Fair enough
> Worsening infrastructure
If you're claiming that infrastructure 100 years ago was of lesser quality than today, you're living in an alternate reality.
> Lower/flattening productivity increases
False when increases taken in real terms: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RTFPNAUSA632NRUG It's pretty much a line as straight up as it gets.
> Lower/flattening invention rate
As in? Science is working worse now?
> More surveillance (in fact more, even at solely the state level, than even Stazi had, and with infinite potential for targeted surveillance).
That's hard to judge. Yes, modern states have more potential for surveillance, but they arguably can get away with less abuse than they used to.
> Thining middle class (as opposed to incresing middle class 100 years ago).
Very nice how you take the first derivative.
> Hugely increased inequality.
As much as people love talking about it, 'inequality' is a vague term. Are we talking income or wealth? Worldwide, US or Europe?
Worldwide, inequality has dramatically decreased (both income and wealth). Income inequality in the US is slightly higher than post war, but marginally so. The charts they show you don't have the origin at zero, that's all.
> Crumbling pension systems
In countries that have nationalized pension systems (which aren't actually a bad thing imo), pensions are generally pay-as-you-go. If pension systems are not sustainable it's simply because politicians love using them as the 21st century grain dole: they aren't crumbling for any fundamental reason other than the political unwillingness to do the honest thing and cut benefits.
> 1) use the... > 2) take... > 3) when...
I have no axe to grind and absolutely nothing to defend. If 'those treaties' do that, they are wrong. I like talking about concrete, factual statements though, "our society is getting worse" is something that's been said for literally millennia.
> ignore any qualitative metric.
Can you point out some qualitative metric that isn't just "life was better X years ago because I was X years younger?" Because let's be honest, that's what most "qualitative metrics" boil down to. As imperfect as it might be, data is at least an honest attempt to understand the world.
Higher temperatures (climate change, not the same as pollution).
Worsening infrastructure (the US, for example, is turning into a developing world country in many areas) as opposed to the era of great infrastructure projects, from scryscrappers and railways to the interstate system .
Lower/flattening productivity increases (as opposed to continuous productivity booms 100 years ago).
Lower/flattening invention rate (the low hanging fruits ended circa 1950-60).
More surveillance (in fact more, even at solely the state level, than even Stazi had, and with infinite potential for targeted surveillance).
Thining middle class (as opposed to incresing middle class 100 years ago).
Hugely increased inequality.
Crumbling pension systems (as opposed to pension systems being developed 100 years ago).
There are also a few tricks such "we're getting better" treatises use:
1) use the progress in countries starting from a very low bar to offset regressions in more developed countries (and since the third world countries have higher population, use an average state to shove it to the face of doubters who see their own lives and those of their countries/societies get worse and worse). This is kind of like averging Jeff Bezos' and mine wealth (kinda: what it does it says since e.g. 1 billion people went from $1/day to $2/day this is a huge 200% increase, who cares is another billion went from $100/day to $80/day and falling...).
2) take official measurements (made to make states and organizations affecting change look good) as the ground truth
3) when convenient, compare with say a century back, not 30 and 40 years back (e.g. when people didn't even have the notion of a pension, not when you expected and got one).
4) ignore any qualitative metric.