7 ms·

I don't know if it's funny or sad. Remember how economists predicted that productivity increase would lead to everyone being richer and having to work fewer hou

I don't know if it's funny or sad. Remember how economists predicted that productivity increase would lead to everyone being richer and having to work fewer hours? Yeah...

chongli 11y ago
It will happen, just don't expect "the invisible hand of the market" to do it. The mechanism for bringing about these benefits will be political in nature.
- dylanjermiah 11y ago
  I don't know if you missed it, but everyone(for the most part) are far better off than 10, 20, 30 etc years ago. I'd say in spite of the politics.
  - bduerst 11y ago
    Not according to the growing wealth gap in the U.S. If you considered the entire globe, then yes, there are growing middle classes in certain Asian and Latin American countries.
    - dylanjermiah 11y ago
      Wealth gap is meaningless to me. I care about quality of life, which has dramatically increased.
      - bduerst 11y ago
        Quality of life has increased because of technological advancements. To say that we shouldn't care about the growing wealth gap because the world has smart phones is disingenuous.
        dylanjermiah 11y ago
        I care little for how much X has compared to Y. I do not see any use for the comparison, other than for media headlines. I'd say that singling out smartphones is disingenuous. The advancement of every industry has caused the lives of almost everyone to increase dramatically, the advancement has also created a lot of wealth, which is also the byproduct of an increase in industry. I've yet to see anyone explain empirically why it's bad that x has more wealth than y. I'm open to being swayed by data.
  - adevine 11y ago
    This is demonstrably false, and speaks of the "tyranny of averages". Yes, worldwide, huge reductions of poverty, largely in Asia, have let to increases. For the average middle class worker in the US, however, things have barely budged in decades. When you take into account growing inequality, and the fact that limited resources (like housing near city centers) will always go to the wealthiest, it's easy to argue the average middle class worker is substantially worse off. See http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor... , and this quote: "In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today."
    - forgetsusername 11y ago
      >This is demonstrably false No, it isn't "demonstrably false". It's true by almost every metric. >For the average middle class worker in the US, however" Well, if the US middle class were somehow more important than workers elsewhere around the world, this would matter. They aren't, so it doesn't.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      If real waves dropped, you should be able to name a good or service (besides obsolete ones like land lines) which we consume less of today than in the past. In fact, most goods/services should satisfy this. So please, name them.
      - eru 11y ago
        Lard?
      - adevine 11y ago
        Hourly wages have dropped. Household wages have risen, mostly due to women entering the work force.
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
Zigurd 11y ago
Well it probably would happen if economists were managers and owners.
krstck 11y ago
This seems to be the case as long as consumption continues to scale. I think you can come close to approximating a circa 1950's standard of living on very little income.
- rebeccaskinner 11y ago
  I'm not really sure if that's the case- I'd have to do a lot more research to know if my instincts are anywhere near accurate here, but I suspect that while most people these days have access to more luxury goods than people in the 50's, it's mostly because the cost of luxury goods relative to essential goods has decreased drastically. I think that food and housing are far less affordable for people these days.
  - krstck 11y ago
    Yeah, I'm sure they aren't directly comparable. I'm just trying to describe my general feeling of "life as we know it" will somehow always manage to make itself more and more expensive, no matter how many productivity gains we experience. I'm skeptical of how a basic income can address this - wouldn't living off of the BI be equivalent to the frowned-upon practice of living off of welfare? I need to research this area more.
    - minthd 11y ago
      It's hard to judge stuff from today's world, where all the system is geared towards growth and consumption. But it wasn't always like this. there we're periods in history or different cultures when people desired different things, so there's no reason for it not to happen again. As for real human needs , like healthcare - it seems to be that with technology ,at some point in time, they will be fully solved, so no need for further growth.
  - aetherson 11y ago
    This page (http://www.fiftiesweb.com/pop/prices-1955.htm http://www.fiftiesweb.com/pop/prices-1955.htm) suggests that the average income in 1955 was $4,137, and a house cost $22,000 (ie, 5.3x an annual income) a loaf of bread cost $0.18 (ie, 0.004% of annual income) Today, a median household income is $51,939 and a median house costs $188,900 (ie, 3.63x an annual income) a loaf of bread costs $2.26 (ie, 0.004% of annual income) Current median income and house prices from Google, loaf of bread cost from http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=United+States http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?coun.... All dollars nominal.
munificent 11y ago
This totally happened too, as long your definition of "everyone" is "the minority of people that are already rich and in power". :(
oldmanjay 11y ago
You seem to be implying there was some sort of scientific consensus instead of populist smoke-blowing.
rokhayakebe 11y ago
That's actually unevitable. Everyone is richer today (in a sense) than 100 years ago, and the quality of life and work has increased for hundreds of millions of people. Imagine all the people who do not have to work the fields due to machinery. Now we just need to further these advances and soon enough we'll have a world where most of the menial work will be automated. At that point there will be a revolution and the rich will be forced to pay a hefty 70% income tax to provide for the 70% of the population not a work.

I don't know if it's funny or sad. Remember how economists predicted that productivity increase would lead to everyone being richer and having to work fewer hours? Yeah...

chongli 11y ago

It will happen, just don't expect "the invisible hand of the market" to do it. The mechanism for bringing about these benefits will be political in nature.

dylanjermiah 11y ago
I don't know if you missed it, but everyone(for the most part) are far better off than 10, 20, 30 etc years ago. I'd say in spite of the politics.
- bduerst 11y ago
  Not according to the growing wealth gap in the U.S. If you considered the entire globe, then yes, there are growing middle classes in certain Asian and Latin American countries.
  - dylanjermiah 11y ago
    Wealth gap is meaningless to me. I care about quality of life, which has dramatically increased.
    - bduerst 11y ago
      Quality of life has increased because of technological advancements. To say that we shouldn't care about the growing wealth gap because the world has smart phones is disingenuous.
      - dylanjermiah 11y ago
        I care little for how much X has compared to Y. I do not see any use for the comparison, other than for media headlines. I'd say that singling out smartphones is disingenuous. The advancement of every industry has caused the lives of almost everyone to increase dramatically, the advancement has also created a lot of wealth, which is also the byproduct of an increase in industry. I've yet to see anyone explain empirically why it's bad that x has more wealth than y. I'm open to being swayed by data.
- adevine 11y ago
  This is demonstrably false, and speaks of the "tyranny of averages". Yes, worldwide, huge reductions of poverty, largely in Asia, have let to increases. For the average middle class worker in the US, however, things have barely budged in decades. When you take into account growing inequality, and the fact that limited resources (like housing near city centers) will always go to the wealthiest, it's easy to argue the average middle class worker is substantially worse off. See http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor... , and this quote: "In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today."
  - forgetsusername 11y ago
    >This is demonstrably false No, it isn't "demonstrably false". It's true by almost every metric. >For the average middle class worker in the US, however" Well, if the US middle class were somehow more important than workers elsewhere around the world, this would matter. They aren't, so it doesn't.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    If real waves dropped, you should be able to name a good or service (besides obsolete ones like land lines) which we consume less of today than in the past. In fact, most goods/services should satisfy this. So please, name them.
    - eru 11y ago
      Lard?
    - adevine 11y ago
      Hourly wages have dropped. Household wages have risen, mostly due to women entering the work force.
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago

Zigurd 11y ago

Well it probably would happen if economists were managers and owners.

krstck 11y ago

This seems to be the case as long as consumption continues to scale. I think you can come close to approximating a circa 1950's standard of living on very little income.

rebeccaskinner 11y ago
I'm not really sure if that's the case- I'd have to do a lot more research to know if my instincts are anywhere near accurate here, but I suspect that while most people these days have access to more luxury goods than people in the 50's, it's mostly because the cost of luxury goods relative to essential goods has decreased drastically. I think that food and housing are far less affordable for people these days.
- krstck 11y ago
  Yeah, I'm sure they aren't directly comparable. I'm just trying to describe my general feeling of "life as we know it" will somehow always manage to make itself more and more expensive, no matter how many productivity gains we experience. I'm skeptical of how a basic income can address this - wouldn't living off of the BI be equivalent to the frowned-upon practice of living off of welfare? I need to research this area more.
  - minthd 11y ago
    It's hard to judge stuff from today's world, where all the system is geared towards growth and consumption. But it wasn't always like this. there we're periods in history or different cultures when people desired different things, so there's no reason for it not to happen again. As for real human needs , like healthcare - it seems to be that with technology ,at some point in time, they will be fully solved, so no need for further growth.
- aetherson 11y ago
  This page (http://www.fiftiesweb.com/pop/prices-1955.htm http://www.fiftiesweb.com/pop/prices-1955.htm) suggests that the average income in 1955 was $4,137, and a house cost $22,000 (ie, 5.3x an annual income) a loaf of bread cost $0.18 (ie, 0.004% of annual income) Today, a median household income is $51,939 and a median house costs $188,900 (ie, 3.63x an annual income) a loaf of bread costs $2.26 (ie, 0.004% of annual income) Current median income and house prices from Google, loaf of bread cost from http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=United+States http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?coun.... All dollars nominal.

munificent 11y ago

This totally happened too, as long your definition of "everyone" is "the minority of people that are already rich and in power". :(

oldmanjay 11y ago

You seem to be implying there was some sort of scientific consensus instead of populist smoke-blowing.

rokhayakebe 11y ago

That's actually unevitable. Everyone is richer today (in a sense) than 100 years ago, and the quality of life and work has increased for hundreds of millions of people. Imagine all the people who do not have to work the fields due to machinery. Now we just need to further these advances and soon enough we'll have a world where most of the menial work will be automated. At that point there will be a revolution and the rich will be forced to pay a hefty 70% income tax to provide for the 70% of the population not a work.