Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
I didn't say it was a good idea or not. I simply said it was on the horizon.
That's quite a distortion of my thoughts on Sanders as well.
2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VIII
- Thread starter LuckyNumber7
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
I didn't say it was a good idea or not. I simply said it was on the horizon.
That's quite a distortion of my thoughts on Sanders as well.
When I'm given the option of a cashier vs self check out, self check out wins every time.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Sure I do too, but the elderly don't, the mother with 3 children in tow usually don't(in fact women in general use them less than men), and the disabled or temporarily disabled usually avoid them.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Women use them just fine here in California, they use ATMS and drive cars, too.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Maybe the machines where you are better but unless I have very few items I don't bother when doing groceries. Particularly when I have a lot of fruit/veg or other things you have to enter in manually. It takes forever. If I'm picking up 3-4 things, then for sure, self check out every time.
But you can't automate every job, much as we see futuristic movies about robots being nannies, etc.
There's a 200+ year history of scares about automation wrecking the economy and creating astronomical inequality being bogus. I'm still hopeful that this is the case, and that things like investment in education are enough to handle the technological changes.
I really really hope that this isn't the start of a change in that pattern.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
I really really hope that this isn't the start of a change in that pattern.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Salome
you are what you is
I reckon the next 2 decades we'll actually have to work harder to keep up with all the extra information coming our way from automated processes.
Who knows what will be after that.
I don't see many reasons to be pessimistic.
While I believe machines will (at some point) be able to do 99.5% of the things humans are doing (including programming other machines and checking other machines), it will take a bit longer than some seem to think for the investments in these machines to be low enough to compete with human labour in a globalised society.
And even then humans will make sure they have a role in verifying 'the robots' are working as we intend them to.
Who knows what will be after that.
I don't see many reasons to be pessimistic.
While I believe machines will (at some point) be able to do 99.5% of the things humans are doing (including programming other machines and checking other machines), it will take a bit longer than some seem to think for the investments in these machines to be low enough to compete with human labour in a globalised society.
And even then humans will make sure they have a role in verifying 'the robots' are working as we intend them to.
It seems to me that much of that historic paranoia was really the inevitable unrest when a new sector overtakes another. I'm sure that from the perspective of those on the land, industrialisation appeared to constitute a rapid loss of jobs and livelihoods, but it was really a labour (and geographic) transfer, with many of the new jobs not requiring a significant increase in skill - just a change.
Hopefully that's the case now too, and yes we want to believe we live in special times, but I suspect that in this regard there may be more legitimate reasons for pessimism today. A peasant 200 years ago could move to the city and gain employment on a factory floor; I'm not so sure many of today's poor are going to as easily make the shift, even with greater investment in education.
As for the cashier tangent, my observation in Melbourne is that the only people not using the self-check machines are old people, and they're going to die soon. Oh, and people who want to buy cigarettes. You still have to go to the counter for those.
Kieran McConville
ONE love, blood, life
It's different now, and everything is fucked. Also, I don't use self-check machines and I'm not old, so there.
trojanchick99
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
I use self checkout all the time for groceries unless I'm buying alcohol which had to be bought from a cashier here in CA.
For food, I order by app or online quite a bit but if I'm in store then I prefer going to a person.
Sent from my SM-G920V using U2 Interference mobile app
For food, I order by app or online quite a bit but if I'm in store then I prefer going to a person.
Sent from my SM-G920V using U2 Interference mobile app
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
I just go with whichever one's quicker and has less of a line, myself. If I've only got a small group of items, or the regular cashier lines are super long, I'll use self-checkout. If I've got a lot of stuff, to the point where I need a cart, I'll go to a cashier.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
I go with the cashier every time because I enjoy the interaction and occasional consultation I receive from them regarding my purchases.
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
BoMac
Self-righteous bullshitter
I go to whichever aisle has the prettiest cashier.
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
same here, that's why i always end up in the self checkout
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
A dream awaits in aisle number two.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
This is enthralling conversation.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
See? Some days that cashier is pretty enticing.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
self check, unless the cashier with the big boobs is working,
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
You guys actually bother checking out and paying? Suckers.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
I'll
Pay for your groceries little girl
Pay for your groceries little girl
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
OP
OP
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
Minimum income sounds like the answer...the service industry isn't going to just lose jobs because of self checkout, but more so because physical stores will continue to go the way of the dinosaur thanks to the internet. Minimum income works because you can pay less in welfare benefits by cutting out the middle men of government and simply giving a cash amount to everyone. Effectively, you can put more people on the welfare roles by simplifying the entire process.
Of course, the shittiest jobs such as working in the fast food industry will mostly disappear (or just like one dude will be heating up burgers for $30 an hour and putting them into a vending machine type apparatus that's common over in Europe), but that's no real loss. Most people are still going to work because the, say, $1300 a month from minimum income won't be nearly enough for most middle class people who want a nice house, car, etc. But in the meantime, you can eliminate poverty pretty quickly.
Of course, the shittiest jobs such as working in the fast food industry will mostly disappear (or just like one dude will be heating up burgers for $30 an hour and putting them into a vending machine type apparatus that's common over in Europe), but that's no real loss. Most people are still going to work because the, say, $1300 a month from minimum income won't be nearly enough for most middle class people who want a nice house, car, etc. But in the meantime, you can eliminate poverty pretty quickly.
You already have minimum income, what you're talking about is a universal basic income (guaranteed to all citizens in lieu of the social safety net).
This is a completely unfeasible thing in the US (I believe the requirement to just keep people at the poverty level, which is less than $1K/month exceeds the entirety of the current US annual federal budget). To say nothing of the many other negative consequences.
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
It's referred to as minimum income as well, actually, not to be confused with the minimum wage.
You have to keep in mind that under such a system, the United States would suddenly save hundreds of billions, if not trillions, annually by basically not having to pay for a lot of the welfare net that they currently do such as the extra costs associated with things like running a food stamp program (along with the giving of food stamp money in the first place), etc.
The working age population is about 200 million people at most (18-62 in my eyes). 200 million x $1,000 a month = 200 billion per month. 12 months in a year means it would cost 2.4 trillion a year to run such a program. However, take into account the hundreds of billions of dollars in government savings, the hundreds of billions more you could save by drastically cutting the bloated military budget and the hundreds of billions you could raise by increasing the effective tax rate on high income earners (higher marginal tax rate and elimination of various loopholes). Suddenly, it really doesn't look all that expensive.
Basically, if you ensure that the program itself is cutting down on government costs while eliminating the pointlessness of, say, having a military that could blow up the world a thousand times over (especially in the era of automated drone based warfare), it can work as a cost neutral wealth redistribution scheme. In other words, the money is already there, just in the hands of a few.
And again, people will continue to work. But plenty that see other avenues will be free to do whatever they want with their lives while the shittiest jobs are now going to have to pay a hell of a lot more in order to make it worth people's while. I imagine we would immediately see an elimination of the most pointless jobs in our society.
That near-jailbait restaurant hostess who is merely paid to sit at the front of the restaurant and lure in middle aged creeps? Gone. No longer affordable to pay her a now competitive wage of $40 an hour for doing fuck all in an industry that's likely to collapse immediately as few want to work in restaurants and fast food when given money to avoid it.
Private security guards posted everywhere because those wallowing in poverty want to commit crimes? No longer necessary now that people have a stable income and aren't walking America's city streets at night in hopelessness.
People working their ass off butchering animals in terrible conditions? Gonna have to get paid a hell of a lot more if you expect anyone to do it. Work will then be redefined with essential jobs paying high wages and inessential sectors and jobs being eliminated completely as employers can't just throw money around at nonsense now that the work force will be smaller. For once, business will compete for workers instead of taking advantage of a constant unemployment trough to scare everybody.
And plenty of conservatives are starting to rally behind the idea because it can drastically shrink the size of government. Cut people checks and say goodbye to hundreds of thousands of government workers. Oh, all those people are out of work? No big deal because they at least have the minimum income to fall back on while pursuing a career in something else.
Minimum income studies have been tested before in Europe and Canada to great success, even if the results were just kind of ignored by the mainstream up until the last couple of years when the idea has begun to take hold again. Plenty of European countries are starting smaller studies or having referendums on the idea and they're even going through with it in communities in Africa. Common results are barely a downtick in people not working, improved health, lower crime rates, etc. And stop with saying that "they can do that somewhere else, but not in the United States"...if it works in one place, it can work somewhere else once it's implemented. It's writing out checks for god's sake, there's nothing else to it.
You have to keep in mind that under such a system, the United States would suddenly save hundreds of billions, if not trillions, annually by basically not having to pay for a lot of the welfare net that they currently do such as the extra costs associated with things like running a food stamp program (along with the giving of food stamp money in the first place), etc.
The working age population is about 200 million people at most (18-62 in my eyes). 200 million x $1,000 a month = 200 billion per month. 12 months in a year means it would cost 2.4 trillion a year to run such a program. However, take into account the hundreds of billions of dollars in government savings, the hundreds of billions more you could save by drastically cutting the bloated military budget and the hundreds of billions you could raise by increasing the effective tax rate on high income earners (higher marginal tax rate and elimination of various loopholes). Suddenly, it really doesn't look all that expensive.
Basically, if you ensure that the program itself is cutting down on government costs while eliminating the pointlessness of, say, having a military that could blow up the world a thousand times over (especially in the era of automated drone based warfare), it can work as a cost neutral wealth redistribution scheme. In other words, the money is already there, just in the hands of a few.
And again, people will continue to work. But plenty that see other avenues will be free to do whatever they want with their lives while the shittiest jobs are now going to have to pay a hell of a lot more in order to make it worth people's while. I imagine we would immediately see an elimination of the most pointless jobs in our society.
That near-jailbait restaurant hostess who is merely paid to sit at the front of the restaurant and lure in middle aged creeps? Gone. No longer affordable to pay her a now competitive wage of $40 an hour for doing fuck all in an industry that's likely to collapse immediately as few want to work in restaurants and fast food when given money to avoid it.
Private security guards posted everywhere because those wallowing in poverty want to commit crimes? No longer necessary now that people have a stable income and aren't walking America's city streets at night in hopelessness.
People working their ass off butchering animals in terrible conditions? Gonna have to get paid a hell of a lot more if you expect anyone to do it. Work will then be redefined with essential jobs paying high wages and inessential sectors and jobs being eliminated completely as employers can't just throw money around at nonsense now that the work force will be smaller. For once, business will compete for workers instead of taking advantage of a constant unemployment trough to scare everybody.
And plenty of conservatives are starting to rally behind the idea because it can drastically shrink the size of government. Cut people checks and say goodbye to hundreds of thousands of government workers. Oh, all those people are out of work? No big deal because they at least have the minimum income to fall back on while pursuing a career in something else.
Minimum income studies have been tested before in Europe and Canada to great success, even if the results were just kind of ignored by the mainstream up until the last couple of years when the idea has begun to take hold again. Plenty of European countries are starting smaller studies or having referendums on the idea and they're even going through with it in communities in Africa. Common results are barely a downtick in people not working, improved health, lower crime rates, etc. And stop with saying that "they can do that somewhere else, but not in the United States"...if it works in one place, it can work somewhere else once it's implemented. It's writing out checks for god's sake, there's nothing else to it.
Last edited:
Salome
you are what you is
I am an avid reader of anything related to universal basic income and I have never come across anything where the numbers made actual sense.And plenty of conservatives are starting to rally behind the idea because it can drastically shrink the size of government. Cut people checks and say goodbye to hundreds of thousands of government workers. Oh, all those people are out of work? No big deal because they at least have the minimum income to fall back on while pursuing a career in something else.
The plans that came closest to making sense from a budget perspective would result in anyone actual unable to work due to sickness etc. being left behind in a shocking manner.
And even in those plans you have to wonder whether people really love their jobs that much that they would be willing to pay the increased tax rates necessary to (partially) fund all of this.
Well I can't speak for anybody else, but I fucking adore my work and I'd be doing it whether I'm paid nothing or a million bucks.
(Please pay me a million bucks, somebody.)
This is unlikely true for most workers, but the resistance of many people to retirement speaks to a feeling that work provides people with some form of satisfaction. Now, whether this is just a cultural thing, particularly drawing on the Protestant work ethic, is a wider discussion...
Salome
you are what you is
Even if just 2.5% of the population would not like their job as much as you do, then it still means that somehow the rest would have to pay extra to fund this loss of tax income.
Theoretically this could end up in a spiral until only those who indeed truly fucking love their work are left working.
But my main problem is that in most calculations they pretend that the basic income will be enough for everyone. It won't, e.g. people with health issues grave enough to prevent them to work at all will need more to pay for the extra care they need. As a result I truly doubt you will be able to get rid of as many government workers as some want to believe. Which seems to be presented as the miracle solution to pay for a huge chunk of the extra outgoing funds.
Theoretically this could end up in a spiral until only those who indeed truly fucking love their work are left working.
But my main problem is that in most calculations they pretend that the basic income will be enough for everyone. It won't, e.g. people with health issues grave enough to prevent them to work at all will need more to pay for the extra care they need. As a result I truly doubt you will be able to get rid of as many government workers as some want to believe. Which seems to be presented as the miracle solution to pay for a huge chunk of the extra outgoing funds.
- Status
Similar threads
