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