3 ms·

>falling standards of living You mean only being able to buy a 27" TV for $1000 instead of a 50" one? Or having to stick with a 3G phone for another year befor

>falling standards of living You mean only being able to buy a 27" TV for $1000 instead of a 50" one? Or having to stick with a 3G phone for another year before getting a 4G one?

AlisdairO 16y ago
Inability to buy gadgets is unlikely to be the main problem - it's not like gadgets are a huge proportion of the expenditure of poor people right now. The problem that will be created is extremely high wage mismatch between the highly educated, and those that are not able to achieve such a high level of education. This is a problem for a variety of reasons. The poor are, of course, less able to compete for scarce resources such as housing (particularly in cramped places like the UK), healthcare, high quality education, etc. This uncompetitiveness isn't too bad in places with reasonably limited income inequality, but as the inequality scales up becomes a really serious issue. All of this is a bad recipe for social stability - as being part of society becomes less beneficial for the poor, more and more will choose to live outside it. Over time, income inequality also leads to poor social mobility, which is a real issue with keeping a country competitive.
- Tichy 16y ago
  But the next elephant in the room: suppose with a huge effort, you build a factory that employs all the 100 million (or whatever) uneducated people in your country. Then these people have a steady income and decide to have children. In a couple of years, you suddenly have 400 million uneducated people. Then what? (I don't know a proper answer - simply throwing more money at education seems unlikely to work...).
  - AlisdairO 16y ago
    That's not really too much of an elephant. Most western countries have sub-replacement birth rates right now, and this effect seems to occur a short while after countries develop.

3 ms·

>falling standards of living You mean only being able to buy a 27" TV for $1000 instead of a 50" one? Or having to stick with a 3G phone for another year befor

by lokiujhytyu 16y ago

>falling standards of living You mean only being able to buy a 27" TV for $1000 instead of a 50" one? Or having to stick with a 3G phone for another year before getting a 4G one?

AlisdairO 16y ago
Inability to buy gadgets is unlikely to be the main problem - it's not like gadgets are a huge proportion of the expenditure of poor people right now. The problem that will be created is extremely high wage mismatch between the highly educated, and those that are not able to achieve such a high level of education. This is a problem for a variety of reasons. The poor are, of course, less able to compete for scarce resources such as housing (particularly in cramped places like the UK), healthcare, high quality education, etc. This uncompetitiveness isn't too bad in places with reasonably limited income inequality, but as the inequality scales up becomes a really serious issue. All of this is a bad recipe for social stability - as being part of society becomes less beneficial for the poor, more and more will choose to live outside it. Over time, income inequality also leads to poor social mobility, which is a real issue with keeping a country competitive.
- Tichy 16y ago
  But the next elephant in the room: suppose with a huge effort, you build a factory that employs all the 100 million (or whatever) uneducated people in your country. Then these people have a steady income and decide to have children. In a couple of years, you suddenly have 400 million uneducated people. Then what? (I don't know a proper answer - simply throwing more money at education seems unlikely to work...).
  - AlisdairO 16y ago
    That's not really too much of an elephant. Most western countries have sub-replacement birth rates right now, and this effect seems to occur a short while after countries develop.