6 ms·

Also the wealth of the average worker has been stagnant since the 70's - computers, the internet, etc came and brought tons of wealth, and didn't raise the stan

Also the wealth of the average worker has been stagnant since the 70's - computers, the internet, etc came and brought tons of wealth, and didn't raise the standard of living. I've never thought about computers that way - they got here, and didn't make everyone's lives better - they just accelerated wealth concentration in the top 1%.

c1sc0 3y ago
In the 70s the top 1% couldn’t even conceive of the power they’d have in their pockets one day. Today both billionaires and the rest of the world can have access to that same power. We’re all carrying the same phones in our pockets after all.
- RhodesianHunter 3y ago
  Power to search the internet != Food and housing.
  - 2devnull 3y ago
    Poor people benefit from lightbulbs too.
  - hamdouni 3y ago
    Rich people benefit from poor people too
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- zorked 3y ago
  I will give you all the power of my phone and you give me a billion dollars. Easy trade right.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    You missed the point. In the 70s you didn’t have the ability to give someone the power of your phone. If you did, the ultra wealthy would have paid a billion for it (inflation adjusted). The technology you take for granted is huge. Warren Buffet said he would rather give up flying on a private jet, than give up his smartphone.
    - zorked 3y ago
      No, you missed the point. Something that is a baseline today is being used to justify absolutely colossal disparity in how people live on the unimaginative base of "gee, you are not a caveman". Your phone does not mean that you don't have to work three jobs to have a roof over your head and can't have a family. Having a phone does not make you rich.
      - kortilla 3y ago
        You need to reread the thread. There are some things that are significantly better for common people today. So much better that the richest people would have given up significant chunks of their fortunes for them in the 70s. This does not mean it’s still difficult to get housing. It’s just a point that one aspect of our lives is unfathomably better than before and now we take it for granted.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
  Haha, poor billionaires. Just can't improve your iPhone no matter how many $$$$ you throw at it. The most expensive smartphone to date is an iPhone6 with a huge diamond protruding from it.
jprete 3y ago
I’m not a fan of wealth concentration but a lot of the wealth increase at the bottom was by increasing the technological power of their possessions. While this isn’t the same as political or financial power, it’s something.
root_axis 3y ago
> computers, the internet, etc came and brought tons of wealth, and didn't raise the standard of living Huh?? What world are you living in where the standard of living hasn't increased in the last 50 years?
- Mezzie 3y ago
  I'd say that would depend on one's point of view in a couple of key respects: - Are we just discussing the first-world middle class? Obviously if we extend our scope to all of humanity there have been remarkable jumps in standards of living. - Does the idea of 'standard of living' include only access to goods, services, and information or also intangibles like access to safety and (more pertinently to this particular discussion) security? As a 34 year old American, I feel that my material standard of living is much better than it was in 1992, but my sense of security in said standard of living has taken a nosedive.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > my sense of security in said standard of living has taken a nosedive While it's hard to say, that might be the news you read, rather than reality.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Mezzie 3y ago
      Eh. Depends on which part. I definitely have fallen into doomscrolling on occasion, but I have reasons to believe our society is less stable than it was. This has good and bad aspects - the 'stability' offered was in many ways the stability of a less rich way of living (think people without plumbing or with dirt floors), but at the same time the lack of security is a major stressor and that's not good for your mental health any more than material deprivation is. There's also that I am a disabled American and we're generally not in great spots. As an American, your ability to have things like housing is directly tied to your ability to be economically productive, and as someone with MS, I have to roll the dice each morning on whether or not I will be able to work. I don't know how long my career can last which creates a lot of stress. But then that's also true for all Americans: How many of us could survive our main/only earner getting cancer? That's the sort of stability I mean: The ability to be wiped out by things outside of your control is higher (which is partially down to society deciding everything is an individual problem and if a tornado flattens your house that sounds like a you problem) and we're moving towards a lower-trust society and the community bonds that were existent but frayed in the 90s (see Bowling Alone) are pretty torched now. Who and what can you rely on? Which is more relevant if you consider that a lot of Americans have medical conditions and that things like the move from a single-income to dual-income household as the standard means that losing one adult can cripple a household financially. I'm also basing this on things like my peers' ability to do things like pay for child care since mid-30s are prime 'give all your money to daycare' years. I also was in school during 2008, so I entered college under the 'get a degree and you'll be fine' years and exited it into the bloodbath of the Great Recession. There are many realities and my personal one is less secure than it was and this is true for many Americans.
HFguy 3y ago
This is true only if you look narrowly at developed countries. If you look more broadly, a tremendous number of people have had huge increases in income in places like China. That might even be related (i.e., wages for workers are being depressed in developing world as workers see competition from other workers in developing nations). And capital owners benefiting from increased availability of labor. TBC, agree that gini coefficient re: wealth in developing world is increasing.
- penneallagricia 3y ago
  China is the one country that doesn't allow a concentration of the wealth in the top 1%. Look at India, they don't come close to China if you compare how the standard of life improved for the masses.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
Policies accelerated the wealth of the 1%, not computers.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
Well, average wage in China increased more than x100 over that period of time.

c1sc0 3y ago

In the 70s the top 1% couldn’t even conceive of the power they’d have in their pockets one day. Today both billionaires and the rest of the world can have access to that same power. We’re all carrying the same phones in our pockets after all.

RhodesianHunter 3y ago
Power to search the internet != Food and housing.
- 2devnull 3y ago
  Poor people benefit from lightbulbs too.
- hamdouni 3y ago
  Rich people benefit from poor people too
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
zorked 3y ago
I will give you all the power of my phone and you give me a billion dollars. Easy trade right.
- kortilla 3y ago
  You missed the point. In the 70s you didn’t have the ability to give someone the power of your phone. If you did, the ultra wealthy would have paid a billion for it (inflation adjusted). The technology you take for granted is huge. Warren Buffet said he would rather give up flying on a private jet, than give up his smartphone.
  - zorked 3y ago
    No, you missed the point. Something that is a baseline today is being used to justify absolutely colossal disparity in how people live on the unimaginative base of "gee, you are not a caveman". Your phone does not mean that you don't have to work three jobs to have a roof over your head and can't have a family. Having a phone does not make you rich.
    - kortilla 3y ago
      You need to reread the thread. There are some things that are significantly better for common people today. So much better that the richest people would have given up significant chunks of their fortunes for them in the 70s. This does not mean it’s still difficult to get housing. It’s just a point that one aspect of our lives is unfathomably better than before and now we take it for granted.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
Haha, poor billionaires. Just can't improve your iPhone no matter how many $$$$ you throw at it. The most expensive smartphone to date is an iPhone6 with a huge diamond protruding from it.

jprete 3y ago

I’m not a fan of wealth concentration but a lot of the wealth increase at the bottom was by increasing the technological power of their possessions. While this isn’t the same as political or financial power, it’s something.

root_axis 3y ago

> computers, the internet, etc came and brought tons of wealth, and didn't raise the standard of living Huh?? What world are you living in where the standard of living hasn't increased in the last 50 years?

Mezzie 3y ago
I'd say that would depend on one's point of view in a couple of key respects: - Are we just discussing the first-world middle class? Obviously if we extend our scope to all of humanity there have been remarkable jumps in standards of living. - Does the idea of 'standard of living' include only access to goods, services, and information or also intangibles like access to safety and (more pertinently to this particular discussion) security? As a 34 year old American, I feel that my material standard of living is much better than it was in 1992, but my sense of security in said standard of living has taken a nosedive.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > my sense of security in said standard of living has taken a nosedive While it's hard to say, that might be the news you read, rather than reality.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Mezzie 3y ago
    Eh. Depends on which part. I definitely have fallen into doomscrolling on occasion, but I have reasons to believe our society is less stable than it was. This has good and bad aspects - the 'stability' offered was in many ways the stability of a less rich way of living (think people without plumbing or with dirt floors), but at the same time the lack of security is a major stressor and that's not good for your mental health any more than material deprivation is. There's also that I am a disabled American and we're generally not in great spots. As an American, your ability to have things like housing is directly tied to your ability to be economically productive, and as someone with MS, I have to roll the dice each morning on whether or not I will be able to work. I don't know how long my career can last which creates a lot of stress. But then that's also true for all Americans: How many of us could survive our main/only earner getting cancer? That's the sort of stability I mean: The ability to be wiped out by things outside of your control is higher (which is partially down to society deciding everything is an individual problem and if a tornado flattens your house that sounds like a you problem) and we're moving towards a lower-trust society and the community bonds that were existent but frayed in the 90s (see Bowling Alone) are pretty torched now. Who and what can you rely on? Which is more relevant if you consider that a lot of Americans have medical conditions and that things like the move from a single-income to dual-income household as the standard means that losing one adult can cripple a household financially. I'm also basing this on things like my peers' ability to do things like pay for child care since mid-30s are prime 'give all your money to daycare' years. I also was in school during 2008, so I entered college under the 'get a degree and you'll be fine' years and exited it into the bloodbath of the Great Recession. There are many realities and my personal one is less secure than it was and this is true for many Americans.

HFguy 3y ago

This is true only if you look narrowly at developed countries. If you look more broadly, a tremendous number of people have had huge increases in income in places like China. That might even be related (i.e., wages for workers are being depressed in developing world as workers see competition from other workers in developing nations). And capital owners benefiting from increased availability of labor. TBC, agree that gini coefficient re: wealth in developing world is increasing.

penneallagricia 3y ago
China is the one country that doesn't allow a concentration of the wealth in the top 1%. Look at India, they don't come close to China if you compare how the standard of life improved for the masses.

mensetmanusman 3y ago

Policies accelerated the wealth of the 1%, not computers.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago

Well, average wage in China increased more than x100 over that period of time.