[flagged]
This is naive, productivity increases had decoupled from compensation a long time ago. See https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ for example. AI certainly can create wealth, and in fact already did (hey NVDA), but somehow that did not trickle down. I think more likely than not, AI will further stratify our society.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sources-of-real-wage-stag...
The EPI is also not a credible source, given who funds it.
Even though everyone didn't get rich from the industrial revolution, ultimately people led easier lives, more stuff, and less work.
Instead, they hoped the food stores would last and the kids wouldn't die so they could help work the land next year.
The typical American is insanely wealthy by global standards.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-l...
Who cares?
Absolute savings rate and net worth are what matter.
Any European will gladly live in America for US$1 million/year income even if the cost of living is US$300k/year.
https://www.ft.com/content/653bbb26-8a22-4db3-b43d-c34a0b774...
OK, now tell me how the savings and net worth look like for your average American. I'll give you a bit of a spoiler: it's not good.
It is easy for me to take this perspective too because I never had much student debt or children.
The median though is getting crushed if they went to college and are paying for daycare.
If you are getting crushed for going to school and having children that is a pretty clear breakdown of the social contract.
The consequences are obvious. People are going to vote in socialist policies and the whole engine is going to get thrown in reverse.
The "let them eat cake" strategy is never the smart strategy.
It is not obvious at all our system is even compatible with the internet. If the starting conditions are 1999, it would seem like the system is imploding. It is easy to pretend like everything is working out economically when we borrowed 30 trillion dollars during that time from the future.
> If you are getting crushed for going to school and having children that is a pretty clear breakdown of the social contract.
That isn't a factor in wealth inequality. Inequality is how much money they have relative to people like Musk and Bezos - or just local business owners. The poor side of that comparison always has such little wealth/income that their circumstances don't really matter. Someone poor will be sitting in the +-$100k band and not be particularly creditworthy. When compared to a millionaire the gap is still going to be about a million dollars whether they're on the crushed or non-crushed side of the band.
Part of the reason the economic situation gets so bad is because people keep trying to shift the conversation to inequality instead of talking about what actually matters - living standards and opportunities. And convincing people to value accumulating capital, we're been playing this game for centuries, inter-generational savings could have had a real impact if people focused on being effective about it.
The millions of people who use NVDA’s products do not get value from it? Isn’t it making their lives richer?
And the richness of life it's another philosophical discussion altogether...
Although if we're talking the optimum way of organising society, y'know, re-linking wages and productivity is a probably a good path. This scheme of not rewarding productive people has seen the US make a transition from growth hub of the world to being out-competed by nominal Communists. They aren't exactly distinguishing themselves with that strategy.
Which planet is going to sustain that? More productivity doesn't add any resources to sustain your lifecycle.