"An elasticity of zero would mean there is no relationship, and thus complete intergenerational mobility, with poor children just as likely as rich children to end up as rich adults. The higher the elasticity, the greater the influence of one’s birth circumstances on later life position."

Other studies have shown that mobility is a lot different in the middle (lower) than it is at the extremes. That is, the poor tend to stay poor, the rich tend to stay rich, and there is a little more play in the middle.

And inheritance is a form of welfare that most people don't acknowledge. Yet the in the last year I could find data for, $1.2 trillion was inherited in the US that year. Meanwhile, we spend about $1 trillion per year on state and federal welfare programs. To some, one is a crutch that we have to take away and the other is a right.

Also, you can probably tally this abortion debate as another reason my daughter wants very little to do with any schools in the South.*

* outside of maybe VT, which is probably purple enough

Don't forget the special income tax rate you get for your income. The corporate subsidies that are given out which is welfare. Even actual welfare programs like food stamps is a form of corporate welfare as it allows companies to pay less to employees and use taxpayer funds to prop up their balance sheets.

Yep. Banks screwing us over. Between the insurance companies and big pharma, these are the demons of society.

I priced a HSA with a $1000 RX front end paid by me. Im type 1 diabetic. I use 3 bottles a month. Those 3 bottles would cost me $971. Yes, $971. Did you know the inventor of insulin sold the patent for a quarter because he felt no one should profit off a life saving medicine.

F%#K big pharma

The government gave them the monopoly that allows them to do this.

And the big part of this trade deal with China is to force them to abide by our government mandated monopolies.

Yep. And no price caps. Europe caps the price and we pay for those caps

F&%K big pharma

Protecting the citizens from harm should be the first goal of the government, yes.

Couple of items:

1). If there is unemployment, that is a drag on wages because there is no competition for workers. When unemployment is down, companies must compete for workers, leading to higher wages.

2). The cost of living in middle America is much lower than on the coast. It is why a lot of lower tech manufacturing jobs relocated there.

3). We have the third largest population globally, we need to encourage the growth of companies that will provide jobs for all walks of life, not just for those with Masters degrees.

4). Employees need to realize they need to develop skills that make them indispensable to their employer. If you could be replaced by automation, you need to develop other skills.

I'm probably considered lower-middle class now ($32k when the average salary here is $48k, but that's also working 4 days a week. If I was working 5 days a week, I'd be at $40k - still below the average, but getting there).

Now imagine a type one diabetic living the american way of climbing the ladder from the bottom, making $17.50/hr, which according to previous posts is middle class ($35,000/yr) being given that same $971/mo bill. You've got an HSA you can afford to fund to make that tax advantaged and it sounds like you can afford it since you're not dead.

Hopefully people who aren't quite middle class can just pull on their bootstraps harder, to get past that alive.

The first piece of research that showed up for me predicts that 800 million people in the US may be displaced by automation by 2030. So yeah, there may be a huge fight to be in that top 2/3 that gets to be employed. What's the solution for literally hundreds of millions?

I think a lot of it is doing a better job of intelligently pushing people towards the careers that are needed, instead of just 'go to college and everything will be fine, mkay!'. Right now, just to name three of them, we have major shortages in nursing, computer programming, and trucking. Esp. the last one, which requires the least formal education. Truckers will probably be replaced by self-driving cars of course, but the point is right now we have a lot of people who can't find work because they're qualified for tasks that aren't needed anymore. Meanwhile we don't have people qualified for jobs that are needed. I think this pain is going to continue for several generations as we continue to transition into a more and more service and information-based, global economy. I also think we will eventually go to some form of universal minimum income for those who fall through the cracks. It will simply become a must in order to keep a viable customer base. What I'm most worried about is how we will end up treating this new, expanded underclass. Encouraging them to educate themselves in order to compete for more demanding careers while not simply dismissing them to their fate is not going to be easy, even if we are smart about it. Which I don't particularly expect us to be.

I don't think America will be a democratic republic 100 years from now. Some more authoritarian system, not sure what, will likely take its place. That's not because of Trumpism, it's just unavoidable IMO as a side effect of increased globalism and the inability of the common man to govern intelligently.

I sound like a crazy person but I'm not sure there will be any countries as we know them in 100 years, democratic republics or otherwise. I don't have very high hopes for the future unless we can rapidly change the way we think about things in the next 15-20 years.

All of the jobs you named are replaceable by automation in the long run, it's just a question of how quickly things advance. Most rich people are never going to willingly give their money to people who don't have the ability to work (for whatever reason, but in this scenario let's pretend that it's because 70-80% of the jobs in the world just don't exist anymore). And world population is exploding as the number of jobs that humans are required to do goes down. So what gives?

Wait what? There's like $350 M people in the whole country right now. Are you predicting a huge and historically unprecedented population surge in the next 11 years?

I am guessing those are actually world-wide numbers?

True. They were intended more just as examples of fields where right now we just don't have enough people to fill them. Not necessarily the ones where we'll need people in the future. Those targets are constantly shifting.

I don't think you're a crazy person. I think we're headed towards a one-world government eventually as a matter of inevitability. Whether it's a good or bad thing depends on how we do it. I'm just not sure it happens in the next century.


This I'm not certain about. It may end up just being a shift rather than humans aren't needed. As an obvious example, there's wasn't a great need for IT specialists a century ago - because IT wasn't a thing. I'm not yet convinced that automation will bring about a massive reduction in the total amount of human jobs when all is said and done. It may just be that what we need to do is different, such as has happened with the massive growth in the health care industry in the modern world. Also, a lot of projections I've seen say that worldwide population growth will stagnate quite a bit in, say, the second half of this century.

Yeah, I just see it completely the other way. When IT became a thing (at least if you go far enough back) it was humans engineering, building and architecting everything. That genie is out of the bottle now. We're already insanely close to human level intelligence in AI, robotics that are scarily advanced, systems that can use learn things unsupervised and make insights that the smartest human couldn't even dream of.

Maybe there's a place we get to where we recognize we're heading for this dystopia and collectively decide to put aside greed and factionalism and decide to limit this stuff and come to a for the good of humanity, but that's putting a lot of faith in people. And frankly, I don't have any faith in us. Look at individual countries or large multi national companies putting their own interests ahead of the consensus on climate change, or open internet access. Hell, the US is in a place where everybody agrees the health care system is absolutely insane unless you have fuck you money, and we still can't do anything about it for reasons. Everything is becoming more polarised and your team vs my team and you think we're going to come together to solve these kinds of problems?

Each to their own, I don't claim to have a particularly nuanced or smart vision of the future but I don't see it being good. At all.

No, but I think a certain amount of stuff is going to have to be done as a matter of necessity. I.e., let's say you're right and 70-80% of jobs are gone. If the rich just hold onto their money as you suggest, they aren't going to sell much because there aren't many people left to buy their products/services. I think things like UBI will happen not because anybody is particularly philanthropic, but as a way to maintain the customer base. I.e., they'll realize that some level of societal investment is necessary to maintain profitability in the long run. They'll do it for their own self-interest, not necessarily for the good of humanity. There are already examples of a few - not most, but a few - corporations doing that kind of thing right now. I also just haven't seen anything that convinces me that AI/Robotics are going to make human employees totally go the way of the dodo. It could happen - I just would need to see a lot more evidence of it to be convinced things will actually happen that way.

Good thing their parents or grandparents pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.

Too bad we didn't win the RNG lottery (random number generator).

Nursing is probably the least vulnerable IMO. There's that human element that automation can't replace (yet or in the next 40-50 years). Big upheaval in the trucking industry though for sure.


I just don't see it happening in the next 100 years (unless aliens discover us and we have to unite ... wait, wasn't there a movie(s) about this?). I can definitely see more countries coming together in a political/economic/military federation (e.g. more the EU concept).

I agree with this. Some jobs will go away, new jobs will arise.

No doubt the transition will be difficult for many.

Not a AI/Robotics expert but have limited experience with AI in the software/app field and also "bots".

This is/will be (happening now) displacement like in call center help, accountants, truck drivers and, of course, chess & go masters.

But even with all the progress, there is substantial more progress needed before human's go away for most jobs.

I disagree. When it comes down to it and when you have to make compromises, make decisions for the greater good.

Obviously the definition of greater good is relative.

A trade war with China is not something that required a compromise.

What is the greater good with regards to this trade war?

With regards to truck driving, I certainly can see the over the road drivers going away, not sure I see the delivery trucks (for businesses) going away soon.

So based on everything I am seeing on social media from my left-wing follows, it seems that the big distinction is that the right wing is motivated by the Supreme Court constantly while the left wing gets motivated only when it might be too late.

Not sure I understand? Care to elaborate?

See below.

Shit, my bad, you're right, a prediction that about 20% of the global workforce will be impacted by automation, and in more developed countries like the US, it could be up to 33%. So the numbers were global, the percentages are estimates based on how highly developed a place is.

We chose to get into this tariff war, we didn't have to. At this point we've gotten nothing and hurt a lot of people.

Sure we didn't need to. We have China stealing intellectual property etc. from us (the trade deficit is important but secondary) so long-term wise, its worth doing something about it.

If your argument is Trump can't pull this off (or get the objectives he wanted etc.) and therefore the suffering now won't ever be worth it. Or if the argument is wrong approach, he should do it with allies etc. ... that is a valid concern.

However, he is the first to confront this heads on and seems to want to "fix" it so I'm all for it.

If the goal is to curtail IP theft, revamping everything about Chinese trade is a stupid way to do it.

not to mention tariffs, which are paid by the receiving side, not the sending side, do zero to impact IP theft.

Then you are being as ignorant as his base by thinking he wants to "fix" anything and isn't just doing it to appease to his base, like everything else he does.

Why does this matter to 99.99% of the country that has no stake in the IP game? Why does everyone have to suffer for this?

Our own IP laws and system are a joke as it is. How about fixing those first before creating global monopolies?

When it comes down to the choice between making rich people richer or making sure large numbers of people aren't losing their homes, going without food, going heavily into debt, ect. I think we go with B. The rich will be ok.

Doing everything in the name of the economy when it's only benefiting a small minority of people isn't what our government should be doing and that type of economy will eventually collapse as it's not sustainable.

This pretty much describes the left wing when it comes to any level of government from state-level up.

The left shows up to vote when a fire's been lit under their ass by an emergency.

The right shows up to vote no matter what, even if they're "holding their nose."

National Security?
I mean you might be surprised now high communication goes on devices made outside the US. There are countries that still want to colonize the world. Just because it hasnt happened in ~60 years doesnt mean it wont again.


I fully expect Trump to fawk it up. But if you are going to rock the boat the best time to do so is in calm waters. Rocking a boat in a storm is a sure fire capsize. I think as strong as the economy is it can stand some upheaval without massive live destruction...Certainly that sint always the case.


Im not smart enough economically to know how you right the ship. But if this is inevitable its probably a darn near ideal time to implement it.

National security has nothing to do with the IP parts of the trade deal.

This country can also block imports that are deemed dangerous to our national security. We've already done that with technology companies.

Lot of buzz on twitter tonight about Michael Flynn-some unredacted parts of his transcript with the Mueller Report shows that the Trump team/members of Congress tried to interfere with/obstruct him speaking with Mueller. Article does a better job of explaining it then I did. Also a federal judge wants Mueller's team to file a transcript of Flynn's voicemail with the Trump team/Congressmen as well as any recordings they have of him with Russian officials by May 31. This is the judge who called Flynn a traitor at one point:


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/jus...probe-n1006666


Edit: The judge wants all the Flynn material unredacted and released to the public.

Is it just me or is the media really pushing for a war with Iran right now?

I'm sure Fox is. There was a report today saying that our intelligence officials feel that Iran is responding to our increased activity in the area, rather then getting ready for war:


Attention Required! | Cloudflare

I don't think trying to "fix" and "appease his base" are mutually exclusive. It's a safe assumption that many of his base wants/supports this "fix".

I really don't know if US IP laws and system are a joke (but let's assume it is). Per above post, not mutually exclusive, why don't we try multi-threading and fix both or try fixing the one that is a greater threat - China.

99.99% of the country may not have a direct stake in the IP game but certainly the US as a whole has interest in the "greater good" in the long run.

I don't see it as rich vs poor. I see it as maintaining/enhancing the US long term strategic interest. I certainly don't see this as benefits only a small minority of people.

National security has probably nothing to do with the tariff part of the trade deal.

Protecting our IP has much to do with national security especially when you think long term.

The Impact of Chinese Espionage on the United States | The Diplomat


Not sure what you mean by "imports"? I'm certainly not saying importing cheap Chinese goods is a threat (well, maybe Huawei stuff). It how US companies wanting to play in China are forced to compromise in IP or have their IP stolen.

I honestly haven't read it as pushing, more just reporting increased military/naval presence.

Go Elon Musk and the like. Get us away from ME oil dependency, get us spending our money elsewhere instead of subsidizing all the lambos in the ME, and allow us to leave our frenemies to their own regional politics ... we all know we are still "friends" with Saudi Arabia primarily because of their oil power.

Putting pressure on the Chinese economy is how (I think) Trump plans to get the concessions.

How else would you apply pressure on China?