Discussion:
Shocking New Study Says Your Grandchildren Should Be Capitalist When They Grow Up
(too old to reply)
mg
2017-08-08 03:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Workers' salaries are at the lowest percentage of GDP since
1929

"Wages and salary income in 2012 amounted to 42.6 percent of
GDP, the lowest since 1929.

Corporate profits after taxes amounted to a record 9.7
percent of G.D.P. Each of the last three years has been
higher than the earlier record high, of 9.1 percent, which
was set in 1929. . . ."

https://www.dougsguides.com/content/whats
rumpelstiltskin
2017-08-08 07:28:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
"Workers' salaries are at the lowest percentage of GDP since
1929
"Wages and salary income in 2012 amounted to 42.6 percent of
GDP, the lowest since 1929.
Corporate profits after taxes amounted to a record 9.7
percent of G.D.P. Each of the last three years has been
higher than the earlier record high, of 9.1 percent, which
was set in 1929. . . ."
https://www.dougsguides.com/content/whats
Oh-oh - I still have about $180K in the stock
market. Maybe I'd better cash in!

I don't have a dime in "bitcoin". That's not
very "modern" of me, but bitcoin scares me.

Most of my lucre now is in FDIC insured
accounts which are only paying a little over
1% a year, as the stock market storms
upward. But at least they're safe, or so I
think - perhaps misguidedly.

I don't have anything in Real Estate, and
I thank my lucky stars for that! What a
pain in the butt Real Estate is! Here's a
horrible example: somebody bought the
street around a luxury neighborhood
for (only) $90,000. The street "belonged"
to somebody who hadn't worked for the
association for years, but the city kept
sending tax bills to that address so the
owners of the houses on that street had
no idea what was going on until after
the sale when they heard their street
had been sold out from under them:
http://tinyurl.com/ycrag6pv

That's a new one on me, I must
admit. I had no idea that streets
could be sold or that people owning
houses on a street could be assessed
taxes for the street. El Castor will be
delighted to hear that two of the
houses are owned, or were owned
at one time, by Dianne Feinstein and
Nancy Pelosi.

That's just one great example of
why I'd never want to own any
Real Estate.

A woman I worked with once had
to pay a big fine for not paying taxes
on her house.When she said she
hadn't received the bill, her city (not
San Francisco) admitted they'd
neglected to send the bill, but she
knew she had to pay taxes so she
should have paid them anyway.
Jesus Christ Almighty!
mg
2017-08-11 00:26:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
"Workers' salaries are at the lowest percentage of GDP since
1929
"Wages and salary income in 2012 amounted to 42.6 percent of
GDP, the lowest since 1929.
Corporate profits after taxes amounted to a record 9.7
percent of G.D.P. Each of the last three years has been
higher than the earlier record high, of 9.1 percent, which
was set in 1929. . . ."
https://www.dougsguides.com/content/whats
Oh-oh - I still have about $180K in the stock
market. Maybe I'd better cash in!
I don't have a dime in "bitcoin". That's not
very "modern" of me, but bitcoin scares me.
Most of my lucre now is in FDIC insured
accounts which are only paying a little over
1% a year, as the stock market storms
upward. But at least they're safe, or so I
think - perhaps misguidedly.
I don't have anything in Real Estate, and
I thank my lucky stars for that! What a
pain in the butt Real Estate is! Here's a
horrible example: somebody bought the
street around a luxury neighborhood
for (only) $90,000. The street "belonged"
to somebody who hadn't worked for the
association for years, but the city kept
sending tax bills to that address so the
owners of the houses on that street had
no idea what was going on until after
the sale when they heard their street
http://tinyurl.com/ycrag6pv
That's a new one on me, I must
admit. I had no idea that streets
could be sold or that people owning
houses on a street could be assessed
taxes for the street. El Castor will be
delighted to hear that two of the
houses are owned, or were owned
at one time, by Dianne Feinstein and
Nancy Pelosi.
That's just one great example of
why I'd never want to own any
Real Estate.
A woman I worked with once had
to pay a big fine for not paying taxes
on her house.When she said she
hadn't received the bill, her city (not
San Francisco) admitted they'd
neglected to send the bill, but she
knew she had to pay taxes so she
should have paid them anyway.
Jesus Christ Almighty!
Houses are so much work and cost so much money to repair and
maintain that it staggers the imagination (or it does mine,
anyway) when I think about it. So, I don't know how good of
an investment they are when it comes to a contest between
investments in equities and an investment in a house. I do
suspect that people that own apartment buildings do pretty
well, though.

My attachment to owning a house is probably mostly
psychological and emotional, incidentally, since I was
raised in apartments when I was a kid and hated it.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-08-11 04:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
"Workers' salaries are at the lowest percentage of GDP since
1929
"Wages and salary income in 2012 amounted to 42.6 percent of
GDP, the lowest since 1929.
Corporate profits after taxes amounted to a record 9.7
percent of G.D.P. Each of the last three years has been
higher than the earlier record high, of 9.1 percent, which
was set in 1929. . . ."
https://www.dougsguides.com/content/whats
Oh-oh - I still have about $180K in the stock
market. Maybe I'd better cash in!
I don't have a dime in "bitcoin". That's not
very "modern" of me, but bitcoin scares me.
Most of my lucre now is in FDIC insured
accounts which are only paying a little over
1% a year, as the stock market storms
upward. But at least they're safe, or so I
think - perhaps misguidedly.
I don't have anything in Real Estate, and
I thank my lucky stars for that! What a
pain in the butt Real Estate is! Here's a
horrible example: somebody bought the
street around a luxury neighborhood
for (only) $90,000. The street "belonged"
to somebody who hadn't worked for the
association for years, but the city kept
sending tax bills to that address so the
owners of the houses on that street had
no idea what was going on until after
the sale when they heard their street
http://tinyurl.com/ycrag6pv
That's a new one on me, I must
admit. I had no idea that streets
could be sold or that people owning
houses on a street could be assessed
taxes for the street. El Castor will be
delighted to hear that two of the
houses are owned, or were owned
at one time, by Dianne Feinstein and
Nancy Pelosi.
That's just one great example of
why I'd never want to own any
Real Estate.
A woman I worked with once had
to pay a big fine for not paying taxes
on her house.When she said she
hadn't received the bill, her city (not
San Francisco) admitted they'd
neglected to send the bill, but she
knew she had to pay taxes so she
should have paid them anyway.
Jesus Christ Almighty!
Houses are so much work and cost so much money to repair and
maintain that it staggers the imagination (or it does mine,
anyway) when I think about it. So, I don't know how good of
an investment they are when it comes to a contest between
investments in equities and an investment in a house. I do
suspect that people that own apartment buildings do pretty
well, though.
My attachment to owning a house is probably mostly
psychological and emotional, incidentally, since I was
raised in apartments when I was a kid and hated it.
Considering what a pain in the butt it is to own
property, the nesting instinct is the only explanation
I have for why so many people want to do it.
I was born in a "council house" provided by the
colliery to coal miners and people who, like my
grandfather eventually, were retired from it.
That was in England and I never heard of them
having any heartache at all about it, though it
wasn't their house anymore after they died.
Then in the USA I lived in a big two-storey
house that was built by my foster father himself -
pretty admirable: I can't imagine myself doing
anything like that. My mom lived there until
she died, then my sister got it. My mom never
had tax problems but my sister has had some.
Once I got out on my own at 21, I've always
lived in apartments or flats. It was a mixed
bag at first, but my current flat that I've lived
in since 1974 has been a dream, right smack
in the middle of the best place in the world
to live for a city person like myself. It's way
too big for one person really, and at first I
had roommates, but since 1993 I've lived
here alone, and loved it.
mg
2017-08-12 18:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
"Workers' salaries are at the lowest percentage of GDP since
1929
"Wages and salary income in 2012 amounted to 42.6 percent of
GDP, the lowest since 1929.
Corporate profits after taxes amounted to a record 9.7
percent of G.D.P. Each of the last three years has been
higher than the earlier record high, of 9.1 percent, which
was set in 1929. . . ."
https://www.dougsguides.com/content/whats
Oh-oh - I still have about $180K in the stock
market. Maybe I'd better cash in!
I don't have a dime in "bitcoin". That's not
very "modern" of me, but bitcoin scares me.
Most of my lucre now is in FDIC insured
accounts which are only paying a little over
1% a year, as the stock market storms
upward. But at least they're safe, or so I
think - perhaps misguidedly.
I don't have anything in Real Estate, and
I thank my lucky stars for that! What a
pain in the butt Real Estate is! Here's a
horrible example: somebody bought the
street around a luxury neighborhood
for (only) $90,000. The street "belonged"
to somebody who hadn't worked for the
association for years, but the city kept
sending tax bills to that address so the
owners of the houses on that street had
no idea what was going on until after
the sale when they heard their street
http://tinyurl.com/ycrag6pv
That's a new one on me, I must
admit. I had no idea that streets
could be sold or that people owning
houses on a street could be assessed
taxes for the street. El Castor will be
delighted to hear that two of the
houses are owned, or were owned
at one time, by Dianne Feinstein and
Nancy Pelosi.
That's just one great example of
why I'd never want to own any
Real Estate.
A woman I worked with once had
to pay a big fine for not paying taxes
on her house.When she said she
hadn't received the bill, her city (not
San Francisco) admitted they'd
neglected to send the bill, but she
knew she had to pay taxes so she
should have paid them anyway.
Jesus Christ Almighty!
Houses are so much work and cost so much money to repair and
maintain that it staggers the imagination (or it does mine,
anyway) when I think about it. So, I don't know how good of
an investment they are when it comes to a contest between
investments in equities and an investment in a house. I do
suspect that people that own apartment buildings do pretty
well, though.
My attachment to owning a house is probably mostly
psychological and emotional, incidentally, since I was
raised in apartments when I was a kid and hated it.
Considering what a pain in the butt it is to own
property, the nesting instinct is the only explanation
I have for why so many people want to do it.
I was born in a "council house" provided by the
colliery to coal miners and people who, like my
grandfather eventually, were retired from it.
That was in England and I never heard of them
having any heartache at all about it, though it
wasn't their house anymore after they died.
Then in the USA I lived in a big two-storey
house that was built by my foster father himself -
pretty admirable: I can't imagine myself doing
anything like that. My mom lived there until
she died, then my sister got it. My mom never
had tax problems but my sister has had some.
Once I got out on my own at 21, I've always
lived in apartments or flats. It was a mixed
bag at first, but my current flat that I've lived
in since 1974 has been a dream, right smack
in the middle of the best place in the world
to live for a city person like myself. It's way
too big for one person really, and at first I
had roommates, but since 1993 I've lived
here alone, and loved it.
Years ago, I asked a girl friend a question -- something
like "Do you like living alone", I think. She replied, that
she did like it, but she preferred to think of it as living
"by herself" rather than "living alone".

El Castor
2017-08-08 19:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
"Workers' salaries are at the lowest percentage of GDP since
1929
"Wages and salary income in 2012 amounted to 42.6 percent of
GDP, the lowest since 1929.
Corporate profits after taxes amounted to a record 9.7
percent of G.D.P. Each of the last three years has been
higher than the earlier record high, of 9.1 percent, which
was set in 1929. . . ."
https://www.dougsguides.com/content/whats
US workers are being replaced by robots, and as the population ages,
older workers are being replaced by younger ones and immigrants, who
make less, at least in dollar terms. Reducing immigration may or may
not be temporarily helpful in retaining jobs, but hindering automation
would be the height of stupidity. It is going to happen. Imagine a
world of 200 years from now in which virtually all work is automated.
Robots do everything. What will be the role of humans? Well, for one
thing there will be fewer of us, a lot fewer, for the simple reason
that a plummeting fertility rate will reduce the population. But
genetic manipulation will mean a smarter healthier population. So what
will we do!! What will be the role of humanity?? How the Hell should I
know? When 90% of us worked on farms, and 200 years later 98% of us
didn't work on farms how did we transition? How did we figure it out?
Why didn't the world collapse? It just happened. The population
adapted as the economy evolved. Guess what. It is still happening, and
we are still adapting and evolving. Here is what I believe is an
interesting hint of things to come ...

"Swiss voters reject proposal to give basic income to every adult and
child"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/05/swiss-vote-give-basic-income-every-adult-child-marxist-dream

Maybe next time it will pass?
mg
2017-08-11 00:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 12:17:32 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
"Workers' salaries are at the lowest percentage of GDP since
1929
"Wages and salary income in 2012 amounted to 42.6 percent of
GDP, the lowest since 1929.
Corporate profits after taxes amounted to a record 9.7
percent of G.D.P. Each of the last three years has been
higher than the earlier record high, of 9.1 percent, which
was set in 1929. . . ."
https://www.dougsguides.com/content/whats
US workers are being replaced by robots, and as the population ages,
older workers are being replaced by younger ones and immigrants, who
make less, at least in dollar terms. Reducing immigration may or may
not be temporarily helpful in retaining jobs, but hindering automation
would be the height of stupidity. It is going to happen. Imagine a
world of 200 years from now in which virtually all work is automated.
Robots do everything. What will be the role of humans? Well, for one
thing there will be fewer of us, a lot fewer, for the simple reason
that a plummeting fertility rate will reduce the population. But
genetic manipulation will mean a smarter healthier population. So what
will we do!! What will be the role of humanity?? How the Hell should I
know? When 90% of us worked on farms, and 200 years later 98% of us
didn't work on farms how did we transition? How did we figure it out?
Why didn't the world collapse? It just happened. The population
adapted as the economy evolved. Guess what. It is still happening, and
we are still adapting and evolving. Here is what I believe is an
interesting hint of things to come ...
"Swiss voters reject proposal to give basic income to every adult and
child"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/05/swiss-vote-give-basic-income-every-adult-child-marxist-dream
Maybe next time it will pass?
The human body is a spectacularly, fantastic machine. I
doubt if anybody will ever be able to build a robot to match
it and if humans were paid by the law of supply and demand
they would be incredibly cheap. The average wage in Mexico,
for instance, is about $5 a day. In Ukraine the average wage
is about $300 a month and Ukraine has a very highly educated
work force. In Vietnam it's $150 a month and in Indonesia
it's about $226 a month.

So, the solution from a capitalists view point to the labor
problem is to pay workers based on supply and demand of the
global workforce rather than some artificial standards (like
union membership, for instance).

One thing that "robots" are extremely good at is
manufacturing. Intel, for example, is very highly automated,
but I have a former SIL, with an associated degree, who
makes over $100K a year fixing them when they breakdown.

My daughter cleans houses for a living and it's totally
amazing how much she can do in 8 hours and what a good job
she does. My handyman is the same way. I can't imagine how a
robot could ever be made that could replace them from an
economical point of view.

Robots go clankity clank and have gears and pulleys and they
need power supplies and repairs. People built with a good
blue print (i.e. good genes) can work for 40 years with very
little maintenance, or repairs, and when they get old you
simply replace them.

I predict that the people who will be most easily replaced
by "robots" will be the people who make a living sitting on
their butts on a chair all day long, or do a minimum of
physical labor.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-08-11 04:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:20:16 -0600, mg <***@none.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Post by mg
The human body is a spectacularly, fantastic machine. I
doubt if anybody will ever be able to build a robot to match
it and if humans were paid by the law of supply and demand
they would be incredibly cheap. The average wage in Mexico,
for instance, is about $5 a day. In Ukraine the average wage
is about $300 a month and Ukraine has a very highly educated
work force. In Vietnam it's $150 a month and in Indonesia
it's about $226 a month.
So, the solution from a capitalists view point to the labor
problem is to pay workers based on supply and demand of the
global workforce rather than some artificial standards (like
union membership, for instance).
One thing that "robots" are extremely good at is
manufacturing. Intel, for example, is very highly automated,
but I have a former SIL, with an associated degree, who
makes over $100K a year fixing them when they breakdown.
My daughter cleans houses for a living and it's totally
amazing how much she can do in 8 hours and what a good job
she does. My handyman is the same way. I can't imagine how a
robot could ever be made that could replace them from an
economical point of view.
Robots go clankity clank and have gears and pulleys and they
need power supplies and repairs. People built with a good
blue print (i.e. good genes) can work for 40 years with very
little maintenance, or repairs, and when they get old you
simply replace them.
I predict that the people who will be most easily replaced
by "robots" will be the people who make a living sitting on
their butts on a chair all day long, or do a minimum of
physical labor.
That would be me, and I agree.
mg
2017-08-11 08:05:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
The human body is a spectacularly, fantastic machine. I
doubt if anybody will ever be able to build a robot to match
it and if humans were paid by the law of supply and demand
they would be incredibly cheap. The average wage in Mexico,
for instance, is about $5 a day. In Ukraine the average wage
is about $300 a month and Ukraine has a very highly educated
work force. In Vietnam it's $150 a month and in Indonesia
it's about $226 a month.
So, the solution from a capitalists view point to the labor
problem is to pay workers based on supply and demand of the
global workforce rather than some artificial standards (like
union membership, for instance).
One thing that "robots" are extremely good at is
manufacturing. Intel, for example, is very highly automated,
but I have a former SIL, with an associated degree, who
makes over $100K a year fixing them when they breakdown.
My daughter cleans houses for a living and it's totally
amazing how much she can do in 8 hours and what a good job
she does. My handyman is the same way. I can't imagine how a
robot could ever be made that could replace them from an
economical point of view.
Robots go clankity clank and have gears and pulleys and they
need power supplies and repairs. People built with a good
blue print (i.e. good genes) can work for 40 years with very
little maintenance, or repairs, and when they get old you
simply replace them.
I predict that the people who will be most easily replaced
by "robots" will be the people who make a living sitting on
their butts on a chair all day long, or do a minimum of
physical labor.
That would be me, and I agree.
And it would be me, too. Imagine that you are a CEO of a
very high-tech corporation and two guys come to you. The
first guy asks you to build a robot to replace my handyman,
who can do anything from landscaping to roofing to carpentry
to electrical to plumbing and roto-rooting to painting to
washing walls. Juan can patch bare spots in a lawn and then
crawl up in the attic and fix a doorbell and repair a roof,
or he can build a shed from scratch or build a patio with a
built-in barbecue. He's not a big guy, but he can carry two
50-lb bags of cement the distance of a city block.

Now suppose a second guy comes to you and he asks you to
build a robot to replace an accountant, or a bank clerk, or
an architect, or a mathematician, or a school teacher, or
even a medical doctor, or an engineer.

Which robot do you think would be the easiest to build? I
would go for the latter choice because my intuition tells me
that it would take longer to build a robot that can climb up
in the attic and fix a door bell and then carry 100 pounds
300 feet and then repair a leak in a roof, than it would to
do the entire project of replacing an accountant, for
instance.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-08-11 09:02:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
The human body is a spectacularly, fantastic machine. I
doubt if anybody will ever be able to build a robot to match
it and if humans were paid by the law of supply and demand
they would be incredibly cheap. The average wage in Mexico,
for instance, is about $5 a day. In Ukraine the average wage
is about $300 a month and Ukraine has a very highly educated
work force. In Vietnam it's $150 a month and in Indonesia
it's about $226 a month.
So, the solution from a capitalists view point to the labor
problem is to pay workers based on supply and demand of the
global workforce rather than some artificial standards (like
union membership, for instance).
One thing that "robots" are extremely good at is
manufacturing. Intel, for example, is very highly automated,
but I have a former SIL, with an associated degree, who
makes over $100K a year fixing them when they breakdown.
My daughter cleans houses for a living and it's totally
amazing how much she can do in 8 hours and what a good job
she does. My handyman is the same way. I can't imagine how a
robot could ever be made that could replace them from an
economical point of view.
Robots go clankity clank and have gears and pulleys and they
need power supplies and repairs. People built with a good
blue print (i.e. good genes) can work for 40 years with very
little maintenance, or repairs, and when they get old you
simply replace them.
I predict that the people who will be most easily replaced
by "robots" will be the people who make a living sitting on
their butts on a chair all day long, or do a minimum of
physical labor.
That would be me, and I agree.
And it would be me, too. Imagine that you are a CEO of a
very high-tech corporation and two guys come to you. The
first guy asks you to build a robot to replace my handyman,
who can do anything from landscaping to roofing to carpentry
to electrical to plumbing and roto-rooting to painting to
washing walls. Juan can patch bare spots in a lawn and then
crawl up in the attic and fix a doorbell and repair a roof,
or he can build a shed from scratch or build a patio with a
built-in barbecue. He's not a big guy, but he can carry two
50-lb bags of cement the distance of a city block.
Now suppose a second guy comes to you and he asks you to
build a robot to replace an accountant, or a bank clerk, or
an architect, or a mathematician, or a school teacher, or
even a medical doctor, or an engineer.
Speaking of medical doctors, I just got a bill from
Kaiser, for when I made a routine visit July 2. I mentioned
that the Retin-A was keeping the hard patches of skin on
my forehead and next to my eyes well under control,
though there were still a few dots that wouldn't go away.
My doctor said he could take care of those, which he did
by taking out a fine-spray can of something super cold
and aiming at them with it. That took about two minutes,
and I just got the bill. My co-payment was only $20, but
the total mostly paid by Medicare to Kaiser was $200.
That's $100 a minute! I sure wish I could make that
kind of money. I've been using the Retin-A more
liberally than before lately, and the hard patches are
almost completely gone. I could have done that sooner
and saved the American People $200. I feel guilty.
Post by mg
Which robot do you think would be the easiest to build? I
would go for the latter choice because my intuition tells me
that it would take longer to build a robot that can climb up
in the attic and fix a door bell and then carry 100 pounds
300 feet and then repair a leak in a roof, than it would to
do the entire project of replacing an accountant, for
instance.
mg
2017-08-11 18:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
The human body is a spectacularly, fantastic machine. I
doubt if anybody will ever be able to build a robot to match
it and if humans were paid by the law of supply and demand
they would be incredibly cheap. The average wage in Mexico,
for instance, is about $5 a day. In Ukraine the average wage
is about $300 a month and Ukraine has a very highly educated
work force. In Vietnam it's $150 a month and in Indonesia
it's about $226 a month.
So, the solution from a capitalists view point to the labor
problem is to pay workers based on supply and demand of the
global workforce rather than some artificial standards (like
union membership, for instance).
One thing that "robots" are extremely good at is
manufacturing. Intel, for example, is very highly automated,
but I have a former SIL, with an associated degree, who
makes over $100K a year fixing them when they breakdown.
My daughter cleans houses for a living and it's totally
amazing how much she can do in 8 hours and what a good job
she does. My handyman is the same way. I can't imagine how a
robot could ever be made that could replace them from an
economical point of view.
Robots go clankity clank and have gears and pulleys and they
need power supplies and repairs. People built with a good
blue print (i.e. good genes) can work for 40 years with very
little maintenance, or repairs, and when they get old you
simply replace them.
I predict that the people who will be most easily replaced
by "robots" will be the people who make a living sitting on
their butts on a chair all day long, or do a minimum of
physical labor.
That would be me, and I agree.
And it would be me, too. Imagine that you are a CEO of a
very high-tech corporation and two guys come to you. The
first guy asks you to build a robot to replace my handyman,
who can do anything from landscaping to roofing to carpentry
to electrical to plumbing and roto-rooting to painting to
washing walls. Juan can patch bare spots in a lawn and then
crawl up in the attic and fix a doorbell and repair a roof,
or he can build a shed from scratch or build a patio with a
built-in barbecue. He's not a big guy, but he can carry two
50-lb bags of cement the distance of a city block.
Now suppose a second guy comes to you and he asks you to
build a robot to replace an accountant, or a bank clerk, or
an architect, or a mathematician, or a school teacher, or
even a medical doctor, or an engineer.
Speaking of medical doctors, I just got a bill from
Kaiser, for when I made a routine visit July 2. I mentioned
that the Retin-A was keeping the hard patches of skin on
my forehead and next to my eyes well under control,
though there were still a few dots that wouldn't go away.
My doctor said he could take care of those, which he did
by taking out a fine-spray can of something super cold
and aiming at them with it. That took about two minutes,
and I just got the bill. My co-payment was only $20, but
the total mostly paid by Medicare to Kaiser was $200.
That's $100 a minute! I sure wish I could make that
kind of money. I've been using the Retin-A more
liberally than before lately, and the hard patches are
almost completely gone. I could have done that sooner
and saved the American People $200. I feel guilty.
I just got a call from my oldest friend. We go back to when
we were about 12 years old. He had a stroke and is in the
hospital. His speech is a little bit slurred, but it sounds
like he's doing well and will probably be OK.

At our age, our time left is obviously limited and so I've
been thinking that I need to do something to enjoy life
more, but off hand I can't think of what that might be and
I'm not coming up with any ideas so far.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Which robot do you think would be the easiest to build? I
would go for the latter choice because my intuition tells me
that it would take longer to build a robot that can climb up
in the attic and fix a door bell and then carry 100 pounds
300 feet and then repair a leak in a roof, than it would to
do the entire project of replacing an accountant, for
instance.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-08-12 00:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
The human body is a spectacularly, fantastic machine. I
doubt if anybody will ever be able to build a robot to match
it and if humans were paid by the law of supply and demand
they would be incredibly cheap. The average wage in Mexico,
for instance, is about $5 a day. In Ukraine the average wage
is about $300 a month and Ukraine has a very highly educated
work force. In Vietnam it's $150 a month and in Indonesia
it's about $226 a month.
So, the solution from a capitalists view point to the labor
problem is to pay workers based on supply and demand of the
global workforce rather than some artificial standards (like
union membership, for instance).
One thing that "robots" are extremely good at is
manufacturing. Intel, for example, is very highly automated,
but I have a former SIL, with an associated degree, who
makes over $100K a year fixing them when they breakdown.
My daughter cleans houses for a living and it's totally
amazing how much she can do in 8 hours and what a good job
she does. My handyman is the same way. I can't imagine how a
robot could ever be made that could replace them from an
economical point of view.
Robots go clankity clank and have gears and pulleys and they
need power supplies and repairs. People built with a good
blue print (i.e. good genes) can work for 40 years with very
little maintenance, or repairs, and when they get old you
simply replace them.
I predict that the people who will be most easily replaced
by "robots" will be the people who make a living sitting on
their butts on a chair all day long, or do a minimum of
physical labor.
That would be me, and I agree.
And it would be me, too. Imagine that you are a CEO of a
very high-tech corporation and two guys come to you. The
first guy asks you to build a robot to replace my handyman,
who can do anything from landscaping to roofing to carpentry
to electrical to plumbing and roto-rooting to painting to
washing walls. Juan can patch bare spots in a lawn and then
crawl up in the attic and fix a doorbell and repair a roof,
or he can build a shed from scratch or build a patio with a
built-in barbecue. He's not a big guy, but he can carry two
50-lb bags of cement the distance of a city block.
Now suppose a second guy comes to you and he asks you to
build a robot to replace an accountant, or a bank clerk, or
an architect, or a mathematician, or a school teacher, or
even a medical doctor, or an engineer.
Speaking of medical doctors, I just got a bill from
Kaiser, for when I made a routine visit July 2. I mentioned
that the Retin-A was keeping the hard patches of skin on
my forehead and next to my eyes well under control,
though there were still a few dots that wouldn't go away.
My doctor said he could take care of those, which he did
by taking out a fine-spray can of something super cold
and aiming at them with it. That took about two minutes,
and I just got the bill. My co-payment was only $20, but
the total mostly paid by Medicare to Kaiser was $200.
That's $100 a minute! I sure wish I could make that
kind of money. I've been using the Retin-A more
liberally than before lately, and the hard patches are
almost completely gone. I could have done that sooner
and saved the American People $200. I feel guilty.
I just got a call from my oldest friend. We go back to when
we were about 12 years old. He had a stroke and is in the
hospital. His speech is a little bit slurred, but it sounds
like he's doing well and will probably be OK.
At our age, our time left is obviously limited and so I've
been thinking that I need to do something to enjoy life
more, but off hand I can't think of what that might be and
I'm not coming up with any ideas so far.
People always think they should be doing something,
but if they really should, they'd already be doing it.

All the best wishes for your friend. My foster father
had a stroke and it was a really bad one. If your
friend can talk, that's better than my foster father.
Loading...