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

211–220 of 566 posts

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

#211

Post by qiqing »

First point:

Excerpt: "The great American teenage dream used to be to own your own car. That is dwindling in favor of urban living, greater reliance on mass transit, cycling, walking and, of course, ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft."

The teenage dream is not to own the car but to get to where they want to go, e.g., autonomy to see their friends, go to activities. When the consumer says they want a quarter of an inch drill bit, what they actually want is a quarter of an inch hole in a particular wall. The author doesn't seem to appreciate the difference.

Second point:

The right to repair or alter devices you own, e.g., farmer hacking their own tractors -- that part I agree with.

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

#212

Post by kirykl »

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.

I've returned to paper because they're mostly priced chepaer than the ebook equivalent

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

#213

Post by paulpauper »

crazygringo wrote: post #167

This is beyond ridiculous. The crux of the article is: > Each of these changes is beneficial, yet I worry that Americans are, slowly but surely, losing their connection to the idea of private ownership. The nation was based on the notion that property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system. It set Americans apart from feudal peasants, taught us how property rights and incentives operate, and was a kind of…

He has become insufferable, especially with broad statements/generalizations like this, and that is why I stopped reading his blog or his articles many years ago (except when posted on sites like HN). And the evidence cites is weak.

'Property and stakes' in the context of American history and feudalism means land, not doodads. It's so many banal platitudes. Tyler is a smart guy but some of the stuff he writes and says is just...bad.

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

#214

Post by ryanwaggoner »

magduf wrote: post #106
ryandvm wrote: post #12

As someone who has given away a couple thousand dollars worth of crappy music from the 80s and 90s, I can say for certain that I am glad I don't own it anymore. A Spotify subscription that allows me to listen to practically any song that was ever recorded is of far more utility than a pathetically limited personal music collection.

Why on earth would you pay $ per month to have access to music you like, when you can just have it in MP3/Ogg form, stored on multiple devices (PC, phone, backup HD) and be able to listen to it at any time you want for free?

Having made the jump, this mentality seems insane to me :)

Spotify is $10 / month, the price of one album. For that, I get an essentially infinite [1] library of music that's basically always available to me whenever I want, curated playlists, discovery features, sharing features [2], etc, etc. It all just works, I never have to think about it, etc.

By contrast, unless I'm pirating music, what does $10 get me? An album a month? So after a year, I own 12 albums and had to hassle with the files and downloads, whereas with Spotify it just works and I've listened to 10x - 100x that much music.

Yes, if / when I stop paying for Spotify, I'll lose access, but so what? I wasn't planning on spending 20 years paying a fortune to accumulate a music library and then stopping cold and never paying again, just listening to that music I bought. I'm happy to just pay $50 - 100 / month until I die for subscriptions to huge and ever-growing libraries of music, movies, TV shows, books, etc. Seems like a fantastic deal.

1. I don't have niche tastes or a deep attachment to any particular artist that I simply MUST have, so their selection is far beyond anything I really need.

2. I don't use these, but still.

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

#215

Post by extralego »

_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…

[flagged]

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

#216

Post by mikestew »

mywittyname wrote: post #186
mikestew wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 16-year-old car will kill you in a crash that a new one will let you walk away from. That's one big, important factor in the new vs. used debate. One can be a Chicken Little to the point that I would ask, why drive at all? It's just not worth the risk. A sixteen-year-old car has airbags and designed-in crumple zones. It ain't no 2019 Volvo, but "kill you in a crash that a new one will let you walk away from" is rid…

Driving is the most dangerous thing most of us do, and we do so on a regular basis. The risks of injury in an automobile accident should absolutely weigh into the calculus of car ownership. Especially considering the staggering amount of progress made in vehicle safety in the past 10 years. If a brand new Camry saves you from a single ER visit that you would have had driving an 2008 Camry, then it's already paid for…

How often have you considered taking the money for a new Camry and applying to any of a plethora of defensive driving schools or track schools? My thinking is that those fancy airbags only do you any good if something sets them off.

But I am curious what progress you feel has been made in auto safety in the last ten years that is "staggering". By 2008, I think we got the low-hanging fruit: 1. ABS 2. Airbags 3. Side-curtain airbags 4. Sacrificial crumble zones

I do not consider lane keeping and automatic braking to be "staggering" progress, but incremental.

If a brand new Camry saves you from a single ER visit

That is the very definition of begging the question.

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

#217

Post by captainarab »

burfog wrote: post #194
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…

How do you keep breaking so many refrigerator shelves..? I've never broken one in my entire life..

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

#218

Post by oftenwrong »

jonwachob91 wrote: post #127
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…

>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 as possible. You just described a grocery store... They keep food and beverages…

>And best of all, you pay no subscription fee

The Prime-Member-only prices appearing at my local Whole Foods suggest that this may be increasingly untrue in the future.

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

#219

Post by colecut »

downrightmike wrote: post #193
apozem wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

FB blows it out of the water for audience/demographic targeting
Post reply on HN