The End of Manual Labor?

[Phil1111 943]

25 minutes ago, billvon said:

Nope.  Lowest quintile incomes have, at best, not moved in the past 60 years or so, while the top quintile has more than doubled.

They're not moving on to better jobs.  They are taking the best job they can find in the shrinking list available.

Well founded points. But US tax policies for the benefit of the wealthy also has a component.

[billvon 2,476]

13 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Well founded points. But US tax policies for the benefit of the wealthy also has a component.

Absolutely - and that's a big reason why there's so much growth at the top and none at the bottom.

[lippy 789]

7 hours ago, Slim King said:

I think conservatives are on some kind of timer and it just goes off.....

Just poor, innocent, victim Slim getting time-outs for a sin no greater than posting while conservative...And maybe - just maybe - also the sin of loving too much.

[olofscience 429]

11 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Or EV, solar or wind companies, let the market decide no need for government molestation.

BTW I still haven’t received an explanation on why I was given a time-out for describing the attributes of the AR platform on a forum that EXPLICITLY lists guns as an appropriate topic of conversation.

In the absence of an explanation, an apology will suffice.

That is if you have a shred of integrity.

Interesting how the slightest mention of ICE car workers and coal miners triggered this meltdown...

[olofscience 429]

10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Very touching, yet you still have yet to explain what manual labor jobs will be replaced by high tech in a meaningful way 

Warehouse workers for one: https://www.fastcompany.com/90842005/boston-dynamics-and-dhls-new-robot-hyper-efficient-warehouse-worker

 

Amazon, for all their mistreatment of fulfilment centre workers, is also investing millions into automating manual jobs: 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-automation-exclusive-idUSKCN1SJ0X1

[Phil1111 943]

47 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Interesting how the slightest mention of ICE car workers and coal miners triggered this meltdown...

Its inherent within all conservatives in the US that victimization is a part of the equation, their essence.

[brenthutch 390]

11 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Well founded points. But US tax policies for the benefit of the wealthy also has a component.

Yep all we need is a better tax policy and we could get that lower quintile out of the bottom 20% 

[brenthutch 390]

4 hours ago, olofscience said:

Warehouse workers for one: https://www.fastcompany.com/90842005/boston-dynamics-and-dhls-new-robot-hyper-efficient-warehouse-worker

 

Amazon, for all their mistreatment of fulfilment centre workers, is also investing millions into automating manual jobs: 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-automation-exclusive-idUSKCN1SJ0X1

Automation will allow them to find more “fulfilling” employment 

Edited September 26, 2023 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 390]

4 hours ago, olofscience said:

Interesting how the slightest mention of ICE car workers and coal miners triggered this meltdown...

Thanks for the bump Olof

[billvon 2,476]

16 hours ago, brenthutch said:

BTW I still haven’t received an explanation on why I was given a time-out for describing the attributes of the AR platform on a forum that EXPLICITLY lists guns as an appropriate topic of conversation.

Well, I guess there are two possible explanations.

One is that your commonsense wisdom and no-nonsense insight is intimidating to Wendy and I (and Willem and Meso) and when you bring up guns it triggers us, and the only way we know how to respond is to ban you - because we certainly can't come up with an intelligent response to your ironclad arguments.  If this is the case, and if you have any self-respect, the only course of action is to depart this forum with its cowardly liberals, know-nothing do-gooders and idiotic progressives and find some place that appreciates your brand of genius, since it is clearly wasted on us cretins.

The other option is that you post here to solicit angry reactions by posting incendiary material from right wing sources specifically intended to do just that.  You post here to "own the libs" and when that doesn't happen, you become angry and insulting and eventually attack someone, where you are banned again.  This is the more likely option IMO since you have admitted to doing this.

Now, we already give you more leeway than most posters here (your post above is a good example) because we actually value differing viewpoints as long as people can make them without attacking others.  If you do not like those bans, I suggest you follow the forum rules in the future, and make arguments based on factual material rather than arguments intended specifically to piss off Kallend, or whoever your target is on that day.

So one of the above is true; take your pick.  And act accordingly.

[kallend 1,679]

18 minutes ago, billvon said:

Snip:

I suggest you follow the forum rules in the future, and make arguments based on factual material rather than arguments intended specifically to piss off Kallend, or whoever your target is on that day.

So one of the above is true; take your pick.  And act accordingly.

He can't piss me off, since he is on my ignore list.  Has been for several years.  I only see the nonsense he posts if someone else quotes him.

I choose not to engage with such obvious trolls.

[brenthutch 390]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

your commonsense wisdom and no-nonsense insight is intimidating to Wendy and I (and Willem and Meso) and when you bring up guns it triggers us, and the only way we know how to respond is to ban you - because we certainly can't come up with an intelligent response to your ironclad arguments.  If this is the case, and if you have any self-respect, the only course of action is to depart this forum with its cowardly liberals, know-nothing do-gooders and idiotic progressives and find some place that appreciates your brand of genius, since it is clearly wasted on us cretins.

 

It is a yoke I am destined to wear, I suppose it is my version of “White Man’s Burden”

Edited September 26, 2023 by brenthutch

[gowlerk 1,956]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

we certainly can't come up with an intelligent response to your ironclad arguments.

The right wing intelligentsia always suffers from the slings and arrows of the soft headed liberal elites. Just ask the Dotard. 

[billvon 2,476]

9 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The right wing intelligentsia always suffers from the slings and arrows of the soft headed liberal elites. Just ask the Dotard. 

Yep.  Look at how much Marjorie Taylor Greene (or is it Marjorie Taylor?  Haven't seen any news on that) suffers from idiot liberals who don't understand:

Secret Jewish space lasers starting fires in California (and now Maui!)
That evolution is totally fake
That the Gazpacho Police are coming for conservaties
That enlisting in the military is "throwing your life away"
That monkeypox is an STD
That the Highland mass shooting was a false flag operation to make Republicans go along with gun control
That Q is real and has connections at the highest levels of US government
That Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring from the basement of a pizza place

It can get frustrating when brilliant people like MTG/MG/MT are forced to deal with dullards who believe fantasies like fallen power lines start fires and that some pizza places don't have basements.

[billvon 2,476]

14 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Well founded points. But US tax policies for the benefit of the wealthy also has a component.

Yep. 

A geat article about a Nobel-winning economist (and immigrant) on America's policies when it comes to the growing divide between wealthy and poor.  One point he brings up is that real income has been going down for decades for people without college degrees - in other words, the people most affected by automation. And life expectancy in this group is going down as well, due mainly to suicides of despair.

And he also blames his fellow economists for not only not helping, but contributing to this by providing cover for corporations who push trickle-down economics as a smokescreen to cover their own excesses.  Specifically, "when confronted with deaths of despair, they can blame the victims and those who try to help them."

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2023/09/26/1199422599/a-nobel-prize-winning-immigrants-view-on-american-inequality

[jakee 1,280]

On 9/26/2023 at 7:44 PM, billvon said:

And he also blames his fellow economists for not only not helping, but contributing to this by providing cover for corporations who push trickle-down economics as a smokescreen to cover their own excesses.  Specifically, "when confronted with deaths of despair, they can blame the victims and those who try to help them."

We've just been through this again with Liz Truss popping her crazy head back up to say she was right all along about slashing top level taxes being the answer to all economic woes 'because of trickle down' and I wonder what world these people think we've been living in for the past 40 years of neo-liberal economics.

 

In the UK, like the US, income inequality is the biggest it's ever been. Owners and shareholders are taking more profit from businesses than ever before. Executives are taking far bigger compensation packages than ever before. Big companies are bigger and more vaulable than ever before. There are more ultra rich people and they are richer than ever before. 

And what do we have in return? The NHS is creaking under the greatest strain in its history. School buildings across the country are literally falling apart and the Department of Education says there is zero new money available to sort it out. We can't afford the free University tuition or grants that the majority of our leaders enjoyed in the past, and now even the loans that replaced them aren't enough to let students pay rent, let alone anything else. We can't afford trains anymore. Buses are disappearing. We can't afford to run the Post Office. We can't afford for water companies not to dump shit in the rivers 24/7. We can't afford social care programmes, benefits or (supposedly) any refugees.

Is that what trickle down is supposed to look like when it's working? Or if that's not trickle down yet - just how much more do the ultra rich need to accumulate before they'll start letting any of it go for trickle down to start?