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 02-10-2015, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
20,332 posts, read 10,452,390 times
Reputation: 7964

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Evidently despite it being right there in black and white. Responsibility is specified even if you cannot admit it.
Please explain it to me. I am honestly not seeing it. Think of it as explaining H.R. 50 to dummies.
The who think looks like "we should do something but not actually do something" to me.

I'm not trying to fight here, but I really don't see how this law requires any business to hire someone to do a specific task related to their skill set.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2015, 10:06 AM
 
1,198 posts, read 1,575,471 times
Reputation: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattee01 View Post
I should have mentioned outsourcing would be unfavorable in this scenario. You would pay a 1000% tariff on anything not made in America, unless you meet a certain employment threshold here (IE, 80% of your workforce is here)
You do realize that tariffs would be placed on US-made products for export by other countries, right? A terrible economic idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
It is no surprise that you won't admit the responsibility that the act actually places on the government.
Uh, no. The Act expired in 1990! If you're going to drag up old legislation, at least make sure it's relevant and still in effect, not something that went out 15 years ago.

Still doesn't answer his question. I'm not surprised.

Last edited by Wolfpacker; 02-10-2015 at 10:28 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 10:07 AM
 
29,755 posts, read 16,447,864 times
Reputation: 13826
Unless you're a luddite, no "solution" is needed for automation,since automation has been raising economic prosperity and standards of living for a couple hundred of years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 10:13 AM
 
36,941 posts, read 16,111,918 times
Reputation: 8400
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.
" 40% of current jobs will be automated,'

We've been automating ever since Ford "invented' the assembly line.

Some people "predicted" the computer would cause people to loose ther jobs. Yet it created an entirely new industy.

How many are NOW employed in the IT world?

Progress will NOT be stopped.

The old jobs will go away and be replaced with entirely NEW jobs.

I had a sign on my desk, "He who falls behind technologically, will be lost".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 10:19 AM
bUU
 
Location: Georgia
11,882 posts, read 8,665,350 times
Reputation: 8401
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Please explain it to me. I am honestly not seeing it.
I cannot comment whether or not your inability to understand is honest or not, but the allocation of responsibility is clear as glass, so clear that refusing to acknowledge that there is a responsibility assigned seems to be only possible in the context of a lack of effort or deliberate obtuseness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 10:24 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
15,202 posts, read 18,261,876 times
Reputation: 8032
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattee01 View Post
should we tax for every machine doing a job a person could do? ... Anywhere from 15,000 to 1,000,000 a year.
Are you willing to pay $15k per year to own the computer you're reading this on?

How about your dishwasher?

Automobile?

EVERY machine would be taxable under your plan, because EVERY machine was designed to lessen the amount of work a person has to do to complete a task.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Barrington
45,867 posts, read 34,067,070 times
Reputation: 15329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011 View Post
Tax welfare benefits at a flat 25% rate. Th as t would include benefits like food stamps. This is the greatest source of untaxed money in America.

The govt taxes social security benefits so there is a precedent.
Social Security benefits are not taxed unless total AGI is greater than X. Regardless of total AGI, only a portion of Social Security income may be taxable.

The state/ Fed ignoring the employment of undocumented workers is the greatest handout, going. Small business is the primary beneficiary. Most states don't want laws requiring biometric ID. Easier to whine about open borders and ignore the root cause.

That this has been going on in earnest since the 80's is no accident. It has not mattered who sat the oval or held the majority.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
20,332 posts, read 10,452,390 times
Reputation: 7964
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
I cannot comment whether or not your inability to understand is honest or not, but the allocation of responsibility is clear as glass, so clear that refusing to acknowledge that there is a responsibility assigned seems to be only possible in the context of a lack of effort or deliberate obtuseness.
Ok. I tried to get you to explain it, but you don't want to. Oh well, I'll just stick with my current understanding of what is written in the law, as no business is forced to hire someone of a particular skill set if they do not want to. It seems that this law would allow for government incentives, but no requirement for businesses to actually hire someone with a specific skill set.

I honestly don't see what you're seeing in the text.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 10:35 AM
 
Location: Stanford, CA
139 posts, read 195,828 times
Reputation: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
I cannot comment whether or not your inability to understand is honest or not, but the allocation of responsibility is clear as glass, so clear that refusing to acknowledge that there is a responsibility assigned seems to be only possible in the context of a lack of effort or deliberate obtuseness.
I'm not seeing it either, so maybe it's not so "clear as glass". Why don't you explain how that quote backs up your claim rather than using the "you just don't get it" cop out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 10:40 AM
bUU
 
Location: Georgia
11,882 posts, read 8,665,350 times
Reputation: 8401
The obtuseness continues.

Break it down:

An Act - a public declaration of legislation

to Translate Into Practical Reality - clearly indicating the intention to make the objective operational

the Right - making clear that this isn't a privilege or bonus but rather a basic right

of All Americans - not just those lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time

Who Are Able, Willing, and Seeking to Work - the only qualifications on "all" Americans is that they have to be able, willing and seeking to work - no other equivocations

to Full Opportunity for Useful Paid Employment at Fair Rates of Compensation...

So if someone is disabled - not applicable. If someone is unwilling - not applicable. If someone is not seeking work - not applicable. Otherwise - applicable. Our nation's responsibility to provide full opportunity to work to such Americans is declared and declared not as a lofty goal but as an intention for that goal to be made real.

Now: Which words didn't you understand?
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.

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