4 ms·

Here's a probably important proposition that Peter Thiel and Garry Kasparov have been putting forward, and I have yet to see engaged with and answered: If we a

Here's a probably important proposition that Peter Thiel and Garry Kasparov have been putting forward, and I have yet to see engaged with and answered: If we are truly accelerating technologically, why have the exponential gains in wages and PPP in the developed world largely stopped? They have hardly kept up with inflation. Compare 1891 - 1931, 1931 - 1971, and 1971 - 2011. People point to improvements in computer technology -- why have they not yielded significant improvements in the world of stuff? There has not been the expected productivity increase at all.

cma 14y ago
Beyond basic subsistence, most things we produce are status symbols that have zero net-effect--guy A's status goes up as a result of his purchase, guy B's status goes down.
yk 14y ago
The way I think about this, you have to correct for 'technological deflation.' What I mean by this is, if you only think about monetary loss of purchase power, then you will probably conclude that an iPhone costs something like $500 ( 2000 dollars). However to actually buy an iPhone in 2000 you would need to spend several billions and delivery would take something like ten years. ( Most of this is developing processors and displays that can power an iPhone.) Another example would be flat screens, there were some in 2000 (about as expensive as a car). So you don't see this increase in wages, simply because you are comparing against a moving target.
- DaniFong 14y ago
  If that were the case, and computing technology were part of the PPP goods bundle, wages would be seen as going UP. The question is, if you subtract computers, why do you not see any improvement? Is this not evidence of a technological slowdown, at least in the world of stuff?
  - yk 14y ago
    My impression is, that the world of stuff moves slower but is moving. ( But I do not have some nice data to back this up, but cars are more fuel efficent, airline tickets decrease in price etc.) And atop of this you get a lot of 'add a computer' inventions. For example (non mobile) phones which store addresses.

cma 14y ago

Beyond basic subsistence, most things we produce are status symbols that have zero net-effect--guy A's status goes up as a result of his purchase, guy B's status goes down.

yk 14y ago

The way I think about this, you have to correct for 'technological deflation.' What I mean by this is, if you only think about monetary loss of purchase power, then you will probably conclude that an iPhone costs something like $500 ( 2000 dollars). However to actually buy an iPhone in 2000 you would need to spend several billions and delivery would take something like ten years. ( Most of this is developing processors and displays that can power an iPhone.) Another example would be flat screens, there were some in 2000 (about as expensive as a car). So you don't see this increase in wages, simply because you are comparing against a moving target.

DaniFong 14y ago
If that were the case, and computing technology were part of the PPP goods bundle, wages would be seen as going UP. The question is, if you subtract computers, why do you not see any improvement? Is this not evidence of a technological slowdown, at least in the world of stuff?
- yk 14y ago
  My impression is, that the world of stuff moves slower but is moving. ( But I do not have some nice data to back this up, but cars are more fuel efficent, airline tickets decrease in price etc.) And atop of this you get a lot of 'add a computer' inventions. For example (non mobile) phones which store addresses.