In the short term, sure there are plenty of empty houses. In the long term, all of those kids living at home with mom and dad would be able to get some independence, and I imagine that would make rents increase.
Not that it's the end of the world, but once prices increase, there would be more demands for more free money since the cost of living goes up. And the cycle continues.
I didn't mention food because that market is so distorted that I doubt supply and demand even exists anymore:)
I pretty much agree. The ease of ownership is demonstrably useful. Like you say, the limit on liability goes too far - it should only extend to blind investors, not to anyone with any role in running the company. I think even activist investors could have some degree of liability.
But I was mostly bringing up corporations because we were talking about government interference in the free market, and I cannot think of a larger impact the government has had on the free market than the invention of the corporation.
I did not mean that our political system was based upon such regulation - I meant that our economic engine largely relies on corporations and intellectual property.
You might not like the term "regulation" as applied to corporations, but I feel that "government interference" and "regulations" are synonymous. Once you accept something as radical as a limited liability corporation, any additional interference with that invented entity seems minor. I think we should be rethinking what we want corporations to be.
Intellectual property is in the Constitution, though I imagine they didn't envision how far it would extend.
The groping isn't going away even though only a very few want to be groped.
Don't confuse the attitude around here with the actual popular opinion on airport security.
If income tax is gone, why does everyone's paycheck still show a deduction?
Perhaps you mean the Social Security and Medicare payroll deduction? Don't you remember Mitt Romney's infamous 47% jab? That was in relation to income tax. I made an error and typed "most" when I meant "half".
The basic income isn't just about wealth equality (though it helps that). It also allows us to abolish minimum wage, social security, welfare, food stamps, etc since it becomes the safety net. It offers would-be entrepreneurs a way to feed their family while they get a business bootstrapped on a shoestring (including helping them to afford hiring people). It gives those wanting to further their education a decent way to do so without having to invent the 48 hour day.
I agree it would do all of those things - I just fear that the tradeoffs might be too great.
I do expect that it will cause some inflation.
Yes, I expect that it would do to housing what Stafford Loans have done to college education.
ESPECIALLY if we control our dependence on foreign oil.
I think I like the idea of a carbon tax to accomplish that.
Should they also be buying American-made goods? Even if getting an American made TV means paying a huge premium?
I think the government should do these things at the lowest cost feasible and let the private market sort out these things. If off-shoring is a problem, then the government should attack that at the policy level, not at the requisitions level.
I guess you are being funny, but this was a bidding process, so presumably the company isn't being paid for a $100k programmer, they are being paid for the $20k programmer that was priced into their bid.
but no politician campaigned on the nudie scanner platform either.
But nobody likes the nudie scanners, so they are going away. A significant majority would love the big checks, which would never go away.
Nobody likes paying income tax, but I note it's not down to zero yet, even for people who barely make the house payment.
Income tax is down to zero for most of the population. But I'm glad you brought up taxes, because we consistently spend more than we pull in - and I feel that is directly tied to the phenomenon we are discussing: everyone wants a check, no one wants to pay.
I do share your concern about wealth inequality - I think it is very dangerous. That said, I think there may be ways to improve that situation without resorting to cash payouts. For instance, I would like to see free Associates-degree-level education; as we leave the manual labor economy behind, we should expand compulsory education. Along the same lines, we could pick up more of the child care tab. Get the schools back on their feet in urban areas would remove the need for private schools, and the more affordable urban lifestyle becomes much more attractive to younger families. Giving an incentive to the middle class in this country to buy and maintain two cars and a suburban house just so they can send their kids to a decent school is simply bad policy. Encourage re-investment in businesses by abolishing corporate taxes and jacking up the capital gains and dividend rates. Close most loopholes in the tax code.
But your metrics are also flawed. Sure, a car costs more in real dollars than a car in 1950. But the cheapest Nissan will out-accelerate almost anything created in the 50s while using less fuel and keeping you alive. Medical care costs more than in the 50s, but you get a lot more for your money. My grandfather died in 1974 because they hadn't yet invented bypass surgery or stents. His brother lived almost 30 years longer because his clogged arteries were treated in the 80s instead of the 70s. The average house in the 50s was a city row home with a coal furnace, no TV and a party line telephone. Home ownership is up from the 50s, at more than 67% now vs around 62% in 1960. People did not have washing machines, let alone dryers. Home entertainment options were extremely limited. Travel was slow and expensive. Fruit might be more expensive now, but I can get raspberries in the middle of the winter. Try that in 1950.
And let's not forget that you seem to be talking about white people. It might be hard to look at the 50s nostalgically as a black person.
So you have some good points - it takes two earners these days to keep up with the Joneses. However, to ArcherB's point, the Joneses expect and get a lot more. You could live a 1950s lifestyle and save a lot of money: 1. Stick to one car per family. If you can find it, get a car with 1950 sedan specs - a used 1994 Honda with 150,000 miles should get you a good approximation. 2. Get rid of your health care and restrict your medical options to mending broken bones and antibiotics. Hell, go crazy here and spring for any generic medications... that will restrict you to 1990s-era care, but what the hell. 3. Don't buy any microwaves, washers, dryers, TVs, computers, cell phones, etc. Cancel your cable. 4. Buy an $80,000, 983 sq ft row home downtown instead of that 2100 sq ft single family in the burbs. Offer does not apply in Manhattan or San Francisco:) 5. Mend your clothes. Cook your own meals. Clean your own house. Treat yourself and buy a cheap vacuum cleaner.
Wanna bet your $50,000 average US income will go a bit farther now? Don't worry, we'll still let you breath the cleaner air, and if you are a minority we'll let you sit with us at the local diner.
Even the concept of a "corporation" represents massive government regulation of the free market. Can you imagine how different the free market would be if owners were liable for a company's actions? Then you have "intellectual property", which is another massive government regulation upon the free market. Regulation is an American core competency - our whole system is based upon it.
The difference is that 100% of the voting population would be getting the same government benefit. No politician would ever campaign on the platform of lowering the benefit - I'd bet the only real debate would be how much to increase it.
Any attempt to "lock it down" would just be a law, and all laws require a simple majority to change.
I think at this point I still favor a safety net with a goal towards minimizing the number of people collecting a check from the government.
I meant more the less-obvious incentives. Just off the top of my head, I'm betting that the easiest way for people to improve their living standards will be to vote for a politician who will give them a "raise". Thus we get into a situation similar to what we have today with Social Security and Medicare, but on a much larger scale.
I've read about the basic income. I'm skeptical, though, since people do respond to financial incentives. Personally, I think we need to rethink the way we treat corporations, perhaps in a way that helps correct wealth inequality - but that's my own little pet peeve.
But what kind of action? I don't claim to be smart enough to know what comes next. I just have an optimistic outlook for the long-term, based on past technological changes. I fear our "action" will have to be limited to fighting fires until the transition is over, unless someone smarter than me figures out a way to preemptively prepare people for jobs that don't yet exist.
We need to do something about wealth/income inequality, but that has to happen no matter what your opinion on automation is.
I don't claim to be so smart. I'm just betting that history repeats itself.
That was back in the days when folks were able to go from one manual labor job to another manual labor job like running assembling stuff; or loading the machine while another person operates it, or down the line to move out product.
Indeed, there might be an entire "lost generation" of people who cannot be retrained to operate in an automated economy. But someone born into an automated economy obviously won't adapt to handle factory work.
The choices are accept a shorter week so others can also have a job, try to sweep back progress and destroy the robots, or cheerfully pay more taxes so others can go on the dole and stay there.
The economy is not zero-sum. It may seem like it in the short-term, but in the long term higher productivity leads to higher wealth.
Now, we do have a wealth imbalance that we need to deal with, but that is a somewhat separate issue. I mean, they are related, but we need to deal with income and wealth imbalance whether or not we get productivity improvements.
Consider, to me, you getting your testicles caught in a vice is just a little short term pain and perhaps a minor disability (can't be too bad, he'll be back to work in a month). To you, it might not look like a worthwhile risk.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing this pain. It will take a lot of time and money to retrain people and it will put a strain on our safety net, perhaps even straining our ability to keep civil society. But at the end of the day, it is my contention that having fewer people involved with meeting basic needs can only lead to a more advanced society, as we have more resources to devote to science, art, and culture. People will always have something to do, even if - as you mention - it takes threat of revolution to accomplish this.
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox has addons, several of which will let you disable js if that is your thing. NoScript is a popular one.
They like it for the same reason non-geeks do: it is very fast and stable, and it doesn't seem to leak memory like Firefox.
That said, I abandoned it because they got rid of their support for vertical tabs.
This is a problem in NYC as well. Bus Bunching.
Normally AC first post comments are throwaways, but the image of a rocket trying to follow the navigation satellites in its nose made me giggle...
Ron Paul would strongly disapprove :)
Controller error makes the news.
In the short term, sure there are plenty of empty houses. In the long term, all of those kids living at home with mom and dad would be able to get some independence, and I imagine that would make rents increase.
Not that it's the end of the world, but once prices increase, there would be more demands for more free money since the cost of living goes up. And the cycle continues.
I didn't mention food because that market is so distorted that I doubt supply and demand even exists anymore :)
Why wouldn't another company bid at $60k and keep $40k in profit?
I pretty much agree. The ease of ownership is demonstrably useful. Like you say, the limit on liability goes too far - it should only extend to blind investors, not to anyone with any role in running the company. I think even activist investors could have some degree of liability.
But I was mostly bringing up corporations because we were talking about government interference in the free market, and I cannot think of a larger impact the government has had on the free market than the invention of the corporation.
I did not mean that our political system was based upon such regulation - I meant that our economic engine largely relies on corporations and intellectual property.
You might not like the term "regulation" as applied to corporations, but I feel that "government interference" and "regulations" are synonymous. Once you accept something as radical as a limited liability corporation, any additional interference with that invented entity seems minor. I think we should be rethinking what we want corporations to be.
Intellectual property is in the Constitution, though I imagine they didn't envision how far it would extend.
The groping isn't going away even though only a very few want to be groped.
Don't confuse the attitude around here with the actual popular opinion on airport security.
If income tax is gone, why does everyone's paycheck still show a deduction?
Perhaps you mean the Social Security and Medicare payroll deduction? Don't you remember Mitt Romney's infamous 47% jab? That was in relation to income tax. I made an error and typed "most" when I meant "half".
The basic income isn't just about wealth equality (though it helps that). It also allows us to abolish minimum wage, social security, welfare, food stamps, etc since it becomes the safety net. It offers would-be entrepreneurs a way to feed their family while they get a business bootstrapped on a shoestring (including helping them to afford hiring people). It gives those wanting to further their education a decent way to do so without having to invent the 48 hour day.
I agree it would do all of those things - I just fear that the tradeoffs might be too great.
I do expect that it will cause some inflation.
Yes, I expect that it would do to housing what Stafford Loans have done to college education.
ESPECIALLY if we control our dependence on foreign oil.
I think I like the idea of a carbon tax to accomplish that.
Should they also be buying American-made goods? Even if getting an American made TV means paying a huge premium?
I think the government should do these things at the lowest cost feasible and let the private market sort out these things. If off-shoring is a problem, then the government should attack that at the policy level, not at the requisitions level.
I guess you are being funny, but this was a bidding process, so presumably the company isn't being paid for a $100k programmer, they are being paid for the $20k programmer that was priced into their bid.
but no politician campaigned on the nudie scanner platform either.
But nobody likes the nudie scanners, so they are going away. A significant majority would love the big checks, which would never go away.
Nobody likes paying income tax, but I note it's not down to zero yet, even for people who barely make the house payment.
Income tax is down to zero for most of the population. But I'm glad you brought up taxes, because we consistently spend more than we pull in - and I feel that is directly tied to the phenomenon we are discussing: everyone wants a check, no one wants to pay.
I do share your concern about wealth inequality - I think it is very dangerous. That said, I think there may be ways to improve that situation without resorting to cash payouts. For instance, I would like to see free Associates-degree-level education; as we leave the manual labor economy behind, we should expand compulsory education. Along the same lines, we could pick up more of the child care tab. Get the schools back on their feet in urban areas would remove the need for private schools, and the more affordable urban lifestyle becomes much more attractive to younger families. Giving an incentive to the middle class in this country to buy and maintain two cars and a suburban house just so they can send their kids to a decent school is simply bad policy. Encourage re-investment in businesses by abolishing corporate taxes and jacking up the capital gains and dividend rates. Close most loopholes in the tax code.
But your metrics are also flawed. Sure, a car costs more in real dollars than a car in 1950. But the cheapest Nissan will out-accelerate almost anything created in the 50s while using less fuel and keeping you alive. Medical care costs more than in the 50s, but you get a lot more for your money. My grandfather died in 1974 because they hadn't yet invented bypass surgery or stents. His brother lived almost 30 years longer because his clogged arteries were treated in the 80s instead of the 70s. The average house in the 50s was a city row home with a coal furnace, no TV and a party line telephone. Home ownership is up from the 50s, at more than 67% now vs around 62% in 1960. People did not have washing machines, let alone dryers. Home entertainment options were extremely limited. Travel was slow and expensive. Fruit might be more expensive now, but I can get raspberries in the middle of the winter. Try that in 1950.
And let's not forget that you seem to be talking about white people. It might be hard to look at the 50s nostalgically as a black person.
So you have some good points - it takes two earners these days to keep up with the Joneses. However, to ArcherB's point, the Joneses expect and get a lot more. You could live a 1950s lifestyle and save a lot of money: :)
1. Stick to one car per family. If you can find it, get a car with 1950 sedan specs - a used 1994 Honda with 150,000 miles should get you a good approximation.
2. Get rid of your health care and restrict your medical options to mending broken bones and antibiotics. Hell, go crazy here and spring for any generic medications... that will restrict you to 1990s-era care, but what the hell.
3. Don't buy any microwaves, washers, dryers, TVs, computers, cell phones, etc. Cancel your cable.
4. Buy an $80,000, 983 sq ft row home downtown instead of that 2100 sq ft single family in the burbs. Offer does not apply in Manhattan or San Francisco
5. Mend your clothes. Cook your own meals. Clean your own house. Treat yourself and buy a cheap vacuum cleaner.
Wanna bet your $50,000 average US income will go a bit farther now? Don't worry, we'll still let you breath the cleaner air, and if you are a minority we'll let you sit with us at the local diner.
When that $100K/year job is outsourced to an outsourcing company for $20K/year, then none of the money stays in the USA.
Yes, but that's $80,000 in tax dollars that does stay in the USA without needing to pass through the programmer.
Even the concept of a "corporation" represents massive government regulation of the free market. Can you imagine how different the free market would be if owners were liable for a company's actions? Then you have "intellectual property", which is another massive government regulation upon the free market. Regulation is an American core competency - our whole system is based upon it.
The difference is that 100% of the voting population would be getting the same government benefit. No politician would ever campaign on the platform of lowering the benefit - I'd bet the only real debate would be how much to increase it.
Any attempt to "lock it down" would just be a law, and all laws require a simple majority to change.
I think at this point I still favor a safety net with a goal towards minimizing the number of people collecting a check from the government.
I meant more the less-obvious incentives. Just off the top of my head, I'm betting that the easiest way for people to improve their living standards will be to vote for a politician who will give them a "raise". Thus we get into a situation similar to what we have today with Social Security and Medicare, but on a much larger scale.
I've read about the basic income. I'm skeptical, though, since people do respond to financial incentives. Personally, I think we need to rethink the way we treat corporations, perhaps in a way that helps correct wealth inequality - but that's my own little pet peeve.
He was a fictional character with a fictional watch. People dreamed of flying for a long time, too.
and to urge action now.
But what kind of action? I don't claim to be smart enough to know what comes next. I just have an optimistic outlook for the long-term, based on past technological changes. I fear our "action" will have to be limited to fighting fires until the transition is over, unless someone smarter than me figures out a way to preemptively prepare people for jobs that don't yet exist.
We need to do something about wealth/income inequality, but that has to happen no matter what your opinion on automation is.
Like what?
I don't claim to be so smart. I'm just betting that history repeats itself.
That was back in the days when folks were able to go from one manual labor job to another manual labor job like running assembling stuff; or loading the machine while another person operates it, or down the line to move out product.
Indeed, there might be an entire "lost generation" of people who cannot be retrained to operate in an automated economy. But someone born into an automated economy obviously won't adapt to handle factory work.
The choices are accept a shorter week so others can also have a job, try to sweep back progress and destroy the robots, or cheerfully pay more taxes so others can go on the dole and stay there.
The economy is not zero-sum. It may seem like it in the short-term, but in the long term higher productivity leads to higher wealth.
Now, we do have a wealth imbalance that we need to deal with, but that is a somewhat separate issue. I mean, they are related, but we need to deal with income and wealth imbalance whether or not we get productivity improvements.
Consider, to me, you getting your testicles caught in a vice is just a little short term pain and perhaps a minor disability (can't be too bad, he'll be back to work in a month). To you, it might not look like a worthwhile risk.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing this pain. It will take a lot of time and money to retrain people and it will put a strain on our safety net, perhaps even straining our ability to keep civil society. But at the end of the day, it is my contention that having fewer people involved with meeting basic needs can only lead to a more advanced society, as we have more resources to devote to science, art, and culture. People will always have something to do, even if - as you mention - it takes threat of revolution to accomplish this.