5 ms·

The quality of living a family in the suburbs has today is like what a rich person a hundred years ago would have. I see people with houses, multiple brand new

The quality of living a family in the suburbs has today is like what a rich person a hundred years ago would have. I see people with houses, multiple brand new cars, TVs in every room, and who take a vacation at least once a year complain about the economy their entire life.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
The fact that some people don’t know how well they have it is not evidence that everything is fine. Watch a few news reports on poverty in America and you will see that a decent percentage of working adults live with their entire family in a small cramped apartment, can’t afford any vacation, and likely can’t afford emergency medical care if it comes up. And even those people in the suburbs with all those TVs could have more financial security and work fewer hours if our economy was more fairly arranged.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ben_w 4y ago
  They didn't say "everything is fine". There's a lot wrong with everyone's economy from the perspective of "we work just as hard, why don't we get the same stuff?" However, I think you're misapprehending quite how much worse things were a century ago. Now the poor may struggle to afford a PET/CT/MRI/ultrasound scan, or a PCR test, or a dose of antibiotics, or a heart (lung, liver, kidney, bladder, pancreas, ovary, …) transplant, but 100 years ago they did not exist. Diabetes only stopped being lethal just over 100 years ago, the first successful human treatment in the beginning of 1922. Smallpox no longer exists. And so on.
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    No I’m not misapprehending how much worse things were a century ago. I simply believe that argument has no bearing on the discussion of a fair distribution of wealth in todays society. No one today lives 100 years ago as a matter of simple fact. Yes, we have antibiotics now, and that’s great, but that has nothing to do with the fact that workers are producing vast amounts of wealth and receiving very little of that wealth as remuneration. We have cars today that make certain kinds of transportation easier, but that has nothing to do with a lack of maternity and paternity leave for new parents. We have cell phones so we can now talk to anyone in the world but that has nothing to do with the fact that business owners will selfishly decide to ship 1000 jobs overseas with no input from the workers who will be disenfranchised. I’m talking about unfair power imbalances today. This has nothing to do with the past.
black_13 4y ago
ben_w 4y ago
Most, myself included, have a very limited understanding of the economy we are part of, so I'm not surprised by complaints. Every so often, someone making 2 or 3 times the national average income makes an ass of themselves on TV by claiming they're economically disadvantaged. In some senses, you don't even have to go to the suburbs to be unimaginably better off now than it was possible to be a century ago, because a century it was not possible, at any price, to make a weekend trip between New York and London; to be immune to the common forms of seasonal flu; to have a video call with someone; to get penicillin; 3D printers, and indeed all CNC machines more complicated than a loom controlled by punched cards, would've been fantasy; and so much more besides. TVs are cheap now. So are 3D printers, travel, and phones.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >TVs are cheap now. So are 3D printers, travel, and phones. Being able to own disposable gadgets made in China doesn't make you rich. Those are not necessities. But you now what is? Housing, stable well paying jobs, healthcare and education , all of which are now massively out of reach for the average joe than they were a few decades ago.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    And a century ago? Because that's what this sub-thread is focusing on. And, like I said, much of what we now consider basic healthcare had not yet been invented. And even in the last decades, those cheap Chinese gadgets you're so dismissive of, they give access for free to not just k-12 but also university and post-graduate level educational courses and materials on topics which had not been invented then either. And the tech also lets more work remotely, changing the dynamics on housing.
- RhysU 4y ago
  > Every so often, someone making 2 or 3 times the national average income makes an ass of themselves on TV by claiming they're economically disadvantaged. Someone making 3X the US national median income is paying roughly the US national median income in federal/state/local taxes. They're paying a median working citizens' earnings in taxes.
acdha 4y ago
Not even close. That rich person had servants, could go on lengthy vacations, etc. and most likely they had substantial passive income. The key thing to understand is the difference in how precarious those situations are: that affluent suburbanite has some shiny things but their cash flow is much higher than their wealth. A TV in every room is a rounding error on the $11k/year each of those new cars costs on average, and over the course of someone’s working life that kind of thing makes a huge difference in net worth. The American healthcare system factors into this significantly: if your income depends on showing up to work daily, all of that can go away with a single health incident which leaves you unable to work. A truly rich person is considerably more likely to be able to ride something like that out. Similarly, retirement is a source of stress for many Americans. Having given mortgage processors and car companies millions of dollars over your life won’t help you much then.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  The rich people of the past had no internet, cars, air travel, or much health care by modern standards. The average 2022 American is vastly better off materially. What they had was social status, and I think that's more what you're talking about. Social status is incredibly important for humans, so I understand focusing on it. But since it's pretty much a Zero Sum Game, nothing much changes there.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Minor quibble: they would've had cars 100 years ago. Bad ones, but they would've had them.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    >The rich people of the past had no internet, cars, air travel, or much health care by modern standards. The average 2022 American is vastly better off materially. No, while rich people in the past had no iPhones or internet, they had something far more valuable than that: income generating businesses and appreciable assets like land, housing, gold, fine art, jewelery, etc. And no, the average American is vastly poorer now as housing, stable well paying jobs, healthcare and education, are now massively out of reach for the average joe than they were a few decades ago. Having iPhones and internet doesn't make up for these.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago

The fact that some people don’t know how well they have it is not evidence that everything is fine. Watch a few news reports on poverty in America and you will see that a decent percentage of working adults live with their entire family in a small cramped apartment, can’t afford any vacation, and likely can’t afford emergency medical care if it comes up. And even those people in the suburbs with all those TVs could have more financial security and work fewer hours if our economy was more fairly arranged.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ben_w 4y ago
They didn't say "everything is fine". There's a lot wrong with everyone's economy from the perspective of "we work just as hard, why don't we get the same stuff?" However, I think you're misapprehending quite how much worse things were a century ago. Now the poor may struggle to afford a PET/CT/MRI/ultrasound scan, or a PCR test, or a dose of antibiotics, or a heart (lung, liver, kidney, bladder, pancreas, ovary, …) transplant, but 100 years ago they did not exist. Diabetes only stopped being lethal just over 100 years ago, the first successful human treatment in the beginning of 1922. Smallpox no longer exists. And so on.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  No I’m not misapprehending how much worse things were a century ago. I simply believe that argument has no bearing on the discussion of a fair distribution of wealth in todays society. No one today lives 100 years ago as a matter of simple fact. Yes, we have antibiotics now, and that’s great, but that has nothing to do with the fact that workers are producing vast amounts of wealth and receiving very little of that wealth as remuneration. We have cars today that make certain kinds of transportation easier, but that has nothing to do with a lack of maternity and paternity leave for new parents. We have cell phones so we can now talk to anyone in the world but that has nothing to do with the fact that business owners will selfishly decide to ship 1000 jobs overseas with no input from the workers who will be disenfranchised. I’m talking about unfair power imbalances today. This has nothing to do with the past.

black_13 4y ago

ben_w 4y ago

Most, myself included, have a very limited understanding of the economy we are part of, so I'm not surprised by complaints. Every so often, someone making 2 or 3 times the national average income makes an ass of themselves on TV by claiming they're economically disadvantaged. In some senses, you don't even have to go to the suburbs to be unimaginably better off now than it was possible to be a century ago, because a century it was not possible, at any price, to make a weekend trip between New York and London; to be immune to the common forms of seasonal flu; to have a video call with someone; to get penicillin; 3D printers, and indeed all CNC machines more complicated than a loom controlled by punched cards, would've been fantasy; and so much more besides. TVs are cheap now. So are 3D printers, travel, and phones.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>TVs are cheap now. So are 3D printers, travel, and phones. Being able to own disposable gadgets made in China doesn't make you rich. Those are not necessities. But you now what is? Housing, stable well paying jobs, healthcare and education , all of which are now massively out of reach for the average joe than they were a few decades ago.
- ben_w 4y ago
  And a century ago? Because that's what this sub-thread is focusing on. And, like I said, much of what we now consider basic healthcare had not yet been invented. And even in the last decades, those cheap Chinese gadgets you're so dismissive of, they give access for free to not just k-12 but also university and post-graduate level educational courses and materials on topics which had not been invented then either. And the tech also lets more work remotely, changing the dynamics on housing.
RhysU 4y ago
> Every so often, someone making 2 or 3 times the national average income makes an ass of themselves on TV by claiming they're economically disadvantaged. Someone making 3X the US national median income is paying roughly the US national median income in federal/state/local taxes. They're paying a median working citizens' earnings in taxes.

acdha 4y ago

Not even close. That rich person had servants, could go on lengthy vacations, etc. and most likely they had substantial passive income. The key thing to understand is the difference in how precarious those situations are: that affluent suburbanite has some shiny things but their cash flow is much higher than their wealth. A TV in every room is a rounding error on the $11k/year each of those new cars costs on average, and over the course of someone’s working life that kind of thing makes a huge difference in net worth. The American healthcare system factors into this significantly: if your income depends on showing up to work daily, all of that can go away with a single health incident which leaves you unable to work. A truly rich person is considerably more likely to be able to ride something like that out. Similarly, retirement is a source of stress for many Americans. Having given mortgage processors and car companies millions of dollars over your life won’t help you much then.

BurningFrog 4y ago
The rich people of the past had no internet, cars, air travel, or much health care by modern standards. The average 2022 American is vastly better off materially. What they had was social status, and I think that's more what you're talking about. Social status is incredibly important for humans, so I understand focusing on it. But since it's pretty much a Zero Sum Game, nothing much changes there.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Minor quibble: they would've had cars 100 years ago. Bad ones, but they would've had them.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >The rich people of the past had no internet, cars, air travel, or much health care by modern standards. The average 2022 American is vastly better off materially. No, while rich people in the past had no iPhones or internet, they had something far more valuable than that: income generating businesses and appreciable assets like land, housing, gold, fine art, jewelery, etc. And no, the average American is vastly poorer now as housing, stable well paying jobs, healthcare and education, are now massively out of reach for the average joe than they were a few decades ago. Having iPhones and internet doesn't make up for these.