My family has a genetic disposition to type II diabetes. Regardless of how I eat, or how I exercise I will eventually get it.

My father was well into his late seventies before gettting it. He was a brick mason and general congractor so his work made him very active physically. He retired at 68 and walked for an hour every day, swam for an hour every other day until his mid eighties which started to slow him down. His 87 now and is in great shape for an 87 year old. He has been battling type II drug assisted since his mid 60ies.

While most people can simply control it with diet and exercise others do have to deal with a genetic issue.

Even with this being said I would not have a problem with insurance companies saying based of your family history you will have to pay more to cover these meds. That would be free market, which I am in favor of. I can then choose to work and make the money to pay for them or not and die at a younger age. In that situation its my choice, which I prefer.

I do not think wealth is tied to the choices you made.

I have seen children with wealth decide to steal a car just for the thrill of it. Many succumb to the addiction of drugs that they can afford but the poor cannot.

Leisure provides a choice as to what to do with the time presented. I have seen a poor kid put that time into welding and mechanical endeavors and build a truck from the ground up, purely mechanical, no electronics. Including the combustion engine. He was 17 at the time and a high school drop out, now he is 19 and started up a welding company locally. I predict a very successful future as he has chosen to use his time wisely to learn useful skills and apply them.

Under any economy some percentage of the people will choose productive endeavors, and useful use of time. This may include things like scuba diving which teaches a skill and improves self. Productivity comes in many forms but the attitude of wanting to accomplish something, to do something is the difference.

Those that drift aimlessly with nothing they wish to do can be poor or rich, it makes no difference. They will have more ability to do this as more leisure time is available.

I do not think wealth is tied to the choices you made.

I have seen children with wealth decide to steal a car just for the thrill of it. Many succumb to the addiction of drugs that they can afford but the poor cannot.

Leisure provides a choice as to what to do with the time presented. I have seen a poor kid put that time into welding and mechanical endeavors and build a truck from the ground up, purely mechanical, no electronics. Including the combustion engine. He was 17 at the time and a high school drop out, now he is 19 and started up a welding company locally. I predict a very successful future as he has chosen to use his time wisely to learn useful skills and apply them.

Under any economy some percentage of the people will choose productive endeavors, and useful use of time. This may include things like scuba diving which teaches a skill and improves self. Productivity comes in many forms but the attitude of wanting to accomplish something, to do something is the difference.

Those that drift aimlessly with nothing they wish to do can be poor or rich, it makes no difference. They will have more ability to do this as more leisure time is available.

Your context is flawed. Please think it through a little more. You are absolutely correct if the context is one of "leisure in poverty". That paradigm is what we have so much of now and what ignites those young adults you mention above.

If on the other hand the context is one of "leisure in wealth", making destructive mischief is the last thing people are interested in. I know because that is how I grew up. My friends and I were far too busy to make trouble. We were skiing, sailing, scuba diving, attending concerts, racing our bicycles, playing (creative) games, traveling the world, reading or debating literature and pursuing countless other "friendly" adventures.

The root cause is POVERTY, not unemployment. We don't need more jobs. We need more WEALTH.
-

Just time for a short one: as an economist (of the Objectivist/Austrian/Classical POV), and in addition to the other observations on robots needing programmers etc., there is a fundamental economic principle involved. Assuming a true free market, including technology and robots, human wants or "demand" is and always will be, infinite. We will never, ever, run out of new things to invent, nor consumers to consume them. That guarantees, in a free market, that there will always be a demand for all available labor of all types and qualities, from the most intelligent inventor, to the most basic or manual, laborer.

Most interesting.
The formula PREDICTS (it includes a division by zero) a total economic collapse about 2032.

I am reading the latest 'Harvard Business Review', an article 'Beyond Automation' by Thomas J Davenport and Julia Kirby.

They discuss how we need to train humans for the jobs where we have a monopoly and robots perform to their strengths - looking to fulfil complementary roles.

I think the tech world, silicon valley will turn things upside down...there will be plenty of jobs but the vast majority of jobs we have now will be no more. I foresee a massive shuffle! This would be a perfect time for Mark Hamilton's new business paradigm. Instead of division of labor we should have a division of profit making units where virtually everyone would be their own boss, their own little business within a larger entity, and paid a percentage of overall profit of that unit. The owner operator of the entire entity will be able to create values himself and mentor the others, (instead of sitting on his ass). This will unleash the creative spirit and eliminate (what we call in the Neothink society), the White Collar Hoax. What do you think? are you ready for this massive shift?

I believe it's both. When too many people, especially young adults, can't find jobs, a sizable minority of them decide it would be fun to destroy other people's wealth.

There are ways to plan for and reduce this problem, such as ceasing to pay the poor to breed. But in the end, those restless masses have to be put to work, or they will be our doom. The barbarians are already inside our gates!

I agree that it's not our moral duty to employ them. But it is a part of the problem of defense, so sooner or later we'll have to deal with it.

Institutionalize H.R.1474/S.785, and put real teeth in them Allow industry to compete with Government for ALL roles, based on present scope and funding and a hurdle!

Saves us all money!

Bye bye park service, public shipyards, NOAA, coast guard, post office...government!

How appropriate for the non-thinking "robots" of today.
Fortunately, they have been programmed NO TO COVET! (Can they escape human nature?).
Everyone must be the same...no one can be "bigger/more/smarter".
All will become devolved into robots.IMHO

Never mind; from a young age, I was very much a
miser, content with little things, if I could save my
money. What I want now is A JOB, if I could get
one.

Think of humans as deer. Overpopulation creates scarce resources and the population thins out. This creates an equilibrium. If there aren't enough jobs (resources) we will eventually thin out as well. This is oversimplified and definitely won't happen immediately (govt, charitable aid and war will prolong the inevitable) but eventually, unless resources increase again, humans MUST thin out.

I wasn't trying to take a swipe at you.
Your comment just struck me as unusually optimistic.
Oh, so you meant to be sarcastic.
That's okay too.
I don't know you that well.
Do you have a site where you sell that product? Curious.

If BHO continues his Executive Order of governing of America there will only be a Country of Ashes!

Oh yes.
Fortunately, robots aren't given to jealousy and coveting or else the human race would be in BIG trouble!

Just to clarify, but while heart disease is still a major killer, diabetes (both Type I and Type II) is eminently treatable.

I have a daughter who has been Type I since she was two (2). She's now 14. She is insulin dependent and would die within a few months if cut off. I view Type I Diabetics as unwilling victims who should have access to medication (it would be even less expensive if the Government would get out of healthcare). Please note that I am _not_ suggesting society pay for it, only that it is a need for many that existing businesses should be allowed to continue to address without government interference.

I have a less favorable view of Type II, however, since almost all Type II diabetes is caused by poor diet - mostly people who eat way too many fats and carbs (especially processed sugars) and not enough fruits and vegetables (healthy sugars). Type II diabetes in almost every case can be eliminated simply by better eating and a little exercise. In my view, Type I diabetes should be covered by insurance, but I wouldn't have any problem whatsoever if a company decided not to cover Type II.

allosaur if this is directed at me, I know it is mildly sarcastic but that is okay. I have absolutely no hope for the country any longer. Also, I can assure you I am not alone in that regard. You see I am in the business of selling a product that is now being purchased by people of the survivalist and preparedness schools and they have all become very concerned about the future of the country and do not have much if any hope. So I am not optimistic in any manner shape or form.

Nice article. Great find. +1 and more if I could.

...but The robots are still in need of programmers AND the robots are producing goods and services for people SO does that mean that eventually we will have a world where needs and wants are met and no one builds wealth except programmers?

I present ye with the Optimist of the Day Award!