| ▲ | 0sdi 3 hours ago |
| Someone is siphoning your value. It's quite obvious when you track the productivity, or ask questions about how did your great-grandpa survive at all without machines. Just stating the obvious, don't mind me. |
|
| ▲ | JamesBarney 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| They lived in a house or apt with a third the sqft/person that was far more likely to catch fire and didn't have AC. If they had a car they most likely shared it. It was far less safe, didn't have AC, guzzled gas and polluted. Never ate out and spent a third of earnings on cheap grocery store staples. College and healthcare was much cheaper, and they got a lot less of it. We're benefiting greatly from the increase in productivity. We just view our great-grandfather luxuries as our necessities. |
| |
| ▲ | lp4v4n 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >They lived in a house or apt with a third the sqft/person that was far more likely to catch fire and didn't have AC. But at least they could afford a house, right? I think a lot of people would accept living in a house without AC and more likely to catch fire. Is a house like that cheap today? No, right? It's crazy expensive as well. >If they had a car they most likely shared it. It was far less safe, didn't have AC, guzzled gas and polluted. Car technology in the past was worse, we know that. Cars were more affordable though. >Never ate out and spent a third of earnings on cheap grocery store staples. Like today then. >We're benefiting greatly from the increase in productivity. We just view our great-grandfather luxuries as our necessities. Young people are rotting at home unable to go ahead with their lives because wages nowadays are not enough to pay for a house and a family. Why do people try to deny this obvious reality? Productivity didn't benefit everyone equally and people in the past had more opportunities to build a life inside a standard that was socially acceptable. | | |
| ▲ | JamesBarney 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | >But at least they could afford a house, right? I think a lot of people would accept living in a house without AC and more likely to catch fire. Is a house like that cheap today? No, right? It's crazy expensive as well. I don't know many people who would rather live in a house without climate control than an apartment. A house from 1936 with no improvements is worth very little. When purchasing a house like that you're mostly buying the land. > Car technology in the past was worse, we know that. Cars were more affordable though. Car ownership in 1936 was far below what it is today. > Like today then. No, groceries were far more expensive. You can buy far more gallons of milks, eggs, lbs of ground beef, or potatoes at today's prices with todays median wage than you could in 1936 on the 1936 median wage. We have records of how much people made, and the cost of basic staples. This isn't something you need to guess about you can just google it. > Young people are rotting at home unable to go ahead with their lives because wages nowadays are not enough to pay for a house and a family. Why do people try to deny this obvious reality? Productivity didn't benefit everyone equally and people in the past had more opportunities to build a life inside a standard that was socially acceptable. Because 100 years of data says that this is a difference in expectations vs people being poorer. Yeah housing is more expensive than it should be due to regulation but despite that people are still much better off. | |
| ▲ | labcomputer 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Cars were more affordable though. Eehhhh... I really don't think that's true. First, adjusted for inflation, new car prices really aren't that different than they were 10-30-50-70 years ago. You have to compare like for like, no cheating comparing a modern luxury car to Ford Pinto. For example the cheapest car in 1970 cost about $2000, with no frills like a radio, passenger wing mirror or floor matts. That's equivalent to about $17000 today. A base Nissan Versa today starts at $18000, yet includes power windows and an A/C. Second, the maintenance requirements today are much, much lower than in the past. There's a whole list of expensive stuff you just don't have to think about with modern cars until long after those old cars would be at the junk yard (chassis lube, spark plugs, spark plug wires, carb and distributor, wheel bearings etc). That's a lot of labor you don't pay for, to say nothing of the parts! Third, despite being heavier, more convenient and safer, modern cars have lower fuel consumption. Coming back to our Pinto vs Versa example, the Versa gets at least 50% better fuel economy. Fourth, cars today just last longer. It used to be a minor miracle when a wasn't rusted out after 10 years or the engine still ran after 100k miles. Today, your car might be still under warranty at that point. > Why do people try to deny this obvious reality? Because it is not at all obvious that that is, in fact, reality. It doesn't help to complain about easily-disprovable things like the affordability of cars. | | |
| ▲ | lp4v4n 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | >Because it is not at all obvious that that is, in fact, reality. It doesn't help to complain about easily-disprovable things like the affordability of cars. Well you can just search "why are cars so expensive" and then you will find dozens of articles like the one below. I'm not American but I have the impression that cars were a kind of milestone in the life of young people in the past and this disappeared due to affordability. How much does it cost to live in a van nowadays? Can a part time fast food worker afford it? I don't like this hedonistic argument that you used, it sounds like cheating, you risk sounding like the GP saying that houses today that nobody can afford are in fact cheaper because they are less likely to catch fire. https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/buying/why-owning-a-car-is-g... |
| |
| ▲ | krackers 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >more likely to catch fire >Is a house like that cheap today? No, right? It's crazy expensive as well. I assume by catch fire GP means electrical wiring? Many houses on market today are literally not remodeled since the 1940s so retain that original wiring. |
| |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | All you've done here is take the tired dishonest "kids these days and their darn avocado toast and smartphones" trope and used different goods/services to spin it in a way to appeal to the median commentor on HN. You're ignoring the gorilla in the room. Why can't one live in a comparable manner today and bank the difference? Because those things aren't available? Why aren't those things available? | | |
| ▲ | JamesBarney an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > You're ignoring the gorilla in the room. Why can't one live in a comparable manner today and bank the difference? For two reasons. 1. They're illegal. You're not allowed to build a house to 1936 climate, safety, and fire codes with un-licensed labor. And boarding houses were effectively banned. 2. Market. Most people would rather live in a smaller apartment than 1936 style un-climate controlled death trap. And the reasons are the same for cars. You legally can't see a new version of a 1936 car, and even if you could most people would rather drive an old civic. | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Why can't one live in a comparable manner today and bank the difference? You can do this. Just move to a sparsely populated area and work remote. Rural and semi-rural areas are basically the "poor", lower productivity areas within any given country, if you can arbitrage the incomes difference via remote work you stand to gain quite a bit. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | llmslave 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yeah I think people need to start asking the question, "Where is the money going". Its not just inexistent, its literally going somewhere other than your pocket. |
| |
| ▲ | dmd 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | They're not voting against their own self interest; they just have different interests than you. Their primary interest and goal is making sure their out-group is hurting, and that is what they are voting for, regardless of that happens to them. |
|
|
| ▲ | digiown 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's rent seeking, the antithesis of capitalism. It's always been. Enabled by abuse of government power. And no, it's not a partisan issue. You see this pattern across the American economy. The boomers locked in their house values by passing all the zoning regulations to artificially restrict the supply of housing. AMA artificially restricts the supply of doctors to increase their wages. Accreditation pushed ever higher costs on universities which increased costs, and the availability of loans basically cut off the brake cable. And who do you think is really benefitting from all the companies enshittifying everything and pushing up costs? The billionaires and retirees of course. And the young/working people are paying for it. The solution for individuals is arbitrage. Remote work, get healthcare abroad, and avoid college tuitions. The fact that these things make sense at all shows how broken the markets are. |
|
| ▲ | zozbot234 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| And that someone is mostly government, which is a growing and increasingly wasteful fraction of GDP. We really need to start reining in the national debt and government spending. Drain the swamp. |
| |
| ▲ | throwway120385 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, it's rentiers. The government takes about a quarter but the rentiers easily take 2 times as much in interest, monthly fees, and other costs that I have to pay in perpetuity. You just don't consider that because you think those people are necessary for living a good life. In reality their purpose is to extract as much money from you for as little work as possible. | | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, the rent is too damn high. The way to address that is BUILDING MORE! Which is what YIMBY is all about. | | |
| ▲ | bradlys 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | As long as collusion exists, I don't see this changing. Manhattan is more expensive than it was a 100 years ago but less people actually live there now. Not a little less either - 700,000 people less. We've built way more housing at the same time. And yes, people have more square footage per person now but the housing doubled and the population went down dramatically. Rent is always going to go up there even if they build more. Same in other places. As long as rent setting tools exist to collude - we will see the rent not go down. You're not gonna dump $100m in new buildings and not maximize your return. | | |
| ▲ | labcomputer 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Rent isn't high because of collusion. It's simple supply and demand. There may be fewer people in manhattan, but that's mostly because fewer people live in each living unit. The same number of living units is being demanded by the market because of evolving living preferences. If you allow sufficient living units to be built, it doesn't matter how much landlord try to collude, they won't be able to keep rent high. Someone will break when the vacancy rate reaches 15%. | | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Rent is high due to supply and demand, but collusion lowers supply. Ironically enough, "affordable housing" arrangements and rent-control, which is common in NYC, are examples of such collusion and end up raising rents over time compared to the alternative where the collusion isn't there. |
| |
| ▲ | daedrdev 15 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | vacancy rates are extremely low in most cities. That clearly implies supply and demand and not collusion. In new york units are often empty because they are illegal to rent unless massively expensive repairs are made while under rent control. That's not collusion, that is regulatory failure |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | _DeadFred_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Reminder that the Republicans' policy has been to starve the beast. That is push up government costs while passing huge tax cuts (like the big beautiful bill Republicans just passed that is greatly increasing the debt) in order to sabotage government's ability to function, then blast from every rooftop that we need to cut government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast "The very reason why we object to state ownership, that it puts a stop to individual initiative and to the healthy development of personal responsibility, is the reason why we object to an unsupervised, unchecked monopolistic control in private hands. We urge control and supervision by the nation as an antidote to the movement for state socialism. Those who advocate total lack of regulation, those who advocate lawlessness in the business world, themselves give the strongest impulse to what I believe would be the deadening movement toward unadulterated state socialism." --Theodore Roosevelt |
|