4 ms·

This argument is disturbing in a number of ways. The first and foremost of which is that it finds acceptable the fact that the middle class may only be better o

This argument is disturbing in a number of ways. The first and foremost of which is that it finds acceptable the fact that the middle class may only be better off from the ultra-rich from 100 years ago. In other words, the author thinks it's fine that the middle class is slightly under 100 years behind the ultra-rich in terms of quality of life. The article makes no attempt at resolving the underlying and more important question: why is it okay that the ultra-rich of today have the ability to buy so much political power, have access to healthcare that is far more advanced than that which is available to even the middle class (let alone the poor), can live in such a way that causes so much harm to the environment or generally does damage to shared resources, and can have so much influence over information whether via the internet or through articles such as this one? In other words, why is okay that there inequality is so great and progress is applied so unequally? "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed." - William Gibson

ue_ 9y ago
The laws of the capitalist mode of production heavily favour accumulation of capital and inheritance of it, Oscar Wilde noted the hideous disparity even in the 19th century, Kropotkin did the same. "In virtue of this monstrous system, the son of the worker, on entering life, finds no field which he may till, no machine which he may tend, no mine in which he may dig, without accepting to leave a great part of what he will produce to a master. He must sell his labour for a scant and uncertain wage. His father and his grandfather have toiled to drain this field, to build this mill, to perfect this machine. They gave to the work the full measure of their strength, and what more could they give? But their heir comes into the world poorer than the lowest savage. If he obtains leave to till the fields, it is on condition of surrendering a quarter of the produce to his master, and another quarter to the government and the middlemen." (From The Conquest of Bread)
- eru 9y ago
  You say that like accumulation of capital is a bad thing. It's good: capital competes with capital to lowers its rates of return. We need more capital. The real culprit is land: we don't accumulate any more of that, so it's rates of return don't vanish.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    >The real culprit is land: we don't accumulate any more of that, so it's rates of return don't vanish. An interesting point to this is the land value tax, advocated by Georgists (whom Einstein was sympathetic to). > It's good: capital competes with capital to lowers its rates of return. We need more capital. Can you expand on what you mean by this, please? Why does there need to be competition?
    - eru 9y ago
      Yes, I was hinting at Georgism myself. > Can you expand on what you mean by this, please? Why does there need to be competition? All of GDP basically gets split between land, labour and capital. As sort-of Georgist libertarian/socialists, we want as much of that to go to labour as possible, but without shrinking the pie. We redirect land's share via an LVT. But we don't want to tax capital: but fortunately, the competition between capital goods will lead to lower rates of return. The owner of the first factory might make lots of profit. The owner of the second factory less so, and the third might barely break even. The surplus can go to consumers and workers. (Not sure if that was better explained?)
  - HarryHirsch 9y ago
    Land? You'd think it's machinery that is the means of production and ownership of that becomes more concentrated. Back then you would give a manuscript to your secretary who would type it, hand it to the typesetter, and it would go to the printer, both skilled tradesman and unionized. Now you yourself submit camera-ready copy to the publisher and pay a subscription for Office 365 year after year. You ask yourself why the price of scientific journals hasn't dropped, but the missing land tax isn't the reason.
    - eru 9y ago
      Machinery deprecates pretty quickly, and we can produce more of it, eroding any excess returns. I'm also not quite sure what this American obsession with unions is about. Actually, the price for reading science has dropped to almost zero. But, of course, not if you restrict yourself to paying for scientific journals. (The monopolies there that drive high costs are the result of a really weird system---and yes, that one's not got to do much with land rents nor equipment. It's closer to regulatory capture, and entrenched interests.)
- nbanks 9y ago
  Wilde is interesting because he was a socialist before anyone had tried communism. Years ago, I read an essay is his, "The Heart of Man After Socialism" where he argued that people are inherently benevolent, but the capitalist system made them greedy. Unfortunately, communism showed that greed is a much better motivator which is probably the primary reason capitalism has flourished. (I say unfortunately, because it would be wonderful if there were a better society than capitalism, though one could argue that a most European nations are some sort of hybrid which is better.) In short, Wilde may have understood the problem, but history has disproved his solution. That said, he also advocated that menial tasks such as sweeping the floor should be done by machines instead of people, and in this respect I wholeheartedly agree. Washing machines, vacuums and dishwashers have improved everyone's lives in the past century...at least everyone in the richer parts of the world.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    > Unfortunately, communism showed that greed is a much better motivator which is probably the primary reason capitalism has flourished. I don't think we've given Communism a good go, especially as those societies in the modern world (i.e after the advent of capitalism) have been capitalist states, either internally or externally to other nations. The fact is that in the absence of a motivator for money, people will do things for a variety of reasons, including wanting to make the world a better place, out of a desire for mastery, desire for recognition, out of wanting to improve the lives of those who will come after you, to live in a society you want to live in (everyone wants to live in a society with clean toilets) etc. It is also a fact that these motivators only appear in two cases, (i) when people have enough money to not have to worry about survival and being satisfied (ii) when people have no need for money, as they are already satisfied. Neither of these cases has happened yet.
eru 9y ago
> why is it okay that the ultra-rich of today [...] have access to healthcare that is far more advanced than that which is available to even the middle class [...] Citation needed. Last I checked, healthcare is still pretty much either (reasonably) cheap to provide at middle class levels of affluence or next to useless, statistically speaking. (Not talking about America here---the US seems seriously screwed. But about what healthcare costs to someone who's willing to be eg a medical tourist.)
- maxerickson 9y ago
  People reasonably described as "middle class" in the US have decent access to healthcare. Perhaps even because it is tautological, that someone lacking decent access to healthcare isn't reasonably described as middle class. But probably because while healthcare does cost a lot, people with decent jobs tend to be able to afford the cost.
- azinman2 9y ago
  Healthcare is partially what it is elsewhere because the US subsidizes it by having such expensive care here (e.g. R&D for new drugs and treatments, the entire FDA process that others leverag, etc).
  - eru 9y ago
    Yes, partially---and as an unAmerican I am grateful; but lots of the US spending is just waste, too.
marcoperaza 9y ago
>In other words, why is okay that there inequality is so great and progress is applied so unequally? Because inequality is the result of competitive capitalism, which allows some people to become extremely wealthy by providing value to others. Almost all of the advances in quality of life have come around because enterprising people were able to profit from providing them.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  But almost none of the inventors of said advancements profited from their inventions. It seems to me there should be an upper and lower limit that all people regardless of circumstance live within.
- azinman2 9y ago
  Except not all "value" is created or appreciated equally. Hedge funders, for example, do not create any clear value to society despite massive windfalls (especially those automated algorithms that look for arbitrage in pennies, but as massive volume and frequency). Those who provide power by coal compare to solar or wind significantly shortchange those who buy the same electricity because the "value" does not price this in (humans are terrible at choosing for long term gains compared to short term anyway). Those who save money (it's all value!) by dumping their toxic waste products in oceans and rivers do terrible harm to the world yet stay rewarded. All that value allows them to buy off politicians (more value!), which gives a cyclical effect. I wish capitalists wouldn't speak in such abstract terms -- reality must be confronted.
  - prostoalex 9y ago
    > Hedge funders, for example, do not create any clear value to society Which is why their compensation is contractual. It obviously provides some value to the high net worth clients who agree to their fees. It's not like hedge fund managers rely on MacArthur fellowships or some taxpayer assistance program for their compensation needs. In some societies the employment in hedge fund industry is at, or near, zero. Hedge fund managers rise to the occasion, that occasion being demand for their services.
- 9y ago
gutnor 9y ago
I think the biggest problem is the speed differential. That's ok, the rich can afford 140in 16K TV a few years before middle class which get it a few years before poor people. It is not ideal, but you know that eventually everybody is going to have it. The problem of recent years is that the balance is slightly off. Housing, Education and in the US healthcare seems to have set an upper bound on the non-rich. Everybody else is getting net gain, the poor worldwide improve, the rich improve, the first world middle class progress seems to taper. The rich progress should have tapered before the middle class, signalling that we are a few generation away from utopian post-scarcity world. The rich sailing away and all the rest squeezing under a glass ceiling is instead signalling that we are a few generation away from dystopian world with a superclass and underclass. Worse, if being in the underclass meant living like a middle class 20th century first world citizen, that would not be ideal but that would be quite good, however there is no guarantee it is such. Especially not when the current political wisdom is that if you are not middle class, that's because you are not worth it and social service is only there to scratch the charity itch of your better, no as a human right.

ue_ 9y ago

The laws of the capitalist mode of production heavily favour accumulation of capital and inheritance of it, Oscar Wilde noted the hideous disparity even in the 19th century, Kropotkin did the same. "In virtue of this monstrous system, the son of the worker, on entering life, finds no field which he may till, no machine which he may tend, no mine in which he may dig, without accepting to leave a great part of what he will produce to a master. He must sell his labour for a scant and uncertain wage. His father and his grandfather have toiled to drain this field, to build this mill, to perfect this machine. They gave to the work the full measure of their strength, and what more could they give? But their heir comes into the world poorer than the lowest savage. If he obtains leave to till the fields, it is on condition of surrendering a quarter of the produce to his master, and another quarter to the government and the middlemen." (From The Conquest of Bread)

eru 9y ago
You say that like accumulation of capital is a bad thing. It's good: capital competes with capital to lowers its rates of return. We need more capital. The real culprit is land: we don't accumulate any more of that, so it's rates of return don't vanish.
- ue_ 9y ago
  >The real culprit is land: we don't accumulate any more of that, so it's rates of return don't vanish. An interesting point to this is the land value tax, advocated by Georgists (whom Einstein was sympathetic to). > It's good: capital competes with capital to lowers its rates of return. We need more capital. Can you expand on what you mean by this, please? Why does there need to be competition?
  - eru 9y ago
    Yes, I was hinting at Georgism myself. > Can you expand on what you mean by this, please? Why does there need to be competition? All of GDP basically gets split between land, labour and capital. As sort-of Georgist libertarian/socialists, we want as much of that to go to labour as possible, but without shrinking the pie. We redirect land's share via an LVT. But we don't want to tax capital: but fortunately, the competition between capital goods will lead to lower rates of return. The owner of the first factory might make lots of profit. The owner of the second factory less so, and the third might barely break even. The surplus can go to consumers and workers. (Not sure if that was better explained?)
- HarryHirsch 9y ago
  Land? You'd think it's machinery that is the means of production and ownership of that becomes more concentrated. Back then you would give a manuscript to your secretary who would type it, hand it to the typesetter, and it would go to the printer, both skilled tradesman and unionized. Now you yourself submit camera-ready copy to the publisher and pay a subscription for Office 365 year after year. You ask yourself why the price of scientific journals hasn't dropped, but the missing land tax isn't the reason.
  - eru 9y ago
    Machinery deprecates pretty quickly, and we can produce more of it, eroding any excess returns. I'm also not quite sure what this American obsession with unions is about. Actually, the price for reading science has dropped to almost zero. But, of course, not if you restrict yourself to paying for scientific journals. (The monopolies there that drive high costs are the result of a really weird system---and yes, that one's not got to do much with land rents nor equipment. It's closer to regulatory capture, and entrenched interests.)
nbanks 9y ago
Wilde is interesting because he was a socialist before anyone had tried communism. Years ago, I read an essay is his, "The Heart of Man After Socialism" where he argued that people are inherently benevolent, but the capitalist system made them greedy. Unfortunately, communism showed that greed is a much better motivator which is probably the primary reason capitalism has flourished. (I say unfortunately, because it would be wonderful if there were a better society than capitalism, though one could argue that a most European nations are some sort of hybrid which is better.) In short, Wilde may have understood the problem, but history has disproved his solution. That said, he also advocated that menial tasks such as sweeping the floor should be done by machines instead of people, and in this respect I wholeheartedly agree. Washing machines, vacuums and dishwashers have improved everyone's lives in the past century...at least everyone in the richer parts of the world.
- ue_ 9y ago
  > Unfortunately, communism showed that greed is a much better motivator which is probably the primary reason capitalism has flourished. I don't think we've given Communism a good go, especially as those societies in the modern world (i.e after the advent of capitalism) have been capitalist states, either internally or externally to other nations. The fact is that in the absence of a motivator for money, people will do things for a variety of reasons, including wanting to make the world a better place, out of a desire for mastery, desire for recognition, out of wanting to improve the lives of those who will come after you, to live in a society you want to live in (everyone wants to live in a society with clean toilets) etc. It is also a fact that these motivators only appear in two cases, (i) when people have enough money to not have to worry about survival and being satisfied (ii) when people have no need for money, as they are already satisfied. Neither of these cases has happened yet.

eru 9y ago

> why is it okay that the ultra-rich of today [...] have access to healthcare that is far more advanced than that which is available to even the middle class [...] Citation needed. Last I checked, healthcare is still pretty much either (reasonably) cheap to provide at middle class levels of affluence or next to useless, statistically speaking. (Not talking about America here---the US seems seriously screwed. But about what healthcare costs to someone who's willing to be eg a medical tourist.)

maxerickson 9y ago
People reasonably described as "middle class" in the US have decent access to healthcare. Perhaps even because it is tautological, that someone lacking decent access to healthcare isn't reasonably described as middle class. But probably because while healthcare does cost a lot, people with decent jobs tend to be able to afford the cost.
azinman2 9y ago
Healthcare is partially what it is elsewhere because the US subsidizes it by having such expensive care here (e.g. R&D for new drugs and treatments, the entire FDA process that others leverag, etc).
- eru 9y ago
  Yes, partially---and as an unAmerican I am grateful; but lots of the US spending is just waste, too.

marcoperaza 9y ago

>In other words, why is okay that there inequality is so great and progress is applied so unequally? Because inequality is the result of competitive capitalism, which allows some people to become extremely wealthy by providing value to others. Almost all of the advances in quality of life have come around because enterprising people were able to profit from providing them.

yequalsx 9y ago
But almost none of the inventors of said advancements profited from their inventions. It seems to me there should be an upper and lower limit that all people regardless of circumstance live within.
azinman2 9y ago
Except not all "value" is created or appreciated equally. Hedge funders, for example, do not create any clear value to society despite massive windfalls (especially those automated algorithms that look for arbitrage in pennies, but as massive volume and frequency). Those who provide power by coal compare to solar or wind significantly shortchange those who buy the same electricity because the "value" does not price this in (humans are terrible at choosing for long term gains compared to short term anyway). Those who save money (it's all value!) by dumping their toxic waste products in oceans and rivers do terrible harm to the world yet stay rewarded. All that value allows them to buy off politicians (more value!), which gives a cyclical effect. I wish capitalists wouldn't speak in such abstract terms -- reality must be confronted.
- prostoalex 9y ago
  > Hedge funders, for example, do not create any clear value to society Which is why their compensation is contractual. It obviously provides some value to the high net worth clients who agree to their fees. It's not like hedge fund managers rely on MacArthur fellowships or some taxpayer assistance program for their compensation needs. In some societies the employment in hedge fund industry is at, or near, zero. Hedge fund managers rise to the occasion, that occasion being demand for their services.
9y ago

gutnor 9y ago

I think the biggest problem is the speed differential. That's ok, the rich can afford 140in 16K TV a few years before middle class which get it a few years before poor people. It is not ideal, but you know that eventually everybody is going to have it. The problem of recent years is that the balance is slightly off. Housing, Education and in the US healthcare seems to have set an upper bound on the non-rich. Everybody else is getting net gain, the poor worldwide improve, the rich improve, the first world middle class progress seems to taper. The rich progress should have tapered before the middle class, signalling that we are a few generation away from utopian post-scarcity world. The rich sailing away and all the rest squeezing under a glass ceiling is instead signalling that we are a few generation away from dystopian world with a superclass and underclass. Worse, if being in the underclass meant living like a middle class 20th century first world citizen, that would not be ideal but that would be quite good, however there is no guarantee it is such. Especially not when the current political wisdom is that if you are not middle class, that's because you are not worth it and social service is only there to scratch the charity itch of your better, no as a human right.