7 ms·

First it was "support a family of five", then "luxurious lifestyle" then "humble lifestyle". Except for the "luxurious" one, it was possible pretty much at any

by muro 3y ago

First it was "support a family of five", then "luxurious lifestyle" then "humble lifestyle". Except for the "luxurious" one, it was possible pretty much at any time in human history, including now.

alisonatwork 3y ago
The post I am responding to mentioned providing a family of five with a self-owned house, a car, a couple of vacations per year and a comfortable retirement. To many people around the world - still today - that would be considered a luxurious lifestyle. You are right that it's possible for one person to support a family. For most people working in the tech industry here on HN they could probably figure out a way to do it. But is it realistic for all families everywhere to be able to support themselves with just a single worker? If it were so simple to achieve, we would not see child labor. We would not see any poverty at all. Clearly we are not yet at the point as a species where we can enjoy a post-scarcity or job-free utopia. We could certainly be doing a lot more to work towards that than we are, though, and I think that's a more interesting point of discussion than looking back through rose-tinted glasses on a few decades of post-WW2 America.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  If it were so simple to achieve, we would not see child labor. You have it backwards. We wouldn't see any child labor if employers weren't trying to cut corners on wages while the people at the top of the economic pyramid rake in billions. Ownership is way overcompensated in this society, most owners/CEOs do not provide that much value and are just collecting economic rents because they occupy a position in social/economic networks with high bridging centrality coefficients. It may involve some work to get there, but culture, luck, and marketing also have a lot to do with it too. https://cse.buffalo.edu/tech-reports/2006-05.pdf https://cse.buffalo.edu/tech-reports/2006-05.pdf
  - throwaway47290 3y ago
    Are you a CEO? If not when are you becoming a CEO to rake in billions then? It ought to be easy since they don’t do much according to you. They get compensated a lot because it is a lot of responsibility and stress.
    - polygamous_bat 3y ago
      Why doesn't the prime minister of UK become the king of Britain, even though it's less work for way more luxury? (In case you can't reason your way into it, some positions are gained through nonzero amount of luck rather than pure "hard work and grit" or whatever boomer nonsense.)
  - alisonatwork 3y ago
    I agree that wealth inequality is a problem, and I fully support billionaire taxes and wealth caps. If we were to take all that stored wealth and redistribute it equally amongst the rest of the world, each person might get around US$10000. That would provide enough to take everyone currently living in absolute poverty out of it for a decade or so. Would that solve child labor? Perhaps. Would it allow Americans to afford a house and car and freedom from work for 4 out of every 5 people? I don't think so. So I think the problem is bigger than just the inequality between the fantastically wealthy and everyone else, if the goal is for everyone to have the "golden age" lifestyle.
- bluGill 3y ago
  The post you are responding to didn't have Starbucks coffee every day, did have internet, cable tv, subscriptions to streaming services, a computer with a monthly subscription in every pocket. They didn't even have that option. The above is just a short list. Live like 1955 and you can support a family of 5 with, a car, vacations every year and a nice retirement. You won't have many of the other luxuries people enjoy today. If you don't want to that us fine, but don't say it can't be done.
  - Tycho 3y ago
    Is that actually true? Subscriptions £30 pm Starbucks £40 pm Phone contract £20 pm ISP £30 pm That’s £120 pm, or £1440 annually. Doesn’t seem like it would make that much of a dent. Probably the number one thing you’d need to do is cut down on food costs, which is doable, to be fair, as it’s quite easy to spend 10x or 100x more than what you need to stay fed.
    - muro 3y ago
      Sorry for the pedantry, but 1 coffee at Starbucks per day is closer to 120pm alone.
      - Tycho 3y ago
        I was thinking more what would a typical Starbucks regular spend in a month. Like I don’t think they would but a £4 drink every day.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      It all adds up. If you only have a Starbucks on special occasions it isn't much, but some people have daily habits. Likewise a lot of people have the most expensive cable plan which is a lot more money. Phone plans can also get a lot more expensive if you but top of the line phones every couple years.
      - polygamous_bat 3y ago
        Ok, could you do the math then? Try to see how many Starbucks coffees you have to forgo to afford a down payment at a median house in the US.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  > But is it realistic for all families everywhere to be able to support themselves with just a single worker? Yes, because a single worker today is maybe fifty or a hundred times more productive than a worker in the past, thanks to modern equipment.
  - wizofaus 3y ago
    I gather average productivity growth in most developed countries has been around 2 or 2.5% for the past 60 or so years, working out to at best 3.5 times what it was in the 50s or 60s. Which still makes it reasonable to ask why it's not feasible today for a single income to be sufficient to support a mortgage on a typical family home in the way it was in those times. What I'd like to know is in what cities around the world has housing not become so unaffordable in that period...
    - randomdata 3y ago
      Both the urbanization rate and the homeownership rate were considerably lower in the 1950s and 1960s. Said city housing may have been cheaper, but that is because it wasn't wanted. Your question is much like asking why we can't afford to feed lobster to prisoners anymore.
      - wizofaus 3y ago
        Home ownership rates for those under 30 at least have fallen considerably in many Western countries (certainly in Australia). And yes urbanisation has increased but not that dramatically. What hasn't really happened though is any significant new cities forming, meaning more and more competition for being located in desirable areas of existing cities, which is surely one of the bigger drivers of decreased affordability.
        randomdata 3y ago
        > Home ownership rates for those under 30 at least have fallen considerably in many Western countries Yes, it seems the under 30 crowd would rather go to college/university instead these days. A degree can cost about as much as a modest home. Almost nobody attended college in the 1950s. Hobbies always come with tradeoffs. > And yes urbanisation has increased but not that dramatically. 15-20 points, at least in the USA. That is quite dramatic. If today's cities saw 15-20% of their population leave for rural areas, prices in those cities would drop like a rock. > What hasn't really happened though is any significant new cities forming Very true, and fantastically increased farm profitability since the 2007 time period has driven farmland values through the roof, which has made it much more cost prohibitive for cities to expand like they used it do.

by muro 3y ago

First it was "support a family of five", then "luxurious lifestyle" then "humble lifestyle". Except for the "luxurious" one, it was possible pretty much at any time in human history, including now.

alisonatwork 3y ago

The post I am responding to mentioned providing a family of five with a self-owned house, a car, a couple of vacations per year and a comfortable retirement. To many people around the world - still today - that would be considered a luxurious lifestyle. You are right that it's possible for one person to support a family. For most people working in the tech industry here on HN they could probably figure out a way to do it. But is it realistic for all families everywhere to be able to support themselves with just a single worker? If it were so simple to achieve, we would not see child labor. We would not see any poverty at all. Clearly we are not yet at the point as a species where we can enjoy a post-scarcity or job-free utopia. We could certainly be doing a lot more to work towards that than we are, though, and I think that's a more interesting point of discussion than looking back through rose-tinted glasses on a few decades of post-WW2 America.

anigbrowl 3y ago
If it were so simple to achieve, we would not see child labor. You have it backwards. We wouldn't see any child labor if employers weren't trying to cut corners on wages while the people at the top of the economic pyramid rake in billions. Ownership is way overcompensated in this society, most owners/CEOs do not provide that much value and are just collecting economic rents because they occupy a position in social/economic networks with high bridging centrality coefficients. It may involve some work to get there, but culture, luck, and marketing also have a lot to do with it too. https://cse.buffalo.edu/tech-reports/2006-05.pdf https://cse.buffalo.edu/tech-reports/2006-05.pdf
- throwaway47290 3y ago
  Are you a CEO? If not when are you becoming a CEO to rake in billions then? It ought to be easy since they don’t do much according to you. They get compensated a lot because it is a lot of responsibility and stress.
  - polygamous_bat 3y ago
    Why doesn't the prime minister of UK become the king of Britain, even though it's less work for way more luxury? (In case you can't reason your way into it, some positions are gained through nonzero amount of luck rather than pure "hard work and grit" or whatever boomer nonsense.)
- alisonatwork 3y ago
  I agree that wealth inequality is a problem, and I fully support billionaire taxes and wealth caps. If we were to take all that stored wealth and redistribute it equally amongst the rest of the world, each person might get around US$10000. That would provide enough to take everyone currently living in absolute poverty out of it for a decade or so. Would that solve child labor? Perhaps. Would it allow Americans to afford a house and car and freedom from work for 4 out of every 5 people? I don't think so. So I think the problem is bigger than just the inequality between the fantastically wealthy and everyone else, if the goal is for everyone to have the "golden age" lifestyle.
bluGill 3y ago
The post you are responding to didn't have Starbucks coffee every day, did have internet, cable tv, subscriptions to streaming services, a computer with a monthly subscription in every pocket. They didn't even have that option. The above is just a short list. Live like 1955 and you can support a family of 5 with, a car, vacations every year and a nice retirement. You won't have many of the other luxuries people enjoy today. If you don't want to that us fine, but don't say it can't be done.
- Tycho 3y ago
  Is that actually true? Subscriptions £30 pm Starbucks £40 pm Phone contract £20 pm ISP £30 pm That’s £120 pm, or £1440 annually. Doesn’t seem like it would make that much of a dent. Probably the number one thing you’d need to do is cut down on food costs, which is doable, to be fair, as it’s quite easy to spend 10x or 100x more than what you need to stay fed.
  - muro 3y ago
    Sorry for the pedantry, but 1 coffee at Starbucks per day is closer to 120pm alone.
    - Tycho 3y ago
      I was thinking more what would a typical Starbucks regular spend in a month. Like I don’t think they would but a £4 drink every day.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    It all adds up. If you only have a Starbucks on special occasions it isn't much, but some people have daily habits. Likewise a lot of people have the most expensive cable plan which is a lot more money. Phone plans can also get a lot more expensive if you but top of the line phones every couple years.
    - polygamous_bat 3y ago
      Ok, could you do the math then? Try to see how many Starbucks coffees you have to forgo to afford a down payment at a median house in the US.
carlosjobim 3y ago
> But is it realistic for all families everywhere to be able to support themselves with just a single worker? Yes, because a single worker today is maybe fifty or a hundred times more productive than a worker in the past, thanks to modern equipment.
- wizofaus 3y ago
  I gather average productivity growth in most developed countries has been around 2 or 2.5% for the past 60 or so years, working out to at best 3.5 times what it was in the 50s or 60s. Which still makes it reasonable to ask why it's not feasible today for a single income to be sufficient to support a mortgage on a typical family home in the way it was in those times. What I'd like to know is in what cities around the world has housing not become so unaffordable in that period...
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Both the urbanization rate and the homeownership rate were considerably lower in the 1950s and 1960s. Said city housing may have been cheaper, but that is because it wasn't wanted. Your question is much like asking why we can't afford to feed lobster to prisoners anymore.
    - wizofaus 3y ago
      Home ownership rates for those under 30 at least have fallen considerably in many Western countries (certainly in Australia). And yes urbanisation has increased but not that dramatically. What hasn't really happened though is any significant new cities forming, meaning more and more competition for being located in desirable areas of existing cities, which is surely one of the bigger drivers of decreased affordability.
      - randomdata 3y ago
        > Home ownership rates for those under 30 at least have fallen considerably in many Western countries Yes, it seems the under 30 crowd would rather go to college/university instead these days. A degree can cost about as much as a modest home. Almost nobody attended college in the 1950s. Hobbies always come with tradeoffs. > And yes urbanisation has increased but not that dramatically. 15-20 points, at least in the USA. That is quite dramatic. If today's cities saw 15-20% of their population leave for rural areas, prices in those cities would drop like a rock. > What hasn't really happened though is any significant new cities forming Very true, and fantastically increased farm profitability since the 2007 time period has driven farmland values through the roof, which has made it much more cost prohibitive for cities to expand like they used it do.