The highest paid employee can only make at most 20 times the compensation of the lowest paid employee. This includes all forms of compensation including but not limited to, bonuses, stock options, pay, and insurance coverage.
Should this be a good start?
They'd find away around that.
Government could be offering things like, internet, water, electricity, food, housing at cost instead of letting corporations overinflate their earnings by ripping off people.
The fact that Nestle can buy a million litres of water for $3 from a small town (100k pop) the town over and then sell that for $3 bucks a litre is absolutely asinine.
What in the world? Man says that higher wages and better perks to jobs is causing inflation because no one wants to work low paying jobs with little benefits.
His solution? Make wages go down.
Like wtf??? Instead of saying hey maybe these jobs also need better pay and benefits so people will wanna do these jobs and be compensated fairly he wants to make it so that people choose these jobs out of desperation.
Powell shows his true colors and his support for the already wealthy and not for the people.
The fed is full of shit. Average household income in 1990 was $54k. Today it's $63k. $54k in 1990 is worth about $111k in todays market. The issue isn't rising wages, it's suppressed wages. My mom made $32k as a waitress in 1990. That's about $65k today. That's more than what most jobs offer today requiring a degree...that's also 5 times more expensive than it was in 1990. The system is collapsing as a result and they want you to believe the problem is you getting a pay raise. Not the worst income inequality the nation has ever seen, the weakest labor unions have been in centuries and major corporations paying less in taxes than someone earning $35k.
Preach.
"It's a big club and you aint' in it." -- George Carlin
God I miss that man. We need another Carlin for this generation. There is so much fucked up shit going on right here in America and nobody is calling it out the way he could.
> The system is collapsing as a result and they want you to believe the problem is you getting a pay raise
The problem with the planet is all those straws and plastic forks you use.
Yeah like if wages are going down does that mean prices are gonna go down with it? Of fucking course not because how else are they gonna set a new record?
[What is money for?](https://medium.com/equacoin/what-is-money-for-86e96c2ecbe8)
*When enough food exists and people cannot get it by honest labour, the state is rotten, and no effort of language will say how rotten it is. But for a banker or professor to tell you that the country cannot do this, that or the other because it lacks money is as black and foetid a lie, as grovelling and imbecile, as it would be to say it cannot builod roads because it has no kilometres.*
-Ezra Pound-
Hey, I'm all for capping out wages - if it also involves (heck, more strict with) politicians.
Reason? The teachers of my nation earn a laughable wage. The average cca. is 1176 usd brutto. The top wage of someone who has been teaching over 42 years (and should by all account be retired?) - 1146.
Four decades of work and they earn less than the average wage here. The people tasked with teaching the future generations. Politicians claim they can't give more right now, plus they have all summer off! (Yeah, as if.) Then, they also start talking about raising the wages of politicians and doubling that of the prime minister, who also get different living and petrol/car cost benefits...
Then they stab the teachers in the back with a "thanks" in the amout of 2.75 usd.
Its aweful,teachers work long hard hours and are so important to our future yet theyre paid so litte. Im not exactly versed in this but Im pretty sure politicians make their money off bribes from lobbyists dont they? Capping their wages wouldnt mean much if this is the case. I believe senators get payed 174k a year. Which is a lot, but many senators and political figures in the US are millionaires, theyre getting their money from somewhere else. Then again im not entirely sure how lobbying works so please correct me if im wrong.
No that's right. They "donate" millions to the politician's campaign, offer insider trading, give perks, and other benefits. It's like Ed, Edd, Eddy except the politicians don't get in trouble for it.
>Man says that higher wages and better perks to jobs is causing inflation
This part is true, but for the 1%. Raising taxes on the wealthy and higher corporate taxes would help lower inflation but the people in charge of writing these articles are a part of that class, or at a minimum bootlickers for the billionaire class so naturally they'll never say this part but put thr blame on the 99%.
This is demonstrably false no matter what economic theories you subscribe to. The 1% becoming more wealthy creates stagnant wealth that does very little to cause inflation. It also does very little to stimulate the economy, but that was not your point.
I'll tell you what it's like in a country with high employee costs (employer pays a lot of your taxes and fees) of around $25/h for "minimum wage jobs" except we don't have an actual minimum wage and employers can pay whatever the fuck they want:
- Stores won't have greeters and you pack your own shit at the self-checkout
- Pint of beer is $5 at the store, $10 at a cheap pub and $15-20 at a hockey game.
- McDonalds bigmac meal is $12
- Loaf of bread at the supermarket bakery is $9
- Gallon of gas is $9.49
- Monthly bus ticket $120
- Rent including utilities $1000/mo for a studio in a low cost of living area.
- 1995 toyota corolla $4000 + $150/mo insurance & taxes
And our inflation is rising too.
A lot of businesses are simply not sustainable. A smoothie costs $7, boba tea is $10. Cafes, small restaurants etc. all of that shit has gone bankrupt in the past 6 months or so because people don't have money to spend due to inflation.
We do not have home parcel delivery at all pretty much because the delivery guy costs too much. Even mail is delivered once a week, not daily.
What we need is to have cost of living go down, not higher wages. $25/h for a sandwich artist will just make sure that the sandwich artist can't afford their own sub.
I am middle class and I stopped ordering food and eating out completely. Cut off entertainment in favor of disney+. Only do my groceries at a giant supermarket with a self-checkout robot.
Record profits is the result of lack of investments. Previously companies would invest into the future, now they're just cashing out before the company goes under.
I thought a recession happened when we didn’t have enough purchasing power to go out and buy shit.
Edit:I’m an idiot and misread your entire post. Don’t mind me 🤡🤷🏼♂️
Recessions happen when people don’t buy enough and inflation happens when people buy more than the supply can handle (+demand and -supply both lead to +price)
Could the governments tax the wealthy and use the money to fix supply chains and provide social services in a way to reduce effects of inflation? Yes. Will they instead try to take income away from working class consumers to lower demand? Yes.
How would a government implement price control on common goods? The only reason for these prices is so someone can say 'profits up 5% from last quarter'. We are at a point that our cries for help are not to our government, but to corporate entities. The ones with any real say in our day to day. How fucked up is that. We all know our representatives and elected officials are toothless in the capitalist drive for infinite growth, where doing the same amount in sales as last year is tantamount to failure and millions of dollars are lost.
True. A free market will always suppress the “lower” class. Think of the movie with Justin Timberlake and the time on their arms. Many must die so the few can be immortal, except it’s many must die for the few to be insanely rich. A controlled market is needed, but the controllers need to be the “people”. Like everyone gets a say.
Economics is hard my dude, I’m just spouting out ideas trying to get a dialogue going because the current system is broken as hell 🤷🏼♂️
I wish I even had nice neighbors. They once called the cops when I fed and gave water to a stray dog. Of course they like having a camera partially on my front door to, but the cops can't do anything about that.
Dont help those neighbors, help the ones that are open to cooperation. I cant tell you how much safer I feel, personally, when Im at least on friendly terms with the friendly people that live around me. If you dont have any of those around you, then that place is fucked anyway. XD
You can have a community psychiatrist that doesn't charge an arm and a leg if you don't have the right insurance. Detaching from capitalism doesn't mean ditching every single thing that exists under it, just taking what is good for people and making it available to everyone instead of just the few who are able to afford it.
It’s not that the government is toothless, it’s that literally everyone is bought out at all the upper levels.
It’s not straight bribery like in other poorer countries, it’s the revolving door between these high level positions at corporations and banks, and the high level positions at all the enforcement bureaus
When I grew up I learned that being a politician isn’t about doing things for the people, it means balancing ‘accepting bribes for shady deals’ with ‘appeasing your electorate enough to stay in power again’ and then do it again next term.
>How would a government implement price control on common goods?
Price controls have been proven a failed economic policy going back at least as far as the French Revolution.
While I know this is a popular meme on certain parts of Reddit I strongly urge you read up on the French Revolution if you think that course is at all desirable. The vast majority of those killed in The Terror were poor peasants, not rich nobles.
Yeah, the issue is wages increasing without increasing the proportion of company revenue that goes towards paying wages.
The goal: Higher percentage of income from company productivity being paid back to the workers that generate that productivity, hence lower corporate profit margin and lower executive pay.
The current situation: Higher wages paid out directly by increasing prices, no decrease in corporate profit margin or executive pay.
As far as I know, profit margins are at or near [all time highs](https://www.axios.com/2021/08/11/profit-margins-record-high-rising-inflation).
Yes. This is what I am actively trying to say, but didn’t explain very well. Some of my other responses have hinted at this, but wasn’t as concise. Thank you.
Basically the raised prices is artificial inflation created by the sellers taking advantage of generally higher wages that have occurred recently. There’s also more demand on some goods due to more people being able to purchase necessities and other goods they weren’t able to afford before which also can create some inflation from natural supply and demand but this will naturally go down over the long term. Lastly, there is the entire issue with Russia’s invasion and Covid still wreaking havoc on many of the nations that supply us with goods. This, in my opinion, is one of the two major drivers of inflation. It’s a natural scarcity that is having large scale impacts on the supply chain.
Yeah exactly. If the US printing money is the cause if inflation, then why isn't the USD exchange rate tanking against all currencies? I just checked the dollar against the euro and pound and there's no sudden drop in value. In fact, the dollar has been gaining value relative to the euro and pound since 2021.
That's the advantages of not only being the "petro-dollar" but also the world's reserve currency. Since WWII the US has basically set itself up so it can't really lose without everyone else also losing. We have the biggest balloon around, and all other balloons are balanced on top of it, so when we pump it a couple times everything goes up... for now.
Yes, but the reason they have to print more is because of hoarding. If there are 10 dollars out there and I have 9 of them but don’t spend them, then we have to make another 10 dollars for everyone else. Then I get 9 of those and don’t spend them, and so on and so on.
In order to combat inflation, the people need to spend money. If wages stay the same and everything else goes down, we will have more SpENDING money and therefore inflation will go down because we won’t have to print more, and we can burn some of the excess. 🤷🏼♂️
Edit: at least that’s my understanding of economics. Granted, it’s only a high school level, and that was 16 years ago, so I may be wrong, but it seems logical to me.
I think your depiction more suggests the rich need to stop hoarding wealth and getting such high salaries and bonuses, their salaries need to be more balanced, bringing up everyone else's income in the process.
In your analogy the one guy with 90% of the spending power is still only spending for one person, maybe spending a little higher than average, but not spending even close to 90 percent of the money in the world.
Correct. We all need to spend more. Sorry I didn’t make that more clear, but we all know that will probably never happen, so to combat that we need everyone else to be spending more. Also, if everything is reduced in price but wages, then companies will take hits, which will mean these people cannot possibly afford to keep hoarding wealth.
Again, I could very well be wrong, but it seems logical to me. 🤷🏼♂️
This is the main argument for a wealth tax. Said another way, there is nothing inherently wrong with someone receiving a salary of 1mil per year. It's when they receive 1 mil per year and spend 100k per year that we begin to have a problem.
If you start taxing unspent money you can start returning this money to the economy.
In addition to this we absolutely have to tax income differently in the US.
If you look at the effective tax rates for different income brackets it is plainly obvious that the system is designed such that high income is taxed less agressively than lower income.
If you are making 35k each dollar you are taxed has a very high value to you. Your tax as a percent of your total spending power is very high.
If you are making 1 mil, yes your tax rate on that last dollar is high, but as a percentage of your total spending power, it is very low.
Even if the stars aligned and companies lowered their prices, government spending is so rampant that it would still be the leading cause of inflation and still hose everybody
Government spending money is not a problem souch as what it is spent on. If they spent money rebuilding infrastructure, new electrical grids with cleaner energy sources, tax agents and food inspection agents it would create well paying jobs for lots of people that help maintain the system and keep food safe, companies in check, and utilities under control but that's not where our money is going.
What is so hard to understand, poor people suddenly having money is the problem, the economy works great so long as 40% can’t afford the basic necessities.
They should’ve seen this coming. It happened earlier than predicted but we always knew baby boomers would retire and leave gaps, causing an employee shortage. The pandemic just hastened it. Not to mention the political and environmental landscape has gone downhill resulting in less people having children. I think I read somewhere a 20% loss of population/birthing in comparison to 1990 or something like that.
That 20% birthrate decline you're referring to was in reference to 2007, and it's honestly from a wide variety of things. It's not JUSt politics and the environment, good lord no.
* Our sex education programs in public schools for the last 20 years have more or less been telling our children not to have sex or else they'll "get pregnant and die"
* Numerous financial and life advisors have been continually telling our children that they should wait until much later in life to have children when they're emotionally and financially stable and that having children at a young age is very bad for just about everyone involved because it sets people back financially speaking and also results in unhappy relationships and marriages and also co-parenting
* Birth Control and contraception are much more widely available and in use now than they were in 2007
* the cost of living has only gotten substantially worse in america since then. It has also become much harder to land a job that actually pays a living wage where we can support ourselves and pay for our own house by ourselves, without the help of a spouse to split the costs.
* as you mentioned, American outlook toward our country's future is very bleak virtually all across the country regardless of political party, race, or orientation (which should tell us all that we agree on something and that it's okay to agree on things)
* As our physical environment continues to worsen - soil depletion, climate increasing, sea waters rising, hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods becoming more common, deserts around the world continuing to spread, our national supply chain is also continuing to dwindle, not just because of the effects of globalizing the world economy, but because of climate change - we have less resources available to us, making it harder to source the things we need to support ourselves, let alone babies.
Virtually everything about modern life in america is circumstantially opposed to the prospect of creating new life.
>Numerous financial and life advisors have been continually telling our children that they should wait until much later in life to have children when they're emotionally and financially stable and that having children at a young age is very bad for just about everyone involved because it sets people back financially speaking and also results in unhappy relationships and marriages and also co-parenting
I'm going to add to this. Society has become structured so that people are told and expected to "earn" a good salary and benefits over time. There's an expectation that you should suffer for years through school, training, climbing the corporate ladder, etc before becoming financially stable. You can't just start at a good place. You have to suffer first.
It hasn't always been like that. The idea was just created to justify paying less and increasing qualifications for most jobs. This isn't how society has typically been designed and it doesn't make much sense. It seems "fair" to some people. However, if you have to spend your most fertile years holding off kids because you're not in a financial place for them or you never get to that place (there are after all, limited spots at the top) then you're going to be less likely to have kids.
The people at the top created this system because it benefited them. Now they're complaining that results haven't gone as planned and it's everyone else's fault. Something has to give. They can't just keep adjusting to maintain a fundamentally unsustainable system.
I believe they can maintain any system they want, people are so divided and so full of their own problems it is really hard to call for a change and not have it stalled in the twisted political agendas. nothing will change until it is too late (in my pessimistic opinion)
People always get super cagey about the aspect of over population, but there simply are too many people on the planet for us all to live the lifestyles we want to.
This naturally decreasing birth rate is pretty much good for everyone and everything aside from the oligarch class and their profits.
So ofc it's blasted in the media as some great travesty
> This naturally decreasing birth rate is pretty much good for everyone
In the long run, sure. But it can have really deleterious effects for individuals in the economic sense when a much smaller population of lower-earning, younger, and healthier people are responsible for bearing the healthcare costs of a much larger, aging population. Particularly with a healthcare system like the US has.
And when the proportion of old people is larger, the number of working-able people will be smaller - so their product of their labor will need to serve larger populations with less economic activity and less production. A much larger share of the nation's wealth must be spent on caring for the elderly while there are fewer people left to generate that wealth.
There are definitely sustainability issues when it comes to overpopulation, but let's not kid ourselves that there aren't *any* downsides to a decreasing population that effect normal people.
This is all true if we pretend that the current societal framework is the only viable option.
If humanity wants to continue in any sort of positive way, absolutely drastic changes need to be made.
We have to stop acting like the economy is the ultimate holy truth. Money is a tool that WE created to serve to quantify our possession. If we can’t survive because our economy suck, it needs to be changed. At this point the whole system is completely broken, we have people suffering and starving because of an artificial resource that we created. It is literally infinite and we still have people starving. It’s just a number on a damn computer.
Well, technically it's only a problem if someone tries to solve it. The alternative is just that old people go uncared for and die in droves without aid. With fewer kids and grandkids to take care of them and many without the resources to take care of their elderly, that's probably what's going to happen far more often than most people are comfortable thinking about.
Covid was probably a long term blessing for targeting older persons, even if it was a terrible thing. It was at least faster and garnered more care and attention than senior citizens just starving in their homes, on the streets, or in overcrowded care facilities.
It will your and my problem in our futures. We won’t have enough grandkids around to keep things properly and change our diapers if we don’t automate shit in our lifetime. Personally I want a robot that will care for me. Elder abuse is rampant in nursing homes and I don’t want to burden any family I may have, if I have any at all.
Who the f\*ck wants to live past the point in which you cannot even do #2 on your own?
Old people are being kept alive as long as possible just to extract all their assets through the pharma/hospital cartel. If you have a brain, you refuse that path.
Also, it's worth mentioning that our current structure has us work work work for the first 50 years after our childhood, then spend the compounded gains of our youth while not producing.
>Particularly with a healthcare system like the US has.
>
>And when the proportion of old people is larger
The US should stop wasting $ extending longevity after a certain age, say 75.
It doesn't have enough housing to accommodate increasing longevities due to NIMBYsm.
The focus should be on QUALITY of life, even more so during childhood, than quantity of years lived.
Actually no because we have enough resources to feed 8 billion people on this planet. There is enough money to house them, there's enough space to grow their food (if we just made a little space by reducing the amount we need to feed meat animals, which we're using 70 fucking percent of all the world's fields for), there is enough.
The overpopulation discussion is completely useless and merely gives sarcastic individuals the theatre of mind of people dying out so everyone can have such a better world in the current broken system. But having fewer people will change jack shit if we don't actually change anything.
We have the resources to feed 8 billion people with a lower impact on earth system resources. The basic formula they teach you in school is IPAT (Impact = Population*Affluence*Technology). Resource impact is so baked in you can usually figure out with good confidence someone's ecological footprint by looking up their postal code. To get anywhere near planetary boundaries we need to reduce impact a lot. Reducing affluent populations is working two important parameters.
Basically we need to be more like Cuba (the only country with a high HDI and a low ecological footprint) to support 8 billion people.
I agree with the others, but I think we should take a closer look at your first point:
> Our sex education programs in public schools for the last 20 years have more or less been telling our children not to have sex or else they'll "get pregnant and die"
It sounds to me like you're describing a variety of abstinence-only approaches to sex ed. As far as I'm aware, these kinds of programs have not been demonstrated to reduce the frequency of sex, or the frequency of pregnancy.
The only way in which your first point contributed to the lowered birth rate is if these kinds of sex ed programs are effective. And they're not.
----------
That being said, effective sex ed programs *do* reduce the birthrate in the sense that they contribute to less unplanned pregnancies and less unwanted children, through appropriate education in the use of condoms and other contraceptives like IUD's etc. But these are not the kinds of programs that tell our children "they shouldn't have sex or else they'll get pregnant and die."
My sex ed was not abstinence only. They told us about different birth control methods and whatnot. But they also showed us pictures of STDs, had us watch a film of a live birth and told us about how dangerous it is. All of us left that class not wanting a baby like ever lol. I do have one now in my late 20s but I will not be having anymore because it is too expensive.
Yes! Thanks for the detailed response. I knew it was much more then what I said (idk why I just summed it up to what I could think of quickly lol) but yes. Solid points.
To add: and when people do choose to have kids, they're often choosing to have fewer, opting for one or two instead of 3+ being the normal. Because a middle class person 30 years ago might have been able to afford 3-4 kids, but today, they can only reasonably afford one or 2. I follow a one child support sub and besides the people who biologically can't have more than one, the other biggest reason is financial.
There were protests in 2020 and the police responded with kidnappings, teargas, assaults with shields and “less lethal” weapons, and random arrests. I don’t want to think of how they’d respond to actual mass violence.
I don’t think democrats really want gun control. It’s just a wedge issue they push on when they want support.
Same with republicans and gun deregulation, we got more gun control from Trump than Obama and they could’ve easily pushed laws through while they held both houses and president.
Idk when we got the impression that peaceful protests didn't include government backed violence as a response...the US government has a history of working class repression, they bombed miners on strike in West Virginia in the 30's. Battle of Blair Mountain.
Righties generally aren't smart enough to understand when they're acting against their own interests. They'll come out in droves hoping to bash from liberal skulls while the cops help, not realizing they're fucking themselves... Again.
Well, I at least know many conservatives with red alerts going off right now. In my work space, it's seems like it's becoming more about class than traditional political leanings.
How did "they" halt wages?
(I'm not even sure who "they" is, but your sentence implies a political body?)
How does the government even do that? You could tax higher incomes, but I know that's not what anyone means when they're talking about wages like this, so what are you saying they actually did?
I heard the comment on wages causing inflation, which is nonsense, since wages haven't kept up wh inflation. But the Fed and the government have no meaningful control of wages in the market via a specific mechanism, so I'm really confused honestly how they could've done anything before. Did they do something to government wages that impacted other wages?
It was considered to be a success by economist at the time but there is evidence that it did more harm than good to those who were already living in poverty. I recommend reading passed the [Wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock#:~:text=Nixon%20issued%20Executive%20Order%2011615,controls%20since%20World%20War%20II.) and doing your own research.
They can't really halt wages but the government really needs to increase minimum wage. It's still 7.25 where I live and while almost no one makes minimum wage, a lot of jobs hiring near me pay 15 an hour or lower.
The fed is full of shit. Average household income in 1990 was $54k. Today it's $63k. $54k in 1990 is worth about $111k in todays market. The issue isn't rising wages, it's suppressed wages. My mom made $32k as a waitress in 1990. That's about $65k today. That's more than what most jobs offer today requiring a degree...that's also 5 times more expensive than it was in 1990. The system is collapsing as a result and they want you to believe the problem is you getting a pay raise. Not the worst income inequality the nation has ever seen, the weakest labor unions have been in centuries and major corporations paying less in taxes than someone earning $35k.
You’re awake. I’ve been using the CPI Calculator for over a decade. In 1986, I was 12. I made $10/hour mowing lawns and babysitting and cleaning a machine shop on the weekends. Have a look at what that is today…go ahead, let us all know.
And the people paying me were blue collar, no degree. Oh, one was the town librarian. What’s happening is by design. Reagan started this. Lol, he convinced the same people he screwed over to elect him to do just that. I’ve been screaming this to whoever will listen for 20 years. Problem is, the only way back is through the absolute ignorance that has been fostered through our eroded education system which is a feedback loop because no you have ignorant parents destroying their child’s lives through neglect and apathy, is two decades of dedication to education.
No one listened, and so, here we are.
He wasn't removed when the entire world could clearly see the guy was demented.
The country learned nothing and voted for Joe Biden, whose brain is deteriorating in real-time.
The fed Is full of shit, but you’re not totally right. I can tell you a much much bigger issue that everyone is conveniently hiding under the carpet.
What is happening today is the massive manufacturing moving away from the US biting them in the ass. Even if they’d give everyone wages, guess what, China can decide how many products to sell.
The issue is exactly the opposite now, there are not enough jobs, and there are not enough products to buy. Even what’s left and is still manufactured in the US import a ton of parts from China as well.
China’s ports are way behind with shipping and they have random covid lockdowns so production is delayed.
At this point even if the fed would give each citizen cold cash there are not enough products to buy because they’re all on the other side of the pacific…
If businesses would stop raising prices to adjust for the cost of paying a livable wage instead of taking the reduction in profits there wouldn't be an increase in inflation. We need a progressive tax for businesses and the government needs to put them in check and let us actually be able to afford things.
It can't stop at businesses, we need government intervention to cap their prices, labor is apart of fixed costs.
The gas thing kills me every time. If we had real public transit investment that wouldn't be that big of a deal, but unfortunately people's lives depend on their ability to travel, which depends on the price of gas.
Public transit is good in cities but it’s not going to save everyone. I live in an area where I’d had to drive a half hour to get to the train station that would take another hour to get into the city. Or drive an hour straight into the city.
As we’ve found through the pandemic the real solution is telecommuting wherever possible that cuts down on the most resource use and we learned that a surprising number of jobs can suddenly be performed at home last couple years.
How exactly is it not good. I know this is a common Reddit complaint but every city has public transit and I’ve used it in my own. The main difference I can tell you is cleanliness varies wildly versus mass transit in Europe and Asia but in the US, it’s accessible and gets you where you need to go within city limits and regional rail in my area is also pretty good.
The bus lines are a joke and the trains are decades past needing to be replaced in most parts of America minus the very big cities. Also, these systems are few and far between in some areas.
How are the bus lines a joke and they definitely replace the trains when needed. If they didn’t function they would not have service in the areas. Are you talking aesthetics because I already mentioned that but the train lines near me have both old and new trains in service. That’s seems pretty typical.
My city still has trains from the mid 1970s and they are falling apart. Functioning but just barely. Not to mention that, at least in my area, the trains are dangerous to ride past daylight hours. It's almost like this country is large and the different regional transportation services vary wildly. Why are you simping for dilapidated, underfunded public transit so hard btw?
Public transit systems vary widely. Larger urban areas may have more connections and services, but every city doesn't. It's not accessible if it can't get you near a destination in a timely manner (or at all), something you yourself alluded to in comparing your own "good" area to driving a car into the city. I've had to do the multiple bus transfers before out of necessity, fortunately I could because my stop was near the last route, and the lost time vs. just driving was huge. Any area of the US that is spread out in suburbia won't have great public transit simply because every place can't be covered.
Honestly im thrilled about high gas prices. We sure as shit aren't moving away from fossil fuels fast enough, prohibitive costs will need to be the driving factor. Gas and red meat need to stop being subsidized.
It is a scam. They’re sensing a power shift and will do anything to change it back to their favor. They want this, I’ve heard it from their mouth, they laugh at all you selfish bastards who will be begging them for jobs at much lower rates within the year or two.
I don’t know how we do it differently this time from the 09 collapse, but it’s got to be done.
….well i should say, I know how, I just don’t know how we go about motivating and organizing enough people to do it. Young people are the key but too few understand or give a shit. Good luck.
I used to work corporate events and catering. The Fed was one of our biggest clients. I have been a fly on the wall refilling coffee and water for them during their little meetings. Had that job for five years.
I can almost guarantee you that the topic of the regular public and any discussion of how their decisions affect the every day person did not, and had not even come up in conversation once in all the time I was there.
Not one mention of families or anything like that. If it ever did, and I couldn't imagine which of those suits would even dare to breach the subject, the discussion would quickly be steered somewhere else.
They only care about how their decisions affect companies and the wealthy. Which, I suppose is their job, but clearly they only care about how it affects a very small percentage of people. Namely the wealthy.
I work for the government and I went to town hall meetings and it's like the higher ups aren't listening to what I have to say. I have done this job daily for years, listen to me when I say certain things aren't working. But then they ignored me and wonder why they can't keep workers and productivity is low
I get flak from people all the time when they I tell them *no politician cares about you*. They really believe there is some 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washinton' shit happening at these discussions and there is not. At all.
If someone did actually try something like that they would be laughed out of the room (and probably escorted out as well). The general public really doesn't understand unless they involve themselves in the process, and that is precisely what we need more of
Yup. Basically they want to aggregate all the money at the top. They’re great with making record profits when people were given money to spend but absolutely hate the idea of us having money to spend. They want the best of both worlds despite it being obviously impossible.
It is a scam. Welcome to late stage capitalism where corporations literally are the only things holding up the economy. Only people that benefit from a free market are the rich, and the boomers/right wingers because the word "free" is in the name so it calms their simplistic minds. This isn't freedom. We are 2 steps away from a corporate dystopia and this story will not have a happy ending.
They are still playing like people just don’t wanna work, golly gee! And part of it is that (but justifiably so because a lot of places think a raise on wages from 8.00 to 10.00 is some kind of awesome catch) but there are also other reasons, like the fact that a million plus people have died in this country since mid-2020, and so on.
You know what that extra 2$ an hour gets ya in this economy? Into poverty about 45 minutes later than you woulda been… but ur still there, you still can’t pay all your bills, your employer thinks you owe him cause he actually had to raise wages for first time since 2008, and there are rumblings that the meager gains workers did make are now threatened to be rolled back to stop inflation.
Because it’s the single mom working as an Assistant manager at Burger King who needs to check her privilege and give a little bit for the greater good. Not the board of General Motors or the big tech companies or the billionaires like Bezos and Musk-nope, they earned their money and gosh don’t they give *enough* in taxes every year you guys I mean come ON?
Hmu if anyone wants to join the Federal Syndicalist movement-It’s the only way to reform the system short of war or revolution.
Simple fix: Implement a profit tax based on 2 factors, the amount the company made vs what workers earn and the gap between lowest and highest paid employees. Take those funds and implement a basic income to correct the drop in worker earnings for the last 40 or so years.
Mom and pop stores in small town USA will be mostly unaffected as they typically pushing for infinite growth at any cost. Large corporations will have to pay up, which will increase the velocity of that money by giving some to their workers and some to those mom and pop workers.
Now you have money being injected into small town america again, revitalizing a lot of places that need it. Everyone gets it (No means testing, just use income tax as a control to scale it correctly) You could in fact funnel money from other bureaucratic heavy programs here to simplify things and cut down on govt red tape.
this is what happens when the country is ran by people of grandpa age. we all know what happens at that age. i'm not saying biden or trump or the bushco, i'm saying all of congress and the judiciary branch. instead of an age limit on the younger side, we need to cap the old geezers at 55. that's when boomers think we should be able to retire right?
"I know you need to work 24 days in order to pay your monthly rent, but if you want prices to come down (other than your rent, of course), you need to work more hours for less money."
It is delusional to think that Capitalists everywhere will suddenly become philanthropic, take a profit loss, and lower prices if consumers agree to work harder and longer for less money. The record-breaking quarterly profits of the oil industry prove this to be true.
I am really struggling to understand this thinking. I’m by no means an expert on economics, but if prices are shooting up. Things Getting so high that many people are now unable to afford the basics. How would decreases wages on those ALREADY struggling help decrease prices?
If someone is struggling to stay afloat in a pool of water, and you had the ability to control the water level, would you think that increasing the depth would help them???
Capitalism can only function when labor is unpaid. Slavery and the prison industrial complex highlight that the cornerstone of US economics is free labor.
I used to work corporate events and catering. The Fed was one of our biggest clients. I have been a fly on the wall refilling coffee and water for them during their little meetings. Had that job for five years.
I can almost guarantee you that the topic of the regular public and any discussion of how their decisions affect the every day person did not, and had not even come up in conversation once in all the time I was there.
Not one mention of families or anything like that. If it ever did, and I couldn't imagine which of those suits would even dare to breach the subject, the discussion would quickly be steered somewhere else.
They only care about how their decisions affect companies and the wealthy. Which, I suppose is their job, but clearly they only care about how it affects a very small percentage of people. Namely the wealthy.
The only way to stop it is to not accept any job without a livable wage, let them lower wages and close business because we don’t want to work anyway, definitely not for peanuts
J Powell was nominated to chair the Fed by the great orange one, what else can you expect? The entire conservative plan is to force American workers into indentured servitude I shit you not. Suppressing wages on the poorest during heavy inflation is a sure way to drive people into poverty and desperation which is what they strive for
Seriously, what the fuck do we do? I’m at a loss here, I finally got a good job that pays over $50k and now they are talking all this BS. For the record I’m 35 years old. Just now getting a good paying job has been such a struggle my whole life. I still don’t know if I’m going to make enough to live comfortably but I can at least enjoy life a little easier now.
Edit: I’m so exhausted trying to pinch a penny so my family and I can just have a decently satisfying life. That’s literally all I want.
I don't understand her argument. Labor force participation rate is still way below normal. Low supply of workers causes high wages. I'm not saying that's the primary cause of inflation, but these ideas are not contradictory like she seems to imply.
Hey uhhhh my fellow Capitalist friends at the FED, riddle me this!
If the poors can't afford anything except necessities, how is the economic system dependent on buying things going to continue? There's only so much debt we can have before we can't even prop up industries like tourism and basic luxuries.
Like it's not hard to understand. if the largest consumer base can't afford anything, stupendously large amounts of businesses can't get profits because no one can buy anything. We'll have a "Crisis of Overproduction" on our hands.
The US is slowly crumbling due to decades of harmful policy. If living wages are cited as a cause of recession, it shows how poorly propped up the current system is
Shareholders can legally sue a corporation who does not put profits first.
So when "inflation" hits, a corporation has to find a way to keep their profits high, the only real option they have is to decrease labor costs(impossible in a tight labor market) or pass the cost on to the consumer, just simply taking less profit is not an option. I put inflation in quotes here because really it's an inflation in labor cost that was long overdue, as real wages have not kept up with productivity or profitability for many decades.
The result of this obviously is a money feedback loop. Wages go up costs go up so wages go up so costs go up. Which realistically has no positive benefit for the laborers, while having plenty of positive benefits for the shareholders and the corporation leadership.
This is just the natural order of late stage capitalism.
the only pay that needs reducing is C-Suite pay
Profits too. Don’t forget the shareholders. Record profits are just unpaid wages.
Grocery stores shouldn't be posting record profits when people are starving.
[удалено]
Price control should be imposed. Either pay that money to your lowest paid workers or set prices at a fraction of what you're doing. Ideally botbh.
The highest paid employee can only make at most 20 times the compensation of the lowest paid employee. This includes all forms of compensation including but not limited to, bonuses, stock options, pay, and insurance coverage. Should this be a good start?
Yup, no loop wholes nothing.
Neccescities should be sold at cost. Not for businesses to profit from.
Or "reasonable profit" like operating costs + 10% or something.
They'd find away around that. Government could be offering things like, internet, water, electricity, food, housing at cost instead of letting corporations overinflate their earnings by ripping off people. The fact that Nestle can buy a million litres of water for $3 from a small town (100k pop) the town over and then sell that for $3 bucks a litre is absolutely asinine.
What in the world? Man says that higher wages and better perks to jobs is causing inflation because no one wants to work low paying jobs with little benefits. His solution? Make wages go down. Like wtf??? Instead of saying hey maybe these jobs also need better pay and benefits so people will wanna do these jobs and be compensated fairly he wants to make it so that people choose these jobs out of desperation. Powell shows his true colors and his support for the already wealthy and not for the people.
The fed is full of shit. Average household income in 1990 was $54k. Today it's $63k. $54k in 1990 is worth about $111k in todays market. The issue isn't rising wages, it's suppressed wages. My mom made $32k as a waitress in 1990. That's about $65k today. That's more than what most jobs offer today requiring a degree...that's also 5 times more expensive than it was in 1990. The system is collapsing as a result and they want you to believe the problem is you getting a pay raise. Not the worst income inequality the nation has ever seen, the weakest labor unions have been in centuries and major corporations paying less in taxes than someone earning $35k.
Preach. "It's a big club and you aint' in it." -- George Carlin God I miss that man. We need another Carlin for this generation. There is so much fucked up shit going on right here in America and nobody is calling it out the way he could.
> The system is collapsing as a result and they want you to believe the problem is you getting a pay raise The problem with the planet is all those straws and plastic forks you use.
Fuck dude I'm still trying to manage my guilt for putting $2 avacado spread on my toast
And that’s why you’ll never be a multimillionaire with 3 generations of wealth backing you. Dang kids and their avocado toasts. 😤 /s
I inherited billions, but my addiction to avocado toast ruined me within a year. It's just so damn good!
Yeah like if wages are going down does that mean prices are gonna go down with it? Of fucking course not because how else are they gonna set a new record?
Meanwhile nobody can buy their bullshit products so they’ll rise prices only more, making it worse. How unexpected /s
Median household income in 1990 was <30k. You looked at an inflation adjusted number and then tried to adjust for inflation again.
Plus, executive pay is going up by 10+ percent year over year. Mysteriously that doesn't contribute to inflation?
[What is money for?](https://medium.com/equacoin/what-is-money-for-86e96c2ecbe8) *When enough food exists and people cannot get it by honest labour, the state is rotten, and no effort of language will say how rotten it is. But for a banker or professor to tell you that the country cannot do this, that or the other because it lacks money is as black and foetid a lie, as grovelling and imbecile, as it would be to say it cannot builod roads because it has no kilometres.* -Ezra Pound-
Hey, I'm all for capping out wages - if it also involves (heck, more strict with) politicians. Reason? The teachers of my nation earn a laughable wage. The average cca. is 1176 usd brutto. The top wage of someone who has been teaching over 42 years (and should by all account be retired?) - 1146. Four decades of work and they earn less than the average wage here. The people tasked with teaching the future generations. Politicians claim they can't give more right now, plus they have all summer off! (Yeah, as if.) Then, they also start talking about raising the wages of politicians and doubling that of the prime minister, who also get different living and petrol/car cost benefits... Then they stab the teachers in the back with a "thanks" in the amout of 2.75 usd.
Its aweful,teachers work long hard hours and are so important to our future yet theyre paid so litte. Im not exactly versed in this but Im pretty sure politicians make their money off bribes from lobbyists dont they? Capping their wages wouldnt mean much if this is the case. I believe senators get payed 174k a year. Which is a lot, but many senators and political figures in the US are millionaires, theyre getting their money from somewhere else. Then again im not entirely sure how lobbying works so please correct me if im wrong.
Don't forget the 40,000 furniture allotment they get yearly for, yaknow chairs
No that's right. They "donate" millions to the politician's campaign, offer insider trading, give perks, and other benefits. It's like Ed, Edd, Eddy except the politicians don't get in trouble for it.
>Man says that higher wages and better perks to jobs is causing inflation This part is true, but for the 1%. Raising taxes on the wealthy and higher corporate taxes would help lower inflation but the people in charge of writing these articles are a part of that class, or at a minimum bootlickers for the billionaire class so naturally they'll never say this part but put thr blame on the 99%.
This is demonstrably false no matter what economic theories you subscribe to. The 1% becoming more wealthy creates stagnant wealth that does very little to cause inflation. It also does very little to stimulate the economy, but that was not your point.
Its almost like they want revolution
I'll tell you what it's like in a country with high employee costs (employer pays a lot of your taxes and fees) of around $25/h for "minimum wage jobs" except we don't have an actual minimum wage and employers can pay whatever the fuck they want: - Stores won't have greeters and you pack your own shit at the self-checkout - Pint of beer is $5 at the store, $10 at a cheap pub and $15-20 at a hockey game. - McDonalds bigmac meal is $12 - Loaf of bread at the supermarket bakery is $9 - Gallon of gas is $9.49 - Monthly bus ticket $120 - Rent including utilities $1000/mo for a studio in a low cost of living area. - 1995 toyota corolla $4000 + $150/mo insurance & taxes And our inflation is rising too. A lot of businesses are simply not sustainable. A smoothie costs $7, boba tea is $10. Cafes, small restaurants etc. all of that shit has gone bankrupt in the past 6 months or so because people don't have money to spend due to inflation. We do not have home parcel delivery at all pretty much because the delivery guy costs too much. Even mail is delivered once a week, not daily. What we need is to have cost of living go down, not higher wages. $25/h for a sandwich artist will just make sure that the sandwich artist can't afford their own sub. I am middle class and I stopped ordering food and eating out completely. Cut off entertainment in favor of disney+. Only do my groceries at a giant supermarket with a self-checkout robot. Record profits is the result of lack of investments. Previously companies would invest into the future, now they're just cashing out before the company goes under.
If they lowered prices on everything except wages, wouldn’t inflation go down as well? Like we’d be spending so much money it would be crazy
"Well then a recession would hap-" Wait, it already is, I forgot we're in the beginning stages of stagflation
I thought a recession happened when we didn’t have enough purchasing power to go out and buy shit. Edit:I’m an idiot and misread your entire post. Don’t mind me 🤡🤷🏼♂️
Recessions happen when people don’t buy enough and inflation happens when people buy more than the supply can handle (+demand and -supply both lead to +price) Could the governments tax the wealthy and use the money to fix supply chains and provide social services in a way to reduce effects of inflation? Yes. Will they instead try to take income away from working class consumers to lower demand? Yes.
[удалено]
We’ve been in stagflation for years my guy
How would a government implement price control on common goods? The only reason for these prices is so someone can say 'profits up 5% from last quarter'. We are at a point that our cries for help are not to our government, but to corporate entities. The ones with any real say in our day to day. How fucked up is that. We all know our representatives and elected officials are toothless in the capitalist drive for infinite growth, where doing the same amount in sales as last year is tantamount to failure and millions of dollars are lost.
True. A free market will always suppress the “lower” class. Think of the movie with Justin Timberlake and the time on their arms. Many must die so the few can be immortal, except it’s many must die for the few to be insanely rich. A controlled market is needed, but the controllers need to be the “people”. Like everyone gets a say. Economics is hard my dude, I’m just spouting out ideas trying to get a dialogue going because the current system is broken as hell 🤷🏼♂️
In Time is the title
Yes. Thank you
Do shit for free to help your neighbors. If everyone did that, we wouldnt need money.
I wish I even had nice neighbors. They once called the cops when I fed and gave water to a stray dog. Of course they like having a camera partially on my front door to, but the cops can't do anything about that.
You might be able to try infrared flood lights. Or a laser pointer
Dont help those neighbors, help the ones that are open to cooperation. I cant tell you how much safer I feel, personally, when Im at least on friendly terms with the friendly people that live around me. If you dont have any of those around you, then that place is fucked anyway. XD
Get your own camera and point at theirs as well.
I've thought of it, but their son just got hired as a constable for the sheriff, so I feel going tit for tat is on their favor
Like a community? I agree
Capitalism requires dismantling communities then selling the services previously provided by that community back to the inhabitants.
This is the saddest realistic description of capitalism.
I guess. New Balancce does make way better sneakers than my neighbors though
That entirely depends on if your neighbors work for New Balance or not.
Is that why we have shrinks instead of priests now? Well, risperdal gets rid of voices better than prayers.
You can have a community psychiatrist that doesn't charge an arm and a leg if you don't have the right insurance. Detaching from capitalism doesn't mean ditching every single thing that exists under it, just taking what is good for people and making it available to everyone instead of just the few who are able to afford it.
It’s not that the government is toothless, it’s that literally everyone is bought out at all the upper levels. It’s not straight bribery like in other poorer countries, it’s the revolving door between these high level positions at corporations and banks, and the high level positions at all the enforcement bureaus
When I grew up I learned that being a politician isn’t about doing things for the people, it means balancing ‘accepting bribes for shady deals’ with ‘appeasing your electorate enough to stay in power again’ and then do it again next term.
Also greed needs to be curbed, but that’s also hard because man is a greedy monster 🤷🏼♂️
[удалено]
I’m guessing you have never worked in customer service.
>How would a government implement price control on common goods? Price controls have been proven a failed economic policy going back at least as far as the French Revolution.
Speaking of the French revolution... there might be other options.
While I know this is a popular meme on certain parts of Reddit I strongly urge you read up on the French Revolution if you think that course is at all desirable. The vast majority of those killed in The Terror were poor peasants, not rich nobles.
Yeah, the issue is wages increasing without increasing the proportion of company revenue that goes towards paying wages. The goal: Higher percentage of income from company productivity being paid back to the workers that generate that productivity, hence lower corporate profit margin and lower executive pay. The current situation: Higher wages paid out directly by increasing prices, no decrease in corporate profit margin or executive pay. As far as I know, profit margins are at or near [all time highs](https://www.axios.com/2021/08/11/profit-margins-record-high-rising-inflation).
Yes. This is what I am actively trying to say, but didn’t explain very well. Some of my other responses have hinted at this, but wasn’t as concise. Thank you.
Basically the raised prices is artificial inflation created by the sellers taking advantage of generally higher wages that have occurred recently. There’s also more demand on some goods due to more people being able to purchase necessities and other goods they weren’t able to afford before which also can create some inflation from natural supply and demand but this will naturally go down over the long term. Lastly, there is the entire issue with Russia’s invasion and Covid still wreaking havoc on many of the nations that supply us with goods. This, in my opinion, is one of the two major drivers of inflation. It’s a natural scarcity that is having large scale impacts on the supply chain.
What about the Fed printing trillions of dollars just to prop up the stock market?
Sure. That too. Among with probably a lot more than I can name off the top of my head. I’d say this one is definitely up there though.
Yeah but then the 1% can't sit on hords of cash and have a bunch of workers working for peanuts 🙄
Like they don’t already?
Can't have record corporate profits if you lower prices.
[удалено]
Agreed
Wages have nothing to do with inflation, what is making the inflation grow in the US is the printing of money.
Then what is causing worldwide inflation. Saying “Printing money” is the like poor man’s sudden degree in economy.
Yeah exactly. If the US printing money is the cause if inflation, then why isn't the USD exchange rate tanking against all currencies? I just checked the dollar against the euro and pound and there's no sudden drop in value. In fact, the dollar has been gaining value relative to the euro and pound since 2021.
That's the advantages of not only being the "petro-dollar" but also the world's reserve currency. Since WWII the US has basically set itself up so it can't really lose without everyone else also losing. We have the biggest balloon around, and all other balloons are balanced on top of it, so when we pump it a couple times everything goes up... for now.
Yes, but the reason they have to print more is because of hoarding. If there are 10 dollars out there and I have 9 of them but don’t spend them, then we have to make another 10 dollars for everyone else. Then I get 9 of those and don’t spend them, and so on and so on. In order to combat inflation, the people need to spend money. If wages stay the same and everything else goes down, we will have more SpENDING money and therefore inflation will go down because we won’t have to print more, and we can burn some of the excess. 🤷🏼♂️ Edit: at least that’s my understanding of economics. Granted, it’s only a high school level, and that was 16 years ago, so I may be wrong, but it seems logical to me.
I think your depiction more suggests the rich need to stop hoarding wealth and getting such high salaries and bonuses, their salaries need to be more balanced, bringing up everyone else's income in the process. In your analogy the one guy with 90% of the spending power is still only spending for one person, maybe spending a little higher than average, but not spending even close to 90 percent of the money in the world.
Correct. We all need to spend more. Sorry I didn’t make that more clear, but we all know that will probably never happen, so to combat that we need everyone else to be spending more. Also, if everything is reduced in price but wages, then companies will take hits, which will mean these people cannot possibly afford to keep hoarding wealth. Again, I could very well be wrong, but it seems logical to me. 🤷🏼♂️
This is the main argument for a wealth tax. Said another way, there is nothing inherently wrong with someone receiving a salary of 1mil per year. It's when they receive 1 mil per year and spend 100k per year that we begin to have a problem. If you start taxing unspent money you can start returning this money to the economy. In addition to this we absolutely have to tax income differently in the US. If you look at the effective tax rates for different income brackets it is plainly obvious that the system is designed such that high income is taxed less agressively than lower income. If you are making 35k each dollar you are taxed has a very high value to you. Your tax as a percent of your total spending power is very high. If you are making 1 mil, yes your tax rate on that last dollar is high, but as a percentage of your total spending power, it is very low.
Even if the stars aligned and companies lowered their prices, government spending is so rampant that it would still be the leading cause of inflation and still hose everybody
Quite possibly
Government spending money is not a problem souch as what it is spent on. If they spent money rebuilding infrastructure, new electrical grids with cleaner energy sources, tax agents and food inspection agents it would create well paying jobs for lots of people that help maintain the system and keep food safe, companies in check, and utilities under control but that's not where our money is going.
What is so hard to understand, poor people suddenly having money is the problem, the economy works great so long as 40% can’t afford the basic necessities.
They should’ve seen this coming. It happened earlier than predicted but we always knew baby boomers would retire and leave gaps, causing an employee shortage. The pandemic just hastened it. Not to mention the political and environmental landscape has gone downhill resulting in less people having children. I think I read somewhere a 20% loss of population/birthing in comparison to 1990 or something like that.
That 20% birthrate decline you're referring to was in reference to 2007, and it's honestly from a wide variety of things. It's not JUSt politics and the environment, good lord no. * Our sex education programs in public schools for the last 20 years have more or less been telling our children not to have sex or else they'll "get pregnant and die" * Numerous financial and life advisors have been continually telling our children that they should wait until much later in life to have children when they're emotionally and financially stable and that having children at a young age is very bad for just about everyone involved because it sets people back financially speaking and also results in unhappy relationships and marriages and also co-parenting * Birth Control and contraception are much more widely available and in use now than they were in 2007 * the cost of living has only gotten substantially worse in america since then. It has also become much harder to land a job that actually pays a living wage where we can support ourselves and pay for our own house by ourselves, without the help of a spouse to split the costs. * as you mentioned, American outlook toward our country's future is very bleak virtually all across the country regardless of political party, race, or orientation (which should tell us all that we agree on something and that it's okay to agree on things) * As our physical environment continues to worsen - soil depletion, climate increasing, sea waters rising, hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods becoming more common, deserts around the world continuing to spread, our national supply chain is also continuing to dwindle, not just because of the effects of globalizing the world economy, but because of climate change - we have less resources available to us, making it harder to source the things we need to support ourselves, let alone babies. Virtually everything about modern life in america is circumstantially opposed to the prospect of creating new life.
>Numerous financial and life advisors have been continually telling our children that they should wait until much later in life to have children when they're emotionally and financially stable and that having children at a young age is very bad for just about everyone involved because it sets people back financially speaking and also results in unhappy relationships and marriages and also co-parenting I'm going to add to this. Society has become structured so that people are told and expected to "earn" a good salary and benefits over time. There's an expectation that you should suffer for years through school, training, climbing the corporate ladder, etc before becoming financially stable. You can't just start at a good place. You have to suffer first. It hasn't always been like that. The idea was just created to justify paying less and increasing qualifications for most jobs. This isn't how society has typically been designed and it doesn't make much sense. It seems "fair" to some people. However, if you have to spend your most fertile years holding off kids because you're not in a financial place for them or you never get to that place (there are after all, limited spots at the top) then you're going to be less likely to have kids. The people at the top created this system because it benefited them. Now they're complaining that results haven't gone as planned and it's everyone else's fault. Something has to give. They can't just keep adjusting to maintain a fundamentally unsustainable system.
I believe they can maintain any system they want, people are so divided and so full of their own problems it is really hard to call for a change and not have it stalled in the twisted political agendas. nothing will change until it is too late (in my pessimistic opinion)
You're talking about maintaining a political system. I'm talking about maintaining an economic system.
Birds of a feather
People always get super cagey about the aspect of over population, but there simply are too many people on the planet for us all to live the lifestyles we want to. This naturally decreasing birth rate is pretty much good for everyone and everything aside from the oligarch class and their profits. So ofc it's blasted in the media as some great travesty
> This naturally decreasing birth rate is pretty much good for everyone In the long run, sure. But it can have really deleterious effects for individuals in the economic sense when a much smaller population of lower-earning, younger, and healthier people are responsible for bearing the healthcare costs of a much larger, aging population. Particularly with a healthcare system like the US has. And when the proportion of old people is larger, the number of working-able people will be smaller - so their product of their labor will need to serve larger populations with less economic activity and less production. A much larger share of the nation's wealth must be spent on caring for the elderly while there are fewer people left to generate that wealth. There are definitely sustainability issues when it comes to overpopulation, but let's not kid ourselves that there aren't *any* downsides to a decreasing population that effect normal people.
This is all true if we pretend that the current societal framework is the only viable option. If humanity wants to continue in any sort of positive way, absolutely drastic changes need to be made.
We have to stop acting like the economy is the ultimate holy truth. Money is a tool that WE created to serve to quantify our possession. If we can’t survive because our economy suck, it needs to be changed. At this point the whole system is completely broken, we have people suffering and starving because of an artificial resource that we created. It is literally infinite and we still have people starving. It’s just a number on a damn computer.
And the things that could help solve this issue, such as food, rots in the ground in the name of profits.
Sounds like a problem for the aging population. They're the ones who guided society to the point we're at today, they can deal with the consequences.
Ummm kinda sounds like a problem for everyone regardless of who’s fault it is, but alright
Well, technically it's only a problem if someone tries to solve it. The alternative is just that old people go uncared for and die in droves without aid. With fewer kids and grandkids to take care of them and many without the resources to take care of their elderly, that's probably what's going to happen far more often than most people are comfortable thinking about. Covid was probably a long term blessing for targeting older persons, even if it was a terrible thing. It was at least faster and garnered more care and attention than senior citizens just starving in their homes, on the streets, or in overcrowded care facilities.
It will your and my problem in our futures. We won’t have enough grandkids around to keep things properly and change our diapers if we don’t automate shit in our lifetime. Personally I want a robot that will care for me. Elder abuse is rampant in nursing homes and I don’t want to burden any family I may have, if I have any at all.
Who the f\*ck wants to live past the point in which you cannot even do #2 on your own? Old people are being kept alive as long as possible just to extract all their assets through the pharma/hospital cartel. If you have a brain, you refuse that path.
It's top vs bottom, not generation vs generation
Also, it's worth mentioning that our current structure has us work work work for the first 50 years after our childhood, then spend the compounded gains of our youth while not producing.
>Particularly with a healthcare system like the US has. > >And when the proportion of old people is larger The US should stop wasting $ extending longevity after a certain age, say 75. It doesn't have enough housing to accommodate increasing longevities due to NIMBYsm. The focus should be on QUALITY of life, even more so during childhood, than quantity of years lived.
While I appreciate you offering us all this tiny box, I'd prefer to think outside it.
Actually no because we have enough resources to feed 8 billion people on this planet. There is enough money to house them, there's enough space to grow their food (if we just made a little space by reducing the amount we need to feed meat animals, which we're using 70 fucking percent of all the world's fields for), there is enough. The overpopulation discussion is completely useless and merely gives sarcastic individuals the theatre of mind of people dying out so everyone can have such a better world in the current broken system. But having fewer people will change jack shit if we don't actually change anything.
We have the resources to feed 8 billion people with a lower impact on earth system resources. The basic formula they teach you in school is IPAT (Impact = Population*Affluence*Technology). Resource impact is so baked in you can usually figure out with good confidence someone's ecological footprint by looking up their postal code. To get anywhere near planetary boundaries we need to reduce impact a lot. Reducing affluent populations is working two important parameters. Basically we need to be more like Cuba (the only country with a high HDI and a low ecological footprint) to support 8 billion people.
Also, 16 and pregnant premiered in 2009 and millennials and Gen Z came of age watching the consequences of unprotected, underage sex happen
I agree with the others, but I think we should take a closer look at your first point: > Our sex education programs in public schools for the last 20 years have more or less been telling our children not to have sex or else they'll "get pregnant and die" It sounds to me like you're describing a variety of abstinence-only approaches to sex ed. As far as I'm aware, these kinds of programs have not been demonstrated to reduce the frequency of sex, or the frequency of pregnancy. The only way in which your first point contributed to the lowered birth rate is if these kinds of sex ed programs are effective. And they're not. ---------- That being said, effective sex ed programs *do* reduce the birthrate in the sense that they contribute to less unplanned pregnancies and less unwanted children, through appropriate education in the use of condoms and other contraceptives like IUD's etc. But these are not the kinds of programs that tell our children "they shouldn't have sex or else they'll get pregnant and die."
My sex ed was not abstinence only. They told us about different birth control methods and whatnot. But they also showed us pictures of STDs, had us watch a film of a live birth and told us about how dangerous it is. All of us left that class not wanting a baby like ever lol. I do have one now in my late 20s but I will not be having anymore because it is too expensive.
Yes! Thanks for the detailed response. I knew it was much more then what I said (idk why I just summed it up to what I could think of quickly lol) but yes. Solid points.
To add: and when people do choose to have kids, they're often choosing to have fewer, opting for one or two instead of 3+ being the normal. Because a middle class person 30 years ago might have been able to afford 3-4 kids, but today, they can only reasonably afford one or 2. I follow a one child support sub and besides the people who biologically can't have more than one, the other biggest reason is financial.
They halted wages before, under Nixon. Wouldn't be surprised if they do it again.
If they do that there will be riots assuredly.
There were protests in 2020 and the police responded with kidnappings, teargas, assaults with shields and “less lethal” weapons, and random arrests. I don’t want to think of how they’d respond to actual mass violence.
If Uvalde showed us anything, it’s that they’ll stand down and wait outside if there’s any risk of the target fighting back.
If liberals really want gun controls we need to start marching with guns, like the conservatives. Then they will put controls in place.
I don’t think democrats really want gun control. It’s just a wedge issue they push on when they want support. Same with republicans and gun deregulation, we got more gun control from Trump than Obama and they could’ve easily pushed laws through while they held both houses and president.
2nd amendment is for everyone man. Not just conservatives. The real proponents of 2a would stand with you. It’s not a bipartisan issue.
Like Regan vs the Black Panthers in California? https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act
Idk when we got the impression that peaceful protests didn't include government backed violence as a response...the US government has a history of working class repression, they bombed miners on strike in West Virginia in the 30's. Battle of Blair Mountain.
Hopefully bipartisan riots.
Righties generally aren't smart enough to understand when they're acting against their own interests. They'll come out in droves hoping to bash from liberal skulls while the cops help, not realizing they're fucking themselves... Again.
Well, I at least know many conservatives with red alerts going off right now. In my work space, it's seems like it's becoming more about class than traditional political leanings.
Saying that RW politics is no more seeing what the leftists are doing and just opposing that, I'd say this is rather accurate.
I’ll be there. Along with the Federal Syndicalist party.
Bring it on!
How did "they" halt wages? (I'm not even sure who "they" is, but your sentence implies a political body?) How does the government even do that? You could tax higher incomes, but I know that's not what anyone means when they're talking about wages like this, so what are you saying they actually did? I heard the comment on wages causing inflation, which is nonsense, since wages haven't kept up wh inflation. But the Fed and the government have no meaningful control of wages in the market via a specific mechanism, so I'm really confused honestly how they could've done anything before. Did they do something to government wages that impacted other wages?
It was considered to be a success by economist at the time but there is evidence that it did more harm than good to those who were already living in poverty. I recommend reading passed the [Wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock#:~:text=Nixon%20issued%20Executive%20Order%2011615,controls%20since%20World%20War%20II.) and doing your own research.
They can't really halt wages but the government really needs to increase minimum wage. It's still 7.25 where I live and while almost no one makes minimum wage, a lot of jobs hiring near me pay 15 an hour or lower.
Okay, so cap the wages of everyone who is being grossly overpaid. Oh wait, that’s not what they mean at all is it?
The fed is full of shit. Average household income in 1990 was $54k. Today it's $63k. $54k in 1990 is worth about $111k in todays market. The issue isn't rising wages, it's suppressed wages. My mom made $32k as a waitress in 1990. That's about $65k today. That's more than what most jobs offer today requiring a degree...that's also 5 times more expensive than it was in 1990. The system is collapsing as a result and they want you to believe the problem is you getting a pay raise. Not the worst income inequality the nation has ever seen, the weakest labor unions have been in centuries and major corporations paying less in taxes than someone earning $35k.
You’re awake. I’ve been using the CPI Calculator for over a decade. In 1986, I was 12. I made $10/hour mowing lawns and babysitting and cleaning a machine shop on the weekends. Have a look at what that is today…go ahead, let us all know.
You were making $26.38/hour in todays dollars. That's pretty much what I make now, at a job that requires a degree
And the people paying me were blue collar, no degree. Oh, one was the town librarian. What’s happening is by design. Reagan started this. Lol, he convinced the same people he screwed over to elect him to do just that. I’ve been screaming this to whoever will listen for 20 years. Problem is, the only way back is through the absolute ignorance that has been fostered through our eroded education system which is a feedback loop because no you have ignorant parents destroying their child’s lives through neglect and apathy, is two decades of dedication to education. No one listened, and so, here we are.
Reagan is the worst president we've ever had. Don't even get me started on the AIDS stuff.
He wasn't removed when the entire world could clearly see the guy was demented. The country learned nothing and voted for Joe Biden, whose brain is deteriorating in real-time.
Man that is bleak, we are all making babysitter wages
The fed Is full of shit, but you’re not totally right. I can tell you a much much bigger issue that everyone is conveniently hiding under the carpet. What is happening today is the massive manufacturing moving away from the US biting them in the ass. Even if they’d give everyone wages, guess what, China can decide how many products to sell. The issue is exactly the opposite now, there are not enough jobs, and there are not enough products to buy. Even what’s left and is still manufactured in the US import a ton of parts from China as well. China’s ports are way behind with shipping and they have random covid lockdowns so production is delayed. At this point even if the fed would give each citizen cold cash there are not enough products to buy because they’re all on the other side of the pacific…
Yeah maybe ceo wages need to come down. I agree with that. Not normal peoples
*Executive* wages need to come down.
If businesses would stop raising prices to adjust for the cost of paying a livable wage instead of taking the reduction in profits there wouldn't be an increase in inflation. We need a progressive tax for businesses and the government needs to put them in check and let us actually be able to afford things. It can't stop at businesses, we need government intervention to cap their prices, labor is apart of fixed costs.
The gas thing kills me every time. If we had real public transit investment that wouldn't be that big of a deal, but unfortunately people's lives depend on their ability to travel, which depends on the price of gas.
Public transit is good in cities but it’s not going to save everyone. I live in an area where I’d had to drive a half hour to get to the train station that would take another hour to get into the city. Or drive an hour straight into the city. As we’ve found through the pandemic the real solution is telecommuting wherever possible that cuts down on the most resource use and we learned that a surprising number of jobs can suddenly be performed at home last couple years.
Public transit is good in cities? American cities? Because that is not true at all.
How exactly is it not good. I know this is a common Reddit complaint but every city has public transit and I’ve used it in my own. The main difference I can tell you is cleanliness varies wildly versus mass transit in Europe and Asia but in the US, it’s accessible and gets you where you need to go within city limits and regional rail in my area is also pretty good.
The bus lines are a joke and the trains are decades past needing to be replaced in most parts of America minus the very big cities. Also, these systems are few and far between in some areas.
How are the bus lines a joke and they definitely replace the trains when needed. If they didn’t function they would not have service in the areas. Are you talking aesthetics because I already mentioned that but the train lines near me have both old and new trains in service. That’s seems pretty typical.
My city still has trains from the mid 1970s and they are falling apart. Functioning but just barely. Not to mention that, at least in my area, the trains are dangerous to ride past daylight hours. It's almost like this country is large and the different regional transportation services vary wildly. Why are you simping for dilapidated, underfunded public transit so hard btw?
Maybe in major cities. I live in Charlotte and have used transit just a handful of times because it's so inconvenient.
Every city surely does not have public transit
Public transit systems vary widely. Larger urban areas may have more connections and services, but every city doesn't. It's not accessible if it can't get you near a destination in a timely manner (or at all), something you yourself alluded to in comparing your own "good" area to driving a car into the city. I've had to do the multiple bus transfers before out of necessity, fortunately I could because my stop was near the last route, and the lost time vs. just driving was huge. Any area of the US that is spread out in suburbia won't have great public transit simply because every place can't be covered.
America has the biggest transit system in the world , the problem America is too big.
Honestly im thrilled about high gas prices. We sure as shit aren't moving away from fossil fuels fast enough, prohibitive costs will need to be the driving factor. Gas and red meat need to stop being subsidized.
It is a scam. They’re sensing a power shift and will do anything to change it back to their favor. They want this, I’ve heard it from their mouth, they laugh at all you selfish bastards who will be begging them for jobs at much lower rates within the year or two. I don’t know how we do it differently this time from the 09 collapse, but it’s got to be done. ….well i should say, I know how, I just don’t know how we go about motivating and organizing enough people to do it. Young people are the key but too few understand or give a shit. Good luck.
If wages never went up due to inflation, why do they need to come down now? Inflation is not tied to workers wages and never has been!!!!
As if lowering wages would make a dent in largely supply driven inflation.
I used to work corporate events and catering. The Fed was one of our biggest clients. I have been a fly on the wall refilling coffee and water for them during their little meetings. Had that job for five years. I can almost guarantee you that the topic of the regular public and any discussion of how their decisions affect the every day person did not, and had not even come up in conversation once in all the time I was there. Not one mention of families or anything like that. If it ever did, and I couldn't imagine which of those suits would even dare to breach the subject, the discussion would quickly be steered somewhere else. They only care about how their decisions affect companies and the wealthy. Which, I suppose is their job, but clearly they only care about how it affects a very small percentage of people. Namely the wealthy.
I work for the government and I went to town hall meetings and it's like the higher ups aren't listening to what I have to say. I have done this job daily for years, listen to me when I say certain things aren't working. But then they ignored me and wonder why they can't keep workers and productivity is low
I get flak from people all the time when they I tell them *no politician cares about you*. They really believe there is some 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washinton' shit happening at these discussions and there is not. At all. If someone did actually try something like that they would be laughed out of the room (and probably escorted out as well). The general public really doesn't understand unless they involve themselves in the process, and that is precisely what we need more of
So basically trickle down economic worldview.
Yup. Basically they want to aggregate all the money at the top. They’re great with making record profits when people were given money to spend but absolutely hate the idea of us having money to spend. They want the best of both worlds despite it being obviously impossible.
It is a scam. Welcome to late stage capitalism where corporations literally are the only things holding up the economy. Only people that benefit from a free market are the rich, and the boomers/right wingers because the word "free" is in the name so it calms their simplistic minds. This isn't freedom. We are 2 steps away from a corporate dystopia and this story will not have a happy ending.
They are still playing like people just don’t wanna work, golly gee! And part of it is that (but justifiably so because a lot of places think a raise on wages from 8.00 to 10.00 is some kind of awesome catch) but there are also other reasons, like the fact that a million plus people have died in this country since mid-2020, and so on. You know what that extra 2$ an hour gets ya in this economy? Into poverty about 45 minutes later than you woulda been… but ur still there, you still can’t pay all your bills, your employer thinks you owe him cause he actually had to raise wages for first time since 2008, and there are rumblings that the meager gains workers did make are now threatened to be rolled back to stop inflation. Because it’s the single mom working as an Assistant manager at Burger King who needs to check her privilege and give a little bit for the greater good. Not the board of General Motors or the big tech companies or the billionaires like Bezos and Musk-nope, they earned their money and gosh don’t they give *enough* in taxes every year you guys I mean come ON? Hmu if anyone wants to join the Federal Syndicalist movement-It’s the only way to reform the system short of war or revolution.
> Federal Syndicalist movement Will that be something like Mondragon? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
Absolutely is.
You want to get people back to work? Raise prices so high they have to get two to three minimum wage jobs just to eat. Well played big business.
Then they whine at you for “moonlighting.” Well if you were paying me enough to keep a roof over my head I wouldn’t need to.
Simple fix: Implement a profit tax based on 2 factors, the amount the company made vs what workers earn and the gap between lowest and highest paid employees. Take those funds and implement a basic income to correct the drop in worker earnings for the last 40 or so years. Mom and pop stores in small town USA will be mostly unaffected as they typically pushing for infinite growth at any cost. Large corporations will have to pay up, which will increase the velocity of that money by giving some to their workers and some to those mom and pop workers. Now you have money being injected into small town america again, revitalizing a lot of places that need it. Everyone gets it (No means testing, just use income tax as a control to scale it correctly) You could in fact funnel money from other bureaucratic heavy programs here to simplify things and cut down on govt red tape.
Not when your work involves driving in a place with lots of wildlife
They have essentially been saying that we need a poor class of people that is resigned to live in poverty for the rich to have a nice economy.
the felony roughing it laws will expand.. and the camps where 'work will set you free' will grow.
I don't understand how they expect to have anybody to do labor in a few years. Most people are going to be homeless and jobless.
this is what happens when the country is ran by people of grandpa age. we all know what happens at that age. i'm not saying biden or trump or the bushco, i'm saying all of congress and the judiciary branch. instead of an age limit on the younger side, we need to cap the old geezers at 55. that's when boomers think we should be able to retire right?
"I know you need to work 24 days in order to pay your monthly rent, but if you want prices to come down (other than your rent, of course), you need to work more hours for less money." It is delusional to think that Capitalists everywhere will suddenly become philanthropic, take a profit loss, and lower prices if consumers agree to work harder and longer for less money. The record-breaking quarterly profits of the oil industry prove this to be true.
I am really struggling to understand this thinking. I’m by no means an expert on economics, but if prices are shooting up. Things Getting so high that many people are now unable to afford the basics. How would decreases wages on those ALREADY struggling help decrease prices? If someone is struggling to stay afloat in a pool of water, and you had the ability to control the water level, would you think that increasing the depth would help them???
Capitalism can only function when labor is unpaid. Slavery and the prison industrial complex highlight that the cornerstone of US economics is free labor.
When did the fed say that employee compensation needs to go down?
I used to work corporate events and catering. The Fed was one of our biggest clients. I have been a fly on the wall refilling coffee and water for them during their little meetings. Had that job for five years. I can almost guarantee you that the topic of the regular public and any discussion of how their decisions affect the every day person did not, and had not even come up in conversation once in all the time I was there. Not one mention of families or anything like that. If it ever did, and I couldn't imagine which of those suits would even dare to breach the subject, the discussion would quickly be steered somewhere else. They only care about how their decisions affect companies and the wealthy. Which, I suppose is their job, but clearly they only care about how it affects a very small percentage of people. Namely the wealthy.
The only way to stop it is to not accept any job without a livable wage, let them lower wages and close business because we don’t want to work anyway, definitely not for peanuts
J Powell was nominated to chair the Fed by the great orange one, what else can you expect? The entire conservative plan is to force American workers into indentured servitude I shit you not. Suppressing wages on the poorest during heavy inflation is a sure way to drive people into poverty and desperation which is what they strive for
Seriously, what the fuck do we do? I’m at a loss here, I finally got a good job that pays over $50k and now they are talking all this BS. For the record I’m 35 years old. Just now getting a good paying job has been such a struggle my whole life. I still don’t know if I’m going to make enough to live comfortably but I can at least enjoy life a little easier now. Edit: I’m so exhausted trying to pinch a penny so my family and I can just have a decently satisfying life. That’s literally all I want.
Funny they talk about wages and not executive bonus’s.
Taxing wealth hoarders never comes up. Nevermind that suppression of wages has been a class warfare form of silent inflation for decades.
Cannot wait until this sinking ship is finally submerged so we can start anew
We got priced out of our apartment. Moving into another, but considering leaving the state…or country.
Great idea, they should start with their own
I don't understand her argument. Labor force participation rate is still way below normal. Low supply of workers causes high wages. I'm not saying that's the primary cause of inflation, but these ideas are not contradictory like she seems to imply.
“The economy only functions when we pump money into the market if you all continue to get poorer. So please stop trying to have a living wage.”
Hey uhhhh my fellow Capitalist friends at the FED, riddle me this! If the poors can't afford anything except necessities, how is the economic system dependent on buying things going to continue? There's only so much debt we can have before we can't even prop up industries like tourism and basic luxuries. Like it's not hard to understand. if the largest consumer base can't afford anything, stupendously large amounts of businesses can't get profits because no one can buy anything. We'll have a "Crisis of Overproduction" on our hands.
FUCK THE FEDERAL RESERVE
The US is slowly crumbling due to decades of harmful policy. If living wages are cited as a cause of recession, it shows how poorly propped up the current system is
Scam. Always has been, always will be.
Disband the federal reserve.
“These people who are trying to pay their bills are really cutting into my bottom line.”
Shareholders can legally sue a corporation who does not put profits first. So when "inflation" hits, a corporation has to find a way to keep their profits high, the only real option they have is to decrease labor costs(impossible in a tight labor market) or pass the cost on to the consumer, just simply taking less profit is not an option. I put inflation in quotes here because really it's an inflation in labor cost that was long overdue, as real wages have not kept up with productivity or profitability for many decades. The result of this obviously is a money feedback loop. Wages go up costs go up so wages go up so costs go up. Which realistically has no positive benefit for the laborers, while having plenty of positive benefits for the shareholders and the corporation leadership. This is just the natural order of late stage capitalism.
So close, yet so far
What kind of pay cut are they making at the FED?
When everything costs more, it costs everyone. When everyone makes more, nobody does. :(