I think about this a lot. As I, unintentionally, am a part of the problem.
We have a family agricultural business. Our focus is on efficiency and automation.
However, as we grow and refine our operation, it takes less and less labor to do the same amount of work. Currently, we grow crops on 4,400 acres we own and work another 2,500 acres for neighbors. It takes five adult family members to run things. We hire 6-8 retired neighbors to help us plant in the spring. That takes about 3 weeks. Every fall, for 6-7 weeks, we hire 15-20 people to help operate equipment for harvest.
50 years ago, a local farm was 200-250 acres, and it supported an extended family. Now, our single-family farm is 20 times that size.
One by one, as area farmer sell, we buy their land. Mom and Dad, or grandpa and Grandma, are happy because they now have $1-2 million in cash for their retirement. But there are a lot of very angry kids with very limited job prospects.
I don't think this level of consolidation is healthy... but if we don't buy it, a private equity firm swoops in and buys the land. Often destroying or severely degrading it for short-term profits.
You are doing what Starbucks or a national bakery chain does. You are the CEO gobbling up small businesses that put generations through school and funded lives and replacing those with minimum wage jobs while you make the profit
But if you didn’t, someone else would and you’d be the one gobbled up and then making sub human wages
The power big businesses have over politics is one thing, but are small businesses really that much better from a labor perspective?
I've worked for small & medium sized businesses , and trillion dollar companies, the latter is a better experience.
And from what I can tell the effect kind of evens out on a local level. For example my hometown doesn't have any locally owned grocery chains or that many small businesses aside from restaurants, but it has the headquarters for Boeing. We lost our regional bank when they merged, but in return we got one of America's largest banks headquartered a few miles away.
And larger businesses are generally better at recruiting. It's not common to see small businesses at T20 universities trying to recruit to get people to move across the country because they just don't have that reach, but people from around the country and world move and benefit my local economy because of our local business that happen to have a national reach.
5-7 big businesses in an industry is the best for employment. They have to compete, invest, and compete for talent. 1-3 big businesses in an industry don’t compete for talent or consumers. They just extract as much as they can.
>but are small businesses really that much better from a labor perspective?
From a labor perspective, large businesses are more likely to offer better incentives. However small businesses often offer different kinds of incentives, such as more diverse hiring, flexible employment, and pathways to ownership. Large businesses are likely to optimize the hiring process to recruit the most productive long-term worker, whereas small businesses may be more flexible, thus opening employment opportunities to those that might normally be weeded out during the process (part-time/seasonal workers, workers with disabilities, seniors, etc).
From an economic perspective, it's important for localities to have a healthy mix of small businesses and branches of large businesses. For one, small businesses keep revenue circulating locally which builds wealth in the region, whereas large enterprises move a lot of revenue out (to national HQ, to shareholders, non-local investments etc). Additionally, enterprise businesses generally optimize for scale. The consolidation of grocery store chains is a big contributor to food deserts. It's normally up to small businesses to fill in gaps that large businesses have decided aren't profitable at scale.
I don't think productivity increases are necessarily tied to concentration of wealth like this. The income of labor in many economies rise alongside productivity gains, and it used to be this way in the USA as well before we got trickle down brain rot.
I don't think it's inherent to capitalism, although it may be inherent to the USA's sort of capitalism, I'm not a political scientist idk. But I do think the evidence strongly suggests it's a policy choice and one many other capitalist economies are choosing differently.
Productivity gains haven’t been equitably shared with workers for decades and that’s the entire problem. It’s more prevalent in this country than others but it seems like it’s going on everywhere.
It isn't going on everywhere, other rich nations are experiencing rising wages with productivity growth. Their wages aren't rising significantly because productivity isn't increasing rapidly in many developed nations.
It’s ok to want things, it’s ok to have things, it’s not ok to take advantage of others for things that you want.
You’re putting the work in, you’re employing people, old farmers are benefiting, and if it wasn’t you, it would be someone else to run that land into dust.
I really dislike the broad anti-business, morralistic sentiment that seems to be growing in the US. Broadly, productivity improvements are a good thing and lift all boats in the economy. The goods you produce ultimately lead to lower prices for consumers down the line. And the goods and services you use as inputs are creating economic growth elsewhere. As you've pointed out, this shifts where the economy, and thus money, ends up geographically, leading to some people "losing" as long as they don't want to move for better opertunities. Opertunities that you're helping to contribute to through your business purchases. I think this process is overall beneficial to our society and it's ultimately a question of how to help those who are most negatively affected by the reshuffling. It's awesome that you're conscious of and thinking about the impacts of your success!
I try to think about what policies would need to be in place to drive it the other way. So big farms and big business were cracking up and supporting more smaller farms/businesses with more workers total.
And would we want to actually live in a country with those policies!? Efficiency is something we’ve been striving for since at least the renaissance. It’s not bad. Even the poor people today live better than the wealthy did just a couple hundred years ago.
It’s not quite the same though, in many cases, farmers aren’t being pushed out. They’re selling their land willingly because they either don’t want to farm anymore, no one wants the farm when they die, or they do want to farm but would rather have a couple million dollars instead. People make a similar argument about warehouses where I live, and get so fired up about how warehouses are taking over farm land. Except, no one wants the farm land and in most cases, being a farmer sucks.
I feel like if a farmer sells because they aren’t able to make a reasonable living off the land that provided for their parents and grandparents due to changing economic conditions, that is the same as being pushed out.
I’m seeing a whole industry by me die with 90% mortality. Some methods of large commercial farming are viable, but between diseases, viruses, environmental changes, the price increase of supplies, shortage of good workers for a reasonable price ( ties into the price of everything).
Then you also have increasing regulations and laws, local issues such as zoning and so many others.
Lost my decade plus career specifically aquaculture due to bad management, bad luck with environmental changes, and a host of other factors.
I would rather have a family farm that has its future in mind rather than the next quarter. I'm all for efficiency, but there's something lost when strategic planning goes out the window.
Agriculture was the first industry for labor to decrease despite output significantly increasing.
Less than a century ago, we had something like a third of America's population living on farms, yet now it's about 2% and we're still a net food exporter. It's long enough ago that most people don't see farming as a major employer.
Then came manufacturing. We still manufacture more than we did in the 80s and 90s despite having significantly fewer manufacturing workers now. People think manufacturing "left" and while it's true for some industries, manufacturing output has basically stayed the same over the last quarter century.
And consolidation by itself isn't necessary bad, it's who owns it and how big the oversight is. If more farms are owned by corporations, we can get rid of or modify the subsidies that were put in when farms were run by families, and better regulate prices, but I don't see why smaller sections of wheat is preferable when we don't need that many people farming it.
Consolidation is absolutely missing from the analysis of the article and goes a long way to explain why a great economy on paper is not actually translating into better jobs.
Why feel guilty about increasing productivity? Agricultural workers used to be ~80% of the population in 1800. Now it is <2%. We still have an abundance of food and the increase in labour force makes the modern world possible.
While the impact is obviously felt locally in rural areas, no modern economy will face big trouble if that drops to <1%.
Because all the youth leave due to poor opportunities and suddenly you've got no one to take over. Not to mention no young families / death of rural communities. Sounds like a very lonely life out on the farm for those left over. Maybe guilt is the wrong word for it? But as the previous commenter said, the actions they take do confirm the outcome (whether or not they have the power to change it).
This has been happening for years. And people will specialize in agriculture if there's money in it, it just won't be generational.
I know somebody who was a mine engineer who used to work in remote areas where they mined coal, despite not growing up in a mining town herself, she moved where the job was. People will move to Nebraska to grow corn and wheat if it's a decent business opportunity.
It’s a loss of social capital for starters. The more isolated our society becomes, the more our social capital plummets. Which leads to fewer job opportunities and less entrepreneurship as well as worse educational outcomes.
Which is what we are seeing especially in men. Ppl are having fewer and fewer adult friendships, long-term friendships, and intimacy in general.
This atomization and lack of technological regulation is the actual destruction of the family unit and freedom in Western society.
The trends of industrialization have been happening but clearly these issues hyper-inflated during/post COVID because of lockdowns and easy AI access. All of it is leading to politically centralized economies in technological surveillance states that are run by international corporations, national autocrats, or some mix of both.
The UN has been deadlocked since the Korean War bc of the Security Council veto and its permanent membership. If the human race is to persist with the same standards of living our ancestors achieved, we need a new international democratic order that will oppose the centralization of any form of power: be it economic, political, or technological.
More people does not mean less isolation per se. There can be more individuals in a place, but if there are no third places, churches, trade unions, clubs or any place which encourages social engament, isolation goes up (Bowling Alone is a great book which talks about this).
Even cities have become more isolated. As I like to say, cities used to be "coalitions of neighborhoods", in which each one had it´s on "personality", neighbors you used to know and such. Now is a mess of people going in and out constantly, with little chance of anything solidifying.
Add the fact you can pretty much do everyhting online now without talking to anyone via apps if you really try, and that´s it.
Productivity ≠ Improvements for all. It's fine to debate this stuff and highlight where people may be impacted. There is always a cost, and sometimes we may find the cost shouldn't just be stomached.
Such is life. I can't expect my particular position to be around for 50y. If my profession becomes obsolete due to AI it'd suck, but I can always go become a tradie or something (though it would help if my government got rid of it's mandatory 4y indentured servitude to gain a qualification...)
You think it's easy to "become a tradie?" Do you think you can compete for a job with the influx of people who had the same idea, while also competing with people who have done it for years, all the while people have less money to pay for those services because they also got laid off? Would you be ok with working at McDonald's for the rest of your life if that plan doesn't work out?
We can take your approach and let the issues be treated reactively, or we can measure the issues and proactively address them. I'll choose the later, as it probably prevents a lot of pain and suffering. Not to mention I prefer taking an active role in society.
I mean, you could argue that we’re running out of *good paying* jobs. 40 million workers in this country make less than $15/hour. That’s literally excluding the entire state of CA because our minimum wage is higher than that too.
That’s not true. Tens of millions of Americans live in third world conditions without access to things that would be very basic in other developed countries.
Other countries fill the gap with welfare, but that is becoming harder to support because taxes have trended downwards for decades.
An example from the UK, 14 million people are living in food insecurity: https://www.trussell.org.uk/news-and-research/publications/report/hunger-in-the-uk-2025
Does that sound like the poorest in society are better off with this system?
I hear you, and that's exactly what's caused the demographic collapse of rural communities.
The thing is rural communities provide our food. Not exactly obsolete industries. What we are seeing is those communities being aggregated up to big corporations or large family operations. That's a lot of power over food supply, a necessity for all, in the hands of a few wealthy individuals.
That's a different concern to the initial suggestion. I don't think it's one that really matters, either. What downsides are you trying to suggest here? (the "power" in the hands of a few people bit)
Rural communities collapsing is what it is. There's no financial justification for many now. Some places subsist on people wanting the rural lifestyle but only so many people want to pay for that without a financial reward.
This assumes that there aren't ways to change it. It is shows no remorse or care for people which is a frightening way of painting reality. Debate should always consider the human cost, not just the financial return. I don't disagree that you don't see why it matters. But that's exactly why opinions like mine are important when forming the debate. It certainly matters to many Americans.
The problem is that you are so concerned about the specific people who's jobs are lost, but no care at all for the other 98% of the country who pay lower prices as a result.
I'm not moved by appeals to think of those people who's jobs are lost, because you haven't considered the gains everyone else benefits from.
No you assume that it's fine for the other 98% that all their food security is held in the hands of a few wealthy individuals, with that trending to be even fewer people. The power and threat that poses to the 98% of the country that I apparently don't care about is significantly understated. They control exactly what you eat and make decisions that impact the health of everyone.
This is current state of any popular subreddit. Just complain about literally anything? Productivity gain? Bad. Productive falling? Also bad. Productive not changing? Believe it or not, absolutely horrible.
FarmingWhileBeige on YouTube had a short video about this. It might be worth a watch for you and then seeing if his longer videos address what you're seeing.
Doesn't sound unintentional at all other than you not being able to cope with being part of the growing asset class. You are literally doing exactly whatbthey are doing.
My (farming) family has moved from requiring about ten seasonal workers for 200 acres and 50 cows in the summer, back in the 1950s-70s, to being able to work 300 acres and 110 cows with only three people. Two after my grandfather passed.
Owning 4400 at that size is honestly the crazy part. Good for you all. We're at minimum $15,000 an acre in our region. Very few farming 3000+ also own over 1000+. That's a lot of security the family's built. Cherish it, protect it.
"Men who can graft the trees and make the seed fertile and big can find no way to let the hungry people eat their produce. Men who have created new fruits in the world cannot create a system whereby their fruits may be eaten. And the failure hangs over the State like a great sorrow...
and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage."
Labor is in most businesses the largest expense. Automation is generally cheaper, and if you don't do it while your competition does then your business will simply shut down when you can't compete.
OP is running a successful farm and buying out his competition. Your vague advice to "figure it out" is just a moral platitude and it has zero relevance to his business.
A company that rakes in dough while casting their employees aside because they don't give enough of a fuck about them to utilize them is a shitty company.
Big picture, the reality is that it's likely going to continue to get worse until something big breaks. The K shaped recovery is a problem, but it's one more variable on top of an already shaky Jenga tower.Just wait for the AI bubble to either pop or take all the jobs, or take the jobs then pop.
I believe housing rates are still going up, the job market is rough, and companies seem to be reducing benefits and cutting workers while all of this is happening.
The US is in for a very rough patch. The national debt only gets solved by a currency crisis and hyperinflation or the debt gets inflated away over a couple of decades which will debase all us based savings. Another problem is the petro dollar which OPEC is walking away from and that leads to a decreased demand for US dollars and rising interest rates which also make the national debt less manageable. The US dollar is also a petro currency since the US produces about 10 million barrels per day and exports about 6 million bpd of refined petroleum products, oil demand is shrinking and the US is a high cost producer so less revenue from that stream in the future. Trump's trade wars and tariffs as well as pissing off friends and allies also means the US dollar's run as chief reserve currency is coming to an end leading to rising interest rates and the issues mentionned earlier.
This is all bad news for Americans but the US isn't the world. Other parts of the global economy will keep growing and developing world currencies will appreciate against the US dollar. That is people who invest outside of the US will get an easier ride than those who do not.
Agree. This is a terrible article, I was surprised the Atlantic went with it. She says we should be thankful that the unemployment rate is low, but doesn’t account for the kinds of jobs people have or the recent layoffs. Also, she doesn’t mention AI or global warming either. It felt like Pam Bondi when she said, what do you want, the stock market is over 50,000.
We’re counting on the Trump administration for unemployment statistics. Trump fired the person in charge of the Bureau of Labor Statistics for putting out accurate numbers. So, you can bet the official numbers are now cooked.
u/Repulsive-Local-7478 the statistics said the same thing under the Biden administration and didn’t align with many people’s real world experiences.
My own US$0.02, what hits Americans the hardest are what they spend on monthly; groceries, gas, rent and auto insurance. It doesn’t matter what the rate of inflation is when people keep seeing these costs skyrocket.
Add to that the auto industry that has intentionally decided to only cater to the top 15% of the market and you add insult to injury.
Then why does the former BLS chief say we can still trust the numbers? Why, of the hundreds of career statisticians and nonpartisan economists responsible for collecting BLS numbers, exactly zero have come forward to say anything about this vast conspiracy?
It sucks to see a tolerance for weak-minded conspiracy theorizing spread from the right to infect the rest of the political spectrum. Just one more aspect of our democracy they've ruined.
I agree with everything you said except the idea that conspiracy theories are primarily a right-wing thing.
The left in America has spawned tons of conspiracy theories of the years. The two most prominent since 2000 involve 9/11 and vaccine reluctance. A lot of people forget that vaccine reluctance originally came from the left.
Yeah, it seemed more like the author was trying to seek out reasons why she's doing great when public opinion polling is at the lowest in history. Sentences like:
>And if you point out the prosperity we are all experiencing, if definitely not enjoying, people berate you for being snooty and/or naive.
Are we all enjoying this prosperity? All of us? Really?
u/Glittering_dahlia I agree. I generally like the Atlantic’s articles because one the writing is generally good and two I typically disagree with their point of view so they serve to challenge my positions.
This article meets two but fails miserably at one.
Let’s tax 90% of their fortunes away. How long does that last?
About 12 months of full federal spending.
Quick math using the latest numbers:
• Total wealth of all ~989 US billionaires: $8.4 trillion (Forbes)
• 90% one-time tax haul: $7.56 trillion
• Annual federal government spending (CBO projection for FY 2026): $7.4 trillion
That windfall would cover roughly one full year of keeping everything running — Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, defense, debt interest, the works — even if we magically balanced the budget with zero deficit.
After that single year? The money’s gone, and we’re right back where we started.
Reality check (because this is Reddit):
• Most of that wealth isn’t sitting in bank accounts — it’s stocks, companies, real estate. Forced liquidation would crash markets, wipe out 401(k)s, kill jobs, and tank the economy.
• Legal/constitutional hurdles for a wealth tax in the US are enormous.
• It’s a one-time trick, not a long-term fix.
Corporate taxes and fixing massive accounting loopholes that minimize profits are the only way. Then we become Europe.
We did pretty well with 90% tax rates for a while, so let’s not pretend it’s some mythical idea.
But people always miss the other side of these arguments. Like a 90% top marginal rate doesn’t mean the government just gets 90% of everything forever. Eventually a business looking at an exec salary has to ask would they rather pay an exorbitant comp package where a huge chunk goes straight to the government at that top bracket, or redirect that capital into the company? Into R&D, wages, benefits, reinvestment? Weird how incentives work in multiple directions when you actually think it through.
The “taxes aren’t a panacea” and “only one year of funding” people are arguing against a timeline nobody serious is proposing. No one thinks passing a tax tomorrow pays off the debt by the weekend. Social programs compound over time. A kid who grows up with stable housing, adequate nutrition, and healthcare doesn’t show up in the next quarter earnings, they show up twenty years later as a more productive member of society. A population that isn’t rationing medicine or skipping checkups because of cost doesn’t become healthier overnight. But they do become healthier. Then healthcare demand goes down, costs go down. Healthier kids means better performance in school, which means larger pools of students for stem fields, larger pools of creative entrepreneurs starting businesses. But it’s a lot easier to just cut taxes so people get an extra $1,500 this year while their cost of living goes up $2k and quality of life goes to shit.
And it’s not lost on me that what I just said is best case scenario stuff. That’s why we have to commit , as a people, to an idea and monitor progress and not just give up if it’s not perfect right away. These things are hard. We have to do hard things
Heres the fundamental issues with what you're arguing.
Ceo pay generally isn't a major part of business expenses.
As much as we hear about it, most companies are paying their ceos a rounding error for their companies.
Average ceo pay is something like $300k across all companies, and for the top 500 public companies it's $20 million, with the bulk of it generally paid in paid stock options.
We literally already have the government expenditures as if we taxed at that rate.
We have nearly $40,000,000,000,000 in government debt, that means we already spend money as if the tax rate is much higher, and we have for decades, that $40 trillion didn't just turn to nothing, it was real government spending and we got relatively little for it.
Out of that spending, we didnt get infrastructure, we didnt get universal healthcare, we didnt get free secondary education, we didnt get a mountain of things you guys say we would get if we just taxed more.
Bu focusing on taxation over spending you're just focusing on balancing the budget, not actually fixing the root problem of allocation which is the real core issue.
To put it another way, if you gave someone $10,000 for healthcare and food, but then $9500 was spent on guns and cocaine, and then he/she said "I still can't afford to go to the doctor!" Would you give that person more money to fix the problem?
Demonizing the wealthy is such a brilliant strategy—history can’t stop praising it:
• Venezuela: Chávez calls the rich parasites, seizes everything → hyperinflation so bad math breaks, people eating zoo animals, millions fleeing the socialist paradise.
• Zimbabwe: Mugabe screams “colonial exploiters!” and hands “rich” white farms to cronies → breadbasket of Africa becomes famine central.
• Cuba: Castro expropriates the “bourgeois” → brain drain + endless ration books for 60+ years.
Pro tip: Punish wealth creators and you just get less wealth. Every damn time.
You can't even make your tired old right wing talking points without AI assistance. Absolutely zero original thoughts floating around between your ears
Unlike yourself, I’m very familiar with both places & am more than satisfied with my move to the U.S.. Perhaps visiting it via Reddit is your issue? 🤷♂️ No need to get so defensive if you’re personally happy.
Unfortunately the demographics of most of the EU all but guarantees the quality of life to move in a downward trajectory going forward & the personal economic conditions to continue to be stagnant
“Stagnant” economies or “stable” economies? There are a number of quality of life issues in the US that don’t really exist in Europe. The biggest one being the fact that the majority of people in the US are a paycheck or 2 or 3 away from not being able to pay their monthly expenses, including the basics like food, utilities, and healthcare. That situation basically doesn’t exist for the average person in Europe.
Is Europe perfect? No. Are your chances of becoming a billionaire or even a multimillionaire in Europe lower than in the US? In absolute terms, yes, but the statistical difference is so small, it really doesn’t make sense to consider the difference meaningful. Are you more likely to go bankrupt in the US due to factors beyond your control than in Europe? Yes! Substantially!!
Who owns corporations? All of us. When you include pensions, mutual funds, 401ks, etc, individual household investors own 60-65% of the US equity market.
Increase corporate taxes, and all you do is tax everyday people again.
We own corporations? You sir are confused. The top 1% own over 50% of all stock and the top 10% own 87%-93%. Regular people’s 401ks and investments are basically nothing.
On top of that only about 59% of adults in the US have money in a 401k or IRA, break it down by money made and it gets worse. 83% of adults making $100,000 or more have a retirement account while only 28% making under $50,000 have them.
No the average American doesn’t own those corporations and making retirement tied to the stock market is a boon for corporations because they’ve now tricked you into only wanting the stock market to increase under any circumstances, regardless of whatever else happens.
Americans want prices to go down. Like actual deflation, not just a drop in the inflation rate. People want the prices of 2019, and they feel like the economy is terrible until that happens
It’s as simple as that. It’s not a good thing to wish for, but most ordinary people don’t know that and probably don’t care
Are these real wages in the room with us now? This is false data by the way wages have been falling for the past year+ for the same roles and positions which are also consolidating
You're just wrong.
If you look at wages v general inflation, you might have a point, but it's a view lacking in context.
Look at wage growth v consumer staples. Food, housing, power, and transportation. Wages have not been keeping up, and it's gotten way worse recently (which ofc it has because of the gas price increases).
The above homepage should give you the insight you are missing.
Compare "All items" with "all items less food and energy" and then compare them to just energy, electricity, and gasoline.
There're items people have to buy, which are rising much faster than wages, and there're items which people can just not buy, those are pulling down the average.
You can look at stuff like this to get a clearer picture:
Just note it's now way worse because of the recent gas price spike.
There're other ways to calculate it as well, but they all try to hone in more on what people actually spend their money on and what inside that category they spend their money on. For example, it could be that food is getting cheaper as a category, but meat is getting more expensive, and sweets are getting cheaper. This keeps the food category more balanced, but doesn't really reflect the pain a consumer would feel.
Did I say anything about my personal situation wagie? Why do morons always assume that you’re not doing well if you critique the status quo? I do my fucking due diligence and refuse to live in a bubble because my ego can actually take the cognitive dissonance and weight of reality unlike the majority of y’all. You couldn’t even begin to imagine my quality of life and lifestyle lmao
Broad deflation still wouldn’t happen in a market crash. Especially considering what we’ve done with the monetary supply recently. You’d need the Great Depression on steroids for a full decade to get us back to 2019 prices. And even that might still not do it honestly. Broad, market-wide deflation is very hard to actually make happen over a long period of time.
We need massive wealth distribution through taxing the wealthy. Talkin’ FDR’s 80% marginal income tax. Talkin’ “Trust Bustin’ Teddy” punishing the largest companies for thinking they could control the government.
My conspiratorial thought is that the federal minimum wage was introduced to delude workers into believing that politicians could replace their union reps. At the very least, that’s why it wasn’t pegged to inflation.
I think taxes would help but I don't think that's the answer in 1970s America. The income distribution didn't put the money in the hands of the employee.
I am a firm believer that American corporations just got too large. I was started to think the other day about what business I could start where I wouldn't have to compete with a large business that could afford to lose money for a year on end. That wasn't within a 1 mi radius of me.
There is almost no industry in America where you can start a small business. Even barber shops are consolidating at this point. That's one business where you could probably get into.
Cleaning services sort of by nature of the fact that they are mobile. And laundromats. Although almost all of those have the problem that they're oversaturated simply because there is no equivalent of McDonald's/ Walmart/ jiffy lube/ Kroger/ Olive garden / 7-Eleven/ Chevron that has completely dominated the market.
At this point there's just no room for a little guy in America. And without that competition there's only a couple places you can go to work. I know there's different large companies you can go to work for, but if you're in a medium-sized City, your options are extremely limited. Assuming that you want to work local. And competing is virtually impossible If you wanted to start your own local business.
I see that as the problem. We should be taxing really large companies a lot because once a company gets so large and there's only a few large companies they can set the wages.
I would go so far as to say we don't even need to tax large companies. We just need to set limits on how big they can get relative to market share. And if they get too big we have to split them up. They're not competing for market share and because they don't have to compete for market share they don't have to compete to get good employees so they set the price on the wages.
I’m saying the income distribution was more normal because of significantly higher taxes, active trust busting, and significantly higher union membership.
We are agreeing, I think? The political centralization of every industry via M&A and PE has destroyed the free market.
It's the big company thing that really sticks in my craw.
And maybe we wouldn't need big taxes if companies were paying their people fairly and there were less billionaires generally.
I know it won't happen, but I would prefer to see competition as the instigator of better distribution of wealth instead of taxation. But I honestly don't think either one of those will happen
It’s not the whole “solution” but it is undeniable that income disparity is a huge factor. Executives are hugely rewarded for this short-term, rent-seeking, monopolistic behavior. The more inequality grows, the more distorted the market, the more corrupt political institutions become, which leads to less SEC/DOJ/IRS enforcement, which leads to more wage theft, and then more inequality, and continue the spiral downward.
Yeah bad news mate. Instead of a crash we are heading towards and entirely new world monetary system and likely centralized digital currency which is going to turn us all into slaves.
A crash would be horrible and the poor and middle class would suffer the most. A crash doesn’t mean life is the same but with lower prices. A crash means high unemployment, high home foreclosures, higher rates of poverty, etc.
A crash would be extremely bad. We need slowing inflation rates.
Here's a statistic for ya, every one percent unemployment goes up, 40,000 people die. A crash would result in unemployment rising by three or more percentage points. I'll leave the death toll for the "clean slate" as an exercise for the reader.
Specifically a recession where no new money is printed and pumped into the economy, as it has been the last several times anything bad has happened. It doesn’t seem possible anymore that we will see deflation, given the Fed’s apparent willingness to print its way out of financial difficulties for the economy and basically kick the can down the line for later generations.
This. People are pissed burgers are $15. They're still paying for a $15 burger, as the stats and this article are telling us, but they're not happy about it.
I think that’s half the problem. The other half is that $15 burger is crappier than what the same place used to sell not even 10 years ago for half the price.
I tend to agree with you. But I think that's going to work until it doesn't. I think a lot of Middle America and even upper crust tend to put stuff on their credit card thinking this is a short-term problem.
I think if we get to a situation where bankruptcies are going up by 5 or 10% and not in the bottom half of America but in the top half of America, that's when I think we'll really start to know because I think people are living off of their credit cards right now. Or maybe just not saving as much.
Or people are doing way better than I'm being led to believe. But I'm cutting back big time right now and I can actually afford to spend a little more. But I don't want to
They have been. Real wages set record highs in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023, 2024, 2025. People are still pissed. You have what you want and you hate it.
Inflation I dont think is being accurately tracked, compared to the prices people actually pay. What I pay at the grocery store has more than doubled in 7 years. Inflation says its not nearly that. Bull fucking shit. They have not accurately priced in things like insurance, healthcare. A few staple goods have seen marginal gains, but nearly everything else has risen sharply. And when it hasn't, it has seen sharp declines in quality as inferior ingredients get used.
There is also a difference between median and average. Median is feeling the pain a lot more than average. Also I do not think real wages is accurately accounting for how shit the job market can be at times. Longer periods between jobs. Feels far more annoying to find a quality new one, all while you burn through savings.
"Inflation truthers" who are sure that they are accurately remembering their food purchases while also claiming to know the purchasing habits of hundreds of millions of Americans.
I do not believe you when you say you pay more than twice as much at the grocery as 2019. Not even ground beef is up 100% in 7 years.
You are making claims about how others feel when we have actual survey data from people that says that their self-assessment of their own financial situation has been virtually unchanged since 2019 (excepting a blip up in 2021).
We know what a shit job market looks like and it's not the current one. Unemployment rate is 4.3%. Job growth is low but not negative. Anyone who was an adult during the Great Recession knows what "bad" actually looks like.
I mean, if you parcel out the basket, things we can’t avoid spending on are outpacing inflation and the things we can delay or avoid aren’t.
Housing, healthcare, education and insurance are well above stated inflation since 2000. I think food is the one segment that’s actually traced inflation pretty closely.
Your wallet can't tell the difference between a dollar you spend on something you think is a necessity and something you don't.
Most spending on "necessities" is actually a choice, anyway. I've been really, really poor. A lot of things you think are necessary suddenly aren't when you don't actually have any money.
I "need" to be able to afford a 2 bd apartment and live alone becomes "I'm fine with 4 of us in a 2 bd apartment".
In any event, consider the following. I spend $X on things I need and $Y on things I don't in one year. The next year the things I need are $5 more and the things I don't cost the same. My salary increases $6. I am better off even if % increase in things I need exceeded the % increase of my salary.
Key difference between staple goods and the half processed or frozen stuff a lot of us end up buying as a modest chunk of our budget.
Meal from scratch often includes a few boxed or canned goods.
But yes, I do remember quite a lot of prices. Maybe most don't, but i do. I watched my car insurance go up 60%, despite the car only getting older. Watched electricity go way up. Gasoline is always in flux. $4 now isn't nearly as painful as $4 was in 2007 when I made $7 at a part-time job and as a student you made $400 a month after taxes.
But yes, my grocery bill has more than doubled, though not ALL of that is due to inflation. About 60%-70% I would guess. Better diet the other 30-40% I have watched many of the frozen and ready to eat foods I buy for when I am busy DOUBLE in price.
Consolidation and sticky prices in the processing part of the sector has caused high profits but little in the way of price relief after the supply shock. Just corporate profits way up. Now they are enacting fluctuating prices based on consumer and time of day.
Examples of a few base goods: bananas from 40 to 49c. Bread from $1-1.20 to 1.80 to $2. The frozen burritos I liked as a snack from 40c to $1.25 (and had been 25c a while before that).
Prices are not going down to 2019 level. No parties can bring that down without recession. You will go through a deflationary spiral and more job loss.
There is a reason why ~2.0% inflation is the gold standard.
True. It will be a tough problem to solve for any parties. A better case would be a pullback or stagnation of shelter (rent, housing price), and a gradual rise in wages. But that's easier to say than done, given the disruption we have in the job market due to policies and AI.
No, Americans want wages/salaries that actually keep pace with inflation. No one gives a shit what things cost in some abstract absolute sense, they just want to be able to afford to buy stuff at the same level as they did in 2019 or whenever
This is all about inflation, which 3 generations of Americans barely felt for a variety of economic factors. The biggest driver of inflation was driving the economy hot (low interest rates) for way too long as it was politically prudent rather than made sense.
We have a financial crisis. Drop rates. We have a pandemic. Drop rates. President wants it. Drop rates. It’s the one tool that doesn’t need a vote. However, what it has led to is inflation, which is pervasive as all classes feel it, even if not equally.
This article says civil rights are a culture war issue and something people worry about because of affluence. Just absolute ridiculous white privilege and ignorance of actual economics.
"Disease" is a valid material concern but "healthcare" isn't. "Hunger" is valid, but the article glosses over the significant increase in food prices over the past few years.
The author has an almost myopic focus on headline statistics, in an article that purports to discuss consumer sentiment. No one is posting about a 4.3% unemployment rate on TikTok, because the young adults on there are legitimately struggling to find jobs. There could be a good article on why people feel this way, but this author does none of the heavy lifting and the main arguments are (ironically) based on vibes
I feel like you'll understand a lot more about the author if you know she's Ezra Klein's wife and therefore willingly chose to spend a life together with him.
"Why Americans are so unhappy"? Fucking look inward, lady.
I noticed the shoutout to Derek Thompson but didn't think anything of it. In hindsight, using the royal "we" to refer to him as a collaborator should've tipped me off
Nope, never have. Thankfully, you're here to give me the specifics of my ignorance instead of leaving a pithy comment that doesn't add anything to the discussion.
wtf is this idiot even talking about? Personally, I LOST my job in April 2025 when Trump’s tariffs hit and my employer, an engineering firm, had its biggest client put an 18 month freeze on all construction projects due to those tariffs. After looking for work for months, I finally was hired in December. I now make $25K a year LESS than I did. So when this asshole says “this economy is booming”, I don’t know what the fuck they are talking about.
Fuck them for writing such a dishonest puff piece, and fuck Trump for tanking a decent economy. And fuck any of you assholes that voted for this.
Ok. At any given time, even in a white hot economy, there will be someone somewhere getting screwed. This has never not been the case.
Aggregate data is a lot more helpful in understanding what’s going on than “I personally lost my job last year and found it hard to find a new one.”
Your experience is highly specific to who you are as an individual, where you live, what industry you work in, and a million other factors that make it simply an unhelpful comment.
This is the problem tho, do you believe this government’s aggregated data? Do you remember when Trump fired the the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor statistics because of a weak jobs report?
>> The rate of underemployment is low, and the rate of labor-force participation is high, meaning that there's no pool of discouraged workers lurking behind the marquee jobs statistics.
>> And if you point out the prosperity we are all experiencing, if definitely not enjoying, people berate you for being snooty and/or naive.
but it's a real actual person instead of "trends" made up from massaged financial numbers. it takes a real financial analysis to smile and lie so blatantly when the truth is pissing in their face
It's probably safe to say it would not be the exact same economy, as Harris had no interest in introducing sweeping tariffs, laying off federal workers, cutting funding, starting a war with Iran, and aggravating trading partners.
Every analysis I've seen says that the majority of Americans, inlcuding Republicans, have a poor outlook on the economy now, under a Republican President, so your "broader point" seems to have reached its breaking point.
There’s now a consistently huge partisan gap in the outlook that started under Obama and continues under Trump, Biden, and Trump again. The gap literally flips the moment power changes.
It’s boom in not engineering. You’re an engineer lol, should be smart enough to see that the large winners in AI and tech infrastructure are carrying the most. As an engineer you should be smart enough to pivot if needed
50,000 layoffs in 2026 are directly tied to AI. The boom you’re talking about is for who, exactly? As an engineer, I’m smart enough to know what’s real and what’s bullshit
Sure. I mean engineering in all disciplines in large metro areas are doing well but rural is facing struggles. Smart enough to see the bigger picture there?
Yo we’re mad because I just got a 15% raise this year and a 20% raise in nov 2024 and I still have no money without any life style changes. My tax returns go to paying off debt to actually go live a tiny bit and have a small vacation once a year. I’ll make $100k this year, almost twice as much as my dad ever made his entire career and it means literally nothing. I feel like if you didn’t own a house prior to the rise in prices you are fucked no matter what you do. My parents bought their first house on a $1.5k monthly salary and were still able to afford a brand new 4 runner in 1990.
Isn’t paying off debt meaning you’re moving forward? And when it’s paid off you’ll have even more than ever to spend? It’s hard to see the progress when it’s a number going down on a screen and not clothing / trips, but it’s still amazing progress and you’re doing better than your dad ever did. I’m sure he’s quite proud of you too.
I mean paid off as in the debt balance is zero. Unless you’re paying like 10% interest i’d imagine you’d end up getting it paid down after ~7 years of being in the workforce? Some employers even offer debt assistance. It may look dim but you’re still doing well. Keep up the good work and drown out the noise. You got this
Yet another out of touch article from the atlantic.
> Seventy years ago, voters were overwhelmingly concerned with life-and-death issues: war, hunger, disease, violence. Today voters are more worried about social concerns: the environment, minority rights, immigration, health policy, casitas, I guess.
"I guess."
Holy shit.
Not to mention the outright REFUSAL to comment on the disparate classes of Americans. There's a group of americans who are loving this. The stock market is ripping and there are unprecedented gains being made by a certain class of people. Then there are the rest of us who are struggling as gas hits $70-90 to fill up to commute to work that barely covers expenses. But the writers at the Atlantic don't give a shit and will keep treating everyone as a singular monolith.
It isn't just people with a lot of money in the stock market, though. The middle class is being bifurcated and those on top are doing better than ever
Apparently the new thing on this sub is to argue that there isn't a K shaped economy at all, to which I reply y'all got eyes? Upper middle class spending is skyrocketing to such a degree that numerous entire markets are shifting to cater to them, including some important ones like the automotive industry, meanwhile massive inflation continues to squeeze the lack of pay increases.
I am aware that there was a significant pay increase for a couple years and lots of smart people who know a lot about economics like to point to that and say look we fixed it, but although significant it was really only a temporary band aid. I have been watching more and more of my friends and family approaching the financial brink while also seeing the amount of high end tourism in nearby national parks and forests (I live in the California Sierra) absolutely explode over the last few years. There are numerous other signs of a growing upper middle class of course, but this one is in my face every day, along with their new $200,000 4x4 Sprinter RVs.
I understand that the plural of anecdote isn't data, but I think also highly educated people can often be culturally cut off from most Americans. And when basically everyone in the working and lower middle class are saying this is an extremely difficult economy maybe that should be taken seriously and not dismissed as vibes from ignoramuses.
So I don't think this will get fixed soon, because no one in academia or politics seems to understand this problem or take it seriously except for "radicals" and so called leftists. You get squeezed long enough and you can't get squeezed much more. Dunno what's so hard to understand about it.
Are highly educated people cut off from most Americans?
It's not uncommon for people with differing education levels to socialize with each other, even at work. I know bartenders with Bachelor's degrees working alongside those without, my partner works at a grocery store and it's pretty even split between those with just a high school degree, those with a bachelor's degree, and those with an advanced degree.
And anecdotally it seems that people with just an undergrad degree and those with a masters degree almost always share the same spaces.
Just my perspective as somebody with just a high school degree living in the DC area where we have a pretty wide diversity of education level.
> Apparently the new thing on this sub is to argue that there isn't a K shaped economy at all
Selection bias realistically. The people who have the time to shitpost on reddit are likely on the upward trending part of that K shaped economy and from their POV of course everything is going great. The people who are really suffering aren't spending their time discussing articles about economy on reddit. But that bias just feeds into their world view bubble even harder to the point where they believe everyone else is just like them because the only comments they see are from people in similar situations.
> because no one in academia or politics seems to understand this problem or take it seriously
That's because at some point people stop becoming people to them and become statistics and trends. They're so removed from the struggles that even when they talk about people struggling they don't actually visualize a person. Just some cluster of data that reports financial struggles. It sucks but I agree that this won't get fixed soon and honestly I don't know if it can be fixed ever.
Like the environment isn't life and death. It's literally everything. Food for starters... let's talk about chronic drought, extended fire seasons, etc.
When you work for the atlantic as a staff writer and have full coverage for health insurance you forget that the rest of american workers don't even have health insurance at all. Most of my friends are on some form of public health insurance where a doctor's appt is scheduled 4-7 months in the future due to booking times but staff writers at the atlantic wouldn't understand what that means.
When you are rating the economy and there are only four options, why do you rate the top two together and the bottom two together? Is everything black and white? Is there no grey anymore?
Luckily consumer sentiment surveys are one of the least useful metrics for anything useful and very rarely correlate to any actual economic indicators, even ones like consumer spending which one would expect to see direct a correlation
Consumer sentiment has inversely tracked [now record] corporate profit margins, which the top 10-20% have received the greatest benefit from, for over 2 decades now. It's a useful metric and hardly shocking the two are so closely related.
Beneficiaries and ill informed would just prefer that no one notices either [except record profits on earnings calls of course!], and claim they don't matter or are irrelevant, while they squeeze the bottom 4 quintiles.
It's easy to fool the majority for quite a while, even decades or longer, since the top quintile owns all major media and nearly every politician has been a shameless, self-serving traitor to the working class.
This post got to be ai, cause vibecession and permacession just sound like words to describe how the bottom 99.9% fight for existence regarding food and clean drinking water vs you.
I have an ongoing argument with a chat GPT project about the K-shaped economy. The Economist had a long article about how there isn't one, and I wanted to understand why people thought there was a K shape.
I think I got somewhere in this recent exchange about vibesession and permisession, where I asked about poverty line and median income spending:
> for poverty-line households, historically bad on affordability despite decent jobs; for median-income households, historically decent on income/jobs but historically strained on housing and major life costs.
Thus the perception of the K-shape, despite wage growth and employment numbers. Everybody else might understand this; hi! When it comes to economics, I'm usually "the first to admit it, the last one to know".
We have a one whole generation of now middle aged adults who chose to do other stuff with their money or just weren’t in a position to buy a house 15 years ago. The hindsight to that is making a lot of people very angry.
I have been thinking about this for a while. And recently I heard a podcast on the history of Taiwan. The guest answered a question about American kids by saying that by the time Taiwanese kids graduate high school, they have the same education as an American post graduate.
Also, I had a roommate from New Zealand who was a senior I. College but taking his last year at a law school in San Diego. Because that’s how they are, your university degree is your postgraduate study.
So finally, I have to look back at the amazing progress china has with their high speed rail system and I see that the fundamental problem is that the country was set up by lawyers through a legal lens.
Whole they attempted to build an “egalitarian” society, they in fact built a country that has its citizens test the laws and see what we can get away with. More sinisterly, we created a new class of human, the corporation. It is stateless and has no head to cut off. This I don’t think we can come back from.
And is our ultimate downfall. We are raised to be lawyers while a very small percentage of us actually become ones. Meanwhile, china is raising engineers, and their infrastructure and technical progress shows just how well that is working for their society.
(Did I finally make a comment on economics, or will this one be removed too?)
Charming-Border7429 | 16 hours ago
I think about this a lot. As I, unintentionally, am a part of the problem.
We have a family agricultural business. Our focus is on efficiency and automation.
However, as we grow and refine our operation, it takes less and less labor to do the same amount of work. Currently, we grow crops on 4,400 acres we own and work another 2,500 acres for neighbors. It takes five adult family members to run things. We hire 6-8 retired neighbors to help us plant in the spring. That takes about 3 weeks. Every fall, for 6-7 weeks, we hire 15-20 people to help operate equipment for harvest.
50 years ago, a local farm was 200-250 acres, and it supported an extended family. Now, our single-family farm is 20 times that size.
One by one, as area farmer sell, we buy their land. Mom and Dad, or grandpa and Grandma, are happy because they now have $1-2 million in cash for their retirement. But there are a lot of very angry kids with very limited job prospects.
I don't think this level of consolidation is healthy... but if we don't buy it, a private equity firm swoops in and buys the land. Often destroying or severely degrading it for short-term profits.
IKillZombies4Cash | 15 hours ago
You are doing what Starbucks or a national bakery chain does. You are the CEO gobbling up small businesses that put generations through school and funded lives and replacing those with minimum wage jobs while you make the profit
But if you didn’t, someone else would and you’d be the one gobbled up and then making sub human wages
Charming-Border7429 | 15 hours ago
That is exactly it. Higher productivity allows us to expand and produce our products more inexpensively.
But those same productivity increases undercut our traditional neighbors, resulting in a long-term concentration of wealth.
MajesticBread9147 | 13 hours ago
The power big businesses have over politics is one thing, but are small businesses really that much better from a labor perspective?
I've worked for small & medium sized businesses , and trillion dollar companies, the latter is a better experience.
And from what I can tell the effect kind of evens out on a local level. For example my hometown doesn't have any locally owned grocery chains or that many small businesses aside from restaurants, but it has the headquarters for Boeing. We lost our regional bank when they merged, but in return we got one of America's largest banks headquartered a few miles away.
And larger businesses are generally better at recruiting. It's not common to see small businesses at T20 universities trying to recruit to get people to move across the country because they just don't have that reach, but people from around the country and world move and benefit my local economy because of our local business that happen to have a national reach.
iridescent_algae | 6 hours ago
5-7 big businesses in an industry is the best for employment. They have to compete, invest, and compete for talent. 1-3 big businesses in an industry don’t compete for talent or consumers. They just extract as much as they can.
jventura1110 | an hour ago
>but are small businesses really that much better from a labor perspective?
From a labor perspective, large businesses are more likely to offer better incentives. However small businesses often offer different kinds of incentives, such as more diverse hiring, flexible employment, and pathways to ownership. Large businesses are likely to optimize the hiring process to recruit the most productive long-term worker, whereas small businesses may be more flexible, thus opening employment opportunities to those that might normally be weeded out during the process (part-time/seasonal workers, workers with disabilities, seniors, etc).
From an economic perspective, it's important for localities to have a healthy mix of small businesses and branches of large businesses. For one, small businesses keep revenue circulating locally which builds wealth in the region, whereas large enterprises move a lot of revenue out (to national HQ, to shareholders, non-local investments etc). Additionally, enterprise businesses generally optimize for scale. The consolidation of grocery store chains is a big contributor to food deserts. It's normally up to small businesses to fill in gaps that large businesses have decided aren't profitable at scale.
Sadly_NotAPlatypus | 14 hours ago
I don't think productivity increases are necessarily tied to concentration of wealth like this. The income of labor in many economies rise alongside productivity gains, and it used to be this way in the USA as well before we got trickle down brain rot.
I don't think it's inherent to capitalism, although it may be inherent to the USA's sort of capitalism, I'm not a political scientist idk. But I do think the evidence strongly suggests it's a policy choice and one many other capitalist economies are choosing differently.
Knerd5 | 13 hours ago
Productivity gains haven’t been equitably shared with workers for decades and that’s the entire problem. It’s more prevalent in this country than others but it seems like it’s going on everywhere.
Sadly_NotAPlatypus | 2 hours ago
It isn't going on everywhere, other rich nations are experiencing rising wages with productivity growth. Their wages aren't rising significantly because productivity isn't increasing rapidly in many developed nations.
kerkula | 27 minutes ago
Another name for American style capitalism is Reaganomics.
Timbo1994 | 14 hours ago
I think what leads to concentration of wealth is when the productivity gains slow, but the incumbent remains locked in. That's Piketty's line anyway.
Gun_Dork | 2 hours ago
It’s ok to want things, it’s ok to have things, it’s not ok to take advantage of others for things that you want.
You’re putting the work in, you’re employing people, old farmers are benefiting, and if it wasn’t you, it would be someone else to run that land into dust.
Vannaka420 | 8 minutes ago
I really dislike the broad anti-business, morralistic sentiment that seems to be growing in the US. Broadly, productivity improvements are a good thing and lift all boats in the economy. The goods you produce ultimately lead to lower prices for consumers down the line. And the goods and services you use as inputs are creating economic growth elsewhere. As you've pointed out, this shifts where the economy, and thus money, ends up geographically, leading to some people "losing" as long as they don't want to move for better opertunities. Opertunities that you're helping to contribute to through your business purchases. I think this process is overall beneficial to our society and it's ultimately a question of how to help those who are most negatively affected by the reshuffling. It's awesome that you're conscious of and thinking about the impacts of your success!
em_washington | 6 hours ago
I try to think about what policies would need to be in place to drive it the other way. So big farms and big business were cracking up and supporting more smaller farms/businesses with more workers total.
And would we want to actually live in a country with those policies!? Efficiency is something we’ve been striving for since at least the renaissance. It’s not bad. Even the poor people today live better than the wealthy did just a couple hundred years ago.
JiveTurkey927 | 14 hours ago
It’s not quite the same though, in many cases, farmers aren’t being pushed out. They’re selling their land willingly because they either don’t want to farm anymore, no one wants the farm when they die, or they do want to farm but would rather have a couple million dollars instead. People make a similar argument about warehouses where I live, and get so fired up about how warehouses are taking over farm land. Except, no one wants the farm land and in most cases, being a farmer sucks.
Swoly_Deadlift | 3 hours ago
I feel like if a farmer sells because they aren’t able to make a reasonable living off the land that provided for their parents and grandparents due to changing economic conditions, that is the same as being pushed out.
jmodshelp | 2 hours ago
I’m seeing a whole industry by me die with 90% mortality. Some methods of large commercial farming are viable, but between diseases, viruses, environmental changes, the price increase of supplies, shortage of good workers for a reasonable price ( ties into the price of everything).
Then you also have increasing regulations and laws, local issues such as zoning and so many others.
Lost my decade plus career specifically aquaculture due to bad management, bad luck with environmental changes, and a host of other factors.
OkCluejay172 | 14 hours ago
The small farm owners are cashing out for millions. If they can’t set up their family with that money it’s either a skill issue or they don’t want to.
VividMonotones | 4 hours ago
I would rather have a family farm that has its future in mind rather than the next quarter. I'm all for efficiency, but there's something lost when strategic planning goes out the window.
MajesticBread9147 | 14 hours ago
Agriculture was the first industry for labor to decrease despite output significantly increasing.
Less than a century ago, we had something like a third of America's population living on farms, yet now it's about 2% and we're still a net food exporter. It's long enough ago that most people don't see farming as a major employer.
Then came manufacturing. We still manufacture more than we did in the 80s and 90s despite having significantly fewer manufacturing workers now. People think manufacturing "left" and while it's true for some industries, manufacturing output has basically stayed the same over the last quarter century.
And consolidation by itself isn't necessary bad, it's who owns it and how big the oversight is. If more farms are owned by corporations, we can get rid of or modify the subsidies that were put in when farms were run by families, and better regulate prices, but I don't see why smaller sections of wheat is preferable when we don't need that many people farming it.
Owlbertowlbert | 14 hours ago
I am very confused how this relates to the article, if you read it. Genuinely.
strangetomatoe | 11 hours ago
I'm not sure either but it is an interesting post
Owlbertowlbert | 4 hours ago
It is. Just wasn’t expecting such a non sequitur.
iridescent_algae | 6 hours ago
Consolidation is absolutely missing from the analysis of the article and goes a long way to explain why a great economy on paper is not actually translating into better jobs.
thatgirlzhao | 9 hours ago
It’s called karma farming lol
PMMEYourTatasGirl | 6 hours ago
Who tf reads articles lol
Dangerous-Sport-2347 | 15 hours ago
Why feel guilty about increasing productivity? Agricultural workers used to be ~80% of the population in 1800. Now it is <2%. We still have an abundance of food and the increase in labour force makes the modern world possible.
While the impact is obviously felt locally in rural areas, no modern economy will face big trouble if that drops to <1%.
No_Expression_3299 | 15 hours ago
>Why feel guilty about increasing productivity?
I think he was referring to the market consolidation, though I find it ironic that people in the economics subreddit missed that bit.
ImIndiez | 15 hours ago
Because all the youth leave due to poor opportunities and suddenly you've got no one to take over. Not to mention no young families / death of rural communities. Sounds like a very lonely life out on the farm for those left over. Maybe guilt is the wrong word for it? But as the previous commenter said, the actions they take do confirm the outcome (whether or not they have the power to change it).
MajesticBread9147 | 14 hours ago
This has been happening for years. And people will specialize in agriculture if there's money in it, it just won't be generational.
I know somebody who was a mine engineer who used to work in remote areas where they mined coal, despite not growing up in a mining town herself, she moved where the job was. People will move to Nebraska to grow corn and wheat if it's a decent business opportunity.
Thlaeton | 13 hours ago
It’s a loss of social capital for starters. The more isolated our society becomes, the more our social capital plummets. Which leads to fewer job opportunities and less entrepreneurship as well as worse educational outcomes.
Which is what we are seeing especially in men. Ppl are having fewer and fewer adult friendships, long-term friendships, and intimacy in general.
This atomization and lack of technological regulation is the actual destruction of the family unit and freedom in Western society.
The trends of industrialization have been happening but clearly these issues hyper-inflated during/post COVID because of lockdowns and easy AI access. All of it is leading to politically centralized economies in technological surveillance states that are run by international corporations, national autocrats, or some mix of both.
The UN has been deadlocked since the Korean War bc of the Security Council veto and its permanent membership. If the human race is to persist with the same standards of living our ancestors achieved, we need a new international democratic order that will oppose the centralization of any form of power: be it economic, political, or technological.
MajesticBread9147 | 12 hours ago
Isn't more people moving to larger population centers causing our society to become less isolated?
ScientistBest3901 | 7 hours ago
More people does not mean less isolation per se. There can be more individuals in a place, but if there are no third places, churches, trade unions, clubs or any place which encourages social engament, isolation goes up (Bowling Alone is a great book which talks about this).
Even cities have become more isolated. As I like to say, cities used to be "coalitions of neighborhoods", in which each one had it´s on "personality", neighbors you used to know and such. Now is a mess of people going in and out constantly, with little chance of anything solidifying.
Add the fact you can pretty much do everyhting online now without talking to anyone via apps if you really try, and that´s it.
Meandering_Cabbage | 15 hours ago
This has to be the strangest place on reddit to be arguing against rising productivity.
We don't have personal typists anymore- not a bad thing.
More bothered about consolidation and historically high profit margins which are probably a sign of rentier behavior.
ImIndiez | 15 hours ago
Productivity ≠ Improvements for all. It's fine to debate this stuff and highlight where people may be impacted. There is always a cost, and sometimes we may find the cost shouldn't just be stomached.
ClearlyAThrowawai | 14 hours ago
Productivity raises the average wealth level of a country. People need to find a new job if they're affected.
It's unfortunate for that demographic, but we can't keep around obsolete, pointless jobs as welfare forever.
Regular_Fault_2345 | 14 hours ago
What happens when there aren't enough jobs to go around because everything is automated?
ClearlyAThrowawai | 14 hours ago
We'll find out when we run out of jobs.
We've heard the "run out of jobs" bit a few times at this point. Someday it'll even be true.
Regular_Fault_2345 | 14 hours ago
Let's see how cavalier you are when you get laid off in a year or two.
ClearlyAThrowawai | 13 hours ago
And I'll go find another job.
Such is life. I can't expect my particular position to be around for 50y. If my profession becomes obsolete due to AI it'd suck, but I can always go become a tradie or something (though it would help if my government got rid of it's mandatory 4y indentured servitude to gain a qualification...)
Regular_Fault_2345 | 13 hours ago
You think it's easy to "become a tradie?" Do you think you can compete for a job with the influx of people who had the same idea, while also competing with people who have done it for years, all the while people have less money to pay for those services because they also got laid off? Would you be ok with working at McDonald's for the rest of your life if that plan doesn't work out?
ImIndiez | 13 hours ago
We can take your approach and let the issues be treated reactively, or we can measure the issues and proactively address them. I'll choose the later, as it probably prevents a lot of pain and suffering. Not to mention I prefer taking an active role in society.
Knerd5 | 13 hours ago
I mean, you could argue that we’re running out of *good paying* jobs. 40 million workers in this country make less than $15/hour. That’s literally excluding the entire state of CA because our minimum wage is higher than that too.
ClearlyAThrowawai | 13 hours ago
But the poorest among us can afford more goods and luxuries than every before because of the lower prices available thanks to automation.
Look at the things that are still expensive.
Restaurant food. Medicine. Houses. These are all things that are currently only producible via (lots of) human labor. That's why they're expensive.
roodammy44 | 12 hours ago
That’s not true. Tens of millions of Americans live in third world conditions without access to things that would be very basic in other developed countries.
Other countries fill the gap with welfare, but that is becoming harder to support because taxes have trended downwards for decades.
An example from the UK, 14 million people are living in food insecurity: https://www.trussell.org.uk/news-and-research/publications/report/hunger-in-the-uk-2025
Does that sound like the poorest in society are better off with this system?
ImIndiez | 14 hours ago
I hear you, and that's exactly what's caused the demographic collapse of rural communities.
The thing is rural communities provide our food. Not exactly obsolete industries. What we are seeing is those communities being aggregated up to big corporations or large family operations. That's a lot of power over food supply, a necessity for all, in the hands of a few wealthy individuals.
ClearlyAThrowawai | 14 hours ago
That's a different concern to the initial suggestion. I don't think it's one that really matters, either. What downsides are you trying to suggest here? (the "power" in the hands of a few people bit)
Rural communities collapsing is what it is. There's no financial justification for many now. Some places subsist on people wanting the rural lifestyle but only so many people want to pay for that without a financial reward.
ImIndiez | 14 hours ago
This assumes that there aren't ways to change it. It is shows no remorse or care for people which is a frightening way of painting reality. Debate should always consider the human cost, not just the financial return. I don't disagree that you don't see why it matters. But that's exactly why opinions like mine are important when forming the debate. It certainly matters to many Americans.
ClearlyAThrowawai | 13 hours ago
The problem is that you are so concerned about the specific people who's jobs are lost, but no care at all for the other 98% of the country who pay lower prices as a result.
I'm not moved by appeals to think of those people who's jobs are lost, because you haven't considered the gains everyone else benefits from.
ImIndiez | 13 hours ago
No you assume that it's fine for the other 98% that all their food security is held in the hands of a few wealthy individuals, with that trending to be even fewer people. The power and threat that poses to the 98% of the country that I apparently don't care about is significantly understated. They control exactly what you eat and make decisions that impact the health of everyone.
Fearless-Feature-830 | 7 hours ago
I mean they don’t provide our food necessarily. They sell it to other countries and we eat food frown around the world
m0nty555 | 13 hours ago
This is current state of any popular subreddit. Just complain about literally anything? Productivity gain? Bad. Productive falling? Also bad. Productive not changing? Believe it or not, absolutely horrible.
fredjutsu | 8 hours ago
We have an abundance of low nutrition, high calorie food that makes us fat and depressed.
JustHereForCookies17 | 2 hours ago
FarmingWhileBeige on YouTube had a short video about this. It might be worth a watch for you and then seeing if his longer videos address what you're seeing.
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/h4SDmgb6F2s
deathfaces | 5 hours ago
So, then develop a way to use your resources to give them jobs.
Bloodsucker_ | 6 hours ago
Wrong take. Absolute wrong take.
Automation and machinery is good. If you were to need 10x the people you needed now. You wouldn't be able to do so.
Sircamembert | 14 hours ago
Or turn it into a data center.
DylonSpittinHotFire | 7 hours ago
Doesn't sound unintentional at all other than you not being able to cope with being part of the growing asset class. You are literally doing exactly whatbthey are doing.
DaneLimmish | 5 hours ago
My (farming) family has moved from requiring about ten seasonal workers for 200 acres and 50 cows in the summer, back in the 1950s-70s, to being able to work 300 acres and 110 cows with only three people. Two after my grandfather passed.
Cpt_sneakmouse | 5 hours ago
Nash equilibrium.
DefinitelyNWYT | 4 hours ago
Owning 4400 at that size is honestly the crazy part. Good for you all. We're at minimum $15,000 an acre in our region. Very few farming 3000+ also own over 1000+. That's a lot of security the family's built. Cherish it, protect it.
MisterGregory | 3 hours ago
"Men who can graft the trees and make the seed fertile and big can find no way to let the hungry people eat their produce. Men who have created new fruits in the world cannot create a system whereby their fruits may be eaten. And the failure hangs over the State like a great sorrow...
and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage."
lavapig_love | 2 hours ago
When your parents and grandparents die, sell the farms back to the local families in parcels.
OkProcess5800 | 15 hours ago
>Our focus is on efficiency and automation. However, as we grow and refine our operation, it takes less and less labor to do the same amount of work.
You say "however", as though this is some unforeseen, unintended consequence of your stated focus
MajesticBread9147 | 13 hours ago
Yeah, it's like "as we improve MPG standards, we begin to use less and less gasoline"
Rambogoingham1 | 15 hours ago
Monopoly in real time…..
One-Employment3759 | 13 hours ago
If genuine, you are not problem because you provide food.
The problem is all the crypto shills, ai bullshit, high frequency traders etc siphoning money from productive labour.
Maleficent-Bother535 | 14 hours ago
Why not figure out a way to increase profits with additional labor instead of attempting to cut as much labor as possible for the same production?
TrontRaznik | 14 hours ago
Labor is in most businesses the largest expense. Automation is generally cheaper, and if you don't do it while your competition does then your business will simply shut down when you can't compete.
Maleficent-Bother535 | 14 hours ago
Not everything can be automated. Automate what you can then utilize expertise and skill to do more.
TrontRaznik | 14 hours ago
But they majority of farm work can be automated and that's the topic at hand
Maleficent-Bother535 | 14 hours ago
Figure out how to make money off skill and expertise for work that isn't in the majority.
TrontRaznik | 14 hours ago
Just figure it out" is not sound business or economic advice.
Maleficent-Bother535 | 14 hours ago
If there's a way to make profit from skill and expertise, that's literally the job of company leadership to research and determine.
Throwing up your hands and forgetting about it is shitty leadership.
TrontRaznik | 13 hours ago
OP is running a successful farm and buying out his competition. Your vague advice to "figure it out" is just a moral platitude and it has zero relevance to his business.
Maleficent-Bother535 | 13 hours ago
A company that rakes in dough while casting their employees aside because they don't give enough of a fuck about them to utilize them is a shitty company.
MajesticBread9147 | 13 hours ago
I can't imagine that's realistic for many industries, farming especially.
The limitation is the land and the time it takes to grow stuff. It's not like they are leaving food in fields because they can't harvest it all.
good4y0u | 13 hours ago
Big picture, the reality is that it's likely going to continue to get worse until something big breaks. The K shaped recovery is a problem, but it's one more variable on top of an already shaky Jenga tower.Just wait for the AI bubble to either pop or take all the jobs, or take the jobs then pop.
I believe housing rates are still going up, the job market is rough, and companies seem to be reducing benefits and cutting workers while all of this is happening.
TheSwitchler | 4 hours ago
Change always happen gradually, then all at once. Sooner or later we are going to arrive at the "all at once"
farticustheelder | 11 hours ago
The US is in for a very rough patch. The national debt only gets solved by a currency crisis and hyperinflation or the debt gets inflated away over a couple of decades which will debase all us based savings. Another problem is the petro dollar which OPEC is walking away from and that leads to a decreased demand for US dollars and rising interest rates which also make the national debt less manageable. The US dollar is also a petro currency since the US produces about 10 million barrels per day and exports about 6 million bpd of refined petroleum products, oil demand is shrinking and the US is a high cost producer so less revenue from that stream in the future. Trump's trade wars and tariffs as well as pissing off friends and allies also means the US dollar's run as chief reserve currency is coming to an end leading to rising interest rates and the issues mentionned earlier.
This is all bad news for Americans but the US isn't the world. Other parts of the global economy will keep growing and developing world currencies will appreciate against the US dollar. That is people who invest outside of the US will get an easier ride than those who do not.
IslayTzash | 4 hours ago
It’s comforting to know the billionaires won’t be hurt much.
nav13eh | 15 hours ago
BILLIONAIRES are sucking Americans dry. Taxes are too low on corporations and the rich. There's is way way too much money in politics.
No wonder Americans are upset.
Glittering_dahlia | 13 hours ago
Agree. This is a terrible article, I was surprised the Atlantic went with it. She says we should be thankful that the unemployment rate is low, but doesn’t account for the kinds of jobs people have or the recent layoffs. Also, she doesn’t mention AI or global warming either. It felt like Pam Bondi when she said, what do you want, the stock market is over 50,000.
Repulsive-Local-7478 | 12 hours ago
We’re counting on the Trump administration for unemployment statistics. Trump fired the person in charge of the Bureau of Labor Statistics for putting out accurate numbers. So, you can bet the official numbers are now cooked.
I-Way_Vagabond | 8 hours ago
u/Repulsive-Local-7478 the statistics said the same thing under the Biden administration and didn’t align with many people’s real world experiences.
My own US$0.02, what hits Americans the hardest are what they spend on monthly; groceries, gas, rent and auto insurance. It doesn’t matter what the rate of inflation is when people keep seeing these costs skyrocket.
Add to that the auto industry that has intentionally decided to only cater to the top 15% of the market and you add insult to injury.
Bill_Nihilist | 10 hours ago
Then why does the former BLS chief say we can still trust the numbers? Why, of the hundreds of career statisticians and nonpartisan economists responsible for collecting BLS numbers, exactly zero have come forward to say anything about this vast conspiracy?
It sucks to see a tolerance for weak-minded conspiracy theorizing spread from the right to infect the rest of the political spectrum. Just one more aspect of our democracy they've ruined.
justcommenting98765 | 8 hours ago
I agree with everything you said except the idea that conspiracy theories are primarily a right-wing thing.
The left in America has spawned tons of conspiracy theories of the years. The two most prominent since 2000 involve 9/11 and vaccine reluctance. A lot of people forget that vaccine reluctance originally came from the left.
BardicSense | 7 hours ago
It never came from the left, it came from Oprah doctors, scientologists and "Christian scientists."
Rufio69696969 | an hour ago
It absolutely came from the hippie/organic/naturopathic left.
Maybe “come from” is the wrong verbiage.
They loudly bought into it
korben2600 | 11 hours ago
Yeah, it seemed more like the author was trying to seek out reasons why she's doing great when public opinion polling is at the lowest in history. Sentences like:
>And if you point out the prosperity we are all experiencing, if definitely not enjoying, people berate you for being snooty and/or naive.
Are we all enjoying this prosperity? All of us? Really?
I-Way_Vagabond | 8 hours ago
u/Glittering_dahlia I agree. I generally like the Atlantic’s articles because one the writing is generally good and two I typically disagree with their point of view so they serve to challenge my positions.
This article meets two but fails miserably at one.
Opening-Restaurant83 | 15 hours ago
Billionaires are the scapegoats.
Let’s tax 90% of their fortunes away. How long does that last?
About 12 months of full federal spending. Quick math using the latest numbers: • Total wealth of all ~989 US billionaires: $8.4 trillion (Forbes) • 90% one-time tax haul: $7.56 trillion • Annual federal government spending (CBO projection for FY 2026): $7.4 trillion That windfall would cover roughly one full year of keeping everything running — Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, defense, debt interest, the works — even if we magically balanced the budget with zero deficit. After that single year? The money’s gone, and we’re right back where we started. Reality check (because this is Reddit): • Most of that wealth isn’t sitting in bank accounts — it’s stocks, companies, real estate. Forced liquidation would crash markets, wipe out 401(k)s, kill jobs, and tank the economy. • Legal/constitutional hurdles for a wealth tax in the US are enormous. • It’s a one-time trick, not a long-term fix.
Corporate taxes and fixing massive accounting loopholes that minimize profits are the only way. Then we become Europe.
mancubbed | 15 hours ago
Ah the classic "it's a horror show now but anything we try to do to make it better will destroy the world".
We get it, your place in the system is comfortable so you want to continue with the current system.
Frylock304 | 14 hours ago
There's plenty of other options, but taxation is not a panacea, and people always treat it like it will solve everything
elon_musks_cat | 13 hours ago
We did pretty well with 90% tax rates for a while, so let’s not pretend it’s some mythical idea.
But people always miss the other side of these arguments. Like a 90% top marginal rate doesn’t mean the government just gets 90% of everything forever. Eventually a business looking at an exec salary has to ask would they rather pay an exorbitant comp package where a huge chunk goes straight to the government at that top bracket, or redirect that capital into the company? Into R&D, wages, benefits, reinvestment? Weird how incentives work in multiple directions when you actually think it through.
The “taxes aren’t a panacea” and “only one year of funding” people are arguing against a timeline nobody serious is proposing. No one thinks passing a tax tomorrow pays off the debt by the weekend. Social programs compound over time. A kid who grows up with stable housing, adequate nutrition, and healthcare doesn’t show up in the next quarter earnings, they show up twenty years later as a more productive member of society. A population that isn’t rationing medicine or skipping checkups because of cost doesn’t become healthier overnight. But they do become healthier. Then healthcare demand goes down, costs go down. Healthier kids means better performance in school, which means larger pools of students for stem fields, larger pools of creative entrepreneurs starting businesses. But it’s a lot easier to just cut taxes so people get an extra $1,500 this year while their cost of living goes up $2k and quality of life goes to shit.
And it’s not lost on me that what I just said is best case scenario stuff. That’s why we have to commit , as a people, to an idea and monitor progress and not just give up if it’s not perfect right away. These things are hard. We have to do hard things
Frylock304 | 6 hours ago
Heres the fundamental issues with what you're arguing.
As much as we hear about it, most companies are paying their ceos a rounding error for their companies.
Average ceo pay is something like $300k across all companies, and for the top 500 public companies it's $20 million, with the bulk of it generally paid in paid stock options.
We have nearly $40,000,000,000,000 in government debt, that means we already spend money as if the tax rate is much higher, and we have for decades, that $40 trillion didn't just turn to nothing, it was real government spending and we got relatively little for it.
Out of that spending, we didnt get infrastructure, we didnt get universal healthcare, we didnt get free secondary education, we didnt get a mountain of things you guys say we would get if we just taxed more.
Bu focusing on taxation over spending you're just focusing on balancing the budget, not actually fixing the root problem of allocation which is the real core issue.
To put it another way, if you gave someone $10,000 for healthcare and food, but then $9500 was spent on guns and cocaine, and then he/she said "I still can't afford to go to the doctor!" Would you give that person more money to fix the problem?
Opening-Restaurant83 | 14 hours ago
Demonizing the wealthy is such a brilliant strategy—history can’t stop praising it:
• Venezuela: Chávez calls the rich parasites, seizes everything → hyperinflation so bad math breaks, people eating zoo animals, millions fleeing the socialist paradise.
• Zimbabwe: Mugabe screams “colonial exploiters!” and hands “rich” white farms to cronies → breadbasket of Africa becomes famine central.
• Cuba: Castro expropriates the “bourgeois” → brain drain + endless ration books for 60+ years.
Pro tip: Punish wealth creators and you just get less wealth. Every damn time.
mancubbed | 14 hours ago
America famously collapsed in the 1950s when they taxed the rich.
NoSwordfish1978 | 9 hours ago
All of those examples are very extreme and their were other issues affecting their economies as well.
OkProcess5800 | 14 hours ago
You can't even make your tired old right wing talking points without AI assistance. Absolutely zero original thoughts floating around between your ears
BathingInSoup | 15 hours ago
You say “Then we become Europe.” Like that’s necessarily a bad thing.
MalikTheHalfBee | 14 hours ago
Stagnant economies & incomes lower than most any in the U.S. doesn’t sound great?
BGOOCHY | 9 hours ago
And a baseline quality of life that is higher than the US in many cases.
Nuzzleface | 8 hours ago
Yet as a european single guy, I have a mortgage, car, all the gadgets I want and increase my savings every month.
I make below median wage in Denmark. Tell me again why "low income" matters, when I can live a very good life.
MalikTheHalfBee | 7 hours ago
Lots of poor people live good lives, that doesn’t however mean that it can’t be improved
Nuzzleface | 7 hours ago
Lmao you actually think we are poor in Europe?
I would never move to the US, it's a fucking shithole in comparison to most european countries.
I'll take my stress free daily life, safe country and healthy work/life balance over more money everytime.
MalikTheHalfBee | 6 hours ago
Unlike yourself, I’m very familiar with both places & am more than satisfied with my move to the U.S.. Perhaps visiting it via Reddit is your issue? 🤷♂️ No need to get so defensive if you’re personally happy.
Unfortunately the demographics of most of the EU all but guarantees the quality of life to move in a downward trajectory going forward & the personal economic conditions to continue to be stagnant
BathingInSoup | an hour ago
“Stagnant” economies or “stable” economies? There are a number of quality of life issues in the US that don’t really exist in Europe. The biggest one being the fact that the majority of people in the US are a paycheck or 2 or 3 away from not being able to pay their monthly expenses, including the basics like food, utilities, and healthcare. That situation basically doesn’t exist for the average person in Europe.
Is Europe perfect? No. Are your chances of becoming a billionaire or even a multimillionaire in Europe lower than in the US? In absolute terms, yes, but the statistical difference is so small, it really doesn’t make sense to consider the difference meaningful. Are you more likely to go bankrupt in the US due to factors beyond your control than in Europe? Yes! Substantially!!
BigSkySea | 14 hours ago
Ok. Nothing can be done. Got it. The system as it is works great.
Opening-Restaurant83 | 14 hours ago
Corporate taxes genius. WTF
TheMasturbatinCamper | 6 hours ago
Who owns corporations? All of us. When you include pensions, mutual funds, 401ks, etc, individual household investors own 60-65% of the US equity market.
Increase corporate taxes, and all you do is tax everyday people again.
bulwyf23 | 5 hours ago
We own corporations? You sir are confused. The top 1% own over 50% of all stock and the top 10% own 87%-93%. Regular people’s 401ks and investments are basically nothing.
On top of that only about 59% of adults in the US have money in a 401k or IRA, break it down by money made and it gets worse. 83% of adults making $100,000 or more have a retirement account while only 28% making under $50,000 have them.
No the average American doesn’t own those corporations and making retirement tied to the stock market is a boon for corporations because they’ve now tricked you into only wanting the stock market to increase under any circumstances, regardless of whatever else happens.
MainFisherman69 | 5 hours ago
Lmfao. You need to go read the fine print if you think you own those items you listed.
TheMasturbatinCamper | 4 hours ago
About 60% of Americans have retirement savings invested in equity. Do you have any of those things?
AddanDeith | 13 hours ago
Its so cute how whenever this conversation comes up, you people always go nuclear and say "what if we tax away their wealth completely!"
Its almost like you're an NPC.
SalsaMan101 | 14 hours ago
Ahh yes because taxing the rich only means a wealth tax? If only there were others way to tax rich people
Obvious_Chapter2082 | 15 hours ago
Americans want prices to go down. Like actual deflation, not just a drop in the inflation rate. People want the prices of 2019, and they feel like the economy is terrible until that happens
It’s as simple as that. It’s not a good thing to wish for, but most ordinary people don’t know that and probably don’t care
coleto22 | 12 hours ago
People want the purchasing power they had in 2019. And the top 10% do. The rest can't afford homes until they are like 40. Damn right they are angry.
DefiantBumblebee9903 | 5 hours ago
It ain’t happening when you’re 40 either
CrashTestDumby1984 | 4 hours ago
40 is overly optimistic. Most Americans under the age of 30 who do not own a home probably never will without an inheritance.
Timmetie | 11 hours ago
People have the purchasing power they had in 2019, they even have more. Real wages are up across the board.
They want the nominal prices of 2019.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
Ignore the covid spike, that's low wage earners being sent home.
lolyeahsure | 8 hours ago
Are these real wages in the room with us now? This is false data by the way wages have been falling for the past year+ for the same roles and positions which are also consolidating
Timmetie | 7 hours ago
> This is false data by the way wages have been falling for the past year
No they haven't, its insane cope to think ALL the data must be wrong because your income is somehow lagging.
BanAvoidanceIsACrime | 7 hours ago
You're just wrong. If you look at wages v general inflation, you might have a point, but it's a view lacking in context.
Look at wage growth v consumer staples. Food, housing, power, and transportation. Wages have not been keeping up, and it's gotten way worse recently (which ofc it has because of the gas price increases).
People have less money to spend.
Timmetie | 7 hours ago
> Look at wage growth v consumer staples
Consumer staples are in inflation..
BanAvoidanceIsACrime | 6 hours ago
Oh I see, you don't know what you're talking about at all.
https://www.bls.gov/charts/consumer-price-index/consumer-price-index-by-category-line-chart.htm
The above homepage should give you the insight you are missing.
Compare "All items" with "all items less food and energy" and then compare them to just energy, electricity, and gasoline.
There're items people have to buy, which are rising much faster than wages, and there're items which people can just not buy, those are pulling down the average.
You can look at stuff like this to get a clearer picture:
https://economistwritingeveryday.com/2026/04/22/are-americans-thriving-under-trump-no-according-to-the-cost-of-thriving-index
Just note it's now way worse because of the recent gas price spike.
There're other ways to calculate it as well, but they all try to hone in more on what people actually spend their money on and what inside that category they spend their money on. For example, it could be that food is getting cheaper as a category, but meat is getting more expensive, and sweets are getting cheaper. This keeps the food category more balanced, but doesn't really reflect the pain a consumer would feel.
Timmetie | 6 hours ago
Yeah that's why they're weighted.
lolyeahsure | 3 hours ago
Did I say anything about my personal situation wagie? Why do morons always assume that you’re not doing well if you critique the status quo? I do my fucking due diligence and refuse to live in a bubble because my ego can actually take the cognitive dissonance and weight of reality unlike the majority of y’all. You couldn’t even begin to imagine my quality of life and lifestyle lmao
Timmetie | 3 hours ago
> You couldn’t even begin to imagine my quality of life and lifestyle lmao
keep posting through it dude.
tkhan456 | 15 hours ago
And there is no good way that happens. That only happens if we are in a crash basically
PhAnToM444 | 12 hours ago
Broad deflation still wouldn’t happen in a market crash. Especially considering what we’ve done with the monetary supply recently. You’d need the Great Depression on steroids for a full decade to get us back to 2019 prices. And even that might still not do it honestly. Broad, market-wide deflation is very hard to actually make happen over a long period of time.
Thlaeton | 12 hours ago
If we had the same distribution of income we had in 1975, the median income would be $90k
We need massive wealth distribution through taxing the wealthy. Talkin’ FDR’s 80% marginal income tax. Talkin’ “Trust Bustin’ Teddy” punishing the largest companies for thinking they could control the government.
My conspiratorial thought is that the federal minimum wage was introduced to delude workers into believing that politicians could replace their union reps. At the very least, that’s why it wasn’t pegged to inflation.
leathakkor | 10 hours ago
I think taxes would help but I don't think that's the answer in 1970s America. The income distribution didn't put the money in the hands of the employee.
I am a firm believer that American corporations just got too large. I was started to think the other day about what business I could start where I wouldn't have to compete with a large business that could afford to lose money for a year on end. That wasn't within a 1 mi radius of me.
There is almost no industry in America where you can start a small business. Even barber shops are consolidating at this point. That's one business where you could probably get into.
Cleaning services sort of by nature of the fact that they are mobile. And laundromats. Although almost all of those have the problem that they're oversaturated simply because there is no equivalent of McDonald's/ Walmart/ jiffy lube/ Kroger/ Olive garden / 7-Eleven/ Chevron that has completely dominated the market.
At this point there's just no room for a little guy in America. And without that competition there's only a couple places you can go to work. I know there's different large companies you can go to work for, but if you're in a medium-sized City, your options are extremely limited. Assuming that you want to work local. And competing is virtually impossible If you wanted to start your own local business.
I see that as the problem. We should be taxing really large companies a lot because once a company gets so large and there's only a few large companies they can set the wages.
I would go so far as to say we don't even need to tax large companies. We just need to set limits on how big they can get relative to market share. And if they get too big we have to split them up. They're not competing for market share and because they don't have to compete for market share they don't have to compete to get good employees so they set the price on the wages.
Thlaeton | 2 hours ago
I’m not saying the answer is 1970s USA.
I’m saying the income distribution was more normal because of significantly higher taxes, active trust busting, and significantly higher union membership.
We are agreeing, I think? The political centralization of every industry via M&A and PE has destroyed the free market.
leathakkor | 2 hours ago
It's the big company thing that really sticks in my craw.
And maybe we wouldn't need big taxes if companies were paying their people fairly and there were less billionaires generally.
I know it won't happen, but I would prefer to see competition as the instigator of better distribution of wealth instead of taxation. But I honestly don't think either one of those will happen
Thlaeton | an hour ago
I do think the corporate tax rate needs to go up but “today Fortune 500 CEOs make 204 times regular workers on average, Bloomberg found.” Compared to 20:1 in 1950. (they link to Bloomberg & AFL-CIO is also linked alleging 354:1).
It’s not the whole “solution” but it is undeniable that income disparity is a huge factor. Executives are hugely rewarded for this short-term, rent-seeking, monopolistic behavior. The more inequality grows, the more distorted the market, the more corrupt political institutions become, which leads to less SEC/DOJ/IRS enforcement, which leads to more wage theft, and then more inequality, and continue the spiral downward.
Seaguard5 | 12 hours ago
Well, well, well, if it isn’t the consequences of assuming infinite, constant growth…
MayoGhul | 13 hours ago
Yeah bad news mate. Instead of a crash we are heading towards and entirely new world monetary system and likely centralized digital currency which is going to turn us all into slaves.
The old economics are in a death spiral
One-Employment3759 | 13 hours ago
That is why we want a crash, to wipe the slate clean. Remove the insane money from unproductive ai and crypto shill nonsense.
WantCookiesNow | 13 hours ago
A crash would be horrible and the poor and middle class would suffer the most. A crash doesn’t mean life is the same but with lower prices. A crash means high unemployment, high home foreclosures, higher rates of poverty, etc.
A crash would be extremely bad. We need slowing inflation rates.
Bread_Fish150 | 12 hours ago
Here's a statistic for ya, every one percent unemployment goes up, 40,000 people die. A crash would result in unemployment rising by three or more percentage points. I'll leave the death toll for the "clean slate" as an exercise for the reader.
Upstairs_Baby8424 | 15 hours ago
The only way to get broad deflation (not just in certain goods) is a massive recession.
chrislink73 | 15 hours ago
Specifically a recession where no new money is printed and pumped into the economy, as it has been the last several times anything bad has happened. It doesn’t seem possible anymore that we will see deflation, given the Fed’s apparent willingness to print its way out of financial difficulties for the economy and basically kick the can down the line for later generations.
Bread_Fish150 | 12 hours ago
That's because the Fed has a dual mandate (1) low unemployment, and (2) stable prices.
toolateforfate | 15 hours ago
This. People are pissed burgers are $15. They're still paying for a $15 burger, as the stats and this article are telling us, but they're not happy about it.
IrateBarnacle | 15 hours ago
I think that’s half the problem. The other half is that $15 burger is crappier than what the same place used to sell not even 10 years ago for half the price.
JB-Wentworth | 14 hours ago
The real trouble begins when people stop buying those $15 hamburgers.
Union_Jack_1 | 7 hours ago
Or can’t, if they’re unemployed or just can’t afford it because of effectively subsistence living.
Owlbertowlbert | 14 hours ago
Finally, a subthread where people actually read the article
leathakkor | 10 hours ago
I tend to agree with you. But I think that's going to work until it doesn't. I think a lot of Middle America and even upper crust tend to put stuff on their credit card thinking this is a short-term problem.
I think if we get to a situation where bankruptcies are going up by 5 or 10% and not in the bottom half of America but in the top half of America, that's when I think we'll really start to know because I think people are living off of their credit cards right now. Or maybe just not saving as much.
Or people are doing way better than I'm being led to believe. But I'm cutting back big time right now and I can actually afford to spend a little more. But I don't want to
Drak_is_Right | 15 hours ago
We need wages to rise faster than prices.
Not the inverse.
guachi01 | 14 hours ago
They have been. Real wages set record highs in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023, 2024, 2025. People are still pissed. You have what you want and you hate it.
Drak_is_Right | 14 hours ago
Inflation I dont think is being accurately tracked, compared to the prices people actually pay. What I pay at the grocery store has more than doubled in 7 years. Inflation says its not nearly that. Bull fucking shit. They have not accurately priced in things like insurance, healthcare. A few staple goods have seen marginal gains, but nearly everything else has risen sharply. And when it hasn't, it has seen sharp declines in quality as inferior ingredients get used.
There is also a difference between median and average. Median is feeling the pain a lot more than average. Also I do not think real wages is accurately accounting for how shit the job market can be at times. Longer periods between jobs. Feels far more annoying to find a quality new one, all while you burn through savings.
guachi01 | 14 hours ago
"Inflation truthers" who are sure that they are accurately remembering their food purchases while also claiming to know the purchasing habits of hundreds of millions of Americans.
I do not believe you when you say you pay more than twice as much at the grocery as 2019. Not even ground beef is up 100% in 7 years.
You are making claims about how others feel when we have actual survey data from people that says that their self-assessment of their own financial situation has been virtually unchanged since 2019 (excepting a blip up in 2021).
We know what a shit job market looks like and it's not the current one. Unemployment rate is 4.3%. Job growth is low but not negative. Anyone who was an adult during the Great Recession knows what "bad" actually looks like.
Knerd5 | 13 hours ago
I mean, if you parcel out the basket, things we can’t avoid spending on are outpacing inflation and the things we can delay or avoid aren’t.
Housing, healthcare, education and insurance are well above stated inflation since 2000. I think food is the one segment that’s actually traced inflation pretty closely.
guachi01 | 13 hours ago
Your wallet can't tell the difference between a dollar you spend on something you think is a necessity and something you don't.
Most spending on "necessities" is actually a choice, anyway. I've been really, really poor. A lot of things you think are necessary suddenly aren't when you don't actually have any money.
I "need" to be able to afford a 2 bd apartment and live alone becomes "I'm fine with 4 of us in a 2 bd apartment".
In any event, consider the following. I spend $X on things I need and $Y on things I don't in one year. The next year the things I need are $5 more and the things I don't cost the same. My salary increases $6. I am better off even if % increase in things I need exceeded the % increase of my salary.
Drak_is_Right | 14 hours ago
Key difference between staple goods and the half processed or frozen stuff a lot of us end up buying as a modest chunk of our budget.
Meal from scratch often includes a few boxed or canned goods.
But yes, I do remember quite a lot of prices. Maybe most don't, but i do. I watched my car insurance go up 60%, despite the car only getting older. Watched electricity go way up. Gasoline is always in flux. $4 now isn't nearly as painful as $4 was in 2007 when I made $7 at a part-time job and as a student you made $400 a month after taxes.
But yes, my grocery bill has more than doubled, though not ALL of that is due to inflation. About 60%-70% I would guess. Better diet the other 30-40% I have watched many of the frozen and ready to eat foods I buy for when I am busy DOUBLE in price.
Consolidation and sticky prices in the processing part of the sector has caused high profits but little in the way of price relief after the supply shock. Just corporate profits way up. Now they are enacting fluctuating prices based on consumer and time of day.
Examples of a few base goods: bananas from 40 to 49c. Bread from $1-1.20 to 1.80 to $2. The frozen burritos I liked as a snack from 40c to $1.25 (and had been 25c a while before that).
Timmetie | 11 hours ago
> What I pay at the grocery store has more than doubled in 7 years
This is why I don't believe the "Inflation figures are fake" people because this is just such an outlandish statement that's easily proven wrong.
Also inflation isn't just grocery prices and no way have rents doubled or something.
Drak_is_Right | 9 hours ago
Home prices here have went up by 60% too in 6yrs or so. Rent has not gone up by that much (I think).
Its not "inflation figures are fake so much as "inflation figures dont accurately capture the budgets of a huge number of people"
gym_fun | 15 hours ago
Prices are not going down to 2019 level. No parties can bring that down without recession. You will go through a deflationary spiral and more job loss.
There is a reason why ~2.0% inflation is the gold standard.
coleto22 | 12 hours ago
The issue is that mist people's purchasing power is lower than it was before.
gym_fun | 11 hours ago
True. It will be a tough problem to solve for any parties. A better case would be a pullback or stagnation of shelter (rent, housing price), and a gradual rise in wages. But that's easier to say than done, given the disruption we have in the job market due to policies and AI.
Eledridan | 14 hours ago
The majority of Americans want the 1% to have to eat it for once. Just once.
Felicity_Calculus | 14 hours ago
No, Americans want wages/salaries that actually keep pace with inflation. No one gives a shit what things cost in some abstract absolute sense, they just want to be able to afford to buy stuff at the same level as they did in 2019 or whenever
BigGoopy2 | 16 hours ago
From yesterday: https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/1tmj6tr/the_vibecession_is_over_the_permacession_is_here/
Forgemasterblaster | 8 hours ago
This is all about inflation, which 3 generations of Americans barely felt for a variety of economic factors. The biggest driver of inflation was driving the economy hot (low interest rates) for way too long as it was politically prudent rather than made sense.
We have a financial crisis. Drop rates. We have a pandemic. Drop rates. President wants it. Drop rates. It’s the one tool that doesn’t need a vote. However, what it has led to is inflation, which is pervasive as all classes feel it, even if not equally.
Lunaticllama14 | 15 hours ago
This article says civil rights are a culture war issue and something people worry about because of affluence. Just absolute ridiculous white privilege and ignorance of actual economics.
PrimemevalTitan | 14 hours ago
"Disease" is a valid material concern but "healthcare" isn't. "Hunger" is valid, but the article glosses over the significant increase in food prices over the past few years.
The author has an almost myopic focus on headline statistics, in an article that purports to discuss consumer sentiment. No one is posting about a 4.3% unemployment rate on TikTok, because the young adults on there are legitimately struggling to find jobs. There could be a good article on why people feel this way, but this author does none of the heavy lifting and the main arguments are (ironically) based on vibes
OkProcess5800 | 14 hours ago
I feel like you'll understand a lot more about the author if you know she's Ezra Klein's wife and therefore willingly chose to spend a life together with him.
"Why Americans are so unhappy"? Fucking look inward, lady.
PrimemevalTitan | 9 hours ago
I noticed the shoutout to Derek Thompson but didn't think anything of it. In hindsight, using the royal "we" to refer to him as a collaborator should've tipped me off
accountforfurrystuf | 9 hours ago
Lmfao the absolute shade
Lunaticllama14 | 14 hours ago
You sound as ignorant as the author. Have you tried listening to yourself before speaking?
PrimemevalTitan | 9 hours ago
Nope, never have. Thankfully, you're here to give me the specifics of my ignorance instead of leaving a pithy comment that doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Consistent_Pitch782 | 15 hours ago
wtf is this idiot even talking about? Personally, I LOST my job in April 2025 when Trump’s tariffs hit and my employer, an engineering firm, had its biggest client put an 18 month freeze on all construction projects due to those tariffs. After looking for work for months, I finally was hired in December. I now make $25K a year LESS than I did. So when this asshole says “this economy is booming”, I don’t know what the fuck they are talking about.
Fuck them for writing such a dishonest puff piece, and fuck Trump for tanking a decent economy. And fuck any of you assholes that voted for this.
TrontRaznik | 14 hours ago
Your unfortunate anecdote does not a trend portend.
ImDonaldDunn | 14 hours ago
No, but aggregate data do not tell the full story. Lots of people being screwed right now
PhAnToM444 | 12 hours ago
Ok. At any given time, even in a white hot economy, there will be someone somewhere getting screwed. This has never not been the case.
Aggregate data is a lot more helpful in understanding what’s going on than “I personally lost my job last year and found it hard to find a new one.”
Your experience is highly specific to who you are as an individual, where you live, what industry you work in, and a million other factors that make it simply an unhelpful comment.
replynwhilehigh | 4 hours ago
This is the problem tho, do you believe this government’s aggregated data? Do you remember when Trump fired the the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor statistics because of a weak jobs report?
lil_meme_-Machine | 6 hours ago
“But it happened to me, must be everybody” these people suck
Consistent_Pitch782 | 4 hours ago
I have eyes. I have ears. I have a network of friends and family going thru similar things.
Go fuck yourself pal
lil_meme_-Machine | an hour ago
I too have eyes and ears
Per the article:
>> The rate of underemployment is low, and the rate of labor-force participation is high, meaning that there's no pool of discouraged workers lurking behind the marquee jobs statistics.
>> And if you point out the prosperity we are all experiencing, if definitely not enjoying, people berate you for being snooty and/or naive.
fogcat5 | 13 hours ago
but it's a real actual person instead of "trends" made up from massaged financial numbers. it takes a real financial analysis to smile and lie so blatantly when the truth is pissing in their face
DarkExecutor | 13 hours ago
Its the internet, and you believe a random redditor over economic studies?
justcommenting98765 | 7 hours ago
It’s much worse than that!
If Harris was president right now with the exact some economy, the outlook of Trump and Harris voters would be flipped.
Mysterious_Umpire684 | 6 hours ago
It's probably safe to say it would not be the exact same economy, as Harris had no interest in introducing sweeping tariffs, laying off federal workers, cutting funding, starting a war with Iran, and aggravating trading partners.
justcommenting98765 | 2 hours ago
That’s missing the broader point.
The in party is wearing rose-colored glasses and the out party is doing the opposite.
This has been a thing for roughly 10 years now.
Our economy could be better or worse under Harris (and that’s not a counterfactual I’m willing to spend time on).
What’s clear is that Ds would view it better than it really was and Rs would view it worse than it really was.
Mysterious_Umpire684 | 2 hours ago
Every analysis I've seen says that the majority of Americans, inlcuding Republicans, have a poor outlook on the economy now, under a Republican President, so your "broader point" seems to have reached its breaking point.
justcommenting98765 | 2 hours ago
There’s now a consistently huge partisan gap in the outlook that started under Obama and continues under Trump, Biden, and Trump again. The gap literally flips the moment power changes.
lil_meme_-Machine | 6 hours ago
It’s boom in not engineering. You’re an engineer lol, should be smart enough to see that the large winners in AI and tech infrastructure are carrying the most. As an engineer you should be smart enough to pivot if needed
Consistent_Pitch782 | 3 hours ago
50,000 layoffs in 2026 are directly tied to AI. The boom you’re talking about is for who, exactly? As an engineer, I’m smart enough to know what’s real and what’s bullshit
lil_meme_-Machine | an hour ago
Sure. I mean engineering in all disciplines in large metro areas are doing well but rural is facing struggles. Smart enough to see the bigger picture there?
ben_od1 | 14 hours ago
Yo we’re mad because I just got a 15% raise this year and a 20% raise in nov 2024 and I still have no money without any life style changes. My tax returns go to paying off debt to actually go live a tiny bit and have a small vacation once a year. I’ll make $100k this year, almost twice as much as my dad ever made his entire career and it means literally nothing. I feel like if you didn’t own a house prior to the rise in prices you are fucked no matter what you do. My parents bought their first house on a $1.5k monthly salary and were still able to afford a brand new 4 runner in 1990.
lil_meme_-Machine | 5 hours ago
Isn’t paying off debt meaning you’re moving forward? And when it’s paid off you’ll have even more than ever to spend? It’s hard to see the progress when it’s a number going down on a screen and not clothing / trips, but it’s still amazing progress and you’re doing better than your dad ever did. I’m sure he’s quite proud of you too.
ben_od1 | 3 hours ago
Not when I have to repay it off every year no. We already live a simple live style, don’t eat out often or buy expensive things.
lil_meme_-Machine | an hour ago
I mean paid off as in the debt balance is zero. Unless you’re paying like 10% interest i’d imagine you’d end up getting it paid down after ~7 years of being in the workforce? Some employers even offer debt assistance. It may look dim but you’re still doing well. Keep up the good work and drown out the noise. You got this
nefrina | 6 hours ago
> I’ll make $100k this year, almost twice as much as my dad ever made his entire career
it would require 300k of income today to have the purchasing power of 100k in the 1980s.
ben_od1 | 3 hours ago
They were making like $28k back then not $100k
nefrina | 2 hours ago
i was pointing out that earning 100k today as a comparison is a flawed way to think about outearning your parents in raw dollars.
RipComfortable7989 | 14 hours ago
Yet another out of touch article from the atlantic.
> Seventy years ago, voters were overwhelmingly concerned with life-and-death issues: war, hunger, disease, violence. Today voters are more worried about social concerns: the environment, minority rights, immigration, health policy, casitas, I guess.
"I guess."
Holy shit.
Not to mention the outright REFUSAL to comment on the disparate classes of Americans. There's a group of americans who are loving this. The stock market is ripping and there are unprecedented gains being made by a certain class of people. Then there are the rest of us who are struggling as gas hits $70-90 to fill up to commute to work that barely covers expenses. But the writers at the Atlantic don't give a shit and will keep treating everyone as a singular monolith.
Sadly_NotAPlatypus | 14 hours ago
It isn't just people with a lot of money in the stock market, though. The middle class is being bifurcated and those on top are doing better than ever
Apparently the new thing on this sub is to argue that there isn't a K shaped economy at all, to which I reply y'all got eyes? Upper middle class spending is skyrocketing to such a degree that numerous entire markets are shifting to cater to them, including some important ones like the automotive industry, meanwhile massive inflation continues to squeeze the lack of pay increases.
I am aware that there was a significant pay increase for a couple years and lots of smart people who know a lot about economics like to point to that and say look we fixed it, but although significant it was really only a temporary band aid. I have been watching more and more of my friends and family approaching the financial brink while also seeing the amount of high end tourism in nearby national parks and forests (I live in the California Sierra) absolutely explode over the last few years. There are numerous other signs of a growing upper middle class of course, but this one is in my face every day, along with their new $200,000 4x4 Sprinter RVs.
I understand that the plural of anecdote isn't data, but I think also highly educated people can often be culturally cut off from most Americans. And when basically everyone in the working and lower middle class are saying this is an extremely difficult economy maybe that should be taken seriously and not dismissed as vibes from ignoramuses.
So I don't think this will get fixed soon, because no one in academia or politics seems to understand this problem or take it seriously except for "radicals" and so called leftists. You get squeezed long enough and you can't get squeezed much more. Dunno what's so hard to understand about it.
DarkExecutor | 13 hours ago
Redditors will literally never understand that reddit posts are anecdotes, and not overall economy data.
MajesticBread9147 | 13 hours ago
Are highly educated people cut off from most Americans?
It's not uncommon for people with differing education levels to socialize with each other, even at work. I know bartenders with Bachelor's degrees working alongside those without, my partner works at a grocery store and it's pretty even split between those with just a high school degree, those with a bachelor's degree, and those with an advanced degree.
And anecdotally it seems that people with just an undergrad degree and those with a masters degree almost always share the same spaces.
Just my perspective as somebody with just a high school degree living in the DC area where we have a pretty wide diversity of education level.
RipComfortable7989 | 14 hours ago
> Apparently the new thing on this sub is to argue that there isn't a K shaped economy at all
Selection bias realistically. The people who have the time to shitpost on reddit are likely on the upward trending part of that K shaped economy and from their POV of course everything is going great. The people who are really suffering aren't spending their time discussing articles about economy on reddit. But that bias just feeds into their world view bubble even harder to the point where they believe everyone else is just like them because the only comments they see are from people in similar situations.
> because no one in academia or politics seems to understand this problem or take it seriously
That's because at some point people stop becoming people to them and become statistics and trends. They're so removed from the struggles that even when they talk about people struggling they don't actually visualize a person. Just some cluster of data that reports financial struggles. It sucks but I agree that this won't get fixed soon and honestly I don't know if it can be fixed ever.
galacticglorp | 12 hours ago
Like the environment isn't life and death. It's literally everything. Food for starters... let's talk about chronic drought, extended fire seasons, etc.
NoSwordfish1978 | 9 hours ago
How is "health policy" not a material concern lol
RipComfortable7989 | 9 hours ago
When you work for the atlantic as a staff writer and have full coverage for health insurance you forget that the rest of american workers don't even have health insurance at all. Most of my friends are on some form of public health insurance where a doctor's appt is scheduled 4-7 months in the future due to booking times but staff writers at the atlantic wouldn't understand what that means.
Silver_tl | 14 hours ago
When you are rating the economy and there are only four options, why do you rate the top two together and the bottom two together? Is everything black and white? Is there no grey anymore?
justcommenting98765 | 7 hours ago
Because they roughly equate to:
Very good
Somewhat good
Somewhat bad
Very bad
We roll the two goods and two bads together.
Silver_tl | 3 hours ago
I get it, I’m just arguing there’s as big a difference from very good to somewhat good as there is from somewhat good to somewhat bad
MalikTheHalfBee | 16 hours ago
Luckily consumer sentiment surveys are one of the least useful metrics for anything useful and very rarely correlate to any actual economic indicators, even ones like consumer spending which one would expect to see direct a correlation
h4ms4ndwich11 | 10 hours ago
Consumer sentiment has inversely tracked [now record] corporate profit margins, which the top 10-20% have received the greatest benefit from, for over 2 decades now. It's a useful metric and hardly shocking the two are so closely related.
Beneficiaries and ill informed would just prefer that no one notices either [except record profits on earnings calls of course!], and claim they don't matter or are irrelevant, while they squeeze the bottom 4 quintiles.
It's easy to fool the majority for quite a while, even decades or longer, since the top quintile owns all major media and nearly every politician has been a shameless, self-serving traitor to the working class.
Rambogoingham1 | 15 hours ago
This post got to be ai, cause vibecession and permacession just sound like words to describe how the bottom 99.9% fight for existence regarding food and clean drinking water vs you.
AnimalShithouse | 6 hours ago
Wasn't this article posted and discussed only days ago? And most feedback was relatively negative towards the author who seems quite out of touch?
ewk | 4 hours ago
I have an ongoing argument with a chat GPT project about the K-shaped economy. The Economist had a long article about how there isn't one, and I wanted to understand why people thought there was a K shape.
I think I got somewhere in this recent exchange about vibesession and permisession, where I asked about poverty line and median income spending:
> for poverty-line households, historically bad on affordability despite decent jobs; for median-income households, historically decent on income/jobs but historically strained on housing and major life costs.
Thus the perception of the K-shape, despite wage growth and employment numbers. Everybody else might understand this; hi! When it comes to economics, I'm usually "the first to admit it, the last one to know".
slow_down_1984 | 2 hours ago
We have a one whole generation of now middle aged adults who chose to do other stuff with their money or just weren’t in a position to buy a house 15 years ago. The hindsight to that is making a lot of people very angry.
Danktizzle | an hour ago
I have been thinking about this for a while. And recently I heard a podcast on the history of Taiwan. The guest answered a question about American kids by saying that by the time Taiwanese kids graduate high school, they have the same education as an American post graduate.
Also, I had a roommate from New Zealand who was a senior I. College but taking his last year at a law school in San Diego. Because that’s how they are, your university degree is your postgraduate study.
So finally, I have to look back at the amazing progress china has with their high speed rail system and I see that the fundamental problem is that the country was set up by lawyers through a legal lens.
Whole they attempted to build an “egalitarian” society, they in fact built a country that has its citizens test the laws and see what we can get away with. More sinisterly, we created a new class of human, the corporation. It is stateless and has no head to cut off. This I don’t think we can come back from.
And is our ultimate downfall. We are raised to be lawyers while a very small percentage of us actually become ones. Meanwhile, china is raising engineers, and their infrastructure and technical progress shows just how well that is working for their society.
(Did I finally make a comment on economics, or will this one be removed too?)