3 ms·

1. It's not about luxury stuff. Our homes aren't bigger because we want bigger homes (except for those wealthy enough to hire architects and design their own h

1. It's not about luxury stuff. Our homes aren't bigger because we want bigger homes (except for those wealthy enough to hire architects and design their own homes). We have to pay for whatever the developers have built in the area we need at the time we need it. Smaller homes are less available, older, less efficient, and often need a lot of work. Things like computers and televisions aren't expensive luxuries, they are durable commodities with negligible and decreasing costs. You can get a decent computer that will last for years at an average cost of $75 per year (less if you don't need a high-end one). That's a fraction of one workweek per year, even at minimum wage. The real issue is that the cost of living hasn't scaled with those occasional consumer goods purchases. Housing, healthcare, utilities, transportation, food, education, etc. are constant necessity expenses, and costs are increasing in those areas. 2. This is somewhat true, but primarily in light of the fact that we see it as a tradeoff - that more time at home / with family hurts our careers/earning; or more extreme, we're too busy working so we have to hire people to raise our kids and clean our houses. If we didn't see it in terms of costs (or opportunity costs), then spending time with family and tidying up our homes would just be things that we did, rather than work. If anything, he was overly optimistic in thinking that we could go 100 years without wars or civil dissensions, and without the powerful few increasing the cost of living and draining wealth from the masses.

Kenji 10y ago
The real issue is that the cost of living hasn't scaled with those occasional consumer goods purchases. Housing, healthcare, utilities, transportation, food, education, etc. are constant necessity expenses, and costs are increasing in those areas. How peculiar, where is the state most involved?? Is it a coincidence?
- pixl97 10y ago
  Well, the state is simply involved in those because they are life and death matters. If there were suddenly not utilities tomorrow the modern way of life would disappear. Food, for example, is one that rapidly decreased in the 1900s due to automation and rapid advances in farming. This lead to a drastic decrease in the number of farmers, making all of us more dependent on those few. If floods, famines, or rapid price swings occurred farmers could easily go out of business in such numbers that it could lead to food shortages the next year. This lead to government insurance of crops and price protection on many commodities. It has been said that food security is national security, and it's not wrong. If you want people angry, get them hungry. Separate from that, the listed 'needs' you stated above can be automated in production, but they aren't easily optimized for use. For example, you can make a computer that's half the size, use half the materials, runs twice as fast for half the cost if you keep investing in R&D. But you cannot cut a humans caloric intake and half and make them more efficient. Education too, is one of the things that is difficult to measure what 'enough' is. In theory the more education you get the better. We could probably give out 1930s levels of education pretty easily, and much less expensive than we do it now. But you don't need a 30's education, you need to compete in the world of 7 billion people and computerized everything.

Kenji 10y ago

The real issue is that the cost of living hasn't scaled with those occasional consumer goods purchases. Housing, healthcare, utilities, transportation, food, education, etc. are constant necessity expenses, and costs are increasing in those areas. How peculiar, where is the state most involved?? Is it a coincidence?

pixl97 10y ago
Well, the state is simply involved in those because they are life and death matters. If there were suddenly not utilities tomorrow the modern way of life would disappear. Food, for example, is one that rapidly decreased in the 1900s due to automation and rapid advances in farming. This lead to a drastic decrease in the number of farmers, making all of us more dependent on those few. If floods, famines, or rapid price swings occurred farmers could easily go out of business in such numbers that it could lead to food shortages the next year. This lead to government insurance of crops and price protection on many commodities. It has been said that food security is national security, and it's not wrong. If you want people angry, get them hungry. Separate from that, the listed 'needs' you stated above can be automated in production, but they aren't easily optimized for use. For example, you can make a computer that's half the size, use half the materials, runs twice as fast for half the cost if you keep investing in R&D. But you cannot cut a humans caloric intake and half and make them more efficient. Education too, is one of the things that is difficult to measure what 'enough' is. In theory the more education you get the better. We could probably give out 1930s levels of education pretty easily, and much less expensive than we do it now. But you don't need a 30's education, you need to compete in the world of 7 billion people and computerized everything.