Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America's “Friendscape” Crisis

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: America's “Friendscape” Crisis

#61

Post by blooalien »

ramphastidae wrote: post #35
nine_zeros wrote: post #30

Upper middle class in America is unique. They have EVERYTHING that humanity can provide. They have access and ability to do anything. Yet, they are all stuck in the never ending rat race. The excessive focus on the rat race leads to less energy and time left for friendships. The little time that is left is left only for superficial acquaintances. You know, the kind where people talk to each other like a sitcom. Every…

> Americans just don't want to engage in this kind of "unproductive" lifestyle. It's all about work, career, money. It’s not that we don’t want to, it’s that our society’s design discourages this. For the most part, if you don’t have a GOOD job in the US, you don’t get healthcare or retirement. And even the employers at those good jobs can and do fire employees at any time, for any reason. Given the cost of healthcar…

> … "for most Americans, even upper middle class, holding on to their jobs is a matter of life and death."

Can 100% confirm. I've gone from earning $50 an hour (back when that was a lot of money) to a successful career owning/operating my own businesses to living in constant pain and misery that I can't even afford to visit a doctor for, and thanks to the societal gray area I fall into (not being a homeless drug addict) I don't qualify for free medical help to get healthy enough to go back to being "productive". For the love of all that is holy, DO NOT get sick in the USA! Your value as a human here depends entirely on the value that can be extracted from your wallet.

Re: America's “Friendscape” Crisis

#62

Post by Ericson2314 »

ethbr0 wrote: post #59
Ericson2314 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we lower them we have no homes, if we raise them we have no jobs. The fact of the matter is conventional central banking is a failure, as is widespread private homeownership in metropolitan areas.

Well, conventional central banking usually has the goals of "prevent another Great Depression" and "keep inflation under control." In that respect, they've been fairly successful. The side effects are... less good. But worse than a national depression? Eh.

https://jwmason.org/slackwire/at-jacobin-the-fed-doesnt-work...

well start with those side effects: inflation is kept in check by beating back workers whenever they get to powerful. Then take into account how lousy growth has been since the 1970s when they started doing that.

If we could have had depressions but more amortized growth, and not "jobless recoveries" and anemic amortized growth, would that have been worse or better?

Re: America's “Friendscape” Crisis

#63

Post by perl4ever »

blooalien wrote: post #61
ramphastidae wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Americans just don't want to engage in this kind of "unproductive" lifestyle. It's all about work, career, money. It’s not that we don’t want to, it’s that our society’s design discourages this. For the most part, if you don’t have a GOOD job in the US, you don’t get healthcare or retirement. And even the employers at those good jobs can and do fire employees at any time, for any reason. Given the cost of healthcar…

> … "for most Americans, even upper middle class, holding on to their jobs is a matter of life and death." Can 100% confirm. I've gone from earning $50 an hour (back when that was a lot of money) to a successful career owning/operating my own businesses to living in constant pain and misery that I can't even afford to visit a doctor for, and thanks to the societal gray area I fall into (not being a homeless drug addi…

I'm scratching my head, because this sounds like the Republican talking points from a few years ago about why we must "repeal and replace" the ACA.

But you're not mentioning the ACA or any right wing key words/phrases, so I'm confused what your message (what action should be prescribed) and target audience are.

If holding on to your job is totally a matter of life and death today, that seems like a really clear and complete denunciation of what was formerly considered the Obama administration's greatest accomplishment.

It makes me wonder if you all in this subthread were influenced in the last couple of elections towards or away from Democrats for that reason.

Re: America's “Friendscape” Crisis

#64

Post by imtringued »

ethbr0 wrote: post #5
yepthatsreality wrote: post #4

Modern Americans suck at building and maintaining community. Everyone wants to play in the sandbox but no one wants to rake it.

I would counter that modern Americ a sucks for supporting communities. Our policies are mostly geared around creating never-ending strip malls, endless suburban neighborhoods, and omnipresent traffic issues. Because these things most efficiently create tax revenue, happy "what my parents had" families, and income segregated areas. Similar to college, fixing America starts with deciding that everyone doesn't need a si…

>Because these things most efficiently create tax revenue,

You mean tax revenue because there are subsidies for new developments? Car based suburban sprawl is a money pit for tax revenue. You need a lot of road per house.

Re: America's “Friendscape” Crisis

#65

Post by imtringued »

ethbr0 wrote: post #10
epicureanideal wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn’t that people are wanting too much. It’s that getting on the property ladder at all, even a small condo in a metro where there are jobs, is becoming far, far more difficult than for previous generations. And of course, if people need to work longer and harder to achieve what would've been considered fairly modest goals by (recent) previous generations in terms of housing, then they have less time and…

My personal read is that a huge amount of that in the last decade or so has been a consequence of basement central bank rates. When vast sums of institutional money are freed and chasing yield, eventually some of it leaks into residential property. And when a market that was precariously balanced with only retail buyers (due to density opposition and building economics) now has equal or more investors pile in? Well,…

> My personal read is that a huge amount of that in the last decade or so has been a consequence of basement central bank rates.

The central bank doesn't decide the interest rate, rather it is closer to an autonomous organization whose goal is to let interest rates follow the economy.

Low interest rates are the result of the preference to hold deposits and the preference to not take on debt. If you want higher interest rates you'll have to raise the government debt ceiling or kill deposits with inflation/negative interest rates on deposits. Considering the demand for perpetual savings it only makes sense that governments would issue perpetual bonds.

The reason why perpetual bonds are interesting is that they only have to be paid back when they have to be paid back.

Re: America's “Friendscape” Crisis

#66

Post by imtringued »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #23
ethbr0 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal read is that a huge amount of that in the last decade or so has been a consequence of basement central bank rates. When vast sums of institutional money are freed and chasing yield, eventually some of it leaks into residential property. And when a market that was precariously balanced with only retail buyers (due to density opposition and building economics) now has equal or more investors pile in? Well,…

If we lower them we have no homes, if we raise them we have no jobs. The fact of the matter is conventional central banking is a failure, as is widespread private homeownership in metropolitan areas.

I don't see how it is a failure. Our money is a failure because of the asymmetry between deposits and loans. You must pay your loan on time but you don't have to spend your deposits on time. The obvious answer is always extend the deadline or take away the deposit.

Re: America's “Friendscape” Crisis

#67

Post by imtringued »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #62
ethbr0 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, conventional central banking usually has the goals of "prevent another Great Depression" and "keep inflation under control." In that respect, they've been fairly successful. The side effects are... less good. But worse than a national depression? Eh.

https://jwmason.org/slackwire/at-jacobin-the-fed-doesnt-work... well start with those side effects: inflation is kept in check by beating back workers whenever they get to powerful. Then take into account how lousy growth has been since the 1970s when they started doing that. If we could have had depressions but more amortized growth, and not "jobless recoveries" and anemic amortized growth, would that have been wors…

That's why they changed the inflation target. If your goal is 2% then you have to raise rates before you even hit 2% nipping full employment in the bud. If you target an average rate of 2% then having a year with 5% and four with less than 2% lets you balance things out.

Edit:

I read the article and it basically boils down to rich people benefiting from low inflation because it doesn't erode their deposits and makes stocks/housing go up without increasing wages. It's pretty much true but it is also so obvious to be boring. Money from the past is power from the past.

Maintaining the value of money earned 60 years ago is the same as maintaining power obtained 60 years ago. Holding onto money doesn't help workers be more productive so if they spent their 60 year old money it would get eroded by inflation. You therefore need to add some slack in the labor supply that is not used up by anyone, meaning nobody is going to miss that labor if it is paid by 60 year old dollars that would otherwise result in inflation if there were full employment.

Re: America's “Friendscape” Crisis

#69

Post by rytcio »

ethbr0 wrote: post #14
UnpossibleJim wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As unpopular as this might be to say, and as environmentally unfriendly as it is, I've known my neighbors in every house I lived in; even when my friends and I rented a house in college, and after I was done with college, and I've rented houses with friends. They weren't always thrilled to see renters move in, but when we mowed the grass or were grilling, etc. you're forced to look over the fence and say "hey". Apart…

One thing I've been confused about, from the time I've visited friends and (briefly) lived in big box condo / apartment buildings... why aren't there more community spaces? And no, I don't mean "the pool" or "the weight room." I mean actual lounge areas. Social areas. Hell, even Marriott's Residence Inns do a better job than your average building.

Would people actually hang out there?

Re: America's “Friendscape” Crisis

#70

Post by rytcio »

perl4ever wrote: post #63
blooalien wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> … "for most Americans, even upper middle class, holding on to their jobs is a matter of life and death." Can 100% confirm. I've gone from earning $50 an hour (back when that was a lot of money) to a successful career owning/operating my own businesses to living in constant pain and misery that I can't even afford to visit a doctor for, and thanks to the societal gray area I fall into (not being a homeless drug addi…

I'm scratching my head, because this sounds like the Republican talking points from a few years ago about why we must "repeal and replace" the ACA. But you're not mentioning the ACA or any right wing key words/phrases, so I'm confused what your message (what action should be prescribed) and target audience are. If holding on to your job is totally a matter of life and death today, that seems like a really clear and c…

Obamacare drastically raised insurance costs
Post reply on HN