A serious response to the question being asked is for wages to increase and cost of goods and services to go down. But of course that would damage the "economy".

[–] Adkml@hexbear.net 31 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Pretty fucking wild that all these economists who constantly insist nobody but them can read the divine tea leaves of the economy can't come up with the answer "people would be satisfied with the economy if working full time was sufficient to cover their bills"

People want to be paid more money than it costs to live.

That's literally it.

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 22 points 9 months ago

If my pay let's me address my immediate needs with enough left over for some fun and a rainy day fund if life gets pear shaped my peace of mind skyrockets.

No amount of articles about "the perks of van life" or "the benefits of skipping breakfast" are going to convince me that I should be forced to do those things. if I choose to skip breakfast because I'm doing intermittent fasting for my health it's nobody's business especially not some dickbag columnist shilling for the status quo.

[–] ClimateChangeAnxiety@hexbear.net 20 points 9 months ago

It’s so bizarre to watch. Mental gymnastics to decide the economy is bad vs mental gymnastics to decide the economy is good

[–] invo_rt@hexbear.net 8 points 9 months ago

Kinda wild the "economy" just spontaneously configured itself to crash anytime the vast underclass gets even a mote of gain, but thrives whenever some multi-billionaire gets another billion of net worth.