4 ms·

This is so wrong it is ridiculous. Take this example. In 1959 it took one month of an average income to buy a Sears washer dryer. In 2012, it took less than 4 d

by paul_f 13y ago

This is so wrong it is ridiculous. Take this example. In 1959 it took one month of an average income to buy a Sears washer dryer. In 2012, it took less than 4 days average income to buy a far, far better washer dryer. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/12/appliance-shopping-1959-vs-2012/ http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/12/appliance-shopping-1959-vs-...

gaius 13y ago
Sure, now look at buying a house and you will come to the exact opposite conclusion.
- demallien 13y ago
  Yes! This is the point that always seems to be missed when we talk about abundance economics. There are some goods that aren't abundant - housing is one of them. If we can't find a solution to long commutes to work / restaurants / theatre / the beach etc then housing Ina good area will remain a scarce good. It will take a bigger and bigger slice of our income, because we are competing with other people, and the abundance of other products, freeing up that money to be spent on housing. If you want to live in the middle of nowhere, you can buy a house very cheaply - they don't cost very much to build these days (thanks abundance!) but if you want to live on the river front, or in the cafe district, well, be prepared to sink a large percentage of your income into your house. Of course we may end up finding a solution to the constrained housing supply - maybe populations will decrease, or robotic cars will make commutes shorter / less painful, or maybe we will develop virtual living, with people hanging out / working in virtual reality, not real reality. Housing isn't the only scarce good. Being able to go to a live performance of your favourite band, and indeed the host of things that you can't do today at any price are other examples. But housing is far and away the scarce good that has the largest impact on most of us, and that is only going to continue to grow in importance in the near term.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  A quick google search suggests home ownership has increased, and people are buying much larger houses than before. So no, looking at buying a house gives the same conclusion. http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?OpenDocument http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?Ope...
  - gaius 13y ago
    You'll also find more households with two incomes. The quality-of-life arguments about the 50s and 60s are that a family with a single income from a blue-collar worker could afford a nice middle-class lifestyle, including buying a house.
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      See my links here. Hours worked per capita have not increased significantly (data moves around a lot, no real trend). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6667824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6667824

by paul_f 13y ago

gaius 13y ago

Sure, now look at buying a house and you will come to the exact opposite conclusion.

demallien 13y ago
Yes! This is the point that always seems to be missed when we talk about abundance economics. There are some goods that aren't abundant - housing is one of them. If we can't find a solution to long commutes to work / restaurants / theatre / the beach etc then housing Ina good area will remain a scarce good. It will take a bigger and bigger slice of our income, because we are competing with other people, and the abundance of other products, freeing up that money to be spent on housing. If you want to live in the middle of nowhere, you can buy a house very cheaply - they don't cost very much to build these days (thanks abundance!) but if you want to live on the river front, or in the cafe district, well, be prepared to sink a large percentage of your income into your house. Of course we may end up finding a solution to the constrained housing supply - maybe populations will decrease, or robotic cars will make commutes shorter / less painful, or maybe we will develop virtual living, with people hanging out / working in virtual reality, not real reality. Housing isn't the only scarce good. Being able to go to a live performance of your favourite band, and indeed the host of things that you can't do today at any price are other examples. But housing is far and away the scarce good that has the largest impact on most of us, and that is only going to continue to grow in importance in the near term.
yummyfajitas 13y ago
A quick google search suggests home ownership has increased, and people are buying much larger houses than before. So no, looking at buying a house gives the same conclusion. http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?OpenDocument http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?Ope...
- gaius 13y ago
  You'll also find more households with two incomes. The quality-of-life arguments about the 50s and 60s are that a family with a single income from a blue-collar worker could afford a nice middle-class lifestyle, including buying a house.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    See my links here. Hours worked per capita have not increased significantly (data moves around a lot, no real trend). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6667824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6667824