5 ms·
Re: If the median worker isn't responsible for the increased productivity, are they entitled to a share of the work of other people? Other people? The rich? Or
by tabtab 8y ago
Re: If the median worker isn't responsible for the increased productivity, are they entitled to a share of the work of other people?
Other people? The rich? Or even machines? There are several questions raised here.
Even if we go with the presumption that the rich are simply more productive/useful and "deserve their income", that still doesn't answer the question of why inequality is increasing.
Did the rich simply start to get significantly better than the rest around 1980? Instant evolution? Or perhap the economy is becoming "winner take all". The more you control the more you CAN control. For example, the big tech co's have huge patent portfolios in which to sue any upstarts from entering their turf. Their big competitors have their own giant portfolios to defend against each other's patent claims via counter-suits. Thus, smallbies are essentially locked out, forced into niches.
Even if we assume they deserve their big incomes, it could still pose a risk to democracy as the rich buy influence. The Supreme Court more or less has concluded money is free speech, meaning the rich (and corporations) can speak louder than the rest. Their point of view gets splattered everywhere and counter arguments from regular folks get drowned out. And there is campaign donations, which is legalized bribery, which the Court also upheld. The rich can use their influence to get even more politicians and judges in play which favor the rich, creating a runaway train of influence. "Slippery Slope" is often considered a debate fallacy, but we are sliding into inequality in practice. Sliding does sometimes actually happen. Unions are being gradually stripped of power by politicians and the courts, for example.
Therefore, even if one accepts that the rich deserve most their money, their spending power may have the practical side-effect of undermining democracy and equal representation.
And, how many mansions, Maseratis and swimming pools does one "need" to be sufficiently rewarded? 7?, 20?, 82? I thought it really telling that John McCain lost track of how many mansions he owned.
If we assume it's machines that have generated the increased total wealth, then obviously machines don't want nor need money (although I'm working on a Greed-A-Tron). So who gets it? The owners of the machines typically do, but are we just rewarding them for simply owning more machines than you and I? Owner take all?
- darawk 8y ago> Did the rich simply start to get significantly better than the rest around 1980? Instant evolution? Or perhap the economy is becoming "winner take all". The more you control the more you CAN control. For example, the big tech co's have huge patent portfolios in which to sue any upstarts from entering their turf. Their big competitors have their own giant portfolios to defend against each other's patent claims via counter-suits. Thus, smallbies are essentially locked out, forced into niches. The argument is not quite "winner take all" but as the article said "winner take most". We have increasingly become a knowledge economy. Technology has created a multiplier effect, where the productivity of the top decile or so of performers is magnified significantly by software and other things, making them have even more of an edge over the bottom 90%.
- tabtab 8y agoBut average IT worker wages have also more or less stagnated. By some accounts we have done somewhat better than the rest, but most the expansion is on the wealthy end. Therefore, it's not just the ability to automate.
- username90 8y agoWhen work is automated the productivity comes from owning the automation, not doing it. Meaning that the top 0.1% who owns all the automation are taking most of the gains. This is only possible thanks to the top 10% selling all their automation work to the top 0.1% for cheap.
- tabtab 8y agoOkay, but most owners own out of luck or family, not because they are special. Or, they did one thing special at the right time, which then allowed them to start accumulating ownership in a snowballing fashion. Most of Microsoft's well-known products were purchased from/as start-ups or small co's.
- ABCLAW 8y agoThis isn't a competition between 10% of the workers and 90% of the workers. There isn't a fixed amount of money allocated to 'labour'. It's a competition between the capital/investment cycle of the economy and the labour/consumption cycle. In this case it boils down to leverage in employment negotiations. Those 10% crackerjack hyperworkers you're theorizing exist would be even BETTER off if they were recouping a larger amount of the margin they were producing.
- darawk 8y agoI'm not sure I understand your point. My point is simply that those 10% are better able to capture the value they create, whereas the bottom 90% are not. I'm not making any assumptions about a fixed-size pie.