Azalin

I'm just trying to correct his misinterpretation of my words, which I thought were pretty simply stated.

How can you possibly guarantee equality of outcome without setting a limit on achievement? The only other way would be to supplement all but the single highest wage-earner's incomes to match that of the highest. Do you really believe that an individual's dignity justifies paying a busboy an hourly wage equal to that of an attorney? Again, it's about learning and developing a marketable skill. Esteem has nothing to do with it. If people were not unique individuals; if there was no such thing as talent or work ethic, then maybe this issue could be addressed from the standpoint of equality in an egalitarian society. The problem is that we are individuals, each with their own talents, skills, and ethics. How we choose to earn our money and live our lives are our choice as individuals, but we are also each responsible for not being a burden on our fellow citizens.

No, the firm payed Kim's tuition.

He does. So do I. So does anyone who is sick of being baited into stupid bullsh%t dialogue. He's a troll. Stop taking the bait. You're smarter than that.

Yes, they bite. They will charge, and many have tusks.

Gravity will never let you down. Pull you down, yes, but never will it let you down.

That may be, but at least we've stopped biting every time he lowers his hook into the water. Honestly, I was embarrassed when I realized how often I had been manipulated by that worthless twat. Then again, maybe one day you'll make him see reason.

I was thinking about all those blacksmiths who lost their jobs with the advent of the horseless carriage.

Might as well go ahead and make that three of us.

In a society where people are afforded the freedom to attempt to choose their own career path, preoccupations, and quality of life, it is incumbent upon them to obtain, as they can, the wherewithal to do so. There are no guarantees of outcome, no guarantees of success. It may take many attempts for an individual to succeed, however they choose to define success. The concept of a living wage is to my mind, anathema to an individual's success. We all possess talents and abilities in unique measure, and some will need to work much harder to achieve success than others will. Attempting to set an equality of outcome is foolish in my mind as it requires holding achievers back, not improving the output of underachievers. We don't need government or a helping hand from society for that - people just need to accept the responsibility for taking care of themselves. There's nothing selfish in that. A person should be paid their worth, and that worth should be based on the value of the work they perform, as well as the quality of that work. In other words, the wage of a marketable skill. A person must be prepared to move to another city, sometimes frequently. They may have to change professions or go back to school. That's probably more true now than ever before, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

Look around whatever room you happen to be in at the moment. Chances are that you're literally surrounded by electronics. It does not have to be robotics or an extremely specialized area of the tech field. Tech is not a limited field by any stretch. And I think you miss my point completely if your takeaway is "government-as-employer". The only responsibility a society has to it's citizens is to provide public service (police, schools, local infrastructure, etc). It's an individual's responsibility in a free society to pull their own weight. Robots? At least you've moved past "writing code".

Why the fixation on code? You do realize that tech involves literally everything that involves electronics?

It's not a question of society providing anything except opportunity. It's up to the individual to develop a marketable skill. I apparently have more confidence in people than you do.

There is already a need for more tech and engineering employees than there are Americans either capable of, or interested in filling them.

I don't see how adopting a UBI won't have a negative impact in a free market economy. Also, I can't address the issue of AI displacing jobs since I have no background or experience with it, but I'm getting pretty sick of all the doom and gloom regarding automation and tech putting people out of work. It will ultimately create the need for skilled employees, who will earn higher wages.

If you can't see it beforehand, then I believe they always run the previous week's episode in the time slot just before the new one airs.

You'll be surprised at the instant reduction of idiocy once you do.

And all this time I was under the impression that in order to prove something as scientific fact, every step imaginable should be taken to disprove a theory before even considering the possibility that it may be factual.

That's pretty much my take, too. I'm hoping to get some input from a true believer.

This may be an overly basic question, but if the science is settled on MMGW, why are we still spending so much time and money studying it?

Never, ever trust Abraham Lincoln when he appears in the Star Trek universe. I would trust Surak even less.

Can't I just put on a red shirt and take the easy way out?

Yes, it's called public relations. Should Ford motor company advertise the F150 as being able to fit more migrants in the bed to transport to the work site?