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

[IvanKaramazov]

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.

This thread has gotten weird. If you earn $80K per year, that's about twice the median income the US. You're doing fine at that income, and if you aren't, it's entirely your doing. I have no idea why people are talking about $80K types as if they're one paycheck away from living out of their car.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Groceries are ****ing ridiculous. I've started using the store's coupon app.

Ibotta and buying beef and pork directly from a local farmer have been solid moves for us. The meat isn’t cheap at $5 for beef and $5.75 for pork per lb, but the quality is so much better.

We’re looking into this. We drop $160 on butcher box every month and IIRC the wife also uses Omaha.

It’s more about attempting to get better meat than saving money.

 

[Sand]

But unfortunately capitalism is not designed to be fair. It does not exist.

Capitalism isn't fair. It's efficient.

 

[Todem]

But unfortunately capitalism is not designed to be fair. It does not exist.

Capitalism isn't fair. It's efficient.

Agree with that. I love it. You gotta hustle and make it work for yourself the best you can.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

This must be a naive question, but: Why is the glass ceiling on wages so strong?

It seems like almost all employers consider annual or biannual cost-of-living raises to be crazy talk. What made wages rise between, say, the 1970s and 2007 or so? And are similar forces just not around today?

Wages are up hugely in the last few years. It's just the lower level wages that have risen. Which frankly it's about time they got a turn at it.

McDonald's are paying $14/hr now. Lifties at a ski resort $20/hr. Those were $7/hr jobs 5 years ago.

Which is fine be me. I have little pity for the people that have been making decent money the last 10-15 years and have done a horrible job setting themselves up with it despite it being the easiest 10-15 years in history thanks to the government's insanely friendly monetary policy, at the expense of lower wage workers.

 

[Sand]

The next generation should hopefully be solved with self driving trucks. It should be easier to automate self driving trucks on interstates/highways and then have someone in a remote facility take control for the first/last mile

I'm not as optimistic. I don't think we can be trusted with self driving cars. First, you'll have people throwing themselves in front of them, then kids will be climbing on top of them and making Tik Toks. Heck, the first time I get into a self driving cab with a lady friend, we are going to join the Holland Tunnel club, or whatever it winds up being called.

Welcome to Johnny Cab! Enjoy the Ride!

Hell freaking no.....I will never let a car drive itself for me. Ever.

Completely IMO, but putting on my futurist hat, I believe the vast majority of folks will be forced to accept computer driven vehicles. Just like horses moved over time from ubiquitous to a province for the rich, a human driven car will be a luxury item. Insurance rate differences for computer vs. self driven will become absolutely massive and mandate that the masses lose their access to the steering wheel.

 

[-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.

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.

This thread has gotten weird. If you earn $80K per year, that's about twice the median income the US. You're doing fine at that income, and if you aren't, it's entirely your doing. I have no idea why people are talking about $80K types as if they're one paycheck away from living out of their car.

As of November 2021, $80k put you in the top 20% income in the US - of course large families cost more so maybe that’s part of the issue?

The funny thing is if you look globally, many of us who wouldn’t think it, are among the top 10% or even 1%.

To make it to the wealthiest 10% in the world, you need to have an individual net wealth of US$138,346. For the 1%, the bar is US$1.147 million. https://www.mpamag.com/nz/news/gene...p-10-wealthiest-in-the-world-heres-why/422802

 

[PIK95]

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.

This thread has gotten weird. If you earn $80K per year, that's about twice the median income the US. You're doing fine at that income, and if you aren't, it's entirely your doing. I have no idea why people are talking about $80K types as if they're one paycheck away from living out of their car.

As of November 2021, $80k put you in the top 20% income in the US - of course large families cost more so maybe that’s part of the issue?

The funny thing is if you look globally, many of us who wouldn’t think it, are among the top 10% or even 1%.

To make it to the wealthiest 10% in the world, you need to have an individual net wealth of US$138,346. For the 1%, the bar is US$1.147 million. https://www.mpamag.com/nz/news/gene...p-10-wealthiest-in-the-world-heres-why/422802

But have you seen my verizon bill? Seriously though, we are over that number and struggle mightily fwiw.

 

[Mitchie]

Groceries are ****ing ridiculous. I've started using the store's coupon app.

Ha, I've got 8 pounds of skinless, boneless chicken thighs that I have to figure out how to cook. Thanks, Costco.

We need to revive the frugal thead.

I look at grocery shopping like a game, take advantage of the store discounts and apps, stock up on non-perishable goods that are on sale, use the freezer for meats. It's fairly easy to do and adds up each week.

 

[-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.

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.

This thread has gotten weird. If you earn $80K per year, that's about twice the median income the US. You're doing fine at that income, and if you aren't, it's entirely your doing. I have no idea why people are talking about $80K types as if they're one paycheck away from living out of their car.

As of November 2021, $80k put you in the top 20% income in the US - of course large families cost more so maybe that’s part of the issue?

The funny thing is if you look globally, many of us who wouldn’t think it, are among the top 10% or even 1%.

To make it to the wealthiest 10% in the world, you need to have an individual net wealth of US$138,346. For the 1%, the bar is US$1.147 million. https://www.mpamag.com/nz/news/gene...p-10-wealthiest-in-the-world-heres-why/422802

But have you seen my verizon bill? Seriously though, we are over that number and struggle mightily fwiw.

We have Verizon - 6 phones, unlimited 5G. Paying the monthly for two of the phones including my wife’s iPhone 14. $209, we added home Internet which should be an extra $40 / month.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

It's harsh, but the reality is if you've been making $80k/yr for the last 10-15 years and aren't relatively well off and secure now, you have no one to blame but yourself.

The problem is that, due to crazy friendly economic policy, things have just been way too easy the last 10-15 years. And people have gotten too comfortable with that. Everyone spends like crazy, is stupid with their money, and just when they're about to learn a hard lesson and change things, the government shifts its already overly friendly policy to be even easier to bail everyone out, and the only thing anyone learns is that they can keep being irresponsible and they'll never have to pay for it.

The stock market is up a zillion percent the last 15 years. Real estate is up two zillion percent. And every year we got new laws and tax advantages to leverage all of our real estate equity and turn that free money into even more free money. And all of this and the low rates drive inflation, which overwhelmingly affects the people that can't take advantage of any of those things.

So for me, I can watch all of my assets and money go up by stupid amounts every few years and a $2 increase in the price of bread is completely negligible. But for the low wage single mom of 3 that has never had an opportunity to get involved in those assets, that bread price increase is a BIG deal.

And now, finally, after all this time the lower wage people are finally starting to get a bone thrown their way via economic policy, and all the upper middle class and above that have had super easy mode for the last 15 years act like this is the end of times. Which is not an uncommon reaction people have to things. People get used to insane privilege so much that when that privilege starts being balanced back out even a little bit they view it as inequality.

Another part of it is just how we've changed as a society, valuing travel and experiences, and also what we've gotten used to on that front, as the government continued to use monetary policy to sustain an unsustainable economy for way longer than it should have.

We can think "oh many our parents made less money and they never had to worry about things". But think about your parent's lives. When you were a kid, how many big family vacations did you go on? How often did you go out to restaurants? Now compare that to what your kids have experienced with you as their parents.

I'm a fine art photographer on the side and I sell my stuff at art shows. There's nary a person that walks into my booth that doesn't go around to all the expensive places I took photos saying "been there, yep been to that one, seen that in person". These people are in there whining about how tight things are (for some reason this is always a place people like to get their political/economic complaints off their chest) 2 minutes after they pointed to my photo from Kauai and told me "I was just there last month" and pointed to my pic of Italy and were like "we just did our 5th trip there earlier this year". Yeah, things sound really "tight".

There's nothing wrong with spending money and focusing more on experiences. But far too many people did it too much and at the expense of making good decisions with their money at a time where you could almost do no wrong with money, other than spend all of it and count on the economy growing at an unsustainable pace forever.

 

[Al Czervik]

The next generation should hopefully be solved with self driving trucks. It should be easier to automate self driving trucks on interstates/highways and then have someone in a remote facility take control for the first/last mile

I'm not as optimistic. I don't think we can be trusted with self driving cars. First, you'll have people throwing themselves in front of them, then kids will be climbing on top of them and making Tik Toks. Heck, the first time I get into a self driving cab with a lady friend, we are going to join the Holland Tunnel club, or whatever it winds up being called.

Seems like the technology is getting figured out. This is pretty impressive.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

You guys realize that I arbitrarily used the $80k a year number for somebody supporting a family only in regards to showing how economic turmoil has a greater impact on the lifestyles, assets and financial decision making on people that make average to above average income than it does the top 1% . The arbitrary number of $80k a year is far closer to median income than the number that is representative of the top 1% is. If you guys want to take my example and make it $40-50k a year—it just furthers my point—not erodes it. Sometimes this place is weird. People will argue a minor detail while ignoring the main point. Had I used the figure of $45-50k a month—it has no bearing on the point I was making. If anything—it reinforces it.

 

[Doug B]

This thread has gotten weird. If you earn $80K per year, that's about twice the median income the US. You're doing fine at that income, and if you aren't, it's entirely your doing. I have no idea why people are talking about $80K types as if they're one paycheck away from living out of their car.

It's not quite that harrowing at $80k ... but it's miles away from not living check-to-check. To be clear, I'm talking about an $80k/year household with two or three minor children. Two professional adults making $160k together and supporting a couple-of-kids household is a different thing than the same household getting by on half that.

You're talking about $80k the way I'd talk about, say $200k or so. Granted, where you live and where I live (SE Louisiana), you can make a comfortable existence out of $80k gross annually ... but IMHO it takes some doing and your life will be pretty frill-free even around here. Making $80-100k and still living more or less check-to-check is not some "only an idiot" eff-up existence IMHO -- I know too many people in that boat.

The magic bit of info that a lot of people don't have about money is that you MUST save** and your savings have to (eventually) be shunted into money-earning vehicles. When your money makes money ... yeah, you can be OK on $80k/year and have some extras in your life.


** ideally, save a relative boatload as a young person and build an investable nest egg.

 

[-OZ-]

It's harsh, but the reality is if you've been making $80k/yr for the last 10-15 years and aren't relatively well off and secure now, you have no one to blame but yourself.

The problem is that, due to crazy friendly economic policy, things have just been way too easy the last 10-15 years. And people have gotten too comfortable with that. Everyone spends like crazy, is stupid with their money, and just when they're about to learn a hard lesson and change things, the government shifts its already overly friendly policy to be even easier to bail everyone out, and the only thing anyone learns is that they can keep being irresponsible and they'll never have to pay for it.

The stock market is up a zillion percent the last 15 years. Real estate is up two zillion percent. And every year we got new laws and tax advantages to leverage all of our real estate equity and turn that free money into even more free money. And all of this and the low rates drive inflation, which overwhelmingly affects the people that can't take advantage of any of those things.

So for me, I can watch all of my assets and money go up by stupid amounts every few years and a $2 increase in the price of bread is completely negligible. But for the low wage single mom of 3 that has never had an opportunity to get involved in those assets, that bread price increase is a BIG deal.

And now, finally, after all this time the lower wage people are finally starting to get a bone thrown their way via economic policy, and all the upper middle class and above that have had super easy mode for the last 15 years act like this is the end of times. Which is not an uncommon reaction people have to things. People get used to insane privilege so much that when that privilege starts being balanced back out even a little bit they view it as inequality.

Another part of it is just how we've changed as a society, valuing travel and experiences, and also what we've gotten used to on that front, as the government continued to use monetary policy to sustain an unsustainable economy for way longer than it should have.

We can think "oh many our parents made less money and they never had to worry about things". But think about your parent's lives. When you were a kid, how many big family vacations did you go on? How often did you go out to restaurants? Now compare that to what your kids have experienced with you as their parents.

I'm a fine art photographer on the side and I sell my stuff at art shows. There's nary a person that walks into my booth that doesn't go around to all the expensive places I took photos saying "been there, yep been to that one, seen that in person". These people are in there whining about how tight things are (for some reason this is always a place people like to get their political/economic complaints off their chest) 2 minutes after they pointed to my photo from Kauai and told me "I was just there last month" and pointed to my pic of Italy and were like "we just did our 5th trip there earlier this year". Yeah, things sound really "tight".

There's nothing wrong with spending money and focusing more on experiences. But far too many people did it too much and at the expense of making good decisions with their money at a time where you could almost do no wrong with money, other than spend all of it and count on the economy growing at an unsustainable pace forever.

Yeah, my dad was a teacher. Mom was part time at a pre school. We vacationed in Florida every year at a beautiful condo - owned by really good friends who let us use it free. We definitely weren’t wealthy.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

This thread has gotten weird. If you earn $80K per year, that's about twice the median income the US.

But have you seen my verizon bill? Seriously though, we are over that number and struggle mightily fwiw.

Where one lives has a lot to do with it. $80k in parts of the South, is a lot different than $80k in the Northeast.

 

[Doug B]

You guys realize that I arbitrarily used the $80k a year number for somebody supporting a family ...

Right on. A lot more meaningful to look at it as "household income" than "a young single person's income".

Around here, there is a general ethic to avoid public schools. And, no, it's not as simple as "pick up and move to a good district!". Take my word on that or don't.

So $80k for a local household ... if they're selling out hard to put two kids through Catholic school (huge around here, tons of non-Catholic kids, too), $80k might as well be $40k. The right answers for how households need to spend their money is not as pat as all that.

 

[-OZ-]

This thread has gotten weird. If you earn $80K per year, that's about twice the median income the US. You're doing fine at that income, and if you aren't, it's entirely your doing. I have no idea why people are talking about $80K types as if they're one paycheck away from living out of their car.

It's not quite that harrowing at $80k ... but it's miles away from not living check-to-check. To be clear, I'm talking about an $80k/year household with two or three minor children. Two professional adults making $160k together and supporting a couple-of-kids household is a different thing than the same household getting by on half that.

You're talking about $80k the way I'd talk about, say $200k or so. Granted, where you live and where I live (SE Louisiana), you can make a comfortable existence out of $80k gross annually ... but IMHO it takes some doing and your life will be pretty frill-free even around here. Making $80-100k and still living more or less check-to-check is not some "only an idiot" eff-up existence IMHO -- I know too many people in that boat.

The magic bit of info that a lot of people don't have about money is that you MUST save** and your savings have to (eventually) be shunted into money-earning vehicles. When your money makes money ... yeah, you can be OK on $80k/year and have some extras in your life.


** ideally, save a relative boatload as a young person and build an investable nest egg.

You’re right. My only point in most of this was to help show how we tend to compare ourselves upward and think we have less than we really do. $80k is above the average household income in my state. Granted, it’s probably poverty in NYC or LA.

 

[massraider]

It's harsh, but the reality is if you've been making $80k/yr for the last 10-15 years and aren't relatively well off and secure now, you have no one to blame but yourself.

The problem is that, due to crazy friendly economic policy, things have just been way too easy the last 10-15 years. And people have gotten too comfortable with that. Everyone spends like crazy, is stupid with their money, and just when they're about to learn a hard lesson and change things, the government shifts its already overly friendly policy to be even easier to bail everyone out, and the only thing anyone learns is that they can keep being irresponsible and they'll never have to pay for it.

The stock market is up a zillion percent the last 15 years. Real estate is up two zillion percent. And every year we got new laws and tax advantages to leverage all of our real estate equity and turn that free money into even more free money. And all of this and the low rates drive inflation, which overwhelmingly affects the people that can't take advantage of any of those things.

So for me, I can watch all of my assets and money go up by stupid amounts every few years and a $2 increase in the price of bread is completely negligible. But for the low wage single mom of 3 that has never had an opportunity to get involved in those assets, that bread price increase is a BIG deal.

And now, finally, after all this time the lower wage people are finally starting to get a bone thrown their way via economic policy, and all the upper middle class and above that have had super easy mode for the last 15 years act like this is the end of times. Which is not an uncommon reaction people have to things. People get used to insane privilege so much that when that privilege starts being balanced back out even a little bit they view it as inequality.

Another part of it is just how we've changed as a society, valuing travel and experiences, and also what we've gotten used to on that front, as the government continued to use monetary policy to sustain an unsustainable economy for way longer than it should have.

We can think "oh many our parents made less money and they never had to worry about things". But think about your parent's lives. When you were a kid, how many big family vacations did you go on? How often did you go out to restaurants? Now compare that to what your kids have experienced with you as their parents.

I'm a fine art photographer on the side and I sell my stuff at art shows. There's nary a person that walks into my booth that doesn't go around to all the expensive places I took photos saying "been there, yep been to that one, seen that in person". These people are in there whining about how tight things are (for some reason this is always a place people like to get their political/economic complaints off their chest) 2 minutes after they pointed to my photo from Kauai and told me "I was just there last month" and pointed to my pic of Italy and were like "we just did our 5th trip there earlier this year". Yeah, things sound really "tight".

There's nothing wrong with spending money and focusing more on experiences. But far too many people did it too much and at the expense of making good decisions with their money at a time where you could almost do no wrong with money, other than spend all of it and count on the economy growing at an unsustainable pace forever.

All of this

 

[John123]

And now, finally, after all this time the lower wage people are finally starting to get a bone thrown their way via economic policy, and all the upper middle class and above that have had super easy mode for the last 15 years act like this is the end of times. Which is not an uncommon reaction people have to things. People get used to insane privilege so much that when that privilege starts being balanced back out even a little bit they view it as inequality.

You'll have to define "bone." I don't want the government picking winners and losers. Set a FAIR economic policy and let the chips fall where they may. Those who get a marketable skill will make more money. Those who choose to go to Harvard to get a degree in underwater basket weaving may not fare as well. Because that's how capitalism works, and I'm ok with that. It may not be perfect but the history of the world shows it to be the best economic system for a country.

 

[massraider]

I don't want the government picking winners and losers.

Been doing this for the entirety of our lifetime already.

 

[culdeus]

This was an interesting thread - really enjoyed the anecdotal info from around the country. Then it devolved into some weird *** socio-political discussion. Let’s get back to the info sharing.

I work for a top 10 tax and consulting firm. We are hiring across the board but having a difficult time with a shrinking labor pool. Our labor costs are up 15%+ this fiscal year. Firm is pushing hard for double-digit price increases. My subsidiary in the wealth advisory arena is not as bad but labor is hard to find. Overall we haven’t seen a broad based pullback in our customer base yet.

What kind of labor is lacking? What skills, what positions?

We lack the ability to find anyone that has the skill set to automate even the most basic tasks or look at data and identity or flag inconsistency. Also summaries for executive levels and advocating for the slightest improvement plans is so lacking as to be laughable.

Anyone with data skillets are snapped up so fast we can't hope to even get them a cup of coffee

 

[PIK95]

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.

This thread has gotten weird. If you earn $80K per year, that's about twice the median income the US. You're doing fine at that income, and if you aren't, it's entirely your doing. I have no idea why people are talking about $80K types as if they're one paycheck away from living out of their car.

As of November 2021, $80k put you in the top 20% income in the US - of course large families cost more so maybe that’s part of the issue?

The funny thing is if you look globally, many of us who wouldn’t think it, are among the top 10% or even 1%.

To make it to the wealthiest 10% in the world, you need to have an individual net wealth of US$138,346. For the 1%, the bar is US$1.147 million. https://www.mpamag.com/nz/news/gene...p-10-wealthiest-in-the-world-heres-why/422802

But have you seen my verizon bill? Seriously though, we are over that number and struggle mightily fwiw.

We have Verizon - 6 phones, unlimited 5G. Paying the monthly for two of the phones including my wife’s iPhone 14. $209, we added home Internet which should be an extra $40 / month.

My total verizon bill is close to $600 a month for home and cells. And I still have a Galaxy 10! We are in the northeast, and my real estate business lost money the last three years. Wife is a teacher, and they have been getting beat down in her town. We dumped her medical for instance as mine was actually a better deal and hers was hella expensive when the town switched to those garbage plans.

We banned my entering college son from even thinking about becoming a teacher. My wife comes from a family of teachers fwiw. It stops now. Parent your own brats.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

And now, finally, after all this time the lower wage people are finally starting to get a bone thrown their way via economic policy, and all the upper middle class and above that have had super easy mode for the last 15 years act like this is the end of times. Which is not an uncommon reaction people have to things. People get used to insane privilege so much that when that privilege starts being balanced back out even a little bit they view it as inequality.

You'll have to define "bone." I don't want the government picking winners and losers. Set a FAIR economic policy and let the chips fall where they may. Those who get a marketable skill will make more money. Those who choose to go to Harvard to get a degree in underwater basket weaving may not fare as well. Because that's how capitalism works, and I'm ok with that. It may not be perfect but the history of the world shows it to be the best economic system for a country.

Capitalism dictates that it's fair that someone that works hard and has a valuable skill can make $80k while someone that doesn't makes $20k. No problems there.

Capitalism doesn't dictate that the fed should shift economic policy every year to make things easier and easier for the $80k+ crowd at the expense of the $20k crowd.

But when we get 15 years of fed policy designed explicitly to make stocks and real estate grow at insane numbers (which overwhelmingly helps the $80k+ people) at the expense of massive inflation (which overwhelmingly hurts the $20k people) yes, that is "boning" them.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Groceries are ****ing ridiculous. I've started using the store's coupon app.

Ha, I've got 8 pounds of skinless, boneless chicken thighs that I have to figure out how to cook. Thanks, Costco.

We need to revive the frugal thead.

I look at grocery shopping like a game, take advantage of the store discounts and apps, stock up on non-perishable goods that are on sale, use the freezer for meats. It's fairly easy to do and adds up each week.

All true but it’s still astronomically high.

 

[John123]

And now, finally, after all this time the lower wage people are finally starting to get a bone thrown their way via economic policy, and all the upper middle class and above that have had super easy mode for the last 15 years act like this is the end of times. Which is not an uncommon reaction people have to things. People get used to insane privilege so much that when that privilege starts being balanced back out even a little bit they view it as inequality.

You'll have to define "bone." I don't want the government picking winners and losers. Set a FAIR economic policy and let the chips fall where they may. Those who get a marketable skill will make more money. Those who choose to go to Harvard to get a degree in underwater basket weaving may not fare as well. Because that's how capitalism works, and I'm ok with that. It may not be perfect but the history of the world shows it to be the best economic system for a country.

Capitalism dictates that it's fair that someone that works hard and has a valuable skill can make $80k while someone that doesn't makes $20k. No problems there.

Capitalism doesn't dictate that the fed should shift economic policy every year to make things easier and easier for the $80k+ crowd at the expense of the $20k crowd.

But when we get 15 years of fed policy designed explicitly to make stocks and real estate grow at insane numbers (which overwhelmingly helps the $80k+ people) at the expense of massive inflation (which overwhelmingly hurts the $20k people) yes, that is "boning" them.

Unless you're willing to name specific policies there isn't much to talk about. But you generally won't find me defending them anyways. As I said, make it fair and let the chips fall where they may. But we're straying in to political territory here so we should probably just stop.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

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.

This thread has gotten weird. If you earn $80K per year, that's about twice the median income the US. You're doing fine at that income, and if you aren't, it's entirely your doing. I have no idea why people are talking about $80K types as if they're one paycheck away from living out of their car.

As of November 2021, $80k put you in the top 20% income in the US - of course large families cost more so maybe that’s part of the issue?

The funny thing is if you look globally, many of us who wouldn’t think it, are among the top 10% or even 1%.

To make it to the wealthiest 10% in the world, you need to have an individual net wealth of US$138,346. For the 1%, the bar is US$1.147 million. https://www.mpamag.com/nz/news/gene...p-10-wealthiest-in-the-world-heres-why/422802

But have you seen my verizon bill? Seriously though, we are over that number and struggle mightily fwiw.

We have Verizon - 6 phones, unlimited 5G. Paying the monthly for two of the phones including my wife’s iPhone 14. $209, we added home Internet which should be an extra $40 / month.

My total verizon bill is close to $600 a month for home and cells. And I still have a Galaxy 10! We are in the northeast, and my real estate business lost money the last three years. Wife is a teacher, and they have been getting beat down in her town. We dumped her medical for instance as mine was actually a better deal and hers was hella expensive when the town switched to those garbage plans.

We banned my entering college son from even thinking about becoming a teacher. My wife comes from a family of teachers fwiw. It stops now. Parent your own brats.

Just curious, but is there a reason you have to be on Verizon? Like for work or something (I know some companies require specific carriers)?

There are other companies offering the exact same thing, literally with the same towers and everything, for a fraction of the price.

 

[Stoneworker]

And now, finally, after all this time the lower wage people are finally starting to get a bone thrown their way via economic policy, and all the upper middle class and above that have had super easy mode for the last 15 years act like this is the end of times. Which is not an uncommon reaction people have to things. People get used to insane privilege so much that when that privilege starts being balanced back out even a little bit they view it as inequality.

You'll have to define "bone." I don't want the government picking winners and losers. Set a FAIR economic policy and let the chips fall where they may. Those who get a marketable skill will make more money. Those who choose to go to Harvard to get a degree in underwater basket weaving may not fare as well. Because that's how capitalism works, and I'm ok with that. It may not be perfect but the history of the world shows it to be the best economic system for a country.

Capitalism dictates that it's fair that someone that works hard and has a valuable skill can make $80k while someone that doesn't makes $20k. No problems there.

Capitalism doesn't dictate that the fed should shift economic policy every year to make things easier and easier for the $80k+ crowd at the expense of the $20k crowd.

But when we get 15 years of fed policy designed explicitly to make stocks and real estate grow at insane numbers (which overwhelmingly helps the $80k+ people) at the expense of massive inflation (which overwhelmingly hurts the $20k people) yes, that is "boning" them.

This has been covered before. The Fed consciously adopted a decade-long policy that knowingly exacerbated wealth inequality. They would rather have the $20K people earning $20K, and further the wealth gap, than a smaller wealth gap and the $20K earning $0K (i.e. no job). Neel Kashkari from the Mpls Fed has stated exactly that publicly.

So are you bashing "capitalism" as a system or the Fed meddling with capitalism?

 

[Todem]

Groceries are ****ing ridiculous. I've started using the store's coupon app.

Ha, I've got 8 pounds of skinless, boneless chicken thighs that I have to figure out how to cook. Thanks, Costco.

We need to revive the frugal thead.

I look at grocery shopping like a game, take advantage of the store discounts and apps, stock up on non-perishable goods that are on sale, use the freezer for meats. It's fairly easy to do and adds up each week.

Costco and BOGO’s at your local grocery store are your friend.

Heck Fresh Market runs some fantastic specials of steaks and chicken breasts and we stock up and vacuum seal all of it.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

And now, finally, after all this time the lower wage people are finally starting to get a bone thrown their way via economic policy, and all the upper middle class and above that have had super easy mode for the last 15 years act like this is the end of times. Which is not an uncommon reaction people have to things. People get used to insane privilege so much that when that privilege starts being balanced back out even a little bit they view it as inequality.

You'll have to define "bone." I don't want the government picking winners and losers. Set a FAIR economic policy and let the chips fall where they may. Those who get a marketable skill will make more money. Those who choose to go to Harvard to get a degree in underwater basket weaving may not fare as well. Because that's how capitalism works, and I'm ok with that. It may not be perfect but the history of the world shows it to be the best economic system for a country.

Capitalism dictates that it's fair that someone that works hard and has a valuable skill can make $80k while someone that doesn't makes $20k. No problems there.

Capitalism doesn't dictate that the fed should shift economic policy every year to make things easier and easier for the $80k+ crowd at the expense of the $20k crowd.

But when we get 15 years of fed policy designed explicitly to make stocks and real estate grow at insane numbers (which overwhelmingly helps the $80k+ people) at the expense of massive inflation (which overwhelmingly hurts the $20k people) yes, that is "boning" them.

Unless you're willing to name specific policies there isn't much to talk about. But you generally won't find me defending them anyways. As I said, make it fair and let the chips fall where they may. But weall're straying in to political territory here so we should probably just stop.

Things like low interest rates drive up stock and real estate prices at the expense of inflation, and we had almost 15 years of ridiculously low interest rates. Every time they would think about raising them or start raising them, the upper middle class vocal minority would get upset, and they'd back off or slash them back down.

Quantitative easing, new real estate depreciation laws (which allow you to use real estate equity to buy more real estate while canceling out tax liability which could then be used to buy more real estate and repeat the process over and over) etc.

A lot of these things are finally starting to get rolled back to normal now and people are acting like it's some big injustice. Like bonus depreciation on real estate is being rolled rolled back 20% every year and people are acting like having their infinite loop cheat code on acquiring more property at the expense of reasonably priced gen Z home ownership being canceled is unfair to them.

 

[-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.

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.

This thread has gotten weird. If you earn $80K per year, that's about twice the median income the US. You're doing fine at that income, and if you aren't, it's entirely your doing. I have no idea why people are talking about $80K types as if they're one paycheck away from living out of their car.

As of November 2021, $80k put you in the top 20% income in the US - of course large families cost more so maybe that’s part of the issue?

The funny thing is if you look globally, many of us who wouldn’t think it, are among the top 10% or even 1%.

To make it to the wealthiest 10% in the world, you need to have an individual net wealth of US$138,346. For the 1%, the bar is US$1.147 million. https://www.mpamag.com/nz/news/gene...p-10-wealthiest-in-the-world-heres-why/422802

But have you seen my verizon bill? Seriously though, we are over that number and struggle mightily fwiw.

We have Verizon - 6 phones, unlimited 5G. Paying the monthly for two of the phones including my wife’s iPhone 14. $209, we added home Internet which should be an extra $40 / month.

My total verizon bill is close to $600 a month for home and cells. And I still have a Galaxy 10! We are in the northeast, and my real estate business lost money the last three years. Wife is a teacher, and they have been getting beat down in her town. We dumped her medical for instance as mine was actually a better deal and hers was hella expensive when the town switched to those garbage plans.

We banned my entering college son from even thinking about becoming a teacher. My wife comes from a family of teachers fwiw. It stops now. Parent your own brats.

Just curious, but is there a reason you have to be on Verizon? Like for work or something (I know some companies require specific carriers)?

There are other companies offering the exact same thing, literally with the same towers and everything, for a fraction of the price.

I haven’t found a better deal than $250/month for 6 phones and Internet.
Not sure why Pik’s is so much higher. Our military discount is only like 10% and we get a little discount for paying with a bank draft (I know not necessarily recommended)

 

[FreeBaGeL]

And now, finally, after all this time the lower wage people are finally starting to get a bone thrown their way via economic policy, and all the upper middle class and above that have had super easy mode for the last 15 years act like this is the end of times. Which is not an uncommon reaction people have to things. People get used to insane privilege so much that when that privilege starts being balanced back out even a little bit they view it as inequality.

You'll have to define "bone." I don't want the government picking winners and losers. Set a FAIR economic policy and let the chips fall where they may. Those who get a marketable skill will make more money. Those who choose to go to Harvard to get a degree in underwater basket weaving may not fare as well. Because that's how capitalism works, and I'm ok with that. It may not be perfect but the history of the world shows it to be the best economic system for a country.

Capitalism dictates that it's fair that someone that works hard and has a valuable skill can make $80k while someone that doesn't makes $20k. No problems there.

Capitalism doesn't dictate that the fed should shift economic policy every year to make things easier and easier for the $80k+ crowd at the expense of the $20k crowd.

But when we get 15 years of fed policy designed explicitly to make stocks and real estate grow at insane numbers (which overwhelmingly helps the $80k+ people) at the expense of massive inflation (which overwhelmingly hurts the $20k people) yes, that is "boning" them.

This has been covered before. The Fed consciously adopted a decade-long policy that knowingly exacerbated wealth inequality. They would rather have the $20K people earning $20K, and further the wealth gap, than a smaller wealth gap and the $20K earning $0K (i.e. no job). Neel Kashkari from the Mpls Fed has stated exactly that publicly.

So are you bashing "capitalism" as a system or the Fed meddling with capitalism?

Which is all fine and well. Except that many of the people who got used to being on the top end of that ever expanding wealth gap chose to use those advantages to have fun and got used to a more and more extravagant lifestyle, and are now acting like they're being treated unfairly as that policy finally reverts back to normalcy.

We FBGs earners all just had a decade+ of super duper easy mode. It was fun, but it was always going to be temporary. Whether people chose to use that decade to live like a king or to set themselves up for the future or somewhere in between was their prerogative, not on me to judge. But if people chose the former then it's not the time to complain about not having the latter as that opportunity finally comes to an end, as it should.

 

[Doug B]

I haven’t found a better deal than $250/month for 6 phones and Internet.
Not sure why Pik’s is so much higher.

I took it that Pik was financing one or more phones (even if not his own).

 

[Stoneworker]

And now, finally, after all this time the lower wage people are finally starting to get a bone thrown their way via economic policy, and all the upper middle class and above that have had super easy mode for the last 15 years act like this is the end of times. Which is not an uncommon reaction people have to things. People get used to insane privilege so much that when that privilege starts being balanced back out even a little bit they view it as inequality.

You'll have to define "bone." I don't want the government picking winners and losers. Set a FAIR economic policy and let the chips fall where they may. Those who get a marketable skill will make more money. Those who choose to go to Harvard to get a degree in underwater basket weaving may not fare as well. Because that's how capitalism works, and I'm ok with that. It may not be perfect but the history of the world shows it to be the best economic system for a country.

Capitalism dictates that it's fair that someone that works hard and has a valuable skill can make $80k while someone that doesn't makes $20k. No problems there.

Capitalism doesn't dictate that the fed should shift economic policy every year to make things easier and easier for the $80k+ crowd at the expense of the $20k crowd.

But when we get 15 years of fed policy designed explicitly to make stocks and real estate grow at insane numbers (which overwhelmingly helps the $80k+ people) at the expense of massive inflation (which overwhelmingly hurts the $20k people) yes, that is "boning" them.

This has been covered before. The Fed consciously adopted a decade-long policy that knowingly exacerbated wealth inequality. They would rather have the $20K people earning $20K, and further the wealth gap, than a smaller wealth gap and the $20K earning $0K (i.e. no job). Neel Kashkari from the Mpls Fed has stated exactly that publicly.

So are you bashing "capitalism" as a system or the Fed meddling with capitalism?

Which is all fine and well. Except that many of the people who got used to being on the top end of that ever expanding wealth gap chose to use those advantages to have fun and got used to a more and more extravagant lifestyle, and are now acting like they're being treated unfairly as that policy finally reverts back to normalcy.

We FBGs all just had a decade of super duper easy mode. It was fun, but it was always going to be temporary. Whether people chose to use that decade to live like a king or to set themselves up for the future or somewhere in between was their prerogative, not on me to judge. But if people chose the former then it's not the time to complain about not having the latter as that opportunity finally comes to an end, as it should.

I've got no problem that spendthrifts who "lived like a king" should have their comeuppance.

However, the issue is that, just like the easy money policies disproportionately benefited those with assets, the unwinding of those same policies will also disproportionately hurt those without assets.

And so there will be no resetting to a more "normalized" interest rate environment until there is a major crash, which there won't be because as soon as unemployment ticks back up the Fed will reverse course and/or Treasury will intervene due to "systemic" risks.

This is the cycle we are currently locked into. Which of course benefits those who take advantage of the subsidized risks the gov't is providing.

 

[JAA]

But unfortunately capitalism is not designed to be fair. It does not exist.

Capitalism isn't fair. It's efficient.

Its unfortunate how savvy capitalism is though. It will eventually eat itself into extinction.

 

[JAA]

The next generation should hopefully be solved with self driving trucks. It should be easier to automate self driving trucks on interstates/highways and then have someone in a remote facility take control for the first/last mile

I'm not as optimistic. I don't think we can be trusted with self driving cars. First, you'll have people throwing themselves in front of them, then kids will be climbing on top of them and making Tik Toks. Heck, the first time I get into a self driving cab with a lady friend, we are going to join the Holland Tunnel club, or whatever it winds up being called.

Welcome to Johnny Cab! Enjoy the Ride!

Hell freaking no.....I will never let a car drive itself for me. Ever.

Completely IMO, but putting on my futurist hat, I believe the vast majority of folks will be forced to accept computer driven vehicles. Just like horses moved over time from ubiquitous to a province for the rich, a human driven car will be a luxury item. Insurance rate differences for computer vs. self driven will become absolutely massive and mandate that the masses lose their access to the steering wheel.

I get this thought, however each writeup I see about it requires roadway infrastructure to drastically change. This change either through large lift-and-shift changes to iteratively make road changes to support the lower paced growth.

Unless we get a city designed from scratch to support this, Im not sure how it works.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

And now, finally, after all this time the lower wage people are finally starting to get a bone thrown their way via economic policy, and all the upper middle class and above that have had super easy mode for the last 15 years act like this is the end of times. Which is not an uncommon reaction people have to things. People get used to insane privilege so much that when that privilege starts being balanced back out even a little bit they view it as inequality.

You'll have to define "bone." I don't want the government picking winners and losers. Set a FAIR economic policy and let the chips fall where they may. Those who get a marketable skill will make more money. Those who choose to go to Harvard to get a degree in underwater basket weaving may not fare as well. Because that's how capitalism works, and I'm ok with that. It may not be perfect but the history of the world shows it to be the best economic system for a country.

Capitalism dictates that it's fair that someone that works hard and has a valuable skill can make $80k while someone that doesn't makes $20k. No problems there.

Capitalism doesn't dictate that the fed should shift economic policy every year to make things easier and easier for the $80k+ crowd at the expense of the $20k crowd.

But when we get 15 years of fed policy designed explicitly to make stocks and real estate grow at insane numbers (which overwhelmingly helps the $80k+ people) at the expense of massive inflation (which overwhelmingly hurts the $20k people) yes, that is "boning" them.

This has been covered before. The Fed consciously adopted a decade-long policy that knowingly exacerbated wealth inequality. They would rather have the $20K people earning $20K, and further the wealth gap, than a smaller wealth gap and the $20K earning $0K (i.e. no job). Neel Kashkari from the Mpls Fed has stated exactly that publicly.

So are you bashing "capitalism" as a system or the Fed meddling with capitalism?

Which is all fine and well. Except that many of the people who got used to being on the top end of that ever expanding wealth gap chose to use those advantages to have fun and got used to a more and more extravagant lifestyle, and are now acting like they're being treated unfairly as that policy finally reverts back to normalcy.

We FBGs all just had a decade of super duper easy mode. It was fun, but it was always going to be temporary. Whether people chose to use that decade to live like a king or to set themselves up for the future or somewhere in between was their prerogative, not on me to judge. But if people chose the former then it's not the time to complain about not having the latter as that opportunity finally comes to an end, as it should.

I've got no problem that spendthrifts who "lived like a king" should have their comeuppance.

However, the issue is that, just like the easy money policies disproportionately benefited those with assets, the unwinding of those same policies will also disproportionately hurt those without assets.

And so there will be no resetting to a more "normalized" interest rate environment until there is a major crash, which there won't be because as soon as unemployment ticks back up the Fed will reverse course and/or Treasury will intervene due to "systemic" risks.

This is the cycle we are currently locked into. Which of course benefits those who take advantage of the subsidized risks the gov't is providing.

No major disagreement here, except that our definition of "live like a king" has shifted a lot during all of this.

Everyone that has made good money the last 10-15 years and doesn't have those assets has chosen to live like a king. We've just gotten used to it as the new normal. Most people in this thread have been to Hawaii and to Italy and to Utah and to Disney and more. It used to be that if you could do even ONE of those things you were considered very well off.

Multiple big vacations every year and eating out at restaurants several times a month and dropping $300 on a random Saturday last minute to go to a sporting event is not really normal. We used to consider a family that could do one big trip every few years and eat out at a restaurant once every month pretty well off. Now we plan our big vacations by the season and eat out without thinking twice. If we have to limit ourself to a couple trips every year or eating out every week we consider it "tight".

Janitors and hourly workers aren't most of the ones getting laid off when things have started pulling back. It's the tech bros and bankers and all the people that have been making enough money to protect themselves, but have chosen not to.

I agree that the fed will likely pivot too quickly, like they usually do, but they've learned a bit from doing that in early 2019 and seem like they might hold the line a little longer now. Every little bit helps, because we can't live in a world where the janitor has to buy $6 bread or $30 burger king for his family of three so we can make sure that the guy that couldn't decide whether to go to Disney or Italy this year so decided screw it I'll just do both doesn't have a hard time after 10 years of making those kinds of decisions.

 

[JAA]

It's harsh, but the reality is if you've been making $80k/yr for the last 10-15 years and aren't relatively well off and secure now, you have no one to blame but yourself.

The problem is that, due to crazy friendly economic policy, things have just been way too easy the last 10-15 years. And people have gotten too comfortable with that. Everyone spends like crazy, is stupid with their money, and just when they're about to learn a hard lesson and change things, the government shifts its already overly friendly policy to be even easier to bail everyone out, and the only thing anyone learns is that they can keep being irresponsible and they'll never have to pay for it.

The stock market is up a zillion percent the last 15 years. Real estate is up two zillion percent. And every year we got new laws and tax advantages to leverage all of our real estate equity and turn that free money into even more free money. And all of this and the low rates drive inflation, which overwhelmingly affects the people that can't take advantage of any of those things.

So for me, I can watch all of my assets and money go up by stupid amounts every few years and a $2 increase in the price of bread is completely negligible. But for the low wage single mom of 3 that has never had an opportunity to get involved in those assets, that bread price increase is a BIG deal.

And now, finally, after all this time the lower wage people are finally starting to get a bone thrown their way via economic policy, and all the upper middle class and above that have had super easy mode for the last 15 years act like this is the end of times. Which is not an uncommon reaction people have to things. People get used to insane privilege so much that when that privilege starts being balanced back out even a little bit they view it as inequality.

Another part of it is just how we've changed as a society, valuing travel and experiences, and also what we've gotten used to on that front, as the government continued to use monetary policy to sustain an unsustainable economy for way longer than it should have.

We can think "oh many our parents made less money and they never had to worry about things". But think about your parent's lives. When you were a kid, how many big family vacations did you go on? How often did you go out to restaurants? Now compare that to what your kids have experienced with you as their parents.

I'm a fine art photographer on the side and I sell my stuff at art shows. There's nary a person that walks into my booth that doesn't go around to all the expensive places I took photos saying "been there, yep been to that one, seen that in person". These people are in there whining about how tight things are (for some reason this is always a place people like to get their political/economic complaints off their chest) 2 minutes after they pointed to my photo from Kauai and told me "I was just there last month" and pointed to my pic of Italy and were like "we just did our 5th trip there earlier this year". Yeah, things sound really "tight".

There's nothing wrong with spending money and focusing more on experiences. But far too many people did it too much and at the expense of making good decisions with their money at a time where you could almost do no wrong with money, other than spend all of it and count on the economy growing at an unsustainable pace forever.

I would like to subscribe to your news letter. Agree 100%.

I don't need to belaber my points to death, but I don't believe this country has understood adversity since Vietnam. Could you imagine the upheaval if there was a need for a draft? Do people know how to spell selective service card?

oh, and get off my lawn ... amazon is 3 stops away!!1!!11!

 

[culdeus]

It's harsh, but the reality is if you've been making $80k/yr for the last 10-15 years and aren't relatively well off and secure now, you have no one to blame but yourself.

The problem is that, due to crazy friendly economic policy, things have just been way too easy the last 10-15 years. And people have gotten too comfortable with that. Everyone spends like crazy, is stupid with their money, and just when they're about to learn a hard lesson and change things, the government shifts its already overly friendly policy to be even easier to bail everyone out, and the only thing anyone learns is that they can keep being irresponsible and they'll never have to pay for it.

The stock market is up a zillion percent the last 15 years. Real estate is up two zillion percent. And every year we got new laws and tax advantages to leverage all of our real estate equity and turn that free money into even more free money. And all of this and the low rates drive inflation, which overwhelmingly affects the people that can't take advantage of any of those things.

So for me, I can watch all of my assets and money go up by stupid amounts every few years and a $2 increase in the price of bread is completely negligible. But for the low wage single mom of 3 that has never had an opportunity to get involved in those assets, that bread price increase is a BIG deal.

And now, finally, after all this time the lower wage people are finally starting to get a bone thrown their way via economic policy, and all the upper middle class and above that have had super easy mode for the last 15 years act like this is the end of times. Which is not an uncommon reaction people have to things. People get used to insane privilege so much that when that privilege starts being balanced back out even a little bit they view it as inequality.

Another part of it is just how we've changed as a society, valuing travel and experiences, and also what we've gotten used to on that front, as the government continued to use monetary policy to sustain an unsustainable economy for way longer than it should have.

We can think "oh many our parents made less money and they never had to worry about things". But think about your parent's lives. When you were a kid, how many big family vacations did you go on? How often did you go out to restaurants? Now compare that to what your kids have experienced with you as their parents.

I'm a fine art photographer on the side and I sell my stuff at art shows. There's nary a person that walks into my booth that doesn't go around to all the expensive places I took photos saying "been there, yep been to that one, seen that in person". These people are in there whining about how tight things are (for some reason this is always a place people like to get their political/economic complaints off their chest) 2 minutes after they pointed to my photo from Kauai and told me "I was just there last month" and pointed to my pic of Italy and were like "we just did our 5th trip there earlier this year". Yeah, things sound really "tight".

There's nothing wrong with spending money and focusing more on experiences. But far too many people did it too much and at the expense of making good decisions with their money at a time where you could almost do no wrong with money, other than spend all of it and count on the economy growing at an unsustainable pace forever.

I would like to subscribe to your news letter. Agree 100%.

I don't need to belaber my points to death, but I don't believe this country has understood adversity since Vietnam. Could you imagine the upheaval if there was a need for a draft? Do people know how to spell selective service card?

oh, and get off my lawn ... amazon is 3 stops away!!1!!11!

Just wait till the sea rises a couple feet and/or a Cat 5 cruises across Miami, or something suitably large and spinny hits Manhattan.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Pretty much. I’m a nurse at a large hospital. All we’ve heard over the last six month is how they are bleeding money and recently how they want to bring our traveler numbers down to zero. Travelers make up 30% of our staff and even with them we are short staffed so not sure how those numbers work. Maybe if they didn’t drive out a large percentage of our permanent staff to greener pastures. All this while they are in the process of building a half billion dollar addition. No idea how they plan to staff it.

The travelers make more money generally?

I have a buddy who buys homes in St Louis and rents exclusively to travelers. He's not running out of customers.

They do. Double what staff make and while some are generally very good, I’d say on the whole they are worth half as much, at least in the operating room. I have to carry most of them for the majority of their contract which lasts 12 weeks. That’s what a lot of our prior permanent staff are doing. They saw what they were making, it’s common knowledge, saw their abilities and were like…..screw this.

They may only make double, but the companies are paid 3-4 times as much vs base pay, depends on area (ICU, Medsurge, ED, etc).
Travelers also don't pay for their apartments or utilities. There is a reason lots of young, childless RNs travel.

So you’re saying nursing agencies are skimming 30-50% of the money for their services? Not sure exactly what they actually do, but it can’t be that difficult. Median nursing salary is $77K, and some make north of six figures.

 

[Sand]

Janitors and hourly workers aren't most of the ones getting laid off when things have started pulling back. It's the tech bros and bankers and all the people that have been making enough money to protect themselves, but have chosen not to.

If there is one thing I've learned over the years it's that financial illiteracy knows no bounds. Last I saw about 40% of folks earning 200k+ are paycheck to paycheck. It's insane.

 

[Terminalxylem]

You guys realize that I arbitrarily used the $80k a year number for somebody supporting a family ...

Around here, there is a general ethic to avoid public schools. And, no, it's not as simple as "pick up and move to a good district!". Take my word on that or don't.

So $80k for a local household ... if they're selling out hard to put two kids through Catholic school (huge around here, tons of non-Catholic kids, too), $80k might as well be $40k. The right answers for how households need to spend their money is not as pat as all that.

The same ethic exists in HI, and many other places, I‘m guessing. A product of (good) public schools myself, I always wonder if the spending on private education is justified. I mean, it’s pretty well accepted private college tuition has outpaced its value. How do we know the same isn’t true for primary/secondary education?

It‘s easy to say as a non-parent, but I can’t help but think some educational concerns are overblown. And aside from housing, education is probably the largest source of debt for young families in many areas.

 

[jobarules]

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.

This thread has gotten weird. If you earn $80K per year, that's about twice the median income the US. You're doing fine at that income, and if you aren't, it's entirely your doing. I have no idea why people are talking about $80K types as if they're one paycheck away from living out of their car.

In NYC youd be broke earning 80k a year.

 

[Dezbelief]

You guys realize that I arbitrarily used the $80k a year number for somebody supporting a family ...

Around here, there is a general ethic to avoid public schools. And, no, it's not as simple as "pick up and move to a good district!". Take my word on that or don't.

So $80k for a local household ... if they're selling out hard to put two kids through Catholic school (huge around here, tons of non-Catholic kids, too), $80k might as well be $40k. The right answers for how households need to spend their money is not as pat as all that.

The same ethic exists in HI, and many other places, I‘m guessing. A product of (good) public schools myself, I always wonder if the spending on private education is justified. I mean, it’s pretty well accepted private college tuition has outpaced its value. How do we know the same isn’t true for primary/secondary education?

It‘s easy to say as a non-parent, but I can’t help but think some educational concerns are overblown. And aside from housing, education is probably the largest source of debt for young families in many areas.

It all depends on the area and the child. I took my child out of public school because he wasn't learning anything. He's a great self learner, a near identical memory and was testing well above grade level in all the state tests. I take the "he wasn't learning anything" back, he was learning cuss words and how to misbehave. The school I took him out of has recently been failing to maintain state minimums on test scores. I spend 1/7 of my income and will work myself to death to provide him an education that will prepare him for adulthood.

 

[massraider]

Janitors and hourly workers aren't most of the ones getting laid off when things have started pulling back. It's the tech bros and bankers and all the people that have been making enough money to protect themselves, but have chosen not to

Some of these positions, too, how many are in danger of getting replaced by AI?

 

[SFBayDuck]

If there is one thing I've learned over the years it's that financial illiteracy knows no bounds. Last I saw about 40% of folks earning 200k+ are paycheck to paycheck. It's insane.

Easy to say where you live. Try NY, NJ, CT, CA. You need to make $250K a year to afford a median single-family home in SF. And that article is from last August when rates were still under 6%. So if you're trying to make it in a place like that on $200K a year, paycheck-to-paycheck is the only way to do it, and you are probably renting since you can't afford a home. I know, I battled that for 25 years and it's a big reason why I finally left.

 

[Sand]

If there is one thing I've learned over the years it's that financial illiteracy knows no bounds. Last I saw about 40% of folks earning 200k+ are paycheck to paycheck. It's insane.

Easy to say where you live. Try NY, NJ, CT, CA. You need to make $250K a year to afford a median single-family home in SF. And that article is from last August when rates were still under 6%. So if you're trying to make it in a place like that on $200K a year, paycheck-to-paycheck is the only way to do it, and you are probably renting since you can't afford a home. I know, I battled that for 25 years and it's a big reason why I finally left.

I can see that in SF and NYC.

 

[culdeus]

If there is one thing I've learned over the years it's that financial illiteracy knows no bounds. Last I saw about 40% of folks earning 200k+ are paycheck to paycheck. It's insane.

Easy to say where you live. Try NY, NJ, CT, CA. You need to make $250K a year to afford a median single-family home in SF. And that article is from last August when rates were still under 6%. So if you're trying to make it in a place like that on $200K a year, paycheck-to-paycheck is the only way to do it, and you are probably renting since you can't afford a home. I know, I battled that for 25 years and it's a big reason why I finally left.

Some areas I figure at 80k means you live 1hr outside of the city center. Dallas is certainly one of them. This tide is starting to turn and there are some low income areas seeing alot of demand from higher incomes.

 

[SFBayDuck]

If there is one thing I've learned over the years it's that financial illiteracy knows no bounds. Last I saw about 40% of folks earning 200k+ are paycheck to paycheck. It's insane.

Easy to say where you live. Try NY, NJ, CT, CA. You need to make $250K a year to afford a median single-family home in SF. And that article is from last August when rates were still under 6%. So if you're trying to make it in a place like that on $200K a year, paycheck-to-paycheck is the only way to do it, and you are probably renting since you can't afford a home. I know, I battled that for 25 years and it's a big reason why I finally left.

Some areas I figure at 80k means you live 1hr outside of the city center. Dallas is certainly one of them. This tide is starting to turn and there are some low income areas seeing alot of demand from higher incomes.

I lived 30-45 minutes from SF. Median housing price there: $1.1M. You head another 20 miles north (making the commute to SF a good 60-90 minutes) and you finally dip all the way down to.........just under $900K.

 

[Andrew74]

This was an interesting thread - really enjoyed the anecdotal info from around the country. Then it devolved into some weird *** socio-political discussion. Let’s get back to the info sharing.

I work for a top 10 tax and consulting firm. We are hiring across the board but having a difficult time with a shrinking labor pool. Our labor costs are up 15%+ this fiscal year. Firm is pushing hard for double-digit price increases. My subsidiary in the wealth advisory arena is not as bad but labor is hard to find. Overall we haven’t seen a broad based pullback in our customer base yet.

What kind of labor is lacking? What skills, what positions?

For the firm overall, public accountants are lacking. Evidently schools aren’t graduating as many accountants as before. Lots of competition in the industry. And firms hiring single accountants to staff pay crazy salaries to get that one person, which really pressures wages.

In my subsidiary we’ve had problems finding planners, especially experienced.