Most of us here have read this exact story several times over the years, whether it's on LinkedIn, Twitter, or HN. He increases wages after a conversation with an employee, the employees all pitch in to buy him a Tesla out of thankfulness. He's "the $70k min wage guy."
This is honestly worth millions in advertising for Gravity Payments (I remember the name!) for this story to somehow keep popping up.
The dark side is that he keeps milking this story to look like a good person while he was sued for overpaying himself initially, and was accused of domestic abuse by his ex-wife.
Can we stop giving this dude a platform? He embezzled millions of dollars from his brother and co-owner, who later sued him, and him taking a pay cut and increasing his employees' pay was nothing short of a settlement. Not even going to go into the domestic abuse allegations. This guy is a certified scumbag.
I don't know enough about the guy to verify your claims, but my LinkedIn feed is chock full of reposts from this guy. They're all about as philosophically deep as a "live laugh love" wall decoration from Target.
Oh man, YES. This is how I recently discovered the Unfollow button... just couldn't take it anymore. This led to unfollowing almost every recruiter I'm connected to, which led to an immediate and significant increase in the quality of my feed. For example,
No more.
Stupid posts.
Formatted like this.
Because someone at some point thought it was cool.
It's not.
Also no more posts bragging about GeTtInG On ThE PrOpErTy LaDdEr!
I don't know, is everyone's LinkedIn experience as miserable as mine was?
> I don't know, is everyone's LinkedIn experience as miserable as mine was?
I just ignore my feed and rely on it as an address book of people I can contact in my industry / previous places of employment. I don't really want 3000+ phone numbers without the related metadata of where we overlapped.
I didn't know anything about him but my negative opinion was based purely on all the way-too-self-righteous crap from him that I see reshared on reddit and linkedin.
The other thing is that he is using this to seriously cash in on speaking fees for weird boomer lead companies whose leadership eats up his story on linkedin. He makes like 1M+ every year on the speaking circuit getting paid 30k+ per event to speak 45 minutes to dunder mifflin type companies looking to get hyped up. He has a pitch, his top of funnel is his linkedin engagement on his crappy stories, its a grift.
Even if you assume that all those allegations are true (seems like they didn't hold up, but whatever)...
...if it takes a grifter to raise wages in this country, so be it. If it's between grift that helps centralize wealth compared to grift that distributes it, I know what I'm picking.
"Grift" captures the state of affairs perfectly. This is the standard "backup" grift for most public figures, particularly folks such as congressmen, who fail to wangle their way into a lobbyist position, or folks like ex-presidents or ex-presidential-candidates, who can't stoop to the level of being lobbyists (I wonder if there are explicit laws against ex-presidents indulging in lobbying).
This is the first I heard of these allegations. I just took a look at his Wikipedia and the judge sided with him for his brothers case. Unfortunately much harder to prove anything with the domestic abuse. With how much he posts on social media I could imagine him as a “do-gooder” narcissist though.
> He embezzled millions of dollars from his brother and co-owner, who later sued him, and him taking a pay cut and increasing his employees' pay was nothing short of a settlement.
That is not correct. You cannot claim this guy embezzled millions of dollars when his brother lost his lawsuit.
> Gravity Payments' Dan Price--who made headlines around the world last year when he instituted a $70,000 minimum wage at the company he founded--won a resounding victory in a lawsuit brought last year by his brother and co-founder, Lucas Price.
> Judge Doyle wrote in her ruling that "[t]he court finds that Daniel's compensation decisions in 2013 and 2014 were a reasonable business judgment made in good faith," and "[t]he Towers Watson report corroborated the reasonableness of Daniel Price's compensation."
> In her ruling, Judge Doyle said, "There was evidence that Daniel Price used the company credit card for expenses that were not subsequently reimbursed. However, Lucas Price has not proven this claim"--along with many others he made in his lawsuit, judging from her decision.
I don't understand why this was downvoted. Are the cited articles incorrect? Is context missing? I came to this sub-thread to learn about the guy, and this comment seemed to have the most authoritative quotes and links.
But it's been downvoted to the bottom, as if something is wrong with it. Why?
He's a public figure and a walking billboard. I can have an opinion on his snake oil salesmanship without knowing his favorite breakfast cereal. Do you post this for every assessment of public figures or just ones that attack people you like?
> him taking a pay cut and increasing his employees' pay was nothing short of a settlement.
Maybe this phrase makes sense to you but I have no idea what's going on here. He gets sued by brother, brother loses lawsuit, and as settlement he cuts his salary to $70k, and boosts his lowest paid employee to $70k.
Like if I get traffic ticket can I square it up by paying my mechanic more?
> This guy is a certified scumbag.
I know some scumbags, they usually don't pay their employees. Like at all.
Dan Price is more of an activist than a businessman. Good for him for doing this, but of course it would be very easy to assume that revenue would have risen more without this.
Compare his business growth to others in the sector and in the same time period and you'll (probably, I am too lazy to do this) see his growth is below the curve.
You're right. The latter job is much more exclusive because it depends on a philanthropic rich guy who decides to donate to his employees rather than to charities.
> Our employees had a 10x boom in terms of the number of babies they were having. We went from having between 0-2 babies born per year among the entire team, to over 65 born or announced over the last six years," he added.
I'm 100% a huge fan of direct payments to parents and incentivizing parents to have children, but I do think this undersells the consequence of having a workforce which is moving from their mid-20s to mid-30s. Existing evidence is that getting people to have more children is really, really expensive. I'm sure this did move the needle, just not 10x.
In the USA average wealth per adult is one of the highest in the world. This measures the wealth of a persons assets (car, home, etc.) minus their debts.
But the median wealth for the USA is much further down the list. The median is the midpoint so it excludes outliers like Bezos. It's common for Americans to boast about how rich they are but the honest truth is my home country Australia has a median wealth that's 3x greater than the USAs.
The difference in wealth between the typical USA resident and an Australian resident is the same as the difference between a USA resident and a Chinese resident.
Australian adult median wealth (USD $238k)
USA adult median wealth (USD $79k) not poor but definitely not at the top. Slighly below Taiwan and South Korea.
China adult median wealth (USD $24k) a similar difference.
Honestly as an Australian living in the USA it does show. I get rather annoyed when a USA resident boasts about wealth. You have massive loans dickhead. You should have been fighting this problem and instituting 0% tax for the lowest wage earners like Australia did 40 years ago. You should have increased taxes on the rich. You should have increased minimum wage.
But you didn't. And now your average American wealth, whilst not yet bad is below countries such as South Korea and Taiwan that have troubling neighbors that justify huge defence budgets. It's below Italy's which has long suffered corruption in politics. It's below Spains despite Spain being the cheap holiday destination for the wealthier European nations.
Stop fucking around and fight the fight you should have fought 20 years ago.
It doesn't change the median to mean discrepancy though. Australia has a smoother wealth divide and that's purely policy.
I was shocked when i found out there's no 0% tax bracket in the USA. All that paperwork to collect tax from those who are struggling. Meanwhile the federal tax caps out at 37% and doesn't even consider very high wage earners. The higher minimum wages in Australia are also clear cut.
OK, but you've highlighted the difference between US and AU median wealth; a lot of Australian wealth is tied up in this real estate. My relatives who own property (purchased cheap decades ago) can hop from enormously expensive house to enormously expensive house; the ones that don't can only dream of home ownership anywhere near a major city.
There is functionally a 0% tax bracket in the US, because everyone gets a default tax deduction.
In general, I agree with you - particularly in the realm of healthcare and college educations - but there's a lot of nuance in the details.
"The higher minimum wages in Australia are also clear cut."
Do you have any links to studies around this? From what I've heard of the past couple years, most economists believe only a marginal increase to around $10/hr would be beneficial. I'm not arguing against that, but $10/hr doesn't seem like it would afford those workers the opportunity to build wealth, and increasing it further is supposedly not going to provide any additional benefit to that group.
Let's say you make $1,000,000 a year in California. Your effective tax rate is 11.78 percent because the top 12.3% rate is only applied to income you earned over $599k. (13.3% applies only on income above $1,000,000, which you are too poor to pay yet).
Same with federal taxes, that $1,000,000 earner is going to pay an effective rate of 33.3%. Combined, you are paying 45% state and federal income tax.
...Yes I understand how they work, thank you very much.
In California, the highest possible tax rate on earnings, would be 50%.
In Australia that tax on the highest earnings would be 45%.
Nowhere did I claim that all your income is taxed at the same rate. I was replying to the quote "federal tax caps out at 37%" which ignores the significant 13% additional tax in CA.
Sure, but that doesn't change the point of my comment which is that the income tax rates in some US states will actually exceed Australia's in higher earners.
Ya, if that is your point. Australian taxes ramp up faster, so low earners will pay more tax in Australia than in California. E.g. Australia making $50K USD/year will pay 17% in taxes (according to https://www.ato.gov.au/Calculators-and-tools/Host/?anchor=ST..., don't forget to convert to AUD first), while a Californian will only pay 15%.
I thought healthcare was funded by a payroll tax in Australia. Are you claiming that they are funding it via income tax instead?
There is also an extra tax to pay for college that graduates (4 percent) pay if they make more than $39k (AUD I think, not sure what the basis that they have to pay is, however).
Both healthcare and college seem to be funded separately from income taxes.
We were talking about income tax (apples), and you begin to talk about payroll taxes and something funded via an extra tax on college graduates (oranges).
It might be that overall the poor get a better deal in Australia. But surely it's not because of the income taxes (slightly higher than CA for low earners) or the consumption taxes (much much higher than CA). Maybe they get a better deal on health insurance and payroll taxes, plus the idea of paying for college via successful graduates is one that America should definitely consider adopting.
For 2020, the top bracket starts at $1,077,550. Then, gradually through the first $50K into the bracket, it becomes a full 8.82% tax on every single dollar of income, other brackets included. For 2021, that rate has been bumped up to 9.65% and two new ones — 10.30 and 10.90% — have been added. I think the cut off amounts at which this flat rate system phases in are still the same.
But the craziness with the most recent changes doesn't end there. From July 2021, employers are required to withhold from bonuses and overtime at the new supplemental rate of 13.78%, which is quite a bit higher than even the top bracket. That guarantees even more and larger refunds for taxpayers next year. Or, if you look at it another way, a bigger interest-free loan to the state.
Recapture only applies to tax credits, and is itself gradually phased in. It also doesn't seem to be based on income, but rather not adhering to the terms of the tax credit over the long term:
The state doesn't call it as such and it doesn't really mention much about it anywhere, other than implicitly in worksheet 7 on page 59 of the 2020 IT-201 form. It's still a recapture, though, and it does apply to income. It's separate from tax credits. Try the worksheet. By the way, most online tax calculators seem not to know about it, either.
I'm not finding that to be very reliable, as I can't find a news article or even someone else complaining about the same problem. Are you sure they just didn't mess up on their tax return somewhere?
Yes, the bracket isn't zero percent, but after deductions and the child credit, it effectively becomes that. That doesn't include payroll taxes however, which are much more regressive (in the case of social security with an income cap even more so). Does Australia exempt low earners from payroll taxes as well as income taxes?
I often see that payroll taxes are regressive. But the benefits from payroll taxes are progressive... Replacing a top 1% income or standard of living with unemployment or social security doesn't happen in the US system. Are payroll taxes regressive relative to the benefits paid from payroll taxes? I genuinely don't know.
The median to mean discrepancy is not particularly interesting though, given that median disposable income between the two countries is almost identical (in other words there are no winners with a "smoother wealth divide," only losers).
Given the other comments about the real estate situation in Australia it seems problematic to compare median wealth instead of disposable income.
An Aussie with a $1M home, and a $500k mortgage will have $500k in "wealth." But if that wealth is tied to their home, and all other homes cost the same or more, what good does that do them?
To some extent, yes. It's fairly illiquid, and unless you're willing to be homeless, move from the city to a rural area, or take a serious cut in living style, you're likely going to need to buy a replacement at similar cost.
It's certainly not the same thing as having that wealth in the bank, or as stocks.
maybe not a full 'illusion', but it's just not liquid. when using 'net worth' calculators, I severely underestimate the value of my home - between delays, fees in selling, and the cost of moving someplace else, there's probably 10-15% gone from whatever paper 'wealth' the raw number is. It doesn't really help me in any meaningful way with respect to planning. Most of my stocks are liquid. There's a potentially similar hit re: taxes, but... I can buy and sell $1000 of stocks tomorrow, I can't buy/sell $1000 of 'house' tomorrow (REITs notwithstanding).
Sort of. In the same way that selling 2% of your company for $10M gives your company a valuation of $500M. We don’t know what the other 98% of shares would really sell for.
In a given year, just over 1% of a typical city’s homes are transacted. Over a decade, about 10-15% are transacted.
It's an illusion because it is based on the presence of infrastructure, other people and their work. If those people weren't there your house wouldn't be worth as much. You can build the same house in the middle of nowhere and it would be worthless.
Same here. Most of my "wealth" is tied to the house and I would have to move to an area of limited opportunities to get one substantially cheaper.
The other interesting part is that one has to pay annual tax and maintenance on that "wealth". Unless the market is very hot, primary homes are not a very lucrative investment compared to other assets.
> The Australian property bubble is the economic theory that
the Australian property market has become or is becoming significantly overpriced [...]
IOW bubbles can only be called historically asset prices fall dramatically and even then typically in housing they don't fall that much.
Housing prices have been rising much faster than inflation in a lot of places due to historically cheap financing. The alternatives to "bubble popping" are that they plateau, or continue rising, or decrease moderately over time.
The point is that the difference in wealth between AU and US is, to at least some extent, due to a vast amount of largely inaccessible paper wealth.
If I'm willing to sell my house in Sydney and move to rural Queensland, I'm wealthy. If I'm not, selling my $1M house means I have to go find another $1M house now.
(And yes, the median house price in Sydney is over $1M.)
I think big cities have diverged from the country average globally and the impact on country average metrics then depends on the degree of urbanization.
The median home price in Melbourne is nearly $1M as well; between the two cities, that's about 40% of the population of Australia that needs a million bucks to own a house.
Most Americans are fighting for things besides their financial well being, unfortunately. Some would rather have the freedom to sue a stranger who may have driven a woman to get an abortion in Texas. It is disheartening that this is what the political machine is focused on, instead of raising money and investing in things like infrastructure and Americans.
Although, some do think that the only thing standing between them and wealth like Bezos is a few hundred bucks a year in taxes (that they want to cut, ramifications be damned).
I don’t disagree with this sentiment, however, American culture explicitly drives what you’re describing here. There’s really no money to be made by battling inequality and people want to become wealthy more than they want to live in an equitable society. Because once you’ve become wealthy, you get to join the ranks of the privileged few that have the ability to make the choice that Dan Price made, but they don’t.
I remember reading once that America is the land of the frustrated wannabe millionaire, and it’s kinda true. We’re all on a warpath to make a ton of money with no real incentive to fight the fight you’re talking about.
Well, we do for income tax. It's just that the cut off limit is extremely low ($12k). Based on tax credits, one can even pay $0 in tax and get money back.
A state removing taxes - that'll be the day! It's always more more more.
Some sales taxes have been sort of progressive. I don't know the current details but years ago the first $10k on a vehicle purchase was excluded. This was at a time when average/cheaper cars cost under that. Theoretically, that only impacts the wealthy people buying luxury cars. Of course I don't think they ever adjusted it for inflation and they may have even removed that exclusion. But yeah, it's mostly regressive. I do hear people complain about sales tax sometimes.
I think many people agree that the best kind of tax would be on money inflow (income, capital gains) rather than things like property, sales, etc. I think the implementation is the part nobody can agree on.
I disagree. All transaction based taxes are regressive and most of them can be easily dodged by avoiding taxable events. There is absolutely zero reason to tax any form of work whatsoever.
From a theoretical standpoint the best taxes would be on monopolies that extract economic rent and taxes on externalities. The prime candidates are the land value tax and carbon tax.
"There is absolutely zero reason to tax any form of work whatsoever."
Can you expand on that? Does that include capital investment if one meets the loose "materially participated" stipulation?
"The prime candidates are the land value tax and carbon tax."
This doesn't seem like a good idea. A carbon tax is transactional, so it could be avoided. Maybe good for policy implementation but not good for revenue. Land tax seems very similar to property tax already. We are seeing pushes in many states to eliminate it due to the high burden on lower income families and the elderly. For example, you may be taxing them on "wealth" that doesn't exist. This places the government in a position to take assets someone already owns. It's also mostly regressive as property tax is now. If you tax the inflow of money, then you know there is money that can be paid and can even be collected before the person ever receives it.
Huh! With all that vitriol, I would sure hope the unparalleled salary for software people is not the reason why you migrated (and continue to stay) here.
This is the "if you don't like having money, you be the first to give it all away, lol" strawman.
It's not that me or anyone else wants higher taxes. We're willing to accept higher taxes for the benefits of living in a higher-taxes-for-the-wealthy society, specifically: a) enjoying high quality infrastructure, particularly around education, healthcare, and transportation, and b) getting to live in a place where the poorest are being properly cared for and have a path to reintegration, rather than being stuck on the street reminding you every day that society has failed them, and might fail you or your kids one day too.
You can't get either of these by giving away your own money, especially if you're only upper middle class.
You referring to it as a strawman is the only strawman in this argument now, if we're being technical about the definition of strawman.
People migrate from countries like Australia, or sit in their armchairs in Sweden and expect the US be on par with X or Y social infrastructure and rage perpetually at the citizens (like the GP, which prompted my response) when they find this isn't the case.
Why is it reasonable for the US to align social policy to every European or South Pacific developed nation when the scale of the US is not even remotely comparable? What is the philosophy 101 term for that level of delusion?
And why is OP justified in spitting venom at the citizens? Get real.
It's not some "haha i got you!" for me to move to the USA to be in the top 1% of wage earners in the USA (high level within FAANG). I'm in a very privileged position and I'm happy to take advantage of it.
It's weird that the existence of ultra privileged positions somehow gives you the thought that therefore America is fine the way it is. It's clear for the remainder of America they'd be better off elsewhere in the western world. They'd be better off fighting for their situation.
The sad fact is that many Americans just aren't educated enough to care, nor do they want to care. You have to remember: the country was founded by the conspiracy theorist farmers of the day that believed the government was out to fuck them, when in reality they were just mad that they had to pay taxes. This mentality persists today that people don't want the government helping them in any way, even if it means they get fucked over by their employers.
If you grew up in the US I'd like to demand the resignation of whatever American history professor you had growing up.
"Mad they had to pay taxes" completely obfuscates (probably in bad faith) the fact that colonists had no say in what that taxation went toward, and the people who _did_ lived thousands of miles away before any real communication infra even existed. It's right there in the name. The way you speak about "conspiracy theory farmers" reveals your real agenda, which is to push narrative-snark bemoaning the origins of our country (even if it's at the expense of the historical truth).
No, it is a "haha i got you!". You want the US to be like the rest of the world (or specifically Australia) and yet you came to the US because the US is unique in providing extremely high paying comfortable and interesting jobs. This type of environment is possible because that's what the US optimizes for, at the detriment of class equality. You're a hypocrite, specifically one that calls out people's alleged wealth when you came here to amass your own. Poetic given the thread we are in.
Let me remind you that being a hypocrite does not make one wrong.
If I smoke and I tell you smoking causes cancer, will you disbelieve me?
It's actually a strange form of argument from authority: you don't follow your own rule, and I believe your honest self that I think you're showing by not following it.
If anything it should tell you something that a guy who is milking the system says the system is broken. That at least is a first hand witness.
>I would sure hope the unparalleled salary for software people is not the reason why you migrated (and continue to stay) here.
This has nothing to do with taxes. It's not even true in America. If high taxes are such a massive depressor of wages, why are all the highest paying jobs concentrated in the states with the highest taxes?
> I get rather annoyed when a USA resident boasts about wealth. You have massive loans dickhead.
Isn't much of Australian household wealth built on surging property prices? Which is also backed by the same massive loans that Americans are dealing with? And also, the Australian government is forced to keep the property bubble going at all costs, even more so than the American government?
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, median total income for Australians in 2017-2018 was 49,805 AUD (68,232 USD)[0]. According to the US Census Bureau, median total income for Americans in 2018 was 63,179 USD. That's about 7.4% less which isn't insignificant, but it's also not near enough to account for such a striking difference in wealth. There's clearly something else going on here.
Woops, you're absolutely right. I had the division flipped. Then that's a considerable amount lower than the US median income, which makes the difference in median wealth even more suspicious.
>You should have increased taxes on the rich. You should have increased minimum wage.
Pretty obvious and orthodox solution, tried and tested worldwide in the last century, however: it goes against neoliberal creed and thus is anathema since the 80s.
Once upon a time (war time) the US had 94% top tax bracket[1]. Let that sink it.
Obviously there's no WW2 right now, and that extreme level of confiscation is probably unwarranted. But it makes you think how far the US has strayed and how impossible any slightly more progressive tax brackets seem today.
Wow, you can really see the top 1% being affected by major financial events: '92 recession, '01 dot bomb, '09 global financial crisis. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% is just a slow downward slide, not majorly affected by any of those.
That makes it clear. For a reference I've been in between the USA and Australia since first coming to the USA in 1997. The change in wealth of the USA is dramatic. Things were never as extreme in terms of the 3 miles of homeless camps i see in SFO just North of Kings st station. I've never seen so many sleeping under bridges in the valley are itself.
Things have objectively taken a downturn in the USA for the bottom 50% but somehow there's push back against this fact? People are arguing against numbers in this thread.
Perhaps the difference is that since I've been between two countries i haven't suffered the frog in a boiling pot of water effect?
To me i leave and come back half a decade later and see huge downwards changes and get frustrated that no one else is noticing :(
I'm sure there's a bit of that, I've traveled to SF and Seattle every few years from NYC and both cities looked drastically more depressing each time that I visited. At the same time I haven't really noticed the huge rise of homelessness in NYC.
From talking to both Americans and immigrants from Asia and Eastern Europe about these issues it seems to me like a lot of Americans have never been outside of North America and have a warped view of the rest of the world, while immigrants from poorer nations still see America as a land of opportunity and compare the living standards of the middle classes in the US vs their home country.
It's really wild to hear Americans act like universal healthcare and free/affordable college is a radical communist agenda that's not fiscally feasible even though most other 1st world nations are able to do it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_univers...).
America's low ranking in median wealth is mostly caused by their high amount of consumer spending rather than a lack of income. America ranks #4 in median income. The only nations that rank higher are tiny countries with whose economies are disproportionately propped up by a single highly lucrative industry (financial services or fossil fuels). To be fair, the high amount of consumer spending partially boosts America's median income as well.
I'd argue that there's other causes of spending. Education, health care, etc.
If you consistently earn more but have less total wealth that to me reeks of the broken window fallacy. There's spending that could be done via more efficient means. eg. Australia spends less tax on healthcare per capita. America spends more tax and then on top of that essentially has a private insurance requirement as well. That's spending that doesn't need to happen but does due to inefficiencies. You could get rid of this but apparently efficiency created by government intervention is socialism (it's not but the USA political system is a mess and people have been swayed).
First, I don't disagree with your general conclusions, but the median salary of South Korea is not even close to the United States. It is closer to 30K annual. Taiwan is lower. Maybe for an expat it may seem higher, but if you get paid by a Korean company in accordance with local salaries, it doesn't get close to that.
The trouble with comparisons like this is the lack of scale and perspective. Australia and Taiwan are roughly half the size of California. The United States has a far larger size, and a far greater regional diversity.
If you draw comparisons across similar population sizes and similar geographic regions, for example comparing the USA to all of Europe, the numbers look a lot more similar:
Europe median: $26k
Europe mean: $174k
USA media: $82k
USA mean: $505k
Both regions have roughly a factor of 6 difference between median and mean wealth.
>> Honestly as an Australian living in the USA it does show. I get rather annoyed when a USA resident boasts about wealth. You have massive loans dickhead
As others have pointed out, a large part of this is due to increasing house prices, and it is fairly recent:
"Australian household debt levels have increased substantially over the past thirty years, with the ratio of household debt to annual disposable income rising from 68% in June 1990 to a recent peak of 188.5% in June 2019. Since June last year, the ratio has reduced slightly to 185.0%.
Most of the debt held by households is housing debt, which comprises around 76% of overall household debt. Thirty years ago housing debt comprised a much smaller 46% of overall household debt.
...
Most of Australia’s household debt accrual occurred between 1990 and 2010. The ratio of household debt to income increased by 45.7 percentage points between 1990 and 2000, and by another 49.3 percentage points between 2000 and 2010. The past decade has seen growth in the ratio more than half to 21.5 percentage points, with most of that growth aligned with the property boom between late 2012 and 2017.
Importantly, the value of assets held against the debt has recorded a more significant increase, pushing household net worth to new record highs at the end of 2019. Residential dwellings comprise by far the largest component of household assets, totaling $6.8 trillion, or 53% of household wealth."
Australians took on massive debt to buy houses at increasing prices. As long as prices keep going up, their wealth increases. And what are they doing with that wealth increase?
"not all of that housing debt has simply been used to buy homes — many people have been cashing in on the rising value of their properties over the past two decades.
'Even for people who don't buy and sell a home, and stay in the one place, we're finding between 30 and 40 per cent of these people are increasing their debt from one year to the next,' Professor Wilkins says.
'When people are increasing their debt from one year to the next, they're essentially accessing the equity in their home ... people are evidently using that increased equity to fund consumption."
I'd like to see each country's median wealth per adult by purchasing power parity. Anyone got that number? I looked online but can't find anything.
Purchasing power parity is the thing that interests me the most and gives a more realistic picture.
For example, we have all been fed the utter lie that the USA spends more on military spending than the next 252,895 countries combined.
This does not take into account that a welder in the USA might be paid $52/hour (or whatever it is for a union welder) but a welder in China might be paid $8/hour. So if an aircraft carrier is being built, it will cost $13 billion in the USA, but $500 million in China. So when you add all the billions together for the USA, and for China, of course the USA is going to spend more in absolute dollars, but in what they get, an aircraft carrier is an aircraft carrier no matter what is spend, no matter if it is $500 million or $13 billion per carrier.
This is the purchasing power parity (PPP) which more accurately reflects what you get for your monies.
So when you look at military spending by PPP, the USA only spends more than the 2.5 countries. The USA spends $750 billion. China spends $464 billion and India spends $234 billion = $698 billion for China and India. Adding the third highest spender, Saudi Arabia for $174 billion brings the total up to $872 billion in expenditures for the top 3 countries vs USA's $750 billion.
However, this number is probably skewed, because some of the USA's military spend goes towards the defense of other countries. This expenditure should be reallocated to the countries that benefit. For instance, Canada isn't even on the list. Why would it be? USA would take on 100% of any Canadian military needs. The USA has a huge military presence in Japan, Australia, South Korea. All of Europe is under the USA's umbrella.
It is eye popping that when you look at the GDP PPP of each country, that China's GDP PPP is $23 trillion and the USA is $19 trillion.
This is just to illustrate the difference when talking about numbers in purchasing power parity.
As I said, I would be interested in a PPP of the median wealth of every nation. Which I have not been able to find. I'm sure the USA would not be very good on that chart, either, but I would be interested in seeing how it changes everything and how everything would be rearranged. So if anyone has this info, please post below my comment here.
Is a baby boom being considered a positive here? I would think that an increase in consumption from a population increase is not a good thing when living an non-sustainable lifestyle.
Dan Price being sketchy aside, yes, people feeling financially comfortable enough to produce babies is a positive thing. It's the most fundamental purpose we have as humans.
Yes! Human ingenuity will either solve climate change, or it won't, in which case we're either going to die or live a hard existence on another planet. If anything, the more children there are, the higher the odds that those in the next generation will be able to come up with solutions to climate change.
This is all putting aside the basic argument that it's our most fundamental purpose. If we stop reproducing, humanity is extinct within a ~hundred years.
No amount of technical development can keep up with exponential increase in resource usage. Just giving western living standards long term to everyone we have on earth today is a daunting task, adding even more is just insanity.
And no, adding more people until everyone has to live a poor destitute life wont make people more creative.
> No amount of technical development can keep up with exponential increase in resource usage.
People having children doesn't mean exponential increase in population. The US has an average children per family of 1.93 as of 2019, which actually means the population will shrink.
> adding more people until everyone has to live a poor destitute life wont make people more creative
This is a common fallacy that wealth is a fixed pie, and adding more people into the equation will make existing people poorer. This isn't true — wealth is created!
The solution to a non-sustainable lifestyle is not to stop having children. There seems to be a misguided Malthusian thought process that appears to be taking hold amongst younger people of childbearing years in this department.
If you do not have the right amount of population growth, you will have demographic time bombs explode in your face, such as the one China will be facing in the coming decades. There needs to be a decent ratio of working, productive people to nonproductive people in any society that hopes to take care of its older citizens.
I don't see how it is misguided. We don't know how many people the world can sustainably maintain from a resource consumption standpoint and the carbon emissions tied to it. It's misguided to believe that there are no constraints.
Your population growth point seems to imply a misguided idea. With automation, it's possible the population can stagnate or even shrink.
It's misguided in the sense that people in developing countries that don't have the leisure time to ponder the future of the Earth will be having kids, regardless of whether you do or not. If you want to go ahead and not perform your one biological imperative because you think you're saving the planet, that's your prerogative. But don't think it's going to make a tangible difference.
Who said anything about developing countries? The developed countries have the largest impact on a per capita basis, and thus the larger difference for an individual choice.
"If you want to go ahead and not perform your one biological imperative"
It seems you are implying that we should follow our biological imperatives without question, and that there is only one. There are several biological imperatives. If we follow them without question then we risk things like war (territorialism), rape (reproduction), etc. Its only because we question these imperatives that we are able to place restraints on them.
Also, I don't think I'll save the planet by not having a bunch of kids. But at least by not having them I wont be bringing them into a life of pain and suffering.
I never said that there are no constraints, only that constraints that argue for arresting population growth have turned out to be unnecessary because of various technological and social improvements over time.
The average person can't choose to raise children at an older age: either he procreates at the replacement rate, or near-term, the population will nosedive and will necessitate technology improvements to make up for the shortfall. Most economists agree on the necessity of having a good rate of population growth for a nation to be prosperous. Countries like Russia and Hungary, which are rapidly depopulating because of a lack of childbearing and immigration, are flailing to arrest the demographic decline.
Europe experienced technology growth and a mini-boom when the plague wiped out huge portions of its population. But it has never fully recovered, with large areas still depopulating, and has experienced a mostly poor rate of growth because of the plague. Demographic disasters are as challenging as climate disasters, if not more, and have affected humanity in huge ways.
133 comments
[ 5.9 ms ] story [ 2605 ms ] threadThis is honestly worth millions in advertising for Gravity Payments (I remember the name!) for this story to somehow keep popping up.
The dark side is that he keeps milking this story to look like a good person while he was sued for overpaying himself initially, and was accused of domestic abuse by his ex-wife.
Hitler was a vegan- was he just misunderstood, or are all vegans closeted antisemites?
No more.
Stupid posts.
Formatted like this.
Because someone at some point thought it was cool.
It's not.
Also no more posts bragging about GeTtInG On ThE PrOpErTy LaDdEr!
I don't know, is everyone's LinkedIn experience as miserable as mine was?
I just ignore my feed and rely on it as an address book of people I can contact in my industry / previous places of employment. I don't really want 3000+ phone numbers without the related metadata of where we overlapped.
Even if you assume that all those allegations are true (seems like they didn't hold up, but whatever)...
...if it takes a grifter to raise wages in this country, so be it. If it's between grift that helps centralize wealth compared to grift that distributes it, I know what I'm picking.
https://www.inc.com/paul-keegan/dan-price-gravity-lawsuit-wi...
businessinsider is full of questionable articles, is a low quality source
That is not correct. You cannot claim this guy embezzled millions of dollars when his brother lost his lawsuit.
https://www.inc.com/paul-keegan/dan-price-gravity-lawsuit-wi...
> Gravity Payments' Dan Price--who made headlines around the world last year when he instituted a $70,000 minimum wage at the company he founded--won a resounding victory in a lawsuit brought last year by his brother and co-founder, Lucas Price.
> Judge Doyle wrote in her ruling that "[t]he court finds that Daniel's compensation decisions in 2013 and 2014 were a reasonable business judgment made in good faith," and "[t]he Towers Watson report corroborated the reasonableness of Daniel Price's compensation."
> In her ruling, Judge Doyle said, "There was evidence that Daniel Price used the company credit card for expenses that were not subsequently reimbursed. However, Lucas Price has not proven this claim"--along with many others he made in his lawsuit, judging from her decision.
But it's been downvoted to the bottom, as if something is wrong with it. Why?
Maybe this phrase makes sense to you but I have no idea what's going on here. He gets sued by brother, brother loses lawsuit, and as settlement he cuts his salary to $70k, and boosts his lowest paid employee to $70k.
Like if I get traffic ticket can I square it up by paying my mechanic more?
> This guy is a certified scumbag.
I know some scumbags, they usually don't pay their employees. Like at all.
Compare his business growth to others in the sector and in the same time period and you'll (probably, I am too lazy to do this) see his growth is below the curve.
https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
$70k jobs aren’t the same as ~$35k jobs paying $70k.
I'm 100% a huge fan of direct payments to parents and incentivizing parents to have children, but I do think this undersells the consequence of having a workforce which is moving from their mid-20s to mid-30s. Existing evidence is that getting people to have more children is really, really expensive. I'm sure this did move the needle, just not 10x.
In the USA average wealth per adult is one of the highest in the world. This measures the wealth of a persons assets (car, home, etc.) minus their debts.
But the median wealth for the USA is much further down the list. The median is the midpoint so it excludes outliers like Bezos. It's common for Americans to boast about how rich they are but the honest truth is my home country Australia has a median wealth that's 3x greater than the USAs.
The difference in wealth between the typical USA resident and an Australian resident is the same as the difference between a USA resident and a Chinese resident.
Australian adult median wealth (USD $238k)
USA adult median wealth (USD $79k) not poor but definitely not at the top. Slighly below Taiwan and South Korea.
China adult median wealth (USD $24k) a similar difference.
Honestly as an Australian living in the USA it does show. I get rather annoyed when a USA resident boasts about wealth. You have massive loans dickhead. You should have been fighting this problem and instituting 0% tax for the lowest wage earners like Australia did 40 years ago. You should have increased taxes on the rich. You should have increased minimum wage.
But you didn't. And now your average American wealth, whilst not yet bad is below countries such as South Korea and Taiwan that have troubling neighbors that justify huge defence budgets. It's below Italy's which has long suffered corruption in politics. It's below Spains despite Spain being the cheap holiday destination for the wealthier European nations.
Stop fucking around and fight the fight you should have fought 20 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe...
I was shocked when i found out there's no 0% tax bracket in the USA. All that paperwork to collect tax from those who are struggling. Meanwhile the federal tax caps out at 37% and doesn't even consider very high wage earners. The higher minimum wages in Australia are also clear cut.
There is functionally a 0% tax bracket in the US, because everyone gets a default tax deduction.
In general, I agree with you - particularly in the realm of healthcare and college educations - but there's a lot of nuance in the details.
Do you have any links to studies around this? From what I've heard of the past couple years, most economists believe only a marginal increase to around $10/hr would be beneficial. I'm not arguing against that, but $10/hr doesn't seem like it would afford those workers the opportunity to build wealth, and increasing it further is supposedly not going to provide any additional benefit to that group.
Let's say you make $1,000,000 a year in California. Your effective tax rate is 11.78 percent because the top 12.3% rate is only applied to income you earned over $599k. (13.3% applies only on income above $1,000,000, which you are too poor to pay yet).
Same with federal taxes, that $1,000,000 earner is going to pay an effective rate of 33.3%. Combined, you are paying 45% state and federal income tax.
In California, the highest possible tax rate on earnings, would be 50%.
In Australia that tax on the highest earnings would be 45%.
Nowhere did I claim that all your income is taxed at the same rate. I was replying to the quote "federal tax caps out at 37%" which ignores the significant 13% additional tax in CA.
There is also an extra tax to pay for college that graduates (4 percent) pay if they make more than $39k (AUD I think, not sure what the basis that they have to pay is, however).
Both healthcare and college seem to be funded separately from income taxes.
It might be that overall the poor get a better deal in Australia. But surely it's not because of the income taxes (slightly higher than CA for low earners) or the consumption taxes (much much higher than CA). Maybe they get a better deal on health insurance and payroll taxes, plus the idea of paying for college via successful graduates is one that America should definitely consider adopting.
But the craziness with the most recent changes doesn't end there. From July 2021, employers are required to withhold from bonuses and overtime at the new supplemental rate of 13.78%, which is quite a bit higher than even the top bracket. That guarantees even more and larger refunds for taxpayers next year. Or, if you look at it another way, a bigger interest-free loan to the state.
https://www.tax.ny.gov/bus/ct/Recapture-of-tax-credits.htm
See e.g. https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=247046 where someone points out that CT does the same and calls it recapture.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/12/nyregion/highest-tax-will...
https://www.empirecenter.org/publications/new-yorks-ugly-ste...
AR, too? https://taxedright.com/new-york-taxes/
That isn't exactly true:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/09/18/161333783...
Yes, the bracket isn't zero percent, but after deductions and the child credit, it effectively becomes that. That doesn't include payroll taxes however, which are much more regressive (in the case of social security with an income cap even more so). Does Australia exempt low earners from payroll taxes as well as income taxes?
Given the other comments about the real estate situation in Australia it seems problematic to compare median wealth instead of disposable income.
An Aussie with a $1M home, and a $500k mortgage will have $500k in "wealth." But if that wealth is tied to their home, and all other homes cost the same or more, what good does that do them?
We're seeing the same happen in many US cities.
It's certainly not the same thing as having that wealth in the bank, or as stocks.
In a given year, just over 1% of a typical city’s homes are transacted. Over a decade, about 10-15% are transacted.
The other interesting part is that one has to pay annual tax and maintenance on that "wealth". Unless the market is very hot, primary homes are not a very lucrative investment compared to other assets.
> The Australian property bubble is the economic theory that the Australian property market has become or is becoming significantly overpriced [...]
IOW bubbles can only be called historically asset prices fall dramatically and even then typically in housing they don't fall that much.
Housing prices have been rising much faster than inflation in a lot of places due to historically cheap financing. The alternatives to "bubble popping" are that they plateau, or continue rising, or decrease moderately over time.
If I'm willing to sell my house in Sydney and move to rural Queensland, I'm wealthy. If I'm not, selling my $1M house means I have to go find another $1M house now.
(And yes, the median house price in Sydney is over $1M.)
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country the urbanization rate in AU is ~2x the US, so people are moving to cities at a much bigger rate? Even in the face of the high prices.
But yep I still see what you mean, on the country-averages level the AU prices seem to have been constantly rising faster in AU than US.
https://civic-ventures.com/
There are powerful forces fighting against what AnotherGoodName is suggesting. They have money and propaganda and lobbying. It’s a tough fight.
Although, some do think that the only thing standing between them and wealth like Bezos is a few hundred bucks a year in taxes (that they want to cut, ramifications be damned).
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/31/business/economy/biden-in...
I remember reading once that America is the land of the frustrated wannabe millionaire, and it’s kinda true. We’re all on a warpath to make a ton of money with no real incentive to fight the fight you’re talking about.
Well, we do for income tax. It's just that the cut off limit is extremely low ($12k). Based on tax credits, one can even pay $0 in tax and get money back.
Nobody ever complains about sales tax (which is the quintessential regressive tax) until you get deep in the weeds of policy discussion.
Some sales taxes have been sort of progressive. I don't know the current details but years ago the first $10k on a vehicle purchase was excluded. This was at a time when average/cheaper cars cost under that. Theoretically, that only impacts the wealthy people buying luxury cars. Of course I don't think they ever adjusted it for inflation and they may have even removed that exclusion. But yeah, it's mostly regressive. I do hear people complain about sales tax sometimes.
I think many people agree that the best kind of tax would be on money inflow (income, capital gains) rather than things like property, sales, etc. I think the implementation is the part nobody can agree on.
From a theoretical standpoint the best taxes would be on monopolies that extract economic rent and taxes on externalities. The prime candidates are the land value tax and carbon tax.
Can you expand on that? Does that include capital investment if one meets the loose "materially participated" stipulation?
"The prime candidates are the land value tax and carbon tax."
This doesn't seem like a good idea. A carbon tax is transactional, so it could be avoided. Maybe good for policy implementation but not good for revenue. Land tax seems very similar to property tax already. We are seeing pushes in many states to eliminate it due to the high burden on lower income families and the elderly. For example, you may be taxing them on "wealth" that doesn't exist. This places the government in a position to take assets someone already owns. It's also mostly regressive as property tax is now. If you tax the inflow of money, then you know there is money that can be paid and can even be collected before the person ever receives it.
It's not that me or anyone else wants higher taxes. We're willing to accept higher taxes for the benefits of living in a higher-taxes-for-the-wealthy society, specifically: a) enjoying high quality infrastructure, particularly around education, healthcare, and transportation, and b) getting to live in a place where the poorest are being properly cared for and have a path to reintegration, rather than being stuck on the street reminding you every day that society has failed them, and might fail you or your kids one day too.
You can't get either of these by giving away your own money, especially if you're only upper middle class.
People migrate from countries like Australia, or sit in their armchairs in Sweden and expect the US be on par with X or Y social infrastructure and rage perpetually at the citizens (like the GP, which prompted my response) when they find this isn't the case.
Why is it reasonable for the US to align social policy to every European or South Pacific developed nation when the scale of the US is not even remotely comparable? What is the philosophy 101 term for that level of delusion?
And why is OP justified in spitting venom at the citizens? Get real.
It's weird that the existence of ultra privileged positions somehow gives you the thought that therefore America is fine the way it is. It's clear for the remainder of America they'd be better off elsewhere in the western world. They'd be better off fighting for their situation.
"Mad they had to pay taxes" completely obfuscates (probably in bad faith) the fact that colonists had no say in what that taxation went toward, and the people who _did_ lived thousands of miles away before any real communication infra even existed. It's right there in the name. The way you speak about "conspiracy theory farmers" reveals your real agenda, which is to push narrative-snark bemoaning the origins of our country (even if it's at the expense of the historical truth).
If I smoke and I tell you smoking causes cancer, will you disbelieve me?
It's actually a strange form of argument from authority: you don't follow your own rule, and I believe your honest self that I think you're showing by not following it.
If anything it should tell you something that a guy who is milking the system says the system is broken. That at least is a first hand witness.
This has nothing to do with taxes. It's not even true in America. If high taxes are such a massive depressor of wages, why are all the highest paying jobs concentrated in the states with the highest taxes?
Isn't much of Australian household wealth built on surging property prices? Which is also backed by the same massive loans that Americans are dealing with? And also, the Australian government is forced to keep the property bubble going at all costs, even more so than the American government?
https://www.ratecity.com.au/home-loans/mortgage-news/rba-gov...
[0] https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-work-h... (Table 1)
[1] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2019/demo/income-poverty/... (Table A-1)
49,805 AUD is 37,039 USD.
Pretty obvious and orthodox solution, tried and tested worldwide in the last century, however: it goes against neoliberal creed and thus is anathema since the 80s.
Once upon a time (war time) the US had 94% top tax bracket[1]. Let that sink it.
Obviously there's no WW2 right now, and that extreme level of confiscation is probably unwarranted. But it makes you think how far the US has strayed and how impossible any slightly more progressive tax brackets seem today.
[1] https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/...
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/07/09/us/covid-fed-qe-p...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/07/12/opinion/covid...
Things have objectively taken a downturn in the USA for the bottom 50% but somehow there's push back against this fact? People are arguing against numbers in this thread.
From talking to both Americans and immigrants from Asia and Eastern Europe about these issues it seems to me like a lot of Americans have never been outside of North America and have a warped view of the rest of the world, while immigrants from poorer nations still see America as a land of opportunity and compare the living standards of the middle classes in the US vs their home country.
It's really wild to hear Americans act like universal healthcare and free/affordable college is a radical communist agenda that's not fiscally feasible even though most other 1st world nations are able to do it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_univers...).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
If you consistently earn more but have less total wealth that to me reeks of the broken window fallacy. There's spending that could be done via more efficient means. eg. Australia spends less tax on healthcare per capita. America spends more tax and then on top of that essentially has a private insurance requirement as well. That's spending that doesn't need to happen but does due to inefficiencies. You could get rid of this but apparently efficiency created by government intervention is socialism (it's not but the USA political system is a mess and people have been swayed).
If you draw comparisons across similar population sizes and similar geographic regions, for example comparing the USA to all of Europe, the numbers look a lot more similar:
Europe median: $26k Europe mean: $174k
USA media: $82k USA mean: $505k
Both regions have roughly a factor of 6 difference between median and mean wealth.
We’re still living in his world.
Australia has the second highest household debt to GDP ratio in the world, second to Switzerland. The US isn't in the top 10: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household....
As others have pointed out, a large part of this is due to increasing house prices, and it is fairly recent:
"Australian household debt levels have increased substantially over the past thirty years, with the ratio of household debt to annual disposable income rising from 68% in June 1990 to a recent peak of 188.5% in June 2019. Since June last year, the ratio has reduced slightly to 185.0%.
Most of the debt held by households is housing debt, which comprises around 76% of overall household debt. Thirty years ago housing debt comprised a much smaller 46% of overall household debt.
...
Most of Australia’s household debt accrual occurred between 1990 and 2010. The ratio of household debt to income increased by 45.7 percentage points between 1990 and 2000, and by another 49.3 percentage points between 2000 and 2010. The past decade has seen growth in the ratio more than half to 21.5 percentage points, with most of that growth aligned with the property boom between late 2012 and 2017.
Importantly, the value of assets held against the debt has recorded a more significant increase, pushing household net worth to new record highs at the end of 2019. Residential dwellings comprise by far the largest component of household assets, totaling $6.8 trillion, or 53% of household wealth."
-- https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2020/11/could-australias-hi...
Australians took on massive debt to buy houses at increasing prices. As long as prices keep going up, their wealth increases. And what are they doing with that wealth increase?
"not all of that housing debt has simply been used to buy homes — many people have been cashing in on the rising value of their properties over the past two decades.
'Even for people who don't buy and sell a home, and stay in the one place, we're finding between 30 and 40 per cent of these people are increasing their debt from one year to the next,' Professor Wilkins says.
'When people are increasing their debt from one year to the next, they're essentially accessing the equity in their home ... people are evidently using that increased equity to fund consumption."
-- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-18/household-debt-leaves...
As long as prices keep going up, it will be fine. But I suspect I know how this story ends.
Purchasing power parity is the thing that interests me the most and gives a more realistic picture.
For example, we have all been fed the utter lie that the USA spends more on military spending than the next 252,895 countries combined.
This does not take into account that a welder in the USA might be paid $52/hour (or whatever it is for a union welder) but a welder in China might be paid $8/hour. So if an aircraft carrier is being built, it will cost $13 billion in the USA, but $500 million in China. So when you add all the billions together for the USA, and for China, of course the USA is going to spend more in absolute dollars, but in what they get, an aircraft carrier is an aircraft carrier no matter what is spend, no matter if it is $500 million or $13 billion per carrier.
This is the purchasing power parity (PPP) which more accurately reflects what you get for your monies.
So when you look at military spending by PPP, the USA only spends more than the 2.5 countries. The USA spends $750 billion. China spends $464 billion and India spends $234 billion = $698 billion for China and India. Adding the third highest spender, Saudi Arabia for $174 billion brings the total up to $872 billion in expenditures for the top 3 countries vs USA's $750 billion.
However, this number is probably skewed, because some of the USA's military spend goes towards the defense of other countries. This expenditure should be reallocated to the countries that benefit. For instance, Canada isn't even on the list. Why would it be? USA would take on 100% of any Canadian military needs. The USA has a huge military presence in Japan, Australia, South Korea. All of Europe is under the USA's umbrella.
It is eye popping that when you look at the GDP PPP of each country, that China's GDP PPP is $23 trillion and the USA is $19 trillion.
Here are the numbers if anyone is interested: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm
Here are the numbers if one goes by the absolute dollar figures, which I know that you will now understand is incorrect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
This is just to illustrate the difference when talking about numbers in purchasing power parity.
As I said, I would be interested in a PPP of the median wealth of every nation. Which I have not been able to find. I'm sure the USA would not be very good on that chart, either, but I would be interested in seeing how it changes everything and how everything would be rearranged. So if anyone has this info, please post below my comment here.
This is all putting aside the basic argument that it's our most fundamental purpose. If we stop reproducing, humanity is extinct within a ~hundred years.
And no, adding more people until everyone has to live a poor destitute life wont make people more creative.
People having children doesn't mean exponential increase in population. The US has an average children per family of 1.93 as of 2019, which actually means the population will shrink.
> adding more people until everyone has to live a poor destitute life wont make people more creative
This is a common fallacy that wealth is a fixed pie, and adding more people into the equation will make existing people poorer. This isn't true — wealth is created!
If you do not have the right amount of population growth, you will have demographic time bombs explode in your face, such as the one China will be facing in the coming decades. There needs to be a decent ratio of working, productive people to nonproductive people in any society that hopes to take care of its older citizens.
Your population growth point seems to imply a misguided idea. With automation, it's possible the population can stagnate or even shrink.
"If you want to go ahead and not perform your one biological imperative"
It seems you are implying that we should follow our biological imperatives without question, and that there is only one. There are several biological imperatives. If we follow them without question then we risk things like war (territorialism), rape (reproduction), etc. Its only because we question these imperatives that we are able to place restraints on them.
Also, I don't think I'll save the planet by not having a bunch of kids. But at least by not having them I wont be bringing them into a life of pain and suffering.
The average person can't choose to raise children at an older age: either he procreates at the replacement rate, or near-term, the population will nosedive and will necessitate technology improvements to make up for the shortfall. Most economists agree on the necessity of having a good rate of population growth for a nation to be prosperous. Countries like Russia and Hungary, which are rapidly depopulating because of a lack of childbearing and immigration, are flailing to arrest the demographic decline.
Europe experienced technology growth and a mini-boom when the plague wiped out huge portions of its population. But it has never fully recovered, with large areas still depopulating, and has experienced a mostly poor rate of growth because of the plague. Demographic disasters are as challenging as climate disasters, if not more, and have affected humanity in huge ways.