4 ms·

Surely you don't think that 1950 was better in terms of quality of life compared to 2013. Right now is the most prosperous time in human history.

eli_gottlieb 14y ago
The questions are: prosperous for whom, and in what sense of the word? 1950 was "better" in that it was both more egalitarian (for whom) and also more secure (which, I should note, made it inherently more egalitarian). Things like the GI Bill and post-war reconstruction made Major Life Purchases like housing, infrastructure, and education very affordable for large masses of the population. Production booms, government income-support programs, and unionization made incomes more secure (even when employment was culturally and personally repressive and conformist), allowing families to reinvest in building private savings. Employer-sponsored pension plans made retirement a real possibility and Social Security a fall-back. One spouse was expected to work, and the other spouse's labor was held in reserve for emergencies. Contrast with today. Yes, in an absolute sense the economy is more productive, but it's also less egalitarian (income inequality is at historic highs in the United States and most other developed countries for which old measurements exist) and less secure (debt and leverage are not only rampant but the most common and expected ways of gaining access to housing and education, and few households can function without two incomes). The result is that for the median citizen, things haven't gotten better (few to no real-wage rises) since the 1970s, and the mean citizen (including people with very high nominal incomes) is vastly less secured against cash-flow disruptions. And since the housing, health-care, education and energy sectors are collecting massive economic rents, even the proliferation of cheap consumer goods hasn't actually done as much for the median and mean citizens as it should have: someone who has bare-minimum health insurance, and has to pay health premiums, taxes, ever-rising housing rent, and student-debt service on a salary in the range of $20k-$30k per year (assuming you live in the USA) simply cannot afford to consume that many Playstation 3 games.
- rthomas6 14y ago
  I honestly don't care about how egalitarian a society is. I care about a society's aggregate quality of life. If one person has a quality of life 100,000 times greater than everyone else, yet everyone else has a quality of life 100 times greater than today, I would choose that society. You can argue that the overall quality of life for our society now is lower than in 1950, but I strongly disagree with you. It doesn't matter if real wages have increased since 1970 if material goods have gotten cheaper. I would still argue that the overall quality of life has increased since 1970. And you're painting an incomplete picture about 1950: >1950 was "better" in that it was both more egalitarian (for whom) and also more secure (which, I should note, made it inherently more egalitarian). If you were white. >Things like the GI Bill and post-war reconstruction made Major Life Purchases like housing, infrastructure, and education very affordable for large masses of the population. If you were white. >Employer-sponsored pension plans made retirement a real possibility and Social Security a fall-back. 65 was around the median age of death in 1950. "Retirement" was a hell of a lot shorter if you work almost until your death age. I can't call that better than now. >One spouse was expected to work, and the other spouse's labor was held in reserve for emergencies. If you were white. And both spouses working was an emergency situation because maintaining a household took a lot more effort in 1950 than it does today. I just can't imagine things being better for people in 1950 than now. >someone who has bare-minimum health insurance, and has to pay health premiums, taxes, ever-rising housing rent, and student-debt service on a salary in the range of $20k-$30k per year (assuming you live in the USA) simply cannot afford to consume that many Playstation 3 games. I don't think I could afford to consume that many Playstation 3 games in 1950, either. In fact, I don't think anyone could afford to consume any. In fact, there would be a good chance that I wouldn't even own a television in 1950.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    I do certainly take your point on the "if you were white" front, but I want to use that to lead into something Tony Judt wrote in "Ill Fares the Land": the post-war period was prosperous enough that political movements, in many instances, shifted from striving to overthrow and replace the system towards striving to be included in the existing prosperity. MLK Jr was indeed a black-rights activist and a socialist, but he didn't see his form of democratic socialism as something that required a violent revolution of genocidal proportions the way that, say, Lenin had, or even the way that German anti-fascist partisans had. >I don't think I could afford to consume that many Playstation 3 games in 1950, either. In fact, I don't think anyone could afford to consume any. Thank you for making part of my point for me. If someone couldn't consume PS3 games in 1953-1963 because they didn't exist, and someone can't consume PS3 games now because they're unaffordable on today's low salaries (well, low salaries for most people outside Hacker News), then what good is the existence of PS3 games to this person? Where's the worth in increased production and variety of consumer goods only an elite minority can afford to enjoy?

eli_gottlieb 14y ago

The questions are: prosperous for whom, and in what sense of the word? 1950 was "better" in that it was both more egalitarian (for whom) and also more secure (which, I should note, made it inherently more egalitarian). Things like the GI Bill and post-war reconstruction made Major Life Purchases like housing, infrastructure, and education very affordable for large masses of the population. Production booms, government income-support programs, and unionization made incomes more secure (even when employment was culturally and personally repressive and conformist), allowing families to reinvest in building private savings. Employer-sponsored pension plans made retirement a real possibility and Social Security a fall-back. One spouse was expected to work, and the other spouse's labor was held in reserve for emergencies. Contrast with today. Yes, in an absolute sense the economy is more productive, but it's also less egalitarian (income inequality is at historic highs in the United States and most other developed countries for which old measurements exist) and less secure (debt and leverage are not only rampant but the most common and expected ways of gaining access to housing and education, and few households can function without two incomes). The result is that for the median citizen, things haven't gotten better (few to no real-wage rises) since the 1970s, and the mean citizen (including people with very high nominal incomes) is vastly less secured against cash-flow disruptions. And since the housing, health-care, education and energy sectors are collecting massive economic rents, even the proliferation of cheap consumer goods hasn't actually done as much for the median and mean citizens as it should have: someone who has bare-minimum health insurance, and has to pay health premiums, taxes, ever-rising housing rent, and student-debt service on a salary in the range of $20k-$30k per year (assuming you live in the USA) simply cannot afford to consume that many Playstation 3 games.

rthomas6 14y ago
I honestly don't care about how egalitarian a society is. I care about a society's aggregate quality of life. If one person has a quality of life 100,000 times greater than everyone else, yet everyone else has a quality of life 100 times greater than today, I would choose that society. You can argue that the overall quality of life for our society now is lower than in 1950, but I strongly disagree with you. It doesn't matter if real wages have increased since 1970 if material goods have gotten cheaper. I would still argue that the overall quality of life has increased since 1970. And you're painting an incomplete picture about 1950: >1950 was "better" in that it was both more egalitarian (for whom) and also more secure (which, I should note, made it inherently more egalitarian). If you were white. >Things like the GI Bill and post-war reconstruction made Major Life Purchases like housing, infrastructure, and education very affordable for large masses of the population. If you were white. >Employer-sponsored pension plans made retirement a real possibility and Social Security a fall-back. 65 was around the median age of death in 1950. "Retirement" was a hell of a lot shorter if you work almost until your death age. I can't call that better than now. >One spouse was expected to work, and the other spouse's labor was held in reserve for emergencies. If you were white. And both spouses working was an emergency situation because maintaining a household took a lot more effort in 1950 than it does today. I just can't imagine things being better for people in 1950 than now. >someone who has bare-minimum health insurance, and has to pay health premiums, taxes, ever-rising housing rent, and student-debt service on a salary in the range of $20k-$30k per year (assuming you live in the USA) simply cannot afford to consume that many Playstation 3 games. I don't think I could afford to consume that many Playstation 3 games in 1950, either. In fact, I don't think anyone could afford to consume any. In fact, there would be a good chance that I wouldn't even own a television in 1950.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  I do certainly take your point on the "if you were white" front, but I want to use that to lead into something Tony Judt wrote in "Ill Fares the Land": the post-war period was prosperous enough that political movements, in many instances, shifted from striving to overthrow and replace the system towards striving to be included in the existing prosperity. MLK Jr was indeed a black-rights activist and a socialist, but he didn't see his form of democratic socialism as something that required a violent revolution of genocidal proportions the way that, say, Lenin had, or even the way that German anti-fascist partisans had. >I don't think I could afford to consume that many Playstation 3 games in 1950, either. In fact, I don't think anyone could afford to consume any. Thank you for making part of my point for me. If someone couldn't consume PS3 games in 1953-1963 because they didn't exist, and someone can't consume PS3 games now because they're unaffordable on today's low salaries (well, low salaries for most people outside Hacker News), then what good is the existence of PS3 games to this person? Where's the worth in increased production and variety of consumer goods only an elite minority can afford to enjoy?