goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Kat Kid on April 18, 2024, 04:47:30 AM
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240418/6d7bf7177cef51de8f75b48ad4ec086b.jpg)
It is possible he is both.
-
Interesting Twitter character for sure
-
you think the data presented are misleading?
-
I guess it depends on what it purports to show. Most of the arguments I hear about these generational comparisons have to do with the inflation in costs of things like housing which is not captured by this because it is looking at income and not wealth.
Overall I think the chart is non-responsive to the claims I generally hear about inflation in costs of things that are assets or are associated with having a family while inflation of things like having a computer or tv have not.
-
i think it just shows that younger cohorts in the us have higher incomes at the same stage in life than did older cohorts, and that gen z does not diverge from that trend. there could be some compositional effects that are distorting the data as presented, but it's not immediately clear to me that there would be.
it's true that the cost of housing has outpaced inflation more generally, but gen z is still spending less on housing than did older cohorts. americans are still getting richer.
https://twitter.com/JeffreyKleintop/status/1780707675850064219
-
yeah, I think real wages are up over the last 40 years. people are doing good as crap. people just like to bitch about grocery costs and housing and whatever. also keep in mind stuff we see as required to live today was luxurious years ago. we're fast on our way to the Wall-E lifestyle but still being slim because of miraculous GLP-1 miracle drugs.
(https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1358/0*ZDPmb8wV746K-o0O)
-
I would love a wall-e lifestyle
-
Really all I need is the hover chair and I'm wall-e'd
-
i think it just shows that younger cohorts in the us have higher incomes at the same stage in life than did older cohorts, and that gen z does not diverge from that trend. there could be some compositional effects that are distorting the data as presented, but it's not immediately clear to me that there would be.
it's true that the cost of housing has outpaced inflation more generally, but gen z is still spending less on housing than did older cohorts. americans are still getting richer.
https://twitter.com/JeffreyKleintop/status/1780707675850064219
Another fun thing in that chart is Gen X just pulling the ripcord and not working anymore
-
i think it just shows that younger cohorts in the us have higher incomes at the same stage in life than did older cohorts, and that gen z does not diverge from that trend. there could be some compositional effects that are distorting the data as presented, but it's not immediately clear to me that there would be.
it's true that the cost of housing has outpaced inflation more generally, but gen z is still spending less on housing than did older cohorts. americans are still getting richer.
https://twitter.com/JeffreyKleintop/status/1780707675850064219
kk, what is your response to this chart?
-
yeah, I think real wages are up over the last 40 years. people are doing good as crap. people just like to bitch about grocery costs and housing and whatever. also keep in mind stuff we see as required to live today was luxurious years ago. we're fast on our way to the Wall-E lifestyle but still being slim because of miraculous GLP-1 miracle drugs.
(https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1358/0*ZDPmb8wV746K-o0O)
People are convinced that we need what we want and that we want what we wouldn’t even notice if not for suggestion.
-
kk is the liar perchance?
-
i think it just shows that younger cohorts in the us have higher incomes at the same stage in life than did older cohorts, and that gen z does not diverge from that trend. there could be some compositional effects that are distorting the data as presented, but it's not immediately clear to me that there would be.
it's true that the cost of housing has outpaced inflation more generally, but gen z is still spending less on housing than did older cohorts. americans are still getting richer.
https://twitter.com/JeffreyKleintop/status/1780707675850064219
kk, what is your response to this chart?
Well the "adjusted for household size" is doing a lot of work by itself, but saying housing "costs" are not much higher than a generation ago is ignoring the fact that housing is also an asset that is much more valuable than a generation ago.
So again, the chart is just non-responsive to people who make statements like "millenials are not even able to start having families because of the costs of housing, childcare and education which makes it very difficult."
In fact, this chart just uses that fact to point out that millenial income is higher because they don't have any kids and are single or DINKs. That doesn't mean that inflation has not affected their decision to have kids.
-
not specifically topical but the same percentage of people own homes at the same age for all of recorded history. you hear people claim differently all the time. liars and dumbasses I believe.
(https://www.redfin.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Gen-Z-on-Track-With-Older-Generations-1.png)
-
Isn’t a lot of this just fear, or the instilling of fear into people’s minds for various purposes? A tale as old as time?
-
Isn’t a lot of this just fear, or the instilling of fear into people’s minds for various purposes? A tale as old as time?
Meaning what, exactly?
-
I consider myself to be well versed in data display techniques and these last two charts have been let's call it unconventional.
-
Isn’t a lot of this just fear, or the instilling of fear into people’s minds for various purposes? A tale as old as time?
Meaning what, exactly?
Not these charts/posts, the opposite. Imagery and information/opinions making people feel life is too hard, tougher on this generation or that one. That life is getting worse, etc.
-
Isn’t a lot of this just fear, or the instilling of fear into people’s minds for various purposes? A tale as old as time?
Meaning what, exactly?
Not these charts/posts, the opposite. Imagery and information/opinions making people feel life is too hard, tougher on this generation or that one. That life is getting worse, etc.
My impression is that it really depends where a person lives.
-
I consider myself to be well versed in data display techniques and these last two charts have been let's call it unconventional.
Meaning what, exactly?
-
not specifically topical but the same percentage of people own homes at the same age for all of recorded history. you hear people claim differently all the time. liars and dumbasses I believe.
(https://www.redfin.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Gen-Z-on-Track-With-Older-Generations-1.png)
Sure the trends are similar, but based on that chart it looks like millennials trend about 10% boomers at pretty much every age (with Gen X in between). Not earth shattering but seems like it’s something.
-
I consider myself to be well versed in data display techniques and these last two charts have been let's call it unconventional.
Meaning what, exactly?
The first thing I noticed was they appear to be hand drawn, thats not something you see everyday.
-
not specifically topical but the same percentage of people own homes at the same age for all of recorded history. you hear people claim differently all the time. liars and dumbasses I believe.
(https://www.redfin.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Gen-Z-on-Track-With-Older-Generations-1.png)
Sure the trends are similar, but based on that chart it looks like millennials trend about 10% boomers at pretty much every age (with Gen X in between). Not earth shattering but seems like it’s something.
(https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/PSDT_02.14.19_generations-00-00.png)
-
Republicans HATE this one simple trick ...
-
Isn’t a lot of this just fear, or the instilling of fear into people’s minds for various purposes? A tale as old as time?
nobody is manipulating information for anything other than $. fox news will fear monger to pee paw and mee maw and whatever liberal dogshit kat kid consumes will do the same to lil maw and baby paw but it's just for clicks/views. fear sells to morons. NOT CALLING KK A MORON OBVIOUSLY!
-
Republicans HATE this one simple trick ...
Steve Dave deleted his post, rendering mine inscrutable.
-
Republicans HATE this one simple trick ...
Steve Dave deleted his post, rendering mine inscrutable.
IT WAS 5 YEAR OLD DATA AND I'M LOOKING FOR MORE RECENT! :frown:
-
Republicans HATE this one simple trick ...
Steve Dave deleted his post, rendering mine inscrutable.
IT WAS 5 YEAR OLD DATA AND I'M LOOKING FOR MORE RECENT! :frown:
I am watching and will quote it next time. Also, like, share, subscribe, screenshot, etc.
-
I put it back
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KEkrWRHCDQU/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
:D
-
Don't millennials/genZers pretty much have to have more education? Not sure if it's just hyperbole but I keep hearing more and more stories of positions requiring a 4 yr degree when the job description quite frankly doesn't even require a full high school education.
One primary source anecdote: Mrs BAC (works for Satan in O&G) mentioned that they have job openings for admins. She also noted that all of the current admins... Most of which have been working there between 15-20 years, are not qualified for the new hire admin positions they are looking to fill
-
saying housing "costs" are not much higher than a generation ago is ignoring the fact that housing is also an asset that is much more valuable than a generation ago.
wut? genuinely no idea what you are saying here.
not sure why you twisted into children either. i didn't read it, but afaik, the economist article was not an attempt at understanding declining birth rates.
-
Don't millennials/genZers pretty much have to have more education? Not sure if it's just hyperbole but I keep hearing more and more stories of positions requiring a 4 yr degree when the job description quite frankly doesn't even require a full high school education.
One primary source anecdote: Mrs BAC (works for Satan in O&G) mentioned that they have job openings for admins. She also noted that all of the current admins... Most of which have been working there between 15-20 years, are not qualified for the new hire admin positions they are looking to fill
Probably some hyperbole, but younger millennials gen z and their parents have probably been hoodwinked a bit in this regard. There are a lot of god jobs out there that don’t require university or advanced degrees, but most of the managerial/hr/etc. type jobs do. Couple that with the high price of college nowadays and in recent times and the number of people getting worthless degrees or degrees for low-paying sectors and there you have it.
There are tons of good jobs in tech, manufacturing and the trades that don’t require advanced degrees.
Imo the trades are only going to become more valuable and less and less people will be able to do even the most menial of tasks in the future.
-
saying housing "costs" are not much higher than a generation ago is ignoring the fact that housing is also an asset that is much more valuable than a generation ago.
wut? genuinely no idea what you are saying here.
not sure why you twisted into children either. i didn't read it, but afaik, the economist article was not an attempt at understanding declining birth rates.
Your chart was adjusted for household size. So the declining birthrate is important because children are part of the household, but they mostly don’t contribute any income. So declining birthrates are pretty relevant not only to the source, but also because a declining workforce will also impact the quality of life for the younger generations if productivity increases don’t keep accelerating.
-
Brother you can set your watch by productivity increases
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
technically, it's your chart.
i see your point on household size and i didn't see anywhere where that info is given by generation. the authors did say this, but i don't see the data actually presented.
Consistent with these household formation
trends, the improvements across generations for those in their late-30s are also apparent when
looking at the incomes of individuals and couples, rather than households.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf
-
There are plenty of cheap houses in a lot of the flyover town that really thrived decades ago. Fewer houses in the big metro areas.
Small town America kind of dying is an impact on the current housing situation that I don't see discussed very often. A lot of our boomer parents that got these low cost homes lived in places like Norton, Kansas. You too could buy a low cost home in Norton, Kansas!
-
Sounds like someone's from Norton, KS ....
-
There are plenty of cheap houses in a lot of the flyover town that really thrived decades ago. Fewer houses in the big metro areas.
Small town America kind of dying is an impact on the current housing situation that I don't see discussed very often. A lot of our boomer parents that got these low cost homes lived in places like Norton, Kansas. You too could buy a low cost home in Norton, Kansas!
I wonder if some of this will be self correcting with remote work and early retirees
-
There are plenty of cheap houses in a lot of the flyover town that really thrived decades ago. Fewer houses in the big metro areas.
Small town America kind of dying is an impact on the current housing situation that I don't see discussed very often. A lot of our boomer parents that got these low cost homes lived in places like Norton, Kansas. You too could buy a low cost home in Norton, Kansas!
I wonder if some of this will be self correcting with remote work and early retirees
I don't think so. You would think you'd see prices falling or at least stabilize on the coasts and that really isn't the case and really remote work has probably peaked and is on the way down.
Although anecdotally I do know someone I worked with in SF who took like $10k to be a remote worker in Tulsa and really enjoys it.
-
There are plenty of cheap houses in a lot of the flyover town that really thrived decades ago. Fewer houses in the big metro areas.
Small town America kind of dying is an impact on the current housing situation that I don't see discussed very often. A lot of our boomer parents that got these low cost homes lived in places like Norton, Kansas. You too could buy a low cost home in Norton, Kansas!
my understanding from folks that grew up in Norton size towns in western KS is that only old & small houses are cheap and that the newer & larger homes are quite expensive as thre is a limited number of them and most come with a sizeable piece of property
-
Don't millennials/genZers pretty much have to have more education? Not sure if it's just hyperbole but I keep hearing more and more stories of positions requiring a 4 yr degree when the job description quite frankly doesn't even require a full high school education.
One primary source anecdote: Mrs BAC (works for Satan in O&G) mentioned that they have job openings for admins. She also noted that all of the current admins... Most of which have been working there between 15-20 years, are not qualified for the new hire admin positions they are looking to fill
Probably some hyperbole, but younger millennials gen z and their parents have probably been hoodwinked a bit in this regard. There are a lot of god jobs out there that don’t require university or advanced degrees, but most of the managerial/hr/etc. type jobs do. Couple that with the high price of college nowadays and in recent times and the number of people getting worthless degrees or degrees for low-paying sectors and there you have it.
There are tons of good jobs in tech, manufacturing and the trades that don’t require advanced degrees.
Imo the trades are only going to become more valuable and less and less people will be able to do even the most menial of tasks in the future.
education equals wealth. always has. always will.
(https://ofdollarsanddata.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/networth_050_age_edc_comb_2019.jpeg)
-
There are plenty of cheap houses in a lot of the flyover town that really thrived decades ago. Fewer houses in the big metro areas.
Small town America kind of dying is an impact on the current housing situation that I don't see discussed very often. A lot of our boomer parents that got these low cost homes lived in places like Norton, Kansas. You too could buy a low cost home in Norton, Kansas!
my understanding from folks that grew up in Norton size towns in western KS is that only old & small houses are cheap and that the newer & larger homes are quite expensive as thre is a limited number of them and most come with a sizeable piece of property
the other thing to consider is nobody wants to live in Norton, KS
-
Back to back shots fired at nicname :sdeek:
-
Yeah, I don't really get what Norton did to deserve this ....
-
Yeah, I don't really get what Norton did to deserve this ....
Norton knows exactly wtf it did - trust me
-
Listen, nobody wants to live in Meade, KS either
-
large swaths of this entire country are places no one wants to live
-
large swaths of this entire country are places no one wants to live
Almost the entirety of it.
-
not specifically topical but the same percentage of people own homes at the same age for all of recorded history. you hear people claim differently all the time. liars and dumbasses I believe.
(https://www.redfin.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Gen-Z-on-Track-With-Older-Generations-1.png)
Sure the trends are similar, but based on that chart it looks like millennials trend about 10% boomers at pretty much every age (with Gen X in between). Not earth shattering but seems like it’s something.
(https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/PSDT_02.14.19_generations-00-00.png)
So 10%-15% more Millenials went to (and paid for/are in debt for) college than Boomers/Gen X, and 10% less own homes? That seems significant.
-
Don't millennials/genZers pretty much have to have more education? Not sure if it's just hyperbole but I keep hearing more and more stories of positions requiring a 4 yr degree when the job description quite frankly doesn't even require a full high school education.
One primary source anecdote: Mrs BAC (works for Satan in O&G) mentioned that they have job openings for admins. She also noted that all of the current admins... Most of which have been working there between 15-20 years, are not qualified for the new hire admin positions they are looking to fill
Probably some hyperbole, but younger millennials gen z and their parents have probably been hoodwinked a bit in this regard. There are a lot of god jobs out there that don’t require university or advanced degrees, but most of the managerial/hr/etc. type jobs do. Couple that with the high price of college nowadays and in recent times and the number of people getting worthless degrees or degrees for low-paying sectors and there you have it.
There are tons of good jobs in tech, manufacturing and the trades that don’t require advanced degrees.
Imo the trades are only going to become more valuable and less and less people will be able to do even the most menial of tasks in the future.
education equals wealth. always has. always will.
(https://ofdollarsanddata.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/networth_050_age_edc_comb_2019.jpeg)
That is one of the least helpful graphical representations of data I've seen in a long time. Like as charts go that person deserves whatever the equivalent is of a business ass kicking.
-
Don't millennials/genZers pretty much have to have more education? Not sure if it's just hyperbole but I keep hearing more and more stories of positions requiring a 4 yr degree when the job description quite frankly doesn't even require a full high school education.
One primary source anecdote: Mrs BAC (works for Satan in O&G) mentioned that they have job openings for admins. She also noted that all of the current admins... Most of which have been working there between 15-20 years, are not qualified for the new hire admin positions they are looking to fill
Probably some hyperbole, but younger millennials gen z and their parents have probably been hoodwinked a bit in this regard. There are a lot of god jobs out there that don’t require university or advanced degrees, but most of the managerial/hr/etc. type jobs do. Couple that with the high price of college nowadays and in recent times and the number of people getting worthless degrees or degrees for low-paying sectors and there you have it.
There are tons of good jobs in tech, manufacturing and the trades that don’t require advanced degrees.
Imo the trades are only going to become more valuable and less and less people will be able to do even the most menial of tasks in the future.
education equals wealth. always has. always will.
(https://ofdollarsanddata.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/networth_050_age_edc_comb_2019.jpeg)
Prove that education and income are not simply correlated.
-
YOU CAN'T STEVEDAVE YOU FUGGIN COWARD
-
There are plenty of cheap houses in a lot of the flyover town that really thrived decades ago. Fewer houses in the big metro areas.
Small town America kind of dying is an impact on the current housing situation that I don't see discussed very often. A lot of our boomer parents that got these low cost homes lived in places like Norton, Kansas. You too could buy a low cost home in Norton, Kansas!
my understanding from folks that grew up in Norton size towns in western KS is that only old & small houses are cheap and that the newer & larger homes are quite expensive as thre is a limited number of them and most come with a sizeable piece of property
the other thing to consider is nobody wants to live in Norton, KS
No doubt. And I'm not saying they need to. I'm saying citing the difference between Boomers' first home prices vs. millenials'/z's first home prices is apples and oranges when you consider the respective differences in location preference/requirements.
There's a higher proportion of the population now that demands/requires to live in the same place(s).
-
There are plenty of cheap houses in a lot of the flyover town that really thrived decades ago. Fewer houses in the big metro areas.
Small town America kind of dying is an impact on the current housing situation that I don't see discussed very often. A lot of our boomer parents that got these low cost homes lived in places like Norton, Kansas. You too could buy a low cost home in Norton, Kansas!
my understanding from folks that grew up in Norton size towns in western KS is that only old & small houses are cheap and that the newer & larger homes are quite expensive as thre is a limited number of them and most come with a sizeable piece of property
the other thing to consider is nobody wants to live in Norton, KS
No doubt. And I'm not saying they need to. I'm saying citing the difference between Boomers' first home prices vs. millenials'/z's first home prices is apples and oranges when you consider the respective differences in location preference/requirements.
There's a higher proportion of the population now that demands/requires to live in the same place(s).
This does not seem true based on remote work alone.
-
The avg size of a house in the US is 50% bigger now than in the 80's when boomers were buying their first house.
-
There are plenty of cheap houses in a lot of the flyover town that really thrived decades ago. Fewer houses in the big metro areas.
Small town America kind of dying is an impact on the current housing situation that I don't see discussed very often. A lot of our boomer parents that got these low cost homes lived in places like Norton, Kansas. You too could buy a low cost home in Norton, Kansas!
my understanding from folks that grew up in Norton size towns in western KS is that only old & small houses are cheap and that the newer & larger homes are quite expensive as thre is a limited number of them and most come with a sizeable piece of property
the other thing to consider is nobody wants to live in Norton, KS
No doubt. And I'm not saying they need to. I'm saying citing the difference between Boomers' first home prices vs. millenials'/z's first home prices is apples and oranges when you consider the respective differences in location preference/requirements.
There's a higher proportion of the population now that demands/requires to live in the same place(s).
This does not seem true based on remote work alone.
You think rural areas are growing faster than Urban/metro areas?
-
American house culture is absurd
-
The avg size of a house in the US is 50% bigger now than in the 80's when boomers were buying their first house.
This is a big part of it too, imo. Developers aren't really interested in building "starter homes."
OT, but along these same lines, it upsets me when I see people tearing down older kind of crappy/small houses in places like Prairie Village to build some 7 figure home. I think it's a sin to tear down inhabitable/inhabited houses. You want a giant mcmansion? More power to you. Build it in Stillwell or some plot where there's not already a house. But that plot in Prairie Village already has a house that someone would pay solid value to live in. I don't know if there ought to be a law/regulations prohibiting that sort of thing, but I do think it's immoral.
-
might be relevant.
https://twitter.com/_fat_ugly_rat_/status/1783509097968492710
since it's absolute values it's kind of difficult to tell how things shifted post covid
(https://i.imgur.com/vca4IKN.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/wQPjEDy.png)
-
:surprised: at the big jump in the MTN time zone - seems too much to solely post covid remote workers
-
American house culture is absurd
It really is something.
-
Is America House Culture the desire to own a home?
-
Is America House Culture the desire to own a home?
I think of it as single family suburban homes with large yards combined with a significant profit motive. I'm sure elements of those elsewhere but it seems a bit extra in the US
-
I mean I don’t use it as a defined term but I’d consider it a feeling of entitlement to owning a house in a preferred location as well as tying up a significant part of your self worth in the kind of house you own.
-
The avg size of a house in the US is 50% bigger now than in the 80's when boomers were buying their first house.
This is a big part of it too, imo. Developers aren't really interested in building "starter homes."
OT, but along these same lines, it upsets me when I see people tearing down older kind of crappy/small houses in places like Prairie Village to build some 7 figure home. I think it's a sin to tear down inhabitable/inhabited houses. You want a giant mcmansion? More power to you. Build it in Stillwell or some plot where there's not already a house. But that plot in Prairie Village already has a house that someone would pay solid value to live in. I don't know if there ought to be a law/regulations prohibiting that sort of thing, but I do think it's immoral.
Morality and capitalism are mutually exclusive ideas. And I’m pretty sure, at least since like 1960, every time these ideas have collided, capitalism is undefeated
-
next we should explore the American Car Culture
-
next we should explore the American Car Culture
And interstate highways
-
The avg size of a house in the US is 50% bigger now than in the 80's when boomers were buying their first house.
This is a big part of it too, imo. Developers aren't really interested in building "starter homes."
OT, but along these same lines, it upsets me when I see people tearing down older kind of crappy/small houses in places like Prairie Village to build some 7 figure home. I think it's a sin to tear down inhabitable/inhabited houses. You want a giant mcmansion? More power to you. Build it in Stillwell or some plot where there's not already a house. But that plot in Prairie Village already has a house that someone would pay solid value to live in. I don't know if there ought to be a law/regulations prohibiting that sort of thing, but I do think it's immoral.
Morality and capitalism are mutually exclusive ideas. And I’m pretty sure, at least since like 1960, every time these ideas have collided, capitalism is undefeated
I mean, they're different ideas, but not incompatible, imo.
-
I would say capitalism is based on a form of morality
-
I would say capitalism is based on a form of morality
Yeah, the idea that you ought to be compensated at an agreed-upon sum for the value of work and property seems pretty moral compared to the alternative.
-
This reminds me of an interesting point I had never really considered. I was watching a streamer doing one of those political quiz type things and the question was something like "does a business have any ethical responsibility beyond making money" and the guy basically argued that no, they have no ethical responsibility except following the law. The state has the responsibility of not letting businesses be lawfully unethical. In essence I fully agree with that, and asking businesses (or people) to act ethically without legal framework is a pipe dream.
-
I would say capitalism is based on a form of morality
Yeah, the idea that you ought to be compensated at an agreed-upon sum for the value of work and property seems pretty moral compared to the alternative.
fair enough, i guess i should have been more precise with my wording, instead of saying capitalism as in like the theoretical version, i instead should have said capitalism as in the (inescapable) reality of how it is exists in reality today. Just because a sum is agreed does by no means imply that the sum is not exploitative.
As they say, and it bolsters what ss7 just said, "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" and i yes i realize you didn't say ethical you said moral, however i would argue that the way you are using the word moral there is a tremendous amount of overlap with ethical
-
I would say capitalism is based on a form of morality
Yeah, the idea that you ought to be compensated at an agreed-upon sum for the value of work and property seems pretty moral compared to the alternative.
fair enough, i guess i should have been more precise with my wording, instead of saying capitalism as in like the theoretical version, i instead should have said capitalism as in the (inescapable) reality of how it is exists in reality today. Just because a sum is agreed does by no means imply that the sum is not exploitative.
As they say, and it bolsters what ss7 just said, "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" and i yes i realize you didn't say ethical you said moral, however i would argue that the way you are using the word moral there is a tremendous amount of overlap with ethical
I don't know what any of this means but I also don't really care to have some further deep theoretical, semantics driven argument about it.
I'm going to go buy a burrito and not wrestle with the ethics/morality of the transaction.
-
I would say capitalism is based on a form of morality
Yeah, the idea that you ought to be compensated at an agreed-upon sum for the value of work and property seems pretty moral compared to the alternative.
fair enough, i guess i should have been more precise with my wording, instead of saying capitalism as in like the theoretical version, i instead should have said capitalism as in the (inescapable) reality of how it is exists in reality today. Just because a sum is agreed does by no means imply that the sum is not exploitative.
As they say, and it bolsters what ss7 just said, "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" and i yes i realize you didn't say ethical you said moral, however i would argue that the way you are using the word moral there is a tremendous amount of overlap with ethical
I don't know what any of this means but I also don't really care to have some further deep theoretical, semantics driven argument about it.
I'm going to go buy a burrito and not wrestle with the ethics/morality of the transaction.
sounds good, enjoy your burrito!
-
I would say capitalism is based on a form of morality
Yeah, the idea that you ought to be compensated at an agreed-upon sum for the value of work and property seems pretty moral compared to the alternative.
fair enough, i guess i should have been more precise with my wording, instead of saying capitalism as in like the theoretical version, i instead should have said capitalism as in the (inescapable) reality of how it is exists in reality today. Just because a sum is agreed does by no means imply that the sum is not exploitative.
As they say, and it bolsters what ss7 just said, "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" and i yes i realize you didn't say ethical you said moral, however i would argue that the way you are using the word moral there is a tremendous amount of overlap with ethical
I don't know what any of this means but I also don't really care to have some further deep theoretical, semantics driven argument about it.
I'm going to go buy a burrito and not wrestle with the ethics/morality of the transaction.
sounds good, enjoy your burrito!
it was excellent :party:
-
I also just burrito(bowl)'d, also excellent.
-
This reminds me of an interesting point I had never really considered. I was watching a streamer doing one of those political quiz type things and the question was something like "does a business have any ethical responsibility beyond making money" and the guy basically argued that no, they have no ethical responsibility except following the law. The state has the responsibility of not letting businesses be lawfully unethical. In essence I fully agree with that, and asking businesses (or people) to act ethically without legal framework is a pipe dream.
I agree with this as well, and in fact I would say that’s one of the greatest benefits to capitalism is that it encourages creativity and competition up to the very brink of what is not explicitly prohibited.
-
This reminds me of an interesting point I had never really considered. I was watching a streamer doing one of those political quiz type things and the question was something like "does a business have any ethical responsibility beyond making money" and the guy basically argued that no, they have no ethical responsibility except following the law. The state has the responsibility of not letting businesses be lawfully unethical. In essence I fully agree with that, and asking businesses (or people) to act ethically without legal framework is a pipe dream.
I agree with this as well, and in fact I would say that’s one of the greatest benefits to capitalism is that it encourages creativity and competition up to the very brink of what is not explicitly prohibited.
Not gEing here, just curious what is a modern day (as in, the last 5 years or so) example of competition that benefited the consumer? I do believe there probably are some, but every kind of common good/service I can think of off the top of my head all of the companies that should, in theory, be competing for my business all just keep raising their prices/lowering the quality of their product bc as long as they all do it together the consumer doesn’t really have many options
-
:blank:
-
Maybe he doesn't know about the weight loss drugs
-
This reminds me of an interesting point I had never really considered. I was watching a streamer doing one of those political quiz type things and the question was something like "does a business have any ethical responsibility beyond making money" and the guy basically argued that no, they have no ethical responsibility except following the law. The state has the responsibility of not letting businesses be lawfully unethical. In essence I fully agree with that, and asking businesses (or people) to act ethically without legal framework is a pipe dream.
I agree with this as well, and in fact I would say that’s one of the greatest benefits to capitalism is that it encourages creativity and competition up to the very brink of what is not explicitly prohibited.
Not gEing here, just curious what is a modern day (as in, the last 5 years or so) example of competition that benefited the consumer? I do believe there probably are some, but every kind of common good/service I can think of off the top of my head all of the companies that should, in theory, be competing for my business all just keep raising their prices/lowering the quality of their product bc as long as they all do it together the consumer doesn’t really have many options
5 years seems like an arbitrary timeframe to pick, but off the top of my head I’d say a lot more places offer free (or near free) grocery delivery or 2 day delivery to compete with Amazon and others. Lots of restaurants offer pretty good deals and easy mobile ordering. Internet and 5G is improving because mobile companies realize it’s a necessity to keep customers. TVs keep getting better while generally getting cheaper. Same with phones overall.
And for things that have gone down in quality, a lot of that is due to consumer demand too. We still have access to higher quality versions of most products, it’s just that the vast majority of Americans prefer the cheaper stuff.
-
Maybe he doesn't know about the weight loss drugs
I bet DBT would agree with you the prescription drug market is practically a race to the bottom
-
This reminds me of an interesting point I had never really considered. I was watching a streamer doing one of those political quiz type things and the question was something like "does a business have any ethical responsibility beyond making money" and the guy basically argued that no, they have no ethical responsibility except following the law. The state has the responsibility of not letting businesses be lawfully unethical. In essence I fully agree with that, and asking businesses (or people) to act ethically without legal framework is a pipe dream.
I agree with this as well, and in fact I would say that’s one of the greatest benefits to capitalism is that it encourages creativity and competition up to the very brink of what is not explicitly prohibited.
Not gEing here, just curious what is a modern day (as in, the last 5 years or so) example of competition that benefited the consumer? I do believe there probably are some, but every kind of common good/service I can think of off the top of my head all of the companies that should, in theory, be competing for my business all just keep raising their prices/lowering the quality of their product bc as long as they all do it together the consumer doesn’t really have many options
5 years seems like an arbitrary timeframe to pick, but off the top of my head I’d say a lot more places offer free (or near free) grocery delivery or 2 day delivery to compete with Amazon and others. Lots of restaurants offer pretty good deals and easy mobile ordering. Internet and 5G is improving because mobile companies realize it’s a necessity to keep customers. TVs keep getting better while generally getting cheaper. Same with phones overall.
And for things that have gone down in quality, a lot of that is due to consumer demand too. We still have access to higher quality versions of most products, it’s just that the vast majority of Americans prefer the cheaper stuff.
You might need to start a thread on where to find all these discount goods. With the exception of tvs I believe every category you listed there the price increases are outpacing inflation. Literally just this morning on the Today show they were talking about how fast food customers were starting to revolt from McDonald’s bc their pricing is getting ridiculous, I think they said Burger King and Dominoes were getting an uptick in sales bc they haven’t been raising their prices as severely as the competition.
Also, regarding phones, I’m not sure how the concept of planned obsolescence can thrive in a capitalistic society. Intentionally designing your stuff to fail should be the death knell of any company but instead it’s an incredibly successful profit strategy.
Last, I’m putting an * next to your grocery delivery example, since that is part of their business plan to intentionally take a loss for the first few years to eliminate all competition and then once they are the only game (or 1 of a small handful of like-minded games) in town they can jack the prices up with impunity. So like, short term competition with the long term business plan of not having to be competitive at all.
Oh well, at least I can still get event tickets at reasonable prices
-
The cable company and Verizon and the new fiber company that just got installed are engaging in fisticuffs for my internet dollars near daily. I think soon they might be paying me to use it.
-
Possibly the start of a new thread, but the grocery store is insufferable these days. Self check out when you have a lot of produce takes forever, and even if you do wait for an employee to ring you up, they don't bag it for you anymore so you have to watch all your stuff get smashed at the end of the conveyer belt while you're pulling out your credit card, or getting your club card, or whatever. Then make the rest of the line wait on you while you're bagging everything.
So clearly they're pushing for pick up or delivery. But those apps' interfaces need a ton of work for me to feel confident that my order is going to be correct. And to take less time to complete than to just go to the store myself.
-
This reminds me of an interesting point I had never really considered. I was watching a streamer doing one of those political quiz type things and the question was something like "does a business have any ethical responsibility beyond making money" and the guy basically argued that no, they have no ethical responsibility except following the law. The state has the responsibility of not letting businesses be lawfully unethical. In essence I fully agree with that, and asking businesses (or people) to act ethically without legal framework is a pipe dream.
I agree with this as well, and in fact I would say that’s one of the greatest benefits to capitalism is that it encourages creativity and competition up to the very brink of what is not explicitly prohibited.
Not gEing here, just curious what is a modern day (as in, the last 5 years or so) example of competition that benefited the consumer? I do believe there probably are some, but every kind of common good/service I can think of off the top of my head all of the companies that should, in theory, be competing for my business all just keep raising their prices/lowering the quality of their product bc as long as they all do it together the consumer doesn’t really have many options
5 years seems like an arbitrary timeframe to pick, but off the top of my head I’d say a lot more places offer free (or near free) grocery delivery or 2 day delivery to compete with Amazon and others. Lots of restaurants offer pretty good deals and easy mobile ordering. Internet and 5G is improving because mobile companies realize it’s a necessity to keep customers. TVs keep getting better while generally getting cheaper. Same with phones overall.
And for things that have gone down in quality, a lot of that is due to consumer demand too. We still have access to higher quality versions of most products, it’s just that the vast majority of Americans prefer the cheaper stuff.
You might need to start a thread on where to find all these discount goods. With the exception of tvs I believe every category you listed there the price increases are outpacing inflation. Literally just this morning on the Today show they were talking about how fast food customers were starting to revolt from McDonald’s bc their pricing is getting ridiculous, I think they said Burger King and Dominoes were getting an uptick in sales bc they haven’t been raising their prices as severely as the competition.
Also, regarding phones, I’m not sure how the concept of planned obsolescence can thrive in a capitalistic society. Intentionally designing your stuff to fail should be the death knell of any company but instead it’s an incredibly successful profit strategy.
Last, I’m putting an * next to your grocery delivery example, since that is part of their business plan to intentionally take a loss for the first few years to eliminate all competition and then once they are the only game (or 1 of a small handful of like-minded games) in town they can jack the prices up with impunity. So like, short term competition with the long term business plan of not having to be competitive at all.
Oh well, at least I can still get event tickets at reasonable prices
What’s the non-capitalist, uncorrupted, inflation-proof alternative you’re implicitly advocating for?
-
Not answering for BAC, but in my opinion capitalism is great but similar to our militias it needs to be well regulated.
-
Not answering for BAC, but in my opinion capitalism is great but similar to our militias it needs to be well regulated.
This is correct. It is also why it seems like quite a bit of things suck lately because powers that be aren't doing a good job of regulating things like meta, google, or really anything else that exists mostly or totally on line, imo.
-
Yes, exactly what ss7 and cns said.
But to take DQs question a bit further, I think we need more socialized components to our system. Just as it would be silly for private funding to finance an interstate highway, there are several things that I believe should be common goods that we all pay for.
And economics aside, there is no debate at all that the wealth inequality gap is widening at an alarming rate, and with that lack of wealth comes a lower quality of life. And I guess my philosophy is, we (as a society) should be trying to improve the quality of life for the population rather than actively making it worse. And no, I do not think that the quality of life delta for the billionaire that just became a trillionaire outweighs the tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands depending on how you want to look at it) of ppl whose quality of life took a hit so that one guy could have even more money
-
Yes, exactly what ss7 and cns said.
But to take DQs question a bit further, I think we need more socialized components to our system. Just as it would be silly for private funding to finance an interstate highway, there are several things that I believe should be common goods that we all pay for.
And economics aside, there is no debate at all that the wealth inequality gap is widening at an alarming rate, and with that lack of wealth comes a lower quality of life. And I guess my philosophy is, we (as a society) should be trying to improve the quality of life for the population rather than actively making it worse. And no, I do not think that the quality of life delta for the billionaire that just became a trillionaire outweighs the tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands depending on how you want to look at it) of ppl whose quality of life took a hit so that one guy could have even more money
You think quality of life in the US has gotten worse? Over what time period? I'm fairly certain the data would disagree with you, even (especially?) for the poorest segments of the population.
-
Yes, exactly what ss7 and cns said.
But to take DQs question a bit further, I think we need more socialized components to our system. Just as it would be silly for private funding to finance an interstate highway, there are several things that I believe should be common goods that we all pay for.
And economics aside, there is no debate at all that the wealth inequality gap is widening at an alarming rate, and with that lack of wealth comes a lower quality of life. And I guess my philosophy is, we (as a society) should be trying to improve the quality of life for the population rather than actively making it worse. And no, I do not think that the quality of life delta for the billionaire that just became a trillionaire outweighs the tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands depending on how you want to look at it) of ppl whose quality of life took a hit so that one guy could have even more money
You think quality of life in the US has gotten worse? Over what time period? I'm fairly certain the data would disagree with you, even (especially?) for the poorest segments of the population.
I suppose that would depend on your metric. Like oh hey you have a smart phone with instant access and connectivity to the world, that’s outstanding! Also, you can’t afford rent. Or the rent you can afford to pay gets you less and less year over year. Home ownership will never be in the cards so I guess that frees up a lot of time you might have otherwise spent thinking about being a home owner.
Since we’re talking about the poor, I’m curious D, how do you suppose the minimum wage has been keeping up with inflation? Probably pretty close, right?
-
Yes, exactly what ss7 and cns said.
But to take DQs question a bit further, I think we need more socialized components to our system. Just as it would be silly for private funding to finance an interstate highway, there are several things that I believe should be common goods that we all pay for.
And economics aside, there is no debate at all that the wealth inequality gap is widening at an alarming rate, and with that lack of wealth comes a lower quality of life. And I guess my philosophy is, we (as a society) should be trying to improve the quality of life for the population rather than actively making it worse. And no, I do not think that the quality of life delta for the billionaire that just became a trillionaire outweighs the tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands depending on how you want to look at it) of ppl whose quality of life took a hit so that one guy could have even more money
You think quality of life in the US has gotten worse? Over what time period? I'm fairly certain the data would disagree with you, even (especially?) for the poorest segments of the population.
I suppose that would depend on your metric. Like oh hey you have a smart phone with instant access and connectivity to the world, that’s outstanding! Also, you can’t afford rent. Or the rent you can afford to pay gets you less and less year over year. Home ownership will never be in the cards so I guess that frees up a lot of time you might have otherwise spent thinking about being a home owner.
Since we’re talking about the poor, I’m curious D, how do you suppose the minimum wage has been keeping up with inflation? Probably pretty close, right?
It hasn't.
I never said capitalism was perfect or that i'm against any regulation at all. I'm just saying capitalism (at least conceptually) is the best we got. You can say this or that ought to be tweaked (i.e. "we need more socialized elements"), and I won't fight you too hard on the margins. If you think we need a more robust anti-trust framework and enforcement, power to you.
But when you imply that QoL in the US has gone down over the last 20/50/100 years, I don't know how you're measuring that outside of your vague rent as a percentage of income (which is important, but far from the only QoL indicator). Do you have any data about what percentage of income rent was for the various percentiles decade by decade? That would be interesting.
-
I know that 30% of your income going to rent/mortgage is where the red flags start going up. And I know that the number of Americans paying more than 30% of their income on housing has been steadily increasing, although I do not know the precise figures.
And look, me boy, I’m fully aware that I am not going to be capturing many hearts or minds with my opinions, least of all yours, but I won’t shy away from pointing out the glaringly obvious problems with our version of capitalism, especially those where the solution is incredibly simple and it’s “hey we aren’t going to perpetuate these policies/laws that only benefit a very select few who already have all the money as it is”
-
What's the solution to reducing housing cost to income ratios?
-
What's the solution to reducing housing cost to income ratios?
Build more housing?
-
What's the solution to reducing housing cost to income ratios?
Build more housing?
What's preventing us from doing that right now?
-
What's the solution to reducing housing cost to income ratios?
Build more housing?
What's preventing us from doing that right now?
I'm sure there are manifold causes. Nimbyism? Relatedly, zoning restrictions? Interest rates? Cost of materials? Greed? Cost of/supply of labor? Private investment groups snatching up a pretty good amount (16%?) of single-family homes? I don't know, but it seems pretty straight forward that building more housing would ease the supply-side issues we've seen for the past many years.
-
So there is a need in the marketplace and the greedy capitalists aren't beating each other half to death to supply it and profit from it? Maybe capitalism is dying.
-
Why bother chasing pennies when you can snatch up all the prime real estate? (Plus, bonus! The artificial scarcity allows you to drive the price up even more)
-
Why bother chasing pennies when you can snatch up all the prime real estate? (Plus, bonus! The artificial scarcity allows you to drive the price up even more)
Don't those idiots know we can just build more houses and erode the price of their investments?
-
What's the solution to reducing housing cost to income ratios?
Less people.
-
Why bother chasing pennies when you can snatch up all the prime real estate? (Plus, bonus! The artificial scarcity allows you to drive the price up even more)
Don't those idiots know we can just build more houses and erode the price of their investments?
I’m trying to follow your logic but I need some help. Ok, let’s build those affordable houses. Where should we build them? I suppose you could build them in Norton Kansas but Norton Kansas doesn’t have a housing shortage, not to mention there probably isn’t a lot of industry to sustain it. Besides those poors need to live reasonable close to where they work/grocery shop/can get to the doctor/generally participate in the human experience bc they probably don’t have the luxury of being able to manage a long commute. Well crap, all those locations that are even reasonably close to where they need to live are all kinda….snatched up, and expensive as crap. I suppose there might be a few vacant crack dens but that might be a tough sell.
Good thing these benevolent builders will go build some developments in locations where they will never recoup those costs I guess just out of the goodness of their hearts?
And in the (highly unlikely) event they don’t have “build a development” walkin around money, they might need to get financing from a bank. Good thing banks will see this 50+ year ROI scheme and jump at the opportunity
-
Looks like less people it is
-
What's the solution to reducing housing cost to income ratios?
Build more housing?
What's preventing us from doing that right now?
I'm sure there are manifold causes. Nimbyism? Relatedly, zoning restrictions? Interest rates? Cost of materials? Greed? Cost of/supply of labor? Private investment groups snatching up a pretty good amount (16%?) of single-family homes? I don't know, but it seems pretty straight forward that building more housing would ease the supply-side issues we've seen for the past many years.
Better immigration policy and eliminating tariffs would also help.
-
Seems like we need to do a better job of incentivizing the development of cheap housing. Would be totally on board with that.
-
What's the solution to reducing housing cost to income ratios?
Less people.
Fewer. Fewer people.
-
Seems like we need to do a better job of incentivizing the development of cheap housing. Would be totally on board with that.
If you have only one or fewer children you get a house subsidy?
-
Illegalize zoning restrictions that reduce housing.
-
What's the solution to reducing housing cost to income ratios?
Less people.
Yes, we need a war to destroy crap and kill Gen Z.
-
This illustrates a big part of the problem
(https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/inline-images/Bay%20Area%20Counties.png)
-
People that hate zoning are so weird
-
The problem is even the filthy capitalists ITT already agreed we need more regulation
-
The problem is even the filthy capitalists ITT already agreed we need more regulation
I don’t think anyone anywhere* thinks we shouldn’t have regulation. I think everyone acknowledges that capitalism requires some guardrails and certainly manipulation sometimes in the form of carrots and sticks. My confusion was BAC pointing to the current housing situation in some areas as proof that capitalism is bad and has lowered the standard of living.
*The “should I have to get a license to operate my damn toaster” guy meme notwithstanding.
-
The solution is high density housing but nobody wants it, kind of a pickle. Guess we will find out what the breaking point is on housing cost / income ratio before a societal change occurs. Maybe someone will figure out how to mass produce / 3D print houses that people actually do want for significantly cheaper than it costs today.
-
Is there a way to limit all the conglomerates/rich people from buying up a bunch of housing to use for rental properties? Like a cap on the number of properties? Or would it be super easy to get around?
I'm pretty sure this would just screw over rental agencies, and somehow drive up prices on rent. But that's brain storming, baby.
-
Related, have you guys heard about the rent price fixing lawsuits going on? Apparently there is an algo consultant that is fixing all their clients at the same (higher) rate and the contract states that the landlord has to use their price. The area I remember is Phoenix, but it was metros all over the US.
-
As in, the algo consultant is unaffiliated with any rental properties?
-
Yes, but it's essentially a bunch of different owners having their prices set by a single company.
-
Related, have you guys heard about the rent price fixing lawsuits going on? Apparently there is an algo consultant that is fixing all their clients at the same (higher) rate and the contract states that the landlord has to use their price. The area I remember is Phoenix, but it was metros all over the US.
Further reading for those so inclined: https://www.propublica.org/article/doj-backs-tenants-price-fixing-case-big-landlords-real-estate-tech
-
Further Googling shows that my property managers (the agent) use RealPage's services and are defendants in several of these lawsuits. I'm unsure if I can join as a Plaintiff, since I've represented the actual property owner (the principal). DickStone?
-
90% of properties over 50 units in DC use the service :eek:
-
Further Googling shows that my property managers (the agent) use RealPage's services and are defendants in several of these lawsuits. I'm unsure if I can join as a Plaintiff, since I've represented the actual property owner (the principal). DickStone?
I don’t think you’d be conflicted out if you’re an actual party. Seems like it’d be even less of an issue in a class context.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ascPhiXcpss
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ascPhiXcpss
20 minutes!? Can you TLDNR in less than or equal to 3 sentences?
-
China tried to build a bunch of housing, but there were cost overruns and over leveraging by the developers. So China created some factors to keep developers in line with cost and balance sheet estimates. Some of the biggest (i.e., Evergreen) failed, and no one could step in to pick up the slack. What was intended to help the burgeoning middle class afford to live in urban settings has not worked out. Basically, you have to be fairly wealthy to buy a flat in the major cities. Oh, and a bunch of people lost their deposits in the process.
-
Bad news as far as capitalism alternatives for cheaper housing goes.