6 ms·

I agree with much of what you said, yet I just don't see it as all that bad of a situation. I still think there is a lot of upward mobility even in that scenar

I agree with much of what you said, yet I just don't see it as all that bad of a situation. I still think there is a lot of upward mobility even in that scenario -- the smarter people I know earn good salaries and have nice lifestyles. Nicer than their parents, in most cases, mainly because consumer technology constantly gets better and cheaper. And there is still opportunity for risk takers to start their own companies, and it's really not all that hard with some traction to get acquired by a bigger player. Of course, people with a lot of capital get rewarded for holding onto it / being conservative with it, but that's just common sense, not throwing good money after bad. It's like we're all supposed to say, "Yeah! Late stage capitalism is so awful!" and nod along, but it doesn't feel awful to me at all. I have a 2016 Mazda that cost $18k and it's just awesome for the price. I bought a brand new iPhone SE for $150. I bought a 50 inch TV on black Friday for $200. My parents as kids didn't have running water in their houses. I'm not all about materialism, but I'm really at a loss for what exactly I'm supposed to be feeling outraged about. I don't even really make that high of a salary, just average middle class.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kbenson 9y ago
The question is, how much of the status quo your describe is because we're not in a self contained system, and actually outsource a lot of the problems to developing countries? If the system you describe was constrained to just the United States, and no goods or capital could enter or leave, would we expect a similar system? Because scaled up, that's the world in X decades. Unless we decide, and rely on, various insurrections, rebellions and regime changes to change the system in some countries such that there's always a third world economy to take advantage of. Even if that's the reality of the future (which I think is morally repugnant to rely on), there's no guarantee that cheap external labor won't be extremely constrained in the future, even if it's not entirely gone. (Unless we specifically cause it to be so through political maneuvering and war, but I like to think that's crackpot territory...).
- CodeMage 9y ago
  > Unless we decide, and rely on, various insurrections, rebellions and regime changes to change the system in some countries such that there's always a third world economy to take advantage of. > (Unless we specifically cause it to be so through political maneuvering and war, but I like to think that's crackpot territory...). When you look at the history of the world and consider current geopolitical situation, what leads you to believe that's crackpot territory?
  - kbenson 9y ago
    I'm not sure. I'm hoping it's not some combination of wishful thinking and denial. :/
dbingham 9y ago
We're already in this situation and the data do not entirely agree with your anecdotes. Social mobility is quantifiably dropping. And that's a problem. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/social-mobility-america/491240/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/social-...
knolan 9y ago
My parents had paid off their mortgage when they were my age. My father was self employed and my mother a housewife. I’m on a reasonably good salary but banks won’t loan us enough to buy an averaged sized family home even though we have a reasonable deposit. My partner would have to be on an equally sized salary but her teaching job pays very little. Sure we have some nicer gadgets and personal comforts but the cost of accommodation and property has skyrocketed way out of proportion.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- andrewjl 9y ago
  The problem isn't necessarily capitalism, but market failure in housing. Economic laws dictate that anyone who wants to purchase a house should be able find one that they can afford (assuming good credit history, etc), instead through zoning and other measures regions like the Bay Area and others choose not to build.
  - traek 9y ago
    > Economic laws dictate that anyone who wants to purchase a house should be able find one that they can afford Which economic laws dictate that?
    - andrewjl 9y ago
      Supply and demand
      - traek 9y ago
        You misunderstand supply and demand. Consumers can be (and are) priced out of the housing market just as they can be priced out of any market.
        Can_Not 9y ago
ouid 9y ago
out of control wealth inequality precedes economic collapse. Pollution is the clear example, I think. The more money I have, the more money I can make by polluting. If I capture below a certain threshold of the benefits of pollution, then the personal cost to me of pollution outweighs any benefit I might receive, and I'm disincentivized from polluting. The more wealth inequality there is, the more frequently scenarios in which pollution is profitable to me occur. Compounding this problem, pollution increases wealth inequality on its own. It creates health burdens and lowers output. It's expensive for society. So I end up profiting while everyone else takes a loss, thereby increasing wealth inequality. Democratic government helps a great deal with this problem (although simple majority is insufficient to offset it entirely, even with ideal information), but democratic governments themselves become polluted by exactly the same decision making processes.
freyir 9y ago
> I still think there is a lot of upward mobility even in that scenario -- the smarter people I know earn good salaries and have nice lifestyles. Nicer than their parents, in most cases, mainly because consumer technology constantly gets better and cheaper. A lot of smart, hard-working, college-educated people I know live in studio apartments or with roommates in their 30s, because otherwise they can't make ends meet. Many work in STEM jobs, but not at one of the high-profile web/advertising companies that are currently printing cash. Their parents at the same age owned homes, often while working in blue collar jobs with one parent staying home to raise the kids. Regardless of whether we, as individuals, can afford an iPhone or a TV, upwards mobility on a whole is declining. Income inequality is increasing. And the political system is under the thumb of lobbyists and billionaires who frequently act out of pure self interest. The United States government has spent $250 million a day for the past 16 years on wars that most people don't want but are powerless to stop. These are trends that are upsetting to many people, despite the momentary gratification provided by of our iPhones and TVs.
losteric 9y ago
> the smarter people I know earn good salaries and have nice lifestyles. Nicer than their parents, in most cases, mainly because consumer technology constantly gets better and cheaper. This is because today's booming companies rely on brain power instead of manpower. What does the future hold for people that aren't smart or born into money? As we continue externalizing intelligence to machines, eventually smart people will start falling victim to the automation trend that killed "dumb" jobs. As I see it, we really need to increase funding for higher education (including adult retraining) and revamp K-12 to make the most of intelligent people from all socioeconomic backgrounds, while also placing greater emphasis on trade programs and small businesses. We'd also benefit from tariffs on imported Chinese goods, increasing domestic manufacturing (rather than waiting until free trade equalizes global quality of life). > I'm really at a loss for what exactly I'm supposed to be feeling outraged about. Personally, I'm deeply concerned but not outraged... I vote for sound policies and politicians that may avoid the next Great Depression, but I profit when the public votes for more unregulated capitalism.
- Danihan 9y ago
  Underrated post, completely agree. There have been several times when I wasn't doing so well financially and I wondered -- if I'm this smart (not to be cocky, but top 1% at least) and struggling, how are other people making it at all? The answer is, they take far fewer risks than I do and rarely mess up. And when they do mess up it's years of hard work to recover. But yeah, there is definitely some social Darwinism currently at play in regards to intelligence.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jrjf940 9y ago
Honestly if you don't know what to feel outraged about you need do some research of your own. There's far to much that needs to be explained to you and a forum isn't the ideal place for an economics lecture. In the future if you're this out of your element just refrain from commenting on economic issues.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

kbenson 9y ago

The question is, how much of the status quo your describe is because we're not in a self contained system, and actually outsource a lot of the problems to developing countries? If the system you describe was constrained to just the United States, and no goods or capital could enter or leave, would we expect a similar system? Because scaled up, that's the world in X decades. Unless we decide, and rely on, various insurrections, rebellions and regime changes to change the system in some countries such that there's always a third world economy to take advantage of. Even if that's the reality of the future (which I think is morally repugnant to rely on), there's no guarantee that cheap external labor won't be extremely constrained in the future, even if it's not entirely gone. (Unless we specifically cause it to be so through political maneuvering and war, but I like to think that's crackpot territory...).

CodeMage 9y ago
> Unless we decide, and rely on, various insurrections, rebellions and regime changes to change the system in some countries such that there's always a third world economy to take advantage of. > (Unless we specifically cause it to be so through political maneuvering and war, but I like to think that's crackpot territory...). When you look at the history of the world and consider current geopolitical situation, what leads you to believe that's crackpot territory?
- kbenson 9y ago
  I'm not sure. I'm hoping it's not some combination of wishful thinking and denial. :/

dbingham 9y ago

We're already in this situation and the data do not entirely agree with your anecdotes. Social mobility is quantifiably dropping. And that's a problem. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/social-mobility-america/491240/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/social-...

knolan 9y ago

My parents had paid off their mortgage when they were my age. My father was self employed and my mother a housewife. I’m on a reasonably good salary but banks won’t loan us enough to buy an averaged sized family home even though we have a reasonable deposit. My partner would have to be on an equally sized salary but her teaching job pays very little. Sure we have some nicer gadgets and personal comforts but the cost of accommodation and property has skyrocketed way out of proportion.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
andrewjl 9y ago
The problem isn't necessarily capitalism, but market failure in housing. Economic laws dictate that anyone who wants to purchase a house should be able find one that they can afford (assuming good credit history, etc), instead through zoning and other measures regions like the Bay Area and others choose not to build.
- traek 9y ago
  > Economic laws dictate that anyone who wants to purchase a house should be able find one that they can afford Which economic laws dictate that?
  - andrewjl 9y ago
    Supply and demand
    - traek 9y ago
      You misunderstand supply and demand. Consumers can be (and are) priced out of the housing market just as they can be priced out of any market.
      - Can_Not 9y ago

ouid 9y ago

out of control wealth inequality precedes economic collapse. Pollution is the clear example, I think. The more money I have, the more money I can make by polluting. If I capture below a certain threshold of the benefits of pollution, then the personal cost to me of pollution outweighs any benefit I might receive, and I'm disincentivized from polluting. The more wealth inequality there is, the more frequently scenarios in which pollution is profitable to me occur. Compounding this problem, pollution increases wealth inequality on its own. It creates health burdens and lowers output. It's expensive for society. So I end up profiting while everyone else takes a loss, thereby increasing wealth inequality. Democratic government helps a great deal with this problem (although simple majority is insufficient to offset it entirely, even with ideal information), but democratic governments themselves become polluted by exactly the same decision making processes.

freyir 9y ago

> I still think there is a lot of upward mobility even in that scenario -- the smarter people I know earn good salaries and have nice lifestyles. Nicer than their parents, in most cases, mainly because consumer technology constantly gets better and cheaper. A lot of smart, hard-working, college-educated people I know live in studio apartments or with roommates in their 30s, because otherwise they can't make ends meet. Many work in STEM jobs, but not at one of the high-profile web/advertising companies that are currently printing cash. Their parents at the same age owned homes, often while working in blue collar jobs with one parent staying home to raise the kids. Regardless of whether we, as individuals, can afford an iPhone or a TV, upwards mobility on a whole is declining. Income inequality is increasing. And the political system is under the thumb of lobbyists and billionaires who frequently act out of pure self interest. The United States government has spent $250 million a day for the past 16 years on wars that most people don't want but are powerless to stop. These are trends that are upsetting to many people, despite the momentary gratification provided by of our iPhones and TVs.

losteric 9y ago

> the smarter people I know earn good salaries and have nice lifestyles. Nicer than their parents, in most cases, mainly because consumer technology constantly gets better and cheaper. This is because today's booming companies rely on brain power instead of manpower. What does the future hold for people that aren't smart or born into money? As we continue externalizing intelligence to machines, eventually smart people will start falling victim to the automation trend that killed "dumb" jobs. As I see it, we really need to increase funding for higher education (including adult retraining) and revamp K-12 to make the most of intelligent people from all socioeconomic backgrounds, while also placing greater emphasis on trade programs and small businesses. We'd also benefit from tariffs on imported Chinese goods, increasing domestic manufacturing (rather than waiting until free trade equalizes global quality of life). > I'm really at a loss for what exactly I'm supposed to be feeling outraged about. Personally, I'm deeply concerned but not outraged... I vote for sound policies and politicians that may avoid the next Great Depression, but I profit when the public votes for more unregulated capitalism.

Danihan 9y ago
Underrated post, completely agree. There have been several times when I wasn't doing so well financially and I wondered -- if I'm this smart (not to be cocky, but top 1% at least) and struggling, how are other people making it at all? The answer is, they take far fewer risks than I do and rarely mess up. And when they do mess up it's years of hard work to recover. But yeah, there is definitely some social Darwinism currently at play in regards to intelligence.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jrjf940 9y ago

Honestly if you don't know what to feel outraged about you need do some research of your own. There's far to much that needs to be explained to you and a forum isn't the ideal place for an economics lecture. In the future if you're this out of your element just refrain from commenting on economic issues.