The title quote is from an article in The Economist titled "The mega-rich have ambitious plans to improve the world. Should that be a cause for celebration or concern?"
They start by talking about all the wonderful things that Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates have done for the world and give glowing reviews of all the so called forward thinking accomplishments these people have made.
I do give The Economist a little credit for at least admitting "Although today’s philanthropists are more visible than those of previous generations, they account for less than a quarter of all charitable giving in America—which has remained roughly constant, at around 2% of GDP, for decades, according to David Callahan of Inside Philanthropy, a specialist website."
Is it truly trailblazing when it is profit motivated?
At no point in the article did they come close to explaining how reaching Mars is going to keep people from dying of starvation this year on earth?
I have never heard a single thing about how Facebook is going to make medical care cheaper and even though Mr. Gates has done a lot of work toward eradicating polio and malaria from the earth, the fact that every penny he spends helps make the extreme profits of the drug industry even higher and as of yet, have not managed to come close to eradicating either disease, leaves me to question are they truly trying to help or is there an ulterior motive.
Add in the fact that the less than 100 people who own 50% of the world are contributing less than 25% of charitable giving and I again have to question the motives.
Money is useless if you can't purchase anything with it
If you read the comments people leave around the internet, chances are good you have heard someone mention something along the line of "our economy has to be this way for it to work". I fully disagree with them.
I believe, the economy has to be this way to ensure only the very few will ever have the chance of having enough money to oppose those in power. Can I prove that? Of course not, but since the 2% of GDP has stayed reasonably constant while the number of ultra-rich has climbed, it is pretty obvious something is out of balance.
The definition of civilized society has changed
Throughout history, various groups have called themselves civilized society. Yet not a single civilized society has ensured the needs of the people are met before the desires of the ultra-rich. In my opinion, for a society to be called civilized, it must ensure that every worker can afford the necessities of life from their earnings.
This is not what has happened in our world.
Technological advances destroys jobs
I am sure few people will deny the fact that computers have done more to help advance technology than most people could image. But, have you ever known of a technological advance that actually created extra jobs? Technology is used to replace workers to save money for the companies. It is cheap to spend $XXXX number of dollars to buy a piece of equipment that requires one person to repair it occasionally than to pay XX number of people each week to do the job manually.
Every new technology signals the death warrant for the technology it replaces and ends up putting every person who used that technology out of work. That would be no big deal if every person who was replaced could be retrained to use the new technology, but when the goal is to reduce costs, the workers are the one who lose. Plus, even in the case where some workers can be retrained, not everyone is capable of being retrained within a reasonable amount of time, often requiring 4 years of schooling to be qualified for the new technology.
How many people do you know that can afford full time college after losing their paycheck? It is not unheard of for a new technology to replace large portions of the employees at every location that uses it.
The majority must come first!
Our economy is designed to make sure the rich gets richer and to take more and more power from the "lesser people". This must change or we will live in a world where the majority will have nothing and lose more and more rights.
Are alternate income sources going far enough
Slowly, new income sources are coming about that do not require you to work for someone else. Companies like Steemit are helping to change lives, but will it ever be enough? If I am honest, I have to say I don't know.
The number cruncher in me thinks it will change many lives in countries where the cost of living is much less than in America. But, it won't be as big of a help to people in America or any other country that has a similar cost of living.
When you think about what $100 will buy in America and compare it to what is will buy in a country where the average monthly income is only $200 and it is not hard to understand why the number cruncher in me feels this way.
Will being involved in multiple similar companies help? I can't answer that. All I can say for sure is Steemit offers more than just a monetary opportunity. I am not going anywhere, but I am starting to think I may need to seek other sources of income.