Without right policies, automation risks shift of income from labour to capital

Re:Without right policies, automation risks shift of income ... by dang on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @04:24PM (#16119210)

Please don't post unsubstantive comments here. Especially on divisive topics, it's somewhere on the flamebait-troll vector and usually leads to worse.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Without right policies, automation risks shift of income ... by QasimK on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @04:20PM (#16119177)

Children already have different starting positions in the "race" from even before they are born from a variety of different factors but most factors are likely linked to the wealth of their parents (their education, their careers, how they value their children's education, the amount of money they spend on their children, the opportunities they have access to etc. etc. etc.).

Giving every child an index fund (which should probably start being accessible when they are teenagers and become fully accessible in late 20s) would only solve some of the broader problems beyond the article.

I also think it just isn't going happen because it effectively devalues the wealth of the wealthiest. It's like a wealth tax, right? Also, if everyone has 100-10000K it probably doesn't mean the same thing it means now. The general problem, as stated in the article, is the distribution of wealth - but the wealthy want to stay wealthy not be equally wealthy.

Norway successfully implemented a sovereign wealth fund - currently work nearly 200k per citizen - on the back of their finite natural resources (oil), and I think that is the model that the UK (my country) should have followed. Otherwise, the sources of the funds is likely to be more direct taxation which doesn't seem likely to actually happen.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Without right policies, automation risks shift of income ... by lr4444lr on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @04:24PM (#16119214)

Norway successfully implemented a sovereign wealth fund - currently work nearly 200k per citizen - on the back of their finite natural resources (oil), and I think that is the model that the UK (my country) should have followed

Are you only interested in Norway and the U.K., or do you not see a likely fallacy of composition here?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Without right policies, automation risks shift of income ... by QasimK on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @04:29PM (#16119253)

I selected a successful example of an attempt at a sovereign wealth fund (in fact the only example that I know), and an example of a country that chose not to implement a sovereign wealth fund despite being the same situation. I'm not entirely sure if the examples I chose constitute a fallacy. I was merely suggesting one approach that could work for some countries to establish equal funds for their citizens. Some countries may not have access to abundant raw resources though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Without right policies, automation risks shift of income ... by beojan on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @04:27PM (#16119243)

> I think that is the model that the UK (my country) should have followed.

I agree, but we do have to remember that Norway had roughly the same amount of oil as us, but a tenth of the population.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Without right policies, automation risks shift of income ... by rsanders on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @04:22PM (#16119194)

Who are you suggesting will be giving all these babies index funds, and with what investment?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Without right policies, automation risks shift of income ... by panic on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @04:25PM (#16119223)

This sounds a lot like the idea of a social wealth fund: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/opinion/inequality-soc...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Without right policies, automation risks shift of income ... by brndnmtthws on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @04:22PM (#16119198)

That would work if people saved money, but they've been taught to spend rather than save. Most people believe that if they earn $1 they must spend that $1 as soon as possible.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Without right policies, automation risks shift of income ... by em3rgent0rdr on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @04:25PM (#16119222)

What about teaching people to save then instead?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Without right policies, automation risks shift of income ... by brndnmtthws on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @04:55PM (#16119505)

:)

The boring simple solutions don't garner much attention. People want magic pills or cool tech.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Without right policies, automation risks shift of income ... by idoh on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @04:23PM (#16119202)

Doesn't really solve the problem because people will just sell their shares in the fund to buy whatever they want as soon as they can.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Without right policies, automation risks shift of income ... by meri_dian on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @04:24PM (#16119212)

But it doesn't work like that.

Where are you going to get the funds you "give" to the children?

There is no free lunch.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Without right policies, automation risks shift of income ... by shaki-dora on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @04:14PM (#16119138)

Funny, slightly related, idea: With today's high rate of investment in the stock market, and specifically the rise of index funds, the US may have achieved something closer to socialism than any of history's self-professed "socialist" nations.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Without right policies, automation risks shift of income ... by frgtpsswrdlame on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @04:23PM (#16119208)

First, there’s a bit of a myth that through indirect holdings, like holdings of stock in a pension fund, the stock market has become democratized, and everyone’s all in. Not so. Wolff’s data shows that while stock ownership has increased over the past few decades, in 2013 (his most recent data point), less than half — 46 percent — of households owned stocks, either directly or through their holdings in some sort of fund (e.g., a retirement account). Contrast that with the 94 percent ownership rate of the top 1 percent.
But even that 46 percent ownership rate gets misunderstood, because it doesn’t differentiate how much stock is owned by different income classes. Less than a third of all households hold at least $10,000 in stocks, compared to 93 percent of those households in the top 1 percent.

The figures below show that, since the late 1980s, about 80 percent of the value of the market has been held by the top 10 percent. Within that top 10 percent, the share of stock wealth held by the top 1 percent is about equal to the share held by the 90-99th percentiles; both groups’ shares are twice as large as the share that the entire bottom 90 percent holds.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/02/...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Without right policies, automation risks shift of income ... by lr4444lr on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @04:31PM (#16119272)

I find that figure exceedingly hard to believe was calculated correctly. Pension funds alone for civil servants (defined benefits, not retirement accounts,) are significantly invested in stock equities, which is a significant portion of households working and retired. Add in 401Ks, IRAs, and discount the undocumented in the workforce I would be shocked if it was not at least 75%.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Without right policies, automation risks shift of income ... by rm_-rf_slash on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @04:20PM (#16119176)

Much more of the stock market than you think is owned by overseas investors.

Most of the stock market is owned by institutional funds and people who are already quite wealthy.

[ Parent | on HN ]