3 ms·

Predictions of a post-scarcity economy are overblown. From the perspective of the basic necessities of food, clothing, and shelter, we in the US are already in

by phd514 11y ago

Predictions of a post-scarcity economy are overblown. From the perspective of the basic necessities of food, clothing, and shelter, we in the US are already in a post-scarcity economy. A "comfortable" living, though, is eminently relative. Many of the poor in the US live more comfortable lives than many in less developed countries. It's unclear why they are entitled to a particular standard of living that is rather generous by global standards just by virtue of their living in the US.

Bjartr 11y ago
>From the perspective of the basic necessities of food, clothing, and shelter, we in the US are already in a post-scarcity economy. Not quite, we are post-scarcity on the production of those items, but the economy hasn't caught up with it yet, which is why so many in the US severely lack one or more of those necessities . As William Gibson put it, "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed" >Many of the poor in the US live more comfortable lives than many in less developed countries. I would be surprised if you mean the US can't or shouldn't strive to provide better for its citizens ~300 million citizens until all other countries are caught up for the rest of the 7 billion people on Earth, which leaves me unsure about what you're trying to communicate with this. >It's unclear why they are entitled to a particular standard of living that is rather generous by global standards just by virtue of their living in the US. Clarity here depends on your perspective. From the perspective of humanity as a whole you are absolutely correct. From the perspective of citizens within a country the government's (ostensible) purpose for existing is to provide for their quality of life either directly by use of collected taxes or indirectly by facilitating socioeconomic activity.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Its not fair to say, living in America is an accidental privilege. That doesn't credit America with any responsibility for its own prosperity. Its the culture, and the resources of course, that make America the engine of commerce that it is.
  - Bjartr 11y ago
    I'm having some trouble parsing your intended message. Is this an agreement or disagreement?
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Agreement I guess. I was thinking of the parent comment including "It's unclear why they are entitled to a particular standard of living that is rather generous by global standards just by virtue of their living in the US. "
- phd514 11y ago
  >Not quite, we are post-scarcity on the production of those items, but the economy hasn't caught up with it yet, which is why so many in the US severely lack one or more of those necessities I'm unaware of any significant number of US residents suffering from malnutrition due to lack of access to healthy food or exposure due to insufficient clothing or shelter. That is not to say there are none, but most are due to factors other than the lack of access to basic necessities. >I would be surprised if you mean the US can't or shouldn't strive to provide better for its citizens ~300 million citizens until all other countries are caught up for the rest of the 7 billion people on Earth, which leaves me unsure about what you're trying to communicate with this. What I am saying is that I question the assertion that everyone deserves a particular quality of life even if it must be attained at the expense of another. Even if I were to accept that, the complications of such a position are legion. What constitutes the appropriate quality of life? What happens in an economic downturn when that minimum quality of life is no longer sustainable? Etc.

by phd514 11y ago

Bjartr 11y ago

>From the perspective of the basic necessities of food, clothing, and shelter, we in the US are already in a post-scarcity economy. Not quite, we are post-scarcity on the production of those items, but the economy hasn't caught up with it yet, which is why so many in the US severely lack one or more of those necessities . As William Gibson put it, "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed" >Many of the poor in the US live more comfortable lives than many in less developed countries. I would be surprised if you mean the US can't or shouldn't strive to provide better for its citizens ~300 million citizens until all other countries are caught up for the rest of the 7 billion people on Earth, which leaves me unsure about what you're trying to communicate with this. >It's unclear why they are entitled to a particular standard of living that is rather generous by global standards just by virtue of their living in the US. Clarity here depends on your perspective. From the perspective of humanity as a whole you are absolutely correct. From the perspective of citizens within a country the government's (ostensible) purpose for existing is to provide for their quality of life either directly by use of collected taxes or indirectly by facilitating socioeconomic activity.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Its not fair to say, living in America is an accidental privilege. That doesn't credit America with any responsibility for its own prosperity. Its the culture, and the resources of course, that make America the engine of commerce that it is.
- Bjartr 11y ago
  I'm having some trouble parsing your intended message. Is this an agreement or disagreement?
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Agreement I guess. I was thinking of the parent comment including "It's unclear why they are entitled to a particular standard of living that is rather generous by global standards just by virtue of their living in the US. "
phd514 11y ago
>Not quite, we are post-scarcity on the production of those items, but the economy hasn't caught up with it yet, which is why so many in the US severely lack one or more of those necessities I'm unaware of any significant number of US residents suffering from malnutrition due to lack of access to healthy food or exposure due to insufficient clothing or shelter. That is not to say there are none, but most are due to factors other than the lack of access to basic necessities. >I would be surprised if you mean the US can't or shouldn't strive to provide better for its citizens ~300 million citizens until all other countries are caught up for the rest of the 7 billion people on Earth, which leaves me unsure about what you're trying to communicate with this. What I am saying is that I question the assertion that everyone deserves a particular quality of life even if it must be attained at the expense of another. Even if I were to accept that, the complications of such a position are legion. What constitutes the appropriate quality of life? What happens in an economic downturn when that minimum quality of life is no longer sustainable? Etc.