4 ms·

The article is trying to highlight two different types of "jobs": ones that can provide a family with a "comfortable lifestyle" and ones in which people struggl

The article is trying to highlight two different types of "jobs": ones that can provide a family with a "comfortable lifestyle" and ones in which people struggle to make ends meat. I think the article makes a far leap to say the internet is responsible for the decreasing middle class. There are many factors, such as manufacturing automation, in our changing economic conditions. Overall, I do not think the internet will be huge catalyst for job growth - in terms of providing millions of new jobs. But it will always be a huge catalyst for economic growth. The following was insightful: "It suddenly occurred to me," wrote Packer, "that the hottest tech start-ups are solving all the problems of being twenty years old, with cash on hand, because that’s who thinks them up." Hopefully those twenty years old developers will solve more meaningful problems than sharing cat photos. As an aside, I'm surprised that any discussion on "basic income" - you know it's coming - hasn't mention the Star Trek economy. Seriously, how do people in Star Trek universe survive in their economy?

2pasc 13y ago
"Hopefully those twenty years old developers will solve more meaningful problems than sharing cat photos." The truth is that cat photos are mostly shared by people in the middle class that is being destroyed. 20 year old developers solve problems they know, and sometimes this involves their mom.
Roboprog 13y ago
Ugh. There has to be a happy medium somewhere between serfdom and welfare-dom. In my mind, both extremes involve leaches wanting money for nothing, whether its because there are a few aristocrats, er, capitalists collecting "rent" for assets they inherited, or many people (I believe by Kiwi friend calls them "dole bludges") who simply expect a monthly welfare payout for nothing. I'm so old, I remember a period in this country's time when we rejected the idea of an aristocracy, taxed the hell out of the well off, and used it to pay for maintenance of the commons. This maintenance involved people in many walks of life, whether it was filling pot holes in roads, or researching rocket science and brain surgery. This made work that paid well enough for many people to do things that were helpful to society as a whole, but that which it was hard to get a single person to pay for. Forcing those who benefitted most from the structure of society to contribute to its continuation is NOT the same as expecting a free ride. OTOH, I'm pretty sure that handing out "basic income" to everybody would greatly stagnate society, as 60 to 90% of the population would do nothing :-(
dragonwriter 13y ago
> As an aside, I'm surprised that any discussion on "basic income" - you know it's coming - hasn't mention the Star Trek economy. Seriously, how do people in Star Trek universe survive in their economy? The descriptions (or, perhaps more accurately, "indicia") of the economy in Star Trek are so wildly inconsistent that its a really, really bad basis for any kind of discussion, even among fictional settings.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  Why is it inconsistent? It's consistent with techno-anarchy: scarcity is a solved problem. Without finite resources there is no longer any point to capitalism, a system which allocates finite resources. So people are left to live life how ever they see fit. No more commercials, since that's pointless. Without commercials, there's no TV shows just designed to get viewers since you no longer need them. If you manage to make something new you may as well share it with everyone (via a replicator) because... what else could you do? "Karma" is all that's left to chase.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Why is it inconsistent? Because it isn't internally consistent. > It's consistent with techno-anarchy: scarcity is a solved problem. You seem to think that I was using "inconsistent" to mean "inconsistent with some external expectations" or "inconsistent with my expectations of what is plausible", but I was referring to internal consistency, not consistency with external expectations. > Without finite resources there is no longer any point to capitalism, a system which allocates finite resources. Neither the absence of finite resources nor the absence of capitalism are consistent features of the economy in Star Trek. > So people are left to live life how ever they see fit. This is rather emphatically not a consistent feature of the economy of Star Trek.
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
      >Because it isn't internally consistent. Example? >Neither the absence of finite resources nor the absence of capitalism are consistent features of the economy in Star Trek. It is in the earth economy. Other cultures still have money, but humans do not. >This is rather emphatically not a consistent feature of the economy of Star Trek. Well, obviously you can't just go be a star ship captain because so many want to do this. But you certainly don't have to flip burgers at McDonald's. You can pursue any dream and it will only be your talents that decide, not your financial situation.
flyinRyan 13y ago
> Seriously, how do people in Star Trek universe survive in their economy? That's pretty simple: they have replicators. Food shortage? Gone. There never was a real land shortage, we create that with capitalism. Get rid of money and there is no longer any reason to rent out property. Rent it out for what? If everyone has a place to stay and you can replicate anything else, what would you use money for?

2pasc 13y ago

"Hopefully those twenty years old developers will solve more meaningful problems than sharing cat photos." The truth is that cat photos are mostly shared by people in the middle class that is being destroyed. 20 year old developers solve problems they know, and sometimes this involves their mom.

Roboprog 13y ago

Ugh. There has to be a happy medium somewhere between serfdom and welfare-dom. In my mind, both extremes involve leaches wanting money for nothing, whether its because there are a few aristocrats, er, capitalists collecting "rent" for assets they inherited, or many people (I believe by Kiwi friend calls them "dole bludges") who simply expect a monthly welfare payout for nothing. I'm so old, I remember a period in this country's time when we rejected the idea of an aristocracy, taxed the hell out of the well off, and used it to pay for maintenance of the commons. This maintenance involved people in many walks of life, whether it was filling pot holes in roads, or researching rocket science and brain surgery. This made work that paid well enough for many people to do things that were helpful to society as a whole, but that which it was hard to get a single person to pay for. Forcing those who benefitted most from the structure of society to contribute to its continuation is NOT the same as expecting a free ride. OTOH, I'm pretty sure that handing out "basic income" to everybody would greatly stagnate society, as 60 to 90% of the population would do nothing :-(

dragonwriter 13y ago

> As an aside, I'm surprised that any discussion on "basic income" - you know it's coming - hasn't mention the Star Trek economy. Seriously, how do people in Star Trek universe survive in their economy? The descriptions (or, perhaps more accurately, "indicia") of the economy in Star Trek are so wildly inconsistent that its a really, really bad basis for any kind of discussion, even among fictional settings.

flyinRyan 13y ago
Why is it inconsistent? It's consistent with techno-anarchy: scarcity is a solved problem. Without finite resources there is no longer any point to capitalism, a system which allocates finite resources. So people are left to live life how ever they see fit. No more commercials, since that's pointless. Without commercials, there's no TV shows just designed to get viewers since you no longer need them. If you manage to make something new you may as well share it with everyone (via a replicator) because... what else could you do? "Karma" is all that's left to chase.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Why is it inconsistent? Because it isn't internally consistent. > It's consistent with techno-anarchy: scarcity is a solved problem. You seem to think that I was using "inconsistent" to mean "inconsistent with some external expectations" or "inconsistent with my expectations of what is plausible", but I was referring to internal consistency, not consistency with external expectations. > Without finite resources there is no longer any point to capitalism, a system which allocates finite resources. Neither the absence of finite resources nor the absence of capitalism are consistent features of the economy in Star Trek. > So people are left to live life how ever they see fit. This is rather emphatically not a consistent feature of the economy of Star Trek.
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    >Because it isn't internally consistent. Example? >Neither the absence of finite resources nor the absence of capitalism are consistent features of the economy in Star Trek. It is in the earth economy. Other cultures still have money, but humans do not. >This is rather emphatically not a consistent feature of the economy of Star Trek. Well, obviously you can't just go be a star ship captain because so many want to do this. But you certainly don't have to flip burgers at McDonald's. You can pursue any dream and it will only be your talents that decide, not your financial situation.

flyinRyan 13y ago

> Seriously, how do people in Star Trek universe survive in their economy? That's pretty simple: they have replicators. Food shortage? Gone. There never was a real land shortage, we create that with capitalism. Get rid of money and there is no longer any reason to rent out property. Rent it out for what? If everyone has a place to stay and you can replicate anything else, what would you use money for?