They can't have them coming home and sharing what they learned abroad.
Rivalarrival
joined 2 years ago
That sure musta been something. I can only imagine.
Nah, "dividends" are easy to understand, as are "investment", "shareholder", etc. That's all capitalist language. You are getting paid because you are allowing another entity to use something that belongs to you. You're "renting" something out. You are entitled to compensation for another's use of your property.
Under capitalism, a robot performing labor means that the owner of that robot is entitled to the compensation for that labor. That robot is owned by a businessman, but the compensation you're talking about isn't being paid to that businessman. It's being paid to a citizen who has no ownership interest in the robot.
That's consistent with their understanding of "socialism" or "communism".
They will hate it, as it makes it sound like they aren't "rugged individualists" who can survive on their own. It makes it sound like they can't adapt to the free market, and need to rely on charity.
Frame it as a "Citizenship Dividend".
We "invest" our political authority in the government: Political authority is conveyed from the people to the government. We are entitled to a return on that investment.
I prefer to consider it a "citizenship dividend".
In the US, political power is (ostensibly) derived from We The People. We convey our political authority to government. The government uses that authority to provide the service of "law and order" to taxpayers. But the government does not (currently) compensate We The People for the use of our political authority.
That can change. We can, and should, receive dividends on our investment.
The IRS is going to take a big-ass chunk of your $1 million.
They're not going to get nearly as much from the pans.
Perfectly good billionaires and hundred millionaires all over the place, and someone's taking pot shots at guardsmen?
Unbelievable.
Not if those distracting screens were prohibited.
That could have been the mandate. They could have mandated that be the only allowable screen. It shows what's behind you, and that's it. No distractions tolerated. No pop-up logos or other advertising. No driving controls on that screen. Touch screen disabled while in motion, with all essential functions actuated by physical controls.
But they didn't. They mandated a rearview and monitor, but didn't restrict its use. And that failure has probably caused more injuries and deaths than it has prevented.
Unless they only permitted that screen to show a rear view. They could have prohibited any other use, or prohibited non-tactile controls that required ocular attention while driving. They could have required that touchscreen controls be disabled while driving. But they didn't.
They mandated the distracting screen, and probably killed more people than they saved.
They also put a distracting video monitor in front of the driver 100% of the time, not just the 0.2% while backing. Manufacturers have moved a lot of controls to that screen, rather than leaving them on tactile buttons and switches that could be operated without taking eyes off the road.
How many collisions have been caused by distractions from the these screens?
Your own fault for living west of your workplace.