Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 24-Nov-2023 14:43:33 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

   Next time someone trys to blame #capitalism on the cost of cars or a home now compared to in the 50's or at the the turn of the century just remind them we dont have a capitalism problem, we have a population problem. For most people in their 40's the population of the planet has virtually doubled since were kids, there isnt as much to go around as there used to be (and since the turn of the century the population has increased 5x).

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 24-Nov-2023 15:10:11 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Another concerned scientist

     @ABScientist And yet The percentage of people below the poverty line has went from ~70% > 10% world wide in that time despite a greater wealth disparity... Funny that huh, its almost like having rich people or a wealth disparity doesnt cause poverty at all.

   • Embed this notice
     Another concerned scientist (abscientist@forall.social)'s status on Friday, 24-Nov-2023 15:10:12 JST Another concerned scientist

     in reply to

     @freemo

     And wealth has accumulated with a very small group of people.

     This was also true in the past, so you could argue we only have a population problem.

     But if we distributed wealth more evenly, there would be much less of an issue.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 24-Nov-2023 15:13:17 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Another concerned scientist

     @ABScientist No it doesnt suggest there is no problem.. It suggests (and explicitly states) that the problem has gotten much better.. 70% to 10% is a huge improvement, but it isnt the same as saying the problem was eliminated, only greatly improved.

     As to why people wrongly think it got worse, thats simple, because fear and hype sells... while things have gotten monumentally better economically for everyone the news still makes money off convincing you the opposite, and it has worked, consistently, for over 100 years.

   • Embed this notice
     Another concerned scientist (abscientist@forall.social)'s status on Friday, 24-Nov-2023 15:13:19 JST Another concerned scientist

     in reply to

     @freemo

     Why do I hear so much about people struggling? Your statistic seems to suggest that there is actually no problem.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 24-Nov-2023 15:41:39 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Another concerned scientist

     @ABScientist

     I think there are quite a few people who can afford less than they are used to.

     If you are talking about short-term then yea, year to year there is going to be some fluctuation, not every year is a global economic improvement. COVID hit us hard for example and there was certainly a downturn from this.

     But on average over longer periods of time the economy overall is objectively better with far fewer people below a living wage than ever before.

     This raises questions of what are basic needs. Food, housing and heating obviously are.

     It goes beyond just basic needs, by almost every measure the poorest among us are much better off than they were at the turn of the century.

     But is going on a holiday every year a basic need? Being able to smoke? Have a subscription to Netflix? Presents around Christmas? Dining in restaurants? Have a pet?

     No matter how you measure it more people can do all of those things more often then they could a century ago, and by a huge margin.

     Especially the holiday causes a lot of discussion where I am. I think you can argue that you need time off work every year, but travel?

     Even by this measure things have vastly improved. The average work week was over 60 hours a week at the turn of the century, today it is much less, a a bit below 40 hours a week.

   • Embed this notice
     Another concerned scientist (abscientist@forall.social)'s status on Friday, 24-Nov-2023 15:41:40 JST Another concerned scientist

     in reply to

     @freemo

     I think there are quite a few people who can afford less than they are used to.

     This raises questions of what are basic needs. Food, housing and heating obviously are.

     But is going on a holiday every year a basic need? Being able to smoke? Have a subscription to Netflix? Presents around Christmas? Dining in restaurants? Have a pet?

     Especially the holiday causes a lot of discussion where I am. I think you can argue that you need time off work every year, but travel?

   • Embed this notice
     Peter Drake, he/him, LFHCfS 🔥 (peterdrake@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 24-Nov-2023 15:51:41 JST Peter Drake, he/him, LFHCfS 🔥

     in reply to

     • Another concerned scientist

     @freemo @ABScientist Better for everyone except for the extremely poor and, interestingly, the upper middle class.

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elephant_Curve

     Productivity has also increased greatly in that time, with the benefits going almost entirely to the very wealthy:

     https://www.cbpp.org/income-gains-at-the-top-dwarf-those-of-low-and-middle-income-households-1

     Yes, something trickles down, but not much.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 24-Nov-2023 16:01:58 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Another concerned scientist

     @ABScientist

     Thats the problem with not looking at the numbers, everyone has bught the lie the news has drilled into us. Most beleive it, so you will hear it amplified.

     But the facts, that no one is denying, is that there has been steady and significant long term improvement over the economy, by a **huge** margin... knowing a few random people who are struggling to pay their bills are an indication there are still problems left, but hardly a counter argument.

   • Embed this notice
     Another concerned scientist (abscientist@forall.social)'s status on Friday, 24-Nov-2023 16:01:59 JST Another concerned scientist

     in reply to

     @freemo

     Maybe things are different in the US (although I see images of people living in their cars or in tents), but in Europe more and more people struggle to pay their bills and rely on food banks.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 24-Nov-2023 16:05:29 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Peter Drake, he/him, LFHCfS 🔥
     • Another concerned scientist

     @peterdrake

     No as we covered its even better for the extremely poor. Extreme poverty world wide has decreased from 70% to less than 10% world wide… that is absolutely an indication it is better for the poor (since the vast majority of them arent poor anymore).

     Yes, something trickles down, but not much.

     The literal facts disprove that.. Simply the fact that billionairs keep increasing steadly over those 100 years and during that time poverty and violence went down consistently clearly disproves that assertion, clearly having a greater wealth disparity did not make things worse at all, in fact they have objectively gotten much better.

     @ABScientist

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 24-Nov-2023 16:44:21 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Peter Drake, he/him, LFHCfS 🔥
     • Another concerned scientist

     @peterdrake

     To be explicit notice your elephant curve is income.. it does not account for the change in population, nor does it account for the fact that 70% of people were out of the workforce before and now 60%+ of those are in the workd force… So must of that can be described simply by the fact that the same group now needs 10x more money collectively to make the same money individually, since there are so many more of them

     @ABScientist

   • Embed this notice
     NotHelpfulUntilIAm🥤 🌛 🗄️ (admitswrongifproven@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 24-Nov-2023 19:56:15 JST NotHelpfulUntilIAm🥤 🌛 🗄️

     in reply to

     • Peter Drake, he/him, LFHCfS 🔥
     • Another concerned scientist

     @freemo @peterdrake @ABScientist I don’t understand where you get this 70% -> 10% figure. I have never heard of this.

     What i did hear again and again is that profits are up for the very rich, which suggests that disparity is going up, not down.

     Integrating the socializations of losses, which is something that i too hear about often, i don’t understand how you would think that. Last instance siemens energy getting compensated for their losses on wind power with taxpayer money. And yeah, siemens (mother company) did make billions in winnings at the same time.

   • Embed this notice
     Peter Drake, he/him, LFHCfS 🔥 (peterdrake@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 25-Nov-2023 01:04:21 JST Peter Drake, he/him, LFHCfS 🔥

     in reply to

     • NotHelpfulUntilIAm🥤 🌛 🗄️
     • Another concerned scientist

     @admitsWrongIfProven @freemo @ABScientist Freemo is correct that, over the long term, things are getting better for everyone:

     https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$chart-type=bubbles

     (Be sure to press the “play” button at lower left to see it progress over time. The Gapminder site in general will make one much less cynical about human progress.)

     I don’t think it’s inconsistent with what I cited. It may very well be that at some point in the past 70% of people were in poverty, and of those the majority no longer are, but the poorest still are.

     (I believe the elephant curve is per capita, BTW. Also note that it is a percentage increase. If someone making $10 a day and someone making $1000000 a day both double their income, they did not both get the same benefit.)

     My mental model is that technology (artificial fertilizers, automation, etc.) has greatly increased humanity’s access to resources. The poor have benefited somewhat from this, the rich have benefited hugely, and (because much technology entails resource extraction and pollution) future people will suffer greatly.

     I also agree with Freemo’s original point that population is a problem. (I don’t, of course, agree with the big historical names in the population movement who somehow concluded that poor, brown people are the problem.) I find the IPAT equation compelling:

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_%3D_PAT

     As to whether the poor have benefited because of the wealthy or despite them … we might need a control planet to test that. I certainly see people who are absurdly wealthy while others still struggle, and a demand for perpetual growth manifested in consumerism.

     Capitalism in the small – private businesses producing goods and services, with competition driving them to improve – is one thing. Runaway, unchecked, predatory capitalism is another.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 25-Nov-2023 01:05:10 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Peter Drake, he/him, LFHCfS 🔥
     • NotHelpfulUntilIAm🥤 🌛 🗄️
     • Another concerned scientist

     @admitsWrongIfProven @peterdrake @ABScientist

     There are many sources that show these numbers. Here is one such source, and yes its very much normalized well. But while normalization varies you will always get a chart mor eor less like this.

     https://cepr.shorthandstories.com/history-poverty/

   • Embed this notice
     NotHelpfulUntilIAm🥤 🌛 🗄️ (admitswrongifproven@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 25-Nov-2023 01:05:11 JST NotHelpfulUntilIAm🥤 🌛 🗄️

     in reply to

     • Peter Drake, he/him, LFHCfS 🔥
     • Another concerned scientist

     @peterdrake @freemo @ABScientist Not too sure what i can read out of the gapminder, it seems the income chart is not inflation adjusted? With different cost of living increases, such a chart can’t work worldwide and make sense - would have to relabel x-axis differently for each country or place multiple “extreme poverty” markers ^^

     Generally, some good points. Asymmetrical gains, pushing problems into the future (adding: keyword externalities).

     And that last paragraph, absolutely. Freemo complained about lack of monopoly control in the past (i agree), but somehow it does get forgotten in newer discussions.

   • Embed this notice
     Amikke (amikke@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 25-Nov-2023 01:17:10 JST Amikke

     in reply to

     @freemo hey, it is the fault of capitalism. Wouldn't have high cost of cars and homes without cars and homes available to the public in the first place.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 25-Nov-2023 01:37:14 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Amikke

     @Amikke You make an excellent point :)

     Them: Because of capitalism cars are expensive, 200 years ago a everyone could afford a mode of transport.

     Me: Well yea, but your paying extra because now it cant get diarrhea or kick you in the face.

   • Embed this notice
     GNU Too (gnu2@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 08:16:53 JST GNU Too

     in reply to
     @freemo birth rate is not a problem. Heck if a third of my generation wasn't aborted who knows what extra brain power could have created. Thankfully the zoomers appear to be fixing a lot of what is old folks got wrong.