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

U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 345 posts

Re: U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

#201

Post by pradn »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #140

It’s always good to remind people that: GDP ~= Population * Productivity If your population growth flat-lines (which it did last year), productivity has to compensate. Can productivity compensate if the average age is getting older (people tend to be less productive after a certain median age)? One reason investing in index funds makes sense is the underlying assumption that global population growth keeps increasing…

A country with a declining population can keep a growing economy or low immigration, but not both. Some countries (the Anglophone countries, France, and Germany) are magnets for labor given their relatively high wages, standard of living, and multi-culturalism (racism and anti-immigrant politics are problems, but still). But others, like Japan (with low immigration) or Bulgaria (with low immigrant interest) can't reap the population dividend.

Perhaps you can pick two of three: a stagnant economy, low immigration, non-right-wing politics. Japan picks a stagnant economy and low immigration (Shinzo Abe though a nationalist was no Marine Le Pen). France picks a somewhat growing economy and somewhat high immigration, and suffers from the growth of right-wing anti-immigrant parties (Marine Le Pen won 40% of the vote recently).

Re: U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

#202

Post by germinalphrase »

gsibble wrote: post #181
germinalphrase wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m skeptical. For one example - more than 3.5 percent of the Hong Kong population showed up for a single protest , but the leviathan power still prevailed.

They weren't armed.

Did you read your own source? It specifically calls out 3.5 percent nonviolent protest as 2x more effective than violent protest.

In any case, it is far more logically that a core of highly motivated protestors causes sudden political revolution because they represent the unrealized/unstated preferences of a popular majority. I don’t believe this is likely in this situation as that cohort’s displeasure is largely due to mass culture (and associated forms of economic, social influence) moving further and further away from them.

Re: U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

#203

Post by dntrkv »

danaris wrote: post #130
dntrkv wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re confusing people’s online rhetoric with their IRL interactions. If there was no civil war after 2008, there sure as hell won’t be one this time when people are doing better by most metrics. American’s financial situations are actually quite good right now. Everybody is just anxious as fuck, for many reasons.

Um...that sounds like the words of someone in a bubble. People are not doing that well right now, and there's a lot of anger between the people who are doing the worst, and the people who are doing fine and saying "America's financial situations are actually quite good right now."

I am an immigrant and have a large family within a community that would be classified as "lower-income" and I'm pretty in-tune with their perspective. I support my family financially now, and I will be supporting my parents in their retirement. I grew up poor and I understand the anxiety and stress that comes with it. I just recently spoke with my grandmother who is on a fixed income and is having trouble paying for basic necessities because of the recent inflation. I'm not blind to these struggles.

I'm not saying everybody is doing great. I'm saying that if you look at the stats of average American's personal finances, they are in pretty good shape. That doesn't mean there isn't a decent chunk of the population that is struggling. That doesn't mean there isn't a housing crisis across the country. That doesn't mean inflation isn't hitting these lower-income groups harder.

These issues are very real and are a major part of what is making everyone anxious. But in the context of the conversation, people are not getting ready to war with each other.

Re: U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

#204

Post by gruez »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #191
bitcurious wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my neck of the woods, by far the largest and most impactful inflation has been in the housing sector - 50% price inflation over the past two years. This is entirely attributable to the Fed's pumping of soft assets like stocks, leading to a bunch of paper millionaires cashing out.

Housing inflation is also exacerbated by low interest rates. I think severe taxes for unoccupied homes is a better solution than bumping rates though, as houses are already completely unaffordable for most and a rate hike just makes that worse for many while not limiting firms that buy in cash.

>I think severe taxes for unoccupied homes is a better solution than bumping rates though

Yeah but unoccupied units is only a few % in the hottest housing markets. This makes sense, considering that the opportunity cost of leaving a home empty is higher if the rent is higher. Because of this I'm inclined to believe it's popular-but-ineffective intervention, like banning foreign buyers (which also make up a few % of overall sales)

Re: U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

#205

Post by JKCalhoun »

incomingpain wrote: post #18
JKCalhoun wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A civil pillar like food scarcity will spark more than civil unrest. Probably will be civil war before midterms happen. Like what happened with the Great Depression? I saw no mention of food shortages in the article. My sense is that civil wars are when states/governments fight, not hungry people. You could have stopped at civil unrest.

Arab spring is a more modern example. https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-russia-bread-food-pr... https://medium.com/something-about-everything/food-riots-and... >My sense is that civil wars are when states/governments fight, not hungry people. You could have stopped at civil unrest. What happens when food is scarce and people are starving for possibly the first time in their life? Anxiety, depression, etc is wel…

You're still mixing up food riots with civil war. Bit of a leap there.

Leave it at civil unrest.

Re: U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

#206

Post by dragonwriter »

gruez wrote: post #198
lisper wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is also good to keep in mind that GDP is not a good measure of societal well-being. If GDP double but the population quadruples, most people living at the end of that process would not consider it to be a good outcome.

That's why you use GDP per capita for that.

GDP per Capita is not a good measure of societal well-being either, since it doesn't reflect distribution of anything, just aggregate production.

Re: U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

#207

Post by mywittyname »

russdill wrote: post #199
mensetmanusman wrote: post #140

It’s always good to remind people that: GDP ~= Population * Productivity If your population growth flat-lines (which it did last year), productivity has to compensate. Can productivity compensate if the average age is getting older (people tend to be less productive after a certain median age)? One reason investing in index funds makes sense is the underlying assumption that global population growth keeps increasing…

I feel like you're using that equation in a bit backwards way. If suddenly, everyone between the ages of 0 and 5 vanished, it would have a huge effect on the population, but at first take, zero effect on the GDP since presumably that age group is not involved in production. With a second approximation, you might say that GDP would increase since parental childcare is not part of the GDP and those parents could instea…

Parents of 0 to 5 year olds spend an assload of money on them.

Re: U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

#208

Post by lisper »

gruez wrote: post #198
lisper wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is also good to keep in mind that GDP is not a good measure of societal well-being. If GDP double but the population quadruples, most people living at the end of that process would not consider it to be a good outcome.

That's why you use GDP per capita for that.

Yes, that was my point. Everyone focuses on GDP but that is not the metric that matters. GDP per capita is the metric that matters (for everyone except the elites at the very top).

Re: U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

#209

Post by lisper »

dragonwriter wrote: post #206
gruez wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why you use GDP per capita for that.

GDP per Capita is not a good measure of societal well-being either, since it doesn't reflect distribution of anything, just aggregate production.

That's true. But if GDP per capita goes up, even if GDP goes down, your odds of having society being better off as a result are much better than if GDP goes up while GDP per capita goes down.

Re: U.S. economy shrank at a 1.4% annual rate in the first quarter

#210

Post by Wowfunhappy »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #140

It’s always good to remind people that: GDP ~= Population * Productivity If your population growth flat-lines (which it did last year), productivity has to compensate. Can productivity compensate if the average age is getting older (people tend to be less productive after a certain median age)? One reason investing in index funds makes sense is the underlying assumption that global population growth keeps increasing…

If there are fewer people to consume the fruits of productivity, does GDP decline matter?
Post reply on HN