3 ms·

>Never occurs to them that maybe the failing retailers aren't delivering the value that their customers expect. Could they not be expecting more value because

>Never occurs to them that maybe the failing retailers aren't delivering the value that their customers expect. Could they not be expecting more value because their wages have stagnated? Wouldn't income inequality be the reason that the customers require the "value" to start with? Seeing as the affluent are willing to pay shopping mall mark-up and the middle class isn't, doesn't that point to income inequality? I'm just not sure why you view these explanations as mutually exclusive. The middle class brands are dying because the middle class can't afford them anymore. The wealthy would never have set foot in there to start.

massysett 11y ago
In an America where the middle class have supercomputers in their pockets, unlimited long-distance calling, cars with ten airbags, over a hundred channels of television, 3D movies, abundant food, air conditioning in their homes, and multi-gigabit broadband, I have grown increasingly skeptical that the "stagnant incomes" narrative is accurate.
- intopieces 11y ago
  >I have grown increasingly skeptical that the "stagnant incomes" narrative is accurate. This is a puzzling politicization of a topic that is basically uncontroversial among economists. In fact, the only thing the experts can't agree on is what's causing it[0]. Your analysis of the situation -- "Americans have too many toys to be considered poor" -- is staggeringly short-sighted. Rising cost of housing and medical care in the face of stagnating wages is a legitimate concern on many levels and informs the way our government crafts financial policy. It has huge implications across multiple sectors, including and especially the vaunted "tech sector." What happens when no one can afford to save for college and they incur massive debts? What effect does that have on the housing market, typically considered the bellweather of economic health? What happens when a generation (or more) never gets around to saving for retirement? What happens when a generation can't afford healthcare, even when its subsidized by the government? Income inequality is an important conversation to have; I urge you to not be blinded by superficial indicators of wealth. Mainly for your own sake - your retirement account is probably dependent on some crucial policy decisions being made based on this discussion. [0]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor...
  - massysett 11y ago
    All that economists agree on is that the number of pieces of paper in an average American wallet has stayed the same. The problem is that pieces of paper in a wallet are not intrinsically useful. They're only useful because they buy things. Since economists aren't asking what these pieces of paper buy, they're not asking the right questions. It is, of course, much easier to focus on dollars in the wallet, because that's easy to measure. Well-being is much harder to measure, and economists aren't doing much to answer that. "save for college" - few Americans have ever been so privileged to save for college, yet this has not stopped the ever-increasing average educational attainment for Americans. "save for retirement" - also a privilege few ever had, which is why we have Social Security. And I'm not going to cry much over the fate of retirees as they enjoy their Medicare Part D benefits, allowing them to take drugs that did not exist years ago. As for income inequality, I have never regarded this as an important conversation to have. Able has $100. Baker has $10. If inequality is the problem, then a good solution is to make Able have $50 and Baker have $9. I disagree that such an outcome would solve anything. It's a problem if Baker can't get ahead. It's a problem if the system is rigged in Able's favor. The mere fact that Able has $100 and Baker has $10 is not a problem. As someone who is far from the 1% I can say that I will be no better off if the rich have less and I have no more. Yet such an outcome would reduce inequality.
    - intopieces 11y ago
      >few Americans have ever been so privileged to save for college, yet this has not stopped the ever-increasing average educational attainment for Americans. Americans didn't have to. They could pay for it with a part time job. But the cost of college has risen far faster than wages, helped by cheap student loans from the government. >Which is why we have Social Security Social Security will need to be vastly expanded to keep up with an aging population. With a new generation having no pensions, retirement savings or property (student loans in lieu or mortgage), the next "middle class" doesn't look like much different than the working poor of today. The cost of living is not going down. The concern with income inequality is not that the rich are getting richer, it's that the middle class is getting poorer. And this has a ripple effect both inside the economy and into other areas: the justice system, politics, public safety. Lots of people can afford to ignore it now. It doesn't look like that is going to last, however.

massysett 11y ago

In an America where the middle class have supercomputers in their pockets, unlimited long-distance calling, cars with ten airbags, over a hundred channels of television, 3D movies, abundant food, air conditioning in their homes, and multi-gigabit broadband, I have grown increasingly skeptical that the "stagnant incomes" narrative is accurate.

intopieces 11y ago
>I have grown increasingly skeptical that the "stagnant incomes" narrative is accurate. This is a puzzling politicization of a topic that is basically uncontroversial among economists. In fact, the only thing the experts can't agree on is what's causing it[0]. Your analysis of the situation -- "Americans have too many toys to be considered poor" -- is staggeringly short-sighted. Rising cost of housing and medical care in the face of stagnating wages is a legitimate concern on many levels and informs the way our government crafts financial policy. It has huge implications across multiple sectors, including and especially the vaunted "tech sector." What happens when no one can afford to save for college and they incur massive debts? What effect does that have on the housing market, typically considered the bellweather of economic health? What happens when a generation (or more) never gets around to saving for retirement? What happens when a generation can't afford healthcare, even when its subsidized by the government? Income inequality is an important conversation to have; I urge you to not be blinded by superficial indicators of wealth. Mainly for your own sake - your retirement account is probably dependent on some crucial policy decisions being made based on this discussion. [0]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor...
- massysett 11y ago
  All that economists agree on is that the number of pieces of paper in an average American wallet has stayed the same. The problem is that pieces of paper in a wallet are not intrinsically useful. They're only useful because they buy things. Since economists aren't asking what these pieces of paper buy, they're not asking the right questions. It is, of course, much easier to focus on dollars in the wallet, because that's easy to measure. Well-being is much harder to measure, and economists aren't doing much to answer that. "save for college" - few Americans have ever been so privileged to save for college, yet this has not stopped the ever-increasing average educational attainment for Americans. "save for retirement" - also a privilege few ever had, which is why we have Social Security. And I'm not going to cry much over the fate of retirees as they enjoy their Medicare Part D benefits, allowing them to take drugs that did not exist years ago. As for income inequality, I have never regarded this as an important conversation to have. Able has $100. Baker has $10. If inequality is the problem, then a good solution is to make Able have $50 and Baker have $9. I disagree that such an outcome would solve anything. It's a problem if Baker can't get ahead. It's a problem if the system is rigged in Able's favor. The mere fact that Able has $100 and Baker has $10 is not a problem. As someone who is far from the 1% I can say that I will be no better off if the rich have less and I have no more. Yet such an outcome would reduce inequality.
  - intopieces 11y ago
    >few Americans have ever been so privileged to save for college, yet this has not stopped the ever-increasing average educational attainment for Americans. Americans didn't have to. They could pay for it with a part time job. But the cost of college has risen far faster than wages, helped by cheap student loans from the government. >Which is why we have Social Security Social Security will need to be vastly expanded to keep up with an aging population. With a new generation having no pensions, retirement savings or property (student loans in lieu or mortgage), the next "middle class" doesn't look like much different than the working poor of today. The cost of living is not going down. The concern with income inequality is not that the rich are getting richer, it's that the middle class is getting poorer. And this has a ripple effect both inside the economy and into other areas: the justice system, politics, public safety. Lots of people can afford to ignore it now. It doesn't look like that is going to last, however.