19 ms·

Missing how economics work here. Prices will be adjusted to what the market can bare. There's still a 10^3 difference. That's being work like being worth $1,000

Missing how economics work here. Prices will be adjusted to what the market can bare. There's still a 10^3 difference. That's being work like being worth $1,000 when everyone else is a millionaire. Edit: sorry, was calculating for billion. it's a 10^6 difference. $1 vs $1,000,000

Dewie 12y ago
I think people are talking about wealth here, not money per se. If everyone can afford at least two houses, three boat and 12 cabins, they are certainly more well-off than most people are today, no matter what relative money-wealth is being discussed.
- eternauta3k 12y ago
  The rich will have orders of magnitude more political power to force you to not abort / pray in school / you get the idea.
  - Dewie 12y ago
    Yeah, but that concern was not what I was replying to.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    Don't the rich tend to swing liberal, at least in America? Especially in the newer industries that will see much of the wealth accumulate.
- withdavidli 12y ago
  Yes, but in that vein we can say that even America's poorest are better off than some middle class in other countries, or even the wealthy over 100 years ago. It's hard to objectively define "well-off" because psychologically people will be comparing what they have and don't have to those around them. So if a person owned 2 houses , 3 boats, and 12 cabins think they're well-off if everyone around them owns double/triple what they do, or would they think they are poor? Just a different perspective. Edit: Please note that my line of thought would eventually lead to which is better? Objectively more "things" vs psychological well being (where things are relative to what others have).
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    You compare yourself with the people you know who tend to be those in similar economic positions to yourself. I've never felt jealous of a billionaire CEO with a private jet for example but I'm more likely to feel jealous of a friend who has a better laptop or car than me.
  - AJ007 12y ago
    Are America's poorest better off because of technology, or better off because of America's dominance over the rest of the world's resources? My suspicion is that as the developing world becomes more educated, the poor and middle class in the US will look poorer. Some of this might be an actual loss in standard of living as the share of global resources the US can consume drops. This change, induced by technology (mass education) is going to be a bigger issue for the developed world sooner than computers-taking-away-jobs will be. Presumably more educated people are less likely to give away their resources for cheap (or in corrupt countries for free), less likely to work 16 hours a day in a factory, to accept mass pollution as a by product of manufacturing, etc. That is just an assumption, it could be wrong and education will have no impact on these things. The psychological aspect -- comparatively, might have more to do with whether an individual thinks their condition is improving as opposed to the distance between individuals. If you generally believe what Ray Kurzweil predicts, none of this will really matter in 2100 as we could be well in to the post-human era. Humans, in their natural form, could very well be relics in a zoo.
    - Dewie 12y ago
      > Are America's poorest better off because of technology, or better off because of America's dominance over the rest of the world's resources? The rest of the First World seems to be doing OK, even without anything remotely close to the US military. Though I would be surprised if developed countries didn't continually try to suppress underdeveloped nations, maybe not by military force but by market forces etc.
lukasm 12y ago
I'm not talking of a situation where entire society consist of these people. I'm taking about wealth. Consider two separate cities.

Dewie 12y ago

I think people are talking about wealth here, not money per se. If everyone can afford at least two houses, three boat and 12 cabins, they are certainly more well-off than most people are today, no matter what relative money-wealth is being discussed.

eternauta3k 12y ago
The rich will have orders of magnitude more political power to force you to not abort / pray in school / you get the idea.
- Dewie 12y ago
  Yeah, but that concern was not what I was replying to.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  Don't the rich tend to swing liberal, at least in America? Especially in the newer industries that will see much of the wealth accumulate.
withdavidli 12y ago
Yes, but in that vein we can say that even America's poorest are better off than some middle class in other countries, or even the wealthy over 100 years ago. It's hard to objectively define "well-off" because psychologically people will be comparing what they have and don't have to those around them. So if a person owned 2 houses , 3 boats, and 12 cabins think they're well-off if everyone around them owns double/triple what they do, or would they think they are poor? Just a different perspective. Edit: Please note that my line of thought would eventually lead to which is better? Objectively more "things" vs psychological well being (where things are relative to what others have).
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  You compare yourself with the people you know who tend to be those in similar economic positions to yourself. I've never felt jealous of a billionaire CEO with a private jet for example but I'm more likely to feel jealous of a friend who has a better laptop or car than me.
- AJ007 12y ago
  Are America's poorest better off because of technology, or better off because of America's dominance over the rest of the world's resources? My suspicion is that as the developing world becomes more educated, the poor and middle class in the US will look poorer. Some of this might be an actual loss in standard of living as the share of global resources the US can consume drops. This change, induced by technology (mass education) is going to be a bigger issue for the developed world sooner than computers-taking-away-jobs will be. Presumably more educated people are less likely to give away their resources for cheap (or in corrupt countries for free), less likely to work 16 hours a day in a factory, to accept mass pollution as a by product of manufacturing, etc. That is just an assumption, it could be wrong and education will have no impact on these things. The psychological aspect -- comparatively, might have more to do with whether an individual thinks their condition is improving as opposed to the distance between individuals. If you generally believe what Ray Kurzweil predicts, none of this will really matter in 2100 as we could be well in to the post-human era. Humans, in their natural form, could very well be relics in a zoo.
  - Dewie 12y ago
    > Are America's poorest better off because of technology, or better off because of America's dominance over the rest of the world's resources? The rest of the First World seems to be doing OK, even without anything remotely close to the US military. Though I would be surprised if developed countries didn't continually try to suppress underdeveloped nations, maybe not by military force but by market forces etc.

lukasm 12y ago

I'm not talking of a situation where entire society consist of these people. I'm taking about wealth. Consider two separate cities.