Ask the wealthy to pay a little more - Page 8 - GoFuckYourself.com

kane · 10-01-2012, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Now what changed the mindset of people between 1970 and today?

Nothing. I grew up in a small town in the 70's and 80's and knew a handful of people who lived off the system. I think there were the same number of deadbeats then as there are now. The difference is that now we have the internet and a 24 hour news cycle so more people are aware of it.

Quote:

Why shouldn't there be a ceiling? I'm serious. Why should people who have no special skills to give to society expect to get the American Dream of a house, two cars, wide scree TV, 2 holidays a year, etc?

If they want that life, they need to deserve it. Or their job goes East.

I have always said any job is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If I were to hire someone to write a short story that I wanted to sell as an e-book I would pay some unknown person with no prior experience a hell of a lot less than I would pay Stephen King.

There are plenty of people who don't have much in the way of education who break through the ceiling, but for most they never will. You aren't guaranteed anything, you get what you earn.

Quote:

Agreed and those putting people out of work, expect them to live on scrapes. In fact some expect them to starve. Or is cutting the spending excluding cutting spending on poor to eat?

Those who can make money, need to go full steam and make it. AND expect to support those they leave behind.

Or build some gas chambers.

I subscribe to the belief that you can tell a lot about a country and its people by how they treat their sick, old and poor. I personally don't have a problem with the government helping people who need assistance with food and housing etc so long as those people appear to be making strides for digging themselves out of the problems they are in if possible. If these people are disabled, sick, elderly etc then I think having compassion for them and helping them is money well spent.

Mutt · 10-01-2012, 04:02 AM

Relentless makes points that I have been making for 30 years since my high school geography teacher was predicting the future of robotics/automation and globalization. I sat in my desk and wondered what do all the dopes do in the future. And his answer was of course 'retraining' and a shorter work week - wtf, who's going to pay somebody to work less?

Literally 75% of the kids I went to high school with were dopes, the die was already cast for their lives, they were happy to drink beer, fix up their cars, get some job and get married. Destined to be mechanics, waitresses, shoe salesmen, truck drivers etc. 40 years ago the town I grew up in had a big steel mill, a big pipe manufacturing plant and some other factories. Good jobs, lifetime jobs for their parents generation, jobs you could get married and raise a family on. Many of the dopes got those jobs, and the other dopes got jobs serving and selling them stuff. Those type of jobs have been declining for decades. So what happens to the dopes? A percentage of them can be trained to do other types of work and some of them get a wakeup call and create their own jobs - like adult webmastering. But it still leaves a big portion of the population for whom the economy can't provide the type of well paid job a dope can do. People always use exceptions to the rule as examples of how to deal with this problem - 'i knew this woman, divorced single mom living on social assistance, she made delicious pies from a recipe her grandma passed down, she set up a little stand to sell her pies in the summer, soon people were coming from 3 towns over just to buy her pies, today she owns 50 pie bakeries named after her grandma and is a multi millionaire!' There are lots of those self made stories but they are a small percentage, the exceptions.

So, what do you do with the growing number of these dopes for whom the economy has no jobs that provide a good living? A conservative would say 'fuck em, they made their own bed let them lie in it'. A liberal would redistribute some of the wealth possessed by the smart/motivated/fortunate.

There have always been dirt poor people in the US, Canada, the UK and any other 'first world' country and there always will be, that's just how things and people are. But as Robbie said, being poor today is a whole different thing than being poor 50 years ago. The poor of today live better than the middle class of 50 years ago.

Barefootsies · 10-01-2012, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

Literally 75% of the kids I went to high school with were dopes, the die was already cast for their lives, they were happy to drink beer, fix up their cars, get some job and get married. Destined to be mechanics, waitresses, shoe salesmen, truck drivers etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

There have always been dirt poor people in the US, Canada, the UK and any other 'first world' country and there always will be, that's just how things and people are. But as Robbie said, being poor today is a whole different thing than being poor 50 years ago. The poor of today live better than the middle class of 50 years ago.

Paul Markham · 10-01-2012, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Nothing. I grew up in a small town in the 70's and 80's and knew a handful of people who lived off the system. I think there were the same number of deadbeats then as there are now. The difference is that now we have the internet and a 24 hour news cycle so more people are aware of it.

I disagree with you on this one. Today more people are being left behind. some of them through no fault of their own. They were laid off and can't find work. Stats show this to be true.

Quote:

I have always said any job is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If I were to hire someone to write a short story that I wanted to sell as an e-book I would pay some unknown person with no prior experience a hell of a lot less than I would pay Stephen King.

So outsource it to the Philippines maybe? Or just have loads and loads of people on the poverty line so you can make more money. We need to compete, but there are prices to pay.

Quote:

There are plenty of people who don't have much in the way of education who break through the ceiling, but for most they never will. You aren't guaranteed anything, you get what you earn.

Like me, my education is crap. I broke through the ceiling. Most won't, a lot will never get above a small wage. Westerners have to accept that.

Quote:

I subscribe to the belief that you can tell a lot about a country and its people by how they treat their sick, old and poor. I personally don't have a problem with the government helping people who need assistance with food and housing etc so long as those people appear to be making strides for digging themselves out of the problems they are in if possible. If these people are disabled, sick, elderly etc then I think having compassion for them and helping them is money well spent.

Go tell that to the people in Detroit who used to work making cars. Maybe not the best example, but you'll understand.

However there are two sides to the coin. What does everyone on this board need more than anything else to make a living?

Where do most of them reside?

What is their average income?

Now. How is putting people out of work, cutting them out of the system going to add to your wealth?

Go study why the crash in 1929 had such devastating effects for the world and come back and tell us how just cutting the spending, shipping jobs overseas and putting more out of work on minimum wages is going to help anyone here.

Relentless · 10-01-2012, 05:45 AM

Mutt,

It's the volume that matters.

When 5% of the population is out of work, or illegal immigrants are working poor people.. It's easy for many American to overlook them. However when it is more than half our population and many are hard working law abiding citizens... It becomes much harder. We are headed for massive unemployment on a global scale. More people in the world not working than working. All of those extra people are a big enough force to do a huge amount of damage. It is much easier to destroy than to create, especially in large numbers. It is time to figure out what to do with all the extra people and start doing something about it. A 32 hour work week is the fastest and easiest short term move. I am shocked it has not gained momentum already. If companies have to pay time and a half for all hours over 32 in a week, you'll see a lot of hiring. Sabbaticals and furlough programs would also make sense. There are other things that can be done, but it all starts with accepting the fact that we have more hard working people than there are jobs, and that the number of jobs will continue declining while populations continue rising. They aren't bums, hobos or idiots - they are extra people.

Imprisoning many of them is more expensive. Creating wars of choice is ineffective. Kicking them over and over when they are already down is dangerous. It's time we start to address it as a real issue, rather than just salving the symptoms it causes. In a few decades -population, water supply and extra people will be the main issues on everyone's mind.

The Porn Nerd · 10-01-2012, 06:00 AM

A Libertarian is merely a Republican who wants to smoke pot and get laid.

Relentless · 10-01-2012, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterPeabody

A Libertarian is merely a Republican who wants to smoke pot and get laid.

Pre-1997 maybe. Not post 1997 for sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tia l_tickets

Rochard · 10-01-2012, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

Literally 75% of the kids I went to high school with were dope

I went to college for computer tech, and a few days before graduation one student asked me out explain to her how pop3 email works. I was a bit stunned.

She went to college, got a little degree in computer tech, and then... Went to become a secretary...

woj · 10-01-2012, 07:23 AM

Relentless, so what solution do you propose?

those that work, should support those that don't, right?

Relentless · 10-01-2012, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

Relentless, so what solution do you propose? those that work, should support those that don't, right?

No. Not exactly.

The definition of a week's work will change. Someone running their own business or trying to earn a lambo or wanting a mansion will open their own business and work 8 days a week just like many of us do now. That won't change. However, having people who work '9-5, 5 days per week' continue their 40 hour schedule will fail to make any sense soon. It already makes little sense. What you will eventually see is evolution to shift work, splits and shorter work weeks. People working 4 days or working 5 hour shifts instead of 8 hour days etc... And other people being hired to work the other hours in their place. From a societal standpoint it is better to have three people employed a total of 80 hours than to have two people employed a total of 80 hours and one sit home or out getting into trouble.

We need to shift our workforce back toward the notion of one parent working and one actually raising their children, rather than both working and their kids being warehoused. That requires a major change in the POV many Americans have about work and self-worth.

We originally created a slew of labor laws to stop children from working, prevent abusive labor practices and enforce a work week designed to create a minimum quality of life for the working poor. 40 hour work weeks, overtime pay, age requirements, safety standards, etc... However, it ALSO had the effect of limiting how much some people worked and 'created jobs' for many who otherwise would have been unemployed.

People who are incapable of being entrepreneurs don't need to own private airplanes, lambos, huge houses, summer homes, etc... but they do need to live better than our prison populations... and many currently do not. It is shameful that there are many people in this country actually starving or skipping meals for lack of money and lack of aptitude when we also are burning crops to keep prices high and producing more cheap food than paying customers can eat.

It all starts with a return to Nationalism and Patriotism. Screaming U-S-A-, U-S-A at a UFC event is not Nationalism. Saying 'support our troops' when you have no chance of being drafted and no idea why we are fighting a war is not Patriotism. Nationalism is making a serious effort to push our entire country forward, for the sake of the country not for what you get out of doing so. Patriotism is looking after your fellow Americans and doing what you can to help them reach their potential, without ragging on them for being less competent than you are or demanding things from them simply because they are more competent.

The poor are not ruining our country. Lazy people aren't ruining our country. Artists do not destroy our country. Obsolete employees whose jobs are no longer relevant don't wreck our country. Our country was badly damaged by some asshats who wanted to engage in wars of choice, left the 'free market' unregulated to the point where a handful of oligarchs severely damaged the world economy and pushed through nonsensical legal theories that allow things like Citizens United to become the law of the land. That is who is destroying our country. They aren't guys making 250K per year or even 1M per year... sadly they are exactly the people Mitt Romney has been working with over the years.... and Obama is funded by them as well. One exec at Goldman Sachs or Merill Lynch can do more damage in 10 minutes of high frequency stock trading than every poor person can do in an entire year. One idiot poor person can agree to a mortgage they can't afford... but one bank can create a program to lure in and sign up millions of those poor idiots. The scale of the damage is not equal.

In case you haven't figured it out, they use false dividing lines as distractions. Gay people Vs Straight people over gay marriage. The poor Vs the barely rich with meaningless 3% tax cuts. Angry militants Vs pacifists with false wars. One religion Vs whichever other religion. One race Vs whichever other race. As long as they can keep making the sheep think other sheep are the enemy, they can go on doing whatever they want and laughing their way to the bank. It is time to get off the retard-go-round and look into making SERIOUS changes to our systems if we actually want our country to prosper.

Real single payer healthcare aimed at efficiency is CHEAPER than what we had before or what Obamacare promises. A military that handles actual threats rather than cold war enemies who no longer exist is CHEAPER. Legalizing pot and gay marriage is the only logical outcome eventually... I'm not gay and I don't smoke pot... but I have a vested interest in not wasting so much time and money fighting either of those false battles, paying for prisons and riling up the LGBT community for no reason. An endless work week, no vacations and constant pressure makes sense if you are an entrepreneur trying to build a business - it makes 0 sense anymore if you are a dim wit looking to do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. Income tax when you have money to buy something makes no sense compared to sales tax when you decide to spend that money. Capital gains rates lower than income rates serve 0 purpose. Nobody even discusses these fundamental problems. Instead they get caught up in whether Obama's wife wore a dress with sleeves or without sleeves. Rather than making fun of Romney's wife for owning an Olympic horse, we should have been focused on the fact that owning an Olympic horse included a larger tax break than most people get for having children.

We need to make serious changes if we want to fix serious problems.

Rochard · 10-01-2012, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

No. Not exactly.

The definition of a week's work will change. Someone running their own business or trying to earn a lambo or wanting a mansion will open their own business and work 8 days a week just like many of us do now. That won't change. However, having people who work '9-5, 5 days per week' continue their 40 hour schedule will fail to make any sense soon. It already makes little sense. What you will eventually see is evolution to shift work, splits and shorter work weeks. People working 4 days or working 5 hour shifts instead of 8 hour days etc... And other people being hired to work the other hours in their place. From a societal standpoint it is better to have three people employed a total of 80 hours than to have two people employed a total of 80 hours and one sit home or out getting into trouble.

I have people on Facebook that countdown how many days until Friday.... Come Friday at 5pm, they are done for the week.

I hate weekends. Weekends mean I have to try to work based around my family's needs and desires.

woj · 10-01-2012, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

No. Not exactly.

The definition of a week's work will change. Someone running their own business or trying to earn a lambo or wanting a mansion will open their own business and work 8 days a week just like many of us do now. That won't change. However, having people who work '9-5, 5 days per week' continue their 40 hour schedule will fail to make any sense soon. It already makes little sense. What you will eventually see is evolution to shift work, splits and shorter work weeks. People working 4 days or working 5 hour shifts instead of 8 hour days etc... And other people being hired to work the other hours in their place. From a societal standpoint it is better to have three people employed a total of 80 hours than to have two people employed a total of 80 hours and one sit home or out getting into trouble.

so lets say someone earns $15/hr now, works 40 hours, earns $600/week...

under your plan, they will work lets say 20 hours? how much will they earn?

Relentless · 10-01-2012, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I have people on Facebook that countdown how many days until Friday.... Come Friday at 5pm, they are done for the week. I hate weekends. Weekends mean I have to try to work based around my family's needs and desires.

People will soon be counting down to Thursday... or alternating days, etc...

Barefootsies · 10-01-2012, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

We need to make serious changes if we want to fix serious problems.

You need to elect 12clicks as your president.

Relentless · 10-01-2012, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

so lets say someone earns $15/hr now, works 40 hours, earns $600/week... under your plan, they will work lets say 20 hours? how much will they earn?

That is the issue that has to be solved, and it won't be a simple one line answer. People who work 9-5 and have no interest in 'climbing up' aren't trying to get a new lambo... but they do need to be able to eat, have access to transportation, see doctors, etc... Earning less dollars isn't that much of a problem, if basic healthcare is provided by the government rather than as out of pocket expenses. We *could* provide canned vegetables for free to people at a very low cost as another example and the impact of people actually eating them would reduce the cost of healthcare overall.

What we are headed for is a system that subsidizes the bottom of the society by providing basic healthcare, housing, food, etc... for free or so cheaply it may as well be free, and requires them to save their income if they want to buy iphones, flat screen televisions, new cars and the like. Going to see a doctor of your choice and getting a private hospital room or things of that sort will cost cash (or be possible with private supplemental insurance paid for by consumers), but going to a free clinic for basic wellness and emergency care will be free for the masses of people who choose not to pay for private care and needs to be a truly functional system which it presently is not.

A system like what I have seen proposed allows society to choose what basic things should be provided to everyone, no matter how lazy incompetent or dim witted you happen to be. Nobody is 'living large' on a free can of string beans. Nobody is ballin' because they got to have their pregnant wife seen by doctors during prenatal visits. You won't see subsidized housing units on MTV Cribs any time soon. If people want more than that they can scratch and work for it. Those that work 4 days a week will have plenty of time off to enjoy public parks, days at the beach, long afternoons with friends in clean safe neighborhoods etc... those who work 8 days a week can live in nicer houses and drive lambos. That is the way it should (and will) be eventually.

What we can't have is 1/2 the population out of work, hopeless, poorly fed, without preventative health care, uneducated and with zero chance of improving their lot due to lack of aptitude and opportunity while .01% of our population bleeds billions out of the economy while creating no jobs and voids their citizenship to take the money overseas by cashing out at the end like our country is a 2bit casino in the back of a whorehouse.

Rather than giving 16B in subsidies to Exxon, we might want to think about providing free canned vegetables to every American who wants them. Instead of burning crops to stabilize price, we might make them available at food pantries across the country. Instead of denigrating poor people for being dim... we ought to understand they are often poor BECAUSE they are dim, and we can help them enough for them to reach their potential because that is what society is all about. Helping each American reach their potential pushes our nation forward, whether they are capable of buying a fleet of private jets or working 20 tedious hours a week in a call center or staying home to raise their children. Instead of helping people reach their potential, we stamp them as 'the problem' and act like we are better than them... even as more and more of our population becomes part of that ever-growing category.

Relentless · 10-01-2012, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Nothing

You have provided nothing to this discussion. Congrats?

Relentless · 10-01-2012, 09:36 AM

Incidentally, you might call it 'trickle up economics.' A hard floor that nobody can fall below and everyone can use if they choose... It will only be a transitional phase for decades. Centuries from now, do you really think more than 10% of us will be needed to keep everything running? I'd be shocked if more than 1% of us have a job by then. Considering the fact that people on this board are webmasters automating massive amounts of work every day, I find it ironic that most have not considered the fact that we will eventually produce more than we need with very few of us working.

Paul Markham · 10-01-2012, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

Relentless, so what solution do you propose?

those that work, should support those that don't, right?

In some way they have to. Except it needs to be reworded.

Quote:

Relentless, so what solution do you propose?

those that make a lot of money, should support those that don't, right?[

Relentless has some great points, except as an employer I can't run my business on people working 4 days a week. And very few can. MacDonalds can and for those type of jobs it's great. Minte can't and fr him its disaster.

The West has to accept that countries who were once very poor are now rich. There has been little new wealth created, it's meant that wealth that was the exclusive preserve of the West now isn't. It's in the Middle East, Asia. Far East and S. America. It's left the US and Europe. So expecting to enjoy the same standard of living as we had before is delusional.

So we have to forget the dream of the good old days returning and get on with the future without building horrendous debts.

The West still produces a nice chunk of cash that needs to be shared better. Not by letting people sit at home, by creating jobs for them that make the society they live in a better place.

And if you don't. 12 million is 12 million less potential customers. The one thing the Capitalist and Consumer system needs is consumers. Cut them out of being consumers and you have less buyers.

Will cutting taxes, cut jobs? YES.
Will more unemployed lead to more spending? NO.

All it will do is mean, a few can buy a better model car, better pair of jeans, better mobile phone. Romney is lying to you when he says it will create more spending. Well it will for him and the 1%. For the rest it won't.

Yes you're going to have to pay more tax, you're going to have to invest in your retirement and yes you're going to need customers to buy memberships. And if anyone thinks they can do that by putting people out of work or getting them behind the counter in Wal Mart, so they can shop at Neiman Marcus. They shouldn't be posting in this thread.

woj · 10-01-2012, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

In some way they have to. Except it needs to be reworded.

"a lot of money" is very subjective, $50k/year is a lot to someone who makes $5k/year, someone making $50k/year thinks people that make $500k/year is a lot, etc... it's always a lot when it's a lot more than you...

bottom line is, many people do not work, they do not contribute anything to society, and yet they have to be supported by those that do work... obviously it's a problem, but it's not a problem of who do we tax more to support them... but a problem of how can we make them contribute their fair share so they can support themselves...

Paul/Relentless what percentage of your income did you donate to help the poor when you were working? (I mean, in addition to any taxes you were required by law to pay)

Robbie · 10-01-2012, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Today more people are being left behind. some of them through no fault of their own. They were laid off and can't find work. Stats show this to be true.

Paul you are so out of touch with the U.S.

Did you know that since the "War On Poverty" started in 1965 by President Johnson, we have spent over 13 TRILLION dollars to eradicate poverty in the U.S.?

Read this:
"All together, the federal government spent more than $591 billion in 2009 on means-tested or anti-poverty programs, and will undoubtedly spend even more this year. That amounts to $14,849 for every poor man, woman and child in America. Given that the poverty line is just $10,830, we could have mailed every poor person in America a check big enough to lift them out of poverty ? and still saved money. "

Sly · 10-01-2012, 10:41 AM

I worked all weekend. I can sleep well tonight knowing that my hard-earned money will help those out there who partied weekend.

It is a glorious feeling. Hoorah!

woj · 10-01-2012, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

Incidentally, you might call it 'trickle up economics.' A hard floor that nobody can fall below and everyone can use if they choose... It will only be a transitional phase for decades. Centuries from now, do you really think more than 10% of us will be needed to keep everything running? I'd be shocked if more than 1% of us have a job by then. Considering the fact that people on this board are webmasters automating massive amounts of work every day, I find it ironic that most have not considered the fact that we will eventually produce more than we need with very few of us working.

I don't necessarily agree with your claim, over the past decade, unemployment was always <10%... I don't see any reason why next decade would be much different...

You pointed out earlier in the thread that some jobs are now gone...

sure, we no longer have bank tellers, but now we have webmasters, we no longer have "Street Light / Exterior Electrician", but now we have satelite dish installers... we have fewer check out clerks, but we have more computer repairmen... etc

Those that are willing to retrain, have a job now and will have a job in the future...

TheSquealer · 10-01-2012, 10:44 AM

Sad that all the "solutions" for the future don't include the obvious ..... "Stop shitting out kids you can't afford or don't intend to stick around and take care of"

Robbie · 10-01-2012, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

I don't necessarily agree with your claim, over the past decade, unemployment was always <10%...

Actually it was down around 5% and less the whole time. Which is the definition of full employment.
Relentless is way off base.

That stuff was predicted when I was in highschool in the 1970's and never happened.
Matter of fact we were supposed to be out of oil by the 1980's, driving around in flying cars, robots would replace everyone at work, the Earth was on it's way to an Ice Age because of fossil fuels, etc.

Reality is...once the housing market stabilizes, the economy will turn back around and we will be back at around 5% unemployment again.

It's only been since the end of 2008/start of 2009 that all this came down and unemployment shot up. And none of that was caused by automation or anything else except the housing market fucking the economy.

Relentless · 10-01-2012, 10:56 AM

Quote:

In some way they have to. Except it needs to be reworded. Relentless has some great points, except as an employer I can't run my business on people working 4 days a week. And very few can. MacDonalds can and for those type of jobs it's great. Minte can't and fr him its disaster.

As usual, you are incorrect. Union tradesman have had furlough programs and split shifts in place for decades. They can work very well if implemented correctly. Production actually increases when people with mundane jobs they dislike get time off. It won't work for most managerial roles where continuity is essential, like the foreman on a major job site with 50 men working under his supervision... but using 75 men instead of 50 and splitting the work among them turns out to be more efficient in most cases. It also keeps many more people employed.

The same holds true for many 9-5 jobs.

Rochard · 10-01-2012, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

I don't necessarily agree with your claim, over the past decade, unemployment was always <10%... I don't see any reason why next decade would be much different...

You pointed out earlier in the thread that some jobs are now gone...

sure, we no longer have bank tellers, but now we have webmasters, we no longer have "Street Light / Exterior Electrician", but now we have satelite dish installers... we have fewer check out clerks, but we have more computer repairmen... etc

Those that are willing to retrain, have a job now and will have a job in the future...

Unemployment hasn't been at 10% for the past decade:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

I agree with you about different jobs - jobs and the type of jobs society has changes from time to time. We no longer have blacksmiths but now we have tire shops.

BlackCrayon · 10-01-2012, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Actually it was down around 5% and less the whole time. Which is the definition of full employment.
Relentless is way off base.

That stuff was predicted when I was in highschool in the 1970's and never happened.
Matter of fact we were supposed to be out of oil by the 1980's, driving around in flying cars, robots would replace everyone at work, the Earth was on it's way to an Ice Age because of fossil fuels, etc.

Reality is...once the housing market stabilizes, the economy will turn back around and we will be back at around 5% unemployment again.

It's only been since the end of 2008/start of 2009 that all this came down and unemployment shot up. And none of that was caused by automation or anything else except the housing market fucking the economy.

look at how many jobs were 'lost' during the 2008 crash. 500,000 per month for a few months. it seems to me many corps used the crash as an excuse to shed these jobs and focus more on cheap labor overseas. sure people can re-train but with such a huge amount of jobs lost at once, it won't be easy finding a place for everyone as not everyone is re-trainable. some people just aren't too bright and some are stuck in their out of date ways.

Relentless · 10-01-2012, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

bottom line is, many people do not work, they do not contribute anything to society, and yet they have to be supported by those that do work... obviously it's a problem, but it's not a problem of who do we tax more to support them... but a problem of how can we make them contribute their fair share so they can support themselves...

Those are not two different problems, they are the same problem. Designing a system that gives people a baseline level they can not fall below and requires them to work for any luxuries they want is the solution to both problems. Having a draconian system that punishes people for being dim, or treats net financial worth as total contribution to society is not helpful and will become less helpful as more people become extras.

Quote:

Paul/Relentless what percentage of your income did you donate to help the poor when you were working? (I mean, in addition to any taxes you were required by law to pay)

I don't get into my personal life on porn boards with any specificity. What I can tell you is that I donate a considerable amount of my time. I find that donating TIME actually does much more than donating money in most instances. Giving $10 to a charity is less helpful than helping out at a food pantry once a month for example in my experience. I have contributed considerable amounts of my time, some money and been active at the local political level (where most policy impact actually originates). It really isn't that hard to give up 1 day a month for a good cause. It doesn't make you a saint, and many people do it... neither for recognition nor reward.

woj · 10-01-2012, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Unemployment hasn't been at 10% for the past decade:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

I agree with you about different jobs - jobs and the type of jobs society has changes from time to time. We no longer have blacksmiths but now we have tire shops.

"<10%" = "less than 10%"

I meant it was always less than 10%, during some months it may have been slightly above that, but that's just an anomaly because of business cycles... on average like Robbie pointed out, it's probably actually closer to 5% than 10%....

Paul Markham · 10-01-2012, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Paul you are so out of touch with the U.S.

Did you know that since the "War On Poverty" started in 1965 by President Johnson, we have spent over 13 TRILLION dollars to eradicate poverty in the U.S.?

Read this:
"All together, the federal government spent more than $591 billion in 2009 on means-tested or anti-poverty programs, and will undoubtedly spend even more this year. That amounts to $14,849 for every poor man, woman and child in America. Given that the poverty line is just $10,830, we could have mailed every poor person in America a check big enough to lift them out of poverty ? and still saved money. "

$13 trillion going into the US economy. You must of got some of that.

You're too blind to see it was mailed to every person in the US.

Go figure out how and come back and join the debate.

Relentless · 10-01-2012, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

I don't necessarily agree with your claim, over the past decade, unemployment was always <10%... I don't see any reason why next decade would be much different...You pointed out earlier in the thread that some jobs are now gone... sure, we no longer have bank tellers, but now we have webmasters, we no longer have "Street Light / Exterior Electrician", but now we have satelite dish installers... we have fewer check out clerks, but we have more computer repairmen... etc Those that are willing to retrain, have a job now and will have a job in the future...

Take any bank branch as a simple example. You used to have many tellers, some supervisors, loan officers, mortgage brokers, underwriters, etc etc etc in every branch.

What you have now are a few ATMs, a few very very low level 'suits', a branch manager at each branch and a 'back office' that they all call on the phone with pretty much any question more complex than 'what is my current balance.' You have 1/100th the number of people in good paying 'tier 2' careers and a cheaper 'face time' staff at each branch.

There was a great Sopranos episode where the crew tried to shake down a box store for protection money and the 'manager' explained they don't have any cash, access to any cash and are unable to make any decisions. He also didn't care if they broke windows or burnt the place down because it isn't his store anyway. The 'new jobs' are fixing things that are broken, reporting info up the food chain and acting as a greeter. They are replacing actual careers which are now either automated or brought 'in house' to the 'corporate office' where 1/10th of the people are needed to do them. We are creating new low end jobs and shrinking the number of high end jobs.

You can have 100000000 of people making next to nothing at a call center (often outside the United States), have an automated system answer most calls and allow rare calls up to a tiny tier2 staff instead of paying many people to actually know what they are doing and do it well.

It is a simple fact that less 'labor' is needed to get things done. Less people are needed to get 'everything' done. We are more efficient, we automate more and that pace is quickly accelerating.

Most people don't even go to the bank anymore at all. Direct deposit, iphone apps that let you take a photo of your checks, wire transfers, Paypal, credit cards, online banking... how often do you visit an actual bank? How many people are needed to manage all of that? Almost none compared to what it used to be.

woj · 10-01-2012, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

Those are not two different problems, they are the same problem. Designing a system that gives people a baseline level they can not fall below and requires them to work for any luxuries they want is the solution to both problems. Having a draconian system that punishes people for being dim, or treats net financial worth as total contribution to society is not helpful and will become less helpful as more people become extras.

Taxing those that work more, in order to support those that don't work, is one possible solution to the problem, but I don't agree it's the best one. System like that tends to REWARD the lazy / unsuccessful / etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

I don't get into my personal life on porn boards with any specificity. What I can tell you is that I donate a considerable amount of my time. I find that donating TIME actually does much more than donating money in most instances. Giving $10 to a charity is less helpful than helping out at a food pantry once a month for example in my experience. I have contributed considerable amounts of my time, some money and been active at the local political level (where most policy impact actually originates). It really isn't that hard to give up 1 day a month for a good cause. It doesn't make you a saint, and many people do it... neither for recognition nor reward.

You are one of few people that "walk the talk"... I've found that most people love to play armchair philosopher, as long as it's not their time/money on the line...

DamianJ · 10-01-2012, 11:25 AM

This thread is like watching the kids on the shortbus debate something. More public cluelessness is hard to find outside a DVTimes thread.

Keep it going, it's hilarious!

Relentless · 10-01-2012, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

Taxing those that work more, in order to support those that don't work, is one possible solution to the problem, but I don't agree it's the best one. System like that tends to REWARD the lazy / unsuccessful / etc.

Not true. It costs a fortune to put so many people in prison for selling pot. We could legalize it and tax it. That would bring in some revenue, and create a few jobs, but it won't create enough good jobs for all the people who used to make money illegally selling pot at a black market premium. However, when you factor in the cost of prisons, it is CHEAPER to do it even if we have to subsidize their standard of living when they are out of prison.

We waste more money on prisons, emergency care for the uninsured and backward systems like that than we will ever spend on food stamps for poor people. It is a net loss financially to imprison dim people and treat them badly for being dim. It actually costs less to give them food, medications, shelter, clothing and the other basics without requiring them to commit a crime first. When a poor person gets a cold treated at an ER they don't pay anything, but the hospital and insurance companies tag that cost onto the bills of people who actually have insurance by raising rates and premiums. It costs LESS to provide free health clinics set up to handle people and charge zero for doing so.

We should be looking objectively at what is cost effective, efficient and sustainable... rather than emotionally cutting off our own nose to spite our face by making sure nobody gets more than they earn, no matter how dim they are or how little they get.

Rochard · 10-01-2012, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

"<10%" = "less than 10%"

I meant it was always less than 10%, during some months it may have been slightly above that, but that's just an anomaly because of business cycles... on average like Robbie pointed out, it's probably actually closer to 5% than 10%....

Opps. When you said "<10%" I thought that was a typo.

woj · 10-01-2012, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

Not true. It costs a fortune to put so many people in prison for selling pot. We could legalize it and tax it. That would bring in some revenue, and create a few jobs, but it won't create enough good jobs for all the people who used to make money illegally selling pot at a black market premium. However, when you factor in the cost of prisons, it is CHEAPER to do it even if we have to subsidize their standard of living when they are out of prison.

We waste more money on prisons, emergency care for the uninsured and backward systems like that than we will ever spend on food stamps for poor people. It is a net loss financially to imprison dim people and treat them badly for being dim. It actually costs less to give them food, medications, shelter, clothing and the other basics without requiring them to commit a crime first.

We should be looking objectively at what is cost effective, efficient and sustainable... rather than emotionally cutting off our own nose to spite our face by making sure nobody gets more than they earn, no matter how dim they are or how little they get.

Not sure how we jumped on the topic of drug legalization and prisons, but I agree with you there is no reason to keep people in prison for harmless "offenses." I agree with you legalizing of drugs would actually be a good step in the right direction.

You are making it sound like "dim" people are hopeless. I don't think most are. The system they are in taught them helplessness, so we just need to reverse that.

For example, this may not be ideal solution, but each receipient of government aid should have to do free community service... there is no reason why a skilled person like yourself should waste a day helping at a food pantry, when some unemployment "dim" person could perform that same job equally well...

another upside to this is it would filter out the people that are not so "dim", but are lazy instead... those lazy people would likely conclude that working x hours per week to get some government benefits isn't worthwhile, and so hopefully they would realize that they would be better off getting a real job...

Relentless · 10-01-2012, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

Not sure how we jumped on the topic of drug legalization and prisons, but I agree with you there is no reason to keep people in prison for harmless "offenses." I agree with you legalizing of drugs would actually be a good step in the right direction.

It is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Paying billions to imprison people who we give medication, horrible food, terrible shelter and clothing is more expensive than NOT imprisoning millions of people who we give medications, nutritious food and adequate shelter. You pay more tax dollars to sustain prisons than it would cost to sustain the same people in a better quality of life where they could contribute something... or at least not be a negative force in society.

Quote:

You are making it sound like "dim" people are hopeless. I don't think most are. The system they are in taught them helplessness, so we just need to reverse that. For example, this may not be ideal solution, but each recipient of government aid should have to do free community service... there is no reason why a skilled person like yourself should waste a day helping at a food pantry, when some unemployment "dim" person could perform that same job equally well...

I completely agree. Now we are on common ground. However, working at a food pantry as a dim person wont earn enough to take care of themselves without considerable subsidies from somewhere else. Dim people aren't hopeless, the chance of a dim person 'starting their own company and making themselves successful entrepreneurs' is hopeless.

We need to accept the fact that many people (likely more than half) even when working at their full capacity are not going to be able to find good high paying jobs. The jobs dim people can do are all being automated away. Dim people aren't suddenly going to be retrained to do jobs that Dim people can not do. So we have to either make up jobs that aren't truly needed and subsidize their standard of living, or kill them all.

Even doing all of that is a temporary solution... because we are not too far away from automating the jobs that many bright people do as well. Being a personal accountant is a job a dim person can't do. Any idea how many are out of work thanks to Turbotax? Even the hardest most complex and intelligence requiring jobs will be automated away soon enough. All that will be left is creative jobs, thinking of new things that don't already exist and have not yet been automated. How many people you really think will be employed in that economy? 10%? 1%?... Eventually very few people will have work to do. We are evolving beyond capitalism, not because capitalism is bad... but because we are more productive with every passing day and we simply do not need more than a certain amount of human production.

Relentless · 10-01-2012, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Sad that all the "solutions" for the future don't include the obvious ..... "Stop shitting out kids you can't afford or don't intend to stick around and take care of"

I'm all for a system that reduces our population. Currently we give many incentives for the people least able raise children, to have the most offspring. That's simply idiotic. Good luck enforcing any of that with the Church as powerful as it remains presently.

Relentless · 10-01-2012, 12:05 PM

Have you noticed that 'hand made' used to mean BETTER and now it often means 'hunk of crap' compared to the commercially automated assembly line version of the same item? That's not because craftsmanship became much worse... it's because automation became infinitely better.

Imagine an accountant who promises to calculate your taxes 'by hand' each year. Chances are his work would be considerably worse than a competitor using a spreadsheet and calculator in 1/00000th the time. There is zero chance his calculations by hand will be better than those that have been automated. The same is true in many fields and that number is growing rapidly.

Relentless · 10-01-2012, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Actually it was down around 5% and less the whole time. Which is the definition of full employment. Relentless is way off base. That stuff was predicted when I was in highschool in the 1970's and never happened. Matter of fact we were supposed to be out of oil by the 1980's, driving around in flying cars, robots would replace everyone at work, the Earth was on it's way to an Ice Age because of fossil fuels, etc.
Reality is...once the housing market stabilizes, the economy will turn back around and we will be back at around 5% unemployment again. It's only been since the end of 2008/start of 2009 that all this came down and unemployment shot up. And none of that was caused by automation or anything else except the housing market fucking the economy.

I have no doubt 'employment' will be 5% in the near future. However the jobs will be split into a small fraction of very high paying jobs and a huge glut of low paying jobs. Employment numbers tell you how many people are doing 'something', they don't tell you what people are doing or earning. The middle class is going bye bye because we do not need many middle level employees. We need plenty of unskilled workers who do grunt work cheap and a small number of people capable of managing huge numbers of unskilled workers. The number of unskilled workers needed will continue decreasing thanks to globalization and further automation. More of the 'good jobs' will also be re-classed as low level jobs too... as they get split up and automated. It's a pyramid that becomes thinner and thinner over time until it looks a lot more like a thin straight vertical line.

We automate away anything in the middle, and the pace is accelerating.

Paul Markham · 10-01-2012, 12:31 PM

The problem the US faces, is the same as France, UK, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Eire and probably a few more face.

It's simple. Lower manufacturing and export have led to fewer jobs in those sectors. Some were soaked up in the Services Industries, Financial Industries and Government spending. To keep money circulating in as many hands as possible.

PLUS huge borrowing.

The Bank collapse showed the cracks, the deregulation of the banks made the cracks wider. Then many of the jobs created were lost.

Now we have people blaming the victims of faulty system. Yes there are some crack sellers who will always be a problem. Does that include the people put out of a job over the last 4 years?

Spain: 25.1% Cutting spending.
Portugal: 15.9% Cutting spending.
Ireland: 15% Cutting spending.
Italy: 10.7% Cutting spending.
France: 10.6% Cutting spending.
UK 8.1% Cutting spending.
Germany: 5.5%
Eurozone: 11.4% Cutting spending.
US: 8.1%
Japan: 4.1%

Now some Americans to get your vote are telling you they will cut the spending, lower taxes and this will boost spending and lead to recovery.

If anyone thinks switching money from Jim to John, boosts spending. They need to tell us how.

This problem is so much harder to solve than that. THE WEST, did you get that Robbie?, either accepts a lower standard of living or it gets some of the money flowing into the emerging economies back. Cutting spending will send more of that money to the emerging economies.

Minte said his largest contract was from Vietnam, does anyone wonder how Vietnam is now able to spend that kind of money and why it's not being spent by a US company or the Government?

Quote:

Taxing those that work more, in order to support those that don't work, is one possible solution to the problem, but I don't agree it's the best one. System like that tends to REWARD the lazy / unsuccessful / etc.

Now the victims are lazy, unsuccessful and because they lost their jobs their support is now a reward.

Great pig in a trough mentality.

So we cut the money to the unemployed, they go out and try to find a job that doesn't exist. Then what, maybe they come knocking on your door.

Then what about all the people organising the payouts, shall we sack them as well to keep your taxes low?

What about all the shops where the unemployed shop, besides the meth and crack shops, do we shut them and sack the workers as well?

Then what about the places, the now unemployed office and shop workers, spend their money, do we close them as well? Some of them might be your customers, did you figure that in as well? Because a guy spending $30-$50 a month isn't much better off than the people you're turning into lazy, unsuccessful people who expect to be rewarded for the job they lost.

Money never stops circulating, until it leaves the country.

Tell us guys what will you spend your $500 a year windfall on? Beside a big ass gun to keep the lazy, unsuccessful people from your door. Maybe a Nokia phone.

crockett · 10-01-2012, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

I worked all weekend. I can sleep well tonight knowing that my hard-earned money will help those out there who partied weekend.

It is a glorious feeling. Hoorah!

I hope you also feel good that that hard earned tax money you pay out, also gets given out to large corporations in tune of govt provided subsidies. I hope you feel just as happy that you are helping provide a fortune 500 CEO a nice weekend off and likely an extra bonus at the end of the year in profit sharing.

Really, if you are going to bitch about stupid stuff, at least spread the bitching around equally to all those that deserve it, instead of just a narrow focused FOX news approved agenda.

Sly · 10-01-2012, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

I hope you also feel good that that hard earned tax money you pay out, also gets given out to large corporations in tune of govt provided subsidies. I hope you feel just as happy that you are helping provide a fortune 500 CEO a nice weekend off and likely an extra bonus at the end of the year in profit sharing.

Really, if you are going to bitch about stupid stuff, at least spread the bitching around equally to all those that deserve it, instead of just a narrow focused FOX news approved agenda.

Oddly enough, I don't watch Fox News.

Which one of us is the propaganda eating sheep?

baddog · 10-01-2012, 02:41 PM

I saw something the other day that suggested that training kids to care about employment and success was all wrong. Seems they would fit in well here.

Paul Markham · 10-01-2012, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

I saw something the other day that suggested that training kids to care about employment and success was all wrong. Seems they would fit in well here.

You're right. Many here think the unemployed should be ignored and not get benefits. So they can have a bit more to spend.

Robbie · 10-01-2012, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The problem the US faces, is I just keep posting about the United States even though I don't live there and don't understand it at all.

Paul Markham · 10-01-2012, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

The problem the US faces, is the same as France, UK, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Eire and probably a few more face.

That was easy.

baddog · 10-01-2012, 03:30 PM

Here is the problem

Relentless · 10-01-2012, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Here is the problem

Fuller was awarded 28 United States patents and many honorary doctorates. In 1960, he was awarded the Frank P. Brown Medal from The Franklin Institute. He was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1968. In 1970 he received the Gold Medal award from the American Institute of Architects. He also received numerous other awards, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom presented to him on February 23, 1983 by President Ronald Reagan. He invented the Geodesic dome and the Otisco Project among other things - and studied the underpinnings of economics, political philosophy and human survival more than most people.

Fuller was concerned about sustainability and about human survival under the existing socio-economic system, yet remained optimistic about humanity's future. Defining wealth in terms of knowledge, as the "technological ability to protect, nurture, support, and accommodate all growth needs of life," his analysis caused him to conclude during the 1970s, humanity had attained an unprecedented state. He was convinced that the accumulation of relevant knowledge, combined with the quantities of major recyclable resources that had already been extracted from the earth, had attained a critical level, such that competition for necessities was not necessary anymore.

In fact he was right. We are capable of producing more food than we can eat today, even in the face of the greatest drought since the dust bowl, with a tiny fraction of our population employed in the food production industry. In any other era you would see mass starvation during a drought of this magnitude... and yet, these days not a single item is unavailable on supermarket store shelves and at most it has resulted in a small price increase. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1871993.html and yet Most people don't even know a drought is underway.

So yeah, that underachiever idiot Fuller clearly was the problem. Planned obsolescence in product lines for the sole purpose of creating demand, shorter than necessary lifespans on appliances, and a continued march toward automation of most tasks is clearly all his misunderstandings. It must be that he didn't get it lol .. /facepalm

Relentless · 10-01-2012, 04:49 PM

Fuller, Steve Jobs, Ray Kurzweil... and other elite achievers, some of the most inventive people in the last century, have echoed the same sentiments. We are moving beyond the period of human history where each person has to earn more than they consume and our society is becoming so technologically complex that many people will be unable to do more than the very minimum in our economy moving forward. A period that could be dominated by thought, peace and prosperity... if we move past the mystical certitude of religion, militant ignorance of political parties and angry emotional attachment some people seem to feel for the status quo.

We need more universities, hospitals, mentors and a renewed interest in Science for its own sake. Less prisons, aircraft carriers, high frequency trading hedge funds and violent religious zealots. It's a pretty simple choice really.

10-01-2012, 04:02 AM	#352
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	Relentless makes points that I have been making for 30 years since my high school geography teacher was predicting the future of robotics/automation and globalization. I sat in my desk and wondered what do all the dopes do in the future. And his answer was of course 'retraining' and a shorter work week - wtf, who's going to pay somebody to work less? Literally 75% of the kids I went to high school with were dopes, the die was already cast for their lives, they were happy to drink beer, fix up their cars, get some job and get married. Destined to be mechanics, waitresses, shoe salesmen, truck drivers etc. 40 years ago the town I grew up in had a big steel mill, a big pipe manufacturing plant and some other factories. Good jobs, lifetime jobs for their parents generation, jobs you could get married and raise a family on. Many of the dopes got those jobs, and the other dopes got jobs serving and selling them stuff. Those type of jobs have been declining for decades. So what happens to the dopes? A percentage of them can be trained to do other types of work and some of them get a wakeup call and create their own jobs - like adult webmastering. But it still leaves a big portion of the population for whom the economy can't provide the type of well paid job a dope can do. People always use exceptions to the rule as examples of how to deal with this problem - 'i knew this woman, divorced single mom living on social assistance, she made delicious pies from a recipe her grandma passed down, she set up a little stand to sell her pies in the summer, soon people were coming from 3 towns over just to buy her pies, today she owns 50 pie bakeries named after her grandma and is a multi millionaire!' There are lots of those self made stories but they are a small percentage, the exceptions. So, what do you do with the growing number of these dopes for whom the economy has no jobs that provide a good living? A conservative would say 'fuck em, they made their own bed let them lie in it'. A liberal would redistribute some of the wealth possessed by the smart/motivated/fortunate. There have always been dirt poor people in the US, Canada, the UK and any other 'first world' country and there always will be, that's just how things and people are. But as Robbie said, being poor today is a whole different thing than being poor 50 years ago. The poor of today live better than the middle class of 50 years ago. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

10-01-2012, 05:45 AM	#355
Relentless www.EngineFood.com Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,698	Mutt, It's the volume that matters. When 5% of the population is out of work, or illegal immigrants are working poor people.. It's easy for many American to overlook them. However when it is more than half our population and many are hard working law abiding citizens... It becomes much harder. We are headed for massive unemployment on a global scale. More people in the world not working than working. All of those extra people are a big enough force to do a huge amount of damage. It is much easier to destroy than to create, especially in large numbers. It is time to figure out what to do with all the extra people and start doing something about it. A 32 hour work week is the fastest and easiest short term move. I am shocked it has not gained momentum already. If companies have to pay time and a half for all hours over 32 in a week, you'll see a lot of hiring. Sabbaticals and furlough programs would also make sense. There are other things that can be done, but it all starts with accepting the fact that we have more hard working people than there are jobs, and that the number of jobs will continue declining while populations continue rising. They aren't bums, hobos or idiots - they are extra people. Imprisoning many of them is more expensive. Creating wars of choice is ineffective. Kicking them over and over when they are already down is dangerous. It's time we start to address it as a real issue, rather than just salving the symptoms it causes. In a few decades -population, water supply and extra people will be the main issues on everyone's mind. Last edited by Relentless; 10-01-2012 at 05:48 AM..

10-01-2012, 06:00 AM	#356
The Porn Nerd Living The Dream Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Inside a Monitor Posts: 19,506	A Libertarian is merely a Republican who wants to smoke pot and get laid. __________________ My Affiliate Programs: Porn Nerd Cash \| Porn Showcase \| Aggressive Gold Over 90 paysites to promote! Skype: peabodymedia

10-01-2012, 07:23 AM	#359
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	Relentless, so what solution do you propose? those that work, should support those that don't, right? __________________ Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000 Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

10-01-2012, 09:36 AM	#367
Relentless www.EngineFood.com Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,698	Incidentally, you might call it 'trickle up economics.' A hard floor that nobody can fall below and everyone can use if they choose... It will only be a transitional phase for decades. Centuries from now, do you really think more than 10% of us will be needed to keep everything running? I'd be shocked if more than 1% of us have a job by then. Considering the fact that people on this board are webmasters automating massive amounts of work every day, I find it ironic that most have not considered the fact that we will eventually produce more than we need with very few of us working. __________________ Website Secure \| Engine Food ICQ# 266-942-896 Last edited by Relentless; 10-01-2012 at 09:38 AM..

10-01-2012, 10:41 AM	#371
Sly Let's do some business! Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 31,291	I worked all weekend. I can sleep well tonight knowing that my hard-earned money will help those out there who partied weekend. It is a glorious feeling. Hoorah! __________________ Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted Windows VPS now available. Wanted: CCBill pay sites for sale

10-01-2012, 10:44 AM	#373
TheSquealer BANNED Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In Your Head Posts: 25,091	Sad that all the "solutions" for the future don't include the obvious ..... "Stop shitting out kids you can't afford or don't intend to stick around and take care of"

10-01-2012, 11:25 AM	#383
DamianJ Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land Posts: 15,808	This thread is like watching the kids on the shortbus debate something. More public cluelessness is hard to find outside a DVTimes thread. Keep it going, it's hilarious!

10-01-2012, 12:05 PM	#389
Relentless www.EngineFood.com Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,698	Have you noticed that 'hand made' used to mean BETTER and now it often means 'hunk of crap' compared to the commercially automated assembly line version of the same item? That's not because craftsmanship became much worse... it's because automation became infinitely better. Imagine an accountant who promises to calculate your taxes 'by hand' each year. Chances are his work would be considerably worse than a competitor using a spreadsheet and calculator in 1/00000th the time. There is zero chance his calculations by hand will be better than those that have been automated. The same is true in many fields and that number is growing rapidly. __________________ Website Secure \| Engine Food ICQ# 266-942-896 Last edited by Relentless; 10-01-2012 at 12:08 PM..

10-01-2012, 02:41 PM	#394
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,090	I saw something the other day that suggested that training kids to care about employment and success was all wrong. Seems they would fit in well here.

10-01-2012, 03:30 PM	#398
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,090	Here is the problem

10-01-2012, 04:49 PM	#400
Relentless www.EngineFood.com Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,698	Fuller, Steve Jobs, Ray Kurzweil... and other elite achievers, some of the most inventive people in the last century, have echoed the same sentiments. We are moving beyond the period of human history where each person has to earn more than they consume and our society is becoming so technologically complex that many people will be unable to do more than the very minimum in our economy moving forward. A period that could be dominated by thought, peace and prosperity... if we move past the mystical certitude of religion, militant ignorance of political parties and angry emotional attachment some people seem to feel for the status quo. We need more universities, hospitals, mentors and a renewed interest in Science for its own sake. Less prisons, aircraft carriers, high frequency trading hedge funds and violent religious zealots. It's a pretty simple choice really. __________________ Website Secure \| Engine Food ICQ# 266-942-896 Last edited by Relentless; 10-01-2012 at 04:57 PM..