4 ms·

It is interesting that Keynes predicted a 15 hour work week in the 1930s. There are many reasons why this didn't come to pass but part of it is our desire for a

It is interesting that Keynes predicted a 15 hour work week in the 1930s. There are many reasons why this didn't come to pass but part of it is our desire for a higher standard of living. The majority of people in the 1930s didn't have 4,000 sq foot houses. A lot of houses were multi-generational. But we wanted new cars and bigger houses and bigger vacations because we "deserve" it. This is fine but these things we deserve cost money and require even more work. I think our own selves would be incredulous if someone suggested in 2000 that we would be buying $50K "normal" cars and $1K phones every couple of years. This is the flip-side of next day shipping e-commerce, urgent cares on every corner, everything packaged for single use convenience, etc. Even something as silly as lunch, how many people pack versus go out in your workplace? We are part of the problem and we need to acknowledge our greed and its control of our choices.

banannaise 5y ago
In many cases, we're not being given the choice. Nobody builds 1,000sqft houses. When they build 1,000sqft apartments, the rent is mortgage-level. When they build 500sqft apartments, the rent is, at best, a couple hundred dollars cheaper. Few cheaper options exist, aside from co-living with other people/couples/families. I'm reminded of Innuendo Studios' statement about porn: what becomes standard is not often what the majority wants, but what a minority wants and the majority will tolerate. Developers optimize for developer profits. They know a bigger house will sell for more than a smaller one, so nobody builds smaller ones. And since "no housing" isn't an option, people will begrudgingly accept housing that is bigger and more expensive than they want, if it's the only realistic option. My choices aren't constrained by my own greed; they're constrained by that of people with far more capital than me.
heavyset_go 5y ago
> * The majority of people in the 1930s didn't have 4,000 sq foot houses.* The majority of people today don't have 4,000 sq. ft houses, don't buy new cars excessively, or take big vacations. You're describing how a small segment of the upper middle class lives.

banannaise 5y ago

In many cases, we're not being given the choice. Nobody builds 1,000sqft houses. When they build 1,000sqft apartments, the rent is mortgage-level. When they build 500sqft apartments, the rent is, at best, a couple hundred dollars cheaper. Few cheaper options exist, aside from co-living with other people/couples/families. I'm reminded of Innuendo Studios' statement about porn: what becomes standard is not often what the majority wants, but what a minority wants and the majority will tolerate. Developers optimize for developer profits. They know a bigger house will sell for more than a smaller one, so nobody builds smaller ones. And since "no housing" isn't an option, people will begrudgingly accept housing that is bigger and more expensive than they want, if it's the only realistic option. My choices aren't constrained by my own greed; they're constrained by that of people with far more capital than me.

heavyset_go 5y ago

> * The majority of people in the 1930s didn't have 4,000 sq foot houses.* The majority of people today don't have 4,000 sq. ft houses, don't buy new cars excessively, or take big vacations. You're describing how a small segment of the upper middle class lives.