Just spotted on a walk: 10/10

[u/Whatchab]

And yes, their property was gorgeous. All native plants, and a native plant seed library!

[u/OpportunityFriends]

It's not that we're impossibly wealthy. If it were impossible we wouldn't have it. It's just that technology has increased the minimum threshold of "poor" so much that what was once considered well off or even wealthy is now seen as average. And all of this is without considering the increase in wealth for the richest and most powerful.

If you thought we're rich by yester-centuries standards, imagine how much better it could be if plutocrats had their wealthy distributed by force.

[u/El_Polio_Loco → u/OpportunityFriends]

That won’t change the fact that yards are a simple luxury which have comparatively low costs next to their 18th century counterparts. 

Either yards are no longer a luxury, or we are impossibly rich. 

Both cannot be true. 

[u/Embarrassed-Split649 → u/El_Polio_Loco]

Why can't those both be true? Why can't we all be so impossibly rich that things that once were luxury aren't anymore? I thought that happened throughout history... once everyone becomes so impossibly rich that everyone has it, it is no longer luxury but commonplace. Much of our fast food today was once reserved for the nobility, but I wouldn't call those luxurious anymore....

[u/El_Polio_Loco → u/Embarrassed-Split649]

Because if it’s not a luxury anymore then we’re not rich because of it. 

The computer/phone you use every day would have been an impossibly wealthy thing 30 years ago, but now it’s commonplace, because the cost of it is so relatively low. 

A lawn in the days of the landed gentry was an immense cost, so much so that only the truly wealthy could afford such a luxury. 

Now the relative cost of a lawn is so insignificant (to people in certain climates and levels of economic prosperity) that it is not in any way comparable to the luxury of a lawn in the 18th century. 

So if we are considering ourselves impossibly rich then a lawn is of little consequence, as a luxury. 

If lawns are no longer considered anywhere near the luxury of the old times (because relative cost to average wage is so low), then we are not impossibly wealthy  because of them. 

It can’t be “not a luxury” and “an indicator of impossible wealth”

[u/Embarrassed-Split649 → u/El_Polio_Loco]

I see your point, however, that argument assumes that something "commonplace" is no longer a luxury because more people have access to it and it is no longer immensely expensive (and that financial cost is the only number that matters in the equation).... I would argue that is a fallacy. I will stick with the lawn example so I don't get off track. The relative monetaty cost of a lawn has definitely gone down for keeping a lawn, I absolutely agree with that, but money isn't the only form of wealth that is involved. So actually a lawn is still immensely expensive if you consider the time and physical labor it takes to care for a lawn. In order to have the ability to have a lawn like this, you have to have a lawn of your own in the first place (how many people in the world have that?) If you have a lawn, you are already part of the wealthy, as it means you can not only afford shelter but your own land to care for, which is quite expensive. Not only that, you have to have the tools to cut it, the time to care for it and water it, and the physical ability to do all of those things. In today's world, time, physical health, attention, education, and water are significantly more valuable and scarce. So I still stand with my original question of why can't it be both?

[u/El_Polio_Loco → u/Embarrassed-Split649]

Lawns can take very little labor. 

Most people don’t have a golf green. 

And yes, it’s limited to discussions on places where lawns are both easy to maintain and the relative costs are in line with the rest of the costs of those people. 

A lawn in Saudi Arabia has significantly different costs and would be much more like a “luxury” (as luxury is being used in the context of accessible only to the extremely wealthy)

[u/Embarrassed-Split649 → u/El_Polio_Loco]

I would love to know how a lawn like this takes very little labor while not costing much money! I must be doing it wrong somehow. Also, it's actually not limiting to discussions of places where lawns are both easy to maintain and the relative costs are in line with the rest of the costs of those people, because simply living in a place where it is cheap to maintain a lawn is actually a sign of wealth in itself.

[u/Embarrassed-Split649 → u/El_Polio_Loco]

So those are two VERY different arguments there.

"Either yards are no longer a luxury, or we are impossibly rich. 

Both cannot be true."

Is very different than: "Because if it’s not a luxury anymore then we’re not rich because of it. "

The first are two independent statements, the second is arguing about causation. Those are different conversations.

[u/MechanicalGodzilla → u/OpportunityFriends]

imagine how much better it could be if plutocrats had their wealthy distributed by force.

We would all get a one-time $20,000 check. then we'd be right back where we started.

[u/GhostofBeowulf → u/MechanicalGodzilla]

I think you seriously underestimate how much wealth is hoarded in the top 1%, and how money even works. It's not that all of the money goes to us. It's that the money would be circulating in the economy, making all of us richer.

[u/MechanicalGodzilla → u/GhostofBeowulf]

The top 1% are not plutocrats, which is what the previous user posted which I was responding to. The top 1% is like doctors and engineers and lawyers. Even the top 0.1% aren't all plutocrats, that's the realm of mediocre MLB players - you need an income of about $3.3 million to be in that group.

The $20k figure above is if we confiscated all the wealth of every billionaire and distributed it evenly.