Red Mosquito

I'M THE CAPTAIN!

My cousin who sent out a mass email LAST NIGHT asking for help bc she'd been reduced by circumstances to relying on government supports that were "insuffitient (sic)" to cover her family...just sent a text praising a moment from this pressed where Trump promises to destroy welfare bc it gives people too much for nothing.

cutuphalfdead wrote:I'M THE CAPTAIN!

That bart stays dry makes this a truly excellent gif. 9/10.

McParadigm wrote:My cousin who sent out a mass email LAST NIGHT asking for help bc she'd been reduced by circumstances to relying on government supports that were "insuffitient (sic)" to cover her family...just sent a text praising a moment from this pressed where Trump promises to destroy welfare bc it gives people too much for nothing.

Reply all and destroy her.

Jesus Christ

I think my head might explode.

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

4/5 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:We're All Dead: a McParadigm Thread.

McParadigm wrote:

The Argonaut wrote:Can we recover?

Certainly not in the near term.

Spoiler: show

Just looking at one tiny component (the loss of state department tribal knowledge and skilled practitioners), recovery will take decades. We are potentially working towards producing fewer PhDs and permitting less stringently regulated programs, which promises a reduction of expertise development....and we are doing it at a time when other foreign powers are ramping up their own commitment to higher education. We have no sanctions office. We have stunningly few diplomats. We are rushing in judges with no thought to their qualifications, and encouraging nations to write trade deals around us. Basic concepts like information, human rights and environmental degredation are entrenched political partisan ideals, and are only becoming more so. How do you recover when a quarter of your population believes the very need to recover is a conspiracy?

Puerto Rico is destroyed. Nuclear containment as a strategy is basically over. Healthcare was problematic already, but the tank tread approach to it will bathe us in tragedies, rural clinic closings, and expanding class divides (the first states will begin running out of CHiP money within the month, btw). Net neutrality may be a lost cause. Accountability certainly is.

Longer term, its likely to be a tumultuous century. Maybe catastrophic. Bad conditions for recovering, but good conditions for change.

This is fear mongering and this McKinsey sounds like a Luddite.

Not sure if serious.

2030 might a bit too early, but it will be at least 1/3 by 2050. I am doubtful jobs of remotely the same quality will be created. It's gonna be tough be on already disadvantaged communities when the jobs they use to feed their families are done by machines... and have no doubt they will take that pain to voting booth and the street.

Precisely. The speed of change no longer fits within the scope of our adaptability.

Luddites are the perfect reference point, though. Our ancestors in 1800 lived a life pretty recognizable to their ancestors from 200 years earlier. They just happened to live in a watershed moment for technological impact. Someone invented a loom.

My grandparents grew up without refrigeration (I mean, rural SD so). My youngest might not remember a world where she couldn't have a conversation with a computer that also dims the lights and orders pizza for her. Just two generations stand between those realities. Historically, this is already a breakneck pace. That pace of change going forward, technological and otherwise, will blow even what we've seen out of the water. 2017 is either the first quake in what may become riotous societal panic, or it is a reckoning that puts us on our best behavior going forward.

Not hopeful.

Yes, the pace of change is rapid and promises to only become more so. I agree with that. Certainly there will be pains that accompany that change. As for his tweet, I have a few issues: 2030 is 12 years and a month away--I know we're seeing rapid technological progress, but that is a lot faster than most estimates I've read. Also, 1/3 is an enormous number, especially in such a short time frame. What I object to the most though is how misleading those numbers are, even if they are accurate. So taking 1/3 of current jobs being lost by 2030 as a given, that's still a very misleading statement. He acknowledges in the next sentence that new jobs will be created, but that it takes time. There's an implication when people talk about jobs being "lost" that those jobs vanish forever. What really happens is the jobs change. There isn't going to be a moment when suddenly 1/3 of Americans lose their job and are no longer needed in the labor force. There will be a continually gradual process of certain skills/jobs not being required anymore while concurrently other skills/jobs that didn't exist before (and are very difficult, if not down right impossible to anticipate) are brought into existence. Perhaps that isn't what he meant and maybe you and BI both know better than to think that even if it were, but that sort of framing of the issue always bothers me.

As an example, I think that pointing out that 1/3 of current jobs will be lost to automation is the equivalent of a person saying that he has lost 365 pounds this year. While it might be true that every single night he lost a pound, that statement neglects to mention that he also put on 370 pounds this year as well. The loss of the 365 isn't what's relevant, what we need to know is the net change.

There will very likely be some pain felt as more aspects of our economy become automated, and there is certainly room for discussion about the costs and benefits of automation, the scope and breadth of that pain, as well as a potential role for government--I'm not denying any of that. I simply don't like what I interpret as the message of that tweet because I think it is misleading at best and fear mongering at worst.

Also, I'm reading that report now that he cites in the tweet. Is it entitled, Jobs Lost, Jobs Gained for goodness sake. The intro basically says what I just wrote in my last post. I think his tweet is a very disingenuous summary of what the report seems to be saying after reading the summary, anyway.

I'll report back with a full report soon.

Taken from another angle, we also find that a growing and dynamic economy—in part fueled
by technology itself and its contributions to productivity—would create jobs. These jobs
would result from growth in current occupations due to demand and the creation of new
types of occupations that may not have existed before, as has happened historically. This
job growth (jobs gained) could more than offset the jobs lost to automation. None of this
will happen by itself—it will require businesses and governments to seize opportunities to
boost job creation and for labor markets to function well. The workforce transitions ahead
will be enormous. We estimate that as many as 375 million workers globally (14 percent of
the global workforce) will likely need to transition to new occupational categories and learn
new skills, in the event of rapid automation adoption. If their transition to new jobs is slow,
unemployment could rise and dampen wage growth.

Indeed, while this report is titled Jobs lost, jobs gained, it could have been, Jobs lost, jobs
changed, jobs gained; in many ways a big part of this story is about how more occupations
will change than will be lost as machines affect portions of occupations and people
increasingly work alongside them. Societal choices will determine whether all three of these coming workforce transitions are smooth, or whether unemployment and income inequality
rise. History shows numerous examples of countries that have successfully ridden the wave
of technological change by investing in their workforce and adapting policies, institutions,
and business models to the new era. It is our hope that this report prompts leaders in that
direction once again.

I'll stop now. It's actually a really interesting report, full of conjecture and guesses of course, but very different than what was originally presented.

Sorry. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

4/5 wrote:Sorry. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Flynn gonna flip.

I wish this fat fucking asshole nothing less than death.

I’ll take closet case Pence over him now please.

cutuphalfdead wrote:I'M THE CAPTAIN!

Now all my coworkers are asking me what I’m laughing at.

McParadigm wrote:My cousin who sent out a mass email LAST NIGHT asking for help bc she'd been reduced by circumstances to relying on government supports that were "insuffitient (sic)" to cover her family...just sent a text praising a moment from this pressed where Trump promises to destroy welfare bc it gives people too much for nothing.

I know FAR too many people just like this. They love him but are too stupid to realize they’re the first to be taken out by him.

meatwad wrote:

4/5 wrote:Sorry. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Flynn gonna flip.

booyah

He tweeted the wrong Theresa May

96583UP wrote:

meatwad wrote:

4/5 wrote:Sorry. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Flynn gonna flip.

booyah

And Jared went in and talked to the special counsel ABOUT Flynn earlier this month, before Flynn's (probable) flip. So they got Jared in under circumstances where he might lie, and then they got Flynn.

Same game, over and over again. Goddamn.

He’s pretending to lose his mind right?

dimejinky99 wrote:He’s pretending to lose his mind right?

He's referring to another Nunes ploy. "Give this information now" will get a lot of attention, or should.