3 ms·

If the U.S. really had a shortage of prosperity then this would make sense. The problem is that the U.S. already has more wealth than it knows what to do with,

If the U.S. really had a shortage of prosperity then this would make sense. The problem is that the U.S. already has more wealth than it knows what to do with, it's just that it's completely misallocated. And given the fact that sending our designs to China to get manufactured is basically the only thing stopping them from going to war with us, I'm not convinced it really makes sense to give up this benefit in order to 'fix' domestic problems that don't really have anything to do with globalization. Certainly there could be more domestic manufacturing than there is currently, but just because the current system is causing some problems doesn't mean we should discount the benefits.

ctvo 11y ago
The article IS about the misallocation of wealth? The concern is there will be a class of highly paid individuals in the US and a class of unemployed (replace with underemployed, low income) because we're sending all our manufacturing jobs overseas. Grove's argument is whatever benefits you're getting for sending jobs overseas, there's a societal cost (increase inequality), as well as unforeseen future costs when innovation and technical excellence is located elsewhere. No idea about the rest of your views.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
To some epsilon, the Pareto Distribution describes income. There's only one parameter to a Pareto Distribution - the alpha. In at least US income distribution, we have also a curious "bump" up the food chain in addition to what a pareto distribution would predict. Isn't that the entire nail on which income inequality hangs? "Bump" at around $250 k in this chart: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_United_States_2011.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_of_Annu... Other have also said that in terms of real, physical , tangible wealth there is no disparity - that all of the stock options and bonus plans have less physical referent than even a paycheck. That seems to doom us to this state of affairs. Er, it would if the map was the territory, but the fact that this distribution exists implies the existence of forces that cause it. Are we then repeating the error of the Levellers with this?

ctvo 11y ago

The article IS about the misallocation of wealth? The concern is there will be a class of highly paid individuals in the US and a class of unemployed (replace with underemployed, low income) because we're sending all our manufacturing jobs overseas. Grove's argument is whatever benefits you're getting for sending jobs overseas, there's a societal cost (increase inequality), as well as unforeseen future costs when innovation and technical excellence is located elsewhere. No idea about the rest of your views.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

To some epsilon, the Pareto Distribution describes income. There's only one parameter to a Pareto Distribution - the alpha. In at least US income distribution, we have also a curious "bump" up the food chain in addition to what a pareto distribution would predict. Isn't that the entire nail on which income inequality hangs? "Bump" at around $250 k in this chart: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_United_States_2011.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_of_Annu... Other have also said that in terms of real, physical , tangible wealth there is no disparity - that all of the stock options and bonus plans have less physical referent than even a paycheck. That seems to doom us to this state of affairs. Er, it would if the map was the territory, but the fact that this distribution exists implies the existence of forces that cause it. Are we then repeating the error of the Levellers with this?