3 ms·
Is your argument that if your TV is big enough you won't notice your otherwise poor standard of living?
by starkfist 16y ago
Is your argument that if your TV is big enough you won't notice your otherwise poor standard of living?
- jquery 16y agoI think he's arguing that money != wealth, and that other things contribute to standard of living other than how big one's house is.
- starkfist 16y agoLiving in a $2400/m studio apartment for a few months is a good way to cure one's self of this conceit.
- CWuestefeld 16y agoWhy does everyone insist on defining wealth in terms of housing? Today, virtually everyone has air conditioning. When I was a kid, this was quite rare. Today , everyone has at least one telephone. I can remember families sharing party lines, or even having no phone at all. Today, most infections can be readily cured (yes, even for people without insurance!). For my grandparents this was unthinkable. Today I can store food for a long time, and enjoy a cold drink whenever I want. A century ago, who could have that? Today we have so much food available to us that the overriding health concern is obesity. Today I can listen to virtually any piece of music, or view any piece of art, on the slightest whim, in the comfort of my favorite chair. That was unthinkable when I was a child. All these things are within the economic reach of virtually everyone, at least if he's got the most basic job. Yet even a century ago they could be enjoyed only by kings, if that.
- DannoHung 16y agoKeep in mind that there was definitely a real estate bubble. Maybe he'll be able to afford his Dad's house soon.
- natrius 16y agoRegardless, the demand for the land under his dad's house has greatly increased since it was purchased (unless the house is in Detroit). If you consider housing in areas with zero or negative population growth over the past generation, people can probably afford their parents' houses.