![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
swestrupI've been thinking of writing some essays pointing out (amongst other things) that the changes currently being (or about to be) wroght by technology will require a change in perspective. A paradigm shift, to repurpose an overused term back to its originally intended meaning. There are world views that may or may not have had any validity in the past but which certainly have no place in the future.
One of these is thinking that widening the gap between the rich and the poor is a bad thing. Now, I don't think this was ever a good measure of anything. The first time a caveman invented fire, he created a group of haves and a group of have-nots. That invention widened the gap. That's what happens whenever a new form of wealth appears. And that is simply because technology acts to multiply whatever you have going for you.
Here's a thought experiment: people are trying to determine how best to spend a budget surplus.
A) The first group proposes that the money can be used to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. They plan to do this by increasing welfare, starting training programs, rebuilding areas of urban decay and essentially spending the money so as to most directly help the poor.
B) The second group proposes that the money be spent on developing new technology which will improve the world's standard of living. It will certainly help the poor, but it will help the rich much much more than the poor.
Which is better? Lets assume that the average Mr. Poor makes $10,000 a year, and is barely surviving, while Mr. Rich makes $100,000 per year and is doing quite well.
Under scenario A) we manage through diligent effort to move the average Mr. Poor to a salary of $30,000 while not helping Mr. Rich at all. We have narrowed a $90,000 gap to $70,000, a 22% reduction in the size of the gap. We could easily call this a success.
Under scenario B) the new technology multiplies everyone's salary tenfold. Mr. Poor is now making $100,000 a year, and Mr. Rich is now Mr. Very-Rich and is making $1,000,000 a year. The gap has just gone from $90,000 to $900,000 and has increased 1000%
In which scenario would you rather be Mr. Poor, in which one would you rather be Mr. Rich? You will also note that even in scenario B) its going to be Mr. Poor's lifestyle that will be most profoundly affected by the change, not Mr. Rich's.
Now, I'm not saying that social programs are wrong, or that technology cures all evils or any such nonsense as that. I am saying something that I believe to be far more basic and important for everyone to know:
I think that this stupid meme about narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor has only worked due to the total innumeracy of the average North American. They think that in a 'totally fair world' that everyone would have the exact same income and that the gap would be zero. This wouldn't be possible even if everyone were clones and had identical potential. Statistical flukes would insure that there were haves and have-nots in any society. No, in a 'totally fair world' everyone would have enough to live a full and content life without ever having to work for a living, so that you were free to devote your time to whatever you wished. We won't get there by trying to drag down the rich or push up the poor. We'll only get there if we concentrate on multiplying everyone's wealth to such an extent that even the poorest have enough. Over history the poor have been slowly getting less poor, while the rich have been getting much richer. In the next hundred years, this will accellerate enormously. The poor will make great strides in overcoming poverty, and the rich will get obscenely more rich. For myself, I am doing my best to hasten this process.
One of these is thinking that widening the gap between the rich and the poor is a bad thing. Now, I don't think this was ever a good measure of anything. The first time a caveman invented fire, he created a group of haves and a group of have-nots. That invention widened the gap. That's what happens whenever a new form of wealth appears. And that is simply because technology acts to multiply whatever you have going for you.
Here's a thought experiment: people are trying to determine how best to spend a budget surplus.
A) The first group proposes that the money can be used to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. They plan to do this by increasing welfare, starting training programs, rebuilding areas of urban decay and essentially spending the money so as to most directly help the poor.
B) The second group proposes that the money be spent on developing new technology which will improve the world's standard of living. It will certainly help the poor, but it will help the rich much much more than the poor.
Which is better? Lets assume that the average Mr. Poor makes $10,000 a year, and is barely surviving, while Mr. Rich makes $100,000 per year and is doing quite well.
Under scenario A) we manage through diligent effort to move the average Mr. Poor to a salary of $30,000 while not helping Mr. Rich at all. We have narrowed a $90,000 gap to $70,000, a 22% reduction in the size of the gap. We could easily call this a success.
Under scenario B) the new technology multiplies everyone's salary tenfold. Mr. Poor is now making $100,000 a year, and Mr. Rich is now Mr. Very-Rich and is making $1,000,000 a year. The gap has just gone from $90,000 to $900,000 and has increased 1000%
In which scenario would you rather be Mr. Poor, in which one would you rather be Mr. Rich? You will also note that even in scenario B) its going to be Mr. Poor's lifestyle that will be most profoundly affected by the change, not Mr. Rich's.
Now, I'm not saying that social programs are wrong, or that technology cures all evils or any such nonsense as that. I am saying something that I believe to be far more basic and important for everyone to know:
As a measure of economic well-being, the distance between the Richest and the Poorest members of society is almost totally useless. In the narrow confines of the areas where it IS a usefull measure, you want to increase it, not decrease it!
I think that this stupid meme about narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor has only worked due to the total innumeracy of the average North American. They think that in a 'totally fair world' that everyone would have the exact same income and that the gap would be zero. This wouldn't be possible even if everyone were clones and had identical potential. Statistical flukes would insure that there were haves and have-nots in any society. No, in a 'totally fair world' everyone would have enough to live a full and content life without ever having to work for a living, so that you were free to devote your time to whatever you wished. We won't get there by trying to drag down the rich or push up the poor. We'll only get there if we concentrate on multiplying everyone's wealth to such an extent that even the poorest have enough. Over history the poor have been slowly getting less poor, while the rich have been getting much richer. In the next hundred years, this will accellerate enormously. The poor will make great strides in overcoming poverty, and the rich will get obscenely more rich. For myself, I am doing my best to hasten this process.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-29 09:15 pm (UTC)Because it's another malratiocination to conclude that evolution tells us that the winners should rule. It doesn't. It only tells us tha the losers don't. Diversity is our single greatest tool for dealing with an uncertain future. Democracy outperforms feudalism.
So don't confuse option B, which improves everyone's standard of living, with option C, which benefits only those who are already 'haves'. It's far too easy to do in a society that respects only success.
Probably you want to spend 10% of your budget on R&D and 90% on maintenance and upgrade (including of your citizens). Much better than the current fashion of spending 1% on R&D, 10% on maintenance and upgrade, 70% on giving breaks to the wealthy and 19% on making sure that nobody benefits!
All of which is to say that I agree with you, of course, but the middle ground is not where it is generally supposed to be.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-29 09:46 pm (UTC)Math
Date: 2004-09-10 10:22 am (UTC)Ultimately, I agree with you. A better measure would be basket size of goods available.
Re: Math
Date: 2004-09-10 01:41 pm (UTC)