Show of Hands

And always has been.

*I

Politicians, deadbeats, and criminals will make plenty from it. Everyone else will suffer.

It's really not

Yes, it is the definition of communism.

""a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs"

It will just inflate the cost of living.

Doesn't matter. Eventually we are going to have to change welfare. Sooner or later automation will mean there just aren't enough jobs for everyone.

There are plenty of jobs for everyone people just don't want to work.

Receiving money that isn't earned is just going to deface the value of our currency.

Bow ... you have proven nothing but that you live in a fantasy. Of course it matters that the government is giving away money that it doesn’t have. And of course it matters that they will hurt the very people they proclaim to help.

Robert, yes, for now there are enough jobs. I'm saying that as automation increases there might not be

Bow ... prove your assertion.

Bow, thats not true either, as automation increase their are less low education jobs yes but they are replaced with higher education or skilled jobs. If you wanna say that it is disproportionate, that we loose low education jobs at a high rate then we gain higher education & skilled i may agree.

Think,I said there might be.I can't prove a hypothetical. But automation is increasingly replacing human workers. That is a fact.

Sure, but a large portion of the workforce is unskilled. They could and should go back to school, but that's not possible when there are no unskilled jobs for them to support themselves through school.

Bow ... do you long for the days of the buggy? The car replaced the buggy almost over night. Do that all of the buggy whip manufacturers and the wagon wheel manufacturers lost out completely. The buggy whip manufacturers had no choice, but the wagon wheel manufacturers didn’t believe that the car would take over and so the lost out.

But the most important thing that occurred was the HUGE increased demand for workers willing to retrain to build cars instead of buggies.

If you choose not to see this next transition and choose to remain dependent on yesterday’s technology then you will be as the buggy whip manufacturers. If you choose to retrain and upgrade your skills, you will have many opportunities.

I suggest that each technology advancement is much more like the buggy to car transition than any hypothetical that you can dream up!

Bower needs to study the arguments made against textile automation during the period Industrial Revolution. Those predictions failed as will Bower’s.

90% of Americans were farmers at one point now it is roughly 5% due to automation. Do we have 85% unemployment?

Logically speaking we are eventually going to reach a point where all jobs that create products will be automated.

Wow! Did you think of that on your own?

Eco is correct. Those doomsday automation predications have come and failed many times over. Reality has disproven that pseudo logic.

That is just one of the failed concepts taught by the Bill Ayers of this world. The other failed concept is that automation will allow monopolies for these greedy industrialists.

The reality is just the opposite, unless government intervenes. The textile cost reduce to the point where the common person could afford manufactured clothing and/or produce their own clothing with manufactured cloth. Automation has, almost always, benefited the poor.

They’re not getting rid of anything in return and taxes will likely be raised.

Ed ... how in the world could you think a stupid move like this wouldn’t raise taxes?

It’s possible especially if it’s 500 only, you just cut every other kind of welfare, but in this case I don’t supprt cause of the raising of taxes

Oh it’s 500 a month, never mind you’d have to cut stuff on the national level for this to not raise taxes

Es ... clearly math isn’t your strong suit!

The entire Stockton budget for this year is $625 million. The cost of giving every adult $500/month is $1.136 billion each and every year.

Who’s going to pay for this idiocy?

Yeah that’s why I look it back, I saw it was 500 a month and realized I was wrong, it couldn’t be done on this local level with that much of an increase

Took*

Goo ... yet another ridiculous leftist pipe dream! No taxpayers will be left in these California towns and when taxpayers leave because they’re disgusted by this idiocy, who’s gonna fund your little commune?

Humans made it 10,000 years but now it’s necessary lol ok

If we’d like to keep using money, yes.

Goo ... you’re welcome to stop using money! Let us know how that works out for you!

Please learn to read.

I think with welfare you have to qualify and keep in touch. This may just be because you are a Stockton citizen.

We should expect nothing less from Conmiefornia.

I don't foresee that at all.

Just wait till 70% of all jobs are done by androids

1. There are plenty of jobs that won’t be taken by robots. Lots of things require a human touch.
2. If that’s truly a concern of yours, then why don’t I hear you speak out on how to best combat the rise of automaton? That’s a serious question because this is a conversation that needs to happen in our modern society. Who should we be prioritizing? Robots and technology or people? I think some limits need be set.

The rise of androids and AI can't be stopped... Once it's here there won't be many jobs they can't do. Yes there might be some that still require humans, which is why I said 70% and not 100%.

The first jobs to go will be service industry. The people already living in poverty or paycheck to paycheck which will be the ones who need Ubi the most

“The rise of androids can’t be stopped”
Nothing will get accomplished with that defeatist attitude of yours. Can they be stopped? No, but they can certainly be regulated and limited.

“The first jobs to go will be service industry.”
Unlikely. The service industry requires a human touch.

You say deafetist, I say realist.

May have to disagree with you here Glux. Just weeks after CA mandated a $15 minimum wage Wendy’s announced they will be bringing in automated order kiosks.
Nearly every McDonald’s in my area has already started putting them in.

They've already made robots that can cook as well as celebrity chefs... Once those become mainstream you think many reasturant will last long? You don't think they can't teach a robot to clean, sell you shit, work just about and warehouse job..

Cabs, truck drivers, train conductors are on their way out the door aswell

No, it’s defeatist. Imagine if Americans in the past shared your attitude.

“The British Empire is the world’s dominant power! It can’t be beat! We should just give up the fight for independence now and turn ourselves in to face treason charges in the King’s court. I’m just being a realist, not a defeatist.”

“The Great Depression is too deep to overcome! The banks have all collapsed and the country is nearly broke. We should just give up and resign ourselves to a life of poverty. Fighting our way out of this rut is too hard and impossible. That’s not defeatism, that’s realism!”


Nothing is too big for our nation and our people to fight and overcome. Giving up, which seems to be your preferred course of action here, is un-American.

...

I agree with that.

TrueAmerican and Mudkip,
Why are you assuming that fast food is the only service industry out there? There are plenty of others that require a human touch: full-service restaurants, gardening, hotels, housekeeping, flight attendants, etc.

...

Glux, I didn't mention fast food, but I didn't mention about every industry you did

Here’s how you combat automation:
- Place new strict regulations on how much a company can automate their systems and have them inspected regularly to make sure that they aren’t violating the new codes.

True, I’ve used those before in Wendy’s. They give you the option to order by automated screen or regularly by cashier.

Now say robots replace all chefs... Well we no longer have new and interesting food right? Wrong. As people spend less time working they can spend more time doing what they love. Like cooking, making new ideas and new foods, thats why I think UBI is a good idea and look forward to a replaced automation workforce

And to be honest with you, I prefer the screen.

Again, Wendy’s and chefs aren’t the only service jobs in existence. And I just explained how their increased adoption of automated technologies can be limited.

Shit they don't even need an automation station... You can just place your order with your phone

Kinda like the Starbucks app.

Why stop it? I see a lot of benifits to it.

“As people spend less time working they can spend more time doing what they love. Like cooking”
A lot of people don’t like to cook, hence why Americans go out to eat so often.

“Now say robots replace all chefs”
That won’t happen if you prohibit restaurants from being able to do that.

As a species when did art and crafts first start to flourish? When we no longer had to toil all day gathering food to survive

“Why stop it? I see a lot of benifits to it?”
Because those benefits come at a human cost, one that you yourself mentioned above. At least now we know the real reason why you don’t want to address this modern problem. I put the interests of the people before the interests of corporations and technology.

...

“As a species when did art and crafts first start to flourish? When we no longer had to toil all day gathering food to survive”
People will be toiling plenty if automation is allowed to continue unabated. We need to have a conversation in this country about who should be more protected and valued: machines or people?

...

“And to be honest with you, I prefer the screen.”
I’m sure lot of people do because technology has made our society increasingly anti-social.

It’s not about being anti-social. By ordering the food myself, the order has less of a chance of being messed up. Plus it’s cooler.

Glux ... I disagree with you on the feeble attempt to stop automation. Many of us want it. And standing in the way of technology has never been a wise endeavor. Ask the buggy whip industry.

Having said that the small-minded idiocy of the left that suggests that “AI” (a concept that the left thoroughly doesn’t understand) will somehow make work obsolete is laughable.

The key to the future is the same as the key to the past. For those willing and able to adapt to more technology, the future is bright. To those unwilling or unable to adapt, well, Mr Darwin had a Fred words for them, and it had NOTHING to do with their communist utopian society or any number of the unrealistic sci-fi movies they’ve watched instead of studying science and history.

... Mr Darwin had a few words ... not a Fred words.

“Glux ... I disagree with you on the feeble attempt to stop automation. Many of us want it. And standing in the way of technology has never been a wise endeavor.”
I disagree. I believe that caring for our people should be prioritized over automation. I never said that automaton could be stopped either so perhaps you should stop beating that dead horse. What I said is that is can and should be limited and regulated.

...

“Many of us want it.”
If by “many” you mean anti-social technology addicts and corporations who would do anything to avoid paying hardworking Americans to do the job, then yes.

Being in favor of automation in *some* job areas doesn’t make people “anti-social technology addicts”

Glux ... we may be talking past each other. My expectation of McD’s is that they slap together a burger and fries as fast and as consistently as possible. The fewer hands that touch my food, the better, especially if those hands have been fondling the owner or others or have been involved in drugs right before touching my bun.

There, the more automation the better. In the contrary, if we are talking about checking my prostate, as much as I hate to have it down, the gentle squeeze of a real doc is what I prefer.

My suggestion is that it is not an all or nothing approach. Automation belongs in various segments of our society and doesn’t belong in others.

So, rather than talking past each other, let’s focus on where technology belongs and where it doesn’t.

Beyond that, the pipe dream that with technology brings a loss of jobs is a laughable buggy whip mentality.

You keep going back to fast food like that’s the only sector where automation is pushing out American workers. I don’t share your belief that all technological progress is good. I don’t see putting more Americans out of work in favor of letting robots do the job as a good thing. Limits must be put in place or else you are going to have more Americans in poverty and out of work than ever before.


...

“My suggestion is that it is not an all or nothing approach.”
If that’s not your suggestion, then why aren’t you in favor of limiting its spread? It will be an all-or-nothing situation if we keep heading down this road.

“Beyond that, the pipe dream that with technology brings a loss of jobs.”
No, it’s actually a fact.

Nothing is good in excess, and that includes automation. Right now, nobody is talking about how it negatively effects the most economically vulnerable in our society and how it’s rise will eventually increase the burden on the already unsustainable welfare state if proper limits aren’t put in place soon. You say that say that you don’t think automation belongs everywhere in our society, yet you don’t bring up any solution that would prevent that from happening. Dismissing anyone who raises these questions as horse-and-buggy Luddites isn’t helping either.


...

Glux ... you sound a wee bit hysterical! You suggest that I said a number of thing that I didn’t say. Rather than speak about specific technologies or specific industries or segments of industries where robotics may not apply, you have chosen to wave your hands as if the earth is melting.

Let’s discuss dispassionately.

1. I asserted that technology doesn’t apply evenly to all industries at the same levels. Some — like fast food — are far better suited for technology than others — like my prostate exams. Can we agree?

2. I suggested that discounting technology out of hand makes you appear like the buggy whip salesman, who were until their dying breath, convinced that the car would never replace the horse for transportation. How did that work out for them?

3. Not once did I suggest — as you have repeatedly — that more technology means fewer jobs. I did suggest — and so maintain — that technology requires workers to retrain. That retraining will be key!

Glux ... are you wrestling with some leftist who has me in ignore? I never called you a Luddite.

“I asserted that technology doesn’t apply evenly to all industries at the same levels. Some — like fast food — are far better suited for technology than others — like my prostate exams. Can we agree?”
We do agree there. The problem is that you are proposing nothing that would curb automation from spreading to all industries and denouncing those who think that we should as horse-and-buggy types.


...

“I suggested that discounting technology out of hand makes you appear like the buggy whip salesman.”
Nobody here is dismissing all technology out of hand, so your “buggy whip salesmen” comment is nothing more than a tactic designed to dismiss your opponents as Luddites. That’s a tactic that would expect from a leftist, but not you. You’re better than that.

...

“Not once did I suggest — as you have repeatedly — that more technology means fewer jobs.”
And that is part of the problem, because more automation does mean fewer jobs for millions of Americans. You should recognize that.

“did suggest that technology requires workers to retrain. That retraining will be key!”
Retrain for the jobs that no longer exist because that powers-at-be decided that automation matters more than allowing Americans to keep their jobs? Yeah, that will go over great.

...

“Glux ... are you wrestling with some leftist who has me in ignore? I never called you a Luddite.”
You compared me to a “whip and buggy salesmen”. That certainly sounds like you’re calling me a Luddite.


...

Glux ... please show your proof that automation leads to fewer jobs. I suggest that technology leads to more diverse and often higher paying jobs!

Glux ... how did history work out for the buggy whip salesmen?

“Please show your proof that automation leads to fewer jobs. I suggest that technology leads to more diverse and often higher paying jobs”

Take a look at the Rust Belt and all the wonders that automation has done for them. Isn’t Detroit so prosperous with its diverse, high-paying jobs? Truly a marvel. That whole region is living proof that automation kills jobs and puts Americans out of work.

...

“Glux ... how did history work out for the buggy whip salesmen?”

Think, quit straw manning and ask a real question.

Glux ... the economic outcomes of the rust belt have precious little to do with automation and almost everything to do with horrible economic policies! The jobs weren’t replaced by robots, but by Chinese!

Oops!

I notice the same people complaining the sky is falling, robots will take all our jobs, etc are the ones having 8 kids. Hmmmm. If they really believed that, they should put the dick down

Glux ... I focus on the buggy whips because in fact it is a GREAT example of how technology not only change our world for the better, but sparked a HUGE expansion in jobs.

The problem wasn’t so much the buggy whip manufacturers, because they really never had a chance in the changing economy, but the wagon axel manufacturers did! They simply refused to adapt, and they were lost.

Here’s a short article that may shed some light for you ...

www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/10digi.html

“Glux ... the economic outcomes of the rust belt have precious little to do with automation and almost everything to do with horrible economic policies! The jobs weren’t replaced by robots, but by Chinese!”

That is partly correct and partly incorrect. The Chinese undoubtedly had a hand in the Rust Belt’s descent from prosperity to poverty, but automation played a big role in that as well. It was an unholy alliance that acted as a double-edged knife driven and twisted straight into America’s heartland.

...

“Glux ... I focus on the buggy whips because in fact it is a GREAT example of how technology not only change our world for the better, but sparked a HUGE expansion in jobs.”
How wonderful for the 1900s. Meanwhile in 2018, automation has resulted in economic depression in the regions where it has effected the most people, not a “HUGE expansion in jobs”. You’re comparing apples to oranges.

...

Glux ... you ignore that the buggy whip’s Denise gave way to one of the largest economic booms in our country’s history! Admit it, when wagons fell out of favor, jobs in auto manufacturing exploded — more than compensated for those losses.

Automation does NOT necessarily lead to losses.

“Glux ... you ignore that the buggy whip’s Denise gave way to one of the largest economic booms in our country’s history.”
No, I’m not ignoring that. But you are most definitely ignoring the fact that automation played a bit part in the economic ruin of the Rust Belt.

“jobs in auto manufacturing exploded — more than compensated for those losses.”
Only have those automotive jobs ripped away by automation and bad trade deals.

“Automation does NOT necessarily lead to losses!”
It has in this century.

Glux ... I am ignoring nothing! You keep saying that automation ruined the rust belt but you’ve yet to provide even a shred of evidence. I asserted that the economic decline of the rust belt was caused mostly by the elimination of foreign tariffs that allowed foreign producers to flood the market. Unfortunately, the once booming steel industry was at that point choked by ridiculously inflexible union contracts that resulted in our industry being uncompetitive. Automation was NOT the cause of the demise of that set of industries! To the co treaty, automation was the industries’ desperate attempt to remain competitive as they were choked to death by unions.

Automation is NOT the problem, it is often the solution!

“Glux ... I am ignoring nothing! You keep saying that automation ruined the rust belt.”
You are ignoring plenty. I keep saying that automation had a large part in plunging the Rust Belt into economic despair (and will likely do the same to other regions of the country if its rise is not limited) because that is an indisputable fact.
www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/the-parts-of-america-most-susceptible-to-automation/525168/

“Automation is NOT the problem, it is often the solution!”
Tell that to the millions of Americans who are in poverty right now because automation took away their jobs.

Glux ... repeating the same assertion doesn’t make it true. Resorting to The Atlantic as your only source is just an admission that you’ve got nothing!

But that aside, let’s explore your unfounded and misguided assertion. If automation were the real problem (as you keep saying), then we’d see a highly mechanized and vibrant steel industry on the back of that automation. Right? Please point me to that healthy, robot-dominated steel industry!

As I said, automation was the desperate attempt by the failing steel industry to maintain competitiveness and lessen the chokehold of oppressive union forced labor costs. The dynamic is PRECISELY parallel to the fast food industry’s response to unreasonable, unhealthy and unsustainable capricious price increases in labor costs.

“Glux ... repeating the same assertion doesn’t make it true”
Says the guy who keeps repeating assertions.

“Resorting to The Atlantic as your only source is just an admission that you’ve got nothing!”

Do you have any evidence to disprove the information in the article?

“If automation were the real problem (as you keep saying), then we’d see a highly mechanized and vibrant steel industry on the back of that automation.”
No, what you’d see is increased use of automation on factory lines rather than workers (which is already happening). That does not necessarily mean that the industry would become vibrant. You’re drawing false conclusions.

Automation was an attempt by manufacturers to increase their bottom line by firing workers and replacing them with machines (who don’t require payment).

Question for iPad users: The city of Stockton, California is planning to give its residents a guaranteed basic income of $500 a month starting in 2019. Stockton’s mayor claims that this will help combat poverty. Do you support the implementation of a universal basic income?

Answer 1- Yes
Answer 2- No

Link: thehill.com/regulation/legislation/390523-california-town-to-offer-guaranteed-income-to-residents

....

To be fair do you really think 6k a year is gonna incintivize anyone to stop working? Especially in california?

$500 a month won’t make people quit their jobs, that’s for sure.

No, but giving it to the people who are already not working and leeching off the taxpayers just encourages them to continue that behavior.

I see it more as helping families out that are struggling from pay check to pay check. However, wealthy tax payers should not be funding this.

“I see it more as helping families out that are struggling from pay check to pay check.”
That’s a very idealistic view. There are “no strings attached” to this plan. That means that hardworking families with 3 jobs aren’t the only ones getting subsidized here. The jobless layabouts, vagrants, and drug dealers are also getting paychecks for contributing absolutely nothing to society. That is unacceptable,

Let the poor seek help from religious charity organizations or other private organizations designed to help them . . .

I agree, ezh!

Mud ... who’s going to pay?

You realize that there are approximately 189,275 adults living in Stockton. If each adult is given $500 per month, the annual cost of this communist initiative will be: $1.136 billion each year!

Just to put this into perspective, so even a leftist can understand, that cost is TWICE the total budget for Stockton for fiscal 2017-2018. Not to be too precise, but their current budget is “only” $625 million.

So, to pay for this idiocy, they’d be forced to TRIPLE their tax revenue! Does this seem reasonable?

... tax revenues.

Think of you look up the program it's only going to a few dozen families and all the money has been donated

But you obviously know everything about it right? They're being FORCED to triple their taxes right?

Mud ... please continue to donate your own money. We both know that this was just to set the hook and then you’ll be begging for taxpayers to fund it.

If not, swell, please continue to waste your own money!

Mud ... you and I both know — because we’ve read the supporting material — that the intent is for the government to fund this. So, your conclusion is disingenuous! My statements above, about the totally unrealistic notion is simply unsustainable! If deployed widely, it will cause prices to rise to the point that it will negate any benefit from this guaranteed income. The end result is no benefit, only cost.