Immigration vs Atomization

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's exactly what atomization means.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atomize

To atomize something is often used, in the nuclear weapons and nuclear physics communities, to refer to an effect of nuclear weapon explosions.

So since the OP said

Originally posted by Sable
Who will win the war of cheap labor?

You didn't read it? skipped straight to Jadens post about the spelling error, and had no clue what was going on and assumed immigration vs atomization means nuking immigrants when the OP says otherwise. I don't buy it.

Originally posted by Sable
So since the OP said

You didn't read it? skipped straight to Jadens post about the spelling error, and had no clue what was going on and assumed immigration vs atomization means nuking immigrants when the OP says otherwise. I don't buy it.

Originally posted by Sable
So since the OP said

You didn't read it? skipped straight to Jadens post about the spelling error, and had no clue what was going on and assumed immigration vs atomization means nuking immigrants when the OP says otherwise. I don't buy it.

So you don't think that your use of "war" could in any way lead someone to conclude that your use of atomization may, juuust might...lead someone to conclude that you wanted to atomize immigrants?

You're trying too hard. You f*cked up, man. No big deal! It has been clarified. Why make it a big deal? Just pay attention a bit more and you'll not end up confusing people who think the words you post are the words you meant.

Edit - You do realize that this "skipping the OP" means nothing, right? One of the options is "immigration." Trying to inject the idea that i skipped the OP and how no idea this was about immigration labor makes no sense. Again, you're trying too hard to cover up an atrocious misspelling.

War of cheap labor? That means nuclear war to you? Auto correct and not catching it isn't atrocious spelling. Its an auto correct jumping to a different conclusion then intended.

The OP clearly states "Who will win the war of cheap labor"

Originally posted by Sable
In oder for UBI be helpful to anyone, it would have to be around $10-12k a year per individual.

Since SS is already basically bankrupt, where is that money going to come from, and who is going to pay it?

I don't know. Let me be clear, I'm not saying that I'm in favor of UBI to occur right now. I'm simply saying that a time will come when the option is between UBI or mass poverty. And that time will come because of automation.

Why don't they just make a law that makes automation illegal? Since it puts people out of jobs, and can make peoples lives worse. That would be a constitutional argument.

Originally posted by BackFire
I don't know. Let me be clear, I'm not saying that I'm in favor of UBI to occur right now. I'm simply saying that a time will come when the option is between UBI or mass poverty. And that time will come because of automation.

*atomization

Look at the coal industry as a micro example. Those jobs are going away due to a machine doing the job of what 50 men would do, not because of immigrants.

Sure it's a dying industry, but automation was killing the jobs long before solar and wind took a bite.

Originally posted by Sable
Why don't they just make a law that makes automization illegal? Since it puts people out of jobs, and can make peoples lives worse. That would be a constitutional argument.

That wouldn't work and would cause a whole other slate of problems. If we made it illegal, other countries would not, and it would offer such enormous savings to companies that there'd be a mass exodus out of America to these other countries, causing potentially even worse economic results.

The sad fact is that automation is progress, there is no stopping it. It's going to happen one way or another, and we either need to be ready and prepared for it when the time comes, or it will cause a national/global catastrophe.

Originally posted by Robtard
Look at the coal industry as a micro example. Those jobs are going away due to a machine doing the job of what 50 men would do, not because of immigrants.

Sure it's a dying industry, but automation was killing the jobs long before solar and wind took a bite.

Coal is one thing, there are only so many jobs, but automation, can replace virtualy millions and millions of jobs.

Homebuilding, with 3D printing
Car manufacturing
Steel manufacturing
Farming
Fast food
Service industry
Solar industry
etc etc

*that automation

The Price of Progress is that Humanity is orchestrating its own march to obsolescent.

At the rate we're going atomisation will come long before automation anyway so it's fine.

Originally posted by Sable
The OP clearly states "Who will win the war of cheap labor"

Yup, it was immigrants vs. atomization. You're fault. Be more careful in the future. 👆

OP is a moron (shocker), I assumed the same as dadu until I read Jaden's post, and frankly, was surprised that Jaden managed to work it out. 😘

And since when do the OP's blatherings ever make sense?

anyway I chose the nuclear option. 😘

Originally posted by Beniboybling
OP is a moron (shocker), I assumed the same as dadu until I read Jaden's post, and frankly, was surprised that Jaden managed to work it out. 😘

And since when do the OP's blatherings ever make sense?

Genius, me.

YouTube video

Originally posted by jaden101
YouTube video

*assuming the robot is made outside the US*

"Dey tuk err jebs!"

Both are needed for different roles, if you have a nation producing not enough highly skilled workers Immigrants are key, like the teacher and nurse shortage in the U.K. now.

Automation, on the other hand, is going to be more and more self-contained in the future as eventually, we have manufacturing facilities in shops and perhaps even our homes (3 D Printers). Many tasks will simply become prefabricated, I see giant rolling factories building houses in a future nearer than people think.