The Shrinking Middle Class in America

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, you can. But not everyone has a mommy and daddy who can afford to buy them computers and internet service.

Actually, something like 80% of US households have a computer.

[DaShi]

He's going to say that libraries are free. Watch.

I'm just making fun of his perspective. "Ha, ha, you're family's rich!" Just doesn't have the same bite.

[notyoueither]

As someone who probably expends considerably more resources than you on computers and similar equipment, and actually knows a thing or two about them:

1) You're just wrong. Plain ****ing wrong. Also, you're an idiot.

2) You've obviously never done anything with a computer where processor speed was actually important. e.g. for work I perform tasks daily that would take weeks on a 10-year-old computer.

And yes, quality does sure as hell equal durability when speaking of physical goods, you moron.

Dude, you're an idiot. Which would you prefer: a car that can only go 20 miles per hour, but will last 30 years, or a car that can go 60 miles per hour but will only last 10?

*sigh*

Son. I've bought and sold and fixed many tens of millions of dollars of computer equipment over the last few years.

No, you do not know more about this than I do, you ****ing little spec of fly **** from your parents sugar bowl.

And no, moron, jeans do not have a mph rating. They have a wearingnessness rating. ie, how long they hold up doing the job they were made to do, that is holding my gonads in when I go out into polite or working company. Jeans today last a fraction of the time they did in 1980.

And by the way, ****trumpet, the car of 1970 is perfectly capable of doing highway speeds today. Yes, they've been improved for safety and milage, but they are no faster at getting from point a to point b than in days gone by. In fact, you could do a lot of things to those cars that you simply cannot do to those today. Some say that is a loss.

[Jon Miller]

Kuci, survivorship bias does not nye's anecdotal evidence worthless (and definitely does not mean his logic is bad). Rather, it provides reasons to doubt his anecdotal evidence.

It is always a good idea to doubt anecdotal evidence, however, barring anyone not being lazy and looking for a study that is all the evidence we have available to us.

If other older people joined in with him it would still lend support to the evidence (or against it).

JM

[Kuciwalker]

In 2008, 73% of American adults described themselves as internet users. 43% of those that did not were older than 65.

So yeah.

[Kuciwalker]

Kuci, survivorship bias does not nye's anecdotal evidence worthless (and definitely does not mean his logic is bad). Rather, it provides reasons to doubt his anecdotal evidence.

Um, yes it does. Since anecdotal evidence pretty much by definition doesn't involve aggregating in products he doesn't remember...

[Al B. Sure!]

Actually, Kuci, nye has a minor (I can't emphasize enough how minor) point about the durability of most consumer goods. It's possible it's just a myth but there is a popular conception that the quality of clothing has decline significantly since most of it started to be made overseas.

Also, old American cars were giant hunks of steel and aluminum and could take a beating better than today's cars. They obviously had less features and were less safe (partially because they were hunks of steel), so that doesn't mean they were of better quality, just more physically durable. "They don't make them like they used to"

HOWEVER:



BUT (skip to 4:30)



So apparently, old cars could sustain less relative damage when they crash into other old cars, according to that accident expert (however, the car they tested there was from the late 90's, not the 1950's so the comparison isn't the best).

[Jon Miller]

I have thought that as companies realized what customers wanted and how to make money that they changed how they made their goods.

Such as making it so their computer products quit working after 2-3 years.

They could make computers that last much longer, but that isn't what most people want (most people want cheaper, and will replace it in a couple years anyways).

JM
(Thinking about laptops here.)

[Kuciwalker]

*sigh*

Son. I've bought and sold and fixed many tens of millions of dollars of computer equipment over the last few years.

That's just depressing, since you know basically nothing about it.

Thought experiment: if computers today are really no better than the computers from 10 years ago... why aren't we just still making the 10-year-old computers?

Other thought experiment: have you [edit: I must have accidentally deleted the rest of this sentence, but don't remember what I wrote]

And no, moron, jeans do not have a mph rating. They have a wearingnessness rating. ie, how long they hold up doing the job they were made to do, that is holding my gonads in when I go out into polite or working company. Jeans today last a fraction of the time they did in 1980.

Jeans have plenty of quality metrics besides "how long they take to wear out". For instance, comfort, and not being bright pink.

Pro tip, to save us another round of you not being able to read: I'm not actually claiming that older jeans were less comfortable, or were unpleasant colors!

And by the way, ****trumpet, the car of 1970 is perfectly capable of doing highway speeds today. Yes, they've been improved for safety and milage, but they are no faster at getting from point a to point b than in days gone by. In fact, you could do a lot of things to those cars that you simply cannot do to those today. Some say that is a loss.

Holy ****, you can't read!

Did I claim that 1970s cars could only go 20 miles per hour?

/goes back to check

Nope!

Did it occur to you that I was ESTABLISHING THE POSSIBILITY OF OTHER QUALITY METRICS BESIDES DURABILITY?

And did it occur to you that you JUST ADMITTED THAT THERE ARE OTHER QUALITY METRICS BESIDES DURABILITY?

Then why did you just claim that QUALITY = DURABILITY?

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, Kuci, nye has a minor (I can't emphasize enough how minor) point about the durability of most consumer goods. It's possible it's just a myth but there is a popular conception that the quality of clothing has decline significantly since most of it started to be made overseas.

ca·nard
–noun, plural -nards
1. a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor.
2. Cookery . a duck intended or used for food.

Yes, I was aware that it is a popular conception. THAT'S WHY I CALLED IT A CANARD.

Also, old American cars were giant hunks of steel and aluminum and could take a beating better than today's cars. They obviously had less features and were less safe (partially because they were hunks of steel), so that doesn't mean they were of better quality, just more physically durable. "They don't make them like they used to"

Erm, yes, the weaker frames of new cars are, for the most part, deliberate tradeoffs meant to increase mileage and safety (crumple zones). So you can't claim that newer cars are less valuable because of those facts - they're more valuable because people value not burning huge amounts of gasoline and not dying over the cost of possible property damage.

[Kuciwalker]

I have thought that as companies realized what customers wanted and how to make money that they changed how they made their goods.

Such as making it so their computer products quit working after 2-3 years.

They could make computers that last much longer, but that isn't what most people want (most people want cheaper, and will replace it in a couple years anyways).

JM
(Thinking about laptops here.)

I pose this question to you, Jon: leaving aside the issue of whether older computers (especially laptops!) really were more durable/reliable [my experience being very much to the contrary], if I'm going to replace a computer in 2 years, does it matter whether it would last 3 or 5? Does that affect the value in any way?

[Al B. Sure!]

ca·nard
–noun, plural -nards
1. a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor.
2. Cookery . a duck intended or used for food.

Yes, I was aware that it is a popular conception. THAT'S WHY I CALLED IT A CANARD.

Also, old American cars were giant hunks of steel and aluminum and could take a beating better than today's cars. They obviously had less features and were less safe (partially because they were hunks of steel), so that doesn't mean they were of better quality, just more physically durable. "They don't make them like they used to"

Erm, yes, the weaker frames of new cars are, for the most part, deliberate tradeoffs meant to increase mileage and safety (crumple zones). So you can't claim that newer cars are less valuable because of those facts - they're more valuable because people value not burning huge amounts of gasoline and not dying over the cost of possible property damage.

Why do you do this? I said it's possibly a myth but a popular conception. Then I said:

They obviously had less features and were less safe (partially because they were hunks of steel), so that doesn't mean they were of better quality,

Two things to note there...

were less safe (partially because they were hunks of steel)

and

so that doesn't mean they were of better quality

What was the point of your post? I already said what you said.

[notyoueither]

I have thought that as companies realized what customers wanted and how to make money that they changed how they made their goods.

Such as making it so their computer products quit working after 2-3 years.

They could make computers that last much longer, but that isn't what most people want (most people want cheaper, and will replace it in a couple years anyways).

JM
(Thinking about laptops here.)

You are right on the money.

Consumers respond to price.

In the drive for ever lower prices, things like duarability in mainboards, power supplies, and enclosures give way. Intel gets their cash, as consumers pay heed to CPU GHz, amount of RAM, and hard drive size.

[Al B. Sure!]

Does that affect the value in any way?

It affects resale value I hope you're not the type to just throw out old computers. If so, when you're buying a new computer, can I come by and take the old one off your hands?

[Kuciwalker]

To point out that the issues you brought up were, in fact, unambiguously in support of my thesis (which is that nye is a moron).

2xpost