541–550 of 1001 posts
I realize we must reason in terms of states, but the real players make moves that states will go iut of their way to avoid recognizing. We MUST move beyond states and into mayor holders of capital as primary entities of meaning in this world. The state's peak was sometime between 1995 and 2005.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How do I reconcile this? I'm curious why you care that some people have more money than you do? If you want mo' moolah: 1. upgrade your job skills 2. minimize spending (like get a roommate, eschew restaurant food, buy a used car) 3. invest the money you save If you really want to make big money: 1. start your own business
> If you really want to make big money: 1. start your own business I'm pretty sure that in my case that would be a fast way to lose a lot of money, but YYMV, I guess.
80% of people who start a business lose money on it. Hence, making a lot of money on a business is quite unusual, not the norm.
I tend to agree with the objective data showing economic strength here. I think a big cross section of the country was just struck by nothing less than a mania.
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.
Stop measuring GDP and instead measure the total income of the bottom 50% of the population and optimize policy for that. Additions and exits from this group can also be tracked. We get what we measure. Will this raise income inequality?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.
Based on what I’m seeing on YT from financial influencers, people are burning cash by purchasing cars they can’t afford
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?
This is an interesting take, because it contrasts with GDP PPP [0] which is suggesting that America is in fact being overtaken by its rivals although it has managed to outpace the EU. China is claiming to already be ahead and India is well on track to gain absolute economic ascendancy relative to the US. And I expect that Asia is going to start developing some serious military muscle on the back of that because they…
GDP PPP is meaningless for both geopolitical power and what it means for the average citizen.
The average citizen in EU is much better than the one in China/India despite what the PPP numbers suggest as GDP per captaincy matters more.
China and Russia resort to bartering due to US sanctions because GDP matters, and not GDP PPP [1].
PPP should be used to compare only similar countries like USA/Canada/UK or those in EU. Or countries in SEA.
[1] https://www.intellinews.com/china-russia-to-reintroduce-bart...
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…
Most of the significant expenses people describe are optional. It is more rational to match your spending to what you can afford with howevermany kids than it is to match the number of kids you have to an arbitrary lifestyle.
I like Vinod Khosla's take (on Twitter): Stop measuring GDP and instead measure the total income of the bottom 50% of the population and optimize policy for that. Additions and exits from this group can also be tracked. We get what we measure. Will this raise income inequality?