What's one area where you side with the other guys?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by vilk, May 17, 2016.

  1. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    13,347
    Likes Received:
    1,411
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Someone will always have to build the robots, fix the robots, etc. Even if you build robots to fix old robots, someone still has to build the new robot.

    Automation helps everybody out in the long run.
     
  2. Hachetjoel

    Hachetjoel Ibanez whore Contributor

    Messages:
    922
    Likes Received:
    96
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2014
    Location:
    Orient ohio
    I never post in the political section, but I don't have a belief that's "the other side" I think the "us vs them" mentality is a huge issue. I wouldn't consider myself on either side so I can't say I have an opinion that crosses over into either one.
     
  3. TheStig1214

    TheStig1214 Mr. Tophat Jones

    Messages:
    1,134
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2012
    Location:
    Lawn Guyland
    This is true, but building/fixing robots does not provide enough jobs for nearly 10 billion people in 2050.


    Plus, there's nothing special about the human brain anyway. What's to stop us from making a software bot that can out-robot-design us and then we have better robots than we could ever build on our own.
     
  4. Demiurge

    Demiurge Intrepid Jackass

    Messages:
    3,850
    Likes Received:
    302
    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Location:
    Worcester, MA
    I'm pretty sure that once robots are able to do everything, there will be only one job: fighting in the Resistance against Skynet. /lowhangingfruit
     
  5. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    13,347
    Likes Received:
    1,411
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Then simply don't design AI that designs robots. Anyway, that's a fear you have regarding software moreso than industrial automation.

    What are the measurable negative aspects of automation? Without any automation, there aren't any jobs anyway, and there has never been a period in history when there has been 100% employment (nor 0% unemployment), so I'm not sure what your point is.
     
  6. TheStig1214

    TheStig1214 Mr. Tophat Jones

    Messages:
    1,134
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2012
    Location:
    Lawn Guyland
    I'd recommend watching the video I linked.

    Developing mechanical minds and mechanical muscles are pretty much one in the same. The future of automation is not big, complex, specific purpose robots like are used in the auto industry, it's general purpose robots/software that can do just about any basic task you can think of and eventually teach themselves to do it better than humans.

    There aren't measurable negative effects to automation as of yet, but once we reach the point where we can program just about any form of transportation to drive/pilot/command itself, that's just about the entire transportation sector out the window. Same can be applied to a lot of white collar labor as well. Software bots can scan through documents and files doing white collar work thousands of time faster than humans day and night. There are even automation engineers at companies designing software to replace their coworkers. We are already at the point where less than 1% of the population makes all the food thanks to automation, and there's even totally automated farms. There are very few jobs that can't be replaced by robots.

    I'm aware we've never been at 100% employment (unless you consider hunter/gatherer a job), but we also haven't been at a point where vast sections of the population were just unemployable because there either are no jobs for them or their skills are no longer necessary. Farmers moved to factory work and factory workers moved to white collar jobs. Where do white collar workers go?
     
  7. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    26,507
    Likes Received:
    1,956
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Interesting question, and I'll go back and carefully read responses here when I have more time.

    But, quickly - corporate taxation. I'm a liberal, yet I'd love to lower corporate taxes. To be fair, I'd like to do it as part of a "grand bargain" where we add higher marginal brackets for personal income taxes, but as a liberal I don't get my party's fascination with taxing corporations.

    Two reasons.

    1) It doesn't do a thing for corporate excess - it's not like corporations are going out and flying on private jets and eating caviar. I'd rather tax their highest paid employees and remove some of the perverse capital incentives where some courses of action are attractive simply because they bring tax benefits.

    2) More importantly... I generally find the Laffer curve kind of BS for personal taxation - we're WAY below the revenue maximization point on that curve - but there's something to it for corporate taxation simply because it's very easy for corporations to relocate to lower tax environments, or keep entire lines of business offshore for favorable tax treatment (i.e - a US company creating a seperate "European" entity to break into the EU market, and incorporating in Ireland for a much lower tax rate, and keeping all earnings there rather than repatriating to the parent company). US corporate tax rates are some of the highest in the developed world, and this creates a strong disincentive for US companies to file any more earnings here than they absolutely have to. I think if we cut corporate tax rates, we very likely WOULD see higher corporate tax receipts within a couple years, and at the very least tax inversion deals would stop being a problem.

    Of course, to your average liberal, cutting corporate taxes is a "handout to big business" so this would be tough to swallow. But, as part of a broader deal where we added a couple new marginal tax rates over the existing ones... That just might work.
     
  8. CapnForsaggio

    CapnForsaggio Cap'n (general)

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    24
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2016
    Location:
    Albany, OR
    Exactly! If everyone who works for the corporation is being taxed on their income, who is the "corporate tax" really taxing?

    Answer: they are taxing any profits that could be used to improve the business, pay dividends, etc.

    It becomes the very reason why corporations move out of this country, or turn the entirety of their profits back into the business. They aren't ALLOWED to run a profitable business, without giving 35% of those profits to the government, which is a stupid thing to do....
     
  9. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Everyone in politics nowadays is so easily triggered it's obnoxious. Both sides are so quick to jump to insults or talking down to opposing views as if they are dumb or unintelligible children, ignoring the more likely truth that they either have different goals/priorities or are simply missing key pieces of information and that's all.

    I will say, as a liberal myself, it is really annoying that you can't criticize in any shape or form a person who identifies with a group that is considered disenfranchised without being immediately accused of being prejudiced, racist, or sexist. It's neither productive nor helpful and if the individual you are talking to is truly racist or sexist it will be more than apparent the longer the conversation goes on. To presume negative critiquing as immediately prejudiced is moronic and in itself prejudiced.

    I was talking with a woman on Facebook about the current election and she brought up the go to shtick nowadays where people create hypothetical scenarios that can't be tested as proof of facts that XYZ is racist or sexist ("If he were black", "if he were white" "if she were a man", "If he were a woman", etc.) and I said something to the effect of as a man of science I take umbrage with people posing a hypothetical as proof of fact that something is the case in reference to what really occurred. I said that she might be correct, but considering that isn't what happened she can't possibly know that for certain.

    Her reply was simply an appeal to authority and to take my phrase that triggered her and flipped it to say "As a 'woman of logic'" (implying I meant man of science as a dig at women I suppose :scratch:). How do we have a productive conversation with anybody anymore if this is how people are going to react. It's legitimately depressing.

    The world is viewed through a black and white filter nowadays and people presume if you don't think something is racist or sexist then you're racist or sexist as well.

    I've said it in another thread a long time ago, but I really wish people were forced to take debate classes in school.
     
  10. Demiurge

    Demiurge Intrepid Jackass

    Messages:
    3,850
    Likes Received:
    302
    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Location:
    Worcester, MA
    That truly is the worst- when there is a supposed pretense about embracing diversity and plurality, shouldn't there be a drive towards camaraderie over common ground as well? There were certainly flashes of it visible in the GOP over these primaries, but the "circular firing squad" syndrome and witch-hunts for "bad allies" seems to plague a lot more left-leaning discourses.

    The problem is that a lot of social and political ideas nowadays aim to satisfy "emotional truths", where the reasoning is almost like, "I believe in ______, so therefore anything said that favors ______- no matter how freaking outlandish it is- I will accept it." If you tell someone that they're nuts for saying that crossword puzzles are racist or that Obama is using healthcare reform to form death panels, you're either racist or you hate America, respectively.
     
  11. PunkBillCarson

    PunkBillCarson SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    115
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2013
    Location:
    Paragould, AR
    As someone who identifies more with the right than the left, I will say that I support gay marriage and also, I realize that there are people who do need government benefits such as welfare/SSI. There are some people who are not competent to work at all, and I think the benefits should be for those people. I don't have an issue paying more taxes to help people who truly cannot work for themselves. I do have a problem paying more supporting a load of bums who can work, but will not.
     
  12. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    13,347
    Likes Received:
    1,411
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    I used to live right across the street from the Amtrack station in Beech Grove, Indiana, which, supposedly, was the beta test site for the death camps. I'd get all kinds of people citing that place in their arguments, trying to convince me, despite the fact that I lived there.

    I don't know what makes people that way, but it is too common, that people abandon logic entirely for their beliefs. And that's where we get extremists on every position in the field - people who place personal belief ahead of logic in any and every instance. I'm a firm believer in holding to your beliefs, but if your beliefs are proven wrong, it's time to move on, at the very least knowing that you will not be able to convince anyone else.

    And as far as anybody who identifies political as middle of the road, at least in the USA, good luck. We are clearly headed toward binary politics: big government or no government, forget about an appropriately-sized government; totalitarian or anarchy.
     

Share This Page