Instead of paying $100k for college just spend it on buying shares in the robot factories, or ask your government to tax their profits and give you shares. Get your college education for free online.
Forcing companies to hire humans is a form of taxation. So by allowing companies to use robots, you get the same benefit and the human with basic income gets to sleep all day or pursue other tuff while still getting paid just for existing. It's a win-win.
What about taxation of the robot factories to provide basic income. Also, people can purchase shares in these companies which will probably be cheaper than a college education and provide more income. Since stuff will be cheaper that income will go further.
Taxation of robot factories to provide universal basic income will resolve that issue. Also owning just a few shares of these companies will pay high dividends. And since manufacturing cost will be super low, there will be enough competition to make sure that prices of goods are low so that the universal a basic income will go much further.
Not only that. But people forget that owning shares in robot operated factories will eventually mean you don't need to have a job. And governments will tax these factories and provide the unemployed with a universal basic income.
Not only do you fail at basic logic and humane morality, you seem to not know what slavery is. I am not saying anyone should be forced to work for anything other than the mutually agreed amount. Slavery is when you force someone to work for you. I am not forcing anyone to work for me, I am saying I shouldn't be forced to hire people I don't want. You are the slave driver here.. got that? You are the one trying to force people to hire the folks you have a personal preference for. You are the enslaver.
Let's make this easy. If I get you correctly, you are saying I should pay workers enough wages to buy my product because if I don't, then I won't be able to sell it.
Ok let's go through that.
Let's assume I make cars.. The price of which is 100,000. If I only pay my workers $50,000.. Then they can't buy the car. Therefore I should pay them $110,000 so they can afford to buy my car? Is that correct?
That means for every vehicle I sell, I lose $10,000. Which idiot would do a deal like that?
So people can buy my goods with the salary I pay them? Why not simply not produce anything, if the money by which people pay for my goods is money I give to them. Why don't I just keep my money and not make anything? How does it make sense that I should pay people the money to buy my products? Why don't I just keep my money without hiring anyone?
Right, I appreciate your concern for my wellbeing in this. Maybe I should outsource all my decisions to you? At what point do I get a choice in this? If what you are saying is true the companies that outsource to India will fail. It's their money, they should be able to decide how to spend it.. why should you get to intervene?
I think the cheaper it is to get stuff done, the more jobs there will be. The price of services will reduce due to competitive pressure. And so we will have more things available and it will require less work to acquire those resources. That aside, it's morally correct that a person choose the deal offering more value. Clearly the Indian is in a more dire situation if he is willing to work for less money.
You don't seek the best value when shopping? Why shouldn't foreigners be allowed to participate in the marketplace? You want some sort of affirmative action for US citizens, is that it? Why not tax the company savings instead and live on welfare? It'll be easier for all parties involved that way. Plus you get to watch more TV.
So now suddenly conservatives support affirmative action? Why can't companies hire who they wish to hire? Eventually you fools will want to ban robots too. Frankly anyone not making minimum wage is being overpaid. If you can offer value as a human being you would be able to demand it without resorting to the police to go force companies to overpay you money for something they can get done by some Indian turban dude for half the price.
What's wrong with saving a few dollars? None of the tech jobs I know of pay a non-living wage. Frankly why should a tech job pay any more than at McDonald's anyway? Who gets to decide which job what the value of a job is. Working at McDonald's is just as difficult as working for a tech company.
Is that why conservatives believe foreigners have no rights and it's ok to torture them? He never said theft should be allowed.
And btw I can think of many situations that any sane person would agree it's ok to steal. For example if a plane crashed in the woods and the only first aid is in a locked cabin nearby.. I bet even you would agree it's ok to break in and steal it with the intent of replenishing in the future it if your own (not other peoples') loved ones or kids were injured.
I think stealing can be classified as conservative too because as the fifth amendment makes clear even the founding fathers believed it was ok for the public, acting through government, to take stuff it needed if you were to be "justly compensated".. But that means you don't have the right to refuse to sell.. So in effect it's theft. I mean if I took your car and left you money that me and the neighbors thought is fair wouldn't you consider it stealing?
What's wrong with a global marketplace? If somebody needs someone to do a job for them, what's immoral with choosing the best deal? When you go to the grocery store do you not choose the best value for your money? The free market works, and even if it didn't it's the only moral solution. Why shouldn't some chick in India who learns programming have the same shot at a job as you.. Especially if she is offering a better value to whoever is hiring her?
The more people we have building stuff the better for everyone. By saving money, companies get to survive, increase capital expenditures other stuff.
Do you propose some other way of knowing whether you people are teaching kids anything? Do we wait until a kid comes out dunce? The teachers who are against tests are the ones who can't teach. And the parents who are against tests are the ones whose kids are failing and they are too lazy to do anything about them other than complain and throw the responsibility elsewhere.
The only people who are against tests are the people who can't handle failing them. Nobody wants to feel inferior, so they are against testing. God forbid we hurt a feeling or two. How are we supposed to measure whether you know something or not? We need some way to measure whether a person has the ability to understand and use skills. Also, it helps to student know where to improve herself. How can we not have tests, it's silly. What if we made the NFL or NBA select players without seeing what they can do?
I never said life extension was impossible, we *SHOULD* be researching that. However with life extension only a few people have theories that after peer review seem plausible. The people who do have valid scientific theories on it are getting the funding needed -- none of which require a huge budget. In the case of fusion, tokamak has had a solid case since the 70s that it would work if built the size of ITER.. and this theory has been open to public scrutiny for a while. ITER was originally supposed to have been built in 1985. Between 1985 and today there has been nothing widely accepted saying that ITER won't work.
Slashdot Mirror
So you handed over your wealth to the global elite for some temporary gains and now you're mad about it?
A value of 3 was good enough for the Bible, though back then the Earth had 4 corners.
Instead of paying $100k for college just spend it on buying shares in the robot factories, or ask your government to tax their profits and give you shares. Get your college education for free online.
Forcing companies to hire humans is a form of taxation. So by allowing companies to use robots, you get the same benefit and the human with basic income gets to sleep all day or pursue other tuff while still getting paid just for existing. It's a win-win.
What about taxation of the robot factories to provide basic income. Also, people can purchase shares in these companies which will probably be cheaper than a college education and provide more income. Since stuff will be cheaper that income will go further.
Taxation of robot factories to provide universal basic income will resolve that issue. Also owning just a few shares of these companies will pay high dividends. And since manufacturing cost will be super low, there will be enough competition to make sure that prices of goods are low so that the universal a basic income will go much further.
Not only that. But people forget that owning shares in robot operated factories will eventually mean you don't need to have a job. And governments will tax these factories and provide the unemployed with a universal basic income.
How can one not be a narcissist when surrounded by idiots?
Just saying... not that I'm one. Unlike other people, I'm superior in my abilities to suppress narcissism.
Somebody will need to be president of such an organization. And secretary. And they would need to of course be paid and have a cushy office.
First off I don't want to see that. Second, all humans are of equal value .. try to see it from that perspective instead of being tribalist.
Not only do you fail at basic logic and humane morality, you seem to not know what slavery is. I am not saying anyone should be forced to work for anything other than the mutually agreed amount. Slavery is when you force someone to work for you. I am not forcing anyone to work for me, I am saying I shouldn't be forced to hire people I don't want. You are the slave driver here .. got that? You are the one trying to force people to hire the folks you have a personal preference for. You are the enslaver.
Pretty sure you give as good a spirited argument in favor of affirmative action too. Which is what this is.
Let's make this easy. If I get you correctly, you are saying I should pay workers enough wages to buy my product because if I don't, then I won't be able to sell it.
Ok let's go through that.
Let's assume I make cars .. The price of which is 100,000. If I only pay my workers $50,000 .. Then they can't buy the car. Therefore I should pay them $110,000 so they can afford to buy my car? Is that correct?
That means for every vehicle I sell, I lose $10,000. Which idiot would do a deal like that?
So people can buy my goods with the salary I pay them? Why not simply not produce anything, if the money by which people pay for my goods is money I give to them. Why don't I just keep my money and not make anything? How does it make sense that I should pay people the money to buy my products? Why don't I just keep my money without hiring anyone?
Right, I appreciate your concern for my wellbeing in this. Maybe I should outsource all my decisions to you? At what point do I get a choice in this? If what you are saying is true the companies that outsource to India will fail. It's their money, they should be able to decide how to spend it .. why should you get to intervene?
I think the cheaper it is to get stuff done, the more jobs there will be. The price of services will reduce due to competitive pressure. And so we will have more things available and it will require less work to acquire those resources. That aside, it's morally correct that a person choose the deal offering more value. Clearly the Indian is in a more dire situation if he is willing to work for less money.
You don't seek the best value when shopping? Why shouldn't foreigners be allowed to participate in the marketplace? You want some sort of affirmative action for US citizens, is that it? Why not tax the company savings instead and live on welfare? It'll be easier for all parties involved that way. Plus you get to watch more TV.
So now suddenly conservatives support affirmative action? Why can't companies hire who they wish to hire? Eventually you fools will want to ban robots too. Frankly anyone not making minimum wage is being overpaid. If you can offer value as a human being you would be able to demand it without resorting to the police to go force companies to overpay you money for something they can get done by some Indian turban dude for half the price.
Why? Just because you need a job I have to hire you instead the person offering me a better deal? Wtf.
What's wrong with saving a few dollars? None of the tech jobs I know of pay a non-living wage. Frankly why should a tech job pay any more than at McDonald's anyway? Who gets to decide which job what the value of a job is. Working at McDonald's is just as difficult as working for a tech company.
Is that why conservatives believe foreigners have no rights and it's ok to torture them?
He never said theft should be allowed.
And btw I can think of many situations that any sane person would agree it's ok to steal. For example if a plane crashed in the woods and the only first aid is in a locked cabin nearby .. I bet even you would agree it's ok to break in and steal it with the intent of replenishing in the future it if your own (not other peoples') loved ones or kids were injured.
I think stealing can be classified as conservative too because as the fifth amendment makes clear even the founding fathers believed it was ok for the public, acting through government, to take stuff it needed if you were to be "justly compensated" .. But that means you don't have the right to refuse to sell .. So in effect it's theft. I mean if I took your car and left you money that me and the neighbors thought is fair wouldn't you consider it stealing?
What's wrong with a global marketplace? If somebody needs someone to do a job for them, what's immoral with choosing the best deal? When you go to the grocery store do you not choose the best value for your money? The free market works, and even if it didn't it's the only moral solution. Why shouldn't some chick in India who learns programming have the same shot at a job as you .. Especially if she is offering a better value to whoever is hiring her?
The more people we have building stuff the better for everyone. By saving money, companies get to survive, increase capital expenditures other stuff.
Do you propose some other way of knowing whether you people are teaching kids anything? Do we wait until a kid comes out dunce? The teachers who are against tests are the ones who can't teach. And the parents who are against tests are the ones whose kids are failing and they are too lazy to do anything about them other than complain and throw the responsibility elsewhere.
The only people who are against tests are the people who can't handle failing them. Nobody wants to feel inferior, so they are against testing. God forbid we hurt a feeling or two. How are we supposed to measure whether you know something or not? We need some way to measure whether a person has the ability to understand and use skills. Also, it helps to student know where to improve herself. How can we not have tests, it's silly. What if we made the NFL or NBA select players without seeing what they can do?
There is not even a half-way plausible theory on how to convert ourselves safely into photons. We do have plausible theories on making fusion work.
I never said life extension was impossible, we *SHOULD* be researching that. However with life extension only a few people have theories that after peer review seem plausible. The people who do have valid scientific theories on it are getting the funding needed -- none of which require a huge budget. In the case of fusion, tokamak has had a solid case since the 70s that it would work if built the size of ITER .. and this theory has been open to public scrutiny for a while. ITER was originally supposed to have been built in 1985. Between 1985 and today there has been nothing widely accepted saying that ITER won't work.
They havent been given the budget needed to build a breakeven facility -- basically people like you set them up to fail and then say look it failed!