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

["Ross, Matthew" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> 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

Janitorial work does suck, and I really think we should automate it. Between 1980 and 1996, millions of jobs had become obsolete by automation, yet the unemployment rate in 1980 was over twice that of 1996. The Janitors will find better jobs, possibly as a monitor for the machines, or filing paperwork for the company selling the machines.

Just because it sucks though, doesn't mean it should be paid through the nose for. It sucks working 16 hours straight fixing MS's crapware too. I had to go to college to do that though. A janitor doesn't spend his off hours researching the latest in toilet bowl cleaning technology either. The benefit they get though - if they ever, for any reason, have to work more than 40 hours, they get paid overtime. I don't know of any real computer job that isn't an 'exempt' position. Your CEO's, managers, and other "professional" jobs are almost always exempt, for the practical reason that these people work closer to 80 hours a week.

> 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).

Companies already do this. They start you off at a higher salary if you have a degree, training, etc. that is above the minimum requirements. Thats why they give starting salary ranges. You can work up to the same rate as a more qualified person would get, but that person gets their "extra money" over the years in the form of that higher salary.

> 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. 

The "Welfare to Work" thing seems like a good idea. Haven't seen the statistics on its success though. The idea is that you get welfare for a set period, so long as you keep trying to get a job. You've got a deadline though, which is important, but questionable in practice.

> 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..

Something like the CCC?
It needs to be structured though, we can't just let people decide "I can blow bubbles from my nose for $10/hr".

> 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, spending time with your family is too exploitable. If it were a situation where the family member needed an in-house caretaker, that would be alright, but just sitting around with your wife watching TV isn't a job.

> 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.)

No, crime is an inherent problem with the human psyche. People feel the need to get an advantage over the world around them, which I agree with, but the criminal is one who doesn't care about those around him when doing so. Apathy isn't going to go away, even if poverty does.

> 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 

I disagree, have you read the dribble Ralph writes? ;-)

> 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 fighting a war because our so-called intelegence agencies said Iraq had WMD's. We're fighting a war because Iraq had a dictator that didn't do what we wanted him to. And we're fighting a war because said dictator has a reputation for harboring terrorists. Oil didn't factor into it. You may disagree with the justification for the war, but don't claim its a war for oil when the only concerns about oil are weather Saddam would create another ecological disaster with it, and how much the French would have to pay for gas (France buys 80% of Iraq's oil).

> > 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.

If you blow up somebody who is pointing a gun at you, I think you've gained something. The intent of the war is to protect Americans from a percieved threat. We may not agree that the threat was real, but that doesn't change the facts.

As for the rest of your statement, last I checked, if you take away social security and welfare, your taxes would be less than 1/3 what they are now.

> Exactly, but that is at no risk of happening right now. The rich 

Backlash. Every time the "wealth reform" subject comes up, people want the equivalent of a Marxist communism in which nobody has more than anybody else. I've found this stems from the beleif that "If I can't be rich, nobody else should be either."

> minority in out country control a huge percentage of the wealth and 

Minorities are a problem more broadly. Why should most people suffer so that a special class of people can have it good? Because that special class of people has good lobbyists. If you want an example, look at the ebonics ploy a few years ago. That would have left a whole class of students unemployable, simply because they hadn't been required to learn the language used in corporate America. An entire school full of students were risked just so that one principal could win political points. Please note that I'm not talking about the minorities themselves as a problem, but the exploitive organizations that build up around them.

> there is currently nothing stopping that from getting worse. 
> I don't see 
> robotics (as mentioned in this article) as a current problem 

Its not, the robots will create more mental work in their wake, which will create more and better jobs.

> but I can 
> definately see where robotics and automation will become a problem. 

Only if we choose to oppose it and obstinately refuse retraining.
The only people who suffered from the advent of the computer were the people who refused to learn to use them. There are usually major retraining programs for these sorts of changes, that are free to the former workers if they're willing to learn.

> 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 

Taxing sounds nice and all, but you can't tax higher than profits. Even if you taxed at 99.9% of profit margin, the rich would still get richer. The trick is to coerce them to reinvest.

> 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).

If I'm reading that right, it looks like you want the Jetson's lifestyle being the eventual government subsidised level ;-)

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