Productivity Measured in Goods

Note that 2 of the 3 are increasingly socialized.

Any guess when the Democrats and the unions move on leisure?

Arnold wrote:

"the new commanding heights are education, health care, and leisure"

Baumol Disease, regarding cheaper durable goods but relatively more expensive labor-intensive services?

Bingo. Of course, the more labor-intensive an industry is the more vote-rich it is, so Greg's explanation and cjc's don't need to be at odds.

Average income is a less reliable statistic for gauging general wellbeing when median income varies significantly. But you know that, right?

Fascinating data.

How does this gibe with the fact that in 1950 I could have supported my wife and daughter on one income and now we both have to work college-requiring jobs(and help pay the income of the people my daughter spends much more time with than us)?

This is intended as genuine inquiry, not snarky trolling.

Fenn,

It's a good point, one that some economists would say illustrates the problem of measuring wellbeing in terms of material standard of living.

Fenn,
If you are willing to accept 1950 health care, then you can probably still support your family on one income. Also, if you live like a typical household in 1950, your wife and daughter won't have cars, your dwelling will be small and will lack air conditioning, and your electronic entertainment will consist of a radio.

Well, if we shouldn't be measuring wellbeing in terms of material standard of living, then there isn't much reason to be upset about variations in income, or to argue for redistributing it. But you knew that, right?

The Sheep Nazi,

Well, if we shouldn't be measuring wellbeing in terms of material standard of living, then there isn't much reason to be upset about variations in income, or to argue for redistributing it. But you knew that, right?

I assume that is directed toward me. I didn't say we shouldn't, just that it is an insufficient measure. Supposing we were indifferent to material standard of living in terms of its absolute value (however we choose to measure it), and I don't believe we ought to be, we would still have cause to be interested in its variation amongst individuals, as this changes interpersonal relationships in ways that are consequential and potentially detrimental. If there is more to life than the material (social, cultural, spiritual) and if the material has a relationship to the other things we might want (opportunity cost), then we must still be concerned with the material, if only so that by dealing with it efficiently and prudently we might be more fully engaged with everything else. The questions remain whether we should intervene, when, and how? I am not equipped to answer those questions by myself.

Dr. Kling,

Again not to be contentious, but did you not write a book about lack of value in premium health care?

I do appreciate the car my wife and I share, and I occasionally run the AC. I would dearly miss the Internet, but I think I'd trade it and some floor space for the opportunity to raise my child.

I acknowledge there have been gains in the quality of life. But I don't know if they justify a doubling of working hours per household.

And unfortunately my desires seem to be in a significant enough minority that the market does not present me opportunity to trade in one of our incomes for the 1950's lifestyle--- something I would seriously consider.

Giving up that income would mean living poor, with poor schools, in a poor neighborhood, etc. And I am not so selfish as to expose my daughter to that.

Dr. Kling,

Since in the 1950s americans did most of the manufacturing, shouldn't the basis of comparison be whether a chinese worker (who does the manufacturing) will be able to afford these items in 1.6 months or 8 months?

$4580 / 410 (average monthly wage in shenzhen)
= 11 months

Even if you eliminate some high ticket items manufactured in the US, you won't see a significant reduction here. 8 or 9 months will still be the norm.