Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People can do that now by working for minimum wage, why should anyone who can work be paid simply for having a pulse? Why start from the assumption that Peter, doing absolutely nothing, deserves any part of what Paul earned?
Because Greywar has such a belief in his (or her) prophetic powers, such confidence in his (or her) predictions AND his (or her) own "solutions" to them, that it gives him (or her) the moral authority to force his (or her) solutions onto the entire world at gunpoint, and anyone who resists said ideas must be morally defective.
Quote:
People have been complaining about technology killing jobs for hundreds of years, and it does but it also always creates new jobs. There is no reason think that won't continue, saying it will put every unskilled worker out of a job is nothing more than a scare tactic to push agenda.
As long as someone wants someone to do something for them, as long as they have the freedom to trade among themselves, said trades will ways occur (that's what employment is, human skill and ability for money).
The idea that having excess productivity will bankrupt us all to the point of total unemployment is so incomprehensibly silly it boggles the mind.
People can do that now by working for minimum wage, why should anyone who can work be paid simply for having a pulse? Why start from the assumption that Peter, doing absolutely nothing, deserves any part of what Paul earned?
Again as I keep reminding people, im not discussing today.
Quote:
People have been complaining about technology killing jobs for hundreds of years, and it does but it also always creates new jobs. There is no reason think that won't continue, saying it will put every unskilled worker out of a job is nothing more than a scare tactic to push agenda.
In the past when automation occurred it replaced someone doing a specific task, and opened up new things to do that a human being could do with minimal retraining. I maintain that whats going to occur is different because computers and robots are beginning to be able to do anything a human can do at a low level.
In 8 years I think a robot could do anything a mildly brain damaged human being could do, both physically, and train-ability wise. Now this doesn't sound like much, but its actually a pretty big thing. Because 8 years after that I believe they will be able to do anything a average human being could do. At that point the vast majority CANNOT go to another new job-the robots will fill in the new jobs that are created. Thats significantly different from the past.
And thats why I maintain "this time its different". automation in the past was very specific, and only functional at large scales. Whats coming in my opinion is more generic-and thats the issue.
Because Greywar has such a belief in his (or her) prophetic powers, such confidence in his (or her) predictions AND his (or her) own "solutions" to them, that it gives him (or her) the moral authority to force his (or her) solutions onto the entire world at gunpoint, and anyone who resists said ideas must be morally defective.
Actually many of the leading thinkers of this age agree with me. Google is investing in robotics, and hiring people like Ray Kurzweil for example. Because they believe in this. The work I do lets me see some things as well that indicate to me that I am correct in this.
Are you familiar with Moores law? Do you understand the advances are multiplicative, not additive?
Quote:
As long as someone wants someone to do something for them, as long as they have the freedom to trade among themselves, said trades will ways occur (that's what employment is, human skill and ability for money).
And when peoples skills or abilities are valueless? Because its cheaper to do it with automation then it ever can be with people?
Quote:
The idea that having excess productivity will bankrupt us all to the point of total unemployment is so incomprehensibly silly it boggles the mind.
The idea that when its cheaper and more efficient to do 80% of everything without human labor, that somehow we will retain employment is fascinating.
Again, heres someone from the 1800's
"The idea that we will be able to produce food without 90% of us working on it is so incomprehensibly silly it boggles the mind."
You get some respect from me, thats a lot of effort.
Interesting. While I may be particularly harsh in describing ideas, it would never occur to me to swear at you, tell you to shut up and go away, etc. Why, if you're such a moral visionary, do you have a problem with being civil?
Quote:
in 1914 it took what? 70% of your effort to do so? In 1800 it was what? 95%? Today 1.5% of our country is involved in making food.
So?
Quote:
Total unemployment? Hmmmm unlikely, but maybe. long after im dead. 80% unemployment? I can see that in my lifetime. When I was younger one of the arguments about computers never replacing us involved driving a car. A LOT of people said a computer could never EVER do that. Think about this, what jobs do people do that computers that are 100X better then todays not do? Sow 100X seems like a lot right? my computer today is 100X faster then the ones from when I was younger. (actually far more then that because of where I work)
Wow. Sometimes the narrowness of some lines of thought is so stunning, it takes your breath away. As I replied to someone else, unless you have some thought of restricting people's freedom to trade with each other, there will never be such a thing as "unemployment".
The real issue here, is that you don't comprehend what employment is, or how it changes in response response to productivity. Or, why today's condition you call "unemployment" is a direct result of taxes, regulation, and government interference in people's inherent human right to trade with each other unhindered by politicians, do-gooders, and social engineers.
You'll forgive me if I want to avoid that violent upheaval. And read what im saying and give it some thought. Register that im NOT discussing today, im talking about a time in the future. And look at the increasing rapidity of changes.
No, I think you're rushing toward it and embracing it with a death grip.
Actually many of the leading thinkers of this age agree with me. Google is investing in robotics, and hiring people like Ray Kurzweil for example. Because they believe in this. The work I do lets me see some things as well that indicate to me that I am correct in this.
You accused Mircea of using the fallacy of appealing to authority. Don't you think this is a bit hypocritical?
Quote:
Are you familiar with Moores law? Do you understand the advances are multiplicative, not additive?
It think it is entirely irrelevant.
Quote:
And when peoples skills or abilities are valueless? Because its cheaper to do it with automation then it ever can be with people?
What makes you think they will be without value?
Quote:
The idea that when its cheaper and more efficient to do 80% of everything without human labor, that somehow we will retain employment is fascinating.
That's because you're stuck in a narrow, constricted mindset that views trade among people as a strictly controlled, specific trade of low value labor for money as the primary mechanism to obtain needs and wants.
Quote:
Again, heres someone from the 1800's
"The idea that we will be able to produce food without 90% of us working on it is so incomprehensibly silly it boggles the mind."
You're thinking today, not 10-20 years from now.
*** sigh ***
There are none so blind, as those who refuse to see...
We've had some pretty fascinating discussions about a basic income here. That being said theres a couple different ideas about how this would be implemented. Keeping in mind, I don't believe now is the time to do this. Automation must move forward and be shown to be as disruptive as I think it will be.
Theres 2 ideas I have seen, one being a basic income where everyone gets X dollars. The second is from Milton Friedman who suggested a negative income tax. Both ideas have issue. A basic income would disincentive employment, whereas a negative income tax would still leave a vast majority of people stuck in welfare etc. And....incredibly insecure in their lives. Looking at them, I think that taken together both could work.
Basic income numbers thrown around are often int he 1K to 1.5K per month for folks. If we combined it with a negative income tax I would suggest a lower number.
And a negative income tax would provide a large incentive to work-even a little bit. This is where the government pays you money on your income at low levels, and pulls money out on income above a set level.
My thought it, lower the basic income amount, and put in place a small negative income tax. If there are STILL insufficient jobs, then create a Government jobs bank where people are guaranteed to be able to work 16 hours a week at minimum wage that receives the negative income tax benefit at a 50% rate (but for twice as much effectively). And that the negative income tax rate in all other work is met in 8 hours. The purpose of this is to make private employment FAR more desirable then government guaranteed work.
If your behavior at the government work fails to meet expectations, you can be let go for a week....without pay of course.
Disabled folks can be excused from government work and be paid IF theres nothing they can possibly do. This will generally only apply to bedridden, or mental folks.
PS before people freak out, I want to make something clear-now is not the time to do this. Now is the time to discuss it. When the cost of doing this represents a 5 or 10% of GDP cost-and unemployment due to automation is a serious issue, THATS the time. Today this would be 20-30% of GDP in costs. Some may disagree as the money would get recycled back into the economy rapidly, but thats an experiment I don't feel is appropriate at this point.
Why do I feel that we need to incentive work? Probably because I feel work-even a small amount of it, has positive social effects on people and communities. As automation increases I believe we have some serious employment issues coming up. And the growing pains will require a solution until we reach the next level of automation.
And finally I know this all seems rather socialist, and I agree. I think a capitalist/Socialist mix of government will work for a brief period of time. Give it 8-9 years and we will be past the massive displacement issues, and I believe we will see a FAR more libertarian society which I prefer.
Rapid changes in technology change everything.
Sounds like a labor camp variant to me, not only for the high earners, but for the lowest earners as well. I'll pass. And, you're still getting Person A getting a handout and Person B being fleeced to provide that handout to Person A. Again, I'll pass.
Interesting. While I may be particularly harsh in describing ideas, it would never occur to me to swear at you, tell you to shut up and go away, etc. Why, if you're such a moral visionary, do you have a problem with being civil?
But the quote above from you is fascinating.
We disagree in the end. but let me address this. here are quotes from you from JUST this conversation. And we've had many-mostly with you being even less civil.
Quote:
Sometimes the narrowness of some lines of thought is so stunning, it takes your breath away.
I cannot begin to find words to describe the stupidity in this reply.
Quote:
Oh, look, a communist. Isn't that quaint.
Quote:
No liberal ever lost his party by underestimating the intelligence of the Democrat voter...
Quote:
You haven't the faintest notion who "produces" in this economy. None.
Quote:
I'm mocking an idea so stupid it boggles the mind any person intelligent enough to use a computer would ever believe in it.
Quote:
I suspect a lot... NO, an overwhelming level, of cognitive dissonance is involved here.
Quote:
Because Greywar has such a belief in his (or her) prophetic powers, such confidence in his (or her) predictions AND his (or her) own "solutions" to them, that it gives him (or her) the moral authority to force his (or her) solutions onto the entire world at gunpoint, and anyone who resists said ideas must be morally defective.
I learned it from watching you. But even despite all of this, I've been pretty civil. Think about that.
Actually if he had read my post he would have realized that the variations in the regional cost of living are irrelevant. If you can't afford to live in a specific locale, then you either move to a cheaper one, or move in with others in order to afford it. I don't see a reason to pay a basic income thats higher in a separate locale.
Actually it's an equity argument in general (although applied specifically to the tax-and-transfer schemes discussed here) about a taxation and welfare system that ignores relative differences in cost of living and can sometimes result in taxing people with a lower quality of life to give welfare and other benefits to people with a higher one, even before the government transfers and then more-so afterward. Granted, it's a problem where any viable solution is probably worse than the problem itself, but it's a real fairness issue that can't be so easily shrugged off.
But the quote above from you is fascinating.
We disagree in the end. but let me address this. here are quotes from you from JUST this conversation. And we've had many-mostly with you being even less civil.
I learned it from watching you. But even despite all of this, I've been pretty civil. Think about that.
Ahh, so you define civility as not pointing out that what is stupid... is stupid.
Well, I don't see it that way. I see it as respecting the rights of everyone to both disagree AND agree, to live their life without interference from me, and without them interfering in my life. Civilization depends upon shared rules - I don't take yours, you don't take mine. I drive on the proper side of the road to avoid endangering your life, and I don't randomly fire RPG's into my neighborhood to see the explosions.
Your definition of civility allows you to ask the government to control every aspect of my life.
I think it's your definition that is defective.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
