It can't be stopped. If the next business opens up and uses robots to operate at lower cost and thus price, they'll take business from the established, and then the workers will lose jobs anyway.
I made no such assertions — my point was, we expect policemen to follow their own human judgement. That judgement may be influenced by their training and policies, but at the end it is still theirs
These are conflicting statements. A person's judgment is influenced by training and policies. They're trained to expect--and use--maximum force, and to assume any sudden or unexpected movement could turn fatal in a fraction of a second. They're trained to take no chances. They're trained that it takes longer for your brain to assess if a thing is a toy or a gun than it takes to pull the trigger.
They're trained to aim for the center of mass, where they have the best chance of hitting instead of sending stray bullets, and where there are overlapping vital organs.
Ephedra and amphetamine get your norepinephrine levels up, get your adrenaline pumping, give you a dopamine rush. So does a war zone. They're going in under the premise of hostile combat, with twitchy fingers. It's like being on meth.
Human judgment is clouded by everything around it. People make mistakes. People justify their mistakes because they don't want to be bad people. People are told they did the right thing, and those mistakes are reinforced.
Your human judgment seems to be lacking: you're throwing an emotional argument where the guy behind the trigger must be solely, absolutely responsible for his every action--that everything in his life leading up to that moment means nothing, because every person would reason and react in exactly the same way if they just tried. What makes you this way?
Your argument, right now, is a result of distrust of politicians, of police, and of authority figures in general; you've learned that when you walk in that room, when one of them pulls out something, you immediately fire because it's probably a lie.
The topic is responsibility in our policing and correction system, particularly around the control of structural change--control held by executives and legislators.
The police are the way they are because the mayors, governors, and legislatures changed policy and made them that way. That's what's written above. You've asserted that the police are wholly-autonomous and policing in a nation or a city are not controlled by institutional policy, but rather by individual law enforcement officers's actions--which begs the question: what in the hell does government do?
The Democratic Party happens to align well with my ideals. Parts of it, anyway; there are some serious ideological differences between the party's internal factions.
I've had the chance to think and develop positions on things I hadn't considered in a long time, and most of the Democratic Party's positions are fairly liberal and sensible. Things like individual rights and freedoms are inherently good--that spans topics like abortion, gay marriage, and worker's rights. I don't trust unions, but that's okay: I like unions and I support them, so long as the laws protect the worker from the employer, the union from the employer, the employer from the union, the worker from the union, and the union from the worker (the freerider problem is real, and irritating: your employer has a contract with a union; get over it, it's a private contract and a private business, and you sign on to all of their contracts when you sign on as an employee).
Of course you have people like Bernie, who claims he's a social democrat when he's really a democratic socialist (or a plain old socialist--he did want to make all hospitals Government-owned). I've begun building American Social Democracy based on Nordic Social Democracy--and unlike Social Democrats USA, whose principles are to build a platform of Social Democracy as a staging position for a future of Socialism, American Social Democracy explicitly opposes Socialization while encouraging Nationalization where appropriate.
To be more illustrative: Social Security nationalizes retirement pensions, and so you can buy into a 401(K) or a private defined benefit pension. Similarly, Germany nationalizes health insurance by purchasing through private insurers to guarantee all otherwise uninsured Germans have health insurance. I intend to nationalize health insurance with a Public Option, whereby Medicare provides the same sort of care that a (corrected) ACA-conforming plan would to anyone who doesn't have affordable care coverage, using a Federally operated fund, with rules of when and how premiums are billed (most notably, if your employer provides affordable care and you don't take it, you and your employer pay a tax equivalent to what you each would pay if you had bought the employer plan).
HR676 socializes health insurance by banning all private insurers from covering anything which Medicare covers. It attempts to socialize healthcare by forcing private hospitals and healthcare providers to become government-operated assets. This I oppose.
The Democratic Party has far too broad a span of ideals on the topic, with no general framework internally. It's filled with conservative capitalists and hard-left socialists; the great majority are somewhat middling liberals, though, and the inflow of progressives divides between a span of socialist-leaning minds and conservative libertarians who only sound liberal.
Would you be out seeking excuses for the robot and its designers faced with vague and self-contradictory laws and public preferences
The designers are professionals given policy by those commissioning the use of the robot. States don't go, "Well, the thing does X, I guess that's what it has to do;" they go, "Hey, we think this behavior is optimal for the public good. We'll buy your robot, but only if it can operate to these specifications."
Look at prisons in Norway. Look at prisons in Baltimore City. Now you tell me: who decides that prisons in Baltimore don't look like prisons in Norway? Who has the power to change that? Is it the prison guards? Do they decide that prisons are to be one cell, one bed, one inmate? Do they decide that the prison shall have a psychiatrist, a doctor, medical facilities, effective legal council, and educational facilities to provide a vocation? Do they decide when a prisoner is parolable? Of course not; these are all legislative decisions.
Our governors and legislators have spent the past two decades changing how our police force operates and altering our courts and prosecution strategies. The result? Huge waves of crime each time an O'Malley or Zirkin screws around with things. Occasionally, we get some sanity, and the crime rate goes down; and then it's an election year again, legislators and executives start passing laws mandating tougher policing and pushing police to bring a stronger, more forceful presence to the front, and we get more violence and more crime on the rise yet again.
This is what government is: you get elected to office and then everything is your fault because you can change everything.
Kind of. They're operating as expected; I'd place more of the blame on the institution of criminal justice which has created and maintained this approach to policing.
In other words: it's less the cops's fault as it is the legislature's, mayor's, and governor's.
Do note I'm running to be a legislator (in US Congress), so I may have a non-intuitive assessment of the situation.
I've frequently suggested regulating economies and creating public services to use the market as a computer.
In healthcare, for example, the US can provide a public option that guarantees everyone healthcare at all times. When they can get affordable care, we can put a payroll tax on their employer (and an additional income tax on their paycheck) for either the affordable rate or (if less) the amount they usually pay, thus ensuring neither gets a monetary benefit by selecting the public option over the employer's plan (selection of healthcare is 100% based on perceived quality of service).
Medicare tries to calculate a local market rate for a service. That results in many things, such as providers who can provide the service at lower cost billing in-line with other providers in the area, thus making wide profit margins from the government.
Our regulators have petabyte databases of remittance rates negotiated between every insurer and provider for every service. They're hooked up to powerful mainframes that can process the whole of this data in short hours. It's ridiculous.
So at each individual (service,provider) tuple, we can compute the normal distribution of remittance rates, and then select two standard deviations down. That's our negotiation cap. The Federal Public Option--Medicare Part E--negotiates rates at individual providers already; instead of using the market rate, Medicare would use the low-end remittance rate.
Somewhere, an insurer has negotiated a pretty good rate. The others might be getting robbed, but that doesn't matter. We are, at all times, for all services, nearly the ideal insurer.
This obviously requires some consideration. Sometimes, the insurer paying less also gets less service--sorting that out takes a lot of time; or we just make that practice illegal. We'll have to tweak the regulations to fit around the obvious outcome of providers creating slightly-different, substantially-similar packages for each insurer, and further when we see what the providers actually do about all this when we tell them they're not allowed to screw around like that.
Still. Wetware computer. No sinking tons of taxpayer resources into trying to win an information arms race against the market of suppliers, providers, and hospitals.
There are other things we need. An investigation into why our healthcare costs so much (I've looked at every explanation given and we might be able to squeeze it down to maybe 15% of GDP while still getting less service than Germany at 11% GDP--something is broken, and e don't know what). Publish local market standards of fairness so the private insurers getting the worst deals can argue their rates down. Make all insurers and hospitals operate as not-for-profit.
Universal healthcare is easy. Going from "universal healthcare" to "low-cost, high-performance universal healthcare" is going to take some work and the integrity to stick with it when it gets hard.
This will never be in OpenBSD. Back in 2005, Theo de Raadt would not give any ground when I implored him to build with position independent executables. He maintained that PIE was "very expensive"--the overall impact on x86 is about 0.06% additional CPU usage, so about 2.16 seconds lost per hour pegged at 100% CPU usage, minus any time spent not at 100% CPU usage.
8%? He'll never accept that. It's way too performance-expensive.
There's a video about wealth distribution in the US that bounces around between talking about accumulated assets and income when describing "wealth", with no mention of any of this. Because of this, each argument is about one of 16 different comparisons.
Wait, I thought it was legal to put mail in a mailbox if and only if you put a USPS stamp on it first. Stuff that's not a mailbox doesn't count--such as your mail slot or the non-US-Mail-approved letter boxes in your apartment (yep! They're fair game!).
Firstly, they do have their own private courier service.
Second, if USPS suddenly is pushed by the Administration or whatever upon which the Administration manages to lean, it will become more-expensive than FedEx, UPS, DHL, and so forth. The other clients will then go to those lower-cost providers. Then the USPS will go bankrupt, like the three casinos Trump managed to trash.
Ah okay. Not a protocol, but an industry group or something, and some googling pretty much said "DRM stuff" but didn't really declare that it's a protocol.
The budget is $80 million, or about 50 cents per taxpaying American per year.
That's also a 0.04% tax on the $2 billion of economic activity centered around the thing.
Essentially, charging for the data is raising taxes (or not raising taxes and breaking even) and targeting those taxes to specific individuals, causing the cost to go up per individual accessing the data.
The proposal overall makes no sense, and is simply a desocialization effort (from tax funded to use funded) which they can then follow up with a denationalization effort (from government managed to privately owned). The Republican philosophy has always been to dismantle the government, because they confuse the terms "limited" (having defined boundaries) with "small" (having a specific classification of size).
Actually, the mental problems and substance abuse (and the conditioning to be homeless) seem to arise after a person has been homeless for a while. Correlation, causation, etc. This one's a known quantity. A few go the other direction, too.
The homeless tend to die where weather becomes extreme--over 700 freeze to death each year--and, besides, can't raise the panhandle funds to live if everyone around them is poor. There are collapsing ghettos around San Francisco and Seattle, too, just a few miles away; the homeless didn't make the trek across country to get there.
Trade and technical progress introduce structural change which creates wealth, yet has winners and losers. It takes about 150,000 40-hour full-time factory workers to manufacture all the pants we import from China. Were they manufactured in America and the cost diminished by 1/3 via technical progress alone, we'd see minimum-wage workers save 1/2 hour's worth of wage per pair of pants, thus capable of buying more things and creating jobs; and 50,000 factory workers lose their jobs. Trade, of course, saves us far more than this; yet in our scenario, transitioning TO trade would cause 150,000 workers to lose their jobs.
This is actually an odd and complex economic topic. To be brief on complexity: if we were to bring all such pants manufacturing back to America, the reduction in purchasing power would eliminate more jobs than it creates. We'd be able to buy fewer things in total, thus less retail, less trucking, and so forth. The total outcome would be all Americans slightly-poorer, and many more Americans unemployed entirely.
Going forward from our hypothetical, however, the loss of 50,000 jobs would likely end a factory town, causing further job loss, collapsing an entire city. In exchange for 0.1% or less of Americans losing their jobs, 99.9% of us would be wealthier; and that wealth would translate to new spending, creating jobs which are probably concentrated elsewhere, leaving the factory town collapsed.
In other words: structural change creates winners and losers--mostly winners.
The winners are so much more wealthy, in fact, that they can compensate the losers and still come out almost as wealthy as they would otherwise.
That's called "collective risk sharing," and it's an approach to global trade, technical progress, and labor migration.
I proposed a new approach to collective risk sharing called a Universal Dividend, which is a straight-forward cash benefit: corporate and private incomes are taxed at 12.5%, and this is redistributed flat among all adults as non-taxable income. In 2016, this would have been $6,700 distributed in twice-monthly payments. By building Social Security's OASDI system on top of this, you can pay the promised total retirement and disability payments to every recipient; and you end up with a lower overall tax burden, accounting the Dividend as a sort of rolling tax return, for every taxpayer.
Yes, that's right: you can do this without raising taxes by taking advantage of how utterly broken Social Security's funding structure is.
The impacts are most significant on the poor, and areas of concentrated poverty thus benefit the most. The additional take-home income creates more jobs via consumer spending, rebuilding these collapsed economies--Detroit, Blackwater, Baltimore, Flint, the like. They steadily grow back to middle-class, with a complete end to homelessness and hunger in a matter of three months except there's no way we can physically rebuild the housing that fast given the economic supply-side restrictions; and an ascent such that every neighborhood in Baltimore, as an example, would be a middle-class town within five years, accounting only for the people already living there. Because of certain economic impacts I'm discounting, that could actually pan out in about one year.
You still need your general means-tested welfare, although people are less-poor and thus receive less welfare to begin with, and so many who would go on a waiting list are instead granted benefits immediately. As well, with the availability of good employment, people come off welfare much sooner, reducing load on the system.
Homelessness is the ultimate, continuous insecurity. Remove economic insecurity in general and you will remove homelessness, and thus remove the damage it does to people. World won't be perfect by any stretch, but you'll have one less problem with which to deal.
Sodium benzoate isn't a carcinogen; it's harmless. It can react with ascorbic acid to form benzine, which is a carcinogen. Soft drinks with both frequently do contain benzine, but well below interesting levels. Note that "interesting levels" in consumable products are something like 0.005ppm. Sodas usually don't contain ascorbic acid, so no benzine.
I've seen a rich guy with a huge mansion who had a shack for gardeners to live in.
The shack was three times the size of my house.
It housed two gardeners.
If you can deal with the loss of independence, having someone pay for your luxury housing seems like a pretty good deal. I'm not certain how a live-in maid or whatever has a social life but eh.
In what NIMBY free neighborhood will you place these studio apartments?
Almost anywhere in Baltimore where we have collapsing houses and third-world-grade city blocks will accept these--largely because you have about three neighbors on the entire street of 40 or 50 houses.
Slashdot Mirror
The Librarian has already ordered long ago that phones must be unlockable.
It can't be stopped. If the next business opens up and uses robots to operate at lower cost and thus price, they'll take business from the established, and then the workers will lose jobs anyway.
We need collective risk sharing instead.
I made no such assertions — my point was, we expect policemen to follow their own human judgement. That judgement may be influenced by their training and policies, but at the end it is still theirs
These are conflicting statements. A person's judgment is influenced by training and policies. They're trained to expect--and use--maximum force, and to assume any sudden or unexpected movement could turn fatal in a fraction of a second. They're trained to take no chances. They're trained that it takes longer for your brain to assess if a thing is a toy or a gun than it takes to pull the trigger.
They're trained to aim for the center of mass, where they have the best chance of hitting instead of sending stray bullets, and where there are overlapping vital organs.
Ephedra and amphetamine get your norepinephrine levels up, get your adrenaline pumping, give you a dopamine rush. So does a war zone. They're going in under the premise of hostile combat, with twitchy fingers. It's like being on meth.
Human judgment is clouded by everything around it. People make mistakes. People justify their mistakes because they don't want to be bad people. People are told they did the right thing, and those mistakes are reinforced.
Your human judgment seems to be lacking: you're throwing an emotional argument where the guy behind the trigger must be solely, absolutely responsible for his every action--that everything in his life leading up to that moment means nothing, because every person would reason and react in exactly the same way if they just tried. What makes you this way?
Your argument, right now, is a result of distrust of politicians, of police, and of authority figures in general; you've learned that when you walk in that room, when one of them pulls out something, you immediately fire because it's probably a lie.
The topic is responsibility in our policing and correction system, particularly around the control of structural change--control held by executives and legislators.
The police are the way they are because the mayors, governors, and legislatures changed policy and made them that way. That's what's written above. You've asserted that the police are wholly-autonomous and policing in a nation or a city are not controlled by institutional policy, but rather by individual law enforcement officers's actions--which begs the question: what in the hell does government do?
And who provides the budget, the guidance, and the legal framework allowing and encouraging this?
The Democratic Party happens to align well with my ideals. Parts of it, anyway; there are some serious ideological differences between the party's internal factions.
I've had the chance to think and develop positions on things I hadn't considered in a long time, and most of the Democratic Party's positions are fairly liberal and sensible. Things like individual rights and freedoms are inherently good--that spans topics like abortion, gay marriage, and worker's rights. I don't trust unions, but that's okay: I like unions and I support them, so long as the laws protect the worker from the employer, the union from the employer, the employer from the union, the worker from the union, and the union from the worker (the freerider problem is real, and irritating: your employer has a contract with a union; get over it, it's a private contract and a private business, and you sign on to all of their contracts when you sign on as an employee).
Of course you have people like Bernie, who claims he's a social democrat when he's really a democratic socialist (or a plain old socialist--he did want to make all hospitals Government-owned). I've begun building American Social Democracy based on Nordic Social Democracy--and unlike Social Democrats USA, whose principles are to build a platform of Social Democracy as a staging position for a future of Socialism, American Social Democracy explicitly opposes Socialization while encouraging Nationalization where appropriate.
To be more illustrative: Social Security nationalizes retirement pensions, and so you can buy into a 401(K) or a private defined benefit pension. Similarly, Germany nationalizes health insurance by purchasing through private insurers to guarantee all otherwise uninsured Germans have health insurance. I intend to nationalize health insurance with a Public Option, whereby Medicare provides the same sort of care that a (corrected) ACA-conforming plan would to anyone who doesn't have affordable care coverage, using a Federally operated fund, with rules of when and how premiums are billed (most notably, if your employer provides affordable care and you don't take it, you and your employer pay a tax equivalent to what you each would pay if you had bought the employer plan).
HR676 socializes health insurance by banning all private insurers from covering anything which Medicare covers. It attempts to socialize healthcare by forcing private hospitals and healthcare providers to become government-operated assets. This I oppose.
The Democratic Party has far too broad a span of ideals on the topic, with no general framework internally. It's filled with conservative capitalists and hard-left socialists; the great majority are somewhat middling liberals, though, and the inflow of progressives divides between a span of socialist-leaning minds and conservative libertarians who only sound liberal.
Would you be out seeking excuses for the robot and its designers faced with vague and self-contradictory laws and public preferences
The designers are professionals given policy by those commissioning the use of the robot. States don't go, "Well, the thing does X, I guess that's what it has to do;" they go, "Hey, we think this behavior is optimal for the public good. We'll buy your robot, but only if it can operate to these specifications."
Look at prisons in Norway. Look at prisons in Baltimore City. Now you tell me: who decides that prisons in Baltimore don't look like prisons in Norway? Who has the power to change that? Is it the prison guards? Do they decide that prisons are to be one cell, one bed, one inmate? Do they decide that the prison shall have a psychiatrist, a doctor, medical facilities, effective legal council, and educational facilities to provide a vocation? Do they decide when a prisoner is parolable? Of course not; these are all legislative decisions.
Our governors and legislators have spent the past two decades changing how our police force operates and altering our courts and prosecution strategies. The result? Huge waves of crime each time an O'Malley or Zirkin screws around with things. Occasionally, we get some sanity, and the crime rate goes down; and then it's an election year again, legislators and executives start passing laws mandating tougher policing and pushing police to bring a stronger, more forceful presence to the front, and we get more violence and more crime on the rise yet again.
This is what government is: you get elected to office and then everything is your fault because you can change everything.
Kind of. They're operating as expected; I'd place more of the blame on the institution of criminal justice which has created and maintained this approach to policing.
In other words: it's less the cops's fault as it is the legislature's, mayor's, and governor's.
Do note I'm running to be a legislator (in US Congress), so I may have a non-intuitive assessment of the situation.
I've frequently suggested regulating economies and creating public services to use the market as a computer.
In healthcare, for example, the US can provide a public option that guarantees everyone healthcare at all times. When they can get affordable care, we can put a payroll tax on their employer (and an additional income tax on their paycheck) for either the affordable rate or (if less) the amount they usually pay, thus ensuring neither gets a monetary benefit by selecting the public option over the employer's plan (selection of healthcare is 100% based on perceived quality of service).
Medicare tries to calculate a local market rate for a service. That results in many things, such as providers who can provide the service at lower cost billing in-line with other providers in the area, thus making wide profit margins from the government.
Our regulators have petabyte databases of remittance rates negotiated between every insurer and provider for every service. They're hooked up to powerful mainframes that can process the whole of this data in short hours. It's ridiculous.
So at each individual (service,provider) tuple, we can compute the normal distribution of remittance rates, and then select two standard deviations down. That's our negotiation cap. The Federal Public Option--Medicare Part E--negotiates rates at individual providers already; instead of using the market rate, Medicare would use the low-end remittance rate.
Somewhere, an insurer has negotiated a pretty good rate. The others might be getting robbed, but that doesn't matter. We are, at all times, for all services, nearly the ideal insurer.
This obviously requires some consideration. Sometimes, the insurer paying less also gets less service--sorting that out takes a lot of time; or we just make that practice illegal. We'll have to tweak the regulations to fit around the obvious outcome of providers creating slightly-different, substantially-similar packages for each insurer, and further when we see what the providers actually do about all this when we tell them they're not allowed to screw around like that.
Still. Wetware computer. No sinking tons of taxpayer resources into trying to win an information arms race against the market of suppliers, providers, and hospitals.
There are other things we need. An investigation into why our healthcare costs so much (I've looked at every explanation given and we might be able to squeeze it down to maybe 15% of GDP while still getting less service than Germany at 11% GDP--something is broken, and e don't know what). Publish local market standards of fairness so the private insurers getting the worst deals can argue their rates down. Make all insurers and hospitals operate as not-for-profit.
Universal healthcare is easy. Going from "universal healthcare" to "low-cost, high-performance universal healthcare" is going to take some work and the integrity to stick with it when it gets hard.
This will never be in OpenBSD. Back in 2005, Theo de Raadt would not give any ground when I implored him to build with position independent executables. He maintained that PIE was "very expensive"--the overall impact on x86 is about 0.06% additional CPU usage, so about 2.16 seconds lost per hour pegged at 100% CPU usage, minus any time spent not at 100% CPU usage.
8%? He'll never accept that. It's way too performance-expensive.
There's a video about wealth distribution in the US that bounces around between talking about accumulated assets and income when describing "wealth", with no mention of any of this. Because of this, each argument is about one of 16 different comparisons.
Wait, I thought it was legal to put mail in a mailbox if and only if you put a USPS stamp on it first. Stuff that's not a mailbox doesn't count--such as your mail slot or the non-US-Mail-approved letter boxes in your apartment (yep! They're fair game!).
Well...
President Trump personally urged the leader of the U.S. Postal Service to double the rates the agency charges Amazon and other firms
They're not charging half what FedEx and UPS charge. Doubling the fee would thus mean they're charging more than what FedEx and UPS charge.
Firstly, they do have their own private courier service.
Second, if USPS suddenly is pushed by the Administration or whatever upon which the Administration manages to lean, it will become more-expensive than FedEx, UPS, DHL, and so forth. The other clients will then go to those lower-cost providers. Then the USPS will go bankrupt, like the three casinos Trump managed to trash.
Ah okay. Not a protocol, but an industry group or something, and some googling pretty much said "DRM stuff" but didn't really declare that it's a protocol.
The heck is DLNA? This one's new for me.
At $80M, the taxpayer burden is 50 cents per taxpayer per year.
The budget is $80 million, or about 50 cents per taxpaying American per year.
That's also a 0.04% tax on the $2 billion of economic activity centered around the thing.
Essentially, charging for the data is raising taxes (or not raising taxes and breaking even) and targeting those taxes to specific individuals, causing the cost to go up per individual accessing the data.
The proposal overall makes no sense, and is simply a desocialization effort (from tax funded to use funded) which they can then follow up with a denationalization effort (from government managed to privately owned). The Republican philosophy has always been to dismantle the government, because they confuse the terms "limited" (having defined boundaries) with "small" (having a specific classification of size).
Yeah, the "go be poor somewhere else" approach. Mayor Pugh is trying to do that by attrition.
Actually, the mental problems and substance abuse (and the conditioning to be homeless) seem to arise after a person has been homeless for a while. Correlation, causation, etc. This one's a known quantity. A few go the other direction, too.
The homeless tend to die where weather becomes extreme--over 700 freeze to death each year--and, besides, can't raise the panhandle funds to live if everyone around them is poor. There are collapsing ghettos around San Francisco and Seattle, too, just a few miles away; the homeless didn't make the trek across country to get there.
Trade and technical progress introduce structural change which creates wealth, yet has winners and losers. It takes about 150,000 40-hour full-time factory workers to manufacture all the pants we import from China. Were they manufactured in America and the cost diminished by 1/3 via technical progress alone, we'd see minimum-wage workers save 1/2 hour's worth of wage per pair of pants, thus capable of buying more things and creating jobs; and 50,000 factory workers lose their jobs. Trade, of course, saves us far more than this; yet in our scenario, transitioning TO trade would cause 150,000 workers to lose their jobs.
This is actually an odd and complex economic topic. To be brief on complexity: if we were to bring all such pants manufacturing back to America, the reduction in purchasing power would eliminate more jobs than it creates. We'd be able to buy fewer things in total, thus less retail, less trucking, and so forth. The total outcome would be all Americans slightly-poorer, and many more Americans unemployed entirely.
Going forward from our hypothetical, however, the loss of 50,000 jobs would likely end a factory town, causing further job loss, collapsing an entire city. In exchange for 0.1% or less of Americans losing their jobs, 99.9% of us would be wealthier; and that wealth would translate to new spending, creating jobs which are probably concentrated elsewhere, leaving the factory town collapsed.
In other words: structural change creates winners and losers--mostly winners.
The winners are so much more wealthy, in fact, that they can compensate the losers and still come out almost as wealthy as they would otherwise.
That's called "collective risk sharing," and it's an approach to global trade, technical progress, and labor migration.
I proposed a new approach to collective risk sharing called a Universal Dividend, which is a straight-forward cash benefit: corporate and private incomes are taxed at 12.5%, and this is redistributed flat among all adults as non-taxable income. In 2016, this would have been $6,700 distributed in twice-monthly payments. By building Social Security's OASDI system on top of this, you can pay the promised total retirement and disability payments to every recipient; and you end up with a lower overall tax burden, accounting the Dividend as a sort of rolling tax return, for every taxpayer.
Yes, that's right: you can do this without raising taxes by taking advantage of how utterly broken Social Security's funding structure is.
The impacts are most significant on the poor, and areas of concentrated poverty thus benefit the most. The additional take-home income creates more jobs via consumer spending, rebuilding these collapsed economies--Detroit, Blackwater, Baltimore, Flint, the like. They steadily grow back to middle-class, with a complete end to homelessness and hunger in a matter of three months except there's no way we can physically rebuild the housing that fast given the economic supply-side restrictions; and an ascent such that every neighborhood in Baltimore, as an example, would be a middle-class town within five years, accounting only for the people already living there. Because of certain economic impacts I'm discounting, that could actually pan out in about one year.
You still need your general means-tested welfare, although people are less-poor and thus receive less welfare to begin with, and so many who would go on a waiting list are instead granted benefits immediately. As well, with the availability of good employment, people come off welfare much sooner, reducing load on the system.
Homelessness is the ultimate, continuous insecurity. Remove economic insecurity in general and you will remove homelessness, and thus remove the damage it does to people. World won't be perfect by any stretch, but you'll have one less problem with which to deal.
Sodium benzoate isn't a carcinogen; it's harmless. It can react with ascorbic acid to form benzine, which is a carcinogen. Soft drinks with both frequently do contain benzine, but well below interesting levels. Note that "interesting levels" in consumable products are something like 0.005ppm. Sodas usually don't contain ascorbic acid, so no benzine.
You mean this text in the car mirror?
I've seen a rich guy with a huge mansion who had a shack for gardeners to live in.
The shack was three times the size of my house.
It housed two gardeners.
If you can deal with the loss of independence, having someone pay for your luxury housing seems like a pretty good deal. I'm not certain how a live-in maid or whatever has a social life but eh.
In what NIMBY free neighborhood will you place these studio apartments?
Almost anywhere in Baltimore where we have collapsing houses and third-world-grade city blocks will accept these--largely because you have about three neighbors on the entire street of 40 or 50 houses.