[ExI] ai and job loss

[Adrian Tymes]

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:18 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Sure but this was a big project, so it took time, so the Australian builders had to live somewhere during the construction project, and good chance they chose to live close by.  We are told that diversity is a good thing and immigration is a good thing, so... he accomplished both, along with improving the neighborhood, since Australian construction workers are unlikely to accept the living conditions available in the area.

Temporary, migrant workers aren't what people mean by "immigration" or
"diversity".  And if the workers were just there for the project, then
they'd have to have accepted whatever living conditions were
available, with no time or materials to spend improving them, knowing
that they would move on afterward.

>>...They object, but are powerless.  He openly bribed every level of government needed to make the complaints go away...
>
> Sure but that is the fault of the government official, rather than the guy who was buying them.  What you and I see as a bribe might be seen by the politicians as a donation to their family charity, which is perfectly legal, moral, ethical and can even be arranged to be anonymous.  Canada has a number of charities that arrange this kind of thing.

Yes, but the people the government represents are still up a creek
regardless of how the government tries to justify it.  (And it wasn't
a donation to family charities.  It was a check - or maybe cash -
straight to the relevant departments.)

>>...No, seriously.  Every time a government agency was thinking of objecting, he handed them a large amount of money, and they issued a certification saying they had no objections...
>
> Did he hand THEM money, or was it their family charity, and he offered a generous donation?

Them, straight up.  No charity or other such dodge.

>>...He tried to hide the fact that he and his family were actually living there, for years...
>
> What's wrong with that?  Wouldn't you do likewise?  I would.

Only if I thought that my living there would not garner community
support.  You were saying his neighbors would like him; if he thought
otherwise, he might have reason to.

>>>... I am happy with my choice: California is a good state.
>
>>...There's talk of denying federal money to states with sanctuary cities.
> I'd like to see what happens if Trump and Congress seriously attempt to shut off all federal money - including Social Security and Medicare - to California because of San Francisco and other cities...
>
> Social Security and Medicare are not welfare; they are entitlements.  The fed does not have the authority to withhold that based on sanctuary cities.

The suggestions are that they do it anyway, legal or not, authority or not.

>>>... Before I criticize Mukesh Ambani or claim he failed to set up a school ...
>
>>... it does not appear to be the case...it is nearly impossible to learn job skills when you are starving.
>
> Ja, the fact that the masses are starving in Mumbai is not the rich guy's fault and he can do little to fix it.

Sure he can.  For instance, he could have not intervened and allowed
the school to be set up there.

> His building a castle in the middle of it didn't make it worse, it is the start of making it better.

That does not appear to be the case.  His building that castle
directly caused a school to not be built, and there is no sign of any
amelioration (such as free wifi) to address that.

> If for instance, the local officials decided to build there a school for the poor, that would make the overcrowding and poverty even worse

That seems highly unlikely.  It's not like more people would move
there, or have more kids, just to take advantage of the school.

> My theory is that the rich guy didn't slay the orphans who once terrorized the local streets, but rather made arrangements for them to be relocated to a safer neighborhood.

What facts are available say he did no such thing.  He didn't slay the
orphans, he just caused them to become homeless.  They're still there.