[quacked]

Huh, I didn't realize that we didn't have any issues in the US with people having AC in their house or receiving medical care.

Come on, man. This is simple. I recently got a $10,000 hospital bill for an ultrasound, for which insurance decided I owed $1800. It doesn't cost $10,000 for an ultrasound, that's a made up ratio calculated by accountants trying to maximize their firm's ROI. An ultrasound costs {materials, refinement, assembly, shipping, and operation}, none of which require anyone to work constantly; the market has simply set it up that way because everyone working constantly yields great market valuations in the system that the owners of the markets set up.

A comfortable life-shelter, food, clothing, medicine, border security- for you, me, the asphalt guy, and everyone else does not require all of the labor hours that are presently expended in the world.

[s1artibartfast]

>Huh, I didn't realize that we didn't have any issues in the US with people having AC in their house or receiving medical care.

It happens, but the asphalt guy probably has coverage, like 92% of Americans. [1] There are a long list of simple solutions that can increase this percent and bring costs down, but people working less isn't on it as far as I'm concerned. I just don't see the connection.

>A comfortable life-shelter, food, clothing, medicine, border security- for you, me, the asphalt guy, and everyone else does not require all of the labor hours that are presently expended in the world

If anything, bringing the costs of goods down and increasing access to them will increase the number of labor hours needed. More and cheaper ultrasounds means more {materials, refinement, assembly, shipping, and operation}, not less.

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-27...

[quacked]

I think we're agreeing here too, and that's the point of my main comment. If we both agree that more ultrasounds may be needed, then let me stop on this hedonic treadmill of producing slight increases in code efficiency or tapping new markets that don't need to be tapped, and just work on the ultrasounds.

I don't need fast foods restaurants, television, professional sports, overnight shipping, cheap smartphones, endless software updates, new computers, new cars, etc. Cut the parasitic, hedonic treadmill of consumption and you free up billions of labor hours that could instead work on {materials, refine, assembly, shipping, and operation} and then just go home afterwards and talk to their families or work on their own projects.

Apparently there are presently 9.82 million unemployed Americans. Cut the ones that can't work (either because of character issues or because of disability issues), add the rest to the pile of people theoretically freed up by no longer producing piles and piles of useless crap and entertainment, and you've got a tremendous amount of intellectual capital available to work on real goods and services.

There's an indoctrination aspect to this; people would have to be convinced that they don't need all this crap, and I admit that's a hard sell.

[s1artibartfast]

>If we both agree that more ultrasounds may be needed, then let me stop on this hedonic treadmill of producing slight increases in code efficiency or tapping new markets that don't need to be tapped, and just work on the ultrasounds.

Their in lies the "Hard Problem". The unemployed and uninsured guy can't pay for an ultrasound, but there are millions of people willing to line up for the next candy crush clone or similar garbage product. Cash is the incentive to make more ultrasounds, but that guy doesn't have it.

You can tell someone that they would feel better after volunteering or working at a homeless shelter than playing candy crush, but like you said, it is a hard sell.

It is temping to say that the government should get into the ultrasound business, but IMHO, you will just get government brand ultrasounds at twice the price. Somehow we need to make a cultural change about how individuals spend their wealth and limited time.