As to your first point, anything that rewards or advantages behavior encourages it.
Anything that penalizes or disadvantages it, discourages it.
It is a fundamental principle that sounds so simple it can't be a rule and yet like so many things we rely on every day... its entirely sound.
As to a frictionless market, nothing I said required no transaction costs.
As to there being no change for the poor, given that I just pointed out people went from feudal peonage to the given status in our society that statement is at best a confession you didn't read my post.
So the argument is that its determining race based on address, name, previous employment history, and education history...
Explain this to me.
Are you saying it doesn't hire people from a certain neighborhood?
Are you saying the program is not hiring people based on their name?
Because either of those seems unlikely frankly.
Now, not hiring someone for lacking job experience is not racism or racial proxy data. Its merely a sensible criteria to hire someone. You want the best employees you can get. An experienced employee is generally better. No?
As to educational background... I'm a little confused about this one. Are you suggesting that hiring or not hiring someone using education data is racist? Because if it is... then why bother with education at all? We'll just hire anyone.
Do you want a doctor with no medical education? A lawyer with no law degree?
Because apparently hiring or not hiring someone on the basis of their education is apparently racist now.
Try again. They do not use address or name information to choose who to hire or not to hire. The algorithms have been examined actually. They have been demanded in court cases. And on examination they didn't do any of that.
What they did was look at job experience and education. Its a bot. Is your argument seriously that the program looks up a name and address, does a look up on the address to find out if it is in a demographically black or whatever area... and then just doesn't hire if it gets a hit?
Is that honestly your argument? Because that can be easily disproven and then you have to eat crow.
Here is the cold grim reality... The "ai" is just filtering on work experience and education. That isn't racist. And again, if you presume to say it is... then please accept medical treatment by this guy with no medical degree.
Everyone wants competent workers except people like YOU that neither care about other people having to deal with incompetent workers nor have the empathy to appreciate how annoying you'd find it if you were saddled with that same situation.
The evidence of your hypocrisy is that you wouldn't tolerate an incompetent worker IF they were serving you. Would you like an electrician with no training or a plumber with no training? How about a vet to take care of your sick dog that knows nothing about how to treat sick animals?
You wouldn't even tolerate it to treat your dog.
That is your "real" position. Everything else is pathetic virtue signaling and hypocrisy.
No they don't. The robots are not programmed to find race and are often not aware of it as a concept in the first place.
If you give a robot a series of resumes and tell it to look for what you want in an employee... the robot has been given no notion of what race even is in the first place.
But you know what... I'll bite.
Cite the racial proxy data that they might use as an example.
Cite your source. I pulled one of out the air... its not hard. I am aware of per district spending across the US. You are not.
Do you know what is the highest spending school district per capita in California? Bet you don't.
Do you know which portion of Connecticut spends the least? Bet you don't.
Your position is based on ignorance. I've seen more than enough information which I've gone through in depth to know this for a fact.
But because you are making an ignorant statement and presuming to be in the know... I think you're going to have to be put in a position where your ignorance is obvious... even to you.
So... in service of what I believe is the only constructive course of action in this argument... please cite a source.
And know that when you do, you'll still be ignoring that spending on education has no correlation with achievement. Something which you're attempting to evade by citing other countries when it clearly is irrelevant. Within the US alone we can see there is no correlation. Changing the subject and refusing to acknowledge that money =/= performance in education is frankly dishonorable in this discussion. You are showing a lack of integrity.
Please address the lack of correlation and concede. Its been checkmate since the first post.
Having problems at point of employment isn't a reason to hire you anyway.
Do you want a doctor that didn't get decent grades in medical school? Most people never go to medical school at all.. would you like a doctor that spent ZERO time studying medicine?
If you would prefer competent doctors then you desire merit based employment.
I'm not saying anywhere that I think we shouldn't try to help communities with problems. However, I think it is also racist to look at these communities racially. Rather you should focus on other more important factors.
Did they come from a single parent house hold? Did they come from a troubled neighborhood? Was there drug abuse in the house hold? Was there positive reinforcement of good study habits etc in the child's household.
These things ultimately determine if there will be problems. Not the race of the individual. To suggest otherwise is to presume that given races are inferior.
I made the point above that your position is actually inherently racist. You wish to classify people on the basis of race.
Are there f'ups from every race? Yep. Are there high achievers from every race? Yep.
Focus on what separates the one from the other and you might actually help people.
Focusing on race will help no one. You will doom those you presume to help to continuing poverty by not addressing the underlying problems in given communities that lead to failure. What is more, your entire concept requires that we hire empirically incompetent people to do jobs. Which you will hypocritically assign to other people or other jobs you don't care about whilst betraying your supposed values by requiring merit based employment when it might actually affect you.
I like that you tried to start your argument with an ad hominem.
Let me try one on you which would be only fair.
I think you're also white, spoiled, feel inferior to your peers, and are attempting to play these pathetically constructed moralistic games as some sort of ploy to claw your way up a social hierarchy.
People like you hurt the people you presume to defend. You're a parasite. You feed upon the suffering of others and use it to humble your opposition and aggrandize yourself. You have nothing positive to offer this situation. And your insecurity is likely very well deserved.
I want everyone to succeed and for society to work. You didn't even read my argument before you dogmatically responded to it. You are no better than the foaming fundamentalists of bygone times that would thump the cover of a book they couldn't even read.
See? I can play this game too... and I'm better at it.
the robots in many cases aren't even aware of your race or gender so how are they going to select against your race and gender?
They're clearly NOT deciding on that factor as they literally can't because they're literally not given that variable most of the time.
What they decide upon are your qualifications. Now if the most qulaified people tend to be from group X or Y then that isn't racism to predominantly hire people from those groups. Statistically if you limit the population being examined to those with the qualifications there is no statistical variance in hiring patterns. You only see a statistical variance if you IGNORE qualifications. Which is idiotic because the entire point of setting an AI on hiring people or hiring someone to hire people is to have them filter the people hired based on relevant criteria.
What these "robot HR is racist" arguments ultimately are requesting is lottery based hiring. Where in random people in society are randomly hired for given jobs indifferent to qualifications.
Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut is a dystopian society where this concept was applied to its logical conclusion. Everyone is forced to be equal. The clever are made to be stupid so they enjoy no advantage over the stupid. The strong are made to be weak. The graceful are made to be clumsy. The beautiful are made to be ugly. Employment in everything is determined by literal lottery. Total chance. Everything from the police to the president to your doctors to whatever.
It is a nightmare society.
The robots are not racists. The plaintiffs are equalitarian intersectional communists in most cases. The sort of people that advocate bad ideas that if applied lead to the society starving to death.
Any group that votes for that deserves the consequences without mercy. And to be very clear... that happens properly anywhere and those able to do better will leave. You'll be left with an incompetent rabble that simply couldn't do better anywhere else. Poverty and failure is the best you can expect. Literally starving to death is quite likely. Cannibalism is not off the table.
To be shortsighted is to be a fool... the very nature of wisdom is to appreciate things in "time". The wise course is the one that will survive and thrive in time... and longer and more sustainable a policy is... the more it thrives in the fullness of time... the wiser it is.
Not disagreeing with you at all you understand... agreeing with you wholeheartedly. Such policies are the opposite of wisdom... foolish... ignorant... barbaric... simpleminded.
it clearly isn't inflated as the college debt issue makes extremely clear.
What is more, we can compare funds that go to the public school system. The money to those institutions are not inflated. And then divide by the student body.
That is how you get those numbers.
Now you are correct and also repeating what I said if you wish to say that funding to teachers does not exactly correlate with funding to a school district or funding to a professor etc.
That is true.
However, again... I literally said that and that was literally my primary point regarding reform. Cut down staff at school districts and colleges that are not teachers and professors. Reduce the ratio of administrators to teachers. The number should not exceed 1:10 at the highest and currently it is rarely below 1:1.
What is more and this really has to be conceded... there is no correlation between spending and academic achievement.
The worst performing areas in the US tend to be urban inner city schools. The best performing schools are often suburban and rural. Funding can be the same, higher in one, lower in the other... and it won't matter.
In New York for example funding per pupil is about 24 thousand dollars per student throughout the entire state of New York. That means everyone from Manhattan to upstate new york is getting about the same amount of money spent on their kids per pupil. Achievement despite equality in funds tends to fluctuate wildy from community to community.
I can show you areas with very poor performance that get a lot of money and areas that get very little that have very high performance. And these are not outliers. There is literally no correlation.
If you "actually" care about the students then increasing funding is not a helpful position. Reform is all you've got if you actually want to help. The studies on this have been exhaustive and definitive. Accept the results of the dice or don't play the game.
there is a 30 year cycle in commodities... They go up they go down.
If you base your income on this then your income will go up and down over 30 years... to balance it out you'll have to cache high prices from the high point to pay for low prices in the low point.
Do you honestly think the government has the discipline to do that? Because the trillion dollar deficits we're running right now argue empirically otherwise.
And this is really my problem with this UBI/UBA talk... its stupid. That isn't an insult. It is dumb in the same way that trying to knock a wall down with your forehead is stupid. If I were to say as much about the man trying to knock a wall down with his forehead... again not about him but rather about the concept... I don't think many people would take that as a personal attack or an insult against the man himself. Rather it would be seen as a fairly self evident judgement of a clearly flawed strategy.
There are so many reasons why something like that would make no sense or would be counter productive or short sighted etc.
And likewise that is the case with UBI and UBA. It makes no sense. I've detailed in some depth why that is above. You can consult my post to appreciate my argument. It makes no sense. Its a dumb idea. And before you complain about me not explaining that in this post, consider that I did just directly reference the previous posts that did explain it. So that is not a valid complaint against this post since it is ultimately a request that I repeat information you have access to and have not responded to. Kindly address the argument laid out in depth above.
As to spending, we're spending more on education than we ever have... and spend more on education than any other country per capita.
What is more there is no correlation in US education achievement statistics between spending and grades.
There are areas in the US that spend very lavishly on education that have very low scores and areas that spend very little and have very high scores.
Education stats are more predictive on demographic levels. That is... population density... region... region of city... economic and academic achievement of parents... associated cultural groups... whether the child comes from a single parent house hold... is the single parent a single mother or a single father... etc.
What is spent on teachers has no correlative relationship with higher or lower scores or academic achievement. There are areas in the US that spend 7 thousand dollars per student that have very high test scores and areas that spend 24 or 35 thousand per student that have very low test scores.
I should point out further that even 7 thousand is actually lots of money to run a public education system but is considered to be on the very low end nationally. Consider 20 to 30 children in a class room times 7 thousand. 140 thousand for 20 students or 210 thousand for 30. Per year.
That's more than enough for a private school to manage the kids and you know damn well that a million companies would be beating on your door competing to get that contract.
Instead we have a state run system where that money is mostly wasted on administrators. For every teacher how many administrators are there? It varies but it is rarely better than 1:1 ratio which is absurd.
We can fix the education system but those fixes are matters of reform and not funding increases. The funding is already excessive in most cases.
And this is ignoring the colleges and universities which have increasingly become a national scandal with their geometrically rising tuition costs. Again, with no correlative increase in the quality of education as the price of education doubles and doubles and doubles again.
It used to be in the US that a University student could pay for their tuition by working a part time job and graduate debt free.
If you look at what university professors are paid, you can see that that is easily obtainable right now simply by assessing what the students actually use on campus, what they're actually interested in obtaining from the college/university, and limiting their fees to specifically those services.
What the students want generally... when push comes to shove... is to learn something and get a degree that is recognized by wider society as having some value to assist them with the rest of their lives.
Colleges and universities are widely regarded to be failing in this matter despite doubling costs. Where is the money going? Not into professors. If you look at what professors are paid now vs what they were paid 50 years ago and adjust for inflation they're often making LESS than they were back then. And yet costs are doubling and doubling and doubling. Where is the money going?
And instead of reforming this... the cry is always and ever more for more and more and more money.
To claim we should throw more gasoline on this dumpster fire is to proclaim ignorance of the issue, indifference to reality, or blatant corruption.
That it is taxed already was something I said in the very post you're quoting from so I'm not sure who you think you're informing of anything.
Address perhaps my point here. If you increase the taxes on property to pay for your project then that is a tax ON TOP of the existing taxes on construction and land use and land purchases etc. And it is a large tax at that. This moves it beyond the current circumstance because you're talking about more than doubling that tax at the very least.
What is more there is no link between the mouths you wish to feed and the source of their sustenance.
The majority of the population currently sustains themselves by associating their labor or their ownership or their something with their sustanance. It scales. The more mouths the more wealth and so balance is maintained.
This UBA system has no such scaling association. Consider the issue mathematically and logically. You can clearly see that in the one case there is a scaling association where an increase in the mouths is associated with an increase in production and wealth which can feed those mouths.
Under this UBA system there is no scaling association. What is more you are disincentivizing the very thing that your mouths would rely upon. The higher the tax the greater disincentive. And that discourages exploitation which lowers the number of resources that can be tapped. This will require you to either lower compensation in your UBA or increase the tax further which will further disincentivize exploitation... which leads to a negative feed back effect.
And that is naturally entirely different to the matter that even if there is no direct disincentive... which there logically would have to be... but if we ignore that as an issue for the sake of argument it still doesn't work because growth in your mouths has no correlative growth in exploitation of land use. There may be SOME... but it doesn't scale 1:1 and so you get an imbalance.
The concept is logically unsound.
Abandon your ideology for just a moment... for the sake of argument... at the behest of the devil's advocate... simply consider the issue logically. It doesn't work.
You need a system that directly associates supply with demand. The market does that through price discovery. How does your UBA system address scarcity? How does it encourage production? How does it disincentivize or incentivize consumption?
The systems that the proponents of the UBI and UBA appear to wish to replace are more complex and immutable than is appreciated. Market economies existed in the Soviet Union, exist now in maximum security prisons, and exist even in places like North Korea. Often these markets are "black markets" but the market itself makes no such distinction. That is a legal and ethical matter which is irrelevant to core market principles.
The whole post scarcity economy concept is anti-intellectual in that it is willfully ignorant of history, indifferent to logical flaw, hostile to empirical contradiction, and ultimately a victim of the same pseudo logic that renders things like Creationism non-credible.
You're talking about charging people for the land itself? The literal space? We already have property taxes in most states... and we have some notion of people with deeds owning the land they paid for... how would you leverage the land itself?
Any time you inhabit land you have to pay a fee to the government to build anything on it? Say your home or business whatever that might be? And that means what to the UBI or UBA? The idea that those that want to build anything anywhere must pay those can't afford to or have no inclination to build anything?
would that not discourage building? All taxes discourage what they tax just as all subsidies encourage what they subsidize.
Do you want to discourage ownership of property, the building of homes, the building of businesses?
As I said in my first post... there is a series of problems here. And it is pretty much certain you won't solve all of them and each one is fatal. Which means its a non-starter or simply lethal on application sooner or later depending on if you get stopped by the early problems or suffer crushing consequences if you solved the first ones and then got so invested in the error that by the time the long term problems showed up you couldn't get out cleanly.
In any case... clarify your point. Two word responses are not at best vague.
The example of Alaska is poor because naturally many states don't have resources that can be leveraged to provide 2000 dollars to each resident per year.
What is more, even alaska's oil reserves are finite. What happens when that runs out? And it will.
And it gets worse... you have to concede that this would just go federal... where in all national resources would go into some sort of federal pot to be spit up. But that's no good because once divided you won't have enough. Do the math.
But its worse than that because even if you did have enough... it would again be finite.
And worse than that because even if it weren't finite there would still be market fluctuation that would cause the pay out to change. That payout change would render the UBA unreliable. If you cached extra funds in good years to level out the payment in bad years then the payment would be more reliable but down turns or upturns in the commodities markets can last decades. Are you going to cache reserves to last decades? Come now.
And it gets worse because even if you didn't have any of those problems subsidizing the population in this manner would almost certainly lead to run away consumption. It would not be in the interest of the public to have population growth because that would be more mouths to divide the money between. And yet the UBA or UBI or really any radical expansion in the welfare system would encourage people to join just to suck at the tit.
It gets worse than that too because our agency in our republics is directly related to our economic logistical utility to the society. It was that increase in logistical utility that ended the rule of the nobles. Old Feudal style economies were not competitive because societies that did not grant agency to their valuable workers were not competitive. Economics is largely a question of motivating people. If individuals have more leverage then they must be bargained with to motivate them to work. If their labor is of no value then they have no leverage. The UBI and UBA concepts argue that large portions of the population will be of no value. One must hope that doesn't happen because if it does and the situation sustains throughout time then it is inevitable that they'll suffer extreme tyranny and possibly genocide.
The UBI and UBA are at best... death sentences... they are a suicide pact. At best. At worst they fail for screwing up an almost endless list of economic problems that are pretty obvious. But assuming you can deal with that, the ultimate political consequences will be fatal.
I would not advocate these policies unless you have nothing but malice in your heart for the people that will receive it.
So in your scenario, the majority of real protesters are sitting down in a peaceful group...
And then police disguised as protestors stand up and start attacking people or throwing bricks... whilst again the majority are sitting down not doing anything?
Exactly how does that work out against the protesters?
You can't attack the people sitting down because the ACTOR is running around doing whatever.
You can ask them to leave or disperse... which you should do when instructed most of the time unless you have a permit or are otherwise within your rights to be there. Keep in mind, being contentious with the police is generally not in your interest.
You will get the police to see you as hostile which is typically not required or desired by protests.
And the second big problem is that why are you protesting in the first place? To get the PUBLIC on your side, right? Well, how likely is that going to happen if you're pissing everyone off with a big annoying shit show?
What you want to do is not cause problems, not piss off the public, and keep your message out there.
Here some asshat with no patience that is about 17 will say "we've tried all the peaceful options now its WAAAAR"... You're just going to get your ass beat and if anything the public will turn against you. You'll be unwittingly supporting your political opposition simply by making an ass of yourself.
Be patient. Be peaceful. Show up to some place where you are allowed to show up. Sit down. Do not disrupt the movement of random people trying to go about their lives.
Impatience is immaturity.
To act violently is often to presume you can achieve your ends through violence... most groups are in minorities so this is actually a confession of stupidity.
Protesting where you are not allowed to protest will lead to violence... and thus is generally stupid. The exception is if you have superior force which you won't so its stupid.
Standing up when you protest is generally just harder to control and can be subverted. If that isn't a problem because you can control your group and won't be subverted then it doesn't matter. If that is an issue then sit down or don't cry when you get burned.
Let people go about their business. If you piss people off by disrupting their behavior then you're basically protesting AGAINST yourself without realizing it.
Generally, most bad protest movements are thrown together by immature people that aren't very bright... or they're put together by clever people with false pretenses that gather together a bunch of young idiots to act out a series of events that often isn't what the young people want.
The world is very old and passion is not a substitute for wisdom. Just think it through a bit. Most of the big loud annoying protests of the last 20 years have been either idiotic or calculated manipulations of foolish idealistic people to serve other ends.
You're accusing another citizen of your very same republic of being an agent of a repressive power as an ad hominem method of silencing your percieved opposition.
Such respect for free speech.
Such regard for the free market place of ideas.
Why don't you follow that up with a straw man or something equally retarded.
We're all members of the same big ass country, bub. You can't have big without having diverse. You like diversity don't you? Diversity is strength, right? Well... diversity doesn't mean just people identifying as animals or demanding to be referred to as Zur or whatever. It also and originally and most properly means people that simply have different opinions.
If your response to different opinions is hostility, intolerance, and attempts to dehumanize those expressing them... Which of us is an agent of repression?
Me... the guy with an opinion you don't like
You... the guy that doesn't want dialog and wants to dehumanize those that think other than himself?
I'd call you comrade but you're too chicken shit to login.
US revolution naturally doesn't count because it was never anarchy.
There were colonial governments which were never deposed, rather their association with the crown of England was cut. What is more, they immediately associated the given colonial governments with each other... the nature of which was formalized with the drafting of the US Constitution.
What you see there is not anarchy but rather the exact opposite.
If it correlates every time then in practice there's no difference. this is not to concede causation. Merely to point out that it doesn't matter if it is caused or correlated with if the correlation is 1:1.
Shall we go through examples? Nazi Germany, Facist Spain.. a fucking million examples in South America. Mao's China... Chavez's Venezuela has finally arrived at the prophesied end game.
What is more, the peacefulness of occupy is questionable.
First they were camping there and making a mess. You don't need to do that. MLK Jr didn't do that. They had peaceful orderly civilized clean sit ins and then went home every day to their homes.
Second, there was quite a lot of harassment in those camps and near them.
Third, they attracted a lot of gross hippies that caused crime to jump up in the area. Drugs, prostitution, rape, etc.
Look, if you want to solve your problems by being violent then you're basically betting you have more force on your side than all other factions combined. Because even if you think you outnumber some anti group to you. Do you ALSO outnumber the non-aligned people that want peace and order? Do you outnumber the people that just want to go to work every day and not get harassed by smelly hippies blocking the road?
You don't.
Which means if you actually escalate you'll get physically beaten until you submit or killed.
If that is what you want to do, then do it, comrade.
All your ideas accomplish if taken to their logical conclusion is install a tyrant that takes away everyone's rights, murders anyone that disagrees with him, and creates a class based power structure where people like you and me will just become peasants under a new nobility.
And if and when you do that where I live... I will just leave you to starve in that shit. My family came from countries that had fallen to tyranny. We left. And I'll leave again. I will not suffer the consequences of your foolishness. I will leave you to starve in burned out cities surviving on people's skinned pets.
What we know is that some systems of government do not have tyranny.
That is the only condition without tyranny.
Anarchy creates chaos which creates a tyrant.
A sloppily run institution leads to corrupt individuals having absolute power which is tyranny.
So... the only way out is not to run your institutions sloppily.
Are things inclined to be fucked up on occasion and thus lead to negative consequences? Sure.
All machines break eventually. But that doesn't mean there was never a reason to have the machine in the first place or that it shouldn't be maintained for as long as is practical.
Everyone eventually dies... no reason to bother living?
The justification is not in its immortality but in its existence at all if only for a time.
As to globalization, I agree it is a bad idea. No one is appreciating that creating too big to fail systems doesn't mean that the system is too big to fail but that it is merely too big for us to afford for it to fail.
And yet everything does fail eventually. Which means making too big to fail systems is irrational. Systems should be made no larger than we can afford to lose at any given time. Any system that is too profound for us to suffer its loss is too large... because in time every system fails.
You need redundancy.
No question that everything fails in the end. We're all making sand castles before the surf here. But just as every man is born to die we can build institutions to survive if only through replication and propagation.
Slashdot Mirror
As to your first point, anything that rewards or advantages behavior encourages it.
Anything that penalizes or disadvantages it, discourages it.
It is a fundamental principle that sounds so simple it can't be a rule and yet like so many things we rely on every day... its entirely sound.
As to a frictionless market, nothing I said required no transaction costs.
As to there being no change for the poor, given that I just pointed out people went from feudal peonage to the given status in our society that statement is at best a confession you didn't read my post.
Read my post before you comment on it.
So the argument is that its determining race based on address, name, previous employment history, and education history...
Explain this to me.
Are you saying it doesn't hire people from a certain neighborhood?
Are you saying the program is not hiring people based on their name?
Because either of those seems unlikely frankly.
Now, not hiring someone for lacking job experience is not racism or racial proxy data. Its merely a sensible criteria to hire someone. You want the best employees you can get. An experienced employee is generally better. No?
As to educational background... I'm a little confused about this one. Are you suggesting that hiring or not hiring someone using education data is racist? Because if it is... then why bother with education at all? We'll just hire anyone.
Do you want a doctor with no medical education? A lawyer with no law degree?
Because apparently hiring or not hiring someone on the basis of their education is apparently racist now.
Try again. They do not use address or name information to choose who to hire or not to hire. The algorithms have been examined actually. They have been demanded in court cases. And on examination they didn't do any of that.
What they did was look at job experience and education. Its a bot. Is your argument seriously that the program looks up a name and address, does a look up on the address to find out if it is in a demographically black or whatever area... and then just doesn't hire if it gets a hit?
Is that honestly your argument? Because that can be easily disproven and then you have to eat crow.
Here is the cold grim reality... The "ai" is just filtering on work experience and education. That isn't racist. And again, if you presume to say it is... then please accept medical treatment by this guy with no medical degree.
Everyone wants competent workers except people like YOU that neither care about other people having to deal with incompetent workers nor have the empathy to appreciate how annoying you'd find it if you were saddled with that same situation.
The evidence of your hypocrisy is that you wouldn't tolerate an incompetent worker IF they were serving you. Would you like an electrician with no training or a plumber with no training? How about a vet to take care of your sick dog that knows nothing about how to treat sick animals?
You wouldn't even tolerate it to treat your dog.
That is your "real" position. Everything else is pathetic virtue signaling and hypocrisy.
No they don't. The robots are not programmed to find race and are often not aware of it as a concept in the first place.
If you give a robot a series of resumes and tell it to look for what you want in an employee... the robot has been given no notion of what race even is in the first place.
But you know what... I'll bite.
Cite the racial proxy data that they might use as an example.
Double dog dare you.
False:
http://www.politifact.com/flor...
Cite your source. I pulled one of out the air... its not hard. I am aware of per district spending across the US. You are not.
Do you know what is the highest spending school district per capita in California? Bet you don't.
Do you know which portion of Connecticut spends the least? Bet you don't.
Your position is based on ignorance. I've seen more than enough information which I've gone through in depth to know this for a fact.
But because you are making an ignorant statement and presuming to be in the know... I think you're going to have to be put in a position where your ignorance is obvious... even to you.
So... in service of what I believe is the only constructive course of action in this argument... please cite a source.
And know that when you do, you'll still be ignoring that spending on education has no correlation with achievement. Something which you're attempting to evade by citing other countries when it clearly is irrelevant. Within the US alone we can see there is no correlation. Changing the subject and refusing to acknowledge that money =/= performance in education is frankly dishonorable in this discussion. You are showing a lack of integrity.
Please address the lack of correlation and concede. Its been checkmate since the first post.
You missed the point.
Having problems at point of employment isn't a reason to hire you anyway.
Do you want a doctor that didn't get decent grades in medical school? Most people never go to medical school at all.. would you like a doctor that spent ZERO time studying medicine?
If you would prefer competent doctors then you desire merit based employment.
I'm not saying anywhere that I think we shouldn't try to help communities with problems. However, I think it is also racist to look at these communities racially. Rather you should focus on other more important factors.
Did they come from a single parent house hold? Did they come from a troubled neighborhood? Was there drug abuse in the house hold? Was there positive reinforcement of good study habits etc in the child's household.
These things ultimately determine if there will be problems. Not the race of the individual. To suggest otherwise is to presume that given races are inferior.
I made the point above that your position is actually inherently racist. You wish to classify people on the basis of race.
Are there f'ups from every race? Yep. Are there high achievers from every race? Yep.
Focus on what separates the one from the other and you might actually help people.
Focusing on race will help no one. You will doom those you presume to help to continuing poverty by not addressing the underlying problems in given communities that lead to failure. What is more, your entire concept requires that we hire empirically incompetent people to do jobs. Which you will hypocritically assign to other people or other jobs you don't care about whilst betraying your supposed values by requiring merit based employment when it might actually affect you.
I like that you tried to start your argument with an ad hominem.
Let me try one on you which would be only fair.
I think you're also white, spoiled, feel inferior to your peers, and are attempting to play these pathetically constructed moralistic games as some sort of ploy to claw your way up a social hierarchy.
People like you hurt the people you presume to defend. You're a parasite. You feed upon the suffering of others and use it to humble your opposition and aggrandize yourself. You have nothing positive to offer this situation. And your insecurity is likely very well deserved.
I want everyone to succeed and for society to work. You didn't even read my argument before you dogmatically responded to it. You are no better than the foaming fundamentalists of bygone times that would thump the cover of a book they couldn't even read.
See? I can play this game too... and I'm better at it.
the robots in many cases aren't even aware of your race or gender so how are they going to select against your race and gender?
They're clearly NOT deciding on that factor as they literally can't because they're literally not given that variable most of the time.
What they decide upon are your qualifications. Now if the most qulaified people tend to be from group X or Y then that isn't racism to predominantly hire people from those groups. Statistically if you limit the population being examined to those with the qualifications there is no statistical variance in hiring patterns. You only see a statistical variance if you IGNORE qualifications. Which is idiotic because the entire point of setting an AI on hiring people or hiring someone to hire people is to have them filter the people hired based on relevant criteria.
What these "robot HR is racist" arguments ultimately are requesting is lottery based hiring. Where in random people in society are randomly hired for given jobs indifferent to qualifications.
Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut is a dystopian society where this concept was applied to its logical conclusion. Everyone is forced to be equal. The clever are made to be stupid so they enjoy no advantage over the stupid. The strong are made to be weak. The graceful are made to be clumsy. The beautiful are made to be ugly. Employment in everything is determined by literal lottery. Total chance. Everything from the police to the president to your doctors to whatever.
It is a nightmare society.
The robots are not racists. The plaintiffs are equalitarian intersectional communists in most cases. The sort of people that advocate bad ideas that if applied lead to the society starving to death.
Any group that votes for that deserves the consequences without mercy. And to be very clear... that happens properly anywhere and those able to do better will leave. You'll be left with an incompetent rabble that simply couldn't do better anywhere else. Poverty and failure is the best you can expect. Literally starving to death is quite likely. Cannibalism is not off the table.
To be shortsighted is to be a fool... the very nature of wisdom is to appreciate things in "time". The wise course is the one that will survive and thrive in time... and longer and more sustainable a policy is... the more it thrives in the fullness of time... the wiser it is.
Not disagreeing with you at all you understand... agreeing with you wholeheartedly. Such policies are the opposite of wisdom... foolish... ignorant... barbaric... simpleminded.
it clearly isn't inflated as the college debt issue makes extremely clear.
What is more, we can compare funds that go to the public school system. The money to those institutions are not inflated. And then divide by the student body.
That is how you get those numbers.
Now you are correct and also repeating what I said if you wish to say that funding to teachers does not exactly correlate with funding to a school district or funding to a professor etc.
That is true.
However, again... I literally said that and that was literally my primary point regarding reform. Cut down staff at school districts and colleges that are not teachers and professors. Reduce the ratio of administrators to teachers. The number should not exceed 1:10 at the highest and currently it is rarely below 1:1.
What is more and this really has to be conceded... there is no correlation between spending and academic achievement.
The worst performing areas in the US tend to be urban inner city schools. The best performing schools are often suburban and rural. Funding can be the same, higher in one, lower in the other... and it won't matter.
In New York for example funding per pupil is about 24 thousand dollars per student throughout the entire state of New York. That means everyone from Manhattan to upstate new york is getting about the same amount of money spent on their kids per pupil. Achievement despite equality in funds tends to fluctuate wildy from community to community.
I can show you areas with very poor performance that get a lot of money and areas that get very little that have very high performance. And these are not outliers. There is literally no correlation.
If you "actually" care about the students then increasing funding is not a helpful position. Reform is all you've got if you actually want to help. The studies on this have been exhaustive and definitive. Accept the results of the dice or don't play the game.
It doesn't matter... Oil, Silver, Corn, Copper, Coal, etc etc etc... The market goes up and down and tends to do so for years.
https://mrtopstep.com/wp-conte...
there is a 30 year cycle in commodities... They go up they go down.
If you base your income on this then your income will go up and down over 30 years... to balance it out you'll have to cache high prices from the high point to pay for low prices in the low point.
Do you honestly think the government has the discipline to do that? Because the trillion dollar deficits we're running right now argue empirically otherwise.
And this is really my problem with this UBI/UBA talk... its stupid. That isn't an insult. It is dumb in the same way that trying to knock a wall down with your forehead is stupid. If I were to say as much about the man trying to knock a wall down with his forehead... again not about him but rather about the concept... I don't think many people would take that as a personal attack or an insult against the man himself. Rather it would be seen as a fairly self evident judgement of a clearly flawed strategy.
There are so many reasons why something like that would make no sense or would be counter productive or short sighted etc.
And likewise that is the case with UBI and UBA. It makes no sense. I've detailed in some depth why that is above. You can consult my post to appreciate my argument. It makes no sense. Its a dumb idea. And before you complain about me not explaining that in this post, consider that I did just directly reference the previous posts that did explain it. So that is not a valid complaint against this post since it is ultimately a request that I repeat information you have access to and have not responded to. Kindly address the argument laid out in depth above.
education in what?
As to spending, we're spending more on education than we ever have... and spend more on education than any other country per capita.
What is more there is no correlation in US education achievement statistics between spending and grades.
There are areas in the US that spend very lavishly on education that have very low scores and areas that spend very little and have very high scores.
Education stats are more predictive on demographic levels. That is... population density... region... region of city... economic and academic achievement of parents... associated cultural groups... whether the child comes from a single parent house hold... is the single parent a single mother or a single father... etc.
What is spent on teachers has no correlative relationship with higher or lower scores or academic achievement. There are areas in the US that spend 7 thousand dollars per student that have very high test scores and areas that spend 24 or 35 thousand per student that have very low test scores.
I should point out further that even 7 thousand is actually lots of money to run a public education system but is considered to be on the very low end nationally. Consider 20 to 30 children in a class room times 7 thousand. 140 thousand for 20 students or 210 thousand for 30. Per year.
That's more than enough for a private school to manage the kids and you know damn well that a million companies would be beating on your door competing to get that contract.
Instead we have a state run system where that money is mostly wasted on administrators. For every teacher how many administrators are there? It varies but it is rarely better than 1:1 ratio which is absurd.
We can fix the education system but those fixes are matters of reform and not funding increases. The funding is already excessive in most cases.
And this is ignoring the colleges and universities which have increasingly become a national scandal with their geometrically rising tuition costs. Again, with no correlative increase in the quality of education as the price of education doubles and doubles and doubles again.
It used to be in the US that a University student could pay for their tuition by working a part time job and graduate debt free.
If you look at what university professors are paid, you can see that that is easily obtainable right now simply by assessing what the students actually use on campus, what they're actually interested in obtaining from the college/university, and limiting their fees to specifically those services.
What the students want generally... when push comes to shove... is to learn something and get a degree that is recognized by wider society as having some value to assist them with the rest of their lives.
Colleges and universities are widely regarded to be failing in this matter despite doubling costs. Where is the money going? Not into professors. If you look at what professors are paid now vs what they were paid 50 years ago and adjust for inflation they're often making LESS than they were back then. And yet costs are doubling and doubling and doubling. Where is the money going?
And instead of reforming this... the cry is always and ever more for more and more and more money.
To claim we should throw more gasoline on this dumpster fire is to proclaim ignorance of the issue, indifference to reality, or blatant corruption.
There are no other alternatives.
That it is taxed already was something I said in the very post you're quoting from so I'm not sure who you think you're informing of anything.
Address perhaps my point here. If you increase the taxes on property to pay for your project then that is a tax ON TOP of the existing taxes on construction and land use and land purchases etc. And it is a large tax at that. This moves it beyond the current circumstance because you're talking about more than doubling that tax at the very least.
What is more there is no link between the mouths you wish to feed and the source of their sustenance.
The majority of the population currently sustains themselves by associating their labor or their ownership or their something with their sustanance. It scales. The more mouths the more wealth and so balance is maintained.
This UBA system has no such scaling association. Consider the issue mathematically and logically. You can clearly see that in the one case there is a scaling association where an increase in the mouths is associated with an increase in production and wealth which can feed those mouths.
Under this UBA system there is no scaling association. What is more you are disincentivizing the very thing that your mouths would rely upon. The higher the tax the greater disincentive. And that discourages exploitation which lowers the number of resources that can be tapped. This will require you to either lower compensation in your UBA or increase the tax further which will further disincentivize exploitation... which leads to a negative feed back effect.
And that is naturally entirely different to the matter that even if there is no direct disincentive... which there logically would have to be... but if we ignore that as an issue for the sake of argument it still doesn't work because growth in your mouths has no correlative growth in exploitation of land use. There may be SOME... but it doesn't scale 1:1 and so you get an imbalance.
The concept is logically unsound.
Abandon your ideology for just a moment... for the sake of argument... at the behest of the devil's advocate... simply consider the issue logically. It doesn't work.
You need a system that directly associates supply with demand. The market does that through price discovery. How does your UBA system address scarcity? How does it encourage production? How does it disincentivize or incentivize consumption?
The systems that the proponents of the UBI and UBA appear to wish to replace are more complex and immutable than is appreciated. Market economies existed in the Soviet Union, exist now in maximum security prisons, and exist even in places like North Korea. Often these markets are "black markets" but the market itself makes no such distinction. That is a legal and ethical matter which is irrelevant to core market principles.
The whole post scarcity economy concept is anti-intellectual in that it is willfully ignorant of history, indifferent to logical flaw, hostile to empirical contradiction, and ultimately a victim of the same pseudo logic that renders things like Creationism non-credible.
You're talking about charging people for the land itself? The literal space? We already have property taxes in most states... and we have some notion of people with deeds owning the land they paid for... how would you leverage the land itself?
Any time you inhabit land you have to pay a fee to the government to build anything on it? Say your home or business whatever that might be? And that means what to the UBI or UBA? The idea that those that want to build anything anywhere must pay those can't afford to or have no inclination to build anything?
would that not discourage building? All taxes discourage what they tax just as all subsidies encourage what they subsidize.
Do you want to discourage ownership of property, the building of homes, the building of businesses?
As I said in my first post... there is a series of problems here. And it is pretty much certain you won't solve all of them and each one is fatal. Which means its a non-starter or simply lethal on application sooner or later depending on if you get stopped by the early problems or suffer crushing consequences if you solved the first ones and then got so invested in the error that by the time the long term problems showed up you couldn't get out cleanly.
In any case... clarify your point. Two word responses are not at best vague.
The example of Alaska is poor because naturally many states don't have resources that can be leveraged to provide 2000 dollars to each resident per year.
What is more, even alaska's oil reserves are finite. What happens when that runs out? And it will.
And it gets worse... you have to concede that this would just go federal... where in all national resources would go into some sort of federal pot to be spit up. But that's no good because once divided you won't have enough. Do the math.
But its worse than that because even if you did have enough... it would again be finite.
And worse than that because even if it weren't finite there would still be market fluctuation that would cause the pay out to change. That payout change would render the UBA unreliable. If you cached extra funds in good years to level out the payment in bad years then the payment would be more reliable but down turns or upturns in the commodities markets can last decades. Are you going to cache reserves to last decades? Come now.
And it gets worse because even if you didn't have any of those problems subsidizing the population in this manner would almost certainly lead to run away consumption. It would not be in the interest of the public to have population growth because that would be more mouths to divide the money between. And yet the UBA or UBI or really any radical expansion in the welfare system would encourage people to join just to suck at the tit.
It gets worse than that too because our agency in our republics is directly related to our economic logistical utility to the society. It was that increase in logistical utility that ended the rule of the nobles. Old Feudal style economies were not competitive because societies that did not grant agency to their valuable workers were not competitive. Economics is largely a question of motivating people. If individuals have more leverage then they must be bargained with to motivate them to work. If their labor is of no value then they have no leverage. The UBI and UBA concepts argue that large portions of the population will be of no value. One must hope that doesn't happen because if it does and the situation sustains throughout time then it is inevitable that they'll suffer extreme tyranny and possibly genocide.
The UBI and UBA are at best... death sentences... they are a suicide pact. At best. At worst they fail for screwing up an almost endless list of economic problems that are pretty obvious. But assuming you can deal with that, the ultimate political consequences will be fatal.
I would not advocate these policies unless you have nothing but malice in your heart for the people that will receive it.
its not like it stops anything. For every company that doesn't want to do it there are ten that will cash the government check.
It could be literally this simple "Russians curious about what is going on are checking US media and social media"... literally that.
I mean, who thinks they're doing quality control on that number?
So in your scenario, the majority of real protesters are sitting down in a peaceful group...
And then police disguised as protestors stand up and start attacking people or throwing bricks... whilst again the majority are sitting down not doing anything?
Exactly how does that work out against the protesters?
You can't attack the people sitting down because the ACTOR is running around doing whatever.
You can ask them to leave or disperse... which you should do when instructed most of the time unless you have a permit or are otherwise within your rights to be there. Keep in mind, being contentious with the police is generally not in your interest.
You will get the police to see you as hostile which is typically not required or desired by protests.
And the second big problem is that why are you protesting in the first place? To get the PUBLIC on your side, right? Well, how likely is that going to happen if you're pissing everyone off with a big annoying shit show?
What you want to do is not cause problems, not piss off the public, and keep your message out there.
Here some asshat with no patience that is about 17 will say "we've tried all the peaceful options now its WAAAAR"... You're just going to get your ass beat and if anything the public will turn against you. You'll be unwittingly supporting your political opposition simply by making an ass of yourself.
Be patient. Be peaceful. Show up to some place where you are allowed to show up. Sit down. Do not disrupt the movement of random people trying to go about their lives.
Impatience is immaturity.
To act violently is often to presume you can achieve your ends through violence... most groups are in minorities so this is actually a confession of stupidity.
Protesting where you are not allowed to protest will lead to violence... and thus is generally stupid. The exception is if you have superior force which you won't so its stupid.
Standing up when you protest is generally just harder to control and can be subverted. If that isn't a problem because you can control your group and won't be subverted then it doesn't matter. If that is an issue then sit down or don't cry when you get burned.
Let people go about their business. If you piss people off by disrupting their behavior then you're basically protesting AGAINST yourself without realizing it.
Generally, most bad protest movements are thrown together by immature people that aren't very bright... or they're put together by clever people with false pretenses that gather together a bunch of young idiots to act out a series of events that often isn't what the young people want.
The world is very old and passion is not a substitute for wisdom. Just think it through a bit. Most of the big loud annoying protests of the last 20 years have been either idiotic or calculated manipulations of foolish idealistic people to serve other ends.
Don't be a dupe. Think.
implying I'm a Russian pawn or something.
Consider the irony of your statement.
You're accusing another citizen of your very same republic of being an agent of a repressive power as an ad hominem method of silencing your percieved opposition.
Such respect for free speech.
Such regard for the free market place of ideas.
Why don't you follow that up with a straw man or something equally retarded.
We're all members of the same big ass country, bub. You can't have big without having diverse. You like diversity don't you? Diversity is strength, right? Well... diversity doesn't mean just people identifying as animals or demanding to be referred to as Zur or whatever. It also and originally and most properly means people that simply have different opinions.
If your response to different opinions is hostility, intolerance, and attempts to dehumanize those expressing them... Which of us is an agent of repression?
Me... the guy with an opinion you don't like
You... the guy that doesn't want dialog and wants to dehumanize those that think other than himself?
I'd call you comrade but you're too chicken shit to login.
US revolution naturally doesn't count because it was never anarchy.
There were colonial governments which were never deposed, rather their association with the crown of England was cut. What is more, they immediately associated the given colonial governments with each other... the nature of which was formalized with the drafting of the US Constitution.
What you see there is not anarchy but rather the exact opposite.
If it correlates every time then in practice there's no difference. this is not to concede causation. Merely to point out that it doesn't matter if it is caused or correlated with if the correlation is 1:1.
So... strawmen? I didn't say be apolitical.
If you're going to be degenerate then the discussion is over.
When has it not lead to tyranny?
As to republics being forged in anarchy, give an example.
I think I can clear up the misunderstanding if we go through the history of this shit show.
I saw it in wallstreet... which was where it was... everywhere else was a metoo movement.
and in any case, what was your end game? What would have accomplishing something have meant?
Define your objective. Because what I saw at occupy was a bunch of confused people all asking for either contradictory or impossible things.
In this case it does, captain autismo.
Shall we go through examples? Nazi Germany, Facist Spain.. a fucking million examples in South America. Mao's China... Chavez's Venezuela has finally arrived at the prophesied end game.
occupy was asking for what?
What would have been a win condition for occupy?
What is more, the peacefulness of occupy is questionable.
First they were camping there and making a mess. You don't need to do that. MLK Jr didn't do that. They had peaceful orderly civilized clean sit ins and then went home every day to their homes.
Second, there was quite a lot of harassment in those camps and near them.
Third, they attracted a lot of gross hippies that caused crime to jump up in the area. Drugs, prostitution, rape, etc.
Look, if you want to solve your problems by being violent then you're basically betting you have more force on your side than all other factions combined. Because even if you think you outnumber some anti group to you. Do you ALSO outnumber the non-aligned people that want peace and order? Do you outnumber the people that just want to go to work every day and not get harassed by smelly hippies blocking the road?
You don't.
Which means if you actually escalate you'll get physically beaten until you submit or killed.
If that is what you want to do, then do it, comrade.
All your ideas accomplish if taken to their logical conclusion is install a tyrant that takes away everyone's rights, murders anyone that disagrees with him, and creates a class based power structure where people like you and me will just become peasants under a new nobility.
And if and when you do that where I live... I will just leave you to starve in that shit. My family came from countries that had fallen to tyranny. We left. And I'll leave again. I will not suffer the consequences of your foolishness. I will leave you to starve in burned out cities surviving on people's skinned pets.
Sure and so does anarchy.
What we know is that some systems of government do not have tyranny.
That is the only condition without tyranny.
Anarchy creates chaos which creates a tyrant.
A sloppily run institution leads to corrupt individuals having absolute power which is tyranny.
So... the only way out is not to run your institutions sloppily.
Are things inclined to be fucked up on occasion and thus lead to negative consequences? Sure.
All machines break eventually. But that doesn't mean there was never a reason to have the machine in the first place or that it shouldn't be maintained for as long as is practical.
Everyone eventually dies... no reason to bother living?
The justification is not in its immortality but in its existence at all if only for a time.
As to globalization, I agree it is a bad idea. No one is appreciating that creating too big to fail systems doesn't mean that the system is too big to fail but that it is merely too big for us to afford for it to fail.
And yet everything does fail eventually. Which means making too big to fail systems is irrational. Systems should be made no larger than we can afford to lose at any given time. Any system that is too profound for us to suffer its loss is too large... because in time every system fails.
You need redundancy.
No question that everything fails in the end. We're all making sand castles before the surf here. But just as every man is born to die we can build institutions to survive if only through replication and propagation.