i mean, china produces more global emissions than the US totally. they produce less per capita but still. their percentage increase in global emissions since 2000 has been +223% while the US is down 34% in terms of emissions since 2000. subsidizing green energy would be good though.
i mean, if that’s the case it sounds like a valid security concern. it doesn’t make sense for the US to put themselves at a disadvantage in a potential war. but why would australia not also ban BYD considering they’re a US ally? don’t they also provide china more manufacturing that can be used in war?
you haven’t really address that the US is already dominated by foreign brands though so it doesn’t make sense to exclude china specifically unless there are other reasons beyond just keeping the US companies dominant. TryingToBeGood cited security concerns which i think is probably the more likely reason.
Does this have to do with safety regulations or something? Like what is the reasoning behind it? Because I heard these Chinese cars dont have good safety regulations
i agree it’s a valid concern. but i don’t think the solution to not getting a reduction in work hours is to halt technological progress. i personally like andrew yangs idea. instead of halting progress we put a tax on the robots that replace our jobs and use the money generated to give back to the people. andrew yang supported a universal basic income program. there’s a couple routes we can go. one is to halt the technological progress and keep the jobs that are currently here. that is status quo and personally it’s not the worse outcome, but it’s also not the best outcome. i’d rate it average, just staying where we are. (average scenario)
there’s option number 2. we allow the technological progress but don’t put any new taxes or regulations in place to let the new technological progress benefit the people. people lose their jobs and are not subsidized after losing their jobs and end up jobless, with no money, worse off than they were, while the rich tech people take even more profit than they’ve ever made before. goods will be produced at a much cheaper and more rapid rate, but less people will be able to afford their or basic living on their own. goods might also become cheaper because of the increase in supply and the lower cost of goods, but it doesn’t make up for the amount of money or meaning lost in people’s lives where they’re jobless and have no source of income. (worst case scenario)
and then there’s option 3, we allow the technological progress, but we regulate it and put taxes on the companies and corporations that profit from the new automation and machines. the money goes to the corporations partially, but a large chunk of it also goes to the people. in this scenario goods are produced cheaper, people that lose their jobs don’t lose as much value because they still get compensated through the taxing and spreading of wealth, and jobs that are repetitive and menial end up getting done by robots while more meaningful jobs that robots can’t do continue to be done by humans. (best case scenario)
personally i like option 3. i’d love to see self driving cars replace ubers, truck drivers, etc. i’d love to see fast food workers replaced by machines. all those shitty jobs that pay shit anyway and nobody wants to do get replaced by robots, and the people that lose those jobs still get compensated so they have a salary to live on.
what we’ve been doing is option 2, which is probably the worst case scenario. we need to move to option 3. more productivity is always good, we just need to spread the gains of our productivity to the people. you should look up andrew yang if you want to know more about this type of solution. the fact is though it’s not going to come by just trusting to corporations to tax themselves and spread their gains amongst the people, we need to elect someone that will enforce it. just like nobody would pay taxes in general if they didn’t have to.
it’d be more than thousands of people. but the thing is, when productivity is increased and more wealth is generated and people aren’t needed to do certain jobs anymore we have more free time or time to focus on stuff that we like or stuff that’s more productive like other work, that’s a good thing. the problem is when that excess wealth is generated it only going in the hands of the few. i would say it would be a good idea to tax the robots that start replacing jobs so that the wealth is spread amongst the people that lost their jobs and not just into the hands of the wealthy few. andrew yang talked about this a lot back in 2020 and a lot of what he predicted came true. he proposed a universal basic income to help redistribute wealth.
what do you mean?
interesting. thank you. when i was on reddit i would go to r/debate r/changemyview and subreddits like that where i could have discussions. are there lemmy subreddits for debates cause i’m not really finding any. thanks for the reply. on the plus side, of the two comments i left on lemmy they both got replies, so i was glad it wasn’t like twitter where you leave a comment on a large post and nobody interacts with 99% of your comments there. that’s nice and part of what i liked about reddit. good to know lemmy has people replying to each other here too.
when self driving cars get here these jobs will all be gone and delivery will be super cheap. i can’t wait.
just came to this site after getting banned off reddit… it has some nice features… BUT idk if i understand it correctly or not. i’m on lemmy.zip, if a subreddit on here isn’t bundled with together with my lemmy server will i not see it? will i still be able to interact with it? curious how it works.
deadass? LOL
you deserve a reply and i found this funny so i’m saving this
fair but if china is buying it at such a rate they are not shifting to clean energy. i don’t think the supplier matters as much as the demand. and if 34% of emissions in the US are down but our energy usage hasn’t gone down then that 34% is still the US producing less emissions either because there’s less necessity or demand for it.