Google chairman Eric Schmidt have admitted existence of the problem on World Economic Forum in Davos. Mr. Schmidt's comments follow warnings from some economists that the spread of information technology is starting to have a deeper impact than previous periods of technological change and may have a permanent impact on employment levels. He said that governments needed to invest in education systems to improve skill levels and human cognition. "It is pretty clear that work is changing and the classic nine to five job is going to have to be redefined," he said. "Without significant encouragement, this will get worse and worse." http://www.cnbc.com/id/101360659 |
|
|
|
|
I have discovered that Bitcoin-qt doesn't allow to send transactions below 0.0000543 BTC so have set min payout to 0.000055 BTC.
|
|
|
|
btw, greetings from Vilnius, braliukas  Thank you!  |
|
|
|
Stats in the U.S. traditionally biased against communism, so I think you can reduce this amount to half or even quarter. And don't forget to add to the capitalism's count the victims of Benito Mussolini fascist regime. Also, "less than $1250 per app per day" does not sound too shaby for a small developer; it might not entice a million-dollar 100 person development team, but for a single developer that's gold!
May be $1250 per day for a superstar app is good, but $0 for other apps in the same category doesn't look so! |
|
|
|
hello OP its from 0.00001 to 0.0000005 is not justify you have to increase this at 0.000001 its some good and fair
Booby prize before reducing was 0.000001 BTC (you have missed one zero). very disappointing: it will take so much time to get these dusts.................................................
Min payout also halved, so it will take the same time to collect it. P.S. I am sorry for this decision, but I cannot operate in the loss for a long time. |
|
|
|
why hourly bonus going to be more down its already very less now more I think now I have to leave this site because this cut is not acceptable
I have added more non-booby prizes, so you can earn even more! |
|
|
|
|
Minimum payout amount reduced by half to the 0.00005 BTC. Booby prize's size adjusted to match our advertising revenue.
|
|
|
|
Tragically, even adding those numbers you'd run short of reaching communism's death toll -- yes it was that bad.
I very doubt you can provide proof about this statement. fewer welfare programs, less debt; teaching people how to be responsible adults and take care of themselves once again instead of running to the "nanny" every time they have a problem.
I can bet that real unemployment would be 60-80% right after these measures implemented, even without advent of the robots. While before the advent of the Internet writers could starve until they got a book published and painters had to die before their paintings would sell, these days almost anyone can become a "star". People make money with Youtube videos about the silliest of topics; e-books on Amazon that aren't even edited properly; musicians go on iTunes and ten-year-olds publish game apps for mobile devices. If anything, we're seeing fewer millionaire "rockstars" but instead regular people making smaller amounts of money individually, yet in much greater numbers. They have smaller but more loyal audiences, they cover niche markets with targeted products and they constantly invent new forms of expression. The biggest threat to creativity (and making money out of it) is not automation -- instead we find, yet again,
Real situation is opposite and opportunities to make money with creativity will only diminish as market saturates. http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/13/making-apps-pay-gets-harder/statist power coming down with restrictions and regulations, this time in the form of IP law and its many ugly heads.
This is true - copyright and patent laws are strongly biased in favor of big corporations. |
|
|
|
We have an existence proof that this is wrong. See chart above.
I mean minus extra 5-10% from current labor force participation rate ("hot times" will start when LFPR will fall below 55-50% IMHO). |
|
|
|
the amount of people directly affected by communism is an order of magnitude higher, you just can not compare one with the other.
Count also colonization of the Africa in favor of European bourgeoisie, fencing in England, slavery in U.S. etc and you can find extra order of magnitude of capitalism's victims comparing to the communism's. As cool as Baxter is, and as useful as it can potentially become, it still can not do all the things you describe. It is only able to learn and repeat simple tasks. Knowing a thing or two about robotics, even that is an amazing achievement -- but way short of the robots you describe that will completely replace humans.
To break status quo we don't need full automation! I think even permanent disappearance of just 5-10% jobs will be enough to fire civil war if economical system won't be adjusted in time. I'd say there will be just enough of these jobs to provide a level of subsistence to a good portion of the population. Keep in mind that there will be jobs created in such an economy which we can't even imagine right now.
You are repeating standard argument of the Luddite fallacy's supporter. But its not the law of physics that guaranteed to last forever. But when talking about the more complex, creative jobs that you envision will be taken as well?
Not many people are creative enough to offer something that has value on the market ("superstar effect" will continue to grow as more and more things become pure digital - this already happened with movies, books, music, games, software and will be true for tangible items when personal 3D printers will evolve enough). |
|
|
|
It's obvious that people are separated on politics and personal value lines, although it's a bit disconcerting to see so many in support of what boils down to essentially communist solutions. After all the pain and suffering caused in the past 100 years by this brilliant on the outside/rotten in its core philosophy one would have hoped to see less enthusiasm for repeating the mistakes of the past...
You can say the same for the capitalism - millions died during Great Depression, even more in WW2 which was largely caused by this crisis. It takes time and a lot of changes to get from the world as it is today to the world we're talking about here. Robots will be extremely expensive at first, cumbersome and limited; for a while a simple reduction in benefits or salaries will be enough to keep humans profitable, even while robots already exist.
Universal robots like Baxter will offer cheap, fast and easy integration into any production and service processes. They will be programmable using natural languages and gestures, as well as easy movable from one plant to the another one where can be retrained for new occupation. Moreover, these robots will recoup themselves within a year comparing to the human worker's minimum wage. Basically even poor households will have access to their own obedient servants, ready to work 24x7 to provide for the family: they can build houses, grow crops, tend to farm animals, dig irrigation canals, fall trees, drive vehicles, care for the young ones and so on and on. A small village may be able to even get a team of 10-20 robots to work for them and build large projects.
This won't happen - bourgeois elite own land, mineral resources and power plants. Its obvious they won't give it away for free voluntarily! there will always be a demand for the "human touch"
Number of these jobs will very tiny so rich people will chose only "superstars" from millions of the candidates. I can easily forsee a two-race future of humans, one that has embraced cybernetics/genetic enhancement to keep pace with the skill level of robots themselves, and a race of degenerated humans who after years of apathy and brainlessness have turned back into apes.
This will unlikely to happen. Robots will surpass live workers even with genetic enhancements because machines don't need to fulfill human needs. |
|
|
|
option nr 1. Yes its a solution to starve the poor but remember when you get ideological XIX century capitalism you will also get historically opposite ideologies , so your solution may actually backfire on you.
Absolutely true! The opposite ideology for free-market "starve the poor" is extreme communism, so the people who support pro-bourgeoisie ideas can end up with new Stalin or Mao in GULAG or be shot. History repeats! a reasonable solution would be to create a government/charitable organization that doles out food in response to furthering development in areas of the planet that haven't (and probably won't) be touched by gods (robotics) hand.
People get paid via food stamps / whatever form of payment we use in a post scarcity society. Eventually the people who were uplifted would be given the option to do charitable work back to the original charities homelands, essentially building infrastructure that wouldn't necessarily need to be created to increase economic output (IE no reason for robots to do it)
Most people will not be happy living on food stamps and haven't fulfilled their demands (housing, clothes, healthcare, education, transport etc). This model won't sustain even for single decade and finally end up in a bloody civil war! |
|
|
|
the IRS distinguishes between hobbies and businesses. the best way to establish your bitcoin operations as a business in my non-lawyerly opinion is to incorporate an llc, register a tax id, and establish a business bank account. this does not complicate filing too much so long as you are a sole proprietor and treat the llc as a passthrough, filing only a personal return. then your hardware depreciation is clearly deductible.
I don't know about US, but in some countries (e.g. Russia) keeping corporation registered without enough profit is prohibitory expensive (You must pay fixed-sum contributions to the social security fund no matter do you have any profit or not. After this law was passed in Russia ~500K small businesses was forced to work "unregistered" evading taxes entirely.). I think you need to check if similar taxation apply in your country and weight is it worth to register your mining business at all. |
|
|
|
In fact I believe the premise of technological unemployment is false and that the advance of technology will create new jobs very different then the jobs of today.
Even respectful media recently have started changing their minds and acknowledging Luddite fallacy's breakout. The Economist now is one of them. What is a government guarantee of employment? Enlist everyone into the military and have WW3?
Fundamental science, space exploration, education, healthcare, city improvements, roads, maglev trains, green energy, waste recycling, reforestation... |
|
|
|
If that's the case, then wouldn't they also move their businesses out of the governments that want to plan economies? There won't be any economy for those governments to plan with. And if the businesses that move out are also the type that provide life essential things, like food, then this planned economy government would have to buy its food from those other countries, while having no economy, and thus no money, to buy it with. (and if you're proposing that farming gets collectivised, too, we all saw how well that worked in USSR and China)
You have to read more carefully. So large number of "unproductive" jobs (from market perspective) can exist only in the planned economy with govt ownership of the production means. "Free market" solutions to the technological unemployment cannot exist at all, this problem itself puts final stalemate on the capitalism! Government will be forced to nationalize means of production in any case (no matter what solution will be implemented - unconditional income, citizens' dividends or full employment in planned economy). |
|
|
|
This would be a social safety net only for those who can't find other work it's still collectivism and thus not ideal but its far better then worldwide welfare for everyone or mass confiscation of private property in a futile attempt at a planned economy.
Again, do you really think capital owners will voluntary pay 80-90-95% of their profits to support unproductive jobs?! In fact, they will simply move businesses and factories to the countries which don't have this overhead! They are so greedy that move production from China to Vietnam and Cambodia where labor is few cents cheaper. So large number of "unproductive" jobs (from market perspective) can exist only in the planned economy with govt ownership of the production means. |
|
|
|
Don't like the poll above at all. Talk about two bad choices.
But these 2 options are the only ones possible in the long run! And the first one must be implemented worldwide to sustain. Guaranteed income for nothing would be a disaster essentially creating an ever growing mass of leaches living off the state and constantly asking for more taxes to raise the guarantee.
Degeneration of whole civilization through idling is not a new in the human history and posses much bigger problem than raising taxes. Slaves in the Ancient Rome are equivalent of the robots tomorrow! Planned economy is the lesser of two evils if only because no economy can be completely planned.
...
Such jobs should be strictly limited to areas least likely to disrupt the real economy but not useless.
Public ownership of the production means and planning must cover the economy entirely. Otherwise, which capital owner will keep production in this country and pay >90% taxes to provide unproductive jobs?! There are little fools among rich people! |
|
|
|
|
@Impaler, Usufruct system still doesn't solve employment problem - more than 80% of the population will idle and degrade slowly. As history shows "bread and circuses" policy in the long run lead only to the civilization collapse.
|
|
|
|
|
I think mining is similar to the manufacturing in terms of tax laws. For example, if you produce furniture you have to count taxes for the price you have sold it and not the average market price at the time of production (if it was not ever sold and just rotten in warehouse you must pay zero taxes, even can deduct loses as I know).
|
|
|
|
Because government has been the worst polluter in the world
Can you prove your words? because governments are the ones allowing industries to pollute. You are right, most governments are heavily lobbied by corporations which owners prefer to pay bribes instead of reducing pollution. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
