5 ms·

Sure, that economic theory doesn't take into account jobs with the same qualifications. But why should it? When assembly line production began being automated b

Sure, that economic theory doesn't take into account jobs with the same qualifications. But why should it? When assembly line production began being automated by robotics, I'm sure there were stories about how the riveters and welders would never be able to work again. We're still better off because of that automation though - goods can be produced more efficiently and at higher quality. We can't predict the future, but every previous disruptive technological innovation has resulted in society being richer. It would be quite the shock if the result of the most recent one somehow left us poorer -- something really worth reporting on -- but I don't believe it.

RuadhanMc 15y ago
Society as a whole gets richer, but within those confines the rich can get richer and the poor can get poorer. Granted the poor today (I assume) have a higher quality of life than they did 50 years ago, but their expectations for life are also (probably) higher and cheap credit means that they can live beyond their means and a deeper whole for themselves, while temporarily giving themselves the impression that they have money to spend. Silicon Valley is producing these great billion dollar companies, but the companies themselves are only hiring a small fraction of the employees that similarly sized (market cap) companies have in the past. That is a bit of a problem. It means that incredible wealth is concentrated in one place, but without the filter down value that has occurred in the past. These companies still have immense value to society, but the value as far as numbers of people employed is decreasing dramatically and that is a major concern.
- anamax 15y ago
  > Society as a whole gets richer, but within those confines the rich can get richer and the poor can get poorer. But, do they get poorer? > Granted the poor today (I assume) have a higher quality of life than they did 50 years ago, Good - they're getting richer. But, why does the sentence continue. > but their expectations for life are also (probably) higher and cheap credit means that they can live beyond their means and a deeper whole for themselves, while temporarily giving themselves the impression that they have money to spend. Huh? The fact that US poor can be better off than ever before has no connection to easy credit. In fact, even with the easy credit and the resulting bankruptcy, they're better off now than past poor. Note that I'm not arguing for stupid credit policies (pushed mostly by govt). I'm pointing out that they have nothing to do with whether the poor are better off now. Oh, and most poor people didn't get into the cheap credit problem because they didn't even qualify under the stupid standards. However, the efforts to prop up folks who bought what they can't afford have kept folks who saved out of those houses. It's unclear why that's a good thing. For the good of society, banks need to lose money on stupid loans.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  "Granted the poor today (I assume) have a higher quality of life than they did 50 years ago, but their expectations for life are also (probably) higher" So... if in the future I own a flying car with 30 cup-holders, but the rich people in society all have 5 hyper-deluxe flying cars with tinted windows, will I be worse off since my expectations are significantly higher than what I can obtain? Or will I still own a flying car, whereas before I did not? And no, this isn't some terrible example. "Poor" in America is anything but for the vast number of people below the poverty line. People with no skills of value to society should feel lucky for having so much.

RuadhanMc 15y ago

Society as a whole gets richer, but within those confines the rich can get richer and the poor can get poorer. Granted the poor today (I assume) have a higher quality of life than they did 50 years ago, but their expectations for life are also (probably) higher and cheap credit means that they can live beyond their means and a deeper whole for themselves, while temporarily giving themselves the impression that they have money to spend. Silicon Valley is producing these great billion dollar companies, but the companies themselves are only hiring a small fraction of the employees that similarly sized (market cap) companies have in the past. That is a bit of a problem. It means that incredible wealth is concentrated in one place, but without the filter down value that has occurred in the past. These companies still have immense value to society, but the value as far as numbers of people employed is decreasing dramatically and that is a major concern.

anamax 15y ago
> Society as a whole gets richer, but within those confines the rich can get richer and the poor can get poorer. But, do they get poorer? > Granted the poor today (I assume) have a higher quality of life than they did 50 years ago, Good - they're getting richer. But, why does the sentence continue. > but their expectations for life are also (probably) higher and cheap credit means that they can live beyond their means and a deeper whole for themselves, while temporarily giving themselves the impression that they have money to spend. Huh? The fact that US poor can be better off than ever before has no connection to easy credit. In fact, even with the easy credit and the resulting bankruptcy, they're better off now than past poor. Note that I'm not arguing for stupid credit policies (pushed mostly by govt). I'm pointing out that they have nothing to do with whether the poor are better off now. Oh, and most poor people didn't get into the cheap credit problem because they didn't even qualify under the stupid standards. However, the efforts to prop up folks who bought what they can't afford have kept folks who saved out of those houses. It's unclear why that's a good thing. For the good of society, banks need to lose money on stupid loans.
burgerbrain 15y ago
"Granted the poor today (I assume) have a higher quality of life than they did 50 years ago, but their expectations for life are also (probably) higher" So... if in the future I own a flying car with 30 cup-holders, but the rich people in society all have 5 hyper-deluxe flying cars with tinted windows, will I be worse off since my expectations are significantly higher than what I can obtain? Or will I still own a flying car, whereas before I did not? And no, this isn't some terrible example. "Poor" in America is anything but for the vast number of people below the poverty line. People with no skills of value to society should feel lucky for having so much.