6 ms·

> Society doesn't owe me over $500k/year No it doesn't. But as a human being, you and everybody still deserves a decent living. And our current system clearly

by maweki 4mo ago

> Society doesn't owe me over $500k/year No it doesn't. But as a human being, you and everybody still deserves a decent living. And our current system clearly does not provide that for a lot of people.

munksbeer 4mo ago
World GDP and standard of living has never been higher.
- stevenlangbroek 4mo ago
  So? We produce enough food for 10 billion people every year, there's only 8 billion of us and a billion are hungry. Those seem like legible KPIs for shareholders (i.e. humanity) to pursue, no? And while World GDP is up, it's come at the expensive of the systems we depend on. I want my son to live on a livable planet, and not under the constant threat of destitution. And I want that for all children, not just mine.
  - munksbeer 4mo ago
    Everyone wants that. But people on this thread are arguing that technology is reducing our standard of living, which is just factually untrue.
    - stevenlangbroek 4mo ago
      Depends on who & what you ask. Aggregates hide important nuance. For who? At what cost to who? Do the people who bare the cost have a say? Would they agree that it's worth it? What's their life worth?
    - esseph 4mo ago
      There is more to life than economics. High trust societies, a feeling of place and well-being in a culture, connectedness, etc. https://data.worldhappiness.report/map https://data.worldhappiness.report/map Note: Look at the US continuing to move down the report year after year.
    - CRConrad 4mo ago
      Who was arguing that technology is reducing our material "standard of living"? There's more to life than one's material standard of living. I think people were mostly talking about the other bits.
- Ygg2 4mo ago
  If two trillionaires bounce a 4 trillion dollar IOU, the GDP could be the greatest in the universe, even though nothing would substantially change.
  - munksbeer 4mo ago
    Living standards for the median person in the world improve every year, and have done for decades.
  - valleyer 4mo ago
    That's not what GDP means.
    - FrustratedMonky 4mo ago
      "(GDP) measures the total market value of final goods and services produced" It can be circular. MS invests 5 billion in OpenAI. OpenAI invests 5 billion in MS. Do we have 10 billion now?
      - valleyer 4mo ago
        No goods or services were produced in your example, so GDP would not be affected. Purchases of securities are not goods or services.
larodi 4mo ago
How come is anyone "entitled" to a decent living? I don't think this holds evolutionary, nor from historical perspective. It is commendable for a person to want to think that everyone deserves it, but I don't see it follow from anything or manifest in general in a fair way. There are plenty of examples that people are very likely going to be deprived of even whatever they deserved by means of struggling to get it.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
  > I don't think this holds evolutionary Sure it does. Our species is social, meaning we form societies for evolutionary success. Both of us being members of that society, it is in my interest to see your child survive. It is a tragedy to think your child may not survive because human greed prevents them from accessing resources we have in abundance. The opposite perspective is anti-social in a literal way: the greedy cannot use all of the resources, can't eat all of the food; they want control so you can't have it without their permission. You are entitled to eat, seeing as we have more than enough to feed you. That others think you are not is disagreeable, to put it mildly.
  - larodi 4mo ago
    Sorry, but history saw so little (as a fraction) of people that were actually getting fair living that others guaranteed for them. Even when it is about living in decent conditions provided by the community if you want. Even in a tribe, there’s a lotta suffering and very little remorse for it. We may say we chase a society that would see everyone understand the principle of ‘your child should also get a decent life’, but what we see now, across nearly all societies is really the opposite. And it phrases like this - we don’t care if your children live or die for as long as our children get better chances.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
      > Sorry, but history saw so little (as a fraction) of people that were actually getting fair living that others guaranteed for them. This statement is rather plainly not true. It describes child rearing and claims it does not happen in one breath. There is a concept of "fairness", which I don't want to discount, but there's not much of a history of people being bottom feeders who do nothing to help those around them. Sure, there's a lot of sentiment to that effect but it is somehow something I fail to observe to this day. It is in the eye of the beholder and I worry for the souls of the beholders who judge so harshly. This idea that someone is not deserving of food because they have not earned it a sad, anti-social thing to believe, perpetuated by psychological attacks from those who have more than they could ever need. You and your children deserve to eat and disagreement with that statement says more about the one disagreeing than it does any other, regardless of the judgement inherent to the nature of the disagreement (really, because of it, I suppose).

by maweki 4mo ago

munksbeer 4mo ago

World GDP and standard of living has never been higher.

stevenlangbroek 4mo ago
So? We produce enough food for 10 billion people every year, there's only 8 billion of us and a billion are hungry. Those seem like legible KPIs for shareholders (i.e. humanity) to pursue, no? And while World GDP is up, it's come at the expensive of the systems we depend on. I want my son to live on a livable planet, and not under the constant threat of destitution. And I want that for all children, not just mine.
- munksbeer 4mo ago
  Everyone wants that. But people on this thread are arguing that technology is reducing our standard of living, which is just factually untrue.
  - stevenlangbroek 4mo ago
    Depends on who & what you ask. Aggregates hide important nuance. For who? At what cost to who? Do the people who bare the cost have a say? Would they agree that it's worth it? What's their life worth?
  - esseph 4mo ago
    There is more to life than economics. High trust societies, a feeling of place and well-being in a culture, connectedness, etc. https://data.worldhappiness.report/map https://data.worldhappiness.report/map Note: Look at the US continuing to move down the report year after year.
  - CRConrad 4mo ago
    Who was arguing that technology is reducing our material "standard of living"? There's more to life than one's material standard of living. I think people were mostly talking about the other bits.
Ygg2 4mo ago
If two trillionaires bounce a 4 trillion dollar IOU, the GDP could be the greatest in the universe, even though nothing would substantially change.
- munksbeer 4mo ago
  Living standards for the median person in the world improve every year, and have done for decades.
- valleyer 4mo ago
  That's not what GDP means.
  - FrustratedMonky 4mo ago
    "(GDP) measures the total market value of final goods and services produced" It can be circular. MS invests 5 billion in OpenAI. OpenAI invests 5 billion in MS. Do we have 10 billion now?
    - valleyer 4mo ago
      No goods or services were produced in your example, so GDP would not be affected. Purchases of securities are not goods or services.

larodi 4mo ago

How come is anyone "entitled" to a decent living? I don't think this holds evolutionary, nor from historical perspective. It is commendable for a person to want to think that everyone deserves it, but I don't see it follow from anything or manifest in general in a fair way. There are plenty of examples that people are very likely going to be deprived of even whatever they deserved by means of struggling to get it.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
> I don't think this holds evolutionary Sure it does. Our species is social, meaning we form societies for evolutionary success. Both of us being members of that society, it is in my interest to see your child survive. It is a tragedy to think your child may not survive because human greed prevents them from accessing resources we have in abundance. The opposite perspective is anti-social in a literal way: the greedy cannot use all of the resources, can't eat all of the food; they want control so you can't have it without their permission. You are entitled to eat, seeing as we have more than enough to feed you. That others think you are not is disagreeable, to put it mildly.
- larodi 4mo ago
  Sorry, but history saw so little (as a fraction) of people that were actually getting fair living that others guaranteed for them. Even when it is about living in decent conditions provided by the community if you want. Even in a tribe, there’s a lotta suffering and very little remorse for it. We may say we chase a society that would see everyone understand the principle of ‘your child should also get a decent life’, but what we see now, across nearly all societies is really the opposite. And it phrases like this - we don’t care if your children live or die for as long as our children get better chances.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
    > Sorry, but history saw so little (as a fraction) of people that were actually getting fair living that others guaranteed for them. This statement is rather plainly not true. It describes child rearing and claims it does not happen in one breath. There is a concept of "fairness", which I don't want to discount, but there's not much of a history of people being bottom feeders who do nothing to help those around them. Sure, there's a lot of sentiment to that effect but it is somehow something I fail to observe to this day. It is in the eye of the beholder and I worry for the souls of the beholders who judge so harshly. This idea that someone is not deserving of food because they have not earned it a sad, anti-social thing to believe, perpetuated by psychological attacks from those who have more than they could ever need. You and your children deserve to eat and disagreement with that statement says more about the one disagreeing than it does any other, regardless of the judgement inherent to the nature of the disagreement (really, because of it, I suppose).