
Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?  - jseliger
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2013/11/when-machines-replace-humans-at-work.html
======
alex-g
I don't care about inequality (of outcome). I care about suffering.

Automation may increase inequality between those who are able to take
advantage of it, and those who aren't - but it is better to say that increased
automation _exposes_ an existing problem. Namely, it so happened that many
people were recently able to make a reasonably comfortable living in less-
skilled work. There was always a population who couldn't manage that, but now
it is a larger group. So the idea that people below a certain productivity
threshold don't "matter" isn't tenable any more. But that was never a morally
acceptable idea, just a politically pragmatic one.

Reducing inequality shouldn't be a first-order goal. Of course we should make
sure that everybody has a decent chance to make the best use of their
abilities and resources. But we also need to structure our society to reduce
suffering and improve the general quality of life, including for the
economically unproductive.

~~~
liber8
This is an excellent point, though I'm not sure you'll be in agreement with
why I feel that way. The issue comes down to how you define "suffering".

One of the reasons income inequality is such a silly measurement of overall
economic well-being is because people often believe it _must_ be correlated
with suffering. In other words, those at the poorer end of the spectrum _must_
be suffering relative to those at the rich end (and usually _because of_ those
at the rich end). But this doesn't appear to be true in modern society at all.

In reality, those at the poor end of the spectrum have never experienced less
(physical) suffering. Food, clean water, and basic shelter have never been
cheaper. On a minimum wage salary, you can live a life without what I would
call suffering, though it will look nothing like the typical portrayal of
"middle class" life we see on TV. If you're sick, you can get extremely
advanced medical care without cost (even in the US, there are free clinics in
all major cities, and if you visit the emergency room, though you may be
billed preposterous sums, you'll still get care).

What constitutes "suffering" is probably one of the biggest disconnects that
plague liberals and conservatives.

~~~
alex-g
Perhaps we agree more than you expected. I certainly agree that it is too
simplistic to say that poor people are suffering because rich people have the
money (and that therefore, if we take from the rich and give to the poor, the
problem is solved). But that's a pretty 101 sort of critique anyway. Economic
and cultural hegemony have been part of the left-wing conversation for a while
now, and my main original point was that the concerns of the unemployed and
underemployed have tended to be politically ignorable (due to lack of numbers,
cultural shaming, the perception that unemployment is always temporary, etc.).

And I agree that being poor in a contemporary rich country isn't as miserable
as other ways of being poor. I see you were quite careful to pin your example
to "a minimum wage salary", which is a level of income and security that many
people don't have. Since I think we probably both care a lot about equality of
opportunity, we should agree that being billed preposterous sums for
healthcare is still not a brilliant situation, just like not being able to
afford to go to college, lacking access to banking services, and so on. I'm
not saying we need to buy everyone an Xbox One because that's the new
baseline, but I hope that liberals and conservatives can agree that there are
powerful mechanisms that entrench people in poverty, to the general detriment
of society.

~~~
liber8
Ah, you raise a few interesting points.

>> _the concerns of the unemployed and underemployed have tended to be
politically ignorable (due to lack of numbers, cultural shaming, the
perception that unemployment is always temporary, etc._ <<

This seems like it must be true, but I'm not sure it is upon further
consideration. Politicians have spent a great deal of time and effort on
issues that affect the poor (and the comparative "poor"). In the US, we have a
substantial welfare system that includes housing subsidies, a variety of food
subsidies, and a variety of medical care subsidies. I would add that benefits
under each of these systems has been pushed through by both "liberal" and
"conservative" governments. (Many European countries have had an even greater
focus on policies that benefit the poor.)

But I would argue that the biggest gains those on the poor end of the spectrum
have made over the last 30 years (and certainly over the last 200 years) has
been driven by market forces, not political ones. The widespread decline of
food prices has been due to private activity, in spite of government policy
(see, e.g., various agricultural subsidies/tariffs that maintain above-market
prices). The enormous decline in prices of finished goods, durable goods,
electronics, and basically anything you’d put in your home, has similarly been
driven by market forces. This leads to a tremendous decrease in suffering that
is difficult to measure. [For example, cheap air conditioners, furniture and
televisions make what would have been miserable conditions in 1950's New York
into perfectly pleasant conditions today.] So, perhaps focusing on overall
growth will produce greater benefits to the poor than simply focusing on
symptoms of poverty.

>> _Since I think we probably both care a lot about equality of
opportunity..._ <<

Equality of opportunity is a terrifying outcome. Of course it sounds wonderful
in theory, but how do we attain it? The novel Brave New World illustrates how
this would have to be done: (1) prohibit natural births, instead hatching
babies under laboratory conditions; and (2) raise and educate children en
masse, in a (presumably) government-run institutions. Of course even this
would result in slight differences in opportunity. Even if everyone shared the
same DNA, it would be impossible to ensure each person had the same
experiences during childhood (i.e. Billy gets bullied for some reason and
never reaches his potential while Bobby doesn’t and attains success).

So, in this respect, I don’t believe that anyone wants true equality of
opportunity. The question is, how close is close enough, and at what cost?
Because, at a certain point, the only way to increase equality of opportunity
is to decrease freedom. We’re currently at the point where the main freedoms
we are losing relate to how much of our income we get to keep (i.e. increase
tax revenue to provide subsidies/programs for the poor). Most people don’t
have a huge problem with this.

But we’re already begin to sacrifice other freedoms, and this is only
accelerating. If your kid is fat, he will have a decreased opportunity to
succeed. So, we impose sin taxes on certain ingredients. The FDA bans trans-
fats. New York City tries to impose size restrictions on sodas. All of these
rules are meant to save us from ourselves, or in essence, to give those with
less information or willpower a more-equal opportunity to succeed. The same
logic applies to smoking or drinking, housing, schooling, etc.

I’m not sure I see a logical place to stop. If someone notices you drinking or
smoking during pregnancy, should society step in? There is a chance the child
will be negatively impacted. Of course, this means he won’t have the same
opportunities as if you had not drunk or smoked during pregnancy. This means
the child’s opportunities won’t be equal to others due to your choices. Should
we supervise or jail you to ensure you don’t drink or smoke while pregnant?
Even terminate the pregnancy if we discover you drank or smoked while
pregnant?

Of course, the child of a successful 35-year old mother who drinks or smokes
while pregnant may have far better opportunities than the child of a 15-year
old mother with no education who doesn't drink or smoke. To what extent should
or must society intervene in the latter case?

The converse case is even more terrifying. I didn’t have an equal opportunity
of succeeding because I had a stay-at-home mom who taught me to read when I
was 4. She taught me years of history and science outside of school, things my
peers never learned after 20 years of schooling. I got to peer over the
shoulder of friends and relatives who ran successful small businesses. There’s
simply no way replicate or ensure that everyone has these experiences (outside
of a Brave New World-esque regime). Should my parents therefore be prohibited
from trying to give me an advantage over others?

It’s fascinating to me that America chose a revolution based on liberty near
the time the French chose a revolution based on equality. 200 years later, the
world is a far richer place due to the advances wrought under freedom.
Certainly giving people as much opportunity as possible is a worthy goal, but
I fear the consequences of what would be required to ensure true equality of
opportunity. So then, perhaps we’re back again to the more worthy goal:
eliminating suffering.

------
crazygringo
> Smart software... is ushering in an era of "hyper-meritocracy."

> ...the cognitive requirements of working with smart software...

> Online education... will only deepen inequality... Because of the premium it
> places on conscientiousness. some people are pure self-starters... But at
> the same time, I think it’s a pretty small percentage of the population.

These are all excellent points.

It's funny -- centuries ago, when there was no meritocracy, if you stayed
poor, it probably wasn't your fault. You were born a peasant, and there really
wasn't any way out of it. Some people argue that it made for happier people.
(And if you were rich, it wasn't because you were really smart or capable, you
were probably just born into aristocracy.)

But the kind of ruthless economic meritocracy we have today is much less
forgiving, as your shortcomings are made so much more obvious. If you're the
kind of person who enjoys reading programming manuals and studying Fourier
transformations for fun, then you'll probably have a great career ahead of
you. But that's just not the case for most people.

~~~
pradocchia
Some day, when the AI systems take over, and the world no longer needs so many
people that enjoy reading programming manuals and studying Fourier
transformations, the great bulk of programmers will be lined up and shot, in
retribution for their years of pampered arrogance.

And it won't be the people we put out of work, it will be the people who paid
us, who will have long since had enough of it.

~~~
nathan_long
I find your comment bizarre. A baker doesn't spend $X on flour unless she can
make more than that from selling the bread.

Companies don't pay programmers big bucks and give nice benefits unless they
make a lot more off the software programmers build.

Nobody is getting ripped off here.

~~~
ForHackernews
What a joke. What you've written could be said of any well-paid job right up
until it's eliminated: "Telegraph operators were paid well and felt themselves
part of an honored profession. It was a good way to make a living for a lot of
people."[1]

Companies would be THRILLED to eliminate developers and no longer have to pay
them. And plenty of people are working on that problem:

"Imagine sitting at a Salesforce event in 2008 in Chicago while
Salesforce.com’s CEO, Marc Benioff, swiftly works an entire room of business
users into an anti-software frenzy. I was there to learn about Force.com, and
I’ll summarize the message I understood four years ago as 'Not only can
companies benefit from Salesforce.com, they also don’t have to hire
developers.'"[2]

[1]
[http://www.appalachianhistory.net/2010/06/3918.html](http://www.appalachianhistory.net/2010/06/3918.html)
[2] [http://programming.oreilly.com/2012/10/salesforce-
developers...](http://programming.oreilly.com/2012/10/salesforce-developers-
acquisitions-investment.html)

~~~
nathan_long
Sure, if companies could do without paying programmers, they would and should.

That doesn't change the fact that they continue doing so (at least for now)
because they see it as a good deal. Programmers are responsible for continuing
to have skills that are marketable if the economy changes.

>> "right up until it's eliminated"

This phrase implies an Evil Power is deciding who gets to live or something.
In reality, a job is "the opportunity to meet a demand by selling labor." It's
not unjust to stop demanding something.

When people stopped wanting top hats, that wasn't unjust, even though it meant
hat-makers needed new jobs. If people stop wanting software, it won't be
unjust, even though it will mean programmers need new jobs.

I'd love for my house to produce its own electricity so that I could fire the
power company, but until that seems easy and cost-effective enough, I pay for
power because I think the money I spend gives me outsize benefits. Same with
my employer paying me.

------
guylhem
It's funny how the "equality" thing can depend on various notions - including
assumptions.

Unless we are talking about unconditional equality (i.e. same for everyone
including slackers), what about an equality based on how productive people
are? It's called marginal productivity ethics, and following that theory our
current society is very unequal, and the society envisioned by the articled
(the so called "hyper meritocracy") is much more equal.

"In the aftermath of the marginal revolution in economics, a number of
economists including John Bates Clark and Thomas Nixon Carver sought to derive
an ethical theory of income distribution based on the idea that workers were
morally entitled to receive a wage exactly equal to their marginal product"
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_product_of_labor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_product_of_labor))

If anything, computers put an emphasis on the fact that waking up everyday and
showing up for "work" with the only qualification of having a pulse is not
sufficient anymore to command a salary, especially when machines can replace
the worker for a fraction of the cost (and do a much better job)

Things change. I for one will not lament on the fact that our society is
becoming so productive and efficient that (gasp!) some people also have to
become more efficient!!

~~~
jiggy2011
I think it's partly that technology can multiply the differences in marginal
productivity between people.

For example it's a common meme on HN to talk about "10X" or "100X"
programmers. If such things are true then it probably makes sense for 100X
programmers to be paid 100X more. The difference between a 1X and 10X
programmer however may only be marginal in terms of actual intelligence etc.

Therefor if we assume a 10X programmer gets $100,000 , a 100X programmer get
$1M and a 1X programmer gets $10,000 which is not going to be a living wage if
one has a family.

So one needs to be at least say a 3X programmer to earn a living wage. But
maybe there is no such thing as a 3X programmer, only 1X , 10X and 100X.

~~~
nagrom
There's also the fact that if a 1x programmer gets forced out the market, the
10x programmers become 1x programmers (by the definition of a 1x programmer)
and the 100x programmers become 10x programmers...

~~~
countrybama24
Bingo. Everyone is replaceable over a long enough timeframe.

------
MrBuddyCasino
I call bullshit on this. The nordic countries have a pretty great tech sector
too, and they don't suffer from this. Its a policy thing, and I was always
under the impression that this is a choice that the USA has made consciously,
and is widely acepted as a given - that cutthroat capitalism creates greater
inequality, with (maybe) bigger growth rates.

~~~
api
I agree. Reaganomics started massively concentrating wealth long before the
Internet came along.

~~~
dragonwriter
Surprisingly, cutting the (progressive) income tax rates and raising the
(flat-to-regressive) payroll tax rates made the rich richer and the poor
poorer.

Who could have guessed?

~~~
api
Trickle down economics would only work if your average rich person were a Jeff
Bezos, Steve Jobs, or Elon Musk, not an overstuffed communist apparatchik in a
business suit.

------
nathan_long
Why is the sale of labor considered so different than the sale of anything
else?

You don't feel immoral selling your car to the highest bidder. Why should
selling your labor be different?

You don't feel immoral buying bananas as cheaply as possible. Why should
purchasing labor be different?

I'm not trolling; I'm genuinely trying to think through these questions.

~~~
daughart
Labor is a complex commodity because it is linked to a human being. It's
natural and right that the value of labor is influenced by supply and demand.
However, value is also determined by the cost of production. What is the cost
of production of the laborer? The very fact that labor is intrinsic to the
laborer sets it apart from other commodities, and gives it additional social,
cultural, and moral dimensions. Labor laws are designed to address these
additional aspects. In the same way, treating labor as a pure commodity is
dehumanizing and exploitative.

~~~
nathan_long
>> In the same way, treating labor as a pure commodity is dehumanizing and
exploitative.

Inherently, or only when it leads to abuses, like in "The Jungle"? Are worker
treatment laws sufficient?

>> value is also determined by the cost of production

In what way? If it costs me $500 to make something, but nobody wants it, its
value is still $0 (eg, a crappy sculpture). If it costs me $0 to make
something and everybody wants it, its value could be millions.

~~~
daughart
Value is multifaceted, but in this case it should be pretty clear. If the
demand for something only exists at a price less than the cost of production,
then the product will not appear on the market (at equilibrium, all else being
equal, etc.). If something costs you zero to make, the price of the item will
probably fall to zero (at equilibrium, all else being equal, etc.), regardless
of demand. A crappy statue has multiple valuations, one of which is the cost
of production (in addition to use value, exchange value, market value, labor
value, etc.).

Treating labor as a commodity is by definition dehumanizing. Dehumanization
“entails a perception of other people as nonhumans — as statistics,
commodities, or interchangeable pieces in a vast ‘numbers game’. Its
predominant emotional tone is that of indifference ... together with a sense
of noninvolvement in the actual or foreseeable vicissitudes of others”
(Bernard, Ottenberg, and Redl 1971, 105-6). Even in cases of slavery, the
slave's labor is not what is actually considered the commodity.
Commodification of labor has lead to real declines in the US and abroad in
terms of worker quality of life, wage stability, worker freedom, power
relations, worker skills, and democratic involvement.

------
frogpelt
Wealth has always been closely linked with the amount of value a person can
provide to other people. Of course I am leaving out wealth created through
corruption or sheer power.

Intelligent machines, software and connectivity have only made it easier for a
single person to provide value to millions of other people.

Lebron James makes $60 million a year because the NBA, the Miami Heat, and the
companies that he endorses feel he provides at least that much value to their
organizations and brands. NBA players fifty years ago didn't make that much
because the fans weren't able to have the kind of access that is available now
through 24/7 sports TV channels, the Internet, social media. That increased
access through technology means Lebron can provide more value.

~~~
sanskritabelt
On the other hand, capital accumulates, and is consolidated over time.

Also part of the reason athletes make so much more today is because of
sustained labor agitation on the parts of the unions. Go read 'Ball Four' for
an example of what pre-union sports was like.

------
bayesianhorse
More unequal? Maybe. More for everyone? Certainly.

It's not like "computers" can be stopped...

------
bradly
pg writes about a lot of this in his essay Mind the Gap.
[http://paulgraham.com/gap.html](http://paulgraham.com/gap.html)

~~~
pa5tabear
I loved this line:

"the rate at which technology increases our productive capacity is probably
polynomial, rather than linear. So we should expect to see ever-increasing
variation in individual productivity as time goes on."

------
api
It's common during rapid shifts in technology to have a kind of gilded age
when "robber barons" who are early adopters amass absurdly huge fortunes very
quickly. Same thing happened with the railroads, telephone, television,
automobiles, etc.

Eventually things tend to even out. Money wants to flow, and you can't have an
economy with all money concentrated in so few hands and nobody to spend it.

------
nicholas73
The amount of education required to make a decent living has increased, to the
point that today you might need a graduate degree to make a middle class white
collar living. Whereas 50 years ago, high school was enough. Pre-tractor
farming days you hardly needed middle school. This is a significant mobility
problem when you virtually have to crapshoot your life and hope you chose the
right field. With increased automation, the level of understanding of a
subject or business needed is so great that the average person may never find
a genuine opportunity to break out on their own. Try being a rockstar
entrepreneur straight out of college outside of app development. At some point
even apps will be full of entrenched players like other fields. Contrast that
to that not too long ago even a neighborhood corner store could compete and
offer an alternate to the wage system.

This is why I believe this time is different - a basic income is needed or
else the populace will be like serfs with little mobility from their trade. In
other words, a caste system.

~~~
johngalt
If you wanted to work as a banker prior to the adoption of computers you'd
need an education advanced enough to calculate amortization tables. Now you'd
simply need to know where to put the numbers into a spreadsheet. Same for
accountant. Attorneys can now run instant searches for relevant case law
rather than spending time in a law library. Construction workers have instant
access to information on a variety of materials and methods. Doctors have
computers giving guidance on diagnosis as opposed to consulting experts.
Students worldwide can learn from the best teachers in many subjects. I could
make this list much longer.

In general, the individual knowledge requirements for most jobs have gone down
drastically, and the potential paths to acquire that knowledge have grown.

~~~
nicholas73
The caveat is middle class living. If all those jobs were easily done or
trainable, thereby removing the tendency towards credentialism, then by and
large those workers should be interchangeable. That lowers the pay and forces
the would-be middle class to specialize further in yet something else.

------
kenster07
I was going to post my take on this matter...but something struck me when
reading the replies. The quality and thoughtfulness of the discussion here is
so good compared to the utter crap that is regurgitated on TV and most
newspapers. I'm happy that discussions of this level can be found on the
internet, and that computer systems enable them.

------
PeterWhittaker
A better headline would be "Intriguing musings about unexpected ways people
working with computers will impact and transform society".

It's a set of notions extracted from a book - if the book is better written
and more clearly organized than the article, it will be a thought provoking
read. But if it parallels the article, it will be a tiring slog through
disjointed assertions.

A key idea is that people with the right blend of conscientiousness and
cognitive capacity and style will be able to use technology to enhance their
lives in ways that most people will not. And that we cannot predict what these
will be, but there there are analogs, and they show the power of the idea.

Intriguing speculation, worthy of consideration, poorly presented in the
article. Hopefully better presented in the book, but I ain't readin' it just
yet.

------
mlyang
Once you factor in genetic selection (Gattaca style -- many aspects of which
we are ALREADY capable of), inequality will not just become a matter of
knowledge/education/motivation as this article states, but BIOLOGICAL - and
that will really be the turning point in global inequality.

This is-- from a scientific perspective-- not far off at all, and we haven't
figured out the ethical system that can help us navigate this coming
phenomenon.

Even start-ups like Counsyl, which are doing great work with respect to
genetics and family planning, are a part of this movement towards genetic
variation between the rich and poor.

------
msluyter
Tyler Cowen is one of my intellectual heroes. If you found that article
interesting, you might enjoy his blog, Marginal Revolution:

[http://marginalrevolution.com/](http://marginalrevolution.com/)

------
johngalt
Articles like these seem to make the superficial assumption that technology
only puts downward pressure on the unskilled or uneducated. That improving
technology can only benefit the existing elites. I couldn't disagree more.
Tech improvements are more often used to allow the relatively unskilled to
replace the highly skilled. Innovation is commonly driven by scrappy upstarts
who have no choice but to try something new because they can't beat the
existing order at their own game.

------
KaoruAoiShiho
Yes any tool or productivity increase (wheel, horses, printing press)
naturally increases inequality. Redistribution is the only answer if you think
equality is important.

------
ig1
There was an article in the economist a couple of weeks ago which argued that
because growing inequality was a global phenomenon it was unlikely to be
related to tax policies, labour laws, etc. but rather due to global factors
such as technology and globalization.

On a microlevel the argument seems to make sense the middle-market jobs are
the ones that are being wiped out and having salaries driven-down by out-
sourcing and technology.

~~~
ronaldx
OK, but globally inequality _isn 't_ growing, by many measures. Hans Rosling
illustrated that this week[1].

World income now fits a more continuous curve compared to the rich- and poor-
of the past. World equality has presumably been helped by out-sourcing: it's
just that some of the 'equality' is no longer owned by the West.

[1][http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24835822](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24835822)

~~~
ig1
I think we're talking cross-purpose; I think you're talking about inequality
between countries while I'm talking about within countries.

~~~
ronaldx
Yes, except that I wasn't talking at cross-purposes and nor about countries.

I was talking about inequality between individuals globally, because I think
it's fundamentally a more important measure - and there is now far less global
poverty.

------
gadders
Good example of Betteridge's Law.

Also - inequality is a red herring. As long as the poorest people are doing
better, it's irrelevant that Bill Gates is a Billionaire.

~~~
dctoedt
> _As long as the poorest people are doing better, it 's irrelevant that Bill
> Gates is a Billionaire._

But the human psyche doesn't seem to work that way. There's a fair amount of
research suggesting that we tend to measure our well-being not in absolute
terms, but relative to those around us or who are otherwise on our mental
radar. [ADDED:] No matter how well someone is doing, if he perceives that
others "around" him are doing better, he's likely to feel bad about himself.

[ADDED:] Feeling bad about doing worse than those around us probably has an
evolutionary advantage as a motivator. There may even be a dollop of sexual-
preference selection at work, too: We probably recognize, perhaps
unconsciously, that potential mates judge us in part in comparison to other
available candidates.

(Tl;dr: Envy is a powerful force, which may have been built into us in part by
natural selection.)

~~~
nathan_long
If most people are envious of Bill Gates, does it follow that they have the
right to take away his money and redistribute it?

~~~
dctoedt
> _If most people are envious of Bill Gates, does it follow that they have the
> right to take away his money and redistribute it?_

You're presupposing that there's such a thing as a "right" outside of a given
social framework. (Cf. @rayiner's various comments on that subject.) If people
are envious by nature, that's like the weather; to paraphrase Robert A.
Heinlein, attempting to argue with the weather is seldom a profitable
enterprise.

In any case, Bill Gates's success was not due solely to his own efforts; he
built his achievements on a foundation provided by his fellow citizens, of
America and the world. So it's not a _moral_ axiom that Gates should keep some
particular share of the money that happens to come into his hands. Cf.
Elizabeth Warren's famous talk during her campaign for the Senate, where on
the subject of fair taxation she accurately pointed out that:

 _There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody. You built
a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your
goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the
rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-
forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry
that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and
hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us
did._ [1]

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs),
starting at 0:50, _transcribed at_
[http://spectator.org/blog/2011/09/22/elizabeth-warren-on-
fai...](http://spectator.org/blog/2011/09/22/elizabeth-warren-on-fair-taxat).

~~~
nathan_long
>> You're presupposing that there's such a thing as a "right" outside of a
given social framework.

I absolutely am. I'm with the framers of the US Constitution in saying that
government and society do not create rights, they merely recognize them. I
have a right not to be murdered, for example, even if I happen to live in a
society where murdering people like me is allowed.

But I base that statement on my theology, not my economics.

>> You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.

It's equally true that "the rest of us" drive around on roads that the factory
owner paid for - possibly more true, assuming he/she pays proportionally. Why
does this matter?

~~~
dctoedt
> _I have a right not to be murdered .... But I base that statement on my
> theology, not my economics ...._

Glad you recognize that. Pragmatically, a "right" exists only to the extent
that others accept it, voluntarily or otherwise. I can also claim the right
not to be murdered. But if I, an American, were to find myself in the hands of
certain factions of the Taliban, then that so-called right might be of little
efficacy.

There's a legal maxim -- OK, technically it's an equitable maxim -- _ubi jus
ibi remedium:_ Where there is a right, there must be a remedy. That is, once
the courts recognize that a right exists, they will somehow fashion a remedy
to vindicate a breach of that right. But there's a corollary: If there simply
_is_ no remedy that can be enforced, then neither is there a right.

------
jl6
Technology is a force multiplier. If there was a gap between the most and
least able before, it will be larger now.

------
gavinlynch
Is the Horseless Carriage Making Society More Unequal?

