
Google’s Schmidt Says Inequality Will Be Number One Issue For Democracies - mark_l_watson
http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/07/googles-schmidt-says-inequality-will-be-number-one-issue-for-democracies/
======
hawkharris
This reminds me of a story I heard from a professor while I was studying
public relations.

In her early career, my professor was a lobbyist faced with a seemingly
impossible task: getting Republicans and Democrats to agree on a healthcare
initiative. The nonprofit foundation that employed her wanted Congress to help
provide care to more Americans who couldn't afford it. (This is unrelated to
the more recent Affordable Care Act.)

Here's the interesting part: my professor didn't just start speaking with
politicians. She interviewed and distributed a survey to congresspeople and
their aids. The goal was to better understand what phrases attracted or turned
off Democrats and Republicans, respectively.

She learned that, when it came to bridging gaps between people, both parties
wanted similar things — but they discussed the issues in dramatically
different ways. Democrats frequently used the word "inequality" and phrases
like "leveling the playing field." Meanwhile, Republicans preferred phrases
like "raising the bottom," the notion being that natural economic disparities
exist among different groups.

Researching the parties' preferences and crafting different messages, my
professor succeeded in passing the initiative.

The takeaway is that if you're trying mobilize people around this topic, be
very cautious about the language you choose, especially the word "inequality."
Liberals and conservatives both want to help disenfranchised people, but, at
least among those with political power, language can be the dividing line.

~~~
lsc
>at least among those with political power, language can be the dividing line.

Yup, the emotional connotations of a word matters to people who are sensitive
to that sort of thing. "Job Creator" vs. "exploiter of the proletariat" \-
Now, to me? my assumption is that both phrases refer to the same entity. They
say a lot about the speaker, of course, but not a lot about what the speaker
is speaking about.

My observation, though, is that the sort of people who are most conscious
about choosing the emotional content of their words are also the most easily
manipulated by others choosing words of different connotations.

it seems very weird to me that someone who manipulates others using a certain
technique would also be more vulnerable than average to that same technique
being used on them.

------
FD3SA
Technology, in the form of capital, will win over labor as the primary factor
of production in the near future [1]. There is no shortage of STEM labor [2],
only a shortage of extremely skilled knowledge workers willing to work at
bargain basement prices.

The only workable solution involves a state redistribution mechanism, which
depends heavily on the politics of your nation. Some nations already have
excellent safety nets, others not so much. Best to prepare for the future now,
than be caught in an ideological war between the wealthy as they decide the
fate of the less fortunate.

Most readers here have the ability to emigrate to a nation with excellent
social welfare systems. Look for low crime rates, healthcare, education
opportunities and low costs of living.

Conversely, if you are an upcoming or current millionaire/billionaire, the
world is your oyster. Just remember that death smiles at us all, so it may be
worth giving Craig Venter (et al.) some money [3].

1\. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/review-the-second-
mac...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/review-the-second-machine-age-
by-erik-brynjolfsson-and-andrew-
mcafee/2014/01/17/ace0611a-718c-11e3-8b3f-b1666705ca3b_story.html)

2\. [http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-
crisis-i...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-
myth)

3\. [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/business/in-pursuit-of-
lon...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/business/in-pursuit-of-longevity-a-
plan-to-harness-dna-sequencing.html)

~~~
psbp
The problem is that we're not talking about a safety net anymore, but a
solution for a permanent reduction in the workforce. That's something entirely
different, more daunting, and perhaps unsolvable.

------
stretchwithme
People say they want equal pay for equal work. But they don't like some people
getting paid more, even though they do more work.

People who leverage technology to create and sell more value take home more
money. Those that haven't figured out how to do that or don't care to, don't.

We have machines and systems that enable a person to multiply their efforts.
Yes, we do. That's why some people make ridiculous amounts of money. They
produce something and manage to deliver it to large numbers of people.

What amazes me is that people familiar with computers and startups still don't
understand the effects of technology. Those who command technology have more
power than those who do not.

And societies that fail to grasp that will fail to compete with those that do.

~~~
dannypgh
A defining characteristic of capitalism is that profits go to the owners of
the means of production, not those who actually produce. It's not the person
who uses the machine that multiplies their effort that make ridiculous amounts
of money, it's the the owners of the machines that do. And as time passes, the
set of people who own the machines and the set of people who built the
machines will presumably only continue to diverge.

Taken to the extreme, you reach a point at which machines can run entire
businesses. Profits will go straight to the owners of the machines.

To look at it another way - labor is not priced based on productivity of
labor, but rather, supply and demand. As we continue to become more productive
there's little reason to think that those who are becoming more productive are
those who are earning more. Indeed, looking at a graph of real wages versus
productivity over time (quick googling yields
[http://thecurrentmoment.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/productivit...](http://thecurrentmoment.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/productivity-
inequality-poverty/) ) it's hard to imagine that labor's share of wealth isn't
decreasing. This is not a surprising result; as it's supply and demand that
sets the price of labor, the impact of replacing people with machines is that
there's greater supply on the job market (everyone who is out of a job)
combined with less demand (as most industries aren't constrained on number of
people they can hire).

~~~
pdonis
_It 's not the person who uses the machine that multiplies their effort that
make ridiculous amounts of money, it's the the owners of the machines that
do._

The obvious solution to this is that the person who uses the machine should
also own it. Which means that people who think of themselves as "labor" should
be looking for industries where they can own the technology that multiplies
their productivity. Such as, just an example off the top of my head,
programming. :-)

~~~
dannypgh
I don't know about you, but my employer owns my work product via an
intellectual property assignment agreement, that I signed as a condition of
employment. In addition, our operation requires very expensive datacenters,
which they clearly own, not any of the employees. Or even all of the
employees, taken together.

So, I write programs, but I neither own them nor the systems that are required
to run them. Taken collectively, the employees at my job have created a very
profitable machine, in that it brings in revenue that greatly exceeds the
market cost of building the machine. This profit goes to shareholders, not
employees, and an employee by virtue of an employee will not receive any share
of the revenue created by their work after they leave their company.

Yes, I am partially paid in stock, and this means I am at times part-owner.
But this can be seen as a coincidence and doesn't really significantly alter
the power dynamic. I say this because it is ultimately part of our
compensation, and the fact that they choose to pay us some shares (and
correspondingly less cash) is more of an accounting trick then a fundamental
shift in the employee-employer relation.

~~~
stretchwithme
That doesn't keep ypu from buying the means of production, a computer and
doing programming on your own. And the what you produce will be yours if you
protect it the way your employer protected the work that he paid you to
produce for him.

------
HarryHirsch
_upper limits to the number of people who can hold advanced STEM jobs_

It's not that there is a limited number of people capable of doing work in
STEM, it's that the economy doesn't offer enough jobs in STEM. There have been
layoffs after layoffs in chemistry, pharmacology and biotech, math isn't the
dream ticket to Wall Street any longer - in fact the only areas with job
openings are computer science and petroleum engineering. Computer science is
growing because investment there increases workers' productivity, and the jobs
in petroleum are there because of domestic gas production. As soon as tech
yields no more increases and as soon as the gas bubble pops the party will be
over there, too. Eric Schmidt predicts public unrest and wants to get out of
the way. A worrying thought.

~~~
soup10
"As soon as tech yields no more efficiency increases"

So like never, right?

~~~
psbp
Depends on what you mean by efficiency. Building a widget faster means nothing
if there's no buyers.

------
joesmo
Seems to me that Schmidt and company are just afraid of the poor masses or
just wants good publicity. There is no other reason he would care. It's
obvious from his "solutions" that they are solutions to his own problems, not
those of the poor. Startups are not a solution to this problem. That's just
ridiculous. Education and welfare are canned answers.

------
mark_l_watson
I posted this because this topic has become popular with my friends and family
- most of us agree that this is problem number 1 for our society. Not everyone
will be able to compete for future jobs and a stronger social safety net will
be required.

------
tsotha
Free men aren't equal, and equal men aren't free. This kind of talk always
comes from people who like to tell other people what to do, and Schmidt is no
exception.

~~~
cloudwalking
Sorry, but what are you trying to say? What does this have to do with the
linked article?

~~~
tsotha
Inequality is not a problem. It's a symptom of a society where the decisions
you make have an influence over your life. I should have thought that was
obvious. Did you read the article?

------
_red
"Number One Issue For Democracies"

As opposed to what? The inequality within aristocracies / theocracies?

This is stock standard "content-free information" that seeks to motivate
(usually for political/economic reasons), using only hand-waving and
implication as its main rhetorical tools.

------
dmschulman
I know one way Eric Schmidt and other billionaires could put their money where
their mouth is...

~~~
tomp
Great idea! Take the 100 richest people in the US, say their wealth is worth
$3tn. Distribute this amongst 300m Americans. Everybody gets $10 000.
Congratulations! Even disregarding inflation, you'll be in exactly the same
situation next year, except this time there will be no more billionaires...

~~~
joshsegall
That actually sounds like a worthwhile experiment. I doubt the 100 richest
would be worse off or at a lack for opportunities to become rich again. And I
bet giving $40K to a family of four (since you include children in your 300m
count) in poverty would on average go to significant good use and provide
excellent returns for many years to come, contrary to your condescending
implication that non-rich people would waste the money.

~~~
horv
I'd definitely suggest listening to this freakonomics podcast:
[http://freakonomics.com/2013/09/26/would-a-big-bucket-of-
cas...](http://freakonomics.com/2013/09/26/would-a-big-bucket-of-cash-really-
change-your-life-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/)

You could also make a similar point as the podcast by looking at the
experiences of modern lottery winners. So I would say I'm pretty skeptical
that something like this would be effective for the vast majority of people.

~~~
joshsegall
My comments were not a serious proposal. I was replying to a comment that
lacked intellectual rigor and I proposed the opposite to point out some
logical flaws.

That said, cash transfers can help bring people out of poverty. A flat
redistribution of wealth is not the right way to get that effect, but some
kind of direct cash assistance is not remotely a wasted effort.

------
igl
...Waiting for more Americans to comment. Please keep it fact-free, polemic
and don't over complicate. Less is more. Bonus points for 'otherwis' ye
speekin german right now' type of "arguments". Their wealth is your freedom.

~~~
FLUX-YOU
Look, Schmidt is just another Obama-tomaton. We can clearly see that here:
"Schmidt was a campaign advisor and major donor to Barack Obama and served on
Google’s government relations team."[0] It's purdy darn clear that Schmidtty
was going to be more useful outside of the government, safe inside of Google's
bunkers.

Whatever Schmidty might say to the public, he's sitting on his nice little
nest egg in the event that TSHTF[1]. He has an escape plan and possibly a
security detail and a private jet to get the hell out. Probably has a few
panic rooms built into that $22 million home of his[2].

>"His new home in Holmby Hills, an exclusive enclave that is one of three
neighborhoods forming Los Angeles’ Platinum Triangle"[2]

'Enclave'? More like burbclave.

But let's stop beating up the scarecrow and look at his points directly:

>First, support startups. “When you look at the solutions to the problems that
you’re describing, which ultimately lead to severe joblessness, they all
involve creating fast-growth startups.”

Now, it don't matter if your startup is makin' moonshine and running from the
Fed[3] to hacking a new way to disrupt the sectors of integrated customer
service experiences, it's obvious that startups are focused on Silicon Valley
right now -- where the money is. Maybe we oughtta spread those startups out a
little bit?

>Second is “more education, more information, more connectivity.” He and
President Obama have both pushed for more education in science, technology,
engineering, and math to help fill unmet demand for tech jobs.

Yeah, but the damn problem is that your jobs ask for 99 languages with a
decade of experience in each of 'em on top of a computer science degree. All
of that time and all of that money for an entry-level position at a startup
that can't pay a penny to keep a train from derailing. But guess what? You can
make your own workers and get in on the college business, and brother,
business is a-boomin'. So how 'bout we get Google there to make their own
college and maybe take a shot at these ridiculous tuition costs?

Back on jobs, next to nothin' you got H1-B applicants out the ass takin' our
jobs. But hey, there's a market opportunity to bypass those damn
regulations[4] Look at that guy. He's wearing a suit and you can always trust
a man in a suit.

>Finally, there are upper limits to the number of people who can hold advanced
STEM jobs. Those who lose out will need government assistance. Schmidt argued
that society needs a “safety net” for those who lose their jobs so they can
“at least live somewhere and have healthcare.”

Last thing we need is a bunch of leeches on society ruining our labor
motivation. People won't use that as a safety net, especially when Big Google
is out to automate everything in the name of 'progress'. I don't care if I'm
contradicting myself, damn it, I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it
anymore. As a red-blooded American, I don't want to be told I American't.

So you see, it's simple -- we kill the Silicon Valley.

[0][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt#President_Barack_O...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt#President_Barack_Obama)

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shit_hits_the_fan#Trouble](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shit_hits_the_fan#Trouble)

[2][http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2014/02/13/a-look-
in...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2014/02/13/a-look-inside-
google-billionaire-eric-schmidts-new-22-million-hollywood-house/)

[3][http://www.moonshineheritage.com/blog/apple-pie-
moonshine/](http://www.moonshineheritage.com/blog/apple-pie-moonshine/)

[4][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU)

[0x5f3759df][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law)

------
JDDunn9
Part of the inequality in income results from the inequality in
representation. When the wealthy run the government, of course they are going
to stack the deck in their favor.

------
gesman
Everybody is equal. But some are more equal than the others.

------
didyousaymeow
We are to our way to a utopian society, where there are no poor and no weak.
Unfortunately, they seem to have died in the process.

------
dschiptsov
Seems like Inequality is an old issue, which goes back to monkeys.

------
nobullet
Why do all think that inequality is bad? Inequality is the way to evolution.
Keeping the area from influence will create ghetto someday.

~~~
camus2
Thank god we are all equal in death. That's the only justice left in this
world.

~~~
mikeash
Don't worry, technology will solve that soon enough too.

------
indubitably
he should worry.

