The Neo-Liberals ...

[CT Phipps]

40% of the Americans believe Angels to be real. I think something has to be done about that.

Yes, 60% of people disbelieving in them is disheartening.

But yes, as an alternative to the Universal Basic Income, we do have a few other options.

Which is what the Kentucky government has been trying to get going for years.

 

[DarkCorp]

I do not believe STEM fields will be inflated as there simply isn't enough people to go into that field in the first place.

The biggest single reason why the STEM field is so lucrative is due to the nature of, like you said, supply and demand. We simply do not have enough native STEM students, which further ensures we need to find as many as possible. Now the number of poor but capable students may be small, I admit this, but we need to make sure as many of them as possible do not fall through the cracks because they cannot afford higher education.

Also, companies are increasingly able to finance their employees higher education aspirations if they fit the company criteria and go to work for said company for a specified mount of time.

Add in all sorts of scholarships and you can make sure that not only the government help those who need it the most, but we know that the numbers of people that need said help remains small.

Students still have access to other fields of study in college and scholarships and other type of grants will not be disappearing soon. I doubt government pushing STEM will cause such a drastic imbalance.

Like I said, I agree that everyone isn't fit for college and that people should not feel they need a degree to make decent money. That is why I believe in abolishing requirements for jobs that require on the job training.

And again, I am specifically saying college should be MANDATORY ONLY for STEM related fields and other high education fields, legal, for example. If people want to get a bullshit degree then go for it. Joe Plebe should not need to pay for it however.

 

[Crni Vuk]

This might create more chance for people to apply to jobs in the short term, but the reality is that a lot of those jobs might be done at some point by robots, at a much cheaper price and with much more efficiency.

Another problem is, that just because you give more people access to certain jobs, doesn't mean that more people will get those jobs. Right now, you have a lot of people working in low skilled, low paid jobs, like at Wall Mart, Mc Donalds, as Taxi drivers, Amazon and such. Opening jobs that require right now an collegue education to those people, won't do necessarily any good, because you havn't increased the number of jobs, you just allowed more applicants to go for the same job. That is, if anything a short term solution.

 

[DarkCorp]

@Crni Vuk

This has already been addressed.

IMO, if we get to the point where robots do most of the jobs for us, then that is actually a GOOD thing. The significant savings that come with a worker that never requires time off, safety regulations, breaks, or most importantly, a WAGE, can be measured in massive price cuts for goods of all kinds. If you think Chinese made goods in Wallmart are cheap now, imagine the prices of goods produced by an army of HALs. IMO, UBI, in this instance, is absolutely possible as humans benefit and robots do not complain and never tire. It is simply a win win situation.

If this future is to come about, I do believe that regulations should be put into place that keeps corporations from hording the profits of robotic slave labor while keeping the price of goods unchanged. I think such regulations would encounter little to no opposition as 'free shit', in this instance, is perfectly doable.

As to your second point, I can argue that your response is a copout. As things are right now, we KNOW that a great many people are locked out of higher paying jobs due to the inane degree requirement. Of course if we remove said requirement, there is still no 100 percent chance that everyone will get said jobs. However, there can be no argument that the chances of more people getting higher paying jobs rises SIGNIFICANTLY, with this new system.

And honestly, you asked for a neo liberal or GOP idea and you got them.

 

[CT Phipps]

I, strangely enough, am with @DarkCorp in that.

You can't turn back the clock and machines freeing up labor is good.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well, that depends entirely on how fast we can 'change' our current economy, which is still based on how much you earn from your job to buy stuff. Right now, 40% unemployment would result in a chaos and masses of poor people.

I mean, how are people supposed to 'buy' stuff if they don't have a job?

It could lead to a better and brighter future. But there is no rule that says it 'has' to. Like as how there is no rule that says, new technology has always to lead to improvements or new job oportunities. I mean I really WANT(!) things to become utopian and awesome, who knows? In Sweden it might even become this Star Trek society where almost no one has to work. But the US? And large parts of Europe? People can't even get behind the idea of welfare here ... leave alone that a large portion of the population has no 'job'.

To make it short, we would have to make some very heavy and serious changes to our current economies, and I am not seeing anything of that done. Not for the US anyway.

 

[CT Phipps]

Bluntly, it's irrelevant either way because the nature of progress means that it doesn't matter whether it will cause chaos or not. You can't stop the progress of technology nor should you. Indeed, I think the government should subsidize the roboticization of the economy as soon as possible. Employment will suffer but prices for goods will drop and the continued standard of living will rise rather than decrease. The original Luddites were afraid of job loss due to machines and they had reason for some ideas but, ultimately, industrialization changed the world for the better.

 

[Crni Vuk]

But not for everyone, and not at the same time, in some cases it took 1 or 2 generations before some real improvements started to take effect. Industrialisation had very dark chapters. Sure, there has been a massive progress in many areas, social and technological. But you could argue that many improvements have been done to solve issues which the industrialisation actually created in the first place.
You're absolutely right, progress can't be stoped nor should we spend any resources on trying it, I absolutely agree. But we shouldn't act like ALL kinds of progress would be awesome, simply because it's progress. Often it means that it happens on the shoulders of others. I mean if you look at it, there is a real chance the 'industrialisation' might actually kill us in the end, if the worst case scenario of climate change happens to become true.
Also have you ever heard about the Earth Overshoot Day?

When viewed through an economic perspective, EOD represents the day in which humanity enters an ecological deficit spending. In ecology term Earth Overshoot Day illustrates the level by which human population overshoots its environment.​

Well, we can spin it however we want, but the future looks rather 'gray' for humanity at this point.

 

[DarkCorp]

@Crni Vuk

And I can be more optimistic about progress and you can be more pessimistic in general. We are running around in circles here.

I have to admit though Crni, it is like every time someone brings up a good idea, you are soooo eager to shoot it down. I bring up abolishing degree requirements and your all like 'Well it is only a temporary fix'. CT agrees with the benefits that will result from a robot labor class and your like 'Well progress can be bad too you know'. I think a robot work force could bring UBI and your like, 'Well times will be sucky for a few more generations'.

I mean are you ever satisfied with any kind of answer or you just happy being a negative Nancy? It is like if we have any answer that is not your idea of a perfect lefty solution that makes things super duper IMMEDIATELY, you are not satisfied.

 

[BigGuyCIA]

I do not believe STEM fields will be inflated as there simply isn't enough people to go into that field in the first place.

The biggest single reason why the STEM field is so lucrative is due to the nature of, like you said, supply and demand. We simply do not have enough native STEM students, which further ensures we need to find as many as possible. Now the number of poor but capable students may be small, I admit this, but we need to make sure as many of them as possible do not fall through the cracks because they cannot afford higher education.

Also, companies are increasingly able to finance their employees higher education aspirations if they fit the company criteria and go to work for said company for a specified mount of time.

Add in all sorts of scholarships and you can make sure that not only the government help those who need it the most, but we know that the numbers of people that need said help remains small.

Students still have access to other fields of study in college and scholarships and other type of grants will not be disappearing soon. I doubt government pushing STEM will cause such a drastic imbalance.

Like I said, I agree that everyone isn't fit for college and that people should not feel they need a degree to make decent money. That is why I believe in abolishing requirements for jobs that require on the job training.

And again, I am specifically saying college should be MANDATORY ONLY for STEM related fields and other high education fields, legal, for example. If people want to get a bullshit degree then go for it. Joe Plebe should not need to pay for it however.

It's a short-term solution with a very nasty long-term side effect of devaluing the fields of study in question. The whole reason engineers make six figures is due to the low supply and high demand. The government subsidization of student loans is already proof enough of what happens when you encourage a certain path. They've effectively devalued the worth of certain degrees because so many people are getting them.

The free-market is already reacting in regards to the job shortage for CS majors. Google/Amazon and some other top level SV companies are partnering up with nano-degree programs in order to create the talent they want to hire. It's not free but it's significantly cheaper than going to Uni, and you learn the necessary skills they look for in a hiree.

 

[DarkCorp]

@BigGuyCIA

The thing is, the degrees have no value, not because a lot of people get them, but because they have no money making potential. Like you said, if I am a tech company, I don't want to hire some Joe Plebe with a degree in Mass Communications. The applicant simply does not have the expertise that I require.

Some degrees are useless because their field simply isn't high paying, like social services for one. Others, like Mass Communications, really doesn't impart you with a useful skill set. Being a good journalist is not about college education but more about being persistent, resourceful, making connections, and being really really lucky that a mortar doesn't fall on you in a warzone.

I am glad the free market is reacting and I even brought that up in my previous post. The free market can do much but it cannot be the only solution, just like government subsidies on a massive scale cannot be the only solution. Another example is that some STEM fields are fueled by grants and are pure research. Independent research teams are not the same as companies even though many are financed by one. Such research teams cannot pay for a students education and this is where the government steps in. This is the same for government positions as well. What happens when the employer, is the government? This is essentially your example where an employer PAYS for an employees education.

My previous post already addressed things like corporate sponsorships, government and private grants, scholarships, etc. All these things will ensure that the number of people who need to use government assistance as a last resort, will remain small and manageable.

What I am saying is that government can be SMALL and EFFICIENT.

 

[Crni Vuk]

@Crni Vuk

And I can be more optimistic about progress and you can be more pessimistic in general. We are running around in circles here.

The polar caps are melting man. And half of the human population lives at the coast.

We aren't runing around in circles. We are actually runing out of time.

@Crni Vuk
I have to admit though Crni, it is like every time someone brings up a good idea, you are soooo eager to shoot it down. I bring up abolishing degree requirements and your all like 'Well it is only a temporary fix'. CT agrees with the benefits that will result from a robot labor class and your like 'Well progress can be bad too you know'. I think a robot work force could bring UBI and your like, 'Well times will be sucky for a few more generations'.

In which point in human history was there ever a 'peaceful' or 'smoth' transition? Look it's not like I DON'T want to share your sentient, it's just that I don't think it's very realistic to expect it. And I think history is rather on my side than yours. Could it all be solved at the right time and just so that the effects are not serious? Possible. But does it look like we're on that path right now? With the guy that is runing the EPA? And who doesn't believe in global warming? With a president that declared it a 'hoax' by the chinese? And that's just one example of many. And so far I don't know either republicans or democrats talking about automatition. So far, improvements often happend after catastrophes, we humans seem to learn only from mistakes and we rarely if ever act preemptively. Which is well, a problem when you consider that we're facing global mistakes right now, and not just some empire that is going down, or some civilisation that can move to a new continent full of resources.

As how a scientist once said, there might be a time where Oil is not viable anymore, but the 'new' technology to replace it is not there yet. And this transition, is a big questionmark. Energy and energy consumption is what keeps our modern economies runing. Take it away, and a colapse is kinda inevitable.

@Crni Vuk
I have to admit though Crni, it is like every time someone brings up a good idea, you are soooo eager to shoot it down. I bring up abolishing degree requirements and your all like 'Well it is only a temporary fix'. CT agrees with the benefits that will result from a robot labor class and your like 'Well progress can be bad too you know'. I think a robot work force could bring UBI and your like, 'Well times will be sucky for a few more generations'.

In which point in human history was there ever a 'peaceful' or 'smooth' transition? Look it's not like I DON'T want to share your sentient, it's just that I don't think it's very realistic to expect it given our current behaviour.

And I think history is rather on my side than yours. Could it all be solved at the right time and just so that the effects are not too serious? Possible. But does it look like we're on that path right now? With the guy that is runing the EPA? And who doesn't believe in global warming? With a president that declared it a 'hoax' by the chinese? And all those growing right wing populism in Europe with their fast and easy answers to every problem? And that's just one example of many. And so far I don't know either republicans or democrats are having a serious discussion about automatition and the effects from it and no major party is doing it here either.

So far, improvements often happend after catastrophes, we humans seem to learn only from mistakes and we rarely if ever act preemptively. Which is well, a problem when you consider that we're facing global mistakes right now, and not just some empire that is going down, or some civilisation that can simply move to a new continent full of resources. Once the planet is fucked, it's simply fucked, some environment which has been heavily ruined and radiated or what ever can't be simply renaturated like there never was a problem. There is even a serious dabate among geologists to name this epoch the Anthropocene, due to the effects humans have on this planet, there have been like just recently 200 new minerals discovered which only exists because of humans, like from industrialisation particularly once we started mining coal, iron and the like.

As how a scientist once said, there might be a time where Oil is not viable anymore, but the 'new' technology to replace it is not there yet. And this transition, is a big questionmark. Energy and energy consumption is what keeps our modern economies runing. Take it away, and a colapse is kinda inevitable.

I mean are you ever satisfied with any kind of answer or you just happy being a negative Nancy? It is like if we have any answer that is not your idea of a perfect lefty solution that makes things super duper IMMEDIATELY, you are not satisfied.

Well, for starters we would have to stay true to the Kyoto-protocol and the Paris agreement, which outlined the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM that has to be done to prevent the worst predictions of scientists about climate change for the next 70 years or so. And which Trump is very confident to abolish by the way.

Stop to put words in my mouth please, like I am demanding a perfect solution here. This isn't about finding the perfect solution, this is about what SCIENTISTS(!) say, what the MINIMUM(!) is that has to be done to make our planet CO2 neutral. Not in 50 years. Not in 70 years. But now. Like right now. Some 20 years ago, they said we would have to become by 2020 Co2 neutral, or the average temperature by 2070-80 will be 4° higher, which will well make the polar caps ice free in summer. That's not speculation. That's fact. And time and time again no nation has actually managed to reach the goals they ALL(!) agreed on some 20 years ago. And now it's to late. Some scientist already argue that we have to look for adabting to this 'new' future that we're creating, if possible. Like rising sea level. Places like Venice might be completely lost for example and that's not the only one.

 

[DarkCorp]

@Crni Vuk

When you bring up scientists and their absolute worst predictions, you ARE demanding drastic and perfect change as anything that deviates from what is suggested would lead to doomsday.

But fair enough, you brought up the Kyoto-Protocols which needs serious work in regarding how much emissions needs to be reduced by differing nations.

 

[Crni Vuk]

So basically, we're telling everyone living on the coast, lulz you're fucked, we can't do those drastic changes now.

I mean I do agree with you, it is very unlikely that those changes will happen any time soon, but the sad part is not because they are technically impossible, but because it's simply politics. Because many people also have no desire to change. I mean hey! I could probably do more as well, but I am not, beacuse we're kinda all lazy fucks I guess. It's just sad to see that the elites aren't doing more, since they have the power to make regulations, to subsidize certain technologies or no clue, like not puting a climate change denier as the head of the E.P.A..

 

[DarkCorp]

The thing is, the 'government elites', are tied to the will of the people.

So really, you are annoyed at the people because PEOPLE are adverse to sacrifice. PEOPLE, are the ones who put Trump into power. PEOPLE, as in the left and OBOOBY, made their own side so hated that they essentially guaranteed a republican clean sweep.

 

[Crni Vuk]

The thing is, the 'government elites', are tied to the will of the people.

Yeah ... well yes and no I would say.
We're currently experiencing many forms of an oligarchy if you ask me. I mean seriously, look at the politicans and Trumps cabinet. Is there someone who's not a milionair? And they are supposed to represent the 'people' and bound by their will?

 

[BigGuyCIA]

The thing is, the degrees have no value, not because a lot of people get them, but because they have no money making potential. Like you said, if I am a tech company, I don't want to hire some Joe Plebe with a degree in Mass Communications. The applicant simply does not have the expertise that I require.

It's not because the degree has no money making potential, rather the field has too many people in it to begin with. Graphic design is absolutely bloated with students and freelancers which has driven the value of the degree down.

Some degrees are useless because their field simply isn't high paying, like social services for one.

There's exceptions to the rule.

What I am saying is that government can be SMALL and EFFICIENT.

Sure, I believe that much. But you can't have a small government and continue subsidizing student loans. I don't really feel like funding some kid to go to school and get a degree in a field that's already at the tipping point. Government's job isn't to play daddy for companies and determine what they need as far as workforce goes, that's up to the free-market to figure out for themselves.

 

[DarkCorp]

Yeah ... well yes and no I would say.
We're currently experiencing many forms of an oligarchy if you ask me. I mean seriously, look at the politicans and Trumps cabinet. Is there someone who's not a milionair? And they are supposed to represent the 'people' and bound by their will?

But who elected Trump?

rather the field has too many people in it to begin with

This example is not a STEM field and would not be eligible for government subsidy. Further more, the STEM field will not receive a glut of students just because it is supported while other fields or not as STEM is an inherently DIFFICULT field. IMO, in order to qualify for a STEM subsidies, again, the applicant needs to prove he has what it takes to get into the field.

There's exceptions to the rule.

Sure, I am merely mentioning one example why a degree can be useless and not because of lack of applicants. The job itself was not designed to provide high salaries.

But you can't have a small government and continue subsidizing student loans. I don't really feel like funding some kid to go to school and get a degree in a field that's already at the tipping point. Government's job isn't to play daddy for companies and determine what they need as far as workforce goes, that's up to the free-market to figure out for themselves.

Again, I have no problem with letting the free market handle SOME of these issues. However, there are exceptions, like you would say. The government being the employer is one example of free market. The government is paying for the education of those people it wants to recruit. Second, the term 'big government', is very vague. IMO, if we ever manage to abolish the degree requirement for many 'on the job training', fields, people going to college, therefore, applying for government subsidies, will massively decrease. To you, any government assistance is too much where I have a slightly more nuanced opinion in how I view government size. To me, subsidizing the education of a very small, select pool of applicants, will still fit the criteria of less government intrusion. It would certainly cut down government spending compared to now at least.

 

[Crni Vuk]

But who elected Trump?

For me the more interesting question is, why did Bernie lose.

 

[DarkCorp]

Bernie lost because he couldn't compromise. He couldn't get Joe Plebe on his side. You have to keep in mind that Bernie has always been an independent at heart and he only joined a party that he personally hated for political gain. Mainstream democrats always knew this as Bernie himself said of both parties, 'they are intellectually and morally bankrupt'. So why the fuck, as a democrat, would someone vote for this sellout?

Second, for obvious reasons, Bernie didn't have the support of the party insiders. His methods were all rhetoric and little substance, as one look into his political positions would show. History shows however, that the promise of 'free shit', isn't enough to win elections. For Lenin, as an example, he had the serfs, who were essentially slaves. He had a Russia that was losing badly in a World War. Lastly, he came to power in a time where life was really really fucking shitty.

And before you go posting a single pic of some homeless people, keep in mind that over all, for the VAST MAJORITY of Americans, life is good. Even if you were to compare the poor between back then and today, things are very different.

Anyways back on the subject, Joe Plebe elected Trump and NOT Bernie. So my point STILL stands. Direct your frustration primarily at those around you, the Plebes. Need I remind you, in France, the mere mention of increasing the hours of the workweek brought protests and in small instances, full on riots.