4 ms·
I generally don't think highly of people who make this argument. It relies on the simplistic framing of the "end of absolute poverty." In fact, this is the exac
by jdw64 2mo ago
I generally don't think highly of people who make this argument. It relies on the simplistic framing of the "end of absolute poverty." In fact, this is the exact same rhetoric used by CCP apologists. While it is true that the modern poor enjoy better consumption, this argument completely ignores the economic concepts of positional goods and relative deprivation.
Consider the biological imperative of finding a mate. The competitive factors for securing a partner are now broadcast and scaled across the entire society. The core of what kings of old enjoyed wasn't "air conditioning" or "refrigerators." Kings owned territory (real estate), wielded power, and monopolized the infrastructural capital that allowed them to pass down an overwhelming survival advantage to their lineage. Does a modern immigrant live like a king just because they use an iPhone? The modern poor merely consume cheap manufactured goods; they have been completely stripped of the physical foundation required to form a family (housing) and the control over their generational reproduction.
The idea that Elon Musk amassing wealth has nothing to do with the working class is laughable. When wealth concentrates at the very top, that capital inevitably flows into supply-constrained, zero-sum assets—namely, real estate in prime locations and elite educational opportunities. Why do you think the cost of living in Silicon Valley is so absurdly high? The capital accumulated by billionaires like Musk and other asset holders astronomically pumps up (inflates) the prices of these "positional goods."
Human family formation is not determined by comparing oneself to a 16th-century serf. It is strictly determined by one's "relative status" within their contemporary community. No matter how much absolute caloric intake increases, if you cannot secure the asset advantage required to raise a child to a "middle-class standard" within your current community, a rational human being will simply give up on reproduction.
- avadodin 2mo agoYou indirectly call my argument Socialist and you are not entirely wrong since I read many texts from marxists.org as a teenager. It is still an odd accusation given that it is you defending the innocent victims of systemic oppression here.
- munksbeer 2mo agoI would think the argument is more that the average worker living under a king would not even own their property, but would be renting a hovel, living in abject squalor, and having lots of children in order to bring in enough to pay the rent and taxes. I know for sure in which timeline I'd prefer to be the average worker. EDIT: For clarity, in no way am I simping for the billionaire class. I think it'll have to change. But people who think serfs in the middle ages had it better are crazy.