3 ms·

> Sometimes inefficiencies are good (see the U.S. political system of checks and balances, redundant systems in engineering). Those aren't good analogies. The

> Sometimes inefficiencies are good (see the U.S. political system of checks and balances, redundant systems in engineering). Those aren't good analogies. The "inefficiencies" in the US political system aren't actually inefficiencies in the long run. They remove the need for revolutions/coups to depose autocratic rulers. Same thing with redundant systems in engineering - in the long run, they are the most efficient approach to the problem, as they reduce rates of catastrophic failure. However, indefinitely preventing technology from advancing civilization is the exact opposite. For the short term "efficiency" of allowing those workers to keep their jobs, we are tolerating the permanent inefficiency of clinging to old technology. I don't believe that there needs to be "a viable option for 'hands-on' people to earn a livable wage." Our ancestors all used to be hunter-gatherers, but we have somehow managed to survive in a world where hunting/gathering is nonexistent. It is the remarkable adaptability of the human race that has brought it so much success, and I believe we can continue to adapt to whatever new technology we discover.

pasbesoin 16y ago
One thing that is seldom introduced into such discussions is human life span, or "generations". In the long run, we may balance out to a world economy. (Or not.) But in the short term, we may disenfranchise entire generations of our population. If it were truly a "free market", workers could follow the work. (Work -- the oft neglected other half of "the market".) That is not the case, now. (And even if it were, income disparity would make it a one-way trip of separation from family and friends -- not that that's anything new.) I agree, society presents -- and depends upon -- a diversity of mental and physical types, and excising an entire sector's means of gainful employment is a distortion to that balance. You can have a country of gated communities and slums, or a country where you can walk down the street in safety and comfort. Which would you prefer? I'm not sure there's a viable alternative to the way we're proceeding. But one should be ready for the consequences. The "free market" doesn't care about deaths. (Some would argue they are an efficiency.) That's left to human morals and values. The hook being, again, what kind of community you wish to live in. One where you can enjoy the company of other people, or one where you fear it. -- Addendum: I meant to include the comment that "white collar" work is moving overseas (as compared to e.g. the U.S. and other "first nation" countries) more rapidly that many realize. Even the (non-ownership) bankers, lawyers, and other "management professionals" that were supposed to be this country's future, are soon -- already -- going to find themselves priced out of the market. The need overseas to educate a generation in this work, and to have sufficient legal and regulatory stability, delayed this occurring. But those prerequisites are now falling into place. And why is someone going to pay 3 - 5 or more times as much for a U.S. resource, when they can get as good somewhere else? True professionals -- the truly creative and proficient -- may always have a job, even if they have to move. But a lot of "value added" people are going to find that, well, they don't (add sufficient value, or have a job). At least, not abroad. There will always be some domestic work. But, their fortunes will fall with those of those of the disenfranchised around them. No one's going to pay them outsize incomes to "manage the world".
DevX101 16y ago
> The "inefficiencies" in the US political system aren't actually inefficiencies in the long run I agree, and I could argue the same thing for maintaining manufacturing/vocational jobs. As I said in my first post, giving reasonable wages to the lower/middle class means they have more disposable income and consume more. I think this is a net positive economic effect. If a high net-worth person makes 10x the average wage, that doesn't mean she will buy 10 times as many televisions, ipods, or cars. She may purchase HIGHER QUALITY goods/services, but overall consumption from 10 workers making 40k per year and 1 high net worth person making 400k per year are not equivalent. This consumer demand from the lower-middle class ultimately creates markets and creates long-term efficiencies. >However, indefinitely preventing technology from advancing civilization is the exact opposite I don't want to cling to the past. But as our society progresses we must find ways to integrate hard working people that aren't the type to sit in a office all day. I think Germany is a good model. In high school, students are separated into a vocational track or an academic track. Because of this, Germany has a very highly skilled manufacturing workforce today. >I don't believe that there needs to be "a viable option for 'hands-on' people to earn a livable wage I disagree very strongly with this statement. There are more 'hands-on' people than 'intellectual' people in this country. If those 'hands-on' people can earn $25 per hour, then you can make your apps and devices and they will have enough money to buy it.
- w1ntermute 16y ago
  Your entire argument is predicated on the belief that people cannot adapt to their circumstances. History has demonstrated time and time again that people are able to do so when they are forced to. > There are more 'hands-on' people than 'intellectual' people in this country. And once upon a time, there were more artisans than 'hands-on' people. When the Industrial Revolution occurred and a lot of artisan jobs were replaced by factory jobs, people made arguments similar to yours. But people have somehow managed to adapt, haven't they? > I think Germany is a good model. In high school, students are separated into a vocational track or an academic track. Because of this, Germany has a very highly skilled manufacturing workforce today. But because of their specialized training, the German workforce is relatively inflexible and has failed large portions of the population. There was an article in this week's Economist about this[0]: > Even so, the system has flaws. Some worry, for example, that a stronger general education is needed to equip young Germans to change trades should demand for their specific expertise dry up. > A bigger concern is that early selection fails children from poor and immigrant families, who are likeliest to attend the least academic schools and to miss out on apprenticeships. Partly for this reason, there is a large group of students at the bottom of the rankings—which explains why the German average is still below par. “It is a schooling system that has left a large fraction of students behind,” says Andreas Schleicher of the OECD. 0: http://www.economist.com/node/18061710 http://www.economist.com/node/18061710
yummyfajitas 16y ago
One possible solution (once income inequality becomes large enough) will be domestic labor. The low productivity individuals will become butlers/maids/personal assistants for the high productivity individuals. Why should a high skill person waste time doing their own laundry? We could accelerate this process by allowing income spent on salaries to pass through the individual - i.e., if you earn $200k/year and spend $30k/year on a butler, your taxable income is only $170k. This already occurs in limited cases - domestic labor is often paid in cash off the books.

pasbesoin 16y ago

One thing that is seldom introduced into such discussions is human life span, or "generations". In the long run, we may balance out to a world economy. (Or not.) But in the short term, we may disenfranchise entire generations of our population. If it were truly a "free market", workers could follow the work. (Work -- the oft neglected other half of "the market".) That is not the case, now. (And even if it were, income disparity would make it a one-way trip of separation from family and friends -- not that that's anything new.) I agree, society presents -- and depends upon -- a diversity of mental and physical types, and excising an entire sector's means of gainful employment is a distortion to that balance. You can have a country of gated communities and slums, or a country where you can walk down the street in safety and comfort. Which would you prefer? I'm not sure there's a viable alternative to the way we're proceeding. But one should be ready for the consequences. The "free market" doesn't care about deaths. (Some would argue they are an efficiency.) That's left to human morals and values. The hook being, again, what kind of community you wish to live in. One where you can enjoy the company of other people, or one where you fear it. -- Addendum: I meant to include the comment that "white collar" work is moving overseas (as compared to e.g. the U.S. and other "first nation" countries) more rapidly that many realize. Even the (non-ownership) bankers, lawyers, and other "management professionals" that were supposed to be this country's future, are soon -- already -- going to find themselves priced out of the market. The need overseas to educate a generation in this work, and to have sufficient legal and regulatory stability, delayed this occurring. But those prerequisites are now falling into place. And why is someone going to pay 3 - 5 or more times as much for a U.S. resource, when they can get as good somewhere else? True professionals -- the truly creative and proficient -- may always have a job, even if they have to move. But a lot of "value added" people are going to find that, well, they don't (add sufficient value, or have a job). At least, not abroad. There will always be some domestic work. But, their fortunes will fall with those of those of the disenfranchised around them. No one's going to pay them outsize incomes to "manage the world".

DevX101 16y ago

> The "inefficiencies" in the US political system aren't actually inefficiencies in the long run I agree, and I could argue the same thing for maintaining manufacturing/vocational jobs. As I said in my first post, giving reasonable wages to the lower/middle class means they have more disposable income and consume more. I think this is a net positive economic effect. If a high net-worth person makes 10x the average wage, that doesn't mean she will buy 10 times as many televisions, ipods, or cars. She may purchase HIGHER QUALITY goods/services, but overall consumption from 10 workers making 40k per year and 1 high net worth person making 400k per year are not equivalent. This consumer demand from the lower-middle class ultimately creates markets and creates long-term efficiencies. >However, indefinitely preventing technology from advancing civilization is the exact opposite I don't want to cling to the past. But as our society progresses we must find ways to integrate hard working people that aren't the type to sit in a office all day. I think Germany is a good model. In high school, students are separated into a vocational track or an academic track. Because of this, Germany has a very highly skilled manufacturing workforce today. >I don't believe that there needs to be "a viable option for 'hands-on' people to earn a livable wage I disagree very strongly with this statement. There are more 'hands-on' people than 'intellectual' people in this country. If those 'hands-on' people can earn $25 per hour, then you can make your apps and devices and they will have enough money to buy it.

w1ntermute 16y ago
Your entire argument is predicated on the belief that people cannot adapt to their circumstances. History has demonstrated time and time again that people are able to do so when they are forced to. > There are more 'hands-on' people than 'intellectual' people in this country. And once upon a time, there were more artisans than 'hands-on' people. When the Industrial Revolution occurred and a lot of artisan jobs were replaced by factory jobs, people made arguments similar to yours. But people have somehow managed to adapt, haven't they? > I think Germany is a good model. In high school, students are separated into a vocational track or an academic track. Because of this, Germany has a very highly skilled manufacturing workforce today. But because of their specialized training, the German workforce is relatively inflexible and has failed large portions of the population. There was an article in this week's Economist about this[0]: > Even so, the system has flaws. Some worry, for example, that a stronger general education is needed to equip young Germans to change trades should demand for their specific expertise dry up. > A bigger concern is that early selection fails children from poor and immigrant families, who are likeliest to attend the least academic schools and to miss out on apprenticeships. Partly for this reason, there is a large group of students at the bottom of the rankings—which explains why the German average is still below par. “It is a schooling system that has left a large fraction of students behind,” says Andreas Schleicher of the OECD. 0: http://www.economist.com/node/18061710 http://www.economist.com/node/18061710

yummyfajitas 16y ago

One possible solution (once income inequality becomes large enough) will be domestic labor. The low productivity individuals will become butlers/maids/personal assistants for the high productivity individuals. Why should a high skill person waste time doing their own laundry? We could accelerate this process by allowing income spent on salaries to pass through the individual - i.e., if you earn $200k/year and spend $30k/year on a butler, your taxable income is only $170k. This already occurs in limited cases - domestic labor is often paid in cash off the books.