[p2p-research] The rich...no longer getting richer?
Paul D. Fernhout
pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com
Sat Aug 22 02:57:02 CEST 2009
Ryan Lanham wrote:
> The rich are no longer getting richer…?
Some economists say they believe that the contrasting trends are unrelated.
If anything, these economists say, any problems the wealthy have will
trickle down, in the form of less charitable giving and less consumer
spending. Over the last century, the worst years for the rich were the early
1930s, the heart of the Great Depression .
Other economists say the recent explosion of incomes at the top did hurt
everyone else, by concentrating economic and political power among a
relatively small group.
“I think incredibly high incomes can have a pernicious effect on the
polity and the economy,” said Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist. Much of
the growth of high-end incomes stemmed from market forces, like
technological innovation, Mr. Katz said. But a significant amount also
stemmed from the wealthy’s newfound ability to win favorable government
contracts, low tax rates and weak financial regulation , he added.
And unrelated to the main theme, but interesting here:
In the late 1980s, he founded McAfee Associates, the antivirus software
company. It gave away its software, unlike its rivals, but charged fees to
those who wanted any kind of technical support. That decision helped make it
a huge success. The company went public in 1992, in the early years of one
of biggest stock market booms in history.
“We are coming from an abnormal period where a tremendous amount of wealth
was created largely by selling assets back and forth,” said Mohamed A.
El-Erian, chief executive of Pimco, one of the country’s largest bond
traders, and the former manager of Harvard’s endowment.
Some of this wealth was based on real economic gains, like those from the
computer revolution. But much of it was not, Mr. El-Erian said. “You had
wealth creation that could not be tied to the underlying economy,” he added,
“and the benefits were very skewed: they went to the assets of the rich. It
was financial engineering.”
Note that the "gains" from the computer revolution are not necessarily
egalitarian. Tom Golisano became a billionaire from creating the Paychex
company to do automated payroll processing, but that no doubt eliminated a
lot of jobs or free-lance consulting for accountants. From:
"Today, Paychex serves more than 500,000 clients from over 100 locations
across the United States and employs more than 9,400 people." So, basically,
one person is now doing the payroll for about fifty companies, and likely
many of these are medium size companies.
To be clear -- I think the innovation is wonderful, and freeing people from
doing jobs through automation is generally a good thing -- as long as the
benefits are shared with society. But as it is now, we have one more
billionaire and (guessing) maybe 100,000 less accountants. That kind of
thing can't go on much longer in job sector after job sector. Even within
Paychex, I can wonder if those 9,400 jobs could be mostly eliminated if
Paychex or the industry in general tried hard (robotic material handling of
checks, a move to electronic deposits, more web data entry, better AI for
complaint processing, etc.)? So, job destruction may go in waves, as
sections of the economy become more and more structured.
"Another Jobless Recovery Predicted"
Or (written originally in 2003 or so):
The Washington Post notes that we are now witnessing, "the longest hiring
downturn since the Depression". [ref] The article also notes, "The vast
majority of the 2.7 million job losses since the 2001 recession began were
the result of permanent changes in the U.S. economy and are not coming back."
There is no mystery -- the jobless recovery is exactly what you would
expect in a robotic nation. When automation and robots eliminate jobs, they
are gone for good. The economy then has to invent new jobs. But it is much
harder to do that now because robots can quickly fill the new jobs that get
invented. See the FAQ for additional information.
Also, better design, better systems engineering, better intelligent
software, and so on, can also all eliminate the need for many jobs.
If demand was infinite, as many economists assume, we might see more jobs
eventually. But if demand is limited (the best things in life are free or
cheap, and there is a law of diminishing returns on more stuff), or demand
grows more slowly than productivity, we will see job loss.
Why even millionaires should support a basic income, even as they lose
"[p2p-research] Basic income from a millionaire's perspective?"
The fact is, the basic income is already about what most millionaires might
be earning off their investments after inflation (assuming they have
anything left after the recent market crash). So, in a way, this proposal
makes everyone in the USA into effective millionaires (or close to it). So,
that means that millionaires have a lot more potential friends in the local
neighborhood with a millionaire-level of spare time to do fun things with
during the day. So, being a millionaire will be a much less lonely thing in
our society. And should a millionaire have children, the millionaire knows,
no matter how irresponsible with money their kid might be, that child will
always be a millionaire, in terms of a basic income.
More information about the p2presearch