5 ms·

Haven't people been asking this for the past few hundred years? And yet we're better off in life than we ever have been. Robots do things cheaper. This allows

by beaner 10y ago

Haven't people been asking this for the past few hundred years? And yet we're better off in life than we ever have been. Robots do things cheaper. This allows prices to fall. Also, if a business has nobody to sell to, then they themselves are in trouble. That they remain profitable is a sign that things are fine. Humans are adaptable creatures and we find other things of value to do. People from some industries will experience short-term pain. But pre-empting that with politics runs the risk of creating socioeconomic cruft that unnecessarily and inefficiently drains more resources in the long run.

duaneb 10y ago
> Haven't people been asking this for the past few hundred years? And yet we're better off in life than we ever have been. I don't think everyone--in this time or others--would agree with this. I certainly don't believe in being "better off", I think that's an illusion born out of minimization of our greatest fears. Just because you aren't about to die of tetanus does not mean your quality of life has improve at all.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  > I certainly don't believe in being "better off" I do. Archeological evidence of American colonists' bones reveal that they worked extremely hard and died young. Look at their clothes in a museum - they look like childrens' sizes. Look at their teeth in bones in museums. Do you prefer teeth like that? I can buy an orange any day of the year. I have hot/cold running water. I'm warm in winter. I have clean water to drink. I have ice cream in the summer. I have endless entertainment at the push of a button. I can talk at any time to any family/friend anywhere in the world at my whim. I'd probably be dead by my age if I lived 200 years ago.
  - duaneb 10y ago
    If you have no option for better teeth, how much does that impact you? Serious question. I really should have framed my example in terms of happiness rather than quality of life.
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      There are many terrible diseases today for which there is no effective treatment. Do you believe people are happy with that situation? I don't.
- akira2501 10y ago
  > Just because you aren't about to die of tetanus does not mean your quality of life has improve at all. I have asthma and require corrective lenses. My quality of life is orders of magnitude better now than it would have been even 100 years ago.
- maverick_iceman 10y ago
  People writing stuff like this should spend a year in a disease prone third world country away from all modern technologies like electricity and internet. Then you'll understand whether you really have a higher quality of life or not.
  - duaneb 10y ago
    Well that's the thing, isn't it? Are you really more likely to be unhappy (or happy) unless you've seen both worlds? Happiness is relative to your frame of reference. Disease is unfortunate. So is the destruction of our earth. The people dearest to me live thousands of miles apart and talk to me through Facebook. That too is unfortunate. I simply wish i could dictate the terms of my lifestyle and I cannot. I understand most do not grapple with this problem.
susan_hall 10y ago
My great grand mother gave birth to 16 children, who had healthy childhoods and good educations. My family was not wealthy. Nowadays only the wealthy could afford to raise 16 children, with good childhoods and good education. If people now are more affluent than they were in the past, then why is it more difficult to raise children? For those who wish to have large families, it seems obvious that the last 100 years have seen expenses related to raising children rise at a rate faster than the median wage has risen.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  In the 1800's, having children was a net asset because they were put to work as soon as they could walk. This is not so in today's society, where they are unemployable and do not contribute economically until 22 or 23. Also, my grandparents came from families with 8 or more children, and many of them died as children. This was normal for those days.
  - susan_hall 10y ago
    "In the 1800's, having children was a net asset because they were put to work as soon as they could walk" You are expanding upon my example without explaining it. My point remains: has the standard of living gone up? If people could do productive work at the age of 10, but now they have to wait till they are 25, then what metric do you use to prove that the standard of living has gone up? If you want to argue that leisure has expanded, can you prove that the expansion of leisure is entirely experienced as a positive thing? Are young men happier now that they can't find good paying work till they are in their late 20s, rather than finding such work in their late teens? It remains true that it was easier to raise children 100 years ago than it is now. Is there a metric that shows this as a decline in the standard of living? My point is that there is a lot that is left out of these metrics. A simplistic look at median wage and the Consumer Price Index suggests that the male median wage peaked in 1973 and family income peaked in 1999. But if you were to measure those factors that are specific to raising a family, the decline in the standard of living, for families, would show up earlier than 1999. As to the "half the children died" argument, the steepest part of the decline in childhood death was 1850 to 1900. Of the 16 children my great grandmother gave birth to, 15 lived till at least their 18th birthday.

by beaner 10y ago

duaneb 10y ago

> Haven't people been asking this for the past few hundred years? And yet we're better off in life than we ever have been. I don't think everyone--in this time or others--would agree with this. I certainly don't believe in being "better off", I think that's an illusion born out of minimization of our greatest fears. Just because you aren't about to die of tetanus does not mean your quality of life has improve at all.

WalterBright 10y ago
> I certainly don't believe in being "better off" I do. Archeological evidence of American colonists' bones reveal that they worked extremely hard and died young. Look at their clothes in a museum - they look like childrens' sizes. Look at their teeth in bones in museums. Do you prefer teeth like that? I can buy an orange any day of the year. I have hot/cold running water. I'm warm in winter. I have clean water to drink. I have ice cream in the summer. I have endless entertainment at the push of a button. I can talk at any time to any family/friend anywhere in the world at my whim. I'd probably be dead by my age if I lived 200 years ago.
- duaneb 10y ago
  If you have no option for better teeth, how much does that impact you? Serious question. I really should have framed my example in terms of happiness rather than quality of life.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    There are many terrible diseases today for which there is no effective treatment. Do you believe people are happy with that situation? I don't.
akira2501 10y ago
> Just because you aren't about to die of tetanus does not mean your quality of life has improve at all. I have asthma and require corrective lenses. My quality of life is orders of magnitude better now than it would have been even 100 years ago.
maverick_iceman 10y ago
People writing stuff like this should spend a year in a disease prone third world country away from all modern technologies like electricity and internet. Then you'll understand whether you really have a higher quality of life or not.
- duaneb 10y ago
  Well that's the thing, isn't it? Are you really more likely to be unhappy (or happy) unless you've seen both worlds? Happiness is relative to your frame of reference. Disease is unfortunate. So is the destruction of our earth. The people dearest to me live thousands of miles apart and talk to me through Facebook. That too is unfortunate. I simply wish i could dictate the terms of my lifestyle and I cannot. I understand most do not grapple with this problem.

susan_hall 10y ago

My great grand mother gave birth to 16 children, who had healthy childhoods and good educations. My family was not wealthy. Nowadays only the wealthy could afford to raise 16 children, with good childhoods and good education. If people now are more affluent than they were in the past, then why is it more difficult to raise children? For those who wish to have large families, it seems obvious that the last 100 years have seen expenses related to raising children rise at a rate faster than the median wage has risen.

WalterBright 10y ago
In the 1800's, having children was a net asset because they were put to work as soon as they could walk. This is not so in today's society, where they are unemployable and do not contribute economically until 22 or 23. Also, my grandparents came from families with 8 or more children, and many of them died as children. This was normal for those days.
- susan_hall 10y ago
  "In the 1800's, having children was a net asset because they were put to work as soon as they could walk" You are expanding upon my example without explaining it. My point remains: has the standard of living gone up? If people could do productive work at the age of 10, but now they have to wait till they are 25, then what metric do you use to prove that the standard of living has gone up? If you want to argue that leisure has expanded, can you prove that the expansion of leisure is entirely experienced as a positive thing? Are young men happier now that they can't find good paying work till they are in their late 20s, rather than finding such work in their late teens? It remains true that it was easier to raise children 100 years ago than it is now. Is there a metric that shows this as a decline in the standard of living? My point is that there is a lot that is left out of these metrics. A simplistic look at median wage and the Consumer Price Index suggests that the male median wage peaked in 1973 and family income peaked in 1999. But if you were to measure those factors that are specific to raising a family, the decline in the standard of living, for families, would show up earlier than 1999. As to the "half the children died" argument, the steepest part of the decline in childhood death was 1850 to 1900. Of the 16 children my great grandmother gave birth to, 15 lived till at least their 18th birthday.