5 ms·

>But growing income inequality has taught us that would never happen. This is pretty huge non-sequitur. Income (in)equality has exactly nothing to do with post

>But growing income inequality has taught us that would never happen. This is pretty huge non-sequitur. Income (in)equality has exactly nothing to do with post scarcity world or reducing suffering. Just because someone has more than you doesn't mean you don't have more than someone in your position 50 years ago or that you aren't suffering less. Technology-wise we have focused on computers for so long that they are pretty much as solved as they are going to get, but we haven't made as huge leaps on other aspects. If your goal is to move the us to post scarcity world you have to come up with unlimited free and (relatively) clean power source. After that someone needs to figure out how to turn that unlimited energy into mass. Then someone needs to figure out how to 3D print things atom-by-atom using the previous technology. After that money loses all meaning and there is no longer income inequality.

cbozeman 5y ago
> If your goal is to move the us to post scarcity world you have to come up with unlimited free and (relatively) clean power source. Not a problem. Nuclear fusion. And before someone goes off on a tangent about, "It's only 10 years away for the past 60 years", that's because The Powers That Be won't give it - and by extension, pure science - the funding it needs to happen. The Defense Department budget increases by $80,000,000,000 for the 2021 Federal Budget. No one batted an eye. I guarantee you, if you throw $80 billion at fusion for 60 years, humanity will solve it. The pathetic $5 billion here and $2 billion there won't cut it. You have to sink real money into it. > After that someone needs to figure out how to turn that unlimited energy into mass. Funding. Once fusion is solved, throw $80 billion at this problem every year. See above. > Then someone needs to figure out how to 3D print things atom-by-atom using the previous technology. Funding. See above. > After that money loses all meaning and there is no longer income inequality. After that, we become a reputation-based economy, like Star Trek. It's about what you've done, not how much you have. None of this will happen until we stop allowing single individuals to hoard enormous amounts of wealth that could never possibly be spent in their lifetimes.
daenz 5y ago
The suffering from income inequality seems to be mostly psychological from the realization that others have more. This is why they don't care about improving their own bottom line as much as they do about preventing others from having so much more.
- sunshineforever 5y ago
  For the lower class it isn't just psychological jealousy. We look forward at a future where we have to constantly work and never really have a life. I have to pay a landowner for the ability to sleep. It isn't fun.
  - daenz 5y ago
    You seem to want a life where you don't have to do anything and everything is provided for you by others. In other words, you want to be the people that you're jealous of.
  - nextlevelwizard 5y ago
    There are now more ways than ever before to lift yourself out of poverty. World is full of companies looking for programmers. That is purely a skill you can cultivate regardless your physical abilities.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  This isn't necessarily true.It pretty easy to see that some have become much richer while others have stood still or gone backwards, and it is not obvious that those that became richer are any more deserving than the losers. I suspect this is a much bigger problem than just envy of rich people.
  - daenz 5y ago
    I've done this experiment, and you should too. Ask the people who complain the loudest about income inequality the following question: if you could eliminate billionaires from existing but it wouldn't raise the standard of living of anyone else, would you? Every time the answer has been "yes." That tells you all you need to know.
slg 5y ago
It isn't about "someone has more than you". There used to be a belief that the rising tide of technology would lift all boats. What we have seen over the last few decades is that most (although not all) value of the productivity bonuses that technology provides has largely been captured by the people who own the capital. Instead of seeing middle class wage increases, shorter work weeks, more vacation time, or any real improvements to the working life of much of the population, we get smartphones and everything else goes to billionaires. Even the 4 day work week which I have seen popping up on HN recently is often discussed in terms of how it improves productivity. It is less whether it is good for society and instead whether it is good for the bosses.
- nextlevelwizard 5y ago
  >There used to be a belief that the rising tide of technology would lift all boats. > What we have seen over the last few decades is that most (although not all) value of the productivity bonuses that technology provides has largely been captured by the people who own the capital. You debunked yourself in two sentences. Again just because someone is benefiting more than you doesn't mean you are also not benefiting. You can yell "eat the rich" all you want and how we should "get rid of billionaires", but fact remains that these people have the money for a reason and it is not that they inherited it from some old exploitation of people as many like to say. Is it OK that Jeff has more money than God? Probably not, but are you really going to argue that he hasn't earn it? It would be lovely if Jeffy-boy would donate more to good causes, but this is more a symptom of how corrupt US government is (that he can mass this amount of wealth and pay zero taxes).

cbozeman 5y ago

> If your goal is to move the us to post scarcity world you have to come up with unlimited free and (relatively) clean power source. Not a problem. Nuclear fusion. And before someone goes off on a tangent about, "It's only 10 years away for the past 60 years", that's because The Powers That Be won't give it - and by extension, pure science - the funding it needs to happen. The Defense Department budget increases by $80,000,000,000 for the 2021 Federal Budget. No one batted an eye. I guarantee you, if you throw $80 billion at fusion for 60 years, humanity will solve it. The pathetic $5 billion here and $2 billion there won't cut it. You have to sink real money into it. > After that someone needs to figure out how to turn that unlimited energy into mass. Funding. Once fusion is solved, throw $80 billion at this problem every year. See above. > Then someone needs to figure out how to 3D print things atom-by-atom using the previous technology. Funding. See above. > After that money loses all meaning and there is no longer income inequality. After that, we become a reputation-based economy, like Star Trek. It's about what you've done, not how much you have. None of this will happen until we stop allowing single individuals to hoard enormous amounts of wealth that could never possibly be spent in their lifetimes.

daenz 5y ago

The suffering from income inequality seems to be mostly psychological from the realization that others have more. This is why they don't care about improving their own bottom line as much as they do about preventing others from having so much more.

sunshineforever 5y ago
For the lower class it isn't just psychological jealousy. We look forward at a future where we have to constantly work and never really have a life. I have to pay a landowner for the ability to sleep. It isn't fun.
- daenz 5y ago
  You seem to want a life where you don't have to do anything and everything is provided for you by others. In other words, you want to be the people that you're jealous of.
- nextlevelwizard 5y ago
  There are now more ways than ever before to lift yourself out of poverty. World is full of companies looking for programmers. That is purely a skill you can cultivate regardless your physical abilities.
amanaplanacanal 5y ago
This isn't necessarily true.It pretty easy to see that some have become much richer while others have stood still or gone backwards, and it is not obvious that those that became richer are any more deserving than the losers. I suspect this is a much bigger problem than just envy of rich people.
- daenz 5y ago
  I've done this experiment, and you should too. Ask the people who complain the loudest about income inequality the following question: if you could eliminate billionaires from existing but it wouldn't raise the standard of living of anyone else, would you? Every time the answer has been "yes." That tells you all you need to know.

slg 5y ago

It isn't about "someone has more than you". There used to be a belief that the rising tide of technology would lift all boats. What we have seen over the last few decades is that most (although not all) value of the productivity bonuses that technology provides has largely been captured by the people who own the capital. Instead of seeing middle class wage increases, shorter work weeks, more vacation time, or any real improvements to the working life of much of the population, we get smartphones and everything else goes to billionaires. Even the 4 day work week which I have seen popping up on HN recently is often discussed in terms of how it improves productivity. It is less whether it is good for society and instead whether it is good for the bosses.

nextlevelwizard 5y ago
>There used to be a belief that the rising tide of technology would lift all boats. > What we have seen over the last few decades is that most (although not all) value of the productivity bonuses that technology provides has largely been captured by the people who own the capital. You debunked yourself in two sentences. Again just because someone is benefiting more than you doesn't mean you are also not benefiting. You can yell "eat the rich" all you want and how we should "get rid of billionaires", but fact remains that these people have the money for a reason and it is not that they inherited it from some old exploitation of people as many like to say. Is it OK that Jeff has more money than God? Probably not, but are you really going to argue that he hasn't earn it? It would be lovely if Jeffy-boy would donate more to good causes, but this is more a symptom of how corrupt US government is (that he can mass this amount of wealth and pay zero taxes).