Worker pay isn’t keeping up with inflation(axios.com)
axios.com
Worker pay isn’t keeping up with inflation
https://www.axios.com/wages-inflation-economic-data-c912afdb-b950-4183-8283-50afff593576.html
851 comments
Glad this was the top comment.
Wages have not kept up with cost of living for 50 years in the US.
We need to stop pretending flat wages are some modern problem of inflation, and we need to stop pretending inflation is some problem caused by the pandemic.
Wages have not kept up with cost of living for 50 years in the US.
We need to stop pretending flat wages are some modern problem of inflation, and we need to stop pretending inflation is some problem caused by the pandemic.
The other side of this to remember is that highly compensated employees are still subjects to this reality.
The numbers themselves dont actually matter. It doesnt matter if highly compensated to you means $88k or $150k annual compensation, $450k or $750k.
If a single earner cant buy a home outright in 5 years in that area, then the compensation isn't high enough compared to when wages were keeping up. There was a housing shortage in the 1970s too, so the supply side isnt a worthwhile deflection.
The oppression contest and olympics from the masses earning way less isn't really useful because that just conveniently perpetuates the reality.
The numbers themselves dont actually matter. It doesnt matter if highly compensated to you means $88k or $150k annual compensation, $450k or $750k.
If a single earner cant buy a home outright in 5 years in that area, then the compensation isn't high enough compared to when wages were keeping up. There was a housing shortage in the 1970s too, so the supply side isnt a worthwhile deflection.
The oppression contest and olympics from the masses earning way less isn't really useful because that just conveniently perpetuates the reality.
> There was a housing shortage in the 1970s too, so the supply side isnt a worthwhile deflection.
Uh, source on the housing shortage in the 1970s being even remotely close to this level?
Because, yeah, demand outstripping the heck out of supply is the "deflection" I'd pick.
Uh, source on the housing shortage in the 1970s being even remotely close to this level?
Because, yeah, demand outstripping the heck out of supply is the "deflection" I'd pick.
[1] is a bit noisy because it's monthly data, but if you give it a 12-month moving average, it definitely seems like housing availability was substantially above current levels from about 1973-1992.
I'm curious if there are any theories besides wage stagnation that caused that change?
[1]https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSACSR
I'm curious if there are any theories besides wage stagnation that caused that change?
[1]https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSACSR
Hm. I'm not sure that is actually really measuring supply so much as liquidity.
Regardless, landlords set the price. They always had the opportunity to post ridiculous prices, and they bring them to the price people accept. They dont have to go to the edge of what someone would accept. But they do.
The same tech worker (or whoever a local municipality happens to be pointing fingers at) would pay $1200/mo in one area, or $7500/mo in the other area. A wealthy class of people have always existed that can pay rent or mortgage or own at pretty much any price.
The landlords are the greedy ones - the neighbors and corporations that were already there for the most part. I’m not arguing for anything (in case someone mistakes this for a rent control argument), just have been in enough cities to hear it all.
The same tech worker (or whoever a local municipality happens to be pointing fingers at) would pay $1200/mo in one area, or $7500/mo in the other area. A wealthy class of people have always existed that can pay rent or mortgage or own at pretty much any price.
The landlords are the greedy ones - the neighbors and corporations that were already there for the most part. I’m not arguing for anything (in case someone mistakes this for a rent control argument), just have been in enough cities to hear it all.
Landlords are price takers, not price makers. The market for apartments is highly competitive.
If that was true, apartment pricing would be flat or even trending down, as landlords would compete on price.
But they don't. Instead, landlords fight against the construction against additional housing so they can limit supply and increase prices.
I had a 900 sq foot, 2br, 1 bath apartment in the suburbs in 2012 that was $800/month. Each annual lease renewal was a higher price. When I moved out in 2015, the price was $950 at the time. If I had renewed, it would have been $1,100/month. That apartment now is $1,500/month. In less than 10 years, that apartment has doubled in cost.
Rising prices do not indicate a competitive market.
But they don't. Instead, landlords fight against the construction against additional housing so they can limit supply and increase prices.
I had a 900 sq foot, 2br, 1 bath apartment in the suburbs in 2012 that was $800/month. Each annual lease renewal was a higher price. When I moved out in 2015, the price was $950 at the time. If I had renewed, it would have been $1,100/month. That apartment now is $1,500/month. In less than 10 years, that apartment has doubled in cost.
Rising prices do not indicate a competitive market.
Rising prices have nothing to do with whether it is a competitive market.
I agree with most of the rest of your comment, but none of that means that the landlords are price setters.
Nor does it show that discussing supply is a "deflection."
I agree with most of the rest of your comment, but none of that means that the landlords are price setters.
Nor does it show that discussing supply is a "deflection."
Supply and demand is a factor. You can talk about it. It is not a unique enough factor to this time period. I feel like you wanted someone to acknowledge that.
Perhaps property sales and rentals should require attestations about who offered what price and we can use that data to consider deterrents or levies on those who moved the price up from the prior owner or tenant. Sure there are some prospective occupants that will say a higher price just to skip the queue, I dont think they are really the majority of people even when well funded transplants descend upon a town. I think the majority just take whatever the landlord offers.
Perhaps property sales and rentals should require attestations about who offered what price and we can use that data to consider deterrents or levies on those who moved the price up from the prior owner or tenant. Sure there are some prospective occupants that will say a higher price just to skip the queue, I dont think they are really the majority of people even when well funded transplants descend upon a town. I think the majority just take whatever the landlord offers.
> I think the majority just take whatever the landlord offers.
Taking the price offered for a particular property is not the same as ignoring prices. Apartment shoppers search for the combination of quality and price that best satisfies their preferences. I have a hard time imagining an alternative. Would that be going to an apartment search engine and simply picking the first result, regardless of quality and price?
When I go to the grocery store, I don't negotiate with the cashier. That doesn't mean grocery stores aren't competing with each other.
Taking the price offered for a particular property is not the same as ignoring prices. Apartment shoppers search for the combination of quality and price that best satisfies their preferences. I have a hard time imagining an alternative. Would that be going to an apartment search engine and simply picking the first result, regardless of quality and price?
When I go to the grocery store, I don't negotiate with the cashier. That doesn't mean grocery stores aren't competing with each other.
Yes and the shoppers find one, the trend is that the unit they find and pick - no matter what the shopper lands on - was rented higher than the last time, because the landlord set it higher than the last time. This didn't have to occur, the landlord could have done the prior price, the lower price, even in the face of demand and people willing to close quickly at the new higher price.
Why would the landlord choose to rent at below market rates? I think we've drifted from the question of whether the rental apartment market is competitive.
If a landlord chooses to consistently rent below market rates, for whatever foolish reason, then they'll probably wind up selling the building to someone who knows what the market rate is. It might take a while, but it'll happen eventually.
If a landlord chooses to consistently rent below market rates, for whatever foolish reason, then they'll probably wind up selling the building to someone who knows what the market rate is. It might take a while, but it'll happen eventually.
> If that was true, apartment pricing would be flat or even trending down, as landlords would compete on price.
It is possible to have rising prices in a competitive market. For example, the automobile market is competitive and experiences rising prices. When I was shopping for an apartment not long ago, I saw several signs advertising discounts. This is evidence that landlords compete on price. However, lack of advertised discounts would not be evidence of a monopoly.
It is possible to have rising prices in a competitive market. For example, the automobile market is competitive and experiences rising prices. When I was shopping for an apartment not long ago, I saw several signs advertising discounts. This is evidence that landlords compete on price. However, lack of advertised discounts would not be evidence of a monopoly.
I don't get why minimum wage isn't tied to the CPI by default. I supposed there's a risk of it creating a positive feedback loop, but only a small portion of the workforce is paid at minimum wage. It seems capricious for minimum wage to only be increased when the legislative branch decides it's popular enough to fight for.
Because both parties are owned by oligarchs who would lose money if that happened.
Minimum wage hikes chew through profits and profits are pretty much the #1 legislative priority because that's the primary concern of those doing the campaign financing.
Same reason gun control wont happen no matter how many people get killed - ultimately its because gun manufacturers would lose money.
American politics is the art of trying to shape public opinion just enough to be compatible with the desires of campaign financers.
Minimum wage hikes chew through profits and profits are pretty much the #1 legislative priority because that's the primary concern of those doing the campaign financing.
Same reason gun control wont happen no matter how many people get killed - ultimately its because gun manufacturers would lose money.
American politics is the art of trying to shape public opinion just enough to be compatible with the desires of campaign financers.
The biggest gun manufacturer you can buy stock in is Ruger (RGR) with a market cap of 1.17B. Add Smith & Wesson and you're at 2B. Throw in Vista Outdoors which owns many of the top US ammo brands (plus some minor firearm and accessory brands) and you can get the total up to 4.3B.
I'll multiply that by 10 to guesstimate privately held companies, local gun stores, and the rest of the long tail. So let's say we're at $43 billion for the whole gun industry in the US.
Isn't that kind of podunk scale for an industry to have a rock solid hold on US politics? Snapchat alone is valued at $72B. Ford is $80B. Pfizer is $330B. Dollar General is $51B. Heck, Office Depot is worth more than S&W or Ruger.
I'll multiply that by 10 to guesstimate privately held companies, local gun stores, and the rest of the long tail. So let's say we're at $43 billion for the whole gun industry in the US.
Isn't that kind of podunk scale for an industry to have a rock solid hold on US politics? Snapchat alone is valued at $72B. Ford is $80B. Pfizer is $330B. Dollar General is $51B. Heck, Office Depot is worth more than S&W or Ruger.
I remember reading an article on how relatively cheap it is to "buy" politicians, on the order of just a hundred thousand dollars of donations in some cases, for favorable votes on relevant bills and whatnot.
I would assume if normal,everyday citizens started banding together to buy votes the corporations would up the ante and price us out pretty quickly, but as things stand right now there's no point without competition. Power of the free market baby!
I would assume if normal,everyday citizens started banding together to buy votes the corporations would up the ante and price us out pretty quickly, but as things stand right now there's no point without competition. Power of the free market baby!
It "costs" that much because that's just the monetary value. The value of the connections required to get that dinner is where the real cost is.
Yeah, that's weird in perspective. Snapchat's valuation doesn't give them buying power, but Apple has nearly 200B cash on hand -- they could theoretically buy and close down all of these manufacturers and test the hypothesis that Big Gun is causing all the shootings.
Theoretically, could Apple buy S&W and…just shut it down? Would the government allow it? Curious…
Most arms manufacturers have contracts with the government, including contracts to operate govt-owned ammunition factories.
Even smaller companies that don't make a product with a major govt/ military contract often have contracts as secondary suppliers of 3rd party or military spec'd parts, like scopes, mounts, triggers, etc.
A buyer could shut down a company that holds such a contract, but then it would just go back up for public bid.
Additionally, military standards for ammo are very high, and companies make money selling "factory seconds" (that don't meet military qa/qc, but are otherwise fine) to the public, which is an included perk of these govt contracts. And isn't a negligible fraction of required production.
So even a hypothetical buyer that would meet its contractual obligation to the govt would do so at an additional cost compared a company selling seconds and surplus manufacturing capacity.
In short, the market won't change without major policy change, no matter what major players might be hypothetically bought and shut down.
Even smaller companies that don't make a product with a major govt/ military contract often have contracts as secondary suppliers of 3rd party or military spec'd parts, like scopes, mounts, triggers, etc.
A buyer could shut down a company that holds such a contract, but then it would just go back up for public bid.
Additionally, military standards for ammo are very high, and companies make money selling "factory seconds" (that don't meet military qa/qc, but are otherwise fine) to the public, which is an included perk of these govt contracts. And isn't a negligible fraction of required production.
So even a hypothetical buyer that would meet its contractual obligation to the govt would do so at an additional cost compared a company selling seconds and surplus manufacturing capacity.
In short, the market won't change without major policy change, no matter what major players might be hypothetically bought and shut down.
I imagine that if they bought them all at the same time, it would be seen as anticompetitive. But if they bought them serially, and shut each down before acquiring the next, would that skirt the law? Curious indeed.
From my non-lawyer understanding: the Sherman Antitrust Act and any further bills/amendments aren't exactly explicit on what it means to be "anticompetitive" because it depends on the circumstances, and the writers wanted to allow the definition to adapt to changing circumstances. Regardless of if they buy them all at once, or buy and shutting them down serially, it's still arguably "anticompetitive". It's ultimately up to the courts to decide (if the FTC presses charges).
Sell consumers guns at silly prices, but only works if you hold it correctly...
> Snapchat's valuation doesn't give them buying power
This isn't true in practice. Sure, company stock is not as great as the almighty US dollar, but can be used to purchase other companies, and its valuation directly affects how much cash the company can raise.
This isn't true in practice. Sure, company stock is not as great as the almighty US dollar, but can be used to purchase other companies, and its valuation directly affects how much cash the company can raise.
as long as there is a market for guns another company will just step into its place. Much like as long as there is a market for drugs new dealers step up fast as you can arrest them.
>Isn't that kind of podunk scale for an industry to have a rock solid hold on US politics?
relevant: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in...
>all donations to all candidates, all lobbying, all think tanks, all advocacy organizations, the Washington Post, Vox, Mic, Mashable, Gawker, and Tumblr, combined, are still worth a little bit less than the almond industry. And Musk could buy them all.)
relevant: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in...
>all donations to all candidates, all lobbying, all think tanks, all advocacy organizations, the Washington Post, Vox, Mic, Mashable, Gawker, and Tumblr, combined, are still worth a little bit less than the almond industry. And Musk could buy them all.)
Good article. It's amusing how one throw-away statement didn't hold up:
> As rich as Elon Musk is, he’s only one of five hundred billionaires, and some of the others are even richer.
> As rich as Elon Musk is, he’s only one of five hundred billionaires, and some of the others are even richer.
>Isn't that kind of podunk scale for an industry to have a rock solid hold on US politics?
Not when a Constitutional Amendment makes that industry "too big to fail" because its thesis on the necessity of the right to keep and bear arms depends on there being an industry manufacturing arms to begin with (at least at modern scale,) and when the industry overwhelmingly supports one political party, driving animosity with fear-based rhetoric against the other.
You just don't have the same intersection of identity politics, culture and even religion with any other industry in the US that you do with guns, even if the money spent elsewhere is greater.
Not when a Constitutional Amendment makes that industry "too big to fail" because its thesis on the necessity of the right to keep and bear arms depends on there being an industry manufacturing arms to begin with (at least at modern scale,) and when the industry overwhelmingly supports one political party, driving animosity with fear-based rhetoric against the other.
You just don't have the same intersection of identity politics, culture and even religion with any other industry in the US that you do with guns, even if the money spent elsewhere is greater.
The individual right to keep and bear arms is a natural right of all free people. It doesn't depend on the existence of the small arms industry. When the US Constitution was written there was hardly even an industry; most firearms were craft built.
> When the US Constitution was written there was hardly even an industry; most firearms were craft built.
You mean at the dawn of the industrial revolution, before which, you know, everything was craft built?
You mean at the dawn of the industrial revolution, before which, you know, everything was craft built?
Yes that's what I mean.
We live in the 21st century, not the 18th century. If liberty requires that access to guns be a universal and inalienable right, then the capacity to manufacture and provide guns must scale with the population, and a small arms manufacturing infrastructure is necessary now to supply 300 million Americans with the access to firearms that the Constitution deems necessary for the US to remain a free state. Otherwise liberty diminishes because fewer guns wind up in fewer hands.
The Second Amendment does very much depend on the existence that industry, because if the government were to allow small arms manufacturing to fail, it would be de facto abridging the people's right to keep and bear arms. It's the only industry that has to exist in the US, by fiat.
The Second Amendment does very much depend on the existence that industry, because if the government were to allow small arms manufacturing to fail, it would be de facto abridging the people's right to keep and bear arms. It's the only industry that has to exist in the US, by fiat.
[deleted]
Maursault(1)
If what you're saying were true, it would mean that manufacturing guns and/or ammunition for anything other than personal use could be made illegal without running afoul of the 2nd Amendment. Which is absurd.
Apparently, this can be pursued at the State level, so it may not be unconstitutional.
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/192/HD4192/Cosponsor
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/192/HD4192/Cosponsor
This entire thread is why gun control constantly keeps existing as an issue, you two people who should be political allies are now splitting hairs over relatively minor issues compared to the cost of healthcare and wage stagnation
>You just don't have the same intersection of identity politics, culture and even religion with any other industry
I think this kind of monolithic homogenous group is fiction. I hear the same thing from other people about tech. Both sentiments lack a nuanced perspective.
I think this kind of monolithic homogenous group is fiction. I hear the same thing from other people about tech. Both sentiments lack a nuanced perspective.
Guns are almost a drug to the fading significance (psychologically, economically, politically) of the middle class white male. It's phallic, it makes you feel powerful and safe, it goes boom, and it is intimately tied to the mythos of the United States of America (well, and the Confederate States of America).
The amount of guns purchased by "gun nuts" reminds me of the stats on alcohol consumption: something like 80% of alcohol is consumed by alcoholics.
So you can mobilize a very rabid base politically.
Also, the gun manufacturers are tied in with the military and the diplomatic powers that be of the US (aka THE power brokers of the US government and the world).
The amount of guns purchased by "gun nuts" reminds me of the stats on alcohol consumption: something like 80% of alcohol is consumed by alcoholics.
So you can mobilize a very rabid base politically.
Also, the gun manufacturers are tied in with the military and the diplomatic powers that be of the US (aka THE power brokers of the US government and the world).
> Same reason gun control wont happen no matter how many people get killed - ultimately its because gun manufacturers would lose money.
This is ... derailing. If Americans didn't love guns, they wouldn't go and buy guns. There is close to 400 million unregistered firearm in the USA. I don't think it's only Republican's. The companies who make guns will try to protect their business but at this point they are just secondary.
Also both Canada and Finland are in the top 10: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...
A person with a gun is not necessarily dangerous. An idiot with a gun is. An idiot without is still as dangerous.
This is ... derailing. If Americans didn't love guns, they wouldn't go and buy guns. There is close to 400 million unregistered firearm in the USA. I don't think it's only Republican's. The companies who make guns will try to protect their business but at this point they are just secondary.
Also both Canada and Finland are in the top 10: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...
A person with a gun is not necessarily dangerous. An idiot with a gun is. An idiot without is still as dangerous.
> A person with a gun is not necessarily dangerous. An idiot with a gun is. An idiot without is still as dangerous.
just adding some facts here -- 1.2% of gun deaths were accidents https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/21/jason-miya...
just adding some facts here -- 1.2% of gun deaths were accidents https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/21/jason-miya...
[deleted]
Canada and Finland and very different rules and regulation around ownership and licensing and what you can and cannot do with them.
A person with a fun is dangerous, whether they are an idiot not.
It's the same as all code having bugs, regardless of whether the programmer was skilled
It's the same as all code having bugs, regardless of whether the programmer was skilled
> Same reason gun control wont happen no matter how many people get killed - ultimately its because gun manufacturers would lose money.
Depends on what you mean by gun control though. Many (myself included) are pro 2nd Amendment so it's not just the gun lobby/NRA who oppose some (not all) regulation.
I guess my point is that gun control (whatever that means) won't happen not only because of gun lobbyists but because many Americans support gun ownership.
Depends on what you mean by gun control though. Many (myself included) are pro 2nd Amendment so it's not just the gun lobby/NRA who oppose some (not all) regulation.
I guess my point is that gun control (whatever that means) won't happen not only because of gun lobbyists but because many Americans support gun ownership.
It's not the tail wagging the dog, though. The large contingent of Americans who throw their political weight in an organized way behind gun ownership as a point of principle were rallied by the gun manufacturing industry. It wasn't organic.
It didn't happen in Australia or New Zealand or the UK even though gun enthusiasts exist in all of those countries.
It didn't happen in Australia or New Zealand or the UK even though gun enthusiasts exist in all of those countries.
> It's not the tail wagging the dog, though. The large contingent of Americans who throw their political weight in an organized way behind gun ownership as a point of principle were rallied by the gun manufacturing industry. It wasn't organic.
Idk exactly what you mean by organic, but if it means what I think you're trying to say, idk what's more organic than creating the Second Amendment which was created long before there were gun lobbyists.
> It didn't happen in Australia or New Zealand or the UK even though gun enthusiasts exist in all of those countries.
America is a different country isn't it?
Idk exactly what you mean by organic, but if it means what I think you're trying to say, idk what's more organic than creating the Second Amendment which was created long before there were gun lobbyists.
> It didn't happen in Australia or New Zealand or the UK even though gun enthusiasts exist in all of those countries.
America is a different country isn't it?
> idk what's more organic than creating the Second Amendment which was created long before there were gun lobbyists.
I think the whole debate over gun control is not as important as people make it out to be, so I don't have a huge dog in this fight.
That said, 2A was not interpreted (at least by the courts, but also it seems from historical research, in public discourse) the way it has been until the late 90s and early 21st century, particularly in DC v. Heller.
Historically, there was generally broad latitude given to cities to have arms restrictions going back to the 19th century. My guess is that the crack epidemic and associated things in the late 80s and 90s is what shifted attitudes here.
I think the whole debate over gun control is not as important as people make it out to be, so I don't have a huge dog in this fight.
That said, 2A was not interpreted (at least by the courts, but also it seems from historical research, in public discourse) the way it has been until the late 90s and early 21st century, particularly in DC v. Heller.
Historically, there was generally broad latitude given to cities to have arms restrictions going back to the 19th century. My guess is that the crack epidemic and associated things in the late 80s and 90s is what shifted attitudes here.
But that ability to organize is also protected by the US Constitution. You may consider it unethical, but it’s not illegal.
Replying to Pydry, adjacent to parent:
None of those countries enshrine as law the concept of self defense in the form of gun ownership, though. The "right to bear arms" is considered the fundamental way to protect against tyranny in the United States. One of the founding fathers (Jefferson?) even posited that revolution was a responsibility of the people when a government became too overbearing.
Couple that with the Judeo/Christian concept of "value of life" and you have a people (who, though not Christian in practice, inherited these worldviews) that believes life is sacred and will fight for even the ability to defend themselves and others. Do note that the Judeo/Christian worldviews that benefited the West have been attacked and eroded over the last century and a half, and that the sanctity of human life is actually a big question mark for many. But there remain a staunch few that will continue to hold to their ideals.
None of those countries enshrine as law the concept of self defense in the form of gun ownership, though. The "right to bear arms" is considered the fundamental way to protect against tyranny in the United States. One of the founding fathers (Jefferson?) even posited that revolution was a responsibility of the people when a government became too overbearing.
Couple that with the Judeo/Christian concept of "value of life" and you have a people (who, though not Christian in practice, inherited these worldviews) that believes life is sacred and will fight for even the ability to defend themselves and others. Do note that the Judeo/Christian worldviews that benefited the West have been attacked and eroded over the last century and a half, and that the sanctity of human life is actually a big question mark for many. But there remain a staunch few that will continue to hold to their ideals.
I am not convinced that "Judeo/Christian worldviews" have led to a more developed or dominant West than would have developed in the absence of those worldviews.
> gun control
We must also keep in mind that the most likely person to be killed with a firearm is the person firing it-- ie suicide. Furthermore we have to question what percentage of the ~37% of gun deaths as murders would be curbed by gun controls, particularly what percent of those murders will happen via an illegal firearm or just some different weapon (are we going to have knife control, poison control, strangle control...)
IMO America has a (largely male) mental health issue more than a murder/firearm issue, I suggest we treat the root not the symptom. How? apropos to the thread one potential solution is we might give people some economic hope via a good working wage. (Perhaps it's not the right solution, but still emphasize the roots not the symptoms)
some sources for food for thought:
[1]: https://bigthink.com/the-present/switzerland-high-gun-owners... Switzerland has lots of guns but few mass shootings
[2]: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/21/jason-miya...
[2]:
We must also keep in mind that the most likely person to be killed with a firearm is the person firing it-- ie suicide. Furthermore we have to question what percentage of the ~37% of gun deaths as murders would be curbed by gun controls, particularly what percent of those murders will happen via an illegal firearm or just some different weapon (are we going to have knife control, poison control, strangle control...)
IMO America has a (largely male) mental health issue more than a murder/firearm issue, I suggest we treat the root not the symptom. How? apropos to the thread one potential solution is we might give people some economic hope via a good working wage. (Perhaps it's not the right solution, but still emphasize the roots not the symptoms)
some sources for food for thought:
[1]: https://bigthink.com/the-present/switzerland-high-gun-owners... Switzerland has lots of guns but few mass shootings
[2]: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/21/jason-miya...
[2]:
And the reason countries like NZ seem to be able to quickly and efficiently pass sweeping gun reform laws is because it’s not effecting any major gun producers bottom line. In America that is very much not the situation.
Additionally, even if profits were a moot point, the 2nd amendment is a culture war wedge issue that runs bone-deep for the average American.
Additionally, even if profits were a moot point, the 2nd amendment is a culture war wedge issue that runs bone-deep for the average American.
The gun industry started the culture war for profit and fans the flames for profit.
Take away the profit margins and have a few more mass shootings and I imagine the 2nd amendment would melt away as easily as the 4th did.
Take away the profit margins and have a few more mass shootings and I imagine the 2nd amendment would melt away as easily as the 4th did.
Even if we entirely ended the manufacture and sale of guns, there are far too many guns already in private possession for it to matter (I.e. there are more guns in circulation right now than there are people in this country). As a gun owner, it is obvious that to eliminate mass shootings we would have to eliminate private ownership of all semi-automatic firearms. That is so incredibly far outside the realm of possibility. The ability to engage in a mass shooting is not going to change; we need to engage the issue from other angles.
A few more mass shootings? HA! A few more at this point would be like a raindrop in the ocean. It's obvious that's not a factor for anyone with any real political/legislative power here.
I disagree that it was the gun industry that started the war, but they absolutely fan the flames for profit.
The 2nd amendment will never go away as long as conservatives use it as a wedge issue. It's far too important as leverage, and they've been incredibly successful in cementing it further into law even very recently. My state just passed Constitutional Carry into law this year.
The 2nd amendment will never go away as long as conservatives use it as a wedge issue. It's far too important as leverage, and they've been incredibly successful in cementing it further into law even very recently. My state just passed Constitutional Carry into law this year.
Fresh Air recently aired an interview with former gun industry marketing exec Ryan Busse, about their responsibility in the American culture wars. I can't remember off the top, though, whether he claim they are only fanning it or are the main origins of it. Anyway, an interesting listen.
Conservatives will happily do away with the 2nd amendment if you arm a bunch of black people, and have them constantly open carrying while black
Not sure about your location, I see about a 50/30/20 (white/black/Hispanic)racial mix at my Atlanta Bass Pro gun counter, which about matches this counties’ demographics. People just want to be able to protect themselves; don’t take Brunswick as the norm for everywhere.
They’re referencing how California republicans were lightning fast to legislate away gun rights as soon as the Black Panthers started organizing and flexing their second amendment rights.
The reason NZ can pass any gun law they want is that they do not have the right to own guns written into their Constitution. US are unique in this regard - most of the laws passed would be struck down by the Supreme Court anyway.
Does NZ have an equivalent of the 2nd Amendment?
In the US, States can regulate, even those without strong ties to manufacturers. The fact that many haven’t makes me think the 2A is a bigger issue than profits.
In the US, States can regulate, even those without strong ties to manufacturers. The fact that many haven’t makes me think the 2A is a bigger issue than profits.
You forgot to mention that the left is mostly funded by anti-gun interests. That is where the majority of gun control legislation comes from. If money from Bloomberg or Soros helps you win, you push gun control in return.
I also think trying to pin the 'culture war' on gun companies is bizarre. Are you from the US? Your take on this seems like something you would see on MSNBC.
I also think trying to pin the 'culture war' on gun companies is bizarre. Are you from the US? Your take on this seems like something you would see on MSNBC.
> You forgot to mention that the left is mostly funded by anti-gun interests.
It’s...not.
> If money from Bloomberg or Soros helps you win
Neither Soros nor especially Bloomberg are or especially fund the left; Bloomberg is center-right, Soros is, frankly incoherent; while, yes right-wing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories focus on his funding of organizations to the left of the Republican platform, among the organizations he funds are ones like Cru, the organization known as “Campus Crusade for Christ” before its recent rebrand.
(The Democratic Party is a center-right to center-left coalition party, where dominant power is held by the center-right, neoliberal corporate capitalist faction.)
It’s...not.
> If money from Bloomberg or Soros helps you win
Neither Soros nor especially Bloomberg are or especially fund the left; Bloomberg is center-right, Soros is, frankly incoherent; while, yes right-wing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories focus on his funding of organizations to the left of the Republican platform, among the organizations he funds are ones like Cru, the organization known as “Campus Crusade for Christ” before its recent rebrand.
(The Democratic Party is a center-right to center-left coalition party, where dominant power is held by the center-right, neoliberal corporate capitalist faction.)
Inflation at the levels we are seeing it is certainly a problem caused by the pandemic and the reactions to the pandemic.
Markets and corporate profits were at record highs pre-pandemic, and even with any supply chain issues the market and corporate profits are at new all time highs now.
The pandemic is just a convenient scapegoat and excuse for decades of congressional over spending and bad policy ultimately responsible for the current inflation.
Since Clinton the national debt doubled under every administration (Trump was on track if he won a 2nd term). Each administration also had trillion $ bailouts/stimulus bills. Biden already has a trillion $ stimulus ($1.9T), and that is blamed/justified on the pandemic. However, we can already predict the next administration will also have its own trillion $+ bailout/stimulus its just a question of what that will be “blamed” on to justify it.
The pandemic is just a convenient scapegoat and excuse for decades of congressional over spending and bad policy ultimately responsible for the current inflation.
Since Clinton the national debt doubled under every administration (Trump was on track if he won a 2nd term). Each administration also had trillion $ bailouts/stimulus bills. Biden already has a trillion $ stimulus ($1.9T), and that is blamed/justified on the pandemic. However, we can already predict the next administration will also have its own trillion $+ bailout/stimulus its just a question of what that will be “blamed” on to justify it.
We also need to stop pretending that flat (i.e. depreciating) wages are normal
but wages aren't flat? In gp's post it's only "flat" when adjusting for inflation, which means it's not depreciating.
Is it not a problem? Wages rose substantially in the years between WWII and the 1970s but isn't that the actual aberration?
That’s part of it. It’s similar to China from the 90’s to the 2020’s. Likely Chinese will not see real wages go up at the same rate in the 2039’s as they did the previous decades.
That said, what’s eating real wage growth is outsourcing. It’s simple. If I can build a fridge by paying workers in China or Mexico $2/hr vs paying a US worker $22/hr in a manufactury plant, my competition will eventually lose market share and shutter if they don’t also move manufacturing to a cheaper labor market.
Without any import taxes to adjust for labor conditions and costs, thus will put downward pressure on stateside labor markets.
People know this. But they ALSO complain of stagnating wages, while at the same time NOT wanting their US manufactured good to be more expensive than those made over seas!
That said, what’s eating real wage growth is outsourcing. It’s simple. If I can build a fridge by paying workers in China or Mexico $2/hr vs paying a US worker $22/hr in a manufactury plant, my competition will eventually lose market share and shutter if they don’t also move manufacturing to a cheaper labor market.
Without any import taxes to adjust for labor conditions and costs, thus will put downward pressure on stateside labor markets.
People know this. But they ALSO complain of stagnating wages, while at the same time NOT wanting their US manufactured good to be more expensive than those made over seas!
In the post war period the US was manufacturing goods for not just domestic use, but for the entire world. Pretty much all industrial capability was here in that period, so foreigners were forced to buy American goods. Those days are over and are never coming back. Most countries have their own industrial base now. There will never again be american employment in manufacturing like there was in the post war period, even if imports were completely banned.
It’s not only manufacturing though. And we don’t have to export to the world. We just need to support our own manufacturing and our own service workers.
My school janitors used to be able to send their kids to college and afford a humble house. Retail store clerks (Married with Children). All that is now cheap labor --you can't expect to pay a mortgage and send kids to college/uni. You may be able to afford the cheap apartment and beer --you'll probably end up with some addiction, i nthat situation.
These days that janitor is farmed out to some company that hires either cheap foreign labor or sometimes illegal labor. We see this in chicken processing plants too. And people wonder why the middle class is hollowed out. And why black and white working poor are sick and tired or corporate antics.
My school janitors used to be able to send their kids to college and afford a humble house. Retail store clerks (Married with Children). All that is now cheap labor --you can't expect to pay a mortgage and send kids to college/uni. You may be able to afford the cheap apartment and beer --you'll probably end up with some addiction, i nthat situation.
These days that janitor is farmed out to some company that hires either cheap foreign labor or sometimes illegal labor. We see this in chicken processing plants too. And people wonder why the middle class is hollowed out. And why black and white working poor are sick and tired or corporate antics.
agree, also look to the tech giants who practice outsourcing. 50%+ of Google's employees are contractors[1], imagine if they were all employees what a brighter future so many families would have and what a gigantic boost to the economy it would create.
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/technology/google-temp-wo...
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/technology/google-temp-wo...
Why do Americans deserve jobs over foreigners who are willing to do them for less?
Every State has the obligation to look after its own citizens. Otherwise, we should organize into a state that will as no other state will look after us. Can I go to Brazil or Russia and say, hey Russia, hey Brazil, you know, I'm neither Russian nor Brazilian and I didn't contribute anything to your country nor my did my ancestors, but I'd like some of your pie.
Also, we can't cry "wages have been stagnant since the 70s" and also want to continue ex-patriating jobs and ability to command better pay.
Also, we can't cry "wages have been stagnant since the 70s" and also want to continue ex-patriating jobs and ability to command better pay.
But what if you compare it to GDP? Production per capita has increased, yet the workers wages have not. I tend to think the “aberration” was due to the increase of private union membership, which has decreased since the 1980s.
When people are exploited systemically, they tend not to turn against their exploiters (which are often hard to identify) but against each other.
I think part of the promise of increasing the quality of life of everyone after WWII wasn't only out of the goodness of the heart, but also to avoid reaching the level of generalized hate that made it possible in the first place.
I think part of the promise of increasing the quality of life of everyone after WWII wasn't only out of the goodness of the heart, but also to avoid reaching the level of generalized hate that made it possible in the first place.
Could be. It might be that the existence of a substantial middle class, rather than a long tail of poverty, was an anomaly. Of course, we could choose to redistribute wealth to create any shape of curve we desire.
Wages ARE the cost of living. Who do you think make your food, your clothes and your light ? Are you sure it's not your own desires getting ahead of your wage ?
I feel we can do things our grandparents couldnt even dream of (mines remember a time in his French village when horses would collect garbage, horses!) and that our parents suspected only. Hell the fact I can speak English and all it cost was a few taxe raises in education is already money well spent.
Tiring a bit to hear people bemoan a golden era where tv where black and white, religion prevalent, people disconnected, books expensive, knowledge hidden and medicine an embryo of what it is now.
Toil a bit, build more for your children and keep your eyes away from your selfpity.
I feel we can do things our grandparents couldnt even dream of (mines remember a time in his French village when horses would collect garbage, horses!) and that our parents suspected only. Hell the fact I can speak English and all it cost was a few taxe raises in education is already money well spent.
Tiring a bit to hear people bemoan a golden era where tv where black and white, religion prevalent, people disconnected, books expensive, knowledge hidden and medicine an embryo of what it is now.
Toil a bit, build more for your children and keep your eyes away from your selfpity.
The idea that those who are falling through the cracks in the system is because they aren't working hard enough is crap. Thanks to the "golden age" you correctly say we live in, automation and globalisation have steadily eroded the value of human labor since the 70s (a big part of why real wage growth has been negative). Thanks in part to financialization and in part to anti-competitive regulations that benefit monopolistic incumbents, growth is increasingly driven by financialization and rent-seeking from capital owners. The fact that you are on HN likely means you benefit from your ability to assist the upper class (billionaires) increase their share of the wealth by diligently creating more and more intellectual property capital. The numbers don't lie, and the numbers show the poor are getting poorer (despite working just as hard), and the rich are getting richer (and none more so than the billionaires who own the intellectual property capital that let's them extract ever-increasing rents in exchange for granting ever-decreasing access to the latest innovations - particularly in pharmaceuticals and technology).
There are costs besides wages.
Eg. Profit, tax, and rent
Eg. Profit, tax, and rent
What’s your wage?
>Worker pay isn’t keeping up with inflation
If this wasn't a predictable outcome when inflation is triggered, it would be imposed by design.
If this wasn't a predictable outcome when inflation is triggered, it would be imposed by design.
> most Americans are significantly worse off since the 1970s
I think this is obviously false and hurts the credibility of the rest of this comment.
There are many pitfalls with measuring long-term inflation. How much did an internet connection cost in the 1970s? What about a computer? What about a smartphone? These modern technologies make peoples lives much better and were somewhere between impossible and impossibly expensive in the 1970s so an inflation metric can’t really take their price changes (from infinity to cheap) into account. Another is quality. Compared to the 70s, a new car is faster, safer, more comfortable, and more fuel efficient. Similarly, most houses are bigger and better in America today.
I think it is important to note that talking about long term inflation is different, and perhaps harder, than talking about short-term inflation which is what the OP is about.
I think this is obviously false and hurts the credibility of the rest of this comment.
There are many pitfalls with measuring long-term inflation. How much did an internet connection cost in the 1970s? What about a computer? What about a smartphone? These modern technologies make peoples lives much better and were somewhere between impossible and impossibly expensive in the 1970s so an inflation metric can’t really take their price changes (from infinity to cheap) into account. Another is quality. Compared to the 70s, a new car is faster, safer, more comfortable, and more fuel efficient. Similarly, most houses are bigger and better in America today.
I think it is important to note that talking about long term inflation is different, and perhaps harder, than talking about short-term inflation which is what the OP is about.
Internet connections cost poor people nothing in 1970 because they weren't necessary and could happily live their lives without one. The real item we're looking at here is *communication*, which was cheap: the stamp you needed to send in the form for your taxes cost a few cents. You could get away with using payphones for the few phone calls you absolutely needed to make.
In 2021, internet connections and cellphones are both expensive and mandatory if you want to participate in modern society. Your minimum wage job probably texts you your schedule, so if you don't have a cell phone, you can't even work. Many government forms have been moved online, with legacy options either unavailable or poorly services. Payphones are all but gone. If you're lucky to have a local library then maybe you can get some time on a decrepit computer with slow internet access, but the majority of the poor rely on their cellphone for internet access.
In 2021, internet connections and cellphones are both expensive and mandatory if you want to participate in modern society. Your minimum wage job probably texts you your schedule, so if you don't have a cell phone, you can't even work. Many government forms have been moved online, with legacy options either unavailable or poorly services. Payphones are all but gone. If you're lucky to have a local library then maybe you can get some time on a decrepit computer with slow internet access, but the majority of the poor rely on their cellphone for internet access.
An internet connected smartphone is not equivalent to the postal service (plus a pay phone or landline I guess). It may be that you use a computer or something else for the things that most people use smartphones for, wand so don’t realise how much they cover.
You also didn’t mention having to go to the library (distance + fuel/car/travel costs + more time) for information, finding jobs from newspaper advertisements or word of mouth.
But the claim I was disagreeing with is that most Americans are worse off now than in the 70s and the description “most Americans” does not match the sort of very poor people whom you describe. So I feel this comment is only partially relevant
You also didn’t mention having to go to the library (distance + fuel/car/travel costs + more time) for information, finding jobs from newspaper advertisements or word of mouth.
But the claim I was disagreeing with is that most Americans are worse off now than in the 70s and the description “most Americans” does not match the sort of very poor people whom you describe. So I feel this comment is only partially relevant
Poverty is not just about absolute purchasing power adjusted for location and time. There is also very much an unspoken social context, sometimes even codified into law.
In 1970, obviously nobody expected you to own a smartphone because it didn't exist. Noone had access to such a thing. Not so in 2021 western Europe. The example very much holds in that sense. You could fully participate in society without that expense.
I'm not speaking of keeping up with the Joneses here. I'm speaking of pervasive implicitly embedded demands on people's lifestyles.
What do you think about the effects of the way housing insulation requirements are often written?
What do you think happens when you invite someone to a party at your place in the countryside that is only reasonably reachable by car?
One of the best ways to get a feel for this kind of thing is to go live in an area with significantly lower median purchasing power for some time, a place where the average trustworthy hard-working person has difficulties making ends meet. I've done so. Even if I lived a lifestyle of relative luxury myself, it helped widen my perspective. I can absolutely recommend the experience!
In 1970, obviously nobody expected you to own a smartphone because it didn't exist. Noone had access to such a thing. Not so in 2021 western Europe. The example very much holds in that sense. You could fully participate in society without that expense.
I'm not speaking of keeping up with the Joneses here. I'm speaking of pervasive implicitly embedded demands on people's lifestyles.
What do you think about the effects of the way housing insulation requirements are often written?
What do you think happens when you invite someone to a party at your place in the countryside that is only reasonably reachable by car?
One of the best ways to get a feel for this kind of thing is to go live in an area with significantly lower median purchasing power for some time, a place where the average trustworthy hard-working person has difficulties making ends meet. I've done so. Even if I lived a lifestyle of relative luxury myself, it helped widen my perspective. I can absolutely recommend the experience!
Seems like you are talking about social inequality (a zero sum game) vs poverty (a non zero sum game)
The idea that no one was expected to own cell phones so they didn’t enrich our lives is clearly false.
Can apply this to any technological advance. So for eg. in the 1800s no one expected you to own a car. So the invention and subsequent technology driven deflation of car prices didn’t make everyone’s lives better.
The idea that no one was expected to own cell phones so they didn’t enrich our lives is clearly false.
Can apply this to any technological advance. So for eg. in the 1800s no one expected you to own a car. So the invention and subsequent technology driven deflation of car prices didn’t make everyone’s lives better.
> Seems like you are talking about social inequality (a zero sum game) vs poverty (a non zero sum game)
The two are not opposed. There is significant overlap significantly in many ways, even in the way government treats the very definition of poverty. In most countries, you'll find that poverty is defined as a percentage of median income.
Let me try to rephrase to make this more tangible. The minimum of things and services I need to procure to get minimally acceptable social inclusion is lower in some contexts than in others. 1970 versus 2021. Silicon Valley versus rural Latvia. I hope you get the point.
> The idea that no one was expected to own cell phones so they didn’t enrich our lives is clearly false.
I was certainly not claiming that! Cell phones or cars can clearly enrich the lives of those able to afford them. Their existence also creates a potential gap between haves and have-nots though.
Or to formulate it more sharply, you couldn't be poor because of not being able to afford a cell phone in 1970. You can be poor because of not being able to afford a cell phone in 2021. Does that mean a cell phone is a bad thing? Of course not!
The two are not opposed. There is significant overlap significantly in many ways, even in the way government treats the very definition of poverty. In most countries, you'll find that poverty is defined as a percentage of median income.
Let me try to rephrase to make this more tangible. The minimum of things and services I need to procure to get minimally acceptable social inclusion is lower in some contexts than in others. 1970 versus 2021. Silicon Valley versus rural Latvia. I hope you get the point.
> The idea that no one was expected to own cell phones so they didn’t enrich our lives is clearly false.
I was certainly not claiming that! Cell phones or cars can clearly enrich the lives of those able to afford them. Their existence also creates a potential gap between haves and have-nots though.
Or to formulate it more sharply, you couldn't be poor because of not being able to afford a cell phone in 1970. You can be poor because of not being able to afford a cell phone in 2021. Does that mean a cell phone is a bad thing? Of course not!
> Or to formulate it more sharply, you couldn't be poor because of not being able to afford a cell phone in 1970. You can be poor because of not being able to afford a cell phone in 2021. Does that mean a cell phone is a bad thing? Of course not!
So.. how does that imply that people are worse off now than in 1970? Your entire thesis seems to be that the jealousy people will feel from seeing others have things they don't will outweigh all of the material gains of the last half century.
That seems.. obviously false? to me
So.. how does that imply that people are worse off now than in 1970? Your entire thesis seems to be that the jealousy people will feel from seeing others have things they don't will outweigh all of the material gains of the last half century.
That seems.. obviously false? to me
>So.. how does that imply that people are worse off now than in 1970? Your entire thesis seems to be that the jealousy people will feel from seeing others have things they don't will outweigh all of the material gains of the last half century.
As an American, I don't subscribe to that thesis. At all.
What I do see (as someone in his mid 50s) is that the biggest difference is that folks back then believed (and it actually happened for many) that they would be better off than their parents.
That's no longer the case. There are a variety of reasons for this, not least of which are the systematic[0] changes to our economy that pushes wealth and resources to the top, at the expense of those at the bottom.
This didn't happen by accident, and I'm not really surprised that folks here on HN aren't focused specifically on that issue -- primarily because most of us are beneficiaries of said systematic changes.
The worst part (IMHO) is that these changes will only benefit those at the top for a limited time. Given that 70% of the US economy is consumer spending, taking purchasing power away from the vast majority of consumers is a recipe for a bad economy.
Increasing wages and safety nets makes good economic sense, as it broadens the market for consumer goods, makes it easier for folks to act in entrepreneurial ways, and in the medium to long term expands the economic pie, creating a healthier, more resilient economy.
Pushing wealth/resources to the top just doesn't do that at all. How many yachts/houses/cars/dresses/suits/pizzas/kale smoothies/etc. can one person reasonable purchase/use?
Even if you spread the money around more broadly, the wealthy will continue to be wealthy, and the rest won't have to work two or three jobs just to feed their kids boxed macaroni and cheese five times a week.
[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/systematic
As an American, I don't subscribe to that thesis. At all.
What I do see (as someone in his mid 50s) is that the biggest difference is that folks back then believed (and it actually happened for many) that they would be better off than their parents.
That's no longer the case. There are a variety of reasons for this, not least of which are the systematic[0] changes to our economy that pushes wealth and resources to the top, at the expense of those at the bottom.
This didn't happen by accident, and I'm not really surprised that folks here on HN aren't focused specifically on that issue -- primarily because most of us are beneficiaries of said systematic changes.
The worst part (IMHO) is that these changes will only benefit those at the top for a limited time. Given that 70% of the US economy is consumer spending, taking purchasing power away from the vast majority of consumers is a recipe for a bad economy.
Increasing wages and safety nets makes good economic sense, as it broadens the market for consumer goods, makes it easier for folks to act in entrepreneurial ways, and in the medium to long term expands the economic pie, creating a healthier, more resilient economy.
Pushing wealth/resources to the top just doesn't do that at all. How many yachts/houses/cars/dresses/suits/pizzas/kale smoothies/etc. can one person reasonable purchase/use?
Even if you spread the money around more broadly, the wealthy will continue to be wealthy, and the rest won't have to work two or three jobs just to feed their kids boxed macaroni and cheese five times a week.
[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/systematic
? I absolutely agree with you. Inequality nowadays is quite bad, overall welfare could be much better if we weren't hamstrung by it.
But I don't see how this means I'm ideologically committed to the absurd thesis that we haven't seen quality of life improvements for the average person in the last half century - going from a time where we had only recently eliminated actual starvation in the US, schools were still basically segregated, inflation rampant, a draft, etc. etc.
But I don't see how this means I'm ideologically committed to the absurd thesis that we haven't seen quality of life improvements for the average person in the last half century - going from a time where we had only recently eliminated actual starvation in the US, schools were still basically segregated, inflation rampant, a draft, etc. etc.
>But I don't see how this means I'm ideologically committed to the absurd thesis that we haven't seen quality of life improvements for the average person in the last half century - going from a time where we had only recently eliminated actual starvation in the US, schools were still basically segregated, inflation rampant, a draft, etc. etc.
I don't believe my comment even implied that.
Rather, I was providing my own take on your assessment of markvdb's comment[0], which I don't disagree with, I just wanted to address the elephant in the room (the systemic changes pulling more wealth/income to the top at the expense of those at the bottom) that hadn't been addressed.
That's not to say you didn't make a good point. You did. But I felt there was more to say.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29592162
I don't believe my comment even implied that.
Rather, I was providing my own take on your assessment of markvdb's comment[0], which I don't disagree with, I just wanted to address the elephant in the room (the systemic changes pulling more wealth/income to the top at the expense of those at the bottom) that hadn't been addressed.
That's not to say you didn't make a good point. You did. But I felt there was more to say.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29592162
> So.. how does that imply that people are worse off now than in 1970? Your entire thesis seems to be that the jealousy people will feel from seeing others have things they don't will outweigh all of the material gains of the last half century.
The point is that there are many things you are now required to have to meaningfully participate in society, that were just not required in 1970. For example, to get vaccinated in my country for COVID, you need to access a web page, sign up using email, and you'll get an SMS notification when your registration is accepted.
So, without an internet connection and mobile phone, you have to rely on someone else who does own one of these.
The conclusion being: someone who can't afford a mobile phone and internet connection may be poor in 2021, even if people without an internet connection or mobile phone were perfectly well off in 1970.
The point is that there are many things you are now required to have to meaningfully participate in society, that were just not required in 1970. For example, to get vaccinated in my country for COVID, you need to access a web page, sign up using email, and you'll get an SMS notification when your registration is accepted.
So, without an internet connection and mobile phone, you have to rely on someone else who does own one of these.
The conclusion being: someone who can't afford a mobile phone and internet connection may be poor in 2021, even if people without an internet connection or mobile phone were perfectly well off in 1970.
> to get vaccinated in my country for COVID, you need to access a web page, sign up using email, and you'll get an SMS notification when your registration is accepted.
I guarantee you that if you live in the developed world there are alternate pathways to getting vaxxed.
> someone who can't afford a mobile phone and internet connection may be poor in 2021, even if people without an internet connection or mobile phone were perfectly well off in 1970.
Funnily enough, a greater proportion of people have smartphones in the house today than had landlines then (60s & 70s), so even by this (absurd) metric where having a smartphone is equal to having a landline in terms of utility/welfare, we still have seen material improvements.
I am surprised that this has prompted such an argument here. I am curious as to the ideological motivations behind denying any progress in the last half century, this sort of rhetoric didn't seem nearly as popular even a few years ago.
I guarantee you that if you live in the developed world there are alternate pathways to getting vaxxed.
> someone who can't afford a mobile phone and internet connection may be poor in 2021, even if people without an internet connection or mobile phone were perfectly well off in 1970.
Funnily enough, a greater proportion of people have smartphones in the house today than had landlines then (60s & 70s), so even by this (absurd) metric where having a smartphone is equal to having a landline in terms of utility/welfare, we still have seen material improvements.
I am surprised that this has prompted such an argument here. I am curious as to the ideological motivations behind denying any progress in the last half century, this sort of rhetoric didn't seem nearly as popular even a few years ago.
People aren't denying progress, they're denying the idea that inflation should treat that progress as a decrease in prices.
> most Americans are significantly worse off since the 1970s
This statement seems obviously false to me and is what I was disagreeing with. This entire conversation was spawned because many people felt the need to defend this statement.
This statement seems obviously false to me and is what I was disagreeing with. This entire conversation was spawned because many people felt the need to defend this statement.
I get what you're saying and I absolutely think the invention of phones, the internet, etc. made everybody's lives better.
But it's also true that these things become necessities when everybody is expected to have them. There is a low but non-zero level of "keeping up with the Joneses" you have to do just to keep living your life reasonably, because things change around you. Job applications are done over the internet now. Most higher education requires a good computer, webcam, and internet connection. You hail a cab with your phone. People suck at giving directions because they assume you have GPS. Stuff like that.
So I think it is fair to price some of these "luxuries" into the cost of living even though in the past people got along just fine without them.
But it's also true that these things become necessities when everybody is expected to have them. There is a low but non-zero level of "keeping up with the Joneses" you have to do just to keep living your life reasonably, because things change around you. Job applications are done over the internet now. Most higher education requires a good computer, webcam, and internet connection. You hail a cab with your phone. People suck at giving directions because they assume you have GPS. Stuff like that.
So I think it is fair to price some of these "luxuries" into the cost of living even though in the past people got along just fine without them.
> The idea that no one was expected to own cell phones so they didn’t enrich our lives is clearly false.
It's not like everyone in the 70s was walking around completely depressed waiting for some breakthrough in computing technology so they could carry a computer in their pocket and ease all their ills. People could be content and maybe even happy without access to technology that didn't exist. Many Americans would likely be happier if they got rid of the "smart" part of their phones.
It's not like everyone in the 70s was walking around completely depressed waiting for some breakthrough in computing technology so they could carry a computer in their pocket and ease all their ills. People could be content and maybe even happy without access to technology that didn't exist. Many Americans would likely be happier if they got rid of the "smart" part of their phones.
Well happiness and material wealth are two very separate things.
People can be very content and happy with very basic necessities. Some of the happiest people on the planet are renunciate monks and nuns based in brain scan research (for eg mathieu richard)
And of course people can be depressed even to the point of being suicide while being wealthy. (Any number of high profile cases)
People can be very content and happy with very basic necessities. Some of the happiest people on the planet are renunciate monks and nuns based in brain scan research (for eg mathieu richard)
And of course people can be depressed even to the point of being suicide while being wealthy. (Any number of high profile cases)
I’m curious - what personal experience with poverty in the USA do you have?
I’ve found that shapes people’s perspective on the topic significantly.
I’ve found that shapes people’s perspective on the topic significantly.
[deleted]
Affording Internet access and a cell phone is no problem for me, but the only reason I have either is because they're de facto required for my work, for my spouse's work, and for our kids' school. I do use it for other stuff since I have it anyway, but I absolutely see it as a ~$140/mo tax on participating in the economy. Stuff like streaming services only makes sense because I already have to pay that "tax"—it'd be way cheaper to just buy all the media I want otherwise. $140/mo + (cost of streaming services) buys a lot of movies, books, TV shows, and music.
Overall, I think having the Internet makes my life significantly worse except for how it makes it possible for my family to participate in the modern education and the modern job market. It's a benefit mainly because you're shut out from things that previously did not require it if you don't have it.
[EDIT] ~$140/mo is my home Internet service and roughly what it costs for Internet service on two cell phone lines. I'd probably keep phone + SMS service even without the societal requirement to have Internet service.
Overall, I think having the Internet makes my life significantly worse except for how it makes it possible for my family to participate in the modern education and the modern job market. It's a benefit mainly because you're shut out from things that previously did not require it if you don't have it.
[EDIT] ~$140/mo is my home Internet service and roughly what it costs for Internet service on two cell phone lines. I'd probably keep phone + SMS service even without the societal requirement to have Internet service.
>I absolutely see it as a ~$140/mo tax on participating in the economy
* for most people they'd be paying for the internet/cell phone regardless of whether it's required for their job or not. I doubt the pandemic pushed up internet adoption rate by much.
* $140/month seems to be on the high side. are you really paying that much for the bare essentials? Or are you paying for gigabit home internet and a 25GB/month cell plan?
* for most people they'd be paying for the internet/cell phone regardless of whether it's required for their job or not. I doubt the pandemic pushed up internet adoption rate by much.
* $140/month seems to be on the high side. are you really paying that much for the bare essentials? Or are you paying for gigabit home internet and a 25GB/month cell plan?
Um good luck finding the car of your choice these days. Even before pando/trade war an in-demand model took weeks or months while other cars sit on lots.
We can’t argue that quality of life is sooo much better when production is such a mess. The only reason we hear the complaints is because of quality of life.
People with money can handle $1 more for an order of pretzel nuggets but make them wait and extra 2 minutes for it and the labor shortage is all over the news.
We can’t argue that quality of life is sooo much better when production is such a mess. The only reason we hear the complaints is because of quality of life.
People with money can handle $1 more for an order of pretzel nuggets but make them wait and extra 2 minutes for it and the labor shortage is all over the news.
> “We can’t argue that quality of life is sooo much better when production is such a mess.”
Not for nothing, but I’d bet my crispest dollar that our quality of life is still outrageously good. If you have to wait a few months for the $60,000 custom build F150 of your dreams, so be it. If someone’s gotta wait 5 minutes for their McNuggets, it’ll build out their patience.
Sure the system is under stress, but the problem is and always was us. The wealth inequality exacerbates it all and we’ll all eventually act like animals over it.
Not for nothing, but I’d bet my crispest dollar that our quality of life is still outrageously good. If you have to wait a few months for the $60,000 custom build F150 of your dreams, so be it. If someone’s gotta wait 5 minutes for their McNuggets, it’ll build out their patience.
Sure the system is under stress, but the problem is and always was us. The wealth inequality exacerbates it all and we’ll all eventually act like animals over it.
> in-demand model took weeks or months while other cars sit on lots.
America's model of making a bunch of random models and shipping them out to sit on lots in the hope someone wants that model is bizarre.
In most other countries you order exactly what you want and they build it.
America's model of making a bunch of random models and shipping them out to sit on lots in the hope someone wants that model is bizarre.
In most other countries you order exactly what you want and they build it.
It is also in part due to the explicit tie in of the dealership system by which we buy cars. Dealerships can't go away because they have baked the law around them. Automotive manufacturers are forbidden from building their own stores. Though this is a state by state issue, and Tesla is the manufacturer skirting this rule.
We also have franchised dealers in the UK. They have show-rooms and help you design the model you want and sort finance if you’ve got limited funds, and then they get it built and shipped.
Same thing - only difference is they don’t have cars in stock. It’s done on demand.
Same thing - only difference is they don’t have cars in stock. It’s done on demand.
The reason is actually that it costs the factories more money to shut down and wait than to keep things running. So they keep producing cars and trucks without chips, and letting them sit in lots. I know this first hand with family and close friendships with folks in production management within General Motors, Dana Corp.
The dealership and lot model has been the case in the US for many decades - it isn't anything caused by the pandemic or anything to do with the chip shortage.
That’s what I did with my new car just a few weeks ago (Ford). Built and ordered online. People like shopping in person so it makes sense to have that “mall” like experience. And having the car available to test drive on the spot must make for more sales
Not all dealerships let you order the trim you want, even if it's ok to sell in your state.
Chrysler pulled this on me so I substituted the good with one from another maker. Months later Chrysler called with all trims magically available. This was well before the panorama but during the trade war.
Chrysler pulled this on me so I substituted the good with one from another maker. Months later Chrysler called with all trims magically available. This was well before the panorama but during the trade war.
> How much did an internet connection cost in the 1970s? What about a computer? What about a smartphone?
This is the elitist fallacy that somehow having access cheap smartphones and plastics mostly manufactured in China at the back of our working class jobs make your life better while all else indicates life expectancy and quality of life across the board is declining for majority of Americans. Many Americans including my millennial generation feels we are worse off than our parents generation.
How does having cheap access to internet makes the quality of your life better if I may ask? Does it help with the ballooning cost of housing prices throughout the country? Or healthcare? Or education for that matter? These are three basic costs and they all have gone over 100% in most cities in a decade or so. Not to say people are more lonely and isolated than they ever have been.
This is the elitist fallacy that somehow having access cheap smartphones and plastics mostly manufactured in China at the back of our working class jobs make your life better while all else indicates life expectancy and quality of life across the board is declining for majority of Americans. Many Americans including my millennial generation feels we are worse off than our parents generation.
How does having cheap access to internet makes the quality of your life better if I may ask? Does it help with the ballooning cost of housing prices throughout the country? Or healthcare? Or education for that matter? These are three basic costs and they all have gone over 100% in most cities in a decade or so. Not to say people are more lonely and isolated than they ever have been.
Having access to cheap internet just makes it easier to perform all the additional life administration stuff that people in the 70s didn't have to do but we have to do on top of busting our asses for 40 hours a week to pay off someone else's mortgage.
Comparing utility providers to ensure you're not getting absolutely shafted? Made easier by the internet!
Booking flights? Made easier by the internet!
Having to go through your bank statements to ensure you're not being ripped off by a shady fly-by-night operator? Made easier by the internet!
/S
Comparing utility providers to ensure you're not getting absolutely shafted? Made easier by the internet!
Booking flights? Made easier by the internet!
Having to go through your bank statements to ensure you're not being ripped off by a shady fly-by-night operator? Made easier by the internet!
/S
The causes of decreasing life expectancy are fairly well understood and have little to do with the economy.
We know many young people are dying early deaths of despair. We can make mental health easier to access (there’s a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy just to get pills for well understood mental illnesses).
We can help folks avoid drug overdoses. One piece of low hanging fruit is to make opioids over the counter — that ways people aren’t _accidently_ overdosing on mislabeled fentanyl. And when they do OD, we can make sure they have safe consumption sites and narcan available (this is no different than a bar, where sometimes an ambulance has to rush away someone with severe alcohol poisoning).
We can help folks fight obesity — calorie counts should be included on everything and farm subsidies should be reallocated to healthier foods and low-calorie alcohol sugars instead of HFCS.
And lastly, COVDI-19 has been a big contributor to increased mortality. Anytime the US wants to get serious about the virus we can.
We know many young people are dying early deaths of despair. We can make mental health easier to access (there’s a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy just to get pills for well understood mental illnesses).
We can help folks avoid drug overdoses. One piece of low hanging fruit is to make opioids over the counter — that ways people aren’t _accidently_ overdosing on mislabeled fentanyl. And when they do OD, we can make sure they have safe consumption sites and narcan available (this is no different than a bar, where sometimes an ambulance has to rush away someone with severe alcohol poisoning).
We can help folks fight obesity — calorie counts should be included on everything and farm subsidies should be reallocated to healthier foods and low-calorie alcohol sugars instead of HFCS.
And lastly, COVDI-19 has been a big contributor to increased mortality. Anytime the US wants to get serious about the virus we can.
Your point is very strange to me since every single one of the things you listed: deaths of dispair, drug abuse, even obesity are strongly correlated (inversely) with economic health.
The Bay Area is booming, and yet even here this is a problem. There were more drug overdoses than COVID-19 fatalities.
> How does having cheap access to internet makes the quality of your life better
Whoa that's a bit of a reach no? How about the ability to drive around with GPS? Or stay easily in touch with family living far away? Taking photos of your baby and having it stored on the cloud for free? The ability to learn almost anything for free?
I'm not saying it's all great, it isn't, but we can't deny the benefits.
Whoa that's a bit of a reach no? How about the ability to drive around with GPS? Or stay easily in touch with family living far away? Taking photos of your baby and having it stored on the cloud for free? The ability to learn almost anything for free?
I'm not saying it's all great, it isn't, but we can't deny the benefits.
I did a cross country drive back in 2008 without GPS and it was great. In fact I would argue by removing all the components of randomness out of your life, you make yourself fragile and your susceptibility to risks much worse.
As an example, I lived in NY for three years and recently when I went there at my cousins place (who is GenZ) our batteries died and we had to walk our way to subway. Despite living there all his life my cousin was having a hard time finding the subway station in Astoria (because he just uses the Map) whereas I could remember from my vague memories of alleys and shops to find out rather quickly.Or how about driving into that diner you have never been instead of looking at Yelp or Google review and finding the best reviewed store? You deny yourself simple pleasures like that when you rely too much on Google or other technologies. I am not saying they don’t have their places but saying without them our quality of life would decline is a fallacy.
I would also argue writing letters and occasional/less frequent long formed phone calls were much better than frequent short form SMS or DMs which most of the time come off as devoid of same level of care or efforts. Keeping in touch with people we know have become such a low effort thing, try writing a letter or making a phone call next time instead of texting and realize how much more effort it required.
As an example, I lived in NY for three years and recently when I went there at my cousins place (who is GenZ) our batteries died and we had to walk our way to subway. Despite living there all his life my cousin was having a hard time finding the subway station in Astoria (because he just uses the Map) whereas I could remember from my vague memories of alleys and shops to find out rather quickly.Or how about driving into that diner you have never been instead of looking at Yelp or Google review and finding the best reviewed store? You deny yourself simple pleasures like that when you rely too much on Google or other technologies. I am not saying they don’t have their places but saying without them our quality of life would decline is a fallacy.
I would also argue writing letters and occasional/less frequent long formed phone calls were much better than frequent short form SMS or DMs which most of the time come off as devoid of same level of care or efforts. Keeping in touch with people we know have become such a low effort thing, try writing a letter or making a phone call next time instead of texting and realize how much more effort it required.
[deleted]
> How about the ability to drive around with GPS?
Maps, and the ability to read them.
> Or stay easily in touch with family living far away?
Phones, you know good old land lines
> Taking photos of your baby and having it stored on the cloud for free?
Why do I need physical photos stored in the cloud?
> The ability to learn almost anything for free?
Have ya heard of libraries?
Does technology make these more convenient? Absolutely. Does it make them materially better? Not in my opinion.
Maps, and the ability to read them.
> Or stay easily in touch with family living far away?
Phones, you know good old land lines
> Taking photos of your baby and having it stored on the cloud for free?
Why do I need physical photos stored in the cloud?
> The ability to learn almost anything for free?
Have ya heard of libraries?
Does technology make these more convenient? Absolutely. Does it make them materially better? Not in my opinion.
Have you traveled using maps and GPS? They are very different, and not even comparable.
It seems to me like comparing a shovel to a ditch digging machine.
It is possible to navigate using maps. But not practical for the mass audience of GPS who can’t use maps. And impossible for the industries that require GPS (uber types).
Technology is a multiplier that increases the returns on things my removing labor and letting it focus on other, more productive things.
Similarly, arguing that the internet isn’t 1000x easier to learn things because libraries exist is odd to me. Have you ever tried to use a book in a library to find that it’s checked out? Or not available at all. Inter library loans used to take 30 days, if I had access to a good library, and now that information is available to me for free.
This doesn’t mean the world is perfect or that we don’t still have so much work to do. But it’s just an odd perspective that seems unmoored from reality, since these things can be objectively measured.
It seems to me like comparing a shovel to a ditch digging machine.
It is possible to navigate using maps. But not practical for the mass audience of GPS who can’t use maps. And impossible for the industries that require GPS (uber types).
Technology is a multiplier that increases the returns on things my removing labor and letting it focus on other, more productive things.
Similarly, arguing that the internet isn’t 1000x easier to learn things because libraries exist is odd to me. Have you ever tried to use a book in a library to find that it’s checked out? Or not available at all. Inter library loans used to take 30 days, if I had access to a good library, and now that information is available to me for free.
This doesn’t mean the world is perfect or that we don’t still have so much work to do. But it’s just an odd perspective that seems unmoored from reality, since these things can be objectively measured.
Am I in some kind of weird HN bubble where no-one has ever used a physical map?
I've travelled extensively pre-turn by turn navigation using physical maps, i spent a year motorcycling across mainland Europe in my early 20's using nothing but physical maps, I did the same but in the US during the early-mid 2000's.
Was it as easy as sticking a zip code into a magic box and having it tell me where to go and when to take a turn? Probably not. But it wasn't much more complicated because I know how to read maps and can remember things for more than 10 seconds.
I've travelled extensively pre-turn by turn navigation using physical maps, i spent a year motorcycling across mainland Europe in my early 20's using nothing but physical maps, I did the same but in the US during the early-mid 2000's.
Was it as easy as sticking a zip code into a magic box and having it tell me where to go and when to take a turn? Probably not. But it wasn't much more complicated because I know how to read maps and can remember things for more than 10 seconds.
I used a physical map, but especially inside cities how the hell are you supposed to keep your eyes on the road and navigate at the same time? A 30 minute drive can have idk 50 turns. Do you memorize those 50 turns? What about places where the street signs suck?
Lol... no it's quite the opposite and far less distracting to actually navigate by map. You read the map, interpret the relevant bits, hold (in broad strokes) the entire strategy in your mind, and then just drive. Most of the small decisions don't matter. In fact, this greatly improves situational awareness. I don't need to pay attention to navigating every interesection when I just read the map and realize that every road as long as I'm heading roughly east will dump into the big collector road that I need to get to. I remember whether I'm on one side of the freeway, or the other, and I can find my way onto it without any additional assistance.
Interestingly, it's often MORE efficient than using Waze or some navigation app with ADHD that can't see the forest for the trees. I pity those that never learned to see the forest.
Interestingly, it's often MORE efficient than using Waze or some navigation app with ADHD that can't see the forest for the trees. I pity those that never learned to see the forest.
I'm not sure it's an HN bubble so much as a people under a certain age bubble. Smartphones in the modern sense have only been mainstream for a bit over 10 years. The internet was only mainstream for about 10 years before that. But a lot of people seem to assume that we were hunting woolly mammoths with flint spears before that time.
Yes today's communications are nice but we really didn't need GPS or cell phones to leave the house however primitive paper maps and, yes, some degree of planning seem.
Yes today's communications are nice but we really didn't need GPS or cell phones to leave the house however primitive paper maps and, yes, some degree of planning seem.
[deleted]
I was having the same bizzaro-world thoughts.
These guys are screwed if they ever come across a treasure map.
These guys are screwed if they ever come across a treasure map.
Well as a society we are super screwed if some event wipes out the internet or computers. The dependence is gonna keep increasing. I wonder when we'll hearing stories about Amazon servers shut downs inadvertently killing some people.
This is not a bubble, and driving using physical maps outside of major highways is a nightmare.
Less pleasant than GPS, sure, but by no means a rare skill or impossible to achieve. Would you get the road wrong more often, and have to stop and re-check? Yeah, definitely. Would you still get from A to B in roughly the same time? Yeah, definitely.
For what it's worth, my experience is the opposite. When I read the map and know the whole path ahead of time I'm far more likely to get it right the first time compared to using an app in the city that tells me to turn right 200 feet from the intersection when I really needed that information 200 yards from the intersection. Or sends me on some weird right then left then right thing instead of realizing I can just go straight.
I don't think anyone is disputing that technology makes things easier.
And I've frequently commented that early career me would be incredibly frustrated by the difficulty of accessing information about just about anything were I to be transported back in time.
But it's also the case that we were actually able to travel, communicate, and learn about things in 1990. Yes, it was generally higher friction and relied more on physical artifacts like maps and printed photos but we were able to manage quite well.
And I've frequently commented that early career me would be incredibly frustrated by the difficulty of accessing information about just about anything were I to be transported back in time.
But it's also the case that we were actually able to travel, communicate, and learn about things in 1990. Yes, it was generally higher friction and relied more on physical artifacts like maps and printed photos but we were able to manage quite well.
When I was younger and lived in California, people had Thomas Guide maps. These were the best. As a pizza delivery dude in college, it made it pretty simple to find a house/apartment. And it didn't require batteries etc. Now it wasn't as easy as an iPhone with maps built in, but it wasn't like it was impossible.
You believe it's not practical to navigate without a GPS?
Watch an old movie-- like the Graduate, or the funny comedy it's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad world, people had maps and asked for directions at gas stations.
Watch an old movie-- like the Graduate, or the funny comedy it's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad world, people had maps and asked for directions at gas stations.
There used to be a whole trope of men (especially) not wanting to stop and ask for directions. I'm sure there are younger people who would watch a movie or a TV show where this happens and go "Huh????"
There are also any number of plot points that revolve around not being able to reach someone that also wouldn't make a lot of sense in general today.
There are also any number of plot points that revolve around not being able to reach someone that also wouldn't make a lot of sense in general today.
>And impossible for the industries that require GPS (uber types).
By uber types, you mean taxi types? The same taxis which have existed in some form for a hundred years before GPS was invented?
By uber types, you mean taxi types? The same taxis which have existed in some form for a hundred years before GPS was invented?
> Maps, and the ability to read them.
You basically need another passenger with you otherwise you'll have to do a lot of stops. I'd even say its a bit risky to drive like that.
> Phones, you know good old land lines
So you are saying having a high def video call with my brother living across the world, for free, is just like calling him in the 60s? It used to be crazy expensive to call abroad. And you couldn't see!
> Why do I need physical photos stored in the cloud?
Do you physically develop all your photos? If you do you are an exception to the rule, most people develop maybe 1% of their photos.
> Have ya heard of libraries?
Come on now. Try learning C++ in a library, good luck with that. Also, it's only the rich world that has high quality libraries accessible to everyone.
You basically need another passenger with you otherwise you'll have to do a lot of stops. I'd even say its a bit risky to drive like that.
> Phones, you know good old land lines
So you are saying having a high def video call with my brother living across the world, for free, is just like calling him in the 60s? It used to be crazy expensive to call abroad. And you couldn't see!
> Why do I need physical photos stored in the cloud?
Do you physically develop all your photos? If you do you are an exception to the rule, most people develop maybe 1% of their photos.
> Have ya heard of libraries?
Come on now. Try learning C++ in a library, good luck with that. Also, it's only the rich world that has high quality libraries accessible to everyone.
So many misunderstandings in here, probably because you're too young to have done any of these things. (Source: I am pushing 50.)
Driving with maps doesn't require another passenger or a lot of stops, generally. You plan your route with the map before starting out, and if necessary write the turns on a piece of note paper. You may need to stop and consult the map if you miss a turn. I'll grant that GPS is more convenient, but maps worked better than you think they did.
Phones vs. video calls, I'll mostly grant you. Long distance calls were expensive, and video gives you facial and body language cues. On the other hand, audio quality was a lot higher when everyone was on land lines, so you didn't need those cues as much to make up for indistinct audio.
Physical photos: before 2000 or so, everyone developed all of their photos. Most cameras were film, then. Even when digital cameras came into widespread use, it was common to print the best pictures. People really only started not developing photos when smartphones became common.
Libraries: I learned C from a couple of textbooks, and C++ (such as it was in 1993) from a book published by the company that sold me the compiler. All of these would have been available in a reasonably sized library, or in a small library via interlibrary loan.
Driving with maps doesn't require another passenger or a lot of stops, generally. You plan your route with the map before starting out, and if necessary write the turns on a piece of note paper. You may need to stop and consult the map if you miss a turn. I'll grant that GPS is more convenient, but maps worked better than you think they did.
Phones vs. video calls, I'll mostly grant you. Long distance calls were expensive, and video gives you facial and body language cues. On the other hand, audio quality was a lot higher when everyone was on land lines, so you didn't need those cues as much to make up for indistinct audio.
Physical photos: before 2000 or so, everyone developed all of their photos. Most cameras were film, then. Even when digital cameras came into widespread use, it was common to print the best pictures. People really only started not developing photos when smartphones became common.
Libraries: I learned C from a couple of textbooks, and C++ (such as it was in 1993) from a book published by the company that sold me the compiler. All of these would have been available in a reasonably sized library, or in a small library via interlibrary loan.
> I learned C from a couple of textbooks, and C++ (such as it was in 1993) from a book published by the company that sold me the compiler.
You ignored that part of my argument about only the rich world having high quality libraries. What if you'r from India or Africa or even rural America? Now even a poor Indian can solve Hackerrank challenges on his phone. It's not as easy or as convenient but it's much better than his prospects 30 years ago.
You ignored that part of my argument about only the rich world having high quality libraries. What if you'r from India or Africa or even rural America? Now even a poor Indian can solve Hackerrank challenges on his phone. It's not as easy or as convenient but it's much better than his prospects 30 years ago.
Unfamiliar cities could certainly be more challenging to drive around prior to GPS, you got lost more often, and yes you often needed to have a paper map. It took me a while before I really developed a decent mental map for driving around the Boston area. But I find people seemingly arguing that travel to unfamiliar places was this daunting task absent GPS availability rather amusing.
For photos I shot B&W (which I printed selectively) and then slides. But most people just took their roll of print film to the pharmacy or whatever and got a stack of 3 1/2" x 5" color prints back.
For photos I shot B&W (which I printed selectively) and then slides. But most people just took their roll of print film to the pharmacy or whatever and got a stack of 3 1/2" x 5" color prints back.
> You basically need another passenger with you otherwise you'll have to do a lot of stops. I'd even say its a bit risky to drive like that.
Oh, FFS. Pre-GPS, I would look up my destination on a map or street atlas and learn the route. If a portion was especially tricky, I might jot down a few reminders, or pull over before that leg and review the map.
Is GPS a wonderful convenience, especially with traffic monitoring & such?
Hell yeah, I love it and wouldn't want to go back to maps without a damn good reason.
But don't pretend it's somehow vital.
> So you are saying having a high def video call with my brother living across the world, for free, is just like calling him in the 60s?
The vast majority don't use video calling.
Still, constantly available communication is, IMO, a huge net positive.
> Do you physically develop all your photos?
That was obviously how it worked before ubiquitous digital cameras.
Photo situation is better today, though I might argue that the low marginal cost of each photo leads to people robbing themselves of vivid memories of what they're seen. There's some research that supports that idea, though I don't have a reference immediately on hand.
> Come on now. Try learning C++ in a library, good luck with that.
That's exactly what I did. Checked the ARM out of the library. Eventually bought my own copy when I decided it was worth it.
As much as I love the wealth of information available on the net, I sometimes miss how good libraries used to be.
Oh, FFS. Pre-GPS, I would look up my destination on a map or street atlas and learn the route. If a portion was especially tricky, I might jot down a few reminders, or pull over before that leg and review the map.
Is GPS a wonderful convenience, especially with traffic monitoring & such?
Hell yeah, I love it and wouldn't want to go back to maps without a damn good reason.
But don't pretend it's somehow vital.
> So you are saying having a high def video call with my brother living across the world, for free, is just like calling him in the 60s?
The vast majority don't use video calling.
Still, constantly available communication is, IMO, a huge net positive.
> Do you physically develop all your photos?
That was obviously how it worked before ubiquitous digital cameras.
Photo situation is better today, though I might argue that the low marginal cost of each photo leads to people robbing themselves of vivid memories of what they're seen. There's some research that supports that idea, though I don't have a reference immediately on hand.
> Come on now. Try learning C++ in a library, good luck with that.
That's exactly what I did. Checked the ARM out of the library. Eventually bought my own copy when I decided it was worth it.
As much as I love the wealth of information available on the net, I sometimes miss how good libraries used to be.
I’m not trying to be condescending but I’m guessing you’re pretty young?
>> Try learning C++ in a library, good luck with that.
How do you think people learnt to code before the internet? I borrowed large textbooks on Basic/VB, C++, and Turbo Pascal from friends and libraries. And this wasn’t a long time ago. I did this as recently as 2005.
>> Do you physically develop all your photos? If you do you are an exception to the rule, most people develop maybe 1% of their photos.
Why would you take photos and not develop them? When I finish a roll I take it to the local store and they develop the photos. I then put them in an album or store them in another way. People have been doing this for a long time.
>> So you are saying having a high def video call with my brother living across the world, for free, is just like calling him in the 60s?
Most people I know disable video in meetings. The majority don’t do video calls with friends unless they have some friend that calls them that way. I find audio calls much more enjoyable that video calls and I definitely don’t think I’m in the minority there. If you haven’t seen someone in years and they live far away a video call might be nice but in most cases audio is not only enough, but better.
>> You basically need another passenger with you otherwise you'll have to do a lot of stops.
Most journeys people make repeat. You learn the route. The modern obsession with GPS is so we don’t get there a minute early or late. For infrequent, really long drives you can plan your trip in advance, noting down the steps of the journey rather than following the map constantly. It’s also amazing how far you get just following road signs when you know the general towns on your route.
>> Try learning C++ in a library, good luck with that.
How do you think people learnt to code before the internet? I borrowed large textbooks on Basic/VB, C++, and Turbo Pascal from friends and libraries. And this wasn’t a long time ago. I did this as recently as 2005.
>> Do you physically develop all your photos? If you do you are an exception to the rule, most people develop maybe 1% of their photos.
Why would you take photos and not develop them? When I finish a roll I take it to the local store and they develop the photos. I then put them in an album or store them in another way. People have been doing this for a long time.
>> So you are saying having a high def video call with my brother living across the world, for free, is just like calling him in the 60s?
Most people I know disable video in meetings. The majority don’t do video calls with friends unless they have some friend that calls them that way. I find audio calls much more enjoyable that video calls and I definitely don’t think I’m in the minority there. If you haven’t seen someone in years and they live far away a video call might be nice but in most cases audio is not only enough, but better.
>> You basically need another passenger with you otherwise you'll have to do a lot of stops.
Most journeys people make repeat. You learn the route. The modern obsession with GPS is so we don’t get there a minute early or late. For infrequent, really long drives you can plan your trip in advance, noting down the steps of the journey rather than following the map constantly. It’s also amazing how far you get just following road signs when you know the general towns on your route.
> How do you think people learnt to code before the internet? I borrowed large textbooks on Basic/VB, C++, and Turbo Pascal from friends and libraries. And this wasn’t a long time ago. I did this as recently as 2005.
I'm not denying that, I'm just sating progress was way slower - especially for newcomers before the internet. Imagine trying to solve problems without Google or Stackoverflow when you're a 15 old kid trying to learn programming. You're stuck on some shitty installation of Linux or some missing package and have no idea why the compiler gives this error message. How do you even get Linux? Have no idea how they did stuff back then but it was for sure harder to just to get something up and running. So easy to give up. Programming in that era used to be something 1 in maybe 50 children tried. It was no way near as accessible as it is today.
The flip side of that is that since it's now easier for everyone to learn new skills and solve problems, the requirements and expectations from workers pretty much went up proportionally.
I'm not denying that, I'm just sating progress was way slower - especially for newcomers before the internet. Imagine trying to solve problems without Google or Stackoverflow when you're a 15 old kid trying to learn programming. You're stuck on some shitty installation of Linux or some missing package and have no idea why the compiler gives this error message. How do you even get Linux? Have no idea how they did stuff back then but it was for sure harder to just to get something up and running. So easy to give up. Programming in that era used to be something 1 in maybe 50 children tried. It was no way near as accessible as it is today.
The flip side of that is that since it's now easier for everyone to learn new skills and solve problems, the requirements and expectations from workers pretty much went up proportionally.
I'm fairly convinced that having to do things as you described was better for mental health as well. The always on, always connected lifestyle has big downsides.
Driving with a map was better than how it is now? We're 10 years from having the damn thing drive itself for us.
I suck at directions, I can imagine without the internet I would just avoid drives to places I wasn't familiar with and miss out on a bunch of things.
Yeah, you have to use a map but your kid only has to interact with the school bullies at school and you aren't temped to reach out to your college fling behind your wife's back beacuse you never see her bikini photos.
Things have gotten better, but in lots of ways they have gotten worse.
Things have gotten better, but in lots of ways they have gotten worse.
Have no argument with you there, I'm not saying it was all a win.
Mental health problems seem to be increasing and the internet is part (but probably not all) of the problem.
You would discover you are better at directions than you think, if you need to find places without a phone and GPS.
You suck at directions because you rely on GPS. Navigating is a skill like any other.
> Or stay easily in touch with family living far away?
The flip side is that technology has made it more likely to not live near friends and family, and the accompanying challenges for mental health.
The flip side is that technology has made it more likely to not live near friends and family, and the accompanying challenges for mental health.
Quality of life is pretty subjective but US life expectancy rose from about 70 to 79 between 1970 and today.
Yeah this is akin to saying our GDP growth is X% or inflation is 2% so everything is fine.
The measures for a quality of life I mentioned are something that every American or anyone in a first world country has to bear no matter what. Housing, healthcare, education. All of them have disproportionately gone up while the wage have stagnated. Average middle class family can’t afford to buy a house in most cities now, same with education without 22yr old kids taking on 150k loans. Or healthcare being the mess it is. But sure, everyone has a cheap smartphone and access to socials where they are busy fighting the culture war so everything is fine and dandy right?
The measures for a quality of life I mentioned are something that every American or anyone in a first world country has to bear no matter what. Housing, healthcare, education. All of them have disproportionately gone up while the wage have stagnated. Average middle class family can’t afford to buy a house in most cities now, same with education without 22yr old kids taking on 150k loans. Or healthcare being the mess it is. But sure, everyone has a cheap smartphone and access to socials where they are busy fighting the culture war so everything is fine and dandy right?
While life expectancy going up is certainly not a bad thing, it can be hard to decipher what the quality of life is like in those later years. The life expectancy is going up because of drug/medical advancement, but obesity levels in the USA are at/near all time highs. Often times people are just moving surgery to surgery or drug to drug just to stay alive...
You clearly haven't looked at life expectancy in other places. Life expectancy in other places rose more than in the US. That's what's being discussed here.
> I think this is obviously false and hurts the credibility of the rest of this comment.
The answer to the question of “are we better of than we were in 19xx” is somewhat subjective.
Take your points: cars are faster/safer/more comfortable/more fuel efficient and houses are bigger and better.
Ok so cars and houses are better today than 1970, but how does that relate to us?
1970 Average salary/median house cost/median rent/new car: $9,870/$17,000/$108/$3,542
2020 Average salary/median house cost/median rent: $56,310/$329,000/$1,463/$45,031
So yes cars are better, houses are bigger now than 1970; however, people and households are less likely to afford these things, and are significantly more indebted now than 1970.
Also there is the elephant in the room of college loans which were essentially non-existent in 1970, but have indebted 10s of millions of kids, nearly 1 million of them default on those loans ever year, financially ruining their lives (good luck getting that car loan, mortgage, credit check on a apartment).
The answer to the question of “are we better of than we were in 19xx” is somewhat subjective.
Take your points: cars are faster/safer/more comfortable/more fuel efficient and houses are bigger and better.
Ok so cars and houses are better today than 1970, but how does that relate to us?
1970 Average salary/median house cost/median rent/new car: $9,870/$17,000/$108/$3,542
2020 Average salary/median house cost/median rent: $56,310/$329,000/$1,463/$45,031
So yes cars are better, houses are bigger now than 1970; however, people and households are less likely to afford these things, and are significantly more indebted now than 1970.
Also there is the elephant in the room of college loans which were essentially non-existent in 1970, but have indebted 10s of millions of kids, nearly 1 million of them default on those loans ever year, financially ruining their lives (good luck getting that car loan, mortgage, credit check on a apartment).
I think the important numbers here are the salary and housing cost ones.
In 1970 the average house could be purchased for less than 2 years of salary. Today it costs 5.8 years of salary. The cost of housing has sky rocketed relative to income. Housing is the largest bill for the vast majority of people and it eats a massive portion of their take home. Likewise the cost of a vehicle has seen a very large increase percentage wise and very often transportation is the 2nd or 3rd largest cost for a family. So if housing and transportation costs are vastly more expensive then its stands to reason that financial pressure has increased proportionally on most people reducing quality of life. Arguments about 'having cell phones' means we are better off now make no sense. Another thing to consider with that argument is all of those cell phones are built in China where most manufacturing jobs have fled leading to the collapse of an industry that used to fuel the middle class and could comfortably provide a living and sense of pride for so many people.
>think the important numbers here are the salary and housing cost ones. In 1970 the average house could be purchased for less than 2 years of salary. Today it costs 5.8 years of salary.
But no one pays cash for their house. They get a mortgage and so the monthly mortgage payment is (mostly) what matters. Back in the 70s you're paying 10%+ on your mortgage while today it's more like 3.
But no one pays cash for their house. They get a mortgage and so the monthly mortgage payment is (mostly) what matters. Back in the 70s you're paying 10%+ on your mortgage while today it's more like 3.
That is true, but somehow elides the reality that even if interest rates were zero, you would still end up having to "divert" 5.8 years of median salary to own a median house in 2021, which has significant implications for lots of other aspects of life, particularly but not limited to retirement.
But, again, you're using purchase price which is not how people buy homes. For $100,000 borrowed that's $422 a month at 3% and and $1,264 at 15%. Mortgage payments as a % of income are at historic lows:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MDSP
This is an unusually good time to be a home owner. You can borrow at near 0 or even slightly negative real interest rates and buy an asset that is almost guaranteed to hold/increase in value.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MDSP
This is an unusually good time to be a home owner. You can borrow at near 0 or even slightly negative real interest rates and buy an asset that is almost guaranteed to hold/increase in value.
Come on. I just purchased my first home in my late 20s and I am one of the very few in my circle to do it. To suggest anyone has a 400 dollar mortgage payment is just ridiculous and untrue. MY rate is 2.78%. I pay $1000 and thats on the very cheap side for where I live. Average is 1700 and up(I live in an isolated area, but an extremely dense/populated state)
Your comment seems disingenuous. You're also discounting the fact that you need a large downpayment (10,000+) to even get a mortgage in the first place. Do you not live in the USA? Housing prices are a real problem for my generation.
Your comment seems disingenuous. You're also discounting the fact that you need a large downpayment (10,000+) to even get a mortgage in the first place. Do you not live in the USA? Housing prices are a real problem for my generation.
But again, you're missing the point.
People live in homes for their entire lives. If they decide to be owners rather than renters, over the course of their life (actually, typically somewhat less than their whole lives) they will end up mortgage free. This is an important component of most people's retirement planning, in fact.
What's the cost to get to that point? It used to 2x annual salary, it's now nearly 6x annual salary. That's 4 full years of earnings which vanish into owning a home. If you do not reverse mortgage or sell during retirement, you effectively "lose" this money.
People live in homes for their entire lives. If they decide to be owners rather than renters, over the course of their life (actually, typically somewhat less than their whole lives) they will end up mortgage free. This is an important component of most people's retirement planning, in fact.
What's the cost to get to that point? It used to 2x annual salary, it's now nearly 6x annual salary. That's 4 full years of earnings which vanish into owning a home. If you do not reverse mortgage or sell during retirement, you effectively "lose" this money.
>What's the cost to get to that point? It used to 2x annual salary, it's now nearly 6x annual salary.
It's just not. You're not accounting for the interest paid over 30 years of a mortgage.
It's just not. You're not accounting for the interest paid over 30 years of a mortgage.
No, I'm assuming best case: zero interest.
You might be arguing that 1970's cost-as-multiple-of-earnings plus 1970-accumulated-interest exceeds 2020's equivalent. Is that your point?
You might be arguing that 1970's cost-as-multiple-of-earnings plus 1970-accumulated-interest exceeds 2020's equivalent. Is that your point?
That "best-case" is unrealistically favorable to the 1970s buyer. In 2020, you can almost get that zero interest mortgage. In the 1970s, you are going to be paying at least 10% on top of that.
[deleted]
Sure, but the same inflation that was driving up mortgage rates was also reducing the real value of the balance of the loan. You can't just look at rates here.
We're talking about affordability here. And my point is that to determine if something is affordable you have to look at monthly payment and not the purchase price.
By that measure you also have to take into account that while you are renting to save up for the down payment you are paying a rent much greater in proportioning to your income. You are making a car payment much greater in proportion to your income. You also very likely are paying a student loan payment that did not exist for the 1970 home buyer. It is much more difficult to save up for even the down payment and more difficult to get approved for a home loan because you already have significant debt which the 1970 home buyer did not. In totality the debt driven economy makes homes less affordable…it’s not just about a monthly payment.
OK, sure. But inflation has an effect on the monthly payment as well. Assuming stagnant real wages (pay raises pace inflation exactly) if inflation is at 7% but you're paying 10% interest, by the end of a 30-year loan your fixed payment is effectively 8x smaller in real terms than it was at the start of the loan.
In other words, in that environment it was feasible to stretch to buy a home even at a high interest rate, because you knew that every year your fixed payment would decrease significantly as a share of your income.
In other words, in that environment it was feasible to stretch to buy a home even at a high interest rate, because you knew that every year your fixed payment would decrease significantly as a share of your income.
Sure, because no one has 5.8 years of cash on hand, its almost an impossible target for most. 2 years of cash is possible though. Even the ability to put down 6 months of cash would have a massive impact on a loan for 2x your salary and not so much on a loan for ~6x salary.
Not paying attention to the total and only focusing on the monthly payment is how most people get into future crushing debt and very much not a good thing.
Not paying attention to the total and only focusing on the monthly payment is how most people get into future crushing debt and very much not a good thing.
The reason rates were so high was because of interest. Back then you could expect your income to increase so the interest wasn't as bad as the nominal rate.
27 years to save for a deposit for a house in Auckland
>there is the elephant in the room of college loans which were essentially non-existent in 1970, but have indebted 10s of millions of kids
Also, health care/insurance costs. Growing up as a kid in the 1970s/1980s in a blue collar household, my father's job provided health insurance at a far lower % of salary than is common today and with minimal out of pocket costs for receiving care. Also, retirement. Back then most companies provided defined benefit (pension) plans rather than defined contribution (401K) plans - you put in your years and then you retired at a decent % of final salary for life.
Also, health care/insurance costs. Growing up as a kid in the 1970s/1980s in a blue collar household, my father's job provided health insurance at a far lower % of salary than is common today and with minimal out of pocket costs for receiving care. Also, retirement. Back then most companies provided defined benefit (pension) plans rather than defined contribution (401K) plans - you put in your years and then you retired at a decent % of final salary for life.
I have a circa 1970 car, and a modern car. The 1970 car is very cheaply built, and is mechanically simple. The quality, complexity, and sheer number of parts of a modern car has increased enormously. Much of that is due to regulation, most every aspect of a car is heavily regulated today. None of this comes for free.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the reasons the modern car has more parts and is not mechanically simple is not the boogeyman of regulations (although I suppose it could have caused some things like say seat belt alerts and airbags) but rather feature creep in the automotive industry, and computerization of everything.
This is a clear example of regulation making cars more complex! In the 70s, there were no crumple zones, airbags, backup cameras, traction control, lighting intensity requirements, or a whole host of other things that are mandated today. Those things do cost money.
That said, this is also a clear shift in consumer demand too - a 1970s $3500 car is going to be a sedan, small, and pretty featureless. Compare that to a $20k Corolla today - which is the same proportion of median income that the $3500 car was in the 70s. It's larger, more reliable, safer, and has a whole bunch more features.
That said, this is also a clear shift in consumer demand too - a 1970s $3500 car is going to be a sedan, small, and pretty featureless. Compare that to a $20k Corolla today - which is the same proportion of median income that the $3500 car was in the 70s. It's larger, more reliable, safer, and has a whole bunch more features.
The people who dislike something will see it everywhere and blame it for everything. Regulation especially is very versatile as a scapegoat.
Cars are much more reliable now than they were in the 1970s, and they can drive more miles.
They have to because services are distributed and it's super expensive and disruptive to sell an owned-residence.
They have to because services are distributed and it's super expensive and disruptive to sell an owned-residence.
Do you have any sources for that claim? Anecdotally I believe that to be entirely false, but if there are studies you’ve read that back you up I’d love to read them.
Here is one JD Power survey although you'd probably have to dig to find numbers over a longer period of time.
In my experience, it's clearly true overall. In the 1970s, say, you're probably looking at a car in the snow belt lasting 5 years because of rust and 100,000 miles was generally considered very high mileage.
In my experience, it's clearly true overall. In the 1970s, say, you're probably looking at a car in the snow belt lasting 5 years because of rust and 100,000 miles was generally considered very high mileage.
An example of this is the change to automatic transmission from manual has increased costs. People could have voted with their dollars but manual is (unfortunately) on its way out in America. In a way, they have as it seems vast majority of people buying new cars want automatic but the segment who prefer manual were unable to convince others to buy manual.
This also came with a caveat as automatic is more expensive to manufacture and repair.
This also came with a caveat as automatic is more expensive to manufacture and repair.
I mean it’s just not something most people find appealing. Shifting gears. I’d rather have the car handle that.
What is the pro of manual transmission? I used to have those cars in the EU and thought it was just an annoying extra thing I have to pay attention to when driving.
What is the pro of manual transmission? I used to have those cars in the EU and thought it was just an annoying extra thing I have to pay attention to when driving.
> What is the pro of manual transmission?
1. enjoyment
2. keeps you awake
3. more reliable
4. more control in stuck or slippery conditions
5. thieves don't know how to drive them
6. the kids are terrified of it and won't ask to borrow it
7. can push start the car
8. can restart the car while moving if the engine stalls
9. can coast
10. can drop the clutch and get off the line faster when drag racing against some teen at the traffic light
11. get to enjoy double clutching and mastering heel-toeing and pretending you're an F1 driver
12. The Cat cannot reach the clutch pedal, frustrating its plans for putting me in the trunk and depositing me in the Kat Fud Factory
13. you can nurse the car home and to the shop with a broken gearbox. With an automatic, it's a tow truck every time
14. the sheer joy of a winding mountain road, a powerful V8, picking the gear for the next turn, managing the traction and engine speed, etc.
1. enjoyment
2. keeps you awake
3. more reliable
4. more control in stuck or slippery conditions
5. thieves don't know how to drive them
6. the kids are terrified of it and won't ask to borrow it
7. can push start the car
8. can restart the car while moving if the engine stalls
9. can coast
10. can drop the clutch and get off the line faster when drag racing against some teen at the traffic light
11. get to enjoy double clutching and mastering heel-toeing and pretending you're an F1 driver
12. The Cat cannot reach the clutch pedal, frustrating its plans for putting me in the trunk and depositing me in the Kat Fud Factory
13. you can nurse the car home and to the shop with a broken gearbox. With an automatic, it's a tow truck every time
14. the sheer joy of a winding mountain road, a powerful V8, picking the gear for the next turn, managing the traction and engine speed, etc.
The main thing is that manufacturing it is cheaper than automatic and thus the cost to buy it is cheaper. In a longer term, it will also save money on repairs being neeeded.
I've paid more to get a stick :-)
Housing is also more heavily regulated today. Various places have different regulations for hurricanes, earthquakes, and other things.
Isn't it possible that the average salary is skewers due to more women entering the work force today than in the past?
You can't eat a smartphone, you can't sleep in an internet connection, you can't do your nursing job through a computer.
Formal education is more expensive. A balanced diet is harder to get, and more expensive. Housing is more expensive near your work. But gas as well if you live far from it.
Today's people debt is higher, and you can't easily work one job, raise a family, and afford education plus buy a home.
It was more common in the 70'.
Formal education is more expensive. A balanced diet is harder to get, and more expensive. Housing is more expensive near your work. But gas as well if you live far from it.
Today's people debt is higher, and you can't easily work one job, raise a family, and afford education plus buy a home.
It was more common in the 70'.
Oh come on. People were literally starving in the US in the 60s-70s. Not really something that is easy to happen nowadays, even if it is difficult to get a balanced diet.
One in 9 people in the US suffers from food insecurity (not having regular access to adequate meals). During the height of the disruptions from the pandemic last year, one in 4 households experienced food insecurity.
Sources:
https://sail.gmu.edu/program/hunger-banquet-2021/hunger https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/912486921/food-insecurity-in-...
Sources:
https://sail.gmu.edu/program/hunger-banquet-2021/hunger https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/912486921/food-insecurity-in-...
Why are you bringing up "food insecurity" rather than deaths by starvation which is an objective measure of food shortness, and what the person you replied to is talking about?
How many people starve to death in the United States?
How many people starve to death in the United States?
Let's not forget securities. Today most people live in some state of constant existential dread, because they know, if they somehow lose the flat, they can't afford a new contract; they can't plan long term, as their job isn't safe (although, that point is in interesting turmoil right now, /r/antiwork and all); they can't work towards a pension plan; ...
The promise of salvation past generations had with their working lifestyle doesn't hold truth anymore. I think that's why we see more "new religions" popping up right now, like conspiracy narratives, new nationalism, "white man identities" (the group without a distinct identity in the past; their self-efficacy experiences seem to be in decline, too), the MLM-fantasy of self-employment/all-in hacks/dire fight for "untapped markets" (podcasts, porn, stock market ...).
Late stage capitalism.
The promise of salvation past generations had with their working lifestyle doesn't hold truth anymore. I think that's why we see more "new religions" popping up right now, like conspiracy narratives, new nationalism, "white man identities" (the group without a distinct identity in the past; their self-efficacy experiences seem to be in decline, too), the MLM-fantasy of self-employment/all-in hacks/dire fight for "untapped markets" (podcasts, porn, stock market ...).
Late stage capitalism.
What good is new tech if you cannot afford to buy a house or a new'ish car for the minimum wage, even if you live frugal and save?
The statement was that most Americans are significantly worse off now than [their equivalents in] the 1970s. Do you claim that most Americans fit your description of someone living on minimum wage or are you trying to argue against a point I wasn’t trying to make?
I’m not saying there aren’t problems but even someone with a very low income who is forced (by American life) to run a car for a lot of their money is unlikely to be using a car from the 70s (50 years old) and more likely to use something from the 90s or 00s less safe and efficient than cars of today but still better than cars of the 70s.
I’m not saying there aren’t problems but even someone with a very low income who is forced (by American life) to run a car for a lot of their money is unlikely to be using a car from the 70s (50 years old) and more likely to use something from the 90s or 00s less safe and efficient than cars of today but still better than cars of the 70s.
I saaw that happening in Budapest. Every young person has a new iPhone and wearing new sneakers, but living with parents.
I mean alright but even if you pay $1,200 every other year for a new phone... that was never enough to cover rent anyway.
Some people are probably blowing $1,200 a month on stuff they don't need... but it certainly isn't the source of widespread income inequality.
Some people are probably blowing $1,200 a month on stuff they don't need... but it certainly isn't the source of widespread income inequality.
Besides, given how necessary cell phones are now, perhaps especially for the low-income, spending a little more for one that works really well and is very reliable isn't crazy.
yeah and most of those parents have been refinancing their homes to support their spoiled children. That is going to end real soon and many of those kids are going to witness their parents lose their homes and become impoverished due to their lazy yet extravagant lifestyles.
It's not about spoiled children, I see janitors walking around with 800 euro phones here. It's just a psychological way for low earning people to 'keep up with the Kardashians'. AS they can't buy cars or houses they buy gadgets.
I saw this in Myanmar. There were people living in mud huts but they had smartphones.
I also had the same thought - it's the one luxury they can actually afford if they save up.
I dont really get how people can look at that and think that these people are better off than a middle class 1950s US family. It's insane.
I also had the same thought - it's the one luxury they can actually afford if they save up.
I dont really get how people can look at that and think that these people are better off than a middle class 1950s US family. It's insane.
Phones are also not expensive unless you want them to be. You can get a great phone for any use for about $100 used. Streaming, playing Fortnite, productivity tasks. Any 5 year old phone can handle all that. It’s very cost efficient to get free entertainment, communication, portability
$100 might be tough to get, but my Moto G Power was $200, and I don't feel it's limited in any way.
Heck, with the SD card slot I can film terabytes worth of videos and not worry about storage ever, and it lasts 2 days on a single charge.
That said, the extra $400 worth of difference between that and an iPhone 12 won't exactly turn a millionaire into a pauper. If $200 is the cost of necessity, then $400 expense on top of it to feel good for whatever reason is pretty damn low as far as spending goes.
It's less than furniture, less than expensive watches, less than anything close to luxury clothing (or even solid quality winter gear). $400 is a decent bicycle.
I don't get why people care so much about other people buying expensive things that they themselves wouldn't buy.
Heck, with the SD card slot I can film terabytes worth of videos and not worry about storage ever, and it lasts 2 days on a single charge.
That said, the extra $400 worth of difference between that and an iPhone 12 won't exactly turn a millionaire into a pauper. If $200 is the cost of necessity, then $400 expense on top of it to feel good for whatever reason is pretty damn low as far as spending goes.
It's less than furniture, less than expensive watches, less than anything close to luxury clothing (or even solid quality winter gear). $400 is a decent bicycle.
I don't get why people care so much about other people buying expensive things that they themselves wouldn't buy.
Is it reasonable to expect that a minimum wage earner should be able to afford to buy a house and a newish car? Were minimum wage earners doing that in 1970?
Yes it is.
Why should the minimum wage not provide a sufficiently secure life for the worker?
I say this all the time: if you can't afford to pay your workers a living wage you can't afford to be in business.
Why should the minimum wage not provide a sufficiently secure life for the worker?
I say this all the time: if you can't afford to pay your workers a living wage you can't afford to be in business.
This is nothing but a platitude that attempts to shame businesses for not meeting some idealistic vision of how the world ought to be.
There's no hard rules about what wages should or should not be, as with any other market price. A business will pay however much they need to attract and keep the labor they need. If no one wants to work for them they need to increase the wages they offer, which may in turn result in higher prices for customers which is also an undesirable outcome. If what they provide is of enough value that customers will continue to pay for it then the higher costs can be absorbed, if they don't, they will fail. If they can't attract workers they will likely also fail. Delivering value at prices people are willing to pay while still covering costs is ultimately what keeps a business in business.
I sometimes wonder if minimum wages are a net benefit at all as it creates several distortions. Some laborers aren't worth paying a minimum wage, they wind up earning nothing from not having work instead of what their true worth is and being able to build up skills. I think it could also remove some negotiating power from laborers. Businesses can peg their wages at the minimum and balk at those asking for raises, they pay the legally mandated price for that tier of work after all. Try to find a new job and you would also find other businesses doing the same, not paying an iota more than legally necessary instead of a more fluid labor market with people switching jobs for marginal gains, driving wages up. What may more naturally be a range of prices, both higher and lower, gets compressed to the minimum, unless that minimum is so low as to not have any effect on wages at all because no one would willingly work at that price.
There's no hard rules about what wages should or should not be, as with any other market price. A business will pay however much they need to attract and keep the labor they need. If no one wants to work for them they need to increase the wages they offer, which may in turn result in higher prices for customers which is also an undesirable outcome. If what they provide is of enough value that customers will continue to pay for it then the higher costs can be absorbed, if they don't, they will fail. If they can't attract workers they will likely also fail. Delivering value at prices people are willing to pay while still covering costs is ultimately what keeps a business in business.
I sometimes wonder if minimum wages are a net benefit at all as it creates several distortions. Some laborers aren't worth paying a minimum wage, they wind up earning nothing from not having work instead of what their true worth is and being able to build up skills. I think it could also remove some negotiating power from laborers. Businesses can peg their wages at the minimum and balk at those asking for raises, they pay the legally mandated price for that tier of work after all. Try to find a new job and you would also find other businesses doing the same, not paying an iota more than legally necessary instead of a more fluid labor market with people switching jobs for marginal gains, driving wages up. What may more naturally be a range of prices, both higher and lower, gets compressed to the minimum, unless that minimum is so low as to not have any effect on wages at all because no one would willingly work at that price.
With no minimum wage, you create a race to the bottom on wages in jobs that are currently minimum wage. No matter how little you pay, you'll find someone who is so desperate for scraps that they'll accept less.
And with that, you create a drop in the standard of living, where even having your own bedroom is considered a luxury.
> Some laborers aren't worth paying a minimum wage, they wind up earning nothing from not having work instead of what their true worth is and being able to build up skills.
No, what happens then is they work 3 jobs to survive and die an early death.
> I think it could also remove some negotiating power from laborers. Businesses can peg their wages at the minimum and balk at those asking for raises, they pay the legally mandated price for that tier of work after all.
That makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever, that someone would make MORE money if there wasn't a legal minimum? What?
Laborers don't have negotiating power in the bottom end. As I said above, there are enough desperate people to create a race to the bottom. If you eliminate the minimum wage, then you're not giving them leverage, you're just creating more desperate people.
And with that, you create a drop in the standard of living, where even having your own bedroom is considered a luxury.
> Some laborers aren't worth paying a minimum wage, they wind up earning nothing from not having work instead of what their true worth is and being able to build up skills.
No, what happens then is they work 3 jobs to survive and die an early death.
> I think it could also remove some negotiating power from laborers. Businesses can peg their wages at the minimum and balk at those asking for raises, they pay the legally mandated price for that tier of work after all.
That makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever, that someone would make MORE money if there wasn't a legal minimum? What?
Laborers don't have negotiating power in the bottom end. As I said above, there are enough desperate people to create a race to the bottom. If you eliminate the minimum wage, then you're not giving them leverage, you're just creating more desperate people.
> some idealistic vision of how the world ought to be
Yeah, I think it's a tragedy that we have constructed a society where everyone doesn't have basic needs met. I think it's a bigger tragedy that the alternative to the current system is considered idealistic. You don't have to agree with me, but if nobody talks about the ways that things could be, not the way that they are, then things will never change.
I'm not sure I follow your last paragraph. Are you suggesting that minimum wages are bad because it sets a minimum for employers to pay as though without a minimum wage they would pay a rate more in line with value? If folks earning a minimum wage today, in a world with a minimum wage, can't afford basic living expenses, would you expect more people to afford basic living expenses without a minimum wage? If so, can you justify that? If not, what are you optimizing for?
Yeah, I think it's a tragedy that we have constructed a society where everyone doesn't have basic needs met. I think it's a bigger tragedy that the alternative to the current system is considered idealistic. You don't have to agree with me, but if nobody talks about the ways that things could be, not the way that they are, then things will never change.
I'm not sure I follow your last paragraph. Are you suggesting that minimum wages are bad because it sets a minimum for employers to pay as though without a minimum wage they would pay a rate more in line with value? If folks earning a minimum wage today, in a world with a minimum wage, can't afford basic living expenses, would you expect more people to afford basic living expenses without a minimum wage? If so, can you justify that? If not, what are you optimizing for?
I don't have a strong position either way on exactly what the best minimum wage is, but I think it's clear that there are people who have skills and abilities in line with creating maybe $10, $12, or $15 per hour of value for a business. If you make it illegal for an employer to employ them at a rate where it's profitable, you're either forcing them to be out of work, to accept a quiltwork of hours ("we will only employ you for 2 hours at lunch and 3 hours of dinner rush"), to be in a precarious situation at work, or to find an employer willing to dress charity up in work clothes and lose money by employing them. I don't know how common it is, but I'm quite certain that I know people (in the sense that I can name them) who fall into that category.
I think substantial increases in the minimum wages force those people into a lottery where some are made better off and others are made worse off, but where the ones made worse off are made much worse off (out of work, higher barrier than today to finding work, everyone around them has more money and everything is more expensive than today).
I think substantial increases in the minimum wages force those people into a lottery where some are made better off and others are made worse off, but where the ones made worse off are made much worse off (out of work, higher barrier than today to finding work, everyone around them has more money and everything is more expensive than today).
Yeah, I think this speaks to a much broader problem with how we attribute value in our society.
Monetary value has no bearing on actual value. For example, a smartphone is only $1000 because some people were paid $0 to produce it. Did those people not produce value? Take a fast food hamburger, it only costs $1 because it's not real meat (mostly), and the person who heated it up is being paid a wage with which they cannot afford reasonable housing and healthy food.
Monetary value has no bearing on actual value. For example, a smartphone is only $1000 because some people were paid $0 to produce it. Did those people not produce value? Take a fast food hamburger, it only costs $1 because it's not real meat (mostly), and the person who heated it up is being paid a wage with which they cannot afford reasonable housing and healthy food.
Monetary value is the value to the business, though. If Pat can only serve enough customers to create $10 in value (above COGS) that customers are willing to pay for, a business can't pay Pat $15 for that work on a sustainable basis.
My objection to the parent post is the notion that a business which can't pay a living wage shouldn't be in business. It insinuates that businesses should be responsible for paying a living wage out of some sense of it being morally right, which is ignorant of how economics operates. Wanting people to be able to meet basic needs and have some financial security is, I believe, universally desirable. Please do think that I don't want this as well. To expect it to come via altruism is idealistic.
> Are you suggesting that minimum wages are bad because it sets a minimum for employers to pay as though without a minimum wage they would pay a rate more in line with value?
Yes, that's basically what I'm saying. Most literature focuses on people being priced out of the labor market (see https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/negative-effects-minimu..., for one such analysis).
I'm also suggesting there could be other effects due to loss of agency over one's labor price, similar to how collusion of employers to fix wages harms employees. Maybe someone has studied it, maybe not.
>If folks earning a minimum wage today, in a world with a minimum wage, can't afford basic living expenses, would you expect more people to afford basic living expenses without a minimum wage?
Ultimately prices are fluid based on what people can afford, especially so for local markets like housing. If minimum wages increase one would expect increased housing prices as those prices were set in line with what people could afford. If they make more, now they can afford to pay more. If you were making marginally above minimum wage you now also want an increase to protect your increased buying power.
W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research found that modest minimum wage increases have minimal affect on prices increases while larger ones can create price increases. This makes intuitive sense, based on market theory. https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&htt...
> Are you suggesting that minimum wages are bad because it sets a minimum for employers to pay as though without a minimum wage they would pay a rate more in line with value?
Yes, that's basically what I'm saying. Most literature focuses on people being priced out of the labor market (see https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/negative-effects-minimu..., for one such analysis).
I'm also suggesting there could be other effects due to loss of agency over one's labor price, similar to how collusion of employers to fix wages harms employees. Maybe someone has studied it, maybe not.
>If folks earning a minimum wage today, in a world with a minimum wage, can't afford basic living expenses, would you expect more people to afford basic living expenses without a minimum wage?
Ultimately prices are fluid based on what people can afford, especially so for local markets like housing. If minimum wages increase one would expect increased housing prices as those prices were set in line with what people could afford. If they make more, now they can afford to pay more. If you were making marginally above minimum wage you now also want an increase to protect your increased buying power.
W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research found that modest minimum wage increases have minimal affect on prices increases while larger ones can create price increases. This makes intuitive sense, based on market theory. https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&htt...
Because minimum wage job is supposed to be temporary. You do it right after high school, for couple years, before you decide on what you want your "real" job to be. Or you do it part time to pay your expenses while attending college. No minimum wage work should be something you do your whole life.
I wonder: what's the average age of a worker whose wages would increase if the federal minimum wage increased to $15/hr? There's "supposed" and then there's what's actually happening. I suspect most people in those jobs are not the people you're saying should be doing them.
The average minimum wage worker is 35. 80% of minimum wage workers are over 20. 56% are women, 28% have children. On average, minimum wage workers earn half of their family's income.
Source: Economic Policy Institute
https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-workers-older-88-percen...
Source: Economic Policy Institute
https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-workers-older-88-percen...
> Because minimum wage job is supposed to be temporary.
Historically, this is flat-out wrong. It's a lie. It's just a new talking point invented by corporations to convince the population to vote against minimum wage increases.
Historically, this is flat-out wrong. It's a lie. It's just a new talking point invented by corporations to convince the population to vote against minimum wage increases.
My grandparents had my mom at 17 in 1965, were disowned by their parents, and bought a house at 19 on a single carpenter's apprentice salary. They bought a new car a couple years later.
My grandmother only started working part-time ~1980 as things started getting harder to afford on a single salary.
I think about this a lot because even with two people working full time we couldn't afford a house (in the same city) until we were in our late 20s, without a child. Still have never owned a new car.
My grandmother only started working part-time ~1980 as things started getting harder to afford on a single salary.
I think about this a lot because even with two people working full time we couldn't afford a house (in the same city) until we were in our late 20s, without a child. Still have never owned a new car.
Carpenter's apprentices look to make around double the federal minimum wage today, which checks out that they could afford a house in the mid 60s. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29593398
Alright but I've been making quadruple the federal minimum wage...
Yes they were
The minimum wage went up to $1.45/hr in Feb, 1970. 2000 hours of that would be $2900. I used the following assumptions: 7.5% fixed-30, median house $17K, down payment of 20%. That was unaffordable by a factor of almost 2x.
The house that seemed affordable with no car payment was a little over $9K (down payment of $1800). Adding in a $50/mo car payment took the affordable house down to a little over $8K, less than half the price of the median home in 1970.
Was there a minimum wage worker sometime in 1970 who bought a house and a newish car? I'm sure there was. Was it typical to do so? I don't think so.
Refs: http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms30.html , https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29590190 , https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/new-house-cal... (I used a 10x multiplier, so I modeled in the calculator someone making $14.50/hr, a median house of $170K rather than $17K, etc, and then divided them by 10 to cite the figures above.)
The house that seemed affordable with no car payment was a little over $9K (down payment of $1800). Adding in a $50/mo car payment took the affordable house down to a little over $8K, less than half the price of the median home in 1970.
Was there a minimum wage worker sometime in 1970 who bought a house and a newish car? I'm sure there was. Was it typical to do so? I don't think so.
Refs: http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms30.html , https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29590190 , https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/new-house-cal... (I used a 10x multiplier, so I modeled in the calculator someone making $14.50/hr, a median house of $170K rather than $17K, etc, and then divided them by 10 to cite the figures above.)
If I apply the same calculation today, on a minimum wage of $7.25…
In fairness, the comment chain you're responding to is talking about the thing you're responding to in your comment, but I think the increase in unaffordability at the minimum wage still speaks to the problem: while it wasn't likely to allow home ownership in the past, but it's even less possible now, and that translates up into the higher wages where people then might have afforded a home, but cannot now.
Plenty of maps have been drawn to show that minimum wage can't even afford to rent median 1-bed apartments.
Wage: $7.25/h
per-month affordable: $362.50
median home price: $374,900
3.519% fixed, 30-yr
20% down
required monthly payment -> $1,350
In fairness, the comment chain you're responding to is talking about the thing you're responding to in your comment, but I think the increase in unaffordability at the minimum wage still speaks to the problem: while it wasn't likely to allow home ownership in the past, but it's even less possible now, and that translates up into the higher wages where people then might have afforded a home, but cannot now.
Plenty of maps have been drawn to show that minimum wage can't even afford to rent median 1-bed apartments.
I agree that it’s gotten worse; I just think people underestimate how much it has always sucked to be among the lowest earning households.
You can look at these retired 70-something boomers driving nice cars, owning a house, and taking a couple trips a year and assume they lived on Easy Street their whole lives when in fact they were probably struggling to pay bills 40 and 50 years ago as well.
You can look at these retired 70-something boomers driving nice cars, owning a house, and taking a couple trips a year and assume they lived on Easy Street their whole lives when in fact they were probably struggling to pay bills 40 and 50 years ago as well.
Are metaverse gonna replace lack of owning a house (and travel) soon? /s
Maybe you could just live in a coffin and jack into a more spacious metaverse simulation of an apartment /s
You just described japan.
lol, this will actually happen.
An apartment that comes with total surveillance. Like Alexa on steroids. How do we get off this train?
Don't even jest, I heard something similar told at work without the /s part.
That sounds similar to The Matrix.
For example, it lets you live in a less expensive city and work remotely wherever you want.
Also it allows you to learn and raise your earning potential.
Finally modern transportation options less expensive than cars like e-bikes and e-scooters allow you to commute easier.
Also it allows you to learn and raise your earning potential.
Finally modern transportation options less expensive than cars like e-bikes and e-scooters allow you to commute easier.
Genuinely curious, are you or were you lower class in America?
Sure, some people can benefit from remote work. But remote work is also not typically minimum wage. And to access those higher wage jobs, you’ll certainly need access to capital to invest in education.
Have you considered using an e-bike in the US? This could only be feasible in a minority of situations…
It sounds like a techie meme of what life could be, but is certainly not.
Sure, some people can benefit from remote work. But remote work is also not typically minimum wage. And to access those higher wage jobs, you’ll certainly need access to capital to invest in education.
Have you considered using an e-bike in the US? This could only be feasible in a minority of situations…
It sounds like a techie meme of what life could be, but is certainly not.
I am not American. I come from zero money but lucked out with a stable family that highly valued education. They sacrificed a lot for it but they strongly believed that you can improve your lot in life through hard work and perseverance.
I share those believes and am living proof they work.
I share those believes and am living proof they work.
Thus funneling more wealth to the already wealthy. That's the point. The average is okay but the distribution of wealth is messed up.
90% of the US you would get killed on your commute if you tried to use an e-bike or e-scooter.
Many people have a misguided belief that home ownership was easy in the 70s, 80s or even the 90s. Yes the prices were lower and maybe the cost/average income ratio was lower but I can attest to the fact that it was no easy feat even back then.
Plenty of people lost their homes, renters had far less rights and although when looking at things through averages seems to indicate a better off middle class, the wages of the top 10% middle class (Mostly Unionized) were propping up a huge amount of the middle class that were grinding it out living paycheck to paycheck with none of the social safety nets currently in place.
I find it incredulous that so many people are blind to what is coming in the next few years, there is a huge sense of entitlement and victimhood based on some idea that the world was easier back then. We are coming out of what I consider almost 35 years of prosperity resultant from "Winning" the cold war but a reconning is right around the corner.
I don't expect many to take my advise but if I was in debt, renting a home and unemployed, I would stop bitching about minimum wage and would be finding a job real fast, the days of help wanted signs in every window are about to end.
Plenty of people lost their homes, renters had far less rights and although when looking at things through averages seems to indicate a better off middle class, the wages of the top 10% middle class (Mostly Unionized) were propping up a huge amount of the middle class that were grinding it out living paycheck to paycheck with none of the social safety nets currently in place.
I find it incredulous that so many people are blind to what is coming in the next few years, there is a huge sense of entitlement and victimhood based on some idea that the world was easier back then. We are coming out of what I consider almost 35 years of prosperity resultant from "Winning" the cold war but a reconning is right around the corner.
I don't expect many to take my advise but if I was in debt, renting a home and unemployed, I would stop bitching about minimum wage and would be finding a job real fast, the days of help wanted signs in every window are about to end.
>> maybe the cost/average income ratio was lower
There’s no maybe about it. In the 70s, average house sale price was 4x the average salary. Today it’s 8x.
How many lattes would you need to have skipped to have bought two homes at the time you bought your first? How many holidays would you have needed to skip to pay two mortgages while you were paying one?
That is the scenario - well except todays generation would only have one house at the end of the day, not two.
There’s no maybe about it. In the 70s, average house sale price was 4x the average salary. Today it’s 8x.
How many lattes would you need to have skipped to have bought two homes at the time you bought your first? How many holidays would you have needed to skip to pay two mortgages while you were paying one?
That is the scenario - well except todays generation would only have one house at the end of the day, not two.
My house is currently valued at 100K USD that is not an unreachable goal. It might not be right next to your favorite coffee shop but that just one of the sacrifices You make when You want to own a home.
BTW in the 70s we didn't have lattes, it was just plain old coffee and what is this holiday's thing You are talking about? It sounds like something the privileged think they are entitled to.
BTW in the 70s we didn't have lattes, it was just plain old coffee and what is this holiday's thing You are talking about? It sounds like something the privileged think they are entitled to.
Of course it wasn't 'easy' to make mortgage payments back then. Mr Market always prices monthly outgoings for housing to some % of typical income.
The difference is those who managed to get on the property ladder in between the 70s and 90s saw falling rates and their LTV ratios being crushed as property prices sawed. Today many of those people live in 7 figure homes in the middle of prime city centers, or bought second properties and became landlords, intentionally or accidentally.
Young people today face the opposite. Just like stock market multiples, housing is at the highest the market can bare. Either we embrace inflation and wages rise, or interest rates rise, the market crashes, and millions upon millions of people end up underwater.
The difference is those who managed to get on the property ladder in between the 70s and 90s saw falling rates and their LTV ratios being crushed as property prices sawed. Today many of those people live in 7 figure homes in the middle of prime city centers, or bought second properties and became landlords, intentionally or accidentally.
Young people today face the opposite. Just like stock market multiples, housing is at the highest the market can bare. Either we embrace inflation and wages rise, or interest rates rise, the market crashes, and millions upon millions of people end up underwater.
> Either we embrace inflation and wages rise
But then, probably, so would assets (stocks and real estate). I don't see an easy way out of this mess...
But then, probably, so would assets (stocks and real estate). I don't see an easy way out of this mess...
>>>Today many of those people live in 7 figure homes in the middle of prime city centers.
Many of those people live in their same homes, the city grew up around them. At risk of making a generalization, too many young people feel they should get to start at the top. People who bought homes in the 70s spent a lifetime accumulating their wealth, many of them have supported two generations of children and are still working to support the next generation. It is much easier to just throw up your hands and cry out "The World is Unfair". A choice is made to just give up rather put in the hard work required to succeed, that choice is about to go away along with the opportunities that todays youth have squandered.
Hard times are right around the corner, the good news is that housing prices are going to come down. The bad news is it won't make a difference to the people complaining about not being able to afford them as the cost/wage ratio means nothing when You don't have a job.
Many of those people live in their same homes, the city grew up around them. At risk of making a generalization, too many young people feel they should get to start at the top. People who bought homes in the 70s spent a lifetime accumulating their wealth, many of them have supported two generations of children and are still working to support the next generation. It is much easier to just throw up your hands and cry out "The World is Unfair". A choice is made to just give up rather put in the hard work required to succeed, that choice is about to go away along with the opportunities that todays youth have squandered.
Hard times are right around the corner, the good news is that housing prices are going to come down. The bad news is it won't make a difference to the people complaining about not being able to afford them as the cost/wage ratio means nothing when You don't have a job.
> too many young people feel they should get to start at the top.
I wouldn't call a dual income couple in their mid 30s paying >40% of take-home pay for a 2 bedroom flat "the top", but ok.
I guess my parents who started with a 3 bed family home on a single blue-collar income started at the fucking apex.
I wouldn't call a dual income couple in their mid 30s paying >40% of take-home pay for a 2 bedroom flat "the top", but ok.
I guess my parents who started with a 3 bed family home on a single blue-collar income started at the fucking apex.
So what You are saying is You and your partner are Dual Income No Kids or (D.I.N.K.s) and still struggling to get by? Now is the time to make some changes, You probably both have cell phone contracts totaling over $100 USD per month, chances are there is a just as much going out in other digital subscriptions, maybe You even have that stuff that makes your toilet water blue...literally flushing money away.
IDK your situation but have heard the same excuses for a long time. You have the ability to make changes before You get tied down with responsibilities like kids and debt, make the choice to change your lifestyle now before that choice is made for You.
IDK your situation but have heard the same excuses for a long time. You have the ability to make changes before You get tied down with responsibilities like kids and debt, make the choice to change your lifestyle now before that choice is made for You.
It's a nice fantasy, but you need to brush up on Amdahl's law and apply it to saving. Our rent is currently 25% of our joint take home pay. It's contractually tied to inflation and goes up every year. Housing goes to 40-50% if we buy, but half of that will be equity and the other half at least won't be making my landlord, who owns at least a dozen properties, even wealthier.
And we're not DINKs by choice. We want kids.
I put 50% of my personal take-home salary in to savings/investments and have been doing so for 3 years. We have decided not go give more than token gifts this Christmas as we really want to reach our spring savings goal.
Meanwhile house prices have gone up 10-15% over the last year. I earn good money but if it's this tough for me then believe me when I say it's fucking hopeless for most people my age.
I've also heard this bullshit before from older generations, including my parents. Sure they faced hardships. Different kinds of hardships. Unemployment. Inflation. High interest rates...but don't think people have it any easier today because they're they spend $30/mo on a phone contract. Spending $30/mo on Netflix and Disney+ today is like spending $4/mo on whatever crap people wasted money on in the 1970s. They did it too.
And we're not DINKs by choice. We want kids.
I put 50% of my personal take-home salary in to savings/investments and have been doing so for 3 years. We have decided not go give more than token gifts this Christmas as we really want to reach our spring savings goal.
Meanwhile house prices have gone up 10-15% over the last year. I earn good money but if it's this tough for me then believe me when I say it's fucking hopeless for most people my age.
I've also heard this bullshit before from older generations, including my parents. Sure they faced hardships. Different kinds of hardships. Unemployment. Inflation. High interest rates...but don't think people have it any easier today because they're they spend $30/mo on a phone contract. Spending $30/mo on Netflix and Disney+ today is like spending $4/mo on whatever crap people wasted money on in the 1970s. They did it too.
>>>I've also heard this bullshit before from older generations, including my parents.
Mark those words my friend...There is truth in them and one day not too long from now that same BS will be coming out of your mouth, I guarantee it!
On a side note, put some of your savings into physical precious metals it may very well be the only thing that will allow You to prosper in the next decade.
Mark those words my friend...There is truth in them and one day not too long from now that same BS will be coming out of your mouth, I guarantee it!
On a side note, put some of your savings into physical precious metals it may very well be the only thing that will allow You to prosper in the next decade.
This reminds me of people from a certain generation who say "You'll be more conservative as you get older!" which happened to them because they accrued wealth and assets and (somewhat naturally) want to protect them.
But when you can't accrue wealth or assets (for all of the reasons other posters have listed above), you probably don't end up becoming more conservative as you get older. Quite the opposite.
You're trying to tell us the rules for a game that no longer exists in the way you played it
But when you can't accrue wealth or assets (for all of the reasons other posters have listed above), you probably don't end up becoming more conservative as you get older. Quite the opposite.
You're trying to tell us the rules for a game that no longer exists in the way you played it
Yep. I'm pushing 50, and over the last 20 years, I've gone from being a progressive liberal to a Marxist-Leninist. You don't get more conservative as you get older, you get more conservative as you get wealthier.
One of the key issues is around deposits for homes.
When prices are lower, so are deposits. When they're consistently increasing for long periods (with low/no wage growth to boot), deposits become impossible to achieve because price growth outstrips the ability to save.
What you end up with is a large class of renters who can clearly service a mortgage (they service their landlords) but cannot save for a deposit.
Was it a walk in the park in the 70s and 80s? No. But it was possible for a great majority of people. These days, without help for a deposit, you're screwed as an "average" worker in a population centre.
When prices are lower, so are deposits. When they're consistently increasing for long periods (with low/no wage growth to boot), deposits become impossible to achieve because price growth outstrips the ability to save.
What you end up with is a large class of renters who can clearly service a mortgage (they service their landlords) but cannot save for a deposit.
Was it a walk in the park in the 70s and 80s? No. But it was possible for a great majority of people. These days, without help for a deposit, you're screwed as an "average" worker in a population centre.
If you value material possessions only then your right.
However, the past generations in my family were able to have one working parent and still provide for the family.
I have a wonderful “tech job” and still need my wife to work fill time so we can raise our two kids and we still can’t purchase a house.
Anecdotally, I don’t understand how we are better off, but you are correct; the tvs are much higher resolution in 2021.
However, the past generations in my family were able to have one working parent and still provide for the family.
I have a wonderful “tech job” and still need my wife to work fill time so we can raise our two kids and we still can’t purchase a house.
Anecdotally, I don’t understand how we are better off, but you are correct; the tvs are much higher resolution in 2021.
> Compared to the 70s, a new car is faster, safer, more comfortable, and more fuel efficient. Similarly, most houses are bigger and better in America today.
What good does this do to someone with nowhere to live and that can't drive to work?
What good does this do to someone with nowhere to live and that can't drive to work?
Technology has been advancing yes. And in some cases it enabled a group of people, like us, to become more independent/free. Many of us literally own their means of production, and the market is in the favor of labor. For now.
But let’s not pretend like that’s true for everyone, nor that technology is a panacea for social and economic problems.
But let’s not pretend like that’s true for everyone, nor that technology is a panacea for social and economic problems.
> most Americans are significantly worse off since the 1970s
> I think this is obviously false and hurts the credibility of the rest of this comment.
Physical health as well. Obesity has exploded since the 1970s. Normal weight people are already a minority.
Divorce rates and abortions exploded in the 70s and have been coming down since then
It’s also hard to measure environmental factors like air quality is better now than in the 70s (thanks unleaded gas).
The challenge is when specific areas that are worse off (wages) are lumped together with a general negativity (we’re worse off).
I wish there were better metrics, but at least we have tools like CPI. It’s just so tempting to use these data for the wrong analyses and conclusions.
The challenge is when specific areas that are worse off (wages) are lumped together with a general negativity (we’re worse off).
I wish there were better metrics, but at least we have tools like CPI. It’s just so tempting to use these data for the wrong analyses and conclusions.
There’s a lot of pitfalls measuring inflation in general especially when you add tech to the mix.
Technology is known to be deflationary; getting faster and cheaper over time.
This is how some fast food prices have been mostly staying the same; though even here you sometimes see shrinkflation.
It’s unfortunate that there’s so much politics around the inflation numbers, things that are deflationary are deliberately used to reduce the inflation numbers.
If something is too inflationary it either stops being measured or new ways of measuring are introduced that reduces the numbers.
Technology is known to be deflationary; getting faster and cheaper over time.
This is how some fast food prices have been mostly staying the same; though even here you sometimes see shrinkflation.
It’s unfortunate that there’s so much politics around the inflation numbers, things that are deflationary are deliberately used to reduce the inflation numbers.
If something is too inflationary it either stops being measured or new ways of measuring are introduced that reduces the numbers.
I think it's more useful to compare work requirements. In the 1970s, a family could be supported by a single earner. A house, a car, and college for the kids assuming they had decent grades. Today, that's largely impossible for the majority of Americans. Even with two incomes, (and the subsequent lower quality of life for any kids in the family), it's a huge challenge.
>I think this is obviously false and hurts the credibility of the rest of this comment.
What you think of this graph? https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
Because by my reading, it looks like the average American is not reaping the gains of this country's GDP output by a significant margin.
What you think of this graph? https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
Because by my reading, it looks like the average American is not reaping the gains of this country's GDP output by a significant margin.
You don't even need to compare to tech that didn't exist.
How many projects apartments from 1970 would you have to combine to assemble a full suite of working appliances and utilities. Now run that same test for the rural shacks and early mobile homes. How many of those people owned cars, a decent set of seasonally appropriate clothing, got their nails done, ate fresh produce out of season, etc. etc. etc?
Now run that comparison for 2021.
We're a fuckton richer. But proportional increases in the amount of our income sapped by shelter, education and medical care have more or less cancelled out all the gains in material wealth.
How many projects apartments from 1970 would you have to combine to assemble a full suite of working appliances and utilities. Now run that same test for the rural shacks and early mobile homes. How many of those people owned cars, a decent set of seasonally appropriate clothing, got their nails done, ate fresh produce out of season, etc. etc. etc?
Now run that comparison for 2021.
We're a fuckton richer. But proportional increases in the amount of our income sapped by shelter, education and medical care have more or less cancelled out all the gains in material wealth.
> How much did an internet connection cost in the 1970s? What about a computer? What about a smartphone? These modern technologies make peoples lives much better
Completely ridiculous. I don't need internet or smartphones to live and they don't make my life better. I need food, shelter, and some transportation, and the point is: these things have become much more difficult to afford each year since 1970.
Completely ridiculous. I don't need internet or smartphones to live and they don't make my life better. I need food, shelter, and some transportation, and the point is: these things have become much more difficult to afford each year since 1970.
We are much worse off when
measuring the amount of time it takes to hit milestones.
At what age are people moving out, having children, buying a home, retirement?
The age for all of this has gone up massively. Because it takes much longer to earn enough money to afford to do these things.
At what age are people moving out, having children, buying a home, retirement?
The age for all of this has gone up massively. Because it takes much longer to earn enough money to afford to do these things.
did you know that in the 70s no matter how poor you were you could make a phone call for just ten cents even if your cell phone was out of power!
>and more fuel efficient
more fuel efficient is only of interest if you are talking about how much it costs to run a car. Cars are more fuel efficient now than they were in the 1970s because it costs so much more to run them.
Funny enough of course that increase in prices started in the 1970s.
https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/planes-trains-and-...
>and more fuel efficient
more fuel efficient is only of interest if you are talking about how much it costs to run a car. Cars are more fuel efficient now than they were in the 1970s because it costs so much more to run them.
Funny enough of course that increase in prices started in the 1970s.
https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/planes-trains-and-...
Most working class people who own a car are interested in running that car and the associated costs. (It’s not likely a museum piece for them.)
> These modern technologies make peoples lives much better
That's true in some ways, but in other ways these technologies make our lives better in the same way Heroin does.
> Compared to the 70s, a new car is faster, safer, more comfortable, and more fuel efficient. Similarly, most houses are bigger and better in America today.
Do you think these things are tied to meaningful improvements to people's overall happiness, mental and physical health, and well being?
That's true in some ways, but in other ways these technologies make our lives better in the same way Heroin does.
> Compared to the 70s, a new car is faster, safer, more comfortable, and more fuel efficient. Similarly, most houses are bigger and better in America today.
Do you think these things are tied to meaningful improvements to people's overall happiness, mental and physical health, and well being?
Absolutely yes. I'm happier because my bathroom has two sinks so my wife and I can get ready for work at the same time. I'm happier because my house has more than one toilet so that I don't have to wait because someone is sitting on the only available toilet. I'm happier because my car has air conditioning. I'll absolutely be happier if an airbag saves my life, and infinitely happier than that if one saves my wife's life or my kid's life.
Yes. Technology and wealth makes our lives better and makes us happier. Yes.
Yes. Technology and wealth makes our lives better and makes us happier. Yes.
> I think this is obviously false and hurts the credibility of the rest of this comment.
It is not OBVIOUSLY false.
Look at education costs relative to the cost of living. Consider that your only recourse to a decent salary is through higher education, since the middle class union job is dead (and REALLY dead for someone young since all the ones that do exist are held by older people that sold out the younger generation in successive union negotiations).
You really think housing is cheaper or better now? I'm assuming you live in silicon valley. The only thing built is "bigger and better" because that is MORE EXPENSIVE and people have to PAY MORE for it. Nobody builds 'affordable housing' which you are obliquely criticizing people for not choosing. There is no choice for 'affordable housing': all of it that exists is occupied. That's why there is a housing shortage and rental shortage in practically every major urban market.
And then there is health care...
Food has dropped in quality even if one argues it has maintained cost parity.
Jobs are far worse that they used to be. Like food, the number of jobs is cooked to seem the same, but the quality of the job is far worse, which leads me to...
A great deal of consumer cost advantages have been due to globalization/arbitrage of foreign near-slave-labor. The cost of better consumer goods is destruction of the middle class and US manufacturing.
All the major milestones of the happy capitalist worker's lifetime are all very very very much more expensive or worse.
All of these structural degradations to the US are being propped over with financing shenanigans such as low interest rates. The Pandemic is all that on steroids.
All those shenanigans are sensitive to disruption. COVID is pushing our currency manipulation/control to the brink.
It is not OBVIOUSLY false.
Look at education costs relative to the cost of living. Consider that your only recourse to a decent salary is through higher education, since the middle class union job is dead (and REALLY dead for someone young since all the ones that do exist are held by older people that sold out the younger generation in successive union negotiations).
You really think housing is cheaper or better now? I'm assuming you live in silicon valley. The only thing built is "bigger and better" because that is MORE EXPENSIVE and people have to PAY MORE for it. Nobody builds 'affordable housing' which you are obliquely criticizing people for not choosing. There is no choice for 'affordable housing': all of it that exists is occupied. That's why there is a housing shortage and rental shortage in practically every major urban market.
And then there is health care...
Food has dropped in quality even if one argues it has maintained cost parity.
Jobs are far worse that they used to be. Like food, the number of jobs is cooked to seem the same, but the quality of the job is far worse, which leads me to...
A great deal of consumer cost advantages have been due to globalization/arbitrage of foreign near-slave-labor. The cost of better consumer goods is destruction of the middle class and US manufacturing.
All the major milestones of the happy capitalist worker's lifetime are all very very very much more expensive or worse.
All of these structural degradations to the US are being propped over with financing shenanigans such as low interest rates. The Pandemic is all that on steroids.
All those shenanigans are sensitive to disruption. COVID is pushing our currency manipulation/control to the brink.
> As a non-American, it's heartbreaking to see efforts to unify the underclass completely derailed by this ridiculous race war.
Yeah, well, it's not like things are much better in Europe. Far-right parties are now mainstream in most major EU countries, and their n.1 priority is exactly the same.
Signed,
a Brexit victim.
Yeah, well, it's not like things are much better in Europe. Far-right parties are now mainstream in most major EU countries, and their n.1 priority is exactly the same.
Signed,
a Brexit victim.
That's a country specific problem, not a Europe problem. I don't mean just Brexit for the UK, either.
What does happen in Europe is far-right parties get a platform to speak on. The big continental countries have an election process that lets everyone be heard, and the far-right get heard plenty - allowing the electorate to smell their bullshit.
In the UK we don't have such elections. We have a two horse race, and token efforts given to fringe parties, and state media that are "maintaining balance" by constantly inviting candidates who haven't been elected after 8 attempts to frequently tout their bullshit (and critically without being challenged on any of it).
The far-right thrive here because they are unchecked, unquestioned, and ultimately not properly exposed. They relish in the "underdog", "cancelled", and/or "repressed" argument to win votes.
Also when our leading party receives £160k from the wives of former Russian minsiters to play tennis with the prime minister[0] you have to wonder who is really pulling the strings.
[0]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28158479
What does happen in Europe is far-right parties get a platform to speak on. The big continental countries have an election process that lets everyone be heard, and the far-right get heard plenty - allowing the electorate to smell their bullshit.
In the UK we don't have such elections. We have a two horse race, and token efforts given to fringe parties, and state media that are "maintaining balance" by constantly inviting candidates who haven't been elected after 8 attempts to frequently tout their bullshit (and critically without being challenged on any of it).
The far-right thrive here because they are unchecked, unquestioned, and ultimately not properly exposed. They relish in the "underdog", "cancelled", and/or "repressed" argument to win votes.
Also when our leading party receives £160k from the wives of former Russian minsiters to play tennis with the prime minister[0] you have to wonder who is really pulling the strings.
[0]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28158479
> allowing the electorate to smell their bullshit.
You need to look at the numbers. Far-right parties are growing everywhere in Europe... One is nearly the largest party in Sweden.
You need to look at the numbers. Far-right parties are growing everywhere in Europe... One is nearly the largest party in Sweden.
I mean.. as long as it's a fair election and not a campaign of lies, maybe the problem isn't the political parties and actually, people just really want the right to reign?
> people just really want the right to reign
Many people do. I see this as a dangerous problem. Weimar Germany also really wanted the right to reign and it didn't turn out well. The party here was founded in part by two literal Nazis and a bunch of skinheads. I don't really care what people want when they want them to rule.
Many people do. I see this as a dangerous problem. Weimar Germany also really wanted the right to reign and it didn't turn out well. The party here was founded in part by two literal Nazis and a bunch of skinheads. I don't really care what people want when they want them to rule.
I'm caught in a (philosophical?) dillemna though: I don't want the right to rise to power because I fear for the future of freedom, but I would be repressing freedom by ostracising/excluding the right from electoral eligibility. Is technocracy the answer? Have some kind of determinable objective truth rule? How do we mitigate for failure to identify the objective truth in that case?
.. and on continues the shower thought.
Overall I'm worried, though. There are many hallmarks about the current political climate that have been present in the not-that-long-before any major conflict in history. I really, honestly, am worried there will be some large conflict in our lifetime.
.. and on continues the shower thought.
Overall I'm worried, though. There are many hallmarks about the current political climate that have been present in the not-that-long-before any major conflict in history. I really, honestly, am worried there will be some large conflict in our lifetime.
This is the paradox of tolerance. A truly tolerant society would tolerate intolerance, which makes the society not truly tolerant anymore.
So a society would need to be a bit intolerant to stamp out intolerance, making it overall more tolerant.
So a society would need to be a bit intolerant to stamp out intolerance, making it overall more tolerant.
Forget tolerance I want liberty back. What makes tolerance so good that it should be prioritized over everything else? I want everyone granted certain inalienable rights and then allowed to live how they want as long as they abide by their rights and the rights of others. If people want to use their right to vote, follow the process, and support something that others disagree with, that's liberty in action.
>(...) as long as they abide by their rights and the rights of others.
In other words, you want to prioritize tolerance over liberty.
Not even the most hardcore anarchist wants to live in a society where someone else's right to swing their fist doesn't end where their own nose begins, which is what true liberty entails, although they will vocally denounce any form of tolerance even as they implicitly accept it for themselves.
And it's worth pointing out that you don't even actually disagree with the paradox of tolerance in this regard, since the inflection point of tolerance/intolerance Popper claims should be a party refusing to recognize the rights of others or to act within legal bounds - the paradox of tolerance was written as a response to the result of German "tolerance" for Nazism at the time.
No one is actually arguing that mere civil political disagreement shouldn't be tolerated, but rather there is a recognition borne out of history that authoritarian beliefs, if not pushed against, will overwhelm the body politic in a similar way as cancer. Accepting the paradox of tolerance means recognizing that some prejudices and systems of belief are inherently harmful and that their adherents will never simply accept peaceful coexistence with others within the framework of a just and civil society.
Nazis will never play nice, and casting them as a victimized and oppressed group with legitimate grievances with whom we should empathize, and whose arguments we should consider (or reconsider, since nothing the far right has to say is actually new,) will not end well for anyone.
And to serve the forum's inevitable reflex towards whataboutism, this is not to let extreme leftism off the hook. There just happens not to be a surge in hard left ideology happening around the world at the moment, so mentioning the left in the context of this specific conversation for the sake of "balance" wouldn't be relevant.
In other words, you want to prioritize tolerance over liberty.
Not even the most hardcore anarchist wants to live in a society where someone else's right to swing their fist doesn't end where their own nose begins, which is what true liberty entails, although they will vocally denounce any form of tolerance even as they implicitly accept it for themselves.
And it's worth pointing out that you don't even actually disagree with the paradox of tolerance in this regard, since the inflection point of tolerance/intolerance Popper claims should be a party refusing to recognize the rights of others or to act within legal bounds - the paradox of tolerance was written as a response to the result of German "tolerance" for Nazism at the time.
No one is actually arguing that mere civil political disagreement shouldn't be tolerated, but rather there is a recognition borne out of history that authoritarian beliefs, if not pushed against, will overwhelm the body politic in a similar way as cancer. Accepting the paradox of tolerance means recognizing that some prejudices and systems of belief are inherently harmful and that their adherents will never simply accept peaceful coexistence with others within the framework of a just and civil society.
Nazis will never play nice, and casting them as a victimized and oppressed group with legitimate grievances with whom we should empathize, and whose arguments we should consider (or reconsider, since nothing the far right has to say is actually new,) will not end well for anyone.
And to serve the forum's inevitable reflex towards whataboutism, this is not to let extreme leftism off the hook. There just happens not to be a surge in hard left ideology happening around the world at the moment, so mentioning the left in the context of this specific conversation for the sake of "balance" wouldn't be relevant.
If you'll forgive the following.. what the hell is liberty without tolerance?
You _need_ tolerance to accomodate liberty. Otherwise those who do not tolerate your liberty will prevent it.
You _need_ tolerance to accomodate liberty. Otherwise those who do not tolerate your liberty will prevent it.
Perhaps the answer is more ignorance. I doubt most of the political groups any of us worries about is actually as large and as ill-intentioned as we imagine, but rather than have no idea we always know just enough to feel in danger. Feeling in danger, we seek to control first and understand later, and that makes our political neighbours feel threatened, and so it goes until the centre cannot hold.
Perhaps the paradox of tolerance requires a deliberate agnosticism about how people unlike us live, a turning away from information that would turn us reactionary if we only had part of it. That used to be the default in an era of slow communication, but it could be cultivated deliberately if it's what's needed.
Perhaps the paradox of tolerance requires a deliberate agnosticism about how people unlike us live, a turning away from information that would turn us reactionary if we only had part of it. That used to be the default in an era of slow communication, but it could be cultivated deliberately if it's what's needed.
It is indeed one great famous weakness of democratic systems, the fact that they typically end up incubating anti-democratic systems that replace them. The ones who do not (e.g. UK Parliament) usually manage to survive by negating their democratic nature when it is expedient to do so (i.e. limiting representation with very draconian measures, so that "revolutionaries" are kept out of power).
I do hope that, and believe society should strive for, the utopian ideal of education that is plentiful enough it would make the need to be intolerant (of intolerance) redundant. I understand it might be immature/naive to expect that "if only they understood the facts, they would change their mind!" but one can dream.
I think your comment is insightful but I don't have an answers to any of this. I just wish that stuff was what we were trying to figure out of a society rather than the trash going on these days.
I think you're right that we could definitely be on the eve of something about to happen, especially combining those observations with recent geopolitical updates.
I think you're right that we could definitely be on the eve of something about to happen, especially combining those observations with recent geopolitical updates.
>Is technocracy the answer? Have some kind of determinable objective truth rule? How do we mitigate for failure to identify the objective truth in that case?
That's probably not even the most pressing problem. The most pressing problem is that the rulers in a technocracy are also self-interested, and simply knowing how something works is no proof against being a bad actor. Recent history is rife with experts tilting things to their advantage, and deflecting criticisms of unfair behaviour by saying the unwashed masses simply didn't know enough about the decisions that just so happened to transfer a lot of wealth upwards doesn't inspire confidence.
If you don't respect democracy as a way to harness the wisdom of crowds, maybe you can respect it as a pressure-relief valve.
That's probably not even the most pressing problem. The most pressing problem is that the rulers in a technocracy are also self-interested, and simply knowing how something works is no proof against being a bad actor. Recent history is rife with experts tilting things to their advantage, and deflecting criticisms of unfair behaviour by saying the unwashed masses simply didn't know enough about the decisions that just so happened to transfer a lot of wealth upwards doesn't inspire confidence.
If you don't respect democracy as a way to harness the wisdom of crowds, maybe you can respect it as a pressure-relief valve.
I've always viewed the popularity of the far-right as being a result of a general sense of hopelessness that turns to resentment.
Right wing media feeds off that hopelessness and apportion blame to a convenient target, one that usually can't speak up for itself. The homeless, immigrants, benefits claimants are favourite examples.
At the same time they portray the people responsible for the decisions that lead to that hopelessness as uniquely competent by taking a tough approach on the scapegoats.
The only real way of reducing the temperature is to make those people more secure, financially and socially. You don't care if your neighbour is a Polish plumber if you're not worrying about making rent/paying bills.
Conservative parties normally won't enact the measures necessary to cool things down, since they typically benefit electorally and convincing those already in the pipeline is extremely difficult.
Right wing media feeds off that hopelessness and apportion blame to a convenient target, one that usually can't speak up for itself. The homeless, immigrants, benefits claimants are favourite examples.
At the same time they portray the people responsible for the decisions that lead to that hopelessness as uniquely competent by taking a tough approach on the scapegoats.
The only real way of reducing the temperature is to make those people more secure, financially and socially. You don't care if your neighbour is a Polish plumber if you're not worrying about making rent/paying bills.
Conservative parties normally won't enact the measures necessary to cool things down, since they typically benefit electorally and convincing those already in the pipeline is extremely difficult.
I see that as a reaction to the previous raise of the intolerant left. If that is so, it's self correcting and the entire extreme right will go back into being treated like the clowns they are as soon as they get any power.
You have equivalents of Farage in any EU country these days, believe me. And yes, they are often funded by comrade Vlad at the moment, but they started their rise well before he became a factor.
> allowing the electorate to smell their bullshit.
I wish I was as optimistic as you. In Italy and France, far-right views are now solidly held by roughly a third of the electorate, year-in year-out. Party names and figureheads can change, but the message stays the same. In Germany it's a bit better, but then you have Austria and the Visegrad block, where they command relatively solid majorities.
> allowing the electorate to smell their bullshit.
I wish I was as optimistic as you. In Italy and France, far-right views are now solidly held by roughly a third of the electorate, year-in year-out. Party names and figureheads can change, but the message stays the same. In Germany it's a bit better, but then you have Austria and the Visegrad block, where they command relatively solid majorities.
> I wish I was as optimistic as you.
I think if everything is laid bare - facts are proven to be facts, and lies are exposed as lies - yet the electorate _still_ vote it in, then that's fair. I'll emigrate.
But the biggest con about Brexit (as a particular example) is that _everything_ from the Leave campaign was bullshit and not one claim, pledge, or promise from the Leave "side" was ever checked, questioned, or since held to account and, in my opinion, it is _that_ which stinks the worst.
I think if everything is laid bare - facts are proven to be facts, and lies are exposed as lies - yet the electorate _still_ vote it in, then that's fair. I'll emigrate.
But the biggest con about Brexit (as a particular example) is that _everything_ from the Leave campaign was bullshit and not one claim, pledge, or promise from the Leave "side" was ever checked, questioned, or since held to account and, in my opinion, it is _that_ which stinks the worst.
Brexit happened because a third party tore chunks out of the voting base of one of those two horses.
Yes, as a result of what I said above. Farage and goons were unchecked. They rarely, if ever, had their bullshit fact checked by anyone that interviewed them.
Dominic Cummings, an extreme libertarian[0], was in bed with various far-right (and also libertarian) people from the west, took office as the Special Advisor to the Prime Minister after riding the Brexit wave to success. A role that meant he had the power, without the need to be elected. He kicked everyone out that didn't agree with him, and/or had their own opinion(s). His one goal was to completely reform (read: dismantle) government. Unluckily for him, COVID came and revealed just what a cluster of dickheads he had left in government. Then he managed to get caught going on a 300 mile road trip after testing positive, including a trip to a Castle on his wife's birthday. The resulting mess of media coverage left the government with little choice but to "fire" him, but even that was a shitshow that took 6 months longer than it should have.
Now we are left with cabinet of useless, and I mean useless, puppets with no puppet master.
Side note: They (the right) also had clandestine social media campaigns. Cambridge Analytica's main purpose wasn't to identify who to send the bullshit to, it was to identify who to keep the bullshit from so that they wouldn't be challenged.
[0]: https://lloydhardy.com/news/Why_Brexit_Happened/
Dominic Cummings, an extreme libertarian[0], was in bed with various far-right (and also libertarian) people from the west, took office as the Special Advisor to the Prime Minister after riding the Brexit wave to success. A role that meant he had the power, without the need to be elected. He kicked everyone out that didn't agree with him, and/or had their own opinion(s). His one goal was to completely reform (read: dismantle) government. Unluckily for him, COVID came and revealed just what a cluster of dickheads he had left in government. Then he managed to get caught going on a 300 mile road trip after testing positive, including a trip to a Castle on his wife's birthday. The resulting mess of media coverage left the government with little choice but to "fire" him, but even that was a shitshow that took 6 months longer than it should have.
Now we are left with cabinet of useless, and I mean useless, puppets with no puppet master.
Side note: They (the right) also had clandestine social media campaigns. Cambridge Analytica's main purpose wasn't to identify who to send the bullshit to, it was to identify who to keep the bullshit from so that they wouldn't be challenged.
[0]: https://lloydhardy.com/news/Why_Brexit_Happened/
I disagree with Cummings on a lot of issues (e.g. Brexit, the importance of international law, etc.), but I don't recognise that description of him. He's certainly not an extreme libertarian. By all accounts, during the pandemic response, he was very much in favour of government intervention. Johnson was far more laissez-faire, even to a ridiculous degree.
I actually think Cummings is an interesting guy and worth listening to, but I don't think he should be anywhere near the levers of power.
I actually think Cummings is an interesting guy and worth listening to, but I don't think he should be anywhere near the levers of power.
He's got the mindset of a junior developer. He idolizes valley culture and wants to tear everything down and rebuild from scratch.
His ideas are kind of staid and recycled. He's smarter than Boris or most of the cabinet for sure but that isnt saying much.
Ultimately he rode a wave of mass discontent and somehow managed to fuck it up and achieve nothing while at the peak of his career when even the prime minister thought thought the sun shone out of his arse. He wasnt some genius mastermind.
His ideas are kind of staid and recycled. He's smarter than Boris or most of the cabinet for sure but that isnt saying much.
Ultimately he rode a wave of mass discontent and somehow managed to fuck it up and achieve nothing while at the peak of his career when even the prime minister thought thought the sun shone out of his arse. He wasnt some genius mastermind.
Please don't generalize. Far-right parties are not mainstream everywhere. Europe is complex, as much as the US.
The issue with this way of thinking is that you look away from countries which might have good policies. These policies could be used in the US.
The issue with this way of thinking is that you look away from countries which might have good policies. These policies could be used in the US.
> not mainstream everywhere
FR: Front national IT: lega Nord DL: AFD ES: Vox
They're taking over Europe because neoliberals are full of shit, and the left wing has their hands tied.
Normal people have nowhere else to go.
FR: Front national IT: lega Nord DL: AFD ES: Vox
They're taking over Europe because neoliberals are full of shit, and the left wing has their hands tied.
Normal people have nowhere else to go.
DK: Dansk Folkeparti
Well, they lost of a lot of their voters... because most of the middle-seeking parties adopted their hostile foreign policy and made them irrelevant.
Well, they lost of a lot of their voters... because most of the middle-seeking parties adopted their hostile foreign policy and made them irrelevant.
I can't speak for the whole of Europe and I might be a sheep - but at least in Scandinavia, these far right parties are more of a symptom of the mainstream parties refusal to talk about problems related to immigration combined with US cultural influence. Sweden is no.1 in Europe when it comes to gun violence right now and only last year non-right political parties started discussing current crime waves link to integration / immigration. It's not surprising that the far right - hard on crime and hard on immigrants thrive in this political climate.
Hard on crime and hard on immigration IS the far right. Sure, if the old parties had veered far-right, new far-right parties wouldn't have shown up.
The problem are not the parties, the problem are the policies. Kicking immigrants out or licking them up will not improve the life of the local lower class, despite all the promises. It may improve the life of the rich, who won't have to fear bring mugged. But the reasons why immigration is happening, and why immigrants remain poor, will either continue (no one wants to do the dirty jobs) or mine too the local lower class (let's pray locals less so that they are competitive with immigrants).
The problem are not the parties, the problem are the policies. Kicking immigrants out or licking them up will not improve the life of the local lower class, despite all the promises. It may improve the life of the rich, who won't have to fear bring mugged. But the reasons why immigration is happening, and why immigrants remain poor, will either continue (no one wants to do the dirty jobs) or mine too the local lower class (let's pray locals less so that they are competitive with immigrants).
Ceasing the funnel of endless low-skill, wage-depressing job competitors absolutely would improve the life of the lower class. They also have to deal with increased crime, it's not a uniquely "rich" problem. These parties are growing in popularity because it's a reaction to a real problem that locals are witnessing as their communities are changed for the worse.
Back in the 80s/90s, Sweden was known for bikini teams and ABBA. Now it's known for rape gangs. Sad!
Back in the 80s/90s, Sweden was known for bikini teams and ABBA. Now it's known for rape gangs. Sad!
Poor neighborhoods always have more crime than rich neighborhoods. This doesn't particularly change if the poor are native or immigrants.
The real problem is wage theft keeping large numbers of people poor. Whether immigrants or natives, the fact that you can work your whole life for a mega corporation and barely have money to eat is the problem.
The real problem is wage theft keeping large numbers of people poor. Whether immigrants or natives, the fact that you can work your whole life for a mega corporation and barely have money to eat is the problem.
I fully agree. I don't agree with far right policies either and the situation in Sweden breaks my heart. But I'm not surprised that the far right is getting traction in a climate where other parties have been ignoring the problems for so long, and I don't think "efforts to unify the underclass completely derailed by this ridiculous race war" applies to the political climate and right wing parties in Sweden or Scandinavia as a whole as of right now.
You've got the class relationship with immigrants backwards.
Poor people are more likely to be victims of low-level crimes than rich people for a variety of reasons. When criminal immigrants come in, it's poor people they victimize.
It's also poor people who must compete with unskilled immigrants for jobs.
Rich people benefit from low-skilled immigration. They can isolate themselves physically from the bad immigrant neighborhoods, but also hire those immigrants to provide services for them. The immigrants will push down unskilled labor prices by the very simple laws of supply and demand. The immigrants will not compete on the labor market with the rich.
This is why the rich in the modern world have always been the ones pushing for more immigration, and the poor have always pushed against. Upper class businessmen and media people strut around like they're MLK but they really just want to pay their maid and gardener less.
Poor people are more likely to be victims of low-level crimes than rich people for a variety of reasons. When criminal immigrants come in, it's poor people they victimize.
It's also poor people who must compete with unskilled immigrants for jobs.
Rich people benefit from low-skilled immigration. They can isolate themselves physically from the bad immigrant neighborhoods, but also hire those immigrants to provide services for them. The immigrants will push down unskilled labor prices by the very simple laws of supply and demand. The immigrants will not compete on the labor market with the rich.
This is why the rich in the modern world have always been the ones pushing for more immigration, and the poor have always pushed against. Upper class businessmen and media people strut around like they're MLK but they really just want to pay their maid and gardener less.
Nothing you're describing would change if we replace "immigrant" with "poor person". This is all a problem of minimum wages, employment law enforcement and others, not a problem of immigration. For as long as people are allowed to hire others while.not paying for a minimally decent life, this problem will continue existing.
The far-right parties in Europe are usually focused on immigration rather than race. Look at the Brexit parties in the UK, the big enemies were the Poles. And the FN/RN in France has always taken pains to show that it is "pro-black" (and anti-brown..)
> immigration rather than race.
Two sides of the same coin.
A large section of people are left out of benefits of improving economy. Lions share of the gains go to the Uber rich people. And politicians play immigration card to whip up their voter base.
More or less exact phenomenon played out in Bombay, India. Except that the immigrants were Indians from other states (Gujarat, Tamilnadu etc). But when the political party did come to power they did absolutely nothing to improve their voter base’s life. Bombay continues to be a shit hole, worse so, that it was and the city floods every monsoon like a clockwork.
Two sides of the same coin.
A large section of people are left out of benefits of improving economy. Lions share of the gains go to the Uber rich people. And politicians play immigration card to whip up their voter base.
More or less exact phenomenon played out in Bombay, India. Except that the immigrants were Indians from other states (Gujarat, Tamilnadu etc). But when the political party did come to power they did absolutely nothing to improve their voter base’s life. Bombay continues to be a shit hole, worse so, that it was and the city floods every monsoon like a clockwork.
> Look at the Brexit parties in the UK, the big enemies were the Poles
In the South of England, maybe. In the North they barely exists, here "the enemy" continues to be South-Asian communities (which, ironically, were also heavily pro-Brexit, because of the correct calculation that British policies would then be forced to fall back on Asians for cheap immigration).
In the South of England, maybe. In the North they barely exists, here "the enemy" continues to be South-Asian communities (which, ironically, were also heavily pro-Brexit, because of the correct calculation that British policies would then be forced to fall back on Asians for cheap immigration).
Meh, it's always about those terrible "others", no matter what the actual term is. Who's in that group varies on what gains the political players.
Racism isn't the same thing as colourism. Eastern Europeans and Muslims are both groups that get racialised in Western Europe.
We saw this coming. I read predictions of a right wing backlash to immigration as a kid. In the 80s.
Even in the USA, the nation of immigrants, where we assimilate immigrants the best (comparatively), increased immigration has always leads to a reactionary backlash.
Being very pro-immigration, a big of Matthew Yglesias's One Billion Americans thesis, I have no clue how to move forward.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Billion_Americans
Even in the USA, the nation of immigrants, where we assimilate immigrants the best (comparatively), increased immigration has always leads to a reactionary backlash.
Being very pro-immigration, a big of Matthew Yglesias's One Billion Americans thesis, I have no clue how to move forward.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Billion_Americans
You state govt keeps inflation low by manipulating how it's calculated in order to keep the fed rate low, which insidiously keeps stocks up. And this happens, apparently, because the Fed really cares about news headlines? Does the ECB and BOJ enact the exact same policy but for unrelated (but equally conspiratorial) reasons? Are all the central banks and politicians around the world in cohorts, or is there something else going on here?
Long term interest rates have been going down for decades. This is a long term trend, caused by low GDP growth expectations. The labor force participation rate keeps trending down. Healthcare costs keep trending up. Population is aging. These are fundamental problems for which there is no great solution, and interest rates are low (along the curve) as a consequence. The Fed is ultimately only a minor player in this. They can provide excess liquidity, but only for so long. Ultimately rising inflation forces the Fed to withdraw liquidity and the market will inevitably deflate. Fed policy postponed a market crash by a couple of years so it wouldn't hit at the same time as covid, and that's a good thing.
But who benefits from a steady stock market? Regular people. Pension funds. Who benefits from crashes and wild gyrations? The wealthy. Hedge funds. This makes perfect sense, because a treacherous market is best navigated by the most experienced and wealthiest parties.
You seem to argue the opposite: that a market that has steadily gone up and up and up because of Fed/inflation manipulation has somehow benefited the wealthy elites at the expense of regular people?
Yes, workers get paid too little and much in the world is unfair. But your analysis is mostly conspiratorial silliness. I don't know what you mean by "ridiculous race war", but Black people in the US are 20x poorer (by net worth, on average) compared to whites so a race/color blind analysis of the economy doesn't work.
Long term interest rates have been going down for decades. This is a long term trend, caused by low GDP growth expectations. The labor force participation rate keeps trending down. Healthcare costs keep trending up. Population is aging. These are fundamental problems for which there is no great solution, and interest rates are low (along the curve) as a consequence. The Fed is ultimately only a minor player in this. They can provide excess liquidity, but only for so long. Ultimately rising inflation forces the Fed to withdraw liquidity and the market will inevitably deflate. Fed policy postponed a market crash by a couple of years so it wouldn't hit at the same time as covid, and that's a good thing.
But who benefits from a steady stock market? Regular people. Pension funds. Who benefits from crashes and wild gyrations? The wealthy. Hedge funds. This makes perfect sense, because a treacherous market is best navigated by the most experienced and wealthiest parties.
You seem to argue the opposite: that a market that has steadily gone up and up and up because of Fed/inflation manipulation has somehow benefited the wealthy elites at the expense of regular people?
Yes, workers get paid too little and much in the world is unfair. But your analysis is mostly conspiratorial silliness. I don't know what you mean by "ridiculous race war", but Black people in the US are 20x poorer (by net worth, on average) compared to whites so a race/color blind analysis of the economy doesn't work.
Yes, wealthy people own the vast majority of stocks. It's hard to invest a significant amount when 50% of your income goes to housing.
This is just factually incorrect that the stock market rising benefits 'regular people', the majority of stocks are held by the upper class.
Your whole argument fails because of that.
Your whole argument fails because of that.
> Okay, so TVs and cellphones are cheaper, but necessities like college, childcare, and healthcare are up significantly.
It feels like it would be better if the basics were cheaper and the trinkets were more expensive...
It feels like it would be better if the basics were cheaper and the trinkets were more expensive...
There's more to employee compensation than just wages. Real total employee compensation has risen significantly since the 1970s when you factor in employer contributions to health insurance premiums. While some of that money is wasted, employees are getting tangible benefits in the form of new medical treatments that weren't even available 50 years ago.
What we need to do is decouple health insurance from employment.
What we need to do is decouple health insurance from employment.
> What we need to do is decouple health insurance from employment.
The easiest way to do that would be with a national single payer health care system, which would also help lower total healthcare spending. But both mainstream political parties are dead set against doing such a thing.
The easiest way to do that would be with a national single payer health care system, which would also help lower total healthcare spending. But both mainstream political parties are dead set against doing such a thing.
Yes and:
Corporate profits soared while wages flat-lined. Coincidence?
Would a little bit of profit sharing be so terrible?
Corporate profits soared while wages flat-lined. Coincidence?
Would a little bit of profit sharing be so terrible?
I think they have the correct answer as to 'why' this has happened and what the root cause is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY&t=33s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY&t=33s
Can you summarize? I don't want to watch this entire video right now even though it seems interesting.
Democracy relies on people being able to vote for what they think is right; with privacy.
We removed senators right to vote for the right things in private in ~1970. After this things have gotten very bad in the US–policy wise. Polarization. Extreme lobbing. Partisanship. Fiscal policies that only favor the rich.
See this: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com
All of this happened after we changed the rules in Congress where they voted and had committees in private, to out in the open.
We removed senators right to vote for the right things in private in ~1970. After this things have gotten very bad in the US–policy wise. Polarization. Extreme lobbing. Partisanship. Fiscal policies that only favor the rich.
See this: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com
All of this happened after we changed the rules in Congress where they voted and had committees in private, to out in the open.
This is interesting. Clearly _something_ happened in the early 70s (noise in the signal makes it hard to be sure of the precise year - if even there is a single discrete event). I've seen the abrupt change in economic trends attributed to different causes by different people:
- The end of the Bretton Woods monetary system
- The occurrence of peak domestic oil production in the US
- (now) removing the ability of senators to vote privately
...
- The end of the Bretton Woods monetary system
- The occurrence of peak domestic oil production in the US
- (now) removing the ability of senators to vote privately
...
The Average American Has No Influence on Public Policy (Princeton study)
https://medium.com/k-street/the-average-american-has-no-infl...
https://medium.com/k-street/the-average-american-has-no-infl...
> We removed senators right to vote for the right things in private in ~1970. After this things have gotten very bad in the US–policy wise. Polarization.
Political polarization has been bad for the US it's entire history. It was certainly worse and more violent in the two decades before 1970 than since, though the last few years have been ramping up.
Partisan polarization was low for much of the post-WWII period because the issues of political polarization were unusually misaligned with the axis between the major parties (because of the unresolved partisan realignments around the New Deal and then Civil Rights which didn't finish shaking out until the early 1990s; as the direction of that shakeout started to become clear by the 1970s, partisan polarization started rising, and really took off from the 1990s, but this partisan polarization isn't a special condition, it's a reversion to the historical norm.
Political polarization has been bad for the US it's entire history. It was certainly worse and more violent in the two decades before 1970 than since, though the last few years have been ramping up.
Partisan polarization was low for much of the post-WWII period because the issues of political polarization were unusually misaligned with the axis between the major parties (because of the unresolved partisan realignments around the New Deal and then Civil Rights which didn't finish shaking out until the early 1990s; as the direction of that shakeout started to become clear by the 1970s, partisan polarization started rising, and really took off from the 1990s, but this partisan polarization isn't a special condition, it's a reversion to the historical norm.
Interesting but I don't think that privacy would help since those buying the legislation would know they're not getting what they're paying for and deal with that fact in some other way.
[deleted]
After it therefore because of it.
[deleted]
> Except, that doesn't tell the story for the majority of Americans. Housing costs are WAY up in cities as Americans migrate to where the jobs are, while housing costs are down in all the areas where jobs are disappearing. In practise, housing costs are actually significantly up for most Americans, but because the CPI is calculated across the entire nation, the government can claim inflation is low.
I think this is basically wrong in that it's only true for a minority of Americans -- the kind that are overrepresented on this forum. If you're in tech or finance or law, then there are big payoffs to moving to San Francisco or New York, but this actually isn't the case for the typical American. When you compare cost of living it's clear pretty quickly that the median American is still doing just fine in the vast middle of the country.
The median household income in the NYC metro is $83,160 and the typical home costs $571,556. In St. Louis, say, the median household income is $66,417 and the typical home is $222,076. For the average American, the second option is a much better deal. Sure, you make $16k more in NYC, but does anybody believe that the entire cost difference between the two metros is $16k per year? It's not even close. The median American is much better off in St. Louis.
A lot of people reading this are in households that make many times the median household income and they have understandably concluded that their best options are in a few costal cities. But it simply isn't true for the typical American.
There's kind of a dual (seemingly contradictory) error here in that people both under- and over-estimate how wealthy the U.S. is. They overestimate in that they forget that the majority of Americans are living on much less than the average software engineer, but they underestimate in that they forget that our poorest states are still much wealthier than than the average European country.
See here: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/us-gdp-per-capita-by-state-vs...
I think this is basically wrong in that it's only true for a minority of Americans -- the kind that are overrepresented on this forum. If you're in tech or finance or law, then there are big payoffs to moving to San Francisco or New York, but this actually isn't the case for the typical American. When you compare cost of living it's clear pretty quickly that the median American is still doing just fine in the vast middle of the country.
The median household income in the NYC metro is $83,160 and the typical home costs $571,556. In St. Louis, say, the median household income is $66,417 and the typical home is $222,076. For the average American, the second option is a much better deal. Sure, you make $16k more in NYC, but does anybody believe that the entire cost difference between the two metros is $16k per year? It's not even close. The median American is much better off in St. Louis.
A lot of people reading this are in households that make many times the median household income and they have understandably concluded that their best options are in a few costal cities. But it simply isn't true for the typical American.
There's kind of a dual (seemingly contradictory) error here in that people both under- and over-estimate how wealthy the U.S. is. They overestimate in that they forget that the majority of Americans are living on much less than the average software engineer, but they underestimate in that they forget that our poorest states are still much wealthier than than the average European country.
See here: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/us-gdp-per-capita-by-state-vs...
Honestly I do not know how people are getting by given the cost of everything has gotten dramatically more expensive the past few years. In southern California gas is $5 a gallon, groceries usually are $200-300 a week for three people. Housing is beyond insane, every single family house in our city is now above $1M(you could find dozens of houses in the $800k-900k range a year and a half ago). This is not sustainable and I don't know what the final outcome will be but it won't be pretty.
It will be more expensive because other places are. Germany: currently a gallon of gas is €7.65 ($8.63). A kWh of electricity is €0.40($0.45).
A number of responses to this are arguing over whether real wages were really flat since the 1970s or how one would judge given the differences in the things we spend money on (larger houses, new tech, etc). But for any choice of how to calculate inflation which makes worker's wages go up over time, doesn't that imply that the total growth since the 1970s is also larger, and the absolute value captured by the capital-owning class is even larger? You can skew the picture to make the situation for workers less crappy, but not without making the success of the capital owners even more extreme.
Piketty frames stuff in terms of the share of growth that goes to labor vs capital-owners, and I can't stop viewing the situation in those terms. My understanding is that recent data shows that in general, companies selling a lot of consumer goods have improved their margins -- they're raising prices faster than their costs are increasing -- meaning effectively we're shifting money from consumers to shareholders. Every crisis is an opportunity to argue for the richest to enrich themselves further.
Piketty frames stuff in terms of the share of growth that goes to labor vs capital-owners, and I can't stop viewing the situation in those terms. My understanding is that recent data shows that in general, companies selling a lot of consumer goods have improved their margins -- they're raising prices faster than their costs are increasing -- meaning effectively we're shifting money from consumers to shareholders. Every crisis is an opportunity to argue for the richest to enrich themselves further.
I'm having trouble parsing your last sentence, 'an opportunity to argue for'? I suspect the rich often got that way by being able to capitalise on crises, but I'm not sure how that relates to arguing for such opportunity. It might be relevant that Picketty also points out how severe crises are about the only times in recent history that wealth inequality decreased.
I generally like Picketty's analysis, but I wonder whether it might be worthwhile to do a similar analysis and include the portion that goes to co-ordination costs. It might be irrelevant in france for cultural reasons but I suspect it's an important piece of the puzzle in the Americas.
I generally like Picketty's analysis, but I wonder whether it might be worthwhile to do a similar analysis and include the portion that goes to co-ordination costs. It might be irrelevant in france for cultural reasons but I suspect it's an important piece of the puzzle in the Americas.
Perhaps I phrased that poorly.
Every crisis is used to lobby (argue) for policies which further enrich the rich.
So much of the money that was spent during the covid response was shoveled at businesses and capital owners.
So much of the money that was spent during the covid response was shoveled at businesses and capital owners.
So , the frog has been boiling slowly for the past 40 years, but this year it burnt quite a bit, right? Either way the frog has been boiled
When the federal government can dilute the value of money while giving tons of it to banks and mega corps as near free loans, it becomes inevitable that there is a transfer of wealth up from the bottom.
Something that needs to be at least pointed out is that there is a significant difference between money and currency. Currency is a kind of instrument, mostly to enable current, flow of money in an efficient, productive, and low cost manner to facilitate smooth economy of activities. The problem that we are now facing though is that the governments of the world have committed to defrauding the people, whether to cover up other frauds or to plunder wealth/value.
What we are facing right now with the "money printing" in all its different forms or manifestations, is nothing less and nothing more than just plain fraud. It's really no different than if you were told the painting you are buying is a renaissance masterwork, when it's just a sophisticated fake. It's a bit more nuanced than that because the ruling clan used to understand that they can't get too greedy, but that seems to have changed now since they have just gotten away with ever more brazen frauds over the decades and have not been held accountable in at least a very long time, if at all really ever fully. It used to be "… one for you, two for me, one for you, three for me", we seem to be up to "one for you, 5 billion for me … wow, look how successful and smart I am".
It's the biggest problem I have with people who make excuses for "taxing the rich", because frankly, they didn't earn it at all when the government is essentially defrauding the lower classes and pumping trillions into the upper classes. Unfortunately the well has been polluted and the only way to fix it would be to rescind all the fraudulently earned "money", e.g., seize all wealth over $5 million, but that won't happen for several reasons, so we will get the tune we paid the piper for by drinking from the poisoned well. Round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows. History tells us though, likely it will end very poorly for some group of people. Abuse begets abuse, and the ruling clan has been abusing hard again for a very long time.
What we are facing right now with the "money printing" in all its different forms or manifestations, is nothing less and nothing more than just plain fraud. It's really no different than if you were told the painting you are buying is a renaissance masterwork, when it's just a sophisticated fake. It's a bit more nuanced than that because the ruling clan used to understand that they can't get too greedy, but that seems to have changed now since they have just gotten away with ever more brazen frauds over the decades and have not been held accountable in at least a very long time, if at all really ever fully. It used to be "… one for you, two for me, one for you, three for me", we seem to be up to "one for you, 5 billion for me … wow, look how successful and smart I am".
It's the biggest problem I have with people who make excuses for "taxing the rich", because frankly, they didn't earn it at all when the government is essentially defrauding the lower classes and pumping trillions into the upper classes. Unfortunately the well has been polluted and the only way to fix it would be to rescind all the fraudulently earned "money", e.g., seize all wealth over $5 million, but that won't happen for several reasons, so we will get the tune we paid the piper for by drinking from the poisoned well. Round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows. History tells us though, likely it will end very poorly for some group of people. Abuse begets abuse, and the ruling clan has been abusing hard again for a very long time.
Something else to add context as far as the complexities of inflation and buying power. Yea TVs are cheaper, but the production of TVs have been shifted more and more to overseas locations where various costs are cheaper such as waste management, labor, etc. So while Americans have better buying power over computers, lets say, a lot of the computers are no longer made in the US.
I agree on the inflation measurement.
Regarding your question there is a simple explenation. YES we are much much productive then before. BUT wages are decided by markets. No one is paying you your "fair" share if it is possible to hire someone cheaper. Its like a commodity in the end. Good devs or spezialized doctors get a very very good sallary, so it just depends on your "market value".
Regarding your question there is a simple explenation. YES we are much much productive then before. BUT wages are decided by markets. No one is paying you your "fair" share if it is possible to hire someone cheaper. Its like a commodity in the end. Good devs or spezialized doctors get a very very good sallary, so it just depends on your "market value".
FYI,
(non-farm) Labor productivity declined by 5.2% year over year:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.t02.htm
If you break these numbers down, you see that total production increased by 1.2%, but it required 7.4% more labor to produce that extra 1.2%. Compensation went up around 3% but of course in real terms it declined -- it pretty much has to decline if you need more labor to produce the same amount of stuff.
Whether or not this is a trend or some weird pandemic related thing will be seen over time.
(non-farm) Labor productivity declined by 5.2% year over year:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.t02.htm
If you break these numbers down, you see that total production increased by 1.2%, but it required 7.4% more labor to produce that extra 1.2%. Compensation went up around 3% but of course in real terms it declined -- it pretty much has to decline if you need more labor to produce the same amount of stuff.
Whether or not this is a trend or some weird pandemic related thing will be seen over time.
Sounds strange. What about this graph
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB
I would argue that just based on the technological progress total average productivity per person should go up.
I would argue that just based on the technological progress total average productivity per person should go up.
Yes, just based on that it should go up, but there's a huge difference about it increasing at 0.5% per annum and 1.5% per annum, and it's not going to go up monotonically, which is the difference between your long run graph and the latest BLS announcement.
In certain situations, when an economy is mismanaged, it will go down for prolonged periods of time, but again one year changes are not a significant trend. But this article about worker pay and inflation is not about long term trends, but recent (since 2020) trends.
In certain situations, when an economy is mismanaged, it will go down for prolonged periods of time, but again one year changes are not a significant trend. But this article about worker pay and inflation is not about long term trends, but recent (since 2020) trends.
As Russ Roberts details in https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRZf05zFBLXIKLD3blbnn... things are more complicated. A lot of the analysis about things being flat since 1970 makes assumptions about things being the same which aren't true.
I honestly think simply raising the minimum wage gradually to inflation-adjusted $20/hour and then adjusting for productivity increases over time would permanently address these issues. Another option is to adjust based on local cost of housing, ie 4 times the average two bedroom apartment rent.
I think life is better today than it was in 1970. You must consider that the 1970s started about 25 years after the United States bombed the bejeezus out of every single major industrial center in the world. America made "the best cars in the world" at a time when factories in Stuttgart, Munich, and Ingolstadt were lying in ruble--and with the world's top scientists, engineers, artists, designers, and architects pouring into the country. The American middle class saw a rapid rise in their wealth and standard of living during this time. An inexperienced worker could walk into a factory job in the US and enjoy a very high level of affluence relative both to their skill and the rest of the world. This state of affairs completely broke down in the 1970s and economic progress in the US after this time has been of an entirely different flavor.
To take 1950-1970 as an example of "the way things ought to be" is highly unrealistic.
Workers in the US are still making more, much much more in most cases, than their counterparts in other countries.
To take 1950-1970 as an example of "the way things ought to be" is highly unrealistic.
Workers in the US are still making more, much much more in most cases, than their counterparts in other countries.
> were lying in ruble
Ironic typo.
Ironic typo.
I think the most recent experience on inflation is very clear on this. The government reported number is 6%. But for people who spend most of their money on daily items, like rent and grocery, 6% is like lying to my face telling me red is blue.
The number is way low. Housing/rental costs are the largest expense and that's up 20% in many places. Used cars are up 40%.
Many food items like milk, eggs, meat are almost 50%~100% more expensive.
Yep.
"Peter Schiff vs Warren Buffett; The Middle Class in the 50's, and Now"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byxd7dTnlXU
"Peter Schiff vs Warren Buffett; The Middle Class in the 50's, and Now"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byxd7dTnlXU
While Peters point of view may be seen as dated and chauvinistic, I do feel like the absolute necessity of dual income living today, especially in the city, has had a huge negative impact on quality of family life.
I don't even have kids and I recognize what he's talking about. By the time me and my partner are home (7pm) and have prepped, cooked and cleaned up from dinner, there's no time or energy left to do anything productive or thoughtful. People mock millennials for eating out or ordering in too much, but the temptation to just eat at work and then claw back precious time in the evening is very high - i'd do it in a heartbeat if my partner let me.
It's just market forces at work of course. Once couples become DINKs, and bid up the cost of housing, the single income families simply can't compete and become extinct. Median house prices are 10x median income. Banks will lend you <5x income. For most here now (the UK), buying a property on a single income is a mathematical impossibility without first saving for a decade, living with your parents until you're 30, and then taking out a 30 year variable rate mortgage.
I don't even have kids and I recognize what he's talking about. By the time me and my partner are home (7pm) and have prepped, cooked and cleaned up from dinner, there's no time or energy left to do anything productive or thoughtful. People mock millennials for eating out or ordering in too much, but the temptation to just eat at work and then claw back precious time in the evening is very high - i'd do it in a heartbeat if my partner let me.
It's just market forces at work of course. Once couples become DINKs, and bid up the cost of housing, the single income families simply can't compete and become extinct. Median house prices are 10x median income. Banks will lend you <5x income. For most here now (the UK), buying a property on a single income is a mathematical impossibility without first saving for a decade, living with your parents until you're 30, and then taking out a 30 year variable rate mortgage.
This is why no one is having replacement rate numbers of kids in cities.
> While Peters point of view may be seen as dated and chauvinistic
A way to un-chauvinistic this point: I'm a male and I'd love it if I could get married to a women and have their income alone support a lifestyle with a house, kids, car, etc and leave me to do house work + cooking. Sprinkle in access to a computer which would let me do some programming and potentially generate extra income and it I'd be extremely happy.
A way to un-chauvinistic this point: I'm a male and I'd love it if I could get married to a women and have their income alone support a lifestyle with a house, kids, car, etc and leave me to do house work + cooking. Sprinkle in access to a computer which would let me do some programming and potentially generate extra income and it I'd be extremely happy.
Exactly this. The same people setting wages are setting prices.
> most Americans are significantly worse off since the 1970s
I wasn’t around in the 1970s, so can someone explain to me how great it was with some examples that would make me want to go and live in the 1970s?
I wasn’t around in the 1970s, so can someone explain to me how great it was with some examples that would make me want to go and live in the 1970s?
There is a whole website for this, but it's more the 1960's that were golden.
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
That’s just a bunch of [highly motivated] financial metrics. I was hoping someone might tell me some real-world benefits like “I used to be able to do X, now I can only do Y”.
Of course I don’t expect to hear much because as far as I can tell, 2020s USA is better than 1970s USA in every way I can think of.
Of course I don’t expect to hear much because as far as I can tell, 2020s USA is better than 1970s USA in every way I can think of.
I'm sorry I don't have sources, but anecdotally, home ownership is so far out of reach for most Americans today. The common rhetoric is that "a store clerk could afford a [desirable] home for their entire family" in 1970 while today they often need double income to rent a 1 bedroom apartment.
Hoping someone comes along with a more evidence based continuation of this point.
Hoping someone comes along with a more evidence based continuation of this point.
> And then we come to the other elephant in the room: why are real wages flat?
A lot of it is because workers are doing less. They may be working just as hard, or maybe even harder. They are doing tasks that enable more production. But they are doing less. And many fewer people are required to do it.
More people do the last mile of work that can’t be automated, requiring 0 skill, and little thought. Low end jobs still used to require a fair bit of expertise, but are now dead ends.
Performance in many of these jobs is upper bounded at just showing up and doing it. It’s not even a rat race.
tl;dr low skill labor supply outstrips low skill labor demand.
A lot of it is because workers are doing less. They may be working just as hard, or maybe even harder. They are doing tasks that enable more production. But they are doing less. And many fewer people are required to do it.
More people do the last mile of work that can’t be automated, requiring 0 skill, and little thought. Low end jobs still used to require a fair bit of expertise, but are now dead ends.
Performance in many of these jobs is upper bounded at just showing up and doing it. It’s not even a rat race.
tl;dr low skill labor supply outstrips low skill labor demand.
Introduce them to identity politics.
Housing supply (NIMBYism by landlords) has not kept up with population growth and immigration in most dense cities. There is also the massive increase in multiple houses bought and left empty by the rich which are ghost houses. Healthcare will go up because that is regulated by politicians who do their best to raise prices for vested interests. The 2003 law passed by Republicans to prevent the government from even negotiating drug prices with Big Pharma is an example. You can’t even do parallel imports of drugs from say Europe. The number of doctors is restricted by the AMA and they even do the guidelines on how well they should be compensated. Educatlon is a third party payment “scam” where there is no incentive to restrict your costs, and there is every incentive to spend money on non-academic activities like massively bloated football programs and bureaucracies.
We reap what we sow.
We reap what we sow.
Very interesting points; there is a scientific clarity in your analysis. But, I would like to add a point: the reality is that the production is in global scale now, the production has no borders, races, nationalities, but the capital has its local interests. The working class is a global class, while bourgeoisie is a local class. But since the bourgeoisie is the dominant class, it makes the working class divided. Like the role of black bourgeoisie in the disguising class struggle under the hood of racial issues. I think this small piece of text helps make my point a little bit clear: http://www.theinternationalism.org/2020/07/return-to-marx.ht...
Imports are only ~15% of the US GDP, they really don’t explain wage stagnation.
A lot of work is moving abroad without becoming imports. US companies own significant chunks of the services and R&D workforce the world over. Even in production, it's not uncommon for a US company to buy a factory rather than importing goods produced in that factory.
That is exactly "export of capital". We also see "import of labor force" since the developed countries struggling with demographic winter.
I didn't mean the point is the imports. The fact is that US is loosing his share of world GDP for decades, and new powers like China are rising. It is just like the decline of British empire at the late 19th and early 20th century and rise of new powers like US, Germany, Japan. We are witnessing the same phenomenon that Lenin called unequal development of capitalism in the imperialist stage. We would also see the same tensions and wars that we saw in the first half of 20th century.
Global GDP is irrelevant for US workers, the value of US exports has grown even as wages stagnated. At some point it just stops being about how much value is produced and becomes a question of how much value is captured.
If a factory produces 10x as many goods with the same number of workers the work those people are doing has increased in value. But, their unlikely to see a 10x wage increase.
If a factory produces 10x as many goods with the same number of workers the work those people are doing has increased in value. But, their unlikely to see a 10x wage increase.
> why are real wages flat?
Good question. One answer is the government consumes ever more of the GDP. This is going to negatively impact real wages.
Good question. One answer is the government consumes ever more of the GDP. This is going to negatively impact real wages.
One answer? Or an answer that happened to fit the predetermined conclusion “government’s fault”?
More of the share of productivity has gone to the owners and CEOs compared to the workers over the last 40 years. That’s the fact base that we are working from. Your supposed answer fits like a square in a round hole.
More of the share of productivity has gone to the owners and CEOs compared to the workers over the last 40 years. That’s the fact base that we are working from. Your supposed answer fits like a square in a round hole.
Where do you think all the trillions the government spends comes from?
You could give all the CEO pay to the workers and it won't make any difference, except you won't have a competent CEO anymore.
Any worker can become an owner by buying stock.
You could give all the CEO pay to the workers and it won't make any difference, except you won't have a competent CEO anymore.
Any worker can become an owner by buying stock.
> Any worker can become an owner by buying stock.
That’s some real “just stop being poor” advice.
That’s some real “just stop being poor” advice.
Things with massive government involvement and heavily regulated like are incredibly more expensive: health care, housing and education.
Meanwhile, things provided by the free market have become incredibly less expensive and more powerful: technology, communication, entertainment.
Nothing to do with your rich vs poor class wars.
Meanwhile, things provided by the free market have become incredibly less expensive and more powerful: technology, communication, entertainment.
Nothing to do with your rich vs poor class wars.
Government is also heavily involved in car manufacturing and air travel those have become much cheaper.
The real reason is non-scaling vs scaling, IP like tech and entertainment and internet are incredibly cheap to scale. Manufacturing has also become a lot cheaper and automated.
In contrast, things that are supply constrained (housing) or mostly depend on human labour have become expensive. A nurse spends approximately the same time per patient as 100 years ago, a car requires a fraction of the human labour compared to 100 years ago.
The real reason is non-scaling vs scaling, IP like tech and entertainment and internet are incredibly cheap to scale. Manufacturing has also become a lot cheaper and automated.
In contrast, things that are supply constrained (housing) or mostly depend on human labour have become expensive. A nurse spends approximately the same time per patient as 100 years ago, a car requires a fraction of the human labour compared to 100 years ago.
Houses are supply constrained not because they're expensive to build (there technology helped) but because it's incredibly difficult to be allowed to build, due to... you guessed it - the countless rules and regulations.
There is a deficit of qualified nurses not only because it takes time and money to train one but also because you are not legally allowed to hire one even if you find it, without the necessary papers and certifications. More regulations!
So even if I agree with you - the human labor cost has increased and things dependent on it have become more expensive, the supply is artificially constrained by regulations as well.
Imagine if it was illegal to hire programmers without a certification from a government approved body. Would we still enjoy this explosion of incredibly cheap software in everything?
There is a deficit of qualified nurses not only because it takes time and money to train one but also because you are not legally allowed to hire one even if you find it, without the necessary papers and certifications. More regulations!
So even if I agree with you - the human labor cost has increased and things dependent on it have become more expensive, the supply is artificially constrained by regulations as well.
Imagine if it was illegal to hire programmers without a certification from a government approved body. Would we still enjoy this explosion of incredibly cheap software in everything?
Cars are very expensive, not because of the car in themselves, but the infrastructure and land use policies required to make them convenient. Think of parking lots and roads.
A more compact society would simply be less costly to maintain, and you can use public transit to scale transportation.
Housing is only very expensive because of land use policies and we don't build enough of them. Once we have a more liberal land use policies, then maybe labor costs will start to matter.
A more compact society would simply be less costly to maintain, and you can use public transit to scale transportation.
Housing is only very expensive because of land use policies and we don't build enough of them. Once we have a more liberal land use policies, then maybe labor costs will start to matter.
Gonna leave out housing and education, but for healthcare, you are painfully incorrect. European countries has vastly more regulated healthcare and yet pay about an order of magnitude less for it.
You have a good point, USA healthcare has the worst kind of regulation: it did lots of damage and helped very little.
But Western European countries (which you probably compare to) had an immense, unspoken advantage: an incredible supply of highly educated, unexpensive health care work force - the Eastern Europe.
If you want to truly compare the healthcare of USA with Europe's please include countries like Bulgaria, Ukraine, Serbia, Romania, Moldova and so on. Yes, it's cheap. But you truly get what you pay for.
But Western European countries (which you probably compare to) had an immense, unspoken advantage: an incredible supply of highly educated, unexpensive health care work force - the Eastern Europe.
If you want to truly compare the healthcare of USA with Europe's please include countries like Bulgaria, Ukraine, Serbia, Romania, Moldova and so on. Yes, it's cheap. But you truly get what you pay for.
You want to compare the richest country in history with Moldova? I'm not sure I see the point.
My point was very simple. Out of all of the world's developed countries, the USA is the one with the most expensive healthcare, despite less regulations. My point was that regulation by the government does not lead to "incredibly more expensive healthcare", as you have have stated.
From there, comparing the USA to Bulgaria is simply beside the point, the conversation was about regulation leading to "incredibly" higher costs.
My point was very simple. Out of all of the world's developed countries, the USA is the one with the most expensive healthcare, despite less regulations. My point was that regulation by the government does not lead to "incredibly more expensive healthcare", as you have have stated.
From there, comparing the USA to Bulgaria is simply beside the point, the conversation was about regulation leading to "incredibly" higher costs.
And my point was just as simple: those developed countries enjoy the benefit of cheap, educated doctors from Eastern Europe. Without them, their health care would be much more expensive.
So, in the end, you're accepting that regulation is not the determining factor then.
Not even sure what exactly you think the proportion of foreign-born medical staff is in Europe. As far as I can find, the maximum is ~30% in the UK, while in Germany is 7%. But either way, to think that this is somehow the reason why Americans pay way more than anyone else for basic stuff like insulin and medical bills is ridiculous in my eyes.
Even if what you say is true for Western Europe, there are other countries (pretty much all) with highly-regulated healthcare and they all pay less than the US. But I'm sure there's some niche reason for why that would never work in the US.
Not even sure what exactly you think the proportion of foreign-born medical staff is in Europe. As far as I can find, the maximum is ~30% in the UK, while in Germany is 7%. But either way, to think that this is somehow the reason why Americans pay way more than anyone else for basic stuff like insulin and medical bills is ridiculous in my eyes.
Even if what you say is true for Western Europe, there are other countries (pretty much all) with highly-regulated healthcare and they all pay less than the US. But I'm sure there's some niche reason for why that would never work in the US.
No I am saying regulation just guarantees you pay more. How much more depends how bad that regulation is. In USA, the situation is pretty much FUBAR.
You can't compare Eastern Europe like that, though. Romania has a GDP per capita of 1/6th the US one and it spends a pitiful percentage of its GDP on healthcare, about 5%. The US spends 18%. So the US has 18 times more money (!) for healthcare.
The other ones are even worse, Moldova's GDP per capita is 1/20th the US one. So probably 30 times more money spent by the US on healthcare.
It's like comparing a maglev train to the original steam locomotive :-)
The other ones are even worse, Moldova's GDP per capita is 1/20th the US one. So probably 30 times more money spent by the US on healthcare.
It's like comparing a maglev train to the original steam locomotive :-)
You are ignoring what EE countries spend on training countless health care workers who then emigrate and work as cheap and highly educated in the West.
And health care cost increase exponentially with quality, not linearly. Bleeding edge research and medical advances appear in the USA mostly. And mostly everybody enjoys the fruits.
And health care cost increase exponentially with quality, not linearly. Bleeding edge research and medical advances appear in the USA mostly. And mostly everybody enjoys the fruits.
I keep hearing about US research but Europe has huge pharma companies: Germany has a bunch, France some more, Switzerland, the UK.
The US has a very parasitic healthcare system so I wonder how much their expenses are for actual research.
The US has a very parasitic healthcare system so I wonder how much their expenses are for actual research.
The US’s pharma have done a ton with pandemic medicine. Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, Novavax, Gilead, Merck..
Biontech researched the Pfizer vaccine. It's a German company. AZ is British.
Pfizer developed the treatment Paxlovid.
https://www.voanews.com/a/european-drug-regulator-recommends...
The first one is Swedish and the second is British.
The US is much better at creating visibility for its accomplishments.
The first one is Swedish and the second is British.
The US is much better at creating visibility for its accomplishments.
You're completely right.
Yet in 99% of your peers, OECD countries, those regulated domains are generally more regulated, not less. And we're talking about 40 countries or so, many as diverse as the US, big enough to be comparable.
How do these data point for into your narrative?
Yet in 99% of your peers, OECD countries, those regulated domains are generally more regulated, not less. And we're talking about 40 countries or so, many as diverse as the US, big enough to be comparable.
How do these data point for into your narrative?
I believe that those regulated domains are generally much more expensive in all those countries, no?
You don't need to believe anything, you can check for yourself. The numbers are easily available online.
Healthcare is 2-3-4 times <<more expensive in the US>>.
Education is generally <<free or very cheap outside the US>>.
Housing is expensive outside the US, too, a bit less so.
I feel the problem is not regulation in the US, it's that you half ass it. Americans are all about "rugged individualism" and "small government" when advanced societies are advanced because large groups of people work well together, which is the opposite of individualism. I've been in places where there is an extreme emphasis on individualism and they generally they don't look good (for example Eastern Europe does it due to a huge negative legacy of forced collectivism).
Healthcare is 2-3-4 times <<more expensive in the US>>.
Education is generally <<free or very cheap outside the US>>.
Housing is expensive outside the US, too, a bit less so.
I feel the problem is not regulation in the US, it's that you half ass it. Americans are all about "rugged individualism" and "small government" when advanced societies are advanced because large groups of people work well together, which is the opposite of individualism. I've been in places where there is an extreme emphasis on individualism and they generally they don't look good (for example Eastern Europe does it due to a huge negative legacy of forced collectivism).
The US has the 3rd lowest housing price to income ratio [0]. You just need to avoid the west coast and northeast and you can find plenty of affordable housing [1].
[0]: https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/rankings_by_count...
[1]: https://www.supermoney.com/inflation-adjusted-home-prices/
[0]: https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/rankings_by_count...
[1]: https://www.supermoney.com/inflation-adjusted-home-prices/
I do think our regulation is half-assed, but that's mostly due to corruption and regulatory capture. I don't think it has anything to do with our penchant for rugged individualism, and far more to do with price-fixing healthcare cartels, cronyism, a ridiculously broken healthcare insurance system, and lawmakers who have been lobbied hard to not break up these schemes. Regulations have to actually be enforced (not selectively) to do any good, and they have to be created by people without perverse incentives. Small government is not the problem, it's corrupt government
Nothing is "free" anywhere - it's just paid from a different pocket. From people's taxes in those "other" countries.
And the quality of state-provided healthcare is significantly worse than in US. Most people with means get private medical insurance skipping the one purchased by their taxes entirely.
Eastern Europe has two huge problem completely overshadowing their advantage from less regulation: a strong culture of corruption instilled by the years of communism and a gigantic brain drain to a west more than happy to lower their own costs (in health care as well) with the best of the cheap, highly educated Eastern workforce.
And the quality of state-provided healthcare is significantly worse than in US. Most people with means get private medical insurance skipping the one purchased by their taxes entirely.
Eastern Europe has two huge problem completely overshadowing their advantage from less regulation: a strong culture of corruption instilled by the years of communism and a gigantic brain drain to a west more than happy to lower their own costs (in health care as well) with the best of the cheap, highly educated Eastern workforce.
If the tax burden is 10% more but you pay 2-3-4-10x less, your point is moot.
And countries with comparable stats like waiting times pay less overall.
Don't die on this hill, it's not worth it.
And countries with comparable stats like waiting times pay less overall.
Don't die on this hill, it's not worth it.
Living in Eastern Europe, I am paying both the tax burden AND private medical insurance and care since I do not want to end up in state hospitals. I would much rather live in the USA and pay private insurance enjoying the standard of care there.
It's the hill I live on, so I will probably die here.
It's the hill I live on, so I will probably die here.
Well, do what all reasonable Eastern Europeans do and go to an OECD country minus Mexico or Hungary or so :-))
I did that for a while, but I'd rather be part of the solution: I can do much more good and help many more people over here.
And I also do not enjoy the hard left turn of the recent Western politics. Although I am sure they will realize their mistake eventually and turn back to the principles that brought their prosperity - I am afraid it will be a bumpy ride.
And I also do not enjoy the hard left turn of the recent Western politics. Although I am sure they will realize their mistake eventually and turn back to the principles that brought their prosperity - I am afraid it will be a bumpy ride.
We had an all-hands meeting recently where we got to submit anonymous questions. One of the questions was 'with inflation rising at 6%, will the company reconsider their 'standard' 2% raise?' The lady answering looks dead in the camera and goes 'Honestly? No' and goes on to talk about how we're reasonably competitive with the local market. Hey, credit where credit is due, at least she was a refreshingly straight shooter. It pretty much let everyone on the call know what they needed to do if they wanted a good raise.
My employers automatically corrects for inflation at the end of each year. Of course it's still 'behind the curve', since inflation happening this year is only compensated next year, but it's still something.
Pro-tip, if you have yearly performance/raise/bonus discussions, let your manager tell you all of the nice things to justify why they are giving you a raise. Dig into it, be super grateful and receptive. Then ask "oh of course this is in addition to an inflation compensation, right?"
If not, it's appropriate to be genuinely confused about why you're actually not getting a raise at all given his/her stated reasons why you are deserving of one.
Pro-tip, if you have yearly performance/raise/bonus discussions, let your manager tell you all of the nice things to justify why they are giving you a raise. Dig into it, be super grateful and receptive. Then ask "oh of course this is in addition to an inflation compensation, right?"
If not, it's appropriate to be genuinely confused about why you're actually not getting a raise at all given his/her stated reasons why you are deserving of one.
I just had the opposite happen to me where I asked for a raise and my manager asks if I've considered annual inflation compensation. It was both funny and depressing
In my experience HR are never receptive to those types of arguments. If you want a raise the best thing you can do is find a new job.
The best thing you can do is organize your workplace. Job hopping allows businesses to eat the market at the edges and eventually squeeze those demands out of the labor pool.
Inflation doesn't - fundamentally - change the power balance between employers and employees. Market forces will cause the situation to find a fair market price. If job hopping can't get you better wages, then you probably don't have enough market power to resist if an employer flat-out cuts your pay.
Though to try and prevent misunderstandings - I do think inflation is bad for people who are paid wages. Market forces aren't perfect and "market price" is really a band of prices. Inflation pushes all workers to the low end of the band and means if anyone doesn't feel like negotiating they will be pushed in to a bad deal by default.
Though to try and prevent misunderstandings - I do think inflation is bad for people who are paid wages. Market forces aren't perfect and "market price" is really a band of prices. Inflation pushes all workers to the low end of the band and means if anyone doesn't feel like negotiating they will be pushed in to a bad deal by default.
Late last century inflation and then wages keeping up with that inflation enabled a generation of folks to pay off their first mortgages quite quickly.
That is saying a lot less than you might think. Again, consider that the banks employ actuaries - they understand inflation a lot better than the people borrowing the money. They didn't let themselves be the losers here.
Inflation doesn't change the actual power balance between different actors, it does make the situation more complex and harder to keep up with. It doesn't create real wealth and it is not responsible for a wealth transfer to wage earners. The idea just lacks a mechanism - for the wealth to come from employers or businesses they have to be ignorant, altruistic and disinterested in money. That seems unlikely. Ditto most other actors. Changing value of money favours people who can continuously adjust to it which isn't a typical wage earner.
If a generation gets something for free, they got it from somewhere else. Who lost out here? Why did it need to be inflation to make that happen? If they didn't get it for free, it is unclear why inflation would be necessary in the story instead of incidental.
Inflation doesn't change the actual power balance between different actors, it does make the situation more complex and harder to keep up with. It doesn't create real wealth and it is not responsible for a wealth transfer to wage earners. The idea just lacks a mechanism - for the wealth to come from employers or businesses they have to be ignorant, altruistic and disinterested in money. That seems unlikely. Ditto most other actors. Changing value of money favours people who can continuously adjust to it which isn't a typical wage earner.
If a generation gets something for free, they got it from somewhere else. Who lost out here? Why did it need to be inflation to make that happen? If they didn't get it for free, it is unclear why inflation would be necessary in the story instead of incidental.
Absolutely but this also assumes a fairly "elastic" housing market able to absorb the demand. I am not sure the market is still able to do that with the NYMBYsm and malthusianism around new housing. In high tension area, the price could quickly increase faster than general inflation. I believe CPI does not include house prices.
Risk is that rising inflation raises mortgage rates which makes housing unaffordable. You might be able to continue paying your mortgage because you locked in a low rate, so not see this as a problem (free house!)-- but if for some reason you want or need to sell you might find it more financially challenging than anticipated.
[deleted]
If you timed it right. Several of my friends’ parents had 18% APR mortgages.
It allowed a very small slice of the population to do that. You basically had to take on a loan prior to the run up in interest rates. If you were born in 1950 you were fucked since rates had skyrocketed by the time you were 20.
Just like millennials love to claim boomers had it easy, it was a small slice of the pie that benefited.
Just like millennials love to claim boomers had it easy, it was a small slice of the pie that benefited.
Look at Sweden. The collectively bargained pay increase was below inflation in all sectors.
You should unionize for many reasons but I wouldn't trust it as an efficient tool for pay negotiations.
You should unionize for many reasons but I wouldn't trust it as an efficient tool for pay negotiations.
I've never seen a pay increase above ~2% here in Sweden. Some union agreements allow larger (and lower) changes if the average increase is still the decided upon percentage.
Eh, I'm unionized and had a 13% pay raise. To be fair, they motivated that by saying that I should get up to speed with other engineer's raises instead of staying at a junior level (yes, I'm bragging).
What I'm reading here is the union kept your initial wages 13% below market
Unions in Nordic countries don't stop employers from paying more, they just set minimum pay level. And usually the normal raise level. They can always pay more and usually do with fields like software engineering.
Nah, I was straight out of uni so taken on as a junior by the company and then given a raise as they didn't consider me junior after having me work there for 8 months or so. The union is probably involved in standard pay levels, but not much more than that.
Not unionized[1], but this is something I'd accuse unions of.
[1]: because no uninon ever manages to not try to meddle in international politics. Gandalf in LOTR had it right: he did not want power because he knew he would be tempted to try to do a lot of good things.
[1]: because no uninon ever manages to not try to meddle in international politics. Gandalf in LOTR had it right: he did not want power because he knew he would be tempted to try to do a lot of good things.
This sounds like you're arguing workers should leave things to their "betters"...
I'm missing a "not" somewhere in there.
The way it stands the downvotes are deserved.
I'm personally not unionized but this is not something I would accuse the union of ;-)
The way it stands the downvotes are deserved.
I'm personally not unionized but this is not something I would accuse the union of ;-)
? I've had a raise above 2% every year since I've come to Sweden in 2016. Our raises are determined on a scale based on performance. IIRC the average raise is negotiated by the union, but where on that scale you sit is determined by negotiation between you and your manager.
Edit: Sorry I might have misread your comment. I should say that our average increase was also above 2% several of those years.
Edit: Sorry I might have misread your comment. I should say that our average increase was also above 2% several of those years.
Most of the collective bargaining agreements I've heard about here in the Netherlands involve an automatic inflation correction at the end of the year.
Actually, this is false. This used to be the case in the 70s, but after the Wassenaar Agreement[1], this was removed from nearly all collective bargaining agreements[2]. Some have salary grades that increase automatically by year of experience, but this isn’t the same, because it won’t increase the wages for people starting their career. In general, the stronger unions are able to negotiate salary raises above inflation[3], but this of course depends on the percentage of employees that actually join a union.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassenaar_Agreement [2] https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/koopkrachtrepar... [3] I recently verified it for my own collective bargaining agreement, and on average, the raises were about 1% point higher than the inflation
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassenaar_Agreement [2] https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/koopkrachtrepar... [3] I recently verified it for my own collective bargaining agreement, and on average, the raises were about 1% point higher than the inflation
But regardless, the wages still keep slipping against inflation.
I've never gotten a raise from organizing my workforce but I've gotten many by hopping jobs. Can you tell me more about the workplaces you've organized? How did you start to go about it?
Unions are overwhelmingly unpopular in tech, for good reason. Nobody wants to work with that incompetent unfireable employee who's protected, or getting paid the same as someone who produces half the results you do at the same level.
Unfortunately unions protect the incompetent and punish the successful (by refusing them the ability to negotiate). It's most pronounced in the heavy unionized industries like teaching and auto manufacturing.
There will always be developers who produce the results of 10, 100 or 500 developers single-handedly. Unions kneecap them, like they kneecap outstanding teachers by paying them the same as the teachers phoning it in every day.
Unfortunately unions protect the incompetent and punish the successful (by refusing them the ability to negotiate). It's most pronounced in the heavy unionized industries like teaching and auto manufacturing.
There will always be developers who produce the results of 10, 100 or 500 developers single-handedly. Unions kneecap them, like they kneecap outstanding teachers by paying them the same as the teachers phoning it in every day.
Unions dont help new employees or high achievers. Unions help the ones with "the most time in".
> If you want a raise the best thing you can do is find a new job.
Note that this doesn't always even involve taking it.
Go get a job offer that pays better and bring it to your boss. If they want to match it, great. If they don't, bye.
Note that this doesn't always even involve taking it.
Go get a job offer that pays better and bring it to your boss. If they want to match it, great. If they don't, bye.
From the other side, whenever a member of my team has come to me asking to match an offer I've always refused and wished them well in their new role.
If someone is unhappy enough to start job hunting rather than talking to me then it's a clear sign that they'll leave soon regardless of any pay rise. Psychologically, every pay increase makes someone happy for a short time, and then they get used to it and they start to wonder if they should have asked for more, or they focus on other reasons why they don't like the role they're in and wonder if the other one would have been more fulfilling. If you match an offer, or even beat it, the person is likely to have left in a year anyway.
If someone is unhappy enough to start job hunting rather than talking to me then it's a clear sign that they'll leave soon regardless of any pay rise. Psychologically, every pay increase makes someone happy for a short time, and then they get used to it and they start to wonder if they should have asked for more, or they focus on other reasons why they don't like the role they're in and wonder if the other one would have been more fulfilling. If you match an offer, or even beat it, the person is likely to have left in a year anyway.
Look at it from this point of view; if your employer is so unhappy with you that, even when you’ve shown your skill, he’s unwilling to pay you a competitive amount then it’s clear you don’t really have a future at your current job.
A new company is willing to risk it on you, while paying more than your current job where you have experience. No surprise they leave in a year anyway.
A new company is willing to risk it on you, while paying more than your current job where you have experience. No surprise they leave in a year anyway.
if your employer is so unhappy with you that, even when you’ve shown your skill, he’s unwilling to pay you a competitive amount then it’s clear you don’t really have a future at your current job
This is the crux of the problem - people assume that anyone going to their boss asking for a raise is underpaid. That isn't always true.
When someone goes and finds a new role on more money it's almost always at a higher level. People move upwards when they move on. Matching an offer usually means paying someone the salary for the higher level role to do the work of the lower level role.
If someone wants to move up a level to earn more I've always been happy to talk to them about that. That's not what we're talking about here though.
This is the crux of the problem - people assume that anyone going to their boss asking for a raise is underpaid. That isn't always true.
When someone goes and finds a new role on more money it's almost always at a higher level. People move upwards when they move on. Matching an offer usually means paying someone the salary for the higher level role to do the work of the lower level role.
If someone wants to move up a level to earn more I've always been happy to talk to them about that. That's not what we're talking about here though.
I disagree with that. If you go into somewhere as a senior for example, it is not unheard of that a year later you can make a lateral move for 20%+ payrises. I've seen it happen many times in my career (obvious caveat that anecdote != data).
If they got promoted at their new company then you can counter offer with a promotion too?
If I think some has reached the next level then I'll promote them anyway. No one should need to prove that they deserve a promotion by finding another company willing to offer them that role.
[deleted]
You’re taking a lot of flak for this so I’ll try and back you up a bit.
Not all workers are equivalent, and not all roles that seem the same even in the same team, actually are. Let’s say we have a team of 10 people, each with slightly different experience and skills. One of them finds another job with higher pay and asks for it to be matched. What do you do?
It’s quite possible this other role actually matches their skills better than the one with you does. Maybe they are actually worth more to this other company than they are to you. Maybe they had other reasons for looking for a job aside from pay, maybe they’re tired of the job or want a fresh challenge. Maybe it’s a combination of all sorts of factors. Pay is only one.
If you do increase their salary, what about the rest of the team, do you pay them more too? Do they all have the attributes this other company valued in the person they made the offer to? Would they have all got the same offer? Probably not, but now you’ve upped the going rate for a member of your team. They will want the same.
It’s just a really messy situation to get into. If staff retention and recruitment is a problem or you don’t want it to become a problem then sure, of course you should make sure your compensation rates are fair. Of course under paying your team will cause problems. But one person getting one job offer doesn’t necessarily mean anything, except for them.
Not all workers are equivalent, and not all roles that seem the same even in the same team, actually are. Let’s say we have a team of 10 people, each with slightly different experience and skills. One of them finds another job with higher pay and asks for it to be matched. What do you do?
It’s quite possible this other role actually matches their skills better than the one with you does. Maybe they are actually worth more to this other company than they are to you. Maybe they had other reasons for looking for a job aside from pay, maybe they’re tired of the job or want a fresh challenge. Maybe it’s a combination of all sorts of factors. Pay is only one.
If you do increase their salary, what about the rest of the team, do you pay them more too? Do they all have the attributes this other company valued in the person they made the offer to? Would they have all got the same offer? Probably not, but now you’ve upped the going rate for a member of your team. They will want the same.
It’s just a really messy situation to get into. If staff retention and recruitment is a problem or you don’t want it to become a problem then sure, of course you should make sure your compensation rates are fair. Of course under paying your team will cause problems. But one person getting one job offer doesn’t necessarily mean anything, except for them.
You're starting from the false assumption that everyone on the team is paid the same.
It's not like everyone performs at the same level or gets the same pay in almost any team I've seen.
If someone gets a job offer, you should consider it a new data point. Some teams don't aim to retain top talent and if that's the case absolutely encourage them to move on. But if you want a high-performing team, you need to pay top of market and a job offer is new signal about the market price.
> Probably not, but now you’ve upped the going rate for a member of your team. They will want the same.
I have never once wanted to be paid the same as everyone on my team. Some people are more experienced than me and should be paid more. Others are less skilled and should be paid less.
It's not like everyone performs at the same level or gets the same pay in almost any team I've seen.
If someone gets a job offer, you should consider it a new data point. Some teams don't aim to retain top talent and if that's the case absolutely encourage them to move on. But if you want a high-performing team, you need to pay top of market and a job offer is new signal about the market price.
> Probably not, but now you’ve upped the going rate for a member of your team. They will want the same.
I have never once wanted to be paid the same as everyone on my team. Some people are more experienced than me and should be paid more. Others are less skilled and should be paid less.
> You're starting from the false assumption that everyone on the team is paid the same.
It doesn’t matter. Even if they are different, one person getting a raise changes the relative dynamic. Maybe I was being paid more than this team member and now we’re the same, and maybe I still think I’m worth more. It elevates the basis of comparison.
Also, to expand on my post, it creates the impression in the team that the way to get a raise is to get a competing offer. It says that person was being under paid. Maybe that means you are too? It’s just bad all round.
It doesn’t matter. Even if they are different, one person getting a raise changes the relative dynamic. Maybe I was being paid more than this team member and now we’re the same, and maybe I still think I’m worth more. It elevates the basis of comparison.
Also, to expand on my post, it creates the impression in the team that the way to get a raise is to get a competing offer. It says that person was being under paid. Maybe that means you are too? It’s just bad all round.
> If someone is unhappy enough to start job hunting
What makes you think people only go job hunting when they're unhappy? I consider it a moral obligation to seek out the best pay (after staying at a job long enough to justify my original hire and for the sake of my own resume) in order to do my small part to increase worker wages.
What makes you think people only go job hunting when they're unhappy? I consider it a moral obligation to seek out the best pay (after staying at a job long enough to justify my original hire and for the sake of my own resume) in order to do my small part to increase worker wages.
Nice trick to keep all the leftover washed-up people who would never dream of anything bigger and probably don't have the skills for it...
That's certainly one way to look at it. Another is that people who work on my team build the skills and confidence that enables them to move up in their careers, and at some point they outgrow what I can offer. I'm usually quite happy that they've been able to do that.
If someone has a chance to take another step up in their career that's a good thing. If I offer them more money to stay at the same level they'd be silly to accept that.
If someone has a chance to take another step up in their career that's a good thing. If I offer them more money to stay at the same level they'd be silly to accept that.
Let me ask you this from a different perspective. If you are responsible for purchasing, will you ask competitors for quotes? And use those quotes for negotiating your current contract with a supplier? Isn't what the employee is doing exactly the same thing?
If you would be a supplier you stance would translate to, I never make a new offer if a customer comes with a better offer from a competitor. I suspect one would loose a lot of customers this way.
If you would be a supplier you stance would translate to, I never make a new offer if a customer comes with a better offer from a competitor. I suspect one would loose a lot of customers this way.
Goods don't have a mind and thoughts so psychology does not apply. The good you price-compare won't become unhappy and later leave as OP described.
I have no opinion on if the negotiating tactic is good or not, only that the comparison of goods and people isn't quite right IMO.
I have no opinion on if the negotiating tactic is good or not, only that the comparison of goods and people isn't quite right IMO.
We are talking contracts, not goods. Contracts are with companies which are made up of people. So why wouldn't psychology apply?
Edit: I also find the argument that employment is not a an economic transaction a really weird argument. Employers don't give raises just so that the employee feels better for example.
Edit: I also find the argument that employment is not a an economic transaction a really weird argument. Employers don't give raises just so that the employee feels better for example.
> We are talking contracts, not goods.
The OP talked about people, then your reply was about goods. Unless "contract with a supplier" was about humans as goods, that term obviously means purchasing stuff, not purchasing humans. Who uses "purchasing" when it's about humans/employees?
Goods don't have a brain and no state of mind which was at the center of the OP's comment.
Okay, back to your original reply then:
> If you are responsible for purchasing, will you ask competitors for quotes?
The OP talked about the people themselves. If we follow your line then you don't talk about the employee at all any more. You are talking about something else than the OP.
The OP talked about people, then your reply was about goods. Unless "contract with a supplier" was about humans as goods, that term obviously means purchasing stuff, not purchasing humans. Who uses "purchasing" when it's about humans/employees?
Goods don't have a brain and no state of mind which was at the center of the OP's comment.
Okay, back to your original reply then:
> If you are responsible for purchasing, will you ask competitors for quotes?
The OP talked about the people themselves. If we follow your line then you don't talk about the employee at all any more. You are talking about something else than the OP.
>If someone is unhappy enough to start job hunting rather than talking to me then it's a clear sign that they'll leave soon regardless of any pay rise.
so you mean if a recruiter contacts your workers and says we can offer you X amount and they check it out they should have talked to you beforehand?
so you mean if a recruiter contacts your workers and says we can offer you X amount and they check it out they should have talked to you beforehand?
>"If someone is unhappy enough to start job hunting rather than talking to me then it's a clear sign that they'll leave soon regardless of any pay rise."
Long time ago when I was employed I liked my job but felt that I am being paid less than what I could get. So I went searching and after a while got a really nice offer. With that offer I came to the company owner and ask him to give me a reason why should not I take the offer. He did give me a reason - matched the offer and put bonus on top. The end result - I stayed. Well until I went on my own and never looked back.
Long time ago when I was employed I liked my job but felt that I am being paid less than what I could get. So I went searching and after a while got a really nice offer. With that offer I came to the company owner and ask him to give me a reason why should not I take the offer. He did give me a reason - matched the offer and put bonus on top. The end result - I stayed. Well until I went on my own and never looked back.
I’m not sure why this is getting so much negative attention. I’ve been both in and around high level management in the Danish public sector for decades and I’ve never matched or sparred with another manager who would these sort of things.
No one, and I do mean no one, is irreplaceable. Maybe you’ll have to throw away an entire IT system because you’ve lost the know how to keep the business case for the system a net positive, but that means a lot less to an organisation (especially enterprise) that we tend to fool ourselves into believing myself included.
No one, and I do mean no one, is irreplaceable. Maybe you’ll have to throw away an entire IT system because you’ve lost the know how to keep the business case for the system a net positive, but that means a lot less to an organisation (especially enterprise) that we tend to fool ourselves into believing myself included.
I’m guessing Denmark and the public sector is very different than other countries and industries.
When a key contributor asks for a 20% raise (or say $50,000 more per year) and them leaving put millions of dollars of revenue at risk, or more importantly, reflects poorly on a manager and threatens their advancement (why can’t you keep your team happy?) then the math is actually quite simple.
But in a highly siloed and compartmentalized organization where blame for bad decisions never filters down to the ones making them I could see your point.
When a key contributor asks for a 20% raise (or say $50,000 more per year) and them leaving put millions of dollars of revenue at risk, or more importantly, reflects poorly on a manager and threatens their advancement (why can’t you keep your team happy?) then the math is actually quite simple.
But in a highly siloed and compartmentalized organization where blame for bad decisions never filters down to the ones making them I could see your point.
them leaving put millions of dollars of revenue at risk
Every team should fight against this. Writing simple, understandable, documented code that doesn't need some key person to maintain it is a very good thing. For a start, failing to do that locks people in to their job. Not being able to move on, and up, is a very bad thing. Secondly, people leave for reasons other than money. What if someone's husband gets a cool job in another state and they move for that? No amount of money would keep them, so you still lose those millions. Thirdly, there's the bus factor - what if that person is run over by a bus? How do you keep going?
Paying someone more and more to keep them is only patching the underlying problem that your team isn't resilient enough to catastrophic change. Fix that problem.
Every team should fight against this. Writing simple, understandable, documented code that doesn't need some key person to maintain it is a very good thing. For a start, failing to do that locks people in to their job. Not being able to move on, and up, is a very bad thing. Secondly, people leave for reasons other than money. What if someone's husband gets a cool job in another state and they move for that? No amount of money would keep them, so you still lose those millions. Thirdly, there's the bus factor - what if that person is run over by a bus? How do you keep going?
Paying someone more and more to keep them is only patching the underlying problem that your team isn't resilient enough to catastrophic change. Fix that problem.
I’d question how good your people are if the best of them leaving wouldn’t impact your revenue. It sounds like an assembly line punching widgets, so maybe the work is neither urgent nor requiring dynamic thinking and responding quickly to changing market conditions? In that case I could see it not mattering if someone leaves.
My experience is on teams of 2-3 working towards a product launch that has to happen in 6 months and sure we can always replace someone if they die. The cost of that if not in revenue, but team efficiency, sacrifice of other work, is way more than a few tens of thousands per year.
And of course, everyone is replaceable. But replacing them may cost more than just paying them more, even if it keeps them around for another 6 months.
My experience is on teams of 2-3 working towards a product launch that has to happen in 6 months and sure we can always replace someone if they die. The cost of that if not in revenue, but team efficiency, sacrifice of other work, is way more than a few tens of thousands per year.
And of course, everyone is replaceable. But replacing them may cost more than just paying them more, even if it keeps them around for another 6 months.
You have to look at it from a bigger perspective. From your and my perspective changing jobs is a big deal, it only happens a few time in our lives and it has a massive impact. The management perspective is quite different, you’ll get to not only hire but also interview hundreds of not thousands in your career.
If you’re a good manager you’ll want to keep your employees for 5-7 years. This is because you want to help your employees develop their talents and grow their career, and when you do that, they’ll eventually outgrow the role you hired them to do and how far it was possibly to extend it to accommodate their growth. By that point, you kind of want your employees to move on. Maybe to a new position within your own organisation or to a different place. It’s not because you don’t like them or don’t want them to stay, but it’s because good employees tend to outgrow you. A select few people can stay in the same functions their entire lives and never lose enjoyment or motivation, but most of us aren’t like that and you have to keep that in mind when it comes to “pay me more, or I’m leaving” negotiating.
More than that though, you have to see how relying too much on individual employees is actually what is the management mistake in these type of situations. The issue isn’t “why couldn’t you keep x”, it’s “why did you let x become irreplaceable” because any good manager should know better.
Maybe the public sector in Denmark is different than other places, maybe not. I don’t think that it is. What typically happens when you have IT systems that rely too much on an employee is that they leave you and then you end up paying them a lot more money to consult for 6 months until someone else has redesigned the systems to no longer be too dependent on a single person and your former employee finally gets to really move on.
If you’re a good manager you’ll want to keep your employees for 5-7 years. This is because you want to help your employees develop their talents and grow their career, and when you do that, they’ll eventually outgrow the role you hired them to do and how far it was possibly to extend it to accommodate their growth. By that point, you kind of want your employees to move on. Maybe to a new position within your own organisation or to a different place. It’s not because you don’t like them or don’t want them to stay, but it’s because good employees tend to outgrow you. A select few people can stay in the same functions their entire lives and never lose enjoyment or motivation, but most of us aren’t like that and you have to keep that in mind when it comes to “pay me more, or I’m leaving” negotiating.
More than that though, you have to see how relying too much on individual employees is actually what is the management mistake in these type of situations. The issue isn’t “why couldn’t you keep x”, it’s “why did you let x become irreplaceable” because any good manager should know better.
Maybe the public sector in Denmark is different than other places, maybe not. I don’t think that it is. What typically happens when you have IT systems that rely too much on an employee is that they leave you and then you end up paying them a lot more money to consult for 6 months until someone else has redesigned the systems to no longer be too dependent on a single person and your former employee finally gets to really move on.
> Maybe you’ll have to throw away an entire IT system because you’ve lost the know how to keep the business case for the system a net positive, but that means a lot less to an organisation (especially enterprise) that we tend to fool ourselves into believing myself included.
You are comparing throwing away an entire IT system to increasing the salary of _one_ employee.
You are comparing throwing away an entire IT system to increasing the salary of _one_ employee.
Well not exactly. You have to look at it from an organisational perspective, and not from an employee perspective.
If you have systems (and that is any function, also cutting onions in the kitchen) that relies so heavily on one employee that you can not continue to operate them without that person then you have a serious issue.
Because you don’t retain employees, and your goal isn’t to keep them forever either. Even if they are happy and stay for 40 years they will eventually retire and then the system tend to break down anyway, and that’s with planned departure. What if your vital employee gets run over by a truck on the way to work?
So from an organisational perspective, it’s not an entire IT system vs one employee. It’s removing a flawed and dangerous system from your organisation.
Some people will argue that employees who design such systems aren’t worth keeping to begin with. I would agree, if the world was perfect, but it’s not.
If you have systems (and that is any function, also cutting onions in the kitchen) that relies so heavily on one employee that you can not continue to operate them without that person then you have a serious issue.
Because you don’t retain employees, and your goal isn’t to keep them forever either. Even if they are happy and stay for 40 years they will eventually retire and then the system tend to break down anyway, and that’s with planned departure. What if your vital employee gets run over by a truck on the way to work?
So from an organisational perspective, it’s not an entire IT system vs one employee. It’s removing a flawed and dangerous system from your organisation.
Some people will argue that employees who design such systems aren’t worth keeping to begin with. I would agree, if the world was perfect, but it’s not.
And when someone come to you asking for a raise, how often do you give it?
Practically always, but never just more money for the same work. People dont ask very often because I've been lucky enough to be able to give people decent cost-of-living raises, recognition-of-effort raises, and promotions quite regularly. When someone asks for more money it's pretty much always the first step to a promotion, or at least some sort of additional responsibility that comes with a pay increase.
The irony is that the main reason people get paid more when they change job is because they move up at the same time.
The irony is that the main reason people get paid more when they change job is because they move up at the same time.
I think the reasonable good-faith assumption in this discussion about inflation is that people are asking for a raise not to make more money but just to keep up with prices. So in reality, they are asking for the same amount of purchasing power.
So giving the same purchasing power for more responsibility would probably not look like a good deal for most (unless responsibility is your thing which is the case for some people).
So giving the same purchasing power for more responsibility would probably not look like a good deal for most (unless responsibility is your thing which is the case for some people).
Their peers if they're nice enough will let everyone know "Don't ever show up with an offer or you'll be fired." So it happens rarely if at all.
In a heavily inflationary environment this practice could turn out to be entirely maladaptive. What percentage of inflation year on year will you change your mind at? Do you even have a line?
Interesting, as a manager I encourage my team to apply and bring me other offers. I will even help with some minor prep. If they come to me with a better offer I’ll take it to my leadership and show their worth.
If they fail, they know I cared enough to assist and trust me and are happy for their job. If they succeed they get a raise, but are more likely to stay and work harder knowing they can trust me and can collaborate.
I don’t see the downside in engaging in this manner.
If they fail, they know I cared enough to assist and trust me and are happy for their job. If they succeed they get a raise, but are more likely to stay and work harder knowing they can trust me and can collaborate.
I don’t see the downside in engaging in this manner.
I have a manager with a similar attitude to you and I have to say — thanks for being that way. I don’t even care to go get other offers. I get double-digit raises annually and have an amazing team. As long as this manager is around, I feel happy about my work. You sound just as great! :)
If someone on my team comes to me asking for help getting a new role, either in my team or externally, I've always been very happy to do what I can for them.
But if someone on your team is happy in their role but underpaid 10% compared to the market, you will not?
If someone believes they're underpaid they can talk to me about that without needing to prove it by getting another offer. If they do get another offer it's unlikely that it'll be for exactly the same role, so it doesn't really show they're undervalued anyway.
I honestly believe its unlikely that you have an employee for, say, 5 years, then they come to talk to you without getting any counter-offers because they've gotten an average raise of 2% per year, have developed skills, and have market value of 25% greater than their current salary, and you say "ok, I'll give you a 25% raise."
In other words, unless you can contradict me with a straight face, you're basically just saying you underpay as long as you can get away with it and nothing can stop or change that.
In other words, unless you can contradict me with a straight face, you're basically just saying you underpay as long as you can get away with it and nothing can stop or change that.
> If someone is unhappy enough to start job hunting
What if salary is the only thing they are unhappy about?
What if salary is the only thing they are unhappy about?
I suppose they'd be best off asking for a raise (easy) than applying for jobs and interviewing (a lot more work).
The leverage of a raise negotiation is another job offer (potential or real).
Depending on the situation, it might make sense to keep them for that extra year. There's a lot of specialist roles where you're really dependent on some particular person and it's nice to have a year to find a replacement.
And implicitly tell all your other employees that they better go searching for new jobs or else they won't get a raise, ever? The result is that going out to do interviews has effectively become part of their job description, because apparently that's what you pay them for.
It's all game theory, in a minefield of unintended consequences. I take the opposite approach: an unspoken but clear attitude of "you know you won't be able to buy me when I excuse myself with a better offer, so better ask yourself now than later how much you actually want to pay me". And no, that certainly does not make me fabously rich (but there actually was a time when it worked much less bad than I would expect, quite amusing in hindsight)
It's all game theory, in a minefield of unintended consequences. I take the opposite approach: an unspoken but clear attitude of "you know you won't be able to buy me when I excuse myself with a better offer, so better ask yourself now than later how much you actually want to pay me". And no, that certainly does not make me fabously rich (but there actually was a time when it worked much less bad than I would expect, quite amusing in hindsight)
> it's a clear sign that they'll leave soon regardless
The first thing my father told me when I started working was "never accept a counter offer. Don't put in your notice unless you're ready to leave - because even if they give you a counter-offer, they'll start looking for your replacement once they know you're looking."
The first thing my father told me when I started working was "never accept a counter offer. Don't put in your notice unless you're ready to leave - because even if they give you a counter-offer, they'll start looking for your replacement once they know you're looking."
Sundar stayed and it worked out reasonably well for him and for Google:
https://allthingsd.com/20110108/twitter-courts-googles-sunda...
https://allthingsd.com/20110108/twitter-courts-googles-sunda...
I expect that my line manager would know if I am happy or unhappy and he would have done something. HonesI think my boss knows that I am looking, but we have a great time, he has the chance to go in my direction: salary, external training or more responsibility or I leave… thats the game.
I understand mot everybody can move up the ladder or get more money, but if as I line manager you can’t provide incentives or growth opportunities I would look at you first. If you don’t know the aspirations of your people and you match this with the strategy and goal of the company, are really made for your role? Every manager should be more like - I know you can leave anytime lets find the best solution for all…
I understand mot everybody can move up the ladder or get more money, but if as I line manager you can’t provide incentives or growth opportunities I would look at you first. If you don’t know the aspirations of your people and you match this with the strategy and goal of the company, are really made for your role? Every manager should be more like - I know you can leave anytime lets find the best solution for all…
If a employee comes to you asking for more money, how fo you respond? How much do you give? How much have you given in the past?
I’ve tried your approach and it’s usually a token amount or “sorry there isn’t a budget”. When I have an another offer then suddenly they find “flexibility”. But that said, I don’t even ask for more if I’m so unhappy I see myself leaving anyways.
I’ve tried your approach and it’s usually a token amount or “sorry there isn’t a budget”. When I have an another offer then suddenly they find “flexibility”. But that said, I don’t even ask for more if I’m so unhappy I see myself leaving anyways.
The context here is getting an inflation matching pay adjustment. Matching inflation is not a pay rise, it's 'avoiding a real terms pay cut'.
So, you give an inflation matching pay adjustment automatically?
I've gone back to exactly the same job as I started 20 years ago. Pay has doubled, house prices have increased 3-4 times in my small ex-industrial, high-crime, UK city.
So, you give an inflation matching pay adjustment automatically?
I've gone back to exactly the same job as I started 20 years ago. Pay has doubled, house prices have increased 3-4 times in my small ex-industrial, high-crime, UK city.
I did this this year. My old employer admitted they had probably fallen behind the market and that "those numbers were definitely reachable here, after a few years, and further significant impactful contributions to projects like X, Y, Z". By my reckoning they were a good 3-4 years away.
They expressed that they wanted me to stay but at the end of the day it was crocodile tears.
They expressed that they wanted me to stay but at the end of the day it was crocodile tears.
That won't work unless you're a soccer/basketball/whatever star and probably not even then.
Of course, anecdotes are anecdotal, but it worked for a coworker of mine.
He announced he was leaving our company for Amazon (which paid substantially more), and we even had a whole Friday goodbye party with cake and balloons. The next Monday we came into the office, surprised to see him still working for us. It turns out that over the weekend he somehow convinced management to match and exceed Amazon's offer.
His "trick" for getting a raise is that our whole dev-ops setup was unworkable without him. Management hadn't come up with contingencies for his inevitable departure, and thus he held all the leverage in salary negotiations.
He announced he was leaving our company for Amazon (which paid substantially more), and we even had a whole Friday goodbye party with cake and balloons. The next Monday we came into the office, surprised to see him still working for us. It turns out that over the weekend he somehow convinced management to match and exceed Amazon's offer.
His "trick" for getting a raise is that our whole dev-ops setup was unworkable without him. Management hadn't come up with contingencies for his inevitable departure, and thus he held all the leverage in salary negotiations.
The best thing you can do is form a union
Unions are mainly good in monopolies and government companies which sucks money out of trapped tax payers. It is not so good when it is a private fast paced company that need to compete against the world and where the employees themselves need to compete against people from all over the world. A software company is not a port.
> If you want a raise the best thing you can do is find a new job.
It is true, but i am not sure it is a good long term strategy, i suspect that too much job hopping doesn't look good on the resume.
Also changing jobs becomes harder with age, i am fifty one years old, and last time around, when forced to look for a new job, I found that it was quite a bit of a challenge (being said that, i need to feed my family, so that i really need a raise :-( )
It is true, but i am not sure it is a good long term strategy, i suspect that too much job hopping doesn't look good on the resume.
Also changing jobs becomes harder with age, i am fifty one years old, and last time around, when forced to look for a new job, I found that it was quite a bit of a challenge (being said that, i need to feed my family, so that i really need a raise :-( )
HR does not decide pay raises. HR is in charge of anything. At most they collect data from market surveys to advise management and they advise management on ways to reduce attrition.
The question can be asked from the management too. "Since inflation is 6%, isn't the 2% raises going to mean our employees leave us?".
I just went through this. They gave a one percent raise, last year, because COVID. (The company was fine.) Inflation around five. I talked to recruiters and got a new job, with nearly forty percent increase. Prior employer offered me a large increase to stay. I did not. A raise below inflation is a pay cut. That’s enough.
> A raise below inflation is a pay cut.
A couple years ago my previous company cut the standard yearly raise from 3% to 2%. When inflation went crazy during the pandemic I started casually dropping the quoted line into every conversation with coworkers I could. I even threw out some feelers around organizing but I was always laughed off by someone or other.
A couple years ago my previous company cut the standard yearly raise from 3% to 2%. When inflation went crazy during the pandemic I started casually dropping the quoted line into every conversation with coworkers I could. I even threw out some feelers around organizing but I was always laughed off by someone or other.
we're reasonably competitive with the local market
One of the best things Covid has done for my salary is make remote work far more common so I could get a job outside of the local market without having to move.
One of the best things Covid has done for my salary is make remote work far more common so I could get a job outside of the local market without having to move.
I worked for a midsize tech company until recently. At the end of 2020, I did well on my annual performance review but did not see a compensation increase. In the 2021 mid cycle review, I got a promotion to the next level and saw about a 7% compensation increase.
At every all-hands since late 2020, the topic of attrition and comp comes up. Every time, the response was that they're keeping an eye on local market conditions and attrition, and if it looks like we're falling behind we'll make adjustments.
Anyways, I left for big tech and got a 70% raise (despite a downlevel)
At every all-hands since late 2020, the topic of attrition and comp comes up. Every time, the response was that they're keeping an eye on local market conditions and attrition, and if it looks like we're falling behind we'll make adjustments.
Anyways, I left for big tech and got a 70% raise (despite a downlevel)
You know what sucks is that I'm currently with a similar midsize tech company. Love the work, the company and the people; but, I also know that I'm probably only getting a 2-5% bump at the end of this year and if I want anything more I have to go looking for another gig.
It sucks that every job has a "lifespan" of only 2-3 years before it would be foolish not to go get another job for a massive pay bump. As much as I love my current employer I'll probably leave sometime in 22"
It sucks that every job has a "lifespan" of only 2-3 years before it would be foolish not to go get another job for a massive pay bump. As much as I love my current employer I'll probably leave sometime in 22"
yeah when they say they're "keeping an eye..." they're probably just waiting for attrition to get bad enough. You did the right thing for your old coworkers. Perhaps your departure and others will lead them to reconsider their position.
Why compare the “standard raise” with inflation when you could compare it with the CEO’s total comp? Is the ratio of CEO-to-employee pay competitive? Has the company’s pandemic response increased or decreased this ratio? How about comparing employees versus the comp awarded to the board or other investors?
Tell HR and the C-levels that the employees are making a big investment of themselves at the company. Shape the dialog such that the leadership has to recognize the employees as investors, not cogs.
Tell HR and the C-levels that the employees are making a big investment of themselves at the company. Shape the dialog such that the leadership has to recognize the employees as investors, not cogs.
I, on the other hand, got a 14% raise last month without prompting.
Not all companies are run by idiots.
Not all companies are run by idiots.
Google HR answered this question in a company-wide forum.
It is mostly the market (e.g. the other company pay high, so we do too). The living cost doesn't really matter.
I appreciate the honesty though.
It is mostly the market (e.g. the other company pay high, so we do too). The living cost doesn't really matter.
I appreciate the honesty though.
Facebook HR also got the same question (with the same answer) in the company-wide forum this week. Did I miss some big news story that’s causing this to be on everybody’s mind recently?
It isn't one specific thing. It is just an entire year of shortages and higher prices with no end in sight. I was promoted and received a decent raise this year. With previous raises outside the standard yearly raise, there was a difference. With this one, just treading water.
This was years ago at Google. This question is not new
If that's truly the case then they would pay the same salary regardless of location. Do they? A lot of big employers have proudly said no, they'd pay remote workers less if they're in cheaper locations.
Developers in low cost of living regions demand less money, so they're paid less. Sounds like Google is doing exactly what they said.
I'm not sure that's currently the case, what with the move to long term remote work. Do you have data showing workers demanding less pay after moving to cheaper areas while retaining the same position in the same organization?
It is hard to say how remote work impacts this.
Most companies are still requiring onsite. Even apple (one of the most innovative companies) still wants employees onsite.
Most companies are still requiring onsite. Even apple (one of the most innovative companies) still wants employees onsite.
FAANGs paying them less is all the data you need. If they thought they could get more they'd leave.
The principle of inflation is to dynamically adjust:
- Available products in the world,
- Number of people who can afford them.
With Covid, we didn’t produce for 2 months in 2020 and we’ve produced slower in 2021. And all governments distributed free money. So, in theory there is clearly not enough goods produced for everyone in the world. Prices should rise dynamically until 10% fewer people can afford them than in 2019.
Where are the people who can’t afford buying things? There should be a diminution of 10% global consumption, where is it? Where are the people whose company won’t be able to match inflation, even if they unionize?
- Available products in the world,
- Number of people who can afford them.
With Covid, we didn’t produce for 2 months in 2020 and we’ve produced slower in 2021. And all governments distributed free money. So, in theory there is clearly not enough goods produced for everyone in the world. Prices should rise dynamically until 10% fewer people can afford them than in 2019.
Where are the people who can’t afford buying things? There should be a diminution of 10% global consumption, where is it? Where are the people whose company won’t be able to match inflation, even if they unionize?
> Where are the people who can’t afford buying things?
The already-marginalized? "The Trussell Trust reported a 33 per cent increase in the number of three-day emergency food parcels in 2020-21 compared to 2019-20,"
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
> There should be a diminution of 10% global consumption, where is it?
Hospitality and travel.
The already-marginalized? "The Trussell Trust reported a 33 per cent increase in the number of three-day emergency food parcels in 2020-21 compared to 2019-20,"
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
> There should be a diminution of 10% global consumption, where is it?
Hospitality and travel.
Global consumption expressed in...? That currency which inflated
No. Ignore currencies, which are just our best approximation of a reasonable measure of wealth. The problem is that over the course of pandemic the world has produced less actual wealth. Unless we somehow reduced waste, we should now be able _on average_ to afford less.
Expressed in goods. The role of an economic system, communist capitalist or any other, is to organize the delivery of goods. We’ve produced 10% fewer goods in 2020, someone must deprive themselves.
The inflated currency doesn’t matter, who’s the people who are depriving themselves while I’ve made a fortune and bought a house? I see we’re a whole lot who won the jackpot with Covid, who are the losers and why aren’t they already revolting?
The inflated currency doesn’t matter, who’s the people who are depriving themselves while I’ve made a fortune and bought a house? I see we’re a whole lot who won the jackpot with Covid, who are the losers and why aren’t they already revolting?
I think if you are taking a new job this should be one of your expectations as well: "Will the wage be coupled to inflation?"
And if they say "No" you can ask them if this means you will earn less in 5 years than you start with now, at which point they probably realize that this isn't an attractive offer and either change the conditions for you, or don't take you.
It pretty much let everyone on the call know what they needed to do if they wanted a good raise.
What is needed? I mean, if she's a straight shooter and your salaries are competitive locally, does that mean you'll have to up up and move elsewhere? That costs time and money, and to be honest, wages are low nation-wide.
This does highlight the fact that wages are kept low almost by a concerted effort among employers. They aren't going to change out of the goodness of their hearts. Change has to come from the government (don't hold your breath), or from workers acting collectively.
What is needed? I mean, if she's a straight shooter and your salaries are competitive locally, does that mean you'll have to up up and move elsewhere? That costs time and money, and to be honest, wages are low nation-wide.
This does highlight the fact that wages are kept low almost by a concerted effort among employers. They aren't going to change out of the goodness of their hearts. Change has to come from the government (don't hold your breath), or from workers acting collectively.
To be fair, the company's goal is to pay enough to attract and retain the right talent, not to keep up with inflation. e.g. if everyone else in the market is giving 0%, why would they give 6%?
Also, I assume employees would be pretty upset (I would be) if they got -2% if there is deflation happening, so seems a bit of a double standard there.
Long way of saying I think tying increase to inflation is kinda silly.
Also, I assume employees would be pretty upset (I would be) if they got -2% if there is deflation happening, so seems a bit of a double standard there.
Long way of saying I think tying increase to inflation is kinda silly.
> It pretty much let everyone on the call know what they needed to do if they wanted a good raise.
What did you tell them?
What did you tell them?
What I don’t get is this: this person is also an employee who would benefit from that raise ratio.
So why is she feeling like her job is to defend the competitiveness of the company in front of other coworkers?
The incentives are completely messed up in corporate
> So why is she feeling like her job is to defend the competitiveness of the company in front of other coworkers?
Because that is literally HR’s job description?
(If you’re looking for a group similar to an HR department, but flipped so that their job description is “defend the workers in front of the company”, that’s a union)
Because that is literally HR’s job description?
(If you’re looking for a group similar to an HR department, but flipped so that their job description is “defend the workers in front of the company”, that’s a union)
Because if she didn't defend the company on the call she'd be fired??
> 'Honestly? No'
The 'No' alone would be enough, but the 'Honestly?' would me want to look for other jobs right away.
The 'No' alone would be enough, but the 'Honestly?' would me want to look for other jobs right away.
>> 'Honestly? No'
>
> The 'No' alone would be enough, but the 'Honestly?' would me want to look for other jobs right away.
Can you explain why one is worse than the other?
(I'm not being facetious, I'd really rather like to know).
>
> The 'No' alone would be enough, but the 'Honestly?' would me want to look for other jobs right away.
Can you explain why one is worse than the other?
(I'm not being facetious, I'd really rather like to know).
I suspect the GP is interpreting "Honestly?" as an expression of incredulity at being asked the question - as though the asker did not know their place as an employee.
I can see how such an attitude would be offputting, but I do not believe that is the correct interpretation of the HR spokesperson's meaning.
I can see how such an attitude would be offputting, but I do not believe that is the correct interpretation of the HR spokesperson's meaning.
You're right. English is not my first language and I've read the "Honestly?" more as "Seriously?".
Sometimes it something like "I know you won't want to hear this" or "I suspect you won't like the answer". It is prefacing something like I know you don't want to hear this but I would rather be honest than lie about it.
It's just an english idiom that doesn't mean much. It's like saying "If you are looking for an honest response, the answer is no."
It's foolish to raise by 6% across the whole company when most employees are too lazy to interview elsewhere.
Whether or not employees are actually worth 6% more they should not have a problem finding a new job in this market (that will pay 6% more).
Whether or not employees are actually worth 6% more they should not have a problem finding a new job in this market (that will pay 6% more).
I think you're missing the point. With a 6% inflation, a 6% raise means the employees are worth the same as before, not more.
It's worse.
Many people could see their fractional tax burden increasing as their nominal wage rises and crosses higher tax bandings.
Inflating is a slow theft, and the description of "financial oppression" is apt.
Tax brackets in the US are indexed to inflation. They weren't always, but that was changed in the 80's I think?
It doesn't look like the increase is quite 6% across the board, however: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-provides-tax-inflation-adju...
You definitely don't know how progressive tax brackets work.
Depends on whether we're talking about real or nominal wages. Regardless, my main point is that most people must switch jobs to see the increase. Wages grew 6.6% for job switchers so it is keeping up with inflation.
IT and professional services was 10.5%+ but again only for job switchers.
https://www.valuepenguin.com/news/ADP-wage-growth-report
IT and professional services was 10.5%+ but again only for job switchers.
https://www.valuepenguin.com/news/ADP-wage-growth-report
We're definitely talking about nominal.
wing-_-nuts said 'with inflation rising at 6%, will the company reconsider their 'standard' 2% raise?'
It wouldn't make any sense to say that if the 2% raise was real.
wing-_-nuts said 'with inflation rising at 6%, will the company reconsider their 'standard' 2% raise?'
It wouldn't make any sense to say that if the 2% raise was real.
So, the economically rational thing for everyone to do is to engage in this gigantic game of musical chairs, if they care about the number at the bottom of their paystub? That's silly, and a great way to throw away a lot of specialized domain knowledge.
There's a lot of value in playing musical chairs. The market is pretty good at allocating human labor. Some companies get left without people in the seats and others, often the more innovative companies end up with more than they had before.
A labor market with high liquidity leaves most people better off.
A labor market with high liquidity leaves most people better off.
The labor market can go fuck itself if it doesn't serve the people, IMO. People aren't just for creating "value." They have lives. If the economy doesn't work for people, it just plain doesn't work. Not everybody wants to change jobs all the time. Those people don't deserve pay cuts for providing the same "value" they provided a year ago.
Sure just let the most motivated ones leave!
> It's foolish to raise by 6% across the whole company when most employees are too lazy to interview elsewhere.
I mean, aren't people resigning in droves these days?
I mean, aren't people resigning in droves these days?
As someone who does OK, but lives in reality (not the bay area), I feel a revolution coming. I hope it's not a violent one, but who knows at this point. Hopefully it's just a politician with big policy changes.
People feel completely disenfranchised. You keep hanging housing over their head but just out of reach like some baby toy, then inflation spikes everything else. What's the point of working even?
I don't know the solution, but I don't have a good feeling about the next 10 years.
People feel completely disenfranchised. You keep hanging housing over their head but just out of reach like some baby toy, then inflation spikes everything else. What's the point of working even?
I don't know the solution, but I don't have a good feeling about the next 10 years.
>>As someone who does OK, but lives in reality (not the bay area), I feel a revolution coming.
As some one who lives in India, where inflation is perennially high. I can assure you revolution is not coming, in fact not even a protest march.
Revolutions needs a lot of hunger and suffering, its not things like milk going from being $9 to $12 a unit.
The common man delays things like fighting for almost as long as they can, its only when things just go too far do things like revolution happen.
USA is not even remotely close to any such situation.
As some one who lives in India, where inflation is perennially high. I can assure you revolution is not coming, in fact not even a protest march.
Revolutions needs a lot of hunger and suffering, its not things like milk going from being $9 to $12 a unit.
The common man delays things like fighting for almost as long as they can, its only when things just go too far do things like revolution happen.
USA is not even remotely close to any such situation.
Culturally, the average person here in India is absolutely clueless about what freedom is. The idea of small government is non-existent in the minds of people.
Based on hundreds of conversations with my red state friends, attitudes are very different. You may be right, but the comparison is missing many key details.
Based on hundreds of conversations with my red state friends, attitudes are very different. You may be right, but the comparison is missing many key details.
People who are obese enough to not take take stairs but elevators cant fight revolutions by definition.
That is why they have elections, and one way or other democracy fixes most of these problems. Even if the fix is not perfect, or entirely acceptable to everyone.
Revolutions are just totally a different thing altogether and you need way more than milk and egg prices going up, or your favorite politician not getting elected to happen.
That is why they have elections, and one way or other democracy fixes most of these problems. Even if the fix is not perfect, or entirely acceptable to everyone.
Revolutions are just totally a different thing altogether and you need way more than milk and egg prices going up, or your favorite politician not getting elected to happen.
Workers in India have it rough, the concept of releasing letters[0] is quite offensive to my western ear. You give me permission to leave?
With H1B it's not much better in the US, lets say your job is taking advantage of you, working you 80 hour weeks, one day you decide that you want to go to your daughters big soccer game and they fire you for it. Find a new job in 30 days (?) or move out of the country. Children in the workhouses during industrial revolution had more mobility. Absolutely bonkers. Clearly designed to be explotative.
My Indian peers have been as good as my western ones on average. I understand the motivations, but you guys really don't have to put up with this. If anyone should revolt it's them.
[0]https://resume.naukri.com/relieving-letter-format
With H1B it's not much better in the US, lets say your job is taking advantage of you, working you 80 hour weeks, one day you decide that you want to go to your daughters big soccer game and they fire you for it. Find a new job in 30 days (?) or move out of the country. Children in the workhouses during industrial revolution had more mobility. Absolutely bonkers. Clearly designed to be explotative.
My Indian peers have been as good as my western ones on average. I understand the motivations, but you guys really don't have to put up with this. If anyone should revolt it's them.
[0]https://resume.naukri.com/relieving-letter-format
Watch Ray Dalio's videos on the long term debt cycle and how the economy works in general. Another interesting topic is what is called the "fourth turning" which sort of says that major changes happen around once a human lifecycle. We are going to have some major economic changes in the next decade, but no one knows how that will look. I think it's 50/50 whether it's violent or not.
I read the fourth turning book. I couldn't finish it just because how tenuous the argument was. It was also debunked by experts. I find it absolutely not interesting at all.
What is far more interesting is people seeing through the bullshit. Large parts of our lives have been bureaucratized and oozes with an arrogant and paternalistic ideology that tells us how much we’re worth as if it was a law of nature.
Workers find solidarity, meaning and community among peers and realize that we have real power and can have a say in our lives.
I expect this to grow and I hope it creates a counterbalance to centralized power structures that are quite frankly often severely detached from reality.
Workers find solidarity, meaning and community among peers and realize that we have real power and can have a say in our lives.
I expect this to grow and I hope it creates a counterbalance to centralized power structures that are quite frankly often severely detached from reality.
Source for the debunk? Who are these experts you speak of?
You are being overly dramatic. A hundred years ago, workers were treated so bad and had such bad living conditions it makes you sick just to hear about it. THAT lead to some violent revolutions in some countries, most of them young, undemocratic, or unstable. Some of them migrated 2,000 km from their home.
People have food, shelter, entertainment.
People have food, shelter, entertainment.
its not only about food, shelter and entertainment, its about perspective. if you have to slave away for another 40 years, living paycheck to paycheck, can barely afford a family, a revolution in whatever form it comes might sound good. Check out the Strike at Kellogs, 80h/week, 16h Shifts for barely any money and the Company just wants to fire the striking employees. You can only press so much productivity out of people until they push back and i think we can see that this pushback is starting...
> if you have to slave away
Yeah this is the reality disconnect, if you call modern work slaving away you're probably not the kind of person that's going to join a violent revolt, it's easy to write that shit on forums.
Yeah this is the reality disconnect, if you call modern work slaving away you're probably not the kind of person that's going to join a violent revolt, it's easy to write that shit on forums.
If you call "80h weeks at Kellogs" not slaving away i dont know what is...
If you call "Amazon workers not being allowed to leave or shelter when there is a tornado warning" not slaving away i dont know what is...
What about all those "Gig Economy" Workers that get paid the bare minimum without benefits?
You might not see it from your cozy office because this development hasn't impacted you yet ... but it will sooner or later.
If you call "Amazon workers not being allowed to leave or shelter when there is a tornado warning" not slaving away i dont know what is...
What about all those "Gig Economy" Workers that get paid the bare minimum without benefits?
You might not see it from your cozy office because this development hasn't impacted you yet ... but it will sooner or later.
I think the thrust of the issue is having to pay to exist. Doing otherwise is criminal.
It's not a light switch, but we can try paving the roads at the bare minimum so that the societal wagon train can transition.
I do what I can, and you might do as well, but there needs a fundamental ideological shift in how we perceive those cornerstone workers.
It's not a light switch, but we can try paving the roads at the bare minimum so that the societal wagon train can transition.
I do what I can, and you might do as well, but there needs a fundamental ideological shift in how we perceive those cornerstone workers.
Plenty of stories on /r/antiwork make me feel sick too
I wonder how they would react to posting this link over there:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29581125
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29581125
I don't think the conditions are close to a large scale revolution in the U.S., especially if you mean a violent revolution. First, there is not a high level of discord in society. Upheavals in the 70s were much more significant than those now. Second, most people blame one or the other political party for our problems, rather than the established order generally, making it more likely people will fight within the bounds of the existing political system.
> making it more likely people will fight within the bounds of the existing political system.
You are aware there was a violent disruption to the peaceful transfer of power last year, right? Since then, predicated on lies, partisans have changed the system to give political parties full control of election results; and the January 6th Committee has essentially uncovered and extensive coup plot that spans the White House, DOJ, and DoD.
We are so far outside of the bounds of the system as we know it that it’s scary people don’t recognize it yet.
EDIT: I'm going to expand upon this because of the dead comment to me, which calls Jan 6 a "riot". It's clear that there is an effort afoot to minimize the events of Jan 6. This needs to end asap because of what the Jan 6 Committee is uncovering.
Jan 6 was not a riot, it was the last stage of a coup plot that started at least the day of the election, before the final results had even been tallied. It's detailed most clearly in the Eastman Memo, authored by John Eastman [0]. The coup plot spanned the White House, Department of Defense, Department of Justice, state legislatures, various members of Congress and the Senate, various lawyers, and of course various paramilitary groups.
The plan was:
1) Pence must declare Arizona invalid when counting certificates of the vote. Specifically Arizona because of the closest states, it comes first alphabetically, and so is counted the soonest.
2) Democrats object, so the matter is taken to the House
3) Voting is done by State Delegation according to the Constitution. Republicans control a majority of delegations, so they would vote in Trump, thus ending democracy in America.
The problem with this plan was that there was no reason to reject any certificate. There was no fraud on the scale Trump claimed. So they tried to litigate, but that failed because they couldn't prove their allegations. Then they tried to strong-arm state election officials by threatening them with jailtime if they didn't manufacture fraudulent votes. That failed as well. They also tried to convince friendly Republican state legislatures to send an alternate slate of electors. That failed as well. They even went so far as to put pressure on state elections boards and county elections officials. This came in the form of threats and intimidation. Trump put pressure on AG Bill Barr to declare the results suspicious but Barr did the opposite, claimed there was no proof of fraud, and he quit because he was smart enough to realize what was going on.
All of this failed because people were just doing their job of running elections in an apolitical matter.
After those efforts, Pence was still wavering on whether to declare Arizona invalid. He needed more pretext so Trump leaned on the Justice department. No one there would open the demanded pretextual investigation except Jeffrey Clark , who was several rungs down the order of succession for acting AG after Barr left. Trump wanted to make him acting AG to open the investigation, but essentially every senior member of the DOJ threatened to quit if he did that, thus ruining the pretext of the investigation, so that failed.
So how do you execute the Eastman memo without Pence? Disrupt the proceedings. The Jan 6. counting of electoral votes is the last stop in the Presidential selection process. If you delay that, you're in extraconstitutional territory. Think of it like a buffer overflow. You're in undefined space where the rules are made by those in power. And guess who had power at the time?
Thus the plan became to hold the Capitol as long as possible in the event that Pence failed to do what Trump wanted. The plan was to generate a great crowd at the ellipse, whip them to a frenzy, point them at the capitol, and if Pence certified Arizona, to then call him out on twitter. Within the crowd they threaded several paramilitary groups including the Prod Boys, Oath Keepers, and 3%ers. While the vast majority of people were not there with any specific goal, there were groups there with the premeditated intent of breaching and occupying the Capitol. But to penetrate all of the security, they needed a mob. You can see these paramilitary groups slithering through the riot crowd like a snake through water in many of the videos from that day. They move in formation and came prepared with uniforms and equipment. Their goal was not to kill anyone, but it was to occupy the capitol for as long as possible. That's why they didn't come with an arsenal, because they knew as soon as the guns come out on one side, they come out on the other side.
To hold the Capitol for as long as possible, they would have to delay the National Guard from showing up. Thus, right after the election when Sec. Esper refused to call the election fraudulent, he was fired and replaced (essentially) with a Trump loyalist Kash Patel. That's why you keep hearing the phrase 187 minutes from the Jan 6 Committee. Because for 3 hours almost, Kash Patel did nothing as far as sending the National Guard, and he did nothing because he was ordered to do nothing (or as it may be more likely, wasn't ordered to do anything, despite urgent need, a dereliction of duty).
Why? What were they trying to do during this time. Well:
1) they were seeing how bad it was going to get. The worse it gets, the better a justification for extraordinary uses of power.
2) They were continuing to lean on state legislatures during this time to send alternate slates of electors. Giuliani and Sen. Mo Brooks were texting at the time, with Rudy telling him to stall as long as possible.
3) They were waiting for Pence to evacuate the building, but he refused.
Ultimately this part of the plan failed because of sheer luck. If any hostages were taken, it probably would have worked. This is why many want Officer Goodman as Time person of the year, because he singlehandedly goaded the mob away from the Senate chambers where he knew many members were hiding.
--
Now take a step back. What have I just described? I've detailed the efforts of a sitting President to use his powers as President to fraudulently remain in power despite an opponent being duly elected under the system in place. That's a literal autocoup. That's not a mere riot. That's how democracies die. If that plan had worked, that's the end of Constitutional order in America.
So how does this plan work in the future? Well:
1) make voting harder. Georgia flipped blue this year because there was surge of minority support in a few key counties by just enough votes. Make voting harder in just those counties, and next time maybe it won't flip by just enough votes. These efforts have been passed into law.
2) Spread FUD about voting. This justifies unbounded skepticism of any election result, no matter how above board. This has been going on for a year and now a large portion of our country believe there was fraud in the 2020 election.
3) Take partisan control of state elections. A lot of the above could have been avoided if Georgia had just "found" missing votes like Trump had asked in the first place. Or if Barr had concluded there was basis for an investigation. Or if state legislatures had just "decided" to send electors they preferred as opposed to ones the voters preferred. For example, Fulton County, which saw no fraud and which has been under non-partisan control forever, is now under partisan Republican control by people who are very sure there was fraud in the 2020 election, even though they can't identify any in Fulton County. But they are there to make sure there is never any fraud again. Which we all need to take to mean that they are there to make sure that a Democrat never wins Georgia again in a close decision. There's no other way to interpret this effort.
Now you can call any results fraudulent, send any electors you want to the counting of the certificates, and leave it up to the Supreme Court to decide. Fingers crossed!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memorandums
You are aware there was a violent disruption to the peaceful transfer of power last year, right? Since then, predicated on lies, partisans have changed the system to give political parties full control of election results; and the January 6th Committee has essentially uncovered and extensive coup plot that spans the White House, DOJ, and DoD.
We are so far outside of the bounds of the system as we know it that it’s scary people don’t recognize it yet.
EDIT: I'm going to expand upon this because of the dead comment to me, which calls Jan 6 a "riot". It's clear that there is an effort afoot to minimize the events of Jan 6. This needs to end asap because of what the Jan 6 Committee is uncovering.
Jan 6 was not a riot, it was the last stage of a coup plot that started at least the day of the election, before the final results had even been tallied. It's detailed most clearly in the Eastman Memo, authored by John Eastman [0]. The coup plot spanned the White House, Department of Defense, Department of Justice, state legislatures, various members of Congress and the Senate, various lawyers, and of course various paramilitary groups.
The plan was:
1) Pence must declare Arizona invalid when counting certificates of the vote. Specifically Arizona because of the closest states, it comes first alphabetically, and so is counted the soonest.
2) Democrats object, so the matter is taken to the House
3) Voting is done by State Delegation according to the Constitution. Republicans control a majority of delegations, so they would vote in Trump, thus ending democracy in America.
The problem with this plan was that there was no reason to reject any certificate. There was no fraud on the scale Trump claimed. So they tried to litigate, but that failed because they couldn't prove their allegations. Then they tried to strong-arm state election officials by threatening them with jailtime if they didn't manufacture fraudulent votes. That failed as well. They also tried to convince friendly Republican state legislatures to send an alternate slate of electors. That failed as well. They even went so far as to put pressure on state elections boards and county elections officials. This came in the form of threats and intimidation. Trump put pressure on AG Bill Barr to declare the results suspicious but Barr did the opposite, claimed there was no proof of fraud, and he quit because he was smart enough to realize what was going on.
All of this failed because people were just doing their job of running elections in an apolitical matter.
After those efforts, Pence was still wavering on whether to declare Arizona invalid. He needed more pretext so Trump leaned on the Justice department. No one there would open the demanded pretextual investigation except Jeffrey Clark , who was several rungs down the order of succession for acting AG after Barr left. Trump wanted to make him acting AG to open the investigation, but essentially every senior member of the DOJ threatened to quit if he did that, thus ruining the pretext of the investigation, so that failed.
So how do you execute the Eastman memo without Pence? Disrupt the proceedings. The Jan 6. counting of electoral votes is the last stop in the Presidential selection process. If you delay that, you're in extraconstitutional territory. Think of it like a buffer overflow. You're in undefined space where the rules are made by those in power. And guess who had power at the time?
Thus the plan became to hold the Capitol as long as possible in the event that Pence failed to do what Trump wanted. The plan was to generate a great crowd at the ellipse, whip them to a frenzy, point them at the capitol, and if Pence certified Arizona, to then call him out on twitter. Within the crowd they threaded several paramilitary groups including the Prod Boys, Oath Keepers, and 3%ers. While the vast majority of people were not there with any specific goal, there were groups there with the premeditated intent of breaching and occupying the Capitol. But to penetrate all of the security, they needed a mob. You can see these paramilitary groups slithering through the riot crowd like a snake through water in many of the videos from that day. They move in formation and came prepared with uniforms and equipment. Their goal was not to kill anyone, but it was to occupy the capitol for as long as possible. That's why they didn't come with an arsenal, because they knew as soon as the guns come out on one side, they come out on the other side.
To hold the Capitol for as long as possible, they would have to delay the National Guard from showing up. Thus, right after the election when Sec. Esper refused to call the election fraudulent, he was fired and replaced (essentially) with a Trump loyalist Kash Patel. That's why you keep hearing the phrase 187 minutes from the Jan 6 Committee. Because for 3 hours almost, Kash Patel did nothing as far as sending the National Guard, and he did nothing because he was ordered to do nothing (or as it may be more likely, wasn't ordered to do anything, despite urgent need, a dereliction of duty).
Why? What were they trying to do during this time. Well:
1) they were seeing how bad it was going to get. The worse it gets, the better a justification for extraordinary uses of power.
2) They were continuing to lean on state legislatures during this time to send alternate slates of electors. Giuliani and Sen. Mo Brooks were texting at the time, with Rudy telling him to stall as long as possible.
3) They were waiting for Pence to evacuate the building, but he refused.
Ultimately this part of the plan failed because of sheer luck. If any hostages were taken, it probably would have worked. This is why many want Officer Goodman as Time person of the year, because he singlehandedly goaded the mob away from the Senate chambers where he knew many members were hiding.
--
Now take a step back. What have I just described? I've detailed the efforts of a sitting President to use his powers as President to fraudulently remain in power despite an opponent being duly elected under the system in place. That's a literal autocoup. That's not a mere riot. That's how democracies die. If that plan had worked, that's the end of Constitutional order in America.
So how does this plan work in the future? Well:
1) make voting harder. Georgia flipped blue this year because there was surge of minority support in a few key counties by just enough votes. Make voting harder in just those counties, and next time maybe it won't flip by just enough votes. These efforts have been passed into law.
2) Spread FUD about voting. This justifies unbounded skepticism of any election result, no matter how above board. This has been going on for a year and now a large portion of our country believe there was fraud in the 2020 election.
3) Take partisan control of state elections. A lot of the above could have been avoided if Georgia had just "found" missing votes like Trump had asked in the first place. Or if Barr had concluded there was basis for an investigation. Or if state legislatures had just "decided" to send electors they preferred as opposed to ones the voters preferred. For example, Fulton County, which saw no fraud and which has been under non-partisan control forever, is now under partisan Republican control by people who are very sure there was fraud in the 2020 election, even though they can't identify any in Fulton County. But they are there to make sure there is never any fraud again. Which we all need to take to mean that they are there to make sure that a Democrat never wins Georgia again in a close decision. There's no other way to interpret this effort.
Now you can call any results fraudulent, send any electors you want to the counting of the certificates, and leave it up to the Supreme Court to decide. Fingers crossed!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memorandums
No offense but it sounds like you need to take a media break and get some air. Go camping.
The above information is not from "media" but from official government proceedings of the bipartisan Jan 6 Committee. I suppose when your elected leaders tell you that the previous government tried to overthrow the current government, one response is to go camping. You do you.
But in the end there is actual physical evidence in front of us. We all have a choice to accept it, or to sweep it under the rug. To deny what it is telling us. To equivocate and prevaricate. To whatabout or to even outright lie to ourselves.
But the actual physical evidence is pointing to a large autocratic force in our government that intends to take away your vote, in favor of Russian-style one-party rule. It already tried once, and it continues unabated today.
Say what you want about the America electoral system, and by God there's a lot to say about it, but at the end of the day there was a transfer of power last year because the old government lost the election fair and square. Elections do matter. Voting does matter. So if you appreciate your right to vote, don't look away. Go on your camping trip, but when you get back, take a long hard look at the evidence presented by the Jan 6th Committee.
But in the end there is actual physical evidence in front of us. We all have a choice to accept it, or to sweep it under the rug. To deny what it is telling us. To equivocate and prevaricate. To whatabout or to even outright lie to ourselves.
But the actual physical evidence is pointing to a large autocratic force in our government that intends to take away your vote, in favor of Russian-style one-party rule. It already tried once, and it continues unabated today.
Say what you want about the America electoral system, and by God there's a lot to say about it, but at the end of the day there was a transfer of power last year because the old government lost the election fair and square. Elections do matter. Voting does matter. So if you appreciate your right to vote, don't look away. Go on your camping trip, but when you get back, take a long hard look at the evidence presented by the Jan 6th Committee.
gruez(1)
This year, the price of the type of place I want to buy rose so fast, that the downpayment increased by more than what I could save this year. I'm top 30% income bracket and save more then a third of my net.
This is why I love to study history, you can almost predict the future by studying the past.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
You may already be a listener, but I've found great joy in listening to Mike Duncan's Revolutions[1]. It makes it easier to pick out what structures, people, and events today might make their way into history books(or podcasts of the future) one hundred years from now should things go pear-shaped.
There are many points to be made, but one that tends to go less appreciated is that in the period leading up to the dramatic revolutionary events there isn't a constant increase in tension. There are flare ups of course, but they punctuate years of relative peace. Just because tensions die down for a bit does not mean things are getting fixed. Quite the opposite, it lulls people into complacency. That is, until the systemic deficiencies paired with personalities unable to address them collide and everything falls apart.
1. https://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/revolutions_podcast/
There are many points to be made, but one that tends to go less appreciated is that in the period leading up to the dramatic revolutionary events there isn't a constant increase in tension. There are flare ups of course, but they punctuate years of relative peace. Just because tensions die down for a bit does not mean things are getting fixed. Quite the opposite, it lulls people into complacency. That is, until the systemic deficiencies paired with personalities unable to address them collide and everything falls apart.
1. https://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/revolutions_podcast/
Past Performance Is Not Indicative Of Future Results. You see many of the same trends in history, yes, but also many surprises. History repeats itself, the second time as farce.
history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes
but is it "Gucci Gang" rhymes or "The expense of spirit in a waste of shame" rhymes?
That is left as an exercise for the reader
Sometimes it doesn't end as well...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_R...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_R...
I wonder how much time we have left for a real citizen revolution. Is is not difficult to imagine a near future with an automated and mechanized military and police with equipment that cannot go rogue. People in the US like to talk about guns as protections against state tyranny but not many have automated laser point defence for drone attacks.
I miss the days when people were better educated in civics.
You are right, people talk about guns as protection against state tyrany, but they forget that the reason it works as protection against the state is because the person bringing violence against the state is willing to become a martyr.
The more the state pays in blood, the more it looses it legitimacy.
You are right, people talk about guns as protection against state tyrany, but they forget that the reason it works as protection against the state is because the person bringing violence against the state is willing to become a martyr.
The more the state pays in blood, the more it looses it legitimacy.
Tyranny doesn’t happen by force. Tyranny doesn’t look like a burglar breaking into your house, and defeating tyranny doesn’t look like you gunning them down.
Tyranny is invited. It happens when you willingly open the door to someone who says they are going to solve all your problems, yet they never do.
They will always blame someone else when the problems aren’t solved, and you will believe them because you believed them once before. You won’t even recognize this as tyranny because you will be so outraged at the people the tyrant tells you are to blame for your problems. Slowly these people disappear, yet the problems remain.
Until one day the tyrant blames you for the problems of the world. And suddenly you recognize the tyranny for what it is. You reach for your gun but it does you no good. At this point the tyrant has turned everyone against you, just as he had turned you against others.
The process continues until there’s no one left to blame, and the tyrant at this point usually ends up hanging from a tree, or hiding in a hole in the ground.
But at no point in this process is a gun useful for preventing tyranny, unless you’re willing to actually be a martyr and kill the tyrant before anyone recognizes him as such. You’ll be labeled a murderer and sentenced to life in prison, but you will have prevented tyranny.
Tyranny is invited. It happens when you willingly open the door to someone who says they are going to solve all your problems, yet they never do.
They will always blame someone else when the problems aren’t solved, and you will believe them because you believed them once before. You won’t even recognize this as tyranny because you will be so outraged at the people the tyrant tells you are to blame for your problems. Slowly these people disappear, yet the problems remain.
Until one day the tyrant blames you for the problems of the world. And suddenly you recognize the tyranny for what it is. You reach for your gun but it does you no good. At this point the tyrant has turned everyone against you, just as he had turned you against others.
The process continues until there’s no one left to blame, and the tyrant at this point usually ends up hanging from a tree, or hiding in a hole in the ground.
But at no point in this process is a gun useful for preventing tyranny, unless you’re willing to actually be a martyr and kill the tyrant before anyone recognizes him as such. You’ll be labeled a murderer and sentenced to life in prison, but you will have prevented tyranny.
A work stoppage is more realistic than direct combat. What are they going to do? Force us to work?
For example, with the way supply chains are right now, how much leverage do transportation/logistics workers have to force a change?
For example, with the way supply chains are right now, how much leverage do transportation/logistics workers have to force a change?
Strikes are illegal in many industries. So, literally, the answer is yes
Not many industries and not all strikes have to be legal
Can't force someone to not strike who never entered the workforce in a meaningful way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_ping https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=JXII
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_ping https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=JXII
Fascinating! Any more info on which industries and by which means people would be forced to work?
> People in the US like to talk about guns as protections against state tyranny
They do, but you can ignore it -- it's mostly lies and bluster. If they insist, ask them the last time they participated in (or even saw) an uprising due to government theft by civil asset forfeiture.
They do, but you can ignore it -- it's mostly lies and bluster. If they insist, ask them the last time they participated in (or even saw) an uprising due to government theft by civil asset forfeiture.
I wish I could do this to a useful degree so that I could become a billionaire.
> As someone who does OK, but lives in reality (not the bay area), I feel a revolution coming.
I keep telling people something has to give soon. The pressures at the fault line are rising.
I keep telling people something has to give soon. The pressures at the fault line are rising.
Not to dismiss your point -- because it maybe true -- but don't Americans say this like pretty much all the time? Between survivalists to qAnon supporters it's always about revolution in the country. I'm not saying you are part of any of those, but it seems to me that in reality people in the US just adapt and life goes on...
I don't know, if you hang out in certain parts of the internet, it feels like a revolution is coming, but it reality Bernie still can't win the primaries, so I don't think the numbers are actually there. But I also won't be surprised if the next generation of voters is more socialist-leaning.
I don't know much about the actual reality in the US outside of what we see on the net, but I feel the revolution you are talking about would come from outside of traditional voting circus.
It don't mean it would bypass election in all cases, but I'd expect a completely different mechanism interfering with who gets to power, instead of the usual "let's min-max campaigns based on declared party allegiance like we did for decades now"
It don't mean it would bypass election in all cases, but I'd expect a completely different mechanism interfering with who gets to power, instead of the usual "let's min-max campaigns based on declared party allegiance like we did for decades now"
The revolution will not come from the left. The "left" elites have forgotten the people, and the left in general is talking more about identity issues than class issues.
The revolution will be more Trump than Bernie. Like in the early 1900, where more revolutions where fascist than communist.
The revolution will be more Trump than Bernie. Like in the early 1900, where more revolutions where fascist than communist.
> The "left" elites have forgotten the people, and the left in general is talking more about identity issues than class issues.
You mention this in a discussion about Bernie Sanders? Probably the politician with the most single-minded focus on class politics in the country
You mention this in a discussion about Bernie Sanders? Probably the politician with the most single-minded focus on class politics in the country
> The "left" elites
Bernie isn't elite and not close to any power circle.
Bernie isn't elite and not close to any power circle.
What do you mean? He is currently a U.S. Senator. There aren’t many circles more elite or powerful than that.
Plus he is a multi-millionaire.
What does being a multi millionaire allow one to do? An old couple with a few million saved up for the rest of their life is protected against health risks and some inflation, but they are not likely going to be able to spend sufficiently to influence others.
Using this information here [1](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/24/where-bernie-sanders-money-c...) and this calculator here [2](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/21/are-you-in-...),
>annual income of 1,100,000 U.S. dollars for a household of 2 is equivalent to $1,309/day per person in 2011 in purchasing power parity dollars, putting you in the high income group worldwide, along with 39.8% of people in advanced economies.
*2 since he has a wife.
And he doesn't have to pay much for insurance as per this [3](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/25/heres-how-much-members-of-co...)
He is a part of the "elite" class as per his income. And being a senator he does have a lot of influence over policy.
I don't hate Bernie but seeing the discourse regarding him, that often deifies him feels disingenuous to me.
>annual income of 1,100,000 U.S. dollars for a household of 2 is equivalent to $1,309/day per person in 2011 in purchasing power parity dollars, putting you in the high income group worldwide, along with 39.8% of people in advanced economies.
*2 since he has a wife.
And he doesn't have to pay much for insurance as per this [3](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/25/heres-how-much-members-of-co...)
He is a part of the "elite" class as per his income. And being a senator he does have a lot of influence over policy.
I don't hate Bernie but seeing the discourse regarding him, that often deifies him feels disingenuous to me.
Sanders does not have recurring annual income of $1M+. It was for a couple years due to selling a book at the height of his popularity. Having $1M+ in reliable, recurring income would allow a “multi millionaire” to have influence.
Certainly his position as US Senator and accompanying benefits is significant, but I was just commenting that being a “multi millionaire” is not indicative of much sway assuming multi millionaire also means having a few million in total net worth at retirement age.
Anyway, my point is, I would not qualify him as “elite” in the sense of being able to affect federal policy just by his regular income / net worth if he was not already a US senator. He would get outbid by many others with deeper pockets vying for political influence.
Certainly his position as US Senator and accompanying benefits is significant, but I was just commenting that being a “multi millionaire” is not indicative of much sway assuming multi millionaire also means having a few million in total net worth at retirement age.
Anyway, my point is, I would not qualify him as “elite” in the sense of being able to affect federal policy just by his regular income / net worth if he was not already a US senator. He would get outbid by many others with deeper pockets vying for political influence.
He doesn't quite have a million dollar income. He made a million dollars from selling a book, which is a one-off. His normal annual income is more like 250 000$, which is still a lot.
Considering the capitol riots in January, yeah you might be right.
I came to the same conclusion. However my thinking was more along the lines of examining where the most evocative, incisive, accurate, renderings of culture & critique were being created. I'll tell you, the revolution will not be televised. And it's not coming from America's liberals (and of course not from the Silent gen. type conservatives either.) but it is more often than not coming from the right. Thought not the right that is in power now...
What people in the US call left elites, is being called slightly rightwing in the EU. When I hear comments like „state-funded housing is socialism“ I have to chuckle. That’s just how you make sure people won’t starve if they don’t resort to shady business.
Bernie‘s ideas would be called leftist here, but not extremely so.
Bernie‘s ideas would be called leftist here, but not extremely so.
> is being called slightly rightwing in the EU
That's simply not true.
> Bernie‘s ideas would be called leftist here
Where is "here"? How is "financial transaction tax" a mainstream idea in europe?
That's simply not true.
> Bernie‘s ideas would be called leftist here
Where is "here"? How is "financial transaction tax" a mainstream idea in europe?
The EU have tried to introduce it a bunch of times. Normally it got fought back by the UK, who are no longer in the EU. I could definitely see this happening in the next five to ten years.
Wow, you are right, that's terrible.
As sibling poster mentioned, financial transaction taxes are being openly discussed in the EU. I haven't heard anyone call them socialist at least. Politicians in the US seem to use communism/socialism as a strawman to attack anything that would harm their puppeteers' wallets.
Bernie isn’t the elite running the country.
It's hard to debunk this since if we declare all democrat party to be "left", then yes, some democrats will be slightly rightwing. But there are definitely some "left" currents that started in US universities and are spreading to the rest of the world. The kind of stuff that Jordan Peterson is preaching against is definitely not considered "slightly rightwing" in the EU.
That stuff also has nothing to do with how "left-right" is classified in Europe.
Sure, but the rise of communism also came around that time.
And to be perfectly honest, the fall of communism, kind of coincides with when the balance of rich vs the rest started to go off rails.
Communism is dead, but that doesn't mean something else cant come and replace it (and probably be just as bad)
And to be perfectly honest, the fall of communism, kind of coincides with when the balance of rich vs the rest started to go off rails.
Communism is dead, but that doesn't mean something else cant come and replace it (and probably be just as bad)
Antisemitism is on the rise to. Before comments were removed, the recent movie Santa Inc had tens of thousands of comments abut elves. It's full on Gab, and even on Twitter from the left.
I'm sure there were some bad comments, but IMO this is a marketing ploy. Remember Ghostbusters 2016? The film-makers made a huge deal about the trailer being downvoted heavily, claiming it was all about sexism. When in reality the trailer and the movie were pretty mediocre. Seems like the same thing with Santa Inc. Have you watched the trailer? It looks terrible.
I haven't seen much or any antisemitism from the left, unless you are referring to criticism of Israel's state policies.
The BDS movement, and the left just uses different code words, like 'Elites'
The only oncoming revolution is the status quo. The Democrats aren't going to pass any voting rights legislation while they have the chance, and are going to allow the GOP to enshrine minority rule for the foreseeable future starting in 2022. A minority of the voting electorate is perfectly fine with this, and are situated such that their votes matter more than the majority to let this happen. There's a reason why the rightwing in the USA have embraced Putin and Eastern European soft dictators within the last 10 years, as it allows for massive government/friends of government grifting and minority suppression as a governing platform with public support.
Yeah, on that violent revolution thing. I've been thinking about it alot for the last few years, and then it dawned on me.
6 Jan 2021.
The violent revolution will always need a leader. In a democracy, that leader will establish some level of political success. These statements derive directly from the definitions.
So what we need to be on the lookout for is a political leader who normalizes mobs and violence, and quasi-political groups/associations which further encourage it.
Jan 6 2021 Proud Boys QAnon
If you forgive the Goodwin, the example is developments originating in Germany prior to WWII.
See for example Kristallnacht, Nov 1938, Vienna, Austria, and the "spontaneous" mobs responsible for large amounts of the violence
6 Jan 2021.
The violent revolution will always need a leader. In a democracy, that leader will establish some level of political success. These statements derive directly from the definitions.
So what we need to be on the lookout for is a political leader who normalizes mobs and violence, and quasi-political groups/associations which further encourage it.
Jan 6 2021 Proud Boys QAnon
If you forgive the Goodwin, the example is developments originating in Germany prior to WWII.
See for example Kristallnacht, Nov 1938, Vienna, Austria, and the "spontaneous" mobs responsible for large amounts of the violence
Yes and many state houses were attacked on Jan 6 the weeks leading up to that, people closed a state legislature. Combine those and public schools with rising violence at private-sector workplaces (YouTube, VTA, clerks shot dead over masks)
The revolution is here in the form of workplace violence. Big employers are actually afraid to comment for fear of looking biased against the GOP
The revolution is here in the form of workplace violence. Big employers are actually afraid to comment for fear of looking biased against the GOP
Jan 6th could have been so much worse if the President had merely asked, that's how close we got. The pieces were in place and one word, perhaps "go" or "now", would have been enough to cause substantially more injuries and deaths.
It already came and half went.
It was represented by Donald Trump, the rise of the right in Europe and the alignment of Russia and China for short term push back on the west.
DT would never have been elected if _any_ of the architects of the GFC had gone to jail. Imho that was Obama’s biggest mistake. Bailouts could be justifiable and understood by the population, no one going to jail was a betrayal.
It caused a tipping point in the erosion of trust in the established political class and in the American democracy.
The vitriol directed against Hilary was a symptom of that distrust
It was represented by Donald Trump, the rise of the right in Europe and the alignment of Russia and China for short term push back on the west.
DT would never have been elected if _any_ of the architects of the GFC had gone to jail. Imho that was Obama’s biggest mistake. Bailouts could be justifiable and understood by the population, no one going to jail was a betrayal.
It caused a tipping point in the erosion of trust in the established political class and in the American democracy.
The vitriol directed against Hilary was a symptom of that distrust
nah this are just precursors of the real thing, whatever it will be.
People are sick of status quo. That's why more and more are willing to try anything that will shake things up.
People are sick of status quo. That's why more and more are willing to try anything that will shake things up.
It already came and half went.
Yup, and the worse part? Nothing changed. Trump didn't didn't do a single fucking thing of material value to ameliorate the positions of those who voted for him, or the middle class for that matter. And yet he's almost sure to win again in 2024.
I think in an astonishingly short amount of time, people in the West forgot what revolution is.
Yup, and the worse part? Nothing changed. Trump didn't didn't do a single fucking thing of material value to ameliorate the positions of those who voted for him, or the middle class for that matter. And yet he's almost sure to win again in 2024.
I think in an astonishingly short amount of time, people in the West forgot what revolution is.
> And yet he's almost sure to win again in 2024.
Wait, what? He's running again?
Wait, what? He's running again?
He hasn't declared yet, but that's mainly only because being a declared candidate would put restrictions on how he can fundraise and what he can spend those funds on. He'll either run, or he'll anoint a successor and guarantee them a primary win.
I feel the same way. I hope I'm wrong, but my prediction is that we will have another civil war in the US within the next 10 years. We cannot continue our current cancel culture and political hatred indefinitely. It will come to a head and people will start killing each other. Again, I hope I'm wrong, but unless we get off our current trajectory, I fear I'm not.
I sincerely hope this comment ages more poorly than any comment ever made.
I sincerely hope this comment ages more poorly than any comment ever made.
If it does, inflation has failed as a policy:
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-hi...
"in the long run, it’s really, really hard to cut nominal wages. Yet when you have very low inflation, getting relative wages right would require that a significant number of workers take wage cuts. So having a somewhat higher inflation rate would lead to lower unemployment, not just temporarily, but on a sustained basis."
Worker pay not keeping up with inflation is not merely an effect of inflation. It is the policy goal.
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-hi...
"in the long run, it’s really, really hard to cut nominal wages. Yet when you have very low inflation, getting relative wages right would require that a significant number of workers take wage cuts. So having a somewhat higher inflation rate would lead to lower unemployment, not just temporarily, but on a sustained basis."
Worker pay not keeping up with inflation is not merely an effect of inflation. It is the policy goal.
Once again, I'd like to understand why "lower unemployment" is more important than people actually being able to make a living.
What is all that employment for if people can't pay their bills from it?
What is all that employment for if people can't pay their bills from it?
Shifts the balance of power away from labor in favor of business. Puts a thumb on the scale. It is corruption.
In favor of business and also government who has a great degree of control over inflation. The government also benefits a lot from inflation of course, the tax brackets don't change and they have trillions of dollars to spend. Labor doesn't have even a fighting chance.
This is how you get a labor shortage when a large portion of jobs are literally not worth doing. It was already a joke to work at minumum wage before this.
Smaller European nations did this kinda policies through 60s-90s and it worked fine. Now thanks Euro this kinda lever has closed most of them.
[deleted]
So Krugman's wrong, again. Has he ever been right?
Honestly, I am profoundly in disagreement with Krugman about everything, but that's because he's right about everything, but in wrong ways, usually due to a huge, huge, blind spot at the root. And it's frustrating that he can take people in with his analysis because it's easy to accept his arguments thinking "just hard enough" (which is catnip for lazy intellectuals).
Like for example with the Babysitter's coop. His analysis IS correct, but his remedy is presented as the absolute solution while being oblivious to the fact that the monetary system is based on a total fiction -- that hours are fungible, (e.g. one hour on christmas is equivalent to one hour on September 19, or even that on hour at midnight on a boring day is equilvalent to one hour at 7pm on a boring day). In general, all monetary and social systems are based on fictions, and they will eventually leak their bad abstractions. But I am not sure that Krugman would accept that iron statement.
Like for example with the Babysitter's coop. His analysis IS correct, but his remedy is presented as the absolute solution while being oblivious to the fact that the monetary system is based on a total fiction -- that hours are fungible, (e.g. one hour on christmas is equivalent to one hour on September 19, or even that on hour at midnight on a boring day is equilvalent to one hour at 7pm on a boring day). In general, all monetary and social systems are based on fictions, and they will eventually leak their bad abstractions. But I am not sure that Krugman would accept that iron statement.
That’s a good take. I get the impression that some people just take his word because he has a Nobel prize.
Relatedly, do you have on Taleb? Given that Taleb and Krugman seem to have beef.
Relatedly, do you have on Taleb? Given that Taleb and Krugman seem to have beef.
Paul Krugman is the Malcolm Gladwell of economics.
I'll give him more credit than that (And I don't think Malcolm Gladwell is horrible, either). But their sins are categorically different: Gladwell is a perfectly good summarizer, he just needs to do be a bit less lazy and do a bit more deep research (to avoid detail errors like igonvalues e.g.) Krugman is not by any means lazy, he just expends a lot of intellectual resources without really thinking deeply. Subtle, but different. Actually kind of in a way going into Gladwell it's good to know that he is a shallow generalist, picking and choose lessons from his work and apply critical thinking as appropriate seems to be the natural default mode, it's much easier to take Krugman 'as an authority' and not bother to do the critical work.
It never does. This is just accelerating the pandemic-era wealth transfer that started with the rich getting trillions to prop up their assets while everyone else got $600.
> It never does.
The first thing in the article is a graph where 7 our of the 11 years shown have positive real wage growth.
If worker pay never kept up with inflation, the country would be among the world’s poorest.
The first thing in the article is a graph where 7 our of the 11 years shown have positive real wage growth.
If worker pay never kept up with inflation, the country would be among the world’s poorest.
How does that math work?
> If worker pay never kept up with inflation, the country would be among the world’s poorest.
That is flat wrong. Even if you were still making 23$ an hour as you did in the 70's:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/50-years-of-us-wages-... https://www.factcheck.org/2019/06/are-wages-rising-or-flat/
...you'd still be among the top 20% of earners across the earth. Let's take another step down to simple minimum wage. over 7$/hr in the US puts you at... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_minimum_w... - in the top 20, which doesn't even include countries without a minimum wage.
Your statement about "among the world's poorest" requires revision.
> If worker pay never kept up with inflation, the country would be among the world’s poorest.
That is flat wrong. Even if you were still making 23$ an hour as you did in the 70's:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/50-years-of-us-wages-... https://www.factcheck.org/2019/06/are-wages-rising-or-flat/
...you'd still be among the top 20% of earners across the earth. Let's take another step down to simple minimum wage. over 7$/hr in the US puts you at... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_minimum_w... - in the top 20, which doesn't even include countries without a minimum wage.
Your statement about "among the world's poorest" requires revision.
Also, your cherry picked date range has a complex story behind it. It’s a story of falling inequality, not rising inequality. Chinese workers (among others) ate our lunch…by climbing out of abject poverty. They’ve become much more competitive and have seen their real wages skyrocket. If semi-skilled American workers were making $23/hr and equivalent Chinese workers were making $.23/hr (idk making something up), and now American workers are still making the same but Chinese workers are making $12/hr, is that a bad outcome?
For one of the two countries the answer is yes...
The guy panhandling two streets away from me is not far from 'the top 20% of earners across the Earth'.
I can't say his situation is entirely enviable, and I would not suggest using that statistic to tell him that he ought to be happy with his lot in life.
I can't say his situation is entirely enviable, and I would not suggest using that statistic to tell him that he ought to be happy with his lot in life.
"Never" doesn't only refer to the period from the 1970s to now. You'd be making a lot less than $23 per hour if wage growth never kept up with inflation.
I will concede that's true.
Maybe we need a better definition of “never”. Are we going back 11 years, or 50 years, or 255 years? If wages truly never keep up with inflation in this country, then we’d be living like they did prior to the industrial revolution. You can’t argue that technology hasn’t had in impact on everyone’s quality of life over longer timespans, which doesn’t get taken fully into account in the data.
There hasn't been much positive wage growth for the vast majority of Americans in 70 years.
https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/
The "distribution of family income" chart has been inflation adjusted. Note that for the bottom 10th and 50th percentiles, income has flatlined.
The 90th percentile income earners have seen their wages nearly double, after inflation adjustment.
https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/
The "distribution of family income" chart has been inflation adjusted. Note that for the bottom 10th and 50th percentiles, income has flatlined.
The 90th percentile income earners have seen their wages nearly double, after inflation adjustment.
> It never does
Except in 10 of the last 12 years, as you can clearly see in the same chart
Except in 10 of the last 12 years, as you can clearly see in the same chart
The chart doesn't say anything: It looks like a mean-reverting walk focused on way too small a section to be able to draw any strong conclusions about what the actual mean is.
Zoom out a bit and you get something slightly more useful, which does support your argument, too: wages seem, in general, to keep up with inflation – though with lot of variation. https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-MA272_wages4_G...
Zoom out a bit and you get something slightly more useful, which does support your argument, too: wages seem, in general, to keep up with inflation – though with lot of variation. https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-MA272_wages4_G...
The chart excludes housing. It's pointless.
Says who? CPI does include housing.
CPI includes housing as "Owners' equivalent rent of primary residence (OER)". If that inspires confidence in anyone, please, I'd like to hear how.
I assume you are complaining about house prices not being directly included in the CPI?
I don't know about the exact methodology, but the concept makes sense to me. "Everyone" is buying food "everyday", so it's sensible to have, say, the price of bread included directly. On the other hand, "no one" is buying houses "everyday"; what people are buying everyday is housing, i.e. how much do you spend to have a roof over your head. This is correlated to house prices, but not that strongly. If you bought your house 30 years ago and the mortgage is paid, it doesn't matter whether houses next to you are suddenly worth 50% more, you're still going to pay the same for housing (except maybe due to taxes). If you're renting, it is going to track house prices, but not perfectly. Apparently, in the SF area, the average rent has actually slightly decreased since 2019, while the average house price has increased.
All of this means that while the average house price might have increased by x%, the average person (as in, if you aggregate those already owning a house, those renting, those buying houses now, ...) is not spending x% more on housing, so it makes sense to use a metric that follows the latter and not the former. Yes, if you're looking at buying a house, it means CPI is not very accurate for you, but then a single number is never going to perfectly fit everyone.
I don't know about the exact methodology, but the concept makes sense to me. "Everyone" is buying food "everyday", so it's sensible to have, say, the price of bread included directly. On the other hand, "no one" is buying houses "everyday"; what people are buying everyday is housing, i.e. how much do you spend to have a roof over your head. This is correlated to house prices, but not that strongly. If you bought your house 30 years ago and the mortgage is paid, it doesn't matter whether houses next to you are suddenly worth 50% more, you're still going to pay the same for housing (except maybe due to taxes). If you're renting, it is going to track house prices, but not perfectly. Apparently, in the SF area, the average rent has actually slightly decreased since 2019, while the average house price has increased.
All of this means that while the average house price might have increased by x%, the average person (as in, if you aggregate those already owning a house, those renting, those buying houses now, ...) is not spending x% more on housing, so it makes sense to use a metric that follows the latter and not the former. Yes, if you're looking at buying a house, it means CPI is not very accurate for you, but then a single number is never going to perfectly fit everyone.
Standard internet discourse.
Numbers are bad - "See everyone, things are fucked. I told you so." (which is what this post is about)
Numbers are good - "Meh, I never trust the underlying data anyways. It is all meaningless."
Numbers are bad - "See everyone, things are fucked. I told you so." (which is what this post is about)
Numbers are good - "Meh, I never trust the underlying data anyways. It is all meaningless."
A. Here's a wildly understated measure (like for like equivalent cost of housing systematically under-estimates inflation as defined as the increase in what you have to spend). This other accurately measured thing (wages) is not keeping up even with that biased measure.
Argument: It sort of is keeping up with the real thing (what you have to spend because we'll just take cpi) if you squint at a particular period? Actually it isn't, it's still being systematically underestimated.
CPI is a crap measure of what people actually face in increase of what they have to spend. What you can actually buy, the purchasing power of wages has not been going up. People aren't being fooled into be angry and bitter. Talk to them. Listen to what they say about their constraints in life. Ideally find some people you like for whom you can feel empathy with their situation.
Argument: It sort of is keeping up with the real thing (what you have to spend because we'll just take cpi) if you squint at a particular period? Actually it isn't, it's still being systematically underestimated.
CPI is a crap measure of what people actually face in increase of what they have to spend. What you can actually buy, the purchasing power of wages has not been going up. People aren't being fooled into be angry and bitter. Talk to them. Listen to what they say about their constraints in life. Ideally find some people you like for whom you can feel empathy with their situation.
I was being a snark, but I would still genuinely like to hear why someone would feel confident in the method.
It's the consumer price index. Rent is consumed. A house is an asset. You can sell it at a profit. Your intuition is correct in that it's not quite that simple in the real world. Housing is already the least liquid asset, and people get an emotional attachment to their homes, so they often die without cashing out on their homes. As a result, they feel poorer than they should as suggested by CPI.
IMO, the problem isn't the CPI. The market is just fundamentally distorted because the government pumps money into real estate into subsidized loans.
IMO, the problem isn't the CPI. The market is just fundamentally distorted because the government pumps money into real estate into subsidized loans.
[deleted]
How did the rich get trillions to prop up their assets?
Trillions: https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttren...
The rich: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/17/fed-officials-owned-securiti...
- Powell held between $1.25 million and $2.5 million of municipal bonds. They were just a small portion of his total reported assets. While the bonds were purchased before 2019, they were held while the Fed last year bought more than $5 billion in munis, including one from the state of Illinois purchased by his family trust in 2016.
- Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren held between $151,000 and $800,000 worth of real estate investment trusts that owned mortgage-backed securities. He made as many as 37 separate trades in the four REITS while the Fed purchased almost $700 billion in MBS.
- Richmond Fed President Thomas Barkin held $1.35 million to $3 million in individual corporate bonds purchased before 2020. They include bonds of Pepsi, Home Depot and Eli Lilly. The Fed last year opened a corporate bond-buying facility and purchased $46.5 billion of corporate bonds.
The rich: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/17/fed-officials-owned-securiti...
- Powell held between $1.25 million and $2.5 million of municipal bonds. They were just a small portion of his total reported assets. While the bonds were purchased before 2019, they were held while the Fed last year bought more than $5 billion in munis, including one from the state of Illinois purchased by his family trust in 2016.
- Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren held between $151,000 and $800,000 worth of real estate investment trusts that owned mortgage-backed securities. He made as many as 37 separate trades in the four REITS while the Fed purchased almost $700 billion in MBS.
- Richmond Fed President Thomas Barkin held $1.35 million to $3 million in individual corporate bonds purchased before 2020. They include bonds of Pepsi, Home Depot and Eli Lilly. The Fed last year opened a corporate bond-buying facility and purchased $46.5 billion of corporate bonds.
Wasn't that the point of the PPP? Give companies loans that are really grants that find their way back to asset holders through buybacks?
Tax cuts for companies, increased government spending to boost stock markets, state subvenventions, significantly lower interest rate than inflation.
That's all from the government, and by extension from the population at large, not from any set of rich people.
Well yeah. From the government, for rich people. I don't know any poor people who can directly profit from corporate bailouts, tax cuts or has access to loans with such low interest rates. Even though as you say it comes from the population at large.
I'm the last person to defend welfare for the wealthy. I'm saying you're blaming the player rather than the game, which is an understandable feeling but is not productive to your goals.
Tax cuts are perhaps a bit questionable, giving them trillions by not taking away the money they earned?
This isn’t exactly great news, but it’s probably not as bad as you think. It means that inflation is a tractable problem. The Fed as a lot of tools at its disposal (first of which is to take its foot off the gas). If we were in a situation where workers were demanding higher wages because they were expecting prices to go up, and businesses were raising prices to pay workers who were demanding higher wages, then we’d be in a much tougher spot. Wages not keeping up with prices means that’s not happening yet. By the end of next year, the narrative will shift away from rising inflation as the Fed tightens up, which will in turn cause inflation to fall.
This is wrong IMO - the fed has NO tools in its hands. Its last tool was inflation rates, and it burned that during the great recession. It is now caught in a pickle: raise interest rates, causing a mass exodus of wealth from securities to savings accounts and CDs and causing the stock market to tumble (like it arguably always should have done since 2008), or let inflation take its course.
I am not an economist, and I'd love to be proven wrong. I just don't see how this ends in a good way for the economy.
I am not an economist, and I'd love to be proven wrong. I just don't see how this ends in a good way for the economy.
> I am not an economist
Yeah, if you’re interested in this stuff, you should do some research. The Fed’s options aren’t 0% rates vs 15% rates. It’s going to raise rates .25% at a time. .25% is not much of a difference. It’ll move slowly and act cautiously.
The Fed, and other central banks have dealt with inflation many times before. And very effectively at that. Stocks could fall, but the stock market is not the economy, and the Fed has no mandate to prop up stocks.
Yeah, if you’re interested in this stuff, you should do some research. The Fed’s options aren’t 0% rates vs 15% rates. It’s going to raise rates .25% at a time. .25% is not much of a difference. It’ll move slowly and act cautiously.
The Fed, and other central banks have dealt with inflation many times before. And very effectively at that. Stocks could fall, but the stock market is not the economy, and the Fed has no mandate to prop up stocks.
> and the Fed has no mandate to prop up stocks.
Not true in the least anymore - retirement savings for a large percentage of our population are tied up in stocks thanks to the death of the pension. Asset and securities prices as a whole are a large concern for the fed when changing policy, as a result.
Not true in the least anymore - retirement savings for a large percentage of our population are tied up in stocks thanks to the death of the pension. Asset and securities prices as a whole are a large concern for the fed when changing policy, as a result.
The Fed has a dual mandate: price stability and maximal sustainable employment. Nothing about supporting the value of investments.
https://www.chicagofed.org/research/dual-mandate/dual-mandat...
https://www.chicagofed.org/research/dual-mandate/dual-mandat...
FED actually has three mandates, one of them almost never mentioned:
* employment
* price level
* moderate long term interest rates
* employment
* price level
* moderate long term interest rates
The requirement to pursue moderate long-term interest rates is usually seen as part of price stability, since the level of long-term interest rates is determined by inflation expectations.
Cf. https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/what-economic-goals-does...
Cf. https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/what-economic-goals-does...
You ask others to do some research, which implies that you have good sources on how "The Fed, and other central banks have dealt with inflation many times before. And very effectively at that"
I'd be interested to see them, especially any from the last 40 years (i.e. post-Volker).
For pre-Volker, I'm interested in your sources from the early-mid 70s, and the way inflation was "controlled" in the years immediately surrounding the release of the gold standard.
I'd be interested to see them, especially any from the last 40 years (i.e. post-Volker).
For pre-Volker, I'm interested in your sources from the early-mid 70s, and the way inflation was "controlled" in the years immediately surrounding the release of the gold standard.
That the fed has no tools is correct to the best of my understanding. The central banks are tasked with solving problems they have no mandate to solve.
Inflation is, among other things, a problem of the market having too low a demand for money compared to the supply. One obvious way to fix that is by taxing money out of existence faster, decreasing the supply and thus increasing its value assuming demand stays fixed. (And there's reason to think it will; demand for money is a relatively unflexible parameter.)
But of course, central banks do not control taxation, so there's not much they can do.
Inflation is, among other things, a problem of the market having too low a demand for money compared to the supply. One obvious way to fix that is by taxing money out of existence faster, decreasing the supply and thus increasing its value assuming demand stays fixed. (And there's reason to think it will; demand for money is a relatively unflexible parameter.)
But of course, central banks do not control taxation, so there's not much they can do.
Inflation isn't bad, it is part of the interest rate cycle. You cut rates until you can't then you use inflation.
> I am not an economist
People who don't know shit about economics sure love to bust out their ignorant opinions.
People who don't know shit about economics sure love to bust out their ignorant opinions.
'The Fed as a lot of tools at its disposal...'
Average and poor Americans would be better off with a simple formula to set money expansion. Then fire the private 'Federal Reserve' banksters and let someone else have the contract to clear checks.
It is long past time to end the 3rd central bank.
Average and poor Americans would be better off with a simple formula to set money expansion. Then fire the private 'Federal Reserve' banksters and let someone else have the contract to clear checks.
It is long past time to end the 3rd central bank.
Except for their role as referee. Forcing banks to implement their real time payments system FedNow seems like a good thing, but I’m just learning about it.
How well did they do as referee in 2008? Did they take prompt corrective action when it was obvious banks and rating agencies were mispricing their balance sheet items, or mostly wait for explosion and then bail out their buddies?
The FED has tools to affect monetary base (physical currency + bank reserves). But inflation is mostly a function of money supply (physical currency + deposits), not monetary base. All tools at FED's disposal are very indirect, leading to frequent "pushing on a string" situations
That narrative makes sense, except for one thing: why wouldn't the Fed have taken their foot off the gas once inflation hit, say, 4%? Why wait until we're at 6.8%?
The other mandate of the Fed is getting full employment. Pumping money into the economy helps increase employment and there is a long way to go to get back to pre-pandemic levels on that metric.
They believed the inflation was transitory, and were going to wait it out. Now it's very clearly not transitory, so they are taking action
They believed the inflation was transitory, and were going to wait it out. Now it's very clearly not transitory, so they are taking action
Ah, the Phillips curve. I recommend you make some charts for yourself comparing US unemployment figures with CPI inflation and see if you can spot the curve.
hint: https://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc110404.htm
spoiler: " there is in fact no strong "tradeoff" between unemployment and general price inflation, and almost certainly not an exploitable one. The Phillips Curve is essentially a statement that lower unemployment is associated with higher inflation in real wages. The strategy of accepting higher inflation in hopes of achieving lower unemployment (which is the basis of Bernanke's policy efforts) not only drops the phrase "real wages" but reverses the direction of cause and effect. "
Also, it has clearly not been transitory for most of 2021. The "transitory" claim was backed partly by the pandemic, but relied on a 1-year lag. If, however, you used a 2-year lag (thus eliminating pandemic effects...
hint: https://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc110404.htm
spoiler: " there is in fact no strong "tradeoff" between unemployment and general price inflation, and almost certainly not an exploitable one. The Phillips Curve is essentially a statement that lower unemployment is associated with higher inflation in real wages. The strategy of accepting higher inflation in hopes of achieving lower unemployment (which is the basis of Bernanke's policy efforts) not only drops the phrase "real wages" but reverses the direction of cause and effect. "
Also, it has clearly not been transitory for most of 2021. The "transitory" claim was backed partly by the pandemic, but relied on a 1-year lag. If, however, you used a 2-year lag (thus eliminating pandemic effects...
I was just explaining what the Fed's public reasoning has been. I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on the correctness of the theory.
In the long run all is transitory. That being any action in a complex system can result in an unforeseen cascade of effects.
Inflation has been well below goal levels in recent years. Their goal this year was to have it well above average to make up for the past and keep unemployment low.
Not sure how inflation is calculated globally; but where I live (Norway) we leave housing costs out of inflation. That always seemed very strange to me. Our main cost of living, (which has gone through the roof the last 25 years) is somehow left out of the calculation. My rent, or cost of buying a house - is much more important than the cost of a Snickers bar.
I don't know about Norway, but in France it is weighted at 7% of the inflation calculation, which is way below what people actually pay for housing. In theory, it is because housing is considered an investment, but in practice it doesn't seem to hold up and is critized by some economists. I also find it very strange.
> it is because housing is considered an investment
Ok, perhaps that partly makes sense for people buying homes. But paying rent cannot possibly be considered an investment; unless you are trying to marry a landlord or something :-)
Ok, perhaps that partly makes sense for people buying homes. But paying rent cannot possibly be considered an investment; unless you are trying to marry a landlord or something :-)
> it is because housing is considered an investment
How great would it be to live in a world where house prices never rose, and people just invested in stock or bitcoin.
How great would it be to live in a world where house prices never rose, and people just invested in stock or bitcoin.
Norway includes housing. Says so right on the page from Statistics Norway that says how CPI is calculated.
I stand corrected; I just assumed they were, since others do and inflation has been reported as very low for the past 20 years. It's hard to imagine that housing could be part of this calculation the way the housing market in Norway has developed in the past 25 years. I guess it's the way the house/energy is lumped into a category which is weighted low, at least in comparison to how much of our expenses it represents.
I guess the people in the US ignore it completely, we just weigh it wrong :-)
> Why aren’t house prices included in measures of inflation? Should they be?
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2021/07/29/...
I guess the people in the US ignore it completely, we just weigh it wrong :-)
> Why aren’t house prices included in measures of inflation? Should they be?
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2021/07/29/...
>I guess the people in the US ignore it completely, we just weigh it wrong :-)
uhh what? It's the same situation in the US. "houses" aren't a component of inflation, but "housing" is. According to the BLS, the "Shelter" component makes up 33.3% of the CPI.
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-importance/2020.htm
uhh what? It's the same situation in the US. "houses" aren't a component of inflation, but "housing" is. According to the BLS, the "Shelter" component makes up 33.3% of the CPI.
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-importance/2020.htm
Exactly. I mean food that we buy for 10€, 15€ a pop counts for inflation. And then the most expensive thing we ever purchase in our lives, say 400 000€ right now, and the effect on inflation on that doesn't count? Doesn't make sense to me.
In Iceland, we can't include housing in the calculation, become the vast majority of mortgages are inflation linked; meaning if inflation goes up, so does the remaining capital on your mortgage (yes, it's insane, if you want to know more there's articles online about it).
If we included housing, it would push up mortgages, which would make housing more expensive, which would drive inflation, which would push up mortgages, and so on.
Meanwhile my UK mortgage has 1.6% interest rate, and my house has gone up in value by 100k since I bought it 18 months ago, and I've just received a raise specifically to adjust for increased market rates and inflation. Life's pretty sweet here in comparison to back home. Needless to say; not going back :)
If we included housing, it would push up mortgages, which would make housing more expensive, which would drive inflation, which would push up mortgages, and so on.
Meanwhile my UK mortgage has 1.6% interest rate, and my house has gone up in value by 100k since I bought it 18 months ago, and I've just received a raise specifically to adjust for increased market rates and inflation. Life's pretty sweet here in comparison to back home. Needless to say; not going back :)
Can you recommend a good article about how this works?
It sounds evil at first glance, but thinking about it some more it might be very good.
This discourages people from buying houses with leverage when they think inflation is going to accelerate. It won't help them, because the leverage is inflation-indexed! Here in the USA, every time inflation starts to accelerate people hoard housing; this causes all sorts of social problems.
Also: in the USA the only other ways for most ordinary people to easily hedge against inflation are buying gold or loaning money to the government (inflation-indexed government bonds). It sounds like your country has inflation-indexed mortgage bonds. I would rather lend money to my neighbor than my government.
Personally, I am incredibly impressed with how you guys dealt with the 2007 global financial crisis. You did the right thing: you threw the criminals in jail. Even though they were bankers. I now evaluate Iceland's economic policies from the starting assumption that they understand the world better than we do.
It sounds evil at first glance, but thinking about it some more it might be very good.
This discourages people from buying houses with leverage when they think inflation is going to accelerate. It won't help them, because the leverage is inflation-indexed! Here in the USA, every time inflation starts to accelerate people hoard housing; this causes all sorts of social problems.
Also: in the USA the only other ways for most ordinary people to easily hedge against inflation are buying gold or loaning money to the government (inflation-indexed government bonds). It sounds like your country has inflation-indexed mortgage bonds. I would rather lend money to my neighbor than my government.
Personally, I am incredibly impressed with how you guys dealt with the 2007 global financial crisis. You did the right thing: you threw the criminals in jail. Even though they were bankers. I now evaluate Iceland's economic policies from the starting assumption that they understand the world better than we do.
Your mortgages are inflation adjusted? That's completely nuts, if you pay the interest only on your loan it keeps growing to reflect inflation; nice! :-)
> my house has gone up in value by 100k since I bought it 18 months ago
Yikes, that sounds like a heated housing market, unless your house cost £ 20 million to begin with :-)
> my house has gone up in value by 100k since I bought it 18 months ago
Yikes, that sounds like a heated housing market, unless your house cost £ 20 million to begin with :-)
That's because this is Keynesian 'semi-inflation', which is a reallocation and rationing of increasingly scarce resources by price. Markets are doing what markets do.
Those with the power to match prices with wage demands stay where they are, and the cost is transferred to those who cannot push wages, and those who lose their jobs.
That's actually how inflation is actually controlled - via the threat of unemployment and wage suppression.
Interest rate changes are the Wizard of Oz. Wage suppression and unemployment are the man behind the curtain.
Those with the power to match prices with wage demands stay where they are, and the cost is transferred to those who cannot push wages, and those who lose their jobs.
That's actually how inflation is actually controlled - via the threat of unemployment and wage suppression.
Interest rate changes are the Wizard of Oz. Wage suppression and unemployment are the man behind the curtain.
The end result of unregulated capitalism is feudalism/slavery.
Just think:
What is more competitive than a company where its employees work for free?
Should we be surprised that this is exactly where things are going? Not literally for free, but to its modern equivalent - the minimum people accept before they get to the streets with pitchforks. The modern day version of working for free is working for a salary where you basically don't get much of it except for basic necessities required for said job. Putting kids in debt out of college has been "perfect" for this. The revolting house prices idem. So workers are forced to be in debt for their whole life, and get to enjoy 2 weeks of holidays out of 52 in a year, while the rest spending on surviving. How far is that from working for free, in the modern day, really? What is the alternative, be a social outcast and go live in the woods? Risk it all and be entrepreneur?
Unregulated capitalism is working as intended. And that's exactly the problem.
Just think:
What is more competitive than a company where its employees work for free?
Should we be surprised that this is exactly where things are going? Not literally for free, but to its modern equivalent - the minimum people accept before they get to the streets with pitchforks. The modern day version of working for free is working for a salary where you basically don't get much of it except for basic necessities required for said job. Putting kids in debt out of college has been "perfect" for this. The revolting house prices idem. So workers are forced to be in debt for their whole life, and get to enjoy 2 weeks of holidays out of 52 in a year, while the rest spending on surviving. How far is that from working for free, in the modern day, really? What is the alternative, be a social outcast and go live in the woods? Risk it all and be entrepreneur?
Unregulated capitalism is working as intended. And that's exactly the problem.
I wish we had more systems thinking around these problems.
From my perspective it seems some are quick to want to change to another system on any signs of problems in the initial system; where the new system fails to have any good feedback loops built in.
I also see a lot of one off solutions that don’t fully understand the systems problem that only introduces more complexity to the system usually without solving the initial problem.
From my perspective it seems some are quick to want to change to another system on any signs of problems in the initial system; where the new system fails to have any good feedback loops built in.
I also see a lot of one off solutions that don’t fully understand the systems problem that only introduces more complexity to the system usually without solving the initial problem.
Most of this discussion seems to be off topic hot takes on conspiracy theories about inflation and big corp.
I am worried about a wage price spiral. But I’m not expecting it to commence yet. Common sense suggests most people are not going to look at inflation forecasts and say “well, I’d better ask for a preemptive wage rise”, rather people will notice price rises, adjust their budget, and when the rises become intolerable they will say “hang on, I really need a pay rise.” Most people are too busy to follow macroeconomics.
So I’m expecting wage bargaining and rises to become a central theme in 2022 once people really notice. Even at an annualised rate of 5%+ that takes time.
It’s very difficult to see how wage rises won’t be granted, which makes me wonder how politicians are imagining they’re going to prevent a spiral. This is exactly why we don’t print money and put it into retail accounts.
I’ve pointed it out before, but in the 80s in Britain Lawson and Thatcher spent years trying to end the spiral, and they really struggled despite throwing everything they could at it. Wage spirals are as much about politics and psychology as they are about economics.
I am worried about a wage price spiral. But I’m not expecting it to commence yet. Common sense suggests most people are not going to look at inflation forecasts and say “well, I’d better ask for a preemptive wage rise”, rather people will notice price rises, adjust their budget, and when the rises become intolerable they will say “hang on, I really need a pay rise.” Most people are too busy to follow macroeconomics.
So I’m expecting wage bargaining and rises to become a central theme in 2022 once people really notice. Even at an annualised rate of 5%+ that takes time.
It’s very difficult to see how wage rises won’t be granted, which makes me wonder how politicians are imagining they’re going to prevent a spiral. This is exactly why we don’t print money and put it into retail accounts.
I’ve pointed it out before, but in the 80s in Britain Lawson and Thatcher spent years trying to end the spiral, and they really struggled despite throwing everything they could at it. Wage spirals are as much about politics and psychology as they are about economics.
What happens when prices keep rising but wages don't keep up?
Prices stop rising. Look back over the last 40 years and you'll see the same pattern. Inflation spikes are sharp but short. In the last few decades, inflation spikes tend to be followed by deep recessions as well.
For example, in 2008, the rip-roaring CPI print of 5% seemed very menacing. Few suspected that an honest to god financial panic was right around the corner.
For further evidence, consider the financial and commodity markets:
- the eurodollar futures market recently inverted
- the 30 year treasury is yielding -5% in real terms
- the dollar is not crashing in the face of rising CPI, as the popular wisdom says it must - instead the dollar has been rising for a year
- gold, the eternal inflation hedge, has gone nowhere in one year and is at the same place it was 10 years ago
All of these indicators point to lower inflation and lower growth ahead. Possibly much lower.
Prices stop rising. Look back over the last 40 years and you'll see the same pattern. Inflation spikes are sharp but short. In the last few decades, inflation spikes tend to be followed by deep recessions as well.
For example, in 2008, the rip-roaring CPI print of 5% seemed very menacing. Few suspected that an honest to god financial panic was right around the corner.
For further evidence, consider the financial and commodity markets:
- the eurodollar futures market recently inverted
- the 30 year treasury is yielding -5% in real terms
- the dollar is not crashing in the face of rising CPI, as the popular wisdom says it must - instead the dollar has been rising for a year
- gold, the eternal inflation hedge, has gone nowhere in one year and is at the same place it was 10 years ago
All of these indicators point to lower inflation and lower growth ahead. Possibly much lower.
Looking at the chart it's pretty obvious that wages aren't pegged to inflation in any way. You will always be paid based on the conditions of the labor market, not the price of an arbitrary basket of goods.
Heck you can see that wage growth outpaced inflation in ~10 of the last 12 years. Isn't that a good thing?
Heck you can see that wage growth outpaced inflation in ~10 of the last 12 years. Isn't that a good thing?
That's a good thing. But it would have been better if wages kept up with productivity growth too, which they haven't.
the productivity growth required capital investments (either as upfront research/development, or as capital expenditure on plant and equipment). The owners of this capital require a return on such an investment, and thus, they get first dibs on the excess productivity (aka, profit).
Capital they "created" off the backs of workers
In general, prices are not pegged to inflation. Inflation is a change in the price level, but prices also change for reasons that have nothing to do with changes in the price level, e.g. in the case of wages, the supply and demand for labour.
Prices also change due to manipulation.
In 1998 Alan Greenspan testified to Congress that central banks lease paper gold to suppress the gold price. '... central banks stand ready to lease gold in increasing quantities ...' https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/1998/1998...
It is law that Treasury is allowed to secretly manipulate prices of cuurencies, stocks, bonds, and commodities. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/exchan...
It's rigged and the chance of the insiders not trading for their own personal accounts is approximately zero.
Occasionally the commoners get a few scraps like WSB on gamestonk in early 2021.
In 1998 Alan Greenspan testified to Congress that central banks lease paper gold to suppress the gold price. '... central banks stand ready to lease gold in increasing quantities ...' https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/1998/1998...
It is law that Treasury is allowed to secretly manipulate prices of cuurencies, stocks, bonds, and commodities. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/exchan...
It's rigged and the chance of the insiders not trading for their own personal accounts is approximately zero.
Occasionally the commoners get a few scraps like WSB on gamestonk in early 2021.
growth of what? Purchase of shoddy goods that are made by countries that imprison minorities and political dissidents and force them to work for state-run companies?
The only signal that results in pay-rises is whether people are leaving to get higher pay elsewhere.
This is the signal that tells an employer that "the market" is valuing people more and so you should pay more to keep them.
Inflation based pay rises are a myth, in that the company is giving a pay rise because the rest of the market is giving pay rises and that delicate balance between retaining people and losing people can be upset.
Should you leave to find something better paid elsewhere? Sure... if money is all that drives and motivates you. But it's not always the case geographically that you have options, and remote work remains somewhat limited for the majority of people.
If people leave my employer will that bump my salary? Sure... if enough people leave and their exit interviews all reveal this "we are under valued and I can earn more down the road" pattern. If people leave for a myriad of personal reasons then the company has no evidence that the market is paying more and they should bump their salaries in return. Even then, it will happen next year as this stuff takes time to build the evidence and result in the change.
Inflation based pay rises were not what you thought they were, and now inflation is rising it's plain to see.
This is the signal that tells an employer that "the market" is valuing people more and so you should pay more to keep them.
Inflation based pay rises are a myth, in that the company is giving a pay rise because the rest of the market is giving pay rises and that delicate balance between retaining people and losing people can be upset.
Should you leave to find something better paid elsewhere? Sure... if money is all that drives and motivates you. But it's not always the case geographically that you have options, and remote work remains somewhat limited for the majority of people.
If people leave my employer will that bump my salary? Sure... if enough people leave and their exit interviews all reveal this "we are under valued and I can earn more down the road" pattern. If people leave for a myriad of personal reasons then the company has no evidence that the market is paying more and they should bump their salaries in return. Even then, it will happen next year as this stuff takes time to build the evidence and result in the change.
Inflation based pay rises were not what you thought they were, and now inflation is rising it's plain to see.
Is it not rather that the inflation of the past 6-12 months has taken everyone by surprise, including employers, and the wages haven’t had time to adapt yet? What we don’t see in the article’s graph is that inflation used to be somewhat consistent but has risen sharply starting in March 2021: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi
I am surprised that no one else is asking this.
Should we really expect wage gains to march inflation within six months?
Should we really expect wage gains to march inflation within six months?
I think you're on to something.
I have been traveling abroad in situations where the local currency devalued significantly overnight. It took a few days for shopkeepers to adjust. Nobody knows what the spot rate of inflation is; by definition you need historical data.
I have been traveling abroad in situations where the local currency devalued significantly overnight. It took a few days for shopkeepers to adjust. Nobody knows what the spot rate of inflation is; by definition you need historical data.
Pretty sure that's because it's yearly inflation and March 2021 on that graph means inflation between March 2020 and March 2021, and corona "started" then.
That’s an interesting point re/ yearly but on march 2020 yearly inflation dropped to 0% so I assume at the start of the pandemic many prices were down, not up
Inflation is how the government spends money without getting it via taxes. The higher prices everyone pays is how we pay for that government spending.
The only way this can work is if wages, salaries, etc., don't keep up with inflation.
None of that government spending everyone loves comes for free.
The only way this can work is if wages, salaries, etc., don't keep up with inflation.
None of that government spending everyone loves comes for free.
This will be unpopular...
If you want to make good pay, you have to make it happen. You have to change jobs occasionally (every 2 years). You have to suck up a bit to managers. You have to be at least average at your job. You have to manage your CV. And you have to negotiate.
I'm not saying this is right or fair or nice.
I'm just saying the vast majority of people I've worked with don't do any of those things (except for being at least average at their jobs). Then they're surprised when it's been 10 years, they haven't gotten a raise or a promotion and they don't have a CV that can get them one.
If you don't play the game, you will lose. We all know the game isn't fair. But you have only those options.
I've played it for the last few years and I'm very well paid. Playing does work. People just don't, in part because no one tells them to.
If you want to make good pay, you have to make it happen. You have to change jobs occasionally (every 2 years). You have to suck up a bit to managers. You have to be at least average at your job. You have to manage your CV. And you have to negotiate.
I'm not saying this is right or fair or nice.
I'm just saying the vast majority of people I've worked with don't do any of those things (except for being at least average at their jobs). Then they're surprised when it's been 10 years, they haven't gotten a raise or a promotion and they don't have a CV that can get them one.
If you don't play the game, you will lose. We all know the game isn't fair. But you have only those options.
I've played it for the last few years and I'm very well paid. Playing does work. People just don't, in part because no one tells them to.
Well you bought into the myth of competition and you have done well in your particular segment of the economy, good for you. But most jobs in this world are just not challenging. Most of the meaningful work in this world is not particularly challenging or competitive, it just needs to be done. Rooms need to be vacuumed, children need to be washed and trucks need to be driven from A to B. So your message to the people who scrub your toilet is "If you don't want to a lower salary than last year, just scrub my toilet harder and faster than the other guy"? Maybe that other guy is a bit older and slower. Have you considered that 10 or 20 years from now you will also be older and slower? Most people are not interested in "gaming" the system, nor are they particularly good at it. Most people are content with comfortable lives in which they play some meaningful/useful role.
To be clear, I never said no one should be a cleaner and I didn't say the way for a cleaner to do better is to worker harder.
Quite the opposite: cleaners don't make much money. But managers do. So if you're a cleaner and you want more money, have a plan to become a manager. Move companies to somewhere that pays better. Start your own cleaning company. Just don't spend 40 years cleaning, never ask for raise, never change jobs, work for minimum wage and wonder why you never became a millionaire...
Of course, if you're content being a cleaner then good luck to you! Just don't say "capitalism cheated me" when you got exactly what you said you were content with...
Quite the opposite: cleaners don't make much money. But managers do. So if you're a cleaner and you want more money, have a plan to become a manager. Move companies to somewhere that pays better. Start your own cleaning company. Just don't spend 40 years cleaning, never ask for raise, never change jobs, work for minimum wage and wonder why you never became a millionaire...
Of course, if you're content being a cleaner then good luck to you! Just don't say "capitalism cheated me" when you got exactly what you said you were content with...
The vast majority of the people you've worked with are at least average at their jobs?
Actually yeah.
Average doesn't mean great. It might not even mean good tbh.
I've worked with a few terrible people who pull the average down so that helps.
Average doesn't mean great. It might not even mean good tbh.
I've worked with a few terrible people who pull the average down so that helps.
"You have to change jobs occasionally"
That is complete garbage.
What you mean is that you have to change jobs if you don't see the potential for growth and growth opportunities.
That is complete garbage.
What you mean is that you have to change jobs if you don't see the potential for growth and growth opportunities.
No you just really have to switch jobs every 2 years
https://www.forbes.com/sites/cameronkeng/2014/06/22/employee...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/cameronkeng/2014/06/22/employee...
Been thinking about this for a while.
If worker pay isn't keeping up but company profits and equity are, this means that people are overvaluing being a worker and undervaluing being an owner, compared to market equilibrium.
Why would that be? Risk aversion? With the latest advances in global connectivity, online business infrastructure, ubiquitous technology and so on, I'd expect risk to be as low as it ever was.
Something else? What am I missing?
If worker pay isn't keeping up but company profits and equity are, this means that people are overvaluing being a worker and undervaluing being an owner, compared to market equilibrium.
Why would that be? Risk aversion? With the latest advances in global connectivity, online business infrastructure, ubiquitous technology and so on, I'd expect risk to be as low as it ever was.
Something else? What am I missing?
I am not so sure the official inflation figures are correct. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/consumerpriceindex....
Inflation is a neat (and usually the only) way to lower the wages without losing people. Of course they're not going to let go of it.
This article doesn't cite any sources to support its claim. There is one chart in a linked article about increasing Consumer Price Index but where is the data to compare wage increase vs inflation?
Is it possible that this idea is just being propagated without much evidence to in effect create a state of peril? I would very much appreciate if someone has looked at any evidence.
Is it possible that this idea is just being propagated without much evidence to in effect create a state of peril? I would very much appreciate if someone has looked at any evidence.
Always remember, inflation is the goverment printing (inflating) currency to the market in order fund it's agenda by stealing your savings. Basicaly inflation is just another process how government steals your money. Inflation is NOT rising prices, they are trying hard to derail the definition. That's why your purchasing power stagnates - by design.
Never has. Inflation is an extra tax (or state sponsored wage theft) on the poor that only have their salary.
The purpose of inflation is to increase employment - which happens by cutting wages. If wages followed inflation, then it wouldn't have any effect on employment. Adjusting employment with inflation is a central bank policy. There's nothing surprising here.
Just a few months ago you would be flagged on HN for mentioning inflation. Look up any threads on economy from March 2021 for example.
I want to know why. Why was the HN diaspora not allowing dissent with the mainstream narrative? Mentioning inflation here was so harshly ridiculed, I was surprised the massive U-turn from the tech community. I saw the entire media changing the tune. That means no one here is thinking from the bottom-up, it’s mostly servant to the mainstream media.
I’ve lost hope in people here. It used to be the wisdom of crowds. Now it’s the tyranny of the crowds.
I think I feel like leaving HN.
I want to know why. Why was the HN diaspora not allowing dissent with the mainstream narrative? Mentioning inflation here was so harshly ridiculed, I was surprised the massive U-turn from the tech community. I saw the entire media changing the tune. That means no one here is thinking from the bottom-up, it’s mostly servant to the mainstream media.
I’ve lost hope in people here. It used to be the wisdom of crowds. Now it’s the tyranny of the crowds.
I think I feel like leaving HN.
Hang enough long enough on the internet and you’ll see a lot of hindsight bias. Or “first it’s is impossible, then it becomes obvious”
Remember questioning economic growth in 2018 and 2019 and you were accused of speaking g a recession into existence? I do. I guess nobody is paid to fight against speaking an inflation spiral into existence
The only opinions allowed to be had in hn are mainstream opinions and then those that are to the left of the mainstream.
A community that doesn’t allow dissent is dead for me. Respectful dissent is key to functioning society and I think HN reflects larger societal trends.
Time to leave.
Time to leave.
It's always the people on fixed income and the poor who have it worse when inflation strikes.
Ironically, the politicians who purport to represent these groups often enact policies that make inflation worse.
Ironically, the politicians who purport to represent these groups often enact policies that make inflation worse.
On the other hand things are getting absurd with crypto currency speculation, NFT cartoon characters selling for millions, and even there was a story here about some girl making 100k on selling jarred her farts.
The wealthy are are starting to lose belief in the value of the dollar, and will literally trade dollars for virtual tulip bulbs.
Feels like Hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic is fast on the way.
Further Port backups, or gas price strike by truckers could get us there this winter. Just a few days of hunger, and things will really kick off.
The wealthy are are starting to lose belief in the value of the dollar, and will literally trade dollars for virtual tulip bulbs.
Feels like Hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic is fast on the way.
Further Port backups, or gas price strike by truckers could get us there this winter. Just a few days of hunger, and things will really kick off.
Surely a naive question, but is there a reason it isn’t standard practice to index salaries on inflation? That would make sense to me. But I know very little about the topic.
I've read that this mainly happens in periods of hyperinflation. But that would mean 50% inflation month-over-month, so way more than what we're seeing or will likely see in the near future for developed countries. Not sure why it's not standard outside of that, probably because companies don't want or need to.
Inflation helps reallocating labor more efficiently since salary is sticky.
In most European countries, it is like that.
Worker pay hasn't been keeping track with inflation for decades - this isn't new. Politicians are only concerned now because it is impacting the cash (and equivalent) banks of the super rich.
In the US at least it's fairly telling that wages and similar for normal people aren't legally tied to any real measurement and require explicit corrections by lawmakers, whereas everything that benefits law makers and their donors is tied to inflation.
In the US at least it's fairly telling that wages and similar for normal people aren't legally tied to any real measurement and require explicit corrections by lawmakers, whereas everything that benefits law makers and their donors is tied to inflation.
Why haven't the super rich diversified into assets? Spread it around into different asset classes, and they should be reasonably inflation proof.
They have, but a bunch of their assets track cash - cash, cash equivalents, loans (e.g other people's mortgages, esp. those with fixed interest rates)
Simply looking at inflation and wages is sufficient to detect the problem, but not to solve it. An increase in wages is always limited by an increase in worker productivity.
GDP per hour worked increased by 1-2% yearly. ( https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm ) To increase wages, increase productivity.
GDP per hour worked increased by 1-2% yearly. ( https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm ) To increase wages, increase productivity.
If anyone assumes this is specific to the US and that companies (from the US operating) in developing countries would provide inflation matching raises due to lower cost of labor, let me put that to rest. The multinational companies operating in India don’t match inflation either. The inflation in India has been around 6-7% for a couple of decades (and higher for long before that), and wages have just eroded over time.
> turned sharply negative the last two months.
What I'm seeing is a chart of real gains over the last decade. That's great!
What I'm seeing is a chart of real gains over the last decade. That's great!
Sometimes I wonder if the word inflation has two meanings. There's what we typically mean by the word -- a lingering phenomenon which feeds on itself. And then there's the short-term "situational" thing which lasts X number of months.
I think part of the problem is we're using the same word to describe two different things...
"Russell Price, chief economist at Ameriprise, expects inflation to peak at 7.1% in December and January, for example. After that, he expects the inflation rate to fall toward 4% by the summer and below 3% by the end of the year."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/inflation-painfully-high...
I think part of the problem is we're using the same word to describe two different things...
"Russell Price, chief economist at Ameriprise, expects inflation to peak at 7.1% in December and January, for example. After that, he expects the inflation rate to fall toward 4% by the summer and below 3% by the end of the year."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/inflation-painfully-high...
falling inflation rate !== deflation
When we talk about inflation peaking at 7.1%, is that over the prior December? So, y/y or is this m/m?
It is y/y (comparing Nov 2021 to Nov 2020). m/m 7% inflation is generally something more catastrophic.
Is this inflation due to expansion of the money base? Or inflation due to rising costs?
If the second one, there where is all that money going? Who is that "cost" that is benefiting?
If the second one, there where is all that money going? Who is that "cost" that is benefiting?
Likely some of both. Many of the costs are going to the supply-chain bottlenecks, IE: meat packing plants, lumber mills, container ports, chip manufacturers. Demand is high and it's hard for new supply to be brought online so those in the right position benefit significantly. For example AMD and NVDA revenue up 50%+, income 100%+
Eventually these high margins will attract competitors and bring down the margins but it takes quite awhile to get a chip fab up and running, and similar with meat-packing, lumber mills, etc.
Eventually these high margins will attract competitors and bring down the margins but it takes quite awhile to get a chip fab up and running, and similar with meat-packing, lumber mills, etc.
>For example AMD and NVDA revenue up 50%+, income 100%+
Eventually these high margins will attract competitors and bring down the margins
For those examples that is false hope. You can't just spring up a new competitor in the GPU filed out of thin air and expect it to work; Nvidia and AMD duopolies are so far ahead into the game experience wise that no startup could ever catch up no matter how much money you throw at it (even AMD is having a hard time keeping up with Nvidia and they've been at it for 30 years).
Not to mention the insane patent minefield that protects them from competition. Even Intel, a trilion dollar company with experience, patents and fabs can't catch up with the other two.
For those examples that is false hope. You can't just spring up a new competitor in the GPU filed out of thin air and expect it to work; Nvidia and AMD duopolies are so far ahead into the game experience wise that no startup could ever catch up no matter how much money you throw at it (even AMD is having a hard time keeping up with Nvidia and they've been at it for 30 years).
Not to mention the insane patent minefield that protects them from competition. Even Intel, a trilion dollar company with experience, patents and fabs can't catch up with the other two.
We'll see, 10 years ago people were saying Intel's fabs was so far ahead that no competitor had a chance of catching up.
intel is literally getting into the GPU market 2022
It is, but performance/value remains to be seen, which brings me back to my point that even the Intel juggernaut faces un uphill battle in this space vs Nvidia and AMD.
Granted, during the current shortage, basically any GPU will sell regardless of performance/value proposition which makes it very easy for Intel to enter the market right now, however, 2-3 years ago, when Nvidia and AMD GPUs were affordable and available everywhere, nobody would have ever considered buying Intel discrete GPUs as even their integrated ones were not well received.
Granted, during the current shortage, basically any GPU will sell regardless of performance/value proposition which makes it very easy for Intel to enter the market right now, however, 2-3 years ago, when Nvidia and AMD GPUs were affordable and available everywhere, nobody would have ever considered buying Intel discrete GPUs as even their integrated ones were not well received.
> intel is literally getting into the GPU market 2022
Haven't they always been in the GPU market? Sure, they don't compete on top-end GPUs, but almost all their previous builtin/onboard GPUs:
a) Shipped more than NVidia or AMD
b) Were performant enough to satisfy 90%+ or PC or laptop owners.
Haven't they always been in the GPU market? Sure, they don't compete on top-end GPUs, but almost all their previous builtin/onboard GPUs:
a) Shipped more than NVidia or AMD
b) Were performant enough to satisfy 90%+ or PC or laptop owners.
To the first question, both. Many developed countries that did not practice QE are also seeing rising inflation. Having said that inflation in the US is particularly high, but then again there’s historical precedent for that. So it’s a messy picture, but a large chunk of current inflation seems global and systemic.
As for where is the money going? The rising costs are due to increasing demand and simultaneous reductions in supply. A lot of pent up demand deferred by the pandemic has been released. Meanwhile suppliers have lost capacity due to shutting down factories, slimming down work forces and not maintaining or replacing equipment.
A lot of the money from increased costs is invested in ramping up production again. This is pulling people back into employment and kickstarting businesses that were suffering in the lockdowns. It’s funding necessary work. But some of it is being taken by suppliers who find they can ramp up prices and people will still pay.
As for where is the money going? The rising costs are due to increasing demand and simultaneous reductions in supply. A lot of pent up demand deferred by the pandemic has been released. Meanwhile suppliers have lost capacity due to shutting down factories, slimming down work forces and not maintaining or replacing equipment.
A lot of the money from increased costs is invested in ramping up production again. This is pulling people back into employment and kickstarting businesses that were suffering in the lockdowns. It’s funding necessary work. But some of it is being taken by suppliers who find they can ramp up prices and people will still pay.
The current price changes are due to a lack of supply, which the market is rationing.
Remember firms will always try to charge a fortune for their stuff. It's only competition that stops that happening. Competition is excess supply, or at least excess supply capacity.
When competition stops being effective, prices go up.
Remember firms will always try to charge a fortune for their stuff. It's only competition that stops that happening. Competition is excess supply, or at least excess supply capacity.
When competition stops being effective, prices go up.
At least in USA, there is not really a shortage of natural gas or gasoline. Yet the prices have ramped up.
There is a shortage because the oil producers have realised they can ride the OPEC supply restrictions and make more money. US oil producers are not part of the cartel, but they might as well be. As always, someone does well out of inflation.
The question then is why haven't the price rises been subject to competition authority or anti-trust action.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/11/us-inf...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/11/us-inf...
Uh, duh. I haven't had a cost of living increase since 2008...
That's the whole point of inflation reduce "sticky wages". If you don't like it, buy bitcoin.
[deleted]
Obligatory “Always has been” meme. That is one of the major profitability cornerstones. And obviously inflation always hits harder low profit margin goods (which usually make up >40% of low-middle income budget).
Inflation hurts the poor, almost always, exception those with fixed interest rates debt burden.
Inflation hurts the poor, almost always, exception those with fixed interest rates debt burden.
Watch "Crisis and Openings: Introduction to Marxism - Richard D Wolff" https://youtu.be/T9Whccunka4
No. Shit.
it never has
It's time for the butcher's bill over the silly corona restrictions, and none will ever connect the two to together.
Most of the people here are from the professional class. Not real hurt as much by Covid restrictions. Some even benefitted by being able to work from home, they benefitted from election rule changes, from online censorship, and so on.
So they don't really understand how much the restrictions are loathed by the working poor, who were already on the brink of bankruptcy pre covid restrictions.
So they don't really understand how much the restrictions are loathed by the working poor, who were already on the brink of bankruptcy pre covid restrictions.
Personally I didn’t benefit but my position allowed me to absorb the destruction of investment wealth and surprise child care expenses when schools closed. I also saw inflation coming as inputs and building materials shot up during the trade war. During the last president, I can’t imagine a company raising consumer costs and bragging about their pricing like they do now. They’d have a militia busting in with a gallows the very next day.
It is very tiresome to witness this time and time again in the inflation discussion.
It might be argued that this was the preferred outcome as a healthcare collapse would be worse. Of course they are connected but I'm afraid that it's impossible to debate it without getting political and the priests are eager to call heresy when you go against their dogma.
Your statement is ambiguous. Are you saying some of the covid restrictions were silly, and should be removed, or are you saying all the restrictions were silly and should be removed?
I haven't had a cost of living increase since 2008, covid came onto the scene in very late 2019...
If you read Friedrich Engels's The Condition of the Working Class in England, you'll see how capital works. It is the LAW of the capital, not an arbitrary decision: http://www.theinternationalism.org/2021/06/engels-in-new-cen...
gnu8(3)
Welcome! Under which rock where you living the last 50 years?
I now get paid in ETH.
Feels like I no longer to make money twice - once to get paid, twice to invest it such to beat inflation.
Feels like I no longer to make money twice - once to get paid, twice to invest it such to beat inflation.
There is this 40% or so of the population that will not switch jobs. I don't know why you would ever give them a raise because as their reaction to it is just going be to complain and go back to work.
It's worth noting that switching jobs for pay raises is mainly a white collar thing. If you work in trucking for instance, where productivity is capped, worker differentiation is minimal (meaning two different truckers perform essentially identical work unlike engineers or salespeople), and where industry margins are thin, you'll top out relatively quickly. After that, switching companies isn't going to do all that much good for them.
Bad example, as trucker turnover historically is over 100% each year.
https://www.fleetowner.com/operations/drivers/article/211453...
Does this turnover mean that the truckers get better paid? If not, then it's an even better example, because the turnover would highlight that they have topped out.
> you'll top out relatively quickly
This is not true in the Phoenix or Tennessee areas, two places I know folks in the trucking business. Competition for drivers is fierce, and that leads to better offers from firms who have found a niche where they can charge more.
This is not true in the Phoenix or Tennessee areas, two places I know folks in the trucking business. Competition for drivers is fierce, and that leads to better offers from firms who have found a niche where they can charge more.
This mindset seems common but is far from the truth. Even with blue-collar jobs pay varies widely especially now. Employers want you to think everyone pays the same and you can't do better elsewhere.
And when you drill in more, there are other issues. For example, the housing metric appears relatively flat in real terms, right? Except, that doesn't tell the story for the majority of Americans. Housing costs are WAY up in cities as Americans migrate to where the jobs are, while housing costs are down in all the areas where jobs are disappearing. In practise, housing costs are actually significantly up for most Americans, but because the CPI is calculated across the entire nation, the government can claim inflation is low. This allow them to keep the fed rate low, which keeps stock valuations high. This LOOKS great and generates great headlines, but the reality is that most Americans are significantly worse off since the 1970s.
And then we come to the other elephant in the room: why are real wages flat? Given the incredible performance of the American economy since 1970, shouldn't real wages be significantly UP? This is yet another reminder that wealth is being squeezed from the bottom and funnelled straight up. As a non-American, it's heartbreaking to see efforts to unify the underclass completely derailed by this ridiculous race war. Poor people in America have FAR more in common with each other than the rich, no matter race. I really hope you all manage to set aside the obvious red herring of race and unite in tackling your staggering wealth inequality.