Take a government/civics class. Dont make up information.
This issue is completely about California. We should all encourage California to be progressive and lead the way and change to a proportional EC.
Is that not the fallacy of civilization? No one wants to do the primitive industries, yet they are necessary as foundational to society.They build out the primitive industries to step towards the top. The point is to offload the unprofitable layers elsewhere. Just as the cities did with increasingly unprofitable industries to the sticks, who were the chinese of their day before intl shipping and globalization naturally moved those industries elsewhere. The difference is that the chinese are smart enough to keep building their layers on top instead of the american conservative attitude towards education/progress.
I'm not making up anything. In our society and under our government, every other elected office is determined by a popular vote. But for some reason, we continue to abide by some arcane and outdated tradition, which allows for a minority to elect the highest office in the land. Legitimacy is lost when a minority can install their own government and drive the ship.
Not if the states have as many electors as representation.You do realize proportional EC is the same as popular vote thus there is no need for these middlemen (EC)?
True. You can get unfair math of you can't split up say 55% popular vote with only 3 EC points. Best to just scrap EC then since it's unfairNot if the states have as many electors as representation.
What odds do you think of this happening within the next 30 years?True. You can get unfair math of you can't split up say 55% popular vote with only 3 EC points. Best to just scrap EC then since it's unfair
Probably none, but still doesn't mean it's the right system. Americans as a whole are pretty dumb politically and don't know better, so they just keep in trucking with tradition. We're not a very progressive bunch. Sadly.What odds do you think of this happening within the next 30 years?
I happen to agree with you.Probably none, but still doesn't mean it's the right system. Americans as a whole are pretty dumb politically and don't know better, so they just keep in trucking with tradition. We're not a very progressive bunch. Sadly.
Is that not the fallacy of civilization? No one wants to do the primitive industries, yet they are necessary as foundational to society.
Slavery was once the answer as was indentured servitude.
Was America not at her greatest when the people performing this work unified and achieved fair compensation for their labor? Many immigrants built a life for themselves on this very premise.
Now, we have another form of slavery in the form of undocumented immigrants living in the shadows and outsourcing.
Why pay a fair wage when we can exploit others.
Jeans is an interesting example.There's simply the reality that America is in competition with other countries economically. This is a competition where it's advantageous to gain/retain the best work.
For example, out of a $50+ pair of jeans, generally <$10 goes to the factory that makes it, with everything else a rather more profitable "value-add". Americans for the most part gets the fat checks when everyone else is competing for the <$10.
That is rather the point even if you can somehow force that $10 part be somewhat more generous. The smart asians only know this too well which is why they're investing to get there instead of keep fight for the pennies.
Jeans is an interesting example.
I remember about 5 years ago when we hit peak jeans. Denim is fairly commodity, yet someone decided that if you slightly change the stitching and get a celebrity to wear your jeans, you can suddenly charge $200 for them.
There was no value add. The more expensive jeans were in all likelihood produced in the same factories and of the same quality as $50 Levis.
That seems to be the trend of the American economy. Take something and surround it with a services or marketing based facade of bullshit, and then overcharge for it. Starbucks did the same thing, and our get rich quick bubbalicious economy just eats it up.
We deserve to be surpassed by the Chinese
The point is china et al make practically nothing on simple manufacturing while the western marketers/retailers are making bank. Not hard to see which is the more advantageous side to be on, and it's not the one fighting over scraps.
Depends. You cannot sustain an economy on marketing, retail and services alone. We are long overdue for a correction, so in a down cycle, it is sometimes advantageous to have a manufacturing baseThe point is china et al make practically nothing on simple manufacturing while the western marketers/retailers are making bank. Not hard to see which is the more advantageous side to be on, and it's not the one fighting over scraps.
Depends. You cannot sustain an economy on marketing, retail and services alone. We are long overdue for a correction, so in a down cycle, it is sometimes advantageous to have a manufacturing base
Depends. You cannot sustain an economy on marketing, retail and services alone. We are long overdue for a correction, so in a down cycle, it is sometimes advantageous to have a manufacturing base
We have one. It just doesn't look like the 50, 60s, and 70s. Thanks technology.
That's because the US has a large amount of rubes to fall for the marketing hype. A fool and his money are soon parted and this country has a lot of them.
And back to the OP...are we really still crying over spilled milk with the national popular vote? It is plain and simple -- the campaigns weren't run to get the most votes total. If they were, both candidates would have visited CA, NY, and other more populous states. It is a different type of campaign to be run. Just because CA has a lot more mindless zombies that vote one way doesn't mean that CA should decide the election.
Going day forward, I can understand the call for a national vote and can agree with it. It isn't going to change these election results unless you are a real dupe. This outcry now is mainly to delegitimize Trump's presidency and those that seek to delegitimize it are the only ones who already think it isn't legitimate...so good luck trying to change everyone else's minds. We see how that turned out already.
Depends. You cannot sustain an economy on marketing, retail and services alone. We are long overdue for a correction, so in a down cycle, it is sometimes advantageous to have a manufacturing base
This chart is a bit more up to date, but yes you're totally right. People think America doesn't manufacture things anymore and they couldn't be more wrong. We just manufacture it better and that takes fewer people. This is a feature, not a bug.
My choice isn't academic at all, it's a choice we face every day. Your 'real life scenario' of creating a totalitarian state for the purposes of productivity enhancement has never happened in all of history.
Absolutely not! In fact human concerns are my ONLY focus here. Improvements in human productivity have lifted literally billions of people out of subsistence living and saved countless billions of lives. It's why human standards of living were basically stagnant until the industrial revolution and have increased by leaps and bounds since.
Note I never said grab a shovel and start digging. What I am saying is that we are moving into a new world where the old rules of new technology creating new employment will change and work against most. They are too expensive in a world where everything is measured by gain. Instead of being tied to events dictated by profit (which is what productivity means, some forethought and ways to apply guidance is sorely needed.This is a real problem for real people but the answer isn't to ignore technology or turn back the clock. We don't need to regress and make the world poorer to help people keep their jobs. That would be insanity.
There are no natural consequences here, there are choices we make.
Fewer blacks voted for Clinton. Also, fewer whites voted for Clinton.
Don't forget crushing student debt.Is that not the fallacy of civilization? No one wants to do the primitive industries, yet they are necessary as foundational to society.
Slavery was once the answer as was indentured servitude.
Was America not at her greatest when the people performing this work unified and achieved fair compensation for their labor? Many immigrants built a life for themselves on this very premise.
Now, we have another form of slavery in the form of undocumented immigrants living in the shadows and outsourcing.
Why pay a fair wage when we can exploit others.
I think you misunderstand my meaning so let me clarify. There will be no Stalinist government. In fact government doesn't really enter into what I was trying to relate, at least on this specific point. It's economics and how it impacts people. I am saying that if productivity is more important than people then we have a problem. Why? Because the days of new technologies opening up to replace old ones is pretty much done. Automation will most likely be more efficient and cost less dollars to produce a "unit" of whatever. More on that in a bit.
Again see my first point. People benefited when they could participate. By making people more and more obsolete they have no part in it. Humans are redundant and costly and fewer are needed every year. It's Scrooges surplus population.
Note I never said grab a shovel and start digging. What I am saying is that we are moving into a new world where the old rules of new technology creating new employment will change and work against most. They are too expensive in a world where everything is measured by gain. Instead of being tied to events dictated by profit (which is what productivity means, some forethought and ways to apply guidance is sorely needed.
There are natural consequences. What we do about them is a matter of choice.
Concrete example. You are on the board of directors and your goals are to produce 10,000 units of X. You don't want to flood the market and depress costs so this is just right.
Now Alice, Bob and Charlie are paid to make this quantity of X. They are however expensive because they must be paid and benefits as well. Someone comes in and says "I have a machine that will require two people to maintain it, but it will cost less than the person it replaces".
Maximizing profit being your key concern, you toss Charlie. Your bonus goes up and the shareholders applaud your wisdom. Productivity has increased. Charlie? Well he just gets another job. After all he's skilled. Oops- the salesman has been going around and now only two possible positions exist because everyone else agrees with your perspective. He may or may not find a job but it's going to be less than he was paid before. Charlie can't make ends meet and so he's in trouble. Well downsize and all.
But our tale is not done. Mr. Technology comes around again and this time he has a gizmo that will make the proper amount of X but requires one operator. Goodbye Bob. So Alice has a job but won't get a raise because two people for every one of her are forced to accept what the market will bear. Might get a pay cut. Charlie? Well two have to go so he and Dick get tossed and are SOL.
Finally Mr. Technology offers the ultimate solution. No people needed. Just people to manage the supply lines and financials and planning.
At this point none of these people have a choice that meets their needs, not just wants. You have a choice of course. You can say no and explain why you haven't maximized profit on your major controllable expense and you go, although with a nice parachute. The next person will make the "right" choice and you know this. You keep your job and ever increasing wealth and the others lose what they have. That was their "choice".
Oh, but we're not done. Mr Technology has a plan and that is with professional systems which mimic a virtual mind to explore future options better than a human. Middle management, and other professionals are gone. Better output per dollar of course.
And about here we stop. Why? Because there are only two powers left. That which controls who gets paid and Mr. Technology, who is guaranteed a perpetual job. Neither of those at the top of the pyramid are going to sacrifice themselves. Well of course our political system of politicians becoming increasingly dependent on those with the money will jump in and save us. Sure. They've already had a bastard child with a functional oligarchy being our effective form of government. We'll have our politicians running on the "doing what is right" platform and then not doing anything because they are well paid pets.
At this point you could appeal and say "but we command government and tell it what it must do by our vote". Well you could say that and so we would never have a billionaire as one electable candidate or the "poor" candidate with only a few hundred million, who made a fortune by pandering to the wealthy powerful. That's Democracy for you! Well not too much.
Now I would be interested in where you choice was in not increasing the wealth gap and a flat (if we're lucky) real median income, and where people have a real (not illusory) choice in not losing a job which has no opportunity.
In essence the labor force becomes the inner city with no real hope. Just "bootstrap" yourself.
Does it have to be this way? I'm not sure, but I find it hard to imagine that promoting something without planning has real and potentially disastrous consequences which once established will not be amenable to peaceful change.
Now is the time to plan and make choices and question old means and not assume anything is good or bad until closely examined.
If you can suggest ways that have a chance in the real world I'd love to hear them.
It absolutely is a bug if there is no mechanism in place to repurpose the workers displaced by automation.This chart is a bit more up to date, but yes you're totally right. People think America doesn't manufacture things anymore and they couldn't be more wrong. We just manufacture it better and that takes fewer people. This is a feature, not a bug.
Stop being so melodramatic. The issue wasn't one of economics, it is one of poor public policy - namely, how do you help those that are displaced? A more robust safety net could have helped people displaced by automation.It absolutely is a bug if there is no mechanism in place to repurpose the workers displaced by automation.
First they put machines on the assembly line and I remained quiet.
Then they put self checkout in the grocery stores and I didn't say a word.
Then they started 3D printing buildings and I didn't care.
Eventually machine learning will eliminate the need for analysts and consultants and many other previously insulated white collar jobs.