Automation taking our jobs

That ship has sailed and is sinking in deep water. People expect more for less every year, while inflation drives up the cost of living faster than wages. The only way to improve productivity is with better tools that let the same number of people, or fewer, do more. Sure, we could do like Asimov's series and ban robots from doing human work, but as that showed, it would stagnate the economy and could only work if the whole world buys in. China, for example, is going all in on replacing humans with robots. Factories can get a robot that can do most of what a human can do right now for $5K/mth. They work 24/7 and swap their batteries in just 3 minutes of downtime. How is a human going to compete with that? That is $6.94/hr plus electricity. Not training time or time off. So if you want a job that will probably still be around in a decade, you'd better learn a trade like plumbing. Something that requires some training, that the average person will not learn, and that interacts directly with people. But even those jobs will probably give way to economic pressure in the following decade. The real question is: how do all those unemployable people live? UBI paid for by these almost totally automated companies. Either directly by taxes on US factories or the sellers of goods imported from automated factories overseas. The 2030s are not going to be fun for the average person while all this transitions. And you will be glad for anything helping stem crime for the next decade or so as this shakes out with all the unemployed and unsupported about.

Flock cameras

The cameras are relatively cheap, easily traceable if moved, newer models scan for nearby devices and log them, and the poles are fairly cheap to repair. Coupled with the penalties for tampering with them, that seems like a less effective action than trying to stop them from being put up in the first place. Either action will likely draw increased police attention in the area.

Realistically, most of the uproar about Flock is more of a distraction from all the other ways there are to track you. For example, even if you leave your phone at home, your car might have a cellular radio in it pinging towers and giving away its location and where it has been. Flock cameras, on the other hand, are primarily used to locate a wanted vehicle or to catch suspicious behavior. Eventually reducing the need for cops driving around looking for such. Thus, getting the same or more coverage for less money. And in the end, all the uproar is just free advertising for Flock. Like all the Ring doorbell uproar previously.

Fact check: If you make under $66 an hour you're making less than minimum wage in 1970 housing purchasing power.

 Actually, it depends on how you look at it. Minimum wage in 1970 was just $1.60. If you Google it, you will be told it is $13.00 to $13.65 in today's dollars. But some of that might be cheaper electronics. Using gas or car prices, it would be closer to $16. Using home prices, it is more like $32. So how did they get to the $66 figure? It comes mainly from this guy, not a news source. It seems he arrived at the $66 figure by assuming the cost of a mortgage on an average home is 1/4 of your gross. But if median home prices have only gone up 20X, how do they get to 40X? Mortgage rates are about the same now as then. Given the 1970 minimum wage, the average home mortgage would be 69% of their gross income. So there would be no way for them to afford the average home from the $66/hr formula. If you sub in the 69% instead of the 25% assumed to get to the $66 figure, it comes to $11.21/hr. To flip that around, a minimum wage of $7.25/hr and 40 hours per week is just $290. Or about 25% of your monthly gross income. Not sure what you are going to find to rent, much less mortgage, at $290 per month. At $11.21/hr it is a little better at $448.40. That would almost cover half the rent on the average 2-bedroom at 50% of your gross. Granted, it goes farther in the cheapest locations.