4 ms·

Globalized flattening is happening, but the issue is that the vast majority of everyone will be flattened to a level of poverty with a tiny fraction of humanity

Globalized flattening is happening, but the issue is that the vast majority of everyone will be flattened to a level of poverty with a tiny fraction of humanity being *illionaires because they will own the means of production, the real estate, the intellectual property, and the influence on most government systems to keep it that way (regulatory capture, dirty campaign financing). It will be gradually harder and harder to compete with mega-rich entities in any area, automation and AI will increase, and so wages will fall while prices inflate.

ChadNauseam 4y ago
People have been predicting this since Marx and the exact opposite has been happening ever since. Even if you look at the US, the number of people living in poverty has gone down dramatically in the past 50 years just due to an expansion of welfare benefits.
- tinglymintyfrsh 4y ago
  Respectfully, you're completely and utterly wrong. 1. https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM 2. Look outside and see how many homeless people there are in any average America metro. This was not the case 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 years ago. 3. EDIT "Inequality for All" https://youtu.be/zvAFPHLFMa0 https://youtu.be/zvAFPHLFMa0
  - iLoveOncall 4y ago
    When your argument is "look outside" you should know it's so weak it's not worth posting.
- fwip 4y ago
  The "number of people living in poverty" is based almost entirely on how you define poverty. America defines it as "three times the cost of a minimum diet in 1963" (adjusted for inflation). No accounting for housing, medical expenses, education, transportation, etc. So you're right, we have fewer people starving to death, because food is relatively more affordable (and SNAP). However, we have more people who can't afford housing, medical emergencies, having children, or an education. The way that poverty has presented and affects people has changed, but our guidelines are still based on the idea that you aren't poor unless you literally can't afford to eat.
  - chii 4y ago
    But what is poverty if it's not an absolute measure, but rather a relative measure (relative to someone who is _not_ in poverty)? The line of poverty, under the relative measure model, would just keep growing. I don't agree with that - poverty should be measured absolutely; ala, the minimum calories you can intake and maintain health, the minimum heating/clothing required to not freeze to death or succumb to the elements, sanitation, and basic healthcare (things like cuts/bruises/bacterial infections dont kill you). As soon as you start to include things that didn't exist at the time of setting this absolute baseline but would in the future if the technology develops, you start moving the poverty goalpost. For example, the internet didn't exist in the 1960's, but i've heard that access to it is included in poverty meaasures today.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Their point wasn't about absolute versus relative. You need food and shelter and the number needs to reflect both. But I think it's fair to say that the baseline should grow, more slowly than the median. The internet has replaced other forms of communication and is needed to get almost all jobs, so yes it's a necessity now.

ChadNauseam 4y ago

People have been predicting this since Marx and the exact opposite has been happening ever since. Even if you look at the US, the number of people living in poverty has gone down dramatically in the past 50 years just due to an expansion of welfare benefits.

tinglymintyfrsh 4y ago
Respectfully, you're completely and utterly wrong. 1. https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM 2. Look outside and see how many homeless people there are in any average America metro. This was not the case 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 years ago. 3. EDIT "Inequality for All" https://youtu.be/zvAFPHLFMa0 https://youtu.be/zvAFPHLFMa0
- iLoveOncall 4y ago
  When your argument is "look outside" you should know it's so weak it's not worth posting.
fwip 4y ago
The "number of people living in poverty" is based almost entirely on how you define poverty. America defines it as "three times the cost of a minimum diet in 1963" (adjusted for inflation). No accounting for housing, medical expenses, education, transportation, etc. So you're right, we have fewer people starving to death, because food is relatively more affordable (and SNAP). However, we have more people who can't afford housing, medical emergencies, having children, or an education. The way that poverty has presented and affects people has changed, but our guidelines are still based on the idea that you aren't poor unless you literally can't afford to eat.
- chii 4y ago
  But what is poverty if it's not an absolute measure, but rather a relative measure (relative to someone who is _not_ in poverty)? The line of poverty, under the relative measure model, would just keep growing. I don't agree with that - poverty should be measured absolutely; ala, the minimum calories you can intake and maintain health, the minimum heating/clothing required to not freeze to death or succumb to the elements, sanitation, and basic healthcare (things like cuts/bruises/bacterial infections dont kill you). As soon as you start to include things that didn't exist at the time of setting this absolute baseline but would in the future if the technology develops, you start moving the poverty goalpost. For example, the internet didn't exist in the 1960's, but i've heard that access to it is included in poverty meaasures today.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Their point wasn't about absolute versus relative. You need food and shelter and the number needs to reflect both. But I think it's fair to say that the baseline should grow, more slowly than the median. The internet has replaced other forms of communication and is needed to get almost all jobs, so yes it's a necessity now.