[BigMackCam]

Yes you are right, we have everything working now because there was works and infrastructure buffered from the past. Yet, bread, salad, cheese, water, electricity are not from one month ago, they are being produced right now, and those require only a minority of the population working. Most people in EU and US now work in offices, doing immaterial things. The material things are mostly done in China, mostly machine produced with only a few staff to monitor machines. For wood works, electronics, and all kind of other products, there is a machine that spit them out every second or minute. I've been in production factories in China, you have hundreds, if not a thousand of machines lined-up in an industrial facility, run by 50 people, the production fire power is nearly unlimited, put into container and shipped to Europe. In Europe we seat in office the whole week behind a computer, what do we produce behind computers?

---------- Post added 24-04-20 at 09:24 ----------


I believe around 50% would be enough, with no impact on standard of living. You can look at it in a different perspective: since WWII, we've largely developed computers and applied them production automation, productivity increased dramatically, 100% and more. Yet, unemployment hasn't increased to 50%, so how did society benefit from the increased productivity? Well, if you increase productivity and still have the same number of people working the same number of hours per week, it looks like either they are wasting their time or they are doing things to produce things that didn't exist before. The things that didn't exist before are things that we don't need for living, things that we want but we don't need..

---------- Post added 24-04-20 at 09:26 ----------


Do I need a new camera? No. Do I want one? My level of desire will depends how much promise of good things will come with the new model that I don't need

We're drifting into the realms of social and economic ideologies, here, and the basics of capitalism versus socialism - a subject I'd love to debate but won't, as it's so indelibly tied to politics (and we've strayed from the thread topic enough as it is). I will say, though, our global society is built, maintained and depends on capitalism and consumerism, whether we like it or not - and it'll take something far, far bigger than this current pandemic to change that (even then, such a change would be temporary, human nature being what it is). At best, as a result of our recent experiences, we might find that more people can work remotely, travel less, holiday at home rather than abroad, cook more and eat out less, value time with family and friends more... those kinds of things. Hopefully most people will be more attentive to washing their hands, too. And it'll certainly make some of us more cautious with our money, buying fewer unnecessary luxuries (count me among this group). Beyond that, life will return pretty much to how it was before. Just see if I'm wrong...

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 04-24-2020 at 02:07 AM.

[house]

Absolutely enormous amounts of food is being destroyed at the moment. If there is a shortage it won't be because not enough working hours have been put into producing food. As with any lack in the last 50 years it won't be caused by an actual shortage or capacity.

[Rondec]

Not. Gonna. Happen.

States will open in stages with social distancing rules and limits of customers in stores. Online deliveries will still prioritize supplies and non-essentials will still have 30-day lead times. People will be cautious until there is an effective vaccine. Recession in place through end of 3Q2020 and 2021 will be better, but the old normal will not return for years. We’ll be above 10% unemployment for a long time.

I agree. Furthermore, products that are wants rather than needs (new electronics usually fall into this category) are going to be considerably down at least till the end of the year. Even if everyone got hired back on June 1st and the economy roared back to full strength, that will mean that a good chunk of the population would have missed 2 month's paychecks out of the year. When your salary goes down by 1/6th, you cut back and new cameras will be one of the things that suffer for quite awhile.

As far as businesses, ones where social distancing are more difficult (eat in restaurants, movie theaters, plays) are going to be the ones that are hardest to restart. Which really is lousy. Watching a live stream of a musical on YouTube is not the same as being there.

At least since the 1890's we've known that this is a caricature of Darwin. One that Darwin himself didn't agree with. Simply put it's a lot more complicated than that.

Seconly assuming "nature" in general as a template for human society in 2020 doesn't make much sense. You have an awful lot of things that you'd have great difficulty explaining with this framework as a guiding principle. How prone you are to be attracted to these types of proclamations depend on how much you need it to justify your own choices as well as how much the society you live in use it to justify it's workings.

I hope people who can consume less will continue to do so after this pandemic. I also hope people will work an awful lot less. I say this as someone likely to be out of a job if this continues for much longer. I do however hope we can avoid widespread poverty and misery in the coming years. When topics such as pandemics are concerned Pentax or any gear is way down my list of things to care about.

I believe in altruism. Obviously there are plenty of people who are "only in it for themselves," but there are many, many people who give of what they have freely to others in need. The ladies in my church have been working, sewing masks for people in need, donating time and fabric and so far have finished over a thousand masks. There are many others who are giving the little bits that they can to help others.

A life lived only for one's self is a dark life indeed. As we give and share, I believe it changes our outlook and brings hope and satisfaction to our lives.

[biz-engineer]

Beyond that, life will return pretty much to how it was before. Just see if I'm wrong...

Sure. The camera market should return to where is was, low. IMO, there is still some room for selling more and different cameras into a smaller market, but this might require a number of changes of this industry and players. It feel like we are at the end of an era in digital cameras, like Nokia was before Apple brought the iPhone. Software in some cameras look unfinished, with bugs, this is something I have seen in PCs, tablet and mobile phones since more than 10 years ago. Whenever I buy a $5000 camera, I expect to have software bugs and hangs and maze like user menus, that I don't expect to have even on a $300 android tablet.

[BigMackCam]

Sure. The camera market should return to where is was, low.

I suspect it'll be worse than that. A lot of folks have had their jobs furloughed or lost them altogether. Many who haven't will still have taken a financial hit. Even those without much or any financial loss may be more cautious than before. Some certainly will. I will, for sure.

I wasn't in a rush to get a new camera, but might have potentially considered getting the forthcoming K-3II replacement after it had been out for two or three years. Now, unless my backup K-3II fails, I really don't think I'll bother. I have enough gear to keep me busy for many years, and so long as it doesn't fail, I really don't need anything more.

IMO, there is still some room for selling more and different cameras into a smaller market, but this might require a number of changes of this industry and players. It feel like we are at the end of an era in digital cameras, like Nokia was before Apple brought the iPhone. Software in some cameras look unfinished, with bugs, this is something I have seen in PCs, tablet and mobile phones since more than 10 years ago. Whenever I buy a $5000 camera, I expect to have software bugs and hangs and maze like user menus, that I don't expect to have even on a $300 android tablet.

Honestly, I think cameras have become way too complicated. I'm happier shooting my Samsung GX-10 in all its glorious simplicity than I am using my K-3 or K-3II. If my GX-10 had the resolution, high ISO capability and AF peformance of, say, the KP, that would pretty much be my perfect DSLR. Of course, this is my personal preference - not necessarily what anyone else might want. Still, it's difficult to add many more features than we already enjoy on recent bodies, and harder still to sell new cameras based on those features. Most folks simply won't use them...

[ThorSanchez]

I believe around 50% would be enough, with no impact on standard of living. You can look at it in a different perspective: since WWII, we've largely developed computers and applied them production automation, productivity increased dramatically, 100% and more. Yet, unemployment hasn't increased to 50%, so how did society benefit from the increased productivity? Well, if you increase productivity and still have the same number of people working the same number of hours per week, it looks like either they are wasting their time or they are doing things to produce things that didn't exist before. The things that didn't exist before are things that we don't need for living, things that we want but we don't need...

Sure, if you'd like to return to a standard of living that we had in 1946, we could have half the workforce stay home. I've had this discussion with my dad, he thinks that we should all be working two days a week because of all the productivity gains. In 1946 the percent of GDP going to health care was probably 1/10th what it is today. We are now able to (mostly) care for a dramatically larger number of elderly people. In the US in 1940 43% of people owned a house, today it's something like 65%. Today it's a given that everyone has a car or three, a TV or six, cell phones, broadband internet, computers... When my dad was six or eight his family got indoor plumbing. Their electric bill was known as "the light bill" because it predominantly paid for keeping 8-10 light bulbs on.

While we could get by on a 1940 standard of living it would be a tremendous shock to people (and an economy) accustomed to 2020.

---------- Post added 04-24-20 at 08:37 AM ----------

Of course, this is my personal preference - not necessarily what anyone else might want. Still, it's difficult to add many more features than we already enjoy on recent bodies, and harder still to sell new cameras based on those features. Most folks simply won't use them...

Do you think people buy stuff based on need and typical use case? I think many or most major purchases are made with a hugely aspirational requirements set. People who essentially never deviate from driving 13 miles from their house to their office on well-paved roads will buy a $68,000, three-row, 14-mpg, lifted SUV for the task and take out an 8-year loan to afford it. There are vast swaths of America covered with $600,000, 5000-square foot houses with six bedrooms for families of three. I work with several people who own what are essentially farm tractors, that they use to mow their yard. I know many people who own very expensive whole-house generators for the three days a decade that a hurricane comes through and their electricity is out.


I think it's completely commonplace for people to spec out a major purchase to a 99.5% use case, and then settle in using 20% of that capability on a regular basis. It's not too surprising that they'll buy a camera because of a whole slate of features they'll never use.

Note: I live in an area with a large Navy base that does a lot of research, development, and test. We have a large percentage of engineers, computer scientists, financial analysts, program managers, Naval officers... people above the median income for the country. My experience may not be typical, even for the US.

[BigMackCam]

Do you think people buy stuff based on need and typical use case? I think many or most major purchases are made with a hugely aspirational requirements set. People who essentially never deviate from driving 13 miles from their house to their office on well-paved roads will buy a $68,000, three-row, 14-mpg, lifted SUV for the task and take out an 8-year loan to afford it. There are vast swaths of America covered with $600,000, 5000-square foot houses with six bedrooms for families of three. I work with several people who own what are essentially farm tractors, that they use to mow their yard. I know many people who own very expensive whole-house generators for the three days a decade that a hurricane comes through and their electricity is out.


I think it's completely commonplace for people to spec out a major purchase to a 99.5% use case, and then settle in using 20% of that capability on a regular basis. It's not too surprising that they'll buy a camera because of a whole slate of features they'll never use.

Note: I live in an area with a large Navy base that does a lot of research, development, and test. We have a large percentage of engineers, computer scientists, financial analysts, program managers, Naval officers... people above the median income for the country. My experience may not be typical, even for the US.

I agree, lots of people buy products well beyond their needs. I've done so myself (even in the fairly recent past)... sometimes for good reason - i.e. where I believe I'll grow into the additional capabilities of the product - and sometimes "just because". But, I've only done this when I could easily afford to. I don't believe so many people will buy unnecessarily when money is tight and/or the future uncertain. A not-inconsiderable portion of society now find themselves in that very situation.

Specifically with regard to cameras, I think it's becoming more difficult to sell new models that only incrementally improve on the previous generation. Folks who are fortunate to have plenty of disposable income and want them for specific use cases or "just because" will buy them, as will those who need to replace old or broken gear; those switching from other systems too. For many others, though, I suspect it's becoming harder to justify the spend...

[ThorSanchez]

I don't believe so many people will buy unnecessarily when money is tight and/or the future uncertain. A not-inconsiderable portion of society now find themselves in that very situation.

I don't disagree, with either the quoted part or the rest of your post. But at least here in the US credit is still pretty darned easy to get. A long time ago I wondered what I was doing wrong, since I was driving a Mini but half of my area seemed to be in BMWs and Mercs.


Turns out the answer involved 8-year loans with almost no money down. That was reigned in a bit in 2008. But I think it's back to almost where it was before. Credit card debt is also at or near all time highs, and that was before COVID 19. And the government is setting the pace, with an annual budget deficit of close to a $trillion, again before COVID.

[normhead]

While we could get by on a 1940 standard of living it would be a tremendous shock to people (and an economy) accustomed to 2020.

As a back to the lander in the 60s, I lived in a 100 year old log home with no indoor plumbing, wood heat and no electricity.

People liked dropping in (and staying for a few days) so much my neighbours (none of whom could see hour place from their houses, or even the road) thought my wife and were the leaders of some kind of cultish commune.

It's not as bad as you might think.

The first neighbour who accepted an invitation to dinner came over (who was local to the area), demanded to see our marriage certificate to prove we were really married, then asked where all the others were. We were a terrible disappointment to them. They thought there was going to be something like a Toga party.

[bobmaxja]

I was not expecting the subject to discuss the behavior of buying.

Sales are way down and for 99,5 % of population , single camera is a nice to have versus a phone is a must have and if peoples have not see it , they all come with a camera. Than mean everybody have one, the question for them , do they need a second one!!!!!!

[biz-engineer]

Sure, if you'd like to return to a standard of living that we had in 1946, we could have half the workforce stay home.

Well, to be honest, in Europe, for a lot of people there is no difference between staying home or going to the office.

As a back to the lander in the 60s, I lived in a 100 year old log home with no indoor plumbing, wood heat and no electricity.People liked dropping in (and staying for a few days) so much my neighbours (none of whom could see hour place from their houses, or even the road) thought my wife and were the leaders of some kind of cultish commune.It's not as bad as you might think.

The thing is, if you have a water leakage at home now in 2020 (here in EU), either you have to repair it yourself, or you may have to wait... one, two, three weeks to get a professional come to repair it. It's very simple, more than 80% of young people get a master's degree, as part to government targets to get everyone a degree (even if sometimes that means lowering academic level). Nobody want to do manual jobs, everybody want to be a manager. Twenty years ago in my industry, there was maximum 1 manager for 8 engineers. In 2019, there were an average of 3 managers per 1 engineer. Everyone is a manager of something, but their output is very low, spending entire weeks in meetings and chating in front of a coffee machine, while the engineer is being load like a Sherpa and being squeezed to death. You could pay them to stay at home, it would increase the productivity of the engineer who would have more time to do work as opposed to being called in meetings for nothing.

---------- Post added 25-04-20 at 16:41 ----------

I suspect it'll be worse than that. A lot of folks have had their jobs furloughed or lost them altogether.

You have to realize that we now live in the economy of electronic currency (money is a number on a computer register, nothing real) and that most people produce nothing even though they officially have a job and receive a salary. Should we inspect the tangible work results of every employee we would be surprise for how many the work is as effective and moving sand bags from A to B and back from B to A. Although it's important that all people feel busy and useful from a human psychology and existential standpoint to avoid mass depressions and mass suicides.

[BigMackCam]

You have to realize that we now live in the economy of electronic currency (money is a number on a computer register, nothing real) and that most people produce nothing even though they officially have a job and receive a salary. Should we inspect the tangible work results of every employee we would be surprise for how many the work is as effective and moving sand bags from A to B and back from B to A. Although it's important that all people feel busy and useful from a human psychology and existential standpoint to avoid mass depressions and mass suicides.

I've heard the "money isn't real, it's just numbers that get passed around electronically" and "we don't really produce anything anymore" arguments rolled out numerous times over the years (I worked in banking and inter-dealer broking for 25 years of my career until late 2014). There's some truth to them - especially the electronic nature of funds balances and transfers - but, both arguments are way too broad, shallow and ambiguous, and don't hold up well to closer scrutiny and well-informed debate. They're slick and catchy lines for movie scripts and protest placards to illustrate the follies of capitalism, but factually they're just as flawed as the economic system they criticise.

Whatever our respective views on the above, money - whether it's physical folding currency or electronic updates to account balances - becomes very real at the personal level when it comes to paying for necessities like somewhere to live, something to eat, something to wear, and maybe an occasional small luxury or convenience here and there... i.e. "survival", in the form it takes in modern society. That, I'm afraid, is a lot more important to most people than feeling busy and useful in their work, not to mention valued. Such things are nice, for sure, and I wish everyone enjoyed those privileges - but most folks consider themselves fortunate if they can make ends meet. The majority just want to feel safe, clean, warm and dry, with a reasonably full belly, and maybe a book to read or TV to watch. To achieve only that, they need work - whatever form it takes, fulfilling or otherwise - so they can earn money, be it a physical pay packet of bank notes at the end of the week, or a positive uplift on their electronic balance.

If you only have 50% of folks working (per one of your earlier posts), who takes care of the rest, and who pays the shortfall in taxes needed to provide infrastructure and public services? Or would the other 50% have to exist in self-sufficient communes, living in mud huts they build themselves, burning dung they collect to keep warm, eating vegetables they grow and animals they kill themselves, wearing the pelts from their prey, self-educating their kids in essential hunting and gathering, and dying early through lack of critical health treatment? I'm being facetious, of course, but you take my point, I'm sure...

Again, we're skirting the boundaries of social and economic ideologies, and that's awfully close to politics. Let's not stray into politics

[monochrome]

The economic contraction is hitting everyone this time.

I have a California client whose husband lost his job in January and didn’t tell her. He had already spent his investments, and put $50,000 of new charges on MasterCard paying lifestyle expenses and their $12,600 mortgage. She is a high-end interior designer and discovered his perfidy when her credit card was declined at the grocery store. Her clients are delaying their projects; she gets paid on completion and nothing new is in the pipeline. She’s working remote, educating her two young children and running her household without her partner - who decamped to his parents’.

At 5;30 PM yesterday my wife was directed to furlough her entire staff for 13 weeks starting 5/1. They’ll keep their medical benefits and can use their existing vacation days. They can apply for unemployment and can get the extended $600 a week benefit as well. This recession hasn’t even begun to pinch yet. The second wave is the white collar furloughs.

I had a little tickle at the base of my skull last summer and decided to keep my Accord. I feel fortunate I have no credit card debt, no payments aside from a mortgage, a year of operating cash in the bank and only a 15% hit to my income. We fear we might not be able to save my wife’s income.

Hopefully by this time next year Global GDP should have recovered dramatically, though not fully, dependent on what happens with the plague. People at the bottom of the income spectrum will be hurt the most, as always. Central banks have cut the downside (Depression - real thing Depression) risk out of the probability set. We’ll deal with the inflation later - we have to avoid the deflation sooner.

It will be years before whether/when Ricoh releases Knew or DFA*85/1.4 is relevant. Even the truly wealthy are cautious, and the middle class is terrified.

[Rondec]

Sure, if you'd like to return to a standard of living that we had in 1946, we could have half the workforce stay home. I've had this discussion with my dad, he thinks that we should all be working two days a week because of all the productivity gains. In 1946 the percent of GDP going to health care was probably 1/10th what it is today. We are now able to (mostly) care for a dramatically larger number of elderly people. In the US in 1940 43% of people owned a house, today it's something like 65%. Today it's a given that everyone has a car or three, a TV or six, cell phones, broadband internet, computers... When my dad was six or eight his family got indoor plumbing. Their electric bill was known as "the light bill" because it predominantly paid for keeping 8-10 light bulbs on.

While we could get by on a 1940 standard of living it would be a tremendous shock to people (and an economy) accustomed to 2020.

---------- Post added 04-24-20 at 08:37 AM ----------



Do you think people buy stuff based on need and typical use case? I think many or most major purchases are made with a hugely aspirational requirements set. People who essentially never deviate from driving 13 miles from their house to their office on well-paved roads will buy a $68,000, three-row, 14-mpg, lifted SUV for the task and take out an 8-year loan to afford it. There are vast swaths of America covered with $600,000, 5000-square foot houses with six bedrooms for families of three. I work with several people who own what are essentially farm tractors, that they use to mow their yard. I know many people who own very expensive whole-house generators for the three days a decade that a hurricane comes through and their electricity is out.


I think it's completely commonplace for people to spec out a major purchase to a 99.5% use case, and then settle in using 20% of that capability on a regular basis. It's not too surprising that they'll buy a camera because of a whole slate of features they'll never use.

Note: I live in an area with a large Navy base that does a lot of research, development, and test. We have a large percentage of engineers, computer scientists, financial analysts, program managers, Naval officers... people above the median income for the country. My experience may not be typical, even for the US.

Maybe it is because I live in a rural area, but what I see people driving is really old cars and trucks. I don't ever see a BMW or high end vehicle of any kind. Then again, I don't see people building the size homes you are describing either. Here, an acre of land typically sells for about 2500 dollars.

I think the big thing is that people are hoping that they have a job to go back to when the time of covid is over. I am afraid that a lot of jobs are simply going to go away where the owners of the little restaurants and shops just don't have the finances to reopen them.

I certainly don't expect there to be much aspirational spending in my area of the country till next year, at least.

[beholder3]

My personal estimate is based on:
a) cameras, lenses very broadly take 3 years from "go" decision to market.
b) Until 02/2020 most companies were still in booming mode

So:
I would expect to see "normal" (for a -20%/a shrinking market) new products to appear deep into this year, something like October 2020. Finished products in electronics do not get better waiting.

After October-ish I expect things to dry up dramatically for most makers.

Pentax I guess will not have more than 1 lens/camera per year. I guess their operations is so small today that hibernation is rather easy to do.
Canon I expect to be trying to use brute force to win back market share even in this downturn.
Nikon I really do not see surviving, even though they'll fight until the last drop.
Sony I give a 70% probability of weathering it simply by shutting down camera business, much like they did with TVs. The work like Samsung.
Fuji could go hibernation but with way more new products than Pentax. I do not think they will close their toy store. It's too much of a fun gimmick division to have.
Olympus this time I could see follow Nikon down and out.
Panasonic has about the size of Pentax. My feeling is that Panasonic will hibernate as well. From pure economics they should have closed shop long ago, but did not.