> I didn't down vote you but I assume the people that did have some kind of value system that doesn't involve culling the underperforming subsection of humanity

> I didn't down vote you but I assume the people that did have some kind of value system that doesn't involve culling the underperforming subsection of humanity during their annual review. This is a rad comment, I laughed. Well, I'm not sorry if I jarred them, that was my intention. > The implication in my original post was that there is enough "wealth" to go around but the current system prevents it from being shared with everyone. When I say shared wealth I don't mean equally, I mean enough so that people can survive without having to fight for subsistence wages to work part time at their local mega mart. When I think about the great social upheaval that will come about from job sector-eliminating automation, I shudder to think about what the hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed masses will do. And, I shudder to think about what governments will do with them in response, (which I why I wrote what I did.) In my opinion a living wage just puts the class war pressure cooker on medium instead of high heat. I wish I had a great idea or plan to keep things running smoothly, but I don't. I have seen homelessness explode in my city ever since the Occupy Wall Street protests, and I see a lot of young people among the homeless who should/could be off the streets making a living. It's absolutely criminal simply from a public health standpoint for the city to let homelessness proliferate like this, and that comes from someone who thinks of himself as a libertarian. Here's a recent interesting interview on RuneSoup about work and money. It gives me hope when smarter people than me can present a positive vision of the future. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ci24y4wOHY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ci24y4wOHY