Of Course Americans Want An Assurance Of A Living Wage Job

The real problem, however, is that what constitutes "work" now must change precisely because the relationship of human skill to a viable commodity, with a set value, has fundamentally changed. This is what happens when technological change creates completely new operating environments.

To think you can artificially mandate value, while still pretending to operate in the old economic operating system, is absurdity of the greatest order; especially when you consider just how screwed up the old economic operating system is now. That's what happens when an old system is forced to morph, however it can, into something that can at least give the impression that it is still working properly; something we should be a great deal more than just skeptical of considering how even the determination of once simple truths has become horrendously complicated now that these same technological changes have put the control of message, as well as the general flow of information, into the hands of a few, very narrowly interested individuals.

Until we can come to terms with the idea that work, defined as the old factory mentality of doing some singular, specialized task, as a part of a mass production for mass consumption, economy, is simply no longer workable, or sustainable, we are doomed to failure. The simple fact of having livelihoods so inextricably connected to one particular production path or another, puts significant numbers of people in terrible conflicts of interests when that production path is found to be doing horrendous things either to us, or the workers directly, or to the planet itself. And of course that very thing happens with an all too depressing regularity precisely because all of the true costs of doing a particular thing can't be incorporated into the sale price if one truly wants to have a profit at the end of day. And by god, unfortunately, profit is the only value that Capitalism has ever really enshrined, other than, perhaps, personal power.

This leaves us with one, very resilient question: Why is is so hard for Liberals to see that you can only take fixing a thing so far. This applies even more so when you are talking about such things as complex operating systems. In these, with change piled on top of change, and fix piled on top of other fixes, you quickly reach a point, in interactive complexity, where the unintended side effects of what you do with each new fix, become so unpredictable that you can have very little confidence about whether, or not, the fix will only end up creating even more problems than it was meant to fix in the first place. That's why you don't see many people now trying to fix the original Windows operating system to try and have it work in today's complex, enterprise networks of transaction flow. Made ever more difficult because information has been rendered into both pure gold, and the absolute necessity of a Democratic society.

This is what we face. One can only hope that Liberals finally get the memo that doing the same thing that stopped working some time ago, probably won't work now.

Back to Work

Another Indication Of How Important Having A Living Wage Is To The Foundation Of A Society

No work no viable status for much of anything other than escape in one form or another. And not surprisingly, many of those escapes are quite antithetical to dynamically responsive societies as they try to continue to prosper in ever more challenging times. Even to the point of being quite destructive.

NO JOBS, NO BABIES

The Mystery Of Why Japanese People Are Having So Few Babies

11 diggs The Atlantic World

Many point to unromantic 20-somethings and women’s entry into the workforce, but an overlooked factor is the trouble young men have in finding steady, well-paid jobs.

The "First Casualty" In Any War Has Been Famously Described As The Truth

That this sort of thing inevitably gets one to start considering the history of propaganda makes it almost too intimidating to even begin to consider (see here and here just for starters). But we must because the stakes are much higher than the outcome of a certain, current, political crisis.

I bring this up because the divide in perception illustrated by the Atlantic article linked below (via Digg) is still truly astonishing: On the one hand people seeing not only a looming Constitutional crisis, but also seeing our sovereignty as a nation being sold cheap. And on the other people seeing all of the events, and the hoopla surrounding it, as simply incompetence mingled with a whole lot more overblown, partisan blather, from a political faction that lost an election.

And in discussing this, lets forget for a moment who is right or wrong on the principle issue of Russian election interference, or the criminal, and/or impeachable, offenses that certainly seem to a very significant number of Americans to be true. What I want to talk about here is how we came to this pass, and what we can possibly do about it; because no matter which side of this issue you are on, the one thing both sides ought to be able to agree on is the terrible question it begs of us by its very existence: How can a democracy survive if its electorate is so fractured, and fragmented, of view, in what ought to be a certain, limited number, of core consensus understandings; understandings that make us a viable, cohesive social grouping. So disconnected from such understandings, in fact, as to make even determining what is important, and what isn't, nearly impossible, let alone making decisions as to what actual courses of actions should be implemented to address any particular priority.

The other, not so surprising, revelation one makes in thinking about this, is that we have been "at war," in one sense or another, for quite a long time now; perhaps never really stopping after WW 2 at the very least, and perhaps even before that with WW 1. And in this you have your usual suspects certainly: The Cold War in particular to Russia. The war on Communism in general. The economic warfare that may well have started with Colonialism at its very beginnings, and which now has morphed into very high tensions over markets, resources, and who controls what vital lands, or sea ways. Do that for enough decades and of course religion will form a big chunk of the stakeholders, as well as all of the non spiritual ideologies that would argue from various perceptual starting points.

So it would seem that history has bequeathed us with a motherload of causality for why one might want to start being quite paranoid indeed about how we are to proceed with the process of determining a social consensus for those "certain, limited numbers, of core consensus understandings." And make no mistake here. This is no trivial concern. Because many of the current players in this game would like nothing better than to have this situation carried to its quite terrible, but also quite logical, outcome: that the ultimate social chaos that will inevitably come to pass here will make it seem quite proper for a "strongman" (the term for a dictator, whether he be so from a Fascist's point of view, or from a Communist's point of view, which I wish the media would stop using) to come in and just settle the matter by "might makes right."

The bottom line here, of course, is that we all have a point of view. And our interests, and desires, affect those points of view. If you have a very strong interest, as well as a desire, you are understandably going to want to argue as persuasively as you can for the point of view that these factors create. Getting rid of Capitalism, certainly, isn't going to change any of that. We started, after all, as very tribal entities, struggling under great deprivation, to survive. That scarcity, and that struggle, are huge parts of why so much of what history has bequeathed us has been nothing but a big feces sandwich, for so much of the world. And Capitalism was simply one way to organize to allow us to at least rise materially above that scarcity. In doing so, however, it also laid the foundation to make finding consensus about "truth" fundamentally more difficult. It did that because it first made it possible for individuals to have unprecedented amounts of power to work their personal "interests." And it then also created the technological changes that would allow message to be "amplified" way beyond the notion of simply being louder, or spread further (bringing in the notions of psychological engineering, and message consistency over both time, and a host of new communication channels).

What we need to be asking ourselves here is this: How do we come up with an organizational framework that both levels the playing field as far as "messaging" goes, but also makes it more structurally demanding that we find ways to continue to cooperate with each other. In that, it seems to me, creating more situations of ever more competitive self interest to hold sway is not going to be very helpful at all. Any more than leaving too much power in the hands of too few has ever been a very good idea.

This is but one more reason why we are at a pivotal moment in the course of human development. This brand new operating environment carries not only the ills that history has left us with, but with with an old operating system mutated way beyond what its originators ever conceived. So some very big choices confront us. If we don't make them thoughtfully they will be made for us by those who have only the most narrow of interests in mind.

What Congressional Republicans Really Think About Trump and Russia

Without Having A New Economic System To Operate In...

...Such Socialist Reforms can never hope to be implemented as needed, or expected to survive for very long, even if some form of them could be adopted in the first place.

Until you accept that we have to start from completely new assumptions, in addressing any of the interrelated systemic problems our current form of economic organization has, you are just spinning your wheels over the same ground as Socialists before you. The full breadth, depth, and reach, of our combined instrumentality now has created a completely new operating environment. One that demands integration, and holistic thinking within many dimensional, interactive matrices. Something that is now the complete antithesis of the old factory mentality of segmented linearity; which is just more McLuhan speak for Capitalism.

Obviously the existing system isn't working. But the fact of the matter is that it is unable pay a living wage for a reason. And that reason is its inability to value anything in terms that balance human need with material practicality. It never really had that ability in the first place, but this was both obscured, and made up for, by the fact that, early on, human skill quickly became a quite competitive commodity. And it would stay that way until steam, and electricity, made first distance to become ever less of a cost factor, and eventually to make even human skill, not nearly so competitive any more as well.

And so all that you are left with, for the most part, is to continue to argue over what first constitutes a "living wage," and then who will be on the line to pay for it. Even as you continue to struggle to find out who will pay for all of the other problems we have neglected to the point now where they are ready to really bite us all in the ass.

We simply need to have the debate about starting over. Nobody wants to acknowledge this, but that is truly the way it is.

COLD HARD CASH, NO STRINGS ATTACHED

A Basic Income Really Could End Poverty Forever

22 diggs vox.com Money

But to become a reality, it needs to get detailed and stop being oversold.

Which Is Why Bernie Sanders Should Stop Caucusing With A Party...

...That is as out of date as the economic operating system the Dems still think they  can reform, and make behave. A sentiment that is nearly as absurd as thinking the GOP would ever abandon greed as one of their essential party platforms.

The fact of the matter is that a completely new party must be formed. One that breaks away from any further reliance on Capitalism as a main component of its founding principles. A party that combines the best aspects of both Libertarianism, and Socialism, to work a better Democratic ideal for the majority of working people in America. And I can think of no better person, at the moment at least, to lead that party than Mr. Sanders. I can only hope that those of you out there who still care will do all you can, at every juncture of you social interactions, to give this idea some much needed momentum, and some legs.

As I have stated before, none of this is up to me. I am just trying to articulate a better ideological place to start from. If you want real change, however, then you will need to get up off of you butt and do something about it. Nothing will come of nothing otherwise.

'SIMPSONS' DID IT

The Democrats Have Absolutely No Idea About What They're Going To Do In 2018

2 diggs fusion.kinja.com Politics

Lessons learned from 2016 seem to be few and far between among establishment Democrats.

Maybe Guided Missile Defense For ICBM's Isn't The Answer

Maybe the more effect way could also be the inexpensive way.

This is another example of how useful a tactical platform Air Trains, composed of hybrid dirigible blimps, could be; especially in an always on station approach to air defense that such potentially large scale, flying lift units could be if not only linked together, but able to be specialized as to what each individual dirigible blimp unit might carry to support the mission as my design would allow.

My main point of their defensive contribution here, though, would be in their ability to support very large numbers of the inexpensive, flying claymore mine drones I've talked of before being used for platform self defense. And as incoming warheads as anti air threats aren't that much different than ballistic warhead coming down from a higher angle (except for the speed of course), at least as far as it concerns running into already placed mines very near the approach vector. The down side of which, of course, being that you do have to have very large numbers of circulating mines at the ready to make proximity detonations a reasonably high probability. If they're cheap, however, and easy to crank out in large numbers, the quantity requirements should be manageable. The real trick is to design the tethered, flying recharge stations, to be able to do recharging cycles fast enough via multiple, simultaneous recharging drogue lines, that each recharging station would have to support so that the total throughput from each station would be able to keep thousands of mines flying; doing so at least without the requirement of ridiculous numbers of the tethered stations having to be pulled along by each dirigible blimp unit (big though they are, I don't think you're too likely to get more than a few dozen for each unit, and still be able to maneuver without too much difficulty, but that would have to be one of the aspects we would have to determine as a part of the system's development).

In any case, though, the fact that you would already be leveraging the utilization of this platform for both civilian, and military, logistics gives you a degree of confidence that stretching platform use roles won't add any unnecessary risks to established roles. You would just be looking into further applications that might be applicable.

AIR FORCE REPORT WARNS OF GROWING MISSILE THREAT TO US HOMELAND || WARTHOG 2017


As a side Note:

Air Trains might be able to make a big difference in fighting forest fires as well:

Only the Brave Trailer #1 (2017) | Movieclips Trailers

Imagine Doing A Task...

...Whatever task might be needed to keep your community going (and it is indeed a huge matrix of services, process operations, and management), and you had a wearable tech combination that allowed you to understand not only what was going on around you, in quite specific detail if required (with both audio, and visual aids to help with an intuitive understanding), but exactly what was needed to be done next, in whatever task you might be talking about (with the exception, of course, of situations where a great deal of learned, hand eye coordination is involved, or other, learned, coordinated faculties, are concerned; especially in time sensitive situations; but then, there's AI that may be able to do most of that as well, isn't there).

Imagine what might be possible because we, the working majority of Americans, were in charge of it all, and could, then, do a lot of very useful things; for no other reason than they made practical sense to a consensus majority of either a particular community (or City State, because I like the sound of that a lot better) itself, or significant portions of the Federated City States. Not because more money could be made. Not because it could be used to cut the legs off of another competitor. No. Just because it made sense, and would help the community prosper.

What a concept, huh?

Just imagine being able to standardize things across a whole host of interaction activities, and channels. Standardizing components of all kinds; how their made (and whether by automation or not), as well as what their particular features might have.

This is where modularity comes into play so that as many larger assemblies, of whatever end use item you might want to talk about, could be put together simply by snapping (so to speak) whatever combination of them that gets the job done, as we could possibly manage.

I bring this up because it would present tremendous opportunities to make work within such, more controlled, and optimized, physical environments, a great deal more coordinated, and easier for non experts to understand. And in particular here you would have the capability to implant not only diagnostic sensors for the physical aspects of the entity, but for the process it was currently involved in as well (if possible), but the chips to organize what was being sensed, and the further ability to divulge that information upon (say RFID) request. Thus, no matter your individual expertise of how something works is, your wearable AI assistant would be able to query all queryable aspects of what was going on, in any particular moment, so as to inform you of what might be needed; checking in, of course, with all relevant, higher level, management assistance AI, and the citizens tasked with being a part of that higher task loop.

Things would probably not run as quickly as they do now, at least until all of got used to working with such assistance, but they would get done, and we could all participate. We could do the shifting between doing, say street maintenance for two weeks, to doing maintenance on one processing plant or another, for another two weeks, and then on to say elderly care for the next period, etc., with some confidence that we'll be able to jump into whatever is currently going on without too much delay (which could be further helped, of course, if we staggered this job hopping so that at least one person has already been there for a week to help the next new guy with his/her first week back in this task).

This is why the electrification of experience retrieval is such a big deal. It simply changes everything; especially if you have access to a clean, infinitely abundant source of energy, which, of course, we do (via liquid hydrogen produced at sea with my version of Yen Tornado wind turbines). Because of this we can set things however we want to without money, or absolute dependence on specialization. Specialization isn't going to go away, of course, but we can de emphasize it significantly; to the point at least for which the alternative that I have outlined would work.

The only thing missing here is the recognition, first that the current economic operating system is no longer relevant in any way for this new operating environment, and secondly that an alternative is not only conceivable, but quite within the realm of possibility to be implemented. And that is where you come in. You need to be talking about this wherever you can; in personal interactions during the day, and on the web. Because something needs to be done, and quickly.

GOOGLE GLASS 2.0 IS A STARTLING SECOND ACT