5 ms·

> In 1760, the lowest 65 percent received about 29 percent of total income in Britain; in 1860, their share was down only four percentage points to 25 percent.

by cjlars 10y ago

> In 1760, the lowest 65 percent received about 29 percent of total income in Britain; in 1860, their share was down only four percentage points to 25 percent. So the lowest 65 percent were substantially better off, with an increase in average real income of more than 70 percent. [1] Despite what Dickens may have written, the period was marked by faster gains for the lower classes than the previous century. And perhaps in part due to what he's written, we now have a social safety net -- I'll admit the quality of this system could be improved. What concerns me is making broad, major social changes in anticipation of a completely speculative (and very specific) view of the future. I'd be curious about your answer to this: If conditions for the bottom third improve -- instead of falter -- as this trend develops, does that change your policy recommendations (about presumably, UBI)? [1] http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/IndustrialRevolutionandtheStandardofLiving.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/IndustrialRevolutionandth...

burkaman 10y ago
1. 100 years is way too long. If it took a century for society to sort itself out, that's a good demonstration of my point. 2. "the lowest 65 percent" is a pretty big segment. How were the lowest 40% doing, or 20%? I don't know the answer, I just think it's a useful question. 3. Much of this article talks about how rising income is not the same as a rising standard of living, and how it is "plausible" that standards of living decreased for the first 70 or so years of the industrial revolution. 4. Even if wages and standards of living both went up, inequality on its own is a concern. Your quote shows that inequality was worse a century later. 5. I'm not calling for anything specific. My only point is that it's not acceptable to say "we don't need to worry at all, everything will work out". We do need to worry, but it's totally possible that after worrying we'll come to the conclusion that no major changes make sense at this time. I've just seen a lot of people say "look at the Industrial Revolution, we'll be fine" and I think that's exactly the opposite lesson we should have learned. And I honestly didn't have UBI in mind when I wrote that comment, I was thinking about maybe some kind of subsidized education program for people who need to switch careers because their old career no longer exists. Or anything, I don't know. This isn't my field. I'm just saying this is worth a lot of thought and study, preferably by people who know what they're doing.
- cjlars 10y ago
  Then it would appear we mostly agree. There will be winners and losers. >"we don't need to worry at all, everything will work out" Strawman of course. A nuanced understanding of the historical context of other technological booms is the point of my original post and it's specifically the 'omg AI gonna take our jerbs' kneejerk reaction that I wanted to preempt. I would add that statisticians seem to be less worried about AI threats than your average HNer [1]. And although I don't have a handy source, I know that economists are also likely to brush aside predictions of major impacts. [1] https://ai100.stanford.edu/2016-report/executive-summary https://ai100.stanford.edu/2016-report/executive-summary
  - burkaman 10y ago
    Ok, I guess I misread your comment. I still think it reads like "the last labor transformation went pretty smoothly, and this one will be less significant, so chill". On a human level it did not go smoothly, and most individuals are not very resilient to changes in the economy.

by cjlars 10y ago

burkaman 10y ago

1. 100 years is way too long. If it took a century for society to sort itself out, that's a good demonstration of my point. 2. "the lowest 65 percent" is a pretty big segment. How were the lowest 40% doing, or 20%? I don't know the answer, I just think it's a useful question. 3. Much of this article talks about how rising income is not the same as a rising standard of living, and how it is "plausible" that standards of living decreased for the first 70 or so years of the industrial revolution. 4. Even if wages and standards of living both went up, inequality on its own is a concern. Your quote shows that inequality was worse a century later. 5. I'm not calling for anything specific. My only point is that it's not acceptable to say "we don't need to worry at all, everything will work out". We do need to worry, but it's totally possible that after worrying we'll come to the conclusion that no major changes make sense at this time. I've just seen a lot of people say "look at the Industrial Revolution, we'll be fine" and I think that's exactly the opposite lesson we should have learned. And I honestly didn't have UBI in mind when I wrote that comment, I was thinking about maybe some kind of subsidized education program for people who need to switch careers because their old career no longer exists. Or anything, I don't know. This isn't my field. I'm just saying this is worth a lot of thought and study, preferably by people who know what they're doing.

cjlars 10y ago
Then it would appear we mostly agree. There will be winners and losers. >"we don't need to worry at all, everything will work out" Strawman of course. A nuanced understanding of the historical context of other technological booms is the point of my original post and it's specifically the 'omg AI gonna take our jerbs' kneejerk reaction that I wanted to preempt. I would add that statisticians seem to be less worried about AI threats than your average HNer [1]. And although I don't have a handy source, I know that economists are also likely to brush aside predictions of major impacts. [1] https://ai100.stanford.edu/2016-report/executive-summary https://ai100.stanford.edu/2016-report/executive-summary
- burkaman 10y ago
  Ok, I guess I misread your comment. I still think it reads like "the last labor transformation went pretty smoothly, and this one will be less significant, so chill". On a human level it did not go smoothly, and most individuals are not very resilient to changes in the economy.