How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

[flintlock]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

All this thinking lost its moral authority when Wall Street was bailed out last fall.

That's exactly the way I see it.

[dcarrigg]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

I've felt this was inevitable for a long time. You only oppose socialism until your skills become economically redundant. Some day, in about 30 years, that will be everyone.

I apologize if the last post sounded snarky. I think that John Stewart Mill put it better:

"It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day's toil of any human being."

[ASH]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

I apologize if the last post sounded snarky. I think that John Stewart Mill put it better:

"It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day's toil of any human being."

Well, at least it is certain that they have increased the material return on that toil.

[jacobdcoates]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

I agree with Ash and Munger.

In response to no one in particular.

Lets not confuse economically redundant with stupid. It just means they have skills or talents the society at that particular time does not find economically valuable, it is not a permanent state usually.

While the rich have no obligation to support the less fortunate members of society, It is, ultimately, in their self- interest to do does so. Either, through some amount of outright redistribution or paying the economically redundant a high enough wage to give them some happiness. Why, because happy people don't start revolutions. In all revolutions, the old ruling class(In our case the Rich)gets line up against the wall and shot first whether they deserve it or not. So, having a large segment of the population that is not necessarily stupid, very unhappy, and sees you as make them unhappy, does not seem a viable long-term survival strategy to me. Especially when you advocate letting them sit in abject poverty so you can enjoy ALL the fruits of your labor, with nothing given back to society for creating the environment to let you be wealthy. Ask yourself is the extra 50k in lower taxes worth the increased risk that you and your family may find yourselves standing in front of a concrete wall with lots of dimples in it one day. I know I would pay the extra 50k in taxes to prevent that situation and make people happy at the same time. In the grand scheme it would be a small price. That particular cost benefit analysis works for me, you may come to a different conclusion, we will all pay the price together, either way.

For those of you who would argue that governments shouldn't force me/you to do it. Well I hate to break the news to you, but that what all governments do, even Libertarian Democratic Utopia's. Governments have always had a near monopoly on force, thats how they delivery the thing people scream so much around here about.. Justice. That justice has a price, it's called taxes, which allow it to maintain law and order, to deliver justice. The more income inequality, the more taxes(on the people who can pay them)it takes to maintain law and order for the same amount or less justice. Less income inequality=lower taxes. Simple math.

Trust me, I am finding myself on the sharp end of economically redundant these days, since I have a philosophy degree and very few people care about logic and reason these days.

[dcarrigg]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

Well, at least it is certain that they have increased the material return on that toil.

Absolutely, otherwise Malthusian projections would always hold water.

It is just an observation that throughout history technology has threatened to make humanity obsolete - people are still working - well those who are fortunate enough anyways.

[Munger]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

Munger,

What if computers/machines replace just about everyone? What if outsourcing does the rest? How do we create jobs?

In my opinion, it is not "if" machines can replace everyone but "when".

Really, it is just the logical extension of what has been happening for hundreds of years - with the caveat that there may be no other industries in which the laid off workers will be useful. For example, when textile machines started replacing textile workers, the laid off workers protested, then found other work. So it went when robots started replacing auto workers. Luckily for the laid off people, the machines are not as dexterous as a human, so the average human with average motor skills still had some use. That will change - and sooner than most people think.





The knowledge workers will be safe for another 25 to 50 years, depending on the breaks and their level of intelligence. Eventually the super-intelligent machines will start redesigning themselves and we won't have a chance to keep up.

Maybe we manufacture complexity? Do we create fields, worlds, and rules where computers and machines cannot either keep up or handle it to people's comfort? Do we create overly complex bureaucracy and financial rules? When we develop a system we do not understand and it fails, can we create even more complex ways to regulate it without simplifying it? Can we then tear down regulation that prevents it from getting more complex?

Anything complex we can attempt machines will be able to do better, eventually. At this point my guess is humans will spend their time idling or on creative endeavors.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

Anything complex we can attempt machines will be able to do better, eventually. At this point my guess is humans will spend their time idling or on creative endeavors.

I suspect they said similar things when Watts steam engine threatened to replace the laborer.

Once again, humans will come to better understand what separates them from machines and simpler life forms.

[Munger]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

I suspect they said similar things when Watts steam engine threatened to replace the laborer.

Th Watt steam engine had no dexterity or cognitive component. Today your refrigerator has more computing power than the Apollo spacecrafts. First backgammon, then chess, then go, then speech recognition, then visual recognition, then motor skills ... then common sense, then creative thought. In 5-10 years secretaries will be as common as the typewriter. In 10-15 service workers will be replaced by androids.

Once again, humans will come to better understand what separates them from machines and simpler life forms.

Yes. Ego, apparently.

[ASH]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

In 10-15 service workers will be replaced by androids.

Yes. Ego, apparently.

Hi Munger. My impression is that a machine is not always the cheapest solution. Even if the labor cost input to build the machines is negligible (because of the machine labor) the resource input to build, operate, and maintain the machines will not be. I think there will always be tasks which are easy for a low-skill human but which require a very high-value machine to perform. That doesn't mean there will always be "good" jobs -- simply that there will always be jobs. I plan to be here in 15 years, so I guess we'll see.

The thinking machine is a really interesting possibility to me. My observation is that once you can make a machine that is as smart as a human, you ought easily to be able to make a machine much smarter than a human, because hardware is far more scaleable than wet-ware.

[ricket]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

Are you freaking kidding me?! Is that really your stance?! Is that really how you believe most people think?! That is one of the most depressing and anger-inducing mindsets I have ever heard. I feel sorry for you if you believe this. In effect, you are saying that your fall back plan is to rely on other people to take care of your needs and wants. Have you no pride? Have you no sense of personal responsibility? Have you no shame? Have you no manhood? What do you think gives you the right to have other people take care of you?

What's the point of producing things to save time, when if you succeed in saving 99% of your time, you sit around and do nothing? Are you then considered lazy for not "working"? We have made so many productive advances in technology why is it *not* possible for people to not have to work and be able to feed their families without doing very much work? After all, isnt that the ENTIRE POINT of working in the first place? What happens if we get too good at it? It seems kind of contradictory.

If my skills became economically redundant, I would develop new skills, or I would drastically reduce my lifestyle, or I would become more self-sufficient in an effort to live off the land to a larger extent, or I'd form a commune with other like-minded people, or any number of other actions and efforts. The last thing I'd do is embrace a failed, unfair, unjust, freedom-robbing ideal like socialism. I'd hope that I would just kill myself before I took the stance that my skills are no longer needed so it's now up to other people to take care of me.

Hahah. You rail against socialism and then say if a free society doesnt work out for you, then "I'd form a commune with other like-minded people".

Your way of thinking is a cancer upon productive society. Get up off your ass and start preparing for the future.

So is elitism. It's a##hole egos like yours that started this mess.

This attitude screams of mighty intellectual, financial, and moral greed: "MINE! IT'S ALL MINE AND YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY OF IT!". Even though we *really* know you didnt work for it all by yourself or come across your wealth alone. You had others around you who helped you and laws (oh no! I guess the government *is* good after all!) in place that rewarded and subsidized your actions. If the markets were truly free, we would all be out of jobs right now and we'd have no choice but to all be on the same (poor) team.

Do you think Henry Ford built every car, himself, every 24 seconds that allowed him to build his massive amounts of wealth? No, his shitload of laborers did and if it wasnt for their hard efforts *combined* with his great ideas (this in itself represents a 50:50 relationship where one could argue the laborers are entitled to 50% of the "profits" from whatever they actually make), his automobile idea would have never came to fruition and we'd all still be riding horses while he would have lived his life forever in obscurity.

[bpr]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

Th Watt steam engine had no dexterity or cognitive component. Today your refrigerator has more computing power than the Apollo spacecrafts. First backgammon, then chess, then go, then speech recognition, then visual recognition, then motor skills ... then common sense, then creative thought. In 5-10 years secretaries will be as common as the typewriter. In 10-15 service workers will be replaced by androids.

I know some well-compensated individuals in high-cognitive conceptual positions that can't answer a simple question without first consulting a Blackberry or iPhone.

Plato on the technology of writing comes to mind.

[blazespinnaker]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

Good post Munger.

This has already happened a long time ago. It's amusing how people freak out when they read this kind of thing because it's rather obvious.

Unfortunately, the writers neglected to mention some obvious caveats, which is kinda sad.

The most important caveat is that we need proper incentives for the talented to continue working for the untalented. Without that, innovation will crawl to a stand still.

[tacito]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

Eventually the super-intelligent machines will start redesigning themselves and we won't have a chance to keep up.

There are logical limits to what a computer program can do. The previous century was the first one that saw meaningful improvements in the area of Logics since Aristotle and the stoics invented it: Kurt Gödel demonstrated that there are true theorems that cannot be proved. This is the basis of the computability theory, that deals with a colection of well defined problems that cannot be solved using a computer program: the non-computable problems. In particular, the problem of writing a program that solves a well defined problem is non-computable. In other words, no machine can do my job (I'm a computer programmer).

[tacito]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

... we need proper incentives for the talented to continue working for the untalented.

Well said.

There is a moral question that makes hard to accept this (more in USA that in Europe): The ideology of Capitalism is based on calvinist moral and its emphasis on the individual. People are suposed to build its own wealth with its own work, because work is wealth.

That ideology has served many people very well for a long time. In fact, for as long as work has been the most valuable element in the creation of wealth. But in order to build wealth you need different commodities, and work is only one of them. While energy, land, metals, etc. are not limited in supply, work is the limiting factor, and the most valuable.

Under those conditions, you can tell to the hungry: just work for your food. And when the USA were younger, he could go to the frontier, get some land and work there. Now, it's not possible: he has to buy the land to someone. The same as in Europe all the time. Now the limiting factor for growing vegetables is no more the human work, but the farm land.

Under the current/near future conditions, only a minority of the people will need to work for everybody. The real problem is the change in values that is necessary for that to make sense.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

Quote:

Once again, humans will come to better understand what separates them from machines and simpler life forms.

Yes. Ego, apparently.

More than that. Much more.

Self regeneration, without the essential aid of higher beings. This leads to evolutionary advance.

Creative complexity, that explores an increasingly rich tapestry of possibilities.