Monday, July 29, 2013
Inequity
The big topic of today was inequity and how the current trends are making it worse. The stock market has recovered but the new technology is eliminating more and more jobs. There seemed to be no solution. As Lowell remarked, it was making us all depressed. But here is a TED talk which says that job elimination by technology is great news. Do you agree with the speaker?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For the short-term, at least, say, the next two decades ( a full generation), McAfee in this talk seems to have his head in a wishful place where the sun simply isn't shining and seems unlikely to shine anytime soon.The data he showed for "Bill," regardless of race, is relentlessly dismal and getting worse: fewer jobs the endure, fewer hours, less pay, failing marriages, less hope, more need for better education, etc. To which one must add, essentially no hope being offered or even talked about for Bill by politicians and social thinkers at any level.
ReplyDeleteMcAfee says the future, somehow, will be better for all, but, c'mon, that may be true for Ted, but not so much for the majority of those entering the American workforce named Bill. True, technology is wonderful and exciting, offering new ways of doing stuff that we haven't even thought up yet, and we as a nation should develop it full-speed-ahead. But we simply cannot afford to leave behind as many people as we seem to be leaving in low-paying, insecure work solely in the name of building better gizmos.
The "Teds" of the world always seem to survive well, thanks to education and at least some measure of family strength, even if that's in a society where there are many different definitions of family. But it's the fast-growing number of Bills of this nation who worry me in my elder-hood. Can one survive, really, in even a modest, middle-class way, given all of the negatives associated with today's lousy educations, lack of employment stability, greed on the part of corporations, globalization, and shrinking hope of upward mobility? Survive, let-alone thrive?
What we Americans seem to be inexorably moving toward is a Latin-fashion society of extreme haves and have-nots, with the gap way to wide to foster hope and collaboration for the masses. Racial divides, the marker of American history for most of our history, may well become minor, as the Harvard prof said in one of the news items we discussed today, when compared to the socio-economic differences that are emerging more rapidly than many notice. And that is a big, scary point that McAfee misses or chooses to ignore.
I agree with Lowell that McAfee did not make a clear case for how Bill's life improves. But he did leave some hints. He says that technology is changing the fundamental nature of economy to one that is based on abundance. Such an economy can afford socialism. So Bill's basic needs would be taken care of by a minimum guaranteed income. If Bill's basic needs are met, he could take advantage of educational opportunities, which would also be abundant. So Bill's life will eventually improve even if technology took away his job. However, it is still unclear on how we get to that bright future.
ReplyDeleteHe defines the problems I have been aware of my whole adult life but he does Not have any solutions other than Faith! I see a feudal society coming back. There may be such a thing as too much technology and not enough Thinking. True, technology develops a few new jobs but unless politicians are willing to support things that help keep People the Point of our economy we will go nowhere. Maybe it would help if we paid politicians minimum wage even tho that means no one would be one.Where would we get the money for a guaranteed income as I doubt the corporations are likely to volunteer their money or extra profits!
ReplyDeleteMcAfee is talking about a future economy where resources are plentiful and cheap. So a guaranteed income to meet basic needs would not be a problem. Future technologies will make this possible. They will eliminate the need for people to do these jobs, and we need to have a society which allows these people to pursue other opportunities. Unfortunately, we aren't there yet, but improvements in technology will force our hand.
ReplyDeleteThe driverless cars will tremendously benefit our senior community. Would you ban them to keep drivers employed?
As a handicapped person of low vision I of course look forward to driverless cars but do not feel your optimism that there will be enough money from--somewhere--to pay all the people enough to live on. If we eliminate most of the jobs, well then you have a lot of unemployed people running around with nothing to do but get into mischief. Technologies are not the answer to everything though I really hope we come up with some answers soon. Are we going to be able to eliminate farm workers etc. or are we going to be left with only a few low paying positions? How will we get equal money distribution in this country? Not in my lifetime. I still say I wish we had real answers not just vague"It will solve itself with technology". It was a good talk just not enough for me.
DeleteThere are two issues. One is if an Economy of Abundance is possible; the other is if it is desirable. The argument of not enough money falls under the first issue; the argument of unemployed people creating mischief falls under the second.
ReplyDeleteMcAfee is assuming that Abundance is possible and talks of the consequences. By definition, if there is Abundance, we can provide for the needs of the jobless. However, he admits there is moral hazard, and solving that problem would be difficult. While not providing an answer, he sees that education will play a major role.