4 ms·

"We have MORE than doubled productivity since 1970. That means that HALF the jobs since then have vaporized. Gone. Kaput. Never to be replaced." There are lots

"We have MORE than doubled productivity since 1970. That means that HALF the jobs since then have vaporized. Gone. Kaput. Never to be replaced." There are lots of jobs that can't even be filled right now. Many jobs have vaporized, but there are also plenty of new positions. With all of the support here for open source, do people even care that jobs have been lost as a result? As an example, my last company probably should have hired 5 developers. Instead, they just hired me and used a free open source product. So you push for open source and new technology, which reduces jobs, and now expect a bailout from the middle class? Maybe we should have a tax paid for by technology and open source companies that have reduced jobs. "If you were not "talented" enough to be born into a family that was college educated prior to 1980, you were in for a very hard time in the future--through no fault of your own" People can still get into a trade..and make good money without going to college..yet all of the stats I've seen show this is not happening. Why? "The biggest predictor of whether you will be poor is whether you were born to poor parents." It really is a parenting problem. My parents never taught me about saving, compound interest, and long-term investments (not just thinking about what I am emotionally feeling now). This doesn't mean I can't learn about these things later in life. I would rather invest in more education (which can teach someone the skills to be successful in many aspects of life) than a basic income, which will potentially make a person dependent on it for their entire life.

bsder 12y ago
> There are lots of jobs that can't even be filled right now. Many jobs have vaporized, but there are also plenty of new positions. Sure. But mostly it's like this, the Natrona Heights, PA steel mill just got a very expensive reinvestment and retooling. It now employs about 600 when it used to employ 4,000. And of those 600, most of those now require fairly technical training while the vast majority of the previous 4,000 jobs could be filled with a basic level of training. So, you need at least 3,400 jobs to materialize out of thin air. Even if I assume that you could magically turn all those people into engineers, until you show me where those 3,400 jobs are, the rest of your arguments are moot. The only retort I ever get is: "Well, they should move." Move where? I can repeat that job-loss ratio for cites all over the US from big to small--Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Allentown, Poughkeepsie, Burlington, etc. So, you can't just move ALL of those city's population to Silicon Valley, Boston, and Austin (although the tech folks are trying very hard to disprove that statement with their actions by flooding those areas with people). NOBODY has been able to tell me where those jobs that people should move to are. That's because they don't exist. > People can still get into a trade..and make good money without going to college..yet all of the stats I've seen show this is not happening. Why? Companies say they want more tradesmen. What they really want are cheaper tradesmen. I don't see salaries rising in the US, at least, so the job rate is at rough balance. > So you push for open source and new technology, which reduces jobs, and now expect a bailout from the middle class? I certainly don't wish to reverse automation--especially in things like steel mills where it replaces very dangerous jobs. However, you can't just hang people out to dry either. Education doesn't magically make a job appear (just ask the non-technical PhD's about that).

bsder 12y ago

> There are lots of jobs that can't even be filled right now. Many jobs have vaporized, but there are also plenty of new positions. Sure. But mostly it's like this, the Natrona Heights, PA steel mill just got a very expensive reinvestment and retooling. It now employs about 600 when it used to employ 4,000. And of those 600, most of those now require fairly technical training while the vast majority of the previous 4,000 jobs could be filled with a basic level of training. So, you need at least 3,400 jobs to materialize out of thin air. Even if I assume that you could magically turn all those people into engineers, until you show me where those 3,400 jobs are, the rest of your arguments are moot. The only retort I ever get is: "Well, they should move." Move where? I can repeat that job-loss ratio for cites all over the US from big to small--Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Allentown, Poughkeepsie, Burlington, etc. So, you can't just move ALL of those city's population to Silicon Valley, Boston, and Austin (although the tech folks are trying very hard to disprove that statement with their actions by flooding those areas with people). NOBODY has been able to tell me where those jobs that people should move to are. That's because they don't exist. > People can still get into a trade..and make good money without going to college..yet all of the stats I've seen show this is not happening. Why? Companies say they want more tradesmen. What they really want are cheaper tradesmen. I don't see salaries rising in the US, at least, so the job rate is at rough balance. > So you push for open source and new technology, which reduces jobs, and now expect a bailout from the middle class? I certainly don't wish to reverse automation--especially in things like steel mills where it replaces very dangerous jobs. However, you can't just hang people out to dry either. Education doesn't magically make a job appear (just ask the non-technical PhD's about that).