President Donald J. Trump: Orange is the New Black, House Slytherin Rises Also Heil Trump!

[Darus Grey]

The jobs left for humans (in America) are still providing near record high median incomes. If you want to argue that wages are stagnant I'm right there with you, but they aren't falling overall.

I'd argue the stagnation is the fall. We see record high productivity and record high growth. Every year we basically see humans having to work harder, work longer, just to stay competitive, meaning that the share of income per unit of productivity *is* falling, even if the wages themselves are high in terms of absolute values, in terms of relative performance they're garbage.

This is us humans trying to stay afloat, because there's now a ceiling on human earnings for productive work. Every year, that ceiling is getting lower, and we attempt to become more productive to compensate, but eventually we'll reach an inversion point and that will collapse.

So yes, I think we're already there, and just ignoring the indicators.

[zoobernut]

You should probably look at the comment you replied to. Did you really need me to quote both?

You should have probably quoted the person you were responding to instead of me. The onus of clarity is on the person making the statement not the person reading it.

I edited my post after I realized what you were referring to. I was simply making a statement that because it isn't readily visible massive gas leaks that have huge environmental impacts are easy to hide and not readily reported on.

[Aerin]

Would it be fair to say that while manufacturing jobs are being lost (due to automation and/or moving jobs out of the country), and that those jobs used to be the backbone of the middle class, they are not anymore. That there are middle class jobs being made today, they just aren't necessarily being created in the same place nor do they require the same skillset. So middle class jobs still exist and in decent numbers, just not in the same place, leaving a big gap in the aforementioned areas.

Could probably have worded that better, but I need lunch.

[archibaldcrane]

I'd argue the stagnation is the fall. We see record high productivity and record high growth.

Growth measured how? We haven't seen a single year of even 3% GDP growth in the US under Obama, nowhere near growth rates we saw at most times in the previous 50 years.

[Darus Grey]

Would it be fair to say that while manufacturing jobs are being lost (due to automation and/or moving jobs out of the country), and that those jobs used to be the backbone of the middle class, they are not anymore. That there are middle class jobs being made today, they just aren't necessarily being created in the same place nor do they require the same skillset. So middle class jobs still exist and in decent numbers, just not in the same place, leaving a big gap in the aforementioned areas.

Could probably have worded that better, but I need lunch.

I think that's fair to say, but the # created isn't equal to the # lost. That's why there's more growth for low wage jobs than there is middle/upper jobs. We're currently in a period where manufacturing is basically entirely automated except in a few places where government policy and labor is basically so inhumanly cheap that humans are still a better deal.

Automation however doesn't just squeeze out manufacturing, automation has squeezed out large portions of traditionally middle-manager jobs(low level accountants, lawyers, etc), and is currently on track to eliminate most high scale work(non-surgical doctors are in serious jeopardy in the near future).

The more humans are paid, the higher the price pressure is to replace them as quickly as possible.

Growth measured how? We haven't seen a single year of even 3% GDP growth in the US under Obama, nowhere near growth rates we saw at most times in the previous 50 years.

Profit per unit of paid labor. Companies have never been more profitable for paying people so little. GDP isn't entirely relevant to this conversation because it's a measure of the country not a measure of companies.

[Andalusian girls]

Would it be fair to say that while manufacturing jobs are being lost (due to automation and/or moving jobs out of the country), and that those jobs used to be the backbone of the middle class, they are not anymore. That there are middle class jobs being made today, they just aren't necessarily being created in the same place nor do they require the same skillset. So middle class jobs still exist and in decent numbers, just not in the same place, leaving a big gap in the aforementioned areas.

Could probably have worded that better, but I need lunch.

more than fair, and it is said so often economists came up with a term for it in disruption or disruptive innovation. despite fears that are now several centuries old there is zero empirical evidence technological advancement, including automation, leads to an increase in structural or long-term unemployment. they instead lead to a reorientation of job composition within the market they have disrupted.

[Darus Grey]

more than fair, and it is said so often economists came up with a term for it in disruption or disruptive innovation. despite fears that are now several centuries old there is zero empirical evidence technological advancement, including automation, leads to an increase in structural or long-term unemployment. they instead lead to a reorientation of job composition within the market they have disrupted.

A "reorientation" to low wage work. This is the economic doublespeak we use to reassure ourselves. Yeah, it hasn't led to an increase in total unemployment, but that's a quantitative argument, not a qualitative one.

Again, if the trend continues, the past doesn't matter, because there is an inversion point where automation is better at almost everything, and we're in the middle of that change.

AI will basically chase humans out of every job field until there's nothing left, and there's nothing wrong with that, but not preparing for that future now is basically as dumb as how we treat climate change in general. We see it, it's obvious, and yet we do almost nothing(as a society in general).

[Byrthnoth]

Leaked for about 3.5 months, total climate damage from leaked methane over a 20-year time frame is about equivalent to the damage two coal power plants operating normally do in a year.

So it would take roughly one natural gas plant operating normally for 4 years (instead of a coal plant) to mitigate the damage of that leak - the worst methane leak in US history.

Methane leaks are definitely something that should be closely regulated, but the idea that methane leaks wipe out natural gas's climate advantage over coal isn't borne out by the available data at all.

Natural gas is 1.22 Pounds of CO2/kWh
Coal is ~2.12 Pounds of CO2/kWh

So it would be, optimistically, a 40% reduction in carbon emissions. If Methane is a 25x better insulator/heat trapper than CO2 (I misremembered 20x earlier and some people say up to 35x), then leaking 0.04 pounds of methane per kWh would counterbalance this difference. 1 kWh takes about 10 cubic feet of methane to generate, which is about 0.44 pounds of methane. So as long as they're not leaking 10% of their fuel into the atmosphere, they're probably doing better than coal in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and would certainly be doing better in terms of air quality.

It's better, but you're talking about revamping all the power plants in the US to use a fuel that we don't have a sufficient supply chain for so that we can do a maximum of 40% better than the current state of affairs (while causing earthquakes everywhere.)



Obviously this is something we can do now and might be an environmentally-friendly move that Trump would allow, so it's something we should encourage. However, lets not act like natural gas is without significant drawbacks or that we even know what % is lost between harvesting it and burning it. TBQH I suspect the most environmentally-friendly thing Trump is going to do is drive us into a recession.

Here, UCS has another article: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/c...of-natural-gas

[Andalusian girls]

A "reorientation" to low wage work. This is the economic doublespeak we use to reassure ourselves. Yeah, it hasn't led to an increase in total unemployment, but that's a quantitative argument, not a qualitative one.

Again, if the trend continues, the past doesn't matter, because there is an inversion point where automation is better at almost everything, and we're in the middle of that change.

AI will basically chase humans out of every job field until there's nothing left, and there's nothing wrong with that, but not preparing for that future now is basically as dumb as how we treat climate change in general. We see it, it's obvious, and yet we do almost nothing(as a society in general).

inflation-adjusted median wages have risen, albeit modestly, since 1970, or 2000, or whatever point you consider automation to have started hollowing out the economy. moreover inflation-adjusted wage growth is an insufficient measure of total remuneration for labor as non-wage benefits (particularly those dealing with soaring healthcare costs) have risen at greater rates than has wage growth.

you are correct to say productivity has increased far faster than even these combined benefits increases, but growth in productivity almost always outpaces growth in total compensation. and if you fear America's income inequality i would point you to European and Asian societies with far lower levels of inequality that have similar or even greater degrees of automation.

as a final note while America partially masks this phenomenon by importing much of our labor force through immigration global trendlines are clear (particularly in the West), population growth is declining to the point many western societies have entered periods of absolute decline and increased automation will be a necessity as the labor force participation rate continues to trend downward in all first world societies and an ever smaller quantity of workers support an ever larger quantity of retirees.

and the singularity may be nigh but i do not find your worries that AI will chase humans out of every job field until there are none left credible.

[zoobernut]

Natural gas is 1.22 Pounds of CO2/kWh
Coal is ~2.12 Pounds of CO2/kWh

So it would be, optimistically, a 40% reduction in carbon emissions. If Methane is a 25x better insulator/heat trapper than CO2 (I misremembered 20x earlier and some people say up to 35x), then leaking 0.04 pounds of methane per kWh would counterbalance this difference. 1 kWh takes about 10 cubic feet of methane to generate, which is about 0.44 pounds of methane. So as long as they're not leaking 10% of their fuel into the atmosphere, they're probably doing better than coal in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and would certainly be doing better in terms of air quality.

It's better, but you're talking about revamping all the power plants in the US to use a fuel that we don't have a sufficient supply chain for so that we can do a maximum of 40% better than the current state of affairs (while causing earthquakes everywhere.)



Obviously this is something we can do now and might be an environmentally-friendly move that Trump would allow, so it's something we should encourage. However, lets not act like natural gas is without significant drawbacks or that we even know what % is lost between harvesting it and burning it. TBQH I suspect the most environmentally-friendly thing Trump is going to do is drive us into a recession.

Here, UCS has another article: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/c...of-natural-gas

Does this also take into account the natural gas leaked into the atmosphere during acquisition? That seems to be overlooked. People mention leaks at the power plant level but they can't capture 100% of the gas brought to the surface.

[archibaldcrane]

It's better, but you're talking about revamping all the power plants in the US to use a fuel that we don't have a sufficient supply chain for so that we can do a maximum of 40% better

Not all, just the remaining 30% of the grid that is coal powered, as best we can. But it is why we need price supports for nuclear and subsidies for intermittent renewables, because while natural gas will continue to eat coal's lunch naturally, it will also gobble up cleaner sources (especially nuclear) as well if we don't protect them economically.

Basically I'm advocating pragmatism. Coal < Gas < Nuclear, sprinkle in wind and solar as available.

[Ragnus]

I do still hope that we as a country can pull our heads out of our asses. With the geological variance we enjoy in it's plausible to have solar power supply the western half of the nation while wind farms power the east. Until then, nuclear is the best way to go as long as we continue to have responsible means of dealing with waste.

Hell, I saw a mockup that suggested that we could devote about 2% of our nation's land mass to solar power and have enough to power the whole nation's grid, minus Hawaii and Alaska.

[archibaldcrane]

Except for the need for massive storage for those intermittent renewables which isn't even in the infancy stage at that scale, and the fact that electricity rates would skyrocket with current tech.

It looks like the Trump team is inquiring about making another go at Yucca mountain now that Harry Reid is gone, which is great.

[zoobernut]

The other issue is that renewables in their current incarnation are not nearly as environmentally friendly as people think they are when set up in large scale. Small scale solar and wind power more localized or even individually installed on each building/house does well but large scale wind and solar farms wreak havoc on the environment specially with respect to wildlife. And yeah distribution and storage of power is an issue as always with respect to our power grid.

[archibaldcrane]

Nothing says environmentalist like paving square miles with solar panels.

http://wikidee.org/uploads/10813/fil...ar-farm12.jpeg

[dasva]

I think it's a bit silly to say "we're basically already to the point where automation is rendering human labor obsolete" when unemployment is at 4.6%.

Oh yeah well I think it's a bit silly to use unemployment rate in a talk about how much human labor is needed. If human labor is becoming obsolete I'd imagine quite a few of those displaced wouldn't be in the labor pool to be counted. That said ever so slowly the percentage of the population over 15 that is employed is creeping back up and is still higher than any point before the mid 80s.

[Byrthnoth]

Does this also take into account the natural gas leaked into the atmosphere during acquisition? That seems to be overlooked. People mention leaks at the power plant level but they can't capture 100% of the gas brought to the surface.

No, that's what I said wasn't known earlier. The EPA only started regulating methane emissions in 2015 and there's just not comprehensive data yet, which is too bad because that means there probably won't be for at least 4 years.

The UCS actually estimates natural gas would have to be a >96.8% yield process (3.2% atmospheric leakage) to be superior to coal in terms of greenhouse gases. To be a superior replacement for car gasoline/diesel, the estimate is closer to 99% yield.

[dasva]

The other issue is that renewables in their current incarnation are not nearly as environmentally friendly as people think they are when set up in large scale. Small scale solar and wind power more localized or even individually installed on each building/house does well but large scale wind and solar farms wreak havoc on the environment specially with respect to wildlife. And yeah distribution and storage of power is an issue as always with respect to our power grid.

Not to mention the sheer space a lot of those take for the power generated that gets effected and the sheer ranges they have on that. I believe the largest capacity US solar plant is Solar Star of course in SoCal. According to the wiki page it is generating about 1.65 million mwh last year and seems to be on track for similar amount this year over 3200 acres facility or about 515.625 mwh per acre per year. According to the EIA we consumed about 37.6 billion mwh last year. Doing some math that means if you built a ton of plants with the same efficiency it would cover ~73 million acres.. or roughly a little less than half of California or about 3.8% contiguous US assuming we could find that much land with that much sunlight and as good of terrain for building without too much wildlife or people (fairly doubtful given there is a reason most of the big plants in the US already exist in SoCal and some are already running into issues of being too close to other plants, people or wildlife/parks) not counting space/lost efficiency from storage facilities, DC convertors, transmission etc. Next biggest ones are Ivanpah which is generated about 185.7 mwh per acre last year (and significantly less the year before. Also consumed about 600 million cubic feet of natural gas too) and Topaz at about 191 mwh per acre last year. All of these of course in sunny Socal. These 3 are also some of the newer (completed 2014-2016) more advanced designs at full operation

Then there is the materials. 2 of the ones above use Cadmium telluride PV because it's cheaper and shorter energy buy back as well as other things making it better. However both elements are toxic particularly the Cadmium. You can recycle to minimize the local impact but California doesn't really have any plans to do with all the solar it's put in over the decades. Then there's the toxic rare earth/heavy metals in the converters and the storage systems and well a lot of "green" technology as well as most newer electronics. Probably could also recycle those too but the real problem comes production for new. It's pretty nasty business mining up and chemical separating these metals out. As such most the world doesn't do it much so China takes one for the team by literally having 85% (used to be around 97%) of the worlds production. It's however causing massive environmental issues over in China that threaten to become the worst environmental disaster. China seems to actually be caring about killing all it's people now and is trying to reduce production... but the US got mad and filed a complaint with the WTO.

The 3rd one up there CSP. It can avoid or minimize a lot of the above issues But as noted that plant doesn't have a thermal energy storage so uses a lot of natural gas for backup. It's falling by the wayside though as PV has been rapidly dropping in price in the last decade or so while it has only slightly gotten better

If you look at big a picture as you do for coal... well coal is still much worse (especially in china) but solar (and for some similar reasons wind) aren't currently as friendly as the end product seems. Geothermal from what little I've looked into seems pretty great... but somewhat location limited. Hydro pretty good too... except that whole flooding an area for a dam thing. They fail incredibly rarely though and are fairly useful as reservoir/water control

[thetruepandagod]

as a final note while America partially masks this phenomenon by importing much of our labor force through immigration global trendlines are clear (particularly in the West), population growth is declining to the point many western societies have entered periods of absolute decline and increased automation will be a necessity as the labor force participation rate continues to trend downward in all first world societies and an ever smaller quantity of workers support an ever larger quantity of retirees.

So if I get rid of old people I also get rid of the brown people?

[myreality]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.0bdf23689645

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”