Vice-President Kamala Harris
Probably requires her own thread at this moment, lock/delete etc if someone else wins the nom
The main point is the average salary held up against cost of living has been getting worse for a while, and a lot of people who do well or live in certain area don't realize how much the average American is struggling.
You'd me mostly correct that the avg salary on 10/19/24 at 10pm isn't keeping up with the cost of living, relative to many other times in the past, but there are a lot of other factors that need to be brought into this equation.
For starters, minimum wage never keeps up with inflation like we've had because for one, inflation is cyclical, and minimum wage isn't. Minimum wage doesn't go down. The market solves that with lay offs, bankruptcies, and more importantly, an increasing unemployment rate - and I can assure you that an economy in stagflation with high unemployment is likely far worse for the majority of Americans than what we have now.
Yeah I’m not disagreeing, but you have to realize the solution isn’t always going to be social safety nets or regulations, sometimes good ol deregulation is the solution. Regulatory compliance is a supply side input.
And struggling is relative. Humans have historically struggled, but we have to sometimes take a step back that not every problem is “people are literally dying on the street in abject poverty” like ES2 seemed to be hinting at.
Social safety nets and govt assistance are very likely to play a larger role the further we go into the future and that isn't a bad thing.
I posted this in another forum but our kids and their kids are likely going to be living in a world where less than 40% of folks will work a job. When a lot the businesses monopolize towards the largest tech and kick out most of the b&m places, restaurants, factories that built cars other than robots building teslas, Airbnb wiping out hotels and hospitality, doordash planning to have robotic delivery (no seriously) and McDonalds being the only restaurant left while going down to 1 employee per store, it will have become the govt's responsibility to fund these people, and that funding will come from additional taxes accrued through higher revenue that businesses would make by not having to pay employees.
In short, the govt is going to be paying for more things in the future. It's just the way it's going to be.
You'd me mostly correct that the avg salary on 10/19/24 at 10pm isn't keeping up with the cost of living, relative to many other times in the past, but there are a lot of other factors that need to be brought into this equation.
For starters, minimum wage never keeps up with inflation like we've had because for one, inflation is cyclical, and minimum wage isn't. Minimum wage doesn't go down. The market solves that with lay offs, bankruptcies, and more importantly, an increasing unemployment r
I'm pretty ignorant about economics and won't dispute what you're saying, but wage stagnation and people racking up more and more debt and being unable to take care of themselves, let alone raise families, seems to be an ongoing trend that isn't going to turn around. I have some thoughts on why that is, but they're disorganized and somewhat uninformed. Having a conversation would be good but not at the moment.
I'm pretty ignorant about economics and won't dispute what you're saying, but wage stagnation and people racking up more and more debt and being unable to take care of themselves, let alone raise families, seems to be an ongoing trend that isn't going to turn around. I have some thoughts on why that is, but they're disorganized and somewhat uninformed. Having a conversation would be good but not at the moment.
I don't think the economy is doing as great as a lot of people believe and I don't think the stock market is a very good representation of how the avg middle class person is doing. There's a disconnect between those two things now that just wasn't there in the past. And i think a lot of that has to do with the fact that a lot of the top earning businesses don't rely on a strong middle class work force to create and sell products like they used to.
While I'm actually more pessimistic on what could develop in the future, the economy generally really isn't doing all that bad right now. I think the main cost that folks are really battling with is rent prices - which have exceeded wage growth by a considerable amount. Food and gas is mostly cheaper, relative to wages but the average person, especially young people, have a lot more expenses that are coming from a lot more areas than people ever had in the past and that is contributing to a low savings rate and an increase in debt.
The problem is that we have an unemployment rate that has almost no chance of not going up. And the fed is going to do it's best to try to find that sweet spot to avoid a recession - which they've done pretty well relatively to the rest of the world.
But the housing market is already starting to come down, if unemployment starts to accelerate upward to pre 2014 levels, you'll start to see a serious uptick in housing defaults which will eventually force down rent prices. And if you happen to be the lucky one who still has a decent paying job or some cash in the bank, you'd may actually find yourself in better shape if you were a young renter.
But we really have no idea how AI is going to play a role in peoples finances - other than less people are going to have to work, and we don't eben know if that is going to be a good thing.
Social safety nets and govt assistance are very likely to play a larger role the further we go into the future and that isn't a bad thing.
I posted this in another forum but our kids and their kids are likely going to be living in a world where less than 40% of folks will work a job. When a lot the businesses monopolize towards the largest tech and kick out most of the b&m places, restaurants, factories that built cars other than robots building teslas, Airbnb wiping out hotels and hospitality, d
I mean this is absolutely a possibility, and I completely agree that large redistribution networks would possibly be necessary if this happens. On the other hand, if we start producing so much we could pay so many people to just do cool artistic crap or just hang out or whatever. I mean if technology makes paying people to do arbitrary stuff feasible that would never be a bad thing.
I think the bigger worry is that this happens and the wrong people are in power and start doing evil stuff. That’s why I think it’s so important to defeat authoritarianism now and not allow a country like China to reap the benefits of this tech and use it for evil.
I don't think the economy is doing as great as a lot of people believe and I don't think the stock market is a very good representation of how the avg middle class person is doing. There's a disconnect between those two things now that just wasn't there in the past. And i think a lot of that has to do with the fact that a lot of the top earning businesses don't rely on a strong middle class work force to create and sell products like they used to.
While I'm actually more pessimistic on what cou
This is such an important point and precisely why so many home owners fight tooth and nail to prevent any kind of housing development. Unfortunately many people have put so much of their net worth into their house and if housing prices were to go down they would be absolutely SCREWED, especially those who are new home owners.
At least as a rentoid you are not sinking a bunch of money into an investment that if it were to tank it would completely destroy your life.
You're the one saying everyone should go into trades. (I.e. it's their fault). If everyone went to trade school, there wouldn't be enough jobs. Back to target.
To cut to the chase, I simply think those people should have a goid quality of life. It's done in other countries. It could be done here.
I think a lot of right wing Dems here have no idea what life is like when you make like $30-50k (depending on area).
I've done it. I've gone years with no HC. The rest of the time, to have a couple
American just has to remember , unions are evil and bad !
Many complains about poor services and underpaid government jobs , but they want low tax .
They want great jobs but they want no unions (good luck going to war alone…😉
No surprise they struggle .
That the results when u believe you can take the world all by yourself .
American just has to remember , unions are evil and bad !
Many complains about poor services and underpaid government jobs , but they want low tax .
They want great jobs but they want no unions (good luck going to war alone…)
No surprise they struggle .
That the results when u believe you can take the world all by yourself .
Yeah. I think it's a byproduct of being a super power. Capital needs to have total control of our government, to control our military and vast wealth.
A country like Canada or Australia has some of that, but here it is total. And since they are in control anyway, we get tons more propaganda like anti-union stuff, and much worse living conditions.
I'm not sure that average people pay lower tax rates here. Maybe, but I think it's pretty close. If you were to count our health care expenses as taxes, I really doubt it.
The rich pay much less tax, and much less than they used to under, say, Nixon and certainly Ike.
The economy is great for those who have assets (houses, stocks, etc).
It sucks for those who don’t owned them .
It has nothing to do with left or right .
The left want to help those without assets in many ways while the right doesn’t .
I mean how reducing taxes helps the poor if they don’t pay much taxes to begin with anyway ?
And all the great manual manufacturing jobs goes overseas to increase profits too….
And forget it about unions being a good thing for workers ….
What’s left ?
Thinking it’s Kam
what is this gibberish? i asked the poster if they/them were familiar with Paul Krugman. That's all.
I assume you meant to reply to a different post.
what is this gibberish? i asked the poster if they/them were familiar with Paul Krugman. That's all.
I assume you meant to reply to a different post.
Krugman is a leftish/democrats guy right ?
my point was the economy going well is true if you have assets and not if you only have wages .
Nothing to do with left or right saying it .
It’s just facts regardless who saying it.
Anyway is Krugman an part of the government?
If we want to talk about any individual policy, I’m sure we will find a lot of agreement.
If we want to talk about who is clearly better than who for those that are center left or further, no I’m never going to agree that the people that brought us the child tax credit, social security, medicare, medicade, the GI bill, and pretty much any substantial social policy are worse than the party of Regan, Trump, and Bush.
I’ll make a real plea to you, and I’m dead serious but you probably won’t like this
I'll consider this. Really.
I was involved volunteer and sub min wage work for causes as a yoot. Today, it's more sensible to earn and donate. I have donated to Dem candidates who were trying to unseat corrupt Dems.
In a couple years, I'm likely going to be in a position to go back to hands on stuff, and might sniff around the Dem party.
However... I've been really into religious history lately and just watched some cool stuff on the reformation. I have no dog in that fight. But I think even Catholics would agree that, at that time, their church was deeply corrupt and the people in charge only cared about money.
Some guys like Wycliffe came along. The were devout Catholics but wanted to stop the corruption. Many were executed. Finally Luther came along and even he didn't want to start a new sect initially. He was just like, stop running the church as an extortion racket. He didn't know the existing church cared about nothing else.
So anyway, imo Bernie was our Wycliffe. He didn't want the workers to sieze the means of production. He just wanted people to have HC, and vacation and to reduce military spending and to stop destroying families cuz someone was caught with small amounts of drugs.
These modest reform efforts brought down the wrath of the party. They smeared him and his followers as racist and sexist. They rigged debates. They pulled out every trick to beat him, and install an unpopular, monstrous war monger who had already accepted $400 million in personal bribes, and was funded by Wall Dtreet instead of citizens.
We have caucuses and at the last one, most people were pumped for Bernie. Moderates were excited for Warren. Pete had his crew. Biden had minimal support. One person in our group of 40+ . Like Tulsi. Harris had zero support. And then who winds up with the noms?
Bernie filed arenas and polls say he'd have beat Trump, even with his own party smearing him (imagine if they supported him). Maybe he would have lost. But it was a chance for the Dems to be non-evil and they resisted it with all their might.
I'm pretty sure Bernie was our Wycliffe and we need a reformation. The Democratic party is a private institution. It exists only to enrich members and donors, and perhaps promote their views on some social issues. Like Luther, when Bernie and his followers asked that they scale back corruption, we learned that they care about nothing else.
If you believe the scientists on climate change, that single issue alone means we have only a few decades left before these people cause a global catastrophe.
What a disappointment the selection for VP has become.
A new public statement from one of Tim Walz's alleged victims reveals claims that he wasn't the only one, suggesting more individuals are set to come forward.
The accuser provided specific details about his body, including a raised scar on his chest, a Chinese symbol tattoo on his upper thigh, and a small scar on his left arm.
The victim plans to hire an attorney to pursue full legal action, further alleging that his physical relationship with
A Russian-aligned propaganda network notorious for creating deepfake whistleblower videos appears to be behind a coordinated effort to promote wild and baseless claims that Minnesota governor and vice presidential candidate Tim Walz sexually assaulted one of his former students, according to several specialists tracking the disinformation campaign.
Playbig doesn't care if anything is factually true or not. Anything favourable to Trump or disfavourable to his opponents is by definition "true", and everything else is disinformation and propaganda.
He also believes Russia and north Korea are going to combine with Trump to protect us against the Chinese.
Yeah I'm not posting that to try to sway him.
Some fsb guys banging away at their keyboards--PB's impeccable high level sources 😀
It's wild how quickly the hurricane tap got turned off.
Social safety nets and govt assistance are very likely to play a larger role the further we go into the future and that isn't a bad thing.
I posted this in another forum but our kids and their kids are likely going to be living in a world where less than 40% of folks will work a job. When a lot the businesses monopolize towards the largest tech and kick out most of the b&m places, restaurants, factories that built cars other than robots building teslas, Airbnb wiping out hotels and hospitality, d
Social safety nets & more government assistance will lead to a slower growth economy for obvious reasons.
Your idea that only 40% of people will work in a generation or two (or even in 50 generations) is so unlikely that it isn’t really worth talking about. However, I did want to mention that the argument you are making is the same one used for many generations when new technologies started popping up. Your ancestors that feared tractors are going to take all of the farming jobs away and put everyone out of work would be proud of you, as would your ancestors that had the same fear when factories started using machines to do the work of humans.
I guess it’s an idea to believe AI wouldn’t have a greater impact then a tractor .
Social safety nets & more government assistance will lead to a slower growth economy for obvious reasons.
Neither of those things imply that you're limiting gdp - and the opposite has played a role increasing it many times. The only argument against that would be discouraging work, thus reducing productivity and eventually innovation. But you aren't working with the same perimeters when AI is brought into the workforce.
Your idea that only 40% of people will work in a generation or two (or even in 50 generations) is so unlikely that it isn’t really worth talking about. However, I did want to mention that the argument you are making is the same one used for many generations when new technologies started popping up. Your ancestors that feared tractors are going to take all of the farming jobs away and put everyone out of work would be proud of you, as would your ancestors that had the same fear when factories sta
The new technologies of the 20th century brought new jobs and made changes to the trades. It didn't eliminate the need for workers as a whole.
But the labor force participation is already going down, down from 67% to 62% since 2001, with many new forms of govt assistance being brought into the equation - and still increasing gdp quite a bit in the timeframe. Now, when walmart is your largest employer, as opposed to the auto industry, the ability to both replace those jobs with AI, and replace their income through the additional revenue that the businesses would make from not having to pay an employer would help continue to fund more even more assistance for those who are out of work as a result. We are already seeing this. The workforce will continue to shrink.
16+ labor force participation rates don't tell us what you think they do. For some reasons in the USA the main measure is uncapped which means you get 78y old people at the denominator which is kinda silly.
25-54 is at half a point from the highest ever, 55+ is pretty high as well (and that's incredible considering there are more over 70 than ever as a % of the population).
this isnt a picture of a "shrinking labor need"
Maybe, but I don't think your giving enough credence to what the most significant portion of potential future workers not working means in regard to how companies are currently restructuring itself to possibly achieve greater efficiency without them - compared to the % of older folks working. Also, it matters what jobs the kids were working, college enrollment levels and to what degree of assistance that have access to.
