And what said greedy fuckholes don't understand is that they are outnumbered and out gunned. Once they force enough people into a shadow society (we have them now, they're called "gangs"), they will be invaded from the inside.
The people advocating for the Basic Income or other potential solutions are just trying to head off what could be a very ugly period in our future history.
Agreed. We must stop snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. If our economic model doesn't server our entire society, it must be changed. If instead we void the social contract and toss "surplus" workers out of our society, they have no choice but to form their own and take over (by force if necessary). The latter seems like a bad choice.
That's the elephant in the room. Economists (especially those who occupy armchairs or political office) have miossed that the industrialization that improved everyone's life in a free(-ish) market did so because there was a severe labor shortage and even then, it only worked out after a great deal of civil unrest including a number of fatal confrontations.
The current industrial revolution is taking place during a labor surplus. Freeing humans from the need to labor is a laudible and achievable goal but the labor market and it's imaginary magical invisible hand isn't up to the task.
Surplus workers. What do you suppose generally happens when there is a surplus on the supply side?
Typically, production drops and prices fall. Bad news for the supply side. Of course, it's not terribly ethical to destroy inventory or ship it off to a secondary market when that supply is human beings in need of a job. At the same time, the production process is fairly long (18 to 22 years). That's a lot of people making less than it costs to support oneself.
So no, throwing up our hands and claiming "the market will take care of it" doesn't suffice when the "product" is human beings. The market (and the economy it lives in) is a construct of man that should serve our needs, not the other way around. If the economy does not serve our needs, it must be changed.
Simple analogy, if the hammer doesn't fit the human hand, you need a different hammer, not hand surgery.
Not a good idea. The last time I had to do a hard tap on the brakes (enforced, not voluntary because the car in front stopped), with a tailgater behind me he nearly lost control and only just avoided veering into the next lane.
That sounds like more than what I would consider a tap.
Funny how if I hire someone to do something, they are legally treated as my proxy and so I can only hire them to do something I can legally do and if they cross the line, accountability can come back to me.
But let's add in "No taxation without representation" so those who may not vote pay no taxes (including property and sales). Surely there's enough history behind that to justify it in U.S. law. Further, they may not be counted for the purpose of allocating representation.
Or, to be completely fair since we claim to support democracy, if you can't vote, the law doesn't apply to you.
TL;DR: No. That's a terrible idea. People have the right to advocate for the form of society they want to live in.
Why does an employee in Africa or Asia need to make less than one in America or Europe, given equal qualifications?
I already answered that, because their cost of living is MUCH lower than ours. If I could have their rent and electricity, etc costs, I could afford to work for what they do. But I'll bet the companies doing all that outsourcing won't be so willing to accommodate that.
Because a single house payment here in the U.S. is more than the 3rd world workers make in a year. Give us a 3rd world cost of living and we will easily out-compete 3rd world workers.
Make sure to include networking professionals (voice too). "Gee, we don't know why India is in a total communications blackout! It's not urgent, is it?"
Needing to run another fiber is based on RATE, not volume. The bits don't wear the fiber out. A 1G fiber can as easily carry 1G 24x7 as it can for 5 minutes during prime time. It's the peak usage that drives needing a new fiber. The off-peak traffic costs nothing to carry.
Alas, they offer "up to" 75Mbps. If your ISP could actually deal with everyone in your neighborhood watching an HD stream at the same time, they wouldn't need caps at all. It would cost them more to meter the traffic than it would to just let it flow. So there's an example of a weakness in the current infrastructure. If they had proper queueing set up, it wouldn't matter that that guy down the street downloads 24x7, it wouldn't keep you from watching the HD show (while your kids watch a different HD show).
No. When I go to the gas station and say give me $20 on pump 5, they don't give me "up to" $20 worth, they give me exactly $20 worth. In theory, it's possible they might run out while I am filling (in practice, I don't even know anyone who has seen that happen) but in that case they would refund me for the amount I didn't get.
Slashdot Mirror
And what said greedy fuckholes don't understand is that they are outnumbered and out gunned. Once they force enough people into a shadow society (we have them now, they're called "gangs"), they will be invaded from the inside.
The people advocating for the Basic Income or other potential solutions are just trying to head off what could be a very ugly period in our future history.
Agreed. We must stop snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. If our economic model doesn't server our entire society, it must be changed. If instead we void the social contract and toss "surplus" workers out of our society, they have no choice but to form their own and take over (by force if necessary). The latter seems like a bad choice.
That's the elephant in the room. Economists (especially those who occupy armchairs or political office) have miossed that the industrialization that improved everyone's life in a free(-ish) market did so because there was a severe labor shortage and even then, it only worked out after a great deal of civil unrest including a number of fatal confrontations.
The current industrial revolution is taking place during a labor surplus. Freeing humans from the need to labor is a laudible and achievable goal but the labor market and it's imaginary magical invisible hand isn't up to the task.
Surplus workers. What do you suppose generally happens when there is a surplus on the supply side?
Typically, production drops and prices fall. Bad news for the supply side. Of course, it's not terribly ethical to destroy inventory or ship it off to a secondary market when that supply is human beings in need of a job. At the same time, the production process is fairly long (18 to 22 years). That's a lot of people making less than it costs to support oneself.
So no, throwing up our hands and claiming "the market will take care of it" doesn't suffice when the "product" is human beings. The market (and the economy it lives in) is a construct of man that should serve our needs, not the other way around. If the economy does not serve our needs, it must be changed.
Simple analogy, if the hammer doesn't fit the human hand, you need a different hammer, not hand surgery.
Not a good idea. The last time I had to do a hard tap on the brakes (enforced, not voluntary because the car in front stopped), with a tailgater behind me he nearly lost control and only just avoided veering into the next lane.
That sounds like more than what I would consider a tap.
A hard tap on the brake can often cure a tailgater.
Do that and I'll add hardware to apply Grateful Dead bumper stickers to your car while I'm stuck behind you.
Actually, I do. I picked one of your links (Mexico) at random and found that it really didn't support or even address your assertions.
Yeah, the people living in the D.C. ghettos have heaps of clout.
Funny how if I hire someone to do something, they are legally treated as my proxy and so I can only hire them to do something I can legally do and if they cross the line, accountability can come back to me.
What are your thoughts on warrantless use of stingray?
H1-Bs and green card holders are still guests, not Citizens. Residents of D.C. do deserve to vote and it's well past time to fix that.
What of the people who are later exonerated? Perhaps after talking with their lawyer while wrongly imprisoned.
But let's add in "No taxation without representation" so those who may not vote pay no taxes (including property and sales). Surely there's enough history behind that to justify it in U.S. law. Further, they may not be counted for the purpose of allocating representation.
Or, to be completely fair since we claim to support democracy, if you can't vote, the law doesn't apply to you.
TL;DR: No. That's a terrible idea. People have the right to advocate for the form of society they want to live in.
Tell it to the corporations that won't budge on their price. It's not the workers who are inefficient. In fact, our GDP/capita is higher than ever.
No, they're not, especially on the basics like food, clothing, and shelter.
But the condition is hardly U.S. only. All generally wealthier countries have a higher cost of living than developing countries.
Why does an employee in Africa or Asia need to make less than one in America or Europe, given equal qualifications?
I already answered that, because their cost of living is MUCH lower than ours. If I could have their rent and electricity, etc costs, I could afford to work for what they do. But I'll bet the companies doing all that outsourcing won't be so willing to accommodate that.
Because a single house payment here in the U.S. is more than the 3rd world workers make in a year. Give us a 3rd world cost of living and we will easily out-compete 3rd world workers.
Make sure to include networking professionals (voice too). "Gee, we don't know why India is in a total communications blackout! It's not urgent, is it?"
More like the AMA or the Bar Association.
Except those cars waiting aren't expected to pay unless/until they actually get gasoline.
Needing to run another fiber is based on RATE, not volume. The bits don't wear the fiber out. A 1G fiber can as easily carry 1G 24x7 as it can for 5 minutes during prime time. It's the peak usage that drives needing a new fiber. The off-peak traffic costs nothing to carry.
Alas, they offer "up to" 75Mbps. If your ISP could actually deal with everyone in your neighborhood watching an HD stream at the same time, they wouldn't need caps at all. It would cost them more to meter the traffic than it would to just let it flow. So there's an example of a weakness in the current infrastructure. If they had proper queueing set up, it wouldn't matter that that guy down the street downloads 24x7, it wouldn't keep you from watching the HD show (while your kids watch a different HD show).
No. When I go to the gas station and say give me $20 on pump 5, they don't give me "up to" $20 worth, they give me exactly $20 worth. In theory, it's possible they might run out while I am filling (in practice, I don't even know anyone who has seen that happen) but in that case they would refund me for the amount I didn't get.
Do you know what the cost difference is to run a fiber at 100% utilization vs. 0%? Zero.
What they're trying to do is avoid admitting how outrageously huge their overcommit is.