4 ms·

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 c

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?
      - ajross 2y ago
        > I think income inequality is at least part of the story in overall standard of living along And I think that's bunk, because what other people are making or can afford says absolutely nothing about my financial situation. If your next door neighbor wins the lottery, does that make you poorer? If they lose their job, are you richer? No. Income inequality is a different issue. I'm happy to discuss it, but not if I have to start by defending a (wildly incorrect!) assertion that standards of living are going down and not up.
        monadINtop 2y ago
        Do you think a decades long trend of upward concentration of wealth is remotely equatable to my next door neighbor winning the lottery? Where do you think that money even comes from? >because what other people are making or can afford says absolutely nothing about my financial situation No offence but I don't care about your financial situation. I care about the financial situation of most people, and if they increasingly can't afford necessities like housing or food I also really couldn't care less that the numbers going into their bank account have gone up since last year. My point is material goods and economic markers can increase on paper whilst people can increasingly be restricted from the housing market, career prospects, and other factors not easily reflected in said markers. If you are interested in defending the fact that those markers are indeed doing fine then you're in a debate with yourself. The relevance of those markers is not obvious, or trivial to justify in relation to the actual world people are living in
        ajross 2y ago
        > Do you think a decades long trend of upward concentration of wealth is remotely equatable to my next door neighbor winning the lottery? I think it's not about income or living standards, which is what you started talking about. So I'm not interested in discussing it with you in this thread because I don't trust you to treat the ideas with precision and good faith.
dangus 2y ago
> people pointing out the obvious declination in living standards and increase in societal problems But it’s not like you’re not doing the same thing in the opposite direction. The only thing really factual here on your list is wealth inequality, although as recently in history as the gilded age it was the same or worse. You barely have to go back more than 100 years to witness children working in factories with no safety standards in the USA. And really we don’t have to involve the totality of human history to talk about major problems in the 1960s/1970s or even 1990s that we don’t have anymore. - Lack of regulations that led to the EPA. Your parents probably grew up in a more polluted environment today breathing leaded gasoline. - Extremely recent prevalence of easily immunized diseases. Smallpox was eradicated in 1980 which wasn’t all that long ago. Polio also comes to mind. - Developing countries like China where living standards have very obviously shot up by magnitudes in living memory - Crime in the US at generally declining levels since the 1990s, which has resumed its decline since the pandemic spike. - Arguably a decent amount less societal friction than the mid-century in America and more recently like with the LA riots. You don’t have to go far back in time to have civil rights problems like gay people being excluded from marriage, women being disallowed from opening a bank account on their own, Black people being prohibited from getting mortgages. - Just the last decade of cancer treatment technology improvements has been incredible for late life longevity, and America’s best universal healthcare program (Medicare) has better outcomes than other wealthy countries’ universal healthcare systems. - The continuation of life expectancy gains has only recently stalled and IMO this will likely tick up again as obesity becomes a treatable disease with simple pharmaceuticals. - Safety standards and behavioral changes related to common causes of premature death. Factors like a more regulated tobacco industry and lower rates of smoking and motor vehicle safety improvements come to mind. A society that allowed cigarette companies to advertise with doctors as spokespeople is a society where you’re more likely to die early. A society where the youngest generation has lower usage of alcohol and drugs like Gen Z/Gen Alpha does is one that is going to have better life outcomes compared to one that has higher use rates, and that behavior is a result of improvements to the environment around them. I could go on and on…yes things like housing and university have become very expensive, yes there are problems, but holistically you’d probably right rather be alive now than in 1970.
- monadINtop 2y ago
SR2Z 2y ago
> 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 would like you to post numbers. "National wealth" is not a vague notion, it's the product of lots of government workers doing a lot of statistics. Some of those statistics are target specifically at the bottom quintile or decile of income or wealth (they are vastly different). Income for the bottom 10% is rising. Wealth for the bottom 10% is rising. Gen Z is unprecedentedly rich at this point in their lives, relative to past generations. The reason why the American middle class has shrunk is mostly because the upper class has grown. The third link below has a graph that highlights why this is a GOOD THING. I don't doubt that quality-of-life has declined for a lot of people - but those people are a minority and the data does not support anything else. Most of their pain is almost certainly housing prices, which have been the Great Sin of the Democratic party and notably have very little to do with federal policy. If you want to talk about vague notions, let's talk about "wealth inequality." Most of these takes are bad because that's not how the stock market works. Elon Musk cannot go out tomorrow and buy $3XXB of stuff. He probably cannot even come CLOSE to realizing the full paper value of his net worth in cash. None of the world's rich can. Yet there is a daily, breathless headline about wealth inequality that waves those dollar figures around like they're real. Stop disregarding on actual, economic data in favor of hyperbolic headlines about wealth inequality. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/family-finance/articles/where-do-i-fall-in-the-american-economic-class-system https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/family-finan... https://www.visualcapitalist.com/animation-collapse-middle-class-20-major-u-s-cities/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/animation-collapse-middle-c...
- monadINtop 2y ago
  >"National wealth" is not a vague notion, it's the product of lots of government workers doing a lot of statistics Wow what a convincing justification for the need to equate the measurement of rising capital within national jurisdictions over an analysis that acknowledges the distinction between revenue among fortune 500 shareholders and the average person who is not exposed to such returns. >Income for the bottom 10% is rising. Wealth for the bottom 10% is rising. If income for the bottom majority increases at a rate slower than the income of the top minority then "income" is being concentrated upward. Money determines the distribution of resources, it is not a resource itself. If the concentration of the ability to determine resources is increasingly concentrated upwards then people are getting poorer, regardless if overall production has increased. Your idea that everyone is actually getting richer and upwardly mobile is not reflected in reality. 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 >I don't doubt that quality-of-life has declined for a lot of people - but those people are a minority and the data does not support anything else. Most of their pain is almost certainly housing prices, which have been the Great Sin of the Democratic party and notably have very little to do with federal policy. How do skyrocketing housing prices not factor into your judgment that people's quality of life isn't declining?? I don't care who you want to blame it on (!?), not being able to afford a house makes people's lives worse and more people can't afford houses... https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/assessing-the-severity-of-rent-burden-on-low-income-families-20171222.html https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/asse... https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2024/11/housing-affordability-crisis-boston-zoning-reforms-2024 https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2024/11/housing-affordabilit... >Most of these takes are bad because that's not how the stock market works. Elon Musk cannot go out tomorrow and buy $3XXB of stuff. He probably cannot even come CLOSE to realizing the full paper value of his net worth in cash. None of the world's rich can. Yet there is a daily, breathless headline about wealth inequality that waves those dollar figures around like they're real. Who's saying that Elon Musk is walking around with a trillion bank notes in his pockets like Scrooge McDuck? You're arguing with shadows, and if you think that wealth is not being upwardly concentrated in the top 1% - which is justified by any metric regardless of the stock market or unrealized assets - then I don't see what I'm going to get out of a discussion with someone so utterly removed from reality. https://ourworldindata.org/the-history-of-global-economic-inequality https://ourworldindata.org/the-history-of-global-economic-in... https://web.archive.org/web/20161225142704/https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2017_economic_report_of_president.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20161225142704/https://www.white... (page 60) >Stop disregarding on actual, economic data in favor of hyperbolic headlines about wealth inequality. It's always a pain talking to someone who is delusional enough to think that the hodge-podge of synthetic economic markers or data visualizations cobbled together by "visualcapitalist.com" is even close to being remotely objective or scientific.

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?
    - ajross 2y ago
      > I think income inequality is at least part of the story in overall standard of living along And I think that's bunk, because what other people are making or can afford says absolutely nothing about my financial situation. If your next door neighbor wins the lottery, does that make you poorer? If they lose their job, are you richer? No. Income inequality is a different issue. I'm happy to discuss it, but not if I have to start by defending a (wildly incorrect!) assertion that standards of living are going down and not up.
      - monadINtop 2y ago
        Do you think a decades long trend of upward concentration of wealth is remotely equatable to my next door neighbor winning the lottery? Where do you think that money even comes from? >because what other people are making or can afford says absolutely nothing about my financial situation No offence but I don't care about your financial situation. I care about the financial situation of most people, and if they increasingly can't afford necessities like housing or food I also really couldn't care less that the numbers going into their bank account have gone up since last year. My point is material goods and economic markers can increase on paper whilst people can increasingly be restricted from the housing market, career prospects, and other factors not easily reflected in said markers. If you are interested in defending the fact that those markers are indeed doing fine then you're in a debate with yourself. The relevance of those markers is not obvious, or trivial to justify in relation to the actual world people are living in
        ajross 2y ago
        > Do you think a decades long trend of upward concentration of wealth is remotely equatable to my next door neighbor winning the lottery? I think it's not about income or living standards, which is what you started talking about. So I'm not interested in discussing it with you in this thread because I don't trust you to treat the ideas with precision and good faith.

dangus 2y ago

> people pointing out the obvious declination in living standards and increase in societal problems But it’s not like you’re not doing the same thing in the opposite direction. The only thing really factual here on your list is wealth inequality, although as recently in history as the gilded age it was the same or worse. You barely have to go back more than 100 years to witness children working in factories with no safety standards in the USA. And really we don’t have to involve the totality of human history to talk about major problems in the 1960s/1970s or even 1990s that we don’t have anymore. - Lack of regulations that led to the EPA. Your parents probably grew up in a more polluted environment today breathing leaded gasoline. - Extremely recent prevalence of easily immunized diseases. Smallpox was eradicated in 1980 which wasn’t all that long ago. Polio also comes to mind. - Developing countries like China where living standards have very obviously shot up by magnitudes in living memory - Crime in the US at generally declining levels since the 1990s, which has resumed its decline since the pandemic spike. - Arguably a decent amount less societal friction than the mid-century in America and more recently like with the LA riots. You don’t have to go far back in time to have civil rights problems like gay people being excluded from marriage, women being disallowed from opening a bank account on their own, Black people being prohibited from getting mortgages. - Just the last decade of cancer treatment technology improvements has been incredible for late life longevity, and America’s best universal healthcare program (Medicare) has better outcomes than other wealthy countries’ universal healthcare systems. - The continuation of life expectancy gains has only recently stalled and IMO this will likely tick up again as obesity becomes a treatable disease with simple pharmaceuticals. - Safety standards and behavioral changes related to common causes of premature death. Factors like a more regulated tobacco industry and lower rates of smoking and motor vehicle safety improvements come to mind. A society that allowed cigarette companies to advertise with doctors as spokespeople is a society where you’re more likely to die early. A society where the youngest generation has lower usage of alcohol and drugs like Gen Z/Gen Alpha does is one that is going to have better life outcomes compared to one that has higher use rates, and that behavior is a result of improvements to the environment around them. I could go on and on…yes things like housing and university have become very expensive, yes there are problems, but holistically you’d probably right rather be alive now than in 1970.

monadINtop 2y ago

SR2Z 2y ago

> 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 would like you to post numbers. "National wealth" is not a vague notion, it's the product of lots of government workers doing a lot of statistics. Some of those statistics are target specifically at the bottom quintile or decile of income or wealth (they are vastly different). Income for the bottom 10% is rising. Wealth for the bottom 10% is rising. Gen Z is unprecedentedly rich at this point in their lives, relative to past generations. The reason why the American middle class has shrunk is mostly because the upper class has grown. The third link below has a graph that highlights why this is a GOOD THING. I don't doubt that quality-of-life has declined for a lot of people - but those people are a minority and the data does not support anything else. Most of their pain is almost certainly housing prices, which have been the Great Sin of the Democratic party and notably have very little to do with federal policy. If you want to talk about vague notions, let's talk about "wealth inequality." Most of these takes are bad because that's not how the stock market works. Elon Musk cannot go out tomorrow and buy $3XXB of stuff. He probably cannot even come CLOSE to realizing the full paper value of his net worth in cash. None of the world's rich can. Yet there is a daily, breathless headline about wealth inequality that waves those dollar figures around like they're real. Stop disregarding on actual, economic data in favor of hyperbolic headlines about wealth inequality. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/family-finance/articles/where-do-i-fall-in-the-american-economic-class-system https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/family-finan... https://www.visualcapitalist.com/animation-collapse-middle-class-20-major-u-s-cities/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/animation-collapse-middle-c...

monadINtop 2y ago
>"National wealth" is not a vague notion, it's the product of lots of government workers doing a lot of statistics Wow what a convincing justification for the need to equate the measurement of rising capital within national jurisdictions over an analysis that acknowledges the distinction between revenue among fortune 500 shareholders and the average person who is not exposed to such returns. >Income for the bottom 10% is rising. Wealth for the bottom 10% is rising. If income for the bottom majority increases at a rate slower than the income of the top minority then "income" is being concentrated upward. Money determines the distribution of resources, it is not a resource itself. If the concentration of the ability to determine resources is increasingly concentrated upwards then people are getting poorer, regardless if overall production has increased. Your idea that everyone is actually getting richer and upwardly mobile is not reflected in reality. 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 >I don't doubt that quality-of-life has declined for a lot of people - but those people are a minority and the data does not support anything else. Most of their pain is almost certainly housing prices, which have been the Great Sin of the Democratic party and notably have very little to do with federal policy. How do skyrocketing housing prices not factor into your judgment that people's quality of life isn't declining?? I don't care who you want to blame it on (!?), not being able to afford a house makes people's lives worse and more people can't afford houses... https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/assessing-the-severity-of-rent-burden-on-low-income-families-20171222.html https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/asse... https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2024/11/housing-affordability-crisis-boston-zoning-reforms-2024 https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2024/11/housing-affordabilit... >Most of these takes are bad because that's not how the stock market works. Elon Musk cannot go out tomorrow and buy $3XXB of stuff. He probably cannot even come CLOSE to realizing the full paper value of his net worth in cash. None of the world's rich can. Yet there is a daily, breathless headline about wealth inequality that waves those dollar figures around like they're real. Who's saying that Elon Musk is walking around with a trillion bank notes in his pockets like Scrooge McDuck? You're arguing with shadows, and if you think that wealth is not being upwardly concentrated in the top 1% - which is justified by any metric regardless of the stock market or unrealized assets - then I don't see what I'm going to get out of a discussion with someone so utterly removed from reality. https://ourworldindata.org/the-history-of-global-economic-inequality https://ourworldindata.org/the-history-of-global-economic-in... https://web.archive.org/web/20161225142704/https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2017_economic_report_of_president.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20161225142704/https://www.white... (page 60) >Stop disregarding on actual, economic data in favor of hyperbolic headlines about wealth inequality. It's always a pain talking to someone who is delusional enough to think that the hodge-podge of synthetic economic markers or data visualizations cobbled together by "visualcapitalist.com" is even close to being remotely objective or scientific.