ironstag8 said:Let's say you have a point regarding certain aspects of cars (though, honestly, those vintage bodies in Miami and Cuba seem pretty sturdy considering they're from the 40s and 50s). Just look at refrigerators or even vacuum cleaners; things used to last 20 or 30 years, whereas nowadays, they're practically designed to last only as long as the warranty expires.
I don't want this to spiral into a complete tangent, but please don't try to inject your desire for consumerism and living beyond one's means into this debate. That exact impulse—wanting more than what is sustainable—is precisely what drives inflation and eventual ruin.
Sure, you could argue that milk is higher quality now, or that groceries are better. I’d argue the opposite—that food quality has actually dipped. And are houses being built with space-age materials these days? Not really.
Go ahead and comment on the second photo since there aren't any cars in it. Give it a shot, you skeptic.
Sure, we can talk without the car. Take milk... back when we used to get milk in bags, every single time it was some sour mess with a 2-3 day shelf life without being tested for a million diseases. We don't have those problems today... 😉
You can say anything about food quality. Organic farming costs money, and clearly people aren't willing to pay for it, so they buy cheap, low-quality junk... It wouldn't have been a loss if people actually bought his produce for $3.25 and paid $67 for a pound of Gouda. On the flip side, the biggest input for food production and everything else is oil, which used to be $3 and now it's nearly $100... and that, along with other energy costs, is the main reason for the price hikes we deal with every day.
Modern washing machines actually cost way less than before—back 20 or 30 years ago, you had to work much harder than the average 10 days (price of a washer divided by average salary) just to afford one... But then again, if you want quality, you have to be ready to pay for it, and obviously (be sure you aren't getting sold junk meant for emerging markets), you get all the bells and whistles: tons of programs, less ruined clothes, timers, lower electricity and water usage... damn, all that stuff costs money!
You mentioned childbirth costs earlier too... What was the infant mortality rate in 1964 versus today? Dammit, that costs money too... A woman could give birth at home for nothing with huge risks, like it used to be. We could do that with everything else, but we'd be drifting too far into off-topic territory...
ironstag8 said:Nice one, Silver. At first glance, I didn't realize you were essentially arguing against yourself. It seems technological advancement hasn't been matched by a corresponding jump in wages that would actually reflect an improved quality of life. So, we have progress everywhere—except, apparently, when it comes to our actual take-home pay.
Aha, so technological progress and rising standards just happen for free? Like they just show up out of nowhere? You think you'll get that for nothing just by keeping the Quincy under your bed? How could you think 😁
If you think you can earn money just by holding onto something—in this case, the Quincy—without putting in extra work, then you're a speculator just like anyone investing in real estate, stocks, funds, savings, or forex... Don't kid yourself thinking you just want to preserve the value of your labor, because you want more than that.😉
'] [/URL] 
'] [/URL]