Cafe Hayek: More progress

« Threat of a law suit | Main | Caveat emptor» Russell Roberts

November 20, 2007

More progress

Russell Roberts

More data from the American Housing Survey. In the last 20 years, the proportion of households with income below the poverty line with the following amenities has increased as follows:

1985 2005

Dishwasher             16%             37%
Washing Machine    56%             64%
Dryer                         35%             57%

Supposedly, over the last 20 years, all of the income gains have gone to the rich. Yet, somehow, the poorest households increased their access to appliances that make life more pleasant. These data are taken from Table 2-4. Earlier post on progress in air conditioning is here.

Posted by Russell Roberts in Standard of Living | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/23534030

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More progress:

Comments

I can imagine a version of this Cafe Hayek post in the early 1900s.

1885 1905
Indoor Plumbing 16% 37%
Clothes Wringer 56% 64%
Prosthetics 7% 19%

Supposedly, over the last 20 years, all of the income gains have gone to the rich. Yet, somehow, the poorest households increased their access to conveniences and replacement limbs that make life more pleasant. Earlier post on progress in glass eye progress is here.

Posted by: Plac Ebo | Nov 20, 2007 4:29:37 PM

PE,

I guess if the standard one ascribes to is perfection, then there will always be something to whine about. But then, that's the game plan isn't it. Sad that so many are so easily taken in by it.

Posted by: Randy | Nov 20, 2007 5:10:06 PM

You're right about the whining. The poor have it so much better than they did 1000 years ago, 500 years ago, hell even 100 years ago. They are never content. Just can't please some people.

Posted by: Plac Ebo | Nov 20, 2007 5:39:08 PM

True. Desire is the essence of man. The question is one of method... and of those who promote and then sell envy and greed.

Posted by: Randy | Nov 20, 2007 5:47:03 PM

Profs. Roberts & Boudreaux:

Is it me, or have the posters on your site taken a hard left turn, and the empirical quality and logical analysis subsequently declined significantly over the past 2 weeks?

And are these “poor people” the same people across generations, or do we have to debunk this yet again?

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Nov 20, 2007 7:38:40 PM

Mesa,
I think there are a few more trolls, but what better mark of a good site than a few trolls? Besides it good to see that their method of argument hasn't changed since William Godwin began his war on reason 200 years ago. I remember when I didn't have a dishwasher in graduate school and qualified for the earned income tax credit, but those were happy days.

Posted by: TheAlbatross | Nov 20, 2007 8:07:24 PM

Trolls?!

Where?!

Sad, so very sad, that a little debate cannot be tolerated here in this little virtual perfect-competition Utopia.

Posted by: holymoly | Nov 20, 2007 8:19:03 PM

The comments (not the posts) here at Cafe Hayek are on the dumber end of the spectrum. I think one possible explanation is that people who are new to libertarian ideas, both as advocate and opponent, end up here. College students, perhaps?

We were all dumb once.

Posted by: SP | Nov 20, 2007 8:20:29 PM

I’m all for spirited debate, but are we so close to an election cycle that common idiocy is allowed to masquerade as uninformed inquiry in advocacy of theft?

And wasn’t college matriculation once a sign of intelligence?*

*See signalling theory, you labor economists out there.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Nov 20, 2007 9:12:02 PM

That's one possibility. Another is that there might be posters here that have wisdom enough to realize that the state is not the only threat to individual freedom, and that most people don't want total freedom. For example, the vast majority are willing to forego some freedom for some security. The libertarian cheerleaders here pretend to know what people want and could achieve with little if any state, yet the history of the world shows that as societies prosper the people want and expect more from their government.

Posted by: Plac Ebo | Nov 20, 2007 9:15:43 PM

Holymoly,

You seem decent--but bear with me (I think you just got here)--we have seen some doozies over the past few months. I am not talking about reasonable disagreement, but a combination of paranoia, seething, and violations of the laws of economics and (in some cases) physics. The debate has definately taken a turn for the worse, although I do occasionally learn something, as the threads sometimes collect dispersed knowledge. However, I have learned something from it all. Perhaps those of us in favor of markets relaxed our guard too much after the fall of the Berlin Wall. We didn't think that the lovers of planned economies would show their heads again after they had murdered and impoverished so many, but I guess we were wrong. Well so be it, back to work. Time to fight again--like Smith, Hume, Pitt, Bastiat, the Anti-Corn League, Von Mises, Hayek, Friedman, and many others.
SP--I don't think it is the college students. The planners have come out of the woodwork with their arrogance, ideas, and rules to make the world a better place. At the same time, members of every generation will believe that they "know better," or that the fruits of spontaneous order or the signals of the market are the conspiracy of few. Hayek pointed out that this was human nature, and we were foolish to think that after the horrors of the 20th century people would think differently.

Posted by: TheAlbatross | Nov 20, 2007 9:19:07 PM

Indeed.

Lest we forget the “social contract of Mesa”: Those who don’t understand Ponzi schemes shall not comment on Social Security.

To the battlements, my brothers!

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Nov 20, 2007 9:36:15 PM

"[...] have wisdom enough to realize that the state is not the only threat to individual freedom, and that most people don't want total freedom." - Plac Ebo

May I suggest you read "Kolyma Tales", by Varlam Shalamov, there you'll learn the stories Soviet gulags convicts who'd rationalize: "deep down I deserved it, I wasn't a good enough communist".

Posted by: Unit | Nov 20, 2007 9:37:10 PM

"The libertarian cheerleaders here pretend to know what people want..." - Plac Ebo

I'm really trying to think of an instance where one of the libertarians who comment on this site ever claimed to 'know what people want'. Rather, we've been stating what we, ourselves, want, which is to not have our pockets picked to enrich you and your socialist/communist brethren.

Plac Ebo, if you want to provide for Muirgeo's retirement and health care, be my guest. I don't think any other libertarians are interested in stopping you, either. But, you don't want to provide for Muirgeo's retirement and health care. You want me to.

Posted by: brotio | Nov 20, 2007 9:52:35 PM

"... Perhaps those of us in favor of markets relaxed our guard too much after the fall of the Berlin Wall. We didn't think that the lovers of planned economies would show their heads again after they had murdered and impoverished so many, but I guess we were wrong. ..."
(Posted by: TheAlbatross | Nov 20, 2007 9:19:07 PM)
=====

Talk about arrogance. If someone doesn't buy the libertarian line than they must be longing for Stalin's rebirth?!

Posted by: Plac Ebo | Nov 20, 2007 9:53:06 PM

brotio, democracy really sucks doesn't it. Not letting you decide what's fair and all.

Posted by: Plac Ebo | Nov 20, 2007 9:59:47 PM

Unit, may I suggest that you read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. Try to get the uncensored version.

Posted by: Plac Ebo | Nov 20, 2007 10:06:45 PM

And if 50.1% of the people think Plac Ebo should be exterminated, then of course if matters not if brotio thinks its unfair and all.

"If someone doesn't buy the libertarian line than they must be longing for Stalin's rebirth?!"

That's an extreme statement. Insert Juan Peron instead.

Posted by: The Dirty Mac | Nov 20, 2007 10:13:26 PM

Is citing an avowed socialist on an economic libertarian website considered "progressive"?

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Nov 20, 2007 10:18:23 PM

They will not exterminate me until I exhaust all my appeals.

Posted by: Plac Ebo | Nov 20, 2007 10:24:23 PM

Perhaps those of us in favor of markets relaxed our guard too much after the fall of the Berlin Wall. We didn't think that the lovers of planned economies would show their heads again after they had murdered and impoverished so many, but I guess we were wrong - Albatross

Those who love planned economies can't think beyond step one - theory. These people live in a normative world. Things "should" and "ought to be" this way or that. Reality is irrelevant. After arriving in this country from the Soviet Union in the 1970's, I found myself surrounded by such people. One of them, a hard-core communist parlor revolutionary, went on a pilgrimage to Russia right after they opened the border. She came back a hard-core capitalist. The poverty and desperation of the average person had such a profound effect on her that she never really recovered.

Now, it has occurred to me, we have an entire generation that has no experience with these regimes and were not witness to this time. It seems that every generation has to learn the same lessons for itself. At least that's how it seems to me.

Posted by: Methinks | Nov 20, 2007 10:24:42 PM

Is citing an avowed socialist on an economic libertarian website considered "progressive"?
(Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Nov 20, 2007 10:18:23 PM)
=====

The old "it's easier to attack the messenger than it is to attack the message" trick.

Posted by: Plac Ebo | Nov 20, 2007 10:29:17 PM

There's a certain irony that in writing about the evils of capitalism, Sinclair described life in socialist utopias such as the soviet union. Only in socialist utopias, workers aren't even required to be paid.

Posted by: Methinks | Nov 20, 2007 10:32:31 PM

Talk about arrogance. If someone doesn't buy the libertarian line than they must be longing for Stalin's rebirth?!

I don't see the word Libertarian anywhere in my post. Well, if you don't believe me then take up the matter with Robert Reich--I believe his most recent book has some thought on the matter

Posted by: TheAlbatross | Nov 20, 2007 10:37:40 PM

Excuse me, I meant "thoughts" instead of "thought"--funny how the un-regulated world of comments still corrects itself.

Posted by: TheAlbatross | Nov 20, 2007 10:42:53 PM

The old "it's easier to attack the messenger than it is to attack the message" trick.

I lived in his message. You want to talk about the message? Then you'll have to talk about what really happens. When you trade "some freedom for some security", then you have to satisfy each individual's version of that. That's not possible. So, what usually happens is that everyone trades all their freedom for the security of knowing that only the Nomenklatura will live in anything but abject poverty. Even the Nomenklatura didn't have air conditioning, dishwashers and dryers.

You're right. Most people don't want total freedom. We want Rule of Law. Nor do we want total Democracy (the communist goal, incidentally). We want a constitution to limit the power of government and our neighbour's ability to vote to use the force of government to steal from our pocket.

Posted by: Methinks | Nov 20, 2007 10:44:58 PM

Methinks, in the clutch yet again.

Obviously a volatility trader….

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Nov 20, 2007 10:50:15 PM

I have to add; since coming here some months ago, I've come to the conclusion that Methinks is, aside from the hosts, the most coherent commenter on this blog.

Thanks for coming back from your posting abstinence. I had a short debate today with someone who disputed by 'commoditisation' of goods, and my blatant capitalist assignment of 'ability' to individuals, leading to what he described as something akin to "fascism of entitlement". I had too much trouble understanding the meaning of his arguments to even come up with rebuttals -- could have used your clarity of concept.

I did learn something though: sometimes, there just isn't even common enough ground to base an argument on. When someone doesn't acknowledge the same reality that you do, where do you begin?

Posted by: Wojtek Grabski | Nov 21, 2007 12:27:17 AM

"democracy really sucks doesn't it." - Plac Ebo

You ended that sentence with a period instead of a question mark, so I'll simply agree with you, and point out that the founders of the United States agreed as well.

I'll also note that you tacitly agreed that it's not libertarians telling you that we know what people want, but libertarians being annoyed at being told what WE want that really bothers you.

Posted by: brotio | Nov 21, 2007 12:29:39 AM

Plac Ebo,

Another is that there might be posters here that have wisdom enough to realize that the state is not the only threat to individual freedom, and that most people don't want total freedom. For example, the vast majority are willing to forego some freedom for some security.

This is not correct. I do not believe anyone is arguing that people are not willing to trade some freedom for security (that common mis-quoting of Benjamin Franklin aside). Obviously people are, even most libertarians. The issue is not whether or not people are willing, but who is correct party to decide how much freedom someone wants to give away, and for what in return? Libertarians say only that person can know. Supporters of states say that a third party should determine this instead.

Through voluntary contracts, any sort of security could be had. Insurance, mutualist societies, communes, or whatever. In a libertarian world, democrats or communists are free to be democratic and communistic. In a world of strong governments, libertarians (and many others) are grabbed by men with guns and tossed into barred cells.

Posted by: G | Nov 21, 2007 12:30:01 AM

Pointing out that 21% more poor households have dishwashers than 20 years ago makes it seem like Roberts is saying, "see, more than a third of poor households have dishwashers, the top 1% makes 1.5 million dollars, everybody wins!"

I mean, I can walk into a room where one person is tied up and being chewed on by rats and another person is watching a DVD in a leather chair and uncover one mouse trap and a million dollars, put the mouse trap on the tied up guy's chest, and give the million dollars to the DVD watcher. Pareto Efficient! Everybody wins! It makes you wonder what mechanisms were in place, or weren't, that got those people in those two situations in the first place.

Granted, it could be that the guy who is tied up will eventually make his way into the chair, or, no matter what, this guy will somehow manage to get himself tied up and thrown into a room with rats. A thoughtful analysis on these questions, I think, would be more meaningful in addressing inequality than noting that human life is slowly getting better in absolute terms.

Posted by: Bill | Nov 21, 2007 1:11:09 AM

"A thoughtful analysis on these questions, I think, would be more meaningful in addressing inequality than noting that human life is slowly getting better in absolute terms."

What if inequality is a requirement for human life to slowly get better in absolute terms?

Posted by: Mr. Econotarian | Nov 21, 2007 3:11:49 AM

It seems that whenever the Profs post "real" data the critics fall over themselves to disparage Libertarianism.

This here particular post is not to say everything is fine with the poor. It says what Dr. Roberts says it says, that there is economic progress amongst the poor even while populist commentators say otherwise. Anecdotally, you know something positive is happening when you stop hearing about homeless, but you hear that the poor don't have the Internet.

I'll give a shout out to Methinks whom I once shared many a comment here. I might just sharpen my ice axe to solve the Trollsky problem - if I could ever get my kids to sleep before 10PM. Maybe we can put together a FAQ so the neophytes will understand that their supposed new arguments have been hammered down dozens of times before. Then we could answer with "See FAQ 3:16" then move on to discussing the topic as the Profs had intended.

Posted by: Python | Nov 21, 2007 4:50:03 AM

Methinks,

Re; "we have an entire generation that has no experience with these regimes and were not witness to this time. It seems that every generation has to learn the same lessons for itself."

Good point.

As for the comments by some that the conversation here has been dumbed down, I see it somewhat differently. Don and Russ are leading the charge against the myths of progressive idealism. It is no accident that they have attracted the attention of the inquistition. It has been noticed by many that Muirgeo and his cohorts do not respond to reason. That is because they are not here to be reasonable. They are here to defend the faith. There is a bigger battle being waged here than simple matters of economics. Think of it as deciding whether or not future free thinkers will be allowed to speak truth to power.

Posted by: Randy | Nov 21, 2007 7:55:27 AM

Python,

I think FAQs is a really great idea. It would be enormously useful - and not just on this blog.

Posted by: Randy | Nov 21, 2007 7:58:49 AM

Bill: "It makes you wonder what mechanisms were in place, or weren't, that got those people in those two situations in the first place. "

No need to wonder, Bill. I'm the guy sitting in the leather chair watching the DVD. I got their by working my ass off for the past 40 years. The million dollars I possess was not dropped in my lap. I earned it one dollar at a time providing my goods to my customers and my services to my employers.

My brother is the guy who is too lazy to protect his food and possessions from rats. He got where he is because someone convinced him 40 years ago that the world owed him. So he's been sitting around waiting for someone to pay up for all those years.

What makes me just sick is that liberal fools will use the government to force both me and the next three generations to support that lazy bum during our retirement years. And you, Bill, probably believe my lazy brother is long past due his "reward".

To me, Bill, you are the enabler who seeks to destroy economic incentive in this country. If I'm wrong about that, please convince me otherwise.

Posted by: John Dewey | Nov 21, 2007 8:41:47 AM

"we have an entire generation that has no experience with these regimes and were not witness to this time. It seems that every generation has to learn the same lessons for itself."

Living under Nixon-Ford-Carter was enough for me. Not enough people remember the price controls or the apocolyptic "Moral Equivalent of War" speech

Posted by: The Dirty Mac | Nov 21, 2007 9:07:18 AM

What if inequality is a requirement for human life to slowly get better in absolute terms?
(Posted by: Mr. Econotarian | Nov 21, 2007 3:11:49 AM)
=====

What if more than a minimal government is a requirement for human life to get better in absolute terms? What if more than a minimal government speeds up the process?

When I look to the real world for examples every prosperous country has much, much more than the minimal government that most on this board advocate. Most of the world's countries with small governments are hell holes.

Posted by: Plac Ebo | Nov 21, 2007 9:44:46 AM

PE,

Where there is wealth, there will be people who try to take it. Government serves two primary functions - to protect wealth, and to confiscate wealth. It is natural for those with greater wealth to prefer the former, and for those with lesser wealth to prefer the latter. It is also natural for some to specialize in the profit opportunity presented by either function.

Posted by: Randy | Nov 21, 2007 10:29:34 AM

This has nothing to do with us getting collectively wealthier and everything to do with the continued popularity of The Price is Right. Haha.

Posted by: Brad | Nov 21, 2007 11:50:29 AM

Technological progress has made everything cheaper to manufacture, including washers and driers. Everything except houses which keep going up in price every year.

I'd rather live in a middle class neighborhood without my own washer/drier than live in a ghetto with.

Posted by: Half Sigma | Nov 21, 2007 2:05:47 PM

I see that once someone is willing to talk about the message rather than the messenger, interest suddenly evaporates and the socialist is back to making other broad and unsubstantiated statement. Let's try again.

Where? Give me some examples. I have lots of experience with hell holes as both my husband and I come from two different cesspools, so this should be a robust discussion. I can think of no examples where the growth of government intervention was positively correlated with human life getting better in any terms (absolute or relative). I can think of plenty of examples of quite the opposite - deregulation, lower taxes and less government involvement leads to more economic growth and more wealth for all people in every income bracket in places like the United States, India, Estonia, and Ireland (to name just a few). As long as we're at it, define "making human life better". What does that mean concretely?

I'll be waiting here for you to enlighten me. If you are like most leftists, I'll be waiting until I die. But you may be different.

Posted by: Methinks | Nov 21, 2007 2:26:24 PM

"brotio, democracy really sucks doesn't it. Not letting you decide what's fair and all.

Posted by: Plac Ebo | Nov 20, 2007 9:59:47 PM"

Democracy does really suck, for brotio and for me, not because we can't decide for everyone what is fair; but, because it lets you and muirduck have equal say in deciding what we think and do.

I think I can speak for brotio and myself, and say that neither of cares what you think or do as long as it affects only you, just don't bring it to our doors and demand that we go along.

Democracy does suck. Tyranny of the majority, slim majority though it usually is. Tryanny is tryanny whether it be Stalin or a ballot box.

Posted by: vidyohs | Nov 21, 2007 2:29:06 PM

May I suggest you read "Kolyma Tales", by Varlam Shalamov, there you'll learn the stories Soviet gulags convicts who'd rationalize: "deep down I deserved it, I wasn't a good enough communist".

Posted by: Unit | Nov 20, 2007 9:37:10 PM

May I also suggest that you read "Dr. Zhivago", and "Day in the life of Ivan Ivanovitch".

Posted by: vidyohs | Nov 21, 2007 2:31:28 PM

Technological progress has made everything cheaper to manufacture, including washers and driers.

This is because the evil profit motive has driven people to do greedy things like innovate. People have to give up something to spend the time and take the risk to innovate. They don't do it for free. Technological progress doesn't happen by magic.

...Everything except houses which keep going up in price every year.

Where have you been over the past couple of years?

Posted by: Methinks | Nov 21, 2007 2:35:26 PM

Wojtek, thank you for the kind words.

Python, shout out to you too. I've missed your posts. Your "you are me an I am you and we are all together" post still gets quoted in our house when collectivism comes up.

Posted by: Methinks | Nov 21, 2007 2:39:49 PM

"Wojtek, thank you for the kind words."

I am in agreement. If Methinks had a blog, I would visit (like they vote in Chicago) early and often.

Posted by: The Dirty Mac | Nov 21, 2007 4:01:56 PM

"Yet, somehow, the poorest households increased their access to appliances that make life more pleasant."

Going back to the beginning. One amazing thing is that there are some goods that essentially did not exist in 1985 that are now so outdated that sales are declining or are nonexistent even among the poor - i.e. compact discs, car phones, 486 computers, many types of medication.

What is left to be accomplished in alleviating poverty in the United States largely involves the government school system, which continues to fail the poor. And by the way, the absurdity of the idea that government intervention guarantees equal access for all is exposed by the education system.

Posted by: The Dirty Mac | Nov 21, 2007 4:16:05 PM

"Democracy does suck. Tyranny of the majority, slim majority though it usually is. Tryanny is tryanny whether it be Stalin or a ballot box."
(Posted by: vidyohs | Nov 21, 2007 2:29:06 PM)
=====

And the alternative is?

Hint: Requiring unanimity on any vote is not workable ..... unless you live all alone an island. Then any tyranny is of your own making.

But, seriously, the alternative?

Posted by: Plac Ebo | Nov 21, 2007 6:40:37 PM

Houses are much larger now than they used to be, as this census table shows. Median square footage in 1973 was 1,525, in 2006 it had risen to 2,248.

If Paul Krugman, and others of his ilk, are correct that median income has stagnated since 1973, where are people getting the money to buy houses more than 40% larger?

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | Nov 21, 2007 6:50:11 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.