Computers are changing the world. But they have yet to really change it the way they are going to. The first wave of real change is the whole out sourcing fiasco. Companies are waking up to the fact that physical location is no longer important in a computer connected world. Take your average cube farm. Dozens, perhaps hundreds of workers sitting there peck peck pecking away occasionally getting up to go to the printer/water cooler/restroom. They spend their entire day sitting at their desk answering a phone and pecking away at a computer. Now here is the thing. Once upon a time this concentration of workers in a single area was a very important feature of the ability to get work done. Physically moving the resutls of one worker down the line to the next person in the chain was a physcial action and if they were located far apart then this would create a bottle neck for the work being done. Thus the office complex with dedicated floors and a processing chain that moves the companies work through the various floors. While the flow of information is still relevant... the need for physical proximity is now largely defunct. It is a legacy we cling to because it is the way it has "ALWAYS" been done. No more. Communications at the speed of light have changed what constitutes close proximity.
Some companies have begun to realize some of thus. For example they now understand they can move enitre cube farms all over the globe and still keep them interconnected in the same ways. Thus you can keep a management structure in Kentucky and a call center pool in Bangalore and keep them connected via a computer network. However, they are largely retaining the idea that you have to actually keep the workers concentrated in a single area. So they moved their prospective labor pool to bangalore along with that call center. What they have not taken to heart is that you can go one step farther in this regard. If you take your average cubical warrior and look at what they do you find something amazing. They could essentially be sitting anywhere they had a connection to the network, access to the needed software and still do their job. Thus not only can you distribute your departments but you can also truly distribute your labor pool. If you think about it... that blows the doors wide open on your potential labor pool from which to hire.
How so? If you adhere to the idea that you must physically concentrate your workers into a location (office) you have just limited your potential labor pool. IE there is a limitation to how far people can physically travel on a daily basis to work for you. Now we have learned that physical location is meaningless for a business that runs on computers so why not open yourself to the wider market of labor that is connected ? Some numbers. The worlds largest labor markets would be the worlds cities with the highest populations.
Now if you look at the Metro area populations and assume that this covers roughly the largest area from which you could concievably hire an employee from in a physical sense. In otherwords if you are located in that area and someone lives outside of that area the odds are they cannot commute to you place of business if you require a physical presence. Ok reffer to the chart and you find that Tokyo is the top place with around 37 million people of which a given subset will be potential employees with the skills you need.
Now lets look at a potential market of labor limited not by physcial space but by connectivity. Let us say that instead of needing a worker with X skills in Y location you need a worker with X skills with Y connectivity. We will say that Broadband solves Y connectivity. So now your potential labor pool are those that have the skills and a broadband connection. Check here for the numbers I will use to illustrate. In the US internet penetration is about 75%. Population is around 300 million. Broadband penetration is about 45%. So your potential labor market in the US is about 100 million. that is almost 3 times the potential market of having a business in the worlds largest metropolitan area. It also selects for a more tech oriented subset of the population so it is not unreasonable to expect that of that 100 million you will find a higher percentage of workers with the needed skills than you will in the metro area of tokyo. Remember those numbers are for raw population. That 100 million includes those tech savy enough to have a broad band connection. The 37 million in Tokyo just live there.
So in effect you can remove a great deal of the impetus for people to move to cities (JOBS) and the incipient drive up in realestate values that occurs in Metropolitan areas near desireable employment which in turn drives the higher metro sallaries (among other cost of living issues that all rise in areas with a high demand and low supply). You can redistribute work across the nation/world leading to more equitable access to work and probably re-stengthen Rural communities. Cost of living could decline dramatically, cost of labor (less dedicated infrastructure) could decline dramatically as well. Thus you can pay your employees the same thing without it costing you as much.. and sooner or later lower cost of living will lower the cost of sallaries as well.
Now the money issue is important. One of the reasons companies explored the option of going to Bangalore or South East Asia for manufacturing is because of the way international currency exchange works. IE what it takes for someone to live in South East Asia and India is a pittance in the international exhange market which is what leads to those asinine media headlines about paying an Indian call center worker a dollar a day/hour or some such. While it is true that the amount of money that person recieves would not buy much of anything if they came to America and exchanged their rupies for dollars it does not mean that they make less in their economy than a similar worker in the US. As a matter of fact a worker in an Indian Call center makes MORE money relative to their economy than a Call center worker in the United States. There those jobs are highly sought after where here theay are a bottom barrel option for fresh college graduates and out of work IT proffesionals.
Sooner or later that is going to have to change. The hallmark of currency systems has been standarziation over time to single currencies. IE in the US you can go look at the history whereby the states first used various international currencies, then developed their own local currencies and finally we established a fedearl system of currency for all states. Something similar is in process in the EU with the euro and over time we will see a move to standardize the international currency market. I think if the UN were an actual world government instead of a symbolic debating club we would have long since become embroiled in the debate of instablishing a universal international currency. Of course mose 1st world nations are scared shitless of such a concept and seeing as they have the power this is something they will not be easily swayed to do. The developed world has a very enviable position of advantage in the world economy curtesy of the strong value of their currencies.
So why is this issue of currency relevant to computers changing the world ? Well if my labor pool are those with Skills X and Bandwidth Y there is no dependent location limitation implied. IE there is no reason to limit yourself to the US broadband population with the skills you need. Given a potential employee wiith the skills you need and an insane exchange rate in your favor you can offer that people a pittance compared to what you would have to offer a US resident. And that causes problems. You see to protect somewhat from this there is very strong physical protections on who companies can hire. IE it is illegal to hire no visa mexican immigrants at cut rates and is all in all very easy to catch companies that do it if you have a mind to. Now imagine trying to enforce US (or any other nation for that matter) right to work visa laws if the workers are not physically located at the work site to be checked up on. It could probably be done but it would not be easy. And I would argue is largely pointless.
Without a solid consistent international currency we will remain in this mind set of having to PROTECT labor markets. The whole reason you have to protect them now has to do with currency exchange. The first force that looks like it might be a strong enough driver to break down the resistence to an internationall currency is going to be computers. The outsourcing has already begun, and the physical disbanding of office has as well (one new US airline does its reservation via people working at home). It is only a matter of time before the issues of who companies can and can't hire brings this issue to a head. The power of an international currecny should in tie serve to make it less and less important where you live in the world which will in turn dcrease the insane demands for the population to shift to the areas of strongest economy. In essence the combination of distributing work according to connectivity instead of physical location and establishing an international currency (thus NO more exhange at all) will more evenly distribute the world economy. In that case the places that will have immigration issues will be resort paradises as people will flock to desireable locations to ENJOY living in rather than desireable locations for access to good jobs. Access to a job will be a computer and good connection away which can be had anywhere. Access to a beach/mountain/river/lake etc are always going to be limited by physical location.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Monday, July 18, 2005
China Looking to Build New Cities
Well China is looking into building some new cities. Considering its Massive population and rapidly industrializing nature it is probably no surprise they are looking for a way to learn from the mistakes of heavily congested centers that grew up out of other industrialized processes. This brings up an interesting proposition. Namely the ability to design from the ground up a city to handle the needs of a 1st class modern urban center. '
So what would you do if you designed a city from the ground up? I know the number one thing on my list to solve. TRAFFIC. The city would be designed from the ground up to seperate different classes of traffic to enable all means of traffic equal access to all points (at least as much as is feasible). How might this be accomplished ?
Well the same way major highway interchanges have been managed. You have you use more than one plane to move traffic in. My idea would be essentially to build the city on top of its traffic circulation system. Down town buildings would have a common floor for pedestrian right of way for an elevated tube system for walking among the buildings. Outside of major commercial areas there would be a linked system of pedestrian right of way (greenways). These would at no point impinge on vehicle traffic nor would vehicle traffic be impinged by it. You would keep them out of plane.
To make that easier I would design the primary means of personal transport right of way to be for light vehicles. Think on a scale where something on the order of a Mini Cooper would be SUVish. Strict hp to weight limitations and design requirements determined by the ability of safety technology to prevent death in the worst case scenarios in the closed right of way. A lot of the problem of designing a safety system for current roadways is because there is a wide range of possibilities. IE you might encounter vehicles several times your size/mass at horriffic combined velocities. The power of a mass in motion increases acording to an exponential function rather than linear. Thus past a certain point it becomes essentially impossible to make a survivable safety system. Conversely there is a range of operation where if you control a few elements it makes it relatively difficult to die in a wreck even using reletively simple safey equipment..
To do this you need to keep vehicles in the same relative class. IE mass ranges need to be close and relative speeds need to be kept close. The limitations for the light class would be determined by the ability to survive all possible crash scenarios. IE head on against a wall, head on against another vehicle traveling at max allowed speed (a max speed determined by power to weight allowance), and intersecting vehicles (T-Bone wreck). Also roll scenarios etc. The light class would by no means be grounds for large styling changes. Also you would utilize out of plane traffic systems to keep differnt directions of travel from intersecting. IE cloverleafs and other continuous motion interchange systems. Light vehicles would make for far less structural requirements making it cheaper to create such interchanges. Additionaly limit this class to non polluting systems of power. Electrical/hydrogen etc...
Two, make your primary arteries for heavy traffic run underground. For two reasons. ONE less structural issues with a tunnel. Not saying it is easier but this would also limit eye sore factor and also enable you to channle exhaust for disposal rather than have it dispersed throughout the city. Again keep any intersecting traffic to an absolute minimum. This reduces the need for speed limits well below what the vehicle can handle. Also keep regual personal traffic seperated from larger more massive freight traffic. Again keeping vehicles withen a safe range of mass and always heading in the same relative direction at similar relative speeds. This eliminates an awful lot of the danger of traffic acidents. While it won't eliminate them it will reduce the number of serious acidents.
Lastly design a city from the ground up with a comprehensive public transportation system. One which has access to most destinations on a consistent predictable schedule in all its elements.
Done right then light vehicles and public transport would be the primary means of people moving for people that live in the city. Daily commutes in current car technology would be mostly for those with 20+ mile commutes (Golf cart that can go 45 miles and hour can cover 20 miles in under 30 minutes if there is no congestion ) and those who live in areas with low enough congestion that it just isn't a problem. Freight lines would be designed to reach commerical districts or perhaps distribution points that used lighter vehicles for last mile pallet delivery (smaller businesses).
Solving the traffic problem would be a major step to increasing the effiecincy of urban centers. Also making for more friendly pedestrian connection would make it easier for people to meet. IE they can meet in golf cart settings and in the massive pedestrian right of way infrastructure allowing easy access to public transportation and nearby points of intrest. Highways could be updated along a similar principle with a more complex run that included multiple right of ways which did not interfere with one another. Heavy traffic would likely remain at ground level (easiest place to support the weight on long runs. You then move the lighter traffic over/under it as it is easiest... probably over it since then you don't have to worry about the heavy support of the the freight traffic. Only the support of lighter vehicle traffic. I would suggest even including a minimal pedestrian right of way for hiking/biking.
So what would you do if you designed a city from the ground up? I know the number one thing on my list to solve. TRAFFIC. The city would be designed from the ground up to seperate different classes of traffic to enable all means of traffic equal access to all points (at least as much as is feasible). How might this be accomplished ?
Well the same way major highway interchanges have been managed. You have you use more than one plane to move traffic in. My idea would be essentially to build the city on top of its traffic circulation system. Down town buildings would have a common floor for pedestrian right of way for an elevated tube system for walking among the buildings. Outside of major commercial areas there would be a linked system of pedestrian right of way (greenways). These would at no point impinge on vehicle traffic nor would vehicle traffic be impinged by it. You would keep them out of plane.
To make that easier I would design the primary means of personal transport right of way to be for light vehicles. Think on a scale where something on the order of a Mini Cooper would be SUVish. Strict hp to weight limitations and design requirements determined by the ability of safety technology to prevent death in the worst case scenarios in the closed right of way. A lot of the problem of designing a safety system for current roadways is because there is a wide range of possibilities. IE you might encounter vehicles several times your size/mass at horriffic combined velocities. The power of a mass in motion increases acording to an exponential function rather than linear. Thus past a certain point it becomes essentially impossible to make a survivable safety system. Conversely there is a range of operation where if you control a few elements it makes it relatively difficult to die in a wreck even using reletively simple safey equipment..
To do this you need to keep vehicles in the same relative class. IE mass ranges need to be close and relative speeds need to be kept close. The limitations for the light class would be determined by the ability to survive all possible crash scenarios. IE head on against a wall, head on against another vehicle traveling at max allowed speed (a max speed determined by power to weight allowance), and intersecting vehicles (T-Bone wreck). Also roll scenarios etc. The light class would by no means be grounds for large styling changes. Also you would utilize out of plane traffic systems to keep differnt directions of travel from intersecting. IE cloverleafs and other continuous motion interchange systems. Light vehicles would make for far less structural requirements making it cheaper to create such interchanges. Additionaly limit this class to non polluting systems of power. Electrical/hydrogen etc...
Two, make your primary arteries for heavy traffic run underground. For two reasons. ONE less structural issues with a tunnel. Not saying it is easier but this would also limit eye sore factor and also enable you to channle exhaust for disposal rather than have it dispersed throughout the city. Again keep any intersecting traffic to an absolute minimum. This reduces the need for speed limits well below what the vehicle can handle. Also keep regual personal traffic seperated from larger more massive freight traffic. Again keeping vehicles withen a safe range of mass and always heading in the same relative direction at similar relative speeds. This eliminates an awful lot of the danger of traffic acidents. While it won't eliminate them it will reduce the number of serious acidents.
Lastly design a city from the ground up with a comprehensive public transportation system. One which has access to most destinations on a consistent predictable schedule in all its elements.
Done right then light vehicles and public transport would be the primary means of people moving for people that live in the city. Daily commutes in current car technology would be mostly for those with 20+ mile commutes (Golf cart that can go 45 miles and hour can cover 20 miles in under 30 minutes if there is no congestion ) and those who live in areas with low enough congestion that it just isn't a problem. Freight lines would be designed to reach commerical districts or perhaps distribution points that used lighter vehicles for last mile pallet delivery (smaller businesses).
Solving the traffic problem would be a major step to increasing the effiecincy of urban centers. Also making for more friendly pedestrian connection would make it easier for people to meet. IE they can meet in golf cart settings and in the massive pedestrian right of way infrastructure allowing easy access to public transportation and nearby points of intrest. Highways could be updated along a similar principle with a more complex run that included multiple right of ways which did not interfere with one another. Heavy traffic would likely remain at ground level (easiest place to support the weight on long runs. You then move the lighter traffic over/under it as it is easiest... probably over it since then you don't have to worry about the heavy support of the the freight traffic. Only the support of lighter vehicle traffic. I would suggest even including a minimal pedestrian right of way for hiking/biking.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Worried about the wrong thing
I know I live in a country that has some very odd conception of sexual mores. After all we were founded by puritans. Although it is rather odd to find out that if you study history you will find that the Puritans actually had a fairly practical approach to sex (Thanks Dr. Tillman). But the latest scandle brewing in the Video Game industry over the so Called HOT COFFEE mod to Rockstar Games release "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" has to take the cake.
For those that do not know the Grand Theft Auto series has been going for some time now. The first release was in 98 which in terms of Video games means it is an ancient franchise. The premis of the game is murder and mayhem. Not sure how better to explain it. You hijack cars, kill hookers, Cops, Bad Guys, Random Pedestrians, Rob banks and pretty much any other number of nefarious deeds. You start as a petty bad guy and work your way up to kingpin. Along the way the game keeps stats of such things as various kill totals (gang members, cops etc... ) cars stolen and even rainfall. You can kill people with guns, rocket launchers or just your bare hands. You can drive up to a hooker and go get a 'health bonus' in a quite alley then kill her for all her money. These are all legitimate game play elements that have sailed past the game censors with a mature rating since its inception.
The Hot Coffee scandal is about an aftermarket mod (read you cannot do this in the game as it comes from the store) that has been released on the web that allows you to have your character participate in explicit sexual intercourse as a part of the game. The irony ? Unlike the game mechanic of picking up Hookers the mod actually requires that you do something to get the prospective partner to invite you in for some 'Coffee'. If you are successfull you are then presented with some kind of interactive cut scene (you control rythem/position) of two digital game characters in various sexual poses. It seems the main character is always drawn fully clothed but the female may be in various stages of undress including fully nude. Though we are certainly not talking hustler here... most kindergartners could drawn more sexually arousing figures.
So... lets get this straight. Picking up a hooker and watching a car bounce around in an alley while your health meter goes up is fine. Killing random pedestrians including said hooker or any likely joe's for their pocket money in the area also fine. Setting off massive cop car chases, killing cops, blowing stuff up and generally being a nations most wanted thug on steriods making Al Capone look about as dangerous as a jaywalker is all fine and dandy. But asking a girl out on a date and then doing a bump and grind fully clothed ? Oh my dear lord what is this trash ?
Now I am not one that buys into the whole children scarred by violent video game crap. Hell if that is true then I am one seriously messed up person. Well come to think of it I might be.... but I am not exactly eyeing high places and thinking how good a sniper location they would make or anything like that. I have played and enjoyed the GTA games. Few things come to mind as better for blowing stress off in a digital environment than trying to evade a 5 star pursuit in Vice City. And at the end of the day your not killing cops, pedestrians, or anyone else. You are pushing buttons and watching interactive computer animations. Granted these animations have meaning and represent some fairly reprehensible actions. But geeze louise people. If your worried about what these interactive animations represents it seems to me that you could pick something better to be horrified about than a date that leads to sex.
As I said in the title... these people are worried about the wrong thing.
For those that do not know the Grand Theft Auto series has been going for some time now. The first release was in 98 which in terms of Video games means it is an ancient franchise. The premis of the game is murder and mayhem. Not sure how better to explain it. You hijack cars, kill hookers, Cops, Bad Guys, Random Pedestrians, Rob banks and pretty much any other number of nefarious deeds. You start as a petty bad guy and work your way up to kingpin. Along the way the game keeps stats of such things as various kill totals (gang members, cops etc... ) cars stolen and even rainfall. You can kill people with guns, rocket launchers or just your bare hands. You can drive up to a hooker and go get a 'health bonus' in a quite alley then kill her for all her money. These are all legitimate game play elements that have sailed past the game censors with a mature rating since its inception.
The Hot Coffee scandal is about an aftermarket mod (read you cannot do this in the game as it comes from the store) that has been released on the web that allows you to have your character participate in explicit sexual intercourse as a part of the game. The irony ? Unlike the game mechanic of picking up Hookers the mod actually requires that you do something to get the prospective partner to invite you in for some 'Coffee'. If you are successfull you are then presented with some kind of interactive cut scene (you control rythem/position) of two digital game characters in various sexual poses. It seems the main character is always drawn fully clothed but the female may be in various stages of undress including fully nude. Though we are certainly not talking hustler here... most kindergartners could drawn more sexually arousing figures.
So... lets get this straight. Picking up a hooker and watching a car bounce around in an alley while your health meter goes up is fine. Killing random pedestrians including said hooker or any likely joe's for their pocket money in the area also fine. Setting off massive cop car chases, killing cops, blowing stuff up and generally being a nations most wanted thug on steriods making Al Capone look about as dangerous as a jaywalker is all fine and dandy. But asking a girl out on a date and then doing a bump and grind fully clothed ? Oh my dear lord what is this trash ?
Now I am not one that buys into the whole children scarred by violent video game crap. Hell if that is true then I am one seriously messed up person. Well come to think of it I might be.... but I am not exactly eyeing high places and thinking how good a sniper location they would make or anything like that. I have played and enjoyed the GTA games. Few things come to mind as better for blowing stress off in a digital environment than trying to evade a 5 star pursuit in Vice City. And at the end of the day your not killing cops, pedestrians, or anyone else. You are pushing buttons and watching interactive computer animations. Granted these animations have meaning and represent some fairly reprehensible actions. But geeze louise people. If your worried about what these interactive animations represents it seems to me that you could pick something better to be horrified about than a date that leads to sex.
As I said in the title... these people are worried about the wrong thing.
Tilting Platform in Gulf of Mexico
Intersting story brewing about BP's latest big Rig called the "Thunder Horse" in the Gulf of Mexico. Evidently it took some damage from Dennis.
Here is what it looks like, and you can get a sense of what should be bellow the water and what should be above. Here is After the storm passed along with the story.
Even if it is just some out of whack ballast tanks that has to be putting some interesting loads on the structure.
Here is what it looks like, and you can get a sense of what should be bellow the water and what should be above. Here is After the storm passed along with the story.
Even if it is just some out of whack ballast tanks that has to be putting some interesting loads on the structure.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
More thoughts on Capitalisim
Ok, I read back through that a few times and realized I was in a pretty funky mood when I wrote it so lets revisit some ideas. First I am not really sure that we have reached the point where it has outlived its purporse. Case in point, if you take the GDP of the US and evenly distribute it around you wind up with everyone having about 30k a year. Not bad money but, not great money. For capitalisim to really outlive its usefullness I think that number needs to get to the point where general living costs for everyone is around the same rate as tax is today.
30k is probably a good water mark for enough money to live comfortably. You won't be driving a new car every 2 years or living in the really nice section of town. But you certainly arn't going to starve and if you have a little sense of self denial you won't be head over heels in debt. However, 30k for everyone in the USA represents pretty much 100% of all value being produced in the economy. This means everyone would be working to make sure everyone has the same things. Meaning some people would be doing things that are more valuable than someone else. That is one of the fundamental short commings of communisim. It just dosn't allow for the desire of people to distinguish themselves from each other.
So for a system to exist where you remove money from the need to survive IE provide basic life (not welfare) provisions across the board, the cost to society as a whole needs to represent a reasonable fraction of all value being produced. Current Welfare costs percentages would be a good place to start as to what we could sustain, they may also serve as a good mark for what we cannot exceed. In order to do that we need to be a couple of magintudes more productive per capita without a corresponding increase in cost of living. This is really not that crazy an idea if you consider the recent growth in per capita production through the past century or so. If you compare productivity levels of an average worker from pre industrilized economies with that of today you see an exponential growth curve.
The problem is that while the growth curve of productivity has been exponential, the purchasing power that has come along with that growth has been much smaller. If you are talking what I could buy 100 years ago with my present sallary it would seem fantastic. However there was much in that day and age that we take for granted that was not available at any price then. So this increase in productivity came with a corresponding increase in the costs of living. Cars, Airconditioning, better health care/drugs all cost a great deal of money. Money that was not being spent before. So while you made more you had more to spend it on and in many cases they were not luxuries but things which really did and do improove the quality of life. The car beats the snot out of the horse, Refridgiration beats an ice box and Viagra beats ground up rhinocerous horn etc etc etc....
Even so the power of the individual to purchase luxury items has greatly increased. To the point where owning multiple cars/houses/pleasure crafts etc represent items for the average person rather than just the wealthy. The gap in expected life span between the average person and the wealthy has also closed to almost negligible. So if we continue down this track and reach the point where the equivalent of 30k distibution to everone only represented roughly what it costs for welfare we will be at a point where we need to reconsider capitalisim as our main means of distinguishing ourselves from each other.
The reason I was able to consider that we have already reached that point is because I am not sure that 30k today is what basic survival should cost. I think to some extent we have inflated costs to deal with our increased productivity. IE we have created a sink for the money rather than allowing a large gap to grow between the average persons needs and the amount of money they have to spend. If goods are worth nothing (ie represent no significant cost) then you can't pay someone responsible for making them very much. Probably the best example of that these days is food. Farmers are paid to grow less food because otherwise they would flood the market to such an extent that farming would cease to be economically viable. Yet under those circumstances the cost of a basic need like food would plummet. Granted without a means to keep the farmers farming (no incentive if they can't make enough money) then sooner or later there is so litte food produced that the pendulum swings the other way. The problem is of course that such a swing is known as a famine and they are pretty damn nasty. What that dosn't change is that for the first time in history we possess the means to produce insanely cheap plentifull food but not a system of economics which can sustain it. Isn't that Ironic... don't you think ? To add insult to injury due to that lack we have to pay those incentives with tax money which inflates our cost indirectly as we are the ones that pay the taxes in the first place. So not only does food not cost as little as possible it costs us more besides to maintain the higher costs. So in short we pay more in taxes to keep food prices higher.
The real kicker there ? In a capitalist system that insane state of affiars actually makes sense as the option of farming ceasing to be an economically viable endeavor would lead to massive starvation as a means of ballancing the equation so that it was economically viable. I suppose in a way all this has been about my gut feeling that there has got to be a better way.
Housing is another good example. With the advent of the two income home, income per household has skyrocketed since the 50's. Logically if per household income roughly doubled you would think that the percentage of cost represented by housing would essentially half. In otherwords if housing cost 50% of your household income before it should cost 25% after it doubled. Well point in fact, housing cost roughly 30% of average household income in the 50's and it costs roughly 30% of houshold income in naughty aughts. This is because people started buying larger houses (as just owning a house was no longer a means of distinguishing yourself) and houses started costing more because people had more money to buy them with.
So in part the cost of living today is inflated from its true value. Right now I think you could make an argument that the cost of a comfortable living is a function of GDP evenly distributed. Perahps I will go track down enough numbers to prove or disproove that idea. But what that would mean is that no matter how high average income rose the cost of an average living would still be essentially 100% of GDP evenly distributed. Meaning that we could never escape that fact without altering our system of economics. This is not to say that the quality of life represented by that comfortable living would not increase, far from it ( we live better today than we did in the 80's and better then than in the 50's ). However the bell curve still exists and we have a very poor system of providing for those that wind up with the short smelly end of the stick. Of course we all like to think we can end up on the other end of the curve and enjoy having more than we need. Mathmatically though that is as impossible as it is to eliminate those at the smelly end with the current system of apportioning the basic need of survival (money).
So while in the end I don't think we are ready to change to another system of economics, I also don't think the true cost of a comfortable living really costs as much as our entire GDP evenly distributed. As for what it really costs... I imagine to find that you have to go back and look at things like the increase in the cost of housing, the onset of over production of food and other similar indications of artificially inflated prices with regards to basic needs (cars come to mind).
ahhh perhaps another time. For now I am tired and have rambled on long enough. Later
30k is probably a good water mark for enough money to live comfortably. You won't be driving a new car every 2 years or living in the really nice section of town. But you certainly arn't going to starve and if you have a little sense of self denial you won't be head over heels in debt. However, 30k for everyone in the USA represents pretty much 100% of all value being produced in the economy. This means everyone would be working to make sure everyone has the same things. Meaning some people would be doing things that are more valuable than someone else. That is one of the fundamental short commings of communisim. It just dosn't allow for the desire of people to distinguish themselves from each other.
So for a system to exist where you remove money from the need to survive IE provide basic life (not welfare) provisions across the board, the cost to society as a whole needs to represent a reasonable fraction of all value being produced. Current Welfare costs percentages would be a good place to start as to what we could sustain, they may also serve as a good mark for what we cannot exceed. In order to do that we need to be a couple of magintudes more productive per capita without a corresponding increase in cost of living. This is really not that crazy an idea if you consider the recent growth in per capita production through the past century or so. If you compare productivity levels of an average worker from pre industrilized economies with that of today you see an exponential growth curve.
The problem is that while the growth curve of productivity has been exponential, the purchasing power that has come along with that growth has been much smaller. If you are talking what I could buy 100 years ago with my present sallary it would seem fantastic. However there was much in that day and age that we take for granted that was not available at any price then. So this increase in productivity came with a corresponding increase in the costs of living. Cars, Airconditioning, better health care/drugs all cost a great deal of money. Money that was not being spent before. So while you made more you had more to spend it on and in many cases they were not luxuries but things which really did and do improove the quality of life. The car beats the snot out of the horse, Refridgiration beats an ice box and Viagra beats ground up rhinocerous horn etc etc etc....
Even so the power of the individual to purchase luxury items has greatly increased. To the point where owning multiple cars/houses/pleasure crafts etc represent items for the average person rather than just the wealthy. The gap in expected life span between the average person and the wealthy has also closed to almost negligible. So if we continue down this track and reach the point where the equivalent of 30k distibution to everone only represented roughly what it costs for welfare we will be at a point where we need to reconsider capitalisim as our main means of distinguishing ourselves from each other.
The reason I was able to consider that we have already reached that point is because I am not sure that 30k today is what basic survival should cost. I think to some extent we have inflated costs to deal with our increased productivity. IE we have created a sink for the money rather than allowing a large gap to grow between the average persons needs and the amount of money they have to spend. If goods are worth nothing (ie represent no significant cost) then you can't pay someone responsible for making them very much. Probably the best example of that these days is food. Farmers are paid to grow less food because otherwise they would flood the market to such an extent that farming would cease to be economically viable. Yet under those circumstances the cost of a basic need like food would plummet. Granted without a means to keep the farmers farming (no incentive if they can't make enough money) then sooner or later there is so litte food produced that the pendulum swings the other way. The problem is of course that such a swing is known as a famine and they are pretty damn nasty. What that dosn't change is that for the first time in history we possess the means to produce insanely cheap plentifull food but not a system of economics which can sustain it. Isn't that Ironic... don't you think ? To add insult to injury due to that lack we have to pay those incentives with tax money which inflates our cost indirectly as we are the ones that pay the taxes in the first place. So not only does food not cost as little as possible it costs us more besides to maintain the higher costs. So in short we pay more in taxes to keep food prices higher.
The real kicker there ? In a capitalist system that insane state of affiars actually makes sense as the option of farming ceasing to be an economically viable endeavor would lead to massive starvation as a means of ballancing the equation so that it was economically viable. I suppose in a way all this has been about my gut feeling that there has got to be a better way.
Housing is another good example. With the advent of the two income home, income per household has skyrocketed since the 50's. Logically if per household income roughly doubled you would think that the percentage of cost represented by housing would essentially half. In otherwords if housing cost 50% of your household income before it should cost 25% after it doubled. Well point in fact, housing cost roughly 30% of average household income in the 50's and it costs roughly 30% of houshold income in naughty aughts. This is because people started buying larger houses (as just owning a house was no longer a means of distinguishing yourself) and houses started costing more because people had more money to buy them with.
So in part the cost of living today is inflated from its true value. Right now I think you could make an argument that the cost of a comfortable living is a function of GDP evenly distributed. Perahps I will go track down enough numbers to prove or disproove that idea. But what that would mean is that no matter how high average income rose the cost of an average living would still be essentially 100% of GDP evenly distributed. Meaning that we could never escape that fact without altering our system of economics. This is not to say that the quality of life represented by that comfortable living would not increase, far from it ( we live better today than we did in the 80's and better then than in the 50's ). However the bell curve still exists and we have a very poor system of providing for those that wind up with the short smelly end of the stick. Of course we all like to think we can end up on the other end of the curve and enjoy having more than we need. Mathmatically though that is as impossible as it is to eliminate those at the smelly end with the current system of apportioning the basic need of survival (money).
So while in the end I don't think we are ready to change to another system of economics, I also don't think the true cost of a comfortable living really costs as much as our entire GDP evenly distributed. As for what it really costs... I imagine to find that you have to go back and look at things like the increase in the cost of housing, the onset of over production of food and other similar indications of artificially inflated prices with regards to basic needs (cars come to mind).
ahhh perhaps another time. For now I am tired and have rambled on long enough. Later
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)