[chromacity]

But doesn't that overstate it in the other direction? Talking about investments in proportion to GDP back when any estimate of GDP probably wasn't a good measure of total economic output?

We're talking about the period before modern finance, before income taxes, back when most labor was agricultural... Did the average person shoulder the cost of railroads more than the average taxpayer today is shouldering the cost of F-35? (That's another line in Paul's post.)

[topspin]

The F-35 case is interesting. Lockheed Martin can, given peak rates seen in 2025, produce a new F-35 approximately every 36 hours, as they fill orders for US allies arming themselves with F-35's. US pilot training facilities are brimming with foreign pilots. It's the most successful export fighter since the F-16 and F-4, and presently the only means US allies have to obtain operational stealth combat technology.

What that means for the US is this: if the US had to fight a conventional war with a near-peer military today, the US actually has the ability to replace stealth fighter losses. The program isn't some near-dormant, low-rate production deal that would take a year or more to ramp up: it's a operating line at full rate production that could conceivably build a US Navy squadron every ~15 days, plus a complete training and global logistics system, all on the front burner.

If there is any truth to Gen Bradley's "Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics" line, the F-35 is a major win for the US.

[palmotea]

> Lockheed Martin can, given peak rates seen in 2025, produce a new F-35 approximately every 36 hours ... it's a operating line at full rate production that could conceivably build a US Navy squadron every ~15 days, plus a complete logistics and training system, all on the front burner.

That's amazing. I had no idea the US was still capable of things like that.

I wonder if there's a way to get close to that, for things that aren't new and don't have a lot of active orders. Like have all the equipment setup but idle at some facility, keep an assembly teams ready and trained, then cycle through each weapon an activate a couple of these dormant manufacturing programs (at random!) every year, almost as a drill. So there's the capability to spin up, say F-22 production quickly when needed.

Obviously it'd cost money. But it also costs a lot of money to have fighter jets when you're not actively fighting a way. Seems like manufacturing readiness would something an effective military would be smart to pay for.

[topspin]

"I had no idea the US was still capable of things like that."

It's more than just the US though. It's the demand from foreign customers that makes it possible. It's the careful balance between cost and capability that was achieved by the US and allies when it was designed.

Without those things, the program would peter out after the US filled its own demand, and allies went looking for cheaper solutions. The F-35 isn't exactly cheap, but allies can see the capability justifies the cost. Now, there are so many of them in operation that, even after the bulk of orders are filled in the years to come, attrition and upgrades will keep the line operating and healthy at some level, which fulfills the goal you have in mind.

Meanwhile, the F-35 equipped militaries of the Western world are trained to similar standards, operating similar and compatible equipment, and sharing the logistics burden. In actual conflict, those features are invaluable.

There are few peacetime US developed weapons programs with such a record. It seems the interval between them is 20-30 years.

[rickydroll]

Now let's talk about the 155mm artillery shells

[tim333]

I think people were surprised to suddenly have a lot of demand for those.

[topspin]

Sure. Heavy industry. It's important. Maybe don't send it all to Asia because it's dirtier than software and finance.

[chiph]

It took a while to reach full production rate for the F-35. Partly because the supply chain (mostly US based because of the Buy American Act) had to come up to speed[0]. But also because there were running-changes being made to the plane, necessitating changes to the production line to accommodate them.

The F-22 production tooling is supposedly in storage at Sierra Army Depot. Why there and not at the boneyard at Davis-Monthan is an interesting question[1]. Spooling production of the F-22 back up will take less time than originally, but still won't be quick (a secure factory floor large enough has to be found, workforce knowledge has been lost, adding upgrades, etc.)

[0] Scattered across as many congressional districts as possible.

[1] I was at Sierra in the 80's on TDY and it was all Army and Army civilians. A USAF guy like me really stood out.

[peyton]

We do—our automotive assembly lines. F-22 is more of a deterrent. If we need more, it’s failed.

[bluedino]

> Lockheed Martin can, given peak rates seen in 2025, produce a new F-35 approximately every 36 hours

Until we run out of materials

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/minerals-magnets-and-military-capa...

[bombcar]

That's the problem with going too far using "money" or "GDP" - you can roughly compare the WWII 45% of GDP spent with today - https://www.davemanuel.com/us-defense-spending-history-milit... because even by WWII much was "financialized" in such a way that it appears on GDP (though things like victory gardens, barter, etc would explicitly NOT be included without effort - maybe they do this?).

As you get further and further into the past you have to start trying to measure it using human labor equivalents or similar. For example, what was the cost of a Great Pyramid? How does the cost change if you consider the theory that it was somewhat of a "make work" project to keep a mainly agricultural society employed during the "down months" and prevent starvation via centrally managed granaries?

[helterskelter]

You don't even need to go that far back to run into issues, when I read Pride and Prejudice, I think Mr. Darcy was one of the richest people in England at around £10,000/year, but if you to calculate his wealth in today's terms it wasn't some outrageous sum (Wikipedia is telling me ~£800,000/year). The thing is that the economy was totally different back then -- labor cost practically nothing, but goods like furniture for instance were really expensive and would be handed down for generations.

With £800K today, you may not even be able to afford the annual maintenance for his mansion and grounds. I knew somebody with a biggish yard in a small town and the garden was ~$40K/yr to maintain. Definitely not a Darcy estate either.

Thinking about it, an income of £800K is something like the interest on £10m.

[benl]

£10,000 per year for Mr Darcy is 10,000 gold sovereigns per year. A gold sovereign at spot price today is about $1,100. So that’s over 10 million dollars per year in gold-equivalent wealth. Plenty to maintain his estate with.

Alternatively, £10,000 is 200,000 sterling silver shillings per year (20 shillings per pound) for him. A sterling shilling today is about $13.50 at spot price. So that’s $2.7million per year in silver-equivalent wealth. Still plenty!

[zozbot234]

Newsflash, old antique furniture from around that time is still really expensive even today. It was a hand-crafted specialty product, not run-of-the-mill IKEA stuff. If you compare the prices of single consumer goods while adjusting for inflation, they generally check out at least wrt. the overall ballpark. The difference is that living standards (and real incomes) back then for the average person were a lot lower.

[Anon1096]

Inflation is by definition the change in prices of a general basket of goods. Some things will outrun the basket and some things will underrun it. In general consumer durables have underrun, things like TVs and yes, sofas, are way way cheaper now than ever before. I'm not really sure why you would exclude IKEA type furniture, in most cases it's probably as good or better than a really old hand crafted one. If back then you needed to get an ultra luxury sofa but now you can get an IKEA one for the same general quality then that's a massive win for affordability even if the ultra luxury category still exists.

[psychoslave]

~£800,000/year when compared to median value in current UK? Outrageous is relative sure, but for most people out there it should be no surprise they would feel that as an outrageously odd distribution of wealth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom

[bombcar]

The point is that ~£800,000/year is high, even possibly "very high" but it is not "most wealthy man in Britain" high, and certainly nowhere near "hire as many people as worked for Darcy".

[cm2012]

Its more like making 800k per year today in India, where a lot of people make much less so you can have servants

[somenameforme]

The big change is the end of any sort of backing in money. The Minneapolis Fed calculated consumer price index levels since 1800 here. [1] Of course that comes with all the asterisks we're speaking of here for data going back that far, but their numbers are probably at least quite reasonable. They found that from 1800 to 1950 the CPI never shifted more than 25 points from the starting base of 51, so it always stayed within +/- ~50% of that baseline. That's through the Civil War, both World Wars, Spanish Flu, and much more.

Then from 1971 (when the USD became completely unbacked) to present, it increased by more than 800 points, 1600% more than our baseline. And it's only increasing faster now. So the state of modern economics makes it completely incomparable to the past, because there's no precedent for what we're doing. But if you go back to just a bit before 1970, the economy would have of course grown much larger than it was in the past but still have been vaguely comparable to the past centuries.

And I always find it paradoxical. In basic economic terms we should all have much more, but when you look at the things that people could afford on a basic salary, that does not seem to be the case. Somebody in the 50s going to college, picking up a used car, and then having enough money squirreled away to afford the downpayment on their first home -- all on the back of a part time job was a thing. It sounds like make-believe but it's real, and certainly a big part of the reason boomers were so out of touch with economic realities. Now a days a part time job wouldn't even be able to cover tuition, which makes one wonder how it could be that labor cost practically nothing in the past, as you said. Which I'm not disputing - just pointing out the paradox.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/infl...

[wahern]

And yet the homeownership rate in 1950 was 53% (an all-time high up to that point) compared to 65% today: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Housi... Only 80% of units had private indoor toilets or showers.

It is notable that the median monthly rent was $35/month on a median income of $3000, so ~15% of income spent on rental housing. But it's interesting reading that report because a significant focus was on the overcrowding "problem". Housing was categorized by number of rooms, not number of bedrooms. The median number of rooms was 4, and the median number of occupants >4 per unit (or more than 1 person per room). I don't think it's a stretch to say that the amount of space and facilities you get for your money today is roughly equivalent. Yes, greater percentage of your income goes to housing, and yet we have far more creature comforts today then back in 1950--multiple TVs, cellphones, appliances, and endless amounts of other junk. We can buy many more goods (durable and non-durable) for a much lower percentage of our income.

There's no simple story here.

[somenameforme]

What an interesting paper you found! Home ownership stats in contemporary times are quite misleading because of debt. Most home owners now are still paying rent in the form of a mortgage to a bank. In the 50s most home owners genuinely owned their homes 'free and clear'. The exact rate was 56% in the 1951 per your paper (which was a local low), and now it's at 40% which is a local high. And the contemporary demographics are all messed up - it's largely driven by older to elderly individuals in non-urban low-income states.

As for number of occupants, the 50s had a sustainable fertility rate. That means, on average, every woman was having at least 2 kiddos. So a median 4 occupant house would be husband, wife, and 2 children living in a place with a master bedroom, kids room, a combined kitchen/dining room, and a living room. Bathrooms, oddly enough, did not count as rooms. So in modern parlance it'd mostly be a 2/2 for up to 14% of one person's median income, and 0% in most cases as most people 'really' owned their homes.

We definitely have lots more gizmos, but I feel like that's an exchange that relatively few people would make in hindsight.

[bombcar]

I sometimes feel that the facts are all out there, but half the people pick one half the facts as causal and the other half pick the other half. Are home prices rising because people have fewer kids (and therefore more to spend on housing) or are people having fewer kids because house prices are rising (and therefore less to spend on kids)?

I suspect that it's a complex mixture of all possibilities, and you can only really look at trends and your own life - the one thing you can have something resembling understanding and control.

[chaos_emergent]

I posted just that on the Twitter feed but then I realized that railroad started at the beginning of an industrial revolution where labor was a far larger portion of GDP compared to industrial production. So it kind of makes sense that the first enabling technology consumed far more GDP than current investments do, even on a marginal basis.