8 ms·

Wealth inequality is high. High enough you can feel it like a vibe in the air. The richest people in the world are telling everyone to get onboard with technolo

Wealth inequality is high. High enough you can feel it like a vibe in the air. The richest people in the world are telling everyone to get onboard with technology that is determined to make a lot of those same people's jobs redundant. All with an explicit goal of increasing the price of stock most of those people do not own. IMO there's two economies, maybe divided by those who participate in the stock market and those who don't. We, Americans, have largely given up trying to improve the lives of people not in the first group. Economies are living, breathing entities and we're just grinding poorer people for fuel so richer people can have another house, another boat, another company. A lot of regular joes are really stressed out about paying rent. The loss in faith is warranted.

mathiaspoint 1y ago
[flagged]
- alistairSH 1y ago
  Huh? Where did he attack the middle-class?
paulpauper 1y ago
If you're smart or lucky enough to to land that 6-figure job, then times are pretty good. There are tons of stories on subreddits, e.g. r/FIRE, r/investing, r/fatfire, etc., of people with large nest eggs and home ownership at an early age. But those are outliers. There are many opportunities to get rich if you are lucky and or smart enough to land them, like in tech or finance. But this is not much consolation for those who lack those attributes. By statistical certainty, most people cannot be exceptionally smart or talented.
- fragmede 1y ago
  Are they good? Sure you can go on vacation and drop some coin living lavishly, but if the rest of your friends and family are struggling to pay rent while you've FIREd, wouldn't you, oh I dunno, feel guilty? Wouldn't you rather not watch the world burn? Wouldn't you rather live in a world where you want to have kids and they'll have a future?
- Buttons840 1y ago
  The following site breaks down the living wage required for families of various sizes, and the wage of various industries. I compared the living wage for my own family size with the average wage per industry and realized there were only 3 industries I could earn a living wage in, management, computers, or legal. Fortunately I have experience in the computer industry (surprise HN). Let me spell it out. The following industries provide a below living wage, on average, for a single parent with one child: business & financial operations, architecture & engineering, life, physical, & social science, community & social service, education, training, & library, arts, design, entertainment, sports, & media, healthcare practitioners & technical, healthcare support, protective service, food preparation & serving related, building & grounds cleaning & maintenance, personal care & service, sales & related, office & administrative support, farming, fishing, & forestry, construction & extraction, installation, maintenance, & repair, production, transportation & material moving. https://livingwage.mit.edu/ https://livingwage.mit.edu/ example: https://livingwage.mit.edu/states/49 https://livingwage.mit.edu/states/49
  - j_w 1y ago
    My issue with "living wage" calculations is that they never compromise. I live in a county with great public transit. The living wage before taxes is listed as 61k for a single adult. Over 9k of that is allocated to transportation costs. Did I mention the great public transit? All of the buses are free. Internet + mobile is 1500? Well gigabit fiber + mint mobile would run you 1200/year, so where is the extra 300 coming from? American consumers are unwilling to tighten their belts for long term gains, and it shows. The comment you replied to mentioned r/FIRE - a lot of people on that subreddit don't have insane incomes, they just live well below their means. This isn't to say it's not hard: it is. We live in a consumerist society and going against that is not easy. Having a low wage job is not easy. But saying the cost of living is as high as the livingwage site says is just not true. Their methodology is to obtain data from expenditure statistics - the problem is the average American is way too into consuming and spends beyond their means.
    - Buttons840 1y ago
      You make some good points. I guess a "living wage" probably implies living an "normal" American life, which isn't maximally tightening the belt. Even with good public transportation, driving saves a lot of time. The extra $300 probably comes from a combination of needing to buy a new phone and new computer periodically, hidden taxes and fees, and also it's reasonable to expect a "normal" living wage to include enough to cover at least 2 or 3 of the cheapest options--more than just one single bottom-of-the-barrel option. Again, you make good points, and I agree some skepticism about their "living wage" numbers are justified. At least they break it down to give a glimpse into some of their logic.
- John23832 1y ago
  I think that also assumes that you're able to use that entire 6 figures for yourself. And that you're able to save in these HCOL places that the 6 figures are made. And/or that you're married. Many of the people that I know in that 6 figure range (the "normal" 100-300ish range) are helping others. Family and the like. It's also 3-4k for an apartment in many of the HCOL places. That's before food, transportation, and taxes. And many people are doing it solo, not married. I'm not saying 6 figure earners are to be pitied. I'm just saying that the money goes out the door just as quickly as it comes in.
  - paulpauper 1y ago
    Many of them are not married, and even then the wife works, and they have tons of savings anyway .
- bloomingeek 1y ago
  <By statistical certainty, most people cannot be exceptionally smart or talented. These are words that most won't like to read or reply to, but are none the less true. After working with many people for many years, it became apparent that some of us are "smarter" then others. Through the fluke(?) of genetics/whatever of life, some can only attain a certain job status. A compassionate society and government must take this into consideration. We tend to label some as "lazy" who can't rise in economic status, but in many instances,they are doing the best they can.
Buttons840 1y ago
Income taxes are higher than capital gains taxes. This isn't based on economic theory or anything, it's just a political choice we have made as a country. We've chosen to reward those who move money around and trade capital more than we reward those who labor. And this at a time when, supposedly, the country is trying to increase its ability to build things. I thought this specific fact worth mentioning.
- thesmtsolver 1y ago
  1. Only long term capital gains are lower than income tax 2. Long term investors invest in things that great new jobs, it is not just moving capital around.
  - cgannett 1y ago
    3. Private equity has made long term investment a poor mans game.
  - Buttons840 1y ago
    "Long term" is 1 year, right? What a joke. Everyone can judge for themselves if 1 year is "long term".
    - thesmtsolver 1y ago
      Do you have another suggestion to address the core problem of how to inventive long term investments?
  - slt2021 1y ago
    its not only capital gains, it is the property and the system of shells and offshores that hides assets https://x.com/Finance_Nerd_/status/1952063667458978160 https://x.com/Finance_Nerd_/status/1952063667458978160 https://x.com/Finance_Nerd_/status/1952063659599106545 https://x.com/Finance_Nerd_/status/1952063659599106545
    - thesmtsolver 1y ago
zackmorris 1y ago
I've only known a "good" economy from about 1995-1999 when the internet went mainstream and for the briefest of moments, we got a taste of what public investment in tech feels like. The powers that be quickly saw the danger in that and IMHO orchestrated the Dot Bomb, 9/11, the Housing Bubble, etc to keep as much money as possible out of public hands so that the average person wouldn't have the means to participate in the stock market. Suze Orman told everyone to put their savings into Vanguard in the 2000s and they did. But since America chose to invest in McMansions and SUVs instead of moonshots and automation, Vanguard is now cannibalizing US real estate rather than making venture capital available to small businesses and startups in its insatiable hunger for profit. Along with countless other zero-sum game thinkers who choose to work within existing systems of control rather than pursuing innovations which could raise the median standard of living. This is why as America has been losing its empire status as holder of the world's reserve currency, it's been colonizing itself, particularly its young. So that's my greatest disappointment with the present era. That we collectively chose to invest in private profit rather than shared prosperity. Now, tons of people will complain that I'm oversimplifying and will kick and scream in resistance to what I'm saying. But at the end of the day, personal wealth represents wages withheld from workers. I don't know why we worship people who have reached positions of power and wealth, whose purpose for existing seems to be to withhold resources from everyone else.
- ksaun 1y ago
  Sincere question: Do you have thoughts as to how we can invest our $ if our goal is to support the "good economy" instead of attempting to ride the wave of the rich getting richer? I would like to be part of the solution instead of contributing to the problem, but it is challenging to identify companies in which to invest without supporting the status quo. I am not "rich," but wish I could better vote with what assets I do have.
  - dfxm12 1y ago
    Consider politicians like Graham Platner. Invest money, or even time, to help people who put working Americans ahead of the oligarchy get elected. If you're in Maine, even better, you can vote with your vote as well. Importantly, pay attention to primary elections as well general elections.
jimt1234 1y ago
> Wealth inequality is high. High enough you can feel it like a vibe in the air. I agree, but I think it's more than just a "vibe in the air". Throughout my youth and young adulthood, we (GenXers) knew vaguely about rich people, but nothing specific, just that rich people existed and they had nice stuff. Now, thanks to social media and the decline of humility, the lifestyles of rich people isn't just known, it's pushed in front of our faces constantly. And too often the message is straight from A Bronx Tale: "The working man is a sucker".
amelius 1y ago
> maybe divided by those who participate in the stock market and those who don't In many places there's a divide between home owners and people who rent.
- jparishy 1y ago
  I thought about that, but anecdotally i know many renters addicted to Robinhood. i think housing prices and therefore the cash necessary to get a loan have shifted this divide a bit
haleem123 1y ago
>> The richest people in the world are telling everyone to get onboard with technology that is determined to make a lot of those same people's jobs redundant. The richest people I know are trying to convince everyone 1. There is a "worker shortage" in an attempt to bring in immigrant workers whom they can boss around and keep on a leash 2. That "AI is taking jobs" so you cannot point the people who are really taking jobs -- policy makers 3. There is "low unemployment" to perpetuate the myth that the economy is great 4. "Anyone can make it" while their nepo-babies get back-door access to jobs at top firms and claim "they worked hard up the ranks"
- jparishy 1y ago
  I agree, I think this is a longer way to say what I was feeling. It's a rigamarole by people with too much money. If they had less money, they wouldn't be able to do it. So at the end of the day the root cause to me is the inequality. it allows special treatment and the ability to manipulate our daily life (through social apps, news, etc) in a way that they are completely insulated from, feeling no pain whatsoever. Huge policy failure to let so few people have so much influence
duxup 1y ago
I guess, but ... people then vote to give those rich folks power. I don't doubt there are vast differences in opportunity and even rights at this point, but I don't think that's how people see it. Not if they're trying to get more of those folks in power.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

mathiaspoint 1y ago

[flagged]

alistairSH 1y ago
Huh? Where did he attack the middle-class?

paulpauper 1y ago

If you're smart or lucky enough to to land that 6-figure job, then times are pretty good. There are tons of stories on subreddits, e.g. r/FIRE, r/investing, r/fatfire, etc., of people with large nest eggs and home ownership at an early age. But those are outliers. There are many opportunities to get rich if you are lucky and or smart enough to land them, like in tech or finance. But this is not much consolation for those who lack those attributes. By statistical certainty, most people cannot be exceptionally smart or talented.

fragmede 1y ago
Are they good? Sure you can go on vacation and drop some coin living lavishly, but if the rest of your friends and family are struggling to pay rent while you've FIREd, wouldn't you, oh I dunno, feel guilty? Wouldn't you rather not watch the world burn? Wouldn't you rather live in a world where you want to have kids and they'll have a future?
Buttons840 1y ago
The following site breaks down the living wage required for families of various sizes, and the wage of various industries. I compared the living wage for my own family size with the average wage per industry and realized there were only 3 industries I could earn a living wage in, management, computers, or legal. Fortunately I have experience in the computer industry (surprise HN). Let me spell it out. The following industries provide a below living wage, on average, for a single parent with one child: business & financial operations, architecture & engineering, life, physical, & social science, community & social service, education, training, & library, arts, design, entertainment, sports, & media, healthcare practitioners & technical, healthcare support, protective service, food preparation & serving related, building & grounds cleaning & maintenance, personal care & service, sales & related, office & administrative support, farming, fishing, & forestry, construction & extraction, installation, maintenance, & repair, production, transportation & material moving. https://livingwage.mit.edu/ https://livingwage.mit.edu/ example: https://livingwage.mit.edu/states/49 https://livingwage.mit.edu/states/49
- j_w 1y ago
  My issue with "living wage" calculations is that they never compromise. I live in a county with great public transit. The living wage before taxes is listed as 61k for a single adult. Over 9k of that is allocated to transportation costs. Did I mention the great public transit? All of the buses are free. Internet + mobile is 1500? Well gigabit fiber + mint mobile would run you 1200/year, so where is the extra 300 coming from? American consumers are unwilling to tighten their belts for long term gains, and it shows. The comment you replied to mentioned r/FIRE - a lot of people on that subreddit don't have insane incomes, they just live well below their means. This isn't to say it's not hard: it is. We live in a consumerist society and going against that is not easy. Having a low wage job is not easy. But saying the cost of living is as high as the livingwage site says is just not true. Their methodology is to obtain data from expenditure statistics - the problem is the average American is way too into consuming and spends beyond their means.
  - Buttons840 1y ago
    You make some good points. I guess a "living wage" probably implies living an "normal" American life, which isn't maximally tightening the belt. Even with good public transportation, driving saves a lot of time. The extra $300 probably comes from a combination of needing to buy a new phone and new computer periodically, hidden taxes and fees, and also it's reasonable to expect a "normal" living wage to include enough to cover at least 2 or 3 of the cheapest options--more than just one single bottom-of-the-barrel option. Again, you make good points, and I agree some skepticism about their "living wage" numbers are justified. At least they break it down to give a glimpse into some of their logic.
John23832 1y ago
I think that also assumes that you're able to use that entire 6 figures for yourself. And that you're able to save in these HCOL places that the 6 figures are made. And/or that you're married. Many of the people that I know in that 6 figure range (the "normal" 100-300ish range) are helping others. Family and the like. It's also 3-4k for an apartment in many of the HCOL places. That's before food, transportation, and taxes. And many people are doing it solo, not married. I'm not saying 6 figure earners are to be pitied. I'm just saying that the money goes out the door just as quickly as it comes in.
- paulpauper 1y ago
  Many of them are not married, and even then the wife works, and they have tons of savings anyway .
bloomingeek 1y ago
<By statistical certainty, most people cannot be exceptionally smart or talented. These are words that most won't like to read or reply to, but are none the less true. After working with many people for many years, it became apparent that some of us are "smarter" then others. Through the fluke(?) of genetics/whatever of life, some can only attain a certain job status. A compassionate society and government must take this into consideration. We tend to label some as "lazy" who can't rise in economic status, but in many instances,they are doing the best they can.

Buttons840 1y ago

Income taxes are higher than capital gains taxes. This isn't based on economic theory or anything, it's just a political choice we have made as a country. We've chosen to reward those who move money around and trade capital more than we reward those who labor. And this at a time when, supposedly, the country is trying to increase its ability to build things. I thought this specific fact worth mentioning.

thesmtsolver 1y ago
1. Only long term capital gains are lower than income tax 2. Long term investors invest in things that great new jobs, it is not just moving capital around.
- cgannett 1y ago
  3. Private equity has made long term investment a poor mans game.
- Buttons840 1y ago
  "Long term" is 1 year, right? What a joke. Everyone can judge for themselves if 1 year is "long term".
  - thesmtsolver 1y ago
    Do you have another suggestion to address the core problem of how to inventive long term investments?
- slt2021 1y ago
  its not only capital gains, it is the property and the system of shells and offshores that hides assets https://x.com/Finance_Nerd_/status/1952063667458978160 https://x.com/Finance_Nerd_/status/1952063667458978160 https://x.com/Finance_Nerd_/status/1952063659599106545 https://x.com/Finance_Nerd_/status/1952063659599106545
  - thesmtsolver 1y ago

zackmorris 1y ago

I've only known a "good" economy from about 1995-1999 when the internet went mainstream and for the briefest of moments, we got a taste of what public investment in tech feels like. The powers that be quickly saw the danger in that and IMHO orchestrated the Dot Bomb, 9/11, the Housing Bubble, etc to keep as much money as possible out of public hands so that the average person wouldn't have the means to participate in the stock market. Suze Orman told everyone to put their savings into Vanguard in the 2000s and they did. But since America chose to invest in McMansions and SUVs instead of moonshots and automation, Vanguard is now cannibalizing US real estate rather than making venture capital available to small businesses and startups in its insatiable hunger for profit. Along with countless other zero-sum game thinkers who choose to work within existing systems of control rather than pursuing innovations which could raise the median standard of living. This is why as America has been losing its empire status as holder of the world's reserve currency, it's been colonizing itself, particularly its young. So that's my greatest disappointment with the present era. That we collectively chose to invest in private profit rather than shared prosperity. Now, tons of people will complain that I'm oversimplifying and will kick and scream in resistance to what I'm saying. But at the end of the day, personal wealth represents wages withheld from workers. I don't know why we worship people who have reached positions of power and wealth, whose purpose for existing seems to be to withhold resources from everyone else.

ksaun 1y ago
Sincere question: Do you have thoughts as to how we can invest our $ if our goal is to support the "good economy" instead of attempting to ride the wave of the rich getting richer? I would like to be part of the solution instead of contributing to the problem, but it is challenging to identify companies in which to invest without supporting the status quo. I am not "rich," but wish I could better vote with what assets I do have.
- dfxm12 1y ago
  Consider politicians like Graham Platner. Invest money, or even time, to help people who put working Americans ahead of the oligarchy get elected. If you're in Maine, even better, you can vote with your vote as well. Importantly, pay attention to primary elections as well general elections.

jimt1234 1y ago

> Wealth inequality is high. High enough you can feel it like a vibe in the air. I agree, but I think it's more than just a "vibe in the air". Throughout my youth and young adulthood, we (GenXers) knew vaguely about rich people, but nothing specific, just that rich people existed and they had nice stuff. Now, thanks to social media and the decline of humility, the lifestyles of rich people isn't just known, it's pushed in front of our faces constantly. And too often the message is straight from A Bronx Tale: "The working man is a sucker".

amelius 1y ago

> maybe divided by those who participate in the stock market and those who don't In many places there's a divide between home owners and people who rent.

jparishy 1y ago
I thought about that, but anecdotally i know many renters addicted to Robinhood. i think housing prices and therefore the cash necessary to get a loan have shifted this divide a bit

haleem123 1y ago

>> The richest people in the world are telling everyone to get onboard with technology that is determined to make a lot of those same people's jobs redundant. The richest people I know are trying to convince everyone 1. There is a "worker shortage" in an attempt to bring in immigrant workers whom they can boss around and keep on a leash 2. That "AI is taking jobs" so you cannot point the people who are really taking jobs -- policy makers 3. There is "low unemployment" to perpetuate the myth that the economy is great 4. "Anyone can make it" while their nepo-babies get back-door access to jobs at top firms and claim "they worked hard up the ranks"

jparishy 1y ago
I agree, I think this is a longer way to say what I was feeling. It's a rigamarole by people with too much money. If they had less money, they wouldn't be able to do it. So at the end of the day the root cause to me is the inequality. it allows special treatment and the ability to manipulate our daily life (through social apps, news, etc) in a way that they are completely insulated from, feeling no pain whatsoever. Huge policy failure to let so few people have so much influence

duxup 1y ago

I guess, but ... people then vote to give those rich folks power. I don't doubt there are vast differences in opportunity and even rights at this point, but I don't think that's how people see it. Not if they're trying to get more of those folks in power.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]