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

Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 566 posts

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#191

Post by sandworm101 »

ictoan wrote: post #147
_bxg1 wrote: post #134

The article identifies some problems but totally misses their actual source. The problem isn't that we own less stuff, it's that the ownership is replaced by a dependency on a handful of corporations which we have no ability to influence or appeal to. The substitution of individual ownership for a communal one in which individuals retain a stake - a real community, or at a larger scale, a democracy - is not inherentl…

In other words, monopoly.

Monopoly is if one corporation owns an entire market. This is about multiple corporations. The proper word is cartel or "corpocracy" which dislike as corporations are just a legal fiction. Someone still owns the corporation. The article isn't really about americans not owning stuff. It is about average americans not owning stuff. Poor, or at least not-rich, people are today less likely to own things like houses and cars. But the rich still own plenty. They are owning a greater percentage of everything. So perhaps the best word is plutocracy.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#192

Post by the_watcher »

ghaff wrote: post #63
hexis wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's assume ebooks are 20% (I know that's the upper bound you're positing, but let's start with that). If my salary were reduced by 20%, I would definitely say that I was making "much less". Would I say the same if my salary were reduced by, say, 10% rather than 20%? Maybe, maybe not, but I doubt I'd go so far as to say that characterization was simply "not accurate".

I think it's fair to say that eBooks haven't revolutionized the way the majority of people read books to anything like the degree that was expected (or has happened with music and video).

While ebooks are somewhat similar to the shift to streaming in music and video, the actual experience of watching a streamed show or listening to streamed music is essentially the same as it was when you owned a movie on DVD/VHS or had an album/CD (Play-Stop-Pause-Rewind-Fast Forward). It's the discovery process that's been revolutionized). With an ebook, the experience is fundamentally different - the concept of "pages" essentially disappears or is redefined substantially, the physical act of reading is different, and the relative standardization of displays and ability of the user to customize fonts and sizes limits some of the options available to physical books (that said, ebooks have wildly improved the footnote experience). I imagine that this is a big reason the ebooks haven't taken off in the same way.

As an example - while my grandfather may have a bit of trouble figuring out how to get started on Netflix, once he's chosen something to watch, he won't really notice a difference from when he watched things on VHS in terms of how to navigate. The same is not true for giving him a book on a Kindle.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#193

Post by downrightmike »

apozem wrote: post #160
ictoan wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, monopoly.

That is absolutely the end goal of all these network-effect companies. Uber wants to be a monopoly on transportation, Google a monopoly on search, Spotify a monopoly on music consumption, etc.

*Google a monopoly on advertising

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#194

Post by burfog »

amelius wrote: post #6

It may be better for the environment to not own stuff, but instead use services. For example, take a fridge. If I buy a fridge, the company I buy it from has an incentive to make it break in N years, so they can sell me a new one, i.e. "planned obsolescence". However, if I subscribe to a service to keep my food and beverages at a certain temperature, then the company has the incentive to make the fridge last as long…

I got burned by "buying a product and not knowing when it will fail".

Samsung made the largest fridge available. I got the $2500 model: stainless steel, no IoT but digital, double doors over drawer freezer. It looked really solid and durable. It failed in so many distinct and interesting ways!

The door shelves constantly shattered, at $50 each. The structure had been compromised by artistic design, with two kinds of plastic joined together. The ice maker died. The main shelves broke a couple times. The temperature display (blue 7-segment numbers) became nonsense. The drawer handle had a hinge made from plastic which broke and non-stainless steel which rusted out. The compressor went out, as we determined by diagnostic codes. The tech sent to fix that ignored us, never checked diagnostic codes, didn't look at the compressor, insisted that our problem was the ice maker (which was indeed broken but not our complaint), charged us $75 for nothing, and fought us when we did a credit card charge-back.

I cut that fridge up with a demolition saw to get it out of my house. This was satisfying.

The replacement is a pair of smaller fridges that were about $400 each. One of them even has old-style wire shelves that seem unlikely to shatter. We've only had two broken shelves so far, in the other one.

Famously, there was a "lemons and cherries" paper on the economics of used cars. I think it also somewhat applies to new goods. There is information asymmetry here. I can't know that the hinges are fragile plastic and non-stainless steel. The fridge looks nice, and it says "stainless steel". I've learned my lesson: do not pay more in an attempt to get quality, because you'll just pay more for the same old junk.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#195

Post by dragonwriter »

amelius wrote: post #6

It may be better for the environment to not own stuff, but instead use services. For example, take a fridge. If I buy a fridge, the company I buy it from has an incentive to make it break in N years, so they can sell me a new one, i.e. "planned obsolescence". However, if I subscribe to a service to keep my food and beverages at a certain temperature, then the company has the incentive to make the fridge last as long…

> If I buy a fridge, the company I buy it from has an incentive to make it break in N years, so they can sell me a new one, i.e. "planned obsolescence".

Only if they don't have competitor for your business with a reputation for longer-lasting fridges that are otherwise of similar utility.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#196

Post by mywittyname »

A lot of this "stuff" are one-time-use items for the majority of people. I very rarely read a book for a second time nor do I rewatch television shows. When I do, reread a book or rewatch a movie, I usually end up paying for it again because I lost the original or I saw the movie in a theater.

The good thing about the digitization of this content is the fact that it will be more likely to be preserved in the long term. There are tons of books that are out of print and movies that were produced before DVDs that will never be released. This is going to be much less of an issue going forward. So, while you may need to pay for access again if you haven't watched a movie in 20 years, at least you'll be able to obtain it like you would any other movie.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#197

Post by ryanwaggoner »

EADGBE wrote: post #65
_ah wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more subtle than that. Needing less stuff gives freedom. Renting stuff instead gives less freedom... you have many of the same expenses as ownership, but if you ever stop paying your useful stuff disappears. Owned objects of utility provide insurance to ride out times with limited income.

Agreed. As least there's an asset with owned items.

But you had to buy them! It's not a fair comparison.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#198

Post by the_watcher »

seibelj wrote: post #35
ilamont wrote: post #15

Amazon’s Kindle and other methods of online reading have revolutionized how Americans consume text. Fifteen years ago, people typically owned the books and magazines they were reading. Much less so now. The statements about books are not accurate. Ebook sales are still just a fraction of print sales in many genres - NPD data indicates ebooks are less than 20% of total unit sales for nonfiction, children, and young ad…

Anecdotal, but every reader I know (including me) flirted with ebooks and then switched back to paper. For me, it’s less strain on my eyes, it always works even without electricity, I can lend it out to friends easily, and I like to expand the aesthetic of my bookshelf. I’m also more likely to reread all or part of a physical book. Ebooks are simply inferior.

Adding to my prior comment - I agree that the actual experience of reading a paper book hasn't been matched too closely by ebooks (yet, to be fair). However, there are two things that ebooks do wildly improve - long books are not any heavier, and footnotes/endnotes are just way, way more consumable on a Kindle than a physical book.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#199

Post by pathseeker »

_bxg1 wrote: post #134

The article identifies some problems but totally misses their actual source. The problem isn't that we own less stuff, it's that the ownership is replaced by a dependency on a handful of corporations which we have no ability to influence or appeal to. The substitution of individual ownership for a communal one in which individuals retain a stake - a real community, or at a larger scale, a democracy - is not inherentl…

>The substitution of individual ownership for a communal one in which individuals retain a stake - a real community, or at a larger scale, a democracy - is not inherently bad.

IMO it's still terrible if there is effectively only one product option. A democratic decision is just as bad as a shareholder one if it's choosing to favor a majority group over the minority (2 wolves and 1 sheep voting for dinner choices).

>outsources the generation of actual value to others

If you don't think there is value in the network, feedback mechanisms, and simplicity of using Lyft/Uber/whatever, you have completely missed why they are popular. Cabs would still dominate and would have been as popular as Lyft and Uber are now if all of the value was generated by drivers with cars. I think you probably meant to say 'outsourcing the labor' to others, which is completely different and companies have been doing that for centuries.

Labor != Value. I can go dig ditches in a yard for 10 years and not create any value.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#200

Post by pradn »

vcolano wrote: post #20

I'd agree young Americans are less interested in owning their media and there does seem to be a general trend away from materialism and towards spending any extra income on experiences over objects. However, I reject the notion that the younger generations are less interested in owning property. Young people do want to have a stake in the system, but most places young people are living (especially where they're movin…

"A stake in the system" comes with restrictions. It's hard to move around when you own a house. And there's various forms of "stake", too. I'd much rather own stocks & bonds and other instruments that I can look at in an app versus a complex bureaucratic like a house. The transaction and maintenance costs are unbelievable.
Post reply on HN