Post: #76

(03-01-2017 09:36 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  Let's translate the employment market to the sexual market. We tell sexless guys to lose fat, dress better, and learn game. What if they said they don't want to or can't, so the government should mandate that hot girls have to give one charity fuck to a loser per month? We'd laugh ourselves silly.

Then, like TooFineAPoint said, why is it controversial when I say that guys not getting paid should improve current skills, learn new ones, and sell themselves better?

There are only X hot women out there and ~X guys fucking them. If every dude sheds weight and works on game, there will still be X hot women out there and ~X dudes fucking them.

Now let's advocate bringing in a bunch of horny rapefugees for good measure and you have TooFineAPoint's ideal economic scenario translated into a sexual market analogy.

Post: #77

(03-01-2017 09:41 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 09:36 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  Let's translate the employment market to the sexual market. We tell sexless guys to lose fat, dress better, and learn game. What if they said they don't want to or can't, so the government should mandate that hot girls have to give one charity fuck to a loser per month? We'd laugh ourselves silly.

Then, like TooFineAPoint said, why is it controversial when I say that guys not getting paid should improve current skills, learn new ones, and sell themselves better?

There are only X hot women out there and ~X guys fucking them. If every dude sheds weight and works on game, there will still be X hot women out there and ~X dudes fucking them.

Now let's advocate bringing in a bunch of horny rapefugees for good measure and you have TooFineAPoint's ideal economic scenario translated into a sexual market analogy.

You're right. There's a limited supply of hot women. We appear to be trending away from a world where showing up gets you a decent job and a wife. Nowadays, you have to be above average. At RVF, we help each other improve ourselves to get paid and get laid. We can't save every guy, nor should we try.

Horny rapefugees aren't out-competing natives for women (I think), they're raping them. That's like an H1B taking your job by breaking your fingers.

It's a consistent position, as long as you support government policies that hurt players and help beta schlubs. If your position on sexual losers is "git gud", then it should be the same when it comes to work.

Or not. We're all hypocrites anyway.

Post: #78

I'm wondering if at some point we may reach a tipping point in regards to automation, where a growing number of disgruntled workers displaced by robots causes some sort of quasi religious anti technology movement to gain momentum, eventually leading to a mass exodus of the cities and a resurgence in homesteading.

Automating reproduction through government controlled IVF, widely distributed sex robots as the Soma for the people. Through some insane black swan event democrats gain power, Saudi Arabia and Israel alliance take over USA become our new overlords, mass conflict between the Old World Media Technologists Army and the Neo-Luddite People's Front led by prophet Baron Trump. That would be a great sci-fi novel.

Post: #79

(03-01-2017 09:54 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 09:41 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 09:36 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  Let's translate the employment market to the sexual market. We tell sexless guys to lose fat, dress better, and learn game. What if they said they don't want to or can't, so the government should mandate that hot girls have to give one charity fuck to a loser per month? We'd laugh ourselves silly.

Then, like TooFineAPoint said, why is it controversial when I say that guys not getting paid should improve current skills, learn new ones, and sell themselves better?

There are only X hot women out there and ~X guys fucking them. If every dude sheds weight and works on game, there will still be X hot women out there and ~X dudes fucking them.

Now let's advocate bringing in a bunch of horny rapefugees for good measure and you have TooFineAPoint's ideal economic scenario translated into a sexual market analogy.

You're right. There's a limited supply of hot women. We appear to be trending away from a world where showing up gets you a decent job and a wife. Nowadays, you have to be above average. At RVF, we help each other improve ourselves to get paid and get laid. We can't save every guy, nor should we try.

Horny rapefugees aren't out-competing natives for women (I think), they're raping them. That's like an H1B taking your job by breaking your fingers.

It's a consistent position, as long as you support government policies that hurt players and help beta schlubs. If your position on sexual losers is "git gud", then it should be the same when it comes to work.

Or not. We're all hypocrites anyway.

Horny rapefugees aren't outcompeting the natives for women with game but raping them, you're right. Likewise, desperate H1B Indians aren't outcompeting the natives for jobs with superior intelligence, they're getting jobs by accepting shitty conditions and lower pay than the natives expect. I hope you can see that both phenomena are complete disasters for the natives.

Which brings us back to the original point: why do you want us to accept refugees/H1B Indians again? Wherein lies the advantage for us in letting in people who will rape our women or take our jobs? I mean, it's a simple question. Either you can point out the advantages that outweigh the obvious disadvantages, or you can't. So far the best we've gotten is some kind of weird notion that we should shoot ourselves in the foot (accept H1B Indians) because if we're badass enough we'll be able to overcome the injury and prosper anyway. Which is true enough, but why oh why pointlessly injure ourselves in the first place?

Post: #80

I don't get the argument, technology has always replaced manual labor. Should we have outlawed tractors because farm hands were put out of work? Or the cotton gin? Or ATMs because bank tellers were fired? Or computers altogether since they replace thousands of man-years of labor. And not just unskilled labor, computers have replaced millions of white collar workers and might replace the entire accounting profession in the next decade or two. FedEx is already working toward pilotless cargo planes. Countries are looking to replace teachers with robots. So, do we ban these things and stagnate the progression of society? Of course not.

This is how things have worked since the beginning of history. The wheel, the loom, steam engines, etc - they all replaced labor and society hummed along. People get displaced, but they generally learn new skills.

And, if Wendy's doesn't fire people to replace them with a kiosk, some other restaurant will open with nothing but kiosks (and better prices) from the beginning and avoid the bad press completely. Then Wendy's will go under and everyone will be fired.

Post: #81

Quote:You aren't owed a job.
Nothing to do with fun; it's life. Every day you have to get up and hustle for your daily bread.
To a business owner, the robot or Apoo might actually be better. It's up to you (if it's your job) to prove otherwise, or head to greener pastures.
Why is this such a controversial concept on a forum dedicated to men improving so they can get more action with women?

This discussion has happened a few times before on this board, and I'll just repeat what I said last time it popped up. Just as you aren't "owed" a job, you aren't owed, say, not being ripped apart limb from limb by a starving mob, while your wife and children are raped in front of you. If life really does owe you nothing, then it owes you nothing. Not protection. Not safety. Nothing. Anyone can do anything to you at any time, and if you can't protect yourself then all you can do about is bitch.

If you don't like that idea, then you need to work to build a society where people can get jobs and find useful work, so they don't have to turn to say, knifing you in an alley in order to get food.

I think most people on this "self-improvement board for men" understand that self-improvement is something that takes place on an individual level. If you're telling me that I need to work harder so I don't have to have my Wendys job taken by a robot, well, I don't work at Wendys to begin with. But you can't give that advice to a whole sector of society. There aren't enough jobs in other fields to accommodate them.

Quote:You're not fighting for your job, you want someone else to do it for you.

But it's not my job, or Fast Eddie's job. My field is one of the least susceptible to automation in the world. I dont know where Fast Eddie Works, but I don't believe he works at Wendys either. We're both concerned about this because we feel that society is heading in a very dangerous direction, and it's important to start talking about this and be aware of what's coming.

Quote:You are instead asking the government to fuck over some other people on your behalf. This is one of the things the feminists do.

Again, this isn't on my behalf. I don't work at Wendys, and my job's not going to be automated. I don't want a society where the people working at Wendys and other low-end fastfood places can't find jobs. I don't think it's going to be a place I want to live. As for this being "one of the things feminists do", you cannot possibly think that is an effective, or even relevant, argument.

Quote:Nice strawman. Improving your skills, networking, changing fields. All options.

You don't need to underbid Apoo. You overbid him and sell the idea that because your english is better and your navigation of the culture is more nimble, that you are more of an asset to the firm in the long run.

This is nonsense. These decisions aren't made at the individual level. You can be the greatest programmer in the world, and it won't save your job when the whole department is laid off and replaced with HB1s, ala Disney. You can "navigate the culture more nimbly", whatever that means, and it will do you no good whatsoever when your tech support subcontracting company shuts down because your biggest client offshored to India.

Post: #82

Quote:Which brings us back to the original point: why do you want us to accept refugees/H1B Indians again? Wherein lies the advantage for us in letting in people who will rape our women or take our jobs? I mean, it's a simple question. Either you can point out the advantages that outweigh the obvious disadvantages, or you can't. So far the best we've gotten is some kind of weird notion that we should shoot ourselves in the foot (accept H1B Indians) because if we're badass enough we'll be able to overcome the injury and prosper anyway. Which is true enough, but why oh why pointlessly injure ourselves in the first place?

I'm not in favor of H1Bs that are used to suppress wages out of solidarity with my fellow Americans who will be affected. If I was voting my interests, I would've voted for Hillary.

Quote:This is nonsense. These decisions aren't made at the individual level. You can be the greatest programmer in the world, and it won't save your job when the whole department is laid off and replaced with HB1s, ala Disney. You can "navigate the culture more nimbly", whatever that means, and it will do you no good whatsoever when your tech support subcontracting company shuts down because your biggest client offshored to India.

If you were that good, you'd be working at Google's self driving car division getting paid "retire in three years" money. Not in a tech support role that gets shipped overseas.

Quote:I think most people on this "self-improvement board for men" understand that self-improvement is something that takes place on an individual level. If you're telling me that I need to work harder so I don't have to have my Wendys job taken by a robot, well, I don't work at Wendys to begin with. But you can't give that advice to a whole sector of society. There aren't enough jobs in other fields to accommodate them.

That is a good point.

Post: #83

(03-01-2017 09:41 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 09:36 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  Let's translate the employment market to the sexual market. We tell sexless guys to lose fat, dress better, and learn game. What if they said they don't want to or can't, so the government should mandate that hot girls have to give one charity fuck to a loser per month? We'd laugh ourselves silly.

Then, like TooFineAPoint said, why is it controversial when I say that guys not getting paid should improve current skills, learn new ones, and sell themselves better?

There are only X hot women out there and ~X guys fucking them. If every dude sheds weight and works on game, there will still be X hot women out there and ~X dudes fucking them.

Now let's advocate bringing in a bunch of horny rapefugees for good measure and you have TooFineAPoint's ideal economic scenario translated into a sexual market analogy.

You have a real bee in your bonnet over this, eh? Just calm down and try to have a rational discussion.

Automation isn't going to fuck society. Just like the power loom didn't fuck society, just like the car didn't fuck it.

You refused to acknowledge any of the details I wrote in my last post, instead going on some rant against "libertardian ideology". That's not an argument.

You are not asking the govt to work on behalf of the "American people". Give me a break. You are asking them to work on behalf of SOME of the people, the ones that share your interest in this.

You don't seem to like it when this power is wielded against you. So what is the principle we are after here?

Why not list all the potential reasons a company would offshore? I'm sure we would find some to support your point of view, and some to support mine.

Is it possible, in your worldview, to admit that regulatory burden, high taxes, and overreaching worker protections may, in some cases, influence this decision?

I really don't get where you are coming from here. Even Trump seems to use tariffs as a bargaining chip, instead saying keep the jobs in America and we'll lower your tax burden. Are you instead saying fuck it all, tariffs for everyone? I can't tell.

Are you only against unskilled immigration, or all immigration? Because, if we take your position as I understand it, current American doctors would have just as much right demanding that some Indian doctors be refused entry.

At the very least can we agree that brain draining other countries of their best and brightest works for us? Or no?

(03-01-2017 07:41 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  But, uhhh, what are you planning to do about all the angry unemployed people that didn't make the cut? You think they're just going to, what? Politely dig a hole in the ground and starve to death in it?

Bonus points for answering the question "what do violent revolutions have in common with this topic".

Not much.

But you could provide some evidence that might change my mind.

So under what circumstances, according to you, is it okay for a person to lose their job? Is it only not okay when it's a certain amount of people at once? What is the wage cut off point where we worry about people losing their jobs... or must we as a society come together for each and every unemployed person, lest they start killing us? Is that what this topic is really about? That the ex Wendys workers are going to start torching shit?

Post: #84

(03-02-2017 12:03 AM)Peregrine Wrote:  

Quote:This is nonsense. These decisions aren't made at the individual level. You can be the greatest programmer in the world, and it won't save your job when the whole department is laid off and replaced with HB1s, ala Disney. You can "navigate the culture more nimbly", whatever that means, and it will do you no good whatsoever when your tech support subcontracting company shuts down because your biggest client offshored to India.

If you were that good, you'd be working at Google's self driving car division getting paid "retire in three years" money. Not in a tech support role that gets shipped overseas.

Not a great riposte. In other words, before offshoring/H1B, lots of people had decent to great jobs. Post offshoring/H1B, the same 1% of people who had great jobs still have those great jobs but the rest are now working fast food or are unemployed. Doesn't sound like offshoring/H1B is a policy we should continue to pursue, does it.

Post: #85

(03-02-2017 12:06 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  So under what circumstances, according to you, is it okay for a person to lose their job? Is it only not okay when it's a certain amount of people at once? What is the wage cut off point where we worry about people losing their jobs... or must we as a society come together for each and every unemployed person, lest they start killing us? Is that what this topic is really about? That the ex Wendys workers are going to start torching shit?

For now, ex-wendys workers are going to move on to welfare, or other jobs. They can do this right now, to a degree, because the full brunt of automation is yet to hit us. When automation completely wipes out lower-skilled jobs, they will either become permanent wards of the state, or yes, they will start torching shit.

Post: #86

(03-01-2017 11:50 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  Just as you aren't "owed" a job, you aren't owed, say, not being ripped apart limb from limb by a starving mob, while your wife and children are raped in front of you. If life really does owe you nothing, then it owes you nothing. Not protection. Not safety. Nothing. Anyone can do anything to you at any time, and if you can't protect yourself then all you can do about is bitch.

Agreed.

(03-01-2017 11:50 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  If you don't like that idea, then you need to work to build a society where people can get jobs and find useful work, so they don't have to turn to say, knifing you in an alley in order to get food.

And how about including -- building a society where, instead of doing manual labor all day every day, we create machines that can cut down on the man-hours?

You don't think that's part of the process?

(03-01-2017 11:50 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Quote:You are instead asking the government to fuck over some other people on your behalf. This is one of the things the feminists do.

Again, this isn't on my behalf. I don't work at Wendys, and my job's not going to be automated. I don't want a society where the people working at Wendys and other low-end fastfood places can't find jobs. I don't think it's going to be a place I want to live. As for this being "one of the things feminists do", you cannot possibly think that is an effective, or even relevant, argument.

Other posters seem to understand what I was saying, so it was effective. And yes, I think it's the most relevant argument here.

Picture a university educated purple-haired girl saying: "I don't want a society where the girls who are overweight can't find as much attention as the pretty girls. I don't think it's going to be a place I want to live." And then picture her imploring Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton to do something about it.

Like you and Fast Eddie, I also would prefer for people to be able to find some work and support themselves. I don't want to punish an employer to make that happen though. The employer is a person, too.

(03-01-2017 11:50 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Quote:Nice strawman. Improving your skills, networking, changing fields. All options.

You don't need to underbid Apoo. You overbid him and sell the idea that because your english is better and your navigation of the culture is more nimble, that you are more of an asset to the firm in the long run.

This is nonsense. These decisions aren't made at the individual level. You can be the greatest programmer in the world, and it won't save your job when the whole department is laid off and replaced with HB1s, ala Disney. You can "navigate the culture more nimbly", whatever that means, and it will do you no good whatsoever when your tech support subcontracting company shuts down because your biggest client offshored to India.

Agreed that no job is safe. Do you think it would be possible to make this not be so?

My point is that the guy in our example is competing with other prospective employees to get or keep his job. How much responsibility do you accord to him in this case? I'm assuming, like game, you think he should put max effort in, but you also want to advocate against the system being rigged against him.

Post: #87

(03-02-2017 12:16 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  For now, ex-wendys workers are going to move on to welfare, or other jobs. They can do this right now, to a degree, because the full brunt of automation is yet to hit us. When automation completely wipes out lower-skilled jobs, they will either become permanent wards of the state, or yes, they will start torching shit.

Are you suggesting to call a moratorium on all automation from this point on?

Or only automation that affects the lowest wage earners?

And then what do we do about all the people who work in the automation industry?

Post: #88

(03-02-2017 12:13 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 12:03 AM)Peregrine Wrote:  

Quote:This is nonsense. These decisions aren't made at the individual level. You can be the greatest programmer in the world, and it won't save your job when the whole department is laid off and replaced with HB1s, ala Disney. You can "navigate the culture more nimbly", whatever that means, and it will do you no good whatsoever when your tech support subcontracting company shuts down because your biggest client offshored to India.

If you were that good, you'd be working at Google's self driving car division getting paid "retire in three years" money. Not in a tech support role that gets shipped overseas.

Not a great riposte. In other words, before offshoring/H1B, lots of people had decent to great jobs. Post offshoring/H1B, the same 1% of people who had great jobs still have those great jobs but the rest are now working fast food or are unemployed. Doesn't sound like offshoring/H1B is a policy we should continue to pursue, does it.

My point was that programmers in the top 1%, much less "the greatest programmer in the world", are not in danger of being automated or outsourced. Their problems are gaining too much weight from the company-provided 5-star executive chef. I'd be a liar if I said I wasn't a bit envious.

In reality, it's more like 80% used to have great paying jobs. Now it's 20%, plus another 10% that are doing well running a business, and 70% of the country got shafted (numbers may be shitty because I pulled them from you know where). Whether someone thinks it's a good policy usually depends on which group they belong to.

To continue my game analogies, a beta schlub might think that a "men must marry to have sex and having sex with multiple women is a capital offense" law (hyperbole, I know) is a good idea because it benefits him by reducing competition. The player is going to have a different opinion.

Edit: To summarize my thoughts on the topic, there's a micro and macro perspective to be considered here. On a micro level, be the best man you can be. On a macro level, we should support policies that balance individual needs with business needs. I tend to focus on the micro view, because that's the sphere I have more influence in.

Post: #89

Let me throw a data point in here: Offshoring.

I work in tech, not IT, tech as a software dev. I can assure you all that the industry trend is against offshoring. Primarily because of quality control of code. Apoo isn't competing here from Mumbai. Companies are onshoring, hence H1B's.

IT is going far offshore for the entry level stuff and for the higher end cloud stuff or DevOps positions they are being onshored. Sensitive security clearances/projects require onshoring too.

Don't be in tech support, if you are move up the value chain. If you can't/don't that's your problem. Good luck.

Post: #90

(03-02-2017 12:06 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  ...

(03-01-2017 07:41 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  But, uhhh, what are you planning to do about all the angry unemployed people that didn't make the cut? You think they're just going to, what? Politely dig a hole in the ground and starve to death in it?

Bonus points for answering the question "what do violent revolutions have in common with this topic".

Not much.

But you could provide some evidence that might change my mind.

So under what circumstances, according to you, is it okay for a person to lose their job? Is it only not okay when it's a certain amount of people at once? What is the wage cut off point where we worry about people losing their jobs... or must we as a society come together for each and every unemployed person, lest they start killing us? Is that what this topic is really about? That the ex Wendys workers are going to start torching shit?

Are you somehow convinced that you can skirt reality with your own brand of morality?

"Ex-Wendys workers" are already torching shit. We call it Ferguson and Baltimore. Less jobs per capita = more welfare = more tax = more automation = less jobs per capita.

Is there something confusing about this?

I'm not saying automation isn't a fact of life, and I'm not saying that the government needs to swoop on Wendys™ but I have a good laugh when the problems of same are warded away by blindfold-libertarians who seem to think that invoking their ancient god will lead society through the valley of evil to the garden of eden.

There are bloodless solutions to the mechanisation of human labour.

Ignoring the stragglers is not one of those bloodless solutions.

But I loved your analogy about increasing game and beating job loss due to technology. Would you like to extrapolate on it by explaining the parallels between homelessness/starvation and masturbating to hentai?

Post: #91

(03-02-2017 12:25 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  Are you suggesting to call a moratorium on all automation from this point on?

Or only automation that affects the lowest wage earners?

And then what do we do about all the people who work in the automation industry?

If I wanted a moratorium on automation, I would call for a moratorium on automation. It's not like I have to conceal what I'm thinking here on an internet board.

I don't know what the answer to the problem of automation is. I don't know if there IS an answer. You can't just say "Don't automate", because countries that don't will get wiped out economically by countries that do. But I strongly believe that humans need to work at SOMETHING in order to have a fulfilling life, and the long term lack of a job is devastating to an individual. If you like Anonymous Conservative's nomenclature, it "turns you R".

If you want to see what a community without employment looks like, look to the inner city. Nobody starves to death in the ghetto. There's no food shortages. Power service is constant. People have enough clothes. There's access to the best medical care in the world at US emergency rooms. By all rights, it should be a paradise on Earth. And yet it's an awful, awful place to be. That's because of a large-scale lack of jobs. And my fear is that automation is going to bring the ghetto everywhere.

I believe that once the demographic balance issues are addressed, automation is going to be the defining issue of the 21st century. Depending on how we handle it, the world could turn into a paradise, or it could turn into hell. And if we want to avoid hell, we need to start thinking about what we're going to do about the problem now.

I've got a bunch of ideas, but they range from, "nice, but unlikely to help enough" (Decrease the labor supply and increase ethnic cohesion via deportations/immigration controls) to "wacky and implausible" (Pay people to go the gym. You get 8 bucks a month per percentage of your bodyweight that you can bench.) I don't have a good solution, and I'm scared that one might not exist. But I do know ours odds of hitting a bad outcome go up drastically if we refuse start thinking about the problem in a clear-headed way.

Post: #92

Sadly, the answer to what to do with people who have been left behind by automation has been figured out. Look at the opiate epidemic through much of the us. The timeline coincides almost perfectly with China's entry to the wto in 2001.

Post: #93

Automation becomes a particularly serious issue when so called free trade becomes involved. Then it literally becomes a race to the bottom regarding who can sell out their constituents for the highest foreign dollar.

While it will no doubt be deemed as anathema by some here, the first and most important issue is no more immigration. Second, population growth of low IQ mobs needs to end, pronto. Third, to the greatest extent possible nations should avoid importing what they can otherwise produce locally. This should supersede any nonsense about "muh Chinese eBay merch".

While it would take a massive and unprecedented shift in the way we ran our nations, the only sensible approach to increasing levels of automation in the workforce is to gradually reduce the population and increase the human quality of that remainder. This could be achieved easily over a single generation by offering enhanced levels of welfare to anyone freely willing to be rendered infertile.

This might seem insane and dystopian but it's quite humane compared to fostering an ever growing and ever less affordable welfare class that will eventually kill their financiers or be killed by them instead.

Any critics are welcome to explain what they plan to do with the increasingly abundant r-select ghetto trash who's minimal contribution to the workforce is rapidly vanishing and who's idle hands and cash-strapped pockets will prove ample tools for the devil to play with.

Post: #94

Eventually almost everything becomes automated. .001% of the population will be maintaining some software. Innovation always continues to reduce the actual numbers of people needed for software though. Robots will be maintaining and/or building other robots. All blue collar labor will be automated. Almost all white collar labor will be automated. The most resilient professions are probably politician, lawyer, and maybe some jobs related to arts and entertainment. As the number of people working shrinks, getting a job depends less and less on ability, and more on connections and/or willingness to be someone's bitch. Maybe jobs as maids and butlers make a comeback if some wealthy people prefer them to robots.

That's all inevitable, barring catastrophic collapse of civilization. The only thing to argue about is the timing.

As you get further and further down that road, you need something like a universal income, else it seems like it becomes pretty dystopian. I've always been a supporter of people being rewarded for productive work, but that model simply falls apart as less and less human work is needed. You can still have a free market in terms of hiring people who are interested in doing some work to get supplemental income (in addition to the universal income).

Without something like that, I don't see how you have anything other than an oligarchy of owners ... a tiny % of the population, don't think that your 401k gets you in that group ... and the vast majority of the population who are effectively slaves even if you don't call them that. As the supply/demand balance of labor continues to shift, even brilliant hard working top .1% type people have so little leverage that they will never enter the ruling class short of finding a way to lead a revolt. At this time we are simply moving in that direction. I know some people are going to have an emotional reaction against that idea, but ... believe me, by nature I'm a free market person ... I just have life experience, eyes, and ability to see the big picture forming.

Post: #95

(03-02-2017 08:11 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  This might seem insane and dystopian but it's quite humane compared to fostering an ever growing and ever less affordable welfare class that will eventually kill their financiers or be killed by them instead.

Any critics are welcome to explain what they plan to do with the increasingly abundant r-select ghetto trash who's minimal contribution to the workforce is rapidly vanishing and who's idle hands and cash-strapped pockets will prove ample tools for the devil to play with.

Legitimate concerns yes but you may be overly negative. The Malthusian view says the world should have collapsed by now, yet here we are. I don't have the answer, perhaps UBI?

I'll say this though on the pace of automation: not all jobs can be automated, yet. Current and foreseeable future tech out to 5-10 years are incapable of context. Bots need to be told exactly what to do, no interpretation. So those jobs that are automation proof ironically, are SJW-esque jobs of feelings and care. Therapist, social worker, anything with a high degree of human contact.

If your job process looks like, when X do Y, with 99% confidence, you are gonna get automated. If you job process looks like I feel/judge/talk to others, sleep well for you are the last to go(if at all).

The day AI comes along and Data from Star Trek is your psychologist, it won't matter anyways cause Skynet is born and you'll be fighting for the Resistance then.

Post: #96

(03-02-2017 04:24 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  I don't know what the answer to the problem of automation is. I don't know if there IS an answer. You can't just say "Don't automate", because countries that don't will get wiped out economically by countries that do. But I strongly believe that humans need to work at SOMETHING in order to have a fulfilling life, and the long term lack of a job is devastating to an individual. If you like Anonymous Conservative's nomenclature, it "turns you R".

If you want to see what a community without employment looks like, look to the inner city. Nobody starves to death in the ghetto. There's no food shortages. Power service is constant. People have enough clothes. There's access to the best medical care in the world at US emergency rooms. By all rights, it should be a paradise on Earth. And yet it's an awful, awful place to be. That's because of a large-scale lack of jobs. And my fear is that automation is going to bring the ghetto everywhere.

Yes, we can find some common ground here. I agree with everything in your first paragraph.

I think we found a chicken and egg problem, with your second paragraph. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you are saying a lack of jobs is the main thing bad about the ghetto. Perhaps that it even caused the ghetto in the first place.

I would say that removing a person's dignity to provide for themselves by making welfare/housing available via the state is a far worse thing that leads to them being unable to compete for or secure long term employment.

You and Leonard probably disagree, but maybe now we are closer to the issue of why we disagree???

(03-02-2017 01:49 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Are you somehow convinced that you can skirt reality with your own brand of morality?

"Ex-Wendys workers" are already torching shit. We call it Ferguson and Baltimore. Less jobs per capita = more welfare = more tax = more automation = less jobs per capita.

Is there something confusing about this?

It's not confusing, it's wrong.

I don't accept your premise that joblessness is the prime mover in Ferguson/Baltimore. Prove it.

(03-02-2017 01:49 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I'm not saying automation isn't a fact of life, and I'm not saying that the government needs to swoop on Wendys™ but I have a good laugh when the problems of same are warded away by blindfold-libertarians who seem to think that invoking their ancient god will lead society through the valley of evil to the garden of eden.

That's exactly how I feel when I see someone invoking pat answers to save the jobs.

Who are these imaginary people you are debating with that have claimed their ideas are going to bring paradise?

(03-02-2017 01:49 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  There are bloodless solutions to the mechanisation of human labour.

Ignoring the stragglers is not one of those bloodless solutions.

But I loved your analogy about increasing game and beating job loss due to technology. Would you like to extrapolate on it by explaining the parallels between homelessness/starvation and masturbating to hentai?

So glib! Yes, why would we even talk about this at all when you have the "only sensible" answer:

(03-02-2017 08:11 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  the only sensible approach to increasing levels of automation in the workforce is to gradually reduce the population and increase the human quality of that remainder. This could be achieved easily over a single generation by offering enhanced levels of welfare to anyone freely willing to be rendered infertile.

This might seem insane and dystopian but it's quite humane compared to fostering an ever growing and ever less affordable welfare class that will eventually kill their financiers or be killed by them instead.

Any critics are welcome to explain what they plan to do with the increasingly abundant r-select ghetto trash who's minimal contribution to the workforce is rapidly vanishing and who's idle hands and cash-strapped pockets will prove ample tools for the devil to play with.

You not only want to make people welfare-dependent (check out some Native reservations to see how that plays out), you want to sterilize them in the bargain.

So in other words you want to snuff them out.

What other devil is going to come along and do them worse than that?

Post: #97

(03-01-2017 02:00 PM)Thrill Jackson Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 01:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 01:03 PM)Thrill Jackson Wrote:  ^plenty of construction and other blue collar work is available.

This is a lie.

Sources

http://m.bakingbusiness.com/articles/new...6%7D&cck=1

truck drive shortage

https://hennessysview.com/2017/01/14/ame...t-college/


oil jobs


I can go all day.

All bullshit spin. All of these "shortages" are in reality jobs that do not pay enough given the time and dedication involved.

But the reason there is not enough pay is because there is not enough demand for the services and goods offered, so prices have to stay low.

And the reason demand is so low is because we employ slave labor overseas to give us goods and services for cheap.

Once tariffs go up, producers will be able to raise prices and in turn raise wages to fill in these jobs.

And yes, before anyone says higher prices will collapse the economy; wrong. American cities have PLENTY of cash. The reason the American economy is so weak is because flyover country is suffering, but major cities are booming. The cities are merely sending their cash overseas, once the tariffs go up cash will be sent from the cities into the heartland.

Post: #98

A world where everything is made by robots is rather utopian to be honest. Either things will degenerate into brave new world, or a new world of family rearing and settling will occur to fill up the land.

Post: #99

(03-01-2017 09:28 AM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  It's not just fast food:





Back in the '90s I had a job that took be through slaughterhouses. Though it had an assembly line, the actually boning, cutting, etc, was done by people. Lots of people.

I noticed the Americans were rapidly being replaced by foreigners. Most I am pretty sure were not in the country legally.

Makes perfect sense if you consider the rate and severity of injuries in that industry. Guys like this can make it look easy, but for years slaughterhouses have been very high risk environments. I'd rather have robots doing that job if I owned the facility.

Quote:And yes, before anyone says higher prices will collapse the economy; wrong. American cities have PLENTY of cash. The reason the American economy is so weak is because flyover country is suffering, but major cities are booming. The cities are merely sending their cash overseas, once the tariffs go up cash will be sent from the cities into the heartland.

I'm not so sure about the cities either. They are up to their collective asses in pension liabilities, among other things. The big push Obama had to create infrastructure jobs back in 2008? Nearly all of the money doled out to the states went to the general funds where they propped up their ailing pension systems. If you're just starting out in a state gig expecting a pension in 20 years, you might want to make a contingency plan.

Post: #100

(03-01-2017 06:15 PM)Brillynt Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 03:39 PM)mpr Wrote:  A $15/hour minimum wage is a good thing. It either means that employers have to pay a living wage instead of forcing me to subsidize the cost of their workforce with welfare. Or they have to automatic which will create good paying jobs for American IT techs. They're also limited regarding the amount that they can outsource kiosk repair since the kiosks are physically located in the United States.

The problem with this is that $15 "Living Wage" becomes the old $5 wage. Prices will have to go up to account for the increased cost of labor and then people cant live on $15. The "Living Wage" argument is just a SJW ploy.

Exactly. I used to hear a similar gripe while on active duty now and then: "I'm a private with three kids and a wife and I can't make ends meet!" Well, uh, is that really the Army's problem you had more kids than you can afford? Get your ass into community college, get a two year degree and apply to become an officer if it's that important. Ditto for people who get a part time gig at Dunkin Donuts and moan because they can't get a mortgage. "Living wage" is just the language of the left used to advance Fabian socialism.