Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[Zurkerx]

The unemployment rate is low because people have two jobs? Yep, someone doesn't know basic economics

She self identifies as a socialist, of course she doesn't know how things work irl

Spreading misery equally across the globe since its inception. Comrades, embrace yourselves!

[Hammer Britannia]

The unemployment rate is low because people have two jobs? Yep, someone doesn't know basic economics

[Hawdhanah]

It seems irrational to ban automation if it's more effective just for the sake of preserving jobs. Say our technological progress continues and in the year 2XXX, all the jobs can be filled by less than 1% of the human population. What are our options?

1) Ban automation and return all these jobs to humans. Efficiency goes down, fewer goods and services are produced, prices rise.

2) Keep the automation and give humans some bullshit job like digging a hole and filling it back in. Society becomes (even more than it is now) the myth of Sisyphus. We suffer a lesser quality of life overall, because parents have less time to raise their kids, people have less time for creative pursuits which results, the psychological burden of being forced to run in circles degrades mental health even more than it does now. Also every business that sells recreational goods or services loses a ton of potential profit.

3) Universal basic income. This lets business fully exploit the benefits of automation without an economic collapse. This gives businesses and employees total freedom to negotiate wages: If someone wants to accept a job for $1 an hour, that's fine because they don't need the job to live. Conversely, if a job is in high demand it lets one sell their labor at a competitive price.

So, we can ban things which make life easier, which defeats the entire purpose of science and progress. Why do we bother inventing anything if it we can't reap its benefits? We can be Sisyphus pushing the boulder uphill. Or we can change the system. I vote change the system. I don't know about you but I want a miniature drone that wipes my ass for me (not literally... I want technology to improve my quality of life).

The thing with automation is that while it may take jobs away, it will create new ones or redefine old jobs that requires a mix of both machine and human labor. As for a UBI, I don't think a pure version of it would be ideal given its high cost, risks of increasing inflation, and if too high, disincentivizes people from seeking working. In this case, I think a more market-based solution, the Negative Income Tax, will be more effective and cost less. We are unfortunately not preparing for this drastic change and I fear it will be a bumpy ride in the beginning.

The number of jobs created by this next step of automation is small compared to the resultant unemployment. Even before what we are having currently, the new jobs that replaced the old ones previously after the latest episodes don't rank high in numbers employed.

IT jobs are growing fast, but they start off in small numbers, and they are not as seriously emphasized on quantity enough for a gap large enough for people to fill.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

WTF is the point of nuking innocent South Americans, Africans, south Asians, Australians, etc.? Why are you this sadistic?

To make sure everyone understands not to try and get rid of America lest our entire species perish as a result, duh.

1. UBI won't reduce unemployment, but it will provide guaranteed income for unemployed people.

Not very much income, especially if you live in a place that has higher costs of living.

2. The most commonly suggested UBI is $1000/month (which is just enough to stay above the poverty line) btw.

That's literally not even enough to pay rent on a 1 bedroom apartment in some areas in my state. Then you have to get into utilities, food etc etc. It wouldn't work.

3. Automation will save most companies massive amounts of money. Let's say McDonalds implemented a fast food robot that means that every outlet has to hire one less employee, which costs $15,000 to buy and has a maintenance cost of $3000 per year (these numbers are hypothetical). Given that the average McDonalds employee is paid around $10,000/year, McDonalds will break even within two years (not taking into account absence and any other reason a human will not be available). Also, this money could be taxed to help fund a UBI (the tax will still be less than the company's financial gains from automation)

Indeed it would save them money, but that's a pretty piss poor reason to allow it when large scale adoption of automation could have serious negative consequences for the nation as a whole.

Automation itself does not make anyone's life worse, it's the indirect consequences that do. When Amazon replaces a delivery driver with a drone, the driver doesn't say "Fuck, I really liked driving that truck for 14 hours and pissing in a bottle", he says "Fuck, I really needed that paycheck."

Which is we should be trying to prevent large scale adoption of it, we as a society are not ready for it yet and frankly I'm doubtful we ever truly will be.

1. You advocated bombing the countries where multinational corporations outside the United States are based. America is the aggressor in that situation.
2. I'm just talking about staying above the poverty line. I'm not American anyway.
3. Page already stated this about the negative consequences of automation:

Automation itself does not make anyone's life worse, it's the indirect consequences that do. When Amazon replaces a delivery driver with a drone, the driver doesn't say "Fuck, I really liked driving that truck for 14 hours and pissing in a bottle", he says "Fuck, I really needed that paycheck."

4. A UBI would solve the problem of having no income (which as stated by Page is the main problem if you're unemployed).

[Washington Resistance Army]

2. I'm just talking about staying above the poverty line. I'm not American anyway.

If you can't even pay half of your rent you aren't above the poverty line, c'mon now.

[Elwher]

Hopefully an automation-proof job, given recent developments in AI. Estimates suggest that half of all US jobs could be automated by the 2030s.

Automation should be banned tbqh

If automation is defined as using machines to make work easier, would banning it mean no using tools at all?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Automation should be banned tbqh

If automation is defined as using machines to make work easier, would banning it mean no using tools at all?

Y E S

Primitivism ftw

[Elwher]

If automation is defined as using machines to make work easier, would banning it mean no using tools at all?

Y E S

Primitivism ftw

Then how are you going to build, maintain, and launch your nuclear arsenal you wanted in earlier posts?

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

2. I'm just talking about staying above the poverty line. I'm not American anyway.

If you can't even pay half of your rent you aren't above the poverty line, c'mon now.

Now that I've looked it up, in the United States as of 2015 the poverty line for an individual below the age of 65 is $11,770 per year. A UBI of $1000 per month translates to $12,000 annually.

[Zurkerx]

The thing with automation is that while it may take jobs away, it will create new ones or redefine old jobs that requires a mix of both machine and human labor. As for a UBI, I don't think a pure version of it would be ideal given its high cost, risks of increasing inflation, and if too high, disincentivizes people from seeking working. In this case, I think a more market-based solution, the Negative Income Tax, will be more effective and cost less. We are unfortunately not preparing for this drastic change and I fear it will be a bumpy ride in the beginning.

The number of jobs created by this next step of automation is small compared to the resultant unemployment. Even before what we are having currently, the new jobs that replaced the old ones previously after the latest episodes don't rank high in numbers employed.

IT jobs are growing fast, but they start off in small numbers, and they are not as seriously emphasized on quantity enough for a gap large enough for people to fill.

The problem isn't that there won't be a lack of jobs and Economists point to history to show that automation actually creates jobs. The problem will be that these jobs will require a higher level of education, which may not be obtainable for some. In that case, a NIT would help.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Y E S

Primitivism ftw

Then how are you going to build, maintain, and launch your nuclear arsenal you wanted in earlier posts?

…

well shit

If you can't even pay half of your rent you aren't above the poverty line, c'mon now.

Now that I've looked it up, in the United States as of 2015 the poverty line for an individual below the age of 65 is $11,770 per year. A UBI of $1000 per month translates to $12,000 annually.

The US is far too large to just look at things at the federal level like that tbh, someone in my area might be able to scrape by on $1,000 a month but in Seattle or somewhere that's "I'm living in the back of a $500 car and only eating McDonalds" type money.

[Hawdhanah]

The number of jobs created by this next step of automation is small compared to the resultant unemployment. Even before what we are having currently, the new jobs that replaced the old ones previously after the latest episodes don't rank high in numbers employed.

IT jobs are growing fast, but they start off in small numbers, and they are not as seriously emphasized on quantity enough for a gap large enough for people to fill.

The problem isn't that there won't be a lack of jobs and Economists point to history to show that automation actually creates jobs. The problem will be that these jobs will require a higher level of education, which may not be obtainable for some. In that case, a NIT would help.

How many of those created during previous automation-revolutions are now the majority of the workforce? The top few dozens of these lists of jobs by numbers employed are all easily replaceable, and I hardly think we need that much programmers.

[Zurkerx]

The problem isn't that there won't be a lack of jobs and Economists point to history to show that automation actually creates jobs. The problem will be that these jobs will require a higher level of education, which may not be obtainable for some. In that case, a NIT would help.

How many of those created during previous automation-revolutions are now the majority of the workforce? The top few dozens of these lists of jobs by numbers employed are all easily replaceable, and I hardly think we need that much programmers.

And like how they were created, they'll be replaced with new jobs that go beyond just programming. What technology can take, it can create, we just need to overhaul the education system to steer people towards those opportunities.

Now, there's a report here on UK and not necessarily reflect the entire world but, it's promising to say the least and i'm more incline to endorse it.

[Hawdhanah]

How many of those created during previous automation-revolutions are now the majority of the workforce? The top few dozens of these lists of jobs by numbers employed are all easily replaceable, and I hardly think we need that much programmers.

And like how they were created, they'll be replaced with new jobs that go beyond just programming. What technology can take, it can create, we just need to overhaul the education system to steer people towards those opportunities.

Now, there's a report here on UK and not necessarily reflect the entire world but, it's promising to say the least and i'm more incline to endorse it.

Many jobs mentioned in that article - delivery, customer service, order fulfilment - are in fact the subjects of replacement.

Technology creates but not at a rate enough to compensate for what was taken. Nowhere near enough. Jobs created decades ago remain very far down on the list in terms of number of people who can rely on it for a living.

[Great Minarchistan]

I should get a non-part-time job before things go to shit, probably.

Hopefully an automation-proof job, given recent developments in AI. Estimates suggest that half of all US jobs could be automated by the 2030s.

Both okun's law developments and the investment-employment link *quite* refute that thesis.

[Great Minarchistan]

Also, support for UBI in the United States is currently at around 45% as of 2016 (compared to only ~10% in 2006), so populists will inevitably push for UBI in the following decade as an election promise.

I wish luck for the US, may you survive bankruptcy when trying such a shitty idea.

[Zurkerx]

And like how they were created, they'll be replaced with new jobs that go beyond just programming. What technology can take, it can create, we just need to overhaul the education system to steer people towards those opportunities.

Now, there's a report here on UK and not necessarily reflect the entire world but, it's promising to say the least and i'm more incline to endorse it.

Many jobs mentioned in that article - delivery, customer service, order fulfilment - are in fact the subjects of replacement.

Technology creates but not at a rate enough to compensate for what was taken. Nowhere near enough. Jobs created decades ago remain very far down on the list in terms of number of people who can rely on it for a living.

The short-term effects will be devastating, no doubt. That's what has happened with the other industries from previous automation spurs. However, things will stable out in the long-term as society and the economy adjusts to these changes.

We can't stop automation since that would be a regression on humankind and our knowledge. We can though take measures to prepare for it, measures we haven't even bother considering.

Also, Great Minarchistan, automation related topic should be the next poll, even if it is a short one.

[Firaxin]

Automation should be banned tbqh

It seems irrational to ban automation if it's more effective just for the sake of preserving jobs. Say our technological progress continues and in the year 2XXX, all the jobs can be filled by less than 1% of the human population. What are our options?

1) Ban automation and return all these jobs to humans. Efficiency goes down, fewer goods and services are produced, prices rise.

2) Keep the automation and give humans some bullshit job like digging a hole and filling it back in. Society becomes (even more than it is now) the myth of Sisyphus. We suffer a lesser quality of life overall, because parents have less time to raise their kids, people have less time for creative pursuits which results, the psychological burden of being forced to run in circles degrades mental health even more than it does now. Also every business that sells recreational goods or services loses a ton of potential profit.

3) Universal basic income. This lets business fully exploit the benefits of automation without an economic collapse. This gives businesses and employees total freedom to negotiate wages: If someone wants to accept a job for $1 an hour, that's fine because they don't need the job to live. Conversely, if a job is in high demand it lets one sell their labor at a competitive price.

So, we can ban things which make life easier, which defeats the entire purpose of science and progress. Why do we bother inventing anything if it we can't reap its benefits? We can be Sisyphus pushing the boulder uphill. Or we can change the system. I vote change the system. I don't know about you but I want a miniature drone that wipes my ass for me (not literally... I want technology to improve my quality of life).

I've got a fourth option, make humans as as advanced and efficient as robots with technology. Then we can work with the automatons. The need to help society is fulfilled and technological progress continues.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

And like how they were created, they'll be replaced with new jobs that go beyond just programming. What technology can take, it can create, we just need to overhaul the education system to steer people towards those opportunities.

Now, there's a report here on UK and not necessarily reflect the entire world but, it's promising to say the least and i'm more incline to endorse it.

Many jobs mentioned in that article - delivery, customer service, order fulfilment - are in fact the subjects of replacement.

Technology creates but not at a rate enough to compensate for what was taken. Nowhere near enough. Jobs created decades ago remain very far down on the list in terms of number of people who can rely on it for a living.

Perhaps those that work in delivery, customer service, order fulfillment or whatever could learn new skills to operate the machine and/or software of said technology. You know, rather than slowing down or halting societal progress.

[Great Minarchistan]

Also, Great Minarchistan, automation related topic should be the next poll, even if it is a short one.

I have an idea for it already:
"What are the effects that automation will have on the job market?"
"1. (Based opinion) None, as long as the investment ratio is kept high
2. (Brainlet opinion) MUH UNEMPLOYED
3. (Lame opinion) A mix of the both"
:^)

Btw, polls on the LDT have a standard duration of 15 days, at least for now

[Great Minarchistan]

I love how the current poll is following a bell curve distribution

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

I love how the current poll is following a bell curve distribution

I would say bitcoin is the most Libertarianish thing on the list, being it is a crypto currency. However, for me, I love my weed. So, I voted for weed.

[Torrocca]

Gonna take the weekend to read some Smith, Rothbard, and an assortment of Communist and left-Libertarian works before dropping my new thoughts on right-Libertarianism here, friendos.

[Great Minarchistan]

Gonna take the weekend to read some Smith, Rothbard, and an assortment of Communist and left-Libertarian works before dropping my new thoughts on right-Libertarianism here, friendos.

ok retard

In the meanwhile, anyone willing to fite me about my hot take on automation? :^)

[Proctopeo]

Gonna take the weekend to read some Smith, Rothbard, and an assortment of Communist and left-Libertarian works before dropping my new thoughts on right-Libertarianism here, friendos.

ok retard

In the meanwhile, anyone willing to fite me about my hot take on automation? :^)

if we make the humans part robot we can live on desolate worlds near the galactic core