6 ms·

I think focusing on income disparity or income growth over time is missing the point. I personally would rather be making 100k today than 100k in the 1950s. Hel

by bko 11y ago

I think focusing on income disparity or income growth over time is missing the point. I personally would rather be making 100k today than 100k in the 1950s. Hell, I think you'd be better off making 50k today than 100k in 1950s. Many people in the lower or lower-middle class don't feel that they are really that bad off, despite what charlatans go on about. Sure, everyone complains that they don't make enough money or they work too hard, but that's not unique to any particular socio-economic class. As Andy Warhol said: "What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it. "

Nadya 11y ago
Andy Warhol's quote is misleading by using only a single example. How about luxury cars? Multi-million dollar homes? Lobster and steak at a 5-star restaurant? $200,000 dresses? $14,000 jewelry? Affording a personal makeup artist? Is the average consumer drinking some Henri Jayer or Domaine? No. They aren't drinking $5,000-$15,000 wine. On another note - I had no idea there was a bottle of wine worth more than my car. That's a little depressing.
- unethical_ban 11y ago
  I've had the opportunity to taste from a $500 bottle of wine. It it not substantially better than a $30 bottle. Same with a $150 steak vs. a $50 steak at a good restaurant.
  - TwiztidK 11y ago
    I totally agree with you, but poor people aren't drinking $30 bottles of wine or eating $50 steaks. At least not the poor people I know. They'd drink <$5 bottles of wine and they would eat whatever steak was on sale at the grocery store for a few dollars a pound.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    I've had the opportunity to drive a luxury model car - and I can say it is definitely better than my junker. Having a large mansion is definitely better than a shared 1-bedroom apartment for an entire family. Your argument about taste is missing my point: luxury brands and luxury class products only available to the rich exist and are different than a Coke. Think of it like having a Coke or having a $4,000 Coke that tastes more or less the same. The argument was that it was the same product and that if you go to the store and buy a Coke, you're drinking the same Coke that Taylor Swift drinks when she goes to McDonalds, where she eats the same McDonalds you eat. But if she buys a $14,000 bottle of wine - regardless if you think 2 buck Chuck tastes exactly like that bottle of wine - it is not the same. It's a different product. One marketed as more luxurious. Something outside of your reach. A watch is a watch is a watch. Unless you have a Rolex.
    - mfoy_ 11y ago
      >A watch is a watch is a watch. Unless you have a Rolex. In which case you have a rather fancy watch, but a watch nonetheless.
      - Nadya 11y ago
        A fancy watch that is better than the one the bum on the street is using that also appreciates in value rather than becoming worthless. (A Coke isn't a Coke in this case.) This ebay discussion article points out the difference between a Rolex and a $20 Timex. Skip over prestige: quality and investment matter more in this case. http://www.ebay.com/gds/WHY-SHOULD-I-BUY-A-HIGH-END-WATCH-LIKE-ROLEX-OR-OMEGA-/10000000006342403/g.html http://www.ebay.com/gds/WHY-SHOULD-I-BUY-A-HIGH-END-WATCH-LI...
        mfoy_ 11y ago
        1. Prestige = status symbol. OK. We get it. 2. Quality... Well, my phone is my watch. Moot point. I'm not buying and discarding $20 Timex's every year. Not to mention this says you could keep the watch and your children could inherit and it would be worth more and it totally will still be a thing, just like beanie babies, right? What could go wrong? 3. Investment? There are plenty of other investment vehicles with a lower barrier of entry and less risk. Anything that is collectible can be called an investment, using this as a reason to buy a luxury watch is not very compelling. Luxury items are just that... luxury items. EDIT: Also that article is about buying pre-owned watches which means a serious investment in time and energy in finding a good quality watch from an individual who is willing to sell it at a low(ish) price. This makes the whole thing more of a hobby than anything else...
  - pp19dd 11y ago
    Hosted some guests the other night and made steak. They were amazed by how well it tasted. I took that as a compliment, because they regularly eat luxurious and expensive food (they work high up in the Cruise Line Industry.) Was asked what I put in the steak to make it taste so good. "Salt."
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I've had the same thing (although not with people so experienced with the stuff as you). It's kind of funny how badly people want to season their steaks when it just doesn't need it. "How do you make that?" "Salt, cook one side, cook the other side, serve."
      - pp19dd 11y ago
        Yeah. Dry-brined the meat for 1 hour with kosher salt and then washed the steaks right before grilling. Seared both sides for a minute a piece, then cooked rest over low temperature. It was surprisingly good, even to me.
    - Cthulhu_ 11y ago
      It is known that 90% or so of the price of luxury foodstuffs is the story attached to it; if you'd say "I butchered a prime cow myself in Argentina and dry-aged it in my secret room for 31 days" or something like that, it would've sounded more impressive. But that's just the thing; most people are far too grounded to buy into that stuff. Or they couldn't afford it. I think there's more to food than just the food, and the story around it can influence one's experience of it.
  - beachstartup 11y ago
    i beg to differ. whether or not it's worth $500 is another matter entirely, and totally subjective, but a bottle of cristal champagne tastes a hell of a lot better than a middling $30 bottle of bubbly you can buy at the supermarket. and fwiw, a bottle of cristal (or any $500 restaurant bottle) doesn't cost nearly that much if you buy it yourself. the real price is like $150-$250. same goes for the steak. the last expensive steak i had was $120 menu price, a grass-fed wagyu-style aged tomahawk ribeye - it was significantly better tasting than a $50 'good restaurant' steak which is just a standard usda prime or lesser steal marked up by 2x. a bottle of cristal or a high end aged steak - these things are unquestionably better than their downmarket alternatives - but where this value spectrum goes off the rails is when you get into the really expensive stuff, the stuff that only very rich people are competing to buy.
  - roflchoppa 11y ago
    thats because you're a peasant.
  - rsync 11y ago
    Anecdote: I have found that quality scales much further with price when the consumable is raw fish. Which is to say, I have not yet hit a value ceiling on how much I pay for very, very good sashimi. And believe me, I've tried.
- bko 11y ago
  I personally think all those things are overrated and more of status symbols. Think about technology, design, ideas, entertainment, coca-cola formula etc. Those are infinitely reproducible and are catered to the masses. On the subway I see all walks of life with the best cell phone(s) money can buy which is kind of great when you think about it. It's funny when companies like Vertu try to make cell "premium" technology items that are obviously inferior to your standard Samsung phone despite the little bit of leather and concierge service. But they get away with it and charge up to 12k for their phone. But I honestly don't think I'm missing out. Also, I can't express how much satisfaction I get from beautifully made TV series. World class entertainment all for about $10 a month to HBO or Netflix. http://www.vertu.com/us/en/home http://www.vertu.com/us/en/home
  - acconrad 11y ago
    > On the subway I see all walks of life with the best cell phone(s) money can buy which is kind of great when you think about it. Is it great, or is it simply a case of poor financial management and/or contract incentives placed by bullying cell phone companies like Verizon to lock people into paralyzing contracts? I am skeptical that a $600 iPhone is affordable to the masses when you factor in the insanely expensive cell phones plans that they're attached to in order to make the up-front costs seem affordable at the time of purchase.
    - bko 11y ago
      Well the $600 is the retail price. It's $200 for most plans but you pay the remaining $400 over 2 years in the form of higher "on-contract" prices. $600 is a bargain considering that this is a super-computer from a few decades. Besides, I can't think of another consumer product that plays a more integral part of modern life (keeping in touch with friends, banking, entertainment, work, etc). Of course there are lower cost alternatives that are probably equally as functional
    - Cthulhu_ 11y ago
      $600 is a third or a quarter of what a PC setup cost my dad 20ish years ago, and that didn't even have internet. And that's not even counting inflation.
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  To add to unethical_ben's point: Similarly a gargantuan mansion only compels you to fill it with furnishings, it doesn't directly improve your quality of life... maybe it's just me personally but as long as I have enough space to live comfortably (subjective, of course) I don't see the appeal of having more space. Furthermore, luxury cars don't particularly offer you anything but a status symbol... even if you can go 0 to 100 in under 5 seconds it won't matter in city driving. The only thing that IS worth mentioning is affordable healthcare and education which have extremely high costs and equally huge impacts on QoL-- which is why there is so much conversation about those facets of life. No one cares that you could spend $200,000 on a dress. That being said, as a Canadian, I don't really have to worry too much about the healthcare part and our tuition fees are generally much cheaper as well. The only compelling reason I have to aim for a "higher class" lifestyle is simply because I wouldn't be fulfilled working a "low class" job. So if you're content working a mindless job and living in slightly sub-par conditions then there's no real reason to "rise up".
- stephengillie 11y ago
  Please remember that prices are usually set based on what people are willing to pay. The original cost for the object is rarely reflected in the price. Especially for premium items. Find me someone willing to pay $15,000 for a bottle of wine, and I will provide a bottle of wine they can buy for $15,000. I make no guarantees that it's not $3 Chuck. These things are about the prestige of being able to spend so much money. It's a different class of economics.
- rsync 11y ago
  "They aren't drinking $5,000-$15,000 wine." A $12 bottle of wine circa 2015 is (almost) universally better than any wine at any price in 1950. That's well understood and not controversial. Cleanliness, quality control and production practices that even a home vintner would take for granted were virtually nonexistent at that time.
- daodedickinson 11y ago
  Dopamine is dopamine. Why is moving your hedonic treadmill here or there "better"? Some want to move the rich guy's "backward" to "save the planet". Some want to move the poor girl's "forward" to "grow the economy". There is no bottle of wine worth more than your car, there are people for whom money is cheaper than you who will trade more money for a bottle of wine than you will for a car.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    >There is no bottle of wine worth more than your car, there are people for whom money is cheaper than you who will trade more money for a bottle of wine than you will for a car. Economically speaking, "this item is worth $x and won't be sold for less than $x", there is wine worth more than my car. That statement is an economic fact. I'm not going to sit here and argue over the semantics of the word "worth". For someone to try and twist the context of my speech in such a way is being intellectually dishonest and they know it. Worth as in cost not personal value.
    - daodedickinson 11y ago
      No. Prices are not economic fact. They are opinions. Prices in markets are in constant fluctuation. The price of gas is in part geographically determined. Wine and vehicles are the same way. Every price is relative to who is selling, who is buying, their moods, the setting, their histories... if one changes their opinion of a wine, its price probably changes. No one can say ever that "this will never sell for less than $X" with certainty. A luxury car may be donated, or given away. Some may even pay to have one taken off their hands. This may offer opportunities for arbitrage but the concept of worth independent of price must always be kept in view or the viewer is in an economic cave.
Chinjut 11y ago
Of course you'd rather live in the present than in the past; you grew up in contemporary times and are accustomed to them. Everything else is foreign and thus intimidating. The fellow who grew up in the 1950s might symmetrically prefer their time to ours, again having been inculcated with the mindset of their own era; things like computers, cellphones, and the Internet which are indispensable to you may not mean quite as much to them. Such things may not be enough to cause them to overlook changes in the landscape of income inequality, career security, etc. So the mere fact that you, a native of the 2010s, prefer them to the 1950s doesn't make any strong point on its own.
- nate_meurer 11y ago
  How do you kow bko didn't grow up in the 50's? My parents did, and they sure as shit don't want to go back. I grew up in the 80's, before Internet and the access to knowledge it gives me, and before cell phones and the freedom of communication they give me. Guess which time period I find more to my liking.
  - collyw 11y ago
    music was better in the 80's
    - icebraining 11y ago
      But nowadays you have much easier access to 80s music than you did in the 80s. Not to mention a lot of 80s-style music made after the 80s (like Synthwave).
  - Chinjut 11y ago
    You are right; I don't know bko was not around in the 1950s. I should clarify, however, that comparing adult life in the 2010s and adult life in the 1950s is different from comparing adult life in the 2010s and child life in the 1950s. It is possible, but unlikely, that bko was thinking about income and career stresses and managing a family and so on both in the 1950s and in the 2010s, in such a way as would allow an apples-to-apples comparison. It's not that I want to say life in the 1950s was actually better; I just take issue with the soundness of this kind of argument to dismiss concerns about trends in income inequality, etc. My general point is something along the lines of what Matt Bruenig expounds on here: http://www.demos.org/blog/6/16/15/people-arent-better-income-trends-show http://www.demos.org/blog/6/16/15/people-arent-better-income...
bluedino 11y ago
You and I drink a Coke that was $3.99 for a 12-pack. The richest consumers drink a $7 Coke out of the minibar. Or they drink a $10 kale smoothie because Coke isn't the healthiest thing you can put in your body.
anon4327733 11y ago
Poor people don't make 100k a year. Consider your hypothetical again for 20k a year and even 5 dollars a year. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/12/comparing-living-standards-over-time.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/12/com...
- stephengillie 11y ago
  I know people that make $20k per year. Their rental house is full of old PCs, hand-me-down phones, and board games they got by splitting the price with others. They're still better off than people making $20k in 1955.
  - artmageddon 11y ago
    People making $20k in 1955 probably weren't really risking utter financial collapse if they didn't get their next paycheck the way people who only make $20k are today.
badsock 11y ago
I don't think the issue is material comfort as much as it is worsening conditions and insecurity around employment. A 1950s employee wasn't subjected to credit or other background checks to get hired, zero-hour contracts weren't around, and neither was the culture of working 60+ hours a week just to keep up appearances. I see the rise in income inequality primarily as a reflection of the power dynamic between the wealthly and those that work for a living. The lower quintiles are getting the screws put down on them, and they're just taking it.
- jdmichal 11y ago
  You also missed the huge transition from one-earner to two-earner households.
  - badsock 11y ago
    I'd frame that as a one-time transition from the 1960s to the 1980s, but things have been getting progressively worse for wage-earners from the 1990s onward as well.
  - pdiddy 11y ago
    Which coincides with a large increase in bankruptcies due to the "two-income trap."
- bko 11y ago
  Yeah, the 50s were great. Unless you were black, gay, female or an immigrant.
- rsync 11y ago
  "A 1950s employee wasn't subjected to credit or other background checks to get hired, zero-hour contracts weren't around, and neither was the culture of working 60+ hours a week just to keep up appearances." 1950s employees were subject to skin color and gender tests to a much, much greater degree than today. Further, family structure, church attendance, sexuality ... all of these were fairly stringent tests at that time.
bwanab 11y ago
I can understand why you'd say that as we have access to unimaginable technological wealth that couldn't be purchased at any price in 1950, but I think you might be seriously underestimating the lifestyle that a $100k salary would have allowed you at the time.
fowkswe 11y ago
Andy Warhol was a system fucker, not a sociologist. That's a clever comment, but it does not frame this picture in any way. I think you aren't quite aware of what American poverty is, nor the message this article is trying to propagate. It's not someone making 50k that is suffering, its someone making 12k and trying to support more than just themselves. They are making this income working multiple, minimum wage jobs and they have no recourse. It's a single mother with 3 kids who can't parent them because she works 14 hours a day. The kids grow up fatherless. Their role models are selling them sex, drugs and murder. Video games are their passion, not learning or educational development. This cycle repeats itself over generations. The poor have some semblance of a roof, cheap fast food and entertainment and that is enough to make them complacent. To them, demanding better education, other options than minimum wage jobs, health care, or other social safety-net benefits aren't even arguments they can fathom to make.
enraged_camel 11y ago
I find Warhol's quote extremely short-sighted. The reason income inequality is a humongous problem is because it directly leads to inequality in power and influence. Rich people can lobby politicians much more effectively and use their wealth to get policies enacted that benefit them, usually at the expense of the poor. They can also manipulate the masses by subverting mass communication channels and convince people that their being rich benefits everyone (e.g. "trickle-down economics" and the general worship of and rhetoric around "job creators").
acconrad 11y ago
> Many people in the lower or lower-middle class don't feel that they are really that bad off Do you have a source to back up such a sweeping generalization?
mikeash 11y ago
I think a lot depends on what you prioritize. A lot of people, including myself and I'm guessing you, would much rather be in 2015 than 1950 almost regardless of money, because we really like things like computers. To be poor today, or super rich in 1950? That's a really tough call, what with no internet access or game consoles. What good is being rich if you can't use that money to play GTA V on an unreasonably gigantic TV? What good is leisure time if I can't use it to hack on computers? Lots of other people don't care nearly so much about those things. They might see the ability to access health care and higher education without going into bankruptcy to be more important. Health care technology is a lot better today, but access is not so good, and that was especially so before the recent reforms. If you make $50,000 a year in 2015 and break your leg there's a decent chance that you'll end up deep in debt because of it, which was not the case in 1950. Would you rather have gadgets or a pension? Improved stroke treatment, or job security? Techies tend to value gadgets a lot and job security little, since getting a new job is usually pretty easy. A lot of other people would value it the other way. I'm sure you're right that a lot of people on the poorer end of things don't feel all that bad off. The question is, why don't they? They've been getting shafted for decades, with zero or negative wage growth even while their employers figure out ways to make them ever more productive, so why don't they care?
c22 11y ago
A lot of the poor people I know drink those grocery store brand colas because they're cheaper.
pdiddy 11y ago
I would encourage anyone who hasn't read The Second Machine Age to check out the discussion of this topic. It is true, as you say, that a relatively poor person and a billionaire can both have the same iPhone. The contrary side of that is when it comes to paying for something like education. The cost of education is increasing very rapidly and student loans can be crippling. That is not great for society, let alone those stuck with the debt.
ConfuciusSay 11y ago
Umm, 100k/year in 1950 would be roughly $994,966/year today. You're seriously going to argue you'd rather get paid 10 times less? Because you can buy cokes like celebrities? What is this nonsense? This sounds like the Fox News "poors shouldn't complain because they have phones and fridges" argument.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
deciplex 11y ago
It seems like I say this every time we have this thread, but anyway here goes: The problem here is not that massive, nearly record-setting levels of wealth disparity are unfair, or even that people are unhappy. If everyone, or nearly everyone, is materially taken care of, it can be difficult to talk about fairness or happiness. What we're losing out on isn't fairness but self-determination - a democracy can't survive long if a fraction of a percent of the population controls half the wealth. Wealth may not literally equal power, but there is an exchange rate there and it stays pretty stable over time. If a concentration of wealth leads to a concentration of power, that will undermine a democracy which can only work if power is relatively more diffuse. We may be finding out the hard way that capitalism and democracy are not compatible, and if they aren't then so far capitalism appears to be winning.
interesting_att 11y ago
Most people would agree living today would be better than the 1950s. We have 60 years of social progress and 60 years of technological advancement. Economic inequality isn't inherently bad, per se. But in America, it is usually a signifier for two things: the effects of poverty and corruption. Yes, the rich and poor both drink Coca-Cola. But the poor get put into worse prisons, have access to worse lawyers, have juries that tend to be more biased against them, have worse schools, live in neighborhoods with higher crime rates and more corrupt police forces, have less access to healthcare, etc. The rich, on the other the other hand, have access to lobbyists to use the government to their whim. Remember the poorly constructed bailout?
ajuc 11y ago
On the other hand stuff that matters (like health, security, justice, quality of food, housing, education) are different for poor and rich. Sorry but I fail to see the significance of the same soda drink compared to these. I'd much prefer if education was the same for everybody, and they drink different soda.

by bko 11y ago

Nadya 11y ago

Andy Warhol's quote is misleading by using only a single example. How about luxury cars? Multi-million dollar homes? Lobster and steak at a 5-star restaurant? $200,000 dresses? $14,000 jewelry? Affording a personal makeup artist? Is the average consumer drinking some Henri Jayer or Domaine? No. They aren't drinking $5,000-$15,000 wine. On another note - I had no idea there was a bottle of wine worth more than my car. That's a little depressing.

unethical_ban 11y ago
I've had the opportunity to taste from a $500 bottle of wine. It it not substantially better than a $30 bottle. Same with a $150 steak vs. a $50 steak at a good restaurant.
- TwiztidK 11y ago
  I totally agree with you, but poor people aren't drinking $30 bottles of wine or eating $50 steaks. At least not the poor people I know. They'd drink <$5 bottles of wine and they would eat whatever steak was on sale at the grocery store for a few dollars a pound.
- Nadya 11y ago
  I've had the opportunity to drive a luxury model car - and I can say it is definitely better than my junker. Having a large mansion is definitely better than a shared 1-bedroom apartment for an entire family. Your argument about taste is missing my point: luxury brands and luxury class products only available to the rich exist and are different than a Coke. Think of it like having a Coke or having a $4,000 Coke that tastes more or less the same. The argument was that it was the same product and that if you go to the store and buy a Coke, you're drinking the same Coke that Taylor Swift drinks when she goes to McDonalds, where she eats the same McDonalds you eat. But if she buys a $14,000 bottle of wine - regardless if you think 2 buck Chuck tastes exactly like that bottle of wine - it is not the same. It's a different product. One marketed as more luxurious. Something outside of your reach. A watch is a watch is a watch. Unless you have a Rolex.
  - mfoy_ 11y ago
    >A watch is a watch is a watch. Unless you have a Rolex. In which case you have a rather fancy watch, but a watch nonetheless.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      A fancy watch that is better than the one the bum on the street is using that also appreciates in value rather than becoming worthless. (A Coke isn't a Coke in this case.) This ebay discussion article points out the difference between a Rolex and a $20 Timex. Skip over prestige: quality and investment matter more in this case. http://www.ebay.com/gds/WHY-SHOULD-I-BUY-A-HIGH-END-WATCH-LIKE-ROLEX-OR-OMEGA-/10000000006342403/g.html http://www.ebay.com/gds/WHY-SHOULD-I-BUY-A-HIGH-END-WATCH-LI...
      - mfoy_ 11y ago
        1. Prestige = status symbol. OK. We get it. 2. Quality... Well, my phone is my watch. Moot point. I'm not buying and discarding $20 Timex's every year. Not to mention this says you could keep the watch and your children could inherit and it would be worth more and it totally will still be a thing, just like beanie babies, right? What could go wrong? 3. Investment? There are plenty of other investment vehicles with a lower barrier of entry and less risk. Anything that is collectible can be called an investment, using this as a reason to buy a luxury watch is not very compelling. Luxury items are just that... luxury items. EDIT: Also that article is about buying pre-owned watches which means a serious investment in time and energy in finding a good quality watch from an individual who is willing to sell it at a low(ish) price. This makes the whole thing more of a hobby than anything else...
- pp19dd 11y ago
  Hosted some guests the other night and made steak. They were amazed by how well it tasted. I took that as a compliment, because they regularly eat luxurious and expensive food (they work high up in the Cruise Line Industry.) Was asked what I put in the steak to make it taste so good. "Salt."
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I've had the same thing (although not with people so experienced with the stuff as you). It's kind of funny how badly people want to season their steaks when it just doesn't need it. "How do you make that?" "Salt, cook one side, cook the other side, serve."
    - pp19dd 11y ago
      Yeah. Dry-brined the meat for 1 hour with kosher salt and then washed the steaks right before grilling. Seared both sides for a minute a piece, then cooked rest over low temperature. It was surprisingly good, even to me.
  - Cthulhu_ 11y ago
    It is known that 90% or so of the price of luxury foodstuffs is the story attached to it; if you'd say "I butchered a prime cow myself in Argentina and dry-aged it in my secret room for 31 days" or something like that, it would've sounded more impressive. But that's just the thing; most people are far too grounded to buy into that stuff. Or they couldn't afford it. I think there's more to food than just the food, and the story around it can influence one's experience of it.
- beachstartup 11y ago
  i beg to differ. whether or not it's worth $500 is another matter entirely, and totally subjective, but a bottle of cristal champagne tastes a hell of a lot better than a middling $30 bottle of bubbly you can buy at the supermarket. and fwiw, a bottle of cristal (or any $500 restaurant bottle) doesn't cost nearly that much if you buy it yourself. the real price is like $150-$250. same goes for the steak. the last expensive steak i had was $120 menu price, a grass-fed wagyu-style aged tomahawk ribeye - it was significantly better tasting than a $50 'good restaurant' steak which is just a standard usda prime or lesser steal marked up by 2x. a bottle of cristal or a high end aged steak - these things are unquestionably better than their downmarket alternatives - but where this value spectrum goes off the rails is when you get into the really expensive stuff, the stuff that only very rich people are competing to buy.
- roflchoppa 11y ago
  thats because you're a peasant.
- rsync 11y ago
  Anecdote: I have found that quality scales much further with price when the consumable is raw fish. Which is to say, I have not yet hit a value ceiling on how much I pay for very, very good sashimi. And believe me, I've tried.
bko 11y ago
I personally think all those things are overrated and more of status symbols. Think about technology, design, ideas, entertainment, coca-cola formula etc. Those are infinitely reproducible and are catered to the masses. On the subway I see all walks of life with the best cell phone(s) money can buy which is kind of great when you think about it. It's funny when companies like Vertu try to make cell "premium" technology items that are obviously inferior to your standard Samsung phone despite the little bit of leather and concierge service. But they get away with it and charge up to 12k for their phone. But I honestly don't think I'm missing out. Also, I can't express how much satisfaction I get from beautifully made TV series. World class entertainment all for about $10 a month to HBO or Netflix. http://www.vertu.com/us/en/home http://www.vertu.com/us/en/home
- acconrad 11y ago
  > On the subway I see all walks of life with the best cell phone(s) money can buy which is kind of great when you think about it. Is it great, or is it simply a case of poor financial management and/or contract incentives placed by bullying cell phone companies like Verizon to lock people into paralyzing contracts? I am skeptical that a $600 iPhone is affordable to the masses when you factor in the insanely expensive cell phones plans that they're attached to in order to make the up-front costs seem affordable at the time of purchase.
  - bko 11y ago
    Well the $600 is the retail price. It's $200 for most plans but you pay the remaining $400 over 2 years in the form of higher "on-contract" prices. $600 is a bargain considering that this is a super-computer from a few decades. Besides, I can't think of another consumer product that plays a more integral part of modern life (keeping in touch with friends, banking, entertainment, work, etc). Of course there are lower cost alternatives that are probably equally as functional
  - Cthulhu_ 11y ago
    $600 is a third or a quarter of what a PC setup cost my dad 20ish years ago, and that didn't even have internet. And that's not even counting inflation.
mfoy_ 11y ago
To add to unethical_ben's point: Similarly a gargantuan mansion only compels you to fill it with furnishings, it doesn't directly improve your quality of life... maybe it's just me personally but as long as I have enough space to live comfortably (subjective, of course) I don't see the appeal of having more space. Furthermore, luxury cars don't particularly offer you anything but a status symbol... even if you can go 0 to 100 in under 5 seconds it won't matter in city driving. The only thing that IS worth mentioning is affordable healthcare and education which have extremely high costs and equally huge impacts on QoL-- which is why there is so much conversation about those facets of life. No one cares that you could spend $200,000 on a dress. That being said, as a Canadian, I don't really have to worry too much about the healthcare part and our tuition fees are generally much cheaper as well. The only compelling reason I have to aim for a "higher class" lifestyle is simply because I wouldn't be fulfilled working a "low class" job. So if you're content working a mindless job and living in slightly sub-par conditions then there's no real reason to "rise up".
stephengillie 11y ago
Please remember that prices are usually set based on what people are willing to pay. The original cost for the object is rarely reflected in the price. Especially for premium items. Find me someone willing to pay $15,000 for a bottle of wine, and I will provide a bottle of wine they can buy for $15,000. I make no guarantees that it's not $3 Chuck. These things are about the prestige of being able to spend so much money. It's a different class of economics.
rsync 11y ago
"They aren't drinking $5,000-$15,000 wine." A $12 bottle of wine circa 2015 is (almost) universally better than any wine at any price in 1950. That's well understood and not controversial. Cleanliness, quality control and production practices that even a home vintner would take for granted were virtually nonexistent at that time.
daodedickinson 11y ago
Dopamine is dopamine. Why is moving your hedonic treadmill here or there "better"? Some want to move the rich guy's "backward" to "save the planet". Some want to move the poor girl's "forward" to "grow the economy". There is no bottle of wine worth more than your car, there are people for whom money is cheaper than you who will trade more money for a bottle of wine than you will for a car.
- Nadya 11y ago
  >There is no bottle of wine worth more than your car, there are people for whom money is cheaper than you who will trade more money for a bottle of wine than you will for a car. Economically speaking, "this item is worth $x and won't be sold for less than $x", there is wine worth more than my car. That statement is an economic fact. I'm not going to sit here and argue over the semantics of the word "worth". For someone to try and twist the context of my speech in such a way is being intellectually dishonest and they know it. Worth as in cost not personal value.
  - daodedickinson 11y ago
    No. Prices are not economic fact. They are opinions. Prices in markets are in constant fluctuation. The price of gas is in part geographically determined. Wine and vehicles are the same way. Every price is relative to who is selling, who is buying, their moods, the setting, their histories... if one changes their opinion of a wine, its price probably changes. No one can say ever that "this will never sell for less than $X" with certainty. A luxury car may be donated, or given away. Some may even pay to have one taken off their hands. This may offer opportunities for arbitrage but the concept of worth independent of price must always be kept in view or the viewer is in an economic cave.

Chinjut 11y ago

Of course you'd rather live in the present than in the past; you grew up in contemporary times and are accustomed to them. Everything else is foreign and thus intimidating. The fellow who grew up in the 1950s might symmetrically prefer their time to ours, again having been inculcated with the mindset of their own era; things like computers, cellphones, and the Internet which are indispensable to you may not mean quite as much to them. Such things may not be enough to cause them to overlook changes in the landscape of income inequality, career security, etc. So the mere fact that you, a native of the 2010s, prefer them to the 1950s doesn't make any strong point on its own.

nate_meurer 11y ago
How do you kow bko didn't grow up in the 50's? My parents did, and they sure as shit don't want to go back. I grew up in the 80's, before Internet and the access to knowledge it gives me, and before cell phones and the freedom of communication they give me. Guess which time period I find more to my liking.
- collyw 11y ago
  music was better in the 80's
  - icebraining 11y ago
    But nowadays you have much easier access to 80s music than you did in the 80s. Not to mention a lot of 80s-style music made after the 80s (like Synthwave).
- Chinjut 11y ago
  You are right; I don't know bko was not around in the 1950s. I should clarify, however, that comparing adult life in the 2010s and adult life in the 1950s is different from comparing adult life in the 2010s and child life in the 1950s. It is possible, but unlikely, that bko was thinking about income and career stresses and managing a family and so on both in the 1950s and in the 2010s, in such a way as would allow an apples-to-apples comparison. It's not that I want to say life in the 1950s was actually better; I just take issue with the soundness of this kind of argument to dismiss concerns about trends in income inequality, etc. My general point is something along the lines of what Matt Bruenig expounds on here: http://www.demos.org/blog/6/16/15/people-arent-better-income-trends-show http://www.demos.org/blog/6/16/15/people-arent-better-income...

bluedino 11y ago

You and I drink a Coke that was $3.99 for a 12-pack. The richest consumers drink a $7 Coke out of the minibar. Or they drink a $10 kale smoothie because Coke isn't the healthiest thing you can put in your body.

anon4327733 11y ago

Poor people don't make 100k a year. Consider your hypothetical again for 20k a year and even 5 dollars a year. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/12/comparing-living-standards-over-time.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/12/com...

stephengillie 11y ago
I know people that make $20k per year. Their rental house is full of old PCs, hand-me-down phones, and board games they got by splitting the price with others. They're still better off than people making $20k in 1955.
- artmageddon 11y ago
  People making $20k in 1955 probably weren't really risking utter financial collapse if they didn't get their next paycheck the way people who only make $20k are today.

badsock 11y ago

I don't think the issue is material comfort as much as it is worsening conditions and insecurity around employment. A 1950s employee wasn't subjected to credit or other background checks to get hired, zero-hour contracts weren't around, and neither was the culture of working 60+ hours a week just to keep up appearances. I see the rise in income inequality primarily as a reflection of the power dynamic between the wealthly and those that work for a living. The lower quintiles are getting the screws put down on them, and they're just taking it.

jdmichal 11y ago
You also missed the huge transition from one-earner to two-earner households.
- badsock 11y ago
  I'd frame that as a one-time transition from the 1960s to the 1980s, but things have been getting progressively worse for wage-earners from the 1990s onward as well.
- pdiddy 11y ago
  Which coincides with a large increase in bankruptcies due to the "two-income trap."
bko 11y ago
Yeah, the 50s were great. Unless you were black, gay, female or an immigrant.
rsync 11y ago
"A 1950s employee wasn't subjected to credit or other background checks to get hired, zero-hour contracts weren't around, and neither was the culture of working 60+ hours a week just to keep up appearances." 1950s employees were subject to skin color and gender tests to a much, much greater degree than today. Further, family structure, church attendance, sexuality ... all of these were fairly stringent tests at that time.

bwanab 11y ago

I can understand why you'd say that as we have access to unimaginable technological wealth that couldn't be purchased at any price in 1950, but I think you might be seriously underestimating the lifestyle that a $100k salary would have allowed you at the time.

fowkswe 11y ago

Andy Warhol was a system fucker, not a sociologist. That's a clever comment, but it does not frame this picture in any way. I think you aren't quite aware of what American poverty is, nor the message this article is trying to propagate. It's not someone making 50k that is suffering, its someone making 12k and trying to support more than just themselves. They are making this income working multiple, minimum wage jobs and they have no recourse. It's a single mother with 3 kids who can't parent them because she works 14 hours a day. The kids grow up fatherless. Their role models are selling them sex, drugs and murder. Video games are their passion, not learning or educational development. This cycle repeats itself over generations. The poor have some semblance of a roof, cheap fast food and entertainment and that is enough to make them complacent. To them, demanding better education, other options than minimum wage jobs, health care, or other social safety-net benefits aren't even arguments they can fathom to make.

enraged_camel 11y ago

I find Warhol's quote extremely short-sighted. The reason income inequality is a humongous problem is because it directly leads to inequality in power and influence. Rich people can lobby politicians much more effectively and use their wealth to get policies enacted that benefit them, usually at the expense of the poor. They can also manipulate the masses by subverting mass communication channels and convince people that their being rich benefits everyone (e.g. "trickle-down economics" and the general worship of and rhetoric around "job creators").

acconrad 11y ago

> Many people in the lower or lower-middle class don't feel that they are really that bad off Do you have a source to back up such a sweeping generalization?

mikeash 11y ago

I think a lot depends on what you prioritize. A lot of people, including myself and I'm guessing you, would much rather be in 2015 than 1950 almost regardless of money, because we really like things like computers. To be poor today, or super rich in 1950? That's a really tough call, what with no internet access or game consoles. What good is being rich if you can't use that money to play GTA V on an unreasonably gigantic TV? What good is leisure time if I can't use it to hack on computers? Lots of other people don't care nearly so much about those things. They might see the ability to access health care and higher education without going into bankruptcy to be more important. Health care technology is a lot better today, but access is not so good, and that was especially so before the recent reforms. If you make $50,000 a year in 2015 and break your leg there's a decent chance that you'll end up deep in debt because of it, which was not the case in 1950. Would you rather have gadgets or a pension? Improved stroke treatment, or job security? Techies tend to value gadgets a lot and job security little, since getting a new job is usually pretty easy. A lot of other people would value it the other way. I'm sure you're right that a lot of people on the poorer end of things don't feel all that bad off. The question is, why don't they? They've been getting shafted for decades, with zero or negative wage growth even while their employers figure out ways to make them ever more productive, so why don't they care?

c22 11y ago

A lot of the poor people I know drink those grocery store brand colas because they're cheaper.

pdiddy 11y ago

I would encourage anyone who hasn't read The Second Machine Age to check out the discussion of this topic. It is true, as you say, that a relatively poor person and a billionaire can both have the same iPhone. The contrary side of that is when it comes to paying for something like education. The cost of education is increasing very rapidly and student loans can be crippling. That is not great for society, let alone those stuck with the debt.

ConfuciusSay 11y ago

Umm, 100k/year in 1950 would be roughly $994,966/year today. You're seriously going to argue you'd rather get paid 10 times less? Because you can buy cokes like celebrities? What is this nonsense? This sounds like the Fox News "poors shouldn't complain because they have phones and fridges" argument.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

deciplex 11y ago

It seems like I say this every time we have this thread, but anyway here goes: The problem here is not that massive, nearly record-setting levels of wealth disparity are unfair, or even that people are unhappy. If everyone, or nearly everyone, is materially taken care of, it can be difficult to talk about fairness or happiness. What we're losing out on isn't fairness but self-determination - a democracy can't survive long if a fraction of a percent of the population controls half the wealth. Wealth may not literally equal power, but there is an exchange rate there and it stays pretty stable over time. If a concentration of wealth leads to a concentration of power, that will undermine a democracy which can only work if power is relatively more diffuse. We may be finding out the hard way that capitalism and democracy are not compatible, and if they aren't then so far capitalism appears to be winning.

interesting_att 11y ago

Most people would agree living today would be better than the 1950s. We have 60 years of social progress and 60 years of technological advancement. Economic inequality isn't inherently bad, per se. But in America, it is usually a signifier for two things: the effects of poverty and corruption. Yes, the rich and poor both drink Coca-Cola. But the poor get put into worse prisons, have access to worse lawyers, have juries that tend to be more biased against them, have worse schools, live in neighborhoods with higher crime rates and more corrupt police forces, have less access to healthcare, etc. The rich, on the other the other hand, have access to lobbyists to use the government to their whim. Remember the poorly constructed bailout?

ajuc 11y ago

On the other hand stuff that matters (like health, security, justice, quality of food, housing, education) are different for poor and rich. Sorry but I fail to see the significance of the same soda drink compared to these. I'd much prefer if education was the same for everybody, and they drink different soda.