4 ms·

"If you are Amazon, you have to acknowledge that you are slowly corroding the retail sector, which employs many (~4.5 million) people in this country." http://

"If you are Amazon, you have to acknowledge that you are slowly corroding the retail sector, which employs many (~4.5 million) people in this country." http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/silicon-valley-has-an-empathy-vacuum http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/silicon-valley-ha...

TulliusCicero 10y ago
In 1800's - "If you are a farm equipment manufacturer, you have to acknowledge that you are slowly corroding the farming sector, which employs most people in the country." Even if they "acknowledge" it, so what? It's not their job to create extra jobs to replace the ones that they've automated out of existence. It's never been the jobs of the companies creating disruptive technology, like farm equipment or cars or computers, to do this. It wasn't Ford's job to find new jobs for everyone who had a horse-related career; same deal here.
- LesZedCB 10y ago
  and income inequality has skyrocketed since then.
  - gamegoblin 10y ago
    I agree with you that income inequality is a big problem, and it is a major cause of social discord, but to be fair, quality of life increased significantly across all percentiles since then. e.g. which society is better to live in: (low inequality, less wealth) 10th percentile average wealth: 100 99th percentile average wealth: 1000 (high inequality, more wealth) 10th percentile average wealth: 1000 99th percentile average wealth: 1000000 Of course this is an oversimplification, but you get the idea: income inequality is not the only important factor.
    - theodorton 10y ago
      You have to consider purchasing power, not how much moneys you have in your wallet. If the majority of people get 10x the money they used to, they're not getting 10x the purchasing power, because everyone needs a higher salary. This is also an oversimplification. You can read more about the phenomenon here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - gamegoblin 10y ago
        Agreed. I intentionally didn't use units of my wealth numbers to indicate some "absolute" measure or wealth. 10x more food, land, or whatever.
  - jahooma 10y ago
    Actually income inequality was highest in agricultural times (higher than today), and hit its bottom in 60s or 70s for the US/UK, well after industrialization. Life expectancy and health inequality is near all-time lows right now. Information/education inequality is also at all-time lows, with more people in college than ever, and near universal access to the internet. Entertainment inequality is at all time lows. Just wanted to note that we're really not doing too badly with advancing technology. And if you measure actual poverty as compared to relative poverty, which makes more sense to me, we are doing even better. Have a nice day.
    - LesZedCB 10y ago
      > Just wanted to note that we're really not doing too badly with advancing technology Tell that to all the people who are doing badly? Jesus, it's like people look at some statistics that say the world is ok, and then continue in their totally ignorant life. The world is literally full of people who say it's not good enough.
    - maxsilver 10y ago
      How are you measuring that? If we're talking about the US, then housing, healthcare, and education are the three largest areas I've seen us regress in -- areas where inequality is at all-time highs. Technology is advancing, and we're seeing lots of benefits from that -- I think everyone would agree. But advances in technology don't inherently translate into better quality of life. A $500 4K TV screen is amazing, but doesn't make up for the fact that a basic 2-bed apartment now costs $25,000/year. A $650 iPhone super-computer-in-your-pocket is fantastic, but doesn't make up for the fact that a 4-year degree now routinely runs $60,000 or higher. Extending debt to cover up societies inequality doesn't actually solve inequality, it just hides from view how big of a problem the inequality has become.
- antoinevg 10y ago
  Oookaaayyy… but then you don't get to complain when those people vote Trump into office.
  - TulliusCicero 10y ago
    Sure I do. 1. Automation wasn't a major political issue behind Trump's success. 2. I can still think someone is wrong even if they hold the majority opinion (although in this case it was a minority opinion since Trump lost the popular vote). 3. I do think something should be done to help people who lose their jobs due to automation. I just think that's the government's domain, not that of private companies.
  - wiredone 10y ago
    And this is the definition of a Straw Man argument to the implication "we need to care about the people affected by innovation". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

TulliusCicero 10y ago

In 1800's - "If you are a farm equipment manufacturer, you have to acknowledge that you are slowly corroding the farming sector, which employs most people in the country." Even if they "acknowledge" it, so what? It's not their job to create extra jobs to replace the ones that they've automated out of existence. It's never been the jobs of the companies creating disruptive technology, like farm equipment or cars or computers, to do this. It wasn't Ford's job to find new jobs for everyone who had a horse-related career; same deal here.

LesZedCB 10y ago
and income inequality has skyrocketed since then.
- gamegoblin 10y ago
  I agree with you that income inequality is a big problem, and it is a major cause of social discord, but to be fair, quality of life increased significantly across all percentiles since then. e.g. which society is better to live in: (low inequality, less wealth) 10th percentile average wealth: 100 99th percentile average wealth: 1000 (high inequality, more wealth) 10th percentile average wealth: 1000 99th percentile average wealth: 1000000 Of course this is an oversimplification, but you get the idea: income inequality is not the only important factor.
  - theodorton 10y ago
    You have to consider purchasing power, not how much moneys you have in your wallet. If the majority of people get 10x the money they used to, they're not getting 10x the purchasing power, because everyone needs a higher salary. This is also an oversimplification. You can read more about the phenomenon here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - gamegoblin 10y ago
      Agreed. I intentionally didn't use units of my wealth numbers to indicate some "absolute" measure or wealth. 10x more food, land, or whatever.
- jahooma 10y ago
  Actually income inequality was highest in agricultural times (higher than today), and hit its bottom in 60s or 70s for the US/UK, well after industrialization. Life expectancy and health inequality is near all-time lows right now. Information/education inequality is also at all-time lows, with more people in college than ever, and near universal access to the internet. Entertainment inequality is at all time lows. Just wanted to note that we're really not doing too badly with advancing technology. And if you measure actual poverty as compared to relative poverty, which makes more sense to me, we are doing even better. Have a nice day.
  - LesZedCB 10y ago
    > Just wanted to note that we're really not doing too badly with advancing technology Tell that to all the people who are doing badly? Jesus, it's like people look at some statistics that say the world is ok, and then continue in their totally ignorant life. The world is literally full of people who say it's not good enough.
  - maxsilver 10y ago
    How are you measuring that? If we're talking about the US, then housing, healthcare, and education are the three largest areas I've seen us regress in -- areas where inequality is at all-time highs. Technology is advancing, and we're seeing lots of benefits from that -- I think everyone would agree. But advances in technology don't inherently translate into better quality of life. A $500 4K TV screen is amazing, but doesn't make up for the fact that a basic 2-bed apartment now costs $25,000/year. A $650 iPhone super-computer-in-your-pocket is fantastic, but doesn't make up for the fact that a 4-year degree now routinely runs $60,000 or higher. Extending debt to cover up societies inequality doesn't actually solve inequality, it just hides from view how big of a problem the inequality has become.
antoinevg 10y ago
Oookaaayyy… but then you don't get to complain when those people vote Trump into office.
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  Sure I do. 1. Automation wasn't a major political issue behind Trump's success. 2. I can still think someone is wrong even if they hold the majority opinion (although in this case it was a minority opinion since Trump lost the popular vote). 3. I do think something should be done to help people who lose their jobs due to automation. I just think that's the government's domain, not that of private companies.
- wiredone 10y ago
  And this is the definition of a Straw Man argument to the implication "we need to care about the people affected by innovation". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man