"It's a fallacy," Andreessen said (specifically citing the lump of labor fallacy and the luddite fallacy). "It's a recurring panic. This happens every 25 or 50 years, people get all amped up about 'machines are going to take all the jobs' and it never happens."
Easy to say for him as he's well insulated from changes. Not so much if you have AI/ML and self-driving cars attack multiple industries in one fell swoop - with no clear, comparable replacement.
In reality, there are no fallacies that can explain anything here.
While coal and other environmentalist-hostile industries are assaulted by regulatory burdens. In addition, the alleged jobs in suitably-blessed energy forms do not translate well to places favored by coal, which can amount to an indirect assault on the Appalachian regions.
While there may be a few that do well enough to make it work, the majority do it only for a lack of other choices. You might be able to choose to forgo a regularized W-2 job, but not many others can. For most people, being able to refuse work is firmly in the dream category.
Perhaps we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater and the rest of the family inside, since contracting is primarily used as a benefit dodge. Kill it and you bring back some sanity to the job market.
In addition, retirement/benefits do not scale well at the individual level - unlike traditional regularized work.
How about showing cases where AI adds good (and instantly available) jobs for the displaced, especially the long-term jobless? Not service/staffing jobs, but actual lines of work with an actual future.
He only "supports immigration" as long as it provides a steady stream of desperate, captive, fly-by-night labor. He doesn't support it when it provides people that want to become hard-working citizens that assimilate in a new country.
And once again, renewables had little to do with coal's decline
Aside from being pushed along with overzealous environmentalism. What may seem nice in Aspen or Davos definitely does not fly in Appalachia.
But if you want to insist that environmentalists are pure as the driven snow, persist in your strong delusion. They are the ones that are trying to kill coal for being too unfriendly to them.
Previously it's always been a friendly place to visit.
It still is, and safer by leaps and bounds. People aren't disarmed by multiculturalism or political correctness, but by good citizens able & willing to defend themselves against criminals.
You wanted a globalist to be coronated and assume office. The electors, carrying out the will of the people as determined by proportionality, showed otherwise.
Now all they can do is try to smear him with the media.
You won't be missed, as there will be plenty that will visit in your place and enjoying a higher degree of freedom/safety in the US than you do at home.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's a fallacy," Andreessen said (specifically citing the lump of labor fallacy and the luddite fallacy). "It's a recurring panic. This happens every 25 or 50 years, people get all amped up about 'machines are going to take all the jobs' and it never happens."
Easy to say for him as he's well insulated from changes. Not so much if you have AI/ML and self-driving cars attack multiple industries in one fell swoop - with no clear, comparable replacement.
In reality, there are no fallacies that can explain anything here.
The upside is that they recognize that they lose much more by moving out of a very business-friendly state.
Perhaps if they didn't offshore the staff and/or outsource to a benefit-dodger agency, they might have some competent people.
There's plenty of Britons that would have done the job better, but the company makes the fatal mistake of offshoring.
They cannot accept coal as a power source, so they do everything to hobble it - including pushing the lie of natural gas.
While coal and other environmentalist-hostile industries are assaulted by regulatory burdens. In addition, the alleged jobs in suitably-blessed energy forms do not translate well to places favored by coal, which can amount to an indirect assault on the Appalachian regions.
On the other hand, working with the people that do exist would be a good idea.
Yet you are wrong.
Such industries rely on the majority being unable to choose an alternative to their uncertainty or benefit dodging practices.
A good start, but it's time to make them feel the same pain that they inflicted on Americans.
The only way they've managed to make technological advances recently is by outright theft.
While there may be a few that do well enough to make it work, the majority do it only for a lack of other choices. You might be able to choose to forgo a regularized W-2 job, but not many others can. For most people, being able to refuse work is firmly in the dream category.
Perhaps we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater and the rest of the family inside, since contracting is primarily used as a benefit dodge. Kill it and you bring back some sanity to the job market.
In addition, retirement/benefits do not scale well at the individual level - unlike traditional regularized work.
Since it is abused more than it is well-used, better to just end the practice.
Instead, criminals just take it as open season on everyone given that nobody can (or will) fight back.
On the other hand, perhaps working with the people that do exist would be a very good idea.
The only thing this says is that AI is a threat.
How about showing cases where AI adds good (and instantly available) jobs for the displaced, especially the long-term jobless? Not service/staffing jobs, but actual lines of work with an actual future.
Given the push for lynching anyone that dares question AGW, I'd say that political correctness has taken over many parts of the sciences.
They don't want to train someone that isn't controlled easily enough.
Only if you forget that coal use is less toxic than production of solar panels.
If it's bad enough that Sweden has to file Islamist crimes away under different codes to make them disappear, then you're going to a worse country.
At least with Detroit, you can arm yourself and have the cops on your side. The average no-go area in Sweden, not so much.
California's intentionally porous border and lax ID checks permitted ~3 million to "vote" for the Democrat's approved candidate.
He only "supports immigration" as long as it provides a steady stream of desperate, captive, fly-by-night labor.
He doesn't support it when it provides people that want to become hard-working citizens that assimilate in a new country.
And once again, renewables had little to do with coal's decline
Aside from being pushed along with overzealous environmentalism. What may seem nice in Aspen or Davos definitely does not fly in Appalachia.
But if you want to insist that environmentalists are pure as the driven snow, persist in your strong delusion. They are the ones that are trying to kill coal for being too unfriendly to them.
Previously it's always been a friendly place to visit.
It still is, and safer by leaps and bounds. People aren't disarmed by multiculturalism or political correctness, but by good citizens able & willing to defend themselves against criminals.
You wanted a globalist to be coronated and assume office. The electors, carrying out the will of the people as determined by proportionality, showed otherwise.
Now all they can do is try to smear him with the media.
You won't be missed, as there will be plenty that will visit in your place and enjoying a higher degree of freedom/safety in the US than you do at home.