And yet the overriding goal when planning a start-up, at least for web start-ups, is to eliminate paid human labor at any cost, in the name of scalability. Federal minimum wage is largely irrelevant when talking about the middle class, since it's so distant from an income that might include you in it. I don't see how our community is equipped to address such an issue in any meaningful way.
Perhaps ubiquitous availability of sophisticated robots might allow people to have their needs met with fewer relative resources at their disposal, though it will also exacerbate the problem as productive jobs become more scarce. People can now be entertained more cheaply than ever, with free access to content made by their peers. People can virtually travel the world without leaving their homes. Can we at least ease the pain of not being in the top 1%?
This strikes me as somewhat misguided. As a modern, wealthy society, we shouldn't have to content ourselves by just easing the pain of not being in the 1%. Furthermore, while it's certainly true that the tech revolution has brought about some changes that get rid of human labor, there's a lot more going on to this growth of inequality than that. If it was just about unique skills or education, you'd expect to see the top ~20% dramatically pulling away from the bottom 80% of the distribution, not the 99/1% that you see in reality (we can quibble about the numbers there a bit, but the point is that the inequality we're seeing isn't just a skills/education/technology revolution structural thing).
I don't pretend to have a great answer for "how our community is equipped to address such an issue in any meaningful way," except perhaps to suggest that we try to find more tech solutions to "bigger" problems (energy, grid infrastructure, etc.) instead of inventing more social widgets. That, and trying to hold politicians more accountable to interests besides those of the super wealthy.
I think you are completely missing the point the top 20% _are_ dramatically pulling away; in the last ten years _all_ the gains in income have gone to the top 20%!
No, look at the data more closely. The top 20% numbers are skewed by the fact that the top 1% is included. The real story is the top ~1% pulling away from everyone else, NOT huge gains in the top 20% as a whole (another way to say that is that someone in, say, the 81st percentile of the income distribution has not seen large income gains)
edited to add link to CBO inequality report:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42729
(shows that 1979-2007 top 1% income grew by 275%, the next 19% grew by 65%, next 60% grew by 40%).
As I said before, there is certainly a structural component that means that education and skills can command even more of a premium than they always have, but that's not the majority of the story behind this inequality growth.
Unfortunately human nature being what it is, everyone will have to agree together that income (not necessarily wealth) will need to be re-distributed. So in order to do this the high earners (1%, highly profitable companies) will have forgo some income to re-distribute to the lower income earners; this doesn't necessarily mean that some people will make more without working. This means not only do some people need to be employed that are currently unemployed, but also some people (middle class?) need to be paid more for what they do.
From what I can see there are two ways to do this; both of which effectively force _all_ high income people (both natural and legal) to employ and pay more. Both of these methods are generally denigrated in the US media, and I suspect by a largish number of the people who would benefit most by these methods.
Taxes and unions. Both of these lead to higher pay and employment, one is forced and paid for by the government, the other is forced by employees and paid for by employers.
Can anyone think of any other options that would force all high income people to re-distribute their income largely together?
EDIT: I should have said distributed by government and distributed by employers, not paid.
Can anyone think of any other options that would force all high income people to re-distribute their income largely together?
A failing economy or, failing that, an economic meltdown?
The problem I see with taxes as a solution is that it generally doesn't redistribute wealth to the middle class (if that is your goal) as much as it does redistribute wealth to those with political connections, and the rhetoric tends to catch the upper-middle class in the crosshairs - which, if I'm reading this correctly, would make the problem worse.
I could be wrong but most government employees I have met in management normally gauge themselves and their peers by the number of reports that they have.
Also, an area where I feel government does a good job of driving economic growth is infrastructure; these tend to employ more in the lower income brackets, the "builders" and and middle income brackets, the "designers" and "managers". Obviously you can have too much infrastructure, like some examples of housing in China. However I don't think the US is suffering too much from over infrastructure.
Another point is that government jobs could be paid more, especially for critical jobs for "future proofing" like teachers, however in the US there is a disconnect between federal taxation and local / state employment in teaching, especially at the earlier age portions of education.
Another idea may be to extend unemployment benefits if you elect to work part-time for your local / state / federal government on short term projects; I realise that normally short term and government don't always wind up on the same page.
The problem with most government jobs is that they don't involve adding value to anything. A business's profits come from the value that its activities create. Government jobs on the other hand are mostly bureaucratic, and just tap money from one source (taxpayers) and give it to another, inefficiently, and without creating any value anywhere in the process. So increasing government employment can function as a wealth transfer mechanism, but in the grand scheme of the economy it doesn't really help.
There are few things left that only humans can do--art, entertainment, interpersonal services, engineering. As technology makes everything else cheaper, these things will stay expensive and provide income for more people. Just like when agriculture went from needing 90% of the population to less than 10%.
Many open source projects enjoy contributions from some of the most highly regarded engineers around, though it's possible a significant number of these are paid for their trouble. There are volunteers of every skill level out there, including some of the best talent available at any price.
Perhaps ubiquitous availability of sophisticated robots might allow people to have their needs met with fewer relative resources at their disposal, though it will also exacerbate the problem as productive jobs become more scarce. People can now be entertained more cheaply than ever, with free access to content made by their peers. People can virtually travel the world without leaving their homes. Can we at least ease the pain of not being in the top 1%?