On Trump's executive orders, muslim ban, and uproars...

Donald Trump is turning the White House into his latest reality TV, with main media, social media, Fox News, and everyone else in between providing blow-by-blow of his actions. "First Day In Office!" "First Seven Days In Office!" People heed to the siren calls indeed, that benefits media viewing (that traditionally drops off after the November election, but not so after the Trump inauguration), which has seen media viewership maintained at almost the pre-election numbers.

One has to give it to the very belligerent Trump, for his knack of picking fights and generating soundbites. The list of executive orders he's signed, 17 in total so far, is indeed far-reaching, many of which fulfilling his campaign promises popular among his supporters, including the (beginning) rollback of ObamaCare, killing TPP, putting in motion the building of a border wall along Mexican border, lobbyist ban, ridding the idea of sanctuary cities, and even that so-called extreme vetting of muslims into US. The lesser impact ones about the reopening of the work on the Keystone pipeline with Canada doesn't seem to be much of the public concern (except for the oil industry and environmentalists).

The uproar from the executive order on extreme vetting is swift. By that, we know now that it means an immediate suspension of visa and refugee relocation from a number of muslim countries, including Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen and Somalia. Politicians from both sides of the aisles denounced it, other countries reject it, business leaders (particularly the tech world) speak out against it, but his supporters love it. Afterall, such move is generally a politically suicidal, and any politician would think twice about taking such action, lest the wrath from political establishment will come down hard on them.

Alas, Trump is not a politician, he doesn't generally think twice on anything. And so, he does what he does best, bringing new meaning to the words "shooting from the hip." But you know, that's exactly why his supporters vote him for, which is to be totally politically incorrect.

Truth be told, US takes in far fewer refugees than Europe in total, and the impact of muslims in this country is negligible and outsized, compared to the negative publicity that muslim have generated in the form of terrorist attacks, most infamously 9/11 that went down history books as probably the worst terrorist act on the homeland.

In a way, it's almost pointless to lump the discussions of all migrants as if they are homogeneous, one and the same. A muslim refugee is likely to be far different from a mexican migrant, illegal or otherwise, with perhaps the only similarity they share is being a stranger in a strange land. One could arguably say that, once all these dissimilar strangers land on this soil, their journey would likely be the same, what with the economic struggle, to try to make a better life for themselves and their next generations. Such is the indeed path that almost every migrant generations to this country has gone through over the centuries.

Yet, the other similarity that all these migrant groups share, is their desire to becoming part of this country, their effort to make this their new home, to truly becoming an american, to assimilate, to morph their own culture and identity with those of this new country. That has always been what makes America interesting and what makes it work because, unlike Europe, there is no set overlord class (supposedly) that imposes some class boundary that one cannot break through. Such is the promise of America, that Europe (not UK) or even Asia (like China or Japan) can compare.

Mexican migrants, legals and illegals, have always raced to embrace that assimilation, even though in the process, their culture changes US too, as evident in border states like Arizona and Texas.

Unfortunately for the muslims, those few radicals and those younger generations who choose to become radicalized by extremist views in Islam, have inflicted such harms to this new country that this tiny minority group of radicals, however few in numbers, have managed to alienate themselves from the larger society. It does not help that, in the hope of protecting their own ranks, the muslim communities as a whole fail to forcibly speak out against extremist views like ISIS, Taliban, and al Qaeda, the silent treatment of which has in itself become a tacit endorsement of the view of Muslims v Infidels, Exhibit A being US (the country that has taken them in).

One does not have to look much further than the Boston Marathon bombers (the Tsarnaev brothers), who exhibit nothing more than ungratefulness to US, their new home that extends welcome to them, yet met with the thanks in the form of bombs and mayhem. Their case(s) have nothing to do with sanctuary city like San Francisco and Boston that vow not to work with federal agency to deport illegal migrants, the kind of local policy that groups like Mexicans seek.

But to the minds of Trump and his supporters, they are one and the same. Those are considered outsider groups that either do not belong here, or choose not to belong here.  Trump has vowed to respond in kind, roll up the welcome mat to send them packing back to their own respective home countries.

In a way, I can almost understand why Trump (and his supporters) do what they do, in the name of principles. If you do not come here legally, or you come here legally but refuse to assimilate, then you don't belong here. Such has always been the "principle" that GOP and any far-right groups preach.

One cannot help but looking at the hypocrisy of the GOP when it comes to the "you don't belong here" principle, than to look at the way in which the longstanding GOP policies have always been hostile to the haves versus have-nots, as a way to whittle down who should belong here and who shouldn't. (Bearing in mind too, that all these "have-nots" are those that truly "belong here," Period.) That includes the blacks, the minorities who struggle to make a living, even the low-income whites (skin color no longer makes a difference anymore when it comes to how much you have in your pocketbook).

It's most peculiar to see the poor white working-class voters reveling Trump as their champion, a billionaire who is worth many lifetimes over compared to their own, seeking to weed out all those who "don't belong", in an attempt to push out those lesser fortunate souls in order to make their own station (however perilous as it might be, without a job or livelihood) a tidbit more secure. Then again, if the party establishments from either GOP or Dems have done a better job taking care of this permanent underclass, Trump wouldn't even be in the White House now.

As to Trump's flurry of actions to appease these poor white working-class voters, I don't expect it to stop. In fact, the more that main media like New York Times and Washington Post denounces it, the more that the world leaders reject it, the better to Trump and the more he'll double-down on it. Ultimately, soundbites count, to Trump, and to his supporters. To hell with everybody else, principles be damned.

On individual level, I find that my best action, is simply to ignore him. That's not ostrich approach to me, but if I am to contribute to the feeding frenzy that Trump seeks, by writing about it in forums and whatnot, it's just going into feeding his ego, and THAT I would not do. That does not mean I won't keep tab on the news and development, that does not mean I won't write to my state representative and senator's office to demand actions. My feeling is, once the frenzy subsides, Trump will come to his sense. But you cannot expect him to see sense when he's in the midst of a fight, which is exactly what is happening now with all the uproars.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I do have a few last words:

(a) Trump was not wrong to demanding assimilation from new migrants. Assimilation does not mean giving up one's culture, but in forging a new identity in a new country, there has to be give-and-take. If anyone who refuses to do so, they might as well go back to their old way of life in their old home country. Why bother coming to US or Europe or whatever new country when they want the same-old-same-old?

(b) I live in one of those notable sanctuary cities. While it never affects me in any way, I do find the principle of explicitly harboring illegal migrants curiously annoying. If anything, work out some policy to provide some pathway for aspirants to apply for immigration to this country legally, for chrissake. Sensible and reasonable immigration policy is what this country needs, rather than explicit endorsement for breaking the law. Open borders, no matter what, is not the right way to go. It is for this reason that I applaud Obama's ending the wet-foot-dry-foot policy for Cubans before he left office, which has long ceased to be sensible or effective, particularly in the face of the normalization in foreign policy with Cuba.

(c) Ultimately, all the fights of extraneous policies come down to securing one's economic fortune. During the post-war boom years after WWII, US economy had been flying high for decades. The projection of its will, its willingness to spread the good fortune and democracy, has sustained many a country (and regions), including Germany, Japan, and even China in lifting them to becoming top among the world's economic drivers. It's been more than 70 years now, and we've been living in this afterglow of those boom years (that allows us to really believe in that amazing concept of American Exceptionalism), but all good times will come to an end. US power and influence is waning in various regions, including APAC, Europe, and beyond. In a twisted way, Trump (and his supporters) are telling us implicitly (even if they didn't find the words for it and even if they do not want to believe it that we are no longer exceptional in any way), that we are no more exceptional than the next guy, and we have to put our own house in order first before we can share our fortune. But whether we can become "Great Again" is a different matter, entirely.

On the Trump inauguration, Women's March Against Trump, Obama, et. al...

It's a reality now. Donald Trump has sworn in and is now the President of the United States. Given the multi-year long fatigue of the venomous campaigning and election season in 2015/16, it's finally over. At least we can all get down to business.

I generally don't watch TV, more rarely so with a crowd. The last time I found myself staring at a big-screen TV in a conference room, was 9/11 when the first tower of the World Trade Center was billowing with smoke, but the second plane hadn't struck yet. The horror had not set in since there was so little information available on the news, except the almost still-picture like of WTC in the backdrop of a perfect blue sky with nary a wist of white cloud. There was a certain feeling of deja vu, as if we were watching a Hollywood movie, that feeling of "No, this cannot be..." It wasn't until a few days later, when more footage and news came out, of the chaos and frenzy that were happening on the ground, that when the footage of WTC came crashing down, huge cloud of smoke spreading in all directions, with people running away in all directions, that I began to feel the impact, that this was for real. I found my tears running down my face without realizing it until much later.

And so, I find it almost odd, to find myself in front of a big-screen TV at work watching the Trump inauguration yesterday. That feeling of dread, of what this guy might really do to the country. Perhaps not so curiously, I didn't feel the impact yet, I know that will come later, just like 9/11. I watched the swearing in of Trump and Mike Pence, his vice president, just in time to make the noon deadline. Apparently, it's customary (or perhaps mandatory??) for the new president's swearing in to happen before noon, though no one knows what should happen if there's delay. Trump's didn't end until 12:05pm, I didn't hear anyone complaining.

I stayed to watch his speech too, in front of huge crowds. There was no mention of the protest crowds (or perhaps that would come later? But I won't know since I didn't stay long after his speech). It could well be a case of beauty is in the eyes of beholder, that Trump supporters found so much to celebrate for in his inaugural speech, but all I heard was the same-old-same-old speech from Trump during his campaign.

Does anyone mention to Trump that he won already, and he can stop his campaigning now? Or, is that really his true conviction that he's going to return America to the people? I can't really tell. He spoke of much "carnage in America", that he would ensure "America First", and left unsaid was the message of "if that would mean screw everybody else, so be it." Winning at all costs, such has always been the Trump mantra. Some say he's nothing of an ideologue, hence he has no problems screwing Democrats as well as GOP which could well be true, so much so that Trump was something closest to an independent as voters can get. There is some truth in that.

During the inauguration, there was occasional shots of Obama looking passive. Given the hard work and popularity for eight long years, to see that all those hard-won battles are going to be all rolled back by Trump (with the help of a Congress fully controlled by GOP in the House and Senate), one can understand why he's looking almost sad. There was also a gracious Bill and Hillary Clinton too. One could only imagine how hard it must be for HRC to stand just 15 feet away from the podium, but what a world apart those 15 feet would define a winner from all the losers.

Today (one day after Trump's inauguration), people in US and around the world are marching in protests. It's dubbed Women's March Against Trump, although even before the march, the organization of it was already dividing itself up among subgroups, with some groups of women, particularly white women, feeling marginalized by minorities. Then again, why am I not surprised by this, given the political correctness that the liberals have helped stroked, that it's certainly not fashionable to be white, or male, or white female, or even heterosexual. One doesn't need to look much further than the new posters from Shepard Fairey to see what liberals are celebrating these days. For one, it's vogue to celebrate Muslim women in heavily wrapped headscarf in prints of US flags. Perhaps that's what liberals truly believe that would be our ideal world, but how many Muslim women would be doing that, one has to wonder?

In any case, for those women, particularly those who chose to stay in and not vote for HRC (as a counterweight to Trump), to come out in droves against Trump. That's simply "too little, too late". There's almost no point doing it now.

I'd just have to be content with seeing Trump ripped this country apart, one bite at a time. Case in point: Within an hour after inauguration, Trump suspended the FHA mortgage insurance rate reduction that was set to take effect on 01/27. To set the stage for all to come, the White House website has already been purged of policy reference to climate change the next day he's sworn in. For all the talks of returning the government to the people, what does Trump truly mean by "the people"?

Although my station is safe and secure, it's hugely sad to see the country voluntarily dims (even extinguishes) its beacon in which the world over had come to look up to and follow.

On the perils of childbirth...

When it comes to women's birth, practically everyone has an opinion on it, even most men seem to suddenly become "experts" in telling women what they should or should not do. Women who profess to have prior experience are likely to be even more annoyingly opinionated, amongst the vocal groups. Likewise for those who think that by "researching" into the subject matter, they can become experts too, in which category the writer of the recent Mother Jones article about childbirth looks to fall into.

In balance, most people (including those medical practitioners in OB/GYN) should and could say, though, is that statistically speaking, scenario x has y percentage chances of happening, which goes with z list of risks. As anyone who has reared multiple children can tell you, every child can be different. Same is true with childbirth. It is thus that only the woman - the expectant mother - can truly be the expert in her own case, who should really arm herself with knowledge and research, rather than relying solely on the "expert opinion" of her OB/GYN doctor or nurses. In this day and age when there are tons of books, online materials, forums and support groups, this is not hard to do at all.  Perhaps the harder part is, how to discern the details that are relevant and pertinent to oneself specifically, amidst huge volume of data out there.

Knowledge, in other words, is power. And we have to be responsible (quite often, largely) for the decisions that we made for ourselves. 

I thus find it annoying when I read that Mother Jones article, citing one anecdote of a woman with a long family history of cesarean sections due to small hip, that she experiences a difficult vaginal childbirth that led to risks which her OB/GYN doctor allegedly did not tell her or brushed aside.

Let's be upfront about it, the old saying about women with childbearing hip are made for carrying babies is not without merits. Put it another way, if a woman has small hips (which one could not help), it's more likely than not that she would have a more difficult natural childbirth, all other factors being equal.

I can say a word or two about that, since I have small hips myself. My first childbirth was a painful and difficult one, with some 16 hours of hard labor, even though my baby was only 7 lbs. My baby was breech for a number of hours before thankfully it fell into position. It's tremendously painful, never mind the risks to both the baby and the mother. A childbirth can quite literally resets a woman's body. My hip during pregnancy and after childbirth has expanded four inches. (Some of my friends have seen their hips "exploded" literally a few pant sizes after childbirth.) It should come as no surprises that bodily changes happen. Take incontinence, for example; afterall, there was much tear and stretching and scarring of the vaginal tissues, it's almost to be expected. That's why women who have vaginal childbirth are always advised to do Kegel exercises to (hopefully) train those muscles back in shape. As with any woman who has had a vaginal childbirth will tell you, it'll never be the same again.  (It's quite apparent that the writer of that Mother Jones article is one of those who have never had such "luxury" of experience, from the way she writes.)

All these, among other things, were known to me because I researched on it. Even if my OB/GYN had explained to me, it could not possibly begin to describe any of these, not in terms that a new mother (as I was back then) would ever possibly imagine it.

But the risks are always real. My mother was with me in the hospital at the time. It was only later that she told me how much she was worried, since she knew the high fatality rate to women during childbirth. That was why we had decided to have the childbirth in a hospital, just in case there is any complications or emergencies, where C-section might be needed.

That is not to say that C-section is not without risks. Quite far from it, there are far more health risks to the mothers that would require far longer time to recuperate. Two of my sisters have had their babies delivered by C-section. It's a fine line to walk, and a decision that the woman (and the husband) has to make. No doctors should or could make that call. 

In the bygone era when more was always better, everyone went for C-section since it was vogue. These days, the pendulum has decidedly swung the other direction, that everyone (particularly the educated middle-to-upper class women in the West) wants a vaginal (more natural) childbirth. Tons of resources listing pros and cons of vaginal vs C-section are available for anyone who cares to look. There really is no excuse for anyone to say, "my doctor did not tell me [of the risks]", whichever option one might choose. 

(Ok, there might be a case to make, for those illiterate women who either don't have the ways and means to research on the topic, that they could be far more susceptible to risk factors, one way or the other. But I don't get that feeling reading the anecdote in the Mother Jones article.)

Having a child, giving birth to one, and bringing the baby up to healthy adulthood, to be fully productive member of society, is a lifelong process that is really a gift of God. To be honest, it's not really for everyone. (Some people love it, some people don't want to have anything to do with it. But that personal choice, to me, is totally fine.) This also takes a huge dose of responsibility on oneself. If one is not willing to read or check the fineprint, "don't sign on the dotted line." There's really no point having buyer's remorse, looking for bad guys to blame.

On social (in)justice, Black Lives Matter, et al...

Of all the events that sprang up in the last couple of years, was the Black Lives Matter movement. Not that I have any immediate insight to it, nor was I ever directly impacted by it, but just some random thoughts that might worth jotting down in my journal.

There was much injustice against the African-Americans as a race historically, that much is beyond dispute. From the perspective of the modern times, who could ever argue for slavery afterall? It is also without doubt that United States, as a nation, had benefited enormously from the slave trade in the centuries past. One could say the nation and economy could not have flourished without the benefits of slave labor. The horrific of treating another human being as commodity, a cargo that could be bought and sold, is simply too wrong to comprehend.

Much injustice (genocide, land seizure, enslavement, permanent displacement, and more) had also been done to other groups, like the indigenous people of Native Indians.

In fact, United States had many a company in this department. Just ask Australia, and how the whites in the bygone eras had treated the native aborigines. Or, any of the western European countries in their expeditions and colonization of Africa and South America. The list goes on.

The questions for us now are, what do we do about it, now? How do we treat the history? How to make amends? How far do we go when enough is enough? How to make sure history doesn't repeat itself? And, who should be paying the price for past wrongdoing?

I'm not a historian, I'm not even black, nor white. I'm just one of many latecomers to this New Land. For all the public discourse, outcry, events, and more about social (in)justice, racial issues, and discrimination, I do have some thoughts from my vantage point.

African-Americans (I'll use the term, with blacks, interchangeably here since it's a few less characters to type) are pioneers in the struggle for social justice and the civil rights movement. Anyone who came after them has to thank them for it as they benefit inherently from the civil rights and progress gained. There is at least no more redlining, segregation, at least the legal protection against those practices.

Along the way, every generations seem some form of injustice, from the internment of Japanese-Americans during the WWII, to the Chinese Exclusion Act that lasted more than sixty years, to the overt hostility of Muslims in the early years of the 21st century, epitomized by Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election season when he openly suggested banning Muslims into US.

As each wave of migrants overcame the hostility, hardship, and assimilation, they move up the economic ladder and economic ladder, given social mobility. That much was true with the Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, and the Asians. Many African-Americans rode that wave too, although given the size of the black population, many more seem to have been left behind in ghetto-like conditions, with dimming education and employment prospect.

It did not help that over the decades, many wrongs were done to the blacks as a group, from the erstwhile Tuskegee experiment, the crack cocaine epidemic in the 1980s, to the unfair justice system, and now police brutality incidents that spawn the Black Lives Matter Movement. There is little wonder that the blacks mistrust the police. I totally get that. Whenever there is crime where the perps (police or otherwise) are white and victims are blacks (or minority), social media lit up. There is an almost conceived notion that the whites must be wrong, and the blacks are wronged, yet again. One has to say, it's decidedly not fashionable to be white these days.

These days, when I read stories or news, it's easy to hear how the narratives are shaped, depending on the reporter's leaning. There are times when I hear stories like the alleged gang rape by Nate Parker, or the serial sexual assaults by Bill Crosby over a number of decades, I feel the need to yell "Who cares if the perp is black, or not?" To me, as long as the crimes are established, they should be punished for it. They should not get a pass, just because their skin is black. Riding on the backs of their black ancestors is simply shameless. And for those to compare one crime to another interchangeably, it's just wrong.

It is almost fashionable too, to revisit slavery and to rewrite history by erasing it, like the cases where college students wanting to rename building names, or take down statutes, citing reasons of intimidation, or that by preserving certain part of history or traditions, it's tacit endorsement of past practices. But, can such actions really do anything? I'd bet you all the money too, that 99.99999% of the students going through those buildings (that named after some slave masters a few centuries ago) don't think of it at all. So, why wasting all the efforts, blowing all these hot air, to drag everything through the mud again?

How far back can and should we go in order to atone to historic sins? Should all the whites go back to their ancestral homeland (of England, or Germany, or some such), and give the land back to the native Indians? And in a land of immigrants like United States, where many of them have had no ancestors whatsoever that did those past wrongs, should they be punished too, just because they are now firmly Americans?

Ultimately, I'm getting so tired of the mention of it, every time someone plays up the race card, or gender card, whatever, in order to justify their point. It's like, someone was killed, but no, the perp was not to blame because, hey, he's black, he can't be blamed. He came from broken homes, he's poor, he suffers from discrimination, etc etc. (You can easily replace the word "black" with anything, like "hispanic", or simply "minority".)

We should all be compassionate for others and their suffering. Yet, there is literally no way to tease out how much of it was due to historic wrongs, society's faults, or one's own willful wrongdoing. There is no way you can play what-if, or hold control studies, on whether someone might turn out differently if, say, his skin is white but not black, or if his parents earn six-figure salary versus toll some manual jobs.

One interesting case in point, is the model minority of Asian-Americans (in particular, Chinese-Americans) when it comes to how one might rise above one's station, overcome discrimination, bootstrap for better education, better employment, and more. While this group takes up just 5% of total US population, a group that was discriminated upon for so many decades, they now on average beat every other group, including, yes, the whites, in terms of education level, employment rate, wealth accumulation, home ownership rate, and more. And they did it, all without much help (or welfare) from the government. How did they do it?

(One should give credit where it's due, and Asian-Americans, as with all other minority groups that came after the black slaves, have reaped benefits from the Civil Rights movement too. One must not forget that. But, so does every other minority group, including, yes, the blacks themselves too.)

I'm a regular reader of New York Times. I like its in-depth reporting in general. But I have to say, there are many a times when reading NYT columns or reporting can get me all roiled up. The easiest argument, the default argument, is always that government has to do more, to help, to make amend, to right the wrongs. No doubt there are many cases where that is true. But c'mon, when do we start to talk about personal responsibility?

On AI, automation, universal basic income, and the prospect of human labor...

I have meant to drop a note in my journal here about the progression of technology and its impact on human labor, but keep forgetting.  Maybe on this quiet Saturday afternoon when it's snowing out, it's high time for a cup of hot chocolate while jotting down my thoughts.

There have been a lot of noises, and fights, since Uber (and the likes of Lyft) burst on scene. As with most startups from Silicon Valley, they were successful in grabbing headlines and market share by evading regulations, effectively eating the lunch of taxi industry. This is in contrast to more evolutionary approach of Zipcar which looks to only offer an alternative to car ownership, Uber wants to replace taxis. It's only natural that taxi industries from around the world (except notably in China and India) rally against it. Governments of some countries (like France) decide to side with the taxi industry that came out in full force of mass demonstration, while others (like Australia) essentially throw up their hands, providing some one-time reimbursements to taxi owners while embracing Uber with open arms.

Some people love it, others hate it. It began to dawn on those Uber drivers who initially love the idea of working only when they feel like it, that they were paid pittance for driving Uber customers around, paying for literally everything, including insurance, gas, and more. Some try to sue Uber for formal employee status, others want Uber reimbursement on insurance and more. At the same time, incidences like sexual assaults (from India to Australia) began to emerge.

Increasingly, these human drivers are becoming more like nuisance than help. They complain, they are hard to be motivated, and they generate really bad publicity. Something has to be done.

At the same time, technology is fast maturing with self-driving cars. Google has quietly accumulated more than two million miles of test driving driverless cars. Startups that focus on self-driving trucks are getting road-tested. Tesla is shipping cars with auto-pilot system that one would expect from airplanes. It's looking more likely by the day that driverless transport will become reality sooner than anyone would think.

And this is just the ground transport alone. Others like Amazon has already tested drones delivery of shipment (albeit in rural England initially) and created concept stores with no service employees. Even factories in China are beginning to introduce automation due to rapidly rising labor costs (since the first wave of excess labor migrating from rural to urban areas in the 1980s are beginning to wind down). 

Machines don't complain, they can work 24x7 (with just the occasional greasing and maintenance/repairs), they don't ask for wage rise or benefits, they don't unionize, they don't take bathroom breaks, they don't eat, they don't sleep, they don't get sick, they have no issues with work-life balance, and they certainly don't shit and pollute the environment. They would do exactly as you tell/program them to, no questions asked. They don't worship false gods, or become terrorists. (Along that allegory, they must be excellent soldiers.)

Ultimately it is the customers, end-users, who would deal a death blow to workers. They prefer self-checkout at supermarkets and airports to avoid long lines and grumpy employees, they like ezpass with automated toll collection and no human toll collectors or fumbling with coins, they want low shipping costs and fast, accurate delivery. And they want low cost everything.

(Were those same customers who might once be workers thinking that the automated system that they so love would one day replace them? I doubt that they were that far-sighted when they were reaping short-term benefits as customers, only to find out that it's too late to stop the tide when they lose out to machines as workers.)

In a way, the decision by corporations to automate is almost a no-brainer, from a pure economics perspective. 

There is however huge human tolls as a result of automation. Huge swath of no/low-skill, uneducated workers are displaced. Even the Obama administration has issues report that sounds like siren call. These workers are shifted almost exclusively to supporting Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, as a repudiation to all establishments (both GOP and Democrats). There are even union workers breaking ranks from union leaders to side with Trump instead of Hillary Clinton (the de facto Dem champion for workers). NAFTA/TPP, my ass, indeed.

Indeed, the human costs of losing one's livelihood are immeasurable. So many of these workers, and younger generations too, were told to get an education, and to re-train for another field(s) that are more labor intensive (eg. health care, nursing, education, retail or service sectors). So many of the displaced heed the call, borrow to the tilt, just to get themselves a piece of paper called a degree, in some discipline like liberal arts that has hardly had any job prospects. Four years and tons of student debts later, they find themselves just as trapped, perhaps in even worse shape. 

Europe takes a different tact in handling these surplus human labor in the form of universal basic income, but the prospect is equally dim. The idea is that, government would give every individual non-means tested income, whether you work or not. Finland is testing this on limited scale. 

It's an interesting idea, reminiscent of a "social security income" to everyone. You don't have to earn it, you just need to be there. Nice idea, but I have serious doubts.

First off, the money has to come from somewhere. These European countries thought they were ingenuous to discover this, but they are not. Just ask Saudi Arabia or Brunei, both of which have been giving out freebies and cash to their citizens for the longest time. 

Before one asks the question of "how did they do/afford it?" a better question to ask is "where does the money come from?"

They share a couple of common traits. Both Saudi Arabia and Brunei derive so much of their free money from oil. Their people don't have to work for it, they just need to have the good fortune for being born there and with the right lineage. The government can afford it without taking on debt (to finance the cash handouts) because all they need to do, is to pump more oil.

Right there, you'll see the problems: (a) Not every country has that kind of good fortune of "natural resources" to fund your lifestyle, (b) The size of your total population cannot be too large, (c) What would happen when the oil runs dry some day? Population is only going to grow, and oil reserve will continue to go down, thanks to all the pumping. These two trends are going to diverge and deteriorate. 

Is it any wonder that even rich country like Switzerland rejected this idea of universal basic income? 

The one thing that perhaps no one can and will dispute, is that, technology will continue to advance, whether you like it or not. There will come a day when automation is here to stay and become reality. What will we do with all the surplus human labor, all those no/low-skilled, non-educated workers? This is assuming that there will still be jobs for the highly skilled, and highly educated workers, who are presumably citizens of the world who can still command decent-to-high salary. And then there is the ruling elite class, the investors, the moneyed class, the CEO types, who control not only the purse string, but corporation decisions. 

In short, what would our world be like when all resources are controlled by an increasingly small group of individuals, while the rest of the world population festers? How could these poor individuals continue to be "customers" when they cannot "produce"? As offensive as it might sound, what purpose would they serve on this planet earth, except to consume? Increasingly too, the world as depicted in the Hollywood movie Elysium (2013) doesn't look that farfetched. The AI story from Google is great in terms of technological advancement, but it'll only serve to highlight the impotence and the very many shortcomings of humans. What are we to do about it? What can we do? Would the coming of age of AI be like the success of the Manhattan Project, introducing a weapon of mass destruction that the scientists ultimately would lose control of, much as Oppenheimer introduced, then opposed nuclear weapons, to no avail?

Can there ever be a happier middle where humans can reap the benefits of technology and automation, without sacrificing our soul? I really don't know.

But I do know this: As much as I hate to say it, there are way too many humans on this planet earth. For those who are born into misery and suffering, would it have been a better fate if they were not born at all? I don't want to answer for others, but I know it would be a yes, if it were for me. That would make birth control an altogether positive thing to promote. I hate to say this too, but looking at China today, versus 35 years ago when it started opening its door to the outside world, its mandatory one-child policy has, by all likelihood, reduced at least 1 billion additional mouths to feed. Some thirty odd years later now, the younger generations and its government are able to focus on moving up the food chain than to toll for laborious work (although it must be said that China still has a large portion of population that falls in this "surplus" category, but at least the country is in far better position to help them). It's the best possible outcome for a country to have. And for those who complain about the draconian government policy, and the reversal of it without so much as an apology, I don't think they are (or can) look at the better picture of who much good the one-child policy had been for the world population as a whole. Such is human toll on individual levels, as opposed to the larger collective common good.

Compared that to, say, Africa or Middle East or South America, the situations of the latter look almost hopeless, sadly to say.

Ok, I digress. Back to the prospect of human labor. If the size is to shrink to a more manageable size, there would perhaps be a better position to consider universal basic income for the remaining humans, while delegating all work (and wealth creation too?) to machines. When that day comes, the idea of productivity gain will no longer be relevant. As always, there will no doubt be winners, and losers. 

But wait, what would become of the differences in countries, what with all their strengths and weaknesses, since machines are machines, and it makes no difference between a machine in the US, versus those in China, or India, or Africa, would it now.

Even if the world over can afford it, to have a universal basic income for all that survive, for them to continue consumption while machines will serve humans, I'm not sure if that's the nirvana that we are sold. There is virtue in work, and the art of creating things by hand, the craftsmanship that goes with it. The work that makes humans feel productive, fulfilled, belonged. A monthly check can never replace that. 

And what would the world be like, when machines and AI take over? Would The Terminator (1984) and The Matrix (1999) be our cautionary tale? Why would machines even need humans at all? What is our value of existence, except to take over this planet until we eat or consume all other species to extinction, and wreck so much havoc that climate change will become permanent?

Boy, now my head really starts to hurt...