Yes, I'm willing to pay more in taxes and to extend the class time. My point was that, if we want computer sci, it should not replace more universally necessary subjects.

Yes, I think you are correct. That's why I said "should be".

Geography is logically an extension of history and is covered in my list. Arts and foreign language are probably more important than computer science at the K-12 level. I'm really in favor of including all of these subjects, but there is a priority based on universal need for the knowledge, i.e. a critical path.

If you want to include computer science without deleting existing core subjects, it will cost more money and class time. Are you willing to pay more in taxes to support schools? Are you willing to extend the class day and academic year so there is time to teach all these subjects? I am willing to accept those changes but to add comp sci without those changes will be destructive.

The first goal of K-12 education should be to teach critical thinking skills. Kids need to learn to think logically and to understand the meaning of a critical path. The second goal should be to teach English and communication skills. Third comes history and civics, the knowledge to become a functioning citizen. Fourth would be a basic grounding in math and science.

IF
        the schools manage to do all those things and still have money and class time left over.... fine....

THEN
        it makes sense to focus on computer science as a "core academic subject".

There is no defensible reason for humans to go to the moon. I'd be much more interested in a study of the cost and time frame of a colonization mission (one way) to Mars. That is the next home of mankind. Any other mission in space can be achieved faster and more economically by machines.

With a porous border, it hardly matters..

Oh I'm no Luddite and hardly a peasant. :) I love tech. Nowhere did I suggest limiting technology. What I said was that people have to support themselves and have some decent kind of life. If robots take the jobs and you don't redistribute wealth (which is not the same thing as socialism), there will be a revolution, regardless of the carrying capacity of the West. We don't have real famines yet because most people can still find enough paying work to buy food, or they rely on charity. But you can't humiliate the majority of the population, just so the rich can have the undiluted spoils of capitalism.

Hmmm. Now that you mention it, perhaps I am beginning to feel a bit socialist. And so will the unemployed masses in a robot filled world. Adopt a Star Trek economic system (post scarcity) BEFORE the pitch forks come out.

This is ok as long as society either
1. Stops increasing the population and/or
2. Redistributes wealth so that the new unemployed can live and find creative and entertaining ways to spend their lives.

else: Revolution

The study concluded that productivity increased while hours worked stayed the same. As the human population grows and automation increases, it's not enough that jobs are not lost. New jobs must be created.

In the absence of robots, the higher level of production would have meant new jobs, but that is not longer the case. In effect, a job not created is a job lost.

Moridineas : "LIght rail seems unlikely to substantially change any of the numbers"

There are two reason why light rail matters:
1. You are correct about suburbanization in Durham and Chapel Hill (Not in Carrboro because it is built out)
As population and traffic increases, travel slows down on roads. But light rail does not slow down as passenger volumes increase. It's easy to add more cars to the train. So the more pressure there is for transportation, the bigger advantage light rail has. Light rail gets MORE economical as demand increases.

2. Development is already beginning to aggregate around the announced light rail stations, even though the system will not begin to operate until 2026. If development is randomly dispersed, centralization of transportation is difficult. But if you plan your transportation system in advance rather than just reacting to the sprawl, development will adjust to maximize use of transit.

http://ourtransitfuture.com/pr...

I frequently ride public transit in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. It is the largest fare free system in the US. It is used by many people but growth in usage depends on many factors. Park and Ride lots make a big difference for people who live outside of town and must drive to get even close to their destination. Sidewalks make a difference because people who live close enough to walk to a bus stop have to have a safe place to walk. The Chapel Hill buses have bike carriers on the front so that bike riders can take the bus for part of their trip.

But one of the biggest factor is how easy it is to find parking. Cities use a huge amount of their space just to store cars during the day. The more expensive and hard to find parking becomes, the more people will use free public transit.

And all of this takes time. People have to adjust to the new reality of bus transportation being easier and cheaper than owning and driving a car. Over time, people will make decisions about where to live based in part on the presence of public transit. And if businesses also locate in areas served by transit, then it's easier for people to live and work on a transit line.

Your comments remind me of Julia Roberts in the film "Pretty Woman".

"I say where, I say when, I say who." Yep, that's a contractor alright. :)

" 1099 contractors often work the same hours and conditions as employees, in a desk next to employees, indistinguishable from employees, for some fixed duration."

I'm aware that happens lgw, but that's not what the law says. So it is a game. In any particular state, depending on the political leanings of the legislature or the opinion of the current US Atty. Gen, the "contracting company" may get away with it for awhile. But the law and the clear meaning of the words "contractor" and "employee" make clear what a farce this is.

" the time & place are agreed upon between contractor & client on a per-instance basis."

If the "contractor" is working on a defined time and place basis for the same client (Uber) over and over and does NOT work for any other client (Lyft) , then that "contractor" is an employee.

Based on your definition, there are no employees at all anywhere. If you are a bank teller and you agree about time and place of each customer interaction on a per-instance basis, are you a contractor? I'm sure banks could create an app that would direct a customer to the next teller if you didn't accept the assignment. But that's not the meaning of "contractor".

If instead you are an employee of a bank teller company, they could provide your services to the bank on a contractor basis. But you, yourself would not be the contractor.