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

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The problem is the rich ( wealthy ) have disposable income after buying TVs cars etc. The less well off do not. Having to live in penury to afford to invest in a pension is simply a ridiculous assumption. People have to live

That’s why blue collar people don’t invest. ( also they don’t understand investing )

In my experience the minute a blue collar worker gains enough income they buy property as this is an investment they understand.

I'll give you that they "don't understand investing"...and really worse, they don't understand budgeting. That's an educational issue.

As far as living in penury...I spent a few summers riding the bus into downtown detroit. If you took the shoe and phone budget for folks I saw, they could fund a few thousand per year in retirement savings.

Then again, your typical minimum wage earner rarely stays earning minimum wage if the put in half an effort.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by cyan

While we may not agree entirely on the evolution of human jobs, I do think that those who contemplate a "post-work" society bring up fascinating questions that go far beyond resources. If modern humans humans largely derive their sense of self/worth from their jobs, then what does society look like without such endeavors?

I think the question is similar to concerns about those who approach retirement. My colleagues seem so concerned that my planned days of sailing and fishing and finally finishing writing that novel... will be enough to replace my working life on the leading edge of technology. (Hah! So far, so good.)

Perhaps the real challenge of a post-work society will not be resource distribution. The real challenge might be for people to simply find fulfillment in something other than just working to be in that 1%.

I think you're right to zero in on this factor. Our society places huge social weight on the idea of "work." Of course, by that we usually mean paid work. All the unpaid work done in homes, or by volunteers, is rarely accorded much regard, and certainly given little value. Yet some economic analysis indicate that if we were to monetize this work, it would dwarf the stuff that generates a pay cheque.

But I agree, our societies do inculcated in us the notion that our self-worth is intertwined with paid work. But I would argue this is a very modern development, and one not rooted in any nature, human or otherwise.

Humans, as with most animals with complex neurology, need stimulation and engagement. Facing challenges and overcoming circumstances is a good way to achieve this, but there is a universe of options. The narrow approach of wage-work is only one.

Like I say, we need not look far to see how people live and thrive without being tied to wage labour. It's called retirement. And while some people find it a struggle to fill their days meaningfully outside the dictates of "a job," most retires figure it out quite easily.

[Ericson38]

Mike,

"Automation, robotics and offshoring have already decimated blue collar employment in developed countries. This trend will continue and accelerate. And now AI is gunning for most white collar jobs.

I'm not saying everything will disappear. And of course there will be some new jobs created that humans must do. But there is no necessity for enough new jobs to magically appear. Not unless we embrace Jim's "Bullshyte" jobs model.

This is why I say we must understand, and then disassociate, the two functions that "the job" plays in our societies. The first function is to do a task that is (hopefully) useful and necessary. But the second function -- arguably the more important one -- is to distribute resources (wealth). We've intertwined these two functions in "the job", but it doesn't have to be this way.

We can still have useful tasks done AND we can distribute wealth. My claim, which is far from original, is that we will have to find a way to do this. And we will have to do it quickly, because we are already well on the way to having an economy with few (good) jobs."

I think there are a lot of good jobs to train for now, and in the near to mid future, and there will be for a long time to come. Eventually there will be more automation, to the degree to which we will eventually scratch our head as to why anyone would bag groceries while attending junior college, but this is a long way off.

Think about the jobs that will be hard to automate in the blue collar field (leaving out sports, the arts (books-movies), and entertainment (singing, producing, recording, etc)

Welder (pipe/ship/sky scaper)
Floor laying
roofer
plumber
gardner
auto/farm/transportation mechanical repair
boat mech
electrician
computer tech
network techs
interior wood finishing
window and door setter
brick work
game warden
law enforcement
vets for farm animals
wind mill installation
high voltage line buildouts
nuclear power plant building
dam building
road surveying and building
canal building
bridge building
railroad network building
water works and sanitation buildout and maintenance
parks and rec workers
HAC install, upgrade, repair
audio-visual tech/engineer/installer
.
.
.
.

etc

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

Think about the jobs that will be hard to automate in the blue collar field (leaving out sports, the arts (books-movies), and entertainment (singing, producing, recording, etc)

Welder (pipe/ship/sky scaper)
Floor laying
roofer
plumber
gardner
auto/farm/transportation mechanical repair
boat mech
electrician
computer tech
network techs
interior wood finishing
window and door setter
brick work
game warden
law enforcement
vets for farm animals
wind mill installation
high voltage line buildouts
nuclear power plant building
dam building
road surveying and building
canal building
bridge building
railroad network building
water works and sanitation buildout and maintenance
parks and rec workers

etc

Nearly everyone you list here has already been (to some degree), or can be, or soon will be, automated (or automatable). This is the fact I'm point to. Robotics and AI will soon be able to accomplish nearly everything a human can do. And given how our economic system works, once this is achieve, it is almost inevitable that the less efficient and more costly workers (humans) will be replaced.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I think you're right to zero in on this factor. Our society places huge social weight on the idea of "work." Of course, by that we usually mean paid work. All the unpaid work done in homes, or by volunteers, is rarely accorded much regard, and certainly given little value. Yet some economic analysis indicate that if we were to monetize this work, it would dwarf the stuff that generates a pay cheque.

But I agree, our societies do inculcated in us the notion that our self-worth is intertwined with paid work. But I would argue this is a very modern development, and one not rooted in any nature, human or otherwise.

Humans, as with most animals with complex neurology, need stimulation and engagement. Facing challenges and overcoming circumstances is a good way to achieve this, but there is a universe of options. The narrow approach of wage-work is only one.

Like I say, we need not look far to see how people live and thrive without being tied to wage labour. It's called retirement. And while some people find it a struggle to fill their days meaningfully outside the dictates of "a job," most retires figure it out quite easily.

I don't think it's a modern concept...go back to the days of small groups of hunter gatherers...the guy who didn't pull his weight wasn't going to be kept around long.

Of course, there was nothing implied about it and reaching adulthood before learning the lesson...well, it was a bit more harsh than that.

I suspect it's hard wired into our genetics at least to some degree to feel the need to work.

The modern concept of retirement is very new. Pensions and social security only go back around 100yrs. Back in the day Grandpa & Grandma might be left back at the camp to watch over the youngest. They might do weaving or other time consuming but otherwise easy work. Light work but still work.

Then you have stories of the eskimos who would go out on an iceflow when they were no longer "useful". Vikings wanted to die in battle as it was considered disgraceful to die in bed.

I disagree with your assertion that most retirees find it easy. A great many struggle with the change. Some take of new forms of work such as volunteerism or maybe they watch the grandkids (similar to their ancestors). It's not uncommon to know the old guy who is heavily invested in his career to show up at his old place of employment. Others take up hobbies...the folks on this forum likely disproportionately use the upkeep and operation of boats to fill some of that role of doing work.

While there is the exception, the proverbial idea of sitting in a rocking chair watching the grass grow is not appealing to the vast majority of people. It's also been found to be unhealthy to let the mind vegetate.

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

By the way as a company owner, I pay more tax percentage wise then my secretary** ( if I had One) as PAYE earners get allowances company owners do not. Any income I receive is taxed , hence paying me in shares is of no advantage over wages. In fact shares are worse because I will pay income tax on unrealised gains. Ie a big cash flow hit , the only way around that is via ESOP style share schemes but that’s entirely different.

( ** and they get social protection measures like unemployment benefits that I don’t , yet I make similar levels of social insurance payments )

And yet you have access to bankruptcy and Medicare, social security, food stamps etc. Just like them

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Nearly everyone you list here has already been (to some degree), or can be, or soon will be, automated (or automatable). This is the fact I'm point to. Robotics and AI will soon be able to accomplish nearly everything a human can do. And given how our economic system works, once this is achieve, it is almost inevitable that the less efficient and more costly workers (humans) will be replaced.

I totally don't agree, or would not have made the list in the 1st place.

Power tools and heavy equipment, as well and laser measurement tools and GPS just make 'the job' go quicker (or rows of crops straighter), but they don't eliminate the worker, whether installing HVAC or felling trees in a forrest.

I also didn't include law enforcement or medical services, or legal professional types.

Besides this, what do these jobs and the skills to perform them have to do with 1%?

Back to the 1% group; if you took the 34 trillion they own and sold it all off (comes to ~ 103,000 per person in a respread over 330M folks), would you send them to school with it, or give it to them to invest, or invest it for them ?

A lot of this 34 trillion is in paper market stock price run-up over the last 5 years, as opposed to durable hard wealth like raw material, land, transportation networks, and an educated and healthy labor force.

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Nearly everyone you list here has already been (to some degree), or can be, or soon will be, automated (or automatable). This is the fact I'm point to. Robotics and AI will soon be able to accomplish nearly everything a human can do. And given how our economic system works, once this is achieve, it is almost inevitable that the less efficient and more costly workers (humans) will be replaced.

Doing this in IT already

It also takes fewer people to build stuff like cars than previously

The step before automation is to chase lower wage locations

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

I totally don't agree, or would not have made the list in the 1st place.

as well and laser measurement tools and GPS just make 'the job' go quicker (or rows of crops straighter), but they don't eliminate the worker,

It won't eliminate the worker entirely and new jobs are likely to arise...but in highway design:
- A survey crew used to be 4 guys and you got a cross section every 50ft. They might do a 1/4 mile per day if it was a simple survey. If they missed something, you had to send them back out.
- Now our survey is generally obtained via LIDAR. They have trucks that can get you a cross section (really a point cloud) every inch or so while running at 55mph down the road. There is a bit of work in post processing but no where near as much.

Of course, since it's available, clients expect more. In the old days, it wasn't uncommon for a signal design to just send a design tech out with a wheel and he would draw something up. Now, a full 3 dimensional survey is expected, subsurface geotechnical survey and everything dimensioned to the nearest tenth of a foot. Honestly, it's kind of silly and a waste 99% of the time.

The real threat to workers is if they have no skills and don't expect to adapt. Low skill jobs are typically the easiest to automate.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

And yet you have access to bankruptcy and Medicare, social security, food stamps etc. Just like them

- Business owners are taking far more risk, so more likely to enter bankruptcy if the business fails. A wage worker is more likely to just move on to a new job if the company fails (and/or collect unemployment).
- Social security depends. If you pull money out of the business as profits (as opposed to wages), it doesn't count toward social security.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Boom and bust are natural bed follows. Those either lucky or well positioned will of course make money on the way up and the way down. Billions will get written off , the system re-establishes itself and growth restarts

More money are made in the booms then are lost in the busts and anyone that does absolutely nothing will make money.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I don't think it's a modern concept...go back to the days of small groups of hunter gatherers...the guy who didn't pull his weight wasn't going to be kept around long...

That's not exactly what the evidence indicates.

A short essay [well described, by the title], from NPR:
"Ancient Bones Offer Clues To How Long Ago Humans Cared For The Vulnerable"
“... the evidence suggests that people in the past devoted significant time and scarce resources to caring for those in need...
... caring for the weak and sick is behavior that goes back as far as Neanderthals...
... From the very earliest times, we can see evidence that people who were unable to function were helped, looked after and given what care was available...”
➥ https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...the-vulnerable

Caring for individuals with diseases may have enabled prehistoric humans to prevent disease transmission, as social networks became more complex, and the threat from socially transmitted diseases increased, according to a study [1] in Scientific Reports.
Care-giving may have been a key element, of the psychological and behavioural traits, that are associated with the success of the human lineage, and the ability to suppress disease spread, may have been fundamental to the evolution of complexity in human societies, the authors conclude.

[1] “Social Structure Facilitated the Evolution of Care-giving as a Strategy for Disease Control in the Human Lineage” ~ by Sharon E. Kessler et al
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-31568-2

Evidence of care for the ill and injured, amongst Neanderthals, inferred through skeletal evidence, for survival from severe illness and injury, is widely accepted.

“Living to fight another day: The ecological and evolutionary significance of Neanderthal healthcare” ~ by Penny Spikins et al
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...77379118305389

“Calculated or caring? Neanderthal healthcare in social context” ~ by Penny Spikins et al
➥ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...3.2018.1433060


As for the, merely, 'lazy freeloader', you may be more correct. I don't know of any way to tell, with any certainty.

[danstanford]

According to some of the reports published here, I could be considered in the 1% though I think I am very far from there in my opinion.

I don't aspire to be in the 1%, simply to be comfortable and free from the money worries in retirement. My businesses are very important to me as are the people who make their living in them so I work hard every day to make them successful.

There have been many times when people have offered their opinion that I worked too hard and that my life would be richer if I spent more time chasing other pursuits as they are/were. Not once did I disagree with them nor do I now. I do however have a problem when they suggest that my wealth should be more fairly distributed to the folks who chose to live their life differently and did not work as hard as I did.

Often in my history what some think is slavish pursuit of unneeded wealth was actually scrambling like hell to keep the wolf away from the door.

[danstanford]

Upwards in this thread have been cases where people suggest that society values some kinds of work improperly and that some are unfairly compensated for their contribution relative to others.

Two of the jobs I saw referenced were lawyers and plastic surgeons. There are lawyers billing at $ 150.00 per hour all the way to over 10 times that much and more. The people who choose to pay the high rates do so in the belief that the result will be commensurate with the skill level or experience of the lawyer in question. The plastic surgeon you choose to work on your face will probably be the most expensive you can afford given your assessment of the importance of skill in the results.

I don't quarrel with the idea that artists or scientists chasing solutions to our climate problems should be compensated more appropriately, I merely point out that the consumers in our society invest their money in what they perceive is the best way to do so.

I once read an article by a sociologist who made a wonderful point about this. They don't need to pay you to do what you love as you will do that for free. They need to pay you to do the rotten jobs and make the hard decisions. I helped hire a college president and the salary we offered the person was about 4 times what I made and well above what anyone else on the committee made. Could we have hired someone for less? Absolutely. In the end the person made some friends inside and outside the organization but every day they made the correct decisions and pushed the organization into a better place for all. Were they worth it?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by danstanford

... I helped hire a college president and the salary we offered the person was about 4 times what I made and well above what anyone else on the committee made. Could we have hired someone for less? Absolutely. In the end the person made some friends inside and outside the organization but every day they made the correct decisions and pushed the organization into a better place for all. Were they worth it?

It's a fair bet, that the college paid the football coach more than the president.