Quote:
Originally Posted by galleyfox
The issue with this article is it's conflating assets with income and GDP. 40 billion is a pittance in the grand scheme of things. If Bezos liquidated his entire fortune and donated it, that's a mere $100 divided among just the American population. There are billions of individual choices and structural inefficiencies that lead to poverty and inequality around the world.
Most of modern society is built around eternal competition and growth - of energy, of labor, of resources, of land, of lifespan, of customers - and has been for several hundred years. Prosperity only happens when all those are in equilibrium, which is rare.
Is it much of a surprise that rising inequality starting in the 80s just happens to coincide with the greatest working population boom this world has ever experienced.? Just as cheap energy and new technology are reducing the need for labor?
Having fewer children is the peaceful modern answer to a problem that would have traditionally been resolved by pillaging neighbors and executing kings.
|
So... I actually do think there are too many humans on Earth. But I get off the train when we start to insinuate that social status should
encourage certain people to reproduce and others not to. I'm not anti-birth control -- people should have the right to choose either way.
Also, without derailing this thread too much, the wealth imbalance is a pretty good proxy of inequality, and I think we would agree that we're in an era of pronounced inequality. My point is that people who financially benefited the most from technological advances will have to accept that they, or the companies from which they derive their wealth, will be leaned on to fund a larger social safety net. Or, they will have to accept that their dynasties will be targeted for monopolistic concerns.