71–80 of 125 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Can you even imagine if we spent 80-90% of our income on essential needs?" most american households (as in >50%) do spend 80-90% (or more) on essential needs.
You may very well be right, but I'd be curious if you have a source for that?
Also, it's a good book.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the early 1900s most American households spent 80% of their income on food, clothing, and housing -- and the food was by far the largest expense, more than housing. The picture for American families today is much better. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/how-ame...
This data seems to stop in 2003, before Great Recession and the massive increase in housing costs in urban centers. Also doesn’t seem to take into account the dramatic increases in healthcare costs in the intervening years. I’m not sure how useful it is as a measure?
Come up with better data if you don't like mine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Can you even imagine if we spent 80-90% of our income on essential needs?" most american households (as in >50%) do spend 80-90% (or more) on essential needs.
In the early 1900s most American households spent 80% of their income on food, clothing, and housing -- and the food was by far the largest expense, more than housing. The picture for American families today is much better. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/how-ame...
~75% of 2003 household budgets went to food, housing, transportation, clothing and healthcare ("essentials"). among non-essentials, only ~5% to entertainment.
those are aggregate numbers, so you'd still expect more than 50% of american households to be spending 80-90% of their budgets on the essentials (said differently, the median household is most certainly above the 75% figure because of the highly disproportionate skew of the top 1%).
you could argue that we own too much house and too many cars on average, but i doubt that makes much difference to the big picture, because that's also disproportionately skewed to the top 20%. most american households are still spending most of their money on real essentials.
> With the Spanish flu a century ago, people adapted their individual behavior, but social life proceeded more or less as before. “Public places of amusement” were shuttered, but work and business were little affected overall. This is a pretty telling difference with how we perceive the world today. During the last decades most people living in the "first world" (however you define it today) lost ability to rationall…
I agree with you about rational weight of risks. However there is a possibly implicit meaning that you consider the current efforts of preventing transmission of the virus to be overkill. Possibly in other parts of the world a little more measure and give might have been the best response in hindsight, but knowing what we did know then, rather than now, I believe most places* (in the 'first' world) made the correct a…
In terms of testing, death rate, positivity rate, death rate amongst confirmed vases, the us has done as well or better than many developed nations.
Could the us have done better? Absolutely. But we also are doing at least average... If not downright better. Can you cite per capita numbers in relation to other developed globalized countries?
The demand shock prompted by the pandemic is hardly a suspension of capitalism. The lockdowns followed the combined decisions of individuals, per a Hayekian model. Government's mainly commanded what people were already doing themselves.
We can see that play out in practice, comparing how different nations dealt with the pandemic.
But I do agree with the premise, government shut downs happened because people by and large wanted them, not because the government wanted to impose some random restrictions.
> With the Spanish flu a century ago, people adapted their individual behavior, but social life proceeded more or less as before. “Public places of amusement” were shuttered, but work and business were little affected overall. This is a pretty telling difference with how we perceive the world today. During the last decades most people living in the "first world" (however you define it today) lost ability to rationall…
high five on the call to rationally assess risks. many have closed their ears, but let's keep reminding people that life is plenty full of risks that we manage just fine without panicking. that's not to say completely ignore dangers and live obliviously, just put them in their proper place.
> With the Spanish flu a century ago, people adapted their individual behavior, but social life proceeded more or less as before. “Public places of amusement” were shuttered, but work and business were little affected overall. This is a pretty telling difference with how we perceive the world today. During the last decades most people living in the "first world" (however you define it today) lost ability to rationall…
Shootings in Chicago are not randomly spread across the population though. Most is gang violence and is relatively easy to avoid. The DC shooter was different because it was arbitrary across the population. It was no longer about “avoiding the bad neighborhoods” or “not crossing a drug dealer”. Covid is a little similar in that it’s a new class of risk (different group dying than do from heart disease and all of the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This data seems to stop in 2003, before Great Recession and the massive increase in housing costs in urban centers. Also doesn’t seem to take into account the dramatic increases in healthcare costs in the intervening years. I’m not sure how useful it is as a measure?
Do you honestly believe that modern households, even after the Great Recession, spend more on food than housing? Come up with better data if you don't like mine.
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Harvard_JCH...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/real-es...
The late 90s (just before this study ends) were also one of the last periods of meaningful wage growth.
So combined with, again, a lack of consideration about things like rising healthcare costs, it’s difficult to view this study as relevant or meaningful. And especially when the data ends before the now two largest downturns since the Great Depression.
It's hard to say that this Great Pause actually "worked", since the governments of the world had to dump trilions into stimulus to make businesses not simply die. We and our children and our childrens' children will be paying for this with our taxes for decades to come. If we have another Pause in the next few months, then it will be the body blow that completely cripples the economy, especially in the US. I can't se…
No-one’s saying it worked, as such (what would this even mean?) But it arguably didn’t cause the sort of rapid chaos (breakdown of supply chains swiftly followed by social order) that conventional wisdom says this sort of thing should. At least in places where COVID has been largely suppressed now, the second time round shouldn’t be as economically shocking as the first; there’ll be way more focus on the test-and-tra…
Making this permanent or even dragging it out would have severe economic consequences
It's hard to say that this Great Pause actually "worked", since the governments of the world had to dump trilions into stimulus to make businesses not simply die. We and our children and our childrens' children will be paying for this with our taxes for decades to come. If we have another Pause in the next few months, then it will be the body blow that completely cripples the economy, especially in the US. I can't se…
Why would we (assuming you mean the US) have to pay for this with our taxes, who do we owe the money to? The US issues it’s own currency and we printed money to keep the economy afloat. We don’t owe that debt to anyone? The only reason extra taxes would be needed is to curb inflation.
However, tax revenues can't cover our expenses so we are forced to issue debt and with printed money the debt is now going to cost more to service.