Those things became cheaper to produce because of technological advancement, largely developed by people who did not benefit from this rise in production. They do not represent wealth in any meaningful sense. Wealth is economic power, and 55" TVs dont help you start a buisness or pay a downpayment for a mortgage. Internet connection may once have served as some measure of economic power, but its no coincidence that those with the power currently are doing everything they can to restrict the rights of normal people to create using it.
Imo, its really about things that give you more agency over your own life and the world. Cars are good, they represent a great increase in our ability to travel and make decisions for ourselves.
> We don't have two houses, but the ones we have are worth twice as much.
This is largely a wealth transfer to the elderly. Among under 40s, home ownership has fallen consistently since the 1990s, with only a brief increase in 2001-2005.
That's too limited a definition. For instance, living in a beautiful, well-designed city full of beautiful art is a form of wealth, but none of that is economic power. And what good is money ultimately, anyway, if not to buy goods and services that you want?
Those cell phones have voice navigation that will get you unlost practically anywhere on the planet. That would have been sci-fi fifty years ago. Give one to your kid and you don't have to worry about them being lost or not being able to get help.
Those cell phones (+ internet) will let you buy almost anything on the planet and have it shipped to your door usually within days, all without you leaving the house. Two hundred years ago you could not have done that even with servants, and since servants are unaffordable these days, it saves us the time spent driving around looking for the item. (I bought a wok ring last week; I could have driven an hour in traffic, or I just bought another item I needed and had it shipped "for free", and saved myself at least an hour.)
When I started programming, writing Windows programs took ages because if the Petzold book didn't have an example and/or the MS documentation was somewhat vague on some points, you just had to try it out. I spent days writing a screensaver for personal use, because I forgot I needed to zero out the struct, and it crashed NT, and it took me five or ten minutes to reboot, reload VS, and try again. Now I have a decent chance of finding things like that on StackOverflow, or at least posting it and coming back the next to find comments by complete strangers informing me of my silly error. (Being a young programmer without SO was a double-whammy...)
And in China and Africa people absolutely do use their cell phones to run their businesses. Even in the West we wanted more instant access: the movie "Sabrina" shows the wealthy executive making a business deal in the car with a portable phone, which was completely fantasy in 1954.
Cell phones and internet absolutely have made us wealthier. Even the 55" TV is a form of wealth: you can practically have your own private theater now, and thanks to the Internet, you can watch any one of the thousands of movies you want, instead of only the 12 most recent ones on offer at the cinema.
> [Falling homeownership amoung young implies wealth transfer to elderly]
Insufficient data to make that conclusion. It might be true, but you haven't examined any confounding variables. A counterexample: my parents own a house but I do not. It's not because I am not as wealthy as my parents (age-adjusted), it is because I am optimizing for flexibility and also because rent has been cheaper for me than owning. How many young people do not own a home because they want to live in an cool/hip/fun/whatever expensive location, while their parents are fine somewhere cheaper? How many people want to be digital nomads?
Imo, its really about things that give you more agency over your own life and the world. Cars are good, they represent a great increase in our ability to travel and make decisions for ourselves.
> We don't have two houses, but the ones we have are worth twice as much.
This is largely a wealth transfer to the elderly. Among under 40s, home ownership has fallen consistently since the 1990s, with only a brief increase in 2001-2005.