Jump to content
gottaplan

The Trump Presidency

Recommended Posts

How many times have we heard about our workforce being under-employed?  A high profit, efficient plant creates wealth & tons an ancillary jobs... not just fixing robots.  You're either way off base or I just have a very high, unrealistic belief in people compared to you.  I suppose that's what also separates liberals from conservatives.  And safe spaces.  I haven't found any yet - I thought this tread may be one but its not.  haha 

 

Belief doesn't enter into it.  Workers can't believe payrolls into existence.  If automation is our friend, where are these net-positive effects?  It's been going on for decades, the positives should have shown up by now.  Instead it's been a cascade of negative and the data set is substantial.

 

Whether or not automation is "our" friend, what do you propose to do about it?  Outlaw computers?

 

No, just divert some of the profits they generate toward mitigating the destruction they cause. Tit for tat, if you will.

 

Technology doesn't cause "destruction", but it does allow for the creation of value without the need for human labor.  As computers/robots do more and more and the need for labor becomes less and less, this means that owners have the ability to accumulate more of the capital and have less of a need to distribute it to laborers (higher profits).  I am not sure what the long term solution is for this problem, because the companies themselves will eventually suffer if they don't allow for some redistribution of wealth as there won't be enough people with enough money to buy their products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Your making a leap in logic as far as cause and effect goes.  These contract are ALWAYS negotiated.  It's not like government contractors say this is the price and the government accepts it.  The introduction of random tweeting into the office of POTUS has not changed this dynamic.

 

Perhaps in most cases, you would be correct.  But the "Air Force One" program is not exactly a typical government RFP with 3 qualified bidders either. 

 

So then are you assuming that if Boeing said tomorrow they have reassessed and the cost will be $40 billion, the government is just going to bend over and take it?  You think Trump's twitter account gives the government bargaining power it otherwise does not?  Be real man...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times have we heard about our workforce being under-employed?  A high profit, efficient plant creates wealth & tons an ancillary jobs... not just fixing robots.  You're either way off base or I just have a very high, unrealistic belief in people compared to you.  I suppose that's what also separates liberals from conservatives.  And safe spaces.  I haven't found any yet - I thought this tread may be one but its not.  haha 

 

Belief doesn't enter into it.  Workers can't believe payrolls into existence.  If automation is our friend, where are these net-positive effects?  It's been going on for decades, the positives should have shown up by now.  Instead it's been a cascade of negative and the data set is substantial.

 

Whether or not automation is "our" friend, what do you propose to do about it?  Outlaw computers?

 

No, just divert some of the profits they generate toward mitigating the destruction they cause. Tit for tat, if you will.

 

Technology doesn't cause "destruction", but it does allow for the creation of value without the need for human labor.  As computers/robots do more and more and the need for labor becomes less and less, this means that owners have the ability to accumulate more of the capital and have less of a need to distribute it to laborers (higher profits).  I am not sure what the long term solution is for this problem, because the companies themselves will eventually suffer if they don't allow for some redistribution of wealth as there won't be enough people with enough money to buy their products.

 

I feel like we're saying the same thing but I'm using stronger wording to describe the effects of failing to redistribute.  I look around nearby industrial cities and I see destruction.  And I know it wasn't Mexicans who did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times have we heard about our workforce being under-employed?  A high profit, efficient plant creates wealth & tons an ancillary jobs... not just fixing robots.  You're either way off base or I just have a very high, unrealistic belief in people compared to you.  I suppose that's what also separates liberals from conservatives.  And safe spaces.  I haven't found any yet - I thought this tread may be one but its not.  haha 

 

Belief doesn't enter into it.  Workers can't believe payrolls into existence.  If automation is our friend, where are these net-positive effects?  It's been going on for decades, the positives should have shown up by now.  Instead it's been a cascade of negative and the data set is substantial.

 

Whether or not automation is "our" friend, what do you propose to do about it?  Outlaw computers?

 

No, just divert some of the profits they generate toward mitigating the destruction they cause. Tit for tat, if you will.

 

Technology doesn't cause "destruction", but it does allow for the creation of value without the need for human labor.  As computers/robots do more and more and the need for labor becomes less and less, this means that owners have the ability to accumulate more of the capital and have less of a need to distribute it to laborers (higher profits).  I am not sure what the long term solution is for this problem, because the companies themselves will eventually suffer if they don't allow for some redistribution of wealth as there won't be enough people with enough money to buy their products.

 

The alternative view is that it allows that human labor to do other productive things.  The modern telephone didn't doom switchboard operators to lives of destitution.  Instead, it allowed them to work in new emerging fields.  This does not necessarily lead to more consolidation but can create new industries that weren't imaginable before.  There has been some speculation that this will run into an inevitable limit however as technology improves further.  Some say that new jobs will necessarily require higher and higher cognitive ability that many in the population will be unable to satisfy.  That will lead to a permanent underclass that lacks the ability to do the only work needed in an economy more integrated with advanced technology.  I remain very skeptical of that claim but find it interesting to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That will lead to a permanent underclass that lacks the ability to do the only work needed in an economy more integrated with advanced technology.  I remain very skeptical of that claim but find it interesting to think about.

 

The fear here is that people are going to remain skeptical until it's too late. I think it's already happening, and a few huge technological advancements (near-AI, driverless cars, etc) will push us off steep cliffs.

 

What happens if this happens and we don't prepare (and we could argue about what "prepare" means until we're blue in the face)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That will lead to a permanent underclass that lacks the ability to do the only work needed in an economy more integrated with advanced technology.  I remain very skeptical of that claim but find it interesting to think about.

 

The fear here is that people are going to remain skeptical until it's too late. I think it's already happening, and a few huge technological advancements (near-AI, driverless cars, etc) will push us off steep cliffs.

 

What happens if this happens and we don't prepare (and we could argue about what "prepare" means until we're blue in the face)?

 

This folds into the conversation of the universal basic income, which I don't think is a crazy idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^There is no universal cash support for impoverished households in the U.S. It literally doesn't exist. There's food stamps, disability, and short term aid to families with children available in some areas (with a general lifetime cap of a few years). So we really don't have anything close to UBI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like we're saying the same thing but I'm using stronger wording to describe the effects of failing to redistribute.

 

Correct, I wasn't disagreeing with you.  I was just using different terminology because I knew that certain people who disagree with our point of view would pick apart that word and not the larger point you were making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^We already have universal basic income.  It is called welfare.

 

What you're describing was eliminated during the Clinton administration.  It is gone, it does not exist anymore.  We need it back in a major way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From noted conservative writer and intellectual, Charles Murray:

 

A Guaranteed Income for Every American

Replacing the welfare state with an annual grant is the best way to cope with a radically changing U.S. jobs market—and to revitalize America’s civic culture

 

When people learn that I want to replace the welfare state with a universal basic income, or UBI, the response I almost always get goes something like this: “But people will just use it to live off the rest of us!” “People will waste their lives!” Or, as they would have put it in a bygone age, a guaranteed income will foster idleness and vice. I see it differently. I think that a UBI is our only hope to deal with a coming labor market unlike any in human history and that it represents our best hope to revitalize American civil society.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for-every-american-1464969586

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^There is no universal cash support for impoverished households in the U.S. It literally doesn't exist. There's food stamps, disability, and short term aid to families with children available in some areas (with a general lifetime cap of a few years). So we really don't have anything close to UBI.

 

d'oh!  I've been watching too much Fox News.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^We already have universal basic income.  It is called welfare.

 

What you're describing was eliminated during the Clinton administration.  It is gone, it does not exist anymore.  We need it back in a major way.

 

The "welfare" that we have now is temporary assistance for people while they are unemployed and looking for work.

 

The "universal basic income" that we need is permanent assistance that are unemployed because jobs are being permanently eliminated and aren't ever coming back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That will lead to a permanent underclass that lacks the ability to do the only work needed in an economy more integrated with advanced technology.  I remain very skeptical of that claim but find it interesting to think about.

 

The fear here is that people are going to remain skeptical until it's too late. I think it's already happening, and a few huge technological advancements (near-AI, driverless cars, etc) will push us off steep cliffs.

 

What happens if this happens and we don't prepare (and we could argue about what "prepare" means until we're blue in the face)?

 

This folds into the conversation of the universal basic income, which I don't think is a crazy idea.

 

The universal basic income is unaffordable even for the US given its current economic base.  (Just do the basic math with rounding: 300 million people times even $10,000 per year is $3 trillion, more than the entire current federal revenue, even if we completely defunded the military, courts, FBI, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.)  It is not, however, theoretically unaffordable forever depending on rates of economic growth and technological change.  But the theory hasn't become reality yet and many people currently dismiss the optimistic techno-utopian predictions of people like Ray Kurzweil (who I admit makes a certain amount of sense to me) as idealistic fantasies that are too optimistic by a span of generations if not permanently unrealistic.

 

Also, any discussion of economics needs to remember that currency is only a placeholder for real value.  This is why, for example, printing more money does little harm when the real economy is actually growing (more money chases more goods, value of currency stays reasonably constant), but not when real economic output is not keeping pace.  The artificial nature of money also shadows the UBI discussion because there are certain basic "real world" maintenance functions of an industrialized society that we expect and that would need to be taken care of in a world in which a UBI could potentially free millions from the need to work at all.  Start with the basics: Are fully automated farms capable of growing sufficient food for the population, and fully automated mills and factories capable of producing enough cloth and clothing?  What about shelter?  There are actually proof-of-concept demonstrations of things like 3D-printed houses that hint at where technology could be on this front in 30 or 50 years, if the costs really do come down, but not all technological trends follow Moore's Law (and in particular, those that require large quantities of physical materials as inputs tend to be less exponential in their growth rates than those that need only process information).

 

Move on to education and health care, the big-ticket middle class items.  How close are we to automated schools?  We have distributed "massive open online courses" (MOOCs), but those still don't automate learning, and we're still a long way from being able to download information directly into the brain, Matrix-style.  Health care?  This is a wild card, and it's an industry that I follow with intense interest.  There are techno-utopian biogerontologists like Aubrey de Grey who predict that the first person to live to 1000 has already been born.  He might be absolutely crazy or he might be onto something.  As with many technological trends, many people can't see it happening before it's already picked up quite a bit of steam, enough so that it appears to burst onto the scene from nowhere.  A decade ago, he was an outcast monk in the wilderness; within the last year, the Mayo Clinic got on board with the serious study of cellular senescence and, implicitly, the possibility of generalized "routine maintenance" of cellular decay as a prophylactic against aging itself.  (See, e.g., http://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-researchers-extend-lifespan-by-as-much-as-35-percent-in-mice-2/).  They don't come right out and say it, but the fact that they're funding that research (which was previously considered crackpot territory) suggests that they see at least some value in it now.  Of course, there are also people that observe that overall lifespans are stagnant or even declining, in part because of the opioid epidemic, and that an extension of overall lifespan doesn't do much good in terms of making a UBI affordable (and in fact makes it less affordable) unless it increases "healthspan" (and to be fair, the medical community is well aware of this concept generally, regardless of its relationship to UBI, and so "healthspan" is a thing hospitals talk about now).

 

If we get to a point where food, clothing, shelter, energy, transportation, education, and health care can all be provided with 100% automation, including machines that build the roads on which the driverless cars operate, machines that actually install the solar panels, etc., and not just the particular end-user devices of the given sector, then we might be in UBI territory.  Until then, we need a system that ensures that those things actually get provided to the population somehow, preferably by directing material rewards to those who actually do the work, since the only plausible alternative is coercive mandates from the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The universal basic income is unaffordable even for the US given its current economic base.  (Just do the basic math with rounding: 300 million people times even $10,000 per year is $3 trillion, more than the entire current federal revenue, even if we completely defunded the military, courts, FBI, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.)  It is not, however, theoretically unaffordable forever depending on rates of economic growth and technological change.  But the theory hasn't become reality yet and many people currently dismiss the optimistic techno-utopian predictions of people like Ray Kurzweil (who I admit makes a certain amount of sense to me) as idealistic fantasies that are too optimistic by a span of generations if not permanently unrealistic.

 

Indeed, but Murray's proposal limits the UBI to those making below a certain amount (30k if my memory serves correctly).  Those making some money get cash benefits to bring them up to the 30k mark.  This is all from memory so sorry if not correct.  His proposal also eliminates all other social welfare programs and replaces them with the cash distribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The universal basic income is unaffordable even for the US given its current economic base.  (Just do the basic math with rounding: 300 million people times even $10,000 per year is $3 trillion, more than the entire current federal revenue, even if we completely defunded the military, courts, FBI, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.)  It is not, however, theoretically unaffordable forever depending on rates of economic growth and technological change.  But the theory hasn't become reality yet and many people currently dismiss the optimistic techno-utopian predictions of people like Ray Kurzweil (who I admit makes a certain amount of sense to me) as idealistic fantasies that are too optimistic by a span of generations if not permanently unrealistic.

 

Indeed, but Murray's proposal limits the UBI to those making below a certain amount (30k if my memory serves correctly).  Those making some money get cash benefits to bring them up to the 30k mark.  This is all from memory so sorry if not correct.  His proposal also eliminates all other social welfare programs and replaces them with the cash distribution.

 

Maybe he heard us talking (and then traveled back in time to comment)?

 

https://futurism.com/elon-musk-theres-a-pretty-good-chance-well-end-up-with-universal-basic-income/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pleased with the direction this thread has taken. I've said this several times. In the long-term, the things that Trump promised and that his voters most desperately need are impossible for him to deliver. Over the course of the next four years, there will be no net gain of manufacturing jobs in this country. Longer term (more than the length of time Trump will be in office), fossil fuel production will be a loser as well. Globalization and technological innovation are a runaway train that are slowly but surely changing the face of the American middle class. We need leadership that has the foresight to figure out how to deal with these issues with the length of decades in mind, not the length of political terms, and not in trying to temporarily appease a minority for the sake of votes.

 

 

I believe that the game is changing and that our approach needs to be multifaceted:

1) Introducing a Universal Basic Income seems like one part of the solution.

2) Changing the goals of education is another.

3) And this is certainly controversial, but discussing overpopulation in some manner will also be necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pleased with the direction this thread has taken. I've said this several times. In the long-term, the things that Trump promised and that his voters most desperately need are impossible for him to deliver. Over the course of the next four years, there will be no net gain of manufacturing jobs in this country. Longer term (more than the length of time Trump will be in office), fossil fuel production will be a loser as well. Globalization and technological innovation are a runaway train that are slowly but surely changing the face of the American middle class. We need leadership that has the foresight to figure out how to deal with these issues with the length of decades in mind, not the length of political terms, and not in trying to temporarily appease a minority for the sake of votes.

 

 

I believe that the game is changing and that our approach needs to be multifaceted:

1) Introducing a Universal Basic Income seems like one part of the solution.

2) Changing the goals of education is another.

3) And this is certainly controversial, but discussing overpopulation in some manner will also be necessary.

 

Could not disagree more strongly on 3.  I've said this controversial statement here before, the inverse of yours: There is no physical reason why the planet could not support a population of a trillion.  It simply can't be done with today's technology.

 

Agree on 2.

 

Agree on 1, but not within the next four or eight years.  We're talking generations, unfortunately.  Automation is good enough now to churn a lot of jobs, but not good enough to basically run an economy for 320 million with a workforce of zero (or, say, 10 million or less).  Remember, the gains of automation are expressed in terms of productivity, which is output per worker.  Suppose your target UBI is $30,000.  In a country of 400 million (which we will hit, barring a catastrophic war with another superpower), that's a $12 trillion annual ask.  How many workers does it take to produce $12 trillion?  That's your measure of how far automation has progressed to make it feasible.  The current labor force of 159M produces more than that, but not by much.  So even a 100-fold increase in productivity would still require a workforce of 2M to give a UBI of $30,000 in 2016 dollars to our entire projected population.  (And, of course, it's a natural psychological tendency to not just want what 2016 offers, but to expect that it will continue to get better, too.)  Our current productivity gain rate is basically flat.  Even if it were at an absurd level of 20%+, mathematically, it would still take a while for any baseline number to increase 100x at that rate of compounding.  And the real number even counting back through the 1990s to take in the tech boom has been nowhere near that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could not disagree more strongly on 3.  I've said this controversial statement here before, the inverse of yours: There is no physical reason why the planet could not support a population of a trillion.  It simply can't be done with today's technology.

 

If nothing else, I'd be skeptical about that number. But I will also add that, we're a long ways away, even if developments played out perfectly, from us reaching that point. I think there's a cap on how much life this planet can sustain, and I think it's in the tens of billions and nowhere near 1 trillion. Either way, in the short-term (however long that may be), discussions of overpopulation are likely to be increasingly necessary.

 

I'm intrigued by your claim, though. Want to give bullet points or suggestions for further reading?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The neo-malthusian hysteria of the 70s, and the apocalypse which never came, should render everyone a skeptic of the need for some kind of centralized population control.

 

Hysteria? I wasn't around for that, so I'm not sure whether or not that description is accurate. However there are general issues and challenges, short of a hysteria, that come with an exponentially increasing population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pleased with the direction this thread has taken. I've said this several times. In the long-term, the things that Trump promised and that his voters most desperately need are impossible for him to deliver. Over the course of the next four years, there will be no net gain of manufacturing jobs in this country. Longer term (more than the length of time Trump will be in office), fossil fuel production will be a loser as well. Globalization and technological innovation are a runaway train that are slowly but surely changing the face of the American middle class. We need leadership that has the foresight to figure out how to deal with these issues with the length of decades in mind, not the length of political terms, and not in trying to temporarily appease a minority for the sake of votes.

 

 

I think this is an interesting discussion but not really a political one.  Candidates from both parties would love to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. 

 

And don't forget, Hillary WON the popular vote....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pleased with the direction this thread has taken. I've said this several times. In the long-term, the things that Trump promised and that his voters most desperately need are impossible for him to deliver. Over the course of the next four years, there will be no net gain of manufacturing jobs in this country. Longer term (more than the length of time Trump will be in office), fossil fuel production will be a loser as well. Globalization and technological innovation are a runaway train that are slowly but surely changing the face of the American middle class. We need leadership that has the foresight to figure out how to deal with these issues with the length of decades in mind, not the length of political terms, and not in trying to temporarily appease a minority for the sake of votes.

 

 

I believe that the game is changing and that our approach needs to be multifaceted:

1) Introducing a Universal Basic Income seems like one part of the solution.

2) Changing the goals of education is another.

3) And this is certainly controversial, but discussing overpopulation in some manner will also be necessary.

 

Could not disagree more strongly on 3.  I've said this controversial statement here before, the inverse of yours: There is no physical reason why the planet could not support a population of a trillion.  It simply can't be done with today's technology.

 

Agree on 2.

 

Agree on 1, but not within the next four or eight years.  We're talking generations, unfortunately.  Automation is good enough now to churn a lot of jobs, but not good enough to basically run an economy for 320 million with a workforce of zero (or, say, 10 million or less).  Remember, the gains of automation are expressed in terms of productivity, which is output per worker.  Suppose your target UBI is $30,000.  In a country of 400 million (which we will hit, barring a catastrophic war with another superpower), that's a $12 trillion annual ask.  How many workers does it take to produce $12 trillion?  That's your measure of how far automation has progressed to make it feasible.  The current labor force of 159M produces more than that, but not by much.  So even a 100-fold increase in productivity would still require a workforce of 2M to give a UBI of $30,000 in 2016 dollars to our entire projected population.  (And, of course, it's a natural psychological tendency to not just want what 2016 offers, but to expect that it will continue to get better, too.)  Our current productivity gain rate is basically flat.  Even if it were at an absurd level of 20%+, mathematically, it would still take a while for any baseline number to increase 100x at that rate of compounding.  And the real number even counting back through the 1990s to take in the tech boom has been nowhere near that.

 

The only problem you have is you are thinking in terms of the population of the USA, you need to think global. The number and ubi need to work for everyone on the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pleased with the direction this thread has taken. I've said this several times. In the long-term, the things that Trump promised and that his voters most desperately need are impossible for him to deliver. Over the course of the next four years, there will be no net gain of manufacturing jobs in this country. Longer term (more than the length of time Trump will be in office), fossil fuel production will be a loser as well. Globalization and technological innovation are a runaway train that are slowly but surely changing the face of the American middle class. We need leadership that has the foresight to figure out how to deal with these issues with the length of decades in mind, not the length of political terms, and not in trying to temporarily appease a minority for the sake of votes.

 

 

I think this is an interesting discussion but not really a political one.  Candidates from both parties would love to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. 

 

And don't forget, Hillary WON the popular vote....

 

Perhaps if we had some of buy American Steel clause for in the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.  Surely. both parties would support buying American made products...

 

http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/308358-last-minute-fight-over-buy-america-provision-emerges-in-water-bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pleased with the direction this thread has taken. I've said this several times. In the long-term, the things that Trump promised and that his voters most desperately need are impossible for him to deliver. Over the course of the next four years, there will be no net gain of manufacturing jobs in this country. Longer term (more than the length of time Trump will be in office), fossil fuel production will be a loser as well. Globalization and technological innovation are a runaway train that are slowly but surely changing the face of the American middle class. We need leadership that has the foresight to figure out how to deal with these issues with the length of decades in mind, not the length of political terms, and not in trying to temporarily appease a minority for the sake of votes.

 

 

I believe that the game is changing and that our approach needs to be multifaceted:

1) Introducing a Universal Basic Income seems like one part of the solution.

2) Changing the goals of education is another.

3) And this is certainly controversial, but discussing overpopulation in some manner will also be necessary.

 

Could not disagree more strongly on 3.  I've said this controversial statement here before, the inverse of yours: There is no physical reason why the planet could not support a population of a trillion.  It simply can't be done with today's technology.

 

Agree on 2.

 

Agree on 1, but not within the next four or eight years.  We're talking generations, unfortunately.  Automation is good enough now to churn a lot of jobs, but not good enough to basically run an economy for 320 million with a workforce of zero (or, say, 10 million or less).  Remember, the gains of automation are expressed in terms of productivity, which is output per worker.  Suppose your target UBI is $30,000.  In a country of 400 million (which we will hit, barring a catastrophic war with another superpower), that's a $12 trillion annual ask.  How many workers does it take to produce $12 trillion?  That's your measure of how far automation has progressed to make it feasible.  The current labor force of 159M produces more than that, but not by much.  So even a 100-fold increase in productivity would still require a workforce of 2M to give a UBI of $30,000 in 2016 dollars to our entire projected population.  (And, of course, it's a natural psychological tendency to not just want what 2016 offers, but to expect that it will continue to get better, too.)  Our current productivity gain rate is basically flat.  Even if it were at an absurd level of 20%+, mathematically, it would still take a while for any baseline number to increase 100x at that rate of compounding.  And the real number even counting back through the 1990s to take in the tech boom has been nowhere near that.

 

The only problem you have is you are thinking in terms of the population of the USA, you need to think global. The number and ubi need to work for everyone on the planet.

 

Why?  Why should we be limited by what either Denmark, China, or Zimbabwe can or can't do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Erlich!

 

Possibly the most consistently incorrect person considered to be any kind of an "expert" during the last fifty years.

 

Look up the Ehrlich-Simon bet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If any union guys and working class Trump supporters were waiting for buyers remorse....here it comes!

 

Trump Launches Tweet Attack on Carrier Steel Union Boss for Fact-Checking Him

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-unable-ignore-critics-baselessly-attacks-carrier-union-boss-n693406?cid=sm_fb

 

The USW supported Hillary.  No surprise the union boss & Trump do not agree.  This really isn't a 'gotcha!' moment http://www.usw.org/news/media-center/releases/2016/usw-endorses-hillary-clinton

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The alternative view is that it allows that human labor to do other productive things.  The modern telephone didn't doom switchboard operators to lives of destitution.  Instead, it allowed them to work in new emerging fields. 

 

I love this line of thinking.  I can picture you as a corporate executive, calling people into your office, "Congratulations, Mr. Smith, after working for our company for 25 years we've decided to allow you to work in a new emerging field.  Good luck on your retraining, I hear you can take out student loans at very reasonable rates.  Actually, sir, I envy you.  It isn't everybody who gets to start a new career in their 50's!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If any union guys and working class Trump supporters were waiting for buyers remorse....here it comes!

 

Trump Launches Tweet Attack on Carrier Steel Union Boss for Fact-Checking Him

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-unable-ignore-critics-baselessly-attacks-carrier-union-boss-n693406?cid=sm_fb

 

The USW supported Hillary.  No surprise the union boss & Trump do not agree.  This really isn't a 'gotcha!' moment http://www.usw.org/news/media-center/releases/2016/usw-endorses-hillary-clinton

 

 

I don't know why it would be a gotcha moment.  But your attempted point is off-base regardless.  The guy the presumptive president elect has engaged in a rather childish sparring match is the president of Local 1099, which represents the Carrier plant workers.  USW is the national organization.  it has 12 district and each district has a multitude of locals (perhaps thousands).  I don't know hwo this local endorsed, but it is not bound by the national organization's endorsement.  A local FOP or IAFF, for instance, can endorse whomever they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The alternative view is that it allows that human labor to do other productive things.  The modern telephone didn't doom switchboard operators to lives of destitution.  Instead, it allowed them to work in new emerging fields. 

 

I love this line of thinking.  I can picture you as a corporate executive, calling people into your office, "Congratulations, Mr. Smith, after working for our company for 25 years we've decided to allow you to work in a new emerging field.  Good luck on your retraining, I hear you can take out student loans at very reasonable rates.  Actually, sir, I envy you.  It isn't everybody who gets to start a new career in their 50's!"

 

Granted moves within the labor market do get much harder with age, is the premise incorrect?  Or do you just find it emotionally unsatisfying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to get a Twitter account just to more easily see what crazy thing Trump is going to say next.

 

I'm so glad that winning the election hasn't caused him to slow down, at all. I'm looking forward to our president Tweeting jokes about Rosie O'Donnell between ordering drone strikes and issuing border wall plans. These are like modern day "fireside chats." They're very comforting in these hard times, these fireside Tweets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to get a Twitter account just to more easily see what crazy thing Trump is going to say next.

 

I'm so glad that winning the election hasn't caused him to slow down, at all. I'm looking forward to our president Tweeting jokes about Rosie O'Donnell between ordering drone strikes and issuing border wall plans. These are like modern day "fireside chats." They're very comforting in these hard times, these fireside Tweets.

 

Really?  Petulant cyber rants from a man to be seated in the most powerful post in the world is comforting to you?  Whatever floats your boat....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...