4 ms·

This is so strange to me. The workforce doubled, twice as much is being produced. You would think that means the average family would be twice as well off. Inst

This is so strange to me. The workforce doubled, twice as much is being produced. You would think that means the average family would be twice as well off. Instead they have to work twice as long for the exact same amount. This makes no sense at all, until you realize that a tiny percentage at the top took all that extra value.

Gigachad 4y ago
For the exact same amount? The amount of stuff people have today has absolutely exploded. The amount of content, products, quality and sophistication of these products has skyrocketed as well. Things like an overseas holiday was described as once in a lifetime because it would literally only be affordable to do once. Modern computers would be impossible without the boost to the workforce. Peoples expected standards of living has skyrocketed which has kept them working the same amount. And scarce things like land has gone up because you are bidding against other groups who will work two full time jobs.
- diffeomorphism 4y ago
  > For the exact same amount? The amount of stuff people have today has absolutely exploded The complete opposite for housing. How many yearly salaries was a typical house then? How many yearly salaries (of two people!) is it now?
  - imtringued 4y ago
    Housing is expensive because people want it to be exclusive.
    - ipaddr 4y ago
      People want a house and similiar sized neighbour property owners
    - remuskaos 4y ago
      People who already have a house may want it expensive, but even that is a double edged sword. People who don't already have a house certainly do not want them to be expensive.
    - Dracophoenix 4y ago
      Housing is by it's very nature exclusive; every building with a roof and at least four walls is put up to keep out animals, the elements, and other people. Exclusivity on it's own has little to do with price. Desirability, mainly in terms of easy access to/production of vittles and lack of crime, is what influences the latter.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    Because the cost of housing isn’t really based on productivity. It’s based on having more money than everyone else who wants to live in that area. Housing is very cheap in undesirable areas. Higher density property is the only way to put more housing in the same desirable spaces.
    - pydry 4y ago
      Detaxing land (e.g. prop 13) deliberately created incentives to inhibit higher density housing. This plus growing wealth inequality kicked off the NIMBY revolution.
      - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
        Don't forget zoning and environmentalism. If it weren't for those two tools NIMBY would be a lot less effective.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Higher density property is the only way to put more housing in the same desirable spaces. Except it's not, because reduced housing density is part of what makes some of those desirable spaces desirable in the first place.
boppo1 4y ago
Eroding the 'natural' i.e. market rate of interest made inefficient activities relatively more valuable. The more we interfered, the more valuable financial holdings became, regardless whether or not they actually contribute to society. IMO we hardly have any idea right now what's worthwhile business activity and what's not, because we destroyed the measuring stick.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> The workforce doubled, twice as much is being produced The labor force doubled, productive capital did not, and there are declining production gains to additional labor when existing capital is already well employed. Also, the labor force isn't just the force actually producing; unemployment also went up initially (it came down later, as falling real labor prices made it economical to employ less-productive labor.) > a tiny percentage at the top took all that extra value. This is true, but increasing competition for some (especially low-skill) labor played a role in concentrating the gains (within the workforce.) Tax policy also played a role.

Gigachad 4y ago

For the exact same amount? The amount of stuff people have today has absolutely exploded. The amount of content, products, quality and sophistication of these products has skyrocketed as well. Things like an overseas holiday was described as once in a lifetime because it would literally only be affordable to do once. Modern computers would be impossible without the boost to the workforce. Peoples expected standards of living has skyrocketed which has kept them working the same amount. And scarce things like land has gone up because you are bidding against other groups who will work two full time jobs.

diffeomorphism 4y ago
> For the exact same amount? The amount of stuff people have today has absolutely exploded The complete opposite for housing. How many yearly salaries was a typical house then? How many yearly salaries (of two people!) is it now?
- imtringued 4y ago
  Housing is expensive because people want it to be exclusive.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    People want a house and similiar sized neighbour property owners
  - remuskaos 4y ago
    People who already have a house may want it expensive, but even that is a double edged sword. People who don't already have a house certainly do not want them to be expensive.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    Housing is by it's very nature exclusive; every building with a roof and at least four walls is put up to keep out animals, the elements, and other people. Exclusivity on it's own has little to do with price. Desirability, mainly in terms of easy access to/production of vittles and lack of crime, is what influences the latter.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Because the cost of housing isn’t really based on productivity. It’s based on having more money than everyone else who wants to live in that area. Housing is very cheap in undesirable areas. Higher density property is the only way to put more housing in the same desirable spaces.
  - pydry 4y ago
    Detaxing land (e.g. prop 13) deliberately created incentives to inhibit higher density housing. This plus growing wealth inequality kicked off the NIMBY revolution.
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      Don't forget zoning and environmentalism. If it weren't for those two tools NIMBY would be a lot less effective.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Higher density property is the only way to put more housing in the same desirable spaces. Except it's not, because reduced housing density is part of what makes some of those desirable spaces desirable in the first place.

boppo1 4y ago

Eroding the 'natural' i.e. market rate of interest made inefficient activities relatively more valuable. The more we interfered, the more valuable financial holdings became, regardless whether or not they actually contribute to society. IMO we hardly have any idea right now what's worthwhile business activity and what's not, because we destroyed the measuring stick.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> The workforce doubled, twice as much is being produced The labor force doubled, productive capital did not, and there are declining production gains to additional labor when existing capital is already well employed. Also, the labor force isn't just the force actually producing; unemployment also went up initially (it came down later, as falling real labor prices made it economical to employ less-productive labor.) > a tiny percentage at the top took all that extra value. This is true, but increasing competition for some (especially low-skill) labor played a role in concentrating the gains (within the workforce.) Tax policy also played a role.