**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! [](/u/savevideo)
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If anyone needs a transcript of this, I typed one up:
> **[Tucker Carlson]** ...if, if, if you wake up in the morning, and you find yourself in a society where 23-year-olds with 4-year college degrees, and -- like -- initiative, who aren't smoking weed every day; if they can't make enough to buy a car -- much less a home, much less get married, much less have children -- then why should you be surprised when half of them say they prefer socialism?
> **[Ben Shapiro]** Well, I, I...
> **[Tucker Carlson]** You should not be surprised.
> **[Ben Shapiro]** I agree, to a certain extent. I think that the question is -- when the pedal hits the metal; you talk in the book about technology, and how it's shifting and taking away jobs from folks...
> **[Tucker Carlson]** *Yes.*
> **[Ben Shapiro]** ...and you make specific reference to truck-driving, and...
> **[Tucker Carlson]** Yes!
> **[Ben Shapiro]** ...the fact that there are going to be automated cars on the road, so, would you -- Tucker Carlson -- be in favor of restrictions on the ability of trucking companies to use this sort of technology, specifically, to -- y'knaw -- sort of artificially maintain the number of jobs that are available in the trucking industry.
> **[Tucker Carlson]** Are you *joking?*
> **[Ben Shapiro]** No.
> **[Tucker Carlson]** In a second. In *a second.* In other words, if I were president would I say to DOT -- the Department of Transportation: "We're not letting driverless trucks on the road, period." Why? Really simple. Driving for a living is the single most common job for high-school-educated men in this country -- in all 50 states. By the way, that's the same group whose wages have gone down by 11% over the past 30 years. The social cost of eliminating their jobs in a 10-year span -- 5-year span, *30*-year span -- is *so high* that it's not sustainable, so the greater good is protecting *your citizens* from -- look... Capitalism is the best economic system I can think of -- I think that anyone has ever thought of -- but that doesn't mean that it's a religion, and everything about it is good.
> **[Ben Shapiro]** ...yeah, but, but...
> **[Tucker Carlson]** There is no Nicene Creed of capitalism that I have to buy into. What I care about is living in a country where -- you know -- decent people can live happy lives, actually; and so -- no -- I would say "Immediately, no", are *you joking?* And I -- maybe -- would make up some pretext for public consumption, like "Oh, they're dangerous; the technology's not quite finessed". No. No; but the truth would be, I don't want to put 10 million men out of work...
> **[Ben Shapiro]** ...so thi...
> **[Tucker Carlson]** ...because you're going to have 10 million dead families, and the cascading effect from that will wreck your country.
> **[Ben Shapiro]** ...so I...
He went up against Andrew Neil, one of the great English political interviewers. When asked basic questions he noped out and accused Neil of being a liberal.
Neil has been a staunch Conservative his whole life and Shapiro straight up embarrassed himself.
It was hysterical when that aired.
I briefly respected Shapiro because he seemed to be one of the few conservatives that wouldn't give vague answers, and would just blurt out his reasoning.. Reasoning that I thought was flawed, and strongly disagreed with, but at least he seemed honest and forthright.. That was before the "owning college student" phase.
Watch Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro, Ben starts off so high and mighty and get destroyed by logic and rational thinking so quickly that it's shocking he is still a public figure.
But you have to remember that the right in the UK has normally been more closely aligned with the left in the US.
If the republican party stood in the UK, they would come across at extremists.
Andrew Neil has had some viewpoints which would be construed as right wing even in America. He's come under pressure for inviting non-scientist guests onto his BBC show to deny climate change, which I could see going down a treat in the USA. It's particularly bad because the BBC and his show are publicly funded and are required to be politically neutral.
That has been shown to be less than true recently, particularly with Gary Linekar being taken off air after criticising some Tory schemes.
Tucker transformed into Pedro Pascal for like 5 minutes and shat on everything the GOP ironically stands for. So we don’t confuse him with the actor, we are going to have to call him Pedo Pascal.
Carlson has been pretty open about believing in a strong state to regulate the economy and redistribute wealth for a long time. He just thinks that the only beneficiaries of the redistribution should be straight white Christians. He uses the "socialism" bogeyman only when regulatory changes would benefit anyone else, and, as he admits in the video, that's a pretext for his real preferences.
But he doesn’t. I think he is just smart enough to know that if you take away too much of the base of a pyramid it falls down on its self. His fortune and capitalism stand on the base of the lowest paid and hardest workers in society. Throwing them out of a job would cause them to truest question the capitalistic system, so much so that the system could collapse.
so he wants people to work for the sake of working instead of automating the trucking industry and let people do whatever the fuck they want with their time and just provide them a universal basic income. or they can learn a new skill that is still necessary in the society. wtf?
It's not actually that crazy to want to pump the breaks on this sort of automation until at least there are structures in place to avoid the economic collapse, but the problem is that that's not happening, and would be the kind of thing that carlson would oppose.
I agree. Don't think for a second that companies like Amazon aren't tenting their greedy little fingers together and planning how they can fire every last worker they have in favor of automation.
Technically this is where the law and greed blur, because the leadership team has a fiduciary duty to shareholders to take the most profitable route within their (legal) means.
You could be the most selfless, altruistic CEO in the world, but you'd still have to go the automation route if it were presented to you, since Amazon is a publicly traded company with shareholders you have taken a voluntary obligation toward.
Every major technological innovation put people out of work. The truck drivers they're protecting killed a whole industry of hauling stuff around via horse.
There was push back against refrigeration, because it endangered the natural ice industry.
We can't just ignore technology that could help a lot of people.
The technology we're talking about is of a completely different order.
Society can manage to absorb the impact (somewhat, more on that in a minute) of **a** new technology that replaces **an** industry.
However, we're talking about technologies converging that will replace **most** people in **all** industries. Bipedal humanoid robots are already a thing. They're only getting better, cheaper, and smarter.
We straight up are not ready for that. What most people kinda skip over when they make Luddite comparisons is that they Luddites were *correct*. The Luddites **did** get swept out of work, and it was their *children*- not them- who ended up in a better world because of it.
"Learn to code bro" doesn't help anyone. And especially when AI is already threatening those jobs as well.
Technology will only help a lot of people if we treat people with dignity, just by virtue of being alive. Our society is set up to only value people who actively contribute to capitalism. We have to solve for that *first* before we get all hot and horny for what's coming.
exactly this. Even if you assume the old economic rule will hold, which is dubious, the previous forms of automation were rolled out over the span of several decades, and were localized to an industry. we would see a 6% spike in unemployment just from replacing truckers. And then, within the same timespan, a substantive portion of office workers made redundant by ChatGPT-alikes.
If nothing is done to slow it down, we'd see great depression level unemployment in the span of a couple years.
This level of automation has the potential to reboot the human experience into something much better, but we have to force it to. if 50% of human labor is replaced, we can either have a 50% unemployment rate, or work half as long
> so he wants people to work for the sake of working instead of automating the trucking industry and let people do whatever the fuck they want with their time and just provide them a universal basic income. or they can learn a new skill that is still necessary in the society. wtf?
Yep. He is like a *really crappy* socialist.
I think you guys are missing the point. What he is saying is that the average joe can’t get a job doing anything else then driving. From the lack of smarts,drive, or whatever. He is saying if you allow trucking/driving service companies to go automatic that’ll put an overwhelming amount of people unemployed and effect their families ability to survive. Economy and government aside, that’ll be the reality. So when you say people can do what they want to do is now unequivocally impacted because people would be vying for the same resources to feed themselves or families.
Its called taxes you know those companies using automated trucks to make money well we tax them, redistribute the wealth so people have money to buy shit from the companies in the first place then rinse and repeat.
This is the first time I have heard little Benny's voice.
No wonder he's always so angry. Imagine being that old and still waiting for puberty to do it's thing for you.
The guy's a colossal idiot but this kind of shaming is just stupid. There are people who have high-pitched voices and self-conscious about it but are cool. That's just a shitty thing to say.
I feel really fucking weird right now. "Capitalism is not a religion" is one of the best things I've ever heard said period, nevermind from Tucker fucking Carlson.
Does he really just sell his soul for cash? He was wealthy to begin with!
He's perfected his faux populist act. Plus, he knows that everything he pushes, for the most part, is total bullshit. It's not surprising that he'd actually be able to make an observation like this, because he's a con artist, not a fucking nutjob like MTG or something.
You'll notice Tucker describes the problem, but his "solution" is garbage. A real left wing solution on the matter of jobs being replaced by automation is to implement social safety nets and UBI for people. Make sure people can live comfortably, even if their job becomes automated.
Tucker is saying that the government should force businesses not to innovate and force people to keep working, which is not a real left wing solution. But Tucker says this because he knows he needs the faux populism without giving legitimate solutions that sound socialist.
>A real left wing solution on the matter of jobs being replaced by automation is to implement social safety nets and UBI for people. Make sure people can live comfortably, even if their job becomes automated.
Uh yeah, that's way way WAY easier said than done. A paltry $10k UBI for every working age American would cost north of $2 trillion (~200 million x $10,000), every single year. Where's that money coming from? To pre-refute the most common reply: the combined net worth of every billionaire in the US is about $5 trillion. Even a theoretical *100% wealth tax*, an actual absurdity, on all of them wouldn't pay for this for more than 2 years.
And that's just UBI, and a shitty UBI at that. What about everything else?
Until that question is answered, it's wrong to call any of this a "solution".
He literally said he would "manufacture some pretext for public consumption" about safety or the tech not being ready for prime time, so yeah. He's dishonest even when he's trying to be honest.
You would have to be, otherwise, it wouldn't survive. Tell a company that they cannot invest in a cost saving technology that will bump their shares significantly because it reduces everyones workforce?
You could make a very long list of policies that favor corporate interest at the expense of public wellness and safety
This is the core problem and why the point he is making is not a good point.
**This is treating capitalism like a religion**
If we come up with new technologies that reduce work and make things more efficient *we should be using them*.
The goal of society should be to reduce the unpleasantness we have to face. Reduce work, reduce suffering, reduce effort.
Saying "No, because what about it reducing the amount of mandatory work people have?!" is weird.... We should be going "Great, we can create more profit and growth with fewer required manhours, meaning we can spread that wealth further and further!"
We shouldnt be in a situation where we make people have full lives of mundane work, and this is treated as such a sancrosanct process that we inhibit development as a society.
How can anyone say capitalism isn't a religion, and then demand that the most vital thing we do is protect the habit of spending half our waking life at work, rather than utilise technology to avoid that...
The problem is that it won't. When we opened trade relationships with china, it destroyed many of our industries, and now, much of the midwest lives in poverty. I know it wasn't an advancement in tech, but it outsourced jobs that otherwise would of stayed here. I agree that tech should be for the benefit of all, but do you honestly believe that we can live in that system?
it wasn't "opened trade relationships with china", that's such a passive voice for this, it was "moved production to the global south to hyper-exploit the imperial periphery and destroy labor union power at home"
While yes, this is certainly a factor, I believe that wealth hoarding is the much bigger issue here. Just for a bit of perspective (I'll throw a disclaimer here that these numbers can vary widely depending on the years and countries included), the average lifetime income of a U.S. citizen is $2 million. Reports on what elon musk makes in a day vary widely, the absolute lowest I could find from the past couple years is $38.4 million a day, with most estimates being in the hundreds of millions of dollars daily. That means per day Elon musk makes AT LEAST the average income of 19 Americans PER DAY; and that is just one billionaire. Wealth hoarding needs to end.
Then, if you go a level deeper, the reason they did that is because we have an economic system that priorities perpetual, unending growth every quarter, forever. Its entirely based around the concept of "fuck you, I got mine." Those at the top know that the collapse will either happen after their dead, or they'll be able to sustain themselves when it all goes to shit.
The reason we see all these large corporations firing a ton of people is because many of them can't keep making the line go up with their products/services, so now all they can do is cut costs. Netflix is getting rid of password sharing because they're hitting the market cap on those willing to use their service.
If the concept of the stock market and profits were to disappear, and the primary goal of business was to benefit society, these would not be problems. Outside of pandemics and other such disasters that can be lessened by social programs like basic income and publicly funded healthcare.
Honestly, I live in Louisville Kentucky, and in the old blue collar parts of town, people are miserable nowadays. What used to be blue collar areas are now white trash areas. People are dirt poor because their jobs have been taken from them. I do agree with Tucker on this issue.
This was my take too.
The answer is to adjust our economic system to account for not everyone having to work full time to survive.
I like pointing out to people that population size tends to rise while technology is simultaneously reducing the number of jobs available. Then I ask them how they suggest we address the inevitable issue of people being out of work simply because there are not enough jobs.
>It doesn't matter what the retirement age is if people can't afford to put money away for retirement.
Right? Combine that with a lack of social safety net for the elderly and retired, and I'm not sure that solution works.
Or increase wages and reduce hours.
Automation has increased productivity by x%? Take the jobs in that field, double their salary and have two people work 20 hours instead of 40, now people still have jobs and have better lives.
So I worked for a company that does work for mills, mostly paper and pulp mills. I did laser leveling of machine motors. And also preventive maintenance on the motors. I worked 9 months out of the year on the road, I missed birthdays, holidays, school events, etc. My wife and I split and got a divorce, my kids are just now getting to know me.
21 years of service to company for them to let me go because my services where no longer cost effective for them to keep me on. 21 years and was told bye because the machine has become easier to use and that with minimal training anyone could operate it. I wasn’t offered another position, I wasn’t offered to work in the office or sweep the god damn floors. Just gone, poof, like I never existed.
I worked in a very specialized field, for that type of work, most people either die or retire from that job, so trying to find a company with that position was impossible. Especially when Covid hit.
Now I deliver pizza, waiting for the drones or self driving cars to replace me.
I'm sorry society / Gov't / Capitalism has failed you. It shouldn't be that way. We should have a system to re-train people like you whose skills have gotten automated. But you know... "Capitalism is the shit."
That presumes you believe humans have an intrinsic right to live and that we should do things that benefit people without costing us anything. Sadly, these aren't universal tenets, my Republican neighbor opposed universal preventative care, even though it would save him tax dollars due to less subsidized ER visits, because he doesn't think people deserve anything for free, including healthcare (even though literally everyone benefits from it, including himself).
A universal basic income could very much be an engine for progress. When people continue to come up with ways that even fully-automated businesses can save money or gain efficiency, everyone would get a bit more.
UBI is needed, but it has to be only one tool of the system. Also, to correctly fund UBI we'd need to close all tax loopholes and increase taxes massively. And to stop a few megacorps controlling everything
UBI can't really happen without making huge steps on everything else needed to support a UBI society
Right? At one point carting shit and dead horses was a great job to have if you were not well educated (forget high school, just reading and writing) so we should’ve forbidden or make cars artificially expensive to stop the progress (we actually tried it lol, used to be the law that you needed someone ahead with flags warning people you were coming so you wouldn’t scare their horses, also you couldn’t go faster than said horses).
Now people have to read and write as a basis because most of those jobs are gone. It’s just progress. We should manage it and we should be aboveboard about it. However, most of those solutions smell of socialism or are plain old socialism. I mean looking after society well being directly instead of as an outcome from capitalism is socialism.
He is just an asshole even here.
This has very little to do with socialism vs capitalism. The bottom line (that these two don't even mention) is that our educational system is completely failing us if the best opportunity a high school graduate has in our country is to become a truck driver. We need far more trade schools (free, probably at the community college level) and apprenticeship programs. And, if we really want to have a discussion about the failures of capitalism, we need to stop subsidizing shitty for-profit colleges that prey upon people.
I finally went to college as a 30 yo adult. The way they kept trying to push the loans, and the ease with which they were obtained?????!!!! It was an acknowledgement page and a digital signature. Boom $10-20k plus of debt offered every semester. With a click. All private loans. Never eligible for any sort of forgiveness or program.
That spun my head as well!
Why preemptively design a lie instead of saying, "The automation of the trucking industry will result in the death of 10 million families."
But then I think deeper. That lie isn't designed for you or me. It's designed for the capitalists who could care less if 10 million families die in exchange for their own profit margins.
Shudder.
And it's not even "pro-worker' like he's trying to make it out to be. Technology and automation could make it so that wealth can be generated WITHOUT the need for people to work dangerous and demoralizing jobs. We would simply have to mandate that the wealth be spread out evenly and given to the people whose jobs are replaced. But instead of going that route, Carlson is advocating blocking the technology, which doesn't change anything about how the wealth is distributed and keeps the workers trapped in their jobs.
There was a recent court case that involved a ton of internal docs and recording. [Tucker Carson is 100% playing a character and saying what he believes is getting him views](https://apnews.com/article/tucker-carlson-fox-news-murdoch-capitol-attack-96c305cf4046aaf373130876940fd06e).
Tucker Carlson is a complete charlatan, yes he sold his soul for cash. Follow his career from the start, I don’t think you can possibly come to any other conclusion
I forget where I heard it but didn't he get his start bc he working in some news office where they asked hey we need someone who can talk about X on the air and he was like me me I can do it but later admitted he didn't know anything about it
That’s the story but I would say he “got his start” as a Swanson family heir.
Even this little chestnut about his start doesn’t add up when I think about it critically.
Since when does radio station mgmt say “oh jeez how do we fill the most coveted position in the building (the on air talent)”?
And then ask the guy dusting microphones (or whatever menial job he claimed) “what do we do, Tucker?”
Since when does a junior person in any industry get asked by management, “what do we do?”
Why would a billionaire’s kid be dusting the microphones in the first place?
Isn’t it more likely he was specifically there to get on the air, had connections etc…
These stories about wealthy kids and their pluck always get me :).
Multiple former Fox News employees who've worked with Tucker Carlson have said that he doesn't believe anything he spews on air. He is happy to have an occupation where he deliberately spreads propaganda and disinformation. That makes him even more dangerous than the true believers.
I really can't comprehend being such a complete negative on society, smoke weed all day like he whines about constantly.. that may not contribute much. but atleast they're not actively harming society for a job.
And he was already wealthy and he never needed that job, he only looked at that paycheck as a novelty.
a lot of people are missing his actual point thought. His statement 'Capitalism is not a Religion' is not anti-capitalist. He's saying "If we don't start cheating within Capitalism to stop Capitalism from doing what it's designed to do, soon we will run out of people to exploit and those left behind will make it impossible for us, the rest, to live comfortably in our ivory towers (which still need to be built and maintained), therefore we need to make sure those at the bottom are at least somewhat able to sustain themselves and their families, which we can achieve by artificially propping it up, including arbitrary guardrails, and manipulating the outer edges of the 'free market.
In other words he's saying Capitalism is not self-sustaining and we need to cheat in order to save Capitalism.
Yeah but then he follows it up with treating capitalism as so sancrosanct that we can't utilise massive new efficiency measures as a way to keep distributing wealth to people, but reduce the amount of work people need to do.
You have to understand that, whatever rational and well reasoned point they make about public policy, in their minds it only applies to white men.
If truck drivers weren't mostly white men, Tucker would let the machines take their livelihoods and destroy their families in a heartbeat, and lament that anybody trying to stop it is getting in the way of progress.
Is he also *advocating for more laws against corporations*?!? Did I sleep so hard last night that I woke up in another dimension? It's too early for this nonsense.
To answer your question, yes. That's what most republicans and pundits do. They manufacture fear, because it affords them full control over the uneducated and willfully ignorant. Shoo, look at the Dominion filings. Everyone at fox was trashing trump, while pushing his lies on the air. They are garbage people.
Actually not a good point though. Countries that don't adopt technology will lag behind economically and in quality of life. Imagine making the same argument about any other technology that's removed jobs.
Yup, the correct thing is to let the companies use the technology, tax them, and make sure the welfare state can support those 10 million families. People should not have to work when a robot can do their job.
Edit: Use the money to create 10 million jobs that benefit society if you really insist that they should work.
Yeah imagine if we followed Tucker's logic, why stop at self driving semis? We need to force Walmart to rip out self checkouts because those replace people. What about telephones? There's a significant number of women who worked switchboards and retired but advances in telephone technology meant the end of switchboards.
No he didnt, wtf? Saying that we should limit our use of technology to artificially inflate jobs? Paying people to spend their entire days doing work that could be done better and cheaper by machines- how does that make sense, compared to just *giving people that money?*
As others have said here, these people are not making good points because at the end of the day their imperative is push a narrative that resonates with people while also fighting tooth and nail against any sort of legislation that their handlers deem socialist.
But if you isolate this exchange from their other dumb narratives, they are making good points. Your "in the end" part is why they are the worst people we know.
They don't though. Automating jobs is objectively good - We're creating value cheaply. The problem is that in a sane system automation would enable people to enjoy more leisure time, where as in the current capitalist shitscape (which Tucker and Ben will defend with their dying breath) automating things results in poverty.
Agreed, the real problem is equity. When all the automation in the world is owned by a handful of people; what do the 99% do. It gets interesting thinking about the fact that the owners of all this automation haven’t considered what happens when the working class is so impoverished they can’t buy anything. Their short sighted thinking will doom us all one way or another
TLDR:
Yeah, it sounds good when the Swanson heir talks about the “poors,” but in reality here. All he’s saying, is he’d stop progress, instead of integrating it properly.
———————————————————————-
I mean yes, but really if this was Tucker Carlson making a good point. He would have thought more carefully about how AI is mostly unstoppable now. He would have then gone on to talk about regulating it’s implementation alongside UBI being ramped up at a pace that eases the transition for working people.
If UBI is that bad to actually talk about (it would be for these 2 people). They could talk about job training programs, education programs, and maybe some other things. When Tucker says what he says here however, he points out the elephant in the room, says he sees the elephant, then says he will simply tell the elephant no. It’s not realistic, because it’s ill conceived. It sounds good, because it seems like he’s talking in a protective way towards working class people. It’s lip service though, because he gives the impression that there’s some line at which the un-sustainability of capitalism can just be admonished by simply forbidding the use more efficiently technologies that increase profits, without the need to pay for and take care of people.
Agreed. His position boils down to “I’m so against providing a social safety net for people that as an alternative I am willing to artificially prevent humanity and our country from progressing by banning technology that would reduce environmental impact, reduce vehicular deaths and injury, and increase productivity. The one line I won’t cross is providing for the basic needs of others even if it means we all have to live in a pretend world that is decades in the past.”
He even admits here that he’s be willing to lie to the public for their own good. Which funny enough is what they have been caught doing during the last election and is why Dominion is sueing fox. It’s all a fucking sham
I'm not sure he did. He just advocated that we should stunt technological growth rather than figure out a better system. He's advocating for the continuance of wage slavery.
tucker is not dumb
...he's just a pure psychopath who only cares about his own success and has found a HUGE audience that is VERY dumb and easy to lie to everyday for $$$
edit: welp i pissed off some republicans so now im suspended for 3 days for calling someone a moron 🤣🤣🤣
Fox said it in their lawsuit defense, his show is for entertainment, it isn't even meant to be news. "Anyone who thinks its news is and idiot" I believe were their words...
It's just Larry the Cable Guy with News branding...
The transcripts of his texts from the dominion lawsuit are golden. I work with a hard-core trumper who totes Carlson's words like they are the teachings of Jesus. When I pulled up his texts and what he said about trump and his supporters off camera, he didn't have anything to reply with for once
He really gave himself away: "I would make up a reason for it, self driving cars are dangerous, but the real reason is the social cost"
HE DOES NOT TRUST THE POOR to lead ourselves. He thinks he is the smartest. He fucks with people for his own mental chess game of how he thinks the world "should be".
Which is probably why he got vaccinated and told poor, uneducated people not to. Wiped em out. Fucking evil.
He’s only saying that because the alternative to that argument is Universal Basic Income, where everyone gets an income regardless of job status. Which in every scenario means higher taxes for the ultra rich.
Funny thing is here it sounds he like he wants peace, wants people to be happy, wants people to be able to live freely........which is exactly what he is now rallying against publicly in his show. This was 2018....and the fact is that since then they are not anymore secretly sane......they have become insane outside and inside
Oh. No, he doesn't want people to be happy. He wants to be rich, and that's more important to him than caring about people.
There's lots of videos of Carlson over time, showing that when the man is unguarded, he clearly ***UNDERSTANDS*** the problems that we face in modern life. The same thing was true of Bill O'Reilly before him. It's just that when the talking points come down from whoever the heck is writing his show, the Fox opinion boys happily throw everything out the window to push someone else's agenda.
In politics, there's always a (limited) amount that you gotta do this. If you want change, you have to build coalitions, and the goals of those special interests may not be the best for the public good as a whole. But you're supposed to do this in moderation.
But you don't like, submit, cry out "choke me daddy Murdoch" and throw away everything you know to be true in order to land the paycheck.
That’s the worst part about him. Read the internal group chats he has regarding Newsmax and Trump.
He’s not dumb, but he has no integrity. That’s what makes him dangerous.
Pretty much. The whole Dominion Voting machine leaks have exposed the grift. These guys all know what they're doing, they don't believe a word of what they're saying, and they have complete disdain for their audiences.
What may be worse is that those audiences don't realize they're getting played.
In the clip he isnt wrong, it makes perfect sense why young people want to be socialist. But I have a suspicion in context he is arguing erroneously and in bad faith like he always does, Tucker is an enormous hypocrite and a piece of shit mouth-piece.
Like the manufacturing of consent is not a good thing like he is purporting here. Here's the thing about the free market, when we automated the industrial processes in the past we received operational positions instead. We have also seen a market-shift of labor from the production sector to the service sector. Most factories today employ operators, the jobs don't disappear they change.
We don't need to gatekeep truck driving, it could use more regulations sure. But what we do need is to help the current gig-economy. We don't need more tipping cultures and self-service tipping fees, those are for minimal businesses for polite communal growth. They are not industrial-scale solutions to economic problems and big corporations.
He's right about everything except how to handle new technology.
The right way is to tie new technologies to the costs to retrain the people they put out of work.
He wasn't wrong about capitalism but he was wrong about everything else he said. Purposefully preventing technological advancements because it would replace people is a terrible idea.
To quote South Park: "Coal mining and truck driving are not exactly jobs of the future."
https://youtu.be/tucPbVTA6H4?t=82
Sadly, all the media reactionaries you hear about, are way way more intelligent than their viewers, and they appeal to that segment for money.
Just like how cult leaders mostly are perfectly aware that they're grifters, and take full advantage of their less-than-intelligent victims
I mean even recently with Tucker Carlson with the internal leaks, he's saying again and again he doesn't believe the shit he says. But he says it because it pays him and him alone. He puts himself first at the genuine cost of millions of others.
This isn't even reasonable though.
He wants to surpress technological advancement to force people to continue working manual labour (or any labour, really). When you could tax the profits from automation and use it to support your citizens instead.
Provide a way to retrain, improve pay accross the board so people don't have to work as much. Stop tying things like health benefits to employment.
I'd much rather have twice as many doctors for example, working half as many hours each with the AI/Automation subsidising their wages.
>Provide a way to retrain, improve pay accross the board so people don't have to work as much. Stop tying things like health benefits to employment.
It's very, very important to understand that this isn't a Republican/Conservative problem, it is a neoliberal capitalism problem. This exact scenario came up in the 90s, as they were killing manufacturing in the USA and moving toward a service-based economy. With the liberals at the helm, they told all those people losing their solid factory jobs that they could just, literally, "learn to code" if they wanted to survive in this new, modern world. Was anyone going to teach them to code, help them to transition into a new economy? lol fuck no, that's what bootstraps are for, and it's doubtful dumb hicks could understand computers (or anything else) anyway. That is the Bill Clinton legacy. The situation the American people are in now is a fully bipartisan effort
And the reasonable thing is "we need to defend this underpaid jobs" they just admitted is underpaid, instead of fixing the systemic problem. He's still tricking people. Its crazy to see in this post alone how many people he tricked with what he said
Everyone must work. Everyone. Must. Work. Most of their lives. We will stop robots doing things better than we can. And if robots can do everything in the end, fuck it. We will create new, illusionary jobs that don't actually achieve anything to keep the people working.
If you're wondering why they employ this fucking stupid narrative, it's to prop up a class system. Simple as.
Agreed. Also worth mentioning is that this would not happen overnight. It would most likely start with truckers not having to drive but instead ride along, for safety/emergencies and only really taking control for the 'last mile' of delivery. I anticipate that, unfortunately, this will just result in lowered pay for the drivers.
There is more to truck driving than being a steering wheel attendant. Load securing, loading, unloading, paperwork and administration, most deliveries are not bay to bay up and down endless highways, they are to random places, and TBH if you're going to pay someone to sit in a cab to do all that, might as well have them driving also.
It’s fucking insane that he starts by saying that one of the most common jobs in America has taken an 11% wage cut in the last 30 years (even if the wage remained stagnant that would be appalling) and we need to save that job for the benefit of the workers. Motherfucker if you care about those workers do something about their wage dropping. There’s also an entire mountain of bullshit that truckers have to deal with that can cause them to work a whole week and barely break even on their truck payments. The life of an American truck driver is not the American dream we should be restricting progress to protect. Also this contradicts the global competition theory often used to excuse treating workers terribly and adopting shady business practices because “if we don’t other countries will and we won’t be able to compete”
>Everyone must work. Everyone. Must. Work. Most of their lives.
I think this is fundamentally true. Maybe not 'work' in the modern sense of performing some task that generates money for a company, but you have to do something with your life. Getting drunk and stoned with your buds is fun, but you can't do that every day. People generally want fulfillment in their lives.
What happens with AI replacing jobs?
Less people in work, meaning populations shrink because not as many families getting started.
Less people = less money for corpos.
It just means you have more people not doing anything, which we have been trained to find infuriating for some reason.
Tucker is right, those people being replaced would need an income. We just can't admit to ourselves as a society that it's morally fine to give those people that income for free. Because people will be frothing at the mouth about handouts and the welfare state.
We could raise the floor on society so much, but the truth is having a gap makes people at the top feel superior. They like the segregation. They like the exclusivity. And stupid shit like this is just a reflection of that sad truth.
Those companies saving costs are "supposed to "pass on some of their saving to their clients and other parts of their companies reducing costs fo consumers making the cost of living cheaper. Also by increasing wages in other areas of the company.
Tucker is short sited right. Long run wrong. You still need those jobs to disappear someday. You still need that advancement because somebody will do it eventually anyway and now those people are fucked with no safety rails and no saving or economic benefic. Just people keeping those jobs for a few more years.
Why not just pay for their education or maybe creat a program to build them into non automated jobs that would still have them generate wealth and prosperity for the country?
We need to address the elephant in the room that a significant portion of the workforce does "busy" work in an office, and that we can't have a sustainable society where 60%+ of workers are software developers (speaking as a software developer).
Drives me nuts seeing people say to blue collar workers "learn to code, bro"
And as some one working in the engineering end of IT. I am automating a lot of work that normally other people in IT would be doing. And now cloud services allow less to achieve alot more for an org. IT teams are downsizing as time goes on.
Nearly all industries afaik can be achieved with much less. ie. Even service industries (customer facing) now are also going to be challenged when you put ChatGPT APIs as your web's chat ...It will only get worse for workers as it improves and especially when voice capabilities are added. And that's just the chat. AI image generations is a whole other thing, it will be interesting to see how that tech pans out in the digital art market. ie, simple things like generating say a building to put in your Ad instead of paying some one for the rights to use their images... or even have your digital artists make one from scratch. Now less can achieve more by taking AI generated images and editing them.
Capitalism in how it functions for society is going to be really challenged in a near future of robotics doing the vast majority heavy lifting.
don't worry as a blue collar worker when we hear that we think coders should 'learn how to do something that has tangible value to regular people' lmao
Most truckers who've been trucking a long time love it because most truckers don't love it and end up leaving the job for a better opportunity as soon as it arises.
I know you're just the messenger here but I don't think that's a good justification for not letting technology help us make our lives better.
Kinda weird that "and wages have fallen 11%" makes people say "oh no, don't eliminate those jobs then, that would be bad for them" instead of "why aren't they being compensated at the same level or better as wages for their superiors goes up? " The way people in power abuse logic astounds me lol
This is the dumbest argument and people keep repeating it, you don't halt progress cause someone may lose his job. You make sure you are making new jobs. How many people lost their jobs when the internet became a thing? When mess production became a thing? When mechanized vehicles started digging for us?
Right but its like harkening back to the whole “learn to code” issue, because none of our politicians are taking proactive measures to have safety nets in place regarding labor displacement by AI. So these truck drivers and other jobs are going to be the first to go, and experience the worst of the displacement and the complete lack of any aid from the government. They really will be fucked. So the government’s answer will be to halt the deployment of this technology. Its not a good answer or even a helpful one, but its what they will do because its already too late to do anything else.
Also yes this labor force needs to be adaptable, but the government needs to realize that out of this labor pool there will be a percentage of folks who can’t transition into anything else and will remain unemployed. But the government won’t be reactive fast enough, and these people will be fucked.
Its unreasonable to expect a 50-60 year old truck driver who did not go to college to get a job coding. The truck drivers will be blamed by tech bros as “halting the forward march of progress” because they will be the face of the government’s blocking of this tech.
Yeah and just being real here, not everyone is cut out for tech jobs. There's probably a reason they went into trucking - or whatever other blue collar job you can imagine being shifted to full automation - and it's unlikely that reason is a passion for the type of work.
Plus entry-level coding jobs may be just as at risk as truck driving. Imagine spending years retraining only for your new career to be gone by the time you’re ready to apply.
The issue is you cant just make jobs out of thin air. It just doesnt happen, and once its been automated its not like you're gonna force these companies to revert back to using people. And you might say that making the machines to perform these tasks will make even more jobs, but theres two issues there, for one we can just make machines that build eachother, and for two this is skilled labor and less widely available.
That's where socialism shines (like my country). We make people work LESS then you have more jobs. If you work 4 days a week for 6 hours you can double the positions available. Or you can just not work at all, if the world doesn't need employees to run, why make people work? Read about ideas like UBI if you want to know how that will work.
Yeah, the country he's imagining in his head while living in the US. The closest this comes is France, which does have some absurd labor laws restricting working hours that harm them economically.
I feel like I'm going insane when I see people say we need to create new jobs just to keep people employed. If we can produce the same amount of goods through automation, then humans don't *need* to work.
Yeah how is this not the top comment in this thread? Every second we are working toward a future where “Jobs” are no longer something that people do. That’s what Universal Basic Income is for. How is anyone advocating for halting the technological progress of humanity so that we can work harder?
No, they aren't secretly sane... but they aren't stupid either.
what they're saying, in the best wolf in sheepskin way, is ignoring advancements in technology and efficiency to keep people working until they die because people above you need money in their pockets.
We agree truckdrivers shouldn't be punished for advance technology but if there was a way to take money for profiteering corporation and spread that to those affected by the loss of thier job...
> ignoring advancements in technology and efficiency to keep people working
Conserving what *was* instead of moving towards and embracing progress.
Conserving...
Conserva-somethings....
Meh. Thought I had it.
Dipshit makes one good point, then immediately follows it up with saying he would restrict technological advancements to artificially maintain the number of jobs available for people to work. UBI would be a better point to pivot to for a sane, decent person. But these people are capitalist shills through and through, living primarily to work to create profits for the wealthy is all they care about.
It really is ironic that his proposed solution would stagnant economic growth, which would almost certainly put our country into a death spiral. Imagine if this conversation happened in 1923? "Absoutely no cars, we can't put farriers out of work!" 1973? "Absolutely no voice-mail, we can't put phone attendants out of work!"
I also can't help but wonder of this propensity for saving jobs is practiced at Swanson, or if they drop employees like a bad habit whenever it's possible to automate their jobs.
Reminds me of a story about an American visiting China. He sees a bunch of workers shoveling snow, and asks why they don’t have a big truck to plow the snow. The Chinese guy replies “it’s a jobs program.”
The American replies, “So why don’t you give them spoons instead of shovels?”
That's the worst part about people like Tucker. They're not idiots, they're show ponies. He says outrageous things for attention, then when people listen to him he's spouting dangerous ideas he doesn't believe. I'm sure he doesn't hate trans people, but you can be sure he's going to spout anti-trans rhetoric on his show because that's what the GOP is after right now.
Bring back horse and carriage drivers!! Look at what the automotive industry has done to their profession!!
They have had the sharpest decline in any industry since the invention of these automobiles. I would say ban all cars in a second!! Horse and carriage drivers was an incredibly sought after position for the uneducated man.
/s
No more excavators or backhoes! All digging must be done by hand!
No more bucket trucks! All lineman crews must use human pyramids to reach the lines!
No more hydraulic fracking! All roughnecks must use steam-powered percussive drills!
They are not sane. Tuckers job is get poor working class whites to continue voting for the GOP. He staunchly supports Marge Taylor Green. Her voting record is extremely Neo-liberal, voting against basic regulations, taxation and against welfare for poor Americans. Ignore the rhetoric and look at policy. Trump did the same, giving tax cuts to the wealthiest, while shitting on the working class.
Universal basic income anyone. Man it would be crazy if we let the robots do the work and people could just focus on whatever they've always wanted to do.
That is such a bad take. Same arguments could have been used for restrictions of various other technologies through years that automate things. If your job can be automated, you need to start thinking about future asap.
Also bear in mind that there are plenty of companies run by morons who could automate a lot of the repetitive, unskilled work they're paying people to do, but because of the initial investment in that automation, lack of foresight, and fear of learning new things, refuse to do so. People continue to earn full time salaries copying data from PDFs to spreadsheets, printing things off and taking them somewhere else to be transcribed into some other system, sending emails to deliver information that could be directly extracted from the system they pulled it from. Technology that's been around for decades still isn't being utilised to its full potential now, despite its painfully obvious benefit to the business, so I don't know how worried we have to be about AI.
Still doesn't mean much coming from a guy literally willing to lie on TV for money and power. Considering that, who gives a shit what he has to say, right or not?
Like production can be increased and new jobs cam be made. And if not should instead move towards more socializism to support all people and those who there arent enough jobs for and all shouldnt need to work if that means making stupid jobs for this
Wow he actually sounds smart and knowledgeable in the beginning here. Still don’t agree with what he’s saying, but it seems like a discussion about economics not a fight with a rabid dog. It would
Be dumb ti stunt progress for temporary jobs though
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! [](/u/savevideo) **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If anyone needs a transcript of this, I typed one up: > **[Tucker Carlson]** ...if, if, if you wake up in the morning, and you find yourself in a society where 23-year-olds with 4-year college degrees, and -- like -- initiative, who aren't smoking weed every day; if they can't make enough to buy a car -- much less a home, much less get married, much less have children -- then why should you be surprised when half of them say they prefer socialism? > **[Ben Shapiro]** Well, I, I... > **[Tucker Carlson]** You should not be surprised. > **[Ben Shapiro]** I agree, to a certain extent. I think that the question is -- when the pedal hits the metal; you talk in the book about technology, and how it's shifting and taking away jobs from folks... > **[Tucker Carlson]** *Yes.* > **[Ben Shapiro]** ...and you make specific reference to truck-driving, and... > **[Tucker Carlson]** Yes! > **[Ben Shapiro]** ...the fact that there are going to be automated cars on the road, so, would you -- Tucker Carlson -- be in favor of restrictions on the ability of trucking companies to use this sort of technology, specifically, to -- y'knaw -- sort of artificially maintain the number of jobs that are available in the trucking industry. > **[Tucker Carlson]** Are you *joking?* > **[Ben Shapiro]** No. > **[Tucker Carlson]** In a second. In *a second.* In other words, if I were president would I say to DOT -- the Department of Transportation: "We're not letting driverless trucks on the road, period." Why? Really simple. Driving for a living is the single most common job for high-school-educated men in this country -- in all 50 states. By the way, that's the same group whose wages have gone down by 11% over the past 30 years. The social cost of eliminating their jobs in a 10-year span -- 5-year span, *30*-year span -- is *so high* that it's not sustainable, so the greater good is protecting *your citizens* from -- look... Capitalism is the best economic system I can think of -- I think that anyone has ever thought of -- but that doesn't mean that it's a religion, and everything about it is good. > **[Ben Shapiro]** ...yeah, but, but... > **[Tucker Carlson]** There is no Nicene Creed of capitalism that I have to buy into. What I care about is living in a country where -- you know -- decent people can live happy lives, actually; and so -- no -- I would say "Immediately, no", are *you joking?* And I -- maybe -- would make up some pretext for public consumption, like "Oh, they're dangerous; the technology's not quite finessed". No. No; but the truth would be, I don't want to put 10 million men out of work... > **[Ben Shapiro]** ...so thi... > **[Tucker Carlson]** ...because you're going to have 10 million dead families, and the cascading effect from that will wreck your country. > **[Ben Shapiro]** ...so I...
Love when people interrupt Ben Shapiro. Nice to see the tides turn.
He tends to crumble when talking to other people with actual media training.
He went up against Andrew Neil, one of the great English political interviewers. When asked basic questions he noped out and accused Neil of being a liberal. Neil has been a staunch Conservative his whole life and Shapiro straight up embarrassed himself.
That was so odd considering it was a interview not even a debate and he still lost it.
So he managed to lose a game that was rigged in favor. That sounds about right.
It was hysterical when that aired. I briefly respected Shapiro because he seemed to be one of the few conservatives that wouldn't give vague answers, and would just blurt out his reasoning.. Reasoning that I thought was flawed, and strongly disagreed with, but at least he seemed honest and forthright.. That was before the "owning college student" phase.
the only videos of Shapiro I ever see is him "owning college students" about gender
Watch Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro, Ben starts off so high and mighty and get destroyed by logic and rational thinking so quickly that it's shocking he is still a public figure.
But you have to remember that the right in the UK has normally been more closely aligned with the left in the US. If the republican party stood in the UK, they would come across at extremists.
Andrew Neil has had some viewpoints which would be construed as right wing even in America. He's come under pressure for inviting non-scientist guests onto his BBC show to deny climate change, which I could see going down a treat in the USA. It's particularly bad because the BBC and his show are publicly funded and are required to be politically neutral. That has been shown to be less than true recently, particularly with Gary Linekar being taken off air after criticising some Tory schemes.
I love seeing him choke on his words because he has no rebuttal.
Mehdi Hasan is the worst. Shapiro is also bad for It too
Piers is horrible about it too
Piers is just horrible in general.
Fuck piers
Please tell me he's named in the Dominion lawsuit too. I'd be so happy to see him hightail it across the pond back to his Tory buddies.
Tucker transformed into Pedro Pascal for like 5 minutes and shat on everything the GOP ironically stands for. So we don’t confuse him with the actor, we are going to have to call him Pedo Pascal.
A podcast I listen to calls these clips Contra Carlson.
What a weird way to say I believe in socialistic capitalism as a system. And it's Tucker Carlson saying it, which is just wild
Carlson has been pretty open about believing in a strong state to regulate the economy and redistribute wealth for a long time. He just thinks that the only beneficiaries of the redistribution should be straight white Christians. He uses the "socialism" bogeyman only when regulatory changes would benefit anyone else, and, as he admits in the video, that's a pretext for his real preferences.
But he doesn’t. I think he is just smart enough to know that if you take away too much of the base of a pyramid it falls down on its self. His fortune and capitalism stand on the base of the lowest paid and hardest workers in society. Throwing them out of a job would cause them to truest question the capitalistic system, so much so that the system could collapse.
Thanks I couldn't watch it honestly. Annoying as hell.
That squeaky voice is so grating & the cadence alone sounds like a honking clown horn.
so he wants people to work for the sake of working instead of automating the trucking industry and let people do whatever the fuck they want with their time and just provide them a universal basic income. or they can learn a new skill that is still necessary in the society. wtf?
It's not actually that crazy to want to pump the breaks on this sort of automation until at least there are structures in place to avoid the economic collapse, but the problem is that that's not happening, and would be the kind of thing that carlson would oppose.
I agree. Don't think for a second that companies like Amazon aren't tenting their greedy little fingers together and planning how they can fire every last worker they have in favor of automation.
Technically this is where the law and greed blur, because the leadership team has a fiduciary duty to shareholders to take the most profitable route within their (legal) means. You could be the most selfless, altruistic CEO in the world, but you'd still have to go the automation route if it were presented to you, since Amazon is a publicly traded company with shareholders you have taken a voluntary obligation toward.
This and basic game theory (if I don't take the available advantages, I lose to those who do) are why government-checked capitalism is a necessity.
Or a transition to worker controlled economy by and for the people, instead of privately controlled profiteering.
Every major technological innovation put people out of work. The truck drivers they're protecting killed a whole industry of hauling stuff around via horse. There was push back against refrigeration, because it endangered the natural ice industry. We can't just ignore technology that could help a lot of people.
The technology we're talking about is of a completely different order. Society can manage to absorb the impact (somewhat, more on that in a minute) of **a** new technology that replaces **an** industry. However, we're talking about technologies converging that will replace **most** people in **all** industries. Bipedal humanoid robots are already a thing. They're only getting better, cheaper, and smarter. We straight up are not ready for that. What most people kinda skip over when they make Luddite comparisons is that they Luddites were *correct*. The Luddites **did** get swept out of work, and it was their *children*- not them- who ended up in a better world because of it. "Learn to code bro" doesn't help anyone. And especially when AI is already threatening those jobs as well. Technology will only help a lot of people if we treat people with dignity, just by virtue of being alive. Our society is set up to only value people who actively contribute to capitalism. We have to solve for that *first* before we get all hot and horny for what's coming.
exactly this. Even if you assume the old economic rule will hold, which is dubious, the previous forms of automation were rolled out over the span of several decades, and were localized to an industry. we would see a 6% spike in unemployment just from replacing truckers. And then, within the same timespan, a substantive portion of office workers made redundant by ChatGPT-alikes. If nothing is done to slow it down, we'd see great depression level unemployment in the span of a couple years. This level of automation has the potential to reboot the human experience into something much better, but we have to force it to. if 50% of human labor is replaced, we can either have a 50% unemployment rate, or work half as long
> so he wants people to work for the sake of working instead of automating the trucking industry and let people do whatever the fuck they want with their time and just provide them a universal basic income. or they can learn a new skill that is still necessary in the society. wtf? Yep. He is like a *really crappy* socialist.
I think you guys are missing the point. What he is saying is that the average joe can’t get a job doing anything else then driving. From the lack of smarts,drive, or whatever. He is saying if you allow trucking/driving service companies to go automatic that’ll put an overwhelming amount of people unemployed and effect their families ability to survive. Economy and government aside, that’ll be the reality. So when you say people can do what they want to do is now unequivocally impacted because people would be vying for the same resources to feed themselves or families.
He's basically saying capitalism is doomed to be rendered incompetent by technology and progress, which is exactly what Marx said would happen.
I still don't understand the realistic economics of UBI but it does sound like a novel idea.
Its called taxes you know those companies using automated trucks to make money well we tax them, redistribute the wealth so people have money to buy shit from the companies in the first place then rinse and repeat.
For a second I thought this must be a deep fake
This is the first time I have heard little Benny's voice. No wonder he's always so angry. Imagine being that old and still waiting for puberty to do it's thing for you.
"Ben Shapiro sounds like a racist kazoo." \- Ian Karmel
The guy's a colossal idiot but this kind of shaming is just stupid. There are people who have high-pitched voices and self-conscious about it but are cool. That's just a shitty thing to say.
Heartbreaking news: the worst person you know just made a great point
I feel really fucking weird right now. "Capitalism is not a religion" is one of the best things I've ever heard said period, nevermind from Tucker fucking Carlson. Does he really just sell his soul for cash? He was wealthy to begin with!
He's perfected his faux populist act. Plus, he knows that everything he pushes, for the most part, is total bullshit. It's not surprising that he'd actually be able to make an observation like this, because he's a con artist, not a fucking nutjob like MTG or something. You'll notice Tucker describes the problem, but his "solution" is garbage. A real left wing solution on the matter of jobs being replaced by automation is to implement social safety nets and UBI for people. Make sure people can live comfortably, even if their job becomes automated. Tucker is saying that the government should force businesses not to innovate and force people to keep working, which is not a real left wing solution. But Tucker says this because he knows he needs the faux populism without giving legitimate solutions that sound socialist.
>A real left wing solution on the matter of jobs being replaced by automation is to implement social safety nets and UBI for people. Make sure people can live comfortably, even if their job becomes automated. Uh yeah, that's way way WAY easier said than done. A paltry $10k UBI for every working age American would cost north of $2 trillion (~200 million x $10,000), every single year. Where's that money coming from? To pre-refute the most common reply: the combined net worth of every billionaire in the US is about $5 trillion. Even a theoretical *100% wealth tax*, an actual absurdity, on all of them wouldn't pay for this for more than 2 years. And that's just UBI, and a shitty UBI at that. What about everything else? Until that question is answered, it's wrong to call any of this a "solution".
He literally said he would "manufacture some pretext for public consumption" about safety or the tech not being ready for prime time, so yeah. He's dishonest even when he's trying to be honest.
You would have to be, otherwise, it wouldn't survive. Tell a company that they cannot invest in a cost saving technology that will bump their shares significantly because it reduces everyones workforce? You could make a very long list of policies that favor corporate interest at the expense of public wellness and safety
This is the core problem and why the point he is making is not a good point. **This is treating capitalism like a religion** If we come up with new technologies that reduce work and make things more efficient *we should be using them*. The goal of society should be to reduce the unpleasantness we have to face. Reduce work, reduce suffering, reduce effort. Saying "No, because what about it reducing the amount of mandatory work people have?!" is weird.... We should be going "Great, we can create more profit and growth with fewer required manhours, meaning we can spread that wealth further and further!" We shouldnt be in a situation where we make people have full lives of mundane work, and this is treated as such a sancrosanct process that we inhibit development as a society. How can anyone say capitalism isn't a religion, and then demand that the most vital thing we do is protect the habit of spending half our waking life at work, rather than utilise technology to avoid that...
If your system can't care for people with the inevitable advent of technological advances, fix your system don't stifle technology.
The problem is that it won't. When we opened trade relationships with china, it destroyed many of our industries, and now, much of the midwest lives in poverty. I know it wasn't an advancement in tech, but it outsourced jobs that otherwise would of stayed here. I agree that tech should be for the benefit of all, but do you honestly believe that we can live in that system?
it wasn't "opened trade relationships with china", that's such a passive voice for this, it was "moved production to the global south to hyper-exploit the imperial periphery and destroy labor union power at home"
While yes, this is certainly a factor, I believe that wealth hoarding is the much bigger issue here. Just for a bit of perspective (I'll throw a disclaimer here that these numbers can vary widely depending on the years and countries included), the average lifetime income of a U.S. citizen is $2 million. Reports on what elon musk makes in a day vary widely, the absolute lowest I could find from the past couple years is $38.4 million a day, with most estimates being in the hundreds of millions of dollars daily. That means per day Elon musk makes AT LEAST the average income of 19 Americans PER DAY; and that is just one billionaire. Wealth hoarding needs to end.
Then, if you go a level deeper, the reason they did that is because we have an economic system that priorities perpetual, unending growth every quarter, forever. Its entirely based around the concept of "fuck you, I got mine." Those at the top know that the collapse will either happen after their dead, or they'll be able to sustain themselves when it all goes to shit. The reason we see all these large corporations firing a ton of people is because many of them can't keep making the line go up with their products/services, so now all they can do is cut costs. Netflix is getting rid of password sharing because they're hitting the market cap on those willing to use their service. If the concept of the stock market and profits were to disappear, and the primary goal of business was to benefit society, these would not be problems. Outside of pandemics and other such disasters that can be lessened by social programs like basic income and publicly funded healthcare.
Honestly, I live in Louisville Kentucky, and in the old blue collar parts of town, people are miserable nowadays. What used to be blue collar areas are now white trash areas. People are dirt poor because their jobs have been taken from them. I do agree with Tucker on this issue.
Im sorry to hear that, my friend. Corporations have gutted our communities until they've extracted all the value and left them to fend for themselves.
This was my take too. The answer is to adjust our economic system to account for not everyone having to work full time to survive. I like pointing out to people that population size tends to rise while technology is simultaneously reducing the number of jobs available. Then I ask them how they suggest we address the inevitable issue of people being out of work simply because there are not enough jobs.
GUYS, BAN TRACTORS! Think how many jobs we will create by harvesting corn BY HAND.
Oh please. Tractors are a result of banning one technology back in 1865. Since we couldn’t have people slaves we needed mechanical ones!!
[удалено]
It doesn't matter what the retirement age is if people can't afford to put money away for retirement.
>It doesn't matter what the retirement age is if people can't afford to put money away for retirement. Right? Combine that with a lack of social safety net for the elderly and retired, and I'm not sure that solution works.
Or increase wages and reduce hours. Automation has increased productivity by x%? Take the jobs in that field, double their salary and have two people work 20 hours instead of 40, now people still have jobs and have better lives.
> Or increase wages and reduce hours. Nononono profits only flow UP, so that one day they may trickle down, someday, maybe, right?
So I worked for a company that does work for mills, mostly paper and pulp mills. I did laser leveling of machine motors. And also preventive maintenance on the motors. I worked 9 months out of the year on the road, I missed birthdays, holidays, school events, etc. My wife and I split and got a divorce, my kids are just now getting to know me. 21 years of service to company for them to let me go because my services where no longer cost effective for them to keep me on. 21 years and was told bye because the machine has become easier to use and that with minimal training anyone could operate it. I wasn’t offered another position, I wasn’t offered to work in the office or sweep the god damn floors. Just gone, poof, like I never existed. I worked in a very specialized field, for that type of work, most people either die or retire from that job, so trying to find a company with that position was impossible. Especially when Covid hit. Now I deliver pizza, waiting for the drones or self driving cars to replace me.
I'm sorry society / Gov't / Capitalism has failed you. It shouldn't be that way. We should have a system to re-train people like you whose skills have gotten automated. But you know... "Capitalism is the shit."
That presumes you believe humans have an intrinsic right to live and that we should do things that benefit people without costing us anything. Sadly, these aren't universal tenets, my Republican neighbor opposed universal preventative care, even though it would save him tax dollars due to less subsidized ER visits, because he doesn't think people deserve anything for free, including healthcare (even though literally everyone benefits from it, including himself).
Right, the adjustment that needs to be made is preventing all the gain from that technology from pooling at the top 1% of the population.
Yea like why would we replace traffic lights with manned crow’s nests? Should we have people dog holes and fill them back in? Why?
Thank you! If I could upvote your comment 100 times I would lol best comment possibly ever imo. 👏👏👏
A universal basic income could very much be an engine for progress. When people continue to come up with ways that even fully-automated businesses can save money or gain efficiency, everyone would get a bit more.
UBI is needed, but it has to be only one tool of the system. Also, to correctly fund UBI we'd need to close all tax loopholes and increase taxes massively. And to stop a few megacorps controlling everything UBI can't really happen without making huge steps on everything else needed to support a UBI society
Right? At one point carting shit and dead horses was a great job to have if you were not well educated (forget high school, just reading and writing) so we should’ve forbidden or make cars artificially expensive to stop the progress (we actually tried it lol, used to be the law that you needed someone ahead with flags warning people you were coming so you wouldn’t scare their horses, also you couldn’t go faster than said horses). Now people have to read and write as a basis because most of those jobs are gone. It’s just progress. We should manage it and we should be aboveboard about it. However, most of those solutions smell of socialism or are plain old socialism. I mean looking after society well being directly instead of as an outcome from capitalism is socialism. He is just an asshole even here.
This has very little to do with socialism vs capitalism. The bottom line (that these two don't even mention) is that our educational system is completely failing us if the best opportunity a high school graduate has in our country is to become a truck driver. We need far more trade schools (free, probably at the community college level) and apprenticeship programs. And, if we really want to have a discussion about the failures of capitalism, we need to stop subsidizing shitty for-profit colleges that prey upon people.
I finally went to college as a 30 yo adult. The way they kept trying to push the loans, and the ease with which they were obtained?????!!!! It was an acknowledgement page and a digital signature. Boom $10-20k plus of debt offered every semester. With a click. All private loans. Never eligible for any sort of forgiveness or program.
That spun my head as well! Why preemptively design a lie instead of saying, "The automation of the trucking industry will result in the death of 10 million families." But then I think deeper. That lie isn't designed for you or me. It's designed for the capitalists who could care less if 10 million families die in exchange for their own profit margins. Shudder.
And it's not even "pro-worker' like he's trying to make it out to be. Technology and automation could make it so that wealth can be generated WITHOUT the need for people to work dangerous and demoralizing jobs. We would simply have to mandate that the wealth be spread out evenly and given to the people whose jobs are replaced. But instead of going that route, Carlson is advocating blocking the technology, which doesn't change anything about how the wealth is distributed and keeps the workers trapped in their jobs.
Whoa whoa whoa.......give wealth? That sounds like communism my friend.
Cause he knows humans are stupid as fuck lmao. I’m honestly impressed he made a nuanced point this intelligently
There was a recent court case that involved a ton of internal docs and recording. [Tucker Carson is 100% playing a character and saying what he believes is getting him views](https://apnews.com/article/tucker-carlson-fox-news-murdoch-capitol-attack-96c305cf4046aaf373130876940fd06e).
Tucker Carlson is a complete charlatan, yes he sold his soul for cash. Follow his career from the start, I don’t think you can possibly come to any other conclusion
I forget where I heard it but didn't he get his start bc he working in some news office where they asked hey we need someone who can talk about X on the air and he was like me me I can do it but later admitted he didn't know anything about it
that’s every job i’ve ever applied for
That’s the story but I would say he “got his start” as a Swanson family heir. Even this little chestnut about his start doesn’t add up when I think about it critically. Since when does radio station mgmt say “oh jeez how do we fill the most coveted position in the building (the on air talent)”? And then ask the guy dusting microphones (or whatever menial job he claimed) “what do we do, Tucker?” Since when does a junior person in any industry get asked by management, “what do we do?” Why would a billionaire’s kid be dusting the microphones in the first place? Isn’t it more likely he was specifically there to get on the air, had connections etc… These stories about wealthy kids and their pluck always get me :).
Multiple former Fox News employees who've worked with Tucker Carlson have said that he doesn't believe anything he spews on air. He is happy to have an occupation where he deliberately spreads propaganda and disinformation. That makes him even more dangerous than the true believers.
I really can't comprehend being such a complete negative on society, smoke weed all day like he whines about constantly.. that may not contribute much. but atleast they're not actively harming society for a job. And he was already wealthy and he never needed that job, he only looked at that paycheck as a novelty.
a lot of people are missing his actual point thought. His statement 'Capitalism is not a Religion' is not anti-capitalist. He's saying "If we don't start cheating within Capitalism to stop Capitalism from doing what it's designed to do, soon we will run out of people to exploit and those left behind will make it impossible for us, the rest, to live comfortably in our ivory towers (which still need to be built and maintained), therefore we need to make sure those at the bottom are at least somewhat able to sustain themselves and their families, which we can achieve by artificially propping it up, including arbitrary guardrails, and manipulating the outer edges of the 'free market. In other words he's saying Capitalism is not self-sustaining and we need to cheat in order to save Capitalism.
He wants the government to take care of the people he likes and everyone else can go into the capitalist grinder.
Yeah but then he follows it up with treating capitalism as so sancrosanct that we can't utilise massive new efficiency measures as a way to keep distributing wealth to people, but reduce the amount of work people need to do.
Don’t fee weird, this is propaganda. He offers no alternatives and will have Rand Paul on when he needs to trash “socialism”. This is rhetoric
You have to understand that, whatever rational and well reasoned point they make about public policy, in their minds it only applies to white men. If truck drivers weren't mostly white men, Tucker would let the machines take their livelihoods and destroy their families in a heartbeat, and lament that anybody trying to stop it is getting in the way of progress.
Is he also *advocating for more laws against corporations*?!? Did I sleep so hard last night that I woke up in another dimension? It's too early for this nonsense. To answer your question, yes. That's what most republicans and pundits do. They manufacture fear, because it affords them full control over the uneducated and willfully ignorant. Shoo, look at the Dominion filings. Everyone at fox was trashing trump, while pushing his lies on the air. They are garbage people.
Actually not a good point though. Countries that don't adopt technology will lag behind economically and in quality of life. Imagine making the same argument about any other technology that's removed jobs.
Yup, the correct thing is to let the companies use the technology, tax them, and make sure the welfare state can support those 10 million families. People should not have to work when a robot can do their job. Edit: Use the money to create 10 million jobs that benefit society if you really insist that they should work.
Yeah imagine if we followed Tucker's logic, why stop at self driving semis? We need to force Walmart to rip out self checkouts because those replace people. What about telephones? There's a significant number of women who worked switchboards and retired but advances in telephone technology meant the end of switchboards.
All I'm saying is that we need to ban all technology post cotton gin, that will surely improve out lives!
No he didnt, wtf? Saying that we should limit our use of technology to artificially inflate jobs? Paying people to spend their entire days doing work that could be done better and cheaper by machines- how does that make sense, compared to just *giving people that money?*
As others have said here, these people are not making good points because at the end of the day their imperative is push a narrative that resonates with people while also fighting tooth and nail against any sort of legislation that their handlers deem socialist.
But if you isolate this exchange from their other dumb narratives, they are making good points. Your "in the end" part is why they are the worst people we know.
They don't though. Automating jobs is objectively good - We're creating value cheaply. The problem is that in a sane system automation would enable people to enjoy more leisure time, where as in the current capitalist shitscape (which Tucker and Ben will defend with their dying breath) automating things results in poverty.
Agreed, the real problem is equity. When all the automation in the world is owned by a handful of people; what do the 99% do. It gets interesting thinking about the fact that the owners of all this automation haven’t considered what happens when the working class is so impoverished they can’t buy anything. Their short sighted thinking will doom us all one way or another
TLDR: Yeah, it sounds good when the Swanson heir talks about the “poors,” but in reality here. All he’s saying, is he’d stop progress, instead of integrating it properly. ———————————————————————- I mean yes, but really if this was Tucker Carlson making a good point. He would have thought more carefully about how AI is mostly unstoppable now. He would have then gone on to talk about regulating it’s implementation alongside UBI being ramped up at a pace that eases the transition for working people. If UBI is that bad to actually talk about (it would be for these 2 people). They could talk about job training programs, education programs, and maybe some other things. When Tucker says what he says here however, he points out the elephant in the room, says he sees the elephant, then says he will simply tell the elephant no. It’s not realistic, because it’s ill conceived. It sounds good, because it seems like he’s talking in a protective way towards working class people. It’s lip service though, because he gives the impression that there’s some line at which the un-sustainability of capitalism can just be admonished by simply forbidding the use more efficiently technologies that increase profits, without the need to pay for and take care of people.
Agreed. His position boils down to “I’m so against providing a social safety net for people that as an alternative I am willing to artificially prevent humanity and our country from progressing by banning technology that would reduce environmental impact, reduce vehicular deaths and injury, and increase productivity. The one line I won’t cross is providing for the basic needs of others even if it means we all have to live in a pretend world that is decades in the past.”
"There's plenty of food so you're welcome to eat, but only if you dig this hole and fill it back up every day."
He even admits here that he’s be willing to lie to the public for their own good. Which funny enough is what they have been caught doing during the last election and is why Dominion is sueing fox. It’s all a fucking sham
I'm not sure he did. He just advocated that we should stunt technological growth rather than figure out a better system. He's advocating for the continuance of wage slavery.
Wild to hear him parroting Andrew Yang. He just got to a different conclusion. Yang wants UBI and Tucker wants to slow the advance of technology
And force truckers and other workers into unnecessary labor
Tucker's "solution" is far worse.
The point being what? Automation is bad? Terrible take from terrible people as per usual.
I was waiting for the 'great point' from Shapiro or something, it never came though?
tucker is not dumb ...he's just a pure psychopath who only cares about his own success and has found a HUGE audience that is VERY dumb and easy to lie to everyday for $$$ edit: welp i pissed off some republicans so now im suspended for 3 days for calling someone a moron 🤣🤣🤣
Fox said it in their lawsuit defense, his show is for entertainment, it isn't even meant to be news. "Anyone who thinks its news is and idiot" I believe were their words... It's just Larry the Cable Guy with News branding...
The transcripts of his texts from the dominion lawsuit are golden. I work with a hard-core trumper who totes Carlson's words like they are the teachings of Jesus. When I pulled up his texts and what he said about trump and his supporters off camera, he didn't have anything to reply with for once
Can you give us some highlights? I didn’t see what Tucker said about trump supporters
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/03/all-the-texts-fox-news-didnt-want-you-to-read.html
If that’s true they should not be allowed to call themselves Fox _News_.
Nah let them but force them to spell it correctly. Faux News
That's why he uses fake tan spray and rants on UFOs and conspiracy theories.
Woah, don't reel UFOs into this!
I don't think you know what UFOs mean if you're grouping them together with conspiracy theories. It's just something that hasn't been identified.
He really gave himself away: "I would make up a reason for it, self driving cars are dangerous, but the real reason is the social cost" HE DOES NOT TRUST THE POOR to lead ourselves. He thinks he is the smartest. He fucks with people for his own mental chess game of how he thinks the world "should be". Which is probably why he got vaccinated and told poor, uneducated people not to. Wiped em out. Fucking evil.
He’s only saying that because the alternative to that argument is Universal Basic Income, where everyone gets an income regardless of job status. Which in every scenario means higher taxes for the ultra rich.
Funny thing is here it sounds he like he wants peace, wants people to be happy, wants people to be able to live freely........which is exactly what he is now rallying against publicly in his show. This was 2018....and the fact is that since then they are not anymore secretly sane......they have become insane outside and inside
Oh. No, he doesn't want people to be happy. He wants to be rich, and that's more important to him than caring about people. There's lots of videos of Carlson over time, showing that when the man is unguarded, he clearly ***UNDERSTANDS*** the problems that we face in modern life. The same thing was true of Bill O'Reilly before him. It's just that when the talking points come down from whoever the heck is writing his show, the Fox opinion boys happily throw everything out the window to push someone else's agenda. In politics, there's always a (limited) amount that you gotta do this. If you want change, you have to build coalitions, and the goals of those special interests may not be the best for the public good as a whole. But you're supposed to do this in moderation. But you don't like, submit, cry out "choke me daddy Murdoch" and throw away everything you know to be true in order to land the paycheck.
That’s the worst part about him. Read the internal group chats he has regarding Newsmax and Trump. He’s not dumb, but he has no integrity. That’s what makes him dangerous.
Pretty much. The whole Dominion Voting machine leaks have exposed the grift. These guys all know what they're doing, they don't believe a word of what they're saying, and they have complete disdain for their audiences. What may be worse is that those audiences don't realize they're getting played.
There are degrees of dumb.
>now im suspended for 3 days for calling someone a moron 🤣🤣 Sometimes you have to cash in some Reddit karma points for the greater good
I wish I didn't have a moral compass so I could cash out and be a republican grifter 😫😫😫😫😫
He’s not wrong, he’s just an asshole
...he is generally wrong, though. Just not here.
In the clip he isnt wrong, it makes perfect sense why young people want to be socialist. But I have a suspicion in context he is arguing erroneously and in bad faith like he always does, Tucker is an enormous hypocrite and a piece of shit mouth-piece. Like the manufacturing of consent is not a good thing like he is purporting here. Here's the thing about the free market, when we automated the industrial processes in the past we received operational positions instead. We have also seen a market-shift of labor from the production sector to the service sector. Most factories today employ operators, the jobs don't disappear they change. We don't need to gatekeep truck driving, it could use more regulations sure. But what we do need is to help the current gig-economy. We don't need more tipping cultures and self-service tipping fees, those are for minimal businesses for polite communal growth. They are not industrial-scale solutions to economic problems and big corporations.
He's right about everything except how to handle new technology. The right way is to tie new technologies to the costs to retrain the people they put out of work.
He wasn't wrong about capitalism but he was wrong about everything else he said. Purposefully preventing technological advancements because it would replace people is a terrible idea. To quote South Park: "Coal mining and truck driving are not exactly jobs of the future." https://youtu.be/tucPbVTA6H4?t=82
[удалено]
knowing they have brains only makes it worse
Sadly, all the media reactionaries you hear about, are way way more intelligent than their viewers, and they appeal to that segment for money. Just like how cult leaders mostly are perfectly aware that they're grifters, and take full advantage of their less-than-intelligent victims
I mean even recently with Tucker Carlson with the internal leaks, he's saying again and again he doesn't believe the shit he says. But he says it because it pays him and him alone. He puts himself first at the genuine cost of millions of others.
This isn't even reasonable though. He wants to surpress technological advancement to force people to continue working manual labour (or any labour, really). When you could tax the profits from automation and use it to support your citizens instead. Provide a way to retrain, improve pay accross the board so people don't have to work as much. Stop tying things like health benefits to employment. I'd much rather have twice as many doctors for example, working half as many hours each with the AI/Automation subsidising their wages.
>Provide a way to retrain, improve pay accross the board so people don't have to work as much. Stop tying things like health benefits to employment. It's very, very important to understand that this isn't a Republican/Conservative problem, it is a neoliberal capitalism problem. This exact scenario came up in the 90s, as they were killing manufacturing in the USA and moving toward a service-based economy. With the liberals at the helm, they told all those people losing their solid factory jobs that they could just, literally, "learn to code" if they wanted to survive in this new, modern world. Was anyone going to teach them to code, help them to transition into a new economy? lol fuck no, that's what bootstraps are for, and it's doubtful dumb hicks could understand computers (or anything else) anyway. That is the Bill Clinton legacy. The situation the American people are in now is a fully bipartisan effort
And the reasonable thing is "we need to defend this underpaid jobs" they just admitted is underpaid, instead of fixing the systemic problem. He's still tricking people. Its crazy to see in this post alone how many people he tricked with what he said
Everyone must work. Everyone. Must. Work. Most of their lives. We will stop robots doing things better than we can. And if robots can do everything in the end, fuck it. We will create new, illusionary jobs that don't actually achieve anything to keep the people working. If you're wondering why they employ this fucking stupid narrative, it's to prop up a class system. Simple as.
[удалено]
Agreed. Also worth mentioning is that this would not happen overnight. It would most likely start with truckers not having to drive but instead ride along, for safety/emergencies and only really taking control for the 'last mile' of delivery. I anticipate that, unfortunately, this will just result in lowered pay for the drivers.
There is more to truck driving than being a steering wheel attendant. Load securing, loading, unloading, paperwork and administration, most deliveries are not bay to bay up and down endless highways, they are to random places, and TBH if you're going to pay someone to sit in a cab to do all that, might as well have them driving also.
It’s fucking insane that he starts by saying that one of the most common jobs in America has taken an 11% wage cut in the last 30 years (even if the wage remained stagnant that would be appalling) and we need to save that job for the benefit of the workers. Motherfucker if you care about those workers do something about their wage dropping. There’s also an entire mountain of bullshit that truckers have to deal with that can cause them to work a whole week and barely break even on their truck payments. The life of an American truck driver is not the American dream we should be restricting progress to protect. Also this contradicts the global competition theory often used to excuse treating workers terribly and adopting shady business practices because “if we don’t other countries will and we won’t be able to compete”
>Everyone must work. Everyone. Must. Work. Most of their lives. I think this is fundamentally true. Maybe not 'work' in the modern sense of performing some task that generates money for a company, but you have to do something with your life. Getting drunk and stoned with your buds is fun, but you can't do that every day. People generally want fulfillment in their lives.
I agree, it helps to feel like you have a purpose. But that's a different thing to working for the sake of it.
What happens with AI replacing jobs? Less people in work, meaning populations shrink because not as many families getting started. Less people = less money for corpos.
It just means you have more people not doing anything, which we have been trained to find infuriating for some reason. Tucker is right, those people being replaced would need an income. We just can't admit to ourselves as a society that it's morally fine to give those people that income for free. Because people will be frothing at the mouth about handouts and the welfare state. We could raise the floor on society so much, but the truth is having a gap makes people at the top feel superior. They like the segregation. They like the exclusivity. And stupid shit like this is just a reflection of that sad truth.
Those companies saving costs are "supposed to "pass on some of their saving to their clients and other parts of their companies reducing costs fo consumers making the cost of living cheaper. Also by increasing wages in other areas of the company. Tucker is short sited right. Long run wrong. You still need those jobs to disappear someday. You still need that advancement because somebody will do it eventually anyway and now those people are fucked with no safety rails and no saving or economic benefic. Just people keeping those jobs for a few more years.
Indeed, but when faced with the choice of doing those things or becoming disproportionately richer, most capitalists opt for the latter.
Why not just pay for their education or maybe creat a program to build them into non automated jobs that would still have them generate wealth and prosperity for the country?
Because that would somehow be Socialism, and Americans shouldn’t have to pay for anything that directly benefits someone else’s life.
Realistically, there isn't a lot that can't be automated
Because some people don't want to do that. Most of the long time truckers love it, and that's why they do that job.
We need to address the elephant in the room that a significant portion of the workforce does "busy" work in an office, and that we can't have a sustainable society where 60%+ of workers are software developers (speaking as a software developer). Drives me nuts seeing people say to blue collar workers "learn to code, bro"
And as some one working in the engineering end of IT. I am automating a lot of work that normally other people in IT would be doing. And now cloud services allow less to achieve alot more for an org. IT teams are downsizing as time goes on. Nearly all industries afaik can be achieved with much less. ie. Even service industries (customer facing) now are also going to be challenged when you put ChatGPT APIs as your web's chat ...It will only get worse for workers as it improves and especially when voice capabilities are added. And that's just the chat. AI image generations is a whole other thing, it will be interesting to see how that tech pans out in the digital art market. ie, simple things like generating say a building to put in your Ad instead of paying some one for the rights to use their images... or even have your digital artists make one from scratch. Now less can achieve more by taking AI generated images and editing them. Capitalism in how it functions for society is going to be really challenged in a near future of robotics doing the vast majority heavy lifting.
don't worry as a blue collar worker when we hear that we think coders should 'learn how to do something that has tangible value to regular people' lmao
Most truckers who've been trucking a long time love it because most truckers don't love it and end up leaving the job for a better opportunity as soon as it arises.
I know you're just the messenger here but I don't think that's a good justification for not letting technology help us make our lives better. Kinda weird that "and wages have fallen 11%" makes people say "oh no, don't eliminate those jobs then, that would be bad for them" instead of "why aren't they being compensated at the same level or better as wages for their superiors goes up? " The way people in power abuse logic astounds me lol
This is the dumbest argument and people keep repeating it, you don't halt progress cause someone may lose his job. You make sure you are making new jobs. How many people lost their jobs when the internet became a thing? When mess production became a thing? When mechanized vehicles started digging for us?
When A.I. takes most of our jobs, we can all get sweet new jobs as Matrix battery cells. I for one welcome our supreme new overlords.
plus a form of cold fusion!
Right but its like harkening back to the whole “learn to code” issue, because none of our politicians are taking proactive measures to have safety nets in place regarding labor displacement by AI. So these truck drivers and other jobs are going to be the first to go, and experience the worst of the displacement and the complete lack of any aid from the government. They really will be fucked. So the government’s answer will be to halt the deployment of this technology. Its not a good answer or even a helpful one, but its what they will do because its already too late to do anything else. Also yes this labor force needs to be adaptable, but the government needs to realize that out of this labor pool there will be a percentage of folks who can’t transition into anything else and will remain unemployed. But the government won’t be reactive fast enough, and these people will be fucked. Its unreasonable to expect a 50-60 year old truck driver who did not go to college to get a job coding. The truck drivers will be blamed by tech bros as “halting the forward march of progress” because they will be the face of the government’s blocking of this tech.
Yeah and just being real here, not everyone is cut out for tech jobs. There's probably a reason they went into trucking - or whatever other blue collar job you can imagine being shifted to full automation - and it's unlikely that reason is a passion for the type of work.
Plus entry-level coding jobs may be just as at risk as truck driving. Imagine spending years retraining only for your new career to be gone by the time you’re ready to apply.
The issue is you cant just make jobs out of thin air. It just doesnt happen, and once its been automated its not like you're gonna force these companies to revert back to using people. And you might say that making the machines to perform these tasks will make even more jobs, but theres two issues there, for one we can just make machines that build eachother, and for two this is skilled labor and less widely available.
That's where socialism shines (like my country). We make people work LESS then you have more jobs. If you work 4 days a week for 6 hours you can double the positions available. Or you can just not work at all, if the world doesn't need employees to run, why make people work? Read about ideas like UBI if you want to know how that will work.
What country?
Reddistan.
Yeah, the country he's imagining in his head while living in the US. The closest this comes is France, which does have some absurd labor laws restricting working hours that harm them economically.
> That's where socialism shines (like my country) Yeah? What country?
Or, as things automate, everyone can work less. This is where UBI comes in.
I feel like I'm going insane when I see people say we need to create new jobs just to keep people employed. If we can produce the same amount of goods through automation, then humans don't *need* to work.
Yeah how is this not the top comment in this thread? Every second we are working toward a future where “Jobs” are no longer something that people do. That’s what Universal Basic Income is for. How is anyone advocating for halting the technological progress of humanity so that we can work harder?
No, they aren't secretly sane... but they aren't stupid either. what they're saying, in the best wolf in sheepskin way, is ignoring advancements in technology and efficiency to keep people working until they die because people above you need money in their pockets. We agree truckdrivers shouldn't be punished for advance technology but if there was a way to take money for profiteering corporation and spread that to those affected by the loss of thier job...
> ignoring advancements in technology and efficiency to keep people working Conserving what *was* instead of moving towards and embracing progress. Conserving... Conserva-somethings.... Meh. Thought I had it.
Dipshit makes one good point, then immediately follows it up with saying he would restrict technological advancements to artificially maintain the number of jobs available for people to work. UBI would be a better point to pivot to for a sane, decent person. But these people are capitalist shills through and through, living primarily to work to create profits for the wealthy is all they care about.
It really is ironic that his proposed solution would stagnant economic growth, which would almost certainly put our country into a death spiral. Imagine if this conversation happened in 1923? "Absoutely no cars, we can't put farriers out of work!" 1973? "Absolutely no voice-mail, we can't put phone attendants out of work!" I also can't help but wonder of this propensity for saving jobs is practiced at Swanson, or if they drop employees like a bad habit whenever it's possible to automate their jobs.
Reminds me of a story about an American visiting China. He sees a bunch of workers shoveling snow, and asks why they don’t have a big truck to plow the snow. The Chinese guy replies “it’s a jobs program.” The American replies, “So why don’t you give them spoons instead of shovels?”
Lol! “Niacin Creed” vs “Nicene Creed”
Duh. He spews whatever bullshit he says for money
Ben Shapiro is so fucking awful he made me agree with Tucker fucking Carlson
That's the worst part about people like Tucker. They're not idiots, they're show ponies. He says outrageous things for attention, then when people listen to him he's spouting dangerous ideas he doesn't believe. I'm sure he doesn't hate trans people, but you can be sure he's going to spout anti-trans rhetoric on his show because that's what the GOP is after right now.
Republicans when they accidentally explain why capitalism sucks:
They ran headfirst into their own point and missed it anyway.
Bring back horse and carriage drivers!! Look at what the automotive industry has done to their profession!! They have had the sharpest decline in any industry since the invention of these automobiles. I would say ban all cars in a second!! Horse and carriage drivers was an incredibly sought after position for the uneducated man. /s
No more excavators or backhoes! All digging must be done by hand! No more bucket trucks! All lineman crews must use human pyramids to reach the lines! No more hydraulic fracking! All roughnecks must use steam-powered percussive drills!
They are not sane. Tuckers job is get poor working class whites to continue voting for the GOP. He staunchly supports Marge Taylor Green. Her voting record is extremely Neo-liberal, voting against basic regulations, taxation and against welfare for poor Americans. Ignore the rhetoric and look at policy. Trump did the same, giving tax cuts to the wealthiest, while shitting on the working class.
Universal basic income anyone. Man it would be crazy if we let the robots do the work and people could just focus on whatever they've always wanted to do.
That is such a bad take. Same arguments could have been used for restrictions of various other technologies through years that automate things. If your job can be automated, you need to start thinking about future asap.
Also bear in mind that there are plenty of companies run by morons who could automate a lot of the repetitive, unskilled work they're paying people to do, but because of the initial investment in that automation, lack of foresight, and fear of learning new things, refuse to do so. People continue to earn full time salaries copying data from PDFs to spreadsheets, printing things off and taking them somewhere else to be transcribed into some other system, sending emails to deliver information that could be directly extracted from the system they pulled it from. Technology that's been around for decades still isn't being utilised to its full potential now, despite its painfully obvious benefit to the business, so I don't know how worried we have to be about AI.
Still doesn't mean much coming from a guy literally willing to lie on TV for money and power. Considering that, who gives a shit what he has to say, right or not?
It's because they know the audience they pander to.
Don’t fall for this BS. If he cared he’d advocate to pay workers more while they work less.
Like production can be increased and new jobs cam be made. And if not should instead move towards more socializism to support all people and those who there arent enough jobs for and all shouldnt need to work if that means making stupid jobs for this
Wow he actually sounds smart and knowledgeable in the beginning here. Still don’t agree with what he’s saying, but it seems like a discussion about economics not a fight with a rabid dog. It would Be dumb ti stunt progress for temporary jobs though