Kenkoko said:
irvinehomeowner said:
The issues you mention fall into my localize and privatize suggestion.
Profit is an impetus for innovation and efficiency. Quality is not free.
I agree with that when it comes to issues other than climate change / homelessness. However, there is no profit motivation so solve climate change or homelessness.
Couldn't there be? This is where the smarter people come in. Let's take homelessness because that's less ambiguous than "climate change" and is an issue for everyone.
Currently, there are non-profits that address issues like homelessness that provide meals, shelters, clothing etc. But what if we were to localize some tax to a city/county level that directly funds the homeless? It will take some "marketing" to pass such a measure but if people in Irvine will pay extra taxes to fund building improvements to schools, wouldn't they do that to address this issue? And it would have to be more than just temporary shelter, the program would have to be "bootstrap" re-education, it needs to have elements that would benefit not just the homeless but also the city, like a work program, mental awareness seminars, things that will enable them to progress.
But you have to find people and funding to make this work. I'm not sure why there isn't more of that... and maybe that's the "climate change" issue. Possibly, with much more funding from taxes and charitable contributions to make it worth people's "time", it would gain more traction. There are a multitude of things to try, create an initiative that churches can join together on. Target local businesses, etc. Maybe if there was some UBI program that had a requirement of volunteering for homeless programs.
Automation is purely driven by profit. Don't get me wrong, automation is great for humanity. We just need to deal with the side effect of technological job displacement.
And that's what I keep saying. As smart as those people are who are working on AI, they would be smarter if they also worked on the other side of the equation that AI will affect. They shouldn't just be thinking about how to automate thing to replace humans, but what can humans do better than robots can so jobs are not lost.
I still think that even with robots, there is a way to retain workers so in tandem with automation, we get better service without displacing people. Since you are so pro-AI, don't you worry about how that would affect your other hot topic, homelessness?
I think these kiosks you see at fast food places is a good example of how automation really hasn't caused job loss but has made it more profitable for companies. So at Taco Bell, McDonald's and even Costco, I don't see less people working, I just see less people taking orders from customers. What this does is allow for more volume as they can put more people on the harder to automate tasks such as putting together the food, cleaning the tables, etc. This allows them to service more customers which increases profit (to cover the cost of the kiosks) and without losing jobs.
I'm sure people have thought of all this and the issue is execution, but that's why trying to fund these things at a Federal level will fail. It's too far away from the problem. What the Fed (or the next President) can do is instead of create taxes to address your issues, create laws that requires states/cities to address them. Instead of a Homeless Bill of Rights to protect homeless rights, require states/cities to create programs for them beyond what is currently being done.
Now, if you are still reading the IHO wall of text... let me utopian connect this. What about a "use tax" for companies that use automation to reduce jobs, where that money goes to funding homeless programs?
So your turn. What would you do? Or what is Yang going to do other than UBI?
