3 ms·
The equations say we're better off overall, but not what to do with the marginalized citizens. It's not surprising that they are both vocal and talked about in
by jonknee 11y ago
The equations say we're better off overall, but not what to do with the marginalized citizens. It's not surprising that they are both vocal and talked about in the NYT.
Imagine you get laid off and the rest of your former co-workers all got raises that together equal more than your former salary. Everyone is better off, but how does that help you feed your family?
- bko 11y agoDo you make the same argument for those displaced by technology? All those ad-execs replaced by ad-words. All those film developers replaced by digital cameras. Surely society could make these machines illegal as well and make a few better off at the expense of many.
- jonknee 11y agoNo, but those topics are also discussed widely in the NYT. For example, Rochester got absolutely whacked by Kodak's downfall: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/business/at-kodak-clinging-to-a-future-beyond-film.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/business/at-kodak-clinging... Whole industries being wiped out is a problem, doubly so when an industry is the majority of a region's GDP. It's not the end of the world, but it's certainly worthy of discussion.
- hiram112 11y agoStraw man argument. Technology increases have been around forever. The difference is now, capital gets to play wage arbitrage in places where labor can't roam to create an equilibrium. That is not free trade as defined.