How The Rich Are Winning

[StageLeft]

I'm not convinced that some people would absolutely have to be poor. I think that our society could be much wealthier in total than what it is now and that that wealth can be distributed in such a way so that the worst anyone would be is lower middle class and maybe even middle class.

The amount of economic waste that we have in this country, in various ways, is just staggering. Also, a large amount of human potential is wasted. Eliminate all of that and actualize people's productive potential and we could live much better.

Poor is only a relative term compared to those around you and in this definition I am convinced that some absolutely do have to be poor.

 

[Throckmorton]

Poor is only a relative term compared to those around you and in this definition I am convinced that some absolutely do have to be poor.

That's what I've been saying in the unemployment thread.


This is why I support redistributionist programs like public education that raise the standard of living and opportunities for the poor, who are a necessary part of our economy.

 

[BoberFett]

I agree with you on this point. What do you propose to do about it, aside from denying that the situation is actually a problem?

It's a problem, but there is no easy fix because we need to fix not only the economy but our mindset.

We could immediately enact protectionist policy such as tariffs or removing favored nation status with China. We could begin mass deportation of illegal immigrants. The immediate effects of those actions would be lowered lifestyle for Americans. The price of everything would go up. Over time it would bring jobs back to the US, but even after that occurred, prices would remain at those levels, and so the average worker wouldn't be able to afford more STUFF than they do right now.

We prospered over the last several decades at the expense of long term viability. Our lifestyle will have to regress several decades to match. People like to point to Europe, but Europeans don't have nearly as much STUFF as Americans do. Dwellings are smaller, they use more public transportation or bicycles. American has an infatuation with STUFF that will have to be changed.

In addition, the end game of an economy is a 100% service economy. The whole idea behind manufacturing technology is that nobody actually needs to make anything anymore. Everything is done by robots. You'll need a few people to design, build and maintain the robots, and eventually you don't even need that. With advanced enough technology (50 years from now? 100?) the physical goods for an entire nation could be produced by a minute percentage of the population. Unless you're a Luddite and plan to smash all the robots, we will simply replace offshored labor with onshored technology. So the question then becomes, how do we transition to a nearly fully service economy? What jobs can people do? People in this forum talk down about service jobs, but that's all that's going to be left eventually. Technology ensures it.

 

[BoberFett]

This is why I support redistributionist programs like public education that raise the standard of living and opportunities for the poor, who are a necessary part of our economy.

I'm sure there are quite a few free market crazies who would love to do away with public education altogether, but the sane don't believe that's necessary. It needs to be fixed, not scrapped.

 

[SammyJr]

It's a problem, but there is no easy fix because we need to fix not only the economy but our mindset.

We could immediately enact protectionist policy such as tariffs or removing favored nation status with China. We could begin mass deportation of illegal immigrants. The immediate effects of those actions would be lowered lifestyle for Americans. The price of everything would go up. Over time it would bring jobs back to the US, but even after that occurred, prices would remain at those levels, and so the average worker wouldn't be able to afford more STUFF than they do right now.

I support this. For many Americans, its not about STUFF, its about being able to afford food, shelter, medical care, and paying debt. None of these are really related to Chinese made stuff. All of these require a job and if that job is in a newly competitive American manufacturing industry, then so be it.

It's really two choices:
1. More expensive stuff, more decent paying jobs, and less people on Government assistance.
2. Cheaper stuff, fewer jobs, and more people on the assistance.

We prospered over the last several decades at the expense of long term viability. Our lifestyle will have to regress several decades to match. People like to point to Europe, but Europeans don't have nearly as much STUFF as Americans do. Dwellings are smaller, they use more public transportation or bicycles. American has an infatuation with STUFF that will have to be changed.

This is another opportunity. Massive public works projects, such as new public transportation lines, would provide tremendous stimulus. Make the trains in the U.S. and we'd be in great shape.

Europeans have less stuff, but they have longer vacations, have funds for travel, and better health care systems. This is a difference in priorities and values more than anything.

In addition, the end game of an economy is a 100% service economy. The whole idea behind manufacturing technology is that nobody actually needs to make anything anymore. Everything is done by robots. You'll need a few people to design, build and maintain the robots, and eventually you don't even need that. With advanced enough technology (50 years from now? 100?) the physical goods for an entire nation could be produced by a minute percentage of the population. Unless you're a Luddite and plan to smash all the robots, we will simply replace offshored labor with onshored technology. So the question then becomes, how do we transition to a nearly fully service economy? What jobs can people do? People in this forum talk down about service jobs, but that's all that's going to be left eventually. Technology ensures it.

At that point, we'll have to rethink our whole economy.

 

[BoberFett]

Glad to see that at least we see some common ground Sammy. I'm not entirely unreasonable. Just mostly.

But now let me put the question back on you. How do you change it? If the problem is the American middle class desire for STUFF is at the expense of the bottom rung of our citizens, how do you fix it?

And as for the future it's not enough to say "we'll have to rethink it." It's coming, so we better start building for it now or we're going to get another wave of massive hurt again, just as we're fixing things from this most recent downturn.

 

[SammyJr]

Glad to see that at least we see some common ground Sammy. I'm not entirely unreasonable. Just mostly.

But now let me put the question back on you. How do you change it? If the problem is the American middle class desire for STUFF is at the expense of the bottom rung of our citizens, how do you fix it?

If tariffs are applied, I think the problem will correct itself. As our manufacturing industries grow and more people are solidly employed, people will simply make do with less stuff. If anyone complains, they need to be reminded of hidden costs of cheap goods. In the '50s and 60s, we had a lot less stuff, but people didn't have debt and they knew they'd have a nice meal on the paid-for-in-cash table 3 times a day.

And as for the future it's not enough to say "we'll have to rethink it." It's coming, so we better start building for it now or we're going to get another wave of massive hurt again, just as we're fixing things from this most recent downturn.

That level of automation will bring the cost of stuff down. The real focus needs to be reducing the price of energy, medical care, and the essentials. If we can bring down the cost of the essentials, then people can simply work less. It could be a golden age of free time, innovation, arts, and everything else.

To accomplish this, we need tremendous investment in science and engineering - think solar panels on roofs, better public transportation, etc.

 

[StageLeft]

It's a problem, but there is no easy fix because we need to fix not only the economy but our mindset.

We could immediately enact protectionist policy such as tariffs or removing favored nation status with China. We could begin mass deportation of illegal immigrants. The immediate effects of those actions would be lowered lifestyle for Americans. The price of everything would go up. Over time it would bring jobs back to the US, but even after that occurred, prices would remain at those levels, and so the average worker wouldn't be able to afford more STUFF than they do right now.

We prospered over the last several decades at the expense of long term viability. Our lifestyle will have to regress several decades to match. People like to point to Europe, but Europeans don't have nearly as much STUFF as Americans do. Dwellings are smaller, they use more public transportation or bicycles. American has an infatuation with STUFF that will have to be changed.

In addition, the end game of an economy is a 100% service economy. The whole idea behind manufacturing technology is that nobody actually needs to make anything anymore. Everything is done by robots. You'll need a few people to design, build and maintain the robots, and eventually you don't even need that. With advanced enough technology (50 years from now? 100?) the physical goods for an entire nation could be produced by a minute percentage of the population. Unless you're a Luddite and plan to smash all the robots, we will simply replace offshored labor with onshored technology. So the question then becomes, how do we transition to a nearly fully service economy? What jobs can people do? People in this forum talk down about service jobs, but that's all that's going to be left eventually. Technology ensures it.

This makes perfect sense. The question is what will people do? Will people in fact have to work? And many won't. In a sense we're already at this point. 200 years ago if you sat on your ass you would quite possibly starve to death. Now you quite literally can sit on your ass your entire life on welfare and watch your small tv and eat junk food. Our society is now so efficient, so able to keep us alive, that in rich societies the "dream" of not having to work is now realized already. In time it seems likely that the truly indolent would see their quality of life raised up perhaps to what we consider now as middle class. That's how efficient production will be.

Of course it is all relative, though, so even when the "poor" are like today's middle class, the true middle class will be higher still. Similar in kind to how a poor person now lives better than many, many lived a couple hundred years ago.

At some point, though, computers will be able to do more and more services so it seems plausible to me that we'll actually have nothing that many people can do that a machine cannot in some capacity do so unemployment could end up very high. But it wouldn't be bad necessarily, we'd all live like kings taken care of by our technology. But the real kings would REALLY live like kings. Maybe we'll end up just being artists. Although most of us will just be sucking on whatever media teat is thrown our way.

 

[BoberFett]

If tariffs are applied, I think the problem will correct itself. As our manufacturing industries grow and more people are solidly employed, people will simply make do with less stuff. If anyone complains, they need to be reminded of hidden costs of cheap goods. In the '50s and 60s, we had a lot less stuff, but people didn't have debt and they knew they'd have a nice meal on the paid-for-in-cash table 3 times a day.

I hope you're right, and that people will just accept that they can't have as much stuff as they used to. I'm not as rosy on the American psyche as you are.

That level of automation will bring the cost of stuff down. The real focus needs to be reducing the price of energy, medical care, and the essentials. If we can bring down the cost of the essentials, then people can simply work less. It could be a golden age of free time, innovation, arts, and everything else.

To accomplish this, we need tremendous investment in science and engineering - think solar panels on roofs, better public transportation, etc.

It doesn't matter how cheap that STUFF is, you only need 1% of the population to produce it. What does the other 99% do to earn any money at all? Will those 99% exist to service the few remaining workers in exchange for their STUFF? Sounds an awful lot like what we have right now, and we're discussing how that's unfair because the 1% have more than the 99%.

 

[sandorski]

RAAAAAWWWWWRRRRRRR! STRAWMAN ATTACK!!!!!!!!

Winter is early in Canuckistan eh? Brain freezing up already?

Fail. No Strawman.

 

[BoberFett]

Fail. No Strawman.

Go wrestle a polar bear.

 

[sandorski]

Go wrestle a polar bear.

Fail again.

 

[BoberFett]

Fail again.

Fail again.

 

[sandorski]

Fail again.

Stop the Fail Dude. Just admit you got nothin.

 

[SammyJr]

It doesn't matter how cheap that STUFF is, you only need 1% of the population to produce it. What does the other 99% do to earn any money at all? Will those 99% exist to service the few remaining workers in exchange for their STUFF? Sounds an awful lot like what we have right now, and we're discussing how that's unfair because the 1% have more than the 99%.

The difference is that the American labor surplus is artificial. The reason our situation exists today is because we tolerate Chinese slave labor practices and environmental nightmares and put Americans on welfare instead of employing Americans to do the jobs in a decent fashion.

In the future you describe, technology will truly have eliminated the need for most labor for all people, thus making everything very inexpensive. Stuff will no longer be a measure of success and minimal effort will be required to maintain any standard of living by our current standards. Sounds utopian if you watch Star Trek or morbidly obese if you watch Wall-E. Really, my answer is that I don't know what the future will hold if we ever achieve this level of technology.

 

[BoberFett]

Stop the Fail Dude. Just admit you got nothin.

Stop the Fail Dude. Just admit you got nothin.

 

[owensdj]

It's a fallacy to think that some people being rich makes other people poor. It's not a zero-sum game.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

In the future you describe, technology will truly have eliminated the need for most labor for all people, thus making everything very inexpensive. Stuff will no longer be a measure of success and minimal effort will be required to maintain any standard of living by our current standards. Sounds utopian if you watch Star Trek or morbidly obese if you watch Wall-E. Really, my answer is that I don't know what the future will hold if we ever achieve this level of technology.

At the very least we are going to hit a point where people will be largely unnecessary for labor. And I don't think it's that far off given how technology is advancing. We really need to figure out how we can deal with an excess population with nothing to do. We are headed for an overpopulation problem in an economic sense far sooner than an ecological one.

 

[jackace]

It's a fallacy to think that some people being rich makes other people poor. It's not a zero-sum game.

Depends on your definition of poor. If you use the definition of poor meaning they make less than the cost of living in their respective country/area then I can agree with you. If you are using the definition that someone at the bottom of the income spectrum is poor then I have to disagree. We are always going to have an income spectrum and in that spectrum we will have people at the top, in the middle and at the bottom.

 

[ebaycj]

You don't get it. Companies holding onto their money and not growing doesn't mean they aren't successful. They are just weathering the obama storm choosing to hold onto what they have instead of growing it.

This is where the skill and wisdom to make good decisions comes into play. The smart move right now with Obama killing the economy is to minimize risk and build capital. Which is EXACTLY what companies and successful people are doing (or taking advantage of incredible money rates).

Do you not realize that it is the business owners killing the economy, because they are hiding and waiting (instead of growing) due to their irrational fear of Obama?

A good business should be able to operate and grow successfully in any political environment. Yes, even if they are being regulated, and even if their taxes are being raised.

 

[bamacre]

But now let me put the question back on you. How do you change it? If the problem is the American middle class desire for STUFF is at the expense of the bottom rung of our citizens, how do you fix it?

Perhaps by offering them an incentive to save rather than spend. And I don't mean buying stocks, or 401k accounts. What if a bank was willing to pay 10% on a savings account? Of course, why would a bank pay me 10% when they can pay 0% at the Fed?

 

[Acanthus]

As someone who has studied the Gini Index and economic mobility in the united states vs other countries... It isn't about hard work at all. It is about if your family is wealthy to begin with, giving you access to business connections, capital, and top-tier education.

If there were a lot of billionaires going broke the public would be more inclined to believe the elaborate lie, but the fact is, the evidence is everywhere that it is the "land of opportunity for some."

Everyone else is just along for the ride.

 

[Modelworks]

This makes perfect sense. The question is what will people do? Will people in fact have to work? And many won't. In a sense we're already at this point. 200 years ago if you sat on your ass you would quite possibly starve to death. Now you quite literally can sit on your ass your entire life on welfare and watch your small tv and eat junk food.

The only way it will change is by allowing the people that are not willing to work to go without. It is a sad fact of life but most people only change through pain and suffering. Look at all the people that start smoking every day. They see the ads , they know it isn't good for them , and only after developing health problems do they understand how bad it really is for them and make a change. As long as we continue to pay people for not working they will not learn anything.

Some say they are going to be better with their finances now since they have seen how bad it can get. lol . It hasn't gotten bad enough yet to make an impact. As long as people can eat what they want, go to movies, etc and generally carry on with their life then nothing will change. They may cut back on spending for now but as soon as things are better they will fall right back into the same habits. Look at the statistics on people that file bankruptcy, many file over and over because they never learn.

Remember when gas prices went really high ? All the people were saying, I'm getting a smaller car , I don't need that large car that I thought I did. I can share a car with others . Smaller cars are better for the environment too ! Then when prices returned to normal those same people went back to the big cars, driving like before.

People only change when forced to, and unfortunately for some you really have to hit them hard to get the point across.

 

[Modelworks]

If there were a lot of billionaires going broke the public would be more inclined to believe the elaborate lie, but the fact is, the evidence is everywhere that it is the "land of opportunity for some."

Everyone else is just along for the ride.

The people on the so called bottom can change all that but they are not willing to. Don't like the CEO of McDonalds making all that money ? stop eating there. Don't like a bank making money ? Quit getting loans and accounts with them. I don't like the way walmart runs their corporation so I stopped giving them my money.

People will bitch about a news item on finances and talk about how wrong it is, then 30 seconds later it is on with their lives like the news item was a movie about someone else life. I wasn't a fan of the 60's and the way the hippies behaved but at least when upset about something they tried to change it, not always the best way, but they did at least attempt. Now people think about changing something then 30 seconds later think, well I hope someone does something about that.

 

[Onceler]

nothing is ever equal except on paper