8 ms·

Ridiculous. The solution to average people becoming less relevant in the economy (which I don't dispute, btw) can of course never be to make everyone above ave

by mtts 15y ago

Ridiculous. The solution to average people becoming less relevant in the economy (which I don't dispute, btw) can of course never be to make everyone above average as that is by definition impossible. It's a feel good message for average folk that papers over the truth, which is that average folk that used to make a decent living doing average work will become poor. All of them, eventually. How poor exactly? Well, you could do worse than to look at Chinese factory workers for an indication of where things will end. Of course it's more complicated than that: if the average man has become as poor as a Chinese factory worker, he will no longer be able to afford expensive gadgets and value added services, so it'll be in the interest of at least some sectors of the economy (think Apple and Google) to keep the impoverishment of the middle class down to a minimum. On the other hand there are other sectors of the economy (think McDonalds and Walmart) that will do just fine even if everyone is poor, so it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. But, like I said, this article is ridiculous. Giving everyone a PhD won't solve a thing.

joelrunyon 15y ago
I didn't read anything about giving anyone a PhD? I could be wrong, but he's talking less about "shifting" average to include a PhD, to shifting how average people are going to have to fend for themselves - which is to fight to be above average. As another commenter pointed out, this is impossible (if everyone's special, no one is), but it's also good to mention that you get to choose whether or not you want to be average. Sure, you can rely on being a cog in a machine, but if you do that, you just jumped into a super-competitive market dominated by machines and cheap overseas labor. So, you can either relegate yourself to that fate or choose something different. I believe his point was that there's a shift in the past could escape with being average because it was localized and there was less overall competition for jobs because of geographic limitations. The math is that the market for average has been commoditized over 7 billion people + machines, rather than the 300 million people we used to. That brings the level of average much, much lower for certain types of works. So, the solution isn't to try and raise your qualifications level in a pool of average people, but rather jump in a different pool altogether, where your value as a worker is not so easily commoditized (knowledge workers, developing fields & emerging tech). For anyone familiar with Seth Godin, this talk isn't very new at all - http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2006/04/no_to_average.html http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2006/04/no_to_averag...
muyuu 15y ago
The solution is none. There is no "solution" because it, in itself, is not a problem. The problem is that everybody feels entitled to a top 10% salary and many would kill for "their fair share" when nowadays even the lower 10% have their basic needs covered and some left for leisure. The problem is that a society where everybody have similar incomes is somehow fairer, when there is no logical chain leading there and to top it off it causes ruination. Did cause it already just after industrial revolution, when this disparity in productivity first became natural, and does more and more now. Having everyone highly educated would solve many things. Not salary disparity though, as it isn't a problem in the first place. The problem is having a significant chunk of the population hungry or homeless. This can perfectly be eradicated "even" with a higher disparity.
- _delirium 15y ago
  nowadays even the lower 10% have their basic needs covered and some left for leisure Only really because of what's left of the welfare system, mainly Medicaid, Section 8 housing, food stamps, and the EITC; which I agree does help on the low end, but is increasingly being time-limited and rationed (e.g. Section 8 is hard to get into). The 10th-percentile household income in the U.S. is around $12,000. If that's all you had to live on, even in cheapish parts of the US it'd be quite a stretch to pay rent+food+transportation+healthcare out of that, especially for more than one person. The problem is that a society where everybody have similar incomes is somehow fairer, when there is no logical chain leading there and to top it off it causes ruination. Well, I've lived in both the U.S. and Denmark, which have very different levels of income inequality, and I wouldn't say Denmark has suffered ruination. There are pros and cons, of course. The logical chain isn't that complex if a society actually wants to implement it; it doesn't require some kind of communist revolution, just high and highly progressive taxes (including on capital gains), a national healthcare system, and a strong safety net.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    The 10th-percentile household income in the U.S. is around $12,000. If that's all you had to live on... It's not all you have to live on. People in these income ranges tend to have consumption of $18-22k. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ce/standard/2009/income.txt The missing piece of the puzzle is that a lot of people in these income ranges receive many benefits which do not qualify as income.
UK-Al05 15y ago
By above average he means specialised skills in a specific talent or skill. Thus being above average in that specific talent or skill; however below average in everything else. Division of labour.
jdlegg 15y ago
There's another way to "raise" the average and it's already beginning to happen. It is the organization of workers into unions and other democratic labor organizations. It parallels the movements that occurred in the United States in the early part of the 20th century. Except it's happening in China (and other "globalized" competitors). Chinese workers will not put up with unsafe, low-pay factory conditions forever, despite what everyone seems to think. Most of China's population doesn't have access to reasonable healthcare, for example, and many of these factory workers live in slum-like dormitories located on the factory campus. This is to say nothing of the literal death-traps that exist in day-to-day working conditions. The Arab-spring is evidence that, even in the 21st century, or perhaps more-so in the 21st century, collective action can provoke change. It's odd why so many see the process of globalization as a race to the bottom. In the short-term, yes, but in the long-term, no way. Transportation, energy and other transaction costs could make it costlier to produce in China what can be produced in the United States when labor costs approach parity. At worst, the workers in China and the "average" workers in the west will meet somewhere in the middle.
- lukeschlather 15y ago
  The unsafe, low-pay factory jobs will probably be replaced by robots before that happens. There are already a lot of cases for which Chinese workers are more economical than robots - but robots are more economical than low-pay Americans.
  - batista 15y ago
    There's the problem of who will buy the robot-produced goods (and fund the robot factories), when the large masses earn shit because of being replaced by robots. Henry Ford had a lot to say on this very matter of paying employees well in general.
    - jpadkins 15y ago
      when goods are produced by robots, goods will be so cheap that people with low wages will be able to purchase those goods. The higher the productivity of economy, the less people have to work. increased productivity helps all of mankind. At infinite productivity, nobody has to work anymore...
shaggy 15y ago
It's not ridiculous but I think it wasn't very well presented. The argument isn't that everyone should have a PhD. That wasn't even mentioned. Access to higher education was mentioned but that means college in this context (most likely even an associates degree). The argument being made in the article isn't about making everyone above average it's about shifting what average is. Times have changed but sadly education and job training for most people has not. The person who used to stand on an assembly line and pop rivets all day is no longer a middle class wage earner. Why? Because popping rivets "at scale" isn't a problem anyone even thinks about anymore. But for people who don't have any other marketable skills or education past high school this is a big problem. All countries that have been around for a long enough period of time go through this, the US is young enough that we're entering the phase now and we do have opportunity to try to make things as good as we can for as many people as we can. This is not to say that we'll ever stop unemployment because we won't. Our focus needs to be on education and job training in a big way. If the digital/IT age is driving the global economy and a factory can comfortably employs thousands of people the US should be building those kinds of factories. Eventually the places the US outsources to will become too expensive and jobs (some of them) will move back to the US. This is already happening. The middle classes that have been and are being built overseas will by definition grow past the point where paying them to install glass screens in cases will be good enough for them.
nextparadigms 15y ago
I think that point is we'll have many opportunities in the future to specialize in something, and be great at that.
geebee 15y ago
"The solution to average people becoming less relevant in the economy (which I don't dispute, btw) can of course never be to make everyone above average as that is by definition impossible." It's not as impossible as you might think. The idea here is to be above average in a specialty, not in everything. It's even more within reach when you start thinking about how narrow a specialization can become. I remember Scott Adams's reflections on this... that you can become "elite" by being the very best at one thing (like Roger Federer at Tennis), or by by being good at an interesting blend of different things. The first is out of range for most people, but the second is a possibility for mere mortals. Scott Adams's personal reflection was that he was good but not great at drawing, telling jokes, and commenting on business, but all three together made his comic strip unique. Even this approach will require a substantial amount of education and hard work, but it is a possibility.
- PGenes 15y ago
  It's not as possible as you imagine. There are billions of people on earth. The notion that each of them, even after accounting for geographical location etc can provide something unique, seems incredibly far fetched. Almost all life is marked by incredibly similar lifestyles at the species level. This is true of all of human history too. However attractive it sounds, we will NOT all find special ways to add value that escape automation.
jberryman 15y ago
I'm sensing quite a bit of schadenfreude here, and no substance. Surely america can use its considerable resources to educate and train its populace to do work that will be in high demand in the 21st century. Is your point that the "average person" is just too stupid to learn to do these jobs?
shalmanese 15y ago
Actually, everyone can be above average if you have multiple scales. Some people could be above average at singing, others at mathematics, others at running. The unfortunate losers in this situation are the people who are uniformly below average.
- DrJokepu 15y ago
  Specialisation is nothing new but I think what both the article and the grandparent really mean is that you have to be above average in your field of specialisation, e.g. being an average professional singer, professional mathematician or professional athlete is not enough.
  - batista 15y ago
    Most people are average at everything. Even if you have multiple scales, it doesn't change. For one, people are not willing to work in all the "scale field", even if they are above average (i.e: I'm above average at preaching. Too bad I don't want to be a priest). Second, you can be above average in a field that doesn't matter (i.e: oh, I'm an above average haiku writer. Too bad nobody pays for this). Third, most fields are so saturated but merely being above average doesn't matter anyway. (i.e: oh, I'm above average at singing. Too bad only the top 1% or less makes any money of it).
lutorm 15y ago
It's not super germane to your comment, but: not everyone can be above average, but a whole lot can. Just like currently a lot more than 50% earn less than average. You are confusing average with median. But also, the context of the article seems to imply that he was thinking about international competition, so that "We will have the best-trained American people in the world." You just have to make sure the below average ones are somewhere else.

by mtts 15y ago

joelrunyon 15y ago

I didn't read anything about giving anyone a PhD? I could be wrong, but he's talking less about "shifting" average to include a PhD, to shifting how average people are going to have to fend for themselves - which is to fight to be above average. As another commenter pointed out, this is impossible (if everyone's special, no one is), but it's also good to mention that you get to choose whether or not you want to be average. Sure, you can rely on being a cog in a machine, but if you do that, you just jumped into a super-competitive market dominated by machines and cheap overseas labor. So, you can either relegate yourself to that fate or choose something different. I believe his point was that there's a shift in the past could escape with being average because it was localized and there was less overall competition for jobs because of geographic limitations. The math is that the market for average has been commoditized over 7 billion people + machines, rather than the 300 million people we used to. That brings the level of average much, much lower for certain types of works. So, the solution isn't to try and raise your qualifications level in a pool of average people, but rather jump in a different pool altogether, where your value as a worker is not so easily commoditized (knowledge workers, developing fields & emerging tech). For anyone familiar with Seth Godin, this talk isn't very new at all - http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2006/04/no_to_average.html http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2006/04/no_to_averag...

muyuu 15y ago

The solution is none. There is no "solution" because it, in itself, is not a problem. The problem is that everybody feels entitled to a top 10% salary and many would kill for "their fair share" when nowadays even the lower 10% have their basic needs covered and some left for leisure. The problem is that a society where everybody have similar incomes is somehow fairer, when there is no logical chain leading there and to top it off it causes ruination. Did cause it already just after industrial revolution, when this disparity in productivity first became natural, and does more and more now. Having everyone highly educated would solve many things. Not salary disparity though, as it isn't a problem in the first place. The problem is having a significant chunk of the population hungry or homeless. This can perfectly be eradicated "even" with a higher disparity.

_delirium 15y ago
nowadays even the lower 10% have their basic needs covered and some left for leisure Only really because of what's left of the welfare system, mainly Medicaid, Section 8 housing, food stamps, and the EITC; which I agree does help on the low end, but is increasingly being time-limited and rationed (e.g. Section 8 is hard to get into). The 10th-percentile household income in the U.S. is around $12,000. If that's all you had to live on, even in cheapish parts of the US it'd be quite a stretch to pay rent+food+transportation+healthcare out of that, especially for more than one person. The problem is that a society where everybody have similar incomes is somehow fairer, when there is no logical chain leading there and to top it off it causes ruination. Well, I've lived in both the U.S. and Denmark, which have very different levels of income inequality, and I wouldn't say Denmark has suffered ruination. There are pros and cons, of course. The logical chain isn't that complex if a society actually wants to implement it; it doesn't require some kind of communist revolution, just high and highly progressive taxes (including on capital gains), a national healthcare system, and a strong safety net.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  The 10th-percentile household income in the U.S. is around $12,000. If that's all you had to live on... It's not all you have to live on. People in these income ranges tend to have consumption of $18-22k. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ce/standard/2009/income.txt The missing piece of the puzzle is that a lot of people in these income ranges receive many benefits which do not qualify as income.

UK-Al05 15y ago

By above average he means specialised skills in a specific talent or skill. Thus being above average in that specific talent or skill; however below average in everything else. Division of labour.

jdlegg 15y ago

There's another way to "raise" the average and it's already beginning to happen. It is the organization of workers into unions and other democratic labor organizations. It parallels the movements that occurred in the United States in the early part of the 20th century. Except it's happening in China (and other "globalized" competitors). Chinese workers will not put up with unsafe, low-pay factory conditions forever, despite what everyone seems to think. Most of China's population doesn't have access to reasonable healthcare, for example, and many of these factory workers live in slum-like dormitories located on the factory campus. This is to say nothing of the literal death-traps that exist in day-to-day working conditions. The Arab-spring is evidence that, even in the 21st century, or perhaps more-so in the 21st century, collective action can provoke change. It's odd why so many see the process of globalization as a race to the bottom. In the short-term, yes, but in the long-term, no way. Transportation, energy and other transaction costs could make it costlier to produce in China what can be produced in the United States when labor costs approach parity. At worst, the workers in China and the "average" workers in the west will meet somewhere in the middle.

lukeschlather 15y ago
The unsafe, low-pay factory jobs will probably be replaced by robots before that happens. There are already a lot of cases for which Chinese workers are more economical than robots - but robots are more economical than low-pay Americans.
- batista 15y ago
  There's the problem of who will buy the robot-produced goods (and fund the robot factories), when the large masses earn shit because of being replaced by robots. Henry Ford had a lot to say on this very matter of paying employees well in general.
  - jpadkins 15y ago
    when goods are produced by robots, goods will be so cheap that people with low wages will be able to purchase those goods. The higher the productivity of economy, the less people have to work. increased productivity helps all of mankind. At infinite productivity, nobody has to work anymore...

shaggy 15y ago

It's not ridiculous but I think it wasn't very well presented. The argument isn't that everyone should have a PhD. That wasn't even mentioned. Access to higher education was mentioned but that means college in this context (most likely even an associates degree). The argument being made in the article isn't about making everyone above average it's about shifting what average is. Times have changed but sadly education and job training for most people has not. The person who used to stand on an assembly line and pop rivets all day is no longer a middle class wage earner. Why? Because popping rivets "at scale" isn't a problem anyone even thinks about anymore. But for people who don't have any other marketable skills or education past high school this is a big problem. All countries that have been around for a long enough period of time go through this, the US is young enough that we're entering the phase now and we do have opportunity to try to make things as good as we can for as many people as we can. This is not to say that we'll ever stop unemployment because we won't. Our focus needs to be on education and job training in a big way. If the digital/IT age is driving the global economy and a factory can comfortably employs thousands of people the US should be building those kinds of factories. Eventually the places the US outsources to will become too expensive and jobs (some of them) will move back to the US. This is already happening. The middle classes that have been and are being built overseas will by definition grow past the point where paying them to install glass screens in cases will be good enough for them.

nextparadigms 15y ago

I think that point is we'll have many opportunities in the future to specialize in something, and be great at that.

geebee 15y ago

"The solution to average people becoming less relevant in the economy (which I don't dispute, btw) can of course never be to make everyone above average as that is by definition impossible." It's not as impossible as you might think. The idea here is to be above average in a specialty, not in everything. It's even more within reach when you start thinking about how narrow a specialization can become. I remember Scott Adams's reflections on this... that you can become "elite" by being the very best at one thing (like Roger Federer at Tennis), or by by being good at an interesting blend of different things. The first is out of range for most people, but the second is a possibility for mere mortals. Scott Adams's personal reflection was that he was good but not great at drawing, telling jokes, and commenting on business, but all three together made his comic strip unique. Even this approach will require a substantial amount of education and hard work, but it is a possibility.

PGenes 15y ago
It's not as possible as you imagine. There are billions of people on earth. The notion that each of them, even after accounting for geographical location etc can provide something unique, seems incredibly far fetched. Almost all life is marked by incredibly similar lifestyles at the species level. This is true of all of human history too. However attractive it sounds, we will NOT all find special ways to add value that escape automation.

jberryman 15y ago

I'm sensing quite a bit of schadenfreude here, and no substance. Surely america can use its considerable resources to educate and train its populace to do work that will be in high demand in the 21st century. Is your point that the "average person" is just too stupid to learn to do these jobs?

shalmanese 15y ago

Actually, everyone can be above average if you have multiple scales. Some people could be above average at singing, others at mathematics, others at running. The unfortunate losers in this situation are the people who are uniformly below average.

DrJokepu 15y ago
Specialisation is nothing new but I think what both the article and the grandparent really mean is that you have to be above average in your field of specialisation, e.g. being an average professional singer, professional mathematician or professional athlete is not enough.
- batista 15y ago
  Most people are average at everything. Even if you have multiple scales, it doesn't change. For one, people are not willing to work in all the "scale field", even if they are above average (i.e: I'm above average at preaching. Too bad I don't want to be a priest). Second, you can be above average in a field that doesn't matter (i.e: oh, I'm an above average haiku writer. Too bad nobody pays for this). Third, most fields are so saturated but merely being above average doesn't matter anyway. (i.e: oh, I'm above average at singing. Too bad only the top 1% or less makes any money of it).

lutorm 15y ago

It's not super germane to your comment, but: not everyone can be above average, but a whole lot can. Just like currently a lot more than 50% earn less than average. You are confusing average with median. But also, the context of the article seems to imply that he was thinking about international competition, so that "We will have the best-trained American people in the world." You just have to make sure the below average ones are somewhere else.