I wouldn't say that's true, we just need to figure out ways to produce those things cheaply enough (through automation, other technologies) that everyone can enjoy them. Take a look at agriculture in the US...even the poorest people here have access to (not very healthy) food whereas just under 100 years ago many were starving in the Great Depression. This is because agricultural technology has led us to an abundance of cheap food that everyone can afford at some level or another.
But, therein lies a paradox, right? I mean, when you seek to lower the cost of production through automation, technology, etc. you wind up displacing human workers, reducing labor demand, and putting downward pressure on wages. BTW, I'll add that lower wages are another significant way that companies reduce costs/prices.
The net result is that profits increase, which benefits a relative few rich, while the quality of life for many is reduced or stagnant at best.
In other words, this "race-to-the-bottom" walmart-ization of our economy seems to be, in large part, responsible for the income disparity we see today. Perhaps the poorest who would otherwise starve are benefited (even if through entitlements or aid which can now go further), and of course that's a very good thing. But, on balance, the world's wealth is accumulating to a very small number of people at an accelerating pace.
There is hardly a paradox. Automation causes small term problems but great long term benefits. I won't go too far in history. But as early 1980's India saw massive protests and Nation wide bandhs to protest introduction of computers(and other automation) in the country. People just could not get themselves to accept that their jobs will be replaced by machines. But that event came to pass anyway. Many problems to people of that era in India, are even unknown to the youngsters in India now.
>>The net result is that profits increase, which benefits a relative few rich, while the quality of life for many is reduced or stagnant at best.
Again, I completely disagree. If you keep changing the definition of poor frequently then its nearly impossible to eradicate poverty ever. Poverty today is nothing like what it was even a century ago.
>> the world's wealth is accumulating to a very small number of people at an accelerating pace.
The world's wealth will always accumulate at places, professions and people which benefit from economies of scale. It doesn't matter which system of economics those people are in.
It does the poor no good if they can't even afford the cheapest good.
1.) That no matter how cheap we make things, it does no good if the production of those goods causes some to be so much poorer (even down to zero) that they still cannot afford it.
If that's what you meant, then we are in agreement.
2.) That we need to make things cheaper however we can, so that the poorest can afford it.
If that was your point, then well, that's the paradox. Some are poor (or poorer) because of the measures taken to produce cheap goods.
I think you meant 1.) but wasn't sure.
In the US, about 85% of households are "food secure". Non-capitalist sources -- eg, charities or government assistance -- close the gap for about 9% of households, and in the remaining 6% of households one or more people are missing meals.
I don't really think that's a success.
Meanwhile there are more people than the entire population of the US starving else where. I'd hazard the guess that that's worse than at any other time in history.
[1] Side quibble: 94% is capitalism + socialism; capitalism alone is only giving you 85%, and that's if you don't count minimum wage as non-capitalist.
[1] This BTW may explain why new middle class in emerging economies tends to consist of real estate people, doctors, lawyers and (true in ex-USSR countries) government bureaucrats: they get to benefit from growing GDP first.
The problem is the cost of land, not the manufacturing of homes, per se.
Interesting grouping, as each is more or less fully depended on government to limit supply and create scarcity. The only really exception looks to be housing.
Education is information, and information is only held limited thanks to copyright.
Health care seem to spend most of its money to pay for patents.
Legal expenses differ strongly between countries and different legal system. Some demand the loosing party to pay for both sides, some demand that both side pay their own costs, and lastly some ask government to provide/pay for legal aid. In system where looser pay (or government), there tend to be limits on how much a lawyer can demand.
I saw just a story yesterday (?) on I think KPIX news of a family bringing in less than $1700 a month (living in San Jose mind you) and they filmed her going to the food bank. Her grocery bags were filled with fresh produce! I thought that was pretty neat.
Maybe staged for the cameras or a lucky break.
Most food banks are barely scraping by on whatever hard-work and good-will the volunteers and their community are able to muster.
I would prefer to see this family (probably working pretty hard right now) to make a living income, with their children seeing the rewards that their parent's hard work and discipline has brought them.
Maybe not spending $75,000 on artisanal strippers in one night, but a fulfilling life of self-agency.
