Robots Will Create 'Permanently Unemployable Underclass'

[Woodsman]

Re: ethics vs morality

Civility shattered.

Yeah, but then I saw this and felt better.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: ethics vs morality

To be fair to SF & PS, I think it might have been me that got this thread cast into the great beyond.

Although, maybe it was SF after all?

Don't think neither of us reacted well to the tone in this one here.

Civility shattered.

I'll have to agree with Ghent that a supreme court decision does not decide how I think about an issue.

Phelps, a distinguished labor economist refused to weigh in on minimum wage laws. Instead, he recommends subsidizing low wage work.

Also remember the effective marginal tax rate is said to be very high on minimum wage earners, so if you raise the wage , they may lose a lot of benefits.

It seems heartless not to want a minimum wage, but when you think about details, it gets a lot more ambiguous.

[astonas]

Re: going deeper on ethics

However, I think almost every judgement people make has some kind of rationale behind it, and so comes closer to what you call "ethics".

A rationalization is not the same thing as a logical framework. Most people judge right and wrong by what they were told as children, never actually wondering whether the values learned then are consistent with a minimal set of axioms, let alone derivable from them. It is only after the judgment itself that they rationalize why that must be the right judgement.

Aside: There's actually some fascinating neurological imaging that's been done on the subject. The logic centers of the brain light up AFTER most decision have been made, and even acted on. But the memory of "making a logical decision" is how the brain records the event after the fact, even when the opposite can be shown to have occurred. It takes considerable conscious effort to counteract this innate misremembering. So I would argue that most judgments are in fact quite disconnected from any logic at all.

People generally do not justify a moral judgement by appealing to popular opinion, but by referring to a value they belief in. The "objective standards" question is the whole sticking point.

The "objective standards" was indeed the thrust of my posts. They are commonly claimed in political arguments (once the delusion of "morality" is appropriately dismissed). But in my experience so far, a set of self-consistent standards that supports a dramatic and unpopular suggestion has always been entirely absent, when the discussion is examined with sufficient rigor. It takes a huge amount of effort to build a framework that does hold up, so it is not surprising that they are rare.


It is in fact precisely "objectivity" that Ayn Rand claimed as the basis for her reactionary philosophy in the famous speech of John Galt, written in her work "Atlas Shrugged". While alive, she referred to herself as an Objectivist, and her movement as Objectivism, and claimed (incorrectly) that all morality can be derived from objective principles.

The problem is that she made such a pig's breakfast of her facts and logic, not only does it not represent the moral stance she hoped it would eventually become, it doesn't even stand up as the ethical framework it claimed to already be at the time. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

The REAL problem is that so many people have read her work uncritically. Of course, since the statements therein justify the reader taking ever more and more from any other people who have less and less, this is hardly surprising. In the words of Jonathan Swift: "There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know." Selfishness is certainly convenient, even when not justifiable, and it is far more comfortable to be philosophically blind than to admit to holding immoral and unethical, but self-enriching, positions.

Dramatic political views (whether the reactionary ones discussed above, or equally abhorrent revolutionary ones on the other side) when analyzed properly and in detail, seldom wind up having either a moral or ethical basis. But for some reason, they almost always do serve those offering them up very well indeed, at least as long as they go unexamined.

This site (to me) is at least in part about examining them.

[dcarrigg]

Re: ethics vs morality

To be fair to SF & PS, I think it might have been me that got this thread cast into the great beyond.

Although, maybe it was SF after all?

Don't think neither of us reacted well to the tone in this one here.

Civility shattered.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Prison populations

We agree with regard to the prison population. It's huge in the US because it's a business. Medicine in the US is not unlike prisons but that is a much larger conversation.

As for "crime", if you're building a business, you need to build your customer base. This is a core tenant of capitalism. As criminals continue to become consumers and products of our capitalist system, more Americans will "choose" to become criminals and prisoners.

There is a point where Americans will no longer support prisons as a major part of our economy but I've no idea when we'll all understand that everyone is at risk.

I agree that "for profit prisons" are a bad idea because of the moral hazard they create. Especially since they the corporations would have close ties to the legal system. Just selectively prosecute political opponents for marijuana possession, vices, what have you. (I think that's what brought down the NY governor, who had the cajones to pursue Wall street crooks).

[santafe2]

Re: Prison populations

The prison population is artificially swelled by prosecuting crimes such as marijuana possession and prostitution.

The over all crime rate is going DOWN, not UP.

California has had several governors since Reagan. Have any of them reversed this decision?


What percent of prisoners have clinical mental health problems that would have landed them in treatment centers Pre-Reagan?

When I was encountering homeless people, I thought that many of them suffered from schizophrenia, paranoia, etc.

We agree with regard to the prison population. It's huge in the US because it's a business. Medicine in the US is not unlike prisons but that is a much larger conversation.

As for "crime", if you're building a business, you need to build your customer base. This is a core tenant of capitalism. As criminals continue to become consumers and products of our capitalist system, more Americans will "choose" to become criminals and prisoners.

There is a point where Americans will no longer support prisons as a major part of our economy but I've no idea when we'll all understand that everyone is at risk.

[Polish_Silver]

Prison populations

For better or worse, I will take credit for this idea as I've espoused it among my friends for over 30 years. The seeds of this idea came to me when Reagan was governor of California and began systematically closing treatment facilities for the "mentally challenged". It's expensive to try to treat and possibly cure the insane. It's much less expensive to let them out on the street and then arrest them for their inevitable social transgressions. I think the beginning of jailhouse American began here and shortly afterward, smart capitalists began to understand that prisoners made great consumers. No layoffs here. Once Johnny signs up for a 20 year loan on his life, you've got a gold card consumer. He's not going to default, he's paying his "debt" to society.

We've obviously come a long way over the last 30+ years in our incarceration growth business. But to keep it moving forward, we need more prisoners. So here's how it's going to work in the future. If you can't earn $50,000 a year, you're more valuable to the economy in jail than out of jail. If you earn less than $25k, you should watch your back. It's not personal, it's just business.

The prison population is artificially swelled by prosecuting crimes such as marijuana possession and prostitution.

The over all crime rate is going DOWN, not UP.

California has had several governors since Reagan. Have any of them reversed this decision?


What percent of prisoners have clinical mental health problems that would have landed them in treatment centers Pre-Reagan?

When I was encountering homeless people, I thought that many of them suffered from schizophrenia, paranoia, etc.

[santafe2]

Re: Against Minimum wages

interesting way to look at things - also helps explain why the private sector jail biz is booming (and illustrates why state/local govs are in on 'the game' - ie: pushing the enforcement of the letter of the law = more 'crime' = more fed money for 'enforcement' = more 'revenue' for the local govs = more people in jail)

For better or worse, I will take credit for this idea as I've espoused it among my friends for over 30 years. The seeds of this idea came to me when Reagan was governor of California and began systematically closing treatment facilities for the "mentally challenged". It's expensive to try to treat and possibly cure the insane. It's much less expensive to let them out on the street and then arrest them for their inevitable social transgressions. I think the beginning of jailhouse American began here and shortly afterward, smart capitalists began to understand that prisoners made great consumers. No layoffs here. Once Johnny signs up for a 20 year loan on his life, you've got a gold card consumer. He's not going to default, he's paying his "debt" to society.

We've obviously come a long way over the last 30+ years in our incarceration growth business. But to keep it moving forward, we need more prisoners. So here's how it's going to work in the future. If you can't earn $50,000 a year, you're more valuable to the economy in jail than out of jail. If you earn less than $25k, you should watch your back. It's not personal, it's just business.

[lektrode]

Re: Against Minimum wages

I think the votes are in. When people are driven to this level of desperation many would rather put a gun in your face than work. .... Take a minimum wage loser and give him/her a total middle class income. They may not actually get any of the $50k but to the economy it doesn't matter. More people in jail = less roads more jails...same economic outcome.

interesting way to look at things - also helps explain why the private sector jail biz is booming (and illustrates why state/local govs are in on 'the game' - ie: pushing the enforcement of the letter of the law = more 'crime' = more fed money for 'enforcement' = more 'revenue' for the local govs = more people in jail)

[santafe2]

Re: Against Minimum wages

If you are starving, the option to work for $3/hour might be a lot nicer than the options of stealing or starving.

I think the votes are in. When people are driven to this level of desperation many would rather put a gun in your face than work. The way our system is designed, we underpay the lowest among us and when they react badly to the $15k they make on minimum wage, much less your suggested $6k, we put them in jail. That is, we give them a $50k job. Complete upgrade for the economy. Take a minimum wage loser and give him/her a total middle class income. They may not actually get any of the $50k but to the economy it doesn't matter. More people in jail = less roads more jails...same economic outcome.

[santafe2]

Re: Greenspan the Un-Rand

I am a bit confused on your message. Are you saying your community is full of fascists, but the current laws force them to pay more than they otherwise would?

This is a bit harsh but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.

Also it seems as if you are confused about my message. It should be obvious that Wal-Mart and McDonald's will be doing relatively well under higher minimum wages--minimum wages generally HELP large, profitable corporations in industries which use minimum wage labor.

Sorry, this is just a goofy idea. Walmart fights tooth and nail to keep wages as low as possible. If your idea made any sense at all they would be standing arm-in-arm with Obama demanding $10.10 an hour as the national minimum wage. Quite obviously they'll never do that.

In fact, minimum wage laws help in proportion to how profitable a business is currently; they tend to act like a profit ratio booster. The reason is simple; the laws help to drive away the competition.

Let me try to follow this logic. Minimum wage laws boost profitability by helping to drive out incompetent businesses that can't make a profit without very low wages. OK, I'm good with that.

Businesses which are not profitable are not sustainable.

Small businesses which are not profitable are hobbies. A business is either profitable or it's stakeholders are able to convince other people the business is so special they should invest. The 3rd option is that the business should go out of business. In your world the 3rd option is wage slavery. I choose to punish the incompetent business owner. You choose to punish the employees. We have a different point of view.

Increased labor costs across a whole industry will reduce the profit of all businesses in that industry. Those businesses which were barely sustainable before the increased labor costs can be made unprofitable and bankrupt as a result of the increased costs; and further, those firms which were contemplating entering the market are further deterred by the artificial increase in costs. All of this tends to serve the interests of the largest and most profitable businesses in those industries quite nicely.

I am a business person and I think a very successful one. I suspect you are not and this rhetoric is something you find emotionally satisfying. Possibly you worked for an incompetent company driven out of business by a larger and more competent company. Just guessing but these arguments make no sense to anyone who's run a successful business in the US. At best this is spreadsheet logic. Any real business is designed to attract the best people and the best people are attracted to businesses with a great plan, great process and other great employees.

[lektrode]

Re: ethics vs morality

was wondren where this one went - now eye see why it was 'relegated to the abyss'

but it IS a very interesting battle y'all got goin here (but well off the 'economics' scale, in any case?)

[Polish_Silver]

going deeper on ethics

ethics leaves out the question of personal or shared values, and instead seeks to apply a logical framework to find objective standards for right and wrong.

Astonas,

I misinterpreted your post.

The distinction you make between ethical and moral is not between cultural and personal values, it is about
the distinction between a decision framework and personal beliefs.

I would agree that public policy should be justified by a logical appeal to stated values or goals.

However, I think almost every judgement people make has some kind of rationale behind it, and so comes closer to what you call "ethics". People generally do not justify a moral judgement by appealing to popular opinion, but by referring to a value they belief in. The "objective standards" question is the whole sticking point.

There was, for sometime, a movement in philosophy called "anti-theoretical ethics". This arose from the realization that none of the traditional theories of ethics worked well in every practical situation, or seemed very relevant to how people make decisions.

[Polish_Silver]

ethics vs morality

Nearly is not the same as exactly.
. . .
Even in the link you cite, both personal and shared values are mentioned, and this definition also bases the judgement on values held by an individual or group:


. ..

This link makes the distinction as personal judgement vs cultural judgement. But it's hard to get that distinction from the dictionary (see below) . To the extent that "ethics" means cultural judgement, that is hardly method of deciding right and wrong, for a citizen or a legislator. It may help the legislator be re-elected to vote according to the ethics of his constituents, however.

Both Pritchard and Ayer challenged the idea that ethical statements are matter of truth and falsehood, in the sense that 2+2 = 4, or the sun will rise at 5:30am tomorrow.

Ayer believed that ethical statements reflect an emotional reaction. (which might be shared by many people)

The matter might be clarified by resorting to empathy: "an immoral action reflects a lack of empathy on the part of the actor". When Ayer was writing the neurological basis of empathy was unknown.


The dictionary places a slightly stronger emphasis on personal judgement for "moral", but the difference is so small, I don't think it's worth quibbling about.

"accepted" by the who?

An individual , a group, what % of people, and over what range of history and culture?

_______________________________________

From the same dictionary, emphasis mine:
eth·i·cal

adjective \ˈe-thi-kəl\ : involving questions of right and wrong behavior : relating to ethics


: following accepted rules of behavior : morally right and good






Full Definition of ETHICAL

1
: of or relating to ethics <ethical theories>

2

: involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval <ethical judgments>


3
: conforming to accepted standards of conduct <ethical behavior>

[LazyBoy]

Re: Definitions need references!

Good, relevant video to the Robot question. (Not Rant and Rave material.)