5 ms·

I'm 23. I think it can be summarized thusly: Our lives are a lot more comfortable - relatively painless and full of entertainment. Our lives are a lot more di

I'm 23. I think it can be summarized thusly: Our lives are a lot more comfortable - relatively painless and full of entertainment. Our lives are a lot more disappointing - expectations of continued economic progress and social advancement fostered by parents and observations of the last 100 years of stupendous growth have fallen flat.

kpennell 10y ago
thanks for the succinct summary.
antisthenes 10y ago
The economic progress and social advancement of the mid 20th century can largely be attributed to the explosive growth of consumption and exploitation of fossil fuels. To give you some perspective, between 1955 and 1977, oil production has quadrupled, with consumption mostly going towards developed countries, out of which US was in a majorly advantageous position after WWII. The time period coincides perfectly with Boomers coming to maturity, starting their first adult jobs, buying houses and starting families. The problem here is that we have experienced an anomalous amount of general wealth growth, and have internalized it as the norm, whereas nothing could be further from the truth and it still remains just an anomaly.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  But wealth growth didn't slow down after that period. Wage growth (in the US, at least) stopped, but wealth (and productivity) growth kept right on. It just that the returns of that growth aren't going to labor. So, maybe look at the policy and other changes that redirected the wealth growth (which has continued) rather than asserting that it was an anomalous period of wealth growth.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    > It just that the returns of that growth aren't going to labor. You're absolutely right. I was merely pointing out that we are viewing that short period of wage growth as the norm, whereas the entire system is not sustainable because it depends on finite and destructive fossil fuels. It doesn't matter if our generation got a bigger cut of the wealth on the historic scale - in this case it would have been the next generation (Z? Z 2.0 ?) that would be forced with a rude awakening and stagnating wages. > rather than asserting that it was an anomalous period of wealth growth. But that's the part that's not really under dispute. Wealth grew as a result of fossil fuel exploitation. Wages grew for a time until the marginal product of labor started going down in relation to capital (that doesn't mean productivity or output stayed constant) and it became more advantageous to accrue wealth.

kpennell 10y ago

thanks for the succinct summary.

antisthenes 10y ago

The economic progress and social advancement of the mid 20th century can largely be attributed to the explosive growth of consumption and exploitation of fossil fuels. To give you some perspective, between 1955 and 1977, oil production has quadrupled, with consumption mostly going towards developed countries, out of which US was in a majorly advantageous position after WWII. The time period coincides perfectly with Boomers coming to maturity, starting their first adult jobs, buying houses and starting families. The problem here is that we have experienced an anomalous amount of general wealth growth, and have internalized it as the norm, whereas nothing could be further from the truth and it still remains just an anomaly.

dragonwriter 10y ago
But wealth growth didn't slow down after that period. Wage growth (in the US, at least) stopped, but wealth (and productivity) growth kept right on. It just that the returns of that growth aren't going to labor. So, maybe look at the policy and other changes that redirected the wealth growth (which has continued) rather than asserting that it was an anomalous period of wealth growth.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  > It just that the returns of that growth aren't going to labor. You're absolutely right. I was merely pointing out that we are viewing that short period of wage growth as the norm, whereas the entire system is not sustainable because it depends on finite and destructive fossil fuels. It doesn't matter if our generation got a bigger cut of the wealth on the historic scale - in this case it would have been the next generation (Z? Z 2.0 ?) that would be forced with a rude awakening and stagnating wages. > rather than asserting that it was an anomalous period of wealth growth. But that's the part that's not really under dispute. Wealth grew as a result of fossil fuel exploitation. Wages grew for a time until the marginal product of labor started going down in relation to capital (that doesn't mean productivity or output stayed constant) and it became more advantageous to accrue wealth.