Automation isn't inherently a bad thing. It creates a lot of abundance and value for people. The problem is that our current system is wholly unprepared for this. Free market will adopt automation as fast as it can because it's so profitable. But those profits aren't going to be routed back to the society in which they're integrated.
This means that as we stand now, our economy has not a single clue about what to do with 80% of humanity being out of a job within a decade or two. Our response is going to be much slower than the automation trend so we'll end up lagging way behind in adapting to this game changer.
Whether or not you agree with it, society will inevitably move toward shorter work weeks and a basic income. This will be funded by higher taxes on wealthy people who are (for the most part) the only beneficiaries of higher profits. They may make a big fuss about it in the interim but they will accept it because they only make money when there is demand, and there is only demand when the general population has money to spend. |
|
|
|
It's not all bad, automation increases efficiency and thus purchasing power.
On other hand, there needs to be solution for people who can't find work any more.
With respect to the fast food jobs that are being lost, this is 100% caused by being priced out by government intervention in payroll related costs. It's ridiculous to force employers to pay above market wages for jobs like this and expect to not have consequences with respect to job loss. |
|
|
|
|
How many examples do we need before we declare war on jihadists and determine to wipe them out for good? It's long overdue for liberals to call the savages what they are: "terrorists". Unleash our fury.
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose because they rent to others, they have to be equal in their treatment. I guess they are a company rather than individuals who own a farm. I guess that's why the gov believe they can pass down laws. I hope with the next election these kinds of things will revert themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Another aspect of conflict is the expansion of markets into rural regions and the natural up rise that we see during such change. This is readily apparent in places like Nigeria, and Mali. Likewise the Central African and South Sudanese issues long predate President Obama's Administration. Blaming him for your personal feelings of insecurity in the world (when in fact we are much likely safer now from terrorism due to the dismantling of most of Al Qaeda Central) isn't very appropriate.
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't say Obama doesn't have a foreign policy... I'd say his policy is in direct opposition to the general welfare of the United States. I'd also say the world is more dangerous now that it was when he took office.
Wasn't that long ago he was talking about how safe the world had become. Perhaps what he meant is that it is now safe for the Islamic Extremist to resume operations.
This is one popular belief, and I think it stems from some sort of faulty insistence that the United States and president Obama caused the Arab Spring, which was, in reality, a phenomenon that experts had been long awaiting and predicting. Indeed, if anything, it was overdue in its coming (a testament to how well authoritarian governments can suppress a population. |
|
|
|
|
President Obama’s stances represents a less blunt foreign policy, but just because it requires one to pay closer attention and consider more variables does not make it non-existent, incoherent, or inconsistent. Neocons have gotten us too used to direct realist approaches to foreign policy, in an age when realism is waning as a useful practical style of foreign engagement.
Some examples of strong realist countries: Russia, Israel, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia (more or less).
|
|
|
|
|
I’ve been hearing this, or a variation of it, quite a bit from my family and others from my hometown which means it has been a popular mantra on both Fox News and/or conservative talk radio. It’s also; from a professional and academic standpoint, completely false.
President Obama is more of a neo-Liberal when it comes to International Relations Theory (in his actions at least), with a tinge of realism which has been so pervasive in our historical domestic foreign policy formulation and discourse. To this end, president Obama tends to favor (with some exceptions as mentioned above) a generally multilateral approach to foreign engagement, he likes to work through international institutions, is a much stronger wielder of soft power, and prefers a more nuanced foreign policy approach than many of his predecessors (especially neoconservatives) who often relied on straightforward / simple, unilateral realist approaches.
This can be seen in most of his foreign relations dealings during his two terms here (save for our Israeli, and to a lesser extent: Egyptian policies, which is where that realist twinge comes into play).
His approach to Libya is a good example, where he went through the UN Security Council, worked with NATO and kept a limited engagement policy, preferring to work with and through other actors including the Arab League.
|
|
|
|
Panera Bread CEO Ron Shaich supports raising the minimum wage — and he has every reason to.
Panera’s 1,800 nationwide locations are at the forefront of modernizing the way customers experience fast food restaurants. As soon as 2016, the bread and pasta joint will have replaced all of their cashiers with kiosks.
Shaich, who donated $35,800 to the Obama Victory Fund, told USA Today that the move is part of an effort to “never have a customer wait,” but there is growing evidence that as pressure to raise wages builds, employers will turn to wage-free robots to avoid dramatic payroll hikes.
Fast food establishments in European countries with high minimum wages have already begun to replace some of their workforce with automated employers.
All of McDonald’s locations in France, for example, have installed kiosks to substitute and supplement human employees. The kiosks have allowed McDonald’s to avoid some of the high payroll costs of dealing with France’s minimum wage, which currently sits at $12.22 an hour in U.S. dollars. The European country is also suffering from an unemployment rate of over 10 percent.
Although the technology has not been widely adopted, equipment exists to replace almost all of the fast food workforce.
Momentum Machine’s meat-flipping robot, which can turn out 360 juicy burgers in an hour, could “allow a restaurant to spend approximately twice as much on high quality ingredients,” based on the labor costs, the company estimates.
Some companies abroad have already fully replaced human workers with robotic substitutes.
A well-recognized sushi-chain in Japan currently has robots making food while customers order on a touch screen. In lieu of human servers, a conveyer belt delivers their food and a computer tracks customer purchases and automates their bill payment at the end.
Despite the threat of the growing number of cheap and efficient technological opportunities available to restaurant chains, fast food workers, labor unions, and members of the political left have ramped up efforts to pressure lawmakers to raise the minimum wage in recently.
Over the past year, hundreds of protests to hike wages have been staged outside of fast food restaurants across the country, organized by the labor-back groups Fightfor15 and Fast Food Forward, among others.
On Thursday, labor groups plan to expand their campaign to raise the minimum wage to an international level, with protests demanding a $15 hourly wage scheduled to take place on six continents.
Although multiple states and local governments have passed wage hikes since the start of 2014, any initiatives to raise the federal minimum wage are not likely to make it passed Congress.
Currently, there is a Democratic-sponsored bill to push the national minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour, but the legislation has already failed to make it through the Senate and stands little chance of getting approved in the Republican-controlled House. How anyone is shocked by this is beyond me ? |
|
|
|
Liberia's armed forces have reportedly been given orders to shoot people trying to illegally cross the border from neighbouring Sierra Leone, which was closed to stem the spread of Ebola. Soldiers stationed in Bomi and Grand Cape Mount counties, which border Sierra Leone, were to 'shoot on sight' any person trying to cross the border, said deputy chief of staff, Colonel Eric Dennis, according to local newspaper the Daily Observer. The order comes after border officials reported people continued to cross the porous border illegally. Grand Cape Mount county had 35 known 'illegal entry points,' according to immigration commander Colonel Samuel Mulbah. Illegal crossings were a major health threat, said Mulbah, 'because we don't know the health status of those who cross at night'. Liberia closed its borders with Sierra Leone weeks ago in an attempt to contain the Ebola outbreak, which killed more than 1100 people in west Africa. The announcement came after residents of a slum near the capital broke into an isolation centre and freed up to 30 Ebola patients, local newspaper Front Page Africa reported. 'As I speak the police station is deserted. There is no security now in West Point,' resident Moses Teah was quoted as saying. The break-in to protest poor conditions at Ebola quarantine centres has raised fears that the deadly virus will spread in the slum. 'I saw sick people being taken out of the Ebola Centre. Some took them home to care for them,' said Teah. Other residents, who reportedly continue to deny the existence of Ebola, looted the quarantine centre, stealing patients' mattresses, blood-stained bedding, cooking utensils and medication, according to media reports. Some Liberians believe the Ebola outbreak was a ploy by government to secure foreign aid, the Daily Observer reported. Liberians also criticise government for not providing sufficient services to Ebola patients, including health care, food and safe burials. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has said that a 'massive scaling up of the international response' is necessary to get the outbreak under control. By August 15, 2127 cases and 1145 deaths were reported from Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone. In Liberia, there were 786 suspected and confirmed cases, according to the WHO, of which 413 people died. The current outbreak is caused by the most lethal strain in the family of Ebola viruses. Ebola causes massive haemorrhages and has a fatality rate of up to 90 per cent. It is transmitted through contact with blood and other body fluids. See more at: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/africa/2014/08/18/shoot-on-sight-order-in-ebola-wary-liberia.html#sthash.pjmIfeiV.dpuf |
|
|
|
Maybe the reason we didn't wake Maliki up is because he made it easier for us to walk away. If true, you can be pretty certain it will never be acknowledged.
Just like under Bush, Obama's mission in Iraq is evolving after the fact. The justification for the recent strikes was twofold: protecting U.S. personnel in Erbil and freeing refugees trapped on Mt. Sinjar. Well, U.S. personnel are out of harm's way and it turns out there were far fewer refugees than estimated and none were in real danger. But the intervention continued, going after the Mosul dam. And now it promises to continue even longer with unclear goals. Given the massacres, water shortage, and lack of medical supplies I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Yazidi on Sinjar weren't in any danger, just that their situation was less desperate than mainstream sources indicated. That being said, I'm fine with the US using airstrikes to contain the ISIS from spreading too far into Kurdish areas. Less fine with the offensive use of them for now. Then again, I'm not privy to all of the facts. |
|
|
|
I wonder to what extent you and I would agree as to the positives and negatives of the PPACA. My dream ultimately is socialized medicine. In certain respects, PPACA advances toward that incrementally, but for the most part it goes in the opposite direction. Within the framework of our mixed economy, I'm not sure how much closer we could get to socialized medicine, particularly with (1) the firmly-established allowance for states to opt out of Medicaid expansion, and (2) so many ultraconservatives in leadership positions, making decisions based on their ideology rather than concern for the health of their constituents. (There are other roadblocks but that part really irks the shit out of me.)
I tend to believe in a modified single payer system similar to Canadian and British models, with whatever tweaks would be needed to make it work a little better, while allowing a robust private system for those who wish to pay a premium while getting a tax break. I find a strong private system is necessary to bring forward the advances. They don't really happen as much in a strictly government system. It would be two tiered, but life is like that. As long as the normal system is good, it should work out. |
|
|
|
|
All Israel lovers should read this.But of course, none of them will.well if they started off Israel lovers this would disabuse them.
|
|
|
|
Isn't this possibly impacted by states who don't have medicaid/medicare expansions?
It's just Medicaid that has an effect, but it's a very small piece of the total. #13 is awesome, no.accountability just someone that feels the cost is too much. Hardship exemptions
If you have any of the circumstances below that affect your ability to purchase health insurance coverage, you may qualify for a “hardship” exemption:
1. You were homeless.
2. You were evicted in the past 6 months or were facing eviction or foreclosure.
3. You received a shut-off notice from a utility company.
4. You recently experienced domestic violence.
5. You recently experienced the death of a close family member.
6. You experienced a fire, flood, or other natural or human-caused disaster that caused substantial damage to your property.
7. You filed for bankruptcy in the last 6 months.
8. You had medical expenses you couldn’t pay in the last 24 months which resulted in substantial debt.
9. You experienced unexpected increases in necessary expenses due to caring for an ill, disabled, or aging family member.
10. You expect to claim a child as a tax dependuh ent who’s been denied coverage in Medicaid and CHIP, and another person is required by court order to give medical support to the child. In this case, you do not have the pay the penalty for the child.
11. As a result of an eligibility appeals decision, you’re eligible for enrollment in a qualified health plan (QHP) through the Marketplace, lower costs on your monthly premiums, or cost-sharing reductions for a time period when you weren’t enrolled in a QHP through the Marketplace.
12. You were determined ineligible for Medicaid because your state didn’t expand eligibility for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.
13. Your individual insurance plan was cancelled and you believe other Marketplace plans are unaffordable.
14. You experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance. |
|
|
|
what she wants is a world where both partners just spit into a bottle, and then baby would grow out of it. that way her gender would still get to have all the privileges that women are enjoying without having to have the responsibilities that entitled them to those privileges in the first place I think you're just threatened by the strength of my sexuality. You keep us women down because you're jealous of the fact that my body can turn heads while still being capable of doing work as well as (or better) than you can and yours can't. there you go, exactly what i wanted you to understand when i said that it's all part of a gender package. congratulation on grasping the concept Except that I was making fun of you for not reading my posts before replying to them since you seem to think that I was a girl when in fact it has been stated multiple times already that I am a white male. So I repeat my earlier advice: take a moment to actually read my posts before responding to them |
|
|
|
Fact is that women get pregnant and men do not and you would have to take every pregnancy or child care factor out of all the data in order for it to be more of an apple versus apple comparison then what it is now. Good analysis does exactly this. Or rather doesn't rely on a single variable model and can see which explanatory variables most impact the constant variable. One might explain 7% of the differences seen in relative wage rates, another might explain 3%, etc Getting back to the 20th century, and what still directly affects our culture today, is that if the men came back alive but injured or otherwise affected by the horrors of war, those whom they had the "honor" of "serving" would fight like hell to deny them treatment and care beyond that which was politically expedient. Once the wars were "over," everyone tries to forget about it. The former slaves receive substandard care if they receive any at all. These days they're fighting with backlogs and waiting lists that might take years before they get treatment. This has created a culture wherein men are viewed as disposable. Men believe themselves to be disposable. And if they dare to assert their rights, then they're wimps, sissies, cowards, etc. Yesallmen is a feminist hashtag that some women use when complaining about things that guys do. They are angry that some guys interrupt with "not all men do that" and see it as an attack on the hardships that women have to put up with via their interactions with the male gender. It became a feminist meme and one that is actually pretty damaging to feminism. It really means pretty much what it says: all men do XYZ. It's sexism. Ahh, I see. I didn't realize that #YesAllMen was being used by feminists. I figured it was probably being used by men to try to counter the #YesAllWomen activism. For the most part I have very little appreciation for third-wave feminism. I don't think it will end well when equal rights movements that address racism, homophobia, ageism, heightism, men's rights, etc. are co-opted and bundled under the "feminism" umbrella. I mean, I can sympathize with the notion that feminism has more political clout, and I think they often mean well, but putting feminists in charge of handling all social injustices is the same as having old rich white men in charge of it. That's how #yesallmen was started. i'm not a very big twitter person, so I haven't followed its evolution, but it seems that guys are appropriating it now as the male version of the other hashtag #yesallwomen. Personally (and I'm sure this will come as a surprise) I'm more inclined to more in depth / long winded discourse than twitter can provide. But I agree that a very important part of feminism is tackling the inequalities and gender stereotypes that men face too. It's gender equality really more than pure feminism even if women have historically been more vulnerable and restricted under patriarchal social structures. I can't stand angry feminism, especially that feminism which targets males as an enemy because it alienates a group of people who it is vital to secure positive buy-in from if true and sustainable change is what is desired. |
|
|
|
what she wants is a world where both partners just spit into a bottle, and then baby would grow out of it. that way her gender would still get to have all the privileges that women are enjoying without having to have the responsibilities that entitled them to those privileges in the first place I think you're just threatened by the strength of my sexuality. You keep us women down because you're jealous of the fact that my body can turn heads while still being capable of doing work as well as (or better) than you can and yours can't. |
|
|
|
A man generally doesn't have to pick either having a family or having a successful career though. They might, and some absolutely do, but traditionally women have had to bear the brunt of that. It forces them to choose in ways that men often aren't forced to choose which is one reason why men can dedicate themselves more fully to work: lower costs to doing so. No one is arguing that they don't have a choice, so I'm not sure why you keep ranting about that. your inability to have babies without being pregnant (let's assume novelties like adoption or surrogates are out of the question) is a part of your gender package, just like his inability to not pay after knocking you up is part of his. each package has its own advantages/disadvantages. you can't use feminist rhetoric to compare apple to orange so that you can have your cake and eat it too. This comment doesn't even make any sense within the context of this thread. |
|
|
|
No one forces you to have baby. no one forces you to do unpaid housework This doesn't in any way, counter anything that I have posted. Perhaps you should try reading my post again while not frothing at the mouth and rambling on about rape. many couples i know share the house work. the wife cooks, the husband washes the dishes. the wife does the laundry, the husband takes out the trash. the wife cleans the house, the husband mows the lawn What you are talking about are egalitarian marriages, and yes, they are becoming more common, but they, socially speaking, have not been the norm in the US, nor do they solve all of the issues associated with opportunity costs when it comes to women and the workplace. AGAIN for the umpteenth time, no one can force the women to be pregnant. Your man can choose to have more freedom in his career, or have babies and be anchored down, and limited to whatever career options that leaves him with, in order to support you AND the babies. even after you divorce him and choose not to work, he still has to pay. Likewise, you can choose to have your career, or have the babies and be limited to whatever career options the babies leave you with. Even then, you can still choose to go to work and hire a nanny. regardless of what you choose, his only choice is to pay. No one is talking about that. You should really look up the concept of opportunity cost so that you can understand what I am saying. Or just understand the basic concept of tradeoffs and how different genders experience different (and unequal) sets of tradeoffs when it comes to decision making. |
|
|
|
No one forces you to have baby. no one forces you to do unpaid housework This doesn't in any way, counter anything that I have posted. Perhaps you should try reading my post again while not frothing at the mouth and rambling on about rape. many couples i know share the house work. the wife cooks, the husband washes the dishes. the wife does the laundry, the husband takes out the trash. the wife cleans the house, the husband mows the lawn What you are talking about are egalitarian marriages, and yes, they are becoming more common, but they, socially speaking, have not been the norm in the US, nor do they solve all of the issues associated with opportunity costs when it comes to women and the workplace. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
