I really liked this summary attempting to answer the compelling question i.e. the title. It's interesting to consider how our culture produced this prescient view as seen through ChatGPT's mind. I would like to be part of any group effort to carry these thoughts into action. Thanks for initiating this, Alicia. Really.
So well written, Alicia. I felt this part really hard: "There is so longer an aspirational middle class in America. You’re either on one side of this divide or the other. And wherever you are, you either feel in control of your own life, or you don’t."
Thank you for providing a really clear, vivid critique and some suggestions for a way forward.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree with the notion that it would be preferable to live in a world where people other than the wealthy didn’t have to work for a living. Where I think we may differ is on whether or not this is feasible in 2024 given current levels of technology and output - both here in America and globally.
A few specific points I wanted to engage on:
1. Before capitalism, humanity was in a state of grinding poverty. Malnutrition and disease were rampant, illiteracy was nearly universal, etc. etc. Today, the global standard of living has never been higher - that’s true whether you look at aggregate statistics or median personal income. None of this is to ignore the problems with capitalism, just to center the fact that we don’t yet have an alternate system that generates an equivalent level of prosperity at our current level of technology.
2. US GDP per capita is $81k/yr, world GDP per capita is $13k/yr. At those levels of output there really isn’t enough of everything to go around, and there needs to be some kind of allocation system. A society can use prices or it can use rationing, but regardless it is going to have to choose who gets what. In 2024 scarcity is a hard fact, not a social construct.
3. Eliminating monetary incentives to work as you suggest isn’t something to be undertaken lightly, because the current state of research indicates a significant reduction of hours worked (aka output) when people are given a meaningful basic income (a couple thousand dollars per month). We’re already living in a world without abundance, so adopting policies that will certainly reduce aggregate output seems ill-advised.
RE 1: I think our collectively held definition of “prosperity” is perhaps on the list of things it would be worth interrogating to make sure we’re optimizing for human well-being and not just status/wealth hierarchies. Capitalism has definitely been an engine for human technological advancement in ways that modern society reflects, but it’s been at a cost that is often deeply undervalued. Whether it’s a price we can continue to pay against both ecological and sociological constraints is an open question.
RE 2: GDP is a problematic measure of value worthy of its own future post (on the list!) but the more basic issue around scarcity being a “hard fact” deserves, to my mind, a little bit more scrutiny. We’ve heavily over-indexed our system for the production of low-cost “luxury” goods and under-indexed for essentials for human existence. Consider the cost of a manicure ($10-$15) or any widget on Amazon ($8-$15) versus the cost of a loaf of bread ($7-$10?) or a head of lettuce ($4-$6). Without really understanding the implications, we’ve decided that individual preferences are the best way to guide supply without fully appreciating how status hierarchy drives consumption in a highly hierarchical society. I’m not arguing that rations are a better way of allocating resources than prices. But we could make collective decisions for collective well-being and invest public resources in capabilities that could increase supply (and reduce price) of both commodities and services that enhance collective human well-being, rather than letting the wealth accumulation hierarchy drive how individuals and governments allocate resources.
RE 3: I’m not arguing for a UBI, as simply injecting unearned income into the capitalist structure only serves to lesson the coercive pressure most low-income people experience to engage in wage slavery. While I do think that there is unpaid labor (like childcare) that should be compensated by the government, the solidarity economy concept is about more than that. It’s about what happens when a group of people decide to generate new value for a community from a place of collective concern, like a co-op. Participation in a co-op structure may demand a labor contribution (like Park Slope Food Co-Op), and you could argue there’s no difference between the coercion of wage slavery and the coercion of a labor contribution to a co-operative, but one has neutral to net-negative impact and one has net-positive impact (likely) on both the individual and the community that their co-operative asset seeks to serve.
I’m inclined to invite my friend Leo @Leo Guinan to engage here on scarcity as he has many more fully formed thoughts on abundance than I do!
1) On the first point regarding prosperity, I deliberately named ills (malnutrition, disease, illiteracy) which I think we can all agree are obstacles to human flourishing. Capitalism has helped to dramatically reduce all three of those evils over the last three hundred years. If there are other metrics you think are worth looking at, then that's great. Certainly *industrialization* (in both capitalist and communist varieties) has come with a variety of environmental costs from global warming all the way on down to local issues, and governments have a lot of work to do there.
I don't understand your point about "sociological constraints" - if you're talking about status and wealth hierarchies, I would argue that it is confusing cause and effect to attribute those to capitalism. We have lots of anthropological evidence (ex. The Pyramids) that humans organize themselves into status hierarchies in the absence of capitalism.
2) I come not to praise GDP per capita, just to reference it as a useful yardstick of economic output. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that scarcity being a hard fact deserves more scrutiny: You give examples of prices that you think are out of kilter (you seem to think food is too expensive and widgets on Amazon are too cheap), but I don't understand how that contradicts the notion of scarcity being real. Can you explain?
I also don't understand your assertion that "we've decided that individual preferences are the best way to guide supply..." In the US, government spending is ~35% of GDP. To put it another way, a third of demand is coming from the government rather than firms or individuals. Clearly, like most countries we have adopted a mixed approach to structuring our economy. Individuals, firms, and governments all shape economic output.
To your point on making "collective decisions," aren't we doing that already? Government taxing, spending, and regulation in a democracy, where the government is controlled by elected representatives, are "collective decisions," no? Your examples of food prices are a perfect illustration of this: a lot of the variation in what individuals pay for groceries in the US versus other countries is attributable to differences in agricultural subsidies and various regulations, i.e. "collective decisions." Similarly, the US has "collectively decided" to have extensive government subsidy programs to help people with low incomes buy food.
If all of this is just your way of saying that you think the government should subsidize fresh food more than it does, then I agree with you! I just find the abstract language very confusing.
3) What do you mean by the term "wage slavery"? I assume you see it as distinct from "wage labor" in some meaningful way. Do you think there is some kind of moral issue with people needing to work for a living?
I don't really understand your argument about the superiority of a co-op structure, especially because you seem to acknowledge that fundamentally, obligatory work is obligatory work. Why do you think that "one has neutral to net-negative impact and one has net-positive impact (likely) on both the individual and the community that their co-operative asset seeks to serve."?
I really liked this summary attempting to answer the compelling question i.e. the title. It's interesting to consider how our culture produced this prescient view as seen through ChatGPT's mind. I would like to be part of any group effort to carry these thoughts into action. Thanks for initiating this, Alicia. Really.
Thanks, Nick. It can be difficult to bring the air. We breathe into consciousness. But it’s important!
So well written, Alicia. I felt this part really hard: "There is so longer an aspirational middle class in America. You’re either on one side of this divide or the other. And wherever you are, you either feel in control of your own life, or you don’t."
Thank you for providing a really clear, vivid critique and some suggestions for a way forward.
Thank you Courtney. It’s hard to articulate all the feelings wrapped up in a “system” that has so many unseen parts.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree with the notion that it would be preferable to live in a world where people other than the wealthy didn’t have to work for a living. Where I think we may differ is on whether or not this is feasible in 2024 given current levels of technology and output - both here in America and globally.
A few specific points I wanted to engage on:
1. Before capitalism, humanity was in a state of grinding poverty. Malnutrition and disease were rampant, illiteracy was nearly universal, etc. etc. Today, the global standard of living has never been higher - that’s true whether you look at aggregate statistics or median personal income. None of this is to ignore the problems with capitalism, just to center the fact that we don’t yet have an alternate system that generates an equivalent level of prosperity at our current level of technology.
2. US GDP per capita is $81k/yr, world GDP per capita is $13k/yr. At those levels of output there really isn’t enough of everything to go around, and there needs to be some kind of allocation system. A society can use prices or it can use rationing, but regardless it is going to have to choose who gets what. In 2024 scarcity is a hard fact, not a social construct.
3. Eliminating monetary incentives to work as you suggest isn’t something to be undertaken lightly, because the current state of research indicates a significant reduction of hours worked (aka output) when people are given a meaningful basic income (a couple thousand dollars per month). We’re already living in a world without abundance, so adopting policies that will certainly reduce aggregate output seems ill-advised.
Ben
RE 1: I think our collectively held definition of “prosperity” is perhaps on the list of things it would be worth interrogating to make sure we’re optimizing for human well-being and not just status/wealth hierarchies. Capitalism has definitely been an engine for human technological advancement in ways that modern society reflects, but it’s been at a cost that is often deeply undervalued. Whether it’s a price we can continue to pay against both ecological and sociological constraints is an open question.
RE 2: GDP is a problematic measure of value worthy of its own future post (on the list!) but the more basic issue around scarcity being a “hard fact” deserves, to my mind, a little bit more scrutiny. We’ve heavily over-indexed our system for the production of low-cost “luxury” goods and under-indexed for essentials for human existence. Consider the cost of a manicure ($10-$15) or any widget on Amazon ($8-$15) versus the cost of a loaf of bread ($7-$10?) or a head of lettuce ($4-$6). Without really understanding the implications, we’ve decided that individual preferences are the best way to guide supply without fully appreciating how status hierarchy drives consumption in a highly hierarchical society. I’m not arguing that rations are a better way of allocating resources than prices. But we could make collective decisions for collective well-being and invest public resources in capabilities that could increase supply (and reduce price) of both commodities and services that enhance collective human well-being, rather than letting the wealth accumulation hierarchy drive how individuals and governments allocate resources.
RE 3: I’m not arguing for a UBI, as simply injecting unearned income into the capitalist structure only serves to lesson the coercive pressure most low-income people experience to engage in wage slavery. While I do think that there is unpaid labor (like childcare) that should be compensated by the government, the solidarity economy concept is about more than that. It’s about what happens when a group of people decide to generate new value for a community from a place of collective concern, like a co-op. Participation in a co-op structure may demand a labor contribution (like Park Slope Food Co-Op), and you could argue there’s no difference between the coercion of wage slavery and the coercion of a labor contribution to a co-operative, but one has neutral to net-negative impact and one has net-positive impact (likely) on both the individual and the community that their co-operative asset seeks to serve.
I’m inclined to invite my friend Leo @Leo Guinan to engage here on scarcity as he has many more fully formed thoughts on abundance than I do!
1) On the first point regarding prosperity, I deliberately named ills (malnutrition, disease, illiteracy) which I think we can all agree are obstacles to human flourishing. Capitalism has helped to dramatically reduce all three of those evils over the last three hundred years. If there are other metrics you think are worth looking at, then that's great. Certainly *industrialization* (in both capitalist and communist varieties) has come with a variety of environmental costs from global warming all the way on down to local issues, and governments have a lot of work to do there.
I don't understand your point about "sociological constraints" - if you're talking about status and wealth hierarchies, I would argue that it is confusing cause and effect to attribute those to capitalism. We have lots of anthropological evidence (ex. The Pyramids) that humans organize themselves into status hierarchies in the absence of capitalism.
2) I come not to praise GDP per capita, just to reference it as a useful yardstick of economic output. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that scarcity being a hard fact deserves more scrutiny: You give examples of prices that you think are out of kilter (you seem to think food is too expensive and widgets on Amazon are too cheap), but I don't understand how that contradicts the notion of scarcity being real. Can you explain?
I also don't understand your assertion that "we've decided that individual preferences are the best way to guide supply..." In the US, government spending is ~35% of GDP. To put it another way, a third of demand is coming from the government rather than firms or individuals. Clearly, like most countries we have adopted a mixed approach to structuring our economy. Individuals, firms, and governments all shape economic output.
To your point on making "collective decisions," aren't we doing that already? Government taxing, spending, and regulation in a democracy, where the government is controlled by elected representatives, are "collective decisions," no? Your examples of food prices are a perfect illustration of this: a lot of the variation in what individuals pay for groceries in the US versus other countries is attributable to differences in agricultural subsidies and various regulations, i.e. "collective decisions." Similarly, the US has "collectively decided" to have extensive government subsidy programs to help people with low incomes buy food.
If all of this is just your way of saying that you think the government should subsidize fresh food more than it does, then I agree with you! I just find the abstract language very confusing.
3) What do you mean by the term "wage slavery"? I assume you see it as distinct from "wage labor" in some meaningful way. Do you think there is some kind of moral issue with people needing to work for a living?
I don't really understand your argument about the superiority of a co-op structure, especially because you seem to acknowledge that fundamentally, obligatory work is obligatory work. Why do you think that "one has neutral to net-negative impact and one has net-positive impact (likely) on both the individual and the community that their co-operative asset seeks to serve."?
Lots to think about here. Will be sure to address your questions in future posts!