You might have missed the part where China and India are absolutely capable and very willing to satisfy the needs of their own market. In other words, you really want to compete with China? How? Even if you work people 24 hours a day on a 4 hour salary they're more expensive than Chinese in the usual sweatshop.
Even care has the fundamental problem all industries are suffering from: Yes, there is a need. We have more and more elderly that would really depend on the caring industry - if they could afford it. Some can. Many, many more cannot. And don't try to get the government involved, since we're heading for lower taxes that also means that the government will be able to pay for fewer services (not that it would, most likely, if it could).
The problem our economy has is not a lack of need. It's a lack of means to satisfy those needs.
The basic problem here is that people lack the means to climb the pyramid. Yes, they would. If they could. But whether that Tesla costs 50k or 10k is meaningless when you have a population that couldn't even pay 1k for it because they don't have the spare income to do so.
A skeptic is someone who wants to see proof before he believes something, and he's looking for alternative explanations for a phenomenon, trying to see if those alternatives have better explanations for the events.
A pseudoskeptic doesn't want to believe something, so he desperately looks for alternative explanations and readily believes them, even if they're completely harebrained, as long as they offer a different idea. Because "A is what the establishment/the media/the politicans/the eggheads/insert_boogeyman_here tell me, so B has to be correct".
That's not even the problem. Sure, it means that we "smart" workers get to feel the automation hit this time, but it's way worse than just having another group of people who have to rethink their employment chances.
In former waves of automation, the displaced workers were needed elsewhere. Farmhands that were displaced by machinery moved into the cities and became factory workers. Factory workers that were later replaced by robots moved on into an emerging service industry.
There is no industry to move the displaced workers to this time.
It was sensible to focus on growth, considering that there was a reasonable market to grow into. There was a huge market of people who want cars and who would buy them if they were affordable. That made the Model T such a success, and after WW2 the VW Beetle. There was a huge demand for cheap transportation, people wanted it and people had disposable income to afford it (provided it wasn't too expensive).
That isn't the case today. There is no market to grow into, market saturation is pretty much reached in nearly all areas.
The beginning of automation saw a replacement of human and animal muscle power with water and (later) chemical power. There was little displacement going on, and the increase in output was a necessity anyway due to there being severe shortages. No problems here, quite the opposite.
The next wave was the replacement of menial work with mechanical work. Especially in agriculture a lot of farmhands were replaced by machinery. Low skilled jobs were eliminated in favor of higher skilled jobs that again increased output. This did displace workers and was one of the reasons of the early problems with working poor in the early days of the industrial revolution, where farmhands that were out of a job now moved to the cities where industries offered them.
Next in line were industry jobs getting the same axing, with more streamlining and fewer low skilled jobs being replaced by mechanical workers. This was buffered by the emerging service industry that could gobble up the eliminated low education workforce. That we were fighting world spanning wars around that time sure also helped.
Fast forward to today. Again, jobs are being replaced by robots. This time around, though, none of the former buffering and mitigating factors come into play. We do not need more production. We already produce more than we can sell. By some margin and then some. We also cannot put more people into the service sector, 3 out of 4 people are already working there, and a service industry is highly dependent on people having spare spending money, so these people will not be moving towards another industry branch. They also cannot move anywhere because there is nowhere to go where jobs are being offered.
Placebos work great with headaches and as pain reliever in general. It's well established that they are very useful when it comes to fighting symptoms, but they cannot actually affect any underlying problems.
What people seem to slowly realize is that just because news outlets can tell you the truth due to freedom of speech disallowing government from keeping them doesn't mean that they are by any means required to do so.
We used to equate the freedom of the press with the press telling how it really is because, hey, nobody keeps them from doing just that. In fact, though, the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that the lies the press tell you differ from the lies the politicians tell you, not that they tell you no lies.
In a nutshelll, what doubles as news today is opinion pieces spiced with sensationalism. Everything is breaking news that will blow my mind. Blah.
When has anyone ever seen a simple, plain facts article in the recent past that wasn't already oversaturated with "information" on how to interpret it and what to think about it?
First, the obvious one: Rigging an election to give a group of people an advantage is not going to result in it being fair or the outcome being the best possible. But the problem is much bigger than that. Because it will accomplish exactly the opposite of its stated goal. Instead of improving the status of female scientists, it will deteriorate it. Because, well, why did they get that job? On merit? Nah. Because of the lack of dangling bits between their legs.
Scientists are a merit-crazy bunch. Status is not a matter of money or influence, but one of fame and merit. What did you publish, what did you patent and also where do you work. And they react very poorly if there is even as much as a hint that you do not "deserve" the position you have.
So even if these women are the best scientists this planet has to offer, they will always be regarded as only having that position because of their vagina, not their brains.
At the same time our glasses will become an extra coating of shininess. Complaints that this turns the iPhone even more into an overpriced mirror than it already is were met with derisive comments about luddites not understanding the vision here.
Making it thinner isn't really an issue, but making it thinner and last the warranty period is. Damn the EU and their unrealistic demand that consumer electronics have to last at least 6 months!
But I am fairly sure Apple will make a bold move forwards and expect (rightfully) that people will not try to go through the hassle of having their 4+ month old ancient device repaired but instead buy the new model.
Most EU countries have some kind of law concerning this. The furthest reaching ones are maybe established in Germany and IIRC also Austria and Switzerland where even trying to pack your slander in a hypothetical statement (e.g. "Hillary Clinton sick. Is it AIDS?") is subject to retraction if a judge considers your statement not a hypothesis but instead a vehicle to incite or misinform people.
BILD (a German tabloid) was notorious for using such tactics, and they had a few retractions and counter statements right on their cover page due to it.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as he manages to resist the urge to silence the press, yes.
You might have missed the part where China and India are absolutely capable and very willing to satisfy the needs of their own market. In other words, you really want to compete with China? How? Even if you work people 24 hours a day on a 4 hour salary they're more expensive than Chinese in the usual sweatshop.
Even care has the fundamental problem all industries are suffering from: Yes, there is a need. We have more and more elderly that would really depend on the caring industry - if they could afford it. Some can. Many, many more cannot. And don't try to get the government involved, since we're heading for lower taxes that also means that the government will be able to pay for fewer services (not that it would, most likely, if it could).
The problem our economy has is not a lack of need. It's a lack of means to satisfy those needs.
The basic problem here is that people lack the means to climb the pyramid. Yes, they would. If they could. But whether that Tesla costs 50k or 10k is meaningless when you have a population that couldn't even pay 1k for it because they don't have the spare income to do so.
You mean the kind that did actual research instead of just rehashing what someone posted in a blog?
That kind died a few years ago.
What good man were they rude to, and what's Mike Pence doing in that statement?
So you think he might actually keep at least one of his promises?
You ignore my rights, I ignore your laws. It's only fair.
A skeptic is someone who wants to see proof before he believes something, and he's looking for alternative explanations for a phenomenon, trying to see if those alternatives have better explanations for the events.
A pseudoskeptic doesn't want to believe something, so he desperately looks for alternative explanations and readily believes them, even if they're completely harebrained, as long as they offer a different idea. Because "A is what the establishment/the media/the politicans/the eggheads/insert_boogeyman_here tell me, so B has to be correct".
That's true. Why bother with corruption when you turn the system into a cleptocracy anyway?
Well, while technically possible, getting moisture out of that much hot air is very uneconomical.
Stop blaming me for every shit that happens to you!
signed, God
100 years is also approximately the age the tube feels like.
That's not even the problem. Sure, it means that we "smart" workers get to feel the automation hit this time, but it's way worse than just having another group of people who have to rethink their employment chances.
In former waves of automation, the displaced workers were needed elsewhere. Farmhands that were displaced by machinery moved into the cities and became factory workers. Factory workers that were later replaced by robots moved on into an emerging service industry.
There is no industry to move the displaced workers to this time.
It was sensible to focus on growth, considering that there was a reasonable market to grow into. There was a huge market of people who want cars and who would buy them if they were affordable. That made the Model T such a success, and after WW2 the VW Beetle. There was a huge demand for cheap transportation, people wanted it and people had disposable income to afford it (provided it wasn't too expensive).
That isn't the case today. There is no market to grow into, market saturation is pretty much reached in nearly all areas.
The beginning of automation saw a replacement of human and animal muscle power with water and (later) chemical power. There was little displacement going on, and the increase in output was a necessity anyway due to there being severe shortages. No problems here, quite the opposite.
The next wave was the replacement of menial work with mechanical work. Especially in agriculture a lot of farmhands were replaced by machinery. Low skilled jobs were eliminated in favor of higher skilled jobs that again increased output. This did displace workers and was one of the reasons of the early problems with working poor in the early days of the industrial revolution, where farmhands that were out of a job now moved to the cities where industries offered them.
Next in line were industry jobs getting the same axing, with more streamlining and fewer low skilled jobs being replaced by mechanical workers. This was buffered by the emerging service industry that could gobble up the eliminated low education workforce. That we were fighting world spanning wars around that time sure also helped.
Fast forward to today. Again, jobs are being replaced by robots. This time around, though, none of the former buffering and mitigating factors come into play. We do not need more production. We already produce more than we can sell. By some margin and then some. We also cannot put more people into the service sector, 3 out of 4 people are already working there, and a service industry is highly dependent on people having spare spending money, so these people will not be moving towards another industry branch. They also cannot move anywhere because there is nowhere to go where jobs are being offered.
This time around this is going to sting.
Really? Over 200 Million people couldn't come up with a better choice but a hairpiece vs. a robot?
As stated elsewhere, to cure headaches you can also rely on pizzapathy. Works just as well.
Placebos work great with headaches and as pain reliever in general. It's well established that they are very useful when it comes to fighting symptoms, but they cannot actually affect any underlying problems.
What people seem to slowly realize is that just because news outlets can tell you the truth due to freedom of speech disallowing government from keeping them doesn't mean that they are by any means required to do so.
We used to equate the freedom of the press with the press telling how it really is because, hey, nobody keeps them from doing just that. In fact, though, the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that the lies the press tell you differ from the lies the politicians tell you, not that they tell you no lies.
In a nutshelll, what doubles as news today is opinion pieces spiced with sensationalism. Everything is breaking news that will blow my mind. Blah.
When has anyone ever seen a simple, plain facts article in the recent past that wasn't already oversaturated with "information" on how to interpret it and what to think about it?
First, the obvious one: Rigging an election to give a group of people an advantage is not going to result in it being fair or the outcome being the best possible. But the problem is much bigger than that. Because it will accomplish exactly the opposite of its stated goal. Instead of improving the status of female scientists, it will deteriorate it. Because, well, why did they get that job? On merit? Nah. Because of the lack of dangling bits between their legs.
Scientists are a merit-crazy bunch. Status is not a matter of money or influence, but one of fame and merit. What did you publish, what did you patent and also where do you work. And they react very poorly if there is even as much as a hint that you do not "deserve" the position you have.
So even if these women are the best scientists this planet has to offer, they will always be regarded as only having that position because of their vagina, not their brains.
At the same time our glasses will become an extra coating of shininess. Complaints that this turns the iPhone even more into an overpriced mirror than it already is were met with derisive comments about luddites not understanding the vision here.
Making it thinner isn't really an issue, but making it thinner and last the warranty period is. Damn the EU and their unrealistic demand that consumer electronics have to last at least 6 months!
But I am fairly sure Apple will make a bold move forwards and expect (rightfully) that people will not try to go through the hassle of having their 4+ month old ancient device repaired but instead buy the new model.
Most EU countries have some kind of law concerning this. The furthest reaching ones are maybe established in Germany and IIRC also Austria and Switzerland where even trying to pack your slander in a hypothetical statement (e.g. "Hillary Clinton sick. Is it AIDS?") is subject to retraction if a judge considers your statement not a hypothesis but instead a vehicle to incite or misinform people.
BILD (a German tabloid) was notorious for using such tactics, and they had a few retractions and counter statements right on their cover page due to it.