Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Wasnt this a bad TV show when I was growingup?

[Michael <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> To an extent I have to disagree.
> 1) You have to have a CEO to run a large business in a coordinated manner, otherwise you have chaos and no profitability. The whole body without a head argument. Theoretically, the reason they get paid more is because they have the power to exploit the entire company if they get disgruntled.
> 2) You have to have a programmer in software companies, but not in companies that could outsource. Even in software companies, an individual programmer can be replaced without drastic problems to the organization. Programming requires training and talent, so its harder to become a programmer, and that extra work deserves compensation.
> 3) Janitors work hard, yes. But so does everybody else. The Janitor didn't work hard to get where he is though, nor does he perform some masterful work that nobody else can duplicate. I've been a janitor, it was my first job, and with no experience, I still did a good job. By comparison, the Janitorial position was the easiest I've ever had. Not too easy on the back, and it involved working with dirty toilets, but there was no skill involved, no hard thinking, no excuse to pay more than minimum wage.

Possibly, but being a CEO or programmer is a lot less sucky job than 
being a janitor. IMO that is enough reason to be a CEO or programmer 
rather than a janitor. I didn't mean everyone should run their companies 
that way either.. it's just how I think I'd run mine. I'd pay myself no 
more (and possibly less) than my employees and would have a high 
starting wage for every job. Possibly it wouldn't all be the same pay 
rate but it'd be a lot closer than average I think. Also if I ran a 
company I might consider a bonus outside wages to cover past educational 
expenses or current educational expenses (such that per year they were 
employed by me I'd give them a certain amount of extra money to cover 
those expenses.. obviously I wouldn't try to pay for their whole degree 
the day they started).

> Its a good idea to a point. You need some incentive to work, but I agree that a safety net is a good idea. A minimum standard of living that nobody is allowed to live beneath. Basic nutrition, lodging, education, hygenic and medical facilities. Beyond that, you should be on your own, and further, if you can afford anything, those should come first. Perhaps a flat tax of the first $1k a year on everybody to pay for the basics, then have the current sliding scale or some permutation of it for the business of government and public safety.

Exactly. My main worry beyond just always being poor is that the 
structure of our economy is gradually removing people who would work 
from being able to work.. which seems a really bad choice as a country 
IMO. Rather than putting people on welfare or throwing them to the 
sharks you might as well give them a job. If you have something they can 
do then great. If not you may as well pay them to do whatever they can 
think to do. Most people would do something with their time when 
unemployed if they could afford to. It might not be cleaning toilets but 
it'd still be beneficial.. programming, writing, rebuilding old cars, 
woodworking, etc.. whatever their hobbies were.. even if it's nothing 
more than spending time with their family it'd be useful to our country. 
No doubt we'd have more creativity going on and there'd be less cause 
for crime. (Less worry about money, more time spent with family & friends.)

> There has long been an effort to automate even those creative things. Would be interesting to see. Humans left with nothing to do but read the trashy novels their computers write. :-)

True, you can automate creativity to an extent but that doesn't nullify 
the usefulness of having more people being creative. Just because Jack 
wrote a book doesn't mean that Ralph writing a book isn't beneficial to 
society. Just because an AI writes a book doesn't mean Jack and Ralph's 
books aren't beneficial either. It might not be entirely required that 
they do so.. but it's better than them sitting around looking at each 
others belly button lint. For this reason though I'd not suggest giving 
people to much money.. you want to require extra effort if they want a 
fancy car, a big house, an 80 inch plasma tv, etc. Medicine, housing, 
schooling, food, and utilties should be covered though. Not to a fancy 
extent but above a slum level.

> Do your homework before you start making media-based accusations like that. Iraq invaded Kuwait to GET oil. Their reserves are pathetic by comparison.
> 
> Between the Southwestern US, Alaska, offshore drilling off the coasts of Russia, Norway, Texas, Australia, etc., and the numerous smaller reservoirs worldwide that the US controls, the industrialized world could do without the Middle East entirely for decades. The reason the Middle East is important is because the oil is extremely cheap. It is so close to the surface that a normal drilling operation there costs several hundred thousand less in unneeded drilling hours alone. Further, the weather is always warm enough to move the drilling equipment (drilling in the Northern US for example is limited to the warmer 9 months of the year) without additional expense. The Iraqi oil reserves are in two major groups, a small one to the north, which is distinctly Iraq's, and where our troops "secured" the oil fields to avoid getting accused of allowing another ecological disaster like what happened in Kuwait in the last gulf war. The other is about the size of Kuwait, and, as you migh
t guess, mostly in Kuwait.
> 
> One more note on this. OPEC is run by appointed representatives or leaders from the varioius Middle Eastern oil-rich countries. If you look at these countries though, the government and a few select citizens are rich, the rest are poor. The rich work for or with American oil companies. By the financial influence they hold, these companies control the members of OPEC. It may be convenient to see OPEC as greedy Arabs making us pay through the nose for gas, but the blame lies with the descendants of the snake oil salesmen.
> 
> By the way, read the UN proposals of the time, and also look at who does buy their oil in Iraq. After the sanctions from the last war, its not us. Its primarily France and Germany, who proposed to manage the distribution of Iraq's oil after we Americans quit our evil war.

We're still fighting the war mostly to benefit rich oil folks. It 
doesn't matter that we don't need it.. people believe we do so the oil 
companies benefit.

> We're not spending for the war even 10% of what we spend each year on welfare programs. Its cheap to blow things up, building is what costs big.

Blowing things up doesn't get you anything though. Also I consider the 
justice system and things such as that among related costs. It all is 
costing money that could be used to build rather than destroy.

> The thing to avoid is taxing the rich to the point of impeding investment. If nobody can afford to own a large business and the means of production, you either have a police state, or revert to feudalism.

Exactly, but that is at no risk of happening right now. The rich 
minority in out country control a huge percentage of the wealth and 
there is currently nothing stopping that from getting worse. I don't see 
robotics (as mentioned in this article) as a current problem but I can 
definately see where robotics and automation will become a problem. 
There are so many benefits to such things though that outlawing them 
would be stupid. Taxing the rich to give allowances to everyone seems to 
be a good first step at keeping the system balanced. I'd start at a low 
but constant allowance (as I suggested $500/month per citizen) and bump 
it up as things such as robotics, automation, and foreign workers 
eliminate growing numbers of jobs here. I'd have it based on the average 
calculated minimal cost of living nation wide so that if the cost of 
living changed then the allowance would change with it (on maybe a 
yearly basis).

-- 
Michael <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
http://kavlon.org

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion