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

541–550 of 566 posts

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

#541

Post by elicash »

User23 wrote: post #538
elicash wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're just saying "the commons" instead of "the community" now. Are renters part of the commons? If so, what it means to care for the renters is part of what it means to care for the commons.

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

#542

Post by nybble41 »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #534
nybble41 wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

So your argument is that venture capitalists are idiots, throwing money at people building networks and not expecting anything of similar value in return? VCs are not in the habit of throwing money away. When a VC-funded venture succeeds, the VCs take the lion's share of the rewards. Accepting VC funding is not a quick path to easy riches. (Of course, the VCs are also taking on the majority of the risk if the venture fails, as happens more often than not; in the end, over enough ventures, it all balances out.)

Capital is not money, but rather durable goods which contribute to more efficient production. It is the networks which are the capital here. Money can be used to buy capital, but only if someone goes to the trouble of designing that capital first. There is plenty of available labor looking for productive work to do, just as there are plenty of VCs searching for ventures likely enough to succeed to justify the investment. It is a lot easier to find people able to do whatever work is required than it is to find the right capital (networks) to organize them and enabled them to do the right work productively.

Both capital and labor are needed. The networks receive a greater portion of the reward because they are more scarce than labor as well as contributing more to overall productivity.

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

#543

Post by User23 »

elicash wrote: post #541
User23 wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're just saying "the commons" instead of "the community" now. Are renters part of the commons? If so, what it means to care for the renters is part of what it means to care for the commons.

Regrettably I am evidently incapable of explaining this to you. Maybe someone else can manage.

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

#544

Post by CalRobert »

_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…

For what it's worth, in some cases this arose after people tried genuine sharing and found it didn't scale (I dislike that word but it's appropriate) well. See Zimride, the predecessor to Lyft.

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

#545

Post by cableshaft »

mercutio2 wrote: post #531
cableshaft wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is a really good idea. It might be worth developing a platform for that. Convincing companies to trust their code to a third party service (or to even bother) might be a pretty big uphill battle, though. Still tempting, though.

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

#546

Post by wsy »

nybble41 wrote: post #540
wsy wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Game-theoretic results prove that this cannot possibly work (tragedy of the commons).

Your second sentence is no argument, just a claim. I counter-claim that I do have that right. So it seems to be a stalemate with respect to claims.

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

#547

Post by wristmittens »

xg15 wrote: post #457
TulliusCicero wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only true if Kindle has monopoly power over books as a whole, which is obviously not the case. Now, services like Kindle or Steam deciding to revoke access to prior purchases is a potential Big Problem...but as of yet, it remains just that: potential. And at least in theory, there are government agencies that are charged with protecting against abusive behavior towards consumers (obviously actual results there…

Well, the whole point of the article is to observe a trend. None of this is a big problem right now . But economic incentives might push the renting model to become the main - or even only - model to use many goods and services in the future. Similarly, trends about the number of service providers seem to point towards consolidation as well. So if those trends hold true, we might at some point have Megacorp Inc. offe…

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-santa-monica-sco...

"Bird and Lime deactivate scooter services in Santa Monica for a day in protest"

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

#548

Post by elicash »

User23 wrote: post #543
elicash wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're just saying "the commons" instead of "the community" now. Are renters part of the commons? If so, what it means to care for the renters is part of what it means to care for the commons.

Regrettably I am evidently incapable of explaining this to you. Maybe someone else can manage.

Maybe your inability to clearly communicate stems from not having fully developed your ideas.

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

#549

Post by taurath »

kennyadam wrote: post #500
SeanBoocock wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that a closeted person has any sort of obligation to come out to (potential) bigots so that said bigots can attain a more enlightened worldview? It is not incumbent on marginalized people to teach their oppressors the errors in their ways, often at great risk to themselves.

Who is it that teaches the oppressors the error of their ways? I'd suggest it is actually the marginalized people. Civil rights movement is a great example.

Yeah, but from a place of power where they can unify and message correctly, not one from the places where people are being oppressed. When the prevailing message isn’t “oh gosh this is horrible” but “that other person got what they deserved” you’re not going to change people’s mind.

For every MLK there were hundreds of lynchings. You can’t lead with no followers.

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

#550

Post by thescriptkiddie »

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…

> I might be an outlier. I make a deliberate effort to own instead of rent. My commute is enormous because I moved to a place I can afford to own a house...

You're not an outlier if you live in the USA. You might be part of the problem. "Drive till you qualify" is peak consumerism.

Post reply on HN