The Global Elite: Rigging the Rules That Fuel Inequality

[Riggins]

The biggest problem with this idea is that you require the taking of private property by force in order to fund social programs that should be focused on helping people get off the gov't teat.

I'd be willing to bet you are pretty young.

It's no more forceful than keystrokes by accountants. Helping people is the right idea - recognizing we live in a society as opposed to dog-eat-dog is something big business doesn't do nor is it an idea they promote or foster, thus we require government to step in.

Chronologically, not young - otherwise, I'd like to think so.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Also do you think this transition you say we should speed up by taxing "frivolous" products and services will result in better automation?

During this transition, the rich will still have all those "frivolous" goods and services, while the rest of the population will be left with only the necessities. How long do you think that would last before there were serious riots and revolutions?

Do you see those riots and revolutions as helping us along towards automation?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

It's no more forceful than keystrokes by accountants. Helping people is the right idea - recognizing we live in a society as opposed to dog-eat-dog is something big business doesn't do nor is it an idea they promote or foster, thus we require government to step in.

Chronologically, not young - otherwise, I'd like to think so.

And the gov't has such a great record for "helping" people, doesn't it? And make no mistake, it is not accountants who force this. It is the armed might of the gov't that forces this theft of money.

You are not advocating taking what is needed to support what exists. You are advocating taking, by force, enough to "fill coffers". That means stealing enough to have profits for an institution that has already spent $17 trillion more than it has taken in.

Do you really think our gov't would save ANY of that for this automation utopia? It would be spent in no time by those who suckle at the tax teat. They have shown over, and over and over that they will. No surplus ever lasted when in the hands of the gov't.

 

[Riggins]

So your answer is to strangle the private sector and make the gov't a 'for profit' enterprise? (you advocate filling the coffers with over-inflated taxes)

The gov't is probably the worst example of efficiency ever known. Our federal debt has topped $17 TRILLION dollars. And you think by taking all the profits from private corporations, you will help our future?

Who developed virtually ALL the technology that is taking us towards this automated world? The government or private industry?
Who has shown themselves to be more efficient? The government or private industry?
Of the most automated and technologically advanced nations, which are totally run by the gov't?

You speak as though government and private industry are two completely separate organisms living in their own vacuums, when just the opposite is true. They are intertwined, for better or for worse - and all part of one society. None of the above was accomplished without one side's help from the other. A rebalancing of tables here and there is a good idea.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

You speak as though government and private industry are two completely separate organisms living in their own vacuums, when just the opposite is true. They are intertwined, for better or for worse - and all part of one society. None of the above was accomplished without one side's help from the other. A rebalancing of tables here and there is a good idea.

They are connected. But the actual development of the technologies was done by private industry. Look at the nations controlled completely by their gov't (those without private industry) and tell me their technology holds a candle to that developed by a private sector?



Show me one area that the gov't has taken over that has gotten better or more efficient? Do that, then we can discuss this further.

 

[Riggins]

Even if (and it's a big "IF") this will happen in my grandchildren's lifetime, do you really want to trust the development of the technology and the transition to the bureaucratic nightmare that is our federal gov't?? How can you possibly think the gov't will do a better job developing the technology than the private sector?

Show me one area that the gov't has taken over that has gotten better or more efficient? Do that, then we can discuss this further.

Nowhere have I said government ought to or even is "developing the technology" in and of themselves, I'm saying through heavy government taxation on big corporations maybe we can help smooth the transition to the fully automated economy that we're currently headed toward. Who's developing that technology? Businesses, institutions, all of it under the auspices of government in one way or another, and yet not the government all on its own - not unless you choose to view the private and public sectors as being so blended and intertwined you can't tell one from another - you'd have an argument there. The big corporations - as they appear to most of us - could help society through the transition to business/government/society-wide automation by offering up big swaths of their mega incomes. But most likely, they won't just offer it up - so we tax them heavily as a means to mitigate pain for as long as we can. Would it work? No idea - but, at least it IS an idea - it's probably better than denial or obfuscation.

 

[DigitalDave]

Well I guess I'm safe then! *phew* Glad I chose the right profession by becoming a software developer. I am one of the evil auto-maters! Where there are 4 jobs for every 1 of us.

That being said, I will pull a snippet of a point you have out of your argument (that we are headed towards full automation), and discuss that. But the idea of overtaxing businesses in order to soften the blow makes your theory inevitable, and I still do not think anyone who is sane would vouch for that.

Regardless, so now, as I said, there are 4 jobs for every 1 professional currently in my profession. There is a lot of demand for people like me, but there just isn't enough supply. To supply my profession, we need teachers at the grade-school, high-school, and college level. We need trainers for the niche software our employers decide to purchase, and we need creators of that software as well (yeah we buy from each other because building from scratch costs more sometimes). We need companies to design, engineer, and create the machines we produce our software on. We need other companies to design, engineer, and create the peripherals that go into the machines we use. We also need food and drink so we don't die at our desks. That being said, we just do not, nor are anywhere near, capable of automating all of that with the manpower we have. I'm just scratching the surface right now for my needs. In order to be capable of automating these things, we need more manpower. Once it's all automated, then we'll need people to maintain these systems. Fortunately, since technology moves so fast, within 10 years we will need people to re-write these systems to be more efficient.... I could go on.

My point is, yes, we are moving towards a more automated society. People are going to need to learn, at the very least, basic computing skills in order to continue to function in society. That is progress, and with every generation there is new technology that causes some jobs to go away, and other jobs to flourish. It's insane to assume that we should purposefully defeat ourselves by overtaxing businesses moving in that direction just so we can soften the blow that comes with defeat. Instead, we should start supplying the current market demands with employees so we can continue that progress. But for some reason, very few school systems have found the need to equip our future work-force with the necessary skills to handle progress. Instead, we should just accept defeat, tax the crap out of what's left, and watch businesses flock elsewhere. Or.... maybe not.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Nowhere have I said government ought to or even is "developing the technology" in and of themselves, I'm saying through heavy government taxation on big corporations maybe we can help smooth the transition to the fully automated economy that we're currently headed toward. Who's developing that technology? Businesses, institutions, all of it under the auspices of government in one way or another, and yet not the government all on its own - not unless you choose to view the private and public sectors as being so blended and intertwined you can't tell one from another - you'd have an argument there. The big corporations - as they appear to most of us - could help society through the transition to business/government/society-wide automation by offering up big swaths of their mega incomes. But most likely, they won't just offer it up - so we tax them heavily as a means to mitigate pain for as long as we can. Would it work? No idea - but, at least it IS an idea - it's probably better than denial or obfuscation.

Ok, so we have established that the private sector is the one who developed the technologies.

Now WHY did they develop them? What was the incentive to devote money and manpower to the R&D and the production of these great and wonderful technologies? Altruism or Profit?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Well I guess I'm safe then! *phew* Glad I chose the right profession by becoming a software developer. I am one of the evil auto-maters! Where there are 4 jobs for every 1 of us.

That being said, I will pull a snippet of a point you have out of your argument (that we are headed towards full automation), and discuss that. But the idea of overtaxing businesses in order to soften the blow makes your theory inevitable, and I still do not think anyone who is sane would vouch for that.

Regardless, so now, as I said, there are 4 jobs for every 1 professional currently in my profession. There is a lot of demand for people like me, but there just isn't enough supply. To supply my profession, we need teachers at the grade-school, high-school, and college level. We need trainers for the niche software our employers decide to purchase, and we need creators of that software as well (yeah we buy from each other because building from scratch costs more sometimes). We need companies to design, engineer, and create the machines we produce our software on. We need other companies to design, engineer, and create the peripherals that go into the machines we use. We also need food and drink so we don't die at our desks. That being said, we just do not, nor are anywhere near, capable of automating all of that with the manpower we have. I'm just scratching the surface right now for my needs. In order to be capable of automating these things, we need more manpower. Once it's all automated, then we'll need people to maintain these systems. Fortunately, since technology moves so fast, within 10 years we will need people to re-write these systems to be more efficient.... I could go on.

My point is, yes, we are moving towards a more automated society. People are going to need to learn, at the very least, basic computing skills in order to continue to function in society. That is progress, and with every generation there is new technology that causes some jobs to go away, and other jobs to flourish. It's insane to assume that we should purposefully defeat ourselves by overtaxing businesses moving in that direction just so we can soften the blow that comes with defeat. Instead, we should start supplying the current market demands with employees so we can continue that progress. But for some reason, very few school systems have found the need to equip our future work-force with the necessary skills to handle progress. Instead, we should just accept defeat, tax the crap out of what's left, and watch businesses flock elsewhere. Or.... maybe not.

Educate our population and let them take us to the next level? Now THAT is a sound idea. It would both prepare us and reduce the necessity for social programs.

 

[Riggins]

Also do you think this transition you say we should speed up by taxing "frivolous" products and services will result in better automation?

During this transition, the rich will still have all those "frivolous" goods and services, while the rest of the population will be left with only the necessities. How long do you think that would last before there were serious riots and revolutions?

Do you see those riots and revolutions as helping us along towards automation?

Better automation? Who knows? Maybe, but it's kind of beside the point.

The serious riots/revolutions is probably what will come as we transition to full automation - it is a storm to weather, maybe a robust set of social programs can shorten the amount of time we'd have to endure such pain. Then again, it might not - maybe it wouldn't work at all - but I think it's better to try than to leave things as they are - the social safety net as it is now is in no shape to mitigate any pain in this transition, thus making the process all the more painful in the near term.

The riots/revolutions wouldn't help us toward automation - they would be a RESULT of increasing automation - a side effect. We're already feeling them, although right now it's a trickle, not the torrent that's to come. We're already lived through some of it - the riots happen - unemployment continues to climb - that, and its attendant consequences are only going to continue.

 

[Riggins]

And the gov't has such a great record for "helping" people, doesn't it? And make no mistake, it is not accountants who force this. It is the armed might of the gov't that forces this theft of money.

You are not advocating taking what is needed to support what exists. You are advocating taking, by force, enough to "fill coffers". That means stealing enough to have profits for an institution that has already spent $17 trillion more than it has taken in.

Do you really think our gov't would save ANY of that for this automation utopia? It would be spent in no time by those who suckle at the tax teat. They have shown over, and over and over that they will. No surplus ever lasted when in the hands of the gov't.

It's an idea, you understand? Not an absolute. Whether or not it would work? No one knows that. All we can do is look at what is happening now and extrapolate as best we can. Is government perfect in administering various social programs? Hardly. Does that mean we do nothing then as a response. My answer to that is, no. Automation is not something I endorse, nor do I advocate, it's just something we all can see, all around us, and it is increasing. And as it makes businesses cheaper/more cost effective to run, it will continue, and increase - which it is.

So, the question then becomes what can we do to smooth this transition - because automation will not create more jobs, it will continue to destroy them. So, what then are we to do? We could deny the existence of this transition, which is a bit silly - or we could recognize the path we're on and think of a solution. I've floated one idea - and it may or may not work - but it's better than doing nothing, in my estimation.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Better automation? Who knows? Maybe, but it's kind of beside the point.

The serious riots/revolutions is probably what will come as we transition to full automation - it is a storm to weather, maybe a robust set of social programs can shorten the amount of time we'd have to endure such pain. Then again, it might not - maybe it wouldn't work at all - but I think it's better to try than to leave things as they are - the social safety net as it is now is in no shape to mitigate any pain in this transition, thus making the process all the more painful in the near term.

The riots/revolutions wouldn't help us toward automation - they would be a RESULT of increasing automation - a side effect. We're already feeling them, although right now it's a trickle, not the torrent that's to come. We're already lived through some of it - the riots happen - unemployment continues to climb - that, and its attendant consequences are only going to continue.

No, it would not be a side effect of the automation. It would be a side effect of trying to gouge taxes out of private companies to the point that their "frivolous" good and services are priced out of reach of most people.

And once the riots and revolution start, both the private sector research and the gov't social programs would be reduced or eliminated in order to survive.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

It's an idea, you understand? Not an absolute. Whether or not it would work? No one knows that. All we can do is look at what is happening now and extrapolate as best we can. Is government perfect in administering various social programs? Hardly. Does that mean we do nothing then as a response. My answer to that is, no. Automation is not something I endorse, nor do I advocate, it's just something we all can see, all around us, and it is increasing. And as it makes businesses cheaper/more cost effective to run, it will continue, and increase - which it is.

So, the question then becomes what can we do to smooth this transition - because automation will not create more jobs, it will continue to destroy them. So, what then are we to do? We could deny the existence of this transition, which is a bit silly - or we could recognize the path we're on and think of a solution. I've floated one idea - and it may or may not work - but it's better than doing nothing, in my estimation.

Why not push for more and better educational opportunities as DigitalDave suggested? That involves the population in the transition in ways that will lessen the impact, reduce the need for social programs, and still not destroy private businesses.

It would also allow individuals to decide for themselves if they want to improve their situation or simply suckle on.

 

[DigitalDave]

Educate our population and let them take us to the next level? Now THAT is a sound idea. It would both prepare us and reduce the necessity for social programs.

Despite my political affiliations, or lack thereof, even Obama is on board with this thought process. I just don't know how much he's helped other than a short video snippet advocating the idea that we should all 'learn to code' during the "hour of code" campaign by code.org. It's one of the few moments I actually agreed with him. Of course, he was reading from a damn teleprompter again so I can't read into if the dude actually cares or not.

 

[Kamala Trump]

"everyone deserves an equal playing field" is the key flaw in America. Our founders system of "The harder workers do better" is gone and today it's the Company that finds the Country with the cheapest labor.

We are a VERY successful Country and we DEMAND that our manufacturers be paid less than someone in a 3rd world Country otherwise we will outsource the job.

Since very young Children working for nearly nothing are cheaper than an American Wage jobs are outsourced.

THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE.

In order for America to stay a successful Country we either have to drop our workers pay or we find reasons our employers should hire local.

No. Another option is to pull out of the absurd "race to the bottom" trade agreements, and implement protectionist policies and tariffs.

 

[Riggins]

Well I guess I'm safe then! *phew* Glad I chose the right profession by becoming a software developer. I am one of the evil auto-maters! Where there are 4 jobs for every 1 of us.

That being said, I will pull a snippet of a point you have out of your argument (that we are headed towards full automation), and discuss that. But the idea of overtaxing businesses in order to soften the blow makes your theory inevitable, and I still do not think anyone who is sane would vouch for that.

Regardless, so now, as I said, there are 4 jobs for every 1 professional currently in my profession. There is a lot of demand for people like me, but there just isn't enough supply. To supply my profession, we need teachers at the grade-school, high-school, and college level. We need trainers for the niche software our employers decide to purchase, and we need creators of that software as well (yeah we buy from each other because building from scratch costs more sometimes). We need companies to design, engineer, and create the machines we produce our software on. We need other companies to design, engineer, and create the peripherals that go into the machines we use. We also need food and drink so we don't die at our desks. That being said, we just do not, nor are anywhere near, capable of automating all of that with the manpower we have. I'm just scratching the surface right now for my needs. In order to be capable of automating these things, we need more manpower. Once it's all automated, then we'll need people to maintain these systems. Fortunately, since technology moves so fast, within 10 years we will need people to re-write these systems to be more efficient.... I could go on.

My point is, yes, we are moving towards a more automated society. People are going to need to learn, at the very least, basic computing skills in order to continue to function in society. That is progress, and with every generation there is new technology that causes some jobs to go away, and other jobs to flourish. It's insane to assume that we should purposefully defeat ourselves by overtaxing businesses moving in that direction just so we can soften the blow that comes with defeat. Instead, we should start supplying the current market demands with employees so we can continue that progress. But for some reason, very few school systems have found the need to equip our future work-force with the necessary skills to handle progress. Instead, we should just accept defeat, tax the crap out of what's left, and watch businesses flock elsewhere. Or.... maybe not.

This is a thoughtful post which I like. You're right, we're nowhere near full automation YET. But all of the jobs you're saying we'll need manpower to fill will increasingly be taken over by the software/hardware we build - they are two ends of a tunnel moving toward one another; eventually they will collide. Eventually, (and the time when it will exactly happen is completely debatable) the machines will be self-aware and responsible for building and improving themselves, negating the need for all that manpower. It's coming sooner than many people think. We went from the Wright Brothers to the Moon Landing in well under the average American human lifespan.

We're past the point of needing people to learn basic computing skills - it wouldn't do much good anyway, because those skills would become obsolete not long after they'd finished learning what they "needed" to know in the first place. Besides, we're continuously turning out people around the world with advanced computing skills, and they are continuously turning out technology that requires less people to maintain it, work with it etc, and indeed technology continues ramping up feeding a need for even fewer yet even more specialized tech workers with even more advanced computing skills all moving up to an ever sharpening point of expertise and further leaving more and more people behind as their skills and/or ability to learn them become increasingly obsolete as the technology continues to become more advanced.

Progress isn't learning basic technological skills in order to function, progress is changing the idea of what "function" means or what it is at its essence. It is not something we fuel with employable people from here on out, it is a process that continually puts more people out of work as it moves forward and upward. The jobs are becoming more specialized, and as the machines improve, less specialized workers are needed, and so it goes, and so it goes...

We don't defeat anything by taxing big business, we do it as a means to try and hang on to increasingly automated big business' coattails and continue to live somewhat well as technological innovation carries forward leaving the vastly lesser skilled workers (a huge majority, by the way) with no means of income. We cannot make every person alive into ever-increasingly advanced computer programmers, or software engineers, or this, or that, etc, so what are we to do - let everyone fend for themselves in an ever-advancing digital age? I think you know how that would go.

That said, progress itself isn't an entity that is defeating us, it's transitioning us into a new kind of existence beyond what we'd traditionally come to know as "the norm". That transition is going to hurt for a while until we get to the other side, and until full automation becomes 'the new norm'. Maybe trying to cushion the blow of mass unemployment in the less technological sectors by building out a large social safety net isn't the answer - that may be true - but it's still better than resting on the tattered support systems we currently have on hand and thinking that they will sustain us as we move to 50% unemployment and beyond.

 

[Riggins]

Educate our population and let them take us to the next level? Now THAT is a sound idea. It would both prepare us and reduce the necessity for social programs.

Sounds great on paper. Until you realize just how many people live in our society, and how completely non-feasible it is to educate most of our employable people in science and tech - and how would you pay for it? The cost of doing that would be enormous. There are millions of people working office jobs, government jobs, healthcare jobs, banking jobs, service sector jobs that would be completely out of their depth and in no way able to learn software engineering, or advanced computing in order to perform all of these so-called millions of new high tech jobs. And even IF you could educate all these people, even IF you could pay for it, and even IF the vast millions of people could all learn it - who's going to employ and pay all of these tens of millions of people a living wage?

You're not going to take a society full of paper pushers, data collectors and "would you like fries with that" workers and magically change them into the next generation of quantum engineers. Give me a break.

So, in the face of rampant progress and as all those people are laid off when a machine can do what they do without the need for breaks, salaries, benefits, pensions, etc - what are we to do with all of these millions of people not capable of learning the intricacies of A.I.? Let them all fend for themselves? And this seems like a more sane answer than asking the big corporations to give up big chunks of their profits in the mean time to ensure all these people are taken care of? Great plan.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

And you are the arbiter of what is or is not sane? Just because you disagree with my idea of a good corporate tax rate does not mean I'm a troll. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. If it stirs your pot that's on you, not me. I'm here to debate and discuss, just like everybody else.

And again, yes, a 90%+ corporate tax rate is a great idea whose time has come - you could just ask me why I think so, or tell me why you don't think so instead of assuming I'm here to troll.

So let's take a single item and raise the tax rate to 90% on all TV's.
The businesses that sell TV's now raise their prices, to accommodate the tax rate.
People stop buying TV's and the companies that make TV's go out of business.
When the TV manufacturer closes their doors, what happens to all those that worked there?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I don't advocate society wide joblessness, I just recognize we're on that path - somehow you don't, and I'm the idiot?

Yes.
Thank you for being honest.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Better automation? Who knows? Maybe, but it's kind of beside the point.

The serious riots/revolutions is probably what will come as we transition to full automation - it is a storm to weather, maybe a robust set of social programs can shorten the amount of time we'd have to endure such pain. Then again, it might not - maybe it wouldn't work at all - but I think it's better to try than to leave things as they are - the social safety net as it is now is in no shape to mitigate any pain in this transition, thus making the process all the more painful in the near term.

The riots/revolutions wouldn't help us toward automation - they would be a RESULT of increasing automation - a side effect. We're already feeling them, although right now it's a trickle, not the torrent that's to come. We're already lived through some of it - the riots happen - unemployment continues to climb - that, and its attendant consequences are only going to continue.

So if we go to a completely automated society, how do people survive?