Wealth

11-10-2019 8:48am #1

Watched a rather ludicrous program last night about the extream wealthy gettign married each wedding could cost around a million.

The interesting thing is that despite coming from unimaginable wealth the couples were the likes of qualified doctors and lawyers they were not swanning around living a life of living on their wealth partying.

Most imagine a life of wealth as being free from work and the constraints of everyday life, yet they were not building a life like that they have obviously worked hard academically despite their wealth.

While the idea of mass unemployment through technology is unlikely, it could emerge that all the interesting, fulfilling, meaningful work will be done by the wealthy?

Road-Hog · 11-10-2019 9:06am

mariaalice wrote: »

Watched a rather ludicrous program last night about the extream wealthy gettign married each wedding could cost around a million.

The interesting thing is that despite coming from unimaginable wealth the couples were the likes of qualified doctors and lawyers they were not swanning around living a life of living on their wealth partying.

Most imagine a life of wealth as being free from work and the constraints of everyday life, yet they were not building a life like that they have obviously worked hard academically despite their wealth.

While the idea of mass unemployment through technology is unlikely, it could emerge that all the interesting, fulfilling, meaningful work will be done by the wealthy?

Honestly I have no clue what point you are trying to make....?

EmmetSpiceland · 11-10-2019 9:07am

mariaalice wrote: »

While the idea of mass unemployment through technology is unlikely, it could emerge that all the interesting, fulfilling, meaningful work will be done by the wealthy?

Is this not the case already?

machaseh · 11-10-2019 9:08am

mariaalice wrote: »

Watched a rather ludicrous program last night about the extream wealthy gettign married each wedding could cost around a million.

The interesting thing is that despite coming from unimaginable wealth the couples were the likes of qualified doctors and lawyers they were not swanning around living a life of living on their wealth partying.

Most imagine a life of wealth as being free from work and the constraints of everyday life, yet they were not building a life like that they have obviously worked hard academically despite their wealth.

While the idea of mass unemployment through technology is unlikely, it could emerge that all the interesting, fulfilling, meaningful work will be done by the wealthy?

Had a bit too many spliffs there before writing this pal

But yes, the wealthy already have the more interesting jobs. Running (or rather: ruining) a country would seem much more interesting to me than my current job.

11-10-2019 9:14am

Road-Hog wrote: »

Honestly I have no clue what point you are trying to make....?

That wealth use to be associated with a life of hedonism partying and unlimited sex, its reversed to the superwealthy working despite not having to at all.

Even consider Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg a lot of their wealth and life is turned over to philanthropy and they work hard on this, in the past the wealthy would have given their money to charity, not philanthropy. Plus they are married and are not keeping a harme of woman not living a party lifestyle.

11-10-2019 9:15am

machaseh wrote: »

Had a bit too many spliffs there before writing this pal

But yes, the wealthy already have the more interesting jobs. Running (or rather: ruining) a country would seem much more interesting to me than my current job.

Only if you were a dictator.

sbsquarepants · 11-10-2019 9:18am

Road-Hog wrote: »

Honestly I have no clue what point you are trying to make....?

I think it was something about living frugally whilst throwing million quid parties...or something:D

11-10-2019 9:18am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Paul_Getty

An example of how the very wealthy use to live did not make him very happy though and messed up all his chidrens lives.

11-10-2019 9:21am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think it was something about living frugally whilst throwing million quid parties...or something:D

Its not frugality it's choosing to work hard both academically and career-wise despite not having to do so because they come from unimaginable wealth.

jester77 · 11-10-2019 9:25am

I saw a quote yesterday that blew my mind.

The average US worker would need 10 times the length of all human history to earn as much as Jeff Bezos

Marhay70 · 11-10-2019 9:39am

jester77 wrote: »

I saw a quote yesterday that blew my mind.

Yes but they pay tax. I don't begrudge Bezos his wealth, he had an idea took a chance and it paid off. What one of us wouldn't take that? Maybe a little more philantropy on his part wouldn't go astray though.

topper75 · 11-10-2019 9:53am

jester77 wrote: »

I saw a quote yesterday that blew my mind.

OK. But there is little stopping the average worker becoming an entrepreneur as Bezos did. It is harder to think of another time in history when access to opportunity is so available or so democratised (within the western world anyway). You can get a book for free in your council library about building a website.

Bezos went and did it.

Myself I'm just a worker in the pay of a company, because I don't want to take the risk. The trade off for that safety is knowing I will mostly likely never be rich.

The point is we live in an era of choice in the 21st cent capitalist west. Workers are not serfs.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 11-10-2019 10:33am

jester77 wrote: »

I saw a quote yesterday that blew my mind.

But you can still be wealthy without achieving that particular level of wealth.

What is wealth anyway? I'd consider myself wealthy but others would think I'm middle income.

daveorourke77 · 11-10-2019 10:41am

Marhay70 wrote: »

Yes but they pay tax. I don't begrudge Bezos his wealth, he had an idea took a chance and it paid off. What one of us wouldn't take that? Maybe a little more philantropy on his part wouldn't go astray though.

He gave his ex wife half of it.

That's enough philanthropy for anyone.

sbsquarepants · 11-10-2019 10:59am

mariaalice wrote: »

Its not frugality it's choosing to work hard both academically and career-wise despite not having to do so because they come from unimaginable wealth.

It's just in some people to work, just like it's in some others not to.

The flip side of the coin is the layabouts who can't be bothered working even though they don't have an arse in their trousers.

I'm somewhere in the middle (like most people i suspect) I work hard when it's called for but it's strictly through necessity, if i win the lotto tomorrow i won't be in work Monday, you can bet your bottom dollar on that!

machaseh · 11-10-2019 11:08am

Daniela Ripe Chess wrote: »

But you can still be wealthy without achieving that particular level of wealth.

What is wealth anyway? I'd consider myself wealthy but others would think I'm middle income.

I would consider meself wealthy if I had my own house or apartment and at least 10 grand in savings. That's a very modest and achievable goal I suppose.

Basically, I would want to have enough income and savings to hypothetically be able to support a family with children. Not that I actually ever want to get children (I'm gay anyway so it's not as straightforward or important), but I want to have enough wealth to hypothetically be able support them which I currently don't.

Marhay70 · 11-10-2019 11:44am

daveorourke77 wrote: »

He gave his ex wife half of it.

That's enough philanthropy for anyone.

That's not philanthropy that's getting caught.:)

4068ac1elhodqr · 11-10-2019 11:56am

mariaalice wrote: »

While the idea of mass unemployment through technology is unlikely...

Eh? Automation means (unskilled/uneducated) human assets will shortly become even more redundant. Circa 40% of all jobs won't exist by the 2030's, and the only new roles will be for the very highly skilled or specalised.

Yang(US) is running his POTUS20 campaign on this factor, and wants to hand out free money via UBI (freedom dividend) type payments to compensate for the near future mass unemployment of bluecollars.

The rich won't have to worry, passive income is easier to come by with multiple properties and a good accountant.
e.g. Wealth inequality in the uk is up every decade, today 44% is owned by 10%.

machaseh · 11-10-2019 12:12pm

Harmony Old Muslin wrote: »

Eh? Automation means (unskilled/uneducated) human assets will shortly become even more redundant. Circa 40% of all jobs won't exist by the 2030's, and the only new roles will be for the very highly skilled or specalised.

Yang(US) is running his POTUS20 campaign on this factor, and wants to hand out free money via UBI (freedom dividend) type payments to compensate for the near future mass unemployment of bluecollars.

The rich won't have to worry, passive income is easier to come by with multiple properties and a good accountant.
e.g. Wealth inequality in the uk is up every decade, today 44% is owned by 10%.

Automation is not gonna create mass unemployment, but what it will do is increase the education and skills required for having a job.

For example, someone who is a bus driver now might see their bus being driven by a machine by the 2030's. Then said bus driver could for example get a job as an automated bus system operator, but this would obviously require a much higher level of skill and education.

Has unemployment increased since say the 1950's? Because we no longer need people to plough the fields, wash clothes by hand, separate grain from the chaff by hand etc. Yet the people who would have done these simple jobs in that era would nowadays still have a job, albeit a different,, probably more high-skilled job.

11-10-2019 12:41pm

I dunno about this. There have always been people born with wealth who still pursue worthwhile careers.

Though I think if you believe that some wealthy people don't live sybaritic lifestyles, you just haven't watched enough reality TV.

11-10-2019 12:49pm

Candie wrote: »

I dunno about this. There have always been people born with wealth who still pursue worthwhile careers.

Though I think if you believe that some wealthy people don't live sybaritic lifestyles, you just haven't watched enough reality TV.

Of course, spending a million on a wedding is not any less silly just because the bride is a doctor and of course some very wealthy people live very dissolute lifestyles.

Also the people in the program were not just wealthy they were super-wealthy.

11-10-2019 12:54pm

Even is people do spend a million on their wedding, so what?

I wouldn't do it myself if I had it, but it's their celebration and it does give employment to lots of vendors and workers, and if they can afford it then it's entirely their business. The wedding business puts food on a lot of tables for the people who work in all the various bakeries, dress shops, venue hire, music, catering florists and all the other businesses that employs them. Giving people work is important too and if people can afford to spend silly sums, then let them.

Hector Savage · 11-10-2019 1:02pm

daveorourke77 wrote: »

He gave his ex wife half of it.

That's enough philanthropy for anyone.

He was forced to!
Bit of a difference.

machaseh · 11-10-2019 1:24pm

So I just looked up the net worth of my company's CEO, and the total amount of global employees.

Turns out that if the wealth of the CEO was equally distributed among each employee, everybody would get somewhere around 150 grand. Enough to buy a house in a rural area or put a kid through college or whatever.

lleti · 11-10-2019 1:34pm

jester77 wrote: »

I saw a quote yesterday that blew my mind.

Bezos bad.

Collison Brothers good.

4068ac1elhodqr · 11-10-2019 1:34pm

machaseh wrote: »

Automation is not gonna create mass unemployment, but what it will do is increase the education and skills required for having a job.

Which proves the point, unless you have advanced skills or education, you won't be able to compete with ai-bots of automation.
Thus if you don't actively seek or have the i) mental capacity ii) time iii) ability to pay for advanced education-training, your out.

machaseh wrote: »

...Then said bus driver could for example get a job as an automated bus system operator...

Your example is poor, if automation replaces someone, the redundant person is no longer required to hang around and observe the automation process doing the actual work. It's the very defination of 'automation'.

The lazy comparison to '50's tractors etc. simply does not cut it this time around. We are talking about the emergence of 3 waves of AI, the later stages will outsmart humans in every arena, even towards EI and self-learning, super-omnipresent-intelligence
It's not just a new wheel invention, it's a wheel that knows itself how to self-improve and create even better new wheels by itself.

Factoring this in (need for human resources), yes the wealthy will get even more wealthy.

lleti · 11-10-2019 1:36pm

machaseh wrote: »

So I just looked up the net worth of my company's CEO, and the total amount of global employees.

Turns out that if the wealth of the CEO was equally distributed among each employee, everybody would get somewhere around 150 grand. Enough to buy a house in a rural area or put a kid through college or whatever.

Another interesting fact, if all the money in the world was shared equally amongst everyone, they'd all have the same amount of money.

machaseh · 11-10-2019 2:23pm

lleti wrote: »

Another interesting fact, if all the money in the world was shared equally amongst everyone, they'd all have the same amount of money.

What is more interesting is not that everybody has the same but how much everybody would have. Would it be enough to lift every single person on earth out of absolute poverty and destitution?

Harmony Old Muslin wrote: »

Which proves the point, unless you have advanced skills or education, you won't be able to compete with ai-bots of automation.
Thus if you don't actively seek or have the i) mental capacity ii) time iii) ability to pay for advanced education-training, your out.

That is true. The lower class of society in terms of education will always struggle. But also keep in mind that new technology also has greatly increased humanity's access to information and learning new skills, through for example the internet. People don't need to be left out. If you cant program but you want to learn how to program, you can already go on code academy and the like. These options werent there for peasants in the beginning of the 20th century.

Your example is poor, if automation replaces someone, the redundant person is no longer required to hang around and observe the automation process doing the actual work. It's the very defination of 'automation'.

That is clearly untrue. You forget that automation goes in increments. For example, planes today are highly automated, yet still require pilots to do the take off and landing and to intervene during incidents such as rough weather, and human air traffic controllers are still required.

One could imagine a scenario where auto-pilot would be able to take over more and more tasks of piloting making it eventually redundant, but such a change would go gradually and take many decades, time during which pilots could learn a different skill within the industry for example.

The lazy comparison to '50's tractors etc. simply does not cut it this time around. We are talking about the emergence of 3 waves of AI, the later stages will outsmart humans in every arena, even towards EI and self-learning, super-omnipresent-intelligence
It's not just a new wheel invention, it's a wheel that knows itself how to self-improve and create even better new wheels by itself.

Yes there are more and more self learning algorithms but AI that outsmarts humans in every single arena or omnipresent intellgence are still future fairy tales.

There are currently many things that robots do better than humans, but there are also still many things that humans do better than robots. Dealing with other humans, for example. It is mostly the boring, repetitive tasks that are quickly being taken over by robots. Think about hauling around goods in a store house, driving, simple administrative jobs, cashiers, etc.

Jobs that require contact with humans, jobs that require creativity etc. are still far from being automated.

Factoring this in (need for human resources), yes the wealthy will get even more wealthy.

Oh yes that is true, automation has mostly made the wealthy more wealthy. Completely agree there.

4068ac1elhodqr · 11-10-2019 2:52pm

machaseh wrote: »

That is true. The lower class of society in terms of education will always struggle. But also keep in mind that new technology also has greatly increased humanity's access to information and learning new skills, through for example the internet. People don't need to be left out. If you cant program but you want to learn how to program, you can already go on code academy and the like. These options werent there for peasants in the beginning of the 20th century.

To an extent, but even LMS's rely upon a good basic standard of education, time, dedication, fast internet, electric even perhaps nutrition for mental development. They'll also be competing with better quality premium content services.

machaseh wrote: »

That is clearly untrue. You forget that automation goes in increments. For example, planes today are highly automated, yet still require pilots to do the take off and landing and to intervene during incidents such as rough weather, and human air traffic controllers are still required.

Indeed 3 waves are forecast, we're only at the begining of the transformation. Pilots is an extreme high-risk example, motorway haulage will be lower risk to remote, that equates to 5m redundant in the US.

machaseh wrote: »

There are currently many things that robots do better than humans, but there are also still many things that humans do better than robots. Dealing with other humans, for example. It is mostly the boring, repetitive tasks that are quickly being taken over by robots. Think about hauling around goods in a store house, driving, simple administrative jobs, cashiers, etc. Jobs that require contact with humans, jobs that require creativity etc. are still far from being automated.

EI is the ultimate challenge for AI, but it's not unreachable. Maybe 80%? of workloads do not require such interactions anyway.

machaseh wrote: »

Oh yes that is true, automation has mostly made the wealthy more wealthy. Completely agree there.

Indeed, and accountants are still getting ever more creative with tax 'efficiency' techniques. Until the super rich play their part it'll get worse.

Wealth

Comments