5 ms·

Because automated weaving makes clothes a lot cheaper. Put another way, when workers become more efficient -- one factory worker able to control many weaving m

by jlebar 9y ago

Because automated weaving makes clothes a lot cheaper. Put another way, when workers become more efficient -- one factory worker able to control many weaving machines, or a relatively small group of programmers able to control many cars -- people's standard of living increases. Maybe you're willing to pay more for clothes, or transportation, or any one thing. But paying more for all of the things that have gotten cheaper due to increases in efficiency since time X is tantamount to going back to the standard of living of time X.

fnl 9y ago
Even more radically, you might as well just give everybody a universal basic income instead of heading back for a pre-industrialized way of life (though the Amish people seem to like it?!).
- jimmywanger 9y ago
  If you give people a universal basic income, you need to both increase taxes a lot and completely restrict immigration - a basic income in the US is incredibly luxurious for people who live in sub-saharan Africa. Or else the universal basic income is going to be too low in first world countries to make a difference.
  - egypturnash 9y ago
    Or you just start taxing corporations and rich people again. Some stupidly huge percentage of dollars are just sitting in their coffers doing nothing.
    - jimmywanger 9y ago
      Corporations and rich people have ways (completely legal) to get around taxes. If the tax burden becomes too onerous, they'll just move residences and/or stop doing business in your country. You can see this in one of the founders of Facebook - he renounced his US citizenship, because of the onerous tax burdens. (https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/a-facebook-founder-renounces-his-u-s-citizenship/?hpw https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/a-facebook-founder...) It's foolish to just say "we should tax rich people and rich corporations more." You're incentivizing them to not play the game, and wealthy people generally have more abilities to evade taxes than people in the lower upper class or middle class, which is who the burden will inevitably fall upon.
      - egypturnash 9y ago
        We just have to start guillotining them again, I guess. You need a good revolution once every generation or three to keep capital scared.
        jimmywanger 9y ago
        Did you not see my previous comment about capital flight? This is not the middle ages anymore, where peoples' riches are tied up in real estate and machinery. Immovable capital. Capital is fluid these days. If you start guillotining people for absolutely nothing except being rich (which is what you're insinuating) they'll just leave and take all the capital and productive capacity with them. See Venezuela.
  - fnl 9y ago
    I am fully aware that UBI is an utopia that would require at the very least a Zeitgeist well evolved beyond our species' current, most common world views. But a similar "time-inverse" utopia is trying to stop technological progress with laws.
- tanilama 9y ago
  UBI seems unlikely now, maybe very low level like 500 dollars per month, but definitely not going to support a comfortable living, that is only fantasy.
  - prawn 9y ago
    Perhaps if the costs to maintain a comfortable living are lowered? It might be that people end up choosing between city living and the 40 hours a week of work required to support that, and living in a regional area where you can get by working 10 hours/week.
  - manigandham 9y ago
    > not going to support a comfortable living It's not supposed to.
    - majewsky 9y ago
      Depends on whom you ask, and on the definition of "comfortable".
robotjosh 9y ago
If things have gotten cheaper, why does everything in a 1917 sears catalog, adjusted for inflation, look so inexpensive? Solid metal tools used to cost less than the modern walmart plastic thing.
- hatsunearu 9y ago
  Not sure if this is right but maybe because wages were lower back then even with inflation?
  - didgeoridoo 9y ago
    Sounds like a possible factor. Inflation-adjusted median household income in 1900 was around $12k. Now it's around $55k.
- derekp7 9y ago
  You got me curious, so I looked... page 1082 and 1083 of the Sears catalog, from 1912 https://archive.org/details/catalogno12400sear https://archive.org/details/catalogno12400sear shows that a standard hammer was $0.66, and a hand saw was around $1.50 (there are several models from $1.05 to $1.95). So $0.66 (from 1912) is $15.82 in 2016, and $1.95 is $35.96.
- taneq 9y ago
  For things like your solid metal tools, it's because the demand for metals is higher now than it was then, compared to supply. Also, solid metal may not actually be better than plastic or other options. It's heavy, and it rusts.
nashashmi 9y ago
What's the point of making things cheaper when it centers the wealth on just a few owners? When there are lots of workers working low income jobs versus just a few workers working high income jobs, it creates a healthier more distributed economy.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- closeparen 9y ago
  The point is that it delivers real, tangible quality-of-life factors, which typically matter more to someone's well-being than his feelings about aggregate wealth inequality. I could stick it to the rich bastards who own energy stocks, but I'd rather be warm in the winter and cool in the summer.
- tomhoward 9y ago
  An estimated 2.3 Billion people now own smartphones. That number is growing at about 10% per year. All those people have access to the sum of all human knowledge and the ability to educate themselves almost as well as (some would argue even better than) the students of the most expensive universities. They can communicate with anyone else at almost zero marginal cost, and can sell products and services to basically anyone else on the planet. All because things keep getting cheaper. That's the point of making things cheaper. Sure, a consequence of that is that the founders and executives and financiers of Google, Samsung, Apple etc are wildly rich. And that means they can (and do) invest in new products and services to keep improving peoples' standard of living, as well as funding benevolent projects. It's pretty amazing if you ask me.
  - dorian-graph 9y ago
    > All those people have access to the sum of all human knowledge and the ability to educate themselves almost as well (some would argue even better) than students of the most expensive universities. They can communicate with anyone at almost no marginal cost, and can sell products and services to basically anyone else on the planet. Is this even happening though?

by jlebar 9y ago

fnl 9y ago

Even more radically, you might as well just give everybody a universal basic income instead of heading back for a pre-industrialized way of life (though the Amish people seem to like it?!).

jimmywanger 9y ago
If you give people a universal basic income, you need to both increase taxes a lot and completely restrict immigration - a basic income in the US is incredibly luxurious for people who live in sub-saharan Africa. Or else the universal basic income is going to be too low in first world countries to make a difference.
- egypturnash 9y ago
  Or you just start taxing corporations and rich people again. Some stupidly huge percentage of dollars are just sitting in their coffers doing nothing.
  - jimmywanger 9y ago
    Corporations and rich people have ways (completely legal) to get around taxes. If the tax burden becomes too onerous, they'll just move residences and/or stop doing business in your country. You can see this in one of the founders of Facebook - he renounced his US citizenship, because of the onerous tax burdens. (https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/a-facebook-founder-renounces-his-u-s-citizenship/?hpw https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/a-facebook-founder...) It's foolish to just say "we should tax rich people and rich corporations more." You're incentivizing them to not play the game, and wealthy people generally have more abilities to evade taxes than people in the lower upper class or middle class, which is who the burden will inevitably fall upon.
    - egypturnash 9y ago
      We just have to start guillotining them again, I guess. You need a good revolution once every generation or three to keep capital scared.
      - jimmywanger 9y ago
        Did you not see my previous comment about capital flight? This is not the middle ages anymore, where peoples' riches are tied up in real estate and machinery. Immovable capital. Capital is fluid these days. If you start guillotining people for absolutely nothing except being rich (which is what you're insinuating) they'll just leave and take all the capital and productive capacity with them. See Venezuela.
- fnl 9y ago
  I am fully aware that UBI is an utopia that would require at the very least a Zeitgeist well evolved beyond our species' current, most common world views. But a similar "time-inverse" utopia is trying to stop technological progress with laws.
tanilama 9y ago
UBI seems unlikely now, maybe very low level like 500 dollars per month, but definitely not going to support a comfortable living, that is only fantasy.
- prawn 9y ago
  Perhaps if the costs to maintain a comfortable living are lowered? It might be that people end up choosing between city living and the 40 hours a week of work required to support that, and living in a regional area where you can get by working 10 hours/week.
- manigandham 9y ago
  > not going to support a comfortable living It's not supposed to.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    Depends on whom you ask, and on the definition of "comfortable".

robotjosh 9y ago

If things have gotten cheaper, why does everything in a 1917 sears catalog, adjusted for inflation, look so inexpensive? Solid metal tools used to cost less than the modern walmart plastic thing.

hatsunearu 9y ago
Not sure if this is right but maybe because wages were lower back then even with inflation?
- didgeoridoo 9y ago
  Sounds like a possible factor. Inflation-adjusted median household income in 1900 was around $12k. Now it's around $55k.
derekp7 9y ago
You got me curious, so I looked... page 1082 and 1083 of the Sears catalog, from 1912 https://archive.org/details/catalogno12400sear https://archive.org/details/catalogno12400sear shows that a standard hammer was $0.66, and a hand saw was around $1.50 (there are several models from $1.05 to $1.95). So $0.66 (from 1912) is $15.82 in 2016, and $1.95 is $35.96.
taneq 9y ago
For things like your solid metal tools, it's because the demand for metals is higher now than it was then, compared to supply. Also, solid metal may not actually be better than plastic or other options. It's heavy, and it rusts.

nashashmi 9y ago

What's the point of making things cheaper when it centers the wealth on just a few owners? When there are lots of workers working low income jobs versus just a few workers working high income jobs, it creates a healthier more distributed economy.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
closeparen 9y ago
The point is that it delivers real, tangible quality-of-life factors, which typically matter more to someone's well-being than his feelings about aggregate wealth inequality. I could stick it to the rich bastards who own energy stocks, but I'd rather be warm in the winter and cool in the summer.
tomhoward 9y ago
An estimated 2.3 Billion people now own smartphones. That number is growing at about 10% per year. All those people have access to the sum of all human knowledge and the ability to educate themselves almost as well as (some would argue even better than) the students of the most expensive universities. They can communicate with anyone else at almost zero marginal cost, and can sell products and services to basically anyone else on the planet. All because things keep getting cheaper. That's the point of making things cheaper. Sure, a consequence of that is that the founders and executives and financiers of Google, Samsung, Apple etc are wildly rich. And that means they can (and do) invest in new products and services to keep improving peoples' standard of living, as well as funding benevolent projects. It's pretty amazing if you ask me.
- dorian-graph 9y ago
  > All those people have access to the sum of all human knowledge and the ability to educate themselves almost as well (some would argue even better) than students of the most expensive universities. They can communicate with anyone at almost no marginal cost, and can sell products and services to basically anyone else on the planet. Is this even happening though?