5 ms·

A lot of this is related to inequality, value of labour detaching from wealth, and the increasing unaffordability of life. The material conditions of regular p

A lot of this is related to inequality, value of labour detaching from wealth, and the increasing unaffordability of life. The material conditions of regular people are continuously getting worse as more and more of their income is stripped away by rent seeking oligopolies, mainly increasing housing costs but depending on your jurisdiction all sorts of other costs (eg. cable and mobile phone costs an issue in some places, healthcare in other places). In the worst extremes people are simply running out of money and the amount of people at risk of homelessness and in homelessness is spiking, and people in such dire conditions are dying at a remarkable rate given the toxic drug crisis. For the political class, not a problem here, as they are part of the rent seeking class, and they can expect a nice directorship gig at some oligopoly corporation after their term. The big fix for much of this is fundamentally to put more money in the wallets of regular people. This means increasing rental vacancy, limiting rent increases, and bringing rents down to 30% of people's income (or less!). It means livable incomes and government stepping in to create a social safety net to ensure that those incomes aren't flowing away immediately to pay for the basics of staying healthy. It means breaking up corporations and reigning them in and stopping rent seeking. All of this harms the very wealthy and even the upper middle class, who themselves are often small time landlords that benefit from low rents and renter misery, so these politically active groups block all change.

troad 4y ago
> A lot of this is related to inequality, value of labour detaching from wealth, and the increasing unaffordability of life. Inequality is declining by every measurable metric in the United States. Edit: To answer the folk naysaying with their ten second Google searches, the income inequality rate has declined between 2007 and 2019(1), helped by a strong wage recovery in the late 2010s. The share of wealth held by the top 10% peaked around 2015 and has declined steadily since. 2022 was a very bad year for equity markets and has hit wealthy households particularly hard. These are all pretty findable and uncontroversial statistics, but unfortunately one political tribe has invested a lot of capital in the notion inequality is inexorably increasing, so there’s a lot of pundit mileage in contorting these stats.(2) Which is sad, because these stats are good news for anyone who truly cares about inequality. (1) I’m book-ending at 2019 because pandemic era macro is weird, and will take us some years to understand. (2) I’m not making a partisan point here - stats are stats, and both political tribes lie endlessly about them when convenient.
- andrewprock 4y ago
  Over what period of time? Since 1980 there is a clear and dramatic increase in the the concentration of wealth. The pandemic and related problems may have stalled that trend for a time.
  - odo1242 4y ago
    (the pandemic has, in fact, made every metric of income/wealth inequality markedly worse)
    - andrewprock 4y ago
      The $600 checks and free vaccine delivery were the major progressive policies I was thinking of. But those were definitely temporary.
- 7sidedmarble 4y ago
  > > A lot of this is related to inequality, value of labour detaching from wealth, and the increasing unaffordability of life. > Inequality is declining by every measurable metric in the United States. How would you explain any of these metrics? https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-...
  - willis936 4y ago
    No not those metrics. The ones Tucker Carlson talks about.
- mile3island 4y ago
  Nah. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA
  - isleyaardvark 4y ago
    While I agree with the general point about inequality increasing, I would never trust any chart from the St. Louis Fed after they did this: https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/01/23/china-military-spending-st-louis-fed-graph/ https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/01/23/china-military-sp...
prewett 4y ago
Am I wrong to think these are just a typical Marxist class-struggle talking points? At any rate, blaming the problems on inequality seems a lot like seeing everything as nail when all you have is a hammer. I'm not sure why OP's complaint that people don't care as much, or that they are loud and inconsiderate, necessarily has anything to do with inequality. The might feel like there's no chance to get ahead so I'm just going to not care and act inconsiderate. Or they might just be selfish, perhaps because we have ads constantly telling people "get the X you deserve". Or they might be selfish because that's human nature and since society rarely goes to church any more (only 31% attend weekly, 42% at least once a month [1]) they don't hear anything telling them that selfishness is "wrong". I'm sure you can think of other reasons that have nothing to do with economics or oppression. Furthermore, I'm not sure that inequality produces not caring or inconsideration. Take the 1920s, which had higher levels of inequality than now [2]. People born in that decade are part of the "Greatest Generation", known for their self-sacrifice, not selfishness. My impression is that civic mindedness was actually a thing back then. And it's hard to tell what is representative looking back 100 years, but the buildings from that era seem to be well-built, and you see pictures of working class people in suits (I've seen one with men lounging around a seawall in suits, which you'd never see today). So I dispute that inequality necessarily produces what the OP complains about. (I also think the OP is also not seeing the unpleasant parts of the recent past.) [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/245491/church-attendance-of-americans/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/245491/church-attendance... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Historical-economic-inequality-in-the-US-The-Wealth-blue-and-labor-income-orange_fig10_301591761 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Historical-economic-ineq...
- drewcoo 4y ago
  Inequality and poverty are what fueled the very active socialists and communists and swelled the ranks of unions. The great depression only showed that the monied few needed to be constrained. Collectivism was the response to the greed of the time. And collectivists pushed FDR into his new deal reforms to build a social safety net in the US. That was the greatest generation. It grew out of Marxist talking points.
  - 4y ago
lucb1e 4y ago
> the increasing unaffordability of life Define: life What life exactly can people not afford anymore? The kind people had in 1900? 1950? 2000? What kind of trend are you indicating here, the last two years only or something broader? Because I don't know of a country not actively at war whose chance on a good life didn't improve over the last generation. Things are ever getting better. Very few people would be willing to go back even to the level of life in 2000 where the internet was not commonplace (Wikipedia hadn't even started, let alone have some volume to it) and smartphones wouldn't exist for years to come either. Health and education also got better since then, though it was already very good in the rich countries that you and I are both likely from. Gas prices were lower, but you can choose to live in a place where you don't need to drive anywhere ever (i.e., most cities in most rich countries). I have a colleague in his 30s who doesn't have a driver's license because he's got no interest in it. It also saves a ton of money not to own a vehicle and just pay for the subsidized public transport. It's all choices you can make to live a very good life, affordably.
- Sevii 4y ago
  People conflate affordability of a certain lifestyle and affordability of a certain level of social status but they are separate things and people really care about both of them.

troad 4y ago

> A lot of this is related to inequality, value of labour detaching from wealth, and the increasing unaffordability of life. Inequality is declining by every measurable metric in the United States. Edit: To answer the folk naysaying with their ten second Google searches, the income inequality rate has declined between 2007 and 2019(1), helped by a strong wage recovery in the late 2010s. The share of wealth held by the top 10% peaked around 2015 and has declined steadily since. 2022 was a very bad year for equity markets and has hit wealthy households particularly hard. These are all pretty findable and uncontroversial statistics, but unfortunately one political tribe has invested a lot of capital in the notion inequality is inexorably increasing, so there’s a lot of pundit mileage in contorting these stats.(2) Which is sad, because these stats are good news for anyone who truly cares about inequality. (1) I’m book-ending at 2019 because pandemic era macro is weird, and will take us some years to understand. (2) I’m not making a partisan point here - stats are stats, and both political tribes lie endlessly about them when convenient.

andrewprock 4y ago
Over what period of time? Since 1980 there is a clear and dramatic increase in the the concentration of wealth. The pandemic and related problems may have stalled that trend for a time.
- odo1242 4y ago
  (the pandemic has, in fact, made every metric of income/wealth inequality markedly worse)
  - andrewprock 4y ago
    The $600 checks and free vaccine delivery were the major progressive policies I was thinking of. But those were definitely temporary.
7sidedmarble 4y ago
> > A lot of this is related to inequality, value of labour detaching from wealth, and the increasing unaffordability of life. > Inequality is declining by every measurable metric in the United States. How would you explain any of these metrics? https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-...
- willis936 4y ago
  No not those metrics. The ones Tucker Carlson talks about.
mile3island 4y ago
Nah. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA
- isleyaardvark 4y ago
  While I agree with the general point about inequality increasing, I would never trust any chart from the St. Louis Fed after they did this: https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/01/23/china-military-spending-st-louis-fed-graph/ https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/01/23/china-military-sp...

prewett 4y ago

Am I wrong to think these are just a typical Marxist class-struggle talking points? At any rate, blaming the problems on inequality seems a lot like seeing everything as nail when all you have is a hammer. I'm not sure why OP's complaint that people don't care as much, or that they are loud and inconsiderate, necessarily has anything to do with inequality. The might feel like there's no chance to get ahead so I'm just going to not care and act inconsiderate. Or they might just be selfish, perhaps because we have ads constantly telling people "get the X you deserve". Or they might be selfish because that's human nature and since society rarely goes to church any more (only 31% attend weekly, 42% at least once a month [1]) they don't hear anything telling them that selfishness is "wrong". I'm sure you can think of other reasons that have nothing to do with economics or oppression. Furthermore, I'm not sure that inequality produces not caring or inconsideration. Take the 1920s, which had higher levels of inequality than now [2]. People born in that decade are part of the "Greatest Generation", known for their self-sacrifice, not selfishness. My impression is that civic mindedness was actually a thing back then. And it's hard to tell what is representative looking back 100 years, but the buildings from that era seem to be well-built, and you see pictures of working class people in suits (I've seen one with men lounging around a seawall in suits, which you'd never see today). So I dispute that inequality necessarily produces what the OP complains about. (I also think the OP is also not seeing the unpleasant parts of the recent past.) [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/245491/church-attendance-of-americans/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/245491/church-attendance... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Historical-economic-inequality-in-the-US-The-Wealth-blue-and-labor-income-orange_fig10_301591761 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Historical-economic-ineq...

drewcoo 4y ago
Inequality and poverty are what fueled the very active socialists and communists and swelled the ranks of unions. The great depression only showed that the monied few needed to be constrained. Collectivism was the response to the greed of the time. And collectivists pushed FDR into his new deal reforms to build a social safety net in the US. That was the greatest generation. It grew out of Marxist talking points.
- 4y ago

lucb1e 4y ago

> the increasing unaffordability of life Define: life What life exactly can people not afford anymore? The kind people had in 1900? 1950? 2000? What kind of trend are you indicating here, the last two years only or something broader? Because I don't know of a country not actively at war whose chance on a good life didn't improve over the last generation. Things are ever getting better. Very few people would be willing to go back even to the level of life in 2000 where the internet was not commonplace (Wikipedia hadn't even started, let alone have some volume to it) and smartphones wouldn't exist for years to come either. Health and education also got better since then, though it was already very good in the rich countries that you and I are both likely from. Gas prices were lower, but you can choose to live in a place where you don't need to drive anywhere ever (i.e., most cities in most rich countries). I have a colleague in his 30s who doesn't have a driver's license because he's got no interest in it. It also saves a ton of money not to own a vehicle and just pay for the subsidized public transport. It's all choices you can make to live a very good life, affordably.

Sevii 4y ago
People conflate affordability of a certain lifestyle and affordability of a certain level of social status but they are separate things and people really care about both of them.