Re: A Modest Proposal: Fattening up the Proles

At 07:24 AM 1/17/96 -0500, Timothy C. May wrote:

>(Ironically, I brought up the new book, "The Winner Take All Society," at
>the last Cypherpunks meeting. No time to discuss it here, but it confirms
>my strong belief that we are heading for a economy in which a shrinking
>fraction of workers have really valuable things to contribute, and a
>growing fraction of the population does not. 

The book suggests that small differences in perceived quality (or even
'luck') result in a big difference in marketplace results (whether for
product or labor).  The title is a bit misleading.  It should be "The
Winner-Take-Lots Society" since it does not say that non-winners are left
with nothing (that thesis is promoted in other recent works of fiction.)

These GenX whining tomes and commie sociology texts are just the latest
examples of the old automation-will-cause-mass-unemployment
so-we-need-Socialism-to-feed
the-unemployed arguments.  So far, a higher percentage of Americans are in
paid employment than ever before in history.  Likewise once you factor out
changes in the workforce mix, similarly situated workers continue to rake in
more "total compensation" than ever before.

Remember comparative advantage.  Just because Tim can apply his knowledge of
physics to the chip fab process better than anyone and make big bucks,
doesn't mean that everyone else is not needed.  Even Tim can't be everywhere
at once.  There is plenty for us lesser lights to do.  Tim himself certainly
purchases the goods and labor of many other people.  It may be true that a
disproportionate share of the gains accrue to "the elite" but if everyone
else is vastly richer than their forebearers, what difference does it make?
That is the likely effect of the nanotechnolgy revolution of which the
computer revolution is just the first part.

"The End of Work" is a real world example of the "Imminent Death of Usenet"
threads that wander their way throughout the Net.

DCF

"If everyone is so poor these days, why have air travel, dining out, and
retail floor space all tripled since the Carter administration?"

On Wed, 17 Jan 1996, Duncan Frissell wrote:

> The book suggests that small differences in perceived quality (or even
> 'luck') result in a big difference in marketplace results (whether for
> product or labor).  The title is a bit misleading.  It should be "The
> Winner-Take-Lots Society" since it does not say that non-winners are left
> with nothing (that thesis is promoted in other recent works of fiction.)

While I've not read the book, what you describe fits with the concept of 
"sensitivity to initial conditions" that chaos theory discusses.

In this context, what Tim describes is a "sharpening" effect--i.e., the 
differences in initial conditions necessary to distinguish between the two 
eventual outcomes described is becoming smaller.  

A neat way to visualize this is to picture what happens when you crank up 
the contrast on a black and white TV.

Eric Hughes made an interesting comment, something to the effect that 
this process only seems to be occurring in occupations that have 
something in common, like easy transfer of job skill from one 
worker to another, I don't quite remember.  Anyone remember specifically?

--
Johnathan M. Corgan
jcorgan@aeinet.com
http://www.aeinet.com/jcorgan.htm