American Political Policy Discussion Thread

[Terthna]

Cashiers are already getting automated out. Wonder what the next minimum wage job to get automated away will be.

Pretty much all office work is shoo-in to be automated; most of it is just routine filling out and filing of paperwork, so with the right software you could replace the jobs of millions.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

Lawyers!

Hilariously, not kidding. Not everything they can do, but, still.

I've already heard of entry level lawyer work at big firms getting wholesale replaced with search engines.

Pretty much all office work is shoo-in to be automated; most of it is just routine filling out and filing of paperwork, so with the right software you could replace the jobs of millions.

On the one hand, terrifying, on the other hand, I wonder if those jobs aren't safe for longer than we might expect off Execs wanting to hold onto someone to blame... Probably both too cynical and too optimistic, they'd just blame the software and swap it out.

 

[Terthna]

On the one hand, terrifying, on the other hand, I wonder if those jobs aren't safe for longer than we might expect off Execs wanting to hold onto someone to blame... Probably both too cynical and too optimistic, they'd just blame the software and swap it out.

The only things standing in the way is their general aversion to change, and fear of what would happen if that many people lost their jobs at around the same time.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

What is your response to this theoretical situation?

I get that you're looking for answers, but taking this hypothetical is really a worthless endeavor. It's like trying to predict the weather 100 years out. There are too many variables for any answer to have real meaning to us now.

Work is valuable if someone is willing to pay you for it.
If you can define 'work' as sitting on your ass loudly chewing into a microphone (ASMR anyone?) then chew your ass off!

As for machines making work no longer available for the masses. Frankly it's a BS line. People have been saying that since the steam engine. It's NEVER come to pass. We've adapted ourselves to the situation, learned how to capitalize on the greater efficiencies, and gotten even wealthier. That wealth has spread like mad. Matter of fact, we've gotten so efficient, we can sit on our asses and not have to worry about FARMING or HUNTING our NEXT MEAL. We can specialize to such a degree it's amazing.

I don't believe that we're inventing ourselves out of work, nor do I accept the premise that we're going to end up with anything close to a majority simply not being able to work because the jobs aren't there.

 

[S'task]

They cannot grock that the old economic models no longer hold true as universally as they once did, and are actually likely secretly ok with the USSRs 'he who does not work, does not eat' mindset, even though they'd never admit it openly.

You might be right that the old economic models no longer hold true.

However, "he who does not work, does not eat" is not a Communist line. In point of fact, it predates Communist by over a thousand years, seeing how it comes directly from 2 Thessalonians Chapter 3:

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

In point of fact, social conservatives have long admitted to disliking the idea of idleness and having no qualms with the idea that those who do no work would not eat. This has never been a secret of the social conservatives and their concerns over welfare. It's why one of the major reforms to welfare that Conservatives push has been work requirements, and why many conservatives oppose the idea of government run welfare entirely, as it's not actually charity as people are called to but people often see it and treat it as such, thus allowing the responsibility of caring for those in bad circumstances from that person's neighbors and community to the impersonal government. This then aids in dissolving social bonds and fosters dependence on the government rather than on each other in community with each other.

 

[Bacle]

You might be right that the old economic models no longer hold true.

However, "he who does not work, does not eat" is not a Communist line. In point of fact, it predates Communist by over a thousand years, seeing how it comes directly from 2 Thessalonians Chapter 3:


In point of fact, social conservatives have long admitted to disliking the idea of idleness and having no qualms with the idea that those who do no work would not eat. This has never been a secret of the social conservatives and their concerns over welfare. It's why one of the major reforms to welfare that Conservatives push has been work requirements, and why many conservatives oppose the idea of government run welfare entirely, as it's not actually charity as people are called to but people often see it and treat it as such, thus allowing the responsibility of caring for those in bad circumstances from that person's neighbors and community to the impersonal government. This then aids in dissolving social bonds and fosters dependence on the government rather than on each other in community with each other.

The the idea that charity can come close to doing what Welfare, WIC, foodstamps do, and UBI could do, is...another old social model that no longer applies, and hasn't for a long time.

When people got most of their food and necessities from local farms/manufacturing, instead of a global supply network, the idea charity could make up the whole 'safety net' might have held water. Nowadays, it's a pipe dream.

Logistics does not care how holy or righteous your views are, only where the product is, where it needs to go, how long it will take, and how much it will cost. No private charity has anything close to the logistics network needed to replace Welfare, foodstamps, WIC, and the like.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

No private charity has anything close to the logistics network needed to replace Welfare, foodstamps, WIC, and the like.

It's not 1 single charity.

It's ALL OF THEM. Every single food pantry, every single church, every single soup kitchen, every single clothing donation, every single charitable person...frankly, Welfare, foodstamps, WIC and the like can't hold a candle to that when it comes to truly meaningful aid to those who need it. And I'm talking aid that helps lift people up so they can find their way on their own. What the government does has no impact there. The government creates and fosters reliance on the government. True charity does not.

What happens when the government can't meet it's own needs? Will welfare and all the other programs still be around?
Heck, look at all these heavily urbanized areas that have been controlled by Democrats for generations. They instituted HUGE levels of welfare and government intervention to 'help' the people. How has that actually worked out?

 

[Bacle]

It's not 1 single charity.

It's ALL OF THEM. Every single food pantry, every single church, every single soup kitchen, every single clothing donation, every single charitable person...frankly, Welfare, foodstamps, WIC and the like can't hold a candle to that when it comes to truly meaningful aid to those who need it. And I'm talking aid that helps lift people up so they can find their way on their own. What the government does has no impact there. The government creates and fosters reliance on the government. True charity does not.

Those all indeed help, but we are talking economies of scale with what the Welfare system does, and two doors contolled by Panama and Egypt which the US gov can deal with better than private entities.

Though I agree private charities help a great deal; Goodwill is great for getting decent stuff without a retail mark-up, and soup kitchens are vital. I think a work requirement, or at least a work bonus, is a reasonable conversation to have about Welfare and such. But I still think UBI would streamline a lot of the stuff we do through three or four different gov channels right now.

Now, I do not think Biden or co could do UBI or reform Welfare competently, and it would have been a stretch for even Trump to pull it off, if he were so inclined.

But it doesn't make the concept itself a bad thing, and the examples @Bear Ribs provided show things like UBI can work alongside the Welfare system, and generally provide a net benefit to both the recipients of it, and the economies of their communities. Because it means some people start new businesses with that -psuedo-UBI money, not just not work.

What happens when the government can't meet it's own needs? Will welfare and all the other programs still be around?
Heck, look at all these heavily urbanized areas that have been controlled by Democrats for generations. They instituted HUGE levels of welfare and government intervention to 'help' the people. How has that actually worked out?

Some places Welfare has helped, some places it's harmed, some places it hasn't had much effect either way.

Also, not all blue cities are hellholes, or are fucked due to Welfare. That's cope a lot on the the Right use to pretend small towns can really compete when it comes to things like sports teams, music venues, food choice, ease of access to other places (before Wu Flu), and quality of medical services (not many small towns have Level 1 trauma care and the nearest Level 1 could be an hour plus away by car or even helo).

However, with UBI, we do have the Alaskan example to look at as a test case of how it might work in the US, so we have actual data points, and not just rhetoric, to work with. Again, @Bear Ribs provided in his post many examples to look at.

Now, Alaska is fucked for a bunch of reasons currently, and a lot of them are outside the states ability to control in a meaningful way. Ships rarely cross the Gulf of Alaska in winter without good reason, there is no rail link to the Lower 48 at this point to ship goods enmasse overland, and oil is not high enough in price to offset the lost tourism and commerce that Wu Flu has caused.

As for what happens when the gov cannot meet it's own needs...are we talking a third world shithole needing outside charity just to keep it's people fed, like we see in some places now, or are you seriously implying private charity can replace major functions of a first world govs Welfare programs when shit hits the fan? Charity might help on a small scale, but it won't prevent another Great Depression, or alleviate supply chain bottlenecks.

 

[Terthna]

Now, I do not think Biden or co could do UBI or reform Welfare competently, and it would have been a stretch for even Trump to pull it off, if he were so inclined.

This is an important point; because regardless of where all of us stand on the issue, or most issues for that matter, we'd have to purge our government of corruption and incompetence before we can even begin to tackle welfare.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

having no qualms with the idea that those who do no work would not eat.

How do you reconcile this with the economic fact that 100% employment is neither possible nor desirable?

 

[Bear Ribs]

People will still work with Welfare rolled into UBI, because UBI does not pay for anything beyond the basics, and does put more money in the pockets of people, and the businesses they purchase stuff from. People will work, because they want more than just the 'basics'.
It's not just commies who hate UBI; fiscal and traditional conservatives hate it too from what I've seen.

It seems to loosely cut diagonally through the Reddit meme chart. Libertarian conservatives hate it because it makes government bigger and authoritarian liberals hate it because it gives people options to get away from megacorporate masters.

In reality, it's the enemy of Corporatocracy. Corporate CEOs do not like the idea of their workers being able to tell them "Take this job and shove it" at any time, and really, really don't like how it causes massive increases in small businesses to compete with them. Hence corporations put a lot of pressure against it and muddy the waters with as much propaganda as they can.

You might be right that the old economic models no longer hold true.

However, "he who does not work, does not eat" is not a Communist line. In point of fact, it predates Communist by over a thousand years, seeing how it comes directly from 2 Thessalonians Chapter 3:


In point of fact, social conservatives have long admitted to disliking the idea of idleness and having no qualms with the idea that those who do no work would not eat. This has never been a secret of the social conservatives and their concerns over welfare. It's why one of the major reforms to welfare that Conservatives push has been work requirements, and why many conservatives oppose the idea of government run welfare entirely, as it's not actually charity as people are called to but people often see it and treat it as such, thus allowing the responsibility of caring for those in bad circumstances from that person's neighbors and community to the impersonal government. This then aids in dissolving social bonds and fosters dependence on the government rather than on each other in community with each other.

Note there's a subtle but very important difference there. The Bible calls out people unwilling to work, Communists target those unable to work. And as I pointed out by showing 85-90% of lotto winners keep working, a majority sticking to their old jobs, so we have proof most people are quite willing, but not always able. The fact that UBI is strongly correlated with people starting their own businesses shows that it actually fosters a hard-working entrepreneurial spirit. I personally see little merit in punishing 9 people who are willing but unable in order to target the 1 person who's unwilling and lazy.

 

[Cherico]

personally I'm not the against the idea of UBI or negative income taxes in principle but the problem is that essentally you run into the risk of people voting themselves ever more money from the public purse which has turned into a disaster in the past. So doing this on a massive nation wide scale at first runs strait into the problem that we will have unitended conquences so yes I want to run small scale experiements first.

Then I want a rational debate about the pros and cons of the experiment, the problem is the rational debate....

 

[Prince Ire]

How do you reconcile this with the economic fact that 100% employment is neither possible nor desirable?

And indeed only achievable by communist countries who achieved it by making useless make-work jobs to throw people who would otherwise be unemployed into (and then boasting that unlike the 'inefficient' capitalists who needed welfare, they had provided work for all).

 

[The Whispering Monk]

I think my basic problem with a UBI is that you then create something whereby people can literally vote themselves more money.
And I can't think of a single political party that's not going to start fighting over who can give the 'people' the most money with their platform. THEN you're going to see even bigger deficits eventually coming out of it.

I guess you can put it down to my complete lack of faith that the people in power will actually NOT be corrupt.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

I think my basic problem with a UBI is that you then create something whereby people can literally vote themselves more money.

How is this fundamentally different from all the many ways people ALREADY vote themselves more money?
Subsidies and bail outs, existing Welfare, and random pork barrels.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

With UBI, EVERYONE has a reason to vote for more money, not just the percentage on welfare.

 

[Captain X]

I like the idea of a social safety net for people down on their luck, but it should only be temporary. As for UBI, well, we've already had a taste of that, in a way, with these stimulus checks and expanded unemployment, which has resulted in high inflation. UBI essentially amounts to more of that, and never ending, which would probably just result in even more inflation, which would then go on to give a reason to keep increasing the amount. For me, the real problem is in getting the system to actually work to help people get back on their feet, rather than keep them perpetually in poverty and dancing to the government's beat. I mean, just look at what's happening now with trying to mandate vaccination and trying to unperson people who don't go along with it - you don't think they'd use the threat of taking away the payments or even charging back what they've already given? What the government gives, they can take away, too.

 

[Terthna]

I like the idea of a social safety net for people down on their luck, but it should only be temporary. As for UBI, well, we've already had a taste of that, in a way, with these stimulus checks and expanded unemployment, which has resulted in high inflation. UBI essentially amounts to more of that, and never ending, which would probably just result in even more inflation, which would then go on to give a reason to keep increasing the amount.

You can't compare that to a UBI; it's just not the same thing (setting aside the fact that the stimulus checks have had little to nothing to do with the inflation we're experiencing, compared to the impact of our ever-worsening supply chain issues). A better comparison would be with the welfare system we've had for decades; it's been bad for many reasons, but it hasn't exactly caused high inflation, and a UBI is supposed to replace that, and be better in every conceivable way. More freedom, less waste, less government meddling in our lives; there are no downsides, unless you're someone who thinks there shouldn't be any sort of welfare system at all.

For me, the real problem is in getting the system to actually work to help people get back on their feet, rather than keep them perpetually in poverty and dancing to the government's beat.

A laudable goal; but as technology and our willingness to use it to its fullest extent advances, that's just not going to be possible. Unless you're willing to force (or bribe) employers to spend billions on employing people to do things that don't actually need to be done. Make-work, essentially; something which we already do to a certain extent.

I mean, just look at what's happening now with trying to mandate vaccination and trying to unperson people who don't go along with it - you don't think they'd use the threat of taking away the payments or even charging back what they've already given? What the government gives, they can take away, too.

What, you mean like how they're threatening to take away our rights if we refuse to wear masks, and let them inject us with whatever they damn well please? That's not an argument against replacing our welfare system with a UBI, because as I said previously; until we purge our government of corruption and incompetence, we're not going to get anything done.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

With UBI, EVERYONE has a reason to vote for more money, not just the percentage on welfare.

And yet, somehow, taxes don't seem to go down every year... somehow, taxes even go up every now and again.

 

[LordsFire]

A laudable goal; but as technology and our willingness to use it to its fullest extent advances, that's just not going to be possible. Unless you're willing to force (or bribe) employers to spend billions on employing people to do things that don't actually need to be done. Make-work, essentially; something which we already do to a certain extent.

No matter how often you (and others) repeat this, it simply is not true.

Technology has never resulted in the obsolescence of human labor, and there's no reason beyond baseless speculation to believe that it ever will.

You don't pay a machine. You pay someone else who built the machine, and either that same or another person to maintain it. When the machine makes production more efficient, so that you don't need the same amount of people to get the same amount of output, you then have money freed up to pay for other things.

Other things which are done by other human beings, which you pay for things.

Automation doesn't result in people not working, it just changes what kind of work is being done.

Welfare, on the other hand, demonstrably results in people working less or not at all. That is a fact, historically proven multiple times. You can pit your speculation based on not understanding technology and economics against actual facts and history all you want, but it's not going to accomplish anything production.