest of us? How far down the income tax rate chart must we tap into to create and support this dependent class? The 1%'ers, 10%'ers? At the other end, who will qualify for the handouts? Earlier you stated "everyone". How much would you suggest we dole out per household? Do some math my friend. I think you'll find this polly-annish nostrum of yours is simply not sustainable.

And hoarding? What is your concept of hoarding? Please define and be specific.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George Aligator
Member Avatar

Is there enough tax revenue at the top to support a base income strategy for the rest of us? How far down the income tax rate chart must we tap into to create and support this dependent class?

This is the question before the economists undertaking the experiments. The answer in the present circumstances is probably no. The issue is critical because, if present trends continue, the "dependent class" will presently contain a large majority of the population. Since 1970 the number of workers required to make a ton of steel, for example, has declined by 90%. Similar declines, called productivity increases in economics, are spreading across the economy. We would appear to be headed for an economy which will require a profound reorganization not just a few patches and fixes. Do you have any ideas about it?
Conservatism is a social disease
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PATruth
Member Avatar

Advanced capitalist economies are experiencing a new phenomena, the ability to create so much with so little. Thanks to automation and innovation we can create too much wealth. When I was a youngster most families had one TV, one phone and one car. Today even modest income families have multiple TV's, several cars, bigger houses, more conveniences and even second homes. This is in stark contrast to centrally planned economies like those in Cuba and Venezuela, where items like toilet paper are in short supply. The real problem we face is how to distribute the massive wealth we create. This is a good problem to have, it sure beats shortages and rationing.
"No. No he won't. We'll stop it."
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Eddo36
Dec 26 2016, 10:01 PM
estonianman
Dec 26 2016, 12:52 PM
Eddo36
Dec 25 2016, 09:43 PM
estonianman
Dec 25 2016, 01:06 PM
Eddo36
Dec 23 2016, 04:16 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
Dude. Had stuff going on, explaining the economics of price deflation to you isn't on the top of my list.

Automation (technological improvement) increases both efficiency and productivity, thereby lowering the cost of manufacturing a good. People are expensive, slow and inefficient. They can't work 24/7 and require lots of maintenance. People are better off using their brains to create new ways of making lives easier - in the marketplace of ideas.

The only hurdle is the initial cost of capital investment, which is overcome by the same economical effects. Within decades people will laugh at us who cooked, cleaned - did laundry etc. Cars will be built locally in completely automated factories while automated vertical aero-ponic farms will produce food in the most arid of deserts. Purchasing construction materials to build that end-table will be buried in the past, where 3D printing will make what you need, probably from waste carbon or silica.

These are all good things that will come in this century - thanks to capitalism.
Fair point, been a long time since I took economics in high school but it was only theory. In practice, if I owned a business I wouldn't lower prices instead conspire with my "competitors" to agree to a set minimum price for the consumers since it seems everyone else is doing the same thing hence inflation and costs of things always going up without regulations especially after minimum wage increase in 21 states that is about to happen.
That's what happens with big government. That cartel creates a regulatory structure that limits competition from entering the market place and taking a piece of that profit. I understand why regulations exist so no need to go down the "LMAO you want poisoned food" road. Just pointing out that regulations have been abused to limit competition.

Look at the way UBER circumvented laws and entered the transportation sector despite colluding government officials trying to stop them. They automated the logistics of hired transport and implemented an ad hoc network of contractors deflating cost.. Consider the legacy taxi driver cartel that is now bitching that jobs are lost etc etc. In reality society is better off with UBER.
Good example, we both agree that a completely lawless free market won't work, there must be rules to moderate the competition rates and monopolies. It is how much regulation that is the disagreement. Remember the example I posted earlier in another thread about money being distributed from the blue States to the red States by the federal government. Comparing the economies of those States is a major thing to consider when making a judgement on which economy system works better. Especially after the debt default free market may not survive the loss of trust of the government.
Most regulation is written with the intent to benefit one party and hurt another. This culture of favoritism within government along with the notion that we have to continue to pile laws onto the books is damaging, not productive.

Most environmental regulation would be irrelevant if property rights were properly enforced - which is what the EPA was originally founded to do.

Getting off track here - but I think UBER is an excellent example of how technology changes the landscape for everyone, the employee and the consumer.
MEEK AND MILD
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George Aligator
Member Avatar

PATruth
Dec 27 2016, 11:30 AM
Advanced capitalist economies are experiencing a new phenomena, the ability to create so much with so little. Thanks to automation and innovation we can create too much wealth. When I was a youngster most families had one TV, one phone and one car. Today even modest income families have multiple TV's, several cars, bigger houses, more conveniences and even second homes. This is in stark contrast to centrally planned economies like those in Cuba and Venezuela, where items like toilet paper are in short supply. The real problem we face is how to distribute the massive wealth we create. This is a good problem to have, it sure beats shortages and rationing.
The centrally planned economies you cite are badly managed. If running a large corporation takes skill and knowledge, even more so does managing a national economy. Where there is sufficient expertise available to the political leadership, a managed national economy can bestow its benefits without crippling its entrepreneurs. Denmark has the most socialized economy of any advanced democracy; yet the billionaires who bought Budweiser from the Busch family are not complaining. They have some of the fanciest big yachts in Europe.

Where government has mediocre economic expertise, as in the US or Russia, a blundering, ham-fisted government shackles the business economy to social programs that don't work or are fabulously over-priced. In places where economic skill is lacking such as Cuba or Venezuela, the results are catastrophic. There is no substitute for smarts and a political leadership able to sell smart ideas to the masses.
Conservatism is a social disease
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harambe4Trump
Member Avatar

George Aligator
Dec 27 2016, 06:48 PM
PATruth
Dec 27 2016, 11:30 AM
Advanced capitalist economies are experiencing a new phenomena, the ability to create so much with so little. Thanks to automation and innovation we can create too much wealth. When I was a youngster most families had one TV, one phone and one car. Today even modest income families have multiple TV's, several cars, bigger houses, more conveniences and even second homes. This is in stark contrast to centrally planned economies like those in Cuba and Venezuela, where items like toilet paper are in short supply. The real problem we face is how to distribute the massive wealth we create. This is a good problem to have, it sure beats shortages and rationing.
The centrally planned economies you cite are badly managed. If running a large corporation takes skill and knowledge, even more so does managing a national economy. Where there is sufficient expertise available to the political leadership, a managed national economy can bestow its benefits without crippling its entrepreneurs. Denmark has the most socialized economy of any advanced democracy; yet the billionaires who bought Budweiser from the Busch family are not complaining. They have some of the fanciest big yachts in Europe.

Where government has mediocre economic expertise, as in the US or Russia, a blundering, ham-fisted government shackles the business economy to social programs that don't work or are fabulously over-priced. In places where economic skill is lacking such as Cuba or Venezuela, the results are catastrophic. There is no substitute for smarts and a political leadership able to sell smart ideas to the masses.
West Germany was the wealthiest western capitalist state. East Germany was the wealthiest communist state. Economic theory is overrated.
Skipping leg day is the equivalent of a woman having an abortion. You're ashamed of it, and it was probably unnecessary.
#MAGA
#wallsnotwars
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CautionaryTales
Member Avatar

peewee
Dec 26 2016, 03:15 PM
It was not given much press but President Obama has a concern and is well versed in AI with regard to, specifically drone technology, litigation and constitutional laws. There are no laws at this time regarding AI related vehicles, or drones. As a result our courts shy away from drone related cases. Obama is pushing for AI legal research and I hope that Trump will continue Obama's quest. Drone related laws will all be new laws, we have not had a new law established in our nation in over 90 years. Hence laws will be the first.
You " hope Trump will continue Obama's quest" ?

Eeefin kidding aren't ya?



Have you paid your internet taxes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

George Aligator
Dec 27 2016, 10:49 AM
Is there enough tax revenue at the top to support a base income strategy for the rest of us? How far down the income tax rate chart must we tap into to create and support this dependent class?

This is the question before the economists undertaking the experiments. The answer in the present circumstances is probably no. The issue is critical because, if present trends continue, the "dependent class" will presently contain a large majority of the population. Since 1970 the number of workers required to make a ton of steel, for example, has declined by 90%. Similar declines, called productivity increases in economics, are spreading across the economy. We would appear to be headed for an economy which will require a profound reorganization not just a few patches and fixes. Do you have any ideas about it?
Obviously George, I don't have all the answers, however I do wholly agree with you that it is going to take a major economic makeover. A comprehensive approach involving education, reeducation, balanced trade agreements, business incentives, immigration reform, common sense regulatory and tax reform and... on and on. Neither an unencumbered free market nor complete government control will resolve the issues. It will require the cooperation of public and private sectors. The word synergy comes to mind.

Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
peewee

CautionaryTales
Dec 27 2016, 07:21 PM
peewee
Dec 26 2016, 03:15 PM
It was not given much press but President Obama has a concern and is well versed in AI with regard to, specifically drone technology, litigation and constitutional laws. There are no laws at this time regarding AI related vehicles, or drones. As a result our courts shy away from drone related cases. Obama is pushing for AI legal research and I hope that Trump will continue Obama's quest. Drone related laws will all be new laws, we have not had a new law established in our nation in over 90 years. Hence laws will be the first.
You " hope Trump will continue Obama's quest" ?

Eeefin kidding aren't ya?

Unless Trump completely disbands The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Department he will continue to further America's interest in all advances in technology.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

PATruth
Dec 27 2016, 11:30 AM
Advanced capitalist economies are experiencing a new phenomena, the ability to create so much with so little. Thanks to automation and innovation we can create too much wealth. When I was a youngster most families had one TV, one phone and one car. Today even modest income families have multiple TV's, several cars, bigger houses, more conveniences and even second homes. This is in stark contrast to centrally planned economies like those in Cuba and Venezuela, where items like toilet paper are in short supply. The real problem we face is how to distribute the massive wealth we create. This is a good problem to have, it sure beats shortages and rationing.
You can point to third world countries that are capitalist economic models that are as poor or poorer than Cuba and Venezuela. Are those two countries poor because of their economic model or because of other factors? You suggest the first while it may easily be the latter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
I'm quite aware of that, but it's a long way from a few prototype trials on the street to millions of driverless rigs on the hiway. Your expectations exceed reality. The average age of truck drivers is 55 and rising, with fewer and fewer young people going into the profession. The number of truckers may decline over the years but it's due more to retirement attrition than automation. Furthermore there are about 350,000 independent owner operator rigs on the road, and a greater number of small fleet business employed drivers who are not going to go driverless. The idea that suddenly (over 10) years the country will go driverless is preposterous.


I've already said that ten years may be overly ambitious. So, I'm not really understanding your point here. Let's say it takes 20 years. Maybe 50. That still means that many jobs that used to involve driving trucks won't exist any more. So, where are the replacement jobs?

Quote:
 
Oh ferfuksake! :oyvey ...again with the sensational straw man and hyperbole. It's really disingenuous to suggest that suffering and starving is a consequences of social responsibility. No one is suggesting these people be left to suffer and die. And if you truly believe everyone should contribute according to our means, how do you rationalize this dream of someone else taking care of your basic necessities?


I think you may be misconstruing me. I'm pointing out that we as a society still have an obligation to help provide for those who cannot contribute to society, or cannot contribute significantly to society. If we build a world where most of the blue collar jobs and many of the white collar jobs are being done by machines, we're removing the ability for many people to contribute to society in the traditional ways. But we still retain an obligation to help provide for them.

Quote:
 
Infrastructure: hiways, bridges, airports, pipelines and the like require constant maintenance and repair, So yes infrastructure does supply long term employment.


In the vast majority of cases we've already built the highways, bridges, airports, pipelines, and so forth that we need. Sure, we need to some things like ripping out and replacing old and in some cases toxic water lines. And there are probably other things we could come up with. But the job of maintaining all these things takes fewer and fewer workers every year. There will come a point where such maintenance will require one overseer and perhaps a crew of half a dozen or less. Expect the need for workers in these areas to decrease over the long term, not increase.

Quote:
 
LOL. Hyperbole...rinse and repeat. It is something else all togeher...It's all together another pointless straw man. Seriously Opie, your argument is in the sh!tter when you resort to fabricating then nitpicking false assumptions. Really Opie, please....refrain from that kind of disingenuous nonsense and address what I actually say rather than what you need me to say to build your straw man.
Asking and expecting is EXACTLY what I'm suggesting.


Look, there is a fundamental difference between a father asking his kid to mow the lawn and telling a worker that the only way they'll eat is if they find a job. The father has an obligation to provide for his kid even if the kid doesn't mow the lawn. While many argue that we have no obligation to provide for a worker without a job.

Maybe that's not your argument, but you can't deny that many people believe that to be true. That even when unemployment is historically low, which means that jobs are difficult to come by because they've been filled, people still demand that everyone "get a job". Well, sometimes it just isn't possible to "get a job". And this will become more true as time goes on, not less true.


Quote:
 
Never said you were "taking from his accomplishment". I stated correctly that you missed the point. Again that being, his accomplishments have benefits that go well beyond his own net worth. Those unexceptional people (employees, vendors & suppliers, their employees,) gain their livelyhood from his exceptional accomplishments. All generating taxable income which in turn further spreads the benefit. Do you disagree?


And still not a cure all. And we still can't build a system around exceptional people.

Yes, it would be nice if we had plenty of people building businesses and providing work for everyone who needed work. But that isn't the case. It's not going to be the case. And that will become more true as time goes on. If your friend could run his business with a half dozen semi-autonomous robots rather than a dozen people, and the robots were cheaper, he'd use the robots.

He doesn't use people out of the goodness of his heart.

Quote:
 
Your question makes two false assumptions, first that the wealthy do not contribute and secondly that I'm ok with that. How do you come to assume that the wealthy do not contribute? How many people do you estimate Trump employs through his various personal holdings? Do you think his equity investments, unlike ours DO NOT create jobs?


I know because the definition of "rent seeking" is:

Quote:
 
Rent-seeking is the use of the resources of a company, an organization or an individual to obtain economic gain from others without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation. An example of rent-seeking is when a company lobbies the government for loan subsidies, grants or tariff protection. These activities don't create any benefit for society; they just redistribute resources from the taxpayers to the company.


Read more: Rent-Seeking Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rentseeking.asp#ixzz4U9Mrdfih
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

And sometimes we label this vulture capitalism. There are plenty of wealthy people who make their money off of destroying companies, sometimes profitable companies, because they can make more money off of their destruction then by running them.

This is not, by any reasonable definition, "contributing to society". But I've never heard you complain about this. But let a man be given a dollar without a job associated with it, and you're all fired up about his being undeserving.

Quote:
 
You're entitled to your opinion, but it's a false characterization. My positive attitude and the ideas derived actually recognize the pending problem and address it, where as yours simply surrender to those problems.


What I see is you're throwing together the same ideas that have been floated for dealing with everything from foreign trade agreements that move jobs overseas to the disappearance of jobs from the rust belt. None of which have a) really been implemented, b) haven't worked overwhelmingly well in those few places where they have been implemented, c) don't take into account the volume of jobs that will be lost.

So, ideas that only work mediocrely well, don't seem likely to actually be implemented on a large enough scale to have the necessary impact, and aren't likely to address the scope of the problem.


Quote:
 
It's foolish to rely on such generalizations. "Take it from the rich guys" is not a plan my friend. Is there enough tax revenue at the top to support a base income strategy for the rest of us? How far down the income tax rate chart must we tap into to create and support this dependent class? The 1%'ers, 10%'ers? At the other end, who will qualify for the handouts? Earlier you stated "everyone". How much would you suggest we dole out per household? Do some math my friend. I think you'll find this polly-annish nostrum of yours is simply not sustainable.

And hoarding? What is your concept of hoarding? Please define and be specific.


My concept of hoarding is when the top 20% of the population owns 85% of the wealth while the bottom 80% of the population owns 15% of the wealth. Which is what we're seeing in the U.S. today.

The argument from the right is always that there isn't enough tax revenue from the top to get the job done, and yet they keep reducing the taxes taken from the top. If there isn't enough to get the job done, why do we keep reducing what we do take?

Seems kind of contradictory.

We could just wait until the top 20% of the population has 99% of the wealthy and the bottom 80% only has 1%, which will likely be in the next 20 to 30 years. That will probably make it appear more doable...
Edited by Opinionated, Dec 28 2016, 12:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

I would disagree with the concept that rust belt communities have not found means to become successful again. Many places like Columbus, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Minneapolis and others have found New Economy industries to replace their old industries. They have reinvented rust-belt industries to be more competitive and efficient creating not only jobs but exports.

One if the biggest issues facing the rest belt unemployed is the need or possibility of moving to these new growth zones. It is hard to leave an area where your family is and where your ancestors lived. But in a time of major change, whether it is economic, climate or polticial, it sometimes becomes necessary to migrate to new growth areas.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jake58

BuckFan
Dec 28 2016, 11:34 AM
PATruth
Dec 27 2016, 11:30 AM
Advanced capitalist economies are experiencing a new phenomena, the ability to create so much with so little. Thanks to automation and innovation we can create too much wealth. When I was a youngster most families had one TV, one phone and one car. Today even modest income families have multiple TV's, several cars, bigger houses, more conveniences and even second homes. This is in stark contrast to centrally planned economies like those in Cuba and Venezuela, where items like toilet paper are in short supply. The real problem we face is how to distribute the massive wealth we create. This is a good problem to have, it sure beats shortages and rationing.
You can point to third world countries that are capitalist economic models that are as poor or poorer than Cuba and Venezuela. Are those two countries poor because of their economic model or because of other factors? You suggest the first while it may easily be the latter.
Must you unload a truckload of derp on every thread you enter? Cuba and Venezuela both were reasonably wealthy before socialism. Cuba ranked 3rd in GDP per capita before Castro behind Venezuela and Uruguay in 1958.

Prior to the Cuban Revolution, Cuba was one of the most advanced and successful countries in Latin America. The country compared favorably with Spain and Portugal on socioeconomic measures. By the 1950s Cuba was as rich per capita as Italy was and richer than Japan. Its income per capita in 1929 was reportedly 41% of the US, thus higher than in Mississippi and South Carolina.

Do we need to talk about the current situation in Venezuela as well?



That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

jake58
Dec 28 2016, 03:59 PM
BuckFan
Dec 28 2016, 11:34 AM
PATruth
Dec 27 2016, 11:30 AM
Advanced capitalist economies are experiencing a new phenomena, the ability to create so much with so little. Thanks to automation and innovation we can create too much wealth. When I was a youngster most families had one TV, one phone and one car. Today even modest income families have multiple TV's, several cars, bigger houses, more conveniences and even second homes. This is in stark contrast to centrally planned economies like those in Cuba and Venezuela, where items like toilet paper are in short supply. The real problem we face is how to distribute the massive wealth we create. This is a good problem to have, it sure beats shortages and rationing.
You can point to third world countries that are capitalist economic models that are as poor or poorer than Cuba and Venezuela. Are those two countries poor because of their economic model or because of other factors? You suggest the first while it may easily be the latter.
Must you unload a truckload of derp on every thread you enter? Cuba and Venezuela both were reasonably wealthy before socialism. Cuba ranked 3rd in GDP per capita before Castro behind Venezuela and Uruguay in 1958.

Prior to the Cuban Revolution, Cuba was one of the most advanced and successful countries in Latin America. The country compared favorably with Spain and Portugal on socioeconomic measures. By the 1950s Cuba was as rich per capita as Italy was and richer than Japan. Its income per capita in 1929 was reportedly 41% of the US, thus higher than in Mississippi and South Carolina.

Do we need to talk about the current situation in Venezuela as well?



Cuba's wealth in that time period came many from U.S. tourism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com DOMESTIC U.S. news · Next Topic »
Add Reply