PDA

View Full Version : ideal wealth disribution for capitalistic society



TimH
12-14-2010, 03:16 PM
What scenario is better for a capitalistic society to flourish and why?

1) Fairly even distribution of wealth (ie large middle class, small upper and lower classes)

2) high concentration of wealth at the very top with most of the population being lower class.

3) something else.

S.V. Airlie
12-14-2010, 03:23 PM
You assume that the wealth will be static. Someone will lose it or gain it. The question can't be answered.

Ian McColgin
12-14-2010, 03:33 PM
Actually, static is a concentration of wealth. If most is in the middle, there will be a good deal of movement within the middle and some from middle to lower or middle to top. Very dynamic because people have stuff to trade.

oznabrag
12-14-2010, 03:34 PM
I think your poll has a faulty premise.

Wealth in an unregulated laissez-faire capitalist economy will always end up in the hands of a very few. It's the nature of the beast.

S.V. Airlie
12-14-2010, 03:35 PM
Agreed with you Ian. I said the author of the thread has to assume its static.

Ian McColgin
12-14-2010, 03:52 PM
Tim did not address the issue of regulation. A society that starts off unregulated capitalistic will turn into some sort of oligarchy, but a society that values fair competition and regulated accordingly need not. Sorta like if you want to play baseball with with rules or without.

I dimly remember from studying statistics a wonderful tool called the gini index which essentially is a distribution measure of anything you might quantify - really a ratio between two curves. As applied to income distribution it's a handy reference point for how widely or narrowly income is distributed. It's not by itself a full measure of income equity and if done by coarse increments may exagerate equity, but it's a nifty start. Also, the gini curve does not fully reflect social opportunity and distribution. For example, a feudal society (adjust notions of income and ownership) looks pretty equitable at one level because everyone is living without central heat and there's not much to buy, but the social mores hold people locked in. Still, it's as demoralizing to look at the US gini index against other developed nations as it is to look at US morbidities against nations with national health.

Dan McCosh
12-14-2010, 04:07 PM
Concentration of wealth is not really the issue--it is where it is concentrated. A functioning capitalistic society ought to have large amounts of wealth concentrated in productive industry, as opposed to junk bond sales. All wealth is not equal.

leikec
12-14-2010, 04:12 PM
Concentration of wealth is not really the issue--it is where it is concentrated. A functioning capitalistic society ought to have large amounts of wealth concentrated in productive industry, as opposed to junk bond sales. All wealth is not equal.


Like the joke about the bustling Russian factory back in the 1960's...three shifts making signs that said "No Food Today".

Jeff C

TimH
12-14-2010, 05:22 PM
You assume that the wealth will be static. Someone will lose it or gain it. The question can't be answered.

For the sake of this poll lets assume its static.

Peerie Maa
12-14-2010, 05:52 PM
For the sake of this poll lets assume its static.

Share the wealth out equally. There is no other possible answer for the ideal wealth distribution in a static system, anything else would be unjust.

genglandoh
12-14-2010, 05:55 PM
I believe in letting individuals create their own wealth.
We should not stack the deck for or against anyone (rich or poor)

So your question does not make any sense to me.

Power to the people.

TimH
12-14-2010, 07:49 PM
There are only so many dollars to go around.

Milo Christensen
12-14-2010, 08:27 PM
There are only so many dollars to go around.

Is it that the total money supply became fixed when Nixon unhooked the dollar from the gold standard?

htom
12-14-2010, 09:11 PM
The economy is not a zero-sum game. We've tinkered so much with the tax law in this country that it's ceased to be a joke. Toss it ALL and start fresh, preferably with something simple enough to do on a single sheet of A4 paper, using a business or scientific calculator. Everyone pays, if only a dollar. No withholding. No quarterly payments.

TimH
12-14-2010, 09:59 PM
Is it that the total money supply became fixed when Nixon unhooked the dollar from the gold standard?

No Milo, if you were to get a good job (like a multimillion dollar CEO position) they print more money especially for you. The rest of our money becomes worth less, but hey, you are worth it.

David G
12-14-2010, 10:12 PM
There is no IDEAL distribution.

In the normal, healthy, course of things - it fluctuates. As a nation, we've tended historically to drift toward laissez-faire capitalism. Then, as we swing too far in that direction - the excesses are recognized (or - if we let it go too far - a big bubble bursts) and we pull in the reins. We react by enforcing more regulation and a larger social component. That's just the way we tend to operate.

At one end of the spectrum the income differential tends to become flattened. At the other end of the spectrum the income differential tends to become more pronounced.

Neither of those... or anywhere in the normal spectrum... can be called "ideal". They're all fine - given the circumstances extant.

The time when it becomes dysfunctional is when the pendulum swings too far out of it's normal arc at either end. Right now - we've swing too far toward de-regulation. Corporations have an imbalance of power. They've bought too many politicians, and are striving mightily to impose a stay and/or an over-swing toward this end of the spectrum. They're doing a mighty good job at the moment. The problem is... the market WILL correct itself. The further out of whack it is, the more violent and unpleasant the correction. And... meantime... the politics and the sociology can get correspondingly out of whack. The comment about the Medici might be a bit overblown... but not a large bit. Parallels to Weimar Germany can also be drawn.

Milo Christensen
12-14-2010, 10:43 PM
I'm not in this discussion, Tim, to go into wealth inequity. I'm opposed to the concept you've imposed on the discussion that total wealth is somehow static and that there's only so much money to go around. This is so obviously incorrect that it throws into question your ability to debate/discuss the effect of wealth creators. Take somebody who could have been you, Bill Gates, he's wealthy, he has created an unbelievable number of jobs and spinoff jobs, all these people working create wealth, the more that work, the more productive they all are, the more wealth there is. There's no limit to how much wealth the wealth creators can create.

TimH
12-14-2010, 11:01 PM
Bill Gates is wealthy because lots of people have purchased Microsoft software. In order to do this they spend money from their limited supply of money. To buy this software they made the sacrifice of not purchasing something else or not saving as much. Bill Gates didnt "create" his wealth out of thin air. A far as my ability to discuss economics, I dont claim to be an expert. I did get straight A's in every economics course i took in college though. It is just basic common sense (or so I thought).

You can be 100% productive and work 24hrs a day. It doesnt mean squat unless you can convince someone else to pay you for your time.

You say you "are opposed to the concept" like its a religion or belief system of some sort.

Keith Wilson
12-14-2010, 11:15 PM
Wealth is certainly not zero-sum.

Half of the wealthiest 1% of people in the US did not make their money, they inherited it.

Gini indexes for various countries snce WWII:

http://rwer.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/gini-international.png

TimH
12-15-2010, 12:22 AM
Any wealth Bill Gates "created" he created by collecting from Americans purchasing software. Microsoft has since been in trouble for making its contractors work like full time employees without benefits. These days if you contract at Microsoft you are required to take three months off every year so you cant be confused with full time employees (with unemployment benefits, insurance, etc). After squeezing every penny from its contractors and employees (sweatshop) the only thing left was to invest heavily in India.
It is Bill Gates that cried and whined about the shortage of software developers in the US and thus he need to increase the number of H1B1 visas. They actually installed laundry facilities at Microsoft so its employes couldnt use laundry as an excuse to have to go home instead of working six billion hurs a week (no joke).

"The Programmers Guild, a professional society, also criticizes Gates for facilitating the erosion of U.S. competitiveness by using the H1-B program to "train a critical mass of foreign workers within the U.S." and then using "these workers to establish overseas operations."

If anyone can "create" wealth it would be Bill Gates. If he were actualy "creating" wealth he wouldnt have such a problem hiring American workers. He isnt creating wealth, he is redistributing it. Instead of hiring fellow Americasn he is going through great pains to invest offshore. Microsofts customer base is not in India or China. They arent the ones who made him rich.

L.W. Baxter
12-15-2010, 12:35 AM
Tim, if wealth can't be created, where did all the wealth in existence today come from?

People from the olden times must have had killer portfolios.

gilberj
12-15-2010, 01:40 AM
I'd say the goal is constantly shifting, depending on a everything from the weather to political changes. We are not in the right place now. 50 years ago an average man could support a family, (not suggesting women should return to the hearth). An average man cannot really do this now. The economy has grown exponentially but the vast majority of people are not as well off as during the '60's. There has been a massive shift of wealth, and political power to the top few percentile of the population.
The politics have tended to favor the well to do. The higher paying (value added) jobs are slowly being shipped offshore, and being replaced with much lower paying service oriented ( not value added) jobs. There are still enough of us doing well to hide the desperation of those that have been flushed down the toilet of global economics. I am not really proposing a return to protection and continuing to subsidize poor or inefficient operations, rather than slowing or examining economic trends and to consider the well being of the greater society as being part of the equation.
Adam Smith who more or less invented the concept of capitalism, advised that if you have a growing disadvantaged class either in numbers of people, or in the level of disadvantage you have problem.
I note that after the US Government bailed out the financial sector the first thing the bankers did was pay bonuses to the very people who had screwed up. I wish I could get a substantial bonus for screwing up, I could retire............

TimH
12-15-2010, 02:15 AM
Tim, if wealth can't be created, where did all the wealth in existence today come from?

It came from the accumulatin of money. The money was accumuated by buying low, selling high.

Originally from bartering things, then people came up with a standard (otherwise worthless) medium to trade for the goods and services.

wealth concentrates in when someone figures out a way to create a good or service with demand. As long as they can get others to pay more for this good or service than it cost to make wealth accumulates. if you can pervent competition from creating the same good or service (patent and copyright laws), then you can charge even more for the good or service, thus creating more wealth.

http://www.netmba.com/images/econ/micro/supply-demand/supplydemand.gif

Every single person that purchases your good or service gives up part of their wealth and gives it to you. They become poorer and you become richer.


Economics is a fascinating subject and was one of my favorites. Lots of web sites out there explain in whatever level of detail you want the elasticity of supply and demand, etc.

skuthorp
12-15-2010, 07:04 AM
If you follow capitalist logic to it's ultimate development all property, wealth and capital would be owned by one entity. One person/corporation or whatever and then what? They sell to themselves of course, they do now. Of course like the price of things escalating forever it doesn't happen that way. There are reset points like wars and depressions except that the nation state socialises the losses now, the pollies have their snouts in the same trough. But states fall too.

Peerie Maa
12-15-2010, 07:38 AM
It came from the accumulatin of money. The money was accumuated by buying low, selling high.

TimH,
Do you, or did you earn your living by moving money around, or by designing, making or moving product around?

If the latter, working with a product, the act of creation, or moving it to where it was needed added value. That creates wealth. You may have been creating this wealth that we are discussing.

Ian McColgin
12-15-2010, 08:52 AM
The nice thing about Gini is that it measures distribution in large economies, small economies, dynamic economies, static economies, whatever. That's why I mentioned it's not the only measure of a healthy economy. Still, if you have a growing dynamic economy where the Gini stays around 30, then you know that while there are rich people, there are also a majority of all the people sharing in the expanding wealth.

George.
12-15-2010, 09:06 AM
Gini indexes for various countries snce WWII:

http://rwer.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/gini-international.png

We are Number One!! :D

Actually, that chart is a bit unfair, since it appears to end in the year 2000, or 2 B.L. (Before Lula).

BTW, what's the Gini index for the world as a whole?

TimH
12-15-2010, 12:19 PM
TimH,
Do you, or did you earn your living by moving money around, or by designing, making or moving product around?

If the latter, working with a product, the act of creation, or moving it to where it was needed added value. That creates wealth. You may have been creating this wealth that we are discussing.

I made my living creating things, hard and then soft goods. The creation of the products created no wealth in of itself. Somebody gave me a small portion of their limited resources in order to aquire my created products. I, in turn, spent my limited resources on other items, house, boat, etc.

Somewhere Americans got the idea that their resources were infinite and they could forever save money by purchasing the cheapest Chinese junk they could find instead of quality American products. American companies all going out of business? No big deal, we will just create more wealth to compensate for the wealth that we have bestowed upon China.


No matter how I look at it 2 + 2 = 4

the only way you can get 4 - 1 = 5 is to play a shell game like we have been seeing.


Since I got laid off I work just as hard as ever, nobody is paying me for it though. The last remainder of my wealth is going to the bank in the form of house payments. Once that is gone if I have not yet found a way to replenish that wealth (find someone to give me part of their wealth in exchange for goods or services) then the house goes back to the bank as well.

For the life of me I dont see how people think they can create wealth out of mid air and not need others to give them part of their wealth.

Obviously something i missed in my studies. I took a few economics classes, many math courses (through engineering calc 3). I even took a calculus course specific to business. I totally missed the part on how to gain wealth without having to have someone give you some of theirs in exchange for goods or services.

But then wait! Wasnt there an infomercial on this?...hmm. all these get rich quick schemes have warped everyones mind.

paul oman
12-15-2010, 12:36 PM
From the settlers of the American continent in the 1600s - to 20th cent USSR and even modern China and Cuba - uniform/level incomes have shown they don't work. No incentive for worker a bit harder or even working at all.

Wealth and success is found by filling a need - why bother doing that if there is only risk but no reward?

FOR YOUR INFORMATION - many home businesses fail because the the person is doing what he wants/likes and not what the market wants or needs...

Ian McColgin
12-15-2010, 12:36 PM
At any given moment, any closed economic entity has some measurable capital at hand, be it resourses, products, treasure, or human. In that context, 2 + 3 = 5. However, economies are not snap-shots, but rather are almost always growing or shrinking. In a growth phase, humans really do make more total capital somehow, usually at heart from some sort of natural resourse that was capital only in potential before exploitation or, if a used resourse, more creative exploitation. The steady-state-dynamic economy that would be a sort of ecotopia remains an un-understood un-realized dream.

In other words, in life it's never 2 + 3 = 5 but more like either 2 divided by 3 is 2/3 or 2 x 3 = 6.

How's that for a slick turn of the usual analogy?

TimH
12-15-2010, 12:54 PM
Wealth and success is found by filling a need - why bother doing that if there is only risk but no reward?



Exactly true. That is precisely WHY the concentration of wealth is a bad thing and the lack of national health care is a bad thing.

Would I have gone back to school at 36 and earned my BS in computer science if I knew that after spending four years of hard work and tens of thousands of dollars I would be unemployed and living with the prospect of losing my house? Hell no. I would have saved the money and spent the time doing something else.

In order to be motivated to work full time and go to school at the same time there has to be some prospect of financial reward.

there were two new software engineer positions on craigslist yesterday. One said it paid $17hr and the other $18hr - not even enough to make my house payment.

If you look on the state website it lists the average pay for a software engineer as $38hr. That is why I invested all my efforts in school, to get part of that pie. Unfortunately the pie got shipped to India and now US wages are sinking quickly to meet rising India wages. They will probably meet somewhere south of $12hr.
Obviously my investment in education was not a very good investment.

Its an unlevel playing field except for the uber rich.

John Smith
12-15-2010, 01:25 PM
Distriburtion is, IMO, a poor term. Money needs to keep circulating within our society. It will always trickle up to the wealthy; those who take the chances to start businesses or invent something, etc. It can, however, only continue trickly up if there is a system in place to pump it back down to the middle class, so they can spend it, and it can trickle up again; constantly circulating.

Money that leaves this country or simply parks in a bank account no longer circulates.

When the upper tax rates were 90%, we had wealthy people and a thriving middle class. It's my understanding that in order to avoid the 90% tax rates, the people in that bracket put there money places where they got tax relief, and most of those places created jobs for America's middle class.

When the upper tax rates were sufficiently cut, the people in those brackets found other ways to play with their money, and that led us to where we are now.

John Smith
12-15-2010, 01:29 PM
Tim, if wealth can't be created, where did all the wealth in existence today come from?

People from the olden times must have had killer portfolios.
That's really a fascinating question. When I visited the glass museum in Corning NY, they had a small stone that was allegedly from the BC years and had sold for a price equivilant to the wages of 100,000 soldiers. How they would know this, I have no idea, but wealth people have certainly been a part of life for an awfully long time.

Peerie Maa
12-15-2010, 01:38 PM
I made my living creating things, hard and then soft goods. The creation of the products created no wealth in of itself. Somebody gave me a small portion of their limited resources in order to aquire my created products. I, in turn, spent my limited resources on other items, house, boat, etc.


By creating things you were adding value to your raw materials. The value that you added is new wealth. That is the process of creating wealth. The selling of the product is the process where by your new wealth was circulated around the economy.
Don't confuse money with wealth. Money is what we used to keep count, but has no intrinsic value.

TimH
12-15-2010, 01:46 PM
Distriburtion is, IMO, a poor term. Money needs to keep circulating within our society. It will always trickle up to the wealthy; those who take the chances to start businesses or invent something, etc. It can, however, only continue trickly up if there is a system in place to pump it back down to the middle class, so they can spend it, and it can trickle up again; constantly circulating.

Money that leaves this country or simply parks in a bank account no longer circulates.

When the upper tax rates were 90%, we had wealthy people and a thriving middle class. It's my understanding that in order to avoid the 90% tax rates, the people in that bracket put there money places where they got tax relief, and most of those places created jobs for America's middle class.

When the upper tax rates were sufficiently cut, the people in those brackets found other ways to play with their money, and that led us to where we are now.

it seems so simple, yet so many dont seem to see it. Either that or they just dont want to see it. Or they see it but dont want to believe. Like Milo said " I am opposed to the concept".

varadero
12-15-2010, 02:00 PM
This is where the wealth is created, Globalisation an the meta physics of control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOLfGUKX8EE
Its a cartoon and quite simple.

TimH
12-15-2010, 02:07 PM
By creating things you were adding value to your raw materials. The value that you added is new wealth. That is the process of creating wealth. The selling of the product is the process where by your new wealth was circulated around the economy.
Don't confuse money with wealth. Money is what we used to keep count, but has no intrinsic value.


But money is what we use to keep score of wealth, wealth is the measure of the monetary or exchange value of these things. These values are constantly changing. I guess you could say that the dollar (or pound or whatever) is a "unit" of wealth measurement.

I disagree that the value added to raw materials by working them into a product is wealth in of itself though. It is potential wealth, but not yet wealth. A product is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it (ie. what they are willing to give up for it).

Wrangling electrons into software is is an example of creating a product that has zero value unless someone is willing to pay for it. you cannot even sell it for scrap.

If the whole of Microsoft decides to toil 18hrs a day 7 days a week writing Windows applications, but everyone on the planet uses a Mac or Linux the value (and potential value) of all those Windows apps would be zero. The amount of wealth created would also be zero, even if millions of lones of code are created. if anything the net present value of creating all those apps would be negative because of the opportunity cost.

It is the ever changing supply and demand that dictate the value of things and thus the potential wealth of those who control the things.

Peerie Maa
12-15-2010, 02:23 PM
I think that you are violently agreeing with me.

But money is what we use to keep score of wealth, wealth is the measure of the monetary or exchange value of these things. These values are constantly changing. I guess you could say that the dollar (or pound or whatever) is a "unit" of wealth measurement.
Money is what we used to keep count, but has no intrinsic value.

I disagree that the value added to raw materials by working them into a product is wealth in of itself though. It is potential wealth, but not yet wealth. semantics
A product is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it (ie. what they are willing to give up for it).

Wrangling electrons into software is is an example of creating a product that has zero value unless someone is willing to pay for it. you cannot even sell it for scrap.
If the whole of Microsoft decides to toil 18hrs a day 7 days a week writing Windows applications, but everyone on the planet uses a Mac or Linux the value (and potential value) of all those Windows apps would be zero. The amount of wealth created would also be zero, even if millions of lones of code are created. if anything the net present value of creating all those apps would be negative because of the opportunity cost.

Red herring. Apart from making things for the pleasure of it (hobby work) we all work at stuff our customers want, or we soon stop and do something else.


It is the ever changing supply and demand that dictate the value of things and thus the potential wealth of those who control the things.
Another red herring. You agree that wealth has been created, you just wish to argue about what value to put on the new wealth.

Dan McCosh
12-15-2010, 02:24 PM
This seems to confuse wealth and money. Wealth is the product itself. Money is the value placed on that product. It is quite easy to be wealthy (say having lots of food), but no money. (The surplus means nobody is willing to pay much for it.) You still have lots to eat. No food, and you are hungry. It is kind of tough to eat software, however. That is the downside to a service economy.

TimH
12-15-2010, 02:31 PM
Well the whole premise of wealth and money are that they are scarce resources. That is what gives them value. if one could simply conjure wealth out of thin air it wouldnt have value now would it?

The greater the sacrifice people are willing to make to get what you have the greater your potential wealth. The key issue here is something has to be sacrificed in order to gain something else. Thats what gives value. If everyone just starts creating wealth without sacrificing something then that wealth is not worth much. It sounds good on late nite TV, but its not real.

Dan McCosh
12-15-2010, 02:50 PM
Well the whole premise of wealth and money are that they are scarce resources. That is what gives them value. if one could simply conjure wealth out of thin air it wouldnt have value now would it?



Thin air has considerable value. Try doing without it. That is a classic example of something with a highly intrinsic value, regardless of what anyone is willing to pay for it. Money is a transaction--what something is worth to someone else. You can create that something, own it, steal it, etc.

To quote a memorable exchange from "The Rockford Files"

"Is there anything you wouldn't do for money?"

"Well, I wouldn't kill for it, or marry for it. Other than that, no."

varadero
12-15-2010, 03:19 PM
And banked into submission
http://pinkyshow.org/videos/banked-into-submission-the-globalizationists-guide-to-developing-poverty

Milo Christensen
12-15-2010, 03:22 PM
. . . if one could simply conjure wealth out of thin air it wouldnt have value now would it? . . .

You could take "thin" air, compress it, release it through a nozzle into an expansion chamber such that the carbon dioxide froze out, collect the carbon dioxide and put it in containers and every owner of a soda dispensing machine in the country would pay you good money for it. Wealth can indeed be created from thin air. You could then expand to freezing out the oxygen and all those hospital places would be your oyster and if you really wanted to make money out of thin air, you could go for the argon. Doing so has created wealth for a few, jobs for many thousands, and investment opportunities for everybody. It's kind of a neat business, too, because the oxygen you sell for people to breathe turns into carbon dioxide you can extract to make their sodas fizzy.

TimH
12-15-2010, 03:30 PM
Well when Reagan said "We all can be rich" he was lying. Everyone cannot be rich.

And when Sarah Palin was winking at you....Oh never mind.

TimH
12-15-2010, 03:51 PM
You could take "thin" air, compress it, release it through a nozzle into an expansion chamber such that the carbon dioxide froze out, collect the carbon dioxide and put it in containers and every owner of a soda dispensing machine in the country would pay you good money for it. Wealth can indeed be created from thin air. You could then expand to freezing out the oxygen and all those hospital places would be your oyster and if you really wanted to make money out of thin air, you could go for the argon. Doing so has created wealth for a few, jobs for many thousands, and investment opportunities for everybody. It's kind of a neat business, too, because the oxygen you sell for people to breathe turns into carbon dioxide you can extract to make their sodas fizzy.

This might help you understand.

From Wikipedia:

Scarcity in Economics
Goods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_(economics)) (and services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_(economics))) that are scarce are called economic goods (or simply goods if their scarcity is presumed). Other goods are called free goods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_good) if they are desired but in such abundance that they are not scarce, such as air and seawater. Too much of something freely available can informally be referred to as a bad, but then its absence can be classified as a good, thus, a mown lawn, clean air, etc.

Dan McCosh
12-15-2010, 04:55 PM
Actually, the real problem with the original question is "society". The distribution of wealth in a given geographic area may or may not be a reflection of the economic relationships within that area. A "rich" commuter suburb--with few of its residents having any economic interaction, mainly simply being neighbors-- is one example. Many of the wealthy in the US are merely living here--with much of their economic interactions such as employment, production, etc., overseas. It's one facet of so-called globalism. On a global scale, many economic enterprises have a disparity of wealth almost unimaginable, if you follow the whole food change from the bottom to the top.

Tom Montgomery
12-15-2010, 05:13 PM
I think your poll has a faulty premise.

Wealth in an unregulated laissez-faire capitalist economy will always end up in the hands of a very few. It's the nature of the beast.

Correct.

The rest is simply a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing.

oznabrag
12-16-2010, 12:02 PM
It hardly seems to matter where it is then. It has to move to be worth while.

Precisely. When it gets into the hands of people who have enormous piles of it, they tend to throw it on the pile and let it sit.

SamSam
12-16-2010, 12:14 PM
Well, I just deleted my message as I think there is a different meaning for 'static' than what I was thinking.

Does 'static' mean money doesn't move in transactions or does it mean the actual amount/supply doesn't increase?

varadero
12-17-2010, 02:50 AM
When I was a young boy at school, I remember the stories of how in the future (now) we would all have so much liesure time, as technology would mean the population working less days and less hours per day due to increased productivity etc.
It seems instead, There is 80% of the work force, working longer hours for less relative renumeration, and all the leisure and profit going to the "few". I am a capatalist through and through, but I think the "Ideal" distribution was something that was better achieved 30 years ago. Back then few of my freind's mothers worked, and few of my freind's fathers were unemployed. Someone shifted the balance.

TimH
12-17-2010, 12:08 PM
When I was a young boy at school, I remember the stories of how in the future (now) we would all have so much liesure time, as technology would mean the population working less days and less hours per day due to increased productivity etc.


That is exacty what happened here in the US. We created all kinds of automation to make it so any idiot can do our jobs. They we trained our replacements in China and India. And now we have all kinds of free time.

The only thing they didnt tell us about way back when was the free time would come because we wouldnt have jobs. They also didnt tell us thh healthcare would be gone and we would all be indentured servants to the mortgage companies.