|
Post by equivocal on May 23, 2024 19:58:26 GMT
"that workers have more jobs and are better off as a result of automation."
Yes, I wasn't referring to the spinning jenny. And countries that have concentrated on industry do you mean? Our country is focused around the city of London and the service industry. How does automation create more jobs and better wages in OUR economy?
Take your example of automation for accountants - Your accountant knocks out your monthly/annual accounts without bookkeepers and makes more profit. He now has more money for discretionary spends and spends more in your leisure industry and so do all the other accountants. You can increase your prices, pay more and expand to employ the redundant bookkeeper who can also now make discretionary spend, and so on. It's the way it's always worked.
Increased productivity has always led to more jobs and higher wages in the longer term. (The main problem with automation/increased productivity is that it has a tendency to increase inequality.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 23, 2024 20:25:58 GMT
Take your example of automation for accountants - Your accountant knocks out your monthly/annual accounts without bookkeepers and makes more profit. He now has more money for discretionary spends and spends more in your leisure industry and so do all the other accountants. You can increase your prices, pay more and expand to employ the redundant bookkeeper who can also now make discretionary spend, and so on. It's the way it's always worked.
Increased productivity has always led to more jobs and higher wages in the longer term. (The main problem with automation/increased productivity is that it has a tendency to increase inequality.
Yes my accountant can now afford a second coffee in the cafe where the book keeper now works. Excellent. More and more low paid service jobs replacing book keepers and bank clerks, but the rich accountant gets richer. Pretty much my point.
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on May 23, 2024 20:30:02 GMT
Take your example of automation for accountants - Your accountant knocks out your monthly/annual accounts without bookkeepers and makes more profit. He now has more money for discretionary spends and spends more in your leisure industry and so do all the other accountants. You can increase your prices, pay more and expand to employ the redundant bookkeeper who can also now make discretionary spend, and so on. It's the way it's always worked.
Increased productivity has always led to more jobs and higher wages in the longer term. (The main problem with automation/increased productivity is that it has a tendency to increase inequality.
Yes my accountant can now afford a second coffee in the cafe where the book keeper now works. Excellent. More and more low paid service jobs replacing book keepers and bank clerks, but the rich accountant gets richer. Pretty much my point. But you're missing the point - most people are better off, but some are better off than others. Put another way, the bulk around the median are better off.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 23, 2024 20:50:11 GMT
Yes my accountant can now afford a second coffee in the cafe where the book keeper now works. Excellent. More and more low paid service jobs replacing book keepers and bank clerks, but the rich accountant gets richer. Pretty much my point. But you're missing the point - most people are better off, but some are better off than others. Put another way, the bulk around the median are better off. I don't think I've missed the point I think you have. Most people are not better off, the wealth has moved to fewer people. The median tells you nothing of that. As demonstrated by your example the accountant no longer needs the book keepers. Automation has made the accountant rich and the book keeper poor. And house prices have made the over 50's rich and the under 30's poor. Its called the wealth gap.
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on May 23, 2024 21:02:30 GMT
But you're missing the point - most people are better off, but some are better off than others. Put another way, the bulk around the median are better off. I don't think I've missed the point I think you have. Most people are not better off, the wealth has moved to fewer people. The median tells you nothing of that. As demonstrated by your example the accountant no longer needs the book keepers. Automation has made the accountant rich and the book keeper poor. And house prices have made the over 50's rich and the under 30's poor. Its called the wealth gap. Not that I'll change your rationalisation, but you missed the fact that you were paying your staff more, and the reason I chose a bookkeeper was because bookkeeprs don't earn much above minimum wage.
It remains a fact, however you wish to rationalise things or what you choose to believe, improved productivity tends to make most workers better off.
EDIT: - and creates more jobs overall.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 23, 2024 21:54:41 GMT
I don't think I've missed the point I think you have. Most people are not better off, the wealth has moved to fewer people. The median tells you nothing of that. As demonstrated by your example the accountant no longer needs the book keepers. Automation has made the accountant rich and the book keeper poor. And house prices have made the over 50's rich and the under 30's poor. Its called the wealth gap. Not that I'll change your rationalisation, but you missed the fact that you were paying your staff more, and the reason I chose a bookkeeper was because bookkeeprs don't earn much above minimum wage.
It remains a fact, however you wish to rationalise things or what you choose to believe, improved productivity tends to make most workers better off.
EDIT: - and creates more jobs overall.
Book keepers earned far more than baristas.
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on May 24, 2024 6:12:47 GMT
Not that I'll change your rationalisation, but you missed the fact that you were paying your staff more, and the reason I chose a bookkeeper was because bookkeeprs don't earn much above minimum wage.
It remains a fact, however you wish to rationalise things or what you choose to believe, improved productivity tends to make most workers better off.
EDIT: - and creates more jobs overall.
Book keepers earned far more than baristas. Oi!! It was my example and I get to decide who earns what.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 24, 2024 6:29:35 GMT
I think both of you are a bit right and a bit wrong.
Zany, imagine if automation were condensing wealth in the way you describe. Where would these rich people spend their money and avoid employing people? At the moment, they could 'invest' in real estate (land), raising costs for others without employing people
In my ideal society, they would also be funding government by 'buying' land
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 24, 2024 6:50:52 GMT
I think both of you are a bit right and a bit wrong. Zany, imagine if automation were condensing wealth in the way you describe. Where would these rich people spend their money and avoid employing people? At the moment, they could 'invest' in real estate (land), raising costs for others without employing people The rich people I know spend an awful lot of their money travelling around the world doing stuff. But the main spend is definitely property, owning between 3 to 6 homes. One friend has: A flat in London, a flat in New York, a place in Tuscany, a huge place overlooking the sea on the Norfolk coast and a ski lodge in France. None of these are let out they stand empty most of the year. There is so much money doing nothing nowadays. Do you mean tax land?
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 24, 2024 7:16:31 GMT
I think both of you are a bit right and a bit wrong. Zany, imagine if automation were condensing wealth in the way you describe. Where would these rich people spend their money and avoid employing people? At the moment, they could 'invest' in real estate (land), raising costs for others without employing people The rich people I know spend an awful lot of their money travelling around the world doing stuff. But the main spend is definitely property, owning between 3 to 6 homes. One friend has: A flat in London, a flat in New York, a place in Tuscany, a huge place overlooking the sea on the Norfolk coast and a ski lodge in France. None of these are let out they stand empty most of the year. There is so much money doing nothing nowadays. Do you mean tax land? It works for them on an individual level and on a class level. The buying of land magnifies the power they have over others when they come to trade for labour (or its products). With the price of land raised, labour is less able to be independent of them (as a class) and so has to bargain for less. Of course, it also works for them on an individual level.. Yes - the ownership of land should be taxed commensurate with the location value of the land owned. Labour / work (of all sorts) should be de-taxed It's probably our largest systemic issues that the opposite is the case.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 24, 2024 8:22:47 GMT
The rich people I know spend an awful lot of their money travelling around the world doing stuff. But the main spend is definitely property, owning between 3 to 6 homes. One friend has: A flat in London, a flat in New York, a place in Tuscany, a huge place overlooking the sea on the Norfolk coast and a ski lodge in France. None of these are let out they stand empty most of the year. There is so much money doing nothing nowadays. Do you mean tax land? It works for them on an individual level and on a class level. The buying of land magnifies the power they have over others when they come to trade for labour (or its products). With the price of land raised, labour is less able to be independent of them (as a class) and so has to bargain for less. Of course, it also works for them on an individual level.. Yes - the ownership of land should be taxed commensurate with the location value of the land owned. Labour / work (of all sorts) should be de-taxed It's probably our largest systemic issues that the opposite is the case. Land could be seen as a form of profit, so taxing it sits well with my ideals of progressive tax. However I don't think its the full answer as much of the land "homes" my rich friends own is abroad. Money moved out of the country, not as tax avoidance, but simply as desirable purchases for people with more money than they can possibly spend.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 24, 2024 8:36:24 GMT
It works for them on an individual level and on a class level. The buying of land magnifies the power they have over others when they come to trade for labour (or its products). With the price of land raised, labour is less able to be independent of them (as a class) and so has to bargain for less. Of course, it also works for them on an individual level.. Yes - the ownership of land should be taxed commensurate with the location value of the land owned. Labour / work (of all sorts) should be de-taxed It's probably our largest systemic issues that the opposite is the case. Land could be seen as a form of profit, so taxing it sits well with my ideals of progressive tax. However I don't think its the full answer as much of the land "homes" my rich friends own is abroad. Money moved out of the country, not as tax avoidance, but simply as desirable purchases for people with more money than they can possibly spend. Zany, people owing land abroad is not a problem for us, it's a problem for them. "Money can be moved out of the country to avoid tax" - but in the uk we wouldn't (shouldn't) be 'taxing money.'. One thing is for sure, you can't move land out of the country.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 24, 2024 9:25:06 GMT
Land could be seen as a form of profit, so taxing it sits well with my ideals of progressive tax. However I don't think its the full answer as much of the land "homes" my rich friends own is abroad. Money moved out of the country, not as tax avoidance, but simply as desirable purchases for people with more money than they can possibly spend. Zany, people owing land abroad is not a problem for us, it's a problem for them. "Money can be moved out of the country to avoid tax" - but in the uk we wouldn't (shouldn't) be 'taxing money.'. One thing is for sure, you can't move land out of the country. I think your idea would create a huge hole on public services. But for me this is less about politics and more about civilisation. Over the centuries history has taught us that society falls apart if the wealth divide gets too large. It has little to do with real poverty and much to do with comparative poverty. As people see the gap grow they become disenfranchised and turn to crime and a black economy. Historically this lead to increasingly severe penalties to try and discourage crime which leads to more public sympathy for the criminal and further breakdown of society. Eventually the rich realise that their own lives are worse because of this and it gets addressed in a seemingly never ending (never learned cycle) The idea of personal responsibility seems an ideal, but does not allow for human frailty. So we need tax and it needs to be at a level that provides a similar enough service to every citizen. Back to our conversation: How do we achieve that tax level when more and more of the money goes to less and less people. That it does not get spent back into society as hoped, but gets locked up and wasted. Another lady I know has an 800k yacht moored in Menorca, she hasn't used it more than 3 times in the last 5 years. Such is the amount of spare capital the people I speak of have that this doesn't matter. And that's not touching the millions of ordinary citizens chuffed that their home is worth 20 times what they paid for it and don't care that this means young people cannot afford a home at all.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 24, 2024 10:00:18 GMT
Zany, people owing land abroad is not a problem for us, it's a problem for them. "Money can be moved out of the country to avoid tax" - but in the uk we wouldn't (shouldn't) be 'taxing money.'. One thing is for sure, you can't move land out of the country. I think your idea would create a huge hole on public services. No. That impression is just a phantom caused by your naturalisation to a badly dysfunctional economy. Because landowners have an abusive power and that power is competed over, the whole economy becomes dysfunctional. Rather than competing to provide more, most players (and their resources) are competing to take more via monopoly power. The impoverishment caused then gives the state a reason to intervene - but rather than intervene by taxing the process that causes damage, they decide to tax the productive.- ie the very process that might be providing some relief from impoverishment. So , now the worker (the producer) is in two holes at once - on one side he has real estate working against him and , on the other he has the public sector taxing him to provide relief from the effects of the former.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on May 24, 2024 10:08:13 GMT
Zany, people owing land abroad is not a problem for us, it's a problem for them. "Money can be moved out of the country to avoid tax" - but in the uk we wouldn't (shouldn't) be 'taxing money.'. One thing is for sure, you can't move land out of the country. I think your idea would create a huge hole on public services. But for me this is less about politics and more about civilisation. Over the centuries history has taught us that society falls apart if the wealth divide gets too large. It has little to do with real poverty and much to do with comparative poverty. As people see the gap grow they become disenfranchised and turn to crime and a black economy. Historically this lead to increasingly severe penalties to try and discourage crime which leads to more public sympathy for the criminal and further breakdown of society. Eventually the rich realise that their own lives are worse because of this and it gets addressed in a seemingly never ending (never learned cycle) The idea of personal responsibility seems an ideal, but does not allow for human frailty. So we need tax and it needs to be at a level that provides a similar enough service to every citizen. Back to our conversation: How do we achieve that tax level when more and more of the money goes to less and less people. That it does not get spent back into society as hoped, but gets locked up and wasted. Another lady I know has an 800k yacht moored in Menorca, she hasn't used it more than 3 times in the last 5 years. Such is the amount of spare capital the people I speak of have that this doesn't matter. And that's not touching the millions of ordinary citizens cuffed that their home is worth 20 times what they paid for it and don't care that this means young people cannot afford a home at all. I agree with just about all of that but tax is a very ineffective as a direct way of correcting wealth inequalities. What we need to do is use tax to incentivise those who create meaningful jobs (and thereby more money) for the many and disincentivise those who create more wealth for the few. Income inequality has actually been fairly stable over the last 35 years and actually has decreased slightly under the Tories but it's wealth inequality that's got worse. www.statista.com/statistics/872472/gini-index-of-the-united-kingdom/
|
|