Quote from: billyjoeallen on March 13, 2014, 12:00:54 AM

Quote from: chessnut on March 12, 2014, 10:57:55 PM

Quote from: billyjoeallen on March 12, 2014, 05:01:31 PM

Quote from: chessnut on March 12, 2014, 11:53:19 AM

Billyjoelallen,

'Freeriders' are not a problem (not the small ones - technically anyone with no income is a free rider!). we have a massive surplus of work, everyone wants a job, but they are not needed, because the innovation we have seen in the 20th and 21st century has been immense.

But there is obviously a problem, this is that the income that a robot generates does not go to the poor guy it replaced, it goes all to his boss.

this is why today wealth disparity is greater than ever.

When I was young, I never understood why politicians were always trying to create work, how daft. I still dont understand.

There are always unpleasant jobs that go to people with low skills. The fact that these jobs are unpleasant is what motivates people to obtain skills, such as robot repair.

all jobs that are necessary are filled, but when the worth of the employers welfare can be regarded less than the worth of their wages, then we have a fundamental problem in society.

work needs to be rewarded more than skill, if all the people in the world were 'skilled', some would still have to clean toilets, and they would deserve none the less for it. if not more!

It is not good that the labourers that form the foundations of society are paid the least. farmers, construction workers etc... they are worth more to us than lawyers. But because there are a surplus of them, they are treated as fodder. that is fundamentally the problem, capitalism has become more about economics than it is about welfare.

yet there is so much wealth in the world that everybody could live very comfortably, working much less and sharing shifts. the 'freeriders' are not a problem, and they are not the cause of the problem, they are the outcome of innovation. there are those who are disguistingly rich that continue to abuse power and stifle innovation strategically to maximise inequality. they are the root of the problem. there are 1500 billionaires in the world and 12 million millionaires..... does that sound right to you? no man needs a billion dollars, no man needs a million dollars.

You must have never been an employer. How can laborers be the foundation of society if they can be easily replaced by robots? Would robots then be the foundation of society? I agree that lawyers are mostly scum, but there is no way to overturn the laws of supply and demand by legislative fiat. Employers pay what they have to pay given the labor market conditions and workers take the best options available to them given the same. There will never be a time when the common man will only work for two days a week because competition for status and mates will exist at every wage level.

You would need at least a billion dollars if you were in love with Kate Upton and you were ugly. You would need at least a million dollars for any girl in the 90210 area code.

There are skilled labor shortages in many industries. There are unskilled labor surpluses. The free market could easily and quickly solve both these problems if the government would get out of the way.

if robots are the foundation of society, then we should all benefit equally from them. we dont, the wages of the robots go to an elite group of people, and generally not innovators.

Innovation used to be this; a man builds a well. he is rewarded because he doesnt have to walk 5 hours a day to get water from a stream (free rider), and society is thankful to have a well in the community, he is praised.

today if a man builds the metaphorical well, he privatises the water system and everyone dies of thirst.

innovation does not naturally need monetary incentive.