However, I believe philanthropy is not a scalable solution to systemic issues. People tend to pay for causes that make them feel good, which doesn't line up with what actually needs to be solved. I strongly believe that we need to get everyone contributing to societal maintenance, rather than relying on people opting in.
The lower ends of that income spectrum are dealing with difficult choices about whether to cut food, heating, housing, medicine, sanitation, childcare, etc. Low level crime is a symptom of people being squeezed too hard.
So, let's dive a layer deeper: what causes inequal access to healthcare, housing, education, sanitation, etc.? Part of it is cultural -- people framing the question as, "Why should I give up some of my income so someone else doesn't have raw sewage pumped into their yard?" rather than, "What's the baseline experience we should all have, no matter what, and how much do I have to give up to ensure that?"
Fundamentally, I think culturally, in the US, we prioritize "mine" too much over "ours", which leads to tight fists on improving conditions and addressing economic inequality, which leads to systemic problems in housing/food/education/etc., which leads to crime, drug abuse, mental health problems, etc.
As for the second question, I think you are asking whether companies are obligated to grow their profits/income and how is that tied to these issues? I want to make sure I understand what you are asking before I try to answer.
Thanks for asking good questions. We might not agree on the root causes here, or what to do about it, but at least this set of questions is a reasonable dive into things.
For example, a manager earns more, people want to be managers. Only way to get more managers is to grow and get more workers. Now you have even more people who want to be managers.
It's an interesting idea, and sort of a novel (to me, at least) framing of the ideas behind a ponzi scheme or keeping up with the Joneses or the American dream (that we could all be millionaires). It also seems to be the natural order for the capitalist economy, if I understand the thesis correctly. ( Capital must beget capital, else no one would invest. As more people invest, we must grow to sustain the growth in capital.)
I need to think about it a bit more, but it seems to me that the theory assumes the actor is a solipsist or predominantly interested in their own self. I'm not sure that's necessarily axiomatic in American culture.
Thanks for sharing the concept, and feel free to offer suggestions or corrections where I misunderstood it.