Wealth distribution

[Andres]

Are we ever going to reach a point were we don't need more artists, writers, actors, academics, athletes, travel guides, or other weirdos?

You don't need to produce something valuable to call it work. You just need to produce something others appreciate. When machines do all our production, we can all become failed writers struggling to make it.

Now that's a dystopic future!

If "professional couch potatoe" can be a respected and well-paid profession in HoreTore's utopia, then I'm in.

[HoreTore]

If "professional couch potatoe" can be a respected and well-paid profession in HoreTore's utopia, then I'm in.

Well... Someone mentioned youtubers and e-sports earlier in this thread. If that doesn't fit the label "professional couch-potato", I don't know what does.

As for your previous posts, I believe a good strategy for unions is to ask for reduced working hours instead of increased wages. It seems silly to me that after a century of explosive increase in productivity, we still work as long as we did 100 years(-ish) ago. We've got more stuff, but not enough time to actually use our stuff.

[Andres]

Well... Someone mentioned youtubers and e-sports earlier in this thread. If that doesn't fit the label "professional couch-potato", I don't know what does.

As for your previous posts, I believe a good strategy for unions is to ask for reduced working hours instead of increased wages. It seems silly to me that after a century of explosive increase in productivity, we still work as long as we did 100 years(-ish) ago. We've got more stuff, but not enough time to actually use our stuff.

Perhaps a combination of both reduced working hours and paying people what they are truly worth instead of the lowest amount the employer can get away with...

There is definitely something to be said about how we value certain types of labour nowadays.

To give an idea.

The research, carried out by think tank the New Economics Foundation, says hospital cleaners create £10 of value for every £1 they are paid.

It claims bankers are a drain on the country because of the damage they caused to the global economy.

They reportedly destroy £7 of value for every £1 they earn.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well... Someone mentioned youtubers and e-sports earlier in this thread. If that doesn't fit the label "professional couch-potato", I don't know what does.

Then you don't know what does. You really have no idea how much work goes into making even a 5 minute video that:
A) Does not look like it was filmed in 2004
B) Has decent editing
C) Is interesting or entertaining.

According to your view, any white collar activity that involves sitting all day is a "professional couch potato" you just refuse to admit that because most white collar jobs are more accepted despite it being commonly ridiculed as an exercise in living the movie "Office Space".

[Montmorency]

any white collar activity that involves sitting all day is a "professional couch potato" you just refuse to admit that

Actually, I think Horetore would agree with something like that.

[Husar]

There's another way to get somewhere useful:

Set the maximum amount a person can invest into a company (even via proxy!) at the average cost of a machine. _That way companies have to find many small investors and the people who used to work will just own the robot that replaces them. Effectively you won't have companies that are mostly owned by multitrillionaire investors but all companies will be owned by many small investors. The stock market might just work for that as you will just have to get all companies there and then limit the maximum investments per person. Since this is complicated, you can just ban all the stock market shenanigans where people make money on things that do not really exist or derivatives of things that do not exist or the course changes of nonexisting derivatves of things that never existed. This will free up some capacities for the more complicated actual investments.

And if companies cannot find enough small investors, maybe they're not paying their employees enough to allow them to invest, guess that's the end of their growth, too bad.

Of course big investors can still own small shares in many companies that way but this still does not give them a huge influence in any of these companies and they will be against super corporations as those reduce the amounts of investments the big investors can make since every mega corporation replaces a whole lot of small companies.

Yeah, I get these crazy ideas while sitting around in the university...

[Fragony]

Possibly, but you can also just buy a cow and get a freezer to put the meat in it, 400 euro per cow max, more than enough for a year. Get some ground, I am going to, it's fun as well to watch things grow and care for it. I am still on the waiting list for ground but it will be mine. It isn't enough to feed me for a year but it remains a good proposition, just needs some shoveling. Back to basics. Or you can blame the rich for being rich of course, has a good word for jealousy-tax been invented allready. You won't need them if you show a little bit of initiative.

[Husar]

Possibly, but you can also just buy a cow and get a freezer to put the meat in it, 400 euro per cow max, more than enough for a year. Get some ground, I am going to, it's fun as well to watch things grow and care for it. I am still on the waiting list for ground but it will be mine. It isn't enough to feed me for a year but it remains a good proposition, just needs some shoveling. Back to basics. Or you can blame the rich for being rich of course, has a good word for jealousy-tax been invented allready. You won't need them if you show a little bit of initiative.

Lately reading your posts is a bit like watching your ability to use outside input slowly fade away since you may react to outside input but you usually do not consider the contents in any way at all. Like you live in your own little world where the only valid arguments are your own and all the other (counter-)arguments are wrong if you just repeat your own arguments ad infinitum.

[Fragony]

Lately reading your posts is a bit like watching your ability to use outside input slowly fade away since you may react to outside input but you usually do not consider the contents in any way at all. Like you live in your own little world where the only valid arguments are your own and all the other (counter-)arguments are wrong if you just repeat your own arguments ad infinitum.

That's a fair accusation I guess. But it's just how I look at things. Deal with it if I think my arguments are better, or go against them if you think your's are. I am perfectly open to consider your's, don't mind me not agreeing with them.

[Montmorency]

Recessions always shrink the gap between rich and poor.

The rich get off much better in recessions than the middle and lower classes, so no.

Here's a nice aphorism: 'Some mistakes are severe, others minor, but even here there is a difference within the race of men: a pauper's mistake harms no one but the pauper; a king's mistake harm's everyone but the king.'

people should examine how the rich got rich and see if they can emulate that.

Some of us are of the opinion that fewer of us should in fact emulate the paths of the rich - not all the rich, certainly, but I think you know to what/whom I refer.

[Andres]

Possibly, but you can also just buy a cow and get a freezer to put the meat in it, 400 euro per cow max, more than enough for a year. Get some ground, I am going to, it's fun as well to watch things grow and care for it. I am still on the waiting list for ground but it will be mine. It isn't enough to feed me for a year but it remains a good proposition, just needs some shoveling. Back to basics. Or you can blame the rich for being rich of course, has a good word for jealousy-tax been invented allready. You won't need them if you show a little bit of initiative.

Yes. Of course. All those slum and ghetto inhabitants need to do is to take the money they don't have from the savings account they don't have to buy land they can't afford. It's amazing how poverty still exists while there are such visionary viewpoints and solutions available on random gaming fora.

I'd also like to know the line of thought that brings you from "person X cares about the living conditions of the poor and deems it injust and unfair that 85 people together have as much wealth as 3.5 billion people together" to "X is just jealous because he isn't rich".

Please explain to me why "caring about the poor and injustness" equals "being jealous". Enlighten me with a revolutionary essay.

[Fragony]

Why an essay, you just can't blame the rich for others being poor. The really really rich are mostly very old family's where the money goes from generation to generation. It's their money. Just because some have less doesn't mean they have a right on it. Back at ya, what is your justification for wanting their money? Because that is where it would be going to, taking their money, aka theft. Legalised, but still theft.

[Andres]

Why an essay, you just can't blame the rich for others being poor. The really really rich are mostly very old family's where the money goes from generation to generation. It's their money. Just because some have less doesn't mean they have a right on it. Back at ya, what is your justification for wanting their money? Because that is where it would be going to, taking their money, aka theft. Legalised, but still theft.

Jesus Christ used parables to explain his viewpoints.

I'll do the same:

On a sunny day, a rich businessman was sitting in his yacuzzi on his luxury yacht in the Medditerranean. Sipping champagne in the company of a famous model, he heard a voice yelling.

"Hey! Excuse me? How far before I reach Malta?"

"Shut up!" the rich man yelled at the African. "Just keep swimming. Or drown. As if I care. But shut up!"

The model giggles and takes off her bikini.


If you need to ask the question why the rich should help the poor, then there's no point for me trying to explain

[Husar]

Back at ya, what is your justification for wanting their money?

Back at ya, what is their justification for wanting my money? You are aware that the wealth gap is getting wider because money is actually "trickling up", right? If it weren't then the wealth gap wouldn't get wider...

[Fragony]

Back at ya, what is their justification for wanting my money? You are aware that the wealth gap is getting wider because money is actually "trickling up", right? If it weren't then the wealth gap wouldn't get wider...

Do I want your money, never noticed it.

[Husar]

On the topic of working hard, a contractor once told me that he is held by the parent company to work harder and increase profits.
However, when he increases his profits, the parent company will siphon off the additional profits so his own profits stay the same as they always were and in addition they will raise their expectations to the new, higher level and repirmand him if he does not meet the new expectations. It basically paid off for him to be just mediocre because then he has to work less and still gets the same profit that he would get if he tried to please his superiors. The parent company was a multi-national corporation that everybody here knows btw.

Another person told me a similar story. Basically he worked hard and his boss was fine with it and paid him every month until he found out that the person was not an apprentice but unskilled labor but was paid apprentice wages. Suddenly the boss raged about how the person had been paid too much all these months even though there never was a problem with the work that was done and the apprentice-level wage had never been questioned before...

So the real way to get rich is to create artificial barriers that keep the money on your side and away from others. To say that hard work pays off is complete lunacy unless your job offers a decent system of promotions where you actually have a chance to move up through hard work instead of slick talk or crawling into someone's behind.

[gaelic cowboy]

There's another way to get somewhere useful:

Set the maximum amount a person can invest into a company (even via proxy!) at the average cost of a machine. _That way companies have to find many small investors and the people who used to work will just own the robot that replaces them. Effectively you won't have companies that are mostly owned by multitrillionaire investors but all companies will be owned by many small investors. The stock market might just work for that as you will just have to get all companies there and then limit the maximum investments per person. Since this is complicated, you can just ban all the stock market shenanigans where people make money on things that do not really exist or derivatives of things that do not exist or the course changes of nonexisting derivatves of things that never existed. This will free up some capacities for the more complicated actual investments.

And if companies cannot find enough small investors, maybe they're not paying their employees enough to allow them to invest, guess that's the end of their growth, too bad.

Of course big investors can still own small shares in many companies that way but this still does not give them a huge influence in any of these companies and they will be against super corporations as those reduce the amounts of investments the big investors can make since every mega corporation replaces a whole lot of small companies.

Yeah, I get these crazy ideas while sitting around in the university...

If the investors could be the ordinary guy it increases the share of capital in the hands of the 99% whose wages have stagnated while there bosses capital has skyrocketed.

In the long run it would even the disparity in wealth and give workers a real reward for the automation of there own jobs.