Democratic Presidential Debate

[Kill4Me]

Turns out that Mush For Brains Harris is not even African-American but comes from an affluent Jamaican-Indian heritage (what a phony!):

Any notion that California Senator Kamala Harris does not know much about, or underplays her Jamaican heritage was dispelled on a recent visit to South Florida, home to over 100,000 Jamaicans. In Miami for a fund-raiser in support of Senator Bill Nelson, she and sister Maya rubbed shoulders and posed for photos with a number of prominent Jamaican Americans, including Mayor of the City of Miramar Wayne Messam and City of Miramar Commissioner Winston Barnes among others.

In a Facebook post after the event, Barnes effused:

‘…..very special lady and as Jamaican as they come…when I asked her where her dad was from, she says St Anns Bay, so I ask, what you know about St Anns Bay..the response?’ “How you mean man? I know there growing up.”

Reflections of a Jamaican Father

By

Donald J. Harris

As a child growing up in Jamaica, I often heard it said, by my parents and family friends: “memba whe yu cum fram”. To this day, I continue to retain the deep social awareness and strong sense of identity which that grassroots Jamaican philosophy fed in me. As a father, I naturally sought to develop the same sensibility in my two daughters. Born and bred in America, Kamala was the first in line to have it planted. Maya came two years later and had the advantage of an older sibling as mentor. It is for them to say truthfully now, not me, what if anything of value they carried from that early experience into adulthood. My one big regret is that they did not come to know very well the two most influential women in my life: “Miss Chrishy” and “Miss Iris” (as everybody called them). This is, in many ways, a story about these women and the heritage they gave us.

https://www.jamaicaglobalonline.com/...ican-heritage/

This seeming lack of knowledge about the connection between her Indian and Jamaican heritage provides additional ammunition for some Jamaicans who are of the view that Ms. Harris tends to downplay her Jamaican heritage when it suits her, crediting her Tamil Indian mother with the most significant influence on her life and outlook and rarely talks about her father’s influence. Her father Donald, hardly ever gets credit except when mentioned alongside her mother, but rarely as an individual.

https://www.jamaicaglobalonline.com/...tity-politics/

[mfckrz]

Turns out that Mush For Brains Harris is not even African-American

Neither was Obama, but people went full retard for him anyway.

[andreasdevig]

UBI seems good in theory, but in practice I remain skeptical of it. The main reason Yang proposes UBI is because he fears automation will eventually take over a chunk of jobs and many will end up on the streets. If we don't use UBI to deal with that then an alternative solution is required to deal with automation, but we can't do nothing.

The fact that the vast majority of 1st world countries let in mass immigration instead of controlled immigration for cheap labor that automation will eventually replace is incredibly short sighted and makes zero sense in the long run. So controlled immigration is needed sooner rather than later because of looming automation.

What about raising the minimum wage? Wouldn't that keep businesses from exploiting immigrants for cheap labor?

I like what Richard Wolff is suggesting here (starting at 5:50)..



He's saying that, instead of, say, firing half the workers, you give everybody half the day off. So everybody is now working half day (and the robots do the other half of the work). Nobody gets fired, and everybody still makes the same amount of money they always did.

[Raver]

What about raising the minimum wage? Wouldn't that keep businesses from exploiting immigrants for cheap labor?

The way I see it, there many different ways to skin a cat. Possible solutions to a looming automation crisis are: UBI, minimum wage increase and other ideas that have not been proposed yet.

I think increasing minimum wage does the opposite. It incentivizes companies to illegaly hire cheap illegal labor over expensive legal labor. The solution is keeping illegal immigrants out of the country, period.

I like what Richard Wolff is suggesting here (starting at 5:50)..



He's saying that, instead of, say, firing half the workers, you give everybody half the day off. So everybody is now working half day (and the robots do the other half of the work). Nobody gets fired, and everybody still makes the same amount of money they always did.

Ideally, I would like this to happen. Unfortunately, in practice corporations will try to save as much as possible expense wise so laws will have to be put in place to enforce it, unless he was entailing that.

[andreasdevig]

I think increasing minimum wage does the opposite. It incentivizes companies to illegaly hire cheap illegal labor over expensive legal labor. The solution is keeping illegal immigrants out of the country, period.

Good point. Though in my opinion, keeping aliens out, "sending the jobs back to America," etc.. These things are kind of band-aid solutions. If the immigrants would rather come to America and get paid really shitty wages, than to stay where they came from.. then it's probably not gonna help to keep them out, as they're probably even worse off where they came from. I think our concerns must be global, with countries working together, to improve everyone's lives, globally. This would help everybody, and then the immigrants wouldn't need to flock here either (if that's what they're doing, and if that's something that concerns people).

]Ideally, I would like this to happen. Unfortunately, in practice corporations will try to save as much as possible expense wise so laws will have to be put in place to enforce it, unless he was entailing that.

Yeah. I'm not sure how it would be implemented. Perhaps there does need to be laws to enforce it. Maybe a compromise could be reached so that the CEOs and what not could save some amount of money.

[xerx]

The fact that the vast majority of 1st world countries let in mass immigration instead of controlled immigration for cheap labor that automation will eventually replace is incredibly short sighted and makes zero sense in the long run. So controlled immigration is needed sooner rather than later because of looming automation.

If you stopped immigration, they'll just ship the jobs overseas or automate faster.

[Raver]

Good point. Though in my opinion, keeping aliens out, "sending the jobs back to America," etc.. These things are kind of band-aid solutions. If the immigrants would rather come to America and get paid really shitty wages, than to stay where they came from.. then it's probably not gonna help to keep them out, as they're probably even worse off where they came from. I think our concerns must be global, with countries working together, to improve everyone's lives, globally. This would help everybody, and then the immigrants wouldn't need to flock here either (if that's what they're doing, and if that's something that concerns people).

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. My views tend to favor controlled immigration as opposed to open borders immigration. I agree with you that we should be helping people in the countries they're in so they have better lives in their home nation as opposed to encouraging them to migrate.

Yeah. I'm not sure how it would be implemented. Perhaps there does need to be laws to enforce it. Maybe a compromise could be reached so that the CEOs and what not could save some amount of money.

Yes, a system would have to be devised to make it work. I am not sure how, but his idea to solve automation seems interesting at least in theory.

If you stopped immigration, they'll just ship the jobs overseas or automate faster.

All mass immigration does is delay the inevitable. It is a short term band-aid fix to a long term problem. It helps keep the economy going and corporations producing for now, but eventually automation will rear its ugly head.

When that happens, there will be intense competition between the natives and immigrants for the sparse amount of jobs untouched by automation. From a long term standpoint, mass immigration will only worsen the upcoming automation crisis.

[Grendel]

If you stopped immigration, they'll just ship the jobs overseas or automate faster.

Edo Japan did pretty well.

[bgbg]

we should colonize the sun.

[Grendel]

we should colonize the sun.

[xerx]

All mass immigration does is delay the inevitable. It is a short term band-aid fix to a long term problem. It helps keep the economy going and corporations producing for now, but eventually automation will rear its ugly head.

When that happens, there will be intense competition between the natives and immigrants for the sparse amount of jobs untouched by automation. From a long term standpoint, mass immigration will only worsen the upcoming automation crisis.

If we take this line of reasoning, then even regular population growth is bad and doomed to wreck the economy. It's the same argument made against women entering the workforce: that they're taking jobs away from men. In fact, a bigger workforce means that more people spend their earnings, which creates more demand and more jobs.

That said, it's probably fair to make the case that a certain class of very low-skilled individuals are going to lose their jobs because of low-skilled immigration. Very few of these people are going to learn to code and I think that we can all agree on the need to find them some help.

Edo Japan did pretty well.

Edo Japan was an agrarian society that would have eventually been subjugated by more technologically advanced countries. These were technologically more advanced because they were more open.

[Grendel]

Edo Japan was an agrarian society that would have eventually been subjugated by more technologically advanced countries. These were technologically more advanced because they were more open.

Ohhhh, wait. Are we saying the Europeans actually industrialized on their own merit, and that makes the results of their exploits a bit less atrocious if it led to progress later on? Or was all of it done on the back of le slave with loot from le colonized, making it invalid, and so the deflowering of Edo Japan, and any other cultural usurpation by association, is without any silver lining and still an atrocity to be avoided anywhere? Pick one, only one.


Of course you overtly shitpost about wanting to destroy the US so none of this advice is probably in good faith anyway.

[xerx]

Ohhhh, wait. Are we saying the Europeans actually industrialized on their own merit, and that makes the results of their exploits a bit less atrocious if it led to progress later on? Or was all of it done on the back of le slave with loot from le colonized, making it invalid, and so the deflowering of Edo Japan, and any other cultural usurpation by association, is without any silver lining and still an atrocity to be avoided anywhere? Pick one, only one.

I'd say it's a combination of slavery (which includes wage slavery) and being open to new ideas. If you live in the United States, you probably know about the history of cotton slavery and its importance for textile manufacturing.

Japan also industrialized on the back wage-slavery as well as outright slavery, just as China is doing today.

Of course you overtly shitpost about wanting to destroy the US so none of this advice is probably in good faith anyway.

Why does the right wing always get so triggered?

[mfckrz]

If you stopped immigration, they'll just ship the jobs overseas or automate faster.

Okay, so embrace automation and we don't need immigration.

[bgbg]

i can't stop trying to picture the guy narrating

[xerx]

Okay, so embrace automation and we don't need immigration.

What makes you think I don't?? I want to see all dirty and backbreaking work become automated everywhere.

[Grendel]

Why does the right wing always get so triggered?

Half of our national ills are caused by the fact that we've been so open, Saudi Arabia and Israel now own our ass and none of the political class is accountable to our problems anymore.

There won't be "American refugees" or an "American Diaspora" the next time a war happens. Americans are such a hated group in every culture that anyone trying to flee anywhere will just get the same kind of treatment Koningsburg women and children got when the Russians charged back in for vengeance. We'll have nowhere to flee to if this country collapses. It won't matter if an American was "one of the good ones" who were kind to our own migrants, or even if we suddenly became totally pacifistic for the next 40 years until our destruction. No one will remember that. They'll remember only the sins of our fathers, in which we ourselves had no say.

Full autarky and militarization are probably the only way to prevent a future in nuclear fire or as China's slaves at this point. Africa, which never had the time to be colonialist, is now having infrastructure built by the same people who will destroy us.
There's no reason to be giving the benefit of the doubt to more people whose interests don't necessarily align with ours, while pretending it's in our self-interest. We fucked up when we went as far as the Caribbean. Every major atrocity in history is the result of incompatible cultures clashing because humans can't leave well enough alone and keep to their own soil for ten damn seconds.

[mfckrz]

If we take this line of reasoning, then even regular population growth is bad and doomed to wreck the economy. It's the same argument made against women entering the workforce: that they're taking jobs away from men. In fact, a bigger workforce means that more people spend their earnings, which creates more demand and more jobs.

Real incomes (insofar as what one can purchase with their earnings) have been flat for 40 years. More women entered the workforce because they had to—impossible now for most to reasonably rear a family on one income.

Expanding the labor supply has been great for business, not so much for the economy.

[mfckrz]

What makes you think I don't?? I want to see all dirty and backbreaking work become automated everywhere.

So we don't need all these superfluous people coming here (not that we ever did, but there's no sane labor economics argument for it either).

[Grendel]

So we don't need all these superfluous people coming here (not that we ever did, but there's no sane labor economics argument for it either).

And add to that.....departing from Labor theory economics is part of why we're in the foreign policy mess we're in. You know you fucked up when your country works on an economic theory of "Oh, even if we're digging an absolutely useless hole, laborers will have to be paid for digging the hole and filling it up again, so it's economic stimulus!"
Fuck Keynesianism in every form. Fuck the MIC and fuck the Petrodollar too.

[FreelancePoliceman]

Half of our national ills are caused by the fact that we've been so open, Saudi Arabia and Israel now own our ass and none of the political class is accountable to our problems anymore.

There won't be "American refugees" or an "American Diaspora" the next time a war happens. Americans are such a hated group in every culture that anyone trying to flee anywhere will just get the same kind of treatment Koningsburg women and children got when the Russians charged back in for vengeance. We'll have nowhere to flee to if this country collapses. It won't matter if an American was "one of the good ones" who were kind to our own migrants, or even if we suddenly became totally pacifistic for the next 40 years until our destruction. No one will remember that. They'll remember only the sins of our fathers, in which we ourselves had no say.

Full autarky and militarization are probably the only way to prevent a future in nuclear fire or as China's slaves at this point. Africa, which never had the time to be colonialist, is now having infrastructure built by the same people who will destroy us.
There's no reason to be giving the benefit of the doubt to more people whose interests don't necessarily align with ours, while pretending it's in our self-interest. We fucked up when we went as far as the Caribbean. Every major atrocity in history is the result of incompatible cultures clashing because humans can't leave well enough alone and keep to their own soil for ten damn seconds.

Dude, most refugees today are refugees because of the U.S. No shit the U.S. is widely hated, and with good reason. And S.A. and Israel certainly don’t “own” the States either; it’s just that our oligarchs have certain agreements with the oligarchs of those countries which they’d prefer to keep intact.

F.D.R. and Abdul-Aziz Ibn Saud made an agreement in the 40s when the former was returning from the Yalta Conference. The U.S. would protect the Saudi crown, and in exchange, S.A. would co-operate with the U.S. on anything it asked, and, of course, provide it with oil. This agreement has remained since then. Saudi Arabia was made into a puppet state of the U.S. in exchange for security — not the other way around.

I’m less familiar with Israel’s history. But it’s delusional to think that Israel puppets the U.S. Israel does what the States want (namely subsidizing the American “defense” industry and providing a more amiable ally than S.A. has been in the region), and in return receives special protection.

[xerx]

Real incomes (insofar as what one can purchase with their earnings) have been flat for 40 years. More women entered the workforce because they had to—impossible now for most to reasonably rear a family on one income.

Expanding the labor supply has been great for business, not so much for the economy.

If that were true, then real incomes should have been flat or gone down since population increased from 3 million (during the American revolution) to 325 million (today).

So we don't need all these superfluous people coming here (not that we ever did, but there's no sane labor economics argument for it either).

I guess it depends on how much you believe in the principle of liberty. Some people believe they should have the liberty to invite immigrants of different races and mingle with them.

The acid test to be a principled Libertarian is whether you support completely open borders; I mean completely open. In my experience, Libertarians who support enforcement are usually Conservatives that want to smoke weed and maybe fuck hookers.

[Grendel]

F.D.R. and Abdul-Aziz Ibn Saud made an agreement in the 40s when the former was returning from the Yalta Conference. The U.S. would protect the Saudi crown, and in exchange, S.A. would co-operate with the U.S. on anything it asked, and, of course, provide it with oil. This agreement has remained since then. Saudi Arabia was made into a puppet state of the U.S. in exchange for security — not the other way around.

Most of US's oil comes from Canada now. The Petrodollar deal is now directed towards protecting the Saudis' monopoly on the local oil trade. If someone trades oil for a different currency than the USD, US attacks them, because another currency being able to bypass the exchange for US dollars now hurts the value of the USD, and our currency monopoly is threatened. The Euro was actually somewhat more valuable than USD for a while; that's why Iraq happened.

It's not about receiving oil, it's about denial-of-access to other traders so they're forced to go through an exchange for USD at some point, because there's no gold left and our money is entirely fake otherwise. Big difference. Think of it as the equivalent of killing off anyone who refuses to trade with us, rather than stomping in and plundering for the bare resources like most war narratives would have you think.

[xerx]

Half of our national ills are caused by the fact that we've been so open, Saudi Arabia and Israel now own our ass and none of the political class is accountable to our problems anymore.

There won't be "American refugees" or an "American Diaspora" the next time a war happens. Americans are such a hated group in every culture that anyone trying to flee anywhere will just get the same kind of treatment Koningsburg women and children got when the Russians charged back in for vengeance. We'll have nowhere to flee to if this country collapses. It won't matter if an American was "one of the good ones" who were kind to our own migrants, or even if we suddenly became totally pacifistic for the next 40 years until our destruction. No one will remember that. They'll remember only the sins of our fathers, in which we ourselves had no say.

Full autarky and militarization are probably the only way to prevent a future in nuclear fire or as China's slaves at this point. Africa, which never had the time to be colonialist, is now having infrastructure built by the same people who will destroy us.
There's no reason to be giving the benefit of the doubt to more people whose interests don't necessarily align with ours, while pretending it's in our self-interest. We fucked up when we went as far as the Caribbean. Every major atrocity in history is the result of incompatible cultures clashing because humans can't leave well enough alone and keep to their own soil for ten damn seconds.

America's national ills are caused by the fact that it's open for bribery. Other Western countries that are open to new ideas are doing fine; they have different sets of problems, but none of them are related to foreign lobbies exerting control.

As for the refugee scenario, you'd be surprised by how many people do in fact give a shit about people -- including Americans -- fleeing their homes.

[Singu]

People should realize that the more people, the better.

Countries that don't accept any immigrants will probably decline due to declining population.

You bring up Edo period Japan. Well Japan still doesn't accept any immigrants, and now with its aging population, there aren't enough young people to support the older generation. And they're still unwilling to accept immigrants to solve the problem. It can only slowly decline and collapse later on.

[mfckrz]

Dude, most refugees today are refugees because of the U.S.

Most are here because of NGO & Catholic charity human trafficker networks, and because they want free shit.

[FreelancePoliceman]

Most of US's oil comes from Canada now. The Petrodollar deal is now directed towards protecting the Saudis' monopoly on the local oil trade. If someone trades oil for a different currency than the USD, US attacks them, because another currency being able to bypass the exchange for US dollars now hurts the value of the USD, and our currency monopoly is threatened. The Euro was actually somewhat more valuable than USD for a while; that's why Iraq happened.

It's not about receiving oil, it's about denial-of-access to other traders so they're forced to go through an exchange for USD at some point, because there's no gold left and our money is entirely fake otherwise. Big difference. Think of it as the equivalent of killing off anyone who refuses to trade with us, rather than stomping in and plundering for the bare resources like most war narratives would have you think.

You’re correct, of course. I was thinking of the agreement at the time, because the context in which I learned of it had to do with America in the world wars period. At the time the Western Allies were attempting to secure access to oil in the Middle East (among other things, e.g. naval access, regional influence, etc.), and this had a lot to do with the partition of the Ottoman Empire and formations of the Arab states left behind.

But yes, the petrodollar has been more of an interest for the U.S. than the actual oil itself for a good time now. It’s 2:30 AM and I’m dead-tired right now so I’ll chalk that up to my ommission.

[mfckrz]

If that were true, then real incomes should have been flat or gone down since population increased from 3 million (during the American revolution) to 325 million (today).

Economic growth kept pace with (or exceeded) population growth, so it wasn't true then. This has no longer been the case.

I guess it depends on how much you believe in the principle of liberty. Some people believe they should have the liberty to invite immigrants of different races and mingle with them.

Or, liberty to live away from people that don't improve one's quality of life. Dunno about you, but hearing clown polka mariachi music at 2AM is a 'liberty' I can live without.

The acid test to be a principled Libertarian is whether you support completely open borders; I mean completely open. In my experience, Libertarians who support enforcement are usually Conservatives that want to smoke weed and maybe fuck hookers.

Open borders socialize an entire country into the world's public toilet.

The only coherent libertarian position would be privatized borders. Expanding the franchise of democracy so more people can vote against your interests doesn't make sense.

[Grendel]

People should realize that the more people, the better.

Countries that don't accept any immigrants will probably decline due to declining population.

You bring up Edo period Japan. Well Japan still doesn't accept any immigrants, and now with its aging population, there aren't enough young people to support the older generation. And they're still unwilling to accept immigrants to solve the problem. It can only slowly decline and collapse later on.

If there's free land out there and you claim only the small portion you need to subsist and start farming it, you're no longer competing for housing. There's no rush to pay rent to the point where you must skip meals to make ends meet, you just need to make enough food to feed yourself, and some surplus to sell to keep you stable.
Populate all the land in an area and suddenly you NEED a wad of money before you can even have your own home. And half the time, you have to rent, and you can't even live there on your own terms, and the next thing you know, the conditions of your employer AND your landlord AND the local ordinances to keep the town quiet make you a virtual slave. You cannot simply count on gradual anti-capitalist reform to negate these ills as soon as they happen, because it took lifetimes of blood and tears to get us the rights we have today as it is.


No one wants to live in more densely crowded cities or deal with the consequences of more pollution-producers living on this planet. No one wants the government to keep resorting to imperialistic expansion, because all the land is used up and populated, and there's no other way to expand the markets except eroding away foreign cultures most of your people never heard of.
No one wants to have a sleeping cell smaller than your typical Western shower as their living space. No one would settle for having to share a crowded subway with two hundred other riders if they could choose for there to be only thirty.

The problem IS expansion. The problem is that people are goldfish, and if you give them a house for two, they'll people it with six. Expand that house to hold seven, and they'll fill it with thirty.



Dieoff is a blessing and fuck yourself with a rake for wanting to prevent it. No one deserves to live in this dystopian hellhole where everyone is herded like cattle through limited space.

I guess it depends on how much you believe in the principle of liberty. Some people believe they should have the liberty to invite immigrants of different races and mingle with them.

The acid test to be a principled Libertarian is whether you support completely open borders; I mean completely open. In my experience, Libertarians who support enforcement are usually Conservatives that want to smoke weed and maybe fuck hookers.

The only "freedom" that matters is freedom from other people.

[mfckrz]

People should realize that the more people, the better.

Until everyone's living in sardine can apartments and you can't walk outside without getting clobbered by the stench of crowded streets? Until there's no nature left because we've 'developed' it all just to keep more bodies breathing?

Fuck that shit. Depopulation, please.

Countries that don't accept any immigrants will probably decline due to declining population.

You bring up Edo period Japan. Well Japan still doesn't accept any immigrants, and now with its aging population, there aren't enough young people to support the older generation. And they're still unwilling to accept immigrants to solve the problem. It can only slowly decline and collapse later on.

Japan's going to be just fine. It's normal for population sizes to go up and down—a situation of limitless population growth is not normal. But you live in a context without historical perspective where you don't know any better.

Hey look, they're giving away free houses so young people can more easily start families: https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/05/asia/...mes/index.html

Sounds nice, doesn't it? Can't do that here because there's too many people (and banks would complain that it'd "ruin" the overpriced housing market).

[xerx]

Economic growth kept pace with (or exceeded) population growth, so it wasn't true then. This has no longer been the case.

Then why is population growth the cause of economic stagnation??

Or, liberty to live away from people that don't improve one's quality of life. Dunno about you, but hearing clown polka mariachi music at 2AM is a 'liberty' I can live without.


Open borders socialize an entire country into the world's public toilet.

The only coherent libertarian position would be privatized borders. Expanding the franchise of democracy so more people can vote against your interests doesn't make sense.

Hey, change the channel if you don't like what's on TV. You have the freedom to live in a gated community / safe space and censor the presence of Mexicans (and presumably Black people). I have the right to trade as much saliva as I want with shaved or unshaved Mexican pussy.

[mfckrz]

Then why is population growth the cause of economic stagnation??

Basic supply&demand??

Increasing labor supply without a commensurate increase in economic output means no wage growth.

No wage growth + rising costs of living → less savings. And no more middle class. Less savings → less investment, ergo ↓ economic growth.

Consider that there'd have never been a Renaissance without the Black Death. Because rising wages in the aftermath of the plague allowed for the emergence of a middle class and greatly disrupted the wealthy feudal hierarchies who'd been riding high on a mass of cheap labor prior.

With socioeconomic mobility from large numbers of people who can actually save, invest, and own assets… culture tends to follow. Same dynamics can be observed in civilizations of antiquity.

Hey, change the channel if you don't like what's on TV. You have the freedom to live in a gated community / safe space and censor the presence of Mexicans (and presumably Black people).

Where I live is fine. But resent being forced to take out a $500,000+ mortgage just to live in a decent area because the govt opened the floodgates to let all this in.

[perpetuus]

I don't think automation will hit jobs as hard as people think it will.

I think human creativity will just find ways to create other sectors of the economy which robots have a harder time participating in, for example now you have people being paid to play games professionally (which promotes the sale of those games to a greater public since the gamers who get paid to play often have charismatic personalities which people become attached to). Could you imagine that happening 50 years ago? The fact is, if robots replace the usually boring, often dangerous jobs people have, it will give us free time to do other things. And those things can become lucrative, and create economic opportunity. I can't imagine what those things are gonna be, not anymore than people 50 years ago could have imagined the rise of professional gamers. I do think humans do stuff, they don't just sit around idly (not most people anyways) so if you're doing something and it interests others you can always find a way to create economic activity.

Yeah people get all kinds of bent out of shape at the thought of truck driving and mining becoming obsolete. I realize it will suck in the short term, but these are dangerous jobs and besides, who wouldn’t rather jockey a PC and shoot the shit whilst filming “let’s play” videos than jockey a truck pulling flammable liquid up a steep mountain road with no guard rails?

Automation is no different than inventions like the cotton gin and horse pulled plows. It’s generally the shittiest jobs that are going obsolete. It’s led to a better quality of life overall. Innovations reducing human physical workload allowed ancient institutions like slavery to be phased out in Europe and North America

[Raver]

If we take this line of reasoning, then even regular population growth is bad and doomed to wreck the economy. It's the same argument made against women entering the workforce: that they're taking jobs away from men. In fact, a bigger workforce means that more people spend their earnings, which creates more demand and more jobs.

An overlooked fact of women entering the workforce is that doubling labor supply means that wage value was halved. Over time, you needed two incomes to be able to afford a mortgage and bills when one used to be sufficient. I am all for women's rights and freedom to work, but our salaries having half the value they used to have has been devastating to families. Also, a good portion of women (not all of course) resent being forced to work a career to raise a family and would of preferred to be stay at home mom's.

The price we pay for this is women being forced to work a career and raise a family or have your standard of living cut in half. Mass immigration is similar in this regard. We became so fixated in chasing meaningless statistics like GDP growth that we didn't realize how it impacted our quality of life and salaries not growing enough relative to ever increasing living costs.

That said, it's probably fair to make the case that a certain class of very low-skilled individuals are going to lose their jobs because of low-skilled immigration. Very few of these people are going to learn to code and I think that we can all agree on the need to find them some help.

Very low skilled individuals may lose their jobs to immigration and automation and end up on the streets. While high skilled working class and middle class individuals with careers find their standard of living slowly decrease as salaries cannot keep up to rising costs of living due to inflation. All mass immigration is doing is fueling an ever increasing wage gap difference as wealthy people fill their coffers and reap the benefits and everyday citizens pay the price.

[mfckrz]

I don't think automation will hit jobs as hard as people think it will.

Between Moravec's Paradox and the Full Employment Theorem, you're not wrong.



But we also live in a time of decreasing innovation due to declining intelligence, technocratic overregulation, and debt-strapped opportunity costs, so…

[xerx]

Basic supply&demand??

Increasing labor supply without a commensurate increase in economic output means no wage growth.

No wage growth + rising costs of living → less savings. And no more middle class. Less savings → less investment, ergo ↓ economic growth.

Consider that there'd have never been a Renaissance without the Black Death. Because rising wages in the aftermath of the plague allowed for the emergence of a middle class and greatly disrupted the wealthy feudal hierarchies who'd been riding high on a mass of cheap labor prior.

With socioeconomic mobility from large numbers of people who can actually save, invest, and own assets… culture tends to follow. Same dynamics can be observed in civilizations of antiquity.

But there is a commensurate increase in economic output. GDP per capita has grown substantially over the past forty years.

Where I live is fine. But resent being forced to take out a $500,000+ mortgage just to live in a decent area because the govt opened the floodgates to let all this in.

Hey, you have the right to feel whatever you like.

An overlooked fact of women entering the workforce is that doubling labor supply means that wage value was halved. Over time, you needed two incomes to be able to afford a mortgage and bills when one used to be sufficient. I am all for women's rights and freedom to work, but our salaries having half the value they used to have has been devastating to families. Also, a good portion of women (not all of course) resent being forced to work a career to raise a family and would of preferred to be stay at home mom's.

The price we pay for this is women being forced to work a career and raise a family or have your standard of living cut in half. Mass immigration is similar in this regard. We became so fixated in chasing meaningless statistics like GDP growth that we didn't realize how it impacted our quality of life and salaries not growing enough relative to ever increasing living costs.


Very low skilled individuals may lose their jobs to immigration and automation and end up on the streets. While high skilled working class and middle class individuals with careers find their standard of living slowly decrease as salaries cannot keep up to rising costs of living due to inflation. All mass immigration is doing is fueling an ever increasing wage gap difference as wealthy people fill their coffers and reap the benefits and everyday citizens pay the price.

That sounds pretty dramatic; how are you backing it up?

I looked at a meta-study which concludes that a 1% increase in immigration depresses wages by a "quantitatively small" 0.1% (source = https://researchcommons.waikato.ac.n.../PSC-dp-47.pdf). A blog post by the economist Noah Smith goes on to suggest that the wage dip to immigration might even be nonexistent over the long term due to markets returning to equilibrium (source = http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/101ism.html).


As for women, this study here suggests that wages actually rise due to their increased participation in the workforce (source = https://hbr.org/2018/01/when-more-wo...luding-for-men).

[perpetuus]

we should colonize the sun.

https://youtu.be/hTKedyQQkZQ?t=38

[mfckrz]

But there is a commensurate increase in economic output. GDP per capita has grown substantially over the past forty years.

Not difficult to understand.

[xerx]

Not difficult to understand.

We've all seen that. What's your proof that it's the result of overpopulation..? If population growth puts this much downward pressure on wages, why did purchasing power improve between 1900 and 1964?

[xerx]

@mfckrz
@Raver

There are sophisticated arguments against immigration owing to the fact that first-world living standards contribute more to pollution and climate change. But the people smart enough to accept climate change are often too left-wing to vocalize these ideas for fear of promoting xenophobia.

Every time Conservatives talk about limiting immigration, they're opposed to it because because of some weak bullshit having to do with preserving their culture or way of life. It's hard for me to give a shit about preserving something that changes every generation (change which is going to kick into overdrive thanks to incoming technology). It also seems sad and pathetic to lead a censored, quasi-choreographed life devoid of exploration and novelty.