Jump to content


Trump's Chumps About to Find Out That Coal Jobs Aren't Coming Back


67 replies to this topic

#21 Progressive whisperer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10233 posts

Posted 14 November 2016 - 01:03 PM

Lemieux sees some promise in fighting the GOP:

http://www.lawyersgu...roying-medicare

Of course, they may win, and people die as a result.

If so, that's a given from the Trump victory, our redemption may be in fighting even a losing battle.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
H.L. Mencken
Trump delenda est.
GOP delenda est.
Resist!

#22 Progressive whisperer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10233 posts

Posted 14 November 2016 - 01:10 PM

This whole page of Mencken quotes must have been picked since the election:

http://mobile.brainy..._l_mencken.html

He died in 1956.

Know hope - we have been here before.

Trump delenda est.
GOP delenda est.
Resist!

#23 D. C. Sessions

    I don't have to pretend to be an adult any more

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9953 posts
  • LocationCentral New Mexico

Posted 14 November 2016 - 07:00 PM

View PostProgressive whisperer, on 14 November 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

'Cause the guys who spend lobbying for coal are the guys who own mines, not guys working in them.

Be nice. The mine owners have at least warned the public about how dangerous, unsightly, hazardous to the environment, etc. windmills are. When we were in WV, they were about to ban them and by now might have for all we know.
The way a lot of catastrophes happen is that X doesn't occur because there are safeguards in place, therefore people assume X isn't a worry and they remove the safeguards. Then X happens.
— Nate Silver
"Robots aren't the problem. Capitalism is." -- Last words of Stephen Hawking.
These days, "libertarian" is just a euphemism for a Nazi who's afraid to commit.
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." -- Heather Heyer
"I'd rather have my child, but by golly, if I gotta give her up, we're gonna make it count." -- Her mother
"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events." -- some RINO

#24 D. C. Sessions

    I don't have to pretend to be an adult any more

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9953 posts
  • LocationCentral New Mexico

Posted 14 November 2016 - 07:01 PM

View PostLFC, on 14 November 2016 - 11:27 AM, said:

They want time to stand still.

Why should they settle for standing still when they can have it go into full reverse?
The way a lot of catastrophes happen is that X doesn't occur because there are safeguards in place, therefore people assume X isn't a worry and they remove the safeguards. Then X happens.
— Nate Silver
"Robots aren't the problem. Capitalism is." -- Last words of Stephen Hawking.
These days, "libertarian" is just a euphemism for a Nazi who's afraid to commit.
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." -- Heather Heyer
"I'd rather have my child, but by golly, if I gotta give her up, we're gonna make it count." -- Her mother
"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events." -- some RINO

#25 Progressive whisperer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10233 posts

Posted 15 November 2016 - 08:45 AM

Who REALLY voted for Trump?

http://www.lawyersgu...the-white-house

Trump delenda est.
GOP delenda est.
Resist!

#26 Probabilistic

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2217 posts

Posted 15 November 2016 - 09:27 AM

View PostPractical Girl, on 13 November 2016 - 06:26 PM, said:

Somebody just did. And she got excoriated for it, in the media and from Americans who "knew better".

I thought about your statement. She may have been excoriated but she didn't fight the battle. She turned tail and ran.

I don't think Hillary spent significant time talking about this issue. Whatever time she spent was done in a ham handed manner, including the self-inflicted injuries of putting miners out of business in WV or basket of deplorables. Her message could not penetrate the hackles raised by those statements. Everything she tried to do to hide her globalist outlook was a fraud and people could see through quite easily. As a result she lost a portion of the Obama coalition in the mid-west.

No one really has an effective idea of stabilizing the lives of those affected by the technological disruption. It'll just get worse. Also, how does the US deal with the impact of losing many of the relative competitive advantages (perhaps, diminished competitive advantages is more accurate) it had that created decades of prosperity? The advantage that came from just being born in the United States seems to be getting neutralized. Additional qualities are required for success. I don't think this message has been delivered well. Perhaps, the Darwinian outcome of die-offs will become the de-facto solution.

Not being well versed in history, I wonder how previous significant disruptions affected politics in democratic countries. How long did popular movements last? Were they just flashes in the pan or did those cause harm to progress?

#27 Traveler

    Rambling Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13289 posts
  • LocationPhilly Area

Posted 15 November 2016 - 09:41 AM

What happened to your usual penetrating humor Prob? Interesting and well observed points. If Clinton had pointed out that it was automation that was responsible for manufacturing, and gas for coal, folks wouldn't have had the ability to digest that the world is a complicated place. Why get complex, when a simple meme will do?

As to populist rejection of technological advances, Luddites come to mind. It didn't go well for them. Life moved on.
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."-- Winston Churchill
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices" Voltaire

#28 Progressive whisperer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10233 posts

Posted 15 November 2016 - 09:55 AM

How did economic disruption play out politically in history? Well, one example has gotten a lot of play this year, and it did NOT go well. See, Weimar Germany.

I don't think we'll go full-on that way, although all the usual "targets" will feel differently. Maybe there are now enough PoC and willing allies to make a difference.

Other, possibly less dire examples are the populist movements of the 19th century in the U.S., but most are only moderately successful. The revolutions that convulsed Europe in the 1830s, in 1848 and after the Franco-Prussian war brought large numbers of refugees to our shores, where many of the earlier ones fought with the Union against the aristocratic South.

I don't think fighting against technology is a winning plan. Better to work toward GMI or some other scheme to keep people reasonably satisfied while under or minimally employed.

Trump delenda est.
GOP delenda est.
Resist!

#29 MSheridan

    Human, for lack of options

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2659 posts
  • LocationSacramento, CA

Posted 15 November 2016 - 11:35 AM

GMI may possibly be a good idea in the realm of economics. Myself, I'm not convinced, but it could be true that the time approaches in which full employment is impossible, even as a goal. In the realm of politics, however, it's pure poison. The concept of GMI is not something that is broadly attractive to the populace at large. There is still a stigma attached to unemployment. Many Americans base their sense of self-worth around work and workplace values. Any party that makes GMI a policy centerpiece will be seen as pandering to the undeserving, as promising bread and circuses to the great unwashed. This is especially true if it is the Democratic Party pushing this idea forward, as that would seemingly confirm everything many Republicans already think they know about Democrats.

#30 Rabiner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3723 posts
  • LocationCulver City, CA

Posted 15 November 2016 - 11:49 AM

View PostMSheridan, on 15 November 2016 - 11:35 AM, said:

GMI may possibly be a good idea in the realm of economics. Myself, I'm not convinced, but it could be true that the time approaches in which full employment is impossible, even as a goal. In the realm of politics, however, it's pure poison. The concept of GMI is not something that is broadly attractive to the populace at large. There is still a stigma attached to unemployment. Many Americans base their sense of self-worth around work and workplace values. Any party that makes GMI a policy centerpiece will be seen as pandering to the undeserving, as promising bread and circuses to the great unwashed. This is especially true if it is the Democratic Party pushing this idea forward, as that would seemingly confirm everything many Republicans already think they know about Democrats.

Even if that meant elimination of all non-children or health specific social welfare programs borne by the state? Outside of unemployment/workers comp which is covered by business/payroll taxes?
Government in particular has an obligation to dismiss any employee who claims a right to discriminate against citizens. - Garret Epps

#31 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 29894 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 15 November 2016 - 12:42 PM

View PostMSheridan, on 15 November 2016 - 11:35 AM, said:

GMI may possibly be a good idea in the realm of economics. Myself, I'm not convinced, but it could be true that the time approaches in which full employment is impossible, even as a goal. In the realm of politics, however, it's pure poison. The concept of GMI is not something that is broadly attractive to the populace at large.

It will not be possible until a significant percentage of the voting population is either regularly unemployed or scared shitless of it happening to themselves. And even then I suspect it will be more of a workfare program than true GMI.
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#32 Probabilistic

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2217 posts

Posted 15 November 2016 - 12:44 PM

What would be the objectives of guaranteed minimum income?

If it were successful in meeting its objectives, would it make people more innovative, more productive, more competitive, ready to face the challenges posed by the accelerated pace of change? Or, would it ensure poor decisions prevail as those don't impose prohibitive costs?

#33 Progressive whisperer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10233 posts

Posted 15 November 2016 - 12:49 PM

View PostProbabilistic, on 15 November 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:

What would be the objectives of guaranteed minimum income?

If it were successful in meeting its objectives, would it make people more innovative, more productive, more competitive, ready to face the challenges posed by the accelerated pace of change? Or, would it ensure poor decisions prevail as those don't impose prohibitive costs?

There's no universal when it comes to people, is there?

I'm sure some would spend all day, everyday in front of the TV or game console. Some would seek to "supplement" by working or crime, and others would devote the available time to the arts, or study or invention.

Trump delenda est.
GOP delenda est.
Resist!

#34 Probabilistic

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2217 posts

Posted 15 November 2016 - 12:55 PM

View PostProgressive whisperer, on 15 November 2016 - 12:49 PM, said:

There's no universal when it comes to people, is there?

I'm sure some would spend all day, everyday in front of the TV or game console. Some would seek to "supplement" by working or crime, and others would devote the available time to the arts, or study or invention.

Of course, there's no universal but there are aggregates and probabilities. So, the issue becomes one of experimentation and data analyses. Cost/benefit analyses. Are there such studies?

I still don't quite understand the objectives of guaranteed minimum income, how it's different from the myriad programs today, and how it incentivizes people with different motivations.

#35 Progressive whisperer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10233 posts

Posted 15 November 2016 - 01:04 PM

View PostProbabilistic, on 15 November 2016 - 12:55 PM, said:



Of course, there's no universal but there are aggregates and probabilities. So, the issue becomes one of experimentation and data analyses. Cost/benefit analyses. Are there such studies?

I still don't quite understand the objectives of guaranteed minimum income, how it's different from the myriad programs today, and how it incentivizes people with different motivations.

I'm not really up on the literature, such as it may be. I don't think at this point it is a goal in it's own; it is a fix on the basis that most work as defined today will probably be gone before the start of the next century.

The options that leaves for the bulk of the population are: some form of guaranteed subsistence, extermination, or?

I suppose a Mars colony (with a high mortality rate) would allow for moving out a lot of people, but that's pretty close to the extermination option.

Trump delenda est.
GOP delenda est.
Resist!

#36 baw1064

    formerly of the public sector

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4987 posts
  • LocationEarthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanos--oh my!

Posted 15 November 2016 - 01:04 PM

The plutocrats might buy into it if you point out that it's really Peasants with Pitchforks Insurance.
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.” --Dr. Seuss

#37 Rich T Bikkies

    Trainee Basil Fawlty. Practising Victor Meldrew

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4365 posts
  • LocationBirmingham, UK

Posted 15 November 2016 - 01:38 PM

View PostProbabilistic, on 15 November 2016 - 12:55 PM, said:

I still don't quite understand the objectives of guaranteed minimum income, how it's different from the myriad programs today, and how it incentivizes people with different motivations.

Incentivises people to do what? If automation eventually means there are vastly more people than paying jobs they can do?
Reality is a hallucination caused by alcohol deprivation.

Only Satan can rebuke sin. The righteous don't know enough.

God is not dead. He was merely voted out of office.

You can do anything with anybody if you just save them the trouble of thinking.

#38 Probabilistic

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2217 posts

Posted 15 November 2016 - 01:57 PM

View PostRich T Bikkies, on 15 November 2016 - 01:38 PM, said:

Incentivises people to do what? If automation eventually means there are vastly more people than paying jobs they can do?

That's for the proponents of GMI to explain as a part of the objectives of GMI.

View PostProbabilistic, on 15 November 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:

...would it make people more innovative, more productive, more competitive, ready to face the challenges posed by the accelerated pace of change?

These are the important qualities to have in order to survive and thrive. Anything that supports these are helpful.

Automation so far has led to shift in job types but more jobs. I do not know if further automation means obsolescence in certain job types or in aggregate less jobs for people. That would be ahistorical but a possibility. I'm skeptical (or, sceptical for you) that income support by itself fosters the qualities needed to face the disruption. Especially, income support with no expected return on investment.

#39 HockeyDon

    Mind blown...

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3686 posts
  • LocationNew Britain, CT

Posted 15 November 2016 - 02:16 PM

One would have to convince people to care about all other people for GMI to take root and succeed. Without that, it will fail.
Well, fuck.

How can I be expected to distinguish BS from reality when so much of my reality is utter BS?!

"There seems to be a lot of people dying of ignorance while living in the information age." my sister-in-law.

#40 Progressive whisperer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10233 posts

Posted 15 November 2016 - 02:19 PM

View PostHockeyDon, on 15 November 2016 - 02:16 PM, said:

One would have to convince people to care about all other people for GMI to take root and succeed. Without that, it will fail.

So,extermination then? The question comes back to, can the 1% get rich enough selling just to each other?
Trump delenda est.
GOP delenda est.
Resist!





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users