Skip to main content

View Diary: Democrats: Fiddling while Rome burns? (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Which is why it'll take 20+ years (0+ / 0-)

    to get to that place.

    Longer, if people don't stop yelling "Single payer or Nothing", because then all that we will EVER get is nothing.

    Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie without consequence; unless, apparently if you're a right wing talk-radio host.

    by Whimsical on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 10:18:49 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  By then, the workplace will be very different (0+ / 0-)

      Most businesses will be FAR more automated than they are today. Factories will hum along, Cars, delivery vehicles, will drive themselves. Much, perhaps almost all, business will be conducted online.

      Where do I see the average American 'worker' in this? That's the problem, the numbers will be lower, so much lower that I think our maintaining much of a middle class isn't likely, at all.

      Where do you see them? Working, that is. (not simply as consumers.)

      What jobs are automation proof that could employ large numbers of people at a living wage?  The competition is going to be intense by today's standards.

      Academia..  perhaps.. (if we are smart and support a very large expansion of college level education.. "the new high school".)

      Perhaps some service jobs like basic home services, contracting, etc. (although modularization, and decades of manufactured housing will make many jobs plug and play)

      The sciences.. Research, definitely. (But its not a given that it will be done in the US, necessarily.)

      High level technical support staff for almost all industries that locate here. (however, they may easily require a body of knowledge much larger than similar jobs in the past)

      Many medical services, but much that is done by hand now will be automated.

      Waiters and waitresses in expensive restaurants.

      Receptionists. Executive staff of companies.

      Politics. (Always a pastime of the elite)

      Prostitution. (although arguably at a huge cost to society in terms of stress level for those engaged in it!)

      There must be many others.. but what?  Where are those 40 or 50 something people who are already in serious trouble now, going to work? People who do a host of basic jobs that are clearly endangered.. often to whom computer work is still difficult...etc.

      'Single Payer' means EXACTLY that, one single HIGH QUALITY payer equals...HUGE SAVINGS and affordable quality healthcare, NOW.

      by Andiamo on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 10:42:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Completely wrong. (0+ / 0-)

        Work simply isn't going to change in the way you envision it for the better part of a century.

        But either way its not relevant to the basic argument.

        Once again: "It is impossible to pass single payer now, and insisting on single payer now will only hinder the incremental change necessary to get America to a place where it can be pass".

        Do you have a response to the argument I'm actually making, or not?  Because up till now you've only gone off on incorrect or irrelevant tangents instead of trying to address the argument presented.

        Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie without consequence; unless, apparently if you're a right wing talk-radio host.

        by Whimsical on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 10:51:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I respectfully disagree.. (0+ / 0-)

          the global technical community respectfully disagrees. Its OUR job to make your jobs easier and we are doing that in leaps and bounds.

          "Work simply isn't going to change in the way you envision it for the better part of a century."

          Its globally acknowledged that it will. Its not a matter of debate except in places like this where most people have no idea what is really being talked about.

          What i am saying is that its not a choice we make of how long we will be able to continue with our current paradigm on working and the worth or scarcity of human level supercomputing CPU cycles to do complex tasks.

          I guess that what I am saying is that we see this more and more: Increasingly, some parameters are determined less by human workers and wages and become more of a function of our various engineering abilities and our creativity in applying them.

          It doesn't even have to directly involve computers..

          We all realize this, and its not a given that this always holds true, but as the cost of sending information around the globe decreases, it obviously becomes cheaper to offload certain kinds of work to lower wage workers in other countries.

          So, not only do we see people in India doing call center stuff.. we also see interesting new hybrids like people in the US living in other countries (where its cheaper) but maintaining their businesses here.

          We see all sorts of creative ways of solving problems. The more flexible you are, the more of a chance of survival you have.

          'Single Payer' means EXACTLY that, one single HIGH QUALITY payer equals...HUGE SAVINGS and affordable quality healthcare, NOW.

          by Andiamo on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:26:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So basically, you really don't have a (0+ / 0-)

            rebuttal then.

            Anyone who doesn't realize that we are simply running out of the raw materials necessary to make the automatons that you are envisioning doesn't really know what's being talked about. It doesn't really matter how much knowledge you have- if you don't have the materials to build your plans from that knowledge all you've really got is a set of pretty blueprints.

            Theoretically, you are entirely right. In practice, the raw material shortages will keep it cheaper to hire humans to work for the forseeable future, and then some.

            None of which is relevant to my argument: "It is impossible to pass single payer now, and yelling 'Single Payer or nothing' merely hampers the incremental changes necessary to get the U.S. to a place where it can be passed."

            Judging from your repeated ducking of the argument, I'm thinking you don't really have a rebuttal.

            Good to know.

            Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie without consequence; unless, apparently if you're a right wing talk-radio host.

            by Whimsical on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:03:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site