Comments on: Growth, like the future, is not evenly distributed

By: Roger Sweeny

Roger Sweeny — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 18:06:23 +0000

The author of The Big Change: America Transforms Itself 1900-1950 is Frederick Lewis Allen, not Frederick Allen Lewis. He is also the author of the classic Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920s.

By: Jonathan Bechtel

Jonathan Bechtel — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 18:51:49 +0000

I think there’s been a lot of progress in the last 40 years, but the most substantial changes have come in finding new ways to refine technologies that have already existed, whereas the century before that was mostly about creating new technologies that were categorically different than what was previously there.

The latter seems to be more useful for creating jobs and raising income. The former more useful for creating comfort and ease of use.

By: JK Brown

JK Brown — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:56:06 +0000

The technological changes in the first half of the 20th century were unique. A new energy source (oil), new power method (electricity) with the accompanying technology to exploit those new methods were unprecedented in human history. Not to mention, that nasty free market/capitalism to bring it all rapidly to an increasing amount of the population. A good adventure through the changes is ‘The Big Change: America Transforms Itself 1900-1950′ (1952), by Frederick Allen Lewis. A new work covering the next 50 years would have many wonders, but not as transformative in the physical. The following 15 would also have wonders, if the smear of time were block off.

But a lot of the transformations in recent years have been happening in the infrastructure. Advances in power electronics have permitted new, more efficient and affordable uses to electric motors. But it doesn’t appear so transformative as dropping in the windings, stator, etc. In fact, the new technology often uses the old motors, just replacing the guts of the motor controller box on the bulkhead. And also appearing in the electronics of electric vehicles instead of in a controller box the size of the battery.

I suppose, ironically, whereas the automobile permitted escape from the farm, at least more often, and when autos came on the market extra earnings in good years went to buying a car or truck instead of painting the barn in the past, today the technology permits individuals to remain on the farm but still engage the wider world in real time. It’s like the world expanded due to technology, but no longer requires one to endure that, reportedly worse, flight anymore to take advantage of it.

By: Ak Mike

Ak Mike — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 21:18:22 +0000

Don’t disagree regarding the non-market interference, but of course without non-market inteference those long-ago fares would have been cheaper as well.

By: adam

adam — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 20:58:07 +0000

Well $50 in the early 1970s is nearly $300 today. I just flew to Chicago from the east coast for slightly over $300 and had plenty of legroom, so not much different. The reason that you have to arrive a hour plus ahead of time is entirely due to government security theater. It has nothing to do with technology.

By: Andrew'

Andrew' — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 20:47:54 +0000

Nobody flies anymore, it’s too crowded. But seriously, some penneration doesn’t feel like progress…but enough about the TSA.

By: Andrew'

Andrew' — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 20:45:49 +0000

I will put up with the TSA when the new Porcine Airways begins carrying.

By: Swami

Swami — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 20:25:03 +0000

My wife just flew round trip from Chicago to San Diego for $59 on Spirit. And the need to get to the airport early now has nothing to do with markets and everything to do with non market interference.

By: adam

adam — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 19:54:02 +0000

I wonder what his basis is for claiming that it takes longer fly from Boston to Washington or London than it was 40 years ago.

Unless he’s referring to the Concorde, which was ultra-expensive and not available for a Boston-Washington or Boston-London flight in any event, I highly doubt the actual flight time is longer now. If he’s referring to the additional time due to security theater, that’s not really a reflection of technological progress or lack thereof. You can easily get direct flights for any of these routes, so the hub-and-spoke system isn’t the issue. Anybody know what he’s talking about?

By: Ak Mike

Ak Mike — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 19:45:07 +0000

Great topic, in which I find myself (unusually) in complete disagreement with our host. Just to focus on flying – in the early 1970’s I used to fly from the east coast to Chicago for $50, sometimes half that much on student discount. I frequently arrived at the airport 15 minutes before my flight, had lots of legroom and of course less crowded seats. I could use ear plugs for the noise, and it was a wonderful time to spend a few hours reading. I used to really enjoy flying (and in the 70’s I was a poor student). Flying is much nastier now and for many flights not really cheaper. (Side note – in the 70’s, a regular middle class family could afford a private airplane if they were interested, and in certain parts of the country that was fairly common. Gone, gone, gone.)

Summer’s grandmother saw the iceboxes, horses, steamships, outhouses, of her early childhood succeeded by automobiles, airplane travel, central heat, hot water, washing machines, refrigerators, paved intercity roads, radio and television, movies (and talkies) of the 50’s and 60’s. We’ve seen nothing like that. Sure, computers, internet, wi-fi and especially cell phones are very nice, and they do make a big difference, but nothing like the changes of the first 2/3 of the twentieth century.