Man I'm in the same boat.
I'll have everything ready and feel determined to work on something, and then it's like I can't do it. "Ill do it after this, after that." and then it never gets done it seems like.
It's a habit I really hope to break.
Not sure if you heard, but today a major bank in the USA is failing. One I've never heard of called Silicon Valley Bank, but apparently it's one of the top 20 banks in the country.
Politicians are already calling for bailing them out if another bank doesn't step in before Monday. Scary times man.
I don't pay attention to the "news", but my wife does. She was telling us about it.
Scary times indeed. I wish we would just ignore the leaches that think they rule us and just do the right things. Sadly, there is no historical precedent that could ever happen.
Yeah, it's because they need us more than we need them usually.
Oh, I'm quite sure that's true!
Remember that guy Andrew Yang? He would always say we need Universal Basic Income because so many jobs were going to be lost to automation!
He said truck drivers should start learning how to code because those jobs would be going away.
Turns out, when it comes to automation, jobs like coding that are displaced first.
Who could have foreseen that it's a whole lot easier to automate something digital vs. something physical :)
I've heard so many people say how brilliant he is.
Anyone who is suggesting we pay everyone not to work(including those who do work) is obviously not a genius.
The idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is often criticized as being coercive and antithetical to individual liberty. The idea of a UBI involves taking money from some individuals through taxation or other means, and redistributing it to others as a form of guaranteed income. This type of wealth redistribution is seen by many voluntaryists as a violation of property rights, as it involves the use of force to take from some individuals and give to others without their consent.
With that said, the specific argument against UBI in this context is that it fails to address the real issue at hand. The displacement of jobs due to automation is a legitimate concern, but the solution is not to simply pay people not to work. Instead, the focus should be on creating an environment that fosters innovation and entrepreneurship, which can lead to new jobs and economic growth. Additionally, individuals should have the freedom to adapt and retrain for new job opportunities as they arise, without being coerced into a particular path or relying on government handouts.
In regards to Andrew Yang's specific comment about truck drivers learning to code, it is true that many jobs that were thought to be safe from automation are now at risk. However, the solution is not to simply encourage people to move into other industries without addressing the root cause of job displacement. Rather, voluntaryists would argue for a free market approach that allows individuals to pursue their own interests and innovate, while respecting the property rights of others and minimizing the use of coercion and force.
Obviously UBI steals from the taxpayer and redistributes wealth.
The truck drivers specifically I think have a longer time ahead of them because self-driving vehicles are a long way off depending on who you ask.
But in general I think we've seen automation increase profits by reducing human resource costs. This often happens at the expense of the consumer though because we end up with less people working at stores due to self checkouts. Or when contacting a company for support you deal with automation that often attempts to make it hard to get someone on the phone who can actually help you.
I used to be very pro anarcho-capitalist or libertarian ideals with a focus on the free market. But now I'm not nearly as sure. I think Marx and the commies have a valid argument when it comes to the wealthy and powerful exploiting the value of the working class. At the same time I understand that the wealthy & ambitious generate lots of value for many people.
There are always people who resist change, and fear it. In New York City they thought all of the horses concentrated in such a large metro would result in so much manure that it would become unmanageable, and then innovation gave us the automobile and all was well.
But I think you can also reach a point where you no longer innovate because certain corporate institutions have managed to corner everyone else out of the market.
In the USA I'd point to Walmart, and now Amazon. You go to every small town and there's empty brick & mortar business spaces because Walmart has the ability to price their goods at a level unobtainable by the small businesses. They'll also lobby for raising minimum wage(something that seems contrary to their bottom line, at face value) because it makes the margins for their competition untenable. Then after achieving this, they automate more jobs and score another win.
Sometimes it appears that innovation might be stagnating. Much of the work towards innovation now is in the digital space too, and we've created tons of new jobs where people were "independent" via Youtube, Twitch, TikTok, and even Only Fans. But the more online we become it may also be that our quality of life and happiness is trending down.
And there's a certain danger in all of these jobs dedicated towards no actual product. Content creators make entertainment and even informational products, but it's hard to say if there's anything of value being actually created overall.
AND there's the fact that they serve a real function for the platforms they use to profit from content, but once again it's nebulous in it's value. Google is really a data company, and their model is targeted advertising generally. But the data has more value than just advertising especially for governments.
There's good arguments to be made that most of the big tech companies are branches of the government, and were even started by the govt.
They censor speech too, at the request of the govt. A pretty slick workaround since they aren't bound by the constitution.
Sorry for the book I wrote lol. It's something that's hard to articulate via text without touching on multiple points.