Makes me wonder if the world will turn out like wall-e in the future or if we will recycle. It also makes me wonder if the central banks outcries that we need to consume more to boost economics is good for the environment?
You don't own stuff your stuff owns you. That's why you need a larger home when you can't fit your stuff anymore. You also worry about your stuff, home burglary somebody taking it's, car some taking it or damaging it, dropping your phone or computer etc.
I think the future depends on whether energy continues to get cheaper or not (cheaper energy probably leads to increased consumption, but it also makes it cheaper to clean stuff up, and gives people more time to worry about cleaning up, etc.).
I also think that one of the many factors involved with the fall off of crime is that (the typical) stuff (found in a house) isn't worth as much anymore.
In 1990, a "nice" TV might have cost $1,000 (inflation adjusted, $1,800). Today, a fantastic TV costs $400.
I agree on the point about 'stuff not being worth as much any more', though this may be a UK centric viewpoint. Housing has just dwarved everything else.
The entire contents of a typical flat I've inhabited would have a resale value of about one month's rent if sold for the best price possible.
If you went for just the big ticket items and sold them on the black market you'd likely get less than a week.
Tangible assets are becoming devalued compared to intangibles (rights to things rather than mere possession; homeownership, bank accounts, etcetera).
I feel bad for criminals who had to team up to haul 36" televisions out of a house during a burglary. These days one robber could haul out a pair of 60" thin LED televisions by themselves.
Man, I'm having flashbacks of when my friend's mom bought a 36" Sony trinitron. 4 skinny teenagers trying to move this behemoth up a flight of stairs and position it into it's cabinet. I think we aged our backs a few years on that one project.
In 1990, a $1000 TV was much higher end, relative to the market as a whole, than a $400 TV now. The idea that $400 today is a fantastic TV is, well, not well-grounded in reality.
The fall of crime is probably more about age demographics than anything else.
That doesn't make any sense as an explanation for changes in the crime rate. If the quality descriptions were relative to each periods common expectations, then -- while it would still be desperately in need of support -- it would be a not-implausible conjecture as to a potential contributing factor to the effect it sought to explain. In absolute terms, is just a complete non-sequitur.
It's sloppily written. I expect that the increase in quality of what is on the market has moved the average buyer down. Thus, today, there are fewer $1500 TVs available for stealing than there were in 1990 (there are likely many more $500 TVs though, so maybe it wasn't a good example). Anyway, setting that example aside, I still have the idea that stuff is worth less today.
You don't own stuff your stuff owns you. That's why you need a larger home when you can't fit your stuff anymore. You also worry about your stuff, home burglary somebody taking it's, car some taking it or damaging it, dropping your phone or computer etc.