4 ms·
> people pointing out the obvious declination in living standards and increase in societal problems But it’s not like you’re not doing the same thing in the op
by dangus 2y ago
> people pointing out the obvious declination in living standards and increase in societal problems
But it’s not like you’re not doing the same thing in the opposite direction.
The only thing really factual here on your list is wealth inequality, although as recently in history as the gilded age it was the same or worse. You barely have to go back more than 100 years to witness children working in factories with no safety standards in the USA.
And really we don’t have to involve the totality of human history to talk about major problems in the 1960s/1970s or even 1990s that we don’t have anymore.
- Lack of regulations that led to the EPA. Your parents probably grew up in a more polluted environment today breathing leaded gasoline.
- Extremely recent prevalence of easily immunized diseases. Smallpox was eradicated in 1980 which wasn’t all that long ago. Polio also comes to mind.
- Developing countries like China where living standards have very obviously shot up by magnitudes in living memory
- Crime in the US at generally declining levels since the 1990s, which has resumed its decline since the pandemic spike.
- Arguably a decent amount less societal friction than the mid-century in America and more recently like with the LA riots. You don’t have to go far back in time to have civil rights problems like gay people being excluded from marriage, women being disallowed from opening a bank account on their own, Black people being prohibited from getting mortgages.
- Just the last decade of cancer treatment technology improvements has been incredible for late life longevity, and America’s best universal healthcare program (Medicare) has better outcomes than other wealthy countries’ universal healthcare systems.
- The continuation of life expectancy gains has only recently stalled and IMO this will likely tick up again as obesity becomes a treatable disease with simple pharmaceuticals.
- Safety standards and behavioral changes related to common causes of premature death. Factors like a more regulated tobacco industry and lower rates of smoking and motor vehicle safety improvements come to mind. A society that allowed cigarette companies to advertise with doctors as spokespeople is a society where you’re more likely to die early. A society where the youngest generation has lower usage of alcohol and drugs like Gen Z/Gen Alpha does is one that is going to have better life outcomes compared to one that has higher use rates, and that behavior is a result of improvements to the environment around them.
I could go on and on…yes things like housing and university have become very expensive, yes there are problems, but holistically you’d probably right rather be alive now than in 1970.
- monadINtop 2y agoCherry picking problems that have been solved in the last few decades are not relevant to a discussion focused on declining standards of living in relation to the economy and it's structure and how the average person experiences it - it's a specific problem related to wages, inflation, productivity, inequality, and how revenue has been chosen to be distributed etc. For someone interested in "rigor" I'm not sure how useful it is to weigh an arbitrary collection of goods like the EPA, eradicating smallpox and polio, etc. to a time before them in order to encourage me to answer that "I would rather be alive now". Angels on a pinhead etc. Seems a lot more useful to actually acknowledge the problems people complain about and think carefully about the specific dynamics that generate them rather than try convince them that everything's fine actually and they should just think about how good the polio vaccine is compared to Victorian work-houses. >But it’s not like you’re not doing the same thing in the opposite direction. Huh?
- dangus 2y agoLet me shorten my point and maybe it’ll help you understand what I mean: Increasing income inequality does not automatically mean that living standards are declining. It can mean that the living standards of the wealthy is growing faster than the living standards of the less wealthy. As an example, jump over to your LLM of choice and ask it to compare the rate of air conditioning in homes of people at the poverty line, comparing now to 1995. The numbers have jumped substantially since the cost including running cost (energy efficiency) of that technology has improved greatly. You were confused at that statement of mine that you quoted. What I was trying to say is that you complained about posturing but then engaged in very similar posturing. You’ve made the baseline assumption that living standards are decreasing obviously without any substantiation. And maybe you’re right, but you haven’t substantiated it, you’ve just engaged in the same style of posturing that you criticized. Here’s a couple pieces that substantiates my point, which is that global poverty is decreasing (certainly with continuing challenges but overall decreasing): https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/WLD/world/poverty-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/WLD/wor... https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty-in-brief https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty-in-brief