Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Pyxl101 3467 days ago
> Technological progress allows concentration of power in the one who holds the capital, as he will be the main one to benefit from a more efficient capital

I do not think that is true. The consumers of all goods and services also benefit from technological progress, because they become cheaper, more widely available, higher quality (different ways of saying the same thing).

Technological progress in the last ~200 years has radically improved the lives of everyone, most significantly by freeing them from being subsistence farmers and clothes-makers. Even though most people today do not own a lot of capital, the cost of living well has come down so substantially that even poor people today arguably have much better quality of life than historical kings. For example, the majority of US households below the poverty line own an automobile, have multiple televisions with cable TV, a refrigerator, air conditioning, mobile phones, etc. [1] Despite owning no capital, the life of even those in poverty is astronomically better off than 200 years ago.

Are you familiar with the trope where poor people from the distant past would wear clothes until they literally turned into rags? The reason that happened is because clothing was ridiculously expensive compared to today. There was an article about this on Hacker News about two years ago called "The $3500 Shirt - A History Lesson in Economics" [2]. To summarize, in the pre-industrial age, a single shirt required so much labor that its cost was on the order of $3500 - $4000 in modern dollars. Buying a single piece of clothing could cost you multiple months' wages.

> Back in the pre-industrial days, the making of thread, cloth, and clothing ate up all the time that a woman wasn't spending cooking and cleaning and raising the children. That's why single women were called "spinsters" - spinning thread was their primary job. "I somehow or somewhere got the idea," wrote Lucy Larcom in the 18th century, "when I was a small child, that the chief end of woman was to make clothing for mankind." [2]

NPR also published an article on called "The History Of Light" [3] which traces how much light (like candle light or lamp light) you could buy with a day's worth of labor, at various points in history. In Babylonian times, your day's wages could buy you 10 minutes worth of light. Light was therefore relatively expensive and in-affordable. By the 1990s, a day's wages can buy about 20,000 hours worth of light. Light is so cheap everyone has practically unlimited amounts, which led to substantial changes across modern society.

Technological progress has drastically improved the lives of everyone. It has not made everyone rich, but those in poverty today are phenomenally better off than at any time in the past.

[1] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understandi...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8940950

[3] http://www.npr.org/2014/05/02/309040279/in-4-000-years-one-t...

4 comments

That light article is fantastic. Thanks for sharing!
Whether you believe it or not it doesn't really matter. What matters is that it is true. We can see this today, and through out history. There is an an accelerating concentration of wealth. Which is caused directly because the return on capital is greater than labor. So yes, while costs of goods has decreased, that doesn't mean that the benefits of technology are distributed evenly, or even fairly. The total cost of goods is irrelevant, if share of wealth has actually decreased, and that the economic ladder has been pulled up.
This does not contradicts what I'm saying. Maybe you should mention that in the US this prosperity is financed by debt.
It contradicts one specific bit in your reasoning, namely the "[modern] clothes are worthless" part.

I think the point that Pyxl101 was getting at is that your assertion that modern clothes are of vastly inferior quality compared to older clothes is maybe not well-founded.

Whether or not that's true, idk. Whether or not it's fair to pick out one specific bit of your reasoning, idk.

If you have sources for any of your claims, then maybe we could continue discussion.

I was referring to fast-fashion brands such as Zara, H&M, etc... On a large scale in the near past, you can see a drop of quality in the clothes sold on the market. You may say that it is a conterpart of lower prices, but even expensive clothes are degrading quality in order to preserve their margins.
New clothes smell worse than old cotton clothes ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4249026/ ) leading to bad body odor.

Which is perhaps the reason people nowadays think they need to shower daily.

Since ever fewer people are able to extract the profits from ever more goods it seems clear that there should be a natural tendency toward wealth accumulation and stratification.