Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Chicago, IL, USA, IL 01/27
Chicago, IL USA, IL 10/19

Regularly scheduled events

Saturday Tech Bits

View
49 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

49. Re: Saturday Tech Bits May 23, 2017, 14:41 jdreyer
 
Right, taxes for the middle and lower classes have remained about the same over the decades. It's just the rich that have had their taxes reduced. And we wonder why we have massive deficits.

And it's a good point about how higher tax brackets reduce the value of over inflating exec salaries. In the 1960s, exec salaries were 30x the avg worker salary, today it's 100,200, 300x.
 
Avatar 22024
 
Stay a while, and listen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: Saturday Tech Bits May 23, 2017, 09:48 Beamer
 
Higher taxation is absolutely needed. From the end of WWII to the Reagan administration, the top tax bracket was somewhere between 75% and 94%.

What this meant is that money going to those earning the most (the peak was 94% in 1944, on any income earned over $2.5M), became heavily devalued. Take that 1944 scenario. If you are on the board and have a CEO who is earning $5M, he's only taking home $150,000 of that final $2.5M. It's got no real value to him. So there's no incentive to give that money to him, or the other c-suite executives.

Where does that money go, though? The company is still earning it. It gets reinvested in the company. Specifically, much of it trickles down to other employees, those well below the highest tax bracket so they'll actually get value from the salary.

Reagan dropped those tax brackets to something like 32%. So, on that $2.5M, the CEO would now earn $1.7M, enough that he'll fight to keep that income. And he'll cut jobs elsewhere, save money by sending it overseas, and give himself a multimillion dollar bonus for having done so. Which is why the ratio of CEO pay to employee pay exploded in the 80s, and why we're back to a wealth inequality comparable to pre-WWI, when we had no sizeable middle class.

Those at the top work their asses off, and worked their asses off to get there, and feel they deserve the lionshare of what they're getting. They don't think they're screwing over employees by taking massive paydays. Last year, the CEO of Expedia earned $94M, and cut huge amounts of staff to do so. Think about how many of those employees could have stayed had he only earned $10M, or whatever arbitrary number we choose to set the top tax bracket at.

And, keep in mind, this would not change your taxes a penny. Probably would lower them, frankly, while increasing your salary.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: Saturday Tech Bits May 23, 2017, 09:08 Mr. Tact
 
jdreyer wrote on May 23, 2017, 04:27:
I wouldn't include you in that. Good on you for retiring early, but you probably don't have millions in assets, nor make half a mil per year or more in income, nor live your life on a small fraction of your income.
You're right, I don't have millions. My net worth is under $1 million. I live simply, some would say boringly, but it is good enough for me. Anyway...

As for your suggestions:
jdreyer wrote on May 23, 2017, 04:27:
Remedies (no particular order) to flatten the income scale:
- Higher national minimum wage and strictly mandated overtime rates
- Bring back the high tax brackets, and increase capital gains tax.
- Undo all the anti-union laws passed over several decades
- Get rid of the $100K limit for SS payroll taxes
- Education reform (incredibly complex and difficult task) including public preschool from age 3.
- Make all elections publicly funded, weakening the influence of the wealthy and corporations.
Higher minimum wage and mandated overtime are fine.

Higher individual, corporate taxes aren't needed. What is needed is to change the rules which allow the wealthy and corporations to avoid taxation on such a large portion of their income. However remember in some sense, corporations don't pay their taxes, consumers do. Raising the amounts corporations pay simply means they'll raise their prices. As for capital gains... I might support it, but I'd need some convincing. My current position is it does help our brand of capitalism work.

Yeah, unions get a bad rap. Although they brought some of it on themselves through bad decisions/actions -- people forget (or simply don't know) they have unions to thank for the 40 hour work week and lots of other things they take for granted.

Totally agree on raising if not eliminating the cap on SS payroll taxes.

Education reform is needed but it isn't anything that will happen easily no matter how much money you throw at it. Hell, we still have states trying to force bible studies into public schools.

Publicly funded elections would be nice. Unfortunately, we are going the other way with Citizens vs United.

Thanks for expanding your answer.
 
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: Saturday Tech Bits May 23, 2017, 04:35 jdreyer
 
TheVocalMinority wrote on May 21, 2017, 00:55:
jdreyer wrote on May 20, 2017, 14:01:
Right now, laws are 98% correlated to what companies want, and only 50% (random chance) to what people want.

The link you gave does not appear to include the figures you are quoting, closest I could find is:
"A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time."

Grr, I can't find the study with those numbers. Read it a few years ago. From the Princeton Study, however (emph is mine):
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
 
Avatar 22024
 
Stay a while, and listen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
45. Re: Saturday Tech Bits May 23, 2017, 04:27 jdreyer
 
Mr. Tact wrote on May 22, 2017, 13:56:
jdreyer wrote on May 22, 2017, 13:28:
It's also individuals, and wealthy people are to blame, since they hoard. Right now we have the worst income since before the great depression. Strong economies depend on a fairly flat income distribution: when people in the lower and middle classes have money, they tend to spend it on both necessities and things to improve their lives. Rich people don't need to improve their lives, and their necessity costs are negligible to their income, so they save or "invest."
Okay, I'd be near the front of the line to complain about the GOP seemingly being out to help the 1%. But I'm not sure what you are attempting to say here, could you clarify?

First, where are you drawing the line for being wealthy? I certainly wouldn't consider myself wealthy. But, since I'm single and managed to get good paying jobs in IT, I was able to save enough money to retire at a reasonably "young" age, 54. I'm guessing there are plenty of people who would consider that wealthy (possibly legitimately).

Second, wherever you are drawing that line for being wealthy, what do you expect people above that line to be doing that you don't think they are doing now? Are you just asking for them to be more philanthropic?

I wouldn't include you in that. Good on you for retiring early, but you probably don't have millions in assets, nor make half a mil per year or more in income, nor live your life on a small fraction of your income.

What rich people have done over the past 4 decades or so is make themselves richer:
- They bought politicians to greatly reduce taxes for themselves only (remember when we had a 90% bracket?)
- They jiggered taxes away from investment income. That's how Mitt Romney paid a lower rate than his secretary.
- They undermined unions and hoovered up all the gains in productivity for themselves. Thus middle and lower class wages have remained flat while exec salaries have soared. Compare this image of salaries of various income brackets with this graph comparing salary to productivity gains. Unions aren't perfect, but here's what happens when they go away.

What rich people don't do is spend. Middle and lower classes do, because they have to. They need food, shelter, clothing, transportation, medicine, even a little entertainment, the vast majority of the incoming salary goes right back out. This is the engine that drives the economy, this constant exchange of goods.

When you concentrate wealth in the few, the flow slows down, weakening the economy. The rich further entrench, further reducing incomes, and it becomes a vicious cycle. Middle and lower classes have much less power in a society where politicians are reliant on private donations to get reelected. Eventually you end up with a banana republic. Or an extreme political faction convinces the military to turn on the wealthy, and you end up with a communist, fascist, religious, etc. authoritarian regime.

What the rich need to do is spend the vast majority of their income. But how can they? They've already got everything they need. So they save or invest.

Remedies (no particular order) to flatten the income scale:
- Higher national minimum wage and strictly mandated overtime rates
- Bring back the high tax brackets, and increase capital gains tax.
- Undo all the anti-union laws passed over several decades
- Get rid of the $100K limit for SS payroll taxes
- Education reform (incredibly complex and difficult task) including public preschool from age 3.
- Make all elections publicly funded, weakening the influence of the wealthy and corporations.

And there are a bunch of other smaller things, but I've ranted enough.
 
Avatar 22024
 
Stay a while, and listen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
44. Re: Saturday Tech Bits May 22, 2017, 14:08 Orogogus
 
I can't answer the first question, but in context, I don't think jdreyer is advocating for a change in the behavior of the wealthy so much as a progressive tax system and possibly laws on companies to encourage or force smaller pay disparities.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
43. Re: Saturday Tech Bits May 22, 2017, 13:56 Mr. Tact
 
jdreyer wrote on May 22, 2017, 13:28:
It's also individuals, and wealthy people are to blame, since they hoard. Right now we have the worst income since before the great depression. Strong economies depend on a fairly flat income distribution: when people in the lower and middle classes have money, they tend to spend it on both necessities and things to improve their lives. Rich people don't need to improve their lives, and their necessity costs are negligible to their income, so they save or "invest."
Okay, I'd be near the front of the line to complain about the GOP seemingly being out to help the 1%. But I'm not sure what you are attempting to say here, could you clarify?

First, where are you drawing the line for being wealthy? I certainly wouldn't consider myself wealthy. But, since I'm single and managed to get good paying jobs in IT, I was able to save enough money to retire at a reasonably "young" age, 54. I'm guessing there are plenty of people who would consider that wealthy (possibly legitimately).

Second, wherever you are drawing that line for being wealthy, what do you expect people above that line to be doing that you don't think they are doing now? Are you just asking for them to be more philanthropic?
 
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42. Re: Saturday Tech Bits May 22, 2017, 13:28 jdreyer
 
HorrorScope wrote on May 22, 2017, 12:12:
Orogogus wrote on May 21, 2017, 22:50:
HorrorScope wrote on May 21, 2017, 01:08:
But we haven't recovered mentally from 2008 and looks like we might not. We are in a save save save mentality, happy days of nicely flowing cash doesn't exist there.

The save save save mentality isn't something tied to a temporary uptick or downturn. Most people don't have pensions any more, and it's been hammered into people that Social Security isn't going to let you retire comfortably -- if you don't save up throughout your career then you'll die in a gutter. And you'll probably have a pre-existing health condition by then, so the way things are looking you'll be lucky to be able to afford insurance.

FWIW I was focusing on corporate saving/buying, they are hording causing issues for us.

It's also individuals, and wealthy people are to blame, since they hoard. Right now we have the worst income since before the great depression. Strong economies depend on a fairly flat income distribution: when people in the lower and middle classes have money, they tend to spend it on both necessities and things to improve their lives. Rich people don't need to improve their lives, and their necessity costs are negligible to their income, so they save or "invest."
 
Avatar 22024
 
Stay a while, and listen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41. Re: Saturday Tech Bits May 22, 2017, 12:12 HorrorScope
 
Orogogus wrote on May 21, 2017, 22:50:
HorrorScope wrote on May 21, 2017, 01:08:
But we haven't recovered mentally from 2008 and looks like we might not. We are in a save save save mentality, happy days of nicely flowing cash doesn't exist there.

The save save save mentality isn't something tied to a temporary uptick or downturn. Most people don't have pensions any more, and it's been hammered into people that Social Security isn't going to let you retire comfortably -- if you don't save up throughout your career then you'll die in a gutter. And you'll probably have a pre-existing health condition by then, so the way things are looking you'll be lucky to be able to afford insurance.

FWIW I was focusing on corporate saving/buying, they are hording causing issues for us.
 
Avatar 17232
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. Re: Saturday Tech Bits May 21, 2017, 23:07 Orogogus
 
Creston wrote on May 21, 2017, 15:36:
Beamer wrote on May 21, 2017, 11:00:
People in this very thread ranted against the $15 minimum, despite Cutter being right about how well it worked in Seattle.

I was opposed to it because it seemed like the wage increase would simply lead to corporations passing those costs on to their customers, thus leading to increased prices on pretty much all products, including things like food, etc, which would just hit those minimum wagers again the most.

The fact that that hasn't really seemed to have happened in Seattle is admittedly very surprising. I mean, what happened? Did corporations just eat the cost themselves???

Isn't this basically the same issue as the other discussion about visa labor? In both cases you're talking about increasing worker pay, and the concern is whether companies will pass on the costs to the point where products are unaffordable or noncompetitive (or whether the company will simply fold due to unprofitability).

Logically, it should depend mostly on how much of the company's costs come from labor relative to their net profit.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: Saturday Tech Bits May 21, 2017, 22:50 Orogogus
 
HorrorScope wrote on May 21, 2017, 01:08:
But we haven't recovered mentally from 2008 and looks like we might not. We are in a save save save mentality, happy days of nicely flowing cash doesn't exist there.

The save save save mentality isn't something tied to a temporary uptick or downturn. Most people don't have pensions any more, and it's been hammered into people that Social Security isn't going to let you retire comfortably -- if you don't save up throughout your career then you'll die in a gutter. And you'll probably have a pre-existing health condition by then, so the way things are looking you'll be lucky to be able to afford insurance.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. Re: Saturday Tech Bits May 21, 2017, 21:20 eRe4s3r
 
RedEye9 wrote on May 21, 2017, 10:13:
Those things are well thought out, I would add free higher education like what is available in Germany. And much improved health care like the rest of the civilized world.

Yeah, don't believe that. Please not. Our education is not "higher", if you go to Bavaria and learn there, sure, if you are lucky enough to even get allowed into higher education (And yes, Bavaria sorts children out at 9 for primary or secondary education paths) then you will find education quality unbeknowns to public schools outside Europe, but what we have in education we lose due to Agenda 2010.

If you go to school in Hessen you might as well learn how to fill out a welfare form btw.

What jdreyer wrote could work in Germany too, but higher education has nothing to do with our economic "success", no, that's down to immoral cheap labor, Agenda 2010 destroying the entire middle class (it was the reform that implemented essentially slave-labor, timed-workers or rent-workers that have no strike rights) and extremely employer friendly laws to get extremely cheap labor at minimum wage + tons of exceptions for which the minimum wage can be reduced even further (which is 10,27 afaik, in Germany that is barely minimum living standard, with that wage you can survive, but you can't live).

We have an extremely regressive tax system that pushes low income households in high tax brackets (due to inflation) and we have a net reduction of wages from 1990 to 2010 by -23% and no, we did not magically have no inflation, that is the reason Germany has one of the best export economies, we fuck our own workers over so hard that we can economically fuck everyone else twice over. I am not proud of that, but amazingly no political party exists that would fight this.

The sad thing is, currently the zeitgeist is focused on internal security (Amri, what happened new year 2015/16, refugees, and all that) and the party that is fighting for more "fairness" is the party that implemented Agenda 2010 (SPD) I don't even know who to vote for, nothing I'd vote would lead to any change.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. Re: Saturday Tech Bits May 21, 2017, 17:02 mag
 
ledhead1969 wrote on May 20, 2017, 13:27:
Brazor wrote on May 20, 2017, 12:39:
Part of the problem (especially out here in California) is that there isn't anyone to hire for those jobs. There hasn't been in a while. Some companies are forced to switch to robots before they lose too many of their current workers to old age, i.e retirement or death.
There are plenty of qualified people who can do those jobs. Both legal and illegal residents across all ethnicity's, handicapped or not. They are not applying for the jobs.

Huh?

They switch to robots because who in their right mind would pay some idiot $15 to flip burgers or move boxes.

And who in their right mind would flip burgers for 8 hrs/day to only make 1/3 the poverty rate?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. Re: Saturday Tech Bits May 21, 2017, 17:02 HorrorScope
 
Creston wrote on May 21, 2017, 15:36:
Beamer wrote on May 21, 2017, 11:00:
People in this very thread ranted against the $15 minimum, despite Cutter being right about how well it worked in Seattle.

I was opposed to it because it seemed like the wage increase would simply lead to corporations passing those costs on to their customers, thus leading to increased prices on pretty much all products, including things like food, etc, which would just hit those minimum wagers again the most.

The fact that that hasn't really seemed to have happened in Seattle is admittedly very surprising. I mean, what happened? Did corporations just eat the cost themselves???

That does happen to some extent. But when minimum can't afford to support that singular person, what is the point of it? Those wanting to sell fear, will oversell what you were thinking. However they think they deserve more no matter what they make well beyond minimum, their job is important, others not so much.
 
Avatar 17232
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
35. Re: Saturday Tech Bits May 21, 2017, 15:36 Creston
 
Beamer wrote on May 21, 2017, 11:00:
People in this very thread ranted against the $15 minimum, despite Cutter being right about how well it worked in Seattle.

I was opposed to it because it seemed like the wage increase would simply lead to corporations passing those costs on to their customers, thus leading to increased prices on pretty much all products, including things like food, etc, which would just hit those minimum wagers again the most.

The fact that that hasn't really seemed to have happened in Seattle is admittedly very surprising. I mean, what happened? Did corporations just eat the cost themselves???
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
34. Re: Saturday Tech Bits May 21, 2017, 13:12 HorrorScope
 
eRe4s3r wrote on May 21, 2017, 02:57:
We need a new social design, a new society setup, a new work and life program.

I think many see this especially the young. It will be combated by the rich and the airwaves they control, so it will take the young to grow old and still hold those same convictions, that is hard to do. Even though this is smart and logical, it will be denounced as Communism and re-distribution of wealth, fear. I do wonder if this shift makes a strong attempt in my life time. But it seems to get to that next stage we have to become more selfless and let the right choice lead.

This comment was edited on May 21, 2017, 17:00.
 
Avatar 17232
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33. Re: Saturday Tech Bits May 21, 2017, 11:00 Beamer
 
HorrorScope wrote on May 21, 2017, 01:08:
Cutter wrote on May 20, 2017, 21:36:
Seattle is a perfect example of why cheap labor conservatism is bullshit. When they upped the minimum wage to $15 2 years ago all those cheap fucks screamed how it'd kill off all those lower end jobs. What happened? 2 years later it's now $18 an hour and unemployment plummeted from 10% to 3% and the economy has never - and I mean never - been better. Economics 101: When people who live in a society of conspicuous consumption actually have money to spend they spend it and create more jobs. The only ones it impacts in a negative manner at all are those at the very top who have to take a tiny bit less, and they already have more than they need. Yet, even that comes out in the wash as their sales increase overall!

When NA was never economically stronger, cleaner, safer, etc. when it had strong government regulation, protectionism, and unions. Once Reagan/Thatcher/Mulroney ended that so began the long downward spiral. So don't let anyone ever tell you those things are bad because they're either outright lying or plain fucking stupid.

And what kills me is many of the 99%'ers are against it, they root against their own interest. I get why the 1% doesn't want to pay more. But we haven't recovered mentally from 2008 and looks like we might not. We are in a save save save mentality, happy days of nicely flowing cash doesn't exist there.

People in this very thread ranted against the $15 minimum, despite Cutter being right about how well it worked in Seattle.

Man, me agreeing with Cutter.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that, back in 1938, LittleMe would be defending corporations right to sell Filled Milk. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks it'd be ok today.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32. Re: Saturday Tech Bits May 21, 2017, 10:13 RedEye9
 
jdreyer wrote on May 20, 2017, 14:01:
Creston wrote on May 20, 2017, 12:36:
Cutter wrote on May 20, 2017, 12:02:
And as always when robots replace all these people who's going to have any money to buy anything? It's self-defeating. That was one of the major reasons for the downfall of Rome. There were so many slaves in the empire that citizens couldn't find work. And that started the whole downward spiral of bread and circuses.

So we're all going to be gladiators for the robots? :o

No, we're going to be batteries. Duh.

In any case, I do agree that it's so short-sighted the way every single corporation RUSHES to automation. Have fun not selling anything and watching all your robots just sitting there doing nothing.
Well, this is the result of largely unregulated capitalism. We have a concentration of wealth that we've not seen since the robber barons 120 years ago. Basically, only government can overcome this trend, as it's in each individual corporate interest to be as efficient as possible, and robots are cheaper and more efficient that people for most jobs. Right now, laws are 98% correlated to what companies want, and only 50% (random chance) to what people want.

At minimum we need:
- Complete ban on corporate lobbying
- Total public funding of all elections
- Double the capital gains tax to help fund Medicaid/Medicare for the increase in the roles that job loss will create
- Remove the $100K cap on the payroll tax funding Medicare.
- A 30 hour workweek, to spread remaining work among more people.
- Increase the minimum wage to $16 per hour
- Subsidize retraining programs

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there's a bunch more stuff that can help ameliorate this situation.
Those things are well thought out, I would add free higher education like what is available in Germany. And much improved health care like the rest of the civilized world.
 
Avatar 58135
 
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: Saturday Tech Bits May 21, 2017, 09:44 MrBone
 
KS wrote on May 20, 2017, 14:15:
jdreyer wrote on May 20, 2017, 14:01:
Creston wrote on May 20, 2017, 12:36:
Cutter wrote on May 20, 2017, 12:02:
And as always when robots replace all these people who's going to have any money to buy anything? It's self-defeating. That was one of the major reasons for the downfall of Rome. There were so many slaves in the empire that citizens couldn't find work. And that started the whole downward spiral of bread and circuses.

So we're all going to be gladiators for the robots? :o

No, we're going to be batteries. Duh.

In any case, I do agree that it's so short-sighted the way every single corporation RUSHES to automation. Have fun not selling anything and watching all your robots just sitting there doing nothing.
Well, this is the result of largely unregulated capitalism. We have a concentration of wealth that we've not seen since the robber barons 120 years ago. Basically, only government can overcome this trend, as it's in each individual corporate interest to be as efficient as possible, and robots are cheaper and more efficient that people for most jobs. Right now, laws are 98% correlated to what companies want, and only 50% (random chance) to what people want.

At minimum we need:
- Complete ban on corporate lobbying
- Total public funding of all elections
- Double the capital gains tax to help fund Medicaid/Medicare for the increase in the roles that job loss will create
- Remove the $100K cap on the payroll tax funding Medicare.
- A 30 hour workweek, to spread remaining work among more people.
- Increase the minimum wage to $16 per hour
- Subsidize retraining programs

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there's a bunch more stuff that can help ameliorate this situation.


"I hate capitalism!!!" he typed out onto his iPhone, and pressed SEND, where it went out on the Internet, which was turned from a university toy into a massive, high-speed, worldwide phenomenon by trillions of dollars of private investment, and his message was read by dozens around the world, on other phones, and computers, and tablets like Star Trek had, these driven by still more trillions of dollars of private investment, where, had it been up to a government official rubbing his chin and pondering the next step, we'd still have vacuum tube TVs, and only that because of previous, un-stepped-upon capitalism.

Haha. I love the trollism of this poster. Lay on the whip. The concept of capitalism is beyond jdreyer comprehension.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. Re: Saturday Tech Bits May 21, 2017, 02:57 eRe4s3r
 
KS wrote on May 20, 2017, 14:15:
jdreyer wrote on May 20, 2017, 14:01:
Creston wrote on May 20, 2017, 12:36:
Cutter wrote on May 20, 2017, 12:02:
And as always when robots replace all these people who's going to have any money to buy anything? It's self-defeating. That was one of the major reasons for the downfall of Rome. There were so many slaves in the empire that citizens couldn't find work. And that started the whole downward spiral of bread and circuses.

So we're all going to be gladiators for the robots? :o

No, we're going to be batteries. Duh.

In any case, I do agree that it's so short-sighted the way every single corporation RUSHES to automation. Have fun not selling anything and watching all your robots just sitting there doing nothing.
Well, this is the result of largely unregulated capitalism. We have a concentration of wealth that we've not seen since the robber barons 120 years ago. Basically, only government can overcome this trend, as it's in each individual corporate interest to be as efficient as possible, and robots are cheaper and more efficient that people for most jobs. Right now, laws are 98% correlated to what companies want, and only 50% (random chance) to what people want.

At minimum we need:
- Complete ban on corporate lobbying
- Total public funding of all elections
- Double the capital gains tax to help fund Medicaid/Medicare for the increase in the roles that job loss will create
- Remove the $100K cap on the payroll tax funding Medicare.
- A 30 hour workweek, to spread remaining work among more people.
- Increase the minimum wage to $16 per hour
- Subsidize retraining programs

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there's a bunch more stuff that can help ameliorate this situation.


"I hate capitalism!!!" he typed out onto his iPhone, and pressed SEND, where it went out on the Internet, which was turned from a university toy into a massive, high-speed, worldwide phenomenon by trillions of dollars of private investment, and his message was read by dozens around the world, on other phones, and computers, and tablets like Star Trek had, these driven by still more trillions of dollars of private investment, where, had it been up to a government official rubbing his chin and pondering the next step, we'd still have vacuum tube TVs, and only that because of previous, un-stepped-upon capitalism.

Fair enough, but in age of robots, capitalism can simply NOT work any longer, so why stick to it? We need a new social design, a new society setup, a new work and life program. Working 48 hour jobs is a waste of life, and energy, you should spend energy in things you WANT to do not generating capital for the 1%.

Best retort on this someone told me, if there had been basic guaranteed income in 1930, Hitler would have remained a painter and Stalin would have become a journalist. Yeah, we would not have the Autobahn and the internet, maybe no nuclear race either. But my point is, we live in a day and age where science is based on interests of companies or on governments funding things. These things will not cease to exist when we supplant capitalism with a more welfare based capitalism.

Every year without basic income in a time of fundamental economic shift, you are breeding the next catastrophe by design. Capitalism will fail just like it failed 2000 years ago. Only this time we are, hopefully, smarter and have more technological and philosophical abilities to counter it. But if we run headlong into it, we will no doubt fall just like Rome.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo