Is Technology About to Decimate White-Collar Work?

Can't believe all the pessimist that see nothing but doom and gloom due to technology.
I see higher standards of living, and more free time in the future.

It's not about seeing nothing but doom and gloom due to technology. It's about seeing doom and gloom due to the basics of human nature. And I wouldn't call it pessimism either. Pessimism usually looks at the worst case scenario. If you take a look at human nature based on past occurrences, it will tend to be a heavily negative view portrayed onto a future outlook.
 
Glad I'm in the printing industry. It costs too much to ship a 2000lb roll overseas to outsource. And I don't see AI coming into play anytime soon ss far as losing jobswise. The human eye is still better at catching color errors and troubleshooting than AI currently can. Plus just the cost to invest in something that could alone would be very prohibitive.
 
All decisions in Canada are online, as are all Acts, and they're considered valid. There are a number of states that have this capability as well.

More recent stuff is, but previous cases generally are not. Last 2 times i paid lawyers, 90% of my money went to their legal assistants manually searching crap in the law library.
 
More recent stuff is, but previous cases generally are not. Last 2 times i paid lawyers, 90% of my money went to their legal assistants manually searching crap in the law library.

That's referred to as "padding". They have computers in the law library for research. You can get citings from 1867's Constitution Act or SCC decisions back to 1876 if you like. Generally, using century-old precedents isn't common outside of a decision that's being pumped up for possible inclusion in future texts. You can see the scope of the DB at https://www.canlii.org/en/databases.html
 
I think we're probably just disagreeing on terms. What you're talking about sounds more like the establishment left / liberals, etc. and yes, they're a big part of the problem. What I particularly hate is so much focus on identity politics issues while simultaneously sweeping critical ones under the rug. Real progressives are issue focused and resorting to name calling and smearing is considered detrimental. Solving actual fucking problems is what counts. If they're going to attack someone politically, then it's because of their actions / platforms and how it can be shown to harm people, not because they said something stupid one time or aren't polite.

Actual progressives have very little power and representation in America. The establishment left honestly tries to bury them more than the right, since they represent more of a threat to the status quo. Someone like Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, I would call progressives. I would say Bernie Sanders except he continually throws in with the Democrats party which have become decisively NOT progressive on many issues. What you're talking about sounds more like the Hillary / Pelosi / Schumer camp of the left. If you consider those progressives, then I don't know what you call the former. Again, we could just be disagreeing on the word used. It seems like anything can mean anything now.
Jill Stein is "exactly" what I am referring to when I speak of progressives. She is on the wrong side of every issue. She would destroy the middle-class and create a giant underclass. Because of time constraints I cannot address every issue but we can look at something you pointed out in an earlier post.

Do you think removing the Great Depression era regulation on Wall Street didn't pave the way for the 2008 crash?
No... removing those regulations had virtually no impact on the 2008 crash.

I was following the lead up to the crash "very" closely. In February of 2008, after the bursting of the housing bubble, Martin Wolfe of the UK Financial Times wrote an article speculating that the true source of global financial instability was "macroeconomic turbulence" caused by the disparity of the Chinese yuan with western currencies. If the Chinese yuan was under-valued than the dollar (and the euro) were over-valued relative to the yuan. At the time President Bush was advancing economic policies to weaken the dollar the European Union were pursing policies to strengthen the euro. These policies created a "euro bubble" and the capital created by the over-valued euro sparked an "oil bubble". People were speculating that the euro would over-take the dollar as the premiere global currency and likewise it was predicted that oil could hit $200.00 a barrel. Note the "peak oil" theory was at the height of it's advocacy. Virtually everybody was predicting this was the new normal and not a dangerous bubble.

the-year-of-2008-eur-usd-exchange-rates-history-graph.png


GraphEngine.ashx


If one looks at the hourly prices it will be discovered that the decline in the Euro and the price of oil began on the same day and the same hour suggesting a "very" strong correlation. The bursting of the Euro and Oil bubble caught everybody by surprised and the evaporation of capital investments in the Euro currency and oil commodity resulted in the lose of trillions of dollars in a very short period of time and depleted the financial reserves of the world's major banks.

Mismanagement by the Europeans of the Euro was the primary cause of the 2008 crash not ending regulation of Wall Street. Jill Stein advocates economic policies that closely mirror those of "progressive" European countries. Rejecting these neo-marxist economic polices and returning to traditional American policies has the greatest probability of ensuring continued middle-class prosperity.
 
Last edited:
Jill Stein is "exactly" what I am referring to when I speak of progressives. She is on the wrong side of every issue. She would destroy the middle-class and create a giant underclass. Because of time constraints I cannot address every issue but we can look at something you pointed out in an earlier post.

No... removing those regulations had virtually no impact on the 2008 crash.

I was following the lead up to the crash "very" closely. In February of 2008, after the bursting of the housing bubble, Martin Wolfe of the UK Financial Times wrote an article speculating that the true source of global financial instability was "macroeconomic turbulence" caused by the disparity of the Chinese yuan with western currencies. If the Chinese yuan was under-valued than the dollar (and the euro) were over-valued relative to the yuan. At the time President Bush was advancing economic policies to weaken the dollar the European Union were pursing policies to strengthen the euro. These policies created a "euro bubble" and the capital created by the over-valued euro sparked an "oil bubble". People were speculating that the euro would over-take the dollar as the premiere global currency and likewise it was predicted that oil could hit $200.00 a barrel. Note the "peak oil" theory was at the height of it's advocacy. Virtually everybody was predicting this was the new normal and not a dangerous bubble.

the-year-of-2008-eur-usd-exchange-rates-history-graph.png


GraphEngine.ashx


If one looks at the hourly prices it will be discovered that the decline in the Euro and the price of oil began on the same day and the same hour suggesting a "very" strong correlation. The bursting of the Euro and Oil bubble caught everybody by surprised and the evaporation of capital investments in the Euro currency and oil commodity resulted in the lose of trillions of dollars in a very short period of time and depleted the financial reserves of the world's major banks.

Mismanagement by the Europeans of the Euro was the primary cause of the 2008 crash not ending regulation of Wall Street. Jill Stein advocates economic policies that closely mirror those of "progressive" European countries. Rejecting these neo-marxist economic polices and returning to traditional American policies has the greatest probability of ensuring continued middle-class prosperity.
I doubt we're going to come to much agreement, but I guess if you insist it was the Euro and the merging of commercial and investment banking combined with the reckless subprime housing market had nothing to do with the crash, then so be it.

As for oil, unless you honestly believe in abiotic oil (in which case, you win, I'm not even going to debate that), it's as much a theory as gravity is. We have already peaked on conventional oil output, look it up. The reason overall production hasn't dropped is because of technological development like frakking opened up prepreviously inaccessible reserves. That's kicked the can down the road, but there's all kinds of variables at play in determining how long.
 
I doubt we're going to come to much agreement, but I guess if you insist it was the Euro and the merging of commercial and investment banking combined with the reckless subprime housing market had nothing to do with the crash, then so be it.

As for oil, unless you honestly believe in abiotic oil (in which case, you win, I'm not even going to debate that), it's as much a theory as gravity is. We have already peaked on conventional oil output, look it up. The reason overall production hasn't dropped is because of technological development like frakking opened up prepreviously inaccessible reserves. That's kicked the can down the road, but there's all kinds of variables at play in determining how long.
The housing market crashed nearly a full year before the banking crisis while the crash of the euro and oil occurred just two months before the crash. The increase in exports (aprox. 10% of GDP) during the first half of 2008 easily compensated for the crash of the housing market (aprox 5% of GDP). The euro and oil crash "dwarfed" the housing crash. Blaming the 2008 crash on banking deregulation is illogical but it does make for advancing a radical political agenda.

IMO our knowledge of the origin of oil is theoretical at best and somewhat moot. The use of petroleum as a source of energy is relatively new and only dates back a little over 120 years. According to estimates the global supply of petroleum should last 50 to 100 years. There is a reasonable probability that a new form of energy can be developed within that time-frame. While the current generation of electric vehicles are laughingly primitive, and the battery technology completely inadequate, it is reasonable to speculate that improvements can be made within that 50 - 100 year time frame. Nuclear Fusion and clean fuels like HE3 could be the future.

Regardless... One cannot really appreciate one's thesis without complete understanding of the anti-thesis. Marx speculated that progress to a pure Marxist state would be occur in stages. A capitalist society would transform into a form of socialist capitalism until the government absorbed all private ownership of business and become a communist state and finally the government would whither away leaving people in a worker's paradise. Communist Russia, China and today North Korea were all totalitarian states.

It would therefore be a Marxist progression for a Nationalist, Capitalist State to begin adding Socialist policies into law. Ironically a large central government that manages and regulates privately owed industry in order to promote a socialistic nation is by definition Fascism. Socialist Europe today is both more socially and economically unstable. That has been the history of world for tens of thousands of years. Warlords, Kings, and tyrants. Feudalism, Communism, Fascism. For of history most men and women have been ruled over by a very few. For brief periods of time there have been small isolated exceptions. The Athenians, the early Roman's, the Iroquois. History's few shining moments have not been communist or socialist; they have been examples of Republics or Democracies.

Why turn away from this path? Why follow the example of histories greatest failures? American's have a proven model for success and prosperity, that will build a large powerful middle-class, and will promote innovation and enterprise of the highest order. Why reject the teachings and practices of our past generations? If, in order to increase the populations of mainstream Americans, there is need of societal change why not tweak the system rather than replace it?

Jill Stein, Obama, Sanders are radicals. <joda>More attractive the alternative is</yoda>
 
UBI.

If you follow things to their conclusion its the only thing that makes sense.

It only makes sense if you have no idea how the money distributed as UBI is to be generated by the reduced workforce. (Hint: it doesn't, therefore it can't.)
 
Back
Top