15 ms·
Feudalism and the “Algorithmic Economy”
- Chardok 9y agoWhile I enjoyed the article, something about labeling a group of people by their gender and race really irks me (White men, with a capital W). I can't help but feel it betrays the original message, which is a small proportion of super wealthy are getting even wealthier at the expense of everyone else, but why feel the need to bring race and gender to it? It almost begs people to spring into action against "White men", which can be disparaging for those white men who are not on the wealthy side of the spectrum.
- maxxxxx 9y agoAgreed. This article has some good thoughts but the "White" thing is annoying. There are plenty of white people whose life is not golden. In the end it comes down to wealthy vs not wealthy. Race or gender doesn't matter.
- caseydurfee 9y agoFor anyone who didn't read the entire article, this is the part that these comments are complaining about: > Since all new creativity is held hostage in the hands of insensitive investors who promote the development of White business leaders to the exclusion of any other forms of creativity. Seventy five percent of all investment dollars are placed into the hands of White men. In the tech industry, most companies are run by, lead by, and pay the bulk of their company’s value to White men, the primary beneficiaries of such investment effort. 1. This certainly doesn't posit that all white people live perfect lives. 2. This is 74 words out of a 2600 word long essay, for crying out loud. 3. He's not wrong. If you're concerned with "wealthy vs not wealthy" it's entirely relevant that one particular cohort is far more likely to be in the wealthy group rather than other cohorts. I get so tired of people looking to get offended by things like this.
- Chaebixi 9y ago> This certainly doesn't posit that all white people live perfect lives. However, using a loaded term like "White men" is unnecessary and just serves to distract people with polarized culture war stuff.
- Apocryphon 9y agoThe implication is that a key demographic of the elite is enlarging their preexisting wealth. There's something feudal about a traditional noble class entrenching its power, no?
- Chaebixi 9y ago> There's something feudal about a traditional noble class entrenching its power, no? The "traditional noble class" is not "White men." In fact "White men" aren't even a class in that sense.
- Apocryphon 9y agoBut they're the primary demographic that the class was composed of. The article used it as shorthand. In a broad way, sure, something more precise could've been "East Coast old money WASPs"
- Chaebixi 9y agoIt's still very sloppy thinking.
- bllguo 9y agoSeems to me you're all irked by facts? Sure, plenty of white men aren't prospering. Irrelevant. A disproportionate amount of them are succeeding in the "algorithmic economy." I don't see why this is so taboo to point out. If race or gender doesn't matter, why do 75% of investment dollars go to white men? I personally doubt 75% of people in the "algorithmic economy" are white men. But I'd love to be corrected about this.
- maxxxxx 9y agoThat's all fine. Let's say you somehow make more investment go not to white men then wealth will still be concentrated in the hands of a few, maybe less white but still only a few. To me the fact that only a few really profit is the real problem.
- bllguo 9y agoI agree fully actually, and I don't want to distract from that. I just don't think we should shy away from talking about the makeup of this "feudal elite."
- maxxxxx 9y agoI am not offended by the mentioning of white people but I think it's a distraction. If we make the feudal elite more diverse it's still a feudal elite and that's the real problem in my view..
- owebmaster 9y agoThere are 2 scenarios: 1. wealth concentrated in the hands of a few white men 2. wealth concentrated in the hands of a few In the first scenario, it is difficult for white men to join the elite club while virtually impossible for non-White men (and women) to do so. In the second scenario at least one problem is fixed, as it gets equally difficult (not impossible) to everybody join the elite club, which is good enough to start.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
- eregorn 9y agoI don't think we can ever get away from this nowadays. Did you see the latest comment of that article that's basically "No, its the Jews!"? I'm getting the suspicion that we have reached a stage where people start pushing beliefs they don't actually have but use them to defend themselves from the opposite extreme. Otherwise, the message gets coopted in their favor.
- djohnston 9y agoI understand your concern, but I thought "White" implied those white people who are alternatively called "the man." Or, as Tony Soprano would call them, "Wonderbread WOPs." It's the difference between white people and Whiteness.
- xkcd-sucks 9y agoIf a White Man isn't doing well for himself, even with all that privilege, the only reason is he's a total degenerate and ought to be culled for the good of society
- owebmaster 9y agoDon't forget the Black man trying harsh to do well for himself but never gets there, the only reason is he's a total degenerate and ought to be culled for the good of society.
- 627467 9y agoto this story I add the rent-seeking everything-aaS business-model concept. All I'm waiting for is Google (or Facebook, or Amazon) to just algorithmic-ally assign my monthly income into different services and I never have to see a paycheck in my life or make any spending decisions.
- cryoshon 9y ago>Their goal is to create a workforce bound by their economic debt to the system, forced to take whatever work they can find, while being paid as little for that work as possible, understanding ultimately, the creation of an indentured workforce is not only the result but an expected one, keeping society enfeebled and unable to create opportunities for further development. mmhmm. that's called capitalism. this mode of capitalism is all that many people of the millenial generation have ever known, which makes it ripe for some "disruption." the good news is that because of burgeoning rage, our broken system probably can't continue much longer. my estimate is maybe 20 years, although i wouldn't be too shocked if it's more like 5 years or more like 30 years. hard to predict these things. middle class people are no longer secure, and they're the most likely source of revolutions if we look at history. there have already been rumblings; first in 2011-2012, then later with the race riots, and more recently with acceptance of socialism edging into the mainstream-- not your grandma's mainstream, the mainstream of the young and healthy. i'd expect this country to have a more violent and perhaps more productive repeat of the 1960s reformation before we settle on democratic socialism or some other equitable politicoeconomic system. or perhaps we'll flub it somehow and accelerate our meteoric descent into third-world poverty, corruption, and squalor. i'm sure people will take issue with that statement for a lot of reasons, but realistically that's our near future. the current system is a house of cards waiting for a breeze.
- snarf21 9y agoI think it can't go on forever but these things need leaders in order to evolve. How quickly did Occupy last? What is the agenda? What is the solution? The women's march was great but... just a one time thing to say we don't like what's happening. Until you have these things everywhere and everyday, you don't have enough momentum. Was everyone back on their couch watching Netflix the day after? The problem is that life could be better and it could be worse. I would argue that things would have to significantly worse for people to stand up.
- cryoshon 9y agopeople have already stood up, at the times you mentioned. what they haven't done is pick up a brick. that comes after standing up for multiple days (weeks, months) in a row doesn't accomplish anything.
- abakker 9y agoSelf-promotion, but I recently wrote a blog post that deals with at least some of these issues: https://insights.isg-one.com/lens360/from-each-according-to-their-ability---automating-worker-improvement https://insights.isg-one.com/lens360/from-each-according-to-...
- Jabanga 9y agoTruly cringeworthy. At a global scale, wages are increasing at their fastest rate in history [1]. Wage growth for the middle class has stagnated in the US, but not nearly as much as some people (myself included, until recently) believe [2]. The primary cause of this slowdown in wage growth is slowing productivity growth [3], while the major secondary cause is growing income disparity. Growing income disparity can be traced [4] directly to growth in exactly the type of regulatory restrictions that the author thinks are needed to prevent some dystopian neo-feudalistic future. While the author is fixated on Uber and the rest of the sharing economy, he misses the bigger picture, which is that an increasing number of occupations and business activities are being placed behind regulatory barriers to entry [5], to protect incumbents from competition, so that they may better extract economic rent. Even the sharing economy is under threat from these incumbents, who are funding a sophisticated PR campaign [6] (which I suspect involves a significant dose of astroturfing) to make ordinary people advocate for policies that go against their own interests, and support prohibitions on their right to compete. In the author's world, anticompetitive organizations like unions are good for wages. This is no different than the ideology created to justify the medieval guild system, which created a set of haves and have nots, while massively inhibiting economic/wage growth. The more things change, the more ideologies to justify coercive control remain the same. Another thing that strikes me about these kinds of missives for prohibition of services like Uber is what a paternalistic attitude it has toward the drivers, who are choosing to drive for Uber because they perceive it as being the best option available to them. The author wants people who currently drive for Uber to no longer have that option, for their own good. The author presumes he has more perfect knowledge of a potential Uber driver's best interests than they do. The author and their judgements are just as imperfect as the drivers', and more so on the matter of the drivers' own best interest, as the author doesn't have the benefit of knowing the driver's personal circumstances and options like the driver does. [1] http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-global-war-on-poverty http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-glo... [2] https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where-has-all-the-income-gone https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where... [3] https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/sources-of-real-wage-stagnation/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/sources-of-real-wage-stag... [4] https://www.brookings.edu/research/make-elites-compete-why-the-1-earn-so-much-and-what-to-do-about-it/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/make-elites-compete-why-t... [5] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2015/01/27/nearly-30-percent-of-workers-in-the-u-s-need-a-license-to-perform-their-job-it-is-time-to-examine-occupational-licensing-practices/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2015/01/27/nearly-30... [6] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/16/technology/inside-the-hotel-industrys-plan-to-combat-airbnb.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/16/technology/inside-the-hot...
- Jabanga 9y agoIt should be noted that the author will delete your response if you are critical of his article.