This could actually be an interesting discussion. The idea of a 4th industrial revolution is pretty interesting and there are certainly benefits to it, but it also poses serious questions.
1 Like
Hasn’t that been the case with every industrial change? Overall they have benefited society, but when looking at it through “current jobs”, yes, those will be lost. There are no people shoveling coal on trains, people to switch phone lines, assembly workers at automobile plants…etc. But overall the fact that phones, cars, and shipping have improved benefitted much more than the benefit of keeping those jobs.
I agree, I think it would be an interesting discussion and I’m currently on the side of pro-revolution, although would like to learn/hear more about the overall impact of automation, robots, and the internet of things, which I assume is the 4th industrial revolution you mention.
What does being a TV star have anything to do with being president? If anything, I think it’s a negative, but it’s basically a non-point. Cool, he made money, good for him. That has absolutely nothing to do with being president.
Regardless, that is hardly a rebuttle to a point made about national security advisors not endorsing him.
Without touching these entitlements I don’t see how either candidate would prevent the circling of the drain our federal government spending is doing. Spending has to be cut, and “waste, fraud, and abuse” doesn’t cover trillions of dollars.
1 Like
Yes of course!!!
He makes fun of Trump for being a TV star yet one of the best presidents in modern history was a TV star
Most non-Asian, non European, and non Jewish immigrants are low skilled labor facing a future of job obsolescence.
Why would you want to increase the number of low skilled immigrants into the country when shit hits the fan? It’s not a distraction at all.
Yes, I think that is the case and, yes, robotics, the IoT, nanotech, etc… is all part of the 4th revolution.
I think what makes this revolution particularly interesting and potentially difficult is that automation practically eliminates low skill jobs. The implication, of course, is how do you employ low skill workers that want to make a living, but simply don’t have the intellect to do so. It raises what I think will be the pivotal question of our time, if robots are taking jobs while maintaining or increasing productivity should we abandon the minimum wage in favor of a standard living allowance for those that are unemployed/unemployable.
That’s not popular for obvious reasons, but it’s a discussion that needs to happen.
2 Likes
This is essentially what I was driving at by asking the question I did yesterday.
That was also a Governor.
1 Like
Oh, that’s just not honest TB.
You can say he’s not smart, you can say he’s lucky, you can say he doesn’t deserve his success, you cannot say he’s not wildly successful. He’s not only a wildly successful businessman, he also managed to rip away the republican nomination for President of the U.S. from 17 other, most of whom were more qualified, candidates. Not only that, but he is actually competitive in the race, despite everything and could actually win.
You can say lots of things about Donald Trump, he’s orange for crying out loud. But you cannot say he isn’t actually wildly successful. Just one cursory glance at portfolio debunks that outright.
There is lots of things to criticize about Trump and you went for the one thing you actually couldn’t criticize. Come on man…
Are you saying that is what made him a good president?
I’m understanding they’re making fun of you using Trump’s TV credentials as evidence to his success and how he would be a good president. Again, being a TV star has nothing to do with being president. If you were one, great, if not, great. Being on TV does not correlate to the success of past or future presidents.
Pat, as far as him being a wildly successful businessman, he is not. We’ve discussed this quite a bit, but if you want I can provide the information, again. He’s a perpetual underperformer.
He has been very successful at rallying a primary base. That cannot be denied.
Ya, I mean, the morons that starred on the god awful Jersey Shore TV show made millions.
I think this is a facinating topic, and agree that it is a discussion that people are ignoring because it’s uncomfortable.
The reality as I see it, is that companies are going to do it and it will benefit society by making resources easier to product and more available. Government could not prevent it if they tried, but I think it woudl be better to embrace it than fight it. As far as eliminating low-skill workers, I think the “standard living allowance” you mention is a viable possible solution, but have no clue. As things pick up in the next 5-10 years the question will no longer be able to be ignored.
Agreed. Companies are going to do it once the cost to automate becomes affordable and/or the cost to employ low skill works becomes unaffordable. In MD, by next year, a minimum wage worker will make about $20.2K plus about $5K in benefits. That’s just for one full-time 8-hour shift worker at the minimum. Add in the next couple of levels (still low skill) and the supervisors and you’re talking about serious costs for a limited skill set. We run 3 shifts 5 days a week and irrc 2 shifts over the weekend (with a pay differential). These are jobs we could easily automate if it weren’t so expensive. Eventually, it’s going to happen and it would probably (it should) improve our supply chain.
No sick days, no vacations, no healthcare, 24/7 work. People won’t be able to compete with that forever (or for long).
1 Like
It was a joke USMC…
Because it’s ridiculously complicated even for people who do not have complicated tax situations. It’s not enough to pay thousands into the system, we have to fill out days of paperwork on top of that and hope we got it right?
I could see the complication for businesses and large entities with many complex operating arms and revenue streams. But Joe and Sally Smith, with one or two incomes, a couple of kids, a retirement plan and maybe an investment or two (if), shouldn’t be subject to reams of legalese and days or at least ours of paperwork. You already pay AND you have to do tons of paperwork?
For Joe Average, it should be a post card. Does this amount look right based on you bracket of 22%? Do you have any deductions that might affect this number? Sign here.
I understand it would hurt CPA’s and TurboTax. But good accountants are needed everywhere and if Intuit had to innovate elsewhere to survive, I could live with that.
It costs $12 Billion just to collect the money. Imagine putting half of that into Medicare, Social Security and the relief that could bring to those entities?
I haven’t looks, but I am sure the full plan is or will be available soon.
I know what I don’t want, a continuation of obama’s failed plans. Inflation and stagnation in net pay = less money for everybody.
Have you ever just stepped back and looked, collectively, at the sea of humanity in this country in its ebb’s and flows? People are struggling. Why?
The president says we’re not, but then look around you. Step back and look and what do you see?
You’d be surprised how much it does cover which could go into the trillions, definitely billions. Streamlining processes makes fiscal sense.
And there is more to the economy than tax and spend.
Reducing trade deficits helps. Trade equity helps. Increasing productivity helps. Reducing foreign dependence on energy, helps. Collecting debt, helps. etc.
So it’s a moot point then…