Upcoming Japanese hotel chain will be very light on staff, but quite heavy on robots.

General Forums Off-topic Chat
21

Ace.

The rich have more welfare than the poor,
look into corperate wellfare.

We pay giants to be giant,
this is the opposite of the new deal.

The anti trust laws have been, steadily erroded, and history
repeats itself if we do not learn from it.

I dont mind my job, I dont mind working.
I am, actually thinking outside my own greedy little
bubble.

I want everyone to have enough to live well.

want more then that?
earn it.

Not , I own half the country, and can impose my will
on your government.

capitilism is fine, with regulations.

otherwise its like a mafia.

taxes should get higher based on income, including capital gains.

22

Look, I can find agreement in ending corporate subsidies and closing all known loopholes if it means lowering the actual taxes. The whole system of regulation and taxation would ideally be as simple as possible (so many regulations are being passed these days that companies need to hire specialists to keep track of them, which in turn stunts growth in the private sector, which in turn stunts hiring, which in turn means less people getting out of poverty).

For companies to hire, they need more customers. They also need to have valid positions for people to fill (so hiring a ton of people as janitors tasked with overseeing a corner of one room is not going to help anything).

If you want companies to start paying their people more, perhaps give an incentive that rewards the companies if they do just that (like giving a tax break). In my view, a system of reward would, in general, be more effective than a system of coercion.

23

Oligarchy and of course poverty has existed in every form of governance. It even happened in ancient Egypt where the Pharaohs were also demigods.

The issue is with monetary economics itself. It is coercion in that it is the holding back of resources including necessities to the completion of a behavior. There is also the requirement of scarcity to consider. The unit currency itself needs to be rare in order to be centralized. This inadvertently translates to rare resources when considering the intrinsic complexity of the system, the over simplification that unit currency fosters and the physical ease of storing and thus hoarding resources with such a portable symbol. The reason that these characteristics of monetary economics have these outcomes is mainly in the first two mentioned as they relate to human predisposition to behavior. Scarcity promotes hoarding and coercion compounds the anxiety.

There is no sustainable patch to monetary economics. It is a system that tends to run down in the same manor no matter the political system. This has been happening for thousands of years. (ref) The Crisis Cycle. More than 90% of states have risen to oligarchy and fallen to revolt. Others have just collapsed and / or been taken over.

24

You are probably too young to remember, but the United States HAD a system that encouraged businesses to pay their people more, invest in training, and develop jobs. Back in those ‘good old days’ CEOs and managers judged themselves and each other not on their stock portfolio value, but by how many people they supervised. They did what they could to encourage people to stay with the firm, including such things as pensions, health care, vacations that increased in length depending on how long you were with the company, and so on.

The system was pretty simple, too: 90% marginal income tax rates on high income earners.

Now, I understand that this goes completely against your intuition and what you believe about human nature, but this is how it works: people are competitive, some more than others. Business owners and people who aspire to be managers tend to be more competitive than most. When the tax code made it difficult to pay someone over a million dollars per year, and rather pointless as an incentive because the individual would keep so little of it, competitive people simply found a new metric to compete by. That metric was number of employees supervised.

Back when the United States had a strong middle class, and an economy that was the envy of the world for both manufacturing and innovation (which we are losing now to Europe and Asia), the Captains of Industry were those who employed tens of thousands, not those who had a $100 million in stock options. Someone like Mitt Romney, who never supervised more than a few hundred clerks and stockbrokers, would have been laughed out of the room if he presented himself as a Master of the Universe back then.

25

There’s a certain advantages to innovation in general if the top earners are able to earn millions rather than say, having a near-absolute cap on what they can earn.

For one thing, the rich is a very good demographic to test-drive the absolute latest in technology on, new technologies are almost universally quite expensive and this allows the company that created it to make money off of the product while they work on reducing the price. The luxury goods market in general hires tens of thousands of people like it or not, which affects my hometown more than many other places because we make the largest share of the private jets that the demographic buys (and the demonization of that from those in power is part of the reason why our area was hit so hard in the last recession).

It’s the same with hotels that cater to the wealthy as well, they can be seen as reliable customers who always want the latest. Otherwise you have stunted technological development because it will almost always be unprofitable for the first 5 to 10 years.

Also, Blonder, the original form of monetary systems in the ancient world was coins made of metals like silver and gold. You can’t really say in this case that the scarcity was artificial because you really ‘did’ have a finite amount that can actually be obtained.

26

You picked the wrong example there, Ace. I happen to be a vet, and get my health care through the VA. In my personal experience, the VA is efficient and productive. It has some problems (fortunately not at the facility I use) but those are problems of chronic underfunding, not fraud, waste and abuse.

And why in particular should I keep in mind something that isn’t true? There are many more inefficient and wasteful organizations than the US Government as a whole.

Would I rather have charity or the government help me out? Well, let’s see… I walk on sidewalks provided by the government to the government provided library to check books out, whose production is encouraged by the government copyright office… I got government loans to go to school at a University that got major funding from the government, and after I finished school the government provided me a job for many years (that’s the veteran part I was talking about.) The kids in my neighborhood are kept off the streets and out of trouble by a government provided school system, and if by some chance they do try to get in trouble there is always the government provided police on call through a government provided 911 system. I’m also pretty sure the government has something to do with the fact that my tap water is safe to drink, and that there’s somewhere for the waste to go when I flush the toilet. I could go on, especially since, where I live, the government also generates my electricity, which meant that I wasn’t subjected to rolling blackouts a few years ago when private industry was playing games with electric rates.

Lets see what the leger looks like on the charity side…
…
…
Oh, yeah: when I was in the hospital last year, the chaplain gave me some writing paper and a pen so I wouldn’t go stir crazy, and the lady from the Red Cross gave me a paperback book of sudoku puzzles, a hair brush and a toothbrush and a backscratcher. No, wait, the Chaplain works for the government. So it’s just the sudoku puzzle book, the hair brush, toothbrush and backscratcher. You know, come to think about it, American Airlines once gave me a hairbrush and toothbrush, too, when they bumped me from a flight but didn’t bother to unload my luggage.

[by the way, the only place someone can ‘make a living’ collecting welfare, is in the fever dreams of Fox News commentators.]

27

You really seem to imply that charities are completely useless and all they do is give you disposable items that barely last a few days. Everything require a government solution, and the bigger the government is the better.

The fact is that some charitable organizations are far more than your average soup kitchen. Over here, we’ve seen initiatives that give free meals every night to thousands of people, low-cost healthcare at some area hospitals, places that people donate basic needs items to for distribution, a company that not only takes donated items and sell them at very low prices but also provide work for special needs residents, ect… I don’t know if it’s the same way in California though (it varies from state to state).

Also, in the vast majority of cases, the private companies that provide power do a pretty good job at keeping the lights on (no rolling blackouts here). There’s also been many cases with the public school system where they try to improve student performance by throwing more money at them (which doesn’t work at all). Even with areas like the police force, there are problem areas (like not having a clear enough screening process to ensure that the officer won’t do things like racial profiling).

You seem to imply that the government is the perfect entity to take care of everyone’s needs (on the backs of people deemed as too successful and making it big on their own). Yes, I do agree that the jobs they provide are good paying and provide good benefits, but an economy cannot be built on the public sector alone and we need to make sure that the system favors private enterprise without the fear of being choked out by big government policies.

28

Yeah, we had it all figured out in the 1980’s …

“Domo aregato, Mis-ter Roboto!” :mad:

29

Arguably, it was NAFTA that hurt the middle class the most since then (not decreasing taxes). When all of those tariffs came down it suddenly became very economical to outsource the manufacturing to cheap labor overseas.

The silver linings I can see right now is the fight for higher wages growing in those areas (manufacturing in China is now becoming a bit more expensive), and the widespread ‘Made in America’ movement (where people are discovering that products produced domestically are simply of better quality).

30

Well, you seemed to be asking about my personal preferences ("Would you rather have charity help you or the government? ") so that’s how I responded. I am not implying any of the things you seem to think I am, especially not in such black and white terms.

While I know there are some charities, like the free medical clinics that show up from time to time and do great work, I also know that they serve thousands of people on an intermitant basis, while the Affordable Care Act, a government production, has gotten MILLIONS of people access to health care they did not have before the law was passed. It is simply not the case that private charity can substitute for a government charged with providing for the common welfare.

There are public needs that can only be served by government, because a ‘fee-for-service’ model fails in the real world. Firefighting is an example that immediately comes to mind, especially since private fee-for-service fire companies were actually tried at one point in our history, and failed miserably. Health care is another one, as is education, likewise national defense, and protection of the environment, food and drug safety, workplace safety, and even public utilities, which, when they are provided by a government, are generally better quality and less expensive than when provided by a for-profit entity. I’d also include most infrastructure, which those “I did it all myself” too successful people who made it big ‘on their own’ rely on so heavily.

Does this mean I think EVERYTHING is best provided by government? No, of course it does not. As you stated, an economy cannot be built on the public sector alone, but by the same token, neither can it be built on strictly private sector efforts. And never has been. Capitalism requires strict and fair regulations in order to work properly, or we are back in the era of robber barons and sawdust in the oatmeal. Since industries have proven to be incapable of effectively regulating themselves, a government regulator is also required for that job.

31

There is no such thing as a ‘free’ service provided by the government, the money has to come from somewhere.

Regarding the Affordable Care Act, I’ve read stories of people who have had mixed experiences with it, some good and some bad. Why would one not think it has issues when the size of the bill was one thousand pages and when the government passed it without reading most of it (the whole “let’s pass it so we can see what’s in it” controversy).

32

Actually money comes from, nowhere, and represents goods services.

when a robot can do a service infinitly, there goes half the value of money,
when you can 3d print from recycling, there goes the other half,

Money represents ideas best left in the past.

instead we should focus on sustainable practices that further humanity.

Imagine if everything was open source, and people voted on the best version, if yours was selected you were rewarded with something extra. Competition does not have to be for monetary reasons. If you have all you need, and are happy, and can print anything you want,
and robots grow your food, what is left?

I think we are all equal, and should be treated that way.

33

Good luck eliminating the monetary system in favor of expecting people to give away all of their goods or services for free. A common reason why the vast majority of people even do anything productive is that they know they will likely get something in return, or otherwise much of humanity will devolve into overweight sedentary blobs.

Even before civilization had money you had bartering, which was essentially giving something to someone in exchange for something else (which is still considered a valid form of payment in various cases today).

And it used to be that money did come from somewhere, the US Dollar was once pegged to the value of gold, which in turn obtained its value from its rarity, the issue that the government saw though is that it placed an absolute limit on how much money could be minted (it was tied to the world’s gold supply).

34

You don’t understand, the culture of now dictates now.

People understand the culture they are raised in.

You don’t see a society beyond greed and poverty.

35

The culture of getting something in return for something else has been around since the beginning of civilization. I am fully aware that you are willing to give all of your knowledge and everything you work on for free, but not everyone thinks the same way (nor should they be expected to).

In a way, your methodology of giving everything you produce for free is perhaps preventing you from climbing higher in the economic ladder in the first place, instead relying on the hope of a worldwide revolution that overthrows every major tenet of economics that has existed since the days of ancient Mesopotamia. The sad part is that is will likely mean consigning yourself to a low standard of living for life because it’s more likely than not that the thing you wait for will not come (not in this lifetime anyway).

Instead of waiting for society to throw you a bone, work on ways to produce something that you ‘can’ sell as a product or service and climb upwards on your own power (or with a friend who might want to help you along). You are a person who is capable of making that happen, you can either produce your own product or service or find a way to convince the boss at your workplace that you are worthy of a higher promotion level.

36

There are no free lunches. Free software means liberated software. Gift economics has to do with the contributions made by the individuals. They are essentially giving their natural gifts or abilities to strengthen the collective.

No one gives anything away for free. That is a misnomer of those who don’t know what they are talking about. This system had a beginning and will have an end. All emergences including monetary economics and humans themselves will become mature and as a consequence replaced. That is just how it is.

David Bohm advocated Naturalizing Economics back in 1990 and crowd technologies have been growing in accelerated rates since FOSS emerged. Luck has nothing to do with it. This propagates as a response to environmental pressures. There is no end in sight. Currency is being replaced by numbers. All of the known issues with naturalizing the economic system have solutions. There is no need for a hard transition either. Crowd technologies work well along side the current system.

Every Oligarchy in history has fallen to revolt. This revolt is a non-violent and sustainable one.

37

In a way, your methodology of giving everything you produce for free is perhaps preventing you from climbing higher in the economic ladder in the first place, instead relying on the hope of a worldwide revolution that overthrows every major tenet of economics that has existed since the days of ancient Mesopotamia. The sad part is that is will likely mean consigning yourself to a low standard of living for life because it’s more likely than not that the thing you wait for will not come (not in this lifetime anyway).

I have everything I could want, and am buying a new GPU in the next week,
I am a nurse, and I also make side money coding, (in the bge :D)

I work overtime, I spend my money on my family, and we live a good life.
we eat good food. However I would never deny people good food and education.

The truth is our current model, does not favor innovation, if favors the monopoly spoon feeding innovation using version-ing,
(examples Gas engine - IPhone) etc

We need something that rewards good health, rewards education and contribution.

Money is the gamification of life, and people want the high score.
The same system could drive innovation using some slight manipulations.

Saved the people of earth resources?
You get Kudos, and more research resources.

We live in boxes designed to be replaced, and drive cars designed to be replaced,
using tech designed to be replaced… and none of it is designed to be modular, fixable, recyclable,
or readily converted to a different use.

We waste all over the system.

Roman concrete can make much more durable structures then portland cement.

Rammed earth + Roman concrete = very durable, very insulating, and eco friendly.

Power can be generated locally,
Electric cars should be modular, and all use power systems designed to be hot swapped
at the gas station.

38

Ironically, you mentioned the iPhone (which is less than 10 years old as oppose to the 100+ years for the gas engine). If Apple just wanted to iterate instead, they would’ve added a thing or two to a flip-phone and call it new (though they have gone more to iteration since the death of Steve Jobs).

There’s also commercially produced OLED displays for TV’s (that can bend as well), smart watches, home automation systems, LED bulbs, and smart appliances. In development is stuff like driverless cars, the internet of things, latency-free virtual reality helmets, tablets with haptic, tracking, and 3D mapping technology ect… How many of those would you consider to be a mere iteration?

39

The iphone stays behind for the sake of stability and doesn’t really innovate anything. Apple buys innovation, so does Google. All of the products you listed contain technologies that have been around for a while. It takes time for them to become consumer goods because corporate models aren’t very accommodating to the risk associated with R&D and then marketing a new product. They just wait until someone proofs it.

40

By that logic, almost everything you see in the science-fiction genre even is an iteration of a currently existing technology (even the exotic ones like replicators, noting that thing called a 3D printer).

The difference is that they are more of a really large iteration, in that case, iteration of various sizes are commonplace these days because it’s exceedingly hard for humans to even think of something that would actually be exotic enough to be considered a ‘true’ original.

Don’t blame the system, blame the extremely loose definition of what defines an ‘iteration’ vs. an original product. Even 3D software like Blender then is just a digitization of the old creative hobbies that use things like wood and clay. Can you actually think of something that would actually escape that definition into something genuinely new, probably not.