re: Robert Reich delivers lecture on greed while earning $240K for one class

quote:

---

At this point, I do not believe for a second that much of the non-productive class will last very long in generational terms, or that it will be permitted to "thrive".

---

You very well may be right. In which case, this discussion becomes moot.

I guess I'm debating this with the assumption that something will be done to try and account for that class, other than allowing it to dissolve into nothingness.

quote:

---

I guess I'm debating this with the assumption that something will be done to try and account for that class, other than allowing it to dissolve into nothingness.

---

To offer a bit of explanation: I think (assuming as we have that everything else develops to this point) that some governments will do more than others to try to account for that class.

I also think that in short order, the states that spend a great deal paying for the sustained existence of a wholly unproductive, highly consumptive class will fall far behind those which do not. And in the meantime, the unproductive will flock to those places where they are coddled, increasing the burden of those places and lightening it in their old home.

And since I think all rational actors are somewhat forward-looking and will foresee this, including even governments (believe it or not!) to an extent, some policy like a universal basic income will probably be seen as a waste.

Disclaimer: I have not thought much of this thru before. Like I said, I've just never found the UBI stuff convincing for reasons I guess I'm trying to flesh out here.

quote:

---

The super wealthy would likely rather pay off the people not to come in waves of millions to murder them rather than horde their wealth and invite losing their head.

---

At some point, increasing returns to technology (specifically weapons technology) will overcome such a risk.

quote:

---

At some point, increasing returns to technology (specifically weapons technology) will overcome such a risk.

---

Sure but I suspect the problem rears it's head before you get to that point. Also given the moral ickyness of either killing or sterilization of hundreds of millions will lead to those making the gains passing much of it down.

I think it's a bit of a moot point though. I don't see the rise of tech as creating such a dystopian future. The shift will be to economies on the small scale. Small farms producing heirloom meat and veggies. Niche services. Ect. The new tech should eventually be cheap enough and available enough to make it fairly cheap to start your own business exploiting a specialized area of demand.

Obviously all my opinion.

quote:

---

Ok so if I buy into your premise I agree that would be a heck of a problem - but it would not be the result of any income disparity.

---

Ah, but see, I think that, implicitly, it would have to do with exactly that.

If the "capital" (read, technology) is owned by an increasingly smaller portion of the population, they will by definition reap the vast majority of the economic profit, because their means of production (automation) is directly owned by them, and un-reliant on labor. As a result, the displaced or obsolete labor will have no means of income. The system would inherently continue to refine the pool of owners of said capital, and those who stood to benefit from it would continue to shrink.

I think ultimately you'd have to have some sort of forced redistribution to stabilize the system if you want the vast majority of humanity to continue to be able to live at current (or better) levels.

Note that there are some inherent assumptions here, including that there is a desire to keep around an underclass. Another would be that allowing the majority of humanity to regress effectively to agrarian hunter-gatherer levels isn't an option. In MY view, neither of those options is realistic.

As far as how realistic this is - I agree with some earlier posters that if we could simply snap our fingers and be 200 years in the future, and magically we had super-abundance, with raw inputs being essentially free, this wouldn't be an issue; we'd be living in a utopia, and everybody could have everything (hyperbole, but you get the drift).

I think where the problem will really manifest itself is when society attempts to cross the gap between now and then. If you have a majority of workers losing their jobs (and I literally mean a majority - 50, 60, 70%), including those in white collar positions, and the owners of the capital that is replacing those jobs basically telling the displaced to pound sound, I think you'll see a revolution.

I'm hopeful we don't reach that point. And I think that a paramount way of ensuring we dont is by considering how we'll transition. It could be taxation on automation, which then gets redistributed as universal basic income. It could be any number of other solutions I can't even imagine.

And I know the above starts skirting really close, conceptually, do the dreaded "socialism." I suppose there's no way of avoiding that comparison. I'm just honestly not sure how else it would be dealt with.

quote:

---

quote:
Niche services. Ect.

I do agree that this will be one place displaced labor will go, and as living standards continue to increase, demand for niche/boutique-type services & items will increase.

---

That's true. And maybe I'm underestimating how much the "art/boutique/niche" market could support, but, while I see plenty of people moving this direction, I don't see there being nearly enough earning capacity available here to really have much of an impact.

quote:

---

My counter is the cost of technology will open up the majority of people to that capital

---

You mean like 3D printers and shite?

That's the idea, but also a lowering of overhead thanks to software and more powerful hardware. For example, instead of a POS system you can operate a business with an Ipad and cube. The ability to market very cheaply and get very specific in who you target. Cheaper goods from manufacturing lowering labor costs to furnish your store.

You get the idea.

quote:

---

If the access to technology remains prohibitive, I think you could see the social unrest I alluded to.

---

Sure.

It's all speculation, so a little disagreement on the results is to be expected and welcomed.

quote:

---

There is a huge presumption here... that technology will be owned by smaller portions of the population. History says otherwise. As we've gone along technology has steadily gotten cheaper, and wider distributed. There was a time when a good personal computer cost over $10k. Today, my phone (free from my carrier) has far more processing power. That's an AMAZING dissiminaton of earning potential unlike we've ever seen.

---

Valid point TA, and maybe one I'm not considering fully. I'd have to think through the implications.

I guess I'm arguing for "technology" in a limited sense. Obviously we are all going to continue to have increasing levels of technology at the base consumer level. But the heavy hitting, super expense stuff that allows for mass automation and goods creation (large scale AI systems, etc), I'd imagine, will continue to be an area that only those with enough resources can afford.

Then again, IBM has talked about offering Watson in the cloud, eventually. So maybe even that is unrealistic.

Thanks for the input. I'll need to revise my thinking a bit.