91–100 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.
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…
Here's how I like to argue it:
TVs might be cheaper "per unit of TV", but it's also difficult to just buy a basic TV. This is also offset intensely by "shrinkflation", which applies as much to durable goods (cheapening components) as it does to food. So you end up stuck with a bunch of "extra TV" that you don't need or want, effectively providing 0 utility, while the core product is lower-quality, even further lowering utility. And meanwhile economists deny that there is a problem because when you average it all out, you do technically pay less per abstracted unit of TV.
The reason this happens is because it ultimately leads to better profit margins for manufacturers. "We make 'em like they used to!" isn't enough of a differentiating factor for most consumers, who are deliberately kept under-educated and constantly bombarded with p̶r̶o̶p̶a̶g̶a̶n̶d̶a̶ advertising and marketing. If you can sell a TV for $100, do you want to spend $10 manufacturing the TV, or do you want to spend $5 manufacturing the TV and $0.25 adding some onboard computer and software to make it "smart" (marketing!) while skimming off a huge data/ad revenue stream as essentially free money on the side?
Moreover, luxury goods are somewhat irrelevant if your basic economic needs become less affordable. Maybe TVs are cheaper "per unit", but housing, healthcare, food, and energy are not. Those are literally all of the basic human needs except one (water), recognizable as such in even the most primitive of ancient societies. And water is problematic ("expensive" in terms of consumer welfare) in much of the USA for reasons other than pure financial cost.
Edit: None of the above should be construed as advocacy or apology for chart-crimes and misleading reports based thereupon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Housing is another red herring, of course, because the average new American home is 2x bigger now than it was in the 70s. Roughly speaking 1 square foot of the average home costs exactly the same as it used to in the 1970s. [1] And the average family has become smaller. So yes, housing is more expensive in big cities but that's because of zoning as Mr. Andreessen will tell you. Just because houses have gotten bigge…
Part of the discrepancy here - and housing needs its own entire article - is how low interest rates factor into affordability. In the 80's, a 30-year fixed cost 18%. Last year it was 2.5%.
On a monthly basis (which is how many calculate affordability) a $166K loan at 18% APR is $2500/mth. A $635K loan at 2.5% APR is $2500/mth. These houses are equally affordable on a monthly basis. Even though one home is $200K and the other is $800K. The only delta is the down payment.
One of the items this article doesn't cover is healthcare spending, which has increased between 2 and 8 times since 1980 (depending on whether you're looking at individual spending or share of GDP). Here's a decent collection of charts: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spe... It has been shocking to me to see how cheap and effective healthcare can be in other countries, from an emergency visit…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXzvjBYW8A
David Willets draws comparison of "boomers" to other generations, and includes what is paid into healthcare vs. what is consumed in a lifetime.
Actual quote is: “Gen Z dollars today have 86% less purchasing power than those from when baby boomers were in their twenties.”
Quite a different claim.
The proliferation of payment plans. Everyone can "afford" a flagship smartphone. Only 36$ per month Everyone can afford a car only : 340$ a month. numbers add up fast digging themselves into a hole
>Everyone can "afford" a flagship smartphone. Only 36$ per month Everyone can afford a car only : 340$ a month. But auto loans were around since the 20s. What changed? https://lendedu.com/blog/history-of-auto-lending-industry
I really feel for the younger than Gen X (which I am) groups. My older brothers who are boomers did have it easier (than me) and I had it easier than the younger groups. Purchasing power and a general decline in society's support along multiple axes for what most would call a 'normal' life really does make me think that some form of strife or revolution is coming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes sense, a Boomer in their twenties could buy a house and support a family of 4 with a high school education.
The joys of an industrial economy without too much automation.
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…
This I think warrants more than a footnote. A return to extreme class stratification is really quite bad, not just for those individuals affected but for society overall.