I'm going to jump in here because this is the sort of discussion that fascinates me. Science fiction calls this type of thought experiment world "Post-scarcity" which is a counterpoint to 1984 which was more of a regulated scarcity economy. My thought is that when the world goes "Post-scarcity" there will still be things that are scarce such as ocean-front property or awesome tickets seats to see a live performance. The things that will NOT be scarce are food, water, electricity, comfortable sleeping quarters, wireless network bandwidth, clean clothing, and advertizements on the video program platform du jour. This is by no means a correct list, but to answer the question, "what do you do when you only need 50% (or less) of the available people to actually work?" my answer would be to ensure that they have the minimum "Post-scarcity" list and that in their free time they aren't causing trouble. Since a lot of these people will cause trouble, though, the alternatives are to stick them in jail or make some kind of fulfilling occupation available to them. So yeah, certain jobs that robots replaced humans would revert back to the humans. The economics basically becomes a muddle at this point.
"If all those things could be provided to me without working, I wouldn't work." There is a degree of leisure activities that becomes available if you stop working. You'd have time to do more things in your newly found spare time - some free like running outside - some not free like playing a round of golf. So if you wanted to golf, you'd still need to work (i.e. earn money) so that you can trade with the golf course to reserve your tee-time (this example works because I think there can never be a high enough supply of golf courses to meet the demand is playing a round is free and people have infinite free time).
"If you make it too low, they will be unable to survive." I think the greatest threat is making it so low that they organize, rebel, and destroy the companies who shifted from human labor to robot labor. It is tough for me to imagine a scenario is a 1st world country where technological advancement leads to people who are displaced gracefully exiting the human race.
Money is basically created out of nothing.
The emphasis you putting on being crushed by debt is in discord with this other statement that you made. Allocation of resources - including the time of scientists and the hundreds of thousands of acres in the Midwest - can cause to new resources to be made available or it can backfire. I have to disagree with the general tone of your thoughts since it seems like you may believe that all of the major allocations of resources over the past decade or two in America has somehow backfired and gone up in a puff of smoke... which is not the case.
I'm not sure I see the point in paying any significant amount of money for eBook cover art, but to each his own. The average cover art for an eBook is going to be shown Icon Size on an eReader menu. No?
I agree editing is key and being able to pay editors frees an author to do other things. But wouldn't high editor fees equate to the equivalent of the "unpolished/lousy prototype" type project that this thread is saying shouldn't go through KS anyway?
My KS pet peeve is seeing typographic errors in project descriptions. What chance is there that the end product will be polished if the requester doesn't have sense to polish the request for money that they are putting out there?
An extra 3GB of data sent to a casual users ought to earn Facebook some kickbacks from cellphone providers!
So maybe that's their new business model? Deliver content, earn kickbacks? This actually seems much more lucrative than being an advertizing company since cellular phone companies have been clamping down on Monthly Allowances for the past few years.
I don't get what the
Fucking puerile moron.
Boy, that escalated quickly!
Whatever... I learned a new word today! puerile.png FTW.
Are you accusing these companies of racist hiring practices?
No. Speaking generally.
General demographics of the company's employees is not evidence.
Correct. But Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and every other big company with complicated organizational structures where hiring decisions aren't centralized should be aware that the people they trust to make hiring decision sometimes have selfish motivations behind their decisions. I don't think you'd disagree with the generalized statement that "racist people exist" and extrapolating that to "racist people who make hiring decisions exist" isn't too much of a leap of faith. I'm not saying Google, Facebook, or Yahoo employ racists who make hiring decisions. I'm saying they ought to have some checks and balances in place to guard against allowing illegal practices from occurring within their organizations.
My post was a reply to the question "Why should company's care about this at all?" because I think there are very real reasons why companies should care even if they have no real reason to suspect their hiring managers are acting unlawfully.