5 ms·

You might be losing as an individual but the country gains.

abirch 1y ago
This is the exact same as automation. We need to be sure that we take care of those who lose their jobs. Truck Driver is one of the most popular professions in most states but the end is coming soon: https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/01/business/first-driverless-semis-started-regular-routes https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/01/business/first-driverless-sem... you can imagine that they'll only need drivers that aren't on interstates or for inclement weather.
- datavirtue 1y ago
  People who lose their job need to take care of themselves. That's the only way it works. You can only make it easier on them and enable success. Teaching kids real fincial literacy and how to leverage derivatives is an approach to solving this problem (most adults can't even grok a check book). Save while you can and preserve and multiply your wealth. In the typical truck driver world they have zero market participation other than selling their labor and maybe a 401k stuck in money markets or bonds, no derivative strategy and zero clue on what saving for retirement entails or how the money is leveraged in retirement. They do understand that they plan on working until they die but that isn't likely to pan out either. We have a <100 IQ population living in a 120 IQ world and have created a meat grinder with all these tech and tax laws. You shouldn't have to work for 40 years.
  - 542354234235 1y ago
    > People who lose their job need to take care of themselves. This feels incredibly simplistic. Taxpayer dollars go into funding tons of research that has led to automation improvements. Why shouldn’t taxpayers get some sort of return on that investment? When the US government negotiates trade deals, the money the country “saves” could go anywhere, to anyone. Why does almost all of it go to companies and not taxpayers? If a company wants to offshore work, why do they get to keep all of the monetary difference for themselves, instead of paying a substantial portion back to the country? Privatize the profits, socialize the costs doesn’t have to be how we allow companies to operate. “Help themselves” assumes that all the other factors are some sort of unchangeable natural laws, and not laws and regulations chosen. We could choose different rules that more directly returned gains to taxpayers, instead of vague trickle down type benefits.
    - maest 1y ago
      > Taxpayer dollars go into funding tons of research that has led to automation improvements. Why shouldn’t taxpayers get some sort of return on that investment? But I am getting return on my investments: shipping costs will go down and, as a result, the toilet paper I've ordered online will be 5c cheaper and arrive 2h faster.
  - nuancebydefault 1y ago
    What you are advocating is almost pure kapitalism. Its unfair/unbalanced as much as pure socialism is inefficient.
  - southernplaces7 1y ago
    >Teaching kids real fincial literacy and how to leverage derivatives That was a very specific skill you named. What are you referring to though? Literally leveraging derivatives on that market or are you being metaphorical?
pjmorris 1y ago
Chris Arnade wrote a book, 'Dignity', traveling and talking with 'back-row' Americans about the individuals who have had the losing end of how the US economy has been run. I also think of James McMurtry's song 'Can't Make It Here Anymore.' Lastly, I'd wager anyone who's on the winning end of the US economy can drive half an hour out of town and find empty storefronts and rundown houses. If the purpose of the country is to support the 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' of individuals, there might be a balance that needs to be re-struck.
- datavirtue 1y ago
  In the 1920s almost the entire countryside of small towns evaporated to the major cities and urban sprawls. Since the 1950s anyone has been able to find empty towns in all directions. There are some slight variations but most populations across US small towns peaked in the early 20th century.
IG_Semmelweiss 1y ago
>>>> You might be losing as an individual but the country gains. The country is not an individual. A country can't be happy, or sad or unemployed. People are. So who in the country gain ?
alabastervlog 1y ago
GDP (or equivalent) gains. Ricardo only says big aggregate number go up (with a bunch of caveats). Not for whom within that aggregate. It can (hypothetically) be one person seeing huge gains while every single other person loses a little bit. Or, pick any more-plausible scenario that sees a very-few benefitting greatly while the net for the rest of the population is somewhat negative.
UltraSane 1y ago
The gains need to be socialized.

This is the exact same as automation. We need to be sure that we take care of those who lose their jobs. Truck Driver is one of the most popular professions in most states but the end is coming soon: https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/01/business/first-driverless-semis-started-regular-routes https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/01/business/first-driverless-sem... you can imagine that they'll only need drivers that aren't on interstates or for inclement weather.

datavirtue 1y ago
People who lose their job need to take care of themselves. That's the only way it works. You can only make it easier on them and enable success. Teaching kids real fincial literacy and how to leverage derivatives is an approach to solving this problem (most adults can't even grok a check book). Save while you can and preserve and multiply your wealth. In the typical truck driver world they have zero market participation other than selling their labor and maybe a 401k stuck in money markets or bonds, no derivative strategy and zero clue on what saving for retirement entails or how the money is leveraged in retirement. They do understand that they plan on working until they die but that isn't likely to pan out either. We have a <100 IQ population living in a 120 IQ world and have created a meat grinder with all these tech and tax laws. You shouldn't have to work for 40 years.
- 542354234235 1y ago
  > People who lose their job need to take care of themselves. This feels incredibly simplistic. Taxpayer dollars go into funding tons of research that has led to automation improvements. Why shouldn’t taxpayers get some sort of return on that investment? When the US government negotiates trade deals, the money the country “saves” could go anywhere, to anyone. Why does almost all of it go to companies and not taxpayers? If a company wants to offshore work, why do they get to keep all of the monetary difference for themselves, instead of paying a substantial portion back to the country? Privatize the profits, socialize the costs doesn’t have to be how we allow companies to operate. “Help themselves” assumes that all the other factors are some sort of unchangeable natural laws, and not laws and regulations chosen. We could choose different rules that more directly returned gains to taxpayers, instead of vague trickle down type benefits.
  - maest 1y ago
    > Taxpayer dollars go into funding tons of research that has led to automation improvements. Why shouldn’t taxpayers get some sort of return on that investment? But I am getting return on my investments: shipping costs will go down and, as a result, the toilet paper I've ordered online will be 5c cheaper and arrive 2h faster.
- nuancebydefault 1y ago
  What you are advocating is almost pure kapitalism. Its unfair/unbalanced as much as pure socialism is inefficient.
- southernplaces7 1y ago
  >Teaching kids real fincial literacy and how to leverage derivatives That was a very specific skill you named. What are you referring to though? Literally leveraging derivatives on that market or are you being metaphorical?

pjmorris 1y ago

Chris Arnade wrote a book, 'Dignity', traveling and talking with 'back-row' Americans about the individuals who have had the losing end of how the US economy has been run. I also think of James McMurtry's song 'Can't Make It Here Anymore.' Lastly, I'd wager anyone who's on the winning end of the US economy can drive half an hour out of town and find empty storefronts and rundown houses. If the purpose of the country is to support the 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' of individuals, there might be a balance that needs to be re-struck.

datavirtue 1y ago
In the 1920s almost the entire countryside of small towns evaporated to the major cities and urban sprawls. Since the 1950s anyone has been able to find empty towns in all directions. There are some slight variations but most populations across US small towns peaked in the early 20th century.

IG_Semmelweiss 1y ago

>>>> You might be losing as an individual but the country gains. The country is not an individual. A country can't be happy, or sad or unemployed. People are. So who in the country gain ?

alabastervlog 1y ago

GDP (or equivalent) gains. Ricardo only says big aggregate number go up (with a bunch of caveats). Not for whom within that aggregate. It can (hypothetically) be one person seeing huge gains while every single other person loses a little bit. Or, pick any more-plausible scenario that sees a very-few benefitting greatly while the net for the rest of the population is somewhat negative.

UltraSane 1y ago

The gains need to be socialized.