4 ms·

>I don't know why anyone should feel entitled to economic growth if they didn't participate in it in any way. Tangentially related point: The problem occurs w

>I don't know why anyone should feel entitled to economic growth if they didn't participate in it in any way. Tangentially related point: The problem occurs when advances in technology make it so the vast majority of humans are literally _unable_, not to be mistaken for _unwilling_, to participate in economic growth. In this scenario inequality shoots through the roof and that reasonably leads to instability and violence. At a certain point the wealth has to be shared in order to maintain a stable and high-quality society. A pragmatic wealthy person in this scenario should see wealth redistribution as a wise investment, not a cost, seeing as the "let them eat cake" alternative is less desirable if you like to keep your head.

weberc2 8y ago
> A pragmatic wealthy person in this scenario should see wealth redistribution as a wise investment, not a cost, seeing as the "let them eat cake" alternative is less desirable if you like to keep your head. This seems like a false dichotomy in that (for the foreseeable future) we have other options, like retraining people whose jobs have been automated away. This is strictly better (read "less invasive" and "more economically efficient") than wealth redistribution programs [^1]. [^1]: To avoid the motte and bailey fallacies that accompany poorly-defined or otherwise ambiguous terms such as "redistribution", I'm referring to the typical redistribution programs which take wealth from one group and give it to another group with no net increase in economic productivity. These are the kinds of programs which are controversial and objectionable.
- harimau777 8y ago
  Retraining might equalize things enough to prevent violent insurrection. However, if a fair share of profit increases only go to executives/shareholders, then I'm not sure we can train people for jobs high enough up the hierarchy to actually reach a just system.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    It's not really a tractable problem without concretely defining 'fair' and 'just'. It seems like you're driving toward something interesting (if only theoretical); I'd be really interested to hear from an economist.
    - harimau777 8y ago
      That's a good point. I don't have much theoretical background in economics so I feel like I'm unintentionally speaking vaguely due to not knowing the correct/best terms and theories. I think the way I would define fair (and obviously this is somewhat a value judgement rather than objective fact) is that: I don't think its unjust that a CEO gets payed more than a line worker, but when the company succeeds then I think the increase in profits should be divided up such that the ratio of their incomes stays about the same. Also, when I say "just" I don't mean that in an extreme way where if profits aren't divided up 100% fairly then employees are oppressed wage slaves. Even if my ideal system where implemented things would still be subjective. For example, what if my employer implemented very generous benefits but didn't pay quite as well?
      - weberc2 8y ago
        I guess the problem I have with terms like "justice" and "injustice" (not to pick on you specifically) is it seems to presume that poverty is the result of greed or nefarious motives when it's exclusively the result of economic inefficiency (sometimes this inefficiency is caused by greed). In failing to properly diagnose the problem, solutions come out which actually reduce market efficiency and thus perpetuate more poverty. Moreover, everyone already agrees that poverty is bad, so arguing about "injustice" instead of "optimizing the economy" seems unlikely to persuade anyone. I'm already on board with eliminating poverty! Don't tell me "hiking the minimum wage is the right thing to do and the economics will work itself out", show me the math that says we can do it without inadvertently creating more poverty.
- billmalarky 8y ago
  >like retraining people whose jobs have been automated away In the scenario I am describing, this is not possible. Yes I am aware of the luddites. I also strongly believe that a threshold exists where technology can outperform humans in every conceivable way, and we will cross that line one day. FWIW, complete collapse of our (current) economic system would occur well before we reach that line anyways. If even 50% of humans were displaced by technology you would likely see violent revolution. Consider the impact of the US great depression, where just under 25% of people were unemployed...
  - weberc2 8y ago
    > In the scenario I am describing, this is not possible. Ok, I wasn't sure how you meant your comment, so I addressed the more plausible (although less literal) interpretation. Thanks for clarifying though. I imagine your scenario is theoretically possible, but it's science fiction for the foreseeable future, so I'm not very concerned about it. That said, it's interesting and I often think about it; I'd be really interested to hear economists opinions.

weberc2 8y ago

> A pragmatic wealthy person in this scenario should see wealth redistribution as a wise investment, not a cost, seeing as the "let them eat cake" alternative is less desirable if you like to keep your head. This seems like a false dichotomy in that (for the foreseeable future) we have other options, like retraining people whose jobs have been automated away. This is strictly better (read "less invasive" and "more economically efficient") than wealth redistribution programs [^1]. [^1]: To avoid the motte and bailey fallacies that accompany poorly-defined or otherwise ambiguous terms such as "redistribution", I'm referring to the typical redistribution programs which take wealth from one group and give it to another group with no net increase in economic productivity. These are the kinds of programs which are controversial and objectionable.

harimau777 8y ago
Retraining might equalize things enough to prevent violent insurrection. However, if a fair share of profit increases only go to executives/shareholders, then I'm not sure we can train people for jobs high enough up the hierarchy to actually reach a just system.
- weberc2 8y ago
  It's not really a tractable problem without concretely defining 'fair' and 'just'. It seems like you're driving toward something interesting (if only theoretical); I'd be really interested to hear from an economist.
  - harimau777 8y ago
    That's a good point. I don't have much theoretical background in economics so I feel like I'm unintentionally speaking vaguely due to not knowing the correct/best terms and theories. I think the way I would define fair (and obviously this is somewhat a value judgement rather than objective fact) is that: I don't think its unjust that a CEO gets payed more than a line worker, but when the company succeeds then I think the increase in profits should be divided up such that the ratio of their incomes stays about the same. Also, when I say "just" I don't mean that in an extreme way where if profits aren't divided up 100% fairly then employees are oppressed wage slaves. Even if my ideal system where implemented things would still be subjective. For example, what if my employer implemented very generous benefits but didn't pay quite as well?
    - weberc2 8y ago
      I guess the problem I have with terms like "justice" and "injustice" (not to pick on you specifically) is it seems to presume that poverty is the result of greed or nefarious motives when it's exclusively the result of economic inefficiency (sometimes this inefficiency is caused by greed). In failing to properly diagnose the problem, solutions come out which actually reduce market efficiency and thus perpetuate more poverty. Moreover, everyone already agrees that poverty is bad, so arguing about "injustice" instead of "optimizing the economy" seems unlikely to persuade anyone. I'm already on board with eliminating poverty! Don't tell me "hiking the minimum wage is the right thing to do and the economics will work itself out", show me the math that says we can do it without inadvertently creating more poverty.
billmalarky 8y ago
>like retraining people whose jobs have been automated away In the scenario I am describing, this is not possible. Yes I am aware of the luddites. I also strongly believe that a threshold exists where technology can outperform humans in every conceivable way, and we will cross that line one day. FWIW, complete collapse of our (current) economic system would occur well before we reach that line anyways. If even 50% of humans were displaced by technology you would likely see violent revolution. Consider the impact of the US great depression, where just under 25% of people were unemployed...
- weberc2 8y ago
  > In the scenario I am describing, this is not possible. Ok, I wasn't sure how you meant your comment, so I addressed the more plausible (although less literal) interpretation. Thanks for clarifying though. I imagine your scenario is theoretically possible, but it's science fiction for the foreseeable future, so I'm not very concerned about it. That said, it's interesting and I often think about it; I'd be really interested to hear economists opinions.