07-15-2014 12:26 PM
1,900 ... 5253545556 ...
tools
  1. Aquila's Avatar
    It's not really an important plot point, but I don't want to spoil it for you either if you're still wanting to watch it. Let's just say the human Utopia isn't all it's cracked up to be.
    It never is Utopia is a silly concept but "better" isn't.
    02-18-2014 08:56 AM
  2. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Essentially that most of the meaningless manual - repetitive processes and most low end things that we think we need human interaction for could be 95% or 100% replaced by automation with no adverse impact to the outcome. Things like: flipping burgers, stocking shelves, loading and unloading trucks, building homes, building roads, driving cabs, mending clothes, making clothes, etc, etc, enter huge list of things here. Then, most of the things that we do simply for the sake of perpetuating the existing system, such as tax preparation, the stock markets, making a new commercial for Nike, the entire direct to consumer pharmaceutical marketing wing... I'm sure we can all think of more. I by no means think humans are fully replaceable in the workforce, but in the future I believe that humans will be able to augment the workforce by providing the primary thing that machines cannot (at least not yet) - creative thought and strategy.

    If we reshaped our economic and political structures to actually exceed the basic needs for all humans (something we have the resources, but not the pressure to do) and 75% of jobs became meaningless - would you still want those 75% of people to go get a meaningless job? Or could we find something more useful, fulfilling and productive for them to do? If food, shelter and other basic needs are easily met without any requirement of wasting 40 or 60 or 80 hours per week on something that can be automated, what's the argument for not doing that? We obviously need to rethink our societal interdependence and it's interplay with money, especially a bank owned debt driven society to have a chance of meeting the demands of the future.
    I guess I am still confused at how you would take that massive number of people and put them into different jobs and still manage to take care of all their basic needs, not to mention all the niceties that they might like to have (like an Android phone, or a TV). First you would have to spend effort assessing everyone's skills. Not everyone flipping a burger can become a rocket scientist. In many cases, they are flipping a burger or driving a truck, for a reason. The additional and bigger problem is how to do this on a global basis across country borders. Because making such a massive change will not work in just one country. Everything is too interdependent and cross linked now. Our finances are intertwined. You would have to tread very lightly. Upset the apple cart too much and you will surely lead things to a war of some type. One of the biggest causes of unrest in the world is a lack of jobs. Then there is the geo=political problems. The oil companies and oil rich countries are not exactly going to go quietly into the night. People don't react warmly to their power being stripped away.
    02-18-2014 01:38 PM
  3. Aquila's Avatar
    Everything is too interdependent and cross linked now. Our finances are intertwined.
    That's pretty much the mechanism to manipulate. The way we think about "economy" has to change, and it definitely will change... it's just a matter of whether it will go quickly in a favorable direction or if we'll drag it out as painfully as possible for as long as possible, intentionally snagging all of the landmines on the way there.

    The burger flipper would probably not become a rocket scientists, they'd probably become someone who draws bad pictures for mostly no reason at all or perhaps they'd become a student and learn something they could apply themselves at. The point is, we don't NEED them to flip burgers, they need us to let them flip burgers so they can pay rent. Eliminate the unnecessary parts of the equation and what we're really doing is creating a manual job for no other reason than so that a person can afford a sucky place to live. We could easily eliminate the middle man and just "give" them a sucky place to live and let them attempt to apply themselves at something useful if they'd like a place that sucks less. Also, sucky is relative because currently that efficiency apartment is a palace in some places and it's a closet in others. With technology that sucky place could easily be a 2-3 bedroom single family home and those could be everywhere for far cheaper than the efficiency apartment's rent costs the person in a year or two.

    If the only reason we're working is to pay bills, etc, then the endeavor is pointless and there is a strong possibility that whatever task is being "worked" at is either completely unnecessary or could easily be automated. I have no problems with a population that "works" 10-15 hours per week (on average), as long as everyone's needs are being met and no one is being stolen from in order to facilitate it. People used to work around 100 hours per week when they had to take care of all of their basic needs, now the only reason most jobs are 40 hours long (if that) is because that's how many hours it takes to justify the salary. I know I'm not articulating this well, it's really premised on the rate of technological efficiency despite opposition relative to the actual needs of society, rather than the habits of society.

    In the original scenario, 150 years from now when 90% of the tasks we do today are automated or mostly automated, what exactly do you think the shoe sewer, street cleaner or burger flipper will be doing?

    *given is the wrong word, because it's too broken a concept and meant in terms of given access to, similar to the way that people are now given access to grocery stores, but not gifted the food. The abundance and accessibility are what will increase, so if we get to a place where a house costs $5,000-10,000 to manufacture, obviously rent wouldn't be $500-$1000 for an efficiency (or whatever current local rates are). In the civil war, how much would it have cost for someone in Iowa to have apples, donuts and orange juice for breakfast, pasta with fresh cheese and tomatoes for lunch and lobster for dinner during February? I know today the total cost was around $12. The buying power of $12 (2014) would not have delivered that to Abraham Lincoln, let alone someone stuck under 15 inches of snow in Iowa. Scale that forward 150 more years and accelerate it by at least 100%, that's what I'm failing at describing.
    nolittdroid likes this.
    02-18-2014 02:09 PM
  4. toober's Avatar
    While I understand what you are wanting, isn't there always going to be a need for someone to do some work? While we can have machines to do the tasks, we still need people to build and maintain those machines. How do we decide who gets to follow their dreams to be an artist, and who gets to go to the factory and build burger flipping machines?
    nolittdroid likes this.
    02-18-2014 07:04 PM
  5. nolittdroid's Avatar
    Wow. Classism at it's finest (worst). It's you who misunderstands how money works. How is money "wasted"? Spending it in the marketplace to all the stores, restaurants, and other businesses is what keeps things going and keeps other people employed at those locations. Your idea of what works doesn't, because it is not in balance. Right now most of the money is flowing into too few hands and THAT is what stifles the advancement, innovation and economy. Most of our economy is service and retail oriented. If all those little people who you think don't manage money well, don't have money to spend, how do you think the economy stays afloat? If people can't pay their bills, cannot afford to eat, cannot afford to buy things, how does our economy stay afloat?
    The same illegals who are working amd paying taxes...they have a specially issued illegal immigrant id so they don't have to pay sales tax. Coming soon to a border near you!

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    02-18-2014 07:23 PM
  6. Aquila's Avatar
    While I understand what you are wanting, isn't there always going to be a need for someone to do some work? While we can have machines to do the tasks, we still need people to build and maintain those machines. How do we decide who gets to follow their dreams to be an artist, and who gets to go to the factory and build burger flipping machines?
    Yes, there is.... just either less of it or just different tasks. I'm not opposed to humans working at all, I'm opposed to pointless labor for the sole purpose of doing labor.
    02-18-2014 07:48 PM
  7. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Yes, there is.... just either less of it or just different tasks. I'm not opposed to humans working at all, I'm opposed to pointless labor for the sole purpose of doing labor.
    Well start advocating for raising that minimum wages. The higher they go and the quicker they get there, the quicker those jobs will new replaced by machines. And then maybe we can be like the Matrix, where the machines are self sustaining and do literally everything (minus turning humans into the new copper top, of course).
    02-18-2014 08:00 PM
  8. GadgetGator's Avatar
    In the original scenario, 150 years from now when 90% of the tasks we do today are automated or mostly automated, what exactly do you think the shoe sewer, street cleaner or burger flipper will be doing?
    Rioting in the streets, looking for food like the rest of the people on the planet. Because what you propose, while nice in theory, will not come easy or without bloodshed. What you are proposing changes THOUSANDS of years of human history economics and is a MONUMENTAL change to society that makes the change of Obamacare look like a pinhead floating in the Pacific Ocean in comparison. Additionally, as I stated there are some very powerful people who won't like that change and will take measures to hold onto their power in whatever way necessary.

    There's a reason that there is starting to be unrest the world over. Most of it relates to economics and jobs. That will only escalate as time marches on. While I think your idea is obtainable someday, it may take centuries to get there and in between that time it will get very very ugly. I'm glad I lived in the age I did. I don't think I would want to be born 50 or 100 years from now. It won't be pretty. Also there is the factor of machines making everything.....it's so cold. I like being able to go somewhere and see the same smiling faces serve their customers. Replacing that with an automated robot would take all the warmth, feeling, and social aspect right out of the picture. Why would I want everywhere to be like going up to an ATM? How impersonal. Bleh
    02-19-2014 02:22 PM
  9. pappy53's Avatar
    This man is a complete i***t who is himself telling lies on the Senate floor. Why would these thousands of American citizens see the need to lie?

    02-27-2014 10:16 PM
  10. Aquila's Avatar
    If you reference the few examples he stated, what he's saying is true: the ads (mentioned) are all false or grossly misleading. I didn't hear anything about thousands of Americans, but rather a misinformation campaign propagated by the Koch brothers. Why do you feel that he's going after thousands of people, and not the two that he mentioned by name? I'm understanding that he's saying that those two people are lying and here are 3-4 examples, which he's absolutely correct about. Those ads have been torn apart by fact checkers almost immediately upon their release. I don't think he's insinuating that no one is adversely impacted, but rather that these specific claims made by the two liars he named are in fact false, with the implication being that politicians and the media should stop citing those examples as if they haven't already been proven false.
    02-27-2014 10:29 PM
  11. toober's Avatar
    These people really need to get a clue. While I didn't lose coverage, I did lose my plan. The plan I was under had a 40% increase in rates because of the ACA. I was already paying over $500 a month and could not afford the increase. My plan was not lost because it didn't cover enough, it was lost because it was too good. One thing they don't tell the people is that you can't buy coverage that's better than what they offer on the exchange. So now I am forced not only to pay for less than I feel I need, but through my tax dollars, pay for those that can't or won't pay for their own.
    02-27-2014 10:44 PM
  12. Aquila's Avatar
    These people really need to get a clue. While I didn't lose coverage, I did lose my plan. The plan I was under had a 40% increase in rates because of the ACA. I was already paying over $500 a month and could not afford the increase. My plan was not lost because it didn't cover enough, it was lost because it was too good. One thing they don't tell the people is that you can't buy coverage that's better than what they offer on the exchange. So now I am forced not only to pay for less than I feel I need, but through my tax dollars, pay for those that can't or won't pay for their own.
    That is definitely a new scenario to me. I thought that they were setting minimum standards, not upper and lower caps. That's kinda crazy.
    02-28-2014 12:26 AM
  13. palandri's Avatar
    I am glad Harry didn't use the term liar and I'll tell you why.

    Keep in mind, I am a left wing democrat and i am trying to look at the term objectively. Maybe I am 100% wrong.

    Using the term liar makes it personal, rather than attacking the policy. I've heard so many Republicans use the term liar, that when I hear them use it now, I think of two drunk people in a bar saying, "You're a liar", "No, you're a liar". "I'm not a liar, you're a liar".
    02-28-2014 12:46 AM
  14. Mooncatt's Avatar
    How it is presented and how it is 2 very different things. It is the parents can choose to keep their kids on their insurance until 26. No more crazy patch work of policies but a set one for base line point. No other crazy requirements. One reason why it would appear to be presented that way is most parents want to help their kids.
    While the actual case isn't Obamacare related, there is one aspect from it regarding keeping kids on parent's insurance that may be used to set a precedence. From http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/05...cked-out-home/

    Morris County Court Judge Peter Bogaard also ruled that Rachels parents must keep her on their health insurance policy and keep status quo on all college savings accounts set up for her.
    Depending on how the case is tried and overall outcome, I could see a trial lawyer using this part of the ruling to claim precedence on forcing more parents to keep adult offspring on the parent's insurance if they aren't able/willing to buy it on their own. Something worth keeping an eye on anyway.
    03-05-2014 10:58 AM
  15. Timelessblur's Avatar
    While the actual case isn't Obamacare related, there is one aspect from it regarding keeping kids on parent's insurance that may be used to set a precedence. From Judge rejects financial support requests by New Jersey teen suing parents | Fox News


    Depending on how the case is tried and overall outcome, I could see a trial lawyer using this part of the ruling to claim precedence on forcing more parents to keep adult offspring on the parent's insurance if they aren't able/willing to buy it on their own. Something worth keeping an eye on anyway.
    This case has relatively little to do with ACA. It could easily have much farther reaching results and little to do with health care.

    That being said I do believe if you are claiming a child as a dependent it changes the rules on what you should be required to provide them. Mostly because when you are claimed as a dependent it really changes what tax advantages and deductions you get big time.
    03-05-2014 01:05 PM
  16. pappy53's Avatar
    This girl left home voluntarily, and has no right to collect anything from her parents. They don't owe her squat.
    03-05-2014 01:29 PM
  17. Mooncatt's Avatar
    This case has relatively little to do with ACA. It could easily have much farther reaching results and little to do with health care.

    That being said I do believe if you are claiming a child as a dependent it changes the rules on what you should be required to provide them. Mostly because when you are claimed as a dependent it really changes what tax advantages and deductions you get big time.
    I know this case isn't to do with ACA, but the judge did rule that her parents are ordered (by force, not choice) to maintain her on their insurance. Being claimed as a depended tax wise has nothing to do with it that I've seen. That's why this specific part of the ruling has me interested, and you need to ask yourself where the line is. On one end is the age 26 option, we now have the other end being a direct court order. At this point it becomes legal wrangling to decided when is it just an option and when is it mandatory that a parent provide insurance for an adult, non-dependent "kid."
    03-05-2014 02:45 PM
  18. pappy53's Avatar
    This is interesting (and true, IMO):
    Attached Thumbnails Should Obama be impeached?-obamacare.jpg  
    03-06-2014 12:48 AM
  19. A895's Avatar
    This is interesting (and true, IMO):
    If this is true, where is my free healthcare?

    Sent from my XT1060 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    03-06-2014 01:26 AM
  20. pappy53's Avatar
    If this is true, where is my free healthcare?

    Sent from my XT1060 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    Take a pay cut, or quit your job. That seems to work.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
    03-06-2014 05:52 AM
  21. A895's Avatar
    Take a pay cut, or quit your job. That seems to work.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
    Jobless college student. >_<

    Sent from my XT1060 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    03-06-2014 06:11 AM
  22. pappy53's Avatar
    Jobless college student. >_<

    Sent from my XT1060 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    On your parents' policy?

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    03-06-2014 06:13 AM
  23. A895's Avatar
    On your parents' policy?

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    Can't even do that. >_<

    Sent from my XT1060 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    03-06-2014 06:36 AM
  24. palandri's Avatar
    Jobless college student. >_<

    Sent from my XT1060 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    Sad, but true. Healthcare use to be included in tuition cost at many universities, but they got away from that years ago.
    03-06-2014 06:47 AM
  25. pappy53's Avatar
    Can't even do that. >_<

    Sent from my XT1060 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    Wouldn't the subsidies be enough for you to not have to pay?

    Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
    03-06-2014 06:49 AM
1,900 ... 5253545556 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Should there be another category for Games?
    By Basis in forum Android Games
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2010, 09:22 PM
  2. Should I be upset about this dirt under my screen.
    By rem_kujawa in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 07-06-2010, 08:12 PM
  3. Should I be disappointed? Screen color availability!
    By TREOpalooza in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-31-2010, 01:56 PM
  4. Should GMail be telling me how many new?
    By dgalanter in forum Verizon Droid Incredible
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-09-2010, 04:46 PM
  5. Should I be worried about the LED?
    By solideliquid in forum Motorola Droid
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-28-2010, 09:30 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD