Why would it matter?
Just some global poverty data https://ourworldindata.org/poverty-at-higher-poverty-lines
You can find smoe extremely interesting data, total amount of poverty over the past decades. Just this one chart:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-by-per-capita-household-consumption
You can see that in start of 1980's there were over a billion people earning less than $1.25 per day. 2013 it was less than half a billion.
The markets have become increasingly free and poverty has dropped. Povety doesn't decrease alone with technology.
If you are not American, I can understand being ignorant to the ways of what I'm mostly discussing, for more European countries, global capitalism doesn't affect them as directly and as harshly as it does here.
Give this article a read for me.
https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Wait, so you're talking only about US while talking about "global capitalism"?
If you're talking only about US, don't try to make it a global issue.
The statistics are also somehow limited. It only compares the changes in salaries in different classes, but not the total sizes of the classes and the impact in total. You are right in that the average is increasing because "the rich" are getting more, but also because people are moving up in income classes. The amount of people in lower income classes is shrinking and more people are moving up to higher income classes.
http://www.aei.org/publication/yes-the-us-middle-class-is-shrinking-but-its-because-americans-are-moving-up-and-no-americans-are-not-struggling-to-afford-a-home/
This can also explain why average income is increasing.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The thing about it is that the US is one of the most influential nations with some of the most influential billionaires that enact what I refer to as global capitalism negatively on other nations that are very impoverished (africa, middle east, etc), it is the example that late-stage capitalism is horrendous, and a few other countries (the uk, for example) have higher movements to adapt more US-like economics which is the infection that I am referring to.
There's also the fact that every human on earth can live a comfortable life and starvation and suffering and sweatshops don't need to exist (china is a big one here), but they do anyway because rich people like to help themselves and not others.
This study doesn't seem accurate to me, living here, everyone I know and everywhere I go there's a homelessness crisis and debt crisis. Note, also, that young people are most affected by these issues.
My point is that capitalism and "free" markets are a myth. The more "free" the market, in time, them more corrupt it gets, and this is why we need regulations in place to prevent monopolies and ultimate corruption. Communistic societies do not have this issues as the wealth is shared and we all work together as a species to do what's best for each other. Just look at Sci-Fi movies and novels, most societies you see in these stories are far more communistic than capitalistic, because it's the right direction to go.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well currently it seems that capitalism has reduced the amount of starvation and suffering, at least according to the global statistics, even though you want to brush it off with "technology".
Personal experiences do not override large scale statistics. While you might see homelessness and different issues around you, it seems that in total the trend is that the issues like that are decreasing. 20-30 years ago you would have seen more homelessness and poverty.
Just like someone saying "I'm rich and all my friends are rich, so I don't believe in poverty" doesn't override the fact poverty still exists.
This is the issue with "US capitalism", as the "free markets" don't exisist specially strongly there. It's strictly regulated and Europe in general has more freedom in the markets. Maybe you could need some capitalism in your system which could help US to fight poverty better.
Regulations tend to create monopolies instead of fighting them.
Communistic societies have issues that there is no wealth to be shared and people are less likely to work. This is a reason why the Sci-Fi is fiction. It seems it's fiction that communism would work.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Lol, I don't think you know what you're talking about. No, the middle class isn't becoming more rich and wealthy, the rich and wealthy are overtaking the middle class.
Communistic regulations and socialistic economic style choices are why Europe has more "free" markets. It's the exact opposite of what you think it is. Regulations prevent monopolies, by definition.
True communism is an ideal, an end goal. As I said, it's not feasible without automation overtaking labor as it is, until then, socialism and wealth redistribution is more than enough. We can sit here and link conflicting 'studies' all day, but the fact of the matter is that capitalism, unregulated, is a failing economic system. Look at steemit, and the top witnesses. It's a failure because unregulated capitalism is a failure. Look at the middle-east, look at africa. It's all in plain sight.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit