3 ms·
The problem is for a lot of people, they'd need something more like a 10x multiplier or more. (Eg the folks he references trapped working as cheap labor that ca
by Sodman 9y ago
The problem is for a lot of people, they'd need something more like a 10x multiplier or more. (Eg the folks he references trapped working as cheap labor that can't even leave without the company's permission, who likely can't even afford travel).
- maerF0x0 9y agofor the record I'm speaking of a "Real" multiplier (taking in account inflation / standard of living) . IMO if every generation is 2x-ing their parent's lifestyle, its nearly instantaneous wealth in the scale of humanity. In the developed world today's poor live like kings of old. In 1000 yrs I would imagine that their poor will live better than our wealthy "Playboys" of today. I see nothing wrong with people being in different places, so long as they have the ability to better their circumstances. The ability (and actuality) of improving circumstances is more or less happiness, happy lives are definitionally worth living.
- the_cat_kittles 9y agoi agree that improving your circumstances is the best thing. i also dont dismiss standard of living arguments, i think they are valid. but i think they aren't the whole picture. i think alot of how we feel depends on how we compare to those around us. 100 thirsty people in a desert are much more pissed off if you add 1 person with excess water standing right next to them not giving them any. so, some consideration to the overall shape of the distribution of wealth is necessary in my opinion.
- vilmosi 9y ago> 100 thirsty people in a desert are much more pissed off if you add 1 person with excess water The analogy isn't entirely correct. If the thirsty people got all the water they could drink and a guy joined that owned a lake... They shouldn't really complain. It's literally better for everyone, even if the wealth distribution is worse.
- dota_fanatic 9y agoPoor people in the developed world do NOT live like kings of old. They have bosses. They struggle to find mates. They live in small, impermanent homes with no land of their own. They tend to be in debt, and don't even understand how permanent that debt will be for them. They're socially at the bottom. This is nothing like a king, who could have a large family, and was well fed, had permanent shelter, didn't pay rent, etc etc. How ridiculous.
- opportune 9y agoBut Obama bought them IPHONES
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoWell, for example, even poor people can get antibiotics. Quite a few kings of old died from not having them.
- dvtv75 9y agoQuite a few poor people still die from not having medical attention where a king would almost always have a personal physician at his side - a king of old would have a much higher chance of survival from a wound that would kill a modern poor person who couldn't afford medical care.
- jfnixon 9y agoI don't think you can prove that assertion. The personal physician to the King of Olde would not know about Germ Theory, nor about the importance of basic hygiene and cleanliness. A modern poor person at least has a chance to learn about such things, and there is a significant number of people who provide medical care for free to those in need.
- jpatokal 9y agoYou are mixing social class with quality of life. Despite being at at the top of the social pyramid, kings of the past did not have many things that most of today's poor (in the US) do, like electricity, running water, air con, motor vehicles, antibiotics, the Internet etc.