YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 34,262
yes it is as it illustrates the absurdity of the argument of "hey give me more of your money for my lame ass idea"
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're missing one more zero.
Oh yeah, I got drawn into another one where it was being implied that Mark Zuckerberg is a Marxist.
All that stuff is getting automated too. The data entry stuff in particular has been undergoing a silent automation revolution in the last few years for any sort of skilled or semi-skilled work.Besides, there are plenty of tasks that researchers need assistance with.. Filling out paperwork, data entry, wiring, installing/upgrading computer hardware, mixing chemicals to exact proportions, machine maintenance, carting things around, assisting the researcher, etc that anyone can do.
That isn't what he said at all.so what you are saying is people are incapable of adapting to the work environment so those of us that can should get taxed more, got it
What's going to happen over the next 20/50/100 years as more and more jobs are automated is EVERYONE'S BUSINESS.
Bill Gates article said:Gates believes that governments should tax companies’ use of them, as a way to at least temporarily slow the spread of automation and to fund other types of employment. It’s a striking position from the world’s richest man and a self-described techno-optimist who co-founded Microsoft, one of the leading players in artificial-intelligence technology. In a recent interview with Quartz, Gates said that a robot tax could finance jobs taking care of elderly people or working with kids in schools, for which needs are unmet and to which humans are particularly well suited. He argues that governments must oversee such programs rather than relying on businesses, in order to redirect the jobs to help people with lower incomes.
Its not that people can't adapt its that there will nothing to adapt to since the jobs will no longer exist.they are both saying people cannot adapt so lets tax the people that can since they are working.
Unless you're a robot factory owner, and you probably aren't, you won't pay anything for the sort of tax Gates is proposing.I do NOT WANT TO PAY ANY MORE TAXES
Unless you're a robot factory owner, and you probably aren't, you won't pay anything for the sort of tax Gates is proposing.
so you think that companies pay taxes eh? Think again... you as the consumer do... want to come up with a better position?
In my experience, people like YeuEmMaiMai are operating from an entirely different value system, so if what you're saying doesn't adhere to it, it has zero resonation. Most people can look at this situation and realize that if there are more people who need work than there are available jobs, something needs to be done to prevent massive poverty, starvation, economic collapse and upheaval, etc. Maybe this comes in the form of more taxes, maybe this comes from universal income, maybe it comes from something else. The point is, we need to figure out something or else things will get absolutely terrible for huge portions of the populace.That isn't what he said at all.
Stop being facetious.
See this is the part I would like to hear more of. The industrial revolution created tons of jobs because it opened all kinds of means of production that weren't possible before, and workers were needed to run and maintain the new industries popping up everywhere. So you may lose your job as a barrel maker, but instead got a job at the gear-making factory. We all know computers and the internet opened up countless opportunities and ways of doing things that weren't there before.Technological advances create workplace displacement...and opportunity. You're forgetting the opportunity part and also forgetting that reduced supply stimulates demand.
Under the tax Gates is proposing they definitely would. That the tax money would be redistributed directly back into the economy as make work jobs is a good thing and would help to keep the economy going.so you think that companies pay taxes eh?
I mean, OK. Let's say that what you say is true (hint: it's not) and we pay for that tax. In the end, it's to create jobs for people who lost their job due to automation. In turn, this will stimulate the economy... Which will stimulate compeition... Which will result in lower prices. Now, let's say that we don't want to pay taxes.
Those people will be left without jobs. The economy will (eventually) sink, and everything will get more expensive.
Hahahaha it doesn't get lost it gets spent back into the economy in one way or another. And social safety nets are one of the more productive ways to spend tax money since the poor spend everything they get.If the government TAKES money, that money (some or all) gets LOST to UNPRODUCTIVE uses compared to money which is UNTOUCHED by the government.
Robot factories are for more productive than ones that primarily use human labor. There was an article about this in the Front Page section of these very forums not too long ago about a Chinese factory that switched to near full automation and saw a 250% increase in productivity. I'm pretty sure you saw it already but here it is again: https://hardforum.com/threads/facto...-with-robots-production-rises-by-250.1924168/Perhaps lower prices would mean an increase demand which would stimulate more production. Gotta build that factory...
Not the new automation. Its different from old automation methods because it can do far more. The future will not be exactly like the past here dude.Technological advances create workplace displacement...and opportunity.
If you have no money then any cost is too much. Robot factory owners won't be able to afford to give their goods away.If there's competition, then the price paid for the widget would decrease.
Nope. They'll just the robots to build more robots kind've like how you can already do with some of the cheaper 3D printers. They'll even have them maintained, at least in part, by more robots by designing them to be unitized in construction which makes assembly and repair trivial. You'll still have a maintenance team of some sort but it'll be small and probably mobile to service the machines at different locations.Sure, widget factory workers would be unemployed, but robot factory workers would be hired to build the new robots.
Generally speaking taxes are taken from after operating expenses are deducted and on profits. If a company earns no profits it doesn't get taxed. Also Econ101 is just a introductory course and you need to know a hell of a lot more on this subject before you try commenting on it.taxes are a part of operating expenses.
He doesn't strike me as a principled Big L Libertarian in the vein of Block or Hoppe who actually respects the NAP or at least says they do. Just your typical self centered short sighted type that you find everywhere IRL and the internet.In his view, THE MOST IMPORTANT things are property rights and the non-aggression principle. So what's his is his, and what's yours is yours. NOTHING else is as important.
Name a non-social, low skill level, and repetitive task that a only a human can do that a robot can't that is also capable of employing millions of people.I refuse to be "held down" because of the fear that some other person cannot adapt to change.
Ideally the govt. works for the people's interests and if they want robot use taxed and that tax money spent to create make work jobs then their interests and needs are being met.diverting it from THEIR interests and USING if for GOVERNMENT interests
So long as wages go up in line with inflation then that is perfectly fine to an extent. There is such a thing as too much inflation but small consistent amounts of it over time are perfectly fine.or, the government CREATES more money (deficit spending) thereby REDUCING the value of EVERYONE ELSE'S money.
Many govt. ran organizations, such as Social Security or the USPS, cost less to run than private industry. Given the overhead in redistributive taxation is virtually nil (they're just moving money around electronically or they'd be mailing out checks which isn't expensive at all) and bureaucrats don't really make much money from the govt. directly I don't think you know what you're talking about.If the government takes $100 from me, then gives me $100 a month later, there are two costs: hidden costs of the bureaucracy needed to take, hold, then return the money; and the cost to me of not having that money for that period of time. That "opportunity" cost is typically ignored by Keynesians, yet it makes up a great part of the fallacy of Keynes' theory.
The banks would disagree with you.A social safety net is, by definition, "unproductive".
Okay, so you're coming at me with insults and can't answer the question huh? You're literally making the same argument I already addressed, like you didn't even read what I said. Again, I gave you an example of how it worked in the industrial revolution. You might lose your job as a barrel maker, but then get a new job making gears. Or lose your job as a seamstress, but then get a new job in a textile factory. With computers, the foresight was easy. The benefits of having databases in a world of filing, bureaucracy, and accounting were more than obvious, even at the time. You could get more work done and do more business. As the internet emerged, the ability to be able to coordinate work with people halfway across the planet was also obvious. As was being able to sell your product to a wider audience than the local shop. Of course we didn't envision everything, but there was plenty we DID envision right away, while the industry was shifting, so much it was obvious that there were many benefits as well. So again, what are all these opportunities you're talking about? You haven't named one. Surely, you can do that? Again, the whole POINT of robots is to REPLACE WORKERS. They don't even need to be more efficient, they just need to be cheaper.That's the level of hubris which is part of the falseness of Keynesianism (or any other directed economy).
Imagine 100+ years ago the disruptive effect on manufacturing caused by the introduction of the new internal combustion engine. "You'll put wagon makers out of business! Farriers will be put out on the street! Saddleries will close!" So, someone says, "Tell me what this will bring and how it will counteract the deleterious effects of its introduction."
Do you really think anyone could imagine the benefit of independent lawn businesses? (Lawns were NOT common back then.) Now, look around at the world and how all the labor performed by IC engines have freed humans to do more OTHER things.
Fearing change, control, taxation, and "list the benefits" is all part of the same failed philosophy.
Were wagon makers put out of business when the internal combustion engine became widespread? Hell yes. And it was good. I refuse to be "held down" because of the fear that some other person cannot adapt to change.
LOL taxes are taken after profits dude. If they try to crank up prices to adjust for taxes and improve profits they just pay more taxes. Then they go out of business, even if they're a monopoly, since no one can afford to buy their stuff anymore.Taxes are, indeed, passed on to the consumer.
Well to be devil's advocate, I don't think he's saying that the jobs you're talking about won't disappear, they will. He's saying people will have to adapt and get different jobs. I understand that logic, what I don't understand is where the hell are all these different jobs? If they're not here yet, at least what's on the horizon? What will at least some of them look like? All I'm seeing is less jobs overall.Name a non-social, low skill level, and repetitive task that a only a human can do that a robot can't that is also capable of employing millions of people.
If your answer is, "I don't know and somehow one will pop up because it always did in the past." then I'd say that is magical thinking.
Bear in mind that many white collar and mid level paper pushing desk jobs are also at high risk of automation too thanks to PI's. Sifting and collating data as well as data entry are going to be greatly impacted too.
Leftist always think taxing is the solution. This sudden surge in automation, especially outside manufacturing sectors, was a direct result of the minimum wage push from the left. So now they want to force automation to be more expensive so that companies will hire overpriced humans for the same job. The more likely scenario ends with the company closing its doors and everyone losing.
Exactly. There will be nothing to adapt to since robots will be able to fill all those niches and not everyone can go get a STEM degree or STEM job. Even now they can't!He's saying people will have to adapt and get different jobs. I understand that logic, what I don't understand is where the hell are all these different jobs? If they're not here yet, at least what's on the horizon? What will at least some of them look like? All I'm seeing is less jobs overall.
Personally I'm hoping the new milder housing bubble that has been going on for the last few years pops. Seems to be slowing down already but I've been wrong on timing these things before.Until the cost of living comes down (which it won't) humans need the wages that will give them a chance to survive in their surrounding environment.
Personally I'm hoping the new milder housing bubble that has been going on for the last few years pops. Seems to be slowing down already but I've been wrong on timing these things before.
oh if you say so....Generally speaking taxes are taken from after operating expenses are deducted and on profits. If a company earns no profits it doesn't get taxed. Also Econ101 is just a introductory course and you need to know a hell of a lot more on this subject before you try commenting on it.
If it starts this year you'll see a about a year long plateuing of prices before they really start to fall. Housing bubbles always play out real slow.I want to buy a house but I've been waiting to see if the prices will come down as well.
Yeah don't ever buy a pre-con. Those are always a rip off at your expense. Best bet if you can't wait for a bust is look for fixer uppers and vigorously low ball em'. Preferably bank owned fixer uppers. FSBO fixer uppers turn into a emotional shit show when you low ball them. Banks don't care so much since for them its all just business and they don't make money by holding properties for long.There's a few pre-cons around me but they're starting at $350,000 (Miami).
Eh I don't wish financial ruin on most anyone either but people hoping that their home will somehow pave their way to riches or at least a OK retirement were all just betting on the bubble. That just isn't reasonable.I don't wish for people to lose equity but prices are gradually inching up to pre-2008 levels. And with Dodd-Frank possible going away, oh boy....
If you had a source that said otherwise you would've posted it already so whatever man.oh if you say so....
Yeah don't ever buy a pre-con. Those are always a rip off at your expense. Best bet if you can't wait for a bust is look for fixer uppers and vigorously low ball em'. Preferably bank owned fixer uppers. FSBO fixer uppers turn into a emotional shit show when you low ball them. Banks don't care so much since for them its all just business and they don't make money by holding properties for long.
Ideally the govt. works for the people's interests and if they want robot use taxed and that tax money spent to create make work jobs then their interests and needs are being met.
So long as wages go up in line with inflation then that is perfectly fine to an extent. There is such a thing as too much inflation but small consistent amounts of it over time are perfectly fine.
Many govt. ran organizations, such as Social Security or the USPS, cost less to run than private industry. Given the overhead in redistributive taxation is virtually nil (they're just moving money around electronically or they'd be mailing out checks which isn't expensive at all) and bureaucrats don't really make much money from the govt. directly I don't think you know what you're talking about.
The banks would disagree with you.
If your wages go up in line with inflation you're not being "taxed". If your wages aren't going up with inflation that is a problem with your employer giving you a cut each year. Unless you're talking about min. wage then you can blame Congress if they don't increase it each year or don't just decide to index it permanently against inflation which is what they should've done decades ago.Inflation, by definition, robs my saved money of value. It forces a "tax" on me if I don't spend my money on products.
Which isn't due to mismanagement though. That is partially due to taxation issues (rich aren't being taxed enough) and crap economy for the past decade or so. If tax receipts are reduced so is the SS Fund income. If you compare SS to any annuity its easy to see that SS wins out big time in terms of safety and money returned. Which is how you're supposed to judge a retirement fund source BTW.Social Security is running a HUGE ("yuge" ) deficit.
That is because Congress forced them to front load their retirement debt on purpose to make them look bad. There was a big push from FedEx and UPS to try and privatize the USPS and it has largely failed because the USPS made some financial changes to help fund itself and because its also seen as a solid institution by the public so they've dropped it for now.Similarly, the USPS has $68 BILLION in liabilities against ~$23 BILLION in assets. In that same year, they had an operating DEFICIT of $5 BILLION.
I read up plenty on these issues. I think you should do more reading outside of Fox, Breitbart, or Infowars and actually apply a little critical thinking while you're at it too.I suggest, seriously, that you start researching these matters.
Foreclosure auctions and low balling bank owned repair job homes has nothing to do with the govt. The only "govt. intervention" that was mentioned was a refub loan (203K FHA).Every example of housing that you've giving are replete with government intervention
If its done properly I have no issue with the govt. giving me money taken from someone else. They have litterally done it all my life in one form or another and we would not have the society or industry we have today without govt. intervention and subsidies all paid for via taxation.How's that feel?