Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

derekthompson.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

#971

Post by tzs »

phtrivier wrote: post #955
tzs wrote: post #880

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boomers only slightly favored Trump in 2024. Young voters (Gen Z) went Harris by 10 points. People in the first ~1/2 of middle age (Millennials) slightly favored Harris. It was the second ~1/2 of middle age (Gen X) that were pro Trump, by 6 points. Boomers had the best turnout. 31% of eligible voters but 40% of actual voters. Gen X was 28% of eligible voters and 26% of actual voters. Millennials were also 28% of elig…

A group "slightly" favoring Harris, thanks to the electoral college, is a group that favors Trump :P Also, gen z favored Haris by ONLY 10 points ? As in 55/45 ? Isn't the stat usually more on the order of 60/40 (if not 65/35) for this age group ?

But also due to the electoral college a small change in turnout in swing states can have a large effect. None of the swing states had higher than average Boomer concentration. Pennsylvania is right about average, and the rest were all lower.

Gen Z went for Biden by 24 points, but the shifted right for 2024 so only went for Harris by 10.

Millennials were similar, going for Biden by 19.

Gen X favored Trump in 2020 by about about 6% and in 2024 by about 8%.

Only Boomers have moved left. They favored Trump by 8% over Clinton, about 5% over Biden, but then only 1-2% over Harris.

Re: If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

#972

Post by nsxwolf »

cpburns2009 wrote: post #935
nsxwolf wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint, suburbs are awesome. Can’t wait to watch all my fruit trees about to bloom.

My pink crabapple is developing beautiful buds this year. Last year there was a windstorm that blew off all the flowers right before it reached full bloom.

Last year my crabapple, going into its 12th year, decided to almost double in size. Apparently that used up all its energy and there were almost no buds at all. It was very sad.

This year it just completely exploded with flowers, more than making up for that disappointment.

Re: If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

#973

Post by tzs »

autoexec wrote: post #784
HDBaseT wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 1999 Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla, assuming serviced regularly (and competently) could easily be on the road today. I genuinely do not believe a 2025 car will usable on the road in 2035 (a mere 9 years), yet known 15 or 20 years from now. They are all too hamstrung by technology and whilst some of the technology is an improvement, a vast majority if malicious.

> I genuinely do not believe a 2025 car will usable on the road in 2035 If it is you'll probably be forced to pay a monthly subscription

You can buy current cars that do not require any subscription services. For example on my 2025 Hyundai here is what would stop working without a Bluelink subscription.

• Anything you do through the Bluelink app.

• Automatic calling for help after a collision, enhanced roadside assistance (sends GPS coordinates to help center so you don't have to know where you are to get help), and features to track and immobilize stolen vehicles.

• The navigation system loses access to live traffic data and live routing (routing the frequently checks with a server to update routes based on live and historical traffic patterns). Local search also degrades or maybe goes away.

• OTA updates for the navigation system. If you want to update its maps and databases you can download the update from their site to a thumb drive, and then install it via that.

What keeps working:

• All the driver assist and driving safety features like adaptive cruise control, lane finding/keeping, cross traffic warnings, and similar.

• CarPlay and Android Auto.

• The radio in the infotainment system. You can connect your phone via Bluetooth or USB (without using CarPlay or Android Auto) to stream music and handle phone calls.

Re: If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

#974

Post by tmvphil »

tensor wrote: post #604
Taikonerd wrote: post #107

The article is smarter than the title makes it sound. He's not seriously proposing that being rich makes you happy. And he notes that there's a big drop around 2020 specifically , which long-term trends don't explain. Just to state the obvious: 2020 was the year of COVID, which played hell with peoples' social lives. And I think it's been pretty well-proven that happiness is largely driven by the strength and quality…

Actually it's extremely well documented in science studies that money absolutely makes you happy up to a certain point. Basically if you don't have a home and food due to not enough funds, then yes money absolutely equals happiness. Inequality has grown to the point where the majority of younger people now have no hope of ever owning a home, and even large parts of the country are struggling with something as basic a…

No, happiness increases linearly with log(money), well beyond basic necessities https://happiness-science.org/price-of-happiness/

Re: If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

#975

Post by johnsmith1840 »

tim333 wrote: post #959
johnsmith1840 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you've seen starving people if this is your opinion. I have never seen someone in america starving.

I wasn't really saying starving. Just hungry enough to come ask for food and eat it. I think the lady in question was likely drug addicted but even so usually even the addicts are fed.

Ok that's understandable and I agree then.

We have a real problem of just letting people be homelss forever. If someone's a drug addict here they effectively can stay one forever. Any money they get can go to the drug and all other ammenities are used.

Re: If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

#976

Post by johnsmith1840 »

cguess wrote: post #571
johnsmith1840 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you've seen starving people if this is your opinion. I have never seen someone in america starving.

Oh boy, you're not paying attention or you're in a bubble. Not usually distended belly-famine starving, sure, but malnutrition is rife in many rural and impoverished counties in the country.

I would have agreed until I went abroad.

I distinctly remember seeing the mother and child in a dark stairwell mother thin as a rail sitting on dirt and trash the woman barely lucid baby wailing.

Or the old man begging on the corner with one arm clearly starving in nothing but a fabric cloth pants the bones sticking out like nothing I've seen before.

Malnutrition by western standards is bs you're either dying or you're not. Most of the world does not live on a balanced diet.

Re: If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

#977

Post by hunterpayne »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #860
hunterpayne wrote: post #846

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its urbanization that causes that. COVID had nothing do with it.

It’s women’s rights that causes that. Turns out, making and raising a baby more than one or two times is not a preferred option. And zero is preferred a lot of times too.

That correlation doesn't hold. There are plenty of places with few women's rights and big cities that have a low birth rates.

Re: If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

#978

Post by WalterBright »

mbfg wrote: post #968
WalterBright wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America's wealth is not a pie that gets divvied up. For example, Musk created the wealth he has. It wasn't distributed to him from others. > 90% of Americans are not rich. Compared to 250 years ago, about 99% of Americans are rich.

This collection of people, well actually, more like the 1% set the tax rules. Compare the tax rules from 1970s, to today, and you will definitely see that wealth is a zero sum game.

> you will definitely see that wealth is a zero sum game.

I'm not seeing it. Maybe you could flesh it out a bit?

Re: If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

#979

Post by jltsiren »

hunterpayne wrote: post #835
fl4regun wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how would you measure "happiness" if you were tasked to do so for a study?

Well, for one...if Ireland and Finland come out on top, you are doing it wrong. That should have been your first clue that the "study" is clearly doing something wrong. Also, if you don't know how easy it is to game a study...well then you have never conducted a study.

The "happiness" in the World Happiness Report is an imperfect translation for a Bhutanese concept. Most discussions about it go astray when people assume that the report is supposed to measure the translated concept.

Roughly speaking, GDP is often used to measure the performance of the economy and as an imperfect proxy for the wellbeing of the people. Bhutan developed the "Gross National Happiness" index and convinced the UN that it should also measure something similar. The Human Development Index already measured the objective aspects of wellbeing, and the World Happiness Report ended up measuring the subjective aspects.

In other words, happiness in this context is not supposed to be about how people feel but about if life is good in general. And you are supposed to compare it to HDI and GDP per capita to see if a country is perfoming better or worse than it's expected to.

Re: If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

#980

Post by lotsofpulp »

hunterpayne wrote: post #977
lotsofpulp wrote: post #860

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s women’s rights that causes that. Turns out, making and raising a baby more than one or two times is not a preferred option. And zero is preferred a lot of times too.

That correlation doesn't hold. There are plenty of places with few women's rights and big cities that have a low birth rates.

It's not a correlation, it's a conditional statement.

If women have the option to choose, then the vast majority choose 0, 1, or 2 kids. This conditional statement is upheld by basically all the total fertility rate trends in the world.

I'm seeing the same trends in rural and urban areas.

See figure 1:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17441730.2024.2...

Post reply on HN