Guys, downvoting aphextron isn't helpful. He's sharing his perspective.
I get that some of us are poor students living off of almost nothing, but try to listen when people talk about their own personal situation. People struggle with different things and we should try to learn from them instead of dismissing them.
Aphextron, I actually kinda get where you're coming from. Things like housing are appreciating so fast that you can be forced to rent, then pushed out of a neighbourhood that you helped gentrify because the rent is going up way faster than your ability to pay. The rent controls don't work because landlords can get around them, rarely get caught, and relationships can end without warning.
To be clear, I haven't downvoted aphextron, but I disagree with them. Here is my objection:
> The basic necessities of life have risen to perfectly match your income
No, the basic quality of life has risen to perfectly match your income. Houses are more expensive compared to decades ago, but they have nice things like indoor plumbing, electricity, and fire retardant walls; all of which would have been a luxury if you go back long enough. Medical costs have ballooned, but so has the quality of care, life expectancy, and medical technology; so many incurable diseases of generations ago are now easily cured, e.g. Hepatitis C.
There is an argument to be made that we should be able to afford all these things for less, that the price has risen above the rate of its utility, that we have reached the point of diminishing returns for basic necessities, and I agree with that to some extent.
There is also another argument (a libertarian one) that says government has illegalized poverty by raising the floor on the quality of goods and services. For example, if you want to build a 1920-style home (with asbestos-laced walls, without plumbing and electricity, without smoke or CO detectors, etc.) at 1920-level prices, you cannot legally do that due to regulations. The minimum quality set by government regulations have made everything more expensive and one should not be forced to abide by these quality rules if they want to break them knowingly and of free will. There was an story about a (Mexican?) car which was priced at 5000$ new. But it would not pass safety regulations in the US. In that country, you would have a choice to buy a safe car and pay the higher price for it, buy an unsafe car and pay a much lower price, or don't buy a car. In the US, you lose one of these choices and you are more severely affected if you are poor. I see the point in this argument, but I don't agree with it. I like raising minimum standards to match the level the society can afford as it gets more prosperous.
But in either case, let's not pretend we are paying more for getting the same or lower utility. We are living longer and better lives compared to generations past. If we are going to debate about prices across generations, we should also take quality and utility into account. Otherwise the comparison would be meaningless.
“We are living longer and better lives compared to generations past”
I appreciate all your writing, but statistics show lifespans in the U.S. are declining and housing is out of reach for increasing populations. On a mass society level that means something is very wrong and has been for some time. (Lots of folks like to also blame drug use but those have been around for ages.)
I think you’re missing the big picture.
“No, the basic quality of life has risen to perfectly match your income.”
> I appreciate all your writing, but statistics show lifespans in the U.S. are declining
Living in Canada, my perspective is a bit different. We have not observed the drop in life expectancy that the US has. But then again, let's keep things in perspective. Even after the drops, life expectancy in the US is higher than even early 2000s, let alone 60s or 70s:
If it is any consolation I've upvoted all you. I think in many ways things are better (I don't even think when I put stuff in my grocery basket, and I buy "expensive" humane stuff) but in many ways things are harder. Programmers are in a social class where certain goods are really expensive in either time or money or both and because housing is so out of reach for some people it just feels impossible to even get a downpayment.
I also really think that two forces have simultaneously make the west worse. First, we try to educate everyone in the same subjects until they're almost adults. It's dumb. The level of skill you can get working with wood or computers from the age of 5 just pales in comparison with what you can pickup at 18. There should be a baseline, absolutely, but there should also be a measurable amount of tailored specialization from a young age. The second thing that is making the west worse is an absolutism on thinking about rights around property. Car-centric cultures are so stupid and inefficient. Everyone builds their own pool. Everyone builds their own gym. Nobody is happy because we're all separated from each other.
I get that some of us are poor students living off of almost nothing, but try to listen when people talk about their own personal situation. People struggle with different things and we should try to learn from them instead of dismissing them.
Aphextron, I actually kinda get where you're coming from. Things like housing are appreciating so fast that you can be forced to rent, then pushed out of a neighbourhood that you helped gentrify because the rent is going up way faster than your ability to pay. The rent controls don't work because landlords can get around them, rarely get caught, and relationships can end without warning.