What happened to rewarding hard workers- Autumn Statement

N1AK

J_i_m wrote: »

There's this perception.. (and I'm not inferring that it's yours Loughton) that people earning (comfortable or lucrative) salaries are so much smarter, better, more deserving and indispensable than the people who don't or can't.

I'm pointing out that this not an entirely accurate view, it's largely unfair and actually on the arrogant side.

I actually see more of the exact opposite view. That people running banks etc are just parasites, wouldn't know work if it had them by the throat. Politicians are thieving, stupid, incompetent overpaid etc. Why do bosses get paid more when it's the workers who actually 'do the work' and make the product. It goes on and on and on.

People are paid based, largely, on market forces. Shareholders don't agree to pay large bonuses for fun, they think it will give them a good return. I don't choose my investment funds based on which fund manager wears the cheapest hair-shirt, I pick it because I think it is the best place to invest my money.

I think people who are 'successful' can sometimes minimise the influence of chance on their success which is a problem because it makes them think of tax as the country stealing from them rather than them paying back for help it has given them.

That said, I could see myself very quickly begrudging the tax I would be paying if I earned for example £150,000pa. I'd be getting paid what a beloved footballer earns in a week while living in a country populated by people who begrudge anyone in business who earns more than about £30k. I can't imagine I'm the only person who doesn't like being forced to give money to people who don't know me and yet still don't like me.

gadgetmind

N1AK wrote: »

Why do bosses get paid more when it's the workers who actually 'do the work' and make the product.

Because no-one would take on the massive extra workload and stress of management otherwise.

gadgetmind

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Robots will do the same, with exactly the same success.

I suggest you tour a few leading-edge heavily-automated factories to see what the state of the art is like, and then visit the research centres of the companies that produce the equipment to see where they plan to be in 5-10 years' time.

If you don't have the time or inclination to do this, there is a short video on Youtube showing Tesla's car factory, which shows the general direction but at the "heavy" end of the market.

J_i_m

Yeah really, robots are going to replace the sub-ordinates. Thanks for the laugh.

Robots are going to take over the world! Didn't they think that was going to happen decades ago?

But even if the technology and AI was at a stage where it could replace the remaining human manual element, then what is going to happen to markets which fuel the industries?

If there are going to be robots to do everything from manufacturing, shelf stacking to cleaning to restaurant waiting to nursing.. Then what on earth is there left for people to do?

There's going to be minimal jobs for anyone doing anything anywhere. I don't know if you're aware but the world population is at an all time high and still climbing. So how do you propose to sustain it?

And yet the lucky few, the 1%ers who are sooooo hard working who own these companies that would be almost entirely ran by machinery with no human intervention are still going to want to be paid ridiculously lucrative retainers aren't they? Because they're so smart, hardworking and deserving.

But where is that money going to come from if we've eliminated the need for a workforce?

If no one irrespective of their work ethics can work because jobs do not exist anymore because someone so high on their self styled pedestal can't see reality any-longer has decided that robots are smarter, more efficient and more "deserving" than people.

If that happened, then the consumer economies which fund society as we know it would disappear because no !!!!!! would have any money to buy anything with or to pay tax with to support someone else with.

What's more, the industry owners with their "smarts" would now have no market to sell to.

To really truly automate society with technology we'd have to remove economies as we they know them and perhaps people would have to work for absolute free, be them a entertainer, sporting athlete, politician, scientist, doctor, engineer, business manager or the unsung back room staff who keep it all going.

That would mean that all services, goods and utilities would have to provided for free to everyone.

And when that happens (and it never will because people are selfish) there will be very little to differentiate your so called smarts by. If anyone works it'd have to be for the benefit of others and not themselves.

How about that eh? A civilisation where money can't exist. It would revolutionise trade. Things which motivate greed would disappear. Society would have to find new motivations. That would be smart.

gadgetmind

J_i_m wrote: »

If there are going to be robots to do everything from manufacturing, shelf stacking to cleaning to restaurant waiting to nursing.

Yes, all of those things, with waiting on tables probably at the end of the list.

Then what on earth is there left for people to do?

Scientific research, creative activities (art, literature, music, etc.), medicine (though expect a lot of use of robots for surgery), engineering, and anything else that needs human intelligence and creativity.

I'm not talking about revolution, just the continuation of a process that started with the agricultural and industrial revolutions and that is if anything gaining speed.

gadgetmind

BTW, Ijon Tichy's 24th voyage provides a glimpse of the end game we need to avoid.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Lem-Star-Diaries-Voyage-24.pdf

J_i_m

gadgetmind wrote: »

Yes, all of those things, with waiting on tables probably at the end of the list.



Scientific research, creative activities (art, literature, music, etc.), medicine (though expect a lot of use of robots for surgery), engineering, and anything else that needs human intelligence and creativity.

I'm not talking about revolution, just the continuation of a process that started with the agricultural and industrial revolutions and that is if anything gaining speed.

So for the person who can't be an artist, athlete or super duper genius scientist... What then? What do they do?

gadgetmind

What about those who used to toil in fields? What did they do when farm machinery was invented?

Ditto those who used to work hand looms, dig tunnels, make screws, weld cars, assemble radios, work switchboards, type letters, and all the other tasks that used to be done by hand.

Humans are increasingly having to spend longer in education so they can tackle tasks that need more smarts as machines keep on getting smarter. Those not prepared to use their brains will find close to zero manual work, but again, this is a process that started centuries ago and not something new.

J_i_m

Last time I checked... manual work actually required a brain.

Let's see now;

Oh yes.. All my bodily functions, my muscles, my nerve reflexes etc are operated by my brain.

Furthermore all the cognitive requirements required by any task what so ever require my brain to select the correct or best tools, to plan organize and prioritize the activity.

It may not be on the same intellectual level as Professor Stephen Hawking blowing black hole theory wide open but it still requires the brain and there is still a "smart" and not so "smart" way to do it.

My single biggest problem with subject of this thread is the group of people who think that they're better than other people. It has a very narrow perception on what "smart" is.

It is arrogant to the point of being very offensive. And it's not at all smart.

I would very much like to have an Einstein intellect, I'd very much like to be at the center of technological innovation or to be a talented athlete.

However I'm smart enough to know that only a very few could ever hope to be one of those things. That is down to environment and opportunity with a small influence by individual attitude.

I'm very aware of the limitations I was born with. But I still use my brain and "smarts" in everything I do. I want to earn and pay my way, I also want to be able to live a moderately comfortable life. Why should I not be able to do that?

It's actually very insulting (however indirectly) to referred to as a lazy burden for little more reason that I pay less income tax than a so called "smart" person on £75k+ a year.

I applied myself at school, I found work, I do my hours, I cover for people, I do many things which I do not get rewarded for, I apply my intelligence to the tasks at hand, I take on training to develop my skills and to improve the systems of my work.

I put up with the 75kers ruining the economy and telling us lazy burdens what to do.

And then they whinge about having double the income tax rate of the average joe who makes up the majority of the markets they make their money from.

Here's a suggestion for them.. don't want to pay twice the tax? Then perhaps they don't need to be paid twice as much.

I ask you... Who are the real burdens?

The person who is paid a pittance barley worthy of bring referred to as living wage and expected to cope with significant rises in living costs whilst the elite make them redundant on a whim?

Or..

The person with lots but resents giving some back to society?