3 ms·

> The quality of life available on even a modest salary nowadays is far, far better. I really don't think this is the case. In the US, the cost of many fundame

> The quality of life available on even a modest salary nowadays is far, far better. I really don't think this is the case. In the US, the cost of many fundamental necessities like healthcare and housing are becoming further out of reach for more and more people. In addition, the suicide rate has been increasing among youth, which shouldn't be happening in a world where modern life is incomparably better. If a "modest salary" is equivalent to the minimum wage in the US, then you're automatically spending above the generally accepted 30% rule for housing spending if you choose to live in a city, which is where the jobs are. I think certain aspects of life have improved: entertainment has become cheaper, consumer technology is becoming more accessible (although the pandemic has really strained families that don't have access to a good internet connection, which is not a given in this country.) I really don't think life has demonstrably improved in the US from the 80's to today, it was much easier to have a comfortable life on a lower salary back then than it is today.

michaelt 5y ago
Medium-term quality-of-life comparisons tend to involve a lot of apples-to-oranges comparisons. For example, in the 1990s only the richest people would have a flatscreen TV, or a phone capable of browsing the web, or an internet connection faster than dial-up. Today, even a person working a minimum wage job can have all of those. But if healthcare, college education and rent have got more expensive over the same period, is that a net improvement in quality of life?
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Also, the trend of measuring quality of life in number and variety of screens available to stare at is a lot weirder than the previous trend of measuring in number of chickens consumed.
  - francisofascii 5y ago
    Very true. We replaced "a chicken for every pot" with "a smart phone for every hand".
- nicoburns 5y ago
  > For example, in the 1990s only the richest people would have a flatscreen TV, or a phone capable of browsing the web, or an internet connection faster than dial-up. Today, even a person working a minimum wage job can have all of those. Do you really seriously consider any of those a measure for quality of life? When I think of quality of life I want the basics: secure housing, healthy food, free time. Perhaps meaningful employment. And pretty much everything else comes down to the people around me.
  - michaelt 5y ago
    > Do you really seriously consider any of those a measure for quality of life? In 1990, a worker who wanted a TV had to save up two weeks' pay. Today, someone doing the same job could get a better TV for a day's pay. That gives them nine days of free time to spend with their family - or the chance to buy nine more TVs, if they prefer. Where in 1990 I would have had to go to a library to look something up in an encyclopedia, today I can access a much more detailed encyclopedia, completely free, from a device in my pocket. In 1990, if you wanted to talk to a loved one on the other side of the world, it was a very expensive phone call. Today it's a video call, in high definition, and it doesn't cost a cent. In 1990 if you wanted to learn from professors at top universities, you had to get accepted, move house and pay a bunch of money. Today I can get more lectures than I could ever watch, and more than enough education to land a six-figure programming job, all for free. In 1990, web browsers don't exist. Obviously no single number can fully represent the incredible richness of human existence. But I think ignoring 30 years of technological process because you can't eat it is a bit short sighted.
    - dTal 5y ago
      >In 1990, a worker who wanted a TV had to save up two weeks' pay. Today, someone doing the same job could get a better TV for a day's pay. That gives them nine days of free time to spend with their family - or the chance to buy nine more TVs, if they prefer. I think this is a perfect microcosm of the discussion. The whole point is that you don't get nine days of free time to spend with your family just because TVs are cheaper, and if you did we wouldn't be having this conversation. And what is the use of 9 TVs?
erosenbe0 5y ago
Housing doesn't mean what it used to though. 1950s-60s housing stock occupied by 1980s first time home buyer had one shower, no garage or one car garage, window unit a/c and a damp basement.

michaelt 5y ago

Medium-term quality-of-life comparisons tend to involve a lot of apples-to-oranges comparisons. For example, in the 1990s only the richest people would have a flatscreen TV, or a phone capable of browsing the web, or an internet connection faster than dial-up. Today, even a person working a minimum wage job can have all of those. But if healthcare, college education and rent have got more expensive over the same period, is that a net improvement in quality of life?

pessimizer 5y ago
Also, the trend of measuring quality of life in number and variety of screens available to stare at is a lot weirder than the previous trend of measuring in number of chickens consumed.
- francisofascii 5y ago
  Very true. We replaced "a chicken for every pot" with "a smart phone for every hand".
nicoburns 5y ago
> For example, in the 1990s only the richest people would have a flatscreen TV, or a phone capable of browsing the web, or an internet connection faster than dial-up. Today, even a person working a minimum wage job can have all of those. Do you really seriously consider any of those a measure for quality of life? When I think of quality of life I want the basics: secure housing, healthy food, free time. Perhaps meaningful employment. And pretty much everything else comes down to the people around me.
- michaelt 5y ago
  > Do you really seriously consider any of those a measure for quality of life? In 1990, a worker who wanted a TV had to save up two weeks' pay. Today, someone doing the same job could get a better TV for a day's pay. That gives them nine days of free time to spend with their family - or the chance to buy nine more TVs, if they prefer. Where in 1990 I would have had to go to a library to look something up in an encyclopedia, today I can access a much more detailed encyclopedia, completely free, from a device in my pocket. In 1990, if you wanted to talk to a loved one on the other side of the world, it was a very expensive phone call. Today it's a video call, in high definition, and it doesn't cost a cent. In 1990 if you wanted to learn from professors at top universities, you had to get accepted, move house and pay a bunch of money. Today I can get more lectures than I could ever watch, and more than enough education to land a six-figure programming job, all for free. In 1990, web browsers don't exist. Obviously no single number can fully represent the incredible richness of human existence. But I think ignoring 30 years of technological process because you can't eat it is a bit short sighted.
  - dTal 5y ago
    >In 1990, a worker who wanted a TV had to save up two weeks' pay. Today, someone doing the same job could get a better TV for a day's pay. That gives them nine days of free time to spend with their family - or the chance to buy nine more TVs, if they prefer. I think this is a perfect microcosm of the discussion. The whole point is that you don't get nine days of free time to spend with your family just because TVs are cheaper, and if you did we wouldn't be having this conversation. And what is the use of 9 TVs?

erosenbe0 5y ago

Housing doesn't mean what it used to though. 1950s-60s housing stock occupied by 1980s first time home buyer had one shower, no garage or one car garage, window unit a/c and a damp basement.