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

That was not the question. One of the things people never factor in is all the government regulations around housing.

A single family home from the 1930's would be illegal to build today because building codes have been expanded some for good reason, others less so.

As such it make is hard to do a apples to apple comparison

This is a good video where an economic professor explains some of that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J5s6aZCPSg






From the wikipedia article:

>The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is an American conservative libertarian economic think tank.

>FEE, founded in 1946, is considered the oldest free-market think tank in the United States. An early aim was to roll back policies of the New Deal. FEE opposed the Marshall Plan, Social Security and minimum wages, among other American social and economic policies.

Points of the video:

- Mainstream media sells entertaining truth that are mostly negative

- People think gun violence is getting worse every single year over a span of 25 years, but it only got worse for 8 of those years! There is a 50% decrease from the 90s.

- Conveniently remove suicide from the gun violence data and ignore the current up trend in homicide

- We shouldn't look at wages, but look at total compensation and it's up by 45% for the median worker since 1979!

- We have more household that are rich according to this data despite what the media says

- You don't need a cellphone, just cancel it if you're poor, also don't get medical treatment that didn't exist in the 70s if you want to have the same cost of living than your grand parents

- Let's compare the average middle class American 100 years ago to one today and you'll see how much better you have it now! Especially if you are a racial minority (he don't mention this last part)

- omg, look at how much hours of work was required 100 years ago to purchase these products (stamp, bread, movie ticket, gas, coffee, eggs, butter, milk)

- only movie ticket are more expensive today, but we get much nicer movie like the Marvel movies! (But remember to cancel your 10$ Netflix subscription if you can't afford it) (a previous point he made)

- back in the days, it took 4 years to raise money to buy a car, but only 2.5 years now!

- He mention that the minimum wage worker has to pay more for housing today, but it's because they are much more technologically advanced!

- house 100 years ago: no electricity, no running water, no indoor toilet, no AC

- Houses like that are now illegal to buy!

- Thus, the minimum wage worker can't buy house like that anymore! (he also can't buy a modern house, but nevermind that)

- So poor people today have a better living standard than the middle class had 100 years ago and in a 100 years the next generation will be even better off with private jets and yachts to travel around!

- There is less child labor in the world, less wars and stuff!

- So in summary, be humble! Appreciate, be thankful for the fact that the world has become a better place. (i.e. stop complaining about society because the iphone exists type of arguments)

Yikes.


Thanks for the tl;dr! The one-word refutation was a nice touch. Very persuasive and compelling argument.

>> FEE opposed the Marshall Plan, Social Security and minimum wages, among other American social and economic policies.

AS do I, in a sane world, with a sane court none of those would be constitutional as they are completely outside the scope of the powers granted to the federal government. FDR had to literally extort the court to get them stop striking them down

>>Yikes.

Good rebuttal to all the points, you have convinced me that everything is terrible and we all should embrace socialism as our one true economic model /s


Yikes...

But no seriously, you oppose social security and the minimum wage? We should let corporations exploit workers as much as they please and provide no care for the ones who can't work?

What the conservative libertarian says:

>Personal responsibility! The free market will fix everything if only it was truly free! Charity will provide for the miserables! Real capitalism was never tried, we just need less government intervention. Freedom > everything else.

What the conservative libertarian probably believe:

>** them, I only care about my interests. Why should I care about dumb people loosing at the game? Not my problem. I'm smart. I deserve to win.

The video is as bad as PragerU videos. They misrepresent statistics and historical events to push an agenda backed by multi-millionaires magnates. They use the biases the viewer have to gently confirm beliefs that were never really challenged in their education and work life. Most viewer won't check the sources and take at face value what is presented because they trust that the professor is a good guy acting in good faith and that he did the research and knows what he's talking about.

>Good rebuttal to all the points, you have convinced me that everything is terrible and we all should embrace socialism as our one true economic model /s

Maybe one day you will come around and say the exact same sentence but without the /s.


>> you oppose social security and the minimum wage? We should let corporations exploit workers as much as they please and provide no care for the ones who can't wor

At the federal level yes. State level is a different matter

See I am originalist when it comes to the constitution, and I see nothing in Article 1 Section 8 that grants the federal government the power to set a minimum wage, or provide for social security. I dont believe it is wise to simply ignore the constitution when it inconvenient to political goals

If the federal government needs the power the proper channel do that is via a constitutional amendment that would grant said power

Further on Social Security, I would actually go farther. I believe the execution of Social Security is highly unethical as is the funding source for it (income taxation). For public finance I support a Henry George Style single tax system. Such a system would not only be completely constitutional it would enable either a UBI or a Friedman style negative income tax that would serve not only for elder care, but also the poor in a way that is not unethical (like income tax clearly is) and is not unconstitutional

You have also incorrectly attributed me as being conservative libertarian. While it is true socially I am libertarian, economically when it comes to public finance I ascribe to Georgism making me Geo-Libertarian, not conservative libertarian.

I support a VERY VERY limited government, distributed in power where the most impactful government to an individual should be as close tot hat individual as possible, as such I believe most things should be done at the city, county and state level. With very little being done at a Federal Level.

I believe income based taxation is unethical and is akin to labor theft that in other context would be viewed as a form of slavery.

I believe socialism is untenable as an economic construct that has always and will always fail unless we get to the point where we have Star Trek levels of technology and resources are with out most limits. However while we are constrained to this planet, with a limited set of resources socialism can never work. Socialism @ our technology level will falter when a community gets to be about 100-200 people. Small socialist communities can work, large ones cant, national ones generally devolve to mass suffering and death




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

Search: