Not profit = Raising your property price above its worth

Here you go.

Absolutely, the more libraries that are available, the less time programmers need to implement behaviors that can utilize those libraries. But even today, when the number of open source libraries are clearly accelerating (and has nearly doubled in the year since that chart), there has been no slowing of programming jobs.

We also have to consider that the appetite for what software developers can create may simply be insatiable.

Something similar can be said about this prediction in general. Before the programmer who is automating job X is laid off, the person currently performing job X will be laid off due to the new program. Programmers will outlast the positions they are automating.

Which is easier, programmers moving on to another automation, or the replaced employee learning a different skill?

If I were the author, I'd worry less about the programmer and more about how this world will handle the potential mass unemployment situation.

Whoa there. Just because we don't want the government running every little detail about our health care, doesn't mean we want anarchy.

I'll put it the way a friend put it to me: "Regulations aren't bad. Bad regulations are bad." The ACA is a regulation that has good parts but where the bad outweighs the good.

Not only is it bad, but it's not likely to get better. It was passed in such a polarizing fashion that nobody wants to fix it; the Republicans want nothing except to repeal it completely, and the Democrats feel it is so sacred that it should not be touched.

The experience would be less than ideal.

Future iterations that have better lens quality and higher field of view could make use of eye tracking to determine what location of the viewable area should be rendered optimally.

Considering automation is coming either way, at least my system is reducing the need to automate by allowing wages to go down on jobs that would otherwise be automated away. Is it just delaying the inevitable? Perhaps, but until we figure out a good solution for the day that automation reduces us to less than 50% employment, we should probably delay as much as possible.

This is Wealth Redistribution 101, and is what I meant by "redistribute wealth" in my original post. Sorry that I obviously didn't meet your standard of defining every single phrase I use inline.

That makes no sense at all. It's quite the opposite. How is it an "incentive", a reward, for the government to clawback more of your money as you make more? It isn't.

But that's not what such a plan is aiming for. Its chief goal is to require those who have benefited highly from what our society offers (the wealthy) to provide a safety net for those who put forth effort and those who take risks. This provides no more incentive to become rich, because becoming rich is incentive enough.

I'm not seeing how that situation applies here. If the government subsidy is increased to the point that it at least provides the same wage as before, then the workers would take home the same amount. They get paid directly by the government, and the subsidy doesn't run out.

Sure, I didn't specify but this plan is for only those who can work. The current system, or comparable system, can be put into place for those who cannot work or other special circumstances.

The subsidies are directly from the government to the employees. Corporations never touch them.

Sure, the jobs aren't all that productive. But people who are unemployed have exactly zero productivity anyway, so total productivity is increasing even if it's not by a large factor. Also consider the benefits to society... we get people off the streets, reduce crime by reducing poverty, and put currently-unemployed people into a job where they have the chance to gain experience and learn new skills (which can turn into future productivity).

In this system I proposed, they would do some kind of work. The work might not be worth much but it will be worth at least a little to some employer. Society benefits by getting them off the streets.

Also, being exposed to work on a daily basis may entice the employee to improve skills for even higher wages. This plan gets them in the system where they at least have the chance to get experience doing more and more until they are truly productive.

I'm not talking about a current system. I'm talking about a new strategy.

Fine, whatever, you obviously understand what I'm going for.

This has been brought up in another comment off my first one, so I redirect you there instead of repeating some ideas about handling this situation.

So in one paragraph you propose that this will fail because people will create zero-productivity "jobs" to get the government subsidy, and in the next you propose it will fail because people will somehow still be out of jobs?

One of the goals of this idea is to reduce unemployment, hopefully to zero. There's probably a sweet spot where the government provides lower subsidies based on time worked, so that people won't be able to survive purely off gaming the system. I've discussed this elsewhere, feel free to have a look.

Also, feel free to enlighten us with ideas for improvement instead of repeating issues discussed in other threads.

That's all around a good point.

One improvement is to limit the government's distribution to 40 hours/week.

Another improvement could be to reduce the amount provided by the government. Instead of what we currently consider minimum wage, it could be a smaller amount (say $5/hour) that is too little for someone to live on without some additional compensation. Employers would need to provide at least $2 or $3 per hour to make it worth people's time to work.

The exact numbers would be produced by economic analysts and statisticians and other people who are much, much smarter than I am about this kind of thing. I would imagine that the numbers could be calculated so as to minimize unemployment, minimize government subsidies, and maximize wages.

So you seriously, literally, cannot see these words:

Because they are there. I repeated them in my previous post and again here. Here, I'll do it again a few times:

The calculation of $72.50 for the week is clearly, unambiguously, built from the per-hour rate of $7.25 multiplied by the number of hours, which in the example is 10. I'm sorry if my failure to specify this 10 times (or perhaps 40 times) has impeded your ability to understand language.

Read.

$72.50 is for 10 hours. 40 hours would be $290 every week from the government, on top of any wage paid by the employer.

My example was a side job, obviously, since it is only 10 hours a week. 40 hours a week under this structure is $19,240 per year, which is 27.5% more than a (federal) minimum wage employee makes today.

Next time perhaps you should check the numbers before complaining about my math.

But rich people don't provide as much lobby power as corporations (which do not have the same limits on campaign finance that actual people do). Corporations that employ unskilled labor will profit highly from reducing minimum wage, so they would actually be more likely to back this plan.