Fair income distribution and the pareto principle

  • 26 Replies
  • 539 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Spyke

  • *
  • Strange Attractor
  • ******
  • Posts: 97
    • Spyke Art
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2019, 11:50:12 PM »
IMO we are rapidly approaching the point where this is absolutely essential as technology reduces the numbers required in traditional employment. However that needs a far bigger rethink in Socio-Economic terms than just considering UBI.

FractalDave, have you thought about the bigger rethink? I agree with you, we need to consider the impact on a broader context. But when I try to do the big-think I quickly get lost. And even if I figured it out completely, there is no way I could explain it without the proper Ph.D. So, I would love to hear your thoughts, if nothing other than to trigger my to think.
Earl Hinrichs, offering free opinions on everything.

Online Spyke

  • *
  • Strange Attractor
  • ******
  • Posts: 97
    • Spyke Art
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2019, 12:46:59 AM »
im sure they had similar concerns when the machines took der jurbs with respect to farming or transportation or every other example you can think of, well society just evolves and people end up doing something else.

Quaz0r, here is a good reference for your statement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite In particular the section on Modern Usage and the economist's term "Luddite fallacy", which is defined (by Wikipedia) as "If a technological innovation results in a reduction of necessary labour inputs in a given sector, then the industry-wide cost of production falls, which lowers the competitive price and increases the equilibrium supply point which, theoretically, will require an increase in aggregate labour inputs."

I fear that there may be a Luddite fallacy fallacy. Basically the argument is "It has happened in the past, and after a small period of adjustment society was much better off so this time will be the same". The counter argument "But this time is different" is always wrong, until it not. I think there is enough evidence that this time it may really be different.

The correction process in the above quote is simply incorrect. In a supply/demand graph, technological innovation shifts the supply curve to the right. (It is not a movement to a new equilibrium on the old supply curve.) At this point, labor, basically the area under the supply curve and left of the equilibrium point, is clearly reduced.

In the past, technological innovation created new classes of jobs. The loss of textile jobs was followed by, and more than offset by, increases in merchants, sales, transportation, accounting etc.. These are the jobs that will go away with the next shift, and I have not heard any suggestion of what other jobs will replace them. Blind economics could lead us to the point where all wealth belongs to the few who own the factories and the programmers who design the AIs.

Online Spyke

  • *
  • Strange Attractor
  • ******
  • Posts: 97
    • Spyke Art
« Reply #17 on: January 18, 2019, 12:53:52 AM »
I'm hoping for a "StarTrekian" universe.

I agree, well, not transporters and replicators. Soon we can have a society with abundance and everyone is ensured food, housing, healthcare, and safety simply because they are citizens. People are free to pursue art, science, entertainment. There must be some income differential, (Gini>0) to reward the people that work at keeping the factories running, and the waitstaff at the one remaining restaurant for people that prefer having other  people take food orders and make wine recommendations. The rest of us, only slightly poorer, are able to explore fractals with our time. (This thread is about fractals after all.)

Offline Sabine62

  • *
  • Fractal Frankfurter
  • *
  • Posts: 619
  • It's just a jump to the left...
    • sabine62.deviantart.com
« Reply #18 on: January 18, 2019, 10:39:20 AM »
...I have not heard any suggestion of what other jobs will replace them

Hey, that's an easy one: even more quality control-managers, communication-specialists, and people generating even more excel graphs  :))  >:D
« Last Edit: January 18, 2019, 10:57:28 AM by Sabine62 »
To thine own self be true

Offline Fraktalist

  • *
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Strange Attractor
  • Posts: 1071
« Reply #19 on: January 18, 2019, 12:43:56 PM »
In the past, technological innovation created new classes of jobs. The loss of textile jobs was followed by, and more than offset by, increases in merchants, sales, transportation, accounting etc.. These are the jobs that will go away with the next shift, and I have not heard any suggestion of what other jobs will replace them. Blind economics could lead us to the point where all wealth belongs to the few who own the factories and the programmers who design the AIs.
Great point, well explained.
I totally agree.

Let me collect 3 points that matter a lot for the big picture (imho)

-it always baffled me when politicians talk about "Full time jobs for everyone" as their main goal and big slogan.
What was the point of inventing new machines in the first place? To let them do the work and free up our time.
They found that in prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies the average worktime was 5h/day at maximum, for many individuals only about 2h/day.
Looking at our worktimes - that's what I call great progress.  :fp:

So now that we are finally reaching that goal of having machines finally do our dirty work, we keep complaining that we are now out of work and don't have anymore money, while the machine-owners have more money than any reasonable human could ever spend.



-If UBI only covers the basic needs, the incentive to e.g. work as a waiter parttime is to earn the extra money to buy a quicker computer for faster fractal rendering.
There was this study where they asked people if they think other people would continue working if they got an UBI.
80% said that no, other people wouldn't work because they are lazy.
Asked if they themselves would work, again, 80% said "of course I would work, life would be boring without work".
(sorry, don't find the source right now)


-to stop money going from the masses to few there is a potential solution:
stop taxing only peoples worktime but also tax robot and machine work. basically, just start taxing work, no matter who is the worker.
Simple approach that could potentially solve all those money/time/distribution problems.


But hey, why tackle any of these issues when we can discuss about .. the kardashians.. or building walls...
we must set priorities..
« Last Edit: January 18, 2019, 12:55:34 PM by Fraktalist »

Offline Sabine62

  • *
  • Fractal Frankfurter
  • *
  • Posts: 619
  • It's just a jump to the left...
    • sabine62.deviantart.com
« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2019, 08:22:03 PM »
What was the point of inventing new machines in the first place? To let them do the work and free up our time.

Freeing up our time was never the point. The point was to create a work-force that can do work quicker, under all circumstances and with less errors, does not need to get paid, does not need rest, and does not complain. No hint of philantropy there...
No idea what our future role is supposed to be, professional consumers?  ::) Someones gotta buy all the stuff the androids make?

Taxing robot's work: Somehow that feels like just another bandaid we have to stick to a already failing system to keep it working like it does. No idea how it is in other countries but here we pay taxes and then taxes over taxes (VAT) and it looks like we do that essentially to maintain our country's status as tax haven for big companies that make money enough as it is :fp:

I have no idea how to increase the income of the poor, and on the other hand see only limited ways of decreasing that of the rich.
Quitting consuming like there's no tomorrow (which we probably won't see if we're keeping up the current rate) might be somewhat effective and is probably the most peaceful way to do the latter  ;D











Offline FractalDave

  • *
  • Uploader
  • *
  • Posts: 171
    • Makin Magic Fractals
« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2019, 10:47:35 PM »
FractalDave, have you thought about the bigger rethink? I agree with you, we need to consider the impact on a broader context. But when I try to do the big-think I quickly get lost. And even if I figured it out completely, there is no way I could explain it without the proper Ph.D. So, I would love to hear your thoughts, if nothing other than to trigger my to think.

The main rethink would be economics, which I'm not even remotely qualified in, but I'd suggest that simply giving a fixed amount to all, that being enough to live reasonably comfortably, straight from the mint effectively, would be the solution - since the amount concerned could be directly controlled in a way that wages etc. simply can't as things are now would make avoiding boom/bust cycles much easier. Those who want to work could still do so for extras - ideally just for respect though.....
The real difficulty would be the same that we really have now - abuse and misuse of power.
The meaning and purpose of life is to give life purpose and meaning.

Offline pauldelbrot

  • *
  • 3f
  • ******
  • Posts: 1157
« Reply #22 on: January 19, 2019, 01:11:25 AM »
No idea what our future role is supposed to be, professional consumers?  ::) Someones gotta buy all the stuff the androids make?

We already have a few of those, though we know them by other names. "Instagram influencers", for one.

In fact there've been precursors for a while. Remember Tupperware parties and Amway?

Offline 3DickUlus

  • *
  • 3e
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
    • Digilantism
« Reply #23 on: January 19, 2019, 05:33:47 AM »
...back in the day, when the value of our dollar was based on the gold held in reserve, it actually had value, a bank had to borrow working capitol from the country and had to hold assets against loaned monies, but now it's all backwards, the country borrows money from the bank and the bank is no longer required to hold assets against monies loaned, now the bank creates cash from nothing, well, not nothing, it's actually loaning money that hasn't been earned yet, loaning us our money of tomorrow, at interest, instead of loaning money it has on hand, and this is why the banks make millions and millions while we the people are forever in debt...

we must break this cycle, Iceland is our prime example of how to do it.
Resistance is fertile... you will be illuminated!

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Fractals/fragmentarium

Offline i.AM.A.i

  • *
  • Fractal Friend
  • **
  • Posts: 11
  • ooooooo
« Reply #24 on: January 19, 2019, 06:05:30 AM »
Fractals tell wonderful tales. I sorta look at wealth and socialism for all very dangerous.
Imagine everyone with enough money,food,health, and leisure time to not worry about consequences.
Stephen Hawking was working on one major concern before He died. Over-population.
7 Billion people put tremendous burdens on the Earth.
India,China, most Latin Country are already taxing the limits of sustainability.
You feed and house and give free healthcare to everyone 7 Billion will double in your lifetime.
The first thing I learned about the Mandelbrot Set was that The Biggest can be found in the smallest, Micro/Macro.
Give mice all they can eat and they will overpopulate and turn violent.
Nature has a way to keep carnivores and herbivores balanced...
One feeds off the weak, and the other breeds accordingly.
Herbivores have low offspring survival one year, carnivores die.
It's a good topic, and I certainly wouldn't want anyone to suffer.
I got food, I got heat, I got shelter..I got it made.
2+2=4
That's Dogma.

Offline Sabine62

  • *
  • Fractal Frankfurter
  • *
  • Posts: 619
  • It's just a jump to the left...
    • sabine62.deviantart.com
« Reply #25 on: January 19, 2019, 08:49:45 AM »
[
...now the bank creates cash from nothing, well, not nothing, it's actually loaning money that hasn't been earned yet, loaning us our money of tomorrow, at interest, instead of loaning money it has on hand, and this is why the banks make millions and millions while we the people are forever in debt...

we must break this cycle, Iceland is our prime example of how to do it.

Hear, Hear!

Added to this, as it is now, since there is no way we can rent for a reasonable price so we are basically forced to and we are brainwashed to think we then 'own' something and will go 'up the ladder' by its ever increasing value (based on what exactly? and the answer is of course "the market"  :fp: ), many of us have become serial-house-buyers (aided by the fact that we need to be 'flexible'(which basically means exchangeable) when it comes to jobs), chaining ourselves to this sytem by way of mortgage. The real house-owner is the bank, and the banks flourish...



Major rethink is necessary.




Offline Sabine62

  • *
  • Fractal Frankfurter
  • *
  • Posts: 619
  • It's just a jump to the left...
    • sabine62.deviantart.com
« Reply #26 on: January 21, 2019, 09:50:03 AM »
Today in the news:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/21/world-26-richest-people-own-as-much-as-poorest-50-per-cent-oxfam-report

...again confirming the urgency of a discussion about where we want to be heading...