6 ms·

The problem you are talking about arises from the result of competition in the markets. If someone has a cheaper production because of better technology, then t

by eeky 13y ago

The problem you are talking about arises from the result of competition in the markets. If someone has a cheaper production because of better technology, then the market as a whole will use their business (as the buyer has the freedom to choose who they buy from). This is fair, consensual, and it makes sense to help society gain more value as a whole. Limiting this in any way (as many regulations unfortunately do) is a restriction of people's free choice and thus an aggressive and unethical act. But of course the negative part comes in when the person who used to work in that market has now lost their job and thus their income. Well that is like crying about the slow gazelle who got eaten by the cheetah. It's nature and unfortunately you can't artificially make everybody win, or nature would push back. Some solutions include higher taxes to make an assured living wage. This is possible today but not if everyone keeps raising the standard of what a "living" wage is. If we could produce a guaranteed living wage, we could get rid of minimum wage and thus give people a ladder to compete in markets they otherwise wouldn't be able to get experience/train in. This would be because you could literally work for free, so the company could only see a benefit to hiring you (rather than being stymied by minimum wage). The wealth disparity is normal, look at any statistical data like humans and you will see outliers. Thus you will see people with ideas that are a million times more productive than others. Don't worry, if someone else gains wealth and you didn't lose, it does indirectly benefit you. Don't be jealous bro.

jiggy2011 13y ago
This is a poor way to promote free market economics. Most people don't want to see a tooth and claw society where low income families are torn apart by hungry capitalists. It is certainly true that wealth disparities may be the price paid for the benefits of a free market economy but that does not make them unimportant. I think most would agree that an extreme case where a single individual owns 100% of the wealth and nobody else has anything would be a poor society, so the question becomes where does one start to worry? If somebody can be one million times more productive, and you are one of the million people put out of work and unable to find further employment then you absolutely do lose.
Aqueous 13y ago
Not being jealous just wondering how people who don't own or make robots will be able to make a living wage off of their labor in the coming decades. There's just not going to be enough work for them to do once we have unlimited, skilled, cheap robots. the only solution i see without massive inequality is one where we can distribute wealth. it's not jealousy. it will be a technological utopia if executed correctly - nobody will have to work, we all get to do whatever we want all day. there will always be inequality, but if we live in a just society it will be one where the least well off person is still reasonably well off. a guaranteed living wage might do that - and that's exactly what i'm talking about, actually. but there might be enough breathing room in the future to give more than a living wage. obviously it's a little pie in the sky at this point, but in 10 years it won't seem so much.

by eeky 13y ago

jiggy2011 13y ago

This is a poor way to promote free market economics. Most people don't want to see a tooth and claw society where low income families are torn apart by hungry capitalists. It is certainly true that wealth disparities may be the price paid for the benefits of a free market economy but that does not make them unimportant. I think most would agree that an extreme case where a single individual owns 100% of the wealth and nobody else has anything would be a poor society, so the question becomes where does one start to worry? If somebody can be one million times more productive, and you are one of the million people put out of work and unable to find further employment then you absolutely do lose.

Aqueous 13y ago

Not being jealous just wondering how people who don't own or make robots will be able to make a living wage off of their labor in the coming decades. There's just not going to be enough work for them to do once we have unlimited, skilled, cheap robots. the only solution i see without massive inequality is one where we can distribute wealth. it's not jealousy. it will be a technological utopia if executed correctly - nobody will have to work, we all get to do whatever we want all day. there will always be inequality, but if we live in a just society it will be one where the least well off person is still reasonably well off. a guaranteed living wage might do that - and that's exactly what i'm talking about, actually. but there might be enough breathing room in the future to give more than a living wage. obviously it's a little pie in the sky at this point, but in 10 years it won't seem so much.