3 ms·
> because as standards rise, the more unachievable they can become Why should "standards" be relevant in the measurement of long-term economic indicators? Does
by bmmayer1 3y ago
> because as standards rise, the more unachievable they can become
Why should "standards" be relevant in the measurement of long-term economic indicators? Doesn't the very stack that standards have risen prove the core point that life has gotten better?
- gjsman-1000 3y agoIt means life has gotten better for those that can keep up and afford it. It also means life sucks more, and is far more hopeless and depressing, for people who can’t. Extreme example: LA.
- caeril 3y agoRising standards create floors and ceilings. To use the GP's example: if the median standard home has electricity, a minimum insulation R-value, a minimum grade of roof, minimum square footage, bathroom plumbing, land setbacks, etc, governments tend to align their habitability inspection requirements with those standards. Let's say hypothetically that County X establishes the 2023 habitability requirements, and these requirements by market necessity cost a minimum of $120k for the dwelling and $120k for the land. Let's say you're a single guy on minimum wage who is absolutely fine not having electricity, is ok with dealing with the occasional roof leak, and has no problem using a composting toilet. You want to buy a home, and you can absolutely afford it, but County X is preventing you from doing so because the standards have been set by people making more than minimum wage.