
Jevons paradox - majke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox#
======
stupidcar
I think there is a related fallacy which is to see a current level of demand /
characteristics of a market as representing a "natural" and fixed state,
rather than a function of constraints such as the cost of resources. E.g.
criticism of the viability of SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket hinged on weak
demand for putting large payloads into space. But this ignores the possibility
that payload sizes are constrained _because_ it's too expensive to launch
them, and that having a cheaper option will create the market for it. I'd
argue that the core of successful entrepreneurship is being able to see
through this fallacy, and being able to identify gaps in the market that are
the result of hidden, unmet demand, either in terms of price or functionality.

~~~
posterboy
For some markets I find it reasonable to assume that high price
differentiation is ment to increase the barrier to entry, to keep the market
exclusive.

------
nkron
Here's my favorite example of that:

[http://blog.chriszacharias.com/page-weight-
matters](http://blog.chriszacharias.com/page-weight-matters)

YouTube increased the efficiency of their site which ended up _increasing_
average page load time - more people across the globe could now use the site
when before it was too slow to bother with.

~~~
aaron695
250KB -> 100KB

Youtube use would have to be > 2.5 times as big after for the resource usage
to have actually grown.

Not Jevons paradox's, not sure what to call it.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Not really, because users with a high page load time can skew the average by a
very large amount.

Hypothetically, let's say that previously they had 10 users who all took 2.5
seconds to load the page, so their average page load time is 2.5 seconds.
After the change, those users all drop to a 1 second page load time. They also
attracted one new user who now only has to wait 20 seconds instead of 50
seconds. Their average page load time is now 2.7 seconds but their usage only
increased by 10%.

------
narrator
Jevons paradox applies when we talk about automation. What is the resource
that is used more efficiently when things are automated? Human labor. Thus
automation increases the demand for human labor.

~~~
Garlef
I was linking this to the same topic.

But then I remembered David Graebers notion of bullshit jobs.

The best explanation I came across so far was that in todays economy, the
supply side is not a problem. So actual work has to be put in to create
demand: That's the advertisement industry.

Sadly, I don't have a link at hand to the article explaining this idea.

------
basicplus2
This is about making a cheaper energy source available thus enabling
previously uneconomic activities to be possible, so not so mysterious

~~~
lcamacho84
There is a concept in ecology that relates to this one [1].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_\(conservation\))

~~~
jwilk
Does anyone know why econlib.org is blacklisted on Wikipedia?

~~~
dredmorbius
I wasn't aware that it is, and cannot find it on the RS noticeboard:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=econlib&...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=econlib&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&searchToken=9rcur9u9bk5r1rlott0nmxrfk)

Though it's listed on the spam page:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-
blacklist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist)

My guess would be: spamming.

The addition was logged in March, 2017:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-
blacklist/...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-
blacklist/log/2017)

------
petermcneeley
Clearly not true for electricity.
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/201794/us-electricity-
co...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/201794/us-electricity-consumption-
since-1975/)

These types of economic laws are extremely shallow mode of reasoning.

~~~
codezero
Your link appears paywalled, here are some others:

[https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC?locat...](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC?locations=US)

[https://www.google.com/search?q=us+power+consumption&oq=us+p...](https://www.google.com/search?q=us+power+consumption&oq=us+power+consumption)

Also, I have no skin in the game, but the US deviating from this isn't really
a sign that it's flat out wrong.

I also found this article with some attempts to explain the plateau/decline in
the US.

[https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2017/05/08/evidence-
of-a-...](https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2017/05/08/evidence-of-a-decline-
in-electricity-use-by-u-s-households/)

I don't love wordpress articles, but I'll see if I can find some better source
material. Their argument is that it supports the Rebound Effect – US is using
more lighting (lumens) but less energy because of efficiency gains in light
bulbs!

~~~
petermcneeley
Right but according to the link "In 1865, the English economist William
Stanley Jevons observed that technological improvements that increased the
efficiency of coal-use led to the increased consumption of coal in a wide
range of industries. He argued that, contrary to common intuition,
technological progress could not be relied upon to reduce fuel consumption"
but in the case of our world it actually has produced lower consumption.

~~~
codezero
In the US but I’m not sure it’s true for the world. Time for me to google more
:)

But I get your point.

------
emmelaich
Not sure whether I like this phrasing:

> _the rate of consumption of that resource rises because of increasing
> demand._

What is really going on is that there is _always_ unsatisfied demand. So it's
no paradox. Faulty assumptions perhaps, not a paradox.

~~~
dredmorbius
Substitute the phrase _economic demand_ or as Adam Smith termed it, _effectual
demand_ , for just "demand".

(I'm not saying this because I agree with economics, necessarily, I'm just
trying to clarify the distinction.)

The problem is that economics has a domain-specific set of definitions and
terms, many of which have similar _but meaningfully different_ definitions in
common usage. Or in other scientific disciplines (or if you prefer: in
scientific disciplines). So an economist and a biologist might see a different
meaning for "demand" when talking about food needs of an individual, where the
biologist is looking at metabolic requirements for calories, macro-, and
micro-nutrients, and an economist is interested in market prices and ability
to pay.

In the case of the Jevons Paradox, the _market price_ of a service that's been
made more efficient _effectively falls_. This exposes more _effectual demand_
, that is, consumers with a capability to pay that market rate, for the good.
Hence the total quantity demanded increases.

This actually isn't a shift in _demand_ , as an economist would see it, but a
shift in the _supply curve_ (or supply function). The _demand function_
itself, what economists call "demand", remains unchanged, but the _quantity
demanded_ increases. Again, as a result in the _supply_ shift.

Confusing at first, yes. But this part of economics, usually, actually makes
sense.

~~~
emmelaich
Yeah, thanks. As soon as posted this I realised it was a matter of
definitions. And I used the word demand not as an economist would use it.

My short definitions would be

economic demand: the demand that exists at a particular price point.

everyday demand: a need or want, irrespective of price or availability

~~~
dragonwriter
Interestingly, your definition of “everyday demand” is close to the concept of
demand in economics, and your definition of “economic demand” is exactly the
concept in economics of “quantity demanded” (the quantity coordinate of the
point on the demand curve with a particular price coordinate.)

~~~
emmelaich
Very interesting. That means my first comment makes sense.

Because it would mean economic/everyday demand is very inelastic with respect
to price. If I want world peace, a mansion in the hamptons, my own tropical
island, that want will remain the same pretty much the same from day to day.

I have to do some reading....

------
cup-of-tea
This always applies every time when building new roads but is always ignored
by governments.

~~~
xvedejas
And, interestingly, you can always prevent the paradox with toll roads and
congestion pricing.

~~~
dredmorbius
Or incentivise high-density development through land value tax.

