Trump vs. Clinton

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by V

It seems like you forgot what you put in your OP.

this threw me

Originally Posted by photon

You're embarrassing yourself...

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I don't understand how he survived that.

30 years ago both of them would have been out before the conventions.

He didn't really. He was run over in the polls after that. What flipped it back was the FBI deciding they need to investigate her again. Lots of chatter and nobody is pointing out she had him beat by miles. But all the polls stared to turn, the day after the FBI thing came out.

[Harry Lime]

Clinton burying Saunders through political shenanigans was, as stated above, an extremely undemocratic event.

I think that people also remember that she was very cutthroat towards Obama when they were vying for the Presidency the first time around. I'm sure that many traditionally Democrat voters have long memories.

In a working democracy, trust in a candidate is everything, and she proved herself untrustworthy. On the other hand, Trump is a very simple man. You can trust him to be exactly what you expect. He comes by his sliminess honestly, and thoroughly.

They are two different kinds of Bond villain.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Yes farmers are absolutely part of society. Do you know of any who only work 8 hours a day 5 days a week?

I don't see how the part of society made up of workers who are losing their jobs and consumers who are not seeing prices drop despite the labour cost savings from these efficiencies are benefiting, perhaps you could go into a little more detail to clarify. Cost cutting measures do not always equal higher efficiency, a self serve kiosk does not get the job done better or faster than a real person, because a real person is still needed to use that machine, and in a lot of cases it could be argued that not having a trained person using the machine actually reduces efficiency.



Most of your examples don't lead to less work for everyone, because they were introduced at a time when the new technology created more jobs than it eliminated. We are at a point where this is being less and less often the case. Trucks replacing horses reduced the number of people needed to drive carriages, but it also created the need for mechanics. The carriage builder jobs were replaced by vehicle assmbly line jobs and so on.

Now with self serve kiosks, we have jobs being eliminated to save on labour costs, rather than to increase efficiency at the productivity level. People will argue that it will create jobs because those machines require maintenance, which is true, however it will not create as many jobs as it eliminates, and as unemployment rises, the compensation for those new jobs will be given to the lowest bidder. So less people working, making less money, contributing less tax revenue and reducing consumerism. People will also argue these machines will need to be built, which is also true, but if you've seen an assembly line recently you'll have noticed machines building these machines is becoming the new norm.



If you really believe that people were handed a 40 hour work week because of efficiency, I don't know what to tell you other than you really need to do some research.

Workers continue to fight to this day to reduce other forms of labour cost reducing "efficiencies" such as the outsourcing of jobs. Why? Because increasing consumerism grows the economy, not labour cost reduction for employers that are already thriving. This past year workers at AT&T in the states fought to have their company bring back thousands of outsourced jobs because it became obvious that this cost cutting "efficiency" wasn't helping society or the economy, it was only helping AT&T's profits.

I'd say that disprooves your claim that without efficiency workers fighting for what makes sense won't get them(or others) anywhere.

To everyone who makes these claims that reducing costs for businesses and the rich will somehow benefit everyone, I suggest taking a step back for a minute and considering this: you are making the same arguments as Donald Trump. Think about that.

You are missing the key point

Automation is always good. It's what allowed us to go from hunter gatherer to now and reduce the labour required for everything.

The distribution of the gain of efficiency needs to be determined and fought over and how the gain is distributed will determine whether society or a small portion thereof benefits.

Why were workers able to fight for shorter hours in coal mines? Because the value of what they produced was great enough that it was possible to pay two workers to do that work and it still be viable relative to whale oil or wood.

Can you show any evidence that more jobs were created than were lost through the development of any tech?

Being against automation is being a Luddite being concerned how the wealth gains from automation are distributed is very reasonable.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

You are missing the key point

Automation is always good. It's what allowed us to go from hunter gatherer to now and reduce the labour required for everything.

Automation is not always good, and it isn't what allowed us to go from hunter gatherer to now. You make points in your own post about the downsides to automation so how can you make the claim that it isnalways good?

Why were workers able to fight for shorter hours in coal mines? Because the value of what they produced was great enough that it was possible to pay two workers to do that work and it still be viable relative to whale oil or wood.

This is at best a manipulated rewriting of history. When workers fought for a reduced work week they weren't saying that automation had made it possible, they were saying that they were no longer interested in working themselves to death so their employer could reap all the benefits.

Can you show any evidence that more jobs were created than were lost through the development of any tech?

There are examples where more jobs were created than lost,and examples of more jobs being lost than created, the point I'm making is that the latter is becoming more and more prevalent.

Being against automation is being a Luddite being concerned how the wealth gains from automation are distributed is very reasonable.

So you are suggesting that being a Luddite is very reasonable? What else did you think is the major concern for them? My position isn't about being against every automation, my position is that the overall benefits from automation will not always outweigh the overall negatives.

If overall, employers profit from automation but have no options for reinvesting those profits to create new different jobs for the people who lose their jobs from automation I do not see how this is a good thing for everyone or anyone in the long run for that matter. When jobs are eliminated by an employer and workers have no other options to earn a living, those employers and other businesses begin to lose consumers, which lowers their profits, if they automate more to make up for the shortfall, it becomes a downward spiral for both themselves and their (former) employees. The employer can lower prices to keep competitive in attracting consumers but wasn't the whole point of automating to grow their business? Automation that outpaces job creation by too great of a margin essentially manufactures economic recession, when the profit bubble bursts because their aren't enough consumers remaining to keep profits increasing and stimulate growth you end up with workers earning less and employers with smaller profits, and an higher unemployment rate. It is important to remember we are limited by technology, we cannot blindly expect to be able to always create new jobs at the same rate that we eliminate them.

[JohnnyB]

The current/impending speed and scale of impact from automation is unprecedented. Not only that, but the nature of work to be automated is increasingly knowledge work, creative work and empathetic work in addition to physical work. There are some changes coming that will be unlike previous shifts and may well lead to mass unemployment.

[Matata]

Trying to look way down the road: No one on Star Trek has a traditional job, it's just a bunch of people doing whatever they're interested in, a post-scarcity society would have little use for money or employment.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Automation is not always good, and it isn't what allowed us to go from hunter gatherer to now. You make points in your own post about the downsides to automation so how can you make the claim that it isnalways good?

This is at best a manipulated rewriting of history. When workers fought for a reduced work week they weren't saying that automation had made it possible, they were saying that they were no longer interested in working themselves to death so their employer could reap all the benefits.

There are examples where more jobs were created than lost,and examples of more jobs being lost than created, the point I'm making is that the latter is becoming more and more prevalent.

So you are suggesting that being a Luddite is very reasonable? What else did you think is the major concern for them? My position isn't about being against every automation, my position is that the overall benefits from automation will not always outweigh the overall negatives.

If overall, employers profit from automation but have no options for reinvesting those profits to create new different jobs for the people who lose their jobs from automation I do not see how this is a good thing for everyone or anyone in the long run for that matter. When jobs are eliminated by an employer and workers have no other options to earn a living, those employers and other businesses begin to lose consumers, which lowers their profits, if they automate more to make up for the shortfall, it becomes a downward spiral for both themselves and their (former) employees. The employer can lower prices to keep competitive in attracting consumers but wasn't the whole point of automating to grow their business? Automation that outpaces job creation by too great of a margin essentially manufactures economic recession, when the profit bubble bursts because their aren't enough consumers remaining to keep profits increasing and stimulate growth you end up with workers earning less and employers with smaller profits, and an higher unemployment rate. It is important to remember we are limited by technology, we cannot blindly expect to be able to always create new jobs at the same rate that we eliminate them.

1) if coal mining became not profitable because of the employees demands their demands wouldn't have been met. It's only because their was profit to be fought over that workers had an opportunity to fight.

2) like the above coal miners automation produces additional profit to be fought over. This can be taxed, or paid out in additional wages to remaining employees or taken as profit by the corporation. This fight over the benefit is different from the Luddite burning spinning wheels.

We have never been able to create new jobs at the rate we eliminate them. Unless you can provide an example. Look at how many jobs have been eliminated by robotics or computers.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Matata

Trying to look way down the road: No one on Star Trek has a traditional job, it's just a bunch of people doing whatever they're interested in, a post-scarcity society would have little use for money or employment.

That's the theory behind implementing universal income. Some people will become lazy, but most humans still want to be productive and recognized for their talents and/or labour.

Unfortunately, the right will never allow it to happen.

[JohnnyB]

Scarcity and UBI aren't in conflict with each other. Scarcity is a relative concept. Average Joe's in developed countries today live with greater excess than kings of the past, but don't feel that way because they see others with so much more than they have.

For that reason any move to a UBI may face less of a right-left ideological division than expected. In some economic scenarios UBI might become necessary for a capitalist economy to function, as there won't be sufficient consumers without it. At the same time, there will be ample room for businesses to generate massive profits and inequality in living standards will continue to exist. So, the capitalist incentive and system doesn't necessarily go away with a UBI.

To add to that, it should also follow that thinking of a society with UBI as some utopian future is very optimistic.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

1) if coal mining became not profitable because of the employees demands their demands wouldn't have been met. It's only because their was profit to be fought over that workers had an opportunity to fight.

A business cannot become unprofitable by employee demands, unless that business is foolish enough to agree to demands that would lead them to unprofitability. You are insinuating that businesses such as coal mines only have profits to be fought for due to automation, this is inaccurate. A business can have profits to be fought for by paying low wages and forcing people to do more work.

2) like the above coal miners automation produces additional profit to be fought over. This can be taxed, or paid out in additional wages to remaining employees or taken as profit by the corporation. This fight over the benefit is different from the Luddite burning spinning wheels.

You continue to bring up the Luddite argument as if I'm suggesting workers should start destroying machines. My argument is for a consumer based economy to grow, we need to ensure we have consumers. The fight for the benefit is part of the entire concept of protecting jobs. If a company chooses to automate a job to reduce labour costs, what makes you think they plan to pay those savings out to increase wages for their remaining workers?

We have never been able to create new jobs at the rate we eliminate them. Unless you can provide an example. Look at how many jobs have been eliminated by robotics or computers.

Can you provide an example for your argument that we have never been able to create new jobs at the rate we eliminate them? I understand hard data would likely be difficult to find, but I'm assuming you have some point of reference to defend such a broad statement. One example I can think which likely debunks your theory is an earlier example of your's: horse carriages being replaced by motorized vehicles. Data would be difficult to find obviously, however it would not be unreasonable to suggest that at the time, this example of automation did create more jobs than it eliminated, as a motorized vehicle requires far more labour to build and maintain than a horse carriage. It also directly increased the demand and created jobs in the oil and gas industry which were not there before. Efficiency and automation can stimulate economic growth, but only when they benefit both businesses and consumers(workers), right now that is not the case.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That's the theory behind implementing universal income. Some people will become lazy, but most humans still want to be productive and recognized for their talents and/or labour.

Unfortunately, the right will never allow it to happen.

I've said it before but I'll say it again, I believe the longterm risks of a basic income greatly outweigh the short term benefits.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I've said it before but I'll say it again, I believe the longterm risks of a basic income greatly outweigh the short term benefits.

You are very tiring to discuss things with as you simply miss basic economic principles in your promotion of the worker. I don't have the Patience to multiquote

If you force someone to work at a task that could be automated you effectively have a minimum income. They provide no value and you pay them for it. Why not tax the profit and pay them to actually do nothing or even better pay for public works programs that employ displaced people.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by GGG

You are very tiring to discuss things with as you simply miss basic economic principles in your promotion of the worker. I don't have the Patience to multiquote

If you force someone to work at a task that could be automated you effectively have glorified welfare They provide no value and you pay them for it. Why not tax the profit and pay them to actually do nothing or even better pay for public works programs that employ displaced people.

Just made an update.

When iggy's country makes a panel of an army of analysts who will clumsily determine what advancements make more jobs and which ones don't, more sophisticated countries will build the advancements and generate more wealth at the expense of iggy's country.

Economies are based on ideas and improvements. The value of simple labor in many areas is decreasing and has been for generations. Labor needs to evolve and adapt to what the planet wants, not pay milkmen 55k a year even though nobody needs a milkman, simply because iggy's thinks he deserves a decent wage.

[Flames in 07]

Since I posted something off topic I'll add one on topic.

This last election I was outside of Canada, and I learned something though the us election process. I used to look at Fox News as simply commentary, that is pretending to be news because it's pandering to A certain segment who will be dedicated watchers and won't change the channel during commercials, because nobody else gets them. I must admit that I saw them as an outlier.

However, watching Canadian coverage (post and globe) during the election, it was the exact same garbage, just pandering to a different group. The Canadian media I watched could care less about portraying a landscape of news, info and data. It just wanted to talk about how trump is a pig. Trump is a pig, but there is much more to the election, that in large part is being pointed out here, but the way I read the post and globe, I'm not surprised at all by the OP.

What's worse, I see very little pushback from people to ask media for simply data, not commentary, so now the Fox News model, that although I'm conservative, I despise, is replicated for all groups. People who like Huff Post know the news to be one thing, Foxnews people know the news to be a different thing, and everyone ends up getting slanted garbage. To me, that means we get much more extremist candidates in the future. More Trumps, more Bernie Sanders, more Trudeaus who is pissing away the next generations wealth at an alarming rate but he's got a mad selfie game. Just less well balanced, thoughtful planners and visionaries who focus on what's best for the whole or the system.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

You are very tiring to discuss things with as you simply miss basic economic principles in your promotion of the worker. I don't have the Patience to multiquote

If you believe a guaranteed universal income funded by a dwindling pool of income earners and profit earning companies will lead to greater economic growth than trying to create employment and increase consumerism, I'm not sure how seriously you should expect me to take your assessment of my position or the relation it has to basic economic principles. If you tire from my critiquing of your argument that automation is always a good thing just because you say it is, while using vague rewritings of history to defend it, I don't know what to tel you other than, enjoy tiring of it.

If you force someone to work at a task that could be automated you effectively have a minimum income. They provide no value and you pay them for it. Why not tax the profit and pay them to actually do nothing or even better pay for public works programs that employ displaced people.

How will taxing the labour cost savings create a better situation for society or the economy? If an employer is taxed at a rate of say 25% for the $50k it saves on labour by replacing an employee with a machine, I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that when no other jobs are available it will be to the economic value of anyone to reduce that former employees' income to $12.5k. It impacts consumer spending, which grows an economy, and it also reduces income tax revenue which was generated from that former employees' earnings, this reduces public services funding, which leads to further job losses and further shrinking of the economy.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

When iggy's country makes a panel of an army of analysts who will clumsily determine what advancements make more jobs and which ones don't, more sophisticated countries will build the advancements and generate more wealth at the expense of iggy's country.

Automation does not generate wealth, it only transfers it. Unless new jobs and business are being created from it to offset the loss it slowly erodes an economy.

Economies are based on ideas and improvements. The value of simple labor in many areas is decreasing and has been for generations. Labor needs to evolve and adapt to what the planet wants, not pay milkmen 55k a year even though nobody needs a milkman, simply because iggy's thinks he deserves a decent wage.

"Improvements" is the word that stands out the most in this statement. Cost savings from automation for an employer improves their direct labour costs, however depending on the numbers, it does not guarantee growth for that business. When employers are eliminating jobs, they reduce consumer spending, which reduces business for the businesses that those formerly employed workers spent their earnings at. This does not improve an economy.

Your milkman example is flawed for a few reasons. For starters, I never used that example so I'm not sure why you would suggest that. Secondly, to my knowledge there are no robots delivering milk door to door, milkmen were not eliminated due to automation, they were eliminated because the service had little demand due to the product becoming more accessible with the expansion of the grocery and convenience store industries as well as an increase in vehicle ownership among other factors. This is very different from the concept of car manufacturing plants automating and eliminating jobs, which reduces their customer base, which then in turn leads to price increases to maintain current profit levels or increase them for business gowth. This then leads to even fewer customers being able to purchase their product. If automation lead to everything becoming cheaper, there'd be less of a negative impact, do you have any examples where prices on a product saw a direct reduction after a business automated?

[JohnnyB]

The discussion in this thread about whether or not historical examples of automation have led to increases or decreases in employment seems to me to miss the real significance of current trends in automation. Automation has always led to job losses and increases in frictional unemployment, but that has been responded to with people learning new skills and then working with the aid of automation to enhance their productivity. This has generally led to a more educated, skilled and productive workforce because the speed of workforce improvement in knowledge and skills has been fast enough to keep up with the speed of improvements in automation. The big thing that makes current changes different is that we are rapidly approaching a point at which the capacity of the workforce to re-skill fast enough to keep up with advances in automation is coming to an end. When we reach that point, frictional employment will rapidly turn into persistently discouraged workers. Speed of change and speed of possible adaptation are the key.

If we're not smart enough to learn and adapt faster than automation at a cost-effective price, we're not going to be employable. This is why things like Elon Musk's new venture into creating a means to augment human brains with integrated AI is both a serious bet worth dumping tonnes of money into for many investors and is the type of moon shot that fits ideologically with Musk's other ventures.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Clinton burying Saunders through political shenanigans was, as stated above, an extremely undemocratic event.

I think that people also remember that she was very cutthroat towards Obama when they were vying for the Presidency the first time around. I'm sure that many traditionally Democrat voters have long memories.

In a working democracy, trust in a candidate is everything, and she proved herself untrustworthy. On the other hand, Trump is a very simple man. You can trust him to be exactly what you expect. He comes by his sliminess honestly, and thoroughly.

They are two different kinds of Bond villain.

We've litigated this before, but you're factually incorrect. Clinton won the primaries through democratic means. There was no interference, no collusion. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democrat establishment were pushing for Clinton. This is true for every Democrat and Republican race through history. They didn't rig anything or coordinate anything. All you could possibly conclude is that they were trying to push for an easier ending than what happened. Clinton was a terrible candidate for the following reasons: Republican efforts to push scandal after scandal, she was quintessentially the establishment voters didn't want, she was female and she wasn't particularly charismatic.

Go find me a factual example of your accusation. Go ahead. I'll be here waiting.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Automation does not generate wealth, it only transfers it. Unless new jobs and business are being created from it to offset the loss it slowly erodes an economy.

Here is our fundamental disagreement. Automation is not a wealth transfer mechanism. It is a driver of efficiency.

Automation creates surplus capacity. This surplus capacity can be taken as profit, a reduction in price, increased wages for remaining workers or tax. Creating surplus is always good in an economy.