Switch Theme:

Is this the end of the Western World Golden age ?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in ca
Dangerous Duet






Hi people !

This is my second time posting on the off-topic forum, so I'm kinda new to discussing something else than W40k here. Forgive my English, it's late and I'm not a native English speaker.

A little context.

I'm 28 years old. Up till recently, I was a teacher. And I lost my job because of budget cuts and I seriously doubt I'll ever teach again.

Big deal you must think.

But here's the thing. One of my friend, an engineer working on contract didn't got another one for next year. So he's out of job for now. And his wife is giving birth to their daughter as I am speaking.

My brother in law is an electrician but can only find part-time jobs.

My father (62 years old), who was an inhalation therapist just got transferred to a less paying sector.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.

When I was a kid, adults kept saying me that working hard, studying and getting a degree would give me a full-proof access to an easy life.

Yet I keep looking around me. All I can see is mediocrity.

The economy rarely seems to go well, and when it does, it doesn't really affect my life or the life of the people around me.

Whenever I watch tv, look at journals, or use FB to get my news, the world always seems to be on the verge of collapse.

Social media shows us the worst the human mind has to offer.

Every politician promise us salvation, but in the end, it's always a bitter disappointment.

When young people ask me for advice on what to do about their future, I can't give them an answer, for nothing seems secure.

Everything seems to be a gamble, with high risk, low rewards.

When I look at history books covering the post WW2 period, everything that happened after seems so bright and easy. Most of my former senior colleagues (when I was a teacher) tell me that it was easier back in their days.

Are our societies, in the Western World, seeing the end of a Golden Age ? If yes, what is there left for us ? Wherever I look, all I can see is disease, stupidity, ugliness, mediocrity and no chance for a better future. Is this it ? Is this the life we will live ? In mediocrity ? If yes, what is the point ?

 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Not necessarily. It's certainly a rough time, and the end of the myth of Hard Work and Making Your Own Success and all that. Wealth inequality is a huge problem that needs to be addressed, and may even become a fatal one if we don't do anything about it. But it is possible for these problems to be overcome. It will take a willingness to accept that modern capitalism is not sustainable and replace it with a socialist/communist system that incorporates a guaranteed standard of living for all people, but that is a thing that can be done.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in ca
Dangerous Duet






 Peregrine wrote:
Not necessarily. It's certainly a rough time, and the end of the myth of Hard Work and Making Your Own Success and all that. Wealth inequality is a huge problem that needs to be addressed, and may even become a fatal one if we don't do anything about it. But it is possible for these problems to be overcome. It will take a willingness to accept that modern capitalism is not sustainable and replace it with a socialist/communist system that incorporates a guaranteed standard of living for all people, but that is a thing that can be done.



To be honest, my biggest fear is that this rough time equals the duration of my lifetime.

It's selfish, of course, but if it's true that happiness has an intrisic value that each individual should be free to pursue, then I feel kinda cheated.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





OF course I will completely disagree with Peregrine on his post (no surprise there, we rarely ever agree on anything) I dont believe we are much worse off now than before, just now we have more rapid communications and people are more into the "moment" I don't believe "income/wealth inequality" is a "thing" and I am absolutely against socialism or communism in any form,. The world really isn't any more (or less) violent really, but the world never had instant news or things like "twitter" or "facebook" before. There is also much less interest in history (especially history that has not been sugar coated or distorted too severely by one ideology or the other, the whole "my lies are truths and your lies are lies" mentality) I do believe we have some real issues in the world, but I am also relatively certain that there is a lot of scapegoating by the powers that be. We tend to talk at each other a lot more and to each other a whole lot less, but again, that's nothing really new either. Hard work and effort on your part will in some ways pay off, but on the other hand, if your passion is for something that others dont place much value in, then you arent likely to make much. Teachers have for the most part always been underpaid and under appreciated. nothing new there.
   
Made in us
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle






 Peregrine wrote:
It will take a willingness to accept that modern capitalism is not sustainable and replace it with a socialist/communist system


Right, because those always work out so well!

In the Western world you may not be able to get a job... in Venezuela you can't find a scrap of food in a trash can. And you only get to the famine part if you're lucky enough to make it through the purges and genocides that usually accompany the Glorious Revolution.

No thanks.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I will also point out, a wise drunk once said "one man's "good old days" was usually another man's living hell" so there is that
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Why do you refuse to believe that massive wealth inequality exists?

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle






Massive wealth inequality clearly exists. It's also pretty easy to explain, and free-market capitalism doesn't have much to do with it. The U.S. government spends more money on corporate welfare than it does on social welfare. When you prop up entire corporations and industries to the point where you can't allow them to be negatively affected by market forces because they're now too large a part of the economy, that is not capitalism. It's some bastard form of mercantilism.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why do you refuse to believe that massive wealth inequality exists?


Quite simply because its nothing more than a cute buzzword to scam people into believing that somehow those "evil greedy rich people" are to blame for everything and not paying their fair share or the even more ridiculous notion that because i work for a company that somehow entitles me to a share of its profits. It is really simple, you agree to work for someone and they agree to give you a wage for your work, companies do not owe their workers any more than that. It is not a matter of "equality". burger flippers deserve burger flipper wages, the idea that working a minimum wage job is a career is also nuts. that the rich get richer is not a problem, inherited wealth is not evil, bad, wrong or whatever and noone is entitled to simply take that from them. The reality is that govts do not produce money, everything they give to someone must be taken from someone else.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 thekingofkings wrote:
Quite simply because its nothing more than a cute buzzword to scam people into believing that somehow those "evil greedy rich people" are to blame for everything and not paying their fair share or the even more ridiculous notion that because i work for a company that somehow entitles me to a share of its profits.


No, it is indisputable fact. There is no disagreement allowed here, the division of wealth in this country and in the world in general is massively unequal. It's a question of simple numbers, not your opinion of how the world should work.

It is really simple, you agree to work for someone and they agree to give you a wage for your work, companies do not owe their workers any more than that.


That's a rather cold-blooded way of looking at things. Personally I think that people should not be left to starve to death, even if they fail to negotiate for sufficient wages to survive. We, as a society, owe a basic standard of living to everyone.

burger flippers deserve burger flipper wages


Wait, I thought we were talking about a situation in which there is nothing more than an agreement between an employer and an employee. Why are you talking about what someone "deserves" to have?

the idea that working a minimum wage job is a career is also nuts.


You're right, it's nuts that people are trapped in minimum wage jobs for their entire working lives. But that's the reality of the situation, and it's only going to get worse as improvements in automation and AI make more and more jobs irrelevant. More people will be limited to working jobs that are barely sufficient to survive and of limited value to society, and vast numbers of people will be literally unemployable. The idea that you can simply will yourself to advance in life by sheer hard work and determination needs to die. There are not enough good jobs for everyone, and the situation is never going to get better.

that the rich get richer is not a problem, inherited wealth is not evil, bad, wrong or whatever and noone is entitled to simply take that from them.


Of course it is bad. Even setting aside the moral questions it's bad from a practical point of view. Being able to inherit large amounts of wealth discourages innovation and progress. If all you have to do to be rich is have rich parents and tell your financial advisor to keep the money coming you have no incentive to work. Money gets concentrated in people whose sole contribution is to have been born into the right family, while the workers and innovators of society are left with a smaller share of the wealth. Stagnation is not what we want, even if you argue that it's morally ok to have the vast majority of society's wealth concentrated in a few families.

The reality is that govts do not produce money, everything they give to someone must be taken from someone else.


Finally, something we agree on. Something must be taken from someone else, and we can start with the people who are way past the point of diminishing returns on being able to enjoy the wealth they are hoarding. The wealthiest people can settle for having a single private jet and a couple of vacation homes instead of a dozen billion-dollar mansions, and people who are currently struggling just to survive can improve to a more secure and stable life.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Peregrine wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
Quite simply because its nothing more than a cute buzzword to scam people into believing that somehow those "evil greedy rich people" are to blame for everything and not paying their fair share or the even more ridiculous notion that because i work for a company that somehow entitles me to a share of its profits.


No, it is indisputable fact. There is no disagreement allowed here, the division of wealth in this country and in the world in general is massively unequal. It's a question of simple numbers, not your opinion of how the world should work.

It is really simple, you agree to work for someone and they agree to give you a wage for your work, companies do not owe their workers any more than that.


That's a rather cold-blooded way of looking at things. Personally I think that people should not be left to starve to death, even if they fail to negotiate for sufficient wages to survive. We, as a society, owe a basic standard of living to everyone.

burger flippers deserve burger flipper wages


Wait, I thought we were talking about a situation in which there is nothing more than an agreement between an employer and an employee. Why are you talking about what someone "deserves" to have?

the idea that working a minimum wage job is a career is also nuts.


You're right, it's nuts that people are trapped in minimum wage jobs for their entire working lives. But that's the reality of the situation, and it's only going to get worse as improvements in automation and AI make more and more jobs irrelevant. More people will be limited to working jobs that are barely sufficient to survive and of limited value to society, and vast numbers of people will be literally unemployable. The idea that you can simply will yourself to advance in life by sheer hard work and determination needs to die. There are not enough good jobs for everyone, and the situation is never going to get better.

that the rich get richer is not a problem, inherited wealth is not evil, bad, wrong or whatever and noone is entitled to simply take that from them.


Of course it is bad. Even setting aside the moral questions it's bad from a practical point of view. Being able to inherit large amounts of wealth discourages innovation and progress. If all you have to do to be rich is have rich parents and tell your financial advisor to keep the money coming you have no incentive to work. Money gets concentrated in people whose sole contribution is to have been born into the right family, while the workers and innovators of society are left with a smaller share of the wealth. Stagnation is not what we want, even if you argue that it's morally ok to have the vast majority of society's wealth concentrated in a few families.

The reality is that govts do not produce money, everything they give to someone must be taken from someone else.


Finally, something we agree on. Something must be taken from someone else, and we can start with the people who are way past the point of diminishing returns on being able to enjoy the wealth they are hoarding. The wealthiest people can settle for having a single private jet and a couple of vacation homes instead of a dozen billion-dollar mansions, and people who are currently struggling just to survive can improve to a more secure and stable life.


no i most certainly can disagree on the first point, I completely reject this notion and yeah you are giving me your opinion of how the world should work. I earn money, it is therefor mine, if you dont earn as much that does not give you any right to take from me. the rich invest more, they take the risks, they should get the reward for their risk. It does not mean you get to take from others simply because they have more than you, or at least be honest about being a thief.This absolutely is in dispute, thats why we have such vehement disagreement and two pretty much diametrically opposed political parties.

The poor people of the world are far better off than the peasants and serfs of before.Sure there are people who are fabulously wealthy, whether they deserve to be or not is not up to us. some of the countries current richest people came up with their ideas as college students, innovation can come from anywhere, most of our best inventions have come from the poor or crazy trying to make things easier. as for inherited wealth, its their money and again noone has the right to take it from them just because they want to. There is word for this forced "redistribution of wealth" its called thievery. By all means if you find out and can prove in court that the wealth was illegally gained, confiscate it, by law. But if they get wealthy working the system legally, well good on em. while i dont like to quibble about words to make semantic arguments, I noticed you said "societys wealth" its not society's wealth, its their wealth, society has no claim on it.

the idea that socialism or communism can fix or change any of this is simply saying to trade one overlord for another. I will gladly keep the ones I have now. It is unjust to covet the wealth of people like zuckerburg who simply made something everyone seemed to want and it made him amazingly wealthy and then want to take it from him, simply because he has it. I dont care that he may have dozens of mansions, that really doesn't affect me and my crappy little house. Hwe came up with a brilliant idea. good job! enjoy the rewards of your labor.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/22 08:04:58


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 thekingofkings wrote:
no i most certainly can disagree on the first point


No you can't. This is simple numbers and indisputable facts, not moral opinions.

I earn money, it is therefor mine, if you dont earn as much that does not give you any right to take from me.


Sure it does. That's the entire concept of taxation. Unless you're arguing for a complete anarchist society with zero taxation (in which case you're a fringe extremist and not relevant to any political discussion) you accept the premise that your money is not entirely yours, and that society can take some of it from you.

the rich invest more, they take the risks, they should get the reward for their risk.


Not necessarily. Some rich people are rich because they took risks, but they very often aren't. Just take a look at things like the bank bailouts: the executives at those banks did not put their personal money at risk, would still have had comfortable upper-class lives even if they had risked the majority of their personal assets, and got the government to cover their losses when they failed. Our current society is full of examples of people who are rich because money was handed to them, and once you're rich even marginally-competent investing will ensure that you remain rich. If you inherit a billion dollars (remember, the statement about risk is in the context of inherited wealth) you will be rich for your entire life, even if all you do is sit around and enjoy your money, and you will likely pass on that same level of wealth to your children.

Meanwhile, if you want to talk about deserving reward for risk, why are military veterans paid so poorly? Surely if the "risk" of becoming slightly less wealthy because you made poor choices with your investments justifies being able to live a life of unimaginable luxury from your profits when you succeed then veterans who literally face death in service to their country have taken a greater risk and deserve greater wealth. The system is clearly not functioning as a risk vs. reward tradeoff.

The poor people of the world are far better off than the peasants and serfs of before.


So? The fact that progress has been made does not mean that we should stop making progress. In fact, by saying this you accept the premise of my argument: that taxation, and the things it produces, are good for the world. You just for some reason want to stop at what we have already achieved, instead of continuing the improvement.

the idea that socialism or communism can fix or change any of this is simply saying to trade one overlord for another.


No, it's offering the choice of an overlord or death. The alternative to socialism/communism, in a post-AI/automation society in which the vast majority of people are literally unemployable, is to be murdered by the starving masses. You either accept the inevitable fact that only a small minority of people are capable of productive employment, and the rest will have to be taken care of through taxation and socialism, or you commit suicide and then everyone else builds the inevitable socialist society on your grave.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/22 08:17:59


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

 thekingofkings wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why do you refuse to believe that massive wealth inequality exists?


Quite simply because its nothing more than a cute buzzword to scam people into believing that somehow those "evil greedy rich people" are to blame for everything and not paying their fair share or the even more ridiculous notion that because i work for a company that somehow entitles me to a share of its profits. It is really simple, you agree to work for someone and they agree to give you a wage for your work, companies do not owe their workers any more than that. It is not a matter of "equality". burger flippers deserve burger flipper wages, the idea that working a minimum wage job is a career is also nuts. that the rich get richer is not a problem, inherited wealth is not evil, bad, wrong or whatever and noone is entitled to simply take that from them. The reality is that govts do not produce money, everything they give to someone must be taken from someone else.


Why do you believe it is nothing more than a cute buzzword?

BTW, governments do emphatically produce money. Look at a dollar bill if you doubt this.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in gb
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair





Beijing

I’m amazed that a teacher losing their job can’t find work, or that they could afford to be cut in the first place. Most countries are crying out for teachers, it’s absolute desperation in the UK. My department has had at least one supply teacher in it since I started a few years ago, the last one left and to my knowledge they’ve not found someone for January. And we’re a good school, the tough ones must have a hell of a job attracting people.
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






I earn money.

And I owe a lot to my country.

I couldn't do my job and pursue the career I fell into without my education. My state education. I didn't pay for it. My parents contributed to it via their own taxes, but they didn't carry the whole can.

I've been patched and sent on my way multiple times by the NHS - all through illness and accident, none of it self inflicted.

I benefit greatly from living in a low crime area, where the worst thing that can happen is having to tell the odd oik to eff off before he gets hurt.

Around 2000, I was involved in a house fire. I owe the Fire Brigade who came and put it out.

The roads I use to get to work, I owe for those.

The trade deals the government have arranged on the country's behalf? I owe for them.

But most of all, I owe it to my fellow man to ensure the social services can lift as many people as possible out of poverty, and get them instead engaged and invested in the economy beyond subsistence living.

As for 'my company doesn't owe me anything'. That's race to the bottom logic - and that strikes can cripple industry points to the fallacy behind your logic.

Yes, some people are job creators. But if they want proper efficiency, they need to attract and retain suitable staff. Pay them peanuts, deny them holidays and other perks, and you can't retain any but those on the lowest rung.

More importantly, why should anyone in full time work have to struggle to make ends meet?. Why should someone busting their hump 40 or more hours a week only get the merest sliver of the money their efforts generate?

   
Made in us
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




Monarchy of TBD

 thekingofkings wrote:


The poor people of the world are far better off than the peasants and serfs of before.Sure there are people who are fabulously wealthy, whether they deserve to be or not is not up to us. some of the countries current richest people came up with their ideas as college students, innovation can come from anywhere, most of our best inventions have come from the poor or crazy trying to make things easier. as for inherited wealth, its their money and again noone has the right to take it from them just because they want to. There is word for this forced "redistribution of wealth" its called thievery. By all means if you find out and can prove in court that the wealth was illegally gained, confiscate it, by law. But if they get wealthy working the system legally, well good on em. while i dont like to quibble about words to make semantic arguments, I noticed you said "societys wealth" its not society's wealth, its their wealth, society has no claim on it.

the idea that socialism or communism can fix or change any of this is simply saying to trade one overlord for another. I will gladly keep the ones I have now. It is unjust to covet the wealth of people like zuckerburg who simply made something everyone seemed to want and it made him amazingly wealthy and then want to take it from him, simply because he has it. I dont care that he may have dozens of mansions, that really doesn't affect me and my crappy little house. Hwe came up with a brilliant idea. good job! enjoy the rewards of your labor.


The issue arises that you don't become wealthy or maintain wealth by being benevolent in most cases. The government needs to stop people from , oh let's say dramatically inflating the price of life saving medication, as Martin Shrkeli did, or as the manufacturers of the stable, mature technology of the epipen have done. http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/25/news/economy/daraprim-aids-drug-high-price/index.html . That's how you get the extra billions.

Or let's even go to something as mundane as a landlord/tenant relationship. The predatory loan practices of our banks are well known, but to be fair our housing bubble crash didn't kill anyone. The poor of London were not so lucky, when their hive tower went up like something out of Judge Dredd. http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/the-tragic-story-of-the-grenfell-tower-inferno/ .

In a move which foreshadows many of the fears of net neutrality, it was recently proved, and Apple admitted that when they release a new phone they start deliberately making the old phones slower to encourage you to upgrade. Thank goodness Apple can degrade my product's performance to shore up their profit margin and encourage me to update. http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/21/technology/apple-slows-down-old-iphones/index.html

The poor die to make those fortunes. Then, the corporations that profit from them alter the laws to improve their profits further by cutting safety margins and restrictions.

Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.

 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

To go back to the original question, there are in my opinion two answers.

The first is that the Golden Age started to fall into decline with the advent of neo-liberalism in the early 1980s. Since then it is obvious that while the world as a whole has got much richer, much more of the riches have gone to the already rich, at the expense of the bottom half of the population in countries like the USA.

The global financial crisis was caused largely by dodgy credit engineering designed to enrich banks without the effort of "producing money". It failed because reality caught up, as it alwasy does in the end.

The fall-out from this episode magically avoided the rich, and settled elsewhere, thus increasing misery and discontent. But some social or psychological process has led a lot of the afflicted to blame foreigners, socialists, immigrants and so on, instead of their own government policies.

All this being said, the Western World, consisting of western Europe, the USA, Canada, and natural allies like Japan and New Zealand, is still the most democratic, liberal bloc in the world and possesses immense stores of wealth, technology and so on.

Thus, I do not believe we are at the end. We are possibly at a turning point. If people continue to follow the illiberal policies of (fopr example) Trumpism , there will be further decline. But we can turn the corner if we can get people to open their eyes.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





North Carolina

 Khornate25 wrote:
Hi people !

This is my second time posting on the off-topic forum, so I'm kinda new to discussing something else than W40k here. Forgive my English, it's late and I'm not a native English speaker.

A little context.

I'm 28 years old. Up till recently, I was a teacher. And I lost my job because of budget cuts and I seriously doubt I'll ever teach again.

Big deal you must think.

But here's the thing. One of my friend, an engineer working on contract didn't got another one for next year. So he's out of job for now. And his wife is giving birth to their daughter as I am speaking.

My brother in law is an electrician but can only find part-time jobs.

My father (62 years old), who was an inhalation therapist just got transferred to a less paying sector.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.

When I was a kid, adults kept saying me that working hard, studying and getting a degree would give me a full-proof access to an easy life.

Yet I keep looking around me. All I can see is mediocrity.

The economy rarely seems to go well, and when it does, it doesn't really affect my life or the life of the people around me.

Whenever I watch tv, look at journals, or use FB to get my news, the world always seems to be on the verge of collapse.

Social media shows us the worst the human mind has to offer.

Every politician promise us salvation, but in the end, it's always a bitter disappointment.

When young people ask me for advice on what to do about their future, I can't give them an answer, for nothing seems secure.

Everything seems to be a gamble, with high risk, low rewards.

When I look at history books covering the post WW2 period, everything that happened after seems so bright and easy. Most of my former senior colleagues (when I was a teacher) tell me that it was easier back in their days.

Are our societies, in the Western World, seeing the end of a Golden Age ? If yes, what is there left for us ? Wherever I look, all I can see is disease, stupidity, ugliness, mediocrity and no chance for a better future. Is this it ? Is this the life we will live ? In mediocrity ? If yes, what is the point ?





In a word, yes. But the decline will be slow and steady. And we are the ones cutting our own throats.


But when the West bottoms out, the rest of the world WILL be affected.


This guys makes a few forecasts about the coming global shift (politically, economically, and socially), most of it focused on 2018. It's not really in-depth, and doesn't touch on everything. But it's still an interesting watch.




Proud Purveyor Of The Unconventional In 40k 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Depends on what you consider a Golden Age. I am pretty sure their were plenty of citizens who missed out on the "Golden Age" by being a minority, immigrant, woman, wrong economic class, bad location, etc.

That being said, we will be seeing HUGE changes in our society in the next two generations as automation reaches a critical mass. Eventually our society will need to adapt to the new realities that mass automation will have on ur social, cultural, and economic world view. I expect we will have some major instability and social unrest until a new equalibrium will be started and the new "Golden Age" will begin (for some).

Edit: Your avatar scares me!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/22 14:39:09


Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

About the "Rich people is rich because they deserve it", I only have this to say:

https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-06-03/how-rich-and-famous-remain-rich-and-famous-florence-italy


It’s a question that two Bank of Italy economists, Guglielmo Barone and Sauro Mocetti, attempted to answer. Focusing on the wealthiest families in 15th-century Florence, they compared newly digitized records of Florentine taxpayers way back in 1427 to those from 2011. By comparing the wealthiest people centuries back to those with the same last names today, they found that the richest families in Florence mostly remain the same.

In other words, these families have kept their grip on wealth — and presumably the prestige and power that accompanies that wealth — for 600 years.


If you do think this is in any shape or form fair... well I don't know what to say. As everything, the Mark Zukerbercs are a minority that to be honest has had the chance to sucess only because of the advent of internet. Internet is right now like the colonization of america. The first to come becomes rich.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






Things are definitely going to change. But the West will stay the wealthiest and one of the most influential regions of the world, I am sure of that. I do think the West is in decline though, and conditions when I grow up or when my future kids are going to grow up are probably not going to be as good as those that the generations before me grew up in. Golden ages are by their very nature always followed by periods that are less good.
But after that we get robot communism. Definitely robot communism. Robots are going to be doing all the work for us. And then we will all become cyborgs ourselves and have eternal life. Praise our robotic saviours. Amen.

 Easy E wrote:
Depends on what you consider a Golden Age. I am pretty sure their were plenty of citizens who missed out on the "Golden Age" by being a minority, immigrant, woman, wrong economic class, bad location, etc.

That being said, we will be seeing HUGE changes in our society in the next two generations as automation reaches a critical mass. Eventually our society will need to adapt to the new realities that mass automation will have on ur social, cultural, and economic world view. I expect we will have some major instability and social unrest until a new equalibrium will be started and the new "Golden Age" will begin (for some).



That is the same thing for every golden age for every region in every period in world history. What matters is the perception of the majority.

Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Houston, TX

 Easy E wrote:
Depends on what you consider a Golden Age. I am pretty sure their were plenty of citizens who missed out on the "Golden Age" by being a minority, immigrant, woman, wrong economic class, bad location, etc.

That being said, we will be seeing HUGE changes in our society in the next two generations as automation reaches a critical mass. Eventually our society will need to adapt to the new realities that mass automation will have on ur social, cultural, and economic world view. I expect we will have some major instability and social unrest until a new equalibrium will be started and the new "Golden Age" will begin (for some).

Edit: Your avatar scares me!



Yeah, assuming a "golden age" ignores the fact that it was very selective and concentrated wealth into largely the same hands as the colonial and mercantile systems before the modern age. Even in western nations, there are huge disparities in wealth, with majority being aggregated in the hands of very few. It amazes me how arguments justifying such inequalities seem to mirror justifications for imperial and totalitarian systems- essentially that those at the top are better.

The problem with modern western prosperity is that it is largely built on the back of exploiting others. The trend has been for greater equality, but still large corporations and the very wealthy seek to maintain their "kingdoms" and exert tremendous influence on governments in various ways. And while there has been a strong push for more egalitarian systems, the erosion of older institutions and changing conditions has produced a fair amount of resistance. So, at the same time you see continued violence in some of the poorest and most unstable regions in the world, you also see hostilities from the former beneficiaries of exclusionary systems in in the more developed nations. Rather than focus on internal corruption and exploitation, stagnant wage growth etc., entrenched interests attempt to redirect hostility towards external threats- immigrants, foreigners, terrorists, etc. or reframe reform movements as attacks on cultural values.

None of this is new, of course. Humans justifying their actions and dominance of others is as old as civilization. It's why kings proclaimed themselves gods (or god's vessel) and the modern proclaims themselves the gods of economic growth- it puts them above accountability. Likewise, ignoring the struggles of others while seeing ones own struggles as somehow unique or paramount is typical of human perspective. It is a fundamental reason why these systems remain broken and leaders can continue to exploit divisions.

-James
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I don't think the west is in decline, and even if it was, who would replace it? Its certainly not Asia if you are looking there.

There has been major changes to the economy in the last 100 years. In the US, the vast majority of workers were White males. Now with movements to create a more 'diversified' workplace, more women and minorities are taking up positions that were once held by, well, like baby boomer fathers and the greatest generation grandfathers (thought there was another name for them but can't remember it). Yes technology and automation has changed many fields, but new fields are created and people rotate into those. I am not sure when you can look back into history and say that any time period was better. Better for who? Wherever there is a winner, there is a loser. Its always been that way, and always will be that way.

I am not a socialist either. I have never lived in a socialist society either. But I have been to 30 or so countries, and I prefer to live in the US (although I imagine there are a few places I would enjoy living, but they have more to do with geography than economics). Yes, we have our problems in the US, but please. The last two countries I visited was India and China. You have no idea what over-population looks like if you have never left the US/Canada. Concrete jungles, slums, etc, all massive. And it will not go away. There will always be a sizable proportion of the population in those areas what will be well off, and others that are not.

Keep in mind that China's rise is going to plateau here in a bit, then have some major issues. Massive debts, automation, housing prices, and more are all going to rock China's society. The next place to boom will be India, but it too, will face the same issues China will have when it begins to eventually plateau out as well.

And I think about this all the time, with global warming, huge population increases (Africa is going to explode this century), and the massive amounts of waste we will produce, let alone the energy we will need, mankind is going to take a massive dump on this planet. Far worse than what is going on now. I am glad I was able to visit many places as I did as a kid, and have seen some things you only see on NatGeo or the Discovery Channel in person, as I don't think many places will be left in their natural state by the end of this century. The biggest problem with Earth, is the growing population of mankind.

And what typically happens when you have an abundance of unemployed males?!? Historically, you send them off to war.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/12/22 18:51:30


 
   
Made in si
Charging Dragon Prince





Khornate25 wrote:When young people ask me for advice on what to do about their future, I can't give them an answer, for nothing seems secure.


The point of life is to live it to our best. Our western society does not encourage us to explore it, everything needs to be standardized. We have a set of standards about standards. We constantly seek security and doing so unknowingly cultivate fear.

"Oh I can't go into writing/art, everybody knows you can't make money out of that". "My music just isn't good enough to compete with established artists".

I don't think I'd go into engineering, if given another chance. Who knows what sort of a writer I'd ended up? It's not as if education in engineering opened doors for me either. I'm writing this because I do wish more people would realize that very few things are set in stone. What sort of problems would you like to solve, what would get you out of bed in the morning? As a teacher I don't think you can do anything more than guide your students, they alone must walk their path.

Sorry, if this sounded preachy.
   
Made in us
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle






It sounds really nice to give everyone a universal basic income so we can all be painters and writers and live in a socialist utopia, but has anyone advocating this ever done any math to try and see how feasible it is?

If you gave everyone in the U.S. a basic income of $15,000 a year, it would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $5.55x10^12. That's close to the number of miles that light travels in one year, in dollars. You could take ALL of the money away from the richest 20% and it wouldn't even cover that.

 
   
Made in ca
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

 Luciferian wrote:
It sounds really nice to give everyone a universal basic income so we can all be painters and writers and live in a socialist utopia, but has anyone advocating this ever done any math to try and see how feasible it is?

If you gave everyone in the U.S. a basic income of $15,000 a year, it would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $5.55x10^12. That's close to the number of miles that light travels in one year, in dollars. You could take ALL of the money away from the richest 20% and it wouldn't even cover that.


Well, the working population of the US is somewhere in the vicinity of 200M people from a quick search (people aged 15-64, specifically). Multiply that by 15k, and you'll get approx 3 trillion dollars. In perspective, the US defense budget amounted to 500B.

The top 1% hold roughly 40% of the wealth in the country, and wikipedia says the total household wealth of the country is in excess of 55T, giving the 1% at least 22T. Take 15% of that, and you'd be able to pay for the 3T for UBI.

Rough napkin math of course, and never likely to happen, but the money is there.

Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in us
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle






How long would you be able to pay for UBI that way? How long until the wealthy either run out of money or move it somewhere else? What is going to happen to the economy when you have 200 million "novelists" doing nothing but subsisting on UBI? How is it going to affect prices and inflation? Is no one concerned about the power the government will have over society and individuals when it is the sole employer and source of income for hundreds of millions of people?

It's a pretty big leap to say social injustices exist, therefore socialism. In my personal experience, pretty much no one who proclaims themselves to be a socialist has done their homework. Although as I stated above, I have a much bigger problem with corporate welfare than I do social welfare. I think more capitalism would solve a lot of our problems, but we at least share common problems and a common "oppressor" in the first place, and that is a corrupt oligarchy created by the marriage of government and corporate powers.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 Blacksails wrote:
 Luciferian wrote:
It sounds really nice to give everyone a universal basic income so we can all be painters and writers and live in a socialist utopia, but has anyone advocating this ever done any math to try and see how feasible it is?

If you gave everyone in the U.S. a basic income of $15,000 a year, it would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $5.55x10^12. That's close to the number of miles that light travels in one year, in dollars. You could take ALL of the money away from the richest 20% and it wouldn't even cover that.


Well, the working population of the US is somewhere in the vicinity of 200M people from a quick search (people aged 15-64, specifically). Multiply that by 15k, and you'll get approx 3 trillion dollars. In perspective, the US defense budget amounted to 500B.

The top 1% hold roughly 40% of the wealth in the country, and wikipedia says the total household wealth of the country is in excess of 55T, giving the 1% at least 22T. Take 15% of that, and you'd be able to pay for the 3T for UBI.

Rough napkin math of course, and never likely to happen, but the money is there.


No the money isn't there. Wealth and money are two different things. A person or business can be wealthy without having much liquidity. To pay every working age person in the USA $15k a year would require an expenditure of $3 trillion dollars from the Federal government. That's a lot of money, that's almost same amount as the Federal government spends in a year already.

In fiscal year 2016, the federal government spent $3.9 trillion, amounting to 21 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). Of that $3.9 trillion, over $3.3 trillion was financed by federal revenues. The remaining amount ($585 billion) was financed by borrowing.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go

To get enough money to pay the $15k/person UBI the Federal government would need to double the amount of tax revenue it collects or reduce all other spending by 75%.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Peregrine wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
no i most certainly can disagree on the first point


No you can't. This is simple numbers and indisputable facts, not moral opinions.

you say its indisputable, that doesn't make it so. I reject your argument here.

I earn money, it is therefor mine, if you dont earn as much that does not give you any right to take from me.


Sure it does. That's the entire concept of taxation. Unless you're arguing for a complete anarchist society with zero taxation (in which case you're a fringe extremist and not relevant to any political discussion) you accept the premise that your money is not entirely yours, and that society can take some of it from you.

I am not arguing about removing taxation. the key here is that the wealthy are a part of this tax code and accept it as it is, so they dont simply take their money and leave,. what I am arguing against is this idea that its ok simply to keep taking from them because they have more. that is immoral and unjust. There is a point where its no longer taxation based on rule of law and it becomes punitive seizure. What I believe you and like minded individuals are condoning is helping yourselves to as much of their money as you want in the spirit of "equality" which is in itself immoral and unjust. We already have a "progressive" tax code in the US, a "Equal" tax would be a straight %, which of course would allow the rich to keep an even greater share of their wealth and require the poor who already get more back in returns then they pay in to have to shoulder their "fair share" which I have never heard a liberal want to do.

the rich invest more, they take the risks, they should get the reward for their risk.


Not necessarily. Some rich people are rich because they took risks, but they very often aren't. Just take a look at things like the bank bailouts: the executives at those banks did not put their personal money at risk, would still have had comfortable upper-class lives even if they had risked the majority of their personal assets, and got the government to cover their losses when they failed. Our current society is full of examples of people who are rich because money was handed to them, and once you're rich even marginally-competent investing will ensure that you remain rich. If you inherit a billion dollars (remember, the statement about risk is in the context of inherited wealth) you will be rich for your entire life, even if all you do is sit around and enjoy your money, and you will likely pass on that same level of wealth to your children.

I will concede the argument on this, you have convinced me to a degree on it.

Meanwhile, if you want to talk about deserving reward for risk, why are military veterans paid so poorly? Surely if the "risk" of becoming slightly less wealthy because you made poor choices with your investments justifies being able to live a life of unimaginable luxury from your profits when you succeed then veterans who literally face death in service to their country have taken a greater risk and deserve greater wealth. The system is clearly not functioning as a risk vs. reward tradeoff.

I am a military retiree, I believe I am given an almost ridiculous level of compensation, I get virtually free healthcare (free to me personally, not the state) for life, I get 50% of my base pay, for life, I get to use tax free shopping on base for life. I cant think of many professions that receive that, let alone the college benifits I was given .

The poor people of the world are far better off than the peasants and serfs of before.


So? The fact that progress has been made does not mean that we should stop making progress. In fact, by saying this you accept the premise of my argument: that taxation, and the things it produces, are good for the world. You just for some reason want to stop at what we have already achieved, instead of continuing the improvement.

The progress of the quality of life of the poor shows that while there are people who have more than they "need" that does not mean the rest of the people are living in squalor, poor people have many advances and conveniences. they are "poor" in relation to the rich, but are still well off, in the west the poor are in many cases better off than the "middle class" of many other areas. We are not living in a time of a handful of scrooges hoarding everything while the rest starve.

the idea that socialism or communism can fix or change any of this is simply saying to trade one overlord for another.


No, it's offering the choice of an overlord or death. The alternative to socialism/communism, in a post-AI/automation society in which the vast majority of people are literally unemployable, is to be murdered by the starving masses. You either accept the inevitable fact that only a small minority of people are capable of productive employment, and the rest will have to be taken care of through taxation and socialism, or you commit suicide and then everyone else builds the inevitable socialist society on your grave.


I dont agree here at all,. machines break, people will need to build them and repair them, machines are not all terrain nor all weather, the nature of employment will have to change,. what you are basically advocating is the enslavement of humanity from the "evil captalist" to the "good socialists". while I dont believe you are "Threatening" with this last I have noticed that almost every time this comes up, it is violence that socialists have to threaten to get their way, doomsday scenario and all (I am used to your "belligerent" sounding tone so generally wont take offense) but if this system is so good, why is it always accompanied by force?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why do you refuse to believe that massive wealth inequality exists?


Quite simply because its nothing more than a cute buzzword to scam people into believing that somehow those "evil greedy rich people" are to blame for everything and not paying their fair share or the even more ridiculous notion that because i work for a company that somehow entitles me to a share of its profits. It is really simple, you agree to work for someone and they agree to give you a wage for your work, companies do not owe their workers any more than that. It is not a matter of "equality". burger flippers deserve burger flipper wages, the idea that working a minimum wage job is a career is also nuts. that the rich get richer is not a problem, inherited wealth is not evil, bad, wrong or whatever and noone is entitled to simply take that from them. The reality is that govts do not produce money, everything they give to someone must be taken from someone else.


Why do you believe it is nothing more than a cute buzzword?

BTW, governments do emphatically produce money. Look at a dollar bill if you doubt this.


the mint prints the physical currency, thats not the same thing, the govt taxes its citizens it does not just print what it wants.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gitzbitah wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:


The poor people of the world are far better off than the peasants and serfs of before.Sure there are people who are fabulously wealthy, whether they deserve to be or not is not up to us. some of the countries current richest people came up with their ideas as college students, innovation can come from anywhere, most of our best inventions have come from the poor or crazy trying to make things easier. as for inherited wealth, its their money and again noone has the right to take it from them just because they want to. There is word for this forced "redistribution of wealth" its called thievery. By all means if you find out and can prove in court that the wealth was illegally gained, confiscate it, by law. But if they get wealthy working the system legally, well good on em. while i dont like to quibble about words to make semantic arguments, I noticed you said "societys wealth" its not society's wealth, its their wealth, society has no claim on it.

the idea that socialism or communism can fix or change any of this is simply saying to trade one overlord for another. I will gladly keep the ones I have now. It is unjust to covet the wealth of people like zuckerburg who simply made something everyone seemed to want and it made him amazingly wealthy and then want to take it from him, simply because he has it. I dont care that he may have dozens of mansions, that really doesn't affect me and my crappy little house. Hwe came up with a brilliant idea. good job! enjoy the rewards of your labor.


The issue arises that you don't become wealthy or maintain wealth by being benevolent in most cases. The government needs to stop people from , oh let's say dramatically inflating the price of life saving medication, as Martin Shrkeli did, or as the manufacturers of the stable, mature technology of the epipen have done. http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/25/news/economy/daraprim-aids-drug-high-price/index.html . That's how you get the extra billions.

Or let's even go to something as mundane as a landlord/tenant relationship. The predatory loan practices of our banks are well known, but to be fair our housing bubble crash didn't kill anyone. The poor of London were not so lucky, when their hive tower went up like something out of Judge Dredd. http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/the-tragic-story-of-the-grenfell-tower-inferno/ .

In a move which foreshadows many of the fears of net neutrality, it was recently proved, and Apple admitted that when they release a new phone they start deliberately making the old phones slower to encourage you to upgrade. Thank goodness Apple can degrade my product's performance to shore up their profit margin and encourage me to update. http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/21/technology/apple-slows-down-old-iphones/index.html

The poor die to make those fortunes. Then, the corporations that profit from them alter the laws to improve their profits further by cutting safety margins and restrictions.


as for your first, Shrkeli was nabbed on securitues fraud, not raising his prices,. epipen is a brand, there are generics., they simply lack the reputation and ease.

land lord/ tenant relationships are always tricky situations, but again, the property belongs to the landlord,. not the tenent if they raise the price too much, you may have to move. property taxes can force landlords to raise their prices, landlords are required to keep their properties in certain shape.

I dont have a cell phone or iphone or what have you, I have a landline so i have no idea on your last.


good luck everyone on the great wall of text. If I didnt address or respond, hit me up (hopefully without the massive wall of quote) I got a feeling this thread (if we dont get locked) is gonna grow quite a bit.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/12/22 20:25:59


 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

In the automated future, what will wealth even mean? The only limit will be the energy production to fuel the robots and the natural resources to make the stuff.

However, in the far future; most "stuff" will be "fake stuff" as it will only be code data.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: