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.
Since you clearly don't understand my position, as you've claimed many times, and as your comments have shown many times, your appraisal is without credibility. Please don't mistake my unwillingness to play your silly game as anything other than what it is, labeling and rejecting your distraction, insisting that if you want to have a dialog about my point then it will be about my point.
Since you clearly don't understand my position, as you've claimed many times, and as your comments have shown many times, your appraisal is without credibility. Show that you actually acknowledge my point first and maybe we can have a discussion about my point. Please don't mistake my unwillingness to play your silly game as anything other than what it is, labeling and rejecting your distraction, insisting that if you want to have a dialog about my point then it will be about my point .
Asking for clarification is a silly game? Asking you how your proposal would work is a silly game?
I am asking questions about your point. You are the one that keeps refusing to discuss your position.
On a discussion board the whole idea is to discuss our positions.
My position is that LEGALLY no one is required to ensure that anyone else is employed.
My position is that government requiring that everyone is employed is not a plan that would work in reality.
If you disagree with either point you should explain HOW such a plan would work in real life.
Taxing the machines is not going to work. Taxing incomes, and redistributing it WILL work, but only once that the taxation required to do so is trivial. I'm a huge proponent of the basic income....eventually. Someday thats going to occur-once the cost to do so is lower.
Why do we feel compelled to create make work for folks? I think the idea that we should do it that way is wrong, instead as unemployment gets larger, start reducing the work week. charge overtime for over 32, 24, 16, and finally 8 hours.
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?
You are certainly correct that something will need to be done. Machines will indeed be taking over a great many jobs - including jobs that, until now, only humans could do. I'm not sure that simply taxing machines will be sufficient. My guess is that we will need a radically different type of economic system - probably something that we can barely imagine at this stage of the game. In fact, speaking of "games", something like a "gameworld" could end up playing a role in how all of this gets resolved. This TED video might give some clues: The Game Layer on Top of the World. I think the bottom line is that somehow or other people will need to start getting credit for simply existing as interesting "players" in social world. In C-D we earn "rep" points. Humans of the near future might find their level of actual "wealth" based on something similar. The wealth generated by machines will be needed to fuel this "game" economy, so in a manner of speaking - yes - you could say that the machines are "taxed".
One possibility: Machines, for the most part, might cease to be "private property". The creator of the machine might, at some point, have to give up exclusive ownership - somewhat like a patent that expires at some point and becomes part of the public domain. Once machines are self-repairing and/or machine are making other machines, it might start to become unclear who really "owns" them anyway.
The bottom line is that human value in any economy is based on how much a person is worth to other people. In the future, a major portion of this worth may depend on how interesting or entertaining you are in the grand scheme of social networks and games.
Since you clearly don't understand my position, as you've claimed many times, and as your comments have shown many times, your appraisal is without credibility. Please don't mistake my unwillingness to play your silly game as anything other than what it is, labeling and rejecting your distraction, insisting that if you want to have a dialog about my point then it will be about my point.
Apparently, you're the only one that understands your position. The bottom line is, if a machine can perform your job better than you and at a lower cost, you're going to be replaced. In which case, it's time for you to change to meet economic demands. Not the other way around.
So asking how something you support would work in real life is a diversion?
Ok. Way to support your position.
The guy can't argue his positions without attacking other people (and I notice he ignores posts--such as pointing out the fact that his first argument of the Act isn't in existence anymore). In fact, he doesn't even respond to questions or counter arguments others post, but instead attacks them and gets on his high horse. If you point out a fault with his argument (with FACTS), he goes onto some other random piece of information, ignores what you've pointed out, and nit-picks what you say to try to spin it to fit his argument.
Still waiting for him to respond to the fact that the first piece of "evidence" he posted was shut down years ago.
Taxing the machines is not going to work. Taxing incomes, and redistributing it WILL work, but only once that the taxation required to do so is trivial. I'm a huge proponent of the basic income....eventually. Someday thats going to occur-once the cost to do so is lower.
Why do we feel compelled to create make work for folks? I think the idea that we should do it that way is wrong, instead as unemployment gets larger, start reducing the work week. charge overtime for over 32, 24, 16, and finally 8 hours.
People are going to have become self-employed. Waiting for a "job" isn't going to work. People still need to create and build these products, be creative, market and sell, travel, do accounting, consult...The difference is entrepreneurship is going to be part of your professional, as you'll likely be working as a contracted position.
Apparently, you're the only one that understands your position.
No. Like I said, it's games-playing; everyone understands my point. Some people are simply unwilling to admit it because they realize that the self-centered perspective they prefer cannot prevail on moral grounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no_more_handouts
The bottom line is, if a machine can perform your job better than you and at a lower cost, you're going to be replaced. In which case, it's time for you to change to meet economic demands. Not the other way around.
It is also time for society to recognize that these changes are no longer serving the people of the society as a whole, and to reverse the current trend toward fewer opportunities for living wage employment. The obstinate refusal to acknowledge society's responsibility isn't impressive. It's pitiful. It's despicably antisocial to venerate self-centered callous disregard for those less fortunate, because all one cares about is their own personal fortune.
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.
This is no different than the Chinese closing their borders for decades with the result that they've had to spend additional decades playing catch-up as they found themselves technologically and economically a century behind the rest of the world. When the Japanese invaded China, China was wholly incapable of defending themselves despite having the advantage in geography, natural resources, and population because of how they'd turned their backs on the technological and industrial progress made by other nations.
You don't solve a problem by ignoring it. If we decide to deal with automation by simply refusing to embrace it, we will just find ourselves outclassed by all the other nations who do embrace it. Your solution for a short-term fix would result in massive long-term damage to our economy. The Chinese needed an invasion to learn their mistake. We should learn from that instead of making our own mistake.
LOL...bUU completely ignores my responses and facts to him.
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.
