531–540 of 1001 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asset prices are extremely high. When politicians or business journalists say “the economy is doing well” they mean asset prices. The stock market is high on a number of metrics, which is great if you own a bunch of equities. Housing prices are soaring, which is great if you own real estate. Food, housing, energy, healthcare, education. Real wage growth and job security measured against the prices and durations of th…
> Food, housing, energy, healthcare, education. Real wage growth and job security measured against the prices and durations of those things. That’s what matters to people who don’t own significant real assets, those are the things that can get extremely bad (someone tries to murder the CEO of United Healthcare on the street bad) without showing up in the numbers you see in the press. You're correct that they do matte…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tech is the problem. The internet is global (or perhaps two or three regions), and winner takes all - so global value creation is being experienced everywhere, but being monetised in the US stock market. I don't really understand what you mean. While their reach is global, it's largely American companies that are creating the tech value, no?
They're creating "value" the same way the British Empire did for China around 1800. It's almost 1:1 the same dynamic. Bad decision-making of individuals is exploited to make them act against the best interests of their country and ultimately themselves, causing money to flow outwards in exchange for virtually nothing, which is then used to import things of actual value from the hapless victims. A modern twist on this…
But, uusshh, don't disturb the free market. That is until you start making high tech and quality vehicles and then we need to invent new words for such a free market.
One of America’s biggest rivals is in fact the EU and a unified Eurasian continent. But luckily the ties connecting this continent literally blew up, the price of energy in Western Europe skyrocketed and it sent Germany (and thus the whole EU) into a recession. Even better, these “allies” are being forced to fund their own demise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US Federal Reserve studies indicate that the percentage of US households with no excess income after necessary expenses (as distinct from "ordinary expenses" as a term of art) is on the order of 10-15%. This definition roughly matches most people's intuition of what "living paycheck-to-paycheck" means. That isn't nothing but it implies 85-90% of Americans are not actually living paycheck-to-paycheck. There is another…
Does this also account for things like Healthcare costs?
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.
Some of the population is definitely thriving. Although, does that reflect in higher quality of life? Some statistics say no. The best quality of life is where there is good access to quality healthcare, education, clean air and water, culture, and low crime. When taking into account all the above, somewhat surprisingly, Austria and Switzerland come as top places to live. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_quality_of…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2024/09/10/new...
And the US is massive and diverse, with many states larger than those other countries. If you look at quality of life across US states, it’s likely the best states (think New Hampshire versus Mississippi) would outrank all those countries, since the average across all states ranked #3.
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.
US Federal Reserve studies indicate that the percentage of US households with no excess income after necessary expenses (as distinct from "ordinary expenses" as a term of art) is on the order of 10-15%. This definition roughly matches most people's intuition of what "living paycheck-to-paycheck" means. That isn't nothing but it implies 85-90% of Americans are not actually living paycheck-to-paycheck. There is another…
Any chance to translate to plain english? The keywords "neccesary" and "ordinary" indicate rhetorical bullshit is afoot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US Federal Reserve studies indicate that the percentage of US households with no excess income after necessary expenses (as distinct from "ordinary expenses" as a term of art) is on the order of 10-15%. This definition roughly matches most people's intuition of what "living paycheck-to-paycheck" means. That isn't nothing but it implies 85-90% of Americans are not actually living paycheck-to-paycheck. There is another…
IMO a major deficiency in this calculation is children. Raising children costs money, and families without enough income may not feel that they can afford to raise children, and they may therefore not have children. This means that their income looks better than it really ought to, and it also reduces the birth rate. And, while the US’s birth rate is not catastrophically low, it is below replacement. This may have so…
In most countries with falling birthrates (save some exceptions like Japan) a huge part of this decrease is in the 15-25 age group. There is usually also a decline in the 25-29 but there's an increase or the same rates as we've had historically on the 30+ range.
What this mean is basically that we've eradicated teen pregnancy, and that's definitely something desirable in a developed society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US Federal Reserve studies indicate that the percentage of US households with no excess income after necessary expenses (as distinct from "ordinary expenses" as a term of art) is on the order of 10-15%. This definition roughly matches most people's intuition of what "living paycheck-to-paycheck" means. That isn't nothing but it implies 85-90% of Americans are not actually living paycheck-to-paycheck. There is another…
> households with no excess income after necessary expenses (as distinct from "ordinary expenses" as a term of art) is on the order of 10-15%. Any chance to translate to plain english? The keywords "neccesary" and "ordinary" indicate rhetorical bullshit is afoot.
A Netflix subscription is ordinary but not necessary.