CDZ How Might We Soften The Blow of The Third Industrial Revolution, the Age of Robots?

[320 Years of History]

The economic models of the past are inadequate to the times.

Economic models and theories developed and tested in the past are just fine. Indeed, what we observe today is precisely what those models and theories predict. It's how the models and theories are being applied in our age to develop policy that is the problem.

Evolution, like economic behavior (how humans behave in the face of scarcity and and thus having to make choices about the acquisition and use of resources), has worked exactly the same way for hundreds of millions of years. Evolution has produced different outcomes over the years, creatures, and the Theory of Evolution (ToE) describes how evolution does so, but evolution itself hasn't changed, and time and time again we see that the ToE does indeed accurately describe how evolution works.

The same concept is so with economics. Economically driven behavior is no different now than it was at the dawn of humanity. Time and time again, we see that the theories of economics accurately predict outcomes observed.

For example, economists in the 1990s noted that, say, NAFTA would keep prices for goods covered by NAFTA lower than they would be were they not party to a free trade agreement. It was politicians who, for whatever reason -- likely to curry favor among the electorate -- indicated it'd create, or at least not jeopardize, jobs, not economists. Economists knew better and in any economics textbook, anyone could have discerned as much, so basic is the principle of free trade. And what do researchers today observe? That imported goods drive prices down while maintaining access to high quality goods.

 

[alang1216]

I suspect that at some point, even careers that require critical analysis of business processes and organizations will one day be performed by computers. I feel confident, however, that much of the "judgment call" work humans today perform will remain human tasks unless there comes a time when humans become willing to cede political leadership and management to machines.

I think we'll happily cede political and business management to machines for the same reason we'll see driverless cars, they'll do a much better job of it. I think for a very long time, humans will set rules and priorities but the execution will soon fall to machines because they will unfailingly follow rules and have no self-interest.

 

[D Truth]

To the OP
Great topic by the way!

Personally I'm starting to read the MEMS handbook.

Official response:
Your fear condemns YOU to be the robot. Why do you want to be a robot?
Adapt and survive, then enjoy life.

 

[D Truth]

The economic models of the past are inadequate to the times.

Economic models and theories developed and tested in the past are just fine. Indeed, what we observe today is precisely what those models and theories predict. It's how the models and theories are being applied in our age to develop policy that is the problem.

Evolution, like economic behavior (how humans behave in the face of scarcity and and thus having to make choices about the acquisition and use of resources), has worked exactly the same way for hundreds of millions of years. Evolution has produced different outcomes over the years, creatures, and the Theory of Evolution (ToE) describes how evolution does so, but evolution itself hasn't changed, and time and time again we see that the ToE does indeed accurately describe how evolution works.

The same concept is so with economics. Economically driven behavior is no different now than it was at the dawn of humanity. Time and time again, we see that the theories of economics accurately predict outcomes observed.

For example, economists in the 1990s noted that, say, NAFTA would keep prices for goods covered by NAFTA lower than they would be were they not party to a free trade agreement. It was politicians who, for whatever reason -- likely to curry favor among the electorate -- indicated it'd create, or at least not jeopardize, jobs, not economists. Economists knew better and in any economics textbook, anyone could have discerned as much, so basic is the principle of free trade. And what do researchers today observe? That imported goods drive prices down while maintaining access to high quality goods.

That is quite incorrect. "History" is quite full of certain practices that defy the basic economic needs... take the musical chair game of usury for example. Not the topic of this particular debate though it adequately refutes your point. Still, I think I may be on your side of this particular argument so I am only pointing out your own logical fallacy to continue the discussion in a positive manner.

 

[320 Years of History]

The economic models of the past are inadequate to the times.

Economic models and theories developed and tested in the past are just fine. Indeed, what we observe today is precisely what those models and theories predict. It's how the models and theories are being applied in our age to develop policy that is the problem.

Evolution, like economic behavior (how humans behave in the face of scarcity and and thus having to make choices about the acquisition and use of resources), has worked exactly the same way for hundreds of millions of years. Evolution has produced different outcomes over the years, creatures, and the Theory of Evolution (ToE) describes how evolution does so, but evolution itself hasn't changed, and time and time again we see that the ToE does indeed accurately describe how evolution works.

The same concept is so with economics. Economically driven behavior is no different now than it was at the dawn of humanity. Time and time again, we see that the theories of economics accurately predict outcomes observed.

For example, economists in the 1990s noted that, say, NAFTA would keep prices for goods covered by NAFTA lower than they would be were they not party to a free trade agreement. It was politicians who, for whatever reason -- likely to curry favor among the electorate -- indicated it'd create, or at least not jeopardize, jobs, not economists. Economists knew better and in any economics textbook, anyone could have discerned as much, so basic is the principle of free trade. And what do researchers today observe? That imported goods drive prices down while maintaining access to high quality goods.

That is quite incorrect. "History" is quite full of certain practices that defy the basic economic needs... take the musical chair game of usury for example. Not the topic of this particular debate though it adequately refutes your point. Still, I think I may be on your side of this particular argument so I am only pointing out your own logical fallacy to continue the discussion in a positive manner.

Red:
I wrote about theory and you wrote about practice. The last sentence in my first paragraph points out that it is practice, application, that is the problem, not theory. I was addressing economic theory (and models indirectly) because economic models are just that, attempts to depict a theory.

Economists can goof in constructing a model, but to the extent that they do, the theory loses no validity, yet the model does. Economists adjust and update their models all the time as new information comes available indicating they must, so it's not as though they are using failed models today. Most importantly, however, the level of this thread's discussion -- very basic -- is such that the theories and models that apply at this level are quite accurate.

Are you possibly thinking that in my opening paragraph I was referring to economic theories that were developed in the past and have been found inaccurate? I can understand how you might make that inference as I used the absolute construction of "fine" and didn't instead, and more clearly, state something like "...theories developed and tested and still in use today are just fine." There's no question I could have been more precise/clear and I cannot expect that you can read my mind.

Blue:
No umbrage taken on my part. I understand that you think you perceive me as being "right for the wrong reason," in a manner of speaking.

 

[rdean]

Jobs that support robotics:

Engineers
Technicians
Programmers
Installation
Shipping
Sales
Marketing
Machinists
Steel workers
Plastics
Buildings and everything it takes to make buildings
Energy


Of course you could go on and on. Robots aren't cheap. I've only mentioned a fraction of the jobs it would take to support such an industry.
It all starts with education, investment and dare I say it --------> community organization.

 

[320 Years of History]

One answer for this thread's title question: read and apply the concepts described in The Third Wave: An Entrepreneur's Vision of the Future. Even if one doesn't apply the ideas to one's own development and quest for success, at the very least, having kids or mentoring kids, one should share the ideas with them and encourage them to apply them. In the book, one will find plenty of what I have often referred to as "writing on the wall" that if read and followed will greatly boost one's odds of finding the American Dream rather than leaving one behind to complain about the difficulty of achieving it.

 

[rdean]

One answer for this thread's title question: read and apply the concepts described in The Third Wave: An Entrepreneur's Vision of the Future. Even if one doesn't apply the ideas to one's own development and quest for success, at the very least, having kids or mentoring kids, one should share the ideas with them and encourage them to apply them. In the book, one will find plenty of what I have often referred to as "writing on the wall" that if read and followed will greatly boost one's odds of finding the American Dream rather than leaving one behind to complain about the difficulty of achieving it.

Leaving behind Republicans. It's that hatred for education.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

One answer for this thread's title question: read and apply the concepts described in The Third Wave: An Entrepreneur's Vision of the Future. Even if one doesn't apply the ideas to one's own development and quest for success, at the very least, having kids or mentoring kids, one should share the ideas with them and encourage them to apply them. In the book, one will find plenty of what I have often referred to as "writing on the wall" that if read and followed will greatly boost one's odds of finding the American Dream rather than leaving one behind to complain about the difficulty of achieving it.

Leaving behind Republicans. It's that hatred for education.

I seriously doubt you've ever talked to a single person who hates education. My guess is that you believe that anyone who doesn't share YOUR vision of education hates education.

 

[320 Years of History]

One answer for this thread's title question: read and apply the concepts described in The Third Wave: An Entrepreneur's Vision of the Future. Even if one doesn't apply the ideas to one's own development and quest for success, at the very least, having kids or mentoring kids, one should share the ideas with them and encourage them to apply them. In the book, one will find plenty of what I have often referred to as "writing on the wall" that if read and followed will greatly boost one's odds of finding the American Dream rather than leaving one behind to complain about the difficulty of achieving it.

Leaving behind Republicans. It's that hatred for education.

???

 

[rdean]

One answer for this thread's title question: read and apply the concepts described in The Third Wave: An Entrepreneur's Vision of the Future. Even if one doesn't apply the ideas to one's own development and quest for success, at the very least, having kids or mentoring kids, one should share the ideas with them and encourage them to apply them. In the book, one will find plenty of what I have often referred to as "writing on the wall" that if read and followed will greatly boost one's odds of finding the American Dream rather than leaving one behind to complain about the difficulty of achieving it.

Leaving behind Republicans. It's that hatred for education.

I seriously doubt you've ever talked to a single person who hates education. My guess is that you believe that anyone who doesn't share YOUR vision of education hates education.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012Platform_Final.pdf

“Since data is (sic) clear that additional money does not translate into educational achievement, and higher education costs are out of control, we support reducing taxpayer funding to all levels of education institutions” (emphasis added).

The Terrifying Texas GOP Platform
------------------------------
These right wing fucking assholes make me so damn mad. They don't even know what their party stands for. You can print a GOP party platform and they scream "LIAR!!!!"

How can these asshole morons scream liar when it's their party platform that is being posted. I'm not making anything up. I don't have to. IT'S THEM. GET IT? IT'S THOSE FUCKERS WHO DON'T EVEN KNOW THE SHIT THEY PROMOTE!



These fuckers have been this way for years and deny the very shit they put out. These are some despicable people.

 

[320 Years of History]

One answer for this thread's title question: read and apply the concepts described in The Third Wave: An Entrepreneur's Vision of the Future. Even if one doesn't apply the ideas to one's own development and quest for success, at the very least, having kids or mentoring kids, one should share the ideas with them and encourage them to apply them. In the book, one will find plenty of what I have often referred to as "writing on the wall" that if read and followed will greatly boost one's odds of finding the American Dream rather than leaving one behind to complain about the difficulty of achieving it.

Leaving behind Republicans. It's that hatred for education.

I seriously doubt you've ever talked to a single person who hates education. My guess is that you believe that anyone who doesn't share YOUR vision of education hates education.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012Platform_Final.pdf

“Since data is (sic) clear that additional money does not translate into educational achievement, and higher education costs are out of control, we support reducing taxpayer funding to all levels of education institutions” (emphasis added).

The Terrifying Texas GOP Platform
------------------------------
These right wing fucking assholes make me so damn mad. They don't even know what their party stands for. You can print a GOP party platform and they scream "LIAR!!!!"

How can these asshole morons scream liar when it's their party platform that is being posted. I'm not making anything up. I don't have to. IT'S THEM. GET IT? IT'S THOSE FUCKERS WHO DON'T EVEN KNOW THE SHIT THEY PROMOTE!



These fuckers have been this way for years and deny the very shit they put out. These are some despicable people.

To refocus the remarks above back toward the topic of this thread -- mitigating the "blow" of the advent and advancement of robotics and automation that led to businesses/employers replacing labor with capital in producing/providing the goods and services they provide -- education is one of the key means of doing so. Getting an education that qualifies one to perform work that cannot readily be replaced by technology is among the best things one can do for oneself to not only soften the impact of technology's advancement, but also to protect oneself from suffering from it at all.

Of course, there are people who ostensibly can say they have an education; however, if the documentation of their having done so is more an indicator mere presence in school rather than mastery of the material taught in the school (K-12, college, or grad school), well, they are likely in no or only slightly better position than had they not gone to school.

I find it interesting that Mr. Santorum deigns to mock the merit of getting a good education. The man's father was a clinical psychologist and his mother a nurse. Mr. Santorum himself went to private grade/high school, graduated with honors from Penn State, got an MBA and then a law degree. All that, but he doesn't think "you" need to go to college. Moreover, he does think that it's snobbery to make college available to people who want to go but who also lack the means to go.

Though Mr. Santorum seems to have found success, it clearly wasn't in the practice of law or business. The man never made partner at the firm he joined. Though the "up or out" approach to law firm careers has become less stringently applied in recent years, it was very much the reality from 1986 - 1990 when Mr. Santorum practiced law. Yes, the man had one noteworthy win; however, one win is the start of a track record, but it is not a track record of successful litigation.

But his non-political professional life isn't the point. What is the point is that the man has the gall to deny the value of education and the need to get a college degree even as he has three. I wonder where he'd be without his three degrees? Complaining about how there are so few jobs available and wondering how he's supposed to compete with the robots that now do the jobs he seeks is my best guess.

 

[Elvis Obama]

As to points 1-3, once again, not me.

Okay.

the wages of the middle class referred to as "stagnant", that's hardly a good thing.

I seriously doubt anyone thinks it is a good thing. Have you seen anyone frame stagnant wages as a good thing? I haven't.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement about perception. Perception is all. If enough people are pissed at you, whether it's for sensible reasons or not, you're in trouble.

I am certainly "in trouble" from one thing: the folks who are angry with me. That they are pissed is a reality. Both they and I are aware of it. It is real and it's accurate to say it is. Why they are pissed, their perception of what I've done or didn't do that, because they perceive my as having so acted, angered them, however, may not be accurate at all, thus not a reality. Indeed, it can be completely fabricated by them or others who influence them. That does not however have the might to convert their perception of my deeds (or inaction) or an object into a real deed or real object. Perception is not reality it's just perception, even if that perception inspires very real responses, be they physical responses or emotional ones.

Do you feel that voters, and specifically Republican voters, are wrong to feel betrayed by their party?

Yes, I think and feel that Republican voters unjustifiably feel betrayed by the GOP. I think they perceive they have been betrayed; however, I see nothing indicating they indeed have been betrayed. The complainers are, to my read of the facts, loud and strong but nonetheless wrong.

From an objective standpoint, my answer to your question rests in large part on the fact that being a Republican is a voluntary choice and the practices folks claim constitute the betrayal are the very same practices that the GOP has used for years and years. What has changed is not that the GOP has changed, but that this time round, there are a lot of very vocal folks (but not the majority of folks in the GOP) who've observed that those practices may not yield the outcome they want, whereas in prior years, there was no similarly large and loud plurality of dissatisfied GOP members.

From a subjective standpoint, and building on the preceding thoughts, my answer derives from the fact that I'm not now or ever going to agree that their willful ignorance of how their own self-chosen party "handles things" is any reason at all for anyone to grant that it is thus the GOP who betrayed those willfully ignorant folks. The fact that one relied on incomplete information and later doesn't or might not get one's way does not show or even suggest the cause of one's dissatisfaction is someone else's having betrayed them.

I would feel differently were the GOP to have implemented new tactics that resulted in an undesired outcome on the part of the folks now griping, but that's not what the GOP has done. And what Trump is doing now is essentially claiming that in the fight to win delegates the GOP allocates via caucus or state convention, he "arrived at a gunfight armed with a knife" and we are supposed to have sympathy for his $2B ass and the fact that he didn't win those delegates. Well, to that, I say BS! Not today, brother, and not tomorrow or the next day.

I seriously doubt anyone thinks it is a good thing. Have you seen anyone frame stagnant wages as a good thing? I haven't.

Nope, but what I thought I was seeing was a false premise about the middle class being central to the OP. I didn't respond in order to engage in that debate, especially since I thought you were likely correct, factually, as to the specific detail of a falling or stagnant wage, but merely, as I'd stated, to inject a little humanity into the equation. To try to see the trees of human suffering rather than the forest of detached methodological analysis.

Perception is not reality it's just perception, even if that perception inspires very real responses, be they physical responses or emotional ones.

Perception is our reality. It is the meaning we impose on the phenomenon we see around us, utilizing our limited senses and limited gift of reason. It is our unique, subjective reality. The aggregate of these individual perspectives is "public opinion", and it defies analysis, given that too much of it is based on irrational beliefs.

You want objective reality? Good luck. I would try the math and physics section of the department store, but all they really offer are the best tools for objective analysis, not truth. You seem to be suggesting that you have honed your analytical tools to the degree that they can slice through any conundrum and read the truth from its entrails. We synthesize the truth from what we have been given, and what we choose to learn. Most of us choose to learn nothing.

Those who do choose to learn can achieve great prowess in their individual disciplines. Their opinions might merit integration into your individual synthesis of worthwhile information and inferences.

From an objective standpoint, my answer to your question rests in large part on the fact that being a Republican is a voluntary choice and the practices folks claim constitute the betrayal are the very same practices that the GOP has used for years and years.

The question of political affiliation as choice is an interesting one, given the level of social inertia which renders party affiliations a family heirloom. I'm a Dempublican acause my daddy and his daddy afer him wuz a Dempublican! It takes fundamental events to shake this kind of "party loyalty", like insisting that black children go to school with their precious little Boopsie Lou.

Otherwise... I don't get it. There's a statute of limitations on betrayal? Sure, the parties have had a long reign, and their corruption has long been known and discussed and occasionally prosecuted. I'm not going to tell you that every individual sense of betrayal is thoughtful or based on convincing evidence, and I'm not going to indulge in any conclusive analysis of the disgruntled Trump supporters. I only know that many people are declaring themselves the victims of betrayal by both of the political parties. I know that my principle reaction to this phenomenon is, what took you so long? George Washington warned us about political parties in his farewell address to the nation. Now? They're hovering around "too big to fail" territory, and the fundamental restructuring which may be looming would be painful for many. Perhaps that's necessary. Perhaps we need to have our little puppy noses rubbed in the mess we've created in order to learn our lesson.

 

[rdean]

As to points 1-3, once again, not me.

Okay.

the wages of the middle class referred to as "stagnant", that's hardly a good thing.

I seriously doubt anyone thinks it is a good thing. Have you seen anyone frame stagnant wages as a good thing? I haven't.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement about perception. Perception is all. If enough people are pissed at you, whether it's for sensible reasons or not, you're in trouble.

I am certainly "in trouble" from one thing: the folks who are angry with me. That they are pissed is a reality. Both they and I are aware of it. It is real and it's accurate to say it is. Why they are pissed, their perception of what I've done or didn't do that, because they perceive my as having so acted, angered them, however, may not be accurate at all, thus not a reality. Indeed, it can be completely fabricated by them or others who influence them. That does not however have the might to convert their perception of my deeds (or inaction) or an object into a real deed or real object. Perception is not reality it's just perception, even if that perception inspires very real responses, be they physical responses or emotional ones.

Do you feel that voters, and specifically Republican voters, are wrong to feel betrayed by their party?

Yes, I think and feel that Republican voters unjustifiably feel betrayed by the GOP. I think they perceive they have been betrayed; however, I see nothing indicating they indeed have been betrayed. The complainers are, to my read of the facts, loud and strong but nonetheless wrong.

From an objective standpoint, my answer to your question rests in large part on the fact that being a Republican is a voluntary choice and the practices folks claim constitute the betrayal are the very same practices that the GOP has used for years and years. What has changed is not that the GOP has changed, but that this time round, there are a lot of very vocal folks (but not the majority of folks in the GOP) who've observed that those practices may not yield the outcome they want, whereas in prior years, there was no similarly large and loud plurality of dissatisfied GOP members.

From a subjective standpoint, and building on the preceding thoughts, my answer derives from the fact that I'm not now or ever going to agree that their willful ignorance of how their own self-chosen party "handles things" is any reason at all for anyone to grant that it is thus the GOP who betrayed those willfully ignorant folks. The fact that one relied on incomplete information and later doesn't or might not get one's way does not show or even suggest the cause of one's dissatisfaction is someone else's having betrayed them.

I would feel differently were the GOP to have implemented new tactics that resulted in an undesired outcome on the part of the folks now griping, but that's not what the GOP has done. And what Trump is doing now is essentially claiming that in the fight to win delegates the GOP allocates via caucus or state convention, he "arrived at a gunfight armed with a knife" and we are supposed to have sympathy for his $2B ass and the fact that he didn't win those delegates. Well, to that, I say BS! Not today, brother, and not tomorrow or the next day.

I seriously doubt anyone thinks it is a good thing. Have you seen anyone frame stagnant wages as a good thing? I haven't.

Nope, but what I thought I was seeing was a false premise about the middle class being central to the OP. I didn't respond in order to engage in that debate, especially since I thought you were likely correct, factually, as to the specific detail of a falling or stagnant wage, but merely, as I'd stated, to inject a little humanity into the equation. To try to see the trees of human suffering rather than the forest of detached methodological analysis.

Perception is not reality it's just perception, even if that perception inspires very real responses, be they physical responses or emotional ones.

Perception is our reality. It is the meaning we impose on the phenomenon we see around us, utilizing our limited senses and limited gift of reason. It is our unique, subjective reality. The aggregate of these individual perspectives is "public opinion", and it defies analysis, given that too much of it is based on irrational beliefs.

You want objective reality? Good luck. I would try the math and physics section of the department store, but all they really offer are the best tools for objective analysis, not truth. You seem to be suggesting that you have honed your analytical tools to the degree that they can slice through any conundrum and read the truth from its entrails. We synthesize the truth from what we have been given, and what we choose to learn. Most of us choose to learn nothing.

Those who do choose to learn can achieve great prowess in their individual disciplines. Their opinions might merit integration into your individual synthesis of worthwhile information and inferences.

From an objective standpoint, my answer to your question rests in large part on the fact that being a Republican is a voluntary choice and the practices folks claim constitute the betrayal are the very same practices that the GOP has used for years and years.

The question of political affiliation as choice is an interesting one, given the level of social inertia which renders party affiliations a family heirloom. I'm a Dempublican acause my daddy and his daddy afer him wuz a Dempublican! It takes fundamental events to shake this kind of "party loyalty", like insisting that black children go to school with their precious little Boopsie Lou.

Otherwise... I don't get it. There's a statute of limitations on betrayal? Sure, the parties have had a long reign, and their corruption has long been known and discussed and occasionally prosecuted. I'm not going to tell you that every individual sense of betrayal is thoughtful or based on convincing evidence, and I'm not going to indulge in any conclusive analysis of the disgruntled Trump supporters. I only know that many people are declaring themselves the victims of betrayal by both of the political parties. I know that my principle reaction to this phenomenon is, what took you so long? George Washington warned us about political parties in his farewell address to the nation. Now? They're hovering around "too big to fail" territory, and the fundamental restructuring which may be looming would be painful for many. Perhaps that's necessary. Perhaps we need to have our little puppy noses rubbed in the mess we've created in order to learn our lesson.

Trying to compare the Republicans and the Democrats as the same is among the more retarded and ridiculous statements I've seen on this board.

For one, the GOP is 90% white and the Democrats are everyone else. Many have complained Democrats can't make up their mind, but the truth is it takes time to build a consensus from among so many wildly differing groups. Republicans don't understand that because they are 90% white and they are given their positions by their overlords.

With the Democrats, you may have some young that are taken aback by Bernie Santa's visions of free, but Republicans, as a group actually believe such stupidity as birtherism and we almost had the war won and trickle down.

These things alone underline the vast differences between the parties. And let me just say that it's only among Republicans that believe Lincoln's Republicans are the same as today's ignorant and racist Republicans.

 

[Elvis Obama]

As to points 1-3, once again, not me.

Okay.

the wages of the middle class referred to as "stagnant", that's hardly a good thing.

I seriously doubt anyone thinks it is a good thing. Have you seen anyone frame stagnant wages as a good thing? I haven't.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement about perception. Perception is all. If enough people are pissed at you, whether it's for sensible reasons or not, you're in trouble.

I am certainly "in trouble" from one thing: the folks who are angry with me. That they are pissed is a reality. Both they and I are aware of it. It is real and it's accurate to say it is. Why they are pissed, their perception of what I've done or didn't do that, because they perceive my as having so acted, angered them, however, may not be accurate at all, thus not a reality. Indeed, it can be completely fabricated by them or others who influence them. That does not however have the might to convert their perception of my deeds (or inaction) or an object into a real deed or real object. Perception is not reality it's just perception, even if that perception inspires very real responses, be they physical responses or emotional ones.

Do you feel that voters, and specifically Republican voters, are wrong to feel betrayed by their party?

Yes, I think and feel that Republican voters unjustifiably feel betrayed by the GOP. I think they perceive they have been betrayed; however, I see nothing indicating they indeed have been betrayed. The complainers are, to my read of the facts, loud and strong but nonetheless wrong.

From an objective standpoint, my answer to your question rests in large part on the fact that being a Republican is a voluntary choice and the practices folks claim constitute the betrayal are the very same practices that the GOP has used for years and years. What has changed is not that the GOP has changed, but that this time round, there are a lot of very vocal folks (but not the majority of folks in the GOP) who've observed that those practices may not yield the outcome they want, whereas in prior years, there was no similarly large and loud plurality of dissatisfied GOP members.

From a subjective standpoint, and building on the preceding thoughts, my answer derives from the fact that I'm not now or ever going to agree that their willful ignorance of how their own self-chosen party "handles things" is any reason at all for anyone to grant that it is thus the GOP who betrayed those willfully ignorant folks. The fact that one relied on incomplete information and later doesn't or might not get one's way does not show or even suggest the cause of one's dissatisfaction is someone else's having betrayed them.

I would feel differently were the GOP to have implemented new tactics that resulted in an undesired outcome on the part of the folks now griping, but that's not what the GOP has done. And what Trump is doing now is essentially claiming that in the fight to win delegates the GOP allocates via caucus or state convention, he "arrived at a gunfight armed with a knife" and we are supposed to have sympathy for his $2B ass and the fact that he didn't win those delegates. Well, to that, I say BS! Not today, brother, and not tomorrow or the next day.

I seriously doubt anyone thinks it is a good thing. Have you seen anyone frame stagnant wages as a good thing? I haven't.

Nope, but what I thought I was seeing was a false premise about the middle class being central to the OP. I didn't respond in order to engage in that debate, especially since I thought you were likely correct, factually, as to the specific detail of a falling or stagnant wage, but merely, as I'd stated, to inject a little humanity into the equation. To try to see the trees of human suffering rather than the forest of detached methodological analysis.

Perception is not reality it's just perception, even if that perception inspires very real responses, be they physical responses or emotional ones.

Perception is our reality. It is the meaning we impose on the phenomenon we see around us, utilizing our limited senses and limited gift of reason. It is our unique, subjective reality. The aggregate of these individual perspectives is "public opinion", and it defies analysis, given that too much of it is based on irrational beliefs.

You want objective reality? Good luck. I would try the math and physics section of the department store, but all they really offer are the best tools for objective analysis, not truth. You seem to be suggesting that you have honed your analytical tools to the degree that they can slice through any conundrum and read the truth from its entrails. We synthesize the truth from what we have been given, and what we choose to learn. Most of us choose to learn nothing.

Those who do choose to learn can achieve great prowess in their individual disciplines. Their opinions might merit integration into your individual synthesis of worthwhile information and inferences.

From an objective standpoint, my answer to your question rests in large part on the fact that being a Republican is a voluntary choice and the practices folks claim constitute the betrayal are the very same practices that the GOP has used for years and years.

The question of political affiliation as choice is an interesting one, given the level of social inertia which renders party affiliations a family heirloom. I'm a Dempublican acause my daddy and his daddy afer him wuz a Dempublican! It takes fundamental events to shake this kind of "party loyalty", like insisting that black children go to school with their precious little Boopsie Lou.

Otherwise... I don't get it. There's a statute of limitations on betrayal? Sure, the parties have had a long reign, and their corruption has long been known and discussed and occasionally prosecuted. I'm not going to tell you that every individual sense of betrayal is thoughtful or based on convincing evidence, and I'm not going to indulge in any conclusive analysis of the disgruntled Trump supporters. I only know that many people are declaring themselves the victims of betrayal by both of the political parties. I know that my principle reaction to this phenomenon is, what took you so long? George Washington warned us about political parties in his farewell address to the nation. Now? They're hovering around "too big to fail" territory, and the fundamental restructuring which may be looming would be painful for many. Perhaps that's necessary. Perhaps we need to have our little puppy noses rubbed in the mess we've created in order to learn our lesson.

Trying to compare the Republicans and the Democrats as the same is among the more retarded and ridiculous statements I've seen on this board.

For one, the GOP is 90% white and the Democrats are everyone else. Many have complained Democrats can't make up their mind, but the truth is it takes time to build a consensus from among so many wildly differing groups. Republicans don't understand that because they are 90% white and they are given their positions by their overlords.

With the Democrats, you may have some young that are taken aback by Bernie Santa's visions of free, but Republicans, as a group actually believe such stupidity as birtherism and we almost had the war won and trickle down.

These things alone underline the vast differences between the parties. And let me just say that it's only among Republicans that believe Lincoln's Republicans are the same as today's ignorant and racist Republicans.

I do not believe, nor could any intelligent person deduce that I believe, in what you have just written. I did not write what you are apparently claiming I did.

What I wrote:
People change their party affiliations with great reluctance. People of both parties are expressing the opinion that they have been betrayed by the party establishment.

What you wrote:
You think both parties are exactly the same!

Retarded and ridiculous indeed. You're the only one who said it though.

I will gladly defend anything I actually write, but when someone twists my words to the degree that you have just done, all that is left to me is to shake my head in sadness at how poor people's reading comprehension skills are.

FWIW, there are many commonalities one can critique about both parties, and many ways in which they differ. The Republican party is much more extreme and fragmented and blatantly corrupt, so the level of betrayal in that party is much higher. That is why they stand suspended, over a cliff, like Wile E. Coyote, waiting for the realization of their stupidity to sink in before they plunge to their death.

 

[Dale Smith]

We have seen real inflation adjusted after tax Middle Class incomes stagnate and go down since 1970....

Come on now. Make whatever plea you want, but do it without twisting the facts.

Middle class income essentially has remained flat, not decreased. That's stangnancy, not decline. Far from ideal, no question, but also not as bad as you're depicting it.



The marginal tax rates were notably higher in 1970 than they are and have been over the past decade.

• 1970
  • $25K AGI - Married filing jointly --> 25% marginal rate
  • $25K AGI - Single --> 50% marginal rate
  • $50K AGI - Married filing jointly --> 50% marginal rate
  • $50K AGI - Single --> 62% marginal rate
• 2013
  • $50K AGI - Married filing jointly (MFJ) & Single (S) --> 15% (it's 15% from ~$18K up to $72.5K for MFJ, and for ~$9K up to $38.25 for S filers)

So how is it that anything can be considered a decline after taxes when the chunk of income taxes take, when adjusting for inflation wages have been flat and tax rates have decreased by anywhere from 10% to ~50%? The most likely culprit, if there's going to be one, is that prices have risen faster than have wages, and indeed, one can check the CPI and see the purchasing power of the dollar has fallen.

The thing to be aware of, however, is that for as much as goods prices have outpaced labor prices (wages), things would be worse were we not to have policies in place that keep goods prices lower than they would be absent those very same policies. What I'm speaking of here is free trade, the very purpose of which is to keep goods prices low, and that is in fact what it does.

Now free trade increases competition among workers, thus doing what competition does...in the case of wages it increases the pressure for workers to either work more (harder, or longer or smarter, etc.) or exit the labor market segment in which they are unsatisfied with their wage and enter a different segment of the labor market, or join the ranks of the capitalists and buy labor instead of selling it, or apply a combination of those actions.

Some folks might respond, "Well, if one has a job doing X, and their wages hold steady in a climate of increasing prices, how are they supposed to have the means to make any of those changes?" I cannot deny that doing so is difficult, very difficult perhaps; however, I will ask in return, "Why was one part of that wage class to begin with?"

What am I getting at by asking that? Several things.

• First, individuals in some classes find themselves in those classes/positions due to forces above and beyond their individual ability to control. For example, women, who even now must as a class endure the "glass ceiling" and wages that are only ~79% of men's wages. No individual woman is going to be able to overcome that for the good of women in general, even if that given woman overcomes it for herself.
• Second, I have never come by a high performer from college or high school (3.5 GPA or higher) who doesn't "make it" to the extent that they are able to enjoy a comfortably middle class lifestyle.
• Third, having over the past decade helped my mentorees get admitted to the nation's top colleges and universities -- none of which are even close to what one might call "affordable," save for one who got admitted to a military academy -- I've discovered that high achieving kids who are abjectly poor nonetheless can get funded to go to first rate schools, and as long as they maintain their high performance, they're going to have awesome careers.
  
  The set of observations from those experiences have led me to see that poverty isn't the problem, and that in turn suggests to me that if one doesn't come from pure poverty (U.S. style) and can perform highly enough to realize the American Dream, one has no business complaining if one didn't begin one's adult life on a very solid foundation of demonstrated skills and abilities that command higher prices in the labor market.
• Last, wage, labor and general economic trends are no secret. How much did it take in the 1970s to see calculators, quartz watches, etc. and not realize those things portended ever increasing automation of tasks and that one should plan one's career around the inevitability the coming of the Digital Age or the Age of Robots? Sure, some quantity of folks might not have noticed the clues, but a whole class of people not noticing? That's really asking for more willing suspension of disbelief than I have to give. I'm willing to be sympathetic to the circumstance of being behind the curve as go wages, but I'm not willing to have that emotion for why one finds themselves in that position as an adult when the "writing was on the wall" throughout their teen and young adult years.

It's low wage workers who have seen their inflation adjusted after tax wages fall since 1979. (Sorry, I can't copy and paste the chart...also this source's figures for low wage and middle income workers only date to 1979. I realize you said since 1970.)


If you want to make the case that something be done to avert a generation's finding itself behind the curve, by all means do so. If you want to make the case from an ethical or moral standpoint, fine. Indeed, I'll likely "buy" the ethical argument so long as it's well developed for my ethical standards are somewhat high, so where there's truly an injustice, I'll rail against it 'till the cows come home. But trying to do so by presenting half truths or twisted facts just doesn't cut it, and that's entirely why I've responded as I have above.

• Middle class AGI, adjusting for inflation, has been flat since 1970.
• Prices have increased faster than has inflation adjusted middle class AGI.
• Middle class AGI, adjusted for inflation, buys a smaller bundle of goods and services than it did in 1970.

I don't need charts to show me that there has been a systematic decline of the middle class in America. Unfair trade agreements has decimated decent paying blue collar jobs and there hasn't been anything done of note to replace them as jobs are shipped overseas to increase the profits of USA.INC. Labor statistics show that 51 percent of the people that even have a job make less than 30K a year and 30K a year isn't shit in this economy.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well, the Third Industrial Revolution aka Digital Revolution is already in full swing.

We have seen real inflation adjusted after tax Middle Class incomes stagnate and go down since 1970 and this is just the first negative aspect of robotics, computerization and automation.

Other risks such as a Robot Revolt (i.e. Skynet), or Automated error in services that cannot be fixed (Hello Steam!) and so forth are all risks from the Digital Revolution we all face.

So how can we make this transition to a mostly Jobless economy more positive and less threatening to the average worker?

1. Disincentivise Automation. Give tax breaks that encourage companies to continue the hiring of people and less the automation of the work force. We dont have to rush to fully automate and there are benefits to letting it percolate slower.

2. Require all automated services have an human element that the customer can appeal to if/when they have issues with service. Think you Robo-doc got the dermetitis diagnosis wrong? There must be a human doctor on staff to appeal the robo-diagnosis to. Same goes to every other service from online stores to an automated medical staff.

3. Require all maintenance and installation of Robots and other automated devices be done by human beings.

4. Require all code written for a Robot or automated device to be at minimum 51% of all top level code to be written by a human being. All other code must be 10% human origin and signed off on by a human for passing validation and integration testing.


If we can reduce the speed at which the automation and robotic conversion of the work force occurs, then we can have a much more stable and risk free transition to our technological utopia.

All of your 'solutions' focus on one single thing: suppressing the change rather than actually addressing it. That is not a solution and will ultimately fail miserably. Resisting change (or even trying to slow it down) is not only pointless but very counterproductive.

One possible idea that has actually been floated around even in conservative think tanks has been a guaranteed basic income. Essentially a check that the government pays you for being a citizen. In a society with a super majority of needed goods, this idea actually makes a fair amount of sense as the incentive to get people to contribute is no longer a necessity.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Well, the Third Industrial Revolution aka Digital Revolution is already in full swing.

We have seen real inflation adjusted after tax Middle Class incomes stagnate and go down since 1970 and this is just the first negative aspect of robotics, computerization and automation.

Other risks such as a Robot Revolt (i.e. Skynet), or Automated error in services that cannot be fixed (Hello Steam!) and so forth are all risks from the Digital Revolution we all face.

So how can we make this transition to a mostly Jobless economy more positive and less threatening to the average worker?

1. Disincentivise Automation. Give tax breaks that encourage companies to continue the hiring of people and less the automation of the work force. We dont have to rush to fully automate and there are benefits to letting it percolate slower.

2. Require all automated services have an human element that the customer can appeal to if/when they have issues with service. Think you Robo-doc got the dermetitis diagnosis wrong? There must be a human doctor on staff to appeal the robo-diagnosis to. Same goes to every other service from online stores to an automated medical staff.

3. Require all maintenance and installation of Robots and other automated devices be done by human beings.

4. Require all code written for a Robot or automated device to be at minimum 51% of all top level code to be written by a human being. All other code must be 10% human origin and signed off on by a human for passing validation and integration testing.


If we can reduce the speed at which the automation and robotic conversion of the work force occurs, then we can have a much more stable and risk free transition to our technological utopia.

All of your 'solutions' focus on one single thing: suppressing the change rather than actually addressing it. That is not a solution and will ultimately fail miserably. Resisting change (or even trying to slow it down) is not only pointless but very counterproductive.

One possible idea that has actually been floated around even in conservative think tanks has been a guaranteed basic income. Essentially a check that the government pays you for being a citizen. In a society with a super majority of needed goods, this idea actually makes a fair amount of sense as the incentive to get people to contribute is no longer a necessity.

There are so many benefits to this idea, not the least of which is that it would IMMEDIATELY lower the unemployment rate as many families with two working parents and 2 children (the typical American family ) would decide that with $4K a month ($1K per citizen X 4) they could afford to be a one income family so that one parent could stay at home with the children (which of course brings its own benefits) opening up hundreds of thousands of jobs for other people for whom the basic income is not enough.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well, the Third Industrial Revolution aka Digital Revolution is already in full swing.

We have seen real inflation adjusted after tax Middle Class incomes stagnate and go down since 1970 and this is just the first negative aspect of robotics, computerization and automation.

Other risks such as a Robot Revolt (i.e. Skynet), or Automated error in services that cannot be fixed (Hello Steam!) and so forth are all risks from the Digital Revolution we all face.

So how can we make this transition to a mostly Jobless economy more positive and less threatening to the average worker?

1. Disincentivise Automation. Give tax breaks that encourage companies to continue the hiring of people and less the automation of the work force. We dont have to rush to fully automate and there are benefits to letting it percolate slower.

2. Require all automated services have an human element that the customer can appeal to if/when they have issues with service. Think you Robo-doc got the dermetitis diagnosis wrong? There must be a human doctor on staff to appeal the robo-diagnosis to. Same goes to every other service from online stores to an automated medical staff.

3. Require all maintenance and installation of Robots and other automated devices be done by human beings.

4. Require all code written for a Robot or automated device to be at minimum 51% of all top level code to be written by a human being. All other code must be 10% human origin and signed off on by a human for passing validation and integration testing.


If we can reduce the speed at which the automation and robotic conversion of the work force occurs, then we can have a much more stable and risk free transition to our technological utopia.

All of your 'solutions' focus on one single thing: suppressing the change rather than actually addressing it. That is not a solution and will ultimately fail miserably. Resisting change (or even trying to slow it down) is not only pointless but very counterproductive.

One possible idea that has actually been floated around even in conservative think tanks has been a guaranteed basic income. Essentially a check that the government pays you for being a citizen. In a society with a super majority of needed goods, this idea actually makes a fair amount of sense as the incentive to get people to contribute is no longer a necessity.

Well, perhaps I expressed myself poorly, but I am trying to generate ideas for channeling and softening the punch of the jobless economy and transitioning more easily to it.

There are different problems involved ehre, but I acknowledge that the technological change is 1) not going to be stopped, but perhaps we can slow some of it and give incentives to slowing the change so people can adapt and 2) it will be a technological utopia, pretty much, for those that manage to live to see it. But how can we get from here to there in one peace as a nation and as a people?

That is what I am trying to discuss instead of endless semantic squabbling over whether it is socialism to try and do anything about it at all.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Well, the Third Industrial Revolution aka Digital Revolution is already in full swing.

We have seen real inflation adjusted after tax Middle Class incomes stagnate and go down since 1970 and this is just the first negative aspect of robotics, computerization and automation.

Other risks such as a Robot Revolt (i.e. Skynet), or Automated error in services that cannot be fixed (Hello Steam!) and so forth are all risks from the Digital Revolution we all face.

So how can we make this transition to a mostly Jobless economy more positive and less threatening to the average worker?

1. Disincentivise Automation. Give tax breaks that encourage companies to continue the hiring of people and less the automation of the work force. We dont have to rush to fully automate and there are benefits to letting it percolate slower.

2. Require all automated services have an human element that the customer can appeal to if/when they have issues with service. Think you Robo-doc got the dermetitis diagnosis wrong? There must be a human doctor on staff to appeal the robo-diagnosis to. Same goes to every other service from online stores to an automated medical staff.

3. Require all maintenance and installation of Robots and other automated devices be done by human beings.

4. Require all code written for a Robot or automated device to be at minimum 51% of all top level code to be written by a human being. All other code must be 10% human origin and signed off on by a human for passing validation and integration testing.


If we can reduce the speed at which the automation and robotic conversion of the work force occurs, then we can have a much more stable and risk free transition to our technological utopia.

All of your 'solutions' focus on one single thing: suppressing the change rather than actually addressing it. That is not a solution and will ultimately fail miserably. Resisting change (or even trying to slow it down) is not only pointless but very counterproductive.

One possible idea that has actually been floated around even in conservative think tanks has been a guaranteed basic income. Essentially a check that the government pays you for being a citizen. In a society with a super majority of needed goods, this idea actually makes a fair amount of sense as the incentive to get people to contribute is no longer a necessity.

We could even tie in some form of community service or such to receive this "basic income" even if it was just a couple hours a week volunteering to pick up trash or coach a kids' sports team, or whatever. Who could object to making that a requirement to receive this basic income, and if they did complain, cut them off, b/c no doubt no matter what system we use going forward, we can't have a situation where some people contribute nothing whilst earning the same as others who will. The problem with this of course is convincing liberals that they have to be tough at times. No one will starve, those who are currently doing nothing for their welfare would certainly do something for it if they had to, it just takes someone saying "no you can't have that for doing nothing" this of course excepts those who are incapable of doing so.