It's an interesting thing to wish for, I guess. Anyone can make any story about the distant future. Personally, I hope we can have Stargates.
That sounds like generalized complaining. Are you arguing for anything, or just saying everything anyone might think about trying is off-limits because
Isn't it possible that we don't need The Davis Bacon Act, which was enacted to protect white union members from having to compete with black workers on highway construction projects? Is "race to the bottom" really a counter-argument to the re-examination of The Davis Bacon Act?
What keeps a competitor from setting up a similar robotic production line and selling goods for less? Why wouldn't prices drop due to competition?
So? Times change. Why shouldn't we re-examine old laws in the face of a new problem? Maybe unemployment is a bigger concern than some protection enacted to help, for example, 1930s coal miners?
That "drop" is an unemployed person who finally found a job. Why doesn't he or she matter?
We should re-examine (not necessarily "cut") parts of these:
- The Davis Bacon Act
- The Lacey Act
- The National Labor Relations Act
- The Americans With Disabilities Act
- The Controlled Substances Act
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- The Family and Medical Leave Act
- The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
- The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII
- The Employment Non-Discrimination Act
That's just a starting list. There are numerous state and local laws that make employing people more expensive and risky.
Robots are not covered by any of these acts. Companies choosing robots over people are not burdened by the cost of complying with these acts. You can't argue that a minority person won't be able to get a job because of discrimination when you're also arguing they won't be able to get a job because robots took away all the jobs.
It's interesting that you're worried about worker protections based on problems from the past, often things from 50 or 75 years ago. Meanwhile, the topic is about some distant future where no one can get a job due to automation. Why can't we re-examine laws when circumstances change?
As automation lowers the cost of producing goods toward zero, a smaller wage should buy more goods and living standards can improve even as wages go down.
(Of course, this whole discussion is silly because automation is as limited as anything else. But if you believe in automation replacing almost everyone, then you have to also accept that it will drastically cut the costs of goods.)
I'm not sure how that is an argument for artificially keeping people unemployed between now and whatever distant future you imagine. Wages could be higher if non-wage costs associated with employing someone or doing business were lower -- of course this depends on the supply of people to do the job.
Is there really an argument against considering changes to laws to help employers employ people?
Maybe we should re-examine every law, regulation, and employer mandate that makes it more expensive or more risky to hire people or conduct business that would employ people?
I am the only person that thinks that vandalising millions of customers PS3's is worse (Other OS feature removal).
Fine!! It's criminal fraud, nothing civil about it, people should go to prison*
*for a short period in a non-pound-em-in-the-ass prison, US has too many people in prison, you all need to calm down with that.
So, what if we had a new law: No AI with IQ over 100* allowed.
This would allow robot servants but make our overthrow unlikely.
*or 80 etc, or IQ depending on purpose.
A few years ago I looked at the numbers and realized I've been officially a woman for the majority of
my life. OK, yeah, I'm one of those. One of those who is very good with Linux kernels, MySQL, VoIP, and
various other technologies. Deal with it. I'm me, I like being me, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
You're 53 years old, posting as AC, and feel the need to announce that you're a transsexual and dare anyone to have a problem with you? FWIW, I don't think it's the world that has a problem with you--it seems like you have a problem with the world.
If everything is encrypted mass surveillance becomes much harder and more expensive.
So the outcome is more spies and higher taxes then! And more energy used - not environmentally friendly. Why encrypt comments if they're going to be displayed publicly?
Back in the day, Microsoft viewed open source and Linux as a threat and did its best to retaliate with FUD and patent threats.
then in 2013 Microsoft suffered a loss of more than US$32 billion
MS had an after-tax income of over 21 billion dollars in 2013. No idea where you're coming up with a $32B loss. Ballmer was a horrible CEO, but the biggest problem was that MS continued to make money--LOTS of money--while he was destroying the company's value, which made him look absolutely great on paper.