4 ms·

I agree that increased production and variety of consumer goods is mostly useless if only an elite minority gains benefits from them. But I still disagree that

I agree that increased production and variety of consumer goods is mostly useless if only an elite minority gains benefits from them. But I still disagree that only an elite minority has seen a benefit, i.e. an increase in the quality of life over the past 40 years, and certainly over the past 60 years. And yes, income and wealth inequality may have increased since 1950, and I agree with you that this is objectively bad. I also agree that our country has a serious and growing problem with personal debt. But these things do not mean that the average and median standard of living has not risen for everyone in the United States since 1950, which I believe it has. I don't even see how this can be argued. Almost every quality of life metric I can think of has improved: education, life expectancy, and infant mortality have all improved, in addition to harder to measure increases in everyday comfort due to technology. In 2013, even most of the poor have a mobile phone. Almost anyone can walk into a library and talk to you or I on Hacker News. There are some metrics that have not improved, such as crime, incarceration rates, or income equality, and these are serious issues. But overall, I believe that the standard of living for the average US citizen has risen. Anecdotal examples don't really prove much, but I'd like to give one anyway. My sister hasn't made the best decisions, and dropped out of college to move in with her boyfriend. They lived with his mother for a while, and lived on food stamps and in poverty. During this time, they had access to an Xbox 360, a car, cell phones, and a television. Their living situation was terrible by normal standards, and yet their standard of living would have been seen as good or even great by 1950 standards.

eli_gottlieb 14y ago
I don't even see how this can be argued. Simple: median real wages HAVE NOT RISEN AT ALL since 1970, while the cost of living (particularly prices for housing, health-care, education and energy) has... a lot. So you can say that consumer technology has increased the quality of life in a non-tangible, non-quantified way. But in all the quantified ways, things are getting worse: people are losing the incomes that enabled them to access consumer goods (like consumer technologies) in the first place. There are also many complaints about "kids these days", that a current-day education is "inflated" and less worthwhile or indicative of anything than a past one. The poor don't have mobile phones because they can afford luxuries, they have them because mobile phones have become very, very cheap and, in some cases, government-subsidized. As to life-expectancy, it's actually started to tick slightly downward for young people today since the Recession started. Infant mortality, too. So, indicators that have gotten better over the past four decades: educational levels, life expectancy, infant mortality, crime rates (they're down quite a bit). Indicators that got worse in the past four decades: housing, health-care, education and energy costs, real wages, working hours (they increased noticeably). Indicators that started getting worse since 5 years ago: all of the above.
- rthomas6 14y ago
  In that case, maybe I'm wrong. If it is really true that the base cost of living has risen compared to real wages, then I'm wrong. I wonder if someone were able to only buy amenities and luxuries to create a standard of living comparable to the median standard of living in 1970, would it cost more or less in real wages? Or the same? My premise was that it would cost less even though real wages have not risen, because one would not have to buy as much to live like 1970 compared to how the average US citizen lives today. Similar to how mobile phones, computers, and the like are cheaper today. But if it's true that 1970's-comparable housing, health care, education, etc. costs have all risen, then you're right... the standard of living in some ways could be considered to be lower today than in 1970. Which is really effed up.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    I'd advise giving this a watch. The data has surprised everyone, including the people researching it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

eli_gottlieb 14y ago

I don't even see how this can be argued. Simple: median real wages HAVE NOT RISEN AT ALL since 1970, while the cost of living (particularly prices for housing, health-care, education and energy) has... a lot. So you can say that consumer technology has increased the quality of life in a non-tangible, non-quantified way. But in all the quantified ways, things are getting worse: people are losing the incomes that enabled them to access consumer goods (like consumer technologies) in the first place. There are also many complaints about "kids these days", that a current-day education is "inflated" and less worthwhile or indicative of anything than a past one. The poor don't have mobile phones because they can afford luxuries, they have them because mobile phones have become very, very cheap and, in some cases, government-subsidized. As to life-expectancy, it's actually started to tick slightly downward for young people today since the Recession started. Infant mortality, too. So, indicators that have gotten better over the past four decades: educational levels, life expectancy, infant mortality, crime rates (they're down quite a bit). Indicators that got worse in the past four decades: housing, health-care, education and energy costs, real wages, working hours (they increased noticeably). Indicators that started getting worse since 5 years ago: all of the above.

rthomas6 14y ago
In that case, maybe I'm wrong. If it is really true that the base cost of living has risen compared to real wages, then I'm wrong. I wonder if someone were able to only buy amenities and luxuries to create a standard of living comparable to the median standard of living in 1970, would it cost more or less in real wages? Or the same? My premise was that it would cost less even though real wages have not risen, because one would not have to buy as much to live like 1970 compared to how the average US citizen lives today. Similar to how mobile phones, computers, and the like are cheaper today. But if it's true that 1970's-comparable housing, health care, education, etc. costs have all risen, then you're right... the standard of living in some ways could be considered to be lower today than in 1970. Which is really effed up.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  I'd advise giving this a watch. The data has surprised everyone, including the people researching it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A