The Cost of Financialization-Globalization: You Lost $500k and Gained $137.13(charleshughsmith.blogspot.com)
charleshughsmith.blogspot.com
The Cost of Financialization-Globalization: You Lost $500k and Gained $137.13
http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-cost-of-financialization.html
133 comments
>There's an idea about financialisation, which is just completely wrong: he notes companies are willing to pay $20 billion for a $10 billion company, after selling it off for its pieces, and noting no value has been added.
This is just one face of financialization.It's known as asset stripping and it has a long wikipedia page so my sophomoric take is that it's probably real, but I'd be interested to see your rebuttal to it nonetheless.
>Typically the reverse happens, companies get merged for economies of scale
They typically get merged to bolster market power and they say that it's for economies of scale because it sounds like it's in the consumers interest rather than diametrically opposed to it and that's how to get mergers approved.
Anybody who has worked in a large multinational corporation of stitched together mergers could tell you just how kafkaesque the diseconomies of scale can be.
>Then there's a whole piece on globalisation... again, not sure where to start
Maybe don't.
This is just one face of financialization.It's known as asset stripping and it has a long wikipedia page so my sophomoric take is that it's probably real, but I'd be interested to see your rebuttal to it nonetheless.
>Typically the reverse happens, companies get merged for economies of scale
They typically get merged to bolster market power and they say that it's for economies of scale because it sounds like it's in the consumers interest rather than diametrically opposed to it and that's how to get mergers approved.
Anybody who has worked in a large multinational corporation of stitched together mergers could tell you just how kafkaesque the diseconomies of scale can be.
>Then there's a whole piece on globalisation... again, not sure where to start
Maybe don't.
I remember when my employer (together with a whole bunch of other agencies) got bought by a global consulting company.
Towards us employees as well as to the market the talk was always to generate better opportunities that one agency alone would not be able to target (read win pitches from the big corporations).
Shortly thereafter we were the biggest digital agency in ASGR (Austria, Switzerland, Germany & Russia) and every MD was clapping themselves on the shoulder for achieving this. Nobody seemed to mind that the status came because of a big shopping spree by Accenture and not from natural growth. And what does it actually mean to be the biggest?
But I have yet to see said opportunities being won after nearly 5 years.
Sure there were some big wins. But in the end the existing agency brands won these pitches, not because they were part of Accenture (Interactive) but brought their own DNA and approach to the table. On the contrary - having to price in the Accenture overhead either led to loosing because of being too expensive or the necessity to offshore most work to India (or nearshore towards Eastern Europe).
Towards us employees as well as to the market the talk was always to generate better opportunities that one agency alone would not be able to target (read win pitches from the big corporations).
Shortly thereafter we were the biggest digital agency in ASGR (Austria, Switzerland, Germany & Russia) and every MD was clapping themselves on the shoulder for achieving this. Nobody seemed to mind that the status came because of a big shopping spree by Accenture and not from natural growth. And what does it actually mean to be the biggest?
But I have yet to see said opportunities being won after nearly 5 years.
Sure there were some big wins. But in the end the existing agency brands won these pitches, not because they were part of Accenture (Interactive) but brought their own DNA and approach to the table. On the contrary - having to price in the Accenture overhead either led to loosing because of being too expensive or the necessity to offshore most work to India (or nearshore towards Eastern Europe).
The worst run company I ever worked for was an financial services company that had ballooned as a result of multiple mergers.
Each time they rolled out the efficiencies, synergies and economies of scale spiel and each time it got worse as they patched a new IT system onto an old one.
Each time they rolled out the efficiencies, synergies and economies of scale spiel and each time it got worse as they patched a new IT system onto an old one.
I don't know what you are talking about. There is nothing bloated about multiple systems necessary to track my time or my expenses while project managers also insist that you use jira to track time because they otherwise have no way of reporting time spent on a per project level to the client or deliver any reporting more frequent than every fortnight (capabilities we had before the merger).
Or the necessity to forbid ssh connections in the corporate networks as well as ssh ports being open on cloud instances. If you need a shell use the one the cloud provider provides you in the browser.
While also installing software on your work machine that MITMles you opening up ssl connections (just for security reasons) at least in countries that don't have strong employer protection institutions in place (like mine).
/s
Pardon my sarcasm. I hear you.
Or the necessity to forbid ssh connections in the corporate networks as well as ssh ports being open on cloud instances. If you need a shell use the one the cloud provider provides you in the browser.
While also installing software on your work machine that MITMles you opening up ssl connections (just for security reasons) at least in countries that don't have strong employer protection institutions in place (like mine).
/s
Pardon my sarcasm. I hear you.
Accenture has a "rich" history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accenture#Split_from_Arthur_An...
Remember Enron?
Oh yeah, sure, they were separate divisions and all that...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accenture#Split_from_Arthur_An...
Remember Enron?
Oh yeah, sure, they were separate divisions and all that...
Obviously it's real, but it's done because the expected value for the parties that do it is net positive. Again, obviously, it's like a gamble, sometimes it fails, sometimes it works "great".
But. The main point is, healthy corporations are not taken over in leveraged buyouts and whatnots. Companies that would be bankrupt soon are the targets. In that sense these raiders for their own gain what the bankruptcy proceedings does anyway.
> mergers
Yes, mergers lead to hilariously inefficient giants. And if it goes through the consolidation it manages to be more profitable than the "mergees" together. If it fails, well, eventually they'll lose market share and close, or sell of their parts, or one of the aforementioned corporate raiders does this for them, and so on.
However, many times the really big mergers are about simple oligopoly. At that point there's just no real competition between these entrenched already-giant entities. The diseconomies are already there.
But. The main point is, healthy corporations are not taken over in leveraged buyouts and whatnots. Companies that would be bankrupt soon are the targets. In that sense these raiders for their own gain what the bankruptcy proceedings does anyway.
> mergers
Yes, mergers lead to hilariously inefficient giants. And if it goes through the consolidation it manages to be more profitable than the "mergees" together. If it fails, well, eventually they'll lose market share and close, or sell of their parts, or one of the aforementioned corporate raiders does this for them, and so on.
However, many times the really big mergers are about simple oligopoly. At that point there's just no real competition between these entrenched already-giant entities. The diseconomies are already there.
From the Wikipedia page mentioned:
> Early innovators of asset stripping were Carl Icahn, Victor Posner, and Nelson Peltz;[4] all of whom were investors in the 1970s and 1980s. Carl Icahn performed one of the most notorious and hostile takeovers when he acquired Trans World Airlines in 1985. Here Icahn stripped TWA of its assets, selling them individually to repay the debt assimilated during the takeover. This particular corporate raid formed the idea of selling a company's assets in order to repay debt, and eventually increase the raider's net worth.
> Early innovators of asset stripping were Carl Icahn, Victor Posner, and Nelson Peltz;[4] all of whom were investors in the 1970s and 1980s. Carl Icahn performed one of the most notorious and hostile takeovers when he acquired Trans World Airlines in 1985. Here Icahn stripped TWA of its assets, selling them individually to repay the debt assimilated during the takeover. This particular corporate raid formed the idea of selling a company's assets in order to repay debt, and eventually increase the raider's net worth.
In the tech sphere, what you are saying does not seem to bear out. Tech mergers or buyouts often reduce the value of the combined companies from what it was when they were separate, and usually don't create economies of scale. Tech buyouts seem to fall into three categories: (1) reducing competition (e.g. facebook buying whatsapp and instagram), (2) acquihiring and sunsetting the acquired products (e.g. most purchases apple has made), and (3) hold and sell at markup without having created any of the added value (e.g. softbank's acquisition of ARM). I find it hard to think of tech mergers and buyouts which actually work the way you say these things work.
Apple has famously stated it buys a company every 2 to 3 weeks. That's not the type of Yahoo buying Tumblr purchases. It's companies that have technology, skills, products, networks, that are improving Apple's products in a way the average customer can't just observe. Of course they're not going to be talked about because there's often nothing to talk about compared to say the Tumblr story.
Instagram was able to scale due to FB. Of course it reduced the competition, but at the same time the other platforms that were not acquired just withered away (Kik? Snapchat apparently has 4B revenue, and ~20M USD net profit, which is basically 0 compared to IG).
And it's also telling that no other giant felt to enter this space (Google after G+ just started to focus on B2B cloud/workspaces, and their B2C is limited to Youtube (Premium) and Android (Pixel and AndroidOne)).
Basically the only real competition is TikTok, which is made possible by high resolution/definition smartphone cameras and displays, and a ~10 second attention span. (Which is still more than the doomscrolling on IG/FB.) But since their revenue share model is very hostile/unfair to creators, in its current form it'll eventually hit a ceiling. (Or not, predictions are just predictions.)
> ARM
SoftBank found a buyer for ARM, but authorities stepped in. Is this good or bad?
On one hand it would have created a lot of added value for Nvida, so it would have been a mergers success story. But on the other hand Nvidia would have extorted the market (allegedly!) so it would have created (yet another) success story for the "capitalism bad" ongoing highly acclaimed ideology series.
> Apple
People seem to love Apple (people buy their expensive gadgets, like there's no tomorrow), and their acquisitions (like the well known laser drilled holes, and CNC machined bodies for their laptops [0]) allowed them to deliver those high quality gadgets with enormous profits.
Likely their acquihires are providing them a lot of added value ... and people seem to agree that Apple is good. So maybe acquihire is good too?
[0] https://blog.bolt.io/manufacture-like-apple/
And it's also telling that no other giant felt to enter this space (Google after G+ just started to focus on B2B cloud/workspaces, and their B2C is limited to Youtube (Premium) and Android (Pixel and AndroidOne)).
Basically the only real competition is TikTok, which is made possible by high resolution/definition smartphone cameras and displays, and a ~10 second attention span. (Which is still more than the doomscrolling on IG/FB.) But since their revenue share model is very hostile/unfair to creators, in its current form it'll eventually hit a ceiling. (Or not, predictions are just predictions.)
> ARM
SoftBank found a buyer for ARM, but authorities stepped in. Is this good or bad?
On one hand it would have created a lot of added value for Nvida, so it would have been a mergers success story. But on the other hand Nvidia would have extorted the market (allegedly!) so it would have created (yet another) success story for the "capitalism bad" ongoing highly acclaimed ideology series.
> Apple
People seem to love Apple (people buy their expensive gadgets, like there's no tomorrow), and their acquisitions (like the well known laser drilled holes, and CNC machined bodies for their laptops [0]) allowed them to deliver those high quality gadgets with enormous profits.
Likely their acquihires are providing them a lot of added value ... and people seem to agree that Apple is good. So maybe acquihire is good too?
[0] https://blog.bolt.io/manufacture-like-apple/
Just being curious. Could you explain the graph in [0]? I just don't understand it. Probably because as a non US citizen I for example already don't know what Chained Dollars are.
If I made 50k in say 2012 and now make 52k in 2022. Did my spendable income increase?
The linked graph would imply that imho.
If I made 50k in say 2012 and now make 52k in 2022. Did my spendable income increase?
The linked graph would imply that imho.
It means that US average income, taking into account inflation, has risen.
Ahh I understand a bit better. Average or median?
Because if you have a bar with 9 people and together they have each an average net worth of say 100k nothing much happens to the average when the next regular Jane enters the bar. But once Bill Gates (or Warren Buffet) enters the bar the average increases massively. But regular Jane and John Doe did not suddenly become more rich.
That is what I am trying to understand about the linked graph above.
Does it tell me that the average household in the US has now significantly more disposable income than in the past.
Because if you have a bar with 9 people and together they have each an average net worth of say 100k nothing much happens to the average when the next regular Jane enters the bar. But once Bill Gates (or Warren Buffet) enters the bar the average increases massively. But regular Jane and John Doe did not suddenly become more rich.
That is what I am trying to understand about the linked graph above.
Does it tell me that the average household in the US has now significantly more disposable income than in the past.
Mean. Median has remained more or less flat.
Sorry, should've linked median, I thought I did but took the wrong one: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
Trend is clearly up, although some generations can experience a flat decade or so. Comparisons with 'back in the days' (e.g. 70s) show a clear 50% or so increase.
Trend is clearly up, although some generations can experience a flat decade or so. Comparisons with 'back in the days' (e.g. 70s) show a clear 50% or so increase.
Thanks. This helps. While Chained Income grew sevenfold, median income grew by a factor of 1.5 from 1975 to today.
While for one 1975 dollar you would need to invest 5.22 today's dollars because of inflation [1].
So today the median income has massively less buying power compared to 1975 while chained dollars still outgrew the inflation.
Not yet sure what to make of this, but it might not be the success story.
[1]: https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1975#:~:text=Why%....
While for one 1975 dollar you would need to invest 5.22 today's dollars because of inflation [1].
So today the median income has massively less buying power compared to 1975 while chained dollars still outgrew the inflation.
Not yet sure what to make of this, but it might not be the success story.
[1]: https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1975#:~:text=Why%....
> So today the median income has massively less buying power compared to 1975 while chained dollars still outgrew the inflation.
Wait, I don't follow. What I linked was real median income, i.e. it's already adjusted for inflation. So median income in fact has >58% more purchasing power than 1975.
This is nominal personal income: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N
It grew by a factor 6.7x, whilst prices (using your inflation link) grew by a factor 5.23, since 1975. That translates to a purchasing power improvement of 28%. Different from the 58% figure above (which may use different inflation benchmarks), but obviously an improvement of purchasing power nonetheless.
If you compare that to slightly fewer working hours (5-6% reduction) and slightly more leisure (a few extra holidays), longer life expectancy (72->79) and longer retirements (5 -> 10y average), I'd say an improving purchasing power despite this is definitely a success story!
Wait, I don't follow. What I linked was real median income, i.e. it's already adjusted for inflation. So median income in fact has >58% more purchasing power than 1975.
This is nominal personal income: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N
It grew by a factor 6.7x, whilst prices (using your inflation link) grew by a factor 5.23, since 1975. That translates to a purchasing power improvement of 28%. Different from the 58% figure above (which may use different inflation benchmarks), but obviously an improvement of purchasing power nonetheless.
If you compare that to slightly fewer working hours (5-6% reduction) and slightly more leisure (a few extra holidays), longer life expectancy (72->79) and longer retirements (5 -> 10y average), I'd say an improving purchasing power despite this is definitely a success story!
I'm sure mean real wages and net worth are useful for something? I can't for the life of me figure out how it's a useful way to know anything whatsoever about the welfare of the broader body politic.
Mean, median and distribution taken together tell you something. Not the whole picture but way more than any one metric looked at in isolation.
In my experience taking one single metric (be it mean or median) without context is more often than not because it supports a specific politicsl/ideological point of view.
Using the mean in this case supports the notion that globalization was a win for the American society.
Using the mean alone shows that it more or less did nothing (but maybe also did not hurt).
Showing the distribution or the mean increase per income bracket would show it benefitting the upper income/net worth levels while maybe hurting the people on the lower end.
Comparing income with buying power for specific goods (like done in other places of this discussion) is also often dependent on the political/ideological point of view.
Others have stated that nowadays everybody has a supercomputer in their pocket (implying things got better through globalization) while others pointed out that the average worker cannot afford a home for themselves and their family (implying globalization wasn't so great - at least not for everyone).
So it takes context and different metrics to at least paint a rich picture to enable us to rationally discuss good and bad sides of a phenomenon like globalization and what could be done to fix the bad things (if we (not you and me, but all discussion participants) could find middle ground in defining the same things as being bad).
In my experience taking one single metric (be it mean or median) without context is more often than not because it supports a specific politicsl/ideological point of view.
Using the mean in this case supports the notion that globalization was a win for the American society.
Using the mean alone shows that it more or less did nothing (but maybe also did not hurt).
Showing the distribution or the mean increase per income bracket would show it benefitting the upper income/net worth levels while maybe hurting the people on the lower end.
Comparing income with buying power for specific goods (like done in other places of this discussion) is also often dependent on the political/ideological point of view.
Others have stated that nowadays everybody has a supercomputer in their pocket (implying things got better through globalization) while others pointed out that the average worker cannot afford a home for themselves and their family (implying globalization wasn't so great - at least not for everyone).
So it takes context and different metrics to at least paint a rich picture to enable us to rationally discuss good and bad sides of a phenomenon like globalization and what could be done to fix the bad things (if we (not you and me, but all discussion participants) could find middle ground in defining the same things as being bad).
>Others have stated that nowadays everybody has a supercomputer in their pocket (implying things got better through globalization) while others pointed out that the average worker cannot afford a home for themselves and their family (implying globalization wasn't so great - at least not for everyone).
I've yet to hear any of the former group actually say that they'd rather live on the street with an iPhone than in a house they owned in the 1960s with a rotary in spite of that being the implication.
I've yet to hear any of the former group actually say that they'd rather live on the street with an iPhone than in a house they owned in the 1960s with a rotary in spite of that being the implication.
Here's median, quite clearly 50% higher than the 70s: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
Agreed that people cherry pick the specific goods vs inflation to defend their point of view. TVs vs College are typical examples of radically cheaper vs radically more expensive.
The housing situation is quite a bit more nuanced though, in my opinion. A lot of data shows it hasn't really been getting more expensive.
For one, we're not comparing the same houses. The average home size in 1969 was 1200 square feet. Today it's over 2400 square feet, or double.
Second, we're not comparing the same members of the household. Homes were shared by 3.33, now by 2.5. That's in part an indication of cultural change, but also in part a change in wealth and luxury, as the number of single-person households more than tripled since 1969, something unaffordable at the time.
Then there's the costs of the loan. Virtually nobody, certainly not first-time buyers, outright buys a home in cash, not then and not now. Homes are financed with mortgaged. The price of a mortgage is in the interest rate. Paying off the principal isn't an expense because it reduces your liability, any debt paid off means the equity is now yours, and if you sell the home you get the cash back. The interest you never get back, it's the price of the loan. The interest rate was 7.5%, now it's 3.5%, less than half.
Putting it all together, yes, nominal home prices are about 15x higher today. But the cost to rent money to own a certain size home per person, is indeed 14.8 / (3.332.55) (1200/2500) / (7.5*3.55) = 2.57x as expensive, nominally. Whilst median personal income grew by about 6-7x [0]
In other words, housing has gotten cheaper. It's the reason current prices are sustained despite the average house being 2x as big, and shared by 25% fewer people. The reason housing prices are so high is because we're living in bigger homes and sharing them with fewer people and paying less on the financing costs.
[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N
Agreed that people cherry pick the specific goods vs inflation to defend their point of view. TVs vs College are typical examples of radically cheaper vs radically more expensive.
The housing situation is quite a bit more nuanced though, in my opinion. A lot of data shows it hasn't really been getting more expensive.
For one, we're not comparing the same houses. The average home size in 1969 was 1200 square feet. Today it's over 2400 square feet, or double.
Second, we're not comparing the same members of the household. Homes were shared by 3.33, now by 2.5. That's in part an indication of cultural change, but also in part a change in wealth and luxury, as the number of single-person households more than tripled since 1969, something unaffordable at the time.
Then there's the costs of the loan. Virtually nobody, certainly not first-time buyers, outright buys a home in cash, not then and not now. Homes are financed with mortgaged. The price of a mortgage is in the interest rate. Paying off the principal isn't an expense because it reduces your liability, any debt paid off means the equity is now yours, and if you sell the home you get the cash back. The interest you never get back, it's the price of the loan. The interest rate was 7.5%, now it's 3.5%, less than half.
Putting it all together, yes, nominal home prices are about 15x higher today. But the cost to rent money to own a certain size home per person, is indeed 14.8 / (3.332.55) (1200/2500) / (7.5*3.55) = 2.57x as expensive, nominally. Whilst median personal income grew by about 6-7x [0]
In other words, housing has gotten cheaper. It's the reason current prices are sustained despite the average house being 2x as big, and shared by 25% fewer people. The reason housing prices are so high is because we're living in bigger homes and sharing them with fewer people and paying less on the financing costs.
[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N
Just linking my own comment (for others) with the inflation numbers for the same period being a factor of 5.2 times.
Not only 1.5 times like the median income: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30325835
Not only 1.5 times like the median income: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30325835
Then this indicates the rich got richer and the rest of us stayed stagnant.
I wonder how would mean / median income development look like, if you cut out the top 10 percent and bottom ten percent..
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N easy to calculate! here's median.
>The fact is your household lost $500,000 in earnings and gained essentially nothing in supposed "cost savings
I assume 'you' in this piece isn't addressing the people in this circle[1]. I mean even the extremely wrong basis for that quoted claim aside (anyone who has visited an electronics store and compares quality and price to pre-globalization can verify that for themselves), I always find it funny how anyone can think globalization hasn't drastically improved the world we live in. It's somewhat bizarre to me that support for globalisation is being attributed to shills and some financialied elite. I don't know which 70s the author grew up in but I don't think a minimum wage worker had a pristine supercomputer in their pocket and a big flatscreen tv on the wall.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeriepieris_circle#/media/Fi...
I assume 'you' in this piece isn't addressing the people in this circle[1]. I mean even the extremely wrong basis for that quoted claim aside (anyone who has visited an electronics store and compares quality and price to pre-globalization can verify that for themselves), I always find it funny how anyone can think globalization hasn't drastically improved the world we live in. It's somewhat bizarre to me that support for globalisation is being attributed to shills and some financialied elite. I don't know which 70s the author grew up in but I don't think a minimum wage worker had a pristine supercomputer in their pocket and a big flatscreen tv on the wall.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeriepieris_circle#/media/Fi...
When remembering past decades they identify themselves with the top 1% on the basis of having 70s 1%-markers today (eg., a degree, etc.). What has happened is that the markers of the 70s 1% are now of the c. 50% today.
The author should be mapping the life of a 70th percentile person across all the decades... till the late 70s, that person was a poor industrial worker.
The author should be mapping the life of a 70th percentile person across all the decades... till the late 70s, that person was a poor industrial worker.
This is false. See https://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compen.... Income inequality has massively increased since the end of Bretton Woods and the start of the era of neoliberalism, deregulation, financialisation, and Reagan/Thatcher. Productivity increased while median (not top!) compensation remains stagnant.
For US it's gone up, but massively is a bit of an overstatement. See the Gini Coeffecient which is often used for representing income equality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
UK seems worse, but other EU countries actually gone down, for instance France has had a big drop since the 50's.
UK seems worse, but other EU countries actually gone down, for instance France has had a big drop since the 50's.
Income inequality is irrelevant. The key metric is just how the income has changed for the bulk of the people.
The existence of a 100 people with 100 billion each really does nothing for the real purchasing power of the middle and lower class. Income inequality is a red herring designed to act as a political wedge and distract you from a failing government.
The existence of a 100 people with 100 billion each really does nothing for the real purchasing power of the middle and lower class. Income inequality is a red herring designed to act as a political wedge and distract you from a failing government.
I've come to this conclusion as I've grown older: Income inequality is far more important than income.
It doesn't much matter if everyone lives in a 2-bedroom house and rides a bicycle to work, or in a 5-bedroom McMansion and drives a Lexus. DDG for "hedonistic adaptation." Or travel to poorer countries.
What does matter is /stress/.
Right now, most Americans seem to be living in a state of high financial stress. Baseline costs, e.g. college debt, housing costs, medical costs, and similar take a majority of people's income. The remaining disposable income might buy more computers and TVs than in 1950, but that doesn't matter much.
What does matter is that, for example, the short-term job loss, a litigation, a divorce, or a medical problem can lead to cascading financial ruin. It matters that the cost of raising kids puts having a family out-of-reach for many, or just very, very hard.
The economy in, for example, the Soviet systems was far poorer, but on the whole, everyone was guaranteed housing, food, and basic medical. People were happy enough.
I have mixed thoughts on universal basic income, but as I get older, I find concepts like that more and more appealing (personally, I'm more a fan of universal basic food, medicine, and housing, with all the complexities that entails). I also find Chinese-style socialization of land and of finance more appealing.
Concepts like this date back to Rome. The poor in Rome were guaranteed grain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cura_Annonae
It doesn't much matter if everyone lives in a 2-bedroom house and rides a bicycle to work, or in a 5-bedroom McMansion and drives a Lexus. DDG for "hedonistic adaptation." Or travel to poorer countries.
What does matter is /stress/.
Right now, most Americans seem to be living in a state of high financial stress. Baseline costs, e.g. college debt, housing costs, medical costs, and similar take a majority of people's income. The remaining disposable income might buy more computers and TVs than in 1950, but that doesn't matter much.
What does matter is that, for example, the short-term job loss, a litigation, a divorce, or a medical problem can lead to cascading financial ruin. It matters that the cost of raising kids puts having a family out-of-reach for many, or just very, very hard.
The economy in, for example, the Soviet systems was far poorer, but on the whole, everyone was guaranteed housing, food, and basic medical. People were happy enough.
I have mixed thoughts on universal basic income, but as I get older, I find concepts like that more and more appealing (personally, I'm more a fan of universal basic food, medicine, and housing, with all the complexities that entails). I also find Chinese-style socialization of land and of finance more appealing.
Concepts like this date back to Rome. The poor in Rome were guaranteed grain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cura_Annonae
>The existence of a 100 people with 100 billion each really does nothing for the real purchasing power of the middle and lower class.
It has many deleterious effects but the most visceral one is that it prices them out of the housing market. Those 100 people's purchasing power distorts the hell out of any market they dive into and real estate is very much one of their favorites.
Taxing them and all the people with wealth close to them to hell and back would make the real estate market sane again even if the tax money wasnt used to build new housing (which it should be).
Wealth inequality is the real killer though, and the measure that is the most out of whack. I The rule is that if you ever want to downplay how bad things are, focus on income inequality to the exclusion of wealth inequality.
It has many deleterious effects but the most visceral one is that it prices them out of the housing market. Those 100 people's purchasing power distorts the hell out of any market they dive into and real estate is very much one of their favorites.
Taxing them and all the people with wealth close to them to hell and back would make the real estate market sane again even if the tax money wasnt used to build new housing (which it should be).
Wealth inequality is the real killer though, and the measure that is the most out of whack. I The rule is that if you ever want to downplay how bad things are, focus on income inequality to the exclusion of wealth inequality.
I don't see how Bretton Woods has anything to do with this. Contrary to what goldbugs to believe, there was no real desire for anyone to return to a proper gold standard post-depression. Rather, Bretton Woods was a scheme to for the US to profit off the rebuild after WWII, which was why only governments could participate. Europe and Japan were desperate for dollars, so they were initially happy to exchange real gold for freshly printed dollars even though they recognized this was unfair. After they tried to exchange their dollars back into gold in large quantities, the US ended Bretton Woods.
Income inequality has increased because the top earners earned more. The poor people didn't become poorer.
Notice how you're justifying the system by arguing inside the system. "The system is not unequal because the system has allocated rewards this way". Classic circular reasoning: justifying a thing with the thing itself.
Poor people and even the median did indeed become poorer, as wages either stagnated or even declined in real terms. Some consumer goods particularly electronics have decreased in price, but essentials have not: they increased a little (food) to a lot (housing, healthcare).
Poor people and even the median did indeed become poorer, as wages either stagnated or even declined in real terms. Some consumer goods particularly electronics have decreased in price, but essentials have not: they increased a little (food) to a lot (housing, healthcare).
I'm not justifying anything, I'm simply stating that income inequality is the result of a lot of people becoming rich.
Poor people did not become poorer and incomes did not stagnate if you include benefits. Currently healthcare is more expensive, and a larger percentage of total compensation is given in health benefits.
Doesn't matter what your view on the health care issue is, if you're an employer, you spend more on your employees now than before
Poor people did not become poorer and incomes did not stagnate if you include benefits. Currently healthcare is more expensive, and a larger percentage of total compensation is given in health benefits.
Doesn't matter what your view on the health care issue is, if you're an employer, you spend more on your employees now than before
If you can afford a TV but not a house, education, healthcare, etc. are you not poorer than a period where the inverse was true?
Which one makes for a successful society?
Which one makes for a successful society?
Because health care became more expensive.
You couldn't have an MRI in 1970 because your hospital didn't have it. The technology of health care is now a lot more advanced and can add years to your health expectancy.
Now, there are government programs that help you pay premiums or give you free care. I was on Medicaid several years ago, so the poorest people don't have the issue of not being able to pay.
But that's a whole another topic. The point is you can't just compare what you can afford, because you're not comparing the same things. Houses are bigger these days as well.
You couldn't have an MRI in 1970 because your hospital didn't have it. The technology of health care is now a lot more advanced and can add years to your health expectancy.
Now, there are government programs that help you pay premiums or give you free care. I was on Medicaid several years ago, so the poorest people don't have the issue of not being able to pay.
But that's a whole another topic. The point is you can't just compare what you can afford, because you're not comparing the same things. Houses are bigger these days as well.
>I don't know which 70s the author grew up in but I don't think a minimum wage worker had a pristine supercomputer in their pocket and a big flatscreen tv on the wall.
Yes, I know that you cannot afford housing, or decent healthcare, or access credit, that childhood poverty has increased, that you're 100K in debt for getting an education, that worker's rights are being eroded, that we've bailed out the very rich to the tune of trillions for the second time in a little over a decade... but have you considered that in the 70s you didn't have a Samsung Galaxy Pro S37+ Ultra©™? /s
I can't believe I'm reading this, it's the stereotypical "consoom" meme.
Yes, I know that you cannot afford housing, or decent healthcare, or access credit, that childhood poverty has increased, that you're 100K in debt for getting an education, that worker's rights are being eroded, that we've bailed out the very rich to the tune of trillions for the second time in a little over a decade... but have you considered that in the 70s you didn't have a Samsung Galaxy Pro S37+ Ultra©™? /s
I can't believe I'm reading this, it's the stereotypical "consoom" meme.
Other stuff being bad (mostly for reasons other than globalization) is irrelevant to the obvious absurdity of the claim in the original article that globalization didn't allow us to have more consumer goods for less, it just made the consumer goods worse. The claim being addressed was that consumer electronics are so much worse than the consumer electronics of the 1970s it cancels out price cuts: he even makes up a number to go with it! You can't defend instances of the "everything was better in the good old days" meme as laughably specific as saying we're $2000 worse off buying modern appliances than 1970s ones by pointing to other stuff where the evidence might not point in the opposite direction.
I can’t tell if it’s a joke?
Apart from anything else, globalisation and financialization aren't the same phenomenon. You can slash tax on the rich and deregulate financial services at the same time as you stick up massive trade barriers and provide corporate welfare to domestic companies. And you can remove barriers to imports whilst regulating banking and m&a more, levying super taxes and expanding the welfare state
(The latter bit is more difficult if you're a small developing country, but the US clearly isn't.)
Seems as unreasonable to blame the people who assemble your iPhone for Reaganomics as it does to accuse them of making consumer goods substantially worse than the great phones we had in the 1970s!
Seems as unreasonable to blame the people who assemble your iPhone for Reaganomics as it does to accuse them of making consumer goods substantially worse than the great phones we had in the 1970s!
I admit I have no first hand experience about the US part, but I read a lot of stories about rural or even city infrastructure in the US and oftentimes can't help but think that in a lot of countries I grew up as being labeled 3rd world/developing countries the infrastructure is of significantly better quality.
So sometimes I am not sure how much of the US is (in parts) a developing country in disguise?
And from 1st hand experience I can only say that I have to come to that conclusion for parts of Germany (where I am from and living). There are big-ish areas in Germany where you can't call emergency services from a mobile phone as there is not one carrier servicing these areas. If you happen to have an emergency there - good luck.
But as only a few people live there it doesn't make economic sense to service these areas and build the necessary infrastructure for the service provider companies. So these areas go unserved.
So sometimes I am not sure how much of the US is (in parts) a developing country in disguise?
And from 1st hand experience I can only say that I have to come to that conclusion for parts of Germany (where I am from and living). There are big-ish areas in Germany where you can't call emergency services from a mobile phone as there is not one carrier servicing these areas. If you happen to have an emergency there - good luck.
But as only a few people live there it doesn't make economic sense to service these areas and build the necessary infrastructure for the service provider companies. So these areas go unserved.
To be fair, Germany is Europe's worst offender when it comes to digital infrastructure, which is laughable for Europe's richest country.
Even poor Eastern European villages do better sometimes.
Even poor Eastern European villages do better sometimes.
I did not want to punch the easy target with digital infrastructure.
Our 100 MBit includes satellite TV and telephone flatrate for 30 € per month. Still not in the range of other countries, but at least significantly cheaper than the big players in Germany.
It is provided by our municipal telephone, gas, electricity provider. With really good customer service thrown in (compared to the crap of the big corporations at least)
Our 100 MBit includes satellite TV and telephone flatrate for 30 € per month. Still not in the range of other countries, but at least significantly cheaper than the big players in Germany.
It is provided by our municipal telephone, gas, electricity provider. With really good customer service thrown in (compared to the crap of the big corporations at least)
Germany 100 mbps 46.92 $
Ukraine 100 mbps 6.19 $
Romania 1 Gbps 8.84 $
Ukraine 1 Gbps 10.11 $
10 * (46.92 / 8.84) = 53
population Germany vs Romania:
83.24 m / 19.2 m = 4.34
size:
357.386 km2 / 238.397 km2 = 1.5
/* Insert economy of scale joke here */
Ukraine 100 mbps 6.19 $
Romania 1 Gbps 8.84 $
Ukraine 1 Gbps 10.11 $
10 * (46.92 / 8.84) = 53
population Germany vs Romania:
83.24 m / 19.2 m = 4.34
size:
357.386 km2 / 238.397 km2 = 1.5
/* Insert economy of scale joke here */
>Insert economy of scale joke here
More like German political corruption that guarantees telecoms' monopolies to milk customers with expensive shitty offers, rather than a free market with healthy competition like in Eastern Europe.
Also, didn't some German politician say "There's no way to make money with the internet so why bother with infrastructure investments?" LMAO
More like German political corruption that guarantees telecoms' monopolies to milk customers with expensive shitty offers, rather than a free market with healthy competition like in Eastern Europe.
Also, didn't some German politician say "There's no way to make money with the internet so why bother with infrastructure investments?" LMAO
I find it a fascinating sector and like to compare it to drinking water, electricity, sewage, roads, trains, dykes, rivers etc that all require enormous mind boggling contraptions that we managed to successfully plan, build and use at affordable rates. I'm sort of offended that people seem to have forgotten what an accomplishment our ancestors made there.
These defenses based on how technology has improved are weak and hollow. Is the suggestion that technology would not have improved as quickly if quality of life had remained the same?
Single worker households, healthcare, education, home prices, etc. being what they were in the 1970s would’ve prevented LED TVs and iPhones? Really?
Single worker households, healthcare, education, home prices, etc. being what they were in the 1970s would’ve prevented LED TVs and iPhones? Really?
Pointing out that technology has improved drastically in response to an article making the specific, absurd claims that (i) that improvement can be quantified as $137.13 and (ii) actually that's generous because imported technology made is of significantly lower quality to US-made 1970s tech is not a weak and hollow response, though it wasn't exactly the focus of my response
A weak and hollow response would be defending that absurdity by constructing a straw man to attack me with (ignoring what I actually said about welfare policies, which is that they have little to do with globalization).
A weak and hollow response would be defending that absurdity by constructing a straw man to attack me with (ignoring what I actually said about welfare policies, which is that they have little to do with globalization).
Are real wages measured by computers and TVs?
Lets try, just to be sure? If I earn 1500 euro per month and pay 1100 worth of bills. I need a new computer and a new TV every 5 years or so. I have 400 left for food etc so saving more than 50 per month would be unreasonable. How much money do I have saved up after 5 years? 50125=3000! Should be enough for a modern computer. For comparison, doing the same job in 1985, earnings: 4500 guilders bills: 450. where 1 euro == 2.2 guilders. I set aside 3000 per month for the TV&PC. 3000125=180000 or 81818 euro. Hummm... Lets adjust that by 50% for possible inaccuracies(?) 40 000 vs 3000 seems like it wouldn't bother me if the TV&PC was 2, 3 or 13 times as expensive?
I could be wrong of course but it seems to me consumer electronics need to be so cheap because people don't have money.
I could be wrong of course but it seems to me consumer electronics need to be so cheap because people don't have money.
Does this have anything to do with either of the points I'd made in the above posts about the crudeness of conflating financialization and globalization or the author's claims about the superiority of 70s consumer goods? Are you GPT-3?
Also, the article author thinks that U.S. borders can be hermetically sealed. Even if American companies were to recreate all those companies, and rehire all the people, China will still be able to make TVs, Computers and Phones at one-fifth of the price.
How does he propose stopping those goods from entering the U.S. if the U.S. (presumably) wants to export to those countries?
My cheap Chinese-made Android phone is a remarkable piece of work. Not junk for sure.
How does he propose stopping those goods from entering the U.S. if the U.S. (presumably) wants to export to those countries?
My cheap Chinese-made Android phone is a remarkable piece of work. Not junk for sure.
>anyone who has visited an electronics store
Great, now do rent. Healthcare. Education.
But hey at least we have iPhones with 73 cameras and cutting-edge CPUs which we use to browse instagram.
Great, now do rent. Healthcare. Education.
But hey at least we have iPhones with 73 cameras and cutting-edge CPUs which we use to browse instagram.
Funny, access to healthcare and education don’t seem to be big deals in most of the developed world. I wonder why the US needs to be an exception? I don’t think the answer is financialization and globalization, but rather the aggressive privatization of healthcare and education. That seems like it’d be a problem whether or not the US was economically connected to the rest of the world.
The funny thing is you've picked three sectors that aren't even exposed to globalization! People don't compete globally for American homes or healthcare (and wealthy foreigners actually subsidize schools). The rise in cost is a result of cost disease. Americans now live in houses that are 150% larger than in 1980, with fewer people living in each home. And overall many cities are not building enough of them.
Your logic is exactly the wrong way around. If Americans could consume global education or healthcare it'd be much cheaper, the same way everything else has gotten cheaper. Let Asian construction firms actually built some homes in California instead of stopping everyone from doing that and you'd be surprised how affordable your housing is going to be.
Right now in the US you can't even buy health insurance across state lines. not only is that not a global market, it's not even a national market! The three sectors uniquely shielded from global as well as local competition are the ones that have exploded in cost. That is a lot of things, but surely not an argument against more open markets.
Your logic is exactly the wrong way around. If Americans could consume global education or healthcare it'd be much cheaper, the same way everything else has gotten cheaper. Let Asian construction firms actually built some homes in California instead of stopping everyone from doing that and you'd be surprised how affordable your housing is going to be.
Right now in the US you can't even buy health insurance across state lines. not only is that not a global market, it's not even a national market! The three sectors uniquely shielded from global as well as local competition are the ones that have exploded in cost. That is a lot of things, but surely not an argument against more open markets.
Maybe it's the other way around: rent, healthcare, education haven't benefitted as much from globalization as electronics. Rent is based on local supply, not cheap china factories churning out cheap housing. Same for healthcare, mostly limited by local wages. Same for education, mostly limited by local wages.
Image no globalization for electronics as well, it'd be as unafordable as the other 3 today.
Image no globalization for electronics as well, it'd be as unafordable as the other 3 today.
> I always find it funny how anyone can think globalization hasn't drastically improved the world we live in.
Have you been to Detroit?
Have you been to Detroit?
> I don't know which 70s the author grew up in but I don't think a minimum wage worker had a pristine supercomputer in their pocket and a big flatscreen tv on the wall.
But they might have had available healthcare, education, pension and ability to afford a place to live. You could say losing all those for tvs (that are just ad delivery mechanisms people have been duped into paying for) and smartphones (that are mostly ad delivery mechanisms people have been duped into paying for) is a good trade, but a lot of people seems to disagree.
But they might have had available healthcare, education, pension and ability to afford a place to live. You could say losing all those for tvs (that are just ad delivery mechanisms people have been duped into paying for) and smartphones (that are mostly ad delivery mechanisms people have been duped into paying for) is a good trade, but a lot of people seems to disagree.
"B-b-but wait, didn't we all save a fortune on cheap jeans and TVs? No, you lost on that, too, as every product was crapified by globalization"
Cites no sources other than his own blog post in which he rants about the IRS (and also doesn't cite any sources).
Cites no sources other than his own blog post in which he rants about the IRS (and also doesn't cite any sources).
This is just an extremely poorly informed rant. It's premised on a zero-sum view of economics, where any change in distribution is necessarily a loss for some and a gain for others. And a view that the shape of the distribution, rather than its height, is the only factor in quality of life.
These are both profoundly misguided. In the last several decades QoL has improved dramatically, as has the amount of disposable income available to every household: the distribution is higher. And the main reason for increasing inequality in the distribution, is the rate of investment returns... ie., different rates of gain -- not money being "stolen".
These are both profoundly misguided. In the last several decades QoL has improved dramatically, as has the amount of disposable income available to every household: the distribution is higher. And the main reason for increasing inequality in the distribution, is the rate of investment returns... ie., different rates of gain -- not money being "stolen".
The main point is the productivity/production has been shifted elsewhere. Once upon a time if you wanted to be wealthy, you had to produce physical stuff. Today you just find somewhere else in the world where people are forced to produce for pennies and you make them produce cheap crap for you, while the west does a lot less production than its potential and mostly just reaps the benefits.
But the problem is not that production was mostly removed as the enabler to buy stuff. The real huge problem in the last 45 years is that the constraints on financing were removed.
Once upon a time in order to buy cheap labor from another country, you had to pay with something physical, probably something you actually produced. Today you can just punch a key on your keyboard and give them extra numbers that are backed by nothing really, there is no need to produce anymore.
When the only constraint on production is to find more fools to produce for you, eventually you run out of fools.
But the problem is not that production was mostly removed as the enabler to buy stuff. The real huge problem in the last 45 years is that the constraints on financing were removed.
Once upon a time in order to buy cheap labor from another country, you had to pay with something physical, probably something you actually produced. Today you can just punch a key on your keyboard and give them extra numbers that are backed by nothing really, there is no need to produce anymore.
When the only constraint on production is to find more fools to produce for you, eventually you run out of fools.
"The main point is the productivity/production has been shifted elsewhere. Once upon a time if you wanted to be wealthy, you had to produce physical stuff. Today you just find somewhere else in the world where people are forced to produce for pennies and you make them produce cheap crap for you, while the west does a lot less production than its potential and mostly just reaps the benefits."
This just isn't true. People were wealthy slave owners and got rich because you had forced labor. You didn't even have to pay them pennies. We have a long history of unpaid labor, globally, and the fact that we still have low-and-unpaid labor shouldn't be a surprise (even if we find it wrong now). Lawyers have been somewhat well-to-do for some generations now, alongside other things you had to go off to college for, and I'm not sure they produced anything either. Perhaps not in the US, but churches were freaking wealthy at one time too, and I can't really think of things they consistently produced either. Same for royals: They didn't directly produce anything.
This just isn't true. People were wealthy slave owners and got rich because you had forced labor. You didn't even have to pay them pennies. We have a long history of unpaid labor, globally, and the fact that we still have low-and-unpaid labor shouldn't be a surprise (even if we find it wrong now). Lawyers have been somewhat well-to-do for some generations now, alongside other things you had to go off to college for, and I'm not sure they produced anything either. Perhaps not in the US, but churches were freaking wealthy at one time too, and I can't really think of things they consistently produced either. Same for royals: They didn't directly produce anything.
Taking away someone else’s best option rarely leaves that person better off (especially in the short-run)
How would you counter someone who argues that given hedonic adaptation, they'll be roughly as happy regardless of QoL as long as their base needs are met.
I think the only people who get angry at the shape of the distribution are those who get angry at the shape of the distribution.
In other words, envy towards "the better off" is not a general feature of human experience. It is of some, but not all. One of the cultural triumphs of the west has been, somehow who knows, to mitigate envy (ie., hostility towards those who have more).
So that most people today think "I'm grateful that I can do xyz, who cares that Musk can do o,p,q".
People who write articles like this are the people "on the (envy) treadmill", and this isnt a cheap attack: they really are suffering! For them, it is a daily stress to see others have more.
Society should do more to understand how this comes about, and what can be done to ameliorate this issue. It seems most acute in the "almost rich", i'm guessing because the condition of being rich seems available, but they cant get it. Whereas poorer people don't even think its an option.
Given the amount of such possible "elites" we are producing today, who will never be elite, this is a politically unstable situation.
In other words, envy towards "the better off" is not a general feature of human experience. It is of some, but not all. One of the cultural triumphs of the west has been, somehow who knows, to mitigate envy (ie., hostility towards those who have more).
So that most people today think "I'm grateful that I can do xyz, who cares that Musk can do o,p,q".
People who write articles like this are the people "on the (envy) treadmill", and this isnt a cheap attack: they really are suffering! For them, it is a daily stress to see others have more.
Society should do more to understand how this comes about, and what can be done to ameliorate this issue. It seems most acute in the "almost rich", i'm guessing because the condition of being rich seems available, but they cant get it. Whereas poorer people don't even think its an option.
Given the amount of such possible "elites" we are producing today, who will never be elite, this is a politically unstable situation.
It’s not about me (relatively wealthy denizen of HN) but people choosing between food and rent. It bothers me that some people are in this situation whilst others have so much wealth that they never have to work a day, if they choose to. I don’t mind some inequality, but I think don’t think we should tolerate such a low floor when the ceiling is so high.
Take the wealth of all those richer people and divide it amongst everyone -- now we all have the problems of the poor; and no one around to help (invest, etc.).
If the top 0.1% of people own more wealth than the bottom 80%, then dividing it up would have a huge impact - not that I am proposing this anyway.
This is a net-worth calculation, not an income-based on. To see the flaw in this, note that if you liquidate all the wealth of the "top 0.1%" you can do that once, and no more.
All the billionaires in the world hold enough assets all together to pay for c. 6mo of healthcare across the EU. So in that one-time liquidation, you get 6mo of one social service for one medium-sized continent.
Sure, it's an impressive amount for a few thousand individuals to hold. More impressive, I'd say, is the net output of those few thousand individuals (ie., the 1000s of industrial bets they make which increases wealth for everyone over the long-run).
Wealth statistics are often quoted to deliberately outrage the status-anxious; if it really were teh case that 0.1% of people could somehow fund lives for 80%, they'd be a revolution overnight.
All the billionaires in the world hold enough assets all together to pay for c. 6mo of healthcare across the EU. So in that one-time liquidation, you get 6mo of one social service for one medium-sized continent.
Sure, it's an impressive amount for a few thousand individuals to hold. More impressive, I'd say, is the net output of those few thousand individuals (ie., the 1000s of industrial bets they make which increases wealth for everyone over the long-run).
Wealth statistics are often quoted to deliberately outrage the status-anxious; if it really were teh case that 0.1% of people could somehow fund lives for 80%, they'd be a revolution overnight.
S&P 500 index averages 8% return per year so assets and income are not so easily separated.
It would certainly have an immediate impact in the short term, but in the longer term?
Income inequality has risen dramatically since the onset of modern neoliberal financialised capitalism. Even though workers produce more, their wages have been stagnant or receding in real terms for the last 40-50 years. Nearly all of the gains have went only to a very small percentage of people. Even though value is created by all, it's appropriated by less and less people, in a more and more skewed distribution. And your argument is "yall just jealous lol"? People just want what's theirs.
When the wealthiest country in world history has 1 in 6 children living in poverty, I really think you ought to look at yourself in the mirror when you talk about "envy".
When the wealthiest country in world history has 1 in 6 children living in poverty, I really think you ought to look at yourself in the mirror when you talk about "envy".
Wealth inequality is inherently dangerous because wealth is power, and power inequality tends to reinforce itself. As the Bible puts it: "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." dredmorbius posted a good comment on this a few months ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28509465
The unspoken flip side of the World Economic Forum's "You'll Own Nothing" campaign is "...And We'll Own Everything."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28509465
The unspoken flip side of the World Economic Forum's "You'll Own Nothing" campaign is "...And We'll Own Everything."
Research has largely shown this theory to be false.
Recent one: https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/money-matters-to-happiness-...
Recent one: https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/money-matters-to-happiness-...
This does not agree with my experience of the world. Where is this research?
--edit-- Ok, you edited in a link. Do you have like a metanalysis or something? Individual studies, especially in psychology with its myriad quality problems[1], are hard to take at face value without context.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
--edit-- Ok, you edited in a link. Do you have like a metanalysis or something? Individual studies, especially in psychology with its myriad quality problems[1], are hard to take at face value without context.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
The study I linked references many prior studies. I agree with you regarding the quality problems of psychology, but this is unfortunately what we have to work with.
What do you think is the gold standard study supporting hedonic adaptation over large populations? At least the studies referenced on Wikipedia don’t seem to be particularly supportive of the idea.
I suspect that this is a comforting idea that people like to believe, but not actually something supported by data.
What do you think is the gold standard study supporting hedonic adaptation over large populations? At least the studies referenced on Wikipedia don’t seem to be particularly supportive of the idea.
I suspect that this is a comforting idea that people like to believe, but not actually something supported by data.
I'm not sure subjective experience is something that can be empirically studied in a meaningful way.
The fact that you are asking someone how they feel makes them feel different to how they would have felt if you didn't ask, and how you pose the question impacts the answer as well.
This is effect is so profound it's used in therapy. A therapist may have you note how you feel at points during the day, and the act of doing so changes how you feel.
This combination of observer effect and suggestion is really hard to avoid even if you try, it's very easy to manufacture results based on how you phrase the question.
The fact that you are asking someone how they feel makes them feel different to how they would have felt if you didn't ask, and how you pose the question impacts the answer as well.
This is effect is so profound it's used in therapy. A therapist may have you note how you feel at points during the day, and the act of doing so changes how you feel.
This combination of observer effect and suggestion is really hard to avoid even if you try, it's very easy to manufacture results based on how you phrase the question.
Probably the most recent one https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2016976118
In my experience this is obviously true.
In my experience this is obviously true.
Let me provide an alternative reading of that data:
People who have a positive outset are more likable and more likely to have successful careers, whereas people who are depressed are more likely to neglect their jobs and relations and as as a result will struggle economically.
People who have a positive outset are more likable and more likely to have successful careers, whereas people who are depressed are more likely to neglect their jobs and relations and as as a result will struggle economically.
So lets study lottery winners instead :)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01676...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01676...
You can't just throw out abstracts like some sort of pokemon and think they'll convince anyone.
See “view PDF” at the top or alternatively visit through sci-hub, but I think you already know all that.
Edit since you rewrote your comment: I’m sorry if these studies aren’t convincing to you, I’m still waiting to see one supporting your point of view.
Edit since you rewrote your comment: I’m sorry if these studies aren’t convincing to you, I’m still waiting to see one supporting your point of view.
I'm not in academia, I only get the option of purchasing the PDF.
In general I don't think abstracts and studies are particularly convincing, given the field is infamous for its quality problems. I can't in good faith argue like that.
In general I don't think abstracts and studies are particularly convincing, given the field is infamous for its quality problems. I can't in good faith argue like that.
But you know that sci-hub exists, no?
Sorry if I’m wrong, but you’re on HN and seem pretty technically oriented.
Sorry if I’m wrong, but you’re on HN and seem pretty technically oriented.
Ok, I read the study. They're measuring stress, and not happiness. I'm not contending that it's more stressful to be poor, but I will argue from personal experience with both that wealth creates a sense of ennui.
Here is my experience and why I believe some level of "optimal income" exists:
A. You start your life at this level based on what life your family can afford. You can't control it, you can just adapt. You get used to it and that is your base level. You have some "needs" that were not possible at this level and this is your ambition level.
B. Depending on a lot of factors you can go in any direction from level A. If you have a lot of motivation - you will work hard and if you are lucky - you will get to higher levels, if not - you can even degrade compared to the level your parents are in. Most of the things that you dreamed of as a child will not be at the billionaire level. Probably most things will be at the level C, which is slightly higher than what your parents had (depends on a lot of factors like your character etc.)
C. This is the level where you probably fulfilled all your child dreams and wants. You can afford everything your parents could + something on top of it. This is usually the easiest level to get to - you can get here by exploiting tools of level B given to you by your parents + smart work from your side. While you fulfil your child dreams you start become smarter as well and some of the crazy child dreams, which seemed genius (buy 100 Lego boxes and build the most epic Star Wars fleet among my friends) now seem irrelevant and is not worth the resources. If you haven't reached level C - additional resources will bring you happiness doesn't matter if this level is at 75000 or 1M. If you reached it you have a decision to make.
D. Next level after C. It is much more harder and riskier to reach it. You might need to sacrifice your family, time and life to reach it. But all your basic wants and needs are met. So now you face a few great options:
1. You can keep increasing your needs and now your level C becomes your level B and D becomes your new level C. This comes with the risk to lose your ground at the level C and get back to Level B or lower. You become unhappy again before you reach your new level C.
2. You can stop raising your needs, give it some time and/or hard work and cement your position at level C. Diversify, deleverage, lower risk profile etc. This works toward your feeling of security, which increases happiness, but not to the extent of new needs.
3. You can do #1+#2 and reach level #2 faster with higher risk.
As you can see at the level D you are looking for a mindset change. Before that you had a clear goal of "why do I need more money", but when you are at the level D you have to come up with new goals. This is the most exciting place to be in my mind.
See Anton Kreil's "Build and Own Your Own Infrastructure" - this talk changed my perspective on my personal financial goals.
A. You start your life at this level based on what life your family can afford. You can't control it, you can just adapt. You get used to it and that is your base level. You have some "needs" that were not possible at this level and this is your ambition level.
B. Depending on a lot of factors you can go in any direction from level A. If you have a lot of motivation - you will work hard and if you are lucky - you will get to higher levels, if not - you can even degrade compared to the level your parents are in. Most of the things that you dreamed of as a child will not be at the billionaire level. Probably most things will be at the level C, which is slightly higher than what your parents had (depends on a lot of factors like your character etc.)
C. This is the level where you probably fulfilled all your child dreams and wants. You can afford everything your parents could + something on top of it. This is usually the easiest level to get to - you can get here by exploiting tools of level B given to you by your parents + smart work from your side. While you fulfil your child dreams you start become smarter as well and some of the crazy child dreams, which seemed genius (buy 100 Lego boxes and build the most epic Star Wars fleet among my friends) now seem irrelevant and is not worth the resources. If you haven't reached level C - additional resources will bring you happiness doesn't matter if this level is at 75000 or 1M. If you reached it you have a decision to make.
D. Next level after C. It is much more harder and riskier to reach it. You might need to sacrifice your family, time and life to reach it. But all your basic wants and needs are met. So now you face a few great options:
1. You can keep increasing your needs and now your level C becomes your level B and D becomes your new level C. This comes with the risk to lose your ground at the level C and get back to Level B or lower. You become unhappy again before you reach your new level C.
2. You can stop raising your needs, give it some time and/or hard work and cement your position at level C. Diversify, deleverage, lower risk profile etc. This works toward your feeling of security, which increases happiness, but not to the extent of new needs.
3. You can do #1+#2 and reach level #2 faster with higher risk.
As you can see at the level D you are looking for a mindset change. Before that you had a clear goal of "why do I need more money", but when you are at the level D you have to come up with new goals. This is the most exciting place to be in my mind.
See Anton Kreil's "Build and Own Your Own Infrastructure" - this talk changed my perspective on my personal financial goals.
>>given hedonic adaptation, they'll be roughly as happy
>>Research has largely shown this theory to be false.
The research you link does NOT show that, it looks at a link between log(income) to happiness level.
1. It says nothing about hedonic adaptation as it does not take into account how long the person has been receiving that income. How their happiness shifted over time relative to income.
2. It does find a link between log(income) and happiness. If anything, given that happiness likely relies on multiple factors, and that the relationship is log, i.e. diminishing returns. It suggests a weakening link as income increases.
>>Research has largely shown this theory to be false.
The research you link does NOT show that, it looks at a link between log(income) to happiness level.
1. It says nothing about hedonic adaptation as it does not take into account how long the person has been receiving that income. How their happiness shifted over time relative to income.
2. It does find a link between log(income) and happiness. If anything, given that happiness likely relies on multiple factors, and that the relationship is log, i.e. diminishing returns. It suggests a weakening link as income increases.
Happiness isn't the be all and end all. Even if that is true we should take actions that make life objectively better - doing things that increase lifespans, health, leisure, safety, etc.
Why should we objectively improve life when life is subjectively experienced?
Why shouldn't we? If we start by assuming that happiness naturally tends to some constant level, then the obvious thing to do is use something other than happiness not make decisions. Material outcomes are easy to coordinate around.
Right, but shouldn't society cater to the humans that live in it, rather than demonstrably incorrect mathematical models of the same humans?
Hmm. Nice rant against the meta financial products with which i kind of agree.
But his appliance example... let's put $500 from 1975 into an inflation calculator. Oops, they're worth $2600 ish 2022 dollars. Versus the $400 cheap option.
Edit: also globalization will stay no matter how protectionist the state is. In the black market.
But his appliance example... let's put $500 from 1975 into an inflation calculator. Oops, they're worth $2600 ish 2022 dollars. Versus the $400 cheap option.
Edit: also globalization will stay no matter how protectionist the state is. In the black market.
I'll recycle a comment I made in another thread a few years ago:
When clearing out my grandmother's house a few years ago, my uncle and I almost broke our backs trying to get the freezer out. It felt like it weighed a ton, even empty. My grandmother told us it had been a wedding present, and that they had been totally awestruck at the time at the generous present from her parents-in-law. After all, a decent freezer cost at least 2,000 kroner! (At this time, the average yearly gross pay was just in excess of 7,000 kroner.) My grandparents married in 1950. Since then, monetary value has been reduced twenty-fold. You can still buy a top-loading freezer for 2,000 kroner; I just checked. So - in 1950, you had to work for five months to earn money for a freezer (after taxes.) In 2017, I have to work one day for a freezer (after taxes.)
When clearing out my grandmother's house a few years ago, my uncle and I almost broke our backs trying to get the freezer out. It felt like it weighed a ton, even empty. My grandmother told us it had been a wedding present, and that they had been totally awestruck at the time at the generous present from her parents-in-law. After all, a decent freezer cost at least 2,000 kroner! (At this time, the average yearly gross pay was just in excess of 7,000 kroner.) My grandparents married in 1950. Since then, monetary value has been reduced twenty-fold. You can still buy a top-loading freezer for 2,000 kroner; I just checked. So - in 1950, you had to work for five months to earn money for a freezer (after taxes.) In 2017, I have to work one day for a freezer (after taxes.)
Globalization is the new slavery. Once upon a time you force-brought cheap labor to work on your plantation and paid them with food basically. Today the slaves do their work in China and you pay them with printed dollars backed by nothing.
Yeah those poor slaves queueing at Foxconn's gates to get a job assembling iphones for the evil american consumer. Because it pays a lot more than tending the rice fields like their parents.
Just for the record, I'm eastern european and slaving for the evil american tech firms ;)
Just for the record, I'm eastern european and slaving for the evil american tech firms ;)
>Yeah those poor slaves queueing at Foxconn's gates to get a job assembling iphones for the evil american consumer. Because it pays a lot more than tending the rice fields like their parents.
Unironically yes? Do you claim those people are making choices of their own free will? When they have no other option? They can't even change their government for christs sake, how can it be claimed they are engaging in a "free" market?
You are very privileged that you can work from your bedroom and get a nice salary while living in a low cost of living area. Don't forget that, when you talk about how sweet those assembly line jobs are.
Unironically yes? Do you claim those people are making choices of their own free will? When they have no other option? They can't even change their government for christs sake, how can it be claimed they are engaging in a "free" market?
You are very privileged that you can work from your bedroom and get a nice salary while living in a low cost of living area. Don't forget that, when you talk about how sweet those assembly line jobs are.
But they are better jobs and they are voluntary employees. That’s pretty much by definition not slavery.
Sure, nobody is putting a gun to your head, but if Foxconn being the only employer in the city and the other alternative is starving homeless, does it still count as having a choice?
Maybe if we're being pedantic, but realistically that's modern economic slavery.
Maybe if we're being pedantic, but realistically that's modern economic slavery.
> if Foxconn being the only employer in the city
As far as i know Foxconn factories are cities. You don't look for a Foxconn ad in your city, you get on the train and relocate there.
Wikipedia says: Number of employees 1,290,000 (2020).
The largest Foxconn factory is located in Longhua Town, Shenzhen, where hundreds of thousands of workers (varying counts include 230,000, 300,000, and 450,000).
[I live in a 400k city.]
Another Foxconn factory "city" is located at Zhengzhou Technology Park in Zhengzhou, Henan province, where a reported 120,000 workers are employed as of 2012.
As far as i know Foxconn factories are cities. You don't look for a Foxconn ad in your city, you get on the train and relocate there.
Wikipedia says: Number of employees 1,290,000 (2020).
The largest Foxconn factory is located in Longhua Town, Shenzhen, where hundreds of thousands of workers (varying counts include 230,000, 300,000, and 450,000).
[I live in a 400k city.]
Another Foxconn factory "city" is located at Zhengzhou Technology Park in Zhengzhou, Henan province, where a reported 120,000 workers are employed as of 2012.
Its simple really, they might be happy with their job, we are not.
> Do you claim those people are making choices of their own free will?
Yes.
> When they have no other option?
Peasant's life was the other option.
> They can't even change their government for christs sake
And you can? I mean, beyond replacing a psychopath for another...
Yes.
> When they have no other option?
Peasant's life was the other option.
> They can't even change their government for christs sake
And you can? I mean, beyond replacing a psychopath for another...
Does the place where you work have so many suicides it installed nets, like Foxconn?
> Does the place where you work have so many suicides it installed nets, like Foxconn?
Research the thing. Back when the suicide "scandal" made the news, Foxconn had over 1 M employees. The suicide rate was actually lower than the average suicide rate in China. But since they had so many people, some of them were statistically bound to suicide for... whatever reasons people suicide for.
Research the thing. Back when the suicide "scandal" made the news, Foxconn had over 1 M employees. The suicide rate was actually lower than the average suicide rate in China. But since they had so many people, some of them were statistically bound to suicide for... whatever reasons people suicide for.
Except it’s not slavery, which is in fact the key difference.
It has a new name these days.
If you put it like that, isn't having to stay employed with a large corp because otherwise you wouldn't be able to get decent health insurance terms slavery?
How about tying green cards to a specific job so the people holding them have no negotiation power and their salaries stay low?
How about tying green cards to a specific job so the people holding them have no negotiation power and their salaries stay low?
Spoken like someone who as never met a Chinese factory worker before. Today's Foxconn workers have much more comfortable lives than their parents who were working a factories making low quality trinkets. The generation before that were largely peasants who lived through famine.
>printed dollars backed by nothing
If it were backed by nothing they wouldn't accept it. Money can be exchanged for goods and services. China is receiving more steel, oil, and pork than ever by exchanging it with dollars.
>printed dollars backed by nothing
If it were backed by nothing they wouldn't accept it. Money can be exchanged for goods and services. China is receiving more steel, oil, and pork than ever by exchanging it with dollars.
So Mercantilism would be preferable? No more importing anything, just using local resources locally? Maybe for USA just do away with inter-state commerce too. Can't have that ruin things, locally produced and build food, shelter and clothing. By own hands.
That is not what the article said. It would be preferable to produce real physical stuff everywhere in the world. Instead of using printed money to avoid production and still being able to buy everything someone else produced for you.
If you produce real things, and you have excess, you can use that excess to trade with other countries/states that have excess. But the USA for at least 30 years had a deficit, covered by debt, covered by printed dollars. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOPGSTB
If you produce real things, and you have excess, you can use that excess to trade with other countries/states that have excess. But the USA for at least 30 years had a deficit, covered by debt, covered by printed dollars. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOPGSTB
What about services?
Once upon a time you had services, a kid would clean your windows and filled the gas for you, a productive kid that could buy a house at 20yo.
Today at 30yo you are still living with your parents and services you receive are over-the-phone-from-another-country, and it takes about 20-30 phone calls to get something simple done.
Today at 30yo you are still living with your parents and services you receive are over-the-phone-from-another-country, and it takes about 20-30 phone calls to get something simple done.
the same has also been happening to services. see how outsourcing dev, support, creative work etc to the same or similar countries that took on physical production. While the service sector remains, it is more and more comprising of bullshit jobs with fancier and fancier ego nurturing titles.
the US still export a lot of services, those that people in developing countries don't seem able to offer yet. but the import/export balance isn't there. fill the gab with debt.
Crapification of stuff is good, you don't need a pair of jeans that lasts 400 years that you pass down to your grandchildren and most people don't want to save up for years (or take out financial products) to "invest" in furniture. The previous high quality of goods was a bug, not a feature.
When you consider that every pair of jeans, crappy or good, has a hidden cost of several gallons of burned diesel, several square meters of razed wildlands, and many kilos of natural resources that needed to be collected, processed, transported, reprocessed, re-transported, several times over, it's hard to call that a feature.
Think about all the cotton, then thread, then cloth, plus dye, plus metal, plus other thread for putting it together, all the transportation and machinery, all the manual labor in poor conditions, and so on, which go into that cheap pair of jeans. Now, consider that every time you buy a pair, you're voting for more of that to happen. Now, consider the environmental and habitat cost to us and the rest of the world contained in that one "cheap" pair of jeans.
I would not call that a feature.
Think about all the cotton, then thread, then cloth, plus dye, plus metal, plus other thread for putting it together, all the transportation and machinery, all the manual labor in poor conditions, and so on, which go into that cheap pair of jeans. Now, consider that every time you buy a pair, you're voting for more of that to happen. Now, consider the environmental and habitat cost to us and the rest of the world contained in that one "cheap" pair of jeans.
I would not call that a feature.
I can't believe I'm reading on this website, when the last drum of oil has been burnt shipping fast fashion and useless plastic junk across the world and the air is too thick with smoke to breathe, at least we'll know it was all for the best, for we got to swap jeans every 3 months rather than every 5 years.
Products getting cheaper and lower quality is a spiral I'm not sure how we are going to escape. As production "optimizes" for cost the first place they look at is wages. Low wage consumers look for the cheapest thing out there out of necessity.
Quality goods are very much a niche product these days. Economics of scale make them even more expensive than they otherwise would be. Even middle class consumers find it hard to swallow the price of a 200$ tshirt so they mostly buy Pakistan made 10$ ones, with all the environment, social, moral, etc, problems that come with that.
What's the alternative and how do we get there? I can't even begin to imagine.
Quality goods are very much a niche product these days. Economics of scale make them even more expensive than they otherwise would be. Even middle class consumers find it hard to swallow the price of a 200$ tshirt so they mostly buy Pakistan made 10$ ones, with all the environment, social, moral, etc, problems that come with that.
What's the alternative and how do we get there? I can't even begin to imagine.
The alternative is what we had 50 years ago, quality products, quality mindset, longer term thinking.
With how the corporations are set up today, it makes sense for them to reduce wages and quality to the minimum. Corporations only see the profit in the near term, and really don't care about the future of mankind on the long term all that much - those who do get crushed by competition.
There is some talk about faking it with ESG mandates, I personally doubt its anything more than lip service.
With how the corporations are set up today, it makes sense for them to reduce wages and quality to the minimum. Corporations only see the profit in the near term, and really don't care about the future of mankind on the long term all that much - those who do get crushed by competition.
There is some talk about faking it with ESG mandates, I personally doubt its anything more than lip service.
50 years ago would be 1972. In 1972 if you were filling up the gas tank of the best-selling vehicle you would be filling the gas tank of a VW Beetle with gasoline infused with a potent neuro-toxin. None of that screams quality or long-term thinking to me.
I don't think we had a "quality mindset" at the time. We were just limited in technology.
Example: Safety features make cars better quality, yet manufacturers haven't exactly lined up to implement them early. We didn't take arsenic fabrics off the market for... well, a long time. I don't know about you, but I expect a quality product not to poison me. We used to sell breads with additives in them if we could.
"Quality mindset" is just a scam of nostalgic thinking. The products were simply different back then.
Example: Safety features make cars better quality, yet manufacturers haven't exactly lined up to implement them early. We didn't take arsenic fabrics off the market for... well, a long time. I don't know about you, but I expect a quality product not to poison me. We used to sell breads with additives in them if we could.
"Quality mindset" is just a scam of nostalgic thinking. The products were simply different back then.
Really been chugging the survivorship bias kool-aid, haven’t we?
I would be more likely to buy a Ferrari before I’d buy a $200 T-shirt.
“I’ll trade you 2 T-shirts for a month of groceries for my household” seems utterly non-sensical to me.
0 - https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/finance/how-much-should-i...
“I’ll trade you 2 T-shirts for a month of groceries for my household” seems utterly non-sensical to me.
0 - https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/finance/how-much-should-i...
>Products getting cheaper and lower quality is a spiral I'm not sure how we are going to escape
This is an imaginary spiral. Well, except for the products getting cheaper. That is a good thing.
This is an imaginary spiral. Well, except for the products getting cheaper. That is a good thing.
I'm not at all sure that this is true beyond some very specific products. Clothing probably fits this model (modern "fast fashion" clothing is really cheap crap that will not last) but for most other products, things are getting both cheaper and higher quality.
Finance, like the democratic process, should be explainable to your average person.
If it can’t be explained, it is ripe for exploitation by ones who spend most of their time trying to find loopholes to get wealthy off of some esoteric financial instruments. Much like clever MMO doing their best to find bugs in the game and find things like duplication glitches.
If it can’t be explained it is going to create a new global papacy that we have to defer our earthly futures to in hopes that they will find the magic cure for our stagnating incomes.
Much of it can’t be explained and that’s why we can’t vote our way to a world that doesn’t give the wealthy and their foot soldiers an unfair advantage to use financial instrument tricks to gain vast amounts of on-paper-wealth that can then be used to repeat the process.
Even though this is a shoot from the hip blog it does point at the fact that while globalization has seemingly made some costs cheaper for wealthy westerners, it also made the ones who planned and executed this shift many times more money.
If it can’t be explained, it is ripe for exploitation by ones who spend most of their time trying to find loopholes to get wealthy off of some esoteric financial instruments. Much like clever MMO doing their best to find bugs in the game and find things like duplication glitches.
If it can’t be explained it is going to create a new global papacy that we have to defer our earthly futures to in hopes that they will find the magic cure for our stagnating incomes.
Much of it can’t be explained and that’s why we can’t vote our way to a world that doesn’t give the wealthy and their foot soldiers an unfair advantage to use financial instrument tricks to gain vast amounts of on-paper-wealth that can then be used to repeat the process.
Even though this is a shoot from the hip blog it does point at the fact that while globalization has seemingly made some costs cheaper for wealthy westerners, it also made the ones who planned and executed this shift many times more money.
I'm not sure that this is a great heuristic. Most of the financial instruments that, for example, were at the root of the 2007-9 financial crisis are relatively easy to explain (you can find innumerable articles providing explanations of what a CDO is that I believe the average person can understand quite easily).
> Even though this is a shoot from the hip blog it does point at the fact that while globalization has seemingly made some costs cheaper for wealthy westerners
Arguably the largest benefits of globalization has been the global poor and not wealthy westerners. In some cases this has come at the expense of the western middle and working class (who are ~85th percentile globally) in specific sectors, which is why I think it is so contentious in the west.
> Even though this is a shoot from the hip blog it does point at the fact that while globalization has seemingly made some costs cheaper for wealthy westerners
Arguably the largest benefits of globalization has been the global poor and not wealthy westerners. In some cases this has come at the expense of the western middle and working class (who are ~85th percentile globally) in specific sectors, which is why I think it is so contentious in the west.
This guy has a degree in "Comparative Philosophy" and thus this blog article should be viewed as such: philosophical rant
Geniuses in the party of Davos, not original people.
You may not like it, but this is what peak capitalism looks like
There's an idea about financialisation, which is just completely wrong: he notes companies are willing to pay $20 billion for a $10 billion company, after selling it off for its pieces, and noting no value has been added.
Typically the reverse happens, companies get merged for economies of scale, thereby adding value through efficiency.
Sometimes companies are broken up because the individual pieces don't work well together anymore and create strategic issues, e.g. because a company has two units moving into two different directions, and require completely different strategy, people, ideas, customers, financing approach etc. e.g. a newspaper company that has a journalist branch that produces news, and a factory branch that produces printed (news)paper. That may have worked before. But in a digital age, journalists want to focus on news, and paper printing businesses on paper printing. You can lose value by tying these companies together under one CEO, one strategy, one financing model. You can add value by disentangling, letting them focus on their core business.
The notion you can routinely magically just sell for 20 billion, what you purchased for 10, without adding value, is I hope obviously nonsense.
Then there's a whole piece on globalisation... again, not sure where to start. The big claim is it reduces quality and this is a net loss for everyone, and that second, personal income has been dropping for decades. In reality, quality changes are well studied and part of inflation data, and personal income after inflation adjustment has been increasing for decades. [0]
[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RPI