Embed Notice

@VoxDei

I don’t think it’s correct to say that living standards in 1975 were achieved by compromising workplace safety (and by extension that any loss since then is because more is being spent on safety). Safety standards at the time were what was believed to be acceptable, it’s not that people were cutting corners to save money, and even if they had been workplace safety isn’t generally as expensive as all that.

No you misunderstand. I dont think people in 1975 said “Lets be especially dangerous and fuck safety because we want to make things cheap”… I think that they just had a mind set where safety was less important for a number of reasons, a large part of it is ignorance.

The point however is that, while unintentional, that lack of process/effort put into safety relative to the level of time , money, and effort we put into safety today, is the reason things were so much cheaper, even if it was accidental.

Any erosion of median living standards since the 70s is likely to be a result of massively widening inequality between the top and the bottom. For instance in the UK in 1979 the top 10% took home 21% of the total net income, in 2009/10 it was 31%. This rise was largely at the expense of the bottom 30%. (figures from https://www.poverty.ac.uk/editorial/more-unequal-country). The top 10% have a 50% pay rise over that period, the bottom 10% have a 75% cut. Similarly, from https://www.poverty.ac.uk/pse-research/going-backwards-1983-2012, the percentage of people lacking three or more “necessities” in the UK has more than doubled between 1983 and 2012.

This train of logic makes no sense, you suggest the lack of safety wasnt intended to save money, then go on to assume it didnt save money… this makes no sense. We know the safety was less, and we know that saved tons of money. Any argument you make about intent is not relevant to that.

Furhtermore your argument just doesnt line up witht he facts, like at all, and I debunked it before. In short when you look at the correlation throughout history between wealth disparity and cost of living it does not line up, in face we see an inverse corelation, suggesting the **opposite ** of what you say is true.

We have to be ccareful to use facts and evidence to back up our claims and not just try to back up what we feel makes sense or feels right, no matter what amount of explanation you can produce for it. Thefact is, the numbers do not line up with your assertions, yet they line up with mine quite well.

@kilroy_was_here