Most corporate jobs are paying just enough to afford a [deleted: decent] place to live, [deleted: a vacation, and then putting away a few thousand in savings].
2) even if this is true, at least we're not, I dunno, dying in our 30s and have things like running water?
That doesn't say much when that's been the long run trend since the industrial revolution.
I say this as a happy father of 2 kids.
And the people who are crapping out kids may not be the ones you'd like to be carrying the torch forward into the next century.
Who are you building this future for if not for your children and those of your friends and family?
Tell me that the Quiverfull types who are having 10 kids are the ones who will appreciate your new app and I'll tell you you're full of crap.
this is basically guaranteed to be the case because in urban areas, the biggest expense is housing, which is inherently a positional good. Paying more wouldn't help, because everyone would just bid up the prices on housing and negate any nominal increase.
The capital holders are taking all of the excess wealth created
The fallacy here is thinking that prices was ever or should be set by "economic value". It plays a role, but only as an upper bound; you can't price something that's higher than the value it provides. Many goods/services (eg. food or healthcare) arguably provides infinite value to the purchaser, given that they're required for survival, but I doubt you'd come out to argue that we should reprice them according to their "economic value".
>The capital holders are taking all of the excess wealth created
This feels like a tautology to me, because you're defining "excess wealth" as (economic value generated) - (wages/expenses paid), which is just a roundabout way of saying "profits".
And that there's a ratio of profit vs wages taken out of that. That ratio can be larger or smaller. If that ratio is 1, there is no wages, and if it's 0, there is no profit.
The comment is that that ratio is too close to 1.
That factoring wouldn't make sense in the context of the original comment, because it also claims that "The capital holders are taking all of the excess wealth created", which clearly isn't the case because we're not paying everyone $0 in wages.