Yes E-P...you could include most young drivers (16 to 25 years old and all those who forgot to grow up) who are responsible for a very high percentage of major accidents in all 50 States. Coupled with appropriate drivers skill-dexterity-risky behavior detectors, some 30,000 + lives and 400,000 + injuries could be avoided in USA (alone) every year.

1,000,000 miles testing isn't enough for me. They need 10,000,000 miles before releasing it to the market. The cars are still 2-3,000 lb bullets. Auto companies products have probably killed 50,000,000 since the days of the Model T. We still have "Let them burn!" executives in control of cars as we had with the Ford Pinto. That's why they keep adding more and more distracting electronic stuff in spite of their promise to NHTSA to reduce their presence. Naturally, their bottom line is still profit and not safety, or they would make cars now that would always obey the speed limit. I wouldn't trust any engineer who says these self driving cars will be ready in any amount of time.

I can see a much more dangerous risk of human losing jobs to machines. Google's robodriver may save a few tens of thousands of lives a year at most, but the internet Giant is spearheading a far more dangerous trend of increasing youth joblessness. Many PhD's and engineers laid off from work are now driving taxis. What if there will be no more taxis to drive? Hewlett Parkard will lay off 30,000 workers. The US postal service will layoff several times many if not more...etc.

How about assigning each handicapped person a cell-phone to schedule a pickup via HandiTran service? A human professional driver driving a minivan can provide door-to-door service and a computer network can coordinate all these demands for pickup and drop off to achieve cost-effectiveness and energy saving results. A GPS-enabled smart phone and display can tell the driver and the person just when and where to wait to be picked up, and how long and where the HandiTran van is actually located so the passenger can plan ahead and coordinate his/her activities. All billings will be done electronically to avoid robbery risk to the driver. On-board camera and other electronic devices can protect the driver and passeners from criminals.

Even though a professional driver (probably a young college graduate these days!) is highly trained, an on-board radar-based collision avoidance system can further automatically brake the vehicle when it senses rapid closure rate with vehicles in front.

I strongly believe that electronics and AI should help human doing a better job instead of taking away human jobs.

@EP "Approximately 1.5 million people/year are killed in auto accidents globally"

At that rate it takes only 33.3 years, not 1,000, to kill 50,000,000.

Auto companies are private companies, which means they work behind closed doors. Lawmakers shouldn't be allowing these cars on public roads based only on the private testing of Google or any auto companies. Have you seen Google's test procedures? Exactly how to they test the cars, just drive them around and see what happens? Have they published any quantitative results besides driving to a "local store to get a taco"?

There should be no stigma attached to those who do not work at paying jobs and, in fact, I do not think there is today, in many people’s minds at least.

Whether you cannot find a job or do not choose to work, it is all much the same.

Those who work - do so by choice – for materialistic reasons I might add.

They must pay their fair share of taxes -
- it was their choice to work.

The reluctance that many have to giving the money they worked for (BY CHOICE) is selfish and is rightfully criminalized (but to an inadequate degree) by IRS laws.

People are slowing coming to realize that workers do not have any basic right to “their” paychecks, indeed their greedy behavior makes them obviously less deserving than their non-materialistic neighbors (and non-materialistic does not mean they do not deserve as much money as a worker).

And do not get me started on the outrageous greed and disregard for others demonstrated by those who pursue higher education – there would likely be no ipods to displace waiters if we had only grade school graduates –

Fortunately, many upper level graduates generously decline to seek jobs in the private (greedy) sector.

Likewise, almost all companies are actually founded for the same single materialistic reasons as greedy workers - only to make a profit. These companies have no right to sell what they want nor what the buyer wants – society (the Gov) should decide what they make, how they make it, to what standards and who they employ.

Cuba is a shining example of a progressive society. Contrary to what the news media tells us (news orgs are in it for the money) people such as Michael Moore have discovered that, not only is their health care system much better than anywhere else in the world, their entire system is near utopian.

Boat people are actually going the other way – TO Cuba.

Those who work harder should be compensated more than those who do not, more than those who are less trained, or have earned less of an education or are less able to work. This IS today’s system, not a new socialistic system.

There are few today who believe anyone should be left truly hungry or cold.
SS is growing and "soup kitchens" ARE plentiful.

There are many today who believe everyone should have not just equal opportunity but equal outcome. If you have a nice car, house, wife, kids – they should also; and are even entitled to yours.

Society DOES take care of its members similar to the way we take care of our kids.
SS gives many people money (though not all they want) but with no requirements for “cleaning the house, doing the dishes, cutting the grass, etc.

Not nearly a perfect system, but I don’t know how it could be made better.

Simply taking more from those who earn more seems unjustified, greedy and ineffective.

When you say;
“Those who work should have higher fertility rates than those who can't or don't work.
Welfare should pay for only one child per family.”

Is this like "everyone should floss", or are you advocating the Gov enforce this?

I think the New Socialism being pushed by this administration encourages all and every (poor, rich, small businesses and large) to be moochers, grab whatever you can, however you can (except, maybe not by working hard).

As the world finds more and more ways to automate farming, food processing, cooking + serving and most industries including education and health care, everybody working 40 hours/week will no longer be a necessity.

One early example will be the removal of the class room backboards and the general use of smart tablets by every student, in and out of the class room. Many more students will be able to interact (orally and visually) with the teacher without really being there. Top teachers will be able to teach to hundreds at the same time. High quality teaching materials will be stored to be re-use over and over again. Third world schools will have access to top quality teaching.

Soon, the world will have to find better ways to share the work and specially to better share the wealth. The 3% will have to support a much larger portion of the burden, proportional to or even more than their respective wealth ownership. The lower class and the poorer middle class cannot continue to support 90% of the burden with only 10% of the wealth by going deeper and deeper in debt, directly or via governments.

Working more hours and getting paid less is not the answer nor the solution.

Higher education does not have to cost $40,000/year. If so, only children of the 3% will be able to afford it. A 0.5% or 1% fee on banking and stock market transaction could be used to pay 95 + % of successful studies.

Disruptive innovation/technology has always provided more and more ways to provide more luxuries and necessities.

Someone near/at the poverty level lives a much more luxurious life than a King of old – air conditioning, TV, beer and wine, video games, usually an auto.

Disruptive innovation is absolutely essential - if we do not want to become a third world country.

In spite of American disruptive innovation/technology, working 40 hours/week has NOT decreased from before Al Gore invented the internet, Jobs invented the ipod or from before Henry invented the affordable auto.

Disruptive innovation is, well, disruptive - but gov employment, not disruptive innovation can be shown to cause loss of productivity, lower standard of living and no net jobs (more gov make work and service jobs, fewer high tech jobs).

The lower class and the middle class are better off than before but want more and “why not take it from the richer?”.

The richest 1% pay more federal income tax than the bottom 95% combined and pay 23% of ALL taxes.

I think this CAN be viewed as "not completely equal opportunity" but penalizing success is dangerous - but if we do, let's start with Obama, and divide up Warren Buffett's wealth. Are they not TRUE BELIEVERS?

“Working more hours and getting paid less is not the answer nor the solution.”
Wait; I thought you said automation will make it so “working 40 hours/week will no longer be a necessity”

Or do you think Big Oil and the unions will not allow automation?

So, the issue is

1. Power/control - by the “authorities” or Kings?

2. Relative status (envy) (a dishonorable emotion)

And the solution for #1 is to make sure the government does not have power over us?
Good luck with that.

The solution for #2 is easier; either bring up the poor or bring down the well-to-do.

Not very easy to bring up the poor in any permanent way, if they are not able to help improve their lot and so maintain their self respect - rather than just "be entitled".

But it is much easier to bring down the middle class and rich faster than the poor get poorer.

That IS happening (at least for the middle class) and fostered to gain votes – so some will be OK with this - there is no honor among thieves.

And those who pay no taxes (but want others to pay “their fair share”) have about as many votes as those who do contribute.

People with more wealth often have a tendency to kick the poor and call them stupid, lazy, ignorant etc. That's what they do with their own compatriots, the Chinese, the Indians, the South Americans, the Africans, etc.

China has risen up during the last half century and many are getting more wealthy than our 3%. If the current relative growth rates continue for another decade and more, it is fair to believe that USA's total wealth will be a lot less than China's by 2030 or even before.

India will follow the same path and become the number two shortly thereafter. Russia, with more oil and gas, may get the third place.

By that time, USA may be trying hard to survive the next 'DEBT' bubble. When the average poor and ex-middle class citizen total (personal + governments) debts are near or more than his/her lifetime net earnings, 1929 will look like a good year.

The current model has to be corrected to stop the DEBT bubble from bursting.

Young, bright but poor students cannot afford to pay $40,000 + /year for higher education and will have to drop out. Eventually, only the children of the 1% to 3% with $$$$, but not necessarily the best intelligence, will be able to afford higher education. That's exactly what was common 200 + years ago.

Cost of higher education could be tied to parents earnings and wealth, i.e. something like 10% of family earnings with a ceiling of $100,000/year per student or so.

The same approach should be used for all other services.

Is the principle 'one person - one vote' outdated?
Should it be replaced by 'one (xx) dollar - one vote' ?

If the latter is accepted, you would rapidly see the 1% to 3% with most of the wealth end up with more votes than the other 97% to 99%.

That would be much like it was (and even worse) in the days of Lords and Kings. Mud huts and huge castles would be back quickly enough?

Within two decades, a few billionaires could end up with most of the voting rights. Imagine what future laws would be like. Workers would quickly have to accept to work 12 hour/days @ 10 cents an hour like their great grand fathers did in the early 1930s?

There must be better ways to fix the system without changing the basic right to vote.

Should all new laws having an impact on government expenditures be tied to new equivalent revenue sources to make it deficit/surplus neutral?

Should the financial burden to support essential services be applied proportional to the taxpayer wealth or capability to pay?

Should higher education be free for all students who pass the entrance tests, assist and pass regular courses with success? Of course, those who to not qualify, to not apply themselves or do not have the intellect to succeed should be re-oriented.

There are 1001 ways to finance (free higher education). Many countries do it already.

Until the arrival of our current PM, Canada had managed to distribute the wealth with various national programs such as Old Age Pension, Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Financial Assistance Plan for people without adequate revenues, Unemployment Insurance Plan, Children Allowance/Pay Plan, Provincial Equalization revenue plan, etc, etc.

However, ever since our current PM has obtained a majority, most of the established wealth sharing programs are being diluted or terminated. This could last for another 3 years or until the next election, if the opposition (Liberals and NDP) join forces, if not, this extreme right government could stay in power for a long time.

The problem with extreme right governments is that wealth is transferred to the 3% and the remaining 97% goes deeper and deeper in debt to survive. A DEBT bubble becomes inevitable.