6 ms·

Its really not that crummy a hand. Maybe it’s not as good as being born in 1948, though they had to deal with medical issues that you never will, not to mention

Its really not that crummy a hand. Maybe it’s not as good as being born in 1948, though they had to deal with medical issues that you never will, not to mention the military draft. But that’s not the only point of comparison ever. The destruction in Europe created a period of unprecedented prosperity in the US. The student debt that is endlessly whined about has been transformed over the last decade from real debt to a marginal tax on income. This is the same system that’s used in Australia and the UK. Then there’s the run up in house prices. A real phenomenon but this idea that home ownership is the sine qua non of a happy life is a transitory culture artifact, not any kind of human universal.

whimsicalism 4y ago
I would say having housing is pretty important and rents are rising too.
- bradleyjg 4y ago
  Real income after housing costs is still very high both in historical perspective and as compared to other industrialized nations today. This is like US doctors complaining about malpractice insurance cost. Sure, it’s high, but even after that look at income vs Canada or the UK.
  - freyr 4y ago
    “Sure, we’re moving in the wrong direction, but at least we’re not as bad as those guys yet” isn’t that comforting.
    - bradleyjg 4y ago
      “who were already dealt a pretty crummy hand” Which is it?
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    Yes, I am not one of those people who is foolish enough to think that it would have been better to have been born in 1940 than today. Of course quality of life and real incomes are higher. But I think in the microscale, it might have been better to be able to invest in this most recent bull run when housing was also lower cost than the next decade or so.
tchaffee 4y ago
It's a crummy hand when the cause is increasing wealth gaps. The money was there and is there. Policy has shifted how much of it the middle class ends up with. That's crummy.
- bradleyjg 4y ago
  I admit I don’t get the obsession with inequality when the absolute numbers are so high. It feels like a generation is treating envy as a virtue rather than a vice.
  - tchaffee 4y ago
    It's not envy. It's rightly expecting a fair share of the pie you helped make.
    - bradleyjg 4y ago
      Some people are contributing to making that pie bigger and a lot of people aren’t. Why should the people whose contribution is steady or negative get a fixed fraction of the pie? What’s fair about that exactly?
      - tchaffee 4y ago
        That's a different topic. We are talking about the middle class getting less than they did in the past, and that extra money going to the rich.
        bradleyjg 4y ago
        It’s the same topic. Lots of middle class professionals have essentially the same output as their forebears did 40 years ago. They are not expanding the pie. They are nonetheless richer in absolute terms, but have pulled away in relative terms from those that are much more productive than their fore-bearers. This is perfectly fine but for envy.

whimsicalism 4y ago

I would say having housing is pretty important and rents are rising too.

bradleyjg 4y ago
Real income after housing costs is still very high both in historical perspective and as compared to other industrialized nations today. This is like US doctors complaining about malpractice insurance cost. Sure, it’s high, but even after that look at income vs Canada or the UK.
- freyr 4y ago
  “Sure, we’re moving in the wrong direction, but at least we’re not as bad as those guys yet” isn’t that comforting.
  - bradleyjg 4y ago
    “who were already dealt a pretty crummy hand” Which is it?
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Yes, I am not one of those people who is foolish enough to think that it would have been better to have been born in 1940 than today. Of course quality of life and real incomes are higher. But I think in the microscale, it might have been better to be able to invest in this most recent bull run when housing was also lower cost than the next decade or so.

tchaffee 4y ago

It's a crummy hand when the cause is increasing wealth gaps. The money was there and is there. Policy has shifted how much of it the middle class ends up with. That's crummy.

bradleyjg 4y ago
I admit I don’t get the obsession with inequality when the absolute numbers are so high. It feels like a generation is treating envy as a virtue rather than a vice.
- tchaffee 4y ago
  It's not envy. It's rightly expecting a fair share of the pie you helped make.
  - bradleyjg 4y ago
    Some people are contributing to making that pie bigger and a lot of people aren’t. Why should the people whose contribution is steady or negative get a fixed fraction of the pie? What’s fair about that exactly?
    - tchaffee 4y ago
      That's a different topic. We are talking about the middle class getting less than they did in the past, and that extra money going to the rich.
      - bradleyjg 4y ago
        It’s the same topic. Lots of middle class professionals have essentially the same output as their forebears did 40 years ago. They are not expanding the pie. They are nonetheless richer in absolute terms, but have pulled away in relative terms from those that are much more productive than their fore-bearers. This is perfectly fine but for envy.