EPTOn April 03 2012 13:50 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I would've guessed mortgages would be the biggest...
Show nested quote +
On April 03 2012 07:30 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Reducing number might work. A big problem with US, why it's so far in the negative, is that people can't pay off debt. Biggest two debts are credit card debt and student loans.
On April 03 2012 06:56 Zythius wrote:
It doesn't really matter what we can or cannot support, because we can safely assume that there will always be a demand for arts. Getting rid of art schools is a pretty poor idea, then.
We might consider reducing the number and increasing the entry point a little bit, so that we don't finance sub par artists.
On March 31 2012 09:57 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
But we can only support so many artists. I think it's possible to still be a decent musician or actor while getting a degree in biology. And spending five-figure sums for actually "learning" the art is bullshit. Art isn't meant to be learned after a certain point. Not to the point that you could learn a science.
And while people pay for art it's not exactly progress since we're not getting technological achievements. Just new sounds, new looks.
On March 31 2012 07:18 Zythius wrote:
Why would we increase productivity? Should we produce to meet demands or to throw away stuff?
And who says art doesn't give progress? And as far as I know, artists around the world produce stuff people are willing to pay for. No need to shut down that industry.
On March 31 2012 01:48 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
I agree with this to an extent. I'm thinking if we could actually get back to a high level of productivity if we got rid of art school and forced all those people to become mechanics or engineers or scientists, some sort of career that makes progress.
And w/ robot builders we can get blue collar labor back up, white collar labor to program them, etc.
On March 30 2012 11:15 radiatoren wrote:
As for the "robots" or machines of today they definately do not live forever and some of them even takes a lot of upkeep to keep running. The fact is that it might save some people some kind of work, but at the same time you are encouraging the production of robots and people able to keep them functional.
What will we produce. Well at least something to sustain life aka. medicine foods etc. That is solved in different ways, but DNA-manipulation is already starting and it will most certainly increase almost no matter what. We need people with knowledge about biological life for that and we need as broad a genepool as possible to keep discovering at a fast pace.
So for now an EDUCATED WORKFORCE is the solution of tomorrows society and therefore we still will need a workforce in the future society as far as we can look into the future that is.
On March 21 2012 18:30 Rabbitmaster wrote:
Dude, i was just responding to your claim that people are cheaper than machines, which is clearly not true in all cases. And in the future it will probably not be true in most cases. Personally, i don't see that as a bad thing, as long as it is handled properly. I.E the money/time saved by implementing robots should not just go to some already rich share holder, but instead be used to have the general public work less without reduced living standards (or even improved living standards). The problem today however, is that when people get laid off in order to be replaced by machines the only thing that happens is that the company makes more money, and the former worker now has to find a new job or live on welfare.
On March 21 2012 17:48 Velr wrote:
And your point is?
Yeah, in certain fields Robots are better than Humans.
In tons others not or then the Robots are just way more expensive and will be for some time.
Thats why people still "waste" their live for these "stupid" tasks.
I don't get what you want to say and how you even think this is argueable... I mean, it has to be a darn good robot to outproduce the 50 chinese workers you could pay instead...
Now if you want to talk about human rights and all that, robots suddenly become more attractive.. But who cares about that shit as long as the Iphone (+other) production is cheap and apple (+others) can jerk of to their profits...
On March 21 2012 17:16 Rabbitmaster wrote:
[quote]
How is that true? For some positions, yes (for now). But why would, for example, car manufacturers replace most of their workers with robots if not to maximize profits? Obviously a machine in this case is a pretty big investment to begin with, but after a few months of not having to pay a full-time worker sallary, it starts making up for itself pretty fast. Especially since 1 robot doesnt equal 1 employe. I don't have the exact numbers, but i can pretty much guarantee you that 1 robot can replace several people, especially since it can work 24/7.
[quote]
How is that true? For some positions, yes (for now). But why would, for example, car manufacturers replace most of their workers with robots if not to maximize profits? Obviously a machine in this case is a pretty big investment to begin with, but after a few months of not having to pay a full-time worker sallary, it starts making up for itself pretty fast. Especially since 1 robot doesnt equal 1 employe. I don't have the exact numbers, but i can pretty much guarantee you that 1 robot can replace several people, especially since it can work 24/7.
And your point is?
Yeah, in certain fields Robots are better than Humans.
In tons others not or then the Robots are just way more expensive and will be for some time.
Thats why people still "waste" their live for these "stupid" tasks.
I don't get what you want to say and how you even think this is argueable... I mean, it has to be a darn good robot to outproduce the 50 chinese workers you could pay instead...
Now if you want to talk about human rights and all that, robots suddenly become more attractive.. But who cares about that shit as long as the Iphone (+other) production is cheap and apple (+others) can jerk of to their profits...
Dude, i was just responding to your claim that people are cheaper than machines, which is clearly not true in all cases. And in the future it will probably not be true in most cases. Personally, i don't see that as a bad thing, as long as it is handled properly. I.E the money/time saved by implementing robots should not just go to some already rich share holder, but instead be used to have the general public work less without reduced living standards (or even improved living standards). The problem today however, is that when people get laid off in order to be replaced by machines the only thing that happens is that the company makes more money, and the former worker now has to find a new job or live on welfare.
As for the "robots" or machines of today they definately do not live forever and some of them even takes a lot of upkeep to keep running. The fact is that it might save some people some kind of work, but at the same time you are encouraging the production of robots and people able to keep them functional.
What will we produce. Well at least something to sustain life aka. medicine foods etc. That is solved in different ways, but DNA-manipulation is already starting and it will most certainly increase almost no matter what. We need people with knowledge about biological life for that and we need as broad a genepool as possible to keep discovering at a fast pace.
So for now an EDUCATED WORKFORCE is the solution of tomorrows society and therefore we still will need a workforce in the future society as far as we can look into the future that is.
I agree with this to an extent. I'm thinking if we could actually get back to a high level of productivity if we got rid of art school and forced all those people to become mechanics or engineers or scientists, some sort of career that makes progress.
And w/ robot builders we can get blue collar labor back up, white collar labor to program them, etc.
Why would we increase productivity? Should we produce to meet demands or to throw away stuff?
And who says art doesn't give progress? And as far as I know, artists around the world produce stuff people are willing to pay for. No need to shut down that industry.
But we can only support so many artists. I think it's possible to still be a decent musician or actor while getting a degree in biology. And spending five-figure sums for actually "learning" the art is bullshit. Art isn't meant to be learned after a certain point. Not to the point that you could learn a science.
And while people pay for art it's not exactly progress since we're not getting technological achievements. Just new sounds, new looks.
It doesn't really matter what we can or cannot support, because we can safely assume that there will always be a demand for arts. Getting rid of art schools is a pretty poor idea, then.
We might consider reducing the number and increasing the entry point a little bit, so that we don't finance sub par artists.
Reducing number might work. A big problem with US, why it's so far in the negative, is that people can't pay off debt. Biggest two debts are credit card debt and student loans.
I would've guessed mortgages would be the biggest...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/09/student-loan-debt-outpace_n_676044.html
This implies that credit card and student loans are biggest two.
Also, 4000 posts!
