I believe the economy may be really bad right now. (1 Viewer)

[Sand]

Cool, so a recession is likely here or coming soon and I should try and get ahead of it. How exactly do I do that?

Wheat pennies

Reduce revolving debt, stockpile a bit of cash, invest in medium term treasuries.

 

[BassNBrew]

Guys...drop the political talk about Biden and DeSantis. You can make your point by referring to debt relief or insurance issues without tying them to a D or R. Good and interesting thread.

 

[BassNBrew]

So a 22 OZ bag of chicken wings is $12.xx at the store. That's comprised of 10 wings and probably 10 oz of ice crystals. Everyday I'm shocked by the prices of food. Something is going to have to give.

Meanwhile milk is still $2.99 like it's been for three decades.

 

[John123]

I guess it depends on industry.

For sure - not every industry is struggling, but most are due to slowing economic activity that is being exacerbated by rampant inflation on consumers. And as someone posted above, the end of the pause on student loan payments is going to hurt consumers even more.

Which is why I'll never understand the rabid resistance to the debt relief program Biden tried to offer on those loans. I think it would have been a very wise investment for the economy.

Those with mortgages or car loans have as much claim to relief as any group, so why one and not the other? The govt. is picking and choosing winners and losers. It's a terrible idea with an ocean full of moral hazard. Obviously this leads to verboten discussion, so I'll leave it there.

While I don't support loan forgiveness in most contexts, surely you can agree that a higher education is much more likely to contribute to society than a new car?

And doesn't the government already pick winners and losers through things like tax policy?

It's is not difficult to get a higher education without going in to heavy debt. I don't think we should bail people out for making poor financial decisions.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Cool, so a recession is likely here or coming soon and I should try and get ahead of it. How exactly do I do that?

Yep. I understand business owners worrying, and maybe taking action. But most of us aren't in a position to do much more than vote - if there were actually politicians willing to tackle issues like wealth maldistribution.

Or is this when I'm supposed to start building a compound?

 

[Terminalxylem]

I guess it depends on industry.

For sure - not every industry is struggling, but most are due to slowing economic activity that is being exacerbated by rampant inflation on consumers. And as someone posted above, the end of the pause on student loan payments is going to hurt consumers even more.

Which is why I'll never understand the rabid resistance to the debt relief program Biden tried to offer on those loans. I think it would have been a very wise investment for the economy.

Those with mortgages or car loans have as much claim to relief as any group, so why one and not the other? The govt. is picking and choosing winners and losers. It's a terrible idea with an ocean full of moral hazard. Obviously this leads to verboten discussion, so I'll leave it there.

While I don't support loan forgiveness in most contexts, surely you can agree that a higher education is much more likely to contribute to society than a new car?

And doesn't the government already pick winners and losers through things like tax policy?

It's is not difficult to get a higher education without going in to heavy debt. I don't think we should bail people out for making poor financial decisions.

That was true when our generation went to college/grad/professional school. I think it's far more pricey today, way out of proportion to wages.

But to be clear, I'm not in favor of bailing out educational debt. I just thought comparing it to a car payment (or mortgage) was absurd.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Cool, so a recession is likely here or coming soon and I should try and get ahead of it. How exactly do I do that?

Wheat pennies

Reduce revolving debt, stockpile a bit of cash, invest in medium term treasuries.

Can you elaborate the last two parts of your suggestions? I already have an emergency fund of more than 6 mos expenses. I believe I have some bonds, too.

 

[-OZ-]

I guess it depends on industry.

For sure - not every industry is struggling, but most are due to slowing economic activity that is being exacerbated by rampant inflation on consumers. And as someone posted above, the end of the pause on student loan payments is going to hurt consumers even more.

Which is why I'll never understand the rabid resistance to the debt relief program Biden tried to offer on those loans. I think it would have been a very wise investment for the economy.

Those with mortgages or car loans have as much claim to relief as any group, so why one and not the other? The govt. is picking and choosing winners and losers. It's a terrible idea with an ocean full of moral hazard. Obviously this leads to verboten discussion, so I'll leave it there.

While I don't support loan forgiveness in most contexts, surely you can agree that a higher education is much more likely to contribute to society than a new car?

And doesn't the government already pick winners and losers through things like tax policy?

It's is not difficult to get a higher education without going in to heavy debt. I don't think we should bail people out for making poor financial decisions.

That was true when our generation went to college/grad/professional school. I think it's far more pricey today, way out of proportion to wages.

But to be clear, I'm not in favor of bailing out educational debt. I just thought comparing it to a car payment (or mortgage) was absurd.

It really isn’t absurd. It’s debt used to acquire something the person values. If anything, a college education is a better investment than either (especially the car).

I’ll have two kids in college next year. One is pursuing trades (just signed up for an aerospace maintenance class), the other our local university on scholarship. They’re making prudent choices.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Cool, so a recession is likely here or coming soon and I should try and get ahead of it. How exactly do I do that?

I’d just recommend to monitor spending, if you are a short/medium term investor—I’d probably make sure that you aren’t over exposed to equities..etc. It’s a good time to be a tad cash heavy as the ambiguity/volatility in the markets might end up opening up some nice investment opportunities at low prices.

 

[massraider]

Cool, so a recession is likely here or coming soon and I should try and get ahead of it. How exactly do I do that?

We're Americans, right? We are trained consumers, most likely we all have dumb money going out the door we can cut off. A monthly subscription you aren’t using, a $30 per week Starbucks habit, whatever.

Rising prices hit everyone differently, but most people could make up the difference, and then some, by trimming the fat.

 

[The Z Machine]

those with college degrees or graduate degrees in engineering are looking darn good right now. There is negative real supply - way more demand than good people.

I only wish this translated into other, non-defense industries. I am one of people you listed and barring a world war, I won't put my labor towards making weapons of war.

 

[Orange&Blue]

With that said—I do think we are entering some hard times economically. I know some members here have posted that their fields of work are booming—but that doesn’t really mean much. Recessions don’t necessarily hit (or need to hit) every sector equally. There inevitably will be some sectors and businesses that boom even in recessionary times. I personally feel like the economy started slowing and stalling many months ago. A lot of the data that Wall Street releases is lagging (this is part of the reason why the fed was slow to fully realize how bad inflation was before they shifted their policy). I believe that there is a lot of financial engineering that skews the data in order to make things not look as bad as they really are. Sure—some sectors are booming and can’t find enough people to hire. For each of those—I assure you there is a sector that is struggling mightily.

I'm fully aware that my particular position (a microcosm) is pretty specific. I believe it can be generally extrapolated to the defense industry here, but that certainly doesn't make it representative outside of that. From my experience lately, though, I think I can say pretty confidently that those with college degrees or graduate degrees in engineering are looking darn good right now. There is negative real supply - way more demand than good people.

i manage 20+ engineers for DoD. i can't keep my staff levels at 85%. private industry comes and snags people as soon as they get 3+ years.

 

[General Malaise]

As far as retail goes, spaces with large square footages are having trouble, but that’s been going on for years. Most of the businesses that were hurt or shut down by Covid are up and running again- the exception are some of the chain restaurants

I wouldn't want to be long on these chain restaurants that rely on middle class and lower middle class going out and spending disposable income.

Red Lobster is closing down like 700 locations. The 3 Cracker Barrels that opened up in Portland like 5 years ago abruptly shut down and let everybody go. The F is somebody going to do with a freshly built Cracker Barrel building?

 

[Sand]

Cool, so a recession is likely here or coming soon and I should try and get ahead of it. How exactly do I do that?

Wheat pennies

Reduce revolving debt, stockpile a bit of cash, invest in medium term treasuries.

Can you elaborate the last two parts of your suggestions? I already have an emergency fund of more than 6 mos expenses. I believe I have some bonds, too.

Stockpile of cash gets 4+% at Fidelity, Vanguard, etc. in a money market. It also insures a bit against unemployment. The medium term treasuries is a bet on a recession, which means falling rates. Rates drop and the value of bonds goes up.

 

[massraider]

As far as retail goes, spaces with large square footages are having trouble, but that’s been going on for years. Most of the businesses that were hurt or shut down by Covid are up and running again- the exception are some of the chain restaurants

I wouldn't want to be long on these chain restaurants that rely on middle class and lower middle class going out and spending disposable income.

Red Lobster is closing down like 700 locations. The 3 Cracker Barrels that opened up in Portland like 5 years ago abruptly shut down and let everybody go. The F is somebody going to do with a freshly built Cracker Barrel building?

Line dancing school. Senior discount. Maybe keep the giant block of free cheese or whatever at the front door.

 

[DallasDMac]

I guess it depends on industry.

For sure - not every industry is struggling, but most are due to slowing economic activity that is being exacerbated by rampant inflation on consumers. And as someone posted above, the end of the pause on student loan payments is going to hurt consumers even more.

Which is why I'll never understand the rabid resistance to the debt relief program Biden tried to offer on those loans. I think it would have been a very wise investment for the economy.

Those with mortgages or car loans have as much claim to relief as any group, so why one and not the other? The govt. is picking and choosing winners and losers. It's a terrible idea with an ocean full of moral hazard. Obviously this leads to verboten discussion, so I'll leave it there.

I would have thought the answer to your question is fairly obvious. Your mortgage and car loans are not federally owned. To forgive them would obviously have significant financial impact on the business that carries them. There is obviously a huge difference between telling a mortgage company they are no longer going to be paid the money owed to them versus forgiving a federally carried debt. Forgiving car loans and mortgages would bankrupt institutions. Forgiving student debt is simply erasing a debt that's an insignificant portion of the nation's $33 trillion total debt.

Don't worry, I'm not going to carry on this argument because I understand that, for some reason, people get wound up over this. As someone who never had student loan debt, I admittedly don't understand the angst. For the most part, it seems to the argument often boils down to "I didn't get this, so why should they?" And that's just not my nature. And that just seems like a fairly shirt-sighted viewpoint. I believe 18 and 19 year olds can make bad choices. They do it all the time. I don't see how forcing them to continue to struggle in poverty is a better option than helping them with literally no cost to the taxpayers of the nation. But I totally understand that is just my viewpoint.

 

[dickey moe]

As far as retail goes, spaces with large square footages are having trouble, but that’s been going on for years. Most of the businesses that were hurt or shut down by Covid are up and running again- the exception are some of the chain restaurants

I wouldn't want to be long on these chain restaurants that rely on middle class and lower middle class going out and spending disposable income.

Red Lobster is closing down like 700 locations. The 3 Cracker Barrels that opened up in Portland like 5 years ago abruptly shut down and let everybody go. The F is somebody going to do with a freshly built Cracker Barrel building?

Tear it down and build a new one I guess.

 

[Sand]

helping them with literally no cost to the taxpayers of the nation.

There is no such thing as free, GB. This cost is transferred to others. In this case mostly to those blue collar workers who didn't go to college. I don't understand why folks want blue collar to subsidize white collar, but here we are.

 

[humpback]

I guess it depends on industry.

For sure - not every industry is struggling, but most are due to slowing economic activity that is being exacerbated by rampant inflation on consumers. And as someone posted above, the end of the pause on student loan payments is going to hurt consumers even more.

Which is why I'll never understand the rabid resistance to the debt relief program Biden tried to offer on those loans. I think it would have been a very wise investment for the economy.

Those with mortgages or car loans have as much claim to relief as any group, so why one and not the other? The govt. is picking and choosing winners and losers. It's a terrible idea with an ocean full of moral hazard. Obviously this leads to verboten discussion, so I'll leave it there.

I would have thought the answer to your question is fairly obvious. Your mortgage and car loans are not federally owned. To forgive them would obviously have significant financial impact on the business that carries them. There is obviously a huge difference between telling a mortgage company they are no longer going to be paid the money owed to them versus forgiving a federally carried debt. Forgiving car loans and mortgages would bankrupt institutions. Forgiving student debt is simply erasing a debt that's an insignificant portion of the nation's $33 trillion total debt.

Don't worry, I'm not going to carry on this argument because I understand that, for some reason, people get wound up over this. As someone who never had student loan debt, I admittedly don't understand the angst. For the most part, it seems to the argument often boils down to "I didn't get this, so why should they?" And that's just not my nature. And that just seems like a fairly shirt-sighted viewpoint. I believe 18 and 19 year olds can make bad choices. They do it all the time. I don't see how forcing them to continue to struggle in poverty is a better option than helping them with literally no cost to the taxpayers of the nation. But I totally understand that is just my viewpoint.

This isn't really true for starters :cough: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac :cough:, but even if it were, it's as simple as pushing a few buttons to make the mortgage and car loan lenders whole and just tack it on as an "insignificant portion of the nation's $33 trillion total debt". The net result would be the same.

And that isn't the argument. It's more "I made better, more difficult choices, and now those who made worse, easier choices are going to be rewarded and I'm not". Why should someone who chose to take on more debt receive a benefit over someone who sacrificed and chose to work their way through school instead (or any number of other things, like go to community college first, go to school part time, go to a lesser college, borrow money from family instead of the government, not go to college at all, etc.)? Also, it absolutely is not "literally no cost to the taxpayers of the nation".

Perhaps the biggest issue is the question of whether we should be "helping" those who attended college in the first place, or should it go to those who need it more?

 

[IC FBGCav]

I've had a couple of conversations this week and looking at our company's financial data (I'm the entire accounting department), things have taken a turn for the worse since the start of the year.

My company is projecting our first annual loss in over 10 years. We are trying to hire some people to fulfill our long term goals, but each new hire is simply going to send us further into the red. Simply put our small business client sales are running at about 1/2 what they have been the last 2 years. Luckily we still have government sector work that will keep us steady and very strong cash reserves, so we'll weather the storm, but we aren't expecting a good year.

Then a friend of mine who I was talking with today told me he is having his worst season in 8 years as a freight broker. Usually was able to broker 70-90 loads a month and has been hovering around 20-25 for the past three months.

That's two canaries in the coal mine of our local economy. Our region has been fairly stable economically, even through 2008, but this may be the worst I've seen in my 20+ years of professional work.

With the toll inflation has taken and wages staying too flat, I'm guessing people just haven't been buying as much as they used to. I'm not sure what it all means as I'm not an economist.

I'm curious if other people are seeing and hearing similar things.

My company started talking about the down turn a little less than a year ago. Your management is behind.

 

[IC FBGCav]

I'm not posting the above to be glib. We were preparing for this while in the real estate and construction market, while in one of the most insulated markets for a downturn. We prepped for the worst but still thriving. We are in NC.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I guess it depends on industry.

For sure - not every industry is struggling, but most are due to slowing economic activity that is being exacerbated by rampant inflation on consumers. And as someone posted above, the end of the pause on student loan payments is going to hurt consumers even more.

Which is why I'll never understand the rabid resistance to the debt relief program Biden tried to offer on those loans. I think it would have been a very wise investment for the economy.

Those with mortgages or car loans have as much claim to relief as any group, so why one and not the other? The govt. is picking and choosing winners and losers. It's a terrible idea with an ocean full of moral hazard. Obviously this leads to verboten discussion, so I'll leave it there.

I would have thought the answer to your question is fairly obvious. Your mortgage and car loans are not federally owned. To forgive them would obviously have significant financial impact on the business that carries them. There is obviously a huge difference between telling a mortgage company they are no longer going to be paid the money owed to them versus forgiving a federally carried debt. Forgiving car loans and mortgages would bankrupt institutions. Forgiving student debt is simply erasing a debt that's an insignificant portion of the nation's $33 trillion total debt.

Don't worry, I'm not going to carry on this argument because I understand that, for some reason, people get wound up over this. As someone who never had student loan debt, I admittedly don't understand the angst. For the most part, it seems to the argument often boils down to "I didn't get this, so why should they?" And that's just not my nature. And that just seems like a fairly shirt-sighted viewpoint. I believe 18 and 19 year olds can make bad choices. They do it all the time. I don't see how forcing them to continue to struggle in poverty is a better option than helping them with literally no cost to the taxpayers of the nation. But I totally understand that is just my viewpoint.

This isn't really true for starters :cough: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac :cough:, but even if it were, it's as simple as pushing a few buttons to make the mortgage and car loan lenders whole and just tack it on as an "insignificant portion of the nation's $33 trillion total debt". The net result would be the same.

And that isn't the argument. It's more "I made better, more difficult choices, and now those who made worse, easier choices are going to be rewarded and I'm not". Why should someone who chose to take on more debt receive a benefit over someone who sacrificed and chose to work their way through school instead (or any number of other things, like go to community college first, go to school part time, go to a lesser college, borrow money from family instead of the government, not go to college at all, etc.)? Also, it absolutely is not "literally no cost to the taxpayers of the nation".

Perhaps the biggest issue is the question of whether we should be "helping" those who attended college in the first place, or should it go to those who need it more?

I don’t like rewarding debt, period. Wish we’d get rid of mortgage interest tax deduction, for example.

But I think an educated society is valuable, and taking on debt for school isn’t necessarily a bad choice, or an easy one.

Rather than debt forgiveness, would you object to free in-state college tuition? Ultimately taxes would pay for it, so some would be subsidizing others, with no personal benefit. Just like we already do for primary/secondary education with property tax - why is higher learning any different?

 

[Judge Smails]

Healthcare is booming. Not sure how it converts to dollars and cents, but hospitals in HI are eternally bursting at the seams, with patients consistently bedded in hallways, because all the rooms are taken.

It‘s terrible for privacy and patient care. Just waiting for an adverse event, to help the c-suite understand the problem(s) with too many customers.

They may have a lot of patients, but most hospitals have been absolutely bleeding money. Have to pay nurses, and their comp has skyrocketed

 

[-OZ-]

don't see how forcing them to continue to struggle in poverty is a better option than helping them with literally no cost to the taxpayers of the nation. But I totally understand that is just my viewpoint.

You don’t think there’s a cost to the tax payer or at least some inflationary affect?

I’d rather see the federal government increase federal grants, and lower or no interest loans. There’s cost there too but at least those encourage getting the education. There’s also Public Service Loan Forgiveness which definitely had its issues but seems to be working better now.

 

[FairWarning]

I can only discuss what I know, which is commercial real estate. And there is a huge problem with office space: in simple terms Covid caused people to work out of their homes and companies came to realize as a result that they didn’t need all the office space they thought they did. So there is, and going to be, a lot of vacancy. In cities with many skyscrapers devoted to office space, that’s going to hurt big, if it isn’t already.

I've heard downtown San Francisco is a ghost town in the financial district. Just floors and floors of empty offices.

Downtown Portland is in the same predicament. What the city's onerous tax burdens didn't drive out to another county the homeless population and crime did. I think Covid played a part too, but city leadership in Multhomah County has forced business owners out.

Erica Sandberg is a great follow about San Francisco issues.

 

[FairWarning]

I guess it depends on industry.

For sure - not every industry is struggling, but most are due to slowing economic activity that is being exacerbated by rampant inflation on consumers. And as someone posted above, the end of the pause on student loan payments is going to hurt consumers even more.

Which is why I'll never understand the rabid resistance to the debt relief program Biden tried to offer on those loans. I think it would have been a very wise investment for the economy.

Those with mortgages or car loans have as much claim to relief as any group, so why one and not the other? The govt. is picking and choosing winners and losers. It's a terrible idea with an ocean full of moral hazard. Obviously this leads to verboten discussion, so I'll leave it there.

While I don't support loan forgiveness in most contexts, surely you can agree that a higher education is much more likely to contribute to society than a new car?

And doesn't the government already pick winners and losers through things like tax policy?

They can go to a JUCO or SUNY-Buffalo instead of Ithaca.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Healthcare is booming. Not sure how it converts to dollars and cents, but hospitals in HI are eternally bursting at the seams, with patients consistently bedded in hallways, because all the rooms are taken.

It‘s terrible for privacy and patient care. Just waiting for an adverse event, to help the c-suite understand the problem(s) with too many customers.

They may have a lot of patients, but most hospitals have been absolutely bleeding money. Have to pay nurses, and their comp has skyrocketed

Can’t say I know much about their bottom line, but hospitals bleeding money to overworked patient care providers, rather than administrative siphons, doesn’t sound like too horrible an outcome to me.

 

[Mitchie]

So a 22 OZ bag of chicken wings is $12.xx at the store. That's comprised of 10 wings and probably 10 oz of ice crystals. Everyday I'm shocked by the prices of food. Something is going to have to give.

Meanwhile milk is still $2.99 like it's been for three decades.

Shop around a little, unless you live in Hawaii you can get a much better price on wings.

 

[FairWarning]

So a 22 OZ bag of chicken wings is $12.xx at the store. That's comprised of 10 wings and probably 10 oz of ice crystals. Everyday I'm shocked by the prices of food. Something is going to have to give.

Meanwhile milk is still $2.99 like it's been for three decades.

Milk is a loss leader, especially if there is an ALDIs or WalMart close by.

 

[Rich Conway]

So a 22 OZ bag of chicken wings is $12.xx at the store. That's comprised of 10 wings and probably 10 oz of ice crystals. Everyday I'm shocked by the prices of food. Something is going to have to give.

Meanwhile milk is still $2.99 like it's been for three decades.

One thing about food is that the sales/coupons haven't changed nearly as much as the list prices. For example, a basic package of chicken breasts is now up in the $5/lb range where I am, but you can still find a sale (usually with digital coupon) every few weeks where it's $2/lb, same as it was in 2019. I did a large shopping run fairly recently where the register rung my trip up as something like $160, then after sales and coupons were applied it was $74. Maybe this is regional, but the disparity between list and sale is the biggest change I see from pre-COVID times.

As you note re: wings versus milk, the pricing and sale pricing can vary greatly by item.

 

[FairWarning]

So a 22 OZ bag of chicken wings is $12.xx at the store. That's comprised of 10 wings and probably 10 oz of ice crystals. Everyday I'm shocked by the prices of food. Something is going to have to give.

Meanwhile milk is still $2.99 like it's been for three decades.

One thing about food is that the sales/coupons haven't changed nearly as much as the list prices. For example, a basic package of chicken breasts is now up in the $5/lb range where I am, but you can still find a sale (usually with digital coupon) every few weeks where it's $2/lb, same as it was in 2019. I did a large shopping run fairly recently where the register rung my trip up as something like $160, then after sales and coupons were applied it was $74. Maybe this is regional, but the disparity between list and sale is the biggest change I see from pre-COVID times.

As you note re: wings versus milk, the pricing and sale pricing can vary greatly by item.

In my part they have changed greatly. Between the bag shrinkage and price increases (I’ve had 4 since COVID started), sale prices do not look attractive at all.

 

[FairWarning]

For a family, the only places I could recommend for grocery shopping is Aldi, Costco, or Sams.

 

[culdeus]

Aldi is so cheap it's suspicious. Like are we dealing with all child labor and slaughterhouses that belong in the 1800s?

 

[beer 30]

So a 22 OZ bag of chicken wings is $12.xx at the store. That's comprised of 10 wings and probably 10 oz of ice crystals. Everyday I'm shocked by the prices of food. Something is going to have to give.

Meanwhile milk is still $2.99 like it's been for three decades.

Enjoy that milk while you can, those 18,000 cows that got fried last week were milk cows, probably have an impact.

The F is somebody going to do with a freshly built Cracker Barrel building?

Dollar freaking General BABY!!! C'mon down!!!

 

[ChiefD]

Aldi is so cheap it's suspicious. Like are we dealing with all child labor and slaughterhouses that belong in the 1800s?

Yes, and it's wonderful.

In all seriousness, perfect example to counter Aldi is the HyVee that is .25 of a mile from our Aldi. They have all the fancy stuff - high end deli, buffet food, bar and restaurant, gourmet cheeses and crap.....they hire a crap ton of people (full disclosure....my 15 year old son works there, so we get to extract money from those guys).....and their prices are a good 25-30% higher than any store around here.

And their parking lot is PACKED every weekend.

Aldi - no frills, just decent pricing. We would have a serious issue feeding our kids if not for Aldi. I'd have to quit drinking beer.

 

[Keerock]

As far as retail goes, spaces with large square footages are having trouble, but that’s been going on for years. Most of the businesses that were hurt or shut down by Covid are up and running again- the exception are some of the chain restaurants

I wouldn't want to be long on these chain restaurants that rely on middle class and lower middle class going out and spending disposable income.

Red Lobster is closing down like 700 locations. The 3 Cracker Barrels that opened up in Portland like 5 years ago abruptly shut down and let everybody go. The F is somebody going to do with a freshly built Cracker Barrel building?

I'm thinking put in a WalMart. They need more of those in Portland, right?

Too soon?

 

[Todem]

So a 22 OZ bag of chicken wings is $12.xx at the store. That's comprised of 10 wings and probably 10 oz of ice crystals. Everyday I'm shocked by the prices of food. Something is going to have to give.

Meanwhile milk is still $2.99 like it's been for three decades.

HA!!!!! Not down here. Try 5-6 bucks a gallon. Where do you live?
That is at Publix however.....where shopping is a pleasure. LOL.

 

[JAA]

So my comments are pure speculatory, but i've been thinking about this topic for a while as clearly the economy is being hit, though it doesn't feel like everyone is being hit in the same way.

My assumptions is our 'system' is designed to ensure:

• the top .01% stay rich
• The top 10% can become the top 1%
• There is no simple way for the top 1% to become the top .01%
• Its easy for the top 1% and below to move down quickly

What I am trying to convey in the above is that there are really three wealth classifications. Uber elite, top 1%, and have nots. I realize this is a super broad stroke, but when I say 'have nots', I don't mean folks in the street. I mean purely 'upward mobility', in that the ability to grow upward.

Example A: Teacher in an amazing school district with a reasonable cost of living and making salary of ~$100k. They are a have not. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a beautiful house, maybe a summer home, but overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

Example B: Working at Lowes/Home Depot in a middle role in a good school district with a reasonable cost of living and making $60-70k. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a modest home and most likely won't have a summer home though maybe a small boat they bring to the lake, but overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

Example C: Working as an Auto Dismantler as a primary job in a low level role and a side hustle as a landscaper, living in a below average school district with a below average cost of living and making $40-60k. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a below average home, most likely won't have a summer home or a boat they bring to the lake, but maybe a small camper they take to campgrounds. Overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

The above examples are 'have nots'. They have no upward mobility. If in either of the above examples both family partners work full time, maybe there is a greater chance to leap into the 1% but it's unlikely they will stay as inflation/cost of living, will typically outpace their COLAs. So in my opinion, just above the poverty line to just below the 1% will basically have the same life except less vacations, older cars, not as good school districts and less amazon deliveries. These have nots are expected to pay into the system to ensure a foundation for the .01%.

The 1% are just the jobs which make the .01% richer. Typically this is tech and finance. These are the roles which 'make the rich richer'. These .01% uber elites want more and more and more and more. They get into venture capital investing, they get into the stock market, they get into these high money situations and expect zero risk. They expect zero risk because they help put people/process into power which ensure their little to no risk. Without getting political, this is our capital system and its by design. The 1% are just more cogs like the 'have nots', but they have the potential, or they work for companies, which have the potential of the 100x payout. That's what the VCs want, that's what the investors want. They are fine with 50 failed tech startups as long as they hit others a long the way. Just so they can be richer. The .01% use the 1% for these means and pay they appropriately. I believe this is why we have seen such a demand for tech labor. And I do not believe there will be less desire to make the .01% richer so I imagine a continued demand for the 1%.

So, that's how I believe the system is designed today. What I believe will happen in the next 5-10 years, unless we the people make some changes, is more disparity between the .01%/1% and the have nots. This disparity will be the cost of goods due to demand and amount of currency in circulation. The have nots will pay more for health care, more for property, more for insurance, and have less and less disposable income based on COLAs and less and less upward mobility.

I get what you’re saying. But many of us “have” plenty without caring to be part of the 1% or .01%.

I guess I’m a “have not” but we live well and have plenty.

Exactly. I get that "have not" is a provocative term. However, its purposeful to convey that the system is designed to keep the .01% rich and you "happy" with your "things".

 

[Todem]

So my comments are pure speculatory, but i've been thinking about this topic for a while as clearly the economy is being hit, though it doesn't feel like everyone is being hit in the same way.

My assumptions is our 'system' is designed to ensure:

• the top .01% stay rich
• The top 10% can become the top 1%
• There is no simple way for the top 1% to become the top .01%
• Its easy for the top 1% and below to move down quickly

What I am trying to convey in the above is that there are really three wealth classifications. Uber elite, top 1%, and have nots. I realize this is a super broad stroke, but when I say 'have nots', I don't mean folks in the street. I mean purely 'upward mobility', in that the ability to grow upward.

Example A: Teacher in an amazing school district with a reasonable cost of living and making salary of ~$100k. They are a have not. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a beautiful house, maybe a summer home, but overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

Example B: Working at Lowes/Home Depot in a middle role in a good school district with a reasonable cost of living and making $60-70k. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a modest home and most likely won't have a summer home though maybe a small boat they bring to the lake, but overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

Example C: Working as an Auto Dismantler as a primary job in a low level role and a side hustle as a landscaper, living in a below average school district with a below average cost of living and making $40-60k. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a below average home, most likely won't have a summer home or a boat they bring to the lake, but maybe a small camper they take to campgrounds. Overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

The above examples are 'have nots'. They have no upward mobility. If in either of the above examples both family partners work full time, maybe there is a greater chance to leap into the 1% but it's unlikely they will stay as inflation/cost of living, will typically outpace their COLAs. So in my opinion, just above the poverty line to just below the 1% will basically have the same life except less vacations, older cars, not as good school districts and less amazon deliveries. These have nots are expected to pay into the system to ensure a foundation for the .01%.

The 1% are just the jobs which make the .01% richer. Typically this is tech and finance. These are the roles which 'make the rich richer'. These .01% uber elites want more and more and more and more. They get into venture capital investing, they get into the stock market, they get into these high money situations and expect zero risk. They expect zero risk because they help put people/process into power which ensure their little to no risk. Without getting political, this is our capital system and its by design. The 1% are just more cogs like the 'have nots', but they have the potential, or they work for companies, which have the potential of the 100x payout. That's what the VCs want, that's what the investors want. They are fine with 50 failed tech startups as long as they hit others a long the way. Just so they can be richer. The .01% use the 1% for these means and pay they appropriately. I believe this is why we have seen such a demand for tech labor. And I do not believe there will be less desire to make the .01% richer so I imagine a continued demand for the 1%.

So, that's how I believe the system is designed today. What I believe will happen in the next 5-10 years, unless we the people make some changes, is more disparity between the .01%/1% and the have nots. This disparity will be the cost of goods due to demand and amount of currency in circulation. The have nots will pay more for health care, more for property, more for insurance, and have less and less disposable income based on COLAs and less and less upward mobility.

I get what you’re saying. But many of us “have” plenty without caring to be part of the 1% or .01%.

I guess I’m a “have not” but we live well and have plenty.

Exactly. I get that "have not" is a provocative term. However, its purposeful to convey that the system is designed to keep the .01% rich and you "happy" with your "things".

I define happy.....as “free time” not things.

Everyone has their own definition of happy.

To me...money buys free time. Not things. I do well.....but it took a lot of sweat equity, persistence and entrepreneurial spirit to get to this point for myself. I have a lot more free time to enjoy my son’s baseball, enjoy things I like to do. Not so much having to have the mansion or Tesla......**ck that. Yes travel is I guess...things. But travel is rewarding to me. Seeing the world is important to me.

I just want as much free time as I can get on my limited trips around the sun. And my drive and motivation is exactly that....the better I do.....the more free time I will have to enjoy what most important to me. My family.

 

[JAA]

So my comments are pure speculatory, but i've been thinking about this topic for a while as clearly the economy is being hit, though it doesn't feel like everyone is being hit in the same way.

My assumptions is our 'system' is designed to ensure:

• the top .01% stay rich
• The top 10% can become the top 1%
• There is no simple way for the top 1% to become the top .01%
• Its easy for the top 1% and below to move down quickly

What I am trying to convey in the above is that there are really three wealth classifications. Uber elite, top 1%, and have nots. I realize this is a super broad stroke, but when I say 'have nots', I don't mean folks in the street. I mean purely 'upward mobility', in that the ability to grow upward.

Example A: Teacher in an amazing school district with a reasonable cost of living and making salary of ~$100k. They are a have not. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a beautiful house, maybe a summer home, but overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

Example B: Working at Lowes/Home Depot in a middle role in a good school district with a reasonable cost of living and making $60-70k. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a modest home and most likely won't have a summer home though maybe a small boat they bring to the lake, but overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

Example C: Working as an Auto Dismantler as a primary job in a low level role and a side hustle as a landscaper, living in a below average school district with a below average cost of living and making $40-60k. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a below average home, most likely won't have a summer home or a boat they bring to the lake, but maybe a small camper they take to campgrounds. Overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

The above examples are 'have nots'. They have no upward mobility. If in either of the above examples both family partners work full time, maybe there is a greater chance to leap into the 1% but it's unlikely they will stay as inflation/cost of living, will typically outpace their COLAs. So in my opinion, just above the poverty line to just below the 1% will basically have the same life except less vacations, older cars, not as good school districts and less amazon deliveries. These have nots are expected to pay into the system to ensure a foundation for the .01%.

The 1% are just the jobs which make the .01% richer. Typically this is tech and finance. These are the roles which 'make the rich richer'. These .01% uber elites want more and more and more and more. They get into venture capital investing, they get into the stock market, they get into these high money situations and expect zero risk. They expect zero risk because they help put people/process into power which ensure their little to no risk. Without getting political, this is our capital system and its by design. The 1% are just more cogs like the 'have nots', but they have the potential, or they work for companies, which have the potential of the 100x payout. That's what the VCs want, that's what the investors want. They are fine with 50 failed tech startups as long as they hit others a long the way. Just so they can be richer. The .01% use the 1% for these means and pay they appropriately. I believe this is why we have seen such a demand for tech labor. And I do not believe there will be less desire to make the .01% richer so I imagine a continued demand for the 1%.

So, that's how I believe the system is designed today. What I believe will happen in the next 5-10 years, unless we the people make some changes, is more disparity between the .01%/1% and the have nots. This disparity will be the cost of goods due to demand and amount of currency in circulation. The have nots will pay more for health care, more for property, more for insurance, and have less and less disposable income based on COLAs and less and less upward mobility.

Not everyone wants or needs upward mobility. There have been tons of studies on happiness and people are generally not any happier over a certain amount of income. Don't recall the #s and will vary based on where you live anyway (and maybe net worth factors into this but point still stands), but it's in the ballpark of the people you list here.

Nowhere in my post did I say anyone wants or needs upward mobility. I'm simply saying the system is designed to deny it to a vast amount of the population through providing them with, for lack of a better term, only first world problems to worry about.

 

[JAA]

So my comments are pure speculatory, but i've been thinking about this topic for a while as clearly the economy is being hit, though it doesn't feel like everyone is being hit in the same way.

My assumptions is our 'system' is designed to ensure:

• the top .01% stay rich
• The top 10% can become the top 1%
• There is no simple way for the top 1% to become the top .01%
• Its easy for the top 1% and below to move down quickly

What I am trying to convey in the above is that there are really three wealth classifications. Uber elite, top 1%, and have nots. I realize this is a super broad stroke, but when I say 'have nots', I don't mean folks in the street. I mean purely 'upward mobility', in that the ability to grow upward.

Example A: Teacher in an amazing school district with a reasonable cost of living and making salary of ~$100k. They are a have not. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a beautiful house, maybe a summer home, but overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

Example B: Working at Lowes/Home Depot in a middle role in a good school district with a reasonable cost of living and making $60-70k. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a modest home and most likely won't have a summer home though maybe a small boat they bring to the lake, but overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

Example C: Working as an Auto Dismantler as a primary job in a low level role and a side hustle as a landscaper, living in a below average school district with a below average cost of living and making $40-60k. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a below average home, most likely won't have a summer home or a boat they bring to the lake, but maybe a small camper they take to campgrounds. Overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

The above examples are 'have nots'. They have no upward mobility. If in either of the above examples both family partners work full time, maybe there is a greater chance to leap into the 1% but it's unlikely they will stay as inflation/cost of living, will typically outpace their COLAs. So in my opinion, just above the poverty line to just below the 1% will basically have the same life except less vacations, older cars, not as good school districts and less amazon deliveries. These have nots are expected to pay into the system to ensure a foundation for the .01%.

The 1% are just the jobs which make the .01% richer. Typically this is tech and finance. These are the roles which 'make the rich richer'. These .01% uber elites want more and more and more and more. They get into venture capital investing, they get into the stock market, they get into these high money situations and expect zero risk. They expect zero risk because they help put people/process into power which ensure their little to no risk. Without getting political, this is our capital system and its by design. The 1% are just more cogs like the 'have nots', but they have the potential, or they work for companies, which have the potential of the 100x payout. That's what the VCs want, that's what the investors want. They are fine with 50 failed tech startups as long as they hit others a long the way. Just so they can be richer. The .01% use the 1% for these means and pay they appropriately. I believe this is why we have seen such a demand for tech labor. And I do not believe there will be less desire to make the .01% richer so I imagine a continued demand for the 1%.

So, that's how I believe the system is designed today. What I believe will happen in the next 5-10 years, unless we the people make some changes, is more disparity between the .01%/1% and the have nots. This disparity will be the cost of goods due to demand and amount of currency in circulation. The have nots will pay more for health care, more for property, more for insurance, and have less and less disposable income based on COLAs and less and less upward mobility.

Not everyone wants or needs upward mobility. There have been tons of studies on happiness and people are generally not any happier over a certain amount of income. Don't recall the #s and will vary based on where you live anyway (and maybe net worth factors into this but point still stands), but it's in the ballpark of the people you list here.

Actually, I reject JAA's whole premise. For the examples he gives those folks can absolutely be part of the 1%. They would need to stop become wage slaves and open a business that performs (which has risk), but it is possible. Having said that there is nothing wrong with being a W-2 worker. I am, make a decent living at something pretty fun, and consider myself fortunate. I have no need for the stress and risk of reaching for the 1%.

But, make no mistake, the thought that his three examples are shut out of the American Dream is complete nonsense.

Correct. The vast majority of the country are "wage slaves". They are wage slaves because its easy and it comes with so many perks and such little downside. Why risk losing my home to start a new business? There is no real value in it unless the concept of a wage slave goes against your personality.

 

[JAA]

I guess it depends on industry.

For sure - not every industry is struggling, but most are due to slowing economic activity that is being exacerbated by rampant inflation on consumers. And as someone posted above, the end of the pause on student loan payments is going to hurt consumers even more.

Which is why I'll never understand the rabid resistance to the debt relief program Biden tried to offer on those loans. I think it would have been a very wise investment for the economy.

Those with mortgages or car loans have as much claim to relief as any group, so why one and not the other? The govt. is picking and choosing winners and losers. It's a terrible idea with an ocean full of moral hazard. Obviously this leads to verboten discussion, so I'll leave it there.

Agree 1000%

Privatising profits, socializing losses. This is for the .01%.

Im sure im bordering on 'political', but why is it that the govt only steps in when a company needs saving? Why doesnt the govt step in and say "Whoa, you are making too much money! We need to step in and take some of that incase you (or some other important company) needs it for a rainy day."

 

[Todem]

So my comments are pure speculatory, but i've been thinking about this topic for a while as clearly the economy is being hit, though it doesn't feel like everyone is being hit in the same way.

My assumptions is our 'system' is designed to ensure:

• the top .01% stay rich
• The top 10% can become the top 1%
• There is no simple way for the top 1% to become the top .01%
• Its easy for the top 1% and below to move down quickly

What I am trying to convey in the above is that there are really three wealth classifications. Uber elite, top 1%, and have nots. I realize this is a super broad stroke, but when I say 'have nots', I don't mean folks in the street. I mean purely 'upward mobility', in that the ability to grow upward.

Example A: Teacher in an amazing school district with a reasonable cost of living and making salary of ~$100k. They are a have not. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a beautiful house, maybe a summer home, but overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

Example B: Working at Lowes/Home Depot in a middle role in a good school district with a reasonable cost of living and making $60-70k. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a modest home and most likely won't have a summer home though maybe a small boat they bring to the lake, but overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

Example C: Working as an Auto Dismantler as a primary job in a low level role and a side hustle as a landscaper, living in a below average school district with a below average cost of living and making $40-60k. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a below average home, most likely won't have a summer home or a boat they bring to the lake, but maybe a small camper they take to campgrounds. Overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

The above examples are 'have nots'. They have no upward mobility. If in either of the above examples both family partners work full time, maybe there is a greater chance to leap into the 1% but it's unlikely they will stay as inflation/cost of living, will typically outpace their COLAs. So in my opinion, just above the poverty line to just below the 1% will basically have the same life except less vacations, older cars, not as good school districts and less amazon deliveries. These have nots are expected to pay into the system to ensure a foundation for the .01%.

The 1% are just the jobs which make the .01% richer. Typically this is tech and finance. These are the roles which 'make the rich richer'. These .01% uber elites want more and more and more and more. They get into venture capital investing, they get into the stock market, they get into these high money situations and expect zero risk. They expect zero risk because they help put people/process into power which ensure their little to no risk. Without getting political, this is our capital system and its by design. The 1% are just more cogs like the 'have nots', but they have the potential, or they work for companies, which have the potential of the 100x payout. That's what the VCs want, that's what the investors want. They are fine with 50 failed tech startups as long as they hit others a long the way. Just so they can be richer. The .01% use the 1% for these means and pay they appropriately. I believe this is why we have seen such a demand for tech labor. And I do not believe there will be less desire to make the .01% richer so I imagine a continued demand for the 1%.

So, that's how I believe the system is designed today. What I believe will happen in the next 5-10 years, unless we the people make some changes, is more disparity between the .01%/1% and the have nots. This disparity will be the cost of goods due to demand and amount of currency in circulation. The have nots will pay more for health care, more for property, more for insurance, and have less and less disposable income based on COLAs and less and less upward mobility.

Not everyone wants or needs upward mobility. There have been tons of studies on happiness and people are generally not any happier over a certain amount of income. Don't recall the #s and will vary based on where you live anyway (and maybe net worth factors into this but point still stands), but it's in the ballpark of the people you list here.

Nowhere in my post did I say anyone wants or needs upward mobility. I'm simply saying the system is designed to deny it to a vast amount of the population through providing them with, for lack of a better term, only first world problems to worry about.

It’s not wrong your theory.......and you are most probably right in terms of the uber elite controlling the planet. I real question is......are we all living in The Matrix?

 

[JAA]

Cool, so a recession is likely here or coming soon and I should try and get ahead of it. How exactly do I do that?

Cash. Spend less. Wait for the bottom and buy on the way up.

 

[JAA]

I guess it depends on industry.

For sure - not every industry is struggling, but most are due to slowing economic activity that is being exacerbated by rampant inflation on consumers. And as someone posted above, the end of the pause on student loan payments is going to hurt consumers even more.

Which is why I'll never understand the rabid resistance to the debt relief program Biden tried to offer on those loans. I think it would have been a very wise investment for the economy.

Those with mortgages or car loans have as much claim to relief as any group, so why one and not the other? The govt. is picking and choosing winners and losers. It's a terrible idea with an ocean full of moral hazard. Obviously this leads to verboten discussion, so I'll leave it there.

While I don't support loan forgiveness in most contexts, surely you can agree that a higher education is much more likely to contribute to society than a new car?

And doesn't the government already pick winners and losers through things like tax policy?

It's is not difficult to get a higher education without going in to heavy debt. I don't think we should bail people out for making poor financial decisions.

That was true when our generation went to college/grad/professional school. I think it's far more pricey today, way out of proportion to wages.

But to be clear, I'm not in favor of bailing out educational debt. I just thought comparing it to a car payment (or mortgage) was absurd.

I think the cost of education is a different thread.

.02

 

[JAA]

those with college degrees or graduate degrees in engineering are looking darn good right now. There is negative real supply - way more demand than good people.

I only wish this translated into other, non-defense industries. I am one of people you listed and barring a world war, I won't put my labor towards making weapons of war.

This is a good point.

Our economy values the making of money. Unfortunately our economy doesn't believe there is profit in being healthy (mentally and physically).

 

[Doug B]

Why risk losing my home to start a new business?

More me being naive:

Is your proposition ("risk your house, or no business for you!") as pat as all that?

I know "it takes money to make money" ... but are there zero businesses that started essentially teeny-tiny with almost no cash (and almost or no debt) up front? And then built from tiny to small to medium, and on up? Maybe certain types of service or consulting businesses where the major up-front investment is time**? Or does it never really happen that way, and when/if it does it's a one-in-a-zillion shot that paid off?

** And yes ... "time is money" ... always back to money, I guess

 

[-OZ-]

So my comments are pure speculatory, but i've been thinking about this topic for a while as clearly the economy is being hit, though it doesn't feel like everyone is being hit in the same way.

My assumptions is our 'system' is designed to ensure:

• the top .01% stay rich
• The top 10% can become the top 1%
• There is no simple way for the top 1% to become the top .01%
• Its easy for the top 1% and below to move down quickly

What I am trying to convey in the above is that there are really three wealth classifications. Uber elite, top 1%, and have nots. I realize this is a super broad stroke, but when I say 'have nots', I don't mean folks in the street. I mean purely 'upward mobility', in that the ability to grow upward.

Example A: Teacher in an amazing school district with a reasonable cost of living and making salary of ~$100k. They are a have not. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a beautiful house, maybe a summer home, but overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

Example B: Working at Lowes/Home Depot in a middle role in a good school district with a reasonable cost of living and making $60-70k. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a modest home and most likely won't have a summer home though maybe a small boat they bring to the lake, but overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

Example C: Working as an Auto Dismantler as a primary job in a low level role and a side hustle as a landscaper, living in a below average school district with a below average cost of living and making $40-60k. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a below average home, most likely won't have a summer home or a boat they bring to the lake, but maybe a small camper they take to campgrounds. Overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

The above examples are 'have nots'. They have no upward mobility. If in either of the above examples both family partners work full time, maybe there is a greater chance to leap into the 1% but it's unlikely they will stay as inflation/cost of living, will typically outpace their COLAs. So in my opinion, just above the poverty line to just below the 1% will basically have the same life except less vacations, older cars, not as good school districts and less amazon deliveries. These have nots are expected to pay into the system to ensure a foundation for the .01%.

The 1% are just the jobs which make the .01% richer. Typically this is tech and finance. These are the roles which 'make the rich richer'. These .01% uber elites want more and more and more and more. They get into venture capital investing, they get into the stock market, they get into these high money situations and expect zero risk. They expect zero risk because they help put people/process into power which ensure their little to no risk. Without getting political, this is our capital system and its by design. The 1% are just more cogs like the 'have nots', but they have the potential, or they work for companies, which have the potential of the 100x payout. That's what the VCs want, that's what the investors want. They are fine with 50 failed tech startups as long as they hit others a long the way. Just so they can be richer. The .01% use the 1% for these means and pay they appropriately. I believe this is why we have seen such a demand for tech labor. And I do not believe there will be less desire to make the .01% richer so I imagine a continued demand for the 1%.

So, that's how I believe the system is designed today. What I believe will happen in the next 5-10 years, unless we the people make some changes, is more disparity between the .01%/1% and the have nots. This disparity will be the cost of goods due to demand and amount of currency in circulation. The have nots will pay more for health care, more for property, more for insurance, and have less and less disposable income based on COLAs and less and less upward mobility.

I get what you’re saying. But many of us “have” plenty without caring to be part of the 1% or .01%.

I guess I’m a “have not” but we live well and have plenty.

Exactly. I get that "have not" is a provocative term. However, its purposeful to convey that the system is designed to keep the .01% rich and you "happy" with your "things".

Many of us honestly say we’re not “happy with things” - we’re happy with our lives.
Meanwhile many in the 1% are not truly happy (if the various studies are accurate).
The phrase “have nots” Is ridiculous when we have what we value without being the 1%.

So my comments are pure speculatory, but i've been thinking about this topic for a while as clearly the economy is being hit, though it doesn't feel like everyone is being hit in the same way.

My assumptions is our 'system' is designed to ensure:

• the top .01% stay rich
• The top 10% can become the top 1%
• There is no simple way for the top 1% to become the top .01%
• Its easy for the top 1% and below to move down quickly

What I am trying to convey in the above is that there are really three wealth classifications. Uber elite, top 1%, and have nots. I realize this is a super broad stroke, but when I say 'have nots', I don't mean folks in the street. I mean purely 'upward mobility', in that the ability to grow upward.

Example A: Teacher in an amazing school district with a reasonable cost of living and making salary of ~$100k. They are a have not. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a beautiful house, maybe a summer home, but overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

Example B: Working at Lowes/Home Depot in a middle role in a good school district with a reasonable cost of living and making $60-70k. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a modest home and most likely won't have a summer home though maybe a small boat they bring to the lake, but overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

Example C: Working as an Auto Dismantler as a primary job in a low level role and a side hustle as a landscaper, living in a below average school district with a below average cost of living and making $40-60k. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a below average home, most likely won't have a summer home or a boat they bring to the lake, but maybe a small camper they take to campgrounds. Overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

The above examples are 'have nots'. They have no upward mobility. If in either of the above examples both family partners work full time, maybe there is a greater chance to leap into the 1% but it's unlikely they will stay as inflation/cost of living, will typically outpace their COLAs. So in my opinion, just above the poverty line to just below the 1% will basically have the same life except less vacations, older cars, not as good school districts and less amazon deliveries. These have nots are expected to pay into the system to ensure a foundation for the .01%.

The 1% are just the jobs which make the .01% richer. Typically this is tech and finance. These are the roles which 'make the rich richer'. These .01% uber elites want more and more and more and more. They get into venture capital investing, they get into the stock market, they get into these high money situations and expect zero risk. They expect zero risk because they help put people/process into power which ensure their little to no risk. Without getting political, this is our capital system and its by design. The 1% are just more cogs like the 'have nots', but they have the potential, or they work for companies, which have the potential of the 100x payout. That's what the VCs want, that's what the investors want. They are fine with 50 failed tech startups as long as they hit others a long the way. Just so they can be richer. The .01% use the 1% for these means and pay they appropriately. I believe this is why we have seen such a demand . T

Everyone has their own definition of happy.

To me...money buys free time. Not things. I do well.....but it took a lot of sweat equity, persistence and entrepreneurial spirit to get to this point for myself. I have a lot more free time to enjoy my son’s baseball, enjoy things I like to do. Not so much having to have the mansion or Tesla......**ck that. Yes travel is I guess...things. But travel is rewarding to me. Seeing the world is important to me.

I just want as much free time as I can get on my limited trips around the sun. And my drive and motivation is exactly that....the better I do.....the more free time I will have to enjoy what most important to me. My family.

Exactly. Even though i don’t put quite the same premium on free time; having and taking options / opportunities which add value to our lives and those we care about.

 

[FBG26]

The standard "econ classroom" argument for this is that businesses absolutely hate cutting wages. Most firms would literally fire people before imposing across-the-board wage cuts

Unless you're at my company where we are doing both. Fun times!

 

[JAA]

So my comments are pure speculatory, but i've been thinking about this topic for a while as clearly the economy is being hit, though it doesn't feel like everyone is being hit in the same way.

My assumptions is our 'system' is designed to ensure:

• the top .01% stay rich
• The top 10% can become the top 1%
• There is no simple way for the top 1% to become the top .01%
• Its easy for the top 1% and below to move down quickly

What I am trying to convey in the above is that there are really three wealth classifications. Uber elite, top 1%, and have nots. I realize this is a super broad stroke, but when I say 'have nots', I don't mean folks in the street. I mean purely 'upward mobility', in that the ability to grow upward.

Example A: Teacher in an amazing school district with a reasonable cost of living and making salary of ~$100k. They are a have not. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a beautiful house, maybe a summer home, but overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

Example B: Working at Lowes/Home Depot in a middle role in a good school district with a reasonable cost of living and making $60-70k. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a modest home and most likely won't have a summer home though maybe a small boat they bring to the lake, but overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

Example C: Working as an Auto Dismantler as a primary job in a low level role and a side hustle as a landscaper, living in a below average school district with a below average cost of living and making $40-60k. There is basically zero way for them to be upwardly mobile. They will pay their ~30% taxes, pay into retirement, pay sales tax. They will have a below average home, most likely won't have a summer home or a boat they bring to the lake, but maybe a small camper they take to campgrounds. Overall they will not have much means to get to the 1% and above.

The above examples are 'have nots'. They have no upward mobility. If in either of the above examples both family partners work full time, maybe there is a greater chance to leap into the 1% but it's unlikely they will stay as inflation/cost of living, will typically outpace their COLAs. So in my opinion, just above the poverty line to just below the 1% will basically have the same life except less vacations, older cars, not as good school districts and less amazon deliveries. These have nots are expected to pay into the system to ensure a foundation for the .01%.

The 1% are just the jobs which make the .01% richer. Typically this is tech and finance. These are the roles which 'make the rich richer'. These .01% uber elites want more and more and more and more. They get into venture capital investing, they get into the stock market, they get into these high money situations and expect zero risk. They expect zero risk because they help put people/process into power which ensure their little to no risk. Without getting political, this is our capital system and its by design. The 1% are just more cogs like the 'have nots', but they have the potential, or they work for companies, which have the potential of the 100x payout. That's what the VCs want, that's what the investors want. They are fine with 50 failed tech startups as long as they hit others a long the way. Just so they can be richer. The .01% use the 1% for these means and pay they appropriately. I believe this is why we have seen such a demand for tech labor. And I do not believe there will be less desire to make the .01% richer so I imagine a continued demand for the 1%.

So, that's how I believe the system is designed today. What I believe will happen in the next 5-10 years, unless we the people make some changes, is more disparity between the .01%/1% and the have nots. This disparity will be the cost of goods due to demand and amount of currency in circulation. The have nots will pay more for health care, more for property, more for insurance, and have less and less disposable income based on COLAs and less and less upward mobility.

I get what you’re saying. But many of us “have” plenty without caring to be part of the 1% or .01%.

I guess I’m a “have not” but we live well and have plenty.

Exactly. I get that "have not" is a provocative term. However, its purposeful to convey that the system is designed to keep the .01% rich and you "happy" with your "things".

I define happy.....as “free time” not things.

Everyone has their own definition of happy.

To me...money buys free time. Not things. I do well.....but it took a lot of sweat equity, persistence and entrepreneurial spirit to get to this point for myself. I have a lot more free time to enjoy my son’s baseball, enjoy things I like to do. Not so much having to have the mansion or Tesla......**ck that. Yes travel is I guess...things. But travel is rewarding to me. Seeing the world is important to me.

I just want as much free time as I can get on my limited trips around the sun. And my drive and motivation is exactly that....the better I do.....the more free time I will have to enjoy what most important to me. My family.

You are a cog for the .01% and are happy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. However, to the OP this is the system. Now you will continue to battle ~8% inflation (demand for goods) with others who have half of your household income. You will buy less, they will buy much less. People will sell their assets (stock, homes, cars, etc) at reduced value, the .01%/1% will scoop those assets up at reduced value and then the cycle will continue.