Economy It's Not Just Low Income Jobs That Are At Risk Of Automation...

My portrayal of your position is infinitely more accurate than yours is of mine. You simply don't care if parents blow their govt assistance on tattoos and casinos and neglect the needs of their children. Funny that you mention pools when in that thread I agreed that that was a ridiculous, and even harmful restriction. But liars gonna lie.

Spending government assistance on casinos and tattoos shouldn't be seen as neglecting the needs of children.

Neglecting the needs of the children should be seen as neglecting the needs of children.

The problem is the poor are given so little that one is equated to the other.

I didn't read said post or thread, was there actual evidence of neglect?
 
Spending government assistance on casinos and tattoos shouldn't be seen as neglecting the needs of children.

Neglecting the needs of the children should be seen as neglecting the needs of children.

The problem is the poor are given so little that one is equated to the other.

I didn't read said post or thread, was there actual evidence of neglect?

Agree 100%. The argument is that the usual mechanisms for identifying and rectifying neglect are insufficient in the case of the poor, and that these special mechanisms (limiting how cash benefits can be spent) must be added. But strangely, that doesn't apply to market income or to recipients of other gov't benefits. There's no law proposed or enacted saying that you can't spend your paycheck on tattoos.

This is the story that we were discussing:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...going-swimming-on-governments-dime/?tid=sm_fb

There’s nothing fun about being on welfare, and a new Kansas law aims to keep it that way.

Republican Gov. Sam Brownback signed House Bill 2258 into law Thursday. The measure means Kansas families receiving government assistance will no longer be able to use those funds to visit swimming pools, see movies, go gambling or get tattoos on the state’s dime.

If you want to wade through the thread, here it is:

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/k...nts-from-spending-at-movies-or-pools.2973237/

Obviously, I was not saying what Anung was claiming I was. My position is just that if parents aren't taking care of their kids to the best of the ability, that's a problem, but it's a separate one from that kind of tyrannical law.
 
Spending government assistance on casinos and tattoos shouldn't be seen as neglecting the needs of children.

Neglecting the needs of the children should be seen as neglecting the needs of children.

The problem is the poor are given so little that one is equated to the other.

I didn't read said post or thread, was there actual evidence of neglect?


If they're given so little than wasting money on casinos and tattoos is neglecting something, and if you have kids....

And for the record I do believe they're given too little. Not only that, they're not given benefits to scale or tapered off. It's an unforgiving system, but it's not a career choice either. It's a safety net and we should do more to help people rise out of it.

UBI is a different topic that is worth exploring but there are many things this country has to l correct before that is up for real debate.

evidence of neglect wasn't the topic, so I don't believe there was.
Search "Kansas TANF"

Edit: I see Jack felt the need to mention me in your post. Sorry to now do the same, but if you read through that thread please let us know if you agree with Jack that I'm a radical right winger who hates poor people, that is how he likes to portray my position from that thread.
 
Sorry to now do the same, but if you read through that thread please let us know if you agree with Jack that I'm a radical right winger who hates poor people, that is how he likes to portray my position from that thread.

That is not my position, for the record. You're lying again. Crazy how consistently you do that.
 
Lol, that's
That is not my position, for the record. You're lying again. Crazy how consistently you do that.
then please clarify it, because it's the rhetoric you've been spewing about me for the last 4 years.
 
Lol, that's

then please clarify it, because it's the rhetoric you've been spewing about me for the last 4 years.

That's not true, of course. When you talk about how left-wing you are, I've pointed that out as well as your support for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Most people acknowledge a significant gap between "radical right-winger who hates poor people" and "not that far to the left" or "right-leaning."
 
If they're given so little than wasting money on casinos and tattoos is neglecting something, and if you have kids....

And for the record I do believe they're given too little. Not only that, they're not given benefits to scale or tapered off. It's an unforgiving system, but it's not a career choice either. It's a safety net and we should do more to help people rise out of it.

UBI is a different topic that is worth exploring but there are many things this country has to l correct before that is up for real debate.

evidence of neglect wasn't the topic, so I don't believe there was.
Search "Kansas TANF"

Going to have to side with JVS then. The blame in that situation isn't with the parents but with the system itself.

The safety net and need to rise out of unemployment opinion is at odds with your previously espoused beliefs that technology will eventually lead to mass unemployment.

You want to fight a battle you already know you're going to lose really badly? Because that's what it sounds like to me.

We need to change the thinking from how do we get these people jobs to how do we implement a system that allows the inevitable unemployed masses to live better than the employed masses do now.

We can't fight the inevitable but I certainly hope it's within our ability to turn it into a good thing and not fuck it all up with the greed, jealousy and entitlement issues we as a collective seem to have.
 
We need to change the thinking from how do we get these people jobs to how do we implement a system that allows the inevitable unemployed masses to live better than the employed masses do now.

This is also exactly right. All over the developed world, people in the vulnerable populations I listed (as well as others--like college students, the temporarily unemployed, etc.) face very high poverty levels pre-tax and transfer. Countries that have lower poverty rates just do a better job of transferring income to those people. When we discuss poverty, too often it's about behavioral choices and certainly some portion of our poor population fits that, but the vast majority of the problem is actually life-cycle issues (not people who are lazy or addicted or something but kids, old people, the disabled and others who are not able to participate in labor markets), and another good chunk of the small remaining minority is collapsed local economies (think Detroit or Appalachia). And that obviously has a lot of implications for the current discussion.
 
Anung said:
Edit: I see Jack felt the need to mention me in your post. Sorry to now do the same, but if you read through that thread please let us know if you agree with Jack that I'm a radical right winger who hates poor people, that is how he likes to portray my position from that thread.

Missed this

I think ideologically you're both actually very similar and that would mean a no. As JVS said being pro Ron Paul and the other dude (no idea) does indicate you are more right than him but I honestly think it's more a distrust of government and libertarian appeal that got you than right policies.
 
I think ideologically you're both actually very similar and that would mean a no. As JVS said being pro Ron Paul and the other dude (no idea) does indicate you are more right than him but I honestly think it's more a distrust of government and libertarian appeal that got you than right policies.

I don't think that's quite right. To some extent, there's probably a difference in just a model of how things work. To me, you have a lot of people who more-or-less agree with me on the big issues and people who really disagree with me on the big issues, and the policy we have is a result of how that fight shakes out (who wins elections, what kinds of compromises--if any--can be made, etc.). There are others who think it's kind of "most of the voters agree with me," but some politicians trick them either into disagreeing or by pretending to be on the same side and then changing in office. I wouldn't characterize that as a difference in trust of gov't as much as just a different idea about how the world works.

But specifically with Anung, he's to the right of me philosophically (as demonstrated in that thread, among others), but is oddly more accepting of dubious factual claims made by left-wing fanatics. To add to this: I've often said that there really isn't a comparable left-wing media bubble to the one that we have on the right. But that's not to say that left-wing biased media don't exist (read Taibbi, Scahill, deBoer, Hedges, etc. for proof that they do); I just mean that they don't have a comparable influence to their right-wing equivalents. But here in the WR, there are people--even people on the right--who consume and assign credibility to them.
 
What say you Sherdog? Is automation good or bad? Where do you see automation in the future and what does this mean for the working class?

It can be VERY good.

In this specific instance, this law firm can keep all their human attorneys and give them a raise and/or lower their work week hours with the time and money saved from getting this computer attorney.

But if the greedy get their way, they'll likely fire the extra attorneys and pocket the extra income the computer generates. It just depends on how it's used.
 
It can be VERY good.

In this specific instance, this law firm can keep all their human attorneys and give them a raise and/or lower their work week hours with the time and money saved from getting this computer attorney.

But if the greedy get their way, they'll likely fire the extra attorneys and pocket the extra income the computer generates. It just depends on how it's used.

Have you read Lord Bertie's, "In Praise of Idleness"? Your post reminds me of that:

http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html

I'll quote a bit, but it's short, and I recommend the whole thing

Suppose that, at a given moment, a certain number of people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the world needs, working (say) eight hours a day. Someone makes an invention by which the same number of men can make twice as many pins: pins are already so cheap that hardly any more will be bought at a lower price. In a sensible world, everybody concerned in the manufacturing of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything else would go on as before. But in the actual world this would be thought demoralizing. The men still work eight hours, there are too many pins, some employers go bankrupt, and half the men previously concerned in making pins are thrown out of work. There is, in the end, just as much leisure as on the other plan, but half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked. In this way, it is insured that the unavoidable leisure shall cause misery all round instead of being a universal source of happiness. Can anything more insane be imagined?

The economics of that aren't really right (the people who lost their jobs find other ones, and everyone ends up better off), but the basic point about leisure growth rather than wealth growth makes sense.
 
Going to have to side with JVS then. The blame in that situation isn't with the parents but with the system itself.

The safety net and need to rise out of unemployment opinion is at odds with your previously espoused beliefs that technology will eventually lead to mass unemployment.

You want to fight a battle you already know you're going to lose really badly? Because that's what it sounds like to me.

We need to change the thinking from how do we get these people jobs to how do we implement a system that allows the inevitable unemployed masses to live better than the employed masses do now.

We can't fight the inevitable but I certainly hope it's within our ability to turn it into a good thing and not fuck it all up with the greed, jealousy and entitlement issues we as a collective seem to have.

I agree we have to change our thinking, but first things first.

My actual argument is that we are ill prepared to deal with the rise in automation and I don't think we ever will be.

We have a lot of issues to resolve before this country becomes either a socialist utopia, communist utopia, mixed economy utopia, or capitalist dystopia.
(Are any of these Utopias actual Utopias...?)

Infrastructure
Healthcare
Education
War
Climate change
Debt

We're the richest country in the world and we're still behind pretty much anybody that matters in these areas, but somehow were going to rally and save the day? Not likely.


And none of this even address the psychosocial impact of not working.

So I'm not saying j have the answer.

As for TANF, rallying around discretionary money for tattoos and casinos as a mechanism of changing the way we think is putting the cart before the horse, if not missing the boat altogether. By not helping bring these people into society, we're not helping them or society.
 
Missed this

I think ideologically you're both actually very similar and that would mean a no. As JVS said being pro Ron Paul and the other dude (no idea) does indicate you are more right than him but I honestly think it's more a distrust of government and libertarian appeal that got you than right policies.

My support of Paul and Johnson were due to their foreign policy and civil rights platforms, not their economic policies.
It goes both ways. I just value life and freedom more than Goverment assistance for tattoos and casinos.
 
But that's not to say that left-wing biased media don't exist (read Taibbi, Scahill, deBoer, Hedges, etc. for proof that they do);

LOL

This is what I guess we can call "Jack-wing bias": JVS is biased against anyone who takes positions or supports candidates that are too far to the left of Jack.

He can't just say, "I disagree with these people on issues," and then debate the substance. He has to cast aspersions on the character or lucidity or motives of those thinking, acting and operating to the left of the DNC.
 
LOL

This is what I guess we can call "Jack-wing bias": JVS is biased against anyone who takes positions or supports candidates that are too far to the left of Jack.

He can't just say, "I disagree with these people on issues," and then debate the substance. He has to cast aspersions on the character or lucidity or motives of those thinking, acting and operating to the left of the DNC.

I don't think you understood the point. Those guys aren't necessarily to the left of me ideologically, and the difference I have with them isn't about positions on issues as much as about what is true and what isn't.
 
I don't think that's quite right. To some extent, there's probably a difference in just a model of how things work. To me, you have a lot of people who more-or-less agree with me on the big issues and people who really disagree with me on the big issues, and the policy we have is a result of how that fight shakes out (who wins elections, what kinds of compromises--if any--can be made, etc.). There are others who think it's kind of "most of the voters agree with me," but some politicians trick them either into disagreeing or by pretending to be on the same side and then changing in office. I wouldn't characterize that as a difference in trust of gov't as much as just a different idea about how the world works.

Faith may have been a better word. Don't argue semantics with me man it's 3:30am here and I'm pretty sure you know what I meant.

But specifically with Anung, he's to the right of me philosophically (as demonstrated in that thread, among others), but is oddly more accepting of dubious factual claims made by left-wing fanatics. To add to this: I've often said that there really isn't a comparable left-wing media bubble to the one that we have on the right. But that's not to say that left-wing biased media don't exist (read Taibbi, Scahill, deBoer, Hedges, etc. for proof that they do); I just mean that they don't have a comparable influence to their right-wing equivalents. But here in the WR, there are people--even people on the right--who consume and assign credibility to them.

Being to the right of you doesn't mean right though.

I haven't replied to hundreds of his posts but from what I've seen he's more left than right.

I have no idea who those people are but I'm guessing you're referring to your difference of opinion in the sponsorship (don't argue semantics with this word it's 3am and you know what i mean) of politicians?

I'd wager the reason he's pro Bernie and anti Hillary is much more largely due to the previous pro war stances of Hillary than the money taking.
 
I'm going to bed Anung I'll get back later, just letting you know i'm not snubbing you off.
 
Faith may have been a better word. Don't argue semantics with me man it's 3:30am here and I'm pretty sure you know what I meant.

I think it's a significant difference. I mean, I'd say that thinking that the gov't knows better than regular people about how to spend their cash to improve their lives reflects a stunning and completely unjustified level of trust in gov't. But if the question is, "why don't things happen the way I want them to," my answer is, "because we have a democratic system of gov't, and other people disagree with me," while his answer seems to be, "because everyone is corrupt and bought off." So it's not a general "trust in gov't" thing as much as a different understanding of how governance works.

I have no idea who those people are but I'm guessing you're referring to your difference of opinion in the sponsorship (don't argue semantics with this word it's 3am and you know what i mean) of politicians?

I'm saying that there is a left-wing media that paints a biased and often (not always) inaccurate picture of reality that matches the right-wing infotainment complex. One can agree with that picture without agreeing with the values of the people painting it.

I'd wager the reason he's pro Bernie and anti Hillary is much more largely due to the previous pro war stances of Hillary than the money taking.

I think it's more looking for a reason that sounds plausible than actually seeing that as a reason for him. Clinton's long been the target of right-wing smears, and she's not a natural politician and comes off very awkward when trying to be cool and sociable. That really rubs some people the wrong way and makes her more vulnerable to the types of attacks that politicians often get.
 
Back
Top