Slashdot Mirror

This is a very insightful post. Wish I had mod points; instead I replied to another reply below.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3515549&cid=43077499

The only thing that will stop the outsourcing economically from places like the USA or Canada (short of political change, but the money is against it) will be when global wages equilibrate as relative currency values change. But by then, in a couple decades, AI and robotics will be doing most things people are paid for now, and it will be hard for most people to compete in a race-to-the-bottom with machines that work ever-more-cheaply 24X7 for most jobs. Even if some people can compete, a lot of people like doing things like being outdoors growing plants, or making stuff with their hands, or building big things, so I can't see how most people are going to be happy spending huge amounts of time stuck doing whatever is left after all those things are mostly automated (robot management -- except won't AIs do that?).

Still, while doing meaningful work (which includes child care) is essential to human health, having a paid job is only essential in a certain kind of economic system (like without a basic income). Canada has pioneered in that area:
http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit#Canada

Firstly, the money is there already. It just would have to be redistributed. The net profits of certain industries could feed the world single-handedly. Requiring them to provide a modest contribution should not be overly draconian. We are talking about basic support - food, clothes, a roof over the head, healthcare etc. - not palaces for everyone.

Secondly, every cent spent on such measures pays back in savings elsewhere: Medical bills go down, crime goes down, education goes up, consumption goes up. Hell, even traffic accidents go down. It would be a smart investment.

Thanks for this interesting aside.

I assume since you are well informed about this, you are aware of the Canadian Mincome scheme. I think it is mentioned in the Wikiipedia article on Basic Income Guarantee.
I read about it in an article I found through instapaper. This http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100 may or may not be the one I read.

I'm deeply concerned that if something like this isn't implemented, we are in for societal collapse over the next 50-100 years as more jobs are lost due to automation and wealth becomes further concentrated.

The point of basic income guarantee is that literally everyone gets it - it's what the society gives you for being a member, a common wealth pool that is equally shared. That's how it's different from tax credits or welfare.

And yes, it seems to be sustainable. They've ran a 5-year experiment in part of Canada 40 years ago to see if it's viable - and specifically that the right-wing assertions that people just wouldn't bother working if they knew they were guaranteed a paycheck for doing nothing. It does work out, though - turns out money is not the sole motivator for most folk out there (who knew, eh?).

don't listen the CATO institute, they're not very trustworthy.

First, why do you say CATO is not trustworthy? Do you trust Forbes? That article CATO has is from "Forbes", CATO just reprinted it. As this next one is anti-nukes you probably won't accept it either but there goes. Dating from 2005 " True Costs of Nuclear Power -- Half-a-Trillion Dollars Sunk" says electricity from nuclear power plants cost at "least 9.0 cents a kilowatt-hour, far more than other readily available fuels." But the most important assessment of nuclear power's profitability is Wall Street and Wall Street has never funded nuclear without subsidies.

Yucca mountain is no longer a viable storage site if that is what you were talking about. They found a fault ran underneath it that they didn't think did.

Why should they be surprised? Back in the '70s a building was damaged when Yucca Mountain was hit by an earthquake. Then several years ago another earthquake hit near Yucca.

The general impression I get from your post is that you think nuclear power is somehow really dirty.

Nuclear power is dirty, as are all sources of power we could use. even geothermal energy is dirty.

All you need for long term storage is a geological stable site that is isolated from the water table.

And where will sites like this be found?

I was not aware of mines on native lands, most of the best mines are in Canada from my understanding.

Those mines in Canada are on First Nations's land. "Greenpeace joins First Nations and citizens to oppose Sharbot Lake uranium exploration". "A Violation of Algonquin Law".

And it's not just the US and Canada that mines uranium on Native lands. Australia does it as well as other nations.

As for "government funding" it's just government loans that I've heard of no grants

From January 2007, "Analysis of Nuclear Subsidies in Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007 [pdf]". It says "Finally, Sec. 323 of the bill enables projects within different technology categories, including nuclear power, to bid for an additional federal grant of as much as $100 million - or more if approved by the Secretary of Energy."

Now those subsidies are just US ones not Chinese, French, Indian, or Russian.

Falcon

Newsflash: U.S. economy is in BIG trouble.

Short history lesson: Federal reserve started to inflate the money supply in early 1995 (blue line in the graph). The 'tech bubble' followed a couple years later. That trend wasn't sustainable, and the dot-coms bombed sometime in 2000/2001. The economy was well on its way to a recession by late-summer/fall 2001. The Federal Reserve responded to "9/11" by cutting interest rates to 1% (over several months), supposedly for the purpose of 'stimulating' the economy.

Newsflash: Mismanagement of the U.S. currency has caused half of the economic equation, production, to move to Asia and Mexico, either in search of lower wages or to flee rising U.S. costs. This is not a new phenomena, and has been ongoing since the 1970's, though it is only recently (circa-2001) that that trend has accelerated to a completely unsustainable level. Cisco assembled their wireless access points in the U.S., and Intel made motherboards in Silicon Valley up until 1999/2000 or so. What happened to the Americans who used to be employed assembling motherboards and other electronics? Perhaps some of them moved to finance, and some to auto sales. But I digress...

Thus, when the Fed slashed interest rates starting in 2001, instead of entrepreneurs borrowing money to set up new production lines, individuals borrowed money to buy a bigger house. And an investment house. And a condo in the mountains. The widely-proclaimed 'housing bubble' started to take off ... circa 2002/2003, and reached its peak summer 2005. Crashes always follow bubbles, and the current real estate market is no exception.

Low interest rates also facilitated GM's 0% financing "keep america rolling" sales campaign. (don't remember what Ford & Chrysler called their corresponding 0% programs). But now Ford and General Motors are in trouble, because they can't sell new cars to customers whose credit line is maxed out.

Gonna get ugly, folks. The good news is that this coming transition marks the end of corporate wage-slavery. The economic system that will arise from the ashes will be founded with something along the lines of worker cooperatives. This is the worker benefiting from their own labor. No more slaving away to pay the "shareholders" dividends (mostly rich dudes who sit on their lazy asses and parasitically live off the working class).

John Gatto's book about the 'massification' of America fits in here too. Gatto maintains that the original american ideal was an independent livelihood. Blacksmith, farmer, woodworker, wheelmaker, etc. Mass production / standardization required government schools to produce a populace who would accept working a repetive job where someone else ("shareholder") was the primary beneficiary. Fun while it lasted, right? :)

Also see my recent comment, how the government spins the stats.

I don't get why people say tomato pickers should be paid more. They all agreed to do the job and knew what they were getting into. Besides, if they are just in it for the money/food, they aren't worth the support.

http://dominionpaper.ca/agriculture/2006/03/30/thr owing_t.html