Discussion:
Social Security Is Doomed. Now What?
(too old to reply)
d***@agent.com
2018-04-09 03:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Social Security Is Doomed. Now What?

No matter how you slice it, the program is going to fail.
by Antony Davies, James R. Harrigan, April 04, 2018, fee.org

There's no way to sugar-coat it. Social Security is going to fail.
There are, of course, ways to possibly extend its life for a few
years, or even decades, but ultimately, like all Ponzi schemes,
it will collapse. By the federal government's and the Social
Security Board of Trustees' own admissions, the Social Security
program will be paying out more than it takes in in just 4 years.

At current rates (and assuming the federal government fully pays
back the more than $5 trillion it "borrowed" from Social Security's
accounts), the program will be completely out of money in about
17 years. What does this situation mean for current working
Americans? Is there any way to solve this problem?

Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they discuss this and
more on this week's episode of Words and Numbers.

[ video ]

https://fee.org/articles/social-security-is-doomed-now-what/
jonathan
2018-04-09 13:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@agent.com
Social Security Is Doomed. Now What?
No matter how you slice it, the program is going to fail.
by Antony Davies, James R. Harrigan, April 04, 2018, fee.org
There's no way to sugar-coat it. Social Security is going to fail.
There are, of course, ways to possibly extend its life for a few
years, or even decades, but ultimately, like all Ponzi schemes,
it will collapse. By the federal government's and the Social
Security Board of Trustees' own admissions, the Social Security
program will be paying out more than it takes in in just 4 years.
At current rates (and assuming the federal government fully pays
back the more than $5 trillion it "borrowed" from Social Security's
accounts),
That's peanuts for the United States of America.

The whole idea of govt is to provide for the people
if social security is stressed, the govt needs to
find the money.

A massive tax cut to big business and the rich
makes any complaint of shortfalls in social
programs the height of hypocrisy.

..."let's create a massive deficit with massive tax cuts
then claim we need to eliminate social programs because
of the massive deficit."

That's the republican logic, and it's a stain on the
notion of human decency.
Post by d***@agent.com
the program will be completely out of money in about
17 years. What does this situation mean for current working
Americans? Is there any way to solve this problem?
Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they discuss this and
more on this week's episode of Words and Numbers.
[ video ]
https://fee.org/articles/social-security-is-doomed-now-what/
--
me
2018-04-09 14:19:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? The result is the same - collapse.
El Castor
2018-04-09 18:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? The result is the same - collapse.
Plonk, again ...
b***@gmail.com
2018-04-09 19:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
El Castor
2018-04-10 20:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
me
2018-04-10 20:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The big question is - what comes before the next few decades when robots take over to ‘serve’ us.
islander
2018-04-11 19:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
No, the big question is whether the benefits of robots (and other
automation) will be shared with the general public. Robots and other
automation are capital investments and I'd be willing to bet that the
investors will want the return on investment. Business is not a charity.
El Castor
2018-04-12 00:21:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
No, the big question is whether the benefits of robots (and other
automation) will be shared with the general public. Robots and other
automation are capital investments and I'd be willing to bet that the
investors will want the return on investment. Business is not a charity.
Were the benefits of farm automation that freed up 90% of the
population to go do something else, shared with the public?
islander
2018-04-12 13:46:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
No, the big question is whether the benefits of robots (and other
automation) will be shared with the general public. Robots and other
automation are capital investments and I'd be willing to bet that the
investors will want the return on investment. Business is not a charity.
Were the benefits of farm automation that freed up 90% of the
population to go do something else, shared with the public?
Interesting question. We could eliminate hunger if we wanted to. We
have the technology. Why haven't we? On the labor side, the work is
difficult and workers are underpaid. There has been a migration of
workers from the farms to the cities for as long as I can remember. I'm
not sure that many of those workers found something else that they work
at to support their family. These displaced farm workers present us
with some of our more severe social problems. Creative destruction?

Agriculture is interesting. I'm just finishing Pinker's chapter on
Sustenance in *Enlightenment Now* and if you include progress in plant
and animal genetics, we have come a long way in eliminating famine. So,
the public in a broad sense has benefited. I'm not sure that farm
workers would appreciate their share of those benefits.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-12 15:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
No, the big question is whether the benefits of robots (and other
automation) will be shared with the general public. Robots and other
automation are capital investments and I'd be willing to bet that the
investors will want the return on investment. Business is not a charity.
Were the benefits of farm automation that freed up 90% of the
population to go do something else, shared with the public?
Interesting question. We could eliminate hunger if we wanted to. We
have the technology. Why haven't we? On the labor side, the work is
difficult and workers are underpaid. There has been a migration of
workers from the farms to the cities for as long as I can remember. I'm
not sure that many of those workers found something else that they work
at to support their family. These displaced farm workers present us
with some of our more severe social problems. Creative destruction?
Let's just give even more money to oligarchs, and screw the
people. Let 'em live in squalor - there's nothing for them to
do, and who needs 'em, except as armed guards to protect
the oligarchs.
Post by islander
Agriculture is interesting. I'm just finishing Pinker's chapter on
Sustenance in *Enlightenment Now* and if you include progress in plant
and animal genetics, we have come a long way in eliminating famine. So,
the public in a broad sense has benefited. I'm not sure that farm
workers would appreciate their share of those benefits.
Mine hasn't arrived yet. Amazon had said when I ordered it
that it would arrive between the 5th and 15th of April. I just
looked and there's a notation "shipped" from Amazon, so it
will probably be here this week or early next.
islander
2018-04-13 14:53:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
No, the big question is whether the benefits of robots (and other
automation) will be shared with the general public. Robots and other
automation are capital investments and I'd be willing to bet that the
investors will want the return on investment. Business is not a charity.
Were the benefits of farm automation that freed up 90% of the
population to go do something else, shared with the public?
Interesting question. We could eliminate hunger if we wanted to. We
have the technology. Why haven't we? On the labor side, the work is
difficult and workers are underpaid. There has been a migration of
workers from the farms to the cities for as long as I can remember. I'm
not sure that many of those workers found something else that they work
at to support their family. These displaced farm workers present us
with some of our more severe social problems. Creative destruction?
Let's just give even more money to oligarchs, and screw the
people. Let 'em live in squalor - there's nothing for them to
do, and who needs 'em, except as armed guards to protect
the oligarchs.
Post by islander
Agriculture is interesting. I'm just finishing Pinker's chapter on
Sustenance in *Enlightenment Now* and if you include progress in plant
and animal genetics, we have come a long way in eliminating famine. So,
the public in a broad sense has benefited. I'm not sure that farm
workers would appreciate their share of those benefits.
Mine hasn't arrived yet. Amazon had said when I ordered it
that it would arrive between the 5th and 15th of April. I just
looked and there's a notation "shipped" from Amazon, so it
will probably be here this week or early next.
I wish that I could talk with Pinker! I have so many questions! In
particular, he comes down on the side of genetically modified food and I
am very cautious about that, specifically because of the danger of
narrowing the genetic pool. This was what turned me off on Matt Ridley
in *The Rational Optimist* although Ridley treated genetic engineering
in a lot more detail. I understand that agriculture advanced in large
part because of careful breeding to optimize desirable characteristics
of a species, be it plant or animal. The danger of narrowing the gene
pool was always there and we see examples of it in dogs, for example,
which have been in-bred so seriously that they are prone to certain
diseases. When you have the ability to rapidly change a species through
gene splicing and then rapidly propagate it around the world, the
potential for unanticipated consequences is increased. Pinker seems to
express faith that the technology could rapidly respond to solve
problems as they arise, but I'm not convinced. I worry that the genetic
engineering companies will act in their own self interest and not
address the narrowing of the gene pool. I have yet to find an argument
that addresses this concern beyond a healthy dose of faith in
technology. Would anyone trust Monsanto?
El Castor
2018-04-13 15:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
No, the big question is whether the benefits of robots (and other
automation) will be shared with the general public. Robots and other
automation are capital investments and I'd be willing to bet that the
investors will want the return on investment. Business is not a charity.
Were the benefits of farm automation that freed up 90% of the
population to go do something else, shared with the public?
Interesting question. We could eliminate hunger if we wanted to. We
have the technology. Why haven't we? On the labor side, the work is
difficult and workers are underpaid. There has been a migration of
workers from the farms to the cities for as long as I can remember. I'm
not sure that many of those workers found something else that they work
at to support their family. These displaced farm workers present us
with some of our more severe social problems. Creative destruction?
Agriculture is interesting. I'm just finishing Pinker's chapter on
Sustenance in *Enlightenment Now* and if you include progress in plant
and animal genetics, we have come a long way in eliminating famine. So,
the public in a broad sense has benefited. I'm not sure that farm
workers would appreciate their share of those benefits.
The answer is that automation does increase the supply and
affordability of machine manufactured goods, from the shirt on your
back to the shoes on your feet. How our descendants will deal with
these issues will be for them to figure out. I sincerely doubt that
displaced workers will be starving in the street.
islander
2018-04-14 14:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
No, the big question is whether the benefits of robots (and other
automation) will be shared with the general public. Robots and other
automation are capital investments and I'd be willing to bet that the
investors will want the return on investment. Business is not a charity.
Were the benefits of farm automation that freed up 90% of the
population to go do something else, shared with the public?
Interesting question. We could eliminate hunger if we wanted to. We
have the technology. Why haven't we? On the labor side, the work is
difficult and workers are underpaid. There has been a migration of
workers from the farms to the cities for as long as I can remember. I'm
not sure that many of those workers found something else that they work
at to support their family. These displaced farm workers present us
with some of our more severe social problems. Creative destruction?
Agriculture is interesting. I'm just finishing Pinker's chapter on
Sustenance in *Enlightenment Now* and if you include progress in plant
and animal genetics, we have come a long way in eliminating famine. So,
the public in a broad sense has benefited. I'm not sure that farm
workers would appreciate their share of those benefits.
The answer is that automation does increase the supply and
affordability of machine manufactured goods, from the shirt on your
back to the shoes on your feet. How our descendants will deal with
these issues will be for them to figure out. I sincerely doubt that
displaced workers will be starving in the street.
You are correct, but the problem of how to deal with displaced workers
is rarely addressed well. The notion that Trump is going to put coal
miners back to work in the mines is a good example. At least Hillary
had a plan for how to deal with displaced workers in that industry.

Beyond automation, this is also a problem with the previous trade
agreements. The authors of these agreements knew that there would be
displaced workers, but their efforts to address this were minimal and
what was written into the agreements was woefully underfunded by the
Congress.
b***@gmail.com
2018-04-14 01:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
No, the big question is whether the benefits of robots (and other
automation) will be shared with the general public. Robots and other
automation are capital investments and I'd be willing to bet that the
investors will want the return on investment. Business is not a charity.
Look at Hoover Dam. Once the construction costs are paid for, the energy is free. Robots do all the work.

https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/powerfaq.html

"How is the income from the sale of power used?

To pay all operation, maintenance and replacement costs (including interest expense and repayment of investments) to meet the requirements of the project. The cost of construction completed and in service by 1937 was repaid from power revenues by May 31, 1987, except for costs relating to flood control. Repayment of the $25 million construction costs allocated to flood control will be repaid by 2037. Any features added after May 31, 1987 will be repaid within 50 years of the date of installation or as established by Congress. In addition, Arizona and Nevada each receive $300,000 annually in lieu of taxes."
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-14 04:47:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
No, the big question is whether the benefits of robots (and other
automation) will be shared with the general public. Robots and other
automation are capital investments and I'd be willing to bet that the
investors will want the return on investment. Business is not a charity.
Look at Hoover Dam. Once the construction costs are paid for, the energy is free. Robots do all the work.
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/powerfaq.html
Unlike the Golden Gate Bridge. When I first came to San Fran,
in 1969, the toll was about $2 and it was said that the costs of
the bridge would be paid off in ten more years, then there
wouldn't be tolls. The toll is $10 now, I think.
Post by b***@gmail.com
"How is the income from the sale of power used?
To pay all operation, maintenance and replacement costs (including interest expense and repayment of investments) to meet the requirements of the project. The cost of construction completed and in service by 1937 was repaid from power revenues by May 31, 1987, except for costs relating to flood control. Repayment of the $25 million construction costs allocated to flood control will be repaid by 2037. Any features added after May 31, 1987 will be repaid within 50 years of the date of installation or as established by Congress. In addition, Arizona and Nevada each receive $300,000 annually in lieu of taxes."
islander
2018-04-14 14:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
No, the big question is whether the benefits of robots (and other
automation) will be shared with the general public. Robots and other
automation are capital investments and I'd be willing to bet that the
investors will want the return on investment. Business is not a charity.
Look at Hoover Dam. Once the construction costs are paid for, the energy is free. Robots do all the work.
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/powerfaq.html
"How is the income from the sale of power used?
To pay all operation, maintenance and replacement costs (including interest expense and repayment of investments) to meet the requirements of the project. The cost of construction completed and in service by 1937 was repaid from power revenues by May 31, 1987, except for costs relating to flood control. Repayment of the $25 million construction costs allocated to flood control will be repaid by 2037. Any features added after May 31, 1987 will be repaid within 50 years of the date of installation or as established by Congress. In addition, Arizona and Nevada each receive $300,000 annually in lieu of taxes."
If your point is that businesses do not have to seek return on their
investment, I would point out that Hoover Dam was built during the Great
Depression and paid for by the government. It was a public works
project intended to put people to work. Ever since, it has been
operated by the government. There are no investors who are demanding a
return on their investment. There was some interest in private
investment in hydroelectric projects a few years ago, but that seems to
have petered out due to the high cost and high risk associated with
these projects. The private investment was mostly motivated by projects
with very high energy needs such as smelting.

If you are saying that the energy produced is free, it is not. There is
continuing maintenance required and the turbines and generators are
being replaced on a regular schedule. Considering the amount of energy
produced, it is one of the least expensive sources of power.
b***@gmail.com
2018-04-15 01:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Look at Hoover Dam. Once the construction costs are paid for, the energy is free. Robots do all the work.
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/powerfaq.html
"How is the income from the sale of power used?
To pay all operation, maintenance and replacement costs (including interest expense and repayment of investments) to meet the requirements of the project. The cost of construction completed and in service by 1937 was repaid from power revenues by May 31, 1987, except for costs relating to flood control. Repayment of the $25 million construction costs allocated to flood control will be repaid by 2037. Any features added after May 31, 1987 will be repaid within 50 years of the date of installation or as established by Congress. In addition, Arizona and Nevada each receive $300,000 annually in lieu of taxes."
If your point is that businesses do not have to seek return on their
investment, I would point out that Hoover Dam was built during the Great
Depression and paid for by the government. It was a public works
project intended to put people to work. Ever since, it has been
operated by the government. There are no investors who are demanding a
return on their investment. There was some interest in private
investment in hydroelectric projects a few years ago, but that seems to
have petered out due to the high cost and high risk associated with
these projects. The private investment was mostly motivated by projects
with very high energy needs such as smelting.
If you are saying that the energy produced is free, it is not. There is
continuing maintenance required and the turbines and generators are
being replaced on a regular schedule. Considering the amount of energy
produced, it is one of the least expensive sources of power.
The government makes a good profit on it. Maintenance costs are about $624K while wholesale sales of electric power are 1.6 cents per KWH and the dam produces about 4 billion KWH. So, if you do the math, the profit revenue is 4e9 X 0.016 = 64 million and subtracting the 624K is about 64E6 - 624000 = 63.4 million profit for the government per year. That doesn't seem like much money for a government project.
islander
2018-04-15 15:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Look at Hoover Dam. Once the construction costs are paid for, the energy is free. Robots do all the work.
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/powerfaq.html
"How is the income from the sale of power used?
To pay all operation, maintenance and replacement costs (including interest expense and repayment of investments) to meet the requirements of the project. The cost of construction completed and in service by 1937 was repaid from power revenues by May 31, 1987, except for costs relating to flood control. Repayment of the $25 million construction costs allocated to flood control will be repaid by 2037. Any features added after May 31, 1987 will be repaid within 50 years of the date of installation or as established by Congress. In addition, Arizona and Nevada each receive $300,000 annually in lieu of taxes."
If your point is that businesses do not have to seek return on their
investment, I would point out that Hoover Dam was built during the Great
Depression and paid for by the government. It was a public works
project intended to put people to work. Ever since, it has been
operated by the government. There are no investors who are demanding a
return on their investment. There was some interest in private
investment in hydroelectric projects a few years ago, but that seems to
have petered out due to the high cost and high risk associated with
these projects. The private investment was mostly motivated by projects
with very high energy needs such as smelting.
If you are saying that the energy produced is free, it is not. There is
continuing maintenance required and the turbines and generators are
being replaced on a regular schedule. Considering the amount of energy
produced, it is one of the least expensive sources of power.
The government makes a good profit on it. Maintenance costs are about $624K while wholesale sales of electric power are 1.6 cents per KWH and the dam produces about 4 billion KWH. So, if you do the math, the profit revenue is 4e9 X 0.016 = 64 million and subtracting the 624K is about 64E6 - 624000 = 63.4 million profit for the government per year. That doesn't seem like much money for a government project.
You are not including a capital replacement fund. Every large project
should include a reserve to replace capital equipment and a project of
this scale rarely produces enough revenue to build an adequate fund.
So, government owned projects rely upon bond issues when a major capital
expenditure is needed. It would be interesting to look at the books for
the Hoover Dam.

For example, our local non-profit water company includes not only the
distribution system, but also a water treatment plant. About 5 years
ago they faced the replacement of the treatment plant, a project
expected to be in the $million range. Fortunately, they had been
carefully building a capital reserve fund, a nice big pot of money that
members of the coop were constantly pointing at with arguments to reduce
rates. The board persevered and we have a nice new treatment plant that
will last us for another 50 years with minimal debt incurred. And yes,
they are once again beginning to build a capital reserve fund.
b***@gmail.com
2018-04-15 23:47:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
If you are saying that the energy produced is free, it is not. There is
continuing maintenance required and the turbines and generators are
being replaced on a regular schedule. Considering the amount of energy
produced, it is one of the least expensive sources of power.
The government makes a good profit on it. Maintenance costs are about $624K while wholesale sales of electric power are 1.6 cents per KWH and the dam produces about 4 billion KWH. So, if you do the math, the profit revenue is 4e9 X 0.016 = 64 million and subtracting the 624K is about 64E6 - 624000 = 63.4 million profit for the government per year. That doesn't seem like much money for a government project.
You are not including a capital replacement fund. Every large project
should include a reserve to replace capital equipment and a project of
this scale rarely produces enough revenue to build an adequate fund.
So, government owned projects rely upon bond issues when a major capital
expenditure is needed. It would be interesting to look at the books for
the Hoover Dam.
For example, our local non-profit water company includes not only the
distribution system, but also a water treatment plant. About 5 years
ago they faced the replacement of the treatment plant, a project
expected to be in the $million range. Fortunately, they had been
carefully building a capital reserve fund, a nice big pot of money that
members of the coop were constantly pointing at with arguments to reduce
rates. The board persevered and we have a nice new treatment plant that
will last us for another 50 years with minimal debt incurred. And yes,
they are once again beginning to build a capital reserve fund.
Well, I don't know what the costs are to replace equipment but I'm sure the government comes out ahead. Around here in Anaheim, we have our own wells so we don't need to buy water from dams. My water bill last month was 2 dollars and eleven cents plus 5 dollars and 10 cents fee just to read the meter, or $7.21 total. But I don't take a shower every day so I save a little on water.


https://www.anaheim.net/1694/Water-Services-Facts


"Anaheim operates its own state-certified water quality laboratory. More than 44,000 tests are conducted by Anaheim annually to make sure drinking water meets or exceeds all state and federal standards. Anaheim is one of a few cities nationwide with a "Class 1" Water System and Fire Department rating. Water demand total over 20 billion gallons a year, with the highest distribution in a single day topping 107 million gallons. Anaheim Public Utilities serves water to customers at elevations ranging from less than 60 feet to over 1,200 feet above sea level. Groundwater, pumped by Anaheim Public Utilities' own wells, is our most reliable and inexpensive source of water. Prior to the early 1940s, wells were the sole source of water for Anaheim.
islander
2018-04-16 15:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
If you are saying that the energy produced is free, it is not. There is
continuing maintenance required and the turbines and generators are
being replaced on a regular schedule. Considering the amount of energy
produced, it is one of the least expensive sources of power.
The government makes a good profit on it. Maintenance costs are about $624K while wholesale sales of electric power are 1.6 cents per KWH and the dam produces about 4 billion KWH. So, if you do the math, the profit revenue is 4e9 X 0.016 = 64 million and subtracting the 624K is about 64E6 - 624000 = 63.4 million profit for the government per year. That doesn't seem like much money for a government project.
You are not including a capital replacement fund. Every large project
should include a reserve to replace capital equipment and a project of
this scale rarely produces enough revenue to build an adequate fund.
So, government owned projects rely upon bond issues when a major capital
expenditure is needed. It would be interesting to look at the books for
the Hoover Dam.
For example, our local non-profit water company includes not only the
distribution system, but also a water treatment plant. About 5 years
ago they faced the replacement of the treatment plant, a project
expected to be in the $million range. Fortunately, they had been
carefully building a capital reserve fund, a nice big pot of money that
members of the coop were constantly pointing at with arguments to reduce
rates. The board persevered and we have a nice new treatment plant that
will last us for another 50 years with minimal debt incurred. And yes,
they are once again beginning to build a capital reserve fund.
Well, I don't know what the costs are to replace equipment but I'm sure the government comes out ahead. Around here in Anaheim, we have our own wells so we don't need to buy water from dams. My water bill last month was 2 dollars and eleven cents plus 5 dollars and 10 cents fee just to read the meter, or $7.21 total. But I don't take a shower every day so I save a little on water.
https://www.anaheim.net/1694/Water-Services-Facts
"Anaheim operates its own state-certified water quality laboratory. More than 44,000 tests are conducted by Anaheim annually to make sure drinking water meets or exceeds all state and federal standards. Anaheim is one of a few cities nationwide with a "Class 1" Water System and Fire Department rating. Water demand total over 20 billion gallons a year, with the highest distribution in a single day topping 107 million gallons. Anaheim Public Utilities serves water to customers at elevations ranging from less than 60 feet to over 1,200 feet above sea level. Groundwater, pumped by Anaheim Public Utilities' own wells, is our most reliable and inexpensive source of water. Prior to the early 1940s, wells were the sole source of water for Anaheim.
We pay $514 per year for our membership and can use as much water as we
want except during the summer when the water is metered. Even then, we
get 6,000 gal per month at no extra cost which is more than adequate for
most families. If you go over that amount, the penalty can be expensive
and goes up rapidly with increased usage. They recognize that you might
have a leak, but give you only one chance if your usage goes over 30,000
gal. That happened to us once when a pipe broke outside under ground
and we didn't notice it right away. Now, I monitor our usage frequently
during the summer.
b***@gmail.com
2018-04-16 20:59:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Well, I don't know what the costs are to replace equipment but I'm sure the government comes out ahead. Around here in Anaheim, we have our own wells so we don't need to buy water from dams. My water bill last month was 2 dollars and eleven cents plus 5 dollars and 10 cents fee just to read the meter, or $7.21 total. But I don't take a shower every day so I save a little on water.
https://www.anaheim.net/1694/Water-Services-Facts
"Anaheim operates its own state-certified water quality laboratory. More than 44,000 tests are conducted by Anaheim annually to make sure drinking water meets or exceeds all state and federal standards. Anaheim is one of a few cities nationwide with a "Class 1" Water System and Fire Department rating. Water demand total over 20 billion gallons a year, with the highest distribution in a single day topping 107 million gallons. Anaheim Public Utilities serves water to customers at elevations ranging from less than 60 feet to over 1,200 feet above sea level. Groundwater, pumped by Anaheim Public Utilities' own wells, is our most reliable and inexpensive source of water. Prior to the early 1940s, wells were the sole source of water for Anaheim.
We pay $514 per year for our membership and can use as much water as we
want except during the summer when the water is metered. Even then, we
get 6,000 gal per month at no extra cost which is more than adequate for
most families. If you go over that amount, the penalty can be expensive
and goes up rapidly with increased usage. They recognize that you might
have a leak, but give you only one chance if your usage goes over 30,000
gal. That happened to us once when a pipe broke outside under ground
and we didn't notice it right away. Now, I monitor our usage frequently
during the summer.
So you pay about $43 a month for water? My electric bill was $47 last month. When I was in the south pacific islands, most everybody had their own water tanks that collected water running off the roofs since it rained most every day. But it might be raining on one side of the street while dry on the other. I didn't have any electricity so I used a 12 volt automotive battery to power my table light. I recharged it at the telegraph station where I worked about once a week. I repaired about 200 transistor radios at home using my battery powered table light and a kerosene stove to heat the soldering iron. I lost 20 pounds in 2 years. I was 165 when I arrived and 145 when I left. Then I went to New Zealand and lived in a rooming house with 7 others and worked for a electronics place fixing more radios. It was the nicest place I ever lived. We all got along and the rent was only $11 a week. We all had our own little cabinets in the kitchen for our cooking stuff. We had a laundry room with a washing machine and wringer and dried the clothes outside in the sunshine. My passport was only good for 6 months so I had to come home. My employer offered to help extending the time if I wanted to stay longer but I decided to just come home.
islander
2018-04-17 14:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Well, I don't know what the costs are to replace equipment but I'm sure the government comes out ahead. Around here in Anaheim, we have our own wells so we don't need to buy water from dams. My water bill last month was 2 dollars and eleven cents plus 5 dollars and 10 cents fee just to read the meter, or $7.21 total. But I don't take a shower every day so I save a little on water.
https://www.anaheim.net/1694/Water-Services-Facts
"Anaheim operates its own state-certified water quality laboratory. More than 44,000 tests are conducted by Anaheim annually to make sure drinking water meets or exceeds all state and federal standards. Anaheim is one of a few cities nationwide with a "Class 1" Water System and Fire Department rating. Water demand total over 20 billion gallons a year, with the highest distribution in a single day topping 107 million gallons. Anaheim Public Utilities serves water to customers at elevations ranging from less than 60 feet to over 1,200 feet above sea level. Groundwater, pumped by Anaheim Public Utilities' own wells, is our most reliable and inexpensive source of water. Prior to the early 1940s, wells were the sole source of water for Anaheim.
We pay $514 per year for our membership and can use as much water as we
want except during the summer when the water is metered. Even then, we
get 6,000 gal per month at no extra cost which is more than adequate for
most families. If you go over that amount, the penalty can be expensive
and goes up rapidly with increased usage. They recognize that you might
have a leak, but give you only one chance if your usage goes over 30,000
gal. That happened to us once when a pipe broke outside under ground
and we didn't notice it right away. Now, I monitor our usage frequently
during the summer.
So you pay about $43 a month for water? My electric bill was $47 last month. When I was in the south pacific islands, most everybody had their own water tanks that collected water running off the roofs since it rained most every day. But it might be raining on one side of the street while dry on the other. I didn't have any electricity so I used a 12 volt automotive battery to power my table light. I recharged it at the telegraph station where I worked about once a week. I repaired about 200 transistor radios at home using my battery powered table light and a kerosene stove to heat the soldering iron. I lost 20 pounds in 2 years. I was 165 when I arrived and 145 when I left. Then I went to New Zealand and lived in a rooming house with 7 others and worked for a electronics place fixing more radios. It was the nicest place I ever lived. We all got along and the rent was only $11 a week. We all had our own little cabinets in the kitchen for our cooking stuff. We had a laundry room with a washing machine and wringer and dried the clothes outside in the sunshine. My passport was only good for 6 months so I had to come home. My employer offered to help extending the time if I wanted to stay longer but I decided to just come
b***@gmail.com
2018-04-17 16:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
So you pay about $43 a month for water? My electric bill was $47 last month. When I was in the south pacific islands, most everybody had their own water tanks that collected water running off the roofs since it rained most every day. But it might be raining on one side of the street while dry on the other. I didn't have any electricity so I used a 12 volt automotive battery to power my table light. I recharged it at the telegraph station where I worked about once a week. I repaired about 200 transistor radios at home using my battery powered table light and a kerosene stove to heat the soldering iron. I lost 20 pounds in 2 years. I was 165 when I arrived and 145 when I left. Then I went to New Zealand and lived in a rooming house with 7 others and worked for a electronics place fixing more radios. It was the nicest place I ever lived. We all got along and the rent was only $11 a week. We all had our own little cabinets in the kitchen for our cooking stuff. We had a laundry room with a washing machine and wringer and dried the clothes outside in the sunshine. My passport was only good for 6 months so I had to come home. My employer offered to help extending the time if I wanted to stay longer but I decided to just come home.
Those days are gone forever!
Yes and so are Kingdoms. They are more democratic nowadays. I remember meeting this guy at a new years party in 1974. He was the king of Tonga and we all got in line to shake his hand and wish him a happy new year. I had to borrow a coat and tie so I would look respectable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C4%81ufa%CA%BB%C4%81hau_Tupou_IV
mg
2018-04-12 15:14:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:32:25 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
Robots might be good for replacing accountants and clerks and lawyers
and doctors, and surgeons, and assembly line workers and bankers, and
engineers, and teachers, and maybe even research scientists and
politicians, but it's hard to imagine them replacing people who do
manual labor, like a handy man, or a construction worker, or a tree
trimmer, for instance.

How many moving parts and gears and pulleys, etc., is that robot going
to have that go clankity clank and what will it use for power? A power
cord? A lawnmower engine? A big heavy battery? Nuclear power? I don't
think a lawn mower engine would work very well for a robot in a house
that dumps bed pans, for instance :-)

Is that robot going to be able to climb a ladder carrying 50 pounds of
shingles on its back and install shingles on a roof? Is it going to be
able to crawl up in an attic and fix wiring, or install a bathroom
fan? Will it be able to frame a house, or install sheet rock, or lay
brick, or do landscaping, or install or repair plumbing? To build a
robot that can do stuff like that sounds very expensive to me and
there's obviously going to be a lot of maintenance and repairs.

On the other hand, why not use people to do the manual labor thing?
There are about 7 billion of them in the world, and counting, and
they're cheap. Why not import a few hundred million of them into the
US and eliminate the minimum wage laws and pay them based on the laws
of supply and demand? A lot of them, if not most of them, can work
until they're about 60 or 70 years old, with no significant
"maintenance" problems and if anything does happen to them, they're
easy to replace, anyway.
b***@gmail.com
2018-04-13 02:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:32:25 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
Robots might be good for replacing accountants and clerks and lawyers
and doctors, and surgeons, and assembly line workers and bankers, and
engineers, and teachers, and maybe even research scientists and
politicians, but it's hard to imagine them replacing people who do
manual labor, like a handy man, or a construction worker, or a tree
trimmer, for instance.
How many moving parts and gears and pulleys, etc., is that robot going
to have that go clankity clank and what will it use for power? A power
cord? A lawnmower engine? A big heavy battery? Nuclear power? I don't
think a lawn mower engine would work very well for a robot in a house
that dumps bed pans, for instance :-)
Is that robot going to be able to climb a ladder carrying 50 pounds of
shingles on its back and install shingles on a roof? Is it going to be
able to crawl up in an attic and fix wiring, or install a bathroom
fan? Will it be able to frame a house, or install sheet rock, or lay
brick, or do landscaping, or install or repair plumbing? To build a
robot that can do stuff like that sounds very expensive to me and
there's obviously going to be a lot of maintenance and repairs.
On the other hand, why not use people to do the manual labor thing?
There are about 7 billion of them in the world, and counting, and
they're cheap. Why not import a few hundred million of them into the
US and eliminate the minimum wage laws and pay them based on the laws
of supply and demand? A lot of them, if not most of them, can work
until they're about 60 or 70 years old, with no significant
"maintenance" problems and if anything does happen to them, they're
easy to replace, anyway.
It won't be difficult to build a house. Each wall of the house can be assembled on the ground and then the several walls of the house can be picked up and set in place with interlocking points so the house doesn't fall apart and stays together forever. No need for a frame. Same with the brick and landscaping. Around here, they just replace a few thousand sq ft of grass with the new plastic grass that needs no water. You don't have to cut it or water it and it looks better than real grass. The robots of the future will not have to do much maintenance since things will be built to last forever. Just like my solar panel will last forever and keep on generating 18 watts long after I die.
mg
2018-04-13 11:27:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:32:25 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
Robots might be good for replacing accountants and clerks and lawyers
and doctors, and surgeons, and assembly line workers and bankers, and
engineers, and teachers, and maybe even research scientists and
politicians, but it's hard to imagine them replacing people who do
manual labor, like a handy man, or a construction worker, or a tree
trimmer, for instance.
How many moving parts and gears and pulleys, etc., is that robot going
to have that go clankity clank and what will it use for power? A power
cord? A lawnmower engine? A big heavy battery? Nuclear power? I don't
think a lawn mower engine would work very well for a robot in a house
that dumps bed pans, for instance :-)
Is that robot going to be able to climb a ladder carrying 50 pounds of
shingles on its back and install shingles on a roof? Is it going to be
able to crawl up in an attic and fix wiring, or install a bathroom
fan? Will it be able to frame a house, or install sheet rock, or lay
brick, or do landscaping, or install or repair plumbing? To build a
robot that can do stuff like that sounds very expensive to me and
there's obviously going to be a lot of maintenance and repairs.
On the other hand, why not use people to do the manual labor thing?
There are about 7 billion of them in the world, and counting, and
they're cheap. Why not import a few hundred million of them into the
US and eliminate the minimum wage laws and pay them based on the laws
of supply and demand? A lot of them, if not most of them, can work
until they're about 60 or 70 years old, with no significant
"maintenance" problems and if anything does happen to them, they're
easy to replace, anyway.
It won't be difficult to build a house. Each wall of the house can be assembled on the ground and then the several walls of the house can be picked up and set in place with interlocking points so the house doesn't fall apart and stays together forever. No need for a frame. Same with the brick and landscaping. Around here, they just replace a few thousand sq ft of grass with the new plastic grass that needs no water. You don't have to cut it or water it and it looks better than real grass. The robots of the future will not have to do much maintenance since things will be built to last forever. Just like my solar panel will last forever and keep on generating 18 watts long after I die.
The two biggest pains in the neck, as far as cost and maintenance are
concerned, in this life are houses and automobiles. Actually, the
automobile situation has gotten a lot better since Japan taught us how
to build them. The house situation still sucks, though; they're
expensive to buy and they're a continuous maintenance problem.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-13 13:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:32:25 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
Robots might be good for replacing accountants and clerks and lawyers
and doctors, and surgeons, and assembly line workers and bankers, and
engineers, and teachers, and maybe even research scientists and
politicians, but it's hard to imagine them replacing people who do
manual labor, like a handy man, or a construction worker, or a tree
trimmer, for instance.
How many moving parts and gears and pulleys, etc., is that robot going
to have that go clankity clank and what will it use for power? A power
cord? A lawnmower engine? A big heavy battery? Nuclear power? I don't
think a lawn mower engine would work very well for a robot in a house
that dumps bed pans, for instance :-)
Is that robot going to be able to climb a ladder carrying 50 pounds of
shingles on its back and install shingles on a roof? Is it going to be
able to crawl up in an attic and fix wiring, or install a bathroom
fan? Will it be able to frame a house, or install sheet rock, or lay
brick, or do landscaping, or install or repair plumbing? To build a
robot that can do stuff like that sounds very expensive to me and
there's obviously going to be a lot of maintenance and repairs.
On the other hand, why not use people to do the manual labor thing?
There are about 7 billion of them in the world, and counting, and
they're cheap. Why not import a few hundred million of them into the
US and eliminate the minimum wage laws and pay them based on the laws
of supply and demand? A lot of them, if not most of them, can work
until they're about 60 or 70 years old, with no significant
"maintenance" problems and if anything does happen to them, they're
easy to replace, anyway.
It won't be difficult to build a house. Each wall of the house can be assembled on the ground and then the several walls of the house can be picked up and set in place with interlocking points so the house doesn't fall apart and stays together forever. No need for a frame. Same with the brick and landscaping. Around here, they just replace a few thousand sq ft of grass with the new plastic grass that needs no water. You don't have to cut it or water it and it looks better than real grass. The robots of the future will not have to do much maintenance since things will be built to last forever. Just like my solar panel will last forever and keep on generating 18 watts long after I die.
The two biggest pains in the neck, as far as cost and maintenance are
concerned, in this life are houses and automobiles. Actually, the
automobile situation has gotten a lot better since Japan taught us how
to build them. The house situation still sucks, though; they're
expensive to buy and they're a continuous maintenance problem.
That's why I've never been tempted to own Real Estate.
I have almost always had a car, but I always spent pretty
much as little as possible on one, and only once bought
a new car. My current car is a wreck now: It was my
mom's car before she died. It's a 1989 Ford Escort and
I drove it across country to get it to San Francisco, I
use it mostly just for shopping. There's an expensive
supermarket just a block down from me, which I never
patronize except to buy one onion or something like
that. If that store were a Costco, I would get rid of the car.
mg
2018-04-13 23:03:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:32:25 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
Robots might be good for replacing accountants and clerks and lawyers
and doctors, and surgeons, and assembly line workers and bankers, and
engineers, and teachers, and maybe even research scientists and
politicians, but it's hard to imagine them replacing people who do
manual labor, like a handy man, or a construction worker, or a tree
trimmer, for instance.
How many moving parts and gears and pulleys, etc., is that robot going
to have that go clankity clank and what will it use for power? A power
cord? A lawnmower engine? A big heavy battery? Nuclear power? I don't
think a lawn mower engine would work very well for a robot in a house
that dumps bed pans, for instance :-)
Is that robot going to be able to climb a ladder carrying 50 pounds of
shingles on its back and install shingles on a roof? Is it going to be
able to crawl up in an attic and fix wiring, or install a bathroom
fan? Will it be able to frame a house, or install sheet rock, or lay
brick, or do landscaping, or install or repair plumbing? To build a
robot that can do stuff like that sounds very expensive to me and
there's obviously going to be a lot of maintenance and repairs.
On the other hand, why not use people to do the manual labor thing?
There are about 7 billion of them in the world, and counting, and
they're cheap. Why not import a few hundred million of them into the
US and eliminate the minimum wage laws and pay them based on the laws
of supply and demand? A lot of them, if not most of them, can work
until they're about 60 or 70 years old, with no significant
"maintenance" problems and if anything does happen to them, they're
easy to replace, anyway.
It won't be difficult to build a house. Each wall of the house can be assembled on the ground and then the several walls of the house can be picked up and set in place with interlocking points so the house doesn't fall apart and stays together forever. No need for a frame. Same with the brick and landscaping. Around here, they just replace a few thousand sq ft of grass with the new plastic grass that needs no water. You don't have to cut it or water it and it looks better than real grass. The robots of the future will not have to do much maintenance since things will be built to last forever. Just like my solar panel will last forever and keep on generating 18 watts long after I die.
The two biggest pains in the neck, as far as cost and maintenance are
concerned, in this life are houses and automobiles. Actually, the
automobile situation has gotten a lot better since Japan taught us how
to build them. The house situation still sucks, though; they're
expensive to buy and they're a continuous maintenance problem.
That's why I've never been tempted to own Real Estate.
I have almost always had a car, but I always spent pretty
much as little as possible on one, and only once bought
a new car. My current car is a wreck now: It was my
mom's car before she died. It's a 1989 Ford Escort and
I drove it across country to get it to San Francisco, I
use it mostly just for shopping. There's an expensive
supermarket just a block down from me, which I never
patronize except to buy one onion or something like
that. If that store were a Costco, I would get rid of the car.
Even in Utah, I suppose that one does eventually reach the point where
once wants to get rid of his car (and perhaps his house, too) and I
was driving down the street a few weeks ago and I noticed a large
apartment complex building under construction next to the Costco store
and I thought, wow, what a great idea for seniors!
El Castor
2018-04-13 15:49:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:32:25 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
Robots might be good for replacing accountants and clerks and lawyers
and doctors, and surgeons, and assembly line workers and bankers, and
engineers, and teachers, and maybe even research scientists and
politicians, but it's hard to imagine them replacing people who do
manual labor, like a handy man, or a construction worker, or a tree
trimmer, for instance.
How many moving parts and gears and pulleys, etc., is that robot going
to have that go clankity clank and what will it use for power? A power
cord? A lawnmower engine? A big heavy battery? Nuclear power? I don't
think a lawn mower engine would work very well for a robot in a house
that dumps bed pans, for instance :-)
Is that robot going to be able to climb a ladder carrying 50 pounds of
shingles on its back and install shingles on a roof? Is it going to be
able to crawl up in an attic and fix wiring, or install a bathroom
fan? Will it be able to frame a house, or install sheet rock, or lay
brick, or do landscaping, or install or repair plumbing? To build a
robot that can do stuff like that sounds very expensive to me and
there's obviously going to be a lot of maintenance and repairs.
On the other hand, why not use people to do the manual labor thing?
There are about 7 billion of them in the world, and counting, and
they're cheap. Why not import a few hundred million of them into the
US and eliminate the minimum wage laws and pay them based on the laws
of supply and demand? A lot of them, if not most of them, can work
until they're about 60 or 70 years old, with no significant
"maintenance" problems and if anything does happen to them, they're
easy to replace, anyway.
It won't be difficult to build a house. Each wall of the house can be assembled on the ground and then the several walls of the house can be picked up and set in place with interlocking points so the house doesn't fall apart and stays together forever. No need for a frame. Same with the brick and landscaping. Around here, they just replace a few thousand sq ft of grass with the new plastic grass that needs no water. You don't have to cut it or water it and it looks better than real grass. The robots of the future will not have to do much maintenance since things will be built to last forever. Just like my solar panel will last forever and keep on generating 18 watts long after I die.
The two biggest pains in the neck, as far as cost and maintenance are
concerned, in this life are houses and automobiles. Actually, the
automobile situation has gotten a lot better since Japan taught us how
to build them. The house situation still sucks, though; they're
expensive to buy and they're a continuous maintenance problem.
A 3D priinted house of today, like right now.

http://www.reuters.tv/v/jCd/2018/04/12/3d-printed-house-unveiled-in-france
mg
2018-04-14 08:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:49:10 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:32:25 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
Robots might be good for replacing accountants and clerks and lawyers
and doctors, and surgeons, and assembly line workers and bankers, and
engineers, and teachers, and maybe even research scientists and
politicians, but it's hard to imagine them replacing people who do
manual labor, like a handy man, or a construction worker, or a tree
trimmer, for instance.
How many moving parts and gears and pulleys, etc., is that robot going
to have that go clankity clank and what will it use for power? A power
cord? A lawnmower engine? A big heavy battery? Nuclear power? I don't
think a lawn mower engine would work very well for a robot in a house
that dumps bed pans, for instance :-)
Is that robot going to be able to climb a ladder carrying 50 pounds of
shingles on its back and install shingles on a roof? Is it going to be
able to crawl up in an attic and fix wiring, or install a bathroom
fan? Will it be able to frame a house, or install sheet rock, or lay
brick, or do landscaping, or install or repair plumbing? To build a
robot that can do stuff like that sounds very expensive to me and
there's obviously going to be a lot of maintenance and repairs.
On the other hand, why not use people to do the manual labor thing?
There are about 7 billion of them in the world, and counting, and
they're cheap. Why not import a few hundred million of them into the
US and eliminate the minimum wage laws and pay them based on the laws
of supply and demand? A lot of them, if not most of them, can work
until they're about 60 or 70 years old, with no significant
"maintenance" problems and if anything does happen to them, they're
easy to replace, anyway.
It won't be difficult to build a house. Each wall of the house can be assembled on the ground and then the several walls of the house can be picked up and set in place with interlocking points so the house doesn't fall apart and stays together forever. No need for a frame. Same with the brick and landscaping. Around here, they just replace a few thousand sq ft of grass with the new plastic grass that needs no water. You don't have to cut it or water it and it looks better than real grass. The robots of the future will not have to do much maintenance since things will be built to last forever. Just like my solar panel will last forever and keep on generating 18 watts long after I die.
The two biggest pains in the neck, as far as cost and maintenance are
concerned, in this life are houses and automobiles. Actually, the
automobile situation has gotten a lot better since Japan taught us how
to build them. The house situation still sucks, though; they're
expensive to buy and they're a continuous maintenance problem.
A 3D priinted house of today, like right now.
http://www.reuters.tv/v/jCd/2018/04/12/3d-printed-house-unveiled-in-france
I don't know. It looks interesting. I had a cousin who bought a
manufactured, prefab home about 30 or 40 years ago that was pretty
cheap, I think.
islander
2018-04-13 14:59:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:32:25 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
Robots might be good for replacing accountants and clerks and lawyers
and doctors, and surgeons, and assembly line workers and bankers, and
engineers, and teachers, and maybe even research scientists and
politicians, but it's hard to imagine them replacing people who do
manual labor, like a handy man, or a construction worker, or a tree
trimmer, for instance.
How many moving parts and gears and pulleys, etc., is that robot going
to have that go clankity clank and what will it use for power? A power
cord? A lawnmower engine? A big heavy battery? Nuclear power? I don't
think a lawn mower engine would work very well for a robot in a house
that dumps bed pans, for instance :-)
Is that robot going to be able to climb a ladder carrying 50 pounds of
shingles on its back and install shingles on a roof? Is it going to be
able to crawl up in an attic and fix wiring, or install a bathroom
fan? Will it be able to frame a house, or install sheet rock, or lay
brick, or do landscaping, or install or repair plumbing? To build a
robot that can do stuff like that sounds very expensive to me and
there's obviously going to be a lot of maintenance and repairs.
On the other hand, why not use people to do the manual labor thing?
There are about 7 billion of them in the world, and counting, and
they're cheap. Why not import a few hundred million of them into the
US and eliminate the minimum wage laws and pay them based on the laws
of supply and demand? A lot of them, if not most of them, can work
until they're about 60 or 70 years old, with no significant
"maintenance" problems and if anything does happen to them, they're
easy to replace, anyway.
It won't be difficult to build a house. Each wall of the house can be assembled on the ground and then the several walls of the house can be picked up and set in place with interlocking points so the house doesn't fall apart and stays together forever. No need for a frame. Same with the brick and landscaping. Around here, they just replace a few thousand sq ft of grass with the new plastic grass that needs no water. You don't have to cut it or water it and it looks better than real grass. The robots of the future will not have to do much maintenance since things will be built to last forever. Just like my solar panel will last forever and keep on generating 18 watts long after I die.
3D printed house took 24 hours to build:

El Castor
2018-04-13 15:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:32:25 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
Robots might be good for replacing accountants and clerks and lawyers
and doctors, and surgeons, and assembly line workers and bankers, and
engineers, and teachers, and maybe even research scientists and
politicians, but it's hard to imagine them replacing people who do
manual labor, like a handy man, or a construction worker, or a tree
trimmer, for instance.
How many moving parts and gears and pulleys, etc., is that robot going
to have that go clankity clank and what will it use for power? A power
cord? A lawnmower engine? A big heavy battery? Nuclear power? I don't
think a lawn mower engine would work very well for a robot in a house
that dumps bed pans, for instance :-)
Is that robot going to be able to climb a ladder carrying 50 pounds of
shingles on its back and install shingles on a roof? Is it going to be
able to crawl up in an attic and fix wiring, or install a bathroom
fan? Will it be able to frame a house, or install sheet rock, or lay
brick, or do landscaping, or install or repair plumbing? To build a
robot that can do stuff like that sounds very expensive to me and
there's obviously going to be a lot of maintenance and repairs.
On the other hand, why not use people to do the manual labor thing?
There are about 7 billion of them in the world, and counting, and
they're cheap. Why not import a few hundred million of them into the
US and eliminate the minimum wage laws and pay them based on the laws
of supply and demand? A lot of them, if not most of them, can work
until they're about 60 or 70 years old, with no significant
"maintenance" problems and if anything does happen to them, they're
easy to replace, anyway.
The manual labor that you described will be the last to fall to
automation and AI, but you can't predict a world of the future based
on your understanding of that which does not yet exist. For instance,
masybe the housing of the future won't look anything like the housing
of 2018. Maybe roofs and wiring will be designed to be easily
maintained by AI powered robots?
mg
2018-04-13 23:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:43:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:32:25 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
Robots might be good for replacing accountants and clerks and lawyers
and doctors, and surgeons, and assembly line workers and bankers, and
engineers, and teachers, and maybe even research scientists and
politicians, but it's hard to imagine them replacing people who do
manual labor, like a handy man, or a construction worker, or a tree
trimmer, for instance.
How many moving parts and gears and pulleys, etc., is that robot going
to have that go clankity clank and what will it use for power? A power
cord? A lawnmower engine? A big heavy battery? Nuclear power? I don't
think a lawn mower engine would work very well for a robot in a house
that dumps bed pans, for instance :-)
Is that robot going to be able to climb a ladder carrying 50 pounds of
shingles on its back and install shingles on a roof? Is it going to be
able to crawl up in an attic and fix wiring, or install a bathroom
fan? Will it be able to frame a house, or install sheet rock, or lay
brick, or do landscaping, or install or repair plumbing? To build a
robot that can do stuff like that sounds very expensive to me and
there's obviously going to be a lot of maintenance and repairs.
On the other hand, why not use people to do the manual labor thing?
There are about 7 billion of them in the world, and counting, and
they're cheap. Why not import a few hundred million of them into the
US and eliminate the minimum wage laws and pay them based on the laws
of supply and demand? A lot of them, if not most of them, can work
until they're about 60 or 70 years old, with no significant
"maintenance" problems and if anything does happen to them, they're
easy to replace, anyway.
The manual labor that you described will be the last to fall to
automation and AI, but you can't predict a world of the future based
on your understanding of that which does not yet exist. For instance,
masybe the housing of the future won't look anything like the housing
of 2018. Maybe roofs and wiring will be designed to be easily
maintained by AI powered robots?
I think that's absolutely true, but even so I still think that a lot
of people might be surprised (long after you and I are gone, of
course) to find out that instead of replacing laborers, it was
actually professional people, with college degrees, who got replaced.
El Castor
2018-04-14 06:25:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:43:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:32:25 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
Robots might be good for replacing accountants and clerks and lawyers
and doctors, and surgeons, and assembly line workers and bankers, and
engineers, and teachers, and maybe even research scientists and
politicians, but it's hard to imagine them replacing people who do
manual labor, like a handy man, or a construction worker, or a tree
trimmer, for instance.
How many moving parts and gears and pulleys, etc., is that robot going
to have that go clankity clank and what will it use for power? A power
cord? A lawnmower engine? A big heavy battery? Nuclear power? I don't
think a lawn mower engine would work very well for a robot in a house
that dumps bed pans, for instance :-)
Is that robot going to be able to climb a ladder carrying 50 pounds of
shingles on its back and install shingles on a roof? Is it going to be
able to crawl up in an attic and fix wiring, or install a bathroom
fan? Will it be able to frame a house, or install sheet rock, or lay
brick, or do landscaping, or install or repair plumbing? To build a
robot that can do stuff like that sounds very expensive to me and
there's obviously going to be a lot of maintenance and repairs.
On the other hand, why not use people to do the manual labor thing?
There are about 7 billion of them in the world, and counting, and
they're cheap. Why not import a few hundred million of them into the
US and eliminate the minimum wage laws and pay them based on the laws
of supply and demand? A lot of them, if not most of them, can work
until they're about 60 or 70 years old, with no significant
"maintenance" problems and if anything does happen to them, they're
easy to replace, anyway.
The manual labor that you described will be the last to fall to
automation and AI, but you can't predict a world of the future based
on your understanding of that which does not yet exist. For instance,
masybe the housing of the future won't look anything like the housing
of 2018. Maybe roofs and wiring will be designed to be easily
maintained by AI powered robots?
I think that's absolutely true, but even so I still think that a lot
of people might be surprised (long after you and I are gone, of
course) to find out that instead of replacing laborers, it was
actually professional people, with college degrees, who got replaced.
The single biggest physical labor job in the US is truck drive, and
they will be among thr fiirst to go.
mg
2018-04-14 08:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 23:25:04 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:43:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:32:25 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
Robots might be good for replacing accountants and clerks and lawyers
and doctors, and surgeons, and assembly line workers and bankers, and
engineers, and teachers, and maybe even research scientists and
politicians, but it's hard to imagine them replacing people who do
manual labor, like a handy man, or a construction worker, or a tree
trimmer, for instance.
How many moving parts and gears and pulleys, etc., is that robot going
to have that go clankity clank and what will it use for power? A power
cord? A lawnmower engine? A big heavy battery? Nuclear power? I don't
think a lawn mower engine would work very well for a robot in a house
that dumps bed pans, for instance :-)
Is that robot going to be able to climb a ladder carrying 50 pounds of
shingles on its back and install shingles on a roof? Is it going to be
able to crawl up in an attic and fix wiring, or install a bathroom
fan? Will it be able to frame a house, or install sheet rock, or lay
brick, or do landscaping, or install or repair plumbing? To build a
robot that can do stuff like that sounds very expensive to me and
there's obviously going to be a lot of maintenance and repairs.
On the other hand, why not use people to do the manual labor thing?
There are about 7 billion of them in the world, and counting, and
they're cheap. Why not import a few hundred million of them into the
US and eliminate the minimum wage laws and pay them based on the laws
of supply and demand? A lot of them, if not most of them, can work
until they're about 60 or 70 years old, with no significant
"maintenance" problems and if anything does happen to them, they're
easy to replace, anyway.
The manual labor that you described will be the last to fall to
automation and AI, but you can't predict a world of the future based
on your understanding of that which does not yet exist. For instance,
masybe the housing of the future won't look anything like the housing
of 2018. Maybe roofs and wiring will be designed to be easily
maintained by AI powered robots?
I think that's absolutely true, but even so I still think that a lot
of people might be surprised (long after you and I are gone, of
course) to find out that instead of replacing laborers, it was
actually professional people, with college degrees, who got replaced.
The single biggest physical labor job in the US is truck drive, and
they will be among thr fiirst to go.
There are lots of different kinds of truck drivers, but it's logical,
I suppose, to assume that the driving part of the job will be done by
a computer built into the truck and in the case of long-haul,
tractor-trailer drivers, there might be no robot at all involved.

In the case of garbage-collection and mail delivery, I imagine that
could all be done with a computer and mechanization built into the
vehicle.

What could be done, though, to automate FedEx and UPS package
delivery? Would they have a robot ride along in the truck and then hop
out and deliver the packages, or what? That's possible, I think. Or
would they eventually pay people about $8/hr to do it? I think that's
possible, too.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-14 09:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 02:43:34 -0600, mg <***@none.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Post by mg
There are lots of different kinds of truck drivers, but it's logical,
I suppose, to assume that the driving part of the job will be done by
a computer built into the truck and in the case of long-haul,
tractor-trailer drivers, there might be no robot at all involved.
In the case of garbage-collection and mail delivery, I imagine that
could all be done with a computer and mechanization built into the
vehicle.
Just be careful where you set your baby down, and keep
your cats and dogs indoors on garbage collection day.
Post by mg
What could be done, though, to automate FedEx and UPS package
delivery? Would they have a robot ride along in the truck and then hop
out and deliver the packages, or what? That's possible, I think. Or
would they eventually pay people about $8/hr to do it? I think that's
possible, too.
mg
2018-04-14 12:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
There are lots of different kinds of truck drivers, but it's logical,
I suppose, to assume that the driving part of the job will be done by
a computer built into the truck and in the case of long-haul,
tractor-trailer drivers, there might be no robot at all involved.
In the case of garbage-collection and mail delivery, I imagine that
could all be done with a computer and mechanization built into the
vehicle.
Just be careful where you set your baby down, and keep
your cats and dogs indoors on garbage collection day.
There are going to be some casualties, of course, but that's progress.
:-)
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
What could be done, though, to automate FedEx and UPS package
delivery? Would they have a robot ride along in the truck and then hop
out and deliver the packages, or what? That's possible, I think. Or
would they eventually pay people about $8/hr to do it? I think that's
possible, too.
El Castor
2018-04-17 07:43:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 23:25:04 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:43:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:32:25 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
Robots might be good for replacing accountants and clerks and lawyers
and doctors, and surgeons, and assembly line workers and bankers, and
engineers, and teachers, and maybe even research scientists and
politicians, but it's hard to imagine them replacing people who do
manual labor, like a handy man, or a construction worker, or a tree
trimmer, for instance.
How many moving parts and gears and pulleys, etc., is that robot going
to have that go clankity clank and what will it use for power? A power
cord? A lawnmower engine? A big heavy battery? Nuclear power? I don't
think a lawn mower engine would work very well for a robot in a house
that dumps bed pans, for instance :-)
Is that robot going to be able to climb a ladder carrying 50 pounds of
shingles on its back and install shingles on a roof? Is it going to be
able to crawl up in an attic and fix wiring, or install a bathroom
fan? Will it be able to frame a house, or install sheet rock, or lay
brick, or do landscaping, or install or repair plumbing? To build a
robot that can do stuff like that sounds very expensive to me and
there's obviously going to be a lot of maintenance and repairs.
On the other hand, why not use people to do the manual labor thing?
There are about 7 billion of them in the world, and counting, and
they're cheap. Why not import a few hundred million of them into the
US and eliminate the minimum wage laws and pay them based on the laws
of supply and demand? A lot of them, if not most of them, can work
until they're about 60 or 70 years old, with no significant
"maintenance" problems and if anything does happen to them, they're
easy to replace, anyway.
The manual labor that you described will be the last to fall to
automation and AI, but you can't predict a world of the future based
on your understanding of that which does not yet exist. For instance,
masybe the housing of the future won't look anything like the housing
of 2018. Maybe roofs and wiring will be designed to be easily
maintained by AI powered robots?
I think that's absolutely true, but even so I still think that a lot
of people might be surprised (long after you and I are gone, of
course) to find out that instead of replacing laborers, it was
actually professional people, with college degrees, who got replaced.
The single biggest physical labor job in the US is truck drive, and
they will be among thr fiirst to go.
There are lots of different kinds of truck drivers, but it's logical,
I suppose, to assume that the driving part of the job will be done by
a computer built into the truck and in the case of long-haul,
tractor-trailer drivers, there might be no robot at all involved.
In the case of garbage-collection and mail delivery, I imagine that
could all be done with a computer and mechanization built into the
vehicle.
What could be done, though, to automate FedEx and UPS package
delivery? Would they have a robot ride along in the truck and then hop
out and deliver the packages, or what? That's possible, I think. Or
would they eventually pay people about $8/hr to do it? I think that's
possible, too.
It will take time, and happen in ways that are difficult to imagine
now, but it will happen.

BTW, Amazon is experimenting with drone delivery. Hard to imagine in
cities, but it could work in rural areas.
https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?ie=UTF8&node=8037720011

An automated Amazon warehouse ...

mg
2018-04-17 16:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:43:29 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 23:25:04 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:43:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:32:25 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
Robots might be good for replacing accountants and clerks and lawyers
and doctors, and surgeons, and assembly line workers and bankers, and
engineers, and teachers, and maybe even research scientists and
politicians, but it's hard to imagine them replacing people who do
manual labor, like a handy man, or a construction worker, or a tree
trimmer, for instance.
How many moving parts and gears and pulleys, etc., is that robot going
to have that go clankity clank and what will it use for power? A power
cord? A lawnmower engine? A big heavy battery? Nuclear power? I don't
think a lawn mower engine would work very well for a robot in a house
that dumps bed pans, for instance :-)
Is that robot going to be able to climb a ladder carrying 50 pounds of
shingles on its back and install shingles on a roof? Is it going to be
able to crawl up in an attic and fix wiring, or install a bathroom
fan? Will it be able to frame a house, or install sheet rock, or lay
brick, or do landscaping, or install or repair plumbing? To build a
robot that can do stuff like that sounds very expensive to me and
there's obviously going to be a lot of maintenance and repairs.
On the other hand, why not use people to do the manual labor thing?
There are about 7 billion of them in the world, and counting, and
they're cheap. Why not import a few hundred million of them into the
US and eliminate the minimum wage laws and pay them based on the laws
of supply and demand? A lot of them, if not most of them, can work
until they're about 60 or 70 years old, with no significant
"maintenance" problems and if anything does happen to them, they're
easy to replace, anyway.
The manual labor that you described will be the last to fall to
automation and AI, but you can't predict a world of the future based
on your understanding of that which does not yet exist. For instance,
masybe the housing of the future won't look anything like the housing
of 2018. Maybe roofs and wiring will be designed to be easily
maintained by AI powered robots?
I think that's absolutely true, but even so I still think that a lot
of people might be surprised (long after you and I are gone, of
course) to find out that instead of replacing laborers, it was
actually professional people, with college degrees, who got replaced.
The single biggest physical labor job in the US is truck drive, and
they will be among thr fiirst to go.
There are lots of different kinds of truck drivers, but it's logical,
I suppose, to assume that the driving part of the job will be done by
a computer built into the truck and in the case of long-haul,
tractor-trailer drivers, there might be no robot at all involved.
In the case of garbage-collection and mail delivery, I imagine that
could all be done with a computer and mechanization built into the
vehicle.
What could be done, though, to automate FedEx and UPS package
delivery? Would they have a robot ride along in the truck and then hop
out and deliver the packages, or what? That's possible, I think. Or
would they eventually pay people about $8/hr to do it? I think that's
possible, too.
It will take time, and happen in ways that are difficult to imagine
now, but it will happen.
BTW, Amazon is experimenting with drone delivery. Hard to imagine in
cities, but it could work in rural areas.
https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?ie=UTF8&node=8037720011
An automated Amazon warehouse ...
http://youtu.be/UtBa9yVZBJM
These things always seem to work out differently than expected, or
predicted. It's a little bit, I think, like trying to predict the
stock market and timing, of course, is important in the stock market,
and I think timing is also important with the prediction of the coming
of the robots. Some people think they're coming very soon and some
people think it might be a 100 years, for instance. I imagine that
there's some truth in both opinions, where rudimentary ones will be
available in the near future, but the really advanced ones might be a
long time coming.

Or, there could be advances in totally surprising and unanticipated
directions. For instance, would it be possible to put a computer chip
in a service dog's brain and make him smarter?

One of the things that totally fascinates me, based on my own
experience of writing a massive program over a couple of years at the
steel plant, is that with computer programs they can become "smarter"
than the programmer because with computer programs, over time, only
the best code is retained, and the rest is eventually deleted. Then,
if you add to that the fact that most of the programming will probably
be done with large teams of people, eventually the computer becomes
smarter than a large number of the best experts, in the world, in a
particular specialty field.
El Castor
2018-04-17 19:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:43:29 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 23:25:04 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:43:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:32:25 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
Robots might be good for replacing accountants and clerks and lawyers
and doctors, and surgeons, and assembly line workers and bankers, and
engineers, and teachers, and maybe even research scientists and
politicians, but it's hard to imagine them replacing people who do
manual labor, like a handy man, or a construction worker, or a tree
trimmer, for instance.
How many moving parts and gears and pulleys, etc., is that robot going
to have that go clankity clank and what will it use for power? A power
cord? A lawnmower engine? A big heavy battery? Nuclear power? I don't
think a lawn mower engine would work very well for a robot in a house
that dumps bed pans, for instance :-)
Is that robot going to be able to climb a ladder carrying 50 pounds of
shingles on its back and install shingles on a roof? Is it going to be
able to crawl up in an attic and fix wiring, or install a bathroom
fan? Will it be able to frame a house, or install sheet rock, or lay
brick, or do landscaping, or install or repair plumbing? To build a
robot that can do stuff like that sounds very expensive to me and
there's obviously going to be a lot of maintenance and repairs.
On the other hand, why not use people to do the manual labor thing?
There are about 7 billion of them in the world, and counting, and
they're cheap. Why not import a few hundred million of them into the
US and eliminate the minimum wage laws and pay them based on the laws
of supply and demand? A lot of them, if not most of them, can work
until they're about 60 or 70 years old, with no significant
"maintenance" problems and if anything does happen to them, they're
easy to replace, anyway.
The manual labor that you described will be the last to fall to
automation and AI, but you can't predict a world of the future based
on your understanding of that which does not yet exist. For instance,
masybe the housing of the future won't look anything like the housing
of 2018. Maybe roofs and wiring will be designed to be easily
maintained by AI powered robots?
I think that's absolutely true, but even so I still think that a lot
of people might be surprised (long after you and I are gone, of
course) to find out that instead of replacing laborers, it was
actually professional people, with college degrees, who got replaced.
The single biggest physical labor job in the US is truck drive, and
they will be among thr fiirst to go.
There are lots of different kinds of truck drivers, but it's logical,
I suppose, to assume that the driving part of the job will be done by
a computer built into the truck and in the case of long-haul,
tractor-trailer drivers, there might be no robot at all involved.
In the case of garbage-collection and mail delivery, I imagine that
could all be done with a computer and mechanization built into the
vehicle.
What could be done, though, to automate FedEx and UPS package
delivery? Would they have a robot ride along in the truck and then hop
out and deliver the packages, or what? That's possible, I think. Or
would they eventually pay people about $8/hr to do it? I think that's
possible, too.
It will take time, and happen in ways that are difficult to imagine
now, but it will happen.
BTW, Amazon is experimenting with drone delivery. Hard to imagine in
cities, but it could work in rural areas.
https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?ie=UTF8&node=8037720011
An automated Amazon warehouse ...
http://youtu.be/UtBa9yVZBJM
These things always seem to work out differently than expected, or
predicted. It's a little bit, I think, like trying to predict the
stock market and timing, of course, is important in the stock market,
and I think timing is also important with the prediction of the coming
of the robots. Some people think they're coming very soon and some
people think it might be a 100 years, for instance. I imagine that
there's some truth in both opinions, where rudimentary ones will be
available in the near future, but the really advanced ones might be a
long time coming.
Or, there could be advances in totally surprising and unanticipated
directions. For instance, would it be possible to put a computer chip
in a service dog's brain and make him smarter?
One of the things that totally fascinates me, based on my own
experience of writing a massive program over a couple of years at the
steel plant, is that with computer programs they can become "smarter"
than the programmer because with computer programs, over time, only
the best code is retained, and the rest is eventually deleted. Then,
if you add to that the fact that most of the programming will probably
be done with large teams of people, eventually the computer becomes
smarter than a large number of the best experts, in the world, in a
particular specialty field.
It's not going to be 100 years. A computer recently absolutely whipped
the world's greatest human Go player -- an Asian game with literaly an
infinite number of possible moves. The computer learned how to play,
not from a human, but from another slower computer that had beaten the
world's second best human.

BTW - Quantum computing is just around the corner.
"IBM’s Dario Gil says quantum computing promises to accelerate AI

Neural networks may one day find themselves surpassed by quantum
ones."
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610624/ibms-dario-gil-says-quantum-computing-promises-to-accelerate-ai/
b***@gmail.com
2018-04-19 04:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
These things always seem to work out differently than expected, or
predicted. It's a little bit, I think, like trying to predict the
stock market and timing, of course, is important in the stock market,
and I think timing is also important with the prediction of the coming
of the robots. Some people think they're coming very soon and some
people think it might be a 100 years, for instance. I imagine that
there's some truth in both opinions, where rudimentary ones will be
available in the near future, but the really advanced ones might be a
long time coming.
Or, there could be advances in totally surprising and unanticipated
directions. For instance, would it be possible to put a computer chip
in a service dog's brain and make him smarter?
One of the things that totally fascinates me, based on my own
experience of writing a massive program over a couple of years at the
steel plant, is that with computer programs they can become "smarter"
than the programmer because with computer programs, over time, only
the best code is retained, and the rest is eventually deleted. Then,
if you add to that the fact that most of the programming will probably
be done with large teams of people, eventually the computer becomes
smarter than a large number of the best experts, in the world, in a
particular specialty field.
It's not going to be 100 years. A computer recently absolutely whipped
the world's greatest human Go player -- an Asian game with literaly an
infinite number of possible moves. The computer learned how to play,
not from a human, but from another slower computer that had beaten the
world's second best human.
BTW - Quantum computing is just around the corner.
"IBM’s Dario Gil says quantum computing promises to accelerate AI
Neural networks may one day find themselves surpassed by quantum
ones."
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610624/ibms-dario-gil-says-quantum-computing-promises-to-accelerate-ai/
I can sort of understand quantum computing in terms of memory storage of data where the memory capacity is increased toward infinity. What I can't understand is how to read and write data to this vast storage system in a minimal time. The speed can be probably increased by a factor of 3 by lowering the temperature by a factor of 10 but you still have to waste time reading and writing to the memory. And that slows things down.

IBM wrote their logo with 35 atoms in 1989.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_(atoms)
mg
2018-04-19 07:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:50:57 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:43:29 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 23:25:04 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:43:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:32:25 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
Robots might be good for replacing accountants and clerks and lawyers
and doctors, and surgeons, and assembly line workers and bankers, and
engineers, and teachers, and maybe even research scientists and
politicians, but it's hard to imagine them replacing people who do
manual labor, like a handy man, or a construction worker, or a tree
trimmer, for instance.
How many moving parts and gears and pulleys, etc., is that robot going
to have that go clankity clank and what will it use for power? A power
cord? A lawnmower engine? A big heavy battery? Nuclear power? I don't
think a lawn mower engine would work very well for a robot in a house
that dumps bed pans, for instance :-)
Is that robot going to be able to climb a ladder carrying 50 pounds of
shingles on its back and install shingles on a roof? Is it going to be
able to crawl up in an attic and fix wiring, or install a bathroom
fan? Will it be able to frame a house, or install sheet rock, or lay
brick, or do landscaping, or install or repair plumbing? To build a
robot that can do stuff like that sounds very expensive to me and
there's obviously going to be a lot of maintenance and repairs.
On the other hand, why not use people to do the manual labor thing?
There are about 7 billion of them in the world, and counting, and
they're cheap. Why not import a few hundred million of them into the
US and eliminate the minimum wage laws and pay them based on the laws
of supply and demand? A lot of them, if not most of them, can work
until they're about 60 or 70 years old, with no significant
"maintenance" problems and if anything does happen to them, they're
easy to replace, anyway.
The manual labor that you described will be the last to fall to
automation and AI, but you can't predict a world of the future based
on your understanding of that which does not yet exist. For instance,
masybe the housing of the future won't look anything like the housing
of 2018. Maybe roofs and wiring will be designed to be easily
maintained by AI powered robots?
I think that's absolutely true, but even so I still think that a lot
of people might be surprised (long after you and I are gone, of
course) to find out that instead of replacing laborers, it was
actually professional people, with college degrees, who got replaced.
The single biggest physical labor job in the US is truck drive, and
they will be among thr fiirst to go.
There are lots of different kinds of truck drivers, but it's logical,
I suppose, to assume that the driving part of the job will be done by
a computer built into the truck and in the case of long-haul,
tractor-trailer drivers, there might be no robot at all involved.
In the case of garbage-collection and mail delivery, I imagine that
could all be done with a computer and mechanization built into the
vehicle.
What could be done, though, to automate FedEx and UPS package
delivery? Would they have a robot ride along in the truck and then hop
out and deliver the packages, or what? That's possible, I think. Or
would they eventually pay people about $8/hr to do it? I think that's
possible, too.
It will take time, and happen in ways that are difficult to imagine
now, but it will happen.
BTW, Amazon is experimenting with drone delivery. Hard to imagine in
cities, but it could work in rural areas.
https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?ie=UTF8&node=8037720011
An automated Amazon warehouse ...
http://youtu.be/UtBa9yVZBJM
These things always seem to work out differently than expected, or
predicted. It's a little bit, I think, like trying to predict the
stock market and timing, of course, is important in the stock market,
and I think timing is also important with the prediction of the coming
of the robots. Some people think they're coming very soon and some
people think it might be a 100 years, for instance. I imagine that
there's some truth in both opinions, where rudimentary ones will be
available in the near future, but the really advanced ones might be a
long time coming.
Or, there could be advances in totally surprising and unanticipated
directions. For instance, would it be possible to put a computer chip
in a service dog's brain and make him smarter?
One of the things that totally fascinates me, based on my own
experience of writing a massive program over a couple of years at the
steel plant, is that with computer programs they can become "smarter"
than the programmer because with computer programs, over time, only
the best code is retained, and the rest is eventually deleted. Then,
if you add to that the fact that most of the programming will probably
be done with large teams of people, eventually the computer becomes
smarter than a large number of the best experts, in the world, in a
particular specialty field.
It's not going to be 100 years. A computer recently absolutely whipped
the world's greatest human Go player -- an Asian game with literaly an
infinite number of possible moves. The computer learned how to play,
not from a human, but from another slower computer that had beaten the
world's second best human.
BTW - Quantum computing is just around the corner.
"IBM’s Dario Gil says quantum computing promises to accelerate AI
Neural networks may one day find themselves surpassed by quantum
ones."
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610624/ibms-dario-gil-says-quantum-computing-promises-to-accelerate-ai/
The first automated chess program was created in 1951 by Alan Turing,
the guy that decoded the Nazi Enigma code. Now here we are in 2018, 67
years later, and almost everyone in the US has a chess-playing
computer. All they have to do is load up an inexpensive (or free)
computer program.

As far as I know, though, no one has a mechanical chess-playing
machine that people can buy in a toy store, for instance. The reason
is that electronics and computers are relatively cheap, but mechanical
stuff is expensive, and unreliable, and typically requires a lot of
maintenance, and is a huge pain in the neck. Mother Nature knows how
to build very cheap mechanical machines, in the form of various kinds
of animals, including Home sapiens, but we haven't figured out how to
do that, yet.
El Castor
2018-04-19 19:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:50:57 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:43:29 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 23:25:04 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:43:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:32:25 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
Robots might be good for replacing accountants and clerks and lawyers
and doctors, and surgeons, and assembly line workers and bankers, and
engineers, and teachers, and maybe even research scientists and
politicians, but it's hard to imagine them replacing people who do
manual labor, like a handy man, or a construction worker, or a tree
trimmer, for instance.
How many moving parts and gears and pulleys, etc., is that robot going
to have that go clankity clank and what will it use for power? A power
cord? A lawnmower engine? A big heavy battery? Nuclear power? I don't
think a lawn mower engine would work very well for a robot in a house
that dumps bed pans, for instance :-)
Is that robot going to be able to climb a ladder carrying 50 pounds of
shingles on its back and install shingles on a roof? Is it going to be
able to crawl up in an attic and fix wiring, or install a bathroom
fan? Will it be able to frame a house, or install sheet rock, or lay
brick, or do landscaping, or install or repair plumbing? To build a
robot that can do stuff like that sounds very expensive to me and
there's obviously going to be a lot of maintenance and repairs.
On the other hand, why not use people to do the manual labor thing?
There are about 7 billion of them in the world, and counting, and
they're cheap. Why not import a few hundred million of them into the
US and eliminate the minimum wage laws and pay them based on the laws
of supply and demand? A lot of them, if not most of them, can work
until they're about 60 or 70 years old, with no significant
"maintenance" problems and if anything does happen to them, they're
easy to replace, anyway.
The manual labor that you described will be the last to fall to
automation and AI, but you can't predict a world of the future based
on your understanding of that which does not yet exist. For instance,
masybe the housing of the future won't look anything like the housing
of 2018. Maybe roofs and wiring will be designed to be easily
maintained by AI powered robots?
I think that's absolutely true, but even so I still think that a lot
of people might be surprised (long after you and I are gone, of
course) to find out that instead of replacing laborers, it was
actually professional people, with college degrees, who got replaced.
The single biggest physical labor job in the US is truck drive, and
they will be among thr fiirst to go.
There are lots of different kinds of truck drivers, but it's logical,
I suppose, to assume that the driving part of the job will be done by
a computer built into the truck and in the case of long-haul,
tractor-trailer drivers, there might be no robot at all involved.
In the case of garbage-collection and mail delivery, I imagine that
could all be done with a computer and mechanization built into the
vehicle.
What could be done, though, to automate FedEx and UPS package
delivery? Would they have a robot ride along in the truck and then hop
out and deliver the packages, or what? That's possible, I think. Or
would they eventually pay people about $8/hr to do it? I think that's
possible, too.
It will take time, and happen in ways that are difficult to imagine
now, but it will happen.
BTW, Amazon is experimenting with drone delivery. Hard to imagine in
cities, but it could work in rural areas.
https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?ie=UTF8&node=8037720011
An automated Amazon warehouse ...
http://youtu.be/UtBa9yVZBJM
These things always seem to work out differently than expected, or
predicted. It's a little bit, I think, like trying to predict the
stock market and timing, of course, is important in the stock market,
and I think timing is also important with the prediction of the coming
of the robots. Some people think they're coming very soon and some
people think it might be a 100 years, for instance. I imagine that
there's some truth in both opinions, where rudimentary ones will be
available in the near future, but the really advanced ones might be a
long time coming.
Or, there could be advances in totally surprising and unanticipated
directions. For instance, would it be possible to put a computer chip
in a service dog's brain and make him smarter?
One of the things that totally fascinates me, based on my own
experience of writing a massive program over a couple of years at the
steel plant, is that with computer programs they can become "smarter"
than the programmer because with computer programs, over time, only
the best code is retained, and the rest is eventually deleted. Then,
if you add to that the fact that most of the programming will probably
be done with large teams of people, eventually the computer becomes
smarter than a large number of the best experts, in the world, in a
particular specialty field.
It's not going to be 100 years. A computer recently absolutely whipped
the world's greatest human Go player -- an Asian game with literaly an
infinite number of possible moves. The computer learned how to play,
not from a human, but from another slower computer that had beaten the
world's second best human.
BTW - Quantum computing is just around the corner.
"IBM’s Dario Gil says quantum computing promises to accelerate AI
Neural networks may one day find themselves surpassed by quantum
ones."
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610624/ibms-dario-gil-says-quantum-computing-promises-to-accelerate-ai/
The first automated chess program was created in 1951 by Alan Turing,
the guy that decoded the Nazi Enigma code. Now here we are in 2018, 67
years later, and almost everyone in the US has a chess-playing
computer. All they have to do is load up an inexpensive (or free)
computer program.
As far as I know, though, no one has a mechanical chess-playing
machine that people can buy in a toy store, for instance. The reason
is that electronics and computers are relatively cheap, but mechanical
stuff is expensive, and unreliable, and typically requires a lot of
maintenance, and is a huge pain in the neck. Mother Nature knows how
to build very cheap mechanical machines, in the form of various kinds
of animals, including Home sapiens, but we haven't figured out how to
do that, yet.
True to an extent, but ... what is cheaper than Chinese labor? Foxconn
is a Taiwanese company that manufactures phones for Apple and Samsung
in China.

From 2 years ago ...
"Foxconn replaces '60,000 factory workers with robots'
"One factory has "reduced employee strength from 110,000 to 50,000
thanks to the introduction of robots", a government official told the
South China Morning Post." ...
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376966

From 3 days ago ...
"Robots could take millions of people’s jobs causing a revival in
Communism, warns Bank of England Governor" ...
“There is a disconnect in expectations,” he said, adding “over 90 per
cent of citizens don’t think their jobs will be affected by
automation, but a similar percentage of CEOs think the opposite, in
the number of jobs which will be materially affected.”
https://techstartups.com/2018/04/16/robots-could-take-millions-of-peoples-jobs-causing-a-revival-in-communism-warns-bank-of-england-governor/
mg
2018-04-19 20:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 12:34:02 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:50:57 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:43:29 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 23:25:04 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:43:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:32:25 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
Robots might be good for replacing accountants and clerks and lawyers
and doctors, and surgeons, and assembly line workers and bankers, and
engineers, and teachers, and maybe even research scientists and
politicians, but it's hard to imagine them replacing people who do
manual labor, like a handy man, or a construction worker, or a tree
trimmer, for instance.
How many moving parts and gears and pulleys, etc., is that robot going
to have that go clankity clank and what will it use for power? A power
cord? A lawnmower engine? A big heavy battery? Nuclear power? I don't
think a lawn mower engine would work very well for a robot in a house
that dumps bed pans, for instance :-)
Is that robot going to be able to climb a ladder carrying 50 pounds of
shingles on its back and install shingles on a roof? Is it going to be
able to crawl up in an attic and fix wiring, or install a bathroom
fan? Will it be able to frame a house, or install sheet rock, or lay
brick, or do landscaping, or install or repair plumbing? To build a
robot that can do stuff like that sounds very expensive to me and
there's obviously going to be a lot of maintenance and repairs.
On the other hand, why not use people to do the manual labor thing?
There are about 7 billion of them in the world, and counting, and
they're cheap. Why not import a few hundred million of them into the
US and eliminate the minimum wage laws and pay them based on the laws
of supply and demand? A lot of them, if not most of them, can work
until they're about 60 or 70 years old, with no significant
"maintenance" problems and if anything does happen to them, they're
easy to replace, anyway.
The manual labor that you described will be the last to fall to
automation and AI, but you can't predict a world of the future based
on your understanding of that which does not yet exist. For instance,
masybe the housing of the future won't look anything like the housing
of 2018. Maybe roofs and wiring will be designed to be easily
maintained by AI powered robots?
I think that's absolutely true, but even so I still think that a lot
of people might be surprised (long after you and I are gone, of
course) to find out that instead of replacing laborers, it was
actually professional people, with college degrees, who got replaced.
The single biggest physical labor job in the US is truck drive, and
they will be among thr fiirst to go.
There are lots of different kinds of truck drivers, but it's logical,
I suppose, to assume that the driving part of the job will be done by
a computer built into the truck and in the case of long-haul,
tractor-trailer drivers, there might be no robot at all involved.
In the case of garbage-collection and mail delivery, I imagine that
could all be done with a computer and mechanization built into the
vehicle.
What could be done, though, to automate FedEx and UPS package
delivery? Would they have a robot ride along in the truck and then hop
out and deliver the packages, or what? That's possible, I think. Or
would they eventually pay people about $8/hr to do it? I think that's
possible, too.
It will take time, and happen in ways that are difficult to imagine
now, but it will happen.
BTW, Amazon is experimenting with drone delivery. Hard to imagine in
cities, but it could work in rural areas.
https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?ie=UTF8&node=8037720011
An automated Amazon warehouse ...
http://youtu.be/UtBa9yVZBJM
These things always seem to work out differently than expected, or
predicted. It's a little bit, I think, like trying to predict the
stock market and timing, of course, is important in the stock market,
and I think timing is also important with the prediction of the coming
of the robots. Some people think they're coming very soon and some
people think it might be a 100 years, for instance. I imagine that
there's some truth in both opinions, where rudimentary ones will be
available in the near future, but the really advanced ones might be a
long time coming.
Or, there could be advances in totally surprising and unanticipated
directions. For instance, would it be possible to put a computer chip
in a service dog's brain and make him smarter?
One of the things that totally fascinates me, based on my own
experience of writing a massive program over a couple of years at the
steel plant, is that with computer programs they can become "smarter"
than the programmer because with computer programs, over time, only
the best code is retained, and the rest is eventually deleted. Then,
if you add to that the fact that most of the programming will probably
be done with large teams of people, eventually the computer becomes
smarter than a large number of the best experts, in the world, in a
particular specialty field.
It's not going to be 100 years. A computer recently absolutely whipped
the world's greatest human Go player -- an Asian game with literaly an
infinite number of possible moves. The computer learned how to play,
not from a human, but from another slower computer that had beaten the
world's second best human.
BTW - Quantum computing is just around the corner.
"IBM’s Dario Gil says quantum computing promises to accelerate AI
Neural networks may one day find themselves surpassed by quantum
ones."
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610624/ibms-dario-gil-says-quantum-computing-promises-to-accelerate-ai/
The first automated chess program was created in 1951 by Alan Turing,
the guy that decoded the Nazi Enigma code. Now here we are in 2018, 67
years later, and almost everyone in the US has a chess-playing
computer. All they have to do is load up an inexpensive (or free)
computer program.
As far as I know, though, no one has a mechanical chess-playing
machine that people can buy in a toy store, for instance. The reason
is that electronics and computers are relatively cheap, but mechanical
stuff is expensive, and unreliable, and typically requires a lot of
maintenance, and is a huge pain in the neck. Mother Nature knows how
to build very cheap mechanical machines, in the form of various kinds
of animals, including Home sapiens, but we haven't figured out how to
do that, yet.
True to an extent, but ... what is cheaper than Chinese labor? Foxconn
is a Taiwanese company that manufactures phones for Apple and Samsung
in China.
From 2 years ago ...
"Foxconn replaces '60,000 factory workers with robots'
"One factory has "reduced employee strength from 110,000 to 50,000
thanks to the introduction of robots", a government official told the
South China Morning Post." ...
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376966
I have a former son-in-law who makes about $110K a year repairing
Intel's assembly line machines. He's been doing that sort of stuff for
about 25-30 years, now.

So, if you're talking about factory, assembly-line "robots", I
absolutely agree that they have already taken a lot of jobs and are
going to take a lot more.

If you are talking about a home building crew of robots that hop out
of a truck and and build houses, or replace the roof on your house,
for instance, that's an entirely different thing.
Post by El Castor
From 3 days ago ...
"Robots could take millions of people’s jobs causing a revival in
Communism, warns Bank of England Governor" ...
“There is a disconnect in expectations,” he said, adding “over 90 per
cent of citizens don’t think their jobs will be affected by
automation, but a similar percentage of CEOs think the opposite, in
the number of jobs which will be materially affected.”
https://techstartups.com/2018/04/16/robots-could-take-millions-of-peoples-jobs-causing-a-revival-in-communism-warns-bank-of-england-governor/
After I wrote the railroad-car tracking software system at the steel
plant that I worked for in the early 80s, they eliminated about a half
dozen train clerks. They did not, however, eliminate any train crewman
with robots who could operate locomotive engines and they didn't
eliminate any switchman, or conductors, who could hop on and off the
train and throw switches, etc.

So, the bottom line is that it all depends on what one calls a
"robot".
El Castor
2018-04-20 05:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 12:34:02 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:50:57 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:43:29 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 23:25:04 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:43:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:32:25 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
Robots might be good for replacing accountants and clerks and lawyers
and doctors, and surgeons, and assembly line workers and bankers, and
engineers, and teachers, and maybe even research scientists and
politicians, but it's hard to imagine them replacing people who do
manual labor, like a handy man, or a construction worker, or a tree
trimmer, for instance.
How many moving parts and gears and pulleys, etc., is that robot going
to have that go clankity clank and what will it use for power? A power
cord? A lawnmower engine? A big heavy battery? Nuclear power? I don't
think a lawn mower engine would work very well for a robot in a house
that dumps bed pans, for instance :-)
Is that robot going to be able to climb a ladder carrying 50 pounds of
shingles on its back and install shingles on a roof? Is it going to be
able to crawl up in an attic and fix wiring, or install a bathroom
fan? Will it be able to frame a house, or install sheet rock, or lay
brick, or do landscaping, or install or repair plumbing? To build a
robot that can do stuff like that sounds very expensive to me and
there's obviously going to be a lot of maintenance and repairs.
On the other hand, why not use people to do the manual labor thing?
There are about 7 billion of them in the world, and counting, and
they're cheap. Why not import a few hundred million of them into the
US and eliminate the minimum wage laws and pay them based on the laws
of supply and demand? A lot of them, if not most of them, can work
until they're about 60 or 70 years old, with no significant
"maintenance" problems and if anything does happen to them, they're
easy to replace, anyway.
The manual labor that you described will be the last to fall to
automation and AI, but you can't predict a world of the future based
on your understanding of that which does not yet exist. For instance,
masybe the housing of the future won't look anything like the housing
of 2018. Maybe roofs and wiring will be designed to be easily
maintained by AI powered robots?
I think that's absolutely true, but even so I still think that a lot
of people might be surprised (long after you and I are gone, of
course) to find out that instead of replacing laborers, it was
actually professional people, with college degrees, who got replaced.
The single biggest physical labor job in the US is truck drive, and
they will be among thr fiirst to go.
There are lots of different kinds of truck drivers, but it's logical,
I suppose, to assume that the driving part of the job will be done by
a computer built into the truck and in the case of long-haul,
tractor-trailer drivers, there might be no robot at all involved.
In the case of garbage-collection and mail delivery, I imagine that
could all be done with a computer and mechanization built into the
vehicle.
What could be done, though, to automate FedEx and UPS package
delivery? Would they have a robot ride along in the truck and then hop
out and deliver the packages, or what? That's possible, I think. Or
would they eventually pay people about $8/hr to do it? I think that's
possible, too.
It will take time, and happen in ways that are difficult to imagine
now, but it will happen.
BTW, Amazon is experimenting with drone delivery. Hard to imagine in
cities, but it could work in rural areas.
https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?ie=UTF8&node=8037720011
An automated Amazon warehouse ...
http://youtu.be/UtBa9yVZBJM
These things always seem to work out differently than expected, or
predicted. It's a little bit, I think, like trying to predict the
stock market and timing, of course, is important in the stock market,
and I think timing is also important with the prediction of the coming
of the robots. Some people think they're coming very soon and some
people think it might be a 100 years, for instance. I imagine that
there's some truth in both opinions, where rudimentary ones will be
available in the near future, but the really advanced ones might be a
long time coming.
Or, there could be advances in totally surprising and unanticipated
directions. For instance, would it be possible to put a computer chip
in a service dog's brain and make him smarter?
One of the things that totally fascinates me, based on my own
experience of writing a massive program over a couple of years at the
steel plant, is that with computer programs they can become "smarter"
than the programmer because with computer programs, over time, only
the best code is retained, and the rest is eventually deleted. Then,
if you add to that the fact that most of the programming will probably
be done with large teams of people, eventually the computer becomes
smarter than a large number of the best experts, in the world, in a
particular specialty field.
It's not going to be 100 years. A computer recently absolutely whipped
the world's greatest human Go player -- an Asian game with literaly an
infinite number of possible moves. The computer learned how to play,
not from a human, but from another slower computer that had beaten the
world's second best human.
BTW - Quantum computing is just around the corner.
"IBM’s Dario Gil says quantum computing promises to accelerate AI
Neural networks may one day find themselves surpassed by quantum
ones."
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610624/ibms-dario-gil-says-quantum-computing-promises-to-accelerate-ai/
The first automated chess program was created in 1951 by Alan Turing,
the guy that decoded the Nazi Enigma code. Now here we are in 2018, 67
years later, and almost everyone in the US has a chess-playing
computer. All they have to do is load up an inexpensive (or free)
computer program.
As far as I know, though, no one has a mechanical chess-playing
machine that people can buy in a toy store, for instance. The reason
is that electronics and computers are relatively cheap, but mechanical
stuff is expensive, and unreliable, and typically requires a lot of
maintenance, and is a huge pain in the neck. Mother Nature knows how
to build very cheap mechanical machines, in the form of various kinds
of animals, including Home sapiens, but we haven't figured out how to
do that, yet.
True to an extent, but ... what is cheaper than Chinese labor? Foxconn
is a Taiwanese company that manufactures phones for Apple and Samsung
in China.
From 2 years ago ...
"Foxconn replaces '60,000 factory workers with robots'
"One factory has "reduced employee strength from 110,000 to 50,000
thanks to the introduction of robots", a government official told the
South China Morning Post." ...
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376966
I have a former son-in-law who makes about $110K a year repairing
Intel's assembly line machines. He's been doing that sort of stuff for
about 25-30 years, now.
So, if you're talking about factory, assembly-line "robots", I
absolutely agree that they have already taken a lot of jobs and are
going to take a lot more.
If you are talking about a home building crew of robots that hop out
of a truck and and build houses, or replace the roof on your house,
for instance, that's an entirely different thing.
Post by El Castor
From 3 days ago ...
"Robots could take millions of people’s jobs causing a revival in
Communism, warns Bank of England Governor" ...
“There is a disconnect in expectations,” he said, adding “over 90 per
cent of citizens don’t think their jobs will be affected by
automation, but a similar percentage of CEOs think the opposite, in
the number of jobs which will be materially affected.”
https://techstartups.com/2018/04/16/robots-could-take-millions-of-peoples-jobs-causing-a-revival-in-communism-warns-bank-of-england-governor/
After I wrote the railroad-car tracking software system at the steel
plant that I worked for in the early 80s, they eliminated about a half
dozen train clerks. They did not, however, eliminate any train crewman
with robots who could operate locomotive engines and they didn't
eliminate any switchman, or conductors, who could hop on and off the
train and throw switches, etc.
So, the bottom line is that it all depends on what one calls a
"robot".
Maybe something like this ...
Loading Image...

Or this ...
Loading Image...
mg
2018-04-20 10:02:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 22:52:01 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 12:34:02 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:50:57 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:43:29 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 23:25:04 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:43:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:32:25 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
What’s the difference between collapse via overspending vs overtaxing? > > The result is the same - collapse.
It won't collapse, robots will do all the work and everybody can live to 200 without ever having a job. It's coming in a few decades.
I think you're about right. The big question is, what comes after
that?
Robots might be good for replacing accountants and clerks and lawyers
and doctors, and surgeons, and assembly line workers and bankers, and
engineers, and teachers, and maybe even research scientists and
politicians, but it's hard to imagine them replacing people who do
manual labor, like a handy man, or a construction worker, or a tree
trimmer, for instance.
How many moving parts and gears and pulleys, etc., is that robot going
to have that go clankity clank and what will it use for power? A power
cord? A lawnmower engine? A big heavy battery? Nuclear power? I don't
think a lawn mower engine would work very well for a robot in a house
that dumps bed pans, for instance :-)
Is that robot going to be able to climb a ladder carrying 50 pounds of
shingles on its back and install shingles on a roof? Is it going to be
able to crawl up in an attic and fix wiring, or install a bathroom
fan? Will it be able to frame a house, or install sheet rock, or lay
brick, or do landscaping, or install or repair plumbing? To build a
robot that can do stuff like that sounds very expensive to me and
there's obviously going to be a lot of maintenance and repairs.
On the other hand, why not use people to do the manual labor thing?
There are about 7 billion of them in the world, and counting, and
they're cheap. Why not import a few hundred million of them into the
US and eliminate the minimum wage laws and pay them based on the laws
of supply and demand? A lot of them, if not most of them, can work
until they're about 60 or 70 years old, with no significant
"maintenance" problems and if anything does happen to them, they're
easy to replace, anyway.
The manual labor that you described will be the last to fall to
automation and AI, but you can't predict a world of the future based
on your understanding of that which does not yet exist. For instance,
masybe the housing of the future won't look anything like the housing
of 2018. Maybe roofs and wiring will be designed to be easily
maintained by AI powered robots?
I think that's absolutely true, but even so I still think that a lot
of people might be surprised (long after you and I are gone, of
course) to find out that instead of replacing laborers, it was
actually professional people, with college degrees, who got replaced.
The single biggest physical labor job in the US is truck drive, and
they will be among thr fiirst to go.
There are lots of different kinds of truck drivers, but it's logical,
I suppose, to assume that the driving part of the job will be done by
a computer built into the truck and in the case of long-haul,
tractor-trailer drivers, there might be no robot at all involved.
In the case of garbage-collection and mail delivery, I imagine that
could all be done with a computer and mechanization built into the
vehicle.
What could be done, though, to automate FedEx and UPS package
delivery? Would they have a robot ride along in the truck and then hop
out and deliver the packages, or what? That's possible, I think. Or
would they eventually pay people about $8/hr to do it? I think that's
possible, too.
It will take time, and happen in ways that are difficult to imagine
now, but it will happen.
BTW, Amazon is experimenting with drone delivery. Hard to imagine in
cities, but it could work in rural areas.
https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?ie=UTF8&node=8037720011
An automated Amazon warehouse ...
http://youtu.be/UtBa9yVZBJM
These things always seem to work out differently than expected, or
predicted. It's a little bit, I think, like trying to predict the
stock market and timing, of course, is important in the stock market,
and I think timing is also important with the prediction of the coming
of the robots. Some people think they're coming very soon and some
people think it might be a 100 years, for instance. I imagine that
there's some truth in both opinions, where rudimentary ones will be
available in the near future, but the really advanced ones might be a
long time coming.
Or, there could be advances in totally surprising and unanticipated
directions. For instance, would it be possible to put a computer chip
in a service dog's brain and make him smarter?
One of the things that totally fascinates me, based on my own
experience of writing a massive program over a couple of years at the
steel plant, is that with computer programs they can become "smarter"
than the programmer because with computer programs, over time, only
the best code is retained, and the rest is eventually deleted. Then,
if you add to that the fact that most of the programming will probably
be done with large teams of people, eventually the computer becomes
smarter than a large number of the best experts, in the world, in a
particular specialty field.
It's not going to be 100 years. A computer recently absolutely whipped
the world's greatest human Go player -- an Asian game with literaly an
infinite number of possible moves. The computer learned how to play,
not from a human, but from another slower computer that had beaten the
world's second best human.
BTW - Quantum computing is just around the corner.
"IBM’s Dario Gil says quantum computing promises to accelerate AI
Neural networks may one day find themselves surpassed by quantum
ones."
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610624/ibms-dario-gil-says-quantum-computing-promises-to-accelerate-ai/
The first automated chess program was created in 1951 by Alan Turing,
the guy that decoded the Nazi Enigma code. Now here we are in 2018, 67
years later, and almost everyone in the US has a chess-playing
computer. All they have to do is load up an inexpensive (or free)
computer program.
As far as I know, though, no one has a mechanical chess-playing
machine that people can buy in a toy store, for instance. The reason
is that electronics and computers are relatively cheap, but mechanical
stuff is expensive, and unreliable, and typically requires a lot of
maintenance, and is a huge pain in the neck. Mother Nature knows how
to build very cheap mechanical machines, in the form of various kinds
of animals, including Home sapiens, but we haven't figured out how to
do that, yet.
True to an extent, but ... what is cheaper than Chinese labor? Foxconn
is a Taiwanese company that manufactures phones for Apple and Samsung
in China.
From 2 years ago ...
"Foxconn replaces '60,000 factory workers with robots'
"One factory has "reduced employee strength from 110,000 to 50,000
thanks to the introduction of robots", a government official told the
South China Morning Post." ...
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376966
I have a former son-in-law who makes about $110K a year repairing
Intel's assembly line machines. He's been doing that sort of stuff for
about 25-30 years, now.
So, if you're talking about factory, assembly-line "robots", I
absolutely agree that they have already taken a lot of jobs and are
going to take a lot more.
If you are talking about a home building crew of robots that hop out
of a truck and and build houses, or replace the roof on your house,
for instance, that's an entirely different thing.
Post by El Castor
From 3 days ago ...
"Robots could take millions of people’s jobs causing a revival in
Communism, warns Bank of England Governor" ...
“There is a disconnect in expectations,” he said, adding “over 90 per
cent of citizens don’t think their jobs will be affected by
automation, but a similar percentage of CEOs think the opposite, in
the number of jobs which will be materially affected.”
https://techstartups.com/2018/04/16/robots-could-take-millions-of-peoples-jobs-causing-a-revival-in-communism-warns-bank-of-england-governor/
After I wrote the railroad-car tracking software system at the steel
plant that I worked for in the early 80s, they eliminated about a half
dozen train clerks. They did not, however, eliminate any train crewman
with robots who could operate locomotive engines and they didn't
eliminate any switchman, or conductors, who could hop on and off the
train and throw switches, etc.
So, the bottom line is that it all depends on what one calls a
"robot".
Maybe something like this ...
https://www.actemium.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/robotics.jpg
Or this ...
https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/google-robots-640x353.jpg
Yup. To be or not to be. That is the question. :-)

Fred J. McCall
2018-04-09 17:48:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jonathan
Post by d***@agent.com
Social Security Is Doomed. Now What?
No matter how you slice it, the program is going to fail.
by Antony Davies, James R. Harrigan, April 04, 2018, fee.org
There's no way to sugar-coat it. Social Security is going to fail.
There are, of course, ways to possibly extend its life for a few
years, or even decades, but ultimately, like all Ponzi schemes,
it will collapse. By the federal government's and the Social
Security Board of Trustees' own admissions, the Social Security
program will be paying out more than it takes in in just 4 years.
At current rates (and assuming the federal government fully pays
back the more than $5 trillion it "borrowed" from Social Security's
accounts),
That's peanuts for the United States of America.
You're more than just a little insane, aren't you?
Post by jonathan
The whole idea of govt is to provide for the people
Well, no, that isn't the "whole idea of government" at all, unless
you're a communist of some flavor.
Post by jonathan
if social security is stressed, the govt needs to
find the money.
You understand that Social Security is funded through it's own tax,
don't you, and is NOT funded out of the general revenues?
Post by jonathan
A massive tax cut to big business and the rich
makes any complaint of shortfalls in social
programs the height of hypocrisy.
..."let's create a massive deficit with massive tax cuts
then claim we need to eliminate social programs because
of the massive deficit."
That's the republican logic, and it's a stain on the
notion of human decency.
Fact free lunacy, courtesy of Jonathan.
Post by jonathan
Post by d***@agent.com
the program will be completely out of money in about
17 years. What does this situation mean for current working
Americans? Is there any way to solve this problem?
Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they discuss this and
more on this week's episode of Words and Numbers.
[ video ]
https://fee.org/articles/social-security-is-doomed-now-what/
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
jonathan
2018-04-09 23:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by jonathan
Post by d***@agent.com
Social Security Is Doomed. Now What?
No matter how you slice it, the program is going to fail.
by Antony Davies, James R. Harrigan, April 04, 2018, fee.org
There's no way to sugar-coat it. Social Security is going to fail.
There are, of course, ways to possibly extend its life for a few
years, or even decades, but ultimately, like all Ponzi schemes,
it will collapse. By the federal government's and the Social
Security Board of Trustees' own admissions, the Social Security
program will be paying out more than it takes in in just 4 years.
At current rates (and assuming the federal government fully pays
back the more than $5 trillion it "borrowed" from Social Security's
accounts),
That's peanuts for the United States of America.
You're more than just a little insane, aren't you?
Post by jonathan
The whole idea of govt is to provide for the people
Well, no,
Well, yes.
Fred J. McCall
2018-04-10 01:30:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jonathan
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by jonathan
Post by d***@agent.com
Social Security Is Doomed. Now What?
No matter how you slice it, the program is going to fail.
by Antony Davies, James R. Harrigan, April 04, 2018, fee.org
There's no way to sugar-coat it. Social Security is going to fail.
There are, of course, ways to possibly extend its life for a few
years, or even decades, but ultimately, like all Ponzi schemes,
it will collapse. By the federal government's and the Social
Security Board of Trustees' own admissions, the Social Security
program will be paying out more than it takes in in just 4 years.
At current rates (and assuming the federal government fully pays
back the more than $5 trillion it "borrowed" from Social Security's
accounts),
That's peanuts for the United States of America.
You're more than just a little insane, aren't you?
Post by jonathan
The whole idea of govt is to provide for the people
Well, no,
Well, yes.
You really are remarkably ignorant.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Andrew Swallow
2018-04-10 09:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fred J. McCall
You understand that Social Security is funded through it's own tax,
don't you, and is NOT funded out of the general revenues?
Officially Social Security has its own tax. However since the US
Government took all the money in the investment account pensions are now
funded through general taxation. So a share of the profits to be spent
on pensions or schools?
Fred J. McCall
2018-04-10 09:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
You understand that Social Security is funded through it's own tax,
don't you, and is NOT funded out of the general revenues?
Officially Social Security has its own tax. However since the US
Government took all the money in the investment account pensions are now
funded through general taxation.
Nope, not yet.
Post by Andrew Swallow
So a share of the profits to be spent
on pensions or schools?
The government has to meet its debt obligations, including those to
the Social Security Trust Fund. You know, it's funny. Banks consider
Treasury securities to be gilt edged investments. Only when those
investments are owned by the Social Security Trust Fund do people
start raving about 'theft'.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Andrew Swallow
2018-04-10 14:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
You understand that Social Security is funded through it's own tax,
don't you, and is NOT funded out of the general revenues?
Officially Social Security has its own tax. However since the US
Government took all the money in the investment account pensions are now
funded through general taxation.
Nope, not yet.
Post by Andrew Swallow
So a share of the profits to be spent
on pensions or schools?
The government has to meet its debt obligations, including those to
the Social Security Trust Fund. You know, it's funny. Banks consider
Treasury securities to be gilt edged investments. Only when those
investments are owned by the Social Security Trust Fund do people
start raving about 'theft'.
Do the banks still consider Venezuelan securities gilt edged?
Gilts have low interest rates so make poor long term investments. A
major reason for setting up a separate social security trust fund is
that the money continues even when Government spends more than its tax
income.
Fred J. McCall
2018-04-10 17:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
You understand that Social Security is funded through it's own tax,
don't you, and is NOT funded out of the general revenues?
Officially Social Security has its own tax. However since the US
Government took all the money in the investment account pensions are now
funded through general taxation.
Nope, not yet.
Post by Andrew Swallow
So a share of the profits to be spent
on pensions or schools?
The government has to meet its debt obligations, including those to
the Social Security Trust Fund. You know, it's funny. Banks consider
Treasury securities to be gilt edged investments. Only when those
investments are owned by the Social Security Trust Fund do people
start raving about 'theft'.
Do the banks still consider Venezuelan securities gilt edged?
Are you equating US Government securities to Venezuela?
Post by Andrew Swallow
Gilts have low interest rates so make poor long term investments. A
major reason for setting up a separate social security trust fund is
that the money continues even when Government spends more than its tax
income.
Well, no.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Leper
2018-04-10 22:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
You understand that Social Security is funded through it's own tax,
don't you, and is NOT funded out of the general revenues?
Officially Social Security has its own tax. However since the US
Government took all the money in the investment account pensions are now
funded through general taxation.
Nope, not yet.
Post by Andrew Swallow
So a share of the profits to be spent
on pensions or schools?
The government has to meet its debt obligations, including those to
the Social Security Trust Fund. You know, it's funny. Banks consider
Treasury securities to be gilt edged investments. Only when those
investments are owned by the Social Security Trust Fund do people
start raving about 'theft'.
Do the banks still consider Venezuelan securities gilt edged?
Are you equating US Government securities to Venezuela?
It appears to be headed that way. Gotta bless those great financial
leaders that we in our foolish ways have elected to bankrupt us. Not to
mention destroying our inalienable liberties.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Gilts have low interest rates so make poor long term investments. A
major reason for setting up a separate social security trust fund is
that the money continues even when Government spends more than its tax
income.
Well, no.
Yes! Things were just fine until A Democratic Administration decided to
utilize the Social Security Trust fund(1964) to finance a war in Vietnam
sponsored by the Democrats of America. May "Lyndon Baines Johnson" burn
in Hell for all eternity. Or at least get face to face with all the
beautiful young American soldiers that were squandered so that LBJ could
enrich himself as a war profiteer.

Damned Democrats set up Social Security in 1964 to be Embezzled and then
led the charge in doing just that for many $Trillions of Dollars.
--
Machiavelli wrote:It is necessary for the state to deal in lies and half
truths,
because people are made up of lies and half truths. Even Princes.' And
certainly, by definition all Ambassadors and politicians
Clave
2018-04-10 23:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Leper
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
You understand that Social Security is funded through it's own tax,
don't you, and is NOT funded out of the general revenues?
Officially Social Security has its own tax. However since the US
Government took all the money in the investment account pensions are now
funded through general taxation.
Nope, not yet.
Post by Andrew Swallow
So a share of the profits to be spent
on pensions or schools?
The government has to meet its debt obligations, including those to
the Social Security Trust Fund.  You know, it's funny.  Banks consider
Treasury securities to be gilt edged investments.  Only when those
investments are owned by the Social Security Trust Fund do people
start raving about 'theft'.
Do the banks still consider Venezuelan securities gilt edged?
Are you equating US Government securities to Venezuela?
It appears to be headed that way. Gotta bless those great financial
leaders that we in our foolish ways have elected to bankrupt us. Not to
mention destroying our inalienable liberties.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Gilts have low interest rates so make poor long term investments. A
major reason for setting up a separate social security trust fund is
that the money continues even when Government spends more than its tax
income.
Well, no.
Yes! Things were just fine until A Democratic Administration decided to
utilize the Social Security Trust fund(1964) to finance a war in Vietnam
sponsored by the Democrats of America. May "Lyndon Baines Johnson" burn
in Hell for all eternity. Or at least get face to face with all the
beautiful young American soldiers that were squandered so that LBJ could
enrich himself as a war profiteer.
Damned Democrats set up Social Security in 1964 to be Embezzled and then
led the charge in doing just that for many $Trillions of Dollars.
https://snag.gy/9ozABl.jpg
tRudy Crayola
2018-04-10 23:28:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clave
Post by Leper
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
You understand that Social Security is funded through it's own tax,
don't you, and is NOT funded out of the general revenues?
Officially Social Security has its own tax. However since the US
Government took all the money in the investment account pensions are now
funded through general taxation.
Nope, not yet.
Post by Andrew Swallow
So a share of the profits to be spent
on pensions or schools?
The government has to meet its debt obligations, including those to
the Social Security Trust Fund.  You know, it's funny.  Banks consider
Treasury securities to be gilt edged investments.  Only when those
investments are owned by the Social Security Trust Fund do people
start raving about 'theft'.
Do the banks still consider Venezuelan securities gilt edged?
Are you equating US Government securities to Venezuela?
It appears to be headed that way. Gotta bless those great financial
leaders that we in our foolish ways have elected to bankrupt us. Not
to mention destroying our inalienable liberties.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Gilts have low interest rates so make poor long term investments. A
major reason for setting up a separate social security trust fund is
that the money continues even when Government spends more than its tax
income.
Well, no.
Yes! Things were just fine until A Democratic Administration decided
to utilize the Social Security Trust fund(1964) to finance a war in
Vietnam sponsored by the Democrats of America. May "Lyndon Baines
Johnson" burn in Hell for all eternity. Or at least get face to face
with all the beautiful young American soldiers that were squandered so
that LBJ could enrich himself as a war profiteer.
Damned Democrats set up Social Security in 1964 to be Embezzled and
then led the charge in doing just that for many $Trillions of Dollars.
https://snag.gy/9ozABl.jpg
Clave, why are you posting your graduation picture?
--
Rudy's Nut & Fruit farm- Sacramento
Fred J. McCall
2018-04-11 09:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Leper
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
You understand that Social Security is funded through it's own tax,
don't you, and is NOT funded out of the general revenues?
Officially Social Security has its own tax. However since the US
Government took all the money in the investment account pensions are now
funded through general taxation.
Nope, not yet.
Post by Andrew Swallow
So a share of the profits to be spent
on pensions or schools?
The government has to meet its debt obligations, including those to
the Social Security Trust Fund. You know, it's funny. Banks consider
Treasury securities to be gilt edged investments. Only when those
investments are owned by the Social Security Trust Fund do people
start raving about 'theft'.
Do the banks still consider Venezuelan securities gilt edged?
Are you equating US Government securities to Venezuela?
It appears to be headed that way. Gotta bless those great financial
leaders that we in our foolish ways have elected to bankrupt us. Not to
mention destroying our inalienable liberties.
No, it doesn't appear headed that way at all.
Post by Leper
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Gilts have low interest rates so make poor long term investments. A
major reason for setting up a separate social security trust fund is
that the money continues even when Government spends more than its tax
income.
Well, no.
Yes! Things were just fine until A Democratic Administration decided to
utilize the Social Security Trust fund(1964) to finance a war in Vietnam
Well, no, they weren't. Things were 'just fine' because there were
more workers per SS recipient. That wasn't affected by Vietnam.
That's changed radically as the Baby Boomers have 'aged out' of the
workforce and THAT is when things stopped being 'just fine'.

<snip ideologue raving>
--
"I was lucky in the order. But I've always been lucky
when it comes to killin' folks."
-- William Munny, "Unforgiven"
PaxPerPoten
2018-04-12 06:11:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Leper
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
You understand that Social Security is funded through it's own tax,
don't you, and is NOT funded out of the general revenues?
Officially Social Security has its own tax. However since the US
Government took all the money in the investment account pensions are now
funded through general taxation.
Nope, not yet.
Post by Andrew Swallow
So a share of the profits to be spent
on pensions or schools?
The government has to meet its debt obligations, including those to
the Social Security Trust Fund. You know, it's funny. Banks consider
Treasury securities to be gilt edged investments. Only when those
investments are owned by the Social Security Trust Fund do people
start raving about 'theft'.
Do the banks still consider Venezuelan securities gilt edged?
Are you equating US Government securities to Venezuela?
It appears to be headed that way. Gotta bless those great financial
leaders that we in our foolish ways have elected to bankrupt us. Not to
mention destroying our inalienable liberties.
No, it doesn't appear headed that way at all.
$20 Trillion in debt isn't a negative factor leading to disaster and
bankruptcy?
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Leper
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Gilts have low interest rates so make poor long term investments. A
major reason for setting up a separate social security trust fund is
that the money continues even when Government spends more than its tax
income.
Well, no.
Yes! Things were just fine until A Democratic Administration decided to
utilize the Social Security Trust fund(1964) to finance a war in Vietnam
Well, no, they weren't. Things were 'just fine' because there were
more workers per SS recipient. That wasn't affected by Vietnam.
That's changed radically as the Baby Boomers have 'aged out' of the
workforce and THAT is when things stopped being 'just fine'.
You have just proven you are an Idiot! I think the Democratic
administration has a position for you in their Federal finance program.


By the way...Baby Boomer was not a term used in 1964, you senile old
asshole.
Post by Fred J. McCall
<snip Educational Treasure>
--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster
Fred J. McCall
2018-04-12 07:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Leper
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
You understand that Social Security is funded through it's own tax,
don't you, and is NOT funded out of the general revenues?
Officially Social Security has its own tax. However since the US
Government took all the money in the investment account pensions are now
funded through general taxation.
Nope, not yet.
Post by Andrew Swallow
So a share of the profits to be spent
on pensions or schools?
The government has to meet its debt obligations, including those to
the Social Security Trust Fund. You know, it's funny. Banks consider
Treasury securities to be gilt edged investments. Only when those
investments are owned by the Social Security Trust Fund do people
start raving about 'theft'.
Do the banks still consider Venezuelan securities gilt edged?
Are you equating US Government securities to Venezuela?
It appears to be headed that way. Gotta bless those great financial
leaders that we in our foolish ways have elected to bankrupt us. Not to
mention destroying our inalienable liberties.
No, it doesn't appear headed that way at all.
$20 Trillion in debt isn't a negative factor ...
Certainly.
... leading to disaster and bankruptcy?
Unlikely.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Leper
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Gilts have low interest rates so make poor long term investments. A
major reason for setting up a separate social security trust fund is
that the money continues even when Government spends more than its tax
income.
Well, no.
Yes! Things were just fine until A Democratic Administration decided to
utilize the Social Security Trust fund(1964) to finance a war in Vietnam
Well, no, they weren't. Things were 'just fine' because there were
more workers per SS recipient. That wasn't affected by Vietnam.
That's changed radically as the Baby Boomers have 'aged out' of the
workforce and THAT is when things stopped being 'just fine'.
You have just proven you are an Idiot! I think the Democratic
administration has a position for you in their Federal finance program.
You have just proven you are an ignorant twat. I don't think any
administration has a position for you, even as dog catcher.
By the way...Baby Boomer was not a term used in 1964, you senile old
asshole.
What does that have to do with anything, you brain damaged puerile
dipshit?
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
Andrew Swallow
2018-04-11 20:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
You understand that Social Security is funded through it's own tax,
don't you, and is NOT funded out of the general revenues?
Officially Social Security has its own tax. However since the US
Government took all the money in the investment account pensions are now
funded through general taxation.
Nope, not yet.
Post by Andrew Swallow
So a share of the profits to be spent
on pensions or schools?
The government has to meet its debt obligations, including those to
the Social Security Trust Fund. You know, it's funny. Banks consider
Treasury securities to be gilt edged investments. Only when those
investments are owned by the Social Security Trust Fund do people
start raving about 'theft'.
Do the banks still consider Venezuelan securities gilt edged?
Are you equating US Government securities to Venezuela?
It is only about 15 years away.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Gilts have low interest rates so make poor long term investments. A
major reason for setting up a separate social security trust fund is
that the money continues even when Government spends more than its tax
income.
Well, no.
Fred J. McCall
2018-04-11 20:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
You understand that Social Security is funded through it's own tax,
don't you, and is NOT funded out of the general revenues?
Officially Social Security has its own tax. However since the US
Government took all the money in the investment account pensions are now
funded through general taxation.
Nope, not yet.
Post by Andrew Swallow
So a share of the profits to be spent
on pensions or schools?
The government has to meet its debt obligations, including those to
the Social Security Trust Fund. You know, it's funny. Banks consider
Treasury securities to be gilt edged investments. Only when those
investments are owned by the Social Security Trust Fund do people
start raving about 'theft'.
Do the banks still consider Venezuelan securities gilt edged?
Are you equating US Government securities to Venezuela?
It is only about 15 years away.
Don't be silly!
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
Vincent
2018-04-10 22:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
You understand that Social Security is funded through it's own tax,
don't you, and is NOT funded out of the general revenues?
Officially Social Security has its own tax. However since the US
Government took all the money in the investment account pensions are now
funded through general taxation.
Nope, not yet.
Post by Andrew Swallow
So a share of the profits to be spent
on pensions or schools?
The government has to meet its debt obligations,
The over $20 Trillion national debt seems to dispute that rather big time!

including those to
Post by Fred J. McCall
the Social Security Trust Fund. You know, it's funny. Banks consider
Treasury securities to be gilt edged investments.
Is that why China no longer wants to purchase them?

Only when those
Post by Fred J. McCall
investments are owned by the Social Security Trust Fund do people
start raving about 'theft'.
If they are so wonderful, why can't we just cash them in to augment the
flagging Social Security system?

Freddy...Please take you afternoon Geritol Cocktail and return to your
thumb twiddling competition.
Fred J. McCall
2018-04-11 08:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vincent
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
You understand that Social Security is funded through it's own tax,
don't you, and is NOT funded out of the general revenues?
Officially Social Security has its own tax. However since the US
Government took all the money in the investment account pensions are now
funded through general taxation.
Nope, not yet.
Post by Andrew Swallow
So a share of the profits to be spent
on pensions or schools?
The government has to meet its debt obligations,
The over $20 Trillion national debt seems to dispute that rather big time!
How's that?
Post by Vincent
Post by Fred J. McCall
including those to
the Social Security Trust Fund. You know, it's funny. Banks consider
Treasury securities to be gilt edged investments.
Is that why China no longer wants to purchase them?
Untrue. They're attempting to use that as a weapon with regard to
Trump's tariffs.
Post by Vincent
Post by Fred J. McCall
Only when those
investments are owned by the Social Security Trust Fund do people
start raving about 'theft'.
If they are so wonderful, why can't we just cash them in to augment the
flagging Social Security system?
We can but we currently don't need to. You need to learn something
about the state of the Social Security Trust Fund.
Post by Vincent
Freddy...Please take you afternoon Geritol Cocktail and return to your
thumb twiddling competition.
Thanks for your admission of the intellectual bankruptcy of your
position.
--
"Most people don't realize it, but ninety percent of morality is based
on comfort. Incinerate hundreds of people from thirty thousand feet
up and you'll sleep like a baby afterward. Kill one person with a
bayonet and your dreams will never be sweet again."
-- John Rain, "Rain Storm"
Jack Fate
2018-04-09 13:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@agent.com
Social Security Is Doomed. Now What?
No matter how you slice it, the program is going to fail.
by Antony Davies, James R. Harrigan, April 04, 2018, fee.org
There's no way to sugar-coat it. Social Security is going to fail.
There are, of course, ways to possibly extend its life for a few
years, or even decades, but ultimately, like all Ponzi schemes,
it will collapse. By the federal government's and the Social
Security Board of Trustees' own admissions, the Social Security
program will be paying out more than it takes in in just 4 years.
At current rates (and assuming the federal government fully pays
back the more than $5 trillion it "borrowed" from Social Security's
accounts), the program will be completely out of money in about
17 years. What does this situation mean for current working
Americans? Is there any way to solve this problem?
Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they discuss this and
more on this week's episode of Words and Numbers.
[ video ]
https://fee.org/articles/social-security-is-doomed-now-what/
Remove the rich folks' limit and the problem is solved, stupid.
Fred J. McCall
2018-04-09 17:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Fate
Post by d***@agent.com
Social Security Is Doomed. Now What?
No matter how you slice it, the program is going to fail.
by Antony Davies, James R. Harrigan, April 04, 2018, fee.org
There's no way to sugar-coat it. Social Security is going to fail.
There are, of course, ways to possibly extend its life for a few
years, or even decades, but ultimately, like all Ponzi schemes,
it will collapse. By the federal government's and the Social
Security Board of Trustees' own admissions, the Social Security
program will be paying out more than it takes in in just 4 years.
At current rates (and assuming the federal government fully pays
back the more than $5 trillion it "borrowed" from Social Security's
accounts), the program will be completely out of money in about
17 years. What does this situation mean for current working
Americans? Is there any way to solve this problem?
Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they discuss this and
more on this week's episode of Words and Numbers.
[ video ]
https://fee.org/articles/social-security-is-doomed-now-what/
Remove the rich folks' limit and the problem is solved, stupid.
Remove the rich folks' limit and you have to pay them on a higher
income base and the problem is NOT solved, stupid. Or are you
proposing that we add another 'bend' to the Social Security benefit
formula where you get ZERO for that 'contribution'? Pity for you,
that STILL doesn't solve the problem, you ignorant twat.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Clave
2018-04-09 18:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jack Fate
Post by d***@agent.com
Social Security Is Doomed. Now What?
No matter how you slice it, the program is going to fail.
by Antony Davies, James R. Harrigan, April 04, 2018, fee.org
There's no way to sugar-coat it. Social Security is going to fail.
There are, of course, ways to possibly extend its life for a few
years, or even decades, but ultimately, like all Ponzi schemes,
it will collapse. By the federal government's and the Social
Security Board of Trustees' own admissions, the Social Security
program will be paying out more than it takes in in just 4 years.
At current rates (and assuming the federal government fully pays
back the more than $5 trillion it "borrowed" from Social Security's
accounts), the program will be completely out of money in about
17 years. What does this situation mean for current working
Americans? Is there any way to solve this problem?
Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they discuss this and
more on this week's episode of Words and Numbers.
[ video ]
https://fee.org/articles/social-security-is-doomed-now-what/
Remove the rich folks' limit and the problem is solved, stupid.
Remove the rich folks' limit and you have to pay them on a higher
income base and the problem is NOT solved, stupid.
There's already a benefit cap, dumbass.

https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/Article/3735/What-is-the-maximum-Social-Security-retirement-benefit-payable
Fred J. McCall
2018-04-09 22:34:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clave
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jack Fate
Post by d***@agent.com
Social Security Is Doomed. Now What?
No matter how you slice it, the program is going to fail.
by Antony Davies, James R. Harrigan, April 04, 2018, fee.org
There's no way to sugar-coat it. Social Security is going to fail.
There are, of course, ways to possibly extend its life for a few
years, or even decades, but ultimately, like all Ponzi schemes,
it will collapse. By the federal government's and the Social
Security Board of Trustees' own admissions, the Social Security
program will be paying out more than it takes in in just 4 years.
At current rates (and assuming the federal government fully pays
back the more than $5 trillion it "borrowed" from Social Security's
accounts), the program will be completely out of money in about
17 years. What does this situation mean for current working
Americans? Is there any way to solve this problem?
Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they discuss this and
more on this week's episode of Words and Numbers.
[ video ]
https://fee.org/articles/social-security-is-doomed-now-what/
Remove the rich folks' limit and the problem is solved, stupid.
Remove the rich folks' limit and you have to pay them on a higher
income base and the problem is NOT solved, stupid.
There's already a benefit cap, dumbass.
https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/Article/3735/What-is-the-maximum-Social-Security-retirement-benefit-payable
Yes, there is, dipshit, and it is based on the cap on taxable amount.
DOH!
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Clave
2018-04-10 00:39:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Clave
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jack Fate
Post by d***@agent.com
Social Security Is Doomed. Now What?
No matter how you slice it, the program is going to fail.
by Antony Davies, James R. Harrigan, April 04, 2018, fee.org
There's no way to sugar-coat it. Social Security is going to fail.
There are, of course, ways to possibly extend its life for a few
years, or even decades, but ultimately, like all Ponzi schemes,
it will collapse. By the federal government's and the Social
Security Board of Trustees' own admissions, the Social Security
program will be paying out more than it takes in in just 4 years.
At current rates (and assuming the federal government fully pays
back the more than $5 trillion it "borrowed" from Social Security's
accounts), the program will be completely out of money in about
17 years. What does this situation mean for current working
Americans? Is there any way to solve this problem?
Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they discuss this and
more on this week's episode of Words and Numbers.
[ video ]
https://fee.org/articles/social-security-is-doomed-now-what/
Remove the rich folks' limit and the problem is solved, stupid.
Remove the rich folks' limit and you have to pay them on a higher
income base and the problem is NOT solved, stupid.
There's already a benefit cap, dumbass.
https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/Article/3735/What-is-the-maximum-Social-Security-retirement-benefit-payable
Yes, there is, dipshit, and it is based on the cap on taxable amount.
REGARDLESS of how much you've paid into the fund.

Loading Image...
Vincent
2018-04-10 04:30:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Fate
Post by d***@agent.com
Social Security Is Doomed. Now What?
No matter how you slice it, the program is going to fail.
by Antony Davies, James R. Harrigan, April 04, 2018, fee.org
There's no way to sugar-coat it. Social Security is going to fail.
There are, of course, ways to possibly extend its life for a few
years, or even decades, but ultimately, like all Ponzi schemes,
it will collapse. By the federal government's and the Social
Security Board of Trustees' own admissions, the Social Security
program will be paying out more than it takes in in just 4 years.
At current rates (and assuming the federal government fully pays
back the more than $5 trillion it "borrowed" from Social Security's
accounts), the program will be completely out of money in about
17 years. What does this situation mean for current working
Americans? Is there any way to solve this problem?
Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they discuss this and
more on this week's episode of Words and Numbers.
[ video ]
https://fee.org/articles/social-security-is-doomed-now-what/
Remove the rich folks' limit and the problem is solved, stupid.
Better yet.. Put all Government employees back on paying SS. And then
only folks that have no other means of retirement to receive it. We have
postal workers that paid SS until they were hired at post office and
then went on Postal retirement plan..Now collect both in retirement.
Same for Cops who are now on Teamsters Union retirement. Or how about
elderly Chain migrators who instantly receive $1500 A month from SSI,
subsidized rent, free medical, dental, glasses, Food benefits and in
many cases free Cellphone service, free transportation and Free burial
rights consistent with whatever religion they aspire to. The very best
law is the one that would put SS back into an untouchable trust fund
that the Democrats destroyed in 1964. This one piece of Socialism that I
can live with if professionally managed and those that corrupt it be
executed for high crimes against Americans who have PAID their dues.
Fred J. McCall
2018-04-10 09:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vincent
Post by Jack Fate
Post by d***@agent.com
Social Security Is Doomed. Now What?
No matter how you slice it, the program is going to fail.
by Antony Davies, James R. Harrigan, April 04, 2018, fee.org
There's no way to sugar-coat it. Social Security is going to fail.
There are, of course, ways to possibly extend its life for a few
years, or even decades, but ultimately, like all Ponzi schemes,
it will collapse. By the federal government's and the Social
Security Board of Trustees' own admissions, the Social Security
program will be paying out more than it takes in in just 4 years.
At current rates (and assuming the federal government fully pays
back the more than $5 trillion it "borrowed" from Social Security's
accounts), the program will be completely out of money in about
17 years. What does this situation mean for current working
Americans? Is there any way to solve this problem?
Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they discuss this and
more on this week's episode of Words and Numbers.
[ video ]
https://fee.org/articles/social-security-is-doomed-now-what/
Remove the rich folks' limit and the problem is solved, stupid.
Better yet.. Put all Government employees back on paying SS.
They do.
Post by Vincent
And then
only folks that have no other means of retirement to receive it.
So the only way for people to get any of their money back is to NOT
plan ahead? What a stupid idea!

<counter-factual loon spew snipped>
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
Vincent
2018-04-10 22:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Vincent
Post by Jack Fate
Post by d***@agent.com
Social Security Is Doomed. Now What?
No matter how you slice it, the program is going to fail.
by Antony Davies, James R. Harrigan, April 04, 2018, fee.org
There's no way to sugar-coat it. Social Security is going to fail.
There are, of course, ways to possibly extend its life for a few
years, or even decades, but ultimately, like all Ponzi schemes,
it will collapse. By the federal government's and the Social
Security Board of Trustees' own admissions, the Social Security
program will be paying out more than it takes in in just 4 years.
At current rates (and assuming the federal government fully pays
back the more than $5 trillion it "borrowed" from Social Security's
accounts), the program will be completely out of money in about
17 years. What does this situation mean for current working
Americans? Is there any way to solve this problem?
Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they discuss this and
more on this week's episode of Words and Numbers.
[ video ]
https://fee.org/articles/social-security-is-doomed-now-what/
Remove the rich folks' limit and the problem is solved, stupid.
Better yet.. Put all Government employees back on paying SS.
They do.
No they don't you ignorant old man. They Unionized and have their own
retirement fund that our Government pays into big time. The US Post
office has 3 Unions and has been constantly suing the Feds as it feels
their retirements with many $billions all ready in it is underfunded.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Vincent
And then
only folks that have no other means of retirement to receive it.
So the only way for people to get any of their money back is to NOT
plan ahead? What a stupid idea!
Hmmmm... I bet you hate paying school taxes too? If you don't have kids
going to school, do you get your money back?

Kids...Stay in school and don't do drugs! Fred is a good example of what
can happen to you. It also enhances Senility and Dementia if you are
lucky enough to get as old as he is.
Fred J. McCall
2018-04-11 09:47:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vincent
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Vincent
Post by Jack Fate
Post by d***@agent.com
Social Security Is Doomed. Now What?
No matter how you slice it, the program is going to fail.
by Antony Davies, James R. Harrigan, April 04, 2018, fee.org
There's no way to sugar-coat it. Social Security is going to fail.
There are, of course, ways to possibly extend its life for a few
years, or even decades, but ultimately, like all Ponzi schemes,
it will collapse. By the federal government's and the Social
Security Board of Trustees' own admissions, the Social Security
program will be paying out more than it takes in in just 4 years.
At current rates (and assuming the federal government fully pays
back the more than $5 trillion it "borrowed" from Social Security's
accounts), the program will be completely out of money in about
17 years. What does this situation mean for current working
Americans? Is there any way to solve this problem?
Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they discuss this and
more on this week's episode of Words and Numbers.
[ video ]
https://fee.org/articles/social-security-is-doomed-now-what/
Remove the rich folks' limit and the problem is solved, stupid.
Better yet.. Put all Government employees back on paying SS.
They do.
No they don't you ignorant old man.
Yes they do, you stupid little child, and have for over 30 years
(since 1984).
Post by Vincent
They Unionized and have their own
retirement fund that our Government pays into big time. The US Post
office has 3 Unions and has been constantly suing the Feds as it feels
their retirements with many $billions all ready in it is underfunded.
All irrelevant, since both government workers and postal workers pay
into Social Security.
Post by Vincent
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Vincent
And then
only folks that have no other means of retirement to receive it.
So the only way for people to get any of their money back is to NOT
plan ahead? What a stupid idea!
Hmmmm... I bet you hate paying school taxes too? If you don't have kids
going to school, do you get your money back?
Apples and aardvarks. Things that are different are not the same.
Post by Vincent
Kids...Stay in school and don't do drugs! Fred is a good example of what
can happen to you. It also enhances Senility and Dementia if you are
lucky enough to get as old as he is.
Thanks for the admission of the intellectual bankruptcy and ignorance
of your position. Kids...stop eating Tide Pods and snorting condoms!
'Vincent' is a good example of the sort of brain damage that can
happen to you. Not to mention the disconnect from reality he
displays.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
Loading...