Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't understand this reasoning. Shouldn't unprecedented economic growth mean that the vast majority of US citizens are better off than they were 40 years ago? But this isn't the case at all. Back then the vast majority of families could afford to own a home, have a bunch of kids, etc. and do it all on a single income. That is laughable today. What is the point of a country experiencing unprecedented economic growth if the citizens of that country are by and large worse off? I assume that growth came at the expense of the citizens and not to their benefit. But if not to their benefit, wouldn't it have been better to not have the growth at all?



Americans are better off than they were 40 years ago.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.economist.com/finance-and-e...


This type of measurement of being better off is inherently flawed.

Insurance costs going up and employers paying more for that doesn't mean people have been getting a better and better deal.

Also why is it that the standard of life is higher and has grown to be much higher in many European countries with the so called "slow growth" vs America?


I don't need statistics to tell me this is wrong. I can just look at the lives of my family members, my friends, my neighbors, etc. This is an instance where common sense and real life experience trumps statistics. We all know the saying about statistics.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: