4 ms·

>It’s like worrying in 1960 that the companies that invented computers will hoard the benefits of computing. Isn't that what happened? There was enough compet

by slg 4mo ago

>It’s like worrying in 1960 that the companies that invented computers will hoard the benefits of computing. Isn't that what happened? There was enough competition among computing companies that they weren't able to completely monopolize all the productivity improvements, but the financial benefits were mostly captured by the capital class in one way or another.[1] TVs might be cheaper today and we all like watching Netflix, but I'm skeptical of the idea that the financial wellbeing of the average American has been improved by computers. [1] - https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide...

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
fluoridation 4mo ago
>I'm skeptical of the idea that the financial wellbeing of the average American has been improved by computers. Really? Even with all the new avenues of education and communication that they opened up? You think the positives and negatives balance out to close to zero?
- slg 4mo ago
  The stats I linked above show that those “new avenues of education and communication” didn’t actually benefit the average American financially in at least the relative sense. Do you have something to counter that evidence?
  - fluoridation 4mo ago
    Those are just time series of wealth over time, they don't purport to establish any causal links. You can't conclude that computers didn't "actually benefit the average American financially" from these numbers, because these are measuring the total wealth of the household with all factors combined. We can't say with any certainty what effect computers had on these values; maybe without them people would have been better off or worse off. It is interesting how the wealth concentration started in the '80s. It could be computers that caused it, though I would be more likely to blame it on Reagan's economic policies.
    - slg 4mo ago
      >You can't conclude that computers didn't "actually benefit the average American financially" from these numbers, because these are measuring the total wealth of the household with all factors combined. Fine, I’ll include your disclaimer about confounding factors. With all factors combined, it doesn’t appear that the average American financially benefited over the course of the computer revolution. Do you dispute that and if so, what is your evidence?
      - fluoridation 4mo ago
        Yes, I dispute it. Firstly because it's literally not true by the numbers you're basing it off of, as the mean real family income grew by 40ish% between 1973 and 2023; and secondly because it's a very carefully-worded statement that lends itself to confusion by placing together things that are not necessarily related, like the graph comparing the number of pirates with the global temperature of the Earth. Yes, the data being presented is true (well, in your case it's not, but let's pretend you've rephrased it such that it is), but the manner in which it's being presented is communicating something other than the data.
        slg 4mo ago
        Nicely done subtly shifting the conversation from wealth to income. I guess it shouldn't matter that the bottom 90% of Americans have seen their share of wealth decrease since that started being measured in 1989. The median worker should be thrilled as long as their real wages have increased. Who cares if inflation numbers fail to account properly for more nuanced changes to cost of living such as rising education costs being more impactful due to higher college enrollment rates? Who needs to accumulate wealth when your income is growing at almost 1% per year?
        fluoridation 4mo ago
        >Nicely done subtly shifting the conversation from wealth to income. I don't see the data on absolute wealth in your link, so I went with what I had. >I guess it shouldn't matter that the bottom 90% of Americans have seen their share of wealth decrease since that started being measured in 1989. The median worker should be thrilled as long as their real wages have increased. Well... yes? I mean, should I care that there's a multibillionaire I don't know somewhere in the country amassing an obscene fortune, if I'm living a little more comfortably every year? Most everyone is living better, isn't that fine? >Who cares if inflation numbers fail to account properly for more nuanced changes to cost of living How is that my fault? It's the data you used. Why are you using it if you think it has flaws?

by slg 4mo ago

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

fluoridation 4mo ago

>I'm skeptical of the idea that the financial wellbeing of the average American has been improved by computers. Really? Even with all the new avenues of education and communication that they opened up? You think the positives and negatives balance out to close to zero?

slg 4mo ago
The stats I linked above show that those “new avenues of education and communication” didn’t actually benefit the average American financially in at least the relative sense. Do you have something to counter that evidence?
- fluoridation 4mo ago
  Those are just time series of wealth over time, they don't purport to establish any causal links. You can't conclude that computers didn't "actually benefit the average American financially" from these numbers, because these are measuring the total wealth of the household with all factors combined. We can't say with any certainty what effect computers had on these values; maybe without them people would have been better off or worse off. It is interesting how the wealth concentration started in the '80s. It could be computers that caused it, though I would be more likely to blame it on Reagan's economic policies.
  - slg 4mo ago
    >You can't conclude that computers didn't "actually benefit the average American financially" from these numbers, because these are measuring the total wealth of the household with all factors combined. Fine, I’ll include your disclaimer about confounding factors. With all factors combined, it doesn’t appear that the average American financially benefited over the course of the computer revolution. Do you dispute that and if so, what is your evidence?
    - fluoridation 4mo ago
      Yes, I dispute it. Firstly because it's literally not true by the numbers you're basing it off of, as the mean real family income grew by 40ish% between 1973 and 2023; and secondly because it's a very carefully-worded statement that lends itself to confusion by placing together things that are not necessarily related, like the graph comparing the number of pirates with the global temperature of the Earth. Yes, the data being presented is true (well, in your case it's not, but let's pretend you've rephrased it such that it is), but the manner in which it's being presented is communicating something other than the data.
      - slg 4mo ago
        Nicely done subtly shifting the conversation from wealth to income. I guess it shouldn't matter that the bottom 90% of Americans have seen their share of wealth decrease since that started being measured in 1989. The median worker should be thrilled as long as their real wages have increased. Who cares if inflation numbers fail to account properly for more nuanced changes to cost of living such as rising education costs being more impactful due to higher college enrollment rates? Who needs to accumulate wealth when your income is growing at almost 1% per year?
        fluoridation 4mo ago
        >Nicely done subtly shifting the conversation from wealth to income. I don't see the data on absolute wealth in your link, so I went with what I had. >I guess it shouldn't matter that the bottom 90% of Americans have seen their share of wealth decrease since that started being measured in 1989. The median worker should be thrilled as long as their real wages have increased. Well... yes? I mean, should I care that there's a multibillionaire I don't know somewhere in the country amassing an obscene fortune, if I'm living a little more comfortably every year? Most everyone is living better, isn't that fine? >Who cares if inflation numbers fail to account properly for more nuanced changes to cost of living How is that my fault? It's the data you used. Why are you using it if you think it has flaws?