Will we have a future of extreme inequality and bountiful resources?

They say in every utopia there is a subclass for whom it is a dystopia. In mainstream futuristic media, the story often overlooks the economy unless it offers a political statement supporting their view and/or damning the opposition’s take on things. But the future is beginning to look a bit strange. On one side, the ability to provide ample resources in the first world has some questioning if poverty can even exist in countries like the US, Canada, and the original EU member states such as Britain, France and Germany. An article I recall from some time ago asked the question, “Can you be considered poor if you have a flatscreen TV in your home?”While individuals can and do find themselves homeless or with a home, but food or energy insecure, most of the West is thriving compared to the second and third world. There are hungry children in America - my wife and I donate to a local food for kids charity that sends food home for children to eat over the weekend - yet you don’t often see images of starving children from the West, unless it is the result of parental negligence or abuse. Contrast a hungry American child with a starving African child and there is very little comparison which is closer to death - one of them probably isn’t.Even in wealthy countries, one of the dystopian concerns is rising inequality as the rich get richer, the poor stay poor, and the middle class loses momentum. Illustrator Randy Coffey provided this visual through Upworthy as a visual reference to how US wealth is currently distributed:It's an eye opening graphic and one we should consider. Not because, in my opinion, wealth is equal to evil, but because of how this level of imbalance can and will change the fabric of society if the trend continues. On that point, Dr David Brin, author and scientist, asks us to ponder this:“What degree of wealth disparity would you find discomforting?  Today, unlike 1945 or 1980 or 1999, the top 400 U.S. families own more than the the bottom 50% of Americans. Please, please, please pause a minute and picture that in your mind.  If you can somehow manage to shrug that off, is there some level of disparity that would worry you?When it's 75%? Or when it's 90%? Admit that there is some level that would make even you call yourself (and your country) the victim of class war.”He also points out the healthiest social pattern was after WWII when the “Social Pyramid” which has best represented social affluence was replaced with a flattened diamond “with a well-off middle that actually outnumbered the poor!”If we’re moving into the future, shouldn’t we seek the best lessons from the past? It certainly seems our current trends are at odds with the many experts (and a lot of non-experts, like myself) who believe rebuilding the middle class is the only solution to maintaining a strong, thriving and relatively equal society.Yet, in order to change things in our republic, we need the votes. And we need them to happen consistently if the change is to become permanent. Even if we do find a healthy balance, there must remain enough aware individuals to stop future attempts to lever control back to where $X = 1 vote. Can enough voters remain aware and proactive against waves of corporate attempts to undermine the democratic process? We may find out soon, as Senator Al Franken has a petition to amend the Constitution so corporations do not possess the same rights as a human.As an aside, how important might the Citizens United and the proposed amendment to ban corporations from personhood be when artificial intelligence does develop? I often argue the value of “just good enough.” A new, groundbreaking product can be announced and fail because a less expensive option is just good enough. Will we give in to a dystopian future if that dystopia is just good enough? If it is just good enough, is it really a dystopia?In episode 244 of This Week in Law, there is a very interesting ten minutes of discussion on how the Singularity could change our overall economies. The exchanges starts with Even Brown at around 9:00 and ends at around 19:35 (after which they change to discuss whether a true AI can exist, as I wrote about in an earlier post). I recommend listening, but here are a few quotes to note:Evan Brown sets up a question “How is this going to change us at the social layer?”James Miller believes that as machines are able to do more of what people can do, there will be less jobs and more individuals who are not able to earn a living. “We might have vast segments of our population who just can’t be productively put to work…we have to decide what to do with them…We might end up with a society where people basically play video games and do art and have fun and are supported by the small number of people who have jobs and the capital holders.“Most people don’t like their jobs, and most people would be quite happy if they could have a dignified unemployment if society didn’t really need their efforts…losing your job wouldn’t be such a bad thing if you could maintain the same or even get a higher standard of living.”Now, my view on this statement isn’t a good one. Maybe a bit too much “Idle hands are the Devil’s hands” growing up, but my view of the world sees a lot of truth in this. Would we want to give up societal inclusion through productivity? Would it help reconnect us? Would humans shift back towards traditional trades to make artisan goods or become gentlemen farmers? Would we all lead Bohemian lifestyles? Or would we all just hang out playing video games with our sexbots?Denise Howell quotes from Miller's book, Singularity Rising: “Competition with billions of cheap AIs drive human wages to almost nothing while making investors rich.” Miller goes on to explain his view is that everyone’s wealth could increase, that it won’t be just about increased class differences. “We can make everyone richer, but the people who own a lot of capital will gain proportionately more. Maybe their income goes up by a factor of a 100, where the average American is three times richer. So it kind of depends on, do you think inequality is bad per se? Or would it be a better world where everyone gets richer, but the rich got richer proportionately than the poor did?..I’m not concerned at all about inequality, I think it’s important to care a lot about the people who are the poorest. That’s different from thinking about the percent difference in wealth between the richest and poorest.Stan Liebowitz, professor of economics at UT Dallas, responds: “In economics, we have a basic assumption that we have scarcity. And it’s the scarcity that goes into the problem of figuring out how to produce and then allocate what we produce…If it’s going to be an end result where we have all of these machines that are so smart and so capable, they may be able to produce so much of everything we want that scarcity disappears. If scarcity disappears, then everyone has as much of everything as they want and you don’t worry about the One Percent and the 99 Percent.…(T)here were still things which were scarce, such as power…and that’s where the competition between people would take place.”It’s an interesting exchange and well worth the time (This Week In Law is very informative about each week’s law cases in technology). It gives me two thoughts:1. If that is the case, could a caste system develop that is as rigid as a country such as India’s? Julia B. Isaacs at The Brookings Institution offers the paper Economic Mobility of Families Across Generations. It includes a statement that:“All Americans do not have an equal shot at getting ahead, and one’s chances are largely dependent on one’s parents’ economic position.”Once your family fell out of employment, how does that impact your chances of gaining employment in a human-required field? What does that do to freedom? Does it feel like you’re under a glass ceiling and surrounded by glass walls or will the video games and art keep you happy?2. What happens to our governments and societies when the 1% owns nearly 100% of the world’s wealth? How does this change representational governments? In history, even the wealthiest families failed for many reasons. With current patent law, families owning companies with a large portfolio of foundational patents could remain wealthy forever.GenerationsIt won't be smooth, either. Our youngest generations are already facing tough times to find jobs after they finish school, no matter what level they complete. Will my toddler daughter's generation fare better? Or will the AI workers be taking her generations jobs just as she enters the job market?There are some great articles on which jobs the robots/artificial intelligences/automated systems will take from humans. I'll focus on what changes in how humans retain their jobs: flexibility.Our education systems are still founded in Industrial Age processes, while the segments driving Western economies are information age. It isn't just intelligence and a fancy diploma that earn jobs, it's also how well someone is able to throw off the yoke of traditional educational environments and flex into the roles that both help them bring their strengths to their role and also how well they connect within the company.In education, there is a lot of focus on learning styles. These become ever more important in adult learners, who trend towards a medium and approach that works best for them. If companies value a worker who is willing to learn, maybe two best dimensions of the learner have been their willingness to learn (adapt) and awareness of their learning style (what works best). Could the third dimension that fleshes out the future worker be their flexibility on which channels they are willing to receive information?Instead of focusing on hiring as much intelligence, drive and education as they can afford for the wage they can pay, companies will look for ways to measure flexibility. Potential hires who portray the ability to self-educate will be the most valued. They'll seek out the learning channels that work for them and remain agile learners as they age. Once they prove their value through intelligence and drive, their ability to remain lifelong learners will result in companies keeping them on in order to retain their value as a human, trusting the worker will adapt to new roles and challenges.Changing Educational Opportunities - both as teacher and learnerI have a close friend has worked on his art for decades, though there was little value for it in his locale. He's now being asked to teach online and may find a later-life career blossom as new technologies help him sell his knowledge and teaching practices online from where he lives. In a discussion he and I had last year, he wasn't certain there was a place for his "limited" knowledge with so many incredible artists selling their lessons as well. My response was to realize those artists are so far advanced, they might not explain the minutiae to less experienced users, where he, still in the midst of growing his skill set, would better connect with those types of learners. Free communication tools are changing the education market. It is much less expensive for someone to teach through a screen sharing program and less time consuming for learners to receive this at home. The Internet is a much less expensive classroom than one in a brick and mortar building with costs to build, maintain and heat/cool. Could it be the combination of social networking, online teaching/learning tools and micropayments will create a new learning-service industry? One where an experienced user becomes an online teacher to earn some extra income from the learners they can best connect with in that moment?Maybe the money isn't an income, but a way to pay for their lessons from someone higher up the knowledge tree. We don't need to go far to find a parallel, the martial arts community pretty much works that way. Mid-level instructors might take on students and use that income to attend seminars or travel to train with the most experienced instructors in their home dojo. Why couldn't the free-market education system work the same?A really interesting example of how new technologies are bringing back old traditions is The Arcanum, which offers the master-apprentice relationship, giving students an opportunity to watch a master of their craft work in real time. The service connects a learner with a master, helps foster a community and rewards the learner with a "leveling up" whenever they complete a goal assigned to them.Higher education, trying to remain as important in the new age as they were in the past, are investing in massive open online courses (MOOCs) to open up course material to a world of students. With completion rates below 10%, many believe these systems will fail. But failure doesn't matter for courses from which failure doesn't leave a bad mark, something many old-order academics don't understand. New information students are seeking new skills, not grades. Failure doesn't matter as long as you eventually master the material that works best for you. Courses are now like library books - check out as many as you like. If you don't read them, that's okay. You can check them out again next week or month or year if that works better for you. If they weren't palatable, then find a different book or a resource in another mediumMaybe 'flexibility' is the key term on which we should focus on for survival in a world of diminishing opportunity - not that it doesn't exist now or isn't valued, but that it might grow in importance during the next age. In the new world as in the old, students will need a foundation on which to stand and reach for fruit on the tree. Like pyramids, if they're too broad, you can't reach as high without more structure. Too narrow and, while you can reach higher, you're never on solid footing. Students will need both: a good foundation through which to understand the world, and a field of depth from which to reach higher as they go forth to manage their own learning. But they will need to keep growing their skills, fleshing out new areas of knowledge and experience using the services that work best for them. It will take longer for public schools to adapt, so universities should offer a path between high school and whatever systems students will learn from/through after they complete their college degree.Intelligence will still rule the day, as it offers the most flexibility. But as I look forward to 15 years of helping my daughter prepare for a longer life than I should expect, above all things I want her to understand the need for that foundation and the spirit to change course with the winds so she always finds a safe harbor. If we're about to weather a massive storm that changes the structure of our economy and culture, it won't always be the tallest and strongest trees that remain standing. A good root system and ability to bend in the wind may be the most important.A few questions:Do you believe the artificial constructs (robots, artificial intelligences, automated systems) will take your job? Will they then enable you to have an income equal or higher than now?Also, are you using online or offline services to remain flexible in the work force? If so, which ones and do you feel they are the best outlet for you?