Farewell, America

Discussion in 'Politics' started by douwd20, Nov 11, 2016.

  1. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    Wait a minute. At first but it doesnt have to stay that way or necessarily will be that way. Only if we dont re-align or adjust. What makes us think how we run an economy cant be changed?

    The less need for human labor also means more goods and productivity, not less when it comes to manufacturing especially. There would be no need for as much competition or greed (scarcity thinking) if and when those resources are abundant or more easily attained. It would have a trickle down effect. Even now, the only reason that resources sometimes are destroyed on purpose is because it requires more human labor or effort (their actual expense) which means those who havent been a part of that effort should not be free beneficiaries which could result in few producers and more takers. Why dumpsters are locked, store merchandise destroyed etc. Humans can complain and most do not like to work or may not enjoy their particular job, thus the grievance at others who are not producers even though this is more complicated politics than most realize. Machines dont complain or have these issues. It takes the human element of competition, resentment, grievance, blame etc out of the equation. With almost total automation of most everything besides human maintenance, this will turn all or most of this upside down and on its head.

    The majority of all employment issues and grievances are derived from the amount of effort required or expected of humans in lieu of leisure time, family, personal health etc.

    Just as any abundant resource occuring naturally or with less human effort is usually not a major point of contention. Technology may advance to a point where it would be like resenting another is breathing oxygen at your expense, meaning we dont.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Our system was designed to be a Republic, not a Democracy. Also, only property holders were allowed to vote.

    But, with a very very weak Federal Government, I could imagine you could get the middle of America to go without an electoral college.

    Not counting that, the POTUS would be elected by the predilections of 5 or 6 major cities. Not really a Union at that point. Just call it a day

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Goliathus Registered Member

    Messages:
    44
    Also whats crazy is i think only 50% of US actually voted if not less and i know most of them didnt even want to vote for anyone. For example 11 000 voted for Harambe..
    Nobody was taking it seriously and they deserve what they got.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,314
    Well, no. It is net wash for the lower income groups. And again, this is what we have been seeing in practice - the lower quintile income has been flat in real dollars, while the upper quintiles have been seeing very steady growth. (Needless to say, automation has been only one factor in that.)
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,438
    I thought it was closer to 25%.
     
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,360
    estimates vary but stay in the range 55.5% to 58% of voting age citizens voted.
     
  10. ForrestDean Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    Sounds like people trying to make a statement to me. And by the way, we all deserve what we get whether we voted or not. The way I feel about it, people choosing not to vote because of discontent is the same as casting a vote, just casting a vote for no one. It is one's right to choose whether to cast their vote or not.
     
  11. Goliathus Registered Member

    Messages:
    44
    20% of population maybe voted for Trump, the rest eather voted Hillary or Harambe.

    Anyway ForrestDean, the statement wont make much of a differance. They should have voted for the lesser of two evils not joke around with these kinds of things.
     
  12. ForrestDean Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    Nah, I don't think you understand. It's not about who gets elected. It's about making a statement. I believe that many of those who intentionally choose not to vote do take it seriously.
     
  13. Goliathus Registered Member

    Messages:
    44
    You are right, i dont get it. Because they havent achieved anything by making a statement.
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,438
    Not entirely sure that's true this time.

    If the statement were "The government is so oblivious to our needs that we don't bother even voting. After all, we don't get our needs met when we do vote - so how is this any worse for us?" then they may have made it rather effectively by essentially tanking the country for everyone.

    I imagine the system relies on status quo in keep order. Enough crew to keep the ship going in a direction, but not so many as to actually take control of the boat. If all the crew refuse to man their stations, the ship founders, and that's bad for everyone.

    I don't propose that anyone deliberately thought it through this way; it is sufficient for enough people to hold the attitude "why should I choose between two terrible choices?"
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2016
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,110
    No, the loss is concentrated there. The savings in purchased goods are less, total, than the loss of income. More of their production leaves the community for the bank accounts of the capital providers.
    The lower three quintiles have seen net loss of wealth, and a reduction of "disposable" income.

    The median wage once bought the median house. The median wage now does not rent the median two bedroom apartment. Of course automation is not the only, or even primary, factor - but the overall sequestration of productivity gains in the return to capital, which it has become a part of, probably is.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,110
    They didn't tank it for everyone. There are going to be some clear winners and beneficiaries from a Trump presidency, as there were from Reagan's and W's presidencies.

    Prediction: the same winners.
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,438
    Indeed.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,314
    Factually incorrect. Income in the lowest percentile has been stagnant.
    In the same market the original surveys were taken, the median wage had no problem renting the median two bedroom apartment.

    However, there has since been a large scale move to cities - and in cities, rents have gone up due to high demand. Thus, in the new markets where people want to live, rents have gone up faster than median income.
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,110
    That doesn't mean the loss from automation was not concentrated in the lower income fractions - among the people displaced. This: "The savings in purchased goods are less, total, than the loss of income. More of their production leaves the community for the bank accounts of the capital providers. " is not factually incorrect. Whether the loss is in diminished taxable income or diminished wealth or diminished mobility or diminished living standards or some other factor, is beside the point.
    Hence the use of medians across demographic groups and large geographical areas, to avoid misleading oneself - in depressed communities with declining demand for housing, rents have not risen as fast as they have where people have gone to find work and live. That means little - the places where people can't find work and don't want to live are largely irrelevant. You can probably find ghost towns where rents have even fallen, drastically, and so what?
     
  20. Goliathus Registered Member

    Messages:
    44
    Well with that attitude ofcourse its all gonna stay the same. Also Sanders was really good choice but not many people even thought about researching into candidates.
     

Share This Page