Income economic inequality in the United States - What can be done to close the gap? (bni, work)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Consumer capitalism doesn't work at all unless consumers share in productivity gains.
And it stops working the minute consumers are forced to run as fast as they can to keep the treadmill going. Which is why present "continual growth driven by ever-expanding consumption" praxis belongs in the dumpster. Pardon me, Dumpster™.
Quote:
Using fiat currency, global trade, and finance (and a bunch of other policy changes), the rich have been able to reduce their dependence on consumer income.
That borders on nonsensical. All economies rest on consumer income and spending, even if an investment portfolio is isolated from it by layers and layers of producer/resource/production ownership. Consumers stop spending, all stocks collapse, sooner or later. The idea that wealth exists in some bubble of its own is... baloney.
Greed exists everywhere. Most places pass laws to keep in check rather than promote it.
Exactly, greed is innate in every single human being to one degree or another so it does exist in every society in every location on the planet, capitalistic or not.
Taking and gathering more then one needs for reasonable living, rather then dispersing "the excess" for the betterment of the majority, is evident both in the animal kingdom and in human beings as evidenced by scientific study after scientific study. This human greed (present in all of us), and taking more then one needs at the detriment to the majority has existed, not just in our time but has existed since the dawn of man and intelligent life.
Taking more then one needs when you have the position of power, skill, ability, or already posses a valuable resource is hurting society as a whole. As you stated Ruff, other places pass laws to "keep this greediness in check" so that the greater good is benefited, rather then just the benefit of the minority. These laws and regulations are needed because we humans are not good overall at policing ourselves individually to ensure we are not "taking more of the pie" then we can actually use. Humans have shown that we often "take more pie" then we can actually eat simply because we can and for fear that maybe there will be a time we are "without" (basically storing nuts for the winter). Plus scientific study has shown that gathering wealth is similar to the "high" that drug users experience when taking illegal drugs. We are excessively acquiring and gathering because "we can" and because "it feels good", not because it is good for the majority.
Now, in this post and this thread I am not talking about storing a reasonable amount of money in case of an emergency (layoff, health issue, retirement etc). This is smart and reasonable. I am talking about "excessive" accumulation of wealth above and beyond what is reasonably needed to live a reasonable lifestyle. Because wealth is held in such a lopsided fashion in this country, it is significantly affected the average family's ability to reasonable live and to store in case of an emergency. If you have not done yet, please watch the short video in the first post of this thread to see what I am referring too.
We are one of the only species on the planet that is intelligent enough to plan for the future, to see the long drawn out consequences for our individual actions, and to see that taking more then what we need when there is so many without is hurting so many, yet, we still continue down this path because we can, because of fear and because it feels good. We still "buck the trend" and hee and haw when there are laws and things put in place to regulate this natural greed and to ensure that the greater good is taken care of. We elect officials (and sometimes lobby and bribe them) to create laws and loopholes that allow us to keep our wealth even though we see that so many are without.
Overall, what happens when those laws and loopholes that helps us individually keep more of our "excessive" resources are created and enforced? Do we overall invest in the greater good? The answer to both of those questions is: no, we generally invest in ourselves. History has shown us that we invest more in ourselves regardless of if we are a company (stock buy backs, company/threat acquisitions) or individually (stocks, mutual funds, valuables, high interest savings accounts, multiple properties we rent out etc.). This is why fair and reasonable laws and moderation is needed. Too reasonably combat this greediness that is innate in all of us. To reasonably redistribute this wealth from the few who have it to the majority, who could benefit the most. The greater good is the goal. Not wealth and power congregated to the minority.
As long as humans remain human this will exist to a degree. The thing is, we can do better. It doesn't have to be this way. We are intelligent enough to make positive changes that benefits the greater good. The question is will we in the future?
Last edited by txbullsfan; 01-15-2018 at 12:38 PM..
As long as humans remain human this will exist to a degree. The thing is, we can do better. It doesn't have to be this way. We are intelligent enough to make positive changes that benefits the greater good. The question is will we in the future?
I certainly work to make it so. Those who cling to Darwinian notions of wealth (largely because they already have plenty of it) and those who reject anything smacking of the dreaded S-ism (largely those who lack much wealth, oddly enough) need to grow a brain... not to mention a heart.
All economies rest on consumer income and spending, even if an investment portfolio is isolated from it by layers and layers of producer/resource/production ownership. Consumers stop spending, all stocks collapse, sooner or later. The idea that wealth exists in some bubble of its own is... baloney.
Of course, someone must be buying. Debt and finance escalation (fiscal and private) instead of wage escalation is what has kept demand up in the US and in most developed countries. From the late 70s to ~2000 we also experienced a large increase in workforce participation (women) which made the beginning of this "project" less obvious.
The end game doesn't involve the stock market collapsing, but rather consumer-capitalism slowly becoming defunct in favor of a new system.
I'd agree with that, but the rise of robotics and AI affects little (in the big picture) beyond drastic reductions in the already-diminished employment pool. The change doesn't really affect the economy in any other way, other than perhaps lowering the cost of some goods due to efficiency... but it won't make them free.
There's really only one solution, and for those who think a few price controls and public programs are S-ist, it's Armageddon.
I'd agree with that, but the rise of robotics and AI affects little (in the big picture) beyond drastic reductions in the employment pool.
Those drastic reductions in the employment mark the end of the rich's dependence on the masses for *anything*. I see no reason to be optimistic, given the trends of the last few decades. In spite of the alignment of our interests, we are becoming ever more divided, confused, powerless, un-free, and undemocratic.
Those drastic reductions in the employment mark the end of the rich's dependence on the masses for *anything*. I see no reason to be optimistic, given the trends of the last few decades. In spite of the alignment of our interests, we are becoming ever more divided, confused, powerless, un-free, and undemocratic.
Phil Ochs had something to say about that.
In a less humorous vein... a minority can't live some totally detached life, robots or no. The situation will self-correct - economically, democratically, or violently.
Its interesting you guys bring up Artificial intelligence as I was going to address this in a later post but actually thought about this today.
Its not robots or machinery that is a big threat, it is artificial intelligence and automation with this AI behind it. The weed whacker, power saw, combustion engine did not put the greenskeeper, logger and driver out of business but in fact enhanced their jobs and helped them get more done with less effort (more productive and efficient). This is true with many machinery, tools and careers up until this point.
Up until this point, we have not had true artificial intelligence, just minor mimics of it (press 0 to be connected to a customer service representative). True artificial intelligence is a different beast altogether. Instead of being directed to a human by a computer (computer enhancing our workflow) by pressing 0, the 0 will be a computer. We only have to look at the near future to see where this is going based on tech and trends now and the list of human replacement is growing.
While "dumb" machinery is not a threat (in fact it is a positive asset), AI is an absolute threat in regards to future wages and employment for the average person. The amount of jobs AI will replace will outnumber the jobs it will create. The un-equalness we see now will be nothing when true AI comes into play if we continue the status quo of largely unregulated capitalism now.
AI will basically accentuate the problem we have now, excessive power and wealth in the hands of a few instead of these things more reasonably distributed among the majority. CEOs, ownerships, superhuman talents, and leaderships will remain human but the human workers will be slowly be replaced by automation because artificial intelligence will be cheaper then hiring people. Less payment to people (who are limited in the amount of time they can work, require health insurance, get sick, demand more etc. etc.) without decreasing (but even increasing productivity and workflow) means more profit (corporate or individual). Profit is the ultimate goal in an unregulated capitalistic society. We see this trend with automation and human replacement in our would at this very moment as AI becomes less artificial and more intellegent. Left unchecked, this will only get worse.
We are fast approaching a time where we as a human civilization will have to determine our path. Will it be the path of personal gain and getting out as much as I can out of life even at the detriment of the whole (unregulated AI will assist with this), or do we reasonably regulate AI and capitalism so that the "greater good" is the goal at the expense of reasonably losing out on some of our "excessive" personal gains?
Can any Intelligence, A or H, explain why this thread is in Personal Finance?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
