Everyone in the world should earn the same amount of money

My first premise is that people should be doing what they are "called" to do. That is, the thing that interests them the most, and for which they feel a natural proclivity and demonstrated talent, not "which occupation will allow me to become wealthy."

That way, no one feels like they're actually "working" because they would be engaged in activities they would be drawn to even without pay.

Next is the task of determining the relative value of occupations, and perhaps even evaluating the entire fundamentals of our economy. Sometimes it's easier to start over from scratch than to try to fix a system that damaged and corrupted beyond salvation.

Looks like Distribute Justice is going be a hot topic the next few years. It's a topic where I like to invest my time and energy without pay.

I wonder, would I be able to earn more doing something I love rather than something I have to do to earn my keep? I guess this is the function of politicians and lawmakers. They are really "paid philosophers" we're paying them to think and reason from a stance of neutrality and sound principles of reasoned thought.

Is that what they're actually DOING? Very often not.

Since I am a stay at home mother raising my children, how is that going to work?

When people just do not feel like working a couple of months of so, will they still get paid the same?

I just have a really hard time raping my mind around this idea as selfish as humans generally are.

You can claim that you are not selfish but even to make that claim is selfish in itself.

I hate when girls say I am a stay at home mum and it is a job. Fuck off - You are just to lazy to get a job.

What you do, feet up and watch tv all day.

Fuck wish I was a stay at home mum.

What happens when we get to the point that technology replaces most of the workforce anyway? Because we're almost there... in fact, that's why many are unemployed now to begin with. Who do we decide works and who doesn't then? What's the point of making things if there are no consumers for those things? Do we hold back technology so people can have jobs or do we find a workable way to go forward so everyone can have more with less?

Robots don’t take bathroom breaks, and that’s one reason why, all else being equal, they may make better factory workers than the human version. But all else is getting less equal. New generations of super “smart” robots are doing more and more complex tasks, their needle arms going into tiny spaces the most delicate human hand can’t reach. And just as the machines leap forward in sophistication, their price is coming down.

Another industrial revolution bangs at the doors, and as other industrial revolutions have done, this one will change everything. For one thing, factories that moved to Asia for low-wage workers may return to the United States. After all, if machines can do the labor-intensive jobs, it may not matter whether the factory is in Cleveland, Hartford, Nashville or Guangzhou.

( less than 25% of artical ) rest of artical at:

[link to www.dailyherald.com]

Exactly. So what do we do then? Do we keep saying, "Get a job, hippy!" when all the jobs are automated? How do we decide who works, who doesn't when it comes the jobs that CAN'T be automated? Face it, lots of fresh tech has been held back to keep the grind going. We blame this one or that one for the job losses, but hasn't most of it came about due to tech? I know when I worked in the corporate world and not for myself, back in the day... there was such concern about robots/automation... then the unions complained, so they started outsourcing jobs to nations where it was cheaper to pay slave wages and test the automation without the complaints. I have no answers, mind you... just pondering what will happen when automation outpaces workers.