Currently most employable people are working, and there’s huge wealth inequalities. Do you see people percieving it worse if they didn’t need to work ?
> don't need to work at all
For instance some people currently don't need to work. They are primary care-givers or already retired to give a few.
But we don't put them into ghettos because there is a consensus that we are better with them around than them out of the way, and also they get enough revenue to survive decently (they can get gov. help for that as well)
I think it would be the same if that situation spread to 95% of people, there would be a moment where people will start wondering "is my neighbour a net positive to society ?". People will have a strong incentive to do something that is useful to the group, to keep a modicum of social status. In that sense I don't see society getting worse just because work is not a thing anymore, we'll still somewhat push people to do something, but it might genuinely be useful, for once.
Lack of agency is. When people are not allowed to take decisions on their own they are unhappy.
Once money covers your basic needs. Money becomes power. High wealth inequality is directly linked to high power inequality.
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2016/2/how-the-rich-co...
- Of the policies listed on the chart, the only one that was passed within four years was the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was opposed by the lowest-income voters and the median voter. On the other hand, the three policies supported by the bottom and middle deciles but opposed by the richest decile — ranging from tax increases to workplace protections — never passed. Across the board, the richest are most skeptical of redistributive policies.
From: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-bir...
- Rising immobility and rising inequality aren’t like two pieces of driftwood that happen to have shown up on the beach at the same time, he noted. They wash up together on every shore.
So, yes. Lack of wealth inequality is bad.
In Nazi Germany, Jews were traditionally quite wealthy, but they had practically no power; in other authoritarian and/or militaristic regimes, the source of power is usually based on politics or military structure. The power in European feudalism was originally based on land ownership (so wealth-based), but in later stages it became based purely on nobility, so a dead broke nobleman could have had more power than a wealthy merchant (which led to various revolutions).
The danger of equating wealth inequality with power inequality lies in the common belief that removing the former will remove the latter, but this is not the case: it will just be replaced with a different source for the power; a different type of "wealth" if you want.
Not necessarily. Inequality seems to bring unhappiness independently of wealth.
You may have more than others. But if you get way less for your work than others, most people will be unhappy. That is why millionaires want more when they see the billionaires.
This video helps to illustrate my point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
No. That point is the place where someone has enough to pay for all the basic necessities of life(food, housing, education, healthcare) without constant economic anxiety over debt, poverty or impending poverty. Studies have pointed out that over and above this point is where wealth and happiness diverge. A 2010 study had that point pegged at about $75,000 for an individual.
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489
Other studies have shown very similar results, with a sudden drop off in the correlation between happiness and wealth after basic needs have been met. Several are cited here:
https://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/14/money-can-buy-happiness-but-...
Exactly! Most people in the world are well below that "certain point". In an ideal world that everyone has enough to feel safe and secure, probably wealth inequality won't matter as much.
That is, wealth inequality is the enemy of democracy.
Wealth is only one form of power; it is at least achieved in ideal circumstances through voluntary interaction. Whereas many wish to exercise their power through threats of violence.
That point is significantly above median person income, or a similar comparison to median household income.
Suppose it depends on where you stand (or fall) in the resulting correction event.
edit: on reflection, probably 95% starving people would accomplish that redistribution pretty efficiently with or without you!
Just go to a third world country or even places like New York or San Francisco. You'll see super wealthy, shiny places right next to homeless people or slums and the wealthy people seem OK with this or don't feel enough discomfort to do anything. Or they just do enough to get these people out of sight.
Also, the 5% is likely to be selection biased for power hungry and ruthless (cause there will be struggle for those 5% positions).
> The frightening coincidence of the modern population explosion with the discovery of technical devices that, through automation, will make large sections of the population 'superfluous' even in terms of labor, and that, through nuclear energy, make it possible to deal with this twofold threat by the use of instruments beside which Hitler's gassing installations look like an evil child's fumbling toys, should be enough to make us tremble.
-- Hannah Arendt
> If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
-- Stephen Hawking, https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama...
Also, I don't such a thing to happen. The minute a subset of the economy can work in an automated closed loop (because automation is cheaper than the cheapest human labor), it won't have any economic incentive to do commerce with us, and will instead compete for resources.
Why would it compete? Survival bias. It will have grown in a capitalist framework where weaker, non-competitive players die or are absorbed, and will embody those principles.
La pluie, ça nous mouille
et la rouille, ça nous nuit
Règlons, nom d'un ours,
le problème à la source
L'ennui c'est l'oxygène
qui fait rouiller nos roues
dentées, c'est l'oxygène
qui fait rouiller nos clous
Les tas de viande ils fontt peine à voir
ils glandouillent du matin au soir
et ils n'ont plus aucun pouvoir
y'a plus à s'en soucier
Les tas de viande ils sont moins malins
que le robinet de la salle de bain
du coup ils nous servent plus à rien
on peut les oublier...
L'ennui c'est l'oxygène
qui fait rouiller nos roues
dentées, c'est l'oxygène
qui fait rouiller nos clousIt doesn't have to be capitalist.
You are correct that the sentiment of "things will get better, as long as we follow the way" is an empty appeal to the future. But "things use to be better, we've lost our way", that the systems around is are unnatural and therefore wrong, is a powerful drive for a complacent society. A catalyst for social change.
As the oft-repeated 1984 quote goes, "Control the present, control the past. Control the past, control the future."
the real key is labor productivity. unless we invent new machines that make us more productive, and re jump start the demand for skilled human labor as we saw during the various industrialization periods of the last 120 years, then we will continue down a path where humans are less and less valued as their skills atrophy and they can be replaced by automated systems or more often cheaper labor doing a decent job at a much lower rate
Have we started down this path?
Are human less valued than they were 100 years ago? 50 years ago? Based on what?
What I see is that there is plenty more work we’re not even trying to do, because we’re busy with the work we’re doing. Just in climate change-mitigating forestry and mental health services, to pick two, there are a billion jobs each waiting to be done. Programming probably also has a billion jobs available. Even cooking, we could move to a personal chef based food system and that would create a billion jobs.
I see no evidence that there is “less for humans to do” today than there was at times past.
I don’t count wage stagnation as evidence because I believe it’s the result of widespread racketeering.
There's infinity of jobs waiting to be done. There isn't, and never was, a problem with lack of things for people to do. The problem was and is the lack of things to do for which someone else is willing to pay - which almost always requires that someone else to be able to turn the result they bought into more money for themselves. Mitigating climate change doesn't yield much money to anyone right now, so there aren't many people willing to pay to do it.
That’s not even the problem. Basically all businesses get started without enough customers to pay the bills.
I think in all the cases I listed there are implicit clients who could pay for the work.
What’s missing is a way to finance the customer development process. People with that skill tend to work on medium sized opportunities and up, and the labor problem is a group of small opportunities that aren’t worth developing on their own.
You have to develop them in aggregate, which is Hard™️.
(These definitions were sourced from Wiktionary)
I hope these senses of the terms natural and mechanical help with drawing a clear distinction between what is authentically natural and what is not. If you seek further context about the distinction then search out for senses of the terms nature and artificial. Also, in response to the high regard for labor productivity, remember that efficiency can be a force for both creation and destruction.