123
Welding together car bodies on an automobile assembly line is a mind deadening job.
Wrestling with a 40-pound spot welding gun that dangles from the ceiling on umbilical springs, a worker guides the tool along a body seam, pulling a trigger, methodically zapping together sheets of steel with bolts of electricity.
The assembly line moves incessantly, hundreds of cars, tens of thousands of welds, shift after shift. It is a job more fit for a robot than for a man.
The Stranglers Lyrics
|
Play the The Stranglers Quiz
|
“Hey! (Rise Of The Robots)”
Hey! (hey, hey, what do you say?)
Get out of their way (hey, hey, what do you say?)
Hey! (hey, hey, what do you say?)
Of get way their out (hey, hey, what do you say?)
They’re gonna want a union soon
Oil break that’s dead on noon
Hey! (hey, hey, what do you say?)
Their way out of get (hey, hey, what do you say?)
You won’t have to grease their palms
Shorter hours longer arms
Rise just watch them rise
The rise of the robots
Versatran Series F!
Hey! (hey, hey, what do you say?)
Get out of their way (hey, hey, what do you say?)
Hey! (hey, hey, what do you say?)
Way their of out get (hey, hey, what do you say?)
Metal fashioned into man
No ticker I could drop a tear
Hey! (hey, hey, what do you say?)
Out their way of get (hey, hey, what do you say?)
They’re good workers, they don’t get bored
Don’t get mad at bosses yet
Rise just watch them rise
The rise of the robots
Versatran Series F!
Hey!
Get out of their way (hey, hey, what do you say?)
Hey!
Get out of their way
Just watch them rise
The rise of the robots
Versatran Series F!
Get out of their way (hey, hey, what do you say?)
Hey! (hey, hey, what do you say?)
Of get way their out (hey, hey, what do you say?)
They’re gonna want a union soon
Oil break that’s dead on noon
Hey! (hey, hey, what do you say?)
Their way out of get (hey, hey, what do you say?)
You won’t have to grease their palms
Shorter hours longer arms
Rise just watch them rise
The rise of the robots
Versatran Series F!
Hey! (hey, hey, what do you say?)
Get out of their way (hey, hey, what do you say?)
Hey! (hey, hey, what do you say?)
Way their of out get (hey, hey, what do you say?)
Metal fashioned into man
No ticker I could drop a tear
Hey! (hey, hey, what do you say?)
Out their way of get (hey, hey, what do you say?)
They’re good workers, they don’t get bored
Don’t get mad at bosses yet
Rise just watch them rise
The rise of the robots
Versatran Series F!
Hey!
Get out of their way (hey, hey, what do you say?)
Hey!
Get out of their way
Just watch them rise
The rise of the robots
Versatran Series F!
rogerglewis
Guaranteed Income and Living Wage Schemes Cannot Possibly Work
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg Supports Universal Basic Income.
In its basic form, universal basic income means “everyone gets a paycheck, whether they have a job or not.”
Many expect even more. They want a guaranteed “living wage”.
View original post 171 more words
https://mishtalk.com/2017/09/17/zuckerberg-lost-his-mind-why-guaranteed-living-wages-cannot-possibly-work/#comment-170021
rogerglewissaid:September 18, 2017 12:00:23 at 12:00 AM
“However, any benefit to the trial participants must at the expense of a bigger deficit or higher taxes on everyone else”.
We can learn a lot from the Swiss referendum on Citizens Income as discussed here.
´However, the nearly universal misunderstanding of money is a major obstacle. For too long we’ve allowed a small coterie of bankers and “court economists” to hold the secrets and “tutor” us. So, it’s time for total openness.
First, regarding the claim that the Swiss proposal would’ve been too costly, what’s entirely omitted from the discussion is that the proposal (and similar proposals elsewhere) appear to call for re-distribution of existing money—taking money from certain sectors through taxation and re-allocating it to the people-at-large.
The implication is that the money supply is basically static and that re-distributing limited funds would require tough budget decisions—sparking tax hikes and associated spending increases in several areas; hence the claim “costs too much.”
But a successful basic income plan can and must be based on the creation of new money, or “distributism,” not on reshuffling existing money, which is “re-distributism.” That’s the “state secret” that no one wants to touch.´´
http://leconomistamascherato.blogspot.se/2016/07/basic-income-lets-name-real-problems.html
We can learn a lot from the Swiss referendum on Citizens Income as discussed here.
´However, the nearly universal misunderstanding of money is a major obstacle. For too long we’ve allowed a small coterie of bankers and “court economists” to hold the secrets and “tutor” us. So, it’s time for total openness.
First, regarding the claim that the Swiss proposal would’ve been too costly, what’s entirely omitted from the discussion is that the proposal (and similar proposals elsewhere) appear to call for re-distribution of existing money—taking money from certain sectors through taxation and re-allocating it to the people-at-large.
The implication is that the money supply is basically static and that re-distributing limited funds would require tough budget decisions—sparking tax hikes and associated spending increases in several areas; hence the claim “costs too much.”
But a successful basic income plan can and must be based on the creation of new money, or “distributism,” not on reshuffling existing money, which is “re-distributism.” That’s the “state secret” that no one wants to touch.´´
http://leconomistamascherato.blogspot.se/2016/07/basic-income-lets-name-real-problems.html
This question is rather deeper than Your summary dismissal Mitch, further, there is the question also regarding Energy Returns on Investment, As Energy resources become more expensive in terms of Watts invested for Watts extracted the present inefficient concepts of money how-ever Honestly or soundly grounded will fail to provide a useful analogue to production realities. Factor in also automation and you get to a new era of enclosure, whereby whole livelihoods disappear in a fundamental sense, Uber is an interesting intermediary case study, which through fraud basically based upon huge debt leverage they have been forcing viable mini cab businesses out of business, its a similar process to ENclosure of common lands and then outlawing gleaning.
In the existing paradigm, Aggregate demand is collapsing in the world the solution lies in something new, what that is is a very open question, raising the question and making proposals for treating some of the obvious symptoms in the meantime is not a foolish task, it may help to alleviate some of the huge problems already evident in the nascent collapse of the petrodollar.
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/08/renewableseroi-why-money-doesnt-cut-it.html
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/08/renewableseroi-why-money-doesnt-cut-it.html
Like
-
The_Fishsaid:
Is the statement below expected to remain so?“Energy Returns on Investment, As Energy resources become more expensive in terms of Watts invested for Watts extracted”Liked by you-
There is a conceptual Curve known as the Energy Cliff Movement along the curve is possible in either direction, it does though seem likely that a return to very high return on energy invested that was enjoyed when the most accessible HydroCarbons were in full flow is unlikely under current technology.http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/
Like-
A couple of thoughts roger.A) “under current technology” – it won’t stand still. I am an optimist some of the time and expect shift down in energy costs. Predicting precisely what shifts it – fusion, energy storage + renewable sources, etc is way beyond me, as is timing, but humans are special. Humans want lower energy costs, they’ll get it one way or another. Current wind in UK is cheaper than new (efficient?) Nuclear. I expect further shifts down.B) Under the Paris Climate deal, if applied, there is potentially 4x more (possibly even 5x -6x) more hydrocarbons already discovered than will be extracted to meet C02. Granted extraction costs higher than the past but massively potential supply if need be and extraction costs will fall imho into a reduced demand market. What happens if there is a wash out in the oil sector? Massive resources could be picked up cheap and costs shift down as previous discovery costs are sunk. The only thing stopping a shift down in cost in that scenario is the Climate According that may not hold anyway. The Accord might accelerate a wash-out if oil has to be parked for a while. Complex.3) C02 capture alongside 2) above. What impact?I still consider deflation in the energy complex to be possible.There’s too much at stake to accept ever rising energy costs and humans are ingenious.Like
-
Hi,
As a cornucopian, I agree We Humans are ingenious, solving the energy question is well within our compass of ingenuity, what is a problem and obstacle to doing so is though the Existing monetary paradigm which is both poorly understood and also disputed.
With respect to Mish´s post regarding Universal Basic Income, those arguments are based upon certain assumptions as to Scarcity, Employment, and Work-based measures of contributing to society.
The Current monetary Paradigm does not, even, with all the ingenuity in the world, get us away from the exponential function, and the problem our ingenuity needs to solve is actually how to stop the Debt/finance dog wagging the Economy Dog. For Economy read all stakeholders in society, ultimately one assumes that human ingenuity is aimed at the Pursuit of Happiness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_HappinessLiked by youYour comment is awaiting moderation.
-
-
-
