3 ms·

Maybe the idea of an everlasting supply of stable white-collar and well-paying blue-collar work was a mirage in the first place.

• okreallywtf 10y ago
  The alternative being what? I think this might be trues simply becase we work for the economy and not the other way around. To me, we've been sold (though many of us don't believe) this notion that the economy is some kind of natural system that we simply have to accept. I'm not advocating communism necessarily but yes, the economy as designed and implemented may not create a stable middle class world for us to live in naturally, but does that have to mean there cannot be one? I think those who are accumulating the vast majority of the wealth would be happy to see it as natural selection but I think the system is much more artificial than that. The economy has been tweaked and tuned to favor the wealthy even if it also naturally would do the same thing. Tweaking the system to maintain or increase the standard of living for the society is much easier than convincing said society that it should be done for some reason I have yet to figure out.
• AJ007 10y ago
  Mass affluence seems to be a historical anomaly. Most would agree it has been very hard on the earth's ecosystem. Following that, it may not be sustainable no matter which economic policy choices are made.
  • Apocryphon 10y ago
    Maybe we need access to more resources. Colonize space?
    • ashark 10y ago
      Colonizing and mining the poles and the ocean floor would be way cheaper and safer.
      • Apocryphon 10y ago
        I'd be up for that as well. And also building underground cities, and artificial islands, and orbital LaGrange colonies. Or less fanciful than all of these, settle the land uncovered by global warming melted permafrost. The idea is to create a new frontier with new opportunities and new resources.