*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[spoonitnow]

This seems a little short-sighted by Trump. I'm sure he's loving that he can spike the football. And there is definitely value in making the media look biased and retarded. But I think he could have done it without broadcasting the fact that he's recording shit.

to me, looks like the better play would be for the audio to come from some other source. A reporter leaking or something.

Cuz now, next time he says "shithole" or something similar and tries to deny it, the press can just say "pull the tape!"

He wasn't talking to reporters then, but I agree with what you're saying here.

One possibility is that they've been recording reporters for a long time without showing their hand and that this is a teaser to the upcoming fake news awards.

[Poopadoop]

Do they not teach context clues where you live or what?

Do you mean 'context cues'? Why yes they do. That's why I pointed out it would be strange to say "I would..." and then not qualify it.

WSJ posted fake news and got their souls crushed on it. It's not the first time this has happened with a major media outlet. Or the second. Or the third. Or the 20th.

Their only mistake is insisting he said "I do..." without indisputable proof.

Trump just got caught on his 2000th lie. How does that compare?

It's not senility; he's spoken like that for decades, and it's intentional.

Ok then.

On the X of Y topic, if he didn't specify, then fuck knows how the media would try to spin his words to mean other people than who he's talking about.

Right. The media would have claimed he was referring to Kim Jong Un the baker who lives down the street. Fuck off.

[Poopadoop]

Shocking.

Of course you hear what you want, and other people hear what they want. I just can't tell; it could be one or the other.

If I clearly heard "I'd" , then I would say so. If I clearly heard "I do" I'd say that too.

[spoonitnow]

Do you mean 'context cues'? Why yes they do. That's why I pointed out it would be strange to say "I would..." and then not qualify it.

Smooth with the condescension there.

I've said it before, and I'll said it again: There is no cure for liberalism.

[spoonitnow]

Right. The media would have claimed he was referring to Kim Jong Un the baker who lives down the street. Fuck off.

The mainstream media in the United States regularly makes up complete and utter bullshit for their stories. It's because of the advertising model they use and the fact that there's nothing holding them accountable. So yes, I do not put it past them to suggest he was talking about A when he was obviously talking about B.

[wufwugy]

Stephen Miller: Let me tell you the truth about Trump that I see.

Jake Tapper: No I don't want to do that.

[spoonitnow]

[Poopadoop]

Smooth with the condescension there.

I've said it before, and I'll said it again: There is no cure for liberalism.

Oh sorry I thought you would prefer to know the scientific terminology used by linguists rather than the google terminology used by idiots.

[Poopadoop]

Stephen Miller: Let me tell you the truth about Trump that I see.

Jake Tapper: No I don't want to do that.

Yup, that was pretty much it.

Granted, when you're asked to do an interview, the interviewer pretty much sets the agenda. Anyone who goes on Tucker whatshisface learns that the hard way too.

[spoonitnow]

Oh sorry I thought you would prefer to know the scientific terminology used by linguists rather than the google terminology used by idiots.

In case you skipped over it, when you search for context cues, the first result is context clues.

But it's typical of liberals to deem anyone they disagree with as idiots, regardless of the situation, so it doesn't surprise me that you'd do the same here.

Edit: There are also more .edu results for clues compared to the cues version by a factor of almost 2:1.

[Poopadoop]

In case you skipped over it, when you search for context cues, the first result is context clues.

But it's typical of liberals to deem anyone they disagree with as idiots, regardless of the situation, so it doesn't surprise me that you'd do the same here.

In case you're a fucking idiot who thinks being the first thing that comes up in a google search makes it somehow right, it isn't.

[spoonitnow]

At some point as a mod and all, I think I'm supposed to suggest people not call each other insulting names or issue warnings or some shit like that.

[Poopadoop]

Sounds like something a cuck would do. Not that I'm calling you that.

[spoonitnow]

The Associated Press Stylebook gives context clues.

[Poopadoop]

The Associated Press Stylebook gives context clues.

Just admit that you heard it somewhere and ran with it and leave it at that.

Linguists who invented the term used 'cues'. They still do.

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...c+context+cues


Laypeople who heard 'cue' and thought they heard 'clue' changed it to 'context clues'.

And it doesn't matter because everyone knows it's the same basic idea behind both terms. It was fun watching you google yourself silly over it though.

[wufwugy]

Yup, that was pretty much it.

Granted, when you're asked to do an interview, the interviewer pretty much sets the agenda. Anyone who goes on Tucker whatshisface learns that the hard way too.

I was never a fan of Bill O'Reilly, but when Tapper said that I remember thinking "man even O'Reilly would probably let the person give his side of the story."

[wufwugy]

The reason O'Reilly would do that? To boast himself with "I'm always fair" or whatever I've seen him do before. Regardless, it might be case that a person telling something O'Reilly disagrees with might have gotten more voice than Tapper gives to somebody he disagrees with.

[Poopadoop]

The reason O'Reilly would do that? To boast himself with "I'm always fair" or whatever I've seen him do before. Regardless, it might be case that a person telling something O'Reilly disagrees with might have gotten more voice than Tapper gives to somebody he disagrees with.

I haven't watched enough of Tapper to form a solid opinion, but he was a bit dickish in that interview with Mueller I agree. O'Reilly (again my relatively inexperienced judgement) was a counter-puncher and wanted to hear your side so he could attack it. Tucker whatshisface (again not a big watcher) seems to be more like Tapper in that he'll cut you off and badger you. Other interviewers just nod politely at everything. So they all have their own style I guess.

[spoonitnow]

Just admit that you heard it somewhere and ran with it and leave it at that.

Linguists who invented the term used 'cues'. They still do.

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...c+context+cues


Laypeople who heard 'cue' and thought they heard 'clue' changed it to 'context clues'.

And it doesn't matter because everyone knows it's the same basic idea behind both terms. It was fun watching you google yourself silly over it though.

Feel free to keep digging yourself into a hole on this.



The usage is 57:1 in favor of "context clues" over the past five years for general usage and 23:1 in favor of "context clues" over the past five years in published papers.

[wufwugy]

On "I" vs. "I'd", sounds like "I" to me.

Facts don't matter regarding how people feel. Frame things the way you want people to think. Even if Trump and Kim are at each other's throats, simply saying "I really like the guy, he's a great guy, we like each other, we have a good relationship" makes that more a believed reality.

[Poopadoop]

Feel free to keep digging yourself into a hole on this.



The usage is 57:1 in favor of "context clues" over the past five years for general usage and 23:1 in favor of "context clues" over the past five years in published papers.

You're confusing (again) scholars who coin a term with laypeople who change it to something else.

I love that your scientific arguments rests squarely on the shoulders of what you learn from google. Can't wait till you start citing wiki.

[Poopadoop]

Scholars don't use google for research. Students and laypeople do.

This is one search engine scholars use:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...c+context+cues (553 hits)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...+context+clues (26 hits)

Since you're good at math, you'll quickly see that's about a 21.3:1 ratio of academics who publish using 'cues'.


What happens is that students, and a lot of other laypeople, hear 'context cues' and think they heard 'context clues'. Then they go to google to learn about it cause they're not sophisticated enough to use a proper scientific search engine.

And then later, some guy who knows nothing about the topic but heard 'context clues' being used by someone else and wants to win an argument with some guy who does know, uses google search numbers to prove he's not alone in his ignorance.

[spoonitnow]

Scholars don't use google for research. Students and laypeople do.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of how Google Scholar works or what its purpose is.

This is one search engine scholars use:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...c+context+cues (553 hits)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...+context+clues (26 hits)

Since you're good at math, you'll quickly see that's about a 21.3:1 ratio of academics who publish using 'cues'.

Pubmed is hardly a representative source for the issue at hand. Moreover, your lack of quotation marks shows you have no idea to use the tools that you're describing or what the difference is between using them and not, but since you've clearly been proven wrong and just want to yap, I'll let you yap in the CUCKposting thread if you decide you want to continue on this topic.

[Jack Sawyer]

This shows a complete lack of understanding of how Google Scholar works or what its purpose is.



Pubmed is hardly a representative source for the issue at hand. Moreover, your lack of quotation marks shows you have no idea to use the tools that you're describing or what the difference is between using them and not, but since you've clearly been proven wrong and just want to yap, I'll let you yap in the CUCKposting thread if you decide you want to continue on this topic.

How gracious of you

[spoonitnow]

How gracious of you

Just trying to avoid clogging up this thread and moving that discussion to another one.

[spoonitnow]

I, as President, want people coming into our Country who are going to help us become strong and great again, people coming in through a system based on MERIT. No more Lotteries! #AMERICA FIRST

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...30515894169601

[Poopadoop]

This shows a complete lack of understanding of how Google Scholar works or what its purpose is.

I wouldn't know cause i don't use it. And the only people I do know who use it are people who don't know any better.

Pubmed is hardly a representative source for the issue at hand.

Just a guess, but I imagine this is the first time you've heard of pubmed, much less seen it. Interesting that you're so quickly able to judge its relevance though.

Moreover, your lack of quotation marks shows you have no idea to use the tools that you're describing or what the difference is between using them and not,

hahaha. Now comes the changing of the topic to ad hominen.

but since you've clearly been proven wrong and just want to yap, I'll let you yap in the CUCKposting thread if you decide you want to continue on this topic.

That's your happy place buddy. You go there.

[spoonitnow]

Back to our regularly scheduled MAGA:

[wufwugy]

hotties for trump you say

Edit: (nsfw) + spoiler tags - spoon

Spoiler: Show

[spoonitnow]

I threw in a spoiler tag since the thread isn't posted as NSFW just to make sure that the non-liberals (aka people who work) don't lose their jobs over some fine, white ass.

[wufwugy]

omg i just said "speaking of hotties for trump" after you posted pic of his hot daughter (that he totally wants to bang). omg the freud.

lucky for us trump told us quite explicitly that he does not want to date his daughter. he would only date her if she was not his daughter. however, if we let our imaginations run wild, this actually means he thinks about banging his daughter all the time (and probably does while kushner and melania are off at a mother-son brunch)

[wufwugy]

I threw in a spoiler tag since the thread isn't posted as NSFW just to make sure that the non-liberals (aka people who work) don't lose their jobs over some fine, white ass.

it's the free market looking out.

gubmint woulda gotten around to adding that spoiler tag in six months. and the sad sack employee who just wants to get home to his dog would have added quote tags instead.

[spoonitnow]

omg i just said "speaking of hotties for trump" after you posted pic of his hot daughter (that he totally wants to bang). omg the freud.

lucky for us trump told us quite explicitly that he does not want to date his daughter. he would only date her if she was not his daughter. however, if we let our imaginations run wild, this actually means he thinks about banging his daughter all the time (and probably does while kushner and melania are off at a mother-son brunch)

Rofl

You're not wrong.

[wufwugy]

"brb" /tiff's dad

[spoonitnow]

I'm not playing when I say she's my favorite first daughter.

[wufwugy]

i wonder if trump ever calls melania "ivania" on accident (during secks ofc) becuase he's thinking of his dawghter.

[spoonitnow]

i wonder if trump ever calls melania "ivania" on accident (during secks ofc) becuase he's thinking of his dawghter.

Their marriage is a lie anyway, and she wants out. He's too busy fucking porn stars anyway.

[wufwugy]

are his daughters porn stars? otherwise, fake news

[wufwugy]

I'm looking forward to the Lifetime drama "Kushner and Kim." A radioactive romp where Jared confesses of his napalmic love to a power-hungry dictator with a heart of uranium one.

[spoonitnow]

"MLK's Niece: 'Outrageous' That Critics Are 'Unjustly' Calling Trump Racist"

[spoonitnow]

kek <--- this one
kek
kek
kek
kek
kek
kek
kek

[spoonitnow]

Michael Wolff Source: He Printed A Third-Hand Story I Told Him That I Got From Someone On A Beach

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/01/...someone-beach/

Twenty years ago, the now-defunct Brill’s Content took a hard look at Wolff’s book Burn Rate, a memoir of his time as a dot-com hustler, and charged that one of his characters was actually a composite of three people. Likewise, seven of Wolff’s main characters and six others who were either portrayed in or familiar with events in his book claimed he “invented or changed quotes,” and none remembered him taking notes on or taping their discussions…

Personally, I’ve enjoyed reading Wolff over the years. You can call him many things (see the preceding paragraph), but never dull. I do not know Wolff nor can I vouch for his credibility. Though I should add that a mutual acquaintance of ours, after spotting an anecdote he’d casually tossed off to Wolff turn up in Fire and Fury, reported this to me of Wolff’s seemingly slack methodology: “[He got it] from me, which I got from a woman on the beach in Florida, who heard it in a carpool line. Literally. I had no idea he was including it. That guy is a serious bullshit artist. Wow.”

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...n-address.html

This feels like it's more about calling attention to themselves rather than denouncing Trump.

Apparently their "everything white is racist" agenda doesn't' have as much clout now that Barry is gone, and now they're scrambling for the spotlight again.

[wufwugy]

Sheilas and blokes, we have a new GOAT

https://i.imgur.com/b3etAkI.gifv

[wufwugy]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...n-address.html

This feels like it's more about calling attention to themselves rather than denouncing Trump.

Apparently their "everything white is racist" agenda doesn't' have as much clout now that Barry is gone, and now they're scrambling for the spotlight again.

Well we know Justice Ginsburg is already planning her boycott: nap time.

[spoonitnow]

Sheilas and blokes, we have a new GOAT

https://i.imgur.com/b3etAkI.gifv

Excellent.

[spoonitnow]

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/16...sex-abuse.html

Can someone tell me how Twitter is still in business?? I've read enough stories about people losing their entire livelihood after one distasteful tweet to know that nothing good can ever come from posting on Twitter.

[spoonitnow]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/16...sex-abuse.html

Can someone tell me how Twitter is still in business?? I've read enough stories about people losing their entire livelihood after one distasteful tweet to know that nothing good can ever come from posting on Twitter.

They most likely will not be in business in another 5-6 years. They have been on the downswing financially for quite a while.

[wufwugy]

They most likely will not be in business in another 5-6 years. They have been on the downswing financially for quite a while.

But then who will protect all the accounts dedicated to pedophilia and terrorism while deleting the accounts that challenge the ctrl-left and del-media?

[spoonitnow]

But then who will protect all the accounts dedicated to pedophilia and terrorism while deleting the accounts that challenge the ctrl-left and del-media?

I’m sure some other shithole will pop up.

[wufwugy]

I’m sure some other shithole will pop up.

[BananaStand]

The results of Trump's physical are in...

Jackson says he ended up testing Trump's cognitive ability at the president's request.

Jackson says he's seen the president every day, sometimes several times a day, during the presidency and had "absolutely no concerns about his cognitive ability."

This is expected to bring about a 0% decrease in democrat challenges to Trump's sanity.

[wufwugy]

Antagonists thinking you are insane when you are actually sane is a powerful position to be in.

[spoonitnow]

The results of Trump's physical are in...





This is expected to bring about a 0% decrease in democrat challenges to Trump's sanity.

My favorite part of this is "at the president's request."

[oskar]

[spoonitnow]

San Francisco is a confirmed shithole.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/15/sa...efecation-map/

There is an ongoing debate currently going on in the country about what locations can be classified as shitholes. The debate sprung from a report that Donald Trump referred to some third world countries as “shitholes” in a meeting with lawmakers last week.


While the debate might rage on as to what constitutes a “shithole” of a country, one thing is not up for debate: the American city of San Francisco is a shithole.


We know this thanks to an interactive map created in 2014 called Human Wasteland.


The map charts all of the locations for human excrement “incidents” reported to the San Francisco police during a given month. The interactive map shows precise locations of the incidents by marking them with poop emojis

[wufwugy]

Now that's smart

[BananaStand]

I'm gonna do a Trump impression here and parrot what I just saw on Fox & Friends.

Suppose you're an 18 year old looking to work an entry level job to pay for college. The market wage is $11/hour, and McDonalds is more than happy to offer you $11 per hour. That should be the end of it.

Instead, you have these pussies marching with signs demanding $15 per hour instead of working for $11.

The irony is....if they win, as they have in many libtard US cities.....then the job goes away entirely. It's trivially easy for McDonalds to just replace these entry level workers with iPads.

[spoonitnow]

I'm gonna do a Trump impression here and parrot what I just saw on Fox & Friends.

Suppose you're an 18 year old looking to work an entry level job to pay for college. The market wage is $11/hour, and McDonalds is more than happy to offer you $11 per hour. That should be the end of it.

Instead, you have these pussies marching with signs demanding $15 per hour instead of working for $11.

The irony is....if they win, as they have in many libtard US cities.....then the job goes away entirely. It's trivially easy for McDonalds to just replace these entry level workers with iPads.

I'm of the opinion that the above is common sense, and it completely boggles my mind how many people cannot see that.

However, there are also plenty on the left who believe that the above is exactly how it's supposed to be with the caveat that the government should provide them with a basic income once those jobs are gone. As best I can tell, the idea is that working for less than $15/hour (or whatever they come up with at the time) is somehow inhumane and that they are owed a living wage, regardless of whether or not they actually work, simply by virtue of being human.

Where should this money come from? According to them, it should come from those who make a lot more money. If we just taxed the rich even more, then there would be plenty of money to just hand out to people who aren't working thanks to job loss from minimum wage hikes, etc.

Along similar lines, even if minimum wage stayed the same, there's going to come a time when automation starts taking a lot of jobs. The trucking industry is a big one in the United States that's at risk, and it's an enormous issue in terms of the number of jobs that are going to become obsolete all at one time. This is going to be a serious problem because there aren't going to be nearly enough new jobs to replace those that are going away, and the jobs that are going to appear are going to require a higher level of skill, intelligence and overall ability than the jobs that are being replaced.

This is a real issue that is going to need to be addressed in some way because we're going to end up with a large class of people without employment thanks to automation. Unfortunately for the left, the solution can't just be to tax the fuck out of people who are higher up on the food chain, but they're so stuck on that idea (especially with regards to the more short-term issue of the minimum wage) that they can't see that.

Not understanding simple economics or incentives does not help the situation.

So we're potentially facing a really tricky situation where we're going to have millions of people without work or the ability to find work, even if they want to work, simply because there will be such a diminished demand for the labor. That means that the cost of human labor will go down (as always happens when supply > demand), and that cost will certainly fall below whatever minimum wage is at the time. That means that it will become illegal for millions of people who want to work to actually work.

And then we're really going to be fucked.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What's your endgame, spoon? I mean... assuming all production can be automated at some point, and that no manual labor will be needed in any industry, only skilled labor.

Given a society that overproduces basic resources with effective cost per person so low that only a tiny % (if any) of the population is needed to maintain that production, then what?

What does that look like? Do people keep seeking out new, ultimately trivial (from a healthy survival POV), jobs for themselves?

[oskar]

Even if you abolish minimum wages, it's not going to fix the underlying problem. People are just not going to work for the wages you'd have to settle for if you want to compete with a touch screen at McDonalds or a self driving truck, because that wouldn't be $11 an hour. Try a week.
It's a difficult subject because on the surface laissez faire capitalism looks really convincing. You earn money, and that's your money. Why would anyone have the right to take that away from you? Well, it's complicated.

[BananaStand]

Even if you abolish minimum wages, it's not going to fix the underlying problem. People are just not going to work for the wages you'd have to settle for if you want to compete with a touch screen at McDonalds or a self driving truck, because that wouldn't be $11 an hour. Try a week.
It's a difficult subject because on the surface laissez faire capitalism looks really convincing. You earn money, and that's your money. Why would anyone have the right to take that away from you? Well, it's complicated.

You've just touched on why all the paranoia about greedy corporations is overblown.

McDonalds could have installed touchscreen order kiosks years ago. They didn't. Why? Because the market wage allowed them to hire a person, and still sell their product at a competitive price. And in that situation, a human being is always preferable to a machine. Creating jobs, employing people, connecting with the community and generating personal success stories increases their goodwill, and that has a value.

But when the government fucks with the market via a massive minimum wage hike ($15 is a fucking lot), now you've removed McDonald's abilitty to continue to sell it's products at competitive prices. The government has inserted a cost that is larger than the value of goodwill.

[BananaStand]

What's your endgame, spoon?

My name's not spoon, but I'm chiming in anyway. Short answer: there is no endgame.

I mean... assuming all production can be automated at some point, and that no manual labor will be needed in any industry, only skilled labor.

Given a society that overproduces basic resources with effective cost per person so low that only a tiny % (if any) of the population is needed to maintain that production, then what?

Education becomes more important. Hopefully you'll be retired by then.

What does that look like?

It looks exactly like it does right now.

If the economy demands more skilled labor than manual labor, then the workforce will evolve to compensate. it's been happening forever, why would you expect it to stop?

[MadMojoMonkey]

[...]

I have no interest in anything you've ever said on this forum, and I find your presence here to be toxic to intelligent discourse.

If not for my strict belief in freedom of expression, I'd have banned you months ago. You belong on reddit, not FTR.

[oskar]

Automation has always happened but never at the scale it's happening at today. You can't try to look at the past when you are going to have machines that will be capable of doing virtually every single job humans are doing today. And that's not just driving, warehouse work and miscellaneous manual labor. Stock traders are being replaced by machines. Surgeons are already largely working with robotics. One highly specialized surgeon can do the job of 10 surgeons by working around the globe through a screen. It probably won't be that long until you can replace that one guy with a machine. It's not like there will be less jobs. There will be no jobs. And that should be a great thing! But I don't see how it's going to work without some type of redistribution system like universal income.

[wufwugy]

This is a real issue that is going to need to be addressed in some way because we're going to end up with a large class of people without employment thanks to automation.

If that was to happen, it would mean that humans no longer have a comparative advantage over machines. In that case, it may be that jobs are the last thing we should worry about since it would likely mean AI would be more advanced than humans. Your premise would also mean that humans aren't consuming.

The hypothetical scenario in the zeitgeist today cannot happen because it is a contradiction in terms. It can't be that business owners get wealthy by using machines and consumers need subsidization in order to consume the products that make the business owners wealthy.

Unfortunately for the left, the solution can't just be to tax the fuck out of people who are higher up on the food chain, but they're so stuck on that idea (especially with regards to the more short-term issue of the minimum wage) that they can't see that.

The "solution" to tax and redistribute doesn't even address a real problem, and the tax would just result in a net negative due to efficiency loss at best. This scenario, which is the contemporary narrative, cannot happen: automation makes business owners better off and consumers need subsidies in order to buy what makes business owners better off.

[BananaStand]

I have no interest in anything you've ever said on this forum,

100% untrue

[wufwugy]

What's your endgame, spoon? I mean... assuming all production can be automated at some point, and that no manual labor will be needed in any industry, only skilled labor.

Given a society that overproduces basic resources with effective cost per person so low that only a tiny % (if any) of the population is needed to maintain that production, then what?

What does that look like? Do people keep seeking out new, ultimately trivial (from a healthy survival POV), jobs for themselves?

I can tell you're thinking about this.

We can't predict the future details, but the past has shown us that as resource allocation becomes more efficient, people gain more resources and get creative about using their comparative advantages. An example of the latter is how it's because of efficiency gains of machines that the service sector even exists. Another example, how many people are employed in the software/hardware creation of computer technology? Well, there would be zero if not for efficiency gains (and related sector job declines) made by machines in respective sectors. Even what a teacher does depends on a lot of efficiency gains created by machines that came with associated job declines. Over time, the changes in jobs (and consumer wealth) has been net gain by a lot.

[wufwugy]

Even if you abolish minimum wages, it's not going to fix the underlying problem. People are just not going to work for the wages you'd have to settle for if you want to compete with a touch screen at McDonalds or a self driving truck, because that wouldn't be $11 an hour. Try a week.

This scenario details some quite sizable efficiency gains. Where are those gains going?

[wufwugy]

Automation has always happened but never at the scale it's happening at today. You can't try to look at the past when you are going to have machines that will be capable of doing virtually every single job humans are doing today. And that's not just driving, warehouse work and miscellaneous manual labor. Stock traders are being replaced by machines. Surgeons are already largely working with robotics. One highly specialized surgeon can do the job of 10 surgeons by working around the globe through a screen. It probably won't be that long until you can replace that one guy with a machine. It's not like there will be less jobs. There will be no jobs. And that should be a great thing! But I don't see how it's going to work without some type of redistribution system like universal income.

What is the evidence the change is different now?

If there are no jobs because of efficiency gains, does that mean that consumers and producers alike would have all the resources they ever wanted (or that AI Skynet'd us)?

[Poopadoop]

100% untrue

Lol, he doesn't dispute that he's a toxic idiot, he just disputes that he's not an interesting toxic idiot.

Well played.

[BananaStand]

This scenario details some quite sizable efficiency gains. Where are those gains going?

Greedy corporations wuf. Duh

[oskar]

If that was to happen, it would mean that humans no longer have a comparative advantage over machines. In that case, it may be that jobs are the last thing we should worry about since it would likely mean AI would be more advanced than humans.

AI is more advanced than humans in many sectors. It is much worse than humans in many others. But that really doesn't matter. When I say AI or automation, I don't talk about a general AI, I just mean the level of AI necessary to do certain specialized tasks.

I know what you're getting at. It's not like the money vanishes, but it will go to a smaller and smaller percentage of the population. It will be the current situation exacerbated. If you want a visual, look at Mumbai.

[wufwugy]

If that was to happen, it would mean that humans no longer have a comparative advantage over machines.

I should rephrase this. A comparative advantage is something you have with yourself. It's where you are better at one activity than you are another activity. Comparative advantages relate to each other. That's why countries trade. Even if one country can make more of two different goods than another country, they each specialize in their comparative advantages and end up with more total resources by doing so.