What makes you jump to the conclusion that technology investment, or capitalism, or whatever you think is "bad" is "at the expense of others?"
Currently, about 10% of the world's population lives in extreme poverty. It was 12% in 2012. It was 40% in 1990.
The history of the world, post-war 20th century, is one of extreme progress for the lives of real people -- especially really poor people.
So, what do you think drove that change? Was it shaping a society that "works for everyone?" Or was it technology and the efficient allocation of capital?
I'd argue that it was the latter, because I can look at the world and find the places where people have remained extremely poor, where people have starved to death in large numbers, and it's not hard to see that it happens in the places where technology and capital are stopped.
Before modern markets were (slowly) permitted to function in China and India, lots and lots of people died of hunger. Way more than today. The lives of nearly everyone in the former USSR became much better when the wall fell. It's still pretty terrible to live in North Korea. Right now in Venezuala people are starving, and there are hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating on the streets.
I'm fine with "the oligarchs" getting rich, by comparison.
This may surprise you, but people defined as "living in extreme poverty" weren't always unhappy to be there. Western standards of affluence are the economic default, but they don't include any measure of happiness, fulfilment, or contentment.
The factors that generate the last three are largely unrelated to median income. In fact they reliably go down when neoliberal "efficient allocation of capital" becomes the dominant ideology.
People are starving in the US and UK too. Did you know that around 15% of US households cannot consistently afford food, while more than 5% have "very low food security" which includes persistent periods of hunger or malnourishment?
I'm not sure if you mean to be hitting on old Marxist tropes on purpose or if you've just absorbed some of the talking points, but I highly doubt that any poll of people who lived outside of "western standards of affluence" and then later inside of them would reveal that people actually like affluence.
Yes, median household income has stagnated in the U.S. since 2000, while both the low-end and the high-end have improved. Can you support your claim that it this correlates with "neoliberal" policies? Where in the world has life gotten better that you think is a better model? Can you please name a place on earth where something other than free-market capitalism has proven successful?
I never claimed that no one in the U.S. or U.K. was in poverty. I claimed fewer were than before, and fewer are than in countries will less access to technology and capital.
Your other point -- that people in extreme poverty can actually be happier -- well, I don't know what to say. Feeding starving people more often seems like an intrinsically worthy goal to me. I can't imagine the pain of not having enough food for my children.
>> 15% of US households cannot consistently afford food, .. 5% hunger
What food are we talking about ? because basic grains, etc - the kind of meals indians eat, for ex.(and are very healthy and pretty tasty) - are extremely cheap. So is 15% possible ?
Currently, about 10% of the world's population lives in extreme poverty. It was 12% in 2012. It was 40% in 1990.
The history of the world, post-war 20th century, is one of extreme progress for the lives of real people -- especially really poor people.
So, what do you think drove that change? Was it shaping a society that "works for everyone?" Or was it technology and the efficient allocation of capital?
I'd argue that it was the latter, because I can look at the world and find the places where people have remained extremely poor, where people have starved to death in large numbers, and it's not hard to see that it happens in the places where technology and capital are stopped.
Before modern markets were (slowly) permitted to function in China and India, lots and lots of people died of hunger. Way more than today. The lives of nearly everyone in the former USSR became much better when the wall fell. It's still pretty terrible to live in North Korea. Right now in Venezuala people are starving, and there are hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating on the streets.
I'm fine with "the oligarchs" getting rich, by comparison.