*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

Where does the money that business owners gain come from?

What about Mumbai is related?

[oskar]

Where does the money that business owners gain come from?

What about Mumbai is related?

It has one of the most picturesque divides in wealth. You have homes with heli pads and 3rd world shacks where naked children scavenge for food in the same city. It's been experiencing massive economic growth in the last 10 years, but the large majority are only spectators to it.
I'm not saying that is something we need to worry about in the next 10, 20 or even 50 years, but gradually you'll get to a point where average joe will simply not be needed. It will always be more efficient to put a machine in his place. So, you could say, since he can no longer pay, demand goes down, and prices drop. But if your income is zero, any price is too high.

What is the free market no-welfare outlook for people whose entire job sector disappears? Transportation and warehousing is a sizable sector that probably won't follow projections, but will almost certainly disappear from the job market within 20 years. Where do you see someone who has driven trucks for 25 years go after that sector dies down completely? I'll give you that in the long run maybe new sectors will open up, but what is your theory on what will happen to those individuals?

[BananaStand]

But if your income is zero, any price is too high.

If income is zero, there is no market. Which hurts buyers just as much as sellers. So there you go, now you don't have to worry about a wealth divide. Everyone's broke.

In other words, the scenario you're describing is impossible.

I'll give you that in the long run maybe new sectors will open up, but what is your theory on what will happen to those individuals?

The same thing that happened to all the workers in all the ash-tray factories over the last 100 years. they survived.

[spoonitnow]

In other words, the scenario you're describing is impossible.

There is no cure. You're trying to talk sense into zombies.

[wufwugy]

It has one of the most picturesque divides in wealth. You have homes with heli pads and 3rd world shacks where naked children scavenge for food in the same city. It's been experiencing massive economic growth in the last 10 years, but the large majority are only spectators to it.

I would like to know some details. I'm not asking for you to provide them since you may not have them, just saying I would like details. If it is through market capitalism that people are getting wealthy in Mumbai, it necessarily means the consumers of the good/services of the capital owners are getting wealthy. I'm not saying this is the case in Mumbai; it could (and may) not be an example of market capitalism. Even so, when it comes to the poor scavenging food in the streets, context is needed. Thomas Sowell's fundamental question "Opposed to what?" is good here. Even if a very poor place undergoes decades of 10% real growth, there will still be poor people scavenging for food for some, most, or all of those years.

I'm not saying that is something we need to worry about in the next 10, 20 or even 50 years, but gradually you'll get to a point where average joe will simply not be needed.

If there is no work for humans due to efficiency gains and humans are still the dominant market force (which is what is being posited), it means people have everything they want. This is because it would mean that humans are consuming the goods/services produced in the markets yet humans are unable to use their human capital to make themselves better off.

Something else worth mentioning is how the concept of a "job" is simply formal and doesn't fully represent use of human capital. Human capital is essentially a human's ability to work (with hands, with mind, etc.). I'm not sure how productive discussing this now would be (unless you want to), though I figured I would mention it. There are lots of interesting things in there. Like how with enough efficiency gains, we might not think in terms of jobs, we might not use money, stuff like that.

What is the free market no-welfare outlook for people whose entire job sector disappears? Transportation and warehousing is a sizable sector that probably won't follow projections, but will almost certainly disappear from the job market within 20 years. Where do you see someone who has driven trucks for 25 years go after that sector dies down completely? I'll give you that in the long run maybe new sectors will open up, but what is your theory on what will happen to those individuals?

The changes are marginal. Most (all) industries are continually losing jobs due to efficiency gains. Because this never happens all at once and because there are marginal differences between people, an industry can go from robust to nothing over the span of several decades without causing much displacement above average. In your scenario, the most common response is along the lines of the 25 year trucker would usually keep his job just fine while new truckers would not be hired. An experienced trucker is more valuable than an inexperienced one. At first, automated trucking will only be used at the lowest level of skill. Over time that will gradually increase.

[wufwugy]

If there is no work for humans due to efficiency gains and humans are still the dominant market force (which is what is being posited), it means people have everything they want.

Actually it doesn't mean they have everything they want, but that they have everything they want that they are capable of gaining by using effort and resources.

[wufwugy]

With enough efficiency gains, people would prefer to do things and give things away for free. There are costs to putting prices on things. With enough efficiency gains, people would get more subjective benefit from not pricing something than by pricing something. We see this in action already, like with Bill Gates. It costs him more subjectively to not do all the charity work he does. This is showing us that Bill Gates gets more benefit out of helping people eradicate a disease than he does the amount of his monetary wealth it costs him. Not only does Bill Gates not want to make more monetary wealth off of eradicating disease, but the subjective benefit is so great that he prefers to spend monetary wealth for his subjective emotional-type gains.

Something I think worth thinking about.

[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.