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

Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 343 posts

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#301

Post by bumby »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #271
bumby wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, just like the hypothetical yard work has a cost. I think what you’re illustrating is that protectionism doesn’t make people poorer per se, but it’s bad when it’s abused for individual purposes rather than broader purposes.

> what you’re illustrating is that protectionism doesn’t make people poorer per se It makes people materially poorer and redistributes wealth, typically up. That is a fair price to pay in some circumstances, e.g. bolstering defence manufacturers.

So on some dimensions, protectionism can make people better off (eg more secure). It seems your issue isn’t that it makes “everyone” poorer (there seems to be a contradiction between your previous and last statement), but more so you aren’t comfortable with how the decision is made (eg by fiat)

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#302

Post by bumby »

marcosdumay wrote: post #187
bumby wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devils advocate: what are the limits of this? I.e., does it imply any arbitrarily boundary of commerce is invalid? It strikes me that most people would feel like spending money on your own family/tribe/community may be reasonable despite what mercantilism says as an economic concept.

> does it imply any arbitrarily boundary of commerce is invalid? Yes. It says exactly that. Now, there are details that can change things either way. But the one thing about economics, that is known for about 3 centuries, is that usually arbitrary boundaries to commerce make people poorer. Usually, both on average and on the poor extreme. There is more variability of impact for rich people.

I’m not doubting that claim but do you have any further reading to back it up?

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#303

Post by bumby »

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #268
badpun wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 70% of US household debt is mortgage debt I wonder what percentage of that was mortgage taken on an already paid off (or partly paid off) home in order to be able to buy consumer trinkets.

Houses are many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and not infrequently $1M or more. A big flatscreen is maybe a couple $k. We're talking orders and orders of magnitude difference. I feel this goes together with "cut back on Starbucks" type advice. These things are just rounding errors.

But home equity loans are often up to 85% of home equity. The point is inflated home prices allow people to inflate their lifestyle, regardless of what they’re spending it on. It’s about the system of revolving debt being propped up by inflated home values, not necessarily about what the debt is spent on.

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#304

Post by tsss »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #88

> Back in the prehistoric era a person would have to gather, chop and burn wood for roughly 10 hours a day for six days straight in order to produce the equivalent light of a modern lightbulb shining for about an hour. This feels like a very odd comparison/metric. It doesn't really matter how many lumens/watts it has, I think a better metric is "How much does it take to 'comfortably' light a single room for 1 hour".…

This entire article is total bullshit, and could easily qualify as propaganda. The fact is that everything has gotten far more expensive, not cheaper. 30-40 years ago people used incandescent lights everywhere, AC transformers with pitiful efficiency and gas-guzzling V8s and nobody had to weep over their energy bill. Electricity and fuel has become staggeringly more expensive. It's only due to technological advances and higher efficiency that we can still somewhat afford that stuff at all.

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#305

Post by brookst »

nostromo wrote: post #278
brookst wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not lighting a science experiment, you are the science experiment. (or something like that)

I worry we’ll find the high speed strobe almost all LEDs emit are harmful for humans or animals. We’re told they strobe too fast for us to perceive (sometimes true, sometimes not). But unperceptible doesn’t mean it’s not harmful. A lot of people that use their iPhone’s slow motion video function indoors at night are surprised to see they are surrounded by a disco of blinking lights.

Not new at all. Many of those blinking lights are not even LEDs.

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#306

Post by AndrewKemendo »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #297
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take this as a teaching opportunity Here's who can't practically afford that: Someone with 3 kids working 80 hours a week in service or truck driving. Or someone that is disabled. Or someone that has severe mental health issues. There are quite a few prerequisites that you assume exist that just don't in a poor American household and the primary one that doesn't exist is time. Beyond the time you need to plan, s…

Thank you for explaining this. Normal people who are used to cooking at home see it as no big deal to whip up a simple meal. Some of the rest of us encounter insurmountable obstacles in our own kitchens. Personally, I haven't prepared a single meal at home since last October. I've been ordering delivery at an extraordinary markup. Several bad experiences last year put me permanently off home meal preparation. I've tr…

I appreciate your vulnerability and candor and hope that your situation improves soon

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#307

Post by ceejayoz »

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #287
ceejayoz wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. It just cites “low income” as a risk factor for fun. The claim was that no one dies of involuntary malnutrition. The claim is false.

Right, but you are intentionally ignoring the context, intentionally misinterpreting the claim, and being pedantic. It's so lazy and dishonest to do a super literal close reading of what someone says and then debunk that. Your teachers failed you. It's completely obvious that OP meant that otherwise healthy people aren't starving to death. That used to be common, millions of otherwise healthy people died in famines i…

> People that were healthy couldn't find a way to get their hands on enough calories...

That sure sounds like the "low-income, homebound, or without reliable access to healthy food" bit from my quote.

> It's completely obvious that OP meant that otherwise healthy people aren't starving to death.

The chances of zero people having done that in a country of 330 million people "in decades", as asserted, is quite slim.

https://www.mtshastanews.com/story/news/2021/02/05/living-an... is a case of a physically healthy man starving to death in SF.

https://www.newsweek.com/2023/01/20/starved-death-american-j... is a case of someone starving to death in jail for want of $100 bail.

I rather suspect other examples can be found.

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#308

Post by ceejayoz »

charcircuit wrote: post #291
ceejayoz wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For free?

No, but the ingredients for what you are cooking are not going to be free either.

I feel like you're unclear on what poverty, homelessness, and hunger are.

You have proposed that a homeless person obtain a phone, find a library that'll mail books, obtain a mailbox, have a book mailed to them, presumably pay for return postage, all so they can obtain recipes to cook on a stove they don't have with utensils they likely lack with ingredients they can't afford.

Homeless people aren't in that situation because they needed someone to write down "how to make rice in a pot", nor are they likely to have discretionary income for your proposals.

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#309

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

bumby wrote: post #303
FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Houses are many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and not infrequently $1M or more. A big flatscreen is maybe a couple $k. We're talking orders and orders of magnitude difference. I feel this goes together with "cut back on Starbucks" type advice. These things are just rounding errors.

But home equity loans are often up to 85% of home equity. The point is inflated home prices allow people to inflate their lifestyle, regardless of what they’re spending it on. It’s about the system of revolving debt being propped up by inflated home values, not necessarily about what the debt is spent on.

I see, you're saying the loan is never paid back. Or is paid back only through more debt rolled over from something else.

Ugh. I guess that's exactly how governments fund themselves.

I don't see how a responsible person can even compete in that environment. It's like joining a sport where everyone's doping.

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#310

Post by s1artibartfast »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #297
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take this as a teaching opportunity Here's who can't practically afford that: Someone with 3 kids working 80 hours a week in service or truck driving. Or someone that is disabled. Or someone that has severe mental health issues. There are quite a few prerequisites that you assume exist that just don't in a poor American household and the primary one that doesn't exist is time. Beyond the time you need to plan, s…

Thank you for explaining this. Normal people who are used to cooking at home see it as no big deal to whip up a simple meal. Some of the rest of us encounter insurmountable obstacles in our own kitchens. Personally, I haven't prepared a single meal at home since last October. I've been ordering delivery at an extraordinary markup. Several bad experiences last year put me permanently off home meal preparation. I've tr…

I'm very curious what your insurmountable obstacles and bad experiences with home meal preparation are.

Most people can't imagine being unable to use the microwave or boil water.

Post reply on HN