More concentration of wealth

[grandjean87]

On 10/9/2023 at 5:01 PM, sactowndog said:

So the trends are bad and with outsourcing will only get worse.  This approach will also have an huge impact on the budget deficit as wealth concentrates and gets passed on with no taxes.  
 

https://news.yahoo.com/us-wealth-income-concentration-resume-100731972.html

 

Simple wealth inequality is an insufficient metric for economic well-being.  It's not causal to any number of important standards of living ones.  The rich get richer doesn't make the poor get poorer.  The poor get poorer when they get poorer.

That said, we have a problem.  We have a growing wealth gap and more importantly the emergence of distinct classes of Americans in ways that did not exist even in the Post-WWII years and well into the latter 20th Century.  See libertarian Charles Murray's Coming Apart (2010) or progressive Robert Putnam's Our Kids (2015) or even The Upswing (2021).   The latter is the real threat.  I think we see the impact of that in our hyper-polarized political climate.  

Traditional liberal welfare state solutions do mitigate.  Subsidies for higher education come to mind. We saw this in many ways including recently when Covid relief pulled/saved many kids and families out of poverty.  But, those were emergency policies unsustainable at various levels.  Education and job training are costly and the latter doesn't have a great record of effectiveness (historically).  Plus, the macro economic environment and labor markets have more import on earnings and opportunities than re-training or vo-tech education.  

Wealth inequality was further stimulated by a couple decades of zero interest policy.  That has come to an end, but don't bet against old money continuing to work through wealthy and well-off families.  One kid who comes from a family with professional career and business income is going to have more than one leg up compared to another from a single mom making $19/hr. as a CNA.  That has become a serious social structural problem as the class divides have hardened.

Solutions?  Probably three general approaches to poverty have made their way to policy proposals from think tanks to legislation.  See next post. 

 

[grandjean87]

On 10/11/2023 at 3:41 PM, grandjean87 said:

Simple wealth inequality is an insufficient metric for economic well-being.  It's not causal to any number of important standards of living ones.  The rich get richer doesn't make the poor get poorer.  The poor get poorer when they get poorer.

That said, we have a problem.  We have a growing wealth gap and more importantly the emergence of distinct classes of Americans in ways that did not exist even in the Post-WWII years and well into the latter 20th Century.  See libertarian Charles Murray's Coming Apart (2010) or progressive Robert Putnam's Our Kids (2015) or even The Upswing (2021).   The latter is the real threat.  I think we see the impact of that in our hyper-polarized political climate.  

Traditional liberal welfare state solutions do mitigate.  Subsidies for higher education come to mind. We saw this in many ways including recently when Covid relief pulled/saved many kids and families out of poverty.  But, those were emergency policies unsustainable at various levels.  Education and job training are costly and the latter doesn't have a great record of effectiveness (historically).  Plus, the macro economic environment and labor markets have more import on earnings and opportunities than re-training or vo-tech education.  

Wealth inequality was further stimulated by a couple decades of zero interest policy.  That has come to an end, but don't bet against old money continuing to work through wealthy and well-off families.  One kid who comes from a family with professional career and business income is going to have more than one leg up compared to another from a single mom making $19/hr. as a CNA.  That has become a serious social structural problem as the class divides have hardened.

Solutions?  Probably three general approaches to poverty have made their way to policy proposals from think tanks to legislation.  See next post. 

 

 

On 10/11/2023 at 3:41 PM, grandjean87 said:

 

The three general strategies or approaches go like this:

1.  Expansion of the liberal welfare state and redistribution of income. This has been the historical path in the USA.  Expanded free school lunch to free community college/vo-tech in a few locales to various personal tax credit and much, much more.   

2.  Restructuring the welfare bureaucracy for efficiency.  This usually includes incentives for benefits and  various, additional work or training requirements.  The 1996 Welfare Reform Act Falls into this broader approach.  

3.  Various proposals for a UBI (there are different ones) or other cash/in-kind transfers/voucher proposals for the poor and working class.  The former has policy goals broader than reducing poverty and wealth inequality. 

The first two approaches have not worked (historically) to the degree we would like. Social mobility in the USA is woefully inadequate.  We lag a couple dozen or so other nations, and some by large margins.   I don't see the political will for the expansion of the welfare state.  Maybe the two younger gens voting now and a future one will change that calculus.  To adequately fund welfare expansion would require a much broader tax base including higher taxes on pretty much everyone.  Good luck there.

The bureaucratic/incentives approach (Paul Ryan had a mega plan before his demise) just doesn't seem to work all that well.  Sure, bureaucratic efficiency gains are always possible, but this does nothing to address dynamic economic conditions.  That even w/o the impact of the future robot economy.  We get stuck with 1/6th or more of the population w/an IQ low enough that many are unable to rapidly adapt to changing job requirements. Then you have people with health problems and other barriers.  I know a woman in her 30s, married with kids, a blue collar job husband, a special needs sibling she takes care of, and now a teen son w/a serious medical condition requiring travel for health care. Tell me what hoops she needs to jump through for additional assistance?

We have to do something different or deal with the failure to do so. Trump ought to be a warning.  

[SalinasSpartan]

On 10/11/2023 at 1:45 PM, bornontheblue said:

We actually have the opposite problem. There are more jobs available than people to fill them. 

The argument that we need UBI because there aren't enough jobs is not in line with reality 

Again, that’s not the argument. The argument is this WILL happen, not that it HAS happened.

[grandjean87]

On 10/11/2023 at 4:49 PM, SalinasSpartan said:

Again, that’s not the argument. The argument is this WILL happen, not that it HAS happened.

Also, there's no evidence that a UBI would reduce the (gross) labor pool.  In some conditions it might actually increase work participation.  

[bornontheblue]

On 10/11/2023 at 4:49 PM, SalinasSpartan said:

Again, that’s not the argument. The argument is this WILL happen, not that it HAS happened.

Call me skeptical 

[halfmanhalfbronco]

On 10/10/2023 at 11:03 PM, SalinasSpartan said:

His argument is that because of AI this problem will keep growing until there are literally not enough jobs for everybody willing to work. He believes this is inevitable and there is nothing that can be done about this. And because of that UBI will be necessary at some point.

You keep talking about “policies”; his argument is that there are NO policy solutions to solve the problem of not enough jobs.

 

Pretty much this.  If quantum computing takes a big step forward in the next few decades, AI will become very, very powerful.  Exponentially more so than now.  Even skilled labor will lose jobs.  Doctors, lawyers, coders.  Such advances will almost assuredly mean people are able to live and work longer, too.  

In 30 years a talented cook may be more valued than many skilled labor jobs currently.  

If AI and Automation don't take away a significant portion of available labor for the public, IMO that means something much worse has gone wrong  that stopped the rate of technical advancement around the globe.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

On 10/11/2023 at 4:57 PM, grandjean87 said:

Also, there's no evidence that a UBI would reduce the (gross) labor pool.  In some conditions it might actually increase work participation.  

People not having to decide between their welfare check and food stamps and a job at 7/11 or Taco Time would sure be nice, right?

[halfmanhalfbronco]

On 10/10/2023 at 9:35 PM, bornontheblue said:

Dumb societies pay people not to work. I'm sorry that that fundamental concept alludes you. 

 

The greatest civilizations and cultures in history have paid people to not work.  From warrior aristocracies only "working" every few years for a few weeks at a time, from the Greeks to the Celts to the Egyptians.  To Romans paying citizens to not work for years, sometimes generations, so society would not riot.  We currently, in this country, pay farmers to not work.  

Prior to the 7th century BCE most societies operated on basically a type of UBI.  With people allotted a certain share as their portion of the tribe, city or state.

 

[bornontheblue]

On 10/11/2023 at 7:54 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

People not having to decide between their welfare check and food stamps and a job at 7/11 or Taco Time would sure be nice, right?

A societies wealth is measured by the value of goods and services it produces. How does paying people to do nothing increase the value of our economic output? 

Now apply that to your own life. Would you give away 35 percent of what you own to the first ten rando people you meet expecting nothing in return. Why would you expect different results giving away wealth with nothing exchanged in return. 

It's sounds very noble, and well intentioned , but it's a really dumb idea, and would have a net wealth destroying effect . 

[bornontheblue]

On 10/11/2023 at 8:01 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

The greatest civilizations and cultures in history have paid people to not work.  From warrior aristocracies only "working" every few years for a few weeks at a time, from the Greeks to the Celts to the Egyptians.  To Romans paying citizens to not work for years, sometimes generations, so society would not riot.  We currently, in this country, pay farmers to not work.  

Prior to the 7th century BCE most societies operated on basically a type of UBI.  With people allotted a certain share as their portion of the tribe, city or state.

 

It's also stupid to pay farmers not to grow, and past civilizations have failed because stupid policies like these. 

[halfmanhalfbronco]

On 10/11/2023 at 8:03 PM, bornontheblue said:

A societies wealth is measured by the value of foods and services it produces. How does paying people to do nothing increase the value of our economic output? 

Now apply that to your own life. Would you give away 35 percent of what you own to the first ten rando people you meet expecting nothing in return. Why would you expect different results giving away wealth with nothing exchanged in return. 

It's sounds very noble, and well intentioned , but it's a really dumb idea, and would have a net wealth destroying effect . 

It's been explained you, even in video breakdown, before, with modeling, how a UBI could INCREASE societies productivity, education level, and build stronger bonds.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

On 10/11/2023 at 8:05 PM, bornontheblue said:

It's also stupid to pay farmers not to grow, and past civilizations have failed because stupid policies like these. 

Don't give me the mega idiot button just cus you don't know how to history.  Pretty much every revered culture and civilization of the past 3,000 years (and all of them before) had some sort of UBI or form of paying large segments of the population to not work at various times when conditions demanded.

Stick to taxes and numbers lol

[halfmanhalfbronco]

On 10/11/2023 at 8:05 PM, bornontheblue said:

It's also stupid to pay farmers not to grow, and past civilizations have failed because stupid policies like these. 

Stick to accounting....

[bornontheblue]

On 10/11/2023 at 8:06 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

It's been explained you, even in video breakdown, before, with modeling, how a UBI could INCREASE societies productivity, education level, and build stronger bonds.

Yeah, and it's all bullshit. UBI is a stupid idea , and would not be good for the economy. Economies that lean into the conceot of tying income to economic value produced would surpass us. Noble, but a dumb idea 

Economic transactions won't happen unless both sides feel they benefit. UBI is a forced economic transaction where only one side benefits. 

Why is it that you don't take all of your assets and just start giving them away to random people with nothing expected on return. 

[bornontheblue]

On 10/11/2023 at 8:09 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Don't give me the mega idiot button just cus you don't know how to history.  Pretty much every revered culture and civilization of the past 3,000 years (and all of them before) had some sort of UBI or form of paying large segments of the population to not work at various times when conditions demanded.

Stick to taxes and numbers lol

Dude our society is the wealthiest society in human history. We didn't get here because we gave away income with nothing expected in return.  Those classic civilizations you mention like the Roman empire had much , much more wealth disparity , dire poverty and overall much more  human suffering than ours. So yeah, UBI didn't do shit for them. 

UBI is a dumb idea 

[halfmanhalfbronco]

On 10/11/2023 at 8:11 PM, bornontheblue said:

Yeah, and it's all bullshit. UBI is a stupid idea , and would not be good for the economy. Economies that lean into the conceot of tying income to economic value produced would surpass us. Noble, but a dumb idea 

Economic transactions won't happen unless both sides feel they benefit. UBI is a forced economic transaction where only one side benefits. 

Why is it that you don't take all of your assets and just start giving them away to random people with nothing expected on return. 

 

Pretty simple.  You are operating under the assumption that a UBU would see decrease in productivity of the populace.  I am not.

I think it would see an increase in innovation, risk taking, education and community building.

We disagree.  Just don't use fake/bad history to justify your position lol

[Dogs4Me]

On 10/11/2023 at 3:14 PM, grandjean87 said:

 

The three general strategies or approaches go like this:

1.  Expansion of the liberal welfare state and redistribution of income. This has been the historical path in the USA.  Expanded free school lunch to free community college/vo-tech in a few locales to various personal tax credit and much, much more.   

2.  Restructuring the welfare bureaucracy for efficiency.  This usually includes incentives for benefits and  various, additional work or training requirements.  The 1996 Welfare Reform Act Falls into this broader approach.  

3.  Various proposals for a UBI (there are different ones) or other cash/in-kind transfers/voucher proposals for the poor and working class.  The former has policy goals broader than reducing poverty and wealth inequality. 

The first two approaches have not worked (historically) to the degree we would like. Social mobility in the USA is woefully inadequate.  We lag a couple dozen or so other nations, and some by large margins.   I don't see the political will for the expansion of the welfare state.  Maybe the two younger gens voting now and a future one will change that calculus.  To adequately fund welfare expansion would require a much broader tax base including higher taxes on pretty much everyone.  Good luck there.

The bureaucratic/incentives approach (Paul Ryan had a mega plan before his demise) just doesn't seem to work all that well.  Sure, bureaucratic efficiency gains are always possible, but this does nothing to address dynamic economic conditions.  That even w/o the impact of the future robot economy.  We get stuck with 1/6th or more of the population w/an IQ low enough that many are unable to rapidly adapt to changing job requirements. Then you have people with health problems and other barriers.  I know a woman in her 30s, married with kids, a blue collar job husband, a special needs sibling she takes care of, and now a teen son w/a serious medical condition requiring travel for health care. Tell me what hoops she needs to jump through for additional assistance?

We have to do something different or deal with the failure to do so. Trump ought to be a warning.  

Just gonna have to stop you there father government freebie dude. The government is never the solution. You want to bring efficiency to problem solving? Leave the government out. They’re good at making sure the problem exists long enough for them to promote on to the next pork barrel problem.

If you truly want efficiency in problem solving, the free market is your domain…somewhere that allows for a competitive environment.

This stuff should be obvious, but some people, like their lazy asses, can’t get their lazy minds off of the government tit.

[Akkula]

On 10/10/2023 at 6:39 PM, Wyobraska said:

What about people who either can't learn those skill sets or you just wouldn't want them working in certain positions?

What do you do with those people?

They can just become plumbers and they will make $250k a year with no debt!

[Akkula]

On 10/10/2023 at 9:15 PM, Wyobraska said:

I agree that the education system needs big changes.  What do you do with those people that are too dumb/lazy to get through school if they get spit out?  

Give them a free ticket to burning man and then nuke it from orbit.   

[bornontheblue]

On 10/11/2023 at 8:16 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

Pretty simple.  You are operating under the assumption that a UBU would see decrease in productivity of the populace.  I am not.

I think it would see an increase in innovation, risk taking, education and community building.

We disagree.  Just don't use fake/bad history to justify your position lol

It's not bad history. I'm the only one between us with an actual college degree in history. The Roman empire was a much poorer society by far than we are. 99 percent of the people lived in a hand to mouth miserable existence. Sure they maybe got food rations of basic staples ,but they were a far poorer society than we are The only people who got the type of UBI you speak of in Roman times was well educated, connected aristocrats with nobility and titles. People like Pliny the Elder