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

241–250 of 566 posts

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

#241

Post by ryandrake »

I’m surprised at the criticism here and I think the critics are missing the author’s point. He’s not saying, “buy more stuff you don’t need” or even, “possess more stuff.” He’s saying, “you ought to own the stuff you possess.” Which I didn’t think was a controversial opinion but I guess I stand corrected.

I might be an outlier. I make a deliberate effort to own instead of rent. My commute is enormous because I moved to a place I can afford to own a house, rather than be beholden to some landlord whose interests are not aligned with my own. I’ve never leased a car because I value the ability to repair and upgrade it myself. I don’t rely on streaming services for media, which could one day disappear without replacements. I do my own taxes. I don’t even eat at restaurants often. I feel that relying on services is risky coupling, unnecessarily involving another party in my success/outcome/enjoyment of the product. If I have the MP4 on my hard drive, Netflix can’t wake up one day and decide I can’t watch it anymore. I’ll only (grudgingly) subscribe to a service if there is no other realistic option, such as with Internet service.

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

#242

Post by s73v3r_ »

_louisr_ wrote: post #223
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…

>If we want to be nervous, let's investigate inequality of net worth And we should find ourselves completely at ease at the end of our investigation, for in every species success is distributed inequitably. Inequality of net worth is a natural law, and human society is no exception. And we need to keep very hard working people motivated to keep working very hard by ensuring them that they will always keep the lions s…

"And we need to keep very hard working people motivated to keep working very hard by ensuring them that they will always keep the lions share of their labour's products."

Tell that to a single mom who works 2 jobs.

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

#243

Post by mywittyname »

mikestew wrote: post #216
mywittyname wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-c…

I used to be a fixture in the local SCCA, but my wife has been in far few accidents than me, so probably not a great use of time/money.

As far as safety progress over the past ten years -

2008: SID-II Crash test dummies. These dummies are designed to simulate smaller humans (women and children).

2010: NHSTA revamps five star rating because cars became "too safe." Almost every vehicle on the road had a five star rating so they made the requirements more stringent.

2014: NHSTA adds small-overlap tests to accident ratings. Many cars failed during the first year.

2015: NHSTA revamps safety standards again, this time adding considerations for rollover and crash avoidance technology (automatic braking).

Other considerations added over the past decade, but I can't find an exact date implemented for: side pole crash, fuel system integrity assurances, deformation barrier tests. There's a bunch more but I'm tired of reading research papers on teh subject.

Suffice to say, advances in safety from 2008-2018 were staggering.

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

#244

Post by gnicholas »

criddell wrote: post #166
twothamendment wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many things I like about Ebooks, but until I can lend it to a friend or sell it when I'm done with it, I'm done with them. I can buy a used (and sometimes new) paper copy cheaper than an Ebook and when I'm done I can decided if I want to keep it sell it or give it away.

Ebooks have too many advantages that I can't give them up. For example, I can make the text as large as I need and for many of us, that's a killer feature. I am sympathetic to the argument against DRM though. It seems criminal that I can't leave my ebook collection to somebody after I die.

> It seems criminal that I can't leave my ebook collection to somebody after I die.

It's a bummer for sure, but this is probably overkill. I think the main issue is that the price doesn't necessarily reflect this limitation. For many books, it probably wouldn't affect people's willingness to pay that much, but for books that they'd like to be able to give away or bequeath, it could matter a bit.

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

#245

Post by Spooky23 »

Retric wrote: post #177
lordCarbonFiber wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way you can possibly justify that sort of view point is the implicit hard cap on what you're willing to pay. You can't find "quality" (in appliances, in shoes, in just about anything) because you're not willing to pay for it.

You can easily spend 3000$ on a crap fridge. The problem is optimization as energy efficiency and lifespan for example are often at odds. Further you can measure energy efficiency much easier than lifespan so the incentives get out of whack from what consumers want in favor of what they can measure.

Energy efficiency is one of the most noxious concepts in appliances.

We probably spend exponentially more energy manufacturing, distributing and delivering new appliances that fail due to pointless efficiency engineering than we shave off.

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

#246

Post by elicash »

munificent wrote: post #162
elicash wrote: post #37

> The nation was based on the notion that property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system. Why is the fact that people without property were not given the right to vote because they "didn't have a stake" as our nation was founded being lifted up as a good thing? It's such a bizarre thing to say that this ideology was a good one. The author can't really believe that renters have less a stake in the system a…

The author isn't talking about voting rights, they are talking about incentives. When you own property, you care more about the place where that property exists because what affects the surroundings directly affects the value of your possession. That incentivizes you to care about and invest in your neighborhood, community, state, and country. If you aren't tied to the place, it's easier to just jump ship and say "no…

> The author isn't talking about voting rights, they are talking about incentives.

They're talking about the ways in which non-property-owners were viewed at this country's founding, as not having a stake in the system. That argument was absolutely made in regards to voting rights and is the reason so many were denied this basic right. It's a very dangerous idea.

But let's explore it.

Renters have just as much a stake in the system as property-owners. They just have DIFFERENT stakes and incentives. Let's use your tree example. Maybe you are correct that renters are less likely to plant trees. That's not because they have less a stake in a system, but because the stakes for renters is different. For example, they may have to pay for the local government to plant the tree as taxpayers. Or maybe they don't like the way the tree looks. Or maybe they're worried wind will blow it over and onto their car. Or it obstructs a view. There's absolutely a stake in the system. True, they might oppose it because they may not get to ever enjoy the shade as it grows, if they move. Or maybe they want the rent to stay as low as possible. But that's still not an argument they have less of an interest -- just the opposite, it shows they have DIFFERENT interests.

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

#247

Post by _bxg1 »

qiqing wrote: post #205
_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…

Minor quibble, but Airbnb doesn't own the hosts' homes or apartments, and Uber doesn't own the drivers' cars. Renting is an accurate descriptor of Netflix or Kindle (and Google Play movies actually does have "rent" on the label of the button when you want to rent a movie). And I can see what you mean from the perspective of the guest or rider, but not from the perspective of the host or driver.

> a centralized company which outsources the generation of actual value to others

I would argue that you're still renting from Uber and AirBnB, who are just outsourcing their labor and properties to others. Companies like this - I'm looking at you, Facebook - like to claim that they're only impartial platforms, but the reality is that they gain an enormous amount of power over both sides; stealthily, because they hide behind that image.

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

#249

Post by EADGBE »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #197
EADGBE wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

You're paying for them none-the-less.

In nearly every case over time, you'll pay more to rent it than own it.

Post reply on HN