View Single Post
Old Posted Oct 4, 2019, 8:37 PM
galleyfox galleyfox is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
If poor people weren't having kids there would be a hell of a lot fewer people. Most of us reading this thread probably wouldn't be here. So, I think the finger is pointed in the wrong direction.

The eight richest people on Earth have the same amount of wealth as the poorest 4 billion people on Earth. If poor people have a responsibility to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, then rich people also have a responsibility to not be so greedy. If rich people want to continue to hoard resources, then we have to be okay with creating a very large social safety net. I don't think capitalism will survive without a compromise on one or the other.
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.
Reply With Quote