141–150 of 254 posts
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/13/145039131/the-tran...
It's sobering. It makes me eternally grateful I have skills, well at least some skills, that won't be replaced by a robot and CNC mill overnight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the case of a "everything is automated, only a small portion of people are needed to produce essentials and even advance" society, would we just be better off with a system that relied on the altruism of the few to make the lives of everyone better and everyone else could just exist? That sort of society has a slew of issues that could be better explored in futurist science fiction (things such as psychologic issu…
I think you're already seeing societies like this in North Western Europe: large numbers of unproductive, uneducated and essentially useless people are kept fed, housed and clothed as that is the humane thing to do, but their lives are absolutely meaningless and empty (mostly - there are of course people who can make it work for themselves). Occasionally they revolt, like they did last summer in England, but even the…
Welcome to Peak Capitalism. This is the peak of our current socio-economic system, and I'm fairly certain that everyone in the White House is now well-aware and convinced of what's likely going to happen over the course of the next 10 years. I hope they're preparing for it right now. I believe the coming collapse of the capitalistic-democractic system is imminent, and America needs to very seriously start planning fo…
How about searching for new economic models. Are 200 year old models really relevant anymore?
Supply-and-demand is still in effect. A thing is still only worth what another gives for it. And when you try to mess with these two rules, they don't go away, they just adapt to what's imposed.
"Functional poverty" is, for most practical purposes, illegal in this country. Employers can't pay what a job is worth if that worth less than a given wage; ergo, economic fundamentals dictate commerce find an alternate solution which does match the supply-and-demand rule, which unsurprisingly often is manifest as either international outsourcing or robotics (loosely speaking). The "average" gets skewed because the lower end of the bell curve gets chopped off, and those chopped find themselves unemployed because it's illegal for them to earn what their skills warrant. Yeah "average" doesn't cut it any more, because someone tried to impose a new economic model and large segment of society is finding out the hard way it doesn't work. The demand is still there, but since it's illegal to supply that demand with human labor, the supply gets filled in other ways - ways which create more demand for high-end skills leaving the low end further behind.
You can't violate these basic models without causing (or relocating) the very problems you're trying to solve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's also a matter of what kind of world we want. For example: Do you choose to use software instead of employing a person because you prefer the software, or would you prefer to hire a person but choose software because it is cheaper (which helps the company survive) and kind-of can do the same job? If it's the first, there's a good reason to be scared. If it's the second, then market forces might eventually…
If it's the second, then market forces might eventually balance out and make hiring people an attractive choice again. It's definitely not going to balance out so that it becomes economical to hire people for today's low-skill jobs. At any given time, there will be jobs that machines are capable of, but that it is more economical to hire people for. However, the skill level required for those jobs is going to keep in…
Let's take a market force like peak oil. When oil is When oil is $50.00/gal then you might think twice about using a backhoe to dig ditches, and instead hire a bunch of ditch diggers for minimum wage.
Ridiculous. The solution to average people becoming less relevant in the economy (which I don't dispute, btw) can of course never be to make everyone above average as that is by definition impossible. It's a feel good message for average folk that papers over the truth, which is that average folk that used to make a decent living doing average work will become poor. All of them, eventually. How poor exactly? Well, yo…
It's not as impossible as you might think. The idea here is to be above average in a specialty, not in everything. It's even more within reach when you start thinking about how narrow a specialization can become. I remember Scott Adams's reflections on this... that you can become "elite" by being the very best at one thing (like Roger Federer at Tennis), or by by being good at an interesting blend of different things. The first is out of range for most people, but the second is a possibility for mere mortals. Scott Adams's personal reflection was that he was good but not great at drawing, telling jokes, and commenting on business, but all three together made his comic strip unique.
Even this approach will require a substantial amount of education and hard work, but it is a possibility.
Ridiculous. The solution to average people becoming less relevant in the economy (which I don't dispute, btw) can of course never be to make everyone above average as that is by definition impossible. It's a feel good message for average folk that papers over the truth, which is that average folk that used to make a decent living doing average work will become poor. All of them, eventually. How poor exactly? Well, yo…
There's another way to "raise" the average and it's already beginning to happen. It is the organization of workers into unions and other democratic labor organizations. It parallels the movements that occurred in the United States in the early part of the 20th century. Except it's happening in China (and other "globalized" competitors). Chinese workers will not put up with unsafe, low-pay factory conditions forever,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Yes they should be restricted. We artificially limit people to protect other peoples freedoms all the time.
Which committee decides exactly how many million dollars a man is allowed to make in his lifetime? I nominate Hugo Chavez for chairperson; he's an international expert on these affairs and surely the Venezuelan economy's current state of double-digit inflation and economic contraction in all sectors (except for oil) are completely unrelated to his confiscatory policies. ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people don't have problems lifting up those who never had the advantages that they had. It's a collective action problem that takes a whole society to fix.
And some people do have a problem with this. I'm always curious about this -- to what extent do you think you can compel Maggie, me, and others who don't share your values to solve a collective action problem we don't particularly think is a problem? And what side effects do you think that will have on society? Edit: yeah, yeah, downvote because I don't share your values, fine by me -- but my questions weren't rhetor…
I think that everyone in a society as wealthy as our own deserves the chance at a life free from fear. Freedom from the fear of hunger, from the fear of a parent losing their job and being plunged into destitution. Freedom from the fear of medical bankruptcy and dying of curable disease or injury. Freedom from the fear of walking down your own street or going to your public school.
I don't think anyone is brazen enough to believe that these are not real problems in America. The solutions from the right are not solutions at all, they're just the status quo. More tax cuts, more deregulation, more gutting of municipal funding for libraries, police, public transit, and schools.
I am of the belief that wealth is not created by individuals in a vacuum. Every entrepreneur and employee stands on the shoulders of giants. They had a business environment and consumer base already here, ready made. Additionally, would Gates have dropped out of Harvard if his father wasn't a partner at a major law firm(Preston Gates)? Would Romney have formed his own company if his father wasn't the CEO of American Motors? If you come from wealth you can afford to take more risks, as you always have an out if things go poorly. 99% of america doesn't have that out.
This is why I am of the belief that assets accrued by the wealthy are not just theirs alone to hoard. Not only is it better for the economy if more people have a fall-back and can take risks without the fear of financial ruin, it is better for society.
I guess the bottom line is that I would prefer that a majority of Americans agree with me in the sense that we can do better for those that haven't really benefited from the vast improvements in technology we've seen in the past few decades. I want to move beyond the 'culture war' rhetoric of the previous generations and I believe we can find practical solutions to these real problems that can benefit the vast majority of Americans.
I don't really know what to say to someone who doesn't think we have problems, I guess we have to agree to disagree.