21–30 of 116 posts
On a microlevel the argument seems to make sense the middle-market jobs are the ones that are being wiped out and having salaries driven-down by out-sourcing and technology.
Good example of Betteridge's Law. Also - inequality is a red herring. As long as the poorest people are doing better, it's irrelevant that Bill Gates is a Billionaire.
> As long as the poorest people are doing better, it's irrelevant that Bill Gates is a Billionaire. But the human psyche doesn't seem to work that way. There's a fair amount of research suggesting that we tend to measure our well-being not in absolute terms, but relative to those around us or who are otherwise on our mental radar. [ADDED:] No matter how well someone is doing, if he perceives that others "around" him…
Good example of Betteridge's Law. Also - inequality is a red herring. As long as the poorest people are doing better, it's irrelevant that Bill Gates is a Billionaire.
The poverty line for a 3 person home (mom, dad, kid) is 23k. That is far from wonderful, but in many markets that's a fair bit of cash, especially if you consider food stamps, section 8, state aid, tax breaks, socialized schooling, federal lunches, etc.
I'd rather be poor today than in the 30s or 40s.
Automation may increase inequality between those who are able to take advantage of it, and those who aren't - but it is better to say that increased automation exposes an existing problem. Namely, it so happened that many people were recently able to make a reasonably comfortable living in less-skilled work. There was always a population who couldn't manage that, but now it is a larger group. So the idea that people below a certain productivity threshold don't "matter" isn't tenable any more. But that was never a morally acceptable idea, just a politically pragmatic one.
Reducing inequality shouldn't be a first-order goal. Of course we should make sure that everybody has a decent chance to make the best use of their abilities and resources. But we also need to structure our society to reduce suffering and improve the general quality of life, including for the economically unproductive.
> Smart software... is ushering in an era of "hyper-meritocracy." > ...the cognitive requirements of working with smart software... > Online education... will only deepen inequality... Because of the premium it places on conscientiousness. some people are pure self-starters... But at the same time, I think it’s a pretty small percentage of the population. These are all excellent points. It's funny -- centuries ago, w…
Being born poor and living in poverty has the biggest impact on long term health due to both restrictions in linguistic development and brain health from a poor diet. There was a study recently that reinforced that poverty was the #1 determinant of long term educational attainment.
It's too far a bridge to say that we are increasingly economically meritocratic, if anything some of the "meritocratic" tools we have are only benefiting those that can afford being outside of the mainstream.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some day, when the AI systems take over, and the world no longer needs so many people that enjoy reading programming manuals and studying Fourier transformations, the great bulk of programmers will be lined up and shot, in retribution for their years of pampered arrogance. And it won't be the people we put out of work, it will be the people who paid us, who will have long since had enough of it.
I find your comment bizarre. A baker doesn't spend $X on flour unless she can make more than that from selling the bread. Companies don't pay programmers big bucks and give nice benefits unless they make a lot more off the software programmers build. Nobody is getting ripped off here.
> Smart software... is ushering in an era of "hyper-meritocracy." > ...the cognitive requirements of working with smart software... > Online education... will only deepen inequality... Because of the premium it places on conscientiousness. some people are pure self-starters... But at the same time, I think it’s a pretty small percentage of the population. These are all excellent points. It's funny -- centuries ago, w…
We're at less than 50% global internet penetration. How many of those people without internet have access to programming books and computers?
The only reason being a self-starter is so important is because of how trash CS(/math/engineering/stem) education is, globally, and because, unlike the other STEMs, self-teaching programming doesn't require expensive equipment.
Online education will almost certainly not deepen inequality edit: among the 30% of the world population that has access to computers and a safe, healthy childhood since it will allow people to skip the real barrier to entry in software engineering: dreadful professors and boring, overwrought courses at expensive to attend institutions.
[deleted]
Automobiles have not done wonderful things for minority groups in inner cities. There have always been ghettos and rich areas, of course, but they used to be right next to each other. Now, you have middle class and rich people living in suburban enclaves which they protect by lobbying to keep them inaccessible except by car. The advent of the car has been incredibly damaging and polarizing to the American social fabr…
Good example of Betteridge's Law. Also - inequality is a red herring. As long as the poorest people are doing better, it's irrelevant that Bill Gates is a Billionaire.
The modern poverty line is renting a cheap urban apartment and eating 3 decent meals a day. We're pretty far from shanty towns and starvation. The poverty line for a 3 person home (mom, dad, kid) is 23k. That is far from wonderful, but in many markets that's a fair bit of cash, especially if you consider food stamps, section 8, state aid, tax breaks, socialized schooling, federal lunches, etc. I'd rather be poor toda…