On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 23:16:37 -0500, Ignoramus23724
wrote:
On 2013-09-12, F George McDuffee wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 20:42:08 -0500, Ignoramus29430
wrote:
On 2013-09-10, F George McDuffee wrote:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:59:21 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:
"Nearly two-thirds of all the new jobs created since 2009 pay less than $13.80 an hour."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEj-S...ature=youtu.be
=================
FYI
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...orest/2793343/
snip
The top 1% of earners in the U.S. pulled in 19.3% of total
household income in 2012, which is their biggest slice of
total income in more than 100 years, according to a an
analysis by economists at the University of California,
Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics at Oxford
University.
The richest Americans haven't claimed this large of a slice
of total wealth since 1927, when the group claimed 18.7%.
The analysis is based on data from Internal Revenue Service
data.
snip
In a separate analysis, Saez found the top 1% of earnings
posted 86% real income growth between 1993 and 2000.
Meanwhile, the real income growth of the bottom 99% of
earnings rose 6.6%.
snip
The divide is widening. The key is to be on the right side of this
divide.
i
==================
A nobel sentiment (pun intended) indeed :-(, and one frequently
expressed by the prior residents of both Versailles and the Winter
Palace, before the deluge.
It is correctly observed that desperate solutions frequently result
in desperate remedies, and if one is averse to desperate remedies,
then one best avoid or prevent desperate situations.
I think about similar questions every other day. As I said many times,
I am worried and disturbed about a possibility that a large, and
constantly increasing, majority of people would not be needed in an
automated economy.
For example, I can easily visualize how a typical McDonalds restaurant
could be run by 1 person, the rest automated. It would also serve
customers better and avoid messed up orders. A robot could handle
deliveries.
Ayup, that's a very plausible scenario and outcome.
I prefer the clones, though, for two reasons. The first is that when
they screw up, they usually give the screwup item to the orderer,
costing the evil corporation another 50 cents. (I buy only ice cream
cones there. The rest is worthless crap, so I don't benefit from the
screwups.) I should be an ice cream machine repairman in this town,
though. There are 3 McDs here and at least one of them has a broken
machine every single week, bar none. I'll bet the (otherwise) idiot
tech is a millionaire by now.
Second, the pretty gal who served me the fine ice cream cone today was
also complimented by her boss, who said that the cone was beautifully
made. It was a large cone and was very uniform in its structure, so
he was right.
I do not have a global solution and, meanwhile, I will just try to
stay on the right side of the divide.
As for how such situations can resolve themselves, I see three
possibilities:
1) That I am wrong and that displaced people will continue finding
employment.
2) A violent resolution of this, resulting in mass damage and
realignment
3) A non-violent resolution, with the majority of people living on
handouts, studying liberal arts or doing make-work stuff.
Number 3 is what I personally anticipate, but I recognize the
uncertainty that is inherent in these predictions. In any case,
everyone needs to make predictions in order to plan our actions.
#3 is the bulk of the Democrat's Platform, isn't it? That is what our
fine nation is turning into.
--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen