World Turned upside down

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]I will watch the video after the kids are asleep and will let you know what i think.

No one travelled to Europe or camped across the US all Summer. Our parents were all busy working. Who had that kind of time off? No one I ever knew?[/quote]

Professors and RE brokers had that time off.

[Arraya]

The just-world hypothesis – refers to the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just. As a result, when they witness an otherwise inexplicable injustice, they will rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it. This deflects their anxiety, and lets them continue to believe the world is a just place, but often at the expense of blaming victims for things that were not, objectively, their fault.

[Arraya]

The just-world hypothesis – refers to the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just. As a result, when they witness an otherwise inexplicable injustice, they will rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it. This deflects their anxiety, and lets them continue to believe the world is a just place, but often at the expense of blaming victims for things that were not, objectively, their fault.

[Arraya]

The just-world hypothesis – refers to the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just. As a result, when they witness an otherwise inexplicable injustice, they will rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it. This deflects their anxiety, and lets them continue to believe the world is a just place, but often at the expense of blaming victims for things that were not, objectively, their fault.

[Arraya]

The just-world hypothesis – refers to the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just. As a result, when they witness an otherwise inexplicable injustice, they will rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it. This deflects their anxiety, and lets them continue to believe the world is a just place, but often at the expense of blaming victims for things that were not, objectively, their fault.

[Arraya]

The just-world hypothesis – refers to the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just. As a result, when they witness an otherwise inexplicable injustice, they will rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it. This deflects their anxiety, and lets them continue to believe the world is a just place, but often at the expense of blaming victims for things that were not, objectively, their fault.

[CA renter]

[quote=Arraya][quote=CA renter]sdr,

You clearly did not watch Elizabeth Warren’s lecture. I highly suggest you (and everyone else) take an hour or so to watch her presentation. She hits the nail right on the head.[/quote]

Another thing, that she does not go into. While some of those areas that have gone down in inflation adjusted dollars spent per segment. The average american is still buying more and cheaper quality items. So more cyclical consumption is done in areas like electronics and clothes – as well as more processed food. So all in all, more shopping is done.[/quote]

Agreed. This is what I often complain about when we hear of all the “benefits” of cheap goods. Those “cheap” goods come at a steep price — more environmental damage on the manufacturing side, more environmental damage on the end-of-cycle side (dumping/recycling), and we often end up paying *more* for the same use of these goods over time. If we are paying 1/3 of the price of an old widget, but the old one lasted 5X longer, then we are paying more and causing more environmental damage than if we build truly durable goods that cost more initially, but last much longer. Of course, corporate profits would shrink, so we’ll never see it unless someone forces it to happen.

[CA renter]

[quote=Arraya][quote=CA renter]sdr,

You clearly did not watch Elizabeth Warren’s lecture. I highly suggest you (and everyone else) take an hour or so to watch her presentation. She hits the nail right on the head.[/quote]

Another thing, that she does not go into. While some of those areas that have gone down in inflation adjusted dollars spent per segment. The average american is still buying more and cheaper quality items. So more cyclical consumption is done in areas like electronics and clothes – as well as more processed food. So all in all, more shopping is done.[/quote]

Agreed. This is what I often complain about when we hear of all the “benefits” of cheap goods. Those “cheap” goods come at a steep price — more environmental damage on the manufacturing side, more environmental damage on the end-of-cycle side (dumping/recycling), and we often end up paying *more* for the same use of these goods over time. If we are paying 1/3 of the price of an old widget, but the old one lasted 5X longer, then we are paying more and causing more environmental damage than if we build truly durable goods that cost more initially, but last much longer. Of course, corporate profits would shrink, so we’ll never see it unless someone forces it to happen.

[CA renter]

[quote=Arraya][quote=CA renter]sdr,

You clearly did not watch Elizabeth Warren’s lecture. I highly suggest you (and everyone else) take an hour or so to watch her presentation. She hits the nail right on the head.[/quote]

Another thing, that she does not go into. While some of those areas that have gone down in inflation adjusted dollars spent per segment. The average american is still buying more and cheaper quality items. So more cyclical consumption is done in areas like electronics and clothes – as well as more processed food. So all in all, more shopping is done.[/quote]

Agreed. This is what I often complain about when we hear of all the “benefits” of cheap goods. Those “cheap” goods come at a steep price — more environmental damage on the manufacturing side, more environmental damage on the end-of-cycle side (dumping/recycling), and we often end up paying *more* for the same use of these goods over time. If we are paying 1/3 of the price of an old widget, but the old one lasted 5X longer, then we are paying more and causing more environmental damage than if we build truly durable goods that cost more initially, but last much longer. Of course, corporate profits would shrink, so we’ll never see it unless someone forces it to happen.

[CA renter]

[quote=Arraya][quote=CA renter]sdr,

You clearly did not watch Elizabeth Warren’s lecture. I highly suggest you (and everyone else) take an hour or so to watch her presentation. She hits the nail right on the head.[/quote]

Another thing, that she does not go into. While some of those areas that have gone down in inflation adjusted dollars spent per segment. The average american is still buying more and cheaper quality items. So more cyclical consumption is done in areas like electronics and clothes – as well as more processed food. So all in all, more shopping is done.[/quote]

Agreed. This is what I often complain about when we hear of all the “benefits” of cheap goods. Those “cheap” goods come at a steep price — more environmental damage on the manufacturing side, more environmental damage on the end-of-cycle side (dumping/recycling), and we often end up paying *more* for the same use of these goods over time. If we are paying 1/3 of the price of an old widget, but the old one lasted 5X longer, then we are paying more and causing more environmental damage than if we build truly durable goods that cost more initially, but last much longer. Of course, corporate profits would shrink, so we’ll never see it unless someone forces it to happen.

[CA renter]

[quote=Arraya][quote=CA renter]sdr,

You clearly did not watch Elizabeth Warren’s lecture. I highly suggest you (and everyone else) take an hour or so to watch her presentation. She hits the nail right on the head.[/quote]

Another thing, that she does not go into. While some of those areas that have gone down in inflation adjusted dollars spent per segment. The average american is still buying more and cheaper quality items. So more cyclical consumption is done in areas like electronics and clothes – as well as more processed food. So all in all, more shopping is done.[/quote]

Agreed. This is what I often complain about when we hear of all the “benefits” of cheap goods. Those “cheap” goods come at a steep price — more environmental damage on the manufacturing side, more environmental damage on the end-of-cycle side (dumping/recycling), and we often end up paying *more* for the same use of these goods over time. If we are paying 1/3 of the price of an old widget, but the old one lasted 5X longer, then we are paying more and causing more environmental damage than if we build truly durable goods that cost more initially, but last much longer. Of course, corporate profits would shrink, so we’ll never see it unless someone forces it to happen.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]get off it BG, I am not addressing your values but rather society at large’s value. Growing up people I knew didnt have 3 TV’s or eat out every week. My best friend’s father was VP of sales and Marketing for a pretty large international company. They drove 2 simple american cars, lived in 1800 sq ft 2 story home w/ a 1 car garage, never travelled to Europe and rarely travelled anywhere but FLA to visit family. He had a big time job. When he retired, he was one of 2 co-founders of what was the #1 sports memorabilia company in the country and sold out at the peak when they went public for 8 figures and never altered their lifestyle much. Another good friends father was a physician and drove a Dodge dart until the wells fell off. They like most of the people I know lived simple comfortable lives but saved and retired comfortably.

I listen to the lifestyle CAR says she grew up around and wonder how much here and her DH’s parents retired with? I wonder whether they were living beyond their means and not saving much? I don’t know? Maybe she can fill us in?[/quote]

One other note about the way you are looking at things…

You’re thinking longitudinally when determining whether or not today’s families are better off than families were in the 1960s-1980s. Humans measure status/wealth laterally — they compare themselves to their peers at a given point in time.

Technological improvements, more efficient manufacturing/distribution methods, etc. might improve our lives over time; we might have three TVs that cost less than one TV did in the 1960s or 1970s. It doesn’t mean that we are spending a greater portion of our income on “wants” than we were in those earlier decades.

What would be more instructive when talking about wealth would be to compare apples to apples — what were the income/wealth/lifestyle differences between certain occupations in the 1960s-1980s vs. today? What were the lifestyle differences in the 1970s, for instance, between a family of four with a doctor as head-of-household vs. a plumber as head-of-household, and how does that compare to the differences between those households, today? If we analyze these differences between a variety of professions and family types, what would that look like? From everything I’ve seen, the differences between these families has grown significantly over the past few decades. THAT is at the root of many of our problems, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]get off it BG, I am not addressing your values but rather society at large’s value. Growing up people I knew didnt have 3 TV’s or eat out every week. My best friend’s father was VP of sales and Marketing for a pretty large international company. They drove 2 simple american cars, lived in 1800 sq ft 2 story home w/ a 1 car garage, never travelled to Europe and rarely travelled anywhere but FLA to visit family. He had a big time job. When he retired, he was one of 2 co-founders of what was the #1 sports memorabilia company in the country and sold out at the peak when they went public for 8 figures and never altered their lifestyle much. Another good friends father was a physician and drove a Dodge dart until the wells fell off. They like most of the people I know lived simple comfortable lives but saved and retired comfortably.

I listen to the lifestyle CAR says she grew up around and wonder how much here and her DH’s parents retired with? I wonder whether they were living beyond their means and not saving much? I don’t know? Maybe she can fill us in?[/quote]

One other note about the way you are looking at things…

You’re thinking longitudinally when determining whether or not today’s families are better off than families were in the 1960s-1980s. Humans measure status/wealth laterally — they compare themselves to their peers at a given point in time.

Technological improvements, more efficient manufacturing/distribution methods, etc. might improve our lives over time; we might have three TVs that cost less than one TV did in the 1960s or 1970s. It doesn’t mean that we are spending a greater portion of our income on “wants” than we were in those earlier decades.

What would be more instructive when talking about wealth would be to compare apples to apples — what were the income/wealth/lifestyle differences between certain occupations in the 1960s-1980s vs. today? What were the lifestyle differences in the 1970s, for instance, between a family of four with a doctor as head-of-household vs. a plumber as head-of-household, and how does that compare to the differences between those households, today? If we analyze these differences between a variety of professions and family types, what would that look like? From everything I’ve seen, the differences between these families has grown significantly over the past few decades. THAT is at the root of many of our problems, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]get off it BG, I am not addressing your values but rather society at large’s value. Growing up people I knew didnt have 3 TV’s or eat out every week. My best friend’s father was VP of sales and Marketing for a pretty large international company. They drove 2 simple american cars, lived in 1800 sq ft 2 story home w/ a 1 car garage, never travelled to Europe and rarely travelled anywhere but FLA to visit family. He had a big time job. When he retired, he was one of 2 co-founders of what was the #1 sports memorabilia company in the country and sold out at the peak when they went public for 8 figures and never altered their lifestyle much. Another good friends father was a physician and drove a Dodge dart until the wells fell off. They like most of the people I know lived simple comfortable lives but saved and retired comfortably.

I listen to the lifestyle CAR says she grew up around and wonder how much here and her DH’s parents retired with? I wonder whether they were living beyond their means and not saving much? I don’t know? Maybe she can fill us in?[/quote]

One other note about the way you are looking at things…

You’re thinking longitudinally when determining whether or not today’s families are better off than families were in the 1960s-1980s. Humans measure status/wealth laterally — they compare themselves to their peers at a given point in time.

Technological improvements, more efficient manufacturing/distribution methods, etc. might improve our lives over time; we might have three TVs that cost less than one TV did in the 1960s or 1970s. It doesn’t mean that we are spending a greater portion of our income on “wants” than we were in those earlier decades.

What would be more instructive when talking about wealth would be to compare apples to apples — what were the income/wealth/lifestyle differences between certain occupations in the 1960s-1980s vs. today? What were the lifestyle differences in the 1970s, for instance, between a family of four with a doctor as head-of-household vs. a plumber as head-of-household, and how does that compare to the differences between those households, today? If we analyze these differences between a variety of professions and family types, what would that look like? From everything I’ve seen, the differences between these families has grown significantly over the past few decades. THAT is at the root of many of our problems, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]get off it BG, I am not addressing your values but rather society at large’s value. Growing up people I knew didnt have 3 TV’s or eat out every week. My best friend’s father was VP of sales and Marketing for a pretty large international company. They drove 2 simple american cars, lived in 1800 sq ft 2 story home w/ a 1 car garage, never travelled to Europe and rarely travelled anywhere but FLA to visit family. He had a big time job. When he retired, he was one of 2 co-founders of what was the #1 sports memorabilia company in the country and sold out at the peak when they went public for 8 figures and never altered their lifestyle much. Another good friends father was a physician and drove a Dodge dart until the wells fell off. They like most of the people I know lived simple comfortable lives but saved and retired comfortably.

I listen to the lifestyle CAR says she grew up around and wonder how much here and her DH’s parents retired with? I wonder whether they were living beyond their means and not saving much? I don’t know? Maybe she can fill us in?[/quote]

One other note about the way you are looking at things…

You’re thinking longitudinally when determining whether or not today’s families are better off than families were in the 1960s-1980s. Humans measure status/wealth laterally — they compare themselves to their peers at a given point in time.

Technological improvements, more efficient manufacturing/distribution methods, etc. might improve our lives over time; we might have three TVs that cost less than one TV did in the 1960s or 1970s. It doesn’t mean that we are spending a greater portion of our income on “wants” than we were in those earlier decades.

What would be more instructive when talking about wealth would be to compare apples to apples — what were the income/wealth/lifestyle differences between certain occupations in the 1960s-1980s vs. today? What were the lifestyle differences in the 1970s, for instance, between a family of four with a doctor as head-of-household vs. a plumber as head-of-household, and how does that compare to the differences between those households, today? If we analyze these differences between a variety of professions and family types, what would that look like? From everything I’ve seen, the differences between these families has grown significantly over the past few decades. THAT is at the root of many of our problems, IMHO.

[Author]

Posts