5 ms·

500 years ago, only 1-2% could afford "whatever" and the rest had to scrap by and pinch pennies. I'm not sure we're moving to a world of less evenly distributed

500 years ago, only 1-2% could afford "whatever" and the rest had to scrap by and pinch pennies. I'm not sure we're moving to a world of less evenly distributed wealth.

coldtea 7y ago
Only we're not beasts. Wealth is social and relative based on the era. E.g. nobody feels like a champion as a unemployed homeless in LA, or a single mom making ends meet hand-to-mouth, just because 8000 years ago other people lived in caves, died at 30, and where often hunted by wild animals... The change compared to not-so-distant decades, when a single-income middle class family had a job for life, could afford a house, and college education for their kids -- compared to living paycheck to paycheck is more relevant to whether we enter a world of more inequality, than what they did in the caves or the wild west.
iheartpotatoes 7y ago
Cute, but facts?
- coldtea 7y ago
  You can surely search for 3+ decades of books, studies, and articles on the declining US middle class, stagnant wages, increased housing/college/healthcare costs, etc, right?
  - iheartpotatoes 7y ago
    Isn't it funny how when you ask for citations, the other person flips out and says do it yourself? Like, I have to spend my time figuring out if you actually did research or pulled something out of your ass? Sorry bro, got better things to do with my time than your work for you.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Now compare 60 years ago with now.
- Godel_unicode 7y ago
  Statins, anti-retrovirals, common availability of antibiotics, treatment for TB, vaccines for many population-decimating (in the traditional sense of the word) viruses. Everyone has a super computer in their pocket, the vast majority of human knowledge is available in your hand for free all the time, you can video chat anyone you want anywhere in the world in HD for free, world-leading educators post hundreds of hours of video lectures online for free. You can get O(every song ever recorded) instantly anywhere you are for $10-$15/month. In my opinion, what we're seeing is that things split into two categories: generally free or almost free, and expensive enough to be out of reach of most people. The thing that is really exciting is that things are moving from the latter to the former very quickly. The problem specifically with education is that expectations (everyone must have a degree!) Hasn't kept up with reality (degrees are no longer the only/best marker of skill!).
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Statins, anti-retrovirals, common availability of antibiotics, treatment for TB, vaccines for many population-decimating (in the traditional sense of the word) viruses. Those are technological innovations, not really relevant. We could have had smartphones and anti-retrovirals AND affordable education/housing/healthcare/job prospects. Like how people in the 50s and 60s could enjoy all kinds of technological and social innovations compared to 100 years before (electricity, TV, improved medicine, vaccines, etc) AND have cheap college tuition, affordable housing, etc. Spare some catastrophe technology is monotonically increase -- it advances with new inventions. So not really relevant as to whether we are more or worse off than the 50s and 60s in economic aspects.
    - paulddraper 7y ago
      > Those are technological innovations, not really relevant. Those are extremely relevant, especially the source for those invocations. E.g. I could believe the USSR achieved greater income equality, but I'm skeptical it would have produced those innovations.
jrochkind1 7y ago
Probably the "normal distribution" of pricing/purchasing didn't apply 500 years ago either, in pre-proto-capitalist Europe or anywhere else.
specialist 7y ago
What do you think our society's Gini Coefficient should be? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
michaelmrose 7y ago
Better than 500 years ago but worse than 50 years ago seems like a bad standard to strive for.

500 years ago, only 1-2% could afford "whatever" and the rest had to scrap by and pinch pennies. I'm not sure we're moving to a world of less evenly distributed wealth.

coldtea 7y ago

Only we're not beasts. Wealth is social and relative based on the era. E.g. nobody feels like a champion as a unemployed homeless in LA, or a single mom making ends meet hand-to-mouth, just because 8000 years ago other people lived in caves, died at 30, and where often hunted by wild animals... The change compared to not-so-distant decades, when a single-income middle class family had a job for life, could afford a house, and college education for their kids -- compared to living paycheck to paycheck is more relevant to whether we enter a world of more inequality, than what they did in the caves or the wild west.

iheartpotatoes 7y ago

Cute, but facts?

coldtea 7y ago
You can surely search for 3+ decades of books, studies, and articles on the declining US middle class, stagnant wages, increased housing/college/healthcare costs, etc, right?
- iheartpotatoes 7y ago
  Isn't it funny how when you ask for citations, the other person flips out and says do it yourself? Like, I have to spend my time figuring out if you actually did research or pulled something out of your ass? Sorry bro, got better things to do with my time than your work for you.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Now compare 60 years ago with now.

Godel_unicode 7y ago
Statins, anti-retrovirals, common availability of antibiotics, treatment for TB, vaccines for many population-decimating (in the traditional sense of the word) viruses. Everyone has a super computer in their pocket, the vast majority of human knowledge is available in your hand for free all the time, you can video chat anyone you want anywhere in the world in HD for free, world-leading educators post hundreds of hours of video lectures online for free. You can get O(every song ever recorded) instantly anywhere you are for $10-$15/month. In my opinion, what we're seeing is that things split into two categories: generally free or almost free, and expensive enough to be out of reach of most people. The thing that is really exciting is that things are moving from the latter to the former very quickly. The problem specifically with education is that expectations (everyone must have a degree!) Hasn't kept up with reality (degrees are no longer the only/best marker of skill!).
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Statins, anti-retrovirals, common availability of antibiotics, treatment for TB, vaccines for many population-decimating (in the traditional sense of the word) viruses. Those are technological innovations, not really relevant. We could have had smartphones and anti-retrovirals AND affordable education/housing/healthcare/job prospects. Like how people in the 50s and 60s could enjoy all kinds of technological and social innovations compared to 100 years before (electricity, TV, improved medicine, vaccines, etc) AND have cheap college tuition, affordable housing, etc. Spare some catastrophe technology is monotonically increase -- it advances with new inventions. So not really relevant as to whether we are more or worse off than the 50s and 60s in economic aspects.
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    > Those are technological innovations, not really relevant. Those are extremely relevant, especially the source for those invocations. E.g. I could believe the USSR achieved greater income equality, but I'm skeptical it would have produced those innovations.

jrochkind1 7y ago

Probably the "normal distribution" of pricing/purchasing didn't apply 500 years ago either, in pre-proto-capitalist Europe or anywhere else.

specialist 7y ago

What do you think our society's Gini Coefficient should be? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

michaelmrose 7y ago

Better than 500 years ago but worse than 50 years ago seems like a bad standard to strive for.