I’m familiar with Cochran’s hypothesis, and while he might be eventually proved right, his ideas are highly controversial and not what I would call even close to the scientific consensus on the matter.
I would think some, yeah. If they want. Or alternatively, you have an obligation to them because they spend time & effort on your business. What’s wrong with that?
I have not read his book yet, but I intend to, and write a book review for The Straight Dope. I find his book, and The Bell Curve to be far more convincing than arguments than the only differences between the races are cosmetic, and that it is the fault of whites that blacks have such high crime rates and low IQs everywhere in the world, and the fact that they always have.
The “scientific consensus” on this matter is still constrained by the censorship and deliberate lying of political correctness.
I don’t know that I have an answer to what “should” replace capitalism.
I’m a strong believer in free markets, I generally support capitalism because I think it is the best system we’ve yet implemented. Note specifically that I listed free markets and capitalism separately. As I said earlier, they are technically different things. You could still have a free market even without traditional capitalism in which private investors pool or use their personal capital to invest in existing business/create new businesses as the primary form of business activity.
Evil Captor pointed out many absolutely true problems of capitalism. At the same time as I agree there are potentials for such problems (and he was also correct in noting that since capitalism isn’t something that pertains to ethics, those undesirable results are not a flaw but just one expected outcome of the system), I disagree in that they can’t be curtailed with effective regulation. I think many people’s problems with the way things have been these past 10-15 years is hyperbole, and I do think regulation is much more effective now than it was in 1880 or 1930. That may not be saying much, but it’s showing regulation can work.
There are of course problems though, I mean in some of the biggest securities fraud cases the SEC was caught with its pants down. The SEC showed itself to be a semi-forgotten government agency with professional regulators who were often unable to understand the complexities of the activities they were supposed to regulate. This is a feature of a system in which the people who are strong at high finance are so well compensated in the private market entities like the SEC get the dregs of the finance majors (aside from a few of their best and brightest who tend to be in government due to political aspirations.)
I also do not believe you can eliminate corruption in any system, at least not with the current state of humanity (a key point.) Even in societies with no capital or private ownership, corruption will take the form of individuals who can collect bureaucratic power in their hands and use it to benefit themselves over the rest of society.
When it comes to the political system, democracy, totalitarianism, and various forms in between the two are all susceptible to corruption. In the real world any country is going to have a large enough government with enough ministers and officials that there will never be perfect oversight of their activities.
I think that technology will give us a different world eventually, to the degree that our form of capitalism will no longer exist. What I expect the post-capitalist world to look like is probably a lot different than most people here. Generally I imagine it like this:
Society will have reached a point of technical sophistication such that many whole sectors that provide jobs today will mostly no longer exist. Cross out mining, construction, manufacturing, and virtually all goods-producing jobs.
That’s a little over half the work force at current employment levels.
In the service sector, cut out most transportation workers, retail workers, and hospitality workers. Financial services, engineers, information workers will also all take massive hits, same for medical professionals. You will see some low level of employment probably in some of those sectors, but the individual workers will be so massively productivity that less than 1 will exist for every 10 that is employed today. Medicine, currently seen as an ironclad career field will eventually be performed so much better by advanced machines and analytical computers that it will violate medical ethics for human beings to perform diagnostics and most types of treatment.
People will still be employed in government, but again, it will be much more productive and employ fewer people.
I think society will eventually be divided up into three classes of individual.
At the top you will have the remaining capitalists/industrialists. They will own all the means of production and a vast share of the societal wealth. The rest of society will be divided up into a small portion of individuals who still work in professional fields or some sort of government service (the need for these individuals will decrease but I don’t believe advanced machines will be able to entirely replace everything, some level of human interaction will continue.) Then the vast majority of society will not work or be employed at all.
In 2007 the wealth distribution in the United States was like this:
Top 1%: 35%
Next 4%: 27%
Top 5%: 62%
Next 5% : 11%
Top 10%: 73%
Next 10%: 12%
Top 20%: 85%
Bottom 80%: 15%
Meaning the top 1% of the richest Americans held 35% of the wealth, the top 5% of the richest Americans held 62% of the wealth, the top 10% held 73%, and the top 20% held 85%. Obviously the top 20% held the vast majority of societal wealth, and the top 5% alone held more than half of all the wealth. Even amongst the top 5%, the top 1% held more than half of the share of the top 5% (35% versus 27% for individuals who made the top 5% but didn’t crack the top 1%.)
I think in my hypothetical technological future I would expect to see the breakdown end up like this:
Top 1%: 40%
Next 19%: 20%
Bottom 80%: 40%
How does that work? Well, I think that the mega wealthy will continue to exist and be massively powerful and wealthy. I think the other top 20%ers who aren’t part of that small group of super wealthy will be the people who actually work, and their total wealth will be about twice as high on an individual basis as it is for the unemployed. However the people who don’t work will have twice as large a share as the bottom 80% has now, and I think because of this and other technological innovation they will essentially be “fat and happy.”
I think democracy and such will persist, and I think that at some points during the transition (unlike most I am very conservative in my assessment of technological progress and how it changes society at this scale, this is my world in 2500-2600 AD, not 2100 or 2200) there will have been lots of uprisings as the lower classes lose jobs that are never brought back but aren’t provided for by the wealthy. This will eventually lead to the top 1%ers realizing they don’t have to give up much to keep people happy. Some version of a “Basic Living Allowance” will exist that will keep people mostly placated. Initially it will mean the top 20% including the top 1% lose their share a little bit as they give some away. But then eventually I think as the need for professionals and highly paid service workers is drastically reduced you have the top 1% cannibalizing the rest of the top 20% and ending up with a larger share than they have now.
In a hypothetical world with $1,000.00 of total wealth and 1000 people, that would give a distribution of:
Top 1%: $400 divided by 10 people = $40/person
Next 19%: $200 divided by 190 people = $1.05/person
Bottom 80%: $400 divided by 800 people = $0.50/person
But compare that to right now, where if our current world had $1,000 in wealth and 1000 people it would be:
Top 1%: $350 divided by 10 people = $35/person
Next 19%: $500 divided by 190 people = $2.63/person
Bottom 80%: $150 divided by 800 people = $0.19/person
So essentially I’m forecasting a society with a super small pool of people that own the means of production. A minor population of people that work, and the majority who don’t work at all. The benefit of being in the working population will be significant, but in the grand scheme of things not nearly as lucrative as it is now when comparing working to not working. Because not working will still afford a good life with luxuries.
You didn’t seem clear, that’s why I asked. You didn’t mention genetics specifically, but I will check again and eat my socks if I am wrong.
Different environmental pressures would have cultural effects on a populations crime and intelligence levels as well. How to separate genetic and cultural effects on such things… I’m not sure.
The people who do not work… what do they do in their free time?
Impossible to say, they live their lives. I’m not sure what people will do for entertainment and to occupy their minds at that late date. I would say some things will always be with us, music, various form of performance art, reading et cetera. Drinking, eating, interactive entertainment.
While some “political correctness” exists wrt the study of racial differences, I don’t believe it is sufficient to suppress this hypothesis from being tested fairly and scientifically. As to its validity, the fact is that the jury is still out. Just because it confirms your own preconceived ideas does not give it some authoritative status that it has not earned.
What’s wrong with coming to an agreement with your employees that your obligation to them will be expressed in the form of a paycheck?
I believe it’s time to shelve capitalism and return to the good old days of feudalism. The change can commence with the passage of a new Homestead Act, followed by an Oklahoma Land Rush-style grab for land…luxury apartments, slum tenements, what have you. The quickest become Property Lords, stragglers become vassals and those who get lost become serfs. Seems fair to me.
Drugs, murder and rape. what else?
I was thinking more like art, music, writing, philosophy, etc. 
I think that even if AI/machines/computers took over most of our tasks, one of the last things they’d obsolete would be our creativity.
I wonder if the “unemployed” would buy/sell each others creative works? I wonder how significant such an economy would be. I wonder if everyone would become a Picasso, or a Britney Spears, or a James Cameron, etc…
I’m not the OP of this thread and I don’t know what post of yours you are referring to.
And they’ll be undercut by competitors in the process, unless there’s a corresponding degree of governmental corruption that permits collusion.
ENOUGH!
The hijack relating to New Deal Democrat’s odd views of race have no purpose in this thread. Open a new thread to discuss it.
[ /Moderating ]
I think people would trade things like that, but I can’t even guess as to what level of economic activity that would represent compared to the vast industrial machines that powered society.
This vision I have of the future is far more idealistic than most of my views, but I do think there is a genuine possibility of such a future. I actually imagine that the industrial sector will do its work with some form of energy that is clean and without immediately pressing limitations (I don’t believe workable fusion electric generation is impossible, just longer off than most people.)
I think much of the unemployed will have less of an interest on money than people of today, they probably won’t care near as much and I think the more even spread of wealth will actually result in the lower 99% of people being happier than that 1%. I also speculate that while the bottom 80 will share around 40% of the wealth, it will be more evenly distributed. There won’t be a lot of people at the very bottom, but it’ll be a more even distribution of the 40% share amongst the bottom 80%.
I think debate, learning, appreciation for things, enjoyment et cetera will be the prime interest of most people, and polite society will be mostly bored with talk of what the top 1%ers are doing running their industrial empires. Sort of how in small town America where I grew up you might have polite society not really giving the mechanic a second nod but he actually is the most successful business owner in town and the wealthiest (real situation I’ve seen.) The top 1%er will almost be looked at like that, as being somehow lesser for sullying themselves by being involved with all the machines and heavy industry.
So what are they waiting for? If they can just invent an excuse to jack the price up, why not do it right now? Why would they wait for it to get cheaper to produce?
[QUOTE=Borzo]
The people who do not work… what do they do in their free time?
[/QUOTE]
They’ll work.
Martin Hyde’s wrong; there will never be a time when people won’t usually work. The nature of their work will be dramatically different, but they’ll still find stuff to do.
At the risk of beating the same goddamned drum we’ve had to beat before, this has all happened before. Most of the jobs that have existed have been eliminated by machines. Not that long ago in historical terms, almost everyone was a farmer or a keeper of animals; in some countries almost all those jobs are gone and even in poor countries a lot of them are gone, eliminated by machines. A thousand years ago, had you postulated the use of machines and fertilizers that would make more farmers obsolute, they would have said “But what will all the farmers DO, if they’re not farming?”
Many of today’s jobs would have been totally inconceivable to the observer of 1011 AD, not just because they were technologically impossible but because, in many cases,** they were economically impossible**. Many jobs we have today are societal luxuries. A teacher for every 20-30 children? Firefighters? Social workers? Health and safety consultants? ISO 9001 auditors? (That’s what I do.) Professional athletes? It’s not that people in AD 1011 didn’t like the idea of learning, not burning to death, having nice societies, safe working conditions or quality products, it’s that it simply wasn’t possible for the economy to support the existence of such professions to the degree it can today. They couldn’t afford it.
If we had amazing technology that dropped the price of goods to a fraction of what it is now… well, that’s already happened. We’re living it. And what happens is that we simply find other, higher value things to pay people to make for us and do for us.
They do just that on a regular basis.
Not really. We’ve never been in the position where machines could serve as an entire industrial economy, without the need for more than a few humans or even none at all. We aren’t there yet now either, but we will be, barring a collapse. We’ve never been in a position where it was possible for everyone, or even for most people to not work; so we have no real experience of what that can do to a society.
They already do:
Onetsy and others.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
If we had amazing technology that dropped the price of goods to a fraction of what it is now… well, that’s already happened. We’re living it. And what happens is that we simply find other, higher value things to pay people to make for us and do for us.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with this except that we may be running out of higher-value added opportunities for people. It is up in the air. One of the beauties of the mass market is that it is far easier for artists to make a successful independent living. Historically, they had to rely on patronage since only a few good afford their works. Instead of selling one original painting for a $1 million to be successful, they can now sell 1 million prints for $1, and the original. If we can come up with a similar arrangement for scientists that would be awesome, except most researchers would have a harder time finding 1 million people willing to purchase their papers, and most research does not lead to inventions that can generate a profitable return.
Technology is beneficial, even if it does increase unemployment in certain occupations. A major mistake of the Romans was in not pursuing technological development out of fear of rising unemployment. (If I remember my Seutonius correctly.) Yet it allows us to pursue other occupations even more beneficial to society, such as the firefighters and teachers.
We have seen the shift twice already. Very few people are needed to grow enough food and to actually build the products to support a very large population. 3 out of 100 to grow food, another 10-20 to work in the shop. Less the children and retired, say 30%, that means finding meaningful work for the other 50%. Trade and services fill most of that now, but advances mean more will be able to pursue artistic or academic careers, which has been increasing as automation takes hold. And those fields should be safe from automation for the foreseeable future.
Most people are not needed now to work in the basic economy. Most work is done is ‘surplus’ occupations. The trick is to provide sufficient incentives so people will work in those surplus fields that we now consider essential, such as the firefighters and teachers. Especially so when greater opportunities than those fields present themselves. I can only see that done through a basic income or minimum wage, so that lower income professions are still sufficient to allow its members to enjoy the benefits of society where the majority of those benefits will require purchase, and not be granted.
But several benefits have been granted, not for free, but at a cost shared by all through taxation. It is also where charts of the distribution of wealth come up short. We have enormous private wealth and income inequality that need to be addressed. Fortunately, that is less so in terms of public wealth - roads, parks, schools, libraries, Internet, etc. And one can measure the costs of providing those assets. While it is difficult to directly measure the benefits, it is fairly certain they are greater than the costs, and thus money well spent. As long as public wealth can provide sufficient benefits, that will mitigate private inequity - the main reason why Western economies are not rising up like the north African and Middle-Eastern regions.
My wag is if that we have the technological resources to provide a public benefit, then it becomes an obligation. To withhold those resources from the general public is an injustice. Lack of public education or fire protection was not unjust in an agricultural society such as medieval feudalism, but would be now. Health care has entered that realm now. Public health, i.e. sanitation, environmental protection, food inspections, etc., is considered a government obligation. Private health care is now also depending on what country you live. Not because it is a ‘natural’ right, but an artificial right - we have the capability, thus we have an obligation.
Capitalism is good at generating enough surplus resources for the public to take a portion to build public wealth, but capitalists, in general, will not provide those resources. A dual system is necessary with strong capitalist and socialist elements. What portion should the public take is definitely debatable, and I think can only be determined a case-specific basis, dependent in part on what obligations the government has incurred. Some periods can live with low taxes, other periods require higher taxes. I think most agree we need to enter a higher tax period, or what public wealth we have will deteriorate, let alone keep pace or build surpluses, and inequity will rise to unsustainable levels if it has not already.
No, not strict Behaviourism (or radical behaviourism, which is what I feel you’re saying. I prefer to think of it as an Evolutionary Psychology stance.
Not *any *society, no. But certainly those that play on aspects of human psychology that express themselves anyway. CApitalism “engineers” society around greed, intentional communities “engineer” society around altruism.
I think so, if done properly.
Arguing against it because it hasn’t happened yet isn’t logical.