5 ms·

You have no idea if you think technology magically brings down prices. Tell that to the 100 million people living in/near poverty in the USA alone. The "effici

You have no idea if you think technology magically brings down prices. Tell that to the 100 million people living in/near poverty in the USA alone. The "efficiency" increases in recent years have more often than not been various ways of cutting labor costs. It doesn't matter if things are cheaper in a nominal sense if your ability to earn a living is eroded.

koolba 10y ago
> You have no idea if you think technology magically brings down prices. Tell that to the 100 million people living in/near poverty in the USA alone. I suggest you go do some basic math on the cost of producing consumer staples like rice, beans, milk, and meat. Technology has brought down the cost of all of them. Similarly, efficiency gains in MPG and durability improvements have lowered the price of owning and maintaining a vehicle. Uber, Lyft, and other ride sharing apps have lowered the price of it even further to remove the capital outlay. > The "efficiency" increases in recent years have more often than not been various ways of cutting labor costs. Which is bad because why exactly? Is the purpose of the corporate sector to produce goods and services or to provide a place for people to go? > It doesn't matter if things are cheaper in a nominal sense if your ability to earn a living is eroded. Sure it is. That's the definition of makes things more efficient: being able to be produced more cheaply
- tabeth 10y ago
  You make fair points, however the cost of living is dictated primarily by: transportation, education, housing and health costs. Has technology made these significantly cheaper for someone in poverty?
  - koolba 10y ago
    > You make fair points, however the cost of living is dictated primarily by: transportation, education, housing and health costs. Has technology made these significantly cheaper for someone in poverty? I specifically cite transportation costs in my prior comment. Housing is also cheap if you don't live in (expensive) cities. There's an abundance of housing in the suburbs and if you're willing to share a place with others (like everybody seems to take for granted in the city) it's insanely cheap. Education and health are interesting beasts. On the one hand technology has brought the cost of education to near zero through remote learning and internet courses. There's more knowledge available at a person's fingertips than at any point in history and the cost is cheaper than ever. The cost of a formal higher education has gone up but I don't think that's driven by technology. It's from the availability of "easy money" for student loans. Healthcare (in the USA) is uniformly fucked and needs to be scrapped and rebuilt though government programs like Medicaid do cover the people your describe (poverty line).
    - jordanb 10y ago
      Housing is cheap if you live in a part of the country with a bad economy. The increasing polarization of the economy is also spatial: the remaining good jobs are congregating in fewer and fewer metropolises where the cost of living is skyrocketing.

koolba 10y ago

> You have no idea if you think technology magically brings down prices. Tell that to the 100 million people living in/near poverty in the USA alone. I suggest you go do some basic math on the cost of producing consumer staples like rice, beans, milk, and meat. Technology has brought down the cost of all of them. Similarly, efficiency gains in MPG and durability improvements have lowered the price of owning and maintaining a vehicle. Uber, Lyft, and other ride sharing apps have lowered the price of it even further to remove the capital outlay. > The "efficiency" increases in recent years have more often than not been various ways of cutting labor costs. Which is bad because why exactly? Is the purpose of the corporate sector to produce goods and services or to provide a place for people to go? > It doesn't matter if things are cheaper in a nominal sense if your ability to earn a living is eroded. Sure it is. That's the definition of makes things more efficient: being able to be produced more cheaply

tabeth 10y ago
You make fair points, however the cost of living is dictated primarily by: transportation, education, housing and health costs. Has technology made these significantly cheaper for someone in poverty?
- koolba 10y ago
  > You make fair points, however the cost of living is dictated primarily by: transportation, education, housing and health costs. Has technology made these significantly cheaper for someone in poverty? I specifically cite transportation costs in my prior comment. Housing is also cheap if you don't live in (expensive) cities. There's an abundance of housing in the suburbs and if you're willing to share a place with others (like everybody seems to take for granted in the city) it's insanely cheap. Education and health are interesting beasts. On the one hand technology has brought the cost of education to near zero through remote learning and internet courses. There's more knowledge available at a person's fingertips than at any point in history and the cost is cheaper than ever. The cost of a formal higher education has gone up but I don't think that's driven by technology. It's from the availability of "easy money" for student loans. Healthcare (in the USA) is uniformly fucked and needs to be scrapped and rebuilt though government programs like Medicaid do cover the people your describe (poverty line).
  - jordanb 10y ago
    Housing is cheap if you live in a part of the country with a bad economy. The increasing polarization of the economy is also spatial: the remaining good jobs are congregating in fewer and fewer metropolises where the cost of living is skyrocketing.