You confuse "unregulated market" with "free market", much like confusing an anarchist with a libertarian. "Truly free markets" obviously don't work, but that's trivial and uninteresting. The interesting point is that it really only requires quite minimal government involvement to avoid the big problems (contract enforcement, fraud prevention, and the like), but once you start giving the government enough power to select winners in a market it's all downhill from there (hey mister cable company, how'd you like to be the only one allowed to sell here?).
Not that interesting in practice. No one sane would argue that the CME commodities markets are not free markets. They're a shining example of free markets working well, doing the sorts of things that economic theorists expect (unlike much of the rest of the economy).
These markets have a bunch of regulations - the key is that most of the regulations are market rules, not laws, and the power of the government is mostly focused on fraud prevention, contract enforcement, and preventing counterparty payment risk (a critical subset of the previous items). What's not regulated is price, nor legal preference given to certain sellers - no government-granted monopolies. That's what makes a free market.
There will always be anarchists calling themselves libertarians, but mainstream libertarian though expects the government to provide contract enforcement, fraud prevention, and in general enough criminal law enforcement where it's safe to trade.
Oh, I agree, I can't believe anyone could be that stupid. Smart is writing a dialog using some library that with the same code looks the right way on each platform. It's so blindingly obvious you wonder how anyone could miss it.
You're fanboy for the wrong reasons. Microsoft is the classic bully.
Clearly you've never had to work with Oracle (and frankly, Sun was never roses and sunshine either). In a space dominated by C# and Java, MS is the well-behaved nice vendor by comparison.
There's a reason Microsoft's address is One Microsoft Way.
Better than being stuck in One Infinite Loop. I can now say my car can drive an infinite loop in 10 minutes - how's that for high performance?
No, Java's the only other real contender for modern "enterprise" software (the backend - much of the JS on the client sadly comes from Java libraries). I've spent years writing code in both Java and C#, and these days C# wins hands down.
For years they were leapfrogging one another - whichever language had the most recent major release was a bit better, but not enough to really matter. But Java hit the rocks a few years back and has been sinking ever since. It had stumbled before Oracle, when C# got modern list processing with LINQ and a lambda operator, and Java missed the boat. And with the death of Sun, they never recovered.
The single biggest missing piece for C# right now is the lack of official support for writing Android apps in C#/Visual Studio. There are commercial solutions for that, but without official blessing it lacks the power of "no one has ever been fired for buying IBM". Maybe the new bosses at MS can get wise to that - it's not like they don't make money off of Android sales.
Exactly right. Balmer? Out. Julie Lawson-Green, queen of Metro? Out of Windows. Looks like they were judged by that horror (well, it's fine on a tablet/xbone) and found wanting.
Still, the new guys have to actually be better for that to matter. Time will tell.
You're 100% correct, but those laptops are quite pricey. Right now at work I use just such a small, lightweight laptop, but it's a top-price executive model that I only got because it's 5 years old now. Still, it is a bit larger and heavier than a tablet, and I could see the tablet appeal if I had to haul it all over the place.
But the real appeal of tablets is simply ending the fight over what's on TV. If you have kids of a certain age, you're going to spend most of your evenings where you can see them, and there's only 1 TV in the room, but everyone can have a tablet. It's this "lean back" computing where they win IMO, while a laptop is just better for "lean forward" use. (I hate those marketing terms, but can't think of better.)
Is that really the only way to verify a facebook account? You can tell I don't have one - I don't get SMS messages. (Not trying to be that guy, just never saw the need for the most expensive way to send messages).
Well, I agree oil refineries aren't going away, though the non-power demand is much lower. I just expect electric cars to eventually become better. Not soon, as we're still waiting on the magic battery, but there's just so much money to be made from better batteries at this point that it seems inevitable.
If an energy-dense, safe, and cheap battery exists, then suddenly solar makes far more sense, and having a car that doesn't depend on any large-scale infrastructure near your house will be very appealing to the majority of the world's population, who don't have access to that (but increasingly have access to very cheap cars).
One thing I think should happen is that we need to use roofs of businesses and factories for solar (photovoltaic probably) panels.
I've worked in places that did that before. It doesn't make sense for industrial settings, really, but I'd love to see every parking space in America shaded by a solar panel. All of that will happen naturally with just a bit more technological progress IMO - it's uncommon today simply because the tech isn't good enough yet.
Seems like we agree on the rest, though I'm not a fan of "should"s when it comes to economics, my take is nothing but solar can meet the eventually demand, unless fusion somehow becomes closer than "20 years away".
Oh, I think the skilled jobs, or at least semi-skilled and well-paying enough to make a living will in fact increase, and can only increase with population. Remember, the more is done by automation, the cheaper everything gets. Our jobs will be providing services to one another. There's a definite trend now for stuff that once only the rich would have others do for them working its way downmarket. Just like every previous technical revolution, the new jobs come because "everyone" can now afford a bunch that used to be only for the rich.
Remember, the money can be a distraction: what we have are all the goods and services that all of us collectively produce being distributed among all of us (and distributed nearly evenly, compared to wealth or income).
As far as "corporate profits": total US corporate profits are less than 10% of total US salaries (and increasing numbers of Americans own stock, and benefit directly form those profits). That's a political football, not a real issue. I just can't see a problem with the gross profits being divided 80% labor, 20% capital, and it's less than 20% now.
Taxes are fungible. Most of that gas tax goes to pay for pensions (because most of all taxes go to pay for pensions, and the money is all the same after the tax is collected). The cost of building roads is really trivial on the scale of government budgets.
You make a good point about solar availability: there are latitudes at which solar just doesn't work in a base-load way with out getting into orbital power stations or the like. I think utilities will be around regardless, because most people won't go "off the grid" even once it's easy, but I do expect solar plants to become popular for utility companies over the coming century as demand rises by orders of magnitude.
As far as transportation, I'd be surprised if electric doesn't take over for mainstream personal use (gradually, over several decades), except for a few hobbyists, but for freight transport I'm less sure. Big trucks are incredibly cost and schedule sensitive, and I could really see "serial" hybrids for efficiency (as many trains are now) taking off, but pure electric? Maybe for delivery routes. Trains OTOH are so damn efficient already that I'm not sure what the point would be.
So the headline was "will solar make gasoline obsolete" and your reply is "no, because it will make gasoline obsolete, but not other things"? How's that again?
The utility companies are a very different group than the energy companies (there are very few "oil" companies these days, BTW, all the big guys do natural gas as well). I have no doubt we'll need oil for a long time to come, but I think it's relevance as a consumer power source are numbered (though in a somewhat uninteresting "in a century or so" sense).
More interestingly I see gradually increasing use of solar power coming, and of electric cars, over the next several decades, until solar becomes the norm for consumer power. We have plenty of supply of oil and natural gas for current consumption levels, but if you project American consumption levels to 10 billion people: not so much.
Did you reply to the right post? Can you explain how my post saying that this new technology is inevitable, even though it's not quite there yet, is like someone saying "it'll never work"?
Is there really anything that stops me from creating a few dozen Facebook identities? Yes, it's more work than inventing new usernames to spam a blog, but it doesn't seem all that difficult really.
Hmmm, I can't immediately spot the flaw in your claim, but since I take it on faith that nothing good can come from Metro, that just means I'm not looking hard enough.;)
Yes, solar power will eventually obsolete all other forms for non-industrial use.
Easily and demonstrably not true unless you invoke as-yet undeveloped technology of uncertain viability.
Pretty sure that's just what I invoked in the post you're replying to. And like I said: solar thermal works just fine today, and is very low tech, it's just a bit too pricey as things stand. But if you imagine 10 billion humans all consuming power at the rate Americans do today, Solar is pretty much the only thing that scales. One way or another, it's inevitable.
There are all sorts of unresolved technical issues and the conversion costs would be outrageous. Little of our transportation infrastructure is set up for electric, gas is widely used for heating, you have to allocate space for the power generation.
Yes, you're not disagreeing with me. But we built all the infrastructure we have today - pretty sure none of it was a gift from aliens - and almost all of it was built in the past century. Do you really doubt we can switch to a new infrastructure over the course of the next century if it becomes profitable to do so? As I said, don't expect a change to be faster than "several decades" after we get batteries that are energy-dense, safe, and cheap (and we can only pick 2 of those today).
Since all that's required is ordinary technological process, the change to electric cars will inevitably happen, but over the course of several decades.
What about airplanes? There is no reasonably feasible flight technology that is not based on fossil fuels.
What about aircraft carriers? Rocket ships? Steam locomotives preserved for historical interest? I make no claims about any such things, any more than industrial power generation. Power density isn't going to come from solar, unless you include orbiting power stations beaming power down to a small receiving station.
Batteries are already safer than fuel tanks. The only problem here is the manipulation of public perception regarding battery safety. Already we have efforts underway to undermine that perception
Energy-dense, safe, cheap: pick 2 (at most). If you imagine some conspiracy to undermine public perception (beyond the normal sensationalism of the media), you should go back on your meds. The big energy companies will make their profits either way.
What I would be on the look out for is an industry trend away from fossil fuels and on to hydrogen.
Hydrogen is only practical to store and transport as a palladium-family hydride. While that gives very dense and very safe power storage, those metals aren't cheap: like a catalytic converter, it would take $100-200 just for the metal. You can actually make this "pumpable" with small palladium spheres, allowing existing gas infrastructure to be used for transport (the DoE patented the details during the Bush years, effectively protecting it as public domain), but the used palladium will need to be returned (like a battery swap) and the prospect for fraud there likely dooms the whole system.
For once, I disagree with Betteridge's law of headlines. Yes, solar power will eventually obsolete all other forms for non-industrial use. But don't hold your breath.
For non-transport use, we could really switch to solar-thermal today (not photoelectric cells, but the less efficient black pipe, mirror, and turbine solution). It's simply more expensive than other power sources, and storing power for overnight use is still more expensive so we don't. It's pretty close though - I believe the cost of power would less than double that way, and while that would be a massive economic catastrophe (the cost of power matters a lot), it does set a long-term cap on power pricing.
Transportation is different, however. We're a long way from having batteries that are safe and good enough, at any sort of reasonable price, and even if we had those it would be an infrastructure replacement to support the change, which is a multi-decade process (don't kid yourself, people would charge their cars during the day too). Since all that's required is ordinary technological process, the change to electric cars will inevitably happen, but over the course of several decades. Personally, I don't see a problem with that (peak oil nuts aside, at current prices the supply is much larger than we'll need).
And if batteries get good enough and cheap enough, home solar thermal might start making a lot more sense. Even if it doesn't quite pay for itself, I'd pay a premium to be off the power grid.
All that being said, industrial power is a different story, but it's not like we have supply problems with natural gas either, and surely fusion power will only be "20 years away" for another century or two, right?
No, not really. The current thinking is "I spent 20 years doing everything I could to end this horrible system, and you know what? I lost. Fuckit, it's inevitably doomed now, might as well get my share as I'm not making things worse, merely knocking over the deck chairs on the Titanic." I'm very sympathetic to that view.
Personally, I think we've already sailed off the cliff. We'll be fine until the next economic downturn, but then like the Coyote will finally notice the cliff is waaay back that way and it's a looong way down. Oh well, if the local governments get their act together in the meantime, it shouldn't get that bad if the federal government collapses for a few years - but I am setting aside money to take care of my parents should the federal checks end.
The tuition bubble threw a huge monkey wrench into the deal. Until that bubble pops, new graduates will face increasingly lower net lifetime earnings IMO. I think it's far worse than the recent financial crises, because many of the people who benefit are the ones lying to our children that it's OK.
And you know what? If you don't have the ability to work a skilled job, your wages will continue to decline forever. Unskilled labor no longer adds value to society, as robots can do all that, and I expect semi-skilled work to decrease continuously over my lifetime. You need to contribute to society in a way that robots can't - that in itself I think is fine.
I feel I should rant more about how our education system has been sabotaged (why is it even a problem that you need a skill?) but what would be the point?
Well, we don't have 10% inflation nor gas lines. And remember houses are bigger now - the ratio of rooms to people in houses has doubled, I think, with it becoming rare for children to share a bedroom. There's also buying power, which inflation adjusting only loosely accounts for. In terms of anything computerized, or just about anything medical, we have miracles by 70s standards. SO I'd argue that physical goods, entertainment, housing, and energy are all better now, and food is no worse, plus we have a stable currency for the moment. Plus it's quite common for a middle class family to have a maid and a gardener now (much of the second persons income goes to replace the work that second person once did in the home, naturally enough).
Remember, money us just the intermediary - for the most part the stuff (goods and services) we have is the stuff we collectively produce, and we produce far more than we did 40 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
You confuse "unregulated market" with "free market", much like confusing an anarchist with a libertarian. "Truly free markets" obviously don't work, but that's trivial and uninteresting. The interesting point is that it really only requires quite minimal government involvement to avoid the big problems (contract enforcement, fraud prevention, and the like), but once you start giving the government enough power to select winners in a market it's all downhill from there (hey mister cable company, how'd you like to be the only one allowed to sell here?).
Not that interesting in practice. No one sane would argue that the CME commodities markets are not free markets. They're a shining example of free markets working well, doing the sorts of things that economic theorists expect (unlike much of the rest of the economy).
These markets have a bunch of regulations - the key is that most of the regulations are market rules, not laws, and the power of the government is mostly focused on fraud prevention, contract enforcement, and preventing counterparty payment risk (a critical subset of the previous items). What's not regulated is price, nor legal preference given to certain sellers - no government-granted monopolies. That's what makes a free market.
There will always be anarchists calling themselves libertarians, but mainstream libertarian though expects the government to provide contract enforcement, fraud prevention, and in general enough criminal law enforcement where it's safe to trade.
Oh, I agree, I can't believe anyone could be that stupid. Smart is writing a dialog using some library that with the same code looks the right way on each platform. It's so blindingly obvious you wonder how anyone could miss it.
You're fanboy for the wrong reasons. Microsoft is the classic bully.
Clearly you've never had to work with Oracle (and frankly, Sun was never roses and sunshine either). In a space dominated by C# and Java, MS is the well-behaved nice vendor by comparison.
There's a reason Microsoft's address is One Microsoft Way.
Better than being stuck in One Infinite Loop. I can now say my car can drive an infinite loop in 10 minutes - how's that for high performance?
No, Java's the only other real contender for modern "enterprise" software (the backend - much of the JS on the client sadly comes from Java libraries). I've spent years writing code in both Java and C#, and these days C# wins hands down.
For years they were leapfrogging one another - whichever language had the most recent major release was a bit better, but not enough to really matter. But Java hit the rocks a few years back and has been sinking ever since. It had stumbled before Oracle, when C# got modern list processing with LINQ and a lambda operator, and Java missed the boat. And with the death of Sun, they never recovered.
The single biggest missing piece for C# right now is the lack of official support for writing Android apps in C#/Visual Studio. There are commercial solutions for that, but without official blessing it lacks the power of "no one has ever been fired for buying IBM". Maybe the new bosses at MS can get wise to that - it's not like they don't make money off of Android sales.
Exactly right. Balmer? Out. Julie Lawson-Green, queen of Metro? Out of Windows. Looks like they were judged by that horror (well, it's fine on a tablet/xbone) and found wanting.
Still, the new guys have to actually be better for that to matter. Time will tell.
You're 100% correct, but those laptops are quite pricey. Right now at work I use just such a small, lightweight laptop, but it's a top-price executive model that I only got because it's 5 years old now. Still, it is a bit larger and heavier than a tablet, and I could see the tablet appeal if I had to haul it all over the place.
But the real appeal of tablets is simply ending the fight over what's on TV. If you have kids of a certain age, you're going to spend most of your evenings where you can see them, and there's only 1 TV in the room, but everyone can have a tablet. It's this "lean back" computing where they win IMO, while a laptop is just better for "lean forward" use. (I hate those marketing terms, but can't think of better.)
Is that really the only way to verify a facebook account? You can tell I don't have one - I don't get SMS messages. (Not trying to be that guy, just never saw the need for the most expensive way to send messages).
Well, I agree oil refineries aren't going away, though the non-power demand is much lower. I just expect electric cars to eventually become better. Not soon, as we're still waiting on the magic battery, but there's just so much money to be made from better batteries at this point that it seems inevitable.
If an energy-dense, safe, and cheap battery exists, then suddenly solar makes far more sense, and having a car that doesn't depend on any large-scale infrastructure near your house will be very appealing to the majority of the world's population, who don't have access to that (but increasingly have access to very cheap cars).
One thing I think should happen is that we need to use roofs of businesses and factories for solar (photovoltaic probably) panels.
I've worked in places that did that before. It doesn't make sense for industrial settings, really, but I'd love to see every parking space in America shaded by a solar panel. All of that will happen naturally with just a bit more technological progress IMO - it's uncommon today simply because the tech isn't good enough yet.
Seems like we agree on the rest, though I'm not a fan of "should"s when it comes to economics, my take is nothing but solar can meet the eventually demand, unless fusion somehow becomes closer than "20 years away".
Oh, I think the skilled jobs, or at least semi-skilled and well-paying enough to make a living will in fact increase, and can only increase with population. Remember, the more is done by automation, the cheaper everything gets. Our jobs will be providing services to one another. There's a definite trend now for stuff that once only the rich would have others do for them working its way downmarket. Just like every previous technical revolution, the new jobs come because "everyone" can now afford a bunch that used to be only for the rich.
Remember, the money can be a distraction: what we have are all the goods and services that all of us collectively produce being distributed among all of us (and distributed nearly evenly, compared to wealth or income).
As far as "corporate profits": total US corporate profits are less than 10% of total US salaries (and increasing numbers of Americans own stock, and benefit directly form those profits). That's a political football, not a real issue. I just can't see a problem with the gross profits being divided 80% labor, 20% capital, and it's less than 20% now.
Taxes are fungible. Most of that gas tax goes to pay for pensions (because most of all taxes go to pay for pensions, and the money is all the same after the tax is collected). The cost of building roads is really trivial on the scale of government budgets.
You make a good point about solar availability: there are latitudes at which solar just doesn't work in a base-load way with out getting into orbital power stations or the like. I think utilities will be around regardless, because most people won't go "off the grid" even once it's easy, but I do expect solar plants to become popular for utility companies over the coming century as demand rises by orders of magnitude.
As far as transportation, I'd be surprised if electric doesn't take over for mainstream personal use (gradually, over several decades), except for a few hobbyists, but for freight transport I'm less sure. Big trucks are incredibly cost and schedule sensitive, and I could really see "serial" hybrids for efficiency (as many trains are now) taking off, but pure electric? Maybe for delivery routes. Trains OTOH are so damn efficient already that I'm not sure what the point would be.
So the headline was "will solar make gasoline obsolete" and your reply is "no, because it will make gasoline obsolete, but not other things"? How's that again?
The utility companies are a very different group than the energy companies (there are very few "oil" companies these days, BTW, all the big guys do natural gas as well). I have no doubt we'll need oil for a long time to come, but I think it's relevance as a consumer power source are numbered (though in a somewhat uninteresting "in a century or so" sense).
More interestingly I see gradually increasing use of solar power coming, and of electric cars, over the next several decades, until solar becomes the norm for consumer power. We have plenty of supply of oil and natural gas for current consumption levels, but if you project American consumption levels to 10 billion people: not so much.
Did you reply to the right post? Can you explain how my post saying that this new technology is inevitable, even though it's not quite there yet, is like someone saying "it'll never work"?
Is there really anything that stops me from creating a few dozen Facebook identities? Yes, it's more work than inventing new usernames to spam a blog, but it doesn't seem all that difficult really.
Hmmm, I can't immediately spot the flaw in your claim, but since I take it on faith that nothing good can come from Metro, that just means I'm not looking hard enough. ;)
Yes, solar power will eventually obsolete all other forms for non-industrial use.
Easily and demonstrably not true unless you invoke as-yet undeveloped technology of uncertain viability.
Pretty sure that's just what I invoked in the post you're replying to. And like I said: solar thermal works just fine today, and is very low tech, it's just a bit too pricey as things stand. But if you imagine 10 billion humans all consuming power at the rate Americans do today, Solar is pretty much the only thing that scales. One way or another, it's inevitable.
There are all sorts of unresolved technical issues and the conversion costs would be outrageous. Little of our transportation infrastructure is set up for electric, gas is widely used for heating, you have to allocate space for the power generation.
Yes, you're not disagreeing with me. But we built all the infrastructure we have today - pretty sure none of it was a gift from aliens - and almost all of it was built in the past century. Do you really doubt we can switch to a new infrastructure over the course of the next century if it becomes profitable to do so? As I said, don't expect a change to be faster than "several decades" after we get batteries that are energy-dense, safe, and cheap (and we can only pick 2 of those today).
Since all that's required is ordinary technological process, the change to electric cars will inevitably happen, but over the course of several decades.
What about airplanes? There is no reasonably feasible flight technology that is not based on fossil fuels.
What about aircraft carriers? Rocket ships? Steam locomotives preserved for historical interest? I make no claims about any such things, any more than industrial power generation. Power density isn't going to come from solar, unless you include orbiting power stations beaming power down to a small receiving station.
Batteries are already safer than fuel tanks. The only problem here is the manipulation of public perception regarding battery safety. Already we have efforts underway to undermine that perception
Energy-dense, safe, cheap: pick 2 (at most). If you imagine some conspiracy to undermine public perception (beyond the normal sensationalism of the media), you should go back on your meds. The big energy companies will make their profits either way.
What I would be on the look out for is an industry trend away from fossil fuels and on to hydrogen.
Hydrogen is only practical to store and transport as a palladium-family hydride. While that gives very dense and very safe power storage, those metals aren't cheap: like a catalytic converter, it would take $100-200 just for the metal. You can actually make this "pumpable" with small palladium spheres, allowing existing gas infrastructure to be used for transport (the DoE patented the details during the Bush years, effectively protecting it as public domain), but the used palladium will need to be returned (like a battery swap) and the prospect for fraud there likely dooms the whole system.
Wow, I hadn't heard of Crazy Stone, it looks great, although, $80 is a bit steep, even by modern videogame standards.
So it's sort of like fusion power then?
For once, I disagree with Betteridge's law of headlines. Yes, solar power will eventually obsolete all other forms for non-industrial use. But don't hold your breath.
For non-transport use, we could really switch to solar-thermal today (not photoelectric cells, but the less efficient black pipe, mirror, and turbine solution). It's simply more expensive than other power sources, and storing power for overnight use is still more expensive so we don't. It's pretty close though - I believe the cost of power would less than double that way, and while that would be a massive economic catastrophe (the cost of power matters a lot), it does set a long-term cap on power pricing.
Transportation is different, however. We're a long way from having batteries that are safe and good enough, at any sort of reasonable price, and even if we had those it would be an infrastructure replacement to support the change, which is a multi-decade process (don't kid yourself, people would charge their cars during the day too). Since all that's required is ordinary technological process, the change to electric cars will inevitably happen, but over the course of several decades. Personally, I don't see a problem with that (peak oil nuts aside, at current prices the supply is much larger than we'll need).
And if batteries get good enough and cheap enough, home solar thermal might start making a lot more sense. Even if it doesn't quite pay for itself, I'd pay a premium to be off the power grid.
All that being said, industrial power is a different story, but it's not like we have supply problems with natural gas either, and surely fusion power will only be "20 years away" for another century or two, right?
No, not really. The current thinking is "I spent 20 years doing everything I could to end this horrible system, and you know what? I lost. Fuckit, it's inevitably doomed now, might as well get my share as I'm not making things worse, merely knocking over the deck chairs on the Titanic." I'm very sympathetic to that view.
Personally, I think we've already sailed off the cliff. We'll be fine until the next economic downturn, but then like the Coyote will finally notice the cliff is waaay back that way and it's a looong way down. Oh well, if the local governments get their act together in the meantime, it shouldn't get that bad if the federal government collapses for a few years - but I am setting aside money to take care of my parents should the federal checks end.
The tuition bubble threw a huge monkey wrench into the deal. Until that bubble pops, new graduates will face increasingly lower net lifetime earnings IMO. I think it's far worse than the recent financial crises, because many of the people who benefit are the ones lying to our children that it's OK.
And you know what? If you don't have the ability to work a skilled job, your wages will continue to decline forever. Unskilled labor no longer adds value to society, as robots can do all that, and I expect semi-skilled work to decrease continuously over my lifetime. You need to contribute to society in a way that robots can't - that in itself I think is fine.
I feel I should rant more about how our education system has been sabotaged (why is it even a problem that you need a skill?) but what would be the point?
Only if you bought before. Otherwise you get a 15% interest rate on your mortgage - so you're sort of trapped in whatever house you have.
Well, we don't have 10% inflation nor gas lines. And remember houses are bigger now - the ratio of rooms to people in houses has doubled, I think, with it becoming rare for children to share a bedroom. There's also buying power, which inflation adjusting only loosely accounts for. In terms of anything computerized, or just about anything medical, we have miracles by 70s standards. SO I'd argue that physical goods, entertainment, housing, and energy are all better now, and food is no worse, plus we have a stable currency for the moment. Plus it's quite common for a middle class family to have a maid and a gardener now (much of the second persons income goes to replace the work that second person once did in the home, naturally enough).
Remember, money us just the intermediary - for the most part the stuff (goods and services) we have is the stuff we collectively produce, and we produce far more than we did 40 years ago.