6 ms·

> Is that arguably true? Where is the stuff? In the hands of increasingly few people, namely tech billionaires. Amazon for example is worth more than all but 1

> Is that arguably true? Where is the stuff? In the hands of increasingly few people, namely tech billionaires. Amazon for example is worth more than all but 18 of the entire world's sovereign nations' respective GDP. The economy has grown tremendously, in measurable terms, but that growth has almost exclusively gone to the 0.1%

toss1 6y ago
True And also much of the 'stuff' is here, or converted to services. 25 yrs ago, approx no one had 55"+ tvs, internet connection was a minority, and media eas collections of CDs/Videotapes. Now 'net connections are near-universal, and it is all streaming. Cell phones were just beginning & expensive, now everyone has a powerful computer in their pocket. We don't have two houses, but the ones we have are worth twice as much. Cars are much better developed than 2 decades ago, snd we'll soon have ubiquitous electric cars... All of it needs to be more evenly spread. Just look at the charts of portions of funds going to labor vs capital.
- RugnirViking 6y ago
  Those things became cheaper to produce because of technological advancement, largely developed by people who did not benefit from this rise in production. They do not represent wealth in any meaningful sense. Wealth is economic power, and 55" TVs dont help you start a buisness or pay a downpayment for a mortgage. Internet connection may once have served as some measure of economic power, but its no coincidence that those with the power currently are doing everything they can to restrict the rights of normal people to create using it. Imo, its really about things that give you more agency over your own life and the world. Cars are good, they represent a great increase in our ability to travel and make decisions for ourselves. > We don't have two houses, but the ones we have are worth twice as much. This is largely a wealth transfer to the elderly. Among under 40s, home ownership has fallen consistently since the 1990s, with only a brief increase in 2001-2005.
  - prewett 6y ago
    > Wealth is economic power That's too limited a definition. For instance, living in a beautiful, well-designed city full of beautiful art is a form of wealth, but none of that is economic power. And what good is money ultimately, anyway, if not to buy goods and services that you want? Those cell phones have voice navigation that will get you unlost practically anywhere on the planet. That would have been sci-fi fifty years ago. Give one to your kid and you don't have to worry about them being lost or not being able to get help. Those cell phones (+ internet) will let you buy almost anything on the planet and have it shipped to your door usually within days, all without you leaving the house. Two hundred years ago you could not have done that even with servants, and since servants are unaffordable these days, it saves us the time spent driving around looking for the item. (I bought a wok ring last week; I could have driven an hour in traffic, or I just bought another item I needed and had it shipped "for free", and saved myself at least an hour.) When I started programming, writing Windows programs took ages because if the Petzold book didn't have an example and/or the MS documentation was somewhat vague on some points, you just had to try it out. I spent days writing a screensaver for personal use, because I forgot I needed to zero out the struct, and it crashed NT, and it took me five or ten minutes to reboot, reload VS, and try again. Now I have a decent chance of finding things like that on StackOverflow, or at least posting it and coming back the next to find comments by complete strangers informing me of my silly error. (Being a young programmer without SO was a double-whammy...) And in China and Africa people absolutely do use their cell phones to run their businesses. Even in the West we wanted more instant access: the movie "Sabrina" shows the wealthy executive making a business deal in the car with a portable phone, which was completely fantasy in 1954. Cell phones and internet absolutely have made us wealthier. Even the 55" TV is a form of wealth: you can practically have your own private theater now, and thanks to the Internet, you can watch any one of the thousands of movies you want, instead of only the 12 most recent ones on offer at the cinema. > [Falling homeownership amoung young implies wealth transfer to elderly] Insufficient data to make that conclusion. It might be true, but you haven't examined any confounding variables. A counterexample: my parents own a house but I do not. It's not because I am not as wealthy as my parents (age-adjusted), it is because I am optimizing for flexibility and also because rent has been cheaper for me than owning. How many young people do not own a home because they want to live in an cool/hip/fun/whatever expensive location, while their parents are fine somewhere cheaper? How many people want to be digital nomads?
- owenversteeg 6y ago
  It's worth mentioning that houses are not only worth far more, they are also physically much larger while household sizes have gotten smaller. In 1850 households had on average nearly 6 people; in 1890 five, in the 1930s four, in the seventies three - and today, the average household in America has two and a half people. Meanwhile house sizes have almost tripled since the 50s: new single-family homes were an average of 983 square feet in 1950 (about 280 sqft per person); today they are around 2,600 square feet (around 1050 sqft per person.) That is to say - not only are the houses almost three times larger, but the average American has nearly -four- times more personal space today vs in the 1950s. The improvements in cars have been crazy - I wrote a comment about that recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26389885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26389885 Only 3.4% of jobs in America require very heavy strength according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. With the US employment rate at 56.8%, that's 1.9% of the population that has to do a very strenuous job. Compared to even very recent generations, we live in palaces, we drive in luxury, we work cushy jobs, and we have endless entertainment. >All of it needs to be more evenly spread. Absolutely. Among the world, of course, but even within America the inequality is still huge. The fact that we live with this inequality while having the resources to fix it is a stain on our collective conscience.
  - mariojv 6y ago
    Do you have a source on the housing statistics (people per house, house size, square foot per person)? I'm curious how this trend holds up internationally; maybe a US source would help. We have problems, but I intuitively agree with this narrative of progress and want to see good data to back it up. I do wish there were more choice - the ability to buy 1950s-70s grade housing, medical care, etc., for a lower price - but that seems to be becoming rarer.
    - owenversteeg 6y ago
      People per household: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-10/the-shrinking-of-u-s-household-size-may-be-coming-to-an-end https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-10/the-shrin... Square foot per household: https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes... (annoyingly, this data comes from the US Census but I can't seem to find it on their site - but it does match up with every other source) Interesting, semi-related: https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization Very interesting, about older housing: https://mountainmath.ca/teardowns https://mountainmath.ca/teardowns From there it's just simple division to see the square foot per person. > the ability to buy 1950s-70s grade housing, medical care, etc., for a lower price If you want 50s style housing (aka dated interior and 280 sqft per person) - there are plenty of options. Go on Zillow and limit your price to $75k and you'll see plenty of homes available. 600sqft homes aren't the average, but they certainly still exist. You may think "aha, but you can't find a home in NYC!" - but keep in mind, only 16% of the world lived in urban areas in 1900 (and only 29% in 1950!) If you want an old car, those are cheap too. Old phones, TVs, radios, etc etc are all basically free. Dated medical care is the one thing you obviously can't get. No, if you want to party like it's nineteen (forty) nine, go ahead. Live without a car (the majority of households had no car in the 40s) - you can get around by bike if you're lucky, and if you're in a car-centric area you can ride along with your coworkers, family and friends, or hitchhike, as people did. Your small housing will be very inexpensive. Your old-fashioned diet will consist of staples like flour, potatoes, milk, bread etc that have gotten extremely cheap relative to your income. Costs that would have been a solid chunk of your budget in the 40s (new clothing, for example) have gotten so cheap as to be almost unrecognizable. I say this all as someone who did live a life of consuming very little for several years. If you do want to live in a smaller space, not have a car, and simply consume less (water/electricity/money/resources) it is certainly possible, even in our modern world. Give it a shot! You'll be surprised.

toss1 6y ago

True And also much of the 'stuff' is here, or converted to services. 25 yrs ago, approx no one had 55"+ tvs, internet connection was a minority, and media eas collections of CDs/Videotapes. Now 'net connections are near-universal, and it is all streaming. Cell phones were just beginning & expensive, now everyone has a powerful computer in their pocket. We don't have two houses, but the ones we have are worth twice as much. Cars are much better developed than 2 decades ago, snd we'll soon have ubiquitous electric cars... All of it needs to be more evenly spread. Just look at the charts of portions of funds going to labor vs capital.

RugnirViking 6y ago
Those things became cheaper to produce because of technological advancement, largely developed by people who did not benefit from this rise in production. They do not represent wealth in any meaningful sense. Wealth is economic power, and 55" TVs dont help you start a buisness or pay a downpayment for a mortgage. Internet connection may once have served as some measure of economic power, but its no coincidence that those with the power currently are doing everything they can to restrict the rights of normal people to create using it. Imo, its really about things that give you more agency over your own life and the world. Cars are good, they represent a great increase in our ability to travel and make decisions for ourselves. > We don't have two houses, but the ones we have are worth twice as much. This is largely a wealth transfer to the elderly. Among under 40s, home ownership has fallen consistently since the 1990s, with only a brief increase in 2001-2005.
- prewett 6y ago
  > Wealth is economic power That's too limited a definition. For instance, living in a beautiful, well-designed city full of beautiful art is a form of wealth, but none of that is economic power. And what good is money ultimately, anyway, if not to buy goods and services that you want? Those cell phones have voice navigation that will get you unlost practically anywhere on the planet. That would have been sci-fi fifty years ago. Give one to your kid and you don't have to worry about them being lost or not being able to get help. Those cell phones (+ internet) will let you buy almost anything on the planet and have it shipped to your door usually within days, all without you leaving the house. Two hundred years ago you could not have done that even with servants, and since servants are unaffordable these days, it saves us the time spent driving around looking for the item. (I bought a wok ring last week; I could have driven an hour in traffic, or I just bought another item I needed and had it shipped "for free", and saved myself at least an hour.) When I started programming, writing Windows programs took ages because if the Petzold book didn't have an example and/or the MS documentation was somewhat vague on some points, you just had to try it out. I spent days writing a screensaver for personal use, because I forgot I needed to zero out the struct, and it crashed NT, and it took me five or ten minutes to reboot, reload VS, and try again. Now I have a decent chance of finding things like that on StackOverflow, or at least posting it and coming back the next to find comments by complete strangers informing me of my silly error. (Being a young programmer without SO was a double-whammy...) And in China and Africa people absolutely do use their cell phones to run their businesses. Even in the West we wanted more instant access: the movie "Sabrina" shows the wealthy executive making a business deal in the car with a portable phone, which was completely fantasy in 1954. Cell phones and internet absolutely have made us wealthier. Even the 55" TV is a form of wealth: you can practically have your own private theater now, and thanks to the Internet, you can watch any one of the thousands of movies you want, instead of only the 12 most recent ones on offer at the cinema. > [Falling homeownership amoung young implies wealth transfer to elderly] Insufficient data to make that conclusion. It might be true, but you haven't examined any confounding variables. A counterexample: my parents own a house but I do not. It's not because I am not as wealthy as my parents (age-adjusted), it is because I am optimizing for flexibility and also because rent has been cheaper for me than owning. How many young people do not own a home because they want to live in an cool/hip/fun/whatever expensive location, while their parents are fine somewhere cheaper? How many people want to be digital nomads?
owenversteeg 6y ago
It's worth mentioning that houses are not only worth far more, they are also physically much larger while household sizes have gotten smaller. In 1850 households had on average nearly 6 people; in 1890 five, in the 1930s four, in the seventies three - and today, the average household in America has two and a half people. Meanwhile house sizes have almost tripled since the 50s: new single-family homes were an average of 983 square feet in 1950 (about 280 sqft per person); today they are around 2,600 square feet (around 1050 sqft per person.) That is to say - not only are the houses almost three times larger, but the average American has nearly -four- times more personal space today vs in the 1950s. The improvements in cars have been crazy - I wrote a comment about that recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26389885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26389885 Only 3.4% of jobs in America require very heavy strength according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. With the US employment rate at 56.8%, that's 1.9% of the population that has to do a very strenuous job. Compared to even very recent generations, we live in palaces, we drive in luxury, we work cushy jobs, and we have endless entertainment. >All of it needs to be more evenly spread. Absolutely. Among the world, of course, but even within America the inequality is still huge. The fact that we live with this inequality while having the resources to fix it is a stain on our collective conscience.
- mariojv 6y ago
  Do you have a source on the housing statistics (people per house, house size, square foot per person)? I'm curious how this trend holds up internationally; maybe a US source would help. We have problems, but I intuitively agree with this narrative of progress and want to see good data to back it up. I do wish there were more choice - the ability to buy 1950s-70s grade housing, medical care, etc., for a lower price - but that seems to be becoming rarer.
  - owenversteeg 6y ago
    People per household: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-10/the-shrinking-of-u-s-household-size-may-be-coming-to-an-end https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-10/the-shrin... Square foot per household: https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes... (annoyingly, this data comes from the US Census but I can't seem to find it on their site - but it does match up with every other source) Interesting, semi-related: https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization Very interesting, about older housing: https://mountainmath.ca/teardowns https://mountainmath.ca/teardowns From there it's just simple division to see the square foot per person. > the ability to buy 1950s-70s grade housing, medical care, etc., for a lower price If you want 50s style housing (aka dated interior and 280 sqft per person) - there are plenty of options. Go on Zillow and limit your price to $75k and you'll see plenty of homes available. 600sqft homes aren't the average, but they certainly still exist. You may think "aha, but you can't find a home in NYC!" - but keep in mind, only 16% of the world lived in urban areas in 1900 (and only 29% in 1950!) If you want an old car, those are cheap too. Old phones, TVs, radios, etc etc are all basically free. Dated medical care is the one thing you obviously can't get. No, if you want to party like it's nineteen (forty) nine, go ahead. Live without a car (the majority of households had no car in the 40s) - you can get around by bike if you're lucky, and if you're in a car-centric area you can ride along with your coworkers, family and friends, or hitchhike, as people did. Your small housing will be very inexpensive. Your old-fashioned diet will consist of staples like flour, potatoes, milk, bread etc that have gotten extremely cheap relative to your income. Costs that would have been a solid chunk of your budget in the 40s (new clothing, for example) have gotten so cheap as to be almost unrecognizable. I say this all as someone who did live a life of consuming very little for several years. If you do want to live in a smaller space, not have a car, and simply consume less (water/electricity/money/resources) it is certainly possible, even in our modern world. Give it a shot! You'll be surprised.