The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper • Hacker News Board

Re: The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper

#81

Post by tsotha » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 12:57 AM UTC

FD3SA wrote: post #12

I've always been baffled by the investment choices of billionaires. If you accept an empirical view of the universe, no matter what you do, you will eventually die. Your experiences of the world will cease to exist. Therefore, the only rational investment would be in life extension technologies (SENS, advanced prosthesis, etc.). At first, this might sound repulsive. The idea of a group of elites discovering and hoard…

>If you accept an empirical view of the universe, no matter what you do, you will eventually die.

Perhaps you're overestimating the extent to which billionaires accept that view.

>Therefore, the only rational investment would be in life extension technologies (SENS, advanced prosthesis, etc.).

Or maybe the ultra-rich have done enough research to conclude these sorts of technologies won't be mature in time to help them. So why bother?

Re: The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper

#82

Post by tsotha » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 1:01 AM UTC

I think it's a mistake to rely too heavily on productivity to explain wealth disparities among countries. Productivity increase, at least the way economists measure it, is mostly a function of rising labor costs and as such is a symptom of wealth and not a driver.

It's not that you get wealthier because you're more productive. It's that your measured productivity increases as increased labor costs make automation pencil out.

Re: The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper

#83

Post by tsotha » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 1:03 AM UTC

izzydata wrote: post #16

Seems like the point this guy is trying to make is that being poor is relative. So while poor countries are now better off than they were 50 years ago they are still about as poor as they were 50 years ago in comparison to other countries that also become better off. I don't know if this is a good or a bad way to measure a country. Would there not be any poor countries if all countries had about the same wealth distr…

>So while poor countries are now better off than they were 50 years ago they are still about as poor as they were 50 years ago in comparison to other countries that also become better off.

That seems like unambiguous progress to me.

Re: The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper

#84

Post by belorn » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 1:05 AM UTC

old-gregg wrote: post #50

bsbechtel wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Perhaps it's an inherent property of capitalism: some things always end up barely within reach of a lower class. I wouldn't say that's true, we just need to figure out ways to produce those things cheaply enough (through automation, other technologies) that everyone can enjoy them. Take a look at agriculture in the US...even the poorest people here have access to (not very healthy) food whereas just under 100 years…

Very true, that's why I say "perhaps... some things". While technology may have worked well for food, I just don't see how this can be applied to housing, education, healthcare, legal expenses and taxes [1]: these tend to expand/shrink based on how much money you have and "pin" the poor to a certain "ceiling" of disposable income leading to the perpetual hand-to-mouth cycle despite encouraging growth of metrics like…

> housing, education, healthcare, legal expenses and taxes

Interesting grouping, as each is more or less fully depended on government to limit supply and create scarcity. The only really exception looks to be housing.

Education is information, and information is only held limited thanks to copyright.

Health care seem to spend most of its money to pay for patents.

Legal expenses differ strongly between countries and different legal system. Some demand the loosing party to pay for both sides, some demand that both side pay their own costs, and lastly some ask government to provide/pay for legal aid. In system where looser pay (or government), there tend to be limits on how much a lawyer can demand.

Re: The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper

#85

Post by saalweachter » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 1:08 AM UTC

bsbechtel wrote: post #46

old-gregg wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think their disagreement stems from the difference in how they define "poor". Gates is certainly right (it just takes a bit of traveling to agree with him) that hungry-and-dying type of poor is rapidly disappearing all over the world. But if you look at living-hand-to-mouth poor, I can understand John's reasoning. Yes, average incomes (productivity) have gone up but you also see how prices on commodities are rapidl…

>Perhaps it's an inherent property of capitalism: some things always end up barely within reach of a lower class. I wouldn't say that's true, we just need to figure out ways to produce those things cheaply enough (through automation, other technologies) that everyone can enjoy them. Take a look at agriculture in the US...even the poorest people here have access to (not very healthy) food whereas just under 100 years…

Well, sort of.

In the US, about 85% of households are "food secure". Non-capitalist sources -- eg, charities or government assistance -- close the gap for about 9% of households, and in the remaining 6% of households one or more people are missing meals.

I don't really think that's a success.

Re: The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper

#86

Post by unclebucknasty » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 1:23 AM UTC

bsbechtel wrote: post #79

kiba wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, this "race-to-the-bottom" walmart-ization of our economy seems to be, in large part, responsible for the income disparity we see today. It does the poor no good if they can't even afford the cheapest good.

You guys are opening up a whole other can of worms getting into labor. We tend to think of labor as a cost of production and something to be minimized. Maybe we need to start thinking of labor as a (actually, the main) party responsible for creating the value the firm produces for society. Anytime value is created, it can go to 4 parties - the consumer (lower prices), the government (taxes), the shareholders (through…

Good points. Of course, I'm going to quibble a little, else I wouldn't be replying!

>...our economy is so screwed up right now is because employees are getting a smaller and smaller share of the pie, not because technology is displacing jobs"

But, the two are related right? When tech displaces jobs, which it of course has, then there is lower demand for labor and the price of labor (wages) goes down. There are other forces as well, but all primarily stem from a drive to keep costs (and hence prices) down, while keeping profits up.

>If more people are out of work because of technology, great! That means we have more people who can go work on things like curing cancer and colonizing space :-)*

I know that was half tongue-in-cheek, but would that it worked that way! Alas, what we value economically versus what would benefit us as humans are too infrequently aligned. There will come a day though, when only a tiny fraction of the population will be "neccessary" to create what the world produces. It will be interesting to see how society realigns itself and evolves when so few people need to do traditional (economic) work.

Re: The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper

#87

Post by specialist » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 1:34 AM UTC

old-gregg wrote: post #44

quaunaut wrote: post #8

Y'know, I have seen Mr. Kay talk before, and I wouldn't regard him as an idiot. However, he's seemed to have missed the entire point Bill was making. > So what about China and India? Their recent growth performance has been exceptional, but both are still desperately poor countries by the standards set by Switzerland and Norway. The gap will take many generations to eradicate. Which Bill completely acknowledges? Howe…

I think their disagreement stems from the difference in how they define "poor". Gates is certainly right (it just takes a bit of traveling to agree with him) that hungry-and-dying type of poor is rapidly disappearing all over the world. But if you look at living-hand-to-mouth poor, I can understand John's reasoning. Yes, average incomes (productivity) have gone up but you also see how prices on commodities are rapidl…

"Look at insane costs of healthcare/education in the US - no doubt caused, in part, by "free money" either through government-assisted programs or employer-sponsored insurance."

Huh?

Even with the modest ACA reforms implemented to date, the growth of healthcare costs has already slowed down. First time since the 90s.

Medicare, which is most akin to single payer in other countries, is the most efficient guarantor (highest medical loss ratio). Long term cost reduction requires extending Medicare to all and embracing the capitation model. Bonus points for resuming prior levels government funded basic R&D.

Tuition costs are rising as subsidies have been removed and student loans have been privatized. The combination created a bubble. Which happens often enough when deregulation and privatization co-occurs, that my hunch is it's casual.

So while universal basic income may prove to lead to inflation, your two examples do not support that argument.

Re: The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper

#88

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 1:35 AM UTC

kiba wrote: post #73

unclebucknasty wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we just need to figure out ways to produce those things cheaply enough (through automation, other technologies) that everyone can enjoy them But, therein lies a paradox, right? I mean, when you seek to lower the cost of production through automation, technology, etc. you wind up displacing human workers, reducing labor demand, and putting downward pressure on wages. BTW, I'll add that lower wages are another signif…

In other words, this "race-to-the-bottom" walmart-ization of our economy seems to be, in large part, responsible for the income disparity we see today. It does the poor no good if they can't even afford the cheapest good.

[deleted]

Re: The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper

#89

Post by unclebucknasty » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 1:36 AM UTC

kiba wrote: post #73

unclebucknasty wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we just need to figure out ways to produce those things cheaply enough (through automation, other technologies) that everyone can enjoy them But, therein lies a paradox, right? I mean, when you seek to lower the cost of production through automation, technology, etc. you wind up displacing human workers, reducing labor demand, and putting downward pressure on wages. BTW, I'll add that lower wages are another signif…

In other words, this "race-to-the-bottom" walmart-ization of our economy seems to be, in large part, responsible for the income disparity we see today. It does the poor no good if they can't even afford the cheapest good.

I could read that two ways and I'm not sure which you intended.

1.) That no matter how cheap we make things, it does no good if the production of those goods causes some to be so much poorer (even down to zero) that they still cannot afford it.

If that's what you meant, then we are in agreement.

2.) That we need to make things cheaper however we can, so that the poorest can afford it.

If that was your point, then well, that's the paradox. Some are poor (or poorer) because of the measures taken to produce cheap goods.

I think you meant 1.) but wasn't sure.

Re: The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper

#90

Post by downandout » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 1:36 AM UTC

I have never heard of John Kay, but think it's normally a bad sign when someone believes that a very famous person they have never met or spoken to is talking directly to them through the media. It indicates that he is either a) crazy or b) so full of himself that believes that Bill Gates read his obscure book, and was so disturbed by its content that he decided to launch a worldwide PR campaign against the ideas contained in it. Either way, this is an interesting PR strategy.