3 ms·

Inflation adjustment is weird across time and geographies. I'm not saying the article is wrong, but just something to keep in mind. In 1973 the internet was nas

Inflation adjustment is weird across time and geographies. I'm not saying the article is wrong, but just something to keep in mind. In 1973 the internet was nascent, we didn't have smartphones, insulin was still hard to produce, and so on. Even making the same amount "inflation adjusted" as 1973, our lives are much richer in part to all these advances. As an example - it's likely in adjusted terms someone in the top 1% a 100 years ago would be close to the top percentiles today, and yet it's pretty easy to argue that the average person today is still doing much better in almost any measure than a 1%-er from a century ago.

coldtea 7y ago
>Inflation adjustment is weird across time and geographies. I'm not saying the article is wrong, but just something to keep in mind. In 1973 the internet was nascent, we didn't have smartphones, insulin was still hard to produce, and so on. Even making the same amount "inflation adjusted" as 1973, our lives are much richer in part to all these advances. Or much poorer. Smartphone means FOMO, constantly accessible to bosses, less interaction and more wasted hours with BS apps (people are starting to treat it as addiction), and the "easier to produce insulin" is balanced by skyrocketing healthcare costs, much more stressful lives (including being worked to the bone, and with no "company loyalty" anymore), and loss of quality of life in many important ways... It's just that for many US people, "access to BS gadgets" (which nobody missed in the 70s because they didn't exist anyway) trumps other qualitative life factors that don't even register. I think e.g. Europeans would appreciate those much more... >As an example - it's likely in adjusted terms someone in the top 1% a 100 years ago would be close to the top percentiles today, and yet it's pretty easy to argue that the average person today is still doing much better in almost any measure than a 1%-er from a century ago. Regarding quality, meaning of life, friends, lifestyle, etc, or just based on access to stuff?

coldtea 7y ago

>Inflation adjustment is weird across time and geographies. I'm not saying the article is wrong, but just something to keep in mind. In 1973 the internet was nascent, we didn't have smartphones, insulin was still hard to produce, and so on. Even making the same amount "inflation adjusted" as 1973, our lives are much richer in part to all these advances. Or much poorer. Smartphone means FOMO, constantly accessible to bosses, less interaction and more wasted hours with BS apps (people are starting to treat it as addiction), and the "easier to produce insulin" is balanced by skyrocketing healthcare costs, much more stressful lives (including being worked to the bone, and with no "company loyalty" anymore), and loss of quality of life in many important ways... It's just that for many US people, "access to BS gadgets" (which nobody missed in the 70s because they didn't exist anyway) trumps other qualitative life factors that don't even register. I think e.g. Europeans would appreciate those much more... >As an example - it's likely in adjusted terms someone in the top 1% a 100 years ago would be close to the top percentiles today, and yet it's pretty easy to argue that the average person today is still doing much better in almost any measure than a 1%-er from a century ago. Regarding quality, meaning of life, friends, lifestyle, etc, or just based on access to stuff?