5 ms·

this is a libertarian fantasy and nothing more. Wages for most people have been stagnant or declining while energy prices are steadily rising. This is a huge pr

by jshen 16y ago

this is a libertarian fantasy and nothing more. Wages for most people have been stagnant or declining while energy prices are steadily rising. This is a huge problem

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Please tell me which point I'm wrong on. Do most people not live in larger houses, enjoy greater automation of housework, enjoy larger and better entertainment technologies, and benefit from medical procedures which did not exist in 1967?
- jshen 16y ago
  I'm disputing the prediction that the future, if we remain on our current course, will be more of the same. Here's what you said, "If the past 40 years are a guide to the future". I'm disputing the idea that income inequality doesn't mean anything because the "poor" will have a higher standard of living that the middle class does today. Again, incomes are on the decline for most americans, and energy prices are rising. There is no way that we will get more of the same if that remains true. Also, most people I know live in smaller houses than their parents, but that's purely anecdotal and based on the obvious fact that there are more people living on the same amount of earth. I happen to live in a major city.
  - pchristensen 16y ago
    "most people I know live in smaller houses than their parents" But do they live in smaller houses than their parents lived when they were your friends' age?
    - jshen 16y ago
      yes, but I live in L.A. and I'm sure it's different in most parts of the country. I make way more money than my parents or grandparents, even when adjusted for inflation, but I live in a much smaller place than they did.
      - nostrademons 16y ago
        I'm curious - do you live in a way smaller space than your parents did when you grew up, or when they were your age? When I compare my current living space with the house I grew up in, it's significantly smaller. However, my parents were over 40 years old by the time I have my first memories. They'd been saving for close to 20 years to afford that place, while I've been saving for maybe 5 years. When my mom was my age, she lived in a 4th floor walk-up with one of her friends from college. And yes, it was smaller than my current apartment. If you compare my mom's childhood with my childhood, she lived in a small apartment almost her whole life, until about 3 years before I was born, while I grew up in a house in the suburbs. I wonder if this is behind a lot of the 20-something angst. We compare our current living standards to our living standards as children, and realize (correctly) that it's not as good. However, that childhood living standard is based on parents that were already at the peak of their careers, and had scrimped for years to get there. Of course we're not going to live as well.
        jshen 16y ago
        I'm not a 20-something.
        Unseelie 16y ago
        We're still safe to assume your parents are around 20 years older than you.
        jshen 16y ago
        right, but the comment I was replying to was focused on the idea that I'm an angstful 20-something who is just starting a professional career. I'm not, and i have a much smaller place than my parents did at my age. 1200 sq/ft vs 3000ish sq/ft. I think my theory holds for areas that have already developed most of the available land. As population density increases we'll have smaller places than the generation before us in areas that have very little new land to develop. I actually don't care that my place is smaller, and a bigger place wouldn't increase my quality of life much.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    A quick google search finds many links suggesting house sizes have gone way up. This one says 1500ft^2 in 1973, 2500ft^2 in 2006. http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?OpenDocument http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?Ope... In spite of the purported declining income and increasing energy prices, people in 2007 have more and better material goods and services than in 1967, far more than the mere $10k increase in real incomes would predict. You could be right, the next 40 years may be different from the last 40 - I'll leave predicting the future to you and Ray Kurzweil.
    - jshen 16y ago
      "I'll leave predicting the future to you and Ray Kurzweil." Except that you did try to predict the future earlier. Energy prices haven't risen much yet. You have an odd pattern of dodging my main point, and picking at tangential details. Btw, I put a caveat on the house thing, I live in a major city and I'm sure it's different in most parts of the country. I'll bet this changes when driving long distances to work becomes much more expensive.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        I didn't try to predict the future - I explicitly qualified that everything I wrote applied only under certain circumstances: "If the past 40 years are a guide to the future..." You even quoted my qualification. As for dodging your main point, let me address it more carefully now. You seem to believe that incomes (by which I assume you mean income adjusted for CPI) is decreasing. And yet, over a period in which CPI adjusted incomes remained flat, quality of life dramatically increased. So why do you believe that decreasing CPI-adjusted incomes are worth worrying about?
        jshen 16y ago
        " why do you believe that decreasing CPI-adjusted incomes are worth worrying about?" I've said it at least three times already. Because it is highly probable that energy prices are going to increase significantly. Btw, how do you measure quality of life. I always find it funny when people throw around that term relating to economics.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- Deezul 16y ago
  There is a big difference between that and going from poverty to upper middle class. By your logic those stuck in poverty in 1967 will now have graduated to upper middle class by 2010. Even if that is how you define middle class I don't see very great strides. I rent because the housing market is a mess (http://seekingalpha.com/article/115464-new-home-prices-vs-median-income-chart http://seekingalpha.com/article/115464-new-home-prices-vs-me...), I wash dishes by hand and don't care for an iRobot vacuum with a state of the art cat fascinating feature, health care is very costly or down right unattainable, but yes I do enjoy my Xbox 360. It hasn't convinced me of your point though.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    No, by my logic those living in poverty in 2010 will be living a life that the 1970's would describe as middle class. Fun fact: the bottom 11% in 1970 didn't have flush toilets. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=372 http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cf... In 2001, the bottom 7-8% don't have dishwashers, which were generally considered a luxury item in the 1970's. Go read this article, describing the material conditions of the poor (circa 2001): http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understandi... Tell me, what items did the middle class of 1970 have that the poor of 2001 lack?
    - pchristensen 16y ago
      "what items did the middle class of 1970 have that the poor of 2001 lack?" They're not items, but I'd say hope, stability, confidence, status, etc.
      - nl 16y ago
        They're not items, but I'd say hope, stability, confidence, status, etc. Really? In the US? In the 70's? This was at the end of the Vietnam War, during the oil crisis, remember? As a random example consumer confidence at the lowest point during the financial crisis was still higher than it was in 1973 (during the Oil Crisis): http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/04/01/consumer-pessimism-sinks-to-1970s-levels.htm http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/04/01/consumer-pessimism-s...
- sedachv 16y ago
  Not outside of the United States, Western Europe, and some parts of Asia and South America. What makes you think the same thing (over 50% reduction in GDP and almost ten million excess deaths) that happened following the bankruptcy of the USSR can not happen once the US is unable service its debt any longer?
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- jhpriestley 16y ago
  Why is any of that relevant? If we're discussing poverty rates, then we need to come up with a reasonably objective metric for poverty, not just throw together some cherry-picked indicators. Economists have put a lot of thought into a few metrics, like inflation-adjusted median wage, which you simply ignore in favor of your own 'tv-size index'. For example, those larger houses may be on cheaper land (further from cities), or people may be spending more of their income on housing (at the cost of, say, food quality, or education). There are a million ways for an individual statistic to be misleading. This is the whole reason that we use aggregated statistics like real median wage.
michaelkeenan 16y ago
> Wages for most people have been stagnant or declining Wage growth has been slower than you'd expect because healthcare is getting much more expensive, so the increase is hidden in a worker's benefits, rather than being revealed in higher wages. Overall compensation is increasing: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/10/have-median-wag.html http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/10... Unfortunately, most workers don't realize that their healthcare costs have a zero-sum relationship to their wages. This graph shows that point very well: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/will_lower_health-care_costs_m.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/will_low...)
- jshen 16y ago
  yes and no. If we look at the economic growth of the past decade a disproportionate amount has gone to the super rich. If it were only healthcare to blame, or even primarily healthcare, then the delta for different income brackets would match historical trends. It hasn't, and healthcare is getting more expensive, and energy is getting more expensive. It's a trifecta that is going to hurt.

by jshen 16y ago

this is a libertarian fantasy and nothing more. Wages for most people have been stagnant or declining while energy prices are steadily rising. This is a huge problem

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Please tell me which point I'm wrong on. Do most people not live in larger houses, enjoy greater automation of housework, enjoy larger and better entertainment technologies, and benefit from medical procedures which did not exist in 1967?

jshen 16y ago
I'm disputing the prediction that the future, if we remain on our current course, will be more of the same. Here's what you said, "If the past 40 years are a guide to the future". I'm disputing the idea that income inequality doesn't mean anything because the "poor" will have a higher standard of living that the middle class does today. Again, incomes are on the decline for most americans, and energy prices are rising. There is no way that we will get more of the same if that remains true. Also, most people I know live in smaller houses than their parents, but that's purely anecdotal and based on the obvious fact that there are more people living on the same amount of earth. I happen to live in a major city.
- pchristensen 16y ago
  "most people I know live in smaller houses than their parents" But do they live in smaller houses than their parents lived when they were your friends' age?
  - jshen 16y ago
    yes, but I live in L.A. and I'm sure it's different in most parts of the country. I make way more money than my parents or grandparents, even when adjusted for inflation, but I live in a much smaller place than they did.
    - nostrademons 16y ago
      I'm curious - do you live in a way smaller space than your parents did when you grew up, or when they were your age? When I compare my current living space with the house I grew up in, it's significantly smaller. However, my parents were over 40 years old by the time I have my first memories. They'd been saving for close to 20 years to afford that place, while I've been saving for maybe 5 years. When my mom was my age, she lived in a 4th floor walk-up with one of her friends from college. And yes, it was smaller than my current apartment. If you compare my mom's childhood with my childhood, she lived in a small apartment almost her whole life, until about 3 years before I was born, while I grew up in a house in the suburbs. I wonder if this is behind a lot of the 20-something angst. We compare our current living standards to our living standards as children, and realize (correctly) that it's not as good. However, that childhood living standard is based on parents that were already at the peak of their careers, and had scrimped for years to get there. Of course we're not going to live as well.
      - jshen 16y ago
        I'm not a 20-something.
        Unseelie 16y ago
        We're still safe to assume your parents are around 20 years older than you.
        jshen 16y ago
        right, but the comment I was replying to was focused on the idea that I'm an angstful 20-something who is just starting a professional career. I'm not, and i have a much smaller place than my parents did at my age. 1200 sq/ft vs 3000ish sq/ft. I think my theory holds for areas that have already developed most of the available land. As population density increases we'll have smaller places than the generation before us in areas that have very little new land to develop. I actually don't care that my place is smaller, and a bigger place wouldn't increase my quality of life much.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  A quick google search finds many links suggesting house sizes have gone way up. This one says 1500ft^2 in 1973, 2500ft^2 in 2006. http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?OpenDocument http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?Ope... In spite of the purported declining income and increasing energy prices, people in 2007 have more and better material goods and services than in 1967, far more than the mere $10k increase in real incomes would predict. You could be right, the next 40 years may be different from the last 40 - I'll leave predicting the future to you and Ray Kurzweil.
  - jshen 16y ago
    "I'll leave predicting the future to you and Ray Kurzweil." Except that you did try to predict the future earlier. Energy prices haven't risen much yet. You have an odd pattern of dodging my main point, and picking at tangential details. Btw, I put a caveat on the house thing, I live in a major city and I'm sure it's different in most parts of the country. I'll bet this changes when driving long distances to work becomes much more expensive.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      I didn't try to predict the future - I explicitly qualified that everything I wrote applied only under certain circumstances: "If the past 40 years are a guide to the future..." You even quoted my qualification. As for dodging your main point, let me address it more carefully now. You seem to believe that incomes (by which I assume you mean income adjusted for CPI) is decreasing. And yet, over a period in which CPI adjusted incomes remained flat, quality of life dramatically increased. So why do you believe that decreasing CPI-adjusted incomes are worth worrying about?
      - jshen 16y ago
        " why do you believe that decreasing CPI-adjusted incomes are worth worrying about?" I've said it at least three times already. Because it is highly probable that energy prices are going to increase significantly. Btw, how do you measure quality of life. I always find it funny when people throw around that term relating to economics.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
Deezul 16y ago
There is a big difference between that and going from poverty to upper middle class. By your logic those stuck in poverty in 1967 will now have graduated to upper middle class by 2010. Even if that is how you define middle class I don't see very great strides. I rent because the housing market is a mess (http://seekingalpha.com/article/115464-new-home-prices-vs-median-income-chart http://seekingalpha.com/article/115464-new-home-prices-vs-me...), I wash dishes by hand and don't care for an iRobot vacuum with a state of the art cat fascinating feature, health care is very costly or down right unattainable, but yes I do enjoy my Xbox 360. It hasn't convinced me of your point though.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  No, by my logic those living in poverty in 2010 will be living a life that the 1970's would describe as middle class. Fun fact: the bottom 11% in 1970 didn't have flush toilets. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=372 http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cf... In 2001, the bottom 7-8% don't have dishwashers, which were generally considered a luxury item in the 1970's. Go read this article, describing the material conditions of the poor (circa 2001): http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understandi... Tell me, what items did the middle class of 1970 have that the poor of 2001 lack?
  - pchristensen 16y ago
    "what items did the middle class of 1970 have that the poor of 2001 lack?" They're not items, but I'd say hope, stability, confidence, status, etc.
    - nl 16y ago
      They're not items, but I'd say hope, stability, confidence, status, etc. Really? In the US? In the 70's? This was at the end of the Vietnam War, during the oil crisis, remember? As a random example consumer confidence at the lowest point during the financial crisis was still higher than it was in 1973 (during the Oil Crisis): http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/04/01/consumer-pessimism-sinks-to-1970s-levels.htm http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/04/01/consumer-pessimism-s...
sedachv 16y ago
Not outside of the United States, Western Europe, and some parts of Asia and South America. What makes you think the same thing (over 50% reduction in GDP and almost ten million excess deaths) that happened following the bankruptcy of the USSR can not happen once the US is unable service its debt any longer?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
jhpriestley 16y ago
Why is any of that relevant? If we're discussing poverty rates, then we need to come up with a reasonably objective metric for poverty, not just throw together some cherry-picked indicators. Economists have put a lot of thought into a few metrics, like inflation-adjusted median wage, which you simply ignore in favor of your own 'tv-size index'. For example, those larger houses may be on cheaper land (further from cities), or people may be spending more of their income on housing (at the cost of, say, food quality, or education). There are a million ways for an individual statistic to be misleading. This is the whole reason that we use aggregated statistics like real median wage.

michaelkeenan 16y ago

> Wages for most people have been stagnant or declining Wage growth has been slower than you'd expect because healthcare is getting much more expensive, so the increase is hidden in a worker's benefits, rather than being revealed in higher wages. Overall compensation is increasing: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/10/have-median-wag.html http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/10... Unfortunately, most workers don't realize that their healthcare costs have a zero-sum relationship to their wages. This graph shows that point very well: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/will_lower_health-care_costs_m.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/will_low...)

jshen 16y ago
yes and no. If we look at the economic growth of the past decade a disproportionate amount has gone to the super rich. If it were only healthcare to blame, or even primarily healthcare, then the delta for different income brackets would match historical trends. It hasn't, and healthcare is getting more expensive, and energy is getting more expensive. It's a trifecta that is going to hurt.