3 ms·

I’d argue that home equity doesn’t really matter all that much. If you want to sell, you need to buy another home at inflated prices AND an higher interest rate

I’d argue that home equity doesn’t really matter all that much. If you want to sell, you need to buy another home at inflated prices AND an higher interest rate. How are you better off? Inflated 401ks are a cherry on top for the Boomer vampire squid generation, but the overwhelming majority of people have lost real purchasing power and are undeniably worse off. Also, do we really buy any inflation or other numbers given by these Federal Agencies? It seems to me they have become highly political and now only serve to push a narrative.

willcipriano 2y ago
Not only is CPI very suspect (iPads got faster so we can ignore that pesky food inflation), the postive economic numbers pointed to are now frequently adjusted downward[0] after the fanfare settles. [0]https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/05/30/us-economic-growth-in-first-quarter-was-even-worse-than-previously-thought/ https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/05/30/us-economic-growth-in...
- bravetraveler 2y ago
  Reminder, too: an estimation above was based on voters. The United States (assumed, quoting census.gov) doesn't have compulsory voting. We have a lot of ballot opportunities. "Voters" is vague at best. Points being: participation often ends up abysmal. I mention this because it's also suspect/misleading - intentional or not. Posting down here to not appear as a criticism. I'm lacking facts too. Counter-intuitively... voters as a category lose each of our elections to non-voters; outnumbered like 2:1. A majority of a minority is doing better - yay! I should verify this, but I'm here rambling instead. Someone may check/correct me :) Trick is, the non-voters implicitly cast no vote. They're probably in substantial numbers, doing the same or worse, and yet don't "count" in this hypothetical. I need to make sense of the rest of the claims, but I know this: I was making $160k. It stopped feeling like the lucrative amount it was. I had to get a significant raise to be comfortable with no new costs - only the same, expanded. I didn't choose for everything to cost more.

willcipriano 2y ago

Not only is CPI very suspect (iPads got faster so we can ignore that pesky food inflation), the postive economic numbers pointed to are now frequently adjusted downward[0] after the fanfare settles. [0]https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/05/30/us-economic-growth-in-first-quarter-was-even-worse-than-previously-thought/ https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/05/30/us-economic-growth-in...

bravetraveler 2y ago
Reminder, too: an estimation above was based on voters. The United States (assumed, quoting census.gov) doesn't have compulsory voting. We have a lot of ballot opportunities. "Voters" is vague at best. Points being: participation often ends up abysmal. I mention this because it's also suspect/misleading - intentional or not. Posting down here to not appear as a criticism. I'm lacking facts too. Counter-intuitively... voters as a category lose each of our elections to non-voters; outnumbered like 2:1. A majority of a minority is doing better - yay! I should verify this, but I'm here rambling instead. Someone may check/correct me :) Trick is, the non-voters implicitly cast no vote. They're probably in substantial numbers, doing the same or worse, and yet don't "count" in this hypothetical. I need to make sense of the rest of the claims, but I know this: I was making $160k. It stopped feeling like the lucrative amount it was. I had to get a significant raise to be comfortable with no new costs - only the same, expanded. I didn't choose for everything to cost more.