Living standards have gotten better because of advances in technology, and advances in technology alone. The gap between common worker and CEO has increased. Umemployment rates have increased from a spread of 2-8% in the 1950's to a 4-10% spread in this centuery, etc.

Technology is what's responsible for most economic equality now. Most people have TV's, A/C, Heating, Electricity, Cable, Internet, etc all because it's gotten cheaper, not because people are getting paid more uniformly. Plus the difference from a high end TV and a lot end TV now is only a few thousand dollars, or maybe a few years of waiting time.

To compare right now to the past is meaningless, in the little social experiment the OP has brought up. Sure, relative to 20 or 100 years ago, we have more wealth, goods, etc. A lot more people can eat, have shelter, etc. than 100 years ago. But relative to right now, it's still finite. There are "only so many goods" and "only so many resources" right now. Resources will never exceed our wants and needs (scarcity). And because of that, we have to compete for them. And since those resources are limited, at some point, the fact that I was able to obtain said resource results in someone else not being able to obtain it. If I have something (1) and another person doesn't (0), well, 1 does not equal 0. If we aren't equal then we are unequal.

edit: and please don't take this as me wanting there to be perfect economic equality. I don't think we should. It's good to have income inequality. If you work hard, become skilled, and work a difficult job, you should be compensated more than someone mopping floors. Is the income gap in the US large? Yes, and I would like it to shrink because it's ridiculous, but at the same time, we shouldn't all make the same amount of money either. I'm just defending my point that economic equality doesn't exist in capitalism.

wtf is going on in the html here?

Anyway, you're thinking short-term only. Yes, in the short-run i can spend $60 on a new video game or a decent-priced family dinner at a restaurant, but not both. However that is only true in the short term. In the long term, value is generated through increased demand for goods and services, which props up from technological advances making our lives easier, population growth, and efficient allocations of labor in the market. This demand prompts long-term investment and the lending and re-lending of money, which increases the amount of "value" in the financial sense in the long term as well.

Well sure it does.  First off if that is true... it wouldn't make sense to vote down future economic gains for a slight equaling out now.

It's really just a matter if you believe marx's perspective on people or not.

He thought "Most people don't care about how big or small their houses are, only how big or small their neighbors houses are."

Me... I don't feel like that, and i'd like to think most other people don't too...

given the choice between living the same  or similar life as someone else, or an uneven life where i'm worse off then them... but still have more stuff....

I take the second scenario any day of the week.

I 100% agree with you, but more often then not, the weathier people in todays society did not work for their money, they inherited it.

For instance I have a friend who works at a private golf course. The bulk of players there are either retired, or youth who drive Audi R8's at 19.

The spread between CEO and common worked is growing, quickly. in 1910 the average CEO made 40x as much as an everage employer, not it's more like 800x. Sure companies are getting larger, but this just means fewer and fewer "families" are getting richer and richer. I think corporate taxes, and the taxes of high income individuals (people who generate over 1 million in income annually) needs to be increased. There is no use for this much income, you don't need a multiple Ferrarri's, only to see them depreciate because you don't drive them. However we do need more funding in Education, Roads, Homeless shellters, Mental Health Research Facilities, etc.

One must recall that Marx believed that the old middle class (the Petite Bourgouesie, small shop owners and tradesmen) would be completely eliminated by the capitalist class and that the new middle class as we know them would never emerge. His thought was that capitalist society would be almost entirely the super-rich or the squalid laboring masses, eventually.

Yeah, but I don't think that really changed his perspective on base human mindset.

It would be fascinating to see his thoughts on the new middle class. (or what's left of it.)

Would it change his entire thesis... or would he turn his back on them, and essentially claim that it was a trick by the rich to give the poor something to aspire too that almost nobody could fufill...

and chide the union middleclass for the tactics it takes to exclude and keep others out.  (A lot of union shops essentially require a union members sponsorship to even be considered for example.)

I had previously thought the former.  However the more i read about Marx the man, i believe it would be the latter.   Marx was a true beleiver, giving away pretty much all the money he made, and his wife inhereted to the cause in various countries.

Often having to live off others to survive, including his more pragmatic partner in crime, Engles.

He deplored socialist and "marxist" parties within governments that ran for elections, saying that those parties coud be nothing more but puppets for the elite.

He was a great observer and dreamer.  Unfortunitly, the latter i think often got in the way of the former.

Thanks for the most insanely idiot post I've read on here, since, well... ever.

Yes. Freedom allows those with talent to walk over the less talented. Without the gov to opress the intelligent and prop up those worthless to society we cannot have any semblance of economic equality

Nice trolling.

You seem to confuse "people being rewarded based on their contribution" with "people being given gifts based on their contribution". What I'm talking about is a society where those who contribute more get more money as a general rule. Not some great judgment system where a person's worth is determined by some sort of panel or authority, but where society does it automatically, through ordinary economic processes.

For you see, the whole capitalist vs communist dichotomy is a false dichotomy. It is possible for a properly-created system to bring the best of both sides, by doing things like utilising market forces to achieve better equality. I've even got a few ideas on that front as a specific starting point, although they're too detailed to put here, and a quick summary wouldn't do them justice.

Beyond that, there are features of modern democracies that are rather outdated. The 24 hour news cycle has destroyed a large portion of the political system that worked well 100 years ago - the result is a combination of corruption and populism. 100 years ago, people became politicians to make a difference - it's as much about public exposure as anything else now, thanks to TV. There are more, but this isn't really the place for an essay.

Nice job ignoring the actual point of my post, though.