Your first sentence in the post. "Anyway, back to the point - people losing their jobs is *great* for everyone." You assume people can just increase their value, go out and get another job quickly.... You assume wrong. Therefore, your entire post makes no sense. If you think I don't get it, be more clear to me instead of insulting my intelligence. I won't put up with that shit for long. And why do you assume people can only lose their jobs if their jobs can be done my machines? Where did that come from? There are many ways people can lose their jobs.

I found this picture online...it's eerie, haunting. Borders had great bookstores, and just like GOG it had a fair return policy and lots of cool sales. Went there almost every day, about half of my personal library consists of books I bought at that one store.
The best thing was the relaxed atmosphere, not once did I ever get pestered by staff even though I did quite a bit of freeloading and did not buy a book every single time I was there. Read the entire Kozure Okami series there and Vagabond vol 1 through about 18, did buy a couple volumes but naturally couldn't afford to buy everything. To make up for some of the gratuitous freeloading, I regularly bought drinks and cheese cake from the shop cafeteria (even though the famous Cheesecake Factory was right across the street).

Reminds me of the Time Machine movie. Humans have become so retarded, they don't know how to read, what a book is etc.

There was a lot of freeloading. People basically used those stores like libraries.

Yeah you see that in Barnes and Noble as well, along with people sitting in the cafe area seemingly for hours using the free WiFi.

Borders could not seal all the books in a plastic sheet sadly. Also the Borders I went to had Graphic novels, I could have gotten Watchmen, V for Vendetta, Arkham Asylum: A serious house on serious earth had I know about them sooner.

Goddamn so many good things gone never to return. Unless I end up finding a independent store selling books and comic books. And who knows where I can find one here in the area of Puerto Rico I live in.

Nobody's insulting your intelligence. You're rather touchy, though. Also, you're again telling me what I'm saying, and wrong about it. So here's the more verbose version.

First of all, we're not disagreeing. Getting that clear might make this less painful. You absolutely agree with the statement that "people losing their jobs is *great* for everyone." It's possible we differ on degree. If everyone had the same job for the last two hundred years, we wouldn't have cars, computers, airplanes, or any of the trappings of modern life. It's absolutely necessary for the job market to change to accommodate new technologies. People losing their jobs in the fields as a result of farm machinery led to our ability to feed a population now more than seven times what it was in 1804 (when the world pop first hit 1 billion). But as a result of those lost manual labor jobs, knowledge worker and skilled jobs opened up in machinery construction and maintenance, as well as operation. People losing their jobs in the automobile industry to the assembly line led to increased rates of production, decreased costs of production, increased supply, increased demand, and then more jobs in auto construction. People losing their jobs is critical to economic growth. Economic growth is great for everyone in the economy.

The ways to improve the total (and average) wealth of an economy are myriad, but one that certainly works is to increase the value of labor done more than the quantity of labor is decreased. I've shown several examples in that last paragraph of how losing jobs results in more specialized jobs with greater labor value. Thus, secondly, my post certainly does make sense. My objection to your strawman was that your strawman made no sense, but was not my point, though you claimed it to be.

Thirdly, it seems - based on both " You assume people can just go out and get another job quickly.... You assume wrong" and two comments you made in earlier posts - that your scope differs enough from mine to be a problem. Your comments speak to the loss to the individual. But they also assume that no new job will be held - an assumption that is not well reflected in reality. So to be less tactful for one sentence, you assume that a worker will not be able to get another job...you assume wrong.

If I'd been insulting your intelligence, I'd not have bothered to explain, claiming you wouldn't understand or some other condescending garbage. Stop trying to pick internet fights. It's tough to catch inflection in a text medium, so wait until you've got good reason to raise hackles.

I was guilty of freeloading, can't deny it! Even though I did spend hundreds of $$ there a year. When I heard about Borders closing several years later, I thought freeloading must have been the number one reason but on closer inspection I think that might not be the case.
Here's an article that seems to underline my suspicions:
http://business.time.com/2011/07/19/5-reasons-borders-went-out-of-business-and-what-will-take-its-place/

"I tend to assume people on these forums are generally smart, so I'd ask you go over that one more time. "
I wasn't the one trying to pick a fight. Was that sentence really necessary? I wasn't being touchy.

If people lose their jobs to accommodate new technologies, then it's not entirely a bad thing for everyone. Because obviously new jobs are created etc. Okay, fine. You shouldn't think that new technology for mankind automatically = good for everyone though. But what if people lose their jobs and it's not because of new technology or they lose their jobs because of new technology but that new technology doesn't help create new jobs? And those 2 links you posted show me websites that are out of touch with reality. And you are using a .gov page to back you up? LOL Yeah and we can trust the news too? Not.. Like I said, the average person can't just increase their value and get another job quickly in real life. Some people, who are lucky enough to have the resources to do so can pull it off but the average person? No.

Wait a minute, shouldn't you hate them for this and be happy they are closing? :P

Meaning?

He thinks Saving Private Ryan and Band Of Brothers sucks donkey balls or is pretending to think they suck donkey balls.

Interestingly enough he did not mention The Pacific unless he happens to like World War II in the Pacific Theater.

Personally, I don't like Band Of Brothers and The Pacific. Tour Of Duty is 100000 times better for my tastes. I also don't like the story of Saving Private Ryan but the battle scenes make up for it. The last battle with the SS attacking them...epic.