4 ms·

"That IS a problem." To be a bit of a devil's advocate here: Why is that a problem as well? Assuming that despite their wages "shrinking", they are still lead

by zo1 10y ago

"That IS a problem." To be a bit of a devil's advocate here: Why is that a problem as well? Assuming that despite their wages "shrinking", they are still leading decent, normal lives then what about that is bad? Perhaps their labour in the greater context isn't worth all that much to others and that doesn't fit in to our world-view? Or are we simply expecting that their "status" or "wealth" should be increasing along with the economy?

charlesdm 10y ago
The question should then be, what would you consider a decent life? The definition of that is different for everyone.
igk 10y ago
The problem is consolidation. If more and more earn and own less and less, while less and less earn and own more and more,this creates power imbalance, impededes real growth( as in, new value being created due to Innovation. A balanced portfolio motivates less than starting the company/research yourself) and since the investors still want a return, even without growth, somebody will get shafted. There are people dying in London because their fridge was shut of, causing their insulin to go bad. why did get shut off? Because they did not have the money to pay for electricity. Mind you, this all goes out the window if a good , if austere life is guaranteed somehow, then capitalism and consolidation away.
antisthenes 10y ago
> Assuming that despite their wages "shrinking", they are still leading decent, normal lives then what about that is bad? Perhaps their labour in the greater context isn't worth all that much to others and that doesn't fit in to our world-view? Or are we simply expecting that their "status" or "wealth" should be increasing along with the economy? 1. Nothing, assuming of course they are living those lives. There is a body of evidence, however, so overwhelming that at the lower incomes the people are not leading healthy lives. That is a matter of debate for someone with a medical degree and you could probably write books about this topic alone. Poor conditions reinforce poor behaviors. 2. Perhaps. Of course everyone will argue that their "greater context" is the right one. The question you're really asking here is "are we okay with letting the least productive members of our society suffer and struggle for survival?" Maybe for some people the answer will be yes. There's no logical argument I can provide for those people that will sway them. 3. That is the mantra of trickle down economics that has been proven consistently false over the last 30 years. Neither wealth nor income have trickled down despite increases in productivity. Of course one could also subscribe to the idea of "this is not a problem", but that's the intellectual equivalent of sticking your head in the sand or throwing a tantrum.

by zo1 10y ago

charlesdm 10y ago

The question should then be, what would you consider a decent life? The definition of that is different for everyone.

igk 10y ago

The problem is consolidation. If more and more earn and own less and less, while less and less earn and own more and more,this creates power imbalance, impededes real growth( as in, new value being created due to Innovation. A balanced portfolio motivates less than starting the company/research yourself) and since the investors still want a return, even without growth, somebody will get shafted. There are people dying in London because their fridge was shut of, causing their insulin to go bad. why did get shut off? Because they did not have the money to pay for electricity. Mind you, this all goes out the window if a good , if austere life is guaranteed somehow, then capitalism and consolidation away.

antisthenes 10y ago

> Assuming that despite their wages "shrinking", they are still leading decent, normal lives then what about that is bad? Perhaps their labour in the greater context isn't worth all that much to others and that doesn't fit in to our world-view? Or are we simply expecting that their "status" or "wealth" should be increasing along with the economy? 1. Nothing, assuming of course they are living those lives. There is a body of evidence, however, so overwhelming that at the lower incomes the people are not leading healthy lives. That is a matter of debate for someone with a medical degree and you could probably write books about this topic alone. Poor conditions reinforce poor behaviors. 2. Perhaps. Of course everyone will argue that their "greater context" is the right one. The question you're really asking here is "are we okay with letting the least productive members of our society suffer and struggle for survival?" Maybe for some people the answer will be yes. There's no logical argument I can provide for those people that will sway them. 3. That is the mantra of trickle down economics that has been proven consistently false over the last 30 years. Neither wealth nor income have trickled down despite increases in productivity. Of course one could also subscribe to the idea of "this is not a problem", but that's the intellectual equivalent of sticking your head in the sand or throwing a tantrum.