U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-09-2015, 11:50 PM
 
Location: Here.
13,889 posts, read 12,651,004 times
Reputation: 16271

Advertisements

Just put all the machines on welfare; that'll stop them from working.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2015, 03:57 AM
bUU
 
Location: Georgia
11,887 posts, read 8,670,935 times
Reputation: 8420
India tried something similar. Over this past summer a good bit of legislation made it through aimed at taking those laws apart. Even in India, money is becoming more important than people. On the surface there is no problem with automation and globalization reducing the need for labor, as long as the system adapts in sync - as the demand for labor decreases the supply of labor must decrease. That doesn't mean flushing people down the toilet - in a moral society it means making the number of hours/years people need to work must decrease. It is basic math and simply supply and demand economics. Don't like that reality? Then recognize that reducing the need for labor is exploitative - a harmful act directed against human beings. You cannot have it both ways: Either keep the system balanced, or accept condemnation for the detrimental effect of causing the imbalance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 07:04 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
20,332 posts, read 10,459,312 times
Reputation: 7964
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68 View Post
If it's true what I read that within the next 10 - 20 years 40% of current jobs will be automated, then I'm all for taxing it. I'd rather work than have to be on welfare due to lack of available employment, even if it means prices will rise. We've got to make it a harder choice for companies to cut real jobs. I worry about society when there is no work to be had unless you're a genius or child of wealth. The population grows and they want to shrink opportunities, and bring in new immigrants to take the low skilled and high skilled jobs.
People will have to learn now skills. The farrier business is almost obsolete, yet I'm sure they managed to find new skills.

There will always be jobs that only humans can do, so humans need to be flexible and learn those jobs. It is not anyones responsibility to create a job that you can do, you must make yourself fit the available jobs. Same as it has always been.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 07:19 AM
bUU
 
Location: Georgia
11,887 posts, read 8,670,935 times
Reputation: 8420
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
It is not anyones responsibility to create a job that you can do
False.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 07:42 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
20,332 posts, read 10,459,312 times
Reputation: 7964
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Please quote the part that says that someone has to create a job to fit your particular skill set.

If I am a widget maker, and no one is making widgets, no one has to hire me to make widgets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 07:42 AM
 
Location: Steeler Nation
6,868 posts, read 3,949,082 times
Reputation: 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattee01 View Post
We've all heard and seen jobs replaced by varying levels of automation. This wasn't such an issue, as new jobs replaced the old, until we started approaching the vortex. As machines start reaching the point where they can do anything we can, there will be a greater vaccum between the haves and the have nots. Even those with advanced degrees wouldn't be able to compete with machines that can do anything from mixing drinks to surgery, from driving to psychoanalysis. To prevent or at least reduce this, should we tax for every machine doing a job a person could do? Not only would it prevent unemployment, but companies that do it anyway will still be contributing. It would also depend upon the job performed. Anywhere from 15,000 to 1,000,000 a year.
Read my lips, no new taxes! What many don't understand is, if taxes are imposed on everything, it will be passed on to the consumer, so how do we benefit from this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 07:43 AM
 
Location: NC
6,032 posts, read 7,571,433 times
Reputation: 6351
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattee01 View Post
We've all heard and seen jobs replaced by varying levels of automation. This wasn't such an issue, as new jobs replaced the old, until we started approaching the vortex. As machines start reaching the point where they can do anything we can, there will be a greater vaccum between the haves and the have nots. Even those with advanced degrees wouldn't be able to compete with machines that can do anything from mixing drinks to surgery, from driving to psychoanalysis. To prevent or at least reduce this, should we tax for every machine doing a job a person could do? Not only would it prevent unemployment, but companies that do it anyway will still be contributing. It would also depend upon the job performed. Anywhere from 15,000 to 1,000,000 a year.
Do Chinese machines pay taxes?


/failthread

#nounderstandingofeconomics
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 07:44 AM
bUU
 
Location: Georgia
11,887 posts, read 8,670,935 times
Reputation: 8420
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Please quote the part that says that someone has to create a job to fit your particular skill set.
I did. You just refuse to acknowledge the meaning of the words of the act.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
20,332 posts, read 10,459,312 times
Reputation: 7964
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
I did. You just refuse to acknowledge the meaning of the words of the act.
No, I am on my phone and the text is too small for me to read. I am asking if you would post the relevant sentence or paragraph from the 22 page document you linked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 08:11 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,492 posts, read 51,413,364 times
Reputation: 24613
A highly progressive income tax on corporate profits would effectively tax the machines. I suggest a increasing rate income tax on all income and, as corporations are considered people, corporate profits with a deduction equal to the 90th percentile. That would effective tax the machines, the upper level managers and the owners. It would leave almost all of the middle and working class employees effectively untaxed. That sounds like a good idea to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:53 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top