6 ms·

Article spends entire time "debunking" a political pundit who posts "hot takes" on Twitter, doesn't interview a single teen. Maybe, just maybe, the answer is m

Article spends entire time "debunking" a political pundit who posts "hot takes" on Twitter, doesn't interview a single teen. Maybe, just maybe, the answer is multi-faceted. Maybe we should take the things kids say at face value if we want to pretend that we are being intellectually honest. Sure, humans are notoriously bad at describing their own qualia and reasons for why they feel the things they do, but listening should surely be our starting point, right? Furthermore, why is it that capitalism can't both increase our material quality of life, while also alienating us from things that our ancestors enjoyed in abundance? Relationships, the family, simple and fulfilling labor that had an immediate impact on your surroundings, connection with nature, more leisure time, etc. There's no conversion ratio of semiconductor chips to time spent with loved ones. Guess which of the two humans can't live without? Maybe instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to anti-capitalism, we should objectively look at neoliberal capitalism and see what the negative externalities are of a system that assumes the driving force between human interactions to be economic (one of which is the commodification of everything including relationships). This article should be titled "picking a fight with Taylor Lorenz" and nothing else.

anonuser123456 4y ago
As a neoliberal/capitalist, I would suggest that capitalism is an incomplete theory and that we are still flushing things out. The huge rise in material standard of living from the 1850s to 1970s in the US made a dramatic improvement in people’s real quality of life. But since the 70s the improvements are very marginal. I speculate that’s because most of the consumer improvements are in the domain of status consumption goods, which by definition is zero sum. Material abundance beyond a certain point is in and of itself corrosive because it’s just status seeking / competitive signaling.
- green_man_lives 4y ago
  I would tend to agree with this with the addition of the fact that labor rights have degenerated too. The relationship between working people and let's say "capital" used to be more tenuous. This had ramifications for political stability in the late 1800s and early 1900s, but by the middle of the century we had a decent balance of power between laborers and companies, mediated by the government. Union membership + secret societies were a huge building block of everyday life. If you haven't ever walked through a graveyard, I encourage you to do so. Look at the headstones of people who died before the 1980s. A huge number belong to a secret society or trade union group (for the sake of simplicity let's ignore the uncomfortable racial aspects many of these organizations may have had, they were still pillars of community even if they were racist pillars of community) Contrasted with up until very recently where the norm was about bragging how hard you work (for someone else). Rugged individualism, not collectivism, is what some would consider to be the highest virtue today. Not to say this is a root cause, but just an example of change that can be analyzed in some weighted equation.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  Can't agree that the improvements since the 70s have been marginal. The internet is one of the greatest quality of life improvements humanity has ever created, especially relative to its cost.
  - green_man_lives 4y ago
    I posted this comment elsewhere, but I think the marginal utility of our advancements is definitely decreasing. The internet itself is just a method of getting information, most of which is garbage. To use an analogy, let's say the telephone just got invented. Hey I can call my brother in Tampa, this rocks! But now you get spam calls every day, every time you try to use your phone you have to listen to an ad to call your brother. People call you at random times of the night telling you they are going to kill you. Hyperbole, but you can see how a QOL of life improvement can also just be another vector for the bullshit you already have to put up with every day.
    - HDThoreaun 4y ago
      Certainly the internet brings new problems that we have to grapple with, but overall I can't agree that it's net negative. Riffing on your phone example, are you really claiming that dealing with spam calls is bad enough to counteract the huge gains you get from being able to talk to your family and friends whenever you want? Imo that's not even close to true. There's certainly a lot more bullshit to deal with today than there was in the past, and I can respect how leads to some level of existential angst and mental health issues, but I can't agree that it has overall made life worse.
      - green_man_lives 4y ago
        I do think that life is better with the internet, but a counterpoint I'd like to make is that humans are very quick to adapt to material change. Someone who goes from making $600 to $8000 a month will see their stress levels reduced but the $8000 will quickly become just a number for them. To use another analogy, programmers will always quickly squander the gains made by the chips. I bitch and moan about webpack and React because I've never written a GUI in C, the intermittent gains are invisible to me. Now for kids born after the internet's invention, they don't even understand the benefits of having the internet. Those are invisible. The negative effects are crystal clear though. In my example, I am not saying webpack made life worse, but that it's easy to see what's wrong with it and hard to see what's right.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  I don't think it has much to do with material abundance or status consumption as much as it is simply inequality. The productivity vs. real wage gap[1] that began in the early 1970s is well documented. Productivity gains since then have been largely captured by shareholders rather than workers. Quality of life is relative. While a poor person today may personally have more material abundance than a King in the 1300s or a middle class clerk in the early 1800s, their quality of life is still worse because it is measured relative to everyone else today. 1: https://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-divergence-between-productivity-and-a-typical-workers-pay-why-it-matters-and-why-its-real/ https://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-d...
- CatWChainsaw 4y ago
  If it's an incomplete theory, it's been incomplete for the 400-500 years or so it's existed. No more excuses then, the "theory" needs to be fixed and practiced before the whole planet goes to an early grave.
- molsongolden 4y ago
  This is the shift from "capitalism efficiently allocating resources to fulfill needs" to "capitalism manufacturing wants". Would appreciate reading recommendations in this area if anyone has any.
jackson1442 4y ago
> see what the negative externalities are of a system that assumes the driving force between human interactions to be economic (one of which is the commodification of everything including relationships) Absolutely agreed. We've gone from a community-based culture where you took care of your neighbors because it's the right thing to do to "rugged individualism" where things like healthcare are "privileges" you have to _earn_ through labor. I think we need to stop making the assumption that all the systems we have today are the best and take a long hard look at what upholds society, piece by piece.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Being a good neighbor is a fundamental part of being a man of good character and maintaining a working society. Taking care of a neighbor is none of my business because other peoples' lives are none of my business. Being a good neighbor and taking care of a neighbor are two very different things.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    What we're saying is that they aren't, though.
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      Let me put it this way then: Individualism and a community are not mutually exclusive.
      - giraffe_lady 4y ago
        When taking care of a neighbor is none of your business, what you have with them is not community.
        notch898a 4y ago
        What you have with them is not the community you envision.

anonuser123456 4y ago

As a neoliberal/capitalist, I would suggest that capitalism is an incomplete theory and that we are still flushing things out. The huge rise in material standard of living from the 1850s to 1970s in the US made a dramatic improvement in people’s real quality of life. But since the 70s the improvements are very marginal. I speculate that’s because most of the consumer improvements are in the domain of status consumption goods, which by definition is zero sum. Material abundance beyond a certain point is in and of itself corrosive because it’s just status seeking / competitive signaling.

green_man_lives 4y ago
I would tend to agree with this with the addition of the fact that labor rights have degenerated too. The relationship between working people and let's say "capital" used to be more tenuous. This had ramifications for political stability in the late 1800s and early 1900s, but by the middle of the century we had a decent balance of power between laborers and companies, mediated by the government. Union membership + secret societies were a huge building block of everyday life. If you haven't ever walked through a graveyard, I encourage you to do so. Look at the headstones of people who died before the 1980s. A huge number belong to a secret society or trade union group (for the sake of simplicity let's ignore the uncomfortable racial aspects many of these organizations may have had, they were still pillars of community even if they were racist pillars of community) Contrasted with up until very recently where the norm was about bragging how hard you work (for someone else). Rugged individualism, not collectivism, is what some would consider to be the highest virtue today. Not to say this is a root cause, but just an example of change that can be analyzed in some weighted equation.
HDThoreaun 4y ago
Can't agree that the improvements since the 70s have been marginal. The internet is one of the greatest quality of life improvements humanity has ever created, especially relative to its cost.
- green_man_lives 4y ago
  I posted this comment elsewhere, but I think the marginal utility of our advancements is definitely decreasing. The internet itself is just a method of getting information, most of which is garbage. To use an analogy, let's say the telephone just got invented. Hey I can call my brother in Tampa, this rocks! But now you get spam calls every day, every time you try to use your phone you have to listen to an ad to call your brother. People call you at random times of the night telling you they are going to kill you. Hyperbole, but you can see how a QOL of life improvement can also just be another vector for the bullshit you already have to put up with every day.
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    Certainly the internet brings new problems that we have to grapple with, but overall I can't agree that it's net negative. Riffing on your phone example, are you really claiming that dealing with spam calls is bad enough to counteract the huge gains you get from being able to talk to your family and friends whenever you want? Imo that's not even close to true. There's certainly a lot more bullshit to deal with today than there was in the past, and I can respect how leads to some level of existential angst and mental health issues, but I can't agree that it has overall made life worse.
    - green_man_lives 4y ago
      I do think that life is better with the internet, but a counterpoint I'd like to make is that humans are very quick to adapt to material change. Someone who goes from making $600 to $8000 a month will see their stress levels reduced but the $8000 will quickly become just a number for them. To use another analogy, programmers will always quickly squander the gains made by the chips. I bitch and moan about webpack and React because I've never written a GUI in C, the intermittent gains are invisible to me. Now for kids born after the internet's invention, they don't even understand the benefits of having the internet. Those are invisible. The negative effects are crystal clear though. In my example, I am not saying webpack made life worse, but that it's easy to see what's wrong with it and hard to see what's right.
ryandrake 4y ago
I don't think it has much to do with material abundance or status consumption as much as it is simply inequality. The productivity vs. real wage gap[1] that began in the early 1970s is well documented. Productivity gains since then have been largely captured by shareholders rather than workers. Quality of life is relative. While a poor person today may personally have more material abundance than a King in the 1300s or a middle class clerk in the early 1800s, their quality of life is still worse because it is measured relative to everyone else today. 1: https://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-divergence-between-productivity-and-a-typical-workers-pay-why-it-matters-and-why-its-real/ https://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-d...
CatWChainsaw 4y ago
If it's an incomplete theory, it's been incomplete for the 400-500 years or so it's existed. No more excuses then, the "theory" needs to be fixed and practiced before the whole planet goes to an early grave.
molsongolden 4y ago
This is the shift from "capitalism efficiently allocating resources to fulfill needs" to "capitalism manufacturing wants". Would appreciate reading recommendations in this area if anyone has any.

jackson1442 4y ago

> see what the negative externalities are of a system that assumes the driving force between human interactions to be economic (one of which is the commodification of everything including relationships) Absolutely agreed. We've gone from a community-based culture where you took care of your neighbors because it's the right thing to do to "rugged individualism" where things like healthcare are "privileges" you have to _earn_ through labor. I think we need to stop making the assumption that all the systems we have today are the best and take a long hard look at what upholds society, piece by piece.

Dalewyn 4y ago
Being a good neighbor is a fundamental part of being a man of good character and maintaining a working society. Taking care of a neighbor is none of my business because other peoples' lives are none of my business. Being a good neighbor and taking care of a neighbor are two very different things.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  What we're saying is that they aren't, though.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    Let me put it this way then: Individualism and a community are not mutually exclusive.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      When taking care of a neighbor is none of your business, what you have with them is not community.
      - notch898a 4y ago
        What you have with them is not the community you envision.