When I lived in Texas, I lived in Houston, a large and racially diverse city. I found the best way to get drivers license services timely was to drive out of the cities to a primarily white rural town. Suddenly there were no more giant lines.
Jim Crow never died. He just chilled out a bit and got better marketing.
Why do you assume these all need to be new careers? Why do you assume that we can’t expand existing careers? It’s happened in the past, it can happen again. Agriculture went from employing the majority of the populace to 2%. We found jobs for everyone.
There are many professions that have immense latent demand that people simply cannot afford. Really any industry that involves a lot of human labor. People want more education than they can afford. People want more healthcare than they can afford. People want more childcare, private tutoring, home cleaning, personal trainers, life coaches, financial advisors, and on and on. Think of the retinue of assistants and employees the wealthy employ. Now imagine the number of people who can afford those services drastically expanding. We don’t even need to necessarily invent new careers. There’s plenty of latent demand already. Those masses of displaced agricultural workers? Most of them found jobs in fields that already existed.
Over the last 70 years (in the USA for ex) unemployment has been trending up.
This is false. I’ll ignore the employment rate and focus on labor force participation rate, as unemployment doesn’t count people who are long-term unemployed and have given up working. Labor force participation is a better metric here.
Labor force participation has gone up and down, corresponding with changes in demographics. Despite generations of technological change and automation, we’ve always found ways to employ the excess labor. Human labor is always the ultimate bottleneck. There’s probably enough latent demand for human labor to employ many multiples of our current population.
It made sense precisely because she wasn’t ever going to win a primary on her own. Biden acted like Trump here. Trump surrounds himself with people who have zero future without him. His cabinet is filled with profoundly unqualified people whose only real qualification is unwavering loyalty to Trump. This is a classic move of authoritarian leaders, as their advisors then become completely dependent on them. Once Trump is out of office, Hegseth is never going to have a role in government again. (Unless some other authoritarian president is seeking a loyal lackey.)
Biden did a less extreme version of this with Kamala. Kamala certainly wasn’t objectively unqualified for her job like Hegseth is, but she also could never had obtained a leadership position in the White House via her own merits.
You can still buy those expensive appliances. The brands exist. Just be prepared to pay the prices your grandparents paid.
Eh. It made more sense hundreds of years ago for people to build houses that lasted for centuries. That kind of construction makes sense in periods of slow technological and social change.
But think of how differently people live now vs just a hundred years ago. Imagine buying a house without running water, electric wiring, or insulation. Sure, old homes can be renovated to have these. But that requires tearing the thing down to the bare stone or wood walls and starting from scratch. You have to gut the entire building. The only thing that remains is the shell, a shell which represents only 20% of the cost of the building, if that. Most of the cost of a building is not in the structure itself, yet that’s the only part that gets saved in a complete gutting and renovation.
If you build a house today that lasts centuries, the only way that house will still be occupied 300 years from now is if it’s been gutted down to the studs multiple times over the generations. And at that point, why build an ultra-durable house in the first place? Why not build something lighter that requires fewer resources up front, and can simply be torn down and recycled once it’s become obsolete?
Why would a US attack on Iran under Kamala be farfetched?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Prosperity_Guardian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US–UK_airstrikes_on_Yemen
Trump didn’t start this war. He ramped it up, but he’s fighting the same proxy war with Iran that Biden was.
That’s why they have radiators.
I approve of this.
Well, you see, the gravity is very strong in Denmark. This causes a high amount of time dilation. This causes clocks in Denmark to move substantially slower than those in the rest of the world. He’s experienced 20 years. She’s only experienced about 2.
Try not to ask such loaded questions. You’re better than that. I know you can do better.
Again, act utilitarianism vs rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism is what our laws use. You’re using act utilitarianism, which has a much poorer track record. A rule utilitarian would say, “we need a hard and fast rule that genocide is wrong. Anyone who supports genocide is a criminal that deserves zero support and respect. This rule creates the greatest good for the greatest number over time.” An act utilitarian says, “this genocide may be OK, if it’s the lesser evil. If I can convince myself it’s on net positive, then it’s the moral thing to do.”
Our laws use rule utilitarianism. You’re not allowed to argue in court that murdering a guy was a net positive to the world. We instead say, “banning all murders will result in the greatest good for the greatest number, so we’ll outlaw all murders.”
You can have two systems that each try to optimize for the greatest good to the greatest number. Rule utilitarians create bright rules that on net, over time, result in the greatest good for the greatest number and avoid the temptation to justify horrible acts by arguing for the greater good. Act utilitarians try to judge each act individually, ignoring a lot of the context and pretending that this act exists in complete isolation from all acts before and after.
Act utilitarianism is literally the moral philosophy of the Holocaust.
Removed by mod
Have you considered that Charlie Kirk and Victor Glover may actually be the same person? Maybe Kirk reincarnated as Glover. No need for reincarnation to follow linear time.
Your binary thinking is what’s got us into this mess.
The robots won’t have all the jobs. And the demand for human labor will increase.
There will always be some jobs humans can’t do. It’s not that there’s something magical about humans and the human mind. It’s just that there are certain jobs that are so complex and involve such human emotional intelligence and human interaction, that any machine that could do this instead of a person would have to be a person themselves. I might trust Commander Data to be my kid’s elementary school teacher. But that’s also because I would consider Commander Data to be a person. But there would also be little reason to mass produce Commanders Data to be elementary school teachers, as that would amount to little more than slavery. A mind is a mind, regardless of the substrate. Forcing a mind to work for you is a moral abomination, regardless of whether that mind is flesh or silicon.
As automation has increased over the generations, the demand for human labor has increased. The fields whose services have increased in price high above inflation are non-coincidentally those with the highest amount of unavoidable human labor. Think medicine, higher education, and home construction. Automation generates vast wealth. People who profit from highly automated industries then have more money to spend on things. There’s more money in the economy to support the labor-intensive industries. But automation can’t meaningfully decrease the cost of producing them. So the wealth generated in low-labor intensity industries goes towards bidding up the cost of the goods and services produced in high-labor intensive industries.
Or another way to look at it. Automation is deflationary. Whenever the production of a good or service becomes highly automated, the cost that good or service tends to go down. There’s a reason the idea of a walk-in-closet would have been considered absurd to your ancestors. When people spend less money on the automated goods, they have more money to spend on the labor-intensive goods.
Or, a third perspective. A reasonable assumption is that future automation will look like past automation. Yes, automation can be disruptive on an individual level. If you’re 55 and your entire career specialty is automated away, you’re going to be really hurting at a personal level. You just don’t have time to retrain for a new career field, and medically you may be unable to. But as a whole, people move into fields that have high need for workers. We have a higher labor force participation rate than we did 200 years ago, despite only a single-digit percentage of people needing to work in agriculture now. Wave after wave of automation has failed to result in the predicted mass employment and immiseration of the populace. And every time we’re told that “this time is different,” it turns out to be no different than the previous times. The people telling you that this round of automation will be completely different from all the others are the same people profiting from the current AI bubble.
Then we need to seriously rewrite corporate charter law. For example, maybe it shouldn’t even be legal for corporations to own other corporations. Limited liability as a concept has some value, in terms of encouraging investment. So there is value in LLCs existing. But we don’t need the free-for-all we have now. We could move corporate governance to a white list model, where there are only a set series of structures you’re allowed to use to organize a company.
Among these are the regulations would be restrictions on the forms of compensation you’re allowed to provide high-value employees. Maybe the only legal form of pay for executives should be salary.
And again, you can enforce this by relying on the little people that the executives don’t even recognize as human. Does a CEO formally have $10 million to their name, but they have exclusive use of a $100 million mansion provided by their company? Fine, let the janitor rat him out, and in turn the janitor will end up owning that mansion.
There are ways around this. For example, let’s say you set the wealth cap at 10 million. You write a law that says, “anyone that reports an illegal fortune larger than this will receive half of the money confiscated from this illegal fortune to divide tax-free among yourself, friends, and family.”
Billionaires don’t know how to manage their own money. They hire accountants. So you make it so any random accountant can rat out an illegal billionaire and get paid enough to not only max out their own lifetime allowable fortune, but those of all their friends and family.
Sure, the billionaire could avoid this by just dividing up his wealth among his own friends and family. But in that case, he’s still losing control. And that’s ultimately the point of this. Thousands of low-digit millionaires are infinitely superior to one billionaire.
And the Soviet Union had elections.
She claimed that the US would have the most lethal force in the world. The only way you get and maintain that lethality is continual practice. You have to continuously fight wars if you want to stay the most lethal military in the world. This is one of the biggest reasons the US is so militaristic. People aren’t in the military for all that long. 4-8 years is typical. If you don’t fight wars all the time, you quickly lose your advantage. There’s no way to have the most lethal military without using it regularly.
So, if Kamala wasn’t talking about attacking Iran, who was she talking about? Who else was she intending to bomb in order to maintain US military lethality?
That depends if they’re the “let’s keep our own names, fuck the patriarchy” type of lesbian, or the “let’s bond in a quirky way by both changing our last name to a hyphenated or portmanteau’d form of our names” type of lesbian. The former would be unaffected by the proposed voting restrictions, while the latter could both have a great deal of trouble voting. It’s the changing of the last name that’s the problem.