Socialism is of the devil. What makes you or anyone else honestly believe that the wealthy are going to play along with your idea? Wouldn't they just float the notion that it's better to reduce population than provide handouts?
> because people aren't keen on doing the laborious work.
> two bots would cost the same as three unskilled human laborers who earn about $20k annually not to mention medical bills due to injury.
My money is on door #2.
What I gathered from this article is that it is desireable in a coporate setting to be extroverted. Extroverts are rewarded, introverts are pocket-protector wearing peons.
No wonder everyone hates management.
The no-contract plans do not allow voicemail forwarding - so if you currently use YouMail or an equivalent, you will be SOL by using T-Mobile.
I run several flavors of Linux at home and work and am disappointed that Netflix doesn't work natively under Linux. Rather than fudging around with a virtual machine or trying to get things working under Wine, I walked into my local electronics store and paid $70 for a nice blu-ray, internet enabled player. A Smart TV box. I now watch Netflix, Amazon Prime, Youtube and more without taking a hit on my laptop performance.
Because historically, extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a few coincides with recession/depression and high levels of national debt. This is not hard to understand. Redistributing wealth to a smaller group of people means the larger group of people have less to spend. The smaller group owning the majority of the wealth will not spend their money the same way someone from the lower classes will.
The reason we had such a great economy in the 1950s was in part due to the low income inequality via high taxation on the rich. Capitalism worked beautifully then, lifting the standards of practically every American. One can argue the same is not true today.
There's a scanner in my toilet, to watch me take a bath.
batter batter batter batter batter batter batter batter batter batter batter batter SWING!
He is a master at floating policies that on the surface may appeal to one demographic or the other, but he always brings it home in the end.
As technology advances particularly with regard to robotics and AI, we're going to find that a large segment of the human population simply is not needed anymore. In today's political environment I'm simply not seeing the global community embracing strict population control as well as socialism in providing for those who no longer have jobs and are simply using up resources without providing anything in return.
What do you recommend be done with these billions of people in the coming decades?
The group of psychopaths also known as the Roswell City Council pushed Andrew Wordes (also known as the Roswell Chicken Man) to take his life in March 2012.
* the government reserves the right to engage in bullying any time it wishes, for any reason. In this case parents are encouraged to teach their children that bystanding is appropriate and expected.
Automation is making human labor irrelevant, regardless of union participation.
US property managers, landlords, real estate holding companies, grocers, farmers, and other interests and providers decide to drastically cut costs of everything they manage, manfuacture or otherwise provide.
Until then, quit complaining about Americans with large wages and outrageous benefits. That is a gross stereotype which is simply not true for the vast majority of American workers (of those who actually have jobs, no thanks to outsourcing in India and elsewhere).
This could and should have been prevented by installing Linux - which is free - on all student and faculty/staff computers. With education costs soaring, going with the name brand (which is also less secure) is no longer an excuse.