The data shows that we’re much better off now, compared to the rest of human history.
But we don’t seem to feel as though that’s the case.
Where’s the disconnect?
>The data you cited shows that physiologically and financially the trends have been “up and to the right”, but implicit in your argument is an assumption that those metrics correlate to a “better” human experience. I think this is the disconnect - materialism is the new religion and by all accounts that religion is “making things better”, at least when you add up how much money is spent
but that ignores the reality of lived experience, which includes emotional and psychological considerations that (in my opinion) are more essential to having a “good life” than anything material
so perhaps the disconnect is not with the data and reality, but rather with our societal ideas about that makes a life worth living
>>> "The data you cited shows that physiologically and financially the trends have been “up and to the right” ... but that ignores the reality of lived experience, which includes emotional and psychological considerations that (in my opinion) are more essential to having a 'good life' than anything material."
This is a great point. It seems to me that we're becoming more aware of emotional and psychological considerations and starting to incorporate these into our societal ideas about what makes life worth living. For example, more emotional intelligence, health companies emphasizing mental health, less bias against therapy.
Would you say that our emotional and psychological lives are getting better or worse? What data would help us answer this?
My guess is that you have a good-paying job and live comfortably. Only someone who's never known poverty could write an article like this.
The reality is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And if you're at one end of the spectrum, it's hard to see the other end.
Consider this: "In the second quarter of 2023, 69 percent of the total wealth in the United States was owned by the top 10 percent of earners. In comparison, the lowest 50 percent of earners only owned 2.5 percent of the total wealth."
I'm assuming you're in the US... Full disclosure: I'm not--I live in France, but I've lived in the States a couple of times, visit often, have many friends there, and watch American news, so I am somewhat informed on the topic.
One thing that struck me the last time I was in Denver (2018) was the number of people living in the streets. I'd never seen that in the past--not in the States, anyway, and not in the suburbs of a big city like that. In particular, I remember a white middle-class family (I say 'white' to stress that it's not just minorities who are affected) who was living under a bridge near a freeway.
I doubt homeless folks like that would agree that "we live in a time of unprecedented abundance."
Heck, I doubt my brother would have agreed. He lived in the States for four decades and things only got worse over the years, despite never being unemployed (he even started his own business). In the end, he had to juggle THREE jobs to make ends meet and still couldn't afford rent (he lived in his storage unit) let alone health care. He was single, so imagine if he'd had a family, how much worse it would have been.
On a side note, he owned a smartphone and a computer. You'd argue that means he wasn't poor. Sorry to break it to you, but that doesn't prove a damn thing. Without a phone or a computer, he wouldn't have been able to work. Without work, he'd have been even worse off. There are choices you have to make when your budget is tight, and sometimes those choices involve getting some technological device that will make your life easier rather than a healthy meal and trade the latter with cheap cans.
You ask "Where’s the disconnect?"
A good starting point would be to look at how wages have stagnated for years while the cost of living has gone up. Middle class families used to live comfortably, while now they are getting dragged down toward poverty.
Another reason why people are so pessimistic is because of climate change. How can you claim we are living in a world of abundance when Earth's population reached (in 2005!) the point where it started consuming more than what the planet could produce?
In 2022, all the resources Earth can produce in a year had been consumed by August 2. This 'overshoot day' keeps coming earlier each year. Source for this is a respected French newspaper (the text is paywalled, but enough of it is free to get a sense of what they're saying):
If you question the reliability of these sources, check out this BBC article that explains where those numbers come from and how they are calculated. It even includes criticism of the process, so you know it's not one-sided. It's still interesting and gives much food for thought IMHO.
Oh, I know what you're thinking: you don't lack for anything, so how can we be consuming all the resources? It's a question of availability. Take gold, for instance. We know there's not a lot of it, right? That's why it's so valuable. But who has the gold? Me? You? I suppose you could have a little bit if you put some money into it. But that's my point. You need to be able to afford it. The rarer something becomes, the more expensive it gets, and then only the wealthiest can access it.
So while everything might still look normal to you, I'd bet you anything that third world countries are having a VERY different experience.
I'll grant you it's not a black and white thing. There are many gray areas and it's a very very complicated matter. But it's way too easy to talk of "unprecedented abundance" if you live in comfort without considering the growing misery around you.
Thanks for taking the time to write such a comprehensive and well-supported response.
My understanding of your general point is that referring to our current situation as one of “unprecedented abundance” does not account for several issues that are causing “growing misery.”
These are the issues you’ve pointed out:
1. Rich-poor gap
2. Homelessness
3. Wage stagnation
4. Climate change
5. Human overconsumption of natural resources
>>> 1. Rich-poor gap
I think we agree that overall wealth has increased.
One might argue that the population has increased, so even though the world is wealthier, the average individual is not wealthier. But that is not the case. This graph shows that GDP per capita has been increasing: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison?tab=chart
One might argue that the increase in GDP per capita is only happening in certain parts of the world and not others, but that is not the case. The graph above shows that GDP per capita is increasing in all regions of the world.
So, even though everyone is getting wealthier over time, some are currently wealthier than others. And this gap between rich and poor may be widening. As you pointed out, “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”
Some follow-up questions I would love to get your input on:
- What do you think should be done about this?
- Do you have any ideas for how we could narrow the rich-poor gap?
- Should we narrow the rich-poor gap?
- Is the rich-poor gap necessarily a bad thing?
- Are we aiming for everyone to have the exact same amount of wealth?
- Or is there a width of the rich-poor gap that we are willing to accept?
Denver is #10 on the list. The top five cities on the list are Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, San Jose, and Oakland. “Around half of all unsheltered homeless people in the U.S. are located in California.”
My understanding of the issue is that it’s not as simple as improving housing availability and affordability. Mental health and drug addiction are also factors.
Here are some of the highlights that stuck out to me:
There’s a disconnect between productivity and worker compensation (Figure 2). Productivity and compensation grew in tandem from about 1948 to 1973. After that, ”From 1973 to 2013, hourly compensation of a typical (production/nonsupervisory) worker rose just 9 percent while productivity increased 74 percent … This means that workers have been producing far more than they receive in their paychecks and benefit packages from their employers.”
”When it comes to the pace of annual pay increases, the top 1% wage grew 138% since 1979, while wages for the bottom 90% grew 15%.” (Figure 3)
”Middle-wage workers' hourly wage is up 6% since 1979, low-wage workers' wages are down 5%, while those with very high wages saw a 41% increase.” (Figure 4)
According to the EPI report, these are some of the factors driving wage stagnation and inequality:
- CEO pay is growing faster than the pay of typical workers
- Failure to raise the minimum wage in tandem with productivity
- Decline in union membership and collective bargaining
It seems that low-wage workers are impacted the most. Is it possible that automation (especially AI) and globalization (outsourcing work to cheaper international labor) are two more factors that are also putting downward pressure on the wages of low-wage workers?
”Analysing US population data from 1980-2015, researchers found that a 10% increase in the minimum wage leads to a 0.31 percentage point decrease in the share of automatable jobs done by low-skilled workers overall. The effects are largest in manufacturing: a 10% increase in the minimum wage leads to a 0.73 percentage point decrease in the share of automatable jobs done by low-skilled workers.”
A Brookings article offers three solutions for supporting workers employed in jobs that may be at risk of automation:
”Though not presently in a state of rebellion, many low-wage workers today are clearly and forcefully expressing their agitation with the failure of policy to address their problems.”
Follow-up questions:
- What are your thoughts on Universal Basic Income?
- Have you read the book Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut?
>>> 4. Climate change
You mentioned climate change, but the sources you cited are more related to human demand for natural resources and resulting “ecological debt.”
My understanding of climate change is that it refers specifically to shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, primarily due to the emissions of certain gases, which are produced by the burning of fossil fuels and other sources.
This graph shows global warming contributions by gas and source from 1851 to 2021:
This quote sums it up well: "Human activity is putting such a strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted.”
Specifically, ecosystems and habitats are being damaged by human demand for these resources: food, air, fresh water, timber, fiber, fuel, coastal fisheries, land for agriculture, and more.
The part about biologists coming up with a value for the “business services” provided by nature was a helpful analogy:
”In 1997, a team of biologists and economists tried to put a value on the ‘business services’ provided by nature - the free pollination of crops, the air conditioning provided by wild plants, the recycling of nutrients by the oceans. They came up with an estimate of $33 trillion, almost twice the global gross national product for that year."
Here’s an excerpt from the “ecological debt” article:
”This year, humanity is entering into "ecological debt" starting from August 2 and will remain so for 151 days, according to calculations by the North American organization Global Footprint Network. This Overshoot Day marks the date from which humanity has consumed all the resources that ecosystems are capable of producing in one year. The nonprofit estimates that it would take the equivalent of 1.7 planet Earths to regenerate our consumption of resources.”
”The world's seven billion people consume varying amounts of the planet's resources. Compare the lifestyle of a subsistence farmer with that of a wealthy city-dweller in a developed country. More land is required to grow the city dweller's food, more materials are used to build the city dweller's home and workplace, more energy is required for transport, heating and cooling.”
Here’s an explanation of how the BBC report got their data:
”De Chant was using a subset of data produced by the Global Footprint Network (GFN), which has been attempting the tricky business of measuring the impact of humans on the planet since 2003 … ‘Ecological footprinting’ is where researchers look at how much land, sea and other natural resources are used to produce what people consume - how many potatoes they eat, how much milk they drink, the cotton that goes into the shirts they wear and so on. They do this by using published statistics on consumption and the amount of land or sea used to produce the quantity of goods consumed.”
My thoughts:
- We can cut back on our consumption, especially those of us who live in countries that consume more than others.
- People would be more likely to cut back on their consumption if they were more aware of the damage it is doing to the planet and the likelihood of serious negative consequences, e.g., running out of certain resources.
Follow-up questions:
- How does population growth impact overconsumption? Is there a point at which we should slow down population growth in order to decrease human consumption of natural resources?
- Do you have any ideas for how we can decrease overconsumption, especially in the countries where it is higher than average?
You ask a lot of interesting questions, though they are not easy ones to answer, but I'll try my best ;)
1. Rich-poor gap
- What do you think should be done about this?
- Do you have any ideas for how we could narrow the rich-poor gap?
There are several things that could be done to fix this.
You mention further down the disparity in wage increases, I think that's the first place changes need to be made. Why give bigger raises to CEO than to low-level employees? I'd be for a system that would reward those who deserve it. Work hard, you get a higher pay. Do CEO's work harder than some random guy at the bottom of the chain? I doubt it. And they most certainly don't NEED the raise, not as much anyway. But you can't really pay people based on what they need, that would be opening a can of worms. That's why it'd make more sense to base it off workload. You want more money? Work harder.
That's how it's *supposed* to work. But those numbers you gave prove that it's not how it is.
Another thing that would help would be to tax the rich. Why are the common people paying more taxes than the wealthy? That doesn't make any sense. It should be the other way around. The more you earn, the more you should be taxed.
Then, speaking only of America, the U.S. is the richest country in the world. But where does all the money go? Into the military. It's crazy. Yes, the U.S. needs solid military, of course, but it's already the case. The U.S. Army is already the biggest and most powerful in the world. It doesn't need the billions and billions of dollars that the government keeps feeding it. Some of that could comfortably be invested into the people--for instance, to raise wages.
I don't know that any of these will ever happen, though, as there is strong opposition to each within the government. And so the gap will likely keep growing...
- Should we narrow the rich-poor gap?
- Is the rich-poor gap necessarily a bad thing?
Let me spin this around and ask you: is there a point to having poor people? Is there anything positive about having part of the population living in poverty?
To me the answer is no. The more money people have, the more they will spend. In fact, there's an argument to be made that middle-class families (when they can afford it) will spend more than rich people. Because the wealthy tend to save, so that money sleeps instead of feeding the economy. So it's not healthy for nations overall either.
- Are we aiming for everyone to have the exact same amount of wealth?
We're talking utopia, now, but yes, I think this would be a good thing if it could be achieved. I doubt it'll ever happen, though.
- Or is there a width of the rich-poor gap that we are willing to accept?
The problem is that we don't have any say in this (only governments can do anything about it) so it doesn't really matter what we are willing to accept or not. We are forced to live with what we have.
2. Homelessness
"My understanding of the issue is that it’s not as simple as improving housing availability and affordability. Mental health and drug addiction are also factors."
Totally. But it's also connected to wages.
In the case of my brother though it was part wages and part affordability of housing.
3. Wage stagnation
"Is it possible that automation (especially AI) and globalization (outsourcing work to cheaper international labor) are two more factors that are also putting downward pressure on the wages of low-wage workers?"
Well, wage stagnation, as you stated, started around 1973, so it's much older than AI. But if I had to guess, I'd venture that things are probably going to get worse because of AI. It'll likely force many folks into finding new jobs where AI cannot (yet?) replace humans.
"In terms of raising the minimum wage, this potentially “increases the likelihood that low-skilled workers in automatable jobs become nonemployed or employed in worse jobs,”"
I don't buy this. Like I said above, just give raises to those who deserve it, problem solved. Make up new titles if it helps. The guy who works hard gets bumped up. The guy who's 'low-skilled' will simply remain where he's at. He can either get better or change job if he wants to earn more. It just feels like a fairer system to me.
- What are your thoughts on Universal Basic Income?
We have something similar in France (which saved my ass a couple of times in the past). My thought is: if France can afford it, than the U.S. most definitely can as well.
The only real issue with UBI is those who will try to abuse the system. But the truth is, you'll always have people like that, no matter what you do. Penalizing those who truly need it just because a handful might cheat is, IMHO, unconscionable.
You can of course (and should) put safety guards in place to reduce the amount of cheating possible.
- Have you read the book Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut?
Sadly I haven't read anything by Vonnegut. He's an author I've been meaning to read for a long time but haven't got around to yet.
4. Climate change
Yeah, you're right, my mention of climate change was out of sync with the point I was making.
However, it's relevant to the conversation, as climate change affects crops and other resources that we need to feed the planet, thus contradicting the "world of abundance" proposition.
"People would be more likely to cut back on their consumption if they were more aware of the damage it is doing to the planet and the likelihood of serious negative consequences, e.g., running out of certain resources."
Yes and no. Imagine you're living in a third-world country and that every day is a struggle for survival. How likely is it you would have heard of climate change or, if you had, that you would care? A LOT of people are like that. Not to mention those in modern society who just don't care at all no matter what you say (there are more like that than you would think).
So the question then becomes: are there enough people who fall into those categories to make it a moot point what we do to avert disaster?
I don't always agree with Jordan Peterson, but he once said that he was hopeful for the future because he believes a solution will come from science rather than activism. Basically, someone somewhere (likely in the younger generation) will come up with a brilliant invention that will revolutionize how we consume, or the energy industry, something that will help us fight climate change effectively.
I think this can definitely happen.
My concern is that we could reach the point of no return before it does happen.
Then we'd be screwed.
- How does population growth impact overconsumption? Is there a point at which we should slow down population growth in order to decrease human consumption of natural resources?
And how exactly would you "slow down population growth"?
- Do you have any ideas for how we can decrease overconsumption, especially in the countries where it is higher than average?
Rationing is the first thing that comes to mind, but that's probably a bit extreme--though we might have to come to that at some point.
A simpler solution would be to make smaller packages and maybe raise prices on some products (which is already happening anyway).
Okay, here's a silly example. Milk. In France, milk comes in 1L bottles. In the US you have these huge 1 gallon containers. So, maybe start producing more 1L bottles, reduce the number of gallon ones and sell the latter at a higher price.
Granted, those who are heavy milk drinkers might just buy more 1L bottles, enough to get the equivalent of however many gallons they used to buy, but it might help in some cases.
Realistically, though, I think it'll be very tough to fix this particular issue, because overconsumption is deeply ingrained in societal behavior (at least in Western countries and especially in the US).
Changing this would require a major mindset shift that could only happen IMHO through massive cultural messaging.
In other words, you'd need to get celebrities and influencers involved.
>>> “You mention further down the disparity in wage increases, I think that's the first place changes need to be made. Why give bigger raises to CEO than to low-level employees? I'd be for a system that would reward those who deserve it. Work hard, you get a higher pay. Do CEO's work harder than some random guy at the bottom of the chain? I doubt it … That's why it'd make more sense to base it off workload. You want more money? Work harder.”
It’s hard to define who works “harder.” For example, there’s a difference between physical vs. mental work. If you see a person swinging an ax, they’re dirty and sweating, they’ve been at it all day … you might say they’re working harder than a person sitting in front of a computer, not making any noise, just typing on their keyboard. Would we say that the ax-swinger is working harder than the computer-typer? How would we measure that?
The measurement in most capitalist economies today is how much revenue or profit the work yields. Can you think of a better measurement?
It seems that no matter what measurement we choose, pay will never be equal. The measurement makes it a game. Some players will be better than others, based on their skills, advantages, etc.
>>> “Another thing that would help would be to tax the rich. Why are the common people paying more taxes than the wealthy?”
It seems that “tax-avoidance strategies” are what allow the wealthy to pay less taxes. It makes sense how this can happen because the wealthy can also afford the best accountants and lawyers to find the tax loopholes.
>>> “Then, speaking only of America, the U.S. is the richest country in the world. But where does all the money go? Into the military.”
Ideally, we wouldn’t need a military. But history has shown that humans have a habit of violence and war. Does the dominance of the U.S. military result in less violence and war? If so, by how much could we reduce the U.S. military budget while still maintaining its dominance?
>>> “Another thing that would help would be to erase student debt.”
Erasing any debt seems like “breaking the rules” of the financial system. If you break the rules too often, I wonder if people would begin to lose respect for the rules.
For student debt, in particular, how was the debt incurred in the first place? Expensive higher education. What can be done to solve this root of the problem? Should higher education be less expensive?
>>> ”Well, wage stagnation, as you stated, started around 1973, so it's much older than AI. But if I had to guess, I'd venture that things are probably going to get worse because of AI. It'll likely force many folks into finding new jobs where AI cannot (yet?) replace humans.”
Part of me says that we should invest more in training and education for those whose jobs are being (or will soon be) replaced by AI. We could even get ahead of the curve by teaching people to use AI and other automation technologies.
Another part of me says that we are reaching a point of economic progress where we don’t necessarily have to keep everyone employed in “economically productive” jobs. Thanks to improvements in efficiency from technology and automation, one person today is much more economically productive than one person a century ago: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/labor-productivity-per-hour-pennworldtable?tab=chart
You can imagine a world where only 20-30% of the population works and the rest of the population does … I don’t know exactly. Enjoys life? Makes art? Takes care of each other?
It seems that our default reaction to unemployment is to find new ways of employing. But what if we drop the assumption that all humans need to be working?
>>>"Like I said above, just give raises to those who deserve it, problem solved. Make up new titles if it helps. The guy who works hard gets bumped up.
^ See argument above about why it’s hard to determine who is working “hard.”
>>> ”The guy who's 'low-skilled' will simply remain where he's at. He can either get better or change job if he wants to earn more. It just feels like a fairer system to me.”
I think people sometimes have difficulty with (1) getting better and (2) changing jobs. Getting better requires access to training and education that not everyone has access to. And sometimes you have to do (1) before you can do (2).
>>> ”The only real issue with UBI is those who will try to abuse the system. But the truth is, you'll always have people like that, no matter what you do. Penalizing those who truly need it just because a handful might cheat is, IMHO, unconscionable. You can of course (and should) put safety guards in place to reduce the amount of cheating possible.”
How would people abuse the system? They would claim the UBI when they don’t qualify for it? Or they would claim the UBI and work a job at the same time?
>>> "Not to mention those in modern society who just don't care at all no matter what you say (there are more like that than you would think).”
If we reach a consensus as a society that overconsumption is a bad thing that we want to stop, then we would potentially proceed to turn that consensus into laws. At this point, the people who just don’t care would be breaking the law.
>>> ”I don't always agree with Jordan Peterson, but he once said that he was hopeful for the future because he believes a solution will come from science rather than activism. Basically, someone somewhere (likely in the younger generation) will come up with a brilliant invention that will revolutionize how we consume, or the energy industry, something that will help us fight climate change effectively.”
That’s a good thought. I like that. I don’t think we can necessarily count on it, as in we shouldn’t reduce other efforts because we’re hoping for a miracle scientific invention.
>>> ”A simpler solution would be to make smaller packages and maybe raise prices on some products (which is already happening anyway).”
I’ve also seen this start to happen. Seems like a step in the right direction.
>>> ”Realistically, though, I think it'll be very tough to fix this particular issue, because overconsumption is deeply ingrained in societal behavior (at least in Western countries and especially in the US). Changing this would require a major mindset shift that could only happen IMHO through massive cultural messaging. In other words, you'd need to get celebrities and influencers involved.”
I really agree with this point. I think there’s a shift that needs to happen in culture and societal opinion and I think you’re on the right track in terms of celebrities and influencers having an impact. Other leaders come to mind: politicians, business executives, religious leaders.
The data shows that we’re much better off now, compared to the rest of human history.
But we don’t seem to feel as though that’s the case.
Where’s the disconnect?
>The data you cited shows that physiologically and financially the trends have been “up and to the right”, but implicit in your argument is an assumption that those metrics correlate to a “better” human experience. I think this is the disconnect - materialism is the new religion and by all accounts that religion is “making things better”, at least when you add up how much money is spent
but that ignores the reality of lived experience, which includes emotional and psychological considerations that (in my opinion) are more essential to having a “good life” than anything material
so perhaps the disconnect is not with the data and reality, but rather with our societal ideas about that makes a life worth living
>>> "The data you cited shows that physiologically and financially the trends have been “up and to the right” ... but that ignores the reality of lived experience, which includes emotional and psychological considerations that (in my opinion) are more essential to having a 'good life' than anything material."
This is a great point. It seems to me that we're becoming more aware of emotional and psychological considerations and starting to incorporate these into our societal ideas about what makes life worth living. For example, more emotional intelligence, health companies emphasizing mental health, less bias against therapy.
Would you say that our emotional and psychological lives are getting better or worse? What data would help us answer this?
suicide rates, depression rates could be a place to start, as well as surveys like “are we better off than the last generation”
Those are good places to start, I agree. I've actually already started looking into those areas: https://somethingdaily.substack.com/p/why-im-studying-mental-health
My guess is that you have a good-paying job and live comfortably. Only someone who's never known poverty could write an article like this.
The reality is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And if you're at one end of the spectrum, it's hard to see the other end.
Consider this: "In the second quarter of 2023, 69 percent of the total wealth in the United States was owned by the top 10 percent of earners. In comparison, the lowest 50 percent of earners only owned 2.5 percent of the total wealth."
https://www.statista.com/statistics/203961/wealth-distribution-for-the-us/
I'm assuming you're in the US... Full disclosure: I'm not--I live in France, but I've lived in the States a couple of times, visit often, have many friends there, and watch American news, so I am somewhat informed on the topic.
One thing that struck me the last time I was in Denver (2018) was the number of people living in the streets. I'd never seen that in the past--not in the States, anyway, and not in the suburbs of a big city like that. In particular, I remember a white middle-class family (I say 'white' to stress that it's not just minorities who are affected) who was living under a bridge near a freeway.
I doubt homeless folks like that would agree that "we live in a time of unprecedented abundance."
Heck, I doubt my brother would have agreed. He lived in the States for four decades and things only got worse over the years, despite never being unemployed (he even started his own business). In the end, he had to juggle THREE jobs to make ends meet and still couldn't afford rent (he lived in his storage unit) let alone health care. He was single, so imagine if he'd had a family, how much worse it would have been.
On a side note, he owned a smartphone and a computer. You'd argue that means he wasn't poor. Sorry to break it to you, but that doesn't prove a damn thing. Without a phone or a computer, he wouldn't have been able to work. Without work, he'd have been even worse off. There are choices you have to make when your budget is tight, and sometimes those choices involve getting some technological device that will make your life easier rather than a healthy meal and trade the latter with cheap cans.
You ask "Where’s the disconnect?"
A good starting point would be to look at how wages have stagnated for years while the cost of living has gone up. Middle class families used to live comfortably, while now they are getting dragged down toward poverty.
https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
Another reason why people are so pessimistic is because of climate change. How can you claim we are living in a world of abundance when Earth's population reached (in 2005!) the point where it started consuming more than what the planet could produce?
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/mar/30/environment.research
In 2022, all the resources Earth can produce in a year had been consumed by August 2. This 'overshoot day' keeps coming earlier each year. Source for this is a respected French newspaper (the text is paywalled, but enough of it is free to get a sense of what they're saying):
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2023/08/02/earth-overshoot-day-as-of-august-2-humanity-enters-ecological-debt_6076116_114.html
If you question the reliability of these sources, check out this BBC article that explains where those numbers come from and how they are calculated. It even includes criticism of the process, so you know it's not one-sided. It's still interesting and gives much food for thought IMHO.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712
Oh, I know what you're thinking: you don't lack for anything, so how can we be consuming all the resources? It's a question of availability. Take gold, for instance. We know there's not a lot of it, right? That's why it's so valuable. But who has the gold? Me? You? I suppose you could have a little bit if you put some money into it. But that's my point. You need to be able to afford it. The rarer something becomes, the more expensive it gets, and then only the wealthiest can access it.
So while everything might still look normal to you, I'd bet you anything that third world countries are having a VERY different experience.
I'll grant you it's not a black and white thing. There are many gray areas and it's a very very complicated matter. But it's way too easy to talk of "unprecedented abundance" if you live in comfort without considering the growing misery around you.
Thanks for taking the time to write such a comprehensive and well-supported response.
My understanding of your general point is that referring to our current situation as one of “unprecedented abundance” does not account for several issues that are causing “growing misery.”
These are the issues you’ve pointed out:
1. Rich-poor gap
2. Homelessness
3. Wage stagnation
4. Climate change
5. Human overconsumption of natural resources
>>> 1. Rich-poor gap
I think we agree that overall wealth has increased.
This graph shows the increase in world GDP over the past 2,000 years: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-gdp-over-the-last-two-millennia
One might argue that the population has increased, so even though the world is wealthier, the average individual is not wealthier. But that is not the case. This graph shows that GDP per capita has been increasing: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison?tab=chart
One might argue that the increase in GDP per capita is only happening in certain parts of the world and not others, but that is not the case. The graph above shows that GDP per capita is increasing in all regions of the world.
So, even though everyone is getting wealthier over time, some are currently wealthier than others. And this gap between rich and poor may be widening. As you pointed out, “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”
Some follow-up questions I would love to get your input on:
- What do you think should be done about this?
- Do you have any ideas for how we could narrow the rich-poor gap?
- Should we narrow the rich-poor gap?
- Is the rich-poor gap necessarily a bad thing?
- Are we aiming for everyone to have the exact same amount of wealth?
- Or is there a width of the rich-poor gap that we are willing to accept?
>>> 2. Homelessness
You mentioned you saw a lot of people living on the streets in Denver in 2018.
Here’s a chart that shows the U.S. cities with the most homeless people: https://www.statista.com/chart/6949/the-us-cities-with-the-most-homeless-people/
Denver is #10 on the list. The top five cities on the list are Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, San Jose, and Oakland. “Around half of all unsheltered homeless people in the U.S. are located in California.”
This publication from Stanford reports on the homeless situation in California and how it compares to the rest of the country: https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/homelessness-california-causes-and-policy-considerations
When we look at the U.S. overall, this graph shows that homelessness decreased from 2007 to 2016: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/homeless-per-capita-us
My understanding of the issue is that it’s not as simple as improving housing availability and affordability. Mental health and drug addiction are also factors.
>>> 3. Wage stagnation
I read the EPI report you shared: https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
Here are some of the highlights that stuck out to me:
There’s a disconnect between productivity and worker compensation (Figure 2). Productivity and compensation grew in tandem from about 1948 to 1973. After that, ”From 1973 to 2013, hourly compensation of a typical (production/nonsupervisory) worker rose just 9 percent while productivity increased 74 percent … This means that workers have been producing far more than they receive in their paychecks and benefit packages from their employers.”
”When it comes to the pace of annual pay increases, the top 1% wage grew 138% since 1979, while wages for the bottom 90% grew 15%.” (Figure 3)
”Middle-wage workers' hourly wage is up 6% since 1979, low-wage workers' wages are down 5%, while those with very high wages saw a 41% increase.” (Figure 4)
According to the EPI report, these are some of the factors driving wage stagnation and inequality:
- CEO pay is growing faster than the pay of typical workers
- Failure to raise the minimum wage in tandem with productivity
- Decline in union membership and collective bargaining
It seems that low-wage workers are impacted the most. Is it possible that automation (especially AI) and globalization (outsourcing work to cheaper international labor) are two more factors that are also putting downward pressure on the wages of low-wage workers?
The EPI argues (in a different report than the one cited above) that automation and skill gaps fail to explain wage suppression or wage inequality: https://www.epi.org/unequalpower/publications/automation-myth/
In terms of raising the minimum wage, this potentially “increases the likelihood that low-skilled workers in automatable jobs become nonemployed or employed in worse jobs,” according to this paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927537118300228
More research on minimum wage increases leading to decreases in the share of automatable jobs done by low-skilled workers:
https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2018/05-May-2018/Minimum-wage-increases-lead-to-faster-job-automation
”Analysing US population data from 1980-2015, researchers found that a 10% increase in the minimum wage leads to a 0.31 percentage point decrease in the share of automatable jobs done by low-skilled workers overall. The effects are largest in manufacturing: a 10% increase in the minimum wage leads to a 0.73 percentage point decrease in the share of automatable jobs done by low-skilled workers.”
A Brookings article offers three solutions for supporting workers employed in jobs that may be at risk of automation:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-the-impact-of-automation-on-workers-jobs-and-wages/
1. Education and training
2. “Good job” creation by employers
3. Wage supplements for workers
MIT suggests the possibility of a low-wage worker revolution:
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/get-ready-low-wage-worker-revolution
”Though not presently in a state of rebellion, many low-wage workers today are clearly and forcefully expressing their agitation with the failure of policy to address their problems.”
Follow-up questions:
- What are your thoughts on Universal Basic Income?
- Have you read the book Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut?
>>> 4. Climate change
You mentioned climate change, but the sources you cited are more related to human demand for natural resources and resulting “ecological debt.”
My understanding of climate change is that it refers specifically to shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, primarily due to the emissions of certain gases, which are produced by the burning of fossil fuels and other sources.
This graph shows global warming contributions by gas and source from 1851 to 2021:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-warming-by-gas-and-source
>>> 5. Human overconsumption of natural resources
I read the Guardian article you shared: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/mar/30/environment.research
This quote sums it up well: "Human activity is putting such a strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted.”
Specifically, ecosystems and habitats are being damaged by human demand for these resources: food, air, fresh water, timber, fiber, fuel, coastal fisheries, land for agriculture, and more.
The part about biologists coming up with a value for the “business services” provided by nature was a helpful analogy:
”In 1997, a team of biologists and economists tried to put a value on the ‘business services’ provided by nature - the free pollination of crops, the air conditioning provided by wild plants, the recycling of nutrients by the oceans. They came up with an estimate of $33 trillion, almost twice the global gross national product for that year."
Here’s an excerpt from the “ecological debt” article:
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2023/08/02/earth-overshoot-day-as-of-august-2-humanity-enters-ecological-debt_6076116_114.html#
”This year, humanity is entering into "ecological debt" starting from August 2 and will remain so for 151 days, according to calculations by the North American organization Global Footprint Network. This Overshoot Day marks the date from which humanity has consumed all the resources that ecosystems are capable of producing in one year. The nonprofit estimates that it would take the equivalent of 1.7 planet Earths to regenerate our consumption of resources.”
This BBC report shows that some countries consume more natural resources than others: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712
”The world's seven billion people consume varying amounts of the planet's resources. Compare the lifestyle of a subsistence farmer with that of a wealthy city-dweller in a developed country. More land is required to grow the city dweller's food, more materials are used to build the city dweller's home and workplace, more energy is required for transport, heating and cooling.”
Here’s an explanation of how the BBC report got their data:
”De Chant was using a subset of data produced by the Global Footprint Network (GFN), which has been attempting the tricky business of measuring the impact of humans on the planet since 2003 … ‘Ecological footprinting’ is where researchers look at how much land, sea and other natural resources are used to produce what people consume - how many potatoes they eat, how much milk they drink, the cotton that goes into the shirts they wear and so on. They do this by using published statistics on consumption and the amount of land or sea used to produce the quantity of goods consumed.”
My thoughts:
- We can cut back on our consumption, especially those of us who live in countries that consume more than others.
- People would be more likely to cut back on their consumption if they were more aware of the damage it is doing to the planet and the likelihood of serious negative consequences, e.g., running out of certain resources.
Follow-up questions:
- How does population growth impact overconsumption? Is there a point at which we should slow down population growth in order to decrease human consumption of natural resources?
- Do you have any ideas for how we can decrease overconsumption, especially in the countries where it is higher than average?
You ask a lot of interesting questions, though they are not easy ones to answer, but I'll try my best ;)
1. Rich-poor gap
- What do you think should be done about this?
- Do you have any ideas for how we could narrow the rich-poor gap?
There are several things that could be done to fix this.
You mention further down the disparity in wage increases, I think that's the first place changes need to be made. Why give bigger raises to CEO than to low-level employees? I'd be for a system that would reward those who deserve it. Work hard, you get a higher pay. Do CEO's work harder than some random guy at the bottom of the chain? I doubt it. And they most certainly don't NEED the raise, not as much anyway. But you can't really pay people based on what they need, that would be opening a can of worms. That's why it'd make more sense to base it off workload. You want more money? Work harder.
That's how it's *supposed* to work. But those numbers you gave prove that it's not how it is.
Another thing that would help would be to tax the rich. Why are the common people paying more taxes than the wealthy? That doesn't make any sense. It should be the other way around. The more you earn, the more you should be taxed.
https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/do-the-rich-pay-their-fair-share/
And that's not an issue only in the States. We have the same problem in France:
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2023/06/06/france-s-ultra-rich-pay-less-tax-new-study-confirms_6029311_5.html
Then, speaking only of America, the U.S. is the richest country in the world. But where does all the money go? Into the military. It's crazy. Yes, the U.S. needs solid military, of course, but it's already the case. The U.S. Army is already the biggest and most powerful in the world. It doesn't need the billions and billions of dollars that the government keeps feeding it. Some of that could comfortably be invested into the people--for instance, to raise wages.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/opinion/military-budget-build-back-better.html
Another thing that would help would be to erase student debt. That could also easily be done if the military budget was downsized.
https://time.com/6258489/student-loan-relief-benefits-supreme-court-decision/
I don't know that any of these will ever happen, though, as there is strong opposition to each within the government. And so the gap will likely keep growing...
- Should we narrow the rich-poor gap?
- Is the rich-poor gap necessarily a bad thing?
Let me spin this around and ask you: is there a point to having poor people? Is there anything positive about having part of the population living in poverty?
To me the answer is no. The more money people have, the more they will spend. In fact, there's an argument to be made that middle-class families (when they can afford it) will spend more than rich people. Because the wealthy tend to save, so that money sleeps instead of feeding the economy. So it's not healthy for nations overall either.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/08/01/157664524/how-the-poor-the-middle-class-and-the-rich-spend-their-money
- Are we aiming for everyone to have the exact same amount of wealth?
We're talking utopia, now, but yes, I think this would be a good thing if it could be achieved. I doubt it'll ever happen, though.
- Or is there a width of the rich-poor gap that we are willing to accept?
The problem is that we don't have any say in this (only governments can do anything about it) so it doesn't really matter what we are willing to accept or not. We are forced to live with what we have.
2. Homelessness
"My understanding of the issue is that it’s not as simple as improving housing availability and affordability. Mental health and drug addiction are also factors."
Totally. But it's also connected to wages.
In the case of my brother though it was part wages and part affordability of housing.
3. Wage stagnation
"Is it possible that automation (especially AI) and globalization (outsourcing work to cheaper international labor) are two more factors that are also putting downward pressure on the wages of low-wage workers?"
Well, wage stagnation, as you stated, started around 1973, so it's much older than AI. But if I had to guess, I'd venture that things are probably going to get worse because of AI. It'll likely force many folks into finding new jobs where AI cannot (yet?) replace humans.
"In terms of raising the minimum wage, this potentially “increases the likelihood that low-skilled workers in automatable jobs become nonemployed or employed in worse jobs,”"
I don't buy this. Like I said above, just give raises to those who deserve it, problem solved. Make up new titles if it helps. The guy who works hard gets bumped up. The guy who's 'low-skilled' will simply remain where he's at. He can either get better or change job if he wants to earn more. It just feels like a fairer system to me.
- What are your thoughts on Universal Basic Income?
We have something similar in France (which saved my ass a couple of times in the past). My thought is: if France can afford it, than the U.S. most definitely can as well.
The only real issue with UBI is those who will try to abuse the system. But the truth is, you'll always have people like that, no matter what you do. Penalizing those who truly need it just because a handful might cheat is, IMHO, unconscionable.
You can of course (and should) put safety guards in place to reduce the amount of cheating possible.
- Have you read the book Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut?
Sadly I haven't read anything by Vonnegut. He's an author I've been meaning to read for a long time but haven't got around to yet.
4. Climate change
Yeah, you're right, my mention of climate change was out of sync with the point I was making.
However, it's relevant to the conversation, as climate change affects crops and other resources that we need to feed the planet, thus contradicting the "world of abundance" proposition.
https://climatechange.chicago.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply
https://it.usembassy.gov/how-climate-change-affects-the-food-crisis/
5. Human overconsumption of natural resources
"People would be more likely to cut back on their consumption if they were more aware of the damage it is doing to the planet and the likelihood of serious negative consequences, e.g., running out of certain resources."
Yes and no. Imagine you're living in a third-world country and that every day is a struggle for survival. How likely is it you would have heard of climate change or, if you had, that you would care? A LOT of people are like that. Not to mention those in modern society who just don't care at all no matter what you say (there are more like that than you would think).
So the question then becomes: are there enough people who fall into those categories to make it a moot point what we do to avert disaster?
I don't always agree with Jordan Peterson, but he once said that he was hopeful for the future because he believes a solution will come from science rather than activism. Basically, someone somewhere (likely in the younger generation) will come up with a brilliant invention that will revolutionize how we consume, or the energy industry, something that will help us fight climate change effectively.
I think this can definitely happen.
My concern is that we could reach the point of no return before it does happen.
Then we'd be screwed.
- How does population growth impact overconsumption? Is there a point at which we should slow down population growth in order to decrease human consumption of natural resources?
And how exactly would you "slow down population growth"?
- Do you have any ideas for how we can decrease overconsumption, especially in the countries where it is higher than average?
Rationing is the first thing that comes to mind, but that's probably a bit extreme--though we might have to come to that at some point.
A simpler solution would be to make smaller packages and maybe raise prices on some products (which is already happening anyway).
Okay, here's a silly example. Milk. In France, milk comes in 1L bottles. In the US you have these huge 1 gallon containers. So, maybe start producing more 1L bottles, reduce the number of gallon ones and sell the latter at a higher price.
Granted, those who are heavy milk drinkers might just buy more 1L bottles, enough to get the equivalent of however many gallons they used to buy, but it might help in some cases.
Realistically, though, I think it'll be very tough to fix this particular issue, because overconsumption is deeply ingrained in societal behavior (at least in Western countries and especially in the US).
Changing this would require a major mindset shift that could only happen IMHO through massive cultural messaging.
In other words, you'd need to get celebrities and influencers involved.
1. Rich-poor gap
>>> “You mention further down the disparity in wage increases, I think that's the first place changes need to be made. Why give bigger raises to CEO than to low-level employees? I'd be for a system that would reward those who deserve it. Work hard, you get a higher pay. Do CEO's work harder than some random guy at the bottom of the chain? I doubt it … That's why it'd make more sense to base it off workload. You want more money? Work harder.”
It’s hard to define who works “harder.” For example, there’s a difference between physical vs. mental work. If you see a person swinging an ax, they’re dirty and sweating, they’ve been at it all day … you might say they’re working harder than a person sitting in front of a computer, not making any noise, just typing on their keyboard. Would we say that the ax-swinger is working harder than the computer-typer? How would we measure that?
The measurement in most capitalist economies today is how much revenue or profit the work yields. Can you think of a better measurement?
It seems that no matter what measurement we choose, pay will never be equal. The measurement makes it a game. Some players will be better than others, based on their skills, advantages, etc.
>>> “Another thing that would help would be to tax the rich. Why are the common people paying more taxes than the wealthy?”
I read this article: https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/do-the-rich-pay-their-fair-share/
It seems that “tax-avoidance strategies” are what allow the wealthy to pay less taxes. It makes sense how this can happen because the wealthy can also afford the best accountants and lawyers to find the tax loopholes.
>>> “Then, speaking only of America, the U.S. is the richest country in the world. But where does all the money go? Into the military.”
Ideally, we wouldn’t need a military. But history has shown that humans have a habit of violence and war. Does the dominance of the U.S. military result in less violence and war? If so, by how much could we reduce the U.S. military budget while still maintaining its dominance?
>>> “Another thing that would help would be to erase student debt.”
Erasing any debt seems like “breaking the rules” of the financial system. If you break the rules too often, I wonder if people would begin to lose respect for the rules.
For student debt, in particular, how was the debt incurred in the first place? Expensive higher education. What can be done to solve this root of the problem? Should higher education be less expensive?
3. Wage stagnation
>>> ”Well, wage stagnation, as you stated, started around 1973, so it's much older than AI. But if I had to guess, I'd venture that things are probably going to get worse because of AI. It'll likely force many folks into finding new jobs where AI cannot (yet?) replace humans.”
Part of me says that we should invest more in training and education for those whose jobs are being (or will soon be) replaced by AI. We could even get ahead of the curve by teaching people to use AI and other automation technologies.
Another part of me says that we are reaching a point of economic progress where we don’t necessarily have to keep everyone employed in “economically productive” jobs. Thanks to improvements in efficiency from technology and automation, one person today is much more economically productive than one person a century ago: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/labor-productivity-per-hour-pennworldtable?tab=chart
You can imagine a world where only 20-30% of the population works and the rest of the population does … I don’t know exactly. Enjoys life? Makes art? Takes care of each other?
It seems that our default reaction to unemployment is to find new ways of employing. But what if we drop the assumption that all humans need to be working?
>>>"Like I said above, just give raises to those who deserve it, problem solved. Make up new titles if it helps. The guy who works hard gets bumped up.
^ See argument above about why it’s hard to determine who is working “hard.”
>>> ”The guy who's 'low-skilled' will simply remain where he's at. He can either get better or change job if he wants to earn more. It just feels like a fairer system to me.”
I think people sometimes have difficulty with (1) getting better and (2) changing jobs. Getting better requires access to training and education that not everyone has access to. And sometimes you have to do (1) before you can do (2).
>>> ”The only real issue with UBI is those who will try to abuse the system. But the truth is, you'll always have people like that, no matter what you do. Penalizing those who truly need it just because a handful might cheat is, IMHO, unconscionable. You can of course (and should) put safety guards in place to reduce the amount of cheating possible.”
How would people abuse the system? They would claim the UBI when they don’t qualify for it? Or they would claim the UBI and work a job at the same time?
5. Human overconsumption of natural resources
>>> "Not to mention those in modern society who just don't care at all no matter what you say (there are more like that than you would think).”
If we reach a consensus as a society that overconsumption is a bad thing that we want to stop, then we would potentially proceed to turn that consensus into laws. At this point, the people who just don’t care would be breaking the law.
>>> ”I don't always agree with Jordan Peterson, but he once said that he was hopeful for the future because he believes a solution will come from science rather than activism. Basically, someone somewhere (likely in the younger generation) will come up with a brilliant invention that will revolutionize how we consume, or the energy industry, something that will help us fight climate change effectively.”
That’s a good thought. I like that. I don’t think we can necessarily count on it, as in we shouldn’t reduce other efforts because we’re hoping for a miracle scientific invention.
>>> ”A simpler solution would be to make smaller packages and maybe raise prices on some products (which is already happening anyway).”
I’ve also seen this start to happen. Seems like a step in the right direction.
>>> ”Realistically, though, I think it'll be very tough to fix this particular issue, because overconsumption is deeply ingrained in societal behavior (at least in Western countries and especially in the US). Changing this would require a major mindset shift that could only happen IMHO through massive cultural messaging. In other words, you'd need to get celebrities and influencers involved.”
I really agree with this point. I think there’s a shift that needs to happen in culture and societal opinion and I think you’re on the right track in terms of celebrities and influencers having an impact. Other leaders come to mind: politicians, business executives, religious leaders.