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

321–330 of 566 posts

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

#321

Post by safgasCVS »

"The main culprits for the change are software and the internet"

Stopped reading after that. This guy has a very loose understanding of what real people's lives are like. Throw Occam's razor out the window - the reason people own less stuff is not because they might have less money - no its because "society" has changed its "values" or some other air-headed notion ppl who live in airconditioned offices dream up.

The reason Americans own less stuff is because for 80%+ of the population wages haven't seen an increase in 3 decades and are up to their eyeballs in debt. "But GDP is so high!" - but nothing. What matters is the money that average people take home and for that they havent seen their income rise but they have seen the cost of education and healthcare go through the roof. If you're the kind of person who thinks like this guy you're probably in the camp who thinks Trump got elected because "Far-Right Racists/Russian Hacking /The Patriarchy"

Sorry for the rant. I get an Inspector Dreyfus twitch when I read this sort of stuff by supposed 'smart' people

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

#322

Post by ryandrake »

techsupporter wrote: post #274
ryandrake wrote: post #241

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…

> 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 think you and the author conflated ownership of "stuff" with ownership of--or a stake in--society. All of the things you listed as owning versus the not-owning (whether it's called renting or leasing or subscribing) are trade-offs you made because you value the concept of ownershi…

> (One last question: Could you clarify "I do my own taxes?" What is it that doing taxes yourself, presumably by pen and calculator, gains over downloading a product like TaxAct and saving the PDF of the result?)

The general principle I failed to articulate is that all other things being equal, I value Self Reliance over Interdependence.

There are varying levels of interdependence though, maybe I can take a stab at ranking them from least objectionable/risky to most.

1. Dependence on friends and family: largely acceptable in my view

2. Dependence on local community, groups, churches, etc.

3. Dependence on local government, public transport, libraries, etc.

4. Dependence on state/national government

5. Dependence on local businesses

6. Dependence on remote/global businesses

You might notice that the ranking is also ordered by how accountable (at least in theory) they are to you in terms of their actions, where businesses tend to be the least accountable. You can’t vote them out or alter their bad behavior, and their interests least align with yours.

EDIT

Also, I don’t see how paying a corporation for a Spotify subscription gives me any kind of “stake in society”.

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

#323

Post by macleginn »

lovich wrote: post #283
macleginn wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on my travel experience and given that taxis are rather cheap in many countries, I’d say that most of the people jet setting around the world are very likely to use a universal cab-hailing app at some point.

My point, which I did not make clear, is that there aren't very many people traveling all over the world to begin with. Most people on the planet do not routinely visit other cities outside their home area and could easily be served by a single local company rather than needing a company with a network that spans the globe

Of course, but all over the world is not needed: a company with a presence in whatever country you go for holidays/work is enough, so an app with a nearly global presence will get all the travelers' money automatically. (For instance, I never use Uber in my home country, but at the moment I am in Romania, and the fact that I could call a cab at the airport in a new city with zero hassle is very sweet; I imagine that people coming to my country and not in the know about the local taxi market will be in the same position.)

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

#324

Post by ithilglin909 »

supernovae wrote: post #315
tjr225 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

how is it a stretch? he's traded an ideological view for another? I live in Austin, and I'm tired of hearing how traffic bad is from people who decided to buy a 3,500 sq foot home 40 miles outside of town and complain about "traffic" driving in. we have a pretty messed up view of "owning" something without realizing that "owning" doesn't mean much other than "being owned by..." that big commute owns YOU

Not everyones' feelings about their commutes are the same. I've also traded a short commute for a much nicer home and neighborhood. I always listen to audio books and usually look forward to that part of the day. I actually sort of miss it when I'm working from home.

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

#325

Post by tjr225 »

supernovae wrote: post #315
tjr225 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

how is it a stretch? he's traded an ideological view for another? I live in Austin, and I'm tired of hearing how traffic bad is from people who decided to buy a 3,500 sq foot home 40 miles outside of town and complain about "traffic" driving in. we have a pretty messed up view of "owning" something without realizing that "owning" doesn't mean much other than "being owned by..." that big commute owns YOU

I disagree, which is why I posted what I did. You can commute in ways that don't add to congestion - which is what I did. In my employers case I was even able to work while commuting (via train) and remote work a couple of days a week. I didn't feel like that commute owned me at all.

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

#326

Post by _bxg1 »

qubex wrote: post #307
_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…

I might add that Silicon Valley et al has not simply cleverly redefined the meaning of ’sharing’ to cover their rental practices, but even the meaning of community has been totally warped out of shape. A community used to be a group of geographically proximate people whose collective survival depended on getting over their sometimes conflicting mutual interests and opinions in order to survive; now we use the term ’c…

I disagree that community requires geographical proximity, but I definitely agree that it's on the list of positive terms co-opted by internet companies to disguise their profit-driven motives. Community requires compassion and shared interest; these days it's applied to any and every kind of human connection, with no regard to whether that connection is beneficial or even wanted.

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

#328

Post by grogenaut »

avgDev wrote: post #164
eanzenberg wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fear monger. A 2002 car still has safety features such as airbags, seatbelts, anti-lock brakes that a 2018 will also have.

Now many more cars have curtain airbags. Safety standards have improved over the years. Crumple zones have improved. Now many cars come with back up cameras, back up sensors, line keep assist, emergency breaking. While, 2002 car may be relatively safe, I would still prefer to have the safest car on the road. Usually it will require less servicing than an old car and be more dependable too.

If I'm buying a $1700 car, I doubt I'm buying one that has advanced safety features cash wise as a comparison. Wait, no I'm NOT, this is me.

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

#329

Post by Alex3917 »

fallingfrog wrote: post #187

Everything this guy illustrates in this article as frightening and subversive, I see as positive. Americans confuse control with love; that's why we say things like "you belong to me" and "I only hurt you because I love you". That's why we substitute possessions for relationships. It's a thoroughly poisonous attitude. The most bizarre statement is when he says "The nation was based on the notion that property ownersh…

> It's pretty obvious to me that a deliberate and intentional effort has been made to ensure that only people who own a lot of property have any voice in the system; to flip that relationship around and make it a moral statement is frankly a little scary.

That's not true. The reason why property ownership was required to vote is because in a democracy, the founders knew that if the majority of voters didn't have property then they would eventually just vote to take away the property of others. But they also knew that if the majority of people didn't own property then the government would also fail. So their solution was to only allow property owners to vote, but to make it easy and basically free for all citizens to become a property owners, and to heavily incentivize them to do so.

Early American democracy only worked because there was basically an unlimited amount of free land to give way. And to the extent that it still works, it's because technology and intellectual property have replaced land as the primary sources of capital.

American democracy is designed around broad-based capital ownership, not broad-based ownership of stupid shit you don't need. This is why this article doesn't make sense, because it would be far better for democracy if e.g. the average American owned $20,000 worth of Uber stock rather than $20,000 worth of car. Stock is capital, whereas a personal car isn't.

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

#330

Post by CuriousSkeptic »

mywittyname wrote: post #226
CuriousSkeptic wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fear it will be the complete opposite. Once Netflix decides something is no longer worth streaming to your country there is no way to get at it again. Compared to the possibility of going to a second hand market looking for a dvd-set I’d say the situation will be worse for old movies.

Your fears are completely unfounded. Digital content is so much easier to maintain than older methods of archiving. The stuff you "buy" from services like Amazon or Steam is going to be around for a very long time. I have digital content that's almost 20 years old now and I still have access to all of it.

I was thinking more of the content you don’t “buy”. Have had plenty of experience with things being gone when I wanted to see it. I also don’t “buy” things from these vendors because they keep popping up and going away, being bought and closed or merged. Have no interest having my “owned” stuff being tied to a particular company keeping in existence.

I actually ended my Apple Music subscription thinking I would be better if buying things from iTunes I listen to over and over. But they tried their very best to make that a non-option and now I actually don’t know what to do. At this point Murfie Music seems like the only option that makes sense, but I’m assuming the music industry will manage to make them illegal sooner or later so not to keen on that either.

Post reply on HN