Robots: The Bane of our Present and the Foundation of our Future

For many decades people have speculated when technology would eventually take over humanity. With ideas of self-driving cars and most service-oriented jobs being taken up by robots, now more than ever, that future seems obtainable. Certainly, this instills a lot of fear in the many people who rely on those service-oriented jobs such as cashiers, tellers, and taxi drivers for a yearly income. Heather Kelly, in her CNN article, “Robots could kill many Las Vegas jobs,” outlines issues that service employees could face in the very near future and how we can potentially remedy them.

The potential economic backlash that can occur from robots is already a fear for many keeping in mind that in five to ten years, Las Vegas will feel the impact of a “robot revolution.” Employees who are at risk of replacement have two options, either receive training to become more relevant in the modern world or go into early retirement; quite the choice for someone who depends on income. These workers certainly wouldn’t be left to fend for themselves without any financial assistance. America has many safety nets – such as social security and Medicare/Medicaid – that can ensure that people are protected, even if for some it means minimal coverage. It is even more concerning that “Black and Hispanic workers are more at risk to lose their jobs” than white employees are, which doesn’t bode for a good economic future seeing that Black and Hispanic citizens often find themselves at the lower end of the economic and educational spectrum. This predicted trend points to many good reasons for boosting the education of our citizens. Kelly cites a shocking statistic which states that people with a doctoral degree have a 13% chance of being replaced by robots while people with only a high school education have a staggering 74% chance of being replaced by automation.  Women as well will be “disproportionately affected” since they often occupy those service roles that are at risk for automation.

Although robots appear to be the bane of our existence presently, business owners have much to gain from automation. For starters, as amoral as it may sound, having no workers to pay means having more money to spend on other expenses to benefit and even expand companies. This can mean more profit for businesses with the addition of capital and wage-free labor. Additionally, proprietors don’t have to worry about providing insurance and benefits to their employees which means even more money can be allocated elsewhere. Profits will see further increases since automation will boost the marginal product of labor due to the elimination of the human factor, which can often limit production. In other words, efficient machines that don’t need lunch breaks or sleep can constantly produce which leads to more output and consequently, more profit (provided that the product sells adequately).

Even though many workers have fear for the future of their jobs, there is still hope. Automation requires skilled workers for construction and maintenance, and that can hopefully be filled in by the excess supply of unemployed workers who will eventually lose their jobs to robots. This is where the training comes into play. Many of the service industry employees only have a limited education but with training, they can become skilled in the trade of automation and potentially earn even more than what they were making before. The economic advantages to be gained from this revolution don’t seem to have very many limits. As with any extreme transition similar to this, there will be many ups and downs for workers, but the robot revolution seems to be leading us towards a bright future.

Image Source 1 & 2

 

The Razor Blade Platform of Republicans

Reflecting on the recent Virginia gubernatorial election and the repeated failures of the replacement of a decent Health Care Bill, Republicans have reason to worry about their foothold in D.C. The foremost Republican figure, President Trump, has a looming influence, direct or indirect, that plays a role in many elections. This was especially true with the election in Virginia and it will be entirely applicable wit

h the entire House of Representatives and a third of the Senate up for re-election next year. The Republican gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, Ed Gillespie, lost the election by an 8.9% margin and received 231,715 less votes than his Democratic opponent, Ralph Northam. Stephen Farnsworth, a political analyst for the University of Mary Washington, commented on Gillespie’s strategies by saying that he “campaigned like Donald Trump and was punished by the voters of Virginia for doing so.”

As Farnsworth points out, Gillespie chose an interesting campaign strategy that ultimately helped and hurt his race. On one hand, he benefitted from not accepting the endorsement of Donald Trump, most likely out of fear that an endorsement of the President would sink his campaign. Ironically, Gillespie hurt his campaign by acting much like President Trump which Virginians did not like, as they already had distaste for the President. Because of this interesting concoction of poorly chosen ingredients, Gillespie fell behind significantly and gave into Northam.

 

In our unit on Parties and Elections, we noted that the main goal of political parties is to win elections so that the party can take control and then create their own legislation. If we keep this notion in mind, the Virginia election could foreshadow a turn in the tide against Republicans. Virginia is a well-known swing state for Presidential elections and for the past ten elections, since 1980, Virginia has voted for the winning candidate seven times. While this information may not have as much correlation as the Democrats would like, nor as much importance as the Republicans ought to pay attention to, the results could signify a retaliation against Republicans. Furthermore, it is not only retaliation against Republicans but as well against Trump who, in the eyes of some people, has tainted the image of the Right. If this gubernatorial election holds any influence over future elections, then the Republicans ought to keep their wits about them. Once again, Ralph Northam won by a significant margin and left Gillespie in the dust, so to speak. As of now the Republicans are balanced precariously in the eyes of the people. If they fall out of favor, then the doors are left wide open for Democrats to rush into the Legislative branch and gain majority.

 

 

In speaking about approval of the people and parties, President Trump’s approval rating currently sits at 38.3% while his disapproval rating stands at 56.5%; that’s a margin of 18.2%. This steady decline of approval of the President shows an increasing frustration of the people in the shortcomings of the executive branch. The frustration then trickles down from the President to the Republican Party and that is where the uncertainty and trouble of the future arises. If the Republicans, including Trump, cannot construct a passable Healthcare bill, among other items on their agenda, then the trend that we observed in Virginia is likely a fair predictor of America’s future and surely a blow to Republicans everywhere.

Image Source

Can We Repeal the Second Amendment?

For Americans, our right to bear arms, granted to us by the Second Amendment, is a vital part of our fundamental freedoms; however, could this cornerstone of our democratic republic be repealed and what would be the consequences? Of course, such a bold suggestion arises only after the deadliest mass shooting in American history which occurred in Las Vegas, Nevada. Fifty-eight people were killed and more than five hundred were injured. This topic has many argumentative standpoints and for this discussion, we are going to review the matter through a Constitutional lens.

Underneath the Constitution and the Bill of Rights , we as American citizens are guaranteed the right to “…keep and bear [a]rms…” (Amendment II). The Second Amendment was, and remains to this day, an essential part of the Bill of Rights which was the driving force for the ratification of the Constitution. For most Americans, to repeal this amendment would greatly infringe on personal rights; however, that does not mean repeal would be impossible. Under Article V, which covers amendments, there are no explicit clauses that mention repeal. The clauses only mention the creation of amendments and the steps necessary to ratify them. This causes somewhat of a dilemma, as there is no process to repeal the Second Amendment. Law, however, when scrutinized, can contain loopholes and we look to the example of the 18^th and 21^st amendments for guidance. The 18^th amendment prohibited the manufacturing and sale of alcohol in the early 1900s; later on, the 21^st amendment was ratified in order to repeal the 18^th amendment. Legislators used the language of the Constitution to repeal the amendment when there was no procedure for repeal in the first place. They simply utilized the creation clauses for amendments to produce an amendment that made the 18^th null and void. From what I have gathered, if Congress were to make a move to fully/partially repeal the Second Amendment, this is the course of action that they would most likely take. Additionally, if Congress were to follow through with this action, there is also another debate to be had over the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to our Constitution guarantee and protect our most basic rights and never in our country’s history have any of the amendments in the Bill of Rights been repealed. Issues like these create questions that both politicians and citizens are likely to be debating about heatedly. Questions such as: Does Congress have power to touch any amendment in the Bill of Rights, a document that is the very foundation of this country? If so, what would a repeal of the second amendment symbolize for both the U.S. and its citizens? What could it also signify for the rest of the amendments in the Bill of Rights? How stable are their foundations to withhold this oncoming storm of discussions?

Furthermore, Congress would also run into road blocks such as the procedures necessary to create amendments. First, “two thirds of both Houses” must be willing and deem it necessary to propose amendments to the Constitution (Article V). Afterwards, an even more challenging process follows because then, “three fourths of the…States” must elect to ratify the proposed amendment within each of their legislative bodies (Article V).

While repeal of the Second Amendment, whether it be partial or full repeal, sounds feasible on paper, the reality is that it most likely would not pass through into law because of the human factor. We are a democratic republic and we the people have a voice which demonstrates our will. Since the Second Amendment is such a fundamental right for the American people, it is highly unlikely that the voice of the people would stand by as that right is taken away.

Image Source

Our Inner Id’s of the Filter Bubble

After reflecting on Eli Pariser’s TED Talk on the Filter Bubble, I find that a part of his speech resonates with the majority of America and how we are a land of Freudian Id’s, or impulsive, pleasure-seeking beings. Fast food in today’s time is a commonplace form of eating cheap. It is so widespread that I would argue that there are more fast food chains than there are some of the most critically endangered species on this planet. This notion of widespread consumerism bridges back to Pariser’s idea of “information junk food” by result of the filter bubble’s sifting. The bubble that we find ourselves in feeds the impulses of our Id and because we are accustomed to fast and comfortable sustenance, we feel the urge to continue searching for it.

On another note, Eli Pariser mentions in his TED Talk that within Netflix there is a constant struggle occurring between our “impulsive present selves” and our “future aspirational selves.” This struggle provides us a different reflection point about the American spirit and our “Land of Opportunities.” The majority of Americans grow up with aspirations of great deeds and parents often support those aspirations by affirming what the country and the constitution provide in order for us to accomplish that goal. This is not to say that they are wrong in supporting their children, but sometimes events happen with the passing of time that turn us away from those high aspirations. Perhaps that turning away comes as a result of the filter bubble and the mass consumerism that we envelop ourselves in. Reaching for high aspirations and then attaining them is an arduous and uncomfortable task that many in the beginning are willing to undertake; however, becoming stuck in our own bubbles lends us to more commodities that render all manners of living comfortable. Because of this, the Id appears from the background of our minds and pushes us towards a more accommodating mode of living in which, much like the filter bubble, we become desensitized and oblivious to all of our aspirations and issues that gnaw at the back of our head.

Many of us would like to see the filter bubble “popped” and done away with, but with ever changing technology, that goal becomes more and more difficult to attain. There are other solutions that provide us with pathways to combat this filtering. One way to fix our issues is to muster enough courage to step outside of our bubbles and actively seek and follow the opposing viewpoints that make us uncomfortable. Of course, in a way we run the risk of catching ourselves within another filter bubble, but at least now we can view different arguments. Another way of combating the filter is to go out and become an active American citizen. Commonplace activities such as voting, protesting, and attending campaign rallies are the true ways to fight a filter bubble because by participating in these informative events, there is no tangible way for the filter bubbles of the World Wide Web to reach us.

Convincing the general population to rise to the occasion is a difficult task. The majority of people would probably rather stay in a world of comfort controlled and fed by the Id, but if enough of a following amasses, then the general idea of a snowball effect occurs. If we try to convince people to go out and change the world, most would be scared off by the daunting reality of it all. However, if we tell people to go out and change their community and what affects them as a person, then perhaps citizens might be more willing to act.