Knuckles Neanderthal
Interdimensional
I can see where you are angling. Minimum pay for everyone. 100% Step one to socialism.
Some questions: Question #3.
- Thread starter Ross Dolan
- Start date
That is not quite where I am heading.
I am a capitalist, but I think there are things that we can borrow from the socialists, just as they have borrowed from us to strengthen their socialism.
I also do not see socialism in anywhere near the negative terms some Americans seem to see it.
I am further to the left on social issues than people like Bernie Sanders or Amy Klobuchar.
I think we should have mandatory paid vacation, mandatory paid sick leave, mandatory paid maternity or paternity leave.
cawacko
Well-known member
I had the same thought you did. I don't want to get into stereotypes or tropes but generally speaking, the work ethic in SE Asian countries is at least equal to, but likely tops, that in America and blows away those in Europe.
There's always been a subset of America that seems to envy European countries because they get more vacation. What gets left out is Europe is suffering from slow growth, weak productivity and demographic issues. Europe is falling further behind the U.S. and China economically.
So it's easy for us to say we should be more like Europe but how many of these same people are going to be happy when our living standards decrease?
There are always trade offs and I'm not suggesting people in America should work themselves to death (or everyone should work 80+ hour weeks like some do). But notice how we love to celebrate when the stock market goes up? It's not going up because investors think American productivity is going to drop and growth in America is going to slow in the future. Are we willing to see that growth slow in the name of a "more balanced" life?
We can get much closer to maximum productivity by giving as many jobs humans do...to machines as possible. Robots and computers are more efficient than humans...and they can work lots more hours.
Of course, if we do maximize productivity by doing that...we will increase unemployment.
WE HAVE TO STOP CONSIDERING INCREASED UNEMPLOYMENT TO BE A NEGATIVE FOR HUMANS. IN FACT, WE HAVE TO MAKE MAXIMIZING UNEMPLOYMENT TI BE ONE OF OUR PRIORITIES...TO BE SOMETHING WE AIM FOR.
Our problem should not be unemployment...our problem should be how to distribute our tremendous bounty in a way that allows everyone to have sufficient.
And the capitalistic battle should be used by those for whom "sufficient" is not enough.
When are we going to learn that?
cawacko
Well-known member
Is there an element of Luddite thinking there? I've shared this before, (two years ago) when my daughter was in Kindergarten her science teacher told us (the parents) that something like 70% of jobs that will be around when these kids are grown ups haven't been invented yet. Are we to try and fight that change?
I'm not sure if you're specifically referencing AI and the idea that it could take not just blue collar jobs but destroy many white collar jobs as well. I'm not smart enough or well versed enough in AI to answer that question.
The second part of your response if about redistribution of existing resources but that seems separate to me than the discussion of work ethic and economic growth among countries/areas.
Well the dems have you covered. It's called handouts.
No.
No. But of the new jobs...any that a machine can do...they should do.
Machines are modern day slaves...except more morally acceptable.
ANY job that a machine can do better than a human...should be given to the machine to do.
ANY JOB.
It is separate...and much more controversial.
If I get into it...and I may not...it will cause lots of consternation.
cawacko
Well-known member
I'm reminded of a story the Head of School (where my daughter goes) shared. He went to a conference in D.C. and a teacher asked "will A.I. take my job?" And the speaker said "no, but a teacher who understands A.I. will".
Not a rhetorical question, wouldn't that apply to a lot of jobs? That there will be advancements in technology and machines but instead of replacing humans we will have to learn to work along side them?
It's already starting. Right now the white collar knowledge worker jobs are not yet going away, but one can easily see the road signs.
The movement toward replacing more and more content with AI-generated stuff opens the door to a lot of displacement of people whose job it is to summarize, analyze and move information around.
The advent of AI for writing and drafting, when it actually gets much better, will probably be a pretty powerful tool for clearing out the middle manager/knowledge worker PDQ.
It's a fair point, however. If we can get the "machines" to do the work we have two choices as a society:
1. We divert all the economic benefits of this new machine-output solely to the people who own the machines thereby leaving millions unemployed and destitute.
2. We allow profit taking by the folks who invested the capital, but we cap it and divert a large portion of the economic benefits to the society as a whole.
That latter one (Minimum Guaranteed Income) will strike a lot of Americans as "Marxist" or "Communist" but unless we want to turn America into India where extreme wealth can co-exist along with huge swaths of crushing poverty it's going to be the most important choice we make in the future.
cawacko
Well-known member
Hey RD, since this board is dominated by Boomers I thought this video might have some appeal (it’s from a Bay Area retro site).
The guy says I don’t work, I live.
The guy says I don’t work, I live.
I imagine that will happen. I hope it does.
BUT...if a machine can be devise to do a job better than a human...the job should be done by the machine.
That is all I am saying.
I am not even speaking to any ethical or moral questions of that yet.
If we can make more by using machines than by using humans...use the machines.
If we can make more by using a combination of machines and humans...use both.
If we can make more by using a human rather than a machine (or machine assist) use the human.
Last edited:
One thing I've learned after a lifetime in industry is "making MORE" doesn't always lead to profit. Making more than you can sell is a huge cost on a company in terms of storage costs.
So the question about whether we should embrace machines if their sole value is to increase production, I'd say the answer is "It depends".
So the question about whether we should embrace machines if their sole value is to increase production, I'd say the answer is "It depends".
Yakuda
Verified User
Well one of then first things to think about is taxpayers are not free from their obligation to pay taxes until April or May of every year. Tax freedom day is that day when workers start earning money for themselves and their families. We are 4 months into a year before any money we earn stays in our pockets. The sad reality is leisure isnt free. Theres not such thing as a free lunch.
We cannot run a country like ours on the cheap.
Taxes are necessary...unless we devise a different kind of system for maintaining infrastructure and such.
Leisure may not be free...but securing more leisure time for everyone should be a priority.
I doubt anyone anywhere has ever thought paying taxes was something they were dying to do. But TAXES are necessary for a society to exist.
In any case, none of that has much to do with what I have been saying here.
Yakuda
Verified User
I have no problem with taxes. What I have a problem with is paying taxes for something the federal govt has no authority to do.
A priority after financial security.
Again being taxed for things the govt has no authority to do is an unnecessary burden on taxpayers that prevents or at least impedes what you're suggesting here.
I think it does though. You want to discuss a choice without the resulting consequences. I think I get where going but the consequences need to be addressed some time.
But in a technological future in which a huge swath of jobs from blue-collar to white-collar are all done by machines resulting in mass unemployment, what would you do?
In your version of that future do you see a country in which a small number of capitalists reap all the rewards because they bought the machines while millions starve in the street?
Who then buys the "widgets" the machines make?
You are absolutely correct here, Yakuda.
And I will. But I wanted to proceed at a slower pace...which seems to have been countermanded. Doing this quickly always ends up a failure (regarding adequately explaining my position)...and I am hoping NOT to fail.
As you can imagine...trying to present something as off-beat as this is a bitch.
I'll get to it. And I will do it by attempting to explain that much of what is considered negative consequences...is not negative at all.
Yakuda
Verified User
Yes it is bitch but maybe you should just lay out your position.
You started out taking about productivity then leisure as if they are separate. I think the fact you started where you did shows they aren't. I think they are two sides of the same coin