26 ms·

This is called the hedonic treadmill, and is why we don't have a more leisurely lifestyle in general. John Maynard Keynes famously predicted something like a 1

by api 5y ago

This is called the hedonic treadmill, and is why we don't have a more leisurely lifestyle in general. John Maynard Keynes famously predicted something like a 10-20 hour work week by the year 2000. You can actually have that today... if you are willing to live at the standard of living of someone in the 1930s. That would mean a much smaller house, much less technology, a very cheap car or public transit, vanilla food, only a few suits of clothes, and bare bones health care. Instead we tend to use our gains to get more space (houses today outside dense cities are huge), more tech, more education, better health care, designer hipster food, more entertainment, and so on.

munificent 5y ago
People lived at 1930 standards of living because technology at the time only gave them 1930 levels of productivity.
heterodoxxed 5y ago
| a much smaller house, much less technology, a very cheap car or public transit, vanilla food, only a few suits of clothes, and bare bones health care. You would have to be highly skilled to do that, the average worker couldn't get anywhere close to that lifestyle on 10-20 hours a week.
- the_only_law 5y ago
  At least I don't think so on the jobs that would actually allow you to work 10-20 hours a week.
the_only_law 5y ago
> if you are willing to live at the standard of living of someone in the 1930s. So you'd have to live like it was the worst period of global economic collapse and hardship in modern history?
SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
Living in a 1930's home with a 2010 Toyota Corolla in the garage I somehow doubt that. We're talking (where I live) $600-1200 before tax income. In the dead of winter the utilities alone can be close to $500.
- brewdad 5y ago
  In the 1930s you would have a wood burning stove for heat and, if you were outside of a city, possibly limited or no electricity. Almost certainly no phone or a party line. You can get those utility costs down by living right. :)
  - wbsss4412 5y ago
    You comment implies that utility costs would be significantly lower if OP used 1930s technology, but I’d assume that using a wood burning stove to heat their house would be much costlier. Modern technology typically allows one to use resources much more efficiently, even if we tend to use much more of those resources.
    - unishark 5y ago
      The key is to use anything not just efficiently but sparingly. The heat may not be on at night, you can use thicker covers. But the cost of wood isn't bad. The worst winter bills appear to arise from heating oil from what I've heard anecdotally, which is common in old houses in New England.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - kortilla 5y ago
      Your comment assumes heating an entire house to 60-70 in winter was normal.
  - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
    That's true, but the more than $2000 / month mortgage isn't something that's so easily overcome.
gowld 5y ago
Hedonic treadmill is different. This is about labor flooding the market and driving its price down, and auction-priced (supply-constrained) goods being bid up in price (like housing).
ectopod 5y ago
I have stepped off the hedonic treadmill. I prepare nearly all of my own food and I eat extremely well. Ingredients are cheap. I don't live in the USA so my healthcare is unaffected. The internet is a thing so I can (and do) continue to educate myself for free. But yes, I don't have an extensive wardrobe or a large house. So what?
- megablast 5y ago
  What be gone further. Live on a sailboat. I be free electricity. All I pay for is the gas for cooking, and a bit of diesel. Anchoring is free. And it’s paradise. No cars. No pollution.
onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
You could also do that if corporate profits were lower. Worker productivity has far outpaced compensation for 50 years: https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-6/understanding-the-labor-productivity-and-compensation-gap.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-6/understanding-the-labo...
- flavius29663 5y ago
  If corporate profits were lower, you wouldn't have the giant companies of today pushing USA' economy so high, and pushing the wages to the highest in the world, bar some tiny states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income When looking at those tables, keep in mind that taxes in most of those countries (except maybe Switzerland) are significantly higher than the US taxes. In fact, the US median wage earner pays almost no income tax, only payroll.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
    Corporate profits are after wages. They could have the same profit before wages - but if the share was distributed more evenly, overall profit would be lower, and the worker would be better off. It's not like this would've affected companies at all. R&D is at an all time low compared to profits. It's not like they couldn't afford to invest in R&D to keep an advantage if workers were getting paid more. Seeing as inequality is higher than during the Bell Epoch in France - and any other time in recorded history, this doesn't seem preposterous.
    - flavius29663 5y ago
      > It's not like this would've affected companies at all How can you be so sure? Tens of billions of profit every year/quarter make these companies very appealing for investors, allowing them to spend unlimited cash to expand their business. A well run company that has limited profits and expansion will then in turn have less R&D. Think IBM, Oracle - they haven't kept up the pace and got seriously behind MS, Facebook, Apple, Amazon and Google etc. Not only the companies in this list https://spendmenot.com/blog/rd-spenders/ https://spendmenot.com/blog/rd-spenders/ spend the most, they also offer really high salaries, because they are successful. I don't have a crystal ball or a degree in economics, but to me it's pretty clear that a successful company will make life better for everyone, including R&D and menial jobs. Say what you want, but Amazon warehouse jobs are better than other no skill needed job in their respective areas.
flukus 5y ago
> That would mean a much smaller house, much less technology, a very cheap car or public transit, vanilla food, only a few suits of clothes, and bare bones health care. I'm not too far from this, 30 square meter apartment, no car, make most of my own meals, have only a few inexpensive clothing and don't have private insurance (because universal healthcare is better). I have a fair bit of technology but that barely makes a dent in my overall budget, in the last couple of years it's just the internet and the electricity to run them. 10 hours a week (assuming I could get divide my current salary by 4) would barely pay the mortgage/rent due to inflated housing costs. With 20 hours I could pay food/water/electricity and probably have enough left over for some indulgences. So this is feasible for me, but I just creep into top 10% income bracket in my country, it's definitely not achievable for most people.

by api 5y ago

munificent 5y ago

People lived at 1930 standards of living because technology at the time only gave them 1930 levels of productivity.

heterodoxxed 5y ago

| a much smaller house, much less technology, a very cheap car or public transit, vanilla food, only a few suits of clothes, and bare bones health care. You would have to be highly skilled to do that, the average worker couldn't get anywhere close to that lifestyle on 10-20 hours a week.

the_only_law 5y ago
At least I don't think so on the jobs that would actually allow you to work 10-20 hours a week.

the_only_law 5y ago

> if you are willing to live at the standard of living of someone in the 1930s. So you'd have to live like it was the worst period of global economic collapse and hardship in modern history?

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago

Living in a 1930's home with a 2010 Toyota Corolla in the garage I somehow doubt that. We're talking (where I live) $600-1200 before tax income. In the dead of winter the utilities alone can be close to $500.

brewdad 5y ago
In the 1930s you would have a wood burning stove for heat and, if you were outside of a city, possibly limited or no electricity. Almost certainly no phone or a party line. You can get those utility costs down by living right. :)
- wbsss4412 5y ago
  You comment implies that utility costs would be significantly lower if OP used 1930s technology, but I’d assume that using a wood burning stove to heat their house would be much costlier. Modern technology typically allows one to use resources much more efficiently, even if we tend to use much more of those resources.
  - unishark 5y ago
    The key is to use anything not just efficiently but sparingly. The heat may not be on at night, you can use thicker covers. But the cost of wood isn't bad. The worst winter bills appear to arise from heating oil from what I've heard anecdotally, which is common in old houses in New England.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - kortilla 5y ago
    Your comment assumes heating an entire house to 60-70 in winter was normal.
- SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
  That's true, but the more than $2000 / month mortgage isn't something that's so easily overcome.

gowld 5y ago

Hedonic treadmill is different. This is about labor flooding the market and driving its price down, and auction-priced (supply-constrained) goods being bid up in price (like housing).

ectopod 5y ago

I have stepped off the hedonic treadmill. I prepare nearly all of my own food and I eat extremely well. Ingredients are cheap. I don't live in the USA so my healthcare is unaffected. The internet is a thing so I can (and do) continue to educate myself for free. But yes, I don't have an extensive wardrobe or a large house. So what?

megablast 5y ago
What be gone further. Live on a sailboat. I be free electricity. All I pay for is the gas for cooking, and a bit of diesel. Anchoring is free. And it’s paradise. No cars. No pollution.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

You could also do that if corporate profits were lower. Worker productivity has far outpaced compensation for 50 years: https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-6/understanding-the-labor-productivity-and-compensation-gap.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-6/understanding-the-labo...

flavius29663 5y ago
If corporate profits were lower, you wouldn't have the giant companies of today pushing USA' economy so high, and pushing the wages to the highest in the world, bar some tiny states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income When looking at those tables, keep in mind that taxes in most of those countries (except maybe Switzerland) are significantly higher than the US taxes. In fact, the US median wage earner pays almost no income tax, only payroll.
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  Corporate profits are after wages. They could have the same profit before wages - but if the share was distributed more evenly, overall profit would be lower, and the worker would be better off. It's not like this would've affected companies at all. R&D is at an all time low compared to profits. It's not like they couldn't afford to invest in R&D to keep an advantage if workers were getting paid more. Seeing as inequality is higher than during the Bell Epoch in France - and any other time in recorded history, this doesn't seem preposterous.
  - flavius29663 5y ago
    > It's not like this would've affected companies at all How can you be so sure? Tens of billions of profit every year/quarter make these companies very appealing for investors, allowing them to spend unlimited cash to expand their business. A well run company that has limited profits and expansion will then in turn have less R&D. Think IBM, Oracle - they haven't kept up the pace and got seriously behind MS, Facebook, Apple, Amazon and Google etc. Not only the companies in this list https://spendmenot.com/blog/rd-spenders/ https://spendmenot.com/blog/rd-spenders/ spend the most, they also offer really high salaries, because they are successful. I don't have a crystal ball or a degree in economics, but to me it's pretty clear that a successful company will make life better for everyone, including R&D and menial jobs. Say what you want, but Amazon warehouse jobs are better than other no skill needed job in their respective areas.

flukus 5y ago

> That would mean a much smaller house, much less technology, a very cheap car or public transit, vanilla food, only a few suits of clothes, and bare bones health care. I'm not too far from this, 30 square meter apartment, no car, make most of my own meals, have only a few inexpensive clothing and don't have private insurance (because universal healthcare is better). I have a fair bit of technology but that barely makes a dent in my overall budget, in the last couple of years it's just the internet and the electricity to run them. 10 hours a week (assuming I could get divide my current salary by 4) would barely pay the mortgage/rent due to inflated housing costs. With 20 hours I could pay food/water/electricity and probably have enough left over for some indulgences. So this is feasible for me, but I just creep into top 10% income bracket in my country, it's definitely not achievable for most people.