The Shrinking Middle Class in America

[Al B. Sure!]

Lived in the vacuum that is the space between your ears?

you ****ing incredibly dense specimen of a vertibrate

will not last longer than it takes Asher to strip them off you

Can we cool it with the insults? It bothers me enough that KH and his minions (Drake Tungsten, Kuci, and HC) do it all the time. Why do all of us have to resort to their level?

And insulting Asher who is a monogamous homosexual to boot and he hasn't even posted in this thread! Like he'd want to jeopardize his relationship to get in some Kuci behind.

[notyoueither]

The reason they don't keep making yesterday's computers is due to Intel marketing and consumer pressure. If you know much about these things I suppose you would not ask such stupid questions.

Intel spends a good deal on marketing to make sure that your parents are looking for the right thing when they go to Best Buy to purchase your latest gift. They also pay attention to the amount of RAM, perhaps thinking that will give them a better chance at grand children. If they only knew...

Wait, by "consumer pressure" do you mean "people prefer the new computers to the old computers"? Why, exactly, do people prefer the new computers if they aren't higher quality? Is it all because of Intel's nefarious marketing campaign? They've deceived the entire computer-purchasing public into thinking that computers are getting better over time, except for you, the lone visionary who realized that they aren't?

Oh man, I didn't realize that I could have gotten just as much value out of a 10-year-old desktop as my current one.

No, you stumbling, bumbling excuse for an intellect, it's because consumers do not know what they are paying for.

Much like the car wreck of an industry Detroit made in the '60s and '70s, consumers do not actually make good decisions when led by the nose by self-interested corporate entities who do not act in the best interests of consumers, or as if consumers have any interests at all.

The short answer is that you have less than zero idea about what goes into making and selling computers.

nye, I am not only an avid and informed consumer of computer hardware, but also a professional software devleoper with a degree in computer science from one of the foremost institutions in the world in that field. I've also worked for the number-4 worldwide semiconductor manufacturer. I know what I'm talking about.

Bwahahahahahahaahahaha.

Ha!

You were an intern for six months for a company that makes chips. I will not grace your conceit about where you took an undergraduate degree with anything more than distain that you think it matters for any more than a handshake in a job interview, or the satisfaction of your parents at the country club.

You are digging a greater hole for yourself, Dr. Pangloss, by proving what a ponce you really are.

In short, you have as little expertise to expound upon the state of the computer hardware industry as Mr Fun does about comedians, and many times the misplaced arrogance.

The short answer is that you have less than zero idea about what goes into making and selling computers. Quality in materials does not count. The latest Intel gizmo and the amount of giga-hydro-fizzles does. This results in dramatically shortened life for the computers produced today over what was porduced in the past.

To put it into terms that even a ponce like you might understand, even if we were still using the same CPUs, RAM, and hard drives as ten years ago, and the making of them would have improved, the machines sold for less today would last a considerable amount of time less than before. Like warrantees are being cut to less than one year in some cases. That is how much faith the makers have in their own products.

But, of course, you will point to the latest CPU as a qualitative improvment, and it is. The part of the machine going to Intel has not decreased in value. They know very well how to retain their share. It makes the cuts to the rest of the machine all the more brutal to allow your parents to buy it for you for $100 less than last year, and $500 less than 10 years ago.

So, basically, your data-less argument that computers are less reliable now than in the past 1) doesn't address the issue of whether the loss of reliability occurs substantially within the upgrade window and 2) explicitly acknowledges that this tradeoff is PREFERRED BY CONSUMERS. You also miss the point that computers today are so much better along the performance axis than a 10yo computer that even if they were three times as expensive or had to be replaced three times as often, it would be easily worth the money.

Upgrade window? Did your grandma know that she should not expect the $500 or $1000 dollar piece of equipment to have a life reasonably longer than her tomatoe plants?

Here's a clue. Computers long ago (about five or six years) surpassed the needs for power of the average consumer who is not looking for gaming or professional results. You think it is OK that grandma should prefer to buy green bananas over what passes for a computer in the lower end of the computer market?

Here's the payoff, you're a self-centred ******* who has less than any idea of what is good for everyone, let alone yourself. You may happily continue to pass your cash to Gates and Jobs for ever newer piles of crap, but the average consumer may not share your affinity for gadgets that the average fruit fly may outlive.

[notyoueither]

Can we cool it with the insults? It bothers me enough that KH and his minions (Drake Tungsten, Kuci, and HC) do it all the time. Why do all of us have to resort to their level?

And insulting Asher who is a monogamous homosexual to boot and he hasn't even posted in this thread! Like he'd want to jeopardize his relationship to get in some Kuci behind.

In a word? No.

Asher loves it when he is the center of attention even if not posting. I can sense his pulse is quickening all the way from Calgary.

[notyoueither]

nye makes an argument, I point out that his argument makes some strong assumptions that invalidate his point, and then he calls me an idiot for making those assumptions

You are seriously out of your depth.

[DaShi]

nye is such a hilarious blowhard. This is the guy who lost an argument with Ben.

[notyoueither]

If by lost you mean correct in every point of fact when he was wrong in those same points of fact, then I stand guilty of losing an argument to Ben.

BTW, you have a long memory for this. Were you sleeping beside him on that bus ride across Alberta?

[DaShi]

Hilarious!

Now insult me!

[notyoueither]

Dashi, you're beyond insult.

You can read a thread where someone claims that a feature on the land is different than is seen by satellite images and conclude that the person who is making claims based on thirty or forty year old atlases won an argument.

That's a certain kind of special.

[DaShi]

I think you might be funnier than Wiglaf, because you actually believe this stuff. Again. More.

[Kuciwalker]

nye, you really don't know what you're talking about at all. Not only are you ignorant of finance and economics (but we already knew that), you clearly don't understand the first thing about the computer industry, even though you apparently run a Best Buy or something.

[DaShi]

You should see the thread where he argued with Asher about computers.

You can read a thread where someone claims that a feature on the land is different than is seen by satellite images and conclude that the person who is making claims based on thirty or forty year old atlases won an argument.

Oh, and satellite images aren't made with the same quality of atlases from thirty to forty years ago. They bring out new satellite images throughout the year, while atlases were expected to last you decades. You may say this is because consumers want up to date maps, but you just can't trust corporations.

[ShaneWalter]

No, you stumbling, bumbling excuse for an intellect, it's because consumers do not know what they are paying for.

Much like the car wreck of an industry Detroit made in the '60s and '70s, consumers do not actually make good decisions when led by the nose by self-interested corporate entities who do not act in the best interests of consumers, or as if consumers have any interests at all.




Bwahahahahahahaahahaha.

Ha!

You were an intern for six months for a company that makes chips. I will not grace your conceit about where you took an undergraduate degree with anything more than distain that you think it matters for any more than a handshake in a job interview, or the satisfaction of your parents at the country club.

You are digging a greater hole for yourself, Dr. Pangloss, by proving what a ponce you really are.

In short, you have as little expertise to expound upon the state of the computer hardware industry as Mr Fun does about comedians, and many times the misplaced arrogance.




Upgrade window? Did your grandma know that she should not expect the $500 or $1000 dollar piece of equipment to have a life reasonably longer than her tomatoe plants?

Here's a clue. Computers long ago (about five or six years) surpassed the needs for power of the average consumer who is not looking for gaming or professional results. You think it is OK that grandma should prefer to buy green bananas over what passes for a computer in the lower end of the computer market?

Here's the payoff, you're a self-centred ******* who has less than any idea of what is good for everyone, let alone yourself. You may happily continue to pass your cash to Gates and Jobs for ever newer piles of crap, but the average consumer may not share your affinity for gadgets that the average fruit fly may outlive.

My parents computer from 2002 is still running. It is a little slow, because applications have become more difficult to run, and the internet has become more media intensive than it was in 2003, but it still runs. That is an 8 year old computer, and I'd argue that it is outside the "upgrade" realm, in the sense that I think the computer is no longer capable of running the programs that my parents would like it to. I think it is definately outside of how long the average person uses a computer, because I can't think of anybody else that has a computer that old.

I think a key point you perhaps may not be grasping is there is a cost associated with making a product with a higher amount of durability. Imagine a CD-ROM drive. It has several moving parts inside it. There is a laser which must be capable of moving, a tray that must move to eject the CD, and a motor that must spin the CD. It is probably conceivably possible to engineer all these parts so that the CD-ROM could last for say, 10+ years, but that "bullet proof" type of engineering would make the CD-ROM much more expensive. If you instead engineer the parts so that the CD-ROM lasts for 3 years, you reduce the cost of the product, and can therefore price the product much more competitively. Despite what you claim about companies like Intel taking these profits for themselves without passing any savings to the consumer, it is not true. I put together a computer in 2001 or 2002, and the cost for the processor alone was about comparable to what a cheap laptop sells for these days. The processor was not the top of the line model either (though it was close, one or two steps down IIRC, it was also an AMD, and so was cheaper than a comparable Intel processor cost). You can buy a laptop for less than $500 that'll do everything the average person needs it to do. The cheapest desktops 10 years ago were much more than that.

I don't really understand what your last three lines refers to when you say "you may happily pass your cash to Gates... the average consumer may not share your affinity for gadgets..." That seems inconsistent with the point that you made earlier in your post ("consumers do not actually make good decisions when led by the nose by self-interested corporate entities"). These two arguments seem to be mutually exclusive to me.

If consumers make poor decisions when led by corporations, that seems to me that the consumers actually do want the newest gadget, even though it isn't in their best interests. Am I reading you wrong?

Also, one other point I want to bring up, your point about the jeans. It can occur where you have a continuum with percieved quality on one end and durability on the other, depending on the purpose of the clothing. You speak of your Levi's falling apart within a year or two. I guarantee you if you bought Carhartt jeans they would have lasted much longer, however Carhartt jeans would not look very fashionable at a nightclub (or really, anywhere outside a factory or construction site) and therefore, for the average person, percieved quality is low, even though durability is very high. The jeans that are fashionable, at least in my experience are made of much more thin material.

[Hauldren Collider]

NYE is hurting my brain. Just shut up you stupid incoherent mess.

The short answer is that you have less than zero idea about what goes into making and selling computers.

[Hauldren Collider]

NYE's argument that he knows **** about computers is basically "I WORK IN BEST BUY THEREFORE I KNOW COMPUTERS LOLOLOL"

[giblets]

I don't see how computers have declined in quality, I still own a Dell Dimension 3000 that's ~5 years old and still works fine. It was cheap when it was new so I doubt that it was designed to be especially durable. I have a hard time believing that the average consumer wouldn't be fine with upgrading their computer once every five or so years. I have a hard time believing the improvements in memory and speed over the past five years don't make computers any better for the average consumer.