11 ms·

Understanding the economic significance of the light bulb

159 points by goodcanadian 10y ago

banku_brougham 10y ago
Fascinating discussion about technological development. The article didnt say if there is a part two where he answers the question posed in the title. Inflation (or really the deflating cost of light) is mentioned, and we can infer many things that probably matter based on the falling price, but I still want to know why it matters.
- wutbrodo 10y ago
  > I still want to know why it matters I think the headline was just a catchy way to refer to the thesis of the article: that relying too much on inflation adjustments to make apples-to-apples comparisons misses part of the picture
- azernik 10y ago
  The point is that we talk about inflation (and hence, real economic growth) by comparing equivalent baskets of goods and services year-to-year. However, that "equivalent" part is actually non-trivial - how do you decide how much more this year's iPhone 6 is worth than last year's iPhone 5 when you're trying to determine inflation in consumer products prices? (In periods of rapid technological change, the comparisons are much weirder - how do you compare consumer prices when people suddenly start buying cars, or personal computers?)
  - branchless 10y ago
    The UK doesn't reflect land price increases into inflation stats so any debate over other marginal factors is a waste of time. Inflation figures are a tool for printing via land and for soft default on debt obligations.
  - Someone 10y ago
    As you may already know, a way that is done (1) is by choosing a 'basket' of products, for example "that what a typical family of four spends its money on", and periodically updating that (e.g. by replacing cable tv by a Netflix subscription). That's similar to the way the components in the Dow Jones industrial are updated to reflect the average US industrial fund (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_components_of_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_components_of_the_D...) (1) it isn't really possible to do it at all, but it is done that way, anyways.
    - azernik 10y ago
      What this study is trying to point out is that this substitution doesn't capture the increase in value from switching to the new technologies. That methodology might not capture the superiority (or inferiority) of Netflix as a value proposition. ie if there's a one-to-one substitution of spending but you're getting more for your money, that's a deflation effect that your methodology may not catch. Usually because it's hard to quantify the relative values of different related products. Light is a theoretically interesting exception that this researcher used to prove a point.
- pjc50 10y ago
  It's an example of technology enabling the production of more with less human input, and therefore the freeing up of humans to do other things such as develop more technology. Similar work has been done for e.g. textiles; in the pre-machine era, the amount of work for even a simple shirt in today's minimum-wage-dollars is something like $3000. The dishwasher/washing machine are, along with textile automation, major liberators of women's work.
  - tomjen3 10y ago
    My grandma weaved, on a non-mechanical loom, and sewed a light jacket for herself (one that was not even slightly water resistant). She estimated that it took 200 hours, but she also pointed out something else: she was the only one in her weaving group who could make one, and the group has been weaving for years. So you are not even looking for minimum-wage-dollars. You are looking for semi-skilled labour; and those 200 hours didn't include making and dying the yarn, growing and harvesting the plants, etc (she purchased or were given the yarn). I love my dishwasher, but that doesn't even come close to reducing the cost of a light jacket by a factor of 100-1000. My washing machine is of much more utility since I spend only maybe ten minutes a week washing vs an entire days worth of labour.
_coldfire 10y ago
Bit of a tangent but a shoutout to the darksky movement. Just because lighting is cheaper doesn't mean you have to turn on the switch. https://phys.org/news/2017-01-dark-astronomy-life.html https://phys.org/news/2017-01-dark-astronomy-life.html
notimetorelax 10y ago
Was hoping to read why the falling cost of light matters in modern times.
- function_seven 10y ago
  I take it as an example that can apply to many other areas of life and technology. Adjusted for inflation, I earn the same or less than my parents did when they were my age. (This is touted as the failure of the American Dream). Yet my life is considerably less of a hassle then theirs was. While the value of a dollar is less than it was then, I am able to do things that were simply impossible in 1970. Things I don’t worry about, that they did: * Cost of long distance phone calls (VoIP) * Cost of mailing a letter (E-mail) * Smog (Catalytic converter) * Missing a TV show (DVR, Netflix) * Replacing light bulbs (LEDs) * Hepatitis C (That Gilead drug) * Depositing checks at the bank (No more checks, or photo deposit) * Developing film (Digital Camera) All of these are thanks to advancing technology. Each one on its own may be a small improvement, but across all sections of our daily life, they free up time to be spent in other ways. Some people see this as a long-term hazard to society. I’m not sure I disagree; I see their point. But if that freed-up time is conscientiously reallocated, then the upper limit on any one person’s potential has been raised.
  - VLM 10y ago
    The optimist glass is full of "nice to have" other than the Hep-C pharma which is the only "must have". The pessimist glass is full of "must have" like pay kids college, pay for health care, purchase roof over head, purchase car or alternative transport. And those trends are not looking good. This is aside from negative technologies. Military drones. Mass surveillance. Social media. Fake news. Corn syrup. Industrialized heavily processed food in general. And of course technologies that are on the bubble. The net result of fast food drive thru as a technology is likely negative, although superficially what could possibly go wrong with food that's fast? I've noticed over decades in the field that providing more automation to businesses sometimes results in more complicated systems rather than more productive systems. Probably the small number of failures being more memorable than the larger number of successes... An ever more complicated culture is not necessarily better, but it is certainly more brittle and prone to collapse.
csuwldcat 10y ago
I just wanted to take a moment to thank Capitalism - an overwhelmingly positive system of resource optimization that's oft-maligned by the econ-shallow, which drives creativity and human advancement through entrepreneurship and the desire to succeed.
- chillwaves 10y ago
  This doesn't seem like the place to pledge allegiance. Maybe I am wrong.
- Aloha 10y ago
  Communism is well suited to giving people a better horse instead of a car - when the whole system is collectively planned and owned - there is no incentive at all for creative destruction.
  - onion2k 10y ago
    There is an incentive for creative destruction - failure. If you can't continue innovating (eg you can't make a better horse) you have to take a different approach.
  - zkms 10y ago
    Collective planning is not inherent to communism and communism doesn't inherently restrict the sort of market forces that enable "creative destruction".
    - mseebach 10y ago
      It's important to remember in these kinds of debates that there are two kinds of communism: The practical communism, the one actually tried dozens and dozens of times, despite implementing a pretty fair range of possible combinations of parameters, yet returning a the same pretty narrow range of failures pretty invariably -- and then the theoretical communism, as read and understood by contemporary western intellectuals for whom practical communism (or, as it's often known, "not real communism") is mostly irrelevant. With that, your observation is entirely correct, but it pertains to theoretical communism. The GP was likely referring to practical communism, and in that context, yes, practical communism most definitely inherently restricts market-driven creative destruction. (Cool side-anecdote: Karl Popper invented the scientific method partly in response to Marxist "science".)
intrasight 10y ago
When I was in first grade (1972) my teacher said that there was only one factory in the country that made light bulbs. I remember even at that young age thinking that can't possibly be true. But I've never gone and researched it. Funny the things you remember when you're six.
- sjcsjc 10y ago
  I have a vivid memory of being on a train journey, probably c. 4 years old, with my grandmother and her explaining to me that the reason the train stopped every now and then was because the people pushing it got tired. Yes, it's funny what you remember. I'll never know if she actually did say that or if I invented it. I don't think she was much of a joker.
noahmbarr 10y ago
More interesting is the effect of lightening Has had from moving us from a primarily "daylight only" culture to a 24-hour culture.
patio11 10y ago
See also: clean water, warm food, cold food, air conditioning, heating, books (cost of duplication now lower than ~$100k per volume), music (especially when measured per second of other-than-ambient sound supplied), ability to move heavy things short distances, ability to move anything long distances, ability to transfer one's person any distance, cost of moving one letter worth of information one kilometer (for bonus points add SLAs on days required), etc etc.
- retube 10y ago
  Yup. It's frustrating to hear people wailing about how shit everything is when in reality they are living lives of comfort and safety unparalleled in human history.
  - everyone 10y ago
    Simply physical comforts will not make humans happy. We have very intense cheating detection, perceived inequality, unfairness or injustice will piss us off. Also, our evaluation of how well-off we are is based on comparing to our neighbours.
    - snrplfth 10y ago
      >We have very intense cheating detection, perceived inequality, unfairness or injustice will piss us off. True - although it's often a very mono-directional detector. Anyone higher up on the ladder, or taking advantage of cheats we didn't see, gets the full focus of our attention, while anyone lower down or slow on the take is clearly just a sucker. Pretty bad heuristic, unfortunately.
    - rmc 10y ago
      > Simply physical comforts will not make humans happy. Correct. But take away "physical comforts" and people are much much more likely to be unhappy.
  - ska 10y ago
    We've been living lives of unparalleled comfort and safety with nearly monotonic increase since after the industrial revolution. Would you have preferred all progress had stopped at some point? Mostly things get better because people are dissatisfied with current state. edit: I find the downvotes on this confusing - I don't see anything controversial in above.
babesh 10y ago
We live in an interacting system of market systems, governments, democracies, culture, and technological evolution on a blue, green, brown, and white planet. It is a giant spaghetti ball full of externalities and extremes. Masses of humanity lifted from poverty, massive extinction, climate change, rapid technological development. However, it only a few centuries ago led to massive slavery, population loss, etc... It is hard to say where this will lead but I suspect that it will continue to lead to both extremes and it's a good idea to spread our seed as widely as possible. Mars, Moon, etc... Because it's pretty much a guarantee that someone will screw up mightily and we're not talking just politics.
henrik_w 10y ago
This reminded me of the book "How We Got To Now" by Steven Johnson. Really interesting book on how development in certain fields enabled other innovations ("adjacent possible"). Really well written and super interesting book! Also, bonus points for the last chapter on Ada Lovelace, and what a visionary she was in terms of what a computer could do. https://www.amazon.com/How-We-Got-Now-Innovations/dp/1594633932/ https://www.amazon.com/How-We-Got-Now-Innovations/dp/1594633...
finnh 10y ago
Excellent Planet Money podcast on the same topic: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/04/25/306862378/episode-534-the-history-of-light http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/04/25/306862378/episo... Basically, the history of light makes for a nice capsule summary of the entire history of our economic development.

159 points by goodcanadian 10y ago

Fascinating discussion about technological development. The article didnt say if there is a part two where he answers the question posed in the title. Inflation (or really the deflating cost of light) is mentioned, and we can infer many things that probably matter based on the falling price, but I still want to know why it matters.

wutbrodo 10y ago
> I still want to know why it matters I think the headline was just a catchy way to refer to the thesis of the article: that relying too much on inflation adjustments to make apples-to-apples comparisons misses part of the picture
azernik 10y ago
The point is that we talk about inflation (and hence, real economic growth) by comparing equivalent baskets of goods and services year-to-year. However, that "equivalent" part is actually non-trivial - how do you decide how much more this year's iPhone 6 is worth than last year's iPhone 5 when you're trying to determine inflation in consumer products prices? (In periods of rapid technological change, the comparisons are much weirder - how do you compare consumer prices when people suddenly start buying cars, or personal computers?)
- branchless 10y ago
  The UK doesn't reflect land price increases into inflation stats so any debate over other marginal factors is a waste of time. Inflation figures are a tool for printing via land and for soft default on debt obligations.
- Someone 10y ago
  As you may already know, a way that is done (1) is by choosing a 'basket' of products, for example "that what a typical family of four spends its money on", and periodically updating that (e.g. by replacing cable tv by a Netflix subscription). That's similar to the way the components in the Dow Jones industrial are updated to reflect the average US industrial fund (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_components_of_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_components_of_the_D...) (1) it isn't really possible to do it at all, but it is done that way, anyways.
  - azernik 10y ago
    What this study is trying to point out is that this substitution doesn't capture the increase in value from switching to the new technologies. That methodology might not capture the superiority (or inferiority) of Netflix as a value proposition. ie if there's a one-to-one substitution of spending but you're getting more for your money, that's a deflation effect that your methodology may not catch. Usually because it's hard to quantify the relative values of different related products. Light is a theoretically interesting exception that this researcher used to prove a point.
pjc50 10y ago
It's an example of technology enabling the production of more with less human input, and therefore the freeing up of humans to do other things such as develop more technology. Similar work has been done for e.g. textiles; in the pre-machine era, the amount of work for even a simple shirt in today's minimum-wage-dollars is something like $3000. The dishwasher/washing machine are, along with textile automation, major liberators of women's work.
- tomjen3 10y ago
  My grandma weaved, on a non-mechanical loom, and sewed a light jacket for herself (one that was not even slightly water resistant). She estimated that it took 200 hours, but she also pointed out something else: she was the only one in her weaving group who could make one, and the group has been weaving for years. So you are not even looking for minimum-wage-dollars. You are looking for semi-skilled labour; and those 200 hours didn't include making and dying the yarn, growing and harvesting the plants, etc (she purchased or were given the yarn). I love my dishwasher, but that doesn't even come close to reducing the cost of a light jacket by a factor of 100-1000. My washing machine is of much more utility since I spend only maybe ten minutes a week washing vs an entire days worth of labour.

_coldfire 10y ago

Bit of a tangent but a shoutout to the darksky movement. Just because lighting is cheaper doesn't mean you have to turn on the switch. https://phys.org/news/2017-01-dark-astronomy-life.html https://phys.org/news/2017-01-dark-astronomy-life.html

notimetorelax 10y ago

Was hoping to read why the falling cost of light matters in modern times.

function_seven 10y ago
I take it as an example that can apply to many other areas of life and technology. Adjusted for inflation, I earn the same or less than my parents did when they were my age. (This is touted as the failure of the American Dream). Yet my life is considerably less of a hassle then theirs was. While the value of a dollar is less than it was then, I am able to do things that were simply impossible in 1970. Things I don’t worry about, that they did: * Cost of long distance phone calls (VoIP) * Cost of mailing a letter (E-mail) * Smog (Catalytic converter) * Missing a TV show (DVR, Netflix) * Replacing light bulbs (LEDs) * Hepatitis C (That Gilead drug) * Depositing checks at the bank (No more checks, or photo deposit) * Developing film (Digital Camera) All of these are thanks to advancing technology. Each one on its own may be a small improvement, but across all sections of our daily life, they free up time to be spent in other ways. Some people see this as a long-term hazard to society. I’m not sure I disagree; I see their point. But if that freed-up time is conscientiously reallocated, then the upper limit on any one person’s potential has been raised.
- VLM 10y ago
  The optimist glass is full of "nice to have" other than the Hep-C pharma which is the only "must have". The pessimist glass is full of "must have" like pay kids college, pay for health care, purchase roof over head, purchase car or alternative transport. And those trends are not looking good. This is aside from negative technologies. Military drones. Mass surveillance. Social media. Fake news. Corn syrup. Industrialized heavily processed food in general. And of course technologies that are on the bubble. The net result of fast food drive thru as a technology is likely negative, although superficially what could possibly go wrong with food that's fast? I've noticed over decades in the field that providing more automation to businesses sometimes results in more complicated systems rather than more productive systems. Probably the small number of failures being more memorable than the larger number of successes... An ever more complicated culture is not necessarily better, but it is certainly more brittle and prone to collapse.

csuwldcat 10y ago

I just wanted to take a moment to thank Capitalism - an overwhelmingly positive system of resource optimization that's oft-maligned by the econ-shallow, which drives creativity and human advancement through entrepreneurship and the desire to succeed.

chillwaves 10y ago
This doesn't seem like the place to pledge allegiance. Maybe I am wrong.
Aloha 10y ago
Communism is well suited to giving people a better horse instead of a car - when the whole system is collectively planned and owned - there is no incentive at all for creative destruction.
- onion2k 10y ago
  There is an incentive for creative destruction - failure. If you can't continue innovating (eg you can't make a better horse) you have to take a different approach.
- zkms 10y ago
  Collective planning is not inherent to communism and communism doesn't inherently restrict the sort of market forces that enable "creative destruction".
  - mseebach 10y ago
    It's important to remember in these kinds of debates that there are two kinds of communism: The practical communism, the one actually tried dozens and dozens of times, despite implementing a pretty fair range of possible combinations of parameters, yet returning a the same pretty narrow range of failures pretty invariably -- and then the theoretical communism, as read and understood by contemporary western intellectuals for whom practical communism (or, as it's often known, "not real communism") is mostly irrelevant. With that, your observation is entirely correct, but it pertains to theoretical communism. The GP was likely referring to practical communism, and in that context, yes, practical communism most definitely inherently restricts market-driven creative destruction. (Cool side-anecdote: Karl Popper invented the scientific method partly in response to Marxist "science".)

intrasight 10y ago

When I was in first grade (1972) my teacher said that there was only one factory in the country that made light bulbs. I remember even at that young age thinking that can't possibly be true. But I've never gone and researched it. Funny the things you remember when you're six.

sjcsjc 10y ago
I have a vivid memory of being on a train journey, probably c. 4 years old, with my grandmother and her explaining to me that the reason the train stopped every now and then was because the people pushing it got tired. Yes, it's funny what you remember. I'll never know if she actually did say that or if I invented it. I don't think she was much of a joker.

noahmbarr 10y ago

More interesting is the effect of lightening Has had from moving us from a primarily "daylight only" culture to a 24-hour culture.

patio11 10y ago

See also: clean water, warm food, cold food, air conditioning, heating, books (cost of duplication now lower than ~$100k per volume), music (especially when measured per second of other-than-ambient sound supplied), ability to move heavy things short distances, ability to move anything long distances, ability to transfer one's person any distance, cost of moving one letter worth of information one kilometer (for bonus points add SLAs on days required), etc etc.

retube 10y ago
Yup. It's frustrating to hear people wailing about how shit everything is when in reality they are living lives of comfort and safety unparalleled in human history.
- everyone 10y ago
  Simply physical comforts will not make humans happy. We have very intense cheating detection, perceived inequality, unfairness or injustice will piss us off. Also, our evaluation of how well-off we are is based on comparing to our neighbours.
  - snrplfth 10y ago
    >We have very intense cheating detection, perceived inequality, unfairness or injustice will piss us off. True - although it's often a very mono-directional detector. Anyone higher up on the ladder, or taking advantage of cheats we didn't see, gets the full focus of our attention, while anyone lower down or slow on the take is clearly just a sucker. Pretty bad heuristic, unfortunately.
  - rmc 10y ago
    > Simply physical comforts will not make humans happy. Correct. But take away "physical comforts" and people are much much more likely to be unhappy.
- ska 10y ago
  We've been living lives of unparalleled comfort and safety with nearly monotonic increase since after the industrial revolution. Would you have preferred all progress had stopped at some point? Mostly things get better because people are dissatisfied with current state. edit: I find the downvotes on this confusing - I don't see anything controversial in above.

babesh 10y ago

We live in an interacting system of market systems, governments, democracies, culture, and technological evolution on a blue, green, brown, and white planet. It is a giant spaghetti ball full of externalities and extremes. Masses of humanity lifted from poverty, massive extinction, climate change, rapid technological development. However, it only a few centuries ago led to massive slavery, population loss, etc... It is hard to say where this will lead but I suspect that it will continue to lead to both extremes and it's a good idea to spread our seed as widely as possible. Mars, Moon, etc... Because it's pretty much a guarantee that someone will screw up mightily and we're not talking just politics.

henrik_w 10y ago

This reminded me of the book "How We Got To Now" by Steven Johnson. Really interesting book on how development in certain fields enabled other innovations ("adjacent possible"). Really well written and super interesting book! Also, bonus points for the last chapter on Ada Lovelace, and what a visionary she was in terms of what a computer could do. https://www.amazon.com/How-We-Got-Now-Innovations/dp/1594633932/ https://www.amazon.com/How-We-Got-Now-Innovations/dp/1594633...

finnh 10y ago

Excellent Planet Money podcast on the same topic: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/04/25/306862378/episode-534-the-history-of-light http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/04/25/306862378/episo... Basically, the history of light makes for a nice capsule summary of the entire history of our economic development.