4 ms·

But people also demand far more from their lives. Nowadays people want to have a TV, a phone, a computer, lots of software and entrainment on these devices etc.

But people also demand far more from their lives. Nowadays people want to have a TV, a phone, a computer, lots of software and entrainment on these devices etc. Our cars are much safer, our food is safer, we have far better and more healthcare etc.

Miner49er 7y ago
Yeah of course, it's a trade-off, but I'd argue that it's not actually what people _want_. If given the choice between having the time to cook for themselves or eat fast food, would most people choose the fast food? I'd argue most people would choose to cook for themselves [1]. The problem is, people don't have the time for that type of thing, so they instead opt for the convenient choice. Giving people less time to do things for themselves actually increases the GDP, because it means they are paying others to do things they would rather do themselves. Then someone gets to make a profit on that, so this type of thing is encouraged by our economic system. [1] https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2006/04/19/eating-more-enjoying-less/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2006/04/19/eating-more-enjoy...
shantly 7y ago
> Nowadays people want to have a TV, a phone, a computer, lots of software and entrainment on these devices etc That's not where the money goes. That stuff's nothing. You can get working TVs all day long for peanuts on Craigslist. I just last week grabbed a hell of a used business workstation PC on Ebay and threw in an SSD for funsies, under $200 total including the brand-new SSD. Thing screams for all normal tasks. Will probably last years. Basically nothing in the scheme of things. Can someone on a low income reasonably buy one on a whim? No. But having a TV, phone, and computer is not why people are poor. Housing, medical care, child care. School (see also: housing costs). Those are expensive. Our modern conveniences are nothing in comparison.

Miner49er 7y ago

Yeah of course, it's a trade-off, but I'd argue that it's not actually what people _want_. If given the choice between having the time to cook for themselves or eat fast food, would most people choose the fast food? I'd argue most people would choose to cook for themselves [1]. The problem is, people don't have the time for that type of thing, so they instead opt for the convenient choice. Giving people less time to do things for themselves actually increases the GDP, because it means they are paying others to do things they would rather do themselves. Then someone gets to make a profit on that, so this type of thing is encouraged by our economic system. [1] https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2006/04/19/eating-more-enjoying-less/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2006/04/19/eating-more-enjoy...

shantly 7y ago

> Nowadays people want to have a TV, a phone, a computer, lots of software and entrainment on these devices etc That's not where the money goes. That stuff's nothing. You can get working TVs all day long for peanuts on Craigslist. I just last week grabbed a hell of a used business workstation PC on Ebay and threw in an SSD for funsies, under $200 total including the brand-new SSD. Thing screams for all normal tasks. Will probably last years. Basically nothing in the scheme of things. Can someone on a low income reasonably buy one on a whim? No. But having a TV, phone, and computer is not why people are poor. Housing, medical care, child care. School (see also: housing costs). Those are expensive. Our modern conveniences are nothing in comparison.