|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 14, 2022 9:36:19 GMT
Is there any indication that that will happen though?. We have been told for decades that robots and computers will take all the jobs - yet here we are with more robots and computers in the world than we ever have had and we have more people in work than ever before - in fact we have a shortage of people willing to do the available jobs. Well the economy as a whole, or sectors of it, has been seeing a shift away from full time employment to part time. Millions of people are underemployed already and often requiring welfare top ups. Low unemployment has been maintained only by a big expansion in underemployment as fewer man hours of work are required. But to a large extent in the past the decline in unskilled or semi-skilled jobs due to roboticization has been cancelled out by a growth in higher skilled jobs. AI is something new beyond mere roboticization here though as it is likely to increasingly make inroads into the availability of skilled roles. Whilst also accelerating the decline in unskilled and semi-skilled roles. I think this is a common misunderstanding of where AI and automation have grown. Automation is expensive and for many years it is the skilled jobs that have been replaced. Early on it might have been the spinning jenny, but now its the Accountant or the lithographic printer who is a machine/AI. Even highly skilled jobs like solicitors are supplemented by AI. Think of all those banks that have shut. HMRC is calculated by a computer algorithm. All these jobs were well paid and highly skilled and are now done by half the number of people. I can't see how you can be wrong, for while an AI banker makes banking cheaper and an AI till shopping cheaper, that doesn't help if you earn little of nothing, because the machine took your job. My issue is that people keep talking about the future, but the future is here right now. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 14, 2022 9:37:29 GMT
Agreed, but I didn't want to over complicate the analogy. The point being that not caring about the tribe does not lead to success. Except without individualism you would still be swinging from the trees and eating each other in tough times, oh but wait. How does caring prevent individualism? and I think its intelligence that's the reason we were able to come down from the trees. And community that freed up the individuals with the ideas from the drudgery of survival. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 14, 2022 9:43:08 GMT
Except without individualism you would still be swinging from the trees and eating each other in tough times, oh but wait. How does caring prevent individualism? and I think its intelligence that's the reason we were able to come down from the trees. And community that freed up the individuals with the ideas from the drudgery of survival. But then you suddenly had to think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 14, 2022 9:53:52 GMT
How does caring prevent individualism? and I think its intelligence that's the reason we were able to come down from the trees. And community that freed up the individuals with the ideas from the drudgery of survival. But then you suddenly had to think about it. No, its just a different topic. But an interesting one. Are Cats less intelligent than Marmosets? An interesting question. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 14, 2022 9:56:15 GMT
But then you suddenly had to think about it. No, its just a different topic. But an interesting one. Are Cats less intelligent than Marmosets? An interesting question. Yes, hence the edit, not so cut and dried this collectivism is it? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 14, 2022 10:08:17 GMT
No, its just a different topic. But an interesting one. Are Cats less intelligent than Marmosets? An interesting question. Yes, hence the edit, not so cut and dried this collectivism is it? No idea what you mean by that. Add some content or I'll assume you are just goading and ignore. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2022 11:34:55 GMT
Well the economy as a whole, or sectors of it, has been seeing a shift away from full time employment to part time. Millions of people are underemployed already and often requiring welfare top ups. Low unemployment has been maintained only by a big expansion in underemployment as fewer man hours of work are required. But to a large extent in the past the decline in unskilled or semi-skilled jobs due to roboticization has been cancelled out by a growth in higher skilled jobs. AI is something new beyond mere roboticization here though as it is likely to increasingly make inroads into the availability of skilled roles. Whilst also accelerating the decline in unskilled and semi-skilled roles. I think this is a common misunderstanding of where AI and automation have grown. Automation is expensive and for many years it is the skilled jobs that have been replaced. Early on it might have been the spinning jenny, but now its the Accountant or the lithographic printer who is a machine/AI. Even highly skilled jobs like solicitors are supplemented by AI. Think of all those banks that have shut. HMRC is calculated by a computer algorithm. All these jobs were well paid and highly skilled and are now done by half the number of people. I can't see how you can be wrong, for while an AI banker makes banking cheaper and an AI till shopping cheaper, that doesn't help if you earn little of nothing, because the machine took your job. My issue is that people keep talking about the future, but the future is here right now. So the future is already happening. I can see that. And we are already being faced with mass underemployment at the bottom and a diminishing number of well-paid jobs higher up?. This is likely to accelerate as AI advances. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 14, 2022 11:42:18 GMT
The arguments for sharing and being fair are complicated, they revolve around the idea that each person needs to see themselves as a stakeholder. I found it too tough to answer all your points (they are all easily countered) because you fell victim to the dreaded formatting demon that made a lot of your commentary look like mine  However, i will say that you appear oblivious of my point - that taxing people by their income is actually not fair by any reasonable definition. However, It is convenient for those in government. Many of the reasons you cite for it being an advantage actually count against it. It is unfair and so it causes large incentive issues. As soon as the lowest stop feeling that, those directly above them begin to wonder if they're next. Here you are not arguing for taxation by income, but wealth redistribution. They are technically separate. This spreads like a canker and soon its everyone for themselves. This is misleading - without wealth distribution, everyone is still protected by laws which (say) forbid them being stolen from I will summarise again - A society that has ' providing for those that don't have' as its highest priority, is unsustainable - it is communism So where is the line that keeps this idealist notion bounded? |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 14, 2022 12:12:08 GMT
What do you mean by benfits if you mean DHSS Benefits then no. Not even state pension I didnt even receive child benefit did you because ive no children and do you have private medical care if so are you a burden on the NHS. I have no children and no private medical policy though I've had treatment provided by the private sector but paid for by the NHS. How can you be a burden on the NHS when you have paid full contributions during a full working life ands pay tax on pensions? Im talking about them that have private medical insurance . They have but still relie on the NHS to treat there ills Ininstead of going to private medical providers. Even do they contribution to the NHS and state pension scheme . There costing the tax payers money |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Nov 14, 2022 12:22:05 GMT
I have no children and no private medical policy though I've had treatment provided by the private sector but paid for by the NHS. How can you be a burden on the NHS when you have paid full contributions during a full working life ands pay tax on pensions? Im talking about them that have private medical insurance . They have but still relie on the NHS to treat there ills Ininstead of going to private medical providers. Even do they contribution to the NHS and state pension scheme . There costing the tax payers money They are entitled to NHS treatment because they pay NHS contributions. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 14, 2022 12:45:59 GMT
I think that rather eating the young of other lions they are getting rid of the young of the male from whom they have taken over the pride as they represent no genetic advantage to the new pride leader and are therefore a waste of resources and a potential threat. I am sure lions do not think this through it is just how their genetic programme works. Agreed, but I didn't want to over complicate the analogy. The point being that not caring about the tribe does not lead to success. I think you way over simplified the analogy. As regards caring about the tribe that is a far more complicated issue and judgement for each individual within the tribe and the care of each individual varies from generation to generation as lack of care and over care fluctuate to a point of balance that does not mean every individual cares for the tribe. Many appear to care, some do not care. some care some care a lot and some can drift between the two. Some gang up on leaders, some are subservient, some are sneaky and the final balance of who is what is who gets to procreate within the tribe. Too much procreation by a selfish individual results in the break up of the tribe, too much procreation by selfless individuals means that the selfish member's genes and the sneaky genes can take their opportunities when the selfless individuals come of age. The balance is always in motion and success of the tribe is not the final determinant, the success of specific genes is what counts. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 14, 2022 15:09:34 GMT
The arguments for sharing and being fair are complicated, they revolve around the idea that each person needs to see themselves as a stakeholder. Ooh look at you with your so easily countered that you couldn't do it 😂 Its completely fair if the rules were apparent from the start. When I invented my new concept for a new business a rich person offered to fund the roll out for 50% of the future value. I accepted, why then later when it was a success would I argue its unfair. After all he made it possible. Same with government. When I invented my business they provided me with and educated staff, a health system, an anti corruption police, good roads sewage water electrical supply and even a safety net if I failed. In return they told me that if I made it they would want more tax from me and told me the amounts. Why is that unfair? As soon as the lowest stop feeling that, those directly above them begin to wonder if they're next. With the best will in the world, that's pedancy. This spreads like a canker and soon its everyone for themselves. They are protected by certain laws but not others, which is what I said. In my ape society it is meaningless if the elderly apes are protected from attack by the young males but still left to starve to death. The rest of the troupe still see this as disenfranchisement and look to see if they're next.
The line boundary is simple its the point at which you start to see society come apart. No one earning 30k a year and having a two bed flat with a parking space looks to overthrow the rich just because they have a nine bed house and 8 acres of parking.
What you are trying to do is imply such tipping points do not exist, but they clearly do, they are just higher than you would like.
I refer you to Jeff Bezos.
The pitchforks are coming.
www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014/ |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 14, 2022 15:14:22 GMT
Im talking about them that have private medical insurance . They have but still relie on the NHS to treat there ills Ininstead of going to private medical providers. Even do they contribution to the NHS and state pension scheme . There costing the tax payers money They are entitled to NHS treatment because they pay NHS contributions. Effectively they pay to queue jump. Much of what the private sector use is provided by the NHS. So you pay a bit extra and you get a radiographer and an MRI scanner for an hour, plus the back up of the NHS if your op goes badly. So I'd agree you're not really costing the tax payer more, but you are pushing someone potentially more serious than you down the line. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 14, 2022 15:19:28 GMT
Zany, you did the same thing again. lol
Your post has your comments under my quote. I feel sure that you aren't trying to avoid a reply. I'll say that again - i am absolutely certain you aren't doing this deliberately to avoid me replying easily. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 14, 2022 15:31:47 GMT
Zany, you did the same thing again. lol Your post has your comments under my quote. I feel sure that you aren't trying to avoid a reply. I'll say that again - i am absolutely certain you aren't doing this deliberately to avoid me replying easily. lol Fixed. And you know me better than that. So don't be rude. |
|
