Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

291–300 of 566 posts

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

#291
post #257

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…

> “you ought to own the stuff you possess.” That is the base that Richard Stallman created for the open source movement. You should own your own hardware, and the only way of fulfilling that is to own the software that makes it run. And I also thought that this is common sense at least for the past generation of developers. I am not so sure how much the message has been lost, but it is not so strong as it used to be.

I think the current fad of everything being offered 'as a service' has changed many people's minds. Can't find a link, but I've seen people on this website claim that electron apps that are just a web page (and thus don't work offline) are better for Linux on the desktop than actual native applications. Sure, they do mean that cross-platform is essentially free, but you have to rely on someone else's computer for them to work. Which is one of the big reasons I'm so desperate to move away from fusion360 for personal projects. I'm fine with closed source provided the model isn't that restrictive, I certainly have no problems with sublime text.

Edit:I needed to be clearer, I know fusion isn't electron, but I've had no luck at all using it offline. Very rarely will it work. And unless things changed in the last 6 months, the Github desktop app can't commit locally without an internet connection.

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

#292
The nation was based on the notion that property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system.

The conclusion that you have a "stake in the system" if you are a property owner is 180 degrees backward and that is apparent in his own logic.

If you don't physically own something you are using, like in his examples of music, or books, then you are relying on "the system" to ensure it will be there and are heavily bought in. Such a reliance is not necessary if you own it outright.

Consider that, if you want to ensure without question that you won't lose access to something, then you buy it outright. How this contradiction isn't clear is baffling.

Owning something removes you from the group/system that could support it. For example, shared real estate vs owned real estate. If I own a piece of land that I live on, I can do whatever I want on it and there is nobody to tell me I can't and I don't have to consider anyone else. If I instead share ownership of the land I live on, then I have to take consideration for the others on the property.

I think if there is a complaint here, it should be that there is a power imbalance between leasees and owners in today's world. As a user of spotify, uber etc... you're beholden to the owners of the content and platform to allow your paid access to it, which they can revoke at any time for any reason, with little recourse from the user.

That is actually what America was built on and is simply an extension of hundreds of years of rent seeking. We should be moving to more intentional distributed ownership (I'm not invoking blockchain here) of capital and property. Not, simply becoming renters to the capital class.

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

#293

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…

> My commute is enormous And: > rather than be beholden to some landlord whose interests are not aligned with my own It sounds like you're now beholden to a situation that's misaligned with your interests. You've traded one kind of serfdom for another.

Eh, that's kind of a stretch...also, there are usually multiple ways to approach a long commute (I don't have a long commute, but I have had one in the past).

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

#294

The classical notion that property is a kind of independence, which this article implicitly draws on, has always felt wrong to me. Rather, property feels to me like vulnerability. When you own things, they can be stolen, they can be destroyed by extreme weather (a real consideration living in the Midwest---for folks in CA, think of the fires), they can randomly stop working, they can be devalued by market crashes. If…

I think this is key. Property ownership comes with both opportunity costs and liability. When people have choices, sometimes they prefer to avoid those downsides to ownership for economically rational reasons.

I think a lot of older generation Americans grew up obsessed with ownership, particular of cars and houses, as crucial symbols of status and success. In my conversations with them I often hear them portray these as indicators rather than just symbols. So it’s not just that owning a home impresses your parents, it’s that you’re not an adult until you own your own home.

At the end of the day I think it’s hard for each generation to understand how much the world has changed and how much the culture of next generation has changed as a result. And they’re uncomfortable with this change, maybe understandably.

Therefore it’s understandable, though IMO misguided, for them to point at changing preferences and behaviors and mistake these as causes of the negative societal shifts they see, rather than understand them as being effects of the societal changes that have happened already.

Easiest case in point, the first generation of car-using adults suddenly experienced a massive glut of “useful” land and housing, and then a subsequent era of high inflation, thus it was very easy for them to buy a home and those who did prosepered at the expense of the banks as their mortgages hedged a bunch of value against inflation.

The second generation (the boomers) didn’t get quite as good of a deal, but it was still pretty easy for them to own a comfortable home with a reasonable commute, and they experienced long runs of appreciation, so their belief that this was the “best way to live” was validated.

But for the kids of the boomers (millennial), urban sprawl had already consumed most of the best near-city land, while the rural economy has been stagnant. Thus the trade-off to follow the old recipe is a brutal commute or else house prices that are out of reach for most of us. Many also came of age in the recession.

Therefore it should not be surprising that the Millenials did not find it viable to be obsessed with ownership, and that they would have backlashed against it in some ways including this preference for finding ways to enjoy things without incurring capital costs, as the so-called “sharing economy” has emerged to offer.

It may be that the Millenial generation is much less wealthy in the end. But that seems to me mostly the fault of the Builders and the Boomers and the result of the choices they made, and that the “renter” mindset is more a result of their lower wealth and harder economic prospects rather than the cause.

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

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's more expensive over a relatively short period, perhaps?

I suspect for long term goods that are below some cost, it's just cheaper for people to own them vs renting over the lifetime of the device. A corporation will tend to finance the capital cost of the good if it's renting, then needs to pass on the interest costs of those goods to the renters. On top of that a rental corp also need to maintain techs to install/remove appliances. It all adds up to higher cost to rent t…

A company will also pay for and pass on the cost of non-paying customers in terms of repossession or loss of rented units.

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

#296
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..

Until I got a Samsung fridge I would have said the same thing. Now my fridge shelves are not strong enough to do the job.

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

#297
post #257

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…

> “you ought to own the stuff you possess.” That is the base that Richard Stallman created for the open source movement. You should own your own hardware, and the only way of fulfilling that is to own the software that makes it run. And I also thought that this is common sense at least for the past generation of developers. I am not so sure how much the message has been lost, but it is not so strong as it used to be.

I got to see Stallman talk at a large state school a few years back. Almost everyone, including myself, thought the guy meant well but had really lost his mind. It wasn't just the Emacs song, but how he spent so much of his time and energy understanding and maintaining all of his freedoms. Thinking back, it's like we forgot our rights aren't guaranteed and didn't need to be protected or even considered at those levels. We were very naive and short-sighted.

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

#298

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…

> I make a deliberate effort to own instead of rent. In GENERAL, it seems like it takes a lot more money and resources nowadays to do this, relative to other benefits you can have. In Media, having a wall of $19.99 blue-rays and an apple music full of albums is going to cost you a lot more given how must people consume media (a lot, and constantly). The cost to get that permanence is like an order of magnitude over m…

> I tend to think of it like this - if netflix takes a show off that I watch constantly, I might buy the series online. If Netflix as a whole goes down along with all the other streaming services, then the whole internet and society is probably down, and I suddenly don't care about all the media I'd be consuming, because there's bigger stuff happening in the world.

What if Netflix bans you from using their service?

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

#299
post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “you ought to own the stuff you possess.” That is the base that Richard Stallman created for the open source movement. You should own your own hardware, and the only way of fulfilling that is to own the software that makes it run. And I also thought that this is common sense at least for the past generation of developers. I am not so sure how much the message has been lost, but it is not so strong as it used to be.

I think the current fad of everything being offered 'as a service' has changed many people's minds. Can't find a link, but I've seen people on this website claim that electron apps that are just a web page (and thus don't work offline) are better for Linux on the desktop than actual native applications. Sure, they do mean that cross-platform is essentially free, but you have to rely on someone else's computer for the…

> the Github desktop app can't commit locally without an internet connection

Wait, what? Why?

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

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I make a deliberate effort to own instead of rent. In GENERAL, it seems like it takes a lot more money and resources nowadays to do this, relative to other benefits you can have. In Media, having a wall of $19.99 blue-rays and an apple music full of albums is going to cost you a lot more given how must people consume media (a lot, and constantly). The cost to get that permanence is like an order of magnitude over m…

> I tend to think of it like this - if netflix takes a show off that I watch constantly, I might buy the series online. If Netflix as a whole goes down along with all the other streaming services, then the whole internet and society is probably down, and I suddenly don't care about all the media I'd be consuming, because there's bigger stuff happening in the world. What if Netflix bans you from using their service?

Then you virtually always still have the opportunity to purchase physical copies of the media you're interested in. It's still at an order-of-magnitude markup over streaming it, but there's little reason to pay that cost upfront if it isn't necessary.
Post reply on HN