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

531–540 of 566 posts

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

#531

Post by mercutio2 »

cableshaft wrote: post #488
jonknee wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess what I'm saying is I am OK with this and vastly prefer it to collecting things in my home. I could put a ton more effort/money in and clutter my house and get some marginal more enjoyment from movies, but for me that is a losing proposition. I'd rather not buy anything or put in the time and enjoy the content less. I can definitely understand if movies are a passion this would be undesirable, but they're not…

I think that point of view is fine on an individual level. For people who like to live a minimalist lifestyle and don't want to be tied down to a location or want to be able to pack up and move easily, or just plain hate clutter and don't find enough personal value in owning these things that's fine (although you can store a lot on a single external hard drive nowadays). But I don't think this is a good idea for the…

These things aren’t disappearing. It’s just that the non-mainstream gets more expensive.

So I don’t agree it’s worse for society.

I do think it would be nice if game producers would put their code and assets in escrow, so once the platform they were built for goes away, and the producer decides to not invest in a succesor platform, the assets/code could be released to the public.

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

#532

Post by dionidium »

c22 wrote: post #528
dionidium wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your comments feel to me a bit like you are looking down on the parochial plebs for their simple pleasures. No, no, no! The plebs will live happier and more fulfilling lives if they meet their friends at the bar for a pint (and stop pursuing the illusory control of their very-own basement bar). [0] This is about looking up, not down! [0] By the way, I'm just the kind of guy to want to build his own basement bar. Th…

When I meet my friends at a public bar it is always very loud and I have trouble hearing them. Some of my friends zone out watching the sports on the tvs. Some of my friends are always trying to pick up a date. A couple of my friends completely detest the experience and wont even show up. At the end of the night I'm out $40-$50 and I have to figure out a way to get home. When I hang out with the same friends at their…

We're way off in the weeds now, but you've described a bad bar. There are more than 60 thousand of them in the U.S.

Go to a better one.

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

#533

Post by s73v3r_ »

nybble41 wrote: post #431
s73v3r_ wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The network is the only thing making them useful to consumers." No, this statement is entirely and purely false. The reason the network has value is because there are people on the network doing the work. If no one was doing the work, the network would be worthless. Stop falling into the trap of believing that the people actually doing the labor are not contributing, or do not have value.

"Stop falling into the trap of believing that the people actually doing the labor are not contributing, or do not have value." That is not what pathseeker said. You said (and pathseeker agreed) that the network is only valuable because there are people in it to do the labor. Pathseeker also said that having people willing and able to do the work is only valuable with a network to organize them and connect them to the…

Except they are arguing that the network is the thing to care about, rather than the people doing the work.

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

#534

Post by s73v3r_ »

nybble41 wrote: post #530
chii wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Neither would be valuable on its own. but often the network gets a disproportionaly large share of the reward (i.e., the extraction of value is higher on the network side vs the labour side). This is the same as the capital vs labour argument - one without the other isn't going to produce value, but the capital side is able to extract a higher value than the labour side.

"Larger share"? Maybe. "Disproportionately"? I think not. The correct proportion is not necessarily 1:1. If the capital / network gets a larger share, it's because it contributes more by multiplying the productivity of the labor. Also, in a culture where everyone wants to consume and live in the moment rather than save and plan for the future, capital is relatively scarce compared to labor, which gives capital owners…

I do think they get a disproportionate share of the reward. And you can't argue that it's because the network contributes more; it's purely because the network has access to venture capital.

Saying capital is relatively scarce compared to labor is flat out false. Look at the last 10 years or so. Venture Captial has been flush just about anywhere you look.

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

#535

Post by supernovae »

smhost wrote: post #415
supernovae wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have MUCH more access to all the worlds books, movies, television shows, music libraries and documentaries by paying for a service or using the library then I would ever have in trying to own it. I'm not sure re-watching or re-reading anything is really limited or granted by owning... Lets take netflix for example. If there is something on netflix that i want a friend to see and they don't have netflix, i can just…

You're more arguing the differences between digital and physical technologies than you are arguing the merits of ownership as such. If we can ignore ethics for a moment, piracy still provides a superior product than rentals because pirated objects don't lock you into particular ecosystems nor does it prohibit you from using the product in any way. Given the choice, I don't want to have to buy an apple, android, or wi…

I don't have to care for that by choosing services that don't vendor lock me in.

For example, i don't buy from itunes or google store if they restrict me to those marketplaces. But i do subscribe to netflix and hulu because they don't give a crap where i login from.

piracy isn't ownership either... even if i pirate shit, i have to provide a service akin to that netflix provides to be able to watch it on my tablet/tv/phone or on the road

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

#536

Post by wsy »

nybble41 wrote: post #441
wsy wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is good if the society evens this out: it should not completely take away the fruits of your labor, because then your incentive to be productive will be low. But it also should ensure that less lucky children get a good start as well, to ensure that as many children as possible become productive citizens. To do the latter, the wealthy have to give up some of their wealth.

"To do the latter, the wealthy have to give up some of their wealth." No, this does not follow. It is perfectly possible to ensure that every child has a reasonably good start and every chance to become a productive citizen without stealing from anyone, if only the people who are specifically interested in "evening things out" give up some of their wealth for the purpose. As a bonus, the children then get to grow up…

That does not seem to make much sense. Do you also think street building and maintenance, police, army, etc. should only be supported by people "specifically interested" in these services?

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

#537

Post by ithilglin909 »

supernovae wrote: post #411
dingaling wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For many people the commute is the only, or at least the majority, 'alone time' that they have. I step off the bus and my heart sinks as I re-enter the maelstrom of family life. The only other me-time I have is getting up at 05:30 to go for a run, which is magnitudes less pleasant than sitting on a bus. So, as you say, everyone's opinion of commuting time differs. For me it is a highlight of the day.

I don't want to put words into your mouth or say how you feel is wrong, but like I said, I felt the same for the longest time too. Now my morning run is me time - I run where I want to run, I wave to people, I smile, I pet the random dog that runs up to me, I smell the fresh air, I sense the warmth of summer, the coolness of fall and the crispness of winter. I feel the sun on my back, the wind on my face. I can liste…

Look, it sounds like you had a longer commute than I have now -- I traded a 10 minute commute for a 45 minute commute. It also sounds like you also work near somewhere you can go fishing, whereas I work in the middle of a major city.

If you want to talk about "convincing ourselves", I look at some of my co-workers who live in tiny apartments that don't even have fully functioning kitchens, for the sake of being a few blocks from work. They talk about how great it is to have a short commute and seem oblivious to the fact that they've chosen lives slightly better than those of Chinese factory workers, only the company doesn't pay for the exorbitant rent on the tiny pods they're living in or all the meals they have to order from delivery services because they only have a mini-fridge and a microwave.

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

#538

Post by User23 »

elicash wrote: post #518
User23 wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the community as a whole.

Are renters not part of the community, or are you saying they don't know what's in their self-interest? You haven't said a ton, but it seems like you're using "community" as code for home values. However, that might not at all in the best interest for many in the community. It's particularly of importance to home-owners. It might be to the detriment of renters.

Renters have less incentive to care for the commons because it’s much easier to move on. That’s just one example, understanding the concept of skin in the game and consideration of how it applies in this context allows easily finding many more.

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

#539

Post by sunshinelackof »

sandworm101 wrote: post #191
ictoan wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, monopoly.

Monopoly is if one corporation owns an entire market. This is about multiple corporations. The proper word is cartel or "corpocracy" which dislike as corporations are just a legal fiction. Someone still owns the corporation. The article isn't really about americans not owning stuff. It is about average americans not owning stuff. Poor, or at least not-rich, people are today less likely to own things like houses and c…

> Monopoly is if one corporation owns an entire market. This isn't quite right. Traditionally for a company to be a monopoly it isn't even required it control a majority of the market. It has more to do with the company being in a privileged circumstance in a market and explicitly using that privilege to bolster themselves or suppress competition in the same or related markets.

An example is Microsoft with Netscape. Microsoft was sued with anti-trust laws not because IE or Windows owned the entire market, but because Windows gave Microsoft a privileged place in the web-browser market that they abused.

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

#540

Post by nybble41 »

wsy wrote: post #536
nybble41 wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"To do the latter, the wealthy have to give up some of their wealth." No, this does not follow. It is perfectly possible to ensure that every child has a reasonably good start and every chance to become a productive citizen without stealing from anyone, if only the people who are specifically interested in "evening things out" give up some of their wealth for the purpose. As a bonus, the children then get to grow up…

That does not seem to make much sense. Do you also think street building and maintenance, police, army, etc. should only be supported by people "specifically interested" in these services?

Yes, of course. If you want a service, you pay for it yourself. You have no right to make anyone else pay for what you want against their will.
Post reply on HN