The rich are making money, but they're just hoarding it
So amount of money in circulation keeps decreasing, and prices keep increasing because in capitalism if a company isnt increasing profit margins, the stock price isn't going up. And they finally figured out calling corporate greed "inflation" means around 2/3s of the country will accept it
Either we drastically raise taxes soon, or shits about to get really really bad.
Very few people will just sit back and calmly starve to death
The 2/3 of the country can generally be fooled to believe anything.
However, just raising taxes in this case may have some similarity to extinguishing fire with a burnable substance.
You have to raise some taxes (say, on realty ownership, and some other possessions, and in general discourage possession of wealth without circulation) and lower some other taxes (say, anything taxing a transaction, I'm really not familiar with the way taxes work in USA, but in Russia plenty of taxes in hard numbers simply discourage economic activity). The goal should be increasing the actual inflation (not a good or bad thing per se). That's if you are right about the cause, which I'm in doubt about TBF.
In the US income taxes are different at different income levels and corporate taxes are separate entirely. We can absolutely raise taxes without raising them on lower income people.
And yes several studies over the last couple decades have shown that US money is going up and not coming back down.
Differentiating income levels is another thing.
I'm talking about encouraging people to put in use as much as possible of what they own, which means that making interaction cheaper via lowering some taxes is important to do not only for the "lower income level" people, actually it's most important for the "rich". That's the candy part of encouraging economic activity, and the boot part would be taxing properties (should be done carefully, or, say, large realty companies are going to be less affected than individual owners with only their apartment\house, which would be a complete failure).
That's trickle down. You just described what we've been trying for the last 60 years. And in that time the only thing that's happened is the wealthy take their tax breaks and hold on to it. They don't create more jobs. They don't pay their workers more. They store it in things like super yachts.
Lowering taxes does not create more economic activity unless they were burdensome to start with. Which is not a problem American rich people and Corporations have.
Either you are answering something else and clicked my post by error, or you haven't paid attention to a single word except for the "lowering taxes" parts.
I’m talking about encouraging people to put in use as much as possible of what they own, which means that making interaction cheaper via lowering some taxes is important to do not only for the “lower income level” people, actually it’s most important for the “rich”. That’s the candy part of encouraging economic activity, and the boot part would be taxing properties (should be done carefully, or, say, large realty companies are going to be less affected than individual owners with only their apartment\house, which would be a complete failure).
This? This is the entirety of the comment, and it is the theory behind the massive tax breaks American politicians keep giving the wealthy. If you mean something else please let me know.
If you mean something else please let me know.
Yes, I meant what I wrote.
That you have to encourage circulation and discourage "hoarding", which means that the former should be much more beneficial than the latter. For "the rich" as well.
"Tax breaks" are selective bullshit which shouldn't ever happen.
Well then you're just plain wrong. Because we've been lowering taxes on the wealthy for 60 years and they still aren't circulating the money. We even tried giving them money. Just more yachts and stocks.
See, it won't make a difference if I repeat what I said for the third time. You are just not getting it just as you are not getting economics.
All the moaning in the world doesn't change history.
The actual history - yes, it doesn't. The subjective picture in your head or mine - of course it does. And naturally I prefer my subjective picture, especially since you refused to read its description, arguing with your imagination instead.
Nobody fscking cares what you say to another person when it includes "you think this, and not what you are saying you think", it's nuts.
The amount of money in circulation isn’t decreasing though. Wages have increased more than inflation, almost every month in the last year. Especially for median wage/salaries.
When they say strong economy they are talking about spending, jobs etc.
The answer is in the first few sentences:
Housing crisis
The recent increase in wages isn't even a patch on the vacuum the wealthy are using. If that was even remotely true then we wouldn't be seeing this article.
If that was even remotely true then we wouldn’t be seeing this articlle
From the article -
Food is up 25 percent along with rising rent and utilities.
I'm not sure you understand what economists mean by circulation. Money is going up and not coming back down. It has been doing this for decades. The more money that gets trapped at the top and put into the stock market means less money for the working class as a whole. While that sounds like some commie shit, it's really not. Because the working class is the major demand generator in a capitalist economy. Economists want to see that money making the rounds through the entire economy because anyone left out of circulation will impact demand over the long term (and by the time it's a short term problem you're looking at a demand crisis which usually results in pitchforks).
Now we need to talk about rent in the economic way. That profit a monopoly extracts because the market is not competitive enough and it can charge more without providing more value. Land/house rent going up is the classic. That's why the two words are the same. But other necessities are often seen in history as well, including food and utilities as also mentioned in the article. This is relevant because the world recently figured out that the inflation of the last couple years was actually greed and not cost push. They literally just figured out they could use it as an excuse to raise prices well beyond what was necessary. Of course that's not a surprise to anyone who listened to CEOs publicly telling their stockholders they were doing it.
So when you assert that it's not a problem with circulation because rent went up. I have questions about you understanding the economic meaning of those words. The primary means of rent seeking behavior have gone up and wages already were not keeping up. Nobody cares if wages beat inflation last month. We need them to beat decades worth of inflation and stagnant wages. We need 47 trillion dollars back from the wealthy leeches who did nothing more than raise prices and pay their workers less.
Now we need to talk about rent in the economic way. That profit a monopoly extracts because the market is not competitive enough and it can charge more without providing more value. Land/house rent going up is the classic.
Just an FYI, you're using all of these terms incorrectly.
We need 47 trillion dollars back from the wealthy leeches
And your lack of understanding is why you say silly things like this.
Perhaps don't go on at length as if you know about a topic when your only exposure to said topic is internet forums.
Lmao. No. Rent seeking behavior is economics 101.
Indeed. Actual rent-seeking is, for sure. That's why it's kind of weird you're confused by it.
A strong stock market is not a strong economy.
The economy is the flow of money exchanging hands, which is down because people are paid less than ever compared to the cost of living. This leads to starvation.
Hahaha, if you think the stock market is strong at the moment you haven't been paying attention.
I would recommend spending a little time looking into what happened with gamestop in Jan 21 and why.
Hey NBC, an economy that's not providing the basic necessities for working families is not a strong economy. No matter what the pretty graph says.
iT's NoT a ReCeSsIoN (because we don't like you having a word to call it, so we're the ones who get to redefine it however we wish)
The definition wasn't redefined. You just always heard the rule of thumb and thought that was actually the definition. Like, let's be honest here, have you ever even taken an economics class outside of HS? When you learned how it's actually determined, instead of thinking "I've learned some nuance and I will incorporate this into my future conclusions" you rejected it and concocted some conspiracy to explain it.
But even in academic circles it is an arbitrary definition that is usually agreed upon by consensus. It's holistic, not a firm science and it's like that because economics is not actually about actual mathematics but is about humanity studies and trying to predict the emotional feelings of people with money to spend. There is statistical stuff you can use to help but a farmer in 1875 has done better on predicting markets than most modern degree holders.
It's not arbitrary. It's just that, as you note, a nuanced question without a simple answer. The "two quarters" thing is just something that we tend to see with every recession. But there are a lot of other things we tend to see too: unemployment rising, consumer spending retracting, income dropping, industrial output retracting... and we didn't see any of the other factors that we've seen previously.
It would have been one of the weirdest "recessions" we've ever seen, that bucked numerous other recession indicators. . .all in favor of two quarters of negative GDP growth. How does that make any sense?
Expecting everything to be the same is silly. History rhymes, not repeats, so whatever this period could be called is hard to say. But consumer spending is down. Sorta. People are spending less now but the market now is back to "stable". There is over employment from income not raising to match inflation so it's like people got pay cuts. Industries are also rapidly declaring bankruptcy.
It's weird now. Sorta like a Frankenstein recession one that is not and is still shambling but seems to be held together by stitches and random corpses thrown together.
This period will definitely be talked about in economics because it's certainly something new that couldn't have existed before without the very global economy. Maybe it will turn more traditional or go back to normal but it's definitely not a full well and fine economy at the moment.
I absolutely agree that it's weird and it's not fine right now. All I responded to was the oft-repeated and false claim that they changed the definition of recession, and then attributed that to some conspiracy theory to silence them.
It will absolutely be talked about, but just as likely as how it was a huge win for the fed if the soft landing happens, and that appears more and more likely at this point.
I guess that is fair. I'm just not that against it when people think it feels like a recession to them. The brunt of this soft landing is not even. It really does feel like it for a lot of lower class people being laid off or struggling to find work. I know of whole warehouses that have closed up in the last year or 2.
So for them... They are in a recession. My point is that it's a term that has no solid definition. It's truly arbitrary to the person who is making the claim and on a global level it might not be happening but in smaller sectors it feels like hell.
But that person did say that they changed the definition when it really just doesn't have one other than agreed idea of what it should look like. And based on what we all classically think of as a recession this ain't it. And thinking it's a conspiracy against us and not just wealth classes being completely unsynced is a bit silly, even if I want them to use their voice to complain.
I’m just not that against it when people think it feels like a recession to them. The brunt of this soft landing is not even. It really does feel like it for a lot of lower class people being laid off or struggling to find work. I know of whole warehouses that have closed up in the last year or 2.
This is the problem tho, it's all anecdotal. Recessions aren't individual things, because there are always going to be losers in any economy. Unemployment is at all time lows. Wage growth is beating inflation (and some of the biggest beneficiaries of this have been low wage workers). Inflation back down near desired levels. There's tons of reason to be optimistic about the state of the economy. Don't get me wrong, there is a long way to go to make up for what was lost over the pandemic and the subsequent inflationary period, but economic outlook looks good now.
The doom and gloom is being amplified by Republicans in an attempt to hurt Biden's chances of re-election. I wish people wouldn't repeat their lies and help Trump get elected at the same time.
My point is that it’s a term that has no solid definition.
The world is a complicated place. The fact that one can't precisely define something and there is a grey zone doesn't make any claim, even those that fall clearly outside of that grey zone, valid. "It's complicated, so any opinion is valid" is just not something we should get behind, as it justifies all kind of nonsense, like climate-change denial.
It's all anecdotal, folks.
I won't vote for Trump, I just don't like having to eat a shit pie and being told it's french silk caramel, and if I say otherwise I'm Republican, Uneducated, or something else equally insulting.
Except noone of substance is telling you anything is french silk caramel. Your whole position is based on a incorrect premise that is the result of what appears to be a false dichotomy.
If you're position is this detached from reality, it's no surprise you're being accused of being uneducated or something equally insulting.
Mmm, beg to differ. Your whole position is tedious and pedantic.
I'm not saying "they changed the definition". I'm saying "too many things about the way this term is gatekept from general use are flawed, and done for political gain sometimes, the average discussion of what is happening right now being one of them". It depends on the context whether a more academic definition standard should be expected, and even then it's not as straightforward as whoever is trying to shut down its use likes to pretend, and so perhaps a less-important hill to die on than whatever discussion is happening at that point in time."
I’m not saying “they changed the definition”
so we’re the ones who get to redefine it however we wish
Funny that after making up an claim that people are serving you shit while claiming it's a delicacy, you would turn around and claim you aren't saying they changed the definition after almost explicitly doing so.
For all your whining about nuance, you sure love to take the most reductionist (straw-manned) interpretation of things and come out of the gate swinging with insults. Excuse me while I use this to justify dismissing your pedantry.
This is a whole lot of empty nothing. Most people when thoroughly beaten slink off. A select noble few admit they are wrong. Less intelligent avoid an actual debate by doing stupid shit. A good example is throwing out big-ish words they don't understand.
Not if it keeps going like this. The rich will find out really quickly that they have nothing more than funny bits of colored paper and a gentleman's agreement with a Bank's internet server. Strong economies start from the bottom up and die from the bottom up. Catering to the top has always been a recipe for disaster.
Since all elected officials are either rich or grabbing everything they can to become so, they can't understand what it's like for people on minimum wage or a fixed income.
We need more attention on stats like "what percentage of people have zero savings", "what percentage of the median worker's income is consumed by basic expenses", "how many people didn't eat yesterday"...
Some practical advice for donating to food banks: Give money instead of food.
They know exactly what they need. You don’t.
They have partnerships and buy in bulk which makes that same dollar go further in their hands than in yours.
That article has changed how I give to food banks since I read it.
I remember reading another factor is that food which people donate is often expired, nearly expired, or undesirable and unlikely to be used before it expires, so often ends up getting thrown away anyway.
In a household of four with two full time incomes (both teachers, so take that with a grain of salt), we are at the point that the food budget is the only thing left to cut. We have canceled any subscriptions, cut all other spending, and often skip lunch/breakfast or eat Ramen noodles to save the bulk of our money for the kids and feed them better. I'm sick of beans and rice, BTW. Due to the nature of our jobs and the outside of school hours (which we are compensated for), side hustle is not an option. We would like to actually be present and part of our kids lives. I keep getting told "it gets better," but the stress of making the bills and feeding the family is relentless, and that says a lot since we are way more fortunate than most. We need change.
"It gets better" is just a bullshit comment to keep you complacent. It doesn't get better unless we make it better.
two full time incomes (both teachers, so take that with a grain of salt)
Sorry but they counts as one income tops. It's shameful how little teachers are paid. I hope you and your family find a better situation somehow.
There is often change. But it never gets better. It has never gotten better and it never will.
factually inaccurate. look man, I'm a cynic, but saying the New Deal didn't improve people's lives is bullshit.
Utilities have also been on the rise, and this year Ortigoza isn’t planning on turning on the home’s heater, even with temperatures dipping into the 30s at night. Instead, she plans to wear extra clothes around the house and bundle her daughter in blankets.
I just want to say… Don't do that.
If you want burst water pipes, then that is how you do it.
Instead, let your house drop to uncomfortably cold temperatures, but with still a buffer above freezing. The thermostat is only accurate for wherever it's placed in the house. It's not able to tell you what temperature your pipes are at the distant ends of the house.
If you're going to turn the heat off at below freezing, then you need to empty your pipes first, and no one is going to do that.
But yeah… I felt I needed to get that out of the way first.
Anyway, wages and unemployment are getting 'better', but that means very little if it's still not a living wage.
You mean how can some people barely survive while others have millions or even, wtf, billions? NBCnews? That's your question?
Boy that's a question right there NBCnews. Yessir a real head-scratcher. Hmm! Boy howdy, the mind reels at what could be the cause of such a huge imbalance in our society. I suppose we'll just never FUCKING KNOW.
Back to work.
Hey, at least some of us get an office pizza party.
It’s a strong hoarding economy, the rich and ultra-rich are hoarding wealth and companies are raising prices for everyone else to feed their insatiable demands for profit. There’s nothing strong about this economy for the majority of people.
That’s capitalism working exactly as expected.
Same reason I hate it when the housing market is described at "strong" in Australia? In what way? Is the market providing housing for all who need it? No?
Then it's weak and I'll have none of this "strong" housing market bullshit.
The housing market being strong means homes are selling. Homes selling means prices rising.
I know what they mean, I just think it ought not to be used, it's a euphemism.
It's not a euphemism, you're just not the person benefiting from the strong market because you are not currently a homeowner.
It's not benefitting anyone who buys a house (me included...) to live in either, only those who will sell for a profit.
We're tying up money where it provides no value beyond the actual utility of the house (what it costs to build, maintain, the location etc).
It would be much better if that money were invested in businesses, which actually provide value to society.
Instead, we're stuck with literal decades of debt, or stupidly high rent.
It abosultely is a euphemism for the vast majority (including home owners).
It's not a euphemism because it is describing actual, literal market conditions. You won't benefit from every strong market. Business owners do not benefit from a strong labor market. Freight brokers do not benefit from a strong driver market.
Tight and loose markets are a pretty basic concept man. There's no language wizardry going on here.
The economy isn't strong, for one. Rich people getting richer isn't indicative of a healthy economy. The entire working class can barely afford their god damned groceries, 40 hours a week isn't even enough to live on for most people.
The economy is dogshit right now. Fuck these corpo ghouls.
The economy is dogshit right now.
It's not so much the economy that's dog shit as it is the policies regulating the economy that are dog shit. Better redistribution of wealth would go a long way to alleviate the economic inequality of the US economy.
Of course, that would require implementing policies that many, especially conservatives, are not willing to implement.
As we all know, the word "economy" means "rich people's yachts".
Nice 'economy' you got there. Be a shame if this Dewalt cordless drill with 40mm carbide holesaw happened to it.
Glad people are starting to wake up to this.
Good economy: Rich people get much richer. Poor people stay poor despite the good economy.
Bad economy: Poor people pay to keep rich people rich, despite the bad economy.
Strong for who? The rich?
We were over at my mother's yesterday and we were talking about grocery prices and my mother asked my wife how much we paid for milk and my wife says she doesn't look, because it doesn't matter when we need milk regardless. I don't look either. It's the same with gas prices. I hear they've gone way down, but I've honestly stopped looking. What difference does it make what a gallon of gas costs when I need that gallon no matter what it costs?
I like to pay attention though so you can see firsthand how bad things are getting.
I remember selling shoes to old people and all the employees would joke that they all had no sane grip on the fact that prices go up. They'd say at 80 years old, well when I was 30 that used to be $X thats way too high of a price!
Its funny though because we will never experience that. We are used to it being this way year to year much less 30 or 40 years from now. So much so that some people dont even check the price anymore, we just know its higher than it used to be automatically. It's sad.
You don't need milk. You do need gas though.
We don't "need" milk in the sense that it is not necessary for our survival. We need milk in order to keep eating and drinking the things we enjoy eating and drinking. And I don't think it is unreasonable to expect milk in your tea and your cereal.
No, you do need milk. Don't let the capitalist propaganda engine tell you that comfort and contentment are not necessary for life. To even insinuate that having milk to put on cereal or in tea is some sort of luxury or indulgence that you should be able to cut out is lunacy. Human beings need comfort as much as we need socialization for emotional and mental maintenance. We need fun and enjoyment. That is why even in modern hunter-gatherer tribes the workload is less than half of ours and they all have full bellies and spend the rest of their time pursuing leisure activities and spending time with their family/community.
(not accusing the person you are replying to, they are a victim too)
I don't disagree with you at all. I was sort of trying to say that myself but you put it much better than I did. I can live without any comfort if it means that or death, but it sure would take a toll on me. That's why solitary confinement is such torture.
I guess my sleep-deprived ass is just lurking lemme looking for good lessons to which to attach a little eloquence.
It's not about comfort. Humans need calcium, lactose, various bacteria to not, eh, have reduced mobility conditioned by the toilet always being nearby, and so on.
Capitalist propaganda engine? Do you hear yourself? Say those words out loud and tell me your not a looney conspiracy theorist. What propaganda? XD
Is it propaganda to say most mammals do not keep drinking milk after they're babies? Is it also propaganda to say things like broccoli, kale, nuts and seeds are calcium alternatives? Is it propaganda that the vitamin D can be obtained from fish, sunlight, and liver? Explain what this propaganda machine is. 🤡
I wish we were on Reddit so I could /r/woosh you. Did you even read the comment? The comment has literally nothing to do with the milk. I also acknowledged that you weren't some asshat shill, but perhaps I was too forgiving.
You talked about milk for most of the comment. Also, people on Lemmy unironically talk like you did so I assumed you were one of those "capitalism is the reason for every bad thing" kind of people.
I indicated that the idea that something trivial being considered a luxury or indulgence that could be eliminated was asinine, milk happened to be the pertinent example in the discussion. Everyone else seemed to get that.
Also, most people seem to understand what about our world is propaganda. Just out of curiosity, how old are you? I'm making no judgements, just wondering.
Not every bad thing. Capitalism has its place, but the extent to which most of the populace idolizes it is unreasonable. My economic philosophy is what is known as Moral Capitalism. Essentially, make money, but don't do it at the expense or detriment of people or the environment. Don't abuse employees, don't abuse customers, don't abuse the community, don't abuse the planet. And I am using the dictionary definition of abuse here: to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way. We the public are offended by the number of ads we have shoved down our throats every day. We the employees are harmed by the stress that unrealistic deadlines and low wages cause. We the community are injured by the manipulation of legislation such that we are not allowed to protect ourselves from predatory and aggressive contracts that we are forced to sign every day that we have no choice in if we want to continue functioning in society.
And there is 100% a propaganda machine operating in the foreground of our world that is acting on behalf if the amoral capitalist institutions that are in control of everything. Republicans, marketing, PR. Articles being posted telling poor people that if they are struggling to make ends meet they can just start skipping meals instead of demanding fair pay. The whole Avacado Toast misdirect. Anytime you see the working poor being blamed for their existence instead of outrage at employers who siphon off 33-50% of the irreplaceable hours of their employee's day and don't pay enough for those hours that said employee is not destitute, that is the Capitalist Propaganda Engine. Everyone who works full time should be making enough that they can survive easily. Not lead a life of luxury, but not have to worry about the next 3 months rent, save for a vacation next year, not have to use food stamps to eat, and not have to skip meals so their child can eat. Period. End of discussion. If an employer can't pay their employees at least that much, then they should not be in business. This is the floor, the bare minimum. Just because you started a business does not automatically mean it should succeed. The same is not true to be a worker. Just because you work full-time, you should be able to survive with minimal financial stress. If you have additional training, certifications, specialized skills, etc. you can claim you deserve the lap of luxury.
Capitalist propaganda tells us that we don't "need" anything and that all of those things you're talking about are luxuries. Food? That's a luxury. Clothes? That's a luxury too. Water? You better believe you don't need that, you selfish little piggie!
(also, tbh they didn't specify the milk has to come from an animal. plant milk is milk!)
For now. We'll see. We're down to a single income, but we're going to keep putting milk in our tea as long as we can. Because I've been drinking tea with milk almost as long as I have been alive thanks to an English father and grandmother. It's like heroin for me except with milk and just a little something to sweeten it a bit. I don't want to go through tea withdrawal.
And don't tell me I can just drink tea without milk. That's like non-alcoholic beer. You have to be desperate. I'd rather get the tea shakes.
I cut my sugar in half by adding cinnamon and nutmeg. Works for coffee as well.
We use stevia extract instead of sugar. It works very well for tea.
I’ve tried stevia before. Can’t get over the cotton-candy flavor. I do make sure to use brown sugar, though. Sitting by the back window as I log in for work, contemplating if Anericans have a final straw or if we’ll just keep growing more and more bitter without functionally snapping due to the socioeconomic pressure like steel bars balanced on a beam with steady pressure on both sides, warping and weakening us.
Then it’s time to start my shift.
I would describe it as more of an anise/licorice flavor, but a very mild one, although that may be because I use extract I get on Amazon and not what they usually sell in the supermarket. You dole it out with a tiny coke spoon sort of spoon and it lasts like 3 years for less than $20, so it's a pretty decent investment if you don't mind the taste.
You’ve emboldened me. I’ll give it another go and report back! Thanks for the description, as my family does tend to enjoy anise!
I decided to give it a shot. Maybe it’s different now, but I do taste the anise flavor. The problem is that while I thought I would like it, it distracted from the flavor. I continued on, thinking I’d adjust but it just kept growing more noticeable until I finally decided it wasn’t for me. Thanks!
This is so wholesomely human.
You don't "need" it to keep eating and drinking. I don't know what you mean.
There are plenty of people for whom this is not a true statement.
Like?
Everyone who doesn't own a gas powered car.
There are more people who need gas for their cars than electricity. If you want to be the "akchually☝️🤓" guy then sure you're right. But you know what I meant and you're just being annoying.
Because trickle down economy unsurprisingly doesn't work. Good question tho.
That's because the economy is strong... for the rich.
The problem is shareholders expect infinite growth from a finite space, and that growth has to come from somewhere.
If you're already producing as many of your product, as cheaply as you can get away with, then the only thing you can do is charge more - but that strategy only works if the worker's wages don't go up with the profits.
As a result prices are going up, but worker's salaries aren't anywhere near as quickly, because the rich are scooping the extra cash and leaving all the working class to starve.
I've been working since the mid 90s and in the corporate sphere since the early 2000s.
From this experience I think we go through cycles. If you remember the 80s we had movies like wall street. "Greed, for want of a better word is good"
I think we're around about that point again. I received a directive from way up top and it was about priorities. Profit, shareholders, reducing cost and then customers. Customers were last and employees not even in the list. Unironically straight up customers last no mention of employees.
Through the 90s it was quite different, investors in people was a big thing, there was a lot of focus on team dynamic, wage rises were good, fully comped end of year parties. This kind of thing.
Then I watched this very slow drift away from this. Entire departments and then offices being closed. Below inflation payrises becoming the norm and the bare minimum from the company. Legal minimum pension match, no end of year anything comped. If lucky you'll get lunch at a corporate meeting.
The only thing that keeps me sane is the hope that we're near the end of the cycle and things turn around. It's depressing at this point.
It’s incredible to me that people need over $2k a month for food. I go to Sam’s once a week to replenish supplies and feed a house of six, two adults and four boys between 10-14, on $800-$1000 a month. That includes a ribeye or new york strip dinner every Saturday so theirs still plenty that could be cut. What the hell are people eating?
I sound like you, but I bet your answer is that we're buying groceries and preparing a lot of those meals.
Single parents or busy ones that can't do that have to buy ready food.
A classic tale of "it's expensive to be poor".
And the costs are beyond just dollars. My wife and I recently started cooking at home (and even growing some food) and I lost 20 pounds. My wife lost 50 pounds. We aren't cooking the healthiest things ever, but we make it at home.
So I started looking at prices since my comment and I think you hit the nail on the head. It’s astounding to me what the difference in cost is for premade or hell even just not bulk. I had no idea how much I was saving with a vacuum sealer and apparent luxury of having a large pantry and large standup freezer to go with the kitchen fridge/freezer. I don’t think I could make it through more than a couple days using a top of fridge freezer if that’s all I had. So bulk buying wouldn’t even really be possible as a typical renter. Just the wasted time having to shop multiple times a week (not just grabbing something but legit grocery shopping) sounds miserable and the expense from extra trips doesn’t help any.
With only a few people, you can maybe go a week with a normal freezer. But you will be eating everything you have. With 6 people? You would need to go shopping every 2 or 3 days. You will not buy frozen things in bulk unless you want to only eat a few items for 2 days.
Nobody has to buy pre-made food. That's just inherent lazy bullshit. Not to say the economy isn't fucked left right and center, and recent inflation is completely fabricated bullshit. But to say you have to buy ready-made tells me you're too stupid to cook, or stupid with your time.
Bro , some people work multiple jobs and literally have time to sleep when they are home. They don't have time to cook. It happens, and those people aren't lazy.
I'd love to see how many manage to find downtime for their phones, etc. Takes 20 minutes tops to make a healthy meal.
Odd that you found time to post, you should really be working harder.
I'm not struggling since I understand how to take care of myself.
Do you have to take care of a family? One where your domestic partner can’t work because they have to look after the kid(s)?
in my city, there are numerous "food deserts" where fresh food generally isn't available, and people go to pricey convenience stores which sell, guess what, premade food, junk. When you are raised that way, and everyone around you does the same, it comes naturally. And who is educating them otherwise, or making useful changes?
My mom grew up not knowing how to cook, bc they almost never had real food in their house (actually the "projects", single mom with schizoaffective disorder, four kids). She was working at like 12, 13, and if she were still alive, I'd love for you to try telling her they were lazy lmao
I'd be happy to call her lazy as your anecdote is just that. Books exist, as do library's, all full of knowledge on how to make shit to eat.
Here's a thought. Maybe. Just. Maybe. There are people that live in the United States that don't own a car to fill to the brim with that amount of supplies. It's difficult to carry that amount of groceries on a crowded and late bus back to your apartment. Delivery you say? Well. That's extra isn't it? Remember to tip or else. See. Not everyone lives like you. In fact. Less and less people live like you everyday. When the tipping point eventually comes. What will you say then?
There are some economies of scale with a bigger family, though. I pay more per person now with household of 4, than when we had more kids. Getting stuff in bulk works best with a large household.
And yes cooking saves money too. Ingredients don't cost as much as prepared foods. You pay in time or you pay in money.
Probably people buying a ton of pre-made meals and whole foods. A lot of people just put stuff in their carts without considering prices.
That's definitely not what happens to most people, a lot of them don't have time to cook or have never been taught how to buy proper food because of the failed education system.
You're a tone deaf wanker
I must say, I was quite impressed during my visit to Budapest. I don't blame my fellow countrymen for fleeing there.
Where are you from?
Impressed? With Budapest? Outside of the nice touristy areas it's a poverty-ridden cesspool
Americans are impressed by old stuff, and it's not like they see outside the touristy areas. Fuck Viktor Orban by the way.
You speak from my heart brother, those fuckers are destroying Hungary's future.
it was just a joke to make me sound like I thought the article was about Americans going to Hungary
Ah, I see. Sorry, irony in pure text form can be difficult to spot.
We have no official Labor Secretary at the moment and haven't for months. In the same timeline of Biden stating he would have his departments crack down on child labor we have gone an additional 10 months of silence.
An attempt at passing a bill to push against child labor and to use the already existing framework of banning sales of items made with child labor both failed with no support from the white house.
So, sure, both sides. And yes, the system is already broken and split. But at best Biden is complacent, and at worst happy to look the other way while his investors make money.
The Biden economy is anything but strong. Even traditional liberal leaning media outlets agree. The American people have done with less under his administration.
It's not Biden's fault unless you think the leaders of several other countries follow his directive too.
What I’m getting out of this is don’t have a family of fucking 7. That’s too many kids. She did this to herself. Too many people already! Having kids is the absolute worst thing you can do for the environment as well.
Well yeah I guess that's the answer. Go back in time and stop herself from having kids. I mean we all know that nothing ever changes or gets worse everything stays stagnant so if you make a decision 20 years ago it stays valid now. That's clearly your point right? Or do you think she should just be able to kill one of the kids? What's your solution here? I notice you just picked that one example out of like the six given. There was a there was one in there with three kids is that enough is that too many? What about the guy who was just caring for his disabled wife? Was the problem that he should never have married? What about the one who's taking care of the the children of her deceased son? I guess she should have stopped him from dying right? That's the answer for that one clearly isn't it?
Are the kids not people, too? Why should they pay for their mother's mistakes?
I feel so bad for those without college degrees or trade certifications. They are absolutely fucked going forward.
I feel so bad for those without college degrees vast inheritances or trade certifications huge trust funds. They are absolutely fucked going forward.
Fixed it.
Do you think everyone is poor? With the right training or college degree a path to moderate wealth is quite open. Trade jobs are especially in high demand and bring in a huge income.
No, I don't think everyone is poor, but I do think that unless you're in the ultra wealthy category, you're having less and less agency over how the government runs things in the US.
Gen X and middle class, I'm not rich, but I'm bringing in more income than I am spending, and that only really started in 2016. It took about 15 years of working before I started to break even and another five years before we started being in the green every year. Many want free income, but you must work for it. You are not the first and will not be the last, but you'll eventually break even if you work for it. This isn't what many want to hear, but that is how it is done.
I am also GenX and hate to break it to you, but we may be the last generation who had that reasonable assurance that if you were willing to make changes, go to school, you could get a better job, and if willing to hop jobs often for better pay, could work up some ladder and be well off.
I don't think my kids got the same deal. Like we didn't get pensions but our parents did. We got no guarantees but an environment of opportunities, that has flattened out a lot.
No, Millennials will do better than us.
Hope springs eternal in the hearts of men.
Every generation says that.
That said, it'd be interesting to see (over news in the web, living in Russia) some good protests with successes leading to, say, abolition of copyright and patent laws as they exist now. That would open a lot of avenues for economic development now suffocated by monopolies, oligopolies and patent trolls.
Maybe every generation says that because it's been more and more true for each generation. That's how capitalism works, continually cutting out the legs from underneath the working class. That's the entire concept, you continue to squeeze as much as you can to increase profits and one of the easiest places to squeeze is labor costs.
china will start honoring oopyrights and patents before western civilization gives up on it.
living in Russia
Yikes, yeah you're in a fucked up place forever. Get the hell out of there by any means possible.
Well, using a quantor like "forever" is usually a bad idea. In the following decade, two decades or so - definitely, so you are right, but we all have friends and family.
As of 2022, 33.9% of US HOUSEHOLDS made less than $50k/year. The median rent for the same year was $1874/month. That is $22,488/year. That is 44.976% of 50,000. 50,000 was the highest end of the range from 0 to 50,000. That means that ~⅓+ of the country have a very high probability of paying more than 45% of their annual wage in rent alone. Taking the low average from here, that is another $562/month out the window for utilities, or $6,744/year. So shelter and basic utilities for survival has us up to $29,232. For reference, that is 38% of the annual income for $75,000/year, the next line up in that chart. That is another 16%+ of households, which means that more than 50% of the US population is spending 38%+ of their annual income on housing and basic utilities, not even food. And just in case you are curious, that initial <=50k group is paying 58% of their income just to have heat, electricity, and housing to use them in. And to make sure that these numbers were not being biased by rents among income distributions, I was able to find raw data to check my estimates. They were actually low. Of the 45,221,844 households renting as of 2022, 10,492,596 of them make less than $50,000/year AND pay more than 40% of their annual income in rent. That is 47.2% of people making less than 50k/year and accounts for over 23% of all renters in the country.
So, in long, yes, everyone is poor. And to think otherwise is to either buy in to blatant propaganda, functionally not understand statistics but still think you know better than those who do, or be disingenuous representing reality in a bid to mislead the public. Only you can answer which one that is.
I party because the rent is too damn high! No, wait….. 🤔
That supports what I am saying. 33.9% is about 85,239,000 Americans. There are 40 Million Adult Americans without a High School degree and another 45 million with only a high school degree and no trade skills or college degree. I feel for them, they will be left behind. Stay in school kids.
Except I have a master's degree and don't make 50k and am nearly destitute. Both my undergrad and graduate degree are in demand, I just can't get anyone to give me an interview.
Then you have red flags you need to eliminate. There is a personal reason for your situation.
Because this isn't a strong economy....
The rich are making money, but they're just hoarding it
So amount of money in circulation keeps decreasing, and prices keep increasing because in capitalism if a company isnt increasing profit margins, the stock price isn't going up. And they finally figured out calling corporate greed "inflation" means around 2/3s of the country will accept it
Either we drastically raise taxes soon, or shits about to get really really bad.
Very few people will just sit back and calmly starve to death
The 2/3 of the country can generally be fooled to believe anything.
However, just raising taxes in this case may have some similarity to extinguishing fire with a burnable substance.
You have to raise some taxes (say, on realty ownership, and some other possessions, and in general discourage possession of wealth without circulation) and lower some other taxes (say, anything taxing a transaction, I'm really not familiar with the way taxes work in USA, but in Russia plenty of taxes in hard numbers simply discourage economic activity). The goal should be increasing the actual inflation (not a good or bad thing per se). That's if you are right about the cause, which I'm in doubt about TBF.
In the US income taxes are different at different income levels and corporate taxes are separate entirely. We can absolutely raise taxes without raising them on lower income people.
And yes several studies over the last couple decades have shown that US money is going up and not coming back down.
Differentiating income levels is another thing.
I'm talking about encouraging people to put in use as much as possible of what they own, which means that making interaction cheaper via lowering some taxes is important to do not only for the "lower income level" people, actually it's most important for the "rich". That's the candy part of encouraging economic activity, and the boot part would be taxing properties (should be done carefully, or, say, large realty companies are going to be less affected than individual owners with only their apartment\house, which would be a complete failure).
That's trickle down. You just described what we've been trying for the last 60 years. And in that time the only thing that's happened is the wealthy take their tax breaks and hold on to it. They don't create more jobs. They don't pay their workers more. They store it in things like super yachts.
Lowering taxes does not create more economic activity unless they were burdensome to start with. Which is not a problem American rich people and Corporations have.
Either you are answering something else and clicked my post by error, or you haven't paid attention to a single word except for the "lowering taxes" parts.
This? This is the entirety of the comment, and it is the theory behind the massive tax breaks American politicians keep giving the wealthy. If you mean something else please let me know.
Yes, I meant what I wrote.
That you have to encourage circulation and discourage "hoarding", which means that the former should be much more beneficial than the latter. For "the rich" as well.
"Tax breaks" are selective bullshit which shouldn't ever happen.
Well then you're just plain wrong. Because we've been lowering taxes on the wealthy for 60 years and they still aren't circulating the money. We even tried giving them money. Just more yachts and stocks.
See, it won't make a difference if I repeat what I said for the third time. You are just not getting it just as you are not getting economics.
All the moaning in the world doesn't change history.
The actual history - yes, it doesn't. The subjective picture in your head or mine - of course it does. And naturally I prefer my subjective picture, especially since you refused to read its description, arguing with your imagination instead.
Nobody fscking cares what you say to another person when it includes "you think this, and not what you are saying you think", it's nuts.
The amount of money in circulation isn’t decreasing though. Wages have increased more than inflation, almost every month in the last year. Especially for median wage/salaries.
When they say strong economy they are talking about spending, jobs etc.
The answer is in the first few sentences:
Housing crisis
The recent increase in wages isn't even a patch on the vacuum the wealthy are using. If that was even remotely true then we wouldn't be seeing this article.
Did you read the article? Because it explains why
Short term holding - link
Long term holding - link
From the article - Food is up 25 percent along with rising rent and utilities.
I'm not sure you understand what economists mean by circulation. Money is going up and not coming back down. It has been doing this for decades. The more money that gets trapped at the top and put into the stock market means less money for the working class as a whole. While that sounds like some commie shit, it's really not. Because the working class is the major demand generator in a capitalist economy. Economists want to see that money making the rounds through the entire economy because anyone left out of circulation will impact demand over the long term (and by the time it's a short term problem you're looking at a demand crisis which usually results in pitchforks).
Now we need to talk about rent in the economic way. That profit a monopoly extracts because the market is not competitive enough and it can charge more without providing more value. Land/house rent going up is the classic. That's why the two words are the same. But other necessities are often seen in history as well, including food and utilities as also mentioned in the article. This is relevant because the world recently figured out that the inflation of the last couple years was actually greed and not cost push. They literally just figured out they could use it as an excuse to raise prices well beyond what was necessary. Of course that's not a surprise to anyone who listened to CEOs publicly telling their stockholders they were doing it.
So when you assert that it's not a problem with circulation because rent went up. I have questions about you understanding the economic meaning of those words. The primary means of rent seeking behavior have gone up and wages already were not keeping up. Nobody cares if wages beat inflation last month. We need them to beat decades worth of inflation and stagnant wages. We need 47 trillion dollars back from the wealthy leeches who did nothing more than raise prices and pay their workers less.
Just an FYI, you're using all of these terms incorrectly.
And your lack of understanding is why you say silly things like this.
Perhaps don't go on at length as if you know about a topic when your only exposure to said topic is internet forums.
Lmao. No. Rent seeking behavior is economics 101.
Indeed. Actual rent-seeking is, for sure. That's why it's kind of weird you're confused by it.
Sure buddy.
A strong stock market is not a strong economy. The economy is the flow of money exchanging hands, which is down because people are paid less than ever compared to the cost of living. This leads to starvation.
Hahaha, if you think the stock market is strong at the moment you haven't been paying attention. I would recommend spending a little time looking into what happened with gamestop in Jan 21 and why.
Hey NBC, an economy that's not providing the basic necessities for working families is not a strong economy. No matter what the pretty graph says.
iT's NoT a ReCeSsIoN (because we don't like you having a word to call it, so we're the ones who get to redefine it however we wish)
The definition wasn't redefined. You just always heard the rule of thumb and thought that was actually the definition. Like, let's be honest here, have you ever even taken an economics class outside of HS? When you learned how it's actually determined, instead of thinking "I've learned some nuance and I will incorporate this into my future conclusions" you rejected it and concocted some conspiracy to explain it.
But even in academic circles it is an arbitrary definition that is usually agreed upon by consensus. It's holistic, not a firm science and it's like that because economics is not actually about actual mathematics but is about humanity studies and trying to predict the emotional feelings of people with money to spend. There is statistical stuff you can use to help but a farmer in 1875 has done better on predicting markets than most modern degree holders.
It's not arbitrary. It's just that, as you note, a nuanced question without a simple answer. The "two quarters" thing is just something that we tend to see with every recession. But there are a lot of other things we tend to see too: unemployment rising, consumer spending retracting, income dropping, industrial output retracting... and we didn't see any of the other factors that we've seen previously.
It would have been one of the weirdest "recessions" we've ever seen, that bucked numerous other recession indicators. . .all in favor of two quarters of negative GDP growth. How does that make any sense?
Expecting everything to be the same is silly. History rhymes, not repeats, so whatever this period could be called is hard to say. But consumer spending is down. Sorta. People are spending less now but the market now is back to "stable". There is over employment from income not raising to match inflation so it's like people got pay cuts. Industries are also rapidly declaring bankruptcy.
It's weird now. Sorta like a Frankenstein recession one that is not and is still shambling but seems to be held together by stitches and random corpses thrown together.
This period will definitely be talked about in economics because it's certainly something new that couldn't have existed before without the very global economy. Maybe it will turn more traditional or go back to normal but it's definitely not a full well and fine economy at the moment.
I absolutely agree that it's weird and it's not fine right now. All I responded to was the oft-repeated and false claim that they changed the definition of recession, and then attributed that to some conspiracy theory to silence them.
It will absolutely be talked about, but just as likely as how it was a huge win for the fed if the soft landing happens, and that appears more and more likely at this point.
I guess that is fair. I'm just not that against it when people think it feels like a recession to them. The brunt of this soft landing is not even. It really does feel like it for a lot of lower class people being laid off or struggling to find work. I know of whole warehouses that have closed up in the last year or 2.
So for them... They are in a recession. My point is that it's a term that has no solid definition. It's truly arbitrary to the person who is making the claim and on a global level it might not be happening but in smaller sectors it feels like hell.
But that person did say that they changed the definition when it really just doesn't have one other than agreed idea of what it should look like. And based on what we all classically think of as a recession this ain't it. And thinking it's a conspiracy against us and not just wealth classes being completely unsynced is a bit silly, even if I want them to use their voice to complain.
This is the problem tho, it's all anecdotal. Recessions aren't individual things, because there are always going to be losers in any economy. Unemployment is at all time lows. Wage growth is beating inflation (and some of the biggest beneficiaries of this have been low wage workers). Inflation back down near desired levels. There's tons of reason to be optimistic about the state of the economy. Don't get me wrong, there is a long way to go to make up for what was lost over the pandemic and the subsequent inflationary period, but economic outlook looks good now.
The doom and gloom is being amplified by Republicans in an attempt to hurt Biden's chances of re-election. I wish people wouldn't repeat their lies and help Trump get elected at the same time.
The world is a complicated place. The fact that one can't precisely define something and there is a grey zone doesn't make any claim, even those that fall clearly outside of that grey zone, valid. "It's complicated, so any opinion is valid" is just not something we should get behind, as it justifies all kind of nonsense, like climate-change denial.
It's all anecdotal, folks.
I won't vote for Trump, I just don't like having to eat a shit pie and being told it's french silk caramel, and if I say otherwise I'm Republican, Uneducated, or something else equally insulting.
Except noone of substance is telling you anything is french silk caramel. Your whole position is based on a incorrect premise that is the result of what appears to be a false dichotomy.
If you're position is this detached from reality, it's no surprise you're being accused of being uneducated or something equally insulting.
Mmm, beg to differ. Your whole position is tedious and pedantic.
I'm not saying "they changed the definition". I'm saying "too many things about the way this term is gatekept from general use are flawed, and done for political gain sometimes, the average discussion of what is happening right now being one of them". It depends on the context whether a more academic definition standard should be expected, and even then it's not as straightforward as whoever is trying to shut down its use likes to pretend, and so perhaps a less-important hill to die on than whatever discussion is happening at that point in time."
Funny that after making up an claim that people are serving you shit while claiming it's a delicacy, you would turn around and claim you aren't saying they changed the definition after almost explicitly doing so.
For all your whining about nuance, you sure love to take the most reductionist (straw-manned) interpretation of things and come out of the gate swinging with insults. Excuse me while I use this to justify dismissing your pedantry.
This is a whole lot of empty nothing. Most people when thoroughly beaten slink off. A select noble few admit they are wrong. Less intelligent avoid an actual debate by doing stupid shit. A good example is throwing out big-ish words they don't understand.
It's strong for the people who matter.
Not if it keeps going like this. The rich will find out really quickly that they have nothing more than funny bits of colored paper and a gentleman's agreement with a Bank's internet server. Strong economies start from the bottom up and die from the bottom up. Catering to the top has always been a recipe for disaster.
Strong economy == corporate price gouging while everyone else's wages stagnate.
It's a great economy if you're already rich.
Since all elected officials are either rich or grabbing everything they can to become so, they can't understand what it's like for people on minimum wage or a fixed income.
We need more attention on stats like "what percentage of people have zero savings", "what percentage of the median worker's income is consumed by basic expenses", "how many people didn't eat yesterday"...
Some practical advice for donating to food banks: Give money instead of food.
They know exactly what they need. You don’t.
They have partnerships and buy in bulk which makes that same dollar go further in their hands than in yours.
https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-blog/donating-food-food-bank-consider-cash-instead-canned-goods
That article has changed how I give to food banks since I read it.
I remember reading another factor is that food which people donate is often expired, nearly expired, or undesirable and unlikely to be used before it expires, so often ends up getting thrown away anyway.
In a household of four with two full time incomes (both teachers, so take that with a grain of salt), we are at the point that the food budget is the only thing left to cut. We have canceled any subscriptions, cut all other spending, and often skip lunch/breakfast or eat Ramen noodles to save the bulk of our money for the kids and feed them better. I'm sick of beans and rice, BTW. Due to the nature of our jobs and the outside of school hours (which we are compensated for), side hustle is not an option. We would like to actually be present and part of our kids lives. I keep getting told "it gets better," but the stress of making the bills and feeding the family is relentless, and that says a lot since we are way more fortunate than most. We need change.
"It gets better" is just a bullshit comment to keep you complacent. It doesn't get better unless we make it better.
Sorry but they counts as one income tops. It's shameful how little teachers are paid. I hope you and your family find a better situation somehow.
There is often change. But it never gets better. It has never gotten better and it never will.
factually inaccurate. look man, I'm a cynic, but saying the New Deal didn't improve people's lives is bullshit.
I just want to say… Don't do that.
If you want burst water pipes, then that is how you do it.
Instead, let your house drop to uncomfortably cold temperatures, but with still a buffer above freezing. The thermostat is only accurate for wherever it's placed in the house. It's not able to tell you what temperature your pipes are at the distant ends of the house.
If you're going to turn the heat off at below freezing, then you need to empty your pipes first, and no one is going to do that.
But yeah… I felt I needed to get that out of the way first.
Anyway, wages and unemployment are getting 'better', but that means very little if it's still not a living wage.
You mean how can some people barely survive while others have millions or even, wtf, billions? NBCnews? That's your question?
Boy that's a question right there NBCnews. Yessir a real head-scratcher. Hmm! Boy howdy, the mind reels at what could be the cause of such a huge imbalance in our society. I suppose we'll just never FUCKING KNOW.
Back to work.
Hey, at least some of us get an office pizza party.
It’s a strong hoarding economy, the rich and ultra-rich are hoarding wealth and companies are raising prices for everyone else to feed their insatiable demands for profit. There’s nothing strong about this economy for the majority of people.
That’s capitalism working exactly as expected.
Same reason I hate it when the housing market is described at "strong" in Australia? In what way? Is the market providing housing for all who need it? No?
Then it's weak and I'll have none of this "strong" housing market bullshit.
The housing market being strong means homes are selling. Homes selling means prices rising.
I know what they mean, I just think it ought not to be used, it's a euphemism.
It's not a euphemism, you're just not the person benefiting from the strong market because you are not currently a homeowner.
It's not benefitting anyone who buys a house (me included...) to live in either, only those who will sell for a profit.
We're tying up money where it provides no value beyond the actual utility of the house (what it costs to build, maintain, the location etc).
It would be much better if that money were invested in businesses, which actually provide value to society.
Instead, we're stuck with literal decades of debt, or stupidly high rent.
It abosultely is a euphemism for the vast majority (including home owners).
It's not a euphemism because it is describing actual, literal market conditions. You won't benefit from every strong market. Business owners do not benefit from a strong labor market. Freight brokers do not benefit from a strong driver market.
Tight and loose markets are a pretty basic concept man. There's no language wizardry going on here.
The economy isn't strong, for one. Rich people getting richer isn't indicative of a healthy economy. The entire working class can barely afford their god damned groceries, 40 hours a week isn't even enough to live on for most people.
The economy is dogshit right now. Fuck these corpo ghouls.
It's not so much the economy that's dog shit as it is the policies regulating the economy that are dog shit. Better redistribution of wealth would go a long way to alleviate the economic inequality of the US economy.
Of course, that would require implementing policies that many, especially conservatives, are not willing to implement.
As we all know, the word "economy" means "rich people's yachts".
Nice 'economy' you got there. Be a shame if this Dewalt cordless drill with 40mm carbide holesaw happened to it.
Glad people are starting to wake up to this.
Good economy: Rich people get much richer. Poor people stay poor despite the good economy.
Bad economy: Poor people pay to keep rich people rich, despite the bad economy.
Strong for who? The rich?
We were over at my mother's yesterday and we were talking about grocery prices and my mother asked my wife how much we paid for milk and my wife says she doesn't look, because it doesn't matter when we need milk regardless. I don't look either. It's the same with gas prices. I hear they've gone way down, but I've honestly stopped looking. What difference does it make what a gallon of gas costs when I need that gallon no matter what it costs?
I like to pay attention though so you can see firsthand how bad things are getting. I remember selling shoes to old people and all the employees would joke that they all had no sane grip on the fact that prices go up. They'd say at 80 years old, well when I was 30 that used to be $X thats way too high of a price! Its funny though because we will never experience that. We are used to it being this way year to year much less 30 or 40 years from now. So much so that some people dont even check the price anymore, we just know its higher than it used to be automatically. It's sad.
You don't need milk. You do need gas though.
We don't "need" milk in the sense that it is not necessary for our survival. We need milk in order to keep eating and drinking the things we enjoy eating and drinking. And I don't think it is unreasonable to expect milk in your tea and your cereal.
No, you do need milk. Don't let the capitalist propaganda engine tell you that comfort and contentment are not necessary for life. To even insinuate that having milk to put on cereal or in tea is some sort of luxury or indulgence that you should be able to cut out is lunacy. Human beings need comfort as much as we need socialization for emotional and mental maintenance. We need fun and enjoyment. That is why even in modern hunter-gatherer tribes the workload is less than half of ours and they all have full bellies and spend the rest of their time pursuing leisure activities and spending time with their family/community.
(not accusing the person you are replying to, they are a victim too)
I don't disagree with you at all. I was sort of trying to say that myself but you put it much better than I did. I can live without any comfort if it means that or death, but it sure would take a toll on me. That's why solitary confinement is such torture.
I guess my sleep-deprived ass is just lurking lemme looking for good lessons to which to attach a little eloquence.
It's not about comfort. Humans need calcium, lactose, various bacteria to not, eh, have reduced mobility conditioned by the toilet always being nearby, and so on.
Capitalist propaganda engine? Do you hear yourself? Say those words out loud and tell me your not a looney conspiracy theorist. What propaganda? XD
Is it propaganda to say most mammals do not keep drinking milk after they're babies? Is it also propaganda to say things like broccoli, kale, nuts and seeds are calcium alternatives? Is it propaganda that the vitamin D can be obtained from fish, sunlight, and liver? Explain what this propaganda machine is. 🤡
I wish we were on Reddit so I could /r/woosh you. Did you even read the comment? The comment has literally nothing to do with the milk. I also acknowledged that you weren't some asshat shill, but perhaps I was too forgiving.
You talked about milk for most of the comment. Also, people on Lemmy unironically talk like you did so I assumed you were one of those "capitalism is the reason for every bad thing" kind of people.
I indicated that the idea that something trivial being considered a luxury or indulgence that could be eliminated was asinine, milk happened to be the pertinent example in the discussion. Everyone else seemed to get that.
Also, most people seem to understand what about our world is propaganda. Just out of curiosity, how old are you? I'm making no judgements, just wondering.
Not every bad thing. Capitalism has its place, but the extent to which most of the populace idolizes it is unreasonable. My economic philosophy is what is known as Moral Capitalism. Essentially, make money, but don't do it at the expense or detriment of people or the environment. Don't abuse employees, don't abuse customers, don't abuse the community, don't abuse the planet. And I am using the dictionary definition of abuse here: to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way. We the public are offended by the number of ads we have shoved down our throats every day. We the employees are harmed by the stress that unrealistic deadlines and low wages cause. We the community are injured by the manipulation of legislation such that we are not allowed to protect ourselves from predatory and aggressive contracts that we are forced to sign every day that we have no choice in if we want to continue functioning in society.
And there is 100% a propaganda machine operating in the foreground of our world that is acting on behalf if the amoral capitalist institutions that are in control of everything. Republicans, marketing, PR. Articles being posted telling poor people that if they are struggling to make ends meet they can just start skipping meals instead of demanding fair pay. The whole Avacado Toast misdirect. Anytime you see the working poor being blamed for their existence instead of outrage at employers who siphon off 33-50% of the irreplaceable hours of their employee's day and don't pay enough for those hours that said employee is not destitute, that is the Capitalist Propaganda Engine. Everyone who works full time should be making enough that they can survive easily. Not lead a life of luxury, but not have to worry about the next 3 months rent, save for a vacation next year, not have to use food stamps to eat, and not have to skip meals so their child can eat. Period. End of discussion. If an employer can't pay their employees at least that much, then they should not be in business. This is the floor, the bare minimum. Just because you started a business does not automatically mean it should succeed. The same is not true to be a worker. Just because you work full-time, you should be able to survive with minimal financial stress. If you have additional training, certifications, specialized skills, etc. you can claim you deserve the lap of luxury.
Capitalist propaganda tells us that we don't "need" anything and that all of those things you're talking about are luxuries. Food? That's a luxury. Clothes? That's a luxury too. Water? You better believe you don't need that, you selfish little piggie!
(also, tbh they didn't specify the milk has to come from an animal. plant milk is milk!)
You can still afford to eat cereal?
For now. We'll see. We're down to a single income, but we're going to keep putting milk in our tea as long as we can. Because I've been drinking tea with milk almost as long as I have been alive thanks to an English father and grandmother. It's like heroin for me except with milk and just a little something to sweeten it a bit. I don't want to go through tea withdrawal.
And don't tell me I can just drink tea without milk. That's like non-alcoholic beer. You have to be desperate. I'd rather get the tea shakes.
I cut my sugar in half by adding cinnamon and nutmeg. Works for coffee as well.
We use stevia extract instead of sugar. It works very well for tea.
I’ve tried stevia before. Can’t get over the cotton-candy flavor. I do make sure to use brown sugar, though. Sitting by the back window as I log in for work, contemplating if Anericans have a final straw or if we’ll just keep growing more and more bitter without functionally snapping due to the socioeconomic pressure like steel bars balanced on a beam with steady pressure on both sides, warping and weakening us.
Then it’s time to start my shift.
I would describe it as more of an anise/licorice flavor, but a very mild one, although that may be because I use extract I get on Amazon and not what they usually sell in the supermarket. You dole it out with a tiny coke spoon sort of spoon and it lasts like 3 years for less than $20, so it's a pretty decent investment if you don't mind the taste.
You’ve emboldened me. I’ll give it another go and report back! Thanks for the description, as my family does tend to enjoy anise!
I decided to give it a shot. Maybe it’s different now, but I do taste the anise flavor. The problem is that while I thought I would like it, it distracted from the flavor. I continued on, thinking I’d adjust but it just kept growing more noticeable until I finally decided it wasn’t for me. Thanks!
This is so wholesomely human.
You don't "need" it to keep eating and drinking. I don't know what you mean.
There are plenty of people for whom this is not a true statement.
Like?
Everyone who doesn't own a gas powered car.
There are more people who need gas for their cars than electricity. If you want to be the "akchually☝️🤓" guy then sure you're right. But you know what I meant and you're just being annoying.
Because trickle down economy unsurprisingly doesn't work. Good question tho.
That's because the economy is strong... for the rich.
The problem is shareholders expect infinite growth from a finite space, and that growth has to come from somewhere.
If you're already producing as many of your product, as cheaply as you can get away with, then the only thing you can do is charge more - but that strategy only works if the worker's wages don't go up with the profits.
As a result prices are going up, but worker's salaries aren't anywhere near as quickly, because the rich are scooping the extra cash and leaving all the working class to starve.
I've been working since the mid 90s and in the corporate sphere since the early 2000s.
From this experience I think we go through cycles. If you remember the 80s we had movies like wall street. "Greed, for want of a better word is good"
I think we're around about that point again. I received a directive from way up top and it was about priorities. Profit, shareholders, reducing cost and then customers. Customers were last and employees not even in the list. Unironically straight up customers last no mention of employees.
Through the 90s it was quite different, investors in people was a big thing, there was a lot of focus on team dynamic, wage rises were good, fully comped end of year parties. This kind of thing.
Then I watched this very slow drift away from this. Entire departments and then offices being closed. Below inflation payrises becoming the norm and the bare minimum from the company. Legal minimum pension match, no end of year anything comped. If lucky you'll get lunch at a corporate meeting.
The only thing that keeps me sane is the hope that we're near the end of the cycle and things turn around. It's depressing at this point.
I wish someone had told me the economy was strong again earlier. Here I was thinking that hyper inflation was a bad thing.
Capitalism.
Corporate Slavery.
The US doesn't tax properly
Most first-world states don't.
It’s incredible to me that people need over $2k a month for food. I go to Sam’s once a week to replenish supplies and feed a house of six, two adults and four boys between 10-14, on $800-$1000 a month. That includes a ribeye or new york strip dinner every Saturday so theirs still plenty that could be cut. What the hell are people eating?
I sound like you, but I bet your answer is that we're buying groceries and preparing a lot of those meals.
Single parents or busy ones that can't do that have to buy ready food.
A classic tale of "it's expensive to be poor".
And the costs are beyond just dollars. My wife and I recently started cooking at home (and even growing some food) and I lost 20 pounds. My wife lost 50 pounds. We aren't cooking the healthiest things ever, but we make it at home.
So I started looking at prices since my comment and I think you hit the nail on the head. It’s astounding to me what the difference in cost is for premade or hell even just not bulk. I had no idea how much I was saving with a vacuum sealer and apparent luxury of having a large pantry and large standup freezer to go with the kitchen fridge/freezer. I don’t think I could make it through more than a couple days using a top of fridge freezer if that’s all I had. So bulk buying wouldn’t even really be possible as a typical renter. Just the wasted time having to shop multiple times a week (not just grabbing something but legit grocery shopping) sounds miserable and the expense from extra trips doesn’t help any.
With only a few people, you can maybe go a week with a normal freezer. But you will be eating everything you have. With 6 people? You would need to go shopping every 2 or 3 days. You will not buy frozen things in bulk unless you want to only eat a few items for 2 days.
Nobody has to buy pre-made food. That's just inherent lazy bullshit. Not to say the economy isn't fucked left right and center, and recent inflation is completely fabricated bullshit. But to say you have to buy ready-made tells me you're too stupid to cook, or stupid with your time.
Bro , some people work multiple jobs and literally have time to sleep when they are home. They don't have time to cook. It happens, and those people aren't lazy.
I'd love to see how many manage to find downtime for their phones, etc. Takes 20 minutes tops to make a healthy meal.
Odd that you found time to post, you should really be working harder.
I'm not struggling since I understand how to take care of myself.
Do you have to take care of a family? One where your domestic partner can’t work because they have to look after the kid(s)?
in my city, there are numerous "food deserts" where fresh food generally isn't available, and people go to pricey convenience stores which sell, guess what, premade food, junk. When you are raised that way, and everyone around you does the same, it comes naturally. And who is educating them otherwise, or making useful changes?
My mom grew up not knowing how to cook, bc they almost never had real food in their house (actually the "projects", single mom with schizoaffective disorder, four kids). She was working at like 12, 13, and if she were still alive, I'd love for you to try telling her they were lazy lmao
I'd be happy to call her lazy as your anecdote is just that. Books exist, as do library's, all full of knowledge on how to make shit to eat.
Here's a thought. Maybe. Just. Maybe. There are people that live in the United States that don't own a car to fill to the brim with that amount of supplies. It's difficult to carry that amount of groceries on a crowded and late bus back to your apartment. Delivery you say? Well. That's extra isn't it? Remember to tip or else. See. Not everyone lives like you. In fact. Less and less people live like you everyday. When the tipping point eventually comes. What will you say then?
There are some economies of scale with a bigger family, though. I pay more per person now with household of 4, than when we had more kids. Getting stuff in bulk works best with a large household.
And yes cooking saves money too. Ingredients don't cost as much as prepared foods. You pay in time or you pay in money.
Probably people buying a ton of pre-made meals and whole foods. A lot of people just put stuff in their carts without considering prices.
That's definitely not what happens to most people, a lot of them don't have time to cook or have never been taught how to buy proper food because of the failed education system.
You're a tone deaf wanker
I must say, I was quite impressed during my visit to Budapest. I don't blame my fellow countrymen for fleeing there.
Where are you from?
Impressed? With Budapest? Outside of the nice touristy areas it's a poverty-ridden cesspool
Americans are impressed by old stuff, and it's not like they see outside the touristy areas. Fuck Viktor Orban by the way.
You speak from my heart brother, those fuckers are destroying Hungary's future.
it was just a joke to make me sound like I thought the article was about Americans going to Hungary
Ah, I see. Sorry, irony in pure text form can be difficult to spot.
one word answers only
Weed
You mean 'capitalism' right?
Naturally.
Feature (not a bug)
Hoarding
Scum
Greed
Biden is definitely helping the economy by bringing in all that cheap import child labor so he should know
Yeah gonna need a citation on that one.
Biden's health and human services secretary was specifically calling for the camps that Biden has done nothing to dismantle to release children quickly which is tossing then into forced labor
Biden has still failed to do anything on immigration with it only ramping up and making him more reliant on new private ICE facilities that are well known for their atrocious methods.
We have no official Labor Secretary at the moment and haven't for months. In the same timeline of Biden stating he would have his departments crack down on child labor we have gone an additional 10 months of silence.
An attempt at passing a bill to push against child labor and to use the already existing framework of banning sales of items made with child labor both failed with no support from the white house.
So, sure, both sides. And yes, the system is already broken and split. But at best Biden is complacent, and at worst happy to look the other way while his investors make money.
The Biden economy is anything but strong. Even traditional liberal leaning media outlets agree. The American people have done with less under his administration.
It's not Biden's fault unless you think the leaders of several other countries follow his directive too.
What I’m getting out of this is don’t have a family of fucking 7. That’s too many kids. She did this to herself. Too many people already! Having kids is the absolute worst thing you can do for the environment as well.
Well yeah I guess that's the answer. Go back in time and stop herself from having kids. I mean we all know that nothing ever changes or gets worse everything stays stagnant so if you make a decision 20 years ago it stays valid now. That's clearly your point right? Or do you think she should just be able to kill one of the kids? What's your solution here? I notice you just picked that one example out of like the six given. There was a there was one in there with three kids is that enough is that too many? What about the guy who was just caring for his disabled wife? Was the problem that he should never have married? What about the one who's taking care of the the children of her deceased son? I guess she should have stopped him from dying right? That's the answer for that one clearly isn't it?
Are the kids not people, too? Why should they pay for their mother's mistakes?
I feel so bad for those without college degrees or trade certifications. They are absolutely fucked going forward.
Fixed it.
Do you think everyone is poor? With the right training or college degree a path to moderate wealth is quite open. Trade jobs are especially in high demand and bring in a huge income.
No, I don't think everyone is poor, but I do think that unless you're in the ultra wealthy category, you're having less and less agency over how the government runs things in the US.
Gen X and middle class, I'm not rich, but I'm bringing in more income than I am spending, and that only really started in 2016. It took about 15 years of working before I started to break even and another five years before we started being in the green every year. Many want free income, but you must work for it. You are not the first and will not be the last, but you'll eventually break even if you work for it. This isn't what many want to hear, but that is how it is done.
I am also GenX and hate to break it to you, but we may be the last generation who had that reasonable assurance that if you were willing to make changes, go to school, you could get a better job, and if willing to hop jobs often for better pay, could work up some ladder and be well off.
I don't think my kids got the same deal. Like we didn't get pensions but our parents did. We got no guarantees but an environment of opportunities, that has flattened out a lot.
No, Millennials will do better than us.
Hope springs eternal in the hearts of men.
Every generation says that.
That said, it'd be interesting to see (over news in the web, living in Russia) some good protests with successes leading to, say, abolition of copyright and patent laws as they exist now. That would open a lot of avenues for economic development now suffocated by monopolies, oligopolies and patent trolls.
Maybe every generation says that because it's been more and more true for each generation. That's how capitalism works, continually cutting out the legs from underneath the working class. That's the entire concept, you continue to squeeze as much as you can to increase profits and one of the easiest places to squeeze is labor costs.
china will start honoring oopyrights and patents before western civilization gives up on it.
Yikes, yeah you're in a fucked up place forever. Get the hell out of there by any means possible.
Well, using a quantor like "forever" is usually a bad idea. In the following decade, two decades or so - definitely, so you are right, but we all have friends and family.
As of 2022, 33.9% of US HOUSEHOLDS made less than $50k/year. The median rent for the same year was $1874/month. That is $22,488/year. That is 44.976% of 50,000. 50,000 was the highest end of the range from 0 to 50,000. That means that ~⅓+ of the country have a very high probability of paying more than 45% of their annual wage in rent alone. Taking the low average from here, that is another $562/month out the window for utilities, or $6,744/year. So shelter and basic utilities for survival has us up to $29,232. For reference, that is 38% of the annual income for $75,000/year, the next line up in that chart. That is another 16%+ of households, which means that more than 50% of the US population is spending 38%+ of their annual income on housing and basic utilities, not even food. And just in case you are curious, that initial <=50k group is paying 58% of their income just to have heat, electricity, and housing to use them in. And to make sure that these numbers were not being biased by rents among income distributions, I was able to find raw data to check my estimates. They were actually low. Of the 45,221,844 households renting as of 2022, 10,492,596 of them make less than $50,000/year AND pay more than 40% of their annual income in rent. That is 47.2% of people making less than 50k/year and accounts for over 23% of all renters in the country.
So, in long, yes, everyone is poor. And to think otherwise is to either buy in to blatant propaganda, functionally not understand statistics but still think you know better than those who do, or be disingenuous representing reality in a bid to mislead the public. Only you can answer which one that is.
I party because the rent is too damn high! No, wait….. 🤔
That supports what I am saying. 33.9% is about 85,239,000 Americans. There are 40 Million Adult Americans without a High School degree and another 45 million with only a high school degree and no trade skills or college degree. I feel for them, they will be left behind. Stay in school kids.
Except I have a master's degree and don't make 50k and am nearly destitute. Both my undergrad and graduate degree are in demand, I just can't get anyone to give me an interview.
Then you have red flags you need to eliminate. There is a personal reason for your situation.