CDZ How Might We Soften The Blow of The Third Industrial Revolution, the Age of Robots?

[JimBowie1958]

Well, the Third Industrial Revolution aka Digital Revolution is already in full swing.

We have seen real inflation adjusted after tax Middle Class incomes stagnate and go down since 1970 and this is just the first negative aspect of robotics, computerization and automation.

Other risks such as a Robot Revolt (i.e. Skynet), or Automated error in services that cannot be fixed (Hello Steam!) and so forth are all risks from the Digital Revolution we all face.

So how can we make this transition to a mostly Jobless economy more positive and less threatening to the average worker?

1. Disincentivise Automation. Give tax breaks that encourage companies to continue the hiring of people and less the automation of the work force. We dont have to rush to fully automate and there are benefits to letting it percolate slower.

2. Require all automated services have an human element that the customer can appeal to if/when they have issues with service. Think you Robo-doc got the dermetitis diagnosis wrong? There must be a human doctor on staff to appeal the robo-diagnosis to. Same goes to every other service from online stores to an automated medical staff.

3. Require all maintenance and installation of Robots and other automated devices be done by human beings.

4. Require all code written for a Robot or automated device to be at minimum 51% of all top level code to be written by a human being. All other code must be 10% human origin and signed off on by a human for passing validation and integration testing.


If we can reduce the speed at which the automation and robotic conversion of the work force occurs, then we can have a much more stable and risk free transition to our technological utopia.

 

[TNHarley]

Jobless?
So do you think we will all just starve in the streets, drop currency or the govt gets all of the power?

 

[JimBowie1958]

OldSoul, what is funny?


lol, just love these drive-by emoticons.

 

[jwoodie]

The concern about overpopulation used to be a lack of resources. Now it is a lack of jobs, and the implications are frightening.

 

[320 Years of History]

We have seen real inflation adjusted after tax Middle Class incomes stagnate and go down since 1970....

Come on now. Make whatever plea you want, but do it without twisting the facts.

Middle class income essentially has remained flat, not decreased. That's stangnancy, not decline. Far from ideal, no question, but also not as bad as you're depicting it.



The marginal tax rates were notably higher in 1970 than they are and have been over the past decade.

• 1970
  • $25K AGI - Married filing jointly --> 25% marginal rate
  • $25K AGI - Single --> 50% marginal rate
  • $50K AGI - Married filing jointly --> 50% marginal rate
  • $50K AGI - Single --> 62% marginal rate
• 2013
  • $50K AGI - Married filing jointly (MFJ) & Single (S) --> 15% (it's 15% from ~$18K up to $72.5K for MFJ, and for ~$9K up to $38.25 for S filers)

So how is it that anything can be considered a decline after taxes when the chunk of income taxes take, when adjusting for inflation wages have been flat and tax rates have decreased by anywhere from 10% to ~50%? The most likely culprit, if there's going to be one, is that prices have risen faster than have wages, and indeed, one can check the CPI and see the purchasing power of the dollar has fallen.

The thing to be aware of, however, is that for as much as goods prices have outpaced labor prices (wages), things would be worse were we not to have policies in place that keep goods prices lower than they would be absent those very same policies. What I'm speaking of here is free trade, the very purpose of which is to keep goods prices low, and that is in fact what it does.

Now free trade increases competition among workers, thus doing what competition does...in the case of wages it increases the pressure for workers to either work more (harder, or longer or smarter, etc.) or exit the labor market segment in which they are unsatisfied with their wage and enter a different segment of the labor market, or join the ranks of the capitalists and buy labor instead of selling it, or apply a combination of those actions.

Some folks might respond, "Well, if one has a job doing X, and their wages hold steady in a climate of increasing prices, how are they supposed to have the means to make any of those changes?" I cannot deny that doing so is difficult, very difficult perhaps; however, I will ask in return, "Why was one part of that wage class to begin with?"

What am I getting at by asking that? Several things.

• First, individuals in some classes find themselves in those classes/positions due to forces above and beyond their individual ability to control. For example, women, who even now must as a class endure the "glass ceiling" and wages that are only ~79% of men's wages. No individual woman is going to be able to overcome that for the good of women in general, even if that given woman overcomes it for herself.
• Second, I have never come by a high performer from college or high school (3.5 GPA or higher) who doesn't "make it" to the extent that they are able to enjoy a comfortably middle class lifestyle.
• Third, having over the past decade helped my mentorees get admitted to the nation's top colleges and universities -- none of which are even close to what one might call "affordable," save for one who got admitted to a military academy -- I've discovered that high achieving kids who are abjectly poor nonetheless can get funded to go to first rate schools, and as long as they maintain their high performance, they're going to have awesome careers.
  
  The set of observations from those experiences have led me to see that poverty isn't the problem, and that in turn suggests to me that if one doesn't come from pure poverty (U.S. style) and can perform highly enough to realize the American Dream, one has no business complaining if one didn't begin one's adult life on a very solid foundation of demonstrated skills and abilities that command higher prices in the labor market.
• Last, wage, labor and general economic trends are no secret. How much did it take in the 1970s to see calculators, quartz watches, etc. and not realize those things portended ever increasing automation of tasks and that one should plan one's career around the inevitability the coming of the Digital Age or the Age of Robots? Sure, some quantity of folks might not have noticed the clues, but a whole class of people not noticing? That's really asking for more willing suspension of disbelief than I have to give. I'm willing to be sympathetic to the circumstance of being behind the curve as go wages, but I'm not willing to have that emotion for why one finds themselves in that position as an adult when the "writing was on the wall" throughout their teen and young adult years.

It's low wage workers who have seen their inflation adjusted after tax wages fall since 1979. (Sorry, I can't copy and paste the chart...also this source's figures for low wage and middle income workers only date to 1979. I realize you said since 1970.)


If you want to make the case that something be done to avert a generation's finding itself behind the curve, by all means do so. If you want to make the case from an ethical or moral standpoint, fine. Indeed, I'll likely "buy" the ethical argument so long as it's well developed for my ethical standards are somewhat high, so where there's truly an injustice, I'll rail against it 'till the cows come home. But trying to do so by presenting half truths or twisted facts just doesn't cut it, and that's entirely why I've responded as I have above.

• Middle class AGI, adjusting for inflation, has been flat since 1970.
• Prices have increased faster than has inflation adjusted middle class AGI.
• Middle class AGI, adjusted for inflation, buys a smaller bundle of goods and services than it did in 1970.

 

[Elvis Obama]

We have seen real inflation adjusted after tax Middle Class incomes stagnate and go down since 1970....

Come on now. Make whatever plea you want, but do it without twisting the facts.

Middle class income essentially has remained flat, not decreased. That's stangnancy, not decline. Far from ideal, no question, but also not as bad as you're depicting it.



The marginal tax rates were notably higher in 1970 than they are and have been over the past decade.

• 1970
  • $25K AGI - Married filing jointly --> 25% marginal rate
  • $25K AGI - Single --> 50% marginal rate
  • $50K AGI - Married filing jointly --> 50% marginal rate
  • $50K AGI - Single --> 62% marginal rate
• 2013
  • $50K AGI - Married filing jointly (MFJ) & Single (S) --> 15% (it's 15% from ~$18K up to $72.5K for MFJ, and for ~$9K up to $38.25 for S filers)

So how is it that anything can be considered a decline after taxes when the chunk of income taxes take, when adjusting for inflation wages have been flat and tax rates have decreased by anywhere from 10% to ~50%? The most likely culprit, if there's going to be one, is that prices have risen faster than have wages, and indeed, one can check the CPI and see the purchasing power of the dollar has fallen.

The thing to be aware of, however, is that for as much as goods prices have outpaced labor prices (wages), things would be worse were we not to have policies in place that keep goods prices lower than they would be absent those very same policies. What I'm speaking of here is free trade, the very purpose of which is to keep goods prices low, and that is in fact what it does.

Now free trade increases competition among workers, thus doing what competition does...in the case of wages it increases the pressure for workers to either work more (harder, or longer or smarter, etc.) or exit the labor market segment in which they are unsatisfied with their wage and enter a different segment of the labor market, or join the ranks of the capitalists and buy labor instead of selling it, or apply a combination of those actions.

Some folks might respond, "Well, if one has a job doing X, and their wages hold steady in a climate of increasing prices, how are they supposed to have the means to make any of those changes?" I cannot deny that doing so is difficult, very difficult perhaps; however, I will ask in return, "Why was one part of that wage class to begin with?"

What am I getting at by asking that? Several things.

• First, individuals in some classes find themselves in those classes/positions due to forces above and beyond their individual ability to control. For example, women, who even now must as a class endure the "glass ceiling" and wages that are only ~79% of men's wages. No individual woman is going to be able to overcome that for the good of women in general, even if that given woman overcomes it for herself.
• Second, I have never come by a high performer from college or high school (3.5 GPA or higher) who doesn't "make it" to the extent that they are able to enjoy a comfortably middle class lifestyle.
• Third, having over the past decade helped my mentorees get admitted to the nation's top colleges and universities -- none of which are even close to what one might call "affordable," save for one who got admitted to a military academy -- I've discovered that high achieving kids who are abjectly poor nonetheless can get funded to go to first rate schools, and as long as they maintain their high performance, they're going to have awesome careers.
  
  The set of observations from those experiences have led me to see that poverty isn't the problem, and that in turn suggests to me that if one doesn't come from pure poverty (U.S. style) and can perform highly enough to realize the American Dream, one has no business complaining if one didn't begin one's adult life on a very solid foundation of demonstrated skills and abilities that command higher prices in the labor market.
• Last, wage, labor and general economic trends are no secret. How much did it take in the 1970s to see calculators, quartz watches, etc. and not realize those things portended ever increasing automation of tasks and that one should plan one's career around the inevitability the coming of the Digital Age or the Age of Robots? Sure, some quantity of folks might not have noticed the clues, but a whole class of people not noticing? That's really asking for more willing suspension of disbelief than I have to give. I'm willing to be sympathetic to the circumstance of being behind the curve as go wages, but I'm not willing to have that emotion for why one finds themselves in that position as an adult when the "writing was on the wall" throughout their teen and young adult years.

It's low wage workers who have seen their inflation adjusted after tax wages fall since 1979. (Sorry, I can't copy and paste the chart...also this source's figures for low wage and middle income workers only date to 1979. I realize you said since 1970.)


If you want to make the case that something be done to avert a generation's finding itself behind the curve, by all means do so. If you want to make the case from an ethical or moral standpoint, fine. Indeed, I'll likely "buy" the ethical argument so long as it's well developed for my ethical standards are somewhat high, so where there's truly an injustice, I'll rail against it 'till the cows come home. But trying to do so by presenting half truths or twisted facts just doesn't cut it, and that's entirely why I've responded as I have above.

• Middle class AGI, adjusting for inflation, has been flat since 1970.
• Prices have increased faster than has inflation adjusted middle class AGI.
• Middle class AGI, adjusted for inflation, buys a smaller bundle of goods and services than it did in 1970.

If I have to choose dancing statistics, I'll choose these:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/26/b...-as-more-fall-out-instead-of-climbing-up.html

NCCP | Basic Facts about Low-Income Children

Frankly, I find your attitude towards these matters bewildering. If I may attempt to inject a little humanity into these statistics?

1- We are increasing the number of children being raised in poverty.

2- At the same time women earn wages that are only ~79% of men's wages, we a GREATLY increasing the number of single, female head of households. Why? Because they are being abandoned by their men. Both the women and their children. We've gone from 10% FHOH in 1960 to 40% now. FORTY PERCENT. In some of these households the woman is not the sole breadwinner, but merely the highest earning breadwinner. Still, the number of households where the woman is the sole breadwinner has increased alarmingly.

Breadwinner Moms

Be afraid! Be very afraid! Raising an ever increasing percentage of our children under poverty is not a good thing.

Automation is increasing. Squeezing out workers by "efficient reorganization" (the dark side of Frank Gilbreth. "Cheaper by the Dozen" indeed.). The last economic crisis accelerated this process. Part time work is becoming more commonplace. The social contract itself being threatened by this reorganization. The social; contract is the CENTRAL concept of Enlightenment philosophy and of America's foundational documents which were based on those Enlightenment principles.

Our government is failing to protect this balance. They are completely co-opted by a class of people who are devoted solely to their own financial aggrandizement. That is a form of derangement, an ancient ill, one of the seven deadly sins. It's also a force for change which is an essential part of the human character, but it needs to be controlled. Acquisitiveness is a derangement. A zero sum game. We still worship it. Donald Trump is a candidate because of it. He is deranged. Some people don't care. They are fools. They cannot see him for what he is. Again, fables and legends. The Emperors New Clothes. A strange pattern of mutual delusion.

There are fundamental reorganizations taking place, and fundamental breakdowns as well. The stability of the family units which are raising our next generation is the most concerning aspect of this reorganization to me.

How might we mitigate this? Education and re-training and sensible policies, like raising the minimum wage, can all help to make the adjustment work for more people. Embrace the modern world. Re-do our infrastructure. Modernize the power grid, the national rail system, the internet backbone. Fix our crumbling bridges and roads. All of this is work, and we should organize a works project to get these things done.

 

[MarathonMike]

You are bringing up a valid issue, I'm just unsure of the speed at which repetitive, predictive work is going to be taken over by robots. Businesses will constantly grapple with the big up front capital investment vs the longer term payoff of low payroll and higher volume production. I wasn't quite sure what you were saying here, can you clarify?:

4. Require all code written for a Robot or automated device to be at minimum 51% of all top level code to be written by a human being. All other code must be 10% human origin and signed off on by a human for passing validation and integration testing.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You are bringing up a valid issue, I'm just unsure of the speed at which repetitive, predictive work is going to be taken over by robots. Businesses will constantly grapple with the big up front capital investment vs the longer term payoff of low payroll and higher volume production. I wasn't quite sure what you were saying here, can you clarify?:

4. Require all code written for a Robot or automated device to be at minimum 51% of all top level code to be written by a human being. All other code must be 10% human origin and signed off on by a human for passing validation and integration testing.

2nd generation code basically uses programming to assemble 1st generation 'machine code', and 3rd generation code assembles 2nd generation code, and 4th assembles 3rd generation code. At each generation of improbment, the literal code that human beings write gets smaller and dsmaller as part of the whole.

So I specified that it should 51% of top level code to keep earlier generations of code out of the equation and that would be code written for a robot or automated device. Theidea is to keep human control of AI development and not allow for strong AI to program other robots.

 

[jwoodie]

At the same time women earn wages that are only ~79% of men's wages, we a GREATLY increasing the number of single, female head of households. Why? Because they are being abandoned by their men. Both the women and their children.

I call B.S. Pay discrimination is already ILLEGAL and you know it. When you factor in work experience, working conditions and personal choices, this disparity all but disappears. That is why the mantra is now equal pay for "equal work," meaning that a secretary sitting in a cozy office should be paid the same as an oil rig worker in Alaska. In addition, women are more attracted to jobs that do not require as many hours working away from their homes (e.g., teachers and nurses).

Blaming men for the increasing number of single parent households is equally misguided. More and more women are having children without being married, and those who are married can kick their husbands out of the home at the drop of a hat and sentence them to a lifetime of financial servitude. Whether you like it or not, this is the reality of family life in the U.S..

 

[Elvis Obama]

At the same time women earn wages that are only ~79% of men's wages, we a GREATLY increasing the number of single, female head of households. Why? Because they are being abandoned by their men. Both the women and their children.

I call B.S. Pay discrimination is already ILLEGAL and you know it. When you factor in work experience, working conditions and personal choices, this disparity all but disappears. That is why the mantra is now equal pay for "equal work," meaning that a secretary sitting in a cozy office should be paid the same as an oil rig worker in Alaska. In addition, women are more attracted to jobs that do not require as many hours working away from their homes (e.g., teachers and nurses).

Blaming men for the increasing number of single parent households is equally misguided. More and more women are having children without being married, and those who are married can kick their husbands out of the home at the drop of a hat and sentence them to a lifetime of financial servitude. Whether you like it or not, this is the reality of family life in the U.S..

Who cares? This isn't about the assignment of blame. Are you kidding? It's men's fault? And you feel compelled to rise to the call and defend men? Why? WE, as a society, are raising more children in poverty. Deny that all you want, but Why do you want to deny it?

If the restructuring of the American family is due entirely to benign causes it's still a reality we need to pay attention to. In the inner cities, yes, abandonment is a major problem. If women choose to raise children by themselves, and are forced to work for less pay because of the time demands of child rearing, we can't just dismiss that as "her choice". More children are being raised in reduced circumstances. That's not good.

We've gone from 10% female head of households in 1960 to 40% today. Argue the causes all you want, but it's still the reality and it's a reality that is never addressed. Never discussed. A reality that is bad for all of us.

 

[320 Years of History]

This has been an unusual week in that I've found myself on several occasions having to take exception with the thoughts expressed by several individuals with whose ultimate conclusions and/or themes I agree, but with whom I must, for the sake of my own integrity, air my dissatisfaction with the reasons by which they arrive at them. It's been a week of my observing folks saying "the right thing for the wrong reasons," the "right thing" being an ethical/moral stance or observation of reality, and the "wrong reasons" being the facts they've applied to arrive at that stance or asserted cause of the reality.

Think of it in terms of the three components of every argument: premises, inferences and conclusions.

• Premises --> A true premise is one that is factually and 100% accurate.
• Inferences --> Valid inferences are ones that for:
  • Deductive (formal) arguments necessarily follow from the premises
  • Inductive (informal) arguments most probably do follow from the premises. "Most probably" is where a lot of folks of all types trip up, but it is precisely why I made the Taylor Coleridge reference I did in my earlier post. "Most probably" is where statistics come into play, and one must be very careful to,
    • if one creating the data, to design the "survey" to answer the "right" topic, that is the topic about which one wants to argue, or
    • if one is using data created by others, understand fully what those data indicate and what they do not.
• Conclusions --> True conclusions are ones that are indeed factually so in the case of deductive arguments. For inductive arguments, however, things get murky because, unlike with formal arguments, that "most probably" element comes into play. Thus one may not, coming out of an inductive argument, find an absolute truth, but rather only be able to say that since the premises are true and the inferences valid, the conclusion "makes sense." The thing is that since a valid inductive argument isn't as incontrovertible as is a valid formal argument -- that is, in an invalid formal argument, one may be able to discern the verity of the conclusion, and thus rely on it for subsequent endeavors/ideas, whereas for an invalid informal one one will not be rationally able to do so -- to be convincing, informal arguments must be valid, otherwise opponents can and will "toss stones" at it, and rightly so, "'til Gabriel blows his horn."
  

Premises​	Inference​	Conclusion​
True​	Valid​	True/Makes sense​
​	​	False/nonsensical conclusions are not possible​
​	Invalid​	True/Makes sense​
​	​	False/Doesn't make sense​
False​	Valid​	True/Makes sense​
​	​	False/Doesn't make sense​
​	Invalid​	True/Makes sense​
​	​	False/Doesn't make sense​

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

My post with which you've objected is one in which I've taken exception with the false premise that underlies the argument of the OP. I'm griping because the argument in the OP is weakened -- made unsound/invalid -- by the false premise on which it depends.

Frankly, I find your attitude towards these matters bewildering. If I may attempt to inject a little humanity into these statistics?

I think you've misread my attitude and intent. I do not at all take exception with the ruth that drives JimBowie1958's remarks. Indeed I share it. My comments arise from JIm's use of a false premise -- e.g., middle class income has declined since 1970 -- to make the plea. I have no issue with the magnanimity that drove him to make the plea for I share that with him and you.

Unfortunately, though I think results (conclusions) are very important, they are not all that is. For example, if you are the most deserving soul on the planet and I'm building a house for you (arguing a point), but I obtain the timbers (premises) for doing so by stealing them (using an invalid premise or making an invalid inference), I will get the house built, and you and I are satisfied with the result (conclusion), and others will be happy for you and proud of me, but the way I got the house built (made the argument) it is wrong (my argument is invalid). That's just not acceptable to me and my system of integrity (do unto others as you'd have them do unto you) whether I'm building a house or making an argument.

Lastly, don't get me wrong, I goof too when making arguments. I welcome folks pointing out the flaws in my arguments too, and, yes, I can tell when I've made a mistake, and I'm okay with owning the fact that I did and trying to correct for it. I don't get insulted when someone shows me that and how I've used false premises or made invalid inferences to arrive at my conclusion. I do get ticked when someone merely pontificates that I'm wrong; that doesn't help me or them, and it does show a huge amount of disrespect for us both and hubris on their part. (I'm not suggesting you've done that because I can see clearly that you did not.)

The social; contract is the CENTRAL concept of Enlightenment philosophy and of America's foundational documents which were based on those Enlightenment principles.

Our government is failing to protect this balance.

I think our government has indeed protected the Social Contract. Wiki has a decent and short summary of the concept. Check it out and let me know what of it you see as not having been protected by our government. I think you may not care for the outcomes and requirements of the Contract itself, but I don't think you'll find those requirements and outcomes have gone undefended.

Our government is failing to protect this balance. [The government is] completely co-opted by a class of people who are devoted solely to their own financial aggrandizement. That is a form of derangement, an ancient ill, one of the seven deadly sins.

I agree the avarice of which you write is a big problem; moreover, it's pervasiveness in our society is a problem. That greed, in the extreme manifestations we observe in our society, is what I think is the cause of the imbalance to which you referred above in the context of the government's failure to protect a balance. I believe we are at a point whereby most folks are greedy -- that is, they actively desire more of "everything" than they have any rational need for and actively make it their life's goal to get it -- as contrasted with seeking enough and knowing when they've reached the point when they have enough and, when called to do so on behalf of their nation and countrymen, exhibiting a willingness to tolerate policies that slow the rate of their increasing the extent of the excess for the good of those who haven't achieved a state of sufficiency.

I can't put a precise and generalized figure on what constitutes "enough," but I know that anyone who's a one-percenter has reached the point where they have more than enough. For me and as go the economic matters at issue in this thread, that means that just as I won't cotton to or countenance less well off folks griping when they ignored "the writing on the wall," I too won't suffer well off folks complaining about a modest bump in, say, their tax rate that's requested for the succor of less well off folks. However, if that request is going to be used to provide subsidies and tax breaks to multi-billion dollar companies/corporations, I have no issue with the griping. Why? Because, for me, individuals matter more than companies, even though both matter.

Acquisitiveness is a derangement. A zero sum game. We still worship it. Donald Trump is a candidate because of it. He is deranged. Some people don't care. They are fools. They cannot see him for what he is. Again, fables and legends. The Emperor's New Clothes. A strange pattern of mutual delusion.

I don't believe there's any mutuality about the delusion. Trump and folks like him are, IMO, under no delusion at all. I think they know exactly what they are doing, and I think they are fully aware of the acquisitiveness driving their actions and stances. They are in part the embodiment of what I call the Republican version of capitalism: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what? The other part of their being is that they know the preceding is how they see things, and they actively aim to get a third, fourth, fifth, etc. "cow" by manipulating the folks who haven't even two "cows."

Saying that refers back to my discussion of valid and invalid arguments. One cannot ever expect to overcome the issues you, I, Jim and others bemoan if we don't all recognize invalid arguments and speak up when we do. Sometimes the right outcry is "BS!" Other times its less forceful, as is the case with the exceptions I've taken with Jim's OP. You don't think Thurgood Marshall won Brown v. The Board using weak arguments do you? The same basic principle must apply to the arguments anyone else makes on behalf of whole classes of folks who are similarly (even if not identically) disadvantaged or disserved at the hands of our government and/or our society.

How might we mitigate this? Education and re-training and sensible policies, like raising the minimum wage, can all help to make the adjustment work for more people. Embrace the modern world.

Bold black:
I agree 100%, as one might glean from the remarks in my previous paragraph. But their is a dual burden: the educators have a burden to educate, but the would be educated have the onus not to waste or ignore the educators' efforts. The fact is that no matter why one wastes/ignores the messages of education, there may even be "good" reasons for why that happens, the outcome of having done so is the same. That the result is unitary goes directly to the point I made when I discussed the folks whom I've worked with and/or mentored who've found success (sufficiency and some excess).

 

[MarathonMike]

You are bringing up a valid issue, I'm just unsure of the speed at which repetitive, predictive work is going to be taken over by robots. Businesses will constantly grapple with the big up front capital investment vs the longer term payoff of low payroll and higher volume production. I wasn't quite sure what you were saying here, can you clarify?:

4. Require all code written for a Robot or automated device to be at minimum 51% of all top level code to be written by a human being. All other code must be 10% human origin and signed off on by a human for passing validation and integration testing.

2nd generation code basically uses programming to assemble 1st generation 'machine code', and 3rd generation code assembles 2nd generation code, and 4th assembles 3rd generation code. At each generation of improbment, the literal code that human beings write gets smaller and dsmaller as part of the whole.

So I specified that it should 51% of top level code to keep earlier generations of code out of the equation and that would be code written for a robot or automated device. Theidea is to keep human control of AI development and not allow for strong AI to program other robots.

The development of software for robots will be quite a small specialized niche of the job market IMO unless robots become as commonplace as cars which is possible, but I tend to doubt that. I'm not convinced that AI will ever progress to the point where a robot can autonomously "create" new cool robots and the software that runs them. Even robots maintaining robots is quite a technical challenge probably not worth the investment in R and D. Cheaper to pay people to maintain them.
In most of the scenarios I can think of, I still see people being needed but definitely there will be robots helping cleaning staff at hotels, frying up burgers, doing lawn maintenance, delivering pizzas etc. Does that mean we will have unemployment numbers of 30 40 or 50%? I'm skeptical that it could get to that point.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You are bringing up a valid issue, I'm just unsure of the speed at which repetitive, predictive work is going to be taken over by robots. Businesses will constantly grapple with the big up front capital investment vs the longer term payoff of low payroll and higher volume production. I wasn't quite sure what you were saying here, can you clarify?:

4. Require all code written for a Robot or automated device to be at minimum 51% of all top level code to be written by a human being. All other code must be 10% human origin and signed off on by a human for passing validation and integration testing.

2nd generation code basically uses programming to assemble 1st generation 'machine code', and 3rd generation code assembles 2nd generation code, and 4th assembles 3rd generation code. At each generation of improbment, the literal code that human beings write gets smaller and dsmaller as part of the whole.

So I specified that it should 51% of top level code to keep earlier generations of code out of the equation and that would be code written for a robot or automated device. Theidea is to keep human control of AI development and not allow for strong AI to program other robots.

The development of software for robots will be quite a small specialized niche of the job market IMO unless robots become as commonplace as cars which is possible, but I tend to doubt that. I'm not convinced that AI will ever progress to the point where a robot can autonomously "create" new cool robots and the software that runs them. Even robots maintaining robots is quite a technical challenge probably not worth the investment in R and D. Cheaper to pay people to maintain them.
In most of the scenarios I can think of, I still see people being needed but definitely there will be robots helping cleaning staff at hotels, frying up burgers, doing lawn maintenance, delivering pizzas etc. Does that mean we will have unemployment numbers of 30 40 or 50%? I'm skeptical that it could get to that point.

Zoltan Istvan: 'Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years - Breitbart

I’m certain that within the next few years, many, many people will start getting robots, probably within $1,000-$2,000, that will be doing basic tings like turn on the heater in the morning or make you coffee, wander around your house, answer the door — they’ll be great guard dogs, or guard people. I say guard dogs, but you know what I mean.

Guard-somethings, got it. [laughs]

They’re always going to look for alerts. They’re going to smell methane gas, they’re going to smell propane gas from a pilot that went out, they’re going to know about it ahead of time and warn you. They’re going to be our personal security. And not only that, they’re going to very quickly start teaching your children after school doing homework.

I think the robot revolution is something that every single person, in their house in America — at least half of Americans will probably have a robot in their house within 5 or so years that does many of those functions I just talked about. Because it’s such an amazing thing.

 

[Elvis Obama]

This has been an unusual week in that I've found myself on several occasions having to take exception with the thoughts expressed by several individuals with whose ultimate conclusions and/or themes I agree, but with whom I must, for the sake of my own integrity, air my dissatisfaction with the reasons by which they arrive at them. It's been a week of my observing folks saying "the right thing for the wrong reasons," the "right thing" being an ethical/moral stance or observation of reality, and the "wrong reasons" being the facts they've applied to arrive at that stance or asserted cause of the reality.

Think of it in terms of the three components of every argument: premises, inferences and conclusions.

• Premises --> A true premise is one that is factually and 100% accurate.
• Inferences --> Valid inferences are ones that for:
  • Deductive (formal) arguments necessarily follow from the premises
  • Inductive (informal) arguments most probably do follow from the premises. "Most probably" is where a lot of folks of all types trip up, but it is precisely why I made the Taylor Coleridge reference I did in my earlier post. "Most probably" is where statistics come into play, and one must be very careful to,
    • if one creating the data, to design the "survey" to answer the "right" topic, that is the topic about which one wants to argue, or
    • if one is using data created by others, understand fully what those data indicate and what they do not.
• Conclusions --> True conclusions are ones that are indeed factually so in the case of deductive arguments. For inductive arguments, however, things get murky because, unlike with formal arguments, that "most probably" element comes into play. Thus one may not, coming out of an inductive argument, find an absolute truth, but rather only be able to say that since the premises are true and the inferences valid, the conclusion "makes sense." The thing is that since a valid inductive argument isn't as incontrovertible as is a valid formal argument -- that is, in an invalid formal argument, one may be able to discern the verity of the conclusion, and thus rely on it for subsequent endeavors/ideas, whereas for an invalid informal one one will not be rationally able to do so -- to be convincing, informal arguments must be valid, otherwise opponents can and will "toss stones" at it, and rightly so, "'til Gabriel blows his horn."

Premises​	Inference​	Conclusion​
True​	Valid​	True/Makes sense​
False/nonsensical conclusions are not possible​
Invalid​	True/Makes sense​
False/Doesn't make sense​
False​	Valid​	True/Makes sense​
False/Doesn't make sense​
Invalid​	True/Makes sense​
False/Doesn't make sense​

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

My post with which you've objected is one in which I've taken exception with the false premise that underlies the argument of the OP. I'm griping because the argument in the OP is weakened -- made unsound/invalid -- by the false premise on which it depends.

Frankly, I find your attitude towards these matters bewildering. If I may attempt to inject a little humanity into these statistics?

I think you've misread my attitude and intent. I do not at all take exception with the ruth that drives JimBowie1958's remarks. Indeed I share it. My comments arise from JIm's use of a false premise -- e.g., middle class income has declined since 1970 -- to make the plea. I have no issue with the magnanimity that drove him to make the plea for I share that with him and you.

Unfortunately, though I think results (conclusions) are very important, they are not all that is. For example, if you are the most deserving soul on the planet and I'm building a house for you (arguing a point), but I obtain the timbers (premises) for doing so by stealing them (using an invalid premise or making an invalid inference), I will get the house built, and you and I are satisfied with the result (conclusion), and others will be happy for you and proud of me, but the way I got the house built (made the argument) it is wrong (my argument is invalid). That's just not acceptable to me and my system of integrity (do unto others as you'd have them do unto you) whether I'm building a house or making an argument.

Lastly, don't get me wrong, I goof too when making arguments. I welcome folks pointing out the flaws in my arguments too, and, yes, I can tell when I've made a mistake, and I'm okay with owning the fact that I did and trying to correct for it. I don't get insulted when someone shows me that and how I've used false premises or made invalid inferences to arrive at my conclusion. I do get ticked when someone merely pontificates that I'm wrong; that doesn't help me or them, and it does show a huge amount of disrespect for us both and hubris on their part. (I'm not suggesting you've done that because I can see clearly that you did not.)

The social; contract is the CENTRAL concept of Enlightenment philosophy and of America's foundational documents which were based on those Enlightenment principles.

Our government is failing to protect this balance.

I think our government has indeed protected the Social Contract. Wiki has a decent and short summary of the concept. Check it out and let me know what of it you see as not having been protected by our government. I think you may not care for the outcomes and requirements of the Contract itself, but I don't think you'll find those requirements and outcomes have gone undefended.

Our government is failing to protect this balance. [The government is] completely co-opted by a class of people who are devoted solely to their own financial aggrandizement. That is a form of derangement, an ancient ill, one of the seven deadly sins.

I agree the avarice of which you write is a big problem; moreover, it's pervasiveness in our society is a problem. That greed, in the extreme manifestations we observe in our society, is what I think is the cause of the imbalance to which you referred above in the context of the government's failure to protect a balance. I believe we are at a point whereby most folks are greedy -- that is, they actively desire more of "everything" than they have any rational need for and actively make it their life's goal to get it -- as contrasted with seeking enough and knowing when they've reached the point when they have enough and, when called to do so on behalf of their nation and countrymen, exhibiting a willingness to tolerate policies that slow the rate of their increasing the extent of the excess for the good of those who haven't achieved a state of sufficiency.

I can't put a precise and generalized figure on what constitutes "enough," but I know that anyone who's a one-percenter has reached the point where they have more than enough. For me and as go the economic matters at issue in this thread, that means that just as I won't cotton to or countenance less well off folks griping when they ignored "the writing on the wall," I too won't suffer well off folks complaining about a modest bump in, say, their tax rate that's requested for the succor of less well off folks. However, if that request is going to be used to provide subsidies and tax breaks to multi-billion dollar companies/corporations, I have no issue with the griping. Why? Because, for me, individuals matter more than companies, even though both matter.

Acquisitiveness is a derangement. A zero sum game. We still worship it. Donald Trump is a candidate because of it. He is deranged. Some people don't care. They are fools. They cannot see him for what he is. Again, fables and legends. The Emperor's New Clothes. A strange pattern of mutual delusion.

I don't believe there's any mutuality about the delusion. Trump and folks like him are, IMO, under no delusion at all. I think they know exactly what they are doing, and I think they are fully aware of the acquisitiveness driving their actions and stances. They are in part the embodiment of what I call the Republican version of capitalism: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what? The other part of their being is that they know the preceding is how they see things, and they actively aim to get a third, fourth, fifth, etc. "cow" by manipulating the folks who haven't even two "cows."

Saying that refers back to my discussion of valid and invalid arguments. One cannot ever expect to overcome the issues you, I, Jim and others bemoan if we don't all recognize invalid arguments and speak up when we do. Sometimes the right outcry is "BS!" Other times its less forceful, as is the case with the exceptions I've taken with Jim's OP. You don't think Thurgood Marshall won Brown v. The Board using weak arguments do you? The same basic principle must apply to the arguments anyone else makes on behalf of whole classes of folks who are similarly (even if not identically) disadvantaged or disserved at the hands of our government and/or our society.

How might we mitigate this? Education and re-training and sensible policies, like raising the minimum wage, can all help to make the adjustment work for more people. Embrace the modern world.

Bold black:
I agree 100%, as one might glean from the remarks in my previous paragraph. But their is a dual burden: the educators have a burden to educate, but the would be educated have the onus not to waste or ignore the educators' efforts. The fact is that no matter why one wastes/ignores the messages of education, there may even be "good" reasons for why that happens, the outcome of having done so is the same. That the result is unitary goes directly to the point I made when I discussed the folks whom I've worked with and/or mentored who've found success (sufficiency and some excess).

I think you've misread my attitude and intent. I do not at all take exception with the ruth that drives@JimBowie1958's remarks. Indeed I share it. My comments arise from JIm's use of a false premise -- e.g., middle class income has declined since 1970 -- to make the plea. I have no issue with the magnanimity that drove him to make the plea for I share that with him and you.

Nothing I have written pertains to the conflict you describe with Mr. Bowie. I have no opinion about whether middle class income has shrunk or remained stagnant. I've heard both, but it is more commonly referenced as being stagnant. What I said was, let's put some humanity into these stats. The middle class is shrinking and the ranks of the poor are growing, and that translates to anger. That translates to Trump.

If you are referencing something I said as being a false premise, I'm not sure what it is. The precise status of middle class income is not unimportant, but neither is it determinative of the most important aspects of the situation described in the OP, which is automation and job loss and the attendant economic and social destabilization these changing conditions are going to bring.

I think our government has indeed protected the Social Contract. Wiki has a decent and short summary of the concept. Check it out and let me know what of it you see as not having been protected by our government. I think you may not care for the outcomes and requirements of the Contract itself, but I don't think you'll find those requirements and outcomes have gone undefended.

The integrity of the representative system has been damaged, perhaps irreparably. Once that's occurred, how can the social contract remain intact? How can you consider the government a legitimate power? Check the exit polls for this primary season and see how many people feel they have been betrayed by their political representation.

If you feel the contract is being maintained, I suggest you might want to start demanding more. Right now the hierarchy is 1-politician, 2-party, 3-donor class, 4-patronage/pork barrel crowd, 5-you (maybe).

Trump and folks like him are, IMO, under no delusion at all.

I'm amazed at how much of human history is contained in that one sentence. Hey, argue with Hans Christian Andersen. He understood that it was a strange web of mutual deceit. It's one of the great hidden truths of humanity. People always concentrate on the slaves, but they don't give thought to the slave owner, and what being a slave owner does to one's psyche. There are conscious-less monsters who feel no guilt, but the vast majority of people do feel guilt, and still continue to do terrible things. They do this by casuistry and other methods of justification. The absurdly rich are amongst those who practice these mental gymnastics. So are the absurdly powerful or cruel.

My premise is hardly uncommon, though it's still not fashionable. Ronald Reagan put us on this path of selling the government to the highest bidder. As Pope Francis said about trickle down "This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system". Damn, I love that guy! We've been following this one-sided policy since Reagan and it's destabilizing us. How much so is arguable, as are all things, ad nauseum. To me it seems clear that this destabilization underlies the rust belt counter punch candidacies of Trump and Sanders.

The real subject though, is the confluence of our political malaise with this phenomenon of automation and the efficient realignment of businesses. How can it be made more survivable for more people? How can a broken government protect us from the worst of it? Which of the candidates is suited to this job?

 

[320 Years of History]

f you are referencing something I said as being a false premise

I wasn't.

feel they have been betrayed by their political representation.

Feeling that is so does not make it true that they are or were betrayed.

Right now the hierarchy is 1-politician, 2-party, 3-donor class, 4-patronage/pork barrel crowd, 5-you (maybe).

I would reword #5 to say "folks not in groups 1-4," or "everyone else."

 

[JimBowie1958]

This has been an unusual week in that I've found myself on several occasions having to take exception with the thoughts expressed by several individuals with whose ultimate conclusions and/or themes I agree, but with whom I must, for the sake of my own integrity, air my dissatisfaction with the reasons by which they arrive at them.

Of course, and that is one of the reasons I enjoy your posts in that you seem to maintain a level of honesty and humility that is quite rare these days.

Please forgive me for kissing your ass, but it is merited here, lol.

My comments arise from JIm's use of a false premise -- e.g., middle class income has declined since 1970 -- to make the plea. I have no issue with the magnanimity that drove him to make the plea for I share that with him and you.

I dont think that my assertion is incorrect, for many reasons.

1. Depending on where you start the line and end it, the graph you shared could support my claim as well as yours. Actually as all economic trends are rather stochastic depending on the level of detail you look at, to object that Middle Class incomes are are level and not decreasing, as opposed to arguing that they are increasing, is a kind of back door nod of agreement, lol.

In fact your chart supports my contention as I stated since 1970 they have declined. Now look at where the average adjusted income is at 1970, now look at 2014. It is definitely a decline.
2. If you break down the definition of 'Middle Class' and look at what is included and not included, some professions have gone up in pay, some have gone down and some have totally cratered. What you use to make the 'Middle Class' composite in terms of data is a key point. Many if not most of the jobs that have increased in income of late did not exist in 1970, so it is hard to make a comparison with them.
3. Since many things are relevant to other sectors for comparison, even completely stagnant wages would have been a disaster and are. Average CEO salary ratios to average worker salaries in most companies/corporations has exploded from a range of 20 or 30 to 1, to a mind boggling 300 to 400 to 1. That is outrageous and a strong argument for Universal Basic Incomes. IMO

Lastly, don't get me wrong, I goof too when making arguments. I welcome folks pointing out the flaws in my arguments too, and, yes, I can tell when I've made a mistake, and I'm okay with owning the fact that I did and trying to correct for it. I don't get insulted when someone shows me that and how I've used false premises or made invalid inferences to arrive at my conclusion. I do get ticked when someone merely pontificates that I'm wrong; that doesn't help me or them, and it does show a huge amount of disrespect for us both and hubris on their part. (I'm not suggesting you've done that because I can see clearly that you did not.)

That is humility and finding people that have it is a cool feeling. Thank you for that honesty.

Our government is failing to protect this balance. [The government is] completely co-opted by a class of people who are devoted solely to their own financial aggrandizement. That is a form of derangement, an ancient ill, one of the seven deadly sins.

I agree the avarice of which you write is a big problem; moreover, it's pervasiveness in our society is a problem. That greed, in the extreme manifestations we observe in our society, is what I think is the cause of the imbalance to which you referred above in the context of the government's failure to protect a balance. I believe we are at a point whereby most folks are greedy -- that is, they actively desire more of "everything" than they have any rational need for and actively make it their life's goal to get it -- as contrasted with seeking enough and knowing when they've reached the point when they have enough and, when called to do so on behalf of their nation and countrymen, exhibiting a willingness to tolerate policies that slow the rate of their increasing the extent of the excess for the good of those who haven't achieved a state of sufficiency.

I can't put a precise and generalized figure on what constitutes "enough," but I know that anyone who's a one-percenter has reached the point where they have more than enough. For me and as go the economic matters at issue in this thread, that means that just as I won't cotton to or countenance less well off folks griping when they ignored "the writing on the wall," I too won't suffer well off folks complaining about a modest bump in, say, their tax rate that's requested for the succor of less well off folks. However, if that request is going to be used to provide subsidies and tax breaks to multi-billion dollar companies/corporations, I have no issue with the griping. Why? Because, for me, individuals matter more than companies, even though both matter.

When the 1% can buy our entire government, it is beyond tolerable.

Acquisitiveness is a derangement. A zero sum game. We still worship it. Donald Trump is a candidate because of it. He is deranged. Some people don't care. They are fools. They cannot see him for what he is. Again, fables and legends. The Emperor's New Clothes. A strange pattern of mutual delusion.

I don't believe there's any mutuality about the delusion. Trump and folks like him are, IMO, under no delusion at all. I think they know exactly what they are doing, and I think they are fully aware of the acquisitiveness driving their actions and stances. They are in part the embodiment of what I call the Republican version of capitalism: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what? The other part of their being is that they know the preceding is how they see things, and they actively aim to get a third, fourth, fifth, etc. "cow" by manipulating the folks who haven't even two "cows."

I dont see that much difference between the disruptive proposals of Sanders and of Trump's campaign itself, and yet the supporters of both men seem to hate each other, which just puzzles me to no end.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Nothing I have written pertains to the conflict you describe with Mr. Bowie.

I think 'conflict' is a bit strong a word.

320, are we at war?

Being partly French, I feel like I must pre-emptively surrender.

 

[320 Years of History]

Nothing I have written pertains to the conflict you describe with Mr. Bowie.

I think 'conflict' is a bit strong a word.

320, are we at war?

Being partly French, I feel like I must pre-emptively surrender.

Red:
No. Not even close to it. I'm not even sure I can call it a conflict.

Blue:
ROTFL!!!

 

[320 Years of History]

Of course, and that is one of the reasons I enjoy your posts in that you seem to maintain a level of honesty and humility that is quite rare these days.

TY

Please forgive me for kissing your ass, but it is merited here, lol.

I'll let it go this time. LOL TY again.

Depending on where you start the line and end it

The "depending on" is broadly speaking the "twisting." I think we both know that. I think too that to avoid the appearance of "having twisted" one must address what came shortly before (5-10 years) in the case of starting points and shortly after (5-10 years) if the end point isn't the present day. There's a problem with not "fully disclosing" on either side. For example, with regard to what one/some may call "the present," ending at 2010 or 2012 (and sometimes that's not avoidable as that's when the data compilers presentation ends), for example, paints a different picture than would ending at 2015.

And that's where "things" become difficult for folks like all of us here and finding ourselves trying to "make heads or tails" of a matter.

• We can't use our personal experiences to corroborate our assertions because few if any of us have enough coverage, so to speak, for it to be representative of the norm. And in these sorts of discussions, what be the norm and what be the exception is important.
• We often have little choice, unless we have truly conducted our own rigorous/valid surveys, but to use the content/data produced or compiled by others. Now there's nothing wrong with that, but it does mean we, you, I and others, must be careful not to "let" those other folks' data morph into what we want it to mean rather that what it does mean.
• We have to be even more circumspect when using secondary and tertiary sources -- news, "news," and editorial stories/articles -- for our info. Nearly all such publishing outfits authors have some sort of "axe to grind" or conflict of interest (even if it be profit, which I understand, but it's still an objective basis for taking a given position) driving their stances and uses/presentations of information. Contrast that with original research whereby the author/researcher has everything to lose and nothing to gain by publishing "twists" on the data they obtain. (One can sometimes very easily tell when the writer is objective for s/he presents their remarks in a dialectic format and makes clear what are and are not valid inferences that can be made based on their findings.)

I, of course, understand that getting "first rate" and specifically applicable data can take some doing. It's not as though most mainstream information outlets provide it. So I'm not ragging on you or anyone else for using those sources of data. Indeed, when folks, as you have and routinely do, show a good faith effort to present their points with integrity, I don't consider the flaws I find to be more than just honest and understandable mistakes. That's not even close to the same thing I think when I see folks pontificate or refer me to slanted sources that when I confirm what they present I find the source has used every means possible to misrepresent not only simple facts, but also context.

In fact your chart supports my contention as I stated since 1970 they have declined. Now look at where the average adjusted income is at 1970, now look at 2014. It is definitely a decline.

Well, I know that it hasn't changed much, but as best as I can actually tell, it's substantively the same. Yes, what I have quoted from you just above isn't an implausible read of the chart I provided. Indeed, if you check to see what the average hourly wage actually was in 1970, however, you'll find that it began that year at $3.11 and ended at $3.50, and had an annual average of $3.40. Adjusting for inflation, one finds that $3.40 in 1970 corresponds to $20.74 in 2014.

The chart I presented cites $20.67 as the average hourly wage for 2014. So I ask you, are you seriously going to cite the seven cent decline as the basis for driving your plea and as anything more than a "technical" decline in hourly wages? I think you are more reasonable than that and that you, unlike politicians who talk about 2% and 3% tax cuts as though you, I and everyone else should "jump for joy" and to the high heavens sing their praises for having done so, that you aren't going to make something of what is in substance nothing more than window dressing and an argumentative talking point.

For the sake of sharing info, I call your attention to this site that offers historic economic employment data and discussion, among them the U.S. Dept. of Labor's monthly earnings and employment reports. (I don't much use this site for unemployment related arguments/discussion in which I engage because the method of calculating unemployment has changed since the 1970s and I'm not of a mind to convert it back in order to have comparability between numbers from recent decades and ones before the 1980s.

What you use to make the 'Middle Class' composite in terms of data is a key point.

True, and that's a legit observation/criticism that applies to any comparison. Dr. David Autor addresses that to some extent in his paper "The Polarization of Job Opportunities in the U.S. Labor Market Implications for Employment and Earnings." Dr. Autor isolates the winnowing of middle-skill, middle-class jobs as one of several labor-market developments that are profoundly reshaping U.S. society. The others are rising pay at the top, falling wages for the less educated, and “lagging labor market gains for males.” “All,” he writes, “predate the Great Recession. But the available data suggest that the Great Recession has reinforced these trends.”

completely stagnant wages would have been a disaster and are.

No question about that.

Average CEO salary ratios to average worker salaries in most companies/corporations has exploded from a range of 20 or 30 to 1, to a mind boggling 300 to 400 to 1. That is outrageous and a strong argument for Universal Basic Incomes. IMO

Truly, I don't care one way or the other about CEO compensation, at least not in the context of this thread's topic. I don't because by "CEOs" one is only talking about some 2000 or so individuals. (One can export the data from that site and count the companies...the ~2K persons to whom I refer are those who run companies having at least $1B in market capitalization.)

The disparity in the rate of wage increase between high wage earners -- CEOs or otherwise -- and everyone else does concern me. I think that more firms should do as my former one did and implement a "salary" cap of some reasonable amount. (Salary is in quotes because that firm is a partnership, and partners technically don't earn wages but rather share in/withdraw/collect earnings) At the time (1990s), the cap was ~$2M/year. Yes, a very tidy sum, but not way out of line for someone running a huge company. Plus it's not like there were many high unit partners who were taking home that sum.

That there was a cap speaks to my point about "enough being enough" and knowing when it is and being content. While $2M/year then, as now, is more than enough to live a thoroughly comfortable life with ample money left over for all manners of anything a human could want. On the other hand, no, it's not enough to buy your own 757 and fly it all over the place.

By the same token, I don't begrudge folks like Bill Gates their great wealth and wouldn't ever suggest he and his ilk -- folks who created their huge companies themselves from the very start. Folks in that group deserve to take whatever earnings they want from their corporation or stock in it.

On the other hand, it'd take a lot to convince me that the CEO and other C-level (or near it) folks who work at companies that have "been around forever" deserve $10M+ in annual compensation for being good strategic leaders of large organizations. I've met some and had as clients some of the folks whose names you'll find on the last link (the Fortune 200 and companies like them outside the U.S. form the bulk of whom my firm, and thus I, provide services to). They're bright; they work hard, most of them seven days a week, even if not 12 hours a day on most weekends, and they do what they are hired to do.

While not everyone can do that, there are many people well trained and well experienced ones who can. That someone who didn't, as Mr. Gates did, form the company from which they take $50M/year in compensation is just ridiculous and way beyond anything that one can call necessary. Hell, if I were a CEO and paid $40M+ in one year, I'd surely not work there past five years. Why would I? I'd have earned more than enough to sustain myself and my descendents for quite a few generations and there is more emotionally rewarding work, at least to me, and work I'd rather do but that pays far, far less, some of it is even the volunteer work I do now.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well, I know that it hasn't changed much, but as best as I can actually tell, it's substantively the same. Yes, what I have quoted from you just above isn't an implausible read of the chart I provided. Indeed, if you check to see what the average hourly wage actually was in 1970, however, you'll find that it began that year at $3.11 and ended at $3.50, and had an annual average of $3.40. Adjusting for inflation, one finds that $3.40 in 1970 corresponds to $20.74 in 2014.

The chart I presented cites $20.67 as the average hourly wage for 2014. So I ask you, are you seriously going to cite the seven cent decline as the basis for driving your plea and as anything more than a "technical" decline in hourly wages? I think you are more reasonable than that ...

Lol, you dont know me very well, obviously.....

Seriously, the whole point of using these and similar charts is to show a general range of data points and trends because the data is too easily manipulated, subject to large differences over arbitrary selections, etc.

The general range of Middle Class income (after taxes and adjusted for inflation) is at or lower than wages in 1970, with IMO a heavy lean toward the downside.

And as this has gone on, the 'no longer working' pool of adults is larger than it has ever been. How many software engineers that worked in Fortran and Pascal could work in C and JAVA with a just a tad of training? I think that we owe it to our fellow countrymen to give them preference to guest workers, and to make sure all of us have a stake in the future of our country as part of the broader community of American citizens. The Middle Class that once stabilized our nation is becoming radicalized and desperate.

Right now we are like a cruise ship heading toward a large ice berg and there is no one at the helm that is sober. We face a future of a largely unemployable majority of people; now what happens in a Democracy when things get to that point? People start voting themselves large scale windfalls at the expense of the rich. And worse can come of that scenario as well; the end of a democratic process, the dominance of a strong man autocrat, loss of civil rights, violent social chaos, break down in economic infrastructure such as food and medicine supplies and the authority of law and worse.

We need to start kicking these ideas around today and get people aware of whats coming in order to have an easier turn from the ice berg when the time comes that it is necessary.