Portrait of a 47% moocher

[Derec]

People are living in the same houses they lived in the 1950's and 60's.

No we aren't. While many houses form 50s and 60s are still in existence, many new houses have been built since and the average house size has increased at the same time as the average household size has been decreasing.

Today’s new homes are 1,000 square feet larger than in 1973, and the living space per person has doubled over last 40 years
Now I understand that this is for new houses only, but since they are not making more old houses the total average size must have increased as well.

We didn't destroy all the houses and build new ones for everybody.

No, but there have been many old houses demolished and even more new houses built in the last 50 years.

Yes the affluent live in larger houses, so if you look at averages it looks like everybody is living larger.

The mean and median size increase track together nicely, which disputes your assertion.

And in the 60's people lived large. It was the space age.

Can you back that up?

People today are not needing two full time workers in the family because they are living so much better.

Are you disputing that they are living so much better or that they would not be able to cut their standard of living substantially if they adjusted their standard of living to a more modest setting, more comparable to what people had in the 60s?

They need it because the cost of living has risen faster than wages and benefits. Both factors favor the very rich and strengthen the oligarchy.

But cost of living depends on one's choices to a very large extent.

 

[Derec]

And if those were the only computers that existed now nobody would have one.

Which means that it adds another outlay that people in the 60s didn't have to think about.

Capitalism is failing most but because it is so good for a few it remains.

Socialism has proven itself so superior.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Computers existed in those days.

And if those were the only computers that existed now nobody would have one.

The point was that the computer or the cell phone is not why people have to work so much harder now.

It's simple.

The cost of living has risen faster than wages and benefits for most people.

Capitalism is failing most but because it is so good for a few it remains.

Our expectations have grown so much since then. How many 9 or 10 years back in the 50s had their own iPads or own cell phones? What percentage of kids had their own rooms then compared to now? How many had their TV and gaming system in their rooms? There is a lot of pressure nowadays on parents to make sure their kids have the latest and greatest because of how much more choice we have today.

 

[untermensche]

No we aren't. While many houses form 50s and 60s are still in existence, many new houses have been built since and the average house size has increased at the same time as the average household size has been decreasing.

Talking about average size simply means those who are very rich built incredibly large homes.

People were not living in shacks in the 1950's and 60's.

Now many of those old homes are divided and rented out to multiple families.

Again when you talk about average household size what that means is fewer people are having a whole lot of children, but there were many families with 1 to 2 children in the 1950's and 60's.

Today’s new homes are 1,000 square feet larger than in 1973, and the living space per person has doubled over last 40 years

You leave out the crucial words; on average.

Again, the affluent are living in much larger homes. There are many more mansions.

And many more homeless. Especially children.

The mean and median size increase track together nicely, which disputes your assertion.

No it doesn't. The median has just shifted upward because more larger homes are being built. The middle moves closer to the top if the numbers at the top increase.

And none of this takes into account how many of these homes are second or third or tenth homes.

 

[Derec]

And if those were the only computers that existed now nobody would have one.

The point was that the computer or the cell phone is not why people have to work so much harder now.

It's simple.

The cost of living has risen faster than wages and benefits for most people.

Capitalism is failing most but because it is so good for a few it remains.

Our expectations have grown so much since then. How many 9 or 10 years back in the 50s had their own iPads or own cell phones? What percentage of kids had their own rooms then compared to now? How many had their TV and gaming system in their rooms? There is a lot of pressure nowadays on parents to make sure their kids have the latest and greatest because of how much more choice we have today.

 

[untermensche]

Which means that it adds another outlay that people in the 60s didn't have to think about.

A minor expense.

Capitalism is failing most but because it is so good for a few it remains.

Socialism has proven itself so superior.

It depends how one defines socialism.

If one defines a socialist anybody who calls themselves a socialist then of course Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin, were socialists.

It's a convenient way to define socialism since you don't even have to define socialism.

You just take the words of tyrants as ultimate truth.

 

[Derec]

Untermensche, the thing with house sizes is getting silly. I gave you my data. Do you have any data showing that average people are living in same size houses as they did in the 1960s?

A minor expense.

Not necessarily, especially when you consider the number of gadgets, e.g. the aforementioned iPad for a child.

It depends how one defines socialism.

I define is as the system where most or all means of production are state or otherwise publicly (rather than privately) owned.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Which means that it adds another outlay that people in the 60s didn't have to think about.

Capitalism is failing most but because it is so good for a few it remains.

Socialism has proven itself so superior.

Are you comparing 1960's socialism to 2010's capitalism? If so then the Babylonians ain't got shit on Dutch Golden Age!

 

[Derec]

Are you comparing 1960's socialism to 2010's capitalism? If so then the Babylonians ain't got shit on Dutch Golden Age!

It only looks like a 1960s era car because it hasn't changed since then. In fact, last Trabants were made in 1991 (although in 1989 VW Polo engine replaced the ancient two-stroke engine all DDR-era Trabants had along with some other modern improvements like struts).

 

[untermensche]

It depends how one defines socialism.

I define is as the system where most or all means of production are state or otherwise publicly (rather than privately) owned.

Of course that is not supported by many.

The system that could replace capitalism is a system where ownership was private, but places of work world be jointly owned and managed democratically by the entire workforce.

As opposed to the current system where places of work are run dictatorially.

This really changes little in terms of innovation and progress.

It only changes the direction of wealth. Wealth spreads out to a greater amount, and not by force, by design.

Just as the current design causes wealth to become more and more concentrated.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I define is as the system where most or all means of production are state or otherwise publicly (rather than privately) owned.

Of course that is not supported by many.

The system that could replace capitalism is a system where ownership was private, but places of work world be jointly owned and managed democratically by the entire workforce.

As opposed to the current system where places of work are run dictatorially.

This really changes little in terms of innovation and progress.

It only changes the direction of wealth. Wealth spreads out to a greater amount, and not by force, by design.

Just as the current design causes wealth to become more and more concentrated.

And there is nothing wrong for that to happen now so just start doing it and make it better than the current system and all businesses will follow.

 

[untermensche]

Of course that is not supported by many.

The system that could replace capitalism is a system where ownership was private, but places of work world be jointly owned and managed democratically by the entire workforce.

As opposed to the current system where places of work are run dictatorially.

This really changes little in terms of innovation and progress.

It only changes the direction of wealth. Wealth spreads out to a greater amount, and not by force, by design.

Just as the current design causes wealth to become more and more concentrated.

And there is nothing wrong for that to happen now so just start doing it and make it better than the current system and all businesses will follow.

That's not at all true.

There are institutional barriers. There is the way of doing business.

There is the whole damn edifice to protect.

To have a worker-run economy requires educating people to do it. Just as having a dictatorial economy requires education as well, which also serves as a weeding out process. Those least able to submit to arbitrary dictatorships are weeded out.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And there is nothing wrong for that to happen now so just start doing it and make it better than the current system and all businesses will follow.

That's not at all true.

There are institutional barriers. There is the way of doing business.

There is the whole damn edifice to protect.

To have a worker-run economy requires educating people to do it. Just as having a dictatorial economy requires education as well, which also serves as a weeding out process. Those least able to submit to arbitrary dictatorships are weeded out.

No it's not an institutional barrier. It's used because it's the most efficient system for organizing a large group of people for a specific project.

 

[fromderinside]

That's not at all true.

There are institutional barriers. There is the way of doing business.

There is the whole damn edifice to protect.

To have a worker-run economy requires educating people to do it. Just as having a dictatorial economy requires education as well, which also serves as a weeding out process. Those least able to submit to arbitrary dictatorships are weeded out.

No it's not an institutional barrier. It's used because it's the most efficient system for organizing a large group of people for a specific project.

Societies are defined from the top. Pure and simple. Doing Everything corrective requires pummeling institutional barriers, or, getting authority to see their own interests are at risk if the institutions don't change.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No it's not an institutional barrier. It's used because it's the most efficient system for organizing a large group of people for a specific project.

Societies are defined from the top. Pure and simple. Doing Everything corrective requires pummeling institutional barriers, or, getting authority to see their own interests are at risk if the institutions don't change.

But you also have to prove to the bottom that change will make a different. Socialism has tried to be adopted and failed miserable. So you have to show something more than, things suck now but a great miracle will happen and things will be better.

 

[untermensche]

That's not at all true.

There are institutional barriers. There is the way of doing business.

There is the whole damn edifice to protect.

To have a worker-run economy requires educating people to do it. Just as having a dictatorial economy requires education as well, which also serves as a weeding out process. Those least able to submit to arbitrary dictatorships are weeded out.

No it's not an institutional barrier. It's used because it's the most efficient system for organizing a large group of people for a specific project.

The only thing it is more efficient at is taking the fruits of labor from some and giving them to others.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No it's not an institutional barrier. It's used because it's the most efficient system for organizing a large group of people for a specific project.

The only thing it is more efficient at is taking the fruits of labor from some and giving them to others.

And without that organization there, there would be no fruits for the laborer. Try just being a cashier on the street with no merchandise to sell.

 

[untermensche]

The only thing it is more efficient at is taking the fruits of labor from some and giving them to others.

And without that organization there, there would be no fruits for the laborer. Try just being a cashier on the street with no merchandise to sell.

You don't need dictators to have organization.

You need dictators if your plan is to take from others what is rightfully theirs.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And without that organization there, there would be no fruits for the laborer. Try just being a cashier on the street with no merchandise to sell.

You don't need dictators to have organization.

You need dictators if your plan is to take from others what is rightfully theirs.

A leader is very important part of an organization. And organizations use a a hierarchical design to make fast designs, grow and change quickly.

 

[ksen]

No one's saying a leader isn't important.

However, a leader isn't worth 300x times what the people actually doing the work are worth.