Hacker News Reader

Comment by war1025 | Hacker News Reader

If you average things out over a longer period, we are still significantly better off than we were say 100 or 150 years ago. Really I think a lot of the "things aren't getting better" mindset is just a reaction to the fact that the beginning of our current societal "working memory" is the post-WWII economic boom. When your benchmark for prosperity is literally the best growth period on record, you're bound to be disappointed.

View on HN

I'm very pleased to have antibiotics, indoor plumbing, and climate control, but that isn't relevant. Being priced out of the housing market, or having difficulty finding an affordable rental are life-diminishing prospects. It's taking place, it's what is up for discussion in this thread, and it isn't millennial whining to want to be able to comfortably afford your living situation.

Housing where I live (Iowa) is perfectly reasonable, especially when compared to coastal metros. I agree that what is going on in those places isn't sustainable. I think people miss out on the fact that the housing crisis isn't universal though (which is not to say that it isn't very important in the places that it is a big deal).

Housing is perfectly reasonably priced in all sorts of places. Because demand is lower. Because jobs are fewer and the salaries for those jobs are lower. This isn't a coastal elites vs. working-class midwesterners issue, either.

If you work remotely it might be

Please show an example of a 150 year gap where the average person wasn't significantly better off in written history. Otherwise your statement is tautological and thus worthless.

Also your growth contrast is so lacking in details I can't find a counterpoint as you didn't really make a point. Especially when what you are replying to is about inequality and you are talking about economic growth.

> Please show an example of a 150 year gap where the average person wasn't significantly better off.

I take this to mean where person living in year X was not better off than person living in year (X - 150). In that case, literally any time in human history before the industrial revolution. 150 years is an insignificant blip on the timeline of history.

As to your other comment, inequality and economic growth are intrinsically linked. The inequality people are complaining about is an unequal share in the economic growth of the society.

Before the industrial revolution? You're going to have to back that up because that sounds entirely untrue.

> You're going to have to back that up

Well, it's the internet, and I don't really have a horse in this race, so we can just agree to disagree.

> Please show an example of a 150 year gap where the average person wasn't significantly better off in written history.

AD 1200 - AD 1350

I think the average person was significantly better off in 1200 than in 1350

I mean...the entire period before the industrial revolution and the advent of modern medicine?

Some guy living in 1000BC China is probably going to be as well off as someone in 1000AD China, which is to say they both aren't well off at all. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

But for purposes of this debate we are looking back over a 20-40 year period for wage stagnation and increasing housing, educational and health care costs. That is the relevant comparison, not 100 years ago.

And my point is that the period that we are looking back on was unsustainably good regarding a lot of factors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com