5 ms·

Stay Gold, America

122 points by ksec 2y ago

yzydserd 2y ago
I'm not a big fan of the price graph in the article. Are TVs really 90% cheaper since 2020 than they were in 2000? The product seems to me to be one of those that always costs the same, you just get more for a similar amount of money as time progresses (like laptops). What does it mean for the average hourly wage line to show a 100% increase? Like it shows clothing to be a constant cost. But that's before a 100% increase in hourly wages, so has effective clothing cost halved? And food and beverage tracks the wage increase, so is it the same effective cost? And you get artefacts like the 90% drop in TV price looking to be the same scale as an 80% increase in food and beverage cost. I can buy 10 times as many TVs, but half as much food. Why is is More expensive vs more affordable? Seems odd to mix terms of affordable and expense when the graph isn't corrected for earnings. I suppose it may work for some.
- mcphage 2y ago
  They’re probably comparing like items—so maybe a decent mid-range tv is the same price, but the same tv would be much cheaper. I paid $1k for a decent tv in 2009, and then bought a new decent tv this year for the same $1k, but it’s a much nicer tv than before. But I agree with you about the essential meaningless of that number. People buy a tv every X years (for me 15, apparently), but they buy food almost every day.
  - yzydserd 2y ago
    Right, but imagine that with cars not TVs. To show the cost change of a car from 2000 to 2020 I wouldn't show the cost of a 2000-quality car in 2020. I'd show the actual median cost of a car in 2020.
    - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
      It's more complicated for cars, because you often can't get a 2000s-quality car even if you want to. There just aren't any cars on the market today with the size and (lack of) features my current car has; whenever I need a new one, I'll have to either buy another ancient car from the 2000s or pay more for extra features and dimensions I don't need. With TVs, though, Best Buy sells 2000s-quality TVs for like 60 bucks. I don't think it makes sense to say that TVs haven't really decreased in price just because most people would prefer to buy the fancier ones.
      - astura 2y ago
        They still make small and normal sized cars (for now), they just aren't as popular anymore. I just did a check of the msrp for a cheaper Toyota Corolla near San Francisco and it's MSRP is almost exactly the same as the base 2000 Corolla when adjusted for inflation.
- angoragoats 2y ago
  Anecdote: I purchased a Samsung 46” mid-range DLP (rear projection) TV in 2005 for $2500. It was 720p and had one hdmi port. IIRC there were some plasma and perhaps early LCDs available for 2-3x the cost or more. So, I’d say the cost has gone down by at least 90%, if not more.
  - xattt 2y ago
    So by pixel math alone, a 4K TV of equivalent size gets you 8x TV these days. :P
    - angoragoats 2y ago
      Heh, yeah, and if you're not buying a high-end OLED or something like that, you're likely paying 90+% less than I paid in 2005 for my TV, for 8x the pixels. Plus you don't have to deal with the damned light engine crapping out after a few thousand hours of use :)
- astura 2y ago
  I bought 3 TVs in the last 15 or so years. Each time I spent less than the last and got a much better (and lighter!!) tv. Before that I couldn't afford a TV and had a used 13 inch tube TV someone gave me. I know it was nearly 2 decades ago, but in 2006 or 2007 my siblings camped out at Best Buy all night to buy laptops for $300.
  - yzydserd 2y ago
    That does sound right. But imagine we're plotting the cost of a laptop from 2015 to 2025. We're getting say 4x the memory and 4x better speed (if not more), but would we show a graph that indicates laptops are 4x cheaper in 2025 than 2015? I wouldn't.
    - boxed 2y ago
      4x is an enormous understatement of the gains in computers the last 10 years. And I don't see why you wouldn't. You can get used computers for basically free that are faster than a 2015 top-of-the-line computers. People upgrade and the old computers are often literally thrown away.
    - layer8 2y ago
      The average price of what is considered a good TV in any given year has gone down over the years. While the GP did get a better TV each time, absolute price also went down each time, likely without even factoring inflation in.
      - yzydserd 2y ago
        I’m being downvoted for each comment I make on the topic but anyway … I found a source article [0] about how the Bureau adjusts the cost for features with a “hedonic” score. So yes, a new feature (a Netflix app? AI? Voice recognition? Soundbar?) is counted as an improvement with value and that in turn affects a prior. On another BLS page: “if a television in the CPI is replaced by one with a larger screen and higher price, the BLS can make an adjustment to the price difference by estimating what the old television would have cost had it had the larger screen size.” I bought a 42” mid range TV in 2012 for 900, a 55” mid range in 2017 for 900, and a 55” mid range in 2024 for £1200. Although this is a 30% or so discount (in inflation adjusted terms) the BLS can call it 80% because it has Smart Features like OLED and internet connectivity and so forth. [0] https://www.bls.gov/cpi/quality-adjustment/questions-and-answers.htm https://www.bls.gov/cpi/quality-adjustment/questions-and-ans...
- underdeserver 2y ago
  Per inch and resolution, a 90% drop in cost sounds right to me.
- assimpleaspossi 2y ago
  I got my Samsung 64-inch plasma on sale for $2800 (or was it $2100?) somewhere around 2010 or earlier. Best TV I've ever owned and I still use it.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  > Are TVs really 90% cheaper since 2020 than they were in 2000? The product seems to me to be one of those that always costs the same, you just get more for a similar amount of money as time progresses (like laptops). Yes, unambiguously so. In the early 2000s, a high definition 38 inch TV cost three thousand dollars (https://archive.org/details/Circuit-City-Ad-2001-04-29/page/n11/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/Circuit-City-Ad-2001-04-29/page/...), and "high definition" then would have meant 1080i if not 720p.
- tzs 2y ago
  > Are TVs really 90% cheaper since 2020 than they were in 2000? This prompted me to look at my TV purchases. My last two TV purchases were both Samsung 55" TVs, one in 2009 for $2400 and one in 2017 for $1000, both bought at Best Buy. In both cases they were a tier down from the top of the line models. Suppose TVs really did get 90% cheaper over 2000 to 2020. If we work out the average annual decline in price and apply that to my 2009 TV we get that in 2017 an equivalent TV should be around $1000, so that matches. If we assume the decline continued at the same average rate after 2000, and apply that to those two purchases we get that today they should be around $440. Looking at Samsung 55" TVs on Best Buy, it looks like $440 today would be around the top of the tier below the top tier (e.g., regular LED instead of QLED).
JKCalhoun 2y ago
The wealth inequality is the one I have been paying the most attention to. Having constantly lowered the taxes on the wealthiest it seems to be the one that is the most self-inflicted. We could lapse into an era much like the Great Depression (where I suppose we will celebrate bank robbers?). Our future could look more like "Soylent Green" - most of us piled into tenement houses with armed guards on the stairs, braving the streets only for our weekly rations while the wealthy live secluded in high-rise luxury. I worry too we'll become like I perceive Russia to have become — more or less an oligarchy run country where the proletariat merely grumble and get about their thread-bare existence. (I suppose, from the charts, we'll have our toys and TVs though!) With 1/3 of the country having not even voted I would probably be more surprised if we end up with a French Revolution style future. Feel free to set me straight, IANAH (not a historian) nor am I an economist or political scientist. Just a layman.
- phtrivier 2y ago
  > where I suppose we will celebrate bank robbers?) The popularity of Luigi Mangione might be a (arguably sickening) sign that the pitchforks are coming (and, remember, it's always very presumptuous to assume you will be on the right side of the pitchforks.) But also, if history is to be followed, some form of self correction is always possible. It's going to be popular to run on a "tax the ultra-ultra-rich" platform. The trick is to be very careful on every other topic, to avoid being trapped in culture war. Basically, someone might run on the single issue of "tax the right", and strive to avoid anything radical on every hot-button subject (as in, be extremely centrist and borderline conservative on gender, immigration, culture, free speech, etc....). When in doubt, shut up and remind everyone you're going to tax the ultra-ultra-ultra rich, purely appealing to the inner sense of justice. This would work better in countries where the press is not too concentrated. And I am actually curious to see how social media would handle that (it would create engagement, so maybe the merely ultra-ultra rich would play along ?) > French Revolution style future. Careful what you wish for - it took us a century to get to a stable place.
  - JKCalhoun 2y ago
    > Careful what you wish for… Agree. We may be weighing shitty options though at some point.
firesteelrain 2y ago
"Programmers all over the world helped make an American Dream happen in 2008 when we built Stack Overflow, a Q&A website for programmers creating a shared > Creative Commons knowledge base for the world. We did it democratically, because that's the American way. We voted to rank questions and answers, and held elections for community moderators using ranked choice voting. We built a digital democracy – of the programmers, by the programmers, for the programmers. It worked." I don't know if StackOverflow should be his legacy. The site has become very heavy handed in moderation. The satellite sites are better (not SuperUser or the other one).
- dax_ 2y ago
  Nothing's perfect, but I do not wish back the alternatives we had (Experts Exchange, Quora, a myriad of forums where the first response was - did you use the search function, endless discussions that don't answer the original question, and so on). It saved me so much time as a developer who just wants to get no-nonsense answers to my questions. The platform could not work without good moderation, or the site would drown in duplicates and low-quality content.
- Piskvorrr 2y ago
  You may not like the site, but it works (sorta, kinda, not perfectly).
logifail 2y ago
see also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42620278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42620278
HPsquared 2y ago
I always think what's the actual benefit now of living in a "rich country" if everything is just more expensive? So if you live in the USA you'll maybe have a nicer car and nicer computer than someone in Poland, but otherwise it's all a wash and probably nicer in Poland. All the things that actually matter to quality of life are pretty much the same or even nicer in a poorer country?
- snapcaster 2y ago
  This is such a good point, i've had similar thoughts before. That basically after the "middle income" level countries don't really get "better" they just get more expensive and more developed (which to be sure does have some positive impacts)
- portaouflop 2y ago
  It depends what matters to you in quality of life. For me the most important things are having purpose and love in my life - and you can find that pretty much anywhere. A bit unrelated but US citizens decided that healthcare doesn’t really matter to them much but going everywhere with a nice car does - so it depends what the priorities are
  - badpun 2y ago
    Most US citizens are for socialized health care. However, t seems that both parties are bought by the health care industry and prevent the change the people want.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - portaouflop 2y ago
      This doesn’t make sense to me though. If the majority of the population is for something it __will__ be implemented. If a party fucks over the peoples will repeatedly like this, why would they still be voted into power?
lapcat 2y ago
Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42620278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42620278 (2 days ago, 229 comments)
izietto 2y ago
Am I the only one who thinks that a country which admits only two parties cannot be called a democracy? Not an attack, just a thought starter EDIT Thank everyone who answered, I have always been convinced that US doesn't have anymore parties other than Republicans and Democrats. Today I learned!
- portaouflop 2y ago
  There are many more parties in the US though - they just don’t get really relevant in the bigger scheme of things. In my country we also have 2 huge parties and a bunch of smaller ones - but the smaller ones have more impact and actually matter a bit. Democracy is hard and there are so many details and complexities to consider. But to answer your question I would say definitely the US is a democracy -
  - jghn 2y ago
    Also, our 2 huge parties aren't dissimilar to the coalitions of parties you see in other democracies. Over time the boundary lines between our 2 parties shifts as those coalitions are formed, disbanded, reformed, etc.
    - staticautomatic 2y ago
      Yeah but in those countries the parties actually get to rep themselves in the legislature. You can’t literally masquerade as a member of another party here unless you want people to think you’re a mole or a turncoat.
  - izietto 2y ago
    > There are many more parties in the US though - they just don’t get really relevant in the bigger scheme of things. Interesting! Can you please elaborate? I know nothing about this, I always thought they are forbidden somehow to have parties that are different from Conservatives and Democrats, otherwise I can't explain myself why they are never mentioned
    - 2y ago
baggachipz 2y ago
It's so so hard not to be cynical. I read posts like this and it gives me a glimmer of hope, and reminds me that there are good people of means out there trying to make humanity better. But then I also remember that there are much richer, more powerful ghouls out there whose seemingly sole purpose is to enrich themselves and their cronies at the expense of society. The answer, of course, is to praise efforts like this one and not allow cynicism to undermine the effort. A groundswell of support begets a movement. "Apes together strong", and all that. Anyway, were I ever to come into significant wealth, I think and hope I would do the same. Until then, I'm simply working towards a decent retirement and intent on remaining in an ever-shrinking middle class.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Simon_O_Rourke 2y ago
  > It's so so hard not to be cynical. Certainly would agree with that, however you'll have plenty who would suggest that helping others achieve the American dream isn't part of their worldview, or indeed their interpretation of that American dream.
  - jaybrendansmith 2y ago
    And yet they benefitted by it. They seem to be fine pulling the ladder up behind them. That just shows poor character. If our society starts again to make character more important than wealth or charm, we might have a society worth saving.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  "Apes together strong" Even Koba learned to hate. And, despite the last movie ending on uplifting note, the very end showed the humans in a bunker ready to attack again. Nothing survives the fight for resources. In-Group/Out-Group. It will take some real tragedy to bring Left/Right back together. Like a real (more severe) virus where Republicans are like "wow, we be dying, I'm all for distancing now, get away from me, where are the scientists, give me a mask".
dfedbeef 2y ago
Nonprofits aren't going to get the US out of this. They are a bandaid on a broken leg.
- thepuppet33r 2y ago
  We're using GoFundMe as a bandaid for healthcare, to the degree that the CEO went to beg Congress to pass more government assistance in COVID-laden 2021. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/538399-gofundme-ceo-calls-for-coronavirus-relief-we-never-meant-to-be/ https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/538399-gof...
- BadCookie 2y ago
  What would fix the problem? And what is the root cause?
  - kzrdude 2y ago
    Lessig founded "Rootstrikers" to strike at what he thought was a fundamental root of the problem of politics in the US. I don't even know if that organization is active anymore. Their thesis is that special interest money, political corruption, and the reliance on money to even get to be a candidate in elections is a root of the problem. He did this TED talk long time ago (and several other talks) and it made a big impression on me, but it didn't catch on(?) https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim?subtitle=en https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - dfedbeef 2y ago
    I wouldn't be working in software if I knew that.
btbuildem 2y ago
At this point, stop encouraging people to vote. It doesn't seem to work in the US anymore, if the current state of matters is anything to go by. It's almost like encouraging the Thomas Matthew Crooks and the Luigi Mangione types to deal with the problems right at the root would be a better way to go. You need to take the money out of politics, and advertising out of, well, everything. If not, things will just continue to get worse and worse.
- davedx 2y ago
  > Luigi Mangione Yeah, the Stack Overflow network really doesn't like that guy
- Kenji 2y ago
  If Trump was killed, it could have started a civil war in the US. Be careful what you wish for.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >At this point, stop encouraging people to vote. It doesn't work in the US anymore. "Democracy doesn't work if the result doesn't suit me; stop voting against my wishes."? Sincerely, please fuck off into whatever other country seems more to your liking. Arguments like yours truly make me wonder if democracy is, in fact, merely a more plausibly deniable excuse to obtain and maintain power like in other more directly authoritarian forms of governance.
- Empact 2y ago
  Here’s a short list of meaningful causes which have been advanced in my lifetime by groups of single issue voters at the local and state levels: * making gay marriage broadly available * making concealed carry (and Constitutional carry) broadly available * removing barriers to housing construction in cities across the land (the Yimby movement) * making the Idaho stop law applicable to 10 states * changing the voting method from plurality to approval or IRV in several cities and states Voting is one of the important ways our government is steered, cynicism in this area is self-defeating. Instead, band with a group of single issue voters who elevate one issue over all others, and vote for whomever aligns with that issue, if their election prospects are threatened, they will support you, as with my favorite quote from a politician: “when I feel the heat, I see the light.”
m_fayer 2y ago
> The costs of housing, healthcare, and education This is the “list of modern miseries,” and needs child care and eldercare on it to be complete. This is the list of those things that, for all our prowess, we’ve broken and just can’t seem to fix. Until we manage, our system will always have the legitimacy problem whose consequences we can see all around us right now.
- kubb 2y ago
  How can housing prices drop if most people invest most of their wealth into their house and they expect a return on the investment?
  - jermaustin1 2y ago
    Housing wasn't an investment until it was turned into an investment in the 80s. Housing was always thought of as housing before that. It is the same as renting, but at some point, you stop paying rent and instead just pay your wealth tax on it's value. In the US we treat it as not only an investment we expect to appreciate, but then turn around and treat it as a depreciating asset for taxation purposes if you are buying it to rent to people. It is a double standard that lets corporate landlords buy a property, collect rent, write off the mortgage interest, write off the "depreciation" of the property, all the while the property appreciates in value, creating multiple revenue streams (lower tax bill + higher leverage-able assets + rental income). THIS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED! You should not be allowed to "depreciate" an appreciating asset on your taxes and get to lower your bill. If you want to write off depreciation, it should be appraised at a lower value first. Otherwise its book value remains constant (or adjusts for inflation?), and then just capital gains on the sale if someone wants to pay more than book value. This would make it less attractive to investors, prices would actually fall a bit (or a lot, IDK).
    - kubb 2y ago
      Yea it shouldn’t but home owners are in the majority so what are you gonna do about it? Also both of the parties are fully behind the interests of homeowners, with one of them being really obsessed with helping high-wealth individuals not pay taxes. I wouldn’t expect anything to change.
mysterydip 2y ago
Is it me or is it ironic they're talking about wealth concentration then immediately following how they've donated $8 million and plan to donate half their remaining wealth in the next 5 years?
- travisjungroth 2y ago
  It’s the opposite of ironic. He’s against the concentration of wealth, so he’s given away much of his wealth and is pledging to continue to do so.
  - mysterydip 2y ago
    But he wouldn't have a pile to donate if he hadn't been collecting it all this time. The donation part is good and I'm all for it.
    - travisjungroth 2y ago
      He “collected” it by co-founding Stack Overflow, which sold in 2021. He’s only had this level of wealth a few years.
FpUser 2y ago
You must be amazing person. I do however doubt that giving money to funds will fix anything. That upper 1% and their politicians purchased wholesale will fuck it up regardless. They've accumulated insane wealth and power. I doubt they are in any mood to share either.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
0xy 2y ago
Global Refuge directly sponsors illegal immigration, which absolutely destroys low and middle income families in America by lifting housing costs. Giving $1,000,000 to a charity working to undermine literally the first problem you mention 'the costs of housing' seems either ill-advised or ill-informed. Immigration has been shown to skyrocket housing costs, and this exact situation has led to a political upheaval in Canada. He's accelerating that process in America, and I don't think he'll like where it'll take us. 55% of Americans want immigration reduced, the highest rate in two decades and climbing. We're barreling down to the same political upheaval that's happening in Canada. He's throwing gas on the flames.
boxed 2y ago
I feel like not a single one of these organization actually deal with the problems. They're super good stuff, but not dealing with the issues the article starts out with.
- LeonB 2y ago
  Can you suggest an organisation that does?
xnx 2y ago
Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42620278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42620278
i_love_retros 2y ago
The problem I have is that I want to be generous but I doubt I will still have a career after the age of 55, and I'm scared of being 60 years old and not able to afford health care or a comfortable life, and so I squirrel away as much money as I can now. Rather than rely on individuals to save everyone else we should be living in a socialist utopia by now. I'd happily pay more tax for that. But instead we have an incoming Trump / Musk administration and probably WW3 and well you all voted for this so fuck you and your shitty Teslas.
ksec 2y ago
>34% of adults in America did not exercise their right to vote. Or basically 34% of adults in America exercise their right not to vote. If we force everyone to vote like Australia, may be there should be an option of voting blank? Basically I believe not voting for something is also a right. It is a vote to say ( may be ) I dislike both parties. Out of curiosity I decided to look up historical turn out rate [1], and was supervised to learn 2024 has the second highest rate in history, or at least since 1932. Highest was actually last election. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States...
- mondocat 2y ago
  > Or basically 34% of adults in America exercise their right not to vote. Maybe. Or they were unable to for any number of reasons, like not being able to get the time off work, for example. Compulsory voting does not mean you can't abstain, or shouldn't, but it does eliminate the people who want to vote, but for legal/logistical reasons, were unable to.
- rafabulsing 2y ago
  Here in Brazil voting is mandatory, but indeed, you can vote for no one. In fact, there are two ways to do so, interestingly enough: you can cast a "blank vote", literally just not picking anyone, or a "null vote", where you input a candidate that doesn't actually exist. In my view that's the ideal setup. Turnouts is always very high, even though the fine for not voting is laughably small (3.51 reais, literally less than a dollar). Good example of the power of defaults.
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
[dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42620278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42620278
Dalewyn 2y ago
>34% of adults in America did not exercise their right to vote. Why? Is it voter suppression, gerrymandering causing indifference, or people who felt their vote didn't matter? The 7.6% that are ineligible to vote are mostly adults living in America who have not managed to attain citizenship, or people convicted of a felony. Whatever the reasons, 42% of adults living in America had no say in the 2024 election. The vote failed to represent everyone. I have some choice criticism for this view. Firstly: The inelligible people are inelligible for a proper reason which are even stated by him. It is not a failure to not represent people who should not be represented in the first place. You want to vote? Become an American national and don't commit crimes, very basic and reasonable demands. Secondly and more significantly: Americans who don't vote explicitly decide to have no say in elections; not voting is itself a vote. It is not a failure to represent people who have no opinions on matters. The notion that everyone must have opinions on everything at all times is absurd. In short: The vote represented everyone meant to be represented, including those who didn't vote.
joshka 2y ago
I'd be interested to see Atwood and Ballmer in a room to discuss this (given Ballmer's Billionaire status and what he's working on recently).

122 points by ksec 2y ago

I'm not a big fan of the price graph in the article. Are TVs really 90% cheaper since 2020 than they were in 2000? The product seems to me to be one of those that always costs the same, you just get more for a similar amount of money as time progresses (like laptops). What does it mean for the average hourly wage line to show a 100% increase? Like it shows clothing to be a constant cost. But that's before a 100% increase in hourly wages, so has effective clothing cost halved? And food and beverage tracks the wage increase, so is it the same effective cost? And you get artefacts like the 90% drop in TV price looking to be the same scale as an 80% increase in food and beverage cost. I can buy 10 times as many TVs, but half as much food. Why is is More expensive vs more affordable? Seems odd to mix terms of affordable and expense when the graph isn't corrected for earnings. I suppose it may work for some.

mcphage 2y ago
They’re probably comparing like items—so maybe a decent mid-range tv is the same price, but the same tv would be much cheaper. I paid $1k for a decent tv in 2009, and then bought a new decent tv this year for the same $1k, but it’s a much nicer tv than before. But I agree with you about the essential meaningless of that number. People buy a tv every X years (for me 15, apparently), but they buy food almost every day.
- yzydserd 2y ago
  Right, but imagine that with cars not TVs. To show the cost change of a car from 2000 to 2020 I wouldn't show the cost of a 2000-quality car in 2020. I'd show the actual median cost of a car in 2020.
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    It's more complicated for cars, because you often can't get a 2000s-quality car even if you want to. There just aren't any cars on the market today with the size and (lack of) features my current car has; whenever I need a new one, I'll have to either buy another ancient car from the 2000s or pay more for extra features and dimensions I don't need. With TVs, though, Best Buy sells 2000s-quality TVs for like 60 bucks. I don't think it makes sense to say that TVs haven't really decreased in price just because most people would prefer to buy the fancier ones.
    - astura 2y ago
      They still make small and normal sized cars (for now), they just aren't as popular anymore. I just did a check of the msrp for a cheaper Toyota Corolla near San Francisco and it's MSRP is almost exactly the same as the base 2000 Corolla when adjusted for inflation.
angoragoats 2y ago
Anecdote: I purchased a Samsung 46” mid-range DLP (rear projection) TV in 2005 for $2500. It was 720p and had one hdmi port. IIRC there were some plasma and perhaps early LCDs available for 2-3x the cost or more. So, I’d say the cost has gone down by at least 90%, if not more.
- xattt 2y ago
  So by pixel math alone, a 4K TV of equivalent size gets you 8x TV these days. :P
  - angoragoats 2y ago
    Heh, yeah, and if you're not buying a high-end OLED or something like that, you're likely paying 90+% less than I paid in 2005 for my TV, for 8x the pixels. Plus you don't have to deal with the damned light engine crapping out after a few thousand hours of use :)
astura 2y ago
I bought 3 TVs in the last 15 or so years. Each time I spent less than the last and got a much better (and lighter!!) tv. Before that I couldn't afford a TV and had a used 13 inch tube TV someone gave me. I know it was nearly 2 decades ago, but in 2006 or 2007 my siblings camped out at Best Buy all night to buy laptops for $300.
- yzydserd 2y ago
  That does sound right. But imagine we're plotting the cost of a laptop from 2015 to 2025. We're getting say 4x the memory and 4x better speed (if not more), but would we show a graph that indicates laptops are 4x cheaper in 2025 than 2015? I wouldn't.
  - boxed 2y ago
    4x is an enormous understatement of the gains in computers the last 10 years. And I don't see why you wouldn't. You can get used computers for basically free that are faster than a 2015 top-of-the-line computers. People upgrade and the old computers are often literally thrown away.
  - layer8 2y ago
    The average price of what is considered a good TV in any given year has gone down over the years. While the GP did get a better TV each time, absolute price also went down each time, likely without even factoring inflation in.
    - yzydserd 2y ago
      I’m being downvoted for each comment I make on the topic but anyway … I found a source article [0] about how the Bureau adjusts the cost for features with a “hedonic” score. So yes, a new feature (a Netflix app? AI? Voice recognition? Soundbar?) is counted as an improvement with value and that in turn affects a prior. On another BLS page: “if a television in the CPI is replaced by one with a larger screen and higher price, the BLS can make an adjustment to the price difference by estimating what the old television would have cost had it had the larger screen size.” I bought a 42” mid range TV in 2012 for 900, a 55” mid range in 2017 for 900, and a 55” mid range in 2024 for £1200. Although this is a 30% or so discount (in inflation adjusted terms) the BLS can call it 80% because it has Smart Features like OLED and internet connectivity and so forth. [0] https://www.bls.gov/cpi/quality-adjustment/questions-and-answers.htm https://www.bls.gov/cpi/quality-adjustment/questions-and-ans...
underdeserver 2y ago
Per inch and resolution, a 90% drop in cost sounds right to me.
assimpleaspossi 2y ago
I got my Samsung 64-inch plasma on sale for $2800 (or was it $2100?) somewhere around 2010 or earlier. Best TV I've ever owned and I still use it.
SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
> Are TVs really 90% cheaper since 2020 than they were in 2000? The product seems to me to be one of those that always costs the same, you just get more for a similar amount of money as time progresses (like laptops). Yes, unambiguously so. In the early 2000s, a high definition 38 inch TV cost three thousand dollars (https://archive.org/details/Circuit-City-Ad-2001-04-29/page/n11/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/Circuit-City-Ad-2001-04-29/page/...), and "high definition" then would have meant 1080i if not 720p.
tzs 2y ago
> Are TVs really 90% cheaper since 2020 than they were in 2000? This prompted me to look at my TV purchases. My last two TV purchases were both Samsung 55" TVs, one in 2009 for $2400 and one in 2017 for $1000, both bought at Best Buy. In both cases they were a tier down from the top of the line models. Suppose TVs really did get 90% cheaper over 2000 to 2020. If we work out the average annual decline in price and apply that to my 2009 TV we get that in 2017 an equivalent TV should be around $1000, so that matches. If we assume the decline continued at the same average rate after 2000, and apply that to those two purchases we get that today they should be around $440. Looking at Samsung 55" TVs on Best Buy, it looks like $440 today would be around the top of the tier below the top tier (e.g., regular LED instead of QLED).

JKCalhoun 2y ago

The wealth inequality is the one I have been paying the most attention to. Having constantly lowered the taxes on the wealthiest it seems to be the one that is the most self-inflicted. We could lapse into an era much like the Great Depression (where I suppose we will celebrate bank robbers?). Our future could look more like "Soylent Green" - most of us piled into tenement houses with armed guards on the stairs, braving the streets only for our weekly rations while the wealthy live secluded in high-rise luxury. I worry too we'll become like I perceive Russia to have become — more or less an oligarchy run country where the proletariat merely grumble and get about their thread-bare existence. (I suppose, from the charts, we'll have our toys and TVs though!) With 1/3 of the country having not even voted I would probably be more surprised if we end up with a French Revolution style future. Feel free to set me straight, IANAH (not a historian) nor am I an economist or political scientist. Just a layman.

phtrivier 2y ago
> where I suppose we will celebrate bank robbers?) The popularity of Luigi Mangione might be a (arguably sickening) sign that the pitchforks are coming (and, remember, it's always very presumptuous to assume you will be on the right side of the pitchforks.) But also, if history is to be followed, some form of self correction is always possible. It's going to be popular to run on a "tax the ultra-ultra-rich" platform. The trick is to be very careful on every other topic, to avoid being trapped in culture war. Basically, someone might run on the single issue of "tax the right", and strive to avoid anything radical on every hot-button subject (as in, be extremely centrist and borderline conservative on gender, immigration, culture, free speech, etc....). When in doubt, shut up and remind everyone you're going to tax the ultra-ultra-ultra rich, purely appealing to the inner sense of justice. This would work better in countries where the press is not too concentrated. And I am actually curious to see how social media would handle that (it would create engagement, so maybe the merely ultra-ultra rich would play along ?) > French Revolution style future. Careful what you wish for - it took us a century to get to a stable place.
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  > Careful what you wish for… Agree. We may be weighing shitty options though at some point.

firesteelrain 2y ago

"Programmers all over the world helped make an American Dream happen in 2008 when we built Stack Overflow, a Q&A website for programmers creating a shared > Creative Commons knowledge base for the world. We did it democratically, because that's the American way. We voted to rank questions and answers, and held elections for community moderators using ranked choice voting. We built a digital democracy – of the programmers, by the programmers, for the programmers. It worked." I don't know if StackOverflow should be his legacy. The site has become very heavy handed in moderation. The satellite sites are better (not SuperUser or the other one).

dax_ 2y ago
Nothing's perfect, but I do not wish back the alternatives we had (Experts Exchange, Quora, a myriad of forums where the first response was - did you use the search function, endless discussions that don't answer the original question, and so on). It saved me so much time as a developer who just wants to get no-nonsense answers to my questions. The platform could not work without good moderation, or the site would drown in duplicates and low-quality content.
Piskvorrr 2y ago
You may not like the site, but it works (sorta, kinda, not perfectly).

logifail 2y ago

see also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42620278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42620278

HPsquared 2y ago

I always think what's the actual benefit now of living in a "rich country" if everything is just more expensive? So if you live in the USA you'll maybe have a nicer car and nicer computer than someone in Poland, but otherwise it's all a wash and probably nicer in Poland. All the things that actually matter to quality of life are pretty much the same or even nicer in a poorer country?

snapcaster 2y ago
This is such a good point, i've had similar thoughts before. That basically after the "middle income" level countries don't really get "better" they just get more expensive and more developed (which to be sure does have some positive impacts)
portaouflop 2y ago
It depends what matters to you in quality of life. For me the most important things are having purpose and love in my life - and you can find that pretty much anywhere. A bit unrelated but US citizens decided that healthcare doesn’t really matter to them much but going everywhere with a nice car does - so it depends what the priorities are
- badpun 2y ago
  Most US citizens are for socialized health care. However, t seems that both parties are bought by the health care industry and prevent the change the people want.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - portaouflop 2y ago
    This doesn’t make sense to me though. If the majority of the population is for something it __will__ be implemented. If a party fucks over the peoples will repeatedly like this, why would they still be voted into power?

lapcat 2y ago

Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42620278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42620278 (2 days ago, 229 comments)

izietto 2y ago

Am I the only one who thinks that a country which admits only two parties cannot be called a democracy? Not an attack, just a thought starter EDIT Thank everyone who answered, I have always been convinced that US doesn't have anymore parties other than Republicans and Democrats. Today I learned!

portaouflop 2y ago
There are many more parties in the US though - they just don’t get really relevant in the bigger scheme of things. In my country we also have 2 huge parties and a bunch of smaller ones - but the smaller ones have more impact and actually matter a bit. Democracy is hard and there are so many details and complexities to consider. But to answer your question I would say definitely the US is a democracy -
- jghn 2y ago
  Also, our 2 huge parties aren't dissimilar to the coalitions of parties you see in other democracies. Over time the boundary lines between our 2 parties shifts as those coalitions are formed, disbanded, reformed, etc.
  - staticautomatic 2y ago
    Yeah but in those countries the parties actually get to rep themselves in the legislature. You can’t literally masquerade as a member of another party here unless you want people to think you’re a mole or a turncoat.
- izietto 2y ago
  > There are many more parties in the US though - they just don’t get really relevant in the bigger scheme of things. Interesting! Can you please elaborate? I know nothing about this, I always thought they are forbidden somehow to have parties that are different from Conservatives and Democrats, otherwise I can't explain myself why they are never mentioned
  - 2y ago

baggachipz 2y ago

It's so so hard not to be cynical. I read posts like this and it gives me a glimmer of hope, and reminds me that there are good people of means out there trying to make humanity better. But then I also remember that there are much richer, more powerful ghouls out there whose seemingly sole purpose is to enrich themselves and their cronies at the expense of society. The answer, of course, is to praise efforts like this one and not allow cynicism to undermine the effort. A groundswell of support begets a movement. "Apes together strong", and all that. Anyway, were I ever to come into significant wealth, I think and hope I would do the same. Until then, I'm simply working towards a decent retirement and intent on remaining in an ever-shrinking middle class.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Simon_O_Rourke 2y ago
> It's so so hard not to be cynical. Certainly would agree with that, however you'll have plenty who would suggest that helping others achieve the American dream isn't part of their worldview, or indeed their interpretation of that American dream.
- jaybrendansmith 2y ago
  And yet they benefitted by it. They seem to be fine pulling the ladder up behind them. That just shows poor character. If our society starts again to make character more important than wealth or charm, we might have a society worth saving.
FrustratedMonky 2y ago
"Apes together strong" Even Koba learned to hate. And, despite the last movie ending on uplifting note, the very end showed the humans in a bunker ready to attack again. Nothing survives the fight for resources. In-Group/Out-Group. It will take some real tragedy to bring Left/Right back together. Like a real (more severe) virus where Republicans are like "wow, we be dying, I'm all for distancing now, get away from me, where are the scientists, give me a mask".

dfedbeef 2y ago

Nonprofits aren't going to get the US out of this. They are a bandaid on a broken leg.

thepuppet33r 2y ago
We're using GoFundMe as a bandaid for healthcare, to the degree that the CEO went to beg Congress to pass more government assistance in COVID-laden 2021. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/538399-gofundme-ceo-calls-for-coronavirus-relief-we-never-meant-to-be/ https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/538399-gof...
BadCookie 2y ago
What would fix the problem? And what is the root cause?
- kzrdude 2y ago
  Lessig founded "Rootstrikers" to strike at what he thought was a fundamental root of the problem of politics in the US. I don't even know if that organization is active anymore. Their thesis is that special interest money, political corruption, and the reliance on money to even get to be a candidate in elections is a root of the problem. He did this TED talk long time ago (and several other talks) and it made a big impression on me, but it didn't catch on(?) https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim?subtitle=en https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dfedbeef 2y ago
  I wouldn't be working in software if I knew that.

btbuildem 2y ago

At this point, stop encouraging people to vote. It doesn't seem to work in the US anymore, if the current state of matters is anything to go by. It's almost like encouraging the Thomas Matthew Crooks and the Luigi Mangione types to deal with the problems right at the root would be a better way to go. You need to take the money out of politics, and advertising out of, well, everything. If not, things will just continue to get worse and worse.

davedx 2y ago
> Luigi Mangione Yeah, the Stack Overflow network really doesn't like that guy
Kenji 2y ago
If Trump was killed, it could have started a civil war in the US. Be careful what you wish for.
Dalewyn 2y ago
>At this point, stop encouraging people to vote. It doesn't work in the US anymore. "Democracy doesn't work if the result doesn't suit me; stop voting against my wishes."? Sincerely, please fuck off into whatever other country seems more to your liking. Arguments like yours truly make me wonder if democracy is, in fact, merely a more plausibly deniable excuse to obtain and maintain power like in other more directly authoritarian forms of governance.
Empact 2y ago
Here’s a short list of meaningful causes which have been advanced in my lifetime by groups of single issue voters at the local and state levels: * making gay marriage broadly available * making concealed carry (and Constitutional carry) broadly available * removing barriers to housing construction in cities across the land (the Yimby movement) * making the Idaho stop law applicable to 10 states * changing the voting method from plurality to approval or IRV in several cities and states Voting is one of the important ways our government is steered, cynicism in this area is self-defeating. Instead, band with a group of single issue voters who elevate one issue over all others, and vote for whomever aligns with that issue, if their election prospects are threatened, they will support you, as with my favorite quote from a politician: “when I feel the heat, I see the light.”

m_fayer 2y ago

> The costs of housing, healthcare, and education This is the “list of modern miseries,” and needs child care and eldercare on it to be complete. This is the list of those things that, for all our prowess, we’ve broken and just can’t seem to fix. Until we manage, our system will always have the legitimacy problem whose consequences we can see all around us right now.

kubb 2y ago
How can housing prices drop if most people invest most of their wealth into their house and they expect a return on the investment?
- jermaustin1 2y ago
  Housing wasn't an investment until it was turned into an investment in the 80s. Housing was always thought of as housing before that. It is the same as renting, but at some point, you stop paying rent and instead just pay your wealth tax on it's value. In the US we treat it as not only an investment we expect to appreciate, but then turn around and treat it as a depreciating asset for taxation purposes if you are buying it to rent to people. It is a double standard that lets corporate landlords buy a property, collect rent, write off the mortgage interest, write off the "depreciation" of the property, all the while the property appreciates in value, creating multiple revenue streams (lower tax bill + higher leverage-able assets + rental income). THIS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED! You should not be allowed to "depreciate" an appreciating asset on your taxes and get to lower your bill. If you want to write off depreciation, it should be appraised at a lower value first. Otherwise its book value remains constant (or adjusts for inflation?), and then just capital gains on the sale if someone wants to pay more than book value. This would make it less attractive to investors, prices would actually fall a bit (or a lot, IDK).
  - kubb 2y ago
    Yea it shouldn’t but home owners are in the majority so what are you gonna do about it? Also both of the parties are fully behind the interests of homeowners, with one of them being really obsessed with helping high-wealth individuals not pay taxes. I wouldn’t expect anything to change.

mysterydip 2y ago

Is it me or is it ironic they're talking about wealth concentration then immediately following how they've donated $8 million and plan to donate half their remaining wealth in the next 5 years?

travisjungroth 2y ago
It’s the opposite of ironic. He’s against the concentration of wealth, so he’s given away much of his wealth and is pledging to continue to do so.
- mysterydip 2y ago
  But he wouldn't have a pile to donate if he hadn't been collecting it all this time. The donation part is good and I'm all for it.
  - travisjungroth 2y ago
    He “collected” it by co-founding Stack Overflow, which sold in 2021. He’s only had this level of wealth a few years.

FpUser 2y ago

You must be amazing person. I do however doubt that giving money to funds will fix anything. That upper 1% and their politicians purchased wholesale will fuck it up regardless. They've accumulated insane wealth and power. I doubt they are in any mood to share either.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

0xy 2y ago

Global Refuge directly sponsors illegal immigration, which absolutely destroys low and middle income families in America by lifting housing costs. Giving $1,000,000 to a charity working to undermine literally the first problem you mention 'the costs of housing' seems either ill-advised or ill-informed. Immigration has been shown to skyrocket housing costs, and this exact situation has led to a political upheaval in Canada. He's accelerating that process in America, and I don't think he'll like where it'll take us. 55% of Americans want immigration reduced, the highest rate in two decades and climbing. We're barreling down to the same political upheaval that's happening in Canada. He's throwing gas on the flames.

boxed 2y ago

I feel like not a single one of these organization actually deal with the problems. They're super good stuff, but not dealing with the issues the article starts out with.

LeonB 2y ago
Can you suggest an organisation that does?

xnx 2y ago

Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42620278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42620278

i_love_retros 2y ago

The problem I have is that I want to be generous but I doubt I will still have a career after the age of 55, and I'm scared of being 60 years old and not able to afford health care or a comfortable life, and so I squirrel away as much money as I can now. Rather than rely on individuals to save everyone else we should be living in a socialist utopia by now. I'd happily pay more tax for that. But instead we have an incoming Trump / Musk administration and probably WW3 and well you all voted for this so fuck you and your shitty Teslas.

ksec 2y ago

>34% of adults in America did not exercise their right to vote. Or basically 34% of adults in America exercise their right not to vote. If we force everyone to vote like Australia, may be there should be an option of voting blank? Basically I believe not voting for something is also a right. It is a vote to say ( may be ) I dislike both parties. Out of curiosity I decided to look up historical turn out rate [1], and was supervised to learn 2024 has the second highest rate in history, or at least since 1932. Highest was actually last election. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States...

mondocat 2y ago
> Or basically 34% of adults in America exercise their right not to vote. Maybe. Or they were unable to for any number of reasons, like not being able to get the time off work, for example. Compulsory voting does not mean you can't abstain, or shouldn't, but it does eliminate the people who want to vote, but for legal/logistical reasons, were unable to.
rafabulsing 2y ago
Here in Brazil voting is mandatory, but indeed, you can vote for no one. In fact, there are two ways to do so, interestingly enough: you can cast a "blank vote", literally just not picking anyone, or a "null vote", where you input a candidate that doesn't actually exist. In my view that's the ideal setup. Turnouts is always very high, even though the fine for not voting is laughably small (3.51 reais, literally less than a dollar). Good example of the power of defaults.

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

[dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42620278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42620278

Dalewyn 2y ago

>34% of adults in America did not exercise their right to vote. Why? Is it voter suppression, gerrymandering causing indifference, or people who felt their vote didn't matter? The 7.6% that are ineligible to vote are mostly adults living in America who have not managed to attain citizenship, or people convicted of a felony. Whatever the reasons, 42% of adults living in America had no say in the 2024 election. The vote failed to represent everyone. I have some choice criticism for this view. Firstly: The inelligible people are inelligible for a proper reason which are even stated by him. It is not a failure to not represent people who should not be represented in the first place. You want to vote? Become an American national and don't commit crimes, very basic and reasonable demands. Secondly and more significantly: Americans who don't vote explicitly decide to have no say in elections; not voting is itself a vote. It is not a failure to represent people who have no opinions on matters. The notion that everyone must have opinions on everything at all times is absurd. In short: The vote represented everyone meant to be represented, including those who didn't vote.

joshka 2y ago

I'd be interested to see Atwood and Ballmer in a room to discuss this (given Ballmer's Billionaire status and what he's working on recently).