Welfare equivalent to $50,000 a year job in many states

[Lisa558]

You actually think if Mexicans or some other ethnic group you don't like stopped picking tomatoes or closed their tortilla stand on the corner, the American economy would pick itself right up?

Having 30 million people here illegally not only costs American taxpayers directly to educate their children and provide pro-rated welfare benefits once they drop an anchor baby, they are also competing for low-priced rentals and driving the costs up for America’s working class.

 

[Red Front]

I just posted several occupations that don't require education of any kind. Either the education is provided for free or not needed. Most parents are thrilled with their adult children living with them, in fact it's probably another situation that led us to this labor shortage. So whatever it is you decide to do in life, you have to do it while you're young BEFORE you go out and try to support yourself on lower wage jobs, have children, or buying entertainment items you really don't have to have.

There are people out there that don't have the intelligence to have a career; I've seen them before, they've unloaded my truck. They are good people that try very hard. But until we can separate those people from the people that know how to play the system that can work or get a career, it's very hard to concentrate on those that can't. And lumping them altogether is why Republicans are not for more or expanding social programs.

The problem we have is that Democrats know the more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters. Dementia gave the largest hike in food stamps since the program began in spite of this labor shortage. He expanded the child tax credit making it more inviting for women not to return to work. Now on top of all the government goodies, the federal government will also pay $50.00 of your cable/ internet bill if you make under 200% of poverty level, which is $21,100 for a single person, and of course the more dependents, the higher the limit. If you make less, they will pay even more.

You're complicating it Ray. If we're going to continue with a capitalist-run economy for a few more decades, our government is going to have to create the infrastructure that allows it to function. People have to earn a living wage, even if they work at Mcdonald's or a pencil factory, it doesn't matter. Not everyone has a mommy and daddy to support them with food and housing when they're 18 or 21. That's a great situation to have when you're young. I have several friends that had to pick themselves up by their bootstraps in their teens and fend for themselves before they were 20 years old. They were raised in an unhealthy household, in a single-parent home, and didn't have anyone to support them. They joined the US Army, "BE ALL YOU CAN BE" (1980s/90s). I have another friend who joined JOB CORP after high school, another government-run program.

I get your point Ray but you fail to factor in the important place our government has in providing the infrastructure that allows capitalism to function. Even Milton Friedman one of the modern icons of "free-market" capitalism believed the government had to provide for everyone that earns less than a certain amount, or else capitalism would create gross inequality to the point of social unrest and civil war.

​

 

[Lisa558]

What kind of welfare are you referring to? When most people refer to welfare they're referring to Aid For Families With Dependent Children which was then replaced by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) which limits the amount of time on the program to 5 years.

In either case you have to be the caregiver to a minor Dependent child to get cash for the child's support. And the father cannot live in the household if the government is the entity providing the financial support to care for his child.

I understand that the government will also go after the named father to try to recoup some of the money they spent taking care of his child.

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) - Overview

But then why should a young woman with her illegitimate children live with her own mother, who also has illegitimate children, and neither adult has a job - and both are getting full welfare benefits? Shouldn’t there be legislation that in a multi-adult household, at least one of them gets a job?

 

[Red Front]

You know what keeps all this from happening?
Legislation.

The government? Hehehehe another government bailout? Hahahaha, thanks for admitting the need for socialism. Why can't the "free market" take care of it? The so-called "free market" naturally leads to socialism and later after that, communism. Communism is a stateless, classless society without the need for money. Even the pro-capitalist creator and producer of "Star Trek", Gene Roddenberry, back in the 1960s, at the height of the cold war, was informed by the futurists who he was consulting with at the time, that in the future the world would be forced by advanced technology to adopt a form of communism.

​

Hello? Democratic communism is the natural outcome of advanced automation technology. What you are proposing sir, is that the government intervene and stop human progress. You don't want your "free market", because if you did you would accept the consequences of that, which is, innovation becomes so advanced in the area of production, that you don't even need much human labor to produce everything. That's the natural course of the evolution of human production. You want to get in the way of that and stop it with a government bailout and intervention.

Why do you think the capitalists are now talking about giving everyone a UBI i.e. Universal Basic Income? Because they know that eventually technology eliminates wage labor and when that happens you're forced to adopt a non-profit mode of production. That's the end of capitalism and the beginning of democratic socialism, which leads to democratic high-communism. The government isn't going to be able to stop human progress or innovation. You can try to do it using the government to force people not to automate production but it won't work. With advanced technology, the market itself will automate production.

 

[Indeependent]

The government? Hehehehe another government bailout? Hahahaha, thanks for admitting the need for socialism. Why can't the "free market" take care of it? The so-called "free market" naturally leads to socialism and later after that, communism. Communism is a stateless, classless society without the need for money. Even the pro-capitalist creator and producer of "Star Trek", Gene Roddenberry, back in the 1960s, at the height of the cold war, was informed by the futurists who he was consulting with at the time, that in the future the world would be forced by advanced technology to adopt a form of communism. Hello? Democratic communism is the natural outcome of advanced automation technology. What you are proposing sir, is that the government intervene and stop human progress. You don't want your "free market", because if you did you would accept the consequences of that, which is, innovation becomes so advanced in the area of production, that you don't even need much human labor to produce everything. That's the natural course of the evolution of human production. You want to get in the way of that and stop it with a government bailout and intervention.

Why do you think the capitalists are now talking about giving everyone a UBI i.e. Universal Basic Income? Because they know that eventually technology eliminates wage labor and when that happens you're forced to adopt a non-profit mode of production. That's the end of capitalism and the beginning of democratic socialism, which leads to democratic high-communism. The government isn't going to be able to stop human progress or innovation. You can try to do it using the government to force people not to automate production but it won't work.

If you lived during the days of the Robber Barons (The Free Market), you would have committed suicide.

 

[Red Front]

If you lived during the days of the Robber Barons (The Free Market), you would have committed suicide.

I would've been one of the many socialists that were unionizing and protesting against them. This fight between socialists and capitalists has been going on since the early 1800s, with the birth of industrial capitalism. Socialism is the natural result and course of modern industrial capitalism. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism thanks to technology, turning wealthy merchants and the former aristocracy into industrialists, modern, high-tech capitalism will naturally lead to a non-profit system of production a.k.a. high-communism. You can deny it, but you're smart enough to recognize that, that's why you want the government to stop human technological progress by criminalizing advanced production, in an attempt to save capitalism.

 

[Lisa558]

I came from a basically single-income household myself. For entertainment we watched television with rabbit ears on top of the set. We didn't have a roof antenna like some lucky people. Seeing a movie meant everybody jump in the station wagon and going to the drive-in, and even that was only a couple times a year. We had one telephone for the family that we shared, one vehicle for dad to get to work. McDonald's was a twice or three times a year treat. All meals were cooked by Mom at home.

So the question is if people can't make it on a single-family income, is it because we spend so much on luxuries today, or is it because there is no possible way to pay for the necessities?

When we talk about cell phones at family gatherings, my father laughs at the thought he pays more for his cell phone plan than he did for the mortgage on the house we grew up in.
'
The bottom line is the reason people live paycheck to paycheck is because they consider luxuries as necessities: 500 channel cable or satellite plan plus on demand movies. Three different video games that require expensive CD's or drives. Cell phones for every member of the family including children; I know some that spend way over $200.00 for that one because all unlimited plans. High speed internet services. Fast food three times a week or more. Of course a lot of people are living paycheck to paycheck.

This is it exactly! I know working class people who buy $800 cell phones and then complain how they struggle to pay the bills. What I considered a comfortable, middle class childhood (as did my parents) would now been seen as a life of deprivation.

1960s and NOW:

1) A 1200-foot house where four people shared the bathroom. (Required a schedule to get Dad and us kids ready for work and school in the mornings. No big deal.) One window AC.

A middle class home is now 3000-foot, with 3 bathrooms and central AC.

2) All meals at home, other than an occasional celebratory meal out - and even then it was at the equivalent of an Olive Garden or Ruby Tuesdays.

Middle class families eat out frequently, and consider Olive Garden for poor people. They are found at upscale restaurants.

3) Vacation was a one-week apartment rental a few blocks from the beach, to which we drove. One night was dedicated “junk night” on the Boardwalk for a dinner of pizza and ice cream; otherwise all meals at home.

A middle class vacation is now Disneyland for 5 days (with restaurants daily) or a one-week cruise on a big cruise ship, or both.

4) Playtime after school was kick-the-can and jump rope.
Even the inner-city poor kids have the latest expensive video games and player.

5) One TV which we all shared.
A TV in every bedroom.

6) One phone which we not only shared among ourselves, but with another family via a party line.
Even the poorest of the poor have their own cell phones, and it’s often an IPhone.

7) Clothes shopping were at stores such as Penney’s and Sears.
Middle class people consider these stores “.working class” or downright poor.

 

[Indeependent]

I would've been one of the many socialists that were unionizing and protesting against them. This fight between socialists and capitalists has been going on since the early 1800s, with the birth of industrial capitalism. Socialism is the natural result and course of modern industrial capitalism. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism thanks to technology, turning wealthy merchants and the former aristocracy into industrialists, modern, high-tech capitalism will naturally lead to a non-profit system of production a.k.a. high-communism. You can deny it, but you're smart enough to recognize that, that's why you want the government to stop human technological progress by criminalizing advanced production, in an attempt to save capitalism.

Capitalism and Socialism have been intrinsic fundamentals of Judaism since Mount Sinai which is why I despise supposedly Orthodox Jews who worship the dollar over human dignity.

 

[Red Front]

This is it exactly! I know working class people who buy $800 cell phones and then complain how they struggle to pay the bills. What I considered a comfortable, middle class childhood (as did my parents) would now been seen as a life of deprivation.

1960s and NOW:

1) A 1200-foot house where four people shared the bathroom. (Required a schedule to get Dad and us kids ready for work and school in the mornings. No big deal.) One window AC.

A middle class home is now 3000-foot, with 3 bathrooms and central AC.

2) All meals at home, other than an occasional celebratory meal out - and even then it was at the equivalent of an Olive Garden or Ruby Tuesdays.

Middle class families eat out frequently, and consider Olive Garden for poor people. They are found at upscale restaurants.

3) Vacation was a one-week apartment rental a few blocks from the beach, to which we drove. One night was dedicated “junk night” on the Boardwalk for a dinner of pizza and ice cream; otherwise all meals at home.

A middle class vacation is now Disneyland for 5 days (with restaurants daily) or a one-week cruise on a big cruise ship, or both.

4) Playtime after school was kick-the-can and jump rope.
Even the inner-city poor kids have the latest expensive video games and player.

5) One TV which we all shared.
A TV in every bedroom.

6) One phone which we not only shared among ourselves, but with another family via a party line.
Even the poorest of the poor have their own cell phones, and it’s often an IPhone.

7) Clothes shopping were at stores such as Penney’s and Sears.
Middle class people consider these stores “.working class” or downright poor.

The economy and the world was a lot different in 1960. My maternal grandfather LEGALLY migrated here from Cuba without a penny in his pocket with a wife and three children in 1961. He got a blue-collar job, spraying yacht hull molds with fiberglass, at Bertram Yachts in Miami, Florida. He was the sole breadwinner in the family, supporting everyone, and in less than five years, in 1965, he purchased a house cash, without a bank loan. Be honest, can anyone do that today? NO WAY.

​

 

[Indeependent]

The economy and the world was a lot different in 1960. My maternal grandfather LEGALLY migrated here from Cuba without a penny in his pocket with a wife and three children in 1961. He got a blue-collar job, spraying yacht hull molds with fiberglass, at Bertram Yachts in Miami, Florida. He was the sole breadwinner in the family, supporting everyone, and in less than five years, in 1965, he purchased a house cash, without a bank loan. Be honest, can anyone do that today? NO WAY.

View attachment 754703


View attachment 754704

View attachment 754706

View attachment 754709​

As long as banks can give loans to people that do not meet the qualifications this issue will not go away.

 

[Lisa558]

The economy and the world was a lot different in 1960. My maternal grandfather migrated here from Cuba without a penny in his pocket with a wife and three children. He got a blue-collar job, spraying yacht hull molds with fiberglass, at Bertram Yachts in Miami, Florida. He was the sole breadwinner in the family, supporting everyone, and in less than five years, in 1965, he purchased a house cash, without a bank loan. Be honest, can anyone do that today? NO WAY.

View attachment 754703


View attachment 754704

View attachment 754706

View attachment 754709​

Now you have to get some sort of job training, at the minimum, after high school in order to SUPPORT yourself - and if you’re poor, American taxpayers will pay for it.

But you’re missing my point: A family living in a small house, sharing one bathroom, one TV, one phone that hangs on the wall, having no AC, buying clothes at Walmart, etc., etc., would be considered poor or working class - when it was a normal middle class life when I was a kid.

The fact is that a college-educated parent can afford to buy a small house, as long as his family is content with shopping at inexpensive stores, not eating out, having to share a TV, and getting by with just one car. It’s that expectations for what constitutes a middle class life have skyrocketed.

For example, a college-educated parent could afford this house, and it’s almost twice the square footage of my middle-class childhood house - AND it has two bathrooms:

4424 Hendricks Dr, Woodbridge, VA 22193 | Zillow

4424 Hendricks Dr, Woodbridge VA, is a Single Family home that contains 1900 sq ft and was built in 1971.It contains 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.This home last sold for $415,000 in April 2023. The Zestimate for this Single Family is $452,800, which has increased by $6,967 in the last 30...

www.zillow.com

 

[Red Front]

Now you have to get some sort of job training, at the minimum, after high school in order to SUPPORT yourself - and if you’re poor, American taxpayers will pay for it.

But you’re missing my point: A family living in a small house, sharing one bathroom, one TV, one phone that hangs on the wall, having no AC, buying clothes at Walmart, etc., etc., would be considered poor or working class - when it was a normal middle class life when I was a kid.

The fact is that a college-educated parent can afford to buy a small house, as long as his family is content with shopping at inexpensive stores, not eating out, having to share a TV, and getting by with just one car. It’s that expectations for what constitutes a middle class life have skyrocketed.

For example, a college-educated parent could afford this house, and it’s almost twice the square footage of my middle-class childhood house - AND it has two bathrooms:

4424 Hendricks Dr, Woodbridge, VA 22193 | Zillow

4424 Hendricks Dr, Woodbridge VA, is a Single Family home that contains 1900 sq ft and was built in 1971.It contains 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.This home last sold for $415,000 in April 2023. The Zestimate for this Single Family is $452,800, which has increased by $6,967 in the last 30...

www.zillow.com

It's not as easy as you're painting it for the poor today. As I said, in 1960 the economy and the world were different. You said that a college graduate i.e. a professional can buy a house today. Did you mean to get a mortgage? Is that your definition of house ownership? You have equity, it's better than renting with a landlord, but you don't really outright own the property yet. A professional generally, earn significantly more than a blue-collar laborer, and yet can't buy a house in cash today as my grandfather did back in 1965, a Cuban immigrant, who hardly spoke English. He bought his house in cash, with what today would be considered a low-paying job compared to that of a professional. That college graduate will probably also be heavily in debt, due to student loans. In the 50s and 60s, a college education was much cheaper, if not free.

We don't live in the same economy as we did in the 1960s. The situation isn't the same, it's not just about people buying expensive smartphones. My smartphone cost me $160 and I'm doing quite well financially. I don't see a reason to spend $800 on a smartphone when I can get a good one for a third of that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is it exactly! I know working class people who buy $800 cell phones and then complain how they struggle to pay the bills. What I considered a comfortable, middle class childhood (as did my parents) would now been seen as a life of deprivation.

1960s and NOW:

1) A 1200-foot house where four people shared the bathroom. (Required a schedule to get Dad and us kids ready for work and school in the mornings. No big deal.) One window AC.

A middle class home is now 3000-foot, with 3 bathrooms and central AC.

2) All meals at home, other than an occasional celebratory meal out - and even then it was at the equivalent of an Olive Garden or Ruby Tuesdays.

Middle class families eat out frequently, and consider Olive Garden for poor people. They are found at upscale restaurants.

3) Vacation was a one-week apartment rental a few blocks from the beach, to which we drove. One night was dedicated “junk night” on the Boardwalk for a dinner of pizza and ice cream; otherwise all meals at home.

A middle class vacation is now Disneyland for 5 days (with restaurants daily) or a one-week cruise on a big cruise ship, or both.

4) Playtime after school was kick-the-can and jump rope.
Even the inner-city poor kids have the latest expensive video games and player.

5) One TV which we all shared.
A TV in every bedroom.

6) One phone which we not only shared among ourselves, but with another family via a party line.
Even the poorest of the poor have their own cell phones, and it’s often an IPhone.

7) Clothes shopping were at stores such as Penney’s and Sears.
Middle class people consider these stores “.working class” or downright poor.

As I said, what people would have considered luxuries years ago they consider necessities today.

A late friend of mine lost her job due to illness about ten years ago. She went on government disability because she worked for the government. She claimed she couldn't find a reasonable apartment to rent because of the rental shortage we've been experiencing the last decade or so. She needed an apartment because the bank foreclosed on her house.

At the time I had an apartment open up and I offered it to her a a pretty nice discount. She called back and said she couldn't even afford my apartment. She said it was between a struggle to pay rent or move in with her mother that she didn't really get along with that well. She opted to live with her mother which turned out to be a huge mistake.

She rattled off her expenses to explain her situation. I stopped her when she got to her car payment; $600.00 a month. I asked her if she was crazy or something? I told her get rid of that Fn car and buy a used one for cash. She refused. She loved her car. So she chose to be miserable with her mother to keep her stupid car. I don't know, but I'm guessing that stupid car was why she was foreclosed on in the first place.

That's the mentality of many people in our country today.

 

[Lisa558]

It's not as easy as you're painting it for the poor today. Like I said, in 1960 the economy and world was different. You said that a college graduate i.e. a professional, can buy a house today. You meant get a mortgage? That's your definition of house-ownership? You have equity, it's better than renting from a landlord, but you don't really outright own the property yet. A professional generally, earns significantly more than a blue collar laborer, and yet can't buy a house cash today as my grandfather, a Cuban immigrant, who hardly spoke English at the time, working a blue-collar job did in 1965. A bought his house cash, with what today would be considered a low paying job compared to that of a professional. That college graduate will probably also be heavily in debt, due to student loans.

We don't live in the same economy as we did in the 1960s. The situation isn't the same, it's not just about people buying expensive smartphones. My smartphone cost me $160 and I'm doing quite well financially. I don't see a reason to spend $800 on a smartphone when I can get a good one for a third of that.

Well of course I meant a mortgage. That’s how my middle-class parents did it: they paid it off over decades.

You think that middle-class means being able to swoop down and buy a house in cash? I know nobody who did that. And that’s my point! You’re basically saying people aren’t middle class if they have to get a mortgage!

Take a look at that house I linked to - three bedrooms and two baths. (Bigger than my childhood houde, for sure.) A parent with a college education or some marketable vocational training can, with several years of experience, buy that home - probably by age 30, and move in with his young family. What’s wrong with that?

 

[Lisa558]

As I said, what people would have considered luxuries years ago they consider necessities today.

A late friend of mine lost her job due to illness about ten years ago. She went on government disability because she worked for the government. She claimed she couldn't find a reasonable apartment to rent because of the rental shortage we've been experiencing the last decade or so. She needed an apartment because the bank foreclosed on her house.

At the time I had an apartment open up and I offered it to her a a pretty nice discount. She called back and said she couldn't even afford my apartment. She said it was between a struggle to pay rent or move in with her mother that she didn't really get along with that well. She opted to live with her mother which turned out to be a huge mistake.

She rattled off her expenses to explain her situation. I stopped her when she got to her car payment; $600.00 a month. I asked her if she was crazy or something? I told her get rid of that Fn car and buy a used one for cash. She refused. She loved her car. So she chose to be miserable with her mother to keep her stupid car. I don't know, but I'm guessing that stupid car was why she was foreclosed on in the first place.

That's the mentality of many people in our country today.

Yup. And that’s another aspect to this whole thing. There’s this mentality that one should be able to have the nicest things, even if it means still living with one’s parents as an adult.

They are unwilling to give up niceties. You should have seen how I lived in my “salad days.” That’s what I had to do in the early years in order to live independently from my parents - which was expected.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You're complicating it Ray. If we're going to continue with a capitalist-run economy for a few more decades, our government is going to have to create the infrastructure that allows it to function. People have to earn a living wage, even if they work at Mcdonald's or a pencil factory, it doesn't matter. Not everyone has a mommy and daddy to support them with food and housing when they're 18 or 21. That's a great situation to have when you're young. I have several friends that had to pick themselves up by their bootstraps in their teens and fend for themselves before they were 20 years old. They were raised in an unhealthy household, in a single-parent home, and didn't have anyone to support them. They joined the US Army, "BE ALL YOU CAN BE" (1980s/90s). I have another friend who joined JOB CORP after high school, another government-run program.

I get your point Ray but you fail to factor in the important place our government has in providing the infrastructure that allows capitalism to function. Even Milton Friedman one of the modern icons of "free-market" capitalism believed the government had to provide for everyone that earns less than a certain amount, or else capitalism would create gross inequality to the point of social unrest and civil war.

​

As I stated repeatedly lower paying starter jobs are nothing new. They were there before I entered the workforce in the 70s and they are here today. The only difference between now and then is that you couldn't live comfortably on social programs back then because they didn't pay shit. People tried harder to advance themselves. Today a younger person won't even give up pot to pass a drug test for a better paying job. My experience working with industry is that it's a huge problem today. So these people opt for lower paying jobs that don't drug test and either live poorly or with their parents at their home.

You have to make more sacrifices today. Give up the dope, get a better paying job, something that may train you for a career, and work all the OT they offer you and you'll do fine and never have to dump another hopper of fries in the fry bin again.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I presume you also know that advanced automation isn't just going to replace human labor in tomato and strawberry fields, but practically everywhere? Ray mentioned he was a truck driver. We can now automate that job as well, and within ten years you can bet your life on it, that trucks are going to be 100% autonomous, without a human driver. Even paralegals and CT and MRI diagnostics is being replaced with advanced artificial intelligence. With few exceptions, practically everything will be done by a machine guided by artificial intelligence, hence welcome to the era of democratic socialism. We're on the road to democratic communism, whether you like it or not. Hello?

People have been talking about autonomous trucks for the last ten years or so. For one, we can't even perfect an autonomous car yet let alone a semi. Two, the ones they have today can only go straight on a highway. Three, you still have to have a licensed CDL driver to take over if there is a computer malfunction, you have to pull over for a safety check and assist the trooper doing the check, be able to smell a problem that no computer can. And of course four, you'll never see a computer in our lifetime be able to manipulate such a vehicle through towns or cities.

So don't look to replace drivers in your lifetime anytime soon. We are short over 50,000 drivers and autonomous vehicles are obviously not the answer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yup. And that’s another aspect to this whole thing. There’s this mentality that one should be able to have the nicest things, even if it means still living with one’s parents as an adult.

They are unwilling to give up niceties. You should have seen how I lived in my “salad days.” That’s what I had to do in the early years in order to live independently from my parents - which was expected.

And back then a lot of people drove junkers as they used to call them because not everybody could afford a nice car. You don't see many junkers on the road today. Leasing has become a standard these days. Everybody has to have a newer vehicle. They won't settle for a nice used car with higher mileage to get them through the next couple of years like my friend should have. Again, people considering luxuries as necessities.

 

[Red Front]

As I said, what people would have considered luxuries years ago they consider necessities today.

A late friend of mine lost her job due to illness about ten years ago. She went on government disability because she worked for the government. She claimed she couldn't find a reasonable apartment to rent because of the rental shortage we've been experiencing the last decade or so. She needed an apartment because the bank foreclosed on her house.

At the time I had an apartment open up and I offered it to her a a pretty nice discount. She called back and said she couldn't even afford my apartment. She said it was between a struggle to pay rent or move in with her mother that she didn't really get along with that well. She opted to live with her mother which turned out to be a huge mistake.

She rattled off her expenses to explain her situation. I stopped her when she got to her car payment; $600.00 a month. I asked her if she was crazy or something? I told her get rid of that Fn car and buy a used one for cash. She refused. She loved her car. So she chose to be miserable with her mother to keep her stupid car. I don't know, but I'm guessing that stupid car was why she was foreclosed on in the first place.

That's the mentality of many people in our country today.

My mother's husband (not my father, my parents divorced), was diagnosed with Addison's disease when he was in his mid-40s, about 30 years ago. He was a CNC machinist and programmer, making about $46 hourly (this is the early 90s). He had very good benefits (supposedly), with full health insurance coverage, and he lived with my mother in a beautiful condo right on the bay in Miami, with its own private boat slip. He had a big fishing boat. He was doing well until he got sick.

The true face and nature of the private health insurance industry clearly revealed itself, denying him coverage for treatment that he needed. United Health Care, was also demanding payments amounting to tens of thousands of dollars that he didn't have, and he eventually got so sick, that he couldn't work. The machines release gasses and oil into the air, and that was making him even sicker. He couldn't walk into his shop without hives breaking out throughout his body and him puking on himself.

My stepfather and my mother lost everything, moving into a trailer in West Miami near the Everglades. At the time I didn't have the money to help them, I was a young man in the army, earning a little salary. He had to become dirt poor and legally disabled (poverty isn't enough in Florida to qualify for Medicaid), to get healthcare. He lost everything and was living on SSD, Social Security Disability. He eventually got the surgery he needed and he's now in his mid-70s, he takes cortisol every day because his body doesn't naturally produce it. He doesn't have adrenal glands in his body. He went from working as a CNC machinist and programmer to becoming a self-taught software engineer. He got back on his feet and now my mother and him are living on the bay again, in another condo. Without Medicaid and SSD, he would've died. Capiitalism needs the government to provide labor with a social safety net and infrastructure or it doesn't function.

 

[Red Front]

People have been talking about autonomous trucks for the last ten years or so. For one, we can't even perfect an autonomous car yet let alone a semi. Two, the ones they have today can only go straight on a highway. Three, you still have to have a licensed CDL driver to take over if there is a computer malfunction, you have to pull over for a safety check and assist the trooper doing the check, be able to smell a problem that no computer can. And of course four, you'll never see a computer in our lifetime be able to manipulate such a vehicle through towns or cities.

So don't look to replace drivers in your lifetime anytime soon. We are short over 50,000 drivers and autonomous vehicles are obviously not the answer.

You're out of touch with reality. You being in your early 60s, will most likely see completely autonomous trucks by the time you're 70, 75 at the most. The early to mid-2030s, about 10 to 12 years from now. Eventually, there will be autonomous truck convoys transporting goods on our highways, monitored by artificial intelligence, with a few people in a remote location looking at some big computer flat screens on the wall, telling them where all of the truck convoys are and how they're doing. Even if that is 20 or 30+ years away, that's still an undiscernible "bleep" in history. What're twenty, thirty, or even forty years? Nothing.

Eventually, no matter how much you try to postpone the inevitable adoption of a non-profit system of production, it will come, knocking on our door. Inevitably, we will be forced due to advanced technology, to adopt a democratic form of socialism and communism. It won't be Soviet-style communism or what you had in Poland under the USSR. But nonetheless, it will be an American, democratic form of communism. That's inevitable.

Independent posted that he wants the government to intervene and make complete automation illegal. That's an example of capitalism, undermining human progress by using the government to criminalize an activity that forces the market to take a certain course. The "free market" itself naturally leads to extreme efficiency in production, eliminating the need for human wage labor. Capitalism cancels itself out, it eliminates itself, creating the technology that makes production "hands-free", and low-cost. A robot can work, 24/7, without getting sick, or complaining about wages, or bad conditions in the workplace. Robots don't unionize and cause trouble for capitalists. What might begin as a spiteful "fuck you" to the working class by capitalists, ends with the demise of capitalism, due to the lack of wage labor.

No wage labor = no paying consumer = no capitalism.




​