Gen X > interesting READ

[rcjordan]

>infirmed

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/19/national/robot-niche-expands-in-senior-care/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24949081

<added>
Hell,  in the US we won't even be able to depend on our employer of last resort.

http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/robots-may-replace-one-fourth-us-combat-soldiers-2030-says-general

[nffc]

>Robots cannot do that

With their aging population acting as a driver Japan is already well on the way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiUJ0PuYcsI

[nffc]

>if a person will be expected to 'earn a living' rather than just be supported by his country's social safety net then -well- somebody is going to starve

As you know I spend a lot of time in Asia, Vietnam mostly, and that is certainly the case there. No work? bad accident? long term illness? then you would starve to death. What saves them is family not the state, I'm not sure we can make that readjustment back to extended families in the west quick enough to stop people starving.

If you get the chance and can find it this is currently causing a big storm in the UK, http://www.channel4.com/programmes/benefits-street ,well worth a watch to see the logical end game of social "safety nets". It appears to have come as somewhat of a shock to many in the UK (not to me as that's largely how I was brought up) such a shock that I think we may start to see some real changes in the welfare system.  No that it will change much in the face of the tsunami of an aging population and free health care.

[littleman]

I agree that there will need to be some type of base income that isn't tide to productivity, otherwise we're likely to have global civil unrest -- or even a push towards fascism as governments reign down on civil rights to control the massive amounts of poor.  That said, I think there will need to be some tie to labor.  I am old enough to remember the effects of having multiple generations of a family on welfare here in California before the state put in limits.  Stagnation, and no need to strive caused many of my neighbors to slide down into a life of crime.  I think people need more than just food and shelter, they need purpose.  The model will need to provide people with a way of earning a living -- even if it means that labor is protected from replacement by machines by law in some cases.  This is a really complicated mess brewing and it will be very easy to do wrong.

[rcjordan]

You cannot fix perpetual oversupply by warehousing the excess inventory.

[Chunkford]

If you get the chance and can find it this is currently causing a big storm in the UK, http://www.channel4.com/programmes/benefits-street ,well worth a watch to see the logical end game of social "safety nets". It appears to have come as somewhat of a shock to many in the UK (not to me as that's largely how I was brought up) such a shock that I think we may start to see some real changes in the welfare system.  No that it will change much in the face of the tsunami of an aging population and free health care.

I'm sort of embarrassed to say but I've been on both sides of the social circle.
My mum's side is well off so my childhood was pretty ok looking back on it now, but in the past due to a failed business I hit rock bottom.
I had to wipe the slate clean and start from scratch. That was over 6 years ago and I found myself on the social, earning a bit but being housed and my income topped up by the state.
By the time I was weaning myself off it was a right nightmare!
Every increase I reported to the local council and the HMRC was basically replacing what I lost in benefits.
I actually found myself contemplating jacking in a few of my jobs as I was only really 15p an hour better off for doing it. That 15p extra vs less stress/having more time to myself was very appealing, especially when I had kids in toe. (you know, that time you have with them that you will never get back again).
It was a shocking thought, there I was busting a gut when I had tasted the easy life.
I can say I'm glad I didn't, but I can see why the 'social scroungers' think f### it.

[littleman]

I didn't mean to imply that there shouldn't be a safety-net.  I just don't think it should be a way of life, where people live off the state for generations.  Welfare kept me fed as a kid as well.