[Wilshire]

Talking about just in the US. Or just in a single country, not a world-wide event.

What would be the economic, political, sociological, or other impacts if the entirety of the poorest group of people died in a country?

"Poor" being anyone without the means, economic or otherwise, to keep themselves and/or their families alive. So pretty much anyone that was homeless and/or uses major government/private/humanitarian subsidies to live off of. Wellfare, food stamps, food pantries, shelters, etc.

Also, would it make a difference if it was some kind of 'rapture' and all those people dissipated, or if it was a conscious decision and/or calamity that caused the slow starvation/death.


You'd have to raise taxes to pay for all the empty buildings, menial jobs would still need to be worked.. The debt owned by those people would still exist and would probably collapse banking systems or require huge bailouts. How many jobs would be lost that are dedicated to helping people in need, those would all be lost. So then those people would be unemployed, and likely replace the lowest wage jobs....

Or would it create a golden age? Its often believed that people who aren't contributing dollars to the economic system drag it down. You'd free up large portions of tax monies to invest in other things, like infrastructure, education, etc. etc. The man-hours dedicated to aiding those people could then be put towards something else. Donations both of money and time could then go somewhere else, further improving other vital aspects of life... Would life continue as normal without much of an impact?

[geoffrobro]

The first world would fall, collapse, and burn. With things like student loans and debt almost anyone under 30 would be gone...
Leaving adults if various income levels, middle class would be the "new poor." and most of them would straight out refuse the new countless low income jobs that were typically saved for immigrants and teenagers. Trashman, fastfood, literary most "dirty jobs."

For the rich it would truly be a golden age, they could finally have their robots serve them coffee at starbucks and places like that. Some communities would be that flying car, jetsons future weve been loking for.
I loke this, this is fun

[Wilshire]

Hmmm, I didn't even mean to consider those with large debts, harder to draw that line. Student loans are easy enough to pay off, at least federal loans with low rates, compared to crippling 20%+ interest credit card debt. But reguardless, I'd say if you can manage to make whatever obligatory payments you have, and still have enough left to eat, cloth, and keep a shelter over your head, you'd not be 'poor' in this scenario (again barring major humanitarian subsidies).


Along the lines of this morbid train of thought, would there have been as much of an outcry if Hitler decided to kill people based on economic value instead of race/religion? Round up all the poor performers and throw them in forced labor camps, etc.

I feel like in most systems, if you cut out he under-performing subset, you effectively raise the overall average. In this case, sure the current middle would then be the "poor" but after the initial purge you'd be left with more productive members of society... But the problem of filling low wage jobs is quite an issue. You'd really be forced to pay those people livable, comfortable salaries to entire people to work them. It would be like suddenly raising the minimum wage to $25/hour. In order to pay for that, companies would have to drive down costs, which would either be finding exceptionally cheap labor abroad for those industries that could, or otherwise relying on the gov't to help them pay the wages of the people now keeping the country running. Thus, increased taxes, punishing those that make money, driving top talent out and away from the country. Then of course the issue of paying the guy cleaning the sewers the same or more than a corporate job, why bother getting an advanced degree.

In a capitalistic society, there doesn't seem to be a way to functionally get rid of the poor economic class for good. You need them to be poor or the system fails. Are all economics a zero sum game like this?

[SilentRoamer]

Until we are capable of energy/matter conversion/creation a la Star Trek replicators we are destined to always have those poorer classes at the bottom of the pile.

Class, socialism and capitalism have existed as long as we have had the ability to communicate; domination and subjugation of others (whether socially, economically or physically) is still a driving force for many - whether at a personal or social/economic collective decision.

So yeah I don't see anything radical happening. All the poor dying at once would mean a new class of poor. Wealth is relative to the system - at least that's how I see it.

Interesting topic.

[Wilshire]

Until we are capable of energy/matter conversion/creation a la Star Trek replicators we are destined to always have those poorer classes at the bottom of the pile.

Class, socialism and capitalism have existed as long as we have had the ability to communicate; domination and subjugation of others (whether socially, economically or physically) is still a driving force for many - whether at a personal or social/economic collective decision.

So yeah I don't see anything radical happening. All the poor dying at once would mean a new class of poor. Wealth is relative to the system - at least that's how I see it.

Interesting topic.

I often see economics as a zero-sum game, though I don't know if thats true or not.

At least regarding energy, producing enough at cheap enough that its essentially free, ie the promise of fusion reactors, would be a big step in that revolution, though it pales in comparison to the mass quantities you for energy to matter conversion.