Physical resources -outside of oil- is a very 19th century (maybe 18th century) way to look at economic prosperity. All first world economies outside of a handful of gulf states are knowledge-based. The best way to think about world economies is asking the question: how much output can the average person in a country produce in a year? The main natural resource any country can cultivate is its people's capabilities. The US for instance only gets 1.2% of GDP from natural resources. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.TOTL.RT.ZS
There's no utopia, so yes. They'll always be classes of people. Plus there's a wide range of abilities and starting points.
I'm not the one who brought up resources, that was the explanation of why Scandinavian countries are so prosperous, but no evidence of this relative natural resource wealth was actually presented. If you want to argue that resources aren't that big of a thing nowadays, why didn't you respond to 53's post stating that it did matter?
What evidence do you have that there has to be classes of people? Separate question: why does having classes necessitate poverty?
There will always be people who chose to do nothing but the minimum effort to survive. How do you propose to motivate these people to move out of poverty?
I'm confused. Do people born in an impoverished situation have no way out of that situation? Is that what you are saying?
Plus he's wrong. The foundation of all societies is agricultural and resource collection. Now with technology we've reduced the amount of labor needed to provide for the basics of society. through technology only 2.5 percent of the population has to be farmers, instead of 80. That frees those people to provide other services and be productive that other wise couldn't be.
yes, the median. You're right, how dare I accuse you of not looking at the whole population. I mean, you clearly referred to the mid-point of the range where there is an equal chance of falling above it or below it. That's definitely the best way to look at a range...
Once again the cost of living in the Scandinavian countries is 40 percent higher than the United States. is someone better off making $80k a year a high tax area and expensive area like New York City or making $70k in a low tax and low cost area?
Wait. Answer the question. You said it was a choice. When does an infant choose poverty? Or a 5 year old? 15 year old? When is that? You said they choose, just tell me when.
You're very creative about coming up with ways 300 million people can get on using only the free market. Surely you can conjure up some logical proof or reasoning that necessitates classes of people, and further necessitates one of them be impoverished. Should be no problem.
We aren't talking about individuals. What is the basement? What are the worst off people doing and making in each place?
ummm every population we are talking about is a bell curve, not a u, so I'm not sure what's wrong with using the median. I could see your point if I was using the mean. You are still stuck on this ridiculousness that it's better to have 5 people making $50k a year than 2 making $40k and 3 making $100k.
No a child does not chose to be born in poverty. Their parent chose it for them. Who bares the responsibility for that; me and you, or their parents? After you answer that question answer my original question ; do people born in an impoverished situation have no way out of that situation? Is that what you are saying?
