story
You don't need workers to have productivity, but you need people not being rich to have riches. And those people need to be fed, clothed, etc. And they also need money, to be able to buy things and services, else you cannot sell them.
So, you either turn into a Star Trek/socialism scheme, where social wealth is shared, and rich men are those that take more share by power alone --like kings of time old--, or you have a problem or keeping people occupied.
If you define rich to mean "I have way more than I will ever need" then there is ultimately no reason that everyone can't be rich. It just takes a while to get there.
Personally I'd prefer the latter. Eliminating poverty makes everyone better off.
The problem I described is multi-faceted, and I might not have made a good job at it, or some people might not have understood me (judging from the knee-jerk downvotes).
One issue is societal wealth. As a society, everybody can be "rich" in the sense you describe, but I already addressed that in the part where I write about the "Star Trek/socialism scheme, where social wealth is shared". I am fine with that kind of a society. I just don't see that this is what we are currently approaching with automation, etc, but rather huge poor masses and an middle class in decline.
So, my other argument was about what is actually happening, i.e. the continuation of the current model + automation. And what I said, is that if you believe --as many do--, that corporations, enterpreneurs, buying and selling stuff, in essence a market economy is crucial, then you need poorer people with jobs, ie. you need consumers. You cannot have a market economy AND everyone being rich in the "I have more than you" sense, and you cannot have a market economy AND the great masses out of work due to automation.
So, my argument is, automation is ultimately non compatible with a market economy. You get either sharing for everybody (i.e no market economy), or a collapse in buying power / sales (i.e a poor market economy).
(A final point, re everyone being rich in the "I have enough" sense: beyond the basics, "needs" are themselves a social construct. To a caveman, or a 17th century peasant, a man working at McDonalds with a house, tv, food, internet, bathroom, modern medicine, etc, seems as "more that he will ever need". To his contemporaries, not so much).
Can you support claim with some facts?
Note that in our current society, it is easily possible to be both richer than the 1970's middle class (in absolute terms) and live a life of leisure. We apply the label "poor" to people who do this, but that's just an arbitrary label.
...beyond the basics, "needs" are themselves a social construct.
Yes, this is the game played by most people who complain about the "middle class in decline" or "increasing poverty". They increase the definition of "middle class" more rapidly than the living standards of the middle class actually increased, and then whine when reality hasn't met their artificial benchmark.
> Can you support claim with some facts?*
Well, but how about just looking around you? Because arguing for obvious facts gets tiresome after a while.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/10/17/disturbing-statistics...
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/the-u.s.-middle-class-i...
http://www.businessinsider.com/22-statistics-that-prove-the-...
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/30-statistics-th...
Yes, this is the game played by most people who complain about the "middle class in decline" or "increasing poverty". They increase the definition of "middle class" more rapidly than the living standards of the middle class actually increased, and then whine when reality hasn't met their artificial benchmark.
It's not a game --it's how society works. Definitions change according to the social reality. Would you consider YOURSELF middle class if you only had access to what a '50's middle class family had? A 1920's one?
You need people not being rich to have riches
Echoing another point made in this thread, but wealth differentials doesn't mean you need to have poor people. The least well off person in a society may not have everything they want - most people don't and probably should not, if we want aspiration and ambition to have a place in the future - but they'll have their basic human rights fulfilled (a roster that gains mass with economic development).
The "material and energy intensity of consumption, per capita, has increased exponentially over the past centuries" EXACTLY because of the creation first and constant availability of "an army of low-wage consumers".
People were taught to hold jobs in the way we do now, and they were taught to consume, in the way we do now. The vast masses of the people not only consumed much less, but made their own everything, from clothes and shoes, to vegetables and housing. Like an Amish community.
A decline in the middle class, e.g by migration of their jobs abroad, translate to a decline in economy, unless you can create new jobs at the same rate, which currently we can't, and the economy took a hit.
Echoing another point made in this thread, but wealth differentials doesn't mean you need to have poor people.
No, but a market economy needs people poor enough to have to work and at the same time rich enough to be able to spend money on things.
Automation can eliminate the need to have people working, but it cannot eliminate the need to have people spending --except if you move beyond a market economy.
