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

401–410 of 566 posts

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

#401

Post by kartan »

hugey010 wrote: post #297
kartan wrote: 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 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 level…

> Almost everyone, including myself, thought the guy meant well but had really lost his mind.

Yep. I know a guy that hang with him for a while and Stallman behaviour was already off. That was years ago.

But the original idea it is still relevant today. It is important to detach the message from the messenger.

> 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.

Yes. I think that the success of the open source movement makes it commercially important and the message got diluted. There was a lot of pushback against LGPL and GPL licenses at that time.

Nowadays people contribute to projects that any company can take on and convert to a closed product. Just put some effort in some improvements - a nicer interface and some documentation - and the freemium version will overtake the free version. GPL was designed to make that move impossible unless the original company owned all the code, as then it can change the license whenever they want.

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

#402

Post by the_watcher »

ghaff wrote: post #210
the_watcher wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While ebooks are somewhat similar to the shift to streaming in music and video, the actual experience of watching a streamed show or listening to streamed music is essentially the same as it was when you owned a movie on DVD/VHS or had an album/CD (Play-Stop-Pause-Rewind-Fast Forward). It's the discovery process that's been revolutionized). With an ebook, the experience is fundamentally different - the concept of "pa…

>ebooks have wildly improved the footnote experience I actually disagree with that one--at least for certain types of footnotes. When I was an IT industry analyst I got into the habit of using footnotes at the bottom of the page to provide parenthetical detail, substantiation, caveats, etc. that I thought might be useful but which would break up the flow of the writing. On the page, this works well because you can ju…

Probably true about types of footnotes. If it's just citing sources, doesn't improve. But if the footnotes add additional detail, I find it much better. More than anything, it improves the endnote experience.

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

#403

Post by glitcher »

supernovae wrote: post #311
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…

What is the value of "owning" something? I've owned VHS's, they're worthless I've owned houses - that I had to short sell I've owned DVD's - they're worthless I've owned Books - they're worthless What is the value of owning over just paying to enjoy access? I like spotify because i can sync music to my phone to play offline - but "owning" all this music is worthless... I had a HUGE cd collection growing up but they w…

> i get more quality content because i'm paying the producer - not a middleman distribution

I mean, I get where you were going, but this statement is incorrect. I'm willing to bet that you consume a lot of content that you didn't get directly from the people that produced it.

To your other points I largely agree. I have a giant box of cd's that I move with me from residence to residence, but never open. At this point it's really more of a burden, far outweighing the value I might get out of it someday if I ever decide to finally open it back up.

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

#404

Post by RickJWagner »

IMHO, the smart phone has a lot to do with this.

The phone acts as a communication device, a GPS, a flashlight, a camera, a music player, a library, etc. etc. It's also the end-all entertainment device.

It's natural to own less stuff. There's too much interesting stuff right there in your palm.

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

#405

Post by supernovae »

wott wrote: post #350
supernovae wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the value of "owning" something? I've owned VHS's, they're worthless I've owned houses - that I had to short sell I've owned DVD's - they're worthless I've owned Books - they're worthless What is the value of owning over just paying to enjoy access? I like spotify because i can sync music to my phone to play offline - but "owning" all this music is worthless... I had a HUGE cd collection growing up but they w…

> It seems we're substituting "ownership" with control. But you do not control anything any more with those companies. They can revoke your accesses, they can ban you from using their services for any reason, they can change the terms of services, the offers, the rates, whenever they wish. Unlike you, I would say you lost the control which came implicitly with ownership, and did not regain another form of control. At…

Reductio ad absurdum...

Historically everything from the ownership society has died - everything. Do you still buy betamax players? lazerdisc players? minidisc or walkmans? no...

When the hell have you ever been banned from netflix? If the price goes up, i'll just cancel the service. I don't "collect" netflix shows or have any desire to do anything to feel complete so a change of terms of service, rates, offers or even content doesn't matter to me. I only buy the service because it affords what I want and if that stops, i'll choose a different service.

Historically and basing the future on the explosive growth of current trends, our options are ONLY increasing. There are networks just for science documentaries. I paid 25 bucks with one service to watch probably 200 documentaries over 5 months that i could have NEVER experienced anywhere else and would i want to own them? never... but guess what. in a few years as new content is produced and i can pay another 25-30 bucks and re-binge a bunch of stuff and if this service goes out there are already competing services.

I have more control, more flexibility, more content, more freedom of choice, more freedom of how i can consume, more ways to download, stream, watch, play than i've ever had in my life.

Netflix works on my tv, phone, tablet, computer, Xbox, it works on chrome, safari, edge, firefox.

How can you not see how democratizing this is? I'm so glad I don't have to wait 3 years for disney to "unlock their content warehouse and have a special release of a movie that cam out 10 years ago for the great low price of 99.99" - we're you around for those days?

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

#406

Post by minitoar »

eanzenberg wrote: post #302
minitoar wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not fear mongering, it is actually true. NHTSA reports have shown repeatedly that newer cars have fewer fatalities. Perhaps there is some other reason for this correlation, e.g. maintenance. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...

There’s so many confounding variables that will affect fatality rate such as age (in the link but not corrected for) income, education, etc.

The age referred to in the link is the age of the vehicle, not the age of the occupant(s).

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

#407

Post by dionidium »

Someguywhatever wrote: post #388
dionidium wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine, but that doesn't explain the installation of crappy Wal-Mart-special basketball hoops adjacent to the public park's pristine full-courts. Nor does it explain the U.S.'s intense aversion to public transit, which burns far hotter than any practical consideration could possibly explain. Neither does it shed any light on the sad way in which suburban dads build rickety basement bars, never stopping to consider that…

>There's pretty clearly something deeper here. IDK why there has to be something deeper. >public park's pristine full-courts I mean there's only so many courts maybe you don't want to play with other people you just want to take shots, and it's convenient. >Neither does it shed any light on the sad way in which suburban dads build rickety basement bars They do it to hang out with their friends. Same way you order a p…

Perhaps you think it’s a silly objection, but, yes, I think shoddy simulacrums in private basements miss the point of the “third place” entirely, and the desire to pull every aspect of the public sphere under one’s own roof betrays an impoverished worldview.

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

#408

Post by snowwrestler »

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…

A lot of comments here are conflating the notions of "property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system" and property requirements for voting. They're not nearly the same thing.

To understand the point of the author you need to look back, deeply back, at the history of human society. For most of human history, most people did not own any property. In a feudal society, for example, a few lords owned everything, and everyone else worked for them and owned nothing.

The "American experiment" was radical in that it placed the individual at the center of governance. The U.S. system of government is "built up" from citizen consent, not "pushed down" from a divinely-granted right of hereditary rule.

In order for this system to work, citizens must own property. Otherwise, they don't have the resources to collectively enact change. The Bill of Rights presumes citizens who have the resources to speak, associate, petition, etc. That's why it is worded to constrain the government's power, not worded to grants things to citizens.

The fundamental idea behind American democracy is that Americans have the means to pursue their goals and to influence each other.

This is why it was so much easier for early U.S. citizens to found churches and corporations than it was in Europe. European churches and corporations were top-down, and therefore few and conservative. U.S. organizations were bottom-up, and therefore many, diverse, and innovative.

So... that's why property ownership is at the heart of American democracy.

But what about:

> deliberate and intentional effort has been made to ensure that only people who own a lot of property have any voice in the system

There's actually a lot of evidence against this, for example the entire labor and environmental movements. Collective citizen action has worked a lot of change to the U.S. over the years, and I predict it will continue to do so.

All that said, I think it's a pretty far reach to claim that the American experiment is at risk because a few people don't want to buy CD's or cars anymore. People still like money and things! The real estate market is not drying up. There's plenty of property being owned and desired by Americans.

I think that lack of money is a bigger issue. Over 40 million people in the U.S. live below the poverty line! I think that's a much bigger problem for American "stake in the game" than whether someone who has disposable income decides to spend it on a Kindle instead of books.

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

#409

Post by Kalium »

pathseeker wrote: post #358
Kalium wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we just agree that it's not evil that people get a choice now where they didn't before? You're very right! Sharing ideas to enhance your local community can be incredibly valuable and rewarding! However, some people occasionally find that their local communities do not always uniformly and enthusiastically welcome the ideas they want to share. Some people, faced with such experiences and fears, might consider tha…

> Can we just agree that it's not evil that people get a choice now where they didn't before? It depends. I find the fact that people can isolate themselves into communities where it's very easy to censor out any possible dissenters and dissenting opinions to be pretty damn damaging to our society.

I understand! The ease with which people can isolate themselves is dangerous, damaging, and frankly terrifying.

Yet, is it possible that this isn't remotely new? Is it possible that digital communities enable people to find communities where they are not pushed out, instead of being coerced into ones where they are? And that perhaps many people have had the experience not of isolating themselves in dangerous and damaging ways, but of being isolated by the people who are supposed to be their community?

You're absolute right about the danger. It's just possible that there might be some room for subtlety here.

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

#410

Post by Faark »

kbenson wrote: post #399
pathseeker wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can we just agree that it's not evil that people get a choice now where they didn't before? It depends. I find the fact that people can isolate themselves into communities where it's very easy to censor out any possible dissenters and dissenting opinions to be pretty damn damaging to our society.

That's always been the case. You can just as easily ignore all the people outside your religion, specific church, household, or even everyone other than yourself, and that's been the case since we've had those communities. This is just another case of something looking slightly different on the surface but actually being more of the same. The way to fight isolation is not to restrict choice of community, but to reach…

> This is just another case of something looking slightly different on the surface but actually being more of the same.

That can be said about every development ever. But it being more easy / efficient can bring out existing systems out of balance at some point, once counter-acting forces are overwhelmed... especially if those don't improve (as fast).

> reach out to other communities and individuals and make them feel welcome.

That doesn't seem to be a winning strategy in current US politics. And the shared consensus seems to be eroding fast. I understand there are a lot of additional problems (like the shitty two party voting system) feeding into that, even strengthening each other. But finding a shared consensus seems absolutely necessary when living with other people in the same city/country/planet at a time were we can dramatically effect each others lives.

Post reply on HN