371–380 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The homeless is just more visible than it used to be. https://www.statista.com/statistics/555795/estimated-number-...
From my perspective all that chart shows is that it’s been pervasive issue for at least the last 2 decades. I don’t think that homelessness is any more or less visible now than it has been, at least in my lifetime.
I've never known more homeless people before in my life in America, seems like its only the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and less healthy.
And I know zero homeless people. Anecdotal observations are meaningless with respect to a multi-trillion dollar economy with hundreds of millions of participants.
Anecdotal evidence alone is worthless, but paired with statistical evidence it isn't. And we have that evidence.
Also: you "not knowing" a homeless person is itself anecdotal and not only that: it is actually worse than the evidence you attacked.
The critiqued evidence is about how many of X a person sees. That isn't perfect, as it depends and how observant that person is and how much they go out (and where). Your counter of "not knowing" is by magnitudes worse, since on top of the previous flaws your number now also depends on how sociable you are towards homeless people (given the sentiment displayed I guess: not at all).
So not only is your criticism wrong, you are actually at fault of the very method you critizised — only to a much higher degree.
The results of the last election tell a much different story. If the economy was soaring for the average person then I don’t think control of the government would have changed or at least not as dramatically.
I've never known more homeless people before in my life in America, seems like its only the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and less healthy.
>seems like its only the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and less healthy. At least in the past decade, the opposite has been happening. >[...] Even after taxes and transfers, the average real income of households like his grew by 110% from 1990 to 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). But most of that growth took place early in the time period: in 2019 he was probably doing worse…
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wealth-distribution-in-amer...
But is the majority of the population thriving? It is very misleading (at best) to say the economy is strong when a good chunk of the population live paycheck to paycheck. A handful of companies are thriving, but barely any of its employees.
Article: "For all its economic power, the US has the largest income inequality in the G7, coupled with the lowest life expectancy and the highest housing costs, according to the OECD. Market competition is limited and millions of workers endure unstable employment conditions." That's pretty stark. But the U.S. outperformance on GDP growth and productivity growth is very real over the last 5-15 years especialy and has…
This is already being answered by reports like the one in the FT
> 2. can the U.S. preserve its competitiveness and overall GDP performance if it imposes more regulations/taxes designed to reduce income disparities, provide more social services, etc.
No, because it will turn the US into a country like all the ones mentioned in question 1
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But is the majority of the population thriving? Looking at the numbers: low unemployment, strong consumer spending, average income increasing at a rate higher than inflation, I'd say the majority is doing better than most years. They might not feel that way though, and we've been in a continuous vibes-cession since COVID.
Well, let's go: > low unemployment In an economy where you can easily deliver packages or drive uber, there will always be close to zero unemployment. This number stopped making sense a few years ago. > strong consumer spending In a high inflation environment, one has to consume "strongly" just to maintain the same standards of living. > average income increasing at a rate higher than inflation If you underreport inf…
Part time employment is roughly where it was in absolute numbers (not even per capita) in 2009. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12600000
> In a high inflation environment, one has to consume "strongly" just to maintain the same standards of living.
You're wrong here too. Here's a chart that's inflation-adjusted: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEC96
> If you underreport inflation
Ah I see... your entire worldview is predicated on just assuming different facts than what your interlocutors are. Feel free to substantiate this rather fundamental claim.
> That is pop psychology at its worst. Nobody cares about feelings, you just need to look at the numbers in a critical way.
"Look at the numbers in a critical way" is an interesting framing of "make shit up."
But is the majority of the population thriving? It is very misleading (at best) to say the economy is strong when a good chunk of the population live paycheck to paycheck. A handful of companies are thriving, but barely any of its employees.
> But is the majority of the population thriving? Looking at the numbers: low unemployment, strong consumer spending, average income increasing at a rate higher than inflation, I'd say the majority is doing better than most years. They might not feel that way though, and we've been in a continuous vibes-cession since COVID.
I'm reminded of this excerpt from 1984:
But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of the time you were expected to make them up out of your head. For example, the Ministry of Plenty's forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at 145 million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been overfulfilled. In any case, sixty-two millions was no nearer the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than 145 millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still, nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared. All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot. And so it was with every class of recorded fact, great or small. Everything faded away into a shadow-world in which, finally, even the date of the year had become uncertain.
---
Of course, I'm sure none of that would ever apply to our numbers, only to those of our opponents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But is the majority of the population thriving? Looking at the numbers: low unemployment, strong consumer spending, average income increasing at a rate higher than inflation, I'd say the majority is doing better than most years. They might not feel that way though, and we've been in a continuous vibes-cession since COVID.
Family needs to make $107,700 a year to own a home. Apartment in a moderate-cost area is about $70,000-$100,000/year. Median salary in the US is $59,300 What considered poverty level in the US for: 1 person: $15,060 2 people: $20,440 3 people: $25,820 4 people: $31,200 According to recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau, around 50% of Americans make $70,000 or more annually. That means about 50% of the US can not af…
I don't see how that computes. The internet suggests that, on the high end, a family will spend around $10,000 on home repairs, maintenance, and insurance, which is in line with my experience. So almost $100,000 in yearly property taxes for a typical family home? Not a chance.
I suspect you are thinking of buying a home rather than owning a home, but homes are bought with wealth, not income, so an income figure here doesn't make much sense if that is, in fact, what you are thinking of. If that is not what you are thinking of, I, for one, don't understand what you are trying to say. This figure doesn't seem to have any applicability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But is the majority of the population thriving? Looking at the numbers: low unemployment, strong consumer spending, average income increasing at a rate higher than inflation, I'd say the majority is doing better than most years. They might not feel that way though, and we've been in a continuous vibes-cession since COVID.
Family needs to make $107,700 a year to own a home. Apartment in a moderate-cost area is about $70,000-$100,000/year. Median salary in the US is $59,300 What considered poverty level in the US for: 1 person: $15,060 2 people: $20,440 3 people: $25,820 4 people: $31,200 According to recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau, around 50% of Americans make $70,000 or more annually. That means about 50% of the US can not af…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But is the majority of the population thriving? Looking at the numbers: low unemployment, strong consumer spending, average income increasing at a rate higher than inflation, I'd say the majority is doing better than most years. They might not feel that way though, and we've been in a continuous vibes-cession since COVID.
Well, let's go: > low unemployment In an economy where you can easily deliver packages or drive uber, there will always be close to zero unemployment. This number stopped making sense a few years ago. > strong consumer spending In a high inflation environment, one has to consume "strongly" just to maintain the same standards of living. > average income increasing at a rate higher than inflation If you underreport inf…
Strong disagree: you can't spend what you don't have (or can't borrow), so spending is a vital signal.
There's a natural experiment that just happened that refutes your argument: after Covid, most of the world had high inflation (with some actual recessions), but the US did better than everyone else, with stronger American consumer spending helping the recovery (leading to more jobs to service the strong demand). Your argument falls apart when you consider why UK or French consumers consume as "strongly" to maintain their lifestyles.
> If you underreport inflation, then the average income will increase faster.
There's no one way to calculate inflation (since this depends on how you choose your 'basket'). But like I said, based on vibes, everything is awful.