> But pretty much every economic indicator is positive. Even the indicators that pessimistic pundits like to complain about are largely from areas where wages have been stagnant, or inequality has been rising rather than genuine decline.
I am going to take issue with this one; because as standards rise, the more unachievable they can become.
Example: 100 years ago, it wasn’t nearly as hard to buy a house. Sure, they might have had leaky roofs or lacked electricity or lacked indoor plumbing, but that was pretty normal. Your wife wasn’t going to lose her mind if you told her the outhouse was the only option.
Now here we are. Sure, our homes are way better - and more unaffordable for everyone. Just saying it’s better than it was - so stop being so pessimistic ignores how comparatively out of reach life feels.
It would be like if the only computer you could buy in 2027 was $8000, and had the equivalent of a RTX 7090 in it. “Stop whining - it’s so much better than they used to be” is not my complaint.
> because as standards rise, the more unachievable they can become
Why should "standards" be relevant in the measurement of long-term economic indicators? Doesn't the very stack that standards have risen prove the core point that life has gotten better?
To use the GP's example: if the median standard home has electricity, a minimum insulation R-value, a minimum grade of roof, minimum square footage, bathroom plumbing, land setbacks, etc, governments tend to align their habitability inspection requirements with those standards.
Let's say hypothetically that County X establishes the 2023 habitability requirements, and these requirements by market necessity cost a minimum of $120k for the dwelling and $120k for the land.
Let's say you're a single guy on minimum wage who is absolutely fine not having electricity, is ok with dealing with the occasional roof leak, and has no problem using a composting toilet. You want to buy a home, and you can absolutely afford it, but County X is preventing you from doing so because the standards have been set by people making more than minimum wage.
It means life has gotten better for those that can keep up and afford it. It also means life sucks more, and is far more hopeless and depressing, for people who can’t.
I am going to take issue with this one; because as standards rise, the more unachievable they can become.
Example: 100 years ago, it wasn’t nearly as hard to buy a house. Sure, they might have had leaky roofs or lacked electricity or lacked indoor plumbing, but that was pretty normal. Your wife wasn’t going to lose her mind if you told her the outhouse was the only option.
Now here we are. Sure, our homes are way better - and more unaffordable for everyone. Just saying it’s better than it was - so stop being so pessimistic ignores how comparatively out of reach life feels.
It would be like if the only computer you could buy in 2027 was $8000, and had the equivalent of a RTX 7090 in it. “Stop whining - it’s so much better than they used to be” is not my complaint.