Americans think the American dream is dying(axios.com)
axios.com
Americans think the American dream is dying
https://www.axios.com/2023/11/25/american-dream-poll-wealth-inequality
121 comments
I used to think like this that it was a self-inflicted American thing. After talking with a number of Europeans, Australias, etc it seems to be a broad problem in most westernized countries.
If it were purely some single thing or circumstance of politics it should be less widespread. There’s clearly some structural issue in western societies. It’s still possibly self-inflicted but not by a simple reason like lack of supply.
Why would multiple Western & European countries have this same lack of supply? Is there a conflict of western values and an ideal of owning a home at all an issue with our population levels? Do our changing morals and increasing self centered-ness in our cultures lead our democracies to stall home building? I think we need more questions like these.
If it were purely some single thing or circumstance of politics it should be less widespread. There’s clearly some structural issue in western societies. It’s still possibly self-inflicted but not by a simple reason like lack of supply.
Why would multiple Western & European countries have this same lack of supply? Is there a conflict of western values and an ideal of owning a home at all an issue with our population levels? Do our changing morals and increasing self centered-ness in our cultures lead our democracies to stall home building? I think we need more questions like these.
> It’s still possibly self-inflicted but not by a simple reason like lack of supply.
No, it's exactly that. It's just that pretty much all the Western countries put in a bunch of regulations that made it harder to build things. These were for nominally good reasons -- protecting the environment, not running roughshod over local interests, not putting in 'nuisance' properties/buildings, etc. -- but the end result is that the pendulum swung too far in the other direction and it got super hard to build.
Ask developers or even random people who try to build a new house or expand on their existing house and you'll hear similar stories where even basic things are a nightmare bureaucracy seemingly aimed at killing your dreams.
Contrast that with Japan, where building is more straightforward, and even Tokyo rents aren't too crazy, not compared to the biggest Western cities.
No, it's exactly that. It's just that pretty much all the Western countries put in a bunch of regulations that made it harder to build things. These were for nominally good reasons -- protecting the environment, not running roughshod over local interests, not putting in 'nuisance' properties/buildings, etc. -- but the end result is that the pendulum swung too far in the other direction and it got super hard to build.
Ask developers or even random people who try to build a new house or expand on their existing house and you'll hear similar stories where even basic things are a nightmare bureaucracy seemingly aimed at killing your dreams.
Contrast that with Japan, where building is more straightforward, and even Tokyo rents aren't too crazy, not compared to the biggest Western cities.
> put in a bunch of regulations that made it harder to build things.
Is it regulations? Or is it home-owners and realtors voting against expanded housing projects?
The problem is if you build more houses, there's entire tranche of people whose "investments" will be worth less. And for some reason we're afraid to tell them it was a mistake.
Is it regulations? Or is it home-owners and realtors voting against expanded housing projects?
The problem is if you build more houses, there's entire tranche of people whose "investments" will be worth less. And for some reason we're afraid to tell them it was a mistake.
> Is it regulations? Or is it home-owners and realtors voting against expanded housing projects?
Those are the same thing. One is a motivation for the other.
Those are the same thing. One is a motivation for the other.
That's fair! I, probably unfairly, split up regulations and "regulations" based on who profits and why.
Japan/Tokyo is not a good example, or not equivalent, as they have a shrinking population.
At least in Australia, we haven't really had a housing crisis like this for a while. For whatever reason demand for housing spiked at the same time as the cost of materials and labour did, hence building is now incredibly expensive.
At least in Australia, we haven't really had a housing crisis like this for a while. For whatever reason demand for housing spiked at the same time as the cost of materials and labour did, hence building is now incredibly expensive.
> Japan/Tokyo is not a good example, or not equivalent, as they have a shrinking population.
It's a good example because Tokyo was still growing for a very long time and yet fairly had reasonable rents despite an enormous metro area population that's significantly larger than any Western city.
It's a good example because Tokyo was still growing for a very long time and yet fairly had reasonable rents despite an enormous metro area population that's significantly larger than any Western city.
It's hard not to blame rampant immigration since COVID for Australia's housing woes.
> If it were purely some single thing or circumstance of politics it should be less widespread. There’s clearly some structural issue in western societies. It’s still possibly self-inflicted but not by a simple reason like lack of supply.
It is due to ZIRP for the past 10 years[*] in the USD 800# gorilla of a currency / economic area. Due to a large financial system in the US and Western Europe the liquidity flows into the financial system create asset bubbles instead of downstream inflation, and due to financing that affects housing as well. Thanks to other policies like tax cuts for the rich the inflation is confined mostly to the financial sector and things-that-rich-people-buy more broadly with limited spillover into the 'real' economy and downstream wages.
[*] and falling rates and 2% inflation targeting ever since the 1980s.
It is due to ZIRP for the past 10 years[*] in the USD 800# gorilla of a currency / economic area. Due to a large financial system in the US and Western Europe the liquidity flows into the financial system create asset bubbles instead of downstream inflation, and due to financing that affects housing as well. Thanks to other policies like tax cuts for the rich the inflation is confined mostly to the financial sector and things-that-rich-people-buy more broadly with limited spillover into the 'real' economy and downstream wages.
[*] and falling rates and 2% inflation targeting ever since the 1980s.
There's of course a selection bias here. If you are talking to the subset of people who live in big cities, you are by definition talking to people who are spending money to compete with others for the privilege of living in scarce housing.
The faircloth amendment prohibits an increase in public housing stock. Granted amendments can be repealed, but “refusal” is a bit of an oversimplification in the public housing case, it’s literally banned.
How is that not exactly the kind of 'self-own' that I'm talking about? There's nothing technical or geographic that's stopping us here, it's literally just a law we ourselves passed to make the problem worse. The federal government could repeal it at any time but chooses not to.
Also, that's only for federal public housing IIRC, so cities/counties/states could still make their own public housing if they wanted to.
Also, that's only for federal public housing IIRC, so cities/counties/states could still make their own public housing if they wanted to.
Is public housing the main driver of lower housing prices in comparable economies?
I would have guessed that the HUD being unable to build more housing isn't helping us, but isn't the main reason that prices are skyrocketing in urban areas.
I would have guessed that the HUD being unable to build more housing isn't helping us, but isn't the main reason that prices are skyrocketing in urban areas.
Public housing is important, mostly because private housing growth contracts during economic slowdowns, and the delay in constructing new ones means an eventual crunch when the economy starts needing housing again. If the public housing pipeline is robust it can generate a more even supply.
> Is public housing the main driver of lower housing prices in comparable economies?
Most other Western countries seem to be suffering similar issues, with prices rising and various regulations making it hard to increase the supply of housing.
Vienna seems to be doing better as far as capital cities go, and it has a large amount of social/public housing.
That said, rents in Seoul and Tokyo are fairly reasonable given their size and national importance, and this seems to be because it's just a lot easier to make more housing.
Most other Western countries seem to be suffering similar issues, with prices rising and various regulations making it hard to increase the supply of housing.
Vienna seems to be doing better as far as capital cities go, and it has a large amount of social/public housing.
That said, rents in Seoul and Tokyo are fairly reasonable given their size and national importance, and this seems to be because it's just a lot easier to make more housing.
Rent in Seoul is good, but price to income is pretty bad, worse than SF. For some reason South Korea's flavor of property investment prefers rental income (as opposed to China, where a lot of invested property is not even finished let alone sublet)
Vienna has a bit of an advantage in that it has been below its population peak for the past hundred years (since the peak was before WWI when it was an imperial capital)
Vienna has a bit of an advantage in that it has been below its population peak for the past hundred years (since the peak was before WWI when it was an imperial capital)
It’s a prevention of increases above the existing levels that existed at the time of the Faircloth amendment. Pretty much all agencies are well below these levels in 2023.
My parents had it rough, being born in 1929, they didn't really have a "good year" until 1946, the first year after the war. Then, there was a small recession caused by the war ending which didn't clear until about 1949.
But, the house they lived in when they first married could be rented for $10 USD (in 1951 I think). The 50s allowed them to get a mortgage and get in a house of their own, and start the savings treadmill...
Minimum wage was $0.75 per hour ; so in terms of hourly work, the house could be rented for 13 hours of labor (excluding taxes). If you figure $1200/month for typical rent (this is low) that means the equivalent of earning $90-100 per hour in wages, or $180k-200K per year. Quite a difference!
But, the house they lived in when they first married could be rented for $10 USD (in 1951 I think). The 50s allowed them to get a mortgage and get in a house of their own, and start the savings treadmill...
Minimum wage was $0.75 per hour ; so in terms of hourly work, the house could be rented for 13 hours of labor (excluding taxes). If you figure $1200/month for typical rent (this is low) that means the equivalent of earning $90-100 per hour in wages, or $180k-200K per year. Quite a difference!
> But, the house they lived in when they first married could be rented for $10 USD (in 1951 I think). The 50s allowed them to get a mortgage and get in a house of their own, and start the savings treadmill...
> Minimum wage was $0.75 per hour
The general federal minimum wage didn't exist yet, that $0.75 cent minimum wage was for a limited subset of workers (basically, those either directly engaged in interstate commerce in the narrow sense or in manufacturing for it). When a broader minimum wage was introduced, it was at a lower rate than the then-current rate for that subset, as was also the case when the general minimum wage was introduced a fee years after that.
So. its misleading to compare the general federal minimum eage that exists today with the narrow one in 1951 as if they were equivalent in setting the floor for all labor.
> Minimum wage was $0.75 per hour
The general federal minimum wage didn't exist yet, that $0.75 cent minimum wage was for a limited subset of workers (basically, those either directly engaged in interstate commerce in the narrow sense or in manufacturing for it). When a broader minimum wage was introduced, it was at a lower rate than the then-current rate for that subset, as was also the case when the general minimum wage was introduced a fee years after that.
So. its misleading to compare the general federal minimum eage that exists today with the narrow one in 1951 as if they were equivalent in setting the floor for all labor.
I don't the know the number of hours in 1951 that make up a year's worth of work (today we use 2000 as the usual number of hours), but 1951 US Census data seems to approximately bear out what I wrote: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1952/demo/p60-01... :
"The average person's income was up by 10 percent between 1950 and 1951, according to estimates released today by Roy V. Peel, Director, Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce. For all persons 14 years old and over receiving any money income, the average (median) income was estimated at $2,200 in 1951 as compared with $2,000 in 1950. The median income of men, which has been rising steadily since the end of World War II, showed a record postwar gain in 1951. The 1951 median of $3,000 was about $400 above the 1950 estimate, and the proportion of men receiving incomes or $5,000 or more rose to 14 percent from 11 percent during the year."
"The average person's income was up by 10 percent between 1950 and 1951, according to estimates released today by Roy V. Peel, Director, Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce. For all persons 14 years old and over receiving any money income, the average (median) income was estimated at $2,200 in 1951 as compared with $2,000 in 1950. The median income of men, which has been rising steadily since the end of World War II, showed a record postwar gain in 1951. The 1951 median of $3,000 was about $400 above the 1950 estimate, and the proportion of men receiving incomes or $5,000 or more rose to 14 percent from 11 percent during the year."
The American Dream is not dying. It died decades ago.
Not sure it ever really existed given the high correlation of income with the income of someone's parents. When that is the primary driver of your success in life to claim the dream is still alive assumes that all the poor people deserve to be poor and none of them worked hard. Its always been a mirage to keep the existing structures in place to the benefit of the wealthiest and its getting worse.
The Australian dream of owning a house is dead in Australia.
Only rich people and corporations can afford to buy houses.
Only rich people and corporations can afford to buy houses.
its imho subtly worse... rich people, corporations, and children of older people who already own homes. There's a _lot_ of the last group, and its dividing society into two large segments with a widening gap in between, based on nothing but luck of who you were born to.
> its dividing society into two large segments with a widening gap in between, based on nothing but luck of who you were born to.
Same as it ever was.
Same as it ever was.
Sort of. True that throughout history, if you were born to the top very small % of ruling/landed class then you had it easy.
This is a much larger chunk of society though, perhaps ~50% that will be permanently generationally better off than the other 50%
It sounds like you've just made the case that today's society is significantly better off than previous ones.
I'm not sure it's dead. It's certainly under pressure, but here in Perth I can find a few hundred properties under $400k, and banks will lend a working couple both on full-time minimum wage over $400k. Yes, they'd have to find a deposit somewhere (though something like keystart can help with lower deposit requirements). Sure, not all of them are houses (a minority are), there are a lot of villas and apartments in there, not all are in the best areas etc. etc.
Perhaps we can say it's on life support here.
Over east may be a different story of course, which is probably why we have so many posts in the Perth subreddit about moving to Perth...
Perhaps we can say it's on life support here.
Over east may be a different story of course, which is probably why we have so many posts in the Perth subreddit about moving to Perth...
And from what I understand renters have little/no rights or recourse against greedy landlords (i.e. compared to most G7 countries) who can demand rent increases and/or toss out tenants for very little reason.
Same in New Zealand actually. As a longterm resident of Japan it would be cheaper to buy a brand new apartment in the middle of Tokyo than it would some damp hovel in Auckland.
Same in Canada also, and rent is ability the same. The number of formerly or currently middle class homeless people in the near future is going to be a sight to behold.
Could be good news for Japan if they allow for easier immigration.
Auckland is expensive partially due to immigration. Auckland region[1]:
Fabulous "Upzoning New Zealand" article on NZ housing policy: https://worksinprogress.co/issue/upzoning-new-zealand/ which mentions Auckland increased housing supply by 4% from 2016 to 2021. It also mentions large house supply growth in Christchurch and how house prices have been going up in Christchurch despite that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland_Region
The proportion of people born overseas was 41.0%, compared with 27.1% nationally.
Fabulous "Upzoning New Zealand" article on NZ housing policy: https://worksinprogress.co/issue/upzoning-new-zealand/ which mentions Auckland increased housing supply by 4% from 2016 to 2021. It also mentions large house supply growth in Christchurch and how house prices have been going up in Christchurch despite that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland_Region
[deleted]
Every country that does has this housing problem.
Indeed, see e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2023/nov/25/generatio...
FWIW - people were complaining back in the 70's about being locked out of the housing market when mortgage interest rates were double-digit. The last decade I remember people not complaining about the cost of housing was in the 60's.
What happened?
President Nixon unilaterally destroyed the Bretton Woods System with his Nixon Shock. That sent interest rates soaring. As a result, the buying power of the average American peaked in 1972. The cost of housing has been rising ever since.
What happened?
President Nixon unilaterally destroyed the Bretton Woods System with his Nixon Shock. That sent interest rates soaring. As a result, the buying power of the average American peaked in 1972. The cost of housing has been rising ever since.
Explanations like this do nothing to address that price-income ratio of housing in the US is better than almost any other nation.
It seems far more likely that it was things like the single-room occupancy stock, which almost completely disappeared between 1960 and 1980, that changed housing availability and therefore prices far more. I say like because I suspect it was not at all monocausal, in terms of the regulations that made building more and more varied, harder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy
> As a result, the buying power of the average American peaked in 1972
This seems suspect on the face of it. Percent of money spent on food, after all, has gone down dramatically since. You might say it's for reasons beyond inflation (eg, better food supply), but then so is everything else related to those conditions.
It seems far more likely that it was things like the single-room occupancy stock, which almost completely disappeared between 1960 and 1980, that changed housing availability and therefore prices far more. I say like because I suspect it was not at all monocausal, in terms of the regulations that made building more and more varied, harder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy
> As a result, the buying power of the average American peaked in 1972
This seems suspect on the face of it. Percent of money spent on food, after all, has gone down dramatically since. You might say it's for reasons beyond inflation (eg, better food supply), but then so is everything else related to those conditions.
Percent of income spent on housing, energy, transportation and medical have all increased since Nixon up-ended the US economy - food was the single exception which you cherry picked.
Nixon's actions couldn't have come at a worse time - right at millions of Baby Boomers were coming into the housing market the money with which to build housing was constrained. The supply hasn't kept up with the demand since then. Each decade since has seen housing reach new highs when adjusted for inflation.
Even the looming Boomer die-off won't change the situation much. For one, they're the longest-lived generation in history. The other is there's decades of pent-upped demand for housing. The simple fact now is the majority of Americans will never own a home. That's become our norm and it was policy set in motion over 50 years ago by Nixon that led us here.
Nixon's actions couldn't have come at a worse time - right at millions of Baby Boomers were coming into the housing market the money with which to build housing was constrained. The supply hasn't kept up with the demand since then. Each decade since has seen housing reach new highs when adjusted for inflation.
Even the looming Boomer die-off won't change the situation much. For one, they're the longest-lived generation in history. The other is there's decades of pent-upped demand for housing. The simple fact now is the majority of Americans will never own a home. That's become our norm and it was policy set in motion over 50 years ago by Nixon that led us here.
Percent of income spent on energy increased? That seems very unlikely. I didn't find a handy FRED graph but looking at Nebraska data it seems to be the opposite: https://neo.ne.gov/programs/stats/inf/195.htm
Square footage of house heated and temp set point have also increased. If you want to blame Nixon for our modern comfort then maybe he should get a medal. We clearly feel that we can spend much more on it than we used to: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456148/
Miles driven per year have increased from 3.5k in 1970 to to 10k. If we're driving 3x as much, and cars are more complex, it would be weird if we weren't spending more on transportation.
> The supply hasn't kept up with the demand since then.
Yes, we agree, but this has nothing to do with Nixon, and everything to do with regulation choices that are independent of Bretton Woods. Again, you should look at other countries before deciding on something so monocausal for your explanation.
> The simple fact now is the majority of Americans will never own a home.
Despite the regulatory environment, home ownership in the US is almost the highest in history, and higher than 1970.
Square footage of house heated and temp set point have also increased. If you want to blame Nixon for our modern comfort then maybe he should get a medal. We clearly feel that we can spend much more on it than we used to: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456148/
Miles driven per year have increased from 3.5k in 1970 to to 10k. If we're driving 3x as much, and cars are more complex, it would be weird if we weren't spending more on transportation.
> The supply hasn't kept up with the demand since then.
Yes, we agree, but this has nothing to do with Nixon, and everything to do with regulation choices that are independent of Bretton Woods. Again, you should look at other countries before deciding on something so monocausal for your explanation.
> The simple fact now is the majority of Americans will never own a home.
Despite the regulatory environment, home ownership in the US is almost the highest in history, and higher than 1970.
One relevant piece of information to put this into context is the number of dual-income households in the US has doubled in the time period we're talking about. Yet the percentage of household income spent on housing, transportation, energy, etc. has increased.
The problem we're having now is they've running out of rabbits to pull out of their hat. The US government has been on a spending spree for the past 40+ years and running up a huge tab, and US households are now dual-income households and have just about maxed out their employment options. Then what?
The problem we're having now is they've running out of rabbits to pull out of their hat. The US government has been on a spending spree for the past 40+ years and running up a huge tab, and US households are now dual-income households and have just about maxed out their employment options. Then what?
Relevant: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
How in the world can anyone believe that a country that adds O($trillion) in debts every year will leave its future generations better off than previous ones?
Maybe because in the actual world, the debts of a government that has its own sovereign currency are not actually very much like the debts you may incur when buying a car or a house or using a credit card.
Nobody claimed national debt is very much like credit card debt. The fact that they're different doesn't mean they can't both cripple you.
This "explanation" (which I've seen far too many times to count) doesn't explain anything. It's just a refusal to consider the question.
This "explanation" (which I've seen far too many times to count) doesn't explain anything. It's just a refusal to consider the question.
There are some good MMT textbooks out there. You're not going to get a full "explanation" in a HN comment thread.
Note that typical household debt:income ratios are far higher than the national debt:income ratio is right now.
Also note that it is critical to differentiate between "bad" debt and "good debt". When someone takes out a mortgage to buy a house, almost nobody will say that the purchaser is stupid and going into ridiculous debt. When someone takes out a bank loan to spend another weekend at the casino, almost nobody will suggest that there is anything sane about what they are doing. The same applies to national spending also.
Note that typical household debt:income ratios are far higher than the national debt:income ratio is right now.
Also note that it is critical to differentiate between "bad" debt and "good debt". When someone takes out a mortgage to buy a house, almost nobody will say that the purchaser is stupid and going into ridiculous debt. When someone takes out a bank loan to spend another weekend at the casino, almost nobody will suggest that there is anything sane about what they are doing. The same applies to national spending also.
Are you seriously arguing that what the federal government is going into debt to do is "good debt" rather than "bad debt"? They're going (further) into debt to fund continuing operations, not just for infrastructure investments.
Also, there may be some good (convincing) MMT textbooks out there. There are also a much larger number of good non-MMT textbooks out there. Why should we believe the MMT ones rather than the more-generally-accepted non-MMT ones? "This opinion exists and has been clearly explained" does not imply we should either believe it or put it into practice.
Also, there may be some good (convincing) MMT textbooks out there. There are also a much larger number of good non-MMT textbooks out there. Why should we believe the MMT ones rather than the more-generally-accepted non-MMT ones? "This opinion exists and has been clearly explained" does not imply we should either believe it or put it into practice.
I'm not expecting a "full" explanation, just some explanation that makes sense on its face. People manage to explain quantum mechanics in HN comments and get the core ideas across qualitatively. Surely debt isn't harder.
I have yet to see any explanation (including from your comment) on how interest on debts growing at the current rate can possibly be repaid into perpetuity without causing some kind of economic catastrophe down the road.
> Note that typical household debt:income ratios are far higher than the national debt:income ratio is right now.
The concern wasn't about "right now", but about "future generations". (And you'd need to explain why household debt to income ratios are the critical metric here too, but that's secondary to this...)
> Also note that it is critical to differentiate between "bad" debt and "good debt". When someone takes out a mortgage to buy a house, almost nobody will say that the purchaser is stupid and going into ridiculous debt.
First, erm... are you sure about this? 85% of Americans beg to differ. [1]
Second... do you really believe the amount of debt isn't a factor here? If the average American took out a $10 million mortgage, wouldn't you agree it's a terrible idea? (And if you do, then how in the world is "mortgages are good debt" a rebuttal to "we're taking on too much debt"?)
Lastly: I'm not sure if you've missed it, but we've had quite a few articles and discussions lately on HN about how the current system has been transferring wealth from younger generations to older ones. And don't forget [2], which has been changing the real estate landscape over the decades. Lots of people aren't buying the idea that the growth on investments that older generations are seeing can be sustained perpetually for future generations.
> When someone takes out a bank loan to spend another weekend at the casino, almost nobody will suggest that there is anything sane about what they are doing. The same applies to national spending also.
Just because you can find debt that everyone presumably agrees is bad, that doesn't mean ballooning amounts of other debts aren't problematic.
If you're going to argue by analogy, consider this: "a little bit of salt is good for you" + "a lot of lead is bad for you" do not imply "a lot of salt is good for you".
[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/11/13/1212737835/many-say-its-a-bad...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/us/corporate-real-estate-...
I have yet to see any explanation (including from your comment) on how interest on debts growing at the current rate can possibly be repaid into perpetuity without causing some kind of economic catastrophe down the road.
> Note that typical household debt:income ratios are far higher than the national debt:income ratio is right now.
The concern wasn't about "right now", but about "future generations". (And you'd need to explain why household debt to income ratios are the critical metric here too, but that's secondary to this...)
> Also note that it is critical to differentiate between "bad" debt and "good debt". When someone takes out a mortgage to buy a house, almost nobody will say that the purchaser is stupid and going into ridiculous debt.
First, erm... are you sure about this? 85% of Americans beg to differ. [1]
Second... do you really believe the amount of debt isn't a factor here? If the average American took out a $10 million mortgage, wouldn't you agree it's a terrible idea? (And if you do, then how in the world is "mortgages are good debt" a rebuttal to "we're taking on too much debt"?)
Lastly: I'm not sure if you've missed it, but we've had quite a few articles and discussions lately on HN about how the current system has been transferring wealth from younger generations to older ones. And don't forget [2], which has been changing the real estate landscape over the decades. Lots of people aren't buying the idea that the growth on investments that older generations are seeing can be sustained perpetually for future generations.
> When someone takes out a bank loan to spend another weekend at the casino, almost nobody will suggest that there is anything sane about what they are doing. The same applies to national spending also.
Just because you can find debt that everyone presumably agrees is bad, that doesn't mean ballooning amounts of other debts aren't problematic.
If you're going to argue by analogy, consider this: "a little bit of salt is good for you" + "a lot of lead is bad for you" do not imply "a lot of salt is good for you".
[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/11/13/1212737835/many-say-its-a-bad...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/us/corporate-real-estate-...
I think that since most people accept that typical household debt to income ratios are not catastrophic, it would be incumbent on someone who wants to argue that the same ratio for a sovereign national currency is a problem to explain why there is a difference. Otherwise, they are both just debts that are assumed to be paid off with future income or capital gains realization.
Yes, I'm well aware of how the real estate market and its machinations, particularly in the anglosphere, has been a major driver of one of the more widespread but still pernicious wealth redistributions of the last 30-50 years (probably not the worst one, but an important one). I don't think that this is particularly germane to the question of the national debt compared to anything else.
Sure, taking on insane levels of debt is a bad idea. The problem in the national context is getting agreement on what insane means. For a household earning $100k/yr, $10M of debt is insane. For a country with a GDP of $23 trillion, what's an insane amount of debt?
(sorry for the delay, learning how to be a firefighter in the daytime hours right now)
Yes, I'm well aware of how the real estate market and its machinations, particularly in the anglosphere, has been a major driver of one of the more widespread but still pernicious wealth redistributions of the last 30-50 years (probably not the worst one, but an important one). I don't think that this is particularly germane to the question of the national debt compared to anything else.
Sure, taking on insane levels of debt is a bad idea. The problem in the national context is getting agreement on what insane means. For a household earning $100k/yr, $10M of debt is insane. For a country with a GDP of $23 trillion, what's an insane amount of debt?
(sorry for the delay, learning how to be a firefighter in the daytime hours right now)
They are. Interest must be paid and that money could fund so much. Lowering your debit is important.
The USA seems quite happy to spend freely on anything it (i.e. the current federal government) deems worthy of a few billion dollars. Wars, in particular, are spending goals that come with few, if anym limits.
I see little evidence that interest payments on the debt prevent funding particular programs - that is a political decision that for better or worse exists outside the realities of federal tax revenues.
I see little evidence that interest payments on the debt prevent funding particular programs - that is a political decision that for better or worse exists outside the realities of federal tax revenues.
The way the government 'prints money' is by issuing treasuries - give me $100 today and I'll give you $105 next year or whatever. The rates required to issue those treasuries, and the publics acceptance of such, is going to be a reflection of the perceived strength of your economy. US 30 year rates, which reflect long-term perceptions on the strength of an economy, are at highs not seen since the housing market crash. [1]
When it becomes impossible for the government to print money without major consequences, it doesn't mean it's time to start cutting back on spending, rather at that point the entire economy would likely collapse in on itself in relatively short order. One can see economic issues coming from far away, but when they strike - the final collapse is often lightning quick. Again, see the housing market crash for an obvious example of such. There's also some interesting parallels and lessons one can take away from the Mexican peso crash, which was largely about 'creditors' losing faith in a currency. [2]
[1] - https://tradingeconomics.com/usgg30y:ind
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_peso_crisis
When it becomes impossible for the government to print money without major consequences, it doesn't mean it's time to start cutting back on spending, rather at that point the entire economy would likely collapse in on itself in relatively short order. One can see economic issues coming from far away, but when they strike - the final collapse is often lightning quick. Again, see the housing market crash for an obvious example of such. There's also some interesting parallels and lessons one can take away from the Mexican peso crash, which was largely about 'creditors' losing faith in a currency. [2]
[1] - https://tradingeconomics.com/usgg30y:ind
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_peso_crisis
[deleted]
That’s government, not country. And most of this debt is held by other branches of said government.
This is inaccurate. [1] What you're referring to is called intragovernmental debt. And it makes up less than 25% of our debt. The overwhelming majority is publicly held.
[1] - https://www.thebalancemoney.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-de...
[1] - https://www.thebalancemoney.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-de...
Edit: Do you feel your comment explains how/why this implies the debt is fine? I sure don't...
Assuming a society expects working populations to support non working populations, then the debt exists regardless of it being tallied on a balance sheet.
The only options are to remove the assumption that working populations will provide for non working populations (this removes the debt), or to have a sufficient proportion of working to non working population (this allows the debt to be serviceable).
The only options are to remove the assumption that working populations will provide for non working populations (this removes the debt), or to have a sufficient proportion of working to non working population (this allows the debt to be serviceable).
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
A little humor wouldn't hurt. HN is getting extremely stiff to the point that people's comments are being reported.
Our national debt goes almost entirely towards paying Americans.
edit: Also, almost all modern money is debt. Printed currency is a tiny amount of the money in circulation. Nobody gets paid without debt.
(at first I said "literally all" instead of "almost all")
edit: Also, almost all modern money is debt. Printed currency is a tiny amount of the money in circulation. Nobody gets paid without debt.
(at first I said "literally all" instead of "almost all")
*some Americans
Terrible education and journalism would be one effective way to achieve that state.
By being a fiat currency.
Death of a Salesman was published in 1949. Has the American Dream just been dying in different ways over the past several decades?
But for the salesman, the dream died just before he did. It didn't die in his 20s, like it does for too many now.
I think about it a lot, and had some weakly structured thoughts about it:
- when you picture the sickly sweet Boomer American dream of 60s or 70s, you see a suburban family, maybe some high-level blue collar job for the dad and a "homemaker" mum, living in a big house in a pretty suburb of some no-name town.
- I guess these blue collar jobs don't exist anymore. Jobs that pay a medium-to-high salary require high specialisation. It's no longer the days of car companies building entire cities and herding people to them, providing housing, training and a salary.
- the qualifications are also expensive to acquire. If we now say a university degree is a prerequisite to entering the race, and it costs O(100k) then your chance of getting on the gravy train is very small, unless you come from money yourself.
- so I guess, it's easier to grow a less developed economy than a more developed one. The US used to grow by the pluck and bravery of bricklayers building Empire State Building by hand, now it's the highly skilled hands of bioengineers in start up labs.
- out expectations of success have skyrocketed too. Did the boomers of 60s and 70s who made it go on holiday abroad every year? Did they have iPhones and lots of other gadgets? Thinking about films from the era, they seemed happy with a house and a hot family meal at the end of the day.
- GDP per capita outperforms inflation in the US, and yet median standard of life is decreasing. I guess that tells you that more of what is produced is distributed unevenly, to "the rich". I mean, to some extent that happens always, but it's probably gone too far.
- finally, and that's possibly controversial, but how much of the American Dream was fuelled by the "underclasses": ethnic minorities and women. People who contributed to GDP but didn't get to reap the fruit of their work. The US south first became rich literally off slave work, and arguably emancipation is still under way. Ditto for women. But then, have Black Americans experienced a larger increase in the standard of living than say White Americans? My impression is not; eg the previous boom may have been at their expense, but does not explain why it is over now.
- when you picture the sickly sweet Boomer American dream of 60s or 70s, you see a suburban family, maybe some high-level blue collar job for the dad and a "homemaker" mum, living in a big house in a pretty suburb of some no-name town.
- I guess these blue collar jobs don't exist anymore. Jobs that pay a medium-to-high salary require high specialisation. It's no longer the days of car companies building entire cities and herding people to them, providing housing, training and a salary.
- the qualifications are also expensive to acquire. If we now say a university degree is a prerequisite to entering the race, and it costs O(100k) then your chance of getting on the gravy train is very small, unless you come from money yourself.
- so I guess, it's easier to grow a less developed economy than a more developed one. The US used to grow by the pluck and bravery of bricklayers building Empire State Building by hand, now it's the highly skilled hands of bioengineers in start up labs.
- out expectations of success have skyrocketed too. Did the boomers of 60s and 70s who made it go on holiday abroad every year? Did they have iPhones and lots of other gadgets? Thinking about films from the era, they seemed happy with a house and a hot family meal at the end of the day.
- GDP per capita outperforms inflation in the US, and yet median standard of life is decreasing. I guess that tells you that more of what is produced is distributed unevenly, to "the rich". I mean, to some extent that happens always, but it's probably gone too far.
- finally, and that's possibly controversial, but how much of the American Dream was fuelled by the "underclasses": ethnic minorities and women. People who contributed to GDP but didn't get to reap the fruit of their work. The US south first became rich literally off slave work, and arguably emancipation is still under way. Ditto for women. But then, have Black Americans experienced a larger increase in the standard of living than say White Americans? My impression is not; eg the previous boom may have been at their expense, but does not explain why it is over now.
Realistically, it is just housing. Fix housing, fix a lot of problems.
And practically, just bam corporations from owning non-multifamily homes. I just don't understand why investment funds should compete for the same house as average Joe. It's not like the fund management will go homeless if they don't secure a house, but the average Joe will be.
And this is why homelessness is on the rise. Corporate ownership has priced out real people.
And practically, just bam corporations from owning non-multifamily homes. I just don't understand why investment funds should compete for the same house as average Joe. It's not like the fund management will go homeless if they don't secure a house, but the average Joe will be.
And this is why homelessness is on the rise. Corporate ownership has priced out real people.
It's been dead for 30 years.
TV has been a mirror of general society. And what did that look like? A shoe salesman could have a wife and 2 children in a 2 story house in the suburbs (Married with Children).
Or, the Simpsons had similar. Again, single worker household paying for 2.5 children and 2 story house.
It goes on and on.
But yeah, the 'American Dream' of prosperity was uncovered, viewed, and all wealth extracted from that. And it left bones in their wake. Those bones are minimum wage staying the same since 2005 or so. Or home ownership blocked for most. Or student loans keeping generations in poverty.
We all are collectively getting poorer, and some billionaire fucks are getting richer on the rest of us one cut at a time.
We used to have it good. Those days have been done for a while now.
TV has been a mirror of general society. And what did that look like? A shoe salesman could have a wife and 2 children in a 2 story house in the suburbs (Married with Children).
Or, the Simpsons had similar. Again, single worker household paying for 2.5 children and 2 story house.
It goes on and on.
But yeah, the 'American Dream' of prosperity was uncovered, viewed, and all wealth extracted from that. And it left bones in their wake. Those bones are minimum wage staying the same since 2005 or so. Or home ownership blocked for most. Or student loans keeping generations in poverty.
We all are collectively getting poorer, and some billionaire fucks are getting richer on the rest of us one cut at a time.
We used to have it good. Those days have been done for a while now.
I don't think your thesis is borne out. "Friends" was widely mocked during its run for how unrealistic the living arrangement was.
FWIW Friends had an episode semi-explaining that, IIRC the girls' apartment was rent controlled and was in Monica's aunt's name.
Which actually isn't too far off from the situation as it exists today, where tons of people owe their living situations to the fact that their parents or other relatives owned property when it was affordable to buy it. Heck, there are tons of people who say "I'm so lucky I bought my house when I did, I could never afford this place now." We've basically ended up back at a society of landed gentry, and then everyone else is kinda screwed.
Which actually isn't too far off from the situation as it exists today, where tons of people owe their living situations to the fact that their parents or other relatives owned property when it was affordable to buy it. Heck, there are tons of people who say "I'm so lucky I bought my house when I did, I could never afford this place now." We've basically ended up back at a society of landed gentry, and then everyone else is kinda screwed.
I think that backs up the point. Married with Children and The Simpsons were not mocked, because it was a realistic situation. In the 80s a single income at an average job could afford a middle class lifestyle. Friends however was clearly ridiculous, a coffee shop job couldn't afford a large NYC apartment.
Married with Children is set in Chicago, not San Francisco. A single income at an average job can still afford a home in Chicago.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1326-S-Springfield-Ave-Ch...
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1326-S-Springfield-Ave-Ch...
Sorry, but the literal Married with Children house is $584k on Zillow, the same prices as the other houses in the neighborhood so not an artifact of being on the TV show https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/641-Castlewood-Ln-Deerfie...
That was New York, now it's everywhere.
Rents 10y ago (here) were around $450/no for a decent 1br apartment in my city.
They're now bordering up to $2000/mo . In fact, there's people who moved here from NYC, and are moving back because it's easier to work decent jobs and pay rent in NYC.
And you can pay rent on time $1000/mo for 10 years, and it's absolutely no proof that you can pay a $1000/mo mortgage. The boomers didn't have to deal with "credit" but we do now.
Again, all these systems are stacked against you and everyone else. It's all one big massive scam.
It's the American psychosis, that hard work gets you somewhere. And for many, hard work is low pay, a torn up body, and you die.
They're now bordering up to $2000/mo . In fact, there's people who moved here from NYC, and are moving back because it's easier to work decent jobs and pay rent in NYC.
And you can pay rent on time $1000/mo for 10 years, and it's absolutely no proof that you can pay a $1000/mo mortgage. The boomers didn't have to deal with "credit" but we do now.
Again, all these systems are stacked against you and everyone else. It's all one big massive scam.
It's the American psychosis, that hard work gets you somewhere. And for many, hard work is low pay, a torn up body, and you die.
Well, rather importantly, not everywhere. Yes, pretty much every metropolitan area that has any level of desirability as a place to live is like that now.
But that still leaves large areas of the country in a very different situation. That doesn't describe the lives of many people, because these tend to be low population density areas. But they exist, and their "exceptionalism" might end up providing an arrow into the future just as unaffordable metros did in the 1980s.
But that still leaves large areas of the country in a very different situation. That doesn't describe the lives of many people, because these tend to be low population density areas. But they exist, and their "exceptionalism" might end up providing an arrow into the future just as unaffordable metros did in the 1980s.
I do not recall Married with Children or The Simpsons being called out for their unrealistic loving arrangements.
To be fair, the Simpsons poked fun at itself for exactly this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axHoy0hnQy8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axHoy0hnQy8
[deleted]
>"Friends" was widely mocked during its run for how unrealistic the living arrangement was.
Only by people who didn't pay attention. The show repeatedly established that Monica inherited a rent-controlled apartment. There's nothing unrealistic about the size of Chandler and Joey's apartment.
Only by people who didn't pay attention. The show repeatedly established that Monica inherited a rent-controlled apartment. There's nothing unrealistic about the size of Chandler and Joey's apartment.
Mocked because 20-somethings in cities don't live with roommates?
Because of how big their apartments were and how low the rent was.
I guess you could say the same about Seinfeld? How could a night club comic or serially unemployed people like George or Kramer afford apartments like that in Manhattan. But I never thought that TV shows were obligated to be 100 percent authentic, especially sit-coms.
Seinfeld character in the show was financially successful. He could easily just lend $5k to Elaine when she wanted to rent an apartment above him (her rent was $400), or buy a jacket which his friends assumed cost around $700 or even a $1k.
And the location of the apartments.
Or, the Simpsons had similar. Again, single worker household paying for 2.5 children and 2 story house
The Simpsons may have taken place in the 90’s and onward but the show is based on Matt Groening’s childhood which took place in the 60’s. The whole household structure in the show is an anachronism because of that.
The Simpsons may have taken place in the 90’s and onward but the show is based on Matt Groening’s childhood which took place in the 60’s. The whole household structure in the show is an anachronism because of that.
It is for children of broken family structures, but those with both parents are still flourishing (although this population is collapsing fast).
And bear in mind that the US economy is better off than pretty much the entire rest of the developed world outside maybe Switzerland. Americans who think housing is expensive shut up the moment they look north of the 49th parallel, for example. So just how much worse off is everyone else?
(And if your answer is that somehow "free[1] health care" and "vacation days" are enough to compensate for non-Americans, boy have you missed the point.)
[1] No, Virginia, the NHS and Canadian Medicare's approaches are not the norm for the developed world
(And if your answer is that somehow "free[1] health care" and "vacation days" are enough to compensate for non-Americans, boy have you missed the point.)
[1] No, Virginia, the NHS and Canadian Medicare's approaches are not the norm for the developed world
The "economy" is just a measure of how much money the ultra-rich have.
When the DOW or NYSE or whatever drops a bucket of points, that's still not me. It's the uber-rich.
When a grocery cart of groceries goes from $40 to $200 for the same damned things, that's definitely on me, and families all around me. And as far as we can tell, those numbers were based purely on greed, or in the sanitized terms of economists "what the market will bear".
Well, the market don't give 2 fucks about us people; I say let it burn and bring out the guillotines.
When the DOW or NYSE or whatever drops a bucket of points, that's still not me. It's the uber-rich.
When a grocery cart of groceries goes from $40 to $200 for the same damned things, that's definitely on me, and families all around me. And as far as we can tell, those numbers were based purely on greed, or in the sanitized terms of economists "what the market will bear".
Well, the market don't give 2 fucks about us people; I say let it burn and bring out the guillotines.
I think there are two issues the article, and perhaps the wsj poll highlight.
Firstly the "hard work leads to success" myth. In truth hard-working (by itself) means nothing. Johnny's hard work studying doesn't lead to an A. Answering the questions correctly leads to an A. Just working hard isn't enough, you have to work effectively on the correct material.
So in the sense that "if you work hard, you will succeed", that American Dream has best be described as "incomplete specification."
Hard work matters. An athlete works hard Monday to Friday in the gym, and on the training ground, so they can perform well on Saturday. Do they always win? Does the one who worked the hardest always win? No.
Hard work, on the right thing, in the right way, stacks the odds. But luck plays a part. Sometimes a huge part. You still need the work to exploit the luck, but its helpful if its there.
Secondly I think the "inequality" gap is not as significant as the "general standard of living". I know, I know, im supposed to care if you have a billion, and I only have a million, but I don't. For me, enough is enough, and good luck to you.
Put another way, if you "have enough", then be content - you have achieved the American Dream.
BUT that's not to say that I think we gave achieved that. The problem either the "inequality" reported is not the top end, but the bottom. At the moment the bottom are losing. Their standard of living us too low.
I know it's controversial, but for me it's better to look at the problem as "how to raise the bottom", not "how to squash the top". Decent environment, housing, food, transport and health care would be enough. I don't need fancy yachts or private planed.
Sure we can "hate billionaires", because they got rich exploiting labor (think amazon), but if they were all just millionaires, that wouldn't help much. (But yay, less inequality.) On the other hand raising the bottom likely makes the inequality gap bigger, not smller, but also makes it irrelevant.
I'm aware that raising the bottom is not easy, it's a multi-faceted problem with many moving parts. There are no quick fixes. But I think its helpful to frame the problem this way. (Squashing the top is "easier" but less usefull overall).
Firstly the "hard work leads to success" myth. In truth hard-working (by itself) means nothing. Johnny's hard work studying doesn't lead to an A. Answering the questions correctly leads to an A. Just working hard isn't enough, you have to work effectively on the correct material.
So in the sense that "if you work hard, you will succeed", that American Dream has best be described as "incomplete specification."
Hard work matters. An athlete works hard Monday to Friday in the gym, and on the training ground, so they can perform well on Saturday. Do they always win? Does the one who worked the hardest always win? No.
Hard work, on the right thing, in the right way, stacks the odds. But luck plays a part. Sometimes a huge part. You still need the work to exploit the luck, but its helpful if its there.
Secondly I think the "inequality" gap is not as significant as the "general standard of living". I know, I know, im supposed to care if you have a billion, and I only have a million, but I don't. For me, enough is enough, and good luck to you.
Put another way, if you "have enough", then be content - you have achieved the American Dream.
BUT that's not to say that I think we gave achieved that. The problem either the "inequality" reported is not the top end, but the bottom. At the moment the bottom are losing. Their standard of living us too low.
I know it's controversial, but for me it's better to look at the problem as "how to raise the bottom", not "how to squash the top". Decent environment, housing, food, transport and health care would be enough. I don't need fancy yachts or private planed.
Sure we can "hate billionaires", because they got rich exploiting labor (think amazon), but if they were all just millionaires, that wouldn't help much. (But yay, less inequality.) On the other hand raising the bottom likely makes the inequality gap bigger, not smller, but also makes it irrelevant.
I'm aware that raising the bottom is not easy, it's a multi-faceted problem with many moving parts. There are no quick fixes. But I think its helpful to frame the problem this way. (Squashing the top is "easier" but less usefull overall).
There is no direct and certain pathway to prosperity but the right amount of hard work, hustle, creativity, and luck still produces success stories. It has never been a given. What has worked for the previous generation will not work for the next generation. America will remain the land of opportunity even if it is not the market of opportunity because of its capitalistic government with strong protection of property rights. Parents have always tried to give their children every unfair advantage. It will be successful for many, but many will also squander their inheritance.
Edit: I’d love to hear from the downvoters what is controversial or misleading about my previous statement.
Edit: I’d love to hear from the downvoters what is controversial or misleading about my previous statement.
Really? Because I can draw up a pretty simple and direct plan for any kid coming out of high school to make six figures in six years, provided the kid didn’t screw around in high school.
The American Dream is alive and well as long as you avoid the traps of smoking, gambling, alcohol, and sex workers. And dumb debt too, I guess.
The American Dream is alive and well as long as you avoid the traps of smoking, gambling, alcohol, and sex workers. And dumb debt too, I guess.
You cannot, because your plan is idealistic and naive. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_...
The American dream only exists in dreams.
The American dream only exists in dreams.
The existence of a path forward doesn't mean everybody is going to take it. This is especially true because the path to long-term success is often the path that's not particularly pleasant in the short-term. Obesity is a reasonable comparison. Nobody wants to obese, but we're headed towards a world where the majority of Americans are. It's because many, and it's looking like the majority now, are more inclined to succumb to short-term pleasures, instead of exercising the discipline/restraint necessary for long-term pleasure.
>The existence of a path forward doesn't mean everybody is going to take it.
Which is not something anyone is even implying?
>This is especially true because the path to long-term success is often the path that's not particularly pleasant in the short-term.
This is just motivational fallacies sprinkled with moral posturing, while somehow ignoring an abundance of mammalian behavioral science.
You may not realize it, but you're already arguing for a caste system.
If you took someone who is "successful" and removed their support structures they would, as has been proven time and time again, fair far worse than their hardened peers in the same position. Inheritors of wealth or people who profit from social networks rarely have the skills and adaptive "augments" necessary to survive in the workplace let alone climb it.
Look at The Vanderbilts as an example. Generations of the family profiteering off workers for literally no constructive purpose, and they lost of all it.
And this happens day in and day out. People cannot climb the social ladder because it is not set up to do so, so a few benefit, even for hundreds of years, while squandering resources. Many people's productive hours and efforts simply go toward enriching some other people, who are not capable of using those acquired resources correctly for many different reasons.
> instead of exercising the discipline/restraint necessary for long-term pleasure.
What's silly about this statement if you took it at face value, and for the sake of argument assumed it was true, the upper echelon of people we are talking about have made this so. They profit from it. And they will continue to push it.
Which is not something anyone is even implying?
>This is especially true because the path to long-term success is often the path that's not particularly pleasant in the short-term.
This is just motivational fallacies sprinkled with moral posturing, while somehow ignoring an abundance of mammalian behavioral science.
You may not realize it, but you're already arguing for a caste system.
If you took someone who is "successful" and removed their support structures they would, as has been proven time and time again, fair far worse than their hardened peers in the same position. Inheritors of wealth or people who profit from social networks rarely have the skills and adaptive "augments" necessary to survive in the workplace let alone climb it.
Look at The Vanderbilts as an example. Generations of the family profiteering off workers for literally no constructive purpose, and they lost of all it.
And this happens day in and day out. People cannot climb the social ladder because it is not set up to do so, so a few benefit, even for hundreds of years, while squandering resources. Many people's productive hours and efforts simply go toward enriching some other people, who are not capable of using those acquired resources correctly for many different reasons.
> instead of exercising the discipline/restraint necessary for long-term pleasure.
What's silly about this statement if you took it at face value, and for the sake of argument assumed it was true, the upper echelon of people we are talking about have made this so. They profit from it. And they will continue to push it.
It's not clear to me what you're trying to argue, as your claims and evidence seem to contradict each other. Of course I agree that even individuals born into the greatest of wealth can certainly squander it all with bad decisions, as has happened countlessly throughout history. But this rather precludes anything like a caste system where those born into the elite can never full from such; nor can those ever born as an untouchable rise from such.
> as your claims and evidence seem to contradict each other.
No they don't?
No they don't?
Now we solved it with a pill though!!
We probably need a better definition of the "American Dream" though, because I think GP is largely right. For a couple decades now there has been a very simple plan to execute that will result in probably 90% of successful adherents ending up with a 6 figure job:
(1) Don't screw up high-school too badly.
(2) Go to a college at least a few people have heard of and study STEM.
(3) Graduate and go into Tech as soon as possible.
That's literally it. Follow this plan and you are now a professional making 6 figures.
Most people wallowing in student debt wondering what happened to the American Dream didn't really consider the marketability of their planned education.
With that said, I think going forward this is all more complicated. I wouldn't really know what to recommend to a current middle schooler, for instance, in a world where most white collar work will probably be done better by ChatGPT 8 in a handful of years.
But for the past few decades before this point in time, this has all been way simpler than people think, provided they were willing to gut out the level of effort required for a STEM degree.
That's literally it. Follow this plan and you are now a professional making 6 figures.
Most people wallowing in student debt wondering what happened to the American Dream didn't really consider the marketability of their planned education.
With that said, I think going forward this is all more complicated. I wouldn't really know what to recommend to a current middle schooler, for instance, in a world where most white collar work will probably be done better by ChatGPT 8 in a handful of years.
But for the past few decades before this point in time, this has all been way simpler than people think, provided they were willing to gut out the level of effort required for a STEM degree.
Heck, I managed to screw up pretty much all of those things you listed and am making six figures in tech. A little ambition can get you a long way in this field.
And what about everyone who did not end up in your position. Are you going to claim the moral and ethical victory, or is it more logical to apply the survivorship bias?
Do you truly believe that across entire societies there is limited mobility because of a lack of talent and drive, or is it more likely those societies are not setup with effective merit channels and proper reward mechanisms?
Do you truly believe that across entire societies there is limited mobility because of a lack of talent and drive, or is it more likely those societies are not setup with effective merit channels and proper reward mechanisms?
> And what about everyone who did not end up in your position. Are you going to claim the moral and ethical victory, or is it more logical to apply the survivorship bias?
Tech is overflowing with people who literally just did a few things right. And it's also renowned for welcoming in people with non-traditional backgrounds: people who don't have degrees but showed talent, people who have the wrong degrees but then went to bootcamps, Product Managers and designers with no technical background, etc.
Survivorship bias implies a "most don't make it" result. I would argue that most who execute a reasonable plan do in fact make it fine in tech. There really aren't very many tech failure stories (outside of startup founders). If you "fail" at one place you'll probably get hired at another. Even if you're not good at it, there is no shortage of bad engineers who still have high-paying jobs.
Now, not everyone wants to do tech. Not everyone enjoys that kind of work, or wants to put in the amount of effort required to get a STEM degree or go to a bootcamp. But then this is a different question--the question then is no longer "Is there still a reasonable path to the American Dream" and more "why won't the thing I've chosen to do irrespective of market conditions give me lots of money."
I do think it's valid to ask why there aren't more routes to attaining success. Because I think in the past it felt like you could do a pretty vast array of things and still have a middle class lifestyle. But to say it doesn't exist is to ignore the very obvious routes to success that are still attainable.
Tech is overflowing with people who literally just did a few things right. And it's also renowned for welcoming in people with non-traditional backgrounds: people who don't have degrees but showed talent, people who have the wrong degrees but then went to bootcamps, Product Managers and designers with no technical background, etc.
Survivorship bias implies a "most don't make it" result. I would argue that most who execute a reasonable plan do in fact make it fine in tech. There really aren't very many tech failure stories (outside of startup founders). If you "fail" at one place you'll probably get hired at another. Even if you're not good at it, there is no shortage of bad engineers who still have high-paying jobs.
Now, not everyone wants to do tech. Not everyone enjoys that kind of work, or wants to put in the amount of effort required to get a STEM degree or go to a bootcamp. But then this is a different question--the question then is no longer "Is there still a reasonable path to the American Dream" and more "why won't the thing I've chosen to do irrespective of market conditions give me lots of money."
I do think it's valid to ask why there aren't more routes to attaining success. Because I think in the past it felt like you could do a pretty vast array of things and still have a middle class lifestyle. But to say it doesn't exist is to ignore the very obvious routes to success that are still attainable.
15-20 years ago, people generally thought that software jobs would be outsourced to low-cost countries. CS enrollments were low, because people didn't believe in the tech job market anymore. Ambitious STEM graduates who wanted a lucrative career went to finance instead.
It all changed with the Great Recession.
It all changed with the Great Recession.
> 15-20 years ago, people generally thought that software jobs would be outsourced to low-cost countries. CS enrollments were low
19 years was ago was the highest peak before the boom in the last decade, and even at the bottom of the short trough after that, more CS degrees were awarded that any time before the 5 years before the peak
> CS enrollments were low, because people didn't believe in the tech job market anymore. Ambitious STEM graduates who wanted a lucrative career went to finance instead.
Nope, business, finance, and humanities dropped—less sharply, except business—at the same time CS did; natural sciences, health, and medical science curved up at an accelerated rate (which continued even after CS picked back up).
19 years was ago was the highest peak before the boom in the last decade, and even at the bottom of the short trough after that, more CS degrees were awarded that any time before the 5 years before the peak
> CS enrollments were low, because people didn't believe in the tech job market anymore. Ambitious STEM graduates who wanted a lucrative career went to finance instead.
Nope, business, finance, and humanities dropped—less sharply, except business—at the same time CS did; natural sciences, health, and medical science curved up at an accelerated rate (which continued even after CS picked back up).
Degrees are a lagging indicator. The people who graduated in 2004 started their studies near the peak of the dot-com boom. The trough that followed went below the peak in the mid-80s, meaning that people thought CS less relevant in the mid-2000s than in the early 80s.
And the ambitious STEM graduates (not business/finance graduates) went to finance, because that's where the good jobs were.
And the ambitious STEM graduates (not business/finance graduates) went to finance, because that's where the good jobs were.
> Graduate and go into Tech as soon as possible.
It's a good plan but if everyone did that we also wouldn't have a functional society.
My daughter is an occupational therapist for children and works at a restaurant -- guess which is better for society and guess which pays better.
It's a good plan but if everyone did that we also wouldn't have a functional society.
My daughter is an occupational therapist for children and works at a restaurant -- guess which is better for society and guess which pays better.
I’m talking about a general plan to make money, not what’s good for society.
We of course do not need more people working in adtech.
We of course do not need more people working in adtech.
You were talking about a general plan to make as single person money but not a whole generation of people and I don't think that's terribly relevant.
So the only relevant plans are for a whole generation of people? Buddy I don't think everyone can be rich.
The American Dream isn't about everyone being rich. Or just one person being successful because they go into tech.
The American reality is that a growing number of people are poor.
The American reality is that a growing number of people are poor.
You can draw up that plan for one lucky kid but as soon as you scale it to all kids, it doesn't work.
Trade schools, the armed forces, and jobs with educational assistance work for those who can’t swing student loans. There’s also not a single state whose state school isn’t worth the money.
It could, because wealth creation is not zero sum. But the likelihood is small. No system has entirely figured this out.
There's also supply and demand; if supply is increased beyond the demand then what was a successful plan will stop being successful.
Only if you no-true-scotsman the set of "any kid" down to the subset of any kid who 'wants it bad enough', 'is motivated', 'is a self-starter', etc etc. Of course you can just conveniently define that subset as "any kid for whom my plan works".
Whether it's private developers or public, we just constantly refuse to do anything beyond quarter-assing the problem, prioritizing having enough free street parking for cars over affordable housing for families.
American productivity, our GDP per capita is still doing quite well, but it doesn't help the average person if all that money has to go into their rent or mortgage. And benefitting from property values rising from scarce housing is just a generational ponzi scheme.