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.
I do not advocate everyone being paid the same. I keep saying I believe that more work or clever innovation should get more rewards; just not a crazy amount more (like 100 times).
Who gets to set the level of "more rewards?"
If Joe invents one of those machines that builds the houses, are you not going to recognize that that effort is due considerably more than the person who is only wiling to do whatever work is available for someone who chooses to not pursue higher education or training?
Could it be that the natural differential between the two would come out to be 100x?
One person revolutionized the national housing industry and another person cleans up.
Last edited by charlygal; 07-11-2015 at 01:10 PM..
If Joe invents one of those machines that builds the houses, are you not going to recognize that that effort is due considerably more than the person who is only wiling to do whatever work is available for someone who chooses to not pursue higher education or training?
Could it be that the natural differential between the two would come out to be 100x?
One person revolutionized the national housing industry and another person cleans up.
I don't know the answer to your first question. I do know the course we are on is unsustainable. As far as your "natural differential" question, I think 100 times more is far too much. I think you should be able to earn a reward that ensures that you and your family can live a life of luxury even if you never lift a finger again. But amassing huge personal fortunes is obscene and immoral IMO.
But amassing huge personal fortunes is obscene and immoral IMO.
This is a personal opinion and fact. Aren't people allowed to believe it is okay to amass personal wealth?
If one's efforts are 100% legal, why is it "wrong" that those efforts may produce millions of dollars while other peoples' efforts may only produce thousands?
If you invented the next hot device, would you give away all of your millions in order to be in solidarity with the guy making the device in China for a few dollars a week?
Would you discourage people who show a natural entrepreneurial spirit? There were those that were entrepreneurial even when we had an agrarian society.
The reason for "(as described)" is that utopia means different things to different people. For the purposes of this discussion, I am talking about the utopia where technology is utilized to automate as much as possible. It's been a sci-fi ideal for decades if not more. An ear of corn might be planted, nurtured and harvested by machines, processed and served by machines and the cob processed and recycled by machines. The only time a human might touch it would be to eat it. Buildings would be mostly constructed by machines. All public transport (and possibly all non recreational transport, period) would be driverless. Medical diagnostics and most procedures would be automated.
There are jobs for people in this kind of society, but not nearly as many and most would be in the sector of designing, building and maintaining machines. Doctors and scientists would perform research and exploration. I am ignoring AI and assuming we continue to do our own thinking for the most part.
This all sounds wonderful until you map out how we get there from where we (I am in the US and using a US perspective) are now. The money to pay for all this belongs to a small subset of the population and our current model uses profit to incent them to fund ventures. I see no way to make this profitable. We would be eliminating the vast majority of low paying jobs and with no jobs, they could not be paying customers for the automated food outlets and transport facilities. They would have no money for rent.
The simplest solution is socialism. Basic services - food, clothing, education, transportation, rent and health care - would be provided to everyone. The only way to make that work is to place a tremendous tax burden on the wealthy. Oversimplifying a bit, the government would have to buy a lot of the automated equipment from the manufacturer and then turn around and take most of the profit back from them so they could afford it. Where else could they possibly get it? Most is not all BTW; the rich still get richer in a socialist society. They just can't amass the majority of the wealth.
So, the debate...
I don't think there is a wayto achieve this kind of utopian society without socialism. I would like to hear someone argue differently.
Half baked utopian weak sauce from someone clearly devoid of the horrible results of socialism/communism.
Both economic models have resulted in more human misery and death than any other.
I don't know the answer to your first question. I do know the course we are on is unsustainable. As far as your "natural differential" question, I think 100 times more is far too much. I think you should be able to earn a reward that ensures that you and your family can live a life of luxury even if you never lift a finger again. But amassing huge personal fortunes is obscene and immoral IMO.
100x median wage is what? 5mil? I can live with that but 1000x-10000x as we currently have seems excessive.
Half baked utopian weak sauce someone clearly devoid of the horrible results of socialism/communism.
Both economic models have resulted in more human misery and death than any other.
`
To me capitalism has proved itself to be the the most efficient form of economy. The US vs Noridic arguments are over different flavours of capitalism rather then a different system altogether.
Maybe with advances in AI something different could be possible in the future, but thats so far off its conjecture at this point.
Arguing about whether the U.S. is better than Sweden or vice versa is kind of ridiculous - they are both near the top of the economic triangle. The question is about what's best for the world. The pattern we've seen so far is that the production part of capitalism - the base of the triangle - chases the lowest cost labor - no matter where in the world it might be.
I expect Africa is going to be the next production node once people in Asia get tired of working for peanuts.
Capitalism has never produced across the board prosperity. Currently 1.3 billion people live on less than $1.25 a day - is that prosperity? About 3 billion people live on less than $5 a day. So 40% of the world lives in poverty and that's what we call success? Another 40% live on somewhere between $5 and $20 a day. Toward the top of that range it's not too bad.
About 20% of the world lives pretty well - most of us, probably, and the top few percent of them live extraordinarily well.
Ironically, this is not all that different than the distribution of wealth in what we think of as un-free, oppressive economic systems of the past like feudalism. About 80% peasants, about 15% tradespeople and professionals who do a little better than the peasants, and 1-5% who live quite nicely.
To me capitalism has proved itself to be the the most efficient form of economy. The US vs Noridic arguments are over different flavours of capitalism rather then a different system altogether.
Maybe with advances in AI something different could be possible in the future, but thats so far off its conjecture at this point.
Indeed it has.
However it doesn't keep the envious and dreamers wanting to make sure everyone is equal even if their ideas are nothing more that failed retreads.
Needless to say our Constitutional Republic with economic capitalism has done more for the peoples of the world than all others.
Heck Bono of U2 use to deride capitalism and believe in socialism. However after many years of seeing what great things capitalism has done to help the poor around the world, he has changed his view.
From the linked article;
How encouraging, then, for me to learn that Bono now understands that, too. One of my students sent me a video clip, showing Bono addressing an audience of students at Georgetown University, in which he states, “Aid is just a stop-gap. Commerce—entrepreneurial capitalism—takes more people out of poverty than aid.”
This is a personal opinion and fact. Aren't people allowed to believe it is okay to amass personal wealth?
If one's efforts are 100% legal, why is it "wrong" that those efforts may produce millions of dollars while other peoples' efforts may only produce thousands?
If you invented the next hot device, would you give away all of your millions in order to be in solidarity with the guy making the device in China for a few dollars a week?
Would you discourage people who show a natural entrepreneurial spirit? There were those that were entrepreneurial even when we had an agrarian society.
A few million is fine. Hundreds of millions can't be justified IMO. It's not a game. It's not just a meaningless score. Other people are living in far less as detailed by another poster. Compassion and ethics are not mandates but I think they should be.
They are not socialist in Star Trek. It looks like socialism only because their technology progressed to the point where there is more than enough of everything for everyone.
Yes it does.
Star Trek, at least the earth of Star Trek, is a Post-Scarcity Society. It is interesting because it is where "from each according to their ability to each according to their need" meets self-sufficiency, self-government, and complete self-agency. Where socialists and libertarians meet and find contentment together.
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.
