Technology provides massive amounts of consumer surplus and deflation.

What if we need less money and lower wages are actually fine?

Edit: Do the people down-voting this actually think technology doesn't provide consumer surplus and deflation? Or do you have a problem with my question?

That's easy to say for someone with a good income. For a lot of people wages go down while cost of living goes up.

That's not what I'm getting at. I'm referring to technology specifically. Cost of living is dictated predominantly by the cost of housing, healthcare, education, and food. Food cost as a % of income has decreased significantly since 1960 according to the USDA [1].

Technology and globalization have impacted food a lot. Education, and housing? Not nearly as much. Healthcare is more complicated, and I'm not an expert, so I'll refrain from speculating there.

One might argue globalization has hurt people, but so far, technology seems to be making just about everything it touches cheaper for everyone.

[1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery...

Yes, but why is it making things cheaper where it touches? Usually it's because it allows production with fewer people or by people with lower wages than before. Thus things get cheaper because some subset of people lose jobs or wages. That's fine as long as those people are able to find new jobs or supplemental income sources (many do), but I think the point here is that it's not a universal benefit. I have to agree with the parent post here - for some portion of people, technology has led to lower wages while cost of living decreases (food, products, etc.) are offset by increases in things you need to lift yourself up (healthcare, education, housing).

The problem is that the benefits of globalization are offset by the centralization of the remaining jobs, and is adding to the inequality seen in America. There are some parts of the country doing fantastic, but a lot of the Midwest is seeing lower wages, fewer jobs, and a lower quality of life.

That's largely a false narrative.

What do you mean by this? What did I say that was false?

You're right that certain parts of the country have been hit hard by automation and globalization but the idea that the hard hit people are the Trump voters is not particularly true.

From what I've read, you are wrong. Of course there are a lot of factors that go into an election, but here's the site that tells me it's definitely a factor: https://econsnapshot.com/2016/11/14/how-trump-won/amp/

In the future, if you could provide a source for your argument, it could give more substantive discussion.

I fully agree that there are multiple forces at work here and globalization and technology are not a universal benefit to the western poor and middle-income.

I just wanted to expose something commonly left out of these discussions, which is that technology is generally deflationary. More technology in the areas of healthcare, education, and housing might be the solution, not the problem.

> Cost of living is dictated predominantly by the cost of housing, healthcare, education, and food.

> so far, technology seems to be making just about everything it touches cheaper for everyone.

You say this, but only provide a source for 1 out of 4 key indicators of cost of living. Can you provide the same evidence towards housing, healthcare and education becoming significantly cheaper as a % of a budget of an average household?

Otherwise that statement is just incorrect.

@antisthenes: I did not say technology has made housing, education, or healthcare cheaper. Please read what I said again.

> That's easy to say for someone with a good income. For a lot of people wages go down while cost of living goes up.

Bullshit. Technology brings down the cost of living by making the supply side more efficient. What goes up is the cost of the way you'd like to live as you have more options to choose from.

Obviously there's disruptions along the way (ex: automobiles lessen demand for horse breeders) but when capitalism closes a door it opens a window (ex: mechanics).

You have no idea if you think technology magically brings down prices. Tell that to the 100 million people living in/near poverty in the USA alone.

The "efficiency" increases in recent years have more often than not been various ways of cutting labor costs. It doesn't matter if things are cheaper in a nominal sense if your ability to earn a living is eroded.

> You have no idea if you think technology magically brings down prices. Tell that to the 100 million people living in/near poverty in the USA alone.

I suggest you go do some basic math on the cost of producing consumer staples like rice, beans, milk, and meat. Technology has brought down the cost of all of them.

Similarly, efficiency gains in MPG and durability improvements have lowered the price of owning and maintaining a vehicle. Uber, Lyft, and other ride sharing apps have lowered the price of it even further to remove the capital outlay.

> The "efficiency" increases in recent years have more often than not been various ways of cutting labor costs.

Which is bad because why exactly? Is the purpose of the corporate sector to produce goods and services or to provide a place for people to go?

> It doesn't matter if things are cheaper in a nominal sense if your ability to earn a living is eroded.

Sure it is. That's the definition of makes things more efficient: being able to be produced more cheaply

You make fair points, however the cost of living is dictated primarily by: transportation, education, housing and health costs. Has technology made these significantly cheaper for someone in poverty?

> You make fair points, however the cost of living is dictated primarily by: transportation, education, housing and health costs. Has technology made these significantly cheaper for someone in poverty?

I specifically cite transportation costs in my prior comment. Housing is also cheap if you don't live in (expensive) cities. There's an abundance of housing in the suburbs and if you're willing to share a place with others (like everybody seems to take for granted in the city) it's insanely cheap.

Education and health are interesting beasts. On the one hand technology has brought the cost of education to near zero through remote learning and internet courses. There's more knowledge available at a person's fingertips than at any point in history and the cost is cheaper than ever. The cost of a formal higher education has gone up but I don't think that's driven by technology. It's from the availability of "easy money" for student loans. Healthcare (in the USA) is uniformly fucked and needs to be scrapped and rebuilt though government programs like Medicaid do cover the people your describe (poverty line).

Housing is cheap if you live in a part of the country with a bad economy.

The increasing polarization of the economy is also spatial: the remaining good jobs are congregating in fewer and fewer metropolises where the cost of living is skyrocketing.

Tell that to people whose salaries haven't kept up with inflation while other costs like housing, health care and education have been going up. Yes, in the long run it will maybe/probably work out but it can take years or decades for things to adjust and in the meantime a lot of people will suffer.

I downvoted you. My problem with what you said is that you acknowledged that technology creates surplus, but didn't acknowledge that many of the efficiency gains aren't going to the consumer, but to the owners of the company.

Technology creates massive consumer surplus. I'm not sure if you don't know what that means, but it means exactly the opposite of what you said.

For example: Apple sells an iPhone for about $750. This phone contains the equivalent of (roughly) $3,000 of disparate technology from the 1990s, including a cell phone, camera, tape recorder, etc. Not only does it contain all of that for less money, all of that is better quality than what was available for that $3,000 back in the 1990s.

That is deflation and consumer surplus in action. The consumer can spend a fraction of what they would've in 1990 for a better product.

Another example: Apps on the App Store. Everyone expects everything for free because there is so much competition enabled by technology. The marginal cost is roughly zero, so most apps are free. If most of the gains were being kept by the producer, apps would cost a lot of money.

My previous post was poorly worded. Technology has automated so many jobs that the oversaturated labor pool means wages are dipping. Cheaper goods don't mean much when you can't afford a house or car. Meanwhile, the investors are reaping the benefits of this efficiency with insane returns, and the CEOs are running off with millions. When we're living in the richest country in the world with a GDP per capita of over $50k, the idea that there are those unemployed or making $8k/yr while others are making millions or billions per year is ridiculous.

That's not a good thing to down-vote for, but props for explanation.

Down vote for trolls and other destructive posts, not just because you have a problem or disagreement with what's expressed. OP is legitimately trying to contribute to the conversation.