121–130 of 767 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The economy doubling in size helps most people even if the resulting wealth is unevenly distributed. Goods, services, technologies, jobs, etc are good.
If it did US life expectancy wouldn't lower today than it was in 2008.
Note this chart shows nominal dollars, not PPP-adjusted. The EU has certainly kept up with the US when looking at PPP GDP from 2008 to 2022: US grew from $14.8T to $25.5T EU grew from $14.3T to $24.3T What that means is that the prices of goods are inflated in the US compared to similar goods in the EU. That's all. Want something interesting? Look at China who grew from $10.0T to $30.3T over the same period (!) Sourc…
No one uses PPP for measuring growth, GDP PPP can increase whilst your economy contracts. PPP isn’t a good measure for population’s wealth or quality of life especially for developed economies either. The economy of the US is still twice that of the EU and its global purchasing power has also pretty much doubled.
Still, if PPP GDP increases, with all else being equal (eg. stable population) it would imply the standard of living is increasing.
That is why PPP GDP captures a more accurate measure of the real world.
Said another way, what truly matters isn't "GDP growth", but changes in purchasing power/quality of life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d like to point out that the open door policy to refugees came because Europe was trying to escape the demographic trap and the collapse of the social safety net. The hope was that young refugees would become net positive GDP contributors for decades, an idea borrowed from the US. If that has failed, it’s due to a failure of integration. Europe can actually be quite a racist place and in many ways the US is better…
> I’d like to point out that the open door policy to refugees came because Europe was trying to escape the demographic trap and the collapse of the social safety net. Also, the US was bombing a couple of Middle Eastern countries then: creating the said refugees who could reach Europe on foot and/or boat, but not the American mainland .
One day there will be a massive wave of climate refugees rushing out of the uninhabitable zone and there will be US soldiers in the border guard towers with flamethrowers. The US will welcome immigrants when it suits them and roast them when it doesn’t.
As I am in Berlin right now I’ll remind us it wouldn’t be the first time people on top of a wall had kill on sight orders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A rising tide obviously raises all ships, including the nation's poorest. To throw a wrench in that tired metaphor: a rising tide may raise all ships, but a fat lot of good that does to the poor, if it's only the well-of that can afford to buy a boat.
You're missing the point. Even the poor do better when there's more jobs available, more job mobility, more housing, more stores, etc. All things that are created by wealthy companies and individuals. Everyone, including our poorest, benefit from a growing economy. We just have to examine our average poverty-level person, and compare them to poverty-level persons of other nations to understand this point.
No I'm not. I know exactly the point you were making. I'm disputing it.
The problem is the devil is in the details, and both the tired metaphor and your defense of it leave those details unspecified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d like to point out that the open door policy to refugees came because Europe was trying to escape the demographic trap and the collapse of the social safety net. The hope was that young refugees would become net positive GDP contributors for decades, an idea borrowed from the US. If that has failed, it’s due to a failure of integration. Europe can actually be quite a racist place and in many ways the US is better…
In a developed country, low-skilled labor will be a net negative even if well integrated. That's the definition of being below the average of the recipient country.
Note this chart shows nominal dollars, not PPP-adjusted. The EU has certainly kept up with the US when looking at PPP GDP from 2008 to 2022: US grew from $14.8T to $25.5T EU grew from $14.3T to $24.3T What that means is that the prices of goods are inflated in the US compared to similar goods in the EU. That's all. Want something interesting? Look at China who grew from $10.0T to $30.3T over the same period (!) Sourc…
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/europeans-poorer-inflation-econ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it doesn't. Growth in the economy has to increase real wages, and real wages need to keep pace with housing, food, healthcare, etc increases in order to be meaningful. More jobs are only good if they actually provide a living wage.
> More jobs are only good if they actually provide a living wage. This is false if you spend even a few seconds thinking about it. Not all jobs are intended to "live" off of. Most of your entry-level jobs were supposed to be for highschool and college kids working part time. The problem is we have more and more people never graduating out of entry level positions, and today we have folks demanding those entry level p…
That doesn’t sound right. To me it seems obvious the problem is these jobs used to provide more purchasing power than they do today. The increased grievance would be because of this drop in purchasing power, not because people are suddenly demanding a “comfortable” (<- loaded word) lifestyle out of the blue.
German here. Austerity? Over-regulation? An oligopoly of tech-incompetent local enterprises? Just guessing here. As a student in 2007, I started being an avid follower of what Big Tech was doing and was flabbergasted that local tech enterprises didn't seem to notice or change anything. In CS at university they didn't teach programming (only as an aside) but all the funny theoretical OOP fluff that the community right…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one uses PPP for measuring growth, GDP PPP can increase whilst your economy contracts. PPP isn’t a good measure for population’s wealth or quality of life especially for developed economies either. The economy of the US is still twice that of the EU and its global purchasing power has also pretty much doubled.
We don't care about size of economy, we care about aspects of daily life of the average person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a developed country, low-skilled labor will be a net negative even if well integrated. That's the definition of being below the average of the recipient country.
Evidence? Evidence against: https://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/mariel-impact.pdf
Edit: the paper you linked mention the effect over wages, not over tax revenue and spending.