The World's First Trillionaire

[TimG]

Producing what?

Are you yearning for the days when 90% of the people had to work in the fields because that was the only way to ensure enough food? They were "producing" something.

We have more and more people, but need less and less people to produce anything we need.

Entertainment is a need.

[kimmy]

Are you yearning for the days when 90% of the people had to work in the fields because that was the only way to ensure enough food? They were "producing" something.

The marvels of modern-day productivity have freed people from menial labor to do ... uh... other menial labor.

Entertainment is a need.

Are you reviving August's theory that having a YouTube channel will be a viable source of income? Sure, there are people money at it, and there are other people earning money writing Android games, or e-books, or webpages. The ratio of people who are earning money at it to the people attempting to earn money at it is miniscule. The hobo collecting cans in the dumpster in my parking lot right now has a bigger and more reliable revenue stream than the vast majority of Youtube videographers, bloggers, and Android app programmers.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

The marvels of modern-day productivity have freed people from menial labor to do ... uh... other menial labor.

"Menial" labour isn't as bad as back-braking labour. Machines and computers have reduced the requirement for humans to do boring and physically difficult work.

Are you reviving August's theory that having a YouTube channel will be a viable source of income? Sure, there are people money at it, and there are other people earning money writing Android games, or e-books, or webpages. The ratio of people who are earning money at it to the people attempting to earn money at it is miniscule. The hobo collecting cans in the dumpster in my parking lot right now has a bigger and more reliable revenue stream than the vast majority of Youtube videographers, bloggers, and Android app programmers.

-k

Nobody knows how the new economy will fall out, but the jobs will be better.

[kimmy]

"Menial" labour isn't as bad as back-braking labour. Machines and computers have reduced the requirement for humans to do boring and physically difficult work.

I think Tim was suggesting that humanity as a whole has benefited because all that labor that used to be required to produce food has been freed up to fuel other enterprises that will benefit society. But what, exactly? Pouring double-doubles? People have left the farms, moved to the cities, and ... now what? Is this, in itself, a great thing?

Nobody knows how the new economy will fall out, but the jobs will be better.

I'm sure that the jobs-- those that haven't been replaced by technology, or outsourced to India, or permanently relocated to Asian factories, or filled by rent-a-Filipinos-- will come in all kinds. I think I read somewhere that the sector of the economy that's expanding fastest, and employing most younger workers, is the service industry. These aren't exactly jobs with big futures. I'm a little skeptical that jobs, on the average, will be "better" by most measures.

-k

[TimG]

But what, exactly? Pouring double-doubles? People have left the farms, moved to the cities, and ... now what? Is this, in itself, a great thing?

The people pouring those double-doubles have a standard of living that exceeds what the super-wealthy had 400 years ago. For example, 400 years ago poor people had to make their own clothing - now everyone has access to pre-made clothing. This list of former luxuries that are now "essentials" is huge. I don't think you can reasonably argue that people are not better off. They may not be happy with their jobs or they may not be wealthy by today's standards but they are still better off. Edited July 4, 2014 by TimG

[kimmy]

Well, you're doing a great job of convincing me that living in a technologically advanced society has benefited us, but a pretty poor job of convincing me that the elimination of labor by technology is a great thing for laborers.

-k

[TimG]

but a pretty poor job of convincing me that the elimination of labor by technology is a great thing for laborers.

I am not trying to convince you of that. Obviously someone who loses their job due to technology will be worse off. The question we care about is whether society is better off because of the productivity improvements that led to the layoffs. Generally, it is.

Also, I am not trying to say that relative status within society of retail service workers today is that much better than the peasants on farms 400+ years. I am saying that objectively the retail service workers have a better life than the peasants of days gone by and that is thanks to the wealth created by higher productivity.

Edited July 4, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The economy is still a free-for-all, in general, so those at the bottom of the ladder will be impacted by technology change. Until we go with a planned economy, ie. we ditch capitalism, then that's what is going to happen - if your skills aren't in demand then you're at the bottom of the bottom of the market.

We have, however, improved our transition programs and support programs. The system eventually will find a way to redistribute the wealth, because everybody gets one vote regardless of their income.

[eyeball]

"Menial" labour isn't as bad as back-braking labour. Machines and computers have reduced the requirement for humans to do boring and physically difficult work.

Nobody knows how the new economy will fall out, but the jobs will be better.

Probably not until the market affords more value to labour. Take the giant freebie volunteers provide to society...the distorting effect this has on market forces probably makes the effect of TFW's pale in comparison.

I don't think we need to ditch capitalism, I just think the moral imperative society imposes on individuals to bear whatever weight they're capable of carrying needs to be imposed on society as well. I think there's also a strong inter-generational aspect to this morality as well.

Affording volunteer labour tangible credit and in-kind dollar value in the economy either through tax exemptions or a living allowance/wage would go a long way towards redistributing both wealth, power and respect. So do we need more trillionaires to have a wider tax base...or would it be more accurate to say a taller tax tower?

What would definitely expand is the number of jobs that need doing actually getting done, especially in the field of environmental restoration and stewardship.

Edited July 4, 2014 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

Probably not until the market affords more value to labour.

Probably not what ? That the jobs will be better ? I should have been more specific: by better, I mean that they will be less physically damaging and will allow for more creativity and personal involvement.

Take the giant freebie volunteers provide to society...the distorting effect this has on market forces probably makes the effect of TFW's pale in comparison.

The value that society places on these jobs isn't reflected in their salaries. That's a different question though. I think that this situation will change but I'm not sure how we'll get there.

I just think the moral imperative society imposes on individuals to bear whatever weight they're capable of carrying needs to be imposed on society as well. I think there's also a strong inter-generational aspect to this morality as well.

When people are bearing too much weight they yell. If somebody you care about is yelling, you tend to want to help them. Yelling is communication. The analogy for society is that I have to have a way to hear figurative yelling from BC since we're in the same community, ostensibly.

I believe we're coming to a place where we are paying more attention to people yelling than corporations yelling.

Affording volunteer labour tangible credit and in-kind dollar value in the economy either through tax exemptions or guaranteed living allowances would go a long way towards redistributing both wealth, power and respect. So do we need more trillionaires to have a wider tax base...or would it be more accurate to say a taller tax tower?

100% agree. There are volunteers that are actually saving taxpayers money and not getting paid not to even touch on precious and valuable work that can't have a $ attached. This is a management problem and a public problem.

What would definitely expand is the number of jobs that need doing actually getting done, especially in the field of environmental restoration and stewardship.

I believe that you can make a case for tangible taxpayer savings for much of this, as I said.

[eyeball]

Probably not what ? That the jobs will be better ? I should have been more specific: by better, I mean that they will be less physically damaging and will allow for more creativity and personal involvement.

The value that society places on these jobs isn't reflected in their salaries. That's a different question though. I think that this situation will change but I'm not sure how we'll get there.

I should have been clearer too, I think jobs will be better because doing them will simply feel better to the people doing them, even the most menial ones.

When people are bearing too much weight they yell. If somebody you care about is yelling, you tend to want to help them. Yelling is communication. The analogy for society is that I have to have a way to hear figurative yelling from BC since we're in the same community, ostensibly.

We're on the same planet and our communities are in the same boat. What you see going on around you is probably not much different than what I see going on around me and by extension around the planet. It's like a big fractal, similar across scales. I wouldn't be a all surprised if it's like this on the other side of the universe too - just one thing after another doing their best to get by.

I believe we're coming to a place where we are paying more attention to people yelling than corporations yelling.

I bet you they're all basically yelling the same thing. How much more do we really need to know?

Edited July 4, 2014 by eyeball

[eyeball]

I think Tim was suggesting that humanity as a whole has benefited because all that labor that used to be required to produce food has been freed up to fuel other enterprises that will benefit society. But what, exactly? Pouring double-doubles? People have left the farms, moved to the cities, and ... now what? Is this, in itself, a great thing?

I'm sure that the jobs-- those that haven't been replaced by technology, or outsourced to India, or permanently relocated to Asian factories, or filled by rent-a-Filipinos-- will come in all kinds. I think I read somewhere that the sector of the economy that's expanding fastest, and employing most younger workers, is the service industry. These aren't exactly jobs with big futures. I'm a little skeptical that jobs, on the average, will be "better" by most measures.

-k

If humanity really had a better sense of what benefiting as a whole means we'd be up in space doing things like ensuring asteroids don't wipe us out and down here on the ground and out on the water ensuring we don't wipe ourselves out.

The point about wearing google glasses for a living might bear exploring. Just paying a lot of people not to do a lot might actually contribute to restoring the primary producing element of our economy that our economy has been gnawing on - our environment/ecosystems and natural capital they produce. Maybe there will be a day when floating in a nutrient pod wired into an alternate virtual reality will be a paying proposition.

[WestCoastRunner]

The marvels of modern-day productivity have freed people from menial labor to do ... uh... other menial labor.

-k

Modern-day productivity has freed women from menial labour to pursue education and employment.

[eyeball]

Speaking as a man I think the freedom is somewhat over-rated myself. I'm forever having to come up with some new certificate, licence or upgrade thereof to justify my existence in the workplace.

[Argus]

The people pouring those double-doubles have a standard of living that exceeds what the super-wealthy had 400 years ago. For example, 400 years ago poor people had to make their own clothing - now everyone has access to pre-made clothing. This list of former luxuries that are now "essentials" is huge. I don't think you can reasonably argue that people are not better off. They may not be happy with their jobs or they may not be wealthy by today's standards but they are still better off.

That works to an extent. But are people better off than when we had all those unionized auto and steel factories and other factories which paid a reasonably good wage with virtual lifelong job security? Never mind the service industry, does a software engineer working twelve hour days in a cubicle lead a better life? As for back breaking labour, more people have back problems now than ever before. That comes from all those jobs sitting on our butts all day.

[Argus]

Modern-day productivity has freed women from menial labour to pursue education and employment.

Is that better? My mother used to spend half the day in the park chatting and munching cookies with the other mothers and children. Then she'd come home, tidy up a bit and prepare for whatever guests were coming over that night (lots of parties, cuz no real TV, computer, no video).

Most women are now in the workforce, and most of them are doing jobs they don't like. Is it better to stand out in the cold and take a long bus ride to work to be a retail store clerk or administrative assistant than to stay home with the kids and socialize with all those other stay at home moms? How many women today would vastly prefer staying home if they could afford to?

[TimG]

But are people better off than when we had all those unionized auto and steel factories and other factories which paid a reasonably good wage with virtual lifelong job security?

Well, the minority of the population that had such benefits may be worse off. But the rest of the people and the economy as whole benefit because they can buy better quality manufactured goods at a lower cost thanks to competition. Are you really arguing that the economy would have been better off if we never let Japanese auto makers into the market despite the fact that they broke up the cosy union cartel ? Edited July 6, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

How many women today would vastly prefer staying home if they could afford to?

Everyone would prefer a life of idleness/personal growth but only a few have can possibly have enough capital to afford it because the basic math: if people have more money the costs of goods and services rises which increases the amount of work required to pay for them.

That said, productivity improvements allow people to access more goods and services for less money but human nature being what it is luxuries quickly become "essentials" and this increases the cost of providing "essentials" which requires more work. i.e. no matter how far we advance the majority of people will feel that they have to struggle to buy "essentials". Nothing will ever change this because expectations rise with wealth.

Edited July 6, 2014 by TimG

[overthere]

Many of those people currently pouring double-doubles are intelligent, ambitious and well educated as well as being hardworking.

I'm referring of course to the TFW crew.

We sneer at those in menial jobs, but many in that group know that Tim Hortons and living in Canada is a beginning to a new and better life, not a dead end.

Oh wait, not any more.

[Argus]

Well, the minority of the population that had such benefits may be worse off. But the rest of the people and the economy as whole benefit because they can buy better quality manufactured goods at a lower cost thanks to competition. Are you really arguing that the economy would have been better off if we never let Japanese auto makers into the market despite the fact that they broke up the cosy union cartel ?

No, I'm asking if workers are better off. Have we replaced the sweatshop with another sweatshop, only this one having everyone separated into little fabric covered boxes? What percentage of the population has 'good' jobs now as opposed to then?

And I define 'good' not merely by compensation, but by quality of life and satisfaction.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Argus

[dre]

No, I'm asking if workers are better off. Have we replaced the sweatshop with another sweatshop, only this one having everyone separated into little fabric covered boxes? What percentage of the population has 'good' jobs now as opposed to then?

And I define 'good' not merely by compensation, but by quality of life and satisfaction.

The other thing is that those high paying jobs that are disappearing were the engine that powered our entire consumption driven economy. This fact is lost on the crowd that thinks our lives are better because we have access to some cheap stuff.

[Michael Hardner]

And I define 'good' not merely by compensation, but by quality of life and satisfaction.

That's good, because working in manufacturing is known as a mundane and physically damaging way to make a living.

[Michael Hardner]

The other thing is that those high paying jobs that are disappearing were the engine that powered our entire consumption driven economy. This fact is lost on the crowd that thinks our lives are better because we have access to some cheap stuff.

They should be replaced by better jobs if economics works at all...

[kimmy]

They should be replaced by better jobs if economics works at all...

What makes you think that?

Certainly there will always be new fields of enterprise, but they won't necessarily employ a lot of people, and they won't necessarily employ the people who are no longer needed in agriculture or manufacturing.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

What makes you think that?

Because that's how economic progress works. That's the idea behind free trade - competitive advantage and so on. It's pretty much accepted across the board, with the caveats that TimG points out.

Certainly there will always be new fields of enterprise, but they won't necessarily employ a lot of people, and they won't necessarily employ the people who are no longer needed in agriculture or manufacturing.

-k

Right... but turn back the clock a bit - decades or centuries - and large numbers of people were employed in agriculture. What happened to those jobs ? In the short term, they were lost and in fact it led to revolutions and strife. As time when on, the economic benefits were spread across the population. As social progress continued, we gave full voting rights to the people previously known as peasants so that there is a check on economic power. People who are displaced today have access to a host of adjustment programs that were unthinkable in the 1930s, say.

That's not to say that big economic changes such as we're experiencing today happen without pain. They don't - and that's just the reality of any economy. There are always winners and losers.

Will the changes happening in the world today result in a better economy overall ? Yes. Will the benefits be spread ? Yes... but we don't know how or when.

If one was a little pessimistic, then you could rightly suspect that the system will break before the benefits are shared. Looking back at the 1930s, this almost happened. In the mid 20th century, Canada the US and Europe instituted social programs, arguably because of a fear that Bolshevism would take root in the working classes.

Could it happen today ? It's hard to say. Certainly people aren't starving or dying of neglect as they did then. Hungry people are more likely to revolt than people who can't afford the latest video game. But there's also the idea of identity, which is a strong motivator. Fringe movements like the Tea Party and Occupy have strong anti-establishment identities which could (conceivably) be used to spark violence.

Review and discuss...