Hacker News Reader

> but were the 50's through the 70,s that much of a lower quality of life

For the vast majority of the people who don't live in the USA or Europe, life was certainly much worse back then. Foxconn might not be the best place in the world to work, but it beats the hell out of living in a small town under a Maoist government.

> even though they don't live here

We could have made a crapload of money off their insecurity by taxing non-occupied housing, perhaps even building ghost cities/property tax farms from scratch. We could have used the revenue on infrastructure or social services. But no, we didn't have the political will to do that.

> were the 50's through the 70,s that much of a lower quality of life?

Yes, they really were. At least, I remember the '90s, and quality of life was a lot worse back then, I assume the trend continues as you go further back.

> Those people at Foxcon, and other Chinese/whatever countries workers seem like they are treated so well. These foreign countries care so much about the enviorment.

Chinese wages are trending upwards and China is putting a lot more environmental regulation in place - to the extent that some manufacturers there are now offshoring to poorer countries. Will it take them time to catch up? Yes. Are they doing it a lot faster than the US did the first time around? Also yes. It would be a bizarre kind of ethics that said that it would be fine for Chinese workers to earn less and Chinese factories to pollute more as long as we weren't buying from them.

> Some foreign enterprising individuals become rich, and buy American houses, even though they don't live here. That last one is great.

Their reasons for doing that are the same as Americans' reasons for doing that (which they do quite a lot - it's just easier to blame everything on evil foreigners). Fix the incentives and you'll fix the problems. If you don't like empty houses, how about strong squatters' rights?

> At one time, we got along fine without the cheap goods from other countries

We didn't "get along fine". We survived, but life was a lot worse.

> Oh yea, the cheap cost of goods at Apple don't seem to be passed on to consumers?

I have no idea why people buy expensive things from Apple when they can get better versions cheaper from their competitors, but that's their lookout.

> were the 50's through the 70,s that much of a lower quality of life

Yes. It's simply inarguable.

That's pretty abstract. If you weren't alive in the 70s you don't know or care what the standard of living was then. The only question is, what are you asking people to give up now, and what are you offering them in return?