3 ms·

That wasn't true everywhere though, in the USA in the 1950's it might have been true but in the rest of the world? Whenever I try to think about these large sc

by YZF 5y ago

That wasn't true everywhere though, in the USA in the 1950's it might have been true but in the rest of the world? Whenever I try to think about these large scale systems I end up realizing how difficult it is to predict the outcome. Everything people are buying has to be produced. Everything produced needs people (or automation) producing it. Somewhere there is an equilibrium. What's happening globally has an impact (e.g. we possibly had a better standard of living by taking advantage of places that had a lower standard of living). Competition (and inequality) has an impact because not getting ahead of the game can put you in the bottom rungs where you're really doing badly. In a game where only the top 20% are doing well there is fierce never ending competition to be in that 20%. In a game where everyone has some guaranteed basic standard of living you would expect the competition to be less fierce. Another note is that people used to work crazy hours during the industrial revolution. Similar story there, you had to get some work if you didn't want to be poor, and it was easy for employers to take advantage of employees.

doktorhladnjak 5y ago
The 1950s were a unique time in the American economy. The rest of the developed world had just come out of WW2 with large portions of its cities, industrial production, and overall economies severely disrupted or outright destroyed. Meanwhile, the US was unscathed and had spent the war further building up its industrial capacity. It was never sustainable, only something possible for a point in time.
- oblio 5y ago
  Yeah. I remember reading somewhere that the US was making 80% of the cars worldwide in 1950 or so.
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    They were also probably buying 80% of the cars produced worldwide.
    - oblio 5y ago
      Both of which were obviously not going to be sustainable at that rate for long :-)
- throwawayzRUU6f 5y ago
  US economy was almost a full autarchy in the 50s and 60s - imports and exports as percentage of GDP were at all time low - at about 3-4%. Meaning 96-97% of the economy was done by Americans for Americans - it was a closed system. The stagnation in standards of living since the 80s is fully engineered - it's a choice. Tax cuts, regulatory changes, disarming the antitrust, union busting, deregulation of finance and similar changes redistributed $47 trillion to the top 10% from 1975 through 2018 (1), enough to give every worker in the bottom 90% a raise of $1140 per month. (1) https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/ https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-ameri...
insert_coin 5y ago
> In a game where everyone has some guaranteed basic standard of living you would expect the competition to be less fierce. And how can you, or anyone, guarantee something like that? The standard of living we have, however imbalanced it might be, is a byproduct of fierce competition. To guarantee any kind of basic standard of living, specially one without even more fierce competition, the only alternatives are: a much much lower standard of living, much lower, or, a much much intense exploitation of natural resources. Pick your poison, as they are both catastrophic, and there is no third option.
- YZF 5y ago
  I guess the question is what is the cost of a "basic" standard of living. e.g. a shelter, not starving, healthcare, education. As long as that cost is low enough then it doesn't take much to guarantee it. You can certainly see some countries (e.g. Scandinavia, or Australia, or even Canada) finding a different balance point than other countries (e.g. the US). In other words, governments, regulations, unions, can (and do) influence that curve and bring it to a different (better?) place. Competition does play some role in incentivizing people but I don't think it's the entire story when it comes to progress/improved standard of living. When 8 hour work days were introduced was there some sort of sharp drop in productivity or innovation or standard of living? Or when the work week was shortened to 5 days from 6 days? I don't think so.
  - insert_coin 5y ago
    > You can certainly see some countries (e.g. Scandinavia, or Australia, or even Canada) finding a different balance point than other countries (e.g. the US). Three very resources rich regions. They are exploiting their natural resources to compensate for their (relative) low productivity. > When 8 hour work days were introduced was there some sort of sharp drop in productivity or innovation or standard of living? Or when the work week was shortened to 5 days from 6 days? I don't think so. Yes there was a drop, if you consider everything relevant. When the 8 hour work day was introduced new workers were still being added to the workforce. Almost half the population in productive age joined the work force in the later part of the 20th century alone and women were for the most part not working when the 5 day work week became a thing for example. Individually the work hours came down, but as a whole we work much much more today. But we don't have that luxury now, we don't have an untapped work force to lean against. And of course, the elephant in the room: our declining and aging population. Fewer and fewer working adults will have to provide for an increasingly large number of retirees. The situation particularly in the west is dire. Pension funds are at very high risk of collapsing almost everywhere and the solution will not be to work less. Maybe, because politicians are politicians, the 4 day work week will be a thing, but retirement will creep into the 70s, it's already being proposed in some countries. Increases in leisure time will be only on paper, done only in exchange for votes.

by YZF 5y ago

doktorhladnjak 5y ago

The 1950s were a unique time in the American economy. The rest of the developed world had just come out of WW2 with large portions of its cities, industrial production, and overall economies severely disrupted or outright destroyed. Meanwhile, the US was unscathed and had spent the war further building up its industrial capacity. It was never sustainable, only something possible for a point in time.

oblio 5y ago
Yeah. I remember reading somewhere that the US was making 80% of the cars worldwide in 1950 or so.
- HPsquared 5y ago
  They were also probably buying 80% of the cars produced worldwide.
  - oblio 5y ago
    Both of which were obviously not going to be sustainable at that rate for long :-)
throwawayzRUU6f 5y ago
US economy was almost a full autarchy in the 50s and 60s - imports and exports as percentage of GDP were at all time low - at about 3-4%. Meaning 96-97% of the economy was done by Americans for Americans - it was a closed system. The stagnation in standards of living since the 80s is fully engineered - it's a choice. Tax cuts, regulatory changes, disarming the antitrust, union busting, deregulation of finance and similar changes redistributed $47 trillion to the top 10% from 1975 through 2018 (1), enough to give every worker in the bottom 90% a raise of $1140 per month. (1) https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/ https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-ameri...

insert_coin 5y ago

> In a game where everyone has some guaranteed basic standard of living you would expect the competition to be less fierce. And how can you, or anyone, guarantee something like that? The standard of living we have, however imbalanced it might be, is a byproduct of fierce competition. To guarantee any kind of basic standard of living, specially one without even more fierce competition, the only alternatives are: a much much lower standard of living, much lower, or, a much much intense exploitation of natural resources. Pick your poison, as they are both catastrophic, and there is no third option.

YZF 5y ago
I guess the question is what is the cost of a "basic" standard of living. e.g. a shelter, not starving, healthcare, education. As long as that cost is low enough then it doesn't take much to guarantee it. You can certainly see some countries (e.g. Scandinavia, or Australia, or even Canada) finding a different balance point than other countries (e.g. the US). In other words, governments, regulations, unions, can (and do) influence that curve and bring it to a different (better?) place. Competition does play some role in incentivizing people but I don't think it's the entire story when it comes to progress/improved standard of living. When 8 hour work days were introduced was there some sort of sharp drop in productivity or innovation or standard of living? Or when the work week was shortened to 5 days from 6 days? I don't think so.
- insert_coin 5y ago
  > You can certainly see some countries (e.g. Scandinavia, or Australia, or even Canada) finding a different balance point than other countries (e.g. the US). Three very resources rich regions. They are exploiting their natural resources to compensate for their (relative) low productivity. > When 8 hour work days were introduced was there some sort of sharp drop in productivity or innovation or standard of living? Or when the work week was shortened to 5 days from 6 days? I don't think so. Yes there was a drop, if you consider everything relevant. When the 8 hour work day was introduced new workers were still being added to the workforce. Almost half the population in productive age joined the work force in the later part of the 20th century alone and women were for the most part not working when the 5 day work week became a thing for example. Individually the work hours came down, but as a whole we work much much more today. But we don't have that luxury now, we don't have an untapped work force to lean against. And of course, the elephant in the room: our declining and aging population. Fewer and fewer working adults will have to provide for an increasingly large number of retirees. The situation particularly in the west is dire. Pension funds are at very high risk of collapsing almost everywhere and the solution will not be to work less. Maybe, because politicians are politicians, the 4 day work week will be a thing, but retirement will creep into the 70s, it's already being proposed in some countries. Increases in leisure time will be only on paper, done only in exchange for votes.