Income inequality..... a good thing?

[DJL 235]

12 hours ago, billvon said:

So another good example of how the desire to get richer did not play a role in the space program.

And considering Satellites are now the backbone of global communication and therefore commerce...

[DJL 235]

51 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It sounds like California needs to vote in some Democrats and implement some progressive policies.

It's more like that as the population and work force grows it needs to stop undercutting itself by working for such low wages, it's not sustainable in the long term.  The contractor gig-market is a glaring example of that as the taxi business in the US has almost entirely evaporated.  Gone are the day's of pensioners walking away from 30 years doing a 9 to 5 middle income job and retiring to a warm house with pictures of their grand kids.

I have no sympathy for people who make loads of money off the shoulders of people working for a "living wage" but it's the fault of those on the bottom end not standing up for themselves.  Sheep will be shorn as long as they let it happen.

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Income inequality is a problem when it results in a two-caste society, where the top has all the power, and there's no effective way to move from the bottom to the top.  It results in societal discord and division.  It is not a major driver of progress.  

Income inequality when it does NOT result in a two-caste society isn't as much of a problem.  Think of the 1950's, when a CEO might live on the same block as his employees, and make only twice as much.

You are talking about two different things - how newly introduced technologies are expensive (which they are) vs an income inequity causing those things to be introduced (it does not.)  Cars were once the province of the very rich.  This was not because income inequity drove them to be introduced; this was because they were expensive.  

I agree that income inequality does not create new technology, income inequality (aka the existence of rich folks) creates a market for the new technology.  Without the market the technology would languish on the drawing board.  

 

[billvon 2,997]

38 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I agree that income inequality does not create new technology, income inequality (aka the existence of rich folks) creates a market for the new technology.  Without the market the technology would languish on the drawing board.  

 

Hmm.  That's not true for most technological advancements we've seen.  Spaceflight?  The computer?  The internet?  Lasers?  LED's?  Solar PV?  Nuclear reactors?  Airplanes?  Integrated circuits?  None of those things were created because rich people provided a market for them.

If you are talking about expensive consumer electronics that might well be true.  But expensive consumer electronics are not "new technology."  It's just packaging of existing technology in a consumer form.

 

 

[brenthutch 444]

3 minutes ago, billvon said:

Hmm.  That's not true for most technological advancements we've seen.  Spaceflight?  The computer?  The internet?  Lasers?  LED's?  Solar PV?  Nuclear reactors?  Airplanes?  Integrated circuits?  None of those things were created because rich people provided a market for them.

If you are talking about expensive consumer electronics that might well be true.  But expensive consumer electronics are not "new technology."  It's just packaging of existing technology in a consumer form.

 

 

Almost everything you listed had its genesis in war/defense.  I explicitly made the distinction in my OP

[SkyDekker 1,465]

17 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Almost everything you listed had its genesis in war/defense.  I explicitly made the distinction in my OP

What you haven't done is provided ample examples to support your thesis. You have provided one example: cell phones. Though as billvon already outlined, that wasn't new technology but a packaging of existing technology.

Hence, we have ample examples of how your thesis is wrong and not yet a single example of why your thesis is right.

[brenthutch 444]

HDTV, Flatscreen displays, airbags, backup cameras, (in fact almost all driver assist features) and high end food items to name a few.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

14 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

HDTV, Flatscreen displays, airbags, backup cameras, (in fact almost all driver assist features) and high end food items to name a few.

How are any of those new technology and not repackaging of existing technology?

Also, how do you argue these items would not exist without a "rich people market"?

[billvon 2,997]

43 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Almost everything you listed had its genesis in war/defense.  I explicitly made the distinction in my OP

?? ARPANet (early Internet) was designed to link universities.  The laser was invented at Bell Labs around 1958; no military objectives were planned.  Computers came from universities.  Werner Jacobi from Germany built the first IC to minimize hearing aid sizes - this was ten years before Kilby built his first IC at TI.  After the Wrights tried to sell their airplane to the US military, they were laughed at.  It took them six years for the Army Signal Corps to even allow a test flight.

Most of them were not developed for war/defense - those came later.  Nor were they built because rich people would buy them.  They were built because scientists really like discovering new things.

So what's the smart thing to do for the future?  Make more of those scientists who will go out to invent AI, the $100/kwhr battery, nuclear fusion, space power satellites and more efficient chemical processes to make fertilizer and concrete.

[billvon 2,997]

19 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

HDTV, Flatscreen displays, airbags, backup cameras, (in fact almost all driver assist features) and high end food items to name a few.

?? Airbags were invented in the 1950's, and the first use of them were in Chevrolets that were sold to the government in 1973 - not rich people.  Indeed, the only reason you have one now is that the evil government made your car manufacturer include it.

Backup cameras first appeared in 1950's concept cars, not available to the public.  The first production care to use one was the 1991 Toyota Soarer, a mid price car sold only in Japan.  Again, not driven by rich people.

 

[brenthutch 444]

As you correctly point out scientists like discovering new things and you also stated that new technology is expensive.  Unless expensive technology has a market, it remains a curiosity.  As I see it there are two entities who can afford new technology, governments and the wealthy.  Government investment in technology has historically been linked to war and war related activities.  My OP was about non war related progress not about the initial invention.  Yes the Wrights invented the airplane, but it was just an interesting gadget until governments figured out how to kill people with them.  If you take away government you are left with the wealthy as the remaining entitie which can create a market for expensive new technology.  Tesla is a great example.

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Your argument seems akin to this:

Without porn new types of media would not have been adopted throughout history. Considering that every time a new type of media was invented, the early adopters and investors into that media were from the porn industry. Therefor new media would not have become widely adapted if porn didn't exist.

Still hard to argue that without porn these different forms of media wouldn't have existed. No books without porn? No pictures without porn? No internet without porn? No film or video without porn?

[brenthutch 444]

10 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Your argument seems akin to this:

Without porn new types of media would not have been adopted throughout history. Considering that every time a new type of media was invented, the early adopters and investors into that media were from the porn industry. Therefor new media would not have become widely adapted if porn didn't exist.

Still hard to argue that without porn these different forms of media wouldn't have existed. No books without porn? No pictures without porn? No internet without porn? No film or video without porn?

No that is nothing like my argument at all.

[kallend 2,027]

Truly remarkable that Banting and Best, Fleming, Salk, Sabin, etc. bothered to do science when they only made a pittance at it. They shoud have gone into the stock markets and made fortunes.

[billvon 2,997]

18 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

As you correctly point out scientists like discovering new things and you also stated that new technology is expensive.  Unless expensive technology has a market, it remains a curiosity.

Right.  And most of the things listed above had non-rich-people markets.  When I started using the Internet, for example, I was far from rich - and it was free.

Rich people certainly help get expensive things to market more quickly.  But they are not required, and they don't drive development of that technology - they just get the economies-of-scale game going early.

Quote

Yes the Wrights invented the airplane, but it was just an interesting gadget until governments figured out how to kill people with them.  If you take away government you are left with the wealthy as the remaining entitie which can create a market for expensive new technology. 

Again, you don't need a big disparity in income to make that happen.

Quote

Tesla is a great example.

Yes, it is.

The Leaf was the first widely available practical EV, in 2010.  It was far cheaper than any Tesla.   The Model S wasn't available until 2012.

This happened because Tesla didn't invent EV's, or lithium ion batteries, or AC motors.  All they did was be the first to build a really powerful, long range EV.  This increased adoption rates of EV's because they lost some of their "slow golf cart" reputation.  If there were no rich people to buy Tesla model Ses, then middle class people would have bought Leafs instead - and griped about them.  Then, later, they would have bought Bolts and been happier.  EV development would have been a bit slower, but it certainly would not have stopped - since it was happening before Tesla came on the scene, and it continued afterwards.

[brenthutch 444]

Without income inequality Musk never could have bought Tesla in the first place or SpaceX for that matter, there would be no Virgin airline or SpaceShipOne and Penn State,and I suspect many universities, would be missing half of their buildings.

[billvon 2,997]

15 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Without income inequality Musk never could have bought Tesla in the first place or SpaceX for that matter, there would be no Virgin airline or SpaceShipOne and Penn State,and I suspect many universities, would be missing half of their buildings.

?? Huh?

Musk made $165 million before he started Tesla or SpaceX.  He wasn't trying to become rich - he already was.

Musk didn't start SpaceX to sell to rich people.  He did it to sell to NASA and companies who wanted to launch communications and weather satellites.

And to get funding for Tesla, Musk had to convince investors that he would eventually sell affordable cars (to non-rich people) because that was a bigger market.  Without rich people, he would have had to do the model 3 first.  Which would have been harder, but by no means impossible.

 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

35 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Without income inequality Musk never could have bought Tesla in the first place or SpaceX for that matter, there would be no Virgin airline or SpaceShipOne and Penn State,and I suspect many universities, would be missing half of their buildings.

You may have a point on the universities. Without the income in-equality and the forced free labour of student athletes there may not be such profitability around NCAA football and basketball.

[brenthutch 444]

Bill you are making my point.  He was only able to buy Tesla and start SpaceX BECAUSE he was rich.  Given the chance, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would have redistributed his wealth long before he had enough money to buy Tesla 

[brenthutch 444]

13 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

You may have a point on the universities. Without the income in-equality and the forced free labour of student athletes there may not be such profitability around NCAA football and basketball.

I was thinking more like:

The Pegula Ice Arena is a 6,014-seat multi-purpose arena in University Park, Pennsylvania on the campus of Penn State University. The arena opened on October 11, 2013 when the Penn State Nittany Lions men's ice hockey hosted Army.^[3] The ice arena replaced the 1,350-seat Penn State Ice Pavilion. The facility is located on the corner of Curtin Road and University Drive near the Bryce Jordan Center. It was announced on January 21, 2011 that the arena would be named in honor of Kim and Terry Pegula whose $100 million donation helped fund the arena and the creation of men's and women's varsity ice hockeyprograms.^[4]

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

I was thinking more like:

The Pegula Ice Arena is a 6,014-seat multi-purpose arena in University Park, Pennsylvania on the campus of Penn State University. The arena opened on October 11, 2013 when the Penn State Nittany Lions men's ice hockey hosted Army.^[3] The ice arena replaced the 1,350-seat Penn State Ice Pavilion. The facility is located on the corner of Curtin Road and University Drive near the Bryce Jordan Center. It was announced on January 21, 2011 that the arena would be named in honor of Kim and Terry Pegula whose $100 million donation helped fund the arena and the creation of men's and women's varsity ice hockeyprograms.^[4]

I know. And those arenas and stadiums don't exist if non-rich people don't buy tickets to see games put on by athletes providing free labour.

[billvon 2,997]

36 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Bill you are making my point.  He was only able to buy Tesla and start SpaceX BECAUSE he was rich.  Given the chance, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would have redistributed his wealth long before he had enough money to buy Tesla 

Right.  But your claim was that "fairly earned income/wealth inequality is the greatest nonviolent driver of human progress, full stop."  Meaning no conditions, no ifs ands or buts.

Now you are saying that BEING rich is a great driver for progress. Why does that require poor people?   If there were no poor people, would Musk have been unable to start Tesla? 

There's no doubt that people with money make it easier for anyone to sell anything; the more disposable income, the more 96" flat screen TV's, George Foreman grills and pet rocks people will buy.  But your claim was that you need to have poor people; there needs to be income inequality, period, no conditions.  Why do you NEED that division?  Why is having a wealth divide better than having everyone be rich?  (Or having a lesser wealth divide, so there's not much difference.)

[brenthutch 444]

Fair points Bill.  I was using "income inequality" as a proxy for wealth.  And the "full stop" was just a bit of hyperbole to get the conversation going.  I was just pushing back on the evil millionaires and billionaires meme.

[jakee 1,497]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Without income inequality Musk never could have bought Tesla in the first place or SpaceX for that matter, there would be no Virgin airline or SpaceShipOne and Penn State,and I suspect many universities, would be missing half of their buildings.

What you've basically just said is that without a capitalist system you wouldn't have a capitalist system. No shit.

 

Regardless of which, if as you said you're reacting to people who complain about income inequality you have utterly missed the point of what those people are complaining about. You're having an imaginary argument with imaginary people.

[20kN 93]

15 hours ago, DJL said:

 

I have no sympathy for people who make loads of money off the shoulders of people working for a "living wage" but it's the fault of those on the bottom end not standing up for themselves.  Sheep will be shorn as long as they let it happen.

Yes, that would be a union. The problem is unions dont work very well when you're the only one in them. People who accept low paying jobs do so because they are usually not in a position to bargain. If you tell a company that their offer is crap and you wont accept, they will say fine and find someone who will accept it. In the end that mostly just leaves you with no job.

Edited March 28, 2019 by 20kN