9 ms·

The lower class gets bigger and bigger, and is either kept just happy enough to not revolt or... At some point this boils over and the ultra wealthy are forced

The lower class gets bigger and bigger, and is either kept just happy enough to not revolt or... At some point this boils over and the ultra wealthy are forced to redistribute wealth either through new political policy or by violent force.

frlnBorg 8y ago
That is a foolish thing to say
- CPLX 8y ago
  Why? That's pretty much a summary of how social change has worked for the last 2000 years or so.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> At some point this boils over and the ultra wealthy are forced to redistribute wealth either through new political policy or by violent force Not necessarily. The same robotic technology that decouples low-skill labour inputs and outputs is decoupling populations from force projection capabilities. Less cynically, there are organic ways for the situation to positively evolve (e.g. higher across-board labour productivity) without overt wealth redistribution.
- mikepurvis 8y ago
  Can you expand on this? I don't understand which populations you're referring to as having become decoupled from force projection? In the US at least, there's 1+ gun for every man, woman, and child. Even if the elite class is backed by the entire US military, there's something to be said for overwhelming force of numbers.
  - endtime 8y ago
    The gun owners are typically on the other side of the aisle from those who support redistribution of wealth. Not saying that couldn't change or that desperation can't trump principle, of course.
    - setr 8y ago
      I don’t know if thats true: I think everyone wants a “fair” distribution of wealth. The question is in the definition of fair, and means to achieve it. Conservatives believe that distribution achieved by tax and regulation will hurt the total economic production of the US, and lead to everyone being worse off, though more equal (in the extreme: everyone is equally poor), and they also consider it fair that the distribution is unequal (as do liberals). Its just a matter of how unequal. But at least part of their definition of includes that they have the chance to increase their position, which is incompatible with tax/regulation at the extreme: if everyone has their incomes set in stone by the government, there is no chance to change in status. But losing all low-level jobs to robots, notably, removes that chance. For different reasons than the liberal (who dislikes it for the centralization of wealth/power, and the extreme polarization of wealth distribution), conservatives would intuitively be against it for the denial of opportunity across the board Tldr: everyone hates being poor/homeless, and too many people being homeless will cause a revolt regardless of their individual political leanings.
      - PeterisP 8y ago
        One aspect of UBI (when/if we can afford to implement it) is that it presents some solution the problem you describe if it's unconditional. If everyone has an set-in-stone income provided by the society because the robots are doing all the low-level jobs and the society doesn't need their labor, then they still have sufficient free time and ability to do something extra to increase their position. There are many useful things that aren't (or won't be) viable as jobs because they pay too little or too sporadically to sustain yourself, however, they do provide enough to increase your revenue and status, and give a feeling of opportunity - if you'd have the basics provided in some other way.
        setr 8y ago
        One function of UBI has never been clear to me: if everyone has X, then no one does. Applied to UBI’s case, the baseline of $0 has been “lifted” to say $1500; wouldn’t that just cause the market to increase prices proportionally, until $1500 is effectively the same as $0? Specifically, those baseline goods/services where that $1500 targets? I would imagine luxury goods wouldn’t change much, as those spending in the area won’t change their spending behavior significantly with a fresh $1500; but a poorer community certainly would, and I would expect the market to match
  - pjmorris 8y ago
    Even without guns, it's much easier to break a robot than it is to operate one. I think the economics of the physical economy favor the physical masses over the paper wealthy.
    - jedharris 8y ago
      Is it easier to break a tank than operate one? Then why a robot?
      - pjmorris 8y ago
        I think I misplaced my post, the intent was to respond to someone arguing that automation would help the wealthy quell the poor. Any comments I make about robots apply to machinery in general. To your question, it is easier to break a tank than to operate one. Anti-tank weapons are cheaper than tanks, and range down to well-timed Molotov cocktails [0]. [0] https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-Molotov-cocktail-destroy-a-tank https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-Molotov-cocktail-destroy-a-t...
  - manigandham 8y ago
    Guns don't do anything without bullets. Bullets don't do anything if they don't hit a target. Disable power and communications and most people become immediately useless at living, let alone mounting an assault. The days of sheer numbers being useful are long past in the era of modern warfare.
    - refurb 8y ago
      I’d say the recent experience in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan runs counter to your claims.
      - lamarpye 8y ago
        Not really. The US followed certain rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan that a truly ruthless military would not. For example the Battle of Fallujah was fought with Vietnam level tactics. There were about 100 KIA for the US side. The battle could have been fought differently with zero US losses.
        almost_usual 8y ago
        So you imagine a scenario where the US military would annihilate it’s own citizens ruthlessly to preserve insane wealth disparity. Ok.
        tryptophan 8y ago
        You are talking about a scenario in which every man woman and child grabs their 1+ gun to deal with inequality...
  - gpm 8y ago
    Guns have limited range, and are easily rendered largely ineffective (e.g. armored vehicles). Robots and other advanced weapons make direct combat entirely one sided. Surveillance apparatus allows identifying combatants attempting a guerilla warfare approach. AI could allow identifying an assassin attempting to draw a weapon and killing them before they could get a shot off. Etc. Against the current US military I dare say that overwhelming numbers would win, against a theoretical future military that is less clear. Moreover the current US military would probably revolt if used to overtly oppress the population, but a more robotized one with humans only required at high levels might not.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
saas_sam 8y ago
What if the lower class is getting simultaneously bigger and also better off? Do you think the bottom 10% is living as bad as they were in 1940? 1980? Things that used to be luxuries are now normal across all income brackets... That's a good thing. :-)
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  People don't compare themselves to how people lived 80 years ago. They compare themselves to other people, today. So saying "Look poor people, who cares if you can't afford decent housing, or health care, or quality food - you've got a cell phone!" will not quiet the social unrest that a growing underclass will cause.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    Overall though, more people have healthcare, more people have housing, and more people have food than ever before. No one is arguing, 'cellphone, hence no poverty'. People are merely arguing that the lowest 10% are no longer destitute.
    - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
      Yes, I agree the lowest 10% are no longer as destitute, but my point is the dangerous social unrest that is likely to be caused (some would argue already has been caused) by widening inequality is not something that absolute measures of living standards will have much bearing on.
      - tathougies 8y ago
        You attacked a very poor interpretation of the parent comment then. Claiming ' they may have iphones, but they don't have food ' is patently ridiculous.
      - manigandham 8y ago
        That remains to be seen. There's clearly a certain level of "comfort" where the majority of people become satisfied enough, and the quality of life at the bottom is rapidly increasing as technology and the world matures. The rise of the middle class in China and India seems to be the biggest indicator of this approaching steady state.
ardy42 8y ago
> At some point this boils over and the ultra wealthy are forced to redistribute wealth either through new political policy or by violent force. There's also the dystopian possibility that automated forms of social control are developed neuter the ability of any kind of popular political movement from challenging the elites. That automation could be anything from systems of censorship, surveillance, and propaganda to police androids. I think it makes some sense to deliberately cultivate and preserve IRL communities and networks that aren't very tech-mediated. By no means are they a panacea, but I think they have fewer vulnerabilities to tech-based automated control.
- core-questions 8y ago
  Do you have a license for this post?
- amoshi 8y ago
  I think this will happen. Brings to mind Google's secret project The Selfish Ledger, especially how it can be used for "Behavioural Sequencing"... [0] As tech gets better it'll become easier to analyse the masses and make good predictions - how much can the masses put up with? How much further can we push them before the boiling point is reached? [0] https://youtu.be/QDVVo14A_fo?t=439 https://youtu.be/QDVVo14A_fo?t=439
- whycombinater 8y ago
  "And just before the nuke hit, he reflected on what a great life he had. Under his watch, Skynet raised the percentage of female programmers to an even 50%." Of course, some would see that that's actually a DYStopia, I mean, where are the trans?!
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  >automated forms of social control are developed Legalisation of drugs fits in here IMO, it's a salve for the people to keep them from mounting rebellions. Making hard drugs cheap and widely available probably is a relatively effective way of killing off a proportion of your poorest citizens without raising too great an alarm. Things like VR could placate the people too, give them a fake "luxury existence" and they're less likely to rebel.
TaylorAlexander 8y ago
An alternative, which I advocate for, is that the lower class form productive collectives, stop contributing to the ultra wealthy, and generate their own real wealth. Much of the worlds wealth exists in wealth-generating infrastructure and information that is accessible to all of us. If we simply divest from the ultra wealthy and build a new economy based on cooperation, we can construct a system that inherently lifts us all. Automation will increase our productivity. In the end, the question is simply how we share the result of that gain. Normal capitalist corporations are designed to funnel wealth to a few board members, but cooperatives could succeed here too, where the wealth they generate is more naturally shared amongst all the workers. It’s not a silver bullet, but I feel as though it would represent a real improvement. We have to do something about how we distribute the creation of new wealth, and I don’t think we should wait for someone else to make this change for us - we must take action to realize the potential here! EDIT: I also think some billionaires are sympathetic to these issues and would be willing to contribute. But if we form large economic collectives, we can amass enough power to force the wealthy to notice when we divest.
- tathougies 8y ago
  One concrete step can be getting rid of the capital requirements (by regulation) to invest. The idea of 'qualified investors' is literally a way to keep poor people poor, and rich people rich, by cutting off poor or middle class people from the major vehicles of wealth creation. It is ridiculous that I cannot invest in the IPO of a company in my local neighborhood because, while I have enough money to satisfy the business, I don't have enough money to satisfy uncle sam's onerous requirements. But yes, cooperatives like Mondragon are good examples, and also incredibly traditional.
  - mschuster91 8y ago
    These capital requirements are regulations that have been introduced as a response to companies fleecing the poor-ish, the uneducated and those who had a bit of cash, but decided to put it into one (fraudulent) investment. Drop them and you'll see what already is happening in the cryptocoin scene: people getting exploited left and right. Point is, no sofa investor will be a shark and get rich, contrary to the ICO promises.
bachbach 8y ago
Everybody who thinks this believes in some replay of the 19th-20th centuries - personally I do not buy it because I think computation is qualitatively different to mechanization. Moravec's Paradox strongly implies that the middle class is automated before the working class is. I think anybody who doesn't understand that isn't worth listening to since it's the most concrete result in A.I for half a century. It's not about the bottom - it's about the middle and underclasses - that is different to the past.

frlnBorg 8y ago

That is a foolish thing to say

CPLX 8y ago
Why? That's pretty much a summary of how social change has worked for the last 2000 years or so.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> At some point this boils over and the ultra wealthy are forced to redistribute wealth either through new political policy or by violent force Not necessarily. The same robotic technology that decouples low-skill labour inputs and outputs is decoupling populations from force projection capabilities. Less cynically, there are organic ways for the situation to positively evolve (e.g. higher across-board labour productivity) without overt wealth redistribution.

mikepurvis 8y ago
Can you expand on this? I don't understand which populations you're referring to as having become decoupled from force projection? In the US at least, there's 1+ gun for every man, woman, and child. Even if the elite class is backed by the entire US military, there's something to be said for overwhelming force of numbers.
- endtime 8y ago
  The gun owners are typically on the other side of the aisle from those who support redistribution of wealth. Not saying that couldn't change or that desperation can't trump principle, of course.
  - setr 8y ago
    I don’t know if thats true: I think everyone wants a “fair” distribution of wealth. The question is in the definition of fair, and means to achieve it. Conservatives believe that distribution achieved by tax and regulation will hurt the total economic production of the US, and lead to everyone being worse off, though more equal (in the extreme: everyone is equally poor), and they also consider it fair that the distribution is unequal (as do liberals). Its just a matter of how unequal. But at least part of their definition of includes that they have the chance to increase their position, which is incompatible with tax/regulation at the extreme: if everyone has their incomes set in stone by the government, there is no chance to change in status. But losing all low-level jobs to robots, notably, removes that chance. For different reasons than the liberal (who dislikes it for the centralization of wealth/power, and the extreme polarization of wealth distribution), conservatives would intuitively be against it for the denial of opportunity across the board Tldr: everyone hates being poor/homeless, and too many people being homeless will cause a revolt regardless of their individual political leanings.
    - PeterisP 8y ago
      One aspect of UBI (when/if we can afford to implement it) is that it presents some solution the problem you describe if it's unconditional. If everyone has an set-in-stone income provided by the society because the robots are doing all the low-level jobs and the society doesn't need their labor, then they still have sufficient free time and ability to do something extra to increase their position. There are many useful things that aren't (or won't be) viable as jobs because they pay too little or too sporadically to sustain yourself, however, they do provide enough to increase your revenue and status, and give a feeling of opportunity - if you'd have the basics provided in some other way.
      - setr 8y ago
        One function of UBI has never been clear to me: if everyone has X, then no one does. Applied to UBI’s case, the baseline of $0 has been “lifted” to say $1500; wouldn’t that just cause the market to increase prices proportionally, until $1500 is effectively the same as $0? Specifically, those baseline goods/services where that $1500 targets? I would imagine luxury goods wouldn’t change much, as those spending in the area won’t change their spending behavior significantly with a fresh $1500; but a poorer community certainly would, and I would expect the market to match
- pjmorris 8y ago
  Even without guns, it's much easier to break a robot than it is to operate one. I think the economics of the physical economy favor the physical masses over the paper wealthy.
  - jedharris 8y ago
    Is it easier to break a tank than operate one? Then why a robot?
    - pjmorris 8y ago
      I think I misplaced my post, the intent was to respond to someone arguing that automation would help the wealthy quell the poor. Any comments I make about robots apply to machinery in general. To your question, it is easier to break a tank than to operate one. Anti-tank weapons are cheaper than tanks, and range down to well-timed Molotov cocktails [0]. [0] https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-Molotov-cocktail-destroy-a-tank https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-Molotov-cocktail-destroy-a-t...
- manigandham 8y ago
  Guns don't do anything without bullets. Bullets don't do anything if they don't hit a target. Disable power and communications and most people become immediately useless at living, let alone mounting an assault. The days of sheer numbers being useful are long past in the era of modern warfare.
  - refurb 8y ago
    I’d say the recent experience in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan runs counter to your claims.
    - lamarpye 8y ago
      Not really. The US followed certain rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan that a truly ruthless military would not. For example the Battle of Fallujah was fought with Vietnam level tactics. There were about 100 KIA for the US side. The battle could have been fought differently with zero US losses.
      - almost_usual 8y ago
        So you imagine a scenario where the US military would annihilate it’s own citizens ruthlessly to preserve insane wealth disparity. Ok.
        tryptophan 8y ago
        You are talking about a scenario in which every man woman and child grabs their 1+ gun to deal with inequality...
- gpm 8y ago
  Guns have limited range, and are easily rendered largely ineffective (e.g. armored vehicles). Robots and other advanced weapons make direct combat entirely one sided. Surveillance apparatus allows identifying combatants attempting a guerilla warfare approach. AI could allow identifying an assassin attempting to draw a weapon and killing them before they could get a shot off. Etc. Against the current US military I dare say that overwhelming numbers would win, against a theoretical future military that is less clear. Moreover the current US military would probably revolt if used to overtly oppress the population, but a more robotized one with humans only required at high levels might not.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

saas_sam 8y ago

What if the lower class is getting simultaneously bigger and also better off? Do you think the bottom 10% is living as bad as they were in 1940? 1980? Things that used to be luxuries are now normal across all income brackets... That's a good thing. :-)

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
People don't compare themselves to how people lived 80 years ago. They compare themselves to other people, today. So saying "Look poor people, who cares if you can't afford decent housing, or health care, or quality food - you've got a cell phone!" will not quiet the social unrest that a growing underclass will cause.
- tathougies 8y ago
  Overall though, more people have healthcare, more people have housing, and more people have food than ever before. No one is arguing, 'cellphone, hence no poverty'. People are merely arguing that the lowest 10% are no longer destitute.
  - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
    Yes, I agree the lowest 10% are no longer as destitute, but my point is the dangerous social unrest that is likely to be caused (some would argue already has been caused) by widening inequality is not something that absolute measures of living standards will have much bearing on.
    - tathougies 8y ago
      You attacked a very poor interpretation of the parent comment then. Claiming ' they may have iphones, but they don't have food ' is patently ridiculous.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      That remains to be seen. There's clearly a certain level of "comfort" where the majority of people become satisfied enough, and the quality of life at the bottom is rapidly increasing as technology and the world matures. The rise of the middle class in China and India seems to be the biggest indicator of this approaching steady state.

ardy42 8y ago

> At some point this boils over and the ultra wealthy are forced to redistribute wealth either through new political policy or by violent force. There's also the dystopian possibility that automated forms of social control are developed neuter the ability of any kind of popular political movement from challenging the elites. That automation could be anything from systems of censorship, surveillance, and propaganda to police androids. I think it makes some sense to deliberately cultivate and preserve IRL communities and networks that aren't very tech-mediated. By no means are they a panacea, but I think they have fewer vulnerabilities to tech-based automated control.

core-questions 8y ago
Do you have a license for this post?
amoshi 8y ago
I think this will happen. Brings to mind Google's secret project The Selfish Ledger, especially how it can be used for "Behavioural Sequencing"... [0] As tech gets better it'll become easier to analyse the masses and make good predictions - how much can the masses put up with? How much further can we push them before the boiling point is reached? [0] https://youtu.be/QDVVo14A_fo?t=439 https://youtu.be/QDVVo14A_fo?t=439
whycombinater 8y ago
"And just before the nuke hit, he reflected on what a great life he had. Under his watch, Skynet raised the percentage of female programmers to an even 50%." Of course, some would see that that's actually a DYStopia, I mean, where are the trans?!
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
>automated forms of social control are developed Legalisation of drugs fits in here IMO, it's a salve for the people to keep them from mounting rebellions. Making hard drugs cheap and widely available probably is a relatively effective way of killing off a proportion of your poorest citizens without raising too great an alarm. Things like VR could placate the people too, give them a fake "luxury existence" and they're less likely to rebel.

TaylorAlexander 8y ago

An alternative, which I advocate for, is that the lower class form productive collectives, stop contributing to the ultra wealthy, and generate their own real wealth. Much of the worlds wealth exists in wealth-generating infrastructure and information that is accessible to all of us. If we simply divest from the ultra wealthy and build a new economy based on cooperation, we can construct a system that inherently lifts us all. Automation will increase our productivity. In the end, the question is simply how we share the result of that gain. Normal capitalist corporations are designed to funnel wealth to a few board members, but cooperatives could succeed here too, where the wealth they generate is more naturally shared amongst all the workers. It’s not a silver bullet, but I feel as though it would represent a real improvement. We have to do something about how we distribute the creation of new wealth, and I don’t think we should wait for someone else to make this change for us - we must take action to realize the potential here! EDIT: I also think some billionaires are sympathetic to these issues and would be willing to contribute. But if we form large economic collectives, we can amass enough power to force the wealthy to notice when we divest.

tathougies 8y ago
One concrete step can be getting rid of the capital requirements (by regulation) to invest. The idea of 'qualified investors' is literally a way to keep poor people poor, and rich people rich, by cutting off poor or middle class people from the major vehicles of wealth creation. It is ridiculous that I cannot invest in the IPO of a company in my local neighborhood because, while I have enough money to satisfy the business, I don't have enough money to satisfy uncle sam's onerous requirements. But yes, cooperatives like Mondragon are good examples, and also incredibly traditional.
- mschuster91 8y ago
  These capital requirements are regulations that have been introduced as a response to companies fleecing the poor-ish, the uneducated and those who had a bit of cash, but decided to put it into one (fraudulent) investment. Drop them and you'll see what already is happening in the cryptocoin scene: people getting exploited left and right. Point is, no sofa investor will be a shark and get rich, contrary to the ICO promises.

bachbach 8y ago

Everybody who thinks this believes in some replay of the 19th-20th centuries - personally I do not buy it because I think computation is qualitatively different to mechanization. Moravec's Paradox strongly implies that the middle class is automated before the working class is. I think anybody who doesn't understand that isn't worth listening to since it's the most concrete result in A.I for half a century. It's not about the bottom - it's about the middle and underclasses - that is different to the past.