Hacker News Reader

Comment by krstck | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

This page (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?coun....

All dollars nominal.

How about comparing median individual income, rather than median household income? That median household income in 1955 likely reflected a single individual income, whereas the median income today likely reflects two.

Perhaps it would be worth considering that in 1955 household income was generally earned by fewer household members than it is today. Probably close to 1/2. Would it be safe to assume, then, that's approximately how much less the average household bread winner earns in today's world?

EDIT: Here's a fancy chart I just found, thought it might be useful to make the point:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2000/feb/wk3/art03.htm

Also I'm not sure if it's a typo, but your comparison between "average income" in 1955 and "median household income" today seems to hurt, not help your point.

1. You have to be careful how you define "luxury". The average house in 1950 was less than half the size of today's average house (even though the average household was larger), and not air-conditioned.

2. Since 1950, food prices seem to have grown at the overall rate of inflation, so food is cheaper relative to the median income. (https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CPIUFDSL/)

3. Healthcare is usually considered essential, and its cost has increased as a fraction of median income, but I would bet 1950's medicine would be dirt cheap today if it weren't illegal to practice it: no MRIs, no patented medicines, no chemotherapy, etc. What we get in exchange for the higher cost is a decade of life expectancy.

4. Here is an interesting article I found on this topic: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/how-amer...

> What we get in exchange for the higher cost is a decade of life expectancy.

It's not quite clear that the extra decade of life expectancy comes from the more expensive medicine.

(I agree with the rest of your arguments for what it's worth.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com