In Disney's shadow, homeless families struggle

[mect]

That's bullshit. Automation displaces millions of entirely competent people. So do the vagaries of the Capitalist business cycle. No job for you!

When you own, you don't need a job. You can just be a rentier. When you own enough, other people & machines do all the work for you. And you don't owe them a damned thing, either, not within the realm of Capitalist thinking.

I don't think its bullshit. At the extreme end, imagine a society where every job has been automated. Machines work for free. Relative to the cost of having a machine do a job, everyone in that situation is a net loss because everyone has to be payed. Competence is only significant in terms of how far up the scale a person falls as jobs are being automated. This is one way I think this cycle of advancement is different from previous ones. Previously, displaced workers were able to find new work in new fields pretty much regardless of their level of competence. Now, unless you fall relatively high on the competence scale, your only option might be menial, skill less labor earning minimum wage. This is why I'm skeptical that capitalism alone will be able to solve this problem.

 

[realibrad]

That's bullshit. Automation displaces millions of entirely competent people. So do the vagaries of the Capitalist business cycle. No job for you!

When you own, you don't need a job. You can just be a rentier. When you own enough, other people & machines do all the work for you. And you don't owe them a damned thing, either, not within the realm of Capitalist thinking.

I think its telling that you assume I am saying people are incompetent. I am saying that as people compete against machines, the cost of machine labor becomes cheaper. What do you do with those people?

You can argue that those with money also don't contribute, and that may be true, but, you cant just take peoples stuff. So, what do you do?

 

[realibrad]

Now that is a great question worth considering. On the extreme end of the spectrum you have for example the mentally disabled. We as a nation decide what we do with these people, although this is typically handled on a more local scale. One option is to let them starve in the gutter unless they are fortunate enough to have family capable of supporting them throughout their lives. Another option is to simply provide their basic necessities and let them stare at a television set all day. I prefer the option of helping them find something to do that they can find meaning in if possible. Often, this is done at a loss currently, particularly when compared to just automating the process. But it greatly improves their quality of life. As you point out, as automation increases, the number of people in the pool that provide a net loss to society compared to machines is just going to increase. Maybe it would be better to do away with a minimum wage and just provide a living stipend to working individuals in order to encourage people to work and still be able to afford to live. Maybe it would be better to set the minimum wage at a level that affords a livable income in order to continue to drive automation forward and free people to pursue other endeavors they find rewarding. Maybe we need to decrease the full time work week to 35 hours.

Small thing, but I want to get this out of the way first. Supporting the disable is a loss in terms of money, but, that should not be the only measure. I assume you agree with that, but I wanted to state it because I have a feeling someone will try and make that point later.

I also agree with you that we should try and give people meaning through working. Anyone that has a mentally disabled family member sees the value in that.

This goes beyond disabled people though. People often find meaning through work, and getting people to work is usually a good idea. The problem you run up against is that someone people use safety nets to help get through school.

The important thing to remember is that as people compete more against machines, this doesn't decrease the resources available to society. In fact, in general it increases them. The problem is that it concentrates wealth with those that own the resources, not those that perform the labor. I think this (along with globalization) is one of the main driving forces behind the decline of wages coupled with the increase in productivity. This is one reason I think government is going to have to play a roll addressing this issue. No one has provided me with a convincing argument for how capitalism can address this. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to capitalism as an economic system. I just think it needs some checks and balances.

In the long run, this will be the issue with Capitalism. That system is built upon limited resources. As we automate more, some resources get so close to zero, that they are valueless effectively. Who will produce them and how do we get them to people.

 

[glenn1]

The important thing to remember is that as people compete more against machines, this doesn't decrease the resources available to society. In fact, in general it increases them. The problem is that it concentrates wealth with those that own the resources, not those that perform the labor. I think this (along with globalization) is one of the main driving forces behind the decline of wages coupled with the increase in productivity. This is one reason I think government is going to have to play a roll addressing this issue. No one has provided me with a convincing argument for how capitalism can address this. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to capitalism as an economic system. I just think it needs some checks and balances.

You're ignoring my question from earlier. Even if we accept your premise that "it concentrates wealth with those who own the resources," those resources didn't spontaneously generate themselves. The person who owned them needed to put in whatever was needed to create them in the first place (time, money, labor) and bear the risk of losing all those inputs if the idea didn't succeed in the marketplace. Now that they've accepted that risk and put in that time and effort you're simply going to take it away from them to give the resource to others? That might work once but after that who the hell is going to accept the risk and work to create a resource when it's taken from them afterwards? People aren't that altruistic and will resist your efforts to take away those resources. If it's for some minimal loss (like welfare for 1% of the population) they might not care but they sure as hell will once that number goes up and eventually converges to near 100% which is the nightmare scenario / AI takes all our jobs away situation we're discussing. We're already getting significant pushback when the welfare numbers are in the lower end of the 0-99% band and it will get worse as the numbers increase.

 

[realibrad]

You're ignoring my question from earlier. Even if we accept your premise that "it concentrates wealth with those who own the resources," those resources didn't spontaneously generate themselves. The person who owned them needed to put in whatever was needed to create them in the first place (time, money, labor) and bear the risk of losing all those inputs if the idea didn't succeed in the marketplace. Now that they've accepted that risk and put in that time and effort you're simply going to take it away from them to give the resource to others? That might work once but after that who the hell is going to accept the risk and work to create a resource when it's taken from them afterwards? People aren't that altruistic and will resist your efforts to take away those resources.

Great point. Should people be able to decide if they want to give their wealth to someone else later.

 

[mect]

You're ignoring my question from earlier. Even if we accept your premise that "it concentrates wealth with those who own the resources," those resources didn't spontaneously generate themselves. The person who owned them needed to put in whatever was needed to create them in the first place (time, money, labor) and bear the risk of losing all those inputs if the idea didn't succeed in the marketplace. Now that they've accepted that risk and put in that time and effort you're simply going to take it away from them to give the resource to others? That might work once but after that who the hell is going to accept the risk and work to create a resource when it's taken from them afterwards? People aren't that altruistic and will resist your efforts to take away those resources.

And you continue with the ridiculous hyperbole. First of all, the risks in this country are much more socialized than the benefits, otherwise our current President would be far less wealthy than he is today. Secondly, no one is arguing that we take all the wealth they generate away. No one is arguing that everyone have an equal amount of wealth. People will continue to work and take risks because 1) they want to improve their living situation and 2) because most likely they find satisfaction in the work that they do. Are you saying that people in Germany have stopped working and taking risks? Even if we assumed an absurd extreme of taxing the top 0.01% at a 90% rate (no, I'm not advocating a 90% tax rate), these people would still have an average income of $2.6 million dollars a year after taxes. I think most people would continue to work for $2.6 million a year.

Of course people aren't that altruistic. Otherwise the wealthy would distribute their wealth instead of hoarding it. That's why if the middle class wants to continue to survive, they need to band together and actually fight for legislation that benefits them instead of just trusting that the wealthy will pay them a livable wage out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think its telling that you assume I am saying people are incompetent. I am saying that as people compete against machines, the cost of machine labor becomes cheaper. What do you do with those people?

You can argue that those with money also don't contribute, and that may be true, but, you cant just take peoples stuff. So, what do you do?

We can tax their income & their property. I mean, you go on as if the Rich haven't rigged the game thru the agency of the GOP & as if they'll somehow experience real hardship if forced to pay higher taxes. No matter how much or how little they earn their lifestyles won't change at all.

 

[mect]

We can tax their income & their property. I mean, you go on as if the Rich haven't rigged the game thru the agency of the GOP & as if they'll somehow experience real hardship if forced to pay higher taxes. No matter how much or how little they earn their lifestyles won't change at all.

I don't know. DeVos might have to cut back from 10 yachts to 9.

 

[glenn1]

And you continue with the ridiculous hyperbole. First of all, the risks in this country are much more socialized than the benefits, otherwise our current President would be far less wealthy than he is today. Secondly, no one is arguing that we take all the wealth they generate away. No one is arguing that everyone have an equal amount of wealth. People will continue to work and take risks because 1) they want to improve their living situation and 2) because most likely they find satisfaction in the work that they do. Are you saying that people in Germany have stopped working and taking risks? Even if we assumed an absurd extreme of taxing the top 0.01% at a 90% rate (no, I'm not advocating a 90% tax rate), these people would still have an average income of $2.6 million dollars a year after taxes. I think most people would continue to work for $2.6 million a year.

Of course people aren't that altruistic. Otherwise the wealthy would distribute their wealth instead of hoarding it. That's why if the middle class wants to continue to survive, they need to band together and actually fight for legislation that benefits them instead of just trusting that the wealthy will pay them a livable wage out of the goodness of their hearts.

Again, do you think $2.6MM/year jobs just magically create themselves? And what exactly are the recipients of all the rich person's money bringing to the party (aside from breathing) from the POV of that rich person? You seem completely unaware that rich person has their own agency and right to say "what's in this for me" and not simply be reduced to working to provide for others. We fought a war in the 1860s to establish the principle that others don't have an absolute right to your labor.

I don't know. DeVos might have to cut back from 10 yachts to 9.

How's that working out in places like the former Soviet Union and Venezuela where they've seized property on behalf of the state to feed the masses?

 

[realibrad]

We can tax their income & their property. I mean, you go on as if the Rich haven't rigged the game thru the agency of the GOP & as if they'll somehow experience real hardship if forced to pay higher taxes. No matter how much or how little they earn their lifestyles won't change at all.

So would you do away with the lotto? Objectively those are people that have won money that did not earn it. What about people that get inheritance, should that end? Who gets to keep things that are "unearned" in your mind.

Objectively you are the 1% globally if you live in the US. How much of your wealth should you personally have to give up given your perceived exploitation?

 

[mect]

Again, do you think $2.6MM/year jobs just magically create themselves? And what exactly are the recipients of all the rich person's money bringing to the party (aside from breathing) from the POV of that rich person? You seem completely unaware that rich person has their own agency and right to say "what's in this for me" and not simply be reduced to working to provide for others. We fought a war in the 1860s to establish the principle that others don't have an absolute right to your labor.



How's that working out in places like the former Soviet Union and Venezuela where they've seized property on behalf of the state to feed the masses?

Its working out quite well in places like Germany, Norway, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, etc.
And no, $2.6 million/year jobs are created by exploiting the labor of a lot of people. The recipients of the money are bringing labor to the table, you know, that thing that the extremely wealthy exploited to arrive where they are today. Everyone has their own agency. And the quaint tripe that "others don't he the absolute right to your labor" primarily applies to those with power. When a persons choice is to work for someone or starve in the streets, that is no real choice. As the wealthy accumulate more wealth and more power, this situation gets only worse, and the protection we have counter it is collective action and government regulation. Are you going to continue to blindly follow cute slogans while the middle class in the country continues to erode as those with the resources continue to hoard them and drive salaries down until the US salaries reach those of China and India? Civilized societies already have laws governing how private transactions take place. The only difference is whether we want these regulations to favor the continued amassing of wealth to the employers at the top or a more even disbursement of wealth to the employees.

 

[glenn1]

How much of your wealth should you personally have to give up given your perceived exploitation?

Any amount that's higher than exactly how much he makes, just like all progressives who are always "middle class." It's always the mystery guy who "owns 10 yachts" and never them as they step over a homeless person on their walk.

Its working out quite well in places like Germany, Norway, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, etc.
And no, $2.6 million/year jobs are created by exploiting the labor of a lot of people. The recipients of the money are bringing labor to the table, you know, that thing that the extremely wealthy exploited to arrive where they are today. Everyone has their own agency. And the quaint tripe that "others don't he the absolute right to your labor" primarily applies to those with power. When a persons choice is to work for someone or starve in the streets, that is no real choice. As the wealthy accumulate more wealth and more power, this situation gets only worse, and the protection we have counter it is collective action and government regulation. Are you going to continue to blindly follow cute slogans while the middle class in the country continues to erode as those with the resources continue to hoard them and drive salaries down until the US salaries reach those of China and India? Civilized societies already have laws governing how private transactions take place. The only difference is whether we want these regulations to favor the continued amassing of wealth to the employers at the top or a more even disbursement of wealth to the employees.

I must have missed the event where Steve Jobs lined up millions and people and forced them at gunpoint to buy iPhones. Or most of the other stuff those laborers spend their money on to make the $2.6MM job folks rich.

 

[mect]

Any amount that's higher than exactly how much he makes, just like all progressives who are always "middle class." It's always the mystery guy who "owns 10 yachts" and never them as they step over a homeless person on their walk.



I must have missed the event where Steve Jobs lined up millions and people and forced them at gunpoint to buy iPhones. Or most of the other stuff those laborers spend their money on to make the $2.6MM job folks rich.

Starvation is every bit as deadly as gunpoint. And nope, I'm fine with my taxes going up so long as they are used for programs that actually benefit society and not so that the wealthy can get a tax break. So are you going to address how the nations I listed above are able to achieve better quality of living than the US through progressive taxation without the dire consequences you've been predicting?

Edit: You missed the people Jobs was exploiting. It wasn't the people buying the iPhones. It was the workers producing the iPhones.

 

[glenn1]

Starvation is every bit as deadly as gunpoint. And nope, I'm fine with my taxes going up so long as they are used for programs that actually benefit society and not so that the wealthy can get a tax break. So are you going to address how the nations I listed above are able to achieve better quality of living than the US through progressive taxation without the dire consequences you've been predicting?

Edit: You missed the people Jobs was exploiting. It wasn't the people buying the iPhones. It was the workers producing the iPhones.

You're fine with it but the majority of the electorate is not and has repeatedly voted accordingly. "Quality of life" is a pretty subjective term also, I'm guessing you wouldn't care for many of the standards of living in those places such as the average living space for people being a fraction of the size of the U.S., or for the average taxes paid by the middle class being double digits higher. I can buy a lot of "quality of life" for tens of thousands of dollars of income tax not paid.

 

[Jhhnn]

So would you do away with the lotto? Objectively those are people that have won money that did not earn it. What about people that get inheritance, should that end? Who gets to keep things that are "unearned" in your mind.

Objectively you are the 1% globally if you live in the US. How much of your wealth should you personally have to give up given your perceived exploitation?

Duh-vert & obfuscate, as usual. As I've shown many times, there has been a profound shift of wealth & income from the middle class to the financial elite. If we want that back, we'll need to find ways to take it because it won't be given up willingly. That's just the truth. Thinking inside the box the job creators provide obviously won't do it.

We need a new New Deal, a better way to share the bounty of this great country. If we can't find it then our country & our whole way of life will degenerate into oligarchy.

 

[realibrad]

Duh-vert & obfuscate, as usual. As I've shown many times, there has been a profound shift of wealth & income from the middle class to the financial elite. If we want that back, we'll need to find ways to take it because it won't be given up willingly. That's just the truth. Thinking inside the box the job creators provide obviously won't do it.

We need a new New Deal, a better way to share the bounty of this great country. If we can't find it then our country & our whole way of life will degenerate into oligarchy.

Its not a diversion. Its a logical question that follows your statement and opinion.

Again though, what do you have as to answers to my questions? Is your ultimate point that people need to give up what they did not personally earn? Where do you draw the line? What qualifiers do you use?

 

[mect]

You're fine with it but the majority of the electorate is not and has repeatedly voted accordingly. "Quality of life" is a pretty subjective term also, I'm guessing you wouldn't care for many of the standards of living in those places such as the average living space for people being a fraction of the size of the U.S., or for the average taxes paid by the middle class being double digits higher. I can buy a lot of "quality of life" for tens of thousands of dollars of income tax not paid.

Do you even understand what your graph is showing? Hint: Its not tax rate. However, having said that, I'd be happy to have the tax rates of those other countries assuming I also enjoyed the benefits they get from them. Once you take into account what I pay for health insurance, I'd actually be better off. I've lived in Germany before. I enjoyed it. I do prefer America because it still feels like home, but like all people, I'm going to try to improve my home country by looking at things other countries do better. I agree, at the end of the day the social benefits and taxes used to pay for them depend on the will of the people. I personally support social programs that create significant improvements in quality of life for the common man with only slight to imperceptible decreases in quality of life for the wealthy. I prefer to live in a nation where the solution isn't "pick yourself up by your bootstraps or starve in the alley". While most American's may not support higher taxes, at the same time they do support more government support of social programs and a higher minimum wage.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

The work is already being distributed. Do you think CEOs really work 1000x the hours of the other employees. And no, I'm not suggesting everyone should be paid the same for their time, but a better balance can certainly be achieved. And many other nations already have effectively provided legislation which provides basic necessities for their populations without the outcomes you predict. You always take things to absurd extremes and forecast these dire outcomes with no real world data to support your claims. Its asinine to assume that the wealthiest nation in the history of the world can't take measures to ensure its citizens, particularly its working citizens, have their basic necessities met.

Yes, actually, I do. CEOs of any Fortune 500 company are in all honesty - working 24/7. They seriously have an incredibly rare mindset in that they get a high or enjoyment off of working - because it's a constant stressful situation of answering calls, putting out fires, etc... Have fun not having a family life when you're answering phone calls while at the dinner table and rarely ever being home.

It's not just how MUCH they work, its the SKILLS they have to go along with it. Those skills are overall incredibly RARE. The majority of people would blow their brains out with the type of shit that CEOs have to put up with on a regular basis on just the first week - let alone years of it.

And even a 4 year old kid can tell you - if you're redistributing their wealth, what incentive do they have to produce more? The answer is that there is no reason to produce more dimwit - and that is precisely what happened when Russia fell during the cold war.

 

[mect]

Yes, actually, I do. CEOs of any Fortune 500 company are in all honesty - working 24/7. They seriously have an incredibly rare mindset in that they get a high or enjoyment off of working - because it's a constant stressful situation of answering calls, putting out fires, etc... Have fun not having a family life when you're answering phone calls while at the dinner table and rarely ever being home.

It's not just how MUCH they work, its the SKILLS they have to go along with it. Those skills are overall incredibly RARE. The majority of people would blow their brains out with the type of shit that CEOs have to put up with on a regular basis on just the first week - let alone years of it.

And even a 4 year old kid can tell you - if you're redistributing their wealth, what incentive do they have to produce more? The answer is that there is no reason to produce more dimwit - and that is precisely what happened when Russia fell during the cold war.

That's cute. In other words, you're clueless.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I don't think its bullshit. At the extreme end, imagine a society where every job has been automated. Machines work for free. Relative to the cost of having a machine do a job, everyone in that situation is a net loss because everyone has to be payed. Competence is only significant in terms of how far up the scale a person falls as jobs are being automated. This is one way I think this cycle of advancement is different from previous ones. Previously, displaced workers were able to find new work in new fields pretty much regardless of their level of competence. Now, unless you fall relatively high on the competence scale, your only option might be menial, skill less labor earning minimum wage. This is why I'm skeptical that capitalism alone will be able to solve this problem.

Even those high on the competence scale face job loss due to automation. No job is safe, although some or more safe than others. You’d be surprised which really, lots of doctors and lawyers replaced with cheaper and more accurate AI counterparts.

 

[mect]

Even those high on the competence scale face job loss due to automation. No job is safe, although some or more safe than others. You’d be surprised which really, lots of doctors and lawyers replaced with cheaper and more accurate AI counterparts.

I agree. I mentioned IBMs Watson earlier I believe. Computer based diagnoses are only going to get better. Now that isn't going to eliminate doctors completely, but it will decrease the number required. Same applies to surgeons. No surgeon will ever have hands as steady or precise as a robot. Again, you're not going to just go see a robot and have it perform the surgery. There will still be a human surgeon there. But I imagine the robot will probably be quicker, and as a result, we'll probably need fewer actual people. Same applies for many other high skill jobs. I'd say the safest jobs are where human interaction is a significant aspect. Unfortunately, that includes a lot of minimum wage jobs like Disney World.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

That's cute. In other words, you're clueless.

Got it, you have zero clue what it's like working in the business world.

Obviously you're the fucking clueless one when you can't retort with any argument to the statement. Go home and argue with your children or something so you can at least stick with your age group twat.

 

[mect]

Got it, you have zero clue what's it's like working in the business world.

Obviously you're the fucking clueless one when you can't retort with any argument to the statement. Go home and argue with your children or something so you can at least stick with your age group twat.

There is no substance there to discuss. You simply provide your CEO wet dream instead of reality. Do some CEOs work insane hours. Absolutely. Guess what? Lots of people do. In a recent survey, CEOs reported working about 58 hours per week. Unfortunately, in America that isn't that rare. Are their skill sets that unique? In a few instances, sure. I'll give you that people like Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and a handful of others are. But why does that warrant treating them like deities, worrying about their golden platters while we have people without basic housing. In addition, there are many jobs that require equally rare skillsets that compensate 1/100 the rate of many of these CEOs. Also, a failed CEO, while maybe not making what a successful one does, can still make significantly more in a year than most people make in a lifetime.

And in a finale of self contraction, in the same post you confirm that these people enjoy what they do and get a high off the work, and then ask if they'll still do it if they aren't making 1000x what there employees make. Guess what, we were redistributing their wealth back in the 60s, and people still did this job. So what is your evidence that people won't do these jobs if we increase wealth redistribution now? The reason I didn't bother with a retort was I was short on time and all your claims are so childishly naive and simplistic its hardly worth the effort.

 

[Jhhnn]

Its not a diversion. Its a logical question that follows your statement and opinion.

Again though, what do you have as to answers to my questions? Is your ultimate point that people need to give up what they did not personally earn? Where do you draw the line? What qualifiers do you use?

Your questions are designed to obfuscate rather than illuminate. Let's look at them again-

So would you do away with the lotto? Objectively those are people that have won money that did not earn it. What about people that get inheritance, should that end? Who gets to keep things that are "unearned" in your mind.

Objectively you are the 1% globally if you live in the US. How much of your wealth should you personally have to give up given your perceived exploitation?

Lotto winners only wish they paid the same tax rate as investors who make similar amounts every year, not just once in a lifetime. I think we should raise investor taxes so they pay at least the same rate.

I think we should tax very large inheritances at the same rate as if the value were earned income. Not the estate but rather the recipients. I have no problem with the first several $M being exempt.

That bit about being in the global 1% is like the "write a check" routine & an attempt at shaming. If I'm supposed to be ashamed, what about the guys at the top of this?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...or-real/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cb39873707bc

Or should we just worship them instead because they're smart enough to rig the system so that people making $68M/year pay the same federal tax rate as people making $85K?

 

[UglyCasanova]

I'd say the safest jobs are where human interaction is a significant aspect.

I think the safest jobs are those that require outside the box thinking and creativity. Human interaction is becoming increasingly replaceable. I prefer self checkout for instance. Probably would prefer ordering from a computer at McDonald’s too.