Obama funding plan for health insurance losses is a bailout

Jul 22, 2014 1:26:02 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I am really not quite sure why you would consider the water bill a "new" cost to most people.

In any case, my point is this:  Individual responsibility requires that each individual should have acquired sufficient education and/or technical expertise to be able to command a wage adequate to supply his (or her ) basic needs.

The roll-over of the debt is identical to paying with a credit card that creates a new monthly expenditure above the normal expenditures.

Regardless of "education and/or technical expertise" at least 20% of all jobs do not pay enough to live on. If every person in the US had a PhD from Harvard at least 20% of them would still be working for wages they couldn't live on. What part of that is being missed? Someone is going to always be flipping burgers regardless of their education and or technical expertise. In fact the US has the highest educated taxi drivers in the world working in New York City where a significant percentage are college graduates (I forgot the actual percentage but it's around 25% as I recall).

Jul 22, 2014 17:22:39 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I do not see how our national debt is "identical" to short-term credit-card debt. (I pay mine off in full each month, by automatic debit; so there is never any interest payment.  Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars the US pays every year in interest alone on the national debt?) 

Those with "PhD from Harvard" (or even mere bachelor degrees from Montana State University) may indeed find themselves "flipping burgers" at some point in their respective lives; but probably not after they have received those degrees.   

You just can't seem to understand that regardless of what the people do that at least 20% of Americans cannot earn enough to live on because at least 20% of the jobs in America don't pay enough to live on. One person might overcome that but not all of the 20% that are filling those jobs that don't pay enough to live on. If we ensured that every American had a PhD from Harvard then at least 20% of those Harvard graduates would be "flippin' burgers" for wages they couldn't live on. It's a no-win situation for society because the jobs don't pay enough to live on regardless of the person's qualifications.  

Jul 23, 2014 23:07:05 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Jul 23, 2014 8:50:44 GMT ShivaTD said:

You just can't seem to understand that regardless of what the people do that at least 20% of Americans cannot earn enough to live on because at least 20% of the jobs in America don't pay enough to live on. One person might overcome that but not all of the 20% that are filling those jobs that don't pay enough to live on. If we ensured that every American had a PhD from Harvard then at least 20% of those Harvard graduates would be "flippin' burgers" for wages they couldn't live on. It's a no-win situation for society because the jobs don't pay enough to live on regardless of the person's qualifications.  

You seem to assume that mere burger flippers must be forever stuck in the position of flipping burgers.

But if those 18-year-old burger flippers eventually receive a college degree, or (alternatively) some serious technical training, they do not need to continue flipping burgers ad infinitum.  Other 18-year-olds may fill that sort of job--for awhile, until they, too, move on... 

That used to be true but it's becoming less possible every year.

I've read that the average age of a literal burger flipper at McDonalds today is 29. That age has been increasing as poverty spreads in the United States. As our middle income jobs are disappearing the rungs in the economic ladder are disappearing and the median age of low paid workers that are unable to advance economically increases. Today the burger flipper at McDonalds is 29, in a few more years it will be 39, then 49, and so on because the "middle class" is evaporating before our eyes.

The economic world of opportunity that we grew up with is slowly disappearing.

Jul 24, 2014 23:51:57 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Jul 24, 2014 9:49:38 GMT ShivaTD said:

That used to be true but it's becoming less possible every year.

I've read that the average age of a literal burger flipper at McDonalds today is 29. That age has been increasing as poverty spreads in the United States. As our middle income jobs are disappearing the rungs in the economic ladder are disappearing and the median age of low paid workers that are unable to advance economically increases. Today the burger flipper at McDonalds is 29, in a few more years it will be 39, then 49, and so on because the "middle class" is evaporating before our eyes.

The economic world of opportunity that we grew up with is slowly disappearing.

This strikes me as little more than the "Oh, woe is us!" narrative of the American left.

If you truly believe that "the rungs in the economic ladder" are "disappearing," why do you not seek to correct that, rather than merely bemoaning the 29-year-old (and ever-increasing) "burger flipper"? 

We know that the middle income jobs that provide the economic rungs on the ladder we enjoyed during our working career are disappearing. I've posted these links before that addresses that very fact.

finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/here-s-where-all-those-middle-class-jobs-went-113102720.html

smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/obituary-american-middle-class-155040791.html

The "What to do about it" is the obvious problem and it's not an easy nut to crack. The solution to that specific problem is obviously going to have to focus on compensation for labor but there is another problem that I've found looming in the not too distant future according to some experts.

It was hinted at when I read the following story:

finance.yahoo.com/news/2045-physicist-says-top-species-123359838.html

Ignoring the focus of the story but instead just looking at the "science" what do we do when artificial intelligence, technology, and machines make human labor, both physical and mental, obsolete? Sounds like science fiction but in fact it's right around the corner with AI experts stating it will really begin happen by about 2045 when AI surpasses all human knowledge and intelligence. 

Does that create utopia where mankind never has to work again because robots do everything when it come to producing goods and providing services or do only the few 'owners' of the machines benefit from this and, if so, how do they actually benefit if there are no jobs because robots do it all including designing and building the robots?

Some of what we're seeing today is the effects of AI, technology, and machines making human labor and intelligence obsolete. The "bank teller" job, that was referenced in the "loss of middle income jobs" study, has been largely replaced by ATM's for example. The value of the 'ditch digger' has been replaced by machines that dig ditches instead. Both human physical and mental labor is being replaced by AI, technology, and machines and only the owners of the machines benefit but what happens when the machines fundamentally become the owners of the machines based upon the labor of the machines?

This is a puzzlement for me because the "Right of Property" was established by the "Labor of the Person" (that can also be referred to as "sweat equity") under Locke's arguments but if there is no "Labor of the Person" then what happens to the "Right of Property" as we know it?

What I'm really seeing is a breakdown of the arguments that John Locke made establishing the "Right of Property" based upon the principle of "sweat equity" because the "sweat" has been disappearing little by little and is going to disappear completely in the future. 

There will be no "rungs in the ladder" because robots will provide all of the "intelligence" and "labor" to do everything when it comes to providing goods and services. The "human being" will be rendered obsolete by artificial intelligence, technology, and machines that can do everything we do but only better.

As I noted this is not science fiction but instead it is reality that is already affecting us today.        

Jul 25, 2014 23:09:59 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Artificial intelligence is precisely that: It is artificial intelligence.  Which is to say, it is not innate; rather, it requires programming from a human being. 

Yes, many low-level jobs are already being replaced; which is the principal reason why I would oppose an exponentially higher minimum wage.  It would only encourage employers to replace unskilled labor with machines.

Oh, as regarding tellers, however:  My own bank (SunTrust) and my own credit union (Ascend Federal Credit Union) both have plenty of tellers. 

You're way behind the times. Computers began "learning" on their own years ago and computers are now programming computers in many instances. As noted in the article I provided it won't be all that long until computers know more than the combined knowledge of all humanity and they will still be learning on their own at an exponential rate.

Enterprises don't need any more encouragement than they already have to replace workers with machines. They're doing so as rapidly as possible already and it is inevitable that as far as providing goods and services all human beings will be replaced by machines eventually. "Your" personal doctor will be replaced by a machine that won't commit malpractice, for example, and it will be far more intelligent than any human doctor could ever be. The coal miner will be replaced just like the nuclear physist because the machines will be both stronger and smarter.

It goes even further than this. We now have plastic and metal "printing" that builds things our of basic materials and in not too distant future it will be able to do this at the atomic level and it will literally be able to "print" a chicken dinner for you just like the science fiction movies have deplicted. Feed the raw elements in and out pops a cooked chicken dinner, mashed potatos, gravy and even the slice of apple pie all created by "printing" everything on the menu.... and the machines will furnish the atoms.

I know this is hard to fathom but it's really right around the corner time-wise.

What do we do when human labor really isn't required anymore related to commerce? No more "sweat equity" which was the foundation for all Rights of Property. If there's no "sweat equity" then what is the foundation for the Natural Right of Property?

As for tellers I remember when I grew up a bank had perhaps 8-10 tellers all lined up while today my Chase Bank usually has 2 with one dedicated to inside service and one covering both the inside and the drive-through lanes. Yes, two tellers at my bank are more than enough because rarely do people go to the bank these days to make desposits (paychecks and payments are auto-deposited) or make withdrawals (ATM and "cash back" when purchasing have replaced going to the bank).  

Jul 27, 2014 0:01:29 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Depending upon the branch, my bank or credit union typically has about three to six tellers.

Although it is now possible to "print" a pistol--which strikes me as incredibly advanced (as any 3-D printing would), I do not know if I can imagine a turkey dinner's being "printed," and still tasting like a turkey dinner. 

Many companies are, indeed, already replacing low-skilled personnel with machines.  But I find it difficult to imagine that a doctor--or any other trained professional--would soon be subject to such easy replacement.

Think of it this way. There was a time not long ago when the only way you could get cash from your bank account was basically by going to the bank and making a withdrawal. Even it took 60 of those transactions to equal one man-hour (i.e. 1/minute) how many man-hours of labor are lost because of ATM transactions today? 2080 man-hours equals one full time job every years.

Can you tell the difference between real vanilla extract and artificial vanilla extract? I can't. Computers can perform incredible functions today and they do so based on using just "O" and "1" but they just use them a lot of times. Why is it so hard to imagine actually building anything one atom at a time so that it is identical to something else? It's just stacking the same atomic structure and our taste buds can't tell the difference at the atomic level. They're not that sensitive. Amazing of course but a lot of amazing things happen every day.

Many functions of doctors are already being performed by computers such as diagnosis of deseases because the computers don't make mistakes. If there is an error it's because of the doctor providing erroneous information to the computers. Doctors make mistakes but computers don't.

Really good Sci-Fi is based upon science and in the Star Trek spinoff Star Trek Voyager it had the EMH (emergency medical hologram) doctor. Good sci-fi often becomes reality. By way of example we have communication satellites today because they were "invented" by Authur C Clark in science fiction. Science fiction today proposes "warp speed" which is traveling faster than the speed of light and I wouldn't rule that out as being impossible at some point in the future even though it defies Einstein's theory of relativity. That doesn't imply Einstein was wrong but instead that there can be other laws of relativity or a way to circumvent them.

In theory there is nothing a human being can do that a computer/machine can't do and therein lies the problem. If a "machine" does it then the "sweat equity of the person" that John Locke used in his arguments for establishing the "Right of Property" does not exist. If "sweat equity" doesn't exist then what's the foundation for the "Right of Property" is the question I'm asking.

By analogy it's like the difference between fiat currency and species coinage. Fiat currency is not "money" but instead is legal tender while species coinage is "legal tender lawful money" and there is a huge difference between the two. One has intrinsic values while the other only has the illusion of value.     

Jul 27, 2014 22:38:00 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I really cannot say, with any certainty, that I can tell the difference between real vanilla extract and artificial vanilla extract, as I have never tasted the latter (unless it was in a cake or cookie I have eaten, and I did not realize it).  That is because I would prefer to pay a bit more to get the real thing, in the belief that it is probably superior.

You seem to anticipate a dystopia in which machines reign, and humans are not needed even to work.  I am simply not that pessimistic.

And I have not noticed that very many others are, either.    

The fact that machines will soon be able to replace "human labor" in the production of all necessay goods and providing of all necessary services promises a utopian future. Not having to get up every morning to go to work is not a bad thing.

We're both retired and while I can't speak for you I know that even though I enjoyed my career very much because it was something I was interested in I certainly don't miss not going to work every morning. It mean that I've stopped doing everything as I'm currently working on a personal project to build a Harley Davidson Street 750 based chopper and a close friend and I will be offering the rigid frames, exhaust systems, and other products I develop for sale through a business we're starting but we'll subcontract all of the work so we don't have to do it. So I've given up the "9-5" but I'm still doing something but not because I have to. The only difference between "now" and the "future" is that there would be no need for me to start a business (machines could provide the products) and the "machines" could have done much of the "grunt" work I'll be doing. I would be free to focus on the "art" as opposed to the other aspects of my chopper project.

The only problem with this "utopian" future is that today only the "owners of the machines" are benefiting today and not all of society. As the story I presented earlier on the loss of middle income jobs stated a significant percentage of those jobs, both routine and non-routine, have been replaced by technology and machines. The threat is that only the "Top 1%" will ultimately own everything because they own the machines and the bottom "Bottom 99%" will have nothing under our commonly held "right of property" definitions.

That's why I believe that we need to revisit the arguments that Locke presented where the Right of Property was established by the "Sweat Equity of the Person" because "Sweat Equity" is being replaced by "Machines" and machines don't have a Right of Property. We need to address how we transfer the benefits of technology advancements so that it benefits all of society as opposed to it only benefiting those that own the technology.

This isn't even a bad thing from the perspective of the owners of the technology either because as the technology replaces the people they would face a problem that no one could purchase that which is produced. There is an "event horizon" where the technology is going to become useless except for the few that own the technology and we're already seeing the effects of that today with the ever increasing number of those living in or near poverty levels. They simply can't consume that which could be produced today. We can easily produce 20 million new cars in the US annually but because of the loss of middle income jobs that technology has replaced the people the people can't afford to purchase 20 million new cars every year.   

So the technology is great and should be welcomed but the problems associated with that technology benefiting society because of our commonly held definition of the "Right of Property" needs to be addressed if we're going to reap the rewards of our technological advancements.