• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Solving Automation Under-Employment and Unemployment

Gladiator

Verifier
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
4,656
Reaction score
643
Location
Suburbia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So if the Enemy is Under-employment, together with unemployment, Then the solution is Jobs. As Robots take over, there are fewer economically stimulated jobs. So I suggest changing the mission of NASA.

NASA jobs, today, are aimed at efficiency. I suggest the mission of NASA be expanded to include colonizing the moon, Mars, etc. Jobs can be created, and wages paid from the increasing budget, for young people to train/learn to become astronauts. NASA shall assess the unemployment levels in various regions, and create jobs at levels of challenge, that will be commensurate with the unemployed and underemployed population potentials. The Final Decision to actually go, can be delayed, until a decision has to actually be made. Many of the NASA jobs woud be centered on traveling to outer space. Space is the Challenge, not fighting fellow Earthlings.

The Missions to the Moon and Mars, shall be staffed with representative components of the unemployed youth, in various sections of the country. The wages shall be the going wages, and work 40 Hours per week.
A new section of NASA will be Job Creation. More jobs will be created to reduce unemployment and under-employment, aimed at , the various education and skill levels of unemployed youth.



Federal Laws can be written for the expanded role of NASA.

https://aas.org/posts/blog/2016/09/senates-nasa-transition-authorization-act


National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Unamended)


There is some indication that recruits for terrorism organizations, are from the ranks of unemployed youth and under-employed youth.


""We cannot kill our way out of this war,” she said. “We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, whether it’s a lack of opportunity for jobs….”Advertisement

Matthews countered that this isn’t a viable strategy since “There’s always going to be poor Muslims, and as long as there are poor Muslims, the trumpet’s blowing and they’ll join,” to which Harf replied that “We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance. We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people.”
Coming just as the White House outlines a new set of nonmilitary plans to fight groups like ISIS, Harf’s comments were blasted by conservative critics as, in the words of Rush Limbaugh, a “left-wing syrupy embarrassingly "

Conservatives Are Blasting the Obama Administration for Saying Unemployment Causes Terrorism. They’re Kind of Right. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=T...riticize Obama unemployment/terrorism&f=false


Terrorism caused by youth Unemployment.


What is being done to address the root causes of Terrorism?


"...unemployment among Muslim youth is estimated by Eurostat to be 40 percent in France and 50 percent in Germany. Can there be any doubt that financial desperation—not religion—is handing terrorist recruiters a huge pool of potential foot soldiers? To cut recruiters off at the knees, the United States must encourage its allies to commit to new strategies to integrate Muslim youth into their economies. According to Brandeis professor Andrew Hahn, “Studies demonstrate that entrepreneurship education programs are among the few strategies that work during periods of massive youth joblessness,”

We blame religion and ignore the economic underpinnings of terrorism at our peril. We can fight back with entrepreneurship education, and initiatives that will encourage a worldwide entrepreneurial eco-system to take root, instead of poisonous ideologies."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mariotti/a-root-cause-of-terrorism_b_10063938.html

An Unlimited number of jobs can be created at all imaginable skill and education levels, for exploration and colonization of the Moon, Mars, etc.


//
 
Last edited:
So if the Enemy is Under-employment, together with unemployment, Then the solution is Jobs. As Robots take over, there are fewer economically stimulated jobs. So I suggest changing the mission of NASA.

NASA jobs, today, are aimed at efficiency. I suggest the mission of NASA be expanded to include colonizing the moon, Mars, etc.

Here's what I think about that: [h=1]Thread: Going to Mars is the dumbest idea any human has ever had[/h]

Boondoggles are not the economic answer to anything.

An Unlimited number of jobs can be created at all imaginable skill and education levels, for exploration and colonization of the Moon, Mars, etc.

You pivoted away from your central problem without addressing it. If we're entering a stage of advanced automation/mechanization/computerization, then most "jobs" you try to create are going to be make-work. NASA should not be our excuse for make-work.
 
You pivoted away from your central problem without addressing it. If we're entering a stage of advanced automation/mechanization/computerization, then most "jobs" you try to create are going to be make-work. NASA should not be our excuse for make-work.

Since automation is responsible for most of the manufacturing job loss, then that means the service industry is now the new working class. Manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. Not unless there's a government-led effort for something like green energy or whatever. Those manufacturing jobs have turned into service jobs and as such, the workers should get wages typically associated with the working class.
 
Here's what I think about that: Thread: Going to Mars is the dumbest idea any human has ever had



Boondoggles are not the economic answer to anything.



You pivoted away from your central problem without addressing it. If we're entering a stage of advanced automation/mechanization/computerization, then most "jobs" you try to create are going to be make-work. NASA should not be our excuse for make-work.



What better choices are possible for handling the structural unemployment of Automation?



What other branches of Government are better suited to creating make work positions? The term "Make Work" jobs carries a derogatory connotation. How can we best create Make-Work jobs, without having them seem Make-work? Are there many people who work at NASA who feel their jobs are Make-Work?


There may be some people who are willing to travel on one-way missions to other planets, and these noble volunteers deserve our respect. One of the limitations of a Mars mission is the difficulties of a return trip back to Earth.


Can NASA open training branches in other countries?


Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Libya do not have space agencies. There are many countries struggling with unemployment and under Employment.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32655.0





Here is a Link to the NASA Discussion website:


https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/

Manned Missions to Asteroids are also discussed, in addition to Mars and the Moon.







//
 
Last edited:
Uh...what is it exactly they are going to do for NASA? They're all going to be...astronauts? :confused:

Solving the "problem" of job losses associated with automation (or analagously and more relevantly - free trade) isn't as much of a conundrum as it's made out to be. The beneficiaries compensate the - for lack of a more respectful term - losers. Only in your case you envision the 'losers' doing....something.... for NASA in exchange for their compensation. Boosting funding and public jobs in R&D is not a bad idea at all (I don't see why it should be limited to NASA tho...). But not everybody, especially the kind of blue collar laborers most likely to be elbowed out by automation, have all that much to contribute to NASA.
 
You're seriously going to revive the economy by teaching aeronautical engineering to the masses?
 
What better choices are possible for handling the structural unemployment of Automation?

What worse choices could possibly exist than boondoggle make-work and workfare?

What other branches of Government are better suited to creating make work positions?

There shouldn't be any make-work positions.

The term "Make Work" jobs carries a derogatory connotation.

Rightfully so.

How can we best create Make-Work jobs, without having them seem Make-work?

How best can we kill off the Jews, without having it seem like we're, well, killing off the Jews? Answer: We just, uh, ****ing shouldn't. Mk?
 
You're seriously going to revive the economy by teaching aeronautical engineering to the masses?

In colonizing Mars, there can be a number of types of jobs, in addition to Aeronautical Engineers. Pilots are needed to travel and land on Mars, but construction workers, miners, electricians, cooks and farmers will be needed to build and sustain a colony. NASA can expand its training and job descriptions. What about underground luxury condos? Subway tunnels? Mushroom farms? Solar powered sun tan salons?

Here is a list of jobs at Mars.com

https://jobs.mars.com/?locale=en_US


Public relations for the Mars Colony Project seems to need more manpower.


229 Views
 
Last edited:
Since automation is responsible for most of the manufacturing job loss, then that means the service industry is now the new working class. Manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. Not unless there's a government-led effort for something like green energy or whatever. Those manufacturing jobs have turned into service jobs and as such, the workers should get wages typically associated with the working class.

Left wing dribble. The solution is for labor not to be greedy and creating a pro business atmosphere where manufacturing jobs will return to America. It can be done. Your solution is to let more manufacturing jobs go and force the service industry to pay higher wages. In other words, you want to double down on what drove the manufacturing jobs away in the first place. Don't you guys ever learn from your mistakes?
 
Left wing dribble. The solution is for labor not to be greedy and creating a pro business atmosphere where manufacturing jobs will return to America. It can be done. Your solution is to let more manufacturing jobs go and force the service industry to pay higher wages. In other words, you want to double down on what drove the manufacturing jobs away in the first place. Don't you guys ever learn from your mistakes?



"Two Causes of Structural Unemployment

The fifth cause is not voluntary. Advanced technology, such as computers or robots, replaces worker tasks with machines. Most of the workers need retraining to obtain the skills required to get a new job.

The sixth cause is job outsourcing. That's when a company moves its manufacturing or call centers to another country.



Usually, it's because labor costs are cheaper in countries with a lower cost of living. That occurred in many states after NAFTA was signed in 1994. Many manufacturing jobs moved to Mexico. It also occurred once workers in China and India gained the skills needed by American companies. These are the two causes of structural unemployment. That's when workers' skills, or income requirements, no longer match the jobs available.

These are the six causes of natural unemployment. They always occur, even in a healthy economy. The natural unemployment rate is between 4.7% and 5.8%, according to the Federal Reserve."


"As a result, the Federal Reserve researchers have computed that the new natural rate of unemployment will hover between 5.6%-5.7%. As jobs are slowly created, the unemployment level will drop. However, it won't go below this level for two reasons.
1. The separation rate will remain low. People are still afraid to quit their jobs, even though they'd like to.
2. There are many discouraged workers...."




https://www.thebalance.com/causes-of-unemployment-7-main-reasons-3305596





International Business Times - Business News, Technology, Politics


"What will happen to public services? Who is going to clean the roads and collect the rubbish? Who is going to administer all those welfare payments? Robots of course.

Leonhard suggests this will fit into what he calls, “a decline of the capitalist system based on consumption.” We will have to rethink the concept of work and jobs he says.

“While we will be freed up from a lot of jobs that no one wants to do, we will have to think collectively about how we cope with this otherwise we will have huge structural issues with kids unemployed,” he says. And do the kids care? Or are they heading into a Britannia Unchained world of idleness?


According to a recent YouGov poll more 15-year olds want to work in technology and science than in films, sports or politics. It’s a small albeit clear sign that the messages are getting through. As Wolfgang Schickbauer, CEO at Voltimum says, “change always provides new opportunities and the internet of things will be no different”. While this is true, change is not always without its winners and losers and for the next generation at least, the nerds look hot favourites to inherit the earth."


https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/2015/may/27/internet-of-things-automation-unemployment

https://www.google.com/?#q=Unemployment+caused+by+automation




//
 
Last edited:
Here's what I think about that: [h=1]Thread: Going to Mars is the dumbest idea any human has ever had[/h]

Boondoggles are not the economic answer to anything. You pivoted away from your central problem without addressing it. If we're entering a stage of advanced automation/mechanization/computerization, then most "jobs" you try to create are going to be make-work. NASA should not be our excuse for make-work.


"To President Obama, the " Journey to Mars" is the way to inspire Americans about the possibilities of space. The incoming administration, however, may have goals for the space program that are a little closer to home.

Specifically, a renewed focus on the moon. James Bridenstine and Scott Pace, two potential choices for the post of NASA administrator, have called for a return to the moon. Former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, reportedly a key advisor to President-elect Donald Trump, is also an avid supporter of moon exploration, proposing a permanent lunar colony as part of his presidential primary campaign four years ago."


Why Trump might send humans back to the moon - CSMonitor.com

NASA has struggled for decades with strategic uncertainty, and there's nothing like a partisan transition in the White House to discombobulate everyone. There will surely be a new administrator, and new ambitions, and disfavored programs, with associated budget cuts (Earth Science is a likely target).

Right this minute, though, no one seems to know what's going to happen with America's civilian space agency. The chaotic Trump transition operation has yet to send a delegation to NASA headquarters. NASA's in-house transition team is standing by, and you can imagine that people are getting a bit jittery. There are deadlines to meet. Everything's in a holding pattern.

In the spirit of promiscuous speculation, we will float this notion: The moon is back!

With Donald Trump as president-elect, moon-colony-loving Newt Gingrich hovering close at hand, and Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, NASA may soon be told to get ready to do what it already did back in the 1960s and '70s — put people on the moon, this time to stay."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lling-the-shots-nasa-may-go-back-to-the-moon/


Unemployment can be reduced with NASA hiring workers for a Moon Colony, or a Mars colony, either way.






//
 
Last edited:
"To President Obama, the " Journey to Mars" is the way to inspire Americans about the possibilities of space. The incoming administration, however, may have goals for the space program that are a little closer to home.

Specifically, a renewed focus on the moon. James Bridenstine and Scott Pace, two potential choices for the post of NASA administrator, have called for a return to the moon. Former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, reportedly a key advisor to President-elect Donald Trump, is also an avid supporter of moon exploration, proposing a permanent lunar colony as part of his presidential primary campaign four years ago."


Why Trump might send humans back to the moon - CSMonitor.com

Pointing out Trump too has supported such far flung notions as colonizing other planetary bodies is one of the last things that would ever change my opinion of it.

Unemployment can be reduced with NASA hiring workers for a Moon Colony, or a Mars colony, either way.

Of course it could. Boondoggle make-work funded by government spending could reduce unemployment relative to what it would have otherwise been without the boondoggle make-work. That doesn't mean boondoggle make-work is therefore the answer. Ever.

If we're smart enough to come up with the technological potential to fling humans to Mars, we should be smart enough to find more intelligent things for ourselves to do without doing something as stupid as actually trying to fling people to Mars. There is an utter dearth of good direct reasons for humans to ever attempt to live on the moon or Mars.
 
Mars is unihabitable. Get that thru your mind and lets stick to making Earth better for humans. That is an even bigger job creator.

Today, it is uninhabitable, but 500 to 1000 to 10,000 years from now it could be, and that process will need to start somewhere
 
I think putting up regulatory barriers to automation to will be practically and politically easier then hiring masses of unqualified people to do slave labor on a mars colony.
 
Today, it is uninhabitable, but 500 to 1000 to 10,000 years from now it could be, and that process will need to start somewhere

There is nothing about Mars that can ever make it habitable. It is a dead planet too far from the sun. If we really want to "colonize", our moon would be far easier and better. But why? we have not poisoned the Earth yet.
 
Mars is unihabitable. Get that thru your mind and lets stick to making Earth better for humans. That is an even bigger job creator.


Like: Tunnels, Roads, Brides, Water, Sports Stadiums, Commuter Rail Lines, Low income Housing,


"Infrastructure Grades for 2013



Energy D+


Schools D


Public Parks & Recreation C-


Transit D


Roads D


Rail C+


Ports C


Inland Waterways D-


Bridges C+


Aviation D


Wastewater D


Solid Waste B-


Levees D-


Hazardous Waste D


Drinking Water D


Dams D





American Infrastructure Report Card | Society of Civil Engineers


"The U.S. ought to be spending more on infrastructure. This is the view of all right-thinking people,1 and as a right-thinking person I of course endorse it. With interest rates near record lows and the working-age population still, by historical and international standards, underemployed, governments (or in some cases entrepreneurs) should be borrowing much more to repave roads, shore up bridges, expand mass-transit systems, build new sewage-treatment plants, replace water mains, you name it. Such borrowing and spending would make the nation richer by stimulating economic activity now and paving the way for stronger economic growth in the future.

That said, the U.S. probably also ought to be spending less on infrastructure. Not overall, but on something like a per-mile basis. Broad international cost comparisons across all kinds of infrastructure don’t seem to be available, but there is a growing body of evidence on one particular infrastructure area that matters a lot to me as a New York City commuter: subways and other rail systems. And it shows that U.S. construction costs are among the world’s highest."

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/why-u-s-infrastructure-costs-so-much








//
 
"To President Obama, the " Journey to Mars" is the way to inspire Americans about the possibilities of space. The incoming administration, however, may have goals for the space program that are a little closer to home.

Specifically, a renewed focus on the moon. James Bridenstine and Scott Pace, two potential choices for the post of NASA administrator, have called for a return to the moon. Former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, reportedly a key advisor to President-elect Donald Trump, is also an avid supporter of moon exploration, proposing a permanent lunar colony as part of his presidential primary campaign four years ago."


Why Trump might send humans back to the moon - CSMonitor.com

NASA has struggled for decades with strategic uncertainty, and there's nothing like a partisan transition in the White House to discombobulate everyone. There will surely be a new administrator, and new ambitions, and disfavored programs, with associated budget cuts (Earth Science is a likely target).

Right this minute, though, no one seems to know what's going to happen with America's civilian space agency. The chaotic Trump transition operation has yet to send a delegation to NASA headquarters. NASA's in-house transition team is standing by, and you can imagine that people are getting a bit jittery. There are deadlines to meet. Everything's in a holding pattern.

In the spirit of promiscuous speculation, we will float this notion: The moon is back!

With Donald Trump as president-elect, moon-colony-loving Newt Gingrich hovering close at hand, and Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, NASA may soon be told to get ready to do what it already did back in the 1960s and '70s — put people on the moon, this time to stay."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lling-the-shots-nasa-may-go-back-to-the-moon/


Unemployment can be reduced with NASA hiring workers for a Moon Colony, or a Mars colony, either way.






//

Yeah. It seems stupid to want to establish a colony on Mars before you first establish a colony on the moon. I mean it's only natural. We did it various places on Earth, we did it in Earth orbit, so the next place should be the moon. Besides, the private sector is working on doing it on Mars anyway. Let them have the glory or the failure. If NASA tried the Mars thing and it turned into an utter failure with the death of the entire colony, citizens would second guess and ask why the hell we tried it anyway. And, I don't understand why the left would normally be for using all of the money wasted on the space program for helping the poor and then they want to turn around and spend many billions going to Mars. Scratching my head.
 
So if the Enemy is Under-employment, together with unemployment, Then the solution is Jobs. As Robots take over, there are fewer economically stimulated jobs. ........


//

Good old-fashioned capitalism will easily adjust to the changes brought by automation. New projects that were formally impossible will become possible. Those who keep up and study will not be left behind.
 
Good old-fashioned capitalism will easily adjust to the changes brought by automation. New projects that were formally impossible will become possible. Those who keep up and study will not be left behind.

The left fails to realize this. What happened to cars when Henry Ford invented the assembly line? Did it put workers out of work, or did it create even more jobs?
 
Today, it is uninhabitable, but 500 to 1000 to 10,000 years from now it could be

No it couldn't.

and that process will need to start somewhere

No it won't.

There is nothing about Mars that can ever make it habitable. It is a dead planet too far from the sun. If we really want to "colonize", our moon would be far easier and better. But why? we have not poisoned the Earth yet.

Even if we had, it'd still be paradise compared to any other rock in the solar system.

The left fails to realize this. What happened to cars when Henry Ford invented the assembly line? Did it put workers out of work, or did it create even more jobs?

On a per unit of production basis, it reduced the need for labor.
 
The left fails to realize this. What happened to cars when Henry Ford invented the assembly line? Did it put workers out of work, or did it create even more jobs?

There was a viable need for human labor to produce. This need is diminishing every time there are advances in machine learning.
 
No it couldn't.



No it won't.



Even if we had, it'd still be paradise compared to any other rock in the solar system.



On a per unit of production basis, it reduced the need for labor.

How could it possible do that when it helped employ many more people? Isn't that the goal, giving more people good paying jobs? Actually, that's not liberals goal. So sorry.
 
Back
Top Bottom