I believe the economy may be really bad right now. (2 Viewers)

[Mitchie]

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 see 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.

fyi US inflation rate is currently at 5%. and you have no idea whether stocks and home values will be at reduced value and neither does anyone else (generally stock increases contribute to wealth disparity anyway)

 

[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.

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?

Well, not in a bubble. But I do believe there is a lot of hand waving and screaming to divide the "wage slaves" so we dont all start looking in the same direction. That direction being 'up' at the .01%. I mean, if you look at the things we argue about, none of it is arguments over clean drinking water (sorry Flint), rebels taking hostages, political assassinations (too soon I know), true censorship (see Russia and China).

We live in the greatest country on earth. The vast majority of our problems are first world issues. We have so very lucky to have been born here.

The future? Keep the system going. Keep the wage slaves (I love that term now ) as long as possible. Where are we on the timeline of Rome? I think we got some time left, lol. At some point though, the distance from the .01%/1% to the 'have nots' will be too large. The have nots will be tired of getting jerked around and paying the price for elite/corporate greed which they will never reap. I wouldn't use the Matrix to paint our dystopian society. I would use Elysium. Most specifically the scene with the little girl needing medical care and the distance the mother was willing to go. It's incredibly unlikely we ever get there, however I'm sure each of us know folks who believe they deserve to live in Elysium because of where they were born, the color of their skin, how far they have come, etc.

.02

 

[skol asylum]

I noticed gas is up to 4.999 a gallon here in AZ again. If we are ever going to tame inflation and stabilize the economy it seems like we need to get that under control so we aren't paying premium prices for the transport of everything.
- Mr. Obvious

I work in healthcare and we are dumping millions into new hospitals and expanding campuses. The first quarter has also been a good one with our net operating revenue double that of our budget.

 

[JAA]

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

If I wanted to start a business today, I would most likely need to quit my job. The opportunity cost of that choice is ~80% of my household income. So yea, I risk my mortgage payment by quitting my job. At least that was the point I was trying to make.

 

[JAA]

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%.

Which term would you prefer?

 

[massraider]

I work in healthcare and we are dumping millions into new hospitals and expanding campuses. The first quarter has also been a good one with our net operating revenue double that of our budget.

Considering the American diet, your business feels recession proof.

 

[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 see 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.

fyi US inflation rate is currently at 5%. and you have no idea whether stocks and home values will be at reduced value and neither does anyone else (generally stock increases contribute to wealth disparity anyway)

I think we can agree on one assumption: All of our systems are cyclical

If we can agree on that, my next assertion is: The reason it is cyclical is so that the rich can stay richer.

As yourself: Which of the uber elite .01% left the .01% in any of our hard economic downturns? What did they "actually" lose?

Then ask yourself: What did you see yourself and your neighbors lose?

You will prolly say something like "well, my neighbors over extended themselves. They didnt save for a rainy day. They didn't plan ahead".

If you believe corporations and elites didn't make the exact same risky choices in overextending themselves and trying to ride the wave of profit, you can skip the next section.

Now ask yourself why the govt saves business. Why are publicly traded business not required to have 6mo of a "rainy day fund" for when things go south though "wage slaves" are expected to do so? The govt allows capitalism to make the uber rich richer, but the second it looks like elites will take a hit, here comes the govt.

A really good conversation is Theranos. How is it possible Theranos went as far as it did? If you believe 2 incompetent C-level leaders hoodwinked everyone, well - we can agree to disagree. My next exhibit would be FTX, but I dont have the time to talk about it cause Im ordering my 6th Amazon package this week. I need to write a nasty review because it came 1 day late.

 

[massraider]

Now ask yourself why the govt saves business. Why are publicly traded business not required to have 6mo of a "rainy day fund" for when things go south though "wage slaves" are expected to do so?

Spectacular question.

 

[Sand]

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?

Definitely too soon - even the crunchy REI store is closing due to rampant theft.

 

[-OZ-]

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%.

Which term would you prefer?

I don’t really care for labels but middle class is fine.

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 see 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.

fyi US inflation rate is currently at 5%. and you have no idea whether stocks and home values will be at reduced value and neither does anyone else (generally stock increases contribute to wealth disparity anyway)

I think we can agree on one assumption: All of our systems are cyclical

If we can agree on that, my next assertion is: The reason it is cyclical is so that the rich can stay richer.

As yourself: Which of the uber elite .01% left the .01% in any of our hard economic downturns? What did they "actually" lose?

Then ask yourself: What did you see yourself and your neighbors lose?

You’re not asking me, but honestly none of my neighbors or colleagues lost much of anything. We’re definitely not top 1%.

 

[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?

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?

I don't like the government incentivizing things in general so we agree there. I also agree that an educated society is valuable, however IMO taking out student loans doesn't necessarily equal an educated society. Graduation rates are shockingly low, as one example.

I would be in favor of some flavor of subsidized education, although the devil would be in the details (and we already have it to an extent with public in-state colleges). I don't have much faith that we'd devise a plan that wouldn't actually make things worse and/or cost a ton of money.

To be clear my argument isn't that giving mortgage or auto loan relief would be better than student loan relief, I was just saying the "cost" argument is moot as it would be the same. The reason I'm against it is because I think there are far better/more fair ways to get money to the people who really need it.

 

[Jayrod]

As far as what to do with this info...it entirely depends on your situation. I guess this can apply to either personal or business and even that depends on what business you are in as some will not retract and some small segments may even expand with a recession.

But generally, if you have reserves, that's great. I'd hold off on spending on big items until prices drop to buy cheap. Personally, I'm waiting to buy a 3rd vehicle for my son (he's not happy about that BTW, but I waited until 17 so can he). For our company, we wanted to hire 2 people, but are only going to hire 1 for now. We have massive cash reserves (too much honestly), so we can weather even 2 down years and can probably handle the decreased volume with just 1 more person in place. As I mentioned earlier, over 1/2 our business is government and there is no slowdown there. Maybe a very minor one, but if a competitor goes out of business we can pick up more volume (that's what happened in 2009 here apparently).

If you don't have reserves, start storing some ASAP. You will likely either need it or want it when things drop. Best way to do that is "trim the fat" as in cut frivolous or unnecessary spending. I expect the Fed to do everything to keep inflation down, so rates won't drop but rise in the near future and inflation will slow down. Prices won't ever fall across the board (funny how that works), especially on daily use items. Big ticket luxury goods (boats, RVs, etc), commercial real estate and large equipment will probably see the first and biggest reductions if the economy retracts. We actually probably need a recession now to help correct things a bit after all of the stimulus money was pumped in otherwise it becomes a big house of cards that will end with a massive crash. Maybe we are in for that anyway, I'm not really up on all of the macroeconomic indicators so I can't really say how bad it could be or how long it could last.

All I know for 100% certain is right now things are worse locally than at any point in the last 10+ years.

 

[The Gator]

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.

Friend of mine build that dairy facility. Crazy what happened.

 

[JAA]

I don’t really care for labels but middle class is fine.

What do you believe is the /actual/ difference between lower class and upper middle class in the US?

• 12 years of free education
• healthcare either through employer or long wait emergency room
• 40 hour week vs 65 hour week
• Newer car vs public transportation
• Where you buy clothes
• Crime rate where you live
• Amount and distance of vacation
• The age you retire

What am I missing?

 

[Schmeabs]

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 see 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.

fyi US inflation rate is currently at 5%. and you have no idea whether stocks and home values will be at reduced value and neither does anyone else (generally stock increases contribute to wealth disparity anyway)

I think we can agree on one assumption: All of our systems are cyclical

If we can agree on that, my next assertion is: The reason it is cyclical is so that the rich can stay richer.

As yourself: Which of the uber elite .01% left the .01% in any of our hard economic downturns? What did they "actually" lose?

Then ask yourself: What did you see yourself and your neighbors lose?

You will prolly say something like "well, my neighbors over extended themselves. They didnt save for a rainy day. They didn't plan ahead".

If you believe corporations and elites didn't make the exact same risky choices in overextending themselves and trying to ride the wave of profit, you can skip the next section.

Now ask yourself why the govt saves business. Why are publicly traded business not required to have 6mo of a "rainy day fund" for when things go south though "wage slaves" are expected to do so? The govt allows capitalism to make the uber rich richer, but the second it looks like elites will take a hit, here comes the govt.

A really good conversation is Theranos. How is it possible Theranos went as far as it did? If you believe 2 incompetent C-level leaders hoodwinked everyone, well - we can agree to disagree. My next exhibit would be FTX, but I dont have the time to talk about it cause Im ordering my 6th Amazon package this week. I need to write a nasty review because it came 1 day late.

The top 1% lose significantly more in economic downturns than the middle class. They also pay significantly more in taxes.

 

[ChiefD]

This thread is getting ridiculous now.

 

[JAA]

Another quick point about "classes" in the US: What percentage of households in the US at, or below, the poverty line dont have at least one iphone?

 

[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 see 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.

fyi US inflation rate is currently at 5%. and you have no idea whether stocks and home values will be at reduced value and neither does anyone else (generally stock increases contribute to wealth disparity anyway)

I think we can agree on one assumption: All of our systems are cyclical

If we can agree on that, my next assertion is: The reason it is cyclical is so that the rich can stay richer.

As yourself: Which of the uber elite .01% left the .01% in any of our hard economic downturns? What did they "actually" lose?

Then ask yourself: What did you see yourself and your neighbors lose?

You will prolly say something like "well, my neighbors over extended themselves. They didnt save for a rainy day. They didn't plan ahead".

If you believe corporations and elites didn't make the exact same risky choices in overextending themselves and trying to ride the wave of profit, you can skip the next section.

Now ask yourself why the govt saves business. Why are publicly traded business not required to have 6mo of a "rainy day fund" for when things go south though "wage slaves" are expected to do so? The govt allows capitalism to make the uber rich richer, but the second it looks like elites will take a hit, here comes the govt.

A really good conversation is Theranos. How is it possible Theranos went as far as it did? If you believe 2 incompetent C-level leaders hoodwinked everyone, well - we can agree to disagree. My next exhibit would be FTX, but I dont have the time to talk about it cause Im ordering my 6th Amazon package this week. I need to write a nasty review because it came 1 day late.

The top 1% lose significantly more in economic downturns than the middle class. They also pay significantly more in taxes.

I hope we can agree with respect to "wealth" aggregates don't matter. What matters is percentage of wealth. That is my opinion at least.

What percentage of their wealth did the top .01/1% lose? What percentage of their wealth did the rest lose?

 

[Schmeabs]

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 see 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.

fyi US inflation rate is currently at 5%. and you have no idea whether stocks and home values will be at reduced value and neither does anyone else (generally stock increases contribute to wealth disparity anyway)

I think we can agree on one assumption: All of our systems are cyclical

If we can agree on that, my next assertion is: The reason it is cyclical is so that the rich can stay richer.

As yourself: Which of the uber elite .01% left the .01% in any of our hard economic downturns? What did they "actually" lose?

Then ask yourself: What did you see yourself and your neighbors lose?

You will prolly say something like "well, my neighbors over extended themselves. They didnt save for a rainy day. They didn't plan ahead".

If you believe corporations and elites didn't make the exact same risky choices in overextending themselves and trying to ride the wave of profit, you can skip the next section.

Now ask yourself why the govt saves business. Why are publicly traded business not required to have 6mo of a "rainy day fund" for when things go south though "wage slaves" are expected to do so? The govt allows capitalism to make the uber rich richer, but the second it looks like elites will take a hit, here comes the govt.

A really good conversation is Theranos. How is it possible Theranos went as far as it did? If you believe 2 incompetent C-level leaders hoodwinked everyone, well - we can agree to disagree. My next exhibit would be FTX, but I dont have the time to talk about it cause Im ordering my 6th Amazon package this week. I need to write a nasty review because it came 1 day late.

The top 1% lose significantly more in economic downturns than the middle class. They also pay significantly more in taxes.

I hope we can agree with respect to "wealth" aggregates don't matter. What matters is percentage of wealth. That is my opinion at least.

What percentage of their wealth did the top .01/1% lose? What percentage of their wealth did the rest lose?

If you are talking strictly percentage of assets then the top 1% lose significantly more since much of the lower class do not own a home or any stocks.

 

[-OZ-]

I don’t really care for labels but middle class is fine.

What do you believe is the /actual/ difference between lower class and upper middle class in the US?

• 12 years of free education
• healthcare either through employer or long wait emergency room
• 40 hour week vs 65 hour week
• Newer car vs public transportation
• Where you buy clothes
• Crime rate where you live
• Amount and distance of vacation
• The age you retire

What am I missing?

You’re moving the goal posts from “99% of Americans are have nots!” to this?
Enjoy your rant, I’m out.

 

[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 see 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.

fyi US inflation rate is currently at 5%. and you have no idea whether stocks and home values will be at reduced value and neither does anyone else (generally stock increases contribute to wealth disparity anyway)

I think we can agree on one assumption: All of our systems are cyclical

If we can agree on that, my next assertion is: The reason it is cyclical is so that the rich can stay richer.

As yourself: Which of the uber elite .01% left the .01% in any of our hard economic downturns? What did they "actually" lose?

Then ask yourself: What did you see yourself and your neighbors lose?

You will prolly say something like "well, my neighbors over extended themselves. They didnt save for a rainy day. They didn't plan ahead".

If you believe corporations and elites didn't make the exact same risky choices in overextending themselves and trying to ride the wave of profit, you can skip the next section.

Now ask yourself why the govt saves business. Why are publicly traded business not required to have 6mo of a "rainy day fund" for when things go south though "wage slaves" are expected to do so? The govt allows capitalism to make the uber rich richer, but the second it looks like elites will take a hit, here comes the govt.

A really good conversation is Theranos. How is it possible Theranos went as far as it did? If you believe 2 incompetent C-level leaders hoodwinked everyone, well - we can agree to disagree. My next exhibit would be FTX, but I dont have the time to talk about it cause Im ordering my 6th Amazon package this week. I need to write a nasty review because it came 1 day late.

The top 1% lose significantly more in economic downturns than the middle class. They also pay significantly more in taxes.

I hope we can agree with respect to "wealth" aggregates don't matter. What matters is percentage of wealth. That is my opinion at least.

What percentage of their wealth did the top .01/1% lose? What percentage of their wealth did the rest lose?

If you are talking strictly percentage of assets then the top 1% lose significantly more since much of the lower class do not own a home or any stocks.

You stated "The top 1% lose significantly more in economic downturns than the middle class. They also pay significantly more in taxes."

I stated "What percentage of their wealth did the top .01/1% lose? What percentage of their wealth did the rest lose?"

You now are stating "If you are talking strictly percentage of assets then the top 1% lose significantly more since much of the lower class do not own a home or any stocks."

Would you like to focus on middle class or lower class?

 

[Doug B]

If I wanted to start a business today, I would most likely need to quit my job. The opportunity cost of that choice is ~80% of my household income. So yea, I risk my mortgage payment by quitting my job. At least that was the point I was trying to make.

I understand now -- you're not really talking about a 10-hour/week side hustle that, later, "magically" mushrooms and turns into a thriving million-dollar-revenue business.

 

[JAA]

I don’t really care for labels but middle class is fine.

What do you believe is the /actual/ difference between lower class and upper middle class in the US?

• 12 years of free education
• healthcare either through employer or long wait emergency room
• 40 hour week vs 65 hour week
• Newer car vs public transportation
• Where you buy clothes
• Crime rate where you live
• Amount and distance of vacation
• The age you retire

What am I missing?

You’re moving the goal posts from “99% of Americans are have nots!” to this?
Enjoy your rant, I’m out.

I used the term "have nots". You changed the term to "middle class". I am attempting to show that there isn't much difference between upper class and lower class hence the term "middle class" isn't the best choice, at least in my opinion. Sorry if it came off as a rant, it certainly wasn't meant as one GB.

 

[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?

Well, not in a bubble. But I do believe there is a lot of hand waving and screaming to divide the "wage slaves" so we dont all start looking in the same direction. That direction being 'up' at the .01%. I mean, if you look at the things we argue about, none of it is arguments over clean drinking water (sorry Flint), rebels taking hostages, political assassinations (too soon I know), true censorship (see Russia and China).

We live in the greatest country on earth. The vast majority of our problems are first world issues. We have so very lucky to have been born here.

The future? Keep the system going. Keep the wage slaves (I love that term now ) as long as possible. Where are we on the timeline of Rome? I think we got some time left, lol. At some point though, the distance from the .01%/1% to the 'have nots' will be too large. The have nots will be tired of getting jerked around and paying the price for elite/corporate greed which they will never reap. I wouldn't use the Matrix to paint our dystopian society. I would use Elysium. Most specifically the scene with the little girl needing medical care and the distance the mother was willing to go. It's incredibly unlikely we ever get there, however I'm sure each of us know folks who believe they deserve to live in Elysium because of where they were born, the color of their skin, how far they have come, etc.

.02

Tesla (The kick *** rock band from the mid 80’s to present day) wrote a great song on their third album. The title?

Freedom Slaves.

That is probably more appropriate LOL!!

 

[JAA]

If I wanted to start a business today, I would most likely need to quit my job. The opportunity cost of that choice is ~80% of my household income. So yea, I risk my mortgage payment by quitting my job. At least that was the point I was trying to make.

I understand now -- you're not really talking about a 10-hour/week side hustle that, later, "magically" mushrooms and turns into a thriving million-dollar-revenue business.

Well, I wish I was

No, Im not though

 

[humpback]

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%.

Which term would you prefer?

I'd prefer that we drop the labels and the entire us vs. them mentality. Who gives a rat's *** what "%" you are? Do you have enough to be happy, healthy, and live a decently fulfilling life? If so great, keep on keepin' on, if not try something different. Bitching about the plutocracy or what "class" you're in is only going to make you less happy regardless of where you fall on some meaningless scale.

I mean, we could take all of the money from the top .1% and light it on fire- wala, the rest of us all move up the "ladder", yay upward mobility!

Is our system perfect? Of course not. It's still the best in the world, which is why so many want to come here for a better life. Something tells me that few decide against it because they may not have a great chance at reaching the top .1%.

 

[Schmeabs]

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 see 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.

fyi US inflation rate is currently at 5%. and you have no idea whether stocks and home values will be at reduced value and neither does anyone else (generally stock increases contribute to wealth disparity anyway)

I think we can agree on one assumption: All of our systems are cyclical

If we can agree on that, my next assertion is: The reason it is cyclical is so that the rich can stay richer.

As yourself: Which of the uber elite .01% left the .01% in any of our hard economic downturns? What did they "actually" lose?

Then ask yourself: What did you see yourself and your neighbors lose?

You will prolly say something like "well, my neighbors over extended themselves. They didnt save for a rainy day. They didn't plan ahead".

If you believe corporations and elites didn't make the exact same risky choices in overextending themselves and trying to ride the wave of profit, you can skip the next section.

Now ask yourself why the govt saves business. Why are publicly traded business not required to have 6mo of a "rainy day fund" for when things go south though "wage slaves" are expected to do so? The govt allows capitalism to make the uber rich richer, but the second it looks like elites will take a hit, here comes the govt.

A really good conversation is Theranos. How is it possible Theranos went as far as it did? If you believe 2 incompetent C-level leaders hoodwinked everyone, well - we can agree to disagree. My next exhibit would be FTX, but I dont have the time to talk about it cause Im ordering my 6th Amazon package this week. I need to write a nasty review because it came 1 day late.

The top 1% lose significantly more in economic downturns than the middle class. They also pay significantly more in taxes.

I hope we can agree with respect to "wealth" aggregates don't matter. What matters is percentage of wealth. That is my opinion at least.

What percentage of their wealth did the top .01/1% lose? What percentage of their wealth did the rest lose?

If you are talking strictly percentage of assets then the top 1% lose significantly more since much of the lower class do not own a home or any stocks.

You stated "The top 1% lose significantly more in economic downturns than the middle class. They also pay significantly more in taxes."

I stated "What percentage of their wealth did the top .01/1% lose? What percentage of their wealth did the rest lose?"

You now are stating "If you are talking strictly percentage of assets then the top 1% lose significantly more since much of the lower class do not own a home or any stocks."

Would you like to focus on middle class or lower class?

No, how about you define what is the upper, middle, and lower class first.

 

[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?

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

Too soon?

To be fair, Portland area residents fought against Walmart coming here for years. There was one on 82nd (Portland's version of 8 Mile) and that was it. Then they started popping up here and now they're gone again? So.....store nobody wanted here packed up and left. Story at 11?

The Cracker Barrel entry here was just dumb. Not every populace wants bland breakfast items smothered in highly caloric gravy with a gift shop selling pickled okra and singing, wall-mounted bass.

 

[beer 30]

Friend of mine build that dairy facility. Crazy what happened.

I need to look into a little more to see if they've come up with what happened. Other than the headlines from day of I haven't seen anything.

Not every populace wants bland breakfast items smothered in highly caloric gravy with a gift shop selling pickled okra and singing, wall-mounted bass.

You shut your whore mouth mister

 

[The Gator]

Friend of mine build that dairy facility. Crazy what happened.

I need to look into a little more to see if they've come up with what happened. Other than the headlines from day of I haven't seen anything.

A "honey vac" (huge pooper scooper) caught on fire. The problem was that the barn for the cows was basically 5 acres of one solid roof. Once the insulation caught on fire, poof.

 

[JAA]

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%.

Which term would you prefer?

I'd prefer that we drop the labels and the entire us vs. them mentality. Who gives a rat's *** what "%" you are? Do you have enough to be happy, healthy, and live a decently fulfilling life? If so great, keep on keepin' on, if not try something different. Bitching about the plutocracy or what "class" you're in is only going to make you less happy regardless of where you fall on some meaningless scale.

I mean, we could take all of the money from the top .1% and light it on fire- wala, the rest of us all move up the "ladder", yay upward mobility!

Is our system perfect? Of course not. It's still the best in the world, which is why so many want to come here for a better life. Something tells me that few decide against it because they may not have a great chance at reaching the top .1%.

If we don't have labels, or buckets, how can we differentiate the impact of a downturn economy?

I get it, how Im going about making my point is combative/antagonistic. However, it's not my intention.

 

[JAA]

No, how about you define what is the upper, middle, and lower class first.

I am. Im grouping them all together. Our venn diagram is 3 buckets. .01%, 1%, other.

 

[Schmeabs]

No, how about you define what is the upper, middle, and lower class first.

I am. Im grouping them all together. Our venn diagram is 3 buckets. .01%, 1%, other.

Why are you focusing on such a small group?

 

[JAA]

No, how about you define what is the upper, middle, and lower class first.

I am. Im grouping them all together. Our venn diagram is 3 buckets. .01%, 1%, other.

Why are you focusing on such a small group?

Because, since my original post, I am attempting to detail how the economy impacts us. I believe it impacts us differently based on which bucket we fall in.

 

[Schmeabs]

No, how about you define what is the upper, middle, and lower class first.

I am. Im grouping them all together. Our venn diagram is 3 buckets. .01%, 1%, other.

Why are you focusing on such a small group?

Because, since my original post, I am attempting to detail how the economy impacts us. I believe it impacts us differently based on which bucket we fall in.

Well of course it does.

 

[Doug B]

No, how about you define what is the upper, middle, and lower class first.

I am. Im grouping them all together. Our venn diagram is 3 buckets. .01%, 1%, other.

This actually makes a ton of sense. Being happy and content with one's life doesn't mean someone else is not exploiting your labor. Just that such exploitation doesn't necessarily impact one's personal happiness.

In fact, that's probably the best way to exploit labor -- make exploitation into an attractive, happiness-inducing package.

It occurs to me that "exploitation" is likely a pejorative term that can get in the way of grokking the overall point. I don't necessarily mean only cruel, sweatshop-type exploitation of labor -- there are other types, as well. I'm thinking of exploitation as additionally something like "impersonal, non-altrustic use cases, where even highly-compensated cogs are fundamentally still cogs". Maybe others can suggest a better description of what is going on.

 

[JAA]

No, how about you define what is the upper, middle, and lower class first.

I am. Im grouping them all together. Our venn diagram is 3 buckets. .01%, 1%, other.

This actually makes a ton of sense. Being happy and content with one's life doesn't mean someone else is not exploiting your labor. Just that such exploitation doesn't necessarily impact one's personal happiness.

In fact, that's probably the best way to exploit labor -- make exploitation into an attractive, happiness-inducing package.

It occurs to me that "exploitation" is likely a pejorative term that can get in the way of grokking the overall point. I don't necessarily mean only cruel, sweatshop-type exploitation of labor -- there are other types, as well. I'm thinking of exploitation as additionally something like "impersonal, non-altrustic use cases, where even highly-compensated cogs are fundamentally still cogs". Maybe others can suggest a better description of what is going on.

Agree

Different thread, but same topic: How did the Egyptians get the labor to build the pyramids?

I am not trying to compare the quality of Egyption life to the quality of our current life. However, I think it's a fair comparison that the Egyptians accomplished significant work for a few (.01%) using the backs of the masses (other). I doubt it was just some whips and pikes which accomplished this, maybe i'm wrong. I would wager it was a promise of a better life and some level of complicity from the masses. As far as using history to describe societal evolution, I also think Rome is a good example.

 

[humpback]

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%.

Which term would you prefer?

I'd prefer that we drop the labels and the entire us vs. them mentality. Who gives a rat's *** what "%" you are? Do you have enough to be happy, healthy, and live a decently fulfilling life? If so great, keep on keepin' on, if not try something different. Bitching about the plutocracy or what "class" you're in is only going to make you less happy regardless of where you fall on some meaningless scale.

I mean, we could take all of the money from the top .1% and light it on fire- wala, the rest of us all move up the "ladder", yay upward mobility!

Is our system perfect? Of course not. It's still the best in the world, which is why so many want to come here for a better life. Something tells me that few decide against it because they may not have a great chance at reaching the top .1%.

If we don't have labels, or buckets, how can we differentiate the impact of a downturn economy?

I get it, how Im going about making my point is combative/antagonistic. However, it's not my intention.

There you go again with the us vs. them mentality. Why do we have to differentiate the impact of a downturn in the economy? When things get rough especially we focus on what's best for ourselves and those closest to us, not some arbitrary group. Is your life going to be any different during a downturn if others fair relatively better/worse than you do? Yes! Suck it Bill Gates, your net worth dropped 20% while mine only dropped 15%!!!

Because, since my original post, I am attempting to detail how the economy impacts us. I believe it impacts us differently based on which bucket we fall in.

Completely disagree. It impacts us based on our individual (unique) circumstances, not your random buckets. There is going to be a ton of variability within each of your buckets based on far more relevant factors (buckets, if you will) than the % bucket IMO.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

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 see 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.

fyi US inflation rate is currently at 5%. and you have no idea whether stocks and home values will be at reduced value and neither does anyone else (generally stock increases contribute to wealth disparity anyway)

I think we can agree on one assumption: All of our systems are cyclical

If we can agree on that, my next assertion is: The reason it is cyclical is so that the rich can stay richer.

As yourself: Which of the uber elite .01% left the .01% in any of our hard economic downturns? What did they "actually" lose?

Then ask yourself: What did you see yourself and your neighbors lose?

You will prolly say something like "well, my neighbors over extended themselves. They didnt save for a rainy day. They didn't plan ahead".

If you believe corporations and elites didn't make the exact same risky choices in overextending themselves and trying to ride the wave of profit, you can skip the next section.

Now ask yourself why the govt saves business. Why are publicly traded business not required to have 6mo of a "rainy day fund" for when things go south though "wage slaves" are expected to do so? The govt allows capitalism to make the uber rich richer, but the second it looks like elites will take a hit, here comes the govt.

A really good conversation is Theranos. How is it possible Theranos went as far as it did? If you believe 2 incompetent C-level leaders hoodwinked everyone, well - we can agree to disagree. My next exhibit would be FTX, but I dont have the time to talk about it cause Im ordering my 6th Amazon package this week. I need to write a nasty review because it came 1 day late.

The top 1% lose significantly more in economic downturns than the middle class. They also pay significantly more in taxes.

The top 1% don’t lose significantly more—they lose “more hypothetical net worth temporarily” during economic downturns—but they end up being the biggest beneficiaries of ”real net worth” as a result of them. If you take somebody that has a net worth of 1 billion dollars and they lose 30% of that net worth in a downturn—they lost $300 million dollars worth of “net worth”—but their lifestyles don’t change one bit. You take a person that makes $80k a year—that is carrying a mortgage, feeding a family—and reduce his/her worth by 30%— their lives change drastically for the worse. They might be forced to sell assets, they have to really cut down the standard of living in order to make things through. When the people who are forced to sell their assets in a depressed market—the people that are lucky enough to have disposable income in that depressed market are in a position to where they can buy those assets at reduced prices knowing that they will go back up in value after the temporary economic turmoil comes to an end. Look at big companies, and guys like Warren Buffet—they don’t look to sell during economic downturns—that’s when they look to buy other companies and assets and add to their positions. The point is that the “massive losses” that the top 1% appear to lose in downturns are nothing more than temporary drops in hypothetical net worth (you don’t suffer an actual loss on something until you sell it for less than you purchased it for)—while average citizens suffer real losses in their lifestyles and the assets that they were forced to sell to stay afloat.

 

[Doug B]

I doubt it was just [the Egyptians using] some whips and pikes which accomplished this, maybe I'm wrong.

AIUI, you're correct here, at least regarding the Pyramids. They are not thought to have been built by slave labor. Can pull up some links, or maybe just find and link the Egyptology FFA thread that gets bumped from time to time.

 

[JAA]

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%.

Which term would you prefer?

I'd prefer that we drop the labels and the entire us vs. them mentality. Who gives a rat's *** what "%" you are? Do you have enough to be happy, healthy, and live a decently fulfilling life? If so great, keep on keepin' on, if not try something different. Bitching about the plutocracy or what "class" you're in is only going to make you less happy regardless of where you fall on some meaningless scale.

I mean, we could take all of the money from the top .1% and light it on fire- wala, the rest of us all move up the "ladder", yay upward mobility!

Is our system perfect? Of course not. It's still the best in the world, which is why so many want to come here for a better life. Something tells me that few decide against it because they may not have a great chance at reaching the top .1%.

If we don't have labels, or buckets, how can we differentiate the impact of a downturn economy?

I get it, how Im going about making my point is combative/antagonistic. However, it's not my intention.

There you go again with the us vs. them mentality. Why do we have to differentiate the impact of a downturn in the economy? When things get rough especially we focus on what's best for ourselves and those closest to us, not some arbitrary group. Is your life going to be any different during a downturn if others fair relatively better/worse than you do? Yes! Suck it Bill Gates, your net worth dropped 20% while mine only dropped 15%!!!

Because, since my original post, I am attempting to detail how the economy impacts us. I believe it impacts us differently based on which bucket we fall in.

Completely disagree. It impacts us based on our individual (unique) circumstances, not your random buckets. There is going to be a ton of variability within each of your buckets based on far more relevant factors (buckets, if you will) than the % bucket IMO.

Below is from the OP. Im not sure how someone can answer those questions without describing different groups. I get that it seems ive been criticizing one group vs the other, but honestly Im not trying to. Im trying not to pass judgement, just raise questions. I do appreciate they are tough questions with tough answers, but I believe its important we be honest with ourselves, the good and the bad. If someone wants to dispute my points, thats cool. But honestly Im growing tired of the perceived good guy/bad guy. In my speculation, which I stated as such from the beginning, this is my opinion on the state of our economy and how it impacts specific groups of people.

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.

I can appreciate you dont like generalizations, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Above and below the poverty line is a thing and so is 1%. People not wanting them to be there, or not wanting to talk about them, doesn't make them not exist.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

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.

The top brass of hospitals are doing just fine. Whether they be corporations or individuals. The daily workings of the hospitals may struggle financially, but not the owners/ceos.

 

[-OZ-]

You take a person that makes $80k a year—that is carrying a mortgage, feeding a family—and reduce his/her worth by 30%— their lives change drastically for the worse. They might be forced to sell assets, they have to really cut down the standard of living in order to make things through.

If you’re talking about net worth, like your previous sentences, this is inaccurate. If you’re talking a salary cut, sure. But that’s not where you had started.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

You take a person that makes $80k a year—that is carrying a mortgage, feeding a family—and reduce his/her worth by 30%— their lives change drastically for the worse. They might be forced to sell assets, they have to really cut down the standard of living in order to make things through.

If you’re talking about net worth, like your previous sentences, this is inaccurate. If you’re talking a salary cut, sure. But that’s not where you had started.

Sure it does. The average person that is making $80k a year is more likely to carry some credit card debt, their jobs and ability to make money are more in jeopardy than the top 1%, and their ability to stay afloat during temporary downturns is far more in question in downturns. A top 1% person has no problem getting loans or credit extended to them even in economic downturns. A person making $80k a year is going to have access to limited credit, the credit that thy do get will come at much higher interest—which will further hurt their spending power..etc. Like I said—the losses that the super wealthy suffer in economic downturns are hypothetical and temporary—but they end up owning more as a result of economic downturns. If economic downturns disproportionately hurt the top 1%—you should see the wealth gap dropping as a result of them. This doesn’t happen. The wealth gap tends to increase as a result of them. The top 1% tend to come out of economic distress owning more assets or are in a position to own more—and most citizens end up owning less and suffering more through the turmoil.

 

[John123]

You take a person that makes $80k a year—that is carrying a mortgage, feeding a family—and reduce his/her worth by 30%— their lives change drastically for the worse. They might be forced to sell assets, they have to really cut down the standard of living in order to make things through.

If you’re talking about net worth, like your previous sentences, this is inaccurate. If you’re talking a salary cut, sure. But that’s not where you had started.

Sure it does. The average person that is making $80k a year is more likely to carry some credit card debt, their jobs and ability to make money are more in jeopardy than the top 1%, and their ability to stay afloat during temporary downturns is far more in question in downturns. A top 1% person has no problem getting loans or credit extended to them even in economic downturns. A person making $80k a year is going to have access to limited credit, the credit that thy do get will come at much higher interest—which will further hurt their spending power..etc. Like I said—the losses that the super wealthy suffer in economic downturns are hypothetical and temporary—but they end up owning more as a result of economic downturns. If economic downturns disproportionately hurt the top 1%—you should see the wealth gap dropping as a result of them. This doesn’t happen. The wealth gap tends to increase as a result of them. The top 1% tend to come out of economic distress owning more assets or are in a position to own more—and most citizens end up owning less and suffering more through the turmoil.

Some of this is not correct. For example, there is no reason why someone making 80k/year can't get credit at decent interest rates if they've been fiscally responsible.

 

[Doug B]

Im not sure how someone can answer those questions without describing different groups. I get that it seems ive been criticizing one group vs the other, but honestly Im not trying to.

How I read that first article you linked was that it described an overall economic system that we're existing within -- Warren Buffet, a well-compensated CEO, a high-powered attorney, a white-collar middle manager, a small-business owner, an auto mechanic, a waiter, a fast-food employee, a produce-picker without papers, someone washing car windows at a stoplight, and someone sleeping in a downtown doorway every night. All part of the same overall system.

Not so much about adversarial teams: "Grrr ... we non-1%-ers need to get mad and DO something about those infernal 1%-ers!"

 

[Todem]

You take a person that makes $80k a year—that is carrying a mortgage, feeding a family—and reduce his/her worth by 30%— their lives change drastically for the worse. They might be forced to sell assets, they have to really cut down the standard of living in order to make things through.

If you’re talking about net worth, like your previous sentences, this is inaccurate. If you’re talking a salary cut, sure. But that’s not where you had started.

Sure it does. The average person that is making $80k a year is more likely to carry some credit card debt, their jobs and ability to make money are more in jeopardy than the top 1%, and their ability to stay afloat during temporary downturns is far more in question in downturns. A top 1% person has no problem getting loans or credit extended to them even in economic downturns. A person making $80k a year is going to have access to limited credit, the credit that thy do get will come at much higher interest—which will further hurt their spending power..etc. Like I said—the losses that the super wealthy suffer in economic downturns are hypothetical and temporary—but they end up owning more as a result of economic downturns. If economic downturns disproportionately hurt the top 1%—you should see the wealth gap dropping as a result of them. This doesn’t happen. The wealth gap tends to increase as a result of them. The top 1% tend to come out of economic distress owning more assets or are in a position to own more—and most citizens end up owning less and suffering more through the turmoil.

Some of this is not correct. For example, there is no reason why someone making 80k/year can't get credit at decent interest rates if they've been fiscally responsible.

There was a time I was making 60-70K A year base salary when I first started in the financial industry but I had great credit and got great rates for that time 1998/1999.

100% correct. If you have been fiscally responsible you can get great rates and borrow money as long as your debt to income level is not out of whack.

 

[humpback]

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%.

Which term would you prefer?

I'd prefer that we drop the labels and the entire us vs. them mentality. Who gives a rat's *** what "%" you are? Do you have enough to be happy, healthy, and live a decently fulfilling life? If so great, keep on keepin' on, if not try something different. Bitching about the plutocracy or what "class" you're in is only going to make you less happy regardless of where you fall on some meaningless scale.

I mean, we could take all of the money from the top .1% and light it on fire- wala, the rest of us all move up the "ladder", yay upward mobility!

Is our system perfect? Of course not. It's still the best in the world, which is why so many want to come here for a better life. Something tells me that few decide against it because they may not have a great chance at reaching the top .1%.

If we don't have labels, or buckets, how can we differentiate the impact of a downturn economy?

I get it, how Im going about making my point is combative/antagonistic. However, it's not my intention.

There you go again with the us vs. them mentality. Why do we have to differentiate the impact of a downturn in the economy? When things get rough especially we focus on what's best for ourselves and those closest to us, not some arbitrary group. Is your life going to be any different during a downturn if others fair relatively better/worse than you do? Yes! Suck it Bill Gates, your net worth dropped 20% while mine only dropped 15%!!!

Because, since my original post, I am attempting to detail how the economy impacts us. I believe it impacts us differently based on which bucket we fall in.

Completely disagree. It impacts us based on our individual (unique) circumstances, not your random buckets. There is going to be a ton of variability within each of your buckets based on far more relevant factors (buckets, if you will) than the % bucket IMO.

Below is from the OP. Im not sure how someone can answer those questions without describing different groups. I get that it seems ive been criticizing one group vs the other, but honestly Im not trying to. Im trying not to pass judgement, just raise questions. I do appreciate they are tough questions with tough answers, but I believe its important we be honest with ourselves, the good and the bad. If someone wants to dispute my points, thats cool. But honestly Im growing tired of the perceived good guy/bad guy. In my speculation, which I stated as such from the beginning, this is my opinion on the state of our economy and how it impacts specific groups of people.

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.

I can appreciate you dont like generalizations, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Above and below the poverty line is a thing and so is 1%. People not wanting them to be there, or not wanting to talk about them, doesn't make them not exist.

I'll assume this isn't schtick- there was zero in the OP (including the small part you quoted) that even alluded to your rant about the rich rigging the system against us. He wrote about what he's seeing in his local economy and asked if others were seeing it as well- he was clearly focused on geography and industry, both of which are FAR more relevant (and productive) to discuss in this context than your buckets.

I'd prefer that the Kardashians didn't exist either (okay, not literally), but the only reason they do is because we the people give them oxygen. Same thing applies here, and the irony is that you don't seem to be able to see it. This is exactly what "they" want you to do. The obsession with these buckets may be the biggest red herring known to man.

 

[Doug B]

Some of this is not correct. For example, there is no reason why someone making 80k/year can't get credit at decent interest rates if they've been fiscally responsible.

JVD can clarify, but I thought he was making a relative comparison -- a person making $80k might get "decent rates" if "responsible" ... but will never get access to the rates and limits a 1% can get.

 

[Keerock]

Some of this is not correct. For example, there is no reason why someone making 80k/year can't get credit at decent interest rates if they've been fiscally responsible.

JVD can clarify, but I thought he was making a relative comparison -- a person making $80k might get "decent rates" if "responsible" ... but will never get access to the rates and limits a 1% can get.

And why is this a bad thing?