20-somethings & 30-somethings, how do you see the future in America?

[Leslieann]

They wouldn't change their policies, they would just take what wealth was available and pay the soldiers for as long as they could.

Wow, just wow. Some of your comments...  Your wealth has blinded you, and not by a little.

First off, when the Gov runs out of money, soldiers DO NOT get paid.
I have first hand experience with this, it happened while I was in service and they had to reimburse everyone for all bounced checks once it was financed again (bounce one yourself and get in trouble though!). Soldiers do not have the right to quit, walk away, or strike, so there is no incentive to pay them until they get to the point that they may mutiny. They are the first to NOT get paid. Even when their service contract expires, they cannot get out of service until the military decides to let them. If they don't want to pay you or let you go, they simply do not have to. It's even worse for fields with needed specialties. As I was out-processing, they had to back date my orders so I wouldn't get caught by the 2 year hold they were placing on my career field. I sat watching HQ typing up the hold orders as they were typing up my exit papers.

Generals (in general) do NOT have nuke codes. Sorry, they don't. This is why the President is always near the "football". Only one, maybe two other people have the capability to launch missiles, just in case the President is missing (i.e. chain of command). But honestly, WTF would you do with them anyhow?  Nukes don't give you any power. Why do you think terrorists haven't used one, it would turn the ENTIRE world against you, it's also why we are dwindling them down. Would you threaten the U.S. with one? Great move, you launch 1, the U.S. makes Texas a wasteland for the next 5million years. Great tactic. Oh, and you threatened/wiped out your oil customers.


You being well off, means you see a lot of things through rose colored glasses, I see and work with people like you all the time.
While you aren't worried about sending jobs overseas, you should worry about all the qualified jobless students out there hungry for that job of yours. They are jobless because of jobs going overseas. Invest your own money towards retirement... great idea, you would be broke now, just like the millions who did that before 2008. I live in a red state, and I work for/with many people who thought that way (including 1 and 2%'ers). Their retirement was set back by an easy 10 years and sure are thankful now for Social Security as it's all they now have. This goes triple for the day trader, who pretty much lost everything and is once again trying to chase that money he lost (he didn't learn the first time). People like you don't realize how much you gamble because you usually end up on your feet. When things don't work out though, you have no idea how far down you can fall and you have no idea how fast it can happen. If you lost your job tomorrow, are you sure you could find another with equal pay? Are you sure about that? And how long would it take? How long before you finally accept that you are resigned to working for Walmart at minimum wage? It could happen, despite what you may think. I have seen it happen to skilled engineers and computer techs. Happens a LOT in California, where you have people with B.S. degrees working in warehouses moving boxes.


And then we have Texas...
Contrary to popular belief, Texas no longer has the right to peacefully succeed. When they joined the U.S. they reserved that right, however, they used that right and then lost it when they lost the Civil War. Most other states were former federal land that was granted state status, and therefore never had that right to begin with. Even if Texas could, succession isn't free. You need to fund a military, setup a new government, establish new license plates, Id cards, money, etc... All that little stuff adds up (and just who will pay for it? The poor who have nothing?).  And Texans seem to forget that the military there is federal, as are the tanks and planes (including National and Coast Guard), and those oil fields and refineries Texans love to claim would pay for all of it, aren't owned by them. The military isn't going to let them keep all of that hardware and the oil fields are owned by big oil, mostly up in the north (and they CERTAINLY aren't going to part with it willingly). Yes, Texas could take them, but wouldn't that make them worse than the feds now? Even then, you now have an oil field, but you still need customers. Who would you sell it to? Oh yes, those same people you just succeeded from. Texas gives as much to the feds as it takes, however, you now have to take away away the old fields, military spending, border patrol funding and much, much more and suddenly Texas isn't nearly as self sufficient as they like to think they are. It would have no military personnel, no tanks, no planes, no border guards and no federal dollars to pay for it...  And then you have Mexico, if Mexico didn't invade the day after secession, the Mexican drug lords would. If I was Mexico and saw it coming, my army would be crossing the border 30 seconds after you signed the paperwork. Long before you ever had a chance to even start organizing or arrange purchase of any military hardware. You also have Spain, Venzeula, Cuba, and a few others who certainly wouldn't mind taking it while weak. Texas isn't Oregon, with only one coastline to protect from foreign invasion, Texas is BIG, and not only borders it's two former owners, but also a large coastline, where just a hop skip and a jump are several countries who would love all that land, if only as a big F.U. to the U.S.

Texas would likely be "free" for all of about 3 days. I don't give a damn how many gun toting Texans you may have, a bunch of guys with assault rifles and no real military training are nothing to a tank and aircraft. Sure, you can use guerrilla tactics and possibly run them out, but at best it would take years and years and another would be right behind it and then you would probably end up in a civil war due to the cities despising the rural control. It's already well on it's way to becoming a blue state.



Stop reading and listening to so many wild conservatives, their ideas are off in left field and detrimental to your financial well being.
If you think your taxes are too high, move to Europe (why do you think their rich move here)! Or on a more seriousness note, a less modern country with lower tax rates and lower standard of living. As many of your kind like to tell others, "if you don't like it here, MOVE". While you seem to realize you are well enough off, You have absolutely ZERO clue how good you really have it. And it's still not enough.

[keyboardlover]

Well when I was 12 I enjoyed all of those. I think in general most people enjoy learning. If they don't, then I could really care less.

[Leslieann]

Yes, you can learn more on the internet (I'm one of those people), however,  you still need to show you learned it on a resume. "Studied it on my Iphone" doesn't exactly cut it.

[Krogenar]

If we all stop paying taxes, there will be even more stupid people than there is today. Education is already lacking in most of the United States, no taxes means no schools. I rather fund a war with my money and have at least some not so stupid come out as a result of my taxes.

That's not true; today you can get a better education on your phone than in a brick & mortar government school house.

I'm not sure about that phone claim, but if there were no taxes collected, there would still be a demand for education (among some people) and people would find a way to get that need fulfilled. Contrary to common belief, education did exist before the government decided to provide it, and would still be available if public education were to end.

The U.S. government would just drain your bank account. To wit: the Cypriot bank tax that occurred a few months ago. The government just levied a tax on bank accounts over a certain amount, and took the money out directly. What is the bank going to do, say, "No." to them? The Cypriot government put a hold on bank transfers, so people couldn't avoid the tax. They don't actually have to come to your door with a gun to ruin you financially. What currency they don't undermine by printing money, they just take.

In Cyprus that's different. Here? with millions of people? If what happened in Cyprus happened here there would be blood in the streets.

I respectfully disagree. In Cyprus they were very, very clever about it. They only seized money from accounts in excess of 100,000 Euros. This yields a lot of money, while screwing over just a few hundred people. That's why hating the rich is so incredibly profitable -- they're a minority, so who cares if they're ruined in the process? The EU bureaucrats likely looked at the chart of accounts, and determined what 'ceiling' would yield the most money, while pissing off the least number of people. Those people are still ruined, but there's not enough of them to cause civil unrest. It's perfect. Or, if things were really bad, the U.S. government would just take small amounts, not enough to make people see blood, but enough to eventually impoverish them. This is what printing money does as well, invisibly. You've still got your money in the bank -- it's just worthless.

And the federal government will never let anyone secede, that's a pipe dream.

It must have seemed impossible for some colonies to secede from the most powerful empire in history (at the time).

They tried it before and it resulted in lots of dead bodies. It's just a bad idea.

It's the most bloodless scenario I can envision. I would imagine the editorial board of the NY Times would relish jettisoning 'JesusLand' from the country. Finally, they could pursue their dreams of a socialist utopia without any opposition. There would be no conflict. Those other (now nuclearized) states would extend their umbrella of nuclear protection to other states, and then what could Washington really do? Nuke those states? Invade? I don't think it would happen -- people don't have the will for it anymore. We could still trade, and it could be a friendly separation. Not all divorces are angry and bitter.

And Iran, North Korea, etc. want nuclear weapons to protect themselves from...guess who...US!

So I guess it would make no sense for Texas, Florida and other states to watch protection as well?

You know, the psychopathic neo-colonialist imperialists who've been busy murdering the living shib out of people since Columbus docked his boat here!

Last time we had a debate you claimed that you (as an individual) had the right to own a nuclear weapon. I'm a supporter of the Second Amendment, but ... there are limits. Do you still stand by that statement?

[sth]

Burn all millionaires. Also Ayn Rand books.

this is the most insightful post in this whole thread

*whoops there's a page 2. leslieann i applaud and agree with most of what you have to say but got dang damn are you wasting your time with these people.

[keyboardlover]

Burn all millionaires. Also Ayn Rand books.

this is the most insightful post in this whole thread

Burn rich people and books? That's probably the most idiotic comment in this whole thread. Not to mention psychopathic.

I respectfully disagree. In Cyprus they were very, very clever about it. They only seized money from accounts in excess of 100,000 Euros. This yields a lot of money, while screwing over just a few hundred people. That's why hating the rich is so incredibly profitable -- they're a minority, so who cares if they're ruined in the process? The EU bureaucrats likely looked at the chart of accounts, and determined what 'ceiling' would yield the most money, while pissing off the least number of people. Those people are still ruined, but there's not enough of them to cause civil unrest. It's perfect. Or, if things were really bad, the U.S. government would just take small amounts, not enough to make people see blood, but enough to eventually impoverish them. This is what printing money does as well, invisibly. You've still got your money in the bank -- it's just worthless.

They're already doing that dude! They're already coming up with bills on how they'll dip into bank accounts and 401ks for "counter-terrorism" you can look it up.

It must have seemed impossible for some colonies to secede from the most powerful empire in history (at the time).

And how'd that turn out?

It's the most bloodless scenario I can envision. I would imagine the editorial board of the NY Times would relish jettisoning 'JesusLand' from the country. Finally, they could pursue their dreams of a socialist utopia without any opposition. There would be no conflict. Those other (now nuclearized) states would extend their umbrella of nuclear protection to other states, and then what could Washington really do? Nuke those states? Invade? I don't think it would happen -- people don't have the will for it anymore. We could still trade, and it could be a friendly separation. Not all divorces are angry and bitter.

It's the most bloodless scenario you can envision because you still don't see the state for what it truly is. At one point people thought the world was flat. Imagine if nearly everyone realized that monopolizing force, living at the expense of others, and being ruled and subjugated by psychopaths was unnecessary? You wouldn't even need a revolution - the most effective change comes from ideas (just as the most important anarchy lives in the mind). People would simply stop allowing the bullies to bully them. There's more of us than them anyway.

Last time we had a debate you claimed that you (as an individual) had the right to own a nuclear weapon. I'm a supporter of the Second Amendment, but ... there are limits. Do you still stand by that statement?

I didn't "claim" anything, I argued that all individuals have a natural right to life, liberty and property (as has been argued by many other folks including Locke) which no one else has a right to infringe upon. Your rights come from a piece of paper - and it's clear how well that's worked out. So, that's my philisophical argument...where is yours? What gives the president of the United States the "right" to own nukes or to use them to massacre innocent people as was done in Japan by a democrat? What gives them the right to press buttons and drone bomb little kids in foreign countries? What gives anyone the "right" to rule, subjugate or live at the expense of anyone else?

Without the state there is no market for nuclear weapons, because they are the tools which only psychopaths wish to acquire to render psychopathic deeds at the heads of their empires.

[Krogenar]

They wouldn't change their policies, they would just take what wealth was available and pay the soldiers for as long as they could.

Wow, just wow. Some of your comments...  Your wealth has blinded you, and not by a little.

I know I'm supposed to be ashamed of not being poor, but I just can't manage it.

Generals (in general) do NOT have nuke codes. Sorry, they don't. This is why the President is always near the "football". Only one, maybe two other people have the capability to launch missiles, just in case the President is missing (i.e. chain of command). But honestly, WTF would you do with them anyhow?  Nukes don't give you any power. Why do you think terrorists haven't used one, it would turn the ENTIRE world against you, it's also why we are dwindling them down. Would you threaten the U.S. with one? Great move, you launch 1, the U.S. makes Texas a wasteland for the next 5million years. Great tactic. Oh, and you threatened/wiped out your oil customers.

It's a hypothetical -- the only way I could envision a bloodless separation of 'JesusLand'. If nukes don't give a state any real power (Leslieann: "Nukes don't give you any power.") then why are states like North Korea and Iran so hellbent on obtaining them, or refining their missile technology, Leslieann? Why? Is it because it doesn't give them any power? No, they want nukes because they know once they've got them, they cannot be invaded, or the chances drop precipitously. These states don't want nukes so they can use them; they want them so they can threaten to use them. So yes, I would defer to your military experience that maybe generals don't have nuclear launch codes, but the scenario could still work if someone, somewhere got them into the hands of a secessionist state or states. I'm not saying it's a likely scenario, I'm claiming it's the only scenario I can envision in which a series of states, fed up with the Federal government, could leave the Union, with the least bloodshed possible.

You being well off, means you see a lot of things through rose colored glasses, I see and work with people like you all the time.
While you aren't worried about sending jobs overseas, you should worry about all the qualified jobless students out there hungry for that job of yours. They are jobless because of jobs going overseas.

Can I borrow prdlm's plaintive whine about "you don't know me, man!!" in this instance? Nah, I'll pass. Jobs are going overseas because those are developing economies, they make good products (sorry, it's true!) and they do it a lot less cheaply than American workers. I'm a business person -- my job is to face reality, every day. I wish jobs weren't going overseas, but the market dictates that they should. Instead of Americans becoming more flexible, more well-educated, they want unions, and price protections -- more walls to keep the change at bay, but those walls will never hold, they'll only forestall the destruction to some other day, and it will be far worse on that day.

Invest your own money towards retirement... great idea, you would be broke now, just like the millions who did that before 2008. I live in a red state, and I work for/with many people who thought that way (including 1 and 2%'ers). Their retirement was set back by an easy 10 years and sure are thankful now for Social Security as it's all they now have.

They're greatful? They paid into it, it was always their money, and it was never more than a promise. The market (even with its ups and downs) is still a better bet than Social Security. At least in the market I own the stocks and pass them on to my heirs, my family. I'd rather have more choices and freedom, than promises from the government.

This goes triple for the day trader, who pretty much lost everything and is once again trying to chase that money he lost (he didn't learn the first time). People like you don't realize how much you gamble because you usually end up on your feet. When things don't work out though, you have no idea how far down you can fall and you have no idea how fast it can happen.

How do you know I don't realize how much I can lose. I've been in the market a long time -- and I'm not a gambler. Gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math. How can you be so sure I have "no idea" how "far" and "fast" fortunes can change? Am I a rich bastard who's never had to work a day in his life, is that it? I'm not offended by the charge, if that's what you mean, I'm just trying to determine what you're actually saying. I see the world through 'rose-colored glasses'? -- I assure you, stark reality is what I see.

If you lost your job tomorrow, are you sure you could find another with equal pay? Are you sure about that? And how long would it take? How long before you finally accept that you are resigned to working for Walmart at minimum wage? It could happen, despite what you may think. I have seen it happen to skilled engineers and computer techs. Happens a LOT in California, where you have people with B.S. degrees working in warehouses moving boxes.

I am numerate, literate, a hard worker and I feel confident that if my current circumstances were to take a serious downturn that I would survive. Yeah, I might have to start in Walmart, but I would be a manager before very long, and I'd be back on my feet faster than most other people. It's a terrible situation to see so many highly skilled people who cannot find jobs in the professions they want -- if it were me, I would band together with some of them and try to put a business together. Find a product or service that people need, and fill it. I own a business, and on the days when the guy who runs the storefront doesn't show up, I sweep up in front of the store. Nothing that needs doing is beneath me. I'm willing to do anything necessary for the operation of the business. I mop, I fix toilets, change lightbulbs and soothe egos. I won't lie, I don't enjoy some of those tasks, but my job description is: whatever it takes. Ideally, I don't mop, but the world isn't an ideal place, and I don't require that it be.

And then we have Texas...
Contrary to popular belief, Texas no longer has the right to peacefully succeed. When they joined the U.S. they reserved that right, however, they used that right and then lost it when they lost the Civil War. Most other states were former federal land that was granted state status, and therefore never had that right to begin with. Even if Texas could, succession isn't free. You need to fund a military, setup a ...

[snipped]

...Mexican drug lords would. If I was Mexico and saw it coming, my army would be crossing the border 30 seconds after you signed the paperwork. Long before you ever had a chance to even start organizing or arrange purchase of any military hardware. You also have Spain, Venzeula, Cuba, and a few others who certainly wouldn't mind taking it while weak. Texas isn't Oregon, with only one coastline to protect from foreign invasion, Texas is BIG, and not only borders it's two former owners, but also a large coastline, where just a hop skip and a jump are several countries who would love all that land, if only as a big F.U. to the U.S.

So, no military, no planes, etc. -- but the new government of Texas has a few nukes on ballistic missiles pointed at Washington, D.C.? I think the people who own the oil fields would be very open to a peaceful solution. The Free Republics of Texas, Tennessee, Florida, etc. would be perfectly willing to continue peaceful relations. Think of it as dealing with a North Korea that isn't openly insane. I still think it could work. As for Texas not having the 'right' to secede... I think if the Federal government was oppressive enough (they probably have it in them) then 'rights' don't matter anymore. Even if you claim (correctly) that you have the legal right to economically destroy me, I don't think I would recognize your right to do so. A federal government that does not abide by the Constitution would mean all bets are off.
 

Texas would likely be "free" for all of about 3 days. I don't give a damn how many gun toting Texans you may have, a bunch of guys with assault rifles and no real military training are nothing to a tank and aircraft. Sure, you can use guerrilla tactics and possibly run them out, but at best it would take years and years and another would be right behind it and then you would probably end up in a civil war due to the cities despising the rural control. It's already well on it's way to becoming a blue state.

President of Texas: "Any attempt to invade or launch an attack on our newly formed government will result in the destruction of Washington, D.C. via nuclear missiles -- we would greatly prefer a peaceful separation and friendly ongoing relations. Please respect our right to leave the Union."

I won't lie -- it would be a really, REALLY scary few days.

If you think your taxes are too high, move to Europe (why do you think their rich move here)!

Ok, I admit it. I LOL'd. My taxes are too high, so move to Europe? (blinks) Europe?

Or on a more seriousness note, a less modern country with lower tax rates and lower standard of living. As many of your kind like to tell others, "if you don't like it here, MOVE". While you seem to realize you are well enough off, You have absolutely ZERO clue how good you really have it. And it's still not enough.

I've looked. There's really nowhere else to go. Why do I have it 'good', Leslieann? Because of the government, or in spite of it? For me it's the latter. Oh, and you can't just give up American citizenship and escape the American system.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323848804578607472987119796.html

The legislation is Fatca, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. To appreciate its breathtaking scope along with America's unique "citizen-based" tax practices, imagine this: You were born in California, moved to New York for education or work, fell in love, married and had children. Even though you have faithfully paid taxes in New York and haven't lived in California for 25 years, suppose California law required that you also file your taxes there because you were born there. Though you may never have held a bank account in California, you must report all of your financial holdings to the State of California. Are you a signatory on your spouse's account? Then you must declare his bank accounts too. Your children, now adults, have never been west of the Mississippi but they too must file their taxes in both California and New York and report any bank accounts they or their spouses may have because they are considered Californians by virtue of one parent's birthplace.

There's no escape.

[Krogenar]

Last time we had a debate you claimed that you (as an individual) had the right to own a nuclear weapon. I'm a supporter of the Second Amendment, but ... there are limits. Do you still stand by that statement?

I didn't "claim" anything, I argued that all individuals have a natural right to life, liberty and property (as has been argued by many other folks including Locke) which no one else has a right to infringe upon.

I think you may be misremembering, KBL. We were having a really great discussion on the Second Amendment, statism, etc. in this thread:

http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=39770.30

I support maximizing individual liberty, as you do, but acknowledge that there are some practical limits, and that the imposition of these limits by others are not always wrong, and can sometimes be perfectly legitimate. I flat out asked you where you draw the line on the Second Amendment. Here was your response, from page 3 of the referenced thread:

Yes dude, I believe that an individual should be able to, if they so choose, own a gun, RPG, tank, nuclear weapon, etc. if they so choose to. Because, not only does that happen now, but because it's legitimized by government, those who end up owning such things are inevitably 90% more likely to be the most dangerous people who could be in control of them. Hundreds of thousands of CHILDREN dead in the middle east - dude, I would prefer any peaceful individual owned these bombs rather than anyone taking orders from congress. Is it a risk? Of course, but it's one I'm willing to live with. If legislators actually represented the will of the people, then these children would still be alive today, the Mexicans wouldn't have been sold guns, all kinds of other atrocities would never have occurred, and the oligarchical reality of our government would not be so.

(I kept the entire paragraph for the sake of context.)

See, you had my support at 'individual rights' but lost me when you said 'an individual should be able to ... own a ... nuclear weapon.'
Don't be offended, but I don't want you to own a nuclear weapon. Those are for large groups of people (governments, really) to own, to defend against other large groups of people, and not something you keep in your basement 'just in case' or 'just because'.

Other than that really huge difference we agree on some other things.

[keyboardlover]

That's not a sound philosophical argument though. People are bad so we need large groups of people to be able to use big guns against other big groups of people? Makes no sense. Anyway, I have refined my "nukes" argument above. And I really don't see WHAT your argument is.

See, the beauty is that in my world you're free to leave. But I'm forced to live in yours. You're just using "nukes" - in the same way other people use "roads" or "healthcare" or all kinds of other ridiculous nonsense, to excuse the fact that at the end of the day, you want to rule, control and subjugate me. That's it. That's all minarchism really is.

[Leslieann]

It's a hypothetical -- the only way I could envision a bloodless separation of 'JesusLand'. If nukes don't give a state any real power (Leslieann: "Nukes don't give you any power.") then why are states like North Korea and Iran so hellbent on obtaining them, or refining their missile technology, Leslieann? Why? Is it because it doesn't give them any power? No, they want nukes because they know once they've got them, they cannot be invaded, or the chances drop precipitously. These states don't want nukes so they can use them; they want them so they can threaten to use them. So yes, I would defer to your military experience that maybe generals don't have nuclear launch codes, but the scenario could still work if someone, somewhere got them into the hands of a secessionist state or states. I'm not saying it's a likely scenario, I'm claiming it's the only scenario I can envision in which a series of states, fed up with the Federal government, could leave the Union, with the least bloodshed possible.

It's power but not military power.

North Korea doesn't care about nukes, it's a bargaining tactic to remove sanctions against them. If China gets news that they actually have a nuke or nuclear reactor, they will destroy it. They need food more than a nuke.
Iran wants them, not for offense and not even so much as defense, but because they can again, use them as a bargaining chip to get UN sanctions dropped against them. Once they have a nuke, the U.N. will back off.

At least one country has given up their nukes and are no more or less secure for it. Mutually assured destruction isn't exactly a great way to wage war. Do you honestly think if we gave up our nukes that China or Russia would immediately invade? If they did, what good did their nukes do? Using a nuke may eliminate your enemy, but renders the land unusable as well. Makes the end result not exactly a good value.

Can I borrow prdlm's plaintive whine about "you don't know me, man!!" in this instance? Nah, I'll pass. Jobs are going overseas because those are developing economies, they make good products (sorry, it's true!) and they do it a lot less cheaply than American workers. I'm a business person -- my job is to face reality, every day. I wish jobs weren't going overseas, but the market dictates that they should. Instead of Americans becoming more flexible, more well-educated, they want unions, and price protections -- more walls to keep the change at bay, but those walls will never hold, they'll only forestall the destruction to some other day, and it will be far worse on that day.

To some extent I agree, but there are things we could be doing  to stop the bleeding. More education doesn't work, we wouldn't be sending jobs over to China in droves, and the middle class wouldn't be shrinking if that were the case, since more and more people are getting better educated than ever. 90% of all new jobs in this country are low wage and companies would rather send the jobs overseas than pay a skilled worker here. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The fact of the matter is technology has killed the need for skilled workers. You no longer need someone to operate a milling machine, draw it in CAD and let the machine do it. Truck drivers... On the highway, driving a big rig isn't much different than driving a car these days. Kids teach themselves programming. Film school? Grab a camera and make something... Worked for Kevin Smith. He spent less making Clerks than he did on a partial film school education. Several Youtubers now have directing jobs. Same for musicians, we no longer need the recording industry. Grab a Mac, and a homebuilt studio, and upload to Itunes.

Today we need fewer people working, with less skill, and fewer people watching over them. At some point we will pass a point where only a few people can produce more than we all need. The farm industry has been there for decades. Manufacturing isn't far behind. Within 20 years machines will be as smart as us, and why send something to China to be made, when you can have a robotic army here that costs you very little. There are already several warehouses full of 3d printers running 24/7. The owners oversee the few workers through their Iphones and webcams. It's cheaper and more practical than sending things overseas to be made.

Once we hit the point where there is only enough work for 20% of the population (and 1% taking all the money), then what?
Sadly, that is where we are headed and it's not unprecedented. Rome had a similar problem, all those slaves killed the job market, just as robots will kill ours. Most of the Roman population lived on government assistance, paid for by the rich.

They're greatful? They paid into it, it was always their money, and it was never more than a promise. The market (even with its ups and downs) is still a better bet than Social Security. At least in the market I own the stocks and pass them on to my heirs, my family. I'd rather have more choices and freedom, than promises from the government.

You miss-understood. These people *****ed and moaned about having to pay into social security, claiming they should be able to invest it themselves, and ended up losing everything, except their social security.

You may feel you make safe investments, but studies have shown that even the best investors are only right 50% of the time. Even Warren Buffet, arguably one of the best, has a 54% track record on successful investments over long term. More importantly, the stock market is like gambling, controlled by banks, and just like gambling in Vegas, the house always wins.

How do you know I don't realize how much I can lose. I've been in the market a long time -- and I'm not a gambler. Gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math. How can you be so sure I have "no idea" how "far" and "fast" fortunes can change? Am I a rich bastard who's never had to work a day in his life, is that it? I'm not offended by the charge, if that's what you mean, I'm just trying to determine what you're actually saying. I see the world through 'rose-colored glasses'? -- I assure you, stark reality is what I see.

Your "let them eat cake attitude", is a pretty good sign you haven't actually been there.

I am numerate, literate, a hard worker and I feel confident that if my current circumstances were to take a serious downturn that I would survive. Yeah, I might have to start in Walmart, but I would be a manager before very long, and I'd be back on my feet faster than most other people.

None of that means sh*t anymore.

The reality is that companies are using fewer and fewer managers. The more qualified you are, the more you expect to earn, so why not leave you, with your preconceived notions of how to run THEIR store at the low end, and instead train someone to do things their way and pay them half as much. As a company, if they don't have to pay you for your education, they would rather not. They want their money now, not 10 or 20 years from now and they don't care what happens to the company down the road.

See, you still think in the terms of traditional business, where you reward those with an education. It's not that way anymore, not only do they not want want to reward anyone, but we now have an abundance of over qualified people competing for low wage jobs, all expecting to be paid better because all their lives they were told get an education and the money will come. A degree may get you hired, but they certainly don't want to pay you for it anymore.
 

President of Texas: "Any attempt to invade or launch an attack on our newly formed government will result in the destruction of Washington, D.C. via nuclear missiles -- we would greatly prefer a peaceful separation and friendly ongoing relations. Please respect our right to leave the Union."

I won't lie -- it would be a really, REALLY scary few days.

Would you like us to leave you an aircraft carrier too?

You wouldn't get the nukes. Sorry, wouldn't happen, and certainly you wouldn't get them in the first 3 days. Even if they physically were left there, you still have no way to launch or aim them. It's not like you aim them with a joystick right there in the missile silo. They would be utterly useless to you except for use as a dirty bomb. I suspect they would self destruct them before they let them fall into a foreign governments hands. I certainly would, you just said it yourself, you would immediately aim them at D.C., so why would we leave them there for you?

Besides, think this through for a second, you just nuked Mexico or the U.S. and made their land uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years. You just gave them the best reason of all to invade you at all costs. Nukes work on a country on the other side of the world, not your neighbor. China once claimed that even if Russia hit them with every nuke they had, China would win the war due to attrition. You have a billion Chinese to kill, and you wouldn't get them all, and they would walk right across your border. Yeah, you can kill a lot of people, but you also irradiate the planet, and piss off everyone else at the same time. War is about measured escalation, not outright "I will nuke you!".

Ok, I admit it. I LOL'd. My taxes are too high, so move to Europe? (blinks) Europe?

Sarcasm.

I've looked. There's really nowhere else to go. Why do I have it 'good', Leslieann? Because of the government, or in spite of it? For me it's the latter. Oh, and you can't just give up American citizenship and escape the American system.

I never said it was cheap to leave.

While you and others like you love to say "in spite of the government". That same government you so hate and despise is also what makes it possible for you to make that money. I find it quite ironic that the same poor people you claim are such a burden on you and the government, also claim the government is a burden on them. 

It's a matter of perspective.
The government you claim is such a burden, is exactly why you can't find anywhere better. We have good roads, clean drinking water, decent medical and emergency services... all of that stuff, is paid for by the money you are complaining about paying. So you can either pay less and get less, or pay more and get more. Fact is, you already pay some of the lowest rates for what you get in return.

Want to pay less, tell the Pubs we shouldn't be outspending the entire world (combined) on our military. Nearly half our budget is on military, most of the other half is medical, and the rest, that TINY little bit that is left, is the part you are blaming for stealing all your money. Fix our medical, tear down the military industrial complex, and suddenly, your taxes would shrink to a small fraction of what it is now. Cutting out support systems for low income families, won't make any difference in your paycheck. You complain we spent 2billion on the poor, but we spent 900 billion on the military. The military could cut 2billion and no one would even notice, the poor on the other hand, would be devastated.

[iri]

[keyboardlover]

[Krogenar]

North Korea doesn't care about nukes, it's a bargaining tactic to remove sanctions against them.

Maybe I'm not understanding your use of the word 'care' -- their people are starving. They (North Korea and Iran) could much more easily get U.N. sanctions dropped against them by ... dropping their nuclear programs! I think you're really misreading their reasons for wanting nukes. They want nukes because once you've got them, you're basically untouchable, militarily.

If China gets news that [the North Koreans] actually have a nuke or nuclear reactor, they will destroy it. They need food more than a nuke.

North Korea already has nukes -- what they need now are missiles that can reach the continental U.S., which they may have already. I agree that the people of North Korea need food more than nukes, 1000% -- it's the tyrant of North Korea that needs nuclear weapons to maintain power and prevent an invasion.

Iran wants them, not for offense and not even so much as defense, but because they can again, use them as a bargaining chip to get UN sanctions dropped against them. Once they have a nuke, the U.N. will back off.

The sanctions against Iran are there because they're pursuing nuclear weapons! So... so wait, according to your logic, the Iranians are developing nukes so that the U.N. sanctions leveled against them (for developing nukes) will be dropped? That doesn't make much sense, does it? I think it's pretty clear that they want nukes so that they can consolidate their power, forever.

Mutually assured destruction isn't exactly a great way to wage war.

It's a hideous concept, I agree -- but it is a lot better than actually waging a nuclear war, right?

Do you honestly think if we gave up our nukes that China or Russia would immediately invade?

Do you honestly trust Russia or China? I think if we completely de-nuclearized, the Chinese and Russians never would, or they would have a few hidden away, and they would nuke one small place and say, "Just give up -- it's better than living in Fallout 3, right?" Or they would detonate a nuke in the upper atmosphere, over the U.S. and use the EMP to disable the country. We'd all be living on a communist work farm, Leslieann, sans electricity, with iron hand tools.

If they did [use nukes], what good did their nukes do? Using a nuke may eliminate your enemy, but renders the land unusable as well. Makes the end result not exactly a good value.

So, violence never solves anything? (Looks back at all of human history.) *sigh* Um, yeah, it kinda does, sadly.

Can I borrow prdlm's plaintive whine about "you don't know me, man!!" in this instance? Nah, I'll pass. Jobs are going overseas because those are developing economies, they make good products (sorry, it's true!) and they do it a lot less cheaply than American workers. I'm a business person -- my job is to face reality, every day. I wish jobs weren't going overseas, but the market dictates that they should. Instead of Americans becoming more flexible, more well-educated, they want unions, and price protections -- more walls to keep the change at bay, but those walls will never hold, they'll only forestall the destruction to some other day, and it will be far worse on that day.

To some extent I agree, but there are things we could be doing  to stop the bleeding. More education doesn't work,

Not the way Americans do education, no. More unionized public schools that don't work won't solve our problems, no. We would have to break apart the government monopoly on education, and let people decide what is in their own best interests as far as education is concerned.

we wouldn't be sending jobs over to China in droves, and the middle class wouldn't be shrinking if that were the case, since more and more people are getting better educated than ever. 90% of all new jobs in this country are low wage and companies would rather send the jobs overseas than pay a skilled worker here. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

We are up against math, Leslieann. Why hire an American engineer for $90,000/year, when I can get one just as good (or better, and with a potentially better attitude) for $30,000/year? Should I do it for patriotism's sake? There's huge correction that needs to happen, Leslieann, in terms of American affluence and attitudes, but our politicians are giving us what we want -- forestall it forever, deny it, hold it back. Businesses in the U.S. are larded up with all sorts of expenses that competing nations don't do. America doesn't want to get in the ring and compete -- we'd rather buy off the referee, and we're paying for it.

The fact of the matter is technology has killed the need for skilled workers. You no longer need someone to operate a milling machine, draw it in CAD and let the machine do it. Truck drivers... On the highway, driving a big rig isn't much different than driving a car these days. Kids teach themselves programming. Film school? Grab a camera and make something... Worked for Kevin Smith. He spent less making Clerks than he did on a partial film school education. Several Youtubers now have directing jobs. Same for musicians, we no longer need the recording industry. Grab a Mac, and a homebuilt studio, and upload to Itunes.

I agree completely -- the world is becoming a more competitive place, and technology is making it happen. But we needed to see this coming, and we did not. Plus, China and other nations don't respect our copyrights, which I think should hurt them. I would support a tariff that calculated the profit lost from China copyright infringement and distribute it across Chinese goods, and send that money back to copyright holders. I don't mind competing with foreign countries, but that doesn't mean they can openly break the law.

Today we need fewer people working, with less skill, and fewer people watching over them. At some point we will pass a point where only a few people can produce more than we all need. The farm industry has been there for decades. Manufacturing isn't far behind. Within 20 years machines will be as smart as us, and why send something to China to be made, when you can have a robotic army here that costs you very little. There are already several warehouses full of 3d printers running 24/7. The owners oversee the few workers through their Iphones and webcams. It's cheaper and more practical than sending things overseas to be made.

In that scenario of yours (which I think is coming) would you support laws that would outlaw the use of robots, or 3D printing machines? Would you support a law requiring all U.S.-based manufacturing companies to have a minimum number of human workers, per robot worker? Or some other similar law? I'm not being facetious here, I'm dead serious. I would not support those kinds of laws because they seek to distort the market. Laws like the ones above would incentivize moving automated manufacturing overseas, where presumably they would not have such laws.

Once we hit the point where there is only enough work for 20% of the population (and 1% taking all the money), then what?

The other 80% of the workforce will become reality TV show contestants. Seriously, I don't know what those remaining 80% will do. As human wants and needs become easier and easier to fulfill, newer ones will develop, and the only way to truly be safe in the face of a wave of change is to become a surfer, to become nimble, flexible and agile enough to cope. My point is that building walls to keep out change in the form of laws that distort market forces don't work.

Sadly, that is where we are headed and it's not unprecedented. Rome had a similar problem, all those slaves killed the job market, just as robots will kill ours. Most of the Roman population lived on government assistance, paid for by the rich.

I don't know if slavery killed Rome's job market or not, but they did discover things like steam power and other technological concepts that they could have used to launch an earlier Industrial Age, but likely never did because... they already had something that worked for them -- slaves. Why invent a steam-powered rock drill when you can force slaves to demolish a mountain? As for Roman welfare systems -- bread and circuses -- I agree that the same scenario is playing out in the modern world.

They're greatful? They paid into it, it was always their money, and it was never more than a promise. The market (even with its ups and downs) is still a better bet than Social Security. At least in the market I own the stocks and pass them on to my heirs, my family. I'd rather have more choices and freedom, than promises from the government.

You miss-understood. These people *****ed and moaned about having to pay into social security, claiming they should be able to invest it themselves, and ended up losing everything, except their social security.

And the lesson is what? That a government promise is safer than the stock market? The 2008 real estate crash was instigated by the government trying to politicize mortgage lending, but that's a whole other thread. I would support letting people decide to either manage their own retirement (and not pay into Social Security, and have no right to government assistance) or pay into Social Security. Would you support giving people that choice?

You may feel you make safe investments, but studies have shown that even the best investors are only right 50% of the time.

Which studies?

Even Warren Buffet, arguably one of the best, has a 54% track record on successful investments over long term. More importantly, the stock market is like gambling, controlled by banks, and just like gambling in Vegas, the house always wins.

I disagree. I think there's fraud and bad investments throughout the stock market, but it is still a better longterm place for your money than Social Security. Social Security taxes don't even go into any market, they just go out to current beneficiaries, and they have no contingency plans for these unfunded liabilities, Leslieanne, none.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-11/social-security-hole-overwhelms-taxes-cuts.html

Table IV.B6 is a long-run balance sheet for Social Security. It shows that the system’s $88.9 trillion in liabilities exceed its $68.4 trillion in assets by $20.5 trillion.

The liabilities are the present value of the system’s projected benefit payments, whereas the assets are the system’s $2.7 trillion trust fund plus $65.7 trillion in projected taxes, also valued in the present.

The $20.5 trillion fiscal gap separating Social Security’s liabilities and assets -- its unfunded liability -- is enormous; it is 1.4 times U.S. gross domestic product and 34 times annual Social Security taxes.

20 trillion in unfunded liabilities? Ok, so assuming your 50% chance in the stock market is true (I think you need to attach a time frame to that statistic) -- my chances of 'winning' with Social Security if I'm under the age of let's say 25, is ... zero? Gotta be zero, or close to it. That 25-year-old person is going to pay into SS his or her whole life, and then get back nothing, or very, very little.

How do you know I don't realize how much I can lose. I've been in the market a long time -- and I'm not a gambler. Gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math. How can you be so sure I have "no idea" how "far" and "fast" fortunes can change? Am I a rich bastard who's never had to work a day in his life, is that it? I'm not offended by the charge, if that's what you mean, I'm just trying to determine what you're actually saying. I see the world through 'rose-colored glasses'? -- I assure you, stark reality is what I see.

Your "let them eat cake attitude", is a pretty good sign you haven't actually been there.

So, if I haven't plumbed the very depths of poverty personally, I should shut my mouth? I'm curious -- the more poor you've been, does it give you more of a right to comment on economic matters? I figure if you know how to make money, you might actually have more to say on how to generate more wealth, no? Is that not rational?

I am numerate, literate, a hard worker and I feel confident that if my current circumstances were to take a serious downturn that I would survive. Yeah, I might have to start in Walmart, but I would be a manager before very long, and I'd be back on my feet faster than most other people.

None of that means sh*t anymore.

Well, at least you have a positive mental attitude, there's always that! 
I think people who believe that everything is out to get them, that blame outside forces on everything -- they don't get far, no matter how smart they are, or how many pieces of paper they have indicating they have an education.

The reality is that companies are using fewer and fewer managers. The more qualified you are, the more you expect to earn, so why not leave you, with your preconceived notions of how to run THEIR store at the low end, and instead train someone to do things their way and pay them half as much. As a company, if they don't have to pay you for your education, they would rather not. They want their money now, not 10 or 20 years from now and they don't care what happens to the company down the road.

Maybe a traditional college education is not the way to go anymore. Sometimes I wonder if I would have made more money with less effort had I become a plumber or an electrician. They are basic skills that are not likely to become obsolete any time soon. Taking a more long term attitude about profits is something I think American companies should do, but I'm not on their board of directors, so I can't stop them.

See, you still think in the terms of traditional business, where you reward those with an education.

Whoa, I don't reward people for having an education. Again, maybe your language is just imprecise, but I'm not looking for someone to reward -- I'm looking for someone who can help me run by business -- bluntly, who will help me make a profit. If I can find someone who is willing to take less money and do just as good a job (and hopefully has a sense of humor) they're hired. Yeah, I want them at the lowest price I can get. Good people are hard to find -- even harder to keep, too. We've had so many good people that, even when I hired them I knew they wouldn't stay; they were too smart. They were going to make their own companies one day, and many of them did. Their education is usually just a way to separate the wheat from the chaff, to be honest.

It's not that way anymore, not only do they not want want to reward anyone,

That word 'reward' keeps popping up. It has this connotation of entitlement to it that seems out of place to me. What if the jobs just aren't there for everyone? There are millions of highly skilled nuclear bionicists (just made that career up) looking for work, but only a single Starship Enterprise that's hiring. Who is to blame? I don't know. Here's the horrifying part: maybe no one's to blame. Maybe some of those engineers will have to settle for being plumbers. Does that suck? Yeah, it does. I would rather see more starships built so that they could each have their very own Geordie LaForge onboard, exploring space and getting into heaps of alien trouble, but the government made it really, REALLY difficult to build starships in America, so now India is making them instead. Ok, so someone is to blame. It's those damn companies who moved to India, damn them!

but we now have an abundance of over qualified people competing for low wage jobs, all expecting to be paid better because all their lives they were told get an education and the money will come. A degree may get you hired, but they certainly don't want to pay you for it anymore.

Who told them that? I think college should be a lot cheaper, but again, the government likes to fund these things, and so they inadvertantly drive the price up. But don't worry, next they'll force banks to forgive student loans (sort of like what they did for the mortgage market) and then college loans will get really, REALLY expensive because banks will always have to wonder if they'll be forced to forgive future loans. To me the common denominator to all these disasters is government deciding to "Do Something." My crazy idea -- have them "Do Nothing" for a while and just see what happens.
 

President of Texas: "Any attempt to invade or launch an attack on our newly formed government will result in the destruction of Washington, D.C. via nuclear missiles -- we would greatly prefer a peaceful separation and friendly ongoing relations. Please respect our right to leave the Union."
I won't lie -- it would be a really, REALLY scary few days.

Would you like us to leave you an aircraft carrier too?

Leave me on an aircraft carrier, or give me one outright? ... I respectfully request the one from Avengers because it flies.

You wouldn't get the nukes. Sorry, wouldn't happen,

  You make me sad. I don't want them personally -- I just imagine a group of Americans wishing to leave behind a tyrannical federal government might find them useful.

Even if they physically were left there, you still have no way to launch or aim them. It's not like you aim them with a joystick right there in the missile silo.

I would prefer a trackball, actually.
To be honest, it was just a scenario, and not actually a plan, Leslieanne.
You're taking this very, very seriously.

Besides, think this through for a second, you just nuked Mexico or the U.S. and made their land uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years. You just gave them the best reason of all to invade you at all costs. Nukes work on a country on the other side of the world, not your neighbor. China once claimed that even if Russia hit them with every nuke they had, China would win the war due to attrition. You have a billion Chinese to kill, and you wouldn't get them all, and they would walk right across your border. Yeah, you can kill a lot of people, but you also irradiate the planet, and piss off everyone else at the same time. War is about measured escalation, not outright "I will nuke you!".

You're missing the point entirely -- the point is not to use the weapon, just for enemies to know you have it and could use it. That fact seems to have flown right past you. Mutually Assured Destruction (as shockingly horrifying as it is) did actually work. Who would want to test it out? No one, so there would not likely be an invasion, or a launch, just a lot of heated negotiations.

While you and others like you love to say "in spite of the government". That same government you so hate and despise is also what makes it possible for you to make that money. I find it quite ironic that the same poor people you claim are such a burden on you and the government, also claim the government is a burden on them.

Thought experiment time! By some miracle, the government is gone tomorrow. We just wake up and there's no government. Does the world really end? Will no new roads be built? Will the electricity stop flowing? Will people just starve in the streets? There would be unrest, there would be problems, but the world would get back on its feet. Governments are symptoms of human interaction, not vice versa. The government doesn't do nearly enough for me to justify what they take, by a very large amount. I wouldn't even mind paying as much as I do if they didn't piss it away like a pimp with two weeks left to live. Not only do Progressive policies not help poor people, they demonstrably make them worse! Fifty years ago the rate of out of wedlock black births was on par with white births -- same amount. Today something like 75% of all black babies are born out of wedlock, into a single parent home, with disastrous results for those kids and society at large. That's what all the "help" did -- made things a whole lot worse. It's bad enough to fund stupidity with my taxes; it's even worse to fund the outright destruction of the black family.

[funkymeeba]

Maybe the wealthy corporate execs should make some ****ing sacrifices instead of letting those at the bottom ****ing take care of it.

Why am I still opening this thread, it's ****ing annoying. Have you burned a multinational's CEO today? Do your part!

[vivalarevolución]

Can I borrow prdlm's plaintive whine about "you don't know me, man!!" in this instance? Nah, I'll pass.

I missed a lot of action in this thread, but no, you may not borrow my whine.  You sure like to argue over the Internet, though.  Gees.

[Tym]

Thats seriously depressing for a Keyboard Forum

Don't worry, it'll be much worse for people in the UK

Hey I'm sitting happy, I have easy access to a food source, 6 shotguns, at least a thousand rounds of ammunition (can, and will get more when the time is right) so I can hold my own against what the regular UK residents have, if a military forces comes at me, well thats me done and I don't mind, that means I have no more worries... But I imagine by the time I need to defend myself there will not be a "military" force left.

Sorry to OP for my slightly irrelevant topic.

[SpAmRaY]

Thats seriously depressing for a Keyboard Forum

Don't worry, it'll be much worse for people in the UK

Hey I'm sitting happy, I have easy access to a food source, 6 shotguns, at least a thousand rounds of ammunition (can, and will get more when the time is right) so I can hold my own against what the regular UK residents have, if a military forces comes at me, well thats me done and I don't mind, that means I have no more worries... But I imagine by the time I need to defend myself there will not be a "military" force left.

Sorry to OP for my slightly irrelevant topic.

^^ UK Militia represent!

In other words, Tym might say, "Zombies, come at me bro!"

[Krogenar]

Can I borrow prdlm's plaintive whine about "you don't know me, man!!" in this instance? Nah, I'll pass.

I missed a lot of action in this thread, but no, you may not borrow my whine.  You sure like to argue over the Internet, though.  Gees.

I didn't borrow it. Arguing -- no, I like to discuss these things and hash out the differences. But mainly it's about trolling socialists.

[vivalarevolución]

Can I borrow prdlm's plaintive whine about "you don't know me, man!!" in this instance? Nah, I'll pass.

I missed a lot of action in this thread, but no, you may not borrow my whine.  You sure like to argue over the Internet, though.  Gees.

I didn't borrow it. Arguing -- no, I like to discuss these things and hash out the differences. But mainly it's about trolling socialists.

Darn Socialists!  Ruining everything.  Well, infringing on individual rights.  And that does kinda ruin everything.

[keyboardlover]

Anyone who thinks that initiating force or violence is the key to lasting positive change is doomed by their own weak philosophy to simply end up with more of the same. Violence is the tool of the state; the only thing it has. And when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Force is not the tool for people who want peace, freedom and prosperity.

[funkymeeba]

So what's the smarter solution? Bend over and just ****ing take it? **** that.

[baldgye]

Thats seriously depressing for a Keyboard Forum

Don't worry, it'll be much worse for people in the UK

Hey I'm sitting happy, I have easy access to a food source, 6 shotguns, at least a thousand rounds of ammunition (can, and will get more when the time is right) so I can hold my own against what the regular UK residents have, if a military forces comes at me, well thats me done and I don't mind, that means I have no more worries... But I imagine by the time I need to defend myself there will not be a "military" force left.

Sorry to OP for my slightly irrelevant topic.

Your in the army?

[keyboardlover]

So what's the smarter solution? Bend over and just ****ing take it? **** that.

Education is number 1. Also nonviolent civil disobedience, agorism, non-voting, tax protesting, etc will always help. Gotta expose the state for what it truly is.

[funkymeeba]

Nothing will ever change until **** really hits the fan. The odds are not in our favor. Some people will not ever learn until the **** is literally smeared into their eyeballs.

[noisyturtle]

Anyone who thinks that initiating force or violence is the key to lasting positive change is doomed by their own weak philosophy to simply end up with more of the same. Violence is the tool of the state; the only thing it has. And when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Force is not the tool for people who want peace, freedom and prosperity.

Force has its place and applicable uses, unfortunately it's often applied too liberally to situations that don't require it by people who fail to see other options.

[Endzone]

I don't know why, but somehow all this discussion reminds me of a 1984 movie (Tank) I saw about 3 decades ago.  I'll bet some of you have never even heard of it.

[Tym]

Thats seriously depressing for a Keyboard Forum

Don't worry, it'll be much worse for people in the UK

Hey I'm sitting happy, I have easy access to a food source, 6 shotguns, at least a thousand rounds of ammunition (can, and will get more when the time is right) so I can hold my own against what the regular UK residents have, if a military forces comes at me, well thats me done and I don't mind, that means I have no more worries... But I imagine by the time I need to defend myself there will not be a "military" force left.

Sorry to OP for my slightly irrelevant topic.

Your in the army?

No, raising my fitness level then there is a possiblity, but currently nope.

Side Note: You used Your here, this seems correct (I'm no literacy genius)  would You're also be acceptable? -Tym Out

[SpAmRaY]

Side Note: You used Your here, this seems correct (I'm no literacy genius)  would You're also be acceptable? -Tym Out

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/youryoure.html

[Tym]

Side Note: You used Your here, this seems correct (I'm no literacy genius)  would You're also be acceptable? -Tym Out

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/youryoure.html

So I'm right?

[SpAmRaY]

Side Note: You used Your here, this seems correct (I'm no literacy genius)  would You're also be acceptable? -Tym Out

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/youryoure.html

So I'm right?

I think so. 

[Tym]

So I'm right?

I think so.

[baldgye]

Thats seriously depressing for a Keyboard Forum

Don't worry, it'll be much worse for people in the UK

Hey I'm sitting happy, I have easy access to a food source, 6 shotguns, at least a thousand rounds of ammunition (can, and will get more when the time is right) so I can hold my own against what the regular UK residents have, if a military forces comes at me, well thats me done and I don't mind, that means I have no more worries... But I imagine by the time I need to defend myself there will not be a "military" force left.

Sorry to OP for my slightly irrelevant topic.

Your in the army?

No, raising my fitness level then there is a possiblity, but currently nope.

Side Note: You used Your here, this seems correct (I'm no literacy genius)  would You're also be acceptable? -Tym Out

how the **** should I know, I'm dyslexic lol

[SpAmRaY]

Thats seriously depressing for a Keyboard Forum

Don't worry, it'll be much worse for people in the UK

Hey I'm sitting happy, I have easy access to a food source, 6 shotguns, at least a thousand rounds of ammunition (can, and will get more when the time is right) so I can hold my own against what the regular UK residents have, if a military forces comes at me, well thats me done and I don't mind, that means I have no more worries... But I imagine by the time I need to defend myself there will not be a "military" force left.

Sorry to OP for my slightly irrelevant topic.

Your in the army?

No, raising my fitness level then there is a possiblity, but currently nope.

Side Note: You used Your here, this seems correct (I'm no literacy genius)  would You're also be acceptable? -Tym Out

how the **** should I know, I'm dyslexic lol

I get my numbers backwards if I get in a hurry, I can kinda relate

[esoomenona]

So what's the smarter solution? Bend over and just ****ing take it? **** that.

Sometimes, you just gotta take it. Sshhh, just take it.

[keyboardlover]

Nothing will ever change until **** really hits the fan. The odds are not in our favor. Some people will not ever learn until the **** is literally smeared into their eyeballs.

Dude, ain't no shib gonna hit NO fan. The system ain't broke buddy. Unlike conservative minarchists like Krogenar might have you believe, there's nothing to "fix"! The system is working EXACTLY the way it's supposed to. The country is divided. Few people have a clue. Everyone is still shopping and paying the taxes and feeding the beast.

Again, we need to think in terms of gaining freedom in the same way we would deal with a bully - the biggest, meanest bully in the world.

[Endzone]

So 20-somethings & 30-somethings, you're basically optimistic about America when you will be my age (56) then?  Let's say on average that will be 25 years from now in the year 2038.  Will life still be great in the year 2038? 

Here's what I think things will be like in 2038:

I think we will live in a survellience state that the former USSR would be jealous of.
I think our finances will continue to collapse. America will no longer be able to use electronic money (trillions) just put on the computer by such people such as Ben B. 
The middle class will continue to shrink, and there will be more poor and lower middle class just struggling to survive. 

But I don't rule out the possibility that in the grace of God America can do a 180 turn, and I am completely wrong.     

[keyboardlover]

I think that without doubt economically things will get worse and it will become harder every year for everyone but the wealthiest. And like I said, not just here, everywhere. At 56 OP, you probably remember a time when your dollar bought a LOT more than it does now. And you'd probably agree that inflation IS theft. AND as long as people still believe in the old, terrible, crappy ideas that it's necessary to either subjugate or serve anyone else.

But, again, as long as the country is divided and fat and happy and stupid and voting, ain't nothin' gonna change for the better.

[Krogenar]

Unlike conservative minarchists like Krogenar might have you believe, there's nothing to "fix"! The system is working EXACTLY the way it's supposed to.

The country (the government, rather) is not working the way it should. Government has grown far, far beyond the limits outlined in the Constitution.

[keyboardlover]

The country (the government, rather) is not working the way it should. Government has grown far, far beyond the limits outlined in the Constitution.

And there's good reason for that.

[Leslieann]

North Korea already has nukes -- what they need now are missiles that can reach the continental U.S., which they may have already. I agree that the people of North Korea need food more than nukes, 1000% -- it's the tyrant of North Korea that needs nuclear weapons to maintain power and prevent an invasion.

I honestly don't think they do.  Yes, they have detonated one or two, but they lack the ability to not only send them a long way, but they also lack the ability to make more than one or two. It ate up A LOT of thri resources and money to even do those two.

The sanctions against Iran are there because they're pursuing nuclear weapons! So... so wait, according to your logic, the Iranians are developing nukes so that the U.N. sanctions leveled against them (for developing nukes) will be dropped? That doesn't make much sense, does it? I think it's pretty clear that they want nukes so that they can consolidate their power, forever.

I think it's more a matter of energy independence from oil, and the only way they see to do that is nuclear. However, the first time they built a reactor it was bombed. So while they may see nukes as a defense, they also see it as a way to force the world to let them build a reactor.

It's like haggling over a car.
You start out with threatening nukes, and by the time you come to an agreement, you end up with your reactor.

Do you honestly trust Russia or China? I think if we completely de-nuclearized, the Chinese and Russians never would, or they would have a few hidden away, and they would nuke one small place and say, "Just give up -- it's better than living in Fallout 3, right?" Or they would detonate a nuke in the upper atmosphere, over the U.S. and use the EMP to disable the country. We'd all be living on a communist work farm, Leslieann, sans electricity, with iron hand tools.

We won't get rid of all of them, but we are drawing them down to a reasonable level.

Russia is back as a super power, invading Georgia was them letting everyone know. However, threatening and invading small countries is a LONG way from invading the U.S.  As for China, they have too much to lose financially if they invaded us. It would cripple their economy.

Regardless, neither country could get here. Nukes, yes, boats and planes, heck no.
Russia has 3 carriers at most, China barely has one. We also have far better long distance aircraft. No invading armada or sortie would get to mainland U.S., especially in the kind of numbers needed.

So, violence never solves anything? (Looks back at all of human history.) *sigh* Um, yeah, it kinda does, sadly.

Violence, yes, but if your intent is to invade and gain territory or resources, nuking said land and resources isn't a good way to do it. Know anyone who wants land near Chernobyl? Didn't think so. The U.S. is rich with resources, if you invade it, you would want to capture those resources.

Not the way Americans do education, no. More unionized public schools that don't work won't solve our problems, no. We would have to break apart the government monopoly on education, and let people decide what is in their own best interests as far as education is concerned.

I worry more about letting the people decide, have you seen what Louisiana has been trying to do with education? They removed it from government control and first thing they tried to do was eliminate math and science.

Where I currently live, they spend more on education than almost anywhere else, and I swear, they are as dumb as a box of rocks. I can tell in 5 minutes if a customer has ever left the state. Many of my customers have never been more than 50 miles from their home. EVER.

Not only do I not want them controlling their education, I don't want them voting! Some shouldn't even be allowed to reproduce.

We are up against math, Leslieann. Why hire an American engineer for $90,000/year, when I can get one just as good (or better, and with a potentially better attitude) for $30,000/year? Should I do it for patriotism's sake? There's huge correction that needs to happen, Leslieann, in terms of American affluence and attitudes, but our politicians are giving us what we want -- forestall it forever, deny it, hold it back. Businesses in the U.S. are larded up with all sorts of expenses that competing nations don't do. America doesn't want to get in the ring and compete -- we'd rather buy off the referee, and we're paying for it.

Again, I agree to some extent, however, we need to transition slow, and that isn't in the cards.

It would be worth paying the $90k, IF you were getting better quality. However we aren't investing in ourselves, and instead we just walk around saying how America is #1 and ignoring how far we have fallen.

It's also why I tell people to get a job that cannot be outsourced.

I agree completely -- the world is becoming a more competitive place, and technology is making it happen. But we needed to see this coming, and we did not. Plus, China and other nations don't respect our copyrights, which I think should hurt them. I would support a tariff that calculated the profit lost from China copyright infringement and distribute it across Chinese goods, and send that money back to copyright holders. I don't mind competing with foreign countries, but that doesn't mean they can openly break the law.

This is partly why they can do it cheaper.
Force them to play fair and suddenly U.S. jobs being sent there will slow. Not completely, but would slow the tide some.

In that scenario of yours (which I think is coming) would you support laws that would outlaw the use of robots, or 3D printing machines? Would you support a law requiring all U.S.-based manufacturing companies to have a minimum number of human workers, per robot worker? Or some other similar law? I'm not being facetious here, I'm dead serious. I would not support those kinds of laws because they seek to distort the market. Laws like the ones above would incentivize moving automated manufacturing overseas, where presumably they would not have such laws.

At least one U.S. senator already wanted to ban 3d printers (because of guns), he's a complete fool.
Making a law that requires x amount of employees won't work, as you would just again encourage them to go overseas.

What eventually MUST happen is one of three things (that I can think of):
The first one is the one I think Republicans like, and that is, we get off this rock and spread to other planets. This would create more industries and more opportunity and things could stay roughly as they are. Problem is, we will reach a tipping point before we ever leave our solar system.
The second option is something similar to Star Trek, everyone is taken care of, and people work if they want, on what they want. Certain jobs give you extra money or income, but no one is really forced to do anything. No one lacks for anything.
The last option is we could go the way of the Romans, those making money, pay to take care of those without.

The latter two, will actually allow for offshore manufacturing and such, but would likely require a revolution. I suspect the tipping point could be within 20 years. Will it be worldwide or just local who knows. Regardless, the rich and powerful, are going to have their hands full when we reach that point and the masses figure it out. Scarily, this will coincide with global warming reaching dangerous levels, making everything even more perilous.

The next 20-100 years will likely be the most important and perilous in human history.

the only way to truly be safe in the face of a wave of change is to become a surfer, to become nimble, flexible and agile enough to cope. My point is that building walls to keep out change in the form of laws that distort market forces don't work.

Again, this is why I tell people to go for a job that cannot be outsourced, to another country, or a robot. At least not cheaply, before you retire.
Delivery, warehouse work, manufacturing, coding, all can and will be outsourced. Self driving cars will eliminate most driving jobs and at some point pilots as well. We have had hobbyists building autonomous planes for years.

A plumber will have a job for a long time, a doctor, expect a lot fewer of them. The same goes for teachers, a robot could easily replace many of them.
Home care workers in Japan are already being replaced in some instances with robots.

Sadly, that is where we are headed and it's not unprecedented. Rome had a similar problem, all those slaves killed the job market, just as robots will kill ours. Most of the Roman population lived on government assistance, paid for by the rich.

I don't know if slavery killed Rome's job market or not, but they did discover things like steam power and other technological concepts that they could have used to launch an earlier Industrial Age, but likely never did because... they already had something that worked for them -- slaves. Why invent a steam-powered rock drill when you can force slaves to demolish a mountain? As for Roman welfare systems -- bread and circuses -- I agree that the same scenario is playing out in the modern world.

And the lesson is what? That a government promise is safer than the stock market? The 2008 real estate crash was instigated by the government trying to politicize mortgage lending, but that's a whole other thread. I would support letting people decide to either manage their own retirement (and not pay into Social Security, and have no right to government assistance) or pay into Social Security. Would you support giving people that choice?

I agree another thread, but I disagree with what you are saying.
I think the banks coerced the government to ease restrictions to spur growth and turned it into a money grab. I saw the roots of it take hold in California. My whole family left there at peak because we knew what was coming, it wasn't hard to see.

Which studies?

Just got done at work, and not in the mood to look up studies on it, but that is the number I saw given. Still better accuracy than weather men.
However, like with Buffet, he may be right only 54%, but he knows which 4% to put the money on. If you miss 50% of the time, but most of your money is on the winner, you still come out far ahead.

I disagree. I think there's fraud and bad investments throughout the stock market, but it is still a better longterm place for your money than Social Security. Social Security taxes don't even go into any market, they just go out to current beneficiaries, and they have no contingency plans for these unfunded liabilities, Leslieanne, none.

I'll take the government and here's why.
If your stock tanks, you tank. As you said, the new generation pays for the old one, so money is always coming in. It may not always be enough, but there is money there.No contingency plan? Yes there is, raise taxes. I'm not saying it's a good plan, but at least it's bot gambling with the money where it can all be lost.

One problem I have with people predicting the doomsday of Social Security is this... So long as there are young people working, there is money for Social Security. The ONLY way it completely fails 100% is if NO ONE is working. It may not be as much as you want, but so long as someone is working, there is money there.

But again, in 20 years or so, our whole system will need a rework anyhow.

So, if I haven't plumbed the very depths of poverty personally, I should shut my mouth? I'm curious -- the more poor you've been, does it give you more of a right to comment on economic matters? I figure if you know how to make money, you might actually have more to say on how to generate more wealth, no? Is that not rational?

I never questioned your ability to make money or your right to comment on economic matters. I am saying you don't see things from the same light as the lower classes.

It's far easier to make money, with money, but really, I don't want to go down this road because it will end up an "us vs. them".

Well, at least you have a positive mental attitude, there's always that! 
I think people who believe that everything is out to get them, that blame outside forces on everything -- they don't get far, no matter how smart they are, or how many pieces of paper they have indicating they have an education.

I'm pessimistic on peoples attitudes towards jobs and education, the media has fed people a bunch of lies about jobs and education. Some people see it as pessimistic, while I see it it as realistic.

I don't fear for my job, I'm my own boss and my work cannot be outsourced. I didn't go the whole education route, but I'm qualified for several different careers.
I'm not rich, but instead, I value my free time.

Whoa, I don't reward people for having an education. Again, maybe your language is just imprecise, but I'm not looking for someone to reward -- I'm looking for someone who can help me run by business -- bluntly, who will help me make a profit. If I can find someone who is willing to take less money and do just as good a job (and hopefully has a sense of humor) they're hired. Yeah, I want them at the lowest price I can get. Good people are hard to find -- even harder to keep, too. We've had so many good people that, even when I hired them I knew they wouldn't stay; they were too smart. They were going to make their own companies one day, and many of them did. Their education is usually just a way to separate the wheat from the chaff, to be honest.

And do you pay the well educated ones more than the others, even though they do the same job?

If one person has 5 years experience, another has 1 year experience and a 4 year a degree in an non-related field, who makes more? In traditional business, the one with a degree can often earn more and progress through the company faster. This is, or at least was, especially true in the aerospace industry. Those with degrees were sought out for management above those without. Why? Because they put in the "effort" to get a degree while the other guy was working.

That is what I meant by reward.

Who told them that?

Jeez, I heard it all my life. TV, school, parents... Even today you constantly hear on the radio how an education is your ticket out.

I think college should be a lot cheaper, but again, the government likes to fund these things, and so they inadvertantly drive the price up. But don't worry, next they'll force banks to forgive student loans (sort of like what they did for the mortgage market) and then college loans will get really, REALLY expensive because banks will always have to wonder if they'll be forced to forgive future loans. To me the common denominator to all these disasters is government deciding to "Do Something." My crazy idea -- have them "Do Nothing" for a while and just see what happens.

I would be very surprised if those loans are forgiven. Students aren't in power, so they don't command enough control in congress to achieve that.
 

To be honest, it was just a scenario, and not actually a plan, Leslieanne.
You're taking this very, very seriously.

Nah.
Text is just a terrible way to convey intent. It's all theoretical, but I have had this argument with a few Texans who thought they could go it alone.

Thought experiment time! By some miracle, the government is gone tomorrow. We just wake up and there's no government. Does the world really end? Will no new roads be built? Will the electricity stop flowing? Will people just starve in the streets? There would be unrest, there would be problems, but the world would get back on its feet. Governments are symptoms of human interaction, not vice versa. The government doesn't do nearly enough for me to justify what they take, by a very large amount. I wouldn't even mind paying as much as I do if they didn't piss it away like a pimp with two weeks left to live. Not only do Progressive policies not help poor people, they demonstrably make them worse! Fifty years ago the rate of out of wedlock black births was on par with white births -- same amount. Today something like 75% of all black babies are born out of wedlock, into a single parent home, with disastrous results for those kids and society at large. That's what all the "help" did -- made things a whole lot worse. It's bad enough to fund stupidity with my taxes; it's even worse to fund the outright destruction of the black family.

I agree some progressive policies are bad, but so are a lot of conservative ones as well. We have a committee for a government, and idiots on said committee, so you can only expect so much from them.

A recent study in St. Louis gave away free contraceptives and proper sex education to the poor there, rather than teaching abstinence only... guess what happened? Teen births dropped by MASSSIVE amounts. So what did the conservatives there do? They dropped the program and went back to abstinence only education and trying to ban abortions.
Want to stop poor black women from having kids (and from having abortions), get them the education and contraception they need.

As for being single parents, sorry, but I don't have an issue with that. Guys think women are crazy, it's only because men make them that way. Can't live with them, can't reproduce without them.... Yet.


Gah, this is getting long and we seem to be attracting a crowd (they even brought popcorn!)
Make your rebuttal, I will read it, but I'm calling it quits.

[Burz]

Show Image

Agreed  :))

[iri]

We also have far better long distance aircraft

seriously?

Know anyone who wants land near Chernobyl?

it's damn fertile!

[Tym]

We also have far better long distance aircraft

seriously?

Know anyone who wants land near Chernobyl?

it's damn fertile!

Those building weren't built, someone dropped some bricks and they grew!

[iri]

6 shotguns, at least a thousand rounds of ammunition

you sure you don't live in 'murica?

[Tym]

6 shotguns, at least a thousand rounds of ammunition

you sure you don't live in 'murica?

I'm sure, I actually store them for rich middle aged men who come to the countryside to shoot, and their wives wont let them keep weapons in their house.

[iri]

wife dictatorship! awful!

[Malphas]

The USA will be much the same as it is now, but will continue to experience a moderate decline in political/economic/military significance to the rest of the world, perhaps a very slight decline in cultural significance also. It'll also probably continue to be dragged into the 21st century with regard to government-funded welfare and infrastructure - much to the chagrin of types like the OP; although nothing like the extent of Europe.

[Krogenar]

North Korea already has nukes -- what they need now are missiles that can reach the continental U.S., which they may have already. I agree that the people of North Korea need food more than nukes, 1000% -- it's the tyrant of North Korea that needs nuclear weapons to maintain power and prevent an invasion.

I honestly don't think they do.  Yes, they have detonated one or two, but they lack the ability to not only send them a long way, but they also lack the ability to make more than one or two. It ate up A LOT of thri resources and money to even do those two.

How many do you think they need in order to devastate a foreign country -- just one, detonated as an EMP, with the proper missile. If I understand correctly, you acknowledge that North Korea's crazy-as-a-hobo government has nuclear weapons ... but doesn't "have" them? What? Either they do, or they don't.

The sanctions against Iran are there because they're pursuing nuclear weapons! So... so wait, according to your logic, the Iranians are developing nukes so that the U.N. sanctions leveled against them (for developing nukes) will be dropped? That doesn't make much sense, does it? I think it's pretty clear that they want nukes so that they can consolidate their power, forever.

I think it's more a matter of energy independence from oil, and the only way they see to do that is nuclear. However, the first time they built a reactor it was bombed. So while they may see nukes as a defense, they also see it as a way to force the world to let them build a reactor.

So wait, the Iranians just want to be energy independent from oil? First off, the Iranians are sitting on the fourth largest oil reserve in the world. So if they just want energy, they're sitting on a veritable lake of oil. Second, 'green' energy is not their reason for wanting a nuclear 'reactor' -- c'mon, you really believe that? They want nuclear weapons so that they can bully neighboring countries, because they're tyrants. If all they wanted was a reactor they could have just allowed U.N. inspectors in without hassle. Iran is not a positive actor in that region, and you must know that, right?

Do you honestly trust Russia or China? I think if we completely de-nuclearized, the Chinese and Russians never would, or they would have a few hidden away, and they would nuke one small place and say, "Just give up -- it's better than living in Fallout 3, right?" Or they would detonate a nuke in the upper atmosphere, over the U.S. and use the EMP to disable the country. We'd all be living on a communist work farm, Leslieann, sans electricity, with iron hand tools.

We won't get rid of all of them, but we are drawing them down to a reasonable level.

Well, your hypothetical was whether I believed China and/or Russia would invade the U.S. if we got rid of our nukes. My response was: "Yes, they sure would, and they use them as EMP weapons, not as conventional nukes. And you and me would both be working side-by-side on a Chinese-run farm commune in Illinois with 19th century era hand tools. I would eventually become a manager, however. 

Russia is back as a super power, invading Georgia was them letting everyone know. However, threatening and invading small countries is a LONG way from invading the U.S.  As for China, they have too much to lose financially if they invaded us. It would cripple their economy.

You're assuming our enemies think as we do -- logically. Maybe their logic is different. Once you're the only real power in the world, well, the whole game changes. Maybe the Chinese government would rationalize an invasion by saying, "Sure, they owe us money, but we could easily just take everything the own in one foul swoop. Ok, let's do it." Americans might say, "I'd rather collect from them indefinitely, in the long term, than own them." Or maybe we would default on all their loans to us, and they would invade in order to collect? Is it worth risking these scenarios in the first place?

Regardless, neither country could get here. Nukes, yes, boats and planes, heck no.

They cripple us with an EMP (which does not irradiate the landscape, it just sends your enemy back to the Middle Ages, technologically) and then they invade with tanks and planes, etc.

So, violence never solves anything? (Looks back at all of human history.) *sigh* Um, yeah, it kinda does, sadly.

Violence, yes, but if your intent is to invade and gain territory or resources, nuking said land and resources isn't a good way to do it. Know anyone who wants land near Chernobyl? Didn't think so. The U.S. is rich with resources, if you invade it, you would want to capture those resources.

E. M. P. E. M. P. E. M. P.

You don't have to completely irradiate the country you want to invade. I think all this stuff is madness as you do, but it's not an impossibility.

Not the way Americans do education, no. More unionized public schools that don't work won't solve our problems, no. We would have to break apart the government monopoly on education, and let people decide what is in their own best interests as far as education is concerned.

I worry more about letting the people decide, have you seen what Louisiana has been trying to do with education? They removed it from government control and first thing they tried to do was eliminate math and science.

The fact that people will use their freedom to do stupid things does not give you the right, Leslieann, to forbid them from doing those stupid things if those actions don't infringe upon your freedoms. I completely agree with you that a Luddite-based education is a bad idea -- I would never do it myself. But I don't want someone else telling me what to teach my children, so I extend the same courtesy to them. If you want freedom, Leslieann, you've got to allow it to others. What can be proven is that the existing, union-dominated education system sucks big-time -- but not surprisingly, pro-unionists want nothing to change; the continuing failure of these systems is proof (in their eyes) that more funding is needed. No, I argue that failures should be de-funded.

Where I currently live, they spend more on education than almost anywhere else, and I swear, they are as dumb as a box of rocks. I can tell in 5 minutes if a customer has ever left the state. Many of my customers have never been more than 50 miles from their home. EVER.

I don't see the relevance of them leaving their home state, but your are correct -- we spend untold sums of money to not educate children in America.

Not only do I not want them controlling their education, I don't want them voting! Some shouldn't even be allowed to reproduce.

That's vaguely authoritarian. But I see where you're coming from, I do. Should someone who cannot even name the President of the United States vote? Probably not -- but that's just another form of discrimination. Historically humans have tried forms of governments with prerequisites to ensure voter intelligence, or an actual investment in the outcome. Should you only vote if you own property? Meet a certain minimum level of intelligence? Be a member of an elite group of citizens? Maybe require that voters first voluntarily submit to a four-year tour in the military? I don't know. As for allowing them to 'breed' -- well, I think they're probably having the most kids. Go watch Idiocracy for a good laugh.

Again, I agree to some extent, however, we need to transition [to a global economy] slow[ly], and that isn't in the cards.

With respect, we need to transition, period. Whether we do it slowly is less important. Would it be better, sure -- but that's not how American politics is working right now -- Americans act as if they are entitled to a good life, with minimal effort. If we don't transition, we die. We're that salamander looking up onto dry land, while the lake dries out.

It would be worth paying the $90k, IF you were getting better quality. However we aren't investing in ourselves, and instead we just walk around saying how America is #1 and ignoring how far we have fallen.

I agree. I face foreign competition in my industry and for years told myself "Feh. It's Chinese-made crap." Well, it's not crap. Apparently it's good enough for some people. So I've had to change my approach.

It's also why I tell people to get a job that cannot be outsourced.

Plumbers, electricians, etc. We could also be inventing new products and processes -- we can (and should) insist that patents and copyrights be respected by others, worldwide. Then you could still make things in America, in a sense. They might be manufactured elsewhere, but developed here. But that would mean our leaders having a pair.

In that scenario of yours (which I think is coming) would you support laws that would outlaw the use of robots, or 3D printing machines? Would you support a law requiring all U.S.-based manufacturing companies to have a minimum number of human workers, per robot worker? Or some other similar law? I'm not being facetious here, I'm dead serious. I would not support those kinds of laws because they seek to distort the market. Laws like the ones above would incentivize moving automated manufacturing overseas, where presumably they would not have such laws.

At least one U.S. senator already wanted to ban 3d printers (because of guns), he's a complete fool.
Making a law that requires x amount of employees won't work, as you would just again encourage them to go overseas.[/quote]

Again, we agree on the fundamentals. I think it's stupid to ban a 3d printer because it could be used to print a gun. (A relatively craptastic gun, too) -- but examine your statement about making a law requiring human employees... you are correct that they wouldn't work, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it. Politicians, again, pass these market-ignorant laws that cause decades of economic distress, and all so they can have a single moment to strike a populist pose.

What eventually MUST happen is one of three things (that I can think of):
The first one is the one I think Republicans like, and that is, we get off this rock and spread to other planets. This would create more industries and more opportunity and things could stay roughly as they are. Problem is, we will reach a tipping point before we ever leave our solar system.
The second option is something similar to Star Trek, everyone is taken care of, and people work if they want, on what they want. Certain jobs give you extra money or income, but no one is really forced to do anything. No one lacks for anything.

My wife and sisters love this argument of getting off Earth, and I always pose this question: "If you were given the opportunity to terraform Mars, would you? Let's say they would agree to give you a plot of land the size of Vermont, that you and all your descendant would get a set percentage of income from, into perpetuity, would you? Just like the Homestead Act from early American History. Sure, you would wear an environmental suit while you tended the algae fields (whatever they are) but your children would wear just a facemask, and your grandkids or great grandkids would breath fresh air, unassisted (and be filthy rich forever). Would you do it?"

The women all roll their eyes, and the guys hesitate. Then the women look at the men and say, "... good luck on Mars."

I agree with you on getting off Earth. But again, the answer is economic. If you can make (or even just allow) space exploration to be profitable you'll get more of it. I always imagined the asteroid belt to be a (literal and figurative) gold mine. We need to get into space, and start building out there, and those asteroids are just pure nuggets of raw materials, just waiting to be turned to some useful purpose. But if we must do everything altruistically, well, then we're all gonna stay right here on Earth.

A plumber will have a job for a long time, a doctor, expect a lot fewer of them. The same goes for teachers, a robot could easily replace many of them. Home care workers in Japan are already being replaced in some instances with robots.

Why will we have fewer doctors? We're unwilling to allow the free market to decide what they get paid. The government decided to "Do Something" and they distorted the healthcare market. There's hope though. Markets can be funny and cyclic. Small businesses continue to flourish in niche markets that only make sense when you realize that 'value' is often very subjective. Examples: microbreweries. Why buy an independently made beer, when you could get a Heinekein or a Budweiser for less? The other mass-produced ones taste like dog urine, might be one reason. But really, it's technology helping. You don't have to buy a billion dollar refining plant anymore to become a brewer. Second, these smaller companies are more agile, in terms of product development. Got a great idea in a multi-billion dollar company? Good luck getting to the decision-makers. In a small business, good ideas have a much better chance of getting to the people who decide. And these small companies market that their products are 'hand-crafted' -- is a beer that's hand-crafted that much better than a beer that was mass-produced? Empirically, probably not -- but again, 'value' is often subjective.

I'll take the government [Social Security]and here's why: If your stock tanks, you tank. As you said, the new generation pays for the old one, so money is always coming in. It may not always be enough, but there is money there. No contingency plan? Yes there is, raise taxes. I'm not saying it's a good plan, but at least it's not gambling with the money where it can all be lost.

Right, the "new generation" -- new people coming in pay out to the earlier people. What you have described is a classic Ponzi scheme. That's what you've just described Leslieann. Also, recently reported, new births in America reaching new lows. So my choices are: absolute 100% chance of failure in a Ponzi scheme (and I doom future generations (including my own children) to back-breaking taxation) or a decent chance with some risk. I vote option #2.

One problem I have with people predicting the doomsday of Social Security is this... So long as there are young people working, there is money for Social Security. The ONLY way it completely fails 100% is if NO ONE is working. It may not be as much as you want, but so long as someone is working, there is money there.

Ok, so under your guidelines, if I put $100,000 into Social Security over the course of my lifetime and get back a single dollar for retirement, I won, it was successful? There are 100 people still working that America, and my share is $1 -- Mission Accomplished? I would have gotten further by putting the $100,000 under my mattress and taking the hit on inflation. No, admit it, Social Security is a massive fraud.

So, if I haven't plumbed the very depths of poverty personally, I should shut my mouth? I'm curious -- the more poor you've been, does it give you more of a right to comment on economic matters? I figure if you know how to make money, you might actually have more to say on how to generate more wealth, no? Is that not rational?

I never questioned your ability to make money or your right to comment on economic matters. I am saying you don't see things from the same light as the lower classes.

Just admit it -- we wealthy *ssholes should just shut up -- we don't know 'adversity' as lower classes do. It was a class war comment, and it's the sort of attitude that makes me throw my hands up. I never hated someone solely on the basis of whether they were more successful than me (and there are plenty of people who fall into that category) -- I just try to emulate them. It would be easier to say these people were just 'luckier' than me, or complain that the system is 'rigged' or 'burn them all' but that wouldn't get me anywhere, would it?

It's far easier to make money, with money, but really, I don't want to go down this road because it will end up an "us vs. them".

Democrats will take you there, Leslieann. It's 'Us' vs. 'Them'

Well, at least you have a positive mental attitude, there's always that! 
I think people who believe that everything is out to get them, that blame outside forces on everything -- they don't get far, no matter how smart they are, or how many pieces of paper they have indicating they have an education.

I'm pessimistic on peoples attitudes towards jobs and education, the media has fed people a bunch of lies about jobs and education. Some people see it as pessimistic, while I see it it as realistic.

I don't fear for my job, I'm my own boss and my work cannot be outsourced. I didn't go the whole education route, but I'm qualified for several different careers. I'm not rich, but instead, I value my free time.

I'm glad to hear that and I sincerely wish you make great truckloads of cash. As for valuing your free time -- I love my work. My life doesn't end when I get to work, and then start again when I leave. I live where I work, and I love my work.

And do you pay the well educated ones more than the others, even though they do the same job?

So in your hypothetical both employees do the same work, equally well, but one has a degree? No, I pay for what they can do for my company, not what a piece of paper says they can do. You have a degree in High Altitude Shoe Repair? Congratulations! A degree is not a golden ticket to a high paycheck, not in my world. If you're an engineer, and your competing candidate can barely add fractions, then yeah, you're more likely to get the job.

As for being single parents, sorry, but I don't have an issue with that. Guys think women are crazy, it's only because men make them that way. Can't live with them, can't reproduce without them.... Yet.

It's been pretty conclusively proven that the single worst thing for kids, is being brought up in a single parent household. When they control for race, income, gender, education -- everything else they can think to control for, statistically -- nothing else seems to matter as much as an out-of-wedlock birth. Which group has the highest rate of this problem? Blacks, sadly. And consequently, their children have the highest rate of problems.

Gah, this is getting long and we seem to be attracting a crowd (they even brought popcorn!)
Make your rebuttal, I will read it, but I'm calling it quits.

No problem. We don't agree on everything, but that's okay -- I enjoyed reading your rebuttals very much!

[esoomenona]

>mfw
>this thread

[Endzone]

The USA will be much the same as it is now, but will continue to experience a moderate decline in political/economic/military significance to the rest of the world, perhaps a very slight decline in cultural significance also. It'll also probably continue to be dragged into the 21st century with regard to government-funded welfare and infrastructure - much to the chagrin of types like the OP; although nothing like the extent of Europe.

The USA was a very unique thing that happened in that it was a Christian nation from the beginning.  If it was just a Godless country like most all countries in Europe (Europe is a spiritual wasteland) I would agree with you that things would take a more natural course.  But given the involvement of the Most High God, I don't things will happen naturally.  Our downfall could be much faster.  Look how far America has fallen in just 40 years.