4 ms·
Wealth inequality is already a problem today. I would argue that since it's an issue already, AI, technology and automation has largely nothing to do with wealt
by crimsonalucard 11y ago
Wealth inequality is already a problem today. I would argue that since it's an issue already, AI, technology and automation has largely nothing to do with wealth inequality as it exists today.
The problem of wealth inequality was predicted to occur within capitalism long ago by a man named Karl Marx. So compelling were his predictions that entire societies have been constructed (and overthrown) in attempt to create a system that is more fair. Russia and China are the two biggest failed experiments in trying to solve this problem. Karl Marx may have been wrong about communism, but he is most famous for being right about wealth inequality and capitalism.
What Karl Marx said about inequality is this: It happens because of the private ownership of the means of production. As long as the lifeblood of the economy, its vital resources, factories and technology are owned by a tiny group of individuals, as long as production is governed by the law of capital accumulation and not the needs of society as a whole, poverty, injustice and capitalist crisis will remain and ultimately grow. Workers produce everything; the ruling class produces nothing, yet the ruling class own everything.
Take for example your typical Tech corporation: Apple. Apple makes $1,865,306 of revenue per employee. The top senior software engineer gets paid around $222,550, which is a number that is far higher than the average salary of an apple employee.
What is evident is this: The people who do almost all of the work in apple (engineers) are only getting paid less than a fifth of the revenue they generate. Where does the rest of this revenue go?
It is used to increase the incomes of a few people who do much less or no work. C-level executives pad their salaries with a huge portion of this money. Tim Cook alone got 10.2 million in 2015 and that's not including stock options. While tim cook is a very capable individual, his salary indicates that his work output is equivalent to the work output of 50 engineers. Can a single human produce output equivalent to 50 engineers? I would argue no.
The rest of the money is either distributed as dividends or reinvested back into the company in the form of infrastructure improvements or just money in the bank. Who directly benefits from this? The Shareholders or in karl marx's words: The people who own the means of production. These are the people attending davos. They are the real problem, it has nothing to do with AI.
- reitanqild 11y agoThe problem with US used to be some people were richer the others while in Soviet Russia almost everyone were equally poor, wasn't it?
- crimsonalucard 11y agoNo. Soviet Russia use to be a wealthy country. They got into space before the united states. Either way please read my comment. I never said communism was the solution. Capitalism is only a better system than communism, but it is still a system rife with problems. In capitalism you get 1% of the population who own 50% of the worlds wealth which you characterized as: "The problem with US used to be some people were richer the others" I think the problem is bigger than that.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- maxerickson 11y agoRevenue - COGS is a lot more interesting for a (relatively high end) consumer electronics company.
- adamweld 11y agoWell said. I think government-funded open source projects are one possible way to offset the inherent inequality of capitalist markets; good open-source projects are a benefit to society, directly (user-focused software and hardware) and indirectly (widely used backends etc.). In my opinion a government that truly attempts to improve society should fund good open-source projects and developers with corporate tax money.
- kemyd 11y ago"Can a single human produce output equivalent to 50 engineers? I would argue no." One man can outperform 50 engineers (even 10 000) and often do. Look at Microsoft market cap after Satya Nadella became CEO. Their market cap raises about ~100 billions dollars. You could argue that he did nothing significant and it's all about engineers but after Steve Ballmer board members didn't change engineers - they change executives. Probably 50 engineers of Apple have bigger impact on Notes app than Tim Cook, but Apple don't earn so much only because that app. It's all about vision and direction, and this is why good CEO will always earn much more than engineer
- vmorgulis 11y ago> These are the people attending davos. They are the real problem, it has nothing to do with AI. Not, it's not them. It you remove all of them, they will be replaced by other people (as nomenclatura and bureaucrats replaced the previous elite in USSR). It's inside the system. We use money, hierarchy and laws because we do not understand each other. If you want more justice you need to do the Judgment of Solomon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon It requires smart people and it doesn't scale.