/lit/ - Literature

>>11918248
That's an interesting one, are you saying that the middle class grows in the west as they proportionately offshore their lower class to the 3rd world? It's a very interesting point except for the actual wealth creation process itself where the wealth in the west increased and the wealth in developing countries increased as well. It would be interesting if one country became wealthy as another became poor or maybe a different dynamic that creates the same outcome of outsourcing that class but when trade and a global division of labour allows both economies to grow I'm not so sure we can come to that conclusion. Hell they outsourced to China and now Chinese wages are rising so much that Mexicans are now the defacto cheap labour force and the chinese are becoming too middle class to maintain their position as THE labour force for the west. I guess we could look at it as global classism but yeah.

>>11735791
> The freerier (dunno if that is correct) the markets, the more capitalists are able to do what they want with workers, which in turn will lead to these employers accumulate the most of the wealth. Look at workers condition in the most economically free markets, and you'll see. Of course these places with especially free markets will be very rich, but the issue is on how this wealth is distributed.
Yes we all know Marx's predictions but how you respond to almost an entire century (that's 100 years for those of you not keeping up) of growth in living standards, caloric intake, average incomes, life expectancy and so on? Literally the opposite happened for a century as the middle class was created and we got to the point where home ownership reached peaks of 70 fucking %.....how is that not pause for thought when people were claiming more and more people would be forced into manual labour and the rich would be hoarding all the wealth and property ownership would cycle only to the top over time? Is everyone forgetting that not many people owned property, had social mobility or could escape poverty in the middle ages.....the figures are there for you to see.

You're just looking at recent figures under a corporatist and socialist blended system and going "see! the 1% have a higher share of stuff" and then arguments divert to the useless discussions about "yes but the economy is not a fixed pie so wealth created and handed 90-10 to one group is not taking anything away from anyone" and so on. It's all rather tedious.

> Look at workers condition in the most economically free markets, and you'll see.
See what? You look at varying different times and you see workers conditions rising with productivity and capital goods from capital investment of saved profits, you see work hours dropping, wages increasing, this wasn't done in a Union vacuum.
> Of course these places with especially free markets will be very rich, but the issue is on how this wealth is distributed.
That's sorting implying that everyone else remains poor or becomes poorer? They have statistics on average incomes, incomes per sector, incomes per job, living standards, life expectancy and so on. We can see whether people are better off or worse off and yes in places like Hong Kong and Chile people became significantly better off. To the point where poor people in China would flee to HK to live in cages just at the chance to get a menial job there and climb the ladder that exists in HK.

A little bit of a Capitalism and remember all those "$1 a day, slave wages"? Well pic related:

Sorry for jumping into the discussion but I just don't understand why all of this ignored? Hate Capitalism all you want, lump it in with Corporatism, idealize a better society according to your values, no worries but why ignore clear demonstrable results according to different economic environments we can observe through history?