3 ms·

Spending is the best way to measure prosperity. What else would you use? If a billionaire has similar health care, eats similar food and buys similar phones, t

Spending is the best way to measure prosperity. What else would you use? If a billionaire has similar health care, eats similar food and buys similar phones, then in reality they are actually quite similar to the poor.

123malware321 9mo ago
if you think someone with 1B is the same as someone with every month a minus number on their account then you are deluded. A good measure of prosperity is quality of life, which sadly in our wonderful civilization one needs to buy with money. And a little note. Billionaires do not eat the same food, do not take the same healthcare, and do not buy similar consumer goods for the most part. Maybe they will get the iPhone, but if you think a poor person can afford an iPhone maybe you also don't really understand what it is to be poor. Poor people fighting hungerpains working their shit jobs. Poor people suffer from mental ailments induced by the stresses of being poor. There is no parallel.
- simianwords 9mo ago
  how do you want to measure it? >A good measure of prosperity is quality of life, which sadly in our wonderful civilization one needs to buy with money. how do you propose measuring quality of life? by how the billionaire spends money right? that's exactly what they have done here.
Arun2009 9mo ago
This is as disingenuous as saying that both the rich and the poor consume the same amounts of calories, nutrients, oxygen and water, and hence they are not that different. The key issue is that money often translates to such things as power and leisure. Prosperity is not consumption - it is the command over power, resources and time. The poor have to sell their time in order to afford the basic necessities of life; the rich don't have to. So the rich have a lot more free time than the poor and the resources to use it well. The rich simply are freer than the poor, who are not unlike prisoners with no claim over their time. The rich also get to influence policies to a far greater extent than the poor. In a way, wealth is just stored influence. This in turn helps them perpetuate their privilege. For instance, they can fund narratives that normalize inequality and lobby for lower taxes. The lives of the rich are also far more secure than the lives of the poor. Many poor people are one major life crisis away from penury. This significantly affects the quality of their lives. Access to more wealth would mitigate this. One could also flip your argument as follows: wealth is a scarce resource. If the rich already have everything they need to live a happy life at low amounts of wealth, then letting them horde more wealth than necessary is unjustified. Instead, that should be distributed to those in need. This would make no difference to the well-being of the wealthy, but it would help others who need resources more.
- simianwords 9mo ago
  >The key issue is that money often translates to such things as power and leisure. Prosperity is not consumption - it is the command over power, resources and time. I agree with you on this. >The poor have to sell their time in order to afford the basic necessities of life; the rich don't have to. So the rich have a lot more free time than the poor and the resources to use it well. The rich simply are freer than the poor, who are not unlike prisoners with no claim over their time. In general, I don't agree at all. Rich are "freer" but they definitely don't work fewer hours than poor on average. In USA the Rich became rich mostly by working. https://www.ubs.com/us/en/wealth-management/our-solutions/private-wealth-management/insights/billionaires-ambition-report.html https://www.ubs.com/us/en/wealth-management/our-solutions/pr... Over 75% are self made billionaires and for sure these people work more than twice as hard as normal people. The others do normal jobs and I can't really find examples of non self made billionaires slacking off. https://fortune.com/2018/06/18/ceos-should-prioritize-time-management-study-says/ https://fortune.com/2018/06/18/ceos-should-prioritize-time-m... >On average, the CEOs participating in the study worked 9.7 hours per weekday and 62.5 hours per week. They also worked on the majority of their days off, on average 3.9 hours on weekend days and 2.4 hours on vacation days. Poor people don't work as hard for many reasons 1. they don't want to 2. they don't have the opportunity to 3. they don't have the health But that also does not mean that billionaires have more free time. It's usually not the case, simply because they are more invested in their ventures. >The rich also get to influence policies to a far greater extent than the poor. In a way, wealth is just stored influence. I agree but this is a caveat against the fact that the rich and the poor consume equally. Sure they can influence, but at the end of the day they consume the same which is more important for sustenance. Power and influence come higher in the hierarchy. >The lives of the rich are also far more secure than the lives of the poor. Many poor people are one major life crisis away from penury. This significantly affects the quality of their lives. Access to more wealth would mitigate this. Agreed. >One could also flip your argument as follows: wealth is a scarce resource. If the rich already have everything they need to live a happy life at low amounts of wealth, then letting them horde more wealth than necessary is unjustified. Instead, that should be distributed to those in need. This would make no difference to the well-being of the wealthy, but it would help others who need resources more. This buys into zero sum ideology of wealth. It is incorrect, misguided and a big mistake to think like this.
BrenBarn 9mo ago
The thing is that buying a hamburger while knowing you can afford to buy a billion more of them is not the same as buying a hamburger knowing you can't afford another one.
- simianwords 9mo ago
  but if everyone's buying one hamburger at the end of the day, it has to mean something

123malware321 9mo ago

if you think someone with 1B is the same as someone with every month a minus number on their account then you are deluded. A good measure of prosperity is quality of life, which sadly in our wonderful civilization one needs to buy with money. And a little note. Billionaires do not eat the same food, do not take the same healthcare, and do not buy similar consumer goods for the most part. Maybe they will get the iPhone, but if you think a poor person can afford an iPhone maybe you also don't really understand what it is to be poor. Poor people fighting hungerpains working their shit jobs. Poor people suffer from mental ailments induced by the stresses of being poor. There is no parallel.

simianwords 9mo ago
how do you want to measure it? >A good measure of prosperity is quality of life, which sadly in our wonderful civilization one needs to buy with money. how do you propose measuring quality of life? by how the billionaire spends money right? that's exactly what they have done here.

Arun2009 9mo ago

This is as disingenuous as saying that both the rich and the poor consume the same amounts of calories, nutrients, oxygen and water, and hence they are not that different. The key issue is that money often translates to such things as power and leisure. Prosperity is not consumption - it is the command over power, resources and time. The poor have to sell their time in order to afford the basic necessities of life; the rich don't have to. So the rich have a lot more free time than the poor and the resources to use it well. The rich simply are freer than the poor, who are not unlike prisoners with no claim over their time. The rich also get to influence policies to a far greater extent than the poor. In a way, wealth is just stored influence. This in turn helps them perpetuate their privilege. For instance, they can fund narratives that normalize inequality and lobby for lower taxes. The lives of the rich are also far more secure than the lives of the poor. Many poor people are one major life crisis away from penury. This significantly affects the quality of their lives. Access to more wealth would mitigate this. One could also flip your argument as follows: wealth is a scarce resource. If the rich already have everything they need to live a happy life at low amounts of wealth, then letting them horde more wealth than necessary is unjustified. Instead, that should be distributed to those in need. This would make no difference to the well-being of the wealthy, but it would help others who need resources more.

simianwords 9mo ago
>The key issue is that money often translates to such things as power and leisure. Prosperity is not consumption - it is the command over power, resources and time. I agree with you on this. >The poor have to sell their time in order to afford the basic necessities of life; the rich don't have to. So the rich have a lot more free time than the poor and the resources to use it well. The rich simply are freer than the poor, who are not unlike prisoners with no claim over their time. In general, I don't agree at all. Rich are "freer" but they definitely don't work fewer hours than poor on average. In USA the Rich became rich mostly by working. https://www.ubs.com/us/en/wealth-management/our-solutions/private-wealth-management/insights/billionaires-ambition-report.html https://www.ubs.com/us/en/wealth-management/our-solutions/pr... Over 75% are self made billionaires and for sure these people work more than twice as hard as normal people. The others do normal jobs and I can't really find examples of non self made billionaires slacking off. https://fortune.com/2018/06/18/ceos-should-prioritize-time-management-study-says/ https://fortune.com/2018/06/18/ceos-should-prioritize-time-m... >On average, the CEOs participating in the study worked 9.7 hours per weekday and 62.5 hours per week. They also worked on the majority of their days off, on average 3.9 hours on weekend days and 2.4 hours on vacation days. Poor people don't work as hard for many reasons 1. they don't want to 2. they don't have the opportunity to 3. they don't have the health But that also does not mean that billionaires have more free time. It's usually not the case, simply because they are more invested in their ventures. >The rich also get to influence policies to a far greater extent than the poor. In a way, wealth is just stored influence. I agree but this is a caveat against the fact that the rich and the poor consume equally. Sure they can influence, but at the end of the day they consume the same which is more important for sustenance. Power and influence come higher in the hierarchy. >The lives of the rich are also far more secure than the lives of the poor. Many poor people are one major life crisis away from penury. This significantly affects the quality of their lives. Access to more wealth would mitigate this. Agreed. >One could also flip your argument as follows: wealth is a scarce resource. If the rich already have everything they need to live a happy life at low amounts of wealth, then letting them horde more wealth than necessary is unjustified. Instead, that should be distributed to those in need. This would make no difference to the well-being of the wealthy, but it would help others who need resources more. This buys into zero sum ideology of wealth. It is incorrect, misguided and a big mistake to think like this.

BrenBarn 9mo ago

The thing is that buying a hamburger while knowing you can afford to buy a billion more of them is not the same as buying a hamburger knowing you can't afford another one.

simianwords 9mo ago
but if everyone's buying one hamburger at the end of the day, it has to mean something