True, certain jobs that require a lot of interpretation, re-negotiating, etc.. won't be fully automated until strong AI exists.
But surprisingly, a lot of white collar jobs could be automated to a large degree, very soon. For example, Lawyers and Doctors often just follow a flow chart to arrive at an answer. That flow chart might be embedded in their brain due to 7-8 years of experience, but it could be written out in code very easily.
Or, maybe we could all just work fewer hours per week. Which would leave more time for, you know, living.
Or get paid more for the gains in efficiency. If it took 20 workers 100 years ago to make a car, and it takes 1 worker today, that worker should be making 20x pay adjusted for inflation, right?:) Of course not, all the money has gone to the top, hence why the US has huge wealth inequality.
But working less is nice. The problem, is what happens when you are working so few hours, that you don't earn enough to afford to eat? It would be nice if you made the same salary as your hours decreased, but that will never happen unless the Government mandates it through some sort of a salary floor. Which is why some European countries are already experimenting with universal basic income.
"The idea that all those people are just stay at home moms and kids and grandmas is just pure fantasy doled out by the corporate media."
So if you don't believe the "corporate media" go look up what sorts of populations are defined in all the "U" employment numbers. It isn't a secret. We have been measuring employment for the same way for a very long time.
Or, if you don't want to parse the Bureau of Labor Stats website, search for any site referring to things like U3, U5, U6 and has references to BLS. LIke http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate .
No, you have to be very intelligent. You spend a good chunk of your life learning about nothing but brain surgery.
Learning facts and what to do with them does not make your more intelligent. More importantly, being told what is true by professors of medicine for 8 years, concerning medicine, in no way gives you the skills necessary to evaluate new non-medical facts and data on your own years later after you get out of school.
Why would you? What ever made you think you could trust a doctor with a computer?
What makes you think we can trust a doctor to read and understand archaeological journals (or even just a scientific american article) so they can comment intelligently on the history of the pyramids? Hint: you can't.
You would be better off having a history, english/lit, or philosophy major, reading about the pyramids and then commenting on their history. At least those disciplines contain a lot of source evaluation practice.
Conservative minded people who think welfare is detrimental should research who is on it, how long they stay on it, what the conditions to get it are, etc.. Familiarize yourself with the facts from the actual stats published by reporting agencies, and I think you'll be surprised how "not detrimental" welfare is to society.
I only say that because I know a lot of conservatives who seem to be stuck in the Reagan era mindset that there are "welfare queens" milking the system with 20 kids for 50 years and never working once in their lives, and that this abuse is rampant and costing us a ton of money. That isn't true today and was likely never true.
You and I may be happy with this. But a lot of people will not. People need a sense of purpose; a desire to be needed; to be valuable. Some may find value in free time to pursue artistic endeavors; many will not.
I think you are seeing this backwards. From birth to probably a little bit after college, the majority of people are perfectly happy to amuse themselves with "hobbies", regardless of the wealth generation (or lack thereof) of those hobbies. And yeah, a hobby could be productive, but it doesn't need to be.
Only after working 9-5 for a few years (and likely becoming more and more responsible for themselves), do people start to forget how to naturally find curiosity or amusement in the moment. I know many adults that literally can't sit still for a 2 hour movie, they have to get up and fix something, or clean something. But those adults didn't used to be like that, they used to be able to immerse themselves in something creative or otherwise pleasurable for hours at a time.
So a universal income would allow many people to (likely gradually) return to that mindset they had when they were younger. Letting their mind go where it wants to, instead of having a constant stressful feeling that they need to "get something done".
I don't know if you care (few people seem to this election cycle) , but that "not working" number is a "lie" of sorts designed to support the narrative that the economy is in bad shape.
So by lie, I mean, it doesn't mean what people think it means. That large number includes children, stay at home moms, etc.. people that are not looking for work. And yes, that number has gotten larger in recent years, mainly because more baby boomers retired.
The standard unemployment rate is what we have used to gauge work force health for a long long time. Bringing in the "not working people" number was new to the Obama presidency, and hyped again during the election cycle.
I wonder what this''ll do for Trump's expectations.
Absolutely nothing. The vast majority of conservatives have been fed the misleading narrative that the economy is doing poorly and that lots of people are unemployed. Trump himself used numbers like 15-25% in speeches.
You also notice in this post there is no difference made between the right wing (most people in America) and the alt.right (a few thousand people). They are put together in the same bucket so that the odious beliefs of the alt.right may contaminate the entire right.
It is kind of hard to separate the two groups when the newly elected leader that the right wing chose, has himself appointed the self-proclaimed voice of the alt-right as his senior advisor. It is also pretty hard to separate the two groups, because the supposedly larger one (right wing) isn't calling out and condemning the alt-right's racists members.
I don't think I saw even one Trump rally where the audience booed or put down people saying or doing racist/homophobic things. In fact, quite the opposite. The crowd seemed to encourage it sometimes.
Before joining Trump's campaign as its CEO in August, Bannon served as executive chairman of Breitbart News, identifying his outlet this summer as “the platform for the alt-right,”
Sure, you can find Macedonian teenagers, and idiots in California who claim that "only conservatives fall for fake news" and that it "doesn't work with liberals" (...) but that's a side show.
Start here, and read it until you grasp what is going on:
Russian propaganda effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say
Does anyone have a real good sense of the ratio of people just out to make money vs Russia's more organized campaign? I haven't come across a break down of the fake news site owners yet.
The "jobs" argument for fossil fuels just doesn't make sense though.
It doesn't need to be true to be effective propaganda:)
Here's how a anti-agw/pro-oil "think tank" might make the case:
1. Renewable energy is more expensive, therefore 2. Cost of goods and services will rise, therefore 3. People spend less, the economy slows, therefore 4. less jobs.
Of course, in countries that are way more aggressive implementing renewables than the US, there has been no evidence of negative economic impacts. But those above 4 things "sound correct", so repeated enough times and half of America now believes them to be true.
"why are they JUST NOW making a big deal out of it?"
Because a way larger percent of the public is consuming those fake news stories now vs 8-16 years ago. And a higher percent of consumers of conservative media appear to be targeted with fake news vs liberal news. For instance, there are interviews with hackers/programmers/web designers in Macedonia who said that when they made fake news sites designed to entice Bernie supporters into viewing/clicking clicks, they got far fewer hits then when they created fake pro-Trump stories.
And in general the topic of truth in politics is now an issue because Trump lies so brazenly and blatantly. Even very easy to debunk stuff, like "you said X on this date". "No I didn't". Google X, first hit is Trump saying "X" on that date.
I don't like them either. But obviously the majority of people like them, because big companies like MS test the crap out of little features like that, with focus groups. usability studies, surveys, polls, etc..
We are not the target audience. (We, assuming you are a computer professional or geeky with computers like I am).
Read the actual email. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262
The CEO wasn't going to use Google's resources to spy/track/target voters for the campaign. He was donating his expertise as a private US citizen to help define what sorts of systems and digital strategies the campaign should build and use.
Or is Eric S. of Google no longer allowed to donate time to a campaign because he is the head of a large powerful company?
Is Google under an obligation to be neutral when it comes to politics? Is Koch Industries under an obligation to be neutral when it comes to politics?
Is it wrong for a private citizen (a ceo) to volunteer their skills to a campaign? I just read the actual email, and it doesn't sound like he was suggesting using Google's resources, but rather building a system for the campaign.
Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them. In 2016 smart phones will be used to identify, meet, and update profiles on the voter. A dynamic volunteer can easily speak with a voter and, with their email or other digital handle, get the voter videos and other answers to areas they care about ("the benefits of ACA to you" etc.)
The scenario includes a volunteer on a walk list, encountering a potential voter, updating the records real time and deepening contact with the voter and the information we have to offer.
Google search for months has provided biased results in search results and pre-fetching strings. Typing in "How do I vote" showed "For Hillary" as the top search entry for months, and Donald Trump did not show in the search results even if you typed in "for Donald" or "for Trump".
Has anyone done a statistically valid study of that claim? I've seen it tossed around, but the "evidence" I've seen are all anecdotes.
Is Google under an obligation to be neutral when it comes to politics? Is Koch Industries under an obligation to be neutral when it comes to politics?
This plan of spying on voters and recording their life history
Wrong. Read the email...
Is it wrong for a person (a ceo) to volunteer their skills to a campaign? I just read the actual email, and it doesn't sound like he was suggesting using Google's resources, but rather building a system for the campaign.
Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them. In 2016 smart phones will be used to identify, meet, and update profiles on the voter. A dynamic volunteer can easily speak with a voter and, with their email or other digital handle, get the voter videos and other answers to areas they care about ("the benefits of ACA to you" etc.)
The scenario includes a volunteer on a walk list, encountering a potential voter, updating the records real time and deepening contact with the voter and the information we have to offer.
Not shopping at a business is completely different than refusing service to someone as a business owner. We, as a country, decided a long time ago, that private business owners cannot refuse service to people based on specially protected attributes: race, religion, etc., and in many state constitutions, sexual orientation.
Would you defend cake-makers from refusing service to Christians? Or to women? Even if you say yes, it doesn't matter. It is completely illegal and has been for a long time. As an individual, I can choose to not shop at a store for any reason I want. Even if my reason is I hate stores that have blue paint on them. There are no laws that force me to treat businesses equally. If someone decides to not shop at a store because that store has a sign out front saying "I love trump", that is perfectly fine. Can you see the difference?
Here is a test for you: every time you think someone is being persecuted for refusing to serve a gay person, or refusing to marry a gay person, just replace the word gay with one of the other protected classes. Replace gay with "black", or with "christian", or with "female", and see if your argument still makes sense under the law.
You might want the laws changed to allow businesses to discriminate based on protected classes, but that is an entirely different argument.
You are claiming that 17 intelligence agencies have all colluded to deceive the American people? That seems like a much bigger claim than simply taking at face value that our intelligence agencies, men and women sworn to protect us, are telling the truth.
Or are you suggesting that I should have the actual intelligence data that intelligence agents used to make the decision that led to the statement: "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails" . Because if that is what you are claiming I should have before I decide to believe the intelligence agencies, that is frankly absurd. In what other highly specialized or classified field would you expect a layperson to have all the data before believing the specialist.. .
Look, I have a healthy skepticism about the truthfulness of intelligence, especially after the Iraq war, but when you do not have evidence, your default position should not be that there is a complex conspiracy. Occam's Razor.
Well, your statement was 8 days after the https://www.dni.gov statement was released, so I assume you had not seen it. Do you now consider that we have proof it was Russia? Curious.
Slashdot Mirror
True, certain jobs that require a lot of interpretation, re-negotiating, etc.. won't be fully automated until strong AI exists.
But surprisingly, a lot of white collar jobs could be automated to a large degree, very soon. For example, Lawyers and Doctors often just follow a flow chart to arrive at an answer. That flow chart might be embedded in their brain due to 7-8 years of experience, but it could be written out in code very easily.
Or, maybe we could all just work fewer hours per week. Which would leave more time for, you know, living.
Or get paid more for the gains in efficiency. If it took 20 workers 100 years ago to make a car, and it takes 1 worker today, that worker should be making 20x pay adjusted for inflation, right? :) Of course not, all the money has gone to the top, hence why the US has huge wealth inequality.
But working less is nice. The problem, is what happens when you are working so few hours, that you don't earn enough to afford to eat? It would be nice if you made the same salary as your hours decreased, but that will never happen unless the Government mandates it through some sort of a salary floor. Which is why some European countries are already experimenting with universal basic income.
"The idea that all those people are just stay at home moms and kids and grandmas is just pure fantasy doled out by the corporate media."
So if you don't believe the "corporate media" go look up what sorts of populations are defined in all the "U" employment numbers. It isn't a secret. We have been measuring employment for the same way for a very long time.
Or, if you don't want to parse the Bureau of Labor Stats website, search for any site referring to things like U3, U5, U6 and has references to BLS. LIke http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate .
No, you have to be very intelligent. You spend a good chunk of your life learning about nothing but brain surgery.
Learning facts and what to do with them does not make your more intelligent. More importantly, being told what is true by professors of medicine for 8 years, concerning medicine, in no way gives you the skills necessary to evaluate new non-medical facts and data on your own years later after you get out of school.
Why would you? What ever made you think you could trust a doctor with a computer?
What makes you think we can trust a doctor to read and understand archaeological journals (or even just a scientific american article) so they can comment intelligently on the history of the pyramids? Hint: you can't.
You would be better off having a history, english/lit, or philosophy major, reading about the pyramids and then commenting on their history. At least those disciplines contain a lot of source evaluation practice.
People who actually believe it are in the minority
That is an assumption. You overestimate the intelligence of the US public I think.
Conservative minded people who think welfare is detrimental should research who is on it, how long they stay on it, what the conditions to get it are, etc.. Familiarize yourself with the facts from the actual stats published by reporting agencies, and I think you'll be surprised how "not detrimental" welfare is to society.
I only say that because I know a lot of conservatives who seem to be stuck in the Reagan era mindset that there are "welfare queens" milking the system with 20 kids for 50 years and never working once in their lives, and that this abuse is rampant and costing us a ton of money. That isn't true today and was likely never true.
You and I may be happy with this. But a lot of people will not. People need a sense of purpose; a desire to be needed; to be valuable. Some may find value in free time to pursue artistic endeavors; many will not.
I think you are seeing this backwards. From birth to probably a little bit after college, the majority of people are perfectly happy to amuse themselves with "hobbies", regardless of the wealth generation (or lack thereof) of those hobbies. And yeah, a hobby could be productive, but it doesn't need to be.
Only after working 9-5 for a few years (and likely becoming more and more responsible for themselves), do people start to forget how to naturally find curiosity or amusement in the moment. I know many adults that literally can't sit still for a 2 hour movie, they have to get up and fix something, or clean something. But those adults didn't used to be like that, they used to be able to immerse themselves in something creative or otherwise pleasurable for hours at a time.
So a universal income would allow many people to (likely gradually) return to that mindset they had when they were younger. Letting their mind go where it wants to, instead of having a constant stressful feeling that they need to "get something done".
I'd rather pay a bit more in goods and services to cover the costs of reducing carbon emissions
That is an unfounded assumption that moving towards more renewable energy is going to make goods and services cost more.
I don't know if you care (few people seem to this election cycle) , but that "not working" number is a "lie" of sorts designed to support the narrative that the economy is in bad shape.
So by lie, I mean, it doesn't mean what people think it means. That large number includes children, stay at home moms, etc.. people that are not looking for work. And yes, that number has gotten larger in recent years, mainly because more baby boomers retired.
The standard unemployment rate is what we have used to gauge work force health for a long long time. Bringing in the "not working people" number was new to the Obama presidency, and hyped again during the election cycle.
I wonder what this''ll do for Trump's expectations.
Absolutely nothing. The vast majority of conservatives have been fed the misleading narrative that the economy is doing poorly and that lots of people are unemployed. Trump himself used numbers like 15-25% in speeches.
News without a profit motive is generally much better. Or listener supported independent media.
You also notice in this post there is no difference made between the right wing (most people in America) and the alt.right (a few thousand people). They are put together in the same bucket so that the odious beliefs of the alt.right may contaminate the entire right.
It is kind of hard to separate the two groups when the newly elected leader that the right wing chose, has himself appointed the self-proclaimed voice of the alt-right as his senior advisor. It is also pretty hard to separate the two groups, because the supposedly larger one (right wing) isn't calling out and condemning the alt-right's racists members.
I don't think I saw even one Trump rally where the audience booed or put down people saying or doing racist/homophobic things. In fact, quite the opposite. The crowd seemed to encourage it sometimes.
Before joining Trump's campaign as its CEO in August, Bannon served as executive chairman of Breitbart News, identifying his outlet this summer as “the platform for the alt-right,”
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/stephen-bannon-breitbart-backlash-231371
Sure, you can find Macedonian teenagers, and idiots in California who claim that "only conservatives fall for fake news" and that it "doesn't work with liberals" (...) but that's a side show.
Start here, and read it until you grasp what is going on:
Russian propaganda effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say
Does anyone have a real good sense of the ratio of people just out to make money vs Russia's more organized campaign? I haven't come across a break down of the fake news site owners yet.
The "jobs" argument for fossil fuels just doesn't make sense though.
It doesn't need to be true to be effective propaganda :)
Here's how a anti-agw/pro-oil "think tank" might make the case:
1. Renewable energy is more expensive, therefore
2. Cost of goods and services will rise, therefore
3. People spend less, the economy slows, therefore
4. less jobs.
Of course, in countries that are way more aggressive implementing renewables than the US, there has been no evidence of negative economic impacts. But those above 4 things "sound correct", so repeated enough times and half of America now believes them to be true.
"why are they JUST NOW making a big deal out of it?"
Because a way larger percent of the public is consuming those fake news stories now vs 8-16 years ago. And a higher percent of consumers of conservative media appear to be targeted with fake news vs liberal news. For instance, there are interviews with hackers/programmers/web designers in Macedonia who said that when they made fake news sites designed to entice Bernie supporters into viewing/clicking clicks, they got far fewer hits then when they created fake pro-Trump stories.
And in general the topic of truth in politics is now an issue because Trump lies so brazenly and blatantly. Even very easy to debunk stuff, like "you said X on this date". "No I didn't". Google X, first hit is Trump saying "X" on that date.
Nobody likes the ribbons.
I don't like them either. But obviously the majority of people like them, because big companies like MS test the crap out of little features like that, with focus groups. usability studies, surveys, polls, etc..
We are not the target audience. (We, assuming you are a computer professional or geeky with computers like I am).
Read the actual email. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262
The CEO wasn't going to use Google's resources to spy/track/target voters for the campaign. He was donating his expertise as a private US citizen to help define what sorts of systems and digital strategies the campaign should build and use.
Or is Eric S. of Google no longer allowed to donate time to a campaign because he is the head of a large powerful company?
Is Google under an obligation to be neutral when it comes to politics?
Is Koch Industries under an obligation to be neutral when it comes to politics?
Is it wrong for a private citizen (a ceo) to volunteer their skills to a campaign? I just read the actual email, and it doesn't sound like he was suggesting using Google's resources, but rather building a system for the campaign.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262
b) The Voter
Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all
that is known about them. In 2016 smart phones will be used to identify,
meet, and update profiles on the voter. A dynamic volunteer can easily
speak with a voter and, with their email or other digital handle, get the
voter videos and other answers to areas they care about ("the benefits of
ACA to you" etc.)
The scenario includes a volunteer on a walk list, encountering a potential
voter, updating the records real time and deepening contact with the voter
and the information we have to offer.
Google search for months has provided biased results in search results and pre-fetching strings. Typing in "How do I vote" showed "For Hillary" as the top search entry for months, and Donald Trump did not show in the search results even if you typed in "for Donald" or "for Trump".
Has anyone done a statistically valid study of that claim? I've seen it tossed around, but the "evidence" I've seen are all anecdotes.
Is Google under an obligation to be neutral when it comes to politics?
Is Koch Industries under an obligation to be neutral when it comes to politics?
This plan of spying on voters and recording their life history
Wrong. Read the email...
Is it wrong for a person (a ceo) to volunteer their skills to a campaign? I just read the actual email, and it doesn't sound like he was suggesting using Google's resources, but rather building a system for the campaign.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262
b) The Voter
Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all
that is known about them. In 2016 smart phones will be used to identify,
meet, and update profiles on the voter. A dynamic volunteer can easily
speak with a voter and, with their email or other digital handle, get the
voter videos and other answers to areas they care about ("the benefits of
ACA to you" etc.)
The scenario includes a volunteer on a walk list, encountering a potential
voter, updating the records real time and deepening contact with the voter
and the information we have to offer.
jmac_the_man and operagost
You are confusing entirely separate things.
Not shopping at a business is completely different than refusing service to someone as a business owner. We, as a country, decided a long time ago, that private business owners cannot refuse service to people based on specially protected attributes: race, religion, etc., and in many state constitutions, sexual orientation.
Would you defend cake-makers from refusing service to Christians? Or to women? Even if you say yes, it doesn't matter. It is completely illegal and has been for a long time. As an individual, I can choose to not shop at a store for any reason I want. Even if my reason is I hate stores that have blue paint on them. There are no laws that force me to treat businesses equally. If someone decides to not shop at a store because that store has a sign out front saying "I love trump", that is perfectly fine. Can you see the difference?
Here is a test for you: every time you think someone is being persecuted for refusing to serve a gay person, or refusing to marry a gay person, just replace the word gay with one of the other protected classes. Replace gay with "black", or with "christian", or with "female", and see if your argument still makes sense under the law.
You might want the laws changed to allow businesses to discriminate based on protected classes, but that is an entirely different argument.
You are claiming that 17 intelligence agencies have all colluded to deceive the American people? That seems like a much bigger claim than simply taking at face value that our intelligence agencies, men and women sworn to protect us, are telling the truth.
Or are you suggesting that I should have the actual intelligence data that intelligence agents used to make the decision that led to the statement: "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails" . Because if that is what you are claiming I should have before I decide to believe the intelligence agencies, that is frankly absurd. In what other highly specialized or classified field would you expect a layperson to have all the data before believing the specialist.. .
Look, I have a healthy skepticism about the truthfulness of intelligence, especially after the Iraq war, but when you do not have evidence, your default position should not be that there is a complex conspiracy. Occam's Razor.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Sagan
Well, your statement was 8 days after the https://www.dni.gov statement was released, so I assume you had not seen it. Do you now consider that we have proof it was Russia? Curious.
Isn't it pretty hard to jam a drone as is?
https://www.quora.com/Are-military-drones-affected-by-jamming
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement
So you are claiming that our intelligence agencies are lying to get is in a war with Russia?
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement