You are right. it will cause some inflation. But not much b/c it averages out over the entire population. e.g. if the average income if 4,000/mo, than adding an extra 1,000/mo will potentially contribute to a 20% inflation increase (played out over a few years). But for the poor guy who only makes $2,000/mo, $1.000 more a month increases his income 33%. So he is still much better off.
You're right, if NOTHING ELSE CHANGES... but that isn't how the real world works...
The truth is you have a massive problem... total national productivity would go down with millions of people who decide to not bother working... that affects taxes, income, spending, etc...
In short, it isn't nearly as simple as you think it is and the net result is the poor person isn't actually any better off. What really happens is you end up with either higher prices which cancel out his gains, or you end up with supply problems and empty shelves.
Go to East Germany in the summer of 1989 and look at the store shelves. It wasn't revolution or war that brought down the Soviet Union, it was the fact that they paid people to be unproductive. Since wages and prices were fixed by the state, the result was empty stores.
If the state doesn't fix wages and prices, then you have massive inflation and people still can't afford things.
but prices for food don't rise, as there is fierce competition between farms for things like corn or wheat, which are not easily sold on local farmer markets. For those goods, demand will not rise, as you can only eat that much sausage-in-a-bun per day.
What happens when the farmer's costs go up thanks to UBI? His/her taxes go up, his/her wage costs go up, etc.
A farmer sells for a profit, or pretty soon they won't sell at all.
---
Putting food aside, which is already a massively distorted market... Housing is your real problem... If you give everyone more money, where will they live? I'm not going to build a new apartment complex unless I can make a profit. With higher costs come higher prices.
Why would rent go up $1000? Do you think competition suddenly disappears?
Because it would, that is how supply and demand work. There would be a MASSIVE new supply of money, along with increased costs of doing business in the form of taxes, higher wages, etc.
So building apartments would become more expensive.
Consider this: If you think it wouldn't hurt, why not just give everyone $1 million, wouldn't that solve everything? Think that through a bit and you'll see why it doesn't work.
In response, there would be an increase in construction, leading to increases in construction jobs.
Only if the price of rent can go way up. Builders would pay a lot more to build, so they would have to charge a lot more.
Eventually the current system will collapse, UBI clearly isn't an ideal solution but then what is?
People don't tend to say it out loud, because it isn't socially acceptable...
But if we have robots to do all the menial tasks... then we don't need 6 billion of the 7.4 billion people in the world, now do we?
Get rid of them and then much of this problem solves itself. The next step is breeding becomes controlled, so that only smart, well qualified people are allowed to have kids, making the next generation even better. Work the population down to 500 million over 100 years and problem solved.
Fixes global warming as well, nice bonus benefit there.
---
Sounds fucking horrible, doesn't it? Yea, well, you asked what the other solution is, there you go.
What will happen is these people who don't work will breed, unless you include population controls in the plan.
The flip side is... do we still need those former fast food workers? Do we need another generation of them in 20 years?
There are many solutions to this problem, and the reality is if you just hand out money, you both make the problem worse over time due to population (look at poor people's birth rates vs rich people), and you cause inflation.
It doesn't work long term, unless you have population controls.
A few landlords owning all apartments and keeping supply artificially low must be made illegal. And the items must have price controls.
Price controls just mean I'm not going to bother building new apartments.
Sure, you have them in New York City, where all the land is built on, but you won't get anything new built with those rules.
Apartments in Texas are much cheaper, and we have no price controls. If the price of rent starts rising compared to costs, more quickly get built. However, a UBI distorts this because now everyone has more money, increasing demand. Sure, people will build apartments to meet that demand, to a point, until the builders discover their costs went up due to higher taxes, higher wages (why work if you get free money, builders will have to pay far more to get people to work)
Thus rents will go up. If you put price controls in place, then builders will just not bother building.
In south India, there is a state run PDS, public distribution system, which directly delivers food items like grains to families. It is near free.
Yes, and they are all poor people. I don't think India is a great example for free crap, 500 million people there still poo outside.
Keep in mind all that "free food" distorts the market and prevents real solutions from being created.
What, you mean like the current taxes on corporations that they don't pay?
The US has a 35% corporate tax rate. Remind me how many companies pay that rate?
You'll end up with no companies if you raise it, you actually need to lower it. Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. 100% of the tax that a company pays has to be collected from its customers. If it isn't, the company goes out of business.
1: Since unemployment will be common and permanent, people won't have cash for a roof and food, so they can go starve. Well, when this happens, and people have nothing to lose, revolts happen, blood runs in the streets, and a government either exists like Syria, propped up by a superpower, or it collapses, winding up belonging to the most brutal faction. A more civilized nation can hire mercs for shooting at civilians, blockade cities so people starve (as a way to "pacify" an area), or just lob a few Sarin gas canisters at gathering places. However, this is a costly affair, and it requires a lot of tanks, soldiers, POGs, weaponry, people to maintain that, prisons, and many other resources.
Take that, advance it another 20 years, then give it a gun. Then build 1 million of them. Then the rich and powerful will have a heartless 100% loyal robot army.
No, I don't think they'll go all Terminator on us, rather I think they will be what keeps the powerful... powerful...
IMHO it has nothing to do with robots or anything like that. Barring a full-fledged singularity where robots become better than humans at everything, humans will always end up moving into whatever fields robots are worse at. It's happened with every wave of automation throughout history.
That's the universal argument against ever paying people more, and for the last hundred years it hasn't been born out once. Hell minimum wage used to be over $10 an hour in today's money and a middle class life was vastly more affordable than today. It's time that tired old corporate socialist myth was put to bed, it's little more than a scare tactic to convince people to continue socializing corporations' losses and low wages while allowing them to privatize profits.
No, you don't understand, but that's ok. I'll explain.
First, the reason why min wage raises didn't cause these problems is because the money supply is slowly being increased. If you raise wages to match the new money the government puts into the system, then no problem. Right now we clearly could handle a $10-$12/hr min wage, it has been so long since it has gone up. This does NOT mean they could just raise it to $30/hr and call it a day.
Second, wages rising due to people working are based on output for pay. You go to work, you produce something useful, you get paid. This plan involves giving away money. That will have an outsided effect on the economy in ways that you might not expect. If you give me $1,000 a month, I now have $1,000 more to spend. But I didn't PRODUCE anything for that money. So now demand is $1,000 higher, but supply is not. Result, prices rise.
If you double everyone's pay, you'd just raise prices by a similar amount, give or take. It should be less than double, given that wages aren't a company's only expense, but you also have to factor in taxes, overhead, profit margins (as a percentage, not in terms of whole dollars), and you'll find it doesn't accomplish anything.
Bernie's "free everything" plan has a documented funding mechanism behind it based on changing taxation models.
Which the experts say wouldn't actually fund it...
Further, he has exactly zero chance of having those tax changes passed, so it is a moot point...
Trump, being a Republican, actually has a chance to get tax changes passed. If you want to see tax reform, support him. Otherwise the House (which will remain in Republican hands) will not work with a Democrat on taxes.
You can debate if that is a "good thing" or not, as someone once said, "I'm not telling you how I feel, I'm telling you which way the wind is blowing".
Honest question: Has Trump said things that are pro-union? Has he spoken out against Governors that want to suppress unions in "right-to-work" states?
No, not that I've heard...
Cause the way to prevent (or at least slow down) this sort of thing would be via unionization.
It was, back in the 70s and maybe 80s... It wouldn't help today... Unions have been discovering that they have little real power left, when they put their foot down, they have been losing.
The Union claimed victory, as they always do, but if you really read it, they lost.
Not in the short term, but in the long term. Verizon will now work over the next 4 years to adjust their business to marginalize the workers.
This comment is telling:
The unions say the company is more than profitable enough â" with nearly $18 billion in net income last year â" to support a large work force with good benefits and wages.
They say that Verizonâ(TM)s fiber-optic Fios network, which provides telephone, video and Internet service, remains lucrative. But they argue that the companyâ(TM)s interest in it has flagged because the labor costs are much higher than for its wireless business, which is overwhelmingly nonunion.
So Verizon makes money on FIOS, but because it is union, they don't make AS MUCH MONEY as they do on wireless, which is non-union.
Verizon does not care about the employees or the unions, they only care about shareholders. If you want this to change, supporting "unions" won't help, we live in a global world today. The only way to fix this is to change how corporations work, that would require the laws be changed.
This sort of thing is also part of economic growth.
Tell that to the millions of Americans who either don't have a job, or are under employed... or who are in the process of being "right-sized".
Frankly, they don't care which is why thousands show up to every Trump rally.
The massive reduction of the agricultural workforce has lead us from a world where the average working-class family pays 43% of their income for food in 1900 (38% of workforce is farm workers) to 30% of their income in 1950 (12.2% of the workforce is farm workers) to 11% of their income today (under 2% of the workforce is farm workers). In 1790, 90% of the labor force was farm workers, and anyone who wasn't rich hunted and grew their own food to supplement what little they could buy; the *really* mega-rich could afford to charter a horse and carriage for a ride across town, while everyone else had to load up a donkey with panniers and walk.
You REALLY should watch that... while not everything may come true there, it doesn't all have to. If half of it comes true, then the old system won't work anymore.
e. Seriously, we have 5.6% UE4 (that's UE3 plus discouraged workers--people who would and could take a job if offered, but gave up looking), so we don't have a major gap in the workforce to fill.
Those numbers are complete crap. If you believe them, then there is no way for us to have a conversation, because we are coming at this from different angles.
Real unemployment isn't as high as Trump claims, it isn't 22%, but it is a hell of a lot higher than 5.6%.
I can categorically get a new job in a stronger economy. Labor replacement is a part of growth by technical progress.
You might be able to, but not everyone will.
Walmart is planning to replace their warehouse workers with drones. Amazon is already doing it. Wendy's is replacing thousands of employees, etc. etc.
BTW, if you watch the above video, take note of Baxter... GE uses over 100 Baxter robots today, right now, to assemble those large street lamps for cities. They used to employ dozens of people to do that job, now replaced by robots.
The number of people needed to maintain and build robots will be a tiny fraction of the number employed today.
If Bob had a commercial pilot's license he'd be ok though in your scenario.
No, actually he would not...
A commercial pilot certificate (it isn't a licence, it never expires) would not be enough to do that.
You would need a Part 135 On-Demand Air Carrier certificate, the aircraft would need to meet all the requirements of that, and the pilot would need specific checkrides and qualifications to do the flight.
A commercial pilot can actually do VERY little on their own.
For instance, he could have totally avoided the donations hoopla by just having an updated mentality on data and transparency. It was totally avoidable and, in the context of modern times, he totally caused the situation himself.
You're assuming that he would WANT to avoid it...
Remember the "John Miller" thing? You know who leaked that, right? Trump did...
In order to carry a passenger for hire and make a profit you have to have your commercial ticket. Period.
You use the word "profit". You'll be shocked to learn that profit has nothing to do with it.
And a commercial pilot certificate isn't enough in most cases, you need a Part 135 On-Demand Air Carrier certificate and a crap load of rules followed.
Private pilots ride sharing, not matter the circumstances, are not allowed to make a profit. Period.
Doesn't matter if you're losing money. You can't take $5 to fly someone anywhere. Profit is not the standard the FAA uses.
So the FAA's reason's are flawed.
Actually, the FAA is spot on the money here, at least in terms of following their own rules. Now you might disagree with those rules, but the FAA is correct for the moment.
Many people DO make regular runs in their aircraft and allowing this service would have the benefit of boosting general aviation.
It would still be illegal. You're flying someone you really don't know some place that you may not have gone without the money.
That's enough.
The rules are VERY strict, more so than most people think.
Now I tend to disagree with the rules, but this isn't how to change them. Congress is needed for that.
Do you remember a few months ago when people were saying Donald Trump didn't really want to be president? I donâ(TM)t hear that now. Trump ended that speculation by becoming the presumptive GOP nominee. Thatâ(TM)s one way to do it.
I also remember a lot of people calling Trump a "clown" last year. That was before he annihilated sixteen of the best candidates that the Republican party has ever fielded. That doesnâ(TM)t seem so clownish.
Do you remember all of Trump's vulgar insults from last year? It turns out that those linguistic kill shots were engineered for persuasion, and A-B tested at live rallies for effectiveness. Today, no one doubts how well those Trump nicknames worked.
Snip...
My point today is that Donald Trump does not have as many policy details as his critics demand. And if a candidate does not have sufficient policy details, it might mean that candidate is a stupid clown who is not serious about being President of the United States.
Orâ¦
It might mean that Trump is a skilled persuader who understands that people donâ(TM)t make decisions based on policy details, logic, reason, common sense, or any other illusion of rationality. People are emotional creatures who rationalize their actions after the fact.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right. it will cause some inflation. But not much b/c it averages out over the entire population. e.g. if the average income if 4,000/mo, than adding an extra 1,000/mo will potentially contribute to a 20% inflation increase (played out over a few years). But for the poor guy who only makes $2,000/mo, $1.000 more a month increases his income 33%. So he is still much better off.
You're right, if NOTHING ELSE CHANGES... but that isn't how the real world works...
The truth is you have a massive problem... total national productivity would go down with millions of people who decide to not bother working... that affects taxes, income, spending, etc...
In short, it isn't nearly as simple as you think it is and the net result is the poor person isn't actually any better off. What really happens is you end up with either higher prices which cancel out his gains, or you end up with supply problems and empty shelves.
Go to East Germany in the summer of 1989 and look at the store shelves. It wasn't revolution or war that brought down the Soviet Union, it was the fact that they paid people to be unproductive. Since wages and prices were fixed by the state, the result was empty stores.
If the state doesn't fix wages and prices, then you have massive inflation and people still can't afford things.
but prices for food don't rise, as there is fierce competition between farms for things like corn or wheat, which are not easily sold on local farmer markets. For those goods, demand will not rise, as you can only eat that much sausage-in-a-bun per day.
What happens when the farmer's costs go up thanks to UBI? His/her taxes go up, his/her wage costs go up, etc.
A farmer sells for a profit, or pretty soon they won't sell at all.
---
Putting food aside, which is already a massively distorted market... Housing is your real problem... If you give everyone more money, where will they live? I'm not going to build a new apartment complex unless I can make a profit. With higher costs come higher prices.
Why would rent go up $1000? Do you think competition suddenly disappears?
Because it would, that is how supply and demand work. There would be a MASSIVE new supply of money, along with increased costs of doing business in the form of taxes, higher wages, etc.
So building apartments would become more expensive.
Consider this: If you think it wouldn't hurt, why not just give everyone $1 million, wouldn't that solve everything? Think that through a bit and you'll see why it doesn't work.
In response, there would be an increase in construction, leading to increases in construction jobs.
Only if the price of rent can go way up. Builders would pay a lot more to build, so they would have to charge a lot more.
Eventually the current system will collapse, UBI clearly isn't an ideal solution but then what is?
People don't tend to say it out loud, because it isn't socially acceptable...
But if we have robots to do all the menial tasks... then we don't need 6 billion of the 7.4 billion people in the world, now do we?
Get rid of them and then much of this problem solves itself. The next step is breeding becomes controlled, so that only smart, well qualified people are allowed to have kids, making the next generation even better. Work the population down to 500 million over 100 years and problem solved.
Fixes global warming as well, nice bonus benefit there.
---
Sounds fucking horrible, doesn't it? Yea, well, you asked what the other solution is, there you go.
What will happen is these people who don't work will breed, unless you include population controls in the plan.
The flip side is... do we still need those former fast food workers? Do we need another generation of them in 20 years?
There are many solutions to this problem, and the reality is if you just hand out money, you both make the problem worse over time due to population (look at poor people's birth rates vs rich people), and you cause inflation.
It doesn't work long term, unless you have population controls.
A few landlords owning all apartments and keeping supply artificially low must be made illegal. And the items must have price controls.
Price controls just mean I'm not going to bother building new apartments.
Sure, you have them in New York City, where all the land is built on, but you won't get anything new built with those rules.
Apartments in Texas are much cheaper, and we have no price controls. If the price of rent starts rising compared to costs, more quickly get built. However, a UBI distorts this because now everyone has more money, increasing demand. Sure, people will build apartments to meet that demand, to a point, until the builders discover their costs went up due to higher taxes, higher wages (why work if you get free money, builders will have to pay far more to get people to work)
Thus rents will go up. If you put price controls in place, then builders will just not bother building.
In south India, there is a state run PDS, public distribution system, which directly delivers food items like grains to families. It is near free.
Yes, and they are all poor people. I don't think India is a great example for free crap, 500 million people there still poo outside.
Keep in mind all that "free food" distorts the market and prevents real solutions from being created.
new taxes on corporations
What, you mean like the current taxes on corporations that they don't pay?
The US has a 35% corporate tax rate. Remind me how many companies pay that rate?
You'll end up with no companies if you raise it, you actually need to lower it. Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. 100% of the tax that a company pays has to be collected from its customers. If it isn't, the company goes out of business.
Everyone gets the same monthly payment, everyone pays the same tax rate. Why do you think that's not fair?
It isn't about "fair", it is about "will this solve the problem you're trying to solve".
If you give everyone $1,000 a month, but average rents go to $2,000 a month, what have you solved?
If you then raise the monthly payment to $2,000 a month and then rents rise to $3,000 a month, again, what have you solved?
1: Since unemployment will be common and permanent, people won't have cash for a roof and food, so they can go starve. Well, when this happens, and people have nothing to lose, revolts happen, blood runs in the streets, and a government either exists like Syria, propped up by a superpower, or it collapses, winding up belonging to the most brutal faction. A more civilized nation can hire mercs for shooting at civilians, blockade cities so people starve (as a way to "pacify" an area), or just lob a few Sarin gas canisters at gathering places. However, this is a costly affair, and it requires a lot of tanks, soldiers, POGs, weaponry, people to maintain that, prisons, and many other resources.
Throughout human history, you've been correct...
You may be wrong this time...
Atlas, The Next Generation
https://youtu.be/rVlhMGQgDkY
Take that, advance it another 20 years, then give it a gun. Then build 1 million of them. Then the rich and powerful will have a heartless 100% loyal robot army.
No, I don't think they'll go all Terminator on us, rather I think they will be what keeps the powerful... powerful...
Marxism recognizes that people are not equal, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"
Yep, and it doesn't work, because... well, fuck you if you think I'm going to be twice as productive as you but only get paid the same...
It sounds nice, but humans don't behave like that, not in large groups.
Sure, FAMILIES of 10-20 people do that, on occasion groups of a few hundred have done that...
300 million people won't do it.
I'm not going to earn $200K a year only to give 70% of it to the state. I just won't bother.
IMHO it has nothing to do with robots or anything like that. Barring a full-fledged singularity where robots become better than humans at everything, humans will always end up moving into whatever fields robots are worse at. It's happened with every wave of automation throughout history.
You would think, but this time is different...
Humans Need Not Apply:
https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU
Well worth your time to watch...
---
Note: Don't react emotionally or with what you "think" you know, watch it and pay attention to the numbers. Numbers and math don't lie.
That's the universal argument against ever paying people more, and for the last hundred years it hasn't been born out once. Hell minimum wage used to be over $10 an hour in today's money and a middle class life was vastly more affordable than today. It's time that tired old corporate socialist myth was put to bed, it's little more than a scare tactic to convince people to continue socializing corporations' losses and low wages while allowing them to privatize profits.
No, you don't understand, but that's ok. I'll explain.
First, the reason why min wage raises didn't cause these problems is because the money supply is slowly being increased. If you raise wages to match the new money the government puts into the system, then no problem. Right now we clearly could handle a $10-$12/hr min wage, it has been so long since it has gone up. This does NOT mean they could just raise it to $30/hr and call it a day.
Second, wages rising due to people working are based on output for pay. You go to work, you produce something useful, you get paid. This plan involves giving away money. That will have an outsided effect on the economy in ways that you might not expect. If you give me $1,000 a month, I now have $1,000 more to spend. But I didn't PRODUCE anything for that money. So now demand is $1,000 higher, but supply is not. Result, prices rise.
If you double everyone's pay, you'd just raise prices by a similar amount, give or take. It should be less than double, given that wages aren't a company's only expense, but you also have to factor in taxes, overhead, profit margins (as a percentage, not in terms of whole dollars), and you'll find it doesn't accomplish anything.
Basic human needs should not be controlled by the market, I think that is the point of guaranteed income.
But then you miss the point, because those apartments and the food and all that is market based (more or less, with a few exceptions).
Unless you're suggesting we go all Soviet and have government run housing?
I think that universal basic income is inevitable, and probably sooner rather than later.
Maybe, but it has a basic simple problem.
If you give everyone $1,000 a month, then you simply cause prices to rise.
Now it may not be as MUCH as the $1,000, because of taxes and supply from those who have more money, but it won't be as much as most people think.
---
Take it to the logical conclusion... Imagine if you gave everyone 1 million dollars. Poverty is gone, right?
Think that through. :)
The reality is that we have too many people and a reduction in the population is more likely to be a real solution.
Sounds like a Union on the wireless side would level the playing field.
Or it would just cost those people their jobs in the long run, as Verizon moved on to something else, somewhere else.
Even Ford, which has "worked with" their Unions for years, even avoiding BK 8 years ago...
http://www.freep.com/story/mon...
Can't afford to keep "working with them".
---
As I said, the rules of the game mean that unions are not effective anymore, not against what corporations have become.
Only changing the rules of the game will help.
And of course my comment got modded down to nothing...
-1 is not a disagree mod, sad to say, but the bias here is strong.
I have my doubts anyone would investigate my pilot friend for flying me to the boonies to go fishing.
Of course not, if he is your friend.
I'm telling you what the law says, not what the FAA actually cares about.
The FAA would consider it a problem if you posted on Craigslist "hey, anyone want to go somewhere this weekend, pay half my costs and you can come".
That would be holding out and illegal.
Taking a friend is so not on their "give a crap list" it isn't funny.
This app thing, is totally "holding out" and illegal as hell, the people who put it together were kidding themselves thinking it would be ok.
Bernie's "free everything" plan has a documented funding mechanism behind it based on changing taxation models.
Which the experts say wouldn't actually fund it...
Further, he has exactly zero chance of having those tax changes passed, so it is a moot point...
Trump, being a Republican, actually has a chance to get tax changes passed. If you want to see tax reform, support him. Otherwise the House (which will remain in Republican hands) will not work with a Democrat on taxes.
You can debate if that is a "good thing" or not, as someone once said, "I'm not telling you how I feel, I'm telling you which way the wind is blowing".
Honest question: Has Trump said things that are pro-union? Has he spoken out against Governors that want to suppress unions in "right-to-work" states?
No, not that I've heard...
Cause the way to prevent (or at least slow down) this sort of thing would be via unionization.
It was, back in the 70s and maybe 80s... It wouldn't help today... Unions have been discovering that they have little real power left, when they put their foot down, they have been losing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05...
The Union claimed victory, as they always do, but if you really read it, they lost.
Not in the short term, but in the long term. Verizon will now work over the next 4 years to adjust their business to marginalize the workers.
This comment is telling:
The unions say the company is more than profitable enough â" with nearly $18 billion in net income last year â" to support a large work force with good benefits and wages.
They say that Verizonâ(TM)s fiber-optic Fios network, which provides telephone, video and Internet service, remains lucrative. But they argue that the companyâ(TM)s interest in it has flagged because the labor costs are much higher than for its wireless business, which is overwhelmingly nonunion.
So Verizon makes money on FIOS, but because it is union, they don't make AS MUCH MONEY as they do on wireless, which is non-union.
Verizon does not care about the employees or the unions, they only care about shareholders. If you want this to change, supporting "unions" won't help, we live in a global world today. The only way to fix this is to change how corporations work, that would require the laws be changed.
This sort of thing is also part of economic growth.
Tell that to the millions of Americans who either don't have a job, or are under employed... or who are in the process of being "right-sized".
Frankly, they don't care which is why thousands show up to every Trump rally.
The massive reduction of the agricultural workforce has lead us from a world where the average working-class family pays 43% of their income for food in 1900 (38% of workforce is farm workers) to 30% of their income in 1950 (12.2% of the workforce is farm workers) to 11% of their income today (under 2% of the workforce is farm workers). In 1790, 90% of the labor force was farm workers, and anyone who wasn't rich hunted and grew their own food to supplement what little they could buy; the *really* mega-rich could afford to charter a horse and carriage for a ride across town, while everyone else had to load up a donkey with panniers and walk.
Yes, but the end game is approaching...
Humans Need Not Apply
https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU
You REALLY should watch that... while not everything may come true there, it doesn't all have to. If half of it comes true, then the old system won't work anymore.
e. Seriously, we have 5.6% UE4 (that's UE3 plus discouraged workers--people who would and could take a job if offered, but gave up looking), so we don't have a major gap in the workforce to fill.
Those numbers are complete crap. If you believe them, then there is no way for us to have a conversation, because we are coming at this from different angles.
Real unemployment isn't as high as Trump claims, it isn't 22%, but it is a hell of a lot higher than 5.6%.
I can categorically get a new job in a stronger economy. Labor replacement is a part of growth by technical progress.
You might be able to, but not everyone will.
Walmart is planning to replace their warehouse workers with drones. Amazon is already doing it. Wendy's is replacing thousands of employees, etc. etc.
BTW, if you watch the above video, take note of Baxter... GE uses over 100 Baxter robots today, right now, to assemble those large street lamps for cities. They used to employ dozens of people to do that job, now replaced by robots.
The number of people needed to maintain and build robots will be a tiny fraction of the number employed today.
If Bob had a commercial pilot's license he'd be ok though in your scenario.
No, actually he would not...
A commercial pilot certificate (it isn't a licence, it never expires) would not be enough to do that.
You would need a Part 135 On-Demand Air Carrier certificate, the aircraft would need to meet all the requirements of that, and the pilot would need specific checkrides and qualifications to do the flight.
A commercial pilot can actually do VERY little on their own.
No he's not, and this meme needs to die.
And if you believe the meme, you're a moron.
It is no less accurate than what people say about Trump...
If you want a dose of reality, try reading this:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...
None of us are actually that good at this game. :)
If you understand data, then yes, you should understand that posting tabular data, at the minimum, is WAY better than reading it out loud.
:)
I suspect Trump understands the mass population better than you do, even if you understand data better than he does...
especially his reckless Tweets that take 2 seconds to fact check
You're assuming that his audience does that, or cares...
You should read this:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...
For instance, he could have totally avoided the donations hoopla by just having an updated mentality on data and transparency. It was totally avoidable and, in the context of modern times, he totally caused the situation himself.
You're assuming that he would WANT to avoid it...
Remember the "John Miller" thing? You know who leaked that, right? Trump did...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
In order to carry a passenger for hire and make a profit you have to have your commercial ticket. Period.
You use the word "profit". You'll be shocked to learn that profit has nothing to do with it.
And a commercial pilot certificate isn't enough in most cases, you need a Part 135 On-Demand Air Carrier certificate and a crap load of rules followed.
Private pilots ride sharing, not matter the circumstances, are not allowed to make a profit. Period.
Doesn't matter if you're losing money. You can't take $5 to fly someone anywhere. Profit is not the standard the FAA uses.
So the FAA's reason's are flawed.
Actually, the FAA is spot on the money here, at least in terms of following their own rules. Now you might disagree with those rules, but the FAA is correct for the moment.
Many people DO make regular runs in their aircraft and allowing this service would have the benefit of boosting general aviation.
It would still be illegal. You're flying someone you really don't know some place that you may not have gone without the money.
That's enough.
The rules are VERY strict, more so than most people think.
Now I tend to disagree with the rules, but this isn't how to change them. Congress is needed for that.
He reads donation numbers out loud at a press conference when most people these days would just post the numbers on their website and be done with it.
And you assume that somehow posting them on the web site is a better choice?
Trump isn't a fool or stupid, he didn't stomp the other 16 people in the Republican Primary by accident.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...
Do you remember a few months ago when people were saying Donald Trump didn't really want to be president? I donâ(TM)t hear that now. Trump ended that speculation by becoming the presumptive GOP nominee. Thatâ(TM)s one way to do it.
I also remember a lot of people calling Trump a "clown" last year. That was before he annihilated sixteen of the best candidates that the Republican party has ever fielded. That doesnâ(TM)t seem so clownish.
Do you remember all of Trump's vulgar insults from last year? It turns out that those linguistic kill shots were engineered for persuasion, and A-B tested at live rallies for effectiveness. Today, no one doubts how well those Trump nicknames worked.
Snip...
My point today is that Donald Trump does not have as many policy details as his critics demand. And if a candidate does not have sufficient policy details, it might mean that candidate is a stupid clown who is not serious about being President of the United States.
Orâ¦
It might mean that Trump is a skilled persuader who understands that people donâ(TM)t make decisions based on policy details, logic, reason, common sense, or any other illusion of rationality. People are emotional creatures who rationalize their actions after the fact.