6 ms·

The Demoralization of the White-Collar Worker

102 points by njrc 3mo ago

robin_reala 3mo ago
Reminder (which the article mentions only once in the context of worker productivity and pay growth): https://ethanmarcotte.com/books/you-deserve-a-tech-union/ https://ethanmarcotte.com/books/you-deserve-a-tech-union/
- Exoristos 3mo ago
  I think it would have to be more of a professional organization, and realistically that would require a lot more rigor and discipline in our profession. Maybe to start with, model something like LOPSA[0]. 0. https://lopsa.org https://lopsa.org
  - robin_reala 3mo ago
    I’m a Unionen[1] member, so at least in Sweden this isn’t a requirement. [1] https://www.unionen.se/in-english/this-is-unionen https://www.unionen.se/in-english/this-is-unionen
- guywithahat 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - robin_reala 3mo ago
    “Unions trample human rights” is such an absurdist statement that I don’t even know how to respond. The vast majority of the countries at the top of any human rights index have strong union cultures, and the vast number of those at the bottom have no unions at all.
  - piva00 3mo ago
    > Between 2008 and the early 2010s, Hanania wrote for alt-right and white supremacist publications under the pseudonym Richard Hoste. > Hanania was a contributor to Project 2025 regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices. His advocacy against DEI has been influential among Republican and conservative policy-makers in the United States, and Vox called him "the man whose tweets helped kill DEI". > In a 2023 essay, Hanania wrote that the only way to reduce crime is "a revolution in our culture or form of government. We need more policing, incarceration, and surveillance of black people. Blacks won't appreciate it, whites don't have the stomach for it." Interesting you mention human rights, the author seems to not care much about that issue. Unions as you describe (mandatory membership for employment) is not the only way for unions to exist; in the Nordics unions are a core component of the labour market, and there are no jobs where union membership is required, it's all voluntary. What exactly about unions, outside of the USA, in countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, that trample human rights?
  - majormajor 3mo ago
    Wonder how many metrics are out there that we could use to compare "unions trample human rights" vs "unchecked corporations trample human rights"? Like which one more frequently monitors your time in the bathroom?
felix-the-cat 3mo ago
I totally agree on the healthcare thing, a few years ago I was working as an independent contractor and my health insurance premiums were almost $25k a year, for a plan with a $6.5k deductible. It’s bananas if you need to buy private health insurance.
- beloch 3mo ago
  The U.S. health system is incentivized in a way that's simply not sane. With socialized medicine, the state has some very constructive incentives. People who get sick and stay sick don't produce as much taxable income, so keeping citizens healthy is good. It costs more to remedy conditions after they develop than it does to prevent them, so preventative care is offered and even pushed. The government is on the hook for unemployed and retired people, so it makes sense for healthcare to take a long-term approach. In the U.S. system, insurance companies want to collect money and then not be responsible for you once you become too expensive. If you get sick and can't work, lose your company plan, or can no longer afford your personal plan, that's great! You're no longer their problem. Preventative care? Sounds like a short-term expense for no long-term payoff. So old that you're virtually guaranteed to need care? Good luck getting insured without paying a fortune out of pocket! The affordable care act was pretty insane in that it left insurance companies in the loop and simply shovelled money into a broken machine. It was better than nothing, but its design made it clear that U.S. insurance companies had accomplished complete regulatory capture. The 1% in the U.S. might get better care than they would in a country with socialized medicine (depending on the country), but the average white collar worker does not, and there's also less security. If you lose your job because of AI or because some exec made bad decisions for your company and then get a serious condition at just the wrong moment, you're F'd. How can typical Americans have peace of mind?
  - dominotw 3mo ago
    > People who get sick and stay sick don't produce as much taxable income, so keeping citizens healthy is good. In usa, almost all of healthcare spending is on chronic diseases of ppl who are on disablity and really old. > How can typical Americans have peace of mind? I've done the following 1. go on spouse insurance . both ppl must work in usa. 2. dip into your savings and enroll in obamacare 3. run out of savings and fall into medicare eligiblity > The 1% in the U.S. might get better care than they would in a country with socialized medicine (depending on the country), but the average white collar worker does not This is not correct. When i was on cheap obamacare i had to go to some horrible hospital in south chiacago and got horrible care. They didnt even give me bed to recover from surgery i was throwing up from nausea in the outpatient room. I get to go to northwestern and treated like a king in a posh hospital on my employer insurance.
Exoristos 3mo ago
This is a very thorough overview, well put together. As someone who was hired into manufacturing just before the jobs collapse detailed here, I have vivid memories of the way things were. Being employed felt valuable. Acquiring skill felt respected and rewarded. Then, still young, I myself contributed to the shift of this work out of the country, helping develop software that supported exchanging files with India and helping train Chinese management on our workflows. I feel privileged to be one of the few of my generation who experienced first hand what a previous generation took for granted. But I feel like a Cassandra sometimes trying to tell peers, Yes, the work situation in America really could be so much better.
- Terr_ 3mo ago
  Right, it's not just a matter of demoralization in the sense if being unhappy, but also, er, de-imagination, where people consciously or unconsciously assume objective limitations and ceilings which don't actually exist. Pretty much every generation has some things like that. Remember the convenience of domestic air travel in the '90s? You didn't need a boarding pass to meet someone at the gate. (Some airports are relaxing this.)
matheusmoreira 3mo ago
> I had to ask myself why I can’t afford a nice home in a major city. > Owning a home is the primary mechanism through which ordinary people build wealth. That alone is a direct answer. Their wealth building is your failure. Their successful investments priced you out.
- toomuchtodo 3mo ago
  “Houses are for living, not for speculation.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houses_are_for_living,_not_for_speculation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houses_are_for_living,_not_for...
- api 3mo ago
  "Housing cannot simultaneously be affordable and a good investment."
akurilin 3mo ago
Reminiscent of the Vibecession analysis done by Scott Alexander a few months ago: https://open.substack.com/pub/astralcodexten/p/vibecession-much-more-than-you-wanted https://open.substack.com/pub/astralcodexten/p/vibecession-m... - may be good supplemental reading And of course the evergreen Housing Theory of Everything https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/ https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every...
- api 3mo ago
  Housing inflation cascades down into everything else too, since people require higher wages to afford housing... which drives up housing costs... which requires higher wages to afford housing... Basically real estate is the thirsty sponge that soaks up all the gains.
Herring 3mo ago
It’s not like Americans were invaded and forced to accept this. They repeatedly voted for it. Obama tried to work on healthcare, then had the largest electoral losses since Eisenhower, all up and down the ballot. Instead they voted for the real-estate billionaire. Trump has zero healthcare during a major pandemic - crickets. This country doesn’t want anything labeled “socialism”, and will hurt itself repeatedly to prove it. Last time it took a Great Depression to change their minds.
- michaelhoney 3mo ago
  This is true but it is not the whole story. Both establishment parties have presided over and encouraged the financialization of real estate. The ludicrous CEO-to-worker pay multiple wasn’t voted for by anyone.
  - Herring 3mo ago
    Yes it was, by constantly rejecting the only cures: redistribution and unionization as socialism. Unregulated capitalism always trends towards concentration of wealth/power. Another thing I’ve noticed is Americans are extremely non-self-aware about this topic. Go ask your favorite frontier LLM to tell you about notable moments in American history when they rejected socialism, explicitly or otherwise. Overall in history, and over just the last 30 years specifically. Institutions, and the electorate itself.
    - Terr_ 3mo ago
      > Unregulated capitalism always trends towards concentration of wealth/power. Even pretty basic economic models which start in a fair state with unbiased rules can easily converge on gross inequality. The article seems to be subscribe-walled now, but IIRC it's a good one: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-inevitable/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-inev...
OldSchool 3mo ago
I worked as consultant at a major west coast-based health insurer in 1993. A family plan, that is, two adults plus any number of children, was $300/month; a figure that wasn't far off from the cost of a studio or 1 BR apartment at that time anywhere but the most expensive coastal cities. Today, that family plan, even as a HMO, can easily be $3000/month. I would guess that mythical apartment is maybe $1200/month now. So what happened Health Care? how has the caregiver:administrator ratio changed in the past 30+ years? You've performed about 3x worse than Real Estate in terms of value, yet you're not quite as visible and complained-about because you hide behind employment. Hmmm.
- nobodyandproud 3mo ago
  Have you assessed the size of United Healthcare? The number of paper pushers and executives is sustained by your premium.
  - lotsofpulp 3mo ago
    Have you seen the profit margins of pharma companies, hospitals, and doctor groups?
  - edoceo 3mo ago
    Premiums also pay large bonuses and stock buybacks!
    - lotsofpulp 3mo ago
      Health insurance companies have profit margins of 2%, and owning their stock gives you a terrible return. Buybacks are just a tax efficient way of giving out dividends, which is expected of any business, and a large portion of health insurers are non profits. This is all public information, there are 7 different publicly listed insurers to look up 10-Ks for and all the various Kaiser, Cambia, and other BCBS non profit orgs also have open financials. However, pharmaceutical companies do have 20%+ profit margins, and do have phenomenal returns, and do do buybacks, since they can afford it. Next up is probably the software companies (Epic, etc), the legal firms, the hospitals, and the doctor groups.
titanomachy 3mo ago
Does it make people feel better to write articles like this? I feel like we all know this stuff already. Figure out how to make more money, or how to be happy with less, or go live somewhere else. (I’ve done all three, at various points.) Writing AI-assisted screeds on how broken the system is doesn’t bring us closer to a functioning system, and it sure as hell doesn’t help you live a happy life. I do hope that America manages to solve these problems. But I wouldn’t bet my life on it.
- piva00 3mo ago
  Without loudly complaining there is absolutely no change. Shutting up has never improved anything. Why would the only solution be "figure out how to make more money"? There are many professions where it isn't even possible to figure that out, should all of them just shut up and move? It's great you were able to go live somewhere else, for some it would be devastating to lose their sense of belonging, other people have different priorities for what they consider a happy life. Sorry but I think it's even less conducive to anything to tell people to shut up, it's an easy cop out, a way to invert the blame while being thoroughly unhelpful.
  - fluoridation 3mo ago
    I find it a little funny that you're doing the same thing you're complaining about.
    - piva00 3mo ago
      You might have missed the whole point if that's what you found funny. I'm not arguing about not telling someone to shut up in general; my argument is against telling people to shut up, and not complain, when they have grievances about the state of things outside of their individual power.
      - fluoridation 3mo ago
        >they have grievances about the state of things outside of their individual power Yeah, that seems to be what the person you replied to was doing. They can't make other people not write these kinds of articles, after all.
9x39 3mo ago
Get used to it, we have a lot more people that will be coming in and they all need to be taken care of. Unsustainable lifestyles are going to have to give way. We can’t all eat beef and have air conditioning and travel in retirement if we’re going to share this planet. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-census-projections-show-immigration-is-essential-to-the-growth-and-vitality-of-a-more-diverse-us-population/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-census-projections-sh...
Yhippa 3mo ago
> This is not a spending problem. Families spend less on clothing, food, and appliances than a generation ago, adjusted for inflation. [19] The increase is entirely in fixed, non-discretionary costs: housing, healthcare, childcare, education. I bet the explanation for this is that non-discretionary costs got higher, so people pulled back on discretionary spending. I do wonder if maybe people intentionally pulled back on discretionary spending despite small wage growth over time and capture was performed by housing, healthcare, and childcare. Or incentives by the government caused it. I have no clue.
- Exoristos 3mo ago
  It's because they don't have money to spend.
jazz3k 3mo ago
"The people living inside these numbers describe them in nearly identical terms. “All my life, I thought that was the magical goal, ‘six figures,’” one writes. “During the pandemic, I finally achieved this magical goal… and I was wrong.” Sixty-two percent of American consumers live paycheck to paycheck; among those earning over $100,000, the figure is 48 percent." My cousin makes around 60k/year. He had lower paying jobs before this. He now owns a home in a good area and doesn't live paycheck-to-paycheck. He saved money for years, invested part of it, and was able to pay a large down payment on his house. His monthly expenses are low and he doesn't buy the latest or greatest. Too many people spend money on booze, drugs, expensive hobbies, and traveling. They then wonder why they can't ever buy a house and have no money left over at the end of the month.
- TheOtherHobbes 3mo ago
  This is a variation on "Stop buying lattes and takeout and you too can become financially secure." Run the numbers, and no, you really can't. Because if you have a health crisis you'll still be bankrupt. You need an absolute minimum of $100k to protect yourself from health bankruptcy, and if you have a serious condition that's going to be too small by one or two orders of magnitude. You're not going to get that from a $60k job.
  - 9183726518 3mo ago
    I have ran the numbers, outside of a top 10 city, a single person can easily live a good life off of 40 to 50k a year.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
Terr_ 3mo ago
[dead]
htunnicliff 3mo ago
I do not know what comes after the recognition. The broader public directs its outrage at whatever the algorithm surfaces […] while the structural rearrangement of their economic lives proceeds without organized resistance. I wish I knew the answer to this question: What shape would organized resistance have in this day and age, especially with the fragmentation of reality caused by social media? Myself and almost everyone in my social circles under the age of 50 seem well-primed to participate in such organized resistance, were it to come to life.
- theoreticalmal 3mo ago
  You’d revolt? Against what?
  - toomuchtodo 3mo ago
    America’s flavor of Capitalism, through politics and policy, to center the human over capital. (Socialism support is ~62% of the under 30 cohort, and 2M voters 55+ age out every year, progress is a function of time and electorate turnover, with progress visible via observing outcomes at election milestones) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46529387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46529387 (citations)
    - xhkkffbf 3mo ago
      The easiest way to do this is to leave the US. Why not go to Cuba? Or Venezuela? Or Russia? The options are out there.
      - sillyfluke 3mo ago
        Well, if you enjoy Trump era corruption, authoritarian strongman rule, and a great chasm between the haves and the have nots you can go to those countries as well. The options are open.
      - toomuchtodo 3mo ago
        Isn’t it easier to wait for the minority opposition to age out versus moving? As long as young voters show up to vote, you just have to be on the ballot (as almost every election since the presidential election has shown). Perhaps you’re asking the wrong folks to move, as the future and the country belong to its youth, not its elderly (who, by definition, are time constrained). “The dead should not rule the living." -— Jefferson “Progress occurs one funeral at a time.” —- Max Planck
SpicyLemonZest 3mo ago
> The demoralization of the American white-collar worker is not a universal condition of modernity. Workers in comparable economies face the same global pressures — inflation, housing costs, technological disruption — and they are not demoralized in the same way, because their systems absorb the shocks that American workers absorb individually. This seems like the core claim, and I don't think it's true? The author references Gallup data on a metric they call "employee engagement", referencing the fact that it's fallen to 31% in the US, but the underlying report (https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-...) says that that this is the best in the world and the European countries the author is using as a point of comparison have the worst in the world. The idea that people in the US are particularly demoralized as workers, while countries with a strong safety net leave everyone satisfied and loving their bosses, is not consistent with any data I've seen. (Of course, employee psychology is far from the most important reason why we might want to build a better safety net.)
- Hfuffzehn 3mo ago
  Agreed. Demoralization in e.g. Germany has reached insane levels. This is a problem of the direction things are going. Things are getting worse and that is causing the demoralization, not the absolute level of "how good things still are".
tedggh 3mo ago
It seems that per sf house prices haven’t gone up that much. We romanticize the idea of older generations being able up afford a home, but those houses were a lot smaller than they are today, the average size I think was around 1500 sf, and a family of 5 lived there. Cities were also not as livable as they are today. Take for example NYC in the 1970s and 80s, where a young photographer could afford an apartment in Manhattan, with the caveat that the area was riddled with crime. Then there are the city ordinances that discourage multi family housing, so if you are a builder and you need to decide whether spend years fighting in court vs going to the suburbs and build large homes, that’s a very easy decision to make. The current housing deficit sits around 3-4 million homes.
- rapind 3mo ago
  Per sf comparisons blatantly ignore the bonkers increases in land prices. Good luck finding a 1500 sf house, let alone one with a backyard that hasn't completely outpaced inflation.
  - tedggh 3mo ago
    Land is not very expensive in most suburbs, but houses have become huge, the average size in the area where I live is 2700 sf. That’s because building a 3000 sf home doesn’t take twice the time and labor a 1500 sf takes, so there’s an economic incentive to build bigger homes. People also look for more space today than 40 years ago. A 1500 sf house would be considered a very small house and would likely be very hard to sell. Again, the average sf price remains in the low $200, so that’s not a huge difference to 40-50 years ago, factoring inflation. Not to mention you get much better quality materials, appliances and construction today. So, the fix appears to be more small homes, ideally condos, in urban areas just like many other countries do. The problem is, it is technically impossible to build multi family in most cities in America due to the ridiculous zoning laws and ordinances by city governments and neighborhood associations. If you own a lot in a city neighborhood and try to build an apartment building you will likely face years of court battles.
    - rapind 3mo ago
smitty1e 3mo ago
> In 1980, 38 percent of private-sector workers had defined-benefit pension coverage. By 2023, that number had fallen to 11 percent. [15] Government workers, who have the political power to maintain the old arrangement, still have pensions at a rate of 75 percent. [15] The private sector abandoned the model because it could. I wish I’d known when I was young what I know now about government jobs. I wish I'd had better tools for budgeting and retirement accounts. This argument would have much more heft if it discussed 401k accounts and financial planning.
- lotsofpulp 3mo ago
  The argument has no heft at all, because it ignores the laws that require actually funding a defined benefit pension plan, such as ERISA 1974 and PPA 2006, which exempt taxpayer funded pension plans from any and all funding requirements. The private sector abandoned the model because the promises only made sense with fantasy accounting, and once that was reigned in, they didn't have the power to tax future generations, so they naturally went away. Also, the government pays under market for labor, because the government employee unions prioritize not being able to be terminated today and deferred compensation over higher, market rate compensation today. It's a moot point anyway, since nearly free target date mutual funds and index ETFs exist where you can get all the benefits of stock market gains without any of the agency risk and cost of pension fund managers and employees. They have been obviated.
  - wmorgan 3mo ago
    Yeah, it’s hard to reconcile the assertions by the author, that he has contributed in a "disciplined" way to his 401(k), and he’s 41, and he doesn’t think his savings will replace his income. The S&P 500’s total return over the past twenty years has been around 11%, annualized. That’s on track to millions, maybe even tens of millions for him by retirement age. Maybe he's nervous comparing the top-line number in his retirement account to his expected expenses, but (a) he's got 25 years of compounding ahead, and (b) anything else he manages to save in the meantime -- including on his mortgage -- is going to help as well.
rayiner 3mo ago
The politics of AI replacement are going to be brutal. After sneering “go to college” to the people whose jobs were shipped to China, I can’t imagine white collar workers will get much sympathy when their jobs are replaced by AI.
simianwords 3mo ago
This article is the usual self victimisation rut but it comes with an interesting irony. The article states the often quoted Wages vs Productivity gap. But wages didn't track productivity for the simple reason that the top 10% of people were paid much higher and consume disproportionately higher. Who do you think the top 10% mostly comprises of? White collar people. So the article mourns for the same people who were responsible for and benefactors of the wage vs productivity pay gap LOL. Hard to take this seriously.

102 points by njrc 3mo ago

Reminder (which the article mentions only once in the context of worker productivity and pay growth): https://ethanmarcotte.com/books/you-deserve-a-tech-union/ https://ethanmarcotte.com/books/you-deserve-a-tech-union/

Exoristos 3mo ago
I think it would have to be more of a professional organization, and realistically that would require a lot more rigor and discipline in our profession. Maybe to start with, model something like LOPSA[0]. 0. https://lopsa.org https://lopsa.org
- robin_reala 3mo ago
  I’m a Unionen[1] member, so at least in Sweden this isn’t a requirement. [1] https://www.unionen.se/in-english/this-is-unionen https://www.unionen.se/in-english/this-is-unionen
guywithahat 3mo ago
[flagged]
- robin_reala 3mo ago
  “Unions trample human rights” is such an absurdist statement that I don’t even know how to respond. The vast majority of the countries at the top of any human rights index have strong union cultures, and the vast number of those at the bottom have no unions at all.
- piva00 3mo ago
  > Between 2008 and the early 2010s, Hanania wrote for alt-right and white supremacist publications under the pseudonym Richard Hoste. > Hanania was a contributor to Project 2025 regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices. His advocacy against DEI has been influential among Republican and conservative policy-makers in the United States, and Vox called him "the man whose tweets helped kill DEI". > In a 2023 essay, Hanania wrote that the only way to reduce crime is "a revolution in our culture or form of government. We need more policing, incarceration, and surveillance of black people. Blacks won't appreciate it, whites don't have the stomach for it." Interesting you mention human rights, the author seems to not care much about that issue. Unions as you describe (mandatory membership for employment) is not the only way for unions to exist; in the Nordics unions are a core component of the labour market, and there are no jobs where union membership is required, it's all voluntary. What exactly about unions, outside of the USA, in countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, that trample human rights?
- majormajor 3mo ago
  Wonder how many metrics are out there that we could use to compare "unions trample human rights" vs "unchecked corporations trample human rights"? Like which one more frequently monitors your time in the bathroom?

felix-the-cat 3mo ago

I totally agree on the healthcare thing, a few years ago I was working as an independent contractor and my health insurance premiums were almost $25k a year, for a plan with a $6.5k deductible. It’s bananas if you need to buy private health insurance.

beloch 3mo ago
The U.S. health system is incentivized in a way that's simply not sane. With socialized medicine, the state has some very constructive incentives. People who get sick and stay sick don't produce as much taxable income, so keeping citizens healthy is good. It costs more to remedy conditions after they develop than it does to prevent them, so preventative care is offered and even pushed. The government is on the hook for unemployed and retired people, so it makes sense for healthcare to take a long-term approach. In the U.S. system, insurance companies want to collect money and then not be responsible for you once you become too expensive. If you get sick and can't work, lose your company plan, or can no longer afford your personal plan, that's great! You're no longer their problem. Preventative care? Sounds like a short-term expense for no long-term payoff. So old that you're virtually guaranteed to need care? Good luck getting insured without paying a fortune out of pocket! The affordable care act was pretty insane in that it left insurance companies in the loop and simply shovelled money into a broken machine. It was better than nothing, but its design made it clear that U.S. insurance companies had accomplished complete regulatory capture. The 1% in the U.S. might get better care than they would in a country with socialized medicine (depending on the country), but the average white collar worker does not, and there's also less security. If you lose your job because of AI or because some exec made bad decisions for your company and then get a serious condition at just the wrong moment, you're F'd. How can typical Americans have peace of mind?
- dominotw 3mo ago
  > People who get sick and stay sick don't produce as much taxable income, so keeping citizens healthy is good. In usa, almost all of healthcare spending is on chronic diseases of ppl who are on disablity and really old. > How can typical Americans have peace of mind? I've done the following 1. go on spouse insurance . both ppl must work in usa. 2. dip into your savings and enroll in obamacare 3. run out of savings and fall into medicare eligiblity > The 1% in the U.S. might get better care than they would in a country with socialized medicine (depending on the country), but the average white collar worker does not This is not correct. When i was on cheap obamacare i had to go to some horrible hospital in south chiacago and got horrible care. They didnt even give me bed to recover from surgery i was throwing up from nausea in the outpatient room. I get to go to northwestern and treated like a king in a posh hospital on my employer insurance.

Exoristos 3mo ago

This is a very thorough overview, well put together. As someone who was hired into manufacturing just before the jobs collapse detailed here, I have vivid memories of the way things were. Being employed felt valuable. Acquiring skill felt respected and rewarded. Then, still young, I myself contributed to the shift of this work out of the country, helping develop software that supported exchanging files with India and helping train Chinese management on our workflows. I feel privileged to be one of the few of my generation who experienced first hand what a previous generation took for granted. But I feel like a Cassandra sometimes trying to tell peers, Yes, the work situation in America really could be so much better.

Terr_ 3mo ago
Right, it's not just a matter of demoralization in the sense if being unhappy, but also, er, de-imagination, where people consciously or unconsciously assume objective limitations and ceilings which don't actually exist. Pretty much every generation has some things like that. Remember the convenience of domestic air travel in the '90s? You didn't need a boarding pass to meet someone at the gate. (Some airports are relaxing this.)

matheusmoreira 3mo ago

> I had to ask myself why I can’t afford a nice home in a major city. > Owning a home is the primary mechanism through which ordinary people build wealth. That alone is a direct answer. Their wealth building is your failure. Their successful investments priced you out.

toomuchtodo 3mo ago
“Houses are for living, not for speculation.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houses_are_for_living,_not_for_speculation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houses_are_for_living,_not_for...
api 3mo ago
"Housing cannot simultaneously be affordable and a good investment."

akurilin 3mo ago

Reminiscent of the Vibecession analysis done by Scott Alexander a few months ago: https://open.substack.com/pub/astralcodexten/p/vibecession-much-more-than-you-wanted https://open.substack.com/pub/astralcodexten/p/vibecession-m... - may be good supplemental reading And of course the evergreen Housing Theory of Everything https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/ https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every...

api 3mo ago
Housing inflation cascades down into everything else too, since people require higher wages to afford housing... which drives up housing costs... which requires higher wages to afford housing... Basically real estate is the thirsty sponge that soaks up all the gains.

Herring 3mo ago

It’s not like Americans were invaded and forced to accept this. They repeatedly voted for it. Obama tried to work on healthcare, then had the largest electoral losses since Eisenhower, all up and down the ballot. Instead they voted for the real-estate billionaire. Trump has zero healthcare during a major pandemic - crickets. This country doesn’t want anything labeled “socialism”, and will hurt itself repeatedly to prove it. Last time it took a Great Depression to change their minds.

michaelhoney 3mo ago
This is true but it is not the whole story. Both establishment parties have presided over and encouraged the financialization of real estate. The ludicrous CEO-to-worker pay multiple wasn’t voted for by anyone.
- Herring 3mo ago
  Yes it was, by constantly rejecting the only cures: redistribution and unionization as socialism. Unregulated capitalism always trends towards concentration of wealth/power. Another thing I’ve noticed is Americans are extremely non-self-aware about this topic. Go ask your favorite frontier LLM to tell you about notable moments in American history when they rejected socialism, explicitly or otherwise. Overall in history, and over just the last 30 years specifically. Institutions, and the electorate itself.
  - Terr_ 3mo ago
    > Unregulated capitalism always trends towards concentration of wealth/power. Even pretty basic economic models which start in a fair state with unbiased rules can easily converge on gross inequality. The article seems to be subscribe-walled now, but IIRC it's a good one: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-inevitable/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-inev...

OldSchool 3mo ago

I worked as consultant at a major west coast-based health insurer in 1993. A family plan, that is, two adults plus any number of children, was $300/month; a figure that wasn't far off from the cost of a studio or 1 BR apartment at that time anywhere but the most expensive coastal cities. Today, that family plan, even as a HMO, can easily be $3000/month. I would guess that mythical apartment is maybe $1200/month now. So what happened Health Care? how has the caregiver:administrator ratio changed in the past 30+ years? You've performed about 3x worse than Real Estate in terms of value, yet you're not quite as visible and complained-about because you hide behind employment. Hmmm.

nobodyandproud 3mo ago
Have you assessed the size of United Healthcare? The number of paper pushers and executives is sustained by your premium.
- lotsofpulp 3mo ago
  Have you seen the profit margins of pharma companies, hospitals, and doctor groups?
- edoceo 3mo ago
  Premiums also pay large bonuses and stock buybacks!
  - lotsofpulp 3mo ago
    Health insurance companies have profit margins of 2%, and owning their stock gives you a terrible return. Buybacks are just a tax efficient way of giving out dividends, which is expected of any business, and a large portion of health insurers are non profits. This is all public information, there are 7 different publicly listed insurers to look up 10-Ks for and all the various Kaiser, Cambia, and other BCBS non profit orgs also have open financials. However, pharmaceutical companies do have 20%+ profit margins, and do have phenomenal returns, and do do buybacks, since they can afford it. Next up is probably the software companies (Epic, etc), the legal firms, the hospitals, and the doctor groups.

titanomachy 3mo ago

Does it make people feel better to write articles like this? I feel like we all know this stuff already. Figure out how to make more money, or how to be happy with less, or go live somewhere else. (I’ve done all three, at various points.) Writing AI-assisted screeds on how broken the system is doesn’t bring us closer to a functioning system, and it sure as hell doesn’t help you live a happy life. I do hope that America manages to solve these problems. But I wouldn’t bet my life on it.

piva00 3mo ago
Without loudly complaining there is absolutely no change. Shutting up has never improved anything. Why would the only solution be "figure out how to make more money"? There are many professions where it isn't even possible to figure that out, should all of them just shut up and move? It's great you were able to go live somewhere else, for some it would be devastating to lose their sense of belonging, other people have different priorities for what they consider a happy life. Sorry but I think it's even less conducive to anything to tell people to shut up, it's an easy cop out, a way to invert the blame while being thoroughly unhelpful.
- fluoridation 3mo ago
  I find it a little funny that you're doing the same thing you're complaining about.
  - piva00 3mo ago
    You might have missed the whole point if that's what you found funny. I'm not arguing about not telling someone to shut up in general; my argument is against telling people to shut up, and not complain, when they have grievances about the state of things outside of their individual power.
    - fluoridation 3mo ago
      >they have grievances about the state of things outside of their individual power Yeah, that seems to be what the person you replied to was doing. They can't make other people not write these kinds of articles, after all.

9x39 3mo ago

Get used to it, we have a lot more people that will be coming in and they all need to be taken care of. Unsustainable lifestyles are going to have to give way. We can’t all eat beef and have air conditioning and travel in retirement if we’re going to share this planet. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-census-projections-show-immigration-is-essential-to-the-growth-and-vitality-of-a-more-diverse-us-population/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-census-projections-sh...

Yhippa 3mo ago

> This is not a spending problem. Families spend less on clothing, food, and appliances than a generation ago, adjusted for inflation. [19] The increase is entirely in fixed, non-discretionary costs: housing, healthcare, childcare, education. I bet the explanation for this is that non-discretionary costs got higher, so people pulled back on discretionary spending. I do wonder if maybe people intentionally pulled back on discretionary spending despite small wage growth over time and capture was performed by housing, healthcare, and childcare. Or incentives by the government caused it. I have no clue.

Exoristos 3mo ago
It's because they don't have money to spend.

jazz3k 3mo ago

"The people living inside these numbers describe them in nearly identical terms. “All my life, I thought that was the magical goal, ‘six figures,’” one writes. “During the pandemic, I finally achieved this magical goal… and I was wrong.” Sixty-two percent of American consumers live paycheck to paycheck; among those earning over $100,000, the figure is 48 percent." My cousin makes around 60k/year. He had lower paying jobs before this. He now owns a home in a good area and doesn't live paycheck-to-paycheck. He saved money for years, invested part of it, and was able to pay a large down payment on his house. His monthly expenses are low and he doesn't buy the latest or greatest. Too many people spend money on booze, drugs, expensive hobbies, and traveling. They then wonder why they can't ever buy a house and have no money left over at the end of the month.

TheOtherHobbes 3mo ago
This is a variation on "Stop buying lattes and takeout and you too can become financially secure." Run the numbers, and no, you really can't. Because if you have a health crisis you'll still be bankrupt. You need an absolute minimum of $100k to protect yourself from health bankruptcy, and if you have a serious condition that's going to be too small by one or two orders of magnitude. You're not going to get that from a $60k job.
- 9183726518 3mo ago
  I have ran the numbers, outside of a top 10 city, a single person can easily live a good life off of 40 to 50k a year.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

Terr_ 3mo ago

[dead]

htunnicliff 3mo ago

I do not know what comes after the recognition. The broader public directs its outrage at whatever the algorithm surfaces […] while the structural rearrangement of their economic lives proceeds without organized resistance. I wish I knew the answer to this question: What shape would organized resistance have in this day and age, especially with the fragmentation of reality caused by social media? Myself and almost everyone in my social circles under the age of 50 seem well-primed to participate in such organized resistance, were it to come to life.

theoreticalmal 3mo ago
You’d revolt? Against what?
- toomuchtodo 3mo ago
  America’s flavor of Capitalism, through politics and policy, to center the human over capital. (Socialism support is ~62% of the under 30 cohort, and 2M voters 55+ age out every year, progress is a function of time and electorate turnover, with progress visible via observing outcomes at election milestones) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46529387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46529387 (citations)
  - xhkkffbf 3mo ago
    The easiest way to do this is to leave the US. Why not go to Cuba? Or Venezuela? Or Russia? The options are out there.
    - sillyfluke 3mo ago
      Well, if you enjoy Trump era corruption, authoritarian strongman rule, and a great chasm between the haves and the have nots you can go to those countries as well. The options are open.
    - toomuchtodo 3mo ago
      Isn’t it easier to wait for the minority opposition to age out versus moving? As long as young voters show up to vote, you just have to be on the ballot (as almost every election since the presidential election has shown). Perhaps you’re asking the wrong folks to move, as the future and the country belong to its youth, not its elderly (who, by definition, are time constrained). “The dead should not rule the living." -— Jefferson “Progress occurs one funeral at a time.” —- Max Planck

SpicyLemonZest 3mo ago

> The demoralization of the American white-collar worker is not a universal condition of modernity. Workers in comparable economies face the same global pressures — inflation, housing costs, technological disruption — and they are not demoralized in the same way, because their systems absorb the shocks that American workers absorb individually. This seems like the core claim, and I don't think it's true? The author references Gallup data on a metric they call "employee engagement", referencing the fact that it's fallen to 31% in the US, but the underlying report (https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-...) says that that this is the best in the world and the European countries the author is using as a point of comparison have the worst in the world. The idea that people in the US are particularly demoralized as workers, while countries with a strong safety net leave everyone satisfied and loving their bosses, is not consistent with any data I've seen. (Of course, employee psychology is far from the most important reason why we might want to build a better safety net.)

Hfuffzehn 3mo ago
Agreed. Demoralization in e.g. Germany has reached insane levels. This is a problem of the direction things are going. Things are getting worse and that is causing the demoralization, not the absolute level of "how good things still are".

tedggh 3mo ago

It seems that per sf house prices haven’t gone up that much. We romanticize the idea of older generations being able up afford a home, but those houses were a lot smaller than they are today, the average size I think was around 1500 sf, and a family of 5 lived there. Cities were also not as livable as they are today. Take for example NYC in the 1970s and 80s, where a young photographer could afford an apartment in Manhattan, with the caveat that the area was riddled with crime. Then there are the city ordinances that discourage multi family housing, so if you are a builder and you need to decide whether spend years fighting in court vs going to the suburbs and build large homes, that’s a very easy decision to make. The current housing deficit sits around 3-4 million homes.

rapind 3mo ago
Per sf comparisons blatantly ignore the bonkers increases in land prices. Good luck finding a 1500 sf house, let alone one with a backyard that hasn't completely outpaced inflation.
- tedggh 3mo ago
  Land is not very expensive in most suburbs, but houses have become huge, the average size in the area where I live is 2700 sf. That’s because building a 3000 sf home doesn’t take twice the time and labor a 1500 sf takes, so there’s an economic incentive to build bigger homes. People also look for more space today than 40 years ago. A 1500 sf house would be considered a very small house and would likely be very hard to sell. Again, the average sf price remains in the low $200, so that’s not a huge difference to 40-50 years ago, factoring inflation. Not to mention you get much better quality materials, appliances and construction today. So, the fix appears to be more small homes, ideally condos, in urban areas just like many other countries do. The problem is, it is technically impossible to build multi family in most cities in America due to the ridiculous zoning laws and ordinances by city governments and neighborhood associations. If you own a lot in a city neighborhood and try to build an apartment building you will likely face years of court battles.
  - rapind 3mo ago

smitty1e 3mo ago

> In 1980, 38 percent of private-sector workers had defined-benefit pension coverage. By 2023, that number had fallen to 11 percent. [15] Government workers, who have the political power to maintain the old arrangement, still have pensions at a rate of 75 percent. [15] The private sector abandoned the model because it could. I wish I’d known when I was young what I know now about government jobs. I wish I'd had better tools for budgeting and retirement accounts. This argument would have much more heft if it discussed 401k accounts and financial planning.

lotsofpulp 3mo ago
The argument has no heft at all, because it ignores the laws that require actually funding a defined benefit pension plan, such as ERISA 1974 and PPA 2006, which exempt taxpayer funded pension plans from any and all funding requirements. The private sector abandoned the model because the promises only made sense with fantasy accounting, and once that was reigned in, they didn't have the power to tax future generations, so they naturally went away. Also, the government pays under market for labor, because the government employee unions prioritize not being able to be terminated today and deferred compensation over higher, market rate compensation today. It's a moot point anyway, since nearly free target date mutual funds and index ETFs exist where you can get all the benefits of stock market gains without any of the agency risk and cost of pension fund managers and employees. They have been obviated.
- wmorgan 3mo ago
  Yeah, it’s hard to reconcile the assertions by the author, that he has contributed in a "disciplined" way to his 401(k), and he’s 41, and he doesn’t think his savings will replace his income. The S&P 500’s total return over the past twenty years has been around 11%, annualized. That’s on track to millions, maybe even tens of millions for him by retirement age. Maybe he's nervous comparing the top-line number in his retirement account to his expected expenses, but (a) he's got 25 years of compounding ahead, and (b) anything else he manages to save in the meantime -- including on his mortgage -- is going to help as well.

rayiner 3mo ago

The politics of AI replacement are going to be brutal. After sneering “go to college” to the people whose jobs were shipped to China, I can’t imagine white collar workers will get much sympathy when their jobs are replaced by AI.

simianwords 3mo ago

This article is the usual self victimisation rut but it comes with an interesting irony. The article states the often quoted Wages vs Productivity gap. But wages didn't track productivity for the simple reason that the top 10% of people were paid much higher and consume disproportionately higher. Who do you think the top 10% mostly comprises of? White collar people. So the article mourns for the same people who were responsible for and benefactors of the wage vs productivity pay gap LOL. Hard to take this seriously.