[GH]

I think when things DO come back to America, Americans will be competing with EVEN CHEAPER robotic labor. I strongly believe we are right on the edge of computer technology such as this becomes a reality.

In 10 – 20 years when you go to the grocery story to purchase groceries there will be NO checkout clerks. All will be done with RFID.

Most manufacturing jobs will be done using robotic builders. These units will be generic, and effectively be taught how to do their job. After this, they will bang away 7-24 without breaks or pay.

Grunt level computer programming jobs – Insert, Update Delete junk will be fully code generated, leaving the code babies out in the cold.

Jobs like trash pickup are already much automated and will become more so.

We no longer have meter readers read our electric and gas meters here in San Diego, these jobs – bye bye.

Anyway, it goes on and on. The big question is with all the cheap labor and technology, do we really need all the workers? If we don’t need them, are they then relegated to financial purgatory or can we find some way to allow our population to live and find higher endeavors to follow?

Think about it. We are and always have been a “work ethic” society. What happens when most of us are not needed any more to work?

[GH]

I agree because the math says this is so. I suspect the numbers are closer to another 40% down, but then I continue to underestimate the willingness and ability of the Govt to prop up prices at ANY cost.

Right now, DEBT is a bull in the china shop. Until current levels of debt are bought under control, either by attrition or by devaluation and I believe attrition is going to be the mechanism, nothing will get better.

Policy based on easing credit will NOT work. Either debt must go away, or incomes must double. Inflation, savers get walloped, deflation savers get wiped out, unless your savings is in the form of gold or real cash under the mattress…

[GH]

I agree because the math says this is so. I suspect the numbers are closer to another 40% down, but then I continue to underestimate the willingness and ability of the Govt to prop up prices at ANY cost.

Right now, DEBT is a bull in the china shop. Until current levels of debt are bought under control, either by attrition or by devaluation and I believe attrition is going to be the mechanism, nothing will get better.

Policy based on easing credit will NOT work. Either debt must go away, or incomes must double. Inflation, savers get walloped, deflation savers get wiped out, unless your savings is in the form of gold or real cash under the mattress…

[GH]

I agree because the math says this is so. I suspect the numbers are closer to another 40% down, but then I continue to underestimate the willingness and ability of the Govt to prop up prices at ANY cost.

Right now, DEBT is a bull in the china shop. Until current levels of debt are bought under control, either by attrition or by devaluation and I believe attrition is going to be the mechanism, nothing will get better.

Policy based on easing credit will NOT work. Either debt must go away, or incomes must double. Inflation, savers get walloped, deflation savers get wiped out, unless your savings is in the form of gold or real cash under the mattress…

[GH]

I agree because the math says this is so. I suspect the numbers are closer to another 40% down, but then I continue to underestimate the willingness and ability of the Govt to prop up prices at ANY cost.

Right now, DEBT is a bull in the china shop. Until current levels of debt are bought under control, either by attrition or by devaluation and I believe attrition is going to be the mechanism, nothing will get better.

Policy based on easing credit will NOT work. Either debt must go away, or incomes must double. Inflation, savers get walloped, deflation savers get wiped out, unless your savings is in the form of gold or real cash under the mattress…

[GH]

I agree because the math says this is so. I suspect the numbers are closer to another 40% down, but then I continue to underestimate the willingness and ability of the Govt to prop up prices at ANY cost.

Right now, DEBT is a bull in the china shop. Until current levels of debt are bought under control, either by attrition or by devaluation and I believe attrition is going to be the mechanism, nothing will get better.

Policy based on easing credit will NOT work. Either debt must go away, or incomes must double. Inflation, savers get walloped, deflation savers get wiped out, unless your savings is in the form of gold or real cash under the mattress…

[GH]

As a self employed person, the kind of health coverage I can purchase is full of loopholes, outs and restrictions.

My opinion. NOT participating in health coverage is the kind of civil disobedience required to FIX health care. Obama seems to believe that helping his clients by mandating coverage will fix things, but since his new law prices have skyrocketed.

Regular things like prescriptions, doctors visits, tests etc, should be paid for by individuals. The whole thing should work a lot more like car insurance, where the insurance company only gets involved where a big problem is involved, not for day to day needs.

In the mean time, with the downturn and corresponding increases, we were forced to ditch our coverage.

It is time to separate employment from insurance. Imagine if you were forced to work a W2 job to get groceries at a reasonable cost? Make group coverage available to EVERYONE. My understanding is that under Obamacare self employed will still not get the same coverage wage slaves get…

Think about this. You (or your company) spend $1,500 a month insuring your family ($18,000) a year or $180,000 over ten years. Take the $1500 and invest it even at a very low current rate of return say 2% and you can add another $30,000 or so to the total. That gives you 210,000 every ten years for medical catastrophes. I know the IRS will beat you to death for failure to pay into the insurance racket, but even then you are money ahead!

[GH]

As a self employed person, the kind of health coverage I can purchase is full of loopholes, outs and restrictions.

My opinion. NOT participating in health coverage is the kind of civil disobedience required to FIX health care. Obama seems to believe that helping his clients by mandating coverage will fix things, but since his new law prices have skyrocketed.

Regular things like prescriptions, doctors visits, tests etc, should be paid for by individuals. The whole thing should work a lot more like car insurance, where the insurance company only gets involved where a big problem is involved, not for day to day needs.

In the mean time, with the downturn and corresponding increases, we were forced to ditch our coverage.

It is time to separate employment from insurance. Imagine if you were forced to work a W2 job to get groceries at a reasonable cost? Make group coverage available to EVERYONE. My understanding is that under Obamacare self employed will still not get the same coverage wage slaves get…

Think about this. You (or your company) spend $1,500 a month insuring your family ($18,000) a year or $180,000 over ten years. Take the $1500 and invest it even at a very low current rate of return say 2% and you can add another $30,000 or so to the total. That gives you 210,000 every ten years for medical catastrophes. I know the IRS will beat you to death for failure to pay into the insurance racket, but even then you are money ahead!

[GH]

As a self employed person, the kind of health coverage I can purchase is full of loopholes, outs and restrictions.

My opinion. NOT participating in health coverage is the kind of civil disobedience required to FIX health care. Obama seems to believe that helping his clients by mandating coverage will fix things, but since his new law prices have skyrocketed.

Regular things like prescriptions, doctors visits, tests etc, should be paid for by individuals. The whole thing should work a lot more like car insurance, where the insurance company only gets involved where a big problem is involved, not for day to day needs.

In the mean time, with the downturn and corresponding increases, we were forced to ditch our coverage.

It is time to separate employment from insurance. Imagine if you were forced to work a W2 job to get groceries at a reasonable cost? Make group coverage available to EVERYONE. My understanding is that under Obamacare self employed will still not get the same coverage wage slaves get…

Think about this. You (or your company) spend $1,500 a month insuring your family ($18,000) a year or $180,000 over ten years. Take the $1500 and invest it even at a very low current rate of return say 2% and you can add another $30,000 or so to the total. That gives you 210,000 every ten years for medical catastrophes. I know the IRS will beat you to death for failure to pay into the insurance racket, but even then you are money ahead!

[GH]

As a self employed person, the kind of health coverage I can purchase is full of loopholes, outs and restrictions.

My opinion. NOT participating in health coverage is the kind of civil disobedience required to FIX health care. Obama seems to believe that helping his clients by mandating coverage will fix things, but since his new law prices have skyrocketed.

Regular things like prescriptions, doctors visits, tests etc, should be paid for by individuals. The whole thing should work a lot more like car insurance, where the insurance company only gets involved where a big problem is involved, not for day to day needs.

In the mean time, with the downturn and corresponding increases, we were forced to ditch our coverage.

It is time to separate employment from insurance. Imagine if you were forced to work a W2 job to get groceries at a reasonable cost? Make group coverage available to EVERYONE. My understanding is that under Obamacare self employed will still not get the same coverage wage slaves get…

Think about this. You (or your company) spend $1,500 a month insuring your family ($18,000) a year or $180,000 over ten years. Take the $1500 and invest it even at a very low current rate of return say 2% and you can add another $30,000 or so to the total. That gives you 210,000 every ten years for medical catastrophes. I know the IRS will beat you to death for failure to pay into the insurance racket, but even then you are money ahead!

[GH]

As a self employed person, the kind of health coverage I can purchase is full of loopholes, outs and restrictions.

My opinion. NOT participating in health coverage is the kind of civil disobedience required to FIX health care. Obama seems to believe that helping his clients by mandating coverage will fix things, but since his new law prices have skyrocketed.

Regular things like prescriptions, doctors visits, tests etc, should be paid for by individuals. The whole thing should work a lot more like car insurance, where the insurance company only gets involved where a big problem is involved, not for day to day needs.

In the mean time, with the downturn and corresponding increases, we were forced to ditch our coverage.

It is time to separate employment from insurance. Imagine if you were forced to work a W2 job to get groceries at a reasonable cost? Make group coverage available to EVERYONE. My understanding is that under Obamacare self employed will still not get the same coverage wage slaves get…

Think about this. You (or your company) spend $1,500 a month insuring your family ($18,000) a year or $180,000 over ten years. Take the $1500 and invest it even at a very low current rate of return say 2% and you can add another $30,000 or so to the total. That gives you 210,000 every ten years for medical catastrophes. I know the IRS will beat you to death for failure to pay into the insurance racket, but even then you are money ahead!

[GH]

I think what is being lost in this whole thread, is not if these are great people or great workers, or how dangerous their jobs are, or how horrible public school classrooms are etc, but a simpler and more fundamental question.

With the current economic conditions, CAN WE AFFORD THEM?

My wife worked in Riverside County some years back as a volunteer firefighter. She loved being a part of something important, even though she did not get paid. When we got to San Diego? No volunteers allowed!

I am actually not so interested in the on the ground police, teachers, firemen etc. , but rather the growing and much more expensive layer of administrative staff, which seems to be where most of the horror stories of overpaid government employees with massive pensions comes from.

On the subject of pensions, it is clear that we need to move away from the “for life” model of pensions and instead calculate each government workers contributions, matching contributions etc, weigh in the profits or LOSSES on the pension funds over time, and come to an actual balance owed each worker, regardless of if they live just a year or two, or if they live to be 100. Frankly, why should a worker who lives longer get MORE pension than one who is unlucky and dies shortly after retirement?

[GH]

I think what is being lost in this whole thread, is not if these are great people or great workers, or how dangerous their jobs are, or how horrible public school classrooms are etc, but a simpler and more fundamental question.

With the current economic conditions, CAN WE AFFORD THEM?

My wife worked in Riverside County some years back as a volunteer firefighter. She loved being a part of something important, even though she did not get paid. When we got to San Diego? No volunteers allowed!

I am actually not so interested in the on the ground police, teachers, firemen etc. , but rather the growing and much more expensive layer of administrative staff, which seems to be where most of the horror stories of overpaid government employees with massive pensions comes from.

On the subject of pensions, it is clear that we need to move away from the “for life” model of pensions and instead calculate each government workers contributions, matching contributions etc, weigh in the profits or LOSSES on the pension funds over time, and come to an actual balance owed each worker, regardless of if they live just a year or two, or if they live to be 100. Frankly, why should a worker who lives longer get MORE pension than one who is unlucky and dies shortly after retirement?

[GH]

I think what is being lost in this whole thread, is not if these are great people or great workers, or how dangerous their jobs are, or how horrible public school classrooms are etc, but a simpler and more fundamental question.

With the current economic conditions, CAN WE AFFORD THEM?

My wife worked in Riverside County some years back as a volunteer firefighter. She loved being a part of something important, even though she did not get paid. When we got to San Diego? No volunteers allowed!

I am actually not so interested in the on the ground police, teachers, firemen etc. , but rather the growing and much more expensive layer of administrative staff, which seems to be where most of the horror stories of overpaid government employees with massive pensions comes from.

On the subject of pensions, it is clear that we need to move away from the “for life” model of pensions and instead calculate each government workers contributions, matching contributions etc, weigh in the profits or LOSSES on the pension funds over time, and come to an actual balance owed each worker, regardless of if they live just a year or two, or if they live to be 100. Frankly, why should a worker who lives longer get MORE pension than one who is unlucky and dies shortly after retirement?

[GH]

I think what is being lost in this whole thread, is not if these are great people or great workers, or how dangerous their jobs are, or how horrible public school classrooms are etc, but a simpler and more fundamental question.

With the current economic conditions, CAN WE AFFORD THEM?

My wife worked in Riverside County some years back as a volunteer firefighter. She loved being a part of something important, even though she did not get paid. When we got to San Diego? No volunteers allowed!

I am actually not so interested in the on the ground police, teachers, firemen etc. , but rather the growing and much more expensive layer of administrative staff, which seems to be where most of the horror stories of overpaid government employees with massive pensions comes from.

On the subject of pensions, it is clear that we need to move away from the “for life” model of pensions and instead calculate each government workers contributions, matching contributions etc, weigh in the profits or LOSSES on the pension funds over time, and come to an actual balance owed each worker, regardless of if they live just a year or two, or if they live to be 100. Frankly, why should a worker who lives longer get MORE pension than one who is unlucky and dies shortly after retirement?

[Author]

Posts