6 ms·

Crazy that, though this is so widely known, nothing has really changed in the last 100 years. Instead, wages stay stagnant, and cost of living rises. Hours need

Crazy that, though this is so widely known, nothing has really changed in the last 100 years. Instead, wages stay stagnant, and cost of living rises. Hours needed to survive increase. It's all so illogical, it's crazy.

james-watson 10y ago
It's illogical from a rational, maximum-utility-for-all perspective. However, looking at it from the point of view of a primate status hierarchy competition, it makes perfect sense. The apex individuals derive pleasure from subjugating their lower status colleagues, and thus seek to make their lives as miserable as possible. From this point of view, all of human history makes sense. We are but primates, and no amount of highbrow pontificating can change that. Starting today, if the powerful wanted to, they could design a rational system that maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering for the largest number of people possible. But then, there is no incentive in the primate brain to foster such an endeavor. Even philanthropists, instead of uniting and agreeing on a shared vision, compete with each other for status amongst themselves by virtue signalling their own superiority over their peers. It is nature red in tooth and claw. We are no exception.
- jjn2009 10y ago
  >Starting today, if the powerful wanted to, they could design a rational system that maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering for the largest number of people possible. In the same breath you pointed out why such a system does not work then state such a system is possible, I don't think anyone with power would ever genuinely want to enact such a system, but even if they did those participating in such a system would always look for ways to un-level the playing field and recreate the hierarchy we seek in society as primates.
- lastyearman 10y ago
  I remember reading that indigenous people are very equal amongst their tribe.
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
There's also been a massive increase in the standard of living since the early 1900s. Refrigeration (both for food and buildings), telecommunications, computers (all the entertainment you could ever want at your fingertips!), health care, transportation (cars; trains; air fare, while expensive, is still far less costly and is much than a horse or ship over a very long distance). We also expect higher standards in many areas. Regulation increased costs but it also keeps our food and medications water free of contaminants. Auto safety standards keep cars from becoming death traps. All of this costs money, but would you argue the regulatory standard of the early 20th century produced a superior quality of life for the average person? Truth be told, there are only two real expenses in society these days: housing and health care. Maybe we can automate medicine to become as relatively cheap as transportation and information/entertainment has become, but housing will be harder, as per the aforementioned regulations. For example, my girlfriend and I are moving into a 1br which could easily support a second bedroom in the back study, but because that room doesn't have any Windows, by law it cannot be a bedroom. Also, the costs of housing and general rents are passed along to the consumer, so it affects everyone.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  > but because that room doesn't have any Windows, by law it cannot be a bedroom. Could it be a bedroom with Linux?
- petra 10y ago
  There's some doubt on how important all this, when you see surveys that the amish are happier as billionaiers, and on the other hand, empathy decreased by 20% among college student, just between 2000-2010.
Florin_Andrei 10y ago
There's nothing illogical about it. You put pure competition at the foundation of the whole society, well then pure competition permeates everything. The more competitive you are, the better you're blending in. Of course, there's the little nagging fact that the whole system might be orthogonal to stuff such as happiness, or enjoying life.
- lqdc13 10y ago
  For some people happiness only comes from competition. Having said that, competition at work is not great because it leads to worst possible result for workers and best possible result for employers.
  - Florin_Andrei 10y ago
    It's pretty obvious: don't absolutize anything. Pure competition is not the answer to everything. Pure collaboration isn't either. And neither is pure free market, nor pure dictatorship. The secret sauce must be a blend of many different ingredients. The main thing is finding the right proportions.
- aeorgnoieang 10y ago
  I'm not sure I live on the same planet, or even the same universe as you. On my planet most people have an incredibly strong anti-market bias and lots of people strongly and loudly deride competition. Nor is "pure competition" (whatever that is) at the foundation "of the whole society". Instead, the various societies in my world vary to the degree that they believe that competition, particularly economic competition, is important. But very few of them consist of even a large fraction of people that think competition should 'permeate everything'. Nor are there any societies in which a small number of elites have managed to permeate everything with competitiveness. There is however a form of competition that does permeate everything. I refer of course to competition for (relative) status. But still, characterizing it as 'permeating everything' is just hyperbole. It is pervasive and sometimes (if not often) pernicious, but in fact, in my universe at least, most of the world has improved remarkably in a short span of recent time and any even-more-recent backsliding is pretty close to insignificant in comparison to the slightly less recent improvements.
aetherson 10y ago
Wages are nothing like stagnant over a 100 year timeline, they've grown massively. Also, when you say "wages stay stagnant and cost of living rises," you make it sound like real wages have gone down. That's not the case. Nominal wages have increased, but nominal cost of living has also increased, so real wages have been stagnant (on a 30 year, not 100 year, timeline).

james-watson 10y ago

It's illogical from a rational, maximum-utility-for-all perspective. However, looking at it from the point of view of a primate status hierarchy competition, it makes perfect sense. The apex individuals derive pleasure from subjugating their lower status colleagues, and thus seek to make their lives as miserable as possible. From this point of view, all of human history makes sense. We are but primates, and no amount of highbrow pontificating can change that. Starting today, if the powerful wanted to, they could design a rational system that maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering for the largest number of people possible. But then, there is no incentive in the primate brain to foster such an endeavor. Even philanthropists, instead of uniting and agreeing on a shared vision, compete with each other for status amongst themselves by virtue signalling their own superiority over their peers. It is nature red in tooth and claw. We are no exception.

jjn2009 10y ago
>Starting today, if the powerful wanted to, they could design a rational system that maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering for the largest number of people possible. In the same breath you pointed out why such a system does not work then state such a system is possible, I don't think anyone with power would ever genuinely want to enact such a system, but even if they did those participating in such a system would always look for ways to un-level the playing field and recreate the hierarchy we seek in society as primates.
lastyearman 10y ago
I remember reading that indigenous people are very equal amongst their tribe.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

There's also been a massive increase in the standard of living since the early 1900s. Refrigeration (both for food and buildings), telecommunications, computers (all the entertainment you could ever want at your fingertips!), health care, transportation (cars; trains; air fare, while expensive, is still far less costly and is much than a horse or ship over a very long distance). We also expect higher standards in many areas. Regulation increased costs but it also keeps our food and medications water free of contaminants. Auto safety standards keep cars from becoming death traps. All of this costs money, but would you argue the regulatory standard of the early 20th century produced a superior quality of life for the average person? Truth be told, there are only two real expenses in society these days: housing and health care. Maybe we can automate medicine to become as relatively cheap as transportation and information/entertainment has become, but housing will be harder, as per the aforementioned regulations. For example, my girlfriend and I are moving into a 1br which could easily support a second bedroom in the back study, but because that room doesn't have any Windows, by law it cannot be a bedroom. Also, the costs of housing and general rents are passed along to the consumer, so it affects everyone.

antisthenes 10y ago
> but because that room doesn't have any Windows, by law it cannot be a bedroom. Could it be a bedroom with Linux?
petra 10y ago
There's some doubt on how important all this, when you see surveys that the amish are happier as billionaiers, and on the other hand, empathy decreased by 20% among college student, just between 2000-2010.

Florin_Andrei 10y ago

There's nothing illogical about it. You put pure competition at the foundation of the whole society, well then pure competition permeates everything. The more competitive you are, the better you're blending in. Of course, there's the little nagging fact that the whole system might be orthogonal to stuff such as happiness, or enjoying life.

lqdc13 10y ago
For some people happiness only comes from competition. Having said that, competition at work is not great because it leads to worst possible result for workers and best possible result for employers.
- Florin_Andrei 10y ago
  It's pretty obvious: don't absolutize anything. Pure competition is not the answer to everything. Pure collaboration isn't either. And neither is pure free market, nor pure dictatorship. The secret sauce must be a blend of many different ingredients. The main thing is finding the right proportions.
aeorgnoieang 10y ago
I'm not sure I live on the same planet, or even the same universe as you. On my planet most people have an incredibly strong anti-market bias and lots of people strongly and loudly deride competition. Nor is "pure competition" (whatever that is) at the foundation "of the whole society". Instead, the various societies in my world vary to the degree that they believe that competition, particularly economic competition, is important. But very few of them consist of even a large fraction of people that think competition should 'permeate everything'. Nor are there any societies in which a small number of elites have managed to permeate everything with competitiveness. There is however a form of competition that does permeate everything. I refer of course to competition for (relative) status. But still, characterizing it as 'permeating everything' is just hyperbole. It is pervasive and sometimes (if not often) pernicious, but in fact, in my universe at least, most of the world has improved remarkably in a short span of recent time and any even-more-recent backsliding is pretty close to insignificant in comparison to the slightly less recent improvements.

aetherson 10y ago

Wages are nothing like stagnant over a 100 year timeline, they've grown massively. Also, when you say "wages stay stagnant and cost of living rises," you make it sound like real wages have gone down. That's not the case. Nominal wages have increased, but nominal cost of living has also increased, so real wages have been stagnant (on a 30 year, not 100 year, timeline).