Rich people do have trouble understanding what it's like to be poor

I see where you're coming from and it would be great if it happened that way. But the deflationary pull is getting ever stronger with technology - the more productive we are, the cheaper things should become. So the Fed's actions are the result of having a mandate that is directly incompatible with the technological goal of working less. If we switched to embracing deflation, then people could retire earlier knowing their savings would definitively appreciate in value, rather than having to hope on faux bubble "investments" that are mainly whims of more centralized government policy.

But that seems to be politically impossible. So another way to approach it would be to drastically reduce the legal definition of full time work. It should be under 20 hours already, considering that women entering the workforce nearly doubled overall hours worked. But instead, all of that overproduction got dumped into the hedonic treadmill and bullshit jobs.

Congress reps make $170k. It’s not super wealthy, but certainly possible to afford two rents outright. Not to mention if you sublet/etc since I wouldn’t need to literally stay in two places at once.

I think no matter how much you make, higher salaries always seem so much easier.

People can either budget or can’t, I don’t think it matters the actual amount. I’ve met people who were budgeted and running a family on $30k and people paycheck to paycheck on $300k.

> I would love to see a parallel universe where in 2008 no one is bailed out and bankers are either on the hook for the risks they took or actually are sent to prison.

That wouldn't solve anything. 2008 was 9/11 for banking. Lending is now more restrictive than before. Without a bailout people's deposits would be on the line.

>Taking it further back, what if the tech bubble of the 90s is allowed to collapse, interests aren't set at almost 0, and a housing bubble isn't blown by exploiting minorities.

Interest rates should be negative but that's impossible in practice so instead we are stuck with 0% interest rates and hope that inflation reduces real interest rates enough to convince people to invest their money again and by investing I mean growing their businesses by hiring people.

>I am convinced the USA is in the place it is because since about 99, no rich person has been allowed to fail or lose money, not really.

Well, that is close but it is not a perfect explanation. Structurally it is very easy to be rich. Inflation was low, anything you did, no matter how stupid or unproductive, was enough to get past inflation.

>I'm not a leftie, but it really is capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich right now. But I have to say, the problem is collusion between the rich who are close to politics, and the problem is the GOVERNMENT enabled all this.

From a hardcore capitalist productivity growth maximalist mindset the USA is doing extremely poorly. Instead, rich people get to enjoy an exploited labor force. Over the long term things can only go wrong, especially since the labor pool is shrinking through aging.

When half the population consists of retirees they want to live in a world where infrastructure investments have already been made back when the labor pool was plentiful. The truth is that the only way you can save for retirement is by building something today that will keep existing by the time you retire. Housing is a good option because it can last a long time. Roads are good because they can be built in your 50s and not require maintenance until you are dead. Power generation is good because wind turbines and solar panels can last 20-30 years and preventing climate change lasts forever (hopefully).

What I am seeing instead is that we are at a time where the population is still reasonably young and labor is plentiful and we waste it on doing nothing useful with it and then 30 years later the population is old and there is no way you can ever catch up on all the lost potential.

The government definitively plays a big role but it is primarily the local government, the federal government mostly has complacent politicians that support the status quo (the motto of the republicans) but none of them are really trying to make things actively worse, they just hope that the problem goes away on its own. (it won't)

>The problem is NOT all rich people. Only the ones who are part of this system.

Yes, exactly. The problem isn't all rich people because there have been times where an effort has been made to keep things in balance. That effort is gone and there are not many counter balancing forces left. Specifically, it is rich people who do not use their wealth to grow productive companies. A lot of them just want to protect inefficient business models that are unsustainable over the long run.

> And this distinction needs to be made, otherwise the US is headed for a communist disaster of hating the rich.

That's true. If you can restore the balance there is no need for the guillotine, ultimately all of this is for the benefit of everyone, the poor and the rich. If they follow up on their social responsibility (invest their savings) they can keep everything they have.

The problems start with the fact that they can growth their wealth without following up on their social responsibility and the first step toward a solution is raising inflation because inflation hurts those who do not invest their savings.

Here is an interesting "specimen" of a self declared rich person: https://i.imgur.com/ky5uLpF.png He claims that he has enough money but "oddly" enough he is scared of inflation and considers low prices thanks to exploitative wages a good thing, as if the free market (the status quo) he so praises could hurt him. It's the choice mindset mentioned in the article in action.

I made this imgur album for absolutely no reason: https://imgur.com/a/Oaxrt33

A lot of it boils down to the fact that conservative thinking is needed after we have exhausted the maximum potential of the economy.

Right now the economy needs to be run as hot as possible so that everyone has enough money and once it is hot we need to immediately rearrange it to become productive again. That means republicans have to shut up for a while until the economy follows the textbooks again. It has to be done in this order.

The longer it takes to reach the limits of the economy the more time exists for it to become unproductive and the needed correction will have to be bigger than absolutely required. If the entire economy consisted of money losing zombies (think Uber) then a small raise in interest rates will cause the entire economy to disappear at once, if there is competition for labor and pressure to innovate and be productive then zombies will stop growing and by the time we have to raise interest rates sharply there won't be many zombies left to take the economy down.

> Chiming in as someone who has a few million in liquidity and a few more in real estate: some people buy a house to...you know, actually live in it and stuff.

> If you sell your primary home out of greed, assuming you otherwise like living there, you are attempting to time the market.

Very well said. A home is not a stock to trade, trying to time the market. The point of a home is to live in it. Maybe sell in retirement to downsize. The estimated value fluctuations in the middle decades are not relevant to the homeowner.