Do you believe we would be better off if we destroyed/prohibited all the technological innovations you mentioned in your comment? Stop for a moment and think about that. Then, read the article below:
If the so called "evil wealthy people" control all the machines that produce goods and services, what would they use those goods and services for, since the rest of the world is miserably poor?
Apparently not even Stephen Hawking understands the broken window fallacy.
Lockheed had been working with D-Wave for a while. If they decided to actually buy one of their computers, this probably means that they liked what they were seeing.
He says he dislikes a private system but, at the same time, indirectly acknowledges that what makes the system at his district work is the fact that it is partly private. It is partly private because people actually raise money voluntarily and charge outsiders in order to make it work.
He does acknowledge that. The problem is not that empowering the community to pay for its education doesn't work; the problem is that different communities have vastly different resources to pull from, both financially and in terms of the soft assets that communities share, like social mobility, intellectual capital, etc. It's unfair because your average low-income school district can't pull off a bond issue or massive fundraiser to fund new initiatives.
Humans will always figure out a way to combine the resources they have to generate additional value. It doesn't matter if these resources are wood, sand, oil, water, steel or software.
In the example given above, the owner of the business buying more automation is actually an explicit example of an enterpreneur REINVESTING. A manual job is being traded by a specialized job. Demand for specialized jobs is being created. I fail to understand where on earth that would be a bad thing.
When resources are reallocated, some people lose their jobs on the way, that's just the way life is. A responsible individual doesn't take a job for granted and saves so that he or she can go through bad times.
By visiting a third world country it is very easy to observe the lack of automation employed by its society. Yet, quality of life is ridiculous. Can you explain why?
1. Automation is lowering amount of available jobs at lower skill levels.
2. New markets created by automation no longer manage to suck lower skilled level workers back in before those markets themselves get automated.
3. Government can't allow for high unemployment as it causes civil unrest due to jobs being most common way people get money to fulfill their basic needs. Government then makes up some jobs and finds pathological ways to provide food and shelter for some people. Lots of new government entities were created or strengthened over recent years. Prison population is as always growing.
My conclusion:
We need to deal better, more honestly with inflow of unemployed that will not subside. 50% (or higher) unemployment is perfectly fine and eventual inevitability. But we shouldn't lock half of these people up and pay some of the rest to guard them and the rest of the rest to do some fake paper-pushing or citizen groping government jobs. I think basic income guarantee is good solution especially implemented together with sponsored, high quality education that can help some unemployed (those who can and are able) to make the jump into future highly skilled workforce that will architect, manufacture and implement further automation.
1. It doesn't really - it changes them. Changing from horsepower to cars eliminated the jobs of people that hauled horse manure - but created myriad of jobs for caring for, fixing, maintaining, selling and otherwise dealing with cars. The mistake here is that people see where jobs disappear, but don't see where they appear since they don't know where exactly to look.
I don't really see how car can be seen as exemplary labor saving invention. Steam engine, electric engine, radio communication, computer, internet sure, but car?
It's just a technology that allows you to build artificial horse that drinks stuff you can mine from underground and shits in the air you breathe instead of on the street you walk on. It surely saves some labor, but it turns so much on its head by increasing mobility and allowing for actions that were previously impossible that this labor saving part is pretty minor and is easily offset by paradigm change that car brought by.
That's the hunch I had reading this (as someone with no EmberJS experience).
To digress a little, it's not much different than the terminology confusion in Backbone, where:
- Router(s) work as front controllers,
- templates (along with the browser's DOM) as views, and
- Views as presenters (from the MVP pattern).
Models are flavored with the Active Record pattern. Presenters and views are tightly coupled.
MVC and MVP coexist because the controllers respond to navigational input (mapping to model-presenter pairs) and the presenters respond to page-specific input (mapping to model manipulations and, possibly, server calls).
The bottom line is: everything that cannot be scientifically proved acquires this sort of "religous" attributes. No wonder religions and politics are like that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window