Man 'too fat' to live in New Zealand

[MrJonno]

What you can't do is expect the 10% or less of the remaining workers to support the 90% who are unemployed by technology

Well the obvious answer to that would be to restrict how many hours the 10% do, ie they will have to work less to allow others to work more. It is a probably its quite obvious in the future a very high % of the population maybe even a majority will never be economically active but that won't stop them needing to be fed and sheltered.

Seems to me the obvious answer would be to allow the 10% to employ the remaining 90%.

The point is there isn't going to be any work for them, economically most the human race is going to be become obsolete by our own genius. Hopefully rather than have 10% of the population working 60 hour weeks and the other 90% doing nothing we might try to aim for everyone doing say doing 8 hours a work each week. For certain there isn't going to be a free market solution to keeping everyone busy

[Blind groper]

I think there is a lack of understanding of the future roboticised economy.

I used the numbers 10% and 90% as rough guides. I suspect it will end up more like 1% and 99%.

However, the wealth in that future society will not be generated by the 10%, or even by the 1%. It will be generated by the billions of robots out there working 24/7. Since the robots will not need that wealth, it will be redistibuted to those who need it.

To Seth and Collector and all other people who see socialism as Marxism, tough! The future lies with socialism.

[Seth]

What you can't do is expect the 10% or less of the remaining workers to support the 90% who are unemployed by technology

Well the obvious answer to that would be to restrict how many hours the 10% do, ie they will have to work less to allow others to work more. It is a probably its quite obvious in the future a very high % of the population maybe even a majority will never be economically active but that won't stop them needing to be fed and sheltered.

At who's expense? Who will be forced to labor on their behalf and why should they be so enslaved? By what right would the government tell anyone how much they can work or make?

[Seth]

I think there is a lack of understanding of the future roboticised economy.

I used the numbers 10% and 90% as rough guides. I suspect it will end up more like 1% and 99%.

However, the wealth in that future society will not be generated by the 10%, or even by the 1%. It will be generated by the billions of robots out there working 24/7. Since the robots will not need that wealth, it will be redistibuted to those who need it.

To Seth and Collector and all other people who see socialism as Marxism, tough! The future lies with socialism.

And why would those who risk their capital to build the robots to make the goods care to have their profits redistributed like that? Why would anyone bother to risk capital to make robots to make goods if their work is for naught and their profits are simply seized and redistributed? More importantly, why would they make robots in the first place if their market has no money earned from doing work with which to buy the products the robots produce?

Why wouldn't a robot-maker just say "fuck it, I'm working too hard and all those layabout socialists are just enslaving me and stealing my property to support their indolent lifestyle so I'm going to quit making robots and become a member of the idle dependent class and let somebody else slave away on MY behalf."

Who makes the robots to make the stuff then?

The future of socialism, which is Marxism in development, is exactly what it has always been proven to be...universal poverty, hunger, death, despotism and murder. An equality of misery is not something to be celebrated.

[Woodbutcher]

But women also pay for prostate cancer. In Canada your premiums are lower if you are a non-smoker, and also, if you are not in some risk groups. Everybody gets covered, though. Some pay more.

So why shouldn't non-smokers pay the same as smokers? What is the rationale for this gross discrimination against smokers? Please explain.

Why should women pay for treating prostate cancer? What is the differential in cost between the yearly bill nationally for treating prostate cancer and the bill for treating women's reproductive disorders?

You cite another appeal to common practice fallacy.

If I WANT to be part of a risk group that covers women's reproductive issues, and I don't mind paying a little more in the process, that's just fine, but what is your argument for compelling me by force of law to participate in that group?

Don't tell me "because everyone does it" tell me WHY anyone SHOULD do it?

Justify your dogma.

To clarify my point, there is a percentage of your earnings when you work that goes to pay the premiums, up to about $1500 a year if you earn more than about $35000 per year. Car, house insurance and out-of-country health insurance varies according to your condition.
Your idea of insurance is unworkable. Everybody would get their own insurance like from a Chinese menu. The insurance companies would always find pre-existing conditions and refuse payment, guaranteed. You would be helpless to defend yourself against them. Only in numbers is there safety. Nobody survives against big business alone.

[fishie]

Of course I do. Who wouldn't?

Squeeee! Here it is. Mwah!



.

What good would that do? Everybody's money is being stolen and ignoring the problem doesn't help eliminate it. This isn't about how much money I pay in insurance premiums for somebody else, I'm just using myself as the interlocutor. I don't have health insurance so I don't pay anybody else anything. Nor will I ever buy Obamacare. They'll have to kill me.

It's the principle of the thing, you see. Well, maybe you don't see because maybe you don't have any principles or ethics. That's true of all Marxists, so it might be true of you. I really don't know.

But once again you evade the actual debate and turn to ad hom instead, which merely proves my point that you haven't the capacity to defend your preferred social system. In that you're just like every other Marxist on earth.

Aww probably not hon. I own a business and have accountants to minimize tax and I hate compulsory super. But it's nice of you to say anyway.



More dodging, evasion, obfuscation, pettifoggery and intellectual dishonesty. Predictable.

You are such a charmer! You old smoothie you! Big hugs

[Seth]

But women also pay for prostate cancer. In Canada your premiums are lower if you are a non-smoker, and also, if you are not in some risk groups. Everybody gets covered, though. Some pay more.

So why shouldn't non-smokers pay the same as smokers? What is the rationale for this gross discrimination against smokers? Please explain.

Why should women pay for treating prostate cancer? What is the differential in cost between the yearly bill nationally for treating prostate cancer and the bill for treating women's reproductive disorders?

You cite another appeal to common practice fallacy.

If I WANT to be part of a risk group that covers women's reproductive issues, and I don't mind paying a little more in the process, that's just fine, but what is your argument for compelling me by force of law to participate in that group?

Don't tell me "because everyone does it" tell me WHY anyone SHOULD do it?

Justify your dogma.

To clarify my point, there is a percentage of your earnings when you work that goes to pay the premiums, up to about $1500 a year if you earn more than about $35000 per year. Car, house insurance and out-of-country health insurance varies according to your condition.
Your idea of insurance is unworkable. Everybody would get their own insurance like from a Chinese menu.

Yeah? What's wrong with that? If all I want is catastrophic injury and cancer coverage why shouldn't I be allowed to buy just that coverage? If it's so "unworkable" how come that's exactly how EVERY OTHER form of insurance actually works, and has worked for centuries? If you're a pianist, you can insure JUST YOUR HANDS with Lloyd's of London if you want. Or you can buy comprehensive insurance for your home to cover everything in it.

How is health care insurance any different?

The insurance companies would always find pre-existing conditions and refuse payment, guaranteed.

That's a contractual matter between you and the insurer.

You would be helpless to defend yourself against them. Only in numbers is there safety. Nobody survives against big business alone.

Gosh, how do all those individuals who deal with "big business" ever manage to survive? They must be very special people...

Derp!

[MrJonno]

What you can't do is expect the 10% or less of the remaining workers to support the 90% who are unemployed by technology

Well the obvious answer to that would be to restrict how many hours the 10% do, ie they will have to work less to allow others to work more. It is a probably its quite obvious in the future a very high % of the population maybe even a majority will never be economically active but that won't stop them needing to be fed and sheltered.

At who's expense? Who will be forced to labor on their behalf and why should they be so enslaved? By what right would the government tell anyone how much they can work or make?

Rights like good and evil come from the people, what is the role of government whatever people want it to be

[Seth]

What you can't do is expect the 10% or less of the remaining workers to support the 90% who are unemployed by technology

Well the obvious answer to that would be to restrict how many hours the 10% do, ie they will have to work less to allow others to work more. It is a probably its quite obvious in the future a very high % of the population maybe even a majority will never be economically active but that won't stop them needing to be fed and sheltered.

At who's expense? Who will be forced to labor on their behalf and why should they be so enslaved? By what right would the government tell anyone how much they can work or make?

Rights like good and evil come from the people, what is the role of government whatever people want it to be

How....Nazi-like of you.

So evidently you support Hitler's extermination of 12 million people because it was "the law" which gave him the "right" to do so at the time?

What can one really say in response to your sort of gross idiocy except that it's idiotic. It's so grossly and unbelievably idiotic that I've come to the conclusion that you cannot possibly really believe it because to do so one would have to be so incredibly stupid as to not have the capacity to comprehend something as complex as the Internet or a keyboard.

Therefore I must compliment you on your incredible dedication and attention to detail in maintaining the facade of being a complete Marxist tool. I bow to your expertise because NOT ONCE have you ever shown the slightest crack or defect in this role you choose to play for the purposes of debate. I would cede my crown as Grandmaster Zen Troll to you except that you never express an original thought or argument while in persona, you only fling metaphorical poo at the glass when someone else is discussing a subject that pertains to your Poe. But you do that very, very well. Nor, I'm afraid, is your skill set finely honed enough to cause others to troll themselves for years after you've been banned from a forum. I still hold the undisputed title there.

With just a little more effort though I might have to cede the crown, because your persona is otherwise without flaw.

My compliments to a Master Troll.

P.S. Before the Mods get all het-up about this post, I really mean it. I'm not attacking Jonno personally, I'm actually and truthfully complimenting him on his self-evident skill. He's really, really good.

[Collector1337]

If this socialism ever comes that jonno and groper want so badly, I will be quitting my job and just living off the government, because I might as well, right?

Why would I work when I can just sit around?

[Seth]

If this socialism ever comes that jonno and groper want so badly, I will be quitting my job and just living off the government, because I might as well, right?

Why would I work when I can just sit around?

Yup. I'm nearly there. I'm just waiting for my money to run out, at which point I become the greediest, most avaricious, most intolerantly bigoted socialist of them all...because I want my $290,000 "donation" back. Every penny of it.

I might even join a union...

[Blind groper]

Collector suggested that I want socialism. That is something of a misinterpretation. I do not 'want' socialism. However, it is already here whether we want it or not, and it will inevitably become far more important when the vast bulk of our economies are run by robots.

The robots will be owned by a minority, in which corporates and the government will rank highly. However, they will be taxed, and those taxes will be used to support the people who cannot work.

This will not be a problem, because the amount of wealth generated by the labors of billions of robots will be so immense that, by today's standards, everyone will be millionaires.

The irony is that, with robot labour, it would even be possible for a communist government to succeed. Seth and Collector will probably simultaneously detonate when that happens!

[Seth]

Collector suggested that I want socialism. That is something of a misinterpretation. I do not 'want' socialism. However, it is already here whether we want it or not, and it will inevitably become far more important when the vast bulk of our economies are run by robots.

The robots will be owned by a minority, in which corporates and the government will rank highly. However, they will be taxed, and those taxes will be used to support the people who cannot work.

This will not be a problem, because the amount of wealth generated by the labors of billions of robots will be so immense that, by today's standards, everyone will be millionaires.

Jesus! Do you know ANYTHING about economics? Have you ever heard of a term called "hyperinflation?" Go read up on Zimbabwe or Weimar Germany for the love of Christ.

Wealth is not generated by robots. Objects are created by robots. The value of those objects is related to two fundamental things: First, the cost of producing those objects; and second, the ability and willingness of consumers to buy those objects.

If it costs next to nothing to make an object, consumers are only going to pay next to nothing to acquire it. They aren't going to pay inflated prices that make robot-makers wealthy because they understand that it didn't cost the manufacturer that much to make it and that the manufacturer is simply trying to gouge them. That's how markets work you see. Manufacturers try to find a delicate balance between the cost of producing the product and what the consumer is willing to pay for it. Contrary to what you seem to think, consumers are not stupid. If a robot can make a Ford Fusion automobile for $1.95 in bulk, consumers are not going to pay $12,000 for one. They might be willing to pay $3.95.

So all this money that you say consumers are going to spend on robot-created products isn't going to be nearly as much as you think it is, but more importantly where are these consumers going to get the money with which to buy ANYTHING AT ALL?

"The gummint will tax the manufacturers and give it to the consumers!" you cry.

Um, not for very long it won't. First off, the tax on the estimated $12,000 MSRP of the Ford Fusion would extinguish any profits the manufacturer will ever make because he will not be able to sell any cars at that price.

And if he sells it at a fair market price, which is defined as the costs of production plus the amount of reasonable profit that the market will bear, he'll only get $3.95, an the tax collected on that will come nowhere near what some government bureaucrat thinks the government needs in order to hand over money to the unemployed dependent class, which you say will be all but universal.

You're positing a negative-sum game here and don't realize it. You can't get something for nothing. Value is produced by labor input. Labor input is rewarded based on market value and actual return on investment. If there is no value (wealth) created by actual labor on the part of the worker, then the worker doesn't get any reward. If the costs of production are so small due to automation that the taxes on the products cannot supply enough "free money" to the unemployed non-worker to pay their expenses, then the unemployed worker will not get any "free money" and will not be able to buy ANYTHING, much less pay the manufacturer enough to keep on manufacturing Fords.

This is basic economics Groper. Go take a class and get back to us before you post any more claptrap like this.

The irony is that, with robot labour, it would even be possible for a communist government to succeed. Seth and Collector will probably simultaneously detonate when that happens!

Well, I'll probably detonate something anyway...

The problem with Communism, and your iteration of it is that it's a hypothetical perpetual motion machine in which everything everyone wants or needs comes popping out of the factory on demand without ANY input of labor from the people who want and need the stuff.

Neither physics nor life work that way. Energy output cannot exceed energy input. That's a basic law of thermodynamics.

Somebody's got to invest to build the factories that build the robots, and build the repair shops that fix the robots, and build the roads the robots use to deliver products, and whoever invests isn't likely to do so without any expectation of reward for taking that risk. The Soviet Union proved that to everyone.

And if nobody pays for anything, why would anyone expend the energy or money needed to create the factories that create the factories that create the factories that create the robots who work in the factories that make the factories that make the factories that make the robots.

You're positing a circular argument.

It's like you believe that God will intervene to supply the initial capital for setting up this utopia all at once.

Never going to happen. Out of work people will prevent it from happening because they don't want to be replaced by robots.

P.S. This ignores completely the issue of Central Planning and the factual impossibility of it working.

[Blind groper]

Actually, Seth, I do have a reasonable understanding of basic economics.

The average person has been getting wealthier and wealthier in most respects over the past 100 odd years. The richest people of the 19th century, like J.P. Morgan, Rockefellar etc., could not get what we have at our fingertips. Like the computer I use to post this message, or the internet it is going on, or a car that travels 200 kph, or a flight on a jet plane to another country etc., etc.

Wealth is relative. Compared to the 19th century, we are already all rich. The only thing the average person today cannot afford, which the rich of the 19th century could, is human labour. But with cheap, abundant, and sophisticated robots being available, even that barrier is breached - well, robot labour rather than human, but the end result is the same.

Relatively speaking, in a few decades the average person will have goods and services available to him/her that only millionaires get today, plus all the new technologies not available today.

You also, Seth, underestimate some of the advances that are coming. Robots and advanced computers will not just be making things. They will be providing services also. It is very likely, for example, that accountants will find themselves out of a job. What of doctors? There is already under way a program to design and build a 'tricorder' similar to that shown on Star Trek and used by Dr. McCoy. The tricorder will analyse instantly the state of health of any person and report it over the internet. The first tricorder will be limited, of course. But later versions will be immensely sophisticated. There is even a research group designing a robot that can perform cataract eye surgery. Given a few decades, and most doctors will not be needed any more.

The Japanese already have robots in old age rest homes, helping to care for elderly people. What will a couple more decades mean to their sophistication?

Police will find many of their duties taken over by mini robots that survey criminal activity. Imagine a robot the size and shape of a house fly that can enter a drug den and report directly to a central computer what is going on.

The end result is that most people will not need to work. This is not a tragedy, since it will free everyone up for a life of excitement and leisure instead of drudgery.

With billions of robots providing both goods and services, the end result will be the average person living a life we cannot imagine today, with amazing resources available, and opportunities for adventure, learning, socialising and so on. Some people will not take advantage, and will do something stupid like drink themselves to death. But most people will enjoy the expanded life.

The idea of communism being successful was a bit tongue in cheek, but there is, in theory, no reason why not. Communism and central planning does not lead to high economic productivity, but with robots as the basis for the economy, all working with perfect efficiency 24/7, that will not matter terribly much.

[Warren Dew]

I think there is a lack of understanding of the future roboticised economy.

I used the numbers 10% and 90% as rough guides. I suspect it will end up more like 1% and 99%.

However, the wealth in that future society will not be generated by the 10%, or even by the 1%. It will be generated by the billions of robots out there working 24/7. Since the robots will not need that wealth, it will be redistibuted to those who need it.

To Seth and Collector and all other people who see socialism as Marxism, tough! The future lies with socialism.

I notice that with the industrialization of agriculture in the early 20th century, 90% of the world no longer has to have a job.

Not. New productive things will be found for people to work at that robots cannot do.