6 ms·
At least they can buy cheap TVs, right? I wonder if we can finally accept that just because things like phones and TVs got better faster than purchasing power
by ctoth 4y ago
At least they can buy cheap TVs, right?
I wonder if we can finally accept that just because things like phones and TVs got better faster than purchasing power got worse, doesn't mean that it hasn't been getting worse for a while. I'd even go so far to say that technical progress in a couple areas has hidden some pretty stark declines. Or at least allowed some people to point at shiny things getting better when complaints surfaced.
- Swizec 4y agoWhat good is cheaper tech if we just use that to add more features and keep the same price? You could get a TV for less than $50 if it had the same features and processing power as it did in 2002. Same for computers. Imagine how cheap we could make a car that only has the features we had in the 90’s? Even if you include the mandatory passive safety upgrades.
- i_am_proteus 4y agoI'd be first in line for a new car that only has the features of cars from the 1990s.
- hot_gril 4y agoFord Crown Victoria was sorta that until 2010.
- krustyburger 4y agoPlenty of low-mileage 90s cars are on the market. If you’re being sincere, just filter by low mileage and single owner and you’ll find your dream car.
- babypuncher 4y agoOlder cars require more ongoing maintenance and repairs. What I want is a car with '90s features that rolled off the factory yesterday so I don't have to worry about it dying in the middle of a road trip next week.
- aetherson 4y agoThat's why your parent poster specified "low milage."
- throwaway0a5e 4y agoThis isn't true in any part of the country that has a winter.
- falcolas 4y agoTrue. California or Arizona (no salt on the roads, low humidity) are the unicorn places for cars without holes.
- i_am_proteus 4y agoBut since they're not being made in 2022, getting parts for them in 2040 will be fraught.
- serf 4y agopick a slightly more expensive car from that era that has an enthusiast fan-base; aftermarket parts will be available indefinitely. no problem finding parts for my (very old) Honda or the (very much older) VW beetle that's in the family.
- 4y ago
- gruez 4y ago> What good is cheaper tech if we just use that to add more features and keep the same price? ...having better technology, and therefore higher living standards?
- berberous 4y agoYou can get a 32" Fire TV for $99 on Amazon right now...I'm not sure it makes sense to make cheaper, especially when you have used items on Craigslist that covers the gap.
- m00x 4y agoThe cars would still be fairly expensive. The upgrades on a low-end car are topical and aren't the expensive part of a car. Basic cars A basic car only costs ~20k brand new. Some cars are as low as 12k.
- nerdponx 4y agoAre there still cars in the USA without "smart"/connected features?
- twic 4y agoI was going to say "and how light we could make a car", but then i actually looked up some stats, and this was news to me: http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/MacKenzie%20Zoepf%20Heywood%20Car%20Weight%20Trends%20-%20IJVD.pdf http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/Ma... Car weight declined sharply from 1976 to 1982, then started creeping up again, but cars in 2010 were only about as heavy as cars in ~1979.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- amanaplanacanal 4y agoI don't think this takes into account that something like 50% of vehicles sold are now light trucks (pickups and SUVs) rather than passenger cars.
- xtracto 4y agoTVs became cheaper because now companies have recurring revenue by selling ads. Same with other stuff, it got "cheaper" because the sellers found alternative monetization channels, which often are more anti-consumer.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y agoTVs have been continuously better and cheaper in real terms since their invention - any cross-subsidy from smart TV ads is very much a "last five years" phenomenon I think.
- cactus2093 4y ago> You could get a TV for less than $50 if it had the same features and processing power as it did in 2002. Same for computers. Well have I ever got good news for you. Here's a random article about TV tech from 2002 that I just found on google [0] talking about the top of the line in display tech being a new 30 inch LCD TV that cost $8,000 (that would be $13,200 in today's dollars). Now twenty years later you can buy a 32 inch 720p LCD TV on Amazon for $99. Same for computers, ever heard of a raspberry pi? [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/18/technology/state-of-the-art-tv-s-future-wide-thin-and-bright.html https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/18/technology/state-of-the-a...
- arcticbull 4y agoAs usual, there's a few chart crimes in here. Chart 1 shows CPI and inflation adjusted wages on the same graph? Why? Inflation adjusted wages already take into account CPI. There's no sensible reason to plot these two on the same graph. The caption is "wages are up 80% but that didn't keep up with living costs" - you cannot draw that inference from this graph. This graph actually shows that in fact wages grew faster than inflation. Housing is another red herring, of course, because the average new American home is 2x bigger now than it was in the 70s - and the average American family is like 10% smaller. Broadly, 1 square foot of the 'average' American home costs exactly the same as it used to in the 1970s. [1] So yes, housing is more expensive in big cities but that's because of zoning as Mr. Andreessen will tell you. Outside big cities it's still zoning, which requires minimum setback, garages, square footage, etc. In fact if you look by cohort, inflation-adjusted, millennials are doing roughly as well as other generations did at their age. [2] Their flagship claim that folks have 86% less purchasing power now holds zero water. The poverty rate remains basically unchanged since the 70s. [3] You'd think there'd be a lot more people in poverty if they only had 1/10th the buying power no?! Some things are more expensive (college, healthcare, 1 sqft of house in a big city, new houses outside of town) and yes, productivity growth far outpaced wage growth - but wage growth kept pace with inflation. That means folks are just the same off, instead of the better off they could be. [4] [edit] If you really slice it by decile, the bottom 10% of millennials is much worse off (like 15%) - that's what it looks like when you massacre the social safety net. But millennials as a whole are just as well off as previous generations. [1] https://fee.org/articles/new-homes-today-have-twice-the-square-feet-per-person-as-in-1973/ https://fee.org/articles/new-homes-today-have-twice-the-squa... [2] https://ofdollarsanddata.com/no-millennials-arent-poorer-than-previous-generations/ https://ofdollarsanddata.com/no-millennials-arent-poorer-tha... [3] https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-un... [4] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-affects-wage-growth-in-america.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-aff...
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago>As usual, there's a few chart crimes in here. Chart 1 shows CPI and inflation adjusted wages on the same graph? Why? Inflation adjusted wages already take into account CPI. There's no sensible reason to plot these two on the same graph. That's absolutely right - it's a gibberish chart.
- nerdponx 4y agoI could not agree more. I won't romanticize 1950s or 1970s cheap junk products compared to 1990s cheap junk products or 2020s cheap junk products, but something definitely has changed. Here's how I like to argue it: TVs might be cheaper "per unit of TV", but it's also difficult to just buy a basic TV. This is also offset intensely by "shrinkflation", which applies as much to durable goods (cheapening components) as it does to food. So you end up stuck with a bunch of "extra TV" that you don't need or want, effectively providing 0 utility, while the core product is lower-quality, even further lowering utility. And meanwhile economists deny that there is a problem because when you average it all out, you do technically pay less per abstracted unit of TV. The reason this happens is because it ultimately leads to better profit margins for manufacturers. "We make 'em like they used to!" isn't enough of a differentiating factor for most consumers, who are deliberately kept under-educated and constantly bombarded with p̶r̶o̶p̶a̶g̶a̶n̶d̶a̶ advertising and marketing. If you can sell a TV for $100, do you want to spend $10 manufacturing the TV, or do you want to spend $5 manufacturing the TV and $0.25 adding some onboard computer and software to make it "smart" (marketing!) while skimming off a huge data/ad revenue stream as essentially free money on the side? Moreover, luxury goods are somewhat irrelevant if your basic economic needs become less affordable. Maybe TVs are cheaper "per unit", but housing, healthcare, food, and energy are not. Those are literally all of the basic human needs except one (water), recognizable as such in even the most primitive of ancient societies. And water is problematic ("expensive" in terms of consumer welfare) in much of the USA for reasons other than pure financial cost. Edit: None of the above should be construed as advocacy or apology for chart-crimes and misleading reports based thereupon.
- mf_tomb 4y agoIt's conspiratorial to assume that advertising and marketing is responsible for the status quo, rather than it being reflective of the genuine preferences of consumers to have new toys. Consumer preference has rewarded lowest-common-denominator dopamine trains in basically every facet of modern life. See the gaming industry with microtransactions/lootboxes, or entertainment with the move towards short-form content.
- Kaze404 4y ago
- Liquix 4y agoFWIW smart TVs are "cheap" because of how lucrative it is to sell the data they collect. Gen Z probably has even less privacy than they do purchasing power. And while the economy will invariably bounce back - that data stays collected forever