Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Actually, we have to degrowth to not burn out the planet and die, so it doesn't matter if remaining markets are automated or not. There needs to be a total revolutionary turnaround in the consciousness of what things our civilizations can afford to keep, and what must be let go. Though it's not quite as grim as all that, seeing as our current society seems to have only succeeded at making everybody miserable and hopeless, getting rid of parts of it would probably do us some good.

[sluissa]

So if I understand the argument, UBI is both too extreme a change to accept, and at the same time, not extreme enough of a change to allow us to survive.

And the only way to survive getting machine gunned down in the streets is to attack the people with the machine guns first.

I mean... there's SOME logic there... I'll admit that. But it assumes we're already at war and there's no middle ground between being slave labor and being stamped obsolete and dumped in mass graves. It also assumes that there are absolutely nobody in power with good intentions.

I'm in the "the world is fucked" camp, but even I can't be that negative about the situation.

[Karnewarrior]

Yeah, that's some republican-tier negativity and disbelief in the human race, there. I don't subscribe to it, and I don't believe it.

[SalmonGod]

Not like there isn't a ton of historical precedent for capitalists shooting poor people for simply wanting to be able to survive.

Or like the exact same organizations who are infamous for doing so in the past are even trying to hide the fact that they're preparing to do so again in the future.

[thompson]

You realize that the alternative to the UBI, is social luddism right?

When you embrace inefficiency, you create LOTS of demand for labor.


Really, those are our choices:
 
Embrace willful inefficiency by outlawing automation, for the express purpose of assuring that a market continues to exist. 
--OR--
Embracing 100% automation, with a UBI, with all the consequences that entails.

Pick a poison.

Or we could reduce the working week and increase hourly wages so everyone benefits. UBI won't be a practical necessity for some time to come. I could definitely make good use of a 3 day weekend now, though. I'm anti-UBI, for now at least.

[Reelya]

Companies have always been able to easily skirt those sorts of labor restrictions however.

for example, if you're going to halve your workforce by replacing people with robots and the government says you must then halve hours and double wages, what you actually do is create a shell company owned by the directors, stick all the robots in it, then sell the human department to a third company that you then buy back all your original labor as a contractor. The shell company with the humans in it can then honestly say that they are complying with the existing laws regarding profit sharing, since they're probably running at a loss.

This is a common sort of tactic for companies to weasel out of labor laws and agreements.

So no, you can't fix this by saying "if you automate you must reduce hours and pay the remaining workers X% more" because it's extremely easy to just say "you're no longer employed by MegaCorp1000, you're employed by Buttslave Employment Inc, who provides services to MegaCorp1000. Sign here or be fired". And even if they can't force existing employees to switch they can do it on turnover, with employees gradually switching from internal to the point where 90% of the people sitting next to you are in fact employed as third-party labor hire.

[thompson]

I said nothing about tying the regulations to "automation", which would be impossible to measure anyway. What you do is reduce the maximum working week and raise the minimum hourly wage. Labour supply is restricted by regulation, shifting the balance of power towards employees. Middle income employees benefit from this first, as they tend to have skills that are in high demand already. More graduates in those areas get jobs, as supply is constrained. So, more people get better jobs. Lower income people (who often don't get as many hours as they'd like anyway) benefit from higher minimum hourly wage. Unemployment from bankruptcies from companies that built their entire business models on exploiting people will be largely (completely?) offset by other companies hiring more people to compensate for shorter working week. And for people who still can't find work, there should be adequate unemployment benefits.

UBI is problematic for many reasons I'd rather not go into. Different circumstances call for different welfare payments. A comprehensive welfare system can achieve this without UBI. One day it may be necessary, but not now.

[sluissa]

If you don't tie it to automation somehow, the increased labor costs are going to strongly incentivize automation. A good chunk of the jobs that exist, exist purely because human labor is cheaper than a robot on some time scale that makes sense for accounting purposes.

Another chunk of jobs exist simply to be a buffer between automated systems and humans that need those systems. Those will phase out as people get more used to ordering online or checking out their own groceries.

EDIT: Fixed some phone induced typos.

[wierd]

So.. This belongs both here and in the sad thread.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/how-nbc-killed-its-weinstein-story?utm_source=pocket-newtab

This is a scathing, and downright scandalous op-ed by a former investigative journalist for NBC, who had worked along with Ronan, to interview victims of Weinstein, and his decades of sexual abuse.

The short version is that the brass at NBC were fully aware of, and engaged in the same "hush" tactics as Weinstein, about the outright sexual abuse of one of their premiere anchors, and that Weinstein and his lawyers blackmailed NBC into killing the reporting that had been done, leading to a death-spiral of lies, more lies, and yet even more lies.

American journalism, center-stage folks.

more coverage
https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/ronan-farrow-describes-harvey-weinstein-reporting-unfolded-part-66277954?cid=ap_video_rec

[sluissa]

So.. This belongs both here and in the sad thread.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/how-nbc-killed-its-weinstein-story?utm_source=pocket-newtab

This is a scathing, and downright scandalous op-ed by a former investigative journalist for NBC, who had worked along with Ronan, to interview victims of Weinstein, and his decades of sexual abuse.

The short version is that the brass at NBC were fully aware of, and engaged in the same "hush" tactics as Weinstein, about the outright sexual abuse of one of their premiere anchors, and that Weinstein and his lawyers blackmailed NBC into killing the reporting that had been done, leading to a death-spiral of lies, more lies, and yet even more lies.

American journalism, center-stage folks.

more coverage
https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/ronan-farrow-describes-harvey-weinstein-reporting-unfolded-part-66277954?cid=ap_video_rec

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/podcasts/the-daily/harvey-weinstein-lisa-bloom.html

Two part podcast from the NYT that's a good addition to that. Lots of people you wouldn't expect tried to protect him for some reason.

Also a TL;DR infographic on automation: https://res.cloudinary.com/yumyoshojin/image/upload/v1/pdf/future-manufacturing-2019.pdf

And a longer report that's used as a source in that infographic that's interesting if you feel like digging in: https://www.pwc.com/hu/hu/kiadvanyok/assets/pdf/impact_of_automation_on_jobs.pdf

[Iduno]

Automation is cool and all but you basically have to overthrow capitalism for it not to immediately degenerate into a sci-fi hell dystopia. In terms of a realistic policy that keeps people alive now, we need shortened working hours and increased worker power.

Automation can also actually be bad for capitalism

That's what I like to hear.

And yet employee owned companies get thrown off as being baby eating blood gurgling communist by Republicans. *throws hands in air*

Though it technically is a socialist ideal because workers rights, it's still capitalist because money.

It's important to Republicans to confuse people on the differences, so the only thing liberals see is "non-capitalist=enemy". You can see it in the current US election cycle where suggesting people should have healthcare scares people enough that they support whichever candidate is most likely to kill the poor.

[Naturegirl1999]

Automation is cool and all but you basically have to overthrow capitalism for it not to immediately degenerate into a sci-fi hell dystopia. In terms of a realistic policy that keeps people alive now, we need shortened working hours and increased worker power.

Automation can also actually be bad for capitalism

That's what I like to hear.

And yet employee owned companies get thrown off as being baby eating blood gurgling communist by Republicans. *throws hands in air*

Though it technically is a socialist ideal because workers rights, it's still capitalist because money.

It's important to Republicans to confuse people on the differences, so the only thing liberals see is "non-capitalist=enemy". You can see it in the current US election cycle where suggesting people should have healthcare scares people enough that they support whichever candidate is most likely to kill the poor.

I must be missing something. Why would people fear getting healthcare?

[wierd]

Essentially, the mantra is

"Who will pay for it!?  NOT ME! THAT'S WHO!"

They aren't against people going to the doctor; They are against unemployed/stereotypical poor people taking their kid in with the sniffles all the time, when they themselves work (hard), and can't even afford to go when they have something serious.

The Repubs spin this wild yarn about "The liberals want to raise your taxes even higher to subsidize healthcare for the poor! We know you can't afford that! (because we are actually responsible, and it was purposeful, but don't pay attention to that...) Vote for us, so we can block these obscene abuses of taxpayer money!"

And people fall for it, hook line and sinker.

Nevermind that the reason why the ACA was structured the way it was-- instead of being more aggressively state-controlled healthcare (which would force prices down, hard-- like it has in other countries) was because of the Repubs being all antsy about "controlling the market".  Somebody should hold up a stuffed toy and ask them to point out on the doll where state-controlled healthcare hurt them.  If they point to the wallet, at least they are telling the truth (in as much as most Repubs are HEAVILY invested in the pharmaceutical industry.)

[nenjin]

Management is ultimately the reason I never pursued a career in journalism.

When I was in college, working with professors who were all former editors of newspapers, I remember this "look" they'd get when I'd ask questions about the line between truth and the bottomline. Whether it was currying favor with sources to preserve access, or how stories were covered vs. how the outlet appeared, they'd get this shifty-eyed look. I remember once calling out an article they'd held up as an example of beautiful reporting (some fucking fluff piece on, what else, sports) because it was basically 3 paragraphs of a reporter painting an idyllic picture of something that they probably never witnessed. I remember my professors shifting around and going "well you know blah blah blah" as a way to excuse colorful reporting, because it made for a good article. "But is it the truth? Were they actually there? Did the gnats really glow under the stadium lights at 10pm at night?" And they hemmed and hawed and basically just waived it by, even when other students tried stop them and go "No, wait, I think this is actually an important point." The professors didn't want to discuss it.

I had this kind of conversation in class multiple times in college, where they'd bang the drum of how important accuracy and truth is.....but only when the accuracy and truth perfectly served the bottomline. When it didn't....oh, suddenly the truth is mutable, flexible, complicated. There's "considerations." The conversations on what you do when the story is about one of the advertisers that keeps the newspaper afloat, what do you then? You could literally watch the moral equivalency play out on their faces. Charitably you could say they were just considering the landscape before trying to answer......but all I had to do was picture that kind of conversation about something that actually mattered (rather than some stupid football tribute fluff piece) to feel more than a vague sense of discomfort. The answer was pretty simple though: if the outlet could afford to lose an advertiser over a story, and the story was worthwhile enough, they'd run it. If they couldn't afford to, or it was deemed not worth the cost, then they'd just bury it.

At the time, I was mostly concerned with low-effort reporting and basically having to do 4 jobs at once. I was concerned with being asked to follow leads from twitter, and report what people said rather than investigating whether or not it was true, and turn and burn stories in just an hour or two. I remember sitting down with news executives picking over the newest crop of j-school students and feeling how much weight, even as a prospective hire, that editors and senior management carried on how I would do my job.

And I said nope. Nope nope nope. I knew I'd end up in conflict with management one way or another, some day, and decided I didn't want someone telling me how I was going to report what an organization decided was true. It's always pitched as this negotiation between reporters and management about how stories are crafted, presented. And that's true. But when it comes down to brass tacks, their ability to just say "you will do this" or "you won't do this" felt fundamentally at odds with what the stated mission goal was: to find facts and report them as accurately as possible.

And this was in like 2009. The landscape has gotten even shittier and more reactionary and politicized since then. There are times I regret not trying to be an actual reporter......but then I just have to look at the news today, and stuff like this, to remind myself I made the right decision. I hate the term and the idea of "fake news" and the way the media gets shit on constantly, but in truth a lot of it is their own fault. Low-effort reporting plus the desire to save face, preserve access and make money is what has undermined journalistic credibility in this day and age. Business realities compromising the basic mission of journalism.

[Naturegirl1999]

Management is ultimately the reason I never pursued a career in journalism.

When I was in college, working with professors who were all former editors of newspapers, I remember this "look" they'd get when I'd ask questions about the line between truth and the bottomline. Whether it was currying favor with sources to preserve access, or how stories were covered vs. how the outlet appeared, they'd get this shifty-eyed look. I remember once calling out an article they'd held up as an example of beautiful reporting (some fucking fluff piece on, what else, sports) because it was basically 3 paragraphs of a reporter painting an idyllic picture of something that they probably never witnessed. I remember my professors shifting around and going "well you know blah blah blah" as a way to excuse colorful reporting, because it made for a good article. "But is it the truth? Were they actually there? Did the gnats really glow under the stadium lights at 10pm at night?" And they hemmed and hawed and basically just waived it by, even when other students tried stop them and go "No, wait, I think this is actually an important point." The professors didn't want to discuss it.

I had this kind of conversation in class multiple times in college, where they'd bang the drum of how important accuracy and truth is.....but only when the accuracy and truth perfectly served the bottomline. When it didn't....oh, suddenly the truth is mutable, flexible, complicated. There's "considerations." The conversations on what you do when the story is about one of the advertisers that keeps the newspaper afloat, what do you then? You could literally watch the moral equivalency play out on their faces. Charitably you could say they were just considering the landscape before trying to answer......but all I had to do was picture that kind of conversation about something that actually mattered (rather than some stupid football tribute fluff piece) to feel more than a vague sense of discomfort. The answer was pretty simple though: if the outlet could afford to lose an advertiser over a story, and the story was worthwhile enough, they'd run it. If they couldn't afford to, or it was deemed not worth the cost, then they'd just bury it.

At the time, I was mostly concerned with low-effort reporting and basically having to do 4 jobs at once. I was concerned with being asked to follow leads from twitter, and report what people said rather than investigating whether or not it was true, and turn and burn stories in just an hour or two. I remember sitting down with news executives picking over the newest crop of j-school students and feeling how much weight, even as a prospective hire, that editors and senior management carried on how I would do my job.

And I said nope. Nope nope nope. I knew I'd end up in conflict with management one way or another, some day, and decided I didn't want someone telling me how I was going to report what an organization decided was true. It's always pitched as this negotiation between reporters and management about how stories are crafted, presented. And that's true. But when it comes down to brass tacks, their ability to just say "you will do this" or "you won't do this" felt fundamentally at odds with what the stated mission goal was: to find facts and report them as accurately as possible.

And this was in like 2009. The landscape has gotten even shittier and more reactionary and politicized since then. There are times I regret not trying to be an actual reporter......but then I just have to look at the news today, and stuff like this, to remind myself I made the right decision. I hate the term and the idea of "fake news" and the way the media gets shit on constantly, but in truth a lot of it is their own fault. Low-effort reporting plus the desire to save face, preserve access and make money is what has undermined journalistic credibility in this day and age. Business realities compromising the basic mission of journalism.

This was a good read. It is sad that "reporting" is nothing more than how to get ratings, rather than how true something is.