What It Takes to Be in the 1% Around the World

[GordMay]

John Oliver discusses the mechanics of union busting, and why the companies who do it face so few consequences.
Union Busting: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
➥

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk8dUXRpoy8

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

It didn't WWII caused the cratering. You have cause and effect reversed.

According to your original statement, as understood colloquially and gramatically,


"And what happened mid 1930's when the percentage cratered, WWII."


I don't.

If you wanted to say that WWII caused the 'cratering', why didn't you say that?


It is, of course. a rhetorical question, given some of the risibly fantastic statements contained in the last few pages...


"The biggest risk of this system is the way it becomes a disincentive to spending which then limits the revenue side. In addition, our version of equity in the taxation system has morphed from each paying a share to each paying a share in proportion to our ability to pay. This concept requires us to limit the contributions made by the low income sectors."


"This has the same problem as raising the minimum wage...all it does is drive inflation. Lots of dollars chasing a limited supply raises prices."


"There are set asides for food and medicine...they aren't taxed."


"Maybe abolish all income tax and have a sliding scale of goods and services tax from necessity to luxury. Add to that a tax for money going overseas and a credit for money coming in.

On top of that a tax credit ratio for employee wages."


"Something is being taken from them!"


"If you see a nation with low taxes and a thorough social safety net you will often find they have a natural resource they can tax on exports to balance things out in a way other nations cannot."



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor..._United_States
https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Fre...Tax-Rates.aspx

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Right, so better they never had it in the first place. This is why I say it's better to have a more equitable distribution of wealth at the outset, than to try and redistribute it later through taxes.

And let mass mediocrity reign.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

I just don't see how that would work.

Let's just say it's all been done before. Just spend some time looking at the New Deal era, leading up and through WWII and into the 50s and 60s. None of this is new.

Originally Posted by Tetepare

As an aside, your (multiple) comments about how people support themselves as technology replaces humans is the most astute and frightening question. New York State has moved from an industrial region to what they call "service." And these days in NYS, millions are employed either directly or indirectly in "services" for the plethora of things-that-must-be-licensed, social services, insurance, medical, etc. I think this is more the result of the nature of bureaucracies to grow rather than intelligent design.

The rise of the service industry is due to the fact that you can't offshore this kind of work. And it's not yet amenable to automation and artificial intelligence. But this too is changing. Robotics, driven by AI, is starting to intrude into jobs at the bottom of the rung (the Mcjobs) as well as the top (lawyers, doctors, technicians of all sorts).

Automation and robotics, along with offshoring, has killed off much of the so-called blue collar work. And now AI is coming for most of the white collar jobs. Robots and AI can do most things better, faster, safer and cheaper than humans. The drive to uptake these efficiencies is baked into our capitalist system, so it is inevitable people will continue to be replaced by machines.

We will soon have a fully functioning economy, but one mostly devoid of jobs for humans. This is why we're seeing the rise of various versions and experiments with guaranteed incomes. We need to find a new way to distribute the resources generated by our fully-functioning economy.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

And let mass mediocrity reign.

I have no idea what you're talking about, or how this statement is even remotely connected to the discussion. Please expound...

[cyan]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Let's just say it's all been done before. Just spend some time looking at the New Deal era, leading up and through WWII and into the 50s and 60s. None of this is new.



The rise of the service industry is due to the fact that you can't offshore this kind of work. And it's not yet amenable to automation and artificial intelligence. But this too is changing. Robotics, driven by AI, is starting to intrude into jobs at the bottom of the rung (the Mcjobs) as well as the top (lawyers, doctors, technicians of all sorts).

Automation and robotics, along with offshoring, has killed off much of the so-called blue collar work. And now AI is coming for most of the white collar jobs. Robots and AI can do most things better, faster, safer and cheaper than humans. The drive to uptake these efficiencies is baked into our capitalist system, so it is inevitable people will continue to be replaced by machines.

We will soon have a fully functioning economy, but one mostly devoid of jobs for humans. This is why we're seeing the rise of various versions and experiments with guaranteed incomes. We need to find a new way to distribute the resources generated by our fully-functioning economy.

Mike, you present very intriguing points regarding automation. However, the underlying assumption seems to be that we need an equitable distribution of wealth as opposed to letting the largest spoils go to those who make our society better by innovation.

One view could be that much of the 1% deserves extreme wealth, especially if they have given society innovations that represent advances in quality of life. Without such incentives, would our society have ever evolved from small farms on the edge of survival?

Every global poverty graph now shows that the whole world is becoming better off... for several decades. Perhaps this current capitalist system is closer to perfection that many believe. Maybe the very best situation for humans in this wildly rich new world is to keep rewarding those who brought us here? Along the way there may be trust-fund babies who do nothing productive with inherited wealth, but such flaws in the system might not need a fix.

Just a thought.

[AKA-None]

Taken to the logical conclusion if everything is automated then what does the average person do?

Sit around and relax ? Ok fine then is food, shelter and clothing something you get automatically or do you have to work? What work, everything is automated.

More than a few science fiction stories theorize variations on this topic

Let’s examine Star Trek, did they get paid if everything they needed was provided by a replicator.

Interesting to consider

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by cyan

Mike, you present very intriguing points regarding automation. However, the underlying assumption seems to be that we need an equitable distribution of wealth as opposed to letting the largest spoils go to those who make our society better by innovation.

One view could be that much of the 1% deserves extreme wealth, especially if they have given society innovations that represent advances in quality of life. Without such incentives, would our society have ever evolved from small farms on the edge of survival?

Every global poverty graph now shows that the whole world is becoming better off... for several decades. Perhaps this current capitalist system is closer to perfection that many believe. Maybe the very best situation for humans in this wildly rich new world is to keep rewarding those who brought us here? Along the way there may be trust-fund babies who do nothing productive with inherited wealth, but such flaws in the system might not need a fix.

Just a thought.

Ford and Edison deserved their wealth in my opinion, and the aspirations for greatness (being the best in their chosen fields) that was the driving force behind their innovations in the 1st place. They did have competition, which resulted in even better outcomes for the consumers.

Through those two industrialists, the standard of living went up. Plus their intentions were in the right place to start with, helping people live a better life.

Could have had the govt created these two and their outcomes, using some other incentives?

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by danstanford

The biggest risk of this system is the way it becomes a disincentive to spending which then limits the revenue side. In addition, our version of equity in the taxation system has morphed from each paying a share to each paying a share in proportion to our ability to pay. This concept requires us to limit the contributions made by the low income sectors.

Realistically there are far too many vested interests in the current byzantine tax code to ever see a conversion to a flat sales tax...so this is all theoretical.

Think about it. Both political parties wouldn't be able to push tax based agendas. Heck 95% of accountants would be out of work the next day. Sure businesses still need to track income and expenses but doing to meet tax codes is wildly more complicated.

Yes, if from one day to the next, we switched, the disruption would be massive and it would encourage saving and investing.

But long term, people save and invest so they have money to spend. You may come across the occasional grandpa who never spends his money but you can bet the grandkids will blow that big inheritance quickly 95% of the time. In the long term it would all average out.

So it's not a flaw in the principal but a side effect of the transition. Imagine the problems if we lived under a simple flat sales tax system and the next day we implemented the current byzantine system...now that would be a massive cluster.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

Taken to the logical conclusion if everything is automated then what does the average person do?

Sit around and relax ? Ok fine then is food, shelter and clothing something you get automatically or do you have to work? What work, everything is automated.

More than a few science fiction stories theorize variations on this topic

Let’s examine Star Trek, did they get paid if everything they needed was provided by a replicator.

Interesting to consider

They have been saying the same thing since the start of the industrial revolution...we will run out of jobs.

Yes, there is disruption. If you refuse to adapt, it can be painful but we are wildly more efficient producing things compared to 100-200yrs ago, yet just prior to the pandemic, we were at full employment.

The pandemic has brought a new issue to market. It forced through the idea of working remotely. Before, many companies were simply afraid to try it (though it was slowly gaining traction). Now, if you have the skills, there is no reason many jobs can't be done from India or Bangladesh if they have the skill set. For all those complaining of a fair living wage, keep in mind it comes at the cost of competing with people who make a few dollars a day. Raising wages too high may simply push the market to offshore more jobs.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by cyan

Mike, you present very intriguing points regarding automation. However, the underlying assumption seems to be that we need an equitable distribution of wealth as opposed to letting the largest spoils go to those who make our society better by innovation.

Actually, my real point isn't about equity. It's that we are headed to an economy largely without jobs. Since "the job" is the primary mechanism for distributing resources in our capitalist societies, my claim is that we will need to find a new way to do this.

Whether we do this more equitably than we do now is secondary. The issue is that while robots and AI can work without food and shelter, humans still need these things. We must find a new way ... and we will.

Originally Posted by cyan

One view could be that much of the 1% deserves extreme wealth, especially if they have given society innovations that represent advances in quality of life. Without such incentives, would our society have ever evolved from small farms on the edge of survival?

I don't think anyone would claim innovators that create new things which better the lives of others aren't deserving of monetary praise. But this represents a tiny fraction of the people who reside near the top of our economic pyramid. Has the stock broker, corporate lawyer or cosmetic surgeon "given society innovations that represent advances in quality of life"? It's a rhetorical question, of course, but you get my point.

One thing these days of pandemic crisis have shown us is who truly is important and essential in our societies. Who's more essential, your lawyer, or the store clerk or delivery person or truck driver who has kept all of us alive and relatively well? Why do we value the latter so little and the former so much?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

Taken to the logical conclusion if everything is automated then what does the average person do?

Sit around and relax ? Ok fine then is food, shelter and clothing something you get automatically or do you have to work? What work, everything is automated.

More than a few science fiction stories theorize variations on this topic

Let’s examine Star Trek, did they get paid if everything they needed was provided by a replicator.

Interesting to consider

Yes indeed, very interesting. The original Star Trek model is a good one. But we don't have to get that starry, nor do we have to look far to know how this could work. The examples are all around us.

First off, the notion that we need "a job" for people to be active and productive is not supported by any evidence. If fact, a large portion of the people reading this right now actually understand this intimately. Heck, they currently live it. We call them "retired."

Do most retired people you know (or are) sit on their butts all day and do nothing? Again... rhetorical question. We all know most are active and engaged in whatever turns their crank.

People don't need to be told how to spend their time. We've been trained to think this way by our society, and indeed some people struggle when they don't have this kind of external stricture on them. But most figure it out pretty easily -- and the smart one's go cruising .

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yes indeed, very interesting. The original Star Trek model is a good one. But we don't have to get that starry, nor do we have to look far to know how this could work. The examples are all around us.

First off, the notion that we need "a job" for people to be active and productive is not supported by any evidence. If fact, a large portion of the people reading this right now actually understand this intimately. Heck, they currently live it. We call them "retired."

Do most retired people you know (or are) sit on their butts all day and do nothing? Again... rhetorical question. We all know most are active and engaged in whatever turns their crank.

People don't need to be told how to spend their time. We've been trained to think this way by our society, and indeed some people struggle when they don't have this kind of external stricture on them. But most figure it out pretty easily -- and the smart one's go cruising .

I tried being retired. It was too hard, so back as an engineer (RF) about 20 hours a week. Full retirement I was able to do for 6 mos before I decided it was too full of idle moments, with a lack of intellectual challenges. Some would cast off and sail around the world, but I'm a coastal sort myself. Skiing and hiking more my thing, but at close to 70, not as fit and don't cover near the ground as before. Plus a ski wipeout could be hard to recover from. Youth......the best !

[NPCampbell]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Actually, my real point isn't about equity. It's that we are headed to an economy largely without jobs. Since "the job" is the primary mechanism for distributing resources in our capitalist societies, my claim is that we will need to find a new way to do this.

Whether we do this more equitably than we do now is secondary. The issue is that while robots and AI can work without food and shelter, humans still need these things. We must find a new way ... and we will.



I don't think anyone would claim innovators that create new things which better the lives of others aren't deserving of monetary praise. But this represents a tiny fraction of the people who reside near the top of our economic pyramid. Has the stock broker, corporate lawyer or cosmetic surgeon "given society innovations that represent advances in quality of life"? It's a rhetorical question, of course, but you get my point.

One thing these days of pandemic crisis have shown us is who truly is important and essential in our societies. Who's more essential, your lawyer, or the store clerk or delivery person or truck driver who has kept all of us alive and relatively well? Why do we value the latter so little and the former so much?

Because the latter has almost no barriers to entry and requires relatively low investment in education or skill. This doesn't mean the truck drivers job isn't important. It just means that if the driver retired, there is a giant pool of available workers that could easily step into that position with relatively low investment.

The surgeon on the other hand, invests 25% of his adult working life in education and honing his skills. That represents amongst the highest educational investment of any job. IMO surgeons, especially Covid related specialties, should be "valued" at least 10x more than drivers (but they aren't).

Exacerbating the problem even further, is the huge number of people that believe it is acceptable to "redistribute" a surgeons income as soon as they get their first high paying gig after residency even though they have accrued high levels of debt for the previous 12 to 16 years.

[jimbunyard]

"Bull***t Jobs: A Theory is a 2018 book by anthropologist David Graeber that postulates the existence of meaningless jobs and analyzes their societal harm. He contends that over half of societal work is pointless, and becomes psychologically destructive when paired with a work ethic that associates work with self-worth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/********_Jobs

(how apropos that 'AI' 'protects' out sensitive virgin 'sailor' minds from the horrors of the word 'bullsh1t'...)