The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Labor intensive industries have already moved. Capital intensive industries are looking to save costs. How will they do that? Automation is a very probable way forward. It's merely another word for 'innovation', IMO.

Here are some use cases.

Apparel industries did not move south/overseas because of automation. That industry was disrupted with labor arbitrage & globalization.

Computer programming did not move to India because of automation. It was because of labor arbitrage & internet connectivity.

Did automotive industry move overseas/decline because of automation in the 70's and 80's or was it because of overseas competition & globalization?

There are absolutely going to be some industries disrupted by automation and a bunch of people will lose their jobs and won't be able to adapt. My point is don't blame it all on automation as there are alot of other market forces in play.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Our government can't even get it together on health care right now, imagine the hilarity as they try and implement something like this.

We'll need something more competent than the special needs chimps in charge now, as well as a populace that doesn't race to opposite sides of the stupidity spectrum electing them, before any real progress is made.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Edward64

We encounter this now with outsourcing, NAFTA and manufacturing moving south/overseas, and increased competition from China et al. I think your main premise is automation will cause this? I think its innovation, progress, globalization etc. of which automation is one aspect.

The solution is education & re-training. Admittedly its not 100% and yes, some people get left behind and they will suffer.

How do you retrain for non-existent jobs? This isn't a case of jobs moving, like they've done now, it's a case of jobs ceasing to be.

[CrescentMoonie]

Production Soared After This Factory Replaced 90% of Its Employees With Robots

The jobs that moved overseas are disappearing as well.

The factory recently replaced 90 percent of its human workforce with machines, and it led to a staggering 250 percent increase in productivity and a significant 80 percent drop in defects.

Changying Precision Technology Company’s factory used to need 650 human workers to produce mobile phones...Only 60 people are still employed by the company.

According to Luo Weiqiang, general manager of the factory, the number of people employed could drop to just 20, and given the level of efficiency achieved by automation, it won’t be long before other factories follow in their footsteps.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think apparel and automotive have taken a hit. Petroleum is the heavy lifter.

Automotive is actually one of the fastest growing segments.
Lots of people think of the decline and off shoring of the "big 3" but BMW, Mercedes, Volvo, Kia, Hyundai, Nissan and Toyota have all opened major manufacturing facilities in the US in the last ~ decade.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Automotive is actually one of the fastest growing segments.
Lots of people think of the decline and off shoring of the "big 3" but BMW, Mercedes, Volvo, Kia, Hyundai, Nissan and Toyota have all opened major manufacturing facilities in the US in the last ~ decade.

Yep, it's a case of globalizing by all of the major brands. Many of the German and Japanese companies are also opening manufacturing facilities in Mexico.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Here are some use cases.

Apparel industries did not move south/overseas because of automation. That industry was disrupted with labor arbitrage & globalization.

Computer programming did not move to India because of automation. It was because of labor arbitrage & internet connectivity.

Did automotive industry move overseas/decline because of automation in the 70's and 80's or was it because of overseas competition & globalization?

There are absolutely going to be some industries disrupted by automation and a bunch of people will lose their jobs and won't be able to adapt. My point is don't blame it all on automation as there are alot of other market forces in play.

Manufacturing output in the US doubled since 1984. With far less manufacturing jobs in the US. How is this massively increased output possible? Automation.

Yeah, jobs left due to labor intensive industries leaving for cheaper areas, but when output goes up there is a reason. Automation will just continue to increase as these manufacturers tried to gain more advantage and as that continues, you need to figure out what to do with the folks who can't get work.

Oh, and for what it's worth, the automobile industry is highly automated. Those plants that are being built all over the South (Kia, Mercedes Benz, Hyundai, etc) have far less workers than the plants that closed in the 70s and 80s. That's an issue that you can't merely handwave by saying, there are other forces in play.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

How do you retrain for non-existent jobs? This isn't a case of jobs moving, like they've done now, it's a case of jobs ceasing to be.

You train people for jobs where they are hiring.

I think the alternative you are proposing is to provide some sort of livable wage/condition etc. where they don't have to work if "automation" has eliminated the need for their current skills?

My take is, if their industry is totally disrupted, they have to adapt and do something else. I do believe in government support in this transition.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You train people for jobs where they are hiring.

What jobs? Every projection suggests at least 25% of jobs going away for good. Some go over 50%. You can retrain for a while, but we're talking a couple of decades before there simply aren't very many jobs.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Automotive is actually one of the fastest growing segments.
Lots of people think of the decline and off shoring of the "big 3" but BMW, Mercedes, Volvo, Kia, Hyundai, Nissan and Toyota have all opened major manufacturing facilities in the US in the last ~ decade.

Sure if you go back in last decade. If you go back to the 70's, automotive has trend has been in a decline. See link below and use MAX for timeline.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...car-production

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

What jobs? Every projection suggests at least 25% of jobs going away for good. Some go over 50%. You can retrain for a while, but we're talking a couple of decades before there simply aren't very many jobs.

I would like to read these reports. Can you provide some links? Do these reports say that new jobs will not be created?

I don't disagree that some jobs are going away for good. I am saying that automation will free up resources/investments and other jobs will be created.

I work in the tech world and do see automation increasing which will definitely displace some workers. There are some that will never get a good job again and there are others that will adapt to whatever new job comes from automation. Automation frees us from doing the mundane to do other things.

I think what you are saying is the # of displaced, never to be employed again etc. will greatly exceed the # of new jobs that automation brings or frees "us" to build/invest in other areas that will create new jobs?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Oh, and for what it's worth, the automobile industry is highly automated. Those plants that are being built all over the South (Kia, Mercedes Benz, Hyundai, etc) have far less workers than the plants that closed in the 70s and 80s. That's an issue that you can't merely handwave by saying, there are other forces in play.

My comment was

Did automotive industry move overseas/decline because of automation in the 70's and 80's or was it because of overseas competition & globalization?

In the 70's and 80's when the decline began, was it because of automation or because of competition? I do think both played a role but think back then it was likely competition from Honda & Nissan etc. and the poor US quality

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I would like to read these reports. Can you provide some links? Do these reports say that new jobs will not be created?

I don't disagree that some jobs are going away for good. I am saying that automation will free up resources/investments and other jobs will be created.

https://qz.com/941163/pwc-study-auto...-uk-and-japan/

Yes, some new jobs will be created, but when have we ever seen up to 50% of the job market replaced completely in 10-20 years?

[Edward64]

Thanks. I went into the PWC report.

Furthermore new automation
technologies in areas like AI and
robotics will both create some totally
new jobs in the digital technology
area and, through productivity
gains, generate additional wealth
and spending that will support
additional jobs of existing kinds,
primarily in services sectors that
are less easy to automate.

• The net impact of automation on
total employment is therefore
unclear. Average pre-tax incomes
should rise due to the productivity
gains, but these benefits may not be
evenly spread across income groups.

• There is therefore a case for some
form of government intervention to
ensure that the potential gains from
automation are shared more widely
across society through policies like
increased investment in vocational
education and training. Universal
basic income schemes may also be
considered, though these suffer
from potential problems in terms
of affordability and adverse effects
on the incentives to work and
generate wealth.

What I got from it is ...

New jobs will be created but net impact of employment is unclear ... government intervention ... through policies like increased investment in vocational education and training etc.

To your point, it also says "universal basic income schemes may also be considered those these suffer from potential problems in terms of affordability and adverse effects on the incentives to work and generate wealth."

I was googling on articles similar. I saw alot of "opinions" which I eliminated, alot of tech oriented sites that stated but have to take those with a grain of salt ...

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

In the 70's and 80's when the decline began, was it because of automation or because of competition? I do think both played a role but think back then it was likely competition from Honda & Nissan etc. and the poor US quality

And I consider these questions about the decline of the auto industry in the 1970s to be absolutely irrelevant when considering questions of automation on jobs in the 20th Century. The only possible relevance it has is that the boom in auto industry in the US is being propelled by highly automated plants in contrast to the ones in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

TBH, I think this 'competition' thread is a complete strawman argument. It doesn't account for manufacturing output being up (decidedly so) while at the same time manufacturing jobs are way down (decidedly so). No one is making the argument that manufacturing jobs aren't way down and that outsourcing caused some of that. Why that is doesn't particularly matter except to explain why those jobs aren't coming back. The automation today is still occurring. Previous job losses due to competition isn't particularly relevant.

[Edward64]

My participation in this topic was in response to CM below.

CM examples were not only manufacturing focused and therefore I did not singularly focus on it ... so I'm not focused on argument on "manufacturing output".

I understand you and I started discussing based on your manufacturing comment but my intent was never just to focus on manufacturing.

We encounter this now with outsourcing, NAFTA and manufacturing moving south/overseas, and increased competition from China et al. I think your main premise is automation will cause this? I think its innovation, progress, globalization etc. of which automation is one aspect.

The solution is education & re-training. Admittedly its not 100% and yes, some people get left behind and they will suffer.

[Edward64]

FWIW.

I do Politico, NYT, WaPo & BBC so I guess I'm covered. I also do alot of CNN and definitely see them lean left quite a bit since Trump's election. Have to do more PBS and NPR.

These are the most — and the least — trusted news sources in the U.S. - MarketWatch

The most trusted news source in the U.S. is The Economist — a weekly magazine published in the U.K., according to a recent survey from the University of Missouri’s Reynolds Journalism Institute.

The second-most reliable is public television, followed by Reuters and BBC. Two U.S. nonprofit outlets, NPR and PBS, came in at fifth and sixth, while the U.K.’s The Guardian clinched the seventh spot. The U.S.-based Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times and Dallas Morning News rounded out the top 10 trusted names in journalism.
:
Ironically, Trump was also viewed as untrustworthy, with a credibility score that was better than social-media sources but worse than the internet.

[cuervo72]

If I didn't have to work to make a living (or look for work to work to make a living...), I would probably look to do something else that I found rewarding or otherwise might not do. Attempt to code a football or baseball game, for example. Or further dabble in graphic design. Or go back to school, maybe become a GP to help in under-served areas. Or run for office. Or teach, or volunteer somewhere. Or heck, even go around picking up littler. There are plenty of things to do to improve the overall that take up time and/or don't pay. Maybe if more people didn't have to worry about money they could do them.

(It's equally likely I would just sit on my ass playing video games or stalk my kids. But hey, you know.)

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

If I didn't have to work to make a living (or look for work to work to make a living...), I would probably look to do something else that I found rewarding or otherwise might not do. Attempt to code a football or baseball game, for example. Or further dabble in graphic design. Or go back to school, maybe become a GP to help in under-served areas. Or run for office. Or teach, or volunteer somewhere. Or heck, even go around picking up littler. There are plenty of things to do to improve the overall that take up time and/or don't pay. Maybe if more people didn't have to worry about money they could do them.

(It's equally likely I would just sit on my ass playing video games or stalk my kids. But hey, you know.)

Or do both. While I'm working on my dissertation and looking for a full time university job, I'm taking that extra time to catch up on Netflix and movies, to learn basic website building, to get back into marathon shape, and to write a novel I've had in mind for a couple of years now. I'd be fine living in a world where robots pick up trash and build transportation while people are free to pursue their passions and create whatever it is they like.

[digamma]

Going out on a limb here: you don't have kids?

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by digamma

Going out on a limb here: you don't have kids?

I have not yet begun to spawn, nor do I intend to.

[NobodyHere]

So US intel reportedly believes that North Korea can now miniaturize a nuke to put on their ICBMs.

Trump has said that North Korea would be met with "fire and fury" if it threatens the United States.

North Korea said on Wednesday it is "carefully examining" a plan to strike the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam with missiles.

Trump's next move?




Oh what fun times we live in.

[JPhillips]

I think Trump is incredibly dangerous, but Kim is insane if he's really willing to annihilate his people over a first strike on Guam.

I pray for everybody on the Korean peninsula.

[Edward64]

Its bad when you are trying to negotiate with a crazy leader.

Its worse when there's 2 of them.

[NobodyHere]

I'm just glad that Trump and Kim are more bark than bite so far. Otherwise I would have absolutely no peace of mind right now.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'm just glad that Trump and Kim are more bark than bite so far. Otherwise I would have absolutely no peace of mind right now.

That's kind of where I'm at too. I have to think that the rest of the world will weigh in on a bigger scale if these two decide they really want to play rocketball.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Its bad when you are trying to negotiate with a crazy leader.

Its worse when there's 2 of them.

I think 1 crazy leader and 1 authoritarian regime... More posturing, NK won't trade their existence for a strike on Guam. They have to look strong in front of their own starving population, because that's the only thing that keeps an authoritarian government in power.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Trump's next move?

This is where a major point of comfort is "well, at least he doesn't care about being true to his word, so we're probably ok for now."

Wheeeeeeee.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I think 1 crazy leader and 1 authoritarian regime... More posturing, NK won't trade their existence for a strike on Guam. They have to look strong in front of their own starving population, because that's the only thing that keeps an authoritarian government in power.

I don't think authoritarian and crazy are mutually exclusive.

I think NK is used to US leaders who are all talk, kicking the can down the road. Trump may turn out to follow the same path but IMO he is much less likely to do so.

[RainMaker]

Tough to figure out what the US stance is. Secretary of State is telling North Korea that we are not their enemy. Trump's aide was just on TV saying North Korea is not a threat. Trump is threatening the country in terms a tiny third world despot would use.

So the administration is simultaneously offering a hand in diplomacy, ignoring them, and threatening them.

[RainMaker]

.@SebGorka on MSNBC: "There's no such thing as a lone wolf...that was a phrase invented by the last administration to make Americans stupid"

— David Wright (@DavidWright_CNN) August 8, 2017

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

This is where a major point of comfort is "well, at least he doesn't care about being true to his word, so we're probably ok for now."

Wheeeeeeee.

Be prepared, there is a small chance that our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into World War III.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 31, 2013

[RainMaker]

Like I've been saying, there is a tweet for every scenario.

[Thomkal]

Ah, had to check the date on that one Mckerney-now I understand.

[JPhillips]

I think Gorka was saying something along the lines of, "Every Islamic terrorist attack is an Islamic terrorist attck," which doesn't sound very insightful, but is about the level of his PhD dissertation.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't think authoritarian and crazy are mutually exclusive.

I think NK is used to US leaders who are all talk, kicking the can down the road. Trump may turn out to follow the same path but IMO he is much less likely to do so.

They aren't mutually exclusive. NK is a different type of crazy though, in a "drunk the kool-aid" kind of way. I think the leadership there (and Kim Jong Un is as likely a figurehead as not IMO) probably actually believe in their system of government. Trump is crazy in an impulsive/illogical/nonsensical fashion, which is probably more dangerous when you consider what he has control of.

Kicking the can down the road might be the best course of action unless you are willing to risk all-out war in the region. In the grand scheme of things, NK are not a serious threat and could be squashed easily if need be, but the risk outweighs the reward as far as I can see. Biting back just gives their government legitimacy.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

They aren't mutually exclusive. NK is a different type of crazy though, in a "drunk the kool-aid" kind of way. I think the leadership there (and Kim Jong Un is as likely a figurehead as not IMO) probably actually believe in their system of government. Trump is crazy in an impulsive/illogical/nonsensical fashion, which is probably more dangerous when you consider what he has control of.

Kicking the can down the road might be the best course of action unless you are willing to risk all-out war in the region. In the grand scheme of things, NK are not a serious threat and could be squashed easily if need be, but the risk outweighs the reward as far as I can see. Biting back just gives their government legitimacy.

I spend 15 minutes trying to word this the right way and you just went ahead and took the thoughts right out of my head.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

In the grand scheme of things, NK are not a serious threat and could be squashed easily if need be, but the risk outweighs the reward as far as I can see. Biting back just gives their government legitimacy.

I would like to understand your position better because I see them as a serious threat now.

They have nukes that can threaten our allies and us. Questionable if its to the point where its accurate enough but that day will come.

Can you provide some examples of when you think NK is a serious threat? or when the reward outweighs the risk?

Is it because you don't think they will ultimately use their nukes and therefore will never be a serious threat?

[bronconick]

We called them part of the "Axis of Evil" in 2002-03 and proceeded to wipe one of those members into the dustbin of history. The fact that they raced to nukes by 2006 and ICBM's possibly by 2017 might be the sanest thing they've done in years. They talk shit to us because it makes them look good at home. Problem is we now have a shit crazy leader, which is why China is trying to dial them in.

[JPhillips]

The goal isn't to win, the goal is to avert a war. Kicking their asses at the cost of a few million lives is no victory worth having.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I would like to understand your position better because I see them as a serious threat now.

They have nukes that can threaten our allies and us. Questionable if its to the point where its accurate enough but that day will come.

Can you provide some examples of when you think NK is a serious threat? or when the reward outweighs the risk?

Is it because you don't think they will ultimately use their nukes and therefore will never be a serious threat?

That's exactly why I don't consider them a threat right now. NK are not nearly as insane or delusional as the press makes them out to be, and it makes zero sense for them to wipe themselves off the map by playing the nuke-card.

I can easily see situations where that would change - particularly if the regime was about to be toppled - but that's not something that is likely to occur without outside intervention. And 'outside intervention' could very well end up being something as simple as an ever-escalating war of words with Trump full of wonderful Hiroshima-esque imagery putting internal pressure on the regime.

You know who else has nukes that can threaten the US and their allies? As a citizen of one of your allies, I'm a lot more concerned about Russia's nukes than I am about anything NK can fire - add India, Pakistan, hell, even Israel, to that list.

[stevew]

Given the distance of a Guam strike, shouldn't it be fairly defensive-able. Maybe I don't totally understand ICBMs but I doubt they have that many to launch.

[Easy Mac]

My first order as President was to renovate and modernize our nuclear arsenal. It is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 9, 2017

He totally didn't do that, did he.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by stevew

Given the distance of a Guam strike, shouldn't it be fairly defensive-able. Maybe I don't totally understand ICBMs but I doubt they have that many to launch.

Are you thinking about something (e.g. THAAD) that can shoot down the ICBMs? Bits and pieces I've read says its not 100% (or even close).

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

My first order as President was to renovate and modernize our nuclear arsenal. It is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 9, 2017

He totally didn't do that, did he.

Hard to believe, but...

"Actually, it was Obama who launched $1-trillion modernization of the nuclear arsenal. A 30-year program."

[Edward64]

MSNBC commentator on why stock market has not moved much, paraphrased ...

"Wall St doesn't think anything will happen and if it does, it'll be so big that it doesn't matter anyway"

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'm just glad that Trump and Kim are more bark than bite so far. Otherwise I would have absolutely no peace of mind right now.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/09/politi...rea/index.html

[Thomkal]

Well if God says its okay...

'God has given Donald Trump authority to take out Kim Jong-un,' President's evangelical adviser says | The Independent

[Shkspr]

God is surprisingly down with political assassination.

[Easy Mac]

He had His own kid assassinated. Dude is harsh.