Posts by nomoreexcuses

Original Post by runesplendor:

[snip]

Erections happen all the time...

It's been a while since I lived with a man full time, but I do not recall this being the case. I mean, daily... probably, sure.  Especially if you include morning wood or the cycle during sleep. But when they're awake... I just don't recall that being the case.

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by katonick:

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.PDF

“Overall, an estimated 91% of the victims of rape and sexual assault were female. Nearly 99% of the offenders they described in single-victim incidents were male.”

9% of rape victims are male
99% of rapists are male

So 99% of that 9% are raped by men.

So statistically, how many women are actually raping how many men?

The article I linked addresses this.  DOJ only considers it "rape" against a man when he is penetrated.  "Forcing to penetrate" is not considered rape.  The number of men who are forced to penetrate another against their will is almost exactly the same as the number of women who are penetrated against their will, year by year.

And that was part of the bigger point about how this both minimizes men's victimhood, but also associates victimhood with femininity and raping with masculinity.

I don't think I will participate in this discussion beyond this, but are all these men being overpowered physically? Why can't they get away from all these predatory women? What are their bigger muscles and leaner body mass for if not to get away from women rapists? I mean, have men gotten weaker? Have the NRLW made women stronger and more capable of overpowering men?

When I was raped, both times, if I had been able to get away... if I had been able to break free, you can be 100% sure that I would have.

I actually don't think I know what is being discussed. I apologize for the intrusion.

Original Post by kevinatthebrook:

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

When we get ambivalent robots, we'll definitely be in trouble as a civilization.

Although, I, for one, will welcome our new robot maid overlords.

You truly are the "Kent Brockman" of our little community......

I'm gonna put this on my business cards!

...if cc ever issues me business cards.

:D

I'm sorry (I'm about to say something possibly offensive to you) but.... [you're stupid].

I put the unsaid thing in parentheses and the possibly offensive statement in brackets for you.

Oh, and to clarify, I, nomo, am not personally calling you or anyone stupid, but just using that statement as one that would possibly offend the listener.

Original Post by kathygator:

Cool, because we haven't even made it to the New World in that regard. Here comes space mining. :)

That would actually work as a new sector that could absorb workers... probably literally absorb them into the vacuum of space never to be heard from again.

So yeah, a new, very dangerous type of work would go a long way toward resolving the problem of having a glut of unneeded workers.

Original Post by lysistrata:

I can't wait until I get my robot maid.  :D

I've heard they already have them in Japan. The new models can smile and nod in response to your facial expression. But they cost $100,000. 

Not to worry, once they get the other robots set up to make the new robots, the price will come down.

:)

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

You haven't and in fact can't prove that claim with nothing but total jobs numbers. That is what is preposterous.

Well, I guess you can't prove what affect anything has on the economy since you're always going to have n=1 and no control.  What we do have is a pretty strong correlation between number of jobs and technological advancement.  And we have logic and reason.  Does anyone really think that major past technological advancements have had a net negative affect on the economy?  Do you think there'd be more jobs today if electricity or automobiles or computers hadn't been invented?

As I mentioned, technological advances don't have to mean fewer workers.

But if you were to look decade by decade at employment figures within a particular sector (and you could go all the way back into the 1800s if you wished), you would be able to see the displacement of workers as they move from one sector of the economy to another - being replaced by one kind of machine and then another and then by different kinds of computers and software and then gradually you'd see them kind of settle in at the bottom, over the drain, of long-term unemployment. That's where they are right now.  That's where more are headed if we continue to practice the kind of capitalism we're practicing. 

Of course, the elite knowledge workers are all set and will be a-okay. So they can defend the way the economy works til the cows come home. Their corporate masters on Wall St greatly appreciate them.

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

So there were 50 million jobs for 139 million people in 1950 & the unemployment rate was 4.5%

And today, there are 130 million jobs for 308 million people and the unemployment rate is 7.8%.

It seems like there's more to it than just the number of jobs, huh? Although I guess it would be super convenient for you if that was the only relevant information.

There's more to what than just the number of jobs?  The unemployment rate? Of course there is more to the unemployment rate than just the number of jobs.

My point is that breakthroughs in technology (even those breakthroughs that lead to increases in efficiency) tend to create jobs and have a net positive impact on the economy.  We've seen it happen over and over again throughout history.

You haven't and in fact can't prove that claim with nothing but total jobs numbers. That is what is preposterous.

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

Whatever new unforeseen technological breakthrough happens next, it's just going to put even more people out of work.

That's the whole idea with technological breakthroughs.  They're breakthroughs because they allow a company to increase productivity and efficiency, so they can make the same or more output with fewer workers.

It's always about having fewer workers. You get that, right?

What development can anyone anticipate that is going to be labor-intensive such that more workers will be required?

Maybe an alien invasion. But that will only be because we're either their slaves, or they're killing us off so quickly.

Electricity put some people out of work, but caused a net increase in jobs. Same with automobiles, and computers and the internet.

If increases in efficiency lead to a net loss in jobs we'd have seen a steady decrease in the number of people working over the last couple hundred years, we've seen the opposite.

You do not usually say such preposterous things.

It would certainly be amazing to see population increasing but the number of people working decreasing.

However, the unemployment rate has gone up for four of the previous six decades. It fell back during the 90s and 00s, but never to its previous lows in the 1950s.

And because we've tapped out all the places that could absorb extra workers, unemployment is only going to keep going up now. And I'm not even addressing the changes in the way unemployment is calculated now vs. previously, which if adjusted, these numbers would look even worse from the 90s til now.

1950-1959 = 4.511% unemployed
1960-1969 = 4.779% unemployed
1970-1979 = 6.217% unemployed
1980-1989 = 7.272% unemployed
1990-1999 = 5.762% unemployed
2000-2009 = 5.541% unemployed
2009-2012 = 8.875% unemployed

But to be clear, I'm not saying that new technologies necessarily *have* to cause an increase in the unemployment rate.  If the gains of productivity were shared with workers at all, it wouldn't.  But since all the gains are going to shareholders, yeah, if it stays like that, it will result in increasing unemployment.

Figures from BLS

Our parents are going to have (or do have right now) retirement benefits and health care in their golden years.

When we retire, it's likely to be much less generous, assuming that it still exists.

Otherwise, our standard of living is very similar to that of our parents.

When he says that less than 60% of working age individuals are employed, does he mean, are getting a paycheck from an employer? Or how are they counting those who are employed?

I'm asking because I suspect there are a lot more "self-employed" people now than there used to be. Some of those people started their own business in the traditional sense. And some of those people are treated as contract workers getting paid on 1099 statements (no taxes withheld, etc.), and not counted as wages.