<p>Listen to the 30 seconds leading up to that claim. To me it is clear that he is talking of factory jobs. And there he is right. The top countries have no trouble producing more than 10 times the per capita consumption of industry goods per worker. </p>

<p>What he is saying is that production of goods is very efficent. He then goes on and mentions Germany and the US. I looked up the numbers of my home country, Sweden. In Sweden, the number of factory workers has decreased by more than a third since 1970, but production is way up. His point is that lack of production capacity isn't the reason why not everyone has a car, tv, washing machine, etc. We have the technology to produce the same material wealth (things, not services) for the entire world using just 10% of the population.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-23T05:39:51.043Z
While this technically doesn't answer my question, it's a different point of view that I haven't considered. Thank you!
Sorin
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-23T09:35:11.517Z
@Sorin Technically, my answer would be No. Such a small amount of work would not be enough to also provide health care, education, entertainment, food, and shelter in abundance.
Klas Lindbäck
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-23T00:45:08.737Z
2017-03-23T00:45:08.737Z
Klas Lindbäck
<p>In <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWMmBG3Z4DI&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=2491" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a discussion</a> at the <a href="http://watson.brown.edu/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs</a> on Nov 9, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Blyth" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mark Blyth</a>, a political scientist, said that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>We live in a world where literally 10% of the population could provide super-abundance for everyone.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Despite not being defined by Blyth in that talk, I'm assuming that super-abundance in this means:</p>

<ul>
<li>3500 kcal (14.6 MJ) per day in nutritionally complete food</li>
<li>100 sq meters of appropriate shelter </li>
<li>clothes </li>
<li>entertainment (including vacations)</li>
<li>healthcare, education, sanitation and everything else related to the first two levels on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow&#39;s_hierarchy_of_needs" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Maslow's hierarchy of needs</a> </li>
</ul>

<p>Can 10% of the population working full time or the entire working population (I'm assuming that 50% of the population is work capable) working only 20% of the time provide for the entire world ?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-22T15:52:14.090Z
While "nutritionally complete" is more or less a scientifically accurate, 'appropriate' in "appropriate shelter" is not. Neither is the level of entertainment required (I myself fancy a nice yoyo), the level of healthcare, etc. Without this info the question cannot be answered.
Giskard
<optimization>
Can 10% of the population provide super-abundance for the entire world?
Sorin
# Can 10% of the population provide super-abundance for the entire world?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-03-22)

In [a discussion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWMmBG3Z4DI&feature=youtu.be&t=2491) at the [Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs](http://watson.brown.edu/) on Nov 9, [Mark Blyth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Blyth), a political scientist, said that

> We live in a world where literally 10% of the population could provide super-abundance for everyone.

Despite not being defined by Blyth in that talk, I'm assuming that super-abundance in this means:

* 3500 kcal (14.6 MJ) per day in nutritionally complete food
* 100 sq meters of appropriate shelter
* clothes
* entertainment (including vacations)
* healthcare, education, sanitation and everything else related to the first two levels on [Maslow's hierarchy of needs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs)

Can 10% of the population working full time or the entire working population (I'm assuming that 50% of the population is work capable) working only 20% of the time provide for the entire world ?

**Tags:** optimization

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: While "nutritionally complete" is more or less a scientifically accurate, 'appropriate' in "appropriate shelter" is not. Neither is the level of entertainment required (I myself fancy a nice yoyo), the level of healthcare, etc. Without this info the question cannot be answered.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-03-23. Score: 2

Listen to the 30 seconds leading up to that claim. To me it is clear that he is talking of factory jobs. And there he is right. The top countries have no trouble producing more than 10 times the per capita consumption of industry goods per worker.

What he is saying is that production of goods is very efficent. He then goes on and mentions Germany and the US. I looked up the numbers of my home country, Sweden. In Sweden, the number of factory workers has decreased by more than a third since 1970, but production is way up. His point is that lack of production capacity isn't the reason why not everyone has a car, tv, washing machine, etc. We have the technology to produce the same material wealth (things, not services) for the entire world using just 10% of the population.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: While this technically doesn't answer my question, it's a different point of view that I haven't considered. Thank you!  
> **username_2**: @username_0 Technically, my answer would be No. Such a small amount of work would not be enough to also provide health care, education, entertainment, food, and shelter in abundance.  

---

