I keep hearing that, but it's simply a lie told by right whingers to satisfy their own expectations of wealth:
The thing about lies is that they are falsehoods. My observation has to be false first.
I work in a career job. I work as a sound engineer for a television station, and I've worked my ass off over the years
I earn less than unemployment, and if I ask for a raise I get told there's no money for it (although the guy at the top is paid nearly $100k a year, he doesn't do shit for it, and nobody else has had a pay increase in the last 8 years).
I heard your particular story before. What struck me about it was your refusal to move for decades (as I recall) to places that would have better employment and a better life for you. That indicates to me that being offered even the your job at that location has at the least significant monetary value to you. That means among other things, your effective pay is higher than you let on.
Second, why should we care more about your life than you do - a supposedly highly skilled and educated worker who chooses to stay in the same dead end job for decades? I stand by my original remark.
The present unemployment and non-participation rates seem to suggest otherwise.
It only "suggests" that if you ignore the obvious like widespread disincentives to employ people in the developed world.
The government made things worse by forcibly shutting down local heavy industry
Or in other words, society made the problem in the first place in part by shutting down said industry. If they didn't do that, then not only would they have those workers, they'd have others employed to provide goods and services for those workers.
No, a really good time to kill the Shuttle would have been in 1990 when it was well determined that the Shuttle couldn't ever achieve its design goals and had lost most of its customers (DOD, commercial). $100 billion is a lot of money for some people.
They have a current budget of over $18 billion. They're currently paying SpaceX around $133 million a launch. That comes to somewhere around 130-140 launches a year that NASA could buy from SpaceX. So they "can't launch"? They're just not paying the right people to launch.
A plumber who owns a business is not a plumber and shouldn't be compared to one.
That's a good shot in the rhetorical foot right there.
A plumber is either self employed and is subject to all the above, or a trades person working for a business and doesn't earn nearly the hourly rate you think he does.
Says someone who couldn't even get into the second half of a sentence before they contradicted themselves.
Once you approach the $2/hr it becomes harder and harder to call it "employment".
You do realize that $2/hr is a number that Falos just made up. The places that have $2/hr for real are also places with much lower cost of living.
Further, low wage jobs aren't career jobs. They're starter jobs. One huge consequence of destroying low wage jobs has been the creation of a young adult population who doesn't know how to work.
While I enjoy the fruit of the slave labor as much as the next guy, it drives huge communities to abstain from doing any kind of work and living happily on unemployment benefits.
Unemployment benefits that somehow never stop? And who pays for those unemployment benefits again?
Right genius, the point is this is not sustainable.
What's not sustainable about it? The people who are replaced by robots get new, more productive jobs. That's what's been going on for the last 500 years.
President Obama did not consult Congress when he cancelled President Bush's return to the moon program. Congress has displeased ever since.
There are three things to observe about the above remark. First, there was no return to the moon program to cancel. Second, Congress cares far more about campaign contributions from Alliant Techsystems, the makers of the Shuttle Rocket Boosters or SRB, who collect considerable revenue from NASA for making an obsolete product. The whole funding cut for NASA's commercial crew program is just an attempt to eliminate competition to the Space Launch System (SLS), a costly boondoggle which is the latest incarnation of the big rocket program.
Third, the article submitter is finally coming around to supporting commercial space. I told you so.
Since he doesn't die, wealth doesn't get redistributed.
Economies don't work like that. For example, how does the bizbot get that land? Land doesn't magically change ownership. There is a trade of wealth for land that happens. And given the land is "prohibitively expensive", this transfer of wealth would be considerable.
Second, wealth is not a conserved property. You can create and destroy it. This bizbot would be creating massive amounts of wealth. That's how it could continue to grow richer without actually owning all the wealth.
Third, closely related to the last point, business is not a chess game. A perfect bizbot is not all that much better than a competent businessman. Nor does the perfect bizbot do all the work. There would be plenty of people who could thrive in the above environment.
We can look at the past half century of policy. Sure, it's not that bad a disaster as there is still a US economy and it is to some degree still functioning well. But there has been a huge vast movement of US business and industry to other countries for a very long time. And most businesses have done well by it despite the assurances to the contrary.
By leaving the US, they would be signing their own death warrants. Embracing the US and her citizens would preserve their existence and remove any reason for hostility.
That is delusion. There's already plenty of hostility towards business in the US whether there is reason for it or not. And how does one kill a business when the business has no presence in the countries where one wants to do the killing. Mental failwaves?
There's jobs? Great! I was worried that the 5,000,000,000 work-aged people in the 99% would struggle to find things the 1%'ers want done. Apparently each rich guy needs a city-sized army of artists and musicians for each of their mansions.
People globally are more gainfully employed than they were in the past. It's been getting better for a long time now.
Bobby McGuy is 18 and trying to pay for school instead of suckering into the predatory scam of student loans
Bobby McGuy is a 1%er. If you look at the population of people who are actually worried about predatory scam student loans, that's under 10% of the US's population which in turn is less than 5% of the world's population.
He's healthy, ready to work, an optimized subject on a silver platter, and there's nothing for him to do unless he undercuts the robot's $2/hr.
How about you get out of the way? I find most people who worry about technology replacing humans also advocate for practices such as mandatory employer insurance, minimum wage, heavy regulation of employers, etc which inhibit employment. If you discourage and punish employment, then don't be surprised when you get less of it.
I don't know if you realise, but after the nominations are finished, many of the works are then sent out to the members to read before voting. I think at this point it's reasonable to blame the rules and organisers of the Hugo's because without that, the voters might not have actually read the puppy fiction and so might not have been quite so firmly sure that it was so bad it didn't deserve an award.
Why would they have voted otherwise? Wouldn't have voting for good puppy fiction have defeated the point of the exercise? While googling around, I noticed this bit of analysis:
That 3459, 3053, and 3259 number [out of 5950 votes] are pretty close. That seems the max No Award number: people who couldnâ(TM)t stand any Puppy Pick. When there were more valid choices, such as in the Editor awards, No Award was still picking up 2600-2500 votes. In a case where a category was almost swept, the number was close to 2000. So Iâ(TM)m calling the No Awarders at 3450-2500. Thatâ(TM)s a huge number, over 50% of the total pool.
Iâ(TM)m stunned at the 2500 No Awarders in the Editor categories; there were some mainstream, decent editors on that list. If 2500 people were voting No Award on that, thatâ(TM)s out of principle. So hereâ(TM)s how Iâ(TM)m estimating:
Initial Estimate of No Awarders Who Voted No Award out of Principle: 2500.
It'd help if you didn't just repeat the broken argument I was complaining about without any sign of awareness of the flaws in the argument. Just because some group stuffs ballots, doesn't mean that they will be better at it than another group that decides to do that.
Since they did succeed, we know that there was no SJW-led stuffing worth mentioning, and that the entire puppy argument is a lot of dogshit.
They demonstrate that the ballot can be stuffed. And just because there was no SJW-led stuffing of note this year (at least one large enough to counter the Puppies thing at the nomination level), doesn't mean that there was in previous years when there wasn't Puppies ballot stuffing.
You stated the US has that, but evidence seems to say otherwise.
What evidence? Perhaps we could discuss whether this evidence exists first before making me jump through some rhetorical hoops that I just don't feel like jumping through.
And if you're too lazy to reason, I guess this results. A bigger reason why one wouldn't vote is that one doesn't care about science fiction and/or the Hugo prize in the first place. After all, somewhat less than 10,000 people bothered to vote. I doubt most of the remaining 7 billion people choose to abstain because they were lazy.
A slate is a perfect example of voting by politics.
Don't confuse method with intent. And "voting by politics" is not equivalent to the resulting plank being chosen on the basis of politics. The latter implies political considerations in the choices made rather than political process to make those choices.
And you actually beliee anything Vox Day says?
What makes you any more credible than Vox Day?
Anyway, as always, far fewer people were bothered to nominate compared to those who vote on the final award. Rigging the noms was relatively easy except in the film, book and TV categories where lots of people did vote already. However since far, far more people voted in the awards, that was more or less impossible for them to rig.
I wasn't asking about these other Slashdot posters who may or may not have said what you claim they said. You asserted something, now back it up.
Yes I know the "stop wasting my time" is just movie inspired shit to try to look tough, but it's pretty funny since you are so busy wasting it instead of spending far less time looking at the source to see what is going on.
And you are still wasting my time. You can't even put forward a coherent defense.
Yeah, when my step-son was 6 years old he felt the same way. "If I can't win the game, then nobody can win!" just before he turned the board over and stormed out of the room.
Maturity also means recognizing when you have a rigged game and learning not to play under those circumstances when possible.
Since the puppies picked their works based on political views of the authors rather than quality, this seems like a valid result.
This is an example. We have a bald assertion that the Hugo picks by "the puppies" were chosen on the basis of politics. I notice you have asserted this elsewhere with the same lack of proof. The Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies both claim otherwise. They can't win here because you have already decided what they are doing.
I also find it interesting how you characterize their rebellion in the first place.
Note that nobody came from outside. And the people who tried to "change" fandom were the puppies, not the rest of fandom. Turns out that a majority of fans are happy with diversity; if you're not, well, that's fine, but please stop blaming "ideologues from the outside".
Where's this majority? At best, you can say that there were a few thousand such fans since that is who actually voted.
If we want to stick with Uber's claims about simply being an app that enables a market, there's an easy solution. But first we have to be honest about one of Uber's core claims: Uber is not engaging in any form of free market capitalism.
Where do they claim that? I see a lot of hype about the "sharing economy". I don't see Uber claiming that they are setting up a free market.
But even granting that, they are setting up a very free market with the only significant variation being Uber as a middleman, setting a global price. That's not much of an obstruction since while Uber will create a gap between supply and demand, they still have strong incentives to set prices near what a free market would, particularly since supply and demand are bother rather elastic (the demand overall may be relatively rigid, but there are competing services out there such as taxis and other sharing market services). Uber's profit comes from volume. If Uber gets too aggressive with their spread, they'll drive away both demand and supply.
Slashdot Mirror
You keep presenting this ideological fantasy. Present some evidence, not speculation, not ideology, present some actual facts.
The assertion was that anything that commoners could provide, the robots could provide. The obvious want here is an income.
I keep hearing that, but it's simply a lie told by right whingers to satisfy their own expectations of wealth:
The thing about lies is that they are falsehoods. My observation has to be false first.
I work in a career job. I work as a sound engineer for a television station, and I've worked my ass off over the years
I earn less than unemployment, and if I ask for a raise I get told there's no money for it (although the guy at the top is paid nearly $100k a year, he doesn't do shit for it, and nobody else has had a pay increase in the last 8 years).
I heard your particular story before. What struck me about it was your refusal to move for decades (as I recall) to places that would have better employment and a better life for you. That indicates to me that being offered even the your job at that location has at the least significant monetary value to you. That means among other things, your effective pay is higher than you let on.
Second, why should we care more about your life than you do - a supposedly highly skilled and educated worker who chooses to stay in the same dead end job for decades? I stand by my original remark.
The present unemployment and non-participation rates seem to suggest otherwise.
It only "suggests" that if you ignore the obvious like widespread disincentives to employ people in the developed world.
The government made things worse by forcibly shutting down local heavy industry
Or in other words, society made the problem in the first place in part by shutting down said industry. If they didn't do that, then not only would they have those workers, they'd have others employed to provide goods and services for those workers.
Hence, why I mentioned the full name first and then the acronym. It's like saying For What It's Worth or FWIW.
No, a really good time to kill the Shuttle would have been in 1990 when it was well determined that the Shuttle couldn't ever achieve its design goals and had lost most of its customers (DOD, commercial). $100 billion is a lot of money for some people.
They have a current budget of over $18 billion. They're currently paying SpaceX around $133 million a launch. That comes to somewhere around 130-140 launches a year that NASA could buy from SpaceX. So they "can't launch"? They're just not paying the right people to launch.
A plumber who owns a business is not a plumber and shouldn't be compared to one.
That's a good shot in the rhetorical foot right there.
A plumber is either self employed and is subject to all the above, or a trades person working for a business and doesn't earn nearly the hourly rate you think he does.
Says someone who couldn't even get into the second half of a sentence before they contradicted themselves.
Anything commoners offer each other, the robots provide/made cheaper.
Such as job creation? Then the problem doesn't exist in the first place.
Once you approach the $2/hr it becomes harder and harder to call it "employment".
You do realize that $2/hr is a number that Falos just made up. The places that have $2/hr for real are also places with much lower cost of living.
Further, low wage jobs aren't career jobs. They're starter jobs. One huge consequence of destroying low wage jobs has been the creation of a young adult population who doesn't know how to work.
While I enjoy the fruit of the slave labor as much as the next guy, it drives huge communities to abstain from doing any kind of work and living happily on unemployment benefits.
Unemployment benefits that somehow never stop? And who pays for those unemployment benefits again?
Right genius, the point is this is not sustainable.
What's not sustainable about it? The people who are replaced by robots get new, more productive jobs. That's what's been going on for the last 500 years.
President Obama did not consult Congress when he cancelled President Bush's return to the moon program. Congress has displeased ever since.
There are three things to observe about the above remark. First, there was no return to the moon program to cancel. Second, Congress cares far more about campaign contributions from Alliant Techsystems, the makers of the Shuttle Rocket Boosters or SRB, who collect considerable revenue from NASA for making an obsolete product. The whole funding cut for NASA's commercial crew program is just an attempt to eliminate competition to the Space Launch System (SLS), a costly boondoggle which is the latest incarnation of the big rocket program.
Third, the article submitter is finally coming around to supporting commercial space. I told you so.
Since he doesn't die, wealth doesn't get redistributed.
Economies don't work like that. For example, how does the bizbot get that land? Land doesn't magically change ownership. There is a trade of wealth for land that happens. And given the land is "prohibitively expensive", this transfer of wealth would be considerable.
Second, wealth is not a conserved property. You can create and destroy it. This bizbot would be creating massive amounts of wealth. That's how it could continue to grow richer without actually owning all the wealth.
Third, closely related to the last point, business is not a chess game. A perfect bizbot is not all that much better than a competent businessman. Nor does the perfect bizbot do all the work. There would be plenty of people who could thrive in the above environment.
It wouldn't be that bad of a disaster
We can look at the past half century of policy. Sure, it's not that bad a disaster as there is still a US economy and it is to some degree still functioning well. But there has been a huge vast movement of US business and industry to other countries for a very long time. And most businesses have done well by it despite the assurances to the contrary.
By leaving the US, they would be signing their own death warrants. Embracing the US and her citizens would preserve their existence and remove any reason for hostility.
That is delusion. There's already plenty of hostility towards business in the US whether there is reason for it or not. And how does one kill a business when the business has no presence in the countries where one wants to do the killing. Mental failwaves?
There's jobs? Great! I was worried that the 5,000,000,000 work-aged people in the 99% would struggle to find things the 1%'ers want done. Apparently each rich guy needs a city-sized army of artists and musicians for each of their mansions.
People globally are more gainfully employed than they were in the past. It's been getting better for a long time now.
Bobby McGuy is 18 and trying to pay for school instead of suckering into the predatory scam of student loans
Bobby McGuy is a 1%er. If you look at the population of people who are actually worried about predatory scam student loans, that's under 10% of the US's population which in turn is less than 5% of the world's population.
He's healthy, ready to work, an optimized subject on a silver platter, and there's nothing for him to do unless he undercuts the robot's $2/hr.
How about you get out of the way? I find most people who worry about technology replacing humans also advocate for practices such as mandatory employer insurance, minimum wage, heavy regulation of employers, etc which inhibit employment. If you discourage and punish employment, then don't be surprised when you get less of it.
Well, for one, I'm not a raving nutcase.
Well, what is that assertion really worth?
I don't know if you realise, but after the nominations are finished, many of the works are then sent out to the members to read before voting. I think at this point it's reasonable to blame the rules and organisers of the Hugo's because without that, the voters might not have actually read the puppy fiction and so might not have been quite so firmly sure that it was so bad it didn't deserve an award.
Why would they have voted otherwise? Wouldn't have voting for good puppy fiction have defeated the point of the exercise? While googling around, I noticed this bit of analysis:
That 3459, 3053, and 3259 number [out of 5950 votes] are pretty close. That seems the max No Award number: people who couldnâ(TM)t stand any Puppy Pick. When there were more valid choices, such as in the Editor awards, No Award was still picking up 2600-2500 votes. In a case where a category was almost swept, the number was close to 2000. So Iâ(TM)m calling the No Awarders at 3450-2500. Thatâ(TM)s a huge number, over 50% of the total pool.
Iâ(TM)m stunned at the 2500 No Awarders in the Editor categories; there were some mainstream, decent editors on that list. If 2500 people were voting No Award on that, thatâ(TM)s out of principle. So hereâ(TM)s how Iâ(TM)m estimating:
Initial Estimate of No Awarders Who Voted No Award out of Principle: 2500.
Since they did succeed, we know that there was no SJW-led stuffing worth mentioning, and that the entire puppy argument is a lot of dogshit.
They demonstrate that the ballot can be stuffed. And just because there was no SJW-led stuffing of note this year (at least one large enough to counter the Puppies thing at the nomination level), doesn't mean that there was in previous years when there wasn't Puppies ballot stuffing.
You stated the US has that, but evidence seems to say otherwise.
What evidence? Perhaps we could discuss whether this evidence exists first before making me jump through some rhetorical hoops that I just don't feel like jumping through.
If you're too lazy to vote
And if you're too lazy to reason, I guess this results. A bigger reason why one wouldn't vote is that one doesn't care about science fiction and/or the Hugo prize in the first place. After all, somewhat less than 10,000 people bothered to vote. I doubt most of the remaining 7 billion people choose to abstain because they were lazy.
A slate is a perfect example of voting by politics.
Don't confuse method with intent. And "voting by politics" is not equivalent to the resulting plank being chosen on the basis of politics. The latter implies political considerations in the choices made rather than political process to make those choices.
And you actually beliee anything Vox Day says?
What makes you any more credible than Vox Day?
Anyway, as always, far fewer people were bothered to nominate compared to those who vote on the final award. Rigging the noms was relatively easy except in the film, book and TV categories where lots of people did vote already. However since far, far more people voted in the awards, that was more or less impossible for them to rig.
Or someone else was better at the rigging.
Yes I know the "stop wasting my time" is just movie inspired shit to try to look tough, but it's pretty funny since you are so busy wasting it instead of spending far less time looking at the source to see what is going on.
And you are still wasting my time. You can't even put forward a coherent defense.
If you had been following this you would have noticed that the assertion was made by "the puppies"
Quote this statement then or stop wasting my time.
Yeah, when my step-son was 6 years old he felt the same way. "If I can't win the game, then nobody can win!" just before he turned the board over and stormed out of the room.
Maturity also means recognizing when you have a rigged game and learning not to play under those circumstances when possible.
Since the puppies picked their works based on political views of the authors rather than quality, this seems like a valid result.
This is an example. We have a bald assertion that the Hugo picks by "the puppies" were chosen on the basis of politics. I notice you have asserted this elsewhere with the same lack of proof. The Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies both claim otherwise. They can't win here because you have already decided what they are doing.
I also find it interesting how you characterize their rebellion in the first place.
Note that nobody came from outside. And the people who tried to "change" fandom were the puppies, not the rest of fandom. Turns out that a majority of fans are happy with diversity; if you're not, well, that's fine, but please stop blaming "ideologues from the outside".
Where's this majority? At best, you can say that there were a few thousand such fans since that is who actually voted.
Fuck you and your pathetic diversion of my resources. My galaxy-scale supercomputer will use blue LEDs.
If we want to stick with Uber's claims about simply being an app that enables a market, there's an easy solution. But first we have to be honest about one of Uber's core claims: Uber is not engaging in any form of free market capitalism.
Where do they claim that? I see a lot of hype about the "sharing economy". I don't see Uber claiming that they are setting up a free market.
But even granting that, they are setting up a very free market with the only significant variation being Uber as a middleman, setting a global price. That's not much of an obstruction since while Uber will create a gap between supply and demand, they still have strong incentives to set prices near what a free market would, particularly since supply and demand are bother rather elastic (the demand overall may be relatively rigid, but there are competing services out there such as taxis and other sharing market services). Uber's profit comes from volume. If Uber gets too aggressive with their spread, they'll drive away both demand and supply.
Being sarcastic doesn't make something false. As to the question, the answer is ignorance.
Unless, of course, someone provides emergency financial services.