The era of reduced expectations

[Les Cargill]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message


A big problem is that we increasingly measure our wealth and welfare in
terms of material possessions and appearances, which usually involve
superfluous and unnecessary things that people are convinced they need
for happiness and success.

Yeah, but you can't read somebody's mind and find the bug in their
thinking. *all things being equal*, we have to give the devil his due
and admit that better tools make better work. If we buy things
that are not tools, then more fool us. That takes nothing from those
who do it right.

This is largely due to the effectiveness of
advertising and peer pressure, which is often reinforced with promises
of sexual gratification, which of course appeals strongly to adolescents
as well as aging baby boomers going through late mid-life crises.

I think the canonical volume on the subject is still "The Hidden
Persuaders." It's not hard to find. I'd generalize your thought to
resources drained in "social signaling" in the large. That's all
a waste of bloody time, but it's hard to do without.

Put Macluhan on the reading list too. It's a lot online.

I know someone who works in truly poor neighborhoods in the Baltimore
inner city, and she knows people who really struggle to get by on income
levels that I might find perfectly adequate. As she puts it, some of
these people have poor problem solving skills, so they cannot avail
themselves of simple ways to reduce costs, or avoid getting caught under
untenable mountains of debt.
Right.

They have little sense of how purchasing
items on credit will result in financial difficulties in the future, and
they do not know how to purchase and prepare inexpensive yet highly
nutritious foods, in large quantities, that can be easily stored, such
as brown rice and dried beans.

Right right. Plus the yuppies drove the price of bacon up, a great
supplement for brown beans. That and onions. And hot sauce.

Also, many of the bargains we are used to
at large suburban supermarkets and big lots stores are not as easily
available to them at neighborhood grocery stores.

With a paradigm shift from individualism and isolationism, to
cooperation and sharing of resources,

I am skeptical of that. For one , it's a "paradigm shift",
for another... we'll leave it at that.

it is possible to live comfortably
and probably healthier and happier. Much of the deplorable conditions
and frustration people complain about is because of their obsession with
conspicuous consumption,

That's generally a self-regulating condition. See the '80s movie
"Scarface" for details....

and electronic entertainment and communications
which have replaced normal human interactions.

There's no such thing. Electronic substitutes for it are just fine.
All human interaction is valid. I am sure it would be fun to have this
discussion, for example, face to face but this costs a whole lot less.

We all do both; surely the world is a richer place when we have
electronic communication. I know it can be banal, but it doesn't have to
be.

This is not banal:

It's 100% electronic.

People have become slaves
to the technology which was supposed to have reduced our need to work so
hard,

The technology is reducing our need to work at a rate we find somewhat
appalling, I think. It's *gonna* continue, too. We're back to Captain
Ned Ludd and the large-scale belt-driven weaving machines putting
village weavers out of work in the early days of the industrial
revolution in Britain.

I have a recording of Johnny Cash doing "John Henry", so I know
how the story ends....

and has fostered isolation and dependency on frivolous things.

Shallowness of personal thought is responsible for dependence on
frivolous things. For people who are interested in how the world works,
the times are amazing. There is the "maker" movement, the small
(Arduino) boards and box store computers with scads of power.

Such conditions also spawn mental illness and road rage and lack of
civility, morality, and ethics, which result in criminal behavior and
need for extra security and self-protection.

Paul, I hold that Loss of Self causes these things. Not technology.
When one comes to the point to where they no longer have a reflection
in the mirror, then they act as an animal. Not before.

When you have done something, even something nobody cares about,
you can point to it and say "I did that". If you do enough
such things, you get the warp and weave of what it means to do
something, and you can begin to do things for other people.

At that point, all truly social interaction is possible. It's not easy,
but it's worth it.

 

[[email protected]]

For better or for worse, people with kids just can't control
costs. the inference from that is rather grim.

Baloney. OTOH, if you can't afford kids (or don't want to - much more
likely) don't **** around. Staying out of poverty really is simple
but it does require delayed gratification.

Single people or married-no-kids have less of an excuse.

Married, kid gone but there isn't any excuse, in any case.

Many live in the basement while working. Can't blame 'em.

Why? They're either not working hard enough or they're spending way
too much on crap.

But $40k is about median income.

So? It is quite livable. Half that, not so much, but again that's a
case of not working hard enough.

That racks up a horrifying $4k there, assuming a 70" is
$2k

$2K is a *lot* of money to someone who hasn't a nickel to his name and
can't even buy food. The priorities are screwed up.

There are *many* more toys people have today that are complexly
unnecessary; $100/mo for cell phones, $100/mo for cable TV. The fact
is that the "poor" are not poor at all by historical standards.

Yeah, there's that.

*THAT* is the norm.

I'm assuming significant substitution because that's generally what
happens. Gold has no substitute; that's why people think it's valuable.

Generalities are always wrong. ;-)

 

[Bill Sloman]

   Did you know it wasn't real, as a child?

Farmers in clean clothes and cows and horses that didn't shit? No
mud?

 

[josephkk]

The axes we're talking about are basically
supply and demand, and there's no "time" axis there. Demand
can affect supply, but supply can only very rarely affect demand.

AXES???? AXES???? Ahem. Way back in high school, some decades go, the
axes were quantity and price. Then supply and demand are curves drawn on
those coordinates.

Even if that was a misspeak, it reveals a serious confusion of the very
basics of economics.

?-)

 

[Les Cargill]

AXES???? AXES???? Ahem. Way back in high school, some decades go, the
axes were quantity and price. Then supply and demand are curves drawn on
those coordinates.

There are supply and demand curves as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
(just as a clarification )

 

[Les Cargill]

Baloney. OTOH, if you can't afford kids (or don't want to - much more
likely) don't **** around. Staying out of poverty really is simple
but it does require delayed gratification.

But if it's that simple, why don't people do that?

You also have expectations based on things like inflation that
cause people to make errors in figuring consumption
patterns:
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=18255

"The inference that is grim" is that birth rates
fall dramatically. That reduces economic growth.

Married, kid gone but there isn't any excuse, in any case.


Why? They're either not working hard enough or they're spending way
too much on crap.

Why? Because the cost barrier to household formation is beyond
their means. If you have to be in the top 20% to get anything
going, then there's always going to be a long lag for people.

My wife watches those darned Property shows; a dump apartment
in New Jersey goes for $250k and up.

If you're not going to get married and have kids, you
might as well live on Mom's basement. And they do.

Again, I'm not whining about how hard life is - I am projecting
that this will be a long gray period economically because
of this.

So? It is quite livable. Half that, not so much, but again that's a
case of not working hard enough.

Income doesn't really respond to hard work. That's the problem. It's
unusual for it to, anyway. What income responds to is being
able to subsume risk. That can involve hard work but it's not
*just* that.

$2K is a *lot* of money to someone who hasn't a nickel to his name and
can't even buy food. The priorities are screwed up.

There are *many* more toys people have today that are complexly
unnecessary; $100/mo for cell phones, $100/mo for cable TV. The fact
is that the "poor" are not poor at all by historical standards.

"The poor" are not a monolithic mass - some people will have jobs for
long enough to gain such things.

I'd agree there. I think that's overall a good thing. But it puts a lot
of people in that muddle where they don't feel they have any control
over their own destiny. At least that's what Charles Murray
thinks in "Coming Apart".

*THAT* is the norm.


Generalities are always wrong. ;-)

Yeah!

a lot of the improvement in quality of life comes from clever
substitutions.

 

[[email protected]]

But if it's that simple, why don't people do that?

Instant gratification and living as a leech is even simpler. The
rules for staying out of poverty are trivial, should you care to.

You also have expectations based on things like inflation that
cause people to make errors in figuring consumption
patterns:
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=18255

Nonsense. What does the difference of 2% inflation and 10% make on
whether people make reasonable decisions.

"The inference that is grim" is that birth rates
fall dramatically. That reduces economic growth.

You're really stretching, or have completely change the subject.

Why? Because the cost barrier to household formation is beyond
their means. If you have to be in the top 20% to get anything
going, then there's always going to be a long lag for people.

No, the difference is instant vs. delayed gratification. Some learn
to delay gratification early in life, some never do.

My wife watches those darned Property shows; a dump apartment
in New Jersey goes for $250k and up.

So? Don't live there if you don't want to live in a dump. I paid
$210K for my 3600 ft^2 (+2000 ft^2 unfinished basement) five-bedroom
3-1/2 bath house on 1.5 acres. ...and don't live where the government
taxes you to death. You're actually making my point. Life is all
about choices. The right ones aren't a lot harder than the bad ones.

If you're not going to get married and have kids, you
might as well live on Mom's basement. And they do.

Sure they do. People rob banks, too, but it doesn't make it better
for society.

Again, I'm not whining about how hard life is - I am projecting
that this will be a long gray period economically because
of this.

No, you're confusing the symptom of the disease with the disease
itself. The solutions are *quite* different.

Income doesn't really respond to hard work. That's the problem. It's
unusual for it to, anyway. What income responds to is being
able to subsume risk. That can involve hard work but it's not
*just* that.

Bullshit! If one job doesn't pay enough, get another. Get an
education or learn a trade. The problem is they're sitting in mommy's
basement whining instead of fixing *their* problem. ...and you're
condoning it ("poor baby").

"The poor" are not a monolithic mass - some people will have jobs for
long enough to gain such things.

GMAFB, welfare will pay for such things.

I'd agree there. I think that's overall a good thing. But it puts a lot
of people in that muddle where they don't feel they have any control
over their own destiny. At least that's what Charles Murray
thinks in "Coming Apart".

THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH STATISM. It puts the state in charge of
people, rather than the other way 'round.

Yeah!

a lot of the improvement in quality of life comes from clever
substitutions.

Certainly. It doesn't come from sitting in mommy's basement feeling
sorry for yourself.

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:58:28 -0600, Les Cargill

[snip]

"The inference that is grim" is that birth rates
fall dramatically. That reduces economic growth.

[snip]

Birth rates are dramatically down in the US... at least in the "truly
working classes".

Is that the _cause_ of the decline in economic growth, or the
_effect_?

I think the latter.

Agree. Les has the horse and cart reversed in much of his philosophy.

 

[Les Cargill]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:58:28 -0600, Les Cargill

[snip]

"The inference that is grim" is that birth rates
fall dramatically. That reduces economic growth.

[snip]

Birth rates are dramatically down in the US... at least in the "truly
working classes".

Is that the _cause_ of the decline in economic growth, or the
_effect_?

I think the latter.

...Jim Thompson

Agreed. What the cause is, nobody seems to agree on.

 

[Les Cargill]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:58:28 -0600, Les Cargill

[snip]

"The inference that is grim" is that birth rates
fall dramatically. That reduces economic growth.

[snip]

Birth rates are dramatically down in the US... at least in the "truly
working classes".

Is that the _cause_ of the decline in economic growth, or the
_effect_?

I think the latter.

Agree. Les has the horse and cart reversed in much of his philosophy.

Population decline will also reduce economic growth, but it's
also caused by economic decline. It's a spiral.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

That is far too simple a model. We now see Gen Y not marrying,
not having kids, mostly for economic reasons. Somebody making
$40k can probably about feed,clothe and house themselves and that's
about all, unless they're in a place with low cost
of living.

You're way out of touch with reality. US median household income--
many people raising families--is only $10k more than that.

I've lived most of my life on a fraction of that, and saved the rest.

It's easy to live well on minimum wage. Easy. I basically have(*).
And I've got 'scopes, millions of parts in inventory (for protos),
mini machine shop, etc.

(*) except for a dalliance on a beachside flat. (Apart from the pad,
nothing else changed though. Still cooked curry, still baked bread.)

Where I live now, you could easily raise a family and buy a modest
house and raise a family on $30k. (That's partially why I moved--to
access a place where workers could thrive on a reasonably expected
manufacturing wage.)

"Economy is the art of making the most of life." --George Bernard Shaw

 

[[email protected]]

Government makes its own "food", though. Out of thin air... and
we're back to the start of the circle

Gubmint most certainly does NOT make its own food. It literally makes
absolutely nothing.

It sounds like you're confusing money with stuff. Money is an
artifice, a go-between. Money is so you can trade 'x' hours of your
work with someone who doesn't need what you do.

People make stuff. Gov't mostly regulates and impedes them, then
takes it.

James Arthur

 

[[email protected]]

... more of a coup, really...

If you prefer, yes. No practical difference.

The cycle of revolutions he's referring to started with the French
Revolution, right after ours (1789), over a financial collapse(*),
then followed by a series of bloody purges, strongmen, failed
socialist experiments, failed republics, and revolutions right up to
Bastiat's time. The index at the link below catalogs them.

(*) wiki blames gov't spending "At a governmental level the sequence
of events leading to the revolution was sparked by France's effective
bankruptcy due to the enormous cost of previous wars." I blame George
W. Bush

Bastiat wrote in the midst of France's failed 2nd Republic, when they
were doing all the things our leaders want to do today, and failing
for all the reasons I've set forth. Bastiat was both an economist and
a legislator--he lived it from within, and without.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_long_nineteenth_century#Second_Republic

Bastiat died from TB--contracted as he was traveling, trying to sound
the clarion call--roughly the same time as things boiled over again
into Napoleon III's coup.

James Arthur

 

[[email protected]]

"Les Cargill"  wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...

A big problem is that we increasingly measure our wealth and welfare in
terms of material possessions and appearances, which usually involve
superfluous and unnecessary things that people are convinced they need for
happiness and success. This is largely due to the effectiveness of
advertising and peer pressure, which is often reinforced with promises of
sexual gratification, which of course appeals strongly to adolescents as
well as aging baby boomers going through late mid-life crises.

I know someone who works in truly poor neighborhoods in the Baltimore inner
city, and she knows people who really struggle to get by on income levels
that I might find perfectly adequate. As she puts it, some of these people
have poor problem solving skills, so they cannot avail themselves of simple
ways to reduce costs, or avoid getting caught under untenable mountains of
debt. They have little sense of how purchasing items on credit will result
in financial difficulties in the future, and they do not know how to
purchase and prepare inexpensive yet highly nutritious foods, in large
quantities, that can be easily stored, such as brown rice and dried beans..

I agree with that assessment regarding lack of planning, problem-
solving, and basic house-making. These things used to be taught in
school, and also passed from mother to daughter.

Also, many of the bargains we are used to at large suburban supermarkets and
big lots stores are not as easily available to them at neighborhood grocery
stores.

With a paradigm shift from individualism and isolationism, to cooperation
and sharing of resources, it is possible to live comfortably and probably
healthier and happier.

People need skills they're not getting in school. More stuff to burn
is just more fuel on the fire.

Much of the deplorable conditions and frustration
people complain about is because of their obsession with conspicuous
consumption, and electronic entertainment and communications which have
replaced normal human interactions. People have become slaves to the
technology which was supposed to have reduced our need to work so hard, and
has fostered isolation and dependency on frivolous things. Such conditions
also spawn mental illness and road rage and lack of civility, morality, and
ethics, which result in criminal behavior and need for extra security and
self-protection.

Again, frugality was once celebrated, prodigality was ridiculed.
Today that's reversed. But, median household income's down about 10%,
and scarcity has a way of focusing the mind.

Best,
James Arthur

 

[[email protected]]

But if it's that simple, why don't people do that?

Because they don't have to. Society supports them.

James Arthur

 

[Jasen Betts]

Did you know it wasn't real, as a child?

I knew it was a story. Same as the "Roadrunner" cartoons, "Star Trek",
and "Monkey".

 

[Les Cargill]

You're way out of touch with reality.

'Fraid not. I have two twenty-something kids, both of who
have degrees ( and no student debt) and are not exactly
living in the lap of luxury. They're both pretty frugal,
too. Lotta garbanzos...

No grandkids.

US median household income--
many people raising families--is only $10k more than that.

No, that's why I picked that figure. At $3k a month, you're not exactly
going to be thriving anywhere. $1k rent, $1k food, bills, savings and
the like. Not bad (again) if you're single, but raising kids
would be much more interesting.

Unless there happen to be $50,000 properties available, I don't
see anyone in that income band buying a house.

I've lived most of my life on a fraction of that, and saved the rest.

It's easy to live well on minimum wage. Easy.

Minimum wage is seven bucks an hour. That's $14k. Unless you own
property outright and have very low property taxes....

I basically have(*).
And I've got 'scopes, millions of parts in inventory (for protos),
mini machine shop, etc.

(*) except for a dalliance on a beachside flat. (Apart from the pad,
nothing else changed though. Still cooked curry, still baked bread.)

Never could make bread work economically - besides, it's $5.00
a week tops. Not a lot of margin to squeeze out of it.

Where I live now, you could easily raise a family and buy a modest
house and raise a family on $30k. (That's partially why I moved--to
access a place where workers could thrive on a reasonably expected
manufacturing wage.)

I've done the same as per places with low cost of living.

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:58:28 -0600, Les Cargill

[snip]

"The inference that is grim" is that birth rates
fall dramatically. That reduces economic growth.

[snip]

Birth rates are dramatically down in the US... at least in the "truly
working classes".

Is that the _cause_ of the decline in economic growth, or the
_effect_?

I think the latter.

Agree. Les has the horse and cart reversed in much of his philosophy.

Population decline will also reduce economic growth, but it's
also caused by economic decline. It's a spiral.

Not sure I can parse that the way you intended, but population decline
is not caused by economic decline, rather the opposite.

 

[Les Cargill]

If you prefer, yes. No practical difference.

The cycle of revolutions he's referring to started with the French
Revolution, right after ours (1789), over a financial collapse(*),

Yep - starting with John Law...

then followed by a series of bloody purges, strongmen, failed
socialist experiments, failed republics, and revolutions right up to
Bastiat's time. The index at the link below catalogs them.

(*) wiki blames gov't spending "At a governmental level the sequence
of events leading to the revolution was sparked by France's effective
bankruptcy due to the enormous cost of previous wars." I blame George
W. Bush

LOL! The story I hold is that they basically went out of balance
from the John Law debacle ( the Mississippi bubble ) and never really
recovered. Er, I'm not sure how that all ended, anyway - France
became an empire after that.

Bastiat wrote in the midst of France's failed 2nd Republic, when they
were doing all the things our leaders want to do today, and failing
for all the reasons I've set forth. Bastiat was both an economist and
a legislator--he lived it from within, and without.

I'm a big Bastiat fan, although I'm not very up on the Second Republic.

 

[Les Cargill]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:10:39 -0700, Jim Thompson

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:58:28 -0600, Les Cargill

[snip]

"The inference that is grim" is that birth rates
fall dramatically. That reduces economic growth.

[snip]

Birth rates are dramatically down in the US... at least in the "truly
working classes".

Is that the _cause_ of the decline in economic growth, or the
_effect_?

I think the latter.

Agree. Les has the horse and cart reversed in much of his philosophy.

Population decline will also reduce economic growth, but it's
also caused by economic decline. It's a spiral.

Not sure I can parse that the way you intended, but population decline
is not caused by economic decline, rather the opposite.

In general, as a population skews older, consumption falls faster
than production. So yeah. But there *can* be ( I could have worded that
better ) a demographic effect that can negatively impact production as
well. As you note, it's way much less likely than factors that reduce
consumption.

I was mainly thinking of France in the interwar period:
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/interwaryears/section8.rhtml
A lot of their monetary problems ( France had at least one
hyperinflation ) was due to production simply being inadequate.
WWI caused a massive loss of mostly young men. This is in no way the
whole story, but it's always stuck out to me. Exports of stuff like
steel went in half then. The value of the franc also divided by two.
That might be a coincidence, but I doubt it.

There's some argument as to whether or not this is the case in Japan,
but it's not clear.