I hardly see how that's comparable. Slaves are still people and limited compared to robots of iRobot (yeah, still a long way off but certainly doable). And times were harder in some ways back the, requiring much more work than today. More people - slaves or free - were required to even push information around (even back when there was actually tubes).

In this event, yes, socialism or something like it will be required - assuming the robots realize they don't need us and kill us off like in Terminator and so many others that show what happens when you break any of the Three Rules of Robotics. But that's also a long way off. Most people fear the very words "socialism" and "communism" because of history or just not understanding them. Even recent talks in the U.S. about nationalizing banks scares most people who start spouting "Yeah, like Japan!" and all sorts of stuff not thinking rationally through all the scenarios.

But we are living in the "now". Problems are happening now. Now is not the time to worry only for investors (frankly, I don't think that time is ever right). As people are laid off the economy is affected adversely. People without jobs means more burden on social programs which may require higher taxes and less spending by people and companies to cope (especially those now without jobs). And that leads to fewer jobs. Further down the downward spiral we go.

Progress is definitely important, but laying off hundreds or thousands of workers degrades the overall economic conditions. There's only so much money for educational grants and loans that a lot of people (or even by their sheer laziness) will have to live off of social programs like wellfare. And that's a burden on society to have to pay. Maybe if someone were to do all the math society as a whole might fare slightly better, but nowhere near what a lot of poeple are probably thinking. (I don't agree lazy people deserve such privileges, but should we just let them die of starvation?)

Educating people costs money, and as we automate (or replace like in this topic's manner) more and more, fewer and fewer people are required. Some additional jobs might created on building on that technology or making it better, but not enough to cover all the displaced workers. And do we really need more people behind the counters of even more McDonald's?

There's quite a few video games I like. Should I vote their corresponding movies up even if Uwe Boll directs? That's idiotic. Love an actor. Love the book, video game, or writer that inspired the movie script. But don't vote a movie just based on that. It really shows ignorance.

Not only this, but consider the various fanboys. Some people may like Brendon Frasier enough that they think any movie with him is great, so they vote. People - like the OP mentioned - might like the book so much, they vote the movie positive without having seen it. It's idiotic, but so are people often times.

I have yet to see a case in which this is anything other than a desperation move by a failing business.

If they're seriously changing their tactics, how is it a failing business? We still need reputable sources for the news and not the typical blogger. I know that this isn't always prevalent in news, but I prefer more fact in my daily news like we typically see in news reports than opinion typically from bloggers.

...and would make the U.S. second-rate in education and basic research.

Since the US is far behind being 2nd in education - most notably math - wouldn't being 2nd be an improvement?

But what does it mean to be politically savvy? Seriously. And with some agreement on a definition in mind, then does it matter?

IMO, politicians are often not fit to make decisions on what they do nor are their constituents, so many times it falls to the lobbyists who either make the best argument or, frankly, put the most money into their argument.