That's focusing too much on one data point, the popular "teen idol" singers of the day. :)
Overall we have far more ability to chose the music that fits you personally. If some people chose Bieber, that's fine. I happen to not chose Bieber, and there's plenty of ways of creating playlists on Spotify / listen to the Pandora stations I like / surf Youtube videos / etc. where I never have to hear a Bieber.
In Frank Sinatra's day, you were limited to live performances, kind of lousy sounding radio transmissions, and kind of lousy sounding 78s. Even modern compressed music sounds better than that and there's plenty of music options in full fidelity.
There's even people picking up the crooner torch these days. Some of them have a pretty decent career doing it (I'm thinking of the Michael Bubles and Harry Connick Jrs of the world). And if you want to listen to Frank, it's easy to very quickly do that too.
The part I see arguing with more justification is that it's probably worse for many musicians overall. Music never has been a great path to wealth (unless you are lucky to become a superstar) but my impression is that a lot of the jobs "in the middle" (your local cover bands and recording studios and whatnot) are either suffering from the same wage stagnation affecting other jobs in the middle, or are gone altogether due to technological advances.
No, pretty much in every aspect. If you're living in the U.S. or Europe today, your lifestyle likely surpasses that of the royalty and robber barons of 150 years ago.
What does "better" mean? If we mean that to be afforded more technological luxury is to live better, then sure, no people has ever lived better. Are we happier and more fulfilled than ever before? I don't know, but I doubt it.
Also, while the royalty and robber barons didn't have the internet or chemotherapy, they had servants to do all the menial chores most of is still have to do today, so in that respect we haven't totally surpassed them.
This is a relatively new problem, finding "happiness". It only becomes a problem after basic needs are met, food, roof over your head, steady income, low debt, healthy. People in the past had very little time to prioritize "happiness" against basic survival. Just to have the problem to begin with is a blessing in disguise, you're not struggling. I see it as a hierarchy of needs, similar to Maslow's.
> This is a relatively new problem, finding "happiness". It only becomes a problem after basic needs are met, food, roof over your head, steady income, low debt, healthy. People in the past had very little time to prioritize "happiness" against basic survival
I don't think this is really true except in times of turmoil or famine. Reading history you find plenty of people who are unconcerned about meeting their basic needs and who had a lot of free time.
This goes for lots of agricultural societies, for many hunter-gatherer societies, and even some more 'advanced' societies, though you do generally start getting class issues there.
People imagine the past as some kind of eternal, miserable struggle for existence - it wasn't like that. There were definitely bad times, bad times we can hardly even imagine today - but it wasn't the norm. Most people got along fine most of the time and often even had more free time than we do. When people are trapped in a perpetual, miserable struggle for existence - that's when you end up with revolutions and war.
> Are we happier and more fulfilled than ever before? I don't know, but I doubt it.
I'd say large swaths of the population definitely are not, but we're all responsible for making our own happiness. No one owes us anything. We definitely have the platform and infrastructure to be happy. They're just easy to take for granted because they're so good they support us even when we do.
> They had servants to do all the menial chores most of is still have to do today, so in that respect we haven't totally surpassed them.
That's a myopic view. What do you call robots and computers that operate at orders of magnitudes of efficiency?
> I'd say large swaths of the populace definitely are not, but we're all responsible for making our own happiness. No one owes each of us anything.
That may be the case, but the way society functions in general, social norms, trust, community, and the like have a massive impact on individual happiness. We "make" our happiness within that framework. Individual choices and failings are part of, say, the misery associated with opiate epidemics, but the conditions for them don't occur in healthy societies.
> We definitely have the platform and infrastructure to be happy.
But do we, to a greater extent than ever before in human history? Does social media make people happier? Cellphones? Modern family law and norms? An economy that encourages people to move across the country in search of new jobs? Are industrial societies more or less happy than agricultural societies? Postindustrial societies? Is our 'infrastructure' for 'better' lives really that which promotes happiness more than any other in human history?
> What do you call robots and computers that operate at orders of magnitudes of efficiency?
Incredible achievements based on the hard work and genius that have revolutionized the modern economy and made many things possible that were once impossible.
That doesn't mean they make life better (depending on your definition of better) or people happier (relative to what?)
A 'robber baron' was rich enough to do whatever they wanted. They never had to do a single menial chore in their lives, if they did not want to. No dishwashing, no food preparation, no clothes folding, no babysitting, no grass cutting. They didn't have a boss who could tell them what to do and threaten them with the loss of their livelihood. They could work as little or as much as they wanted, with no effect on their lifestyle unless it was truly extravagant. They had unlimited, truly free time.
I don't know that I'd be happier in that case, but sitting here now I feel pretty confident I could exchange Netflix, Hacker News, my cell phone, and transcontinental flights for that in a heartbeat. Maybe even advanced medical care.
I don't want to hold robber barons up as living a lifestyle we should aspire to. I'm simply saying that yes, in many ways, their lives were better in simply material terms than the way the average person lives today; it is nice to have a dishwasher, but it is even better to not have to wash dishes. It is nice to not be a chimney-sweep, but unlimited free time is better than 40-80 hours a week devoted to keeping yourself employed.
> unlimited free time is better than 40-80 hours a week devoted to keeping yourself employed
I just want to touch on this last point. I read the rest of your responses, but I think your philosophy boils down to this single misconception.
Unlimited free time doesn't make you any happier than employment.
Dissatisfaction is born out of these relative comparisons you're making and not spending your attention on what matters: constant inner growth through learning and challenging yourself in addition to appreciating what you have. Nobody is forcing you to work, but if you want to maintain your lifestyle, you should make the best of it. Plenty of employed people are happy with their jobs.
As a rule, I don't make relative comparisons - I did here because I wanted to highlight a difference that exists between the allegedly worse lifestyles of robber barons in 1916 compared to average people in 2016.
I don't disagree that constant inner growth through learning and challenging myself is important. It's just my learning and challenging has more to do with the relationships I have with my friends, family, and community, and with my hobbies and personal interests (which are economically worthless), and not with learning new Javascript frameworks so I can take time away from doing the above to write web applications.
I make what of it I can - and I do get some mild enjoyment out of many jobs, particularly when I get to work closely with customers to solve their problems - because that's the way the world works in 2016, but I'm not going to lie and say I think it's a great thing. It is hard to imagine being less happy in a life where I could do what I wanted without worrying about whether it paid the bills.
Yep. Logically speaking, what is the probability of billionaire regaining his wealth if he's stripped off his fortune and contacts? 0.000000001 (almost like the rest of us).
Should Zapier be worried ?
Probably not, unless Microsoft suddenly forms a large division out of this and manages to get a 100 - 200 integrations going.
> Can we achieve parity with what what operating systems are used for in today’s world, but with less code, and with fewer pain points? Can we do better? We’d like to try.
