We’re heading into a jobless future, no matter what the government does

Washington Post ^ | July 21, 2014 | Vivek Wadhwa

[C19fan]

In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers revived a debate I’d had with futurist Ray Kurzweil in 2012 about the jobless future.

He echoed the words of Peter Diamandis, who says that we are moving from a history of scarcity to an era of abundance. Then he noted that the technologies that make such abundance possible are allowing production of far more output using far fewer people.

On all this, Summers is right. Within two decades, we will have almost unlimited energy, food, and clean water; advances in medicine will allow us to live longer and healthier lives; robots will drive our cars, manufacture our goods, and do our chores.

[PapaNew]

I don't know. I guess my starting point is the starting point of the Declaration of Independence: the individual. It is the individual that is more important than anything in the universe. The most valuable thing in Heaven and the universe, God's Son, died not for "society" but for the individual. It is individuals who "are endowed by their Creator certain unalienable Rights...among these Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

I believe that from a healthy respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual a happy and free society is formed - a society with minimal laws and minimal government, where individuals are ruled by self-governance, not other men. But it takes faith and bravery to live in a free society.

Like our Founders, I am not sure how long a free society can remain free without a faith in God as the moral compass of what is good and how to behave. And you also need faith to be brave. Bravery is necessary because nobody owes you anything nor has any power or right over you and you the same with them. It means we're on our own to sink or swim, but there's no one standing in your way to make the most of your opportunities.

Many people have died to live in such a society.

I also believe Jesus died to give us such a society wherein we find happiness and freedom. It looks like man is incapable of maintaining such a society for very long, as evidenced by the history of the world in general and the last 100 years of America in particular. But someday soon, He personally will arrive to create and himself rule such a society for 1000 years and beyond. I can't wait.

(A word of warning: even sooner, there will be a counterfeit world ruler who will come before Jesus comes and will crush many with his oppression and many will be fooled by him. But God will protect those who have received Jesus Christ from this "anti-Christ." If you haven't received Jesus as your Savior, now is a great time to do so.)

:-)

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Our rights come from God, else there were no such thing as a “right.”

Even though the Constitution is a nominally secular document, it concludes with a reference

in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth

to Jesus Christ. It is right to praise His name.

But my point in the previous post related to arguments which the benighted cannot refute, even by their own standards. They put their faith in government, and their faith is misplaced - because the government is not God, the government is only people.

And people fail. Specifically, society itself fails, if government separates responsibility from authority by “transcending” private rights to property.

[PapaNew]

More simply for me, society fails when it puts equality ahead of freedom and when it puts the rule of man over the rule of law (in our case, the Constitution).

Yes, although I agree that I believe our unalienable rights truly derive from God Himself, it is conceivable for people to think that our "rights" have a different source.

In America, the assertions of the Declaration of Independence were ratified by the Constitution because in the original body of the Constitution, only government powers, not individual "rights", were enumerated. The so-called "bill of rights" were not an enumeration, but rather a sampling of rights as the Ninth and Tenth Amendment clearly state. Whatever powers are not expressly enumerated and delegated by the Constitution to government belong to the states and the people. We the People are born with God-given unalienable rights and we the people delegate some of that power to government to protect our rights and freedoms.

But in the 20th Century, the beginning of the end, IMO, the Progressive Socialists have twisted the Constitution to mean that the federal government via SCOTUS may now interpret the Constitution as it sees fit in deciding our "rights". They've effectively rewritten the U.S. Constitution to be similar to the Russian communist constitution which names a million rights. So the progressives, like the communists, now think government power is the default and the power is theirs if not specifically forbidden by some Constitutional interpretation and in turn and by the same methods, government is what gives or denies our rights and freedoms.

[PGalt]

Thanks for the ping, c_I_c (scrolling back through the pings…I meant to read this some time ago). Great conversation (you & PapaNew) in a fascinating thread. Thanks to all posters.

socialist rationalization

Tremendous discernment of an evil parasite attacking and feeding off other's individual accomplishment. (POSOTUS/socialists/totalitarians are wicked)

[PapaNew]

MASSIVE trade deficit

Sounds so ominous..."trade deficit".

I'm not sure many who try to use "trade deficit" as a scare tactic against free trade and for higher tariffs really get what a "trade deficit" is.

Everybody runs their household with a "trade deficit" which simply means you bring in more goods than you send out. Nothing wrong with that.

What about Hong Kong, a tiny little nothing on the edge of a tiny little rocky peninsula? Do they run "trade deficits"? Of course - they have no natural resources. Then why is it a place that creates such wealth? Because government interference with the economy was taken out of the way and the free market economy and free trade did what it does best: create wealth.

The issue is exactly what Reagan said it was: government interference in the free market isn't the solution, it is the problem.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Last year America bought 440 billion or so, from China.

Last year China bought just 122 billion or so, from America.

Our bilateral trade deficit, is massive. 318 billion or so, every single year.

America needs to bring back American businesses.

[PapaNew]

surplus of labor

Right, and in a free market without government interference, you would have lower wages, lower costs, and lower prices for the consumer. Supply and demand would drive prices lower so peole could buy more for less. Always a good thing.

[kabar]

Right, and in a free market without government interference, you would have lower wages, lower costs, and lower prices for the consumer. Supply and demand would drive prices lower so peole could buy more for less. Always a good thing.

We live in a welfare state. We have 70 million on Medicaid and 47 million receiving food stamps. Government at all levels spends over a trillion dollars a year on means tested welfare programs.

We have the lowest labor participation rates since 1978. All employment growth went to immigrants since 2000 and the number of U.S.-born not working grew by 17 million .

This surplus of labor is being fueled primarily by legal immigration. We bring in 1.1 million legal permanent immigrants a year, many of whom are poor and uneducated. They take American jobs, depress wages, and use the welfare system to a greater extent than the native born. They are being subsidized by the taxpayer for education (K-12), healthcare, and incarceration.

Consumers need money to buy goods and services. More people on welfare and lower paying jobs don't create wealth except for the very few, who privatize profits and socialize the costs. You need to look at the total costs to the country, just not at the costs of consumer goods.

[PapaNew]

I think (and hope) you’re arguing for less government (MUCH less I hope). That is what I am arguing for. Government is the problem, not the solution. The free market is not the problem, it IS the solution.

[trisham]

"Free Republic is here to continue fighting for independence and freedom and against the unconstitutional encroachment of ever expanding socialist government...

We believe in the founding principles with all our hearts and mean to defend them to our dying breath..."

~Jim Robinson

Please support Free Republic
click the pic!

[kabar]

I certainly don't support the welfare state and Big Government. However, government controls our immigration policies, which are destroying the economy and making the Democrats the permanent majority party.

Milton Friedman said, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” We have both.

[PapaNew]

Milton Friedman said, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.”

Right, but his argument as well as mine is to undo the welfare, collectivist state so those who want to come here may without the valid but socialist argument that they're taking socialist government benefits away from the rest of us.

[kabar]

There is no political will to undo the welfare state from either party or the public. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, food stamps, etc. have become part of the fabric of this country. The politicians want to mend them, not end them. The 47% want more benefits.

Americans want all the benefits the wefare state has to offer, they just balk at paying for it. That is the main difference between us and the Europeans. At least, they are willing to pay the costs. Even then, the welfare state is destroying them as well. Eventually you run out of other people's mopney.

[PapaNew]

I don't care about the percentages. I don't think the percentages were good with our fight against King George's England either. I'm like Milton Friedman who fought to the end agaisnt the collectivist state. I think it can make a difference, not acquiescing, especially in taking every opportunity to educate and reeducate.

Maybe we won't get all we want, but waging war against the welfare/collectivist/socialist state is a good fight and could potentially yield meaningful results. I think every opportunity to resist tyranny and break unjust laws are worthwhile and weakens their structure. It's a worthwhile fight for freedom.

I leave the rest with God where my faith and hope rests that He may yet rescue America one more time.