EileenKiffin
David Jaša@KiffinEileen at world average GDP per capita of around $1k/month (or $12k/year), no, it's not just the one. It's both. 🫤
@Bossito
David Mitchell 
Such a broad generalization obscures rather than reveals.
For example, An annual income of $3,000US puts someone into the middle class in Indonesia.
This means that the median Canadian income could comfortably pull two Indonesians from complete destitution into the middle class with only a 10% reduction in income.
There’s enough, we need to address inequity.
AND, incidentally: $1B could bring 300,000 destitute Indonesians from destitution to the middle class.
$4.6B would provide the $2 a day needed to end extreme destitution in Indonesia altogether (6M ppl) and that is only 0.36% of the combined net worth of only the top ten richest people in the world. (ie 36 *cents* for every $100 they own)
@DavidM_yeg @KiffinEileen @Bossito would it be possible to be actual middle class with that income in way less unequal world? In less unequal world many services and some goods (at least clothing and shoes) would get so much more expensive that I doubt it.
That sounds suspiciously like you’re saying that the only way to keep life ‘affordable’ for ‘everyone’ is to ensure that some people can’t make it and die from want.
Or if you’re saying it would result in a world in which we are all more less equally poor, rather than one in which beggars starve to death outside the gates of modern palaces: I prefer option one.
@DavidM_yeg @Bossito @KiffinEileen I want a world where everybody has effective access to drinking water, nutrition, housing, clothing, healthcare, education etc. without struggling to make ends meet and I doubt that that's possible by redistribution alone.
Seems like it would take us a whole lot nearer to your goal rather than farther away, yes?
@DavidM_yeg @Bossito @KiffinEileen sure. However in rich and "rich" countries as well, this GDP after sensible taxes (~30-55 % depending on the level of govt services) doesn't get you over poverty line - and that's with cross subsidies in form of purchases from even poorer people (again, clothes or some food).
@DavidM_yeg @Bossito @KiffinEileen of course, part of the gap is caused by intertwined self-inflicted harms of systemic #NIMBY-sm and #carDependency, however I doubt that fixing them would suffice to bridge it.
A bit similar thing is with global warming. We by all mean need to stop emit CO₂ ASAP. However that isn't enough, for stable climate, we need to find a way to get it to some 350-300 ppm...
The OP’s point is that we have a consumption problem, not a production problem. In the century we have multiplied production dramatically but inequality grows because we have a consumption problem. And we aren’t dealing with inequality, instead it’s getting worse by leaps and bounds. We could feed and house so many more people, right now, by addressing this issue head on.
@DavidM_yeg The problem here is IMO mixing two things - (primary) resource consumption versus economic output. To solve climate change _and_ global poverty, we need to shrink former while expanding latter at least for foreseeable decades.
Unfortunately most of 'degrowth' discourse doesn't make this distinction either accidentally or by purpose.
@KiffinEileen @Bossito
It seems quite simple to me… we will make the quickest and largest improvements by reducing consumption of the wealthiest, the disproportion is stunning. For CO2 as an example, reductions at the top would produce much needed breathing room at the bottom.
@DavidM_yeg The devil can be in methodology, I hope that IEA does address various gotchas (i.e. my country is IIRC at 12 t/person-year, however if you substract industrial consumption, it drops to 8. And just reducing this industrial consumption could easily mean spawning of the same industry in some country with less stringent regulations - likely increasing global emissions).
Doing this right - with actual results as opposed to just symbols - is tricky.
@Bossito @KiffinEileen
@Bossito @KiffinEileen @djasa
More important that we start doing right now as opposed to debating until we get a perfect plan that we all agree ends in a perfectly sustainable future.
The low hanging fruit is a good place to start, so let’s start right now… cut unnecessary emissions/consumption by the wealthiest, and do it comprehensively and collectively, rather than through tokenized gestures by individuals.
More important that we start doing right now as opposed to debating until we get a perfect plan that we all agree ends in a perfectly sustainable future.
The low hanging fruit is a good place to start, so let’s start right now… cut unnecessary emissions/consumption by the wealthiest, and do it comprehensively and collectively, rather than through tokenized gestures by individuals.
For us here in north America, a place to start is proper functional mass transit, built and mobilized with emergency/wartime speed to replace private vehicles. That, along with properly and aggressively progressive income/asset taxation, and sky-high consumption taxes on unnecessary luxury travel, would be a start at least.
Also, as a person living in Alberta, centre of big Oil&Gas in Canada, where we elected a government that placed a 14 month moratorium on new renewable energy projects but lets refineries to run decades without environmental review … the biggest challenge will be getting enough popular support to move. Inequity is a good way to do that, people will be easier to move when they see folks ‘above’ them making real sacrifices.
vitzy
clango@KiffinEileen Great picture! In Italy, few days ago, a government minister, he said, not in my name, that the poor often eat better than the rich because, by looking for low-cost purchases from the producer, they buy quality.😭
🍸Pooka🥕Boo🍸
Eric LibertadSatisfying the rich is impossible, their greed is infinite
Daybed Baby
Jo ♀️🐈🐈⬛🛍️🌛🥂
Klaus Frank@KiffinEileen Not quite, poverty exists because eliminating it would cause the rich to no longer have "working slaves" and people would choose to not do shitty work for shitty people, but instead would "waste their time" doing stuff they'd actually care about, like maybe starting a community garden or becoming self-sufficient
Just look at the US, being fully and truly self-sufficient is illegal in many places. Even if you own a bit of land
It'd crash the economy and destroy the power structure
@KiffinEileen Technically it doesn't even need "communism" or "anarchy" as the narrative around such proposals often is (esp. in the US).
It would just be good old capitalism. But nobody wants the working class to actually know how to play the game...
But enough people doing this causes systemic changes that will try to put big stones in the way to "stop this trend" or try to spin a narrative like "the new generation doesn't want to work anymore" to force compliance...
@KiffinEileen Oh and it doesn't even have to be that extreme. Just realizing that working is a trade of your time and effort against money is apparently enough as we can see with the pushed new generation stereotype...
And now it is framed as "not going up and beyond" (not working unpaid overtime without any perspective of raise or promotion) or not being available outside of working hours is enough for people in power in the US to get nervous...
The Richie Rich
Frank Cote@KiffinEileen wow Eileen, You’re busy! Nice stuff