The AI automation crisis is mainly hype. The type of AI needed to really put humans out of work will be 10 years away for the foreseeable future.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedica...promised-and-underdelivered-on-ai-health-care

 

Well, that seems like a good pastime for someone who has no place in the real world. If you could spend your whole life in a world unplagued by misfortune and disappointment, you might not care that your body exists only in a small, unfurnished room. You might not care that when you die you leave no legacy, if the story you create in the cloud is compelling enough. I think if a VR world as real as The Matrix were created tomorrow, we would see people lined up around city blocks to voluntarily spend the rest of their lives in it.

Kinda like drugs sans the 'crash'?

Best regards
HP

 

Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it's jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.

[Reply to the government bureaucrat of one Asian country who told him that, reason why there were workers with shovels instead of modern tractors and earth movers at a worksite of a new canal, was that: "You don't understand. This is a jobs program."]

 

The AI automation crisis is mainly hype. The type of AI needed to really put humans out of work will be 10 years away for the foreseeable future.

Just as we only have (fill in the blank with a random number) more years before the AGW cataclysm occurs.

 

Just as we only have (fill in the blank with a random number) more years before the AGW cataclysm occurs.

With AGW the fundamental science provides for valid but likely unrealistic predictions of a future cataclysm using models. With AI there is almost no scientific evidence we will be able to accurately mimic or recreate human levels of brain functions other than as primitive Clutch Cargo (the mouth moves but there is nothing inside) imitations of the real thing.

 

Some of you are Star Trek guys and don't know the answer to this?

 

How do you implement a “living wage” in a society where everyone is taught they have a right to cheap consumer goods?

I go to work and expect to get paid what I am worth, but when I spend my money, I want to pay the lowest possible price for your labor.

How do you even begin to teach this concept to a population that has a large mental disconnect between their buying habits and the job market?

And of course this is where somebody will say…well if I had more expendable income I wouldn’t be so cheap, but history shows us that the trend towards consuming cheap goods was well underway during a time where people had more than enough expendable income. So the chicken and egg theory is a bust.

But, but, but... This model is more complex. A living wage is defined in part by the availability of cheaper goods. If those goods were not available, then what is considered a living wage would be higher as well.
So how does the availability of a living wage, that does not require lower goods, drive consumption of higher priced goods?
And how does the economics then change? Does more income drive the economy, thus improving the quality of life overall? I believe that there is more evidence of this working than there is for trickle down economics.

 

Does more income drive the economy, thus improving the quality of life overall?

The Law of Causality is as inviolable as the Laws of Thermodynamics. You can wish as hard as you want that unearned "income" can drive an economy, but value must be produced before it can be spent or "redistributed".

Free men to produce (to create value) -- and to engage in unfettered trade -- and the quality of life for everyone will be improved.

Now is a good time to repost a link to Francisco's Money Speech with credit to Ayn Rand.

 

The Law of Causality is as inviolable as the Laws of Thermodynamics. You can wish as hard as you want that unearned "income" can drive an economy, but value must be produced before it can be spent or "redistributed".

Free men to produce (to create value) -- and to engage in unfettered trade -- and the quality of life for everyone will be improved.

Now is a good time to repost a link to Francisco's Money Speech with credit to Ayn Rand.

What?

Where in my post did I mention unearned income?

 

What?

Where in my post did I mention unearned income?

Does more income drive the economy, thus improving the quality of life overall? I believe that there is more evidence of this working than there is for trickle down economics.

I interpreted your question and your statement of evidence as favorable to the concept of a "living wage", i.e. wages paid but not earned.

Is my interpretation incorrect?

 

djsfantasi, I hear what you are saying, but I think the difference is you are speaking of things as they are now, and my point was how we got here.

Of course everyone benefits from higher wages, that’s a no brainer, but my point is people started consuming cheap goods “before” there was any good reason to do so, and that very action has led to where we are today.

Now I know half of the people will want to blame big evil business, and the other half want to blame big evil government, and very few will go look in the mirror. But in a 70% consumption economy the economy goes where the consumer takes it. And of course the merchant class has a lot of the blame to share.

 

Now I know half of the people will want to blame big evil business, and the other half want to blame big evil government...

What about the other half? People like me that believe the world is a far better place because of the existence of cheaper products?

I like Walmart. I like that I can buy products with pocket change that my parents would have had to think twice about buying.

I also like that I can buy more things with less money. This means I don't have to work so hard to have the things I want to have.

And you consider this Evil?

 

I interpreted your question and your statement of evidence as favorable to the concept of a "living wage", i.e. wages paid but not earned.

Is my interpretation incorrect?

I think you have misinterpreted my comment. I don’t believe that a “living wage” necessarily implies wages paid but not earned. It’s a convenient definition for some people. But that is not my definition. First, all wages are earned. Otherwise, it’s called welfare. Wages are a cost of doing business and should not be related to profit.

Look at it this way. You are selling a good. The price of that good is dependent on various economic factors. Good old capitalism.

The wage earner is also producing a good. The value add for his work. That’s his price.

However, businesses discount that cost so as to maximize their profits. To me, a “lving wage” is what people should be paid for their work. Not a minimum wage. Not a welfare payment

 

To me, a “lving wage” is what people should be paid for their work.

Without regard to the value provided to their employer?

I employ people. I will not hire someone who does not perform work commensurate with what he is worth to me. Likewise, if a potential employee feels his worth is more than I am willing to pay, he is welcome to take his skills and efforts elsewhere.

But if you (or your mob) insist that I pay a floor sweeper $15/hour, I will sweep my own floors. And that teenager -- who could have acquired some valuable work experience -- will now remain jobless. Thanks to you (and your mob).

 

No Joey, I don’t consider you “evil” just a little short sighted, and perhaps a little selfish, but no different than the general population, that perhaps don’t understand the consequences of their choices.

Personally I would rather pay more for a product, and help some American put their kids through college, rather that have more “stuff”.

 

Personally I would rather pay more for a product...

This is (still, somewhat) a free country. Go for it!

 

This is (still, somewhat) a free country. Go for it!

Corporate will always be on the side of investors, labor will never be passed the up charge, take a look at Apple.

kv

 

​

 

No need to insinuate that I’m part of a mob. I’m not. Please don’t put words into my mouth.

I agree that you should pay someone commensurate with what he is worth to you. What I question is how that worth is determined.

I don’t believe that value should be dictated. However I do believe many underestimate that value. And maybe you don’t, but there are plenty more that do.

Maybe that floor sweeper needs to have two jobs during the week and pick up other work at three or more places, to earn more.

So what do you do to prevent being told how you should value an employee? I don’t know but also believe that something has to give.

And the first step in protecting your right, is to start thinking on a cultural level in addition to what your MBA taught you.

 

No need to insinuate that I’m part of a mob. I’m not. Please don’t put words into my mouth.

I agree that you should pay someone commensurate with what he is worth to you. What I question is how that worth is determined.

I don’t believe that value should be dictated. However I do believe many underestimate that value. And maybe you don’t, but there are plenty more that do.

Maybe that floor sweeper needs to have two jobs during the week and pick up other work at three or more places, to earn more.

So what do you do to prevent being told how you should value an employee? I don’t know but also believe that something has to give.

And the first step in protecting your right, is to start thinking on a cultural level in addition to what your MBA taught you.

Why do you require some mystical third party to tell you what your -- or someone else's -- value is?

I can make an offer, and it can be freely accepted or rejected by a job candidate. If we come to an agreement, the value of the work -- and therefore of the candidate's skills and labor -- will have been discovered.