3 ms·

On the contrary, it is VERY surprising these conditions didn't last, given that productivity only ever increased since then. If favorable, but short lived cond

On the contrary, it is VERY surprising these conditions didn't last, given that productivity only ever increased since then. If favorable, but short lived conditions were behind this sudden change, then it would affect the entire economic system, not just the workforce. How well people are off is a function of how many resources there are to go around. Since the end of WWII, these resources only ever increased. So did worker productivity, aka. the amount of resources produced per worker. So if people are worse off now, that leads to the very easy deduction that the fault lies in how these resources are distributed, not with a scarcity of the resources themselves. Or to put this another way: If the previously better conditions were just a fluke that couldn't be expected to last, how come that corporations seem to rake in ever more money as time goes on?

Aurornis 3y ago
> How well people are off is a function of how many resources there are to go around. Since the end of WWII, these resources only ever increased. This is a very US-centric view. Demand for resources across the world has increased dramatically as everyone’s living standard increased. The situation isn’t going to make sense if you continue to ignore the rest of the world and try to understand the United States as if we lived in a perfectly isolated bubble.
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  > Demand for resources across the world has increased dramatically as everyone’s living standard increased. As has productivity.
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    Increasing productivity brought is more complex goods, and they take longer to build. Hence, the throughput didn’t increase as much. Also some industries can barely keep up. We have seen this during the pandemic. “Chip crisis” is a great example.
fragmede 3y ago
The Roman Empire's prosperity as the spoils of war are evident even to newest student of history. Why then is it surprising that the US also had some prosperity thanks to winning wars, and that there is none of that to be had if there aren't wars being won? Why is it expected that prosperity should last?

Aurornis 3y ago

> How well people are off is a function of how many resources there are to go around. Since the end of WWII, these resources only ever increased. This is a very US-centric view. Demand for resources across the world has increased dramatically as everyone’s living standard increased. The situation isn’t going to make sense if you continue to ignore the rest of the world and try to understand the United States as if we lived in a perfectly isolated bubble.

usrbinbash 3y ago
> Demand for resources across the world has increased dramatically as everyone’s living standard increased. As has productivity.
- bayindirh 3y ago
  Increasing productivity brought is more complex goods, and they take longer to build. Hence, the throughput didn’t increase as much. Also some industries can barely keep up. We have seen this during the pandemic. “Chip crisis” is a great example.

fragmede 3y ago

The Roman Empire's prosperity as the spoils of war are evident even to newest student of history. Why then is it surprising that the US also had some prosperity thanks to winning wars, and that there is none of that to be had if there aren't wars being won? Why is it expected that prosperity should last?