Looks like someone earned a big break.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Printable View
Looks like someone earned a big break.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
The reason why the left doesnt resonate with white working class anymore is because they have replaced them with foreigners.
And the foreigners will be replaced with robots, so there's really no point in listening to these crazy demands for jobs anyway. What people should demand is a basic wage for everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Il Duce II
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376966
Quote:
One factory has "reduced employee strength from 110,000 to 50,000 thanks to the introduction of robots", a government official told the South China Morning Post.
Xu Yulian, head of publicity for the Kunshan region, added: "More companies are likely to follow suit."
China is investing heavily in a robot workforce.
Isn't it Judge Dread where everyone is basically paid to sit at home and democracy has been abolished? Eventually they had a referendum on whether to restore Democracy, but everyone had forgotten how it worked, so they didn't vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Rather like Brexit where the younger generation felt their "vote didn't count" and therefore didn't vote, so the older generation carried the vote for Leave.
Are there any viable right wing parties in Europe that are NOT dressed up fascists?
As a working definition I'm labeling "right" as nationalistic, preferencing local control over national for domestic concerns, regulated free market.
I dont know, are there any viable left wing parties in Europe that arent dressed up communists?
Same answer methinks.
More like technological progress made the number of working people needed to make most elements of society function (not just robots but general automation) is a tiny fraction of the hundreds of millions who live in each Mega-city. Then the corrupt and incompetent civil government was over thrown by the Justice department and they ran things for a generation.* Then when a vote was held to restore democracy or keep the Judges running the show the returns came back leave the judges in charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
And yes you can see western society going more in that direction. However Judge Dredd was created in the late 70's, when automation and de-industrialization really got going. And it wasn't much of a satirical extrapolation to see a future where many people didn't work because what would they do?
*By Generation I mean ~25 years or so. Long enough for a large groups of voters to know not but Judge rule.
In the UK, more money is given as "benefits" to people in work that those without - in essence, the work that they do isn't productive enough to provide that they expect to remain mainly within the law abiding society. I believe that this is a relatively new phenomenon.
I heard a radio programme some months ago that the person in charge of a Premier Inn Hotel is on £18k - all they do is follow the "play book" handed from HQ and call in should events diverge. They may be running a team of 20 or more people but are paid a pittance and have little real responsibility. Could next this be replaced with all staff having their schedule on their phone with IBM / Google's AI software working out rotas and sorting out most HR issues without human interaction?
Then we'd really have just the menials in the hotel (hell, even the food is often sent in pre-cooked) and a few in HQ and perhaps outsourced support for the AI which works with many different companies.
I doubt many like this approach, and rather than having a plan just get upset at the current politicians who are in whilst this is being undertaken. Town centres in the UK and probably abroad are criticized for all being the same with the same big shops. The solution is easy - don't shop at them. But no one is prepared to pay the premium to get the same things from independents. So the cycle continues.
To sort out the really bad structural parts of this would require some really nasty laws - such as the EU and USA telling big companies that unless all the money is repatriated to where things were bought (and all taxes paid) the money would be in effect cancelled. But start a fight with those who pay for your campaign? Fat chance!
~:smoking:
One could see a connection there. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
As for a society where noone works anymore, I'd say noone worls for a living anymore and everyone has time for hobbies, which can also involve creating things, so there could even be two economies. One that creates the necessities and commodities etc. for everone, and one where people just exchange the things they create or do to pass their time or because they are passionate about them. People may even discover passions they never knew they had because then they would have the time and resources to try things they can't try when they work 40 hours a week for a pittance.
Why would hobbyism form an economic system? Where are the resources and production chains for subsistence coming from? Assuming absence of total command economy by world governments, decline of labor means decline of market capitalism and many of its attendant goods and services, which means states and societies will organize around something else entirely. Strange thing to imagine a world just like today's but with more free time.Quote:
everyone has time for hobbies, which can also involve creating things
Extreme stratification by technological gradients seems likelier on the personal and communal level. The best case might be neo-feudalism without the serfs.
We have right wing liberal party called Kokoomus aka "national coalition", which is liberal party akin to your democrats in their policies and Keskusta aka the "center party" which is a moderate conservative party. Our right wing nutters can be found from the Perussuomalaiset aka "Basic Finns" party. These three are now forming the Finnish government at the moment. Our left wing parties include SDP aka Social Democratic party who are conservative and moderate lefties with large support from Workers Unions and Vasemmistoliitto, who are mixture of ex commies and idealist lefties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I didn't realise May was an option in the Labour leadership race.
If she was, your constant criticism of Corbyn's unelectibility would ring more true, but she wasn't a candidate.
The candidate who stood against Corbyn was just as unelectible, if not more so.
I assume you would have backed May had she stood in the Labour leadership election?
Edit: I pressed quick reply but it didn't qoute the post, I also can't copy paste, this was in response to Pannonians last reply to me.
That's completely irrelevant because humans do and will vote in elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Il Duce II
Unless you want to allow only employed people to vote, which would be an especially strange move both with and without automation.
How about the vote being determined as thus: In the immediately preceding tax year, the voter must paid in taxes 1$ or 1 Euro more than they received from the government in some form of benefit or payment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Now I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. How can a country be "call"? Isn't "to call" a verb? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Il Duce II
And why does it matter that robots don't vote? Is the argument that white people re going to vote for a robot "genocide" so they can work in coal mines and on dangerous conveyor belts for 80 hours a week again instead of having fun with their families while the robots work?
In that case I may have underestimated how much the working man hates himself. :sweatdrop:
Impressive. Post removed by moderator...while we have an active thread discussing posting etiquette in the backroom. 10 out of 10 for style mate....Quote:
Originally Posted by Il Duce II
Do we take all indirect payments and benefits into consideration as well? I mean things such as use of infrastucture, political stability for better business climate, protection of private property, establishment of security that benefits the business climate, provision of a court system for enforcement of contracts, provisionod childcare benefits to strengthen the production of new consumers/provide a viable workforce, education provision to make said workforce ready for employment, loan-provision to prospective employees for higher education in order to secure the availability of a properly educated workforce, and so on and on....Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
That could become a relatively long list of potential government benefits that everyone would have to hand in beforehand, the government would need to hire a whole lot of people (who then couldn't vote anymore...) in order to calculate all that. In the interest of small government, I would rather keep it simple and let every citizen above a certain age vote. ~;)
Leaving aside the problem of wider justification for such a system, for someone who doesn't care for a graduated income tax you should quickly notice that the chicanery surrounding the relatively trivial placement into tax brackets or other fiscal thresholds would translate with a vengeance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Concretely, with the current tax/benefits system it would seem liable to disenfranchise a large majority of individuals below median income, and even some above.
TBH I'd like to flip Seamus idea on its head somewhat, a vote for all those below a certain level of income.
You can have power through your own financial wealth or through your vote, if the country is serving your interests up to a certain point then you don't need your influence as much as those who are struggling. The country Is either already serving you or you can encourage it to do so with your vote.
Although I can see some good points and more equality as a result I can't say its better than everyone having a vote.
When your plan for massive employment loss is "start an etsy business utilizing your hobby", you have no plan. The model of capitalism will outlast the working class it's leeching off of.
You can only play poor people off of each other so much. Americas response to the welfare state was massively subsidized food prices. I wonder what happens when that goes away and youre addicted to opiates, have no healthcare, and are hungry.
i would hope introspection and change. I fear the reality is South American style paramilitaries.
I.e. The model of capitalism will outlast the civilization it has developed in, but the amenities of that civilization will not outlast it.Quote:
The model of capitalism will outlast the working class it's leeching off of.
Going to hit that stage where it will be post-human economy within hundred years. Then we have a choice of whether the economy serves the interests of the people (whole), or itself (owners). Internet it 20 years ago when the internet was becoming accessible to those at home, and now it is at the point where humanity cannot unplug itself from it. With quantum computing literally around the corner, coupled with the advances we already have such as self-driving cars, creative robots, stock exchange and boardrooms being managed by computers... human labour will only exist where it is cost effective, or niche applications, or in industries that require a human touch before they are replaced by androids.
Thing is, we have seen this technological takeover in real time. I remember when I worked in an Asda (Walmart for US), there were 15 people on the tills, going up to 22 for busy periods. When I walked in the same store the other day, there were 3 people on the tills, and the rest was automated self-service machines. If a store really pushed for automation, I wouldn't be surprised to see 90% of the jobs when I worked there gone.. rather like how an Amazon Storehouse is mostly ran by robots and drones. Even things like seeing your GP, you book your appointment online, walk in, sign in on touch screen, sit down, wait for your name to be called out, see your GP. Removed the receptionist from the process.
As I have posted before: Humans Need Not Apply
There are political concepts should as paying everyone a wage 'for free', but these will only start becoming politically saleable when the current wave of advancements hit the streets, leading to greater job losses.
in britain that would take out about 15m of the 45 million total electorate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
People are too doom and gloom. Barring a complete bubble surrounding the political elites, the solution to increased automation will be more artificial demand.
There are already markets where large percentage of labor is only sustained by large government subsidies.
Ideally, the goal would be to begin shrinking population to start equalizing supply of labor with the real demand provided by the market. This has already been happening, as growing Western populations are entirely the result of immigration at this point.
Not sure what you mean with that, a shrinking population also lowers the demand for products, which reduces the demand for labor even further and makes the entire economy shrink. How is that ideal to fight the job loss through automation?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
These markets are externally sustained by the markets that aren't such.Quote:
There are already markets where large percentage of labor is only sustained by large government subsidies.
We're talking about ecosystem collapse here.
Labour would save the NHS – but the NHS won’t save Labour
‘Rinse and repeat’ has let Ukip exploit an existential crisis for which all elements of the party must take responsibility
Virtually exactly what anti-Clintonites said in the US about the Democrats. That is what the European Left should beware. Predictably, the comments at the bottom go straight to counter accusations against "Blairites".Quote:
What Labour first needs to understand is which of its voters are defecting to Ukip. Ian Warren, the pollster who conducts focus groups of Labour-to-Ukip defectors, identifies two groups. One is blue-collar working households; relatively politically engaged; over 40; white; non-graduates; and from the Midlands, northern England or Wales. They are socially conservative on defence, social security and immigration.
The other group includes deprived, disaffected voters from similar communities. They’re typically under 40; either private renters or council tenants; often in insecure work; they are less likely to vote unless motivated to do so. Neither would ever vote Tory. Like Corbynistas, they generally prefer pre-Blair Labour to what happened next; but their social conservatism distinguishes them.
Identity trumps leftwing economic populism. “The only reason they’re staying with us is some sense of tribal loyalty which is being eroded with every passing day,” Warren says. Both groups feel the left treats them with contempt. “They see Labour as being cosmopolitan and distant from them, with nothing to say to their concerns, and looking down at them,” pollster James Morris says.
NB. Owen Jones was one of the founders of Corbynism, going back to the days when they attended the same demonstrations (since the 1980s IIRC). He's been writing for a few months that Labour's leadership, namely Corbyn's team, doesn't engage with the British voters (and been accused of being a Blairite traitor as a result).
I'd suggest the cosmopolitan Labour they see as distant from them is the result of New Labour, in fact your little bit even suggests they preferred Labour pre-Blair, so they in fact don't like New Labour but prefer what Labour used to represent, which Corbyn is much closer to...
Of course that still doesn't suggest they are bringing the voters back, but then your angle with this, of Corbyn is bad and New Labour is good makes even less sense, It was New Labour that originally turned these voters away, from the very thing you quoted it seems less New Labour style leadership is more likely to attract them back.
I notice you failed to answer my question regarding May.
Would you have backed her in the Labour leadership election?
After all you keep battering me with how unelectable Corbyn is, whilst completely ignoring the fact his rival in the leadership election was also unelectable.
So would you have gone for May as Labour leader? (in a hypothetical where she holds the same views but happens to be a Labour MP)
Or are you one of these militants who would rather lose but secure millions of votes for your viewpoint?
I favoured Yvette Cooper in the 2015 Labour leadership election. If nothing else, she had a track record of competence in government (having been one of the architects of Sure Start, which is as close as a project comes to my ideological line). She's concretely done far more for the less well off than Corbyn has in twice the time spent in politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
So you, like Corbyn supporters, are one of those militants who would rather lose an election but back the candidate you like....
Interesting stuff, next time you criticise Corbyn supporters for their ideological purity over realistic chances of winning an election it might be worth keeping in mind you are just as guilty of it as they are.