Richest 85 people worth more than bottom half of all 7B of us

[Jaskalas]

We can have better jobs with higher prices...

No, we cannot. Look at China. The world follows cheap labor. That's how you get cheap product. This trend is unstoppable. With automation and robots labor will one day have ZERO value. Most jobs will cease to exist.

Attempting to keep them with higher prices is a non starter.

The solution is to embrace the elimination of jobs. To embrace the absolute lowest price possible. If goods become cheap enough, the government will be able to "afford" to provide for the jobless, of which there will be many.

While the human brain is wired to think more = better, the ultimate solution to the inevitable future may be to redefine society where labor is almost worth nothing. Where automation is king, and we become a Star Trek-esq utopia where the basic needs come free. At no cost, to us or our government.

I understand it's a revolutionary idea, so distant from our historical norms that it's difficult to comprehend or appreciate, but revolution is where we're going. I do not believe fighting to keep things expensive is going to help us. Unemployment will rise no matter what. We need policy which recognizes this, and acts in the best way.

We're heading towards a brave new world. Only we need to get there in one piece, and that will prove most difficult. In times of revolution violence is common. This time especially as the jobless become legion and the solution is opposite of a life time of training. They want money to solve their problems, but it's the elimination of money that will see us through this.

Ask yourself if you're ready to appreciate such a world, if you can comprehend its necessity? Are you ready?

 

[Engineer]

No, we cannot. Look at China. The world follows cheap labor. That's how you get cheap product. This trend is unstoppable. With automation and robots labor will one day have ZERO value. Most jobs will cease to exist.

Attempting to keep them with higher prices is a non starter.

The solution is to embrace the elimination of jobs. To embrace the absolute lowest price possible. If goods become cheap enough, the government will be able to "afford" to provide for the jobless, of which there will be many.

While the human brain is wired to think more = better, the ultimate solution to the inevitable future may be to redefine society where labor is almost worth nothing. Where automation is king, and we become a Star Trek-esq utopia where the basic needs come free. At no cost, to us or our government.

I understand it's a revolutionary idea, so distant from our historical norms that it's difficult to comprehend or appreciate, but revolution is where we're going. I do not believe fighting to keep things expensive is going to help us. Unemployment will rise no matter what. We need policy which recognizes this, and acts in the best way.

We're heading towards a brave new world. Only we need to get there in one piece, and that will prove most difficult. In times of revolution violence is common. This time especially as the jobless become legion and the solution is opposite of a life time of training. They want money to solve their problems, but it's the elimination of money that will see us through this.

Ask yourself if you're ready to appreciate such a world, if you can comprehend its necessity? Are you ready?

Sounds to me that you're OK with the government taking more and more from those that do work and provide more and more to those that cannot (or will not). I've got a big can of LOL for you on that one.

I would rather have good jobs here and people taking care of themselves.

What you describe sounds quite a bit like full blown socialism.

 

[Rakehellion]

No, trickle down doesn't work because the rich aren't going to give a dime unless they have to. As for shipping job out, fuck that. Let them fix their own economies. Instead, we are ripping our own foundation out (lower and middle class jobs) and at some point, the building will fall.

So you don't care about the poor, you just care about yourself. Which is the same as rich people, only they aren't expecting handouts.

 

[Engineer]

So you don't care about the poor, you just care about yourself. Which is the same as rich people, only they aren't expecting handouts.

I'm pro USA, period. You can see it any way you want. Won't hurt my feeling one little bit.

 

[jhu]

Sounds to me that you're OK with the government taking more and more from those that do work and provide more and more to those that cannot (or will not). I've got a big can of LOL for you on that one.

I would rather have good jobs here and people taking care of themselves.

What you describe sounds quite a bit like full blown socialism.

In a world of android labor, where the androids are smarter and don't need sleep, who needs human labor? This will happen eventually.

 

[Rakehellion]

I'm pro USA, period. You can see it any way you want. Won't hurt my feeling one little bit.

But it sounds like you're pro communism.

 

[Engineer]

In a world of android labor, where the androids are smarter and don't need sleep, who needs human labor? This will happen eventually.

Until the androids start to compute that 'who needs humans' instead of 'who needs human labor'.

 

[Engineer]

But it sounds like you're pro communism.

Not sure how you get that but OK. When the US worker is competing against subsidized foreign workers who are run by their governments and on top of that, throw in 'unfair' free trade pacts that work a one way street....all at the benefit of the: A) Mostly rich here who export jobs out of the country to those countries to make even more money and B) Said other governments.

What amazes me is that people push for 'globalization' and 'cheap products' yet complain when the government has to step in (because the people who offshored the jobs won't) and subsidize the people who can no longer afford to live, much less advance, because the only job that they have left is a McService McJob. But I forgot, the people who bitch want the lower prices but want the people who lost the jobs to pound sand. They can all be college graduate engineers in no time flat....just go to school and everyone can be at the top.

(one word...heh).

 

[Rakehellion]

Not sure how you get that but OK.

You want the rich to give you handouts until you have the style of life you prefer.

 

[Engineer]

You want the rich to give you handouts until you have the style of life you prefer.

If the rich keep sending the jobs out and lowering the rest, it will happen one way or another. People just don't follow history well enough to see what's going to happen, I suppose.

Edit: Legenkiller just posted this in P&N....an outstanding post.

Raising the minimum wage won't do shit to solve inequality. The answers are pretty simple.

1. Tax capital gains, no matter the source, as regular income.

2. Enact a reciprocal trade policy with all major "partners". That means that if there are any actions to make our goods more expensive, less available, or less competitive in the foreign market then we will do the same with their goods. Furthermore, any country that pegs their currency to the USD below a market derived price, then there will be tariffs put on those goods equivalent to the difference between the depressed and derived price.

3. Stop all payments, subsidies and medical care to illegal aliens without cash upfront. Tighten the border and deport all criminal illegal aliens for any infraction, even running a red light. Enforce illegal alien punishments rigorously and have them ratchet up for each successive infraction.

4. All welfare is mandated to be workfare past a certain period of time (2-3 years). If you want to stay on the dole, you work. No exceptions. Enact a CCC/TVA type program and have them refurbish national parks and build stuff.

Those four changes would be titanic in proportion to all of the other bullshit being peddled. None of the idiotic "fixes" being suggested by any of the blowhards will fix the issue.

Taxing income as income, homesourcing jobs, getting rid of graft and making people work (and gain pride in their work) is what needs to be done.

Of course the problems and solutions are far more complex and numerous but the above 4 would be a huge start.

 

[KeithP]

The problem will never be solved because too many people believe the only way to get more money is to have the government get it for them. As long as that is the prevailing mentality there is no hope.

...and yeah, clearly a P&N thread.

-KeithP

 

[destrekor]

When there are people starving, what a monumental waste it would be to spend money to go to Mars. Nothing is more wasteful than the space program. "New technology blah blah" Nonesense. We can discover new technology plenty without actually going anywhere. Just the research itself it what matters.

You're one of those fools who says "Space Program? What a waste of money!" yet has absolutely zero idea of how LITTLE the Space Program (in the USA), actually gets.

Are you kidding me?

Do you feel we should also go ahead and cut back on spending for NOAA?
How about NIST? USGS? NIH? Countless others?

Seriously?

Let me guess - you're also one of those conservatives who says the Defense budget should be larger.


A large portion of government spending programs absolutely eclipse the budget of NASA. You could take 1% off the top of many department budgets, put it all together, and not only preserve NASA, but also suddenly have a pile of money much larger than NASA's budget.


You don't get it, because you must rarely exercise that mound of tissue between your ears, so let me explain why a space program budget is important: we have to conduct this work, not just to learn about new things, but to investigate what opportunities we can actually start planning for 20-40, 100 years down the road. Science budgets like this usually involve a fair bit of long-term planning (something much of the government is incapable of handling, so it's actually surprising NASA can do it at all). If we don't invest in our civilization's future, if we fail to plan for the future, and if we don't investigate what routes and alternatives we'll have regarding habitation, then we might as well just throw everything away as it is.

Through what research NASA and the other scientific research departments do, separately or together, they can help determine what options we have in the future. BASED on those discoveries, they can determine what research needs to be conducted now. They can plan for what kind of technology and science we'll need to further prepare for, or understand, something in the future.
It's never a linear system of input to output, but it's incredibly crucial to not only the progress and future of mankind, but also the success of the U.S.. Our science is miserable, and that truly has devastating impacts on our economy and potentially our own future.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy_of_the_United_States

 

[Atomic Playboy]

But I don't understand why those in poverty choose to have children.

From a biological perspective, there's only one goal in life; survive long enough to pass on your genes. We may think that we're logical creatures, but we're driven by natural urges. We don't eat because we know we need a certain amount of nutrients to fuel our body, we eat because our body tells us we're hungry. We drink because our body tells us we're thirsty. Our core biological processes happen without us having to think about them in the slightest. And reproduction, as much as we'd like to think of it as a logical choice, really is just another function of biology. I used to think it was a matter of choice (and it obviously is to a certain extent), but I've also seen a number of people who weren't in the most financially stable situation decide that they needed a baby RIGHT NOW. It has nothing to do with welfare, it's a basic biological desire that's fundamental to life, and it's not governed by the same logic that one would apply to buying a car, for example.

One thing is for sure; the second you try to restrict anyone's ability to have basic biological functions based on their level of affluence, you end up with violent revolt. Starving people will kill you to stay alive. Thirsty people will kill you to stay alive. If someone wants to have babies and you tell them they're too poor? They're going to do it anyway, and they will kill you if you try to stop them. You can't control biology through the rationale of economics.

 

[destrekor]

Not sure how you get that but OK. When the US worker is competing against subsidized foreign workers who are run by their governments and on top of that, throw in 'unfair' free trade pacts that work a one way street....all at the benefit of the: A) Mostly rich here who export jobs out of the country to those countries to make even more money and B) Said other governments.

What amazes me is that people push for 'globalization' and 'cheap products' yet complain when the government has to step in (because the people who offshored the jobs won't) and subsidize the people who can no longer afford to live, much less advance, because the only job that they have left is a McService McJob. But I forgot, the people who bitch want the lower prices but want the people who lost the jobs to pound sand. They can all be college graduate engineers in no time flat....just go to school and everyone can be at the top.

(one word...heh).

Your post, and especially the later post with the quoted LegendKiller post, I agree with.

That said, the bolded should be clarified.

Some people, like myself, believe globalization (too generic of a word to depict what one is looking for) is indeed in our best interests. That said, the globalization in my opinion should be a standing government with consistent and fair regulatory policies that protect trade and local/regional economies.

Other than that, budgets and the actual work for most R&D should be pooled onto the global stage, with the best minds cooperating the world over, not solely researching for their own home turf.

 

[manimal]

From a biological perspective, there's only one goal in life; survive long enough to pass on your genes. We may think that we're logical creatures, but we're driven by natural urges. We don't eat because we know we need a certain amount of nutrients to fuel our body, we eat because our body tells us we're hungry. We drink because our body tells us we're thirsty. Our core biological processes happen without us having to think about them in the slightest. And reproduction, as much as we'd like to think of it as a logical choice, really is just another function of biology. I used to think it was a matter of choice (and it obviously is to a certain extent), but I've also seen a number of people who weren't in the most financially stable situation decide that they needed a baby RIGHT NOW. It has nothing to do with welfare, it's a basic biological desire that's fundamental to life, and it's not governed by the same logic that one would apply to buying a car, for example.

One thing is for sure; the second you try to restrict anyone's ability to have basic biological functions based on their level of affluence, you end up with violent revolt. Starving people will kill you to stay alive. Thirsty people will kill you to stay alive. If someone wants to have babies and you tell them they're too poor? They're going to do it anyway, and they will kill you if you try to stop them. You can't control biology through the rationale of economics.

China's One child policy has been proven to be a horrible failure and will affect china for generations. I am surprised they didnt revolt again but after the cultural revolution there werent many people who could fight or organize left.

 

[Engineer]

Followup explanation by Legendkiller in P&N...again, a fantastic post.

The problem isn't taking from the rich, it is incentivizing them to spend the money elsewhere.

Why would an executive ask for $20mm/yr if the last 10mm of that was taxed at 70%? The executive will work just as hard for $10mm as he does for $20mm because $10mm is still a fuck-ton of money.

Taxing cap gains gets rid of the problem of options and stock benefits.

Why do you think companies are buying back so much stock at this point? Because cap gains taxes are cheaper than income taxes, so why pay dividends?

The whole thing is about motivation, remove motivation and they are either forced to pay dividends (and thus taxes) or invest the money in more people, spurring growth.

 

[rh71]

The rich only want to get richer - it's like an addiction. Watch One Percent on Netflix, documented by the grandson of the Johnson & Johnson company founder. None of his relatives wanted him to do it but he did it. Another good one is Park Avenue. It details how even politicians who have legislative power are easily coerced by the wealthy individuals or corporations who fund them. Money === power.

We have a democratic system to vote in politicians who aren't even the ones in control. And peons like us still bicker over which party is better. Much like local issues like unions and school boards, until something is done to change HOW things are decided, nothing will actually change.

 

[Thermalzeal]

What's scary is this is reported wealth, if you count swiss banks, adding the 15 wealthiest unreported would take away another few billion.

 

[Jaskalas]

Sounds to me that you're OK with the government taking more and more from those that do work and provide more and more to those that cannot (or will not). I've got a big can of LOL for you on that one.

I'm presenting a look at the possible next step in human sociology / economics. Yet you are blinded by how things work today. Today the government taxes to provide, because labor still has a cost. Eliminate 99% of that cost, and the legion of jobless will be provided for at almost no expense.

This is not "taking" or "stealing" from anyone, to provide that which is in abundance. Or that which has no cost or value. We trap ourselves into thinking prices must rise, but that will not help us provide for the jobless. To truly strike poverty from this world we must embrace cheap labor. We must turn our world upside down.

Perhaps one day a machine will take your job and then you can appreciate the idea. That the things you need to survive can be provided freely. The cheaper labor becomes, the fewer we will have employed. Yet the easier it will be to provide for them.

I look at this as an inevitability.

I would rather have good jobs here and people taking care of themselves.

You cannot give a "living wage" job to everyone. As automation increases the unemployment number will rise. Labor will be worth less. This you cannot stop.

1: We buy cheap product.
2: Which requires cheaper labor.
3: Which eliminates jobs.

If you think you can change that, feel free to let us know how.

What you describe sounds quite a bit like full blown socialism.

A term to describe the old world in which labor still had value.

People should be free to rise above the level of care provided, but make no mistake we provide for the jobless today. In the future I expect to see them outweigh the working. That will lead to ruin unless the cost of providing for them is eliminated by cheap labor / cheap product.

You realize the poor / jobless have to be provided for, right?

 

[Mai72]

The rich own us. I will bow to my rich superiors.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Sounds to me that you're OK with the government taking more and more from those that do work and provide more and more to those that cannot (or will not). I've got a big can of LOL for you on that one.

I would rather have good jobs here and people taking care of themselves.

What you describe sounds quite a bit like full blown socialism.

But in the distant future when human labor has zero value, and robots,computers do all the work we get to live a utopian life.

Imagine humans no longer having to work, everyone gets free stuff thanks to our future robot and computer slaves working for us.

We would just get a check from the government and live a relaxed sweat free life. How can this be bad? What is wrong with you?

 

[blinblue]

Keep in mind with these sorts of statistics that something like 25% of households in the US have a negative net worth. So that means a beggar in a third world country with a penny in their pocket (and no debt) has a higher net worth than many Americans. So obviously just talking about net worth isn't always a useful measure. So congratulations, if you have a positive net worth, you are already wealthier than 25% of Americans

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Followup explanation by Legendkiller in P&N...again, a fantastic post.

I like it in that it's somewhat outside the box alternative, something other than "the government is evil and we need to let the market decide", which would be us becoming Mexico, and "The government will rescue us because they know just what to do" which means providing a tanker sized clown car stuffed full of people who have no real clue even more control for dubious programs.

First thing is that we need to prioritize. Who do we look after first? What we cannot do is raise everyone at once.

Assuming that we take on reform of the US first if for no other reason than one cannot get everyone else's house in order unless yours is set up properly.

The idea of taxing isn't particularly appealing on it's own because while it's awfully appealing to punish those who are making a lot of money it in no way corrects anything at all. You give more money to those who have no idea of what to do with it other than pander and fumble. That doesn't seem the wisest course of action. Somehow we need more control over those both in the government/bureaucracy and the unaccountable of the boardroom.

I haven't time to go over the several layers of reform I view as needed and ways to go about them, but I will at some point. The take home message I wish to give is that no solution in itself is sufficient. There needs to be a holistic approach, because like health care, revamping the economy is an exceeding complex task which needs to have interactions and unintended consequences understood be kept foremost in mind when formulating potential solutions.

 

[JMapleton]

You're one of those fools who says "Space Program? What a waste of money!" yet has absolutely zero idea of how LITTLE the Space Program (in the USA), actually gets.

Are you kidding me?

Do you feel we should also go ahead and cut back on spending for NOAA?
How about NIST? USGS? NIH? Countless others?

Seriously?

Let me guess - you're also one of those conservatives who says the Defense budget should be larger.


A large portion of government spending programs absolutely eclipse the budget of NASA. You could take 1% off the top of many department budgets, put it all together, and not only preserve NASA, but also suddenly have a pile of money much larger than NASA's budget.

You completely ignored what I said. Currently the NASA is funded fairly. I was referring to a manned mission to Mars, which would require a massive increase in NASA's budget. That is what would be a waste.

Furthermore, I do not support a larger defense budget. Our defense budget not only makes us hated around the world by encouraging military adventurism, making it unsafe for us, but also will be the financial downfall of this country.

 

[destrekor]

You completely ignored what I said. Currently the NASA is funded fairly. I was referring to a manned mission to Mars, which would require a massive increase in NASA's budget. That is what would be a waste.

Doesn't matter - I assumed that may have been part of your reasoning, and I still challenge your assertion that it would be a waste.


Preparing for a manned mission to Mars requires R&D, already fully underway to some degree, in a few parts of the world no less.
You can't NOT have the objective of landing humans on Mars, and still get the same technology and scientific knowledge. Either you budget and plan for such feats, and start developing everything you can as current knowledge allows, or you do none of that.
You said the R&D could still occur without the actual trip.
The actual trip is actually a drop in the bucket compared to the R&D that leads up to it, sometimes for decades.

You entirely miss the point about everything regarding a focus on STEM and government-conducted or government-sponsored (grants) research.

Hell, we owe our thanks regarding the internet to an inflated DoD budget. And we our what progress NASA has made to the entire concept of one-upping another military power with military vehicles essentially dressed up and repainted as space launch vehicles [the rockets, not the Orbiters or Apollo modules. Funny note on the Orbiters: Russia thought it HAD to have a military purpose, and went through the hassle of getting what info they could and building two themselves, to discover it would be terrible at orbital weapon deployment and one of the least cost-effective ways to do anything of the sort, and promptly let their Buran orbiters essentially collect rust. The Buran with engines/rockets actually looked cooler too.]