Do you think there's a point to be made in the detail of the distinction?
My point is that death sucks, and when I say that, I'm talking about children crying because they can't see granny any more. Talking about cell death is a distraction.
Those crying children couldn't exist if their grandparents and their grandparents down the line never died. There wouldn't be enough food or resources to sustain indefinite existence for everyone who wants it.
>would you prefer a society that kills people at a certain age, or one that limits the birth rate?
Neither. I'd prefer one smart enough to understand the demographic economic paradox and successfully raise the standard of living so that the problem of overpopulation solves itself naturally.
Well yes, obviously you'd try to reduce the birth rate nicely first, and maybe that's a complete solution (to a problem you suggested), but that doesn't answer the question.
I'm asking what you do if population growth starts to outpace food production despite your best efforts? Do you start killing old people, or do you stop letting people have babies?
Why should students be forced to use such outdated technology?
If we are trying to teach students how to work in the real world, shouldn't we let them use computers that they would be using in the real world as opposed to obsolete computers that were made before they were born?
>The reason they only allow calculators is to avoid cheating.
Ah this appears to be the root of the problem I was looking for, the game rules.
The question begs: what would we rather have our children have aptitude in, closed and isolated paper-and-pencil exams using obsolete technology, or open and collaborative problem solving using modern technology?
It used to be 90% of the population was working to produce food, now its around 1% and decreasing with increasing efficiency. So it is an increasingly negligible amount of labor needed to provide an already surplus amount of food.
It is cynical and ignorant to assume the dollar is the monotheistic deity of motivation for everyone. There are and have been countless cultures across the world who don't require monetary payment to produce the requisite food for the community.
>You are saying it isn't my right to consume what I choose?
That's what the law says actually. Not trying to be snide here but unfortunately the law does not allow for sovereign domain over one's own body (at least in the US -- and elsewhere) in many cases. Though I realize you are asking in regards to advertisements.
>At the moment the problem in the US is labor scarcity. Robots haven't replaced these jobs, these jobs just don't get done.
Labor scarcity in the sense that there's not enough people who need work, or in the sense that there is not enough people who have the necessary skills? I would have to assume the latter. If that is the case, aren't most of these scarce skills the type which are used to service and maintain the very automation which would be used to implement a UBI?
>When robots provide the same level of services to the US middle class, that would be a signal that we might need to think about something like a BI.
Automation already provides a much higher level of services than human workers in many areas. Do we really want to wait to the very end of this process to begin the transition?
The work I'm describing is all minimally skilled labor.
Automation already provides a much higher level of services than human workers in many areas. Do we really want to wait to the very end of this process to begin the transition?
Right now our problem is too little labor, not too much. Maybe we should wait until we at least have enough labor before we take steps that will reduce the labor supply?
Note that according to the experiments which BI proponents cite as "successes", BI reduces labor supply by 10% or so (e.g. mincome reduced labor by 13%).
>Right now our problem is too little labor, not too much. Maybe we should wait until we at least have enough labor before we take steps that will reduce the labor supply?
At what point would you know there is enough labor and how would you measure that? It would have to be once a certain goal is achieved, correct? What is that goal?
I'm curious because in a time where there are 7 billion people I have rarely, if ever, seen someone say on the whole there are too many jobs and not enough laborers. Rather it's more often said that there are too many laborers and not enough jobs. Which is precisely the type of sentiment that drives anti-immigration xenophobia.
As a start, how about once we run out of unskilled work that people are willing to pay minimum wage for, but which isn't performed?
Concretely, I'd pay for twice weekly house cleaning if it cost me $7.25/hour. An actual housecleaning costs me about $50. Most middle class homes in India are cleaned daily, which suggests this is very achievable. Many working women would happily pay $7.25/hour for child care. Lots of folks would love a driver while they sit in the back of a car and work, as several of my work colleagues do. Etc.
Are there no tasks in your life that you'd be happy to pay $7.25 for a human to handle for you?
(India has a labor scarcity too. Why isn't someone cleaning up all the garbage?)
I'm curious because in a time where there are 7 billion people I have rarely, if ever, seen someone say on the whole there are too many jobs and not enough laborers. Rather it's more often said that there are too many laborers and not enough jobs. Which is precisely the type of sentiment that drives anti-immigration xenophobia.
This is because most of those folks simply want to protect a privileged position they were born into. Rather than competing in the labor market with a Mexican or Indian, they'd rather have someone threaten the Mexican with violence for the crime of economic competition.
The measurement problem, if by quantitative you mean "relating to, measuring, or measured by the quantity of something".
There is no consistent mathematical standard of measurement by which money is created. Instead, the monetary value of some good or service used as capital for a loan is largely up to the arbitrary appraisal of the bank.
In my university finance classes we were forced to use calculators that were invented in 1976[1] to run calculations on formulas we had to memorize that could easily have been automated in Excel. Since then I've been prejudiced that "the invisible hand" ;) was deliberately keeping electric technology out of finance in order to maintain a legacy business model. Like that of the MPAA towards VCRs and DVDs etc.
I think the author is referring to increasingly distributed networks as opposed to the more centralized legacy networks. So electric networks vs. Paper based networks.
