All of these arguments are missing the point. They're attempts at strawman arguments, though I don't believe it was out of malice. Technologist progress is a function mostly of population and time. Both the US and USDR made significant technological progress, so economic system is a less important (still important though!) factor.

The argument is that the modern economic system compared to our grandparents' generation is worse. We have less buying power. We have less publicly funded welfare to act as a safety net. Workers have less bargaining power than times past. Large corporations are taking advantage of consumers and workers at huge rates.

We could have had all of the technological progress we've made PLUS our grandparents' economic situation if our parents didn't fuck everything. That's the argument.

[–] mikeyBoy14@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I just don't think that's supported by the data though. On virtually every measure, living conditions have improved across the globe over the last century. You can pick out specific metrics where things are worse in specific countries (housing is the most obvious example where affordability has declined), but taken as a whole I just don't see how you can draw any other conclusion.

[–] TheBeege@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I don't think you read what I wrote.

I'm arguing that living conditions have improved due to technology, not economy. Our generation's buying power is less than that of our grandparents. I'll pull some data for this tonight after work. It's true in several industrialized countries