4 ms·

Why then, outside of Norway, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and the UAE (All of which are tiny countries, and at least two of them are Petrostates), does the United S

Why then, outside of Norway, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and the UAE (All of which are tiny countries, and at least two of them are Petrostates), does the United States have the world's highest median income with a population of over 342 million people? The typical American is insanely wealthy by global standards.

noitpmeder 10mo ago
But it's not like AI did any of that...
- creato 10mo ago
  Past innovation did though.
- grafmax 10mo ago
  Right we had a functioning labor movement to thank for productivity gains being distributed to the working class. When that got undermined beginning late seventies early 80s with offshoring we see wealth just flowing to the top without significantly benefiting the working class.
N_Lens 10mo ago
Wealth inequality is worse now than the era of robber barons & gilded age.
- ETH_start 10mo ago
  The 1870-1900 period experienced the greatest expansion of U.S. industry, and the fastest rise in both U.S. wages and U.S. life expectancy, in history.
- hcurtiss 10mo ago
  Who cares? If higher wealth inequality produces a higher standard of living for the majority (note, median not mean), I’m all for it. Policy should not be driven by envy.
  - forgetfreeman 10mo ago
    It isn't, so now what?
  - Libidinalecon 10mo ago
    You should care because people vote and the social consequences are going to be devastating. It is easy for me to take this perspective too because I never had much student debt or children. The median though is getting crushed if they went to college and are paying for daycare. If you are getting crushed for going to school and having children that is a pretty clear breakdown of the social contract. The consequences are obvious. People are going to vote in socialist policies and the whole engine is going to get thrown in reverse. The "let them eat cake" strategy is never the smart strategy. It is not obvious at all our system is even compatible with the internet. If the starting conditions are 1999, it would seem like the system is imploding. It is easy to pretend like everything is working out economically when we borrowed 30 trillion dollars during that time from the future.
    - roenxi 10mo ago
      > The median though is getting crushed if they went to college and are paying for daycare. > If you are getting crushed for going to school and having children that is a pretty clear breakdown of the social contract. That isn't a factor in wealth inequality. Inequality is how much money they have relative to people like Musk and Bezos - or just local business owners. The poor side of that comparison always has such little wealth/income that their circumstances don't really matter. Someone poor will be sitting in the +-$100k band and not be particularly creditworthy. When compared to a millionaire the gap is still going to be about a million dollars whether they're on the crushed or non-crushed side of the band. Part of the reason the economic situation gets so bad is because people keep trying to shift the conversation to inequality instead of talking about what actually matters - living standards and opportunities. And convincing people to value accumulating capital, we're been playing this game for centuries, inter-generational savings could have had a real impact if people focused on being effective about it.
- jandrewrogers 10mo ago
  In the gilded age people were worth a larger fraction of the entire country’s GDP than today. Rockefeller alone was something like 2% of GDP.
abright 10mo ago
Sure, the USA is in the top five in terms of median income. They are also tied for first for having the highest cost of living. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-living-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-l...
- chroma205 10mo ago
  > They are also tied for first for having the highest cost of living. Who cares? Absolute savings rate and net worth are what matter. Any European will gladly live in America for US$1 million/year income even if the cost of living is US$300k/year.
  - forgetfreeman 10mo ago
    Who the fuck do you know that makes a million dollars a year? The majority of Americans barely clear that bar over their entire career.
  - Arodex 10mo ago
    Americans at every wealth level live shorter lives than e.g. Brits. https://www.ft.com/content/653bbb26-8a22-4db3-b43d-c34a0b774303 https://www.ft.com/content/653bbb26-8a22-4db3-b43d-c34a0b774...
  - fzeroracer 10mo ago
    > Absolute savings rate and net worth are what matter. OK, now tell me how the savings and net worth look like for your average American. I'll give you a bit of a spoiler: it's not good.
forgetfreeman 10mo ago
Insanely wealthy when your comparison includes tin pot dictatorships, theocracies, and ex-soviet countries that still haven't gotten their shit together. Weird how that unimaginable wealth doesn't translate into financial security, access to high quality healthcare, or the ability to own a home.

noitpmeder 10mo ago

But it's not like AI did any of that...

creato 10mo ago
Past innovation did though.
grafmax 10mo ago
Right we had a functioning labor movement to thank for productivity gains being distributed to the working class. When that got undermined beginning late seventies early 80s with offshoring we see wealth just flowing to the top without significantly benefiting the working class.

N_Lens 10mo ago

Wealth inequality is worse now than the era of robber barons & gilded age.

ETH_start 10mo ago
The 1870-1900 period experienced the greatest expansion of U.S. industry, and the fastest rise in both U.S. wages and U.S. life expectancy, in history.
hcurtiss 10mo ago
Who cares? If higher wealth inequality produces a higher standard of living for the majority (note, median not mean), I’m all for it. Policy should not be driven by envy.
- forgetfreeman 10mo ago
  It isn't, so now what?
- Libidinalecon 10mo ago
  You should care because people vote and the social consequences are going to be devastating. It is easy for me to take this perspective too because I never had much student debt or children. The median though is getting crushed if they went to college and are paying for daycare. If you are getting crushed for going to school and having children that is a pretty clear breakdown of the social contract. The consequences are obvious. People are going to vote in socialist policies and the whole engine is going to get thrown in reverse. The "let them eat cake" strategy is never the smart strategy. It is not obvious at all our system is even compatible with the internet. If the starting conditions are 1999, it would seem like the system is imploding. It is easy to pretend like everything is working out economically when we borrowed 30 trillion dollars during that time from the future.
  - roenxi 10mo ago
    > The median though is getting crushed if they went to college and are paying for daycare. > If you are getting crushed for going to school and having children that is a pretty clear breakdown of the social contract. That isn't a factor in wealth inequality. Inequality is how much money they have relative to people like Musk and Bezos - or just local business owners. The poor side of that comparison always has such little wealth/income that their circumstances don't really matter. Someone poor will be sitting in the +-$100k band and not be particularly creditworthy. When compared to a millionaire the gap is still going to be about a million dollars whether they're on the crushed or non-crushed side of the band. Part of the reason the economic situation gets so bad is because people keep trying to shift the conversation to inequality instead of talking about what actually matters - living standards and opportunities. And convincing people to value accumulating capital, we're been playing this game for centuries, inter-generational savings could have had a real impact if people focused on being effective about it.
jandrewrogers 10mo ago
In the gilded age people were worth a larger fraction of the entire country’s GDP than today. Rockefeller alone was something like 2% of GDP.

abright 10mo ago

Sure, the USA is in the top five in terms of median income. They are also tied for first for having the highest cost of living. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-living-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-l...

chroma205 10mo ago
> They are also tied for first for having the highest cost of living. Who cares? Absolute savings rate and net worth are what matter. Any European will gladly live in America for US$1 million/year income even if the cost of living is US$300k/year.
- forgetfreeman 10mo ago
  Who the fuck do you know that makes a million dollars a year? The majority of Americans barely clear that bar over their entire career.
- Arodex 10mo ago
  Americans at every wealth level live shorter lives than e.g. Brits. https://www.ft.com/content/653bbb26-8a22-4db3-b43d-c34a0b774303 https://www.ft.com/content/653bbb26-8a22-4db3-b43d-c34a0b774...
- fzeroracer 10mo ago
  > Absolute savings rate and net worth are what matter. OK, now tell me how the savings and net worth look like for your average American. I'll give you a bit of a spoiler: it's not good.

forgetfreeman 10mo ago

Insanely wealthy when your comparison includes tin pot dictatorships, theocracies, and ex-soviet countries that still haven't gotten their shit together. Weird how that unimaginable wealth doesn't translate into financial security, access to high quality healthcare, or the ability to own a home.