|
Vermain posted:right, which is my point: you've got an already sterile economy that's currently being propped up by financial fantasies which is going to see even fewer viable jobs in the future, because the automation we'll see will still be in the service of the profit motive and not in the service of reducing drudgery. that's the bad news that we're hurtling towards and no one has an answer for it automation will be the next big economic disruption especially when jobs like truck drivers start getting replaced 10-15 years from now.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
etalian posted:automation will be the next big economic disruption especially when jobs like truck drivers start getting replaced 10-15 years from now. As long as no robot takes the job of being a rich rear end, the market will correct for any eventuality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Over Easy posted:As long as no robot takes the job of being a rich rear end, the market will correct for any eventuality. robots currently basically run the stock market so that kind of counts though I guess that's still technically work and not "sitting around with your rich shithead buddies and cackling at how badly you've hosed the poors", but I'm sure someone's working on a deep learning algo for this
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
robots make the market more efficient. lmao that's what someone in the high freq trading business told me anyway I guess it is a more efficient way of upwardly redistributing capital
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
the bitcoin of weed posted:robots currently basically run the stock market so that kind of counts The job of a rich rear end isn't to run the stock market tho. The rich rear end' job is to sit on his rich rear end getting paid for labor that ain't his, be that robo-labor or fleshoid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
redsniper posted:So the economy of Chicago is being collapsed by unpaid parking tickets. I'm not familiar with the exact numbers but I seriously doubt it. I think it was more an enforcement policy, combined with frustration that as a general unsecured creditor they were receiving money last compared to Trustee percentages, car payments, debtor attorney fees, mortgage arrears, taxes, child support arrears and co-signed debts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
anime was right posted:totally unlike ours lol They learned from the master
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
Vermain posted:right, which is my point: you've got an already sterile economy that's currently being propped up by financial fantasies which is going to see even fewer viable jobs in the future, because the automation we'll see will still be in the service of the profit motive and not in the service of reducing drudgery. that's the bad news that we're hurtling towards and no one has an answer for it no, i mean that there's not going to be automation. the primary driver behind economic collapse is resource depletion. there is very few reason to replace humans (cheap, replaceable, and getting cheaper literally every second as more are made) with machines (expensive, complex and difficult to replace, require massive ongoing investments in energy and resources). the transition people are theorycrafting is not actually plausible.  like don't get me wrong, your job and industry will still probably disappear, but thats more because there'll be no coherent way to justify the resource allocations to keep widget sellers, thinkpiece writers and loan officers going
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 12:03
|
|
|
Personally as a somewhat nerdy guy I'm frankly terrified of what's going to happen now that a gigantic portion of the world is extremely reliant on information technology which is pretty much impossible to make at current performance levels without extremely rare metals. And the worst part is even if we had a viable interplanetary space program in place tomorrow it would probably still be too late
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
Pancakes posted:I think that's a pretty decent start, but if anyone has any questions about any of this or anything else, please let me know. I'm not going to name names or disclose client details, but I'm happy to talk more about it generally. It's a really insular part of the legal community that very few people understand well, which is a shame since it can help a lot of people. I also worry that I still may have taken some basics for granted and left this as an indecipherable mess. this post was great and thank you for making it
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
cargo cult posted:if you can permit me a stupid question, is there any way to know when this will all go down? like can we sustain for another two years? the "when" is always the hard part it's not that hard to tell that a system is unsustainable, but predicting exactly when it will finally collapse is impossible
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:this post was great and thank you for making it Thanks for saying so! Most of my effort posts are about baseball so it was a change of pace. It's a very specialized practice but you get a lot of weird insight into the microeconomics of lower- and middle-income households. The shadow economy that's arisen ever since the elimination of advanced earned income credit is a prime example. You get the working poor who borrow money from family or just default on their rent during the majority of the year and then repay in February/March with their $8,000 refunds. Incorporating that into a Chapter 13, which assumes set average monthly income and expenses, can be challenging. The Trustee's common refrain of "Why don't they just budget better" can be super insulting when dealing with a single mother of 3 grossing $25,000 annually.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Pancakes posted:Thanks for saying so! Most of my effort posts are about baseball so it was a change of pace. It's a very specialized practice but you get a lot of weird insight into the microeconomics of lower- and middle-income households. The shadow economy that's arisen ever since the elimination of advanced earned income credit is a prime example. You get the working poor who borrow money from family or just default on their rent during the majority of the year and then repay in February/March with their $8,000 refunds. Incorporating that into a Chapter 13, which assumes set average monthly income and expenses, can be challenging. The Trustee's common refrain of "Why don't they just budget better" can be super insulting when dealing with a single mother of 3 grossing $25,000 annually. It was a very good post! If I waved a magic wand and made you King of the Tax Code and Bankruptcy Law, what would you change to help people like that mom? Let's say you can't just tax 100% of incomes over $100k and redistribute it or something, you gotta keep the basic structure of progressive income tax and payroll tax might still exist etc. Sorry if this is a stupid hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Digiwizzard posted:no, i mean that there's not going to be automation. the primary driver behind economic collapse is resource depletion. there is very few reason to replace humans (cheap, replaceable, and getting cheaper literally every second as more are made) with machines (expensive, complex and difficult to replace, require massive ongoing investments in energy and resources). the transition people are theorycrafting is not actually plausible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
sat on my keys! posted:It was a very good post! If I waved a magic wand and made you King of the Tax Code and Bankruptcy Law, what would you change to help people like that mom? Let's say you can't just tax 100% of incomes over $100k and redistribute it or something, you gotta keep the basic structure of progressive income tax and payroll tax might still exist etc. Sorry if this is a stupid hypothetical. A relatively simple fix would be to amend section 1325 to except from "disposable income" the right to receive any funds that would otherwise be fully exempt if they were a scheduled asset in schedules b and c of the petition. For instance, a competent attorney in Illinois will protect the refund as a right to receive government benefits under 735 ILCS 5/12-1001(g). That means that as long as a debtor lists the refund as a contingent asset and exempts it properly they won't lose it in a 7 filing. Congress put all these incentives to encourage people to file a 13 rather than a 7 when they passed BAPCPA, it makes no sense that the "desirable" filing should be more punitive towards those refunds (or other exemptible funds, such as life insurance proceeds, worker's compensation, etc.) I'd much rather they just eliminate the preference for 13 vs 7 by doing away with a lot of the 523 exceptions to discharge but I know that's not actually something that could happen. The sad thing, too, is that you see some cases of people trying to abuse the system. In trying to avoid I intended consequences I would probably keep any changes relatively narrow. A clearer definition of "household" would also be helpful, but I'm harping about that right now because I have a brief coming up on the issue. The lack of a definition in the code means that you get a lot of ambiguity in "non-traditional" households: Does a domestic partner who filed separate taxes but keeps a joint account qualify as a household member? What about a spouse who files separate returns, keeps separate bank accounts, etc. because it's the second marriage for both of them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Not going to be automation implies that it hasn't already cut a swathe through all kinds of tasks people used to do. Not sure why machines should be more energy intensive either, since a lot of them can skip one or two steps of transforming energy into usable forms compared to people, plus they don't waste energy on stupid poo poo like not working. I think the resource perspective is more going to play into the argument that the people who own these machines will have even less reason to share, so everyone else just gets kicked out of the formal economy. automation has already devastated the workforce, that's one reason why the economy has been nothing but bubble after bubble for literally twenty loving years
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
sat on my keys! posted:It was a very good post! If I waved a magic wand and made you King of the Tax Code and Bankruptcy Law, what would you change to help people like that mom? Let's say you can't just tax 100% of incomes over $100k and redistribute it or something, you gotta keep the basic structure of progressive income tax and payroll tax might still exist etc. Sorry if this is a stupid hypothetical. Here's my hot take: people below the living wage shouldn't pay taxes at all, not just pay ~20% on their $10 an hour or whatever and get it back at the end of the fiscal yeae
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Not going to be automation implies that it hasn't already cut a swathe through all kinds of tasks people used to do. Not sure why machines should be more energy intensive either, since a lot of them can skip one or two steps of transforming energy into usable forms compared to people, plus they don't waste energy on stupid poo poo like not working. I think the resource perspective is more going to play into the argument that the people who own these machines will have even less reason to share, so everyone else just gets kicked out of the formal economy. if you're talking about having powered machines that perform manual labour more quickly and efficiently then humans, that's called industrialisation and that happened over 100 years ago. the economy is already industrialised. when people talk about automation they talk about machines replacing the human labour component of an industrialised economy, this isn't credible because there isn't even enough resources to keep industrialised economies going. where are the resources going to come from to facilitate the exponentially more expensive step of replacing the humans? humans have fairly simple and cheap energy inputs. you can sustain a human workforce quite cheaply on a miserable diet of rice, soybeans and fresh water. its very simple to create a self sufficient closed loop supply chain in terms of resources. contrast this to our hypothetical AI worker, who will need in order to simply be manufactured, a massively complex supply chain that will rely on the continued existence of enormous mining operations, smelters to refine the ores, factories to shape the materials into parts, silicon doping plants, chip fabrication and soldering facilities, a reliable and consistent electricity grid that loses 70% of it's energy in waste heat, and an enormous transport and logistics infrastructure constantly humming along keeping all the other parts functioning. as the economy shrinks, all of those things start to disappear. contrast two hypothetical capitalist billionaires who need workers for their banana plantation. capitalist A decides to just hire some humans who he will pay 30 cents an hour and provide with free rations of rotten bananas. capitalist B decides that automation is the way of the future, and spends $800 million on a fleet of SAMSUNG NeoBanana Smart Tractors that have 5 times the efficiency of human workers. initially, capitalist B does great and feels very smug with his increased yields over capitalist a, but soon rising fuel prices means he is having difficulty turning any sort of profit. by year 3, he is only able to afford to run a quarter of the tractors he purchased. by year 5, severe shortages in lubricants and replacement parts mean that many of the tractors are now irreparably broken down. by year 7 the lifetime of the lithium ion battery that powers the circuitry and sensors on the tractor has expired, and they have become rusting chunks of scrap metal. capitalist B is now bankrupt and becomes a slave on capitalist A's plantation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 09:52
|
|
|
there's never gonna be AI workers in our lifetime instead, what's going to happen is that we'll route the output of a burger-flipper machine and the output of a bun-toasting machine into the input of a hamburger-assembling machine, while one human worker is paid four bucks an hour to get yelled at by angry customers, dislodge any jams in the machines, refill the frozen burger canisters on shipment days, and clean up messes in the bathroom yes, 100% automating all human labor is just about impossible with current technology. but automating 75% of human labor is more than enough to upend the economy as we know it. it's no surprise that job growth has been stagnant since the first tech bubble popped - computers have been aggressively eliminating jobs ever since
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Digiwizzard posted:if you're talking about having powered machines that perform manual labour more quickly and efficiently then humans, that's called industrialisation and that happened over 100 years ago. the economy is already industrialised. wow that's a lot of handwaving
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
self driving vehicles are already more or less functional in very simple traffic and several million people are currently employed as the very truck drivers all these robots are going to replace in the next few decades the biggest hurdle to that becoming a reality is going to be legal/political but I'm sure our lovely politics won't side with increased profits for capitalists at the expense of everyone else again
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
the bitcoin of weed posted:self driving vehicles are already more or less functional in very simple traffic and several million people are currently employed as the very truck drivers all these robots are going to replace in the next few decades to lace that up just give economically displaced people the opportunity to pay for night school at a reduced rate in order to get the skills for the new information economy
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
the bitcoin of weed posted:self driving vehicles are already more or less functional in very simple traffic and several million people are currently employed as the very truck drivers all these robots are going to replace in the next few decades we haven't even automated away all the train drivers yet, why the gently caress does anyone think we're gonna automate away truck drivers?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:we haven't even automated away all the train drivers yet, why the gently caress does anyone think we're gonna automate away truck drivers? because the combined forces of tech and capital really, really, really want to
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
would houston being wiped out be enough to crash the economy?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Jose posted:would houston being wiped out be enough to crash the economy? an article in paper today said no, investors were actually eager to rebuild (graft)
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Jose posted:would houston being wiped out be enough to crash the economy? unless it affects oil enough it wont
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
anime was right posted:unless it affects oil enough it wont i have good news
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Jose posted:would houston being wiped out be enough to crash the economy? that the destruction of the largest gulf port and 4th largest city in the US will depress the market enough to create bonkers investment opportunities is such a common sentiment that the market hasn't even depressed at all. lmao anime was right posted:unless it affects oil enough it wont H.P. Hovercraft posted:i have good news there's a production glut loving up the oil sector, my man. in a macro sense basically everyone except a couple dozen saudi princes wants high oil prices right now
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
its far more likely a few million people need to go into enormous debt to recover and they default on that in 4-6 years that causes it
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:there's a production glut loving up the oil sector, my man. in a macro sense basically everyone except a couple dozen saudi princes wants high oil prices right now well yeah but what happens if you bottleneck refinement i mean i suppose prices only spiked for a bit after katrina but this might cause some longer-term damage to our refinement capacity
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:well yeah but what happens if you bottleneck refinement refining is a bit more robust than extraction, and far more distributed, and what refineries remain will be just fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
the bitcoin of weed posted:because the combined forces of tech and capital really, really, really want to nah, if they were actually interested in automating the trucking industry, they'd be spending less time playing around with funny tiny cars and more time figuring out who's gonna assume legal liability when an automated truck w/ no driver runs over a toddler for the foreseeable future, it's just a luxury gimmick for rich consumers
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:nah, if they were actually interested in automating the trucking industry, they'd be spending less time playing around with funny tiny cars and more time figuring out who's gonna assume legal liability when an automated truck w/ no driver runs over a toddler I agree with this. "The smart money" is hunting for "industry disruptors" like it's still 2009 out there
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:refining is a bit more robust than extraction, and far more distributed, and what refineries remain will be just fine. might wanna look again there chief the gulf coast accounts for around a third of our national refinement capacity for oil and natural gas, a significant portion of which is concentrated around houston and corpus christi
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
it could be half and it could be gone entirely instead of knocked out for maybe two quarters tops, and the net effect to consumers would be a price correction years overdue b/c of saudi pissing on iran's leg ahead of P5+1 getting ratified, and the effects would suck for regular folk but the companies in question would just become even richer and bolster the market further on good old fashioned profits as opposed to the speculative bubbles that precipitate the crashes you may or may not wish to see here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Digiwizzard posted:if you're talking about having powered machines that perform manual labour more quickly and efficiently then humans, that's called industrialisation and that happened over 100 years ago. the economy is already industrialised.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
the people and mechanisms fueling the speculation that will explode massively and break the world in half are entirely removed from the people whose purchasing power is stunted even further by a spike in gas prices. that's actually kind of the entire macroeconomic problem, really.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I'm talking about poo poo like computers being able to do calculations, which they do so well that they took over the name of the first job they automated. That's an extreme example, but there's a reason I wrote task and not job. You don't necessarily attempt to automate a job entirely, you automate tasks and consolidate the non-automatable tasks into fewer jobs. And don't tell me e-mail/calendar integration, now fitting in the palm of your hand, isn't more efficient than having to have secretaries for half your staff. Digital stuff like that is probably more efficient but less effective imo. It makes it too easy to have worthless office communications and pointless meetings
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I'm talking about poo poo like computers being able to do calculations, which they do so well that they took over the name of the first job they automated. That's an extreme example, but there's a reason I wrote task and not job. You don't necessarily attempt to automate a job entirely, you automate tasks and consolidate the non-automatable tasks into fewer jobs. And don't tell me e-mail/calendar integration, now fitting in the palm of your hand, isn't more efficient than having to have secretaries for half your staff. You aren't getting it, introducing labour saving devices that can do the work of multiple people is a process that's been ongoing since 1712. Like all economic processes, it suffers from the law of diminishing returns. All of the simplest and easiest to industrialise work is automated at the beginning, and then harder and more complex work which becomes more difficult and expensive to automate. Eventually, you reach the point we're at now, where it's cheaper to have overseas factories staffed by Chinese migrant workers then a domestic factory filled with expensive as gently caress robotic arms. Like I'm sure some secretaries lost their jobs when rich assholes started using BlackBerries, but more secretaries had already lost their jobs when rich assholes started using Filofaxes. It's an ever diminishing chunk of people who are being made obsolete. The premise of automation is that this time it will be completely different, because now AIs will replace all the humans who operate the machines. It's not going to happen, because the resources required for that infrastructure don't exist. Digiwizzard fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 02:12
|
|