5 ms·

Sometimes I wonder if we’re tracking the wrong thing and we’ve lost sight of why we even started tracking these type of stats to begin with. Are Americans pros

Sometimes I wonder if we’re tracking the wrong thing and we’ve lost sight of why we even started tracking these type of stats to begin with. Are Americans prospering? Can they afford minimum needs like food and housing? Is the average American quality of life remaining consistent or increasing? I want to see America as a whole do better and sometimes I wonder if stats are being deliberately reported in a way that obscures the truth of the matter.

jeffbee 3y ago
I once got downvoted into oblivion on this very website for advocating for a society with 90% unemployment. The stats are just stats but they're not necessarily what we should be chasing.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  I believe the goal of humanity should be that pushing a button for food pellets all day long is not a moral imperative or a necessity for survival. 100% unemployment should be the goal, and the end of scarcity that would require its feasibility.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Social status will always be scarce because it's a zero-sum game; in order for one person to rise another must fall. Even if basic necessities were free the majority of people would choose to work in order to have more than their peers. This is just human nature.
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      There are other forms of social status. Under communism people could be nominally wealthy, but party status carried a lot more weight. However I would note many, many people are not motivated by status. I for one would rather be unknown and my relative status compared to anyone else is about the last thing I will ever concern myself with. I’m not alone, even if the status seekers stand out for all their attention seeking.
    - jjk166 3y ago
      How is social status a zero-sum game? If someone dives into a lake to save a drowning child and people label them a hero, elevating their social standing, whose social standing has declined as a direct result? Likewise for a scientist making a discovery, or an artist creating a masterpiece, or a youtuber becoming a niche internet celebrity, or a neighbor getting a new pool. Social status can be created out of thin air and allotted arbitrarily. And in a post scarcity world, why would having more than your peers confer social status to any degree, nonetheless enough to justify the various drawbacks of laboring for such possessions?
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        Because time will always be scarce, and social status is about deciding with whom to allocate your time.
        jjk166 3y ago
        Social status is not about deciding with whom to allocate your time, and people don't generally choose how they allocate time based on how many hours of labor someone else does nor do most people labor to get other people to allocate more time with them. Indeed, people generally spend time apart from the people they want to allocate their time to in order to labor.
        lotsofpulp 3y ago
        >Indeed, people generally spend time apart from the people they want to allocate their time to in order to labor. Only because they cannot get everything they need from the people they want to spend time with, so they have to trade outside that group. This game begins all the way when kids are deciding who to sit next to at lunch in elementary school. It’s a simple fact that time and attention are limited, so there have to be cuts made once demand exceeds supply. Actually, it might even begin earlier, as I currently have a breastfeeding toddler who is always keeping an eye on who his mom is allocating her time to, and ensures that he is number one…much to the chagrin of his sister and me.
    - hnfong 3y ago
      I disagree that it is human nature. At least not generally speaking. There are people who are innately competitive. And there are people who don't care. I'd argue that a lot of people are apparently competitive because of social pressures. You'll have to discount the effects of modern society on people's minds before you could make a claim on what human nature actually is like.
      - nradov 3y ago
        Modern society only exists because pre-modern people were so competitive. While a minority might not care, the majority of people in every society constantly compete for status. Always have, always will.
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      Social status is multi-dimensional, especially in this day and age. I am near the top of the hierarchy for <obscure hobby> in <my town>. I am closer to the bottom for many others.
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    There would still be jobs. People want to eat more than food pellets. People want massages and the robot ones aren’t as good. People will make music, paint paintings, read books, and watch movies. There may not be money, but there will be some economy for services and non-physical goods.
xnx 3y ago
GDP is definitely suffering from Goodhart's law. There's a whole zoo of alternatives, but I don't know if anyone takes them seriously. Human Development Index (HDI) Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) Better Life Index (BLI) Gross National Happiness (GNH)

jeffbee 3y ago

I once got downvoted into oblivion on this very website for advocating for a society with 90% unemployment. The stats are just stats but they're not necessarily what we should be chasing.

fnordpiglet 3y ago
I believe the goal of humanity should be that pushing a button for food pellets all day long is not a moral imperative or a necessity for survival. 100% unemployment should be the goal, and the end of scarcity that would require its feasibility.
- nradov 3y ago
  Social status will always be scarce because it's a zero-sum game; in order for one person to rise another must fall. Even if basic necessities were free the majority of people would choose to work in order to have more than their peers. This is just human nature.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    There are other forms of social status. Under communism people could be nominally wealthy, but party status carried a lot more weight. However I would note many, many people are not motivated by status. I for one would rather be unknown and my relative status compared to anyone else is about the last thing I will ever concern myself with. I’m not alone, even if the status seekers stand out for all their attention seeking.
  - jjk166 3y ago
    How is social status a zero-sum game? If someone dives into a lake to save a drowning child and people label them a hero, elevating their social standing, whose social standing has declined as a direct result? Likewise for a scientist making a discovery, or an artist creating a masterpiece, or a youtuber becoming a niche internet celebrity, or a neighbor getting a new pool. Social status can be created out of thin air and allotted arbitrarily. And in a post scarcity world, why would having more than your peers confer social status to any degree, nonetheless enough to justify the various drawbacks of laboring for such possessions?
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Because time will always be scarce, and social status is about deciding with whom to allocate your time.
      - jjk166 3y ago
        Social status is not about deciding with whom to allocate your time, and people don't generally choose how they allocate time based on how many hours of labor someone else does nor do most people labor to get other people to allocate more time with them. Indeed, people generally spend time apart from the people they want to allocate their time to in order to labor.
        lotsofpulp 3y ago
        >Indeed, people generally spend time apart from the people they want to allocate their time to in order to labor. Only because they cannot get everything they need from the people they want to spend time with, so they have to trade outside that group. This game begins all the way when kids are deciding who to sit next to at lunch in elementary school. It’s a simple fact that time and attention are limited, so there have to be cuts made once demand exceeds supply. Actually, it might even begin earlier, as I currently have a breastfeeding toddler who is always keeping an eye on who his mom is allocating her time to, and ensures that he is number one…much to the chagrin of his sister and me.
  - hnfong 3y ago
    I disagree that it is human nature. At least not generally speaking. There are people who are innately competitive. And there are people who don't care. I'd argue that a lot of people are apparently competitive because of social pressures. You'll have to discount the effects of modern society on people's minds before you could make a claim on what human nature actually is like.
    - nradov 3y ago
      Modern society only exists because pre-modern people were so competitive. While a minority might not care, the majority of people in every society constantly compete for status. Always have, always will.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Social status is multi-dimensional, especially in this day and age. I am near the top of the hierarchy for <obscure hobby> in <my town>. I am closer to the bottom for many others.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  There would still be jobs. People want to eat more than food pellets. People want massages and the robot ones aren’t as good. People will make music, paint paintings, read books, and watch movies. There may not be money, but there will be some economy for services and non-physical goods.

xnx 3y ago

GDP is definitely suffering from Goodhart's law. There's a whole zoo of alternatives, but I don't know if anyone takes them seriously. Human Development Index (HDI) Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) Better Life Index (BLI) Gross National Happiness (GNH)