Post: #376

Yangs assertion that truck drivers will be replaced by robot drivers in the next 5-10 years is a bit of a leap.

Those big trucks are not easy to drive. Whether we throw 50 billion or 50 trillion dollars at robot drivers, we may not get robot truck drivers. It’s sort of how Obama’s plan to replace gas burning cars with electric cars isn’t going to happen no matter how many billions of dollars we throw at electric cars. The hybrids are doing well.

Post: #377

(02-26-2019 01:42 PM)eradicator Wrote:  Yangs assertion that truck drivers will be replaced by robot drivers in the next 5-10 years is a bit of a leap.

Those big trucks are not easy to drive. Whether we throw 50 billion or 50 trillion dollars at robot drivers, we may not get robot truck drivers. It’s sort of how Obama’s plan to replace gas burning cars with electric cars isn’t going to happen no matter how many billions of dollars we throw at electric cars. The hybrids are doing well.

So basically we should do nothing to prepare the labor force for automation coming in the future? This guy is in touch with the smartest people in Silicon Valley and most of the research echoes what he is predicting. Tesla Model 3 production is skyrocketing so I don't know what information you are referencing.

The future is coming whether you like it or not, and we need politicians that can think long term, god knows we haven't had one in awhile.

Post: #378

I didn’t say that. Main Street is already being replaced by amazon. Cashiers and retail jobs are getting nuked by amazon

My solution would be to break up amazon due to antitrust violations. Same for google.

As for people who buy electric cars, they all seem to have one thing in common, they hate it and immediately get rid of it.

Post: #379

(02-26-2019 04:31 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  The CONS for me (for now):

1. The big one for me immigration. He comes from educated/professional immigrant parents and he acknowledges that they are a different profile from your typical Latin American immigrant (illegal and legal) but he wants to give a path to citizenship to illegals anyway assuming they follow certain standards like maintaining/having a clean background. Apparently, it's not practical to remove 10 million plus illegals. I disagree enormously.


2. He wants to do Medicare for All but where doctors get a flat salary instead. I'm just going off his website but I'd be really worried about flat salary doctors in America if the VA and military medical are anything to go by. I know those are true socialized examples with gov't workers but I'd like to see some sort of tiered model based on body fat percentage and other poor lifestyle choices.

Fat ass who abuses their body? You're paying a surcharge.

That said, Trump has done barely fuck all to fix the healthcare system. At this point, I'd rather have Medicare for All than the expensive as hell disaster we have right now.

Bottom line for me so far:

For a democrat in 2019, he is about as good as it will ever get I think. The rest of the field with the possible odd or so exception is such a hot fire cluster fuck of worthless retards; none of which are worth remotely considering at a basic level.

I could see the democrat base and a lot of crossover Trump voters getting behind his UBI deal but I would imagine by not playing the identity politics game and God forbid, acknowledging poor white people, he could be shoved to the side similarly to how Jim Webb was ignored in 2016 when he tried to acknowledge poor white people problems during the debates. As a minority advocating for medicare for all and a UBI, he might be able to overcome it though.

In such a large primary field of retards, he could come out like the semi-sensible one in the clown house if he has strong debate performances. There is also the asian-american race factor which could be a major pull for him in places like California (which moved up its primary to Super Tuesday I believe) as well as Washington state, NYC area, and other locations with significant Asian populations. Asian-Americans to my recollection have never had a serious US Presidential contender or even primary contender and with many Asian-Americans becoming more politically aware and active (ex: Harvard admissions lawsuit), it will be interesting to see how they vote when given a choice to vote for one of their own.

Whether Yang could actually win anything, it's possible. He is selling something that is rooted in genuine concerns that appeals across the entire political spectrum and even across socioeconomic classes (plenty of white collar work will be automated soon as well); while also appealing to peoples natural desire for free stuff. He has obvious high raw intelligence and if he can combine that with some charisma and strong debate performances, he could be a powerful contender.

That all said, if we are going to get stuck with a democrat super majority in the near future, which is likely the case with the demographic war largely lost from the looks of it unfortunately (excluding secession/revolt/Trump declaring martial law), I would rather someone like this Yang guy setting the tone/agenda by a significant margin vs the rest of the democrats currently running. The rest of the field makes me want to abandon ship or start a civil war if they win in 2020.

Great analysis. On the immigration front, at some point there must be someone who asks him a question about it - "If automation will eliminate tens of millions of jobs over the next couple of decades, then why should we let in any immigrants that will compete with Americans for the few remaining jobs?"

Also on the Joe Rogan podcast he spent a few minutes talking about automation and AI in healthcare, noting that radiology is now a disappearing field. If he was President then I think he would take an innovative/technocratic approach to healthcare reform and hopefully get rid of some of the waste in the system.

Post: #380

For mining it’s already happening. Most of the equipment will be autonomous... This is coming very soon (10yrs)

Post: #381

(02-26-2019 01:49 PM)eradicator Wrote:  I didn’t say that. Main Street is already being replaced by amazon. Cashiers and retail jobs are getting nuked by amazon

My solution would be to break up amazon due to antitrust violations. Same for google.

Anti-trust violation enforcement will do very little to help workers harmed by automation and technological disruption. So far, retraining hasn't worked.

Post: #382

Call centers, cashiers, retail employees are all screwed.

Post: #383

(02-26-2019 12:53 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  I'd feel far safer with Kamala Harris as our president than some Asian technocrat.

The guy's parents moved to the US in the 1960s, his roots here are about as deep as TV Dinners.

What if someone had turkish parents but was born in america, then would a turkish-american be able to run for president? I didn't know it was a rule that having immigrant parents prevented someone from being president

Post: #384

Sam I usually agree with you, but Yang is an American. Come on bro...

Post: #385

(02-26-2019 02:50 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Sam I usually agree with you, but Yang is an American. Come on bro...

Well, he's definitely an American.
But I don't think we want somebody whose roots in this country are so new running the place.

If I married a white chick and we both moved to Mexico, and my son wanted to run for President, he'd be told to get the fuck out. Why should it be any different here?

Post: #386

(02-26-2019 01:42 PM)eradicator Wrote:  Yangs assertion that truck drivers will be replaced by robot drivers in the next 5-10 years is a bit of a leap.

Those big trucks are not easy to drive. Whether we throw 50 billion or 50 trillion dollars at robot drivers, we may not get robot truck drivers. It’s sort of how Obama’s plan to replace gas burning cars with electric cars isn’t going to happen no matter how many billions of dollars we throw at electric cars. The hybrids are doing well.

It might not be 5-10, but it's going to happen. It certainly will within 20 years. I think by then as many as 30% of existing jobs will be automated.

Some kind of UBI is inevitable. It has to be. You can't have armies of unemployed people roaming around. Now add that to our current sexual feminist hysteria and you'll see how destabilizing it is.

I wish Trump would get on this and sell it as welfare reform. He didn't get elected on a Paul Ryan platform.

Yang has good foresight. Of anyone running on team blue he's easily the most palatable.

Post: #387

(02-26-2019 03:00 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(02-26-2019 02:50 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Sam I usually agree with you, but Yang is an American. Come on bro...

Well, he's definitely an American.
But I don't think we want somebody whose roots in this country are so new running the place.

If I married a white chick and we both moved to Mexico, and my son wanted to run for President, he'd be told to get the fuck out. Why should it be any different here?

Did you have an issue with Arnold Schwarzenegger running California?

Post: #388

I never really thought about it at the time, but it's hard to say that it worked out particularly well for anybody. (Least of all him, he went from 'universally beloved powerhouse' to 'old guy who fucked his ugly maid')

Of course, he's specifically barred from running for president because the founders were smart enough to realize that you don't want foreign cultures running your government.

Post: #389

Doubtful many in D.C. would care too much about truck drivers & the like.
Yet if the comments of this Brian Cox (rocker / physicist) are anything to go by, the idea of lawyers being replaced by AGI's could definitely cause concern in political spheres.

Post: #390

Glad to see Yang getting discussion and support here. He's doing a good job of pushing the overton window out on automation and men's issues (including white men). Hopefully he gets the 65,000 individual donations he needs to make the Democratic debates.

Post: #391

(02-26-2019 03:32 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  Of course, he's specifically barred from running for president because the founders were smart enough to realize that you don't want foreign cultures running your government.

Which is they barred people that weren't born or raised here from running. How would that apply to Yang since he was born and raised here? Were the Founders not smart enough to extend the birth clause to requiring that a person be at least 3rd of 4th generation? Trump's mother was originally born in Scotland and then immigrated later as a teenager. Does that make Trump's roots in the country not deep enough?

Post: #392

(02-26-2019 03:01 PM)Libertas Wrote:  It might not be 5-10, but it's going to happen. It certainly will within 20 years. I think by then as many as 30% of existing jobs will be automated.

Some kind of UBI is inevitable. It has to be. You can't have armies of unemployed people roaming around. Now add that to our current sexual feminist hysteria and you'll see how destabilizing it is.

A lot of jobs can be easily replaced with technological automation because they are both mechanically and intellectually trivial. Waiters, for example. In restaurants Japan they have been replaced with vending machines and tablets. Some restaurants even use machines to deliver the food to your table.

In the USA I've yet to see widespread adoption of these types of automation, but it seems to be headed in that direction as states increase the minimum wage. What's troubling is that restaurants, etc, aren't being slow to adopt it because of concern for their workers, customers, or even bottom line, but because management is so set in their ways and wedded to the status quo. Which doesn't bode well for the service economy's ability to deal with the upheaval of automation.

Post: #393

(02-26-2019 01:52 PM)Arado Wrote:  

(02-26-2019 04:31 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  The CONS for me (for now):

1. The big one for me immigration. He comes from educated/professional immigrant parents and he acknowledges that they are a different profile from your typical Latin American immigrant (illegal and legal) but he wants to give a path to citizenship to illegals anyway assuming they follow certain standards like maintaining/having a clean background. Apparently, it's not practical to remove 10 million plus illegals. I disagree enormously.


2. He wants to do Medicare for All but where doctors get a flat salary instead. I'm just going off his website but I'd be really worried about flat salary doctors in America if the VA and military medical are anything to go by. I know those are true socialized examples with gov't workers but I'd like to see some sort of tiered model based on body fat percentage and other poor lifestyle choices.

Fat ass who abuses their body? You're paying a surcharge.

That said, Trump has done barely fuck all to fix the healthcare system. At this point, I'd rather have Medicare for All than the expensive as hell disaster we have right now.

Bottom line for me so far:

For a democrat in 2019, he is about as good as it will ever get I think. The rest of the field with the possible odd or so exception is such a hot fire cluster fuck of worthless retards; none of which are worth remotely considering at a basic level.

I could see the democrat base and a lot of crossover Trump voters getting behind his UBI deal but I would imagine by not playing the identity politics game and God forbid, acknowledging poor white people, he could be shoved to the side similarly to how Jim Webb was ignored in 2016 when he tried to acknowledge poor white people problems during the debates. As a minority advocating for medicare for all and a UBI, he might be able to overcome it though.

In such a large primary field of retards, he could come out like the semi-sensible one in the clown house if he has strong debate performances. There is also the asian-american race factor which could be a major pull for him in places like California (which moved up its primary to Super Tuesday I believe) as well as Washington state, NYC area, and other locations with significant Asian populations. Asian-Americans to my recollection have never had a serious US Presidential contender or even primary contender and with many Asian-Americans becoming more politically aware and active (ex: Harvard admissions lawsuit), it will be interesting to see how they vote when given a choice to vote for one of their own.

Whether Yang could actually win anything, it's possible. He is selling something that is rooted in genuine concerns that appeals across the entire political spectrum and even across socioeconomic classes (plenty of white collar work will be automated soon as well); while also appealing to peoples natural desire for free stuff. He has obvious high raw intelligence and if he can combine that with some charisma and strong debate performances, he could be a powerful contender.

That all said, if we are going to get stuck with a democrat super majority in the near future, which is likely the case with the demographic war largely lost from the looks of it unfortunately (excluding secession/revolt/Trump declaring martial law), I would rather someone like this Yang guy setting the tone/agenda by a significant margin vs the rest of the democrats currently running. The rest of the field makes me want to abandon ship or start a civil war if they win in 2020.

Great analysis. On the immigration front, at some point there must be someone who asks him a question about it - "If automation will eliminate tens of millions of jobs over the next couple of decades, then why should we let in any immigrants that will compete with Americans for the few remaining jobs?"

Also on the Joe Rogan podcast he spent a few minutes talking about automation and AI in healthcare, noting that radiology is now a disappearing field. If he was President then I think he would take an innovative/technocratic approach to healthcare reform and hopefully get rid of some of the waste in the system.

This is a great question and one I had initially thought up but didn't put in my original post.

My guess is he will say that the US fucked up by having lax border controls for decades and it's inhumane to kick out the current illegals since they have built up lives in the US. I'm interested to see how he defines "make them earn it."

As for future immigrants and the declining future job opportunities, I have no idea how you can rationalize bringing anyone in except the absolute best and needed. His website has a decent amount of details on various topics (especially for a candidate this early into the cycle) but I couldn't find anything after a quick glance addressing this particular point.

Post: #394

(02-26-2019 10:44 PM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

(02-26-2019 01:52 PM)Arado Wrote:  Great analysis. On the immigration front, at some point there must be someone who asks him a question about it - "If automation will eliminate tens of millions of jobs over the next couple of decades, then why should we let in any immigrants that will compete with Americans for the few remaining jobs?"

Also on the Joe Rogan podcast he spent a few minutes talking about automation and AI in healthcare, noting that radiology is now a disappearing field. If he was President then I think he would take an innovative/technocratic approach to healthcare reform and hopefully get rid of some of the waste in the system.

This is a great question and one I had initially thought up but didn't put in my original post.

My guess is he will say that the US fucked up by having lax border controls for decades and it's inhumane to kick out the current illegals since they have built up lives in the US. I'm interested to see how he defines "make them earn it."

As for future immigrants and the declining future job opportunities, I have no idea how you can rationalize bringing anyone in except the absolute best and needed. His website has a decent amount of details on various topics (especially for a candidate this early into the cycle) but I couldn't find anything after a quick glance addressing this particular point.

Agreed - actually many of the paleoconservative websites have been discussing automation in the immigration context for several years and keep banging this point but still no major politician has ran with it. Various commentators keep calling politicians stupid for blaming China for manufacturing jobs lost when automation is the real culprit, but no one has taken that further and examined its implications for mass immigration. At some point Yang is going to have to resolve this contradiction, and become more strict on immigration and will likely be kicked out of the nomination early.

However, so far Yang and Gabbard are the only ones to have gone on Joe Rogan. They could make a powerful combo in an independent run.

Post: #395

(02-26-2019 11:56 PM)Arado Wrote:  

(02-26-2019 10:44 PM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

(02-26-2019 01:52 PM)Arado Wrote:  Great analysis. On the immigration front, at some point there must be someone who asks him a question about it - "If automation will eliminate tens of millions of jobs over the next couple of decades, then why should we let in any immigrants that will compete with Americans for the few remaining jobs?"

Also on the Joe Rogan podcast he spent a few minutes talking about automation and AI in healthcare, noting that radiology is now a disappearing field. If he was President then I think he would take an innovative/technocratic approach to healthcare reform and hopefully get rid of some of the waste in the system.

This is a great question and one I had initially thought up but didn't put in my original post.

My guess is he will say that the US fucked up by having lax border controls for decades and it's inhumane to kick out the current illegals since they have built up lives in the US. I'm interested to see how he defines "make them earn it."

As for future immigrants and the declining future job opportunities, I have no idea how you can rationalize bringing anyone in except the absolute best and needed. His website has a decent amount of details on various topics (especially for a candidate this early into the cycle) but I couldn't find anything after a quick glance addressing this particular point.

Agreed - actually many of the paleoconservative websites have been discussing automation in the immigration context for several years and keep banging this point but still no major politician has ran with it. Various commentators keep calling politicians stupid for blaming China for manufacturing jobs lost when automation is the real culprit, but no one has taken that further and examined its implications for mass immigration. At some point Yang is going to have to resolve this contradiction, and become more strict on immigration and will likely be kicked out of the nomination early.

However, so far Yang and Gabbard are the only ones to have gone on Joe Rogan. They could make a powerful combo in an independent run.

I don't think he will run into any major issue addressing the question we brought up. He is gonna just sell the "we want the best and brightest" deal as I alluded to; same thing that Trump does.

Under his website: Entice High-Skill Individuals (https://www.yang2020.com/policies/entici...dividuals/)

Quote:With me as your President, we will win again. We will make it clear that if you are smart and enterprising and want to build a business, there is no better place than the United States.

[...]

As such, we should greatly expand our H-1B and F-1 visa programs to allow significantly more highly skilled individuals and top-of-their-class students to study and work here. Additionally, any highly rated worker or graduating student who receives a graduate degree here should be given a green card to remain in this country as a permanent resident.

[...]

Enhance the H-1B visa program and give workers who receive positive reviews from employees the options to remain in the country as permanent residents.

Enhance the F-1 visa program and automatically grant any student who graduates with at least a graduate degree a green card.

So, he basically wants to hand out green cards (which are paths to citizenship) to tech workers and foreign graduate students; the latter I think he mentioned on the Rogan podcast. Green cards for top tier people is one thing; green cards for just getting a grad degree in the US is a HUGE no for me. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if this gets revised later on into the primary cycle; like a grad degree only in very in-demand fields qualifies.

As for a Yang/Gabbard INDEPENDENT run: not a chance.

Yang specifically said when asked about running as an independent that the system isn't designed for independent candidates to succeed. I like Gabbard on the anti-war/pro-veteran stuff but don't know if she is a good political complement to Yang at this point since I'm still just feeling out Yang and Gabbard. Yang's website is actually pretty detailed on a ton of issues (for this stage of the cycle) while Gabbard's is basically just a glitzy autobiography page at this point. Talk about reinforcing the stereotypes of men and women; the guy is all about solving problems with specifics and the woman just wants to talk about herself.

At a basic level: Yang's weakness would be foreign policy and lack of gov't experience and Gabbard would fill both slots (including the women card as well). On the surface of all the announced candidates, she would seem to be the only decent fit for Yang.

Post: #396

Post: #397

(02-26-2019 01:42 PM)eradicator Wrote:  Yangs assertion that truck drivers will be replaced by robot drivers in the next 5-10 years is a bit of a leap.

Those big trucks are not easy to drive. Whether we throw 50 billion or 50 trillion dollars at robot drivers, we may not get robot truck drivers. It’s sort of how Obama’s plan to replace gas burning cars with electric cars isn’t going to happen no matter how many billions of dollars we throw at electric cars. The hybrids are doing well.

Don't take him 'literally' on the truck driver thing. It's like when people like selena zito tell 'resisters' that they don't get trump because they took him 'literally not seriously'.

Just last week, Citi and Pepsi flatly announced that they are looking to cut significant jobs through increased automation.

What Yang is describing was laid out a few years ago by Andrew McAfee, Erik Brinjolffsen (sp/), and a whole host of other researchers.

As technology moves rapidly up the human skill-tree so to speak, it gets harder and harder for the median human out 'out run' it.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenu...t-workers/

Yang is suggesting that many of the 'solutions' currently put out by think tanks and others aren't really solutions because they lack credible evidence (hence why he harps about how ridiculous the upskilling thing is when trying to deploy on a wide scale).

Post: #398

I saw Yang on the Joe Rogan show and thought that what he said on automation made a lot of sense. He seems to get it, whereas most politicians just ignore it or aren't even aware of what's coming.

However, there were a few moments during that interview where I got reminded that he's running as a Democrat, and I didn't like those parts at all.
Now maybe he's just paying lip service to get that ticket, or he sincerely believes all that shit; either way he's not an option.

I think the best outcome would be his campaign not going anywhere, but managing to bring the automation issue to the American public's attention.

Post: #399

(02-26-2019 05:05 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

(02-26-2019 03:32 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  Of course, he's specifically barred from running for president because the founders were smart enough to realize that you don't want foreign cultures running your government.

Which is they barred people that weren't born or raised here from running. How would that apply to Yang since he was born and raised here? Were the Founders not smart enough to extend the birth clause to requiring that a person be at least 3rd of 4th generation? Trump's mother was originally born in Scotland and then immigrated later as a teenager. Does that make Trump's roots in the country not deep enough?

I think some people want to preserve the anglo culture and European-American leadership.

Post: #400

(02-26-2019 04:31 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 06:50 PM)911 Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 03:50 AM)floor7 Wrote:  



A fan of Andrew Yang.

This guy is worth a second look, he seems like a decent candidate, at least by the Dems' standards (granted those have been abysmal). Probably the most competent of the bunch, he's got a bit of Lee Kuan Yew in him.

Being a fan of Lee Kuan Yew and what he was able to do in a single lifetime (i.e. turn Singapore from a backwater town into a major world player), I decided to watch the entire interview. For anyone that hasn't watched videos on Lee Kuan Yew and have an interest in how to build/run societies, I highly recommend looking over some videos of/about him on YouTube. Fascinating guy.

One of the most under rated figures of modern history. Massively influential to huge numbers of people outside the highly successful country he founded. Modern China wouldn't have done what they did unless he had shown them how. they sent over 22,000 official to Singapore to study their successes.

Also, the biggest case of Going Galt in history. Singapore was expelled from Malaysia because Lee Kuan Yew was advocating for equal rights for everyone (and to maintain Malaysia's slender Muslim voting majority) and proceeded to leave them in the dust.