> The conditions of the middle-class are actually too luxurious. That's not for you to decide. The market can and does apply proper growth slowing pressure by

> The conditions of the middle-class are actually too luxurious. That's not for you to decide. The market can and does apply proper growth slowing pressure by itself. > Everybody in the world can't have a suburban lawn. That's just a different version of "think of the poor who can't eat". Countries and cultures aren't the same. Suburbia only exists due to improper distribution of business centers and housing bubbles. Overpopulated mega-cities don't have to exist with proper distribution of work and living space. Majority of countries are uninhabited and undeveloped. > What the middle-class (and the poor) don't have is security. Most developed countries are have welfare. Our poor live better and longer than kings from a century ago. > They live in a state of fear that the entire bottom will drop out of their lives if they get fired, or have a heart attack, or any of a million things. Firing is necessary to keep efficiency and competition. > Supplying security to people is actually cheaper that what we do now, just as socialized health care is far cheaper than an ad hoc privatized patchwork. Who will "supply security"? People who work and who are getting paid so they buy stuff. Who pays and produce their stuff? Other people who need to work. The demand for "security" will only keep increasing due to comfort. There's a reason Bill Clinton was elected on a platform to reform the welfare system. > We don't need more growth, we need more humanity. And flowers and unicorns too.