One big change I've noticed between growing up in a small town and now where I'm in my mid 40s in a big metro city in India is increased "transactional" nature of interactions of my daily life.
Back then we had a deeper ties with all those who served us by which I mean vegetable vendor, carpenter, doctor, knife sharpener, cloth shop, grocer, baker and so on. Whenever we interacted with them it would be a small chit-chat, exchange small updates (how's your son doing, is he married yet?) and then finally do the actual purchase.
It was to an extent that the carpenter would come by and just hand over a big dining table just because he thought our house deserved/needed it. He wouldn't ask for immediate payment either and also in instalments. Some other times he would come by and borrow some money.
All of that is now gone. Every single interaction I have now with vendors is 100% transactional. I don't even know their names nor they mine.
It means that I'm now connected only with my immediate family, that's it. It also means that the generation now growing up know only transactional way of interaction with non family/friends. I guess these things eventually add up to the loss of community.
Everyone is under more pressure thanks to cost of living and Western society being a property-indexed Ponzi scheme which requires endless growth just to keep up. Back when rent/home ownership was affordable and everyone had more "slack" it's easy to add humanity to transactions - you can spare the small opportunity cost even though you'd make more money short-term ignoring humanity and focusing purely on transactionality.
Nowadays when everyone's busy trying to make as much money as possible to be able to make rent or survive in ever-increasing inflation, an extra dining table they didn't give away is one they can sell for money. Similarly, borrowing money is harder/less acceptable because everyone else too is under pressure and is less likely to be able to help (or at least it would cause them more hardship).
It's mildly interesting to consider that one of the main arguments against an economically deflationary society is that people would have a motivation to hoard money which might deter things like investment or lending, yet in an inflationary society few seem concerned about the fact that we create a system that motivates trying to hoard 'things', including land. It also motivates trying to rent things to people instead of selling it to them.
1971 is the year that we default on our obligations under Bretton Woods enabling the US to begin printing money at our own discretion. It's quite interesting to see how that year ended up being a huge inflection point for so absurdly many issues. [1] It resulted in a rapid increase in wealth, but came with a rapid increase in issues alongside it.
Presumably the implication is that it's because lots of homes are being bought by real estate companies as long term investments that they may or may not even rent back out. This extra demand beyond people buying housing to, you know, live in it, drives up the price.
A different tax policy could disincentize this behavior, leading to lower demand and thus lower prices.
That's my current understanding of that perspective at least.
A 100% tax on property for those owning more than 50 properties would cause a large movement in the market. But people will say what about the value being tanked when all those houses go on the market? I say, good. The value of homes should go down. People need a place to live. Houses should not be considered an asset. You don't treat your home like an asset. You don't buy it when the market is right or sell it when it's right. You don't improve it in ways that are most likely to increase value. You live in your house. It's your place to be. Whether it's a flat, a house, or a boat in a canal, it's where you live and feel safe and spend a large chunk of time.
A tax on owning too many properties would be subject to gaming. Many large companies already hold properties in tranches of 5-10m worth of properties per limited partnership, so the tax policy needs to be written carefully to disincentivize holding empty properties in a way that can't easily be gamed.
I think the tax policy is prop 13, which is a handout to rich homewoners that means they will never sell their houses (very nice for them, not so for anyone trying to get new housing)
I take your point that I’ve never really been asked to think about inflationary economies encouraging hoarding things, especially things whose scarcity stems from natural limits rather than economic will. But at the risk of showing my naiveté—wouldn’t it be OK for me to exchange money for enough stuff for me to be content, as soon in my economic life as I can, and hold onto it? For that matter, isn’t it to my advantage that it’s economically desirable for landlords and car rental firms to let me rent a high-value item—like a car for the 3 days a year I need it, or an apartment in a city where I’m only going to live for a few years—instead of making me wait until I’ve made enough money to buy it outright before I can access it at all? Is the idea that if I could instead hoard currency of a fixed value, I would then not hoard naturally scarce things/resources that I judge likely to improve in value?
Re: [1], see also HN discussion [2] (2020, 808 points, 454 comments) wrestling with the many competing theories about “what,” if anything specific, “happened in 1971.” It raises several possibilities outside the gold standard.
See also a more substantial (or at least lengthier) methodological critique [3] (6 months ago, 40 points, 42 comments). The HN discussion includes reactions both of gold/bitcoin enthusiasts and of economically opinionated folks less committed to that way of seeing the world.
In the past decades there were still plenty of businesses renting things if you so desired. And, even better - they were often pretty small scale enterprises, because we hadn't yet entered the realm of corporations buying up basically everything in existence, including other businesses. Actually you made me look this up and it's kind of a neat factoid. Hertz's rent a car service started in 1918, with a dozen Model Ts! [1]
So the basic functioning of the economy would probably be unlikely to change in a really fundamental way. But I think what would change is that overall society would have a much healthier distribution of wealth/'things', with the cost being that the overall GDP and economic growth would probably be significantly slower.
It's hard to know which direction causality goes here. More personal interactions are often more expensive because they can't be systematized and specialized like an assembly line. So what came first: service providers pulling away from offering more personal service or consumers always opting for the cheapest, most optimized option?
One could also argue that this race to the bottom has been a great boon to companies and "the managerial class" that are charged with optimizing this stuff and has been responsible for some of the rising wealth inequality.
I see families struggle with things I don’t recall seeing as a kid or teenager. We all had more people around. We were rarely functioning as such independent family units.
And you’re right, my dad was a carpenter himself and he did all kinds of favours for people. Especially elderly people—mostly women—who couldn’t do the work themselves or easily afford to pay someone to. He would offer lower rates, fit things in for free, and show up at their convenience. It was the right thing to do. That isn’t really possible now, though.
Something I urge my kids to understand is that family is great, but it was never meant to be everything. That isn’t to diminish family, but to encourage one to identify and appreciate what’s so valuable and rewarding in friends and community. Humans are so richly social and so poor at functioning in isolation; there’s no sense in pretending otherwise. We really need each other. The more community erodes, so do we each as well.
I don’t think this happened because of personal changes. Absent interference, people would almost certainly form close community. We need to look for the source of the interference, individual actions aren’t enough.
My experience is very similar. I believe there are two primary reasons for this:
1. People are wealthier, and wealthier people tend to be more independent.
2. Population density is higher. Places with lower density, such as villages still tend to have that people to people connection like in the old days
I grew up poor, in a village, but otherwise have had a fairly rich life. I've landed on the other side: well off and in the city. Still alone, however.
The hassle of finding my way in life and finally doing it made me "overly independent" given common sentiment.
I'm generally fine, yet outside of posts like this... I have absolutely no interest to connect. When people at work try to get close I actually feel saddened by my incapability.
The argument could certainly be made that opening up strengthens. That may be true. It may also be a transactional relationship going the other way.
I've had that vulnerability exploited enough. It's not as simple as "we like smooshing our meat bits together". Game theory exists.
Avoidance, yes, but show me where it has failed... me.
Rhetorical, not an accusation: it feels very strange to judge others for their independence. Why, so you can benefit?
Personally, the question isn't "why aren't people socializing". It's: "why is it worthwhile?". There's no universal answer - we must find it, I'm still trying.
All of this to say, we all play our hands. Sometimes too well.
“why is it worthwhile” - generally human connection is a psychological need, if we are not conscious of it, the need will get filled with weird behaviors we don’t understand.
It sounds like you have been hurt by connection; I would encourage you to put some effort into understanding where your past experiences lead to you being exploited. If you can consciously learn how to identify safe people (they do exist) it will help with connection immensely.
Not too different to myself in my mid forties in Scotland though in my case it's still the small town I was born in, the pleasures of working from home.
There used to be local vendors as you describe (what comes to mind is a local shop, an ice cream van, milk man, a fizzy drinks vendor, a butcher/baker), but they've all been replaced by economies of scale (supermarkets and now online).
So now there are no local shops, no weekly vans with their specialist goods. And those half a dozen well known local faces aren't doing their rounds.
A local shop serves as a meeting place where conversations can take place. Even in the 80s in the UK when TV was at its peak, people could have conversations the next day on what they watched last night out of the 4 channels available.
I guess the local social cohesion can be thought of as a necessity when you're going to deal with lots of local people and with recent trends said in the article it's considered optional.
I would call that the difference between a small town and a city, which isn't new. You establish those ties because you see the same grocer regularly - there's only two grocers in town, after all. Meanwhile, in the city, you could buy groceries twice a week and never see the same clerk twice.
There can be small grocers in big cities and faceless corporations in small towns, in fact in my experience in midwest America small towns (sub 5000, say) have 0 shops, people drive the 15 minutes to the nearest walmart
midsize cities / college towns ~100k will have a specialty butcher and a tobacconist where you can actually get to know the shopowners
I'd generally agree with the stuff about everybody just driving to Walmart, but that was just to stock up on nonperishables/freezeables. There was always the local mini mart/gas station, movie store, school, church, pool hall, bar, etc. And everybody tends to know everybody anyhow, because you often have inter-family relations dating back generations.
If urban city shops and restaurants have had regularly rotating staff for decades then loss of those touchpoints can't have much difference to do with the claimed decline in mental health of the last couple of generations as suggested upthread though.
(A few hundred years back cities were mostly only the size of small towns today anyway, the average person didn't really frequent stores and rural communities were sometimes really isolated, and we don't really have an accurate picture of how any of this affected mental health)
i live in a city with a population of 14 million people, but still most of my everyday transactional interactions like buying churros, chicken wings, or electrical supplies are with people i know and transact with repeatedly. that's because i walk there, lacking a motor vehicle. i imagine this was also true of day-to-day commerce in ancient rome, and of course the patron-client and master-slave relationships that were so central in roman society were anything but anonymous
I agree: I live on and off in a city of many, many millions. Maybe it’s just the idiosyncrasy of how I choose to live and shop, but I personally know most of the people with whom I transact regularly in the same way you describe.
Including many of the specific humans who staff the handful of Anonymous Big Chain kinds of enterprises that have weaseled their way into our city: even one of those branches tends to have familiar faces managing or preferring to work the shift that overlaps with when I visit.
I would know how to seek social and transactional anonymity if I wanted to—just go do my shop in a different neighborhood!—but I don’t want to, and that seems pretty consistent with the way things are done in my city.
This isn't the difference between a small town and city, it's the inevitable result of late stage capitalism. In cities it's still possible to go to small stores and create connection with your local grocer, butcher, etc. I purposefully do it, but I have to seek out the places it's still possible, they're dwindling every year. The problem is capitalism wants to consolidate and treat people as fungible to extract more value, which has the side effect of preventing the formation of social bonds.
Capitalism isn't a person, it doesn't want things.
The problem with people that talk about capitalism the way you do is that they mistake human nature for the system that was built around it so when they try to change the system, the people are maladapted and transgress against it by default then it fails miserably.
No, the issue is pedantic people like you who can't understand that "want" is a simple way of saying that a system is biased towards certain outcomes. Capitalism is not an expression of human nature, it's a single possible pareto equilibrium. To say otherwise ignores huge swaths of humans history, and many modern nations which have achieved equilibrium in different ways.
I understand capitalism as “things can be owned and sold” + “you can profit from investment”.
> it's a single possible pareto equilibrium
I propose that those other equilibriums’ stability depended on at least one of these:
a) small population size&density
b) violent totalitarian enforcement
c) indoctrination in caste system and/or religion
d) no contact with capitalism
> Capitalism is not an expression of human nature
Ownership is very natural for humans (2 year old already declares “it’s mine”).
Finally, capitalism is just one part what makes a society. I bet there are quite significant societal differences between Sweden vs US now vs US 70 years ago.
> Ownership is very natural for humans (2 year old already declares “it’s mine”).
The idea that something a two year old does is a suitable basis for the foundations of society as a whole is both hilarious and terrifying. Two year olds are tyrants.
Both capitalism and socialism are spectrums of systems rather than single monoliths so any definition is going to be fuzzy. However, it's probably useful to specifically say that in capitalism specifically private property and/or capital can be owned. Generally speaking, socialist systems still allow personal property to be owned, they just place restrictions on the ownership or private property and/or capital.
It's also probably worth considering that socialism doesn't necessarily have to forbid ownership of private property or capital outright. It could, for example, mean that revenue/profit/income derived from private property or capital is taxed more highly than revenue/profit/income derived from labor.
probably a lot of people are using terrible definitions of 'capitalism' such as '“things can be owned and sold” + “you can profit from investment”', which explains why these discussions are full of so much nonsense
wikipedia's current definition says:
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price systems, private property, property rights recognition, self-interest, economic freedom, meritocracy, work ethic, consumer sovereignty, profit motive, entrepreneurship, commodification, voluntary exchange, wage labor and the production of commodities. In a market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by owners of wealth, property, or ability to maneuver capital or production ability in capital and financial markets—whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.
this is not a perfect definition but it is a much better one
Capitalism is a system built by people that recognize that humans are reliably selfish and seeks to align their selfish interests as best as it can with the rest of the populous.
No nation has ever achieved equilibrium but we are enjoying the most peaceful times in history during a time after the previous wave of capitalism-alternatives failed miserably or acquiesced.
Just about every measure of human flourishing is in the rise, globally.
Measures of human flourishing are rising for the mid-stagers and so globally it might look ok. In late stage countries human flourishing has begun a decline.
While the last 20 years we have made progress on a some acute problems like heart disease, complex ill-health is very much on the rise - Cancer, nearly all mental health issues, obesity & diabetes, suicide. Poverty is on the rise, literacy rates are down.
Human flourishing is just keeping its head above water in these places. Humans are resilient, but there are limits.
Capitalist-fundamentalists will also throw up their hands when asked how we might solve existential problems for which the is no end in sight - eg global warming, the toxifying of our food systems with plastics and industrial chemicals, government debt, etc.
> Capitalism is a system built by people that recognize that humans are reliably selfish and seeks to align their selfish interests as best as it can with the rest of the populous.
You just described mass institutional psychopathy.
I don't consider my family to be innately selfish within the family dynamic, or my friends to be innately greedy.
If you build a system that rewards greed and selfishness (and punishes giving), people will be greedy and selfish within that system. Don't reverse the cause and effect.
That's simply not true. Democratic Socialism/Social Democracy has been very successful.
It's also quite possible that humanity can eventually find a new system that works better than capitalism. After all it took thousands of years for humanity to find capitalism.
The countries you are likely thinking if who say they are those things are still capitalist countries with a touch more of social welfare than other similar countries.
There are other countries who claim to be socialist but are just totalitarian dictatorships (not surprising, in order to control the economy, you have to control the people), are lying or both.
That's just semantics. Whether we want to call them left wing forms of capitalism or moderate forms of socialism isn't really important. What's important is that there ARE nations with successful economic systems that are better than what people call "late stage capitalism".
These successful economic systems are still based on private ownership rights and the right to assemble (in this context the right to form business partnerships with low exit costs). In other words: the core capitalist building blocks.
That's like saying anything with four tires and a motor is a sedan. Name economic systems (including socialism) have the right to create businesses and own property. Capitalism is ownership of private ventures by an investment class who reap the profits (paying the employees as little as possible); socialism is when companies are owned collectively (most may be owned by employees, some may be owned nationally). Everything else is unrelated.
They're not wrong. Late stage capitalism sucks, but the alternative systems out there seem to lead to mass starvation or total collapse. People have been lifted out of poverty worldwide as well. Some kind of balance seems necessary.
The welfare states of Western Europe and the Nordic countries seem much better than America's system of late stage capitalism and they have not lead to mass starvation or total collapse.
Likewise, America's economy seemed to be much more healthy when it had a more active/successful labor movement.
I'm not sure if the current success of Norway can be replicated everywhere. It has a small population living off a state oil fund that has something like $300k/person.
I think capitalism is fundamentally different than other systems because of one important nuance. In capitalism you can buy a plot of land and go start a communist society, or a socialist one, or whatever you want. So long as your little society can feed itself, you can do whatever you want. Well even if it can't feed itself, it can still do whatever it wants - but it probably won't be particularly long lived. But in socialist or communist societies you can't just go start up your own little capitalist society.
Capitalism is biased towards whatever the governing authority says it is. In America, due to onerous regulations and taxes, it's difficult for independent players to become established and the regulations favor a handful of large companies in most sectors. This is not universally true in every country, and they're just as capitalist (arguably more so) than us
Those of us who worked for tech companies trying to make “Uber for X” really accelerated this. Having an app for everything makes life a series of impersonal transactions.
During the early days of the “sharing economy” trend, there was actually plenty focus on connecting people.
But at some point you need money to pay people working on these things. So you look at something that doesn’t replace the core social connection, but augments the experience. Like selling additional services such as insurance.
But it’s not easy to cover costs, especially in western countries where employees are expensive.
These days (I haven’t been part of it for a long time) I’ve noticed there are also subscriptions to be part some community, which works but of course also makes it harder to grow.
And investors who are looking for return on investment are also difficult in something that’s so sensitive to good will from users.
> During the early days of the “sharing economy” trend, there was actually plenty focus on connecting people.
You're describing the initial couchsurfing concept and the old couchsurfing.com. Everything after that has been about monetizing the shit out of these interactions.
I don't mean to be so brutal about it, but these small social interactions were simply never valued that much by the majority and maybe even seen as a nuisance.
I live in small town India since Covid and WFH, and I spent my childhood here.
The thing is, with this much tightknit society, people are often loudly judgemental and requires you to conform.
But, there are always sensible, gentle people, and loud stupid people. You can modulate your expectations.
But what happened is- all the "good ones" leave sooner or later. There is much hue and cry about brain drain from India to US/Europe, but little about brain drain from small towns and villages to big cities.
I left for college, too.
There were many more cultural programmes, much better environment for upliftment and somewhat more sensible society when I was a child compared to now.
I engage in community as much as I can, but very selectively. Because most people want things to fall in a certain place. People are ill informed in technology, and don't really get WFH. Some bluntly ask- why I don't have a "real job"? People want girls to get married at a certain age, and squint if that limit is crossed.
I don't really agree. I live in a big city in Spain but I know the local bakery girls where i get my morning bread (they always keep a loaf of my favourite apart), the 2 Indian guys in the mini mart next door often accept packages for me, the staff in all the clubs I visit know me really well and always give me a hug when I come, I always have a chat with the lady in the bigger supermarket I frequent, etc. In fact most of my interactions are not just transactional. Only those with taxi drivers etc. The restaurants I visit frequently all know my preferences. The old guy with his antique workshop down the road often offers me a can of beer while we sit and have a chat. I absolutely do feel part of the community. And I live in a big city center.
Maybe in India things are different but there it's not like that at all. Ps As you mentioned people asking about your son getting married, one thing I noticed is that the focus on marriage in India is very strong, some of my coworkers in Bangalore who are from smaller villages are pretty much disowned if they don't get married by the age of 23. I know when I was 23 I was just backpacking around the world and enjoying life, not thinking about babies or families. In fact I never did get married and I'm almost 50.
I think that pressure would take its toll too. Young people like to be free and don't want to be tied down. It certainly made some of my coworkers there very stressed with the pressure because they just wanted to go clubbing. One friend's parents didn't even know she had a boyfriend for years. There seems to be a huge disconnect there between generations.
I live in a major city outside the US and the culture here is very non-transactional with the neighbourhood vendors. Sometimes I forget to have enough cash and I they'll suggest I pay later (and always do). I'll be given excellent and free advice from my pharmacy, free fruit samples from the fruit grocer, good discounts on places I frequent. These are owner-run businesses, obviously the supermarket doesn't give me any preferential treatment. I love this city, it's very warm and generous, maybe because they have an incredibly strong social system but also because the municipality works to encourage owner-run businesses.
> Whenever we interacted with them it would be a small chit-chat, exchange small updates (how's your son doing, is he married yet?) and then finally do the actual purchase. All of that is now gone. Every single interaction I have now with vendors is 100% transactional. I don't even know their names nor they mine.
Interesting note: economics would quantify this as a significant productivity increase. You can now get more tasks done per day!
Lesson: economics does not fully capture human values.
But most Indian corporate companies are sweatshops requiring you to work 10-12 hours a day. And most people live about 30 minutes to 2 hours away from their office. So, count in commute, too.
There’s simply no time for family, let alone community.
There are weekends, but sometimes you work, sometimes you go to small trips by car.
There are only religious festivals in gated communities and weddings etc. where you meet your neighbors and form some sort of connections.
Yes! We just moved out of Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn and my biggest lament was losing this type of community. Wrote about it here: https://baugues.com/last-days-nyc
I love being in big cities (overseas) because I actually can cultivate this sort of community / friendship with the locals.
I go to the same coffee shops and get to know the folks there, bring them interesting coffee to try, etc.
I will say that this only has worked for me in other countries, not the USA. I think folks here are too burnt out by the lack of safety nets and such, I really don't blame them.
Money is just a means of exchange. But basic human rights such as housing now being monetized and rented out and/or used as an investment means the endless pursuit of money is now mandatory to survive.
Money is an abstraction and that is where humans interpretation starts to diverge. I think that may be this problem in a nutshell: abstractions are always leaky, and they leak in different places for different people.
Now? How did you think housing work for millennia? It not being monetized before is a cold comfort when your labor and agricultural products are taxed directly instead.
Taxation has always been around in one form or another. But property ownership being out of reach of the masses is a relatively new thing.
Not that long ago, a blue collar family could afford to save enough to buy a family home in under a decade. Nowadays most blue-collar people (and in some countries such as the UK, even white collars) have no option but to rent perpetually.
And that's just property, not even taking into account inflation of everything else. Cars (which are necessities in many parts of the world) have also exploded in price, with entry-level models now approaching what high-end executive cars were just 15 years ago.
Back then we had a deeper ties with all those who served us by which I mean vegetable vendor, carpenter, doctor, knife sharpener, cloth shop, grocer, baker and so on. Whenever we interacted with them it would be a small chit-chat, exchange small updates (how's your son doing, is he married yet?) and then finally do the actual purchase.
It was to an extent that the carpenter would come by and just hand over a big dining table just because he thought our house deserved/needed it. He wouldn't ask for immediate payment either and also in instalments. Some other times he would come by and borrow some money.
All of that is now gone. Every single interaction I have now with vendors is 100% transactional. I don't even know their names nor they mine.
It means that I'm now connected only with my immediate family, that's it. It also means that the generation now growing up know only transactional way of interaction with non family/friends. I guess these things eventually add up to the loss of community.