-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Electric Vehicle Jobs
- Thread starter juliusa
- Start date
How can you be so blind to automation having never caused the unemployment rate or poverty rate to increase?
Automation is an opportunity for people to do more productive things. Not a threat.
I don’t disagree but people don’t instantly adapt. I suggest there is a generational/20 year period where people and their communities retrain and reorient their local economies to new job types. In the meantime you have unemployment, rust belts and political turmoil...seems familiar.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Coal country would strongly disagree. And that was just regular automation not machine learning. Still waiting to hear exactly what more productive thing you're referring to... the vast majority of people displaced my automation earn less. Often SIGNIFICANTLY less.
And... if jobs are so abundant and easy to come by.... why is the promise to bring or threat to kill jobs such an effective tool at manipulating people? Can't have it both ways... If what you're suggesting is true then why do people get so bent out of shape over coal mine/plant closures? Surely there's an imaginary job that's even better right around the corner.
Into what? What generally happens is 200 coal jobs vanish that pay $80k/yr and are replaced by 20 wind technician jobs paying $30k/yr. That's not sustainable because math. Wait... lemme check. ($80k)(200 people) carry the one, subtract 7, divide by pie....... ~$16M in payroll vs ($30k)(20) .... carry the two;;;;; doesn't matter... it's A LOT less....
It's like this nebulous fantasy land. Don't worry about the disappearance of these well paying jobs that support your community. 'Something' new will come along...
Soon....
Just.... just be patient...
Give it 5 years and then wait 5 more....
Last edited:
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Only if you ignore inflation. Specifically the rising cost of healthcare, housing and education. Yeah... your clothes and other consumer goods are super-cheap. Good luck paying for a doctor, a place to live or a college degree...
A lot of people living above the poverty line today are worse off than those below the poverty line in 1980 if they decide to see a doctor, live in a building or go to college... poverty rate is a distorted picture because the inflation rate is a distorted picture. If you own your home, went to college in the 70s and you're on medicare.... the inflation rate is ~accurate and life is good. If not.... sucks to be you.
Last edited:
No, they would not. They know first hand that change / progress is painful, but survivable. Been happening for 100+ years.
Wrong. Poverty level takes into account inflation, including health care, education, housing, and all other costs. Poverty level is based on all costs and varies by geography to take into account higher costs in different areas. It is adjusted every year.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Yes... it's AVERAGED. Easy to afford all the stuff that's below that average... not so much the stuff above it, i.e. a place to live, healthcare and college. If you're into that stuff and slightly above the poverty level today you're worse compared to someone below in 1980 because math.
If these new jobs are so abundant why does it matter whether Biden is promising 1M 10k or 1 EV job? Just more fish in the sea... right? Why do coal miners get so bent out of shape? 'They know first hand that change / progress is painful, but survivable.' They'll move on to something 'unimaginable'.... right? Why does it matter? And... is that really the bar we should set? 'Surviving'?
Nope. If you are below the poverty level in 1980, you were living in poverty. If you are below the poverty level in 2020, you are living in poverty. The math is really quite simple.
There are some, like you, that think it understates the number of people in poverty. Others believe it overstates it. When the "war on poverty" started, the definition was spending more than 1/3 of income on food. People defined as living in poverty now spend much less than 1/3 of their income on food.
Last edited:
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Um... no... because math. Education, Housing and Health care costs have ALL exceeded inflation.
A lot of people living above the poverty line today are worse off than those below the poverty line in 1980 if they decide to see a doctor, live in a building or go to college... poverty rate is a distorted picture because the inflation rate is a distorted picture. If you own your home, went to college in the 70s and you're on medicare.... the inflation rate is ~accurate and life is good. If not.... sucks to be you.
View attachment 605771
View attachment 605772
View attachment 605773
If there are so many jobs then why does the promise to bring more jobs even matter?
Um...yes...because living in poverty is living in poverty. That is the definition of poverty level. Quite simple really.
Just because someone living in poverty today spends more on doctors and less on food does not mean they are better or worse off than someone living in poverty 40 years ago. Government assistance programs for those living in poverty have also changed over 40 years. Most people living in poverty qualify for Medicaid or medical insurance subsidies. Qualify for Pell grants and other education assistance. Qualify for Section 8 housing assistance. Qualify for food stamps. Get assistance from non-government organizations.
I get that you don't accept the way the government defines poverty, and that a lower percentage of people live in poverty today than 40 years ago.
Productivity and automation is what has lifted people out of poverty - not put them in poverty.
At 3.7% unemployment, there are plenty of jobs. It has been steadily declining since 2010. COVID has changed that, but will pass.
Labor participation rate is similar to your reference year of 1980, and above historic norms.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I accept the reality that if 80% of your expenses are healthcare, rent and college loans the fact that the cost of a TV, Cars and computers have tracked below the rate of inflation for the past 40 years really isn't gonna help much because the bulk of your expenses have gotten significantly MORE expensive. Math. So someone living in 1980 below the poverty line that might have to pay $1500 for a 2" TV but cheaper healthcare, rent and college is going to be doing better than someone today adjusted for inflation.
Glad you agree that it really doesn't matter whether Biden brings more EV jobs or kills every last oil, coal and gas job. Clearly finding more jobs is a non-issue. So I hope we can dispense with this nonsense that the GND is a job killer. Can't 'kill' jobs. Jobs are like a Hydra... right? Kill one and 8 more rise to take its place?
Last edited:
Not for people living in poverty. The bulk of those expenses are paid for by the government.
There is no correlation much less causation between automation and poverty. Seems to be the opposite - as automation is increasing poverty is decreasing.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Glad to hear all these people whining about the GND killing jobs and 'shipping' jobs overseas are just insane. You can't lose jobs apparently. There's always more. 'Magic'
So how do we fix this insanity and convince people to use their imagination more?Still love to hear what job you think can't eventually be automated away.
Here is a starter list.
1. Play sports (that people would want to watch)
2. Deliver babies. (what mother is going to want to go into a delivery room with only robots in it?)
3. Surgery. Sure we have Intuitive Surgical building robots to do surgery. But that isn't what they do. The systems are really human controlled surgical tools. Humans monitoring the patient, humans "controlling" everything. No robot is making any decisions. I believe that it takes more medical personnel to operate with the Da Vinci Surgical "robot" than without.
4. Fashion designers. Or fashion anything. Wake me up the first time a machine designs anything new that people want
5. Computer chips. It takes more and more engineers to build the more and more complex chips being built...even though they have ever increasingly more powerful computers to help them
The ones you have not imagined yet.
When cotton picking machine was invented, the cotton pickers could not imagine their descendants would be computer programmers.
How about writing a novel? Or a movie script? Creating fine art?
How about being a senator? Or president?
Inventing a new industry?
I think those are pretty safe for now.
So you are giving up on automation eliminating all jobs, and now you are worried all the jobs will be done by humans in other countries?
Relax. The sky is not falling. We have low unemployment, high labor force participation, and rising median income. Life is good. Don't try to use current technology and thinking to solve problems that may exist in the future.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
~4m mark.
No; A job is a job right? Why treat one 'lost' to automation any differently? If jobs are indeed so abundant then the cause should be irrelevant. There's always more unimaginable jobs right around the corner.... right?
Sure thing dude. Right after climate change is solved and COVID goes away with warmer weather. What do you smoke that allows you to so effectively wall off reality? What do you think would have been the more effective time frame to start planning for addressing climate change? 1950 when the physics were understood? 1995 when the effects were more apparent? Or in 10 years when it's a crisis? This is similar. The longer we wallow in denial the more difficult charge becomes. Stop allowing your ideology to molest reality. Allow reality to mold your ideology
Last edited:
Yes!!!
We are perfectly positioned for automation to take over jobs - no need to implement "fixes" to non-existent problems now.
The sky is not falling. Really. It isn't.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Cool... glad to hear that loss of jobs is irrelevant because there's always more just around the corner 'Magic'. Now on to the GND and getting rid of every last job in the fools fuel industry
Also glad to hear that all these EPA regulations 'killing jobs' is also nonsense. More shall rise to replace them! Kurzgesagt did a really good summary. Not that it matters since apparently jobs are magical creatures that appear if you just believe hard enough. Clap Peter! Clap! If you want to earn >minimum wage you must clap harder peter!
What do you think would have been the more effective time frame to start planning for addressing climate change? 1950 when the physics were understood? 1995 when the effects were more apparent? Or in 10 years when it's a crisis?
Last edited:
Similar threads
