4 ms·

> many Americans are highly stressed, in precarious financial positions, with toxic work environments, pushed to work at above 100% effort That seems spun. I

by ajross 2y ago

> many Americans are highly stressed, in precarious financial positions, with toxic work environments, pushed to work at above 100% effort That seems spun. I don't think any of that is substantiated in any kind of rigorous way. Median americans today are wealthier than any population in human history, are working more than their compatriots elsewhere in the world but less than their parents, have more leisure time, travel more, etc... There's lots of things to complaint about, and there always will be. But really this kind of "Everything is Awful" rhetoric is just vibes. Yes, life sucks. It sucked worse for your ancestors.

bluefirebrand 2y ago
> Yes, life sucks. It sucked worse for your ancestors. Most of the time you are right, but the Baby Boomers are a pretty big outlier in this regard There is no question that the average Baby Boomer has had it much better than their children and grandchildren have
- ajross 2y ago
  Not numerically. Median real income today is more than twice what it was in the 60's. FWIW: there's a... sociological problem with arguments framed around that. When you measure US citizen wealth in the 1960's it looks unimpressive[1]. When you picture a "baby boomer", you see a working class family with no debt behind a white picket fence in a beautiful new subdivision living a great life on just the one income. And those families existed! So what gives? You're looking at a family headed by a working class white man. Not everyone could get those "working class" jobs that supported a family in the suburbs. There was plenty of poverty in the 60's, it was just hidden along with the single moms and minority communities we didn't record. Things today are a lot more even, which means that the "white picket fence" demographic perceives things going in the opposite direction from what's actually happening. [1] Relative to today, anyway. The US in the 60's was obviously an extremely wealthy country!
  - bluefirebrand 2y ago
    > Not numerically. Median real income today is more than twice what it was in the 60's The 60s is not really relevant to any discussion about Baby Boomers, who would have been teens at the oldest in the 60s Compare the years they were in their prime
    - ajross 2y ago
      OK, median income has "almost" doubled since the 70's and 80's. I don't see how you think that helps the case?
      - bluefirebrand 2y ago
        Income is not the same as purchasing power Purchasing power is around 7-8x less today than the 70s
        ajross 2y ago
        Why do people do this? That's not just wrong, or even laughably wrong, it's completely made up nonsense. FRED doesn't have PPP median income, but here's GDP per capita PPP. A little more than double what it was in 1970: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RGDPCHUSA625NUPN https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RGDPCHUSA625NUPN (You can recover PPP median income if you like by pulling in the nominal GDP and median and multiplying by the fraction, but I'm too lazy to do it for you.) You are wrong. You are VERY wrong. Your intuition about the state of the world has been colored by a bunch of vibes you've been fed that don't have any basis in fact. At all.
        bluefirebrand 2y ago
        It seems to me that you're believing cherry picked statistics that show what you want to believe, and you think that I'm doing the same, which is entirely fair. It's clear we're not gonna agree, but thanks for the discussion regardless. It's always interesting to see the perspective of the people I disagree with. Cheers
- swatcoder 2y ago
  For the average white Baby Boomer with Anglo or Central/Northern European protestent ancestry and two resident parents, one of whom being unionized or a white collar professional, no question at all. And while there were enough of those to write and televise a mythos about that America in counterpoint to the communist threat overseas, it actually represents a narrow slow that the "average" Baby Boomer did not get to enjoy and doesn't live in much benefit of today.
monadINtop 2y ago
It's always so strange to see this kind of "rigorous" posturing as a reply to people pointing out the obvious declination in their own living standards in the current moment. The vague notion of "national wealth" obscures the staggering wealth inequality that also is unique with respect to the current moment in human history, as does many of the theoretical parameters or models invoked by many economists or journalists in arguments like these. I'm not going to comment on that sweeping over-generalization of the totality of human history because it is vague to the point of meaninglessness.
- ajross 2y ago
  If it's obvious, maybe you could show numbers?
  - monadINtop 2y ago
    Thomas Piketty's book on the matter should have enough for you. http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2015AER.pdf http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2015AER.pdf https://wid.world/news-article/whats-new-about-wealth-inequality-in-the-world/ https://wid.world/news-article/whats-new-about-wealth-inequa... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10888-010-9155-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10888-010-9155-y
    - ajross 2y ago
      Piketty is all about wealth inequality. I'm asking for numbers substantiating the contention about "obvious declination in [American] living standards" upthread, which isn't something Piketty speaks to. I'm all for discussing other issues in their own space and with clarity, but if people come to a discussion about income and start citing things that are not about income, I'll be honest I don't tend to want to engage. It's vibes, like I said.
      - monadINtop 2y ago
        I think income inequality is at least part of the story in overall standard of living along with other markers of material wealth, purchasing power, productivity, wage-stagnation, etc. What numbers in particular do you think could be more useful?
sydbarrett74 2y ago
We may be wealthier materially overall, but we're poorer mentally and socially. TANSTAAFL. And as others have pointed out, a higher aggregate level of wealth hides immense disparities.
- SR2Z 2y ago
  > we're poorer mentally and socially. Do you actually think that there was less mental illness in the past? Because I find that extremely unlikely. My parents' (gen X) generation is LOUSY with depressed, anxious people who don't believe in medication, therapy, or really even the existence of many forms of mental illness. They had more serious problems to contend with - political instability, unemployment, etc., etc. and so they bottled their feelings up and did the needful. Human beings are evolved to survive on the edge, in situations where our performance is the difference between their families' survival or starvation. Even 50 years ago, food was more expensive and work was harder on our bodies and minds - people getting depressed about writing code, frequently at less than 40hr weeks, have nothing on office workers of the 70s. Calories and entertainment keep getting cheaper, which means anxiety and depression keep getting more maladaptive.
  - sydbarrett74 2y ago
    When there's an epidemic of attempted/successful suicides amongst teenagers, much of it driven by social media, we are absolutely sicker mentally than in times past.

by ajross 2y ago

bluefirebrand 2y ago

> Yes, life sucks. It sucked worse for your ancestors. Most of the time you are right, but the Baby Boomers are a pretty big outlier in this regard There is no question that the average Baby Boomer has had it much better than their children and grandchildren have

ajross 2y ago
Not numerically. Median real income today is more than twice what it was in the 60's. FWIW: there's a... sociological problem with arguments framed around that. When you measure US citizen wealth in the 1960's it looks unimpressive[1]. When you picture a "baby boomer", you see a working class family with no debt behind a white picket fence in a beautiful new subdivision living a great life on just the one income. And those families existed! So what gives? You're looking at a family headed by a working class white man. Not everyone could get those "working class" jobs that supported a family in the suburbs. There was plenty of poverty in the 60's, it was just hidden along with the single moms and minority communities we didn't record. Things today are a lot more even, which means that the "white picket fence" demographic perceives things going in the opposite direction from what's actually happening. [1] Relative to today, anyway. The US in the 60's was obviously an extremely wealthy country!
- bluefirebrand 2y ago
  > Not numerically. Median real income today is more than twice what it was in the 60's The 60s is not really relevant to any discussion about Baby Boomers, who would have been teens at the oldest in the 60s Compare the years they were in their prime
  - ajross 2y ago
    OK, median income has "almost" doubled since the 70's and 80's. I don't see how you think that helps the case?
    - bluefirebrand 2y ago
      Income is not the same as purchasing power Purchasing power is around 7-8x less today than the 70s
      - ajross 2y ago
        Why do people do this? That's not just wrong, or even laughably wrong, it's completely made up nonsense. FRED doesn't have PPP median income, but here's GDP per capita PPP. A little more than double what it was in 1970: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RGDPCHUSA625NUPN https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RGDPCHUSA625NUPN (You can recover PPP median income if you like by pulling in the nominal GDP and median and multiplying by the fraction, but I'm too lazy to do it for you.) You are wrong. You are VERY wrong. Your intuition about the state of the world has been colored by a bunch of vibes you've been fed that don't have any basis in fact. At all.
        bluefirebrand 2y ago
        It seems to me that you're believing cherry picked statistics that show what you want to believe, and you think that I'm doing the same, which is entirely fair. It's clear we're not gonna agree, but thanks for the discussion regardless. It's always interesting to see the perspective of the people I disagree with. Cheers
swatcoder 2y ago
For the average white Baby Boomer with Anglo or Central/Northern European protestent ancestry and two resident parents, one of whom being unionized or a white collar professional, no question at all. And while there were enough of those to write and televise a mythos about that America in counterpoint to the communist threat overseas, it actually represents a narrow slow that the "average" Baby Boomer did not get to enjoy and doesn't live in much benefit of today.

monadINtop 2y ago

It's always so strange to see this kind of "rigorous" posturing as a reply to people pointing out the obvious declination in their own living standards in the current moment. The vague notion of "national wealth" obscures the staggering wealth inequality that also is unique with respect to the current moment in human history, as does many of the theoretical parameters or models invoked by many economists or journalists in arguments like these. I'm not going to comment on that sweeping over-generalization of the totality of human history because it is vague to the point of meaninglessness.

ajross 2y ago
If it's obvious, maybe you could show numbers?
- monadINtop 2y ago
  Thomas Piketty's book on the matter should have enough for you. http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2015AER.pdf http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2015AER.pdf https://wid.world/news-article/whats-new-about-wealth-inequality-in-the-world/ https://wid.world/news-article/whats-new-about-wealth-inequa... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10888-010-9155-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10888-010-9155-y
  - ajross 2y ago
    Piketty is all about wealth inequality. I'm asking for numbers substantiating the contention about "obvious declination in [American] living standards" upthread, which isn't something Piketty speaks to. I'm all for discussing other issues in their own space and with clarity, but if people come to a discussion about income and start citing things that are not about income, I'll be honest I don't tend to want to engage. It's vibes, like I said.
    - monadINtop 2y ago
      I think income inequality is at least part of the story in overall standard of living along with other markers of material wealth, purchasing power, productivity, wage-stagnation, etc. What numbers in particular do you think could be more useful?

sydbarrett74 2y ago

We may be wealthier materially overall, but we're poorer mentally and socially. TANSTAAFL. And as others have pointed out, a higher aggregate level of wealth hides immense disparities.

SR2Z 2y ago
> we're poorer mentally and socially. Do you actually think that there was less mental illness in the past? Because I find that extremely unlikely. My parents' (gen X) generation is LOUSY with depressed, anxious people who don't believe in medication, therapy, or really even the existence of many forms of mental illness. They had more serious problems to contend with - political instability, unemployment, etc., etc. and so they bottled their feelings up and did the needful. Human beings are evolved to survive on the edge, in situations where our performance is the difference between their families' survival or starvation. Even 50 years ago, food was more expensive and work was harder on our bodies and minds - people getting depressed about writing code, frequently at less than 40hr weeks, have nothing on office workers of the 70s. Calories and entertainment keep getting cheaper, which means anxiety and depression keep getting more maladaptive.
- sydbarrett74 2y ago
  When there's an epidemic of attempted/successful suicides amongst teenagers, much of it driven by social media, we are absolutely sicker mentally than in times past.