3 ms·

Remember when we were promised better things every year? In 1950 we were told by now we'd hardly have to work, have lots of leisure time etc., but at least we a

Remember when we were promised better things every year? In 1950 we were told by now we'd hardly have to work, have lots of leisure time etc., but at least we all got a 3 bed house near a nuclear power plant. Now we get fewer crumbs off the top table than ever. We could just build more, better buildings; enough to make the price go down. There is no incentive for property developers to do this of course.

bluGill 10y ago
Look at how people in the 1950s lived: do you really want that. They had ONE black and white 13 inch TV - 19 inch color TVs existed but only the rich could afford them. They lived in smaller houses than we live in today, and the furnishing where more utilitarian. They had one car (odds are the women wasn't allowed to drive though this part of culture was changing), it didn't have AC, you might or might not be able to afford the optional heater and radio (it broke down often despite doing tuneups all the time). They had one phone - it was a party line so they could share some of the costs with their neighbors... Today we have a much higher standard of living. We have decided that the toys, space, and luxury is worth more than the time we have to work to pay for it. Is this the right choice? That is an interesting discussion: I can take either side of it. I know of a few people who have chosen to work less. They live a sparser life - generally working at WalMart or some such because the better paying jobs won't even give you the option of working less hours - this is a choice they made and they are happy with their life. It is well known that there is a spike in deaths just after people retire: most people don't actually know what to do with more leisure time, and their work hours also double as part of their social hours. As such for many people working for luxuries is the correct choice.
- andy_ppp 10y ago
  Technology has provided benefits but the rich take an ever increasing slice of those improvements and that's deliberate to keep the proles working. Housing was arguably better built in the 50s (and earlier) than it is today and it was certainly bigger. Maybe we need to figure out a way to use technology to help the problem of high quality affordable homes.
  - bluGill 10y ago
    Wealth is NOT a zero sum game. Yes the rich are getting richer, but so is everybody else. The Middle class is richer too. Most people have multiple TVs with none smaller than 25 inches. Poor people today have 40+inch 1080 color TVs. Poor people often with a video game system. The Poor have cell phones and computers with internet service. No amount of money could get any of that in the 1950s, now it is considered normal for the poor to have them - legally. If you think houses were better quality then you know nothing about construction. They might LOOK better, but in today's houses engineers have actually calculated wind load to ensure it will stand, r-values to ensure you can afford to heat it, and other safety standards so it doesn't kill the occupants. Of course most of that is invisible, you see something that seems like is is not flimsy and don't realize it is strong enough, while may things that seem strong are brittle.
    - andy_ppp 10y ago
      I'm saying that we should all be a lot richer than we are: http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor... I'm not saying it's a zero sum game I'm saying that workers are getting screwed relative to capital. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00I2WNYJW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00I2WNYJW/ref=dp-kindle-redirec... You can say "cheap Chinese labour has lead to cheaper goods". We aren't any richer adjusting for inflation, and are considerably poorer if you include land values in the inflation calculation.

bluGill 10y ago

Look at how people in the 1950s lived: do you really want that. They had ONE black and white 13 inch TV - 19 inch color TVs existed but only the rich could afford them. They lived in smaller houses than we live in today, and the furnishing where more utilitarian. They had one car (odds are the women wasn't allowed to drive though this part of culture was changing), it didn't have AC, you might or might not be able to afford the optional heater and radio (it broke down often despite doing tuneups all the time). They had one phone - it was a party line so they could share some of the costs with their neighbors... Today we have a much higher standard of living. We have decided that the toys, space, and luxury is worth more than the time we have to work to pay for it. Is this the right choice? That is an interesting discussion: I can take either side of it. I know of a few people who have chosen to work less. They live a sparser life - generally working at WalMart or some such because the better paying jobs won't even give you the option of working less hours - this is a choice they made and they are happy with their life. It is well known that there is a spike in deaths just after people retire: most people don't actually know what to do with more leisure time, and their work hours also double as part of their social hours. As such for many people working for luxuries is the correct choice.

andy_ppp 10y ago
Technology has provided benefits but the rich take an ever increasing slice of those improvements and that's deliberate to keep the proles working. Housing was arguably better built in the 50s (and earlier) than it is today and it was certainly bigger. Maybe we need to figure out a way to use technology to help the problem of high quality affordable homes.
- bluGill 10y ago
  Wealth is NOT a zero sum game. Yes the rich are getting richer, but so is everybody else. The Middle class is richer too. Most people have multiple TVs with none smaller than 25 inches. Poor people today have 40+inch 1080 color TVs. Poor people often with a video game system. The Poor have cell phones and computers with internet service. No amount of money could get any of that in the 1950s, now it is considered normal for the poor to have them - legally. If you think houses were better quality then you know nothing about construction. They might LOOK better, but in today's houses engineers have actually calculated wind load to ensure it will stand, r-values to ensure you can afford to heat it, and other safety standards so it doesn't kill the occupants. Of course most of that is invisible, you see something that seems like is is not flimsy and don't realize it is strong enough, while may things that seem strong are brittle.
  - andy_ppp 10y ago
    I'm saying that we should all be a lot richer than we are: http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor... I'm not saying it's a zero sum game I'm saying that workers are getting screwed relative to capital. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00I2WNYJW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00I2WNYJW/ref=dp-kindle-redirec... You can say "cheap Chinese labour has lead to cheaper goods". We aren't any richer adjusting for inflation, and are considerably poorer if you include land values in the inflation calculation.