Slashdot Mirror
Distribution of Wealth in a Robot-Driven World
An anonymous reader sent another piece by Marshall Brain. He continues his examination of a society where most manual labor is performed by machines, idling a large fraction of the current workforce. See his previous piece for background.
80 percent of the households in America make 50.6 percent of all the income in America.
The richest 20 percent of the households, on the other hand, make 49.4% of the income.
so the folks that fall between 21 & 80% make 1.2% of the income in this country?
I'm pretty sure the author means that 1/4th of that 80% make 49.4 of the money that is 50.6% of the national income, but it could use a little clarity on that point.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Republicans want 100% of the wealth while the rest of the losers get exactly 0%.
Expect lots of people to starve to death even in the world of robots.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
That will never happen. When our population increases too much to support the darwinist conservative ideology, we will just go to war and kill some people,or stop sending food to countries and let them starve.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
This guys solution to the problem is to introduce what he calls "extreme" taxes on the uber wealthy, re-introducting the money back to the public and the people who "earned" it.
Isn't this called socialism and hasn't it been proven by such great welfare states as France to be a complete disaster for the ecnomy that adopts it?
So, robots take over most jobs and our solution is to become a bloated welfare state that makes Europe look tame by comparison?
Next wack job with an economic theory please..
*Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*
This same thing happens in the USA in ghettos. Look at gang leader, the gang leader goes to the poor community, flashes money around, talks a good talk, and suddenly has a million followers.
Think of the black panthers, luis farakhan, jesse jackson and others who basically go to poor communities, and talk and suddenly have a million followers.
Yes when you go to people who have nothing, and then find some devil, be it the white devil, or the american devil to blame it on, well its easy.
Hitler did this to the jews, the jews were the cause of all germanys problems, just like to certain republicans, its the blacks and hispanics who are taking all the jobs.
Every leader usually blames some evil people or group of people to gain support, George Bush even does this. "Those evil towel heads!! the axis of evil" etc kinda crap he says sure it gets the Americans to support him and blame all terrorism on the arabs.
Fact is, Bin Laden does what all leaders do, go to the people who have nothing, offer them a way out through heaven and religion, brainwash them into commiting suicide while at the same time convincing them to hate by telling them "Well its that evil white american man causing all these problems!"
And you know what, when Bush the White American male goes on TV and calls them all evil, well it just confirms it. When we drop bombs on them you know what, its like what the republicans do.
"Well, lets lock all those who live in the ghettos in the USA in prison, lets get rid of welfare, let them get jobs and work their way out"
Well this makes it easier for the gang leader to recruit and say "See! I told you the white man hates you, Look at what hes doing locking you up in prison and cutting all your programs!, join me and sell drugs, at worse you'll be in prison and at best you'll be rich!"
You see? Just follow the logic, its brainwashing.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Here's a greatly simplified example of five people and their yearly incomes, from lowest to highest:
Bob: $20
Tim: $40
Doug: $60
David: $80
Roy: $100
Now suppose that it was a banner year for the economy, and everyone's income rose 10%. The next year everyone's income would look like this:
Bob: $22
Tim: $44
Doug: $66
David: $88
Roy: $110
So, things are peachy, right? Not according to the newspapers or class warriors, because the gap between rich and poor increased. The gap between rich and poor, between Bob and Roy, went from $80 to $88.
Now, suppose that next year, despite no economic growth, Bob wins $500 from the lottery. Yee-ha! So now the income chart looks like this:
Tim: $44
Doug: $66
David: $88
Roy: $110
Bob: $522
So, things weren't so hot for the economy as a whole, but the poor did well, right? Again, not according to the newspapers or class warriors. Even though Bob got rich the gap between rich and poor increased again. The gap between rich and poor went from $88 to a whopping $478! How did that happen? Because Bob is now in the highest percentile, he no longer counts as poor, so his economic gains accrue not to the lowest income level, but to his new income level, now the highest. Note that Bob doesn't need to go up to the highest fifth for this effect to take place, he only has to reach the next economic plateau for his economic gains no longer to accrue to "the poor." In fact, the effect is far more pronounced with far more people.
The lesson, once again: The gains of the highest income brackets will always outpace those in lower income brackets because there's no place else for the income to go. This does not mean the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.
For more information on this subject, see the Michigan Income Study, which found huge levels of economic mobility in America.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
I've always felt that trying to eliminate the undesirable and banal jobs for which you need little skill and intelligence is good for society; of course, I consider myself in the 5%.
There is no such thing as skill and intelligence. It is purely arbitrary and dependent on the environment. For example, a computer engineer is next to useless in most parts of the world (because there isn't even a computer industry in most countries). In contrast, teachers are not highly valued in say USA whereas they are very important in many other countries.
To further prove my point, consider a salesperson. Is that person valuable or not? Should a person be pushing products to you even if you don't want it? The answer is arbitrary.
How about an astronomer? To most people, an astronomer is next to useless. People do not value them and many people don't even consider them to be skilled in anything. Needless to say, a segment of the population would disagree...
The whole notion of skill and intelligence was propagated by the aristocrats in the 17th and 18th century to maintain a classist system where they benefitted.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
Supply and demand is the most bogus concept ever unleashed on humans. It was invented by capitalists and supported today by capitalists. All economists, who are mostly capitalist, are a bunch of fools. They will all be discredited within 200 years..
Supply and demand MAY work under a theoretical framework but doesn't work in reality. A classic example is stock markets. Economists have been trying to explain stock market for decades and still can't. Why? Because supply and demand doesn't work. The simple reason is because none of the assumptions needed for their capitalist theories are true in the real world.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
I'd like to add another point to this:
A lot of that mobility happens with age.
The richest ten percent are basically our *parents*.
Right now I make fuck all, and am probably in the bottom 20 or 30 percent. If I make six figures when I hit 50 or 60, I'll be in the top ten percent.
It's only natural: as your skills and your network of contacts make you worth more, your income goes up. And most people aged 18 or so are, economically speaking, worthless. They can't do anything useful, they don't know anyone, they're undisciplined, etc.
And I bring up the age issue because, without any help from the government, a huge transfer of wealth already happens.
Parents, the richest 10%, are always dumping money into children, the poorest 10%, so poor they don't even get measured.
All that wealth transfer happens on a totally voluntary basis.
communism is supposed to eventually result in the elimination of govt. Dude, you've heard wrong. The whole purpose of the commie poison is to put an omnipotent government on your back. The idea is that you are not allowed to have any independent idea. And yes, they will promise you... ah, ... the future. Of course for a guy like you a mere bridge will do.
ut don't forget that Communists overthrew their governments fairly easily
You're commie. Easy to spot by the glaring color of your lies. The Russian revolution cost 30 MILION dead. This is not easy, this is a national tragedy. Of course you sound exactly as Stalin - "The death of a man is a tragedy, the death of a milon is statistic." But you and your party are of course... a long gone history.
I hope it would occur to them that having another 40 million die trying to make Communism work _yet_ _again_ is not exactly compatible with the common good.
First, don't confuse communism with a totalitarian dictatorship. One does not necessarily means another. And second, don't forget that everyone knew even 90 years ago that Russia was not ready for the transition to communism. When USA or EU changes from capitalism to communism in a few decades, no one needs to die. Deaths in Russia happened during the transition from agrarian to industrial economy and then because of Stalin's paranoia. It is in no way (except in the American government propaganda) related to communism, just like genocide of American Natives is in no way related to advantages or disadvantages of capitalism and democracy.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
"First, don't confuse communism with a totalitarian dictatorship. One does not necessarily means another"
Read F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom". It demonstrates quite convincingly that communism (by it's very nature) inevitably means totalitarian dictatorship (actually, more oligarchy than strict dictatorship, but that's splitting hairs).
The same type of people who "get ahead" under Communism also turn out to be the same type of people who set themselves up as totalitarian's.
Hasn't anyone told you fellas yet that Communism didn't work and that Socialism isn't far behind on it's way to the trash heap of history?
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
You're off to join the noble Peacecorp. The fiscally bankrupt organisation that sends computer nerds and ROTC rejects overseas without a clue to boss around experienced farmers and tradesmen which will result in low product yields. Oh, and it's tax funded too? It's also going to pay for the college education of a bossy turd who has been isolated from the real world; someone who has been immersed in an imaginary culture of fear and starvation? Where can I volenteer more out of my pocketbook for this program? Tell me, HanzoSan. How much do you really interact with "the community"? You seem to post almost nonstop to slashdot. Do you spend your weekends at a soup kitchen? EEEHHHHH!! Spend your Saturday morning helping with Habitat For Humanity? Nah, you're too busy eating cereal in front of your computer, on slashdot, in your pajamas.
Your "homeland" strawman is enough to make me puke. Their "homeland" is the United States of America. You're so full of shit. I never came from a "tribe" or a definitive sect, yet I'm not wasting away in a slum. By your logic, my humble, largely peasant anscestry is reason enough to lay around and have my wife collect welfare for. FACT: I know precisely zero about my heratige beyond my great grandparents. It doesn't work in Montreal where 14% collect welfare, when they're largely homogeneous and from a similar "homeland"; it doesn't work here. Bullshit strawman backed up by no logic. Maybe because of my Canadian "homeland" I've got the urge to work? What a load.
What the hell are you talking about? People aren't living in the streets because the lack of money is making them stupid. They're living in the streets because the tend to have mental problems.
We have MANY social programs, and anyone who has their act together can pull themselves up and off the streets.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
In re: Joseph McCarthy, read "Treason", just out by Ann Coulter, as it dispells many of the myths about that time period.
See, I could spend months repeating all the extensive arguments and facts against some of the B.S. found here, but really don't have the time nor interest. I figure that if I at least give a reference to factual material widely available in book form that covers the topic, then anyone who actually wants to find out the truth will bother to read at least part of it (even if it's just from a library, or from a free public domain copy online, as in the case of the Hayek books), while I won't have wasted my time on those who really don't care anyway, at least not enough to do any actual research about the topic.
BTW, you can be excused for not having read Coulter's book, after all, it's brand new, even if it is a current #1 best seller in the U.S., but if you haven't read Hayek then you are woefully ignorant of Communism and Socialism vs. Freedom and Capitalism, his works being one of the major foundations of Austrian economics and some of the most influential books on economics ever published.
For more information, try the DMOZ/google category devoted to sites about Hayek as a good start, then hit Von Mises for good measure.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.