It’s a little different, but I’m not sure indexing to the consumption preferences of a certain class of US citizen in 2025 represents a better index, or one particularly close to Rawls concept of primary goods. The “climate controlled space” in particular feels particularly oddly specific (both because much of the world doesn’t need full climate control, and because 35m^2 is not a particularly “elite” apportionment of space )
To the extent the VPP concept is useful I’d say it’s mostly in indicating that no matter how much it bumps GDP per capita, AI isn’t going to automagically reduce costs of land and buildings, and is currently driving the amount of compute+bandwidth an “US coastal elite” person directly or indirectly consumes up very rapidly...
i think so. there are parts of my current life that were not accessible to a $100k/yr-earner in 2019, for example, [LMs on tap](https://lydianottingham.substack.com/p/vitae-per-person-vpp-a-new-way-of/comment/197131937). coastal elites also enjoy a large amount of climate-controlled space: i think this is a big deal, & not available to a $100k/yr-earner in texas.
‘vitae per person’ is apparently similar to [rawls’ notion of primary goods](https://substack.com/home/post/p-183800417), with a focus on material ones.
It’s a little different, but I’m not sure indexing to the consumption preferences of a certain class of US citizen in 2025 represents a better index, or one particularly close to Rawls concept of primary goods. The “climate controlled space” in particular feels particularly oddly specific (both because much of the world doesn’t need full climate control, and because 35m^2 is not a particularly “elite” apportionment of space )
To the extent the VPP concept is useful I’d say it’s mostly in indicating that no matter how much it bumps GDP per capita, AI isn’t going to automagically reduce costs of land and buildings, and is currently driving the amount of compute+bandwidth an “US coastal elite” person directly or indirectly consumes up very rapidly...