>>11560746>the minimum wage you're advocating for would be very damagingAND TARIFFS AREN'T?!
>what's stopping companies from using themWell once they have a robot be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly, then absolutely nothing.
We both agree such progress is inevitable.
The difference is I know that a single machine capable of doing all of the above is effectively a human being ANYWAYS, trading flesh people for robot people, and that automating each of those activities separately are herculean tasks in their own right.
It's clear you've never seen a Roomba operate if you think people will trust automation with "simple" task like diapering a baby.
And no, I'm not regressing, I actually went back and looked shit up!
The original Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act couldn't have caused the Great Depression because it was passed right at the beginning, but it was just the last of DOZENS of Tariff Acts over the preceding decades.
>what jobs are the millions of unemployed people going to get as AI/robotics continues replacing jobs?I don't know, I'm not a job councilor or have any experience in the dozens if not hundreds of fields you keep adding to your list.
I can't be "competitively employed" in the first place, and THAT was a DECADE AND A HALF ago!
>great depressions tariffs you keep referring to was ~20%.Really?
Because the Dingley Act averaged 47% over its lifetime, starting off at 52%/
>>11561050>What are you guys even arguing about at this point?Me: Tariffs not good, especially when Orange Man uses them as recklessly swung sledgehammers.
Him: Tariffs will RETURN US TO TRADITION! People need to work for a living, so we should all become Luddites!
