Elections Is the US on the upward trend or downward?

[Kingz]

Downward

Hopefully we can make it great again

 

[Teppodama]

I'm not doubting any of it, that was my depressed face

Completely understand. Its two different realities. One where people look at the spreadsheet and say "We"re doing great, never better" and those that live below that level that say "things ain't stretching the way they used to. The cupboards are bare, the rents due and we ain't seeing no Biden pot-o-gold at the end of the rainbow".

 

[PRESIDENT TRUMP]

Republican voters: "Greatest Country in the World!!"

Also Republican voters: "Failed State!!! Third world banana republic!!"

Leave it to a Mod to attempt a derail by making this strictly partisan.

 

[Sinister]

Leave it to a Mod to attempt a derail by making this strictly partisan.

Aww did I get you in the feels?

Here why dont I say that Tankies whose whole personality is "America bad" who are currently debating on behalf of religious extremist terrorists are also dipsh*ts. There that should help. #covfefe

 

[terrapin]

definitely a downward trend and it wont end util the false religion of scientism and materialism is thoroughly debunked in the minds of the populace. we are pretty much already there but it takes time to catch on.

its the lack of meaning that is driving the downfall and no amount of economic security is going to stop it obviously. the problem is reflected in politics but its not the primary driver.

 

[Cid]

Lmao, this isn't a matter of disagreement in opinion. You are flat wrong and being shown how you are wrong.

He's not wrong though.

The parameters of what constitutes improvement weren't defined at the start of this thread and @Jack V Savage metric is a piss poor metric to measure the legitimate frustrations of the vast majority of people within this thread.



Jack has taken a commonly applied metric and is pointing to that as his evidence, but he's being willfully ignorant to the legitimate frustrations of common people. Probably in part because he works in finance, probably because he has money probably because he can't read between the lines.


Talking about being able to buy food in regards to the real median wage for example. Jack mentioned that real median wage has allowed more food purchases for the past 100 years.

100 hundred years ago agriculture was 14% of the work force.
Today it's 0.01% of the workforce.

When you're pointing out you can buy 3x more of something individuals are 1400x more efficient at producing as evidence that things are improving you're being an obtuse asshole.

Nobody working 50 hours a week earning $7.50 an hour wants to hear Jack being an asshole about how we're technically doing better because of HIS metrics.




This thread for anyone able to read between the lines isn't about the procedural and technological advancements of the human race and the positive impact on our life through increased productivity. Which are the drivers of real wage growth.

Nobody wants to hear that shit, least of all anyone who is struggling and that is a lot of people these days.


The people in this thread want to know why they're getting a fraction of the return of this increased productivity.

Why they're struggling with tertiary educations relative to their parents who didn't even finish their secondary education.




And while it's far from my area of expertise not working in finance or even being American it seems like he's just plain wrong. As is one of my presumptions of about real wage growth from advancement.

There is 0 real wage growth for men over 16 years

Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over: Men

Graph and download economic data for Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over: Men (LES1252881900Q) from Q1 1979 to Q1 2024 about full-time, males, salaries, workers, earnings, 16 years +, wages, median, real, employment, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

Seems the only reason Americans are doing any better is because women are doing less bad than they were.

Maybe he was talking to all the female posters on the dog.

 

[AWilder]

He's not wrong though.

The parameters of what constitutes improvement weren't defined at the start of this thread and @Jack V Savage metric is a piss poor metric to measure the legitimate frustrations of the vast majority of people within this thread.



Jack has taken a commonly applied metric and is pointing to that as his evidence, but he's being willfully ignorant to the legitimate frustrations of common people. Probably in part because he works in finance, probably because he has money probably because he can't read between the lines.


Talking about being able to buy food in regards to the real median wage for example. Jack mentioned that real median wage has allowed more food purchases for the past 100 years.

100 hundred years ago agriculture was 14% of the work force.
Today it's 0.01% of the workforce.

When you're pointing out you can buy 3x more of something individuals are 1400x more efficient at producing as evidence that things are improving you're being an obtuse asshole.

Nobody working 50 hours a week earning $7.50 an hour wants to hear Jack being an asshole about how we're technically doing better because of HIS metrics.




This thread for anyone able to read between the lines isn't about the procedural and technological advancements of the human race and the positive impact on our life through increased productivity. Which are the drivers of real wage growth.

Nobody wants to hear that shit, least of all anyone who is struggling and that is a lot of people these days.


The people in this thread want to know why they're getting a fraction of the return of this increased productivity.

Why they're struggling with tertiary educations relative to their parents who didn't even finish their secondary education.




And while it's far from my area of expertise not working in finance or even being American it seems like he's just plain wrong. As is one of my presumptions of about real wage growth from advancement.

There is 0 real wage growth for men over 16 years

Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over: Men

Graph and download economic data for Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over: Men (LES1252881900Q) from Q1 1979 to Q1 2024 about full-time, males, salaries, workers, earnings, 16 years +, wages, median, real, employment, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

Seems the only reason Americans are doing any better is because women are doing less bad than they were.

Maybe he was talking to all the female posters on the dog.

anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence. the vibeconomy isn't the economy.

also, you are using individuals, which is fine, but isn't necessarily the trend. By so many metrics you are better off today than 20, 30, 40, 100 years ago. To argue otherwise is pretty silly.

Regarding productivity vs wages: this is a much different conversation than "Is the US on the upward trend or downward?"

 

[D3THRONED]

Idk man life is pretty dope for me here. Especially since I don't watch the news. Upward imo. Stop believing all the rage bait online and you'll realize it's actually pretty good.

 

[Jack V Savage]

He's not wrong though.

He is wrong, though. This is hard data. It's a true statement that food costs have been falling relative to household incomes since (at least) 1900.

The parameters of what constitutes improvement weren't defined at the start of this thread and @Jack V Savage metric is a piss poor metric to measure the legitimate frustrations of the vast majority of people within this thread.

No, I get that doomers will cherry-pick metrics to support their outlook. But broadly, things just keep getting better for people, and there's no real way to avoid that conclusion if you take an honest look at the evidence.

Jack has taken a commonly applied metric and is pointing to that as his evidence, but he's being willfully ignorant to the legitimate frustrations of common people. Probably in part because he works in finance, probably because he has money probably because he can't read between the lines.

No, I know some people are frustrated (everyone is at times!). The question is not "is everything perfect at all times for everyone now?" It's "are things on an uptrend or a downtrend?"

Talking about being able to buy food in regards to the real median wage for example. Jack mentioned that real median wage has allowed more food purchases for the past 100 years.

100 hundred years ago agriculture was 14% of the work force.
Today it's 0.01% of the workforce.

Yeah! Not only are people making a lot more money now, they're doing far easier work.

Nobody working 50 hours a week earning $7.50 an hour wants to hear Jack being an asshole about how we're technically doing better because of HIS metrics.

Is that you or are you appointing yourself the spokesman for national MW earners? Lower earners are doing better now than ever before in America. Just read about life in other eras.

And while it's far from my area of expertise not working in finance or even being American it seems like he's just plain wrong. As is one of my presumptions of about real wage growth from advancement.

There is 0 real wage growth for men over 16 years

Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over: Men

Graph and download economic data for Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over: Men (LES1252881900Q) from Q1 1979 to Q1 2024 about full-time, males, salaries, workers, earnings, 16 years +, wages, median, real, employment, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

??? Your chart shows 7.3% *real* wage growth for men over 16 years. That's a lot!

 

[Tatra]

There were more then 130 websites in 1993, about 6-700.
93 I was still using BBS rather than the internet, and even in '94 I played Doom II "online" either via BBS (which became an ISP) or by dialing directly to people's homes, although I had internet access.
The growth was exponential though, so ecommerce started in 1995 and hit @$17 billion by the start of '98. In 1997 every major company had to get a website and advertise it (also when 56K modems reached consumer retail).
The .com bubble peaked Friday, March 10, 2000, at which point half my country had internet access.
You have to play semantic games not to consider that the rise of the internet.

I shouldn't have said it was "non-existent" for virtually all of the 90s. It existed, but played no significant role in people's lives for virtually all of the 90s. Only in the very late 90s did it become somewhat relevant but only for kids playing around on messenger programs and a couple of online games. Pointing out you played Doom online proves nothing. I'm not saying no one used it. I'm saying it was used by almost no one, especially for gaming. Unreal Tournament, Half Life and Counter Strike were the first major online games, and that was very much a late 90s/2000 thing.

1997/8 is late 90s.