Again though Fen, the problem is how do you measure it?
I personally don't. Which would be a strike against my argument if the situation was a marginal change and required a fine-tuned approach to metrics. But since the change is so blatant that it has radically changed the average way of life, I'd say I don't really need metrics for this.
If productivity is up 100%, but salaries are only up 10% on a "real" basis
They're not, but let's say so for your hypothetical:
yet houses are 3x as big, with larger yards
They're not. Condos are the new "houses". But as I mentioned before it's not fair to expect housing prices to match productivity gains in manufacturing.
ownership of consumer goods are up 5x
Probably true, but needs to be qualified.
and the goods are all more advanced/higher quality than the old ones
They're lower quality by far. This is one of those qualifications just mentioned. But they're also obviously more advanced by default, which has nothing to do with value, and is a technological inevitability. That's like attributing "value" to the fact that your crappy $20 DVD player is 'more advanced' than an old high quality VHS machine. So what? On the topic of quality products, do you think economy cars are "higher quality" than they used to be? How about quality of clothing (ask a woman about that one)? Or getting back to housing, how about quality of construction? For gadgets it's tougher because since they're expected to be obsolete soon anyhow it's not as big a deal to plan obsolescence into these.
free time has increased by 100%
That may be true in Finland or something. As discussed elsewhere the 6 day week is often the new normal, and for salaried positions (which are fewer and fewer) lots of OT is par for the course. But it's true that free time is increased for people who can only find part time work. Horray?
healthcare access and quality are way up but cost are up even more
I'm not qualified to comment on this one.
information is free but degrees are more expensive then ever.
To say the least. But more importantly the degrees (putting aside the price of them) don't even get you what they used to. So the cost is up *and* the value is down, in a pure dollars and cents analysis.
What is the measure of better off compared to productivity? Is it really just the "real" salary?
I don't think this issue needs much explication; it's pretty straightforward. The two axes are (1) are you doing better than before, and (2) are you being taken advantage of regardless. These can overlap, or not.
Rich people have lots of money, but they don't come close to the divide that used to exist with the Rockefellers and the classic Robber Barons, or do they?
Don't they?
One of the best points in the last link I provided, is that it's "progressive" to view the question on a comparative basis (what I labelled envy in my first post) while most people view their own situation on an absolute basis (do I have more). By the later measures we're definitely up, but how to compare that to "productivity" isn't really clear cut.
It's been pretty standard for all of American history for people to sneer at those who seem to have "too much". The fatcat tycoon is usually portrayed as a villain, and this is perhaps at least partially because many of the famous tycoons literally were villains in a cartoon sense. On a day-to-day basis, yeah, people look at how easy it is to make ends meet and how tough or easy things have gotten. But just because daily gripes don't reflect it, it would be a mistake to think that eyes aren't always on the people who have way more than their share. I think it causes *a lot* of discontent. The question always is: how much discontent, and is it enough for people to do anything about it. And here's where your notion comes into it: the more stuff people have to lose the less they're willing to risk it to deal with this thing the issue of inequality which bothers them. Take away their stuff and they'll go after the inequality with a vengeance; give them a decent quality of life and they'll still be upset about it but will never take action. But that other axis is always there.
The biggest change I see is the lack of non-mentally complex jobs that generate middle class life styles.
It's not just that; it's the systematic elimination of full time employment as a cultural standard. Again there are two axes here: (1) How much do you make (including benefits), and (2) How stable is your life? #1 can fluctuate and in general I think is fairly lousy, but is actually less troublesome and anxiety-inducing than #2. Not all of this can be laid at the feet of economic mismanagement, as technology does involve shifting around of systems and ways of life. But isn't it always convenient that when there's a significant change the new conditions always favor the people who set it up?
