no. I few year ago I looked into bamkruptcy. The lawyer told me: YOu're the most frugle people I've met.
Productivity is up, income is not.
In 1969 my dad worked for McDonnell Douglas,,he made 20, 000 a year. That's 123,000 in Todays dollars. His home cost 21,000 dollars. Slightly more the 1 years wages. In today's money. you would need to make 500K a year for that same house to only be slightly less then the cost of the house. And I mean the same damn house. Gas cost 35 cents No,. there is a huge income disparity now as compare to then. Not just more bills. DO you know who much money a month I spend in todays dollars that you couldn't in 1970? 210.00 a month. Internet, cell phones, netflix/hulu. 300 a month if I got TV again. that's 46 dollar in 1970 money.
So I make 5 time what my dad did, can't live in the same neighbor hood, afford the same things, drive an ancient POS becasue I spend 3600 more a year?
the longer we wait, the more expensive it becomes. If energy complains and religious fundies where pushing a false debate with lies, we would have been making small changes for 20 years.
Switching to cleaner technologies will not bankrupt America, don't be stupid.
China and India are also putting money into clean energies.
IF America would stop listening to denier and start a big project, it would BOOST our economy, and drive new technologies developed by american companies. Remember, big project do not literally burn money. Changing the grid to something 21st century? Yeah, that would cost a lot/. which goes to American workers, who then buy things and everyone pays taxes. The circle continues.
Spending money to develop small Solar furnace project, say 5MW, on farms mean workers making money cheaper at cleaner energy.
spending the billions on have a 10K sqr miles solar farm moves money through the economy, provides cleaner energy.
The idea the moving to cleaner energy will bankrupt America is complete nonsense.
If 8 years ago people actually starting being rational about the science and started actining, the burst bubble would have had a much SMALLER impact.
It's funny., developing a pipeline the will provide a 100 jobs for a short time is good for the economy, but switching to a clean energy that will create many thousands of long term jobs is some how bad for the economy.
And this doesn't even get into the fact that it means less dependence on other countries.
"as a climate skeptic, " You don't believe climate exists? or do you mean a denier you ignores the hard science?
" global warming believers" do you also say gravity believers? Cause yes, the science is just as solid as the theory of gravity.
" aren't pushing super hard for this. we are.
"80 billion is spent on global warming programs" globally, 80 billion isn't much, especially when you consider idiots like you are in government and talk shows spouting the ignorance as fact turning it into a political issue. Since there isn't a clear path, research in different technologies and switching over takes money and time.
" The GCMs really do not seem to work." why do you think that? they work very well. They have even lead us to make new discoveries about the climate.
" They clearly run way too hot. " no, they doi not. Another baseless statement I suspect you have no clue how models work. in general, much less in any specific field.
"The response is to make stuff up, " In every case I am aware of. people accuse of that have been vindicted.
I'm going to ask you a question. If you can not answer it, then you need to STFU and learn some science.
What is the science of AGW? Cue: it's solid science that could easily be disproved if it wasn't correct. AGW is NOT GCC, no matter how many time Fox says otherwsie.
If you happen to know that sceinve is, please explain how adding more energy into the climate doesn't impact it.
"The Hobby Lobby case is/was about individual owners of a company not losing their rights just because they formed a corporation for tax or liability purposes. except you ARE giving up those rights ine xchange for the protection it gives you.
You can't have all the advantage of private ownership and all the advantages of private ownership. will, Apparently now you can.
LGBT will be next. SO will gay people. I mean, the logic used in the case can be applied to ANY federal law about ANY religious tenant. Read that case you can swap contraception with anything.
". Of the 1,200 approved contraceptives on the market in the US, Hobby Lobby provides for 1,196 of them. How is that discrimination?" I understand people like you get locked into a biased narrative and you don't have the skills to change you narrative based on facts, but you also can't do math? with your numbers, there are 4 ways they are discriminating.
"owner's religious rights. " it's a corporation NOT a private solely owned business. IT WAS the case, and members of the court sided with there Personal Religious Belief. IT is yet another underscore of how religion in government is bad.
Hobby Lobby case is not about religious freedom. Not at all. It's about religious oppression. Using corporate power and enforcing their belief on to others. Here is a clue: paying for insurance that covers contraception is NOT against any tenant of their religion.
Dictatorship is an innate characteristic of communism. no, it is not. You can have the economic policy of Communism, and still have a democratic governance. Also, you can have form or the free market.
Because we just now are at the point where systems maintain systems That why economist are now looking back 2 decades and seeing the trend. IT's at the core of why we have jobless recovery. You can not have a jobless recovery without replacement of the workers by more efficient and automated systems.
That assumption is not borne out by history. If it were true, we should already have arrived at that point long ago,
Economist are talking about how that has already happened. About 15 year ago is when it started to turn.
", and something akin to jobs." ah, so now you change the definition of jobs.
Just so you know, what they are talking about is necessary jobs. Manual labor, factor working, and management.
Yes, some people will paint, or make music. Ditch digging, burger making, thing built i factories. We are talking about 10's of millions of job that wont exist. The companies that provide those robots will be , well, robotic. SO they won't need more people as they ramp up.
It will be in full effect when robots are building robots.
You should, probably stopping going on like you are from 1975 and actually read the research.
"People have been spouting this nonsense for centuries and it keeps not coming true." It's happening now. We turned that corner at the end of the 90s. It's math, and it's happening.
"Surplus labor dissipates into increasingly bushy tech trees" you see to be under the false impression that tech advances have just an organizational impact and not a societal impact. If I have a robot that replaces workers, then all companies will have their workers replace.
We make far more complex machines with fewer people then we did in the 70s.
". Lack of evolutionary pressure is central reason too much communism turns everything it touches to shit." False.
" simply Invoking communism as solution is a cop out." Some socialistic system will be needed. Communism is one that specifically can be used for when necessary workers are replaced with automation.
You don't un-teach mine, you teach shades of gray between mine, your and ours.
And it isn't mine as in its always mine and you can never have it. as in greed. It's more like Mine., cause I want it now, but you can have it when I'm done.
Communism is not Marxism. Marxism is not Leninism Maoism is not Communism.
" However they also believed that property above and beyond personal need was a barrier to the efficient use of technology and resources." in some of the aforementioned version, but not a core tenet of communism. So Maoism: If robots are doing the work, then the forced farming isn't an issue, is it?
"Post Scarcity". and 'robotic systems' are different concepts. You can have total automation and still have scarcity. Post scarcity only happens when you can cheaply build anything from base atomic structures. So I can take a pile of carbon and create an apple. or a car, and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
no.
I few year ago I looked into bamkruptcy. The lawyer told me: YOu're the most frugle people I've met.
Productivity is up, income is not.
In 1969 my dad worked for McDonnell Douglas, ,he made 20, 000 a year. That's 123,000 in Todays dollars.
His home cost 21,000 dollars. Slightly more the 1 years wages.
In today's money. you would need to make 500K a year for that same house to only be slightly less then the cost of the house.
And I mean the same damn house.
Gas cost 35 cents
No,. there is a huge income disparity now as compare to then. Not just more bills. DO you know who much money a month I spend in todays dollars that you couldn't in 1970? 210.00 a month. Internet, cell phones, netflix/hulu. 300 a month if I got TV again.
that's 46 dollar in 1970 money.
So I make 5 time what my dad did, can't live in the same neighbor hood, afford the same things, drive an ancient POS becasue I spend 3600 more a year?
the longer we wait, the more expensive it becomes.
If energy complains and religious fundies where pushing a false debate with lies, we would have been making small changes for 20 years.
Switching to cleaner technologies will not bankrupt America, don't be stupid.
China and India are also putting money into clean energies.
IF America would stop listening to denier and start a big project, it would BOOST our economy, and drive new technologies developed by american companies.
Remember, big project do not literally burn money. Changing the grid to something 21st century? Yeah, that would cost a lot/. which goes to American workers, who then buy things and everyone pays taxes. The circle continues.
Spending money to develop small Solar furnace project, say 5MW, on farms mean workers making money cheaper at cleaner energy.
spending the billions on have a 10K sqr miles solar farm moves money through the economy, provides cleaner energy.
The idea the moving to cleaner energy will bankrupt America is complete nonsense.
If 8 years ago people actually starting being rational about the science and started actining, the burst bubble would have had a much SMALLER impact.
It's funny., developing a pipeline the will provide a 100 jobs for a short time is good for the economy, but switching to a clean energy that will create many thousands of long term jobs is some how bad for the economy.
And this doesn't even get into the fact that it means less dependence on other countries.
watch out we got an anonymous internet tough guy here.
Looser.
"as a climate skeptic, "
You don't believe climate exists?
or do you mean a denier you ignores the hard science?
" global warming believers"
do you also say gravity believers? Cause yes, the science is just as solid as the theory of gravity.
" aren't pushing super hard for this.
we are.
"80 billion is spent on global warming programs"
globally, 80 billion isn't much, especially when you consider idiots like you are in government and talk shows spouting the ignorance as fact turning it into a political issue. Since there isn't a clear path, research in different technologies and switching over takes money and time.
" The GCMs really do not seem to work."
why do you think that? they work very well. They have even lead us to make new discoveries about the climate.
" They clearly run way too hot. "
no, they doi not. Another baseless statement I suspect you have no clue how models work. in general, much less in any specific field.
"The response is to make stuff up, "
In every case I am aware of. people accuse of that have been vindicted.
I'm going to ask you a question. If you can not answer it, then you need to STFU and learn some science.
What is the science of AGW?
Cue: it's solid science that could easily be disproved if it wasn't correct.
AGW is NOT GCC, no matter how many time Fox says otherwsie.
If you happen to know that sceinve is, please explain how adding more energy into the climate doesn't impact it.
There used to be. I remember when nerds where hopeful and did things. now they just whine into there specialty beer.
It's not as bad as the confirmation bias you are using.
"The Hobby Lobby case is/was about individual owners of a company not losing their rights just because they formed a corporation for tax or liability purposes.
except you ARE giving up those rights ine xchange for the protection it gives you.
You can't have all the advantage of private ownership and all the advantages of private ownership.
will, Apparently now you can.
LGBT will be next. SO will gay people. I mean, the logic used in the case can be applied to ANY federal law about ANY religious tenant.
Read that case you can swap contraception with anything.
". Of the 1,200 approved contraceptives on the market in the US, Hobby Lobby provides for 1,196 of them. How is that discrimination?"
I understand people like you get locked into a biased narrative and you don't have the skills to change you narrative based on facts, but you also can't do math?
with your numbers, there are 4 ways they are discriminating.
"owner's religious rights. "
it's a corporation NOT a private solely owned business.
IT WAS the case, and members of the court sided with there Personal Religious Belief.
IT is yet another underscore of how religion in government is bad.
Hobby Lobby case is not about religious freedom. Not at all. It's about religious oppression. Using corporate power and enforcing their belief on to others.
Here is a clue: paying for insurance that covers contraception is NOT against any tenant of their religion.
Dictatorship is an innate characteristic of communism.
no, it is not. You can have the economic policy of Communism, and still have a democratic governance.
Also, you can have form or the free market.
that what we ARE talking about. They are called 'Robots', you clod.
Because we just now are at the point where systems maintain systems
That why economist are now looking back 2 decades and seeing the trend. IT's at the core of why we have jobless recovery. You can not have a jobless recovery without replacement of the workers by more efficient and automated systems.
That assumption is not borne out by history. If it were true, we should already have arrived at that point long ago,
Economist are talking about how that has already happened. About 15 year ago is when it started to turn.
", and something akin to jobs."
ah, so now you change the definition of jobs.
Just so you know, what they are talking about is necessary jobs. Manual labor, factor working, and management.
Yes, some people will paint, or make music. Ditch digging, burger making, thing built i factories. We are talking about 10's of millions of job that wont exist. The companies that provide those robots will be , well, robotic. SO they won't need more people as they ramp up.
It will be in full effect when robots are building robots.
You should, probably stopping going on like you are from 1975 and actually read the research.
True, but you can have Communism,, AND elected official you can toss out AND a form of the free market.
As a side note: What happens when the few is replaced by a machine designed to maximize progress and leisure time?
"People have been spouting this nonsense for centuries and it keeps not coming true."
It's happening now. We turned that corner at the end of the 90s.
It's math, and it's happening.
"Surplus labor dissipates into increasingly bushy tech trees"
you see to be under the false impression that tech advances have just an organizational impact and not a societal impact.
If I have a robot that replaces workers, then all companies will have their workers replace.
We make far more complex machines with fewer people then we did in the 70s.
". Lack of evolutionary pressure is central reason too much communism turns everything it touches to shit."
False.
" simply Invoking communism as solution is a cop out."
Some socialistic system will be needed. Communism is one that specifically can be used for when necessary workers are replaced with automation.
well, it seems you didn't even get a first year course.
You don't un-teach mine, you teach shades of gray between mine, your and ours.
And it isn't mine as in its always mine and you can never have it. as in greed. It's more like Mine., cause I want it now, but you can have it when I'm done.
"...but she also was accurate on some of her observations of human nature."
no, she wasn't.
She wasn't crazy, she was just wrong.
Nope. That's what totalitarianism governments do. That is not needed for communism.
Communism is the flag totalitarian government waved to create an us/them fear.
You can have a free market AND communism. THAT'S the potential with replacing factory worker, and managers with robots.
So you can still create something and sell t, or preform publicly and so on.
The robotic Apocalypse* will be economical, and it started at the end of the 90s.
*literal sense not movie sense.
"Theoretical communism doesn't have a "boss"."
false.
Of course it has a boss, just not in the watch tapping, cigar chomping miser of a boss.
You have no clue what Communism is.
It isn't Leninism.
Nonsense.
Nothing in history shows that, and it s very clear yo do not need bubbles for technology to advance.
I keep reading the post, I'm not sure you know what en economic bubble actually is.
Stupid.
Communism is not Marxism.
Marxism is not Leninism
Maoism is not Communism.
" However they also believed that property above and beyond personal need was a barrier to the efficient use of technology and resources."
in some of the aforementioned version, but not a core tenet of communism.
So Maoism:
If robots are doing the work, then the forced farming isn't an issue, is it?
Bureaucracy where created by people s we cold do complex things well.
They are needed, and work very well over all. WE can all point to failings, but overall they have made things better.
"Both Capitalism and Communism are supposed to be about maintaining the work force, s"
no.
"Post Scarcity". and 'robotic systems' are different concepts.
You can have total automation and still have scarcity.
Post scarcity only happens when you can cheaply build anything from base atomic structures. So I can take a pile of carbon and create an apple. or a car, and so on.