Automation vs Today's Jobs
-
@Gąska said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@brie said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
I really don't think that people use percents for much of anything. Not in any exact sense, at least.
You've just crafted an excuse to dismiss everything I'm saying, no matter what I'm saying, on the basis that my sense is not exact enough for your tastes. No matter how many examples I'll bring up - loan interests, taxes, nutritients GDAs, polling, etc. etc. ad nauseum - you're going to dismiss each and every one as "not in exact sense", whatever it means. At this point, there's no exact sense talking to you on this subject anymore.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@Gąska said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@HardwareGeek most people suck at lying.
Why then are there so many careers based entirely on lying convincingly: acting, sales, marketing, advertising, lawyers, politics, $Foo Studies?
Because people can't say if they suck at being professional liars, because they themselves lack the skill to determine?
-
@Gurth said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@ixvedeusi said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
My take is that, even if they wanted to, they cannot afford to take a long-term view. If they did, they'd be lynched by the angry mob way before the end of their term and their successor will promptly undo any possible progress that might have been made, to "fix the damage" of the previous "bad" government and gain populism points.
And that’s why I think a little less democracy than we have now, is a good thing. Not do away with the system entirely, as that would probably result in a bad thing, but people shouldn’t expect the government to respond to their (and only their) every whim immediately. Popular referenda are (in this respect anyway) probably the worst idea that people are still trying to push as if it’s a good one.
Most people seem to treat referenda and elections more as popularity contests for the current regime than for their actual contents.
See also the current dutch cabinet holding back the draconian measures you know they are going to take to satisfy the urgenda verdict until after the provincial elections.
-
@Gurth said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
And that’s why I think a little less democracy than we have now, is a good thing. Not do away with the system entirely, as that would probably result in a bad thing, but people shouldn’t expect the government to respond to their (and only their) every whim immediately. Popular referenda are (in this respect anyway) probably the worst idea that people are still trying to push as if it’s a good one.
As a Swiss I'll have to disagree on that. IMHO one of the problems of most existing "democracies" is that the people feel that their votes do not really have any influence anyway. Thus they resort to "protest votes" where they vote for one thing just to vote against another thing or just because that thing is controversial, without really thinking about the consequences if it is actually accepted (because "it doesn't matter anyway"). Providing additional facilities to influence politics is one way to counter this. Another way is to let them vote on actual topics, not only people. Popular referendums provide both of these, and thus can go a long way towards raising interest in, and awareness of, politics, and awaking some sense of responsibility in voters.
I think what's needed is less polarity and more stability in the system. I'm really rather fond of our political system in this regard, compared to most others. Most crucially I think, we don't have a single person "at the top" which changes every few years. Instead we have a group of 7 "equals", from all of the most popular parties, which form the head of the executive. These are not elected by the people but by the parliament (this is a good thing IMHO), and usually don't change very often and never all at the same time.
Whenever I hear about how some country's new government "didn't manage to establish a majority" like that was a big problem, it just makes me laugh. In my opinion this should be the norm, and the political system should be designed to cope with it.
-
@ixvedeusi said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
Providing additional facilities to influence politics is one way to counter this.
My main complaint about referenda is that people who are against something, tend to shout louder than the ones in favour of it. How many people do you see demonstrating in favour of a government decision, compared to the number that protests against one? (In a western-style democracy, anyway.) This is bound to skew the outcome.
Another way is to let them vote on actual topics, not only people. Popular referendums provide both of these, and thus can go a long way towards raising interest in, and awareness of, politics, and awaking some sense of responsibility in voters.
Or it can lead to even more apathy and ever-reduced voter turnout.
I think what's needed is less polarity and more stability in the system.
Agreed.
Whenever I hear about how some country's new government "didn't manage to establish a majority" like that was a big problem, it just makes me laugh.
Same. I don’t remember when there wasn’t a coalition government in the Netherlands, but I suspect it was sometime before the war, if not before the start of the 20th century. However, in our case it leads to an obsession with trying to form a majority coalition instead of even contemplating governing the country with less than that, in turn causing members of parliament to be pretty much expected to vote according to party lines instead of (as the law requires them to) their own conscience. It also leads to a system that on the one hand works well to establish a compromise, but on the other, largely prevents decisions being made quickly or firmly.
-
@Gurth said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
How many people do you see demonstrating in favour of a government decision, compared to the number that protests against one? (In a western-style democracy, anyway.) This is bound to skew the outcome.
I'd say that's mostly because there's no way for people to take the initiative to propose a change. In general you don't need to demonstrate for a government decision, as the decision has already been made in the way you wanted it. The exception is "counter-demonstrations" to demonstrate against other people opposing the government decision; and these do happen. In my experience in Switzerland, whenever a referendum to contest a government decision people care about is on table, both sides will run campaigns and potentially organize demonstrations.
@Gurth said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
Or it can lead to even more apathy and ever-reduced voter turnout.
Care to elaborate? I'm not sure how it would.
@Gurth said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
largely prevents decisions being made quickly or firmly
I guess that's the trade-off which has to be made. If it's easy to take decisions quickly and firmly, its easy to quickly and firmly decide to undo all that has been quickly and firmly decided in the past, leading to the bipolar swing problem that started this discussion.
And now I feel bad about hogging the (quite interesting) "Automation vs. Jobs" topic.
-
@Gurth said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@ixvedeusi said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
Another way is to let them vote on actual topics, not only people. Popular referendums provide both of these, and thus can go a long way towards raising interest in, and awareness of, politics, and awaking some sense of responsibility in voters.
Or it can lead to even more apathy and ever-reduced voter turnout.
You're talking to a guy whose country just had a referendum about allowing insurance companies to use private detectives, with 47% voter turnout.
-
@Gurth said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
My main complaint about referenda is that people who are against something, tend to shout louder than the ones in favour of it. How many people do you see demonstrating in favour of a government decision, compared to the number that protests against one? (In a western-style democracy, anyway.) This is bound to skew the outcome.
I don't think I agree with your characterization about who shouts but it is a good thing to have a bias against doing new things. It's like Raymond Chen's "all new features start with negative 100 points" practice.
-
@boomzilla said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
have a bias against doing new things.
there has to be more then one onion on that belt
-
@Luhmann said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@boomzilla said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
have a bias against doing new things.
there has to be more then one onion on that belt
I don't like change.
-
@boomzilla said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@Gurth said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
My main complaint about referenda is that people who are against something, tend to shout louder than the ones in favour of it. How many people do you see demonstrating in favour of a government decision, compared to the number that protests against one? (In a western-style democracy, anyway.) This is bound to skew the outcome.
I don't think I agree with your characterization about who shouts but it is a good thing to have a bias against doing new things. It's like Raymond Chen's "all new features start with negative 100 points" practice.
And I've gotten wary of the politician's syllogism. In fact, many times the actions taken are to "fix" a problem they created by the last "fix".
No government will work for people whose culture is morally/internally bankrupt. Any government will work for a society of angels. Government is downstream of culture.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
Why then are there so many careers based entirely on lying convincingly: acting, sales, marketing, advertising, lawyers, politics, $Foo Studies?
Although acting is certainly the same skillset as lying, acting (as in a show or a movie) is not itself lying.
-
@ixvedeusi said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@Gurth said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
Or it can lead to even more apathy and ever-reduced voter turnout.
Care to elaborate? I'm not sure how it would.
I live in a jurisdiction that has initiative, referendum and recall. The last time I was really interested in the political process was for a state constitutional amendment. The amendment passed and became part of the state constitution.
The amendment was then ruled to be unconstitutional. Yes, (part of) the constitution itself was ruled unconstitutional.
This just demonstrates that the dominant political faction is going to do what they're going to do; the vote of the people be damned.
I am no longer engaged in the process. I care enough to be filled with rage at everyone involved, of all factions, but given the demographics of where I live and the entrenched power of the dominant faction, there is absolutely nothing I can do to influence the outcome. I still vote, but knowing it's a complete waste of my time.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
The amendment passed and became part of the state constitution.
The amendment was then ruled to be unconstitutional. Yes, (part of) the constitution itself was ruled unconstitutional.
It was ruled to be against the state constitution (which I agree is odd, because it was amending that), or against the national constitution (which is generally agreed to supersede the state constitution where there's a conflict)?
-
@jinpa said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
It was ruled to be against the state constitution (which I agree is odd, because it was amending that)
This.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
Yes, (part of) the constitution itself was ruled unconstitutional.
I suppose that means that either the amendment conflicted with other parts of the state constitution, leading to a self-contradictory constitution, or it was incompatible with some higher-level (e. g. Federal) constitution. I can see why either of these would be a serious problem and something which (ideally) should have been verified before the vote.
AFAIK this sort of thing is looked into before the vote for popular initiatives in Switzerland (which can only change the constitution), though there have been controversial cases. We've also had cases where an initiative conflicts not with the constitution (and thus had to go to the vote, and was accepted) but with international treaties we have signed, which can lead to similar head-aches and "lip service" implementations.
These sorts of problems are kind of inherent to constitutional governments and the principle of rule of law, and I cannot really see how you could avoid it, apart from the mentioned due diligence before accepting to vote on something.
@HardwareGeek said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
I still vote, but knowing it's a complete waste of my time.
FWIW, I don't think it is. Even if it doesn't change the outcome of the vote, it's at least saying "I'm still here and I don't agree". There's a huge difference in message conveyed between a vote won by 50.02% and a vote won by 99.98%, and it does influence the attitude of the politicians. If everyone of your mind set just decided that its no use to vote anyway, the other side would always win by 90%+, and that would be bad.
-
@ixvedeusi said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
I suppose that means that either the amendment conflicted with other parts of the state constitution, leading to a self-contradictory constitution, or it was incompatible with some higher-level (e. g. Federal) constitution. I can see why either of these would be a serious problem and something which (ideally) should have been verified before the vote.
No, making "a self-contradictory constitution" is often the point of an amendment, which actually doesn't do that, but updates the Constitution to the new meaning, superseding the old.
-
@ixvedeusi said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
I suppose that means that either the amendment conflicted with other parts of the state constitution, leading to a self-contradictory constitution,
I have forgotten the details, but the opposition, grasping at straws, filed suit claiming that something violated the prescribed process of proposing and adopting amendments. The courts, eager to promote the progressive agenda and having no other basis for overturning it, agreed.
or it was incompatible with some higher-level (e. g. Federal) constitution.
It wasn't at the time, although shortly thereafter five unelected, unaccountable Justices amended the Federal constitution to make it so. (Yeah, they only changed the way the existing words are interpreted, but it's effectively the same thing, except it bypasses the legislative and state ratification process.)
-
@boomzilla said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
No, making "a self-contradictory constitution" is often the point of an amendment, which actually doesn't do that, but updates the Constitution to the new meaning, superseding the old.
The way I'm used to these things working is that the amendment explicitly states "Sections X, Y, Z shall be removed from the constitution and Sections X' and Y' added". If there is a section other than X, Y, or Z which conflicts with what X' or Y' require, you end up with a self-contradictory constitution. In Switzerland, AFAIK an initiative which would require such a change would be declared invalid and not voted upon, and the originators would have to go back to the drawing board and change the initiative text to resolve the conflict.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
I have forgotten the details, but the opposition, grasping at straws, filed suit claiming that something violated the prescribed process of proposing and adopting amendments.
Well ok, "vice de forme" sucks, the solution to that is to make sure you follow the correct procedure when the amendment is proposed, this is just a general property of societies based on rules. It's like some mafia boss not getting convicted because the only incriminating evidence was collected in an illegal manner.
@HardwareGeek said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
It wasn't at the time, although shortly thereafter five unelected, unaccountable Justices amended the Federal constitution to make it so. (Yeah, they only changed the way the existing words are interpreted, but it's effectively the same thing, except it bypasses the legislative and state ratification process.)
I've never understood why you guys across the pond let your judges write your law...
-
@ixvedeusi said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
the solution to that is to make sure you follow the correct procedure when the amendment is proposed, this is just a general property of societies based on rules.
I misremembered the events; I was conflating it with another initiative. This one was upheld by the state courts but ruled unconstitutional by Federal courts, which also held that the backers of the initiative didn't have legal standing to defend it; only the State did, but they refused to because the State government didn't like it and wanted it declared unconstitutional.
-
@ixvedeusi said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
I'd say that's mostly because there's no way for people to take the initiative to propose a change. In general you don't need to demonstrate for a government decision, as the decision has already been made in the way you wanted it.
What I meant was demonstrating before a decision is made. You usually (is my perception) get more people demonstrating against a certain outcome, than in favour of the opposite one. People who dislike something tend to shout more and louder than those who are in favour of it.
@Gurth said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
Or it can lead to even more apathy and ever-reduced voter turnout.
Care to elaborate? I'm not sure how it would.
“Here we go, having to go and vote again.” Voter turnout in this country is not all that high, though it seems to be fairly stable — for parliamentary elections it’s about 80% and has almost always been that way since voting was made voluntary rather than compulsory, but for provincial elections more like 50% and mostly falling (scroll down to point 3 on that page). Turnout for referenda varies widely (see the graph on page 3), but seems to be generally low if the subject isn’t close to home.
I guess that's the trade-off which has to be made. If it's easy to take decisions quickly and firmly, its easy to quickly and firmly decide to undo all that has been quickly and firmly decided in the past, leading to the bipolar swing problem that started this discussion.
That’s true, but in the Dutch case it seems to have largely removed the ability to take firm and quick decisions at all, because anything to be decided must be talked through with all involved. I dread to think what would happen if some other country were to attack the Netherlands. There would probably have to be high-level, all-party talks to decide whether or not to even put the military on alert.
-
@ixvedeusi said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
There's a huge difference in message conveyed between a vote won by 50.02% and a vote won by 99.98%, and it does influence the attitude of the politicians.
In my county, most of the election results were roughly 75:25. Even when both candidates were from the same party, it was 60:40. I didn't look through the entire list of results, but for the relatively major offices, I only saw one that was closer than 55:45.
-
@ixvedeusi said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
I've never understood why you guys across the pond let your judges write your law...
Who's going to stop them? Certainly not the side that benefits from the rewriting. Might as well ask why Iran lets the Ayatollahs run the country.
