Everything costs too much and everybody is wrong about it and who the hell knows how to fix it?

[Xan]

I moved I Shrugged's reply from the wrong topic over here, and deleted PS's suggestion of re-posting. Carry on!

[LC475]

PS, can you point to any social problem that has been fixed by people following your current line of thinking?

(you may have meant to address this to me, although we're both saying largely the same thing so it doesn't matter) All of them!

Yes, all of them!

Think of something that could be worse, and the reason it's not worse is that smart people over many, many, generations and hundreds, really thousands, of years, managed to engineer and finagle a system wherein humans are pressured into behaviors highly unnatural to them and not necessarily what deep down in their lizard brain they'd like to be doing. That system is called civilization.

IMO: Ride with no helmet, knock yourself out!

I absolutely agree, of course, but this is a benign and trivial example. There are no bad, nor important, consequences to society to have people engaging in activities (allegedly) putting them at increased risk of head trauma. Being in some occasional mild physical danger is probably psychologically healthy, for most of us.

That is where your thinking is leading. Smart well-intentioned people will clamp down on the poor saps who don't know what's good for them. What could possibly go wrong?

There need be no clamp down. Indeed, as PointedStick has PointedOut, clamp-downs back-fire.

The elite have the power. They run the society. That's what it means to be powerful. They have the cash, they have the connections, they make things happen. If, unlike our current corrupt, detestable elite, they are also Noble, they can make conscious decisions to make certain things happen, or not happen, in their society.

If you have, say 100 billion dollars, you can get a lot done. No clamping needed. If, say, none of the billionaires in the world thought there ought to be a pornography industry: boom, no pornography industry. Now there would still be some pornography, utopia is not an option, but would you be able to get it in a Marriott? No, because Mr. Marriott just plain doesn't want it. You'd have to go to some seedy, marginal place. And pornography is one of the most difficult examples I could have chosen, because it is such a deep-seated human drive and because you probably can't ever totally get rid of it. Other changes would be much easier. Eliminating soda pop and cigarettes? Child's play. Look at all the other behaviors we've eliminated over the millennia. So much of social behavior -- virtually all of it -- is rooted not in enforced decrees, but in convention. Change convention? Change the culture? Change the world.

[Pointedstick]

PS, can you point to any social problem that has been fixed by people following your current line of thinking?

(you may have meant to address this to me, although we're both saying largely the same thing so it doesn't matter) All of them!

Yes, all of them!

Think of something that could be worse, and the reason it's not worse is that smart people over many, many, generations and hundreds, really thousands, of years, managed to engineer and finagle a system wherein humans are pressured into behaviors highly unnatural to them and not necessarily what deep down in their lizard brain they'd like to be doing. That system is called civilization.

Bingo. Here's an example:

In the town I inhabit, my wife can go out in public at any hour of the day, alone or otherwise, and not be catcalled or harassed. At all. Ever. Her sister recently got back from two and a half years in Ethiopia with the Peace Corps, and reported the opposite: constant street harassment, of her and other women. Often by children, who traveled in packs like wolves, accosting the weak as if for sport. Needless to say, few women go out in public alone, even during the day.

This doesn't involve the market: no products or services are bought, sold, or consumed. It also doesn't involve the government: no laws are violated, because it's not illegal to beg, insult, or non-threateningly harass people in either country.

But it does involve culture. In my town, this kind of rude behavior is not tolerated--enforced through social conventions. In Ethiopia, it is, to the detriment of half the adult population. I'm not a woman, but regardless, I know where I'd rather live. A culture that tolerates public harassment is just plain uncivilized, and a thoroughly unpleasant place to live in once you've tasted the fruit of freedom and choice.

[I Shrugged]

OK, so most of you are smarter than me, and you are making me think. That's good.

So I like simple, measured approaches to things. I have trouble thinking of any tax as good. But would a consumption tax (GST etc) be effective in curbing consumerism? Remove the income tax (haha I make myself laugh), and raise the prices of everything. So far, so good? Then what about the poor? Then again, they're bad consumers too. But I know, you can't do that to them, so then there must be adjustments.

Any indication the GST serves to reduce consumerism?

[I Shrugged]

Another thought. If you look at charts for Americans taking on debt, and buying cheap foreign goods, and for inflation, the line always turns north right about when Nixon shut the gold window and made the dollar truly fiat. Does that explain how we got here? If so, that should tell us something about how to change.

I know, that genie is never being put back into the bottle.

[Pointedstick]

Another thought. If you look at charts for Americans taking on debt, and buying cheap foreign goods, and for inflation, the line always turns north right about when Nixon shut the gold window and made the dollar truly fiat. Does that explain how we got here? If so, that should tell us something about how to change.

I know, that genie is never being put back into the bottle.

I'm starting to agree! But yeah, snowflake pigs flying in hell before the gold standard comes back.

And yes, I heartily support a consumption tax to replace the income tax. The FairTax strikes me as an excellent idea. It includes "prebate" which amounts to a monthly check covering the tax on an average basket of goods for a low-income person, also giving it an element of universal basic income.

[Maddy]

Unfortunately, a consumption-based tax would not "replace" the income tax for some time to come because it would be taxing the very same money upon which the income tax has already been paid. Even assuming a substantial "prebate," that would be a real screw job for retirees and others who have been provident enough to save for the future. Their money would be taxed both coming and going.

I once did a back-of-the-napkin calculation of what would be left in such a scenario, assuming income derived from self-employment (only because I was self-employed at the time). I don't recall the exact numbers, but the result wasn't pretty. They damned near took everything.

[Pointedstick]

Unfortunately, a consumption-based tax would not "replace" the income tax for some time to come because it would be taxing the very same money upon which the income tax has already been paid. Even assuming a substantial "prebate," that would be a real screw job for retirees and others who have been provident enough to save for the future. Their money would be taxed both coming and going.

I once did a back-of-the-napkin calculation of what would be left in such a scenario, assuming income derived from self-employment (only because I was self-employed at the time). I don't recall the exact numbers, but the result wasn't pretty. They damned near took everything.

I guess it could be phased in over a period of years to combat this. But keep in mind that with no more income or capital gains taxes, retirees who are financially literate enough to be living off their own savings would see more of their dollars, in an absolute sense. Also, the tax is only levied on new goods, not used goods. So a canny, financially literate person could pocket the prebate as additional monthly income and buy used as much as possible.

I'm not saying it's a perfect tax system, but I just did my income taxes a few days ago and it always reminds me of the status quo's insanity and perversity. Every change hurts someone. In my book, that's a poor reason to stick with something everyone knows is terrible.

[Pointedstick]

Hmm, maybe you're right, Tenn. I'll admit it's a tempting narrative for me, but if the data can't support it, then I guess it's something else.

[I Shrugged]

Here is the one I most recently came across. As WiseOne would remind us, correlation does not equal causation. But correlation is as good as we are going to get in this kind of thing:

[I Shrugged]

[I Shrugged]

Here is one that would seem to indicated that Americans have gotten poorer. In fact there are are charts which seem to show that the bottom 90% have indeed gotten poorer compared to the top 10%, during the time in question.
HOWEVER, I think of the economics principle that says that the first users of inflated money benefit, because they get to use the money before the effects of inflation are fully factored. Consider US consumers buying Chinese goods. We have gotten to use the inflated dollars before the devaluation was recognized in Chinese pricing. So, dollar inflation has made us richer in terms of Chinese crap affordability. Maybe I'm wrong. But it makes sense to me.

[I Shrugged]

Define poorer.
Even the bottom 10% enjoy a standard of living orders of magnitude greater than they did in 1971.

I agree.

And the same is true for the Chinese.

Pesky facts.

[Libertarian666]

Another thought. If you look at charts for Americans taking on debt, and buying cheap foreign goods, and for inflation, the line always turns north right about when Nixon shut the gold window and made the dollar truly fiat. Does that explain how we got here? If so, that should tell us something about how to change.

I know, that genie is never being put back into the bottle.

To the contrary, it will be put back into a new bottle.

After the current system implodes.

[Libertarian666]

Smart people have a problem. You're smarter than pretty much everyone around you. Do not take this as flattery, it's just a fact. I am, too. And (like everyone else) we tend to basically assume that everyone thinks more or less in the same way -- that is, on the same level -- as we do. That is not the case. You would likely be shocked at just how unintelligent a sizable percentage of those around you are. There have been studies done wherein a representative population is given a short sports article to read and then asked a few basic questions about it. They can't do it. Many people cannot answer even one. Tell smart people this and they cannot believe it. They're incredulous. They just cannot believe that 20%, 30% of the people around them are operating on a mental level so foreign to them.

But they are.

Make that 95% and I'm on board.

[Libertarian666]

Unfortunately, a consumption-based tax would not "replace" the income tax for some time to come because it would be taxing the very same money upon which the income tax has already been paid. Even assuming a substantial "prebate," that would be a real screw job for retirees and others who have been provident enough to save for the future. Their money would be taxed both coming and going.

Meh, you mean like the estate tax, the income tax on Social Security benefits, and the tax on dividends derived from profits that have already been taxed at the corporate level?

Besides, they would tell you they are going to replace the income tax, but then renege on the promise and just tax both income and consumption.

Exactly. That's why I'm against any such measure.

[Mountaineer]

Smart people have a problem. You're smarter than pretty much everyone around you. Do not take this as flattery, it's just a fact. I am, too. And (like everyone else) we tend to basically assume that everyone thinks more or less in the same way -- that is, on the same level -- as we do. That is not the case. You would likely be shocked at just how unintelligent a sizable percentage of those around you are. There have been studies done wherein a representative population is given a short sports article to read and then asked a few basic questions about it. They can't do it. Many people cannot answer even one. Tell smart people this and they cannot believe it. They're incredulous. They just cannot believe that 20%, 30% of the people around them are operating on a mental level so foreign to them.

But they are.

Make that 95% and I'm on board.

Only 95%? Boarding at Station 9 3/4 at 6:67pm, all aboard! Toot, toot.

[LC475]

Even the bottom 10% enjoy a standard of living orders of magnitude greater than they did in 1971.

An order of magnitude is 10x.

Real income has, in point of fact, stagnated over this period. It has not gone up ten times. It has not gone up at all.

What about people's quality of life? Their "user experience"? There has been technological improvement affecting some aspects of life. In others, there has been deterioration. Let's look at core, everyday areas of life:

Food: Americans seem to eat about the same now as they did in 1971. Pretty similar diets. Higher quantities of food-energy (more calories) are being consumed, it is true. Does this improve people's quality of life? Hmm. There have been some minor shifts in food preferences, in, for example, the introduction of yogurt to the American diet in the 1980s and 1990s, and various dieting trends that have come and gone. Food production has become more industrialized on larger and larger scale: bigger herds, bigger birds, bigger farms, bigger factories, etc. This is more of a change on the supply side, though, not really affecting the end eater's quality of life (unless you think it does). Verdict: no change.

Shelter: True, new houses being built are larger, but a very small percentage of Americans live in brand-new homes. There's also a lot of small apartments, etc., a lot of trends going on at once. All in all, it works out to no change. People lived in about the same amount of square footage per capita in 1971 as they do today (+/- 5%). Is the craftsmanship of the dwellings better? No, it is much worse, but improvements in technology (Tyvek, all-in-one windows, advanced materials) probably cancels that out. There has been one major improvement: air conditioning has become more widely adopted, making the homes of those who didn't have it before more comfortable. Other than that, shelter has remained the same.


Transportation: The quality of most people's experience in regard to transportation has certainly gone down. The country has added 100 million new people (all from immigration, as the natural growth rate has been about zero) -- a fifty percent increase. There has also been a trend out of rural areas (fewer and fewer farmers, see above) into urban areas. The cities have not kept up with the growth, and as such traffic has gotten massively snarled and commute times have ballooned. Also, driver behavior has changed, as in significantly deteriorated. All in all the mean driving-around experience has become a much more aggravating and disagreeable process. And everyone is still driving around -- only a vanishingly small percent of Americans are using trains or buses daily; and it is questionable whether those who do are enjoying a great quality experience overall, given recent court decisions which have in the name of "free speech" prohibited transit systems from preventing unkempt homeless (or professional) beggars from actively begging on board (and sleeping, living, etc.). Flying has become much more unpleasant and time-consuming. The cross-country bus system is horrible. Verdict: massive deterioration. The average American experiences a much, much worse standard of living transportationally than in 1971.

Communication: This area of life has undergone a tremendous transformation, with ubiquitous "linked-in" communication becoming possible, very affordable, and massively adopted. Whether people will in the long run find this new constant "linked-in" state to be an improvement in their quality of life remains to be seen.

Entertainment: Depends on your taste. For me: it has become an utter wasteland. The products manufactured by the mainstream entertainment industry of 2017 hold little to no value to me. I actually assess them at a very significant negative value, as they are actively assisting to destroy my civilization.

So... manner of living has seen some changes, sure enough. Has it rocketed up to a vastly better quality standard? That would be a hard case to make. Not on average, not for Americans. And this is leaving out one extremely important core aspect of life, one that probably does more than anything to determine what "quality" you consider your life to be at:

Family: Do I even need to write anything here?

[LC475]

However, I must say that I'm not particularly impressed with our "elites" these days.

Understatement Alert

[whatchamacallit]

@LC475
Quite depressing but I can't say I can disagree.


Hopefully someone can advise us that medicine has improved by an order of magnitude.

[dualstow]

I know what an order of magnitude is

Obligatory Powers of Ten film link: https://youtu.be/0fKBhvDjuy0

[LC475]

I know what an order of magnitude is [I took calculus, and that was covered in algebra].

That is nice for you. You were offended, then, that I took two seconds to mention this essential background nugget to all, just in case? Interesting.

I never commented on real income, which I agree has been stagnant.

It is always nice to accept clear facts. Thank you for your agreement.

And most of your points are valid

Oh. Well feel free to point out all the invalid ones.

, except if you could go ask a bottom 10%er whether their life was better in 1971 or now, you'd be hard pressed to hear that their air conditioned/obamaphone/EBT/section 8/big screen TV life sucks more now than it did then.

So is it now your claim that quality of life has improved "orders of magnitude," but only for the "bottom 10%"?

Because we could discuss that instead, if you'd like. Unfortunately, you will find that claim is totally wrong and unsupportable, too, so it will be a short discussion. Perhaps instead you should just preemptively choose a better claim right now.

[Pointedstick]

It's pretty obvious how much better things were in the past for poor people. Just a few examples:

- Medical care you could pay for in cash
- College education you could pay for with a minimum wage job
- Vastly more opportunities for people without college degrees
- More and superior public transit options; can get along without a car in many places
- Cities didn't yet totally dominate the economic fabric of society, resulting in more opportunities for people born outside of the big metro areas
- More of the building stock was built sturdily, out of older and harder wood that resisted rot, mold, and insect damage.

Of course some things are better now:
- Lead paint and leaded gasoline have been banned and phased out, resulting in meaningful IQ gains among the poorest children
- Police society is much nicer to black people now

[Mountaineer]

If one measures quality of life by external measures (assuming basic needs of food, shelter, etc. are met), then I personally would agree with LC475's assessment based on my experiences; the only point I would add is I far prefer my current vehicle to the one I owned in 1971 - makes it far more enjoyable to sit in those massive traffic messes with rude, subject to road rage, finger shooting snobs, rarely using the turn signals, in their luxury SUVs trying to get to wherever it is they are going 30 seconds faster than the competition. If one measures quality of life by internal measures (family dynamics, inner peace/religion, deep relationships with friends) I personally am far better now than 40 or 50 years ago. I can't say that for society as a whole however when I observe divorce rates, rise of the nones in religion, status seekers, etc.; it is not even stagnant - that measure of quality of life is sinking rapidly.

[Pointedstick]

I see Pugchief mostly talking about technology and household economics, and he's right: lots of things are much cheaper and better than they were before. However, many things aren't: medical care, higher education, infrastructure, housing in a good neighborhood--the subjects of the article in the original post.

But LC475 and I are mostly talking about the experience of being a full member of society, not just an economic actor. It's pretty good today if you're upper-middle-class or above, come from an intellectual family, and have better-than-average levels of intelligence or drive. There are more opportunities, and the culture is more meritocratic, letting you rise to the top more easily. You can amass a great fortune, start a global business, or travel the whole world with nothing more than a backpack of gizmos.

But it doesn't help much if you don't fall into any of those elite groups. In fact, they often turn into traps, planted by greedy clever people to get your money or use you as a pawn. So what does society give you to compensate for this? New options for cheap-but-low-quality food, clothes, entertainment, and consumer electronics. But is it worth it? I dunno, man.