4 ms·
That they can afford more, I would assume, is because things are cheaper. clarified below To me it feels like quality of living per dollar has risen tremendous
by ZoF 10y ago
That they can afford more, I would assume, is because things are cheaper. clarified below
To me it feels like quality of living per dollar has risen tremendously over the past generation, but income per household hasn't. So while quality of living overall has improved, it doesn't 'feel' like it with regards to individual wealth. That is to say, an upper-middle class person 15 years ago might feel lower-middle class today even with a better QoL overall.
I would definitely agree that this kind of stagnating income in the middle class is a large part of what is pushing these nationalist/populist movements.
It's definitely not a popular sentiment on HN at the moment(nationalism), but I can definitely see the allure; especially for the lower-middle class who have lived through the past ~15 years and aren't seeing the same increase in wages/authority that the previous generation did.
Personally I have yet to see a real cogent argument for why globalism would help here at all with regards to the growing income inequality in developing nations. From my perspective a single centralized government(e.g.: the EU) can only really benefit the multinational corporation and almost by definition be of detriment to the individual nation-states.
It's hard to really grok the reality of the situation from unemployment/income statistics because they don't really tell the whole tale and of course because I'm neither an economist nor a statistician.
Lastly, I don't think it can really be ignored that this is the fastest changing world our species has ever had to adapt to.
I love technology, of course, but I don't think it's impact has been _only_ good. Looking at pictures of previous generations you can't help but notice the upright postures and healthy bodies that are so often missing from today's populace. Not trying to be a luddite here, and you can of course so,
Edit: to clarify 'because things are cheaper', I'm speaking of disposable items and food, as was stated by another commenter "stuff you can buy in a store"
In fact, I think an important aspect of this discontent is the increasing cost of housing/healthcare relative to income.
- hx87 10y ago> From my perspective a single centralized government(e.g.: the EU) can only really benefit the multinational corporation From my perspective it's the other way around since it's much easier to regulatorily capture smaller governments than larger ones. A large French company can easily capture the French government, especially when the competition is German or Spanish, by leveraging local power and appealing to nationalist sentiment, whereas that wouldn't fly in Brussels.
- socialist_coder 10y agoOne thing the EU does is prevent a "race to the bottom" with regards to foreign trade agreements and tariffs. For example, if Poland wants to trade with China, they cannot negotiate directly. They must go through the EU. This prevents China from playing EU countries against each other to get better and better trade deals. The EU also has labor and human rights protections built into it, so factories that move from Germany to Romania see far less benefit than a factory moving from the US to Mexico.
- johnnyhillbilly 10y agoReally? What about Ireland? They call it the Celtic tiger, but it is really the Celtic leech upon the rest of Europe.
- nazgob 10y agoIt works with trade deals, taxes are not harmonized.
- Turing_Machine 10y agoAn alternative view would be that it makes things much more convenient for bad actors because they only have to bribe one set of bureaucrats. Regulatory capture is a thing.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoBoth views may be valid because the "bad actors" are sentient human beings with working brains, not a force of nature. They have a goal, they'll pick whatever methods works depending on conditions.
- blacksmith_tb 10y ago> Looking at pictures of previous generations you can't help but notice the upright postures and healthy bodies that are so often missing from today's populace. I don't disagree, but they were often leaner from hard physical labor and fewer calories, and lived shorter lives. None of which means they were less happy, or that we are happier, but just that there are tradeoffs involved.
- gaur 10y ago> quality of living per dollar has risen tremendously over the past generation Given how many more dollars it costs to rent or buy property compared to 20 years ago, it is quite evident to many of us that quality of living per dollar has decreased.
- woodpanel 10y agoI think housing costs and quality of living per Dollar are two different things. Why? Aside from many reasons, we westerners changed our perception of what is included in our "quality of life"-basket. Some of those things that can enter this basket are especially scarce and inelastic. And since we've chosen that "life in a dense urban city part" should be in this basket we've chosen one of the most inelastic economic items. Still, it doesn't mean that this life-quality-basket is set in stone. Its composition will change again. And it doesn't have to become more expensive.
- gaur 10y ago> I think housing costs and quality of living per Dollar are two different things. Well, I don't. I consider living in a place I don't like or a property I don't like to contribute to poor quality of life, and I'm definitely not alone in thinking that. Having >40% of my income eaten up to pay for a mediocre living situation is not good quality of life.
- woodpanel 10y agoThats your decision to put this costly housing in your basket. And your not alone making this decision, but a) its a trend and b) the aforementioned 70% of western workers aren't necessarily repeating your choice.
- gaur 10y ago> Thats your decision to put this costly housing in your basket. That's true for a lot of people, so redefining "quality of life" to exclude housing and then claiming that everyone's quality of life is going up seems dishonest.