4 ms·
Just a side note: The OPM is adjusted for inflation (set at three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, updated annually for inflation using the Consum
by jcfrei 10y ago
Just a side note: The OPM is adjusted for inflation (set at three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, see: http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq2.htm#official http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq2.htm#official). So if wages and inflation always increase in sync then there would be no reason for the number of people living in poverty to change (even if their living standards are higher in absolute terms) - apart from changes in the income distribution of the whole population. That being said, I did initially expect changes in the distributions for poor people with respect to education (more poverty among people with HS degrees than among people with uni degrees). But now that I think about it, there's really no reason why the number of available jobs which require a certain degree should change at all - ie. more electrical engineers can only create more electronics companies (and jobs) if the market has a demand for it or otherwise will just decrease the respective median wage. It seems obvious to me now but I didn't think about it like this before...
- sten 10y agoIf you view education as teaching people to learn, then you might have an argument that education rates enable and empower people. If you're training robots who don't think for themselves then you'll encounter the situation you've just described.
- randomdata 10y agoEmpowerment carries a fairly high risk and if you are already in a poor economic situation, you a very likely to not be able to tolerate it. Plenty of people in good economic standing aren't willing to tolerate it. As such, most people are going to end up choosing the far less risky path of being "robots" anyway.