>> 1) Income inequality isn't something that worries me personally, as long as all income levels are rising in quality of life.
We disagree, in that relative inequality is IMHO a concern. The consequences of high societal inequality are reasonably well documented. Negative effects of high inequality include but are not limited to higher rates of obesity, incarceration & drug use, and lower rates of life expectancy, social mobility and educational performance.[1][4]
In addition to affecting levels of trust and civic
engagement, inequality in society has also shown to be
highly correlated with crime rates. Most studies looking
into the relationship between crime and inequality have
concentrated on homicides—since homicides are almost
identically defined across all nations and
jurisdictions. There have been over fifty studies
showing tendencies for violence to be more common in
societies where income differences are larger.[1][3]
Furthermore, lower levels if inequality are correlated to an increase in sustained periods of economic growth, both among developing as well as developed nations [2].
>> 2)Of course, there is the possibility that someday automation completely eliminates all workers leading to a destitute class, or overpopulation overtaxes the food supply, but all evidence points to supreme adaptability of people to overcome these problems, so on the balance of probabilities I take it as a given that the same progress will continue. Optimism, arrogance or idiocy - people would accuse this view of all three, depending on their viewpoint.
Reasonable people can agree to disagree on this point.
>>3) It often gets missed that when automation occurs, even the people who lose their jobs often get access to the product of that automation at a cheaper price than before, and in the long run are better off once re-employment is found. The classic case is the buggy whip maker, who, despite losing their livelihood, is eventually able to afford the Model T that put them out of business.
You will find no argument from me that the economy has thus far been able to re-allocate labor assets reasonably efficiently. The key to the above is not the availability of new goods (the Model T), but the ability of the laborer (buggy maker) to secure re-employment having been made obsolete. You mention it as a given, however this is not necessarily the case.
Since this ultimately ties back to point #2 above, we can agree to disagree. I personally view current trends as being volatile enough to make direct comparisons with the past highly unreliable as markers for future prediction.
We disagree, in that relative inequality is IMHO a concern. The consequences of high societal inequality are reasonably well documented. Negative effects of high inequality include but are not limited to higher rates of obesity, incarceration & drug use, and lower rates of life expectancy, social mobility and educational performance.[1][4]
Furthermore, lower levels if inequality are correlated to an increase in sustained periods of economic growth, both among developing as well as developed nations [2].>> 2)Of course, there is the possibility that someday automation completely eliminates all workers leading to a destitute class, or overpopulation overtaxes the food supply, but all evidence points to supreme adaptability of people to overcome these problems, so on the balance of probabilities I take it as a given that the same progress will continue. Optimism, arrogance or idiocy - people would accuse this view of all three, depending on their viewpoint.
Reasonable people can agree to disagree on this point.
>>3) It often gets missed that when automation occurs, even the people who lose their jobs often get access to the product of that automation at a cheaper price than before, and in the long run are better off once re-employment is found. The classic case is the buggy whip maker, who, despite losing their livelihood, is eventually able to afford the Model T that put them out of business.
You will find no argument from me that the economy has thus far been able to re-allocate labor assets reasonably efficiently. The key to the above is not the availability of new goods (the Model T), but the ability of the laborer (buggy maker) to secure re-employment having been made obsolete. You mention it as a given, however this is not necessarily the case.
Since this ultimately ties back to point #2 above, we can agree to disagree. I personally view current trends as being volatile enough to make direct comparisons with the past highly unreliable as markers for future prediction.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality#Effects_of_in...
[2]http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1108.pdf
[3]http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/iiahr2001.pdf
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equa...