On the internet/TV for example, you are failing to take into account the spread of tech and efficiency. We can have factories produce TVs automatically, and internet infrastructure doesn't require a huge number of people to keep it running--and most of them, I wager, would be happy to keep doing what they're doing, because it's fun.
As for fancy restaurants or organic groceries...that's just a function of cooking something well and having something to cook. If you're not working all the time, you are more likely to be able to help in your community garden.
I'm sorry, but your assertion isn't borne out by thought.
What? That's quite silly. [...] I'm sorry, but your assertion isn't borne out by thought.
This comment would have been better without its hostile preface and its hostile appendix. Please don't use such language on Hacker News.
All: Please re-read what you've posted and, if it contains phrases that contribute hostility to the discussion, edit them out.
This is really important, because (speaking metaphorically) our brains are all programmed to pick up on the agitation in such language. That leads to bad things, like the comment getting less reflective attention, and threads getting provoked into a downward spiral.
This is meant in all seriousness (and posted here instead of private mail because it is something that others could probably benefit from reading):
The preface is the gist of my post ("I disagree with your reasoning, and find it absurd."), and the appendix summarizes the conclusion ("The conclusion you've come to does not follow logically once you take into account other factors").
I agree (having written some bad posts in my time) that writing "You're a fucking idiot, how the hell did you come up with this?" is not good discourse.
At the same time, avoiding any flavor or diction in our writing here would make it tedious to read and worse still boring to write.
There's got to be some middle-ground; I assure you that it wasn't written to be hostile (consider the corrective reply and my acknowledgement elsewhere in this subthread).
EDIT: Also, where do you come down on the "meta discussion kills" theory of communities?
I am confident that the creative and intelligent users of Hacker News can figure out how to retain "flavor and diction" while making their writing more substantive and less rude.
Meta discussion is bad on HN. My current stream of meta comments is a special case, and temporary. Sometimes one prescribes medicine that is toxic because the disease is worse. Hacker News' disease is unsubstantive and hostile language in comments. We're pushing hard against this problem from several angles. Providing clear feedback to the community is one.
I don't want to jinx it by commenting on how well it's going so far, but I would definitely like to invite any of you who notice a change, for better or worse, to tell us about it at hn@ycombinator.com. We'll read it with interest.
Internet infrastructure actually does require a somewhat large number of people and it is quite fragile.
I never would have though a fiber cut (which seems to happen almost weekly) would have such a large impact, but it does. I figured BGP would reroute around that and to some extent it does, but there's still a lot of manual route handling.
I think you misinterpreted my comment as if it were about what "we" as a society could do, but I meant it as a comment about what any of us as an individual could do.
I like to make this point using housing data from the census bureau.
A typical 1930s person, or even early 1970s person, lived in a 1500 square foot or smaller house. Houses built in the last decade or so average 2200 square feet. Many people could work a lot less just by moving into a smaller place and having the subsequent reduction in rent/mortgage and utilities.
I lived roughly this lifestyle for 7 years and thoroughly enjoyed it. Internet is cheap, so I wouldn't suggest anyone give that up, but if you're not especially materially focused, I would highly recommend such a lifestyle. [0]
However, I want to point out that essentially all agriculture in 1930 was what is now labeled as organic. So if 1930 is your goalpost, I don't agree with having it on your list. [1]
[0] http://www.ic.org
[1] I'm unconvinced that organic ag has any health benefit, but a fair extraction price is generally not applied to what often amounts to mining topsoil
This isn't true. Since about 1960 productivity has gone up but (middle class) incomes have gone down. The fraction of a family's expenditures have become dominated by the basics, not by the amenities you cite.
Again, not if you're willing to live in a typical 1930 house (with one bathroom for the whole family, a small kitchen, no family room, one bedroom for the parents, one bedroom for ALL the kids, no air conditioning, no garage, no laundry room).
The average price of a house is so much more today in large part because people want a lot more square footage.
> Health insurance.
Today's standards for health coverage are much higher than they were in 1930. Life expectancy for American men was 58 years back then. Blue Cross didn't exist. Jimmy Carter was the first US President born in a hospital (in 1924).
If you're willing to lower your standards dramatically, and accept medical treatment that's as sucky as it was in 1930, it's a lot cheaper than what we would today consider to be acceptable.
> Second cars (because women now need to work).
They don't, though. If you're willing to live the low quality of life that was prevalent in 1930, you can do it with a single-earner household.
In fact, why does your household even need one car? In 1930, most American households got by with zero.
Maybe 1930 but certainly not 1970. Typical middle class families are worse off than 1970 as that video illustrates.
But even the reduction in work to live the 1930s lifestyle you describe is no where near commensurate with per capita GDP growth over the same period. I think that is the real thesis statement: Most people have captured only a small fraction of increases in productivity.
Isn't a lot of that productivity exactly because of all those technologies (and more)? Then how does it make sense to stop using all of those things in order to work less? The Internet helps a knowledge worker to be productive (also enables some procrastination, but oh well). Is canceling your Internet subscription and consulting your 20 volume, 10 year old encyclopedia a benefit? Same goes for cell phones and cars.
And when you have all those things, also using them at home makes sense.
Because maintaining and advancing those things takes work. If you work less, you won't be able to afford that Internet subscription and $1000 in hardware to access it, you won't afford the $3.30/gal gas for commuting, you won't afford the iPhone with data plan, etc. Your employer will have to extend deadlines and cancel projects because you (along with everyone else thinking less work is a great idea) just aren't producing 4x your new relaxed hours, and thus tech won't be advancing nearly as fast and may not even keep up with the stresses of growing population. Doctors cut back their hours, and people consequently die in the ER. Lacking the now-deceased cell tower maintenance guy, your cheap cell phone doesn't work any more, and the reduced-hours landline installer for your area is booked for the next 2 years. Wanting to find a clever solution, you realize you can't access Wikipedia for a simple but very relevant factoid, and have to go to a local garage sale to pick up a 20 volume 10 year old encyclopedia - and carry it back, because you can't afford to repair the car.
The Red Queen was right: sometimes you have to run (work) hard just to stay where you are; slow down, and you'll go backwards.
Well, yeah, exactly. I doesn't make sense to live technologically as if we're in the 30's, because modern technology is the reason for our productivity.
Well, in fact, we can. But you can't ignore those last three words: you have to live the same lifestyle as a typical 1930s person.
* No internet.
* No TV.
* No air conditioning.
* No cell phone.
* No car.
* Bunk beds for your kids.
* One bathroom for the whole house.
* No flying, anywhere, ever.
* No fancy restaurants.
* No organic groceries.
The reason we're still working 1930 hours in 2014 is that we prefer it -- that is, we prefer the rich lifestyle those hours provide us.