>> ^hpqp:

Every action has some form of motivation, even a psycho's mass murdering spree; it's all good and fine to look for it, but in the meanwhile it's the protective action that counts, something the police force in GB took ages to do. As for the "bonehead militias", most of them were simply groups of neighbours and friends trying their best to protect their livelihoods. Most of them were immigrants who had worked hard to build a life for themselves abroad, only to find everything ruined because of unruly misguided youths high on violence.
As for blaming the violence on the bad decisions concerning social services, I beg to differ. Look at the protests/riots in Greece, Spain, etc. All of them had major peacefull counterparts, with actual demands being made. It's not like the so-called "disenfranchised youths" (and they were not all poor, nor young btw) of London and elsewhere did not have recent examples of protests that did not involve using social networking to best loot the fashion shop, and burning people's homes (Arab Spring anyone?).
I agree about the ridiculous consummer identity we have going on in society... "you are what you buy" really sickens me to the bone. As does the corporate criminels going on with their billionaire, society-crushing lifestyles. But is it possible to send a more counterproductive message than the one we've seen in England?
p.s.: what's and ASPO?
Judging by the public statements of officials, the "protective action" is bound to overshoot. Like I said, pillories, assembly-line-justice, the calls for harsher sentences, the calls to have the rioters' housing/benefits stripped, the thought of using the military -- civil liberties are put on notice, and that's putting it mildly. Let the rozzers do their job within the regular frame of the law, play it by the book, don't give them any reason whatsoever for another backlash. Take the kettle off the stove. Forcing a lid on the spout will only make matters worse sooner than later.


As for the Greece/Spain comparison, I would like to submit this: UNICEF 2007: An overview of child well-being in rich countries. Prior to the economic meltdown, Greece and Spain were paradise for kids, compared to the UK. I wouldn't dare to make comparisons nowadays, not with 40%+ youth unemployment in Spain and Greece. But it's clear that the UK has been growing worse over years and years. The lid was bound to blow someday. I figured it would be mass protests, nonviolent ones I might add. I certainly didn't see it taking the shape it has, but in retrospect, signs were abundant -- and ignored. The alarming streak of suicides among kids in recent years alone should have been more than enough.

These are long-term developments, long-term failures, not just the recent cuts. But they sure as hell didn't help, and neither does the prospect of even more cuts down the road. Small example: youth centers are closed down, so now you have kids bored out of their minds who are not allowed to loiter (see: ASBO).

That's what I meant when I said disenfranchised. The state has been on the retreat since Thatcher, the educational system is focused on testing, intolerance for kids in public places has been on the rise for decades and the social gap is wider than anywhere else in Europe. So the ones who drew the short straw are fucked. And so are their children. And theirs, until the cycle is broken. Look at the UN report, page 22: "Relationships" and page 26: "Behaviour and Risks". That doesn't appear overnight, it's at least two generations of failure. No stable relationships, no communities, no values, no respect, no prospect.

As for ASPOs: that's a typo. Or more precisely, a brain failure, because typing a P instead of a B is not an error I can blame on my fingers.

ASBO or anti-social behaviour order is the tool of choice to stop kids from loitering. Anywhere. The street, the park, the yard, the staircase, you name it. It is the formalized dislike for children in the public space. There are, of course, reasonable uses for it, but in certain areas it is used to harass kids. At least it was, no idea if it still is.

Quasi ein Platzverweis, der keines Anlasses benötigt.

This is brilliant. I'd like to point out that the vast majority of employers treat adults in the same assembly line fashion.

While I like your argument and your logic, I am forced to point out that the numbers are a bit off.

Toyota earns a profit of around $1700 per vehicle (it's higher for hybrids, lower for others). This means that their 524,160 Tundras will earn about $898,934,400 in profit. The value per worker would be closer to $400,000 than $4 million.

Either way, I agree with you that this is not necessarily fair - someone is making a lot of money with a lot less effort.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

See, the only problem I have with that is..
How many individuals do you think consistently earn a million based purely on the value they themselves generate?
Say you're an electrical engineer who comes up with a brilliant solution that saves multiple cities thru out California a million dollars a year each.
You went to University. Studied diligently. Paid for all your books out of pocket. Got your masters.
I would agree that you rightly deserve at least a million in compensation.
~~~
Now say, instead of glorious engineer. You were one of the 2100 workers on Toyota's San Antonia, TX assembly line in 2007
Do you think you'd make that same million dollar salary? Mostly like, no.
Tho if you look at the numbers:
That plant made one Tundra per minute starting in 2007. 60x24x7x52= 524160 Tundras
Average MSRP for an '07 Tundra = $32070 x524160= $16,809,811,200 in value.
Let's say the retailers make 5 Million and that half of the 16 Billion is break-even cost for Toyota.
$8,402,405,600/2100= $4,001,145 of suggested value per worker
The average auto worker makes 18 to 30 so we'll say hourly wage is $24.
Times an 8 hour shift 6 times per week. 24x8x313 = $60,096 yearly earnings.
Remember $4 Mill of profit per worker at $60k year compensation means those workers on retained 1.5% of the value they generated.
~~~
That example was one factory. In one industry.
Think of the millions of businesses that aren't so generous as to allot their employees 1.5% of the profits they themselves produce individually.
And then compare that to the number of CEOs of those businesses that pay themselves a million or more, plus bonuses.
And then compare that to the number of self made millionaire that rightfully earn 7 figure salaries.
Considering wages haven't risen much for thirties, I think the majority of those workers have a right to be unhappy.
Sorry for the rambling. It was just my way of putting things in perspective.
>> ^Xax:

Whoa whoa whoa. STEALING? Bullfuckingshit. Of course there are a lot of corrupt motherfuckers out there, but I have no trouble believing that many people make more money than the average bear without being unscrupulous. People who have used their smarts and/or luck to become successful have every single right to write themselves a big fat paycheck. If some snotty piece of shit working under them is unhappy that they're not making as much money, well that's just too fucking bad.

See, the only problem I have with that is..

How many individuals do you think consistently earn a million based purely on the value they themselves generate?

Say you're an electrical engineer who comes up with a brilliant solution that saves multiple cities thru out California a million dollars a year each.

You went to University. Studied diligently. Paid for all your books out of pocket. Got your masters.

I would agree that you rightly deserve at least a million in compensation.
~~~

Now say, instead of glorious engineer. You were one of the 2100 workers on Toyota's San Antonia, TX assembly line in 2007

Do you think you'd make that same million dollar salary? Mostly like, no.

Tho if you look at the numbers:
That plant made one Tundra per minute starting in 2007. 60x24x7x52= 524160 Tundras

Average MSRP for an '07 Tundra = $32070 x524160= $16,809,811,200 in value.

Let's say the retailers make 5 Million and that half of the 16 Billion is break-even cost for Toyota.

$8,402,405,600/2100= $4,001,145 of suggested value per worker

The average auto worker makes 18 to 30 so we'll say hourly wage is $24.
Times an 8 hour shift 6 times per week. 24x8x313 = $60,096 yearly earnings.

Remember $4 Mill of profit per worker at $60k year compensation means those workers on retained 1.5% of the value they generated.
~~~

That example was one factory. In one industry.

Think of the millions of businesses that aren't so generous as to allot their employees 1.5% of the profits they themselves produce individually.

And then compare that to the number of CEOs of those businesses that pay themselves a million or more, plus bonuses.

And then compare that to the number of self made millionaire that rightfully earn 7 figure salaries.

Considering wages haven't risen much for thirties, I think the majority of those workers have a right to be unhappy.

Sorry for the rambling. It was just my way of putting things in perspective.

>> ^Xax:


Whoa whoa whoa. STEALING? Bullfuckingshit. Of course there are a lot of corrupt motherfuckers out there, but I have no trouble believing that many people make more money than the average bear without being unscrupulous. People who have used their smarts and/or luck to become successful have every single right to write themselves a big fat paycheck. If some snotty piece of shit working under them is unhappy that they're not making as much money, well that's just too fucking bad.

I was really amazed at the episode a week or two ago where Conrad turned out to be Inspector #5 and had let Bender go through the assembly line despite being defective because he had pity on him... that was really unexpected. Nearly had me in tears. Yes, Ponce is sometimes totally a pussy.

@BicycleRepairMan

I don't understand your arguments. For example, I'm not sure what your point is about "change." Religion changes because society changes. This is no different than technology replacing jobs that used to require manual labor. Do you think the guys who used to work on the assembly line "voluntarily" learned new job skills when automation replaced them? No, of course not. So, why is there something wrong with adapting to current circumstances? Whether the change is voluntary or not doesn't affect the argument of whether religion can be a useful tool in helping us find happiness in our lives, so I fail to see the relevance.

Next, dismissing entire religions because of the actions of a few individuals is just illogical. A few radical Muslims rammed jets into the World Trade Center, so all Muslims are terrorists (and Islam is evil)? A few priests molested children, so all priests are are child molesters (and Catholicism is evil)? A few black people have committed crimes, so all blacks are criminals? You strike me as an intelligent guy (judging from our previous conversations), surely you can see the problems with those arguments.

Finally, you dismiss religious work because they were written by our ancestors. Therefore, they couldn't possibly have anything relevant to say about our current lives right? Well then, how about the U.S. Constitution? There's a document that was written by our ancestors. Should we scrap that too? Couldn't possibly be relevant, right? After all, it hasn't changed in since it was written (though it has, of course, been added to).

The reason why we still cherish the Constitution is because of the wisdom it contains. That wisdom has been reinterpreted many times since the constitution was originally written--reinterpreted based on changes in both technology and society but never changed. In a similar manner, all of the religions have collected wisdom of what it means to be a human being and how to live happily. That wisdom too has been reinterpreted many times based on changing conditions.

I think that if, instead of railing against religion, you actually took the time to study it (study...not practice--I'm not proselytizing here) you would find that all of the major religions have important messages of wisdom to offer us about how to live our lives. Certainly people have mis-used and abused religion to further their own ends. Certainly people who claim to be religious have done terrible things. But in almost all cases you find that these people are not actually following the teachings of their own religion when they do these things--that they have hijacked the messages, distorted them, and used them for their own ends. I don't blame religion for that. I'm sorry to hear that you do, because like I said I think you're missing out.

The sky started alright but then what was that thing he put around it - it completely looked unfinished...

This style is way beyond abused... I know a busking company who hires teens during summer events. They train them for a couple hours and then sends them out creating this stuff for the public as street performance busking. The company supplies the paint and paper, and they keep a percent of the profits as these teens go out and try to sell the artwork and perform.

Trust me, it's fun to watch, but not always a lot of skill involved.
It takes hundreds of tries before you can actually create stuff that doesn't look "off-the-assembly-line" and even then, it all starts to look the same from piece to piece and artist to artist... So not really worth it in the end...

>> ^spawnflagger:

If the iPad was made in USA, it would probably cost $2000+ (and that would be from a highly automated robotic assembly line).


That's the problem in a nutshell. We value everyday low prices over human rights. We didn't really abolish slavery, we just exported it. We are sick.

Well, it's either a fast suicide now, or long drawn-out painful death of cancer, inevitable due to the harsh toxins they are exposed to daily. Manufacturing printed circuit boards, integrated circuits, etc is a pretty hazardous operation.

Also, the rich manufacturing guy was being criticized, but not the rich bigwigs at Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Dell.

If foxconn wasn't making the products cheap, another chinese manufacturer would have been given the contract. If the iPad was made in USA, it would probably cost $2000+ (and that would be from a highly automated robotic assembly line).

>> ^conan:

difference is: a human can be prosecuted. but whose fault is it if this thing goes bananas? operator? creator / engineer? manufacturer? they'll all say "nono, this other part is faulty, not ours".


I would say the people that deployed it would own the lion's share of the responsibility in your hypothetical situation.

Situation A: Whack-job soldier takes his government issued rifle, his military-instilled proficiency with that weapon/tool, and either an inborn but latent mental instability OR a poor reaction to an extremely stressful situation, and goes nuts and shoots some civilians / kids / baby bunnies.

Who was at fault for him going bananas? The gun manufacturer? I would say no, but would accept that they have a *very* tertiary share. The soldier's parents? Gonna have to go with no. The soldier himself? Quite possibly. The military that trained him? Certainly in a sense, but it would be very difficult to hold them accountable. His commanding officers? Definitely a possibility, but "I was ordered to do it" only gets you so far (see Nuremberg).


Situation B: Autonomous robot sentry is enabled and placed into a live-fire environment by a commissioned military officer. It suffers from either a computer-bug "glitch" that results in it incorrectly identifying enemy combatants versus civilians while in the field or a complete lack of any system to differentiate the two, and goes out and mows down civilians / kids / baby bunnies.

How about this time? The development team of engineers, programmers, designers, etc.? Again I would say no, but if they were provably negligible in either fully testing and implementing good, working threat / non-threat identification OR clearly conveying the limitations of the system to the military they are selling it to, then sure they share in the responsibility. The assembly line workers that put the machine together? Nah. The robot sentry itself? Not unless you blame the gun in situation A. The officer that turned the thing on and turned it loose? I figure this is most analogous to the soldier in situation A. This person should know their tool, whether it be a firearm or an automated sentry robot, and is most directly responsible for what happens as a result of its use. The military itself? Certainly for a share, particularly if they failed to train the deploying officer and inform them of the limitations of the tool / weapon / platform.


It is never black and white and arguments could be made for any assignment of blame in either situation, but to me I don't feel that situation B is particularly more gray than A.

>> ^deathcow:
We've got one of these. I remember one time I just hopped out of the shower and made the mistake of walking over by the assembly line naked.

HAHAHA!

We've got one of these. I remember one time I just hopped out of the shower and made the mistake of walking over by the assembly line naked.

"Make sure that every highschool graduate is college-ready and career-ready."

That's a point I do not share entirely. Preparing them only for college or a career leads to a streamlining effect that might turn them into efficient workers, but pathetic persons. Schools should prepare you for life first and foremost. Some classes might be completely unneccessary for your job/college qualification, but paramount to shaping your personality.

I'm only mentioning this, because our universities used to offer a decent humanistic education until they were streamlined to produce "a capable workforce" instead. Schools are transformed this way as well, spitting out assembly-line robots incapable of forming their own opinion.

Sure, the assembly line day laborer may lose his job to the robotic arm, but other jobs will be created to manufacture those arms, write the software for them, service them, etc.

One factory for industrial robots is enough to supply a vast number of regular factories. The whole chain is done in this area, from software development to robot design to robot construction and naturally, it takes less manhours than it saves through increased productivity, or else it wouldn't be done in the first place.

Let's take a look at Volkswagen. Last I heard, they need an increase of 7% in sales just to keep up with rising productivity. 7% more sales or 7% less workers or 7% less wages ... every year. To see the consequences of this, one only needs to take a look at Bremerhaven or any train station along the railroad line from the factories in Wolfsburg, Braunschweig and Hannover (not to mention the ones in southern Germany) to the northern harbours, where the vehicles are brought to be shipped out. Enough bloody cars to fill the English Channel, everywhere you look. That's not sustainable, not in the least. And yet they still want to keep a dying automobile manufacturer (Opel) alive ...

Just a few days, two key railroad switches at Wunstorf were shut down for maintenance, now there are countless car trains stuck at the classification yards, enough to mobilize the whole bloody state. And they are not even back to pre-crisis production levels.

What I'm saying is this: they produce more cars than ever, more than any current market can take, and even though it takes vastly more work to build a modern car than it did 50 years ago, they still need considerably less manhours per car. That includes all the suppliers as well. And they should be damn proud of it, because that's what previous generations worked for. However, it is basically kept alive artificially and has to collapse eventually. That'll be fun. Opel will be the first, 2011 at the latest.

Only completely new areas have the ability to create enough jobs to remotely compensate for the loss caused by increased productivity and saturated markets. Telecommunications was the last one, renewable energy will most likely be the next one.

That said, there will always be endless work that needs to be done, just not jobs that create an income. For instance, the national railroad could use at least the 100k people back they let go over the last 2 decades. Though to get everything done according to regulations, 200k should be a closer bet. But since it's more profitable to cut maintenance personal by another 10%, the status of the infrastructure can only be described as desolate in large parts of the country.

Edit: damn, that's 3/4 just rambling ... sorry.

Olbermann said if you aren't aware of the health care problem, you will be soon. He's not kidding. Even a short admittance to the hospital will dismay you.

My 2 cents: Doctors take an assembly line approach using over-powerful medications.
But it could be worse... I've had bad service at lots of places. Just imagine if they trained the idiots at customer support and made them doctors.

1 more thing... college tuition has a similar rise in cost for much the same reasons:
there was money to pay for it(student loans were easy to get), and competing with other schools for students is expensive. Did I mention both the health care system and the education system have huge bureaucracies?