[kortilla]

> think this is more that we're entering a post material scarcity economy

No we’re not. Materials for housing, etc are just as expensive as ever. Food still has to be heavily subsidized by the government directly and indirectly (“water rights”).

Post-scarcity is a fantasy world used to justify heavily socialist policies that allow people to not work without having to wonder who does have to work.

[treis]

Your etc is doing a lot of work here, but post COVID craziness aside I don't think building materials are more expensive than they were in 1990. As an example, lumber has been flat or slightly down since 1995:

https://www.lesprom.com/en/news/U_S_lumber_prices_in_2020_an...

[sleton38234234]

His point is, the material standard of living is low as ever or even lower. This surprises people, but the bare necesities of the lowest level of maslow's heirarchy of needs are now more expensive than they have been in a long time.

Just look at the cost of shelter. Housing costs sooo much more than it did 50 years ago or even 200 years ago. During the time of Henry david thoreau, an average house cost 800 days of unskilled labor wages (meaning 800$, the average unskilled worker made 1$ per day). Today, it's over 5000 days of unskilled labor wages when you take into account property taxes. the difference in shelter cost is so enormous, that back then 1830s, mortgages were often just 10 years. And thoreau thought even that was too much.

[jonas21]

That's not true at all. Most necessities (food, clothing) are far cheaper now in real terms than they were in the past.

Housing is more expensive on average, but only because houses have gotten much larger (the average new house was ~1000 sqft in 1920 and ~2600 sqft today), and are more likely to be in urban areas where land is scarce (20% urban in 1860 to 80% urban today). Of course modern housing is built to a much higher standard as well -- in Thoreau's time, the average home would not have had indoor plumbing or electricity.

You can absolutely find cheap housing if you're willing to live somewhere small in the middle of nowhere. But most people don't want to do that these days.

[ClumsyPilot]

> You can absolutely find cheap housing if you're willing to live somewhere small in the middle of nowhere

I camt get to work from the middle of nowhere. Social services willvtake away my kids if O live in a wooden hut without heating.

Let's compare items with equivalents of their time.

Otherwise I can make unfavourable comparison with cavemen -their realestate would cost millions today

[astrange]

That's not because of material scarcity most of the time, it's because the US has very bad land use policies so we don't build enough houses for you to buy.

(And industrialization, like prefab houses, doesn't work because the policies are set by local governments so you can't produce a single viable product for all of them.)

[pixl97]

Food is heavily subsidized by the government to avoid complete and total social instability. 100 years ago we realized that a underfed population made a terrible workforce and worked on remediating that. All the while farming automation and the green revolution made it so a large portion of our population working in farming/food became just a very tiny fraction. Meanwhile a pure capitalism based farming community would optimize for producing just in time and just enough to maximize profits which would lead to a complete fucking collapse next time a drought came around.

This ''socialism'' you're so seemingly afraid of was a foundation of the capitalistic growth we had in the last century.

[epr]

> a pure capitalism based farming community would optimize for producing just in time and just enough to maximize profits which would lead to a complete fucking collapse next time a drought came around

I'm not sure where you got this idea, but unless you have a personal definition of capitalism that doesn't equate to private ownership of the means of production, this is an obviously false claim.

Capitalist economies are notable for their ever increasing investment in the future and corresponding decrease in the time preference of money as an economy becomes more developed.

[ClumsyPilot]

> Capitalist economies are notable for their ever increasing investment in the future

Oh really? Then why are all emergency services are run by governments?

Why doesnt private market invest in infrastructure and why is US infrasteucture in such poor condition?

Is that why capitalist society fails to invest into clean energy and hault climate change? Is that why soil erosion was running rampant untill government regulation was introduced, we had lead in petrol and rivers used to catch fire?

UK, as the most capitalist societt in Europe, looses the most money on heating the most poorly insulated houses. It knocked down its last gas storage facility because it was unprofitable.

Capitalis plans for the next quartery report, it does not plan fpr once in a decade famine. systemic relisience against rainy day is not one of its strength.