First of all, let me say at the outset:
All arguments claiming economic justification for the continuance of poverty and the economic stratification of social hierarchy, are completely baseless bullshit, this unworthy of response or debate … and I’ll respond to them the day they say something that isn’t complete bullshit & I can actually respond to it without feeling I’m debating a disingenuous or ideologically insane imbecile.
Let’s instead focus our efforts on the reasons we should change, and how that change can come about.
I’ve recounted this story many times before, but I’ll state it again as it forms a nice solid foundation for the argument to follow.
I saw a documentary years ago, in which a guy who’s role it was to design, build, operate & maintain supercomputers, sitting in a room being interviewed in front of one of the most powerful of them built at the time, said this (paraphrased):
“I don’t know why people pay me to do this, I really don’t … because one human brain is the equivalent of 200,000,000 of the best of these machines we can build, linked in a network we cannot replicate … so if you want a better supercomputer, find someone you love, have sex, and make a baby”.
NOW in fairness to the predictable responses:
- Yes it’s true that was more than a decade ago;
- Yes it’s true the numbers have changed;
- Yes it’s true we’ve now simulated in a new supercomputer, a small cluster of human neutrons for something like 3 seconds …
BUT in rebuttle to such responses:
- That’s still only 3 seconds;
- A human brain does that continuous, 24/7, for decades running;
- A human brain does so crammed into the space of a human skull;
- A human brain is self-repairing, sentient, and self-evolving;
- The simulation is question was mimicking NOT originating;
- A human brain is armed with a self-healing, evolving, and sexually-replicating body which can travel, communicate, collaborate with other such organic mobile supercomputers (even of different species), and receive sensory feedback from multiple simultaneous streams, almost instantly integrating & responding to all streams at multiple levels …
- … I could go on, but will leave it to your own imagination to continue & expand this list … see if you can come up with at least 5 or 10 good points of your own.
So … WHY DO WE REALLY DO IT?
The real reason we develop AI is 3-fold:
- for the scientists & engineers, it’s often just pure curiosity & fascination with the possibilities, and I understand that;
- for some it is the pursuit of self-evolution, so they can have a body & brain to take them beyond their own inadequacies … hypothetically, it should be possible to upload your own consciousness into an artificial body & brain that expands your capabilities;
- for others, it is simply control & the continuance of slavery … they cannot get humans to be 100% obedient & compliant, so they hope to make machines capable of replacing all such people, and build a world that is entirely congruent with their own agenda.
I’m quite sure this technology can be put to good use, but it’s like space-exploration to me in the respect that:
- Don’t you think we should actually solve our problems instead of exporting them to other planets?
- Don’t you think we should fulfil our potential in this body with this brain, before you think a new body & brain will do that for you?
… because the issue isn’t potential, it’s the expression of potential, and how our perspective is holding us back.
What has any of this to do with wages?
Ok, now the connection …
If one human being has this much potential in terms of its hardware, why does it seem that we’re so different in capability?
The answer to which is this:
- Human potential is limited by circumstances, some of which is intergenerational;
- These circumstances include the internal circumstances of our belief systems & emotional/intellectual/psychological programming … ie: OUR SOFTWARE can be flawed, faulty, misdirected & incomplete;
- Where a person believe a falsehood & is emotionally/psychologically defensive of that view, they experience cognitive dissonance, which is uncomfortable … this is where the data-streams of “reality” (photons, sound waves, pressure, heat etc.), are not just poorly interpreted, but sometimes completely misinterpreted, and thus conflict with our biologically/evolutionarily programmed awareness of our environment;
- The gradient of this difference between what we experience versus how we interpret that data, is directly proportional to the discomfort we feel, and the probability of error, thus consequences;
- So a person determined to hold to a belief which is false, must defend themselves from the discomfort of that cognitive dissonance, and from the consequences of their actions (based on those false beliefs);
- This is done by creating a kind of “onion-skin” layered approach to beliefs & response strategies, so that each incoming data stream is redirected through a maze of beliefs, such that the gradient of difference is gradually reduced, and by the time the reinterpretation meets the core belief, the gradient is now shallow & less uncomfortable … this is called delusion, and in the worst cases becomes full-blown insanity & psychosis;
- Making matters worse, they defend themselves from the consequences by foisting them onto others, blaming others, and then rationalising those actions with further delusions … ultimately leading to a psychopathic / sociopathic disorder.
THE POINT BEING:
- Human potential is opportunity, capacity & perspective combined, not just one or the other … so when we waste this potential by brainwashing people, causing utterly unnecessary poverty, and failure to nurture that potential in so many other ways … there is no justification for blaming the victim, as they likely have very close to your own potential, no matter how great that is … and your failure to see it is a failure of your imagination, understanding & empathy … thus a failure of your character if you continue it.
Wage equity is vital to the expression of human potential within the status quo of our present socioeconomic paradigm … and as corrupting as that influence also is, what right have you to deny it to anyone, and how could you possibly claim you can calculate that doing so is of more benefit than harm … you cannot know that, for that requires complete understanding of ALL other possibilities, probabilities & potential across long time-spans … and I’ll bet money you have no such validation of your perspective.
If we can spend all this money developing artificial intelligence, why can’t we spend equal money exploring the existing potential of our individual & collective intelligence (?) … because as yet, we have not explored the tiniest fraction of that total domain of potential.
HOW SHOULD WAGE EQUITY WORK?
Minimum wage & welfare:
Within the present economic paradigm, while we’re attempting to transition from it (without bloodshed if possible), we should create an algorithm that goes like this:
- Take the articles of the charter of human rights;
- Determine the best online data mining sources of information;
- Create an algorithm costing (for each) the access to fulfilment of such human rights, given locality specific supply & demand constraints, thus allowing for the cost of additional supply (eg: housing construction);
- Make a wrapper-algorithm which brings all these together wit’s temporally-dynamic variability, so that the end result is a “live” representation of the true locale-specific cost of fulfilling all your humans rights for the location in which you live, as per the charter of human rights, and as per the real time data mined from reputable sources;
- THIS RESULT becomes the minimum living wage ANYONE on the planet should receive, and any states unwilling to implement this minimum, should be considered outlaw states by all others, even if they never signed the charter;
- EVERYONE should get this minimum WHETHER THEY WORK OR NOT … so if you don’t have a job, perhaps you can be a full time student, you can explore the world, write poetry, paint, do body-building … whatever you want;
- Therefore, if you don’t want to work, you don’t have to … but you’ll never then get more than this base, as you’re not contributing anything (except to your own interests) … BUT … that’s ok, as there aren’t enough jobs to go around anyway, and since everyone will have enough money to buy the basic things & experiences they want, there’ll be less ease of manipulation of people by marketing bullshit, and thus less wasted resources from that perspective … people won’t be out buying meaningless & useless plastic crap if they can travel & have fun;
- Employers will then be forced to pay better wages AND have better purpose (plus working conditions) to attract people to work … thus a whole bunch of shitty worthless and destructive industries will slowly disappear, as they cease being able to enthrall consumers with utterly unnecessary rubbish that wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for marketing;
- In turn, with more people pursuing things out of genuine interest, and with the resources required to do so without having to satisfy up front any economic agenda, will result in an increased rather than decreased rate of human & technological development;
- IF you really feel the need to force people to do something that you approve of (speaking to the self-styled “world leaders” here): how about you just require them to be full time students of at least 20 hours per week (5 hours per day, 4 days per week, 4 months on & 2 months off, twice each year), until they find something else to do … this would allow everyone adequate time to enjoy life, but also productively contribute to society, if in no other way than ensuring the continuance of the human knowledge & skills-base.
Maximum wage & “incentives”:
- IF someone is claiming greater value to a productive workforce, it is only fair they should have to prove such value to those paid less … and since these people claim to be more intelligent, knowledgeable, skilled & thus valuable … here’s my proposed challenge to them:
If you’re so bloody clever, raise your own wages by first raising everyone else’s;
- An algorithm should again be calculated, based on the original we made for the minimum wage, whereby instead of excluding outliers of data that is too excessively low or high, we only exclude that which is too low (ie – for accommodation, do not include data for housing that is unacceptable in terms of hygiene, safety, and reasonable size, as you would for the minimum wage … but include the data for the averages of cost of luxury housing around the world, which would have skewed the minimum wage, but is contextually relevant for the maximum);
- So now that we know how much money COULD be spent on things, this helps calculate an absolute maximum; but what the algorithm here does is places a person somewhere between the minimum and maximum, based on such things as:
- Productive output of their own activities with respect to everyone else’s;
- Minimum, median & mean wages within the organisation;
- Hence the result is that everyone within the company who wants to be paid more has to prove the case for their own value relative to the work of others (and with everyone having a voice in that process, you’ll have to be careful what you say, what you claim & how you say it) … BUT this is also balanced by the fact that everyone also has to argue for raising the wages of everyone else, because the maximum they will get is partially dependent on what others get …
- THEREFORE: you’ll have a company where everyone’s working hard, supporting each other, AND being critical of each other, for both individual and collective good simultaneously.
NOW … if you can’t see the sense in that, I have nothing further to say.