4 ms·

Some individuals, in some particular professions, may have this choice. But there are structural forces preventing this on a population level. Most people in t

Some individuals, in some particular professions, may have this choice. But there are structural forces preventing this on a population level. Most people in the US live paycheck to paycheck as is, and it's not that they're spending frivolously. Our standards of living are based on what's needed for subsistence, yes, but also cultural and historical. Based on how we grew up and how our parents grew up, and how culture (e.g. hollywood) tells us we should be living. So most people are trying to live according to established standards. It's already much harder for the present generation to live at the standard of the previous generation or two (e.g. buying a home is less of a possibility). Choosing, then, according to our "freedom", 20% less pay would require also choosing poverty according to established standards of living (i.e. it would look like poverty). The narrative of "the individual" is a nice narrative from the perspective of the elites of our society to distract from the fact that, as always, there is class conflict and systematic forces in place. Of course, don't get me wrong: it is nice that there is some legitimate freedom on an individual level in the US. But for one, that legitimacy is overblown via mass media marketing (e.g. of course Jeff Bezos is going to tell his rags-to-riches story for everyone to hear). And more importantly, there is also the question of the overall structural forces that establish the population level structure.

ceeplusplus 4y ago
Compare the Chinese household savings rate to the American one, and I think you'll find people in the US do indeed spend frivolously. Note that living in HCOL locations beyond your means is still spending frivolously. You don't have a right to live in NYC or SF. If more people realized that, then supply of low wage workers would drop in these places and wages would go up.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  The Chinese public have invested in quicksand represented as a low quality housing stock pyramid scheme the CCP is barely holding together with control economy duct tape. Perhaps domestic consumption is lower than the US is due to this higher savings rate, but lets not pretend that savings is going into productive enterprises. With China aging very rapidly and a total fertility rate that will decline below 1 in the next 2-5 years, doesn’t make much sense to save for a future with limited returns (time value of life vs money and so forth). https://archive.ph/2022.05.23-232226/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-23/china-s-16-3-trillion-cash-hoard-shows-deepening-household-gloom https://archive.ph/2022.05.23-232226/https://www.bloomberg.c... > Home prices in China have been falling since September, Chinese stocks and mutual funds aren’t great bets these days either, there’s little access to international markets and cryptocurrencies are officially illegal. Instead, people are increasingly shelving their money in savings accounts, despite benchmark deposit rates staying at record low levels. > “No matter if you’re high net-worth or not that rich, the golden time of parking your money and letting your wealth grow, it’s gone,” said Wei He, an economist at Gavekal Research Ltd. in Beijing. > “There’s no other investment options,” said Clawde Yin, a 45-year-old Shanghai resident. “I’ve got no choice but to wait and see.”
  - ceeplusplus 4y ago
    Chinese savings are dumped into housing because the stock market isn't trustworthy there, not because everyone decided housing is the most productive enterprise. Also, dumping your money into savings accounts is definitely better than dumping it into 30% APR BNPL offers for designer clothing and electronics. Or gas guzzling, expensive SUVs and trucks. Ask yourself why Apple has a 50% market share in the US. > doesn’t make much sense to save for a future with limited returns (time value of life vs money and so forth). Saving doesn't mean saving until retirement, it just means not spending beyond your means.
    - iroh2727 4y ago
      Well, saving is a virtue in itself (a virtue that most Americans don’t have I agree). But it’s really a separate issue. Suppose all Americans suddenly started saving 10% of their income. That would just establish a new standard of living, a new equilibrium. The point is, though, that the population level class structure and socioeconomic mobility/opportunity would remain. As would the fact that the current generation cannot (as a whole) afford housing the way two generations ago could. The narrative of “the individual” encourages non-elites to compete amongst themselves for a progressively shrinking portion of the pie. From the perspective of elites it has a twofold benefit: discourage worker solidarity and encourage productivity. From the perspective of workers, the latter benefit is good (we all should strive for competence and contribution), but the former is not good (even just in terms of life enjoyment). Also, at some point the pie needs a drastic and more balanced reallocation.
tastyfreeze 4y ago
We also have legislation that makes it illegal for people to sell food or perform particular services without meeting a large number of requirements. Regulations are costly, inhibit competition, restrict available employment options and largely fail to achieve the desired outcome. Big business protectionism results in big business abuse of employees because a "where else are the going to go" mentality sets in. Competition is required to allow people to build businesses that put the "employee abusing" companies out of business. Protectionism comes in many forms but all of it comes from government. Big businesses are currently supporting an increase in the national minimum wage. They can afford to pay their employees more. Their competitors can't. With no competition the big business are free to abuse their employees. Nearly every business that has lobbied for government regulation is playing this same game to secure their place as king of the hill.

ceeplusplus 4y ago

Compare the Chinese household savings rate to the American one, and I think you'll find people in the US do indeed spend frivolously. Note that living in HCOL locations beyond your means is still spending frivolously. You don't have a right to live in NYC or SF. If more people realized that, then supply of low wage workers would drop in these places and wages would go up.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
The Chinese public have invested in quicksand represented as a low quality housing stock pyramid scheme the CCP is barely holding together with control economy duct tape. Perhaps domestic consumption is lower than the US is due to this higher savings rate, but lets not pretend that savings is going into productive enterprises. With China aging very rapidly and a total fertility rate that will decline below 1 in the next 2-5 years, doesn’t make much sense to save for a future with limited returns (time value of life vs money and so forth). https://archive.ph/2022.05.23-232226/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-23/china-s-16-3-trillion-cash-hoard-shows-deepening-household-gloom https://archive.ph/2022.05.23-232226/https://www.bloomberg.c... > Home prices in China have been falling since September, Chinese stocks and mutual funds aren’t great bets these days either, there’s little access to international markets and cryptocurrencies are officially illegal. Instead, people are increasingly shelving their money in savings accounts, despite benchmark deposit rates staying at record low levels. > “No matter if you’re high net-worth or not that rich, the golden time of parking your money and letting your wealth grow, it’s gone,” said Wei He, an economist at Gavekal Research Ltd. in Beijing. > “There’s no other investment options,” said Clawde Yin, a 45-year-old Shanghai resident. “I’ve got no choice but to wait and see.”
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  Chinese savings are dumped into housing because the stock market isn't trustworthy there, not because everyone decided housing is the most productive enterprise. Also, dumping your money into savings accounts is definitely better than dumping it into 30% APR BNPL offers for designer clothing and electronics. Or gas guzzling, expensive SUVs and trucks. Ask yourself why Apple has a 50% market share in the US. > doesn’t make much sense to save for a future with limited returns (time value of life vs money and so forth). Saving doesn't mean saving until retirement, it just means not spending beyond your means.
  - iroh2727 4y ago
    Well, saving is a virtue in itself (a virtue that most Americans don’t have I agree). But it’s really a separate issue. Suppose all Americans suddenly started saving 10% of their income. That would just establish a new standard of living, a new equilibrium. The point is, though, that the population level class structure and socioeconomic mobility/opportunity would remain. As would the fact that the current generation cannot (as a whole) afford housing the way two generations ago could. The narrative of “the individual” encourages non-elites to compete amongst themselves for a progressively shrinking portion of the pie. From the perspective of elites it has a twofold benefit: discourage worker solidarity and encourage productivity. From the perspective of workers, the latter benefit is good (we all should strive for competence and contribution), but the former is not good (even just in terms of life enjoyment). Also, at some point the pie needs a drastic and more balanced reallocation.

tastyfreeze 4y ago

We also have legislation that makes it illegal for people to sell food or perform particular services without meeting a large number of requirements. Regulations are costly, inhibit competition, restrict available employment options and largely fail to achieve the desired outcome. Big business protectionism results in big business abuse of employees because a "where else are the going to go" mentality sets in. Competition is required to allow people to build businesses that put the "employee abusing" companies out of business. Protectionism comes in many forms but all of it comes from government. Big businesses are currently supporting an increase in the national minimum wage. They can afford to pay their employees more. Their competitors can't. With no competition the big business are free to abuse their employees. Nearly every business that has lobbied for government regulation is playing this same game to secure their place as king of the hill.