4 ms·

That’s nice in principle. In practice, the reason we have the system we have is that it delivers goods to customers much more efficiently than ever. Back when e

That’s nice in principle. In practice, the reason we have the system we have is that it delivers goods to customers much more efficiently than ever. Back when every small town had its own clothing store, customers were paying enough for the clothes that the shopkeeper and his/her staff could lead middle-class lives off of their profits, not to mention all of the people in the nearby factories who made them. We can go back to those times, but consumers will have to decide that they are happy having fewer clothing items, keeping them for much longer, dressing their children in hand-me-downs, and probably still spending a larger portion of their income on clothing than they do now.

ChuckMcM 8y ago
As I read what you wrote, it seems you restate the author’s point (which I agree with). Globalization brought lower prices and greater selection at the cost of the health of the community. Sort of like eating sweetened thing tastes great but you have to watch what it does to your health over time.
isostatic 8y ago
> probably still spending a larger portion of their income on clothing than they do now. As we have spent less of our income on things like food, clothing, etc, and increased our household income dramatically. In 1971 median household income was c. £270/week. In 2001 £420/week, in 2011 £460/week. (figures adjusted for inflation to 2013 levels) In 1971 housing costs were £20/week, in 2001 is was £90 a week, in 2011 £120 a week. Half of that extra money went in housing costs. The big changes in income (especially in normalisation of a second income) from the 70s onwards were swept up in housing. Increase everyone's wages, and we just spend it on the same houses we had before. On the flip side, decrease everyone's wages and the amount we spend on houses will reduce. That benefits everyone apart from wealthy landowners.

ChuckMcM 8y ago

As I read what you wrote, it seems you restate the author’s point (which I agree with). Globalization brought lower prices and greater selection at the cost of the health of the community. Sort of like eating sweetened thing tastes great but you have to watch what it does to your health over time.

isostatic 8y ago

> probably still spending a larger portion of their income on clothing than they do now. As we have spent less of our income on things like food, clothing, etc, and increased our household income dramatically. In 1971 median household income was c. £270/week. In 2001 £420/week, in 2011 £460/week. (figures adjusted for inflation to 2013 levels) In 1971 housing costs were £20/week, in 2001 is was £90 a week, in 2011 £120 a week. Half of that extra money went in housing costs. The big changes in income (especially in normalisation of a second income) from the 70s onwards were swept up in housing. Increase everyone's wages, and we just spend it on the same houses we had before. On the flip side, decrease everyone's wages and the amount we spend on houses will reduce. That benefits everyone apart from wealthy landowners.