4 ms·

> What you generally want in a society is: lots of poor people to be able to get out of poverty (into middle class), middle class to have a decent chance to bec

> What you generally want in a society is: lots of poor people to be able to get out of poverty (into middle class), middle class to have a decent chance to become upper middle class, etc -- and of course most middle class to be stable and not fall into poverty. I hear this a lot but I really don't understand the logic. Because the middle class is a subjective and proportionate categorization, your target is always going to be moving. Who cares about joining the middle class if most of their needs already being met. If, for instance, a replicator was invented that provided food and shelter to anyone who wanted it for free, a hell of a lot of people could live quite happily and comfortably without being middle class. So the goal should be to get to that sort of scenario as fast as possible. That is, a world in which the cost of covering our basic human needs is so small that nobody needs to be middle-class or higher to be happy.

coldtea 11y ago
>I hear this a lot but I really don't understand the logic. Because the middle class is a subjective and proportionate categorization, your target is always going to be moving. Of course the target its moving. That means society is progressing in the aggregate. So why keep "desired standards of living" stuck in the past? In 1840 having no electricity and running water was considered acceptable. Today we think even internet is a kind of necessary good. So, with progress the definition of rich / middle class / poverty etc should move too. Who said poverty is some absolute measurable state? Obviously you shouldn't consider yourself "rich" or even middle class, if you live in a trailer park with $100/month, just because you have housing, electricity and lots of available food in Walmart, whereas 1200 A.D peasants and 10000 B.C cavemen had neither... What was the case "in the past" doesn't come into play when people compare their status to other contemporaries -- and the level of the society they live in.
- marknutter 11y ago
  > What was the case "in the past" doesn't come into play when people compare their status to other contemporaries -- and the level of the society they live in. So then it's all about envying those who have more, no matter how comfortable a life you happen to have.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >So then it's all about envying those who have more, no matter how comfortable a life you happen to have. You could use the moralistic conception of "envy", and make it sound bad, like telling kids "you should not envy your brother other". Or you could: 1) see that envy and egoism is considered a primary motivator for advancement (if you like free market theories, e.g. Adam Smith and the "egoism of the butcher", etc.) 2) accept that humanity should progress in tandem, not just let some people get the majority of the benefits of today, just because the vast majority is also "better off compared to people in the past" (if you prefer socialist theories). If they take away your internet access, will you be fine with that because people in 1850 lived in log cabins without internet, electricity or running water and you still have it so much better than them?
    - marknutter 11y ago
      > 1) see that envy and egoism is considered a primary motivator for advancement (if you like free market theories, e.g. Adam Smith and the "egoism of the butcher", etc.) I agree it's a primary motivator for advancement, but if the government redistributes wealth it destroys that motivation and the benefits that come along with people having it (new businesses, higher productivity, increased education, etc). > 2) accept that humanity should progress in tandem, not just let some people get the majority of the benefits of today, just because the vast majority is also "better off compared to people in the past" (if you prefer socialist theories). I think at some point there's little point to everyone increasing their standard of living. We're already reaching a point here in the US where people are simply bored. Would we all be better off as a society if everyone had an extra 500 sq. ft. added to their homes, or a Tesla in their garage, or designer clothes? We are reaching the point of diminishing returns when it comes to material possessions, unless it's all about envy like I suggested in my previous reply. > If they take away your internet access, will you be fine with that because people in 1850 lived in log cabins without internet, electricity or running water and you still have it so much better than them? Well, I'm not being "given" my internet access, I pay for it. But yes, if I could no longer afford to pay for my internet access I would still thank my lucky stars I have electricity and running water. Duh?

coldtea 11y ago

>I hear this a lot but I really don't understand the logic. Because the middle class is a subjective and proportionate categorization, your target is always going to be moving. Of course the target its moving. That means society is progressing in the aggregate. So why keep "desired standards of living" stuck in the past? In 1840 having no electricity and running water was considered acceptable. Today we think even internet is a kind of necessary good. So, with progress the definition of rich / middle class / poverty etc should move too. Who said poverty is some absolute measurable state? Obviously you shouldn't consider yourself "rich" or even middle class, if you live in a trailer park with $100/month, just because you have housing, electricity and lots of available food in Walmart, whereas 1200 A.D peasants and 10000 B.C cavemen had neither... What was the case "in the past" doesn't come into play when people compare their status to other contemporaries -- and the level of the society they live in.

marknutter 11y ago
> What was the case "in the past" doesn't come into play when people compare their status to other contemporaries -- and the level of the society they live in. So then it's all about envying those who have more, no matter how comfortable a life you happen to have.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >So then it's all about envying those who have more, no matter how comfortable a life you happen to have. You could use the moralistic conception of "envy", and make it sound bad, like telling kids "you should not envy your brother other". Or you could: 1) see that envy and egoism is considered a primary motivator for advancement (if you like free market theories, e.g. Adam Smith and the "egoism of the butcher", etc.) 2) accept that humanity should progress in tandem, not just let some people get the majority of the benefits of today, just because the vast majority is also "better off compared to people in the past" (if you prefer socialist theories). If they take away your internet access, will you be fine with that because people in 1850 lived in log cabins without internet, electricity or running water and you still have it so much better than them?
  - marknutter 11y ago
    > 1) see that envy and egoism is considered a primary motivator for advancement (if you like free market theories, e.g. Adam Smith and the "egoism of the butcher", etc.) I agree it's a primary motivator for advancement, but if the government redistributes wealth it destroys that motivation and the benefits that come along with people having it (new businesses, higher productivity, increased education, etc). > 2) accept that humanity should progress in tandem, not just let some people get the majority of the benefits of today, just because the vast majority is also "better off compared to people in the past" (if you prefer socialist theories). I think at some point there's little point to everyone increasing their standard of living. We're already reaching a point here in the US where people are simply bored. Would we all be better off as a society if everyone had an extra 500 sq. ft. added to their homes, or a Tesla in their garage, or designer clothes? We are reaching the point of diminishing returns when it comes to material possessions, unless it's all about envy like I suggested in my previous reply. > If they take away your internet access, will you be fine with that because people in 1850 lived in log cabins without internet, electricity or running water and you still have it so much better than them? Well, I'm not being "given" my internet access, I pay for it. But yes, if I could no longer afford to pay for my internet access I would still thank my lucky stars I have electricity and running water. Duh?