Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–316 of 316 posts

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#311

Post by syshum »

Reason077 wrote: post #282
syshum wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with in the exact same product but different sizes I seem them use different units to make to hard to figure out which size provides the best value

That seems odd to me. Wouldn’t the store want you to purchase the bigger product, and thus spend more money? You’d think it would be in their interest to display the per-unit price comparison, to emphasise where a bigger package is better value.

Only if the bigger product is actually the better value, that is not always the case.

I know of several products that the Mid Size packaging has the best Per Unit value.

And several where they are the EXACT same price per unit, so they want to push you to the bigger one hoping you will waste most of it.

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#312

Post by pm90 »

pjmorris wrote: post #305
pm90 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm only slightly surprised that a comment full of anecdote without a shred of actual scientific evidence is the top comment in this story. MBA's have optimized everything... which is great! We don't need to spend incredible amounts on labor. We don't need to buy incredibly large homes. Make work more efficient... its the only way to compete with low cost emerging economic markets. Specialization and efficiencies are…

Are you suggesting that scientific evidence for product shrinkage or for an increase in the money supply can't be found, and so my arguments have to be anecdotal?

> increase in the money supply

There is scientific evidence for this, yes.

> scientific evidence for product shrinkage

No. The term "product shrinkage" itself is undefined, or poorly defined. You're saying the digitization of services has rendered unnecessary a lot of material needs. Counterpoint: it has enabled commercial transactions on an unbelievable scale, enabling smaller industries to reach wider audiences.

Just because you mix in a fact with an anecdote doesn't make the whole argument better :)

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#313

Post by dredmorbius »

jdkee wrote: post #306
dredmorbius wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specific references on the Maxima and Nissan's practices?

https://www.autonews.com/article/19960122/ANA/601220731/deco...

Thanks, though I'll note that's a 23 year old article.

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#314

Post by pjmorris »

pm90 wrote: post #312
pjmorris wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that scientific evidence for product shrinkage or for an increase in the money supply can't be found, and so my arguments have to be anecdotal?

> increase in the money supply There is scientific evidence for this, yes. > scientific evidence for product shrinkage No. The term "product shrinkage" itself is undefined, or poorly defined. You're saying the digitization of services has rendered unnecessary a lot of material needs. Counterpoint: it has enabled commercial transactions on an unbelievable scale, enabling smaller industries to reach wider audiences. Ju…

The research referred to in the article is my evidence for what I called 'product shrinkage' and what the article calls 'reduced material needs', namely:

He had found substantial evidence not only that Americans were consuming fewer resources per capita but also that they were consuming less in total of some of the most important building blocks of an economy: things such as steel, copper, fertilizer, timber, and paper. Total annual U.S. consumption of all of these had been increasing rapidly prior to 1970. But since then, consumption had reached a peak and then declined.

The rolodex and the ice cream were just examples to ground the idea. I'm sure there's more to the story than spreadsheet-wielding MBAs, but I think it's reasonable to claim (and evidence can be provided for): 1) Spreadsheets have been used for two generations (VisiCalc, 1979) 2) MBAs are trained to optimize things like capital and labor costs, including the price and quantity of materials used in the products and services they manage.

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#316

Post by lkrubner »

magduf wrote: post #88
lkrubner wrote: post #32

Wages have been mostly flat, so consumers have no extra money to engage in additional buying. Since the Great Recession of 2008, the top 1% of the income distribution have absorbed 125% of productivity gains. This is the reverse of what we saw in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s when strong labor unions were able to win 110% of productivity for workers, so that the share of national income going to labor increased. Now…

>This is the reverse of what we saw in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s when strong labor unions were able to win 110% of productivity for workers, so that the share of national income going to labor increased. Now the opposite is happening, with the share of national income going to labor decreasing. Yeah, but this is a good thing. The labor class is a very strong supporter of the political party that pushes policies w…

I don’t know what you mean. The working class reliably votes for the Democrats who continue to fight for strong labor unions.

It’s possible you were thinking of the white working class, but if that’s what you meant, then you should have said so.

Post reply on HN