4 ms·

As I’ve grown older and started focusing more on politics and the state of the nation, I started realizing that reconciliation is not abundant in the US politic

As I’ve grown older and started focusing more on politics and the state of the nation, I started realizing that reconciliation is not abundant in the US politics and minds of people. Your comment is one of example. There are comments about increasing automation and policies of that effect but no policy or recognition how job losses will be coped with. Apparently it’s ok to permanently remove jobs but universal basic income is non-negotiable. Another example is cutting of taxes, but then increasing expenditures. Or not increasing taxes as expenditures go up. Somehow things just don’t reconcile. Maybe that’s just how politics is. But if there was reconciliation of things, we would be in a better place (or an even better place?) Edit: spelling loses to losses.

all2 8y ago
> Apparently it’s ok to permanently remove jobs but universal basic income is non-negotiable. Are you generalizing across all "young people"? Or are you assuming what I mean? I was not trying to argue that we as a society, and especially as individuals, shouldn't help the displaced. What I have a problem with is the essentially Communist rhetoric we are using to justify removal from and placement in jobs. > Or not increasing taxes as expenditures go up. Somehow things just don’t reconcile. Maybe that’s just how politics is. A frequent conversation between a close friend of mine and myself is one that highlights these inconsistencies. I think the core issue is a fundamental lack of understanding on the part of the politician/person. We call it "bumper sticker" politics. Everyone wants a drop-the-mic moment, the feel vindicated, to feel justified, to feel right. It is a scary thing to be wrong, even about trivial things. If a person possesses functional introspective capabilities, being wrong about something can shake a person's sense of identity. Generally, I think that fear is the cause of 1) lack of introspection, which leads to 2) "yelling" meaningless phrases in an attempt to articulate a political opinion they don't understand.
- iscrewyou 8y ago
  >Are you generalizing across all "young people"? Or are you assuming what I mean? I was not trying to argue that we as a society, and especially as individuals, shouldn't help the displaced. What I have a problem with is the essentially Communist rhetoric we are using to justify removal from and placement in jobs. I think we are on the same page. I was just saying that if we are moving towards automation and the corporations are going to push for it, policies should be in place beforehand to help those displaced. Specifically from the profits of that automation. Not even the tax payers. Then as the whole industry shifts, the social services can be used to compensate whole populations. I am not writing policies and I am definitely not an expert. But the conversation of automation and job removal should include compensation for those displaced. >I think the core issue is a fundamental lack of understanding on the part of the politician/person. Yes, I agree. And the rush to prove the other side wrong. Which is usually accompanied by extreme examples and unfounded rhetoric.
Kalium 8y ago
> There are comments about increasing automation and policies of that effect but no policy or recognition how job losses will be coped with. Apparently it’s ok to permanently remove jobs but universal basic income is non-negotiable. You're right! This is a huge, glaring, obvious contradiction. I've always found it useful to extend the principle of charity in situations like the you so wisely point to. Perhaps people have some reason to expect that some other outcome could result from permanently removing jobs other than a permanent reduction in the number and type of jobs available? Do you think this is possible? Maybe these people might opine that our economy is not a fixed-size lump of labor. Again, you very correctly point to a absolutely critical point. Might perhaps there be something else to consider here? If I'm wrong, and the world is indeed a fixed lump of labor, can you help me understand why these people are wrong?
- iscrewyou 8y ago
  >Might perhaps there be something else to consider here? If I'm wrong, and the world is indeed a fixed lump of labor, can you help me understand why these people are wrong? I don’t think the world is a fixed lump of labor. Eventually there will be enough automation that people won’t have any work to do. Not everybody has the capacity to be a doctor or an engineer or a lawyer. We are just not wired that way, the brain simply works in unique ways. So how do we take away labor intensive work and still expect people to live happily while not providing them with means of living. I think there are two ways: (i) provide people with social services so they live above the standard of poverty. (ii) split automation so only so much work will be automated. This is a good compromise as we find out what automation does to our economy as years go on. For example(don’t shoot me, these are just examples), Mc Donald’s must have people working for the same amount of automatic kiosks in their restaurant. Or half of amazon warehouse must be people and half must be robots. Half of automatic Ubers must be driven by real people. There are ways to do automation and still take care of people. I just don’t see that conversation and it’s bothersome because soon it will too late.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    That's very intersting! Thank you very much for sharing. You might think about pausing to consider that you have described what economists call the lump of labor. This is the idea that there's a finite amount of work to go around, and it can only be distributed among various people or machines. Some might opine that there could be something to be gained by investigating writings and studies on this exact subject from the past century or more. Wikipedia can be a great starting point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy I have had a very different experience. I see the conversation you call for going on constantly. I see it among dozens of people I know personally, of many different ages and races and education levels and careers. This is enough to lead me to think that your idea is so good and so wise that it's already been adopted en masse!

all2 8y ago

> Apparently it’s ok to permanently remove jobs but universal basic income is non-negotiable. Are you generalizing across all "young people"? Or are you assuming what I mean? I was not trying to argue that we as a society, and especially as individuals, shouldn't help the displaced. What I have a problem with is the essentially Communist rhetoric we are using to justify removal from and placement in jobs. > Or not increasing taxes as expenditures go up. Somehow things just don’t reconcile. Maybe that’s just how politics is. A frequent conversation between a close friend of mine and myself is one that highlights these inconsistencies. I think the core issue is a fundamental lack of understanding on the part of the politician/person. We call it "bumper sticker" politics. Everyone wants a drop-the-mic moment, the feel vindicated, to feel justified, to feel right. It is a scary thing to be wrong, even about trivial things. If a person possesses functional introspective capabilities, being wrong about something can shake a person's sense of identity. Generally, I think that fear is the cause of 1) lack of introspection, which leads to 2) "yelling" meaningless phrases in an attempt to articulate a political opinion they don't understand.

iscrewyou 8y ago
>Are you generalizing across all "young people"? Or are you assuming what I mean? I was not trying to argue that we as a society, and especially as individuals, shouldn't help the displaced. What I have a problem with is the essentially Communist rhetoric we are using to justify removal from and placement in jobs. I think we are on the same page. I was just saying that if we are moving towards automation and the corporations are going to push for it, policies should be in place beforehand to help those displaced. Specifically from the profits of that automation. Not even the tax payers. Then as the whole industry shifts, the social services can be used to compensate whole populations. I am not writing policies and I am definitely not an expert. But the conversation of automation and job removal should include compensation for those displaced. >I think the core issue is a fundamental lack of understanding on the part of the politician/person. Yes, I agree. And the rush to prove the other side wrong. Which is usually accompanied by extreme examples and unfounded rhetoric.

Kalium 8y ago

> There are comments about increasing automation and policies of that effect but no policy or recognition how job losses will be coped with. Apparently it’s ok to permanently remove jobs but universal basic income is non-negotiable. You're right! This is a huge, glaring, obvious contradiction. I've always found it useful to extend the principle of charity in situations like the you so wisely point to. Perhaps people have some reason to expect that some other outcome could result from permanently removing jobs other than a permanent reduction in the number and type of jobs available? Do you think this is possible? Maybe these people might opine that our economy is not a fixed-size lump of labor. Again, you very correctly point to a absolutely critical point. Might perhaps there be something else to consider here? If I'm wrong, and the world is indeed a fixed lump of labor, can you help me understand why these people are wrong?

iscrewyou 8y ago
>Might perhaps there be something else to consider here? If I'm wrong, and the world is indeed a fixed lump of labor, can you help me understand why these people are wrong? I don’t think the world is a fixed lump of labor. Eventually there will be enough automation that people won’t have any work to do. Not everybody has the capacity to be a doctor or an engineer or a lawyer. We are just not wired that way, the brain simply works in unique ways. So how do we take away labor intensive work and still expect people to live happily while not providing them with means of living. I think there are two ways: (i) provide people with social services so they live above the standard of poverty. (ii) split automation so only so much work will be automated. This is a good compromise as we find out what automation does to our economy as years go on. For example(don’t shoot me, these are just examples), Mc Donald’s must have people working for the same amount of automatic kiosks in their restaurant. Or half of amazon warehouse must be people and half must be robots. Half of automatic Ubers must be driven by real people. There are ways to do automation and still take care of people. I just don’t see that conversation and it’s bothersome because soon it will too late.
- Kalium 8y ago
  That's very intersting! Thank you very much for sharing. You might think about pausing to consider that you have described what economists call the lump of labor. This is the idea that there's a finite amount of work to go around, and it can only be distributed among various people or machines. Some might opine that there could be something to be gained by investigating writings and studies on this exact subject from the past century or more. Wikipedia can be a great starting point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy I have had a very different experience. I see the conversation you call for going on constantly. I see it among dozens of people I know personally, of many different ages and races and education levels and careers. This is enough to lead me to think that your idea is so good and so wise that it's already been adopted en masse!