IT is the cause of rising income and wealth inequality since the 1970s [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: IT is the cause of rising income and wealth inequality since the 1970s [pdf]

#131

Post by FussyZeus » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 3:01 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #119

FussyZeus wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the least of which is mass automation, which removes one of the worst aspects of socialism and communism; the permanent working underclass. A friend of mine says Communism arrived 100 years too early, I'd say that's an excellent way to put it.

> mass automation, which removes one of the worst aspects of socialism and communism; the permanent working underclass Mass automation doesn't remove the underclass; it just makes it a non-working underclass instead of a working underclass. That is not an improvement. > A friend of mine says Communism arrived 100 years too early, I'd say that's an excellent way to put it. Only if you think that Communism is potential…

> Mass automation doesn't remove the underclass; it just makes it a non-working underclass instead of a working underclass. That is not an improvement.

How is that not an improvement? So we have a certain segment of the population that doesn't produce, when we have such a small portion of the population producing such wealth, does it really matter? This whole argument is based on the predication that everyone must "earn their keep" and in the days where the hunters would leave the village daily to kill food, that was true, but when 2 of the hunters in our village bring home enough daily to feed the entire village 10 times over, is it really relevant the contribution of the other 20 hunters? Or is it more beneficial to the village to have them doing other things that while not intrinsically valuable, could improve the lives of the other villagers, the 2 hunters included?

It's a little hyperbolic I admit, but I'd like to think that once we reach the point where less and less actual work is required that we'll branch out into other things, not simply let people who aren't working die off in the streets. Man was not made to toil daily for his meager wage and die.

Re: IT is the cause of rising income and wealth inequality since the 1970s [pdf]

#132

Post by coldtea » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 3:01 PM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #90

coldtea wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I assume you mean mandatory charity through taxation teaches people to be charitable?). That certainly isn't a given; how do you know whether people have been taught to be charitable by the threat of violence/imprisonment [so] they're only paying taxes to avoid being imprisoned? It's not about knowing what each individual motives are though, it's about society setting X (we help the disabled) as a norm, rather as s…

>In the end, some people might not like it, but more people will see it as a default/norm/baseline than in an opt-in society. This is a supposition. I could suppose that (and I've certainly read this somewhere) actively giving to charity encourage people to give more; giving is like a skill, generosity is like a muscle, growing with practice. If giving is abstracted out to the state, if people think "I don't have to…

>The difference here is, if you have a society/governance structure that rejects the notion of using violence to enforce certain beliefs on others, there'd be no mechanism for keeping people in slavery.

Slavery is based on using force to have others do your work, serve your interests -- not in enforcing certain beliefs in others. So it's not enough to have a "a society/governance structure that rejects the notion of using violence to enforce certain beliefs on others", but also to have a society that it or individuals also don't use force to serve their private interests.

While looks unlikely. How would such a society would enforce no slavery if people still profited from having slaves? It should punish those that do to prevent that (and thus it couldn't fully embrace the non-violence thing).

>(A society rejecting violence in the absolute sense would barely even support notions of property, yet alone slavery.*

Is such a society possible? Only if it has everybody's agreement (not to be violent, use violence when it suits them, etc). Else the society would have to use violence itself (that is, some kind of police) to maintain the non-violence in its members.

>The difference stems from the fact that neglect is a passive harm; if the person doing the neglect didn't exist, the neglectee wouldn't be in a better situation. If the man watching the downing man didn't exist, the drowning man isn't more likely to be saved. Violence is an active harm: if the person doing the violence didn't exist, the victim would be better off (at least from the victim's perspective); if the slaver didn't exist, the slave would be better off.

Well, if the "man watching the drowning man" was punished for his non-involvement, then future drowning men would be better off. So it might seem like it's a totally passive harm, but it actually affects the future of what's acceptable.

(Not to mention that the drowning man, assuming he eventually managed to escape, would probably rejoice in seeing the "man watching him" getting punished for not trying to help him).

Re: IT is the cause of rising income and wealth inequality since the 1970s [pdf]

#133

Post by sgift » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 3:03 PM UTC

jstanley wrote: post #20

oblio wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, let's say you're right. 1. Are you willing to leave behind, say, 40-50% of the population? Especially since that group could include people such as your parents or your partner or your kids. 2. If you're willing to leave them behind, what are you going to do with them?

If it's your parent, partner, or kids, (or even if it's not -- it could be anyone) you're welcome to provide for them yourself. You're also welcome to donate to (or even work for!) charities that provide for them. But it's not OK to force everyone else to provide for them.

And here's my monthly reminder that places exist out there where you aren't 'forced' to help others (by some evil government): Somalia welcomes you any day now.

For some reason people are always reluctant to follow that advice.

Re: IT is the cause of rising income and wealth inequality since the 1970s [pdf]

#134

Post by coldtea » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 3:08 PM UTC

yters wrote: post #96

pdkl95 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mark Blyth (prof. of political economy at Brown) has advice for anyone with this attitude: "The Hamptons is not a defensible position"[1]. What are you going to do when a large fraction of the population starts getting hungry and they decide taking what they need from you (and everyone else with wealth/resources)? Do you really think that the police will simply arrest them? What about when someone starts shooting and…

In the long term isn't it economically better to get people out of this welfare culture so they can provide for themselves? Gangs aren't formed to feed starving people, they form because the culture is broken. In the long term, placating gangs with welfare money will backfire. Arguably it's the welfare money that significantly led to the culture breakdown in the first place by destroying economic and social structure…

>In the long term isn't it economically better to get people out of this welfare culture so they can provide for themselves? Gangs aren't formed to feed starving people, they form because the culture is broken.

Then it's the culture that needs fixing, not the welfare.

>Arguably it's the welfare money that significantly led to the culture breakdown in the first place by destroying economic and social structure.

Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, et al. have excellent welfare, but no "gangs" of that style. So it's not the welfare that causes that phenomena.

In contrast, most developing world hellholes have little to no welfare, and huge gangs, violence and destroyed economic structures issues.

In fact the "have the community provide for itself" is how you get support structures like the mafia, the cartels, etc, substituting a state that doesn't help its people.

Re: IT is the cause of rising income and wealth inequality since the 1970s [pdf]

#135

Post by ue_ » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 3:08 PM UTC

titzer wrote: post #122

ue_ wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather say that high income inequality leads to people realising class antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and the synthesis of this conflict is Socialism.

Violent revolution is manifested throughout human history, before there was even a concept of Socialism. They were called "slave rebellions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_rebellion

This is the point - it is class conflict, Marx took this into account in his materialist conception of history. The antagonism of proletarians and bourgeoisie is the modern manifestation of the class war; slave rebellions the ancient manifestation.

Re: IT is the cause of rising income and wealth inequality since the 1970s [pdf]

#136

Post by jrs95 » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 3:09 PM UTC

charlesdm wrote: post #127

jrs95 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely not universal. But in my opinion, it's more like there are people who think they're better than us that are upset that we're as successful as we are. And being predominantly white men doesn't help, even if we do tend to lean left. That shitty documentary Nancy Pelosi's daughter made is probably a good example of that. The premise is basically that tech workers are terrible and are destroying San Franc…

Do software engineers predominantly lean left? I think the left / right debate is quite outdated, with both sides having equally good (but also bad) ideas about certain subjects. Why can't you lean left on healthcare and LGBT rights, yet more right on certain economic policies and tax issues?

I think both are true. Software engineers tend to vote Democrat, but they're also much more likely to be libertarians than the average person. Or even "alt-right" to be honest. Outside of a general leftward bias, I think we seem to be more prone to exploring ideological extremes.

Re: IT is the cause of rising income and wealth inequality since the 1970s [pdf]

#137

Post by jstanley » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 3:13 PM UTC

sgift wrote: post #133

jstanley wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's your parent, partner, or kids, (or even if it's not -- it could be anyone) you're welcome to provide for them yourself. You're also welcome to donate to (or even work for!) charities that provide for them. But it's not OK to force everyone else to provide for them.

And here's my monthly reminder that places exist out there where you aren't 'forced' to help others (by some evil government): Somalia welcomes you any day now. For some reason people are always reluctant to follow that advice.

Somalia's government situation is a mess because the country has no economically productive activity.

Not the other way around.

Re: IT is the cause of rising income and wealth inequality since the 1970s [pdf]

#138

Post by jrs95 » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 3:15 PM UTC

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #112

jrochkind1 wrote: post #105

// Automation replaces men. This of course is nothing new. What is new is that now, unlike most earlier periods, the displaced men have nowhere to go. The farmers displaced by mechanization of the farms in the 20's could go to the cities and man the assembly lines. As for the work animals like the mule, they could just stop growing them. But automation displaces people, and you don't just stop growing people even whe…

Another argument for basic income? The displacement of any worker who drives for a living as at our doorstep.

I think that sort of depends on your perspective. Some critics of UBI would say it's basically a scheme to keep a capitalist system and a ruling class in place that we'd be better off doing away with.

Re: IT is the cause of rising income and wealth inequality since the 1970s [pdf]

#139

Post by ivl » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 3:21 PM UTC

turk- wrote: post #128

Globalization is the cause of inequality. Technology just facilitates it. Capitalism leads to a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and periods of globalization have resulted in high levels of inequality. Inequality today is comparable to the levels during the gilded age and there was no IT back in the 1870's.

Globalized capitalism has caused the largest reduction in poverty ever. If you had to be randomly born anywhere in the world, only getting to pick the date, you'd be smart to pick today if you wanted a decent shot at life.

Now, with regard to inequality in the US, that's mostly self inflicted. Moving production to cheaper areas lowers prices. It just so happens that the US chooses policies that increase inequality, rather than decrease it, like how education is funded.

Re: IT is the cause of rising income and wealth inequality since the 1970s [pdf]

#140

Post by shaggerty » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 3:22 PM UTC

turk- wrote: post #128

Globalization is the cause of inequality. Technology just facilitates it. Capitalism leads to a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and periods of globalization have resulted in high levels of inequality. Inequality today is comparable to the levels during the gilded age and there was no IT back in the 1870's.

They had telegraph systems.