When a liberal talks about how somebody "should have access to" something, hang on to your wallet. Because you will pay for it.
Average Is Over
101–110 of 254 posts
Re: Average Is Over
#102A more optimistic counterpoint:
http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/22/prediction...
Re: Average Is Over
#103Ridiculous. 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…
The solution is none. There is no "solution" because it, in itself, is not a problem. The problem is that everybody feels entitled to a top 10% salary and many would kill for "their fair share" when nowadays even the lower 10% have their basic needs covered and some left for leisure. The problem is that a society where everybody have similar incomes is somehow fairer, when there is no logical chain leading there and…
I don't know.
I don't think you analyzed the problem accurately. I think it's a pretty simple demand vs supply problem. Too much supply of unskilled (or average skilled) labor, but not enough demand. What you describe is a symptom of the root cause.
Population control seems like one potential solution. Of course given the norms of most of today's societies, telling people they can't breed is not gonna work too well.
Re: Average Is Over
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
The solution is none. There is no "solution" because it, in itself, is not a problem. The problem is that everybody feels entitled to a top 10% salary and many would kill for "their fair share" when nowadays even the lower 10% have their basic needs covered and some left for leisure. The problem is that a society where everybody have similar incomes is somehow fairer, when there is no logical chain leading there and…
I come across this "salary disparity isn't a problem" comment every so often and need to call it out. Salary disparity is definitely a social problem. When one person has the money of hundreds or thousands of others, they can wield significant power over them. I have no problem with there being rich people, but I find it obscene that our society allows people to become billionaires.
> When one person has the money of hundreds or thousands of others, they can wield significant power over them.
Oh really? What is that power?
The power to get govt to things on their behalf? There's your problem.
Note that organizations also have power. Why should I be any happier when the AARP influences govt than Larry Page?
Re: Average Is Over
#105When a liberal talks about how somebody "should have access to" something, hang on to your wallet. Because you will pay for it.
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.
Re: Average Is Over
#106Ridiculous. 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, despite what everyone seems to think. Most of China's population doesn't have access to reasonable healthcare, for example, and many of these factory workers live in slum-like dormitories located on the factory campus. This is to say nothing of the literal death-traps that exist in day-to-day working conditions.
The Arab-spring is evidence that, even in the 21st century, or perhaps more-so in the 21st century, collective action can provoke change. It's odd why so many see the process of globalization as a race to the bottom. In the short-term, yes, but in the long-term, no way.
Transportation, energy and other transaction costs could make it costlier to produce in China what can be produced in the United States when labor costs approach parity. At worst, the workers in China and the "average" workers in the west will meet somewhere in the middle.
Re: Average Is Over
#107Ridiculous. 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 ridiculous but I think it wasn't very well presented. The argument isn't that everyone should have a PhD. That wasn't even mentioned. Access to higher education was mentioned but that means college in this context (most likely even an associates degree).
The argument being made in the article isn't about making everyone above average it's about shifting what average is. Times have changed but sadly education and job training for most people has not. The person who used to stand on an assembly line and pop rivets all day is no longer a middle class wage earner. Why? Because popping rivets "at scale" isn't a problem anyone even thinks about anymore. But for people who don't have any other marketable skills or education past high school this is a big problem.
All countries that have been around for a long enough period of time go through this, the US is young enough that we're entering the phase now and we do have opportunity to try to make things as good as we can for as many people as we can. This is not to say that we'll ever stop unemployment because we won't. Our focus needs to be on education and job training in a big way. If the digital/IT age is driving the global economy and a factory can comfortably employs thousands of people the US should be building those kinds of factories. Eventually the places the US outsources to will become too expensive and jobs (some of them) will move back to the US. This is already happening. The middle classes that have been and are being built overseas will by definition grow past the point where paying them to install glass screens in cases will be good enough for them.
Re: Average Is Over
#108Earlier 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…
> Do you choose to use software instead of employing a person because you prefer the software I think in the long run the software will do a much better job than a person. It's inevitable in my opinion. We are not even a century into computing and look what we already have achieved. > I do not like to think about an automated, antisocial world That is because you define your world as the action of going to work in or…
Some people are in fact doing jobs they're passionate about.
What you should really worry about is a world in which a person can't do anything except consume entertainment and goods, because everything else is handled better by machines....
Re: Average Is Over
#109Earlier 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…
> Do you choose to use software instead of employing a person because you prefer the software I think in the long run the software will do a much better job than a person. It's inevitable in my opinion. We are not even a century into computing and look what we already have achieved. > I do not like to think about an automated, antisocial world That is because you define your world as the action of going to work in or…
I think in the long run the software will do a much better job than a person
Software is good at doing a single, static, well-defined job many times. What people do much better than software is adopt to change, deal with unexpected events, and communicating with other people.
Anyway, my point is not that software isn't doing a good job, it's that there is a turnover point...
We are not even a century into computing and look what we already have achieved
Yes. No arguing that. But no trend ever keeps going in the same direction forever. It could well be that the diminishing returns for adding more software have already started.
That is because you define your world as the action of going to work in order to receive food and shelter.
No, I don't. You couldn't be more wrong about that.
This does not necessarily have to be your world. I say we should leave this world to machines
But do you believe this? Can we "leave the world to machines"? (or, to any abstraction?) Who controls these machines? They put all the worlds power in a few hands -- if we live at their whim, do they have your best interest in mind? And even if they do now, will they always have our best interests in mind? (if not, it is very unstable)
The problem reaches much deeper than just "the distribution mechanism". We already have a big problem with getting such basics as food all over the planet, and that's not because the mechanisms don't exist...
while everybody can go on to do what he is really passionate about.
I agree that would be great. We could do that already now. We could take care of the poor and un(der)employed people, step out of the consumerist mindset, and stop worrying and trying to control everyone's every actions. The problem is that it requires a shift in the mindset of people. Until we figure that out, I have very little belief in this "loving machine future".
Re: Average Is Over
#110> Therefore, everyone needs to find their extra
This is Tom Friedman's socioeconomic policy in a nutshell: America as Lake Wobegon.
Heaven help us.