this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
67 points (93.5% liked)

politics

19088 readers
4493 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vexikron@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Uh, as you can see by actually using the source of your source, going to the interactive charts button, checking net worth and displaying by either mean or median, 80% of Americans by income percentile have barely seen their net worth rise, if at all.

See when you just rely on one big mean or median for everyone, this means /nothing/ in a society like America that /has the greatest wealth disparity of all societies in all of recorded human history/.

The Fed chart there doesnt even allow for net worth below zero, and right now, via other, more accurate ways of counting net worth than what the Fed uses, roughly 25% of Americans have significantly negative net worth, and another roughly 25% have 0 to slightly negative.

Yes thats right the New York Times is being misleading by saying the Fed numbers are the 'gold standard', theyre a good way to get a general overview of things, a jumping off point to do more detailed analysis from.

So yeah, it is not just 'vibes' as you so callously dismissed the person you were replying to.

People generally interact with people, and live near people who are roughly economically similar to them in the sense of overall wealth.

So if you are poor and/or in more debt than you are worth, and as established, roughly 80% of people are poor, and roughly 50% of them have more debt than wealth, there's pretty good chances most people around you are in similar situations.

If you're well off, you live in a gated community or high priced condo and only interact with the poors when you tell them you would like them to make you a latte, or fix your car, etc.

You know, like the author of this New York Times article.

[–] aew360@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

For the top percentile and the next highest percentile, it certainly jumps up but we also aren’t seeing the numbers of the lowest fall. Theyre not just steady. Theyre slowly rising across the board. Unemployment hasn’t been this low in quite a long time. The gains won’t end here. Especially if the Dems can flip the House and impose higher taxes on the percentiles that can obviously afford it

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't trust unemployment statistics because of how they count people. If everyone looking for a job gave up tomorrow the unemployment rate would go to zero.

[–] aew360@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But we know it’s extremely low because there’s a labor shortage across multiple industries. Unemployment is low no matter how bad the vibes are

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Maybe the vibes are bad because people are working too much

[–] aew360@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I agree, but they are working, and wages are up. There’s reason to be optimistic. The issue is how fucking expensive housing is compared to 10 years ago, when rent was already unaffordable in many major cities. Tackling housing costs and passing legislation that increase pay and reduce hours is a must. No one should be working more than 40 hours a week without fair compensation, and the pandemic revealed just who exactly is deemed an essential worker, and they should be paid as such.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, vibes are probably a trailing economic indicator. People won't feel better until they feel better.

Then again, power concedes nothing without struggle so we'll probably have guillotines before a four day work week. I'm looking forward to the general strike of '28.

[–] aew360@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

I’m just hoping that the GOP collapses and the Democratic Party stops drifting to the right. Once it effectively pushes out the Sinemas, Manchins, and Liebermans, we could actually see what a more progressive government could accomplish. And I wouldn’t even call myself a progressive. I’m a liberal who just thinks that maybe we should pay essential workers enough so that they can afford to save for retirement and not just sort of skate by