MeKevin
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,603
- Reaction score
- 2,814
I think everyone so far is on point, every post is pretty valid.
I always thought rising inequality has something to do with an increase in technology and increase productivity and efficiency. Now this argument has been made since the 1860s. This is a really rough example. Before a leap in farming technology, 1 person can only produce x amount of wheat. Increased efficiency means that he can now produce 5x. People flipped out. What they didn't understand, was yes, 4 other people now don't have to produce wheat, and the first guy is 5 times richer. Inequality. However, this guy being richer, his standard of living increases. So he is able to pay one of the other guys to make a lamp for him. Other guy now has a job, selling lamps. Maybe the other people start making clothes. As every sector gets more efficient, the standard of living goes up. And prices go down with efficiency. In todays world though, one guy can produce 1000 x. (say, 8,000 acres of wheat) But there has to be a point inequality does start. What if we start building robots to do all work. And robots to build and fix the robots. What would happen if it got to a point where it would take 1,000,000 workers to run all industry. They would be working and have money, but what about the other 80,000,000 prospective employees.
I am not saying this is the reason that we don't have jobs, but in terms of inequality, maybe. Right now, even the mildly rich have an extremely high standard of living, and that money is not being redistributed. There's only so much they can buy.
Always funny when elected leaders blame the iphone and its efficiencies for the recession.
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. Blames iPad For American Unemployment (VIDEO)
I always thought rising inequality has something to do with an increase in technology and increase productivity and efficiency. Now this argument has been made since the 1860s. This is a really rough example. Before a leap in farming technology, 1 person can only produce x amount of wheat. Increased efficiency means that he can now produce 5x. People flipped out. What they didn't understand, was yes, 4 other people now don't have to produce wheat, and the first guy is 5 times richer. Inequality. However, this guy being richer, his standard of living increases. So he is able to pay one of the other guys to make a lamp for him. Other guy now has a job, selling lamps. Maybe the other people start making clothes. As every sector gets more efficient, the standard of living goes up. And prices go down with efficiency. In todays world though, one guy can produce 1000 x. (say, 8,000 acres of wheat) But there has to be a point inequality does start. What if we start building robots to do all work. And robots to build and fix the robots. What would happen if it got to a point where it would take 1,000,000 workers to run all industry. They would be working and have money, but what about the other 80,000,000 prospective employees.
I am not saying this is the reason that we don't have jobs, but in terms of inequality, maybe. Right now, even the mildly rich have an extremely high standard of living, and that money is not being redistributed. There's only so much they can buy.
Always funny when elected leaders blame the iphone and its efficiencies for the recession.
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. Blames iPad For American Unemployment (VIDEO)