61–70 of 314 posts
I don't understand why people compare now to before (Boomer adolescence) in the United States. The USA basically had no competition when Boomers were in their 20s. All of the major powers destroyed themselves and their economy. I'd be interested to see this analysis done per country.
It seems the annual income vs. CPI is the core chart here. Something happened in the decade of 2000-2010 to throw things out of whack. I'm not informed enough to know if that was the result of policy decisions or what, but I'd like to know how wage growth declined so dramatically during this time while prices seemed to maintain its projected linear growth.
Boomers in their twenties were mostly working. Gen Z in their twenties is finishing college, working towards a master's or even a PhD. EDIT: No value judgments here. This is just a fact, people entered the active workforce earlier.
Makes sense, a Boomer in their twenties could buy a house and support a family of 4 with a high school education.
It seems the annual income vs. CPI is the core chart here. Something happened in the decade of 2000-2010 to throw things out of whack. I'm not informed enough to know if that was the result of policy decisions or what, but I'd like to know how wage growth declined so dramatically during this time while prices seemed to maintain its projected linear growth.
One thing jumps out in my mind. I think of the 2000s as being the decade in which tech companies that survived the dot com bust turned into tech giants. And these companies would go on to rack up market caps that broke historical records. I remember everyone was sort of in awe of the numbers and generally had a pretty positive sentiment towards the success. However, I'm not sure I can craft a really clear narrative t…
but the famous productivity/wage gap chart shows it started in the 70s to 80s. What makes you think it's due to the dotcom bubble?
It seems the annual income vs. CPI is the core chart here. Something happened in the decade of 2000-2010 to throw things out of whack. I'm not informed enough to know if that was the result of policy decisions or what, but I'd like to know how wage growth declined so dramatically during this time while prices seemed to maintain its projected linear growth.
One thing jumps out in my mind. I think of the 2000s as being the decade in which tech companies that survived the dot com bust turned into tech giants. And these companies would go on to rack up market caps that broke historical records. I remember everyone was sort of in awe of the numbers and generally had a pretty positive sentiment towards the success. However, I'm not sure I can craft a really clear narrative t…
To be fair, most (the vast majority) of people I know in gen z I know works significantly less hard than my parents did, I did, etc. Those who do work hard are fairly well off. They work two jobs, didn’t go to college, but own their homes and have a steady income. There’s definitely systemic issues, but work ethic is the major issue. And that’s a cultural issue. Would you want the gen z you know building your house?…
Any possibility this perceived "less-hard" working is an effect rather than a cause?
> Those who do work hard are fairly well off. They work two jobs, didn’t go to college, but own their homes and have a steady income.
Any possibility that Baby Boomers achieved this with just one job?
> There’s definitely systemic issues, but work ethic is the major issue. And that’s a cultural issue.
> Would you want the gen z you know building your house? I know some that I would, but not many.
I'd take literally any Gen Z to build me a house because I'd know how to compensate them for their work. It's largely unskilled/low-skilled labor, hence why almost anyone with some physical fitness and capability (Gen Z or otherwise) can do it.
Bear in mind: lots of Gen Z are children of Gen X and may have already witnessed the negative impact of inequality on Gen X and Millennials, which could very well be the "cause" for lower perceived participation in the workforce among Gen Z.
Either way, this is an exceptionally low-EQ take.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What good is cheaper tech if we just use that to add more features and keep the same price? You could get a TV for less than $50 if it had the same features and processing power as it did in 2002. Same for computers. Imagine how cheap we could make a car that only has the features we had in the 90’s? Even if you include the mandatory passive safety upgrades.
I'd be first in line for a new car that only has the features of cars from the 1990s.
I don't understand why people compare now to before (Boomer adolescence) in the United States. The USA basically had no competition when Boomers were in their 20s. All of the major powers destroyed themselves and their economy. I'd be interested to see this analysis done per country.
The US economy is thriving. The profits just aren't getting to actual workers.
At least they can buy cheap TVs, right? I wonder if we can finally accept that just because things like phones and TVs got better faster than purchasing power got worse, doesn't mean that it hasn't been getting worse for a while. I'd even go so far to say that technical progress in a couple areas has hidden some pretty stark declines. Or at least allowed some people to point at shiny things getting better when compla…
As usual, there's a few chart crimes in here. Chart 1 shows CPI and inflation adjusted wages on the same graph? Why? Inflation adjusted wages already take into account CPI. There's no sensible reason to plot these two on the same graph. The caption is "wages are up 80% but that didn't keep up with living costs" - you cannot draw that inference from this graph. This graph actually shows that in fact wages grew faster…
That's absolutely right - it's a gibberish chart.
At least they can buy cheap TVs, right? I wonder if we can finally accept that just because things like phones and TVs got better faster than purchasing power got worse, doesn't mean that it hasn't been getting worse for a while. I'd even go so far to say that technical progress in a couple areas has hidden some pretty stark declines. Or at least allowed some people to point at shiny things getting better when compla…
What good is cheaper tech if we just use that to add more features and keep the same price? You could get a TV for less than $50 if it had the same features and processing power as it did in 2002. Same for computers. Imagine how cheap we could make a car that only has the features we had in the 90’s? Even if you include the mandatory passive safety upgrades.