30 ms·
The history of the end of poverty has just begun
- neximo64 5y agoI wonder what the inflation adjusted version of this graph looks like.
- admax88qqq 5y agoThe graphs say that they are adjusted for inflation over time, and for price differences between countries.
- matthieuchabert 5y agoIt is adjusted. "Adjusted for inflation the income distribution looked like this"
- cbsmith 5y agoMy first thought that this would be a naturally occurring phenomena with inflation, but it appears all their analysis over time have adjusted for inflation.
- iso1210 5y agoWhile there's clearly a lot in the whole $1/day thing, it's not as clear cut. If you live in Sweden on $30 a day and pay $900 a month in rent, that leaves you with just 31 cents a day. Meanwhile if you live in India on $5 a day and pay $50 a month in rent you'd have $3.35 a day left over, and $3 in rural india goes a lot further than $3 in Sweden. Those are of course extreme examples, and the levels of poverty in places like India (families sleeping rough on the streets etc) makes even California look glorious levels of civility.
- admax88qqq 5y agoThey claim to have adjusted the values for the price differences between countries. Although I'm not sure if rent was included in that adjustment.
- bryanlarsen 5y agoIf they used the OECD's PPP, which they probably did, it includes rent.
- iso1210 5y agoIt's not a great measure, costs in Delhi are far higher than in rural areas, same with every city there is.
- RealityVoid 5y agoYou know, it's funny, I see in the price adjusted the US is near the top, with most of the population seeming well off. On the other hand, there is _a lot_ of complaint about poverty in the US, and, well, a lot of unsatisfaction about the income. I honestly don't know what to think anymore. Is the US popoulation really poor or just... unhappy with what they have because they compare with others? I had a short stint in the US with a work & travel program and, my personal experience kind of painted the picture that people in the US are simply horrible with their finances. I was young, and I was smart and coming from, what I now realise, was poverty. It seemed to me I could have _easily_ had a good life over there, without even trying. Basically the ethos of FI community would have worked beautifully there. Spend less than you earn, try to have a clean life. Easy. I think people need to have at least a little while living in poverty to understand what it really looks like. I remember my childhood in one of the ex communist countries, it was... wild. Uncertainty everywhere, we could not afford basic shit. I saw catalogues from some nice EU country and I was _flabberghasted_ that people could afford such nice things. And I was young, I couldn't even process things properly. But there was obvious disconnect between my life and some of the media, promotional material, films, cartoons I was seeing. It certainly gave me a interesting perspective.
- lovich 5y agoInequality of wealth and/or income is how you get high averages but still see people living in poverty. Something like 10% of Americans experience food insecurity throughout the year and I’d place that as a pretty basic necessity of life
- codekansas 5y agoI wonder if there were some sort of metric that could account for parity in the power in purchasing between two locations?
- coldtea 5y agoAnd I wonder if that metric that accounted for parity in the power in purchasing (let's call it PPP for convenience), if it existed, would be much more than a crude bureaucratic misrepresenation of the situation on the field and bad government statistics taken at face value...
- pchangr 5y agoHe used international dollars, which might be precisely what you’re looking for, in his last article (https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty-in-brief https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty-in-brief) it is unclear if he used the same metric or not this time but I’d be very surprised if he didn’t, specially considering he references his old article several times.
- iso1210 5y agoI'm not aware of a metric that accounts for purchasing parity between say Edinburgh and Gairloch
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- throwthere 5y agoI'll ask this kind of leading question that I have my own thoughts about but I want to hear others'-- is it capitalism that is eradicating poverty?
- andi999 5y agoPlus globalisation. What else should it be?
- umvi 5y agoI agree that we largely have capitalism + globalization to thank for across the board wealth increase (or where wealth hasn't increased, the price of commodities has decreased) over the last century. However, state-run welfare programs, social safety nets, automation, etc. also play some role.
- nickpp 5y agoRedistributive programs need something to redistribute in the first place, so the merit still belongs to the value creator - capitalism.
- jacobr1 5y ago+ Technology
- hkt 5y agoWell, China has eradicated extreme poverty by means of communism. So that appears to be an option too. I'd be interested to see a relatively detached, objective analysis on the speed and extent to which poverty is alleviated by different social policies. There's some clear variation there that deserves analysis. Edit: misread the post I replied to, "could" as "should".
- nickpp 5y agoChina tried communism for years without much progress. Only when they allowed (controlled) capitalism they started enjoying the current results.
- wintorez 5y agoAre we transitioning to post-scarcity economy?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- crowbahr 5y agoNo, and we're nowhere near post-scarcity. We're able to foresee the end of some forms of scarcity, like basic food insecurity, but there's still no reasonable expectation that the economy becomes post scarcity in any way shape or form within the next 100 years.
- dillondoyle 5y agoNot to be a doomsday troll, but climate change seems to throw a big question mark in terms of basic food security especially non-industrialized. See Afghanistan drought right now. I'm sure we can solve those problems with enough money and tech, but we could do that right now and feed millions but we choose not too.
- crowbahr 5y agoI agree with you on climate change causing issues with scarcity, I just wanted to point out the basics around food scarcity is about the closest we could reasonably see a fix arriving within the next 100 years. Durable fixes to food scarcity could come even in drought conditions through advanced genetic editing techniques, for example. It's not infeasible to imagine that being possible within the next century. Now whether or not we'll do it is an entirely different question.
- jacquesm 5y agoIn some parts of the world, for some income brackets, yes. But for ordinary mortals, no.
- chongli 5y agoNo such thing as a post-scarcity economy, even in the fictional universe of Star Trek. When you have replicators that can produce any food or clothing or small pieces of equipment you need, you end up bartering over planets, star systems, or wormholes [1]. [1] https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/The_Price_(episode) https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/The_Price_(episode)
- karaterobot 5y agoIt seems like the more meaningful advance in society has been to increase the quality of life of poor people, not to move more of them above some arbitrary cutoff. I'm talking about life expectancy, access to shelter, food, medical care, entertainment, educational and career opportunities. If the definition of poverty is that you live off less than the (adjusted) $30/day cutoff, who here would choose to live that way in 1820 Sweden, compared to 2020 Sweden? Anybody? If so, how is that a useful way to compare poverty over time?
- pchangr 5y agoI encourage you to read his old article https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty-in-brief https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty-in-brief in which he talks about the cutout and what he did to minimize the effect. (He adjusts per purchasing power through time and location)
- fladrif 5y agoI posit that this depends entirely on the social hierarchy of the country in question. The more egalitarian the society the more the eradication of poverty is possible. Unfortunately for the majority of countries this is highly unlikely, and while the end of poverty is possible, I highly doubt that will ever happen.
- paxys 5y agoI agree with the overall arguments and conclusion, but I wonder if we need a better way of measuring poverty than some overly-adjusted "dollar per day in income" value. Like, how many calories per day in food is your family getting? Do you have consistent shelter? Do you have access to basic medical care? Are you safe from physical threats? Can you pay an unexpected bill? Do you have a social structure in place around you? Are you free from symptoms of depression? I imagine there would be significant variance in the answer to these questions over just "how much money do you make". Ultimately all this is what matters to people when talking about having a decent life. Charts like the one in the article will convince people that capitalist systems are working around the world, but that's because they are tracking metrics of capitalism in the first place rather than quality of life.
- jacobr1 5y agoThey back into those factors by adjusting for both time and place, at the relevant thresholds. The "Human Development Index" correlates pretty strongly with income, such that you can say: at this (adjusted) income thresholds, people can afford X,Y,Z and the next threshold, they can also afford a,b,c. A more complex measure is the Multidimensional Poverty Index, which tracks Health+Eduction+StandardOfLiving, but even then the standard of living pretty closely aligns with income measures.
- novok 5y agoYeah I agree. The people who criticize such metrics backed statements that "it's getting better" say that those same metrics are often subject to Goodhart’s Law dynamics[0], fudging and outright lying with numbers. If you subtract China out of many of these numbers, it's the same or worse in many cases. They then cite things how calories per person in India has actually dropped compared to a few decades ago for example, and it's not because they are a developed country that learned to let off the ice cream, but more Indians are suffering malnutrition in the past. Or how the things that are cheaper are nice optionals and the necessities of life are becoming more unattainable, like the food issue in India. India might have less 'poverty', but is it just a measurement error, on purpose or not? [0] When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
- hideo 5y agoIt’s incredible how wording can be confusing to different readers. The HN title of this post is currently “the end of poverty has just begun” which made me think “just” = “recently”. So I thought the article would be about something that has indicated that the rate of poverty reduction has increased. The URL says “history-of-poverty-has-just-begun” which made me think this is an article about historiography of poverty and how it’s not been cataloged well. The article title says “The history of the end of poverty has just begun” which just completely confuses me. The article subheading says “ The decline of global poverty is one of the most important achievements in history, but the end of poverty is still very far away.” which to me is a much more accurate summary of the article. Mainly that most of the world still lives on less than $30 a day. But some parts of the world have been uplifted from poverty recently. My point I think is that, to me, a better post title would be something like “Poverty is only now starting to decline”
- jdthedisciple 5y agoI fully agree with you but I'd suggest simply adding the word "only" before "just" in the title, I think that's missing. I.e.: "The end of poverty has only just begun"
- DaiPlusPlus 5y ago> a better post title would be something like “Poverty is only now starting to decline” But, excepting short-lasting wars and recessions, worldwide poverty has always been in decline: https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty https://data.worldbank.org/topic/11 https://data.worldbank.org/topic/11
- the_gastropod 5y agoDr. Jason Hickel has—I think—a pretty fair criticism of these graphs [1], that I'll try to summarize here: 1. Treating "poverty" as a binary "yes/no" thing, where having > $1.90/day suddenly alleviates you from poverty seems like a bit of a stretch. $1.90/day is probably way too low a number to cover adequate nutrition, shelter, and basic human needs. 2. While the percentage of people in poverty by this measure has decreased, the total number of people is probably more important. And that number has actually increased in the past 40 years. 3. They didn't start collecting these numbers since 1981. All numbers prior to 1981 are highly dubious. 4. It ignores the effects of colonialism. Many people went from living lives with little need for money to one totally dependent on it. Enclosure of what once were public resources has eliminated many non-monetary forms of wealth these people once had. 5. Related to 4, it's not clear that going from a pre-monetary system to a much more capitalist system where money is necessary for virtually everything is an improvement. Especially when that transition was brought about by the threat of violence. 6. Virtually all of this reduction in extreme poverty occurred in China, which makes the notion that this was a triumph of capitalism / neoliberalism kind of silly. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/29/bill-gates-davos-global-poverty-infographic-neoliberal https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/29/bill-g...
- thaumasiotes 5y ago> Virtually all of this reduction in extreme poverty occurred in China, which makes the notion that this was a triumph of capitalism / neoliberalism kind of silly. How so? Under communism, China ran itself deeply into the ground and tens of millions of people starved to death. Economic reform changed that, in a straightforward triumph of capitalism. When one of the major stimuli to the period of economic reform is the discovery that a little village notable for not starving to death is doing it by virtue of illegal enclosure of what was supposed to be public land, supported by a blood oath of secrecy because private landownership is so illegal... you think the takeaway is that China's modern success comes from their communist economic regime?
- the_gastropod 5y agoChina's flavor of capitalism is, indeed, a vast improvement over their communist past. But it includes a lot more state-involvement than the more laissez-faire style of the U.S.
- libeclipse 5y agoTitle was very badly massacred
- danschmitt 5y agoIt is always nice to see such narratives based on robust data. For similar stories backed by data I can also recommend the book "Factfulnes" by Hans Rosling [1]. When we talk about basic needs, our global community is making tremendous progress. At the same time, we should not forget that the same system that abolishes poverty also creates enormous inequality, which not only makes people unhappier, but also leads to enormous social tensions within whole societies. So while we should be celebrating the decline in poverty, we are somewhat also left with a sour taste about the side effects that occur. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34890015-factfulness https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34890015-factfulness
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pchangr 5y agoIt’s a shame I don’t know Max’s handle in HN but if you follow him on Twitter you’ll see he’s a very big fan of that book. I think it’s mentioned in the about page of OWID.
- greysphere 5y ago>we should not forget that the same system that abolishes poverty also creates enormous inequality Is this true? The post uses Sweden as the exemplar, which has the lowest poverty (on its chart) and also one of the lowest inequalities as measured by the Gini coeffcient (30). This page [1] seems to offer a handful of data, but nothing that outlines a clear 'higher Gini -> less poverty.' If anything it seems pretty uncorrelated. It does posit the related: higher average income _allows_ for a higher Gini because there's a limited amount of poverty people can suffer before dying. A bit more research into Sweden specifically reveals that its Gini has gone up a bit the last 30 years, but seems like it was trending toward more equality before then [2]. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality [2] https://www.chartbookofeconomicinequality.com/inequality-by-country/Sweden/ https://www.chartbookofeconomicinequality.com/inequality-by-...
- dustintrex 5y ago
- WalterBright 5y agoThe end of poverty began in the US around 1800, when the specter of famine was finally eliminated. Throughout the 19th century, Americans grew in height and life expectancy, resulting in America's poor being the richest poor people in the world. Today, America's poor have a better quality of life than medieval kings.
- dane-pgp 5y ago> Today, America's poor have a better quality of life than medieval kings. And today's rich are doing even better than that, so there's no harm in taxing their wealth, right?
- chrisco255 5y agoYes, because the government is generally bad at using capital and the ROI on higher tax rates reaches negative at some point, nevermind that it can print as much as it wants.
- hkt 5y agoMost crashes are caused by misallocated capital in the markets, and state intervention on a massive scale is usually the answer. The state isn't an amazing tool, but it is the best one we have. It can bring about universal healthcare and education, mass housebuilding programmes, regulation and optimisation of dysfunctional markets.. and even put human beings on the moon. Meanwhile, "investors" pile money into.. um, dogecoin? The "government is bad" narrative is too simplistic to be helpful. I'd suggest broadening your outlook.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago>Meanwhile, "investors" pile money into.. um, dogecoin? And why are they doing this? The trail leads right back to... government. "Side effects include investors to dumping money into sketchy stuff because nothing else returns worth a crap" is one of the big gripes people have with 2008+ fed policy.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- coldtea 5y agoOne problem, other comments hint on the same thing, is that poverty is not an absolute, it's relative. We would consider ourselves poor if we lived as a family of five in a tiny early 20th New York immigrant's appartment, even though we'd be much better off than a feudal peasant living in a straw hut with no electricity and a distant water well (the "working class" of its day), which in turn would be must better off than some early aggrarian iron age person (even an upper class one). So, in some sense, poverty must be estimated with regard to access to the standards and niceties of the era (and is therefore connected to inequality). In another sense, poverty is also qualitative and cultural, and working as a factory cog in a sweatshop for $3 dollars might be worse than living as part of your traditional tribe (and their lifestyle) for $0 dollars. And yet, we herald people whose native lands have been plundered (or whose local e.g. farm income has been destroyed by cheaper imports) and are forced against their will and to the detriment of their lifestyle, to seek work in the cities as a triumph over poverty. What can be measured well, is whether we have greatly reduced hunger and childbirth deaths and such metrics. But poverty is too flexible and abstract a term to say we have "ended" it. Else we'd have already "ended poverty" when we moved from the caves to early cities and huts too - as everybody had raised their income levels and owned goods and such. And yet, poverty just reappeared in a different relative level.
- buscoquadnary 5y agoIn many of the places I have heard of the people who are moving to the sweatshops themselves are rejoicing in the change because the alternatives are subsistence farming or sex work, and staying around with their "tribe".
- coldtea 5y agoOTOH, I have heard of the people who are moving to the sweatshops, that they fought the destruction of their traditional lands and sources of income and ways of life with tooth and nail. That has been historically true from the forced industrialization of British peasants all the way to today, where many of such forced migrations plays are still on (from China and India to Chile and all around Africa) and there are plenty of books on those lamenting their forced entry into sweatshop labor, slums, etc.
- cssinate 5y agoNow show the graph of people living on $10,000 a day and which way it has trended.
- steve76 5y ago[dead]
- hogrider 5y agoIMO poverty will be the normal state of 2/3 of humanity due to technological unemployment. UBI will be successful exactly nowhere except maybe the USA if they manage to keep the status of the dollar as wolrds reserve currency.
- willjp 5y agoI'd be much happier if UBI proposals were higher. Living on ~900$/month nowadays would be difficult. 20 years ago I was able to split rent for a tiny concrete windowless-basement-bedroom for 450$/mo, trimmed my grocery/cleaning bill down to 100$/mo by eating nothing but rice, beans, and frozen vegetables, 120$/mo for a phone and internet (which I consider essential), and another ~80$/mo in bus tickets. That's ~750$/mo. Nowadays, when two bedroom appartments in small remote cities are going for 1600$+, I'm guessing splitting rent is much closer to 800$. That doesn't leave enough money for food, transportation, and communication methods. Heaven forbid you get injured or sick.
- ProfessorLayton 5y agoThe solution to your housing costs isn't increased payments, but cheaper housing. Housing prices are spiraling out of control almost everywhere because we refuse to build more of it through asinine zoning restrictions. High housing costs have such ripple effects on the cost of everything else that it's incredibly frustrating to see everything else but cheaper and more available housing be proposed as a means to help the less well off (This isn't a jab at you in particular).
- throwaway1777 5y agoI kind of agree with your idea that we should work to decrease housing prices, but the problems with housing are not as simple as remove zoning and building restrictions and watch prices fall. One example. Energy prices are the base input to everything including housing, so if you want to make housing cheaper then better energy policy might be a good start.
- philipkglass 5y agoEnergy is a large portion of the cost of aluminum ingots or tanker cars full of ammonia. It is not a large portion of the cost of constructing new housing. I wouldn't start with energy prices if I were trying to figure out how to make housing affordable. I'd try to contrast e.g. Tokyo, where housing is reasonably affordable, against the city of New York, where it is much less affordable. Japan doesn't have cheaper energy than the US.
- maerF0x0 5y agoevery discussion of poverty needs a discussion of absolute vs relative poverty. I'd say this report tips it's hand > The share in poverty in any country depends on two factors: the average level of income and the level of inequality. reducing inequality itself, while correlated, is not necessary for poverty reduction. I'd love to see one of these official boards to decide that poverty is over when some absolute measure happens (even the currency one is a mess due to inflation numbers and currency manipulation) . Eg to illustrate the point: maybe we could say poverty is over when less than .01% of the population dies from malnutrition. (plus other measures).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Proven 5y ago[dead]
- bikamonki 5y agoThis is per capita right? So a family of 5 making $4500/mo in Bolivia would be considered rich, the same family with that income in London is barely surviving. Not sure how these percentages will move if adjusted for purchasing power. Maybe half the world isn't poor anymore? Or maybe 90% still is?
- h0l0cube 5y agoCould we classify the lives in tribes and villages prior to civilisation as "poverty"? Or did "poverty" begin with civilisation?
- Ericson2314 5y agoThere was no poverty between the control of fire and civilization. We got our calories nice and easy.
- nikanj 5y agoThen why was the population so low?
- zzt123 5y agoThe MVP wasn’t scalable.
- mellavora 5y agobecause every person had a huge chunk of land! Compare population density today in a rich suburb to a poor inner city.
- bryanlarsen 5y agoA fairly well (but far from universally) accepted thesis is that war and violence was widespread in pre-civilized times, keeping the population density low more "efficiently" than cycles of over-expansion and famine..
- Ericson2314 5y agoPre Holocene, there was just more climate variability too. I mean maybe we could have spent more time hunting, gathering, and birthing, but I don't begrudge the ancestors for just kicking back instead!
- wyre 5y ago>I calculated that at a minimum the world economy needs to increase five-fold for global poverty to substantially decline. This is in a scenario in which the world would also achieve a massive reduction in inequality: inequality between all the world’s countries would disappear entirely in this scenario. It should therefore be seen as a calculation of the minimum necessary growth for an end of poverty. A five-fold increase of the global economy is certainly not easy to achieve, but it is also not impossible – it is what the world has achieved in the last 5 decades, and the climate researchers of the IPCC expect even more growth for this century in their ‘Sustainability Scenario’, the scenario in which the world is most successful in avoiding climate change. I'm interpreting this to mean that my generation has a chance to see the end of poverty in 50 years. This is incredible!
- llamataboot 5y agoUntil we have a more robust conception of what human wellbeing is and what contributes to it other than ("well not being dirt poor and on the verge of death helps, and at some point there are diminishing returns") data like this just strikes me as barking up the wrong tree. Humans, so far, have been pretty good at improving shit within the current boundaries of their awareness of improvement, and often at the expense of "other people that don't deserve it". Capitalism has been particularly effective at unleashing energy, productive and destructive - though there's also fossil fuels in there. But it could perhaps be a product of that energy release, not it's cause. By and far, they've been shit at understanding the meta effects of what they are doing or the long term effects of that. Which is hard. Our brain is not built for long time horizons or non-linear causation or even very much meta. It's a good thing less humans are super poor. Still some questions about whether this world is the only world in which that would happen.
- anovikov 5y agoI think this is simply a false goal. $30 a day is an arbitrary number and is certainly in the realm of "relative poverty" already: a person who lives on $30 a day is relatively poor - that is, in relation to the middle class in rich countries. That life might seem to be a misery, but with the economic development worldwide, today's life of middle class in rich countries will also seem like a misery in 50 years, and the threshold will rise again. So a goal to "eliminate $30 a day poverty" is little but a goal to "establish artificial, Soviet style forced redistributional equality of outcomes" which is hardly beneficial for development, social cohesion, or democracy, and can hardly be morally justified. The goal of poverty reduction must be that the people don't starve or destroy their health due to poverty, and their children aren't poverty-trapped (but it has limits too - make higher education free for everyone and in the next generation education will simply be irrelevant as elites will find different ways to preserve their hereditary status, and this is a dangerous thing cos non-educated people will get in control of things, so it's better to keep higher education unattainable to the poor so to at least the rich kids educated).
- avgcorrection 5y ago> I calculated that at a minimum the world economy needs to increase five-fold for global poverty to substantially decline. This is in a scenario in which the world would also achieve a massive reduction in inequality: inequality between all the world’s countries would disappear entirely in this scenario. It should therefore be seen as a calculation of the minimum necessary growth for an end of poverty. > A five-fold increase of the global economy is certainly not easy to achieve, but it is also not impossible – it is what the world has achieved in the last 5 decades, and the climate researchers of the IPCC expect even more growth for this century in their ‘Sustainability Scenario’, the scenario in which the world is most successful in avoiding climate change. Surprising that such an increase would be what is needed in order to avoid climate change. I would have thought that those two things were in conflict.
- bradhilton 5y agoI read that as saying that even if we adopt climate change measures necessary for their 'Sustainability Scenario', that will invariably hamper economic growth, the IPCC still believes we will achieve more than a five-fold increase of the global economy this century.
- dr_dshiv 5y agoJason Hickel (the degrowth advocate; a term that infuriates me) is a genius and writes very well. His critique of the end of poverty is very eye opening. I still feel the cognitive dissonance. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30083807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30083807
- DarylZero 5y agoPretty interesting note at the end -- saying the average USA slave's consumption was (just) above the $1.90/day "extreme poverty" line.
- hd4 5y agoIs anyone aware of any studies which looked into the impact/correlation of global poverty as a result of moving to fiat currency away from a gold standard? I know even bringing this up is unpopular but I can't think of a bigger elephant in the room, if there is one I'd like to know.
- xchaotic 5y agoIf we enable everyone to have at least $30 per day, would this not result in asset inflation and purchasing power of said $30 lower - these these people would still end relatively poor ?
- tjader 5y agoIt depends on how it's done. If it's just printing the $30 out of thin air and giving it away then probably yeah, but if it's from a better wealth distribution it should have better effects.
- known 5y ago
- Atlas667 5y agoThis article was a vague gesture towards a projected future. A numbers magic trick. Capitalism leads to unequal development at all scales. Be it between nations or inside their borders. That can be justified with vague meritocracy or hard racism/classism. Whatever floats your boat. But it has nothing to do with individuals, the reality lies within the capitalist mode of production in itself which is fundamentally based on the inequality between social classes. Those who have no means of subsistence sell their work. Those who have the means buy their work. Profit is the product of the exploitation of this social relationship. Poverty is not only an income measure, it is also relative to your society. You cannot solve this gap without addressing how this mode of production functions.
- Elsewhere-16-62 5y agoGain of Function only defines mutation, it does not define positive or negative effects to a system, “hold my beer and watch this” is gain of function.