Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Has Global Health and Wealth Increased or Decreased?
Options
Replies
-
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Okay but what if you work in a doctor's office and you ask your boss for a raise because all your reviews have been good and in the classifieds your job currently lists for $4 more an hour than what you're actually making.
And he says sorry I can't afford to give you a raise right now.
And then after lunch you catch him bragging about the family vacation to Paris he's planning for July and rubbing the noses of the working class receptionists in the fact that he's sending his daughter to Yale in September. When for them, sending their kids to community college all expenses paid is basically an impossibility.
Is this a case of:
A: Jealousy; or
B: Maybe rich people who exploit the working class for the lowest possible wage they can pay them are just pricks; or
C: Newmeadow, doctors aren't "rich". You don't even know what rich even is so shut up. Wages are dictated by the market so stop making it about the feelz.
You guys always talk about this stuff theoretically, academically. Never viscerally.
What skillsets do you bring to the office that make your labor value $4 greater than you are currently making?
Why are you not applying for the job which pays $4/hr more?
Feelings are not facts and completely subjective. This does not set a good foundation for discussion or solutions.
This wasn't about me. It was about a conversation I overheard taking place when I was a patient by my doctor at the time and one of his technicians, both of whom I'd known for years. But yeah, I have very similar stories of my own as do all working class people that I know. Especially about the bragging episodes, and my G_d do they not get it.
If we're discussing solutions, have we pinpointed the problem? Have we pinpointed it globally or locally since that would make it subjective too. It being what though. Is there a problem with the distribution of wealth, the criteria for who gets paid what and how much for what work and why? If the affordability of rents and mortgages don't reflect the earning capacity of the average schmo who wants a roof over their head but doesn't want a handout, what's up with that and whose fault is it (Let me guess - it must be the schmo's). Let's set a good foundation for this discussion because I don't think that's happened yet.
The problem is that those for most of those who perceive that there is a problem, it is easier to whinge about the problem than to take meaningful steps to fix it.
AND for those who have taken personally meaningful steps to resolve their own inequities, there is diminishing sympathy for those who aren't or haven't taken meaningful steps to resolve those inequalities.
Finally, for those who are adults, there is little that can be done in the short term, and long term solutions only benefit their grandchildren. And many of the long term solutions are socially unpopular.
1. Graduate college or trade school and get married before procreating-this is unpopular for many reasons, but is the leading discriminator between success and failure
2. Read for yourself, read to/with/for your children-There was a series of recent articles suggesting that due to the inequities caused by this behavior, we should discourage successful members of society from reading to/with their children--Rather than suggesting that like many who have gone from nothing to success, we should encourage this behavior more broadly
https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/14/100-race-really-tell-us/
Okay, I see your point. But I don't know if it would make the balance of power more or less exploitative if the ideal (two parent married families for everyone who carefully cultivate the literacy and impulse control of their own children) were to fit the reality.
I suppose we could go back to the 1950s in the U.S. and say, well, most people fit into this category during this decade and the balance of power seemed less exploitative financially then.
Although I suppose it could be countered that the 1950s reflected a short, boom time where there was generalized abundance and a sort of built in discipline because it came right on the heels of World War 2 ending. After that it seemed to unravel completely by the end of the 1960s.
Another counter I would guess would be that the 50s were kind to some but not so much to others for reasons that would now be considered very politically incorrect.
Power and success differentials are inherent in any system.
The question is "Is the goal equal opportunity or equal result?" Equalizing results is easy. Look at Venezuela or Cuba or Somalia. 99% of the population is equally miserable. Equalizing opportunity is much harder. Most successful industrial countries like the US have 60-75% of the population has the same opportunity to succeed. The margins are much larger, but even at the bottom end of the lower margin. Food insecurity doesn't mean the same as it does in Somalia, Venezuela, or Afghanistan. A "middle class" Somalian or Afghan would improve the standard of living of his family if he were homeless in Dallas or Richmond or Seattle.
I dont know about that last sentence. I think Somalia has become the new Ethiopia in terms of a narrative of utter destitution that is a bit exaggerated. You might be right that the dollar to dollar income of someone begging on the street in Seattle is higher than ab average Somali (not sure that is true but I find it plausible) but the buying power of that dollar is not the same at all and the Somali has a home which is a pretty huge deal for self efficacy. I think it is fair to say even a homeless person in the US likely has more opportunity though.0 -
Is this a discussion about relative wealth in the US or global improvements?
GLOBAL
I loved watching Hans Rosling wax eloquent on this subject. A simple analogy between the richest and the poorest is their ambitions for travel. For the wealthiest 10% it’s air travel. For the poorest 5% it’s a pair of shoes.
The number of nations that are very, very poor is dropping. The next level of ambition is having a bicycle. With a bicycle one can send a child to school, take surplus grain to a more profitable market, and transport water much more efficiently.
A pair of shoes is survival; a bicycle is hope.
https://www.focus-economics.com/blog/the-poorest-countries-in-the-world
https://www.gapminder.org2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Okay but what if you work in a doctor's office and you ask your boss for a raise because all your reviews have been good and in the classifieds your job currently lists for $4 more an hour than what you're actually making.
And he says sorry I can't afford to give you a raise right now.
And then after lunch you catch him bragging about the family vacation to Paris he's planning for July and rubbing the noses of the working class receptionists in the fact that he's sending his daughter to Yale in September. When for them, sending their kids to community college all expenses paid is basically an impossibility.
Is this a case of:
A: Jealousy; or
B: Maybe rich people who exploit the working class for the lowest possible wage they can pay them are just pricks; or
C: Newmeadow, doctors aren't "rich". You don't even know what rich even is so shut up. Wages are dictated by the market so stop making it about the feelz.
You guys always talk about this stuff theoretically, academically. Never viscerally.
What skillsets do you bring to the office that make your labor value $4 greater than you are currently making?
Why are you not applying for the job which pays $4/hr more?
Feelings are not facts and completely subjective. This does not set a good foundation for discussion or solutions.
This wasn't about me. It was about a conversation I overheard taking place when I was a patient by my doctor at the time and one of his technicians, both of whom I'd known for years. But yeah, I have very similar stories of my own as do all working class people that I know. Especially about the bragging episodes, and my G_d do they not get it.
If we're discussing solutions, have we pinpointed the problem? Have we pinpointed it globally or locally since that would make it subjective too. It being what though. Is there a problem with the distribution of wealth, the criteria for who gets paid what and how much for what work and why? If the affordability of rents and mortgages don't reflect the earning capacity of the average schmo who wants a roof over their head but doesn't want a handout, what's up with that and whose fault is it (Let me guess - it must be the schmo's). Let's set a good foundation for this discussion because I don't think that's happened yet.
The problem is that those for most of those who perceive that there is a problem, it is easier to whinge about the problem than to take meaningful steps to fix it.
AND for those who have taken personally meaningful steps to resolve their own inequities, there is diminishing sympathy for those who aren't or haven't taken meaningful steps to resolve those inequalities.
Finally, for those who are adults, there is little that can be done in the short term, and long term solutions only benefit their grandchildren. And many of the long term solutions are socially unpopular.
1. Graduate college or trade school and get married before procreating-this is unpopular for many reasons, but is the leading discriminator between success and failure
2. Read for yourself, read to/with/for your children-There was a series of recent articles suggesting that due to the inequities caused by this behavior, we should discourage successful members of society from reading to/with their children--Rather than suggesting that like many who have gone from nothing to success, we should encourage this behavior more broadly
https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/14/100-race-really-tell-us/
Okay, I see your point. But I don't know if it would make the balance of power more or less exploitative if the ideal (two parent married families for everyone who carefully cultivate the literacy and impulse control of their own children) were to fit the reality.
I suppose we could go back to the 1950s in the U.S. and say, well, most people fit into this category during this decade and the balance of power seemed less exploitative financially then.
Although I suppose it could be countered that the 1950s reflected a short, boom time where there was generalized abundance and a sort of built in discipline because it came right on the heels of World War 2 ending. After that it seemed to unravel completely by the end of the 1960s.
Another counter I would guess would be that the 50s were kind to some but not so much to others for reasons that would now be considered very politically incorrect.
Power and success differentials are inherent in any system.
The question is "Is the goal equal opportunity or equal result?" Equalizing results is easy. Look at Venezuela or Cuba or Somalia. 99% of the population is equally miserable. Equalizing opportunity is much harder. Most successful industrial countries like the US have 60-75% of the population has the same opportunity to succeed. The margins are much larger, but even at the bottom end of the lower margin. Food insecurity doesn't mean the same as it does in Somalia, Venezuela, or Afghanistan. A "middle class" Somalian or Afghan would improve the standard of living of his family if he were homeless in Dallas or Richmond or Seattle.
I dont know about that last sentence. I think Somalia has become the new Ethiopia in terms of a narrative of utter destitution that is a bit exaggerated. You might be right that the dollar to dollar income of someone begging on the street in Seattle is higher than ab average Somali (not sure that is true but I find it plausible) but the buying power of that dollar is not the same at all and the Somali has a home which is a pretty huge deal for self efficacy. I think it is fair to say even a homeless person in the US likely has more opportunity though.
I was speaking specifically to the subject of food/dietary security. In a major Metro in the US, between shelters, food banks, outreaches, etc. A homeless family can count on a hot meal every day. That's not necessarily the case in Somalia or Afghanistan. Even for a fully employed shop keeper or farmer.0 -
Now, about what is going on in the US, that’s a deeper puzzle. The income inequality gap is widening and that is not a good thing. It’s no so much that the poorest are jealous of the high rollers, it’s the destruction of hope. If a wage earner at the bottom of the scale, with scant opportunity for advancement lives beside profligate spenders, all sorts of things happen. Their neighbourhood may become overpriced forcing the poor to move out. Travel anywhere is longer and more complicated. Food prices, even modest increases, put some foods out of reach.
Consider the wages of the large population of service workers in a place like Las Vegas. They work inside of a bubble far removed from their own living conditions.
Also, the poverty, income inequality, teen pregnancy, high school drop out rates, and infant mortality rates are uneven across the US. It’s worse in many of the southern states and some Midwest states. It’s as if there are two Americas living in the US.2 -
Is this a discussion about relative wealth in the US or global improvements?
GLOBAL
I loved watching Hans Rosling wax eloquent on this subject. A simple analogy between the richest and the poorest is their ambitions for travel. For the wealthiest 10% it’s air travel. For the poorest 5% it’s a pair of shoes.
The number of nations that are very, very poor is dropping. The next level of ambition is having a bicycle. With a bicycle one can send a child to school, take surplus grain to a more profitable market, and transport water much more efficiently.
A pair of shoes is survival; a bicycle is hope.
https://www.focus-economics.com/blog/the-poorest-countries-in-the-world
https://www.gapminder.org
I meant it to be global but people have to talk about what people know and I don't think most people think globally about that sort of thing. No judgement meant there, I certainly am more comfortable talking about economic issues in the United States versus Somalia for example.1 -
This is a seperate discussion but in terms of wealth inequality moving into the future I am more worried about AI and its impact than anything else. Capabilities like those exhibited recently by Alpha Zero have the potential to do to the basic white collar professional what automation did to manufacturing on a time-scale where retraining in time to compensate would be potentially impossible.
At somepoint I honestly think we are going to have to switch to a system where every citizen in a country gets basically a stipend or a living wage just from being a citizen because the wealth and abundance are going to outstrip the need for actual labor.5 -
Okay but what if you work in a doctor's office and you ask your boss for a raise because all your reviews have been good and in the classifieds your job currently lists for $4 more an hour than what you're actually making.
And he says sorry I can't afford to give you a raise right now.
And then after lunch you catch him bragging about the family vacation to Paris he's planning for July and rubbing the noses of the working class receptionists in the fact that he's sending his daughter to Yale in September. When for them, sending their kids to community college all expenses paid is basically an impossibility.
Is this a case of:
A: Jealousy; or
B: Maybe rich people who exploit the working class for the lowest possible wage they can pay them are just pricks; or
C: Newmeadow, doctors aren't "rich". You don't even know what rich even is so shut up. Wages are dictated by the market so stop making it about the feelz.
You guys always talk about this stuff theoretically, academically. Never viscerally.
What skillsets do you bring to the office that make your labor value $4 greater than you are currently making?
Why are you not applying for the job which pays $4/hr more?
Feelings are not facts and completely subjective. This does not set a good foundation for discussion or solutions.
This wasn't about me. It was about a conversation I overheard taking place when I was a patient by my doctor at the time and one of his technicians, both of whom I'd known for years. But yeah, I have very similar stories of my own as do all working class people that I know. Especially about the bragging episodes, and my G_d do they not get it.
If we're discussing solutions, have we pinpointed the problem? Have we pinpointed it globally or locally since that would make it subjective too. It being what though. Is there a problem with the distribution of wealth, the criteria for who gets paid what and how much for what work and why? If the affordability of rents and mortgages don't reflect the earning capacity of the average schmo who wants a roof over their head but doesn't want a handout, what's up with that and whose fault is it (Let me guess - it must be the schmo's). Let's set a good foundation for this discussion because I don't think that's happened yet.
Wealth isn't distributed arbitrarily - it is exchanged through contracts and services.
Criteria for pay is a balance of expertise, rarity, and risk. Earning potential is increased by any of these means.
Affordability and price is dependent upon supply and demand.
As for the average person's wants? I don't understand why fault is required. I want a new house, but it is up to me and only me that I plan, prepare, and execute to ensure my goals are met.
6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I think it is hard to look past ones own financial difficulties or those around them to assess wealth on a global scale. Wealth, in terms of average income in inflation adjusted dollars per person on the planet, has most definitely gone up by a large amount over the last few decades and health along with it. People should be aware of that and happy about that but I just don't see it.
I am not saying it is impossible for ones own financial situation to get much better while the World's does as well but I do find it a bit annoying that people act like their own financial/health concerns in a developed nation are some sort of indication of how the global econonomic/health is fairing. Ultimately I think the goal is to bring up the standard of living for as many people as we can as a species and that we have made some really good progress that people in developed countries complaining about their 401k matching rate and the cost of their pumpkin spice latte just seem ignorant of.
That isn't to say people in developed nations can't also have problems or that just because there is a person starving in an impoverished nation doesn't mean you don't have a right to complain about getting the shaft in your last raise...I certainly have griped about my salary before....but there should be at least a little bit of perspective here right?
Being more politically center (although by today's standards this brands me far right) I see the two primary philosophies as lacking.
The left is lacking long term. Wants immediate correction and safety nets, but lacking in incentive and personal involvement.
The right is lacking short term. Wants personal investment and responsibility, but lacking in immediate corrections.
Sure something "should" be done, but let's be honest....I've yet to meet anyone who thinks they are overpaid. The human mind does a marvelous job justifying status.
I can't help but laugh at the fact we continually debate the element of personal responsibility on a site where success is solely dependent upon personal responsibility. Regardless of the amount one rails against the injustice of society, their metabolism, which every party is in charge...nothing is going to change until that moment you take responsibility and control over your own actions.5 -
Okay but what if you work in a doctor's office and you ask your boss for a raise because all your reviews have been good and in the classifieds your job currently lists for $4 more an hour than what you're actually making.
And he says sorry I can't afford to give you a raise right now.
And then after lunch you catch him bragging about the family vacation to Paris he's planning for July and rubbing the noses of the working class receptionists in the fact that he's sending his daughter to Yale in September. When for them, sending their kids to community college all expenses paid is basically an impossibility.
Is this a case of:
A: Jealousy; or
B: Maybe rich people who exploit the working class for the lowest possible wage they can pay them are just pricks; or
C: Newmeadow, doctors aren't "rich". You don't even know what rich even is so shut up. Wages are dictated by the market so stop making it about the feelz.
You guys always talk about this stuff theoretically, academically. Never viscerally.
What skillsets do you bring to the office that make your labor value $4 greater than you are currently making?
Why are you not applying for the job which pays $4/hr more?
Feelings are not facts and completely subjective. This does not set a good foundation for discussion or solutions.
This wasn't about me. It was about a conversation I overheard taking place when I was a patient by my doctor at the time and one of his technicians, both of whom I'd known for years. But yeah, I have very similar stories of my own as do all working class people that I know. Especially about the bragging episodes, and my G_d do they not get it.
If we're discussing solutions, have we pinpointed the problem? Have we pinpointed it globally or locally since that would make it subjective too. It being what though. Is there a problem with the distribution of wealth, the criteria for who gets paid what and how much for what work and why? If the affordability of rents and mortgages don't reflect the earning capacity of the average schmo who wants a roof over their head but doesn't want a handout, what's up with that and whose fault is it (Let me guess - it must be the schmo's). Let's set a good foundation for this discussion because I don't think that's happened yet.
Wealth isn't distributed arbitrarily - it is exchanged through contracts and services.
Criteria for pay is a balance of expertise, rarity, and risk. Earning potential is increased by any of these means.
Affordability and price is dependent upon supply and demand.
As for the average person's wants? I don't understand why fault is required. I want a new house, but it is up to me and only me that I plan, prepare, and execute to ensure my goals are met.
I think the ideal is a meritocracy where income is based on merit (not even required to be a linear relationship, a little more merit can yield a lot more income). That said I don't think we are quite there yet. I agree though, equality of opportunity should be the goal, not equality of outcome....and there is only so much you can do, there are going to be rich kids who have no merit but simply are wealthy because Mom or Dad made enough that they can live lavish lives off the dividends from a trust fund....I think that is just a reality of a system where the laws are aimed at equality of opportunity instead of outcome. I don't want redistrubution of wealth, but I do want a society that supports a base level of care that affords equal opportunity to its citizens (to me that means education, food, shelter, health).1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »This is a seperate discussion but in terms of wealth inequality moving into the future I am more worried about AI and its impact than anything else. Capabilities like those exhibited recently by Alpha Zero have the potential to do to the basic white collar professional what automation did to manufacturing on a time-scale where retraining in time to compensate would be potentially impossible.
At somepoint I honestly think we are going to have to switch to a system where every citizen in a country gets basically a stipend or a living wage just from being a citizen because the wealth and abundance are going to outstrip the need for actual labor.
i totally agree w/ this. A Universal Basic Income of some sort is going to be our best bet within the next few decades. At least, I hope it is.
I'm torn about it. On one hand I don't like it because I believe in earning your way in life and if you are just given things without earning them you are more likely to be complacent and no longer contribute to society in a meaningful way. On the other hand I think in a future where narrow-AI programs are capable of doing 90% of the type of work people are employed to do currently vastly increasing our productivity and wealth as a nation but reaching huge levels of unemployment a universal basic income will be necessary to give people the time to adjust into a new way of living.
We will soon be faced with that sort of decision. Do you keep people employed even though a computer program can do their job much faster and more accurately than them or do you replace a lot of the workforce with those programs in which case what do those people do? The only sorts of jobs that will exist in that possible future are ones that would require a ton of experience and very specialized skillset so you couldn't just switch over to them with a little bit of training so people will be long-term unemployed. At that point one needs to decide if we as a country support those people financially to give them the opportunity to retrain and become professionals within a new domain or if they just become impoverished or forced to do some sort of menial labor where their potential is wasted.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Okay but what if you work in a doctor's office and you ask your boss for a raise because all your reviews have been good and in the classifieds your job currently lists for $4 more an hour than what you're actually making.
And he says sorry I can't afford to give you a raise right now.
And then after lunch you catch him bragging about the family vacation to Paris he's planning for July and rubbing the noses of the working class receptionists in the fact that he's sending his daughter to Yale in September. When for them, sending their kids to community college all expenses paid is basically an impossibility.
Is this a case of:
A: Jealousy; or
B: Maybe rich people who exploit the working class for the lowest possible wage they can pay them are just pricks; or
C: Newmeadow, doctors aren't "rich". You don't even know what rich even is so shut up. Wages are dictated by the market so stop making it about the feelz.
You guys always talk about this stuff theoretically, academically. Never viscerally.
What skillsets do you bring to the office that make your labor value $4 greater than you are currently making?
Why are you not applying for the job which pays $4/hr more?
Feelings are not facts and completely subjective. This does not set a good foundation for discussion or solutions.
This wasn't about me. It was about a conversation I overheard taking place when I was a patient by my doctor at the time and one of his technicians, both of whom I'd known for years. But yeah, I have very similar stories of my own as do all working class people that I know. Especially about the bragging episodes, and my G_d do they not get it.
If we're discussing solutions, have we pinpointed the problem? Have we pinpointed it globally or locally since that would make it subjective too. It being what though. Is there a problem with the distribution of wealth, the criteria for who gets paid what and how much for what work and why? If the affordability of rents and mortgages don't reflect the earning capacity of the average schmo who wants a roof over their head but doesn't want a handout, what's up with that and whose fault is it (Let me guess - it must be the schmo's). Let's set a good foundation for this discussion because I don't think that's happened yet.
Wealth isn't distributed arbitrarily - it is exchanged through contracts and services.
Criteria for pay is a balance of expertise, rarity, and risk. Earning potential is increased by any of these means.
Affordability and price is dependent upon supply and demand.
As for the average person's wants? I don't understand why fault is required. I want a new house, but it is up to me and only me that I plan, prepare, and execute to ensure my goals are met.
I think the ideal is a meritocracy where income is based on merit (not even required to be a linear relationship, a little more merit can yield a lot more income). That said I don't think we are quite there yet. I agree though, equality of opportunity should be the goal, not equality of outcome....and there is only so much you can do, there are going to be rich kids who have no merit but simply are wealthy because Mom or Dad made enough that they can live lavish lives off the dividends from a trust fund....I think that is just a reality of a system where the laws are aimed at equality of opportunity instead of outcome. I don't want redistrubution of wealth, but I do want a society that supports a base level of care that affords equal opportunity to its citizens (to me that means education, food, shelter, health).
The reality is that in the instance of those with generational wealth and no merit, in the absence of aggressive and prudent fiscal planning 2 generations previous, The levels of prodigality and decadence demonstrated by Paris Hilton for example could even bankrupt the Gates fortune, returning them to baseline.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Okay but what if you work in a doctor's office and you ask your boss for a raise because all your reviews have been good and in the classifieds your job currently lists for $4 more an hour than what you're actually making.
And he says sorry I can't afford to give you a raise right now.
And then after lunch you catch him bragging about the family vacation to Paris he's planning for July and rubbing the noses of the working class receptionists in the fact that he's sending his daughter to Yale in September. When for them, sending their kids to community college all expenses paid is basically an impossibility.
Is this a case of:
A: Jealousy; or
B: Maybe rich people who exploit the working class for the lowest possible wage they can pay them are just pricks; or
C: Newmeadow, doctors aren't "rich". You don't even know what rich even is so shut up. Wages are dictated by the market so stop making it about the feelz.
You guys always talk about this stuff theoretically, academically. Never viscerally.
What skillsets do you bring to the office that make your labor value $4 greater than you are currently making?
Why are you not applying for the job which pays $4/hr more?
Feelings are not facts and completely subjective. This does not set a good foundation for discussion or solutions.
This wasn't about me. It was about a conversation I overheard taking place when I was a patient by my doctor at the time and one of his technicians, both of whom I'd known for years. But yeah, I have very similar stories of my own as do all working class people that I know. Especially about the bragging episodes, and my G_d do they not get it.
If we're discussing solutions, have we pinpointed the problem? Have we pinpointed it globally or locally since that would make it subjective too. It being what though. Is there a problem with the distribution of wealth, the criteria for who gets paid what and how much for what work and why? If the affordability of rents and mortgages don't reflect the earning capacity of the average schmo who wants a roof over their head but doesn't want a handout, what's up with that and whose fault is it (Let me guess - it must be the schmo's). Let's set a good foundation for this discussion because I don't think that's happened yet.
Wealth isn't distributed arbitrarily - it is exchanged through contracts and services.
Criteria for pay is a balance of expertise, rarity, and risk. Earning potential is increased by any of these means.
Affordability and price is dependent upon supply and demand.
As for the average person's wants? I don't understand why fault is required. I want a new house, but it is up to me and only me that I plan, prepare, and execute to ensure my goals are met.
I think the ideal is a meritocracy where income is based on merit (not even required to be a linear relationship, a little more merit can yield a lot more income). That said I don't think we are quite there yet. I agree though, equality of opportunity should be the goal, not equality of outcome....and there is only so much you can do, there are going to be rich kids who have no merit but simply are wealthy because Mom or Dad made enough that they can live lavish lives off the dividends from a trust fund.
I very much agree, but as every institution is susceptible to corruption...case in point how many positions are available in the field of sociology and how many students graduate with this degree? Yet university tuition is skyrocketing far beyond consumer index (primarily due to government subsidized loans). All for what? The average student would be better off financially entering the work force.
I used to think this way, but those kids are dramatic outliers and typically burn through wealth. "Sandals to sandals in three generations" is a profound statement. From my own experience growing up financially poor, but rich in love - all my friends in similar situations either equaled or exceeded the wealth or their parents. The rich kids? Most failed out of college, ended up as a drain on the family and are much worse off.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »This is a seperate discussion but in terms of wealth inequality moving into the future I am more worried about AI and its impact than anything else. Capabilities like those exhibited recently by Alpha Zero have the potential to do to the basic white collar professional what automation did to manufacturing on a time-scale where retraining in time to compensate would be potentially impossible.
At somepoint I honestly think we are going to have to switch to a system where every citizen in a country gets basically a stipend or a living wage just from being a citizen because the wealth and abundance are going to outstrip the need for actual labor.
This is my concern as well.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »This is a seperate discussion but in terms of wealth inequality moving into the future I am more worried about AI and its impact than anything else. Capabilities like those exhibited recently by Alpha Zero have the potential to do to the basic white collar professional what automation did to manufacturing on a time-scale where retraining in time to compensate would be potentially impossible.
At somepoint I honestly think we are going to have to switch to a system where every citizen in a country gets basically a stipend or a living wage just from being a citizen because the wealth and abundance are going to outstrip the need for actual labor.
i totally agree w/ this. A Universal Basic Income of some sort is going to be our best bet within the next few decades. At least, I hope it is.
I'm torn about it. On one hand I don't like it because I believe in earning your way in life and if you are just given things without earning them you are more likely to be complacent and no longer contribute to society in a meaningful way. On the other hand I think in a future where narrow-AI programs are capable of doing 90% of the type of work people are employed to do currently vastly increasing our productivity and wealth as a nation but reaching huge levels of unemployment a universal basic income will be necessary to give people the time to adjust into a new way of living.
I'm not entirely opposed to the idea. As Automation and AI transform society in a fundamental way, something is going to have to shift.
My concern is that the other side of that balance is dealing with population pressure while preserving freedom.
1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Okay but what if you work in a doctor's office and you ask your boss for a raise because all your reviews have been good and in the classifieds your job currently lists for $4 more an hour than what you're actually making.
And he says sorry I can't afford to give you a raise right now.
And then after lunch you catch him bragging about the family vacation to Paris he's planning for July and rubbing the noses of the working class receptionists in the fact that he's sending his daughter to Yale in September. When for them, sending their kids to community college all expenses paid is basically an impossibility.
Is this a case of:
A: Jealousy; or
B: Maybe rich people who exploit the working class for the lowest possible wage they can pay them are just pricks; or
C: Newmeadow, doctors aren't "rich". You don't even know what rich even is so shut up. Wages are dictated by the market so stop making it about the feelz.
You guys always talk about this stuff theoretically, academically. Never viscerally.
What skillsets do you bring to the office that make your labor value $4 greater than you are currently making?
Why are you not applying for the job which pays $4/hr more?
Feelings are not facts and completely subjective. This does not set a good foundation for discussion or solutions.
This wasn't about me. It was about a conversation I overheard taking place when I was a patient by my doctor at the time and one of his technicians, both of whom I'd known for years. But yeah, I have very similar stories of my own as do all working class people that I know. Especially about the bragging episodes, and my G_d do they not get it.
If we're discussing solutions, have we pinpointed the problem? Have we pinpointed it globally or locally since that would make it subjective too. It being what though. Is there a problem with the distribution of wealth, the criteria for who gets paid what and how much for what work and why? If the affordability of rents and mortgages don't reflect the earning capacity of the average schmo who wants a roof over their head but doesn't want a handout, what's up with that and whose fault is it (Let me guess - it must be the schmo's). Let's set a good foundation for this discussion because I don't think that's happened yet.
Wealth isn't distributed arbitrarily - it is exchanged through contracts and services.
Criteria for pay is a balance of expertise, rarity, and risk. Earning potential is increased by any of these means.
Affordability and price is dependent upon supply and demand.
As for the average person's wants? I don't understand why fault is required. I want a new house, but it is up to me and only me that I plan, prepare, and execute to ensure my goals are met.
I think the ideal is a meritocracy where income is based on merit (not even required to be a linear relationship, a little more merit can yield a lot more income). That said I don't think we are quite there yet. I agree though, equality of opportunity should be the goal, not equality of outcome....and there is only so much you can do, there are going to be rich kids who have no merit but simply are wealthy because Mom or Dad made enough that they can live lavish lives off the dividends from a trust fund.
I very much agree, but as every institution is susceptible to corruption...case in point how many positions are available in the field of sociology and how many students graduate with this degree? Yet university tuition is skyrocketing far beyond consumer index (primarily due to government subsidized loans). All for what? The average student would be better off financially entering the work force.
I used to think this way, but those kids are dramatic outliers and typically burn through wealth. "Sandals to sandals in three generations" is a profound statement. From my own experience growing up financially poor, but rich in love - all my friends in similar situations either equaled or exceeded the wealth or their parents. The rich kids? Most failed out of college, ended up as a drain on the family and are much worse off.
It requires a great deal of discipline by the parents and Grandparents.
I found the novel Kane and Abel very instructive on the sort of strictures required and the potential benefit realized by those restrictions.1 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
Feelings are not facts and completely subjective. This does not set a good foundation for discussion or solutions.
However, people are subjective beasts. We act in irrational ways, for a number of reasons.
With respect to the specific example, it's expressed in an emotional way because that's how it's perceived. How the business is run is a material point in compensation, but that's rarely a factor considered by employees. In this instance the business owner uses I in two different contexts; I the business, that pays salary, and I the recipient of a salary.
What we're really talking about is salary disparity. Clearly without the clinician the business wouldn't exist, and the education/ skill level is higher, hence a higher salary. But could the business afford to reward the individual for recognised performance?
A "good" leader would ensure that the individual has the opportunity to exceed and excel. This is beneficial to the leader, the business, and the individual.
Hence why I asked "Why is the individual continue to work for this clinician?" when there is an opportunity for better pay at another business?
Fear of change is the root cause of many of the world's problems.4 -
Hans Rosling has some interesting observations when people get enough security around health, wealth and safety. A living wage might accomplish this.
When people feel safe at this most fundamental level, the birth rate and the teen birth rate drops.
Fewer children means more can be invested in the education and the well being of the children.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »This is a seperate discussion but in terms of wealth inequality moving into the future I am more worried about AI and its impact than anything else. Capabilities like those exhibited recently by Alpha Zero have the potential to do to the basic white collar professional what automation did to manufacturing on a time-scale where retraining in time to compensate would be potentially impossible.
At somepoint I honestly think we are going to have to switch to a system where every citizen in a country gets basically a stipend or a living wage just from being a citizen because the wealth and abundance are going to outstrip the need for actual labor.
i totally agree w/ this. A Universal Basic Income of some sort is going to be our best bet within the next few decades. At least, I hope it is.
I'm torn about it. On one hand I don't like it because I believe in earning your way in life and if you are just given things without earning them you are more likely to be complacent and no longer contribute to society in a meaningful way. On the other hand I think in a future where narrow-AI programs are capable of doing 90% of the type of work people are employed to do currently vastly increasing our productivity and wealth as a nation but reaching huge levels of unemployment a universal basic income will be necessary to give people the time to adjust into a new way of living.
We will soon be faced with that sort of decision. Do you keep people employed even though a computer program can do their job much faster and more accurately than them or do you replace a lot of the workforce with those programs in which case what do those people do? The only sorts of jobs that will exist in that possible future are ones that would require a ton of experience and very specialized skillset so you couldn't just switch over to them with a little bit of training so people will be long-term unemployed. At that point one needs to decide if we as a country support those people financially to give them the opportunity to retrain and become professionals within a new domain or if they just become impoverished or forced to do some sort of menial labor where their potential is wasted.
There needs to be endless bounty for UBI to happen - along the lines of matter replicators before this dream ever becomes reality.
I'm a futurist disciple and looking at tech curves and see AI implementation eliminating most jobs...even high skilled jobs. We are reaching a point in our technological advancement where we are going to have to be deliberately inefficient for several generations. If AI is implemented 90% of lawyers will be out of a job (is that a pro or a con?).
I struggle with this every day. One federal agency wants me to hire more people. Another agency wants me to remove all human contact from production lines. I could implement robotic sterile suites and remove all human contact, but this would also put thousands out of work. Thankfully at the moment the short term costs vastly exceed return on investment, but this will change in less than 10 years.
Very glad you initiated this talk Aaron.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »This is a seperate discussion but in terms of wealth inequality moving into the future I am more worried about AI and its impact than anything else. Capabilities like those exhibited recently by Alpha Zero have the potential to do to the basic white collar professional what automation did to manufacturing on a time-scale where retraining in time to compensate would be potentially impossible.
At somepoint I honestly think we are going to have to switch to a system where every citizen in a country gets basically a stipend or a living wage just from being a citizen because the wealth and abundance are going to outstrip the need for actual labor.
i totally agree w/ this. A Universal Basic Income of some sort is going to be our best bet within the next few decades. At least, I hope it is.
I'm torn about it. On one hand I don't like it because I believe in earning your way in life and if you are just given things without earning them you are more likely to be complacent and no longer contribute to society in a meaningful way. On the other hand I think in a future where narrow-AI programs are capable of doing 90% of the type of work people are employed to do currently vastly increasing our productivity and wealth as a nation but reaching huge levels of unemployment a universal basic income will be necessary to give people the time to adjust into a new way of living.
We will soon be faced with that sort of decision. Do you keep people employed even though a computer program can do their job much faster and more accurately than them or do you replace a lot of the workforce with those programs in which case what do those people do? The only sorts of jobs that will exist in that possible future are ones that would require a ton of experience and very specialized skillset so you couldn't just switch over to them with a little bit of training so people will be long-term unemployed. At that point one needs to decide if we as a country support those people financially to give them the opportunity to retrain and become professionals within a new domain or if they just become impoverished or forced to do some sort of menial labor where their potential is wasted.
There needs to be endless bounty for UBI to happen - along the lines of matter replicators before this dream ever becomes reality.
I'm a futurist disciple and looking at tech curves and see AI implementation eliminating most jobs...even high skilled jobs. We are reaching a point in our technological advancement where we are going to have to be deliberately inefficient for several generations. If AI is implemented 90% of lawyers will be out of a job (is that a pro or a con?).
I struggle with this every day. One federal agency wants me to hire more people. Another agency wants me to remove all human contact from production lines. I could implement robotic sterile suites and remove all human contact, but this would also put thousands out of work. Thankfully at the moment the short term costs vastly exceed return on investment, but this will change in less than 10 years.
Very glad you initiated this talk Aaron.
Eh I don't know that there needs to be matter replicators to have that much bounty, I mean Saudi Arabia I believe has a sort of UBI simply because they have sufficient wealth generated from their oil that it makes sense to. I'm not holding up that society as some sort of ideal mind you, just saying that that amount of wealth exists today. If you up productivity and wealth while eliminating cost of employing people you can take that extra wealth, which is clearly going to be at least and likely more than everyone's combined salaries, and distribute that as a basic income. What is going to be "unfair" about that is that the professional whose job earned them $120k a year and had their job replaced would get the same UBI as the professional whose job earned them $45k a year. That said if their salary was truly merit based then presumably when they retrain themselves into the new economy they will once again likely make more.
As for the transition with the advent of narrow-AI there will be significant economic pressure to replace humans with programs and the only way to avoid that would be through some sort of social engineering. So whether you let that happen and adopt a UBI or you try to phase it in slowly and be ineffiicient, either way it is form of government imposed social engineering and not a merit based system...which ick.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions